By Maj Gen V K Singh via e-mail

I had raised this earlier also but due to lack of data, there was no progress in the matter.

When I was in RAW, I had noticed that officers from the Armed Forces, when re-employed in civil posts after retirement, were appointed in a rank lower than what they held before retirement, if there was a gap between the date of retirement and the re-employment. (This happened in the case of Brig NP Jyoti of Signals, who was employed as a Deputy Director) However, if they are serving in civil posts on deputation and reemployed immediately after retirement, they continue in the same appointment. (This happened with me, and several others such as Brigadier Y. Bhardawaj, SC Anand, Ujjal Dasgupta etc, all from Signals).

However, in all cases, their salaries are fixed after deducting their pensions.

Strange as it may seem, this is not the case with officers of the Central Services. I had noticed that most of them are re-employed in the same rank. Most interesting of all, they get their salaries in addition to their pensions.

A few years back, E Sreedharan who built the Delhi Metro filed a case in the Delhi Court. In his earlier appointment in the Konkan railway, he had been re-employed after retirement from the railways. His salary was fixed after deducting his pension. The Delhi High Court upheld his plea and the Government was ordered to refund the amount deducted from his salary.

I sent several letters and RTI applications to various authorities including the CGDA, Ministry of Finance, MOD, DOPT etc, asking for the rules on the subject, but got no clear answers. Then, I filed RTI applications with various authorities asking for the names of officers of All India and Central Services granted extension of service and re-employment after retirement during the period 2005 – 2011.I also asked for the sanctions and the salaries. The applications were sent to DOPT (for IAS and IPS officers), Ministry of External Affairs (IFS officers), Department of Revenue (Income Tax and and Customs officers). The data was asked in respect of officers of the rank of Joint Secretary/IG/ Commissioner.

The replies I received are interesting. They clearly bring out that the IAS and IFS cadres are the Brahmins’, who get the best out of the Govt. Not only do they manage extensions, but when re-employed, *do not lose their pensions*. Almost all Chief Secretaries of States are given extensions based on a letter from the Chief Minister to the PM. The grounds for grant of extension, as contained in the sanctions, are interesting *(administrative exigencies, general elections, golden jubilee programme, enable newly elected members of Municipality to present the budget, rehabilitate flood affected people, preparation of report of task force on pharmaceuticals etc*).

As for re-employment, there is no limit on the number and the period. No less than 18 officers of the IFS were e re-employed during this period, mostly as ambassadors. The number in the IAS is much larger. The DOPT website shows 65 secretaries, 21 Addl Secretaries and 21 Joint Secretaries who had retired were still serving in 2005. The numbers in subsequent years were 61, 13 and 22 (2006); 44, 6 and 12 (2007) and 27, 4 and 2 (2008). According the list received from the MEA, all the re-employed officers were drawing their full salary. (26000, revised to 80,000 after the 6th CPC for secretaries and ambassadors). Details of salaries drawn by re-employed IAS officers have not been received, but should be the same as for IFS.

According to the DOPT, no government servant is to be granted an extension beyond the age of 60 as per FR 56(d), except for certain exceptions such as the Directors of IB, RAW and CBI and the Secretaries of Defence, Home and Finance. Re-employment is also granted only for two years, with the pension being deducted while fixing their salaries.Why do these orders apply only to officers from the Armed Forces? If this is not discrimination, then what is?

Is this not a fit case to be taken up in the High Court or Armed Forces Tribunal? Can the RDOA or IESM take this on?