What's new

Age row: Army chief likely to withdraw plea against government, says report

wrong....considering that no one knew how this age got changed to 50 in the ms's records..two year rule applies only if he had made that mistake...

also the final say in the age issue if ANY military service man is the adjutant general's office and they have made it very clear tat the dob is '51...also the sslc certificate is the most valid form of dob proof and it says '51...even the military seceratary's office had acknowledged tat it was '51 that was taken into consideration for all of gen's promotions....they also had written to the defence ministry acknowledging the same...but mysteriously the def min did not act on it...in this issue all buck stops at the door of anthony...he was just acting like a tool with no independent thinking and common sense.

No.You are issued documentation of your age in various forms in the defence service be it your ID card,stipend copies,pension documentation etc. and you get only two years to clear it up.It isn't as if the General woke up one fine day to find the fine print as erroneous.That's the law and the General did not abide by it and he certainly isn't above it.He's a government employee and the government just showed him who the real boss is.
 
wrong...both are the servants of the constitution....and the military has specific rules to obey the chain of command only if the command is within the constitution...not extra-constitutional..

and he as the coas is responsible for the lives of the jawans working under him...if a govt order violates that, puts his soldier''s lives in jeopardy, hampers their operational ability and may cause law and order problem then he is well within his rights to speak out, publicly.

he is sworn to protect the borders of india...not obey to the whims and fancies of baboons sitting in the defence ministry..especially when they are not legal...
Armed forces lack the capability to decide what is constitutional and what is not. They can go to court, but then that guy will not last long, he will be sacked unceremoniously.
It has happened, and it will happen again.
This specific case is personal, but I am giving a general idea of what happens in case of insubordination to civilian authority.

Armed forces are not independent authority like judiciary or election commission or AG.
 
No.You are issued documentation of your age in various forms in the defence service be it your ID card,stipend copies,pension documentation etc. and you get only two years to clear it up.It isn't as if the General woke up one fine day to find the fine print as erroneous.That's the law and the General did not abide by it and he certainly isn't above it.He's a government employee and the government just showed him who the real boss is.

lol boss..all th documentation inclusing the id card are printed with '51. you did not know that ? :lol:

Read this link..

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/age-row-general-v.-k.-singh-supreme-court-government/1/169235.html
 
Armed forces lack the capability to decide what is constitutional and what is not. They can go to court, but then that guy will not last long, he will be sacked unceremoniously.
It has happened, and it will happen again.
This specific case is personal, but I am giving a general idea of what happens in case of insubordination to civilian authority.

Armed forces are not independent authority like judiciary or election commission or AG.

going to court..that is what has happened....if the govt is sure of its case then they should let it play out...surely the judges in supreme court know enough law to decide who is correct and who is wrong...

cracking the whip will only betray that this corrupt govt is afraid of losing face legally and constitutionally....if the general is sacked it is not he who will become unceremonious..but rather the govt and its dirty politics that will become unceremonious...

how difficult is it for you people to understand that ALL..and i mean ALL legal documentation of the coas is with the dob '51...apply common sense and say how can the govt's position be justified...unless you are a die hard congress supporter..that si just not possible...
 
lol boss..all th documentation inclusing the id card are printed with '51. you did not know that ? :lol:

Beta,Then why is sad ol' General still harping on one sole document as his dear life.Perhaps an opinion of an ex Major General will do you a world of good;

If the general wanted to change his birth date, he could have done so earlier; but accepting his demand will go a long way in salvaging the government’s long-term relationship with its military.

A plea to treat 1950 as the army chief’s year of birth will be a setback for the army’s cleansing drive

The last few months have seen Army Chief V K Singh’s name in the media in a controversy relating to his age. The general is an outstanding soldier who is a renowned strategist and a brilliant practitioner of military craft. I have known him well for over four decades. I, however, differ with him and his well-wishers on a few counts.

The general has submitted a statutory complaint on the matter of his birth date. Army Act Section 27 affords a right to any military person who feels wronged by the decision of any superior to seek remedy from the central government. The remedy is available to all, from the junior-most soldiers to the senior-most commanders. There are a number of reasons that make the case of the army chief different.

General V K Singh joined the National Defence Academy in June 1966. Three years later he entered the Indian Military Academy and, after completing his training, was commissioned in the Infantry in June, 1970. The year 1950 was recorded as his year of birth when he filled out the UPSC admission form for the National Defence Academy. Sometime in 2006, an entry of 1951 in the matriculation certificate came to be reported. There are discrepancies in the documents held by the Adjutant General and Military Secretary Branches of the army headquarters.

The regulations enjoin that any discrepancy in the date of birth is to be reported within the first couple of years after entry into service. The claim is then examined and settled. In this case, the officer could have taken timely recourse to those provisions to get the actual date entered in his dossier.

While he was a major general and waiting to be cleared for elevation to a three-star general he gave a written assurance that he would abide by the 1950 year and not to stake any claim for the year to be reckoned as 1951. Having once forwarded such an undertaking and gained promotion to a higher rank, would it be open for him to demand that 1951 be accepted as the year of his birth?


There are numerous allegations and counter allegations. It has been asserted that V K Singh was pressured to submit an undertaking to avoid withholding the process of the entire selection board.

Some believe that the case was put on the fast track by engineering a query under the Right to Information Act enquiring about the dates of birth of all army commanders and above. Certain members of political parties are reported to have met the prime minister to plead the army chief’s case. The outcome is not known.

Army headquarters took the unusual course of seeking the opinion of three former Chief Justices. They ruled in favour of the army chief. Perhaps they were approached without the government’s concurrence. If so, such a precedent may have dangerous consequences. Any soldier, say, a person convicted by a court martial, may obtain and forward comments and recommendations of former judges or law officers to demand a reversal of valid and bonafide decisions.

The matter is being projected by a few as a civil-military conflict. This view appears to overlook the fact that the matter was handled by three successive military secretaries starting with General Richard Khare. If the army did not agree to accept 1951 as year of birth, would the fault lie with the ministry of defence?

A plea to treat 1950 as the army chief’s year of birth will be a setback for the army’s cleansing drive. Can a senior commander be allowed to use his headquarters to pursue his personal case against the higher authorities? Should a general be retained to serve as a chief if he has any complaint against the government?

The army chief has risen to the very top position in the army, which is administered by well-regulated orders and rules. It is ironic that having attained the senior-most position he has now chosen to project his grievances against the system.

A statutory complaint in the shape of an alternate remedy has to be first submitted before approaching a court of law seeking judicial remedy. Any delay in disposing of the complaint or an unfavourable decision may lead to the matter being taken to Armed Forces Tribunal and further acrimony.


Maj Gen Nilendra Kumar (Retd)Maj Gen Nilendra Kumar (Retd)

Former Judge Advocate General of the Indian Army


Age row: is the army chief right?
 
going to court..that is what has happened....if the govt is sure of its case then they should let it play out...surely the judges in supreme court know enough law to decide who is correct and who is wrong...

cracking the whip will only betray that this corrupt govt is afraid of losing face legally and constitutionally....if the general is sacked it is not he who will become unceremonious..but rather the govt and its dirty politics that will become unceremonious...

how difficult is it for you people to understand that ALL..and i mean ALL legal documentation of the coas is with the dob '51...apply common sense and say how can the govt's position be justified...unless you are a die hard congress supporter..that si just not possible...

I repeat, I am not talking specifically this one, as it is a personal issue of chief, not an army wide issue.
I was talking about armed forced raising a voice in general, that considered serious offence in India.

It seems your opposition to govt is based on fact that it is congress govt, so you have an issue not me.
The last govt which sacked a navy chief was a BJP govt, but I think that is their prerogative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Bhagwat
 
The report also says government will accept his age as 1951, which means he is no retiring.

No I believe he will still retire in May 2012. As he has constantly stated- he serves at the leisure of the govt and the govt has stated that he is to retire this May, he never disputed that. It was the age issue he was contesting, as he said it was about honour and integrity. So it appears a compromise has been made, the govt accepts his age, he leaves when told to.
 
bad move chief....you raised our hopes by standing against a blatant injustice for prmoting a pliant candidate for the post...but you seem to be backing now...dont do that...we are with you...


