I know that it went to some other direction but i was forced to...As some people picked up my lines about my visting Army parites and making opinion though m sure u know the exact picture and i need not to explain u and those who don't want to accept it will never except no matter how much i write(it goes in my case as well as i can't change my opinion especially after seeing what its all about in real) but coming back to the topic as i have mentioned before i believe SSC officers are no less then officers who go through training in NDA,they may be have more knowledge and understading about lot of things as they are exposed to such environment for three years but then once they all are in uniform they all have to perform and they all do it very well.So i oppose the neglecting behaviour of the organization towards SSC officers.After all they also do the same job and have to go through the same kind of hardships when they are on the job.
Disparity among Officers of Defence Forces
- Thread starter captparry
- Start date
- Status
Just for information,,,,,there can be thousand logics and counter logics in regards to comparision between SSC Officers & Ex NDA officers.
Let me tell you and officer is an Officer irrespective of the institue he/she has passed out. The selection criteria is same for both the entries and during trainings the course contents are also same if a person pass out as an Officer from IMA or OTA. The various measuring standards are same in both the Academies. No one one can become an Officer unless those mandatory Tests are not cleared. The Physical or Educations standards or Tests are same for a SSC Officer and a IMA Pass out officer.
This I have written just to clarify any doubt about the competency of SSC Officers,,,,,,other wise as human beings we can find those distinctions among the Ex NDA Officers also
A RIMC guy will say he is best,,,,Sainik School guy will say he is best and so on.......Where as on grounds all are at par.
Now lets focus on the treatment or various benifits which needs to be given to these officers
Let me tell you and officer is an Officer irrespective of the institue he/she has passed out. The selection criteria is same for both the entries and during trainings the course contents are also same if a person pass out as an Officer from IMA or OTA. The various measuring standards are same in both the Academies. No one one can become an Officer unless those mandatory Tests are not cleared. The Physical or Educations standards or Tests are same for a SSC Officer and a IMA Pass out officer.
This I have written just to clarify any doubt about the competency of SSC Officers,,,,,,other wise as human beings we can find those distinctions among the Ex NDA Officers also
A RIMC guy will say he is best,,,,Sainik School guy will say he is best and so on.......Where as on grounds all are at par.Now lets focus on the treatment or various benifits which needs to be given to these officers
Dear uncle!you are a father figure and have served this prestigious organization for several years so i won't argue with you anymore.I suppose the issue raised in this thread is not what we discussed.May be my views hurt you,if i have done so i apologize but still i would say not all Officers of high ranks are as honest n hard working as u are.Lets not continue on this argument as its derailing the issue which we should be discussing in this thread.So coming back to the topic i would say that its unfortunate to hear about disparity among officers.I am not in favour of that at all because everyone has to work real hard when one is in uniform.
The Issues!
Dear Deepika,
Firstly, I don't think you got my point at all. We are two adults discussing an issue. There is nothing to hurt any one so long we are using the "Parliamentry" language and not casting personal comments that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Also there is nothing emotional about it. We do have our views and must express them without fear or favor.
Let me copy and paste some sentences of the first post, and analyze those to the best of my abilities. I have high lighted them in Red and I am putting my remarks/comments in Blue. I am not a technical guy and hence please pardon my "Infantry" way of doing the things. Here is the first post.
I don know how many of you are aware of this. The short service commission officers(SSCO) are given second grade treatment............Probably the Army and the Government have started diluting their outlook towards this breed of commissioned officers who form the backbone in operations as young officers, sacrifice their youth and walk off from service when they actually need to leverage the benefits of service perks..
There are only couple of reasons, a SS officer is leaving the service.
1. Voluntary not opting for Regular Commission: In such a scenario, I don't think any one should have any grudge against the service and perks and benefits after the service.
