PDA

View Full Version : Justice for 20 yr plus pre-2006 retirees of all pre-revised scales- action plan"



Pages : [1] 2

dnaga57
06-06-2010, 08:06 AM
I am openig this new thread as suggested by Shri VN-a good advice.
Please read my starting post & last post in thread 'Effectiveness & Applicability of Full Pension for <33 years retirees of pre2006.

6th PC recommended that Full pension be applicable to ALL retirees after 20 years of service. They also suggested that this be 'effective' from a prospective date.
GoI issued its 1st Memo that this will be both applicable & effective from 2-9-2008
It was then amended to be effective from 1-1-2006
One more amendment that this will be applicable to post 1-1-2006 retirees too i.e those who retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 also would be included.
This leaves out pre2006 retirees with less than 33years of service with prorated pension only.
This affects ALL pre 2006 pensioners IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PAYSCALE- PAY BAND

Thus the subdivision of pensioners into 3 categories originally viz.

Retirees after 2-9-2008
Retirees between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008
Pre 2006 retirees

This has now been reduced to two categories viz pre2006 & post 2006 pensioners with two different pension eligibility & applicability
This has cut the pre 2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service doubly

one byway of less pension due to applying Minimum of Pay Band
then less pension due to prorating of this lessened pension further

The former is being taken up by many pensioners group to get Modified parity with Minimum pay corresponding to pre 2006 scale.
But no one - as per my knowledge- is taking up the 2nd case of applicability of Full pension for ALL retirees with 20 years of service.
Can we get together - ALL pre2006 retirees irrespective of Payscale Payband to take this up legally
Grateful for your time reading this & suggestions

vnatarajan
06-06-2010, 06:59 PM
Dear All Interested and All Concerned,

We are all aware that the MODIFIED PARITY issue has affected the pre-2006 S29 Pensioners most as of date and consequently a number of CAT and Court cases have been filed by various aggrieved groups all over the country. Both Civil and Military pensioners have taken up the issue.

After the above Group, similarly but less affected S21/22/23 Group was expected to take up similar fights for justice - but response had not been so encouraging. However, from the Military side - both Retd Lt Cdrs and Majors etc have taken up the fight for MODIFIED PARITY and the same is gathering MOMENTUM.

TI ME HAS COME TO STRIKE THE IRON WHEN AND WHERE IT IS HOT.

ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH IS COMMON TO ALL PRE-REVISED SCALE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IS THE ONE IN OUR MINDS:

So, Shri D Naga, an active Pre-2006 Pensioner (Plus 20 yrs category) - member of the CGS29PA has rightly put up a new thread in the GCONNECT IN with the caption:

"Justice for 20 yr plus pre-2006 retirees of all pre-revised scales- action plan" BY DNAGA:
THE THRTEAD HAD BEEN AN INSTANT SUCCESS- WITHIN A FEW HOURS OF ITS POSTING, THERE HAD BEEN 38 STRIKES.

I AM SURE MANY WILL BE INTERESTED TO FORM A "ALL SCALE GROUP" TO TAKE UP AND FIGHT THE ISSUE.

ALL INFORMATION INCLUDING RTI MATERIAL SUPPORT IS AVAILABLE FROM MANY LEARNED PENSIONERS/ LEADERS LIKE SHRI AR/ PKR/ AVM/ SUNDARAR AND SEVERAL OTHERS AND I HOPE SOMETHING CONCRETE WILL EMERGE TO GO AHEAD WITH AN ACTION PLAN.

CAN WE EXPECT AT LEAST 31 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS OF PLUS 20 YRS- MINUS 33 YRS OF ALL SCALE-CATEGORIES (VRS- NORMAL RETIREES) TO START WITH FOR FORMING A CORE GROUP TO BEGIN THIS CAMPAIGN SO THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE TAKEN TO THE COURTS SOON?

VNatarajan

rama1948
06-06-2010, 09:07 PM
I am openig this new thread as suggested by Shri VN-a good advice.
Please read my starting post & last post in thread 'Effectiveness & Applicability of Full Pension for <33 years retirees of pre2006.

6th PC recommended that Full pension be applicable to ALL retirees after 20 years of service. They also suggested that this be 'effective' from a prospective date.
GoI issued its 1st Memo that this will be both applicable & effective from 2-9-2008
It was then amended to be effective from 1-1-2006
One more amendment that this will be applicable to post 1-1-2006 retirees too i.e those who retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 also would be included.
This leaves out pre2006 retirees with less than 33years of service with prorated pension only.
This affects ALL pre 2006 pensioners IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PAYSCALE- PAY BAND

Thus the subdivision of pensioners into 3 categories originally viz.

Retirees after 2-9-2008
Retirees between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008
Pre 2006 retirees

This has now been reduced to two categories viz pre2006 & post 2006 pensioners with two different pension eligibility & applicability
This has cut the pre 2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service doubly

one byway of less pension due to applying Minimum of Pay Band
then less pension due to prorating of this lessened pension further

The former is being taken up by many pensioners group to get Modified parity with Minimum pay corresponding to pre 2006 scale.
But no one - as per my knowledge- is taking up the 2nd case of applicability of Full pension for ALL retirees with 20 years of service.
Can we get together - ALL pre2006 retirees irrespective of Payscale Payband to take this up legally
Grateful for your time reading this & suggestions

Sir,
Though I have retired from the most benifitted scale ie S-24, I am ready and willing to join this fight, for those who have completed 20 + yrs but are getting only pro-rated pension. I have taken VRS after 21.5 yrs, from DOS.
I wish the sorest point of SCPC, screwing S-29, gets redressed as the first item( Most UNJUST)
Regards
Ramana Rao

dnaga57
07-06-2010, 07:07 AM
Dear Sir
For <33 years pre 2006 retirees , the grade - PB does not matter. All are losing heavily.
For S24 the pension of 23750 at MPB may be fine for Full pension guys.
For a 21.5 years person pension would be 23750*26.5/33=19071. i.e. 4679 less than a corresponding post 2006 retiree.
Prorating for <33 years affects all pre 2006pensioners with 20-28years srvice on VRS, 20-32 years service for normal retirees.
I can work out this for ALL grades but it should be very evident.
Let us get together to merge the artificial divide of pre & post 2006 pensioners.

vnatarajan
07-06-2010, 08:44 AM
[B]

Quick response from rama 1948 is encouraging. Hope for more responses.

I think a beginning may be made for a pre-2006 retiree in one or two particular scales to serve as examples . May be it will help for such retirees to understand the implications initially. We can cover all Scales eventually

Could be for S24 and S29 to start with.

Pre-2006 S24 Retiree with 33 yrs gets the pension 23050 (and not perhaps 23750)

Pre-2006 S29 Retiree with 33 yrs now gets pension 23750.

A. What is the pension for a pre 2006 retiree in S29 scale with service of (a) 20 yrs (b) 28 yrs (c) 32 yrs? - with and without 5 yrs benefit respectively?

B. What are the comparative figures for a post 2006 retirees of same lengths of service?

C. Disparity between the two above - with and without 5 yr benefit.

Let us see how it works.

vnatarajan

kktaneja
07-06-2010, 08:23 PM
The matter was raised by Mr Rajagopalan sometime in Oct 2009 in s29 group. Since only a few were affected, it was outvoted by the group so as not to dilute the focus from the main issue of modified parity. After OROP report was out, some of us did send representations highlighting the nominal financial burden, as brought out by OROP, in applying 20 year rule to all pre 2006 civilian pensioners. It is, therefore, a welcome move to form a seperate y20 group cutting across various pay band/grades. Fund can be collected to fight the battle legally or at least take up collectively and uniformly in large numbers to creat some impact.
I am sendind you a seperate mail suggesting pensioners who may be affected.
I am certainly interested.
K K Taneja

kktaneja
13-06-2010, 10:59 AM
Dear Mr Nagarajan,
Has any headway been made in garnering numbers to be able to form a separate y20 group. Only two out of the names I gave have reverted back to you, to my knowledge.
Regards,
K K Taneja

dnaga57
13-06-2010, 08:08 PM
Dear Mr Nagarajan,
Has any headway been made in garnering numbers to be able to form a separate y20 group. Only two out of the names I gave have reverted back to you, to my knowledge.
Regards,
K K Taneja

Dear Sir
Response is almost nil.
I am thinking of filing a case in personal capacity .... with hopefully some sympathetic lawyer.
or piggy back with some other court case...
I will get back to you

Best

vnatarajan
19-06-2010, 10:19 AM
Attention Drawn to positngs in the other thread "Effectiveness and Applicability etc......" -post 139 on some important points:

(MY VIEWS/ UNDERSTANDING WITH LIMITED CAPACITY)

"VRS" was once introduced as an abortive "Scheme"in the past to deal with surplus staff if I correctly remember - mostly in CSS. It must have died long back!

Making it encroach on every decision is the "jugglery" of the Babus I think.

Voluntary Retirement was and is one of the ingredients of the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 and introduction of changes and amendments to it do not make it a new Scheme every time.

Rules under it 49 -2 , 29 etc I dont remember exactly - may deal with it.

Changing the motivational factor from 5 years additional weightage with one time benefits like Gratuity etc to an equivalence of 13 years weightage for full pension is nothing but LIBERALISATION of the relevant parts of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and this is now a part of the CCS (Pension) Rules wef 2nd Sept 2008 inItially - later on dragged back to be made efffective from 1.1.2006.

Voluntary Retirement continues to be one of the types of retirements dealt under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972/its amendments, in the past and even now.

As against this, the New Pension Scheme (wef 1.1.2004) has nothing to do with CCS Pension Rules 1972. The fate of Voluntary Retirees here may be decided by the Pension Regulating Authority/ their Guidelines I think- in cases who decide to quit the service early! ( may be wrong ?)

vnatarajan

(Taking Clue from Sundarar's Post at sl no 139 in the other thread "Effectiveness and Applicability......"

1.A "33 yr QS Pre 2k6 Normal Retiree" eligible for FULL PENSION may DEMAND parity with A "33 yr or even 20 yr QS Post 2k6 Retiree" of same post with equated scales of pay.

2.A "20 yr plus/ 33 yr minus service Pre 2k6 Normal Retiree eligible for prorated pension msut now APPEAL and CLAIM for FULL PENSION parity with a "20 yr QS Post 2006 Retiree" of same post even on NOTIONAL BASIS- of same post with equated scales of pay.

3.A "20 yr plus/ 33 yr minus service Pre 2k6 "Voluntary Retiree" who availed benefits also CAN APPEAL and CLAIM in the least for PARITY AT FULL (MINIMUM GUARANTEED) PENSION WRT A 20 yr plus Post 2k6 Voluntary Retiree even on a notional basis- of same post with equated scales of pay ( eXCESS DRAWN AMOUNTS CAN BE REFUNDED).

(all above - AS A CONSEQUENCE TO REGULARISING THE TRISANKU CATEGORY VR/ 20YR PLUS ETC RETIREES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FULL PENSION SINCE DEC 2009 ORDERS)

sundarar
20-06-2010, 08:22 AM
[B]

Quick response from rama 1948 is encouraging. Hope for more responses.

Pre-2006 S29 Retiree with 33 yrs now gets pension 23750.

A. What is the pension for a pre 2006 retiree in S29 scale with service of (a) 20 yrs (b) 28 yrs (c) 32 yrs? - with and without 5 yrs benefit respectively?