If the government accepts his YoB as being 1951, what would be the basis to continue suing the government?

Wrong.Army law stipulates any clarification on age must be documented within two years of joining the service.The General would've had his behind kicked out of court even before the hearing began.

No.You are issued documentation of your age in various forms in the defence service be it your ID card,stipend copies,pension documentation etc. and you get only two years to clear it up.It isn't as if the General woke up one fine day to find the fine print as erroneous.That's the law and the General did not abide by it and he certainly isn't above it.He's a government employee and the government just showed him who the real boss is.

That is not quite correct, the two year law applies only when there is an error in the documents of proof of age. Error in documentation by a branch in the military (only one branch - the MS branch got it wrong, the AG branch which is actually tasked with keeping the records got it right as 1951) is not covered by that law & it is quite probable that the SC would strike down the Government's contention since it has previously ruled that the school leaving certificate is the the only proof of age acceptable.

Yes he has to, because there is a succession plan and others need to be given chance.
I am not sure he has any exception talent, even if he had, he should retire.

There are no succession plans that are acceptable, we are a republic; not a monarchy. He certainly should retire but at the designated time (as decided by age just like for millions of govt servants). The concept of a succession plan is quite simply odd because all those in line now are there due to an accident of fate (the death in office of Gen. B.C.Joshi). It is true that the CoAS serves at the pleasure of the President of India but cutting short tenure should not be a decision taken lightly & especially not for continuing a "succession plan".
 
That is not quite correct, the two year law applies only when there is an error in the documents of proof of age. Error in documentation by a branch in the military (only one branch - the MS branch got it wrong, the AG branch which is actually tasked with keeping the records got it right as 1951) is not covered by that law & it is quite probable that the SC would strike down the Government's contention since it has previously ruled that the school leaving certificate is the the only proof of age acceptable.

Doesn't quite make sense as the Army chief is the erring party by not filing for a correction within the framework provided to him.To bring it up for notice way past his legal ambit(by that I refer to within the Army high command)to do so even after submitting to written documents(not one,not two but three signed documents declaring his said age to be taken from the year 1950)that he wouldn't do so in advance(which would imply he was well aware of the predicament and didn't come as a surprise to him at all)...earnest apologies but I sense kernels of BS on the part of the General.

Let's keep it straight,He's just playing for time and would've found himself in dire straits had his case gone through if you discount the random eccentricities Indian courts are known to exhibit.
 
Doesn't quite make sense as the Army chief is the erring party by not filing for a correction within the framework provided to him.To bring it up for notice way past his legal ambit(by that I refer to within the Army high command)to do so even after submitting to written documents(not one,not two but three signed documents declaring his said age to be taken from the year 1950)that he wouldn't do so in advance(which would imply he was well aware of the predicament and didn't come as a surprise to him at all)...earnest apologies but I sense kernels of BS on the part of the General.

Let's keep it straight,He's just playing for time and would've found himself in dire straits had his case gone through if you discount the random eccentricities Indian courts are known to exhibit.

Not true, the AG branch correctly records his age as 1951 and that is what it says on his id card. If there is discrepancy within the army's records & even one supports Gen Singh's claim, then the two year rule or the onus being on Gen Singh to have his record corrected stands trashed

For 35 years and through six promotions, May 10, 1951, was recorded as the year of birth of General V.K. Singh. His birth and matriculation certificates, his service records, his IMA ID card and NDA records all reflect 1951 birth.
 
The general already intends to retire when the government tells him to.......regardless of him winning the case or otherwise.

All the guy wants is for the government to accept '51 as his year of birth. Its just to show everyone he wasn't a lier like everyone wanted to make it seem like.

---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Also, hinduguy is right on this thread. The chiefs of all military services are indeed government dogs.....infact, the entire armed forces of India is....and that's how it should be.
 
[/COLOR]Also, hinduguy is right on this thread. The chiefs of all military services are indeed government dogs.....infact, the entire armed forces of India is....and that's how it should be.

no they are not...especially when the govt doesnt know what it is doing...

take for instance this...it is asking the adjutant general (who is constitutionally mandated to keep the records of army personnneland is the final say in the matter) to chnage the dob of the general to '50 from his correct '51...:woot:

ever heard of such madness ? especially when all the legal records show his dob as '51 ?
 
I repeat, I am not talking specifically this one, as it is a personal issue of chief, not an army wide issue.
I was talking about armed forced raising a voice in general, that considered serious offence in India.

It seems your opposition to govt is based on fact that it is congress govt, so you have an issue not me.
The last govt which sacked a navy chief was a BJP govt, but I think that is their prerogative.
Vishnu Bhagwat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you go through my posts on this issue...i belive i have already said vishnu bhagwat took it lying down...without standing up....but coas has stood up...also i dont know the full facts of the vishhnu bhagwat episode as media was not active those days and also he took it lying down...

but gen vks has stood p and we have the records in public domain....just base your thougts on common sense and logic without going into technicalities..

if some one denied you some opportunity and even called you a liar just because you want your dob to be correct will you take it lying down or stand up to it ?
 
if you go through my posts on this issue...i belive i have already said vishnu bhagwat took it lying down...without standing up....but coas has stood up...also i dont know the full facts of the vishhnu bhagwat episode as media was not active those days and also he took it lying down...

but gen vks has stood p and we have the records in public domain....just base your thougts on common sense and logic without going into technicalities..

if some one denied you some opportunity and even called you a liar just because you want your dob to be correct will you take it lying down or stand up to it ?

He is right in his conviction that it is a matter of honor for him. Civilians might think it a non-issue but if our guardians do not have honor then our country should hangs its head in shame! He did the right think to go to the SC, he has ensured that no chain of command is broken, he is also a citizen of India and has the right to disagree and seek justice, by all counts he is more than just a citizen!
 
Not true, the AG branch correctly records his age as 1951 and that is what it says on his id card. If there is discrepancy within the army's records & even one supports Gen Singh's claim, then the two year rule or the onus being on Gen Singh to have his record corrected stands trashed

Can't agree with you.He conveniently used the year 1950 multiple times when it came to climbing up the career ladder.Not only did he NOT seek to reconcile the difference,he used it to his advantage and also submitted signed documents as to not challenge the same in the future.Now that he occupies the top slot there is,he finds it an issue of personal dignity? Just doesn't cut it brother,not at least to my understanding of personal dignity by shamelessly going back on your written word.

Not to worry.The government is picking up his slack of not reconciling his actual registered age;


With less than a week to go before Army chief VK Singh's petition on the row over his age comes up in the Supreme Court, sources have told NDTV that the Ministry of Defence has written a letter to the Adjutant's General's branch asking for an amendment in records for the Army Chief's year of birth.

According to the records of the Adjutant's General - the official record keeper for the Indian Army - General Singh's year of birth is 1951. The government wants it reconciled to 1950.

When the petition comes up for hearing in the Supreme Court on February 3, the government is likely to argue that according to its records General Singh was born in 1950 and not 1951, thereby avoiding the entire controversy of two different year of births existing on its record.

General Singh had taken the battle with the government over his age to court on January 16 - becoming the first serving military chief to do so - in the hope of establishing that he is correct in claiming that he was born in 1951, not 1950. Documents with the Army reflect both dates.

In a petition filed in the Supreme Court, he has asked for an explanation of why his claim that he was born in 1951 and not 1950 has been rejected by the Ministry of Defence.

The government says that documents that list the date of birth as 1950 trump the others. It also says that many promotions granted to General Singh used 1950 to establish his seniority. Going by 1950 as the year of birth means the General has to retire at the end of May; accepting 1951 as his birth date would qualify him for another year in office, though he has said in his petition that it is the government's prerogative to determine his tenure.

The Army Chief had met with Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju who had publicly criticised him for setting an "unhealthy precedent" by taking his dispute to court. Defence Minister AK Antony had said he is "sorry and sad" about the government's dispute with the Army Chief about how old he really is.


Army chief age row: Government wants records reconciled

They are letting him off easy if you ask me....
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom