A Case Study :

SL-02269 Lt Col(TS) Suraj Prakash, was awarded payment of arrears of DE on account of Broadbanding Benefit by Hon’ble SC. The court order was very clear that arrears from Apr 2009 to date will be paid with 10% Interest.

PCDA(P),Allahabad forgot to mention the exact rates of DE in Rs. to be paid to the officer for 50% of disability in the PPO recd at DPDO, Delhi cantt. The officer advised them to pay him as per the rates available for the relevant period through various circulars issued from time to time and held in their office. However, S/Accts Officer, DPDO, refused to accept his request and referred the case back to PCDA(P), to send a corr PPO with rates of DE for 50% of Disability from Apr 2009 till Mar 2016. This resulted in further delay by three months at least. However, on receipt of his corr PPO with rates, DPDO made payments of arrears to the officer.

At 10 % interest on his arrears, the interest works out to Rs. 390470/-  but  was paid Rs. 69310/- only instead and refused to entertain the officer’s request to rectify the same. It came as a surprise to the officer that the interest paid was far less than what was due to him.

When the officer brought it to the notice of  Col Ajit Rana ,President TSEWA, Haryana, they decided to meet the In-charge of DPDO, Mr. Balbir Singh and resolve the discrepancy. However, he refused to accept their plea that the interest paid by DPDO was wrongly calculated and is far less then what is due. Rs. 390470/-.

So,  Mr. Balbir Singh was requested to show them the actual  calculations of the interest. He then gave the photocopy of DPDO’s calculations, which shows an amount of Rs 69310/-,that  has been signed by all his subordinates, and was also approved by him.  Accordingly a payment  of Rs 69310/- was done which is grossly less by Rs 321160/- .

However, when confronted by Col Ajit Rana and Lt Col(TS) Suraj Prakash  and  shown the correct way to calculate interest, it was agreed by Mr. Balbir Singh, that they have made a gross mistake. The balance amount was paid to the officer in next few days by cheque.

The above case shows very clearly lackadaisical attitude of DPDO and a doubt arises that other pensioners also could have been paid  less where Interest was to be paid on the orders of courts etc. This amounts to gross negligence , inefficiency and incompetence on the part of DPDO staff.

In view of the above, there is a need to audit such payments of all DPDO’s, and DPDO Delhi Cantt in particular for at least last 3 years., by writing to DESW, MoD and CGDA