B. What are the comparative figures for a post 2006 retirees of same lengths of service?

C. Disparity between the two above - with and without 5 yr benefit.

Let us see how it works.

vnatarajan

A. The pension for a pre 2006 retiree in S29 scale with service of (without the benefit of 5 years)
(a) 20 years = 23750 X 40/66 = 14393
(b) 28 years = 23750 X 56/66 = 20151
(c) 32 years = 23750 X 64/66 = 23030

The pension for a pre 2006 retiree in S29 scale with service of (with the benefit of 5 years)

(a) 20+5 years = 23750 X 50/66 = 17992
(b) 28+5 years = 23750
(c) 32+1 year = 23750

B. A post 2006 retiree with same length of service (minimum 20 years)
will not get 23750 which is 50% of minimum of the pay band + 50% of Grade pay; Instead, he will get more than this amount because of application of 50% of Revised Pay last drawn at the time of retirement, which Revised Pay consists of 50% OF PAY IN THE PAY BAND + 50% OF GRADE PAY - His pension will be at least Rs.27300. Thus, even if a pre-2006 pensioner rendered 33 years q.s., he will get less than what a pre-2006 pensioner of 20 years q.s. will be getting. Not only in the case of qualifying service, but also in calculation of pension, the disparity
occurs with the cut-off date on retirement.
The aforesaid differential treatment ought to be resolved at the earliest, first in the manner of calculation of minimum pension by applying same formula, viz. 50% of Pay in the Pay Band + 50% of Grade Pay at least at the minimum level for pre-2006 pensioners irrespective of their qualifying service, followed by re-computing the pension of those who rendered at least 10 years service which is the eligibility criteria for drawing pension and retired with less than 33/20 years service and revise the pension accordingly w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

C. Disparity in the first instance, irrespective of qualifying service for determining actual revised pension at minimum level, has to be removed in earliest possible time so that the valuable time and energy being consumed in various court cases for this very particular aspect, can be saved. Artificially created issues are not to be kept aside for resolving by Hon. Courts, as they have various other cases. A proactive decision even in this point of time,
will be saving financial and other implications of Pensioners Community.
But for the initial letter to Banks followed by a corrigendum after a year or so, But for the clarificatory/mandatory OM of 3.10.2008, the initial OM dt.1.9.2008 if implemented with a plain reading would have saved much confusion as well as drop in pension. Very knowledgeable personnel are
handling various important posts and their good offices may kindly re-visit the entire issues relating to pensioners with a patient understanding of the core matter. A motherly attitude is what the pensioner community expects from the authorities keeping humanitarian grounds at first. The HR aspects
are the need of the hour in dealing with the pensioners' issue. At the same time, the serving employees may also keep them aware of what pre-2006 pensioners have been facing since implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, and whether the same situation is there in their case also as a post-2006 retiree.

Kanaujiaml
07-09-2010, 09:03 PM
RE-COMPUTATION OF PENSION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

Para 5.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service shall be dispensed with. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him.

Para 5.3 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

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

Para 5.4 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

The provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Govt. servant retiring on or after that date(2.9.2008). The Govt. servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O.M. (2.9.2008), will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

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

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

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F. No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated 10.12.2009:

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

As per the extant orders, only those Govt. servants retired/retiring after 1.1.2006 are entitled to get their pension calculated on the basis of revised methodology/formula spelt through the OM dated 11.12.2008 and 10.12.2009.




Under the circumstances, a genuine question may arise as to -


Whether a Govt. servant retired prior to 1.1.2006 can expect that his basic pension due on the date of retirement, will have to be recalculated

(i) based on his last pay drawn or average emoluments for the past 10 months prior to the date of retirement whichever is beneficial and

(ii) based on the minimum qualifying service of 20 years for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, strictly on par with those who retired/retiring after 1.1.2006?

The Reply could be `YES’ - as long as the liberalised/amended decision is not a wholly new concept, a new retiral benefit, the Govt. servants who retired prior to 1.1.2006 will definitely expect for such re-computation of pension based on the amended/liberalised decision.

The line of principle involved with reference to a cut-off date to divide the homogenous class of pensioners, is elaborately discussed in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India and M L Jain Vs. UOI (1991) 1 SCC 664.

Victor
07-09-2010, 09:13 PM
RE-COMPUTATION OF PENSION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

Para 5.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service shall be dispensed with. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him.

Para 5.3 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

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

Para 5.4 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

The provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Govt. servant retiring on or after that date(2.9.2008). The Govt. servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O.M. (2.9.2008), will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

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

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

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F. No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated 10.12.2009:

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

As per the extant orders, only those Govt. servants retired/retiring after 1.1.2006 are entitled to get their pension calculated on the basis of revised methodology/formula spelt through the OM dated 11.12.2008 and 10.12.2009.




Under the circumstances, a genuine question may arise as to -


Whether a Govt. servant retired prior to 1.1.2006 can expect that his basic pension due on the date of retirement, will have to be recalculated

(i) based on his last pay drawn or average emoluments for the past 10 months prior to the date of retirement whichever is beneficial and

(ii) based on the minimum qualifying service of 20 years for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, strictly on par with those who retired/retiring after 1.1.2006?

The Reply could be `YES’ - as long as the liberalised/amended decision is not a wholly new concept, a new retiral benefit, the Govt. servants who retired prior to 1.1.2006 will definitely expect for such re-computation of pension based on the amended/liberalised decision.

The line of principle involved with reference to a cut-off date to divide the homogenous class of pensioners, is elaborately discussed in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India and M L Jain Vs. UOI (1991) 1 SCC 664.

As per the orders issued so far, the pension of pre-2006 pensioners will not be recalculated. The revised rules relating to pension are only applicable for those pensioners who retire on or after 1.1.2006.

I agree with you that the pre-2006 pensioners are at a disadvantage when compared to the post-2006 pensioners. This issue can only be rectified by the courts.

Victor

Kanaujiaml
08-09-2010, 08:04 AM
Dear friend. I know it all. I have tried to bring in focus the entire episode and possibility of a solution favourable to the pre 2006 pensioners. One millian dollar question is who will bell the Cat ? Meaning thereby as to who would go to the Court and fight the long battle ? Any takers ?



As per the orders issued so far, the pension of pre-2006 pensioners will not be recalculated. The revised rules relating to pension are only applicable for those pensioners who retire on or after 1.1.2006.

I agree with you that the pre-2006 pensioners are at a disadvantage when compared to the post-2006 pensioners. This issue can only be rectified by the courts.

Victor

dnaga57
08-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Dear friend. I know it all. I have tried to bring in focus the entire episode and possibility of a solution favourable to the pre 2006 pensioners. One millian dollar question is who will bell the Cat ? Meaning thereby as to who would go to the Court and fight the long battle ? Any takers ?

Dear MLK
I am willing, either as a separate case or clubbed with any other present one.
I will need ARR, VN, MLk's advise regardig documents to cite.
Of course ALL ffected are welcome to join.
One technical point- I am at Hyderabad, I retired fro SE Rly. Is it OK for me to file in CAT Hydbad?

Kanaujiaml
09-09-2010, 08:07 PM
Dear MLK
I am willing, either as a separate case or clubbed with any other present one.
I will need ARR, VN, MLk's advise regardig documents to cite.
Of course ALL ffected are welcome to join.
One technical point- I am at Hyderabad, I retired fro SE Rly. Is it OK for me to file in CAT Hydbad?

My dear DNaga. I know about you. Kindly talk to Shri Pratap Narain. He is also affected in the same manner. I am myself not affected as I retired with more than 33 yrs of qualifying service. However, I am ready to extend any help needed by you. Recently, I studied the case of ML Jain. This judgement of SC would be helpful. I have sent a copy of full judgement to rrewa.org for putting it on their website. I have also got copy of full judgement of V. Kasturi. This judgement from SC would also be very useful. I have just completed its study. I can help in drafting the petition, too. There are other SC judgements which would be of great help. I am confident that if a separate case is moved in CAT by people who retired with more than 20 yrs of qualifying service, they would be able to get their pension fixed equal to those who retired with 33 yrs qualifying service prioer to 01.01.06. You know the norm normally adopted by Courts in respect of the "arrears", which are given by the Court from the date on which the first time a favourable judgement is given. Whether you would like to go to CAT / Hydrabad or Delhi, would depend as to where it would be possible for you to plead the case along with your Advocate. After CAT it would be HC and then SC irrespective of the fact who wins because appeals would come from whosoever looses in lower Court. Kindly consider these facts before taking any final decision. The process is long and painful and would test your endurance.

G.Ramdas
10-09-2010, 01:43 PM
Dear All,
"The line of principle involved with reference to a cut-off date to divide the homogenous class of pensioners, is elaborately discussed in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India and M L Jain Vs. UOI (1991) 1 SCC 664."
If pre-2006 pensioners are going to test the above logic in a legal case, they can also cite the recent instructions for creation of Non functional selection grade posts to post 2006 officers (which will include retirees as well) as personal posts to them, as the gap between pre and post 2006 pensioners will be further widened with these orders.An STS officer with 7 years of Gr.A service can get a promotion now, as per these orders and most of the erstwhile s 29 officers retiring after 2006 Jan will get S-30 pay and pension.
G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
11-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Dear Shri DNaga,

MY HELP/ ASSISTANCE IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE WHETHER YOU SEEK OR DONT SEEK!

Earlier I had given particulars regarding Dr Kotra of Ex SCientist of Defence and President of Defence Scientists Pensioners Association at Secunderabad and he had also reacted positively help you in case you desire to go to CAT at Hyderabad.

I am sure there must be a good lot of VRS/ less than 33 yrs retirees at Hyderabad/ Sec'bad.

Even otherwise, I would suggest once again, that you start preparing for a CAT case at Hyderabad. I think by now you may yourself present and argue the case. No great skill required. CAT cases are less complicated.

Many others will certainly join you, -- once the initial "inertia" is overcome to venture to plan filing a CAT case.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
12-09-2010, 07:21 AM
Dear Shri DNaga,

MY HELP/ ASSISTANCE IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE WHETHER YOU SEEK OR DONT SEEK!

Earlier I had given particulars regarding Dr Kotra of Ex SCientist of Defence and President of Defence Scientists Pensioners Association at Secunderabad and he had also reacted positively help you in case you desire to go to CAT at Hyderabad.

I am sure there must be a good lot of VRS/ less than 33 yrs retirees at Hyderabad/ Sec'bad.

Even otherwise, I would suggest once again, that you start preparing for a CAT case at Hyderabad. I think by now you may yourself present and argue the case. No great skill required. CAT cases are less complicated.

Many others will certainly join you, -- once the initial "inertia" is overcome to venture to plan filing a CAT case.

vnatarajan
Thank you VN
I have contacted Kotra... He was very helpful.
Will try to meet his lawyer & see how to proceed.
Numbers will make a difference....
Thanks again

Kanaujiaml
13-09-2010, 12:45 PM
Thank you VN
I have contacted Kotra... He was very helpful.
Will try to meet his lawyer & see how to proceed.
Numbers will make a difference....
Thanks again

My dear D. Nagarajan. I sent an e.mail on [email protected] but it bounced back. I wanted to convey the message that Shri Pratap Narain is interested to discuss the matter with you.

dnaga57
14-09-2010, 08:23 AM
My dear D. Nagarajan. I sent an e.mail on [email protected] but it bounced back. I wanted to convey the message that Shri Pratap Narain is interested to discuss the matter with you.

Dear MLK
It is [email protected]
I think I have got your corrected message on ShriPratap Narayanan. I will talk to him & possibly form a <33 yrs pensioners group :).
There have been some messages indicating interest.
I am a bit tied with my mothers anniversary ceremony... soon will start 'full steam'
Thanks

kktaneja
14-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Dear MLK
It is [email protected]
I think I have got your corrected message on ShriPratap Narayanan. I will talk to him & possibly form a <33 yrs pensioners group :).
There have been some messages indicating interest.
I am a bit tied with my mothers anniversary ceremony... soon will start 'full steam'
Thanks
Dear Mr Nagarajan,
Reference my post of 7.6.2010, I had seperately mailed you a few names of s29 group who may be interested. If required, I can remail it. It might be worthwhile to post the matter on other pension sites so that those interested may get in touch with you. I am sure numbers can be acquired.

dnaga57
14-09-2010, 05:51 PM
Dear Mr Nagarajan,
Reference my post of 7.6.2010, I had seperately mailed you a few names of s29 group who may be interested. If required, I can remail it. It might be worthwhile to post the matter on other pension sites so that those interested may get in touch with you. I am sure numbers can be acquired.

Dear Mr Taneja
It will help if you refwd them to me. I ammaking a separate folder in my Yahoo mailbox for this matter.
May be later I will start a group
Thanks

kktaneja
15-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Dear Mr Taneja
It will help if you refwd them to me. I ammaking a separate folder in my Yahoo mailbox for this matter.
May be later I will start a group
Thanks

Mail to [email protected] has bounced back. Please give your email Id.
K K taneja

dnaga57
15-09-2010, 03:21 PM
Mail to [email protected] has bounced back. Please give your email Id.
K K taneja
It is [email protected]
Thanks...

dnaga57
18-09-2010, 06:20 PM
:mad:
I am appealing to ALL readers of Gconnectto inform pensioners that the issue of <33 yrs pre2006 pensioners to indicat e their willing mess to join a movement....
They can post here or write to me at [email protected]
Thanks

dnaga57
19-09-2010, 09:03 AM
:mad:
I am appealing to ALL readers of Gconnectto inform pensioners that the issue of <33 yrs pre2006 pensioners to indicat e their willing mess to join a movement....
They can post here or write to me at [email protected]
Thanks
I wish to add that this issue affects ALL pensioners - not only any particular grade or pay band

Kanaujiaml
19-09-2010, 09:04 AM
My dear dnaga. I suggest you should form a separate group for pensioners who retired with more than 20 years but less than 33 years of qualifying service. Pensioners from various pre revised pay scales can be included in it. The name of the groups could be [email protected] or [email protected]

kktaneja
19-09-2010, 11:53 AM
My dear dnaga. I suggest you should form a separate group for pensioners who retired with more than 20 years but less than 33 years of qualifying service. Pensioners from various pre revised pay scales can be included in it. The name of the groups could be [email protected] or [email protected]

Dear Mr Nagarajan,
I strongly endorse the suggestion of a separate 20y group. Once we have a reasonable size, further action through coordinated representations/legal action can be pursued.
K K Taneja

dnaga57
19-09-2010, 05:12 PM
I agree.
IMHO Opening a yahoo group is easy... getting people into a newly formed group is not so..
I am using the existing groups to propogate the concept, collect email ids so that I can send out invites to the group..
A look at Gconnect itself would show how poorly this valuable site is being used :(:mad:

rama1948
19-09-2010, 07:01 PM
I am openig this new thread as suggested by Shri VN-a good advice.
Please read my starting post & last post in thread 'Effectiveness & Applicability of Full Pension for <33 years retirees of pre2006.

6th PC recommended that Full pension be applicable to ALL retirees after 20 years of service. They also suggested that this be 'effective' from a prospective date.
GoI issued its 1st Memo that this will be both applicable & effective from 2-9-2008
It was then amended to be effective from 1-1-2006
One more amendment that this will be applicable to post 1-1-2006 retirees too i.e those who retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 also would be included.
This leaves out pre2006 retirees with less than 33years of service with prorated pension only.
This affects ALL pre 2006 pensioners IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PAYSCALE- PAY BAND

Thus the subdivision of pensioners into 3 categories originally viz.

Retirees after 2-9-2008
Retirees between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008
Pre 2006 retirees

This has now been reduced to two categories viz pre2006 & post 2006 pensioners with two different pension eligibility & applicability
This has cut the pre 2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service doubly

one byway of less pension due to applying Minimum of Pay Band
then less pension due to prorating of this lessened pension further

The former is being taken up by many pensioners group to get Modified parity with Minimum pay corresponding to pre 2006 scale.
But no one - as per my knowledge- is taking up the 2nd case of applicability of Full pension for ALL retirees with 20 years of service.
Can we get together - ALL pre2006 retirees irrespective of Payscale Payband to take this up legally
Grateful for your time reading this & suggestions

Sir,
I have expressed my willingness to start a legal redressal Cell for Pre-2006,< 33 Yrs of QS. I have come out of DOS w.e.f 1.9.1993 in S-24 grade after a QS of 26.5 yrs( 5yrs for VRS). Pl send a mail to me after adding me to ur team to: [email protected]
Regards
Ramana Rao

vnatarajan
20-09-2010, 07:50 AM
Dear Shri Dnaga/ Others interested in this grouping,

MANY IN S29 GROUP ITSELF DO NOT "VISIT" THE GCONNECT REGULARLY. MY OWN CLOSE FRIENDS DO NOT KNOW WHAT I WRITE HERE.

SIMILARLY MANY DO NOT EVEN READ ALL THE EMAILS IN OUR S29 GOOGLE GROUP MAIL- DUE TO THE FACT THAT VARIOUS TYPES OF OTHER MAILS ALSO CROP IN.

IF U R NOT FORMING A "SEPARATE NETWORK GROUP' LIKE S29 OR S30 USING THE YAHOO OR GOOGLE NETWORK, AND TRY INITIALLY THE GCONNECT AND OTHER SIMILAR SOURCES , I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION TO START WITH.

PLEASE FORM A STRING OF ALL NAMES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

SAY LIKE:

D NAGARAJAN (S29); KK TANEJA (S29); A RAJAGOPALAN (S29); PRATAP NARAYAN (S29); D N SESHAGIRI (S24); S RAMANA RAO (S24);SUNDARAR ( ) and so on.

ANY ONE NEWLY JOINING MAY ADD HIS NAME TO THIS STRING AT THE END- IN THE GCONNECT POSTING AND THUS THE LIST WILL GET UPDATED.

NO OF PERSONS IN THE STRING WILL CREATE AN IMPACT AND CONFIDENCE AMONG INTERESTED PENSIONERS/ SYNPATHETIC VIEWERS AND THIS MESSAGE WILL SPREAD ACROSS QUICKLY.

Regards,
VNatarajan

PS: IF found feasible:

(Interested pensioners viewing this post may react - and add their names to the string if they feel so- they can also add the names of other similarly placed willing pensioners who have no computer facility. Email ids may be separately furnished to shri D Naga)

dnaga57
21-09-2010, 07:21 AM
Dear Shri Dnaga/ Others interested in this grouping,

MANY IN S29 GROUP ITSELF DO NOT "VISIT" THE GCONNECT REGULARLY. MY OWN CLOSE FRIENDS DO NOT KNOW WHAT I WRITE HERE.

SIMILARLY MANY DO NOT EVEN READ ALL THE EMAILS IN OUR S29 GOOGLE GROUP MAIL- DUE TO THE FACT THAT VARIOUS TYPES OF OTHER MAILS ALSO CROP IN.

IF U R NOT FORMING A "SEPARATE NETWORK GROUP' LIKE S29 OR S30 USING THE YAHOO OR GOOGLE NETWORK, AND TRY INITIALLY THE GCONNECT AND OTHER SIMILAR SOURCES , I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION TO START WITH.

PLEASE FORM A STRING OF ALL NAMES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

SAY LIKE:

D NAGARAJAN (S29); KK TANEJA (S29); A RAJAGOPALAN (S29); PRATAP NARAYAN (S29); D N SESHAGIRI (S24); S RAMANA RAO (S24);SUNDARAR ( ) and so on.

ANY ONE NEWLY JOINING MAY ADD HIS NAME TO THIS STRING AT THE END- IN THE GCONNECT POSTING AND THUS THE LIST WILL GET UPDATED.

NO OF PERSONS IN THE STRING WILL CREATE AN IMPACT AND CONFIDENCE AMONG INTERESTED PENSIONERS/ SYNPATHETIC VIEWERS AND THIS MESSAGE WILL SPREAD ACROSS QUICKLY.

Regards,
VNatarajan

PS: IF found feasible:

(Interested pensioners viewing this post may react - and add their names to the string if they feel so- they can also add the names of other similarly placed willing pensioners who have no computer facility. Email ids may be separately furnished to shri D Naga)

Dear VN
Thank you for being the 'helpful you' --- as always.
I am busy for a week , my mothers varshaabdegam.
I will get to doing things soon there after..
Thanks again

Mulukutla
29-10-2010, 06:37 PM
I am M.I.Suryanarayana (S29)

nchandras
22-04-2013, 05:43 PM
Dear Mr Subba Rao

This thread after the issue of OM dt 28 Jan 13 followed by circular of 17 Feb 13 reducing the rev pension of pre 2006 retirees proportionately where qualifying service is less than 33 years. This circular will not stand the test of legal scrutiny on the following grounds

a. Contrary to the 6 Pay commission rec of 50 % of last pay as pension for those over 20 years qualifying service - Accepted by the Govt and circular issued post 2006. The pay commission has stated prospectively hence Govt circular of 28 Jan 13 and 17 Feb 13 reducing the proposed pension proportionately is irregular

b. The pension can be reduced proportionately ONLY ONCE AND NOT EVERY TIME. When the employee retires pre 2006 the proportionate reduction is carried out. After pay commission the equivalent pension (based on concordance table) on the basis of reduced pension pre 2006 is fixed. Hence AGAIN REDUCING THE PENSION FROM THE CONCORDANCE TABLE OF 28 Jan 13 is UNJUST and INCORRECT.

Those affected can join together and approach the court. HAS ANYONE FILED A CASE . IF ANYONE IS AWARE KINDLY INFORM I SHALL BECOME AN INTERVENOR


N Chandrasekar

chandramouly1955
23-04-2013, 01:28 PM
Dear Sir,
CAT ENK in its judgement dated 23-01-2012 in r/o OA 747/11 of P.K.Bhargavan Pillai,
S/o.late K.Krishna Pillai,
Retd. Administrative Officer Grade I,
Indian Space Research Organisation.
Residing at Daiveekom, Manjapra PO,
Ernakulam - 683 581. ...Applicant
and
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary
to Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Pay and Accounts Officer,
Central Pension Accounting Office,
Trikoot - 2, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110 066.
3. The Controller,
Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre,
Indian Space Research Organisation,
Valiamala PO, Thiruvananthapuram - 659 547.
4. Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Angamaly Branch, Kallookaran Towers,
Angamaly - 683 572. ...Respondents

has given the verdict as "The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and
11.2.2009 (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). Thus the stipulation that
the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated
3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by
the respondents stands already quashed."
Hence the contention that nobody has approached the court in this regard may not be correct
S.Chandramouly



I am openig this new thread as suggested by Shri VN-a good advice.

Please read my starting post & last post in thread 'Effectiveness & Applicability of Full Pension for <33 years retirees of pre2006.

6th PC recommended that Full pension be applicable to ALL retirees after 20 years of service. They also suggested that this be 'effective' from a prospective date.
GoI issued its 1st Memo that this will be both applicable & effective from 2-9-2008
It was then amended to be effective from 1-1-2006
One more amendment that this will be applicable to post 1-1-2006 retirees too i.e those who retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 also would be included.
This leaves out pre2006 retirees with less than 33years of service with prorated pension only.
This affects ALL pre 2006 pensioners IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PAYSCALE- PAY BAND
Thus the subdivision of pensioners into 3 categories originally viz.

