By Hemant Kumar Rout | Express News Service | Published: 07th January 2017 BHUBANESWAR: India’s own cruise missile project Nirbhay has got an extension of 18 months amid speculations over the weapon system’s operational capabilities. Launched in 2004, the projected date of completion for the prestigious project was December 31 last.
At a recent review meeting, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar gave green signal for the extension. Ministry of Defence sources said the Nirbhay team has been asked to deliver their best by June, 2018.
Under developmental trial since 2013, the missile is yet to perform as per the expectations. Of four tests in as many years, the indigenously developed weapon had failed three times though it could cover the intended range once in 2014.
Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.
The probe committee led by founder director of ISRO Inertial Systems Unit Dr Nagarajan Vedachalam will not only ascertain the faults but also recommend possible measures to make the system robust.
Like in its maiden trial and third test, the missile had veered off the trajectory minutes after take off during the last launch and the mission had to be aborted mid-air.
An official associated with the project, however, informed that the blame game between two laboratories of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) cost the project more than the faults in the system.
While Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), which has designed the missile, has been blaming Research Centre Imarat (RCI) for supplying defective hardware, the latter points fingers at ADE-developed software for recurring failure of the missile.
‘’The probe committee will ascertain which is defective, the software or hardware. It may also inspect metallurgical deficiencies,’’ the sources said.
Having a strike range of around 1,000 km, Nirbhay is first homegrown subsonic cruise missile project. According to DRDO, the missile can challenge weapons of its class.
Nirbhay blasts off like a rocket and unlike a missile, it turns into a vehicle akin an aircraft. Flying at tree-top level, it can deceive enemy radars making it difficult to be detected. Unlike other ballistic missiles, this cruise missile has wings and distinct tail fins. After reaching near the target area, it can hover around, hitting at its will from any direction.
To 10th November 2014Honorable Sh Narendra Modi,Prime Minister,Room No -152, PMO,South Block,New Delhi -110011
Subject: Extension of service after age of 60 years.
Sir,
Recently DOP&T published an OM F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
In Para 1 of above – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.
In Para 4 of above – It is also reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of his services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department concerned extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without the approval & ACC.
Sir, with reference to above OM it is clear that ACC has observed that in some cases officials/scientists got service extensions without first obtaining approval of the ACC, and after straight order no one is retired on his date of superannuation.
It shows that system is having still few strong manipulators who are protecting individuals and putting some weird excuses so that above order is not executed after 46 days. It is really very astonishing facts that after your strong message some of rotten minded officials are not working in the national interest.
On 31st October 2014 evening when DRDO & DAE people got message that you have not granted extensions to scientists after series of recommendations of their so called superiors, they welcomed your decision and distributed sweets and celebrated the closing of extension era.
To maintain their spirit and boosting their moral it is requested that weed out those few officials from your system who are the obstacle of our country’s development and execute the above DOP&T OM urgently.
The cases of extensions without approval of ACC should be cancelled immediately and these scientists should be superannuated with effect from the date they got extension.
Manu Pubby New Delhi, November 4, 2014 | UPDATED 20:04 IST- Indiatodayin
The government has struck down a request by the DRDO to grant four of its top scientists a service extension with the Prime Minister stepping in personally to ensure that the organisation does not add to its massive bank of scientists who have been working well past their retirement age.
In a move that has brought cheer to the younger scientists of the organization, the PMO refused to entertain a request by the DRDO’s departmental peer review committee to extend the service of four of its lab directors beyond the age of 60 years.
In the past, recommendations of the peer review committee were routinely accepted by the government and in most cases scientists were given an extension of two years to four years. However, as reported by the India Today, the new government is keen to have a younger profile of scientists in the organization and has already expressed concern about the increasing age profile in a field that requires cutting edge technology and expertise.
Sources said that four scientists including Prof MP Kaushik (DRDE Director), Dr VC Padaki (DEBEL Director) and DS Sistla Ravind (LRDE Director) had been recommended by DRDO Chief Avinash Chander for an extension of service. While the file made it all the way through the appointments committee of cabinet, sources said that the request was turned at the Prime Minister’s desk. The DLRL Lab director is also not to get an extension of service.
Officials said that the decision not to grant an extension was taken as part of the government’s new policy to promote younger talent with PM Narendra Modi already instructing that at least five labs should have directors below the age of 35.
However, as things most top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) who are tasked with creating weapons for future have passed the retirement age of 60 and are on service extensions.
