Monthly Archives: August 2018

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

THE EXPRESS INDIA NEWS : NEWSPAPER

OROP

JCOS AGITATION AT JANTAR MANTAR : FACTS AND MYTHS

1.       JCOs who are not benefitted by OROP – II are agitating at Jantar Mantar levelling all kinds of allegations that Officers have cornered all the benefits of OROP -II. There is a need to understand how far this allegation is correct. Firstly, officers serving or retired have no role to play in manipulating the tables of OROP- II. Secondly, it is not true all officers are benefitted. There is no increase in pension in OROP – II for Lts and Capts who are SL officers, RCOs and SCO officers. Since they got their commission at very late age, they retire with less commissioned service hence do not get promoted to higher ranks.

2        *Fixation of Pension in OROP. *The policy letter dated 07 Nov 2015 on OROP clearly explains that the fixation of pension of Pre – Jul 2014 pensioners is done taking Average pension of those retired in the same rank, same length of service and same group X or Y (for JCOs) retired in the calendar year 2013. For example, if a Subedar retired in May 2004 with 30 years of service in Group Y will get the same Average pension of Subedars / MCPOs- II / Warrant Officers with same length of service of 30 years and of same Group Y. It is very important to note that Pre – Jul 2014 Subedars will get benefit only if they meet the following conditions in OROP – I w.e.f. Jul 2014.

• Subedar / MCPO-II / WO with 30 years’ service and of Y Gp should have retired in calendar year 2013.
  
  
• If not retired, then pension of Subedar / MCPO-II / WO retired with lesser length of service (say 28 years) of Y gp will be taken as the pension for pre – Jul 2014 Subedars / MCPO – II / WOs of 30 years’ service. This is to ensure no Subedar of longer length of service gets lesser pension than Subedar of lesser length of service actually retired in calendar year 2013.

(c)      It is also ensure for same length of service higher ranked pensioner gets higher pension. Say if Subedar with 28 years’ service is fixed pension same or more than Nb Sub with same length of service. This is to ensure higher ranked pensioner cannot get lesser pension than a lesser ranked pensioner.

(d)      *Concept of Average Pension. *In case two or more Subedars / MCPOs – II / WOs with service of 30 years and group of retired in calendar year 2013, then the average pension which is 50 % of (maximum pension + minimum pension) is fixed as pension of all pre – Jul 2014 Subedars / MCPOs- II / WOs.

(e)      *Below Average Hiked to Average.* In case there are Subedars / MCPOs-II / WO whose pension is less than Average retired in calendar year 2013, then their pension is equated with Average pension. Such Subedars / MCPOs – II / WOs retired in calendar year get financial benefit.

(f)      *Above Average Pension is Protected.* If there are Subedars / MCPOs-II / WOs drew higher pension and retired in calendar year 2013 will continue to get their higher pension as pension earned by longer service in the same rank of Subedar cannot be reduced. Such higher pension than Average is protected.

3.       *Why Some Pre Jul 2019 Pensioners do not get Arrears in OROP-II?  *  The Pre – Jul 2019 Subedars / MCPOs / WOs drew higher pension than what is the average pension of those who retired in calendar year 2018 in OROP – II. The reasons for this are as under:-

(a)    *Enhancement of Penson Twice for Pre – 2006 JCOs / OR.* The pension of Pre – 2006 JCOs / OR in the period of  Jan 2006 to Jun 2014 has been enhanced twice to bridge the gap in pension between Pre – 6^th CPC and post – 6^th CPC pensioners. First time it was enhanced in 2009 and second time it was further enhanced in 2012.

(b)    *Equivalization of Penson between Pre – 6^th CPC JCOs / OR and Post – 6^th CPC JCOs / OR.* The pension of Pre – 2006 JCOs / OR were made almost equal to the pension drawn by those retired in calendar year 2013. That is why they felt OROP – I from Jul 2014 was not beneficial. They are blaming 6^th CPC for fixing lesser pension. This is not true. Having got two hikes in pensions in 2009 and 2012, the JCOs / OR cannot blame 6^th CPC. Moreover, the pay and thus pensions are fixed by CPC based on the grade pay and equivalence between civilian employees and armed forces employees. It cannot be said only JCOs /OR were fixed lesser pay and hence pension by 6^th CPC.

(c)    *Officers Did not Get any Hike from Jan 2006 to 2013. * Another myth propagated is Officers got higher pension in OROP-I. There was no revision of pension for Officers between Jan 2006 and Jun 2014. Hence the pension of Officers retired in calendar year 2013 was higher and the same was given to Pre – Jul 2014 retired officers.

(d)    *Different Fitment Factor for Officers & JCOs /OR.* Another myth being propagated is officers are given higher fitment factor by 7^th CPC of 2.82 whereas JCOs / OR are given fitment factor of 2.57. All are given the same fitment factor whether one is an officer or JCO /OR. Even the Central Govt civilian employees whether they are Officers or subordinates were given the same fitment factor of 2.57.

(d)    *Benefit of Average Pension Not Given to Those pensioners Retired in the period Jul 2014 to Dec 2015.* Those who retired in the OROP period till Jun 2014 were given the benefit of lesser pension than Average pension being hiked to the level of Average pension. Thus, many such JCOs /OR till 30 Jun 2014 got financial benefit as their lesser pension due to lesser number of increments was hiked to the level of Average pension. But the same benefit is not given to those who retired in the period of Jul 2014 to Dec 2015. The pension of such retired personnel in the period Jul 2014 to Dec 2015 in 7^th CPC got fixed at Pension in Dec 2015 (lesser than OROP beneficiaries) x 2.57. Thus, such Post Jul 2014 to Dec 2015 pensioner got lesser pension w.e.f. Jan 2016. The OROP beneficiaries having got their pension same as Average pension got higher pension in 7^th CPC which came to Pension in Dec 2015 (Average pension of OROP-I) x 2.57. Thus, most of the JCOs got much higher pension in Jan 2016 compared to the pension of those retired in calendar year 2018.

(e)    * Average Pension of Those Retired in Calendar year 2018 is Lesser than Pre – 2016 Pensioners. * Those who retired in calendar 2018 were in service in 2014 and their pay was much lesser till 2015. Even when their pay got enhanced by 2.57 fitment factor of 7^th CPC and with increments @ 3% per year, the pay hence pension in calendar year 2018 is lesser than pension of those enjoyed benefit of OROP – I.

(f)    *PCDA (Pensions) in Reply to RTI Query. *. PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj in reply to queries filed under RTI Act 2007 informed that the Pre – Jul 2019 pensioners will be eligible for benefit of OROP- III due from Jul 2024.

(g)    *Pension is Reduced. * It has been clarified both in the letter of Min of Def (ESW) dated 20 Jan 2023 and Circular 666 of PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj that if the pension of those retired prior to Jul 2019 is higher than that given in pension tables of OROP -II, the pension will not be fixed  to the disadvantage of the pensioner. They will continue to draw their higher pension. Therefore, it is a myth to say that pension of JCOs has been reduced. Pension once fixed cannot be reduced.

(h)    *Everyone Should Get Higher Pension. *. OROP is not same as Central Pay Commission where every employee of Central Govt gets increase in pay hence pension by a fitment factor of say 2.8 or 2.9 in 8^th CPC. OROP envisages the pension of those earlier retirees being less shall be equated with pensioners retired later whose pension is generally higher due to increase in pay by Central Pay commission. In few cases, the JCOs might be drawing higher pension though retired much earlier than the current retirees. In such case such JCOs may get higher pension only in next OROP.

*Demand for Equal MSP*

4.The MSP is military service pay to compensate for harsh working conditions in the Armed Forces compared to civilian Central Govt employees. Even Britishers used to give higher pay to Armed Forces personnel for this very reason. That extra pay was converted as MSP by later Central Pay Commissions. Hence the MSP or extra pay prior to Aug 1947 was based on the rank. Officer used to draw higher Extra pay compared to JCOs / OR. Pay cannot be same for all. The same formula of different pay is given to Officers and subordinates in Central Civilian employees.

*Demand of Same Disability Element for All. *

5.     The disability element is not fixed by Min of Def. It is fixed on the recommendation of Central Pay Commission. The rule is same for both Armed Forces personnel and Civilian Central Govt employees. For 100% disability, the disability element is 30% of Last Reckonable Emoluments. Therefore, disability element of a Maj Gen is higher than Lt Col. Similarly, the disability element of Sub Maj is higher than Havildar. The Armed Forces cannot have different rules of disability element.

*Same Benefit Irrespective of Rank*.

6.     *The gallantry award* monthly monetary allowance is same whether it is won by an Officer or a JCO or a NCO or a Sepoy.

7.     *Constant Attendant Allowance. * It is same for any disabled soldier who suffers 100% disability whether the disabled soldier is an Officer or a JCO or a NCO or a Sepoy.

     Any Veteran needs any further  clarification on above facts can consult other Ex-Servicemen Organization like IESL,IESM or TSEWA

Writer is President cum Gen Secy of All India Ex-Servicemen Sanjha Morcha and Dir(Hony) Veterans Association Ontario and member of Indo-Can Veteran Association.

Accidents due to human error or equipment malfunction can be prevented by taking procedural and/or technical steps. Design shortcomings, however, are at a foundational level and need immediate institutional remedies. When an aircraft design comes into question, other forces — bureaucratic, institutional and even political — come into play. These have to be avoided like the plague.

Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur (Retd)

Former Additional Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies

THE recent ditching of an Indian Navy ALH (Advanced Light Helicopter) Dhruv has rekindled discussions about its safety record; the fact, however, is that the ALH made by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is like no other machine in the world. It was designed and developed as per the IAF’s air staff requirement document of 1983, which asked for a helicopter to operate in the dizzy heights of the Himalayas where our Army was, and still is, deployed. Its R&D, certification and manufacturing story is worthy of a research project that would be of immense benefit to our aviation industry as it attempts to meet world standards — to learn what to emulate and also, what not to.

I was associated with the ALH programme in 1988 when it had just started and design specifications were being made; it was the time when a wooden mock-up was being used to try out various fitments; heady days they were, discussing nuts and bolts of a desi machine. The HAL sought, and was given, many concessions to the original operational requirements and by the end of the 1990s, we finally had a helicopter that entered operational service. Keeping it flightworthy and available on the flightline, however, was a nightmare. Snags were many and the supply chain of spares pitiful. The life of many critical components was extremely limited (which was okay, considering that the machine was new), but their servicing took months on end. Helicopters sent for major overhaul sat in Bengaluru for eons and aircraft offered after servicing had endless snags… the lament list is endless. I was Assistant Chief of the Air Staff in 2009-10 looking after transport and helicopter operations and went through this phase. But it was an Indian design and manufacture and one wished that things would improve.

Things started looking up and the HAL sold seven ALHs to Ecuador in 2008 in the face of stiff competition. Alas, it was doomed as four helicopters crashed within a few years — the first one in the Ecuadorian national day parade. As I saw that crash video, I relived the first ALH crash in Bengaluru in 2007 when a Sarang aerobatic team helicopter spiralled to the ground; I was the presiding officer of the Court of Inquiry and we commented on the design characteristic of the rigid rotor system that the ALH is equipped with; the rigid rotor gives it very high manoeuvrability, but it stalls if rolled and pitched beyond a certain rate. These are technical issues that concern the designer and need quick redressal; the incipient cyclic saturation warning took many years for installation after our recommendation made in 2007.

Now, regarding the ditching of the Indian Navy ALH that happened last week, without taking away any credit from the fine work done by the crew for safe recovery, it indeed is providential that there were no casualties. Very importantly, the Court of Inquiry has a scratch-free helicopter on its hands to find out the cause.

The Navy statement says, “The helicopter experienced a sudden loss of power and rapid loss of height,” and a day later the three services grounded all machines pending investigation. While it is too early to conjecture, but as someone who has been in the business of helicopter flying for four decades, the many recent cases of failure of ‘collective’ or ‘cyclic’ pitch rods come to mind. To the uninitiated, these are the push-pull mechanical rods that are connected to the rotors and enable it to provide lift to fly — move up/down or forward/sideways/rearward etc. These rods are moved by the pilots when they manipulate the ‘cyclic stick’ and ‘collective’ — two primary flying controls in the cockpit. If a rod breaks, it is a catastrophic situation, akin to the breaking of the steering wheel of a car or the tie rod connecting it to the wheels while the car is in motion. The car driver is on the ground and can at least brake for some control; what does a pilot do in the air when his cyclic or collective becomes ineffective? This has been the case with at least five accidents: a fatal one near Allahabad in 2014 where we lost seven personnel, including the Commanding Officer; an ALH Sarang helicopter doing a demonstration at the firepower display at Pokhran in 2009; an IAF ALH high up on the China border in Ladakh; an Army aviation ALH in Leh in 2016; and another one in 2019 with the Army Commander, Northern Command, on board. Is the naval helicopter ditching due to a similar reason? The Navy statement hints at that.

Accidents will happen, but the aim is to keep them spaced apart for as long as possible. Accidents due to human error or equipment malfunction can be prevented by taking procedural and/or technical steps. Design shortcomings, however, are at a foundational level and need immediate institutional remedies. When an aircraft design comes into question, other forces — bureaucratic, institutional and even political — come into play. These have to be avoided like the plague if we want our still-fledgling aviation industry to have a strong foundation. Even one accident is one too many, and here I have narrated five due to the same exceptionally serious cause (anecdotal renderings indicate a few more). It cannot be taken in a chalta hai attitude of a one-time check after every control failure; lives and reputations (of the nation and its aircraft industry) are at stake.

It is time that the government steps in and institutes a truly independent board of professionals to look into all issues with our ALH Dhruv programme.