PDA

View Full Version : Injustice to pre-2006 pensioners in old s-29 & 30 scales(18400-22400 & 22400-24500)



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Kanaujiaml
24-08-2009, 09:55 AM
My dear Pensioner friends. It appears that it is the MOF(DOE) responsible to alter contents of Union Cabinet approved and Gazette Notified accepted recommendations of the 6 CPC. MOF(DOE) has changed the definition of "modified Parity" as given by 6 CPC by inserting "Minimum of the pay in Pay Band" to "Minimum of pay Band". Not only this, MOF(DOE) also changed the whole concept of 6 CPC in respect of pre 2006 pensioners by replacing "corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired" to " irrespective of the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired" . When the gross mistake was pointed out and a corrective Note was sent by MOP(DOP), MOF(DOE) once again rejected this note entirely. In my view the real Culprit is Ministry of Finance(Department of Expenditure) because they are responsible for changing concept of the 6 CPC in respect of pre 2006 pensioners, after it was accepted and approved by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Extra Ordinary on 29th August'2008.

vnatarajan
24-08-2009, 04:25 PM
Dear all

Nothing can resolve unless MOS(PP)/ Cab Secy take note of the plight of all pre-2006 pensioners. Till now they have taken note of only S30 level. Rest are not yet in the reckoning!

We have two alternatives:

1. The Devil: Govt- appeal- wait & perish!

2.The Deep Sea: Court-appeal -judgment- delayed/ denied (after dead?)

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
25-08-2009, 03:19 AM
Dear Shri VN,
Mr. SN Gupta had mentioned in the rrewa blog that he came to know from somebody that Finance Secy. had recommended favourably for S29.Is there any truth in this rumour? Mjauhari

vnatarajan
25-08-2009, 07:30 AM
Dear Dr MJ

Some wild rumours are floating.

Some are promising- however- some direct interaction with DOPPW indicates that they are helpless and we may go to court!

However our preparations for proceeding to courts has started.

We are trying to merge our fragmented groups (of S29) into a major one.

THERE IS A MEETING ON 28th AUGUST 2009 at Delhi - which our group leader HCS also may attend.

AS MANY S29 PENSIONERS OF DELHI AS POSSIBLE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO ATTEND.

Already the strength may add up to 150-200. Many telecom/ other retirees of S29( earlier S30 also)have formed this group under the leadership of a Retd Sr Govt Official- who is also a lawyer at Sup Court in post- retirement time. After the said initiative,

FORMALLY I WILL CLOSE THIS BLOG AS IT WAS STARTED MAINLY FOR S29/ S30 PENSION INJUSTICE ISSUE AS THE TITLE SAYS!!!!

S30 DID GET THE SUCCESS!

S29 WILL NOW GO TO COURT-so I dont want to raise issues here in particular!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSTEAD I WILL START A NEW BLOG---------

"INJUSTICE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS DUE TO "INCREASING GAP" IN PENSIONs WRT POST-2006 REVISED PENSIONS"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
25-08-2009, 06:34 PM
60% Pension Arrears

Dear All

HOT NEWS- ON 60% ARREAR PAYMENT

Link for the 60% Arrears OM of MOF for serving employees

http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/notofication/second_installment.pdf

Endorsement directs DOPPW to release for pensioners.

DOPPW has yet to take action

VNatarajan

vnatarajan
25-08-2009, 06:40 PM
COS REPORT ON DEFENCE PENSIONs ETC:

Available in ScribD Website

Will be available soon on RREWA website hopefully. Interesting to read the new "WEDGING texhnique- strategy for removal of bridging the gap in pensions between pre and post 2006 retirees.!

Dear All

Pl peruse the report if u r able to.

More pertinent to PBORs etc.

Reg. Civilians:

1) Doing away 33 yrs limit is now extended to civilians who have retired
between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 but ONLY to those who have taken VRS with 20 to 28
yrs of service!

So even normal retirees of that length and retirement period will not get
the benefit!

Another wedge- in Tamil it is called AAPPU!

2) Govt is fed up of this MINIMUM issue and we had been shouting hoarse.

So new terminology/ phraseology for dignified usage is REDUCING THE
DISPARITY or GAP IN PENSIONS OF PRE and POST 2006 PENSIONERS"

We are fools as we did not realize that this disparity or gap can NET IN
more than the difference arrived at by us as a difference between the
MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND and MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND, as can be
seen the result for S30 Pension.

What was to be around 7700 or so became 8800 or more - more than 1000
benefit. Magnanimous gesture!

SO LET US ALL FORGET THE "MINIMUM" BATTLE as it is embarrassing a number of
authorities.

Start fighting for reducing the "DISPARITY" or "GAP". At least this may
produce some "DIGNIFIED" results.

3) Another conclusion:

By resolving the S30 Pension Disparity, covering 4000 military/ civilian
pensioners, the COS feels that they have removed the disparity for all the
entire community of 40 lakh pre-2006 pensioners!!!

Another Free Ride for the pre-2006 pensioners OF/BELOW Nau Do Ulta - I mean
reverse of 92 wh is 29!

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
26-08-2009, 07:17 AM
My dear pensioner friends. MOP(DOP&PW) sent Note No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt.) date 20/21-10-2008 proposing that “The revised pension in no case , shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the revised pay in the running pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the minimum basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at in accordance with the Fitment Tables given in Annexure -1 of the Central Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules,2008.”
This proposal was turned down by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell vide Note No. 7.32/4/2009-IC dated 27.01.09, on the ground that if accepted, it would entail substantial financial implications.
Hon. Supreme Court of India in three cases have repeatedly observed that denial of equality amongst a homogeneous group of pensioners on the ground of financial implications is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Who is the Culprit ?

vnatarajan
26-08-2009, 07:27 PM
Dear All Pre-2006 S29 Pensioners

Shri HCSONI, Owner/ Leader of S29 Pensioners Google Group has given this message for Delhi based S29 Pensioners (pre-2006):

ALL DELHI MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO MAKE IT CONVENIENT TO ATTEND THE MEETING AT CSOI KG MARG NEW DELHI AT 6PM ON 28THAUGUST

It is an open meeting for all s-29 pre-2006 pensioners - and those of "non google-group" also can attend to consolidate all views for a legal course of action.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
27-08-2009, 07:24 AM
Dear All Pre-2006 S29 Pensioners

Shri HCSONI, Owner/ Leader of S29 Pensioners Google Group has given this message for Delhi based S29 Pensioners (pre-2006):

ALL DELHI MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO MAKE IT CONVENIENT TO ATTEND THE MEETING AT CSOI KG MARG NEW DELHI AT 6PM ON 28THAUGUST

It is an open meeting for all s-29 pre-2006 pensioners - and those of "non google-group" also can attend to consolidate all views for a legal course of action.

vnatarajan

I too appeal to every one to kindly make it convinient to attend the meeting at CSOI, KG Marg, New Delhi at 1800 hrs on 28 08 09.

vnatarajan
29-08-2009, 07:05 AM
Dear All interested in court actions,

My friend MLK thru the other parallel blog titled "JUSTICE....." dtd 28th Aug 2008 a/n informs:

"My dear VN,Gramdass and all others. Retired IFS Officers have paved the way. They have already filed a writ petition in Supreme Court on 17 08 09.
I am trying to collect the full details."

I had posted my comments to it:

"That is great. We must see how the parallel groups can align. If SC directs them to go to CAT, we should get prepared.

We can supply the latest RTI material- whatever that can help them-

IFS- is it Forest Service ?"

vnatarajan

dnaga57
01-09-2009, 08:35 AM
Dear Shri Natarajan
I think I am missing something
1. Was the 28thAug meeting of S29 or S30 groups? ( I thought Mr HCS is of S29 group)
2. Why no one from S29 was willing to take on some mantle. Evidently, S30 -having got a separate scale- can go for full parity with No loss- All gain situation.
3. Do we contribute 5000 to S29 groups or to 28thAug meeting group - amalgamate as I can see
4. I think it may be better that we contribute to a S29 group - like yours- and go with pensioners organisation's ( like AIRROA) decision.
5. Too many groups are afloat - Gconnect, RRWEA etc. ( incidentally I find RREWA is getting dormant on action- active in only News/Info posting). Can we consolidate to an umbrella orgnisation?
6. While we S29 can look for a separate grade, can we apparently ditch other pensioners at this stage- in any collective action?
7. GOI has agreed for 20 years Full Pension from 1-1-06 (a shift from earlier 2-9-08 position). Should we not ask for Eligibility to ALL, Applicability for fixation/arrears from 1-1-06 like others ( More than us, it is the voiceless Family Pension ladies who will benefit)
8. It is our lethargy- discord that Babus bank- thrive on
Naga 57

Kanaujiaml
01-09-2009, 02:44 PM
Dear Shri Natarajan
I think I am missing something
1. Was the 28thAug meeting of S29 or S30 groups? ( I thought Mr HCS is of S29 group)
2. Why no one from S29 was willing to take on some mantle. Evidently, S30 -having got a separate scale- can go for full parity with No loss- All gain situation.
3. Do we contribute 5000 to S29 groups or to 28thAug meeting group - amalgamate as I can see
4. I think it may be better that we contribute to a S29 group - like yours- and go with pensioners organisation's ( like AIRROA) decision.
5. Too many groups are afloat - Gconnect, RRWEA etc. ( incidentally I find RREWA is getting dormant on action- active in only News/Info posting). Can we consolidate to an umbrella orgnisation?
6. While we S29 can look for a separate grade, can we apparently ditch other pensioners at this stage- in any collective action?
7. GOI has agreed for 20 years Full Pension from 1-1-06 (a shift from earlier 2-9-08 position). Should we not ask for Eligibility to ALL, Applicability for fixation/arrears from 1-1-06 like others ( More than us, it is the voiceless Family Pension ladies who will benefit)
8. It is our lethargy- discord that Babus bank- thrive on
Naga 57

Very valid questions. Since you have put up these questions to VN, I would not react till Mr. Natrajan answers them. Thereafter, I would also like to put in my opinian on it.

vnatarajan
01-09-2009, 10:27 PM
Dear MLK

Pl go ahead. My views have been shared separately with Shri Dnaga. I would also send you a copy of it soon. You will certainly understand and appreciate the contents for the "truth" in them!

Few quetions, I have no reservations to answer, But then in the interest of all, it is best to answer and share the views with the concerned.

Our larger interest always is in the interest of the entire lot of pensioners.It rerquires much greater involvement, support and assistance at this stage. We oldies operate like one-man desk oriented portals. But then when pensioners of segments expect some relief alone for themselves, I dont think we can stand in their way in any manner! We fought for S30 also in this very thread right from the beginning. Now are they fighting for us? EXCEPT GR WHO IS A RARE EXAMPLE! even my own Deptt fellows (S30 category- but then they have their problems) are not in a position to help us, GR is always there- ever-ready to help in any way he can!

Since some of the qns of Dnaga were sensitive, my reactions are reserved!

What we sow- we reap!

We are enlightened today mainly because of Gconnect/ RREWA- but they are not groups to fight for us.

I AM SURE EVERY ONE OF US WILL BE A WINNER - and not a sinner!

Cheers

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-09-2009, 07:46 AM
Dear MLK

Pl go ahead. My views have been shared separately with Shri Dnaga. I would also send you a copy of it soon. You will certainly understand and appreciate the contents for the "truth" in them!

Few quetions, I have no reservations to answer, But then in the interest of all, it is best to answer and share the views with the concerned.

Our larger interest always is in the interest of the entire lot of pensioners.It rerquires much greater involvement, support and assistance at this stage. We oldies operate like one-man desk oriented portals. But then when pensioners of segments expect some relief alone for themselves, I dont think we can stand in their way in any manner! We fought for S30 also in this very thread right from the beginning. Now are they fighting for us? EXCEPT GR WHO IS A RARE EXAMPLE! even my own Deptt fellows (S30 category- but then they have their problems) are not in a position to help us, GR is always there- ever-ready to help in any way he can!

Since some of the qns of Dnaga were sensitive, my reactions are reserved!

What we sow- we reap!

We are enlightened today mainly because of Gconnect/ RREWA- but they are not groups to fight for us.

I AM SURE EVERY ONE OF US WILL BE A WINNER - and not a sinner!

Cheers

vnatarajan

I am in full agreement with you. I would therefore, suggest Mr. Dnaga to ask these question to S29 google group.

dnaga57
02-09-2009, 08:59 AM
I did 1st on 29googlegroups only.
My post here was a cut & paste :)

vnatarajan
02-09-2009, 03:07 PM
Dear All

I have prepared the format for my FINAL APPEAL/ and also to serve as model
for any others who may like to use it for their own appeal. With slight modifications, it can go to Cab Sec/ MOF/PM/ President .It requires no enclosures. If any one wants to add enclosures, they may do so.It has all "legalistic" points- which can be authenticated by the OMs, SCPC recos- paragraphs, RTI replies, Rules, Swamy's Pub notes etc. PL CHK/EDIT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUB: APPEAL FOR REMOVAL OF DISPARITY IN PENSIONS BETWEEN PRE -2006 AND POST-2006 PENSIONERS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF SIXTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION (SCPC)’S RECOMMENDATIONS

Sub: Pension Revisions of Pre-2006 S29 Pensioners; Ref: DOPPW’s OM Nos: 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt.1 dt 1.9.2008/3 & 14.10.2008; UO of even no to DOE dtd 5.1.2009 (referring proposal on Para 4.2 Revision); earlier Gazette Notification dtd 29th Aug 2008 on Pay Revision/ MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-(IC) dtd 30th August 2008 (on Revised Pay); MOF’s GSR No 527(E)dtd 16th July 2009 on HAG Pay Scale revision; its Implementation OM No 1/1/2008-IC dtd 21st July 2009: CoA,CPAO’s Do lr No. CPAO/Tech/6thCPC/Misc/1265 dtd 26.09.2008 old version (OV) and of even no. & EVEN date new version(NV)-Edited at the source after months!

Dear Honourable / Respectful …………..

As one belonging to the large segment of most aggrieved senior pre-2006 S29 pensioners subjected to an indifferent treatment/ disparity by denial of MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSIONS (MGP)- resulting in “REDUCTION IN PENSION” leading to nothing short of humiliation in my fading years of life, I make the following submissions:

1.. The concept of Modified Parity (MP) arises out of the parent principle of parity amongst same/homogenous class of pensioners, being a Constitutional guarantee under Article 14. The Cabinet accepted/President sanctioned/ Gazette notified recommendations of the SCPC under para 5.1.47 clearly ASSURES the same for a Minimum Guaranteed Pension (MGP) for pre-2006 pensioners or for a Modified Parity (MP) in pension in effect.

2. Resolution of the Govt. and the implementation orders issued vide DOPPW ‘s OM dated 1.9.2008 under Para 4.2 (text slightly obliterated (purpose not clear) in parts w.r.t 1 above) have therefore bestowed statutory status to the Modified Parity between the past and new pensioners belonging to the same scales of pay and equal length of service on either side of the date of revision.

3.However, while implementing the above directive, the Govt./ concerned authorities have denied the MGP/ MP to the pre-2006 pensioners through administrative instructions contained in the COA, CPAOs letter dated 26.9.2008 (two contradictory/ questionable versions of the same letter no 1265 –marked old version & new version (both were seen in the website/ downloaded by many of us – almost the core cause for the reduction in pensions), followed by DOPPW’s OMs dated 3 and 14 .10.2008 (with Annexure I & II) which are totally arbitrary, misconstrued , in violation of Art 309, and are liable to be struck down.

4..Such arbitrary actions/OMs have resulted in destructuring the “Homogenous Class of pre-2006 pensioners of different scales” into several sub-classes which are again unconstitutional/ violation of Article 14/ against principles-policies of very SCPC who made a number of viable Recommendations to maintain the Homogeneity at least at the minimum in the form of Modified Parity. Instead , many pensioners have got reductions in Basic Pensions (with recurring losses in Dearness Relief raises every six months/ erosion of Base for next CPC review /loss in Family Pension eligibility) which is against every norm and Rule. Wide disparities in pensions resulted within homogenous class of pensioners even at the MGP levels or at Modified Parity. Examples among them are S29 and S30 scales with reductions to the tune of Rs 3850 and Rs 7000 appx. p.m. in their Basic Pensions alone.

5.Other undesirable precedences including successive merging of pay scales into pay bands without maintaining the identity of even the “MINIMUM REVISED PAY” for pension purposes will result in successive REDUCED PENSIONS in every revision. Identity of the pre-revised scale will be totally lost. Two classes of pensioners are being created ie “pre-2006” and “post 2006” for every scale of pensioner. Within SCPC dispensation, there will be three CATEGRIES of pensioners whose pensions will be fixed by different formulae- based on (i) 2.26 Multiplication Factor (ii) Minimum of the Pay Band and (iii) Minimum of the REVISED Pay Scale. For the first two categories, there are no applications of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 provisions or FITMENT TABLES issued by MOF vide Gazette/ OMs dtd 29/30.8.2008. No definition of “PAY” or “EMOLUMENTS” are furnished/ applied as in the case of post-2006 pensioners. ALL THESE DEPARTURTES ARE LIABLE TO BE CHALLENGED as they are discriminatory and have caused the DIAPARITIES between pre-2006 and post 2006 pensions. RTI replies go to the extent of pointing out that the pre-2006 pension revisions are based on “GOVT> DECISIONS” and appli action of CCS(RP)Rules 2008 is for post 2006 pensioners only. Even DOPPW’s OM dtd 2nd Sept 2008 states this, which is discriminatory!

6..Passionate, well reasoned, clear appeals made by scores of affected segments off pre-2006 pensioners have been disposed off en masse without answering any issues rationally or convincingly vide OM of 11.2.2009. RTI questions are replied vaguely by the DOPPW/ DOE /their Ministries, taking shelter under “Govt. Decisions” “OMs issued” instead of answering the queries raised precisely to find out the authority/ decisions which caused the “REDUCED/ NEGATIVE PARITY” instead of the Govt Notified MAP/MP, as it had meant so.

7. A well-reasoned/ non-controversial proposal submitted by the DOPPW to MOF/DOE in Oct 2008/ reminded in Jan 2009 read as follows: “:"THE REVISED PENSION IN NO CASE SHALL BE LOWER THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF THE SUM OF THE REVISED PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND AND THE GRADE PAY THEREON CORRESPONDING TO THE MINIMUM BASIC PAY IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED, AND ARRIVED AT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FITMENT TABLES GIVEN IN ANNEXURE I OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (REVISED PAY) RULES 2008". This proposal had been rejected by DOE (at a Director’s level) in mid Jan 2009 due to adverse “FINANCIALIMPLICATIONS”. Courts have also rejected any such “financial” excuses for pension provisions. Pensioners are not convinced of the grounds of rejection, as the SCPC itself has covered the aspect of full financial provisions for pensions also based on at least Modified Parity.

(THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN PUT UP TO HIGHER AUTHORITIES LIKE Minister Of State/ Finance Minister/ PMO as THE LAST HAD REFERRED THIS ISSUE OF “DISPARITIES” to the MOP(S) / DOPPW for a scrutiny in Oct/Nov 2008 itself).

8. Recently, based on the well-considered recommendation of the Committee of Secretaries (under Cabinet Secretary’s Chairmanship), Govt. has created the new HAG scale 67000-79000 (MOF’s OM dt 16. 7. 2009; its application to pre-2006 pensioners vide DOPPW’s Revised Pension Order for S30 dt 21. 7.2009; CPAO’s Lr dt 28. 8.2009) to reduce the DISPARITY in pensions between the pre-2006 and post 2006 S30 Scale Pensioners. This right step has brought relief to the old pre-2006 S30 Pensioners. It may be added here that originally the SCPC had recommended PB 4 to contain pre-revised pay scales of HAG/SAG levels of S-32/31/30/29/& 28. Out of these now only, the SAG levels S29/28 remain, but with JAG levels in the current PB4. A similar consideration/ action for S29/28 will do justice to the SAG level pensioners and remove their current “NOTIONAL post-retirement REDUCTION in BASIC PENSION” (against Pension Rules) which almost amounts to “post-retirement demotions”. Common causes that resulted in such wide DISPARITIES in case of S30 and all scale pensioners , have already been presented in earlier paragraphs.

9.In view of the above submissions and hoping for your kind/just intervention, we the aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners pray to::

(i) Declare null and void the distortions/ ambiguities introduced in the revision of pensions for pre-2006 pensioners, through DOPPW’s OMs dt 3 & 14.10.2008 and the infirmities of OMdt 11. 2.2009.

(I) Order similar relief as in the case of S30 pre-2006 pensioners to S29 and other pre-2006 Pensioners as necessary to REDUCE THE DISPARITIES that had resulted due to same reasons of MERGER of several PRE-REVISED SCALES into SINGLE PAY BANDS without identifying the ‘MINIMUM’ for each pre-revised pay scale within the respective pay band/ independent of pay bands, by providing:

(a) either new revised scales as in the case of S30 for S29 / others also OR

(b)recognizing the respective pay scales within the corresponding pay bands and identifying the REVISED PAY minimum for each pay scale as per the FIXATION TABLES provided with the CCS(RP)Rules 2008. for e.g. S29 pre-revised pension has to be fixed at a MINIMUM of Rs 27350 in the least, at par with the minimum/least pension, applicable to the post under the correct SCPC dispensation and in accordance with the accepted policy of Modified Parity. Proposal made by the DOPPW in Oct 2008 in this regard (cited earlier) may be considered on its MERITs.

Your sympathetic consideration and fair directions to the authorities concerned to correct the gross injustice and inequity , will certainly help the old, helpless, humiliated pre-2006 pensioners to get solace and justice and eliminate the demoralizing discrimination and necessity of going to the altars of court and litigation .

Yours faithfully

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-09-2009, 07:11 PM
WHAT IS MODIFIED PARITY or PARITY? WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE MUCH DEBATED “DISPARITY”? WHAT IS THE SOLUTION FOR REMOVING “DIAPARITY”?

Every pre-2006 pensioner, who has felt the pinch, and has becaome fully aware of the same thanks to the sytem of e-communication/ social networks like Gconnect.In/ Surispace.Net/ ScribD/ and the very fast-growing RREWA.org etc must be wondering what are the “basics” concerning the above.

Like RAMAYAN in four line, I can explain all the three questions, in three SENTENCES:

SENTENCE 1.
SCPC, upholding and citing the constitutionally guaranteed/ judicially endorsed virtue of PARITY of pension for all old and new pensioners, irrespective of dates of revisions, ultimately vide its Report’s para 5.1.47 recommended a MINIMUM assured pension or MODIFIED PARITY which was nothing but the equality in pensions between the old and new pensioners on the basis of the MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY in the revised pay bands/ pay scales

(Pl note the SCPC never RECOMMENDED ANY “DISPARITY”.and certainly upheld its PRINCIPLES/POLICY at least in the least by making way for a “MODIFIED PARITY”)

SENTENCE 2
By systematic and erroneous “clarifications” “modifications” ordered through confusing DO letter/OMs/ their Annexures issued between 26th Sept 2008 and 11th Feb 2009, the concerned authorities REDUCED what should have been the “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY in the PAY BAND” to the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” itself, which resulted in DISPARITIES” in pensions for segments of old pensioners in all scales from S 4 to S 30 (now up to S29 only as S 30’s case has been rectified!)

SENTENCE 3
By reversing /changing the application of the basis of “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” to that of the “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY IN THE PAY BAND” to all the aggrieved segments of the old pensioners of S 4 to S 29 scales, all the “created” “DISPARITIES” will disappear and every old pensioner will get MODIFIED PARITY.

In Brief:
SCPC recommended MODIFIED PARITY.
AUTHORITIES caused DISPARITIES in pensions.
COMMITTEE OF SECRETARIES resolved the DISPARITY for S30 old pensioners by creating a new scale for them and extricated them from the PAY BAND effect of DISPARITY/reduction in pension.

WILL THE AUTHORITIES DO WHAT IS SIMPLER AS IN SENTENCE 3?

vnatarajan

dkp_cus
05-09-2009, 09:36 PM
Dear Shri Natarajan
I think I am missing something
1. Was the 28thAug meeting of S29 or S30 groups? ( I thought Mr HCS is of S29 group)
2. Why no one from S29 was willing to take on some mantle. Evidently, S30 -having got a separate scale- can go for full parity with No loss- All gain situation.
3. Do we contribute 5000 to S29 groups or to 28thAug meeting group - amalgamate as I can see
4. I think it may be better that we contribute to a S29 group - like yours- and go with pensioners organisation's ( like AIRROA) decision.
5. Too many groups are afloat - Gconnect, RRWEA etc. ( incidentally I find RREWA is getting dormant on action- active in only News/Info posting). Can we consolidate to an umbrella orgnisation?
6. While we S29 can look for a separate grade, can we apparently ditch other pensioners at this stage- in any collective action?
7. GOI has agreed for 20 years Full Pension from 1-1-06 (a shift from earlier 2-9-08 position). Should we not ask for Eligibility to ALL, Applicability for fixation/arrears from 1-1-06 like others ( More than us, it is the voiceless Family Pension ladies who will benefit)
8. It is our lethargy- discord that Babus bank- thrive on
Naga 57

Will any one enlighten about the authenticity of point no. 7 above as it is of great interest to me. Though logically correct and legally was required to be done, I will be surprised if it is done so soon. Thanks

sundarar
06-09-2009, 12:39 PM
7. GOI has agreed for 20 years Full Pension from 1-1-06 (a shift from earlier 2-9-08 position). Should we not ask for Eligibility to ALL, Applicability for fixation/arrears from 1-1-06 like others ( More than us, it is the voiceless Family Pension ladies who will benefit)
-----------------------
Will any one enlighten about the authenticity of point no. 7 above as it is of great interest to me. Though logically correct and legally was required to be done, I will be surprised if it is done so soon. Thanks
--------------------
"Extract of COS recommendations:

(iv) Commissioned Officers: The proposal to remove the linkage of full pension with 33 years of QS w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 1.9.2008 in the case of Commissioned Officers may be agreed to. A similar dispensation will have to be extended to Civilians who have retired between 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 The recommendation would benefit around 1100 officers (Army) whose pension would increase by about Rs.3000/- p.m. In the case of civilians, this dispensation will benefit only those who have rtaken voluntary retirement after rendering 20 to 28 years service. The number of such personnel is not likely to be significant. The financial implication for this porposal will be Rs.4.83 crores per annum. This proposal emanates from 6CPC's recommentations and may be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Accordinly arrears will be paid".

----------------
Now, the question before a common pensioner is, although it is appropriate to implement arrears arising out of delinking of 33 years only from 1.1.2006, whether the existing so many CG pensioners under the 33 years' regime till 31.12.2005, retired either on voluntary/on superannuation, or absorbed in CPSUs and getting pro-rata pension based on 33 years service, will get their pension revised based on 20 years service criteria in full or pro-rata w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Kanaujiaml
06-09-2009, 12:50 PM
7. GOI has agreed for 20 years Full Pension from 1-1-06 (a shift from earlier 2-9-08 position). Should we not ask for Eligibility to ALL, Applicability for fixation/arrears from 1-1-06 like others ( More than us, it is the voiceless Family Pension ladies who will benefit)
-----------------------
Will any one enlighten about the authenticity of point no. 7 above as it is of great interest to me. Though logically correct and legally was required to be done, I will be surprised if it is done so soon. Thanks
--------------------
"Extract of COS recommendations:

(iv) Commissioned Officers: The proposal to remove the linkage of full pension with 33 years of QS w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 1.9.2008 in the case of Commissioned Officers may be agreed to. A similar dispensation will have to be extended to Civilians who have retired between 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 The recommendation would benefit around 1100 officers (Army) whose pension would increase by about Rs.3000/- p.m. In the case of civilians, this dispensation will benefit only those who have rtaken voluntary retirement after rendering 20 to 28 years service. The number of such personnel is not likely to be significant. The financial implication for this porposal will be Rs.4.83 crores per annum. This proposal emanates from 6CPC's recommentations and may be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Accordinly arrears will be paid".

----------------
Now, the question before a common pensioner is, although it is appropriate to implement arrears arising out of delinking of 33 years only from 1.1.2006, whether the existing so many CG pensioners under the 33 years' regime till 31.12.2005, retired either on voluntary/on superannuation, or absorbed in CPSUs and getting pro-rata pension based on 33 years service, will get their pension revised based on 20 years service criteria in full or pro-rata w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Information given in point 7 is authentic in the sense that it forms part of the COS report. A copy of full report with covering letter is available with me which I can send to you via e. mail, if desired.

sundarar
06-09-2009, 01:01 PM
An article appeared in the RREWA Web Site - Current Issues, is reproduced below for kind information of all pensioners community.

JUSTICE IN PARITY

After exhausting all possible avenues, save litigation with attendant financial costs, the Central Government Pensioners’ Community presents hereunder their grievance on implementation of the accepted recommendation of the Sixth CPC.

1. The pension of a retired employee, has a basic reference point of 50% of last pay drawn at the time of retirement, as there is no basic reference point available for fixing a retiree’s pension beyond the mechanical 50% of last pay drawn as pension without application of any rationale behind such percentage. In such a situation, it is significant to note the following:

i. The accepted recommendations of I CPC were implemented from 1.1.1947.
ii. The accepted recommendations of I I CPC were implemented from 1.1.1959 after a period of nearly 12.1/2 years..
iii. The accepted recommendations of III CPC were implemented from 1.1.1973
after a lapse of nearly 13.1/2 years.
Iv .The accepted recommendations of IV CPC were implemented from 1.1.1986 after a period of 13 years.

An employee who commenced his service during the I CPC period, viz. 1947-1959 and retired after rendering a solid 4 decades service or so, would have retired during 1990-2000 and would have come across only about 3 CPC Pay revision or so to get his last pay earned as a basic factor to the extent of 50% as basic pension.. Amidst the same, it is significant to note that one pay revision has been evaded during the course of 1957-1986.

2. Such a last pay drawn based basic pension, which has already got reduced by skipping of one pay revision as explained above, when taken for revision with effect from 1.1.2006 based on VI CPC recommendation, it had resulted in Reduced Revised Pension to the extent of an average 10 -15% or even more from the prescribed 50% of the `Pay in the Pay Band’ by modifying the same as `Pay Band’. By this gross injustice, a pensioner could not get guaranteed parity even at minimum level owing to modified/clarified overriding Office Memorandum dated 03 and 14/10/2008, which in turn were based on an altogether different version from Government Resolution/Gazette Notification etc, contained in CPAO’s letter dated 26.9.2008 to the PDAs at the time of effecting the revised pension.

3. Apart from restricting the Pay in the Pay Band to Pay Band as above, the multiplication factor applied as a common phenomenon under the pretext of extending the fixation formula of serving employees to Pensioners also, has also been devised rather ingeniously so as to be 40% of pre-revised pension instead of 40% of max. of pre-revised scale, to get added with 1.86 mf over pre-revised pension, to constitute overall 2.26 multiplication factor for arriving at Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

4. Division of Pensioners as Pre-2006, Post-2006 and Post-2.9.2008 by virtue of different pension formulae involving various analogies pertaining to methods of calculation as well as qualifying service aspects has been resorted to during the implementation process, resulting in gross violation of several judgments of the Supreme Court..

5. Division of Pensioners as Pay band-1 to 3, Pay Band 4 and HAG Scale holders has also been applied in unprincipled manner, with varying multiplication factors, in the name of minimum assured guaranteed revised pension, which itself ultimately got reduced as stated in (1) above, thus equating those retired at minimum of the pre-revised scale of pay with those at maximum.

6. DOP&PW’s File Noting dated 20/21.10.2008 and subsequent reminder dated 2.1.2009 to the Dept. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance elaborating the discontent/resentment of aggrieved pensioners through their representations forwarded directly as well as through the various dignitaries including that of the President’s Secretariat, is still to be acted upon. Similar File Noting of DOP&PW dated 25.9.2008 with a modified proposal in favour of Pensioners earlier, have been altered post-haste at DOE’s end by issue of DO letter dated 26.9.2008 to the Nodal Officers of PDAs. This letter has, after a period of 8 months, undergone material change by converting the wording from `Minimum of Pay Band' into `Minimum of Pay in the Pay Band', as is seen now in CPAO’s website, as if to mean that it conforms with initial OM dated 1.9.2008. but in real and factual terms it DOES NOT CONFORM with the original OM dated 1.9.2008, since the PDAs have already acted upon the original version of the D.O.letter of 26/9/2008 of DOE, with resultant curtailment of entitled pension for all the pensioners, even while the answer to Qn. No.4 of FAQ in the same website maintains the initial contention. Disparity/gap shall not get arbitrarily generated, but an improved version of previous revision only shall be the purpose. Particularly, if we look at the pattern of revision of pension at VCPC implementation period, definitely there would not have been this much discontent/resentment among pensioners at that time out of inconsistencies among implementation part. The reasons therefor, are therefore self-explanatory.

7. It is pertinent to note that the 5th CPC had given a rider to the present Government towards maintaining parity aspects vide its para 137.21, but unfortunately this has been ignored both by VI CPC and the Government. This has happened in the absence of a Constitutional Status as recommended vide Para 171.11 by the V CPC to the Pay Commissions for functioning as a Permanet Pay Body. In the line of VCPC, the recommendations of such Pay Body would not be advisory in nature as hitherto, but would be in the nature of an award which is binding on all parties concerned.

8. The recommendation of very same 5th CPC to maintain parity between pre-1986 pensioners with post-1996 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996 had been accepted by issue of OM dated 10.2.1998 by the DOP&PW. In line with the spirit behind the said OM, the parity between pre-1996 with post-1996 followed by pre-2006 with post-2006 has however not taken place so far. Keeping the same in view, the Bharat Pensioners Samaj has submitted its Resolution passed during its Annual General Body Meeting on 9.8.2009 for notional fixation of last pay drawn in the revised structure to derive the revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

9, The application of uniform multiplication factor, viz. 3.0 either over pre-revised pension or over pre-revised scale minimum as has been the case in respect of pensioners belonging to pre-revised scale S-30 to the rest of pensioners belonging to pre-revised scales S-1 to S-29 will ultimately render justice and ensure maintenance of parity

10. In short, the yardstick followed in fixation of revised pension for pre-revised scale pensioners S-31 to S-34 and the one followed in fixation of re-revised pension in the case of S-30 scale pensioners, shall uniformly be applied to the entire pensioners community without any gap/disparity as is existing at present, while the basic reference point, viz. respective pre-revised scale or basic pre-revised basic pension will be a static component to derive the revised pension on application of a uniform treatment to the Pensioners Community as a homogenous class at all points of time.

11. Pensioners of Post-April 2004 could get their Dearness Pension also included for arriving at revised. Pension, whereas the Pre-April 2004 pensioners could not get the same This is discriminatory and violative of judgments of the Apex Court.

12. The probable and possible way to reduce the `gap/disparity' between different groups of pensioners as financial constraints if any shall not be construed as a justification for only one particular Group, namely, S-1 to S-29 to get the pension reduced rather than revised in actual terms.

Thus, a uniform yardstick towards fixing the revised pension is yet to be applied in the case of pensioners. Although the fitment Formulae applicable for serving employees is supposed to get extended to the Pensioners as per VI CPC accepted Recommendations, it is not so in reality. The Pensioners depend on the highest office in our country now to come to their rescue for the purpose of leading a decent life at their old age independently. They neither have time, nor financial source except their pension, to seek remedy for their legitimate dues, as the pension is a sort of remuneration for the past service rendered, and the forgone benefits of contribution.

We place the suggestive solution as a prayer to kindly consider a uniform single fixation formulae of application of multiplication factor of 3 times over the pre-revised basic pension drawn as on 31.12.2005 as against the present 2.26 multiplication factor, in order to remove the inconsistencies and irregularities arising out of implementation of the accepted recommendations of the 6th CPC for Pensioners as a whole.

The Presidential intervention with a human touch will definitely bring justice to the affected Pensioners Community, by keeping their welfare above all political and bureaucratic compulsions in the business of the Government, and with this hope, we knock the door of Justice by the Respected President to remove the mental agony in the minds of the Pensioners’ Community including family pensioners by a befitting Judgment.
===========

------------------------------------------------------------------------

sundarar
06-09-2009, 01:02 PM
With particular reference to Para 6 above, upto V CPC implementations, all pension revisions were carried out by Government on a common uniform pattern for all pensioners in pre-revised scales S1 to S35. The VI CPC divided the pensioners by recommending three pay bands having multiplication factor of 1.86 with grade pay components, another payband having multiplication factor of 2.6 or so and one group beyond the pay bands with multiplication factor of 3 or so involving different treatment for each divided group. Even within the particular pay bands, the payband minimum rather than the corresponding pay in the pay band, has been made to travel togetherwith the corresponding grade pay as applicable to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

The result is that the lower level pensioners have been denied their legitimate dues, and so is the case of S-24 to S-29 where seven pre-revised scale holders are getting same PB min.+GP as against respective min. pay in PB+GP. No pensioner would prefer to get their community divided and hence would naturally wish for a common uniform treatment, as ultimately it is the pre-revised scale/last pay/pre-revised pension held/drawn is going to be the basic reference point for any such modified parity which is nothing but complete and uniform parity among pensioners.

dkp_cus
08-09-2009, 10:05 PM
Thanks a lot for the info. May I request u for forwarding the COS report to me Sir!
Thanks again

dkp_cus
08-09-2009, 10:08 PM
Information given in point 7 is authentic in the sense that it forms part of the COS report. A copy of full report with covering letter is available with me which I can send to you via e. mail, if desired.
Thanks a lot for the info. Hope u have recieved my mail. May I request again for forwarding the COS report to me Sir!
Thanks again.

Dr.M.Jauhari
09-09-2009, 05:34 AM
Dear Shri MLK/VN,
I will be grateful if you could enlighten whether the petition in Supreme Court by IAS/IPS/IFS Assoc. is specific to their service or else it is based on the general principle of parity/modified parity for which you are fighting.Mjauhari

kkhameedkutty
09-09-2009, 10:12 AM
Information given in point 7 is authentic in the sense that it forms part of the COS report. A copy of full report with covering letter is available with me which I can send to you via e. mail, if desired.

Dear Kanaujiaml Sir,

With reference to above, kindly send me a copy of complete COS report for my information. Thanks in advance. My email Id: kkhameedkutty@yahoo.co.in

With Best Regards,

KKH Kutty

vnatarajan
09-09-2009, 10:35 AM
Dear Dr MJ

Shri MLK might be able to react fully in a couple of days' time.
Prelim. indications are that the Writ aims at quashing the obliterations made thru OMs and upholding the Reco of the SCPC- which clearly means the MODIFIED PARITY- say calculated at the minimum of the revised pay scale.
Soon you may get the relevant papers and you will be able to study in details.
Regards
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-09-2009, 11:25 AM
NEWS ON AUSTERITY MEASURES BY GOVT.: NO 5% CUT for PENSION EXPENSES.

Dear All

This is in the context of austerity measures that are being aired in the
media/ news etc by the Govt.
Also as usual, the unwary gullible pensioners, as usual become pessimistic.
They think Govt. has no adequate funds to pay all arrears/ DR increase etc
etc.

I always tell them it is all mere hoax. The limit is what you can sustain!.
All the "Growth" the Govt. projects as GDP/GNP etc are the "AMOUNTS" of
"notes" you will be printing!- Our Finance WHIZBUDDAs visualise it to be 6
or 6.5 etc based on statistical infor from all "growth sectoirs" and
matching data from all other sources. So churn out the new notes
accordingly!. Why bother?. We are not like US where every day at least 10-12
Billion dollars of notes must be printed in its mint! Still they are in debt
to every country. And all are happy- despite recession etc.

Over and above, our ex FM is an expert at DEFICIT BUDGETTING and to the
extent of 6% of the above 6% growth he likes to have as "DEFICIT" which
itself runs into a few lakhs of crores of rupees.

Pensioner's expenses are a mere naya-paise dimension in that.

HOWEVER TO BRING CHEER TO YOU ALL, HERE IS AN EXTRACT OF THE RELATED
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY MOF on 7th SEPT 2009. This is in its text. It is a note
of DOE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 7(1) E.Coord/2009
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
2
(ii) The remaining portions of non-plan expenditure, excluding
interest payments, repayment of debt, Defence capital, salaries,
pension and the Finance Commission grants to the States, will be
subjected to a mandatory 5% cut. No re-appropriation of funds
to augment the non-plan heads of expenditure shall be allowed
during the current financial year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pension is excluded from the mandatory cut of 5%.
\
DO DEMAND! Pension is our right.
We earned it.
It is from our past undisbursed savings held by Govt.
It is not out of Taxes as in the case of "Employees".
None can touch it.
It is ironical that babudom is playing with our own money!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
09-09-2009, 11:11 PM
Dear Shri MLK/VN,
I will be grateful if you could enlighten whether the petition in Supreme Court by IAS/IPS/IFS Assoc. is specific to their service or else it is based on the general principle of parity/modified parity for which you are fighting.Mjauhari

Dear Dr. Jauhari. The petition is from Officers of IFS, IPS and IAS represented through an S29 Officer from three Associations each of IFS, IPS and IAS. Petitions focusses on PB4 and pre revised pay scales included in it (even S30). The prayer in petition is basically for restoration of Original para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, which is actually based on 6 cPC para 5.1.47 and Union Cabinet approved & Gazette Notified OM dated 29.08.2008. Thus it means modified parity for all i.e. s29 downwards. I hope you understand the implications.

Dr.M.Jauhari
10-09-2009, 12:11 AM
Dear Shri MLK/VN,
Many thanks for the information.Next month,I will also be in Lucknow when it will be possible to interact directly with the petitioners.MJ.

Kanaujiaml
10-09-2009, 07:16 AM
Thanks a lot for the info. Hope u have recieved my mail. May I request again for forwarding the COS report to me Sir!
Thanks again.

You have not given me your e. mail ID. How can I send the COS report to you ?

Kanaujiaml
10-09-2009, 08:09 AM
My dear friends. Since yesterday, I find that "Compose" button on my yahoomail inbox page is missing. Can anyone guide me how to restore it back ? Thanks.

dkp_cus
10-09-2009, 01:13 PM
It works like this Sir, if u click on my name/id then u get an option to send a mail to me. It works for all IDs. However, my e-mail id is dkp_cus@yahoo.com.
Awaiting ur response please. Thanks again

vnatarajan
10-09-2009, 06:23 PM
Dear All
I hear loud noises that the TV channels are flashing the sanction/
release of 5% DR? I chkd up MOF/ MOPPGPO/ DOE/DOPW sites- Circulars
are not yet out!
Pl keep watch. Shri GR alerted.
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
10-09-2009, 07:20 PM
Dear all. All TV channels are flashing that Govt. has announced 5 % DA/DR increase. However, Notification has not appeared on the internet so far. It may appear by tomorow.

Dr.M.Jauhari
12-09-2009, 12:49 AM
Dear Shri MLk/VN,
Why are Maj Genls silent showing no activity either for a separate pay scale or for full parity from 1.1.2006 as they got from 1.1.96 after Vains case?Is it because they got the benefit of MSP in pension fixation? If they also try for a separate pay scale,it can probably help us.MJ

Kanaujiaml
12-09-2009, 08:29 AM
My dear MJ. Why not ask the same question to all Central Govt. pensioners ? Why they are lying low and watching with indifference ? Every one appears to be thinking that somebodyelse would act on their behalf. 6 CPC report came in Aug.2008 and amendment to para 4.2 reducing revised pention, came on 03 10 2008. Since then hundreds, if not thousands, applications went to authorities concerned, all rejected summarily. What are we doing then for real action ? Precious nothing, it appears.

dnaga57
12-09-2009, 09:16 AM
My dear MJ. Why not ask the same question to all Central Govt. pensioners ? Why they are lying low and watching with indifference ? Every one appears to be thinking that somebodyelse would act on their behalf. 6 CPC report came in Aug.2008 and amendment to para 4.2 reducing revised pention, came on 03 10 2008. Since then hundreds, if not thousands, applications went to authorities concerned, all rejected summarily. What are we doing then for real action ? Precious nothing, it appears.
Well said Sir
Though I am quite impressed with the number who have writen to S29pensioners forum. What is missing- regrettable is with so many 'associations of Pensioners' not many have joined......
Lack of info, interest, energy, resigning to fate.. dont know what ???

vnatarajan
12-09-2009, 02:29 PM
WHY HESITATION? DOES IT SEND RIGHT OR WRONG SIGNALS? ANYTHING TO CONSTRUE?

Dear All

Are the MOF/DOE correct in not divulging the information we sought?

As you are aware, quite a few of us had raised the RTI query on the creation
of S30 Scale:

Replies received mostly ARE on these lines (I have not reproduced the exact
text here- but essentials):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision of the Government leading to the issue of MOF/DOE's GSR dt 16th
July 2009 involves other items also.
The process with regard to other items is not yet complete
As it is difficult to for the Department to segregate the other items at
this stage.
We (MOF -DOE) express our inability to supply the said documents as per
provisions under Section 8 1(I) of the RTI Act 2005.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does Section 8 1 (I) of RTI Act 2005 say?

It deals with Exemptions from Disclosure of Information under various
clauses etc::

8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,-

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of
Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof,
and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be
made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete,
or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions
specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. New RTI Query has to/will follow from many!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
15-09-2009, 07:03 AM
Has anybody seen DR raise (22 to 27) circular ?

vnatarajan
15-09-2009, 06:48 PM
Dear MLK

Nothing till Afternoon- DA or DR both are not out!

vn

vnatarajan
16-09-2009, 04:30 PM
Dear All

Our fight continues.

It is going to be nearly ONE YEAR since we started sending the first representation after waking up to the OM of 3rd October 2008- particularly its "Modification" column bringing in the most abnoxious and destructive phraseology like "irrespective of" and the Table/ Annexure I and II that were circulated with OM dated 14th Oct 2008 by the DOPPW.

Merrily while we are languishing, the authorities who were primarily responsible are HOPING TO ENJOY - "TWO" Pensions -and they RICHLY deserve the same because they always indulge in "TWO VERSIONS" of orders, file notes, denials.

The three letters I had sent to the CABINET SECRETARY, HON. PRIME MINISTER, & HON PRESIDENT with the episodes of DICHOTOMY of references HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE RESPECTIVE OFFICES on 11th Sept 2009, and - I am sure at least one authority will look into the STANDARDS and ETHICS of their KEY "GOVERNANCE" units and makes sure that the GOVERNMENT does not collapse!!.

If they do not do so, GOD SAVE THE COUNTRY!

I have some more "TWO VERSION" episodes which will follow soon!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all I had sent A DOZEN appeals on my own behalf/ and on behalf of PF/Pensioners/ Family Pensioners to various authorities at various points of time- and the list with status is compiled by me. It is not getting posted properly here. I shall do it later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-09-2009, 03:12 PM
Dear ALL
> MOF has notified the Revised DA for Employees.
> So DOPPW will follow with orders for Revised DR for Pensioners soon.
> vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
19-09-2009, 09:45 AM
My dear VN. DOP has not been able to issue DR raise Circular. Is it because of the fact that all DOP files are lying right now with the DOE ?

Kanaujiaml
20-09-2009, 07:03 AM
Dear All. s29pensionersgooglegroups have done good job by forming an Association. They would be opening a bank A/c soon, to collect subscription for membership and fight the case of injustice to pensioners. As first step they are planning to meet MOS/P. I congratulate them and wish them all the best.

vnatarajan
21-09-2009, 12:21 PM
Dear MLK/ all concerned

With Shri MPS being transferred, I am afraid what u r stating may be correct!

ALready the Main File of pre-2006 pensioners' appeals (307 in no.)- along with the PROPOSAL made by the DOPPW on 21.10.2008 and sent to them (DOE) are with held by the latter - and for each of our RTI query about the matter, they have stated it is being returned or had been returned.

Till late August, the file is still with the DOE!- LOST? BURNT? NOT TRACEABLE?

Hoewever as the DR is secondary/linked to DA for employees, it may come soon - at least as a part file.

HEARTY CONGRATS FOR S29 GOOGLE GROUP - shaping into a POWERFUL ASSOCIATION OF S29 Category PENSIONERS of all CG DEPARTMENTS/ ORGANISATIONS/INSTITUTIONS etc and let all of us hope that they take up the issue of MODIFIED PARITY (viz. Minimum Assured Pension nowadays!) in the Supreme Court soon.

vnatarajan

ramkanwar
22-09-2009, 11:48 AM
I am unable to get the website rrewa.org since yesterday. Can someone help me to know whether the site is in operation these days.
RK Aggarwal


Dear MLK/ all concerned

With Shri MPS being transferred, I am afraid what u r stating may be correct!

ALready the Main File of pre-2006 pensioners' appeals (307 in no.)- along with the PROPOSAL made by the DOPPW on 21.10.2008 and sent to them (DOE) are with held by the latter - and for each of our RTI query about the matter, they have stated it is being returned or had been returned.

Till late August, the file is still with the DOE!- LOST? BURNT? NOT TRACEABLE?

Hoewever as the DR is secondary/linked to DA for employees, it may come soon - at least as a part file.

HEARTY CONGRATS FOR S29 GOOGLE GROUP - shaping into a POWERFUL ASSOCIATION OF S29 Category PENSIONERS of all CG DEPARTMENTS/ ORGANISATIONS/INSTITUTIONS etc and let all of us hope that they take up the issue of MODIFIED PARITY (viz. Minimum Assured Pension nowadays!) in the Supreme Court soon.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-09-2009, 12:28 PM
Dear Shri RKA

It is perhaps undergoing some repairs. Shri SCM is available on Yahoo chat. He informs the site will be ready by today to access.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-09-2009, 12:56 PM
Dear All.

It is absolutely essential that the MOF/ DOE and all other concerned authorities treat the DOPPW with some dignity and concern so that PENSIONERS will have faith in the system that is in vogue.

I AND MANY OF MY KNOWLEDGEABLE COPENSIONERS HAVE REASONS TO EXPRESS THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN AT THE STANDARDS OF ADMINISTRATION AND THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF "ETHICS'" IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. RTI REPLIES HAVE THROWN OPEN VERY UNRELIABLE, CONTRADICTORY AND LOOSE SYSTEMS IN THE SEGMENTS OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS WHICH CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON!

HOWEVER, WHAT WE PENSIONERS SEE AS A SILVER LINING ON THE DARK CLOUD -WILL IT BRIGHTEN UP THE WHOLE SKY? If it happens so the pensioners may feel relieved!

ALL ARE AWARE THAT FOR THE PAST ONE YEAR WE THE AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS HAVE BEEN CRUSADING AND SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF OUR VOICE- that the contents of the para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report amended into various forms - (leave alone whoever had been the cause to set its interpretation)- for revising the pre-2006 pensions at the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND are not correct and accordingly our pleas were made for correcting the INJUSTICE by setting its interpretation to mean the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND all in the REVISED PAY mode/ as per revised new FITMENT TABLE - CORRESPONDING to the respective pre-revised pay/ pay-scales.

Now thanks to the COS- headed by no less than the HON. CABINET SECRETARY assisted by quite a few Senior SECRETARIES - including the Finance/ ex SCPC executive etc-,has found the truth suddenly on 30th June or so!

Truth pertains to the finding that it is the SCPC which has granted the MODIFIED PARITY at lower levels - (you know whom it had affected most- S30 and then S29- and slowly down the line all to lvarious degrees) when considered with reference to the MINIMUM IN THE FITMENT TABLES!

Therefore the pension disparity which had been the highest for the S30 had to be IMPROVED and to resolve the same- both in terms of Pay and Pension- a new scale was given to the S30 instantly and orders were issued expressly on 16th July 2009.

AS THE FINDING OF THE TRUTH NOW CLEARLY PROVES THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNTS OF REVISED PENSIONS ARISING OUT OF SCPC IMPLEMENTATION AND THAT BASED ON APPLICATION OF "FITMENT TABLE-ENABLED REVISION'" TAKING THE MINIMUMS FROM IT!

We now sincerely appeal to the concerned authorities through all sources/ websites/ grievance portals/ emails etc to do similar justice as done to S30 scale to all aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners at the earliest.

Happy ending expected?

vnatarajan

ramkanwar
24-09-2009, 09:16 AM
The above werbsite is still unavailable. Is it still under repair please?

RKA


Dear All.

It is absolutely essential that the MOF/ DOE and all other concerned authorities treat the DOPPW with some dignity and concern so that PENSIONERS will have faith in the system that is in vogue.

I AND MANY OF MY KNOWLEDGEABLE COPENSIONERS HAVE REASONS TO EXPRESS THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT AND CONCERN AT THE STANDARDS OF ADMINISTRATION AND THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF "ETHICS'" IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. RTI REPLIES HAVE THROWN OPEN VERY UNRELIABLE, CONTRADICTORY AND LOOSE SYSTEMS IN THE SEGMENTS OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS WHICH CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON!

HOWEVER, WHAT WE PENSIONERS SEE AS A SILVER LINING ON THE DARK CLOUD -WILL IT BRIGHTEN UP THE WHOLE SKY? If it happens so the pensioners may feel relieved!

ALL ARE AWARE THAT FOR THE PAST ONE YEAR WE THE AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS HAVE BEEN CRUSADING AND SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF OUR VOICE- that the contents of the para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report amended into various forms - (leave alone whoever had been the cause to set its interpretation)- for revising the pre-2006 pensions at the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND are not correct and accordingly our pleas were made for correcting the INJUSTICE by setting its interpretation to mean the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND all in the REVISED PAY mode/ as per revised new FITMENT TABLE - CORRESPONDING to the respective pre-revised pay/ pay-scales.

Now thanks to the COS- headed by no less than the HON. CABINET SECRETARY assisted by quite a few Senior SECRETARIES - including the Finance/ ex SCPC executive etc-,has found the truth suddenly on 30th June or so!

Truth pertains to the finding that it is the SCPC which has granted the MODIFIED PARITY at lower levels - (you know whom it had affected most- S30 and then S29- and slowly down the line all to lvarious degrees) when considered with reference to the MINIMUM IN THE FITMENT TABLES!

Therefore the pension disparity which had been the highest for the S30 had to be IMPROVED and to resolve the same- both in terms of Pay and Pension- a new scale was given to the S30 instantly and orders were issued expressly on 16th July 2009.

AS THE FINDING OF THE TRUTH NOW CLEARLY PROVES THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNTS OF REVISED PENSIONS ARISING OUT OF SCPC IMPLEMENTATION AND THAT BASED ON APPLICATION OF "FITMENT TABLE-ENABLED REVISION'" TAKING THE MINIMUMS FROM IT!

