Central Government Employment News, 7th Pay Commission, MACP, LTC, CGHS, Railways, Bank News, CPSE, NPS, Pension, DOPT and More

Pro-rata pension to continue for Pre-2006 Pensioners with less than 33 years of service

Pro-rata pension to continue for Pre-2006 Pensioners retired before completion of 33 years as per 6th CPC implementation

While requirement for receipt of full Pension as on 01.01.2006, by a Pre-2006 Pensioner is 33 years, post 2006 pensioners are entitled for full pension after completion of 20 years of service

Sequence of events in pre-2006 pensioners case 

The First case OA 655/2010 was field in CAT PB by S-29( Railway officers who are having more than 33 years of service) association pleading for Modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners.

Another three set of petitions were filed by others pleading for full parity with post 2006 pensioners including 50% pension to less than 33 years of service in CAT PB & cases numbered OA/3079/2009,OA 0306/2010,OA 0507/2010.

The CAT PB clubbed all the three cases together & heard the argument. The judgement was also given together in all these four cases.

The Govt filed appeal in DHC against the verdict of CAT PB & again all these four cases Numbered WP(C) 1535/2012(Modified parity only), 2348-2350/2012(Full parity & 50%) were clubbed & heard by DHC.The judgements were given together but under respective cases.

Here Govt filed a curative petition in SC together & could not succeed.

Here after the Govt splitted the cases & filed an SLP in SC numbered SLP (C) 23055/2013  only against WP(C) 1535 (OA 655/2010 for modified parity only)  & the SC dismissed the SLP. Consequently the Govt paid the amount to Members of the petitioners only.

After this The Govt filed SLP in SC against the verdict of DHC in rest of the 3 cases 2348-2350/2012 & the cases numbered by SC as SLP(C) 36148-36150/2013(Full parity & 50%) were heard together & dismissed on 17/03/2015 & ordered to pay the arrears w.e.f.01/01/2006 with in 4 months .The deadline for compliance of this judgement has expired on 17/07/2015.The petitioners of SLP 36148-50 have to approach the SC for contempt of court for non-implementation of court order.The recent Circular dated 30/07/2015 issued by DOPPW is only extending the applicability of judgement in OA 655/2010 to applicants other than petitioners in the above case.Hence this Circular have no effect on the pre2006 pensioners who are having less than 33 years of service.

Circular Dated 30/07/2015

Circular dated 28/01/2013  

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C)2348/2012,W.P.(C)2349/2012,W.P.(C)2350/2012

Date of Decision: April 29, 2013

PARA-26.of judgement

It  is for the aforesaid reasons,we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision 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 pee-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to re-fix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months,it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

CHECKOUT CAT JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) 2348-50/2012

Source: ex-airman.blogspot.in

Comments
Loading...
;