Nothing illegal found in NAB head’s pension issue

ISLAMABAD: The Auditor General of Pakistan, the Ministry of Defence, the Accountant General of Pakistan Revenues and the Controller Military Accounts (officers pension), after through scrutiny of record have declared that no irregularity/illegality has been observed in the military pension payments claim of Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), documents available with The News reveal. 

The NAB chairman’s military pension has remained a topic of discussion during the past a few months in media and upon complaint of PTI’s Dr Arif Alvi, the Chairman Public Accounts Committee asked the Auditor General of Pakistan to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

The Auditor General of Pakistan’s report regarding Qamar Zaman Chaudhry’s military pension, a copy available with this correspondent, states that there wasn’t an iota of illegally or irregularity in the officer’s pension claim and that the documents which made the basis of complaint were irrelevant as the laws allowed Qamar Zaman Chaudhry to draw his military pension.  Following is the operative part of the self-explanatory report of AGP regarding NAB chairman’s military pension. 

“Based on the available records, the following points have been observed: 

a) Validity of Military Pension: According to Military Accounts Office, qualifying service of the officer for eligibility of military pension is more than the minimum requirement of 10 years (10 years, 6 months and 18 days), which includes cadet service. In this regard, Ministry of Defence has ascertained that "pension case of the officer has been decided under the rules and regulations". This statement has been supported in the light of following Pension Rules/Regulations of Armed Forces officers 

i). Rule 5 of Ministry of Defence letter 12951/PS, dated October 21, 1968 which slates that "Service as a Cadet, Midshipman/`Y' Cadet from the age of 20 years onwards will count in full". 

ii). Pension Regulations Vol. I 1999 Rule 27(h) slates that "with effect from 31st January 1973, any period rendered as cadet service prior to the age of twenty years will count in full for pension". 

b) Misstatement about re-employment in civil service: while claiming monthly pension, the officer has been signing the manual bill form PAFA-319, which declares that he had "not received any remuneration for serving in any capacity, either in government or any establishment paid from a local fund during the period for which the amount of pension claimed in this bill is due". 

In fact after introduction of Direct Credit System of pension payments, this form bearing the undertaking became infructuous. SoP for Direct Credit System of pension payment (DCS), by Finance Division in 2011, as revised on September 29, 2014 does not prescribe any undertaking of this kind. In this context, Pakistan Military Accounts Department has recently posted the following information on the website of their Sub-Office, i.e. CMA (OP): 

"The government of Pakistan has allowed increases in pension vide letter No.F.4 (1)-Reg.6/99-V111/1166, dated 21st February 2012 to re-employed pensioners. Consequently, non-employment declaration on the pension form has become irrelevant..." 

c) Recovery of Dearness Allowance. It is verified by the Military Accounts Office that both overpayments and under-payments were made to the officer during various periods of time and that the net difference of Rs 124,730/- stands adjusted. It has been added that an underpayment of Rs11088/- has been paid to the officer. 

As regards payment of military and civil pension, it has been clarified by AGPR in terms of Civil Service Regulation 526(a), there is no bar on receiving Military Pension and Civil Pension simultaneously. 

Based on the above analysis, the following points have been observed/clarified: 

a) Regarding the element of "Indemnity Bond", it is clarified that it is one of the prerequisites for switching over to Direct Credit System of pension on the basis of an Option Form. Therefore these documents have nothing to do with the allegation of misstatement.

b) While signing his monthly pension bills, the officer has committed no wrong. He was signing the manual pension bill form which is a century old conventional statement which is widespread in practice among all retired army officers as it was never redesigned. The declaration is no more valid after introduction of Direct Credit System (automated) of pension payments. 

c) As reported by Military Accounts Office, overpayments and under-payments were made as a result of erroneous calculations and the same stand adjusted. 

d) As regards the validity of Military Pension, it has been intimated by Military Accounts Office that qualifying service of the officer for eligibility of military pension is more than the minimum requirement of 10 years (which includes cadet service). In this regard, Ministry of Defence has ascertained that "pension case of the officer has been decided under the rules and regulations". 

From the above analysis and as ascertained by MOD it is clear that no irregularity/illegality has been observed in the pension payments claim of the officer.”