The old age problem starts from the very head of the organization with DRDO chairman Avinash Chander already on two extensions. The previous government even approved a extraordinary contract to give Chander a 18-month contractual tenure from November when he turns 64, the maximum age till which service extensions can be given.
As reported by the India Today, most director generals at the headquarters and the heads of six of DRDO’s 54 labs and establishments are currently on extension. As many as 10 of the 16 top DRDO scientists are on extension. Internal surveys have found that nearly 87 per cent of the young scientists who join DRDO soon get disenchanted with the archaic, rigid structure of the research body that does not reward extraordinary performance with proportional career growth.
To 30th July 2014
Sh B.Bandopadhyay,
CPIO & Under secretary, (Estt.A-IV),
R.No.202, North Block,
Department of Personnel & Training, (DOPT),
New Delhi-110001
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, Distinguished Scientist is holding the post of DG, (NS&M) in DRDO. He got extension two times in the service beyond the age of superannuation under the 2nd and 3rd proviso of FR 56(d) and various OMs issued by DOPT, MOP PG&P. Details of the extensions granted to him by ACC are given below.
Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, -DOB: 10 Oct 1951
Extension-I for 60 -62 years 0 -1 Nov 2011 to 31 Oct 2013
Extension-II for 62-64 years – 01 Nov 2013 to 31 Oct 2015
The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT DO letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000, OM No. No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A) dated 9th December 2002, OMNo. 26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) dated 16 May 2011, OM No. 26012/12/2013-Estt.(A) dated 13 June, 2013 and OM No. 26012/7/2013-Estt.(A.IV) dated 26 Jun 2013.
The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case, the international stature of the person recommended and also indicates whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. (Para3 of OM No. 26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) dated 16 May 2011)
File Noting of Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) constituted by DOPT vide OM No. 20012/15/2010-Estt(A-IV) dated 4th May 2011 for recommending extension in service after superannuation from 60-62 years.
File Noting of Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for granting the extension in service after superannuation from 60-62 years.
File Noting of Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) constituted by DOPT vide OM No. 26012/7/2013-Estt.(A.IV) dated 26 June 2013 for recommendation of the extension in service after superannuation from 62-64 years to Screening Committee.
File Noting of Screening Committee headed by the CabinetSecretary constituted by DOPT vide OM No. 26012/12/2013-Estt.(A) dated 13 June 2013for recommendation of the extension in service after superannuation from 62-64 years to ACC.
File Noting of Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for granting the extension in service after superannuation from 62-64 years.
Criteria for deciding International Stature of a Scientist for consideration to grant extension from 62-64 years as required vide Para 3 of OM No. 26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) dated 16 May 2011.
Whether Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, Distinguished Scientist, DRDO, Ministry of Defence is having International Stature as required for extension from 62-64 years.(Yes/No)
If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of justification given by DPRC or Screening Committee to ACC.
To 15th May 2014
Honorable Defence Minister
Room -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011
Subject: Officers on Extension holding responsible post in DRDO are Breach of National Security
For quite some it is practice in DRDO to continue officer on extension as director of Lab/Establishment.
For extension the DOPT guideline (FR 56 d) summarize the capability of scientist should of international stature with credits achieved with patents and papers published in international journals.
Unfortunately in DRDO top brass cooked the extension requirement to suit the incompetent scientists.
When the incompetent scientist manages the extension he does not bother towards constitutional provisions, his priority is set solely to encourage corruption / nepotism so that as early he reimburse his dues incurred towards getting extension. (CAG or special audit easily can differentiate the way of budget spend by scientist before and after extension)
As example Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun on second extension in service without any of international stature, no patents, no papers published in international journals, no expertise in any field which was recognized by any apex body (Joined as Charge man and promoted to Scientist H), and has failed to prevent atrocity on fellow SC/ST officials even though vide DRDO Hqrs Letter No DOP/ 01/ 00008/ DEAL/ M/01 dated 12th March 2014 clearly issued DG, DRDO directives not harass member of weaker section SC/ST/OBC.
For reference the case of Sh Jagdish Kumar, Technical Officer ‘C’, DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun is enclosed herewith.
It is requested to honor the constitution of India, please take appropriate action to protect the rights of weaker section SC/ST/OBC.
