Make uniform policy on including military service pay in salary: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, September 1
Making it clear that ex-servicemen are reemployed for their dedication, discipline and sacrifice for the nation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called upon the Union Ministry of Finance to put the entire litigation on inclusion of Military Service Pay (MSP) in their salary on re-employment in civilian organisations to rest.
Put all litigation to rest
Ex-servicemen are re-employed for their sacrifice for the nation, their dedication and discipline to their job. They are treated differently from civilians and are extended an edge over civil servants. It is high time for the Ministry of Finance to take a call and put all litigations to rest. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
“The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, is hereby directed to look into the matter and resolve the issue at the earliest,” Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, calling for the formulation of a uniform policy after seeking opinions of various stakeholders.
The assertion came as Justice Bansal dismissed a bunch of more than 70 petitions against the Union of India and other respondents for MSP inclusion in the pay of defence personnel upon their re-employment in civilian organisations. The petitioners’ contention was that MSP was an additional benefit granted to the defence personnel over civilians.
Justice Bansal said the question for adjudication was whether MSP granted to defence personnel would be considered for pay fixation, while re-employment in civilian organisations. The government’s general policy was that pension was deducted from the pay granted on reemployment.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) clarified that MSP would continue to form part of pension. But it would not be deducted from pay while deducting pension.
Justice Bansal asserted DoPT’s opinion could be understood from an example. If pension was Rs 1, 000, including Rs 100 MSP, Rs 900 as pension would be excluded, though the ex-serviceman was getting Rs 1,000.
The Bench was told that the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pension had issued different instructions, which were to some extent contradictory to each other. Composite instructions were required to be issued by Ministry of Finance after seeking the opinion of other ministries.
The Bench found that the Ministry of Defence’s opinion, cited by petitioners in support of their claim, did not hold sway over PSUs. Justice Bansal added the Ministry of Finance had forwarded letters/instructions of Ministry of Defence and DoPT to different organisations/ authorities. But it neither expressed its opinion, nor directed the authorities to act in a particular manner.
