All posts by webadmin

The Indian Army’s pay structure for officers, based on the 7th Pay Commission, is organized into a pay matrix with different levels corresponding to ranks. The basic pay for officers ranges from Level 10 (Lieutenant) to Level 17 (Chief of Army Staff), with various allowances and perks layered on top.
Here’s a breakdown of the pay matrix for commissioned officers in the Indian Army:
Commissioned Officers:
Lieutenant: Level 10, with a basic pay range of ₹56,100 to ₹1,77,500.
Captain: Level 10B, with a basic pay range of ₹61,300 to ₹1,93,900.
Major: Level 11, with a basic pay range of ₹69,400 to ₹2,07,200.
Lieutenant Colonel: Level 12, with a basic pay range of ₹1,21,200 to ₹2,12,400.
Colonel: Level 13, with a basic pay range of ₹1,30,600 to ₹2,15,900.
Brigadier: Level 13A, with a basic pay range of ₹1,39,600 to ₹2,17,600.
Major General: Level 14, with a basic pay range of ₹1,44,200 to ₹2,18,200.
Lieutenant General: Level 15, with a basic pay range of ₹182,200 to ₹224,100.
General (Chief of Army Staff): Level 18, with a fixed pay of ₹2,50,000.

Tribunal’s Bench observes that pensioners form a common category and personnel who opted for premature retirement and qualify for grant of pension are also included in this general category

The Armed Forces Tribunal has ruled that defence personnel who have sought voluntary premature retirement cannot be denied benefits under the Defence Ministry’s ‘One Rank, One Pension’ (OROP) scheme.

A soldier who was enrolled in the Army in October 1995 was thereafter discharged from service in November 2014 at his own request, after rendering over 19 years and one month’s service.

However, as a consequence of having sought premature retirement, he was denied the grant of the OROP benefits by the authorities, which cited a new policy on the subject issued by the government in 2015.

The Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Anu Malhotra and administrative member Rasika Chaube observed that pensioners form a common category and personnel who opted for premature retirement and qualify for grant of pension are also included in this general category.

The pension regulations and rules applicable to premature retired personnel who qualify for pension are similar to that of a regular pensioner retiring on superannuation or on conclusion of his terms of appointment.

The Bench said that by applying the provisions of a policy prospectively would mean the right created for premature retired pensioners to receive pension at par with a regular pensioner being taken away.

Apart from creating a differentiation in a homogeneous class, taking away of this vested right available to a premature retired personnel violates mandate of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases and makes the action of the authorities unsustainable in law, the Bench remarked.

Once it is found that every person in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force who seeks premature retirement forms a homogenous category in the matter of granting benefit of OROP, for such personnel no policy can be formulated, which creates differentiation in this homogeneous class based on the date and time of their seeking premature retirement, the Bench observed.

The Bench observed that the policy in question in fact divides premature retired personnel into three categories—pre-July 2014 personnel, those personnel who took premature retirement between July 2014 and November 2015 and those who took premature retirement after November 2015.

Merely based on the dates as indicated hereinabove, differentiating in the same category of premature retired personnel without any just cause or reason and without establishing any nexus as to for what purpose it had been done, amounts to violating the rights available under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as hit by the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of fixing the cut-off date and creating differentiation in a homogeneous class, the Bench observed.

Ajay Banerjee Tribune News Service

In a bid to streamline the acquisition of weapons and equipment in line with rapid technological advancements, the Ministry of Defence has initiated a review of the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020.

A committee has been set up to conduct extensive consultations with all stakeholders. Former IAS officer Apurva Chandra, who earlier served as Director General (Acquisition), will be the Principal Adviser to the committee.

The review aims to align acquisition timelines with the operational and modernisation needs of the armed forces. Key focus areas include fostering design and development in both the public and private sectors, with particular emphasis on startups, innovators and the domestic defence industry for indigenous technology infusion.

Other objectives include aligning acquisition processes with the goal of self-reliance by promoting indigenously designed and developed systems, and positioning India as a global hub for defence manufacturing and maintenance, repair and overhaul.

The reformed DAP will seek to strengthen the ‘Make in India’ initiative by encouraging joint ventures and technology transfer to the private sector, including through the FDI route for foreign original equipment manufacturers.

The committee has invited suggestions on policy and procedural reforms needed to streamline acquisition, enhance ease of doing business, expedite equipment trials, enable fast-track procedures and adopt emerging technologies such as AI. Suggestions can be emailed by July 5 to secy-dap2025@gov.in.

The committee comprises senior MoD officers and representatives from the defence industry and academia.

PK Jaiswar

The Punjab border alongside Pakistan has witnessed an upward trend in the trafficking of sophisticated weapons and explosives apart from drugs, leaving the Punjab Police and various security and intelligence agencies in a tight spot.Despite taking measures to intercept the flying machines carrying drugs and weapons, the smuggling continued unabated even during the escalation of hostilities between the two neighbouring nations in the aftermath of the Pehalgam terror attack.Since January, 220 weapons, including Austria-made Glock and Turkey-made Zigana pistols, have been seized from Amritsar district alone, while the Border Security Force (BSF) seized 74 pistols from the entire Punjab border during the past six months. Forty pistols were also seized from Tarn Taran, it was learnt.

The Amritsar and Tarn Taran border belt is considered the favourite route for trafficking for drones used by the Pakistan-based state and non-state actors.

According to senior police officials, the increased trafficking has directly affected the drug consumption patterns in the border state, apart from aiding gun violence among youths, creating law and order and security concerns in the state.

A senior BSF official said there had been a considerable shift in the border strategy by Pakistan since the new ISI chief took over in September 2024. They are pushing arms and explosives more aggressively in order to destabilise India and aiding operatives of various Pakistan-based terror groups, he said. Also, the use of China-made drones has added a new dimension to the illicit trafficking from across the international border, he said.

“Since January, the pushing of arms into the Indian territory through drones from Pakistan has increased manifold. There has been an increase of around 400 per cent in the past six months compared to the corresponding period last year,” said the official.

Apart from 74 pistols, the BSF had neutralised 129 Chinese drones carrying drugs and weapons, 10.245 kg of RDX, IED and 12 hand grenades from the Punjab frontier.

The Punjab Police DIG (Border Range) Satinder Singh said this was an ever-going fight. “Definitely the upward trend of sneaking of arms and explosives is worrisome. But the BSF and Punjab Police have jointly foiled many nefarious attempts of Pak-based anti-national elements, leading to the regular seizures of weapons,” he said.

Another police official said the trend had shifted as notorious criminals were also “procuring” these weapons from Pakistan-based smugglers shifting from countrymade weapons procured from Madhya Pradesh, UP, Bihar or Maharashtra. A majority of these arms were duplicates, although with better functioning. “These weapons are much better than the countrymade weapons here, but not original as is believed,” he said.

About 20 companies had initially expressed interest in bidding for the SSLV, the first privatisation of its kind under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy drive to open up India’s space industry

By winning the bid to make the rocket, capable of carrying 500 kg payloads to low-Earth orbit, HAL will have the capability to independently build, own and commercialise SSLV launches.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has won the bid to privately make India’s small satellite launch rockets, the country’s space regulator said on Friday, the government’s biggest step yet to open its fast-growing space industry to private players.

It was reported in February that three consortiums — Alpha Design Technologies, a unit of Adani Defence Systems and Technologies, state-backed Bharat Dynamics and HAL — were the finalists to acquire India’s Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV) technology.

Fighter jet-maker HAL had applied independently, Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe) said in a statement on Friday, without disclosing the deal value. It was reported earlier that HAL was expected to pay about 3 billion Indian rupees (about $35 million).

By winning the bid to make the rocket, capable of carrying 500 kg payloads to low-Earth orbit, HAL will have the capability to independently build, own and commercialise SSLV launches, said Pawan Goenka, the head of IN-SPACe.About 20 companies had initially expressed interest in bidding for the SSLV, the first privatisation of its kind under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy drive to open up India’s space industry.

The global low Earth orbit launch vehicle market was valued at $13.9 billion in 2023 and is estimated to grow to about $44 billion by 2032, according to Global Market Insights.

India, which accounts for only 2 per cent of the global space economy, is eyeing a fivefold expansion to $44 billion by the end of the decade.

Northern Army Commander Lieutenant General Pratik Sharma on Thursday visited operational logistics units and reviewed the transformation being undertaken to boost operational readiness in Jammu and Kashmir.

He commended the personnel for their high state of logistic readiness to sustain multi-domain operational demands.

“Lieutenant General Pratik Sharma, Army Commander Northern Command, visited an operational logistics unit, reviewing the operational and logistics transformation being undertaken with the vision of boosting operational readiness,” the Army’s Northern Command headquarters said on X.

The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C) commended the personnel for their high state of logistic readiness, automated functioning and capacity to sustain multi-domain operational demands. He emphasised the need for continued innovation to sustain operational superiority.

He emphasised the need for continued innovation to sustain operational superiority. “#ArmyCdrNC commended the personnel for their high state of logistic readiness, automated functioning, and capacity to sustain multi-domain operational demands,” said the post.

He also expressed confidence in the unit’s automated functioning and urged further integration of cutting-edge logistics solutions to bolster the Indian Army’s warfighting capabilities.

Israel’s action against Iran can only be assessed as being a dangerous and reckless act of aggression that poses danger to the region and the world

Manoj Joshi

ON March 26, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a House committee that the American intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini (sic) has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

Yet on June 13, Israel launched what it claims was a “pre-emptive” attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. Israel’s action can only be assessed as being a dangerous and reckless act of aggression that poses danger to the region and the world. Iran does not have the most savoury regime running it; nor does Israel, and it most certainly does not have the right to attack Iran.

As he contemplates joining the war, US President Donald Trump has rudely brushed aside the US intelligence assessment and embraced the Israeli view that Iran had been very close to making a nuclear weapon when the war began.

Israel’s war aims are to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity and effect regime change. Neither is an easy task. Last week, in the wake of the Israeli attacks, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak told Christiane Amanpour on CNN that Israel alone cannot delay the nuclear programme of Iran by a significant time period. “Probably several weeks… a month… Even the US cannot delay them by more than a few months,” he said.

Current assessments are that besides destroying Iran’s air defence system, Israel has severely damaged the principal nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz as well as the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre, while the Arak Nuclear Complex remains largely undamaged, as does the Parchin military complex which stores centrifuges and uranium. Israel has not targeted the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant over worries of nuclear radiation leaks.

Importantly, no significant damage is reported as yet to the deeply buried Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which is said to be invulnerable to conventional strikes. This facility is crucial because it can quickly enrich Iran’s stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium to 90 per cent required for one weapon in a week. Iran reportedly possesses 408.6 kg of enriched uranium as of May 2025 and estimates are that this could be sufficient to make nine nuclear weapons in the coming weeks if enriched further.

Fordow would need US involvement in the form of the massive ordnance air blast bomb (MOAB) that Israel does not possess. Besides, Iran has had two decades to spread out its programme and build other deeply buried ultra-secure sites such as the one in the Pickaxe mountain south of Natanz, which is deeper and better protected than the one in Fordow.

Kinetic means alone cannot destroy the Iranian programme. That would require a ground invasion. That is where the US role, which has so far been curious, comes in. The Israeli strikes came amidst US-Iran talks on building down the nuclear programme. After saying that the US would not be involved, President Trump now wants Iran to settle things on his terms — the principal demand being an “unconditional surrender” by Iran. Looking back, one wonders whether the war on Iran was always a US-Israeli venture.

American involvement could widen the war and trigger Iranian missile attacks on its facilities in the Persian Gulf region in Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Iraq and Syria, in addition to facilities in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. A shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 25 per cent of the world’s oil is shipped, could see an escalation of oil prices beyond $100 a barrel, triggering global inflation.

The US needs to weigh its options carefully. Destroying Iran’s facilities and effecting regime change are one thing. Replacing it with a democratic setup quite another. Recall America’s disastrous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan that have roiled the region for the past 25 years. Having spent tens of trillions of dollars on wars in the region, the US is now on the brink of yet another, this time with a larger and better organised country.

This is a fraught moment. The demand for unconditional surrender and regime change could push Iran to actually fabricate a nuclear weapon. Israel has telegraphed its intentions for so long that Iran has had sufficient time to establish other secret facilities for its military programme. A nuclear breakout could have Israel and the US resorting to nuclear weapons strikes to prevent Iranian deployment. Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for the region and the world.

The primary trigger for the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has not been Israel. It was the 1980-1988 war following the invasion of the country by Iraq, an action that was aided by the US. Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and missile attacks on Iranian cities found little international reaction. So from the mid-1980s, Iran began its military nuclear programme.

Iran’s strategy was to develop its nuclear cycle — mining, processing and enriching uranium — to deter adversaries. But the fate of neighbouring Iraq following the US invasion in 2003 hardened the Iranian conviction that there would be no guarantee for its security in the absence of nuclear weapons. The subsequent experience of North Korea only deepened this perception.

Iran is a resource-rich country of over 90 million people, some two-thirds the size of India. It has a strong sense of history and nationhood. As is in the case of Iraq, the US and Israel could well succeed in wreaking a lot of destruction on the country and possibly even effecting regime change, but you can be sure that this will not be the end of the story.

Manoj Joshi is Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi.