The Indian Armed Forces have long represented duty, sacrifice, and discipline. Those who serve are not only warriors on the battlefield but also architects of peace and protectors of sovereignty. However, the respect and gratitude owed to veterans often diminish after their years in uniform, especially when systemic inefficiencies and administrative whims undermine their post-retirement welfare. This has been tragically illustrated by the suspension and arbitrary exclusion from the Resettlement Scheme for Ex-Servicemen, a program run under the aegis of the Director General Resettlement (DGR) and once meant to ensure a smooth transition for those who vigilantly defended their nation.
Historical Context: Pillars of Support for Ex-Servicemen
Post-retirement resettlement remains one of the top concerns for Defence Service veterans. India’s DGR, established under the Ministry of Defence, plays a crucial role in providing employment opportunities to veterans. Since 1979, the DGR’s partnership with Coal India Limited (CIL) has enabled retired officers to run coal loading and transportation businesses as a supplementary source of income that recognises the unique skills and management expertise gained during military service.
This arrangement, supported by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Ministry of Coal and the Ministry of Defence, exemplified a national commitment to honouring service with dignity and opportunity. For decades, the scheme offered a lifeline to thousands of veterans seeking meaningful engagement and financial stability in civilian life.
A Sudden Halt: The Suspension of Opportunity
The sudden withdrawal of Coal India Limited from the MoU in 2020 shattered this commitment. Without consultation or explanation, CIL suspended the resettlement scheme, leaving hundreds of waitlisted ex-servicemen in limbo. The DGR, instead of actively defending their interests, simply advised affected officers to seek alternatives, such as Security Agencies or Company-Owned Fuel Stations. While some found other employment, most waited patiently, trusting the promise of eventual reinstatement.
This administrative inaction resulted in significant financial and psychological damage to a community that had already made significant sacrifices for the nation. The inability of the Department of Ex-Servicemen to “nip it in the bud” not only increased individual suffering but also resulted in a massive loss for the Defence fraternity at large.
The Age Restriction: Exclusion by Design or Default?
Both the original and newly reviewed MoUs specify an upper age limit for sponsorship, excluding officers over 60. Although age-based eligibility is a standard administrative measure, applying it rigidly in this context is unfair.
The veterans did not cause the scheme’s suspension; rather, it resulted from decisions made by CIL and the DGR that were beyond the control or review of the veterans.
Consequently, many officers who were well within age limits at the time of suspension have now crossed 60 years, only due to the delay caused by bureaucratic indecisiveness. Penalising these veterans for circumstances beyond their control is not just arbitrary but also an insult to the principles of justice and honour that the Defence establishment is meant to uphold.
Legal Proceedings and the Current Crisis
Those affected sought redress by approaching the Hon’ble High Court as early as 2020, who granted them protection pending the finalization of a new MoU. The courts recognized the exceptional plight of these veterans, providing interim relief and ensuring consideration of their unique situation.
However, when the DGR recently decided to reinstate the scheme under a new MoU, it unilaterally chose to exclude officers who had turned over 60 during the suspension, violating both the spirit of judicial relief and the practical realities faced by those waitlisted. The next hearing is set for 5 August 2025, a date that will decide whether compassion prevails over pedantry.
No High Court direction bans the inclusion of these officers. Therefore, the DGR’s stance seems arbitrary, lacking reason or empathy. It endangers decades of progress toward a fair and respectful post-retirement transition for Defence veterans.
The Consequences: Economic, Social, and Moral Losses
The fallout of this administrative crisis is multifaceted.
Economic Hardship. With their expected source of livelihood denied, many veterans now face financial difficulties further intensified by urgent needs like healthcare, family obligations, and maintaining dignity. This financial strain also affects their families, who are left to bear the brunt of the administrative crisis, further deepening the social and economic impact.
Social Alienation. The Defence community, already dealing with the stresses of reintegration into civilian society, now confronts further alienation and a betrayal of the trust placed in national institutions.
Erosion of Morale. Aspiring officers and current personnel observe these developments, resulting in demoralization that could affect recruitment, motivation, and retention in the Armed Forces.
Loss of National Reputation. Around the world, countries take pride in honouring and rewarding their veterans. India, with its rich history of valuing its armed forces, risks its standing as a responsible democracy if it fails to ensure fair and transparent treatment of its former soldiers. This is not just a matter of policy but a reflection of our national character and commitment to those who have served our nation.
What Justice Demands: Recommendations for the Way Forward
To restore faith and ensure justice, the following steps are urgently required.
Inclusion of Affected Officers. All officers who were on the waitlist and crossed 60 years during the suspension period (starting July 2020) must be included in the revived scheme, without prejudice. This is not only administratively feasible but also morally imperative.
Transparent Communication. The Director General’s office must issue prompt, clear instructions affirming the inclusion criteria, eliminating ambiguity, and creating genuine avenues for redress.
Judicial Oversight. The Hon’ble High Court should persist in monitoring compliance, ensuring that executive actions align with the Court’s orders and the broader principles of justice.
Ongoing Support and Consultation. The DGR should actively engage with veteran communities to understand their evolving needs and establish mechanisms that reduce the risk of future arbitrary actions.
Global Best Practices. India could, and should, learn from international models—such as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.K.’s Armed Forces Covenant—ensuring veterans have access to holistic support, employment, and honour.
The Broader Picture: Veterans as National Assets
Taking care of Defence veterans is not an act of charity but an acknowledgment of their ongoing value to society. Their discipline, leadership, and strategic thinking are assets that benefit the public, private, and voluntary sectors. Ensuring their economic security after retirement is an investment in national resilience, not just a budgetary expense.
When systems fail to recognise this, and when bureaucratic caprice overrides logic and fairness, the bonds of trust between the Forces and the State are weakened. The urgent need is for stakeholders—government, judiciary, and civil society—to jointly reaffirm the principle that those who have protected the nation deserve protection from the country.
The Call to Action
The saga of the suspended and now selectively reinstated Resettlement Scheme is more than a dispute over administrative details. It is a test of how India values its veterans—a matter involving national honour, legal integrity, and social justice.
The urgent appeal is clear: DGR must be directed, not requested, to include all waitlisted officers affected by the suspension. This is not just a technical remedy but a moral imperative, ensuring that the Defence community receives the dignity, respect, and opportunity it so richly deserves.
Veterans around the world are highly respected by society. India must meet this standard and serve as an example for future generations—by acting quickly, fairly, and compassionately in support of its own.