NEW DELHI: The internecine conflict throughout the nation’s defence establishment has peaked over again, with the armed forces reiterating they're going to not pay heed to contemporary directions issued by the defence ministry’s leader administrative officer (CAO) to accord upper rank status to the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQ-CS) officials.
A director of the AFHQ-CS should be equated with a one-star general or Brigadier and a principal director with a two-star Major-General, as in step with the “administrative order” issued by the CAO’s workplace on October 30 to the chiefs of the Army, Navy, IAF and Integrated Defence Staff in addition to heads of inter-service organizations, said resources.
This turns into transparent since the order spells out the “channel of reporting”, as “authorized by the Raksha Mantri (Nirmala Sitharaman)”, to specify principal directors will file best to Lieutenant Generals, and directors to Major Generals and above.
This has clearly brought about consternation in the hierarchy-conscious armed forces, with the Army speeding off a reply on Monday to nearly reject the order. The reply refers to an previous Army letter that held: “It’s observed with worry that the workplace of the CAO has been issuing communications and addressing letters as directions to the Service chiefs. No cognizance is being taken of such communications. This has the approval of the appropriate competent authority.”
Military resources added that the order by the CAO, a joint secretary who oversees the AFHQ-CS cadre, should had been addressed to the Principal Personnel Officers’ Committee of the armed forces as an alternative of being issued to the chiefs directly. “More importantly, it’s an unacceptable reporting channel and posting order. The MoD had itself previous held that no false rank equivalence might be created or allowed,” said a supply.
The whole factor of rank parity and “false equivalence” has been festering for lengthy in the MoD, especially in connection to the AFHQ-CS, which was once created as an inside Group B secretariat fortify cadre for the armed forces in 1968.
The Army in May had written a strong letter to accuse the AFHQ-CS of gross useful and financial irregularities in its cadre restructuring in response to planned misrepresentation of facts to the federal government, as was once first reported by TOI.
The Army had identified that posts of 7 new principal directors, in addition to the four present ones, and about 30 new directors were sanctioned for the AFHQ-CS cadre “with none useful requirement” being expressed for them by the armed forces.
A director of the AFHQ-CS should be equated with a one-star general or Brigadier and a principal director with a two-star Major-General, as in step with the “administrative order” issued by the CAO’s workplace on October 30 to the chiefs of the Army, Navy, IAF and Integrated Defence Staff in addition to heads of inter-service organizations, said resources.
This turns into transparent since the order spells out the “channel of reporting”, as “authorized by the Raksha Mantri (Nirmala Sitharaman)”, to specify principal directors will file best to Lieutenant Generals, and directors to Major Generals and above.
This has clearly brought about consternation in the hierarchy-conscious armed forces, with the Army speeding off a reply on Monday to nearly reject the order. The reply refers to an previous Army letter that held: “It’s observed with worry that the workplace of the CAO has been issuing communications and addressing letters as directions to the Service chiefs. No cognizance is being taken of such communications. This has the approval of the appropriate competent authority.”
Military resources added that the order by the CAO, a joint secretary who oversees the AFHQ-CS cadre, should had been addressed to the Principal Personnel Officers’ Committee of the armed forces as an alternative of being issued to the chiefs directly. “More importantly, it’s an unacceptable reporting channel and posting order. The MoD had itself previous held that no false rank equivalence might be created or allowed,” said a supply.
The whole factor of rank parity and “false equivalence” has been festering for lengthy in the MoD, especially in connection to the AFHQ-CS, which was once created as an inside Group B secretariat fortify cadre for the armed forces in 1968.
The Army in May had written a strong letter to accuse the AFHQ-CS of gross useful and financial irregularities in its cadre restructuring in response to planned misrepresentation of facts to the federal government, as was once first reported by TOI.
The Army had identified that posts of 7 new principal directors, in addition to the four present ones, and about 30 new directors were sanctioned for the AFHQ-CS cadre “with none useful requirement” being expressed for them by the armed forces.
Civil-Military divide erupts yet again over 'false rank equivalence'
![Civil-Military divide erupts yet again over 'false rank equivalence']()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
November 30, 2018
Rating:
