Antony settles age row; Army Chief retires next year

Defence Minister AK Antony has sought to put an end to the long-running controversy about the retirement date and the birth year of the chief of Indian Army, General VK Singh, by ruling on Thursday that the Army Chief’s year of birth would be taken as 1950. A direct fallout of that is General Singh will now retire next year. It’s still not clear whether the ministry’s decision will be challenged by General Singh who has not only consistently claimed that his right year of birth was 1951 (10-05-1951 to be precise) as recorded on his matriculation certificate but has also secured legal opinion in his favour from as many as three former chief justices of India. The three CJIs — who have given their legal opinion in writing to General Singh — have supported General Singh’s stand that he was born in May 1951. The three CJIs are JS Verma, GB Patnaik and VN Khare. [caption id=“attachment_46001” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“There was no reaction from General Singh on the defence minister’s decision.  Screen grab from IBN Live”]  [/caption] If General Singh’s contention was accepted he would have continued for another year as the chief of the army staff and retired only in 2013. But with the defence minister ruling that his birth birth should be taken as 1950 General Singh retires next year. There was no reaction from General Singh on the defence minister’s decision. To be fair to him the Army Chief has not gone public on this controversial issue even once so far. But the fact that he has in his arsenal the opinion of three former CJIs there is a fair bit of speculation and possibility that he may actually seek judicial intervention in his favour. If the Army chief does challenge the government’s ruling it would be a first for its kind case — at that level of seniority — in the defence services and opinion is divided on whether or not that would be a wise course of action for someone like General Singh who is widely regarded as a soldier and leader of great virtue and impeccable credentials when it comes to personal integrity. Opinion is also divided on the issue of how a possible challenge by General Singh would reflect on the professional culture and training of the Indian Army at the highest level. There was some speculation also about how the government could consider a suitable role for the Army Chief post retirement but with still a year to go for his superannuation any discussion of that kind would be premature. The controversy first surfaced in 2006 when two different date of births (DOB’s) were detected by the Army brass in two different sections. General Singh’s year of birth in the military secretary’s branch was May 1950 whereas the adjutant general’s branch recorded his year of birth as 1951. Singh was elevated to the rank of Army Chief in 2010 and at that time 1950 was taken as his year of birth. Later a section officer in the Union law ministry—responding to a RTI poser — supported in writing General Singh’s claim of 1951 as his correct year of birth However, on the advise of the attorney general, the then law minister Veerappa Moily once again held 1950 to be the correct year of birth of General Singh. The clutch of CJIs opinions in favour of General Singh followed the law minister’s ruling that army service rules did not allow any change in the date of birth after two years of joining service. The law ministry had further stated that since General Singh had himself accepted 1950 as his birth year in a written undertaking the matter should be treated as closed. Former CJI VN Khare had in his written opinion challenged that line of argument on the grounds that General Singh — as a sitting Army officer bound by service rules and the strict protocol which marks defence services — had little choice but to accept the diktat of his superiors on the date-of-birth issue.