2. Not making the selection grade. With the deficiency of officers in the lower ranks, I find it difficult to understand as to why one would not make the grade? Now it could be due to various reasons, and I feel that should not be part of this discussion. The point is if I did not make the grade, then as a good officer, I must accept that verdict. If I did not make the grade due to favoritism, then I should take a course of legal action. Discrimination is some thing that is viewed pretty seriously in the Military. I understand that little favoritism is always there, in terms of giving a little pedded ACR (to get an 8 points report, an officer has to earn upto atleast 7 points plus on his own, An offr with just 4 or 5 points credentials is less likely to earn an 8 points ACR). or giving a few extra marks in subjective assessments on courses of instructions. But even on courses of instructions, a C performing officer might get a B, but certainly he does not get an A or AXI. The good thing is that when one is favored the other offrs are not degraded or pulled down. At least I had not seen that during my service. Reporting officers are also human beings and on some occassion might err in judgement, but that is an exception and not the rule.
Hence generalizing the systme for one individual case does not make a convincing argument for me.
As per my understanding the paucity of officers in the armed forces is in the levels of Lt Cols and below. As an SS officer you can serve up to the rank of Major. Ideally in the army you are worth your salt only in your young days to lead the men into war and CI-Ops... thereafter you are just administering the daily routine which anyone can do.
What does this statement mean? To glorify your own achievements one does not have to down play the importance of others. To me this statement conveys an absolutely wrong message. Since people take the words of uniformed people more seriously, it becomes our obligation to society and this forum to project the picture correctly and not by making loose statement like this one.
So an SS officer is a guinea-pig who will be sorted out during the younger days of his life and then gradually shown the way out after 5/10 years......and when he comes out after 5/10years he will be in his thirties with a family to look after. He will get nothing but a useless CSD facility
I think most officers utilize this facility. Yet we call it useless. No one tells you to buy from CSD. Buy what is available, but at least don't call it useless. It is serving a vast majority of service personnel and their dependents to the best of its abilities. There is definite inventory. You don't get every thing there, but you do get most things you need on daily basis. It is being misued as well, since many service personnel do buy stuff from this facility for their civilian friends. I had also seen some even selling the stuff bought from CSD canteens to civilians. The point here is that system is not perfect, but let us not discount some thing that we have.
and nothing more.....the army can use him during the prime of his life and then leave him...no pension benefits reqd to be paid......so a win win situation for the army but a lost situation for the officer. He is left high and dry..... If Directorate Genral Of Resettlement (DGR) or MOD wants to retain it's image of serving the interests of only the regular officers
I wanted to leave army after 9 and half years of service since my mother wanted me to come to USA. I found out that if I left after 9 and half years I would have got nothing, but if I had left after 10 years, I would have got 50% of Gratuity. So I decided to stay for another 6 months. During this period I appeared in DSSC exam and fortunately passed it. I was told so much about this course, that I decided to do it. The course was really great and I continued till I completed the pensionable service. I wanted to continue, but my mother really wanted me to come to USA and therefore I left. What I am trying to say is, that even if a regular officer leaves after 10 years or so, he gets similar benefits. Again this statment does not reflect the true picture of the organization.
........Continued in next post
Dear Deepika,
Firstly, I don't think you got my point at all. We are two adults discussing an issue. There is nothing to hurt any one so long we are using the "Parliamentry" language and not casting personal comments that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Also there is nothing emotional about it. We do have our views and must express them without fear or favor.
Let me copy and paste some sentences of the first post, and analyze those to the best of my abilities. I have high lighted them in Red and I am putting my remarks/comments in Blue. I am not a technical guy and hence please pardon my "Infantry" way of doing the things. Here is the first post.
I don know how many of you are aware of this. The short service commission officers(SSCO) are given second grade treatment............Probably the Army and the Government have started diluting their outlook towards this breed of commissioned officers who form the backbone in operations as young officers, sacrifice their youth and walk off from service when they actually need to leverage the benefits of service perks..
There are only couple of reasons, a SS officer is leaving the service.
1. Voluntary not opting for Regular Commission: In such a scenario, I don't think any one should have any grudge against the service and perks and benefits after the service.
2. Not making the selection grade. With the deficiency of officers in the lower ranks, I find it difficult to understand as to why one would not make the grade? Now it could be due to various reasons, and I feel that should not be part of this discussion. The point is if I did not make the grade, then as a good officer, I must accept that verdict. If I did not make the grade due to favoritism, then I should take a course of legal action. Discrimination is some thing that is viewed pretty seriously in the Military. I understand that little favoritism is always there, in terms of giving a little pedded ACR (to get an 8 points report, an officer has to earn upto atleast 7 points plus on his own, An offr with just 4 or 5 points credentials is less likely to earn an 8 points ACR). or giving a few extra marks in subjective assessments on courses of instructions. But even on courses of instructions, a C performing officer might get a B, but certainly he does not get an A or AXI. The good thing is that when one is favored the other offrs are not degraded or pulled down. At least I had not seen that during my service. Reporting officers are also human beings and on some occassion might err in judgement, but that is an exception and not the rule.
Hence generalizing the systme for one individual case does not make a convincing argument for me.
As per my understanding the paucity of officers in the armed forces is in the levels of Lt Cols and below. As an SS officer you can serve up to the rank of Major. Ideally in the army you are worth your salt only in your young days to lead the men into war and CI-Ops... thereafter you are just administering the daily routine which anyone can do.
What does this statement mean? To glorify your own achievements one does not have to down play the importance of others. To me this statement conveys an absolutely wrong message. Since people take the words of uniformed people more seriously, it becomes our obligation to society and this forum to project the picture correctly and not by making loose statement like this one.
So an SS officer is a guinea-pig who will be sorted out during the younger days of his life and then gradually shown the way out after 5/10 years......and when he comes out after 5/10years he will be in his thirties with a family to look after. He will get nothing but a useless CSD facility
I think most officers utilize this facility. Yet we call it useless. No one tells you to buy from CSD. Buy what is available, but at least don't call it useless. It is serving a vast majority of service personnel and their dependents to the best of its abilities. There is definite inventory. You don't get every thing there, but you do get most things you need on daily basis. It is being misued as well, since many service personnel do buy stuff from this facility for their civilian friends. I had also seen some even selling the stuff bought from CSD canteens to civilians. The point here is that system is not perfect, but let us not discount some thing that we have.
and nothing more.....the army can use him during the prime of his life and then leave him...no pension benefits reqd to be paid......so a win win situation for the army but a lost situation for the officer. He is left high and dry..... If Directorate Genral Of Resettlement (DGR) or MOD wants to retain it's image of serving the interests of only the regular officers
I wanted to leave army after 9 and half years of service since my mother wanted me to come to USA. I found out that if I left after 9 and half years I would have got nothing, but if I had left after 10 years, I would have got 50% of Gratuity. So I decided to stay for another 6 months. During this period I appeared in DSSC exam and fortunately passed it. I was told so much about this course, that I decided to do it. The course was really great and I continued till I completed the pensionable service. I wanted to continue, but my mother really wanted me to come to USA and therefore I left. What I am trying to say is, that even if a regular officer leaves after 10 years or so, he gets similar benefits. Again this statment does not reflect the true picture of the organization.
........Continued in next post
Last edited:
The Issues! Continued...
.....Continued.
there is no porblem et all. It's a question of policy, but my point is.. nothing should be hidden from the people of this country. The People must know the facts after having served for several years most of us are left in the lurch without any thing solid with us. Its high time to know that how many times our ESM Organizations have raised their voices against the disparity and let's hear their view about the SS officers and let the public know about it let us know the reason why an officer after having served for 5/10 years is not entitled for ECHS just because he was a SS officer ?
I don't think even regular commissioned officer would be entitled to ECHS if he leaves after 10 years. Again I would say, if I leave voluntarily, I opt out of this benefit, and if I did not make the grade then may be I did not earn it. This is for argument sake only.
But here, I do support the officers whether or not they are SS or regular commissioned officers. When in a country an MLA, or MP can get the life time pension by representing the constituency only for one term, why defense officers can not get some additional benefits by serving 10 years.
That is for the brotherhood.
As a nationalist, I would say, we are asking too much from the state, without giving much to the country. India is a nation and needs the help of its citizens to build its strength. If the state becomes a charity, which we all want it to be, then survival of the nation itself would be at stake and we won't have the nation to ask for the charity. We as citizens should ensure that we prevent the misuse of government funds and property, as well as contribute to its safety and preservation. That is what we need to do for our future generations. How can we do it, and who can do it, honestly, I don't even have an idea. May be some wise people can put two and two together to save the nation.
Let's know why a SS officer is denied entry into Defence Officers' Institute(DOI) or DSOI Delhi for that matte, where as the son of Mr Mulayam Singh is invited to become the member of DOI in Lucknow. What great has been done by Mr Akhilesh Yadav apart from marrying the daughter of a Lt Col and being a person of controversial nature. We have given our youth and fought for our Nation with the same valour and courage as anyone else did. We do not deserve this kind of treatment.................... I do not want to victimize anyone but believe that the nation must know about the outlook of the Army towards it's own ex officers. Awaiting your comments
I agree with the Mr. Gahlaut, that all officers who have served in the military for say 10 years (we can lay down minimum service requirements) should be allowed to become members of this organization. My only question is whether or not this statement true, for I heard that even civilians can become members of this organization. Why would then some one prevent the SS officers from it. May be they have to pay the similar fee as the civilians.
Ideally, they should be paying the same fee as the service officers pay, and if length of service be the criteria for the amount of fee, they should be charged less than what is charged to civilians, since they had put in some good years for the service.
.....Continued.
there is no porblem et all. It's a question of policy, but my point is.. nothing should be hidden from the people of this country. The People must know the facts after having served for several years most of us are left in the lurch without any thing solid with us. Its high time to know that how many times our ESM Organizations have raised their voices against the disparity and let's hear their view about the SS officers and let the public know about it let us know the reason why an officer after having served for 5/10 years is not entitled for ECHS just because he was a SS officer ?
I don't think even regular commissioned officer would be entitled to ECHS if he leaves after 10 years. Again I would say, if I leave voluntarily, I opt out of this benefit, and if I did not make the grade then may be I did not earn it. This is for argument sake only.
But here, I do support the officers whether or not they are SS or regular commissioned officers. When in a country an MLA, or MP can get the life time pension by representing the constituency only for one term, why defense officers can not get some additional benefits by serving 10 years.
That is for the brotherhood.
As a nationalist, I would say, we are asking too much from the state, without giving much to the country. India is a nation and needs the help of its citizens to build its strength. If the state becomes a charity, which we all want it to be, then survival of the nation itself would be at stake and we won't have the nation to ask for the charity. We as citizens should ensure that we prevent the misuse of government funds and property, as well as contribute to its safety and preservation. That is what we need to do for our future generations. How can we do it, and who can do it, honestly, I don't even have an idea. May be some wise people can put two and two together to save the nation.
Let's know why a SS officer is denied entry into Defence Officers' Institute(DOI) or DSOI Delhi for that matte, where as the son of Mr Mulayam Singh is invited to become the member of DOI in Lucknow. What great has been done by Mr Akhilesh Yadav apart from marrying the daughter of a Lt Col and being a person of controversial nature. We have given our youth and fought for our Nation with the same valour and courage as anyone else did. We do not deserve this kind of treatment.................... I do not want to victimize anyone but believe that the nation must know about the outlook of the Army towards it's own ex officers. Awaiting your comments
I agree with the Mr. Gahlaut, that all officers who have served in the military for say 10 years (we can lay down minimum service requirements) should be allowed to become members of this organization. My only question is whether or not this statement true, for I heard that even civilians can become members of this organization. Why would then some one prevent the SS officers from it. May be they have to pay the similar fee as the civilians.
Ideally, they should be paying the same fee as the service officers pay, and if length of service be the criteria for the amount of fee, they should be charged less than what is charged to civilians, since they had put in some good years for the service.
[FONT="]No. 22(1)/01/US(WE)/D(Res)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Government of [/FONT][FONT="]India[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Ministry of Defence[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]New Delhi[/FONT][FONT="], dated the [/FONT][FONT="]30 Dec, 2002[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="] EX-SERVICEMEN CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH SCHEME[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] (ECHS)[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] The Scheme would cater for medicare of all Ex-Servicemen in receipt of pension including disability pension and family pensioners, as also dependants to include wife/husband, legitimate children and wholly dependent parents[/FONT]
Posted by bls31
[FONT="][/FONT]
Last post of Brig Lakshman singh said everything i wanted to bring out. The letter it self conveyed everything. So guys my point was this only that why pension is made criteria to avail Ex servicemen facilities???????????????????????????????????? Though the length of service is less....but does it make us outsiders in this faternity????????????? All my senior brother officers were SOOO ANNOYED BY ME ON MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS... MY DEAR SIRS.. THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT( NO OFFENCE PL)
I will just give brief facts on this topic(Correct me if I am wrong).
There is a Defence Services Officers Institue(DSOI) in Gurgaon(Palam Vihar). It was started couple of years ago when Palam Vihar area was least preffered residential location. And obviously it has very few Defence officers to become member of this club.
So when it was started, it was open to all including SSC Officers as well, simple reason being that it was difficult to find enough officers to make members so that it can run and doesnt face financial problems. Suddenly this DSOI was deluged with applications from retired defence officers also and as a result a restriction was put on SSC Officers to become member of DSOI Gurgaon. So many SSC Officers were denied membership also where as initiallly it was open for them and quite a few SSC Officers also became its members.
But soon the situation was that DSOI Gurgaon had enough members courtesy retired defence officers but there were hardly any ACTIVE MEMBERS
. So realising this ground reality DSOI Gurgaon again opened the membership for SSC Officers because generally they use it quite frequently on various occasion. I think one Brigadier Mehta used to be President of it(I am not sure of his name)
So what does this convey, when you require these SSC Officer you welcome them and when the requirement is fulfilled then ??????????????So what should be the attitude of retired officers towards SSC Officers.
Please dont make length of the tenure as criteria, if that is so then there can be so many examples where people even have put in 30 yrs of service as Silent Spectators
Please dont take it negatively, its not for or against. Atleast I value the regular as well as SSC officers same and has deep regard for both the categories,,,,infact I dont even consider them to be two separate wings,,,,,,its only ONE Class
There is a Defence Services Officers Institue(DSOI) in Gurgaon(Palam Vihar). It was started couple of years ago when Palam Vihar area was least preffered residential location. And obviously it has very few Defence officers to become member of this club.
So when it was started, it was open to all including SSC Officers as well, simple reason being that it was difficult to find enough officers to make members so that it can run and doesnt face financial problems. Suddenly this DSOI was deluged with applications from retired defence officers also and as a result a restriction was put on SSC Officers to become member of DSOI Gurgaon. So many SSC Officers were denied membership also where as initiallly it was open for them and quite a few SSC Officers also became its members.
But soon the situation was that DSOI Gurgaon had enough members courtesy retired defence officers but there were hardly any ACTIVE MEMBERS
. So realising this ground reality DSOI Gurgaon again opened the membership for SSC Officers because generally they use it quite frequently on various occasion. I think one Brigadier Mehta used to be President of it(I am not sure of his name)So what does this convey, when you require these SSC Officer you welcome them and when the requirement is fulfilled then ??????????????So what should be the attitude of retired officers towards SSC Officers.
Please dont make length of the tenure as criteria, if that is so then there can be so many examples where people even have put in 30 yrs of service as Silent Spectators
Please dont take it negatively, its not for or against. Atleast I value the regular as well as SSC officers same and has deep regard for both the categories,,,,infact I dont even consider them to be two separate wings,,,,,,its only ONE Class
Issue was not the Issue itself! the Projection was!
Dear Capt/Major Gahlot,
Facilities to SSC officers was never a bone of contention in the discussion. Projecting the wrong picture of the service conditions and the role of senior officers was. That is exactly, I had tried to address. Being the people who wore the uniform for whatever duration, we have an obligation to the community to project right picture, not only about ourselves but others as well. The reason is simple, people take our words for granted and then form very strong opinion, that carries the wrong message about the services.
We are not the perfect organization, but we are also not as bad is has been made out.
My other question is how much from the Nation? and How much for the Nation? and that is not for SS Offrs, but for all of us to discuss, assess and think about.
Dear Capt/Major Gahlot,
Facilities to SSC officers was never a bone of contention in the discussion. Projecting the wrong picture of the service conditions and the role of senior officers was. That is exactly, I had tried to address. Being the people who wore the uniform for whatever duration, we have an obligation to the community to project right picture, not only about ourselves but others as well. The reason is simple, people take our words for granted and then form very strong opinion, that carries the wrong message about the services.
We are not the perfect organization, but we are also not as bad is has been made out.
My other question is how much from the Nation? and How much for the Nation? and that is not for SS Offrs, but for all of us to discuss, assess and think about.
Could be right!!
Dear Mr. Sachin Balyan,
First of all I would like to appreciate your commitment to the community by contributing so much on almost every subject. It takes a lions heart to devote so much of time and effort. Kindly keep contributing.
Regarding the information, I am probably the least qualified person, for I am neither the member of DSOI (even though being from Raj Rif, it was easier for me to get it then most, and I remember once it being offerred as well) nor I intend to become in near future.
The point I am trying to make here is that who decides the rules of the organization? Usually, it is the governing body, and members vote for the issue to be passed. Logically, if the Gurgaon DSOI, did not have enough members and thus invited SS Officers to become members to start the organization, then most or some of the SS officers would have been in the governing body (as per your statement SS officers use the facility more frequently then others?, means they are more active members of the organization and hence are expected to be either volunteers or elected members of the governing body) as well as may be in majority in the membership. If that be the case, then why would they restrict the entry of the SS officers into the very organization that started because of their efforts.
My point here is that more often than not, we do make statements on hearsay. Some times those things are true, some times partially true, and some time untrue.
I am sure you would have heard, or got the information from "Horses Mouth" as they say. Only thing is it does not look like logical for me to understand, based on the point raised above. May we request you to throw a little more light on this subject, for it is an interesting observation about "Exploitation" of the SS Officers by other Defense Services Officers. And if it is true, then it needs to be addressed rather more strongly, through the media in India rather then just this forum.
Kindly help us by some research work, and if you are located nearby, try and find out more facts about it.
I will just give brief facts on this topic(Correct me if I am wrong).
There is a Defence Services Officers Institue(DSOI) in Gurgaon(Palam Vihar). It was started couple of years ago when Palam Vihar area was least preffered residential location. And obviously it has very few Defence officers to become member of this club.
So when it was started, it was open to all including SSC Officers as well, simple reason being that it was difficult to find enough officers to make members so that it can run and doesnt face financial problems. Suddenly this DSOI was deluged with applications from retired defence officers also and as a result a restriction was put on SSC Officers to become member of DSOI Gurgaon. So many SSC Officers were denied membership also where as initiallly it was open for them and quite a few SSC Officers also became its members.
But soon the situation was that DSOI Gurgaon had enough members courtesy retired defence officers but there were hardly any ACTIVE MEMBERS
So what does this convey, when you require these SSC Officer you welcome them and when the requirement is fulfilled then ??????????????So what should be the attitude of retired officers towards SSC Officers.
Please dont make length of the tenure as criteria, if that is so then there can be so many examples where people even have put in 30 yrs of service as Silent Spectators
Please dont take it negatively, its not for or against. Atleast I value the regular as well as SSC officers same and has deep regard for both the categories,,,,infact I dont even consider them to be two separate wings,,,,,,its only ONE Class
Dear Mr. Sachin Balyan,
First of all I would like to appreciate your commitment to the community by contributing so much on almost every subject. It takes a lions heart to devote so much of time and effort. Kindly keep contributing.
Regarding the information, I am probably the least qualified person, for I am neither the member of DSOI (even though being from Raj Rif, it was easier for me to get it then most, and I remember once it being offerred as well) nor I intend to become in near future.
The point I am trying to make here is that who decides the rules of the organization? Usually, it is the governing body, and members vote for the issue to be passed. Logically, if the Gurgaon DSOI, did not have enough members and thus invited SS Officers to become members to start the organization, then most or some of the SS officers would have been in the governing body (as per your statement SS officers use the facility more frequently then others?, means they are more active members of the organization and hence are expected to be either volunteers or elected members of the governing body) as well as may be in majority in the membership. If that be the case, then why would they restrict the entry of the SS officers into the very organization that started because of their efforts.
My point here is that more often than not, we do make statements on hearsay. Some times those things are true, some times partially true, and some time untrue.
I am sure you would have heard, or got the information from "Horses Mouth" as they say. Only thing is it does not look like logical for me to understand, based on the point raised above. May we request you to throw a little more light on this subject, for it is an interesting observation about "Exploitation" of the SS Officers by other Defense Services Officers. And if it is true, then it needs to be addressed rather more strongly, through the media in India rather then just this forum.
Kindly help us by some research work, and if you are located nearby, try and find out more facts about it.
- Status