Agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting Part-3

Read Also

Agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting Part-1

Agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting Part-2

Agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting Part-4

Agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting Part-5

Agenda for National Anomaly Committee Meeting Part-6



A Table has been appended to Para 4 of Department of P & P W O.M.No.38/37/08 P&PW (A)Pt I dated 14.10.2008 showing 50% of the sum of the revised Pay Band and Grade Pay. It is seen that the Pay Band worked out @ 1.86 of the minimum of the pre revised Pay Scale has been adopted for all pay scales in each band which is not what the commission has recommended and Govt. had accepted.

The relevant recommendation of the VI CPC (vide para 5.1.47 page 339 of VI CPC Report) is as under:-

“The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised Pay Scale from which the pensioner had retired.

The phrase “minimum of the pay in the Pay Band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired” is different from the minimum of the Pay Band worked out on the basics of minimum of the lowest Pay scale in each Pay Band which is Pay Band Minimum adopted by the commission in their Scheme of Pay Bands. The minimum Pay in the Pay Band has been shown in the fitment tables appended with the Department of Expenditure O.M.F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30.8.2008. This minimum pay in the Pay Band corresponding to the pre-revised Pay Scale from which the pensioner had retired should have been adopted in the table appended with the above P&PW OM dated 14.10.2008.

The revised Table worked out on the above basis is enclosed herewith which may be adopted.



Para 5.1 of Office Memorandum No. F.No. 38/37/08/P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 lays down that where the consolidated Pension / Family Pension in terms of para 4 thereof works out to an amount less then Rs.3500/-,the same shall be stepped up to Rs.3500/- and that will be regarded as Pension / Family Pension with effect from 1.1.2006. In the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs.3500 will apply to the total of all pensions taken together.

This is a clear retrograde step from the existing position whereby in terms of the Department of P&PW OM No.42/2/2004 P&PW (G) dated 21.6.2004, when a pensioner receives two pensions both are treated separately for the purpose of consolidation and not taken together.

It is therefore requested that status-quo should be restored by issuing orders, in supersession of para 5.1. ibid, laying down that minimum floor ceiling should apply separately to each pension and not to the total of the pension taken together.



The provisions made in para 13 of O.M. dated 2.9.2008 in respect of above category of employee are against the principal of natural justice and is arbitrary in as much as they have neither been retiree nor post 1.1.2006 retiree.

To meat end of justice their pension should be computed as in clause (ii) of para 13 with reference to emoluments defined in FR-9(21)(a)(i) after inclusion of Dearness Pay and DA paid as on 1.1.2006 (on basic pay plus dearness pay) and pension computed with out notional increase of the basic pay by applying the fitment benefit of 40% on the basic pay in the pre-revised scale. Similarly Family Pension is to be calculated at 30% of basic pay after adding dearness pay as drawn fitment weightage of 40% of basic pay and DA as admissible on 1.1.2006 (on BP+DP). The provisions made in para 13 are highly discriminatory and anomalous as pension / family pension to those retired / died prior to 1.1.2006 with the same pay in pre revised scale.

Although such cases may be very few who will be opting to continue to draw pay in the pre-revised structure, but to avoid discriminatory treatment and to protect that their pension / family pension isnot less than what an employee gets on his retirement / death on 31.12.2005, the provision made in para 13 needs further suitable amendment / amplification.



The recommendation made by the sixth CPC in para 6.5.3 of its report as mentioned at Sl. No.5 of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 and accepted by the govt. of India, is against the provisions of rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension)Rules, 1981. Neither the govt. nor the pensioners are at liberty to alter/refuse the contract of commutation of pension after it becomes “absolute”. Since Govt. servant who retired on or after 1.1.2006 and have commuted a portion their pension which has now been retrospectively revised, he has to be allowed the commutation of additional pension now becoming due to the same percentage which he has applied earlier for commutation with reference to the purchase value for age next day which was taken in to account at the time (date on which commutation become absolute) – initial commutation. The recommendation of the Sixth CPC is also against the sprit of rule 8 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) rules. Had the commutation Table consisting of purchase value with reference to age has gone up, then the govt. would have applied rule 10 ibid for commutation of additional pension and not with reference to revised upward rate. The department of P&PW cannot choose the batter provision by subverting the statutory Rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981. The recommendation of the Sixth CPC in this regard is friendly to govt. and not to the retiring employees. It was for the govt. not to accept the recommendation of Sixth CPC as contained in para 6.5.3 of their report and status-quo as per rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) rules, 1981 continued as was allowed while implementing 3rd 4th and 5th CPC recommendations.

We, therefore, request the Govt. to maintain status-quo by applying the provisions of rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules,1981 for commutation of pension becoming due as a result of revision of pay/pension and modify the acceptance of recommendation as appearing against Sl.No.5 of Resolution and provisions made in para 9.3 of O.M. dated 2.9.2008.




Additional commutation arising out of VI CPC Pay Revision for employees who have retired / superannuated between 1.1.2006 and 2.9.2008 shall be computed at the revised Table of Commutation value for pension in terms of para 9.3 of the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare O.M. F.No. 38/37/2008-P%PW (A) dated 2.9.2008 as clarified in O.M. F.No. 38/79/2008P&PW(G) dated 16.2.2009.

This is not only contrary to the existing orders and the provisions of Rules 5,6 and 10 of CCS (Commutation) Rules 1981, but is also violative of judicial pronouncements.

It is therefore demanded that the additional commutation arising as a result of revision of pay and pension in respect of employees retiring between 1.1.2006 and 2.9.2008 should be at the same factor of the existing Table of Commutation value at which his pension was initially commuted.

It has also been observed that some Pension Sanctioning authorities are deducting the additional commuted pension retrospectively from the date it was initially commuted. This is also contrary to Rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) rules 1981. it should be deducted from the date it was paid. Suitable classificatory orders in this respect may also be issued.



Instructions have been issued by the Government in the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare OM F.No. 38/37/08 P&PW (A) dated 2.9.2008 wherein it is stated that in respect of post 31.12.2005 pensioners who have already commuted their pension, the revised commutation Table should be used only to compute the amount of pension that has become additionally commutable on account of retrospective revision of pension.

In this connection it may be stated that

1.         The date of effect of the revised table of commutation in respect of the pensioners, who had retired on or after 1.1.2006 and before 2.9.2006 is vague.

2.         The said pensioners are governed by the commutation rules as these existed on the date of retirement. The table of value has been prescribed on the date on which the commutation becomes absolute.

3.         The revised instructions conveyed vide para 9.3 of the OM dated 2.9.2008 are contrary to rule 5, 6 & 12.

4.         Rules 5 & 6 do not envisage a second option as defined by the courts of law.

5.         As per rule 12 an employee is eligible to commute a fraction not exceeding 40% of his pension. Such eligibility is partially denied by the revised instructions for which the following options are prescribed

Option 1    “I hereby do not opt for commutation of additional pension becoming due owing to retrospective revision of pension.

By this option, the automatic benefit of Rule 10 is completely denied.

Option 2. “I hereby do not opt for commutation of same percentage (as already commuted ) of the revised pension becoming due owing to revision of pension”.

By this option, the entitlement of 40% on revised pension as per rule 5(1) & 5 (2) is denied.

6.         On the basis of the option and by using the revised table of commutation, the pension and the commuted fraction are divided as two as indicated in the illustration below.


a.         Pre – revised pension Rs.3000/-

b.         Revised Pension Rs.6780/-

A Government servant is entitled to get 40% of the commuted value on the revised pension of Rs.6780. But according to para 9.3, a Government servant will receive only 17.3% of the commuted value on the revised pension under the pre revised table and 22.7% of the commuted value on the revised pension under the revised table. Applying two factors for a single event of commutation is not fair.

It is, therefore, demanded that 40% of the revised pension may be commuted as per the extant Table which was in force when the employee had retired i.e. prior to 2.9.2008.

The instructions issued may be suitably revised.



The Sixth CPC in its reports in para 5.1.44 (not 5.1.42 as mentioned against Sl. No. 10 of Resolution dated 2.9.2008) recommended Constant Attendance Allowance to civilians who are granted disability pension under CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 for the first time as a new element on the lines existing to the Defence Forces. Here neither the rate of Constant Attendance Allowances payable nor conditions attached to its payment has been detailed.                                                                               However, while recommending constant Attendance Allowance to Defence Forces in para 5.1.68, the commission recommended Rs.3000/-p.m. as increased by 25% every time the dearness allowance payable on revised pay band goes up by 50%.

It is regretted that Deptt. Of P&PW while notifying acceptance of the recommendations of the Sixth CPC by the Govt. in its Resolution dated 29.8.2008 at Sl. No. 10 did not link the recommendations of the commission as available in para 6.1.68 in regard to allowing increase by 25% of constant Attendance Allowance when Dearness Allowance goes up by 50% it is a deliberate concealment of fact by the Deptt. Of P&PW, which is bad.        Even if the Govt. was not inclined to increase the Constant Attendance Allowance as and when DA increases by 50% it would have been proper not to accept that portion of recommendation in the Resolution.         As the Ministry of Defence does not issue any Resolution on Pensionary matters and they follow the Governments‟ acceptance the Ministry, the omitted part of recommendation of Sixth CPC (para 6.1.68) regarding increase in Constant Attendance Allowance as and when DA increases by 50% will not find place in Ministry of Defence letter notifying revised Pensionary provisions in respect of Armed Forces as the same has neither been accepted not denied by the Government. This requires necessary correction / amendment.



Whereas the VI CPC had recommended that the post of Asstt. Accounts/Audit Officers and Accounts/Audit Officers should, therefore, (because as a result of upgradation of the post of section officers (Accounts / Audit) in pay scale of Rs.7500-12000, the posts of section officers and Asstt. Accounts / Audit Officers had been placed them in an identical Pay Scale) be merged in the pay band PB-2 to Rs.8700 (9300) – 34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800, the Govt. have placed Audit/Accounts officers in the pay band PB-2 with upgraded Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 (Corresponding to the prerevised Pay scale of Rs.8000-13500).

This has given rise to the following anomaly:-

i) Asstt. Accounts/Audit Officers are Group B Gazetted whereas Section Officers are Group B Non Gazetted. As such a Group B Gazetted post has been merged with a Group B Non Gazetted post.

ii) Since Asstt. Accounts officer is a promotional post for section Officer, the merger of these posts has resulted in no fixation of pay on promotion in view of Rule 13 (i) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The Ministry of Railway vide their Notification No. PC VI/19 dated 23.9.2008. (RBE No.128/2008) has however extended the Pay Band of PB-2 with grade pay of rs.5400 to Asstt. Accounts Officers (group „B‟ Gazetted).

It is therefore proposed that the post of assistant accounts /audit Officers in all organized accounts & Indian audit & accounts department may also be granted the upgraded grade Pay of rs.5400 in PB-2.

As a corollary to this the Accounts & Audit Officers may be placed in the Pay Band PB-3 with upgraded Grade Pay of rs.5400 considering the fact that this is a promotional post with higher functional responsibilities and Sr. Audit/Accounts Officers may be given pay band PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600 for the same reason.

It may also be pointed out that the observation VI CPC (vide para 7.56 of their report) that “upgrading the Sr. Audit/Accounts Officers pay scales any further will place them in a higher level than the entry grade of IA&AS which is a promotion post” is not correct.                  The senior Accounts/Audit Officers are not promoted to the entry grade of IA&AS. They have been promoted to S-19 post which has now been granted Grade Pay of Rs.6600. That is why the post of Sr. Audit/Accounts Officer may be given Pay Band PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.6600.



12 monthly average index of 536 (AICPI-IW) 1982 series corresponds to 74.97% increase over the base index of 306.33 prescribed by V CPC. Since 74% increase in D.A. has only been merged in emoluments (Pay Band), this increase corresponds to 12 monthly average index of 533.02 of cost of living Index (1982=100) series.

The base index for the VI CPC. Pay Scale should therefore be 533.02 of 1992 index i.e. 115.12 in (2001=100) series.

It is, therefore, proposed that the base index in (2001=100) series for the computation of D.A. in pay scale of VI CPC may be taken as 115.12 and not 115.76.



The Government of India have been following the AICPI Index (IW) ever since the time of CPC I, chaired then by Justice Varadachariar. In CPC I, it was 1939=100 base. CPC II Justice Jagannath Das Commission also based their recommendations on 1960=100 base. CPC V ordered DA / DR to be on 1982 =100 Base. CPC VI have preferred 2001=100 base.

Successive Pay Commissions have been suggesting a separate AICPI for white collar workers as different from the skilled / unskilled factory / industrial workers. They had pleaded for a different basket of inputs since the basic needs of a wage earner in a factory or an industrial worker are different from clerks / supervisors / operatives / management level employees (white collar workers). But the Government of India have not taken a decision although some sort of an index has been evolved by the Statistical Department of the Central Government Hence on date this AICPI (IW) is the base for fixing the bench mark for Government salaries as well.

All along, based on AICPI (IW) 1982= 100 base the Government had sanctioned DA / DR at 74% of the 1.1.1996 level wages. (1.1.96 wages were on 306.33, average point). In the Government of India arrangement of DA / DR grant decimal increases in percentage are not considered. At 536 point the actual percentage is not 74% but more, namely 74.844 say 74.84. And we reach 74% when the AICPI (IW) reaches (306.33 X 0.74 = 533.01. Hence when 74% is included as salary on 31.12.2005, the start for the 1.1.2006 salary structure should be only 533.01 and not 536. This when converted to 2001 = 100 base by the factor 4.63 we get 533.01 / 4.63=115 .1209 say 115.12. It is therefore proposed that D.A. increases be computed on the basis of AICPI (IW) 115.12 and not 115.76.

You might also like