Articles you may Like
We know that GConnect Discussion Board has always been the most liked web place of pensioners to share their mind. But we did not expect that a particular thread titled as "Injustice to Pre-2006 Pensioners in old s-29 and 30 scale (18400-22400 and 22400-24500)" would receive such a response that would make every member of gconnect community proud .
This thread alone has got response in the form of 10110 replies and viewership count of 84365.
Mr.V.Natarajan has created this thread. (Click here to see his profile)He is one of the most respected persons among Central Government pensioners community in India, by virtue of his involvement in Pensioner's welfare activities and his articulate, crisp and clear writing in gconnect and other blogs.
We sincerely thank him and thought of posting his original thread and his latest post on the same in the GConnect home page as a tribute to his contribution to GConnect Community.
This is his original thread titled as Injustice to Pre-2006 Pensioners in old s-29 and 30 scale (18400-22400 and 22400-24500). (Go to GConnect Discussion Board to see this thread)
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)
And this is his latest post in the same thread: (Go to GConnect Discussion Board for this post)
Dear Pre 2006 and other pensioners,
Thanks to the patronage of Gconnect and co-posters of the Discussion Board/ interested viewers, this single/ unique thread in Pensioners' Forum, has more than 890 posts/ 84000 plus views over a period of 2y 7 months and average viewing per day is more than 70 to 80!
Highlighting the Injustice done to pre 2006 pensioners by denying the Minimum Guaranteed Pension (MGP) in terms of the SCPC recommende correct Modified Parity, the thread has covered almost every possible feature/ item/ justice/ rule etc and as a result of the exchange of views, the aggrieved pensioners and their Groups in Central and State in both Civil and Military categories , have gone to courts and tribunals for justice. In the last one year or so, more than 47 cases have been filed for justice. In three judgments by AFT/ its Principal Delhi and Chandigarh Benches covering 16 of the above 47 cases, have given clear and authentic favourable judgments directing the Govt to accord Modified Parity to petitioners who are Retd Lt Cdrs/ Majors/ Sqdrn Leaders. The Govt is dilly dallying and wating the valuable time of Courts/ Tribunals, by making the pensioners to run from pillar to post for further justice at HSC levels. What a shame???
MY PURPOSE OF PUTTING UP THIS POST IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE VAGUE AND MORE OF A SORT OF MISCHIEVOUS STAND TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENTS (GOCT/ ITS DEPARTMENTS) TO OFFER OBSTRUCTIONS TO OBTAIN JUSTIUCE THROUGH TRIBUNALS/ HIGH COURTS/ HSC ETC.
NOW THE HABITUAL EXPLANATIONS AND LAME EXCUSES OFFERED BY GOVT IN THEIR COUNTERS TO PENSIONERS' PETITIONS ARE SUMMARISED NICELY BY MR SUNDARAR AND SELF:
THEY ARE LISTED HERE:
1) No judicial review is called for as the revision of pension is as per 6th cpc recommendation approved by the Cabinet.
(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
(3) In view of (2) above, actual implementation is as per initial OM dated 1.9.2008 only.
(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".
(5) No violation of Article 14 of the Constitution has taken place.
(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.
(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!
(8) The financial constraints also need to be looked into while considering any liberalisation of pensionary benefits.
(9) Same fitment formula for revision of pension as has been done in the case of serving employees have been applied while revising.
(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.
(11)As per Art 73/ 77 Govt is competent to make / amend any Rule on behalf of the President.
(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.
(13) Clarificatory OMs/ Executive instructions need no Cabinet Approval. Nor they need be referred to CAG for concurrences.
(14)CCS Pension Rules 1972 do not make provisions for revising pensions according to successive CPC Recos ( an ill-conceived / wantonly construed RTI Reply)
(15)Nakara/ Vains Judgments have already been watered down through other judgments.
(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!)
(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.
(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? )
ANY PENSIONER/ THIER GROUPS/ ASSOCIATION FILING A CASE FOR RELIEF/ OR THEIR COUNSELS APPEARING FOR ARGUMENTS MAY GET THEMSELVES PREPARED TO ARGUE AGAINST ON THE ABOVE POINTS TO GET RELIEF/ JUSTICE.
ALL ARE FREE TO / CAN GIVE THEIR COMMENTS FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE POINTS HERE FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES TO SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE.
WE `CAN ALSO CLARIFY AND SHARE ANY INFORMATION NEEDED BY ANY AGGRIEVED PENSIONER/ LITIGANT/ THEIR GROUPS/ ASSOCIATIONS.
All the best,
PS: A FEW REQUESTS/ SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED PERSONALLY BY ME FROM VERY VERY SENIOR/ OLD PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS TIME AND AGAIN TO BRING ALL THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF HON PRESIDENT OF INDIA ETC AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN REPEATING MY EFFORTS ONCE AGAIN TO BRING THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE/ INTEREST TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUGUST OFFICE SOON. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE HIGHEST OFFICES OF OUR NATION CAN DO FOR PENSIONERS LIKE US- THEY ARE ACTING LIKE "SUPER TRANSMITTERS" AND DOWN THE LINE ACTIONS ARE SO PERPETRATED THAT THE "PENSIONERS HAVE TO RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST TO GET JUSTICE" AS OBSERVED BY MANY VENUES/ COURTS OF JUSTICE. NEVERTHELESS WE SHALL FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!