+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 323

Thread: JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS-6CPC OMs-PLEA TO HON. PM

  1. #301
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. I am now in a position to give below the news report published in Tribune / Chandigarh on 15.09.10 (courtesy Shri NP Mohan) : Anomalies in pension of majors removed.Those who retired before 2006 to benefit - Vijay Mohan, Tribune News Service, Chandigarh, September 14. Holding that the pension shall not be less than 50 per cent of the minimum pay within the pay-band, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) today allowed a petition filed by majors and equivalents that would now entitle them to enhanced pension. With the removal of existing anomalies that had resulted in majors, who retired prior to 2006, getting pension lower than even junior commissioned officers, they would now be paid an additional basic pension of about Rs 5,000 per month, besides consequential benefits. The order affects a substantial number of officers of the three services who had retired in the rank of major prior to 2006. After the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission (SPC), the pension of majors was fixed at Rs 14,100 per month. This was less than what JCOs, four ranks below their grade, have been getting (Rs 16,145). The anomaly in pension fixation arose because the minimum of the entire pay-band (PB-3) was taken into account while fixing the pension instead of considering the minimum of the pay-band applicable to majors. PB-3 (Rs 15,600-39,100) includes officers of the ranks of lieutenant to major and equivalents in other services. The minimum scale of major post-SPC is Rs 23,810. The petitioners had contended that the existing basic pay, inclusive of grade pay and military service pay, worked out to be Rs 36,410, hence their pension at the stipulated 50 per cent of basic worked out to be Rs 18,205 per month, to which they were entitled. In December, 2004, all majors with 13-year experience and having requisite qualifications were promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel (time scale) and the policy has continued since then. Following the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission, all 35 categories of services were merged into four pay bands in which lieutenant colonels were initially placed in pay band-3, but later moved to pay band-4.

  2. #302
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default


    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

  3. #303
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    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.

  4. #304
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    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

  5. #305
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Liberalisation irrespective of date of retirement

    The concluding part of the D.S. Nakara Judgment in the year 1982 is as follows:
    "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, Exhibits P-I and P-2, violates Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down.
    Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read
    down as under: In other words, 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"
    210
    and in Exhibit P-2, the words:
    "the new rates of pension are effective from 1st April 1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become non-effective on or after that date." are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be
    relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension
    scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972
    Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the
    unconstitutional part 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".


    The Liberalisation in Pension Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2006 involves the following:

    1. 50% of emoluments drawn on the date of retirement or 50% of average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months will be the quantum of pension.

    2. The minimum pension entitled to a post-2006 retiree will comprise of 50% of Revised Basic Pay - which Revised Basic Pay consists of minimum pay in the pay band +/and Grade Pay (Both) applicable to corresponding minimum of the pre-revised scale of pay.

    3. Full pension for a maximum qualifying service of 20 years or otherwise pro-rata if enttitled to pension by virtue of qualifying service of 10 years.

    As such, 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 (here in our case, it is 1.1.2006), irrespective of the date of retirement (that may be during pre-2006).

    No other Pension Rules, Misinterpreted Parity aspects, Financial implications should come in between while the settled position in the year 1982 itself is otherwise. Based on such guiding principle only, the pre-1986 pensioners were brought on par with post-1996 pensioners, and 50% of bottom of the revised scale corresponding to minimum of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, to constitute minimum revised pension as per the Executive Instructions dated 17.12.1997 is also well settled one.
    The entitlement and payment shall be principle based and not based on any modification over the accepted recommendations. The very recent AFT Judgment too reiterate that it is definition part that supercedes any subsequent modification, shall be looked into as a first and final requirement. Similarly, the rationale adopted in the case of post1.1.2006-pre2.9.2008 pensioners in the case of <33 years must also be based on the aforesaid guiding principle/well settled position only, whose extension for pre-2006 pensioners is emphasised for all along,

  6. #306
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    This is in response to the post of Shri G. Ramdass dated 28.10.10 given above. A very detailed and factual presentation. I hope other items of my post dated 27.10.10 would also get suitably treated likewise and answers given in brief for each one here for information of all.

  7. #307
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners,

    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. 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: 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
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

  8. #308
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Talking Happy New Year 2011

    Dear friends. Happy new year 2011 to each one of you and the members of each family. May God shower upon each one all the happiness and the good health. M L Kanaujia.

  9. #309
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    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

  10. #310
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default



    (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
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 03-01-2011 at 07:15 PM.

  11. #311
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    http://confederationhq.blogspot.com/

    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 at 2:39 AM
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 16-02-2011 at 04:44 PM. Reason: IMPROVEMENT

  12. #312
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Arrow Representation in nac for pensioners

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    [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"!!!

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


    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 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.

    With greetings,

    Posted by Confederation Of Central Government Employees at 2:39 AM
    From the above outcome of third NAC Meeting, it is explicitly clear that even at this point of time, the Staff Side and Official Side can focus the MAJOR Anomalies of Revision of Pension in r/o ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

    Here is a recap of what has been going on since 11.12.2007 at National Level Forums like JCM (NC)/NAC Meetings on Pensioners' Grievances.

    DOP&PW Minutes of Meeting held on 8.1.2010 with Representations of Staff Side of National Council (JCM) under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Pension, AR & PG).

    A. Action taken on the decisions taken in last Meeting held on 11.12.2007

    Item No.4 Anomaly in Revision of Pre-1996 Retirees:

    The official side was informed that NO ACTION could be taken as necessary details were not received from the Staff side. The Staff side stated that they had submitted necessary details. The Staff side promised to submit a copy of the same for further necessary action of the Department.

    (For reminding about non-receipt of a copy of details, it took two clear years and Staff Side also has not followed up with the details given if any with the official side during the said period, it appears).

    B. Fresh items:

    Agenda 1-9

    IT WAS STATED THAT THE AGENDA ITEM NO.1 TO 9 WERE ALSO AGENDA ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE HEADED BY THE SECRETARY DOPT. IT WAS THEREFORE DECIDED THAT THE SAME MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS FORUM, WHICH WAS AGREED TO BY THE STAFF SIDE.

    NAC’s FIRST MEETING MINUTES:

    Agenda Item No.9-Paritv in Pension

    Regarding anomaly in the pension for Government servants, who retired / died in harness between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008, Director(Pension) informed that Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare has already clarified vide its O.M dated 11/12/2008 that the provision of payment of pension at 50% of the emoluments (pay last drawn or 50% of average emoluments received during the last ten months, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee, shall be applicable to all Government servants retiring on or after 1.1.2006. Therefore, it was agreed that the item may be treated as closed.

    Agenda Item No.15, 16 & 17 -Parity in Pension to all Pensioners

    Regarding parity in pension of all pre 1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 1.1.1996, 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 5th CPC recommendations. The Staff Side further stated that the 6th 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.

    NAC’s SECOND MEETING MINUTES:

    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

    NAC’s THIRD MEETING MINUTES:

    “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”

    A Patient knows the level of pain or his Doctor? Had the Doctor ensured timely diagnosis, the patient could get early relief.

    From the Proceedings of National Level Forums, it can be inferred that had there been a representation from Pensioners Community, such a situation could not have arisen. It is said that there are about 54 lakhs of serving employees, and pensioners may be around 36 lakhs (if I am right). About 1 crore families' welfare is vested upon the official side and staff side, be it the National Council or National Anomaly Committee or any other National Level forums. In case, the NAC feels that representatives of Pensioners could be able to present their case appropriately, they could very well invite as a special session during the ensuing meeting, before which the Pensioners Associations also could associate with the concerned members of Staff side for `indicating 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'.

    Let us not miss this available opportunity and even individual pensioners may please respond in whatever way they can so as to get the gravity of the grievances made known to the authorities concerned with all their alternative suggestions, etc.

  13. #313
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Dear Shri NSR,:

    Pl chk the Official record of the DOPPW wrt items 15-17 and 21, reproduced below;

    Though the Staff Sid eRecord showed that the Official Side refused to discuss / disagreed on the whole, the Official Record which came much later, showed that some of these issues were still open. What were they> WQhy they were not discussed in the 3rd NAC:

    Now EXTRCAT of the Offical record of the Minutes:

    ltem Nos. 15. 16, 17 8 21:- Paritvl modified parity in pensionlrevised
    pensionlfamilv pension 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 principles enunciated by the 6" 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.


    vnatarajan

  14. #314
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default Official Version of NAC Minutes

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    Dear Shri NSR,:

    Pl chk the Official record of the DOPPW wrt items 15-17 and 21, reproduced below;

    Though the Staff Sid eRecord showed that the Official Side refused to discuss / disagreed on the whole, the Official Record which came much later, showed that some of these issues were still open. What were they> WQhy they were not discussed in the 3rd NAC:

    Now EXTRCAT of the Offical record of the Minutes:

    ltem Nos. 15. 16, 17 8 21:- Paritvl modified parity in pensionlrevised
    pensionlfamilv pension 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 principles enunciated by the 6" 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.


    vnatarajan
    Respected Sir, Thanks a lot. Your goodself is absolutely right. The Official version as reproduced by your goodself only is to be relied upon and the inconsistency in between the two different versions and the absence of the entire item in the 3rd NAC is not understandable.

    So, is the case of item No.(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.

    It is significant to note that the underlined portion above, is not figuring in official minutes of 2nd NAC Meeting.

    Thus, the Anomalies in their real term, have not been provided with the required attention. The DOP&PW being the parent organisation for all Pensioners need to focus these major anomalies in the context of the D.S. Nakara case Judgment spirit.

    As such, the D.S. Nakara case Judgment did not allow two different treatments to single homogenous class of pensioners as pre- and post-

    Whereas, on implementation of 6th CPC recommendation, the pensioners have virtually been differentiated as two distinct groups, viz. pre-2006 and post-2006 in r/o the following which are made applicable only to those who retired on or after 1.1.2006:

    1. 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom stage of the pre-revised scale as minimum revised basic pension.

    2. Benefit of last pay drawn for calculation of basic pension

    3. Full pension for 10 years in case of superannuation, invalid and absorbees of CPSUs, and 20 years in r/o voluntary retirement.

    4. Applicability of highest multiplication factor 3-3.4 for scales above S-29 (Here, the pre-2006 pensioners itself have been divided into two categories even for the manner in which the calculation of pension in revised structure to be made). While scale retirees of s above S-29 have beentreated with revised pay based minimum like their counterparts of post-2006, the remaining scale retirees have been prescribed with a band based minimum under modified OM dated 3.10.2008.

    5. All the aforesaid anomalies will have a recurring reducing impact over every revision right from 1.1.2006, and thus, the same is required to be addressed suitably and justice brought in through Executive Instructions itself rather than Judicial Instructions.

    It is hoped that the Pensioners Associations will take care of the issues involved, suitably so as to get the same resolved favourably to the Pensioners Community.

  15. #315
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    569

    Default

    From the Broad Casting Corporation of India Directorate General AIR's letter dated 17.2.2011(http://www.arteeindia.org/news&event...e-17022011.pdf - courtesy: Shri Muralikrishna in GConnect Chatter Box), it is understood that the Hon. High Court, Delhi in the case regarding One Pay Scale for One Cadre of Sub-ordinate Engineering Staff, in their Judgment dated 7.9.2010 observed as follows:

    "FOR EMPLOYEES HOLDING SAME POST AND SAME WORK AND THERE BEING NO GROUND TO CLASSIFY THE SAME INTO TWO CATEGORIES, THE PLACEMENT OF SCALES OF PAY WAS ARBITRARY.
    WHERE TWO EMPLOYEES ENTER THE CADRE FROM TWO DIFFERENT CADRES FROM TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES, IF THEY DO THE SAME WORK AND ARE SIMILARLY PLACED, THERE CAN BE NO DISCRIMINATION IN PAYMENT OF WAGES"

    The above observation is quite significant in the context of deriving a Minimum Pay in the Running Pay Band which is very much available for a post-2006 retiree at bottom stage of the corresponding pre-revised scale - for a pre-2006 pensioner who retired from the said pre-revised scale, so as to determine the 50% of such a minimum pay in the running pay band alongwith 50% of grade pay applicable to such a pre-revised scale for constituting a Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

    The above well settled position will be very much applicable to pre-2006 pensioners if the same is put to read as follows for the sake of pensioners:

    "FOR TWO RETIREES OF SAME POST WITH SAME PAY SCALE AND THERE BEING NO GROUND TO CLASSIFY THEM INTO TWO CATEGORIES, VIZ. ONE WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 1.1.2006 AND ANOTHER WHO RETIRED AFTER 1.1.2006 FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND FOR THE FORMER AND MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND FOR THE LATTER.

    WHERE TWO RETIREES RETIRED FROM THE CADRE ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES, VIZ. BEFORE 1.1.2006 AND AFTER 1.1.2006 IF THEY BELONGED TO A PARTICULAR PRE-REVISED SCALE/ITS CORRESPONDING REVISED SCALE THERE CAN BE NO DISCRIMINATION IN PAYMENT OF MINIMUM PENSION IN THE REVISED STRUCTURE.
    THE METHODOLOGY/MANNER IN CALCULATION OF MINIMUM REVISED PENSION SHALL BE ONE AND SAME.

    Whereas, as we all know, in the case of a pre-2006 retiree, 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which he retired and 50% of Grade Pay applicable to the pre-revised scale from which pensioner had retired, will be minimum revised pension.

    At the same time, in the case of a post-2006 retiree at bottom stage in the revised structure (ie. bottom stage of the corresponding pre-revised scale), 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the said bottom stage in the revised structure (ie. bottom stage of the corresponding pre-revised scale), and 50% of Grade Pay applicable to such a pre-revised scale will be revised pension that happens to be the minimum revised pension having retired at bottom stage in the revised structure.

