PDA

View Full Version : Non adherance to GOI Orders



ashinavy
15-05-2009, 07:24 AM
Dear Friends!!

Hi

I am a serving Indian Armed Forces Officer (Major) very dejected at the way the senior officer are enjoying their privileges and are depriving their juniors of their rights.

Now with the implementation of SCPC all officers have been made entitled to fly by air on temporary duty, LTC and permanent duty/transfers. However, the senior officers of the forces have decided that due to paucity of funds, all Majors and below will not be allowed to travel by air and will continue to travel by train as usual.

Now we all know that SCPC has benefited only and only the officers above the rank of Lt Col, and I have no real problems with it, because it is good for the service. So the only good thing / perk that was given to Majors and below was eligibility to travel by air.

But our senior officers have taken a complete unjust decision without bothering about our rights and privileges.

I would like to know from all u Gconnect members that: -

(a) Is is legally correct to deprive some officers of their rights while senior continue to enjoy all privileges (including Admirals continue to travel by Executive/business class, not withstanding paucity of funds).

(b) Can I challenge legally this discriminatory order issued against the GOI orders?

(c) Is their any one else who share my views. Shouldn't the rules be same for all officers irrespective of their rank?

Kindly send your views

Regards

tvenkatam
15-05-2009, 11:33 AM
Dear Friend,

There is no reason for you to get dejected. After all, your problem is not very uncommon. Officers at the helm of affairs always tend to avail the privileges/perks themselves rather than sharing broad mindedly with the other eligible lower rung officers.

There can not, however, be an official order denying the travel entitlement to a particular cadre. Such an order, if issued, can be challenged on the grounds of discrimination.

Government accepted many of the recommendations which warranted enhanced provision of funds. While implementing the revised rates of allowances, instructions to contain the expenditure to within the budgetary provision were also issued. The discrimination emanates at this stage itself. When the rule entails you higher eligibility and at the same time, the Government expects you not to exceed the already existent budgetary provision, how can only the officers be blamed for the inevitable unequal sharing of funds?

There is, in fact, no paucity of funds with the Government as apprehended. Denial of adequate financial support to the expenditure expressly approved by one’s own self is a retrograde step and is counter productive.