| . . . . . We can instead expect announcement of some confidence-building measures over Kashmir at the end of the meeting. //// 1. We can also expect an exchange of FIRE in Kashmir, as well as all along the boarder. to jerk the MEA & HM, DOLTS awake & may be more PRAGMATIC. 2. Also signal how much the Pakis care about India's CBM. To coq a snook at their "dear" American bed mates, in "appreciation" of H Clinton's "India's leadership in SE Asia" Sort of DON'T DISTURB SIGN ! 3. A co-ordinated Terrorists attack (may be down south) to teach THE DYSLEXIC, what is meant by Co-ordination & Attack & show THEIR REACH ! ! ! ODs anyone ? Thanks for your time. Best Wishes. Parvez Jamasji Tel : 91-22-2412 1656 > 9 am to 9 pm = GMT + 5 1/2 hrs. Mob : 91 - 9820813951 \ 98201 88926 Minoo Mansion, 799 J J Road, Dadar, Bombay - 400 014, India --- On Sun, 24/7/11, Reet <reet@kamlafauji.in> wrote: From: Reet <reet@kamlafauji.in> |
Saturday, July 23, 2011
[HumJanenge] II Re: Pragmatic Euphony
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
| They can be sued for adultery A complaint will produce them before court who takes cognizance of the offence. RS.rinivasan --- On Sat, 23/7/11, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
From all the replies received thus far, it appears as if, wife can easily start living with her boyfriend hiding her details of residence and husband is helpless.
--Abhinav
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <bhanot1952@gmail.com> wrote:
yES, IT IS SECTION 9 OF THE HINDUMARRIAGE ACTThe restitution of conjugal rights is one of the reliefs that are provided to the spouses in distress in the institution of marriage by law. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The section of the Act says:
"When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for the restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly".
EXPLANATION: Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for the withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.[1]
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:Is Our constitution provides a husband, a right to know where is his wife living, and with whom?Incidently, all the relatives have turned deaf. She is working in a multnational company which is known to the husband.Can RTI application be moved in this case to an apprpriate ministry - viz Social welfare, or family welfare.Silence of wife over e-mails, and phone has made husban's life miserable?
--ThanksAbhinav"Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts..."
--
WARM REGARDS
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Graphix, Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-3013240
FAX: 91-172-2655763
Mail Me
--
Thanks
Abhinav
"
Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts...
"
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
move application to epfo to ask for forms filled by individual employees
On 7/23/11, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Our constitution provides a husband, a right to know where is his wife
> living, and with whom?
> Incidently, all the relatives have turned deaf. She is working in a
> multnational company which is known to the husband.
>
>
> Can RTI application be moved in this case to an apprpriate ministry - viz
> Social welfare, or family welfare.
>
> Silence of wife over e-mails, and phone has made husban's life miserable?
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Abhinav
>
> "
> Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that
> never hurts...
> "
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
| There is no constitutional right.only a detective can be employed and further proceedings taken legally R.Srinivasan --- On Sat, 23/7/11, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] THIS IS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN INDIA TOO - CORRUPTION WILL ELIMINATE OVERNIGHT
This call for vigilante justice scares me.
On 23-Jul-2011, at 12:02 PM, jaiprakash narain wrote:
weldone all
--- On Sat, 23/7/11, Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] THIS IS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN INDIA TOO - CORRUPTION WILL ELIMINATE OVERNIGHT
To: "Vishal Kudchadkar" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, surendera@avissoftware.com
Date: Saturday, 23 July, 2011, 7:41 AM
Dear Shri Bhanot,
Thanks for your message. Your optimism is praiseworthy. India is not China and will not become China (I have lived in China and prepared some
feasibility studies under UNIDO assignment). Let Sonia Gandhi and Sheila Dxit show some respect to Right to Information Act as well recommendations
of the Delhi Lokayukta's recommendation for action against PWD Minister in Delhi Govt.
Depaertments in Delhi Government and Delhi Development Authority are openly murdering RTI ACT by refusing information or giving intentionally
wrong and irrelevant information. If you go to CIC, his orders/decisions are not implemented for years together. Writing to Sheila Dixit who has one
Mr. Kapoor with her to handle such cases and he just does the work of post office and marks to some body who is expert in delays and killing
without providing any information or axction.
With this personal experience, and seeing blame game all around among politicians, let us hope that day will come soon (may not be in your life-time
or my life-time) when Poor Real India will get delivery and justice and not lipservice and growth projections of Ambanis or Mukherjee's.
H. D. Goyal
23.07.2011
From: surendera@avissoftware.com
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:20:58 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge] THIS IS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN INDIA TOO - CORRUPTION WILL ELIMINATE OVERNIGHT
To:
Dear All,The Kalmadis, Rajas, Yedurapa, Ballery Brothers and all those whose names are not yet out should meet the same fate as in the news below. I am a firm believer that this will happen in India too. If Government won't do it, people will do it.
<Two Cines Offiser executed for corruption.jpg>
--
Our biggest competition is never with the others. Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter where we end up - first or at last. If we do our best to do better than before,
We've won!!
Warm Regards
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Coordinator, RTIFED, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523
Mail Me
DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
yES, IT IS SECTION 9 OF THE HINDUMARRIAGE ACT
--
WARM REGARDS
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Graphix, Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-3013240
FAX: 91-172-2655763
Mail Me
The restitution of conjugal rights is one of the reliefs that are provided to the spouses in distress in the institution of marriage by law. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The section of the Act says:
"When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for the restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly".
EXPLANATION: Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for the withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.[1]
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
Is Our constitution provides a husband, a right to know where is his wife living, and with whom?Incidently, all the relatives have turned deaf. She is working in a multnational company which is known to the husband.Can RTI application be moved in this case to an apprpriate ministry - viz Social welfare, or family welfare.Silence of wife over e-mails, and phone has made husban's life miserable?
--ThanksAbhinav"Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts..."
--
WARM REGARDS
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Graphix, Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-3013240
FAX: 91-172-2655763
Mail Me
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
There are congenial rights of a husband to force here wife to come back to his fold under Hindu Marriage Act or under IPC. I will come back to you with exact
information later.
--
WARM REGARDS
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Graphix, Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-3013240
FAX: 91-172-2655763
Mail Me
information later.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Abhinav
The Constitution has REMOVED the right of husbands to treat their wives like possessions and chattel (and hence recoiver their stolen property under common law), and replaced it with laws which elevate wives to status of Goddess Durga who can harass mankind (and their others and sisters) and reduce them to ashes.
In your friend's case, please appoint a good advocate who specialises in FAMILY LAW.
Do not initiate any action at the wife's place of work, that is deemed as "cruelty"
The husband can in initiate petition for what is known as "restitution of conjugal rights" (which is usually a prelude to seeking divorce / separation)
SarbajitOn Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
Is Our constitution provides a husband, a right to know where is his wife living, and with whom?Incidently, all the relatives have turned deaf. She is working in a multnational company which is known to the husband.Can RTI application be moved in this case to an apprpriate ministry - viz Social welfare, or family welfare.Silence of wife over e-mails, and phone has made husban's life miserable?--ThanksAbhinav
--
WARM REGARDS
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Graphix, Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-3013240
FAX: 91-172-2655763
Mail Me
Re: [HumJanenge] Open Question
Dear Abhinav
The Constitution has REMOVED the right of husbands to treat their wives like possessions and chattel (and hence recoiver their stolen property under common law), and replaced it with laws which elevate wives to status of Goddess Durga who can harass mankind (and their others and sisters) and reduce them to ashes.
In your friend's case, please appoint a good advocate who specialises in FAMILY LAW.
Do not initiate any action at the wife's place of work, that is deemed as "cruelty"
The husband can in initiate petition for what is known as "restitution of conjugal rights" (which is usually a prelude to seeking divorce / separation)
Sarbajit
The Constitution has REMOVED the right of husbands to treat their wives like possessions and chattel (and hence recoiver their stolen property under common law), and replaced it with laws which elevate wives to status of Goddess Durga who can harass mankind (and their others and sisters) and reduce them to ashes.
In your friend's case, please appoint a good advocate who specialises in FAMILY LAW.
Do not initiate any action at the wife's place of work, that is deemed as "cruelty"
The husband can in initiate petition for what is known as "restitution of conjugal rights" (which is usually a prelude to seeking divorce / separation)
Sarbajit
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
Is Our constitution provides a husband, a right to know where is his wife living, and with whom?Incidently, all the relatives have turned deaf. She is working in a multnational company which is known to the husband.Can RTI application be moved in this case to an apprpriate ministry - viz Social welfare, or family welfare.Silence of wife over e-mails, and phone has made husban's life miserable?--ThanksAbhinav
Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
I think Col Kurup has misunderstood what I wrote. The DOB was written
as 1950 instead of 1951 to facilitate entry into NDA and not IMA. At
that time, The qualification for NDA was matriculation (Class 10) and
the age was between 14 and 16. The exact dates for each course were
published in the papers.
as 1950 instead of 1951 to facilitate entry into NDA and not IMA. At
that time, The qualification for NDA was matriculation (Class 10) and
the age was between 14 and 16. The exact dates for each course were
published in the papers.
After passing out from NDA, cadets automatically went to IMA. The age
was not material. They were enrolled as Havildars in ASC in order to
bring them under the Army Act. This procedure was followed for all
regular courses. During 1963-64, the procedure was probably suspended
due to the emergency.
Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)
n 23 July 2011 10:41, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. Absolutely No. WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA both army and civil have a
> right to know the truth. Let us come to the remedial part or solution
> to the above error later.Has the authorities found out how such
> mistake got into the records ? Was it a human error or deliberate
> attempt by anyone. The government cannot hoodwink the Nation by not
> telling as to how two dates of birth happened to be in vogue in the
> recordsof an Army Officer. Let us not bother whether the officer is a
> Capt or General.
>
> Anyone who has the inside picture of higher heirarchy whether civil or
> military knows as to how the above information leaked to the public.
> There is a chain of officers who might benefit or loose depending on
> when Gen VK Singh retire. in 2012 or 2013 ie., his date of birth
> 10-May 1950 or 10- May 1951. There is every likelyhood that someone
> from that chain might have leaked the information while the Army might
> be sorting it out in its own style.
>
> Third issue is how this might have happened. If Maj Gen VK Singh's
> views above is correct., ie., every Gentlemen Cadets were enrolled in
> ASC as Hav to bring him under Army Act, it gives an indication of
> likely possibility. I am not able to comment much on that as in my
> time there was no such practice. and I was not enrolled in ASC as Hav
> when I was a Gentleman
> Cadet of IMA during 1963.However I feel that there is certain minimum
> age limit laid down for one's enrolment as an ASC Hav. If Gen VK
> Singh had enrolled as an ASC Hav when he was a Gentlemen Cadet he
> couldnot have done it unless he had attained that age. With his date
> of birth as 10-5-1951 he might have not been eligible. Someone with or
> without the knowledge of young Gentleman Cadet VK Singh might have
> entered his date of birth as 10-5-1950 and forgotten it till someone
> who was aware of it might have dug it out. In that case Gen VK Singh
> may not be the first case. There might have been a large number of
> cases. Army HQ may not be wanting to open this Pindora's box. But WE
> THE PEOPLE OF INDIA have every right to open that Pindora;s box and
> know the truth. It is high time to stop that practice if still
> continued and regularise all past cases in general and not to single
> out Gen VK Singh.
>
> On 23/07/2011, R Srinivasan <kamsri2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>>> >
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
[HumJanenge] Open Question
Is Our constitution provides a husband, a right to know where is his wife living, and with whom?
Incidently, all the relatives have turned deaf. She is working in a multnational company which is known to the husband.
Can RTI application be moved in this case to an apprpriate ministry - viz Social welfare, or family welfare.
Silence of wife over e-mails, and phone has made husban's life miserable?
--
Thanks
Abhinav
"
Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts...
"
Friday, July 22, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
If his DOB is May 51 , as he claims, how did he join NDA in Jul 66 ? He must have been only 15 yrs 2 mth at the time 36 th NDA course commenced ,whereas , he should have been at least 15 and half on o1 Jan 66 ?
From: Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 22 July, 2011 10:11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
No. Absolutely No. WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA both army and civil have a
right to know the truth. Let us come to the remedial part or solution
to the above error later.Has the authorities found out how such
mistake got into the records ? Was it a human error or deliberate
attempt by anyone. The government cannot hoodwink the Nation by not
telling as to how two dates of birth happened to be in vogue in the
recordsof an Army Officer. Let us not bother whether the officer is a
Capt or General.
Anyone who has the inside picture of higher heirarchy whether civil or
military knows as to how the above information leaked to the public.
There is a chain of officers who might benefit or loose depending on
when Gen VK Singh retire. in 2012 or 2013 ie., his date of birth
10-May 1950 or 10- May 1951. There is every likelyhood that someone
from that chain might have leaked the information while the Army might
be sorting it out in its own style.
Third issue is how this might have happened. If Maj Gen VK Singh's
views above is correct., ie., every Gentlemen Cadets were enrolled in
ASC as Hav to bring him under Army Act, it gives an indication of
likely possibility. I am not able to comment much on that as in my
time there was no such practice. and I was not enrolled in ASC as Hav
when I was a Gentleman
Cadet of IMA during 1963.However I feel that there is certain minimum
age limit laid down for one's enrolment as an ASC Hav. If Gen VK
Singh had enrolled as an ASC Hav when he was a Gentlemen Cadet he
couldnot have done it unless he had attained that age. With his date
of birth as 10-5-1951 he might have not been eligible. Someone with or
without the knowledge of young Gentleman Cadet VK Singh might have
entered his date of birth as 10-5-1950 and forgotten it till someone
who was aware of it might have dug it out. In that case Gen VK Singh
may not be the first case. There might have been a large number of
cases. Army HQ may not be wanting to open this Pindora's box. But WE
THE PEOPLE OF INDIA have every right to open that Pindora;s box and
know the truth. It is high time to stop that practice if still
continued and regularise all past cases in general and not to single
out Gen VK Singh.
On 23/07/2011, R Srinivasan <kamsri2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>>> >
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
RE: [HumJanenge] THIS IS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN INDIA TOO - CORRUPTION WILL ELIMINATE OVERNIGHT
| weldone all --- On Sat, 23/7/11, Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
It is a news to me that a GC in IMA was enrolled as a ASC hav to bring him under army act to my knowledge all GCs are also under the Army act,The reason for GC V K Singh to his dob as 1950 could be that he might not be attaining the age of enrolment otherwise n it amount to false answer at the time of enrolment which may need a discipline action against now gen V K Singh.Now since he has become a COAS he wants to take advantage of matriculation certificate,if his DOB as on 1951 was right he could have taken the corrective measure much before ie first 5 yrs of his service as per rule whivh he did not do shows that he accepted his date of birth as per the entery in his intial record of service. The decision of govt of India in this regard is correct minus the discipline part against the officer which is also not possible now as per army act which also possible only with in first 3 yrs . Col J P N --- On Sat, 23/7/11, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
Dear Col Kurup,
Could you tell me which NDA course did Gen VK Singh join. He was a cadet when I was an instructor there but I am not sure of his course. It will be worth a check if he was within permissible age limit if his DOB is May 51.
Col MMP Kala.
Could you tell me which NDA course did Gen VK Singh join. He was a cadet when I was an instructor there but I am not sure of his course. It will be worth a check if he was within permissible age limit if his DOB is May 51.
Col MMP Kala.
From: Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 23 July, 2011 4:32:25 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
Now the picture is getting clear. Was VK Singh eligible for enrolment
as ASC Haw if his date of birth shown as 10-5-1951? No. It seems he
was shown his date of birth 10-5-1950 to facilitate his enrolment in
the ASC as Hav if the enrolment story is correct. IThis practice was
not in practice when I joined IMA as Gentlemen Cadet. If this story is
correct that may be a routine practice in all cases where the GCs are
underaged for enrolment. If someone bother to check, the fact will
emerge. If that be sok the issue is serious.
On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
No. Absolutely No. WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA both army and civil have a
right to know the truth. Let us come to the remedial part or solution
to the above error later.Has the authorities found out how such
mistake got into the records ? Was it a human error or deliberate
attempt by anyone. The government cannot hoodwink the Nation by not
telling as to how two dates of birth happened to be in vogue in the
recordsof an Army Officer. Let us not bother whether the officer is a
Capt or General.
right to know the truth. Let us come to the remedial part or solution
to the above error later.Has the authorities found out how such
mistake got into the records ? Was it a human error or deliberate
attempt by anyone. The government cannot hoodwink the Nation by not
telling as to how two dates of birth happened to be in vogue in the
recordsof an Army Officer. Let us not bother whether the officer is a
Capt or General.
Anyone who has the inside picture of higher heirarchy whether civil or
military knows as to how the above information leaked to the public.
There is a chain of officers who might benefit or loose depending on
when Gen VK Singh retire. in 2012 or 2013 ie., his date of birth
10-May 1950 or 10- May 1951. There is every likelyhood that someone
from that chain might have leaked the information while the Army might
be sorting it out in its own style.
Third issue is how this might have happened. If Maj Gen VK Singh's
views above is correct., ie., every Gentlemen Cadets were enrolled in
ASC as Hav to bring him under Army Act, it gives an indication of
likely possibility. I am not able to comment much on that as in my
time there was no such practice. and I was not enrolled in ASC as Hav
when I was a Gentleman
Cadet of IMA during 1963.However I feel that there is certain minimum
age limit laid down for one's enrolment as an ASC Hav. If Gen VK
Singh had enrolled as an ASC Hav when he was a Gentlemen Cadet he
couldnot have done it unless he had attained that age. With his date
of birth as 10-5-1951 he might have not been eligible. Someone with or
without the knowledge of young Gentleman Cadet VK Singh might have
entered his date of birth as 10-5-1950 and forgotten it till someone
who was aware of it might have dug it out. In that case Gen VK Singh
may not be the first case. There might have been a large number of
cases. Army HQ may not be wanting to open this Pindora's box. But WE
THE PEOPLE OF INDIA have every right to open that Pindora;s box and
know the truth. It is high time to stop that practice if still
continued and regularise all past cases in general and not to single
out Gen VK Singh.
On 23/07/2011, R Srinivasan <kamsri2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>>> >
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)