    At least at this point of time, when the NAC is likely to meet and make its final recommendations within a period of one month or so, there exists no minimum pay in the pay band irrespective of a pre-revised scale. Each pre-revised scale's bottom stage has its own corresponding pay in the running pay band. If this much is accepted even, then there will be no difficulty in determining 50% of the pay in the pay band corresponding to such bottom of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioenr had retired.

    It is requested that both official side and staff side may please look into this glaring
    impact of reduction in pension in order to ensure that 50% of Revised Pay corresponding to bottom stage of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, is made entitled w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as Minimum Revised Assured Guaranteed Pension in line with the stand adopted vide DOP&PW OM dated 17.12.1998 based on 5th CPC recommendation then.

  16. #316
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    [B][COLOR="darkred"]
    Dear Pre 2006/ Old Pensioners,

    This review here has special significance related to the GRIEVANCES of the pension discrimination issues/ judicial interventions/ indiscriminate of the Govt- its functionaries on such issues.

    Original post is in the other thread" Injustice to ..........".

    I post here a document for the benefit of all Old Pensioners who have to read and understand the difficult situations that cause undue hardships to them while seeking resolution of their genuine GRIEVANCES.
    The post has appeared in the RREWA website. Shri NSR. so actiuve in pensioners' matters, has brought them to my notice even before I cd see them myself.,

    (contd in next posts)

    MY SPECIAL MENTION HERE IS THE AUTHEOR OF THE DOCUMENT –Shri MLKanaujia.

    I MUST SPECIALLY COMPLIMENT AND CONGRATULATE SHRI MLK JI- ONE OF OUR ACTIVISTS/ OUR THINK TANK DYNAMO- WHO HAS HAD THE PATIENCE TO PREPARE A CRYPTIC AND INFORMATIVE , DYNAMIC AND FORCEFUL REPLY TO THE 18 POINTS I ( with lots of inputs from Shri SUNDARAR) HAD MADE OUT A FEW DAYS BACK -IN REGARD TO THE DEVIOUS TECHNIQUES AND EXCUSES RESORTED TO BY THE GOI/ DEPT OF PENSIONS/ DOE ETC WHEN THEY DEAL OUR APPEALS/ RTI S/ EVEN COURT PETITIONS.

    This action of MLK inspires me and many like me to probe deep into the frivolous and thoughtless adventures of the concerned Govt Departments/ their current Incumbents- Employees- Officials while dealing with the cases of old/ grand old pensioners, without keeping in view that one day they also would be pensioners.

    They appear to be rather sadistic and pervert in their approach towards the old pensioners/ their genuine pension grievances:
    NOW I POST HERE POINT-WISE COMMENTS/ REPLY BY SHRI MLK JI (IN ANTICIAPTION OF HIS DUE PERMISSION)
    By SHRI M L KANAUJIA:

    Govt. Advocates have been giving Counter Affidavits at various occasions against Petitions submitted to various Courts/CAT/AFT after the faulty implementation of SCPC Report in respect of Pensioners who retired prior to 01.01.2006. Important Govt. Arguments have been collected with the help of Shri V. Natarajan and several other pensioner friends and an attempt has been made here to put up reply against each such argument to help prepare Pensioners Rejoinder to Govt. Counter - M. L. Kanaujia, IRSSE, CCE(Rtd.), N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur.

    (1) No judicial review is called for as the revision of pension is as per SCPC recommendations approved by the Cabinet.

    Reply : Everything contained in OMs issued for implementation of SCPC Report is to be within the frame work of Constitution of India and law set by various decisions of the hon.ble Supreme Court on the matter concerned. Power mentioned here is, therefore, not absolute and is therefore, open for judicial review. The way the Govt. has implemented the SCPC Report in respect of past pensioners, is violative of Article 14 and various other hon.ble Supreme Court Judgments. Denial by Govt. to address the issues in favour of the pensioners has left no other alternative available except for judicial review by means of Petitions in CAT/Court.

    (2) The OM dated 3.10.2008 is a clarification but not a modification. It only interprets the initial version of para 4.2 to bring clarity but not substitute any new provisions than the accepted para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report/ para 4.2 of Om of 1 9 2008.