We now sincerely appeal to the concerned authorities through all sources/ websites/ grievance portals/ emails etc to do similar justice as done to S30 scale to all aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners at the earliest.

Happy ending expected?

vnatarajan[/B][/QUOTE]

vnatarajan
24-09-2009, 10:17 AM
Dear RKA

Yes. rrewa site has some problems.Yesterday afternoon I had a message from Shri SCM -- and he had stated it will be ready in 24 hrs.

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
24-09-2009, 04:55 PM
The OM re: DA at 27% for pensioners from 1.7.2009 wsa issued on 23.9.2009 and has been put on the website www.pensionersportal.gov. this afternoon.
For the information of all.
S.Balasubramanian.

dnaga57
27-09-2009, 08:40 AM
For all fellow pensioners & their familes
Happy Dasara, Bijoya.
Let the Goddess add to our cheer by 'conquering the current day evils' too

vnatarajan
30-09-2009, 07:18 AM
Dear All Pre-2006 Pensioners/ Civil-Military/ all interested/Associations-Federations:

1.All pre-2006 pensioners are kindly aware that our Govt., acceding to the conclusion of the OROP Committee that there is SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN a " MODIFIED PARITY" PENSION based on PAY BAND MINIMUM and the pension with reference to the MINIMUM OF FITMENT TABLES", in respect of pre-2006 pensioners of S30/HAG/Lt Gen scales, has magnanimously revised the S30 Pay Scale to Rs 67000-79000 and the Minimum Pension to Rs33500.

2.In this regard all may revert to DOPPW's OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt1 dt.20th Aug. 2009 reg. implementation of Revised Pension for Pre-2006 S30 Scale Pensioners. By this revision, Govt has acknowledged and very justifiably resolved the grievances represented by this segment (S30) of pre-2006 pensioners, nullifying the earlier substantial difference which existed in their pensions.

3.Following points emerge from the above:

a. Application of a MODIFIED PARITY PENSION based on PAY BAND MINIMUM results in a much lower pension for pre-2006 pensioners. Most adversely affected were S-30[now settled] and S-29 and majority of several other scales below, to various extents.

b. "MINIMUM" and "MAXIMUM" for each of the pre-revised scales notified in the FITMENT TABLES annexed with MOF/ DOE's OM F No 1/1/2008-IC dt. 30th Aug 2008 are "features" well "recognized" and they need to be applied for revisions of pensions of all Pre-2006 Pensioners (civil or military as the cases may relate) WHEREVER? WHENEVER it makes a difference (please refere to some of the Tables of Shri GRamdas if necessary). Such an application is in accordance with CCS(Revised Pay)Rules 2008 to arrive at a correct MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION for them. (You may recollect that many of our RTI queries on this aspect were carefully avoided in answering/ and a CAREFUL AVOIDANCE was noted. Now it takes a Cab Sec headed Committee of Hexa-Secretaries has to point out this - mainly to provide a BASIS for pension fixation/ revision for S30!!!)

c. To be precise, not applying the same and instead adopting the application at 3a above has resulted in the substantial difference/ disparity/ gap in pensions for pre 2006 S29 by as much as Rs 3650 pm. The differential gap for S-24 - S-28 is between 0-5%, whereas it is 15% for S-29 based on the pension they have been fixed at. Now in the case of S-30, after nullifying the gap, they have been given a further 5% rise. The pension disparity between adjacent grades of S-29 and S-30 has further widened . These issues justify the correction of pension of pre 2006 S-29 pensioners as done for S30/ and for all other scale pensioners also.

4.In the light of the above facts,we must APPEAL and URGE the Govt. afresh, to settle the "MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION grievance" that is being appealed for by us over the last one year.Ths should be CORRECTED BY THE GOVT. in the same way as was done for pre 2006 S-30 pensioners.

This matter can not be settled by NAC and it will take a long time for them even to touch the fringe! Many pensioners will breathe their last if they wait for the NAC to act!

. This is also in TUNE with our earlier demands/appeals. resolutions adopted by RREWA. and also by BPS.

INDIVIDUAL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS - CIVIL/MILITARY- ARE URGED TO FLOOD THE AUTHORITIES WITH EMAILS/ APPEALS- ON THE ABOVE LINES WITHOUT LOSS OF TIMES BEFORE THE MATTER ENTERS THE COURT!

All associations also must take up the matter seriously, to AVOID SUCH COURT CASES IN THE INTEREST OF AGEING PENSIONERS

VNATARAJAN

I have made a similar posting in the thread "Justice through......"
PLEASE POST ONLINE GRIEVANCE/ EMAILS TO Honourable PM/ Honourable PRESODENT/ FM/ MOS (PP) etc.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
30-09-2009, 06:56 PM
NFSG Promotions Extended to new HAG S30 Scale also for the Org Services Gr A Officers!

Dear All

The Ministry of Personnel have issued the OM dt 25th Sept 2009, extending the NFSG promotions in the Org Services for Gr A officers to cover the newly created HAG/ S30 Scale also (two years after their batch equivalents of IAS Cadre get promoted).

In this connection, I invite your attention to my ANALYSIS? POSTING made at sl no 725 dt 13th Aug 2009 in this thread- wherein I had stated. wrt creation of S30 Scale outside PB4, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts of sl no 725:

" IT is serving two purposes (killing two birds in one shot!)).
>
> (I) Satisfying the S30 Pensioners who may not be now going for litigation on
> this issue if their pension is revised ( as it gets a good jump upwards even beyond what they cd have anticipated (i.e. if they were within the PB4 and revised pension was given at an equivalence of “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY” within the pay band!)
>
>All must realize this is no bounty nor grace of the Govt, shown to them.
>
> (ii)But it is purely a very calculated move to restrict the growth of Group A Officers of other
> ORGANISED SERVICES (non-IAS) upto PB4 only- which is now WITHOUT the top scale
> S30 ("AS" level in Centre & Secretary level in States- a heirarchy level
> which they wd not like to share with others!).
>
> In other words:
>
> IT RESULTS in restricting the Gr A Officers of other Organised Services in their growth up to JS levels only,in NFSG mode. (you may note earlier times – pre-2006 times-it (NFSG mode)was up to Sel Gr Director. Now it is up to SAG level. Nothing great) "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WAS PURSUED SERIOUSLY BY SERVING ORG. SERVICES GR A S29 OFFICERS,particularly from Organisations like GSI.

Now after several appeals/ representations such officers of Org Services Gr A, the OM dtd 25th Sept has been issued to resolve the crisis!

WITH THIS, NOW THE PATH APPEARS TO BE CLEAR FOR S 29 OFFICIALS IN-SERVICE TO ASPIRE FOR A NEW SCALE OUTSIDE PB4- WHICH IS MAINLY A GROUP OF JAG LEVELS AND S29 IS THE ONLY SAG LEVEL WHO HAVE LOST SOME ADVANTAGES- (at least the pre-2006 pensioner lot!).

To avoid a major confrontation/litigation from the SERVING Joint Secretaries/ equivalent Org Service officials/ Serving Major Generals etc, creation of S29 Scale (65000-77000 which is 2000 less than the S30 ie GP diffrence in effect) outside PB4 appears to be necessary- to preserve their HOD/ SAG level status/identities like the HAG S30.

Thgether with this, recognition of the DISPARITY situation pointed out in my earlier post
804 above followed by a solution of application of CORRECTED MODIFIED PARITY for both Civil/ Miltary groups can resolve the crisis for all pre-2006 scales in various Pay Bands wherever such a provision is beneficial compared to 2.26 MF, must be permitted.

ALL THE ABOVE ARE WITHIN THE FRAME-WORK OF SCPC REPORT AND EMANATE FROM THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY

AND

THESE WILL HELP TO REDUCE THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFRENCE IN REVISED PENSIONS BETWEEN "a MODIFIED PARITY PENSION BASED ON PAY BAND MINIMUM' and the correct "MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION'' based on the MINIMUM (for civil poensioners) or MAXIMUM(for Military pensioners as applicable) of the revised pay FITMENT TABLE of MOF's OM dtd 30th Aug 2008 based on CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
05-10-2009, 08:10 AM
STATUS OF NEW APPEALS SENT COVERING THE CPAO'S TWO VERSIONS OF LETTERS/ PENDING ISSUES

Dear All

My appeal sent by Regd Post AD on 08 09 2009 vide my no VN/Pension/2009 on
behalf of self/ PF/ Pensioners/ Family Pensioners to the Honourable PM,
(with all the important enclosures like TWO VERSIONS OF CPAO LETTER DT
26.09.2008; ALTERATION OF DRAFT OM BY DOE IN LATE August 2008 onNOTESHEET BEFORE THE ISSUE OF OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 AND COPIES OF NOTE SHEETS CONTAINING DOPPW'S PROPOSAL FOR MODIFIED PARITY/ REMINDERS ETC) HAD BEEN FORWARDED (AS USUAL!) TO THE SECRETARY, DOPPW, VIDE PMO'S LETTER NO - PMO ID No 8/3/3009-PMP/93970 dt 25th Sept 2009 with the following message:

"A letter dated 08.09.2009 received in this office from Shri V NATARAJAN is
forwarded herewith for action as appropriate"
sd/ (M K Jaiswal) Section Officer

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-10-2009, 02:39 PM
My dear Pensioner friends. I would like to share with you my experiences regarding Lucknow based (Officers) pre 2006 Pensioner's writ petition in hon.ble Supreme Court. This writ has been drafted nicely covering all the points very well and was filed on 16 07 09, was listed for hearing on 21 08 09, but couldnot be heard on that date and now it is listed for hearing for admission on 6th of Nov.09. Some other Pensioner's Associations from Dehra Dun and Delhi are keen to join the fight in SC and wanted to engage prominent Advocate Shri Prashant Bhushan. Their meeting with Shri Prashant Bhusahan was held on 08 10 09 at his Supreme Court Chamber to sought his opinian. Shri Prashant Bhushan suggested three courses. (1) Lucknow Petitioners should submit revised Vakalatnama with consent of their Advocates in favour of Shri Prashant Bhushan (2) File a fresh writ petition separately (3) Wait for 6th Nov.09 hearing and result. If Lucknow Writ is admitted, we can join through an intervening petition and if it is not admitted, we should put up fresh writ taking into account the reasons for not admittance, along with latest material. Shri Prashant Bhushan is a senior Advocate of eminence and repute and of top standing. He is of the opinian that chances of Petitioners getting relief from Court for Modified Parity, are very bright. Pensioner's Associations of Dehra Dun and Delhi have offered to pay fee for the hearing on 6th Nov.09, if Lucknow petitioners change vakalatnama in favour of Shri Prashant Bhushan. If not, these Associations(Officers) would follow alternative given in (3) above.

vnatarajan
15-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Dear All aggrieved pensioners,

It is necessary to forge a strong S29 pre-2006 pensioners' alliance with the Group above as per the views expressed by Shri MLK.
We have to express our deep sense of gratitude to him for taking this injustice fight up to the level of Supreme Court.
We are sure of the victory.
I and other Copensioners are hopeful our Groups also wuld join his band and strengthen the fight now or in the near future.
ALL OTHERS - GROUPS/ INDIVIDUALS MAY PLEASE JOIN THE FIGHT AT THE EARLIEST AS MONETARY RESOURCES AND 'NUMBERS' WILL PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE.
VIVTORY WILL BE OURS.

HAPPY DIWALI TO MLK AND ALL COPENSIONERS.

May this festival of lights brighten the last lap of futures of many pensioners and "enlighten" the blinded eyes of the authorities!

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
17-10-2009, 11:02 AM
Dear pensioner friends. Happy Deepawali to you and all family members. May festival of life bring light in all our lives. Thank you.

vnatarajan
18-10-2009, 08:28 AM
Dear S29 pre-2006 pensioners & others interested,

The post SPSVains case effects and its hangover are still to reach an end. May be NOV 3 IS CRUCIAL.

Pre-1996 veterans' pensions are yet to be formulated properly

After succeding in that, IF THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED UNDO THE INJUSTICE & SANCTION THE 'CORRECT MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION' TO S29 & ALL OTHER PRE-2006 PENSIONERS - INCLUDING THE MILITARY VETERAN S29 PENSIONERS (AS ALREADY POINTED OUT IN THE COS REPORT IN TERMS OF "SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE" IN REVISED PENSION), I BELIEVE THEIR MAY BE NO NEED FOR LEGAL BATTLES.

Already the authorities are suffering from a very BAD IMAGE due to improper implkementation of the veteran's case judgments.

IF NOT FROM NOV 6 NEW BATTLES MAY START!

vnatarajan

ramkanwar
20-10-2009, 09:40 PM
What is the significance of November 3 please?

vnatarajan
21-10-2009, 03:52 AM
pre-1996 maj gen's spsvains case final hearing.
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
25-10-2009, 02:13 PM
Dear All

The pdf History of the two versions of CPAO's letter 1265 dt 26th Sept 2008 is as follows:

First version was created and loaded in Oct 2008 itself- which is now removed. This had pinned S29's revised pension to 23700 effectively. Others too suffered.

Second version- pdf 2- was created/ stored in August 2009- after nearly 8 months. THIS IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO RTI QUERIES OF PKR FLOWING TO THE AUTHORITIES.

Proof is electronically available with every computer user who has downloaded both versions of files.

(May be the images can be put up in RREWA's website)

ERROR HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AS TYPOGRAPHICAL(STRANGELY????).
BUT THE AUTHORITY WANTS TO MAINTAIN BOTH VERSIONS OK!

IF SO WHY SAY IT IS AN ERROR?
WHY THEN CORRECTION?

I am at a loss to understand the game!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
30-10-2009, 12:03 PM
Dea all interested,

For some latest RTI based info/ discussions related to CPAO's two version letter dt 26th Sept 2008 etc. pl visit the thread titled "Justice ................." and for updating on some related aspects.

Nov 3rd will be crucial for SPSVains cae of "Rtd Maj Gen Pension parity - as the final contempt hearing at HSC is scheduled that day.

Nov 6th will be crucial for S29/ all other pre -2006 PENSIONERS affected by the issue of reduced "MODIFIED PARITY"- the day for admission of the Lucknow based All India Services Officers's petition on the very issue.

Let us hope for the best.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
31-10-2009, 09:32 PM
Dear All S29 Pre-2006 Pensioners/ Other pre-2006 pensioners/ all interested,

It is rather astonishing to realise that GOVT. PENSION DEPARTMENTs both in the civil and military sectors are not in a position to exert enough to PROTECT the LEGITIMATE INTERESTS of the pensioners- even after the latter winning the Court battle.

All of you are aware of the EPIC legal war of several years which the pre 1996 rtd Major Generals (SPS Vains & others)fought for protection of their minimum entitled pension to be on par with their equals/ above the lower rank Brigadiers.

IT IS LOGICAL TO EXPECt THAT THE RESULTS WOULD ALSO COVER THE PRE AND POST 2006 REVISION PROCEDURES ALSO.

FORESEEING THE CURRENT TREND OF DENIAL OF MINIMUM EQUITY/CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY FOR CIVIL S29/ OTHER CATEGORY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS, I HAD CAUTIONED SOME OF THE RTD MAJ GENERALS THAT THEY MAY ALSO END UP WITH MUTILATED PENSIONS LIKE CIVILIAN S29 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

Now read the following extracts from one of the leading authoritative Military Blogs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments on the blog item:
PRE & POST 2006 MAJ GENS' PENSION DISPARITY
Late in the day, reactions have started.
To study the details, pl go the link
http://reportmysignal.blogspot.com/2009/10/scpc-maj-gens-pre-post-2006-pension.html
From the link, you can click pages (page 1 to 14 ) mentioned for reading the
contents of their presentation of the pre- and post 2006 disparity.

We see the ............ game is not over.
Still they are continuing with the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND mischief and on
NOV 3, during the ............hearing, if the DISPARITY ISSUE is not addressed
by the pre-1996 Rtd Maj GenS, I think they have to get prepared for another
BATTLE not war!

vnatarajan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2009
SCPC: Maj Gens- Pre/ Post- 2006 Pension Disparity
My Dear Brig .............,
Letter addressed to all veteran Maj Gens/AVMs/Rear Admirals is given as link
below.
Maj Gen (Retd) .............., SM

Maj Gens' Case Pre & Post 2006 Pension Disparity
Dear Veterans,
1. AVM ................., a veteran who is also a practising Advocate of Delhi
High Court and Supreme Court has taken an initiative to file a court case on
behalf of Maj Gens/AVMs/Rear Admirals to ask for removal of disparity in
Pension of Pre and Post 2006 retirees.
2. He had issued a legal notice to the D............ S............. and the three
C........s on 13 Aug 2009 (copy enclosed).While no reply has been received from
the D............ S............y, he has received reply from Lt Gen ...................,
AVSM, SM on behalf of Chairman C.......C dated 14 Sep 2009 (copy linked below).
He had also sought information under the RTI from PIO, Min of Def vide RTI
application dated 13 Aug 09 (copy linked below). The information is yet to
be received.

3. AVM ............... has proposed to file the joint case of a group of Maj
Gens/ AVMs/ Rear Admirals in High Court/ Supreme Court. For proper
preparation of case, he needs to assess the number of veterans who are
willing to be part of the group. All veterans of ranks of Maj Gen/ AVM/ Rear
Admiral who want to be part of the group may send their particulars to AVM
..............with copy to me at the earliest.
With Kind Regards,
Jai Hind
Yours Sincerely,
Maj Gen (Retd) .............., SM

Click on pages to read content
page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page 10page 11page
12page 13page 14

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Above blog item reveals that now the pre 2006 Rtd Maj Generals - along with their earlier veterans pre-1996 Rtd Maj Gens may have to jointly fight for POST 2006 MODIFIED PARITY for a MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION OF 27350 plus MSP 3000 making it 30350 instead of Rs 23700 plus 3000 ie 26700!!!!!

IT WILL BE A SHAME ON THE NATION IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN TO THE RETIRED VETERANS WHO ARE NOT MORE THAN 650 IN NO. WITH ONE THIRD BEING FAMILY PENSIONERS AS I UNDERSTAND- (Needs checking)

vnatarajan

rksehgal31
02-11-2009, 05:38 PM
The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended at page 10 (Para 1.2.9) an additional separate running pay band for posts in the scale of Rs.18400-22400 (S-29) and in Higher Administrative Grade (S-30). The government has kindly revised S-30 to Rs.67000-79000. It is requested that S-29 should also be revised to Rs.67000-79000 so as to club S-29 & S-30 as per the pay commission recommendation (Para 1.2.9). (Incidentally, the scales S-31 and S-32 have already been clubbed.) This will remove the hardship faced by the past pensioners of S-29 scale.
Er RK Sehgal Chief Engineer (Retired)

vnatarajan
03-11-2009, 06:55 PM
Dear Shri Sehgal/All interested,

Yes. Your observations are very much relevant. There were several positive observations/ suggestions/ and even final recommendations of SCPC- but then the Govt. machinerey chose its own options and priorities, to zero down on limited no. of Recos and gazette notified them..

When it comes to Pensioners, we have seen how an absolutely well proved error has been blatantly misinterpreted and misexecuted into final PENSION REVISION orders for the pre-2006 pensioners- many ending with negative Parity! We are now at the altars of the court for justice!

Your observation on the new scale for S29 can become A REALITY only if any or all the following take(s) place:

1.THE S29 HAVE A STRONG LOBBY/ POLITICAL RECO FOR BACKING WITH BUREAUCRATIC INTERESTS AS IT HAS HAPPENED IN THE SCALE IMMEDIATELY SUPERIOR TO THEM.

2.A STRONG AND WELL ORGANISED EFFORT IS MADE BY ENTERPRISING AND FORCEFUL S29 SERVING GROUP A OFFICERS INCLUDING THE JSs/ S29 RANK HEADS OF DEPTTS IN SEVERAL ORGANISATIONS/S29 SCALE SENIOR OFFICERS-OFFICIALS IN VARIOUS STREAMS IN ALL ORGANISED SERVICES/ MINISTRIES/ DEPARTMENTS/INSTITUTIONS/ LABORATORIES ETC.

Why they should be in the shackles of Pay Band 4 with JAG levels? They were once part of S30 scale only! Pre 5th CPC/ duting 4th cpc period - the two were in one scale of 2250 -2750 which were divide as 2250-2500 and 2500-2750.

3.FIGHT IN THE COURT FOR A SEPARATE S29 SCALE.

We have evoked sufficient awareness among pensioners but who will bell the cat for those in SERVICE to wake up and fight?

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-11-2009, 05:59 PM
Dear S29 Pre-2006 Pensioners/All interested,

Nov 3- much awauted Retd Maj Gen SPS Vains Contempt hearing postponed to 16th Nov 2006 at the request of the respondents as it appears. (SEE LATEST INFO AS A FOOTNOTE)

N0 6- Lkno Gr Retd S29 All India Serv case for admission in SC stands postponed to 8th Feb 2010- not at petitioners pleasure!

Govt playing DUCKS and DRAKES as Rtd.MGS wd like to put it.

Waste of Public money and time.

vnatarajan

PS: IT APPEARS THE MAJ GEN CONTEMPT CASE APPEARS TO BE RESCEDULED FOR 19TH FEB 2010

TOMORROW 5TH NOV APPEARS TO BE S29 PR CAT CASE!

Kanaujiaml
04-11-2009, 07:17 PM
The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended at page 10 (Para 1.2.9) an additional separate running pay band for posts in the scale of Rs.18400-22400 (S-29) and in Higher Administrative Grade (S-30). The government has kindly revised S-30 to Rs.67000-79000. It is requested that S-29 should also be revised to Rs.67000-79000 so as to club S-29 & S-30 as per the pay commission recommendation (Para 1.2.9). (Incidentally, the scales S-31 and S-32 have already been clubbed.) This will remove the hardship faced by the past pensioners of S-29 scale.
Er RK Sehgal Chief Engineer (Retired)

My dear Sehgal. I have gone through para 1.2.9 of 6 CPC report. There is no specific recommendation given in it either for pensioners or for regulars. Only philosply of new pay bands has been explained.This does not help pensioners. We are fighting for somthing which is recommended in para 1.5.47, which was first accepted to by Govt. with approval of Union Cabinet and even gazette notified but latter denied by Govt. with the approval of MOS/PP. Our appeal and demand is most logical and even than the Govt. is not ready to accept it. I may add here that while 6 CPC gave its recommendation, it took into consideration the financial implication which Govt. knew very well before implimenting the recommendation. In order to give something more than what 6 CPC gave, to some "others involved", pensioners share was curtailed and they were denied what 6 CPC had given to pensioners. This is the 'injustice' for which we are fighting for. Regards.

vnatarajan
07-11-2009, 08:53 AM
Dear All concerned (pre-2006 pensioners as a whole),

(THIS HAS REFERENCE TO MY EARLIER POSTS ON CPAO'S TWO VBERSIONS OF SAME LETTER DT 26TH SEPT 2008 WITH SAME DESPATCH NO- SECONG REPLACING THE FIRST AFTER 8 MONTHS)

All pre-2006 Pensioners are perhaps aware about the two versions of the CPAO's letter concerning the forwarding of DOPPW's OM dt 1.9.2008/ directives to Nodal Officers of Banks for pension fixation,carrying the same despatch no 1265 and same date of despatch 26 09 2008. Old version with expression MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND in line 3 of its para 2, was replaced with new version with the said expression changed to "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND". This happened after nearly eight months? I had raised on RTI Query on 11.09.2009 and I got the reply after 50 days. (Copy I have sent to Shri SCM for info. Gist of the Reply:1.CPAO admits the mistake as a simple "typographical error". Expresses regret. Nodal Officers are being informed NOW. 2.There can not be two versions of the same letter.3.She calls the letter as a mere "forwarding letter" to Nodal Officers of Banks 4.Accdg. to her Basic Policy and Rules on which pension is to be calculated is DECIDED only by the DOPW.5.CPAO can not make any change in such Rules. 6.Calculations have been explained to Banks thru workshops which even DOPW attended.Understanding is same among all! The typographical error has not led to any mistake in calculations by the banks.7. No change will be needed in OM dt 14 Oct2009/its annexures/calculations. etc. 8.However DOPW may be approached for claring doubts. My Comments: 1.The Annexure II mentioned in para 2 of the CPAO's letter copy of which was sought is NOT RECEIVED.Carefully avoided. No mention made.2.It could have contained the correct revised minimums scale-wise with pay bands - its description mentions "revised pay bands". Or may be some other data which CPAO wd not like us to know. Right from the first day, this Annexure is missing. 3.My assessment is: the above Annexure II , after NECESSARY CORRECTIONS/ MODIFICATIONS to suit the "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND " dictate, has become the Annexure I of the DOPPW's OM dt 14th Oct 2008. 4.In the light of the above deductions, further scrutiny is needed to find out: Why the CPAO is hiding the Annexure II of her office letter of 26th Sept 2008? What are its contents?. Why DOPPW did not take cognisance of the two versions of the CPAO's letters as it PUTs them in a very wrong platform? Were they a party or originator for this ERROR directly or INDIRECTLY?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another authortiy is hiding though sailing in the same boat!
Let us see if they also come out with aTYPOGRAPHIC ERROR EXCUSE OR FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH & JUSTICE?
wILL they fight out the issue for the sake of pre-2006 pensioners TRUTHFULLY and SICERELY as per THEIR OWN CHARTER?
Why not appraise the Ministers in full earnest?

vnatarajan

rksehgal31
08-11-2009, 12:14 PM
My dear Sehgal. I have gone through para 1.2.9 of 6 CPC report. There is no specific recommendation given in it either for pensioners or for regulars. Only philosply of new pay bands has been explained.This does not help pensioners. We are fighting for somthing which is recommended in para 1.5.47, which was first accepted to by Govt. with approval of Union Cabinet and even gazette notified but latter denied by Govt. with the approval of MOS/PP. Our appeal and demand is most logical and even than the Govt. is not ready to accept it. I may add here that while 6 CPC gave its recommendation, it took into consideration the financial implication which Govt. knew very well before implimenting the recommendation. In order to give something more than what 6 CPC gave, to some "others involved", pensioners share was curtailed and they were denied what 6 CPC had given to pensioners. This is the 'injustice' for which we are fighting for. Regards.
Revise S-29 to Rs.67000-79000
Dear Kanaujiaml & Natarajan ji,
Sixth Central Pay Commission has retained the Modified Parity scheme for the past pensioners as per the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Fourth Central Pay Commission had, however, given the past pensioners Full parity with the employees in service. Under Full parity, the last pay drawn by the past pensioner is refixed in the revised pay scales and pension recalculated.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the famous Maj-Gen Vains case decided on 09.09.08, has granted Full Parity with the employees in service. If that is followed by the Govt for all the past pensioners, then the Modified Parity scheme of the Sixth Central Pay Commission is not required at all. About 25 Chief Engineers of Haryana Vidyut Nigam (HVPN) are going to Punjab & Haryana High Court on this issue.

The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended at Para 1.2.9 that:
"Within Group A, an additional separate running pay band has been prescribed for
posts in the scale of Rs.18400-22400 and in higher administrative
grade. This is because a common pool for all such posts that are
not already encadred in any of the organized AIS/Group A
services including posts under the Central Staffing Scheme has
been recommended to which suitable officers of all services
would be eligible for selection, based on their performance and
merit. The common pool will ensure availability of the best
talent for crucial posts in the highest grades. The interests of the
officers who are not selected will not be harmed as they will still
be eligible for promotions to the encadred posts within their
individual services. Distinct scales have been recommended for
the posts of Secretary and Cabinet Secretary, because these posts
are occupied by heads of specific departments/ministries and
the head of the bureaucracy respectively. As such, a distinction
needs to be maintained for the pay scales attached to these
posts."
As per this recommendation (Para 1.2.9) of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, all posts in S-29 to S-32 scales should have been clubbed in one running pay band. But the Govt. has clubbed S-31 & S-32 only in HAG+ scale Rs.75500-80000. On the same pattern, S-29 & S-30 should have been clubbed in newly created HAG scale Rs.67000-79000. If this is done the minimum pension of the S-29 pensioners gets fixed at Rs.33500. This will resolve the difficulties faced by the retired Maj-Gen, CE, JS etc.
With regards,
Er RK Sehgal

vnatarajan
08-11-2009, 01:05 PM
Dear Shri Sehgal sahab

You are correct.

But we have to go by Cab Decisions- ultimately what Govt. notified thru Gazette!. Even that is being denied. We are getting Reduced or Negative Parity! Not even Modified Parity at the Minimum!
(1)First we are going to the courts for the correct implementation of the so called Minimum Assured Pension/ or Modified Parity at the Minimum of the Revised Pay based on what SCPC has prescribed in the Fitment Tables of MOF OM of 29th Aug 2008)/CCS(RP)Rules 2008 etc. This is to ensure a quick disposal of our case. Minimum of the Pay Band is being applied for our pension instead of Minimum of the Pay (Revised it has to be) in the Pay Band, which is wrong.
Our fight will continue thru court as per other items in the Agenda- one by one!
(2) Full Parity
(3) New Scale for S29 - same as or just near S30 - 65000-79000 is arguably justifiable

If we go for FULL parity or New Scale NOW- it will take years for us to realise the objectives.

Hence get justice on what SCPC tried to give us on FIRST PRIORITY.

Rtd Maj Gen shd also get it first having won the case based on 1996 revisions. We are watching. Let us see!

vnatarajan

PS: If you desire copies of some appeal drafts , you may see them on the RREWA website posted by MLKanaujia

Kanaujiaml
08-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Revise S-29 to Rs.67000-79000
Dear Kanaujiaml & Natarajan ji,
Sixth Central Pay Commission has retained the Modified Parity scheme for the past pensioners as per the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Fourth Central Pay Commission had, however, given the past pensioners Full parity with the employees in service. Under Full parity, the last pay drawn by the past pensioner is refixed in the revised pay scales and pension recalculated.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the famous Maj-Gen Vains case decided on 09.09.08, has granted Full Parity with the employees in service. If that is followed by the Govt for all the past pensioners, then the Modified Parity scheme of the Sixth Central Pay Commission is not required at all. About 25 Chief Engineers of Haryana Vidyut Nigam (HVPN) are going to Punjab & Haryana High Court on this issue.

The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended at Para 1.2.9 that:
"Within Group A, an additional separate running pay band has been prescribed for
posts in the scale of Rs.18400-22400 and in higher administrative
grade. This is because a common pool for all such posts that are
not already encadred in any of the organized AIS/Group A
services including posts under the Central Staffing Scheme has
been recommended to which suitable officers of all services
would be eligible for selection, based on their performance and
merit. The common pool will ensure availability of the best
talent for crucial posts in the highest grades. The interests of the
officers who are not selected will not be harmed as they will still
be eligible for promotions to the encadred posts within their
individual services. Distinct scales have been recommended for
the posts of Secretary and Cabinet Secretary, because these posts
are occupied by heads of specific departments/ministries and
the head of the bureaucracy respectively. As such, a distinction
needs to be maintained for the pay scales attached to these
posts."
As per this recommendation (Para 1.2.9) of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, all posts in S-29 to S-32 scales should have been clubbed in one running pay band. But the Govt. has clubbed S-31 & S-32 only in HAG+ scale Rs.75500-80000. On the same pattern, S-29 & S-30 should have been clubbed in newly created HAG scale Rs.67000-79000. If this is done the minimum pension of the S-29 pensioners gets fixed at Rs.33500. This will resolve the difficulties faced by the retired Maj-Gen, CE, JS etc.
With regards,
Er RK Sehgal

My dear Sehgal. I still hold that para 1.2.9 is not a recommendation. It is only an explanation. All recommendations are highlighted and it says that Commission recomends. Para 1.2.9 does not say so. Regards.

rksehgal31
09-11-2009, 03:20 PM
Dear Natarajan ji and Kanauji,

I don't understand why are you going to the court for correct implementation of the minimum assured pension when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maj-Gen Vains case has already allowed parity with the emloyees in service.

We should go to the court for implementation of the Supreme Court judgement for all past (pre-2006) pensioners. This is a decided aspect of law and can be followed easily by the High Courts/ Supreme Court.

Extract from Para 10 of the judgement reads as under:

"10. Before us, the Union of India has taken a stand that .....they could only claim that their pension, including family pension, should not be lower than that of a Brigadier which is a feeder post for the post of Major General having higher and more onerous responsibilities."

The Supreme Court, in the above case, has directed "that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank
after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996"

Thus the S-29 scale past pensioner should claim that his pay be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006 and that his pension including family pension should be equal to /(or more than) the pension drawn by his junior who may have retired on or after 01.01.2006 (even retiring in 2009) from the same rank /(or junior rank) in his cadre having equal qualifying service under the Next Below rule as per the stand of the Union of India in the Supreme Court (para 10).

On the analogy of "Equal Pay for Equal Work", we should ask in the court for "Equal Pension for Equal Work (Service)" and following Next Below rule for protecting the pension and family pension of the senior pensioner, who had retired earlier from the same or higher rank from the same cadre, after equal qualifying service.

With regards,
R K Sehgal

vnatarajan
09-11-2009, 05:44 PM
Dear Shri Sehgal saab

Not that simple as we had been thinking or imagining.

Authorities care little for even the Highest Court judgments.This happens again and again.

Nakaras are to be born again and again to fight for "equal pension for equal pay scale for equal lebngth of service" which is already buried deep after the VCPC- when none except Maj Gens took up the parity fight- that too in comparison to Brigadiers.

Judgment at least was somewhat equitable!

None from the civilians fought for pension based on last pay drawn - ie full parity-to my knowledge. Modified parity at the MINIMUM OF PAY IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE came into force after VCPC.

Now in SCPC it is becoming MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND with no respect to your old pay scale.

Beware! In future Baisc Pension will become ZERO (MINIMUM MOST) and only Grade Pay will recognise ypou as a pensioner. Like 10kGP Pensioner (We will be so in future)

What "they" are "implementing now" for pre-1996/ pre-2006 Maj Gens itself appears to be questionable! So the contempt is going on- 6 listings over! Yet to conclude..
We have appraised some of the concerned accordingly

Let us watch.

If you are going to Court- pl be sure of what you are asking for. Some petitions can be consulted. Lucknow Case/ coming up in SC on 8th Feb 2010. A S29 Pr Cat case is due for first proceedings on 15th Dec 2009 (as I am given to understand-notice given to Govt.). bOTH ARE GOING IN FOR MODIFIED PARITY AT THE MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES.

If you want to join hands with our near 250 strong s29 group at Delhi as the centre/ spread all over India who are - planning to go to Court soon- pl contact the concerned on S29Pensioners Google Group.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
10-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Dear Friends. I (M. L. Kanaujia) received an e. mail yesterday that I have won one million doller from Microsoft. I checked and found that this is a total fraud. The whole exercise is to steal the moeny. To be aware of the tactics of scammers, kindly visit the following website for detailed information http://www.consumderfraudreporting.org/anatomy_of_a_scam.ph.

vnatarajan
12-11-2009, 04:37 PM
Dear All interested,

There is a beatiful and meaningful write-up by my young desciple NSR- I am proud to call him so-which has been put up in the RREWA website - under Current Issues for all pre-2006 pensioners to read and get enlightened.

My rejoinder to the same, which I have posted in the same site is reproduced here:

With a deep sense of thankfulness, I acknowledge the article "INJUSTICE AND ITS REDRESSAL FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS" put up in the Current Issue of RREWA website-alongside, written by NSR. It is a very well researched and factual synthesis of many fall-outs of one of the worst administrative debacles of the year in the country - related to the implementation of the SCPC Recommendations for the pre-2006 pensioners! Instead of doing JUSTICE to all, it had become the monopoly of grab for a few as the Ratios projected by NSR reveal!. The basic fabric of the very PPRNICPLES AND POLICIES enunciated by the SCPC to ensure equality and justice to all pre-2006 pensioners have been totally destroyed by a single, controversially and craftily worded paragraph in the OMs for implementations. Different yardsticks are adopted to create classes with the homogenous class of pensioners and again within such subclasses we have further categories!.Having been extremely frustrated with no responses to repeated appeals individually/ thru their associations for correcting the destructive OMs, made to all concerned- including the highest in the country like Hon Ministers, Hon PM and even the Hon President,finding no convincing replies to RTI queries and further appeals on them from concerned authorities, and finally even driven to face the consequenses of MISSING MAIN FILE ( a convenient excuse!), many pensioners are trying to knock at the doors of courts for JUSTICE. I AND OTHER AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS THIS TIME WILL HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY AND ENTHUSIASM TO FILE A HUNDRED CAT CASES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY IN THE COMING DAYS PAYING RS 50 EACH FOR PETITION and not for the sake of getting some extra pensionary benefit but to RESTORE DIGNITY TO THE OLD PENSION SCHEME which had been the soul bread-winner to many devoted retired Govt. servants who have given their best during their younger years for the development of this Nation.OK - WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? IF THE GOVT. CAN NOT SETTLE THE MATTER OF RESOLVING THEIR PLETHORA OF FORMULAE OF PENSIONS, LET THEM APPLY THE SANE SOLUTION OF "NAKARA JUDGMENT" OF full parity/equality (adopting actual/ notional fixations) to all pensioners, setting to rest all controversies once for all. NO Pay Commissions will be needed in future as the whole exercise had been rendered to a mockery this time!.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
14-11-2009, 03:15 PM
INJUSTICE TO PENSIONERS EVEN AT THE DOORS OF JUSTICE?

Dear All,

PLEASE TAKE NOTE -Pensioner has to have a very long long long life if he has to get the benefit of JUSTICE even from the highest temples of justice!

Pensioners across the country wherever they go for justice appear to be haunted by the ghost of TYPOGRAHIC ERROR(???). In an example of contempt hearing on in the first part of first week of Nov 2009, as time was sought by the respondents for affidavit filing, court authority had passed the orders granting two weeks’ time. Which meant the next hearing has to be listed for say third week of Nov 2009! BUT ALAS! MAN PROPOSES –MANIPULATOR DISPOSES! When the Status is verified, the date of next hearing is shown to be AS LATE AS THIRD WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2010 (NEXT YEAR). Such a big gap! In a contempt case!

What a tragedy! Many old petitioner-pensioners may kick the bucket in the next three months! What a despicable way to overcome the FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONs?

NOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH OMISSIONS? OR ARE THEY MANIPULATIONS?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-11-2009, 07:11 PM
My dear Mr. VN, Other Pensioner friends. I can understand the frustration of the Pensioners ( and I am myself frustrated because of this) regarding the dealy that is taking place in hearing of the Contempt Case but this is the way the Courts function. This is an open forum and writings here are available on search engines like "google". Let us be cautious in expressing our views and ensure that there is no criticism of the highest Court of the Country. Needless to say that the criticism of the Court amounts to contempt of the court. Regards.

vnatarajan
15-11-2009, 04:00 AM
Dear MLK/all

It is not criticism of any court or its judicial process or pronouncements or anything related to the case even.

IT IS A CAUTION TO THE AGGRIEVED AND THEIR ASSOCIATES TO LOOK INTO POSSIBLE AREAS OF ERRORS WHICH MAY LEAD TO EVEN UNINTENDED DELAYS IN GETTING CORRECT DATES FOR HEARINGS!

In similar instances related to the matter, never such delays have been permitted- Hence a possibility of an "ERROR" is not ruled out.

Concerned are checking facts. Let us not go beyond the error checks with limiting its scope.

vnatarajan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: In "Indian Service Benefits Issues - Extracts:

Sunday, November 15, 2009
Law Minister re-emphasises that Govt would soon be a ‘responsible’ and ‘reluctant’ litigant
As this news-report would signify, sometimes our Hon’ble Courts are burdened with unnecessary litigation. Filing of cases and appeals, especially in employee and pension related matters, becomes more of a power-ego-play for departments rather than a vehicle of justice. Serving and former staff members of govt related organisations who approach Hon’ble Courts for justice are often seen as enemies of the system rather than aggrieved persons seeking application of the principles of fairness.

With this background, the speech of our Law Minister in the recently concluded ‘All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunal’ comes as a welcome step. Here are a few excerpts from the same :

“…You must be aware that we are progressing towards bringing judicial reforms. One of the agenda before the Government is that we want to remove the tag of 'biggest litigant'. We are formalizing the policy of Government litigation. We are collecting data from all the Departments of the Government regarding cases pending in the Courts and Tribunals. We will analyze those cases and take necessary corrective steps. Our efforts are that Government should go in litigation only where it is necessary. Unnecessary appeals should not be filed on behalf of the Government. Soon we will formalize our policy…”

“…The Central Government is proposing the introduction of a litigation policy. The government is to be transformed from a compulsive litigant into a responsible and reluctant litigant. An action plan in this behalf will be launched separately. It has a two pronged approach - identifying and removing ‘useless’ cases which are burdening the docket. This should be done at the earliest…”

“…The present system viz ‘let the Tribunal decide every case’ must be eliminated. Setting up of Empowered Government Committees to eliminate unnecessary litigation need to be considered…”
---------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
20-11-2009, 04:23 PM
Dear All,

Attention is drawn to an OM st 18th Nov 2009 issued by the Deptt of P&PW. A part reads: “The judgment dated 9. 9.2008 in CA no 5546 of 2008( SLP Civil No 12357 of 2006) –UOI vs Maj Gen SPSVains will not apply in the case of pensioners who retired from the civil departments and who before their retirement, were governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.” (Vide FNo 38/37/08-P&P(A_ of DOPW dtd 18.11.2009)

Appears to have been issued post haste! Not in good taste. Another example of the DOPW having no say in pension justice- being repeatedly bull-dozed by the Finance and Law authorities!. Where are we going?

Pensioner Associations must come out strongly and point out that the arm of Pensuiners’ Welfare is being converted into a glorified centre for dissemination of more of anti-Pensioner- directed judicial interpretations rather than focusing for IMPLEMENTING THE FAIREST AND JUST PARTS OF THE SAME AND SIMILAR JUDGMENTS OF NAKRA, AKKARA AND EVEN SPSVAINS ON PENSION PARITY WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON CUT-OFF DATES!

For example what is the veracity of the current OM? What is its implication?

Did the Judgment say so specifically anywhere? How anyone else can interpret and apply norms to suit their own convenience?

Military pensioners get basic revisions only after the Basic Policy Issues/ amended Rules are decided according to CCS (Pension)Rules 1972 from time to time. Even the Committee on OROP- if I am not wrong- points out at several places that the pensions of Military Officers are calculated based on / following the same formulae for the Civilian counterparts?

All their parallel OMs are issued based on the Civilian pensioners’ provisions!

Preempting Civilian Pensioners seeking justice inspired by the outcome of SPSVains case may have its own ramifications elsewhere!

Does the OM IMPLY that all other Military Pensioners (say Officer Ranks) can get similar equality/ parity as the Retd MGs? Also what about Defence Civilian Officer Pensioners? I think all of them shd get similar justice – even if the Civilian Pensioners are denied, who will certainly go to courts – if not done so!

vnatarajan

ramkanwar
21-11-2009, 03:17 PM
Dear friend Natrajan & others,
No doubt, there is a setback but it is a part of the game. We have to face it boldly. The Govt. appears to be determined not to give their due to the pensioners especially on the civil side because do not have any nuisance value. They, therefore, take shelter under such bad executive orders. I am sure that the SPS Vains judjment will be made applicable to all Defence retirees before filing of affidavit by the Govt in Contempt of Court case relating to SPS Vains judjment. They are following the policy of Divide and Rule. Such orders will not stand in the eyes of law though it does increase our worries because we will have to exert more to prove our point ant it may take more time. I ask my friends as to for what they are waiting and not moving the CAT /High Courts/Supreme Court to get their due?

The judgment in SPS Vains case is based on DS Nakara Case, where a civilian pensioner, a defence pensioner and an NGO were the petitioners. How can they say that this judgment is not applicable to civilians? As rightly stated by you, the judgment does not say that it is applicable to Defence personnel only and not the civilians. Even the report of Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to examine the issue of 'One Rank One Pension' says that since the Additional Secretaries were placed in the same scale as Lt. Generals, the same scale was also recommended for them. How can they apply different criteria to suit their ends? My other friends may quote and bring out all such cases so that it can be helpful at the time of arguments in the courts. I discussed the present letter dated 18th November 2009 with our counsel. He says that this does not stand the test of law.

I am a retired Chief Engineer from Haryana State Electricity Board which was subsequently unbundled into four Companies owned by the Govt. of Haryana. One of these companies is Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. We are paid pension by it. The Govt of Haryana and HVPNL broadly follow the recommendations of Pay Commission as accepted by Govt of India. So we are also in the same boat. Our pay scales are almost similar. We sent representations to Govt of Haryana and HVPNL but no response. We sent a legal notice but still no response. Now our Civil Writ Petition in respect of Chief Engineers who retired from the scale of Rs. 18400-22400 is almost ready to be filed in Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh say, by 2nd/3rd Dec. 2009. We may like to put this petition after the same is filed on rrewa website for information of other colleagues. Will you kindly advise whom to send it with his e-mail address.
So my appeal to all of you is that you should not delay going to Cat/High Courts? Why delay? There appears to be no hope from the Govt with their attitude.
R.K. Aggarwal

vnatarajan
21-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Dear Shri RK
Please see ur message box. I have given my email id. If you can send me a dummy mail, I shall give other details you require. Mention what are the info u require.
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-11-2009, 07:18 AM
Dear Shri RK
Already Shri SCM,Gen SEc,RREWA had noted your request and has assured poting the details wh u may like to send to him.
Pl send us also a copy.
Whatever RTI material you require can also be made available to u once we get ue email address.
vnatarajan.

ramkanwar
22-11-2009, 12:51 PM
My dear Maheshwari & Natrajan Ji,

We cannot open the above website. The message received is that Domain name validity expired on 21st November, 09. It has to be got extended. For information pl.

RK Aggarwal

vnatarajan
22-11-2009, 04:00 PM
Dear Shri RKA

I am able to open it.
Pl type the address fully IN THE BROWSER COLUMN-
RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND THEN CLICK & TRY.
u MAY ALSO TYPE AFRESH www.rrewa.org after deleting the "cookies" in the sequence Tools- Internet Options- Security - Delete etc and try.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
22-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Friends. rrewa.org website appears to have been hacked. You can send e. mail to Mr. Maheshwari on his id pensioner77@yahoo.com

vnatarajan
23-11-2009, 05:16 PM
Dear MLK

I am not sure what is the actual problem- hacking or blocking?
I am able to open the website- discussion board - and even type the message- enter.
I have typed a message sometime back. Let me see if it gets entered in the Discussion Board.

vnatarajan.

Nov. 24th morning:
Input messages made yesterday are apparently acknowledged on the screen as usual - and indicates awaiting approval of administrator etc. After that messages are not appearing!.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
27-11-2009, 06:37 AM
rrewa.org website is now working normally and is fully functional. For this I congratulate Mr. Maheshwari and others associated with him. This web site is actually a store house of all usefull information to the pensioners and senior citizens.

dnaga57
02-12-2009, 10:02 AM
The site looks abandoned...... sadly:eek:

vnatarajan
03-12-2009, 11:19 AM
Dear Dnaga

Please dont feel upset.
Site will never be abandoned.
Pre-2006 pensioners are more pre-occupied with th next round of war.
It has to be in action- so naturally it mat take the shape of a battle.

You can fight wars and battles with courageous opponents!

Unfortunately- the opposition is so weak- they want shelter only under somebody's umbrella!

Even replies to RTI have become so low in standard that it will not be long before our Hon'ble VIPs think of withdrawing the same soon.

Each authority is acting like a traffic constable trying to show the hand towards the other!

Our topmost National level portals are nothing but super-post-offices! Yet they have no bottoms!

Once we are free of the preparations for the legal battle- I think the Pensioners' part of the D/Board - this thread- will have more dash! After all it has to enter the Pensioners History as the longest thread having the most HITS at fastest pace!

INJUSTICE can yield only to JUSTICE!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
04-12-2009, 06:37 PM
Dear friends. I fully agree with Mr. V. Natarajan. It appears the Govt. has now given full control to MOF to decide and issue OMs. They are acting very very slowly for implementing COS report. On my RTI query I had received the reply from CPIO/MOF-DOE-IC that the whole matter is under consideration of the Govt. and is still being acted upon. Hence, as per RTI ACT provisions, information cannot be furnished at this stage. Budget for next FY would be presented to Parliament soon i. e. end of Feb.2010. Let us hope, by then, decisions would come.

rksehgal31
04-12-2009, 07:54 PM
[

Dear Natarajan ji,

You are doing an excellent service for the pensioners.:)

May I request that you may take up with the Prime Minister and Finance Minister for protecting the pension of the past pensioners by following the Next-below rule so that the pension of the past pensioner is equal to that of his junior in the same cadre of service retiring at the same or junior rank, irrespective of the date of retirement (i.e. retiring even in 2009-10).

The pension of the past pensioners should be refixed once in a year under Next below rule, say in August every year (as employees in service are given annual increment on 1st July and some of them will retire on 31st July).

Alternativey, we should ask for a seperate Pension Commission to look into the problems faced by the pensioners/ family pensioners. The Pay Commissions have failed to understand and solve their problems. The Sixth CPC has not even considered the implications of its recommendations on past pensioners and has devoted only one para (half page) to them. :)

With regards,
RK Sehgal

vnatarajan
07-12-2009, 02:26 PM
Thanks Sir Shri RKSehgal. We shall certainly take up the fights with the cooperation of all of you.

Coming back to the issue in hand, I am sure many pensioners must have been wondering why the source of "head ache" is dormant.

MY FRIEND PKR another diehard pension mechanic, had drafted a beautiful synthesis which I am putting across here without his permission. Hope he will not mind.

I have omitted the clearcut names etc. to avoid certain issues:

Part I : UNDISPUTABLE FACTS FOR OVERCOMING “INJUSTICE”

1.FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL VERDICTS/ AT LEAST RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPULSIONS AT THE MINIMUM EQUALITY, the Govt EVOLVED the principle of MODIFIED PARITY between same class/grade of pensioners, irrespective of the date of their retirement, at the time implementation of the 5THCPC. Amendments to the CCS (Pension ) Rules 1972, incorporated vide, and concerned pension authority had issued notification No F.45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17 Dec 1998 are very much valid today. Hence under the CCS(Pension ) Rules 1972, pre-2006 pensioners are entitled to i) a minimum pension of 50% of the revised scale of the grade from which they retired and ii) this minimum pension cannot be less than the minimum pension as applicable to such a post/grade, under the SCPC revised pay.

2. The PAY BAND under the 6TH.CPC, is a comprehensive module to quantitatively fit a set of PAY SCALES of hierarchal grades. The two entities are obviously not the same.. The RTI replies from the TWO COINCERNED PENSION authorities concede that NO rep[eat NO repeat NO MATERIAL INFORMATION LIKE ORDERS/ RECORDS ETC ARE AVAILABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE/ EQUATE “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” (MPPB) and the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” (MPB) ONE AND THE SAME. SO THESE ARE CERTAINLY/ ADMINISTRATIVELY/ EXECUTIVELY/ TRANSPARENTLY/ ETHICALLY/ TRUTHFULLY/ LEGALLY DIFFERENT.

3. The 6thCPC recommendation ( para 5.1.47 ) is unambiguous in upholding the MODIFIED PARITY , brought out at Sr1 above. The Govt. resolution of 29 Aug 08, had accepted it and para 4.2 of Order of 01 Sep 08 had confirmed it, though with little cosmetic (deliberate as a first step???) editing (in pencil????) . However, all subsequent modifications reflected in the Orders of 03-10-08 and 14-10-08, are both of DESTRUCTIVELY OVERRIDING and quantitatively PENSION NEGATING orders with QUESTIONABLE validity.

4. Yet in another directive dated 26 Sep 08, concerned authority had conceded that the incorporation of the expression “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” in the place of the expression “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND”was explained as a typographical error, THAT WARRANTED CORRECTION , which had been carried out (?) after the same got NOTICED by the aggrieved..

5. A High Level Committeee dealing with OROP for Military Pensioners has conceded that different degrees of disparity between Pre and Post 2006 pensioners has cropped as a result of the modified parity being related to the minimum of the pay band . Para 6.8 of their report refers ( The percentage of this disparity in pension as shown therein for different grades may be seen ). On that reckoning the S-30 minimum pension has already been modified. DISPARITY NOW HAS REACHED A LEVEL OF 17% FOR PRE 2006 S 29 PENSIONERS WHICH STANDS UNRESOLVED.

6.Concerned PENSION AUTHORITY , had sent the following proposal to FINANCE AUTHORITY in their File (hereafter called MAIN FILE) vide note dtd 20/21.10.2008 for following modification to be made in the provision regarding ensuring a minimum pension for the pensioners in each of the pre-revised pay scales:
“THE REVISED PENSION IN NO CASE SHALL BE LOWER THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF THE SUM OF THE REVISED PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND AND THE GRADE PAY THEREON CORRESPONDING TO THE:MINIMUM BASIC PAY IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED AND ARRIVED AT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FITMENT TABLES GIVEN IN ANNEXURE I OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (REVISED PAY) RULES 2008”.
(Strangely the MAIN FILE is reported to be missing at the end of FINANCE AUTHORITY because of certain searching RTI queries that have been raised which can be answered only from those file records!)

7. A MINISTER concerning the pensions in his DO lr B No 6/09 dt. 19 th Jan 2009 to his counterpart MINISTER concerning FINANCE had fully concurred with the LATTER’s observations that the Revised Pension implementation orders for pre-2006 pensioners which intended to allow MODIFIED PARITY between the pre- and post-2006 pensioners, has created disparities within pre-2006 pensioners and between pre- and post-2006 pensioners and had sought for the approval/ decision on the above proposal mentioned in (a) above, to redress the grievance of the pre-2006 pensioners and in line with the MODIFIED PARITY provided to the pre-1996 pensioners on implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth CPC.

8.In the same letter, the FORMER MINISTER refers to the LATTER MINISTER’S A DO lr no 3534 dt 10.11.2008 addressed to the Hon CEO of the NATION regarding the same disparities mentioned above and how the Hon CEO in turn had sought the views of the FORMER in the matter. Action of LATTER MINISTER at Sr 7 above,is a consequence of the same.

9. In view of the factual position at Para 6 to 8, the obdurate denial mode adopted BY CERTAIN AUTHORITIES DEALING WITH PENSIONS, ITS POLICIES, AND FINANCES against the objective appeals of the PRE2006 S29 AND OTHER pensioners is BASELESSLY OPPOSED to what clearly bears out to be the INTERNALLY CONVINCED HIGHER AUTHORITIES’official view.

JUSTICE SHALL PREVAIL.

vnatarajan

Part 2 shall follow soon.

vnatarajan
08-12-2009, 10:06 AM
Dear All,

I can make out at least 40 to 50 interested pensioners are reading what I had posted yesterday.

As stated by me in the foot-note, I am posting the second part inspired by the input of Shri PKR with my own additions:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART II. FACTS THAT ARE REFUSING TO EMERGE FROM THE GREY AREAS
(focusSed from RTI information):

1. Despite several RTI queries the CONCERNED AUTHORITIES are desperately focused on denying the correct and direct information, on the notional or otherwise, MINIMUM PENSION applicable to the post 2006 incarnation of the erstwhile S-29 Scale. This feigned ignorance does not speak high of either their caliber or competency to face the truth in the spirit of ethical administration or Citizens’ participation in governance, which are the essence of RTI philosophy! The RTI replies exemplify poor diplomacy rather than intellectual transparency. The official shyness to accept and furnish the information, that this post 2006, minimum pension cannot be less than Rs 27350/- ( ( 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band (Rs 44700 ) plus grade pay of Rs 10000/- )by applying any of the rules/formula communicated through the RTI replies, can only be explained in the context of attempts to MISDIRECT the question of modified parity and CONCEAL the facts..

2. The RTI replies try to present Pension as a self thriving entity, which it is not. Pension is rooted in the last pay/ pay scale, of the pensioner.Pre-2006 pensioners do not dispute that we may not seek pay fixation in the new scale (in the absence of the concept of full parity- which we have consciously sacrificed in spite of Nakra in 1998) as by a serving employee. But it cannot be denied that the application of MODIFIED PARITY should fail without relativity of the old scale to the corresponding new scale as prescribed under the RPR 2008, for each grade within the respective pay band / or a stand alone new scale.( Ref: Para 2 of DP&PW OM 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt I Dated 20-08-09.) For the erstwhile S-29, this scale is 44700- 67000 in PB-4.( Source: An RTI reply on HBA from Min of Urban Development supports this position.)

3. Some RTI reply tries to project the IDENTITY of the Grade Pay being the distinguishing factor between grades applicable to pensioners. If it is so, can this IDENTITY explain how S-28 is distinguished from S-29 ? One can EASILY establish the UNBELIEVABLE ABSURDITY, by comparing these two by the same Grade Pay factor. For example, a Pre-2006 S-28 pensioner with LPD of 14300/- and S-29 pensioners drawing LPD of Rs 21900/- will both draw the SAME REVISED PENSION of Rs 23700 ! It is crystal clear that distinction by Grade Pay alone, is a fallacy. And, applying this “MISRULE” EITHER ERRORNEOUSLY OR DEFENSIVELY (to hide any Omission?) only to pensioners on one side of an arbitrary date line( 01-01-2006 ), is like flogging an Old Horse and playing with their destiny in their advanced age! CAN’T THE AUTHORITIES REALISE THAT THIS FIGURE OF 23700 IS BECAUSE OF A NET REDUCTION IN BASIC PENSION OF HALF OF RS 18400 MINUS 14300 i.e. RS 2050 PM PLUS DR COMPONENT WEF 1.1.2006 IS AGAINST PENSION RULES, A POSTHUMOUS PUNISHMENT, AND AGAINST SCPC’s Guiding Principles/Philosophy/ Recommendations and Cabinet approvals.

4. RTI answers reveal another important grey area to be the application of judicial verdicts related to pension cases. It is agreed that every pensioner who quotes Nakra, Vains, Akkra etc may not be fully aware of the implications of the verdicts (I am also one among them). It is also agreed that judicial pronouncements in INDIVIDUAL CASES may not become STATUTEs by themselves!. But where the operative parts of the judgments categorically direct the Govt. to apply corrections to all aggrieved, the Govt. has no alternative than to accept such directives as equal to statutes. Rules have to be amended to apply corrections. Future applications have to pay respect to the spirit of such Judgments. What we find is that PRESENT TENDENCY OF PENSION POLICY AUTHORITIES AND LAW PROCESSING EXPERTS IS TO SELECT “PORTIONS” AND “SENTENCES” FROM PARAS OF JUDGMENTS , PROCESS THEM ADMINISTRATIVELY AS A FORMALITY without consulting proper echelons of Law Expertise in the Ministry concerned, AND ISSUE THEM AS OMs TO DISSUADE / MISLEAD PENSIONERS FROM SEEKING APPROPRIATE RELIEF THROUGH “OPERATIVE” “HOLISTIC APPLICATION” PARTS OF SUCH JUDGMENTS which are most relevant and actually applicable! This is an alternate way of denying justice!. (Latest example is the OM dt 18 11 2009 related to SPS Vains case judgment – its non-applicability to Civil Pensioners- a clear case that can invite contempt!).

Such actions would lead to multiplicity of pension cases. Yet Hon. Law Minister hopes to reduce such cases in future and make the Govt. a reluctant litigant. Will the “Grayness” fade?

5.RTI outcomes reveal that the most atrocious Grey area that has become the obstacle for the current imbroglio is the FINANCIAL IMPLICATION- an ad hoc/ impromptu “hand-written” incorporation in the File Notes that were processed in the MOF/DOE. Same have been communicated as the reason for not accepting the correct PROPOSAL mooted out by DOPW in Oct 2008 itself. Letters from a Finance Implementation Authority sent to Pension Authority on 27th Jan /6th Feb 2009 convey this. THIS MEANS THE RESTRICTION OF REVISED PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS TO THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” LEVEL EITHER ERRONEOUSLY OR ADMINISTRATIVELY is being JUSTIFIED to be due to FINACIAL LIMITATION only. This excuse is untenable as the same reason is not being applied to several subsequent revisions or NEW ENHANCED GRANTS as in the case of S30 Scale/ Lt Cols/ Lt Gens etc.

Pay Commission or Cabinet never recommended lesser pensions other than MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND BASED revisions only to all and Budget provision was accordingly IMPLIED. There is no question of raising this UNFOUNDED excuse for only pre-2006 pensioners.

6. RTI queries also reveal another “ grey hide and seek” game. Recent example of the only SILVER LINING to the MINIMUM Grey Area is the happening of relief to the pre-2006 S30 Pensioners. While we pre-2006 pensioners all appreciate and treat the same as a very good gesture on the part of the concerned Authorities, appeals made for similar justice to the “as of now 17% less pension-drawing” pre-2006 pensioners and other lower scale pensioners are being side-lined and even bull-dozed. What is appalling is the RTI queries are not being answered in full earnest. Every effort is made to deny access to INFORMATION to the LIGHTNING./ HASTY processing done for a revised S30 pay scale between 30th June and 16th / 21st July and later for pension up to 20th August 2009. (Poor many OROP beneficiaries are yet to be covered in the pension aspects – but for whom this S30 intervention might not have taken place!)

Our RTI exercise is not for causing any “embarrassment” to any quarters, but only to ensure that “:equally” deserving other pre-2006 pensioners are also covered by similar gesture. I hope authorities do take interest to do JUSTICE.

7.. Most tragic Grey Area is the case of future Family Pensioners. Excepting for the family pensioners as existing on 31 dec 2005, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, is to be prospective and post 01-01-2006. Among them there will be two categories. A would be family pensioner of a pre-2006 retiree will draw less than a would be family pensioner of a post- 2006 retiree. WHAT A FALLACY? A “FUTURE CLASS” WITHIN A “FUTURE homogenous CLASS”? Authorities must at least pay attention to this CRUEL INFLICTION so that the MINIMUM OF THE FURTURE FAMILY PENSIONS, cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and be anomalous within a grade..
WHAT IS REQUIRED FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES/ “:OUTSIDE” HELP: :
An UNBIASED FAIR VERDICT as to (i) the correct minimum pension payable to past pensioners under the dispensations of the SCPC, as assured under the accepted principle of modified parity enshrined in the pension rules and (ii) whether the implemented revision, as it is today, can stand the scrutiny of equity and legitimacy.

Written by: PK RANGANATHAN., Additions made, Edited & Communicated by:
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-12-2009, 06:41 PM
Dear All pensioners,

PLEASE DO NOT MISS READING MY EARLIER TWO POSTS.

AT THIS POINT OF TIME, I AND MANY PENSIONERS WOULD APPRECIATE AND THANK THE GESTURE OF THE CPAO WHO HAD GRACEFULLY ISSUED A CORRIGENDUM TO THE LETTER 1265 DATED 26TH SEPT 2008, IN WHICH NODAL OFFICERS OF THE BANKS WERE ASKED TO FIX/ PAY THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS ON THE BASIS OF "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" AND GRADE PAY.

IT HAS BEEN CORRECTED ON 20/24TH NOV 2009 THROUGH A CORRIGENDUM ISSUED TO ALL THE NODAL OIFFICERS OF THE BANKS. BASIS IS BEING CHANGED TO THE MINIMUM OF 'THE PAY' IN THE PAY BAND.

LINK IS: http://cpao.nic.in/corrigendum_Letter1(26-09-2008).pdf

NOW IT IS THE DOPPW WHO HAVE TO GRACEFULLY CORRECT AND REVISE THE RELEVANT OMs PARTICULARLY THE OM DATED 14TH OCT 2008- ITS TABLE/ ANNEXURE- COL 8 AND FOOTNOTE ETC WHERE THE "PENSION REDUCING EXPRESSION" "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" HAD BEEN ADOPTED FOR PENSION REVISIONS INSTEAD OF REVISING THE PENSIONS ON THE BASIS OF "MINIMUM OF "THE PAY" IN THE PAY BAND".

(IT IS WELL KNOWN NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ANY MATERIAL INFORMATION/ ORDERS/ GOVT DECISIONS/ SCPC RECOMMENMDATIONS ETC TO EQUATE THE TWO EXPRESSION TO BE ONE AND THE SAME)

LET US HOPE FOR SOME POSITIVE GESTURE FROM THE GOVT. AND ALL SHALL BE GRATEFUL FOR THE MODIFIED PARITY IF ACCORDED SOON TO THOSE FOR WHOM IT SHALL BE MORE BENEFICIAL THAN 2.26 MF.

VNATARAJAN

Kanaujiaml
15-12-2009, 07:24 AM
Dear Pensioner friends. As you know, pensioners observe Pensioenrs day on 17th Dec. every year. On 17th Dec.1982 Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court gave historic judgment concerning all aspects of pensioners, in DS Nakara Case. Shri DS Nakara and others faced the similar situation as we are facing today namaly, dividing pensioners in various groups and giving different treatment to each group. DS Nakara and others rose and fought the case and won it for pensioners. Today we once again salute them. More recently, on 09.08.2008, Supreme Court gave same judgment in VPS Vains case. VPS Vains and others, who are all retired Major Geneals, after getting equality between pre and post 1996 retirees, are now fighting for equality between pre and post 2006 retirees of Major General rank, the Contempt Petition in Supreme Court. I salute them all, too. The Govt. issued OM dated 3rd Oct.2008 dividing pensioners into groups by cut off dates, giving different treatment with regard to pensionery benifits, while implementing 6 CPC report. All our appeals have been summarily rejected time and again and nobody has come forward to help up. While observing Pensioners Day, let us ponder over our situation and see what we are doing ? Why we have failed so far to adopt the path shown by DS Nakara and VPS Vains ?

vnatarajan
16-12-2009, 12:56 PM
Dear pre-1986/pre 1996/pre2006 pensioners,

According to some posts in blogs like paycommissionupdate,com- other similar blogs, the gist of first NAC meeting held on 12 12 2009- its outcome etc are reported. Authenticity is related to the credibility of the blog.

However contents appear to be relevant:

Few relevant extracts and my interim comments are posted in the thresd "ANOMALY COMMITTEE" following Shri GR's report and his overall comment.

Pl study the post there and participate in the debates so that our views also can come to the fore.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
17-12-2009, 12:10 PM
Dear Pensioner friends.Happy Pensioners Day. On the occasion of Pensioners day 17th Dec.2009, I congratulate you. Warm regards.

vnatarajan
21-12-2009, 10:05 AM
Dear pre-2006 Pensioners/ others interested,

It is clear that the authorities who matter are somewhat "anti-pensioners" in approach. Repeated Supreme Court judgments for upholding the Rules in proper sanctity appear to go into deafears. Recent OCt 2009 Orders of Supreme Court clearly define the sanctity of Rules vs their amendments by the Authorities. Extracts:

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3156 OF 2007State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. …….
AppellantsVs. ……. Respondent

(ii) Whether the retrospective amendment of the Rules
by notification dated 20.5.2003, can deny the benefit
which had accrued under the unamended Rules?

11. The Rules were retrospectively amended on 20.5.2003
substituting the words “NPA at such rates as may be
fixed by the state government from time to time by order
issued in this behalf” in place of “NPA @ 25% of pay” in
the Rules. It was contended that as the Rules were
amended in the year 2003 with retrospective effect from
14.10.1982, it should be deemed that the NPA payable was
as notified by the government from time to time and not
‘25% of the pay’.
12. It is no doubt true that Rules Article 309
can be made so as to operate with retrospective effect.
But it is well settled that rights and benefits which
have already been earned or acquired under the existing
rules cannot be taken away by amending the rules with
retrospective effect. [See : N.C. Singhal vs. Director
General, Armed Forces Medical Services – 1972 (4) SCC
765; K. C. Arora vs. State of Haryana – 1984 (3) SCC
281; and T.R. Kapoor vs. State of Haryana – 1986 Supp.
SCC 584]. Therefore, it has to be held that while the
amendment, even if it is to be considered as otherwise
valid, cannot affect the rights and benefits which had
accrued to the employees under the unamended rules

WILL JUSTICE BE DONE TO PRE-2006 AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS WITHOUT GOING FOR "OUTSIDE' HELP?

VNATARAJAN

Kanaujiaml
22-12-2009, 07:11 AM
My dear Mr. V. Natarajan. I tried to read once again the full verdicdt of DS Nakara Case. In it it has been clearly indicated where the 'decision' would be retroactive and where prospective. Futher, it has also been said there that the "decisions" of Govt. (under consideration at that point of time) are both retroactive and prospective. On this analogy, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, further said that the recomputation of pension (after pay commission's report) is upgradation of the old one and not a new benefit. Hence, it applies both to pre and post retirees equally under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. DS Nakara verdict has got dealt every aspect concerning pension and we need not go elsewhere. Even the recent OM saying SPS Vains verdict is not applicable to Civilians, is also not valid because this verdict too, is wholely based on DS Nakara Case. DS Nakara verdict says and I quote verbatim "Constitution of India, Art. 14-Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Regulations governing pension for Armed Forces Personnel-Liberalisation in computation of pension effective from specified date-Divides pensioners so as to confer benefit on some while denying it to others-Classification arbitrary, devoid of rational nexus to object of liberalisation and violative of Art. 14 Constitution of India, Art. 14-Doctrine of severability-Severance may have effect of enlarging scope of legislation. Rules and Regulations governing grant of pension-Pension is a right-Deferred portion of compensation for service rendered-Also a social-welfare measure."

vnatarajan
22-12-2009, 03:55 PM
Dear MLK

I am in full agreement with you.

(I think you or somebody else had earlier pointed out too another aspect).

May be it is rather to dissuade the pre-1996/1986 CIVIL pensioners from asking for "FULL PARITY". Because the pre 1996/1986 Retd Major Generals are to be necessarily given this. SO SOME CONCOCTED NOTE MUST HAVE BEEN PUT UP IN TERMS OF ALREADY DECIDED CCS PENSION RULES AMENDMENT OF 17TH DEC 1998 wherein the first application of Modified Parity i.e. Minimum of the Pay in the REVISED PAY SCALE came into being. That is how SPSVains Case is cited on its applicability vis a vis that of CCS Pension Rules to Civilians etc.and not Nakara.

It is a defensive/ preventive cowardice and nothing else!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
23-12-2009, 06:40 AM
My dear VN. I think Pensioners Associations should represent against this OM. It appears, Associations are waiting for something to happen. Staff side in National Anamolly Committee recent meeting (item 15 of the minutes) has advocated revised pension equal to 1.86 x old basic pension plus full grade pay because grade pay happens to be 40 % of maximum of corresponding pre revised pay scale and fitment benefit accorded to working employees.

Kanaujiaml
26-12-2009, 06:59 AM
:DDear Friends,
Season’s greetings and very happy and prosperous new year 2010 to you and all the family members. May the God fulfill all your wishes and the aspirations in the coming new year.Warm regards from
M. L. Kanaujia, Dehra Dun.

Kanaujiaml
01-01-2010, 03:11 PM
Dear pensioner friends. Once again I wish you a very happy and prosperous new year 2010. The inflation is rising and in the new year it may rise further. Will the Govt. consider enhancing once again the DA/DR due to rise in inflation ? Can anyone suggest what should be the % ge of enhancement this time keeping in view the rise in inflation which has already taken place ? Warm regards.

G.Ramdas
01-01-2010, 03:19 PM
Wishing You All,

A Very Happy New Year full of Peace, Prosperity, Good Health
And Good Fortune.
Let 2010 see solutions to all Pensioners' problems- both real and artificially created

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
02-01-2010, 10:32 AM
Dear MLK,

DR in terms of Index will rise to plus 34%. It was already plus 32% at the end of Oct 2009. Inflation was very high in Nov and Dec. We shall get 7% rise above the 27% we are already drawing.Not bad even in a depressed pension mode. Litigation Fund collection shd also be easier - I feel still a large number are to contribute!

vnatarajan

rksehgal31
02-01-2010, 01:45 PM
The past pensioners need protection of the pension

Dear MLK & VN,

While the pay of the employees in the old pay scales S-24 to S-34 has been raised to about 3.0 (2.97 – 3.31) times the pre-revised basic pay, the pension of the existing pensioners and family pensioners has been raised to 2.26 times only. The initial pay of the S-24 to S-34 scales has been revised as shown below:


Post Old pay Revised pay Ratio

Cabinet Secretary 30000 90000 3.00

Apex scale 26000 80000 3.08

HAG+ (S-32) 24500 77765 3.17

HAG+ (S-31) 22400 75500 3.37

HAG (S-30) 22400 67000 2.99 S-29 18400 54,700 2.97

S-28 14300 47400 3.31

S-26 & S-27 16400 48590 2.96

S-25 15100 48390 3.20

S-24 14,300 46,100 3.22



It is strange that the highly paid officers in service have been given a disproportionately larger increase than the pensioners and family pensioners. A wide disparity has been created while the fitment formula is the same for all the employees in service and the pensioners.
All the pre-revised pay scales should have been multiplied by a common multiplier of 3.0 uniformly. The old basic pay, pension and family pension should have been multiplied by 3.0 instead of 2.26.
What is the justification for herding millions of group B, C and D employees in just 2 pay bands while there are 2 pay bands and 5 pay scales for a few thousand group A officers?
Since there is automatic improvement to next higher pay band on stagnation at maximum of the lower pay band, there should be a common running pay band (instead of 4 Pay Bands and 5 pay scales) from Rs.7650 – 90000 to cover all employees from Peon to Cabinet Secretary.
There should be no Grade Pay. Entry Pay for each post should be specified.

May I request Pensioners Associations to seek multiplication of old basic pension by 3.0 instead of 2.26.

We should also ask for protecting the pension of the old pensioners under "Equal Pension for Equal Work" for the services rendered to the government, irrespective of the date of retirement, on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

This can be easily achieved by following the "Next-below rule" in such a way that the pension of the past pensioners is always one incement (3 percent) more than the pension drawn by a junior person retiring at a lower rank in his cadre of service, or equal to the pension drawn by a junior person retiring at the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement. Suitable adjustments may, however, be made if the junior person had been given higher initial start at the time of joining the cadre due to higher qualifications and/ or experience, or was given advance increment(s) as reward due to better performance, or had a longer length of service.
Such review/ revision may be carried out annually, say in August, as employees in service are allowed annual increment on 1st July and employee retiring on 31st July will draw pension from 1st August. The whole process can be easily computerised.

R K Sehgal

Kanaujiaml
03-01-2010, 12:00 PM
Wishing You All,

A Very Happy New Year full of Peace, Prosperity, Good Health
And Good Fortune.
Let 2010 see solutions to all Pensioners' problems- both real and artificially created

G.Ramdas

Thanks and same for you.

Kanaujiaml
03-01-2010, 12:05 PM
Dear MLK,

DR in terms of Index will rise to plus 34%. It was already plus 32% at the end of Oct 2009. Inflation was very high in Nov and Dec. We shall get 7% rise above the 27% we are already drawing.Not bad even in a depressed pension mode. Litigation Fund collection shd also be easier - I feel still a large number are to contribute!

vnatarajan

Thanks. Mr. RK Agarwal on rrewa blog says 8 % increase on average for 11 months from Jan09 to Nov09 as figures for Dec 09 would only be available by 31.01.10. Would Govt. grant this DA/DR rise before Budget ?

Kanaujiaml
03-01-2010, 12:13 PM
The past pensioners need protection of the pension

Dear MLK & VN,

While the pay of the employees in the old pay scales S-24 to S-34 has been raised to about 3.0 (2.97 – 3.31) times the pre-revised basic pay, the pension of the existing pensioners and family pensioners has been raised to 2.26 times only. The initial pay of the S-24 to S-34 scales has been revised as shown below:


Post Old pay Revised pay Ratio

Cabinet Secretary 30000 90000 3.00

Apex scale 26000 80000 3.08

HAG+ (S-32) 24500 77765 3.17

HAG+ (S-31) 22400 75500 3.37

HAG (S-30) 22400 67000 2.99 S-29 18400 54,700 2.97

S-28 14300 47400 3.31

S-26 & S-27 16400 48590 2.96

S-25 15100 48390 3.20

S-24 14,300 46,100 3.22



It is strange that the highly paid officers in service have been given a disproportionately larger increase than the pensioners and family pensioners. A wide disparity has been created while the fitment formula is the same for all the employees in service and the pensioners.
All the pre-revised pay scales should have been multiplied by a common multiplier of 3.0 uniformly. The old basic pay, pension and family pension should have been multiplied by 3.0 instead of 2.26.
What is the justification for herding millions of group B, C and D employees in just 2 pay bands while there are 2 pay bands and 5 pay scales for a few thousand group A officers?
Since there is automatic improvement to next higher pay band on stagnation at maximum of the lower pay band, there should be a common running pay band (instead of 4 Pay Bands and 5 pay scales) from Rs.7650 – 90000 to cover all employees from Peon to Cabinet Secretary.
There should be no Grade Pay. Entry Pay for each post should be specified.

May I request Pensioners Associations to seek multiplication of old basic pension by 3.0 instead of 2.26.

We should also ask for protecting the pension of the old pensioners under "Equal Pension for Equal Work" for the services rendered to the government, irrespective of the date of retirement, on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

This can be easily achieved by following the "Next-below rule" in such a way that the pension of the past pensioners is always one incement (3 percent) more than the pension drawn by a junior person retiring at a lower rank in his cadre of service, or equal to the pension drawn by a junior person retiring at the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement. Suitable adjustments may, however, be made if the junior person had been given higher initial start at the time of joining the cadre due to higher qualifications and/ or experience, or was given advance increment(s) as reward due to better performance, or had a longer length of service.
Such review/ revision may be carried out annually, say in August, as employees in service are allowed annual increment on 1st July and employee retiring on 31st July will draw pension from 1st August. The whole process can be easily computerised.

R K Sehgal

Very good presentation in deed but Govt. doesnot consider issues like this and hands it over to Pay Commissions. Do you think 6 CPC gave recommendations without considering this ? Secondly, whatever 6 CPC has given to Pensioners, even that has been denied vide MOP,DOP OM dated 3rd Oct.2008 and all our pleas and appeals are being rejected one after the other. So, what is the course left for the pensioners to take ?

sundarar
03-01-2010, 04:43 PM
The past pensioners need protection of the pension

Dear MLK & VN,

While the pay of the employees in the old pay scales S-24 to S-34 has been raised to about 3.0 (2.97 – 3.31) times the pre-revised basic pay, the pension of the existing pensioners and family pensioners has been raised to 2.26 times only. The initial pay of the S-24 to S-34 scales has been revised as shown below:


Post Old pay Revised pay Ratio

Cabinet Secretary 30000 90000 3.00

Apex scale 26000 80000 3.08

HAG+ (S-32) 24500 77765 3.17

HAG+ (S-31) 22400 75500 3.37

HAG (S-30) 22400 67000 2.99 S-29 18400 54,700 2.97

S-28 14300 47400 3.31

S-26 & S-27 16400 48590 2.96

S-25 15100 48390 3.20

S-24 14,300 46,100 3.22



It is strange that the highly paid officers in service have been given a disproportionately larger increase than the pensioners and family pensioners. A wide disparity has been created while the fitment formula is the same for all the employees in service and the pensioners.
All the pre-revised pay scales should have been multiplied by a common multiplier of 3.0 uniformly. The old basic pay, pension and family pension should have been multiplied by 3.0 instead of 2.26.
What is the justification for herding millions of group B, C and D employees in just 2 pay bands while there are 2 pay bands and 5 pay scales for a few thousand group A officers?
Since there is automatic improvement to next higher pay band on stagnation at maximum of the lower pay band, there should be a common running pay band (instead of 4 Pay Bands and 5 pay scales) from Rs.7650 – 90000 to cover all employees from Peon to Cabinet Secretary.
There should be no Grade Pay. Entry Pay for each post should be specified.

May I request Pensioners Associations to seek multiplication of old basic pension by 3.0 instead of 2.26.

We should also ask for protecting the pension of the old pensioners under "Equal Pension for Equal Work" for the services rendered to the government, irrespective of the date of retirement, on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

This can be easily achieved by following the "Next-below rule" in such a way that the pension of the past pensioners is always one incement (3 percent) more than the pension drawn by a junior person retiring at a lower rank in his cadre of service, or equal to the pension drawn by a junior person retiring at the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement. Suitable adjustments may, however, be made if the junior person had been given higher initial start at the time of joining the cadre due to higher qualifications and/ or experience, or was given advance increment(s) as reward due to better performance, or had a longer length of service.
Such review/ revision may be carried out annually, say in August, as employees in service are allowed annual increment on 1st July and employee retiring on 31st July will draw pension from 1st August. The whole process can be easily computerised.

R K Sehgal

Thanks to Shri R.K.Sehgalji for bringing out the requirement of parity with regard to application of multiplication factor uniformly for all the pre-revised scale retirees. By an application of single multiplication factor for all the pre-revised scale retirees upto S-29, revised pension already involving such application (viz. 3 or so) in the case of remaining retirees are not going to be adversely affected. Whereas, if applied to all the scale retirees, then only parity can be said to have been maintained while revising the pension. It is a fact that the modification of para 4.2 led to reduced pension. It affects all the pensioners upto S-29. That is an issue to be settled on priority. Beyond that, the application of single mf to all the pensioners of a homogenous class while revising the pension ought to have been done, particularly because all the 5 pay commissions have ensured that the pension is revised uniformly by a single multiplication factor, viz. 3 or so.
Only this time, with involvement of pay band/pay in pay band/gradepay factors, the basic requirement of maintaining parity has been pushed down.
While one para stipulates 2.26 mf for all the pensioners, another para in the name of minimum pension, involve varying multiplication factors as pointed out by Shri RKS, and this differential treatment is fit to be looked into by the NAC. Though the Corrigendum is issued for straightening the records under para 4.2, its implementation part is due. Still, even under the modified version of para 4.2 vide OM dated 3.10.2008, the varying multiplication factors are implicit, viz. 2.26 upto S-23, 2.6 from S-24 to S-29 and 3+ for remaining scales. The ideal situation will be application of the highest multiplication factor equally for all the pre-revised basic pension. The pensioners shall not be pushed down with reduced pension by terminologies like pb, ppb, gp, etc. For them, the basic pre-revised pension and its corresponding revision by application of uniform single mf matters.

In this regard, the following para in the D.S. Nakra case, is significant to note:

"2. (iv) It is not correct to say that if the unconstitutional part((In Exhibit P-1 the words: "That in respect of the Government servants who
were in service on the 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date. and in Exhibit P-2, the words: "the new rates of pension are effective from Ist April 1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become noneffective on or after that date" are unconstitutional and are struck down) is struck down the Parliament would not have enacted the measure. The executive, with parliamentary mandate, liberalised the pension scheme. It is implicit in the scheme that the need to grant a little higher rate of pension to the pensioners was considered eminently just. One could have understood persons in the higher pay bracket being excluded from the benefit of the scheme because it would have meant that those in the higher pay bracket could fend for themselves. Such is not the
exclusion. The exclusion is of a whole class of people who retired before a certain date. Parliament would not have hesitated to extend the benefit otherwise considered eminently just and this becomes clearly discernible from
p.35 of the 9th Report of the Committee"

The above para while talks about the fixing of cut-off date for the purpose of revised requirement of emoluments for pension, is equally applicable
in the case of application of single multiplication factor also for all the pensioners.

THE EXCLUSION OF HIGHEST MULTIPLICATION FACTOR IS OF A WHOLE CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO RETIRED FROM ALL THE 29 PRE-REVISED SCALES LIKE THE RETIREES OF REMAINING PRE-REVISED SCALES.

WHAT IS JUST ONLY PRAYED FOR BY THE AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS, AND NOTHING EXCESS OF IT.

It is not a question whether 6th CPC has considered all these factors or not particularly when its preceding 5 CPCs have kept in view the same. But while implementing, whether uniform treatment has been kept involved or not, is the prime question.

vnatarajan
03-01-2010, 08:17 PM
Dear MLK/ NSR/ RKS/ all

Normally DR for 6 month period ending Dec each year will be announced in time- and we shall get it also in time.

Reg the MF etc., arguments are all fine.

Problems are:

1.Our Ministry of Law says every issue is judged by the court- including cut-off/ parity etc etc and so they are settled.

Settled for what time? At best only for that time!

Then they say "Judgments do not become Statututes by themselves'

So unless the verdict gets "enshrined" in the Rule Books, we have no reprieve - other than going to courts again and again.

UNLESS WE HAVE GODFATHERS TO MANIPULATE AND PUT UP NOTES TO APPLY THE JUDGMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE CASE!

At the same time "negative" judgments are quickly applied/ quoted and repeatedly applied- because denying a BENEFIT/APPLICATION of a positive part of justice
is less complicated than acceding the same!

2.Ministry of Law also says - all said and done- the DOP can always decide any issue related to pension under its POLICY making power- but in concurrence with FINANCE and then implement it!

So where do we knock the door for a positive opening/ outcome?

OBVIOUS!- after exhausting all channels - go to court!- Otherwise the Courts will say first exhaust all the channels and then come to courts!

So for the next Pay Commission- take a preventive action.

WE will come to that soon!.

regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-01-2010, 06:13 AM
This is wrt RKA's figure for DR %
At the end of Nov it is 34.11%.
So by Dec end it has to cross 35%- and so his figure of 8% rise is absolutely realistic.
Happy New year DR Rise.
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Dear Pre-2006 Pensioners, IS THIS NEWS CORRECT???? ANYHOW, PL READ:

“SWAMYNEWS JULY 2007 -OUTCOME OF THE ORAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE VITH PAY COMMISSION BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE STAFF SIDE JCM ON 16TH, 17TH AND 18TH APRIL, 2007.”

How many know about this?? Not many I am fully ignorant!!! Items that appear to have been discussed regarding:PENSION:

1. Commission is of the view that to facilitate easy exit, the present pension i.e. 50% of salary may be made available to whoever wants to seek voluntary retirement after completion of 15/20 years of service.

2. Pension for those who seuperannuate may be at a higher percentage, as demanded by the Staff Side.

3. Increasing the rate of pension for those who live beyond the age of 70 will be considered.

4. Average emoluments may not undergo any change.

5. The pensioners may be covered under a Group Insurance Scheme for medicare.

6. The Commission may not look into new Pension Scheme for those who are recruited on or after 1.1.2004.

Conclusion: Evidence from Unions will be completed by May, 2007.
Thereafter, the Secretaries of the Departments will be heard.
----------------------

COMMENTS:

My friend Sri Krishna has brought to my notice very significant points ( now edited/ rationalised by me)) for consideration BASED ON THE ABOVE NEWS:

1.As could be seen from the above, the STAFF SIDE perhaps COULD NOT GET ANY FOCUS ON THE EMERGING GRIEVANCES OF EXISTING PENSIONERS VIZ PRE-2006 at that point of time.

2.When the “MINIMUM ASSURED/ GUARANTEED PENSION/ ENTITLED PENSION” itself is being “deliberately” REDUCED by resorting to UNBALANCED widely variable “Ratios” (2.26 (mainly PB 1 & 2) to 3.11(S30 t0 34!!!) among the pre-2006 pensioners, there is no meaning of increasing the pensions for those who “LIVE BEYOND 70 YEARS” which has now become “80” YEARS at the time of implementation! Moreover, WHERE IS THE “HIGHER PERCENTAGE” FOR ALL THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WHO HAVE SUPER-ANNUATED WITH FULL 33 YEARS/ EVEN MORE SERVICE?

3. Just before implementation of the recommendation, the DOP&PW has sought comments of the Pensioners' Associations by giving hardly a weekand according to me, that letter (of April 2008) had not at all reached many such associations/ federations and even then the time given was so short, none would have been able to analyse and react in time! Perhaps it was posted on the web site at a much later stage to just to make all feel that the issue is open for all to offer their comments/ suggestions etc.!


4.Such being the case, even before the NAC also, the pre-2006 Pensioners' problems have not been brought to surface and one reason could be that the STAFF SIDE may not be FULLY aware of the pre-2006 pensioners' problems.

5.Hence, a brief SUMMARY ON VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE CASES OF PRE-2006PENSIONERS must be laid before the STAFF SIDE to get a better comprehension of the ground truth!

6.IN THIS REGARD THE ISSUES/ ITEMS RAISED BY THE PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS LIKE “ RREWA” (affiliated to BPS)/ “PENSIONERS FORUM” (affiliated to the AIFPA (Regd) (Regn No 48/1982),Chennai) which have been submitted officially to the NAC and have also appeared in the websites of many associations/ news sites (Central Govt. Employees News etc) are very relevant.

7.PRE-2006 PENSIONERS do hope the NAC/ Staff Side will pay attention and ENSURE JUSTICE for all in the shortest possible time- to avoid INFRUCTUOUS LITIGATIONS! AND THE GOVT. AUTHORITIES ALSO MUST COOPERATE cooperate in this endeavour.

vnatarajan

(I think for next CPC, better home-work and pre-emptive “legal” measures are necessary to be adopted!)

Kanaujiaml
05-01-2010, 11:27 AM
Dear MLK/ NSR/ RKS/ all

Normally DR for 6 month period ending Dec each year will be announced in time- and we shall get it also in time.

Reg the MF etc., arguments are all fine.

Problems are:

1.Our Ministry of Law says every issue is judged by the court- including cut-off/ parity etc etc and so they are settled.

Settled for what time? At best only for that time!

Then they say "Judgments do not become Statututes by themselves'

So unless the verdict gets "enshrined" in the Rule Books, we have no reprieve - other than going to courts again and again.

UNLESS WE HAVE GODFATHERS TO MANIPULATE AND PUT UP NOTES TO APPLY THE JUDGMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE CASE!

At the same time "negative" judgments are quickly applied/ quoted and repeatedly applied- because denying a BENEFIT/APPLICATION of a positive part of justice
is less complicated than acceding the same!

2.Ministry of Law also says - all said and done- the DOP can always decide any issue related to pension under its POLICY making power- but in concurrence with FINANCE and then implement it!

So where do we knock the door for a positive opening/ outcome?

OBVIOUS!- after exhausting all channels - go to court!- Otherwise the Courts will say first exhaust all the channels and then come to courts!

So for the next Pay Commission- take a preventive action.

WE will come to that soon!.

regards

vnatarajan

My dear VN. I agree with you. You can demand anything including multipliation factor of 3 but, as I have said in my earlier post, Govt. is not even ready to give what 6 CPC gave us as modified parity (6 CPC agreed for full parity but did not recommend for it but instead recommended for a new formula for Modified parity) . There is therefore, only alternative left, namely the route of Court. The Court recognizes law. For applying multiplication factor of 3 there is no supportive law or even supportive Supreme Court Judgments. So far, the law had been, with full support of DS Nakara case that "there cannot be disparity in pension for homogenous group of pensioners whether retired prior to pay commissions report or after the pay commissions report." Our demand is that there should not be disparity in pension for homogenous group of pensioners whether retired prior to 2006 or post 2006 and this demand is based on above law. Precious little appears to have been done by the Pensioners Associations in this direction. You know it fully well and we are working on it since Oct.2008, but others should also know and try to put pressure on Pensioners Associations collectively, to do something about it, as we have done and are still continueing to do so.

sundarar
05-01-2010, 02:56 PM
After about 14 months, the grievance on need for single mf was
raised by Shri P.K.Singhal. The Govt. unless pensioners air their respective grievances during the post-implementation period as a feed back, may not be in a position to consider the same. Particularly when NAC is presently on the job, there is nothing wrong in projecting this grievance to enable a consideration. Better late than never. .I think this is the first time, the discussion is gaining momentum. Therefore, it is desirable to give life to this healthy discussion.

Since the Minimum assured guaranteed revised pension as per modified para 4.2 is yet to be revised in accordance with oriiginal OM dated 1.9.2008, a need arises to provide an alternate solution by way of uniform single multiplication factor for the purpose of ensuring that the intended minimum assured guaranteed pension in revised structure becomes payable from 1.1.2006. If a 50% of bottom of S-30 scale can be multiplied by 3 to arrive at Rs.33500/- why not same....... remaining 50% of bottom of remaining 29 scales can be multiplied by 3 to arrive at the respective minimum revised pension that will strictly in line with para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. None of the pensioners are going to be affected adversely by application of a single mf. Rather large number of pensiones will definitely get benefitted and there would not be any more need for talking about injustice in the name of modified para 4.2.

Kindly note this is not something new and not to be involved with parity/modified parity/notional parity etc. It is just an extension of the treatment applied to S-30 and above, to the remaining scales. For this, no specific recommendation from any pay commission is required. A precedence well set is just required to be followed. Nothing more or Nothing less please.

vnatarajan
05-01-2010, 07:07 PM
I am not confident that at this stage demanding for a mf of 3 is possible. On the contrary demanding for a mf of 2.36 is justified FOR ALL (INLDING UPTO S34- NO EXCEPTIONS)as per the scpc recommendation on FITMENT - say not 40% of the minimum but 50% of the maximum etc. EVEN THIS CAN AT BEST BE GRANTED UPTO S23 AND NOTHING MAY HAPPEN TO OTHERS (REDUCTION????- IMPOSSIBLE)

As of now, the Govt. can only implement that single para 5.1.47 correctly which in terms of MF can work out to 2.36 AT BEST OR in terms of its correct application of the "text" truthfully can result in an outcome in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules AS PER om dt 17 12 1998 (I THINK) @ "minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale" - Notionally (upto s29)or Really (s30-34)- and so on. For 4.1 para cases also it has to be notionally brought on par with 4.2 cases.

MY EARLIER POST WAS AIMING AT THE DEMANDS FOR NEXT REVISION- PREEMPTIVE STEPS IN THAT DIRECTION -PLEAD FOR UNIFORM MF FOR ALL- IN FACT WITH A COMPONENT OF '+ 'OR '-' 5 % - ! PLUS 5 % IS FOR CORRECTION TO LOWER SCALE PENSIONERS UPTO S23 AS OF NOW AND MINUS 5 % FOR HIGHER CATEGORY PENSIONERS FROM TOIP TO S30. WE SHD TAKE LEGAL STEPS ALSO IN THAT DIRECTION.

VNATARAJAN

rksehgal31
08-01-2010, 08:22 PM
Dear VN & MLK,
In a Socialist country, there can be no justification for increasing the pension of highest paid past pensioners (S-30 to S-34 scales) to 3 times or so by cleverly designing 4 new pay scales for them, when the pension of the past pensioners of the lower scales has been increased to 2.26 times only. The past pensioners of lower pay scales have been given only 40 % fitment benefit but the benefit given to highest paid top level pensioners comes to 114 %. The government led by the emnent Economist and the 6th CPC have not applied their minds.
Is this Socialism?? . It could be justified if it were the other way round. Sh Sundarar is right in suggesting an uniform multiplier.

We should ask for:

(a) Multiplier of 3.0 for all the past pensioners,

(b) Equal Pension for Equal Work,

(c) Protection of Pension under the Next Below Rule, irrespective of the date of retirement,

(d) Appointment of Pension Commission, as Pay Commission has failed to safeguard the interests of the past pensioners.

R K Sehgal

dnaga57
09-01-2010, 06:04 AM
I agree Mr Sehgal
Only ask for


From whom
How
What legal action or procedure do we follow

As they say in Socialism, the enemy is powerful- in this case all powerful.
Unless people strengthen S29 pensioners group by joining, pay up legal fees these would remain rantings only

Kanaujiaml
09-01-2010, 06:06 AM
Dear VN & MLK,
In a Socialist country, there can be no justification for increasing the pension of highest paid past pensioners (S-30 to S-34 scales) to 3 times or so by cleverly designing 4 new pay scales for them, when the pension of the past pensioners of the lower scales has been increased to 2.26 times only. The past pensioners of lower pay scales have been given only 40 % fitment benefit but the benefit given to highest paid top level pensioners comes to 114 %. The government led by the emnent Economist and the 6th CPC have not applied their minds.
Is this Socialism?? . It could be justified if it were the other way round. Sh Sundarar is right in suggesting an uniform multiplier.

We should ask for:

(a) Multiplier of 3.0 for all the past pensioners,

(b) Equal Pension for Equal Work,

(c) Protection of Pension under the Next Below Rule, irrespective of the date of retirement,

(d) Appointment of Pension Commission, as Pay Commission has failed to safeguard the interests of the past pensioners.

R K Sehgal

You are most welcome. Please go ahead and do so. Regards.

vnatarajan
09-01-2010, 06:27 PM
LET US FIRST GET THE CORRECT MOD PARITY FOR S29 AT THE LEAST!

AFTER THAT IF WE SEE SOME "MOVEMENTS" - (I MEAN PEOPLE OPENING THE IT BOX AND TYPING FEW LINES LIKE MLK, NSR, AR (ON EMAIL MODE),PKR,DNAGA besides me) WE CAN TRY TO CARRY ON SOME ACTIVITY!

I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY WILL SERIOUSLY SUSTAIN THIS ACTIVITY- BEYOND THE CAT/ COURT BATTLES!

NEVERTHELESS ALL THE BEST!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
25-01-2010, 05:25 PM
Dear Friends. Happy Republic Day 26th Jan.2010.

vnatarajan
28-01-2010, 03:00 PM
There is some lull.
Yes.You guessed it!
Many seniors are busy with the matters connected with CAT/ Courts.
Next month will witness the case(s) admissions/ hearings etc.
All the best to all the best!
vnatarajan

ramkanwar
29-01-2010, 07:44 PM
There is some lull.
Yes.You guessed it!
Many seniors are busy with the matters connected with CAT/ Courts.
Next month will witness the case(s) admissions/ hearings etc.
All the best to all the best!
vnatarajan

Jan29 2010
8% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government Employees/Pensioners w.e.f 1st January 2010
1.Calculation based on All India Consumer Price Index Number for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) on base 2001=100
2.For all the Central Government Employees/pensioners, there would be a rise in DA /DR to 8%,which would result in the overall rise to 35% from 1.1.2010 as per calculations below.
3.HOW TO CALCULATE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE...
Every month government has announced All India Consumer Price Index for Industrial workers, according to the price of commodities. The price index for December 2009 was released on 29.1.2010. These numbers are as under:-
Month & year
Price Index with base year 2001 = 100
January 2009 148
February 2009 148
March 2009 148
April 2009 150
May 2009 151
June 2009 153
July 2009 160
August 2009 162
September 2009 163
October 2009 165
November 2009 168
December 2009 169
Total 1885
Average 1885/12 = 157

4.With effect from 01.01.2006, Dearness allowance is granted to compensate the price increase above 536 points Base Year 1982=100),(115.763 points Base Year 2001=100).
5.The half yearly rise in DA/DR is granted on the basis of average price index of 12 months prior to 1st January/1st July
6.As per above table, the total of twelve month average price index prior to January 2010 (Jan 2009 to Dec 2009) is 1885.
7.The twelve month average price index for the period Jan 09 to Dec 09 is 157 as per above table.
8.Subtract 115.76 from 157 which works out to 41.24. It is a rise over 115.76 as on 31.12.2005 (with respect to base year 2001=100)
9.Calculate the percentage rise by multiplying (41.24) with 100 / 115.76. It works out to 35.625%
10.The fraction is to be ignored. The whole number only is to be considered. So the DA/DR admissible with effect from 1st January 2010 is 35%, thus a rise of 8% over 27% already being paid

vnatarajan
14-02-2010, 07:21 PM
My Diary to watch and vouch- purely personal!

Many CAT / Court cases are on the navil in February/ March 2010 on the Modified Parity issue of pre-2006 pensioners.

Strongly/ Resourcefully founded through this Forum, the largest single group of S29 Pre-2006 Pensioners number to 500 strong and still increasing in strength. Its case will figure prominently soon.

Yet another S29 Pre-2006 Pensioners group has already started its match last month and it will continue in March 2010

A contemptuous military case (Rtd Maj Gens) is due on 19th Feb 2010.

A middle level retirees (eq JAG) Military case is due in MAT in early March 2010.

Two petitions will be entering High Courts soon - after being advised by Apex Court.

One more pre-2006 S29 Case of State Retirees is due in early March 2010.

ALL DISPUTES ARE / WILL BE RELATED TO DISPARITY IN PRE-2006 PENSIONS.

Our Governance has added another Ethical dimension to its functional mode- FROM DIVIDE & RULE TO being '"DEAF & DUMB".

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
15-02-2010, 07:03 PM
Dear All

NAC First Meeting 12 12 2009 minutes

Of pre-2006 pensioners' interest- :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda ltem No.15, 16 & 17 -Paritv in Pension to all Pensioners

Regarding parity in pension of all pre 1996 retirees with those who
retired on or after 1. I,1 996, the Staff Side stated that the pensioners were not '
given parity in pension irrespective of the date from which they had retired.
The Government in the past have accepted the principle that there shall be
parity in pension irrespective of the date from which they had retired. The
benefit was given while implementing the !jthCP C recommendations. The
Staff Side further stated that the 6'h CPC in para 5.1.47 has stated that in
order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future
retirees it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being
recommended for the existing Government employees. However, while
implementing the 6th CPC, the pensioners who retired prior to 01.01.2006
were given only 40% of the basic pension where as the serving employees
were given 40% of the maximum of their pay scale. The Staff Side, therefore,
demanded that the pensioners should be granted 50% of the Grade Pay in the
scale from which they had retired by way of fitment benefit and not 40% of
basic pension. JS (Pers) informed that as per the recommendations of Sixth
CPC, modified parity had already been granted to all pre-01.01.2006
pensioners. Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth CPC's
recommendations regarding pension, all pre-01.01.2006 pensioners have
been granted fitment benefit equal to 40% of their pre-revised basic pension,
subject to the revised pension, in no case, being fixed lower than fifty percent
of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay
thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner
had retired. At this, the Staff Side argued that a reading of the
recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission on the matter indicated that the
intent of the Pay Commission was to grant modified parity to pre-1.1.2006
pensioners by allowing same fitment benefit as is being recommended to the
existing Government employees subject to the provision that revised pension
shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band
prescribed for the grade pay and the sum of the grade pay corresponding to
the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. On the other
hand, the Government had approved modified parity with reference to the
minimum of the pay band plus the grade pay which is not consistent with the
recommendation of the Sixth CPC. Officers of Department of Expenditure
stated that this was not the intent of the recommendation of the Pay
Commission. After some discussions, the staff side requested the official side
to examine the matter once again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WhO CREATED THE FIASCO? HOW THE PROBLEMS CAME UP?

vnatarajan
17-02-2010, 08:37 AM
Dear Interested,

Pl read this in the link posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTTP://WWW.INDIANMILITARY.INFO/
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2010
Reverse Pay Commission Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh
I think it is time for a ‘reverse pay commission’ for our country.

The scales should start from Rs 80,000 per month for a Lower Division Clerk going up to Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay Rs 1900 for Secretary to Govt of India.

The reason is clear and there for all to see. It is the lower echelons of the steel frame who take ‘decisions’ and prepare file notings with all the might of concentrated negative unconstructive application of mind and energy, while the officers merely affix their initials. ‘The Secretary / Minister has seen’, the file would ultimately proclaim with pride. So who is actually involved in a tougher job ?

Pun intended.

Maybe somebody should have taken Dr N C Saxena, IAS, seriously

(You can access the Article of Dr N C Saxena by clicking the above sentence in the Link provided)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:

VNatarajan said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

You have hit the Mega Nail very hard with a Gega Ton hammer on the "dumb-heads"! I am not sure of the results.

Your "pun" is the truth.

Only bacause of such manouvres, the plethora of CAT/AFT/Court cases (Contempt/ WP/OAs etc)on Pension Disparities are happening in February/ March 2010 right under the nose of the Govt at the capital.

Yet the Committees/ Ministries/ Authorities concerned appear to be immune to the problems without facing the "TRUTH & REALITY".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS:

CAN U LINK UP THE QUESTION AT THE END OF MY EARLIER POST AND THE CONTENTS OF THIS POST AND SEE IF THE QUESTION RAISED IS SOMEWHAT ANSWERED "BY SHEER COINCIDENCE- PARALLEL THINKING"!!!

G.Ramdas
17-02-2010, 09:51 AM
Dear VN and others,
This is not a bad idea. If you have a system of reducing salaries with years of service, nobody will like to stick to their jobs. There will be more vacancies, more employment in the Govt. sector.Everybody can taste and leave.In any case over 70% of the Govt. staff are dispensible at any point of time. why not experiment?!
G.Ramdas

sundarar
18-02-2010, 06:43 AM
It is common requirement for issuing Clarificatory OMs after introducing the policy decision for the purpose of avoiding any misinterpretation over the main executive instructions, but at the same time such clarificatory OMs are called for only to reinforce but do not destroy the letter and spirit of the original decisions of the Cabinet.

Whereas, in the case of pre-2006 pensioners, the main executive instructions vide para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 of the DOP&PW, has been modified through an overriding clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008. The accepted recommendation of 6th CPC Para 5.1.47 to be read with its preceding para 5.1.46, has never categorically stipulated that 50% of minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band shall be irrespective of the pre-revised scale, but the clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 only says so and replaced `50% of minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band’ with `50% of minimum of the Pay Band’.. The OM dated 1.9.2008 as well as the final clarificatory OM dated 11.2.2009 also never had a missing point in this regard in order to issue a clarifcatory OM dt.3.10.2008 for modifying the original intent. The importance of recognition of equation of scale of pay on either side of the datum has been brought out clearly- rather than the linkage to "POST" aspect/factor or for that matter it could be any other factor like MERGING THE SCALES into a single PAY BAND.

The clarificatory OM dt.3.10.2008 contains an illustration, from which it is clearly explicit that the so called modification in reality destroy any equivalence in terms of the basic elements of scale of pay within the pay band., though there was a clear equation available in the FITMENT TABLE of MOF's OM Dt 30th Aug 2008.

By choosing the s29 scale 18400-22400 as example in the OM - it has destroyed the equations in terms of the scale of pay totally for it.and brought in the confusion. On the contrary, if the example of S28 14300-22400 or S-24 had been chosen, perhaps the MINIMUMS on either side of the datum might have been justifiable.

Therefore the MINIMUMs on either side of the datum for S29 18400-22400 are to be 18400 vs 44700 which has to be the MOPPB for S29 and not 37400 which is not only the MOPB but also the equivalent MOPPB for a lower scale S28 14300-22400.

This will be more clear from the following substance of Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 issued while implementing the 5th CPC recommendations earlier
"The President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1.1.1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner."
The aforesaid OM was followed by a clarificatory OM dated 11.5.2001 which neither modified/destroyed the original intent of the OM dated 17.12.1998, but reinforced the decision implemented. .
The substance of Executive Instructions by way of OM dated 11.5.2001
"In the course of implementation of the above order, clarifications have been sought by Ministries/Departments of the "post last held" by the pensioner at the time of his/ her superannuation. The second sentence of O.M. dated 17.12.1998, i.e. "pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner", shall mean that pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding scale as on 1.1.96, of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation/retirement."
It can be seen from the above clarification, the clarificatory OM has never sought to destroy the original intent of main OM dated 17.12.1998, but only explained for clarity purpose. In the case of OM dt.3.10.2008, it has virtually brought an adverse reducing impact over the minimum revised pension by equating higher scales with the bottom scale in the name of PAY BAND as against PAY IN THE PAY BAND, WHICH CAN NEVER BE ONE AND SAME.
Then pensioners who were aggrieved approached the Hon. SC and the extract "K S KRISHNA SWAMY';S CASE -NOV 2006 SC JUDGMENT ON CLARIFICATORY OM IN RESPECT OF OM DATED 17.12.1998 are:.
While O.M. dated 17.12.1998 speaks of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner,
the O.M. dated 11.5.2001 clarifies it as minimum of the corresponding scale as on 1.1.1996 of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation/ retirement. The clarification brought about in the O.M. dated 11.5.2001 is of the last post held by the pensioner as the last scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation/ retirement.
It is common knowledge that the corresponding increase in any Pay Commission is of the scale of pay and not of the post”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Contd.........in page 89-

sundarar
18-02-2010, 06:44 AM
In the light of the principle based clarificatory OM dated 11.5.2001 issued while implementing 5th pay commission recommendations as above,
The para 2 (iii) and 3 to 5 of OM dated 11.2.2009 given below are significant to note:

The para 2(iii) is related to the principle followed vide the clarificatory OM dated 12.5.2001. Such a clarificatory OM dated 12.5.2001 was issued after due consideration of representations, and the same is maintained in the case of pre-2006 pensioners accordingly.
At the same time, the table in Annexure-I of DOP&PW OM dated 14.10.2008 is said to have been based on CCS (Revised Rules) 2008 which rules are applicable to the employees in the service as on 1.1.2006.(Whereas, in the case of serving employees, for a person whose pay is Rs.6900 in the scale of 6500-10500, which scale got upgraded to 7450-11500, his pay in the pay band does not involve multiplication of 1.86 mf with the bottom of the upgraded scale 7450, but only the grade pay of Rs.4600 is allowed. That means, he is not getting the minimum pay in the pay band applicable to corresponding pre-revised scale bottom 7450 even by virtue of upgradation from 6500 to 7450. Similarly, the CCS(RP) Rule No.13 in the case of promotion of a serving employee one increment equivalent to 3% of pay in the pay band + grade pay will get added to the pre-promoted pay in the pay band and in case if the amount after adding is less than the minimum of the pay band of the promoted scale, then it will be stepped upto such minimum – Actually, it should be stepped upto the minimum of the pay in the pay band in such an event. Similarly, in r/o upgraded scale cited above, the minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to the bottom of the upgraded pre-revised scale, viz. 7450-11500 – The reason for not allowing so, is the missing clarity with regard to a pay in the pay band as against a pay band). These views found place owing to the mention of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 in the above OM dt.11.2.2009.
With regard to para 5 of the OM dated 11.2.2009, the fixation of pension as per para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 will be subject to the provision that the revised pension IN NO CASE shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus 50% of the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.
The aforesaid para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, has been altered vide OM dated 3.10.2008 to interpret in such a way to replace the `50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band’ with `50% of minimum of the pay band’ and the table attached with OM dated 14.10.2008 is actually based on this clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008.
While the clarificatory OM dated 12.5.2001 in r/o OM dt.17.12.1998 took a period of about 2.1/2 years after due application of mind over the various representations received during the period, the clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 has been preceded by a letter dated 26.9.2008 to the Banks for disbursement in line with the stand of the clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008. Thus, the para 4.2 of initial OM dt.1.9.2008 has survived only for a period of 25 days and it is quite unbelievable that a handful of representations received during these 25 days could bring out a clarificatory stand/OM for the purpose of avoiding additional substantial financial implications that is likely to involve in case of implementation of the original para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 as it is in the absence of a clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008. The OM dated 3.10.2008 has taken a stand that irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, 50% of minimum of the pay band only matters as against 50% of minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to the scale from which the pensioner had retired. A pre-revised scale will definitely have its corresponding revised scale, like a pre-revised pay will definitely have its corresponding revised pay. A brother will always have a brother/sister. Moreover, the OM dated 11.2.2009 has never talked about OM dt.3.10.2008 that modified the initial OM. After a period of about 10 months, a corrigendum also was issued by the CPAO to set the records straight, in line with original para 4.2 of Main OM dated 1.9.2008. However the executive instructions for implementing the original para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 as accepted by the Cabinet, did not follow so far. The question naturally arises, is whether for implementing the accepted recommendation even after setting the records straight by CPAO vide corrigendum dated 20/24.11.2009 and in spite of the DOP&PW OM dated 11.2.2009 which maintained the original intent of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 and thereby excluded the modification of OM dated 3.10.2008 altogether, whether a pensioner is expected to seek legal remedy for their entitled pension in every pay commission implementation?
The aforesaid clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 in the 6th CPC implementation and the one dated 12.5.2001 issued in 5th CPC implementation are entirely different from each other. An executive instruction issued after careful consideration of the 6th CPC recommendations with regard to modified parity, cannot be superceded by a clarificatory OM involving an adverse reducing impact on the minimum revised pension of the entire homogenous class of pensioners, within a month’s period like the one issued in the case of pre-2006 pensioners..
The OM dated 3.10.2008 may also be valid provided there exists a pay band corresponding to a single pre-revised scale. The payband limits (lower and upper) are only imaginary except the four/five scales where the bottom of the pay band corresponds to a single pre-revised scale bottom. It can otherwise be told that for those five scales, it is pay band as well as pay in the band.

In spite of the clarificatory OM dated 12.5.2001, the spirit of OM dated 17.12.1998 shall hold good even today. The basic principle with regard to modified parity cannot undergo a radical change in every pay commission and that is not the very intent of the recommendation Having included certain pay scales under a single pay band for the purpose of classification of four levels in the set up of employees, it does not mean the retirees of all the pay scales under single pay band is supposed to receive same minimum pension as applicable to the lowest scale at the bottom of the group/pay band. .

While the cut-off date aspects are well settled, a retiree of post-2006 and another of pre-2006 shall get the same amount as revised pension subject to their pay are one and same in the pre-revised structure. As seen above, it is common knowledge that the corresponding increase in any Pay Commission is of the scale of pay, for which a REVISED SCALE OF PAY do exist and not a revised PAY BAND.
A detailed and analytical review over the implementation of 6th CPC recommendations in respect of pensioners, treating them as a homogenous class of pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement will definitely render justice.

sundarar
19-02-2010, 04:56 AM
In the K.S.Krishnaswamy case Judgement referred to in the preceding posts, a specific point was scrutinised and clarity made available -
Whether the Executive Instructions dated 11.5.2001 over-ride the Policy Resolution dated 30.9.1997 or Executive Instructions dated 17.12.1998 clarifying the Policy Resolution dated 30.9.1997?

The findings are that the Executive Instructions dated 11.5.2001 were in the form of further clarifying the Executive Instructions dated 17.12.1998
and do not over-ride the same.

In the case of pre-2006 pensioners, the Executive Instructions dated 3.10.2008 has over-ridden the Policy Resolution dated 29.8.2008 (Gazette Notification Sl. No.12) not by clarifying the same, but by modifying the same to the extent of an `inclusive clause of "50% of minimum pay in the pay band IRRESPECTIVE OF" pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired as against `50% of minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to' pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Similarly, any one can easily agree that there is no much difference between
`and' & `plus'. But what is the intent of replacing the word `and' with `plus' in the Executive Instructions dated 3.10.2008 in the name of clarification. 2+2 = 4; 2+(2) also four only. Thus, the modification has been incorporated to give a meaning that a grade pay alone can have relation to the pre-revised scale from which a pensioner had retired, but not the pay in the pay band.

Whether any serving employee's revised pay in the pay band is fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 irrespective of his pre-revised pay scale in which he was serving till 31.12.2005 - No. Because, (it is told thousand times in all our discussions)
a SINGLE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CAN NEVER BE IRRESPECTIVE OF A SINGLE PRE-REVISED SCALE - EXCEPTIONS ARE SOME FOUR/FIVE SCALES WHERE THE MINIMUM PAY BAND AND MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND ARE ONE AND SAME.

Whether the purpose of introduction of Pay Band aspects is only to reduce the entitled pension by over-riding Executive Instructions.

Having seen a clear-cut over-riding OM dated 3.10.2008 unlike the Executive Instructions dated 11.5.2001, the pre-2006 pensioners do have another Executive Instructions dated 11.2.2009. In fact vide its para 6, it is clarifying the original policy decision dated 29.8.2008 as well as Executive Instructions dated 1.9.2008 unmindful of the intervening/OVERRIDING Executive Instructions dated 3.10.2008. At the same time, such a clarifying Executive Instructions dated 11.2.2009 has not been implemented till date, even after issue of Corrigendum dated 20/24.11.2009 by CPAO which is also in line with the original policy resolution dated 29.8.2008 as well as the Executive Instructions dated 11.2.2009.

The Executive Instructions dated 11.2.2009 as well as CPAO's Corrigendum cited above, never prescribed that 50% of pay in the pay band will be irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.
At the same time the word `plus' is retained in both these Communications as against `and'.

Ultimately, a word `plus' in place of the original word `and' has resulted in misinterpretation of the pay in the pay band to be irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

In order to remove such misinterpretation only, the policy resolution has prescribed by preceding with the words `sum of' 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band and 50% of grade pay thereon (both) corresponding to pre-revised scale. Here the word (both) is silent as it is common knowledge that there can never be a MINIMUM OF pay in the pay band without corresponding to a single pre-revised scale. A minimum of pay band also can correspond to a single pre-revised scale, but not in respect of all the pre-revised scales, but four/five scales only where both minimum of pay band and MINIMUM OF pay in the pay band are one and the same.

Whether the Executive Instructions dated 3.10.2008 over-ride the Policy Resolution dated 29.8.2008 and/plus Executive Instructions dated 1.9.2008 and thereby modify rather than clarify the original intent of 6th CPC that was accepted by the Govt?.

To summarise, the Executive Instructions dated 11.5.2001 was principle based and hence it stands even today particularly since it does not override the policy resolution and the Executive Instructions thereon, as observed by the Hon. SC.

The case of Executive Instructions dated 3.10.2008 is not so. Shiva is in Shiva only and hence no need to look anywhere else..

sundarar
19-02-2010, 05:22 AM
In continuation of the above post -

The K.S.Krishnaswamy case Judgement discussed the case of India Ex-Services League and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1991(2) SCC 104. In this case, a later Constitution Bench, speaking through Hon. Shri Verma, J, (as he then was) made the following pertinent observations in para 12 of
the report:
"The liberalised pension scheme in the context of which the decision was rendered in Nakara provided for computation of pension according to a more
liberal formula under which "average emoluments" were determined with reference to the last ten months’ salary instead of 36 months’ salary provided
earlier yielding a higher average, coupled with a slab system and raising the ceiling limit for pension. This Court held that where the mode of computation of pension is liberalised from a specified date, its benefit must be given not nearly to retirees subsequent to the date but also to earlier existing retirees irrespective of their date of retirement even though the earlier retirees would
not be entitled to any arrears prior to the specified date on the basis of the revised computation made according to the liberalised formula. For the purpose of such a scheme all existing retirees irrespective of the date of their
retirement, were held to constitute one class, any further division within that class being impermissible. According to that decision, the pension of all earlier retirees was to be recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised formula of computation on the basis of the average emoluments of each retiree payable on his date of retirement. For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly stated that if the pensioners form a class, their
computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later’. This
according to us is the decision in Nakara and no more".

In the case of pre-2006 pensioners/post-2006 pensioners also, if they form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired prior to 1.1.2006 and some retired after 1.1.2006 and keeping this in view only the 6th CPC had recommended that fixation formula as is being applied for serving employees can be extended to pensioners also.

That means, not only in fixing revised pension as well as minimum guaranteed assured revised pension but also in application of 20 years formula for full pension or other wise pro-rata, the equal treatment solely on the ground that both who retired prior to 1.1.2006 and/plus those who retired after 1.1.2006 form a CLASS, is required to be provided.

THUS, THE D.S. NAKRA CASE JUDGEMENT IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE IN TOTO AS FAR AS THE CASE OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN BOTH THESE FACTORS IN THE PRECEDING PARA ALTHOUGH IT IS DISTINGUISHABLE IN MANY OTHER CASES WHICH ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THAT OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS..

sundarar
21-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Extract of Hon. SC Judgment in V Kasturi vs Managing Director SBI;

"If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases".

Consequent on 6th CPC recommendation, the revised pension in respect of persons retired after 1.1.2006 is fixed as follows:

50% of emoluments, viz. last pay drawn in the revised structure as on the date of retirement subject to qualifying service of 20 years or otherwise pro-rata.

Initially, as on 1.1.2006 the revised pay in respect of all serving employees was fixed as follows:

The pay in the pay band/pay scale was determined by multiplying the existing pay as on 1.1.2006 by a factor of 1.86 (We have already seen that the aforesaid mf of 1.86 is prescribed for all serving employees as on 1.1.2006 as per CCS(RP) Rules, 2008, this is applicable for only pre-revised scales upto S-23 and for S-24 onwards upto S-29, though it is not specifically provided, the mf works out to 2.61 or so, and for scales above S-30, the mf works out to 3+)

IN ADDITION TO THE AFORESAID PAY IN THE PAY BAND, GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE EXISTING SCALE WILL BE PAYABLE
(BOTH COMPRISING OF A REVISED PAY FROM 1.1.2006)
(Reg. Grade Pay, it is actually 40% of maximum of the pre-revised scale for scales upto S-20, and 45% for scales S-21 and above).

Consequent on implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation,
the pension/family pension of existing pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together -

(i) The existing pension/family pension
(ii) Dearness Pension, where applicable
(iii) Dearness Relief @ 24% of Basic Pension/Basic family pension plus (we can very well replace this word with `and' and in spite the meaning will remain unaltered) Dearness Relief as admissible.
(iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension

The unequal treatment especially in respect of additional fitment weightage for the persons retiring after 1.1.2006 that includes in the form of Grade Pay stated above alongwith Pay in the pay band, as against fitment
weightage of 40% of the existng pension/family pension, is very much explicit.

CAN THE SINGLE CLASS OF PENSIONERS RETIRED FROM GOVT. SERVICE UNDER CCS (PENSION) RULES 1972 BE DIVISIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT AND PAYMENT OF PENSION INTO THOSE WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 1.1.2006 AND THOSE WHO RETIRED AFTER THAT DATE, VIZ. 1.1.2006?

Whether in 5th CPC recommendation implementation, the erstwhile
pensioners were divided into two different class for applying different methodology for the purpose of revision of pension (which involves revision of pay too basically w.e.f. 1.1.1996)?

Whether 6th CPC implementation with regard to revision of pension ensures the spirit of D.S. Nakra Judgment, which declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible.

It is quite significant to note that 6th CPC vide its para 11.33 had already specified that fixation/fitment formula as is being applied for serving employees shall be extended to the pensioners also.

sundarar
22-02-2010, 07:53 PM
Having seen the position about para 4.1 of DOP&PW OM dated 1.9.2008, the position related to para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 is submitted by quoting
two significant Judgment extracts hereunder:

CASE NO.: Transfer Case (civil) 72 of 2004
PETITIONER: Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara
RESPONDENT: The Govt. of India & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/10/2006
BENCH: Hon. Shri G. P. Mathur & Hon. Shri R. V. Raveendran
Extract of Para No.20 of the Judgment:
20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well settled. They are :
a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.

What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.
[Vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305], Krishna
Kumar v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India [1991 (2) SCC 104], V. Kasturi v. Managing
Director, State Bank of India [1998 (8) SCC 30] and Union of India v.
Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 (7) SCC 662].

Para 137.21 of 5th CPC Report:

`At the time of next pay revision, say in 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Let us hope the then GOI will respect this recommendation, and maintain the parity of old and new pensioners’.

Para 5.1.46 of 6th CPC report:

"THE FIFTH CPC EXTENDED FULL PARITY BETWEEN PRE AND POST 1.1.1986 PENSIONERS AND A MODIFIED PARITY BETWEEN PRE AND POST 1.1.1996 PENSIONERS. IN MODIFIED PARITY, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT PENSION COULD, IN NO CASE, BE LESS THAN 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE CORRESPONDING REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED"

Substance of DOP&PW OM dated 10.2.1998:

Pay of all those government servants who retired prior to 1.1.1986 and were in receipt of pension as on 1.1.1986 and also in cases of those Central Government employees who died prior to 1.1.1986, in respect of whom family pension was being paid on 1.1.1986, will be fixed on notional basis in the revised scale of pay for the post held by the pensioner as the time of retirement or on the date of death of Government employee, introduced subsequent to retirement/death of Government employee consequent upon promulgation of Revised Pay Rules on implementation of recommendations of successive Pay Commissions or of award of Board of arbitration or judgement of Court or due to general revision of the scale of pay for the as etc.
(The above notional fixation was given effect from 1.1.1996)


Substance of Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 issued while implementing the above modified parity recommended by 5th CPC :
"The President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1.1.1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner."
"K S KRISHNA SWAMY';S CASE -NOV 2006 SC JUDGMENT ON CLARIFICATORY OM dt.11.5.2001 IN RESPECT OF OM DATED 17.12.1998 extract are:.

While O.M. dated 17.12.1998 speaks of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner,
the O.M. dated 11.5.2001 clarifies it as minimum of the corresponding scale as on 1.1.1996 of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation/ retirement. The clarification brought about in the O.M. dated 11.5.2001 is of the last post held by the pensioner as the last scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation/ retirement.
It is common knowledge that the corresponding increase in any Pay Commission is of the scale of pay and not of the post”.

Para 5.1.47 of 6th CPC Report:

The recommendation envisaged that “revised pension shall in no case be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table”

Para 11.33 of 6th CPC recommendation:

“The fixation formulae applicable to serving employees to be extended to pensioners also”.

Substance of OM dated 1.9.2008 issued while implementing the above recommendation:

Para 4.2: Fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Substance of Letter dated 26.9.2008 issued by CPAO addressed to the Banks (Pension Disbursing Agencies)

The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the O.M. dated 1.9.2008 including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty per-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Substance of modifications/clarifications issued in r/o above para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 through OM dated 3.10.2008

“The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the Pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the Pensioner had retired”

Substance of Para 6 of DOP&PW OM dated 11.2.2009:

“In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Dept’s OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revied pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”

Corrigendum dated 20/24.11.2009 issued by CPAO:

The Revised Pension in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the revised pay in the running pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Having seen the chronology of events and the settled positions relating to single class of pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement, it is pointed out that a person retiring after 1.1.2006 got his pay fixed initially in the revised structure corresponding to the pre-revised scale held by him prior to 1.1.2006 in accordance with the methodology shown in the previous post as on 1.1.2006.
The revised pay as on 1.1.2006 corresponding to a pre-revised scale bottom in respect of serving employees ought to form the minimum revised pension for a pensioner retired from such corresponding pre-revised scale prior to 1.1.2006, and this is what being reiterated vide DOP&PW OM dated 17.12.1998. The said Revised pay corresponding to bottom of the corresponding revised scale was arrived at by appropriate multiplication factor cited in the CCS(RP) Rules and alongwith the Grade Pay as applicable comprise as a Revised Pay for a serving employee. Unless 50% of such a revised pay is granted as minimum revised guaranteed pension in accordance with 6th CPC Para 5.1.47, OM dt.1.9.2008, OM dt.11.2.2009 and CPAO corrigendum dt. 20/24.11.2009 apart from earlier OM dt.17.12.1998 to be read with its amendment dt.11.5.2001, the homogenous class of pensioners as such will stand divided into two different classes against the spirit of D.S.Nakara case and the other cases that distinguish the D.S.Nakra case in matters not similar to that of pre-2006 pensioners.

Thus, CAN THE SINGLE CLASS OF PENSIONERS RETIRED FROM GOVT. SERVICE UNDER CCS (PENSION) RULES 1972 BE DIVISIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT AND PAYMENT OF PENSION INTO THOSE WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 1.1.2006 AND THOSE WHO RETIRED AFTER THAT DATE, VIZ. 1.1.2006?

Ultimately, just by maintaining that no single pre-revised scale has its corresponding revised scale owing to grouping of pre-revised scales into 4 paybands, and just because there exists a pay band, 50% of the bottom of such a pay band alongwith 50% of grade pay alone can form the minimum revised guaranteed assured pension, is actually the case of dividing class within class and treating unequals as equals.. Similarly, in the case of certain scales, viz. S-30 onwards, the grade pay factor is included in the pay in the pay band, and thereby it exists as a single corresponding revised scale for a pre-revised scale, S-30 onwards. What a person retiring at the bottom of the corresponding revised scale after 1.1.2006 may be getting as pension, shall be entiled to a similar person retired from corresponding pre-revised scale prior to 1.1.2006 and to be paid accordingly from 1.1.2006.

sundarar
22-02-2010, 09:23 PM
Having seen the position relating to para 4.1 and para 4.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 1.9.2008, the position relating to OM dated 2.9.2008 is submitted hereunder:

The quotes from the Judgment of Hon. SC in V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, SBI:

“In the case of India Ex-Services League and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1991(2) SCC 104, a later Constitution Bench, speaking through Verma, J, (as he then was) made the following pertinent observations in para 12 of the report:
"The liberalised pension scheme in the context of which the decision was rendered in Nakara provided for computation of pension according to a more liberal formula under which "average emoluments" were determined with reference to the last ten months’ salary instead of 36 months’ salary provided earlier yielding a higher average, coupled with a slab system and raising the ceiling limit for pension. This Court held that where the mode of computation of pension is liberalised from a specified date, its benefit must be given not nearly to retirees subsequent to the date but also to earlier existing retirees irrespective of their date of retirement even though the earlier retirees would not be entitled to any arrears prior to the specified date on the basis of the revised computation made according to the liberalised formula. For the purpose of such a scheme all existing retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement, were held to constitute one class, any further division within that class being impermissible. According to that decision, the pension of all earlier retirees was to be recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised formula of computation on the basis of the average emoluments of each retiree payable on his date of retirement. For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly stated that if the pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later’.”

Para 5.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service shall be dispensed with. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of theemoluments or average emoluments received during thelast 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him.

Para 5.3 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

In cases where Govt. servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant.

Para 5.4 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

The provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Govt. servant retiring on or after that date(2.9.2008).

The Govt. servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O>M. (2.9.2008), will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.12.2008:

It has been decided that the provision of payment of pension at 50% of the emoluments (pay last drawn) or 50% of average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to the retiring employee, shall be applicable to all Govt.servants retiring on or after 1.1.2006.

Para 3 of DOP&PW OM dated 12/5/2009

The instructions/clarifications issued (regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years qualifying service applicable to the Govt. employees who retired on or after 2.9.2008) are in consonance with the decision of the Govt. on the recommendations of the Sixth CPC. The Govt. by accepting various recommendations of the 6th CPC took a policy decision to implement them from different dates. The Govt. decided to implement the above recommendations regarding pension from 2.9.2008 without dividing a homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment. In view of the above and also in the light of the various decisions of the Hon. SC allowing the employee to fix a cut off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme, the decision of the Govt. vide OM dated 2.9.2008 as clarified vide OM dt.11.12.2008 is in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court and there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated10.12.2009:

It has been decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006.
The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006). Para 5.4 will further stand modified to that extent.

D.S. Nakra Case Judgement 17.12.1982 Extract

Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972 ('1972 Rules' for short) form a class as a whole ?
Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date ?
Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of Art. 14 ?

These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own feet.

Conclusion:

It is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible.

WHETHER THE 6TH CPC RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DISPENSATION OF LINKAGE OF QUALIFYING SERVICE OF 33 YEARS FOR FULL PENSION ENSURES THE SPIRIT OF D.S. NAKRA CASE JUDGEMENT?

THE ENTITLEMENT AND PAYMENT ARE THE TWO MAIN PARTS.

THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RE-COMPUTE THEIR PENSION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED QUALIFYING SERVICE OF 20 YEARS FOR FULL PENSION OR OTHERWISE PRO-RATA, AND THE PAYMENT ARISING OUT OF SUCH RE-COMPUTATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ISSUING OM DATED 10.12.2009 IN THE CASE OF POST-2006 (BUT PRE-2.9.2008) PENSIONERS, ARE EQUALLY VALID AND TO BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS ALSO.
ALL THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITIONS WILL VOUCH FOR THIS VIEW
AND AS FAR AS PENSION IS CONCERNED, QUALIFYING SERVICE AND EMOLUMENTS ARE THE BASIC CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PENSION AND ANY LIBERALISATION SHALL BE EQUALLY MADE APPLICABLE TO ONE AND ALL OF THE HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS WHICH COMPRISE BOTH PRE-2006 AND POST-2006 PENSIONERS.

Respected Pensioners Community,

Through my posts No.884, 885 and 886 I have submitted the
anomalies arising out of Para 4.1, 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 and the OM dt.2.9.2008 with the well settled legal positions. This is my 280th message during the past 14 months or so.

With this submission, I thank one and all for all kind guidance and input made available to me from all circles of Pensioners Community.

I firmly believe and confident also that the mysterious hands of
Lord Shri Krishna will always make wonders as HE had done vide OM dt.10.12.2009 in respect of post-2006(but pre 2.9.2008) pensioners.

I request your kind permission to grant me leave from the Discussion Forum for some time, as I am required to attend certain new responsibilities
that are awaiting my focus. I will definitely join at a later stage, by which time, the remedial solutions with their implementation would have taken place.

I enjoyed all the Discussions so far and thank one and all.

FULL PRAYERS AND WISHES FOR ALL SUCCESS OF THE PENSIONERS COMMUNITY.

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

dnaga57
23-02-2010, 07:11 AM
Dear Shri Sundarar
Please accept my- along with other members thanks for such exhaustive analysis. I am sure our lawyers can find these useful in framing the arguments, logic,legal position etc.
Thank you again

Kanaujiaml
28-02-2010, 07:29 PM
Dear friends. Happy Holi to you and all other family members. There is news that Punjab Govt. has already given scpc modified paritly. Let us hope Central Govt.may also follow suit soon. Warm regards.

vnatarajan
28-02-2010, 07:51 PM
Dear ALL,

OUR SPECIAL COMMENDATIONS AND ABUNDANT PRAISE FOR THE SELF-LESS AND DEDICATED SERVICES OF SHRI NSR- WHOSE KNOWLEDGE IN PENSION-COURT MATTERS APPEAR TO BE INFINITE.

I HAVE NOT SEEN A MORE DEVOTED PERSONALITY IN A SOCIAL NET-WORK CARING FOR ALL AND SHARING WHAT HE HAS.

HE HAS RAISED THE STANDARDS OF GCONNECTS "PENSIONERS' FORUM" TO VERY HIGH LEVELS.

WE DO HOPE HE WILL CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE SAME WAY AFTER A LITTLE BREAK.

VNATARAJAN

vnatarajan
28-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Our warm & hearty holi greetings & wishes to all the gconnect community and friends in the forum - especially to the hosts/ administrators.
Spl greetings to mlk/ nsr/ dnaga/ rka/ kkhk/mj/ ar/pkr/rs/ sb/kss and a host of others who had been active here.
Natarajans

vnatarajan
04-03-2010, 06:17 AM
PUNJAB STATE GOVT SHOWS THE WAY FOR RESOLVING THE CORRECT "MODIFIED PARITY" ISSUE TO ARRIVE AT THE MINIMUM ASSURED REVISED PENSION OF THE PRE-2006 RETIREES:

ORDERS ISSUED ON 22ND FEB 2010:


Thanks to Shri RK Agarwal, an active member in the “Pensioners” Forum in the GC Discussion Board, we have the signed/ official version of the Punjab Govt Orders dated 22.02.2010 on the Implementations Orders of their Fifth PC related Revision of Pensionspensions- etc with the table in the Annexure A showing their Correct Modified Parity as "Initial Pay" in Column 5 and correct Revised Minimum Assured Pension in Column 6.

The unsigned and signed versions are available in the RREWA website. Link:http://www.rrewa.org/. Also now in Gconnect Home page thru a link.

Slight variations in old scales between State and Centre need not bother.. The Revised Scales in Pay Bands and the recognised "Minimum" aspects are important.

Hope all concerned make the optimum use of this - while presenting/ arguing the dispute - and point out that Punjab Govt has resolved the problem through this magnanimous action which are in LINE with all Govt Orders/ Pay Commission Recommendations / Court Judgments on Equality at least at the minimum levels.!

I AM SURE MANY OTHER STATE GOVERNMENTS WOULD FOLLOW THIS EXAMPLE.

WILL THE CENTRE ALSO TAKE SOME SINCERE AND HONEST STEPS TO OVERCOME THE DISPUTES ON CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE CLOAK AND DAGGER Drama TO CONTINUE?

NAC also must act.

VNatarajan

rksehgal31
05-03-2010, 05:33 AM
Please refer the news item published in the Tribune dated March 5, 2010
RK Sehgal

Major Generals to draw more pension
Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 4
In a significant decision that will affect scores of retired Major Generals, the Armed Forces Tribunal today directed the Ministry of Defence to resolve anomalies in their pension fixation. The Generals were drawing emoluments lower than subordinate rank officers.

Taking up the matter filed by 57 affected Major Generals, the Tribunal’s Chandigarh Bench - comprising Justice Ghanshyam Prashad and Lt Gen NS Brar (retd) - directed the MoD to comply with its orders within three months.

Consequent to implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission (SPC) and several subsequent notifications, Major Generals who retired prior to 2006 were drawing lesser pension than brigadiers and colonels who retired during or after 2006. Besides, the pension differential between a pre-2006 and post-2006 Major General, at Rs 10,000-12,000 a month, also increased.

The petitioners contended that according to the notification issued in respect of pre-2006 retirees on November 11, 2008, Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals were awarded a pension of Rs 26,150. The same amount was also given to a Brigadier, while a Colonel was drawing Rs 26,050 and a Lieutenant Colonel Rs 14,600.

Thereafter, a notification was issued on December 11, 2008, amending the above pension. A Major General was to draw Rs 23,700, a Brigadier Rs 26,150 and a Colonel Rs 26,050, thereby creating a situation where senior rank officers were getting lesser pension than juniors! The anomaly was later partly corrected by the January 20, 2009 notification, when the pension of a pre-2006 Major General and Lieutenant General was raised to Rs 26,700 and 27,700 respectively. Later on May 20, 2009, pension for a pre-2006 Lieutenant Colonel was revised to Rs 25,700 from Rs 14,600.

A notification issued on January 20, 2010, raised the pension of a pre-2006 Lieutenant General to Rs 36,500 but no increase was made in case of a pre-2006 Major General despite representations, the petitioners claimed.

vnatarajan
06-03-2010, 12:07 PM
NAC TO MEET AGAIN IN MARCH 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LET US HOPE THE CONFEDERATION OF THE CENTRAL GOvT. EMPLOYEES & WORKERS HAMMER OUT THE CORRECT "MODIFIED PARITY" / "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" (WITH ALTERNATE PROVISION OF OF 2.26 PLUS MF) FOR ALL PRE-2006 POENSIONERS - IN THE LIGHT OF THE PUNJAB STATE GOVT.'S ORDERS.

IF THE OFFICIAL SIDE CAN NOT OPEN THEIR EYES TO THE "TRUTH" AT LEAST THIS TIME, THEN GOD ONLY SAVE THE NATION AS THE "BLUFF TECHNOLOGY "(irrespective of- fiasco in OM of 3rd Oct 2008) STARTED IN OCT 2008 AT "KG" LEVELS IN A DEPT. APPEARS TO HAVE REACHED THE "GRADUATE" LEVELS IN PARLIAMENT - AS EVIDENCED BY THE "PBOR" PENSION GRANT INFORMATION!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAC'S NEXT MEET! as appearing in the Confederation's website:

Better late than never!!!!
vnatarajan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 5, 2010
CONFEDERATION OF CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES & WORKERS.
A-2/95,Manishinath Bhawan,Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110 027
Website:www.confederationhq.blogspot.com. Email:Confederation06@Yahoo.co.in
Tel: 011-2510 5324: Mobile: 98110 48303

THE NEXT MEETING OF THE NATIONAL ANOMALY IS LIKELY TO BE HELD ON 27th MARCH,2010.
................
SECRETARY GENERAL
Posted by Confederation Of Central Government Employees at 8:05 AM

vnatarajan
07-03-2010, 06:02 AM
LITIGATIONS GALORE ON THE ISSUE OF "MODIFIED PARITY"/ "MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION" FOR SEGMENTS OF AGGRIEVED PRE-2006 PENSIONERS!!!

Inspite of the "boastful" speeches made by the CEO of Justice of the Country and the Policy Maker for Law & Justice of the Country at the recent Annual CAT Conference- STATING THAT GOVT. WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO PROLIFERATION OF COURT CASES RELATED TO SERVIVES ETC AND IT WILL BE THE MOST "UNWILLING LITIGANT" IN SUCH SITUATIONS, we find a plethora of Cases coming up in March 2010 on the ISSUE cited above:

There are (pl verify on your own for confirmation or any variations)::

1. Five PR CAT CASES at Delhi on 15th March 2010.

2.One Case at Punjab & Haryana High Court on 8th March 2010.

3.One Case for admission at Lucjnow High Court on 8th March 2010.'

4.One CAT Case at Hyderabad (Date not known)

5.One CAT Case at Patna (Date/ details need verification)

6.Rtd Maj Gen Contempt Case in Supreme Court on 12th March 2010.

7.Rtd LT Cdrs/ Majors AFT Case at AFT Delhi on 16th March 2010.

Besides the above, recently one AFT case at Chandigarh was judged on 4th March 2010 in favour oif the litigants- Rtd Maj Gens & equivalents in other services .

WHAT a colossal OF WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY AND VALUABLE COURT TIME FOR THE UNWARRANTED "paper , pencil & dhobhi chop" PROBLEM CREATED BY LOWER ENDS?

vnatarajan.

ramkanwar
07-03-2010, 06:06 PM
The following three cases are listed in Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandiga
rh on 8th March 2010

1. CWP no. 19641 of 2009 - R. K. Aggarwal Vs HVPNL & State of Haryana
2. CWP no. 19642 of 2009 - Satish Bhalla Vs HVPNL & State of Haryana
3. CWP no. 3452 of 2010 - OP Kapur & Others Vs State of Haryana

In these cases, the HVPNL & Govt of Haryana are required to file reply which they do not appear to have filed so far. The respondents may seek time to file the reply.

RK Aggarwal

vnatarajan
08-03-2010, 06:17 AM
ALL THE BEST TO SHRI RKA & HIS GROUP.
SO ALSO OTHER PARALLEL FIGHTERS.
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
10-03-2010, 03:41 PM
Dear Pre-2006 Pensioners/ those interested,

Thanks to Shri Sundarar for his nice persenteation and summary of the PUNJAB STATE GOVT ORDER in the Guest Article series appearing in the first page of the GconnectIn website, dt 9th March 2010.. He has brought out all the implications of this “enlightening order” which must wake up those in authority in the Central Govt.. Govt of India’s pension orders for pre-2006 pensioners are a bundle of controversies and violation of every norm/ rule/ articles of Constitution/ pronouncement of judgements at various times and they are discriminative. The most ambiguous, autocraticeand “authority-less” successive Orders have resulted in numerous disputes to get justice. Mr Sundarar’s concluding paragraph on initial pay hits the “nail very hard” on the heads of those who matter and who appear to pose they are not concerned-as it offers a powerful ever-lasting solution to the pre-2006 pensioners’ problems. Kudos to PUJNAB GOVT for setting their own house in order and for showing the way to setthe CG’s house also in order.

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Dear friends. COS had recommended certain improvements in the pension of PBORs. PCDA/Allahabad has issued orders now, contained in 156 pages. The salient features are : (1) It applies to PBORs only.(2) It has been made applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2009. Therefore, arrears would become due only from this date.(3) It has given only modified parity between pre 2006 and post 2006 PBOR pensioners. It has been clarified that pre 2006 retirees would get pension at 50 % of Minimum of the Pay band 3 but post 2006 retirees would get pension at 50 % of Minimum of the pay pay in pay band 3.(4) This letter is based on the COS's recommendations without any change. (5) This letter clearly says it for improving pension of pre 2006 PBOR.(6) This letter, therefore, cannot be treated as follow up action against Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh's directives to GOI given on 8th March'2010, that one rank one pension should be given irrespective of date of retirement and orders implemented within four months.

vnatarajan
13-03-2010, 06:42 AM
A COPY OF POST GIVEN TO SCOVA/ RREWA:

COMPULSORY PAN NO. TO BE FURNISHED TO BANKS FOR "IT" EXEMPTIONS ON INTERESTS ON DEPOSITS ETC:

SCOVA and RREWA must take up the plight of Senior Citizens/ Pensioners seriously in regard to the HARASSMENT that is being inflicted on them in connection with the requirement of PAN no.

Banks are insisting for production of PAN NO.- strictly wef 1st April 2010 along with your 15G or H forms- failing which 20% tax will be deducted from the FDR interests.

Till now , by submission of Form 60 ( a declaration that you do not need a PAN No for reasons you may justify- like not having total taxable income etc…) along with 15G or H is/ was being accepted.

Now some Banks are citing some excuse or other ( may be new directives from RBI/ IT sources for fulfilling the shortfalls in IT collection) and WOULD BE resorting to this forced 20% “UNJUSTIFIED/ UNFAIR/ VIOLATING THEIR OWN AGREED INTEREST AMOUNT PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF CONTINUING DEPOSITS ETC”
DEDUCTION WEF 1ST April 2010.

Please take up this item as a protest in addition to other items of BCPC..

INFLICTION EFFECT IS MORE ON PRE-2006 PENSIONERS AS THEY ARE NOT EVEN BEING GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TRUE “MODIFIED PARITY”

vnatarajan
13-03-2010, 06:44 AM
Why moderation for even less controversial topics? Any reasons?

Kanaujiaml
19-03-2010, 07:33 PM
DR for all pensioners raised from 27 % to 35 %.

yenyem
20-03-2010, 09:24 PM
Message of Shri J.K.Jain appearing in www.rrewa.org site on date.

Dear Friends,
I am attaching the opinion of CAG on RTI plea of Mr Ram Pratap. This opinion has been forwarded to Shri R.C Mishra Secy DOPPW vide cab sectt uo no F.12015/239/2009-RTI dt 3.3.2010.In view of this development some positive move from UOI can be expected.
J K JAIN




Office of COMPTOLLER and Auditor General of India
Subject:Petition of Shri Ram Pratap
Ref:PMO REFERENCE ON THE SUBJECT vide ID no1/3/2009PMP-1/106481 dt 22.12.2009 asking fao examination of the matter in view of CAG observations which clearly convey that clarification dt 3.10.2008 is not as per recommendations of 6th CPC.
On the above subject the view of this office is given below.
As per provisions contained in para4.2 of DOPPW OM DT1.9.08 the revised pension is in no case shall be lower than the fifty percent of minimum ofpay in pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.As no separate minimum of pay has been prescribed for each post,it has been clarified by the DOPPW vide their OM dt 3.10.08 that the pension calculated at the minmum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minmum of pay inthe pay band(irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale of pay.As the minimum of pay in pay band is taken into account for different posts placed in particular pay band,the pensioners retired from the posts placed at the bottom of each pay band are only benefited from these orders.The other pensioners can be benefited if instead of minimum of pay in pay band,revised pay fixed under CCS(Revised pay)Rules,2008 with reference to minimum of pay in the pre-revised scale from which pensioner had retired is taken into account for revising the pension of pre-2006 pensioners in terms of provisions contained in para 4.2 of DOPPW OM dt 1.9.08.
sd/
Hoshiar Singh
Sr admn officer(Rules)
PMO New Delhi-110101
ID note8 dt 18.01.2010

vnatarajan
21-03-2010, 12:13 PM
Pl all to note that the above is not any original (may not be in English) / scanned version. So it has its own limitations as of now.
VN

Kanaujiaml
22-03-2010, 08:11 AM
Congrat Armed Forces Pensioners retired without any benefit of Rank Pay componet getting included in arriving at the Pension. Supreme Court has given judgment in their favour on 8th March'10. Pension would be re-fixed and arrears due would be payable with interest.

ramkanwar
22-03-2010, 09:41 AM
Pl all to note that the above is not any original (may not be in English) / scanned version. So it has its own limitations as of now.
VN
Can we make a request to Mr JK jain to get hold of original version or we get a copy of the same through RTI?

RK Aggarwal

yenyem
22-03-2010, 05:42 PM
Dear Friends,
MOP is again singing their old song contained in their earlier O.M.dated 11.2.2009.
Please see the latest O.M. dated 19.3.2010 at www.pensionersportal.govt.in

vnatarajan
22-03-2010, 07:52 PM
Dear pre-2006 pensioners,

They are at their old game- start from scratch- love all- - frustration showing up- second NAC meeting is due- this OM will dispose off half a dozen items of agenda. Let the drama continue This is a sign of triggering of "panic button" to dissuade legal confrontations- but then pensioners are more resolute than ever!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-03-2010, 07:53 PM
Shri RKA- you will get it soon- VN

Kanaujiaml
23-03-2010, 12:56 PM
Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Senior Administrative Officer(Rules),Office of CAG, New Delhi while dealing with the Petition of Shri Ram Pratap, has sent following Note on 18.01.10 to the PMO, in reference to PMO,s ID No. 1/3/2009-PMP
1/106481 dt. 22.12.09 : As per provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt, of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 1.9.2008 the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of minimum of pay in the nay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. As no separate minimum of pay has been prescribed for each post, it has been clarified by the Deptt. of P&PW vide their 0\/1 dt.3.10.200R that the pension calculated at fifty percent of the minimum of pay in the pay hand plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. As the minimum of the pay of a pay band is taken into account for different posts placed in a particular pay band, the pensioners retired from the posts placed 'at the bottom of each pay band arc only benefited' from these orders. Other pensioners arc not benefited from these orders. The other pensioners can be benefited if, instead of minimum of pay in the pay band, revised pay fixed under CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 with reference to the minimum of pay in the pre-revised scale of pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired is taken into account for revising the pension of pre-2006 pensioners in terms of provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt. of P&PW OM dt.l.9.2008.

vnatarajan
24-03-2010, 03:31 PM
A POST IN THE CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEES NEWS BLOG :

REG THE OM DT 19 03 2010 ISSUED BY DOPPW:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent issue of the OM dated 19th March 2010 by the DOPPW in regard to the Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners is an autocratic order!. When several of the issues related to Para 4.1 and Para 4.2 of the DOPPW's OM of 1st Sept 2008and their successor OMs 3rd/ 14th Oct 2008 etc are perhaps still under discussion in the National Anomaly Committee, issuing this OM shows the scant respect shown to the very role of the NAC and its possible outcome!

For eg, the Staff Side of the NAC had taken up the parity issue between the past and current pensioners etc. Controversy regarding the "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" versus "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" was very much in debate. There was also some differences in providing the 50% Grade Pay benefuit fully for the past pensioners.

This DOPPW's OM of 19th March 2010 appears to have been issued in great haste to circumvent/ pre-empt all or any move by the affected pensioners to seek justice.

Under the circumstances, even before the Report or Recommendations of the NAC could emerge, how come the Govt has decided to UNIlATERALLY/ AUTOCRATICALLY decide and issue such an overwhelming order? Does it not undermine the role of the Staff Side of the JCM who were supposed to safeguard the interests of past pensioners also? Is it not a betrayal of the faith of the old pensioners?

Certainly this is objectionable unless anything contrary to this has emerged in the meanwhile. SUCH PRECEDENCES MUST BE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED

rksehgal31
28-03-2010, 04:12 PM
http://www.confederationhq.blogspot.com/

The second meeting of the National Anomaly Committee was held on 27.03.10 under the chairmanship of the Secretary Personnel.

"Item No. 16. (*) and 21 The official side stated that it would not be possible for them to concede the demand of the staff side as orders have been issued strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC, which the staff side contested. They also did not agree to extend the benefit of last pay drawn and full pension after 20 years qualifying service in respect of pre 2006 retirees."

The pay of the past pensioners should be fixed on Notional basis at par with that of the employees in service of the same rank in the same cadre with similar length of service under the Next Below rule. The pension/ family pension should then be re-calculated. This review should be done in July every year.
There should be
(a) Equal Pension for Equal Work,
(b) Protection of Notional Pay (and Pension/ family pension) under the Next Below Rule every year,
(c) Appointment of Pension Commission, as Pay Commission has failed to safeguard the interests of the past pensioners.

R K Sehgal

Kanaujiaml
29-03-2010, 07:54 AM
Dear Pensioners. Should we take it that the chapter is closed for pre 2006 pensioners as far as NAC is concerned ?

vnatarajan
29-03-2010, 11:05 AM
ANONYMOUS'S COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RECORD OF THE 2ND ANOMALY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS DT 27TH MAR 2010.- SEEN IN CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEES NEWS WEBSITE.

Anonymous said...
AS expected, the pre-emptive, pre-decided, pre-imposed OM of 19th March 2010 issued by DOPW appears to have sealed the fate of many Agenda Items pertaining to the pre-2006 pensioners'/ related issues and due to the unsympathetic/ stubborn attitude of the Official Side. Perhaps the Staff Side had to be silent spectators. The "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" issue , if it had been thrashed out adopting the "Initial Pay" type of resolution by the Punjab State GOvt. (their OM dt 22nd Feb 2010), it would have resolved a number of issues including those related to Employees concerning the protection of pay of Seniors wrt DR appointees in the same "Scale of Pay" within the Pay Band!. Same Fitment Tables have been duly adopted for many cases to fix the correct pay/ stepping up etc. The explanation in terms of the CCS RP Rules 2008 replacing forever the FR appears to be rather whimsical and short-sighted as no court of law would permit the same. Many Pensioners and Employees feel that the Staff Side may have to take a more rigid stand to overcome the "inertia" and the "unfounded apathy" of the Govt./ Official Side. Let it not be an "one-sided affair"!.

RSundaram
30-03-2010, 02:44 PM
It is indeed sad that the staff side was not given further opportunity to fight the unilateral and autocratic imposition of the official side interpretation of what the VI CPC really recommended re "Modified parity". Under the JCM Scheme the staff side can lodge a protest and deemand that the matter be referred to arbitration. Even while persisting in exploring legal avenues, my submiussion is, that we should impress upon the staff side members to take the issue for arbitration.

Kanaujiaml
31-03-2010, 07:13 AM
A good suggestion but who would impress upon Staff side of NAC to demand for arbitration ?

Major (Retd.) S K Jain
31-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Dear Sirs,

I had suggested during mid-February vide my thread 'Modified Parity of Pension' that the Pensioners Associations may ask for a separate Arbitrator to consider the case of pensioners especially the aspect of Modified Parity of Pension. Since there were some hopes through NAC, my views were not taken seriously. I again submit for the consideration of learned members to examine if some Pensioners Associations can jointly approach the Government to appoint a separate Arbitrator for Pensioners with due representation to the Pensioners Associations and with time bound completion of arbitrations proceedings. It may also be highlighted that timely payment of justified pension is of paramount importance for old pensioners as a number of old pensioners are daily breathing their last.

It may also be examined if the point may be brought to the direct notice of Politicians (through news items, news articles or newspaper advertisement etc.) so that Babus get less chance to hush up the same.
Regards

rksehgal31
01-04-2010, 01:44 PM
It appears that the Staff side has not taken up the case of the past pensioners seriously in the NAC with the force it deserved. The official side has stated that the orders have been issued strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC.
Has the government really issued all orders strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC? Then why the top 3 pay scales S-30, S-31 and S-32 have been taken out of the Pay band PB-4 and new pay scales designed? Why the pay scales S-24 to S-28 been upgraded from PB-3 to PB-4?
Why the orders for pension revision of PBOR of defense forces issued?
It is obvious that Pay Commission has not done justice to the past pensioners. It has disposed off their case in half a page. Even the pay bands are illegal and uncostitutional. While the top scales has been revised to 3 times the pre-revised scales, the scales upto S-23 have been raised to 2.26 times only. This is violative of the Preamble of the Constitution which states that India is a Socialist country.

Pensioners should ask for a separate Pension Commission, Equal Pension for equal work,
Protection of Notional pay under Next below rule for equal length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement.

RK Sehgal

vnatarajan
02-05-2010, 11:23 AM
SOME UPDATES RELATED TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ISSUES

BRAZILIAN EXPERIENCE

The NAC members/ Staff Side etc appear to be not available since March for resolving the issues of even the Employees and obviously the Pensioners.

Govt. has thought it proper to send MANY TRADE UNION AND OTHER aSSOCIATION leaders for attending a Conference abroad and come back more enlightened!

(Here also I think Pensioners/ Family Pensioners were carefully omitted!)

HOWEVER WE TEND TO BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST AFTER THEIR RETURN , ALL CONCERNED MUST TAKE THE ISSUES OF "PENSIONERS" AND "EMPLOYEES' MORE SERIOUSLY AND DO NOT ALLOW THE "GOVT" TO GO OUT OF THE WAY TO MAKE THE "IMPORTANT BARGAINERS" MORE "PRESSURISED" THAN NECESSARY!

AS I FORESAW, MORE AND MORE COURT CASES ARE COMING UP- PARTICULARLY of S29 AND ALSO FOR MODIFIED PARITY BY OTHERS:

A sample list:

PR CAT ,HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT CASES OF INTEREST TO PRE-2006 S29 & OTHER (CIVIL/ MILITARY) PENSIONERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Cases in Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH

1.CWP 19641 - RK Aggarwal Vs HVPNL/Govt of Haryana – 17/05/2010 (at filing of reply stage)

2.CWP 19642 - Satish Bhalla Vs HVPNL/Govt of Haryana – 17/05/2010

3.CWP 3452- OP Kapur Vs Govt of Haryana - 7/5/2010

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.(i) Cases in PR CAT, Delhi
1. O.A.3079/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSN SH. L.R.KHATANA
MA 2136/2009 V/s -----------------------------------------
REVISION OF PENSION
A
WITH U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

2.O.A.201/2010 M.L.GULATI SH. S.K.ROY & ASSO
V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

3.O.A.306/2010 D.K.VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL

4.O.A.507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER & ORS SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
MA 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL

5. O.A.655/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. S.A.G. (S-29)
PENSIONERS ASSN SH. TARUN GUPTA
MA 476/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------

UOI -

ALL THE ABOVE FIVE ARE SCHEDULED FOR 13TH MAY 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
B (ii). Case at CAT, Hyderabad (What happened to this?- Any one from Hyderabad?)

O.A. (SR) No.2413/9 of 15-09-2009
Between:

Petitioners:
A.J Gurushankar, S/O Late A. Jagadia,
Aged about 78 years.occ:Sr. Dy.G.M.S.C.Rly./SC
Employee,R/O. Plot No.61,Gordhanpuri,
Yapral,Secunderabad-500 087 and others.

Vs
Respondents:
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.Cases in UP High Court at Lucknow
1. UP Retd IAS/IPS/IFS Officers’ Association Vs Union of India

WP No:

Dt 05/05/2010

2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. (i) Rtd Maj Gen. SPS Vains Contempt Case

Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009

STATUS PENDING
Cause Title

MAJ. GEN. SPS VAINS & ORS.
Vs.
SH. VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MS. S. JANANI
Res. Adv. MRS ANIL KATIYAR

Subject Category

MATTERS PERTAINING TO ARMED FORCES & PARA MILITARY FORCES
Listing Details

Matter was Listed 8 Times Earlier.
Next Date of Listing 06/08/2010

D(ii) AFT Directives dtd 4th March 2010 on pre- 2006 Rtd Maj Gen parity case OA 100/2010

AFT Chandigarh verdict delivered on 4th March 2010 (?) in favour of the appellants with 3-4 months time-frame for Govt to implement. (Copy may appear in the RREWA Website soon)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. AFT Case on Modified Parity Lt Cdrs/ Majors etc Vs UOI

OA No 24/2010

05 05 2010 ( ? ) at AFT Delhi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cases in the Offing:

F. DRDO etc Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners Vs UOI at CAT, Hyderabad
By Kotra Mallikarjuna Rao & Others-

Formalities including scrutiny for admission by CAT completed

OA No is awaited

Dt:

List is subject to correction and hence tentative.

vnatarajan

Major (Retd.) S K Jain
04-05-2010, 04:36 PM
Respected Sirs,

I have seen a letter on the website of www.rrewa.org where a meeting has been called by the Secretrary of Dept of Pensions and pensions welfare on 14-05-2010. Copy of the letter has also been endoresed to some Pensioners Associations to attend the meeting. I request to kindly consider if pending points of pensioners like modified parity/ equal pension etc. for 20 plus years can be raised in this meeting through the Pensioners Associations.

Regards

vnatarajan
05-05-2010, 12:39 PM
Dear Maj Jain/ all interested,

Yes Sir.. Some of the active Groups like ours will certainly send the points to the RREWA.

Issues to be highlighted will not be much relished.

Nevertheless, it is for the RREWA and BPS to take the vital issues to the Secy, DOPPW if all mean BUSINESS.

Enough damage had been done to the somewhat "notional minimum revised pay " system which was in vogue after 5th CPC and the current fisaco created due to the "dubious/ double modified parity" affecting some selected pre-revised scales/ some segments of old pensioners and total deprival for older pensioners, is the making of a few in the power corridors.

Correction could have been very easily done. Even now it is not late. But then none in the Ministries/ Deptts concerned want to initiate "meaningful" actions!!!

Let us see. All individual pensioners also can make suggestions to the RREWA - covring the AGENDA Items listed in the copy of Secy DOPPW's letter appearing in the RREWA website.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
05-05-2010, 09:06 PM
Respected Sirs,

I have seen a letter on the website of www.rrewa.org where a meeting has been called by the Secretrary of Dept of Pensions and pensions welfare on 14-05-2010. Copy of the letter has also been endoresed to some Pensioners Associations to attend the meeting. I request to kindly consider if pending points of pensioners like modified parity/ equal pension etc. for 20 plus years can be raised in this meeting through the Pensioners Associations.

Regards

My dear Jain ji. I am a member of RREWA as well. I am also a member of the Govt. Pensioners Association, Dehra Dun, which is afliated to the Bharat Pensioners Samaj. RREWA through BPS and the confederation of Pensioners associations, has already taken up the various issues in respect of anomalies, including the issues you have mentioned. National Anomalies Committee is basically meant for the working employees under the JCA. Even then they have decided to look into anomalies in respect of pensioners as well. The official side is bound by the Govt. policy and directives. That is why nothing usefull has emerged so far. However, let us not loose hope. Regards.

Major (Retd.) S K Jain
06-05-2010, 01:33 PM
Thank you Sir for your kind updation.

Regards

vnatarajan
06-05-2010, 07:03 PM
VARIATION IN THE RECORDS OF THE 2ND NAC MEETING HELD ON 27TH MARCH 2010!
SUFFERERS ARE THE OLD PENSIONERS!
NONE INVOLVED APPEAR TO CARE FOR THE FINAL OUTCOME!
LEGAL REMEDY APPEARS TO BE INEVITABLE!

Dear Pre 1996/Pre 2006 Pensioners,

Reproduced hereunder is what has been written by the "Anonymous" by way of his Comments on the "official vesrion" of the minutes of the second meeting issued by the DOPW vide OM dtd 4th May 2010, appearing in the Central Govt Employees News website today (6th May 2010)

__________________________________________________ ______________________-

Anonymous said...

Dear Pre 1996/2006 Pensioners,

Attention is drawn to the earlier record of the very meeting made by the Staff Side/ JCM- Confederation’s Executive- put up in this very web-site (CGEN website) on 28th March 2010, wrt items at sl no 15, 16, 17 & 21, reproduced below:

(IV) Item No. 15. The official side stated that this was not acceptable even though they had examined it on the basis of the detailed submission by the Staff Side.

(V) Item No. 16. (*) and 21

The official side stated that it would not be possible for them to concede the demand of the staff side as orders have been issued strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC, which the staff side contested. They also did not agree to extend the benefit of last pay drawn and full pension after 20 years qualifying service in respect of pre 2006 retirees.

(VI) Item No. 17.(*). The official side did not agree for the reasons they had stated against item No. 16

The above record is somewhat at variance wrt the Official Record now circulated by the DOPW vide OM dt 4th May 2010 appearing in the main text. Relevant part is as follows:

ltem Nos. 15. 16, 17 & 21:- Parity/ modified parity in pension/revised pension/familypension of all pre-1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 01 .01.2006.
The Official Side stated that the matter has been examined in detail on the basis of note given by the Staff Side. However, it has not been found feasible to agree to the demand of the Staff Side as revised pension has been fixed strictly in accordance with the rinciples enunciated by the 6th CPC for the same. Director, Department of Pension further informed that the matter was taken up with the Department of Expenditure and it has been decided that the modified parity adopted will stand as the same method was adopted after the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th CPC. However, even after a prolonged discussion in the matter, there was difference of opinion between the Official and the Staff Side. In view of this deadlock, the Chairman stated that the view point the staff side has been understood by the official side and that the official side will take a stand in the matter after taking into account the views expressed by the staff side. He then suggested moving on to the next agenda item

The official record gives the impression that the OFFICIAL SIDE is yet to take a stand and the date of circulation of this OM is 4th May 2010!

You will recall that even before the 2nd NAC meeting of 27TH March 2010, the authorities issued an OM dtd 19th March 2010, foreclosing all issues related to Parity/ Modified Parity as relevant to revised pensions of pre -2006 and older pensioners!

IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE VAGUE INDICATIONS/ PREEMPTIVE ACTIONS BY THE AUTHORITIES, SEVERAL LITIGATIONS HAVE SPRUNG UP IN CATS/ COURTS ALREADY?

WILL THE “OFFICIAL SIDE’ MAKE ITS STAND WRT THE ABOVE ITEMS AT LEAST NOW WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY BEFORE THE HEARING START IN COURT CASES?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT A GREAT DRAMA IS GOING ON!
Whom to believe? What is the reality? What is the current position?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
17-05-2010, 08:02 PM
Para Military Pensioners Association, whoose President is Shri SS Kothiyal, Rtd. I. G. has filed a case in Delhi High Court. While admitting the Petition, on 17.05.10, Delhi High Court has issued notices to GOI. I congratulate the Association and its President Shri Kothiyal, for their great leap forward.

pratap singh negi
18-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Para Military Pensioners Association, whoose President is Shri SS Kothiyal, Rtd. I. G. has filed a case in Delhi High Court. While admitting the Petition, on 17.05.10, Delhi High Court has issued notices to GOI. I congratulate the Association and its President Shri Kothiyal, for their great leap forward.

Dear Shree Kanaujiaml, I also congratulate the Para Military Pensioners' Association and Shree Kothiyal.

vnatarajan
18-05-2010, 05:32 PM
My hearty congratulations for successful intiation of the FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE under the initiative of Shri MLKji .

Para MIlitary Pensionners' Association under the leadership of Shri Kothyalji are bound to succeed.

We fo hope- Delhi High Court- being known for its forthright judgments will bring justice to the aggrieved petitioners.

Shri Prashant Bhushan is an advocate par excellence - and his wisdom and knowledge are great assets for this case!

All pre-2006 pensioners will look forward to the quickest outcome of the case- and there are no two thoughts about the same!

ALL THE SUCCESS!

VNatarajan

tymanagoli
18-05-2010, 08:52 PM
Hi,

I am pre-2006 retiree(VRS) with less than 33 years service.
Pl let me know what is the paramilitry pensioner's association's writ about.
Regards,
Managoli

Kanaujiaml
19-05-2010, 07:37 AM
Hi,

I am pre-2006 retiree(VRS) with less than 33 years service.
Pl let me know what is the paramilitry pensioner's association's writ about.
Regards,
Managoli

Dear friend. This writ is for same pension for pre and post 2006 retirees who retired from same pre revised pay scale, Basic pay, Qualifying service and Status.(i.e. Homogenous group). This is covered by land mark Judgement of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court dated 17.12.1982 in DS Nakara Case.

vnatarajan
24-05-2010, 06:25 PM
WHY THERE IS APATHY AMONG MANY PRE-2006 PENSIONERS TO SEEK REMEDY ON THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND (MPB)” VS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND (MPBB)” ISSUE? ARE THEY NOT AFFECTED ?

Dear All interested,

Wondering at the recent RAPID MULTIPLICATION OF CAT/ PR CAT/ HIGH COURT/ AFT cases by aggrieved GROUPs of pre-2006 pensioners ( Central/ State also) , I had been receiving calls/ emails for clarifications from our own PENSIONERS FORUM as well as from other old pensioners (pre 1986/1996/2006) from various parts of the country.

At the same time, they had rightly observed it is the pre-2006 s29 pensioner groups which are “legally” active among CIVILIAN pensioners and they had sought to know the implications.

Why this INJUSTICE had not assumed a "Pan Pre 2006 Pensioner Injustice" dimension?

Reasons are obvious!
HOW GRAVE IS THE ISSUE TO ME?
If not very grave- "LET OTHERS FIGHT- I WILL ALSO GET THE BENEFIT" – may be the attitude.

Yet others might have reposed faith in the NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

PRE -2006 AND OTHER OLD PENSIONERS MUST BE CONCERNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN THE REAL AMOUNT OF DISPARITY INVOLVED.

PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IS THE "MINIMUM EQUALITY'' WHICH IS THE BOTTOM-MOST LEVEL OF"DIGNIFIED COMPROMISE" OF "NAKARA'S FULL EQUALITY"

Now pl read with an open mind the write-up prepared by “Anonymous”:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY THERE IS APATHY AMONG MANY PRE-2006 PENSIONERS TO SEEK REMEDY ON THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND (MPB)” VS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND(MPBB)” ISSUE? ARE THEY NOT AFFECTED ?

The “Modified Parity” as emerging from the implementation of 5th CPC orders vide DOPW’s OM F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dtd 17th Dec 1998, stipulated the guiding thumb-rule in terms of :

“President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996 of the post last held by the pensioner”.

As against the above, the President Sanctioned/ Cabinet approved/Gazetted notified SCPC related RESOLUTION No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 29th Aug 2008 issued by DOPPW conveyed the revision of pension of Pre-2006 pensioners in terms of SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 which is well-known to every one of us. Its stipulation was the revised pension shall not be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (PL NOTE THIS RESOLUTION HAD NOT MENTIONED “HAG” SCALES AT SL NO 12).

ALL CAN EASILY REALISE THAT BOTH THE ABOVE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVED ORDERS HAD THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR MAINTAINING EQUALITY AT THE MINIMUM ON EITHER SIDE OF THE REVISION OF PENSION. VIZ. “MINIMUM PAY” “REVISED / PRE-REVISED” and “CORRESPONDENCE” between them.

However, the Govt., through its administrative/ executive instructions issued subsequently on 1.9.2008/ 3 & 14 10 2008/ 11 2 2009 had modified the very content of the above Resolution , which had resulted in the well known “MPB” vs “MPPB” controversy- the issue which is the reason for injustice.

WHEN EXAMINED IN DETAILS, WE CAN REALISE, HOW THE SCPC’S ‘ NEW MODIFIED PARITY IN TERMS OF THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” AFFECTS THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS:

1. Pre- revised Scales S 30 to S 34; For them, there is no PAY BAND Effect. Their pension is revised at 50 % minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 2006 of the post last held by the pensioner. Same formula akin to 5th CPC implementation OM of 17th Dec 1998. Also, for these “PREFERRED” l pre-2006 pensioners "Revised Pay Scale" protection is suo moto. In letter and spirit, application of the elements of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 of Aug 2008 and CCS (Pension) Rules 2008 of 2nd Sept 2008 have become their privileged bonus.

2.Pre-revised Scales 16 and 24 & 28 : For them also there is practically no or negligible “Pay Band effect” : This is because, they are at the bottom of the merged Pre-revised Pay Scales that constitute the respective “ Running Pay Band “. In both cases, “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” and “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” coincide to become the “START OR BOTTOM of the Running Pay Bands themselves ie 15000 in PB3 and 37400 in PB4. As a result , the need of a "Revised Pay Scale" to protect their pension is neutralised.

3. Pre-revised Scales 1 to 4 are lower-most and are protected by the Min Pension of 3500. Need of a "Revised Pay Scale" is irrelevant for them.

4. (a) For many others, the magic formula of the “Multiplication Factor (MF) ” of 2.26 has camouflaged the difference between the “MPB” and “MPPB” based revised pensions. As the MF strictly operates on the half of the last Basic Pay drawn / or operates on old Basic Pension, it is to be noted that if the pensioner had drawn enough increments, the pre-revised Basic Pension would be near / or even cross the threshold level of MPPB and hence the MF formula will be more beneficial automatically.

(b) Such Pre-revised scales with increments shown against , not affected by “MPPB” issue are:

(i) S 7 , S 8, S 11 to 15, S 17 to S 23 - all FOUR INCREMENTS & more
(ii) S 6 – FIVE INCREMENTS & more
(iii) S 5, S 10- SIX INCREMENTS & more
(iii) S 9- SEVEN INCREMENTS & more

(c) Promotions being rare, most of the above categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners would have definitely drawn enough increments in their respective scales. Only those who were promoted just few years before their retirement , might be affected. Statistically such numbers would not be great to form a GROUP to fight the issue. Need of a "Revised Pay Scale" is of little interest for them

5. CONSEQUENTLY, this leaves only a few Pre-revised scales in PB 4 like S25, 26, 27 & 29 to be affected. Here again, the Disparity being not significant for the first three Pre-revised Scales, they are not in the AGGRIEVED GROUP! Need of a "Revised Pay Scale" is not of great consequence to them.So they are shy to join the fray!

6. (a) HENCE, EFFECTIVELY IT IS THE PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONER GROUP WHICH IS GREATLY AFFECTED ( suffering a reduced pension of Rs 3650 pm as on 1 1 2006; now nearly Rs 5000 pm with DR loss) AND THEY HAVE TO FIGHT A BATTLE AGAINST “INJUSTICE” INFLICTED THROUGH SCPC RELATED ORDERS, AS OF NOW on their own behalf and on behalf of OTHERS also.

(b) OTHER PRE-2006 PENSIONER LOTS- THOUGH THEIR LOSS COULD BE MODERATE to even significant (Rs 198 to even more than 1400 pm as on 1 1 2006)) , HAVE NOT REALISED THE DAMAGE DUE TO THE IMPENDING “LONG-TERM- 10 YEAR – COMPOUNDED DR LOSS/ EROSION OF BASE LEVEL FOR 7 CPC REVISION/ FAMILY PENSION LOSS” ETC. AND THEY SHALL CERTAINLY SUFFER FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE LONG RUN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANONYMOUS

vnatarajan
29-05-2010, 09:41 AM
FOR THE SPECIAL ATTENTION OF MILITARY PENSIONERS:

AS PRESIDENT, PENSIONERS' FORUM, Chennai(affiliated to AIFPA,(red), Chennai), I had been making appeals to all authorities concerned . Our Forum includes Defence Pensioners also.

A response received from the Army Adjutant General's Branch Office is reproduced hereunder. PLEASE VERIFY THE ISSUE OF THE LETTER FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS AS YOU MAY DEEM FIT TO PURSUE THE MATTER VIGOROUSLY).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All concerned,

I have received a letter from the Integrated HQ of MOD (Army) dtd 20th May 2010 which I reproduce here. Some of the Retd Army Pensioners may do well to verify this communication duly and then take note of the same for further actions. First I am reproducing the contents. SCANNED VERSION WILL ALSO BE EMAILED SOON TO ALL CONCERNED.

AS I HAD BEEN MAKING APPEALS TIME & AGAIN TO VARIOUS AUTHORITIES, I am unable to link the Representation of 24th Sept 2009 which is cited in their communication. It may have something to do with my appeals made on 5th Sept 2009 to highest authorities of the country ( Hon President/ Hon PM/ Hon Cab Secretary) wherein at para 8, I had made a reference to the Com. on OROP Report's recognition of the Disparity in pensions between the pre and post 2006 pensioners.

Regards,

VNatarajan----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typo-copy of the letter received by me:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ascon 35066
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)
Adjutant General Branch
Addl. Dte Gen. Personnel Services
‘A’ Wing, Sena Bhawan’
New Delhi- 110 105
B/39027/29(5)/MOD/AG/PS-5 20 May 10

Shri V Natarajan
President Pensioners, New 7, Jayaram Avenue,
Sastri Nagar, Adayar PO, Chennai 600 020

REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES: SHRI V NATARAJAN

1.Refernce your representation dated 24 Sep 09.

2.The HQ had recommended modified parity at the minimum of the pay Table of each rank instead of minimum of the pay band. The same has not been agreed to by the MOD. However, the matter is again being taken up

Sd/
Dy Dir, AG/PS-5 for Adjutant General
Copy to: MOD/D(PGC) for information wrt your ID No 481/DP/PGC/10 dated 30 Apr 10

vnatarajan
03-06-2010, 11:12 AM
Ref: Above Note. Today I realise why the Adjutant General's Office is active!

Dear Military Pre-2006 Pensioners/ also Civilian pre-2006 pensioners etc of S21/22/23 scales- PB3 Cases/ Maj Rtd . S K Jain shab,

Another case of Mod Parity filed recently at AFT Chandigarh- by 17 Rtd Maj Gens- notice sent to MOD etc

Pl read the news in epaper of Hindustan Times:

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com//artMailDisp.aspx?article=02_06_2010_163_005&typ=1&pub=722

WHEN WILL THE DOPPW OF MIN P PG P/ PCDA(PENSIONS) OF CGDA/ MIN OF DEFENCE WAKE UP FROM THEIR DEEP SLUMBER AND CONFRONT THE MIN OF FINANCE & MINISTRY OF LAW WITH THE GROUND TRUTH?

A CASE OF INDIFFERENCE TO JUSTICE AND TRUTH/ LETHARGY UNPARALLELED IN ADMINISTRTION!

CASE FILED IN AFT CHANDIGARH ON MODIFIED PARITY!!!!!.

ALL ARE AWARE OF THE INITIATIVE TAKEN BY RTD LT CDR AVTAR SINGH AND FILING OF A CASE IN AFT DELHI WHICH IS DUE FOR NEXT DATE IN JULY 2010. THERE ARE MORE THAN 135 RTD LT CDRS PLUS RTD MAJORS IN THAT CASE

NOW, A GROUP OF 17 RTD MAJORS HAVE GONE TO AFT CHANDIGARH FOR MODIFIED PARITY - AND NOTICE HAS GONE TO MOD ETC.

PL GO THROUGH THE NEWS ITEM IN HIND. TIMES E-PAPER:

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com//artMailDisp.aspx?article=02_06_2010_163_005&typ=1&pub=722

NO DOUBT ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE OF INTEGRATED MILTARY HQ NOW HAS TAKEN UP (RATHER REOPENED) THE MOD PARITY ISSUE WITH THE MIN. OF. DEF PENSION AUTHORITIES - REACTING TO MY APPEAL OF ONLINE GRIEVANCE REGD WITH HON PM ON 24TH SEPT 2009 (ALREADY CIRCULATED TO MANY IN EMAIL CONTACT WITH ME)

AT THE SAME TIME IT IS DISAPPONTING TO NOTE THAT CIVILIAN S21/ 22/ 23 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WHO ARE EQUIVALENTS OF THE RTD LT CDRS/ MAJORS HAVE NOT "HEEDED" TO OUR ADVICES SO FAR - WHEREAS RTD LT CDR AVTAR SINGH SPEARHEADED THE ISSUE SO WELL ON THE MILITARY SIDE!

OUR KUDOS TO RTD LT CDRS AND RTD MAJORsFOR FIRING THE GUNS ONCE AGAIN AT THE RIGHT TARGETS.

THE RTD MAJORS ARE SURE TO SUCCEEED IN A LIGHTNING MANNER AS THE RTD MAJ.GENS/ PBORS GOT THEIR AFT CHANDIGARH'S UNDISPUTEDLY FAVOURABLE VERDICTS ON MODIFIED PARITY IN MARCH 2010 WITH TIME-LIMITS FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY GOVT.(JUNE/ JULY 2010 IS THE DEAD-LINE)

VNatarajan

vnatarajan
20-06-2010, 10:12 AM
Source: Anonymous:

ARE THE CCS (REVISED PAY) RILES 2008 & ITS AMENDMENTS APPLIED TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS OR NOT?

Yes- Selectively done for HAG + first (thru DOPW's OM on 1st Sept 2008) and later fpr new S30 - HAG scale pre 2006 pensioners (thru OM dtd 20th Aug 2009) .

Pension Authorities are trying to mislead all by giving wrong replies to RTI and to other appeals.

1.Para 5.1.47 in its accepted virgin state- quoted in the Min P PG & P/ DOPPW's Resolution Dated 29th Aug 2008 never mentioned the HAG scales.

2.In the meanwhile (29th/ Aug 2008) the Finance Authorities issued the orders for Revised Pay Scales/ Gazette Resolutions etc which brought in all the Revised Pay Scales/ Revised Pay Structure/ Pay Bands? MORE IMPORTANTLY "FITMENT TABLES" . The Revised Pay Scales included those created for new HAG + also.

3.Therupon, the Pension Authorities' OM of 1st Sept 2008 was issued which , under para 4.2, included the HAG+ scales also as a last line, stating

"In the case of HAG+ and above scales , this will be fifty per cent of the MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE".

Are the Pension Authorities not applying the CCS (RP) Rules 2008 for Revised Pension of the Pre-2006 HAG + Pensioners ? WHOM ARE THEY FOOLING?

When some pensioners questioned the Pension Authorities thru RTI APPEAL, they simply said that it is only Finance Authorities who can decide on any Financial Aspects etc blah blah blah-!!!!

WE LIKE NOVICES (SOME EXPERTS INCLUDING ME!!!!) , GO ON "QUOTING" REPEATEDLY THAT CCS(RP) RULES 2008 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS?????

DO WE have to STILL RECONCILE?

AGAIN:

4.Issue of Orders of Revised Pay Scale for S 30 by the MOF on 16th July 2009 AS AMENDMENT TO CCS (RP) RULES 2008 -without even CAG's Concurrence -was a lightning action within 16 days of the submission of Com on OROP's Report, WAS DONE only to favour its application to the concerned Pre-2006 S30/ Equivalent Pensioners!

Even more surprising is the issue of S30's Civilian Part's pension orders for pre-2006 s30 pensioners on 20th Aug 2009. Poor CAG- on his own- initiated a note-sheet for according concurrence for the said order to help these lucky pensioners!

BUT FOR THE APPLICATION OF CCS RP RULES 2008 AMENDMENTS, THE S30 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WOULD NOT HAVE GOT THEIR MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY IN THE NEWLY CREATED, POST 2006, S30 HAG PAY SCALES.

Communicated by

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-06-2010, 08:06 PM
POWERS ONLY PREACH- NEVER PRACTICE!

GOVT WANTS TO BE THE LEAST RELUCTANT LITIGANT YET WHY SO MANY PENSIONERS' CASES?

PL SEE THE LIST OF MOUNTING PRE 2006 PENSIONERS CASES SEEKING JUSTICE IN VARIOUS TRIBUNALS / COURTS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY for scpc's correct modified parity to ensure correct "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION"

(Informastion gathered from different sources and hence it may be tentative! I can not vouch for the NAMES OF INDIVICUALS APPEARING IN THE LIST LIKE PETITIONERS/ LAWYERS ETC. Intention is purely dissemination of information and motivate all concerned to save Public expenditure in litigations/ save Hon Tribunals/ Courts valuable time)


PR CAT/ CAT/ AFT / HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT CASES OF INTEREST TO PRE-2006 S29 & OTHER (CIVIL/ MILITARY) PENSIONERS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Pre 2006 S29 (Haryana State) Cases in Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH

1.. Civil writ petition 19641 of 2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Others vs State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv. : Veena Ashwani Talwar
Next Date of Hearing: 07 SEPT 2010

2. Civil Writ Petition 19642 of 2009 Satish Bhalla & others vs State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv. Veena Ashwani Talwar
Next Date of Hearing: 07 SEPT 2010

3.Civil Writ Petition 3452 of 2010 O.P. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv.: Manohar Lall
Next Date of Hearing: 21JULY 2010
Category: Govt Service (HY)/Retiral benefit-sb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B (i). Cases in PR CAT, Delhi
1. O.A.3079/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSN SH. L.R.KHATANA
MA 2136/2009 V/s -----------------------------------------
REVISION OF PENSION
A
WITH U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

2.O.A.201/2010 M.L.GULATI SH. S.K.ROY & ASSO
V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

3.O.A.306/2010 D.K.VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL

4.O.A.507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER & ORS SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
MA 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL

5. O.A.655/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. S.A.G. (S-29)
PENSIONERS ASSN SH. TARUN GUPTA
MA 476/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
ALL THE ABOVE FIVE ARE SCHEDULED FOR 3rd July 2010 .
6. Pre 2006 S30 Pensioner Case ( cause of action same as AIS30PA, Delhi - Prem Sharma Group)at CAT, Patna
MMP Sinha Vs UOI
Concluded in March 2010 Judgment awaited
-
B (ii). Case at CAT, Hyderabad (What happened to this?- Any one from Hyderabad?)

O.A. (SR) No.2413/9 of 15-09-2009
Between:

Petitioners:
A.J Gurushankar, S/O Late A. Jagadia,
Aged about 78 years.occ:Sr. Dy.G.M.S.C.Rly./SC
Employee,R/O. Plot No.61,Gordhanpuri,
Yapral,Secunderabad-500 087 and others.

Vs
Respondents: from US
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,

(Shri Gurushankar sent message from USA to Sri N Ramaswami (on 7 6 2010):

“I am in USA from 22nd April till 20th Oct. I had requested Sundararajan to follow up our case and I have no news from him. Our lawyer was in USA and has returned to Hyderabad. He had promised to follow up and let me know. I have no news from him also. Let us hope all our efforts at various places will produce some favourable result.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.Case in UP High Court at Lucknow
UP Retd IAS/IPS/IFS Officers’ Association Vs Union of India

WP( C ) No: 203 (S/B) of 2010

21st MAY 2010 . Case was mentioned by the Petitioners Advocate. Further date not known
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. DELHI HIGH COURT
(17th, May, 2010 )

COURT NO. 7
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

Court No.
1 W.P.(C) 3359/2010
[PENDING] Order(s)
Judgement(s)
ALL INDIA EX-PARA MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION
Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Advocate : PRASHANT BHUSHAN
Court No. : 7
Last Date : 17/05/2010
Next Date : 11/08/2010

Admitted on 17 05 2010; Notice given to Respondents; Next hearing may be 11th AUGUST 2010

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E (i). Rtd Maj Gen. SPS Vains Contempt Case

Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009

STATUS PENDING
Cause Title

MAJ. GEN. SPS VAINS & ORS.
Vs.
SH. VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MS. S. JANANI
Res. Adv. MRS ANIL KATIYAR

Subject Category

MATTERS PERTAINING TO ARMED FORCES & PARA MILITARY FORCES
Listing Details

Matter was Listed 8 Times Earlier.
Next Date of Listing 06/08/2010


E (ii) & (iii)
AFT Directives on pre- 2006 Rtd Maj Gen parity case OA 100/2010 and a case by Rtd Soldiers (PBORs) on OROP AFT Chandigarh:
verdict delivered on 4th March 2010 (?) in favour of the appellants with 3 months/ 4 months time-frame for Govt to implement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.(i) AFT, Delhi Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Lt Cdrs/ Majors (More than 135) etc Vs UOI

OA No 24/2010

20th July 2010 at AFT Delhi (Army/ MOD did not file affidavit on 26th May 2010- so postponed)

(ii) AFT, Chandigarh Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Majors (Maj Navdeep Singh??)-17 Rtd Majors- Notice given to Govt. Date 2nd Aug 2010.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. DRDL etc Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners Vs UOI at CAT, Hyderabad
By Kotra Mallikarjuna Rao & Others-

After brief presentation by Lawyer, the case filed by DeSPA(DEFENCE SCIENTISTS PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION) & MALLIKHARJUNA RAO IS ADMITTED ON 9-06-2010 BY CAT ,HYDERABAD.
FOUR WEEKS TIME IS GIVEN TO FILE THE COUNTER.
GOVT lawyer was present.
OA No 568 of 2010 (DeSPA)
(Expected to come up in second week of July 2010)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(May be subject to corrections as per feed-back)

vnatarajan (not responsible for the total information as sources are different)

vnatarajan
26-06-2010, 09:22 AM
GRATEFUL THANKS TO S/ SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR, SECRETARY GENERAL, BPS, & SC MAHESHWARI, GEN SECY, RREWA & MEMEBER, SCOVA

DEAR SHRI MAHESHWARI,

I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY AND THANKFUL TO YOU (ON MY BEHALF/ON BEHALF OF PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS) AND MORE SO TO THE SECRETARY GRNERAL BPS- SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR FOR YOUR ABIDING INTEREST IN PURSUING THE ISSUE OF "MODIFIED PARITY" - AND NOW WITH THE APPROPRIATE AUTHRORITY- THE SECRETARY, DAR & PG ON 24TH JUNE 2010.

I ALSO FEEL THE MEET IS VERY TIMELY IN VIEW OF THE LITIGATIONS.

I WISH YOUR EFFORTS LEAD TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE "MODIFIED PARITY" ISSUE BEFORE THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS' CASES FLOOD THE CATs/ COURTs IN FULL FORCE.

THANKING YOU ONCE AGAIN,

V NATARAJAN,
PRESIDENT, PENSIONERS' FORUM (AFFILIATED TO AIFPPA (REGD)) CHENNAI,
ASSOCIATE MEMBER, RREWA (REGD) GURGAON
MEMBER-LC, CGS29PA, (REGD) DELHI

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant Extracts ( for full record pl visit: http://www.rrewa.org/Circulars2/1129/Secretary%20meeting%2024.6.10.doc )

NEWS
Pensioners Network-RREWA
e-mail: pensioner77@yahoo.co , rrewa@dataone.in
Posted 24.6.2010
On 24.06.2010 Secretary General BPS & General Secretary RREWA Sh. Shyam Sunder & Er.S.C.Maheshwari met Secretary, Government of India. Ministry of Pension, AR & PG in his chamber in Patel Bhawan, New Delhi.
Submitted & discussed the attached Memorandum:
While the Secretary, Sh. Mishra’s response was very positive with reference to improvements in the institution of ‘Pension Adalats’, he assured that each of the points in the memorandum will be carefully studied & needful will be done.

Attachment
Memorandum
To
The Secretary,
Government of India. Ministry of Pension, AR & PG
1
2
3

4. Revision of Pension on account of 6th CPC recommendations: Modified Parity and the Anomalies:

{Incorrect implementation of Para 4.2, of F.No 38/37/08-P&PW dated 01.9.2008 (refer. 5.1.47 CPC report)}

(i).There is no difference between the Modified Parity evolved by 5th CPC and the one endorsed by 6th CPC. The cardinal entity for dispensing Modified parity is fixation of notional pay for which two things are required;

• Revised pay scale corresponding to the pre revised scale
• Minimum pay in the above of which 50% is Modified parity

(ii). 5th CPC had given revised scales corresponding to old scale/scales and as such Modified parity
was obvious being 50% of the minimum pay of revised corresponding 5th CPC scale..

(iii).With the new concept of Pay Bands (PB) and Grade Pay (GP) adopted by 6th CPC & clubbing of several scales into a Pay Band, modified parity can not be ensured unless, 50% of the pay in the Pay Band of the corresponding revised pay scale from which the pensioner retired plus G.P is considered. The arbitrary modification: pay in pay Band to Minimum of Pay Band has disturbed the modified parity as has been elaborated by the 6th Pay Commission in the concluding portion of Para 5.1.47 which reads as under “The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table”.
For scales S 30 to S 32, there are corresponding scales and, therefore, 50% of the minimum pay in revised scale is the Modified parity. For the pensioners in the privileged apex scales of S 33 & S 34, full parity is assured.

(iv).In view of constitutional provisions & Apex court Judgements, adoption of one yard stick for S. 32 to S34 Scales and another yard stick for the scales down below, is unconstitutional and therefore full parity as provided to S32 to S 34 must percolate to scales down below.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/ Dated 24.6.2010

Shyam Sunder, Secretary General,BPS Er. S.C. Maheshwari,Genl. Secy. RREWA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ramanrao60
19-07-2010, 09:49 AM
dear senior g connectors

can some body explain to me lucidly what is the difference between 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service for pension and why full pension is admissible in both cases and what specific types of cases are covered by 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service proviso and if 10 years is enough then doesn't 20 years becomes redundant?

Kanaujiaml
01-08-2010, 09:25 PM
Dear friends. There is encouraging news, this time from U.P. Govt. As informed by one of the pre 2006 retiree Shri Girish Chandra, G.O. has been issued, fixing pension of pre2006 pensioners at the minimum of the pay in pay band (not at minimum of the pay band). This has been done taking into view the provision made in CCS Revised pay Rules 2008. The pension of s29 pre2006 retiree has been fixed at 26500(43000+10000/2). Central Govt. is still sleeping. Regards.

vnatarajan
13-08-2010, 05:19 PM
Dear Interested Pre-2006 Pensioners,

Let me update the status on "Fight Against INJUSTICE"

Both Civil and Miltary pensionesr are active.

MANY CURRENT EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT REALISED THE EVIL OF INFLICTION OF "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" FOR PENSION REVISION PURPOSE - SOLELY DONE BY.....

1.IT PUTS THE PROMOTEES/ SENIORS BELOW THE DIRECT RECRUITS IN MANY CASES IN TERMS OF PAY.

2.PRE-2016 RETIREES WILL FACE THE SAME "MUSIC" WHICH THE PRE-2006 REIREES ARE NOW FACING AND FIGHTING AGAINST!

It is for all concerned to take pre-emptive actions.

Now my update in haste on CASES:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN HASTE- DRAFT

PR CAT/ CAT/ AFT / HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT CASES OF INTEREST TO PRE-2006 S29 & OTHER (CIVIL/ MILITARY) PENSIONERS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Pre 2006 S29 (Haryana State) Cases in Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH

1.. Civil writ petition 19641 of 2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Others vs State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv. : Veena Ashwani Talwar
Next Date of Hearing: 07 SEPT 2010

2. Civil Writ Petition 19642 of 2009 Satish Bhalla & others vs State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv. Veena Ashwani Talwar
Next Date of Hearing: 07 SEPT 2010

3.Civil Writ Petition 3452 of 2010 O.P. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv.: Manohar Lall
Next Date of Hearing: 6th Aug 2010
Category: Govt Service (HY)/Retiral benefit-sb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B (i). Cases in PR CAT, Delhi
1. O.A.3079/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSN SH. L.R.KHATANA
MA 2136/2009 V/s -----------------------------------------
REVISION OF PENSION
A
WITH U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

2.O.A.201/2010 M.L.GULATI SH. S.K.ROY & ASSO
V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

3.O.A.306/2010 D.K.VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL

4.O.A.507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER & ORS SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
MA 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PERSONNEL

5. O.A.655/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. S.A.G. (S-29)
PENSIONERS ASSN SH. TARUN GUPTA
MA 476/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
ALL THE ABOVE FIVE ARE SCHEDULED FOR 16TH August 2010.
6. Pre 2006 S30 Pensioner Case ( Cause of Action same as AIS30PA, Delhi - Prem Sharma Group)at CAT, Patna
( i )MMP Sinha Vs UOI (ii) R M Raina
Concluded in March 2010 Judgment DELIVERED on 28th and 25th May 2010. Details to be collected.
-
B (ii) OA No 568 of 2010 (DeSPA) viz.DRDL etc Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners Vs UOI at CAT, HYDERABAD
By Kotra Mallikarjuna Rao & Others-

After brief presentation by Lawyer, the case filed by DeSPA(DEFENCE SCIENTISTS PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION) & MALLIKHARJUNA RAO IS ADMITTED ON 9-06-2010 BY CAT ,HYDERABAD.
FOUR WEEKS TIME IS GIVEN TO FILE THE COUNTER.
GOVT lawyer was present.

(Final Date fixed for filing of Counter 6th Aug 2010)

(iii) Case at CAT,HYDERABAD.

O.A. (SR) No.2413/9 of 15-09-2009
Between:

Petitioners:
A.J Gurushankar, S/O Late A. Jagadia,
Aged about 78 years.occ:Sr. Dy.G.M.S.C.Rly./SC
Employee,R/O. Plot No.61,Gordhanpuri,
Yapral,Secunderabad-500 087 and others.

Vs
Respondents:
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,

(Shri Gurushankar sent message from USA to Sri N Ramaswami (on 7. 6 2010):

“I am in USA from 22nd April till 20th Oct. I had requested Sundararajan to follow up our case and I have no news from him. Our lawyer was in USA and has returned to Hyderabad. He had promised to follow up and let me know. I have no news from him also. Let us hope all our efforts at various places will produce some favourable result.”

(iv) S26 Pre-2006 Pensioners OA filed recently for admission.

Dr Kotra informs:
Another case is filed at CAT Hyd by DeSPA HYD on behalf of S-26 GROUP.
After admission& getting the OA No I will inform the details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.Case in UP High Court at Bench at LUCKNOW
UP Retd IAS/IPS/IFS Officers’ Association Vs Union of India

WP( C ) No: 203 (S/B) of 2010

21st MAY 2010 . Case was mentioned by the Petitioners Advocate. Further date not known
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. DELHI HIGH COURT
(17th, May, 2010 )

COURT NO. 7
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

Court No.
1 W.P.(C) 3359/2010
[PENDING] Order(s)
Judgement(s)
ALL INDIA EX-PARA MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION
Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Advocate : PRASHANT BHUSHAN
Court No. : 7
Last Date : 17/05/2010
Next Date : 11/08/2010

Admitted on 17 05 2010; Notice given to Respondents; Next hearing may be 11th AUGUST 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E (i). Rtd Maj Gen. SPS Vains Contempt Case

Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009

STATUS PENDING
Cause Title

MAJ. GEN. SPS VAINS & ORS.
Vs.
SH. VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MS. S. JANANI
Res. Adv. MRS ANIL KATIYAR

Subject Category

MATTERS PERTAINING TO ARMED FORCES & PARA MILITARY FORCES
Listing Details

Matter was Listed 9 Times Earlier.
Next Date of Listing 09/09/2010

Charts were given to Rtd Maj Gens.Arguments started on it.But the Govt counsel wanted a written Counter. So now the petitioners have to file a Counter at least ten days before next hearing, making available the same to Govt.


E (ii) & (iii)
AFT Directives on pre- 2006 Rtd Maj Gen parity case OA 100/2010 and a case by Rtd Soldiers (PBORs) on OROP AFT Chandigarh:
verdict delivered on 4th March 2010 (?) in favour of the appellants with 3 months/ 4 months time-frame for Govt to implement.

Adjourned to 14th Sept 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F.(i) AFT, Delhi Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Lt Cdrs/ Majors (More than 135) etc Vs UOI

OA No 24/2010
Case is adjourned to 31 Aug 2010 as Judge is away.

It was agreed between two lawyers and Registrar that the rejoinder shall be handed over to the respondents and the case on 31 Aug 2010 should be fixed for final arguments

(ii) AFT, Chandigarh Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Majors (Maj Navdeep Singh)-17 Rtd Majors plus 45 Sqdrn Leaders - Adlourned to 26th Aug 2010.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(May be subject to corrections as per feed-back)

---------------------------------------------------------

Concerned authorities appear to to be "indifferent" to any process of law or justice!
Main motto appear to be to waste the "govt resources on unnecessary litigations COMPULSIVELY and waste the Hon Court's' time.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
14-08-2010, 02:57 PM
FOR INFO OF THOSE INTERESTED: RAJYA SABHA QUESTIONS 19TH AUG 2010

Link: http://164.100.47.5/EDAILYQUESTIONS/sessionno/220/3720RS.pdf.
(COURTESY: SHRI KSS)

---------------------------------------------------------------
RAJYA SABHA
————
List of Questions for WRITTEN ANSWERS to be asked at a sitting of the Rajya Sabha to be held on Thursday, August 19, 2010/Sravana 28, 1932 (Saka)
————

Anomalies out of Sixth Pay Commission

2780. SHRI A. ELAVARASAN:

Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:

(a) whether Government has extended the term of the National Anomaly Committee which had been set up to look into the anomalies arising out of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission; and

(b) if so, the details thereof and timeframe by which the committee would submit its report?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kanaujiaml
15-08-2010, 09:32 AM
A very Happy Independance Day to you.

vnatarajan
22-08-2010, 10:03 AM
RAJYA SABHA QN ON 26TH AUG 2010 ON PRE-2006 PENSION ANOMALY

MANY COULD DOUBT THE USEFULNESS OF QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
OF COURSE THEIR USEFULNESS OR OTHERWISE - NOBODY IS SURE!!
AT LEAST SOME ATTEMPT IS MADE TO BRING THE "PRE-2006 PENSION ANOMALY" TO NOTICE IN RS!
(We may not agree with the "framed-text" of the question - as there is some escape route in the question itself- through GP being provided which will nullify the "same pension" aspect!

Because. with variable components of GP, though the Basic Pension Component is based on the "constant figure" of the Minimum of the Pay Band, the Revised Basic Pension may not be same for all pre-2006 pensioners coming within a Pay Band)

Removal of anomalies in pensions

3263. SHRI BALWINDER SINGH
BHUNDER:

Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:
(a) whether Government have since
taken a decision to remove anomalies
having arisen in the grant of pensions to
those who retired before 1st January, 2006
from the higher scales in the bunched scales
as same pension has been granted to a
number of scales bunched together under
the recommendations of the Sixth Central
Pay Commission;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and

(c) if not, by when that is likely to be done
------------------------------------------------

As usual, the question is for written reply. The Govt will escape by providing the Table/ Annexure of OMs to show that the pension is NOT SAME for all within a Pay Band and thus "fool" the Questioner.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
23-08-2010, 11:04 PM
My dear VN ji. The question has been framed very nicely. It clearly goes to say that pre 2006 pensioners retired from higher p.r.p.s. merged with those who retired from lower p.r.p.s., are given same revised pension, which is an anomally. The answer is simple and it would be that anomally committee has been set up to look into all types of anomallies. It is not the reply which is important. It is the "action" that it would generate in the anomally committee, which is important for us. Let us hope, something good would come out of it.


RAJYA SABHA QN ON 26TH AUG 2010 ON PRE-2006 PENSION ANOMALY

MANY COULD DOUBT THE USEFULNESS OF QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
OF COURSE THEIR USEFULNESS OR OTHERWISE - NOBODY IS SURE!!
AT LEAST SOME ATTEMPT IS MADE TO BRING THE "PRE-2006 PENSION ANOMALY" TO NOTICE IN RS!
(We may not agree with the "framed-text" of the question - as there is some escape route in the question itself- through GP being provided which will nullify the "same pension" aspect!

Because. with variable components of GP, though the Basic Pension Component is based on the "constant figure" of the Minimum of the Pay Band, the Revised Basic Pension may not be same for all pre-2006 pensioners coming within a Pay Band)

Removal of anomalies in pensions

3263. SHRI BALWINDER SINGH
BHUNDER:

Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:
(a) whether Government have since
taken a decision to remove anomalies
having arisen in the grant of pensions to
those who retired before 1st January, 2006
from the higher scales in the bunched scales
as same pension has been granted to a
number of scales bunched together under
the recommendations of the Sixth Central
Pay Commission;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and

(c) if not, by when that is likely to be done
------------------------------------------------

As usual, the question is for written reply. The Govt will escape by providing the Table/ Annexure of OMs to show that the pension is NOT SAME for all within a Pay Band and thus "fool" the Questioner.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
24-08-2010, 03:01 PM
RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTR DATED 24TH AUGUST 2010 ON FULL PENSION FOR 10 YEAR PLUS SERVICE RETIREES ON OR AFTER 1.1.2006

Dear Friends,

RAILWAY HAVE CLARIFIED THRU THEIR CIRCULAR DTD 24TH AUG 2010 THAT ALL WHO HAVE RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.1.2006 WITH 10 YRS SERVICE WILL GET FULL PENSION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME RULES ETC) .

A FEW DAYS BACK I HAD ALSO CIRCULATED A CASE WITH TITLE "STRANGE BUT TRUE" WHEREIN A CURRENT PENSIONER BORN ON 1.12046 WHO WAS MADE TO RETIRE ON 31 12 2005 INSTEAD OF 1.1.2006 (60 YRS SUPERANNUATION) (FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS AS IN VOGUE) WITH FULL (MORE THAN)33 YEARS OF SERVICE WAS NOT ALLOWED FULL PENSION!

HAS THE POSITION CHANGED?

EVEN MY AND PKR'S RTI QUERY ON THE "ELIGIBILITY OF FULL PENSION FOR A CG EMPLOYEE WHO DIED/RETIRED ON 1.1.2006 WITH PLUS 33 YEARS OF SERVICE" WAS NEVER ANSWERED IN A STRAIGHT MANNER AND PRECISE ANSWER WAS CAREFULLY AVOIDED!

VN 36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Admissibility of full pension to Railway servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006
PC-VI -- 223/2010

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13
New Delhi, dated 10.08.2010

The GMs & FA & CAOs,
All Zonal Railways & Production Units,
(As per mailing list).

Sub: Admissibility of full pension to Railway servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006 - regarding.

*** Clarifications are being sought from this office by the Zonal Railway Administrations in connection with the revised instructions issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare regarding grant of full pension to Government servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006, and its applicability to those employees who are absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous bodies.

2. It is informed that the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, vide their O.M. dated 10.12.2009, circulated on the Zonal Railways etc. vide this office letter of even number dated 15.12.2009, has dispensed with the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service with effect from 01.01.2006, instead of the earlier to pension cut off date of 02.09.2008. As such, all employees becoming entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 69(2) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, on or after 01.01.2006, are eligible for pension equal to 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to them. With the issue of these instructions, the concept of pro-rata pension has ceased to exist with effect from 1.1.2006. This provision is equally to those employees who have been permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies and have since become entitled to monthly pension in terms of the extant instructions.

3. All the Zonal Railways etc. are, therefore, advised to settle the pending cases accordingly.

4. Please acknowledge receipt.

s/d

Deputy Director Finance (Estt.)III
Railway Board

vnatarajan
25-08-2010, 08:29 PM
I AND MANY YOUNGER PENSIONERS SHD APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF ENDURANCE AND TOLERANCE OF MANY SENIOR S29- S30 PRE 2006 PENSIONERS FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!

A WELL JUDGED DECISION WILL BRING JUSTICE TO MANY PRE-2006 PENSIONERS DOWN THE LINE UPTO THE LOWEST WHO ARE NOT BENEFITTED BY THE 2.26 MF REVISION!

SEVERAL MILITARY PRE 2006 CO PENSIONERS ALSO ARE IN THE FRAY:

Tomorrow 26th Aug 2010- is very important:

List of Business at the PR CAT Delhi for tomorrow 26th Aug 2010 is sourced from the concerned website.

ALL THE BEST TO ALL S29 AND S30 PRE 2006 PENSIONERS FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE.

VNATARAJAN
Chennai 20 DT 25th Aug 2010 7.30 pm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26/08/2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF BUSINESS
FOR
THURSDAY THE 26TH AUGUST, 2010
COURT NO : I
(SECOND FLOOR)
(AT 10.30 A.M.)
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI CHAIRMAN
HON BLE MR. L.K.JOSHI VICE-CHAIRMAN(A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READY FOR HEARING MATTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 O.A. 3079/2009 MA. 2136/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSION ASSOCIATION ADDL./JT. SECRETARY SH. L.R. KHATANA
REVISION OF
PENSION V/s -------------------------------------
A U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
WITH SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. R.K.SHARMA
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
O.A. 201/2010 M.L. GULATI SH. S.K. RAY
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. R.K.SHARMA
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
O.A. 306/2010 D.L. VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
O.A. 507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
MA. 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

26/08/2010 COURT NO: I LIST CONTD ---- 5 ----
-------------------------------------------------------------

23 O.A 937/2010 MA. 907/2010 A.I. S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION SH. TARUN GUPTA
PAY FIXATION V/s -------------------------------------
PPG &P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
WITH

O.A. 2087/2009 RANVIR SINGH INPERSON
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I-M/O PPG&P SH. RAJENDER NISCHAL

O.A. 655/2010 MA 476/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG (S-29) PENSIONERS SH. TARUN GUPTA
DOP&T SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

O.A.2101/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONER S ASSO SH. L.R.KHATANA
MA 1681/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
D.O.P.&T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

sundarar
26-08-2010, 07:15 AM
Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out the very patient approach of the Pre-2006 pensioners, particularly the senior veterans of S-29 and S-30 to bring in justice by sparing no efforts towards utilising all possible avenues right from initial representation, RTI Mechanism, Grievance Redressal Machinery, NAC's consideration, etc. Although a State Govt. had set a good precedence by prescribing a minimum revised pension as 50% of initial pay in the revised structure, it has been maintained all along that pay band and pay in the pay band are one and same in order to bring a reducing impact on revised pension by clarifying 50% of minimum of the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which a pensioner had retired only to form part of min. revised pension apart from 50% of grade pay corresponding to such a pre-revised scale. As such, the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC ordered through initial OM dated 1.9.2008 is yet to be implemented.

Two years have passed since implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, and the pensioner's community are yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

However, with all prayers of the Pensioner's community, today being the very important day as brought out by Respected Shri VNji, Lord Shri Krishna will definitely come in between to resolve all issues to the satisfaction of one and all.

Best Regards and wishes to senior veterans of S-29 and S-30 for a very remarkable success in their fight for justice, which will pave way for the rest too in future.

rksehgal31
26-08-2010, 08:31 PM
Our hopes and prayers for some positive and favourable action have been razed to the ground by the central government. The answer to Q.No.3263 given in the Rajya Sabha on 26.08.10 is given below for ready reference. Struggle will now be in the courts.

Instead of fighting for the Minimum, we should straight away ask for the Maximum of the Pay band PB-4. After 33 years of service, you are at the Top of the scale and not at the Minimum of the scale. Then why Minimum of the scale?

We, a group of about 100 engineers CEs, SEs and XENs of Haryana power companies, are going to the High Court shortly praying for the Maximum of PB-4 for 28 years service as AE and above.
Other points are:
a) Protection of notional pay, pension & family pension w.r.t Next-below junior for same length of service in the cadre

b) Equal Pension for Equal Work for same length of service in the cadre

c) Pre-revised pension should be raised to minimum 3 times instead of 2.26 times as the top pay scales have been raised to 3 times. India is a Socialist country!!!

d) CE (S-29) scale should be revised to HAG as recommended by 6th CPC at para 1.2.9

With regards and best wishes,
Er RK Sehgal




GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
RAJYA SABHA
QUESTION NO 3263
ANSWERED ON 26.08.2010

REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS .

3263 SARDAR BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDAR
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to satate :-


(a) whether Government have since taken a decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and

(c) if not, by when that is likely to be done?

ANSWER


Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Science and Technology; Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Earth Sciences; Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office; Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. (SHRI PRITHVIRAJ CHAVAN)

(a) to (c) : In accordance with the orders issued in implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission for revision of pension of Central Government Civil Pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006, all pre-2006 pensioners would get a minimum increase of 40% of their pre-2006 basic pension (excluding the element of merged dearness relief/dearness pension), in addition to the basic pension, dearness pension and dearness relief which they were getting as on 01.01.2006 based on their pre-revised pension. Besides, the revised pension will, in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay (in the case of HAG and above scales, fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. These orders are consistent with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and no change has been considered necessary by the Government in this respect.

vnatarajan
26-08-2010, 08:57 PM
a. ON RS ANSWER:

Dear Shri RKS,

The Parrots are repeating the words put in their mouths by the Babus!

NOW THE KEY EXPRESSION IS CORRECTLY PUT IN THE ANSWER: " .......in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay.........."

WHEREAS WHAT IS BEING IMPLEMENTED IS in terms of THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" !

Is it not a blatant lie?

Merging of the pre-revised pay scales into Pay Band for pre-2006 pension purposes had been side-tracked in answering!

B. TODAY IN PR CAT:

It appears the ASG wanted more time.
So the PR CAT Cases have been posted to next date 21st Sept 2010.

vnatarajan

sundarar
27-08-2010, 07:29 AM
Thanks to Shri RKSji for the information and Shri VNji for bringining out the missing point in implementation part.

Application of common multiplication factor will actually resolve the generated problem of Pay Band and Pay in the Pay Band aspects.

In my view, to be more precise and since the time has come for seeking complete parity when the recommended modified parity is not accessible, the solution lies in re-computation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the last pay drawn that ought to be revised initially on par with serving employees, to determine 50% of the same as revised pension from 1.1.2006. In such a case, there will be no need to go for any minimum revised pension in the name of protecting the pension in the revised structure.

Since emoluments and qualifying service are the two determinating factors,
both can not be set aside through any reducing impact on pension.

Many options are submitted to resolve a single overriding clarificatory/modificatory OM dt.3.10.2008. Even the corrigendum of CPAO could not come for rescue. While the departments are being advised to look into the grievance of single pensioner on top priority, the whole grievance of pre-2006 pensioners' community in implementation of the accepted recommendation is yet to be attended to. The experts with authority may kindly intervene for an immediate solution, rather than leaving to lower level to tackle as long as they can.

vnatarajan
01-09-2010, 09:10 AM
RAJYA SABHA PARLIAMENT QUESTION 3263 ON 26TH AUG 2010

REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS . RAJYA SABHA QUESTION 26TH AUG 2010 P/Qn:3263 SARDAR BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDAR :Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state :- (a) whether Government have since taken a decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;
(b) if so, the details thereof; and(c) if not, by when that is likely to be done?

WRITTEN ANSWER
Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs (a) to (c) : In accordance with the orders issued in implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission for revision of pension of Central Government Civil Pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006, all pre-2006 pensioners would get a minimum increase of 40% of their pre-2006 basic pension (excluding the element of merged dearness relief/dearness pension), in addition to the basic pension, dearness pension and dearness relief which they were getting as on 01.01.2006 based on their pre-revised pension. Besides, the revised pension will, in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay (in the case of HAG and above scales, fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. These orders are consistent with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and no change has been considered necessary by the Government in this respect
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW DOES THE WRITTEN ANSWER SOUND?

DIABOLIC? FAR AWAY FROM TRUTH? SIDE TRACKING THE MAIN THEME/ FOCUS OF THE QUESTION THAT WAS ON "ANOMALIES"?

Pl see some comments by an "Anonymous" aggrieved pre-2006 pensioner in the next post.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-09-2010, 09:20 AM
COMMENTS of an "anonymos" ON THE WRITTEN REPLY TO RAJYA SABHA QUESTION CITED IN THE ABOVE POST:

All pre-2006 aggrieved segments of pensioners may note that the QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED certainly on behalf of the affected lot and precisely. THE THRUST OF THE QUESTION WAS ON: "decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission". IN CONTRAST - IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ANSWER PRESUMABLY (CAREFULLY AND CRAFTILY) DRAFTED BY THE CONCERNED IN DOPPW/MOPPGP, IS "MILES AND MILES" AWAY FROM WHAT THE "TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO THE PARLIAMENT/ ELDERS" HAD TO BE! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE MAJOR "ANOMALY" IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF "CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY". The same Hon MOS PP (who answered the PQn) in his letter dated 19th Jan 2009 addressed to the then Hon MOS EBI had asked for the approval/ decision on the DOPPW'S "correct modified parity" proposal submitted to the DOE on 21st Oct 2008 (asking for 228 Cr- a demand- which was NEEDLESSLY brought in as SCPC had covered all financial aspects already")and the DOE took the opportunity to turn it down on "FINANCIAL LIMITATION" - an out of context demand by DOPW and equally absurd denial decision by DOE! ARE THESE NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANOMALIES?WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO 1000'S OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS’ APPEALS ON ANOMALIES WHICH ARE DISPOSED OFF EN MASSE OR UNATTENDED TO EVEN ON MERITS? WHAT ABOUT THE LATEST MINUTES OF THE NAC- WHERE THE OFFICIAL SIDE APPEARS TO HAVE "BACK-TRACKED" ON THE STAFF-SIDE'S VERSION TO RECORD THAT THE VERY MATTER WILL BE LOOKED INTO (earlier in the actual 2nd NAC meeting, on this item, the views of Staff Side appears to have been bull-dozed without any consideration!)! The CAG in expressing his opinion to Hon PM in Jan 2010 had pointed out that the benefit of correct Modified Parity is not made available to relatively higher scale pensioners within the Pay Band as only the pensioners at the bottom-most scale of respective Pay Bands get the true protection. ANOMALIES DO EXIST AND THE ANSWER FURNISHED TO P/ QN IS A DELIBERATE DIVERSION/ DEVIATION FROM THE TRUTH. We have to act to bring the status and details of the TRUTH Of ANOMALIES to the Hon MP and the Pensioners concerned who have toiled hard to bring the MATTER INTO FOCUS IN PARLIAMENT - AT LEAST IN RAJYA SABHA.The contents of the Answer is an embarrassment to Hon MOS PP and the same is an unethical response to the “Serious Question” posed by an HONOURABLE MP for RESOLVING THE PLIGHT OF of aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners. This answer APPEARS TO BETRAY THE confidence of the Senior Cirizens/ Veterans in Parliament practices and their responsibility to the Nation.

( an Anonymous's views)------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-09-2010, 08:04 PM
IN CONTINUATION OF THE SUBJECT OF "ANOMALIES" A SUMMARY PUBLISHED IN THE CENTRAL GOvT EMPLOYEES E-NEWS WAY BACK in April 2009 IS REPORDUCED TO REFRESH:

(UNFORTUNATELY- I AM NOT SURE WHETHER "RREWA" GOT IT PRESENTED OR NOT!)

Tuesday, April 07, 2009
SUMMARY OF THE DETAILED PRESENTATION TO BE MADE TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE
by V.Natarajan, Retd DDG,GSI
President, Pensioners’ Forum (affiliated to the AIFPA, Chennai)
Associate Member, RREWA
A.GENERAL:
Anomalies have come up because of the lacunae in either improper understanding of the principles and policies of the SCPC while implementing their recommendations on Revision of Pension of the Pre-2006 Pensioners, contained in the Para 5.1.47 of the Report. The SCPC never recommended or meant to recommend Revised Pension to Pre-2006 Pensioners to be less than the “MINIMUM” of the Pension of Post-2006 pensioners, of same class/ category. In fact they had recommended in. Para 11.33 “ Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners” and in Para 11.35 “.Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.

ANOMALIES are due to the PARTIAL (in parts) and again PARTIAL (as opposed to impartial)/ improper implementation of the SCPC Recommendations related to the pre-2006 pension through successive, erroneous, confusing OMs with incorrect ”modifications” AND ”clarifications” and non-relevant Table/ Annexure etc which have broken the common/ uniform/ just approach, destroyed the underlying principles of parity, justice and protection and has ultimately resulted in several anomalies and inconsistencies as foreseen by the learned SCPC ( pl refer their Para 1.2.25 of SCPC Report)

OMs dated 3rd Oct.08 & 14 Oct 2008 conveyed and concretised the implementation that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum of pay band” without having correspondence with pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired. If it had been “50% of the minimum of the revised pay in the pay band” corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, there would not have been any scope for several types of ANOMALIES/ ANOMALOUS issues, which are listed here:

B. ANOMALIES/ ANOMALOUS ISSUES:
1. LOSS IN MINIMUM ENTITLED PENSION – This is the overall effect and the loss is across the board, affecting all Pre-2006 Pensioners. 2..NOT DEFINING “EMOLUMENTS” FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS – Glaringly, in the OM of 1.9.2008 pertaining to Pre-2006 pensioners defining “Emoluments” is omitted whereas, on the very next day, OM of 2nd Sept defines the “Emoluments “ for post 2006 pensioners to protect their pensions based on last pay drawn and CCS (Revised Pay)Rules 2008 are applied. 3.. MISINTERPRETATION OF “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” TO BE SAME AS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”-BOTH ARE NOT BE THE SAME: This is the root cause for all types of anomalies and needs to be set right immediately. 4.INDISCRIMINATE MERGER OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES INTO PAY BANDS-NOT PROVIDING REPLACEMENT PAY SCALES –RESULTS IN TWO CLASSES OF PENSIONERS FOR SAME POST (PRE-2006 VS POST-2006)- Defining the slots of “revised “Minimum” basic with respect to revised/replacement pay scales within pay band for the Pre-Revised Scales will remove the ambiguity and help for NOTIONAL FIXATION of pension at a minimum of modified parity 5. REDUCTION IN MINIMUM PENSION BASIC OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS- AGAINST ALL RULES!- This is glaring in cases of higher pre-revised pay scales say S30, S 29, S27, S26 etc where ultimate result is DOWNGRADATION of their pre-revised pension basic to the level of S 24 is seen. Such reductions are unjust/ unprincipled/ unprecedented/ against Rules and remedy suggested in 4 above will resolve the gross injustice. 6.ALL ANOMALIES ARE DUE TO CONTRAVENTION OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 14 & 21-AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND POLICY OF THE SCPC.- Though as cited earlier, the SCPC had recommended in. Para 11.33 “ Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners” and in Para 11.35 “.Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension’ etc which are strictly in accordance with the Court judgments/ Constitutional provisions/ SCPC’s own principles & policies, the outcome is different due to the Govt.’s wrong interpretation of Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report, implementation through OMs of conflicting and ambiguous nature, and finally not answering/ responding to any of the REPRESENTATIONS/ APPEALS of pre-2006 pensioners.. 7. ANOMALIES DUE TO DENIAL OF FULL PENSION @ 50% OF LAST PAY DRAWN TO PRE-SCPC- RETIREES WITH Plus 20 yrs service & ALSO to those who fell short of 33 yrs service (due to age etc)- EXTENDING SIMILAR BENEFITS AS THOSE OF POST-SCPC- RETIREES OF SAME CATEGORIES: These are also on the same lines as above:
C.SUGGESTED INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER FOR RECOMMENDATION TOTHE GOVT. 1.The amendment to Para 4.2 of MOPPGP/DOPPW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 1st Sept.2008 issued under same authorities’ OM of even no.PtI dtd 03 Oct 2008 is arbitrary/ its interpretations and implementations are incorrect and inconsistent with SCPC’s own principles/ policies and Apex Court’s directives on parity among same class of pensioners. It is also violative of the principle/policy of modified parity of MINIMUM pension/Family Pension accepted and notified by the Govt. and therefore the errors need be corrected.


2.The consolidated revised Pension/ Family Pension as per any formula, for any post/ grade in all cases, irrespective of the dates of retirement/ revisions, shall not be lower than fifty percent of the notional REVISED MINIMUM PAY for the post/ grade in the appropriate Pay Band under the Revised Pay Rules plus the GRADE PAY thereon, (all/both) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.


3.Since the SCPC Recommendations are implemented w.e.f 01.01.2006, all pension norms applicable to serving employees under the same, must be made equally applicable to all those who are already retired but notionally were in service on 01.01.2006, irrespective of issuance of various orders concerning these norms. (Special dispensations can be provided to stagnation cases/ older Pensioners not getting true benefits of Revisions/ old Family Pensioners). It is to be noted that Pensioners are deemed employees as observed by Courts and the Govt. continues to be their Employer.
Final/ Full Recommendations can follow based on detailed considerations/ individual cases

vnatarajan
02-09-2010, 05:09 PM
IN CONTINUATION OF THE POSTS 949 AND 950 ABOVE RELATED TO THE PARLIAMENT QUESTION OF HON MP BALWINDERSIGH BHUNDAR:

DUCKING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION THROUGH AN ANSWER OF "DIVERSION/ DEVIATION FROM TRUTH" MISLEADS MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS WHO MAY FAIL TO REALISE THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION:

WHICH SCALES OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS DOES THE ISSUE OF ":ANOMALY" AFFECT?
WHY IT SHOULD BE TAKEN NOTE AND FOUGHT AGAINST?
DID THE HON MP ASKE THE QUESTION TO WASTE "TIME OF THE PARLIAMENT"?
WAS THE "ANSWER" AN HONEST & TRUTHFUL ONE?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This write-up is based on a detailed analysis done by Shri G Ramdas , pre-2006 s30 pensioner and he had projected the data in the form of a table which had been since circulated many times.)

The “Modified Parity” as emerging from the implementation of 5th CPC orders vide DOPW’s OM F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dtd 17th Dec 1998, stipulated the guiding thumb-rule in terms of :

“President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996 of the post last held by the pensioner”.

As against the above, the President Sanctioned/ Cabinet approved/Gazetted notified SCPC related orders stipulated the revision of pension of Pre-2006 pensioners in terms of SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 which is well-known to every one of us. Its stipulation was the revised pension shall not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon…….. etc etc. For HAG’s, separate scales were mentioned.

WHEN EXAMINED IN DETAILS, WE CAN REALISE, HOW THE SCPC’S ‘ NEW MODIFIED PARITY IN TERMS OF THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” AFFECTS THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS:

1. Pre- revised Scales S 30 to S 34; For them, there is no PAY BAND Effect. Their pension is revised BASED ON / at 50 % “minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 2006 of the post last held by the pensioner” Same formula akin to 5th CPC implementation OM of 17th Dec 1998. "Revised Pay Scale" protection is suo moto.

2.Pre-revised Scales 16 , 24 & 28 : For them also there is practically noor negligible “Pay Band effect” : This is because, they are at the bottom of the merged Pay Scales that constitute the Running Pay Band. In both cases, “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” and “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” coincide as to become the start of the Running Pay Bands themselves ie 15000 in PB3 and 37400 in PB4. As a result , the need of "Revised Pay Scale" to protect their pension is neutralised.

3. Pre-revised Scales 1 to 4 are lower-most and are protected by the Min Pension of 3500. "Revised Pay Scale" is irrelevant for them.

4. For many others, the magic Multiplication Factor of 2.26 has camouflaged the difference between the “MPB” and “MPPB” based revised pensions. As the MF relates to last Basic Pay drawn / operates on old Basic Pension, if the pensioner had drawn enough increments, the pre-revised Basic Pension would be near / or even cross the threshold level of MPPB and hence the MF formula will be more beneficial automatically. Such Pre-revised scales with increments shown against , not affected by “MPPB” issue are:

(i) S 7 , S 8, S 11 to 15, S 17 to S 23 - all FOUR INCREMENTS & more
(ii) S 6 – FIVE INCREMENTS & more
(iii) S 5, S 10- SIX INCREMENTS & more
(iii) S 9- SEVEN INCREMENTS & more

Promotions being rare, most of the above categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners would have definitely drawn enough increments in their respective scales. Only those who were promoted just few years before their retirement , might be affected. Statistically such numbers would not be great to form a GROUP to fight the issue. "Revised Pay Scale" is of little interest for them

5. CONSEQUENTLY, this leaves only a few Pre-revised scales in PB 4 like S25, 26, 27 & 29 to be affected. Here again, the Disparity being not significant for the first three Pre-revised Scales, they are not in the AGGRIEVED GROUP! "Revised Pay Scale" is not of great consequence to them.So they are shy to join the fray!

6. HENCE, EFFECTIVELY IT IS ONLY THE PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONER GROUP WHICH IS GREATLY AFFECTED AND THEY HAVE TO FIGHT A BATTLE AGAINST “INJUSTICE” INFLICTED THROUGH SCPC RELATED ORDERS, AS OF NOW .

OTHER PRE-2006 PENSIONER LOTS( also MANY FAMILY PENSIONERS) - THOUGH THEIR LOSS COULD BE MINIMAL TO EVEN MODERATE, HAVE NOT REALISED THE VITAL NEED TO FIGHT THE ISSUE!

IT IS TO BE REALISED BY THEM THAT THE “LONG-TERM- 10 YEAR – COMPOUNDED DR LOSS WILL BE SIGNIFICANT IN SOME CASES AND RESULT IN EROSION OF BASE LEVEL FOR 7 CPC REVISION/ ALSO FAMILY PENSION LOSS WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL

THUS THEY SHALL CERTAINLY SUFFER FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE LONG RUN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HON MP HAD ASKED THE QUESTION WITH DUE CONCERN, REGARD AND SYMPATHY ON THE PLIGHT OF THE NUMEROUS AGGRIEVED PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

CERTAINLY NOT TO WASTE THE TIME OF THE PARLIAMENT/ AFFECT ITS PROCEEDINGS.

ANSWER FURNISHED IS NOT SINCERE ENOUGH/ HONEST ENOUGH/ TRUTHFUL ENOUGH AS MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS BELIEVE!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
14-09-2010, 08:53 PM
TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL
LET US HOPE FOR JUSTICE

As you are aware, a number of Civil and Military cases have been filed all over the country for resolution of the CONTROVERSY OF SCPC’S CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY in terms OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND having been (erroneously/ deliberately) hijacked and in its place a transplant of MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND was made.

Now a first verdict on the SCPC’S CORRECT MOSDIFIED PARITY appears to have emerged on 14th Sept 2010 at the AFT Prnicipal Bench Delhi in the case of OA 24/2010 –Lt Cdr Avtar Singh etc vs UOI :

Extracts from the Indian Military: Service Benefits & Issues (blog of Rtd . Maj. Navdeep Singh, Military Advocate) reproduced with my comments recorded therein:

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
Pension shall not be less than 50% of minimum of pay within the pay-band corresponding to the pre-revised scale of a retiree : AFT
As most of you would be aware, the 6th CPC had recommended that the revised pension shall not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band + the grade pay (+MSP in case of defence personnel) thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The minimum of pay within the pay band was notified by way of a fitment formula of Old Scale X 1.86 on the basis of which fitment tables were published by the govt………….

The above formula was accepted by the government through a gazette notification. However, later a clarification was issued in which it was stated that it is not the minimum of pay in the pay band that shall be taken into consideration but the minimum of the pay band itself irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay. (Meaning thereby that the pension of all the three ranks - Lieutenants, Captains and Majors, was to be fixed by taking the minimum of Rs 15600 which happened to be the lowest point of the Pay Band itself and essentially the starting pay of a Lieutenant. This meant that the minimum possible pension of a Major was to be fixed at Rs 14,100 rather than Rs 18,205).

To be fair to the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, they tried their best to reason out with the Department of Expenditure that their (DOE's) interpretation of pension fixation for pre-2006 retirees was not right and that it needed to be corrected and the clarification revised. But despite the fact that the Ministers (MoS) of both the Finance and the Personnel Ministries were in favour of the correction in the right spirit of the 6th CPC recommendations, it was ensured by the lower level babus at the Ministry of Finance that it did not happen. The case was taken up time and again by the DoP&PW but was always rejected by the DoE.

The first correction now comes from the Hon’ble Principal Bench of the AFT which has rightly interpreted the term ‘minimum of pay’ as being the minimum of pay within the pay band and not the minimum of pay band itself. Hopefully the DoE shall see reason and ensure that the dockets of Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals are not burdened with unnecessary litigation on the same point and also see that pre-2006 retirees, both civilian and defence, are ensured equity. ……………………………………

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VN’s Comments in the above blog:

Dear Maj Navdeep Singh/ Lt Cdr Avtar Singh and all,

GREAT NEWS!

AS YOU ARE VERY MUCH AWARE -this is what I and many pre-2006 pensioners (including CiVIL/ MILITARY- yourself too- and - ALSO RTD LT CDR AVTAR SINGH AND HIS GROUP WHO HAD ALWAYS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MY GROUP) had been pursuing since Oct 3rd, 2008 WITH THE GOVT TO OBTAIN justice FOR ALL WITHOUT GOING TO courts, ever since the "two pension authrorities viz CPAO (26th Sept 2008) and DOPW (3rd/14th Oct2008)" had brought in the expression "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" into "an errornoeus operation" in their orders in the place of "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" (????) . IT HAS TAKEN AT LEAST TWO YEARS AND at last the AFT DELHI verdict had come up in support of the pre-2006 pensioners' prayers for JUSTICE.

I hope all authorities concerned "wake up" to the reality of the situation and avoid all LITIGATIONs to save TIME of Hon Courts/ Tribunals and also avoid INFRUCTUOUS expenses of the Govt.
VNatarajan

vnatarajan
23-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Dear Interested Pre 2006 Pensioners,

A nice review prepared by Shri N P MOHAN, Rtd CE, W Rly, which had appeared in the RREWA Webiste on the related aspects of this thread is pasted here for information of all (with aniticipated "No Objectiuon" from Shri Mohan):--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners
(Distinction between min. pay in PB & min. pay of PB)

1 Gross injustice has been done in fixing pension of pre-2006 pensioners retiring from pay
scales S 4 to S 29.Our case hinges round true, honest, religious and rational
interpretation of the recommendations made by 6thCPC in para 5.1.47 of their report
which have been accepted in toto (barring DA factor of 86% in lieu of 74%) by the
UNION CABINET and notified in the Gazette on 29-8-08. The accepted
recommendations have been systematically tempered with in the process of issuing
implementation orders thereof by DOP in their OMs of 1/9/2008 and 3/10/2008 with
the sole objective of denying modified parity as recommended by Commission.

2 The principle of MODIFIED PARITY for pensioners having retired prior to a Pay
Commission in vogue since 5thCPC (1-1-1996) has been fully endorsed by 6thCPC in the
said para above. This principle as per 5th CPC recommendations envisaged fixing the
pension at 50% of the min. of corresponding 5thCPC revised pay scale from which the
pensioner had retired. For example, Senior Scale of Central Services Group ‘A’ was 3000
-4500 prior to 1-1-96 (5th CPC),which scale was revised to 10000-15200 ( S 19) by 5th
CPC. Basic pension was accordingly fixed at 5000 i.e. 50% of 10000 (min. of the
corresponding 5th CPC revised pay scale).

3 6th CPC adopted the system of PAY BANDS (PB) and GRADE PAY (GP) wherein a number
of pre revised pay scales have been merged in a PB with varying GP. There are now 4
pay bands comprising pay scales from S 4 to S 29 with separate scales for S 30 to S 34 on
the pattern of 5th CPC. S 19 is grouped in PB 3 (15600-39100) with a total of 9 scales
from S 15 to S23. In the absence of a separate revised scale for an old scale as hitherto
(except S 30 to S 34), the Commission gave directions for complying with the
sacrosanct condition of implementing modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners in the
concluding portion of the para 5.1.47 as under;
“that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the
minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner retired.”

4. Each stage of a pre revised scale has a distinct pay in the PB and the revised basic pay
which forms the basis for pension is the sum total of two components namely pay in the
pay band and grade pay. Thus in a PB where five pre revised pay scales with five stages of
increment each have been grouped, there will be 25 different revised basic pays because
of different pays in the pay band. The purpose of giving this example is to emphasise that
pay in the pay band is an entity which is specific for every stage of a pre revised pay
scale.

5. As per accepted recommendations of Commission in para 5.1.47 (reproduced in para 3
above), our entitlement for pension is for a minimum of pay in the pay band corresponding
to the pre revised scale from which we have retired. For S 19, it is 18600 and with GP of
6600, basic pension works out to 12600 as against consolidated pension of 11300
(2.26xbasic pension).

6. Despite a clear cut direction given by Commission without any ambiguity and with the
emphatic word ‘SHALL’ (in no case, shall be lower …) used by the Commission for
dispensing modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners in para 5.1.47, the accepted
recommendations have not been translated truly in the implementation orders issued by
DOP. In the operative orders issued by DOP vide OM dated 3/10/2008 in the name
‘CLARIFICATION’ to earlier OM of 1/9/2008, the minimum of the pay in the pay band is
sought to be taken as the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre
revised scale of pay plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised scale of pay.
In other words, it is the grade pay alone which corresponds to the pre revised scale
and the pay (which is a major component for determining pension) has been
delinked from the post one has retired from. The legality or otherwise of this OM in
contravention to the accepted recommendations is the moot question as it has reduced
the individual pay in the PB to a common minimum pay of the PB for all the scales grouped
in a PB. In the case of PB 3, it is taken as 15600 being the minimum of the PB 15600-39100.
If the intention of the 6th CPC was to fix the pension of all the past pensioners in a
particular pay band at minimum of the pay band they would not have used the expression
minimum of the pay in the pay band.

7. Pay in the Pay band has not been separately /exclusively defined for past pensioners by
the Commission. There is a mention in para 2.2.22 of the Report and it is given as a worked
out figure in the column of “Revised pay in the running pay band” in Table 2.2.2 at page 46
for each stage of the pre revised scales. Table 2.2.2 of the Report is for fixation of pay in
the pay bands and is based on the Pay Bands as recommended by Commission with annual
increment of 2.5% and DA @ 74%. After the acceptance of the Report and taking into
account changes in pay bands, GP, up gradation of some scales from PB 3 to PB 4, carving
out of separate pay scales for S 31 & S 32, DA @ 86% and increment @ 3%, fitment Tables
were issued by MOF on 30/8/2008 (an updated version of Table 2.2.2). Pay in the pay band
is given in col.2 of these tables. The expression pay in pay band cannot have two different
meanings one for the pensioners and other for the serving employees. If it were so, the
learned Commission could have unambiguously used the term minimum of the pay of the
pay band instead of minimum of the pay in the pay band. As per accepted
recommendations of para 5.1.47, the pension of pre 2006 pensioners has to be based on
the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner retired . The fitment Tables of 30/8/2008
have, therefore, a limited purpose for pensioners in finding the pay in the pay band
corresponding to minimum of pre revised scale one has retired from.

8. By misinterpreting the accepted recommendations of 6th CPC and delinking the pension
from the pay/post one has retired from, the pay in the pay band for S 19 (example taken
above) pre-2006 pensioners has been taken as minimum of the pay band 3 i.e. 15600 along
with all other pensioners from S 15 to S 23, whereas it should be 18600 (page 25 of
Fitment Tables) as the pay in the pay band for pre revised minimum pay of 10000 for S 19.
Pension and pay are interdependent. Pension cannot be fixed by taking any arbitrary pay
and it has to be the revised pay corresponding to the minimum pay of the erstwhile scale
of pay from where a pensioner has retired.

9. Punjab & UP Govts. having implemented recommendations similar to para 5.1.47 of 6th
CPC have correctly fixed the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners and have not delinked the
pension from the post one has retired from as done in our case in pursuance of illegal and
malaise instructions contained in DOP OM of 3/10/2008.

10. In a recent judgment (14-9-2010) of AFT Delhi, in the case of Lt. Commanders and
equivalent (OA 270/2010), the court has held that ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ is
to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners.
Pre revised scale of Lt. Commanders is 11600-14850 which is grouped in PB 3-(15600-
39100) along with 3 other ranks. Pension of pre- 2006 Lt. Commanders was fixed by
considering pay of 15600 (min.pay of pay band as done in our case) The court has ordered
for taking pay as 23810 for the purpose of pension which is the minimum pay in the pay
band corresponding to the minimum pay of 11600 as per their fitment tables similar to the
tables of 30/8/2008 mentioned above.

N.P. Mohan
EX C.E. W. Rly.
20-10-2010----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by
vnatarajan

sundarar
26-10-2010, 07:29 PM
As brought out by Respected Shri VNji and Respected Shri NPMji, the mismatch
Between the accepted and implemented revision is explicit from the above write-up.

Meanwhile, let us look back what was the vision and mission of the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendation on the instant subject.

“LAND MARKS IN DEVELOPMENT

Para 137.5 Nakara Case: The general practice in the past was to give the benefit of improvements in pension structure from a prospective date. A major change in the rules governing grant of pension was the introduction of the slab system of calculation of pension w.e.f. 31.3.1979. This liberalization came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in its judgment, dated 17.12.1982, in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) held that all Central Government pensioners were entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.4.1979 as computed under the slab system, irrespective of the date of their retirement. This was the first time that the benefit of improvements in the pension structure was extended to pensioners who had retired prior to the date from which improvements became effective. The following improvements in pensionary benefits were extended to past pensioners in terms of Nakara judgment:-

a. Application of slab system for calculation of pension;
b. Calculation of average emoluments over the preceding ten months instead of thirty-six months;
c. Benefit of qualifying service upto 33 years instead of 30 years;
d. Raising the ceiling on pension to Rs.1,500 per mensem;
e. Extension of benefit of minimum pension.

REASONS FOR DISPARITY IN PENSIONS

Para 137.13: Our view: ………..The process of bridging the gap in pension of past pensioners has already been set in motion by the Fourth CPC when past pensioners were granted additional relief in addition to consolidation of their pension. This process of attainment of reasonable parity needs to be continued so as to achieve complete parity over a period of time.

REVISION OF PENSION WITH REFERENCE TO MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES

Para 137.20 Modified Parity conceded –
…………There is force in the argument that the revised pension should be not less than that admissible on the minimum pay of the post held by the retiree at the time of retirement, as revised by the 5th CPC. We have no hesitation in conceding the argument advanced by pensioners that they should revise a pension at least based on the minimum pay of the post as revised by Fifth Pay Commission in the same way as an employee normally gets the minimum revised pay of the post he holds*. We recommend acceptance of this principle which is based on reasonable considerations.
(*As per recent KSK case judgment, it is the minimum revised pay of the scale he held)

Para 137.21 Principle enunciated:- The Commission has decided to enunciate a principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that the complete parity should normally be conceded upto the date of last pay revision and modified parity (with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay scale) be accepted at the time of each fresh pay revision. This guiding principle which we have accepted would assure that past pensioners will obtain complete parity between the pre-19086 and post-1986 pensioners but there will be only a modified parity between the pre-1996 and post-1996 pensioners. The enunciation of principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision, say, in the year 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners.

137.25 : ……. We have already made in this Chapter a suitable recommendation that the revised pension/family pension shall not be less than that admissible on the minimum pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement or death as the case may be, as revised by the Govt. on our recommendations”.

Having seen the ideology behind parity aspects, a natural question will now arise as to whether the intended modified parity has finally reached the pre-2006 pensioners while implementing the accepted recommendations of the Sixth CPC. No, As long as 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band alongwith 50% of GP together does not correspond with the minimum of the pre-revised payscale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement, the modified parity followed by complete parity as Visualized by the Fifth CPC remains neglected. Shri NPMji has very clearly brought out the mismatch for easy understanding of the crux of the issue.

Alternatively, a uniform multiplication factor of 3 that was applied over 50% of minimum of pre-revised scale of pay in the case of S-30 and above scale retirees of pre-2006, can very well be got applied to similarly situated retirees of pre-2006 from remaining scales in order to avoid varying disparity in pensions of the homogenous class of pensioners.

Apart from the above need for ensuring at least modified parity if not complete parity, as visualized/recommended as a guiding principle, Re-computation of pension based on emoluments drawn on the last day of retirement or average emoluments drawn during the preceding 10 months at the time of retirement whichever is beneficial, shall be carried out prior to revision of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as has been in the case of post-2006 pensioners. Incidentally, benefit of qualifying service of 20 years from 33 years for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, (as implemented in the case of pre-1979 pensioners in line with the principles of D.S. Nakara Judgment) as has been prescribed for post-2006 pensioners, ought to be extended to those who retired with <33 years service.

Major anomalies having a bearing on majority of Pensioners Community need to be redressed/removed within least possible time by a new dimensional approach with the available guiding principles as discussed.

Kanaujiaml
27-10-2010, 09:21 PM
Dear friends. In on going litigations, Govt. has taken following stand as reflected from various "Counters" received :
1. Under Rule 49, Govt. has every right to fix the amount of pension in each case.
2. Modified parity has already been given. Minimum of the pay in the pay band is
same as minimum of pay band for pre 2006 pensioners.
3. Govt. has no funds to enhance amount of pension to bring equality in pre and post
2006 pensioners.

G.Ramdas
28-10-2010, 09:31 PM
This refers to point no. 3 in Sh Kanujia's post of yesterday.
"3. Govt. has no funds to enhance amount of pension to bring equality in pre and post
2006 pensioners. "
Yes, very true;when it concerns pre-2006 pensioners!
But they have enough funds for payment to post 2006 retirees as under:
i. enhancement of gratuity to Rs.10 lacs from the earlier figure of Rs.3.5 lacs.One is lucky to hit the jackpot if he retired after 1.1.06
ii.payment of full pension on completion of 20yrs of service ,which order has been amended to be effective from 1.1.06 for post 2006 retirees but denied to pre06 pensioners
iii Enhanced HBA notified on 27.11.08, which has been made retrospectively effective from 1.1.06
iv Pay/pension fixation as per fitment Table at much higher levels than pre-06 officers
v Enhanced leave encashment
vi To support the widening pension gap between pre and post 2006 pensioners, whenever there is a DR rise.
vii to grant Non functional selection grade upgradation to all Gr A officers upto the level of Additional secretary for pay parity with IAS,to ensure that every Gr A officer, irrespective of the fact whether posts exist or not, gets higher pay;such mass upgradation not bound by any financial considerations.
viii To have a new form of NSFG with unlimited posts, no higher responsibility etc; by relaxing the recruitment rules retrospectively(from 1.1.06)
viii. To grant various benefits recommended by the 6CPC to be effective from a prospective date, retrospectively from 1.1.06, totally against the 6CPC recommendations which read as under
"Implementation of the revised pay scales to be done retrospectively from January 1, 2006. Recommendations relating to allowances and other issues to be implemented prospectively."

There may be many more issues to be compiled under this category of discrimination against pre-2006 retirees, but the ultimate result is that the authorities have ensured that the gap between pre and post 2006 retirees will in no case be reduced, but will only increase in a geometrical progression with the modified implementation of each one of the 6CPC recommendations

G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
07-11-2010, 06:46 PM
Dear friends. Another Judgement in favour of modified parity for pre2006 pensioners for calculating revised pension as per fitment tables applied to post 2006 pensioners, has come, this time from AFT, Chandigarh, in case of retired Army Majors. Copy of full judgement is awaited.

vnatarajan
14-12-2010, 04:19 PM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners,

Fight against INJUSTICE/ fight for JUSTICE continues. Status subject to corrections given hereunder:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN HASTE- DRAFT

PR CAT/ CAT/ AFT / HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT CASES OF INTEREST TO PRE-2006 S29/30 & OTHER (CIVIL/ MILITARY) PENSIONERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (i). Pre 2006 S29 (Haryana State) Cases filed by retirees of HVPNL (erstwhile HSEB) in Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH

1.. Civil writ petition 19641 of 2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Others vs State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv. : Veena Ashwani Talwar
Next Date of Hearing: 17 December 2010 for arguments

2. Civil Writ Petition 19642 of 2009 Satish Bhalla & others vs State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv. Veena Ashwani Talwar
Next Date of Hearing: 17 December 2010 for arguments

3.Civil Writ Petition 3452 of 2010 O.P. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana
Petitioner's Adv.: Manohar Lall
Next Date of Hearing: 10th Jan 2011
Category: Govt Service (HY)/Retiral benefit.

(ii)1, 2, 3, 4,. Four Civil Writ Petitions ifiled recently

20725/ 26/ 27 and 29753 of 2010.

Petitioners- Retd CEs/ SEs/ XENs (PB4) etc of Haryana Power Companies vs State of Haryana etc.

Details awaited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B (i). Cases in PR CAT, Delhi
1.22 O.A. 3079/2009 MA. 2136/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSION ASSOCIATION ADDL./JT. SECRETARY SH. L.R. KHATANA
REVISION OF
PENSION V/s -------------------------------------
A U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
WITH SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. R.K.SHARMA
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
2.O.A. 201/2010 M.L. GULATI SH. S.K. RAY
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. R.K.SHARMA
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
3.O.A. 306/2010 D.L. VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
4.O.A. 507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
MA. 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

5.23 O.A 937/2010 MA. 907/2010 A.I. S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION SH. TARUN GUPTA
PAY FIXATION V/s -------------------------------------
PPG &P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
WITH

6.O.A. 2087/2009 RANVIR SINGH INPERSON
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I-M/O PPG&P SH. RAJENDER NISCHAL

7.O.A. 655/2010 MA 476/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG (S-29) PENSIONERS SH. TARUN GUPTA
DOP&T SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

8.O.A.2101/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSO SH. L.R.KHATANA
MA 1681/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
D.O.P.&T

Hearing began on 16th Aug 2010. Our Sr Counsel had initiated the case as Lead Adv. for S29 Cases. After initial deposition on the equality-inequality issue, the Judges had opined that as there is no response from Govt side, they may request the ASG to explain the Govt stand on the issue. After a few more more adjournments, the Govt had changed the ASG suddenly and on 1st Dec 2010, the new incumbent appears to have sought time to go through the case details being new!. Next Date given is 18th Jan 2011

B. (ii). Pre 2006 S30 Pensioner Case ( Cause of Action same as AIS30PA, Delhi - Prem Sharma Group)at CAT, Patna/Delhi
( a )MMP Sinha Vs UOI (b) R M Raina
Concluded in March 2010 Judgment DELIVERED on 28th and 25th May 2010. Details to be collected. (Raina’s Case at Delhi CAT appears to be disposed off with a suggestion to Govt to consider the petitioner’s plea that no S30 Pensioner shd draw less than highest possible S29 Pensioner ie not less than 67000 plus 10000 summed and divided by two wh is 38500- pl chk Judgment).

B (iii) OA No 568 of 2010 (DeSPA) viz.DRDL etc Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners Vs UOI at CAT, HYDERABAD
By Kotra Mallikarjuna Rao & Others-

Dr Kotra writes:

"The case could not come up on 21-10-2010, as one of the judges in the
bench is on leave.Will be back after getting further information”

B.(iv) Case at CAT,HYDERABAD.

O.A. (SR) No.2413/9 of 15-09-2009
Between:

Petitioners:
A.J Gurushankar, S/O Late A. Jagadia,
Aged about 78 years.occ:Sr. Dy.G.M.S.C.Rly./SC
Employee,R/O. Plot No.61,Gordhanpuri,
Yapral,Secunderabad-500 087 and others.

Vs
Respondents:
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,

(Shri Gurushankar was in USA and hence case delayed. Now he is back from USA- but his lawyer is abroad. In the meanwhile Govt had given a Counter. A reply had been filed. Case will be poursued with a brother lawyer. New date will be sought)


No date so far.

B(v) S26 Pre-2006 Pensioners

Dr Kotra informs:
“The case is admitted and the No is OA 931/2010. I will be back to you all after further information is available with me”)

B(vi) New DRODO Scientists’ CAT Case at ERNAKULAM:

Dr Sivathanu Pillai had informed:

S-26 and S 29 group jointly filed a case at CAT ,Ernakulam. It is admitted on 20 sep 2010 and No OA 834/2010. Relief prayed for both fixation and inclusion of special pay of Rs 2000 up to 2006 and 4000 from 2006 onwards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


C.Case in UP High Court at Bench at LUCKNOW
UP Retd IAS/IPS/IFS Officers’ Association Vs Union of India

WP( C ) No: 203 (S/B) of 2010

Was posted on 13th Oct 2010 but the said day turned out to be a holiday. NEXT DATE IS GIVEN AS 14TH DEC 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. DELHI HIGH COURT


COURT NO. 7
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

Court No.
1 W.P.(C) 3359/2010
[PENDING] Order(s)
Judgement(s)
ALL INDIA EX-PARA MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION
Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Advocate : PRASHANT BHUSHAN
Court No. :

Next Date : 14th Dec 2010

Admitted on 17 05 2010; Notice given to Respondents; Date given 11th AUGUST 2010. Govt. did not submit any "Counter" on 11.08.10 but requested for more time, which was given by the Court. Next date of hearing has been fixed . Details awaited..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E (i). Rtd Maj Gen. SPS Vains Contempt Case

Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009

STATUS PENDING
Cause Title

MAJ. GEN. SPS VAINS & ORS.
Vs.
SH. VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MS. S. JANANI
Res. Adv. MRS ANIL KATIYAR

Subject Category

MATTERS PERTAINING TO ARMED FORCES & PARA MILITARY FORCES
Listing Details

Matter was Listed 9 Times Earlier.
Next Date of Listing 24 01 2011

HSC Order on 6th Aug 2010 hearing:.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the alleged contemnors indicating that the orders passed by this Court have been duly complied with.Matter was listed on 9th September, 2010,
for consideration of the said affidavit. (In the meantime, the petitioners will be entitled to file an affidavit in respect of their contentions).
However on 9th Sept 2010, Sr Adv of petitioners was indisposed. Case adjourned. Next Date fixed now 24 01 2011.


E (ii) & (iii)
AFT Directives on pre- 2006 Rtd Maj Gen parity case OA 100/2010 and another case by Rtd Soldiers (PBORs) on OROP AFT Chandigarh:
verdict delivered on 4th March 2010 (?) in favour of the appellants with 3 months/ 4 months time-frame for Govt to implement.

Adjourned to 1st Nov 2010.(?)
(UPDATE/CORRECTION NEEDED)
(Govt’s delay in FILING REPLY appears to have been dealt by CAT (?))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THREE CASES TO BE DECIDED:

F.(i) PR AFT, Delhi Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Lt Cdrs/ Majors (More than 135) etc Vs UOI

OA No 24/2010
WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY PETITIONERS. On 7th Sept 2010, in the hearing, RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TIME TO PERUSE AFFIDAVIT. Case heard/ Judgment delivered 15/16 Sept 2010 in favour of Petitioners. Posting of Judgment Copy in website www.rrewa.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) & (III) AFT, Chandigarh Cases on Modified Parity by Rtd Majors (Maj Navdeep Singh)-17 Rtd Majors plus 45 Sqdrn Leaders and also another Group for similar benefits to all Retd Majors – Decided on 1st Nov 2010 and 25th Nov 2010 respectively in favour of the petitioners extending same relief as in (1) above .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

R.Devaraju
15-12-2010, 07:50 AM
Sir,
There are certain anomalies in the pension payable to the pensioners who were absorbed in PSU / Autonomous Body as detailed below. They could be set right only if orders are issued allowing them to exercise revised / fresh option for pro rata pension.

Whenever an employee is absorbed in a PSU / AB, he has an option (a) to receive pro rata retirement pension or (b) continue to have the pension benefit of combined service on absorption.Employees desired full pension were opted for combined pension benefits and their service was counted. Pension benefit for past service was paid by Parent Dept to the PSU / AB.

But the various pension rules amended subsequently have extended the following additional pension benefits to the employees who opted for pro rata pension, discriminating employees opted for combined service pension.
1. Restoration of 1/3 rd commuted pension to the employees who opted for lump sum .. …. payment on absorption along with Dearness Relief wef1999.
2. Dearness Relief on pension from 1999 to all pro rata pensioners.
3. The VI Central Pay Commission has granted full pension for 10 years service.

Had the Government of India allowed the above pension benefits at the time of absorption itself, the employees opted for counting service for combined service pension would have opted for pro rata pension. All such employees have now rendered more than 10 years service and that alone is sufficient to get full pension. The pension benefits paid by parent department has become an extra income to PSU / AB where as the absorbees are deprived of getting the benefits due to them. It is not known whether the National Anomaly committee would take up this issue or solve during its tennure. So, kindly inform the details of cases, if any, before the so called courts on this anomaly for redressal.

rksehgal31
15-12-2010, 04:40 PM
Dear Natrajan ji, Sundar ji and Kanaujia ji,

On the auspicious occasion of the Pensioners' Day celebrations at Chandigarh, I convey my greetings and best wishes for the success of the delibrations. Please write the contact Tel Nos and e-mail IDs of the organisers at Chandigarh.

Incidentally, two CWPs 19641/2009 and 19642/2009 filed by Chief Engineers of HVPN (erstwhile HSEB) Er RK Agarwal and others and Er Satish Bhalla and others for parity with post-2006 pensioners will come up for arguments in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on that very day i.e. 17.12.2010. We wish them success in their struggle.

Another 4 CWPs (Nos. 20725, 20726, 20727 and 29753 all of 2010) have been filed in the high court at Chandigarh by about 100 pre-2006 pensioners (CEs, SEs and XENs) of PB-4 band of the Haryana Power companies for quashing Haryana govt notification dated 17.04.09, vide which two different Revised Pension Rules for pre- and post-2006 pensioners have been issued, specifically Rule 5, which revises the pension to 2.26 times only while the pay scales of PB-4 have been revised to 3.22-3.44 times and Rule 6, which fixes the minimum pension to minimum of the pay band for 33 years of service while an employee reaches the maximum of the pay scale in 33 years.

Prayer has also been made to fix the pay and pension of the pre-2006 pensioners at par with that of their next-below junior of the same rank and having same length of service in the same cadre and also to quash the implementation rule 7(1) (A) which causes 2 stages to be bunched together in the fitment tables thereby snatching away the benefit of half the service, as it is against the very spirit of the running pay bands, which have been introduced to avoid stagnation.

We have prayed to fix the pay of pre-2006 pensioners in PB-4 by giving one incremet for every year of service exceeding 12 years (as Asstt Engineer and above) and one increment for each promotion, thus the pay needs to be fixed at the maximum of the PB-4 i.e. Rs.67000 + GP for 26-28 years service in the engineering cadre and pension and family pension be revised accordingly wef 01.01.2006.

Notice of motion has been issued for 23.12.2010.

RK Sehgal

sundarar
15-12-2010, 05:32 PM
Dear Natrajan ji, Sundar ji and Kanaujia ji,

On the auspicious occasion of the Pensioners' Day celebrations at Chandigarh, I convey my greetings and best wishes for the success of the delibrations. Please write the contact Tel Nos and e-mail IDs of the organisers at Chandigarh.

RK Sehgal

Respected Shri RK Sehgalji, Thank you very much for your kind valid input on the progress of the cases.

The information sought for by your goodself in respect of the Pensioners' Day Celebrations at Chandigarh, are available in the website WWW.CCCGPA.IN
Your goodself may also visit www.rscws.com website at your convenience.

We also join with your goodself in conveying the best wishes of homogenous class of pensioners on the eve of Pensioners' Day as well as the grand success of the cases for justice in all respects.

Once again thank you very much Sir.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
15-12-2010, 07:53 PM
Dear Shri R K Sehgalji/ R K Agarawalji

Great news. Our hearty congrats for successully mobilising a formidable Group of Senior Pensioner Engineers and also forging to fight out a number of "most appropriate issues of "equality principles" and "natural justice"
I SHALL BE INCLUDING ALL THE ABOVE CASES IN THE "MONITORING LIST' for the benefit of all pre-2006 pensioners and for guidance of would be pensioners!

Our advance wishes to Shri RKA's Groups also in the hearing on 17th Dec 2010 - Hon Late Nakara's Pensioners' day.

("RK"s always will make their mark like raj kapoor!)

VNatarajan

Subsequently I have updated my earlier post on pre-page with addition of "New Cases" under filimg as informed by Shri RKS.
VN

vvenkateswarrao
21-12-2010, 04:26 PM
The anomaly is in every pay scale of Pre recised pay scales of 2006. it is necessary to note that today's serving employees will be tomorrows pensioners and if they do not join hands with the present day pensioners, they will have to suffer in future.

QUOTE=vnatarajan;10901]Dear Shri R K Sehgalji/ R K Agarawalji

Great news. Our hearty congrats for successully mobilising a formidable Group of Senior Pensioner Engineers and also forging to fight out a number of "most appropriate issues of "equality principles" and "natural justice"
I SHALL BE INCLUDING ALL THE ABOVE CASES IN THE "MONITORING LIST' for the benefit of all pre-2006 pensioners and for guidance of would be pensioners!

Our advance wishes to Shri RKA's Groups also in the hearing on 17th Dec 2010 - Hon Late Nakara's Pensioners' day.

("RK"s always will make their mark like raj kapoor!)

VNatarajan

Subsequently I have updated my earlier post on pre-page with addition of "New Cases" under filimg as informed by Shri RKS.
VN[/QUOTE]

Kanaujiaml
25-12-2010, 07:30 AM
Dear friends. I wish to convey to all, including family members, the seasons's greetings, Merry Chrismus and the very happy new year 2011. May God bring prosparity, happiness and good health to each one.

pratap singh negi
26-12-2010, 12:44 PM
Dear friends. I wish to convey to all, including family members, the seasons's greetings, Merry Chrismus and the very happy new year 2011. May God bring prosparity, happiness and good health to each one.

Thanks, Same to you.

rksehgal31
27-12-2010, 06:43 AM
In addition to the earlier information, I may add that two CWPs (3452/2010 and 12638/2010) have also been filed by retired Chief Engineers of Haryana PWD in the Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh. These are likely to come up for arguments before the Division Bench on 10.01.2011.

4 CWPs (Nos. 20725, 26, 27 and 53 all of 2010) filed in the high court at Chandigarh by about 100 pre-2006 pensioners (CEs, SEs and XENs) of PB-4 band of the Haryana Power companies has also been listed before the Division Bench for 10.01.2011. (The CWP No. 29753, as mentioned in my previous post on 15.12.2010, may please be corrected to read as 20753)

2 CWPs (19641/2009 and 19641/2009) filed by retired Chief Engineers of HSEB/HVPN are likely to come up for arguments before a Single bench on 16.03.2011.
Since the State of Haryana is respondent in all the 8 CWPs, it is likely that these may be clubbed together before the Division Bench.

The consolidated information of the 8 CWPs in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh is given below for reference:

S.No. CWP No. Petitioner Respondents Advocates Last date Next date Bench
1. 19641/2009 Er RK Aggarwal & others Haryana state & HVPN Veena & Ashwani Talwar 17.12.2010 16.03.2010 Single for arguments
2. 19642/2009 Er Satish Bhalla & others -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

3. 3452/2010 Er OP Kapur & others Haryana state PWD Manohar Lall 15.11.2010 10.01.2011 Division -do-
4. 12638/2010 Er ML Kansal & others -do- Sumeet Goel -do- -do- -do- -do-

5. 20725/2010 Er RK Sehgal & others Haryana state & HPGCL RK Chopra, Amit Chopra 23.12.2010 10.01.2011 -do-
and Karan Nehra
6. 20726/2010 Er RK Bali & others -do- & DHBVN -do- -do- -do- -do-
7. 20727/2010 Er BK Jain & others -do- & HVPN -do- -do- -do- -do-
8. 20753/2010 Er CK Gupta & others -do- & UHBVN -do- -do- -do- -do-

sundarar
31-12-2010, 04:25 AM
Armed forces tribunal chandigarh's very significant verdict on the "correct" pre 2006 modified parity for retd sqdrn leaders/ retd majors equivalents etc pronounced on 25th nov 2010 is available in www.rrewa.org website.

mprabhakaran
31-12-2010, 11:12 AM
Dear friends. I wish to convey to all, including family members, the seasons's greetings, Merry Chrismus and the very happy new year 2011. May God bring prosparity, happiness and good health to each one.

Thanks and wish you all the same!

May this New Year ahead be a meaningful and successful Year, especially for all Pre- 2006 pensioners in getting their due parity that they are relentlessly fighting for. All the very best!!

vnatarajan
01-01-2011, 05:05 AM
HITTING THE HALF CENTURY PAGE MARK EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR 2011 IN THIS SINGLE THREAD OF MAXIMUM VIEWS AND PATRONAGE BY PENSIONERS!
(spl thanks to S/Shri MLK- SUNDARAR who keep the spirits alive- and to several other old friends/ new-comers to this blog)

Dear All ( Includes all those in power in the GOVT / authorities/ their family/ friends)/ GCoNNECT ADMIN/ readers-bloggers etc,

(thanking/reciprocating those who have sent us greetings already)

It looks as if a short while ago, we (VNs) sent the greetings for the year in the offing then- 2010.
One year has flown by without our realising the speed at which the time passed!
Time tries to beat us- but we shall go slow and YET will not allow it to overtake us!


Wishing you a MERRY year-end2010 and a GLORIOUS 2011 in the offing, full of peace, prosperity, progress, pleasure -all in plenty!.

Our NEW YEAR 2011 'S Greetings and Special Wishes for:

ENJOYING sound health and abundant happiness topped with loads of good fortune for all!.
CONTINUING to WALK confidently & healthily(along the Elliot's Beach) as everyday rolls by( to my walking friends)!
ACHIEVING OUR OBJECTIVE (to my Pension Forum & Other Pensioner community)!

Warm Regards and Hearty Wishes,

Natarajans

vnatarajan
01-01-2011, 12:36 PM
MORNING SHOWS THE DAY.
LEARNED JUDGES OF THE AFTs HAVE TOLLED THE BELL.OUR GRATEFUL THANKS TO THEM.
SPECIAL RESOLUTION TO FIGHT INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS.

Dear PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS/ OTHER AGGRIEVED,

Well. The New Year firms up our RESOLVE to fight out the injustice. THE THREE AFT VERDICTS -AFT PR BENCH, DELHI ON 14 9 2010, AFT CHANDIGARH ON 1ST AND 25TH NOV 2010 have set the TEMPO and the THEME for our fight this year. ALL THE THREE VERDICTS - APPEARING/ WILL BE APPEARING- IN THE RREWA WEB-SITE will be available FOR ALL INTERESTED TO STUDY AND GET CONVINCED THAT WE HAVE BEEN TREATED SHABBILY and deprived of our legitimate "correct revised pension" due to no fault of ours.PL READ EACH VERDICT THOROUGHLY. In summary, "PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS" STAND ON "SCPC RECOMMENDED MODIFIED PARITY" -WELL RECEIVED/ JUDGED/CONFIRMED by the LEARNED HON. JUDGES OF THE AFTs IN TERMS OF CORRECT DEFINITION OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, JUDICIAL REVIEW PRECISELY ADDRESSING ONLY THE CORRECT “INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION” ASPECTS AND NOT CONTESTING THE "SIXTH PAY COMMISSION’S RECOS ANYTIME",CORRECT LAW POINTS IN TERMS OF POLICY, EARLIER HSC VERDICTS ON PENSIONS OF SENIORs TO BE HIGHER THAN THE JUNIORS/NOT CREATING A CLASS WITHIN A CLASS AMONG PENSIONERS, PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION ETC. ALL THESE ARE RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE ANTICIPATED OUCOMES IN OTHER CAT/ COURT CASES. Misleading points made by the Govt./ Pension authorities have been squarely rejected.ALL OTHERS WAITING IN THE SIDE-LINES ARE REQUESTED TO JOIN THE MISSION OF THE CRUSADING PENSIONERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/THE RREWA/ BCPC/ BPS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENDEAVOUR.

vnatarajan

(LIST OF SCORES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' LITIGATIONS IN PROGRESS WILL APPEAR SOON!THE THREE AFT VERDICTS REFRRED ABOVE PERTAINS TO A TOTAL OF 16 (SIXTEEN) OAs (ie PETITIONS))

sundarar
02-01-2011, 05:24 AM
Today 07.10.2008 02:32 PMvnatarajan
INJUSTICE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S-29 & 30/ALSO OTHER SCALES (18400-22400 & 22400-24500 etc) THRU Corrigendum OM Dtd 03.10.2008 of Deptt of Pension etc.

This has reference to Deptt of Pension's most recent office memorandum, F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03 Oct 2008, containing certain clarifications on their earlier OM of even number dated 01 sep 2008 with crucial modifications to the provisions, particularly on the fixations of minimum pension and family pension, of pre 2006 retirees.

Under para 4.2 of the earlier OM dated 01 Sep 08,, the applicable minimum revised pension for pre 2006 pensioners,(ie 50% of the minimum of the pay in the corresponding revised pay band plus the grade pay) had been spelt out. The OM was silent on the minimum applicable Family Pension, as related to the pay last drawn .While seeking to correct this omission, the second OM of 03 Oct 2008, has in effect, negated the established position wrt the minimum pay of a grade and consequently the minimum pension /family pension, as already accepted by the government, at different levels and notified through various rules and notifications . It is to be noted that in respect of the 5th CPC also, minimum pension/ family pension wrt to the revised pay scales introduced wef 1-1-96 was not accepted initially.However,after detailed examination, Government accepted the logic and corrected the position, vide OM No , F.No 45/10/98-P&PW(A), dated, 17 Dec 98,and all pensioners/family pensioners ,were authorized pension of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay at the time of retirement and family pension subject to the minimum of 30% of the revised pay, irrespective of the date of retirement.

Against this background, the undue restriction of the minimum pension through the notification of 03 Oct 08, is neither tenable nor justified as explained hereunder.

i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a bunch of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding starting points for each one of them. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation ; and also through the DOP's resolution No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and DOP's OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08. It may be seen for example, that the revised basic pay under the 6th CPC, for the pre revised basic pay of Rs 18400 in the scale of 18400-22400, (S-29) has been prescribed as 54700/-( ie pay in the pay band Rs. 44700 + grade pay Rs. 10000) and similarly revised basic pay of Rs. 63850 for pre revised basic pay of Rs. 22400 in the pre revised HAG scale (S-30) and others.

ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays. E.g. ( Rs. 53000 for SAG and Rs. 59100 for HAG)

iii) The modifications notified in DOP's of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

iv) The dual concept of minimum basic pay as provided for in the modified orders, could in many cases result in an employee retiring in higher grades before 2006, getting less pension than one retiring after 2006, from even two or more grades below, leaving alone, in the same grade, thus upsetting even the limited parity accepted by the government among pre and post 2006 pensioners.

v) Excepting the existing family pensioners, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, are to be prospective, and therefore cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and anomalous between inequal grades. Lack of parity among them will perpetuate injustice in future!.

vi) The recent DOP's OM of 3rd Oct 2008, in effect relegates the pre-2006 S-29 & 30 level pensioners with starting points at 18400 and even 22400 of their original pay scales to the lowest starting level of 14300 (S-24) for pension purposes- a decision most unjustifiable/ untenable/ unacceptable. For eg How can a person who throughout the period from 1996 onwards had been drawing pension based on say 50% of basic of 18400 be now relegated to start at 50% of basic of 14300 - as the effect of 40% fitment or even part of Grade Pay provided gets eroded due to the huge difference at the starting point itself!

The entire issue needs a thorough review and fresh revised orders, fixing the correct minimum basic pension/family pension should be issued by the Govt., covering all existing pensioners.

Principles enshrined in the constitutional Bench Judgement of the Supreme court, in the "NAKRA CASE" dated 17 Dec 82,which is hailed as the "MAGNA CARTA" for pensioners and on the foundation of which the current welfare based pension scheme, has been shaped by the Govt., should be kept in view always to do justice to all the PENSIONERS. (posted by vnatarajan)

------------------------------------------------------
01.01.2001
MORNING SHOWS THE DAY.
LEARNED JUDGES OF THE AFTs HAVE TOLLED THE BELL.OUR GRATEFUL THANKS TO THEM.
SPECIAL RESOLUTION TO FIGHT INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS.

Dear PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS/ OTHER AGGRIEVED,

Well. The New Year firms up our RESOLVE to fight out the injustice. THE THREE AFT VERDICTS -AFT PR BENCH, DELHI ON 14 9 2010, AFT CHANDIGARH ON 1ST AND 25TH NOV 2010 have set the TEMPO and the THEME for our fight this year. ALL THE THREE VERDICTS - APPEARING/ WILL BE APPEARING- IN THE RREWA WEB-SITE will be available FOR ALL INTERESTED TO STUDY AND GET CONVINCED THAT WE HAVE BEEN TREATED SHABBILY and deprived of our legitimate "correct revised pension" due to no fault of ours.PL READ EACH VERDICT THOROUGHLY. In summary, "PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS" STAND ON "SCPC RECOMMENDED MODIFIED PARITY" -WELL RECEIVED/ JUDGED/CONFIRMED by the LEARNED HON. JUDGES OF THE AFTs IN TERMS OF CORRECT DEFINITION OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, JUDICIAL REVIEW PRECISELY ADDRESSING ONLY THE CORRECT “INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION” ASPECTS AND NOT CONTESTING THE "SIXTH PAY COMMISSION’S RECOS ANYTIME",CORRECT LAW POINTS IN TERMS OF POLICY, EARLIER HSC VERDICTS ON PENSIONS OF SENIORs TO BE HIGHER THAN THE JUNIORS/NOT CREATING A CLASS WITHIN A CLASS AMONG PENSIONERS, PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION ETC. ALL THESE ARE RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE ANTICIPATED OUCOMES IN OTHER CAT/ COURT CASES. Misleading points made by the Govt./ Pension authorities have been squarely rejected.ALL OTHERS WAITING IN THE SIDE-LINES ARE REQUESTED TO JOIN THE MISSION OF THE CRUSADING PENSIONERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/THE RREWA/ BCPC/ BPS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENDEAVOUR.

vnatarajan

(LIST OF SCORES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' LITIGATIONS IN PROGRESS WILL APPEAR SOON!THE THREE AFT VERDICTS REFRRED ABOVE PERTAINS TO A TOTAL OF 16 (SIXTEEN) OAs (ie PETITIONS))
------------------------------------------------------------

In the GConnect Discussion Forum, this particular thread - `Injustice to Pensioners' that was started by our Respected Shri VNji on 7.10.2008 with the first post that is reproduced first, presently reaching 50th page, which speaks volumes of its quality contents with judicious justification for the matter taken up for presentation by various Senior Veterans, Senior Members of the Forum. Periodical updation with factual information, analytical and reasoning approach, etc. involved in this Master thread has assumed very significance all along. As a New Year
Greetings, the latest scenario has been briefed very nicely by our Respected Shri VNji vide his latest message reproduced above.

As briefed above, the last quarter of the struggle, has reiterated the well settled position as follows:

1. Definition of a terminology assumes greater significance while
interpreting the same.

2. D.S.Nakara case Judgment spirit will always have life in
establishing the fact that "the object sought to be achieved
was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the
benefits of pension were made available to all the persons of the
same class equally irrespective of their date of retirement".

3. A higher-scale retiree of pre-2006 cannot get pension less than
an officer holding lower scales and retired after 1.1.2006.

4. Pension of all pensioners irrespective of the date of their
retirement shall not be less than 50% as decided vide 5th CPC
and implemented through Executive Instructions dated 17th
December, 1998 hold good even now, and the mode/manner of
fixation of such a pension carried out can very well sought to
be reviewed.

5. In view of (3) above, a higher scale retiree with 10/20 years
qualifying service prior to 1.1.2006 cannot get pension less
than a lower scale retiree with 10/20 years after 1.1.2006.


- Lateral thinking is a term coined by Dr. Edward de Bono. He defines it as a technique of problem solving by approaching problems indirectly at diverse angles instead of concentrating on one approach at length -.

Thus, in the case of pre-2006 pensioners too, similar approach is requested for from the Policy makers, in the New Leaf of the current decade, to solve all the problems being faced by the homogenous class of pensioners community so that they can get the fruits of success at the earliest point of time, viz. in the 10th quarter of the post-implementation era.

Best Prayers and Regards
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
03-01-2011, 07:16 PM
(THIS IS A DRAFT INFORMATION - CAN BE SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONS-PURELY FOR INFORMATION OF ONLY THOSE INTERESTED)

LIST OF CAT/ COURT CASES ON INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS.

Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Others Interested,

My good friend- undisputedly the most well informed on the pension injustice to pre-2006 pensioners- SHRI ML KANAUJIAji- has taken pains to consolidate the evr-increasing LIST OF CAT/ AFT/ COURT CASES ON INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS- and we are all grateful to him for making it available to all in our Group.

TO SAVE HIS TIME- I THOUGHT OF PUTTING IT / POSTING IT HERE ON HIS BEHALF- (WITH HIS ANTICIAPTED PERMISSION)- TO SHARE THE INFORMATION WITH ALL GCONNECT VIEWERS:

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERSS IN VARIOUS COURTS :
AS ON 01.01.2011.

S.N. BEING HEARD BY PETITION NO. & YEAR OA /WPC LEAD PETITIONER NEXT DATEFIXED FOR HEARING REMARKS

1 CAT-PB Delhi OA 3079/2009 LR Khatana 18.01.2011 For hearing
2 CAT-PB Delhi OA 201/2010 M L Gulati 18.01.2011 For hearing
3 CAT-PB Delhi OA 306/2010 D L Vohra 18.01.2011 For hearing
4 CAT-PB Delhi OA 507/2010 PPS Gambhir 18.01.2011 For hearing
5 CAT-PB Delhi OA 937/2010 s30 pensioners 18.01.2011 For hearing
6 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2087/2009 Ran Vir Singh 18.01.2011 For hearing
7 CAT-PB Delhi OA 655/2010 s29 pensioners 18.01.2011 For hearing
8 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2101/2010 CG Pensioners 18.01.2011 For hearing
9 CAT Hydrabad OA 568/2010 DRDO s29 .02.2011 For hearing
10 CAT Hydrabad OA 2413/9/2009 AJ Gurushanker .02.2011 For hearing
11 CAT Hydrabad OA 568/2010 s26 pensioners .02.2011 For hearing
12 CATErnakulam OA 834/2010 s29 &s26 penrs. For hearing
13 Lucknow HC WP(C)203/2010 s29 UP Officers .02.2011 For listing
14 Delhi HC WP(C)3359/2010 s29,s26 Ex.Para Mi. 25.02.2011 For hearing
15 Haryana HC WP(C)19641/2009 RK Agarwal (s29) 17.03.2011 For hearing
16 Haryana HC WP(C)19642/2009 Satish Bhalla (s29) 17.03.2011 For hearing
17 Haryana HC WP(C)3452/2010 O P Kapur (s29) 10.01.2011 For hearing
18 Haryana HC WP(C)12638/2010 M L Kansal (s29) 10.01.2011 For hearing
19 Haryana HC WP(C)20725/2010 RK Sehgal (s29) 10.01.2011 For hearing
20 Haryana HC WP(C)20726/2010 R K Bali (s29) 10.01.2011 For hearing
21 Haryana HC WP(C)20727/2010 B K Jain (s29) 10.01.2011 For hearing
22 Haryana HC WP(C)20753/2010 CK Gupta (s29) 10.01.2011 For hearing
23 Supreme Court WP(Con) 64/2009 SPS Vains M.Gen. 24.01.2011 For hearing
24 AFT-PB Delhi OA 24/2010 Lt.Com.AvtarSingh DOJ 14.09.2010 Appeal allowed. #
25 AFT-PB Delhi OA 270/2010 Sq.Ldr. VK Jain DOJ 14.09.2010 Appeal allowed. #
26 AFT-PB Delhi OA 139/2009 Lt.Col.PK Kapur DOJ 30.06.10 Appeal allowed. $
27 AFTChandigarh OA 277/2010 Romesh Chand DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
28 AFTChandigarh OA 312/2010 OP Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
29 AFT Chandig OA 313/2010 MS Minhas DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
30 AFTChandigarh OA 314/2010 YS Nijjar DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
31 AFTChandigarh OA 325/2010 Dildar Singh Sahi DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
32 AFTChandigarh OA 326/2010 Gurlochan Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
32 AFTChandigarh OA 327/2010 Gurmeet Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
33 AFTChandigarh OA 445/2010 Balwant Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
34 AFTChandigarh OA 476/2010 Karam Chand DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed. %
35 AFTChandigarh OA 257/2010 Jagdish Chandar DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
36 AFTChandigarh OA 409/2010 N N Sud DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
37 AFTChandigarh OA 410/2010 HS Tonque DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
38 AFTChandigarh OA 521/2010 GS Kang DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
39 AFTChandigarh OA 522/2010 SS Matharu DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
40 AFTChandigarh OA 346/2010 DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
41 AFTChandigarh OA 728/2010 DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed. @
42 AFTChandigarh OA 100/2010 SPS Vains M.Gen. DOJ 04.03.2010
Appeal allowed. ++

Explanatory Notes :

@ These cases pertain to pre 2006 Rtd. Majors, Sqd. Ldrs. and Lt. Com. from three wings of Defence Forces. Their appeal was "allowed with direction to respondents i. e. UOI to fix/refix the pension of all the petitioners on the basis of minimum of the pay in pay band i.e. Rs. 23,810/- and release all other benefits to them within four months from the date of receipt of this order ."

# These cases pertain to pre 2006 Rtd. Sqd. Ldrs. and Lt. Com. from two wings of Defence Forces. Their appeal was 'allowed' with observation that " The expression which has been defined in the scheme of things has to be accepted while interpreting all the provisions of the Pay Commission and the Implementation Order. Here the expression "minimum of the pay in the pay band‟ is to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners. Therefore, one has to interpret the provisions as exists and we have to take it minimum pay in the pay band for equivalent rank then that comes to Rs.23,810/- determined by the Government in Column 7 of table at para 4 (a) as such we have to accept the figure of 23810/- being the minimum of the pay in the pay band for Lt. Commanders and equivalent ranks. If that is taken then naturally 50% of this will have to be treated as a basic pension and rest of it will be added to it as grade pay and other benefits which are given to the persons of that rank. There is no controversy with regard to grade pay and Military Service pay and other benefits to which we are not concerned. We are concerned with what is minimum has to be taken for pre 2006 retirees and minimum pay scale for the purposes of determining the pension. In our opinion as per the Government order for all pre retirees of Lt. Commander and other ranks their minimum of the pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006 i.e. Rs.23810/-. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of the pay in the pay band i.e. Rs.23,810/- with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months. Both the petitions are allowed in view of aforesaid terms. "

$ The Petitioner Rtd. Lt. Col. PK Kapur appealed in this case that fixation of Disability and war injury pension with different scales to pre 2006 and post 2006 pensioners, while implementing the SCPC Repost was violative of Article 14 of Constitution and not in the true spirit of Supreme Court Judgements in DS Nakara case and SPS Vains case. The appeal was allowed with following observation by the Court : " As a result of above discussion we hold that notification 16(6)/2008(1)D(Pension/Policy) dated 4.5.2009 is struck down to the extent of pre & post distinction i.e. pre 1.1.2006 and post 1.1.2006 and likewise the distinction made in the circular No. 16(6)/2008(2)/D (Pension/Policy) dated 4.5.2009 para 2.1 is also struck down and respondents are directed to give the benefit of disability pension to all the members of three forces viz. Army, Air Force and Navy including persons below officers rank on equal basis without making distinction between pre and post 1.1.2006. Respondents are directed to work-out the arrears of the pension from the date of filing of this petition and the difference in amount shall be paid to the petitioner with 12% interest. "

% Judgement against these petition has been given by the AFT/Chandigarh on the lines of Judgement delivered by the AFT-PB/Delhi in OA 270/2010 and OA 24 /2010 (kindly see Note marked # above). The Court allowed appeals and observed : "We may recall that in the order dated 14.9.2010, it was also noticed that the matter before the Principal Bench was fixed on that date. In that view of the matter, all these petitions are decided on the same lines for the same reasons granting same reliefs and to the same effect as done by the Principal Bench in O. A. No. 270 of 2010."

++ The Petitioners had appealed that the anomaly in of fixation of their pension should be removed in terms of Judgement of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in DS Nakara case and Supreme Court Judgement in SPS Vains case and their pension should be refixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006. The Court observed in operating part of the judgement : " In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to implement the decision of the Constitutional Bench as well as decision of the Supreme court rendered in SLP(Civil) 12357 of 2008 Union of India and another Vs. SPS Vains (Retd) and others referred to above in letter and spirit in the matter of fixation of pension of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of this order."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again our grateful thanksd to Shri MLK for his marvellous dedicated efforts.

WE SHALL DEBATE/ REALISE THE IMPACT OF THIS INFORMATION SOON.

Regards
vnatarajan

rksehgal31
05-01-2011, 07:38 AM
The following news item in the Times of India should be an eye opener for the serving as well as retired defence persons. 19 out of the 42 cases mentioned above were before AFT Chandigarh and New Delhi.

Forces tribunal toothless, says bench head
Ajay Sura, TNN, Nov 21, 2010, 07.15am IST

CHANDIGARH: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) is a toothless body. And none other than head of its principal bench, Justice (retd) AK Mathur, says it. Justice Mathur, who was in Chandigarh on Saturday on the occasion of completion of one year of the Chandigarh bench of AFT, said that they are striving for execution of orders passed by them against army authorities after deciding the petitions of aggrieved defence personnel.

He also informed that in last one year the tribunal has decided around 4000 cases of the armed forced personnel and orders in 90 per cent of these cases were against the authorities, but they, specially army, is not bothering to comply with the tribunal's orders.

The revelation of the head of country's highest military tribunal are startling in view of the recent orders of the Supreme court for constituting Forces Grievances Redressal Commission with powers 'recommendatory in nature'. The revelations of Justice Mathur put a question mark over the fate of the upcoming commission.

While delivering lecture on the occasion, Justice Mathur stated that he had written to the Union government for empowering the tribunal with execution powers and to hear summary court martial proceedings so that the real purpose of constituting AFT can be served. He said, "we want powers to make pressure on the authorities to redress the grievances of the soldiers and to remove the arbitrariness in the authority's decisions".

Justice Mathur also informed that despite tribunal orders widows are struggling to get family pension, but the army brass is biggest hindrance in granting execution powers for the AFT.

"Attitude of the army has to change, as the 'generals' should understand that tomorrow they may have to knock the AFT door for their grievances," Mathur added.

Justice Mathur also recounted various instances where he had to face difficulties to get a portion of building from the defence authorities for setting up of the regional benches of the tribunal.

Kanaujiaml
05-01-2011, 09:04 AM
Reference : Shri RK Sehgal's above post. Whereas I do not consider myself competent enough to comment on what has been reported in the said news item, I think our justice system is like that. It is not only the case with AFT or CAT but also with High Courts and even Supreme Court. Firstly it is the AFT/CAT which delivers a judgement giving the Govt. 3-4 months to comply the directives. After 3-4 months, the Govt. either again approaches the same AFT/CAT for review or reconsideration of the judgement on some new cooked up grounds or goes to High Court through SLP. If High Court also gives the judgement against Govt., same trick is again repeated or an SLP is submitted to Supreme Court. There also if the judgement goes against the Govt. , there is no guarantee that Supreme Court Judgement would be accepted and Govt. may go in Supreme Court again and again through Review Petition and Curative Petition. All this procedure goes in full advantage to the Govt. and disadvantage to the Petitioners/Pensioners. Then, why the Govt. would try to find out any remedy to this problem ?

vnatarajan
08-01-2011, 07:34 AM
6TH CPC RELIEF VS COST ETC!

Shri Harryrakhraj had started a new thread on the above theme.
I had posted the following in response:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Harry,

It is unfortunate that the Pensioners Associations and thier Federations are very weak and are not well represented.

PENSIONERS DO HEAD "POWERFUL" EMPLOYEES FEDRATIONS/ ASSOCIATIONS ETC BUT THEY DO CARE ONLY FOR "EMPLOYEES"AND NOT FOR THE "PENSIONERS" MUCH!
FOR EXAMPLE IN THE "STAFF SIDE" OF NAC, THE JCM MEMBERS ARE INCLUDED BUT "NO PENSIONERS OR PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS" AS MEMBERS.

PENSIONERS WERE SO NEGLECTED =- THAT AFTER SCPC IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS- WHEN THE GROSS INJUSTICES WERE POINTED OUT AND AN RTI WAS FIRED AT DOPPW FOR "INCLUSION" OR "OTHERWISE" OF THE PENSIONERS ANOMOLY CASES ETC FOR DELIBERATIONS BY NAC, THEN ONLY THE DOPW WOKE UP AND INCLUDED THEM IN THE "NAC DELIBERATIONS" WITH PECULIAR "DEFINITION OF ANOMALIES FOR PENSIONERS" AS TERMS!

THE STAFF SIDE ALSO DOES NOT TAKE UP ALL ANOMALIES OF PENSIONERS (PB3/ PB4 ETC ) ARE LEFT OUT.

MANY EMPLOYEES ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE NAC OR ITS STAFF SIDE MEMBERS" FOR "OBVIOUS REASONS"!

MANY EMPLOYEES FORGET THAT "TODAY' EMPLOYEES ARE TOMORROW'S PENSIONERS".

MANY BELIEVE THAT; "The 6th CPC had given relief to Pensioners that for once, could not be faulted"- IS THE STATEMENT CORRECT?

WHILE THE PB 1/ 2 PENSIONERS GOT REVISION AT 1.86/2.26 TIMES, THE "PENSION FUND" (A NOTIONAL CORPUS SIGNIFYING THE GOVT'S COMPLIMENTARY CONTRIBUTION- WHICH IS COMMON TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS HAD BEEN EXPLOITED BY THE ELITE BY HAVING "REVISED PENSIONS AT 3.12 TIMES MORE"-TAKING "HIGHER BENEFITS" FOR THEMSELVES AT THE COST OF "OTHERS WHO WERE GIVEN LOWER BENEFITS"!

ALL MUST GO THRU THE TWO THREADS TITLED - "INSTICE...." AND "JUSTICE...." ETC.-- THOUGH THE FIRST ONE TITLED TO FOCUS ON LESSER INJUSTICE FOR S29 / S30 PRE REVISED SCALES, THE SECOND THRESD FOCUSES ON ALL "PRE-REVISED SCALE PENSIONERS".

I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT:

"The Revised pensions empowered the retired Govt Servants to live their remaining
life with dignity, in keeping with the true intent of 'pension'. Not any more."

WITH HEALTHCARE PROVISIONS/ MEDICINES TAKING A "GREAT TOLL" ON MEDICAL EXPENSES AND THE EVER-INCREASING COSTS OF COMMODITIES/ GROCERIES/ VEGETABLES ETC CAUSING UNABATED "INFLATION", THE PENSIONERS' PLIGHT HAS BECOME UNBEARABLE!

FOR UNDOING THE INJUSTICE METED OUT TO THE PENSIONERS THRUTHE SCPC IMPLEMENTATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN "MUTILATED" PENSIONS (OF WHICH MANY PENSIONERS MAY NOT BE FULLY AWARE- (MORE SO ABOUT LATER REPURCUSSIONS))-THERE ARE 42 COURT CASES BY CIVIL AND MILITARY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS- AND OUT OF THESE, THE AFTs, DELHI AND CHANDIGARH HAVE GIVEN VERDICTS ON 16 CASES IN SEPT/ NOV 2010 TO IMPLEMENT CORRECT REVISED PENSIONS AT THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" INSTEAD OF THE NEWLY CONCOCTED/ NON-EXIXTING EXPRESSION OF "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND", the authrities are sleeping!.

You are aware, many pensioners dispoutes decided by Courts are never implkemented in time by authrities like MOD/ DOPW etc!

They go on "pleading" for "adjournments" in CATs/ AFTs/Courts with no "spine" to face the "truth" before the anfels of justice!

PLEASE MAKE THE PENSIONERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/ THEIR FEDERATIONS TO "WAKE UP" AND FIGHT FOR "JUSTICE" "EQUAL TREATMENBT" ETC ETC WELL BEFORE THE "7TH CPC" LEST "CHAMCHAS " AMONG THE PENSIONERS/ EMPLOYEES (particularly those dealing with pension matters in Ministries/Departments concerned)spoil the broth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Year/ Wishes/ Regards,
vnatarajan

rksehgal31
19-01-2011, 12:40 PM
The landmark judgment was delivered on 17.12.1982 by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in favour of the pensioners in the famous case of DS Nakara & others vs. Union of India (1983 AIR 130).

By a Memorandum dated May 25, 1979 the Government of India introduced Liberaliised Pension Scheme, which liberalised the formula for computation of pension in respect of employees governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and made it applicable to employees retiring on or after March 31, 1979. The benefit was not extended to the pensioners who had retired prior to 31.03.1979.

Counsel for petitioners had contended that all pensioners entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules form a class irrespective of the dates of their retirement and there cannot be a mini-classification within this class; that the differential treatment accorded to those who had retired prior to the specified date is violative of Art. 14 as the choice of specified date is wholly arbitrary and the classification based on the fortuitous circumstance of retirement before or subsequent to the specified date is invalid; and that the scheme of liberalisation in computation of pension must be uniformly enforced with regard to all pensioners.


The Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court held that the government memorandum dividing the homogeneous class of pensioners on the basis of the date of retirement violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and was stuck down. The court stated that:

"With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: ’being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date’ in impugned memoranda violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down."


The judgment has become Magna Carta for the pensioners. The Fifth and Sixth Central Pay Commissions (CPC) have not cared to follow the above judgment of the Constitution Bench in the revision of pension of the past pensioners in the pay revision effective from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. The Fifth CPC coined the unusual term "Modified Parity" which ensured minimum pension at the minimum of the revised pay scale. This was designed to favour the past pensioners of the senior ranks of the Cabinet Secretary, Chief Secretary and other Secretaries, whose pay scales were of one to three steps only.

The sixth CPC has not applied its mind at all to the problem faced by the past pensioners. It has devoted a small para of less than half a page to the past pensioners. While it states that same benefit has been given to the past pensioners and that the gap in pension of the past (pre-2006) and present pensioners has been reduced, yet the facts are totally different.

The gap in the pension of the pre-2006 and present pensioners of the same rank with the same length of service in the same cadre has become astronomical. In the case of Chief Engineers, the gap in basic pension is about Rs.9000 per month and with DA it is Rs.13000 pm in the very first year of revision. A situation has already developed that the pension of a pre-2006 retired Chief Engineer is much less than that of the recently retired SDOs and XENs. Similar is the case of the pre-2006 retired Major-Generals and other officers of the Armed forces.

The senior bureaucrats are misguiding the government and causing harrasment to the retired civilian and armed forces officers. These bureaucrats have helped themselves and their retired predecessors by creating two Higher Administrative Grades HAG (6 steps) and HAG+ (2 steps), over and above the recommendation of the sixth CPC in addition to the Apex scale (Fixed). For others they keep on repeating in a parrot like fashion that the recommendation of the sixth CPC have been followed. With these pay scales of very short duration, the officers in service get higher pay at the time of revision and the past pensioners of these ranks get higher revised pension (under the minimum 50 % rule 4.2). Rule 4.2 has been designed for them. We get fringe benefit only and for that too, we have to fight a long legal battle.

A large number of cases have been filed by the pre-2006 pensioners, both civilians and armed forces, in the High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunals and Armed Forces Tribunals for removal of anamolies and praying for parity with the present pensioners.

The following points are relevant to consider:

1...The central govt. can amend the pension rules from time to time but these revised pension rules have to be common for all the pensioners covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, irrespective of the date of retirement.

2...The govt can specify a cut-off date from which the enhanced benefits of pension are to be paid, but this date and the benefits have to be same for all the pensioners covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, irrespective of the date of retirement.


3...As per the pension rules, pension is calculated on the basis of last pay/ average employments, length of qualifying service and other rules. Hence, in the revised pay scenario, the pay of the past pensioners has to be revised first and then the revised pension/ family pension has to be calculated. This is as per the judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Maj-Gen Vains case delivered on 09.09.2008, where the govt was directed to revise the pay to be at par with similar officers of the same rank and then calculate the revised pensionary benfits.

4...The past pensioners can, therefore, ask for revised pay and pension at par with Next-below junior officers of the same rank having similar length of service in the same cadre following the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.

5...The govt can offer a new set of Pension Rules/ scheme to fresh employees who are recruited after a cut-off date or can introduce a new pension scheme for employees, who are not covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules but it can not divide the pensioners covered by a particular pension scheme on the basis of the date of retirement.

Kanaujiaml
20-01-2011, 07:32 AM
Ref. Shri RK Sehgal's above post. I entirely agree with what has been said here. All old members know it very well because we had been discussing this matter for last several years without finding a proper remedy accept going to Court/CAT. (some of us have already done it but battle is very long and may continue for several years). There appears to be no other escape.

subba Rao R S
21-01-2011, 11:39 AM
For kind attention of S 21 scale retirees

I have come across a news that S21 retiree officers from ATOMIC ENERGY RETIREES'
WELFARE ASSOCIATION are planning to file a case to fight the injustice to them by not placing them in pay band 4. Interested may plaease see the web page of the association. The web address is http://sites.google.com/site/aerwawebsite/. Details are avaialable in their AERWA news letter No 11(Sep-Oct 2010). Details of model represntation made by S21 retirees made are also avalable in their AERWA news letter of May-Jun 2010

Subba Rao R S

sundarar
23-01-2011, 03:55 AM
Thanks to Shri R.K.Sehgalji and Shri R.S.Subbaraoji for their valuable input with background.

Injustice to all the 29 scales is very explicit from the manner of application of multiplication factor for revision of pay/pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The sector of serving employees are somehow yet to take up this particular core issue that created all subsequent anomalies while the Retired Employees Associations have been all along pointing out this disparity, but a review is not taking place so far amidst the absence of a separate NAC for Gr.A and Gr.B, and the available NAC for Gr.C is yet to finalise their decision.

The Second National Convention of Rly. Pensioners Associations scheduled to be held at Secunderabad (A.P.) on 13.2.2011 have submitted their Pre-Convention Memorandum dated 21.1.2011 from Bharat Pensioners Samaj to Member staff Railway Board have prioritised the aforesaid issue at Sl. No.1 of the Memorandum (courtesy: www.rrewa.org)
as given below:

1. Pension (Fixation, Revision & Disbursement): We want to draw your particular attention to H’ble Supreme Court‘s Constitution Bench historic judgment delivered in case of D. S. Nakra on 17.12.1982 and request that it implemented in letter & spirit. Pensioners should not be divided on the basis of their date of retirement or otherwise and a uniform formula be adopted for the revision of all the pension irrespective of Class, Category or status while in service, i.e., if a multiplication factor of 3 is given to one section of
pensioners then, by sheer logic, it should be uniformly adopted for all the Pensioners.

- As brought out very analytically by Shri RKSehgalji by giving the background of the landmark judgment for Pensioners in his post in this same page, `the landmark judgment was delivered on 17.12.1982 by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in favour of the pensioners in the famous case of DS Nakara & others vs. Union of India (1983 AIR 130).............................................. ...................
.........The judgment has become Magna Carta for the pensioners'.........................
the judgment supports the cause of Pre-2006 pensioners even today. Whereas, all efforts are made at present while considering representations, to justify fixing a cut off date by citing various other decisions in which unlike the case of pre-2006 pensioners, neither `qualifying service' nor `emoluments' were the issues for those decisions. The very purpose of need to treat the pensioners as a homogenous class vide the spirit of the landmark judgment is not fully realised; Instead, differential treatment by dividing the pre-2006 scales for different entitlements as in the case of S-24, S-30, HAG/+, etc. as cited in the Model Representations of the AREWA.

It is time to review by the Competent Authority, the entire methodology/manner of revision of pay/pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 of all the 34 pre-revised scales for the purpose of removing all disparities and to uphold uniformity, as the existing revision encounters lot of struggle which we have been coming across all along.

Our decision making process shall be well timed and quickened with long term vision towards the better governance in all respects.

sundarar
14-02-2011, 10:45 PM
The Second National Convention of Rly. Pensioners Associations scheduled to be held at Secunderabad (A.P.) on 13.2.2011 have submitted their Pre-Convention Memorandum dated 21.1.2011 from Bharat Pensioners Samaj to Member staff Railway Board have prioritised the aforesaid issue at Sl. No.1 of the Memorandum (courtesy: www.rrewa.org)
as given below:

1. Pension (Fixation, Revision & Disbursement): We want to draw your particular attention to H’ble Supreme Court‘s Constitution Bench historic judgment delivered in case of D. S. Nakra on 17.12.1982 and request that it implemented in letter & spirit. Pensioners should not be divided on the basis of their date of retirement or otherwise and a uniform formula be adopted for the revision of all the pension irrespective of Class, Category or status while in service, i.e., if a multiplication factor of 3 is given to one section of pensioners then, by sheer logic, it should be uniformly adopted for all the Pensioners.


It is time to review by the Competent Authority, the entire methodology/manner of revision of pay/pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 of all the 34 pre-revised scales for the purpose of removing all disparities and to uphold uniformity, as the existing revision encounters lot of struggle which we have been coming across all along.

Our decision making process shall be well timed and quickened with long term vision towards the better governance in all respects.

This particular thread in this Discussion forum is very significant as could be seen from the No. of pages it travelled with a target of 1/2 century and no. of posts to 1k shortly with 77000+views. This data speak volumes of the title `INJUSTICE' ever since
implementation of 6th CPC recommendations.

(1) In respect of pre-2006 pensioners, it was all along implicitly maintained that a pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, has nothing to do with its corresponding minimum pay in the pay band as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008 of the DOP&PW.

At the same time, explicitly it has been maintained that there is no material difference between para 4.2 of original OM dated 1.9.2008 and the modified version of the same para vide OM dated 3.10.2008.

The anomaly involved between the original version and the `clarified' version can
easily be understood by a common interpretation and for Policy Makers, it is dead easy to realise how the very anomaly has taken place.

For the sake of new viewers also, I wish to quote the following versions of Para 2 of the DOP&PW's latest OM dated 19.3.2010 :

"Para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 provides that fixation of pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired"
..........
It was clarified on the OM dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay int he pay band plus Grade Pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale".

During the period between 1.9.2008 and 25.9.2008, the pensioners were under the impression that they are entitled for a Minimum Assured Guaranteed Revised Pension under para 4.2 consisting of -
50% of Minimum pay in the Pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale plus
50% of Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised scale,

On 26.9.2008, there came an instruction to Banks by CPAO by modifying the said para 4.2 as 50% of Minimum of the Pay Band and/plus 50% of GP as applicable to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, even before the Policy makers could ink for the clarification (modification?) vide their subsequent OM dated 3.10.2008 which has just seconded the version of CPAO's modification, as indicated hereunder:

`the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay int he pay band plus Grade Pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale".

The Banks have relied upon the CPAO letter dated 26.9.2008 and the clarified/modified OM dated 3.10.2008 and the anomaly surfaced therefrom.

From the modified version, the minimum assured revised guaranteed pension consist of -

50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired and/plus 50% of Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale.

After a year long struggle amidst RTI queries/replies, a Corrigendum was issued by CPAO.

Inspite of the Corrigendum, the pensioners were advised to read the same alongwith all previous communications issued on the subject including OM dated 1.9.2008. But, it is not clarified so far as to whether the Corrigendum has also to be read with the accepted Resolution as Gazette Notification, on the basis of which para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 was issued as Executive Instruction.

The phenomenon `irrespective of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired' created the very anomaly.

Thus, the OM dated 19.3.2010 has attempted to put a full stop by maintaining that nothing adverse has happened through a clarificatory (modificatory?) OM dated 3.10.2008 and everyone should deem it as good as the original OM dated 1.9.2008 and the same was issued just for the sake of `clarification'/

Now, the question looking for an answer is this:

By determining 50% of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, the last higher scale acquired on promotion prior to retirement, whether has any impact for the purpose of deriving 50% of the pay in the pay band applicable to bottom of the said higher scale?.

For example, an employee who got promoted from 14300 scale (S-24) to 16400 scale (S-26), before 2/3 years of his retirement, as per modified OM dated 3.10.2008 and reiterated vide OM dated 19.3.2010, will get 50% of minimum pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale from which he retired, which literally means 37400/2= 18700 as 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band. Actually by virtue of his holding a promoted scale, he is entitled for 39690/2 = 19845.
Since GP corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired is entitled, there is no problem as far as GP is concerned.

From the above, it could be seen that the higher pay scale acquired on promotion has nothing to do while determining 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band.

Thus, the anomaly is explicit.

Under 5th CPC, 50% of bottom of the revised scale was prescribed as minimum revised pension.

The purpose of introduction of running pay band was elaborated vide para 1.2.7 to 1.2.9 as per which the same was introduced to remove scale based anomalies.

Whether the purpose is served by clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008?
(Out of all, it is also said that for a scale 5500-9000, since the minimum of the pay in the band applicable to the stage 5500 is more than minimum of the pay band, no bunching benefits can be allowed in the case of serving employees - Ref. Enclosure to DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011)

Thus, every lowest stage of pre-revised scale has its own corresponding Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band in the revised structure . And it can never be said that - a Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band is applicable only for post-2006 serving employees and for pre-2006 pensioners, only Minimum of the pay band matters.

The phenomenon `irrespective of pre-revised scale' has blocked the benefits to be accrued out of a promoted scale held at the time of retirement as illustrated above.

Neither 6th CPC recommendation nor the accepted resolution vide Gazette Notification has ever said that a Minimum pay in the pay band can be irrespective of pre-revised scale.

So, where is the problem in removing the said clarificatory phenomenon, even when the recent AFT Judgment also pointed out that definition part is quite significant to derive 50% of actual minimum pay in the pay band?

Since the NAC is going to meet for the third time tomorrow, it is submitted that this also exists as an anomaly to be removed by appropriate measures.

(2) As far as application of varying multiplication factor for deriving revised basic pension, the Second Convention of All India Railway Pensioners Association has met yesterday at Secunderabad and item No.1 of their Discussion paper cited in my previous post is self-explanatory.

(3) As far as the delinking of 33 years of qualifying service for full pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years q.s., well settled position to treat all pensioners of homogenous class alike, exists through various Court cases due to which reason, there should not be yet another occassion to consume the precious time, energy, money etc. once again. Whether existing Court verdicts are supportive or not for removing the anomaly, as has been done in the case of retirees of post 1.1.2006 but pre2.9.2008 vide OM dated 11.12.2009 only has to be seen and appropriate measures to be taken.

It is still hoped that the Injustice out of the aforesaid anomalies will be removed and judicious decisions will be taken without any further delay.

sundarar
15-02-2011, 04:29 AM
In continuation of the previous post dated 14.2.2011 on the subject,

(a) Whether the existing well settled positions through various Court Judgments are for treating the homogenous class of pensioners alike for the sake of Minimum Revised Basic Pension, whereby whether is it not necessary to ensure that both pre-2006 pensioner and post-2006 pensioner of same length of service at bottom of the same scale at the time of retirement draws same minimum revised basic pension? -
The Court case Judgments referred to in this post will provide the answer.

(b) Whether the existing well settled positions through various Court Judgments are supportive of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service for grant of full revised basic pension/full minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006?


(1) Para 5.1.33 of 6th CPC recommendations w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum qualifying service is put in.

Para 11.33 of 6th CPC recommendation: “The fixation formulae applicable to serving employees to be extended to pensioners also”.


(2) The Government removed the anomaly relating to qualifying service requirement in respect of those who retired between post-1-1-2006 and post-2-9-08 pensioners vide DOP&PW OM dated 11.12.2009. As per Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated 11.12.2009, it has been decided that `linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006. The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006)'.

(3) HOW THE VARIOUS COURT CASES JUDGMENTS ARE SUPPORTIVE TO THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WITH <33 YEARS Q.S. FOR GRANT OF FULL PENSION W.E.F. 1.1.2006 IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATE OF RETIREMENT:

(A) As per the decision in the Hon. Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, the fixation of a cut off date as a result of which equals were treated as unequals,was wholly arbitrary.

"If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect".
.......
It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution".

(B) The Honorable Supreme Court judgement in the case of V. KASTURI vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY & ANR-DATE JUDGMENT (Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998): 09/10/1998. where in the honourable apex court ruled :
“If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”

“In the case of All India reserve Bank retired Officers Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664, A.M. Ahmadi, J (as he then was), spoke for the Division Bench of two learned Judges highlighted the observations in Nakara’s case found at page 333 para 46 to the following effect:
".... the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it
is not a new scheme, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit".
The portion mentioned in Nakara’s case clearly indicated that all the employees in Nakara’s case were governed by the existing scheme and were the recipients of retrial benefits. It was an upward revision of the existing benefit that would in normal course be made available to all such beneficiaries of existing retrial benefits.

(C) TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) 72 OF 2004 COL. B.J. AKKARA VS. THE GOI DATE OF JUDGMENT 10.10.2006

20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well settled.
They are :
a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect.
.....
c) What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.
[Vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305], Krishna
Kumar v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India [1991 (2) SCC 104], V. Kasturi v. Managing
Director, State Bank of India [1998 (8) SCC 30] and Union of India v.
Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 (7) SCC 662].

D) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5566 OF 2008 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12357 of 2006
Union of India and another ...Appellants Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others ...Respondents
Date of Judgment: 9.9.2008.

“26. The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution”.

As could be seen above, while the post-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service were treated as a homogenous class of pensioners by removing the cut off date 2.9.2008, for payment of full pension on their retirement or after 1.1.2006, and since the latest OM dated 12.5.2009 was talking of all pre-2.9.2008 pensioners, no subsequent clarification was issued after issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 as regards the applicability of the modification in the manner of calculation of full pension for pre-2006 pensioners.

The post-2006 pensioners retiring at lower pay scale are getting more pension than pre-2006 pensioners who had retired at a higher pay scale with equal qualifying service.

Incidentally, after extension of tenure, this is the first Meeting of the NAC that is scheduled today. We request the Official side as well as Staff Side to kindly look into the Injustice through said anomalies, for appropriate remedial measures.

Therefore, the revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the all the Govt. servants retired irrespective of their actual date of retirement.

ybhaskar23
15-02-2011, 07:38 AM
A fine analysis. Hope wisdom prevails and necessary instructions issued by government immediately.


In continuation of the previous post dated 14.2.2011 on the subject,

(a) Whether the existing well settled positions through various Court Judgments are for treating the homogenous class of pensioners alike for the sake of Minimum Revised Basic Pension, whereby whether is it not necessary to ensure that both pre-2006 pensioner and post-2006 pensioner of same length of service at bottom of the same scale at the time of retirement draws same minimum revised basic pension? -
The Court case Judgments referred to in this post will provide the answer.

(b) Whether the existing well settled positions through various Court Judgments are supportive of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service for grant of full revised basic pension/full minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006?


(1) Para 5.1.33 of 6th CPC recommendations w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum qualifying service is put in.

Para 11.33 of 6th CPC recommendation: “The fixation formulae applicable to serving employees to be extended to pensioners also”.


(2) The Government removed the anomaly relating to qualifying service requirement in respect of those who retired between post-1-1-2006 and post-2-9-08 pensioners vide DOP&PW OM dated 11.12.2009. As per Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated 11.12.2009, it has been decided that `linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006. The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006)'.

(3) HOW THE VARIOUS COURT CASES JUDGMENTS ARE SUPPORTIVE TO THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WITH <33 YEARS Q.S. FOR GRANT OF FULL PENSION W.E.F. 1.1.2006 IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATE OF RETIREMENT:

(A) As per the decision in the Hon. Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, the fixation of a cut off date as a result of which equals were treated as unequals,was wholly arbitrary.

"If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect".
.......
It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution".

(B) The Honorable Supreme Court judgement in the case of V. KASTURI vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY & ANR-DATE JUDGMENT (Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998): 09/10/1998. where in the honourable apex court ruled :
“If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”

“In the case of All India reserve Bank retired Officers Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664, A.M. Ahmadi, J (as he then was), spoke for the Division Bench of two learned Judges highlighted the observations in Nakara’s case found at page 333 para 46 to the following effect:
".... the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it
is not a new scheme, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit".
The portion mentioned in Nakara’s case clearly indicated that all the employees in Nakara’s case were governed by the existing scheme and were the recipients of retrial benefits. It was an upward revision of the existing benefit that would in normal course be made available to all such beneficiaries of existing retrial benefits.

(C) TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) 72 OF 2004 COL. B.J. AKKARA VS. THE GOI DATE OF JUDGMENT 10.10.2006

20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well settled.
They are :
a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect.
.....
c) What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.
[Vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305], Krishna
Kumar v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India [1991 (2) SCC 104], V. Kasturi v. Managing
Director, State Bank of India [1998 (8) SCC 30] and Union of India v.
Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 (7) SCC 662].

D) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5566 OF 2008 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12357 of 2006
Union of India and another ...Appellants Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others ...Respondents
Date of Judgment: 9.9.2008.

“26. The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution”.

As could be seen above, while the post-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service were treated as a homogenous class of pensioners by removing the cut off date 2.9.2008, for payment of full pension on their retirement or after 1.1.2006, and since the latest OM dated 12.5.2009 was talking of all pre-2.9.2008 pensioners, no subsequent clarification was issued after issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 as regards the applicability of the modification in the manner of calculation of full pension for pre-2006 pensioners.

The post-2006 pensioners retiring at lower pay scale are getting more pension than pre-2006 pensioners who had retired at a higher pay scale with equal qualifying service.

Incidentally, after extension of tenure, this is the first Meeting of the NAC that is scheduled today. We request the Official side as well as Staff Side to kindly look into the Injustice through said anomalies, for appropriate remedial measures.

Therefore, the revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the all the Govt. servants retired irrespective of their actual date of retirement.

sundarar
16-02-2011, 06:01 AM
This particular thread in this Discussion forum is very significant as could be seen from the No. of pages it travelled with a target of 1/2 century and no. of posts to 1k shortly with 77000+views. This data speak volumes of the title `INJUSTICE' ever since implementation of 6th CPC recommendations.
........
........
By determining 50% of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, the last higher scale acquired on promotion prior to retirement, whether has any impact for the purpose of deriving 50% of the pay in the pay band applicable to bottom of the said higher scale?.

For example, an employee who got promoted from 14300 scale (S-24) to 16400 scale (S-26), before 2/3 years of his retirement, as per modified OM dated 3.10.2008 and reiterated vide OM dated 19.3.2010, will get 50% of minimum pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale from which he retired, which literally means 37400/2= 18700 as 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band. Actually by virtue of his holding a promoted scale, he is entitled for 39690/2 = 19845.
Since GP corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired is entitled, there is no problem as far as GP is concerned.

From the above, it could be seen that the higher pay scale acquired on promotion has nothing to do while determining 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band.

Thus, the anomaly is explicit.

Under 5th CPC, 50% of bottom of the revised scale was prescribed as minimum revised pension.

The purpose of introduction of running pay band was elaborated vide para 1.2.7 to 1.2.9 as per which the same was introduced to remove scale based anomalies.

Whether the purpose is served by clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008?
(Out of all, it is also said that for a scale 5500-9000, since the minimum of the pay in the band applicable to the stage 5500 is more than minimum of the pay band, no bunching benefits can be allowed in the case of serving employees - Ref. Enclosure to DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011)

Thus, every lowest stage of pre-revised scale has its own corresponding Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band in the revised structure . And it can never be said that - a Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band is applicable only for post-2006 serving employees and for pre-2006 pensioners, only Minimum of the pay band matters.

The phenomenon `irrespective of pre-revised scale' has blocked the benefits to be accrued out of a promoted scale held at the time of retirement as illustrated above.

Neither 6th CPC recommendation nor the accepted resolution vide Gazette Notification has ever said that a Minimum pay in the pay band can be irrespective of pre-revised scale.

So, where is the problem in removing the said clarificatory phenomenon, even when the recent AFT Judgment also pointed out that definition part is quite significant to derive 50% of actual minimum pay in the pay band?

Since the NAC is going to meet for the third time tomorrow, it is submitted that this also exists as an anomaly to be removed by appropriate measures.
...........................
It is still hoped that the Injustice out of the aforesaid anomalies will be removed and judicious decisions will be taken without any further delay.

Thanks to Shri Ybhaskarji for kind response.

Thus, the promotees and non-promotees at the time of retirement will get the same 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band and the promotion acquired last will have no bearing in determining the same. That means, a lowest grade in a particular pay band, and the highest of the same pay band are one and same for the purpose of deriving 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band.

The 6th CPC's recommendation vide para 1.2.9 says: "Distinct running pay bands have been recommended for Government employees belonging to groups A, B and C".

In reality, from the point of view of minimum revised pension -
Gr.A is converted into three pay bands - viz. PB3, PB4, S-30 and above
Gr.B is converted into PB2
Gr.C/D is converted into PB1.

While the methodology for fixing minimum revised pension for retirees of S-30 and above is 50% of revised pay based,
for the remaining scale retirees (S-4 to S-39) it is band pay/grade pay based (The uniform treatment for deriving minimum revised pension got missed here too).

From the point of view of Grade pay,
Gr.A/B/C/D is converted into two groups - viz.S-4 to S-20 (for 40% of max. of pre-revised
scale as Grade Pay)
and S-21 onwards(for 45% of max. of
pre-revised scale as Grade Pay

Still 50% of Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired is prescribed for all 29 scales, for the purpose of calculation of minimum revised pension. (The uniform treatment is missing here too).

By recommending distinct running pay bands for Gr.A, Gr.B and Gr.C,
the Pay Commission has made it clear that minimum of such a running pay band has nothing to do with determining Minimum of the Pay in the Running Pay Band.

It is to be remembered that the very introduction of running pay band, according to 6th CPC, is to remove scale based anomalies.

Under 5th CPC, it was not prescribed that minimum of the Gr.A scales will be
minimum revised pension, and so for Gr.B, Gr.C and so on.

There the minimum of the revised pension was related to 50% of the revised pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

In 6th CPC whose purpose of introduction of running pay band was to remove the scale based anomalies, at the time of implementation of its recommendation relating to minimum revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 clarified/modified by OM dated 3.10.2008, virtually, the minimum of the Gr.A (PB4/PB3 respectively) scales have been related for determining 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band instead of relating minimum of the pre-revised scale for the purpose.. So for Gr.B and Gr.C too.

The intention of 6th CPC must not be so and hence, in their recommendation they have not specifically indicated that a minimum pay in the pay band can be irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, while determining minimum revised pension. The phenomenon `irrespective of pre-revised scale' is an after thought inclusion after resolving/notifying the accepted recommendation and even after issue of an Executive Instruction on 1.9.2008.

Having seen that a minimum of the running pay band has no relevance with a minimum of the pay in the running pay band, the definition part of which also reiterates the same, the clarification part of OM dated 3.10.2008 has adversely affected the mother OM dated 1.9.2008 by modifying the latter's version as against the intended/accepted recommendation and thereby brought reducing impact on minimum revised pension.

Though this is a very serious anomaly and injustice, less attention is paid till date for removing the same.

vnatarajan
16-02-2011, 04:50 PM
http://confederationhq.blogspot.com/[/url]

Dear Interested,

(SOME FEELINGS/ REACTIONS BY EMPLOYEE REPS/ PENSIONER REPS.
NO DISREPSECT MEANT TO ANYONE.
A HEALTHY VIEWPOINT HAS TO EMERGE BEFORE 31ST MARCH 2011 FOR EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF BOTH GROUPS OF NAC.
OTHERWISE IT WILL BE A NATIONAL WASTE COMMITTEE).

The NAC has drawn a flak- as usual!

No items related to Pension Parity appears to have been discussed even to understand each other's view-point.

Even employees items are so grossly mismanaged/ misrepresented by the reps of aggrieved , the former may fret and fume !

On the whole it is clearly a stage-managed show!

AN EYEWASH IN THE NAME OF UNDERSTANDING EACH SIDE BY THE OTHER- EXCUSE FOR FURTHER "LIFE-LINE"!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONFEDERATION OF CENTRAL

GOVT. EMPLOYEES & WORKERS.

A-2/95,Manishinath Bhawan,

Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi-110 027

Website:www.confederationhq.blogspot.com.

Email:Confederation06@Yahoo.co.in

Tel: 011-2510 5324: Mobile: 98110 48303



CONF/3/2011

Dated: 16.02.2011

Dear Comrade,



The third meeting of the National Anomaly Committee was held on 15/02/2011. The following items were taken up for discussion. No final decision on any item could be arrived at. It was more or less an exercise to understand the points of view of both sides on these items. We shall in our next communication indicate the outcome of discussion on each item.



Item Nos. 11, 12&13, 14, 20, 28,29&30, 31,37, 38,39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50 and 51.



During the discussion the Staff brought to the notice of the official side that the issues pertaining to the employees of Andaman and Nicobar islands, which were taken out of the agenda on the plea that the same would be discussed separately by a Committee to be set up by the Andaman Administration have not been settled. The NGO Association of A & N Islands have brought to the notice of the staff side that the A & N Administration has not taken any steps to resolve the problems even though similar issues pertaining to the employees of Pondicherry and Delhi were settled. The Official side has promised to take up the issue with the concerned in the Home Ministry to ensure that the issues are addressed expeditiously.



The official side has in the Action Taken State has indicated their inability to concede the demand raised by the Staff Side on the following two issues.



(a) Grant of increment in the case of employees whose increment falls between Feb and June. 2006.

(b) Fixing the pay of the promotees on par with the Direct recruits.



Though these issues were not discussed, the Staff Side has said that a resolution to them are urgently needed .



The official side has requested the Staff Side to indicate the items on which further discussions are needed; further details are required; and alternative suggestions could be made within 10 days so that the next and final meeting of the Committee could be convened before 31st March, 2011. It was also decided that the sub-committee of the MACP related issued will meet once again and their report submitted to the NAC .




With greetings,



Posted by Confederation Of Central Government Employees

ybhaskar23
16-02-2011, 06:06 PM
It is so obvious that "the minimum of the running pay band" is totally different from " the minimum of the pay in the running pay band".

What I fail to understand is that how is that the so called experts in the Govt Of India have overlooked such an important observation before issuing the 3rd october 2008 clarification inspite of the original executive instructions of 1st sep 2008 being in order.

The only logic appears to be is that the clarification has been issued as an after thought to deny genuine benefits due to the pensioners as has been reflected in the executive instructions of 1st sep 2008.

I cannot for a second believe that our High Level Decision Makers have such poor grasping and drafting abilities in issuing clarifications or have these standards so fallen down.

What Mr Sundarar has explained is not Rocket Science Which the Decision Makers cannot grasp or understand, Perhaps they have some other strong reasons better known to them for not implementing what has already been directed in the 1st sep 2008 instructions.

sundarar
16-02-2011, 07:39 PM
What Mr Sundarar has explained is not Rocket Science Which the Decision Makers cannot grasp or understand, Perhaps they have some other strong reasons better known to them for not implementing what has already been directed in the 1st sep 2008 instructions.

Thanks to Shri YBhaskarji once again. While I too agree with the above view, it is significant to note from the 50 pages this particular thread has travelled, the pre-2006 pensioners community has no other option but to take the responsibility of presenting their grievance again and again in whatever best way they could do in spite of repeated reiterations maintaining that all communications including OM dated 1.9.2008 are to be read together. Till the issue of CPAO letter dated 26.9.2008, which facilitated subsequent OM dated 3.10.2008, things were normal. When the said letter undergone change through a Corrigendum after a year, similar corrigendum to OM dated 3.10.2008 was due so as to give full effect to initial OM dated 1.9.2008.

The very significant point to be noted is that even in spite of recent AFT Judgement with regard to the subject matter relating to `pay in the pay band', things have not been put on rail. As we have seen from this thread itself, there are about 42 cases under progress in various Courts, which itself speaks of the gravity of the issue. Whatever the strong reasons could be there, at least at some point of time, truth shall prevail and injustice got removed. Since the NAC has met on 15.2.2011 and likely to meet shortly by next month end, the very first requirement is to accept that an anomaly exists/injustice occured and thereby, so as to look for corrective action therefor. For this purpose only, many of the senior veterans have all along been discussing at length with a slight ray of hope that some ray of light will be at the end of the tunnel at some point of time. Sub-Juniors like this writer too joins with them to acquire and update the information on the circumstances prevailing among us. One thing is sure, no pensioner is greedy to grab some undue benefits at their second half of their life track after serving the first half till superannuation, but their expectation is their just entitlement. Nothing more or Nothing less.

As per the flash news from Confederation posted by our Respected Shri VNji "The official side has requested the Staff Side to indicate the items on which further discussions are needed; further details are required; and alternative suggestions could be made within 10 days so that the next and final meeting of the Committee could be convened before 31st March, 2011".

It is hoped that the Staff Side will focus the pensioners' grievance too through their suggestions for remedial measures as sought for by the official side as above.

Thanks to Shri YBhaskarji once again. Let us hope for the best at all point of times.

sundarar
17-02-2011, 05:49 AM
Two significant Resolutions passed in the Second National Convention of All India Railway Pensioners Association at Secunderabad on 13.2.2011 are given hereunder(Complete proceedings of the Convention available at www.rrewa.org)
A well-thought, timely and responsible suggestive agenda for both official side and staff side of the NAC to keep in view for next discussion and solution thereon.

"Resolution No. 2 : Equal fitment benefit to pensioners at par with employees :
There was no reason for the VI CPC to give a different fitment benefit to the pre-2006 retirees other than what was given to serving employees. Adding 86% DR to their basic pensions did not amount to giving the same fitment benefit to the pensioners. While grade pay benefit given to employees ensured equal benefit to all those coming under each grade pay, the same is not the case with the pensioners since pensioners retired at various stages in pre-revised pay scales. This glaring anomaly in the matter of fitment benefit recommended to pre-2006 pensioners was not properly appreciated by the VI CPC while making the recommendation. The Government also has not come forward to do justice to pensioners considering that different fitment benefits given to pensioners and serving employees resulted in further widening of disparities in pensions/family pensions of pre and post 2006 pensioners/.family pensioners. Further, the benefit is not uniform at all levels in as much as the increase in basic pension was 2.26 times upto certain levels(PB III), it was much more at higher levels(upto 3.4) leaving a trail of deep sense of frustration and injustice at the lower levels. This convention therefore appeals to the Government to do justice to all the pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners by giving them same fitment benefit as given to serving employees w.e.f. 1-1-2006 i.e. Basic pension + 86% DR + 50% of grade pay as allotted w.e.f. 1-1-2006.and a uniform multiplication factor of 3.4 i.e. Existing Pension x 3.4 to arrive at the minimum guaranteed pension.
Resolution No. 3 Complete parity to pre 2006 pensioners with post 2006 Pensioners :
The V Central Pay Commission had in Para 137.21 of their report enunciated a principle for future revision of pensions. According to this, "complete parity should normally be conceded upto the date of last pay revision and modified parity (with pension equated atleast to the minimum of the revised pay. scale) be accepted at the time of each pay revision. The enunciation of this principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision, say, in the year 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post 1996 and modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. The VI CPC did not recommend carrying forward this already accepted principle for implementation of 'parity' between pre and post 1996 pensioners. They had abandoned this salutary principle on the untenable plea that cent percent neutralization of price-rise was given to all levels w.e.f. 1-1-96. While making this observation, the VI CPC ignored the fact that 'parity' as recommended by V CPC was not linked to cent percent neutralization of price rise. Cent percent neutralization of price rise was there upto certain levels even prior to 1-1-96 and the 'parity' principle is meant to progressively bridge the gap in pensions of those retiring under different Pay Commission scales of pay. By not carrying forward this salutary principle, the VI CPC did grave injustice to pre 1-1-96 pensioners and family pensioners. The commission also utterly failed to make any recommendation to eliminate wide disparities and bring about parity in pensions of past and present pensioners and present and future pensioners and to provide a uniform multiplication factor for revision of pension with respect to the existing pension. Thus, the commission dealt severe blow to the principle of parity in pensions. The Government of India which had earlier accepted this principle and implemented it to pre 1986 pensioners and family pensioners completely abdicated its moral responsibility to its past employees and their families. This only speak of the anti-pensioner attitude of the Government of India.
Similarly with regard to implementation of modified parity, the recommendation of the VI CPC was deliberately distorted and misinterpreted to deny the benefit of 'stepping up' to a large number of pre 2006 pensioners and family pensioners. The V CPC enunciated modified parity to ensure that the past retiree in a post would get not less than 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale at the time of revision and 30% in the case of family pension. Introduction of pay bands and grade pays have been taken advantage of to deny the above benefit to pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners.
The benefit of modified parity would accrue to all pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners only if the pay in the pay band corresponding to the minimum pay of the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner retired with grade pay thereon is taken for this purpose. In implementation of the Government's orders in this regard, a large number of those who retired in various pre-revised pay scales have been deprived of this benefit and denied equal treatment. The manner in which the modified parity was implemented under VI CPC recommendation amounted to gross discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Inspite of this glaring irregularity being pointed out by individual affected pensioners as well as C.G. Pensioners' Organizations across the country, the Government of India has turned a deaf ear to all their pleas. This distorted interpretation of the recommendation and its implementation in the manner explained above has the effect of widening the gap between the pensions of pre and post 2006 pensioners and family pensioners and this gap continues to widen with sanction of every additional installment of DR and also when additional quantum of pension/family pension relating to age is granted. Unfortunately, the authorities have been ignoring these glaring irregularities and the recurring monetary loss to many pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners. While the Government could do justice to pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners in the above regard by issuing suitable modified instructions, it is unfortunate, that the aggrieved pensioners and family pensioners are being made to go from pillar to post in the evenings of their lives at great expense and physical and mental strain to them hardly becoming of an enlightened and model employer which the Central Government is expected to be.
This 2nd National Convention of Railway Pensioners therefore urges on the government of India to concede full parity upto 1-1-96-and implement modified parity as on 1-1-2006 in a manner that would do equal justice to all those who retired in pre-revised scales of pay and also to provide irrespective of pre retirement official status, a uniform multiplication factor for revision of existing Pension".

sundarar
25-02-2011, 06:42 AM
This particular thread in this Discussion forum is very significant as could be seen from the No. of pages it travelled with a target of 1/2 century and no. of posts to 1k shortly with 77000+views. This data speak volumes of the title `INJUSTICE' ever since implementation of 6th CPC recommendations.
As rightly observed by one and all as above, our respected Shri VNji had started this thread on 7th October 2008 (within 4 days of issue of OM dated 3.10.2008 by DOP&PW) and the first post of this thread is reproduced for information.
Today 07.10.2008 02:32 PMvnatarajan
INJUSTICE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S-29 & 30/ALSO OTHER SCALES (18400-22400 & 22400-24500 etc) THRU Corrigendum OM Dtd 03.10.2008 of Deptt of Pension etc.

This has reference to Deptt of Pension's most recent office memorandum, F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03 Oct 2008, containing certain clarifications on their earlier OM of even number dated 01 sep 2008 with crucial modifications to the provisions, particularly on the fixations of minimum pension and family pension, of pre 2006 retirees.

Under para 4.2 of the earlier OM dated 01 Sep 08,, the applicable minimum revised pension for pre 2006 pensioners,(ie 50% of the minimum of the pay in the corresponding revised pay band plus the grade pay) had been spelt out. The OM was silent on the minimum applicable Family Pension, as related to the pay last drawn .While seeking to correct this omission, the second OM of 03 Oct 2008, has in effect, negated the established position wrt the minimum pay of a grade and consequently the minimum pension /family pension, as already accepted by the government, at different levels and notified through various rules and notifications . It is to be noted that in respect of the 5th CPC also, minimum pension/ family pension wrt to the revised pay scales introduced wef 1-1-96 was not accepted initially.However,after detailed examination, Government accepted the logic and corrected the position, vide OM No , F.No 45/10/98-P&PW(A), dated, 17 Dec 98,and all pensioners/family pensioners ,were authorized pension of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay at the time of retirement and family pension subject to the minimum of 30% of the revised pay, irrespective of the date of retirement.

Against this background, the undue restriction of the minimum pension through the notification of 03 Oct 08, is neither tenable nor justified as explained hereunder.

i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a bunch of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding starting points for each one of them. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation ; and also through the DOP's resolution No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and DOP's OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08. It may be seen for example, that the revised basic pay under the 6th CPC, for the pre revised basic pay of Rs 18400 in the scale of 18400-22400, (S-29) has been prescribed as 54700/-( ie pay in the pay band Rs. 44700 + grade pay Rs. 10000) and similarly revised basic pay of Rs. 63850 for pre revised basic pay of Rs. 22400 in the pre revised HAG scale (S-30) and others.

ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays. E.g. ( Rs. 53000 for SAG and Rs. 59100 for HAG)

iii) The modifications notified in DOP's of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

iv) The dual concept of minimum basic pay as provided for in the modified orders, could in many cases result in an employee retiring in higher grades before 2006, getting less pension than one retiring after 2006, from even two or more grades below, leaving alone, in the same grade, thus upsetting even the limited parity accepted by the government among pre and post 2006 pensioners.

v) Excepting the existing family pensioners, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, are to be prospective, and therefore cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and anomalous between inequal grades. Lack of parity among them will perpetuate injustice in future!.

vi) The recent DOP's OM of 3rd Oct 2008, in effect relegates the pre-2006 S-29 & 30 level pensioners with starting points at 18400 and even 22400 of their original pay scales to the lowest starting level of 14300 (S-24) for pension purposes- a decision most unjustifiable/ untenable/ unacceptable. For eg How can a person who throughout the period from 1996 onwards had been drawing pension based on say 50% of basic of 18400 be now relegated to start at 50% of basic of 14300 - as the effect of 40% fitment or even part of Grade Pay provided gets eroded due to the huge difference at the starting point itself!

The entire issue needs a thorough review and fresh revised orders, fixing the correct minimum basic pension/family pension should be issued by the Govt., covering all existing pensioners.

Principles enshrined in the constitutional Bench Judgement of the Supreme court, in the "NAKRA CASE" dated 17 Dec 82,which is hailed as the "MAGNA CARTA" for pensioners and on the foundation of which the current welfare based pension scheme, has been shaped by the Govt., should be kept in view always to do justice to all the PENSIONERS. (posted by vnatarajan)”
--------------------------------------------------------

After a period of 10 months and amidst so many RTI queries, pension graphs, etc. and representations to the highest levels in the Govt. by senior veterans, the S-30 scale was prescribed with a re-revised scale in the revised structure, by which scale based minimum was derived at. That is, 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom stage of the pre-revised scale was prescribed as minimum revised pension which is in line with the stand taken vide Executive Instructions dated 17.12.1998.

By virtue of the above re-revised scale, the minimum revised pension of S-30 pensioners as on 1.1.2006 Rs.24700 as per OM dated 3.10.2008 got revised upwards to Rs.33500. At the same time, the very next immediate lower scale, S-29 as well as the subsequent lower scales, continue to be governed as per the provisions vide OM dated 3.10.2008 for the purpose of minimum revised pension. Particularly, the S-29 pensioners who were drawing Rs.23700 which was just Rs.1000/- less than their next higher scale pensioners till August 2009 too ought to be subjected to the modified manner of calculation of minimum revised pension, ie. on scale based from band based, and in such a case, they are entitled to Rs.27350 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Same would be the case of other lower scale pensioners too although the difference may vary depending on the scale/gp.

If we see the difference in basic pay among these two scales, it was Rs.4000 at the minimum level. Whereas, the difference in actual basic pension being drawn in the revised structure as on date is Rs.9800. (From the difference noted Rs.1000/- on implementation of 6th CPC recommendation as accepted/notified, the growth in difference to Rs.9800 by an exclusion from PB4 scale, is the real injustice to S-29 pensioners. We are not averse to any higher/special treatment by categorizing as High Achievers Group. That way, every scale ought to be treated as High Achiever Scale by both sides. At the same time, looking at this illustrative case, the pay difference Rs.4000 has ended with a pension difference of 9800.
(50% of the difference in bottom level basic pay, ie. Rs.2000 if multiplied by 2.26 for applying any logical theory, it will work out to just Rs.4520. Even if we apply a highest multiplication factor of 3, it will work out to Rs.6000. In this case, it may be nearing some logical conclusion, for establsihing which the minimum revised pension ought to be Rs.27350 for S-29 pensioners. But the case is not so, and the application of a multiplication factor of 5 may only justify). Is it justifiable? Whether a pre-revised scale can loose its identity so drastically by applying parity with the lowest scale grouped under a particular pay band for the purpose of higher/special treatment to the higher rest.?

Whatever manner/methodology is put in use, the basic pay/basic pension drawn on 31.12.2005 cannot be changed. In that case, while revising such a pension, uniform treatment as a single homogenous class of pensioners irrespective of date of retirement, irrespective of scale shall be involved. Any manner of calculation shall be applied to all uniformly.

Though the thread brought half success by bringing justice to S-30 pensioners much earlier, the remaining is due. If at all the root cause for injustice is analysed with a open mind, solution cannot be far away, but too near only.

.

vnatarajan
03-03-2011, 07:16 AM
Dear pre 2006/ post 2006/ would be pensioners,

YOU ARE ALL A WITNESS TO THE GRAVE INJUSTICE INFLICTED ON THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS DUE TO A "MISINTERPRETATION AND MISIMPLEMENTATION" OF THE SCPC REVISED PENSION ORDERS VIZ "MISINTERPRETING" THAT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" IS SAME AS "MINIMUM OF THE 'PAY IN THE PAY BAND'" WHICH AFFECTED A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM WHO RETIRED FROM DIFFERENT PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES.

MANY SUCH PENSIONERS WERE 'BLINDED' BY THE 2.26 MF BASED ON THE 'LAST PAY DRAWN' FORMULA - WHICH NO DOUBT BENEFITTED PENSIONERS WHOSE THRESHHOLD "BASIC PAY" HAD CROSSED THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" AND SO GOT A BETTER REVISED PENSION BASED ON "2.26 MF " FIGURE! THIS IS A SHEER COINCIDENCE AND IS MAINLY DUE TO THE "GROSS FACT" THAT "PROMOTIONS" WERE RARE IN MANY CASES AND MOST SUCH PENSIONERS HAD DRAWN SUFFICIENT NO. OF INCREMENTS IN THEIR PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES SO THAT THE "2.26 MF ON LAST PAY DRAWN BASED BASIC PENSION" WAS HIGHER THAN THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" BASED PENSION!

A STOP COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THIS "MISTAKE/ ERROR" IF THE EMPLOYEES IN SERVICE (WOULD BE PENSIONERS) HAD ACTED CONSCIOUSLY AND PUT "NOTES IN FILES' WITH ALACRITY AND CONVICTION. IT SHALL BE REMEMBERED THAT NOTES PUT BY A LOWER OFFICIAL OF DOPW INTRODUCING THE EXPRESSION "IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES" IN A CLARIFICATION DRAFT FOR THE OM DT 3RD OCT 2008 LED TO THE DISASTROUS OUTCOME OF "SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED PENSIONS" FOR MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ( SOME ARE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES / MANY HAVE NO MEANS TO KNOW/ OTHERS HAVE IGNORED/ MANY DO NOT HAVE MEANS TO FIGHT!). SUCH "NEGATIVE" ACTIONS BY "RESPOSIBLE LOWER OFFICIALS" IN SERVICE LEAD TO GRAVE INJUSTICES AND LIMITLESS LITIGATIONS. "SERVING EMPLOYEES' MUST NOT ALLOW THESE TYPE OF ACTIONS. THE UNIONS/ ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS MUST BE CONSCIOUS OF SUCH ACTIONS!.

SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO, THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS DID NOT/ HAVE NOT ACTED "FORCEFULLY" TO RECTIFY THE MISDIRECTED CLARIFICATION TO UNDO THE INJUSTICE!

ELITE CADRES HAVE TRIED TO "ENCASH" THE "PENSION BUDGET" OF A FEW TO "GET A HIGHER PAY PACKAGE AND HIGHER PENSION" TO THE TUNE OF 228 CRORES AT THE MINIMUM!

Now it is left to the old helpless pensioners to fight the issue to undo the INJUSTICE, by moving heaven and earth and then knock at the portals of justice for remedy!.

FEW MILITARY PENSIONERS (RTD LT CDRS/ MAJOR/ SQDRN LDRS) TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO CONSULT US AND GET A CORRECT JUDGMENT IN THE AFT PR BENCH DELHI/ CHANDIGARH WITHIN A SHORT SPELL OF 3 TO 5 MONTHS.THERE ARE 3 FAVOURABLE JUDGMENTS ON 16 OAS ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED IN EARLIER POSTINGS. THESE JUDGMENTS HAVE "DEFINED" THE CORRECT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS AND HAVE POINTED OUT THE STANDING RELEVANCE OF THE DOPPW'S OM DTD 17TH DEC 1998 WHERE PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION HAD BEEN OBTAINED TO CONVEY WHAT IS THE PRESICE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY" FOR REVISING THE PENSIONS TO GIVE A "MODIFIED PARITY" AFTER THE 5CPC "MISADVENTURES' OF THE AUTHORITIES.

I find still a few S21-23 employees are vascillating to go to CAT to seek justice for not including them in PB 4- agenuine grievance . Pre 2006 pensioners in such scales are also affected. AFT judgments cited earlier pertain to such pension revision disparities only. They shd also get together and fight for justice.

ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS MUST BE STRONGLY URGED TO TAKE UP THEIR CASES IN THE last meeting of the NAC BEFORE 31ST MAR 2011, eventhough the NAC may not be responsive. AT BLEAST THE PROTEST MUST BE RECORDED WITH FORCE..

ABOVE ARE THE FEELINGS/ REACTIONS OF MANY OLD PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS WHICH I HAVE "FAITHFULLY" CONVEYED HERE WITHOUT DEMEANING ANY "AUTHRORITIES' WHO ARE CAPABLE OF UNDOING THE INJUSTICE, IF THEIR CONSCIENCE GUIDES THEM .
TO ACT IN A JUST MANNER

I shall list the current status of CASES of pre 2006 pensioners' interest separately in next post.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-03-2011, 07:42 AM
Dear pre 2006/ other pensioners who are interested,
List of CASES fighting for post SCPC injustice in revising the pensions is furnished hereunder.(tentattive- subject to corrections)
vnatarajan

IN HASTE- DRAFT

PR CAT/ CAT/ AFT / HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT CASES OF INTEREST TO PRE-2006 S29/30 & OTHER (CIVIL/ MILITARY) PENSIONERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A . Pre 2006 S29 (Haryana State) Cases filed by retirees of HVPNL (erstwhile HSEB) in Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH

The consolidated information of the 8 CWPs in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh is given below for reference:

S.No. CWP No. Petitioner Respondents Advocates Last date Next date Bench

1. 19641/2009 Er RK Aggarwal & others Haryana state & HVPN Veena & Ashwani Talwar 17.12.2010 17.03.2011 Single for argument
2. 19642/2009 Er Satish Bhalla & others -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-
3. 3452/2010 Er OP Kapur & others Haryana state PWD Manohar Lall 15.11.2010 . Status as on 22nd Jan 2011- Next date given is 16. 05 0211
4. 12638/2010 Er ML Kansal & others -do- Sumeet Goel – Next date awaited

5. 20725/2010 Er RK Sehgal & others Haryana state & HPGCL RK Chopra, Amit Chopra 23.12.2010 20.01.2011 -do-
and Karan Nehra
6. 20726/2010 Er RK Bali & others -do- & DHBVN -do- -do- -do- -do-
7. 20727/2010 Er BK Jain & others -do- & HVPN -do- -do- -do- -do-
8. 20753/2010 Er CK Gupta & others -do- & UHBVN -do- -do- -do- -do
(Sl Nos 5 to 8 were listed on 10 01 2011 for hearing; Repsondents had not submitted any reply; Judges unhappy; Next hearing 20 01 2011. Shri Sehgal has informed: Our case has been heard by Hon. Justice Mahesh Grover on 20th Jan. Power of attorney has been submitted by advocate Mr. Hooda on behalf of all 4 companies. No document has been submitted on behalf of Haryana govt. All respondents, particularly, Govt counsel, have requested for giving reasonably sufficient time to submit reply. As such court has ordered to submit reply by 16th May 2011. )

B (i). Cases in PR CAT, Delhi

1. O.A. 3079/2009 MA. 2136/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSION ASSOCIATION ADDL./JT. SECRETARY SH. L.R. KHATANA
REVISION OF
PENSION V/s -------------------------------------
A U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
WITH SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. R.K.SHARMA
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
2.O.A. 201/2010 M.L. GULATI SH. S.K. RAY
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. R.K.SHARMA
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
3.O.A. 306/2010 D.L. VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
4.O.A. 507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
MA. 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
SH. RAJESH KATYAL
SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

5.23 O.A 937/2010 MA. 907/2010 A.I. S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION SH. TARUN GUPTA
PAY FIXATION V/s -------------------------------------
PPG &P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
WITH

6.O.A. 2087/2009 RANVIR SINGH INPERSON
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I-M/O PPG&P SH. RAJENDER NISCHAL

7.O.A. 655/2010 MA 476/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG (S-29) PENSIONERS SH. TARUN GUPTA
DOP&T SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

8.O.A.2101/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSO SH. L.R.KHATANA
MA 1681/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
D.O.P.&T

Hearing began on 16th Aug 2010. Our Sr Counsel had initiated the case as Lead Adv. for S29 Cases. After initial deposition on the equality-inequality issue, the Judges had opined that as there is no response from Govt side, they may request the ASG to explain the Govt stand on the issue. After a few more more adjournments, the Govt had changed the ASG suddenly and on 1st Dec 2010, the new incumbent appears to have sought time to go through the case details being new!. On the Next Date given i.e. 18th Jan 2011,
based on the point raised by our Sr Advocate, the PR BENCH ordered: “We required assistance of Additional Solicitor General of India in this Case who because of his pre-engagements was not present on the last date of hearing and the position is not even different today. However, in the interest of justice, we defer orders today. List again on 15.03.2011, which is given again as per the convenience of Additional Solicitor General of India. We make it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted” Hon’ble Justices V K Bali & Dr R C Panda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. (ii). Pre 2006 S30 Pensioner CAT Case ( Cause of Action same as AIS30PA, Delhi - Prem Sharma Group)at CAT, Patna/Delhi
( a )MMP Sinha Vs UOI (b) R M Raina
Concluded in March 2010 Judgment DELIVERED on 28th and 25th May 2010. Details to be collected. (Raina’s Case at Delhi CAT appears to be disposed off with a suggestion to Govt to consider the petitioner’s plea that no S30 Pensioner shd draw less than highest possible S29 Pensioner ie not less than 67000 plus 10000 summed and divided by two wh is 38500- pl chk Judgment).

B (iii) OA No 568 of 2010 (DeSPA) viz.DRDO Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners Vs UOI at CAT, HYDERABAD
REJOINDER FOR THE COUNTER IS FILED IN No 2010.The case came up on 30-12-2010 and posted to first week of Feb 2011 for hearing.(Reason: THE CASE CAME UP WRONGLY AT SINGLE JUDGE). The case filed by DeSPA on behalf of S-26 is also clubbed with this case


B.(iv) Case at CAT,HYDERABAD.
O.A. (SR) No.2413/9 of 15-09-2009
Between:
Petitioners:
A.J Gurushankar, S/O Late A. Jagadia,
Aged about 78 years.occ:Sr. Dy.G.M.S.C.Rly./SC
Employee,R/O. Plot No.61,Gordhanpuri,
Yapral,Secunderabad-500 087 and others.

Vs
Respondents:
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,

(Shri Gurushankar was in USA and hence case delayed. Now he is back from USA- but his lawyer is abroad. In the meanwhile Govt had given a Counter. A reply had been filed. Case will be poursued with a brother lawyer. New date will be sought)
No date so far.


B(v) S26 Pre-2006 Pensioners

Dr Kotra informs:
The case is clubbed with the other DeSPA case 568 of 2010 at B (iii) and will be heard in the first week of Feb 2011.

B(vi) New DRODO Scientists’ CAT Case at ERNAKULAM:

Dr Sivathanu Pillai had informed:

S-26 and S 29 group jointly filed a case at CAT ,Ernakulam. It is admitted on 20 sep 2010 and No OA 834/2010. Relief prayed for both fixation and inclusion of special pay of Rs 2000 up to 2006 and 4000 from 2006 onwards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


C.Case in UP High Court Bench at LUCKNOW
UP Retd IAS/IPS/IFS Officers’ Association Vs Union of India

WP( C ) No: 203 (S/B) of 2010

On 21st DEC 2010., amendment application to challenge OM dated 19.3.2010 allowed. Four weeks time given for Govt’s counter and two weeks for rejoinder .To be listed thereafter.

The UoI have not filed their counter as yet. Petitioner Counsel has moved an application to have the matter listed as per this last order of the court
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. DELHI HIGH COURT


COURT NO. 7
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

Court No.
1 W.P.(C) 3359/2010
[PENDING] Order(s)
Judgement(s)
ALL INDIA EX-PARA MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION
Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Advocate : PRASHANT BHUSHAN
Court No. :

Next Date : 25th Feb 2011

Admitted on 17 05 2010; Notice given to Respondents; Date given 11th AUGUST 2010. Govt. did not submit any "Counter" on 11.08.10 but requested for more time, which was given by the Court. Hearing started on 14 Dec 2010. Govt Counsel wanted some time. Next date 25th Feb 2011.

It is learnt: WP(C)3359 was heard by Delhi HC but Govt. again failed to submit Counter affidavit. The Court wanted a list of Members of Association (Para Military) to be submitted for records before next date. Next date has been fixed as 1st April'2011. (This is as per telephonic information received by Shri MLK). Details to be confirmed from Court orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Contd in next post)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan
03-03-2011, 07:44 AM
(Contd from previous post)

E (i). Rtd Maj Gen. SPS Vains Contempt Case
Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009

STATUS PENDING
Cause Title

MAJ. GEN. SPS VAINS & ORS.
Vs.
SH. VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MS. S. JANANI
Res. Adv. MRS ANIL KATIYAR

Subject Category

MATTERS PERTAINING TO ARMED FORCES & PARA MILITARY FORCES
Listing Details

Matter was Listed 9 Times Earlier.
Next Date of Listing 02 05 2011

HSC Order on 6th Aug 2010 hearing:.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the alleged contemnors indicating that the orders passed by this Court have been duly complied with.Matter was listed on 9th September, 2010,
for consideration of the said affidavit. (In the meantime, the petitioners will be entitled to file an affidavit in respect of their contentions).
However on 9th Sept 2010, Sr Adv of petitioners was indisposed. Case adjourned. Next Date fixed now 02 05 2011.


E (ii) & (iii)
AFT Directives on pre- 2006 Rtd Maj Gen parity case OA 100/2010 and another case by Rtd Soldiers (PBORs) on OROP AFT Chandigarh:
verdict delivered on 4th March 2010 (?) in favour of the appellants with 3 months/ 4 months time-frame for Govt to implement.

Adjourned to 1st Nov 2010.(?)
(UPDATE/CORRECTION NEEDED)
(Govt’s delay in FILING REPLY appears to have been dealt by CAT (?))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE THREE CASES appearing below have been favourably DECIDED on “SCPC RELATED MODIFIED PARITY”. Though contested by pre 2006 military pensioners, issues decided are most relevant to all pre 2006 CIVIL/ MILITARY pensioners.

"PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS' STAND ON "SCPC RECOMMENDED MODIFIED PARITY" -WELL RECEIVED/ JUDGED/CONFIRMED by the LEARNED HON. JUDGES OF THE AFTs IN TERMS OF CORRECT DEFINITION OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, JUDICIAL REVIEW PRECISELY ADDRESSING ONLY THE CORRECT “INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION” ASPECTS AND NOT CONTESTING THE "SIXTH PAY COMMISSION’S RECOS ANYTIME",CORRECT LAW POINTS IN TERMS OF POLICY, EARLIER HSC VERDICTS ON PENSIONS OF SENIOR TO BE HIGHER THAN THE JUNIORS/ CREATING A CLASS WITHIN CLASS AMONG PENSIONERS, PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION ETC. ALL THESE ARE RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE ANTICIPATED OUCOMES IN OTHER CAT/ COURT CASES.

All points are “eye openers” to the authorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.(i) PR AFT, Delhi Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Lt Cdrs/ Majors (More than 135) etc Vs UOI

(i)OA No 24/2010
Case heard/ Judgment delivered 14th Sept 2010 in favour of Petitioners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) & (III) AFT, Chandigarh Cases on Modified Parity by Rtd Majors (Maj Navdeep Singh)-17 Rtd Majors plus 45 Sqdrn Leaders and also another Group for similar benefits to all Retd Majors – Decided on 1st Nov 2010 and 25th Nov 2010 respectively in favour of the petitioners extending same relief as in (1) above .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment Copies posted in website www.rrewa.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pl Note: The above judgments pertain to a total of 16 OAs constituting three bunches, heard/ judged in AFT PR BENCH DELHI/ AFT CHANDIGARH/ AFT CHANDIGARH ON 14 9 2010/1 11 2010/ 25 11 2010 respectively). Petitions allowed are listed downunder.

On 4th Feb 2011, Lt Cdr Avtar Singh by email has informed t his Colleague: “ We have been informed that Govt has filed SLP with SC.The SLP is with registry of SC. and awaiting listing.To counter above we have filed a caveat with SC As per above the copy of petition of UOI shall be made available to us for arguing against stay order on first day of hearing.I shall revert back to you with details as and when it is received”
---------------------------------------------------------------------

sundarar
05-03-2011, 04:15 AM
Thanks to our Respected Shri VNji for regularly updating the Court cases. The Staff Side NAC may like to take note of the major anomaly prevailing among pre-2006 pensioners that necessitated the above litigation process, for resolving the issue through final recommendation of the NAC.

The Executive Instructions dated 17th December, 1998 by DOP&PW based on recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, prescribed that pension of all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement shall not be less than 50% of the bottom stage of the revised scale.

Based on recommendations of the 6th CPC, the aforesaid bottom stage of the revised scale (of post-1996) has undergone revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for the last post held by the pensioners. Such a last post held would have definitely been by virtue of promotion or under ACP that was introduced in 1998, which means after spending considerable period in a particular post such promotion to such last post held by the pensioners before retirement. While revising the pension, determining a minimum for the same irrespective of the pre-revised scale of the aforesaid last post held by the pensioners, through the
Executive Instructions dated 3.10.2008 by the DOP&PW is entirely against the spirit involved in their previous EI dated 17.12.1998.

It is a fact that the scale based pay structure has been replaced with introduction of various pay bands coupled with prescribed Grade Pay as applicable to a single pre-revised scale, mainly for the purpose of removing scale based anomalies. The 6th CPC's recommendation reg. minimum revised pension was made on the strategy adopted in the 5th CPC and hence, the revised structure will have full relevance and relation to the pre-revised scale that was recommended by 5th CPC and was in force till 31.12.2005.

The analogy of the EI dated 3.10.2008 relied upon the concept of treating the `minimum of the pay band' as MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND irrespective of pre-revised scale for determining 50% of the same alongwith GP applicable to pre-revised scale, which was neither recommended by 6th CPC nor implemented in the initial EI dated 1.9.2008.

The definition of the phrase vide CCS (RP) Rules 2008:

“Pay in the pay band” means the pay drawn in the running pay bands specified

"Grade pay' is the fixed amount corresponding to a pre-revised pay scale

There can be a minimum of the running pay band, and as such 4 minimums are available, such as PB-1, PB-2, PB-3, PB-4.

Whereas, the significant minimum is pay drawn/pay applicable in such a running pay band corresponding to bottom stage of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, for determining 50% of the same alongwith the applicable Grade Pay, to emerge as a Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

The Corrigendum that is due in respect of para 4.2 can therefore ensure a Minimum Revised Pension for all band based revised structure, ie. Upto S-29 scales, that consists of-

"50% of the Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band as applicable to the Grade Pay prescribed and 50% of the Grade Pay applicable to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired".

The following text of our Respected Shri VNji's post in this page is quite significant and to be kept in mind at all point of times.
"• A STOP COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THIS "MISTAKE/ ERROR" IF THE EMPLOYEES IN SERVICE (WOULD BE PENSIONERS) HAD ACTED CONSCIOUSLY AND PUT "NOTES IN FILES' WITH ALACRITY AND CONVICTION. IT SHALL BE REMEMBERED THAT NOTES PUT BY A LOWER OFFICIAL OF DOPW INTRODUCING THE EXPRESSION "IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES" IN A CLARIFICATION DRAFT FOR THE OM DT 3RD OCT 2008 LED TO THE DISASTROUS OUTCOME OF "SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED PENSIONS" FOR MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ( SOME ARE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES / MANY HAVE NO MEANS TO KNOW/ OTHERS HAVE IGNORED/ MANY DO NOT HAVE MEANS TO FIGHT!). SUCH "NEGATIVE" ACTIONS BY "RESPOSIBLE LOWER OFFICIALS" IN SERVICE LEAD TO GRAVE INJUSTICES AND LIMITLESS LITIGATIONS. "SERVING EMPLOYEES' MUST NOT ALLOW THESE TYPE OF ACTIONS. THE UNIONS/ ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS MUST BE CONSCIOUS OF SUCH ACTIONS!.

SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO, THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS DID NOT/ HAVE NOT ACTED "FORCEFULLY" TO RECTIFY THE MISDIRECTED CLARIFICATION TO UNDO THE INJUSTICE!"


The Desk level that is creating a base for the process of decision making by the top level. Thus, any thing that starts well will always end well. It is the will that matters to stand corrected at all point of time.

There is sufficient scope for a Quality Review on the implemented decision, for which the ball is at the court of the desk.

ybhaskar23
05-03-2011, 07:27 AM
Excellent analysis, but when will the Government of India wake up to the reality and take up corrective action?

sundarar
08-03-2011, 06:18 AM
"Did the budget give senior citizens a fair deal?
The 'very senior citizen' category, on the face of it, looks extremely well, but on minute assessment its benefits are almost non-existent
By Shri Balwant Jain in Daily News Analysis – Ahmedabad edition March 8, 2011

The recent budget can truly be termed as the budget for senior citizens. Let's take a look at the provisions of budget proposals which are relevant for senior citizens, besides the ones which have not been amended in line with the intention of the budget proposals for the senior citizens. Also, the need to amend the provisions of direct tax code (DTC).

Reduction in age limit to 60 from 65 years

The FM has lowered the age limit for senior citizen category to 60 years from 65 years for availing the higher basic exemption limit for income tax purpose. This is in line with the definition of senior citizen for the purpose of Senior Citizen Saving Schemes and with the general age of retirement in the country as it is generally mandatory for employees in the government and private organisations to retire at the age of 60.
After retiring from active earning phase, the ability to meet day-to-day expenses becomes a major issue for retired individuals with income on the money saved over the years.
Since only a few retired people opt for second career, the government has intended to give senior citizens an extra cushion in the form of extra tax-free income as compared to employed people when the provisions of higher tax exemption limit for person of 65 year and above was introduced.
However, the age limit of 65 years did not complement the general age of retirement for a lot of employees working in organised sectors.
Thus, the proposal to bring down the age from 65 to 60 years will align the age of senior citizen for income tax purpose with the general age of retirement in the country.
Hence, the FM has done a great service to the senior citizens.
As per the proposals placed before Parliament, a person who has completed the age of 60 years during any year will have to pay tax only if his taxable income exceeds `2.50 lakh.

Very senior citizen category

Very senior citizen category has been introduced in the budget for the persons who have completed 80 years of age during the year or earlier. The basic exemption limit is proposed to be raised to `5 lakh for very senior citizens as against the regular limit of `2.50 lakh for other senior citizens.
The proposal on the face of it looks extremely well and beneficial but on minutely assessing the impact of this benefit, we realised that this is almost non-existent for all practical purposes.
As it will be quite difficult to find a person who is in this age bracket and has income of this magnitude to claim this benevolent provision granted.
Since 60% of the population of India is below 35 years of age, the percentage of very senior citizens will be miniscule.
If FM genuinely wants to show his empathy towards elders, he should be realistic and grant the benefits which are real and not illusory. Hence, I would request FM to bring this limit of 80 years to if not to 70 then at least to 75 years in order to make it real and effective.

Changes desired, omitted due to oversight

In addition to the benefits of higher basic exemption limit of `2.4 lakh, the income tax also offer other benefits to persons who have completed 65 years of age like in Section 80 D a separate deduction of `20,000 is available for Mediclaim insurance premium. In addition to this a deduction under Section 80DDB is also available up to `60,000 for medical treatment for certain specified diseases.
Not only this, they are entitled to submit form no 15 H as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, so that there is no tax deductions while making payment under Section 197 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
It is recommended that age limit under Section 80 D, 80DDB and 197 may be brought down to 60 years in line with the intention of the finance minister

Proposals in DTC

The proposals of this budget seem to be aligning with the direct tax code (DTC) though there are some provisions in DTC which are not senior-citizen friendly. The issues were raised by me in one of my earlier articles in columns of DNA Money where I discussed that DTC should incorporate the provision for making some avenues available to senior citizens on the lines of present deduction under Section 80C. As senior citizens do not have any avenues available under the proposed Section 69 of DTC.
This covers only EPF, PPF, pension funds and gratuity fund which can only be used by employed people and not by senior citizens. Moreover, the DTC should have provision for submission of application for no deduction at source on the income being paid to or credited to them on the lines of present form no 15H presently.

To conclude here, we need to laud the good intentions of the FM, however, the provisions of the budget needs to be fine tuned to give real benefits to senior citizens, which is his intention actually!"

sundarar
12-03-2011, 09:16 PM
Dear pre 2006/ post 2006/ would be pensioners,

YOU ARE ALL A WITNESS TO THE GRAVE INJUSTICE INFLICTED ON THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS DUE TO A "MISINTERPRETATION AND MISIMPLEMENTATION" OF THE SCPC REVISED PENSION ORDERS VIZ "MISINTERPRETING" THAT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" IS SAME AS "MINIMUM OF THE 'PAY IN THE PAY BAND'" WHICH AFFECTED A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM WHO RETIRED FROM DIFFERENT PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES.

A STOP COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THIS "MISTAKE/ ERROR" IF THE EMPLOYEES IN SERVICE (WOULD BE PENSIONERS) HAD ACTED CONSCIOUSLY AND PUT "NOTES IN FILES' WITH ALACRITY AND CONVICTION. IT SHALL BE REMEMBERED THAT NOTES PUT BY A LOWER OFFICIAL OF DOPW INTRODUCING THE EXPRESSION "IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES" IN A CLARIFICATION DRAFT FOR THE OM DT 3RD OCT 2008 LED TO THE DISASTROUS OUTCOME OF "SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED PENSIONS" FOR MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ( SOME ARE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES / MANY HAVE NO MEANS TO KNOW/ OTHERS HAVE IGNORED/ MANY DO NOT HAVE MEANS TO FIGHT!). SUCH "NEGATIVE" ACTIONS BY "RESPOSIBLE LOWER OFFICIALS" IN SERVICE LEAD TO GRAVE INJUSTICES AND LIMITLESS LITIGATIONS. "SERVING EMPLOYEES' MUST NOT ALLOW THESE TYPE OF ACTIONS. THE UNIONS/ ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS MUST BE CONSCIOUS OF SUCH ACTIONS!.

SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO, THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS DID NOT/ HAVE NOT ACTED "FORCEFULLY" TO RECTIFY THE MISDIRECTED CLARIFICATION TO UNDO THE INJUSTICE!

ELITE CADRES HAVE TRIED TO "ENCASH" THE "PENSION BUDGET" OF A FEW TO "GET A HIGHER PAY PACKAGE AND HIGHER PENSION" TO THE TUNE OF 228 CRORES AT THE MINIMUM!

Now it is left to the old helpless pensioners to fight the issue to undo the INJUSTICE, by moving heaven and earth and then knock at the portals of justice for remedy!.

FEW MILITARY PENSIONERS (RTD LT CDRS/ MAJOR/ SQDRN LDRS) TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO CONSULT US AND GET A CORRECT JUDGMENT IN THE AFT PR BENCH DELHI/ CHANDIGARH WITHIN A SHORT SPELL OF 3 TO 5 MONTHS.THERE ARE 3 FAVOURABLE JUDGMENTS ON 16 OAS ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED IN EARLIER POSTINGS. THESE JUDGMENTS HAVE "DEFINED" THE CORRECT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS AND HAVE POINTED OUT THE STANDING RELEVANCE OF THE DOPPW'S OM DTD 17TH DEC 1998 WHERE PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION HAD BEEN OBTAINED TO CONVEY WHAT IS THE PRESICE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY" FOR REVISING THE PENSIONS TO GIVE A "MODIFIED PARITY" AFTER THE 5CPC "MISADVENTURES' OF THE AUTHORITIES.

I find still a few S21-23 employees are vascillating to go to CAT to seek justice for not including them in PB 4- agenuine grievance . Pre 2006 pensioners in such scales are also affected. AFT judgments cited earlier pertain to such pension revision disparities only. They shd also get together and fight for justice.

ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS MUST BE STRONGLY URGED TO TAKE UP THEIR CASES IN THE last meeting of the NAC BEFORE 31ST MAR 2011, eventhough the NAC may not be responsive. AT BLEAST THE PROTEST MUST BE RECORDED WITH FORCE..

ABOVE ARE THE FEELINGS/ REACTIONS OF MANY OLD PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS WHICH I HAVE "FAITHFULLY" CONVEYED HERE WITHOUT DEMEANING ANY "AUTHRORITIES' WHO ARE CAPABLE OF UNDOING THE INJUSTICE, IF THEIR CONSCIENCE GUIDES THEM .
TO ACT IN A JUST MANNER

vnatarajan

The pay drawn in the pre-revised structure by a pre-2006 and that in the revised structure by a post-2005 retiree, will definitely have variation owing to the formulae adopted for such a revision. Thus, variation of pension of Pre-2006 and post-2005 can bound to surface in implementation of 6th CPC recommendation.

Whereas, the said variation cannot be allowed to surface in the case of a pre-2006 pensioner who retired from a pre-revised scale, for example S-29 at the bottom stage of the scale 18400-22400 and another who retired from the same scale at the same corresponding stage in the revised structure. Like Pay at bottom stage of a pre-revised scale gets revised, its 50% as pension also will get revised in the same manner. It is to be remembered that here we are talking of only a retirement at lowest/bottom/minimum stage of the pre-revised scale from S-29 whereby his pre-revised pension will be Rs.9000; and in the case of a post-2005 retiree at corresponding lowest/bottom/minimum stage of the revised scale, his pension will necessarily be fixed at 50% OF THE CORRESPONDING REVISED PAY, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND (RS.44700/2=22350) AND NOT 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND (37400/2 = 18700)
THE GRADE PAY APPLICABLE TO PRE-REVISED SCALE/CORRESPONDING REVISED SCALE IS 10000 AND 50% OF THE SAME, RS.5000/- WHEN GETS ADDED TO THE AFORESAID MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, THE REVISED PENSION WILL BE RS.27350
WHICH SHOULD BE COMMON TO BOTH THE RETIREES.

IN REALITY, THE CASE IS NOT SO. WHILE FOR A POST-2005 RETIREE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND HAS NO RELEVANCE AT ALL IN HIS PENSION EVEN IF HE HAD RETIRED FROM THE BOTTOM STAGE CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED SCALE.

WHEREAS, THE CASE OF PRE-2006 RETIREE, THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND HAS BEEN MADE TO RELATE IN HIS PENSION. The clarification provided therefor says that a Minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of its pre-revised scale only will have relevance and not Minimum Pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale will.
Owing to such a clarification, the highest scale retiree in a particular pay band, for example, S-29 in PB4 and the lowest scale retiree in the same PB 4 will have same 50% of Pay in the pay band, viz. Rs.18700 and thereby after adding Rs.5000 (50% of GP) with Rs.18700, the S-29 retiree will get his mini. rev. pension at Rs.23700 while the S-24 will get Rs.18700+Rs.4350=23150. The difference is just Rs.550. Whether the 6cpc intended only Rs.550 as an enhanced revisionary benefit than the lowest scale retiree of PB4 for a highest scale retiree of PB4 who would had rendered adquate qualifying service in various lower grades to reach that higher scale either by way of promotion or ACP, etc.

THUS, ONE CANNOT SAY, THAT VARIATION IN PENSION OF PRE-2006 AND POST-2005 RETIREE CAN BE BOUND TO SURFACE IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 6TH CPC RECOMMENDATION.

IT IS MORE SO, BECAUSE THE PENSIONERS OF PRE-2006 ARE NOT SEEKING TOTAL/COMPLETE PARITY, BUT ONLY MODIFIED PARITY AT MINIMUM LEVEL AS RECOMMENDED ACTUALLY BY THE SIXTH CPC. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT 5TH CPC HAS RECOMMENDED FOR SUCCEEDING PAY COMMISSION TO ATTAIN SUCH TOTAL/COMPLETE PARITY ONLY.

Now, a question may arise whether the policy or principle followed vide OM dated 3.10.2008 is legally sound under the circumstances explained above. Whether principle for both the categories remain same if we look at the minimum level, because the
core issue in the case of pre-revised pensioners is JUST MINIMUM REVISED/ASSURED/GUARANTEED PENSION as per para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008.

It is once again reiterated that a Minimum of the Pay Band and a Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band cannot be one and same.

sundarar
13-03-2011, 01:11 AM
The pay drawn in the pre-revised structure by a pre-2006 and that in the revised structure by a post-2005 retiree, will definitely have variation owing to the formulae adopted for such a revision. Thus, variation of pension of Pre-2006 and post-2005 can bound to surface in implementation of 6th CPC recommendation.

Whereas, the said variation cannot be allowed to surface in the case of a pre-2006 pensioner who retired from a pre-revised scale, for example S-29 at the bottom stage of the scale 18400-22400 and another who retired from the same scale at the same corresponding stage in the revised structure. Like Pay at bottom stage of a pre-revised scale gets revised, its 50% as pension also will get revised in the same manner. It is to be remembered that here we are talking of only a retirement at lowest/bottom/minimum stage of the pre-revised scale from S-29 whereby his pre-revised pension will be Rs.9000; and in the case of a post-2005 retiree at corresponding lowest/bottom/minimum stage of the revised scale, his pension will necessarily be fixed at 50% OF THE CORRESPONDING REVISED PAY, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND (RS.44700/2=22350) AND NOT 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND (37400/2 = 18700)
THE GRADE PAY APPLICABLE TO PRE-REVISED SCALE/CORRESPONDING REVISED SCALE IS 10000 AND 50% OF THE SAME, RS.5000/- WHEN GETS ADDED TO THE AFORESAID MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, THE REVISED PENSION WILL BE RS.27350
WHICH SHOULD BE COMMON TO BOTH THE RETIREES.

IN REALITY, THE CASE IS NOT SO. WHILE FOR A POST-2005 RETIREE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND HAS NO RELEVANCE AT ALL IN HIS PENSION EVEN IF HE HAD RETIRED FROM THE BOTTOM STAGE CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED SCALE.

WHEREAS, THE CASE OF PRE-2006 RETIREE, THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND HAS BEEN MADE TO RELATE IN HIS PENSION. The clarification provided therefor says that a Minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of its pre-revised scale only will have relevance and not Minimum Pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale will.
Owing to such a clarification, the highest scale retiree in a particular pay band, for example, S-29 in PB4 and the lowest scale retiree in the same PB 4 will have same 50% of Pay in the pay band, viz. Rs.18700 and thereby after adding Rs.5000 (50% of GP) with Rs.18700, the S-29 retiree will get his mini. rev. pension at Rs.23700 while the S-24 will get Rs.18700+Rs.4350=23150. The difference is just Rs.550. Whether the 6cpc intended only Rs.550 as an enhanced revisionary benefit than the lowest scale retiree of PB4 for a highest scale retiree of PB4 who would had rendered adquate qualifying service in various lower grades to reach that higher scale either by way of promotion or ACP, etc.

THUS, ONE CANNOT SAY, THAT VARIATION IN PENSION OF PRE-2006 AND POST-2005 RETIREE CAN BE BOUND TO SURFACE IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 6TH CPC RECOMMENDATION.

IT IS MORE SO, BECAUSE THE PENSIONERS OF PRE-2006 ARE NOT SEEKING TOTAL/COMPLETE PARITY, BUT ONLY MODIFIED PARITY AT MINIMUM LEVEL AS RECOMMENDED ACTUALLY BY THE SIXTH CPC. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT 5TH CPC HAS RECOMMENDED FOR SUCCEEDING PAY COMMISSION TO ATTAIN SUCH TOTAL/COMPLETE PARITY ONLY.

Now, a question may arise whether the policy or principle followed vide OM dated 3.10.2008 is legally sound under the circumstances explained above. Whether principle for both the categories remain same if we look at the minimum level, because the
core issue in the case of pre-revised pensioners is JUST MINIMUM REVISED/ASSURED/GUARANTEED PENSION as per para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008.

It is once again reiterated that a Minimum of the Pay Band and a Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band cannot be one and same.

Having seen that the Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band and the Minimum of the Pay band cannot be one and same, it is also a fact that a bottom stage of the revised structure having scale based revision process, for example S-30 which was in PB4 till August 2008 or so, and a bottom stage of the revised structure irrespective of its corresponding pre-revised scale, cannot be one and same.

To be more precise, in the case of S-30, the revised pay at minimum level happens to be
Rs.67000, ie. the bottom stage of the revised scale corresponding to its pre-revised scale.

Similarly, in the case of S-29, the revised pay at minimum level happens to be Rs.44700+10000 = 54700 (Minimum Pay in the Pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale+GP corresponding to pre-revised scale, which is nothing but 50% of REVISED PAY AT BOTTOM STAGE)

Whereas, while determining pay for calculation of Pension, the principle for both the categories vary entirely.

For S-29 scale retiree of pre-2006, the pay is determined for calculation of Pension only to the extent of Minimum of the Pay Band, ie. Rs.34700 and not Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band Rs.44700, as here the pay in the pay band is kept to be irrespective of pre-revised scale S-29 from which the pensioner had retired. At the same time the said Minimum of the Pay band Rs.34700 is ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND FOR A RETIREE OF S-24.

THE EXPLICIT DISPARITY OR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN AN OFFICER BELONGING TO ERSTWHILE S-29 AND S-30 GRADES IS KEPT ALIVE, FOR REMOVING WHICH THE COURT CASES ARE UNDER PROGRESS.

THE REASON IS: IN S-30 GRADE, SCALE BASED REVISION IS INVOLVED AND THUS 50% OF REVISED PAY IS STRAIGHTAWAY FIXED AS MIN. REV. PENSION.

IN S-29 GRADE, ONLY IF SAME PRINCIPLE IS FOLLOWED WHILE DETERMINING PAY FOR CALCULATION OF MIN. REV. PENSION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO DISPARITY OR DISCRIMINATION. BECAUSE, IN S-29 GRADE, THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND OF S-24 IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DETERMINING 50% OF THE SAME TOGETHERWITH 50% OF PRESCRIBED GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO S-29.

THUS MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY SCALE OF S-30 IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT CONCEPT THAN THAT OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND/MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND IN R/O S-29.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRINCIPLE FOR BOTH S-24 AND S-30 REMAINS SAME.

THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN DETERMINATION OF PAY FOR CALCULATION OF MIN. REV. PENSION FOR BOTH THE CATEGORIES, VIZ. S-29 AND S-30 ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER, AND HENCE THE DISPARITY AND DISCRIMINATION.

IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED BOTH S-29 AND S-30 ARE ONE PART OF THE SINGLE HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS, VIZ. PRE-2006 RETIREES AND WE ARE NOT TAKING HERE ABOUT THE OTHER PART OF THE SINGLE HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS, VIZ. POST-2005 RETIREES.

sundarar
15-03-2011, 10:19 PM
ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS MUST BE STRONGLY URGED TO TAKE UP THEIR CASES IN THE last meeting of the NAC BEFORE 31ST MAR 2011, eventhough the NAC may not be responsive. AT BLEAST THE PROTEST MUST BE RECORDED WITH FORCE..
vnatarajan[/SIZE][/SIZE]

The DOP&PW OM dated 23.3.2009 vide para 3 advised `All pensioners Associations, etc. to send their representations relating to alleged anomalies in the orders of Govt. relating to pension to the Secretary, Staff Side, NAC.

As decided by the NAC, the following items relating to pre-2006 pensioners, have been considered as Anomalies in revision of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and included in the Agenda as follows:

Item No.15 : Parity in Pension of all pre-1996 retirees with post-1996 retirees
Item No.16 : Anomaly in Revised Pension to pre-2006 pensioners
Item No.17 : Disparity in Pension/Family Pension between pre and post
Pensioners/Family Pensioners
Item No.21 : 50% of Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay not correctly determined

The National Anomaly Committee while discussing the aforesaid items relating to Parity/Disparity in its First Meeting held on 12.12.2009 decided that the official side will examine the issues as requested by the Staff Side. During the 2nd Meeting of the NAC held on 27.3.2010, the Director, DOP&PW informed that in consultation with Dept. of Expenditure it has been decided that the modified parity adopted will stand as the same method was adopted on implementation of the 5th CPC recommendations. The Chairman stated that the official side will take a stand in the matter after taking into account the staff side’s views. The official minutes of 3rd NAC Meeting held on 15.2.2011 is yet to be released. The final recommendation regarding pensioners' genuine grievances may speak of itself.

Unless the 78 Pensioners' Associations (as per www.pensionersportal.gov.in)/their representatives are given an opportunity to present their case in detail at least during the ensuing final meeting if any, the purpose of calling their representations and incluidng in the Agenda for discussion may not get served.

If pensioners and family pensioners are around 35 lakhs or so, there is nothing wrong in granting a seat in the NAC at least in its final meeting, and also in future NACs on a regular basis (by which time, the number may touch 40 lakhs). Then only the pensioners community can be rest assured that their interests are getting protected if not by any one else but atleast by their representation in the NAC. This is a way of showing the real regard to Sr. Citizens and very Senior Citizens.

RPGoswami
24-03-2011, 02:11 PM
DOPT's interpretation of 'minimum of the pay in the payband' as 'minimum of the payband' has created two sets of minimum. One for the pre-2006 retirees and another for the post-2006 retirees. Can their be anything more anomalous? Pay Commission Reports do not provide for this. Hope this will be brought out in the 31st March meeting of the NAC. RPGoswami

RK Gaur
25-03-2011, 01:06 PM
'Pay in the Pay Band' has been (clearly) defined in the Government's Resolution and also in the Gazette of India dated 28th August 2008. Any minimum or minima (as related to different Pay(s) in the Pay Band have to be derived as per this Definition.There appears to be no necessity for interpreting a 'Definition'. Certainly, this anomaly must be brought out in the Meeting of the NAC on 31st March.

DOPT's interpretation of 'minimum of the pay in the payband' as 'minimum of the payband' has created two sets of minimum. One for the pre-2006 retirees and another for the post-2006 retirees. Can their be anything more anomalous? Pay Commission Reports do not provide for this. Hope this will be brought out in the 31st March meeting of the NAC. RPGoswami

vnatarajan
26-03-2011, 08:34 AM
Dear Friends,

Everything was clear in the SCPC Report's Para 5.1.47.

MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND clearly defined only the MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE REVISED PAY SCALES.

DID NOT THE "ADULTERATED" PARA 4.2 OF OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008'S LAST SENTENCE 'STILL' CLARIFY IT FOR THE HAG+ SCALES?

HOW IN THE SAME PARA, ONE "MINIMUM" MAY BE DIFFRENT FROM THE OTHER "MINIMUM" WHEN THE WHOLE PARA CONCERNS THE REVISION OF PENSION OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS?

To play the mischief effectively, in the OM of 1st Sept 2008 on Revised Pension for pre -2006 pensioners, A PARA/ SUB-PARA TITLED "EMOLUMENTS" WAS CAREFULLY OMITTED.

WHEREAS, in the OM of 2nd Sept 2008 on Revised Pension for post 2006 pensioners, THE PARA 4.0 , 4.1, 4.2 ETC TITLED "EMOLUMENTS" clearly DEFINED the "pay in the pay band".

PENSION HAS NO SEPARATE DEFINITION BY ITSELF.

AS PER the FRs/ SRs, RIGHT FROM THE ORIGIN, "PENSION" WAS DEFINED AS A PERCENTAGE OF "BASIC PAY" RELEVANT TO THE LAST PAY(S) DRAWN BY THE PENSIONERS BEFORE RETIREMENT IN THE SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST HELD BY HIM. (IF 10 MONTHS AVERAGE WAS THE CRITERIA, THEN IT MAY REFERE TO POSTS (Plural)).

CURRENT OMs of 3rd Oct/ 14th Oct 2008 "modiclarifying" the OM of1ST SEPT 2008 SEEK TO DESTROY ONCE FOR ALL THE INDIVIDUAL PENSIONER'S LAST PAY/ PAYS DRAWN AND THUS DIVORCING ANY LINKAGE TO HIS "BASIC PAY(S)" BEFORE RETIREMENT.

THIS STEP IS "GRAVELY DANGEROUS" AS IN FUTURE THE GOVT. CAN DECIDE TO GIVE ANY "PENSION" IT LIKES, AS IN THE CASES `OF A "FREEDOM FIGHTER" OR A "EX-GRATIA PENSIONER" OR A "OLD AGE PENSIONER". IT CAN CHANGE THE "SINGLE PAY BAND" SYSTEM INTO "MASTER PAY BAND" SYSTEM THUS MERGING TWO PAY BANDS INTO ONE "MASTER PAY BAND" AND CHOOSE TO DECIDE ITS "MINIMUM" AS THE "CONTROLLING FACTOR (MINIMUM OF THE MASTER PAY BAND)" FOR PENSION REVISIONS!

THIS STEP IS BEING TAKEN ONLY WITH THE SAID CRUEL IDEA WHICH NEED TO BE NIPPED IN THE BUD.

"MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" HAS NO RELEVANCE TO MANY INDIVIDUAL PENSIONERS' LAST BASIC PAY(S) OR HAS ANY CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VERY SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST (S) HELD BY HIM AT THE TIME / LAST TEN MONTHS OF HIS RETIREMENT.

CALLING THIS AS A NEW SCHEME, WITH MANOUVREABLE "GRADE PAY " CONCEPT WILL SEAL THE FATE OF ALL PENSIONERS IN THE FUTURE.

WHICHEVER EMPLOYEES DID THE NOTE-SHEET MISCHIEF OF INTRODUCING "IRRESPECTIVE OF PAY BANDS" CONCEPT AS A "MODIFICATION" IN THE GARB OF "CLARIFICATION" HAS BROUGHT TOTAL "DISGRACE" NOT ONLY TO HIS OWN COLLEAGUES BUT TO THE VERY "INSTITUTION" OF THE "PENSION SYSTEM" OIF THIS COUNTRY!.

A DULL WITTED CRANKY PRECEDENCE MAY ULTIMATELY PROVE TO BE SUICIDAL TO THE VERY "EMPLOYEES"/ THEIR "ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS" ETC ' WHO ARE KEEPING "QUIET" AND TURNING A "BLIND" EYE TO THE DEVELOPMENTS.

"FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT" IS AN EXCUSE BORROWED FROM SOME WAY-WARD JUDGMENTS WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE AT ALL FOR CG PENSIONERS LIKE US , BECAUSE THE "INVISIBLE FUND" IS AN ACCRUAL OF OUR OWN "DIFFERED WAGE" OR "UNDISBURSED SALARY AS OUR MATCHING CONTRIBUTION FOR PENSION PAYMENTS" AND WHY WE SHOULD BEG OR BORROW FOR DRAWING OUR LEGITIMATE PENSIONS.

ALSO IT IS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO DEMAND "EQUAL TREATMENT" IN PENSION REVISIONS BECAUSE THE ELITES HAVE NOT BEEN "PRIVILEGED" TO "GET MORE" AND THEN TRY TO "DEPRIVE THE REST SAME EQUITY"!

Regards,
VNatarajan

PS: INCIDENTALLY THIS IS THE 1000TH POST IN THIS THREAD WHICH HAS THE RECORD NUMBER OF OVER "81000" VIEWS IN NEARLY 2 1/2 YEARS!