If the salary of the defence officer is the same as that of the civilian equivalents, then what “exceptionally high” pension is the CDS talking of? Differentiating between Jawans and officers in terms of tax exemption violates the basic premise behind disability compensation. It also will place on equal terms a civilian and a military officer disability – the former’s disability likely an accident, while the latter’s is more than a reasonable certainty

by Veteran Cdr RW Pathak (inputs from Wg Cdr Ravi Mani & Cdr Pokar Ram)

Aanir veda.com, depos ing before the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Defencechaired byBJP leaderJual Oram, theCDS said
that there was a “wide variation” in the disability
pensions of Army Jawans and officers and that it was
“creating heartburn”, which “is not being understood
by officers”. It is rather strange that this senior officer
has not even bothered to understand the principles
behind compensationfordisability.
He further said in his deposition that, “One of the
ways of narrowing this gap is this. Those who are
drawing exceptionally high pensions, can they not pay
a little amount of income tax? It is not applicable to a
Jawan because, in spite of his disability pension being
given to him, he is not coming into the tax bracket of `
5 lakh as per the new tax regime.” An officer of the
Armed Forces draws the same salary as his civilian

equivalent and yetthe CDS has the gumption to make
a statement that Armed Forces officers draw
“exceptionally high pension” when pension is a
product of salary and thus if the salary of defence
officer is the same as that of the civilian equivalents
then what “exceptionally high” pension is he talking
of?
This approach places the cart before the horse.
Instead of understanding the concept of
“compensating” a disabled soldier (officer or
JCO/NCO/Jawan) for the loss of limbs and/or
functionality, it goes off at a tangent, and places a
premium on punishing an officer for being more
qualified and better paid than a Jawan. In fact, it even
questions the very premise of different pay at different
levels, which is auniversal factof life inall professions,
civil or military. That the officer, at the pinnacle of
leadership at the operational level, is paid more and

by Veteran Cdr RW Pathak (inputs from Wg Cdr Ravi Mani & Cdr Pokar Ram)

If the salary of the defence officer is the same as that of the civilian equivalents, then what“exceptionally high” pension is the CDS talking of? Differentiating between Jawans andofficers in terms of tax exemption violates the basic premise behind disability compensation.It also will place on equal terms a civilian and a military officer disability – the former’sdisability likely an accident, while the latter’s is more than a reasonable certainty
Why ShouldVeterans DrawingExceptionally
High Pensions Grudge IT Deductions? has more responsibility on his shoulders has escaped theworthyGeneral. By advocating paymentof taxondisabilitypension for officers, the CDS is guilty of overlooking the basic premise behind sanction of disability pensions for
Veterans world-wide. Disability pensions are both, an
attempt to try and compensate for that which cannot
be compensated-loss of limbs and/orfunctionality, as
well asanassurance toserving soldiers thattheycango
to war and do their best without worrying what will
happen to them if they are wounded and disabled.
Thus, it underwrites morale and performance by the
serving soldier. Not taxing such pensions is another
benefit, indirectlygiven. Differentiating between Jawans and officers in terms of tax exemption violates the basic premise
behind disability compensation. It also will place on
equal terms a civilian and a military officerdisability –
the former’s disability likely an accident, while the
latter’s is more than a reasonable certainty (and hence
the difference in insurance premiums). Let us look at
how compensation amount is derived at in cases
involving compensation in various accident cases. My
search for a possible basis for compensation lead to a
basic fundamental basis as: “It is given for the
atonement of injury caused and the intention behind
grant of compensation is to put back the injured party
as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury
has nottakenplace, bywayof grantof pecuniary relief.
(Forclarifications referhpsja.nic.in/jaarticle.pdf).
Further in a recent judgment dated of the SC on
February 5, 2020 (civil appeal no. 735 of 2020, arising
out of Special Leave Petition [C] No.15504 of 2019) has
listed some of the points to be considered when
deciding compensation. Thesepointsare:  Future medical treatment(Not applicable in the case of disabilitycases)  Loss of marriage prospects (May be applicable in somecases)  Pain, suffering and loss of amenities (Applicable to
all defencedisabilitycases)  Attendant charges (Paid as CAA in cases of 100% ,disability if sanctioned. However the amount is a
pittance of what a Constant Attendant service would
costtoday)  Loss of earnings (Not applicable to Veterans as they
are paid Disability Element and Service Element.
However in the case of percentage disability being
lower, the amount gets reduced than in an accident
case)
 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation etc. (Not entirely applicable but certainly in certain injuries the costs of treatment hospitalization and medicines is incurred despite the ECHS scheme which though supposed to be cash less is certainly not when it comes to
emergency treatment where no hospitals are on their
panel)
 No pecuniary damages (general damages), loss of
expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity. In
certaincases, applicabletoDefence forces too)
Finally it all basically comes down to what was the
earning capacity and loss of the same due to
injury/death. It logically follows that the
compensation paid to someone who was getting a
salary at the bottom of the pyramid has to be lower
than someone who is atthe top of the pyramid. So one
can see that the matter of compensation for injuries
sustained is certainly not as simple as is made out to
be. Most medical boards had been arbitrary in
assigning percentage disabilities and aggravation or
attributability for the injury/disease. That is the
reason why broad-banding was introduced to reduce
arbitrariness ingrantof percentagedisability.
Further refinement of the process of disability
assessment is the way to go. A progressive step in this
direction is the broad-banding of disability. If this
aspect of the issue is made more realistic and less
arbitrary, thenthequestionof ensuring thatDisability
Pension is enough or not, only needs to be indexed to
pay and pensions as well as the special needs of
disabled combatants. As mentioned earlier,
exempting such pension from tax is logical and the
rightthing todo, basing onthe loss tothe individual as
a human being at his station in life. The CDS further
goes on to add insult to injury by stating that Army
officers drawing “exceptionally high” pension should
not grudge Income Tax! The CDS has conveniently
forgotten to state that about what happens to the civil
side:
 All civilian employees, irrespective of age on getting
disability, arekeptinservicetill 60 years irrespectiveof
productivity, whereas in defence they are thrown out
tofend forthemselves. Noassurance foremployment.
 The disabled civilians get a minimum special family
pension of `18000 whereas in defence, their families
are deprived of the same unless it is proved beyond
doubt that death was caused due to disease/injury on
thebasisof whichhewas invalidated out.
It seems that the CDS still carries the hangover of
the ill-considered remedy (proposed when he was
COAS) to the problem of eliminating cases wherein a
few misuse the process to getthemselves downgraded
with dishonest motives. The solution to that problem

due to a few black sheep at senior levels is to enhance
scrutiny and review processes to eliminate or
minimise fraud (in collusion with the medical
fraternity). It does notlie in off the cuff, ill-considered
solutions that will strike at morale of the Armed
Forces.
The CDS seems to believe that as the singular head

of the three services he can now force his ill-
considered remedy to the problem down the throat of

theNavyand Airforce. Thesofardefined roleof CSD is
limited to operations, logistics, transport, training,
support services, communications and repairs and

maintenance of the three services. This certainly does
not implicitly cover pay and pensions. One wonders
why he is intervening in matters apparently not in his
purview. Hopefully therespectivechiefswill offertheir
individual inputtothegovernment.
The worthy CDS has probably forgotten that the
Indian Army has been operating in conditions of
undeclared war since long, resulting indailycasualties
the like of which no other Armed Forces in the world
face. Let us not tamper with the essential morale and
well-being of ourcombatants.

Cdr RW Pathak (Retd) is a member and coordinator of the internet-based Veterans Pension Group (veterans-pension-
cell@googlegroups.com) that works to help defence pensioners. He was also at the forefront of the agitation to deny the defence land to former President Pratibha Patil for her retirement home. He can be contacted on 9822329340/02025655792 or on Email raviwarsha@gmail.com.