    Reply : Denied. It is very simple to find out what is clarification and what is modification /amendment from the final outcome. For example, revised pension of an s29 pre 2006 retiree (other conditions remaining the same) from Resolution dt. 29.08.08 comes to Rs. 27,350, whereas from OM dt 3.10.08 it has been reduced to Rs. 23,700. The definition of Minimum of the pay in the pay band has been equavated with Minimum of pay band. Furtehr, Minimum of the pay in the pay band has been made “irrespective” of p.r.p.s. from which pensioners retired instead of earlier “corresponding” to the p.r.p.s. from which a pensioner had retied.
    (3) In view of (2) above, actual implementation is as per initial OM dated 1.9.2008 only.

    Reply : OM dt 1.9.08 stated that revised pension of an s29 pre 06 retiree, with other conditions remaining the same, would be 50% minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to p.r.p.s. from which a pensioner had retired, which comes to half of Rs. 44,700 plus grade pay of 10,000 = 32,350. This is neither as per SCPC para 5.1.47 as accepted by Govt. vide Resolution dt. 29.08.08 nor as per OM dt. 3.10.08. This OM has atleast two versions with same letter number and
    date etc. which has further created confusion.

    (4) Parity in pension is not practically possible while comparing a pre-revised pay from which a pensioner had retired with a revised pay from which a pensioner retires after 1.1.2006. They can not be done with "mathematical precision".

    Reply : The statement is denied . Article 14 enshrines equality and DS Nakara Judgment has held that “if other conditions are same, amount of revised pension would be same, irrespective of date of retirement of a pensioner, whenever the same pension scheme is upgraded. Principles laid down in para 20 of hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of BJ Akkra, clearly define the “discrimination” or otherwise. On the basis of Article 14 and various Supreme Court Judgments,an s29 pensioner retired on 31.12.05, with a basic pay of 18, 400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400, after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years and an s29 pensioner retired on 31.01.06, with a basic pay of 18,400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400 after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years, both should have same pension namely Rs. 27,350

    (5) No violation of Article 14 of the Constitution has taken place.

    Reply : Denied. Violation of Article 14 has taken place because of differential treatment has been given to the past pensioners belonging to same class and forming same homogenous group, by dividing them artificially in different categories namely, pre 2006 and post 2006 and fixing their pension with different set of rules, at different amount, all other conditions remaining the same except the
    date of retirement.

    (Contd)

    (6) Minimum of the Pay Band and Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band are one and same (for pre 2006 pensioners) and there is no need to differentiate between two.

    Reply : This is not universally true. Pay band 4 has been created after merging six p.r.p.scales. In order to obviate injustice to senior scale s29 merged with junior most scale s24, SCPC catered for, agianst two bunchings i.e. fixation of pay at same stage, addition into minimum of pay band Rs. 37,400, one increment equal to 3 % of minimum of pay band i.e. 3% of Rs. 37,400. There are 12 such bunchings between s24 and s29 when incremental stages of these two pre revised pay scales are compared . Therefore. six increments cumulatively have been added in minimum of pay band 4 to make for s29 “minimum of the Pay in the pay band.” Whereas, for Minimum of the pay in pay band for s24, it remains minimum of pay band i.e. Rs. 37, 400 only, but, for s29, it becomes Rs. 44,700. Please refer to para 2.2.21 (iii) of SCPC Report and Rule 7 (1) (A) (ii) of CCS (Revised) Pay
    Rules2008.

    (7) The employer has every right to revise the pay of serving employees, AND erstwhile pensioners can have no say. Govt also is competent to decide what amount of pension one has to be given!

    Reply : Powers are not sweeping powers like it has been made here to look. Everything contained in OMs issued for implementation of SCPC Report is to be within the frame work of Constitution of India and law set by various decisions of the hon.ble Supreme Court on the matter concerned. Power mentioned here is, therefore, not absolute and is therefore, open for judicial review. The way the Govt. has implemented the SCPC Report in respect of past pensioners, is violative of Article 14 and various other hon.ble Supreme Court Judgments. Denial by Govt. to address the issues in favour of the pensioners has left no other alternative available except for judicial review by means of Petitions in CAT/Court.

    (Contd in next posts)
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-07-2011 at 01:31 PM. Reason: Editorial

  17. #317
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default (contd from previous thread)

    8) The financial constraints also need to be looked into while considering any liberalisation of pensionary benefits.

    Reply : Financial implications were thought of by the SCPC while submitting its report and requirement of funds for implementation of the report has been spelt out. While making recommendations vide para 5.1.47 for past pensiones, the SCPC has clearly indicated, that expenditure involved has been taken into consideration.
    The financial constraints are being brought into the focus now therefore, are for diversion sake only. In various Judgments of the hon.ble Supreme Court, starting from DS Nakara case and ending wih the most recent one KJS Butter case, it has always been held that “for fixing revised pension and payment thereto”, cannot be
    denied on account of financial constraints.

    (9) Same fitment formula for revision of pension as has been done in the case of serving employees have been applied while revising.

    Reply : This is absolutely incorrect. Actually, if we consider it from following example, it would reveal the truth of the matter. An s29 pensioner retired on 31.12.05, with a basic pay of 18, 400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400, after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years and an s29 pensioner retired on 31.01.06, with a basic pay of 18,400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400 after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years, both should have same pension namely Rs. 27,350. But, the pension of former has been fixed at 32,700 whereas pension of latter has been fixed at 27,350 although in two cases, all conditions are same except date of retirement. Thus, this is violative of Article 14, violative of “ law “ set by Constitutional Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara Judgment and “principles” laid down in
    the judgment of hon.ble Supreme Court in BJ Akkra case.

    (10) The National Anomaly Committee has already resolved this issue and the Staff side also has accepted the official side's views and hence no need to reopen the issue.

    Reply : Our issue has not been settled at all. In fact the case with regard to pensioners who retired as Gazetted Officers is not included in the terms of reference even and was never considered ever by the Anomaly Committee. Anomaly Committee is another divertive tactics of the Govt. to deny the past pensioners their legal due.

    (11) As per Art 73/ 77 Govt is competent to make / amend any Rule on behalf of the President.

    Reply : Article 73 states the “extent of the executive power of the Union” and the Article 77 states about “Conduct of business of the Government of India”. Article 73 (1) starts with the words that “These powers are subject to the provisions of this Constitution”. Evidently, the powers given to Govt. are therefore, not above the Constitutional provisions for equality enshrined in Article 14. Violation of Article 14 therefore, cannot be set aside by citing provisions of Article 73 or 77. Article 14
    is bound to prevail.

    (12) CCS (RP) Rules 2008 are not applicable to pre 2006 pensioners. As old pensioners are/ were no longer in service during the SCPC period, they are not entitled for any "REVISION OF PAY" applicable to those in service/ retired post 1 1 2006.
    Reply : The contention is denied on the following grounds :

    i) CCS(Revised)Pay Rules 2008 are “statuary” in nature as can be seen from the Notification , which says the Rules have been made “in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309, and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution” :


    These Rules, are therefore, above those executive instructions which have been issued by the Govt. after the date of enactment of the said Rules i.e. 29.08.2008. The executive instructions issued by way of MOP, OMs dated 1.9.08, 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 etc. cannot supersede the provisions made in these Rules. Proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) of CCS(Revised)Pay Rules, reads as under “Provided further that : Where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching.“

    ii) SCPC Report para 2.2.21 (iii) reads as under : “In case more than two stages in the pre-revised pay scale are getting fixed at the same stage in the revised running pay band, benefit of one increment has been given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. In the case of pay scales in higher administrative grade(HAG) in the pay band PB-4 benefit of increment due to bunching has been given taking into account all the stages in different pay scales in this grade. The detailed fixation chart (Table 2.2.2) showing stage-wise fixation of existing employees in the revised running pay bands should be utilized in every case of fixation of pay of the concerned employees in the revised running pay bands.”

    iii) SCPC Report para 5.1.47 has been accepted by the Govt. vide Resolution dated 29.08.08, Item 12 which says “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. “ Read with Para 2.2.21 (iii) of SCPC Report, quoted in (ii) above and proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) CCS(Revised)Pay Rules, quoted in (i) above, minimum of the pay in the pay band for pre revised pay scale s29 Rs. 18,400-22,400 comes to Rs. 44,700, which is more than minimum of pay band i.e. Rs. 37,400, because six increments have been added in Minimum of Pay band Rs. 37,400, @ 3 % of 37,400, cumulatively, against 12 bunchings because s24 reaches minimum of s29 after 12 bunchings.

    iv) MOF OM dated 30.08.08 has also given Minimum of the pay in the pay band in respect of s29 pre revised pay scale 18400-22400 as Rs. 44,700 which is more than minimum of pay band i.e.37,400, as, here also, six increments have been added in Minimum of Pay band Rs. 37,400, @ 3 % of 37,400, cumulatively, against 12 bunchings because s24 reaches minimum of s29 after 12 bunchings.

    v) Denial of s29 pre 2006 pensioners the minimum of the pay in pay band as 44,700 for the purpose of fixation of revised pension is against the hon.ble Supreme Court judgment in case of DG Posts Vs B. Ravindran (Civil Appeal No. 4077 of 1992) : (DOJ 08.11.1996) which has held that any modification done through the executive instructions i. e. OMs (such as OMs dated 1.9.08,3.10.08, 14.10.08) to the statuary provisions (such as proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) of CCS(Rev.)Pay Rules 2008) and these executive instructions issued under OMs dated 1.9.08, 3.10.08, 14.10.08 are invalid and without any authority of law.

    vi) Article 14 gives right to the equality to all. Hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment in DS Nakara case has held that “if other conditions are same revised pension should be the same irrespective of date of retirement”. Furtehr, priciples laid down in vide para 20 of hon.ble Supremce Court Judgment in BJ Akkra case also upheld that “adoption of different method of fixing revised pension, where other conditions remain the same, but simply because that one retired earlier and another latter, is
    discrimination under Article 14 of Constitution of India”.

    (contd in next thread)
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-07-2011 at 01:29 PM. Reason: editorial

  18. #318
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    (contd from previous post)

    (13) Clarificatory OMs/ Executive instructions need no Cabinet Approval. Nor they need be referred to CAG for concurrences.

    Reply : Denial of s29 pre 2006 pensioners the minimum of the pay in pay band as 44,700 for the purpose of fixation of revised pension is against the hon.ble Supreme Court judgment in case of DG Posts Vs B. Ravindran (Civil Appeal No. 4077 of 1992) : (DOJ 08.11.1996). In this judgment it has been held that any modification done through the executive instructions i. e. OMs ( such as OM dated 3.10.08) to the statuary provisions (such as CCS(Rev.)Pay Rules 2008) are “invalid and without any authority of law. “OM dated 03.10.08 actually carries modification to the statuary provision contained in Proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) of CCS(Revised)Pay Rules and hence, and hence this modification, too is “invalid and without the authority of law.

    (14) CCS Pension Rules 1972 do not make provisions for revising pensions according to successive CPC Recos ( an ill-conceived / wantonly construed RTI Reply)

    Reply : Pre 2006 pensioners are not demanding that they should be treated like employees given pay accordingly. They are demanding equality with post 2006 pensioners, with all other conditions remaining the same, equality in pension with those who retired on and from 1.1.06 (specified date for implementation of SCPC Report) to 29.08.08 (date of issue of Resolution by MOP). CCS(Revised)Pay Rules 2008 containing certain terms with specific definition and meaning, which have been used in item 12 of Resolution dated 29.08.08 as well. Definition and Meaning cannot be different particularly when both these Notifications were issued and gazette notified on the same day (29.08.08). CCS(Rev.)Pay Rules 2008 are Statuary in nature and have acquired the status of law. The executive instructions contained in OM dated 1.9.08,03.10.08 and 14.10.08 cannot supersede Statuary provision and become automatically “invalid and without the authority of law”

    (15) Nakara/ Vains Judgments have already been watered down through other judgments.

    Reply : The words “watered down” in respect of DS Nakara Judgment or SPS Vains Judgment, has been used in at least one of the Judgments of the hon.ble Supreme Court but the context is different. When pensioners demanded, quoting DS Nakara Judgment and/or SPS Vains judgment, for something which was not there in these two judgments, the words ‘waterdowned” were used by the hon.ble Court, for pensioners. It only meant that pensioners are mis-using this cardinal Judgment and watering it down. The hon.ble Supreme Court has never meant that these two judgment itself have become “waterdowned” as is being interpreted by the Govt. It may be noted that DS Nakara Judgment was given by the Constitutional bench of the hon.ble Supreme Court comparising of highest number of judges and so far none of hon.ble Supreme Court judgments, have “set aside its ratio descendi” or Judgment held. Same is the case with hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment in SPS Vains case.

    (16) A Junior can draw more pension than a Senior scale pensioner depending upon the last emoluments drawn and length of service (... as if we are not aware of the same!- our submissions were in a different context!)

    Reply : This is a very sweeping statement. It is true that under all circumstances, junior cannot draw more pension than senior but under “certain” circumstances or even majority of cases, a junior cannot draw more pay or pension, because of application of NBR which has found its root from Article 14. Under Next below Rule, the pay of senior has to be stepped up equal to the Junior, if all other conditions are the same. This principle is prevailing all over in Govt. notifications and rule-books. Therefore, a senior getting lesser pension, if all other conditions are the same, is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rules enshrined in our Constitution.

    (17) 5CPC Modified parity is already settled. Now it is the Sixth CPC "Modified Parity" which has also been correctly implemented as per SCPC Recos.

