Constitutional law
madanamohanrao
(Querist) 04 November 2014
This query is : Resolved
On an issue of cutting my pension by 6% from 1996, by PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS) ALLAHABAD, who incidentally controls Pensions of 2 million ex serviicemen headed by an officer of IA&AS cadre, I received an amazing response reproduced below:
HOWWEVER GRIEVANCE RAISED BY YOU REGARDING INFRACTION OF ARTICLES 14,141,AND 309 OF OUR VENERABLE CONSTITUTION IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS OFFICE.
I may please be enlightened with a professional advise, whether it is appropriate and legally an acceptable statement that the Constitution has no role to play in the decisions and orders of THIS OFFICE, WHICH IS PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE PENSIONS, ALLAHABAD?
No speaking report was given other than saying that constitutional mandates are not relevant to them.
Anirudh
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Dear Mr. Madana Mohan Rao,
Please indicate whether you are seriously concerned about alleged 6% cut in your pension or the language used by the Office while rejecting your grievance?
If you are serious about 6% cut, then please discuss here by giving the complete facts of your case, how do you feel that 6% pension has been cut etc. etc.
Otherwise, sorry, we are not here to say whether that particular statement, which is purportedly made while rejecting the grievance is appropriate, legally acceptable etc.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
For your Clarifications regarding the Sections Mentioned by them Write to them by RTI politely.Basing on their Replies you could further proceed.
P. Venu
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Pl. furnish the complete information,
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Dear Mr. Madan Mohan Rao,
Please go through the expert opinion and advise of Mr. Anirudh, I fully agree and appreciate his analytical approach to your query.
The PCDA officers are well versed with the Constitution of India.
Did you ever raised the question of 6 %deduction of your pension either before the PCDA/ Pesinon Disbursement Authorities or CDA (Officers-if you were commissioned officer)/CRO (in case of PBOR)?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
So far he has presented only following facts :-
(a) there was a reduction of 6%.
(b) reduction was in 1996.
He has not stated whether he moved to court or not. F he has not moved to court then case is time barred.
He is not even sharing the inforamtinas to when he represented.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 November 2014
answer queries raised by experts
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2014
Dear MadanaMohanRao,
First of all, you have not stated the background about cut in pension.
Secondly, your query pertaining to pension does not pertain to constitutional law, rather is regulated by the pension rules of your organisation, which are made in accordance with the constitutional provisions by the Parliament.
3rd, constitutional law has a very broad implication the inference and interpretation of which falls within the jurisdiction of the Suprteme Court, not the PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS) ALLAHABAD. So, there is nothing amazing, if his office has replied that the same was beyond the purview of that office.
You can raise a question with that office, if they have acted in violation of the provision of any rule of the Pension Rules of your organisation.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 05 November 2014
Let the author respond to the queries raised by our experts.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 07 November 2014
Experts Mr. Anirudh and Mr. P.S. Dhingra have given very appreciable reply to the query and have advised the author in a proper way by raising proper and valid doubts which are yet to be answered by author, hope he is no more interested in the subject query or further opinion by experts by answering the queries raised by experts in this regard.
Guest
(Expert) 13 November 2014
Dear Shri Kalaiselvan,
Thanks for your appreciation. He seems really no more interested in the subject query or further opinion by us, as he has not yet answere the queries raised even for the last 9 days.
madanamohanrao
(Querist) 17 November 2014
For Mr P S Dhingra
Kindly see my e mail to you giving full details of the issue and whether PCDA can frame rules defying the enshrined protections in our Constitution, in particular Art 14, and 309 to truncate my pension after 19 years, even contrary to the PPO issued by the same office. I AWAIT YOUR EXPERT OPINION. Regards Mohanrao
Guest
(Expert) 17 November 2014
Mr. Madanamohan Rao,
Emails for free advice are replied through emails only and in due course of time on the basis of first come first served basis. So, I am not bound to reply your emails through this forum. You should have the patience to wait for my reply to your email, if any sent.
If you desire to get reply to your query openly through this forum, you should post complete details here on this thread of your original query, itself, so that other experts could also have examined the case with reference to the legal provisions.
madanamohanrao
(Querist) 18 November 2014
I am extre4mely grateful for your comments on the query, I raised in the Lawyers Club web site.
2. Let me first introduce myself. I joined the Air Force in 1953, and retired with full pension of Wg Cdr, as per the rules then existing, after finishing 24 years reckonable service and granted full pension for life as per the PPO issued by PCDA.
3. As of now my plaint with AFT is scheduled at Chennai for first hearing on 7th Nov. Statute of Limitation has been convincingly answered and my plaint has been admitted as OA 177 of 2014. Mine is a long story and when PCDA , prima facie sent me a letter that Art 309, 14.141 and 300a do not come under their purview, in other words as interpreted by me they were not bound by the Venerable Constitution and they are a law unto themselves.
4. Briefly, the issue of pension that was 775 WHEN I RETIRED, was reduced by 6.06% from Jan 1996, after 19 years and when I was 65 years old, on a specious plea of 2 years shortage after a largesse of 7 years weightage granted to Wing Commanders. This weightage was a capricious and arbitrary decision without any logic or rationale. and interestingly, when this weightage was held irrelevant in 2006 and a Gazette Extraordinary was published on the issue, PCDA did not fell it necessary to restore the cut. Further only detrimental part and not the beneficial part of V CPC has been inflicted on me retrospectively to deny a benefit of full pension already earned by me 19 years back. Hon Supreme Court had ruled (2010/12S CC 538) THAT ART 309 WHILE IT PERMITS RETROSPECTIVE IMPOSITIOIN OF A RULE, IT CAN NOT DENY A BENEFIT OR RIGHT ALREAQDY EARNED.
5. My representations and treatises on the illegality and arbitrary cut (famous Nakara case and Hon Full Bench Rulings in 1982 on inviolability of ones pension is also relevant to my case.
6. For the purposes of brevity, I posted a query, primarily whethe a Constitutional body headed by an officer under oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution can breach the Oath by stating in writing that wri Constitution is not relevant to them!!!!
I am agreeable to retain you with the professional fees on this issue, if a PIL or a Writ of Mandamus, is appropriate after you study about 100 pages of submissions, letters and FAXes sent by me have not had any reasonabvle response.
Best regards
Mohanrao
ps: this is a test mail and if you can spare time to analyse the issue, I will make available all the documents. In any case I renew my thanks for your comments and would be grateful for an ack of this mail.
Wg. Cdr. P.M. Mohan Rao, Retd.
E-Mail: wgcdrmohanrao@gmail.com
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 November 2014
so now you have intimated that you have moved to AFT. You already have a lawyer.
madanamohanrao
(Querist) 18 November 2014
Dear Sudhir
You seem to skirt from my basic query to the experts. I FELT IT IS ODD FOR AN INSTITUTION LIKE PCDA, to speak about CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES in such a cavelier manner. IN fact I sought the confirmation from the Head of Office, whether the LETTER ISSUED by some underling has had his approbation, and I regret I have had no reply TO DATE, and that is how I posted my original query for my enlightenment to the Experts. Thanks. MOHANRAO
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 19 November 2014
Dear Wingco Rao,
I fully agree with you, probably the PCDA officer (letter signing person) has overlooked the line, which had (obviously) pinched you since it was written in a very casual/irresponsible manner.
You shall not be getting befitting reply to the question raised by you, even approached higher authorities.
At this stage, I feel (it is my personal opinion) to ignore.
Regards.
madanamohanrao
(Querist) 19 November 2014
Dear Dr Vasista
I am grateful for your advice and appreciation of my perseverance on an issue very insignificant about a paltry reduction in my pension. Anyway it is scheduled for adjudication at AFT, Chennai by end of this month and I am certain PCDA would learn their bitter lesson and would be advised/ordered to mend their matters.
Thanks and I would like to bother you for a personal discussion. I am 83 years and retired in 1977 and get a pension of 64K now compared to my take home pay of 1K when I demitted my office in 1977.
Regards.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 19 November 2014
"N fact I sought the confirmation from the Head of Office, whether the LETTER ISSUED by some underling has had his approbation"
You can use RTI to get copies of entire moting leading to this letter./ In case you feel that the letter has been written without approval of the competent authority you can submit a complaint seeking disciplinary action against the signatory.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 20 November 2014
Dear Wingco Rao,
I reiterate to leave the insignificant incidence and stay calm and composed.
If you still feel hurt, take certified copies of the notings and letters from PCDA Allahabad as advised by expert Sh. Sudhir Kumar, for further consideration/ proceeding.
P. Venu
(Expert) 20 November 2014
It is the bane of the Governance in our country that every public authority feels that they are not bound by the rigours and discipline of the Constitution and their 'real power' lies in such assertions, in words and in deeds.
madanamohanrao
(Querist) 20 November 2014
Dear Mr Venu
Thanks for your appreciation of the Crux of the Issue. In fact, I did convey it is reminiscent of the Imperial rule that prevailed before our Tryst with Destiny of Aug 15th. I lived thro that auspicious day of our nation but vestiges of such a rule appear to prevail even today as a legacy inherited by the officials who are assigned to rule us. A remarkable and first decision of our Hon PM was to remove attestation by a Gazetted Officer for every document. In years of yore such gazetted officers were rare and subjects of British rule were made to go pillar to post even for certificates for schooling.
I lived thro even the Quit India firing in
1942 in Guntur my home town at the age of 12. Sorry for this long narration as it hurts me to experience the Monarch and Subject attitude, as you rightly termed it as the Bane of Governance. Regards.Mohanrao
