Tuesday, 14 March 2017


Indian Military Veterans



      Many cases have come to light where the Banks have made recoveries in one go on their own without any intimation to the pensioners or without their concurrence on the Excess Pension Payments made erroneously by their staff.

Such recoveries if made in bulk are illegal and against the instructions issued by the RBI and Govt of India.
The legal position on the case of recoveries of excess pension remitted by banks to pensioners is as follows:-

(a)   The Banks (PDAs) are not permitted to make such recoveries beyond one third of the pension per month after intimation to the pensioner.

(b)   However,  in case they have faulted and have recovered the amount in excess of 1/3rd of the monthly pension they are required to make the refund. In case they still fail to do so the pensioner can take recourse from their jurisdictional High  Courts.

(c)   Before preferring to file the case in hon'ble High Courts the pensioners must first take up the case with their Banks, Regional Bank Officers and the Bank Head Offices and get a reply from them if need be by resorting to the  RTI Act 2005, for their reasons to debit the Pension Account without taking pensioner's consent. 

(d)  The pensioner must also ask the Bank if any orders were issued by the  Record Office or PCDA (Pensions) Allahabad to recover the excess  payments so made. A draft letter to the bank is placed below for ease of reference.

(e)  It may also be brought to their notice that previous have been judged in favour of the pensioners hon'ble Delhi High court in WP (C) 1079/2008 Wg Cdr SVS Gahlot Vs UOI, WP (C) nos 7522/2008 and 7525/2008 and WP (C) No: 8338/2008 (copy placed in the end of this post) not to recover any excess pension paid to the pensioner who did not falsify any data. 

(f)   The bank also must be informed the latest instructions from Govt of India Min of Home (PPP &G) letter No: F.No. 18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02 Mar 2016 (copy placed at the end of this post).

   On receipt of a letter from the pensioner in most cases the Banks will make the refund however in case they still don't, within 30 days, the pensioner may take the legal recourse as a last resort only.
================================================================= DRAFT LETTER TO THE BANK TO REFUND THE EXCESS RECOVERIES MADE FROM PENSION ACOOUNT.

Smt XXXX   W/O (Late) ------------                                   


To :
The Manager  


1    Please  refer to my pension acct no:                   in your bank.

2.   I am pained to learn that your bank has debited my pension account for Rs xxxx/- without any intimation or my consent which is not justifiable  or legal even on  account of the excess payment of pension by your bank erroneously by your staff. I am an old family pensioner of the deceased (rank and name). 

3.    You must be aware of the Govt rules that even if the PDAs have paid the pension in excess the recoveries can only be made with my consent limited to only one third of my pension per month. These rules have been thus violated by your bank. 

4.     May I therefore request you to refund the deductions so made within next 15 days before I approach your higher authorities. banking ombudsman for unilaterally debiting my account thereby causing me hardships. My letter may kindly be considered as a Notice for the Refund.

4.    I am aware of my rights as a pensioner as given in  instructions issued by Govt of India, Min of PPP &G and as given in the judgments of the  Hon'ble Supreme Court, where in it is vividly stated that in case  a pensioner had not falsified then any excess payment made to him/her can not be recovered.

5.    I am sure I shall soon get a positive response from your side.

With Regards,
Yours truly,

(Smt xxxxxx)

Copy to following for issue of necessary instructions :

1.   Chief Manager CPPC     -   
2.   Regional Manager      ----     (THE ADDRESSES ARE AVAILABLE ON THEIR 
3.   CMD    Bank            ----        BANK WEB SITES) 



  Present: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners.   Mr.Sewa Ram, Advocate for the Respondents.

    WP (C) No.8338/2008

The petitioners were commissioned as pilot officers in Indian Air Force   between June, 1963 and June, 1968. The petitioners earned promotions over a   period of time up to the rank of Wing Commander and retired from service in that   rank. The re-fixation of the pension of all the petitioners took place with   effect from 01.01.1996 pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. 
The petitioners were re-employed after the retirement from Indian Air   Force by the Indian Air Force itself between the period September, 1991 to   July, 2000 on different dates and were given their pay and allowances as per the   rules and regulations for re-employed officers in the Indian Air Force.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the receipt of recovery orders passed on   various dates in the year 2007 on account of alleged over payment for the period   of re-employment. The recoveries were directed to be made in the monthly  instalments of 1/3rd of pension until the full excess amount was liquidated.
  The details of the various petitioners are as under:
Date of Retirement
Date of Commencement of re-employment
Date of termination of re-employment
 Amount of recovery (in Rs.)
Impugned Order Reference No.
/0204 of 2007
/0231 of 2007
/0022 of 2007
/0021 of 2007
/0121 of 2007

The matter in issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of   this Court in WP(C)1079/2008 as Wg Cdr S.V.S.Gahlot (Retd) Vs Union   of India decided on 06.08.2008. In the aforesaid case, the pleadings showed that the recovery did not   include any element of interest and that there was no discrepancy in the pension   account of the petitioner. The case for waiver of recovery was taken up on inter-service basis by the Ministry of Defence but the Ministry of Finance did not agree. The over-payment was not due to any application/misrepresentation submitted by the petitioner. It was, thus, observed as under: 

The sum and substance of the recovery process initiated by the respondents is that the petitioner had given certain undertakings and, thus, the petitioner was aware of the possibility of such recovery. It is, thus pleaded that the recovery is taking place in pursuance to such undertaking/declaration. We have perused the undertaking and declaration signed by the petitioner. These were signed on 08.11.1994 when the petitioner completed his initial tenure of service before his re-employment. The declarations do not specify any amount and, in fact, the amount has been left blank which itself shows that the declarations are uncertain in respect of the amount. Not only that the declarations are only in respect of any pension calculation, which may arise. It is not in dispute that the recovery being made from the petitioner is not on account of any pension calculation for which the declarations have been given. The second declaration, in fact, is labeled Declaration for Provisional Pension?

The result of the aforesaid is that no recovery can be made in pursuance to the declaration.

The petitioner appearing in person has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521 where it has been held that higher pay-scales erroneously given due to, no fault of the employee should not result in recovery of the excess amount as that would not be just and proper.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is only on pension since the year 1999. To  sustain a living in this age and time is itself  difficult on the meager pension amount. To face recovery of such pension amount with rising inflation can be a nightmare. Such recovery is taking place in pursuance to no undertaking and the respondents have not filed any proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of the amount. The circuitous method of recovery from the pension cannot, thus, be permitted in the absence of any undertaking or rule in that behalf.?

In our considered view the aforesaid position squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted in that petition. We have granted similar relief in WP(C) Nos.7522/2008 and 7525/2008, both decided on 22.10.2008.

A writ of mandamus is issued quashing the impugned order of recovery and the amount, if any, recovered from the pension should be remitted to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. The petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that there are a number of similarly situated officers who would be compelled to approach this Court in view of the orders passed by us earlier and today.

We see no reason why such an eventuality should arise when we have settled the legal position in that behalf and in respect of all such officers, who benefit from the orders passed by us.

We thus direct that the concerned authorities of the respondents to examine the cases of all such similarly situated officers and process their cases according to the judgments rendered by us within a maximum period of three months from today to obviate the necessity of such persons approaching this Court which not only causes inconvenience to the petitioners and burdens the docket of this Court but also results in unnecessary expenses of the respondents as also of the petitioners.


NOVEMBER 28, 2008

Why[the]Soldier-Officer Bond in Indian Army Should Remain Unshakable

Indian Military Veterans

Why[the]Soldier-Officer Bond in Indian Army Should Remain Unshakable

Updated: March 13, 2017, 12:37 PM IST
        Soldier-Officer Bond in Indian Army Should Remain Unshakable
File photo of Lt Gen (Retd) DS Hooda.
Today, there are two narratives which dominate any discussion about the Army. The first narrative is about corruption in the Army, of how officers are not looking after the needs of our soldiers, and the mistreatment of the sahayak. We might shake our heads and say that this is a campaign by uninformed people, primarily for TRP ratings. However, it can’t be ignored because some respected people in society are also questioning the state of the Army. An eminent academician recently wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister asking him to clean the rot in the Army.
There is a second, strong pro-Army narrative. It is seductive because it vociferously slams anything which questions the Army and, therefore, could appeal to some of us. But this narrative is equally harmful because it sometimes comes with political overtones, a position which the Army has deliberately avoided for good reasons. It also drags us into unnecessary controversy of whether we are attempting to camouflage our mistakes. We are the Army of the nation and have never claimed to be above scrutiny.
As officers, past and present, it has now become important to convey the true picture of the Army. Why do I appeal only to the officers? Samuel Huntington, in his famous work The Soldier and the State, wrote, “The enlisted men subordinate to the officer corps are part of the organizational bureaucracy but not of the professional bureaucracy. The enlisted personnel have neither the intellectual skills nor the professional responsibility of the officer corps.” Written in 1957, this statement is today considered very controversial as it appears to downplay the role of soldiers, but there are shades of truth in it. I know I am opening myself to being accused of having a colonial mindset, but I think this needs to be clearly said.
The character and the ethos of the Indian Army is largely dependent on the officer corps. The soldiers have an important task but officers are the leaders, and the ethos they display will determine how the nation views the Army.
There is an insidious campaign about a fracture in officer-soldier relationship. There are whispers about how soldiers are being ignored in the OROP (One Rank, One Pension) and Seventh Pay Commission, and officers are only concerned about their own emoluments. The ‘sahayak’ issue is too well known to warrant any explanation. We all need to come together to fight this extremely dangerous trend. The strength of the Indian Army lies in the relationship between the officers and men. Any talk of a breakdown in this area will only help our enemies. I do not say this to paper over the difficulties but because I firmly believe that there is no real problem in the extremely strong bond that currently exists between officers and men. Videos of a few disgruntled soldiers does not weaken that bond. Let us all collectively convey that in every forum.
We also have to close ranks and present a united picture. Social media groups are abuzz with messages criticising senior leadership and the arms-services divide. This issue needs to be tackled on priority. We have to be able to resolve matters within the organisation without people resorting to appealing to courts and the Armed Forces Tribunal. An organisation like the Army which genuinely cares for its men, should not be seen as pitted against them in court. I believe that a transparent approach addressing concerns and aspirations of all sections of the Army is not difficult to find. I am aware that our Chief is seriously looking at these issues.
Let us all come together — serving and retired. There is little point in looking at the society and saying that the Army will only mirror these standards. We have our own ethos and values. Shashi Tharoor, in India, From Midnight to the Millennium, writes, “the best of India can only be preserved by insulating the army from the pressures of the worst of India”.
We belong to one of the finest institutions in India. Today, when it is under increasing scrutiny, let us all work to uphold its honour and dignity. We owe it to the organisation we serve.
(The author retired as General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Northern Command, which had launched the surgical strikes against terror camps in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. Views are personal)

Latest Warrant Of Precedence- India

When Britishers were ruling India the Chief Of Army Staff was second in the Warrant of precedence. In Indian Govt, even the Dy CMs, Dy Speakers are above Chief of Army Staff. What a pity!!!

New Warrant of Precedence :
Now Issued by the office of HE, the President of India.

1. HE The President of India
2. HE The Vice President of India
3. PM
4. Governors of States within their respective States
5. Former Presidents
5A. Deputy PM.
6. Chief Justice of India / Speaker of Lok Sabha
7. Cabinet Ministers of the Union / CMs within their States / Former PMs
7A. Holders of Bharat Ratna Decoration 8. Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and High Commissioners of Commonwealth Countries / CMs outside their States / Governors outside their States
9. SC Judges.
9A. CEC/ CAG of India
10. Deputy Chairman RS / Deputy CMs of States / Deputy Speaker LS / Members Planning Commission / Ministers of State of the Union
11. Attorney General of India / Cabinet Secretary / LG within their UTs
12. Chiefs of Army, Air and Naval Staff 13. Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary accredited to India
14. Chairmen and Speakers of State Legislatures within their States / Chief Justices of High Courts within their jurisdictions
15. Cabinet Ministers of States within their States / CMs of UTs within their UTs / Deputy Union Ministers
16. Officiating Chiefs of Army, Air and Naval Staff of the rank of Lt Gen or equivalent
17. Chairman CAT / Chairman Minorities Commission / Chairman SC & ST Commission / Chairman UPSC / Chief Justices outside their jurisdiction / Puisne Judges of High Court within their jurisdictions
18. Cabinet Ministers of States outside their States / Ministers of State in States within their States / Chairmen and Speakers of State Legislatures outside their States
19. Chief Commissioners of UTs not having a Council of Ministers within their UTs / Deputy Ministers in States within their States
20. Deputy Chairmen and Deputy Speakers of State Legislatures outside their States / Minister of State in States outside their States / Puisne Judges of High Courts outside their jurisdictions.
21. MPs.
22. Deputy Ministers in State outside their States
23. Army Commanders (GsOC-in-C) / VCOAS and equivalent in other services / Chief Secretaries to States within their States / Members of Minority Commission / Secretaries to Govt of India / Secretary to President / Secretary to PM / Secretary Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha / Solicitor General
24. Lieutenant General or equivalent
25. Additional Secretaries to Govt of India / Addl Solicitor General / Advocate Generals of States / Chairman Tariff Commission / Chief Secretaries outside their States / Director CBI / DG BSF / DG CRPF / Director IB / Lt Governors outside their UTs / Members UPSC / PSOs of Armed Forces of the rank of Major General and equivalent
26. Officers of the rank of Major General and equivalent / Joint Secretary to Govt of India
27. Vice Chancellors of Universities
28. Commissioners of Divisions within their respective charges
29. Brigade Commanders within their respective Charges
30. Brigadiers / Inspector General of Forests / Inspectors General of Police
31. Commissioners of Divisions outside their charges
32. Secretaries to State Governments
33. Colonels / Accountants General / Chief Conservator of Forests / Chief Engineers / Inspectors General of Prisons / Members of ICS (now known as IAS) and Indian Political Service (now Indian Foreign Service) with 23 years ‘ standing 34. Controller Military Accounts and Pensions (now CDA)
35. Commissioners of IT / Deputy Commissioners within their districts
36. District and Session Judges within their charges
37. DIG of Police
38. Lt Col / Conservators of Forests / IAS and IFS with 18 years standing / SEs.
39. Excise Commissioners / Registrar of Co-operative Societies
40. DCs of Distt / Distt and Sessions Judges / SPs of Distt within their charges (also now known with variable nomenclature as DCP / SSP in certain States)
41. DIG of Prisons / Officers of other Class-I Services and Provincial Services with 20 years standing *
42. Majors / IAS and Foreign Service officers with 12 years service / SPs and DCPs with 15 to 20 years service*
43. Asst Commissioners of IT / Officers of Class-I and Provincial Services with 10 years standing
44. DE / DFO / EEs / SP of Central Jails.

_____________________ This order is issued regularly on the basis of joint consideration of the existing Central Warrant of Precedence, Warrant of Precedence – 1937,
Home Ministry office Letter No /11/99-Pub II dated 26 Dec 1966 and validity of contents of Letter No 12/1/2007-Public dated 14 Aug 2007


Blog Archive


The contents posted on these Web Site are personal reflections of the Viewers and do not reflect the views of the "Indian Military Veterans- Web" Team. Neither the "Indian Military Veterans -Web" nor the individual authors of any material on these Web accept responsibility for any loss or damage caused (including through negligence), which anyone may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of use of or reliance on information contained in or accessed through these Web.
This is not an official Web site. This forum is run by team of ex- Indian Army, Veterans for social networking of Indian Defence Veterans. It is not affiliated to or officially recognized by the MoD or the AHQ, or Government/ State.
The Indian Military Veterans Forum will endeavor to edit/ delete any material which is considered offensive, undesirable and or impinging on national security. The WebTeam is very conscious of potentially questionable content. However, where a content is posted and between posting and removal from the Web in such cases, the act does not reflect either the condoning or endorsing of said material by the Team.
Web Moderator: Capt KS Ramaswamy (Retd)

Useful links for Veterans