    Reply :

    i) Kindly also see reply given in item 12 above.

    ii) As per FCPC, the revised pension is equal to minimum of the revised pay scale corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioners had retired. It may be noted that in case of FCPC, generally speaking, against each p.r.p. scale and new revised pay scale was given. It was therefore a simple matter. But the same is not true for the SCPC, which has not given a single Revised pay Scale against a single pre revised pay scale, starting from s4 to s30 except s31 and s32. Latter on, Govt. decided to take out s30 from pay band 4 and give it a separate single pay scale, in order to remove “disparity” (as stated in Committee of Secretaries Report). Had a Revised pay scale been provided against s29 pre revised pay scale of Rs.18,400 – 22,400, disparity of retirees from s29 pay scale, especially for those who retired prior to 1.1.06, would have been also removed up to some extent.

    iii) Now about the difference between a pay scale and the pay band. In SCPC, a number of pre revised pay scales have been merged to form a pay band. For example Pay Band 4 has been created by merging pre revised pay scales s24,s25,s26,s27,s28 and s29. To mitigate any injustice in fixation of pay and pension of a higher p.r.p. scale say, s29, Rs 18,400-22,400, merged with the lowest p.r.p.scale say, s24, Rs. 14,300-18,300, SCPC recommended allotting one additional increment against two bunchings, while fixing pay and pension of the higher p.r.p.scale. See SCPC Report para 2.2.21 (iii), which was also incorporated in CCS(Revised)Pay Rules 2008, Rule (1) (A)(ii).Pre revised pay scale s24 starts from 14,300 and ends at 18.300 whereas pre revised pay scale s29 starts from 18,400 and ends at 22,400. There are 12 bunchings i.e. stages which are to be crossed by s24 to reach just below the stage from where s29 starts. S29 was therefore, entitled to have minimum of the pay in pay band at Rs. 44,700, after addition of six increments @ 3 % of minimum of pay band, all cumulatively. in the minimum of the pay band. Para 5.1.47, which was accepted also under Resolution dated 29.08.08, item 12, saying that “Revised pension cannot be less than sum of 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. This, in deed, is the SCPC modified parity, which pre 2006 pensioners are demanding and which has been denied vide MOP OM dated 03.10.2008. Govt. is making a propaganda that the “modified parity” has been given to all, but this is totally, wrong and false, as can be seen from above explanation.

    (18) Judgments of Military case pensioners can not be made applicable to Civil pensioners ( even Natural Principles of Justice?--- Military of India has some other Constitution ? )

    Reply : This statement is totally denied. There is nothing in law to support the same. It is another propaganda of the Govt. to differentiate the pensioners and create a wedge between them. From the law the powers are conferred to make rules, from rules the instructions flow and from instructions subsidiary instruction, manual and local supplementary instructions do flow, which could be different for different services, depending upon the local requirements. However, law remains the same for all. As far as Constitution of India is concerned, especially the Article 14, as applicable to pensioners and as considered and as observed upon in various Judgments of the hon.ble Apex Court, there is no “distinction” made between military or non-military and Law is made applicable to all without any distinction.

    Points raised by SUNDARAR/ VN and REPLIES/ EXPLANATIONS BY SHRI M. L. Kanaujia.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VNATARAJAN[/COLOR][/B]

  19. #319
    Member S.C.Maheshwari is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Gurgaon
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Will you please give latest position of Court cases.

  20. #320
    Junior Member shreeramachandran is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2

    Default fixation of pension -reg

    DEAR ALL,

    KINDLY REFER TO THE RESOLUTION OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE
    DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE 1/1/2008 DATED 30-08-2008G
    GAZETTED.

    THERE IS A LOOK UP TABLE PUBLISHED WHICH GIVES YOUR
    PAY FIXATION FOR PENSION. YOUR LAST BASIC PAY DRAWN
    WHILE RETIRING PRIOR TO 2006 IS MULTIPLIED BY 1.86 AND
    GRADE PAY IS ADDED TO ARRIVE YOUR PAY FOR FIXING THE
    PENSION AT 50%. INTERESTED MAY SEE THE ATTACHMENT.
    THE RESOLUTION REFERRED TO IN JUDGEMENT OF 0655/2010
    BY PRINCIPAL CAT IS THIS AND NOT THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
    37/38/2008 OF DOPT.
    IN A REFERENCE TO C.A.G, OPINION WAS EXPRESSED BY CAG
    TO PMO THAT BENEFIT FOR PRE 2006 WILL BE THERE ONLY IF THE
    GAZETTE NOTIFICATION 1/1/2008 DATED 30-08-2008
    kindly see attachment
    best regards,
    adithyan

    sudarsanajyothi@gmail.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-05-2012, 02:27 PM
  2. Pay parity for CSS/subordinate/autnomous bodies
    By pkkanwal in forum Anomalies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13-01-2009, 05:33 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2008, 08:17 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 06:48 AM
  5. pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity
    By RSundaram in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 07:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts