Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief

I completely agree with .youThere is an entry in the GLR pune ,11 Kahun Road 'proably old grant' Still they demand undertakings that the land belong to the Govt.Can they win a case before the Supreme Court with such an entry if they try to resume the land.I mentioned all this to the Honb'le Raksha  Manthri in a one to one meeting.But it has fallen on deaf ears. We have no old grant papers any where and that is basic to prove it is a grant land.In England the mother of our cantonment land laws they have come with the concept of Lost Grants.We are yet to catch up. R.Srinivasan --- On Fri, 22/7/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, 22 July, 2011, 9:47 AM Sir You are correct that nobody seems to have considered AA sec 44. A detailed analysis of how these DoBs entered various files has been attempted by one Col P.K.Das (Retd) in a letter published in Hindustan Times [http://www.publishaletter.com/readletter.jsp?plid=28489] Such incidents betray an appalling lack of intra-service communication / record keeping and convey that politics and manipulation continue to ride rampant in our fighting forces - perpetuated by politicians and babus.. Sarbajit Roy On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, vinay singh <vinay4299@gmail.com> wrote: No body has considered the implications of Army Act Section 44 (False answers on enrolment) While Gen VK Singh's DOB may have been mistakenly written as 10 May 1950 in the UPSC form, the same cannot be said for the enrolment form he filled when he joined IMA. As you may be knowing, gentleman cadets are enrolled as Havildars in ASC when they join IMA, in order to bring them under the Army Act. This form is signed by the GC himslef. A false answer in this form is punishable with upto five years imprisonment. It would be best if 10 May 1950 is accepted as the correct DOB, to avoid the embarrasment of possible prosecution under AA Section 44. Maj Gen VK Sngh (Retd) On 22 July 2011 18:55, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that CoAS has always maintained his DoB as 10 May 1951. It is only > in the UPSC where his DoB is shown as 1950. Some of the correspondence is at > this link. > http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/army-chiefs-age-row-pits-general-vs-general/ > > "So even as the force and the Defence Ministry grapples with another > controversy regarding its top officer, it is important to note that these > flurry of letters were running parallel to investigations in the Sukhna land > scam, where then Eastern Army Commander, Lieutenant General VK Singh had > ordered a Court of Inquiry that was to later reach the top, to the Military > Secretary Lieutenant General Avadesh Prakash and the Chief, General Deepak > Kapoor." > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If the COAS goes to Court, he will have it. One can't be selective in >> this case. He can't claim to reckon his DoB as 1950 when 1950 suited >> him and  1951  when 1951 suited him. If someone dig into the case he >> has to answer for the benefits he availed by counting his DoB as 1950 >> and 1951.If he is wise, I think he is will not press the case as he >> hardly get any gain other than one more year's service. He should >> honourably vacate the post in 2012 to enable his junior to become >> CoAS. in 2012 >> >> On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262 >> > >> > The government's decision on the date of birth of the man who heads the >> > Indian Army may not provide the closure many have been hoping for. >> > Experts >> > say a complicated and lengthy legal battle could follow in the next few >> > months. >> > >> > Yesterday, the Defence Minister said that the government had accepted >> > 1950 >> > as the year in which General VK Singh was born. The Army Chief has been >> > arguing that he was born a year later. The problem is that Army records >> > reflect both. >> > >> > The biggest implication is the year in which the Army Chief will retire >> > - >> > 2012, according to the government's decision. If it had accepted Mr >> > Singh's >> > date of birth, his tenure would have extended to 2013. >> > >> > Several legal experts, including three retired Chief Justices, have said >> > that Mr Singh has a strong case against the government, should he decide >> > to >> > go to court. >> > >> > The Defence Ministry has asked the official record-keeper of the Army - >> > the >> > Adjutant General's branch - to change Mr Singh's date of birth in its >> > records from May 10, 1950 to May 10, 1951. But defence regulations state >> > that service records cannot be altered - a fact that the Adjutant >> > General is >> > likely to stress today to the government. >> > >> > This is the first time that the age of a military chief has become a >> > matter >> > of national concern and debate. Former Army chiefs state that the >> > government's decision could inadvertently turn General Singh into a >> > lame-duck Army Chief. >> > >> > >> > Read more at: >> > >> > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262&cp >> > > >