DRDO Hqrs Letter No DOP/ 01/ 00008/ DEAL/ M/01 dated 12th March 2014
Sh Jagdish Kumar, TO C, DEAL’s letter to Director, DEAL dated 8th May 2014
Copy to
Chairman, The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India, 5th Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003 Telephone (011) 2462 0435. Fax (011) 2462 5378.
Sh Avinash Chander, DG, DRDO, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110011
To 22th August 2011The Honorable Prime MinisterPMO, South BlockNew Delhi -110011
Subject: Grant of Extension of service of Scientists beyond the age of superannuation
Honorable Sir, Department of Personnel and Training O M No.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) Dated the 16th May, 2011 stats that the laid down criteria for extension of service to the scientist should be in term of proviso to
i) FR 56 (d)
ii) Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
iii) Extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature
iv) Indicate whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department
v) Will be processed further for approval of ACC through the office of the Establishment Officer
Sir, the above guidelines thoroughly overruled by DRDO establishment. When Dr APJ Kalam was granted extension of service he had the expertise and international recognition in his field (Missile Technology). Dr M Natrajan was granted extension on the basis of his work in MBT (Arjun Tank). Dr U R Rao, ISRO got extension because of his contribution in space technology.
DRDO, once Dr V K Atre became, SA to RM overruled the guidelines of DoPT provisions for extension. A new culture was established that is those scientists who were close to Dr Atre they were recommended for extension without justifying their contributions to science & technology. Afterwards the secretary of DRDO used this tool for those who are expert in misappropriation and manipulation of Government funds and misinterpretation of Government rules to their personal benefits.
These scientists nowhere stand as per guidelines of FR 56 (d) and you will find most of cases the scientists are involved totally in administrative job for years. Interestingly Secretary DRDO removed the required paras of Annexure FR 56 (d) where it states the justification why his service is needed and the details of contributions are thoroughly overruled.
Surprisingly, no one pointed these corrupt practices in the process of granting extension. Some applications which I have received by RTI from DoPT are enclosed for your ready reference. Which are the self explanatory, under the name of Defence research and under the shadow of official Secret Act 1923 and the bonafide possession of CCS Rules 1965 they have be-fooled the DoPT,PMO,ACC etc.
DRDO at an interval of every three months gives extension to at least 10-12 scientists, out of which not a single scientist deserve the recommendation as per guide lines of DoPT O M No.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A) Dated the 16th May, 2011 Normally DRDO Hqrs recommend extension to the (Service Provider) like Sh T Mohan Rao, Ex Director, GTRE (Massage Parlour Fame), DRDO recommend Dr S K Vasudeva of SPIC even beyond 64 years of age as he arranged the all cocktails parties + in 5* with help of CS Constructions etc and provide Mrs Kanimozhi‘s methods routing money through her daughter’s firm M/S M V- Grfix as IB already reported to PMO.
DRDO recommends the name of scientists/Directors who manage the misappropriation of funds of projects/ programs. As an example the case of Sh R C Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, Dehradun and Sh Iqbal Singh of IRDE, Dehradun Sh R C Aggarwal joined as Charge-man and become Director, DEAL as Scientist ‘G’ in 2007.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at LRDE, NPOL, DLRL and DEAL where he was posted earlier
As a director he wrote an essay (cut paste copy technology) on Software Defined Radio and prepared a proposal for sanction having 60 sub contracts paras. This proposal opened up an avenue to distribute poor tax payer’s money. Rs 100 Crores sanctioned for SDR project and with few months he was promoted as Scientist ‘H’ and also got extension for two years and waiting Scientist for Director’s post Sh K N Rao of DEAL died with shock (Heart Attack).
Sh R C Aggarwal’s extension was recommended by Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO who was Scientist ‘E’ in 2001 when Sh R C Aggarwal was Scientist ‘F’. The DPRC which recommended Sh R C Aggarwal had a external member Dr P S Goel, Charman, RAC, whose contribution in ISRO as scientist is big zero, No international publications, No patents, only cut copy paste technology expertise.
Sh R C Aggarwal spent Rs 10 Lakh on TA/DA per year so he is able to contribute Rs 1.25 Lakhs per month in GPF account. As he is using Red beacon on his vehicle drawing Transport allowance using official driver in private car for fooling department.
Sh R C Aggarwal very bluntly says “the development of SDR will take 20 years time” and the PDC of SDR is 36 months.
Dr S C Jain who is enjoying extension but in the same time did not get the promotion to Scientist ‘H’, when he was not fit for promotion then how come he was recommended for extension in service, it can only happened in DRDO.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at DEAL
But he is master in manipulation of government funds and misinterpretation of government rules in the interest of his boss. The reason he was benefited, was to get extension and job for his son who has fake qualification.
Sh Iqbal Singh Scientist ‘H’, IRDE, Dehradun got extension without justification of his scientific contribution.
He has no international publications,No patents,No significant contribution in any projects at IRDE
Only significant contribution is misappropriation of government funds, he gave orders to a firm where his son works
Dr S S Sundaram, Director, IRDE, Distinguished Scientist got extension for his golden achievement in project SAMYUKTA (Electronic Warfare), it is well known that Project SAMYUKTA started with Rs 250 Crores initial cost in May 1994 and when buried unceremoniously in 2006 it consumed Rs 6000 Crores of poor tax payer’s money.
Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, DRDO never did science and there is no question of scientific contribution. He is master in manipulation the governments rules and extend the path of favoritism to benefit DRDO’s top brasses wards. Appointment of his own daughter as scientist ‘B’ by violating all recruitment rules of DRDO. The enquiry is going on without any result like DRDO projects because the chairman of enquiry Dr Salwan, Ex DRDO scientist got Rs 80 Lakhs project with Rs 1 Lakh/month salary from Dr Arun Kumar itself.
The Honorable Prime Minister is requested to stop this criminal act of DRDO’s extension business, which they are recommending without justification. Please go through the recommended applications of DRDO scientists which I have received from DoPT through RTI.
Sir, this is the major reason of brain drain in DRDO because I am receiving lot of mails of ex DRDO young scientists from all over the world in my website www.corruptionindrdo.com, they share their experiences in this pathetic condition of DRDO.
Defence Minister, Room No 104- South Block, New Delhi- 110011
Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Defence Secretary, Room !01- South Block, New Delhi – 110011
Ms. Alka Sirohi, Secretary (Personnel), Room No 112, North Block-110011
Dr V K Saraswat, D G (R&D), DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi=110105FR 56 (d) comparisonNo.26012/8/2011-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel and Training)North Block, New Delhi,Dated the 16th May, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Grant of Extension of service of Scientists beyond the age of superannuation – Issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel & Taining O.M. No.26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 9.12.2002 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above laying down the criteria for considering cases of extension of service of Scientists in terms of proviso to FR 56(d) and to state that the guidelines for extension of service of eminent scientists of international stature beyond 62 years have been further reviewed as a need has been felt for a rigorous Peer group screening by an inter disciplinary Committee of experts.
2. Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRCs) headed by the Secretary of the Scientific Departments are constituted by the DOP&T with the approval of Prime Minister for a term of 2 years to consider the cases of extension of service of scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years.
3. It has now been decided with the approval of Prime Minister that the existing/reconstituted Departmental Peer Review Committee shall also do the first stage screening of Scientists for their extension beyond 62 years of age and thereafter the DPRCs’ recommendations will be placed before the Committee under the Cabinet Secretary provided that the DPRCs’ have at least two outside experts apart from Secretary (Personnel & Training). The DPRCs must give detailed justification for such extension based on merits of the case; the international stature of the person recommended and also indicates whether this will block promotion opportunities of others in the Department. Such recommendations of the DPRCs for extension of service of Scientists beyond 62 years will be sent of the Establishment Division of the Department of Personnel & Training for placing the cases before the Committee under Cabinet Secretary. Only such cases recommended by the Committee under Cabinet Secretary will be processed further for approval of ACC through the office of the Establishment Officer. Cases of extension of service of Scientists beyond 60 years and up to 62 years recommended by DPRC will continue to be sent directly to the office of Establishment Officer in DOP&T as at present.
4. All proposals for extension of service of Scientists beyond 62 years in terms of the 3rd proviso to FR 56(d) may, therefore, be processed keeping in view the above guidelines in addition to the criteria stipulated in the OM dated 9.12.2010.
(P.Prabhakaran)Director (E)
DoPT RTI replyDoPT Reply for Sh R C Aggarwal Page 1DoPT Reply for Sh R C Aggarwal page 2DoPT Reply For Sh R C Aggarwal page 3DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh page 1DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh Page 2
DoPT Reply for Sh Iqbal Singh page 3
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
Meanwhile, an independent technical committee has been formed to identify faults in the system that led to failure of the missile during its fourth trial on December 21.