Retirees after 2-9-2008
Retirees between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008
Pre 2006 retirees
This has now been reduced to two categories viz pre2006 & post 2006 pensioners with two different pension eligibility & applicability

This has cut the pre 2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service doubly
one byway of less pension due to applying Minimum of Pay Band
then less pension due to prorating of this lessened pension further
The former is being taken up by many pensioners group to get Modified parity with Minimum pay corresponding to pre 2006 scale.
But no one - as per my knowledge- is taking up the 2nd case of applicability of Full pension for ALL retirees with 20 years of service.
Can we get together - ALL pre2006 retirees irrespective of Payscale Payband to take this up legally
Grateful for your time reading this & suggestions

R.Devaraju
23-04-2013, 05:21 PM
Dear Pensioners,
This is not the only case of discrimination. There is an other problem relating to pre-2006 absorbee's pension. An employee absorbed on or after 1.1.2006 , with 10 or more years of service can get full pension from parent Department. He is also entitled to get one more full pension from the new department where he is working now. This benefit is not extended to pre-2006 absorbee's. Further many absorbee's with more than 10 years service have counted their service for combined service pension benefits. These aborbee's are also denied such benefits quoting the option exercised by them based on the then pension rules which has become obsolete now. So, I request all concerned to consider this point for Joint legal action.

nchandras
30-04-2013, 12:26 PM
Dear Mr Chandramouli

Thanks for the info. As stated by you all those pre 2006 retirees should join together to take up the issue legally. Perhaps, it could be co ordinated by the All India Confederation of central Pensioners Delhi ( thro Mr SS Ramachandran Hon Sec Gen ) as they are doing in the case of S 21 - S 24 PB 3 to PB 4 anamoly. Your views pl

The High Court of Kerala has quashed the Pro rata pension at reduced rate in Jan 2012 BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER GOVT IMPLIMENTED THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Perhaps, based on this info further legal recourse can be taken since the aspect of Pro rata reduction in Pension has again been incorporated by the DOPT in their cir of 28 Jan 2013 followed by another cir in Feb 2013 where pension was revised based on a Pr CAT Bench Order. As per High Court of Kerala order of Jan 2012, the para in these circulars of 2013 that those not completing 33 yrs service, their pension will the lower than that of the concordance table attached to these orders.

Could u be kind enough to enlighten me whether Kerala court order stands or quashed in supreme court

Chandrasekar

nchandras
30-04-2013, 12:30 PM
Dear Mr Chandramouli

I had stated in my prev post that High Court of Kerala had quashed the 2008 order (Para pertaining to the pro rata reduction of pension for those lesser than 33 yrs). It may please be read as CAT Kerala.

Chandrasekar

Imayan
02-05-2013, 08:12 AM
Dear nchandras and chandramouli,

Was the judgement dt. 23.1.2012 final in CAT,Ernakulam's OA 747/11 ?
Did GOI /CPAO/ISRO go on Appeal against CAT,Ernakulam's judgement dt.23.1.2012 ?
Was the pension of P.K.Bhargavan Pillai, (S/o.late K.Krishna Pillai, Retd. Administrative Officer Grade I, Indian Space Research Organisation. Residing at Daiveekom, Manjapra PO, Ernakulam - 683 581. ...Applicant) finalised as per CAT,Ernakulam's judgement dt.23.1.2012 ?
can someone throw light on the above questions.
Thereafter. we can join together and pursue.

Imayan

PS: Anyone who is living near / close to Ernakulam can help us find out from shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai re: the required details ...

nchandras
02-05-2013, 01:08 PM
Dear All
Although, a categorical judgement on this issue has been delivered over 15 months ago, the current status as to whether Govt has implimented or gone in appeal appears to be not known. Further, from the GConnect Forum it is seen that few others in a different caption have also raised similar issue, hence all of us can join together to file contempt in CAT Kerala or if Govt has appealed in High Court Kerala then all can become intervenor

It appears that the 2011 case in CAT Kerala was filed by one or two individuals hence Govt may be keeping quiet. The latest state can be found out from someone from Kerala or by serving or retired ISRO personnel. This will enable us to join together in filing an appeal in higher court. The latest Govt directive in 28 Jan 13 and 10 Feb 13 orders for reducing prorata reduction in pension is also contrary to this judgement. The Govt either have violated a CAT judgement or must have got a verdict in their favour reversing the CAT Kerala order. In case the issue is Sub Judice, then in the 28 Jan 13 or 10 Feb 13 order (where new concordance table with revised pension) would have carried a paragraph that this provision of prorata reduction in pension is subject to disposal of their appeal in higher court.

Will someone from ISRO or from Kerala check and highlight the latest on this issue so that all of us can come together to take further legal recourse to the injustice

Chandrasekar

vnatarajan
02-05-2013, 06:53 PM
Dear Pre 2006 20 plus/33 minus yrs retirees,

Shri D Naga or Shri Sundarar may be able to give the factual position.
But Shri Sundarar is on the move to Kudangulam and hence his activity in the networking is paralysed.

It was with great difficulty that a core group had been formed under Shri Pratap Narayan (President, CGS29PA- for which I am the Sr Vice President) who himself is a pre 2006 marginal sub 33 ye retiree of S29 Grade. THE GROUP IS LUCKY TO HAVE HIM AS THE LEADER.

Instead of beating around the bush, all interested must join him and strengthen his hands in large numbers to fight out this issue- and in this regard my initial notes/ posts can be seen in this or parallel thread on the topic.

As on date, perhaps two CATs have given favourable verdicts for the solo incumbeents who went for justice. One Dr Bhargavan Pillai at CAT Ernakulam and second one is perhaps Shri Bhat's, Retd IPS at Bangalore CAT. These judgments are available in CAT websites as well as with the two pioneers whom I have named above.

PL DO NOT EXPECT MIRACLES TO HAPPEN AND THAT THE CAT'S JUDGMENTS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED SO SOON.
EVEN IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED "BY MISTAKE" OR "ERRONEOUSLY", EACH AND EVERY ONE OF "SIMILARLY AFFECTED" HAS TO GO TO TRIBUNALS AND COURTS TO GET JUSTICE FOR THEMSELVES.

I BELIEVE THE CASE OF THE PLUS 20 YRS GROUP HEADED BY SHRI PRATAP NARAYAN JI (ABOUT 35 IN NO)- VIZ OA 1165 OF 2011 AT PR BENCH CAT DELHI MAY BE COMING UP BY 7TH MAY 2013- IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS - AT THE PR BENCH CAT DELHI. THE TWO MEMBER BENCH AHD REMARKED IN THE LAST MEET THAT THEY SHALL AWAIT THE DHC VERDICT OF THE MAIN MOD PARITY CASE at the DHC (happened on 29 04 2013)

Now that the main Mod Parity case of CGS29PA had been won by the PRE 2006 PENSIONERS in a resounding fashion, I hope the PLUS 20 YRS GR CASE AT PR BENCH CAT MAY HAVE a better foothold, as the two CAT verdicts (PILLAI/BHATT) can also be utilised to reinforce the same. My assessment is - a difficult case- PN ji's affidavit is very powerful- as of now 50 - 50 for : against- strength because of the MOD PARITY victory also)

I WOULD ADVISE THAT THoSE WHO CAN BE GOOD "LEADERS" IN VARUOUS LOCALES MUST BE CAPABLE OF BUILDING UP NUMBERS AND ADD THEM TO THE MAIN GROUP.
SHRI PN JI'S GR IS THE LEAD GROUP AND ALL SHD FALL INLINE WITH HIS GROUP.

PL TRY TO ENHANCE THE NUMBERS TO AROUND 150 OR SO - SO THAT THIS CASE WH WILL GO UP TO HON SC CAN BE FOUGHT TO THE END.

(SHRI R S SUBBA RAO FOLLOWED MY SUGGESTION AND OVE 4 YRS BUIL THE "SIGNIFICANT GROUP" OF S21-23 NOW FIGHTING THE CASE AT CAT DELHI AND CAT MUMBAI (ANOTHER GR).

Hope you will not mistake my interruption - but thn someone has to make some "constructive suggestion" - show the moves to work out an "action plan" and follow up.

PL TAKE SHRI D NAGA'S AND SHRI SUNDARAR'S ADVICES - INVOLVE THEM- JOIN WITH SHRI PN JI'S GR AND GO AHEAD.

Regards,
vnatarajan

nchandras
02-05-2013, 09:51 PM
Dear Mr Natarajanji
Firstly I am extremely grateful to u for having given all insight into the case. It therefore, can never be an interruption. I do not know, how and from where u have got all these inputs. I would be obliged if u could share the OA numbers of both the cases cited by you to enable me to go thro the CAT website.

It is a fact that if and when Govt chooses to implement the judgement they will do it only for those who had sought legal remedy. There are apex court judgements, that similarly placed employees and affected personnel should be given the same benefit by the Govt stating that they should not be asked by Govt to seek justice again from the Courts. But, despite knowing this pronouncement by the supreme court, the BABUS ensure that each obtain a separate court verdict.

I WISH TO JOIN WITH SHRI PN JI'S GROUP AND ALSO TRY TO BUILD NUMBERS OF SIMILARLY AFFECTED PERSONS IN AND AROUND OUR AREA SO THAT TASK UPTO APEX COURT BECOMES A REALITY.

I AM ALSO AFFECTED IN S 21 - 23 CASE AND CANVASSING/BUILDING UP NUMBERS TO EITHER JOIN WITH CAT DELHI OR MUMBAI (FILED BY BARC0

Thanks Shri Natarajanji for all the inputs and I shall await any further advice pl

vnatarajan
03-05-2013, 05:23 AM
Pl see the post 35 for Bhargavan Pillai's judgment details , get the OA no and download the full judgment from the CAT webiste.
Reg Bhat's , let me see if I acn furnish the details in the next post.
Shhri D Naga may guide you reg other doubts you have raised.
The OMs of 28 Jan and 13 Feb need not take cognisance of the CATs verdicts in 20 yr plus cases, as in so far as Govt is concerned even OMs of 3rd and 14 Oct 2008 are in order and hence the rules pertaining to 20 Yr plus cases existing prior to i i 2006 remain unchanged.

Unless u challenge the OM of 2nd Sept 2006 wh is discriminatory as it speaks only of post 2006 incumbents and soes not provide for pre 1 1 206 retirees, nothing will change the status quo!
PL NOTE THAT NONE OF THE TWO 20 YR PLUS JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED SO FAR AS I CAN MAKE OUT.
THERE IS ALSO NO SCOPE FOR THEIR IMPLEMENTATION TILL THE PN JI GROUPS CASE AT PR BENCH CAT IS DECIDED.
IN ANY CASE, THE BATTLE WILL CONTINUE FOR LONG. IT IS IN THE VERY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-05-2013, 02:37 PM
In contn of the above post pl:

All concerned may note, apart from the above two pro-verdicts, ther is also an anti-verdict.

The OA no and related details are given below:

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr.M.S.N Balasubramaniyan vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2013
RNAKULAM BENCH

O.A. NO. 349/12
Thursday, this the 31st day of January, 2013

THOUGH THE FINAL VERDICT IS AGINST THE OA, A RIDING CLAUSE THAT VERDICT OF THE THE GOVT'S WP C IN 1535 OF 2012 MUST BE AWAITED. Now that the final verdict has come, this case gets a new life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is Shri PN ji letter reg the main case progressing under his guidance, for your informationj::
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends
The case was taken up today before CAT. The GOI Advocate mentioned
that the hearing of the Writ in DHC against CAT verdict dated
1-11-2011, quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008 and 14-10-2008 and granting
modified parity, has been now scheduled for 29th April 2013 and
therefore the hearing of this OA should be taken up after that. He
also mentioned that he had already filed GOI reply against the third
OA filed in this regard on behalf of S.B.Roy and others.
2. At this, our Advocate mentioned that even though at the last
hearing GOI Advocate had mentioned that the reply had been filed, its
copy had yet not been furnished to us. At this the Bench directed GOI
to supply copy to our Advocate today itself and we should file our
Rejoinder within 4 weeks.
3. Our Advocate also mentioned that our OAs can be taken up for
hearing without waiting for the outcome of the case of modified parity
in DHC as the two issues are independent of each other. However, the
Bench after discussion amongst themselves felt that but for the issue
of clarification dated 3-10-2008, which for the first time brought in
the concept of prorata reduction, just as it brought in the
formulation of minimum of the pay in the pay
band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay), pre 1-1-2006
pensioners having retired after 20/10 years service would not have
been subjected to prorata reduction. And since OM dated 3-10-2008 has
been struck down by CAT and which is subject of Writ in DHC, the Bench
felt that the decision in that case in DHC will also have a bearing on
this case. Consequently, the next hearing has now been scheduled for
7-5-2013 i.e. after knowing the outcome of the case in DHC on
29-4-2013. The Bench also directed that all written submissions should
be completed by both the sides well before that date.
4. A copy of GOI Counter mentioned in para 2 above was made available
to our Advocate today, which is being studied by him to enable us to
prepare the Rejoinder. In the meantime, this is for your information.
With regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am searching for Bhat's case verdict.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-05-2013, 07:56 PM
In further contn of he above, what I cd get reg Shri Bhatt's case;

OA NO 167/2010 AT cat bgl. jUDGMENT DTD 25 01 2012.

This is one of the TWO CAT orders which has allowed the petition
>> for granting “FULL PENSION AND NOT PRO-RATA PENSION FOR PRE 2006
>> PENSIONER-
>> PETITIONER WHO HAD COMPLETED 20YRS BEFORE TAKING VRS.....:”
>>
>> This petition has been allowed by the Member A of CAT, Bangalore
>> on
>> OA 167 / 2010 vide Order dt 25 01 2012.
>>
>> EXTRACTS OF RELIEF’S SOUGHT AND ORDER OF THE CAT BGL ARE REPRODUCED FURTHER
>> BELOW.
>>
>> ( What is strange is: The Order pronounces: “Counsel for the
>> respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for the
>> OA
>> to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.” )
>>
1.Reliefs sought;
>>
>> 8. RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR:
>> In view of the facts stated above, the applicant
>> prays
>> that This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
>> 1) Quash:
>> (a) The 2nd clarificantion/modification in regard to para 4.2
>> of
>> R-1’s OM F No. 38/37/08-P &PW (A) dt 1.9.2008 (Annexure-A/4) Made by
>> R-1’s
>> OM F. No. 38/37/08 P&PWpt. 1 dt. 3.10.2008
>> (Annexure A/6) which reads as under:
>>
>> The pension will be reduced pro-rata where the
>> pensioner
>> Has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule
>> 49
>> of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as applicable on 1.1.2006.
>>
>> And Note-1 below the annexure thereto.
>> (b) Note-1 below Annexure 1 to R-1’s OM F.No. 38/37/08-P &PW
>> (A)-pt.1 dt 14.10.2008 (Annexure A/7) which reads as under:
>>
>> Note-1: As per para 4.2 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dt. 1.9.2008,
>> The revised pension of hose who retired after completing maximum required
>> qualifying service (i.e., 33 yers) before 1.1.2006 cannot be less than
>> the
>> pension indicated in column 8 above (i.e. 50% of the sum of Minimum of
>> Pay
>> Band and Grade pay/scale corresponding to the Scale of pay the pensioners
>> held at the time of their retirement). The Pension in Col.8. above will
>> be
>> reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required
>> qualifying service (i.e., 33 years) for full pension as per Rule 49 of
>> the
>> CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as applicable on 1.1.2006.
>> (ii) Declare that R-1’s O.M. No. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dt.
>> 10.12.2009 (Annexure-A/10) is violative of art. 14 of the Constitution
>> to
>> the extent It restricts the benefit of dispensing with the linkage of
>> full
>> pension with 33 years of qualifying service. to those who retired on or
>> after 1.1.2006, And excludes the pre-2006 pensioners from the said
>> benefit;
>>
>> (iii) Declare that pre-2006 pensioner who has rendered a
>> qualifying Service of 20 years, is entitled to revised pension at 50% of
>> the
>> minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to
>> the
>> pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner retired;
>>
>> (iv) Direct the respondents to refix pay w.e.f.
>> 1.1.2006,applicant’s revised pension at Rs. 23,150.00 p.m. i.e., at 50%
>> of
>> the pay in the pay Band plus the grade pay corresponding to the
>> pre-revised
>> pay scale From which the applicant had retired; and
>>
>> (v) grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon’ble
>> Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances, including costs.
>>
>> 9. INTERIM PRAYER
>> Stay the operation of (i) the aforesaid 2nd
>> clarification/modification in regard to para 4.2 of R-1’s OM F. No.
>> 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dt. 1.9.2008 (Annexure-A/4) made by R-1’s OM F. No.
>> 38/37/08-P&PW (A). pt. 1. Dt. 3.10.2008 (Annexure – A/6) and Note-1 below
>> the Annexure hereto and (ii) the aforesaid Note-1.
>>
>> 2. ORDER OF THE CAT
>> SINGLE
>> JUDGE – MEMBER A
>>
>> SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)
>>
>> 1. The learned counsels on both sides are present and the
>> learned
>> counsel for the applicant submits that this matter is squarely covered by
>> the judgement of the Principal Bench in OA.655/2010. The learned counsel
>> for
>> the respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for
>> the
>> OA to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.
>>
>> 2. Consequential prayer at para 8(3) & (4) are allowed. The
>> respondents department shall carry out the fresh pension fixation and
>> pass
>> necessary order within a period of 2 months from the date of this
>> judgement.
>> No order as to costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

R.Devaraju
04-05-2013, 06:54 PM
Dear Shri.Natarajan Sir,

I am seriously affected by the option given at the time of absorption for counting past service. You are aware of the the facts that counting past service was beneficial and so everybody opted for that. Even many employees who had opted for pro-rata pension were all along fighting legally for counting service and Govt. has given one time option for change of option in 1999. But it is no longer attractive that too after 1.1.2006. Now I want to change my option for pro rata pension but it is not accepted by parent department. I have made an appeal to The Dept of pension. I feel that the Govt can give a special chance for revising their option as it gave in 1999. Kindly advise me to include in the cases jointly filed by pensioners. I think there may be several affected pensioners like me.

R.Devaraju
Phone: 24864841 cell: 9445644841.

Imayan
05-05-2013, 01:00 PM
Re: OA No. 167/2010 and the related judgement dt. 25.1.2012, CAT ,Bangalore's Judgements site says: " Judgement not found".
What could be the reason ?

Imayan

vnatarajan
05-05-2013, 01:13 PM
Means it is not yet loaded- VN

nchandras
05-05-2013, 04:15 PM
Dear Shri Natarajan Ji
Thanks a ton for your prompt input to my query. I cannot but appreciate the depth of ur knowledge in such matters.


Govt instead of dragging the pensioners to court, for seeking remedies on such issues could utilise ur expertise so that interpretation of the rules are appropriate.

Thanks once again for your prompt reply post pl. In case u come across the fate of CAT kerala verdict kindly post the details

Chandrasekar


All concerned may note, apart from the above two pro-verdicts, ther is also an anti-verdict.

The OA no and related details are given below:

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr.M.S.N Balasubramaniyan vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2013
RNAKULAM BENCH

O.A. NO. 349/12
Thursday, this the 31st day of January, 2013

THOUGH THE FINAL VERDICT IS AGINST THE OA, A RIDING CLAUSE THAT VERDICT OF THE THE GOVT'S WP C IN 1535 OF 2012 MUST BE AWAITED. Now that the final verdict has come, this case gets a new life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is Shri PN ji letter reg the main case progressing under his guidance, for your informationj::
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends
The case was taken up today before CAT. The GOI Advocate mentioned
that the hearing of the Writ in DHC against CAT verdict dated
1-11-2011, quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008 and 14-10-2008 and granting
modified parity, has been now scheduled for 29th April 2013 and
therefore the hearing of this OA should be taken up after that. He
also mentioned that he had already filed GOI reply against the third
OA filed in this regard on behalf of S.B.Roy and others.
2. At this, our Advocate mentioned that even though at the last
hearing GOI Advocate had mentioned that the reply had been filed, its
copy had yet not been furnished to us. At this the Bench directed GOI
to supply copy to our Advocate today itself and we should file our
Rejoinder within 4 weeks.
3. Our Advocate also mentioned that our OAs can be taken up for
hearing without waiting for the outcome of the case of modified parity
in DHC as the two issues are independent of each other. However, the
Bench after discussion amongst themselves felt that but for the issue
of clarification dated 3-10-2008, which for the first time brought in
the concept of prorata reduction, just as it brought in the
formulation of minimum of the pay in the pay
band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay), pre 1-1-2006
pensioners having retired after 20/10 years service would not have
been subjected to prorata reduction. And since OM dated 3-10-2008 has
been struck down by CAT and which is subject of Writ in DHC, the Bench
felt that the decision in that case in DHC will also have a bearing on
this case. Consequently, the next hearing has now been scheduled for
7-5-2013 i.e. after knowing the outcome of the case in DHC on
29-4-2013. The Bench also directed that all written submissions should
be completed by both the sides well before that date.
4. A copy of GOI Counter mentioned in para 2 above was made available
to our Advocate today, which is being studied by him to enable us to
prepare the Rejoinder. In the meantime, this is for your information.
With regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am searching for Bhat's case verdict.

vnatarajan[/QUOTE]

vnatarajan
06-05-2013, 07:31 AM
Tomorrow viz 7th May 2013 - is the crucial date at the PR CAT DOUBLE BENCH - as the lead case OA 1165 OF 2011 filed bythe group led by Shri PN ji and perhaps another impleaded one, will come up at Court no 1 (pl chk cause list fully) .

WISH BEST OF LUCK FOR ALL THE pre 2006 20 YR PLUS RETIREES.
ALL SUCH AGGRIEVED MUST JOIN SHRI PN JI/ HIS GROUP.

Some are looking up for individual case resolutions thru this case- This may not be possible....

You will note the issue under ltigation -in 20 yr plus case- is a policy cum rule case- instead of 33 yr for full pension, it has to be 20 yr (plus) - and therefore the cut-off date that was being imposed is "arbitrary/ artificial" and null and void.

That the cut-off date is "arbitrary/artificial" also stands proved because the originally stipulated date of 2 9 2008 - dogmatically upheld for quite some time aginst pre 2006 pensioners' protests as well as pre 2/9/2008 pensioenrs, was later "modified" to 1 1 2006 as date of effect!

If THE CUT-OFF DATE CAN BE SHIFTED FROM 2 29 2008 BACKWARDS TO 1 1 2006 , THEN WHY NOT FURTHER BACKWARDS TO DO JUSTICE FOR ALL?

Artcle 14 is clearly violated.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
07-05-2013, 06:30 PM
Today's proceedings at Pr Bench Cat Delhi (7th May 2013)- OA 1165 of 2011.

Quoting Shri PN ji:

"As advised earlier vide my mail of 7th December, our case for full pension after 10/20 years of service was scheduled for hearing in CAT today. As the Chairman was not well, it was listed before another Bench. However, the Government Advocate sought time, which was opposed by our Advocate who emphasized the need for early hearing. The case has accordingly been fixed for 25th July."

My remarks: In the meanwhile, I think consoildation of DHC/ CAT EKLM/CAT BGJ verdicts will be done

All the best.
vnatarajan

SK Jain
04-06-2013, 10:38 AM
Similarity Between Two Cases - Modified Parity of Pension and Minimum Assured Pension for Pensioners with 20+ Years Service
Respected Sirs,
After going through the Judgement dated 29 Apr 2013 of Delhi High Court on Modified Parity of pension, I have tried to find out its similarity with minimum assured pension for pensioners having 20 plus years service. Pages 9 to 12 of DHC judgement are quite important wherein DHC has quoted paras 25 and 26 of Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement. And incidentally, paras 25and 26 of Principal Bench of CAT judgement have been quoted vide judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Judgement of Delhi High Court can be accessed here.
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/PNJ/judgement/30-04-2013/PNJ29042013CW15352012.pdf
A careful reading of paras 25 and 26 reveals that the h’ble courts have accepted the following reasoning:
1. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.09.2008 whereby recommendations of 6 CPC were accepted by the Govt.
2. Resolution dated 29.09.2008 cannot be amended/altered without referring the same to the cabinet.
Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and its notification can be accessed here.
http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/sixthCPC/paycommresol.pdf
Please read resolution No 12 vide which recommendations (para 5.1.47) of 6 CPC regarding minimum assured pension have been accepted by the Government. Relevant extract of the same is as under:
“The fixation as per above 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 pre-revised pay scale form which the pensioner had retired.”
Please note that it is not mentioned either in the recommendation of 6 CPC or in the acceptance of Govt. that the minimum assured pension is for 33 years service and the same will be reduced pro-rata for lesser service. As such, The minimum assured pension should be for a particular post from which a pensioner has retired without any relation to length of service rendered by a pensioner.
Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 regarding revision of pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners was issued and Para 4.2 of this letter is in confirmation with the Govt. resolution and there is no mention of length of service in this para. This letter can be accessed here.
http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D3/D03ppw/pensiontable_sixthpc.pdf

As in the case of modified parity of pension, clarifications/modification were issued vide Govt. letter dated 3.10.2008. In this letter it was clarified/ modified that “the pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less that Rs. 3500/- p.m.” This letter dated 03.10.2008 can be accessed here.
http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D3/D03ppw/f.no.383708pti.pdf
Since the letter dated 03.10.2008 has already been quashed by Principal Bench of CAT (upheld by Delhi High Court), it will no more be applicable. Now as remarked by Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Para 26 of its judgement:
“A Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.09.2008 whereby recommendations of 6 CPC were accepted by the Govt.”
*********

Avis2010
04-06-2013, 03:01 PM
Mr. Jain has given a lucid analysis.
Legality is in our side.
Denial is the weapon used by GOI !
How and when do we "bell the cat " ?
:confused:
Imayan

vnatarajan
04-06-2013, 09:17 PM
Dear Pensioner Friends of the Plus 20 yrs (pre 2006) category.

SHRI SK jAIN HAS VERY NICELY EXPLAINED THE WHOLE ISSUE. His last sentence is very important: "Now as remarked by Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Para 26 of its judgement: “A Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of 6 CPC were accepted by the Govt.”

Both P & H HC and PR Bench Verdict - later endorsed by the DHC verdict have laready done the "belling of the CAT".

NOW CLINCHING THE ISSUE DEPENDS UPON HE CASE IN PROGRESS AT PR BENCH CAT DELHI WHERE THE SPECIFIC "ISSUE" IS BEING DULY ADDRESSED- IN THE ACSE ALREADY MENTIONED BY ME UNDERTHE LEADERSHIP OF SHRI PRATAP NARAYAN JI.

If I am the Judge, i would utter what Shri SK Jain ji so nicely pointed out. LET THE CAB DECISION GAZ ON 29 8 2008 BE TRULY AND ACCURATELY IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVT WITHOUT ANY "CLARRIFIACTION GARBED MODIFICATIONS" MADE THRU OMS OF 3RD OCT 2008 ETC.

Rule 49 is not scro sanct and it needs sonly a change baseD on the Cab Decision which has prescribed the formula.

RULE SPECIFYING 33 YRS IS LIBERALISED TO 20 YRS FOR ALL PENSIONERS -THOUGH THE BENFITS WILL COME INTO FORCE WEF 1 1 2006.
IT IS NOT A CUT-OFF DATE FOR DENYING THE APPLICATION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS BUT IT EFFECTS THE APPLICATION OF LIBERALISED PROVISION WH COMES INTO EFFECT FROM 1 1 2006 FOR ALL PENSIONERS.
NO PRE 2006 PENSIONER OF THIS CATEGORY CAN CLAIM ARREARS .

vnatarajan

dnaga57
08-06-2013, 04:41 PM
I think the points are well stated alreaady in the posts just before starting from VNji.
Our action points are
Enroll members from ALL payscales ... it is not only a S29 issue



I recall - a bit hazily that 6th PC report on 'full pension after 20 years' states that with this recommendation as it is implemented there will be no need to maintain pro rata tables- calculations etc. I will search for that para & post it here as well as in S 29 group.

With Mr Pratap Narain's self less leadership we are able to maintain the fight. More volunteers - Delhi based for this particular segment is necessary
Will get back shortly

dnaga57
08-06-2013, 08:42 PM
I am actually cutting & pasting relevant paras from PC report below:

Changes made in the past in retiring pension
Page 330 onwards of PC Report...

5.1.25 While considering the pension package for Central Government employees, the Commission has kept in view the various changes that have evolved in the pension benefits over the past decades.
5.1.26 The formula for computing pension has been substantially liberalized since the time of First Central Pay Commission. The pension was earlier payable at the rate of 30/80 (37.5%) of the average emoluments. This was later revised to 41.25% (33/80).
From 31/3/1979, a slab system for payment of pension was introduced, wherein pension was paid at various rates ranging from 50% to 42.86%.
The formula was further liberalized by the Fourth Central Pay Commission and from 1/1/1986, the pension is payable at the rate of 50% of the average emoluments comprising basic pay, dearness pay, non-practicing allowance and stagnation increments.
5.1.27 From 1/1/1996, full neutralization of dearness relief has been allowed to all pensioners. This was in conformity with the recommendations made by the Fifth CPC extending 100% neutralization of the increase in the price index to all the serving Central Government employees.
[ All the above provisions of earlier Pay Commission were applied to pre & post Pay Commission pensioners in each case . The only exception of dividing the Pensioners as Pre & Post is from 6th PC Implementation only, though the PC recommendations are clear Refer Pension 11.33 of page 647 quoted below]


5.1.28 Central Government employees are also allowed to commute part of their pension for a lump-sum payment which is the commuted value of that portion of the pension. The lump-sum payment is computed by multiplying the commutation factor by 12 and further multiplying the product by the amount of pension offered for commutation. The commutation factor is taken from the commutation table with respect to the age next birthday.
Originally, the amount of pension once commuted was not restored for life. However, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in writ petitions nos. 3958-61 of 1983, orders were issued allowing restoration of the commuted portion of pension both in case of civilian and defence pensioners after a period of 15 years on
the ground that the commuted value of pension had to be restored once the lump-sum commutation paid and the interest thereon was fully adjusted.
The Fifth CPC had recommended an increase in the percentage of commutable pension from 33% to 40% of pension along with its restoration after 12 years. The Commission had also considered the issue of revising the commutation table that has not been revised since March, 1971 and recommended that a detailed
review of the commutation scheme based on current data should be carried out that would be more representative and closer to ground realities. The Government accepted the recommendation regarding increase in the percentage of commutable pension without taking any action on the other two recommendations relating to restoration of the commuted pension and devising a new commutation scheme. The present position is, therefore, that a pensioner can commute upto 40% of the pension which would be restored after 15 years.
5.1.33 Presently, full pension is payable only on completion of 33years of qualifying service. The rules also allow grant of upto 5 years of additional qualifying service for purposes of computing pension subject to certain conditions. Hence, an employee presently has to put in a minimum 28 years of qualifying service to become eligible for full pension.
This acts as a disincentive for many employees for leaving the Government at an early age even though they have reached a plateau in their career and are not satisfied with their job, because they want to complete the minimum years of qualifying service prescribed for being eligible for full pension. By the time they complete such minimum years of service, they are too old to look for an alternative career and continue in the Government without being motivated to make any significant contribution. This has an adverse effect on the efficiency of the machinery. At the same time, the concerned Government employee is also prevented from pursuing an alternative career.
The Commission, accordingly, recommends that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee.
This will not work as a disincentive to the employees putting in longer years of service because their pay will increase along with the tenure that will have a direct bearing on the pension payable to them. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum pensionable service is put in without any reference to qualifying service.
Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant

dnaga57
08-06-2013, 08:44 PM
Pension on completion of 20 years
6.2.7 In Chapter 5.1 of the Report, the Commission has recommended payment of pension equal to 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. This will ensure that the willing employees leave the Government at a relatively younger age without waiting to complete 28 years of qualifying service that along with the weightage of 5 years, would entitle them for full pension under the extant rules. No further inducement is, therefore, required for employees who have completed 20 years of qualifying service in the Government.


Summary of main recommendations Chapter 13 of PC report
Page 647
Pension 11.33 Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.
11.34 Rates of Constant Attendant Allowance to be increased by five times to Rs.3000 p.m.
11.35 Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.
11.36 A liberal severance package for employees leaving service between 15 to 20 years of service.
11.37 Higher rates of pension for retirees and family pensioners on attaining the age of 80, 85, 90, 95 and 100 years.
11.38 Revision of the commutation table suggested for commutation of pension.
11.39 Framing of an appropriate insurance scheme suggested for meeting the OPD needs of pensioners in non-CGHS areas.

dnaga57
08-06-2013, 08:47 PM
From the actual wordings above, it would be clear that 6th PC recommendations have been unambiguous, applicable to all pensioners with no cut off date for eligibility.
The date from which these will be applicable would be the date of recommendations , viz. 1-1-2006 meaning the arrears payable are from that date.
I suugest that our senior members comment on this so that this can go on to our plea, arguments quoting the letter & spirit of 6th PC recommendations

SK Jain
09-06-2013, 11:30 AM
Respected Sirs,
I intended to highlight the following two points related to ‘minimum assured pension’ for pre-2006 pensioners having 20+ (and less than 33) years service:
1. As decided by Principal Bench of CAT (Full Bench) in its judgement dated 01.11.2011 and by Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 21.12.2012 the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 is the prime document which is to be implemented without any addition/alternation by Govt. Functionaries. There is no condition of 33 years’ service in the resolution and this condition has subsequently been added vide Govt. letter dated 03.10.2008 (similar to the case of modified parity of pension).
2. Govt. letter dated 03.10.2008 has already been quashed by Principal Bench of CAT and this judgement has been upheld by Division Bench of Delhi High Court. As such the condition of 33 years’ service for ‘minimum assured pension’ no more exists.
As mentioned by respected dnaga57, those recommendations of 6CPC have been accepted vide Item Nos. 2 and 3 of Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and are also quite relevant. The basic solution remains that Govt. Resolution should be implemented without any addition/alternation.
*********

dnaga57
10-06-2013, 08:56 AM
I think the points are well stated alreaady in the posts just before starting from VNji.
Our action points are
Enroll members from ALL payscales ... it is not only a S29 issue



I recall - a bit hazily that 6th PC report on 'full pension after 20 years' states that with this recommendation as it is implemented there will be no need to maintain pro rata tables- calculations etc. I will search for that para & post it here as well as in S 29 group.

With Mr Pratap Narain's self less leadership we are able to maintain the fight. More volunteers - Delhi based for this particular segment is necessary
Will get back shortly

Please note the need for more volunteers giving time, energy & assistance to PNji & his team. Pls start enrolling whom all you know irrespective of S 29 or not...
Thanks

Imayan
10-06-2013, 10:41 AM
Dear dnaga 57,

My friend, a S 29 pensioner ( < 33 years service ) based in Chennai wants to be a volunteer.
What all details / assistance you require from him?

Imayan

dnaga57
10-06-2013, 06:28 PM
Dear Mr Imayan
Your friend can become also a member-litigant of the ,33 years members fighting the case. For this he may write to Mr Pratap Narayan. He may pay Rs 5000 towards legal expenses.
Also he may recruit more such pensioners - not necessarily of S29 only but across the board towards the cause /7 adding t the legal fund.
The volunteering bit is best done by Delhi based members in sharing going to court etc.
As the fruits of the struggle will help ALL aggrieved , it is only fair that likely beneficiaries chip in.

Imayan
12-06-2013, 12:18 PM
Thanks dnaga57.
Kindly give contact details of Pratap Narayan pl.
His contact No. and e mail ID.

Imayan

dnaga57
12-06-2013, 04:47 PM
Thanks dnaga57.
Kindly give contact details of Pratap Narayan pl.
His contact No. and e mail ID.

Imayan

Pratap Narain <[email protected]>; Mr PN's email address is given

kssitaraman
05-07-2013, 09:41 PM
With due regards to Respected Shri DNaga, who has started this lively Thread on a subject of great importance to help out aggrieved pensioners, and to Respected Shri VN Sir, who has been giving timely fillip to the efforts being taken in this regard and who is also mobilising tremendous support for the movement with ideas in a way in which only he can thanks to his vast experience, I am placing below a Write-up prepared by me recently on this subject for their kind approval and for the general information and guidance of the affected past pensioners, especially the would-be litigants if interested, and to buttress the efforts already being taken all-round.

A different approach is attempted in this Write-up by use of simple language to highlight and to try to suggest a solution to what undoubtedly is a vexed, complex problem faced by the aggrieved past pensioners to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Respected Shri PNji and Shri Sundarar have seen the earlier version of the Write-up but have not seen this one, which has some newer but essential inputs.

The Authorities may ignore the Write-up, as they have a policy of opposing grant of benefits to the past Pre-2006 pensioners, the Lower Courts may or may not appreciate the plea but it is expected to find favour with the Higher Judiciary.

Hope the Viewers will give their considered views at their convenience.

Now for the Write-up.

Dispensing with linkage of full pension with qualifying service – A few new points and a plea to the Authorities and the Courts..
-----
1. Consequent on implementation of the Sixth CPC’s Recommendation in Para 5.1.33 of its Report, dispensing with linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service, two sets of Rules – one, regulating pensions etc of employees retired on or after 1/1/2006 and two, regulating pensions of past pensioners drawing proportionate pension, who retired before 1/1/2006 are being followed.

2. The first set of Rules is as recommended by the Sixth CPC to be effective for the future till a future Pay Commission/Government brings in any change in the arrangement.

3. The existing Rules affording proportionate pensions for those with less than 33 years qualifying service, have been retained/adopted to serve as the second set of Rules for past pensioners, by a decision taken by the Government. The Sixth CPC had made no suggestion as to the treatment to be given to them in the future consequent on this important recommendation that decided the future of employees/retirees. Probably the Commission felt that it was not necessary, as according to them the principle based on which the recommendation was made would take care of the past pensioners. However, this has not happened, when the time came for Government to take the decision.

4. As can be viewed by every one concerned, the first set is open ended and it takes ample care of the employees for years to come, for which they should be thankful to the Commission and to the Government. In contrast, the second set is a closed one applicable to only a fixed group of past pensioners, who have been left high and dry without any benefit from the said recommendation.

5. Unlike the vast group of employees catered by the first set of rules, the latter group of past pensioners is left no choice – they are told that they would continue to be governed by the same rules as before, implying that the Commission’s recommendation in question has nothing to do with them, which stance seems to be woefully erroneous.

6. What are the demands of this unfortunate group? They might say that the country’s Constitution demands that the Pay Commissions/Governments should treat all present and past employees equally and there should not be any discrimination. The past pensioners only demand that the Sixth CPC’s recommendation under reference be extended to them also, which in actual terms would mean paying the difference between full pension they will be entitled to and the actual proportionate pension they now receive. They ask for nothing else.

7. What is the problem for the Government in taking care of the past pensioners’ interests then vis-ŕ-vis this recommendation? Keeping two sets of rules is certainly no solution, as it definitely comes in conflict with the Constitution by meting out different treatment to the present and past employees, who are placed on either side of the prospective date that has since been converted into a cut off date, namely 1/1/2006, for the past employees, shall we say, for the specific purpose of denying the benefit of the recommendation.

8. The real solution seems to be to consider the recommendation in Para 5.1.33 of the Sixth CPC as common to both Pre and Post 2006 pensioners irrespective of the fixation of a prospective date, since the principle, based on which the Commission had made this recommendation should necessarily be applicable to both past and present employees and since the same cannot be limited to any artificial barrier like a prospective date or cut off date. It transcends all barriers. The Commission has also not made any stipulation to the contrary probably for the same reason. The implementation of the recommendation could be deemed to have been completed only if the past pensioners with the requisite pensionable service (derived from their present quantum of qualifying service) are also granted their full pension. One could find that every thing falls in place including the prospective date 1/1/2006 from this recommendation.

9. Application of two sets of rules, apart from the disparity aspects between the two groups (split from a single homogenous group that was existent before implementation of the recommendation) on either side of the prospective date widening further, has also resulted in the qualifying service for one Group being rendered irrelevant and for the other Group as very much relevant and thus a Pre-2006 pensioner is made to find a Post-2006 colleague of his with far less qualifying service drawing full pension. Does this discrimination between the said two Groups artificially created by a Government decision (and not specifically recommended by Pay Commission) not repeat not come in conflict with the provisions of Article 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution? This decision further entails maintenance of two sets of records for an indefinite period in respect of the two Groups governed by different Rules, which in turn is liable to give room for errors, grievances, etc. apart from the costs of maintenance of two separate records. The said decision is therefore to be termed as not only bad in law but also as erroneous from administrative point of view.

10. The decision has also introduced a sub-classification of the already fragmented Pensioners groups as –

- Pre-2006 pensioners with 33 years qualifying service drawing full pension,
- Pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service drawing proportionate pension and
- Post-2006 pensioners with 20/10 years pensionable service drawing full pension.

This sub-classification as also the lacunae pointed out in Para supra could have been avoided by dispensing with the linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service (recommended by the Sixth CPC) altogether from the pension regulation mechanism. .

11. From the foregoing it can be seen that the implementation decision taken by the Government insofar as Pre-2006 retirees are concerned has not only been improper but it is also discriminatory and arbitrary..

12. We, therefore, pray to the Authorities/Courts to intervene to protect the interests of the Pre-2006 pensioners also. A reading of Para 5.1.33 of the Report of the Sixth CPC, which recommends dispensing with linkage of full pension with qualifying service from a prospective date, clearly indicates that it is a measure common to all employees, past and present, and is uniformly applicable to all the employees. While its implementation has been quite at ease with respect to the post-prospective date employees, it also fits in well the Pre-prospective date retirees with the full blessings of the Constitutional provisions. We pray that amongst the latter group whomsoever has the required pensionable service derived from the erstwhile qualifying service of his/her, may be granted full pension. There is no further demand from this Group as far as this recommendation is concerned. As it is a closed fixed group perhaps this will be a permanent hassle-free solution.

13. We are unable to comprehend how a prospective date fixation can change one set of rules into two. Where does this interpretation come from? Any one can be sure that this interpretation is absolutely incorrect.

14. The Government in its decision on past pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service and drawing proportionate pension, has treated the imposition of the prospective date namely 1/1/2006 as the cut-off date, just to deny the full pension that accrues to these pensioners from recommendation in Para 5.1.33 of the Sixth CPC.

15. These pensioners challenge this decision as outrageous and seek its review on grounds that the principle behind the particular recommendation of the Sixth CPC, namely, --

-- dispensing with linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service, grant of full pension for those employees on rendering minimum 20 years pensionable service and qualifying service ceasing to have any relevance, --

is also applicable to past pensioners (Pre-2006) as the recommendation is deemed to be common in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary by the Commission, as explained in Para 8 above.

K.S.Sitaraman
On behalf of the aggrieved past pensioners drawing proportionate pension..

Imayan
05-07-2013, 10:17 PM
I agree in toto with KSS.
Very forthright status paper.
What a simple and powerful presentation !
What should be the action plan now ?

Imayan

dnaga57
24-07-2013, 03:44 PM
All these well articulated points & more are covered in our Affidavit at the CAT. Once the earlier PR CAT verdict gets substantiated by SLP getting rejected, this anamoly would automatically get corrected thru CAT verdict.
Kindly be patient

vnatarajan
25-07-2013, 09:49 AM
ALL THE BEST IN TODAY'S 25 JULY 2013 PROCEEDINGS AT THE PR CAT DELHI......IN THE OA 1165/2011 & OTHERS.......
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
26-07-2013, 08:32 AM
Not much of hearing it seems.... posted to 17 Sept 2013 as I learn.......
vnatarajan

dnaga57
27-07-2013, 05:07 PM
Dear VNji
New date is concurrent with an excellent rejoinder from our team at Delhi. A wait for 2 months - possibly keeping an eye in SLP too.
We can also have 5 or 12 Rupee meal meanwhile from our leaders & babus so sensitive to Seniors :p

vnatarajan
28-07-2013, 09:11 AM
Dear DNaga/ Other interested pre 2006 pensioners of all categories,

SLP CYBER- MANIPULATIONS ARE UNPARALLELELED..
DESPERATION...CONTEMPT...EX PARTE... LINKING WITH OTHER SLs/ CASES ......What "modern high-tech efforts"?......"

INNOCENT HELPLESS AGED (SOME EVEN NOT AT ALL WELL VERSED IN ENGLISH....)PRE 2006 PENSIOENRS ..WHO HAVE WON THEIR CASES AT CATs/ HC s ARE TAKEN FOR A "CYBER-RIDE" OVER-NIGHT IN AN UNIMAGINABLE MANNER.....

I SHALL PORTRAY THE ENTIRE HAPPENINGS IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.....AFTER 29TH JULY 2013....
IT IS LIKE UNRAVELLING HOW SUBTLE MANIPULATUONS CAN TAKE PLACE AT THE HIGHEST VENUES OF JUSTICE- IF I AM CORRECT......

UNLESS ONE KEEPS AWAKE AND MAINTAINS MIDNIGHT VIGIL - FROM FRIDAY NIGHTS ONWARDS...YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT IS IN STORE FOR MONDAY...NEXT MONDAY .....29 JUKLY 2013 IS ALSO NO EXCEPTION

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
30-07-2013, 07:39 AM
Dear friends. This is in reference to Shri V. Natarajan's Post above. On the Dismissal of SLP by Hon.ble Supreme Court on 29.7.13 I would first, like, in general, to congratulate the Pensioners Community as a whole, and Shri V. Natarajan in particular, besides the President Shri Pratap Narain,Patron Shri JK Jain,GC Shri SBL,Shri NP Mohan, Shri HC Soni,Shri Bafna, Sr.Advocate Shri Nidesh Gupta, Advocate and colleague Shri SK Mullick and members of MC and LC of the Association. Their untiring effort directly and behind the curtain, is so much praiseworthy that I am unable to find suitable words to express the gratitude we owe to them. This Judgment of hon.ble Supreme Court is a landmark Judgment in the present day scenario.This judgment also paves the way of similar achievement in Pensioners case for more than 20 yrs. service, now under proceedings with the CAT-PB. This is because the OM dated 29.8.2008 has upheld and it does not say anything about reducing revised pension on pro rata basis when revised pension is to be calculated at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Warm regards

SK Jain
30-07-2013, 12:48 PM
Respected VN Sir, Kanaujiaml Sir, dnaga57 Sir and other learned pre-2006 Pensioners,

I request all of you, who are associated to Pensioners Associations or can approach Pensioners Association to make all out efforts to get the order of H’ble CAT implemented in letter and spirits. All additions/alternations to Govt. Resolution and their impact should be done away. Accordingly, ‘modified parity of pension in r/o past pensioners’ should be implemented as per Resolution Item 12 dated 29.08.2008 without any linkage to the terms ‘Full Pension’ and ‘33 years’ service for Full Pension’.

I have gone through Resolution Item No. 2 (and Para 5.1.33 of 6CPC Report), Resolution Item No. 3 (and Para 6.5.3 of 6CPC Report) and Resolution Item No. 12 (and Para 5.1.47 of 6CPC Report) and my findings are as under:
1. Resolution Item No. 2 (Para 5.1.33 of 6CPC Report) deals with ‘Full Pension’ (i.e. 50% of past ten months average pay or last pay drawn) in respect of future Pensioners. This also covers that linkage of 33 years’ service for ‘Full Pension’ should be dispensed with, in respect of future Pensioners. In my opinion, this Resolution and the terms ‘Full Pension’ ’33 years’ service for Full Pension’ mentioned therein are not applicable to Past Pensioners.
2. Resolution Item No. 3 (Para 6.5.3 of 6CPC Report) deals with the date of applicability of ‘Full Pension’ and other pension related benefits in r/o Future Pensioners.
3. Resolution Item No. 12 (Para 5.1.47 of 6CPC Report) deals with Past Pensioners (pre-2006 Pensioners) and covers the ‘Fitment Formula’ and ‘Minimum Assured Pension as per Modified Parity’ in r/o pre 2006 pensioners. There is no mention of terms ‘Full Pension’ and ‘33 years’ service for full pension (pro rata reduction)’ in this Resolution/Para. In my opinion these terms are not applicable to Past Pensioners.
For those readers, who desire to go through the above documents the links are given below:

http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/sixthCPC/paycommresol.pdf

http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/sixthCPC/paycommissionreport.pdf

I feel that Govt. Resolution Item No. 12 is quite clear and the terms of ‘Full Pension’ and ’33 years’ service for full Pension (pro rata reduction)’ have wrongly been linked to Past Pensioners.
*****

tymanagoli
07-08-2013, 09:27 PM
For full pension for 20+ years of service, I have a few points:

1. With ref to Sri SK Jain’s post at sr. no. #73, it is true that the SPC has recommended dispensing with 33 years of service for full pension prospectively but in para 5.1.47 the SPC has dealt with minimum pension for past pensioners without any reference to 33 years of service. Even though the SPC has not mentioned that this minimum pension is applicable to past pensioners also with less than 33 years of service, but it is only logical that when SPC is talking about minimum pension, there cannot be anything lower than minimum(like pro-rata reduction). Unfortunately, this point is not mentioned in SPC and the DOPT has coolly meted out lower than minimum pension to past pensioners with less than 33 years of service. This needs to be corrected by our Honorable judges.
2. If we take for example (can anybody give real example?), two colleagues working together, one with less than 33 years of service and other with 33 years and if one with less than 33 years gets promotion (say to S-24) and retires in December2005 and other retires without promotion after January 2006 than we can clearly imagine the humiliation felt by the promoted pensioner when his pension will be lower than his friend’s.
3. Most importantly, with ref to post at sr. no. #50 of respected Sri. Natarajan, wherein he has most aptly pointing out the violation of Article 14 (Sri. Natarajan says “If THE CUT-OFF DATE CAN BE SHIFTED FROM 2 29 2008 BACKWARDS TO 1 1 2006 , THEN WHY NOT FURTHER BACKWARDS TO DO JUSTICE FOR ALL? ‘’)
What justification can be there to shift the date from 29thFeb2008 to 1stJan2006 especially to voluntary retirees who had already retired (for their own reasons) without waiting for release of SPC report?

I might not have articulated the points in the best manner, request Sri VNji, Sri. DNaga, Sri. Pratap Narayanji and others to cover these points when we seek justice.
Regards,
Managoli

tymanagoli
14-08-2013, 08:55 AM
As per CAT PB judgment on OA No. 2461/2012 dated 30th July,2013, Honorable Justice Sinha has clearly ruled in favor of passing on the benefit of dispensing the requirement of 33 years of service for post 2006 retirees to pre 2006 pensioners also. It is very interesting order where in the CAT PB has indicated that all the benefits have to be same for all pensioners irrespective of date of retirement, benefits can be different for future pensioners only if they are applicable to fresh recruits (as and when they retire!!).
I have the judgement copy forwarded by my friend.
Regards, Managoli

vnatarajan
14-08-2013, 09:04 AM
D/ Tymanagoli,

Pl paste/post the first part viz prayer- relief sought for part and the last operational part of the PR CAT Judgment here as it may be vital for our final stage fight in the Mod Parity case also....

In the meanwhile I cd access it directly from website... also my friends had sent meearlier I am trying to post parts of it in the next post.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
14-08-2013, 09:22 AM
ABOVE JUDGMENT EXTRACTS:

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench

OA No.2461/2012

Reserved on: 08.05.2013
Pronounced on:30.07.2013


Honble Dr. Member (A)


..........................


O R D E R


The applicants, who have retired as Senior Scientists Grade-H from the Department of Space and ISRO, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging their revised Pension Pay Orders annexed at Annexure A-1 to A-5.

............................................

5. The applicants thereafter submitted an application on 09.02.2011 giving reference to the aforesaid judgment which, inter alia, and sought that the pension of pre-2006 retirees should be derived notionally as if they had been in service on 01.01.2006 and then apply the same as applicable to post-2006 retirees. The applicants further sought that any special pay, which was an integral component of pay, should be added notionally and counted towards pension. When this request of the applicants was not acceded to, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA seeking the following main relief(s):-
(i) To give the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs.4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants which has been recommended as per the CCS Pay Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

(ii) To issue directions to the respondents to re-fix their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees only in order to bring them at par with the Post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.

(iii) Quash and set aside the Revised Pension Pay orders of all the applicants so as to clearly mention and include Grade from which they have retired by giving them a separate pay scale or merge them with the pay scale of a feeder post so that they do not stand to loose in a out of the sight situation for all the present and future pensionary benefits.


6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the OA vehemently opposing the claim of the applicants. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents has also filed on behalf of the applicants. Besides hearing the arguments of both the parties, they were permitted to submit their written submissions, which have also been placed on record.

.................................................. .....................................


22. In view of the above discussions and having answered the questions in favour of the applicants, I am satisfied that the applicants, for the reasons stated above, have succeeded in proving their case. I also take into consideration of the fact that the present mode of pension is already in the process of getting phased out as the last pensioner, being the Government employee, will have retired sometime in the year 2014 or so.

23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Member (A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(pl chk original from CAT Website pl)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-08-2013, 09:50 AM
Dear friends. In reference to Shri V. Natarajan's above Post, I would like to add that this issue is expected to be decided on the outcome of OA 1165 of 2011,in case of Pratap Narain & ors. Vs. UOI & ors. which is next slated to be heard by the CAT-PB on 17.09.13.Let us hope for the good then.

tymanagoli
17-08-2013, 03:17 PM
- The Govt. has already extended the benefit of not pro rating the pension for seven scales (S-1 to S-6) in PB-1 band by proving the minimum pension of Rs.3500. If pro rating were to be applied to these scales, the pension would gone below Rs.3500. This benefit will not be available to other scales in PB-1 itself. So if Rule 49 is not sacrosanct for these scales, why it should be applied to other scales when SPC and the Gazette resolution #12 dt. 29th Aug 2008 as accepted by Govt. clearly mandates the minimum pension eligibility for each grade?
- Also, I do not see any pro rating for family pension for any of the scales. (Is it correct or I have not understood some thing?)
Regards, Managoli

sundarar
18-08-2013, 09:57 AM
ABOVE JUDGMENT EXTRACTS:

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench

OA No.2461/2012

Reserved on: 08.05.2013
Pronounced on:30.07.2013


Honble Dr. Member (A)


..........................


O R D E R


23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Member (A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(pl chk original from CAT Website pl)

vnatarajan

Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out the parity aspect with post-2006 retirees through the aforesaid CAT Judgment.

We all may be aware, that the Punjab & Haryana High Court in their Judgment dated 21.12.2012 in CWP No.19641 of 2009 - Shri R.K.Aggarwal vs State of Haryana, decided as follows:

" 26. 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 dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th 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 pre-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 refix 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".

1.THE PR CAT IN THEIR JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011 FOCUSSED ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF "MODIFIED PARITY" AS THE COMMON ISSUE.

2.THEY ALSO MADE IT CLEAR -THEY WILL DELIBERATE WRT OA 655/2010 ONLY --- AND INCIDENTALLY THE GR IS CGS29PA WHO PRAYED FOR RELIEF ONLY FOR PRECISELY DEFINING THE MINM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND AS PER GAZ RESOLUTION AFTER REMOVING THE SUBSEQUENT DISTORTIONS DONE PARTICULARLY THRU OMs 3 & 14 OCT 2008 ...11 FEB 2009 .... BY NULLIFYING THEM.

3.HOWEVER, WHILE FINALLY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS VIDE PARA 30 OF THE JUDGMENT, THE OR BENCH ORDERED THE PRESCRIBED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GAZETTED RESOLUTION DT 29 AUG 2008 QUASHING THE OMs IMPUGNED.

4. THE GAZ NOTIFICATION HAD USED THE EXPRESSION "NOT LOWER THAN" TO DEFINE THE THRESHHOLD VALUE. WHY DIDNT THEY USE "EQUAL TO"'OR "SAME AS" OR "NOT HIGHER THAN"...IN PLACE OF "NOT LOWER THAN"?

5.CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS ONLY PRE 2006 S29 (AND MAY BE ANOTHER ONE OR TWO SUCH SCALES) WHOSE REVISED PENSION BY ANY FORMULATION WAS ALWAYS "LESS THAN" THE THRESH HOLD VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE GAZ RESOLUTION FORMULA. IN CASE OF A CONDITION " EQUAL TO" OR "NOT HIGHER THAN" THEN THE SITUATION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

6. THEREFORE, THE HON P & H HC IN THEIR WISDOM - perhaps to avoid further litigations (on full parity?) ..... DID ONE STEP BETTER IN THEIR JUDGMENTs DT 21 12 2012 FOUND THAT THE RESOLUTION SL. NO.12 OF 29.8.2008 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.

7. THE MANNER AND METHODOLOGY OF REVISION OF PENSION IN RESPECT OF ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS HAVE VERY CLEARLY BEEN SPELT OUT BOTH BY P&H HC FIRST ON 21.12.2012 AND NOW BY THE CAT PR BENCH ON 30.7.2013 AND THEREBY RESOLVING FULL PARITY ISSUE AS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER APPLICATION OF MF 2.26 IN CASE OF PENSIONERS WHO HAVE DRAWN MAXIMUM INCREMENTS / ALSO STAGNATION INCREMENTS ...

8. WE ALL MAY ALSO BE AWARE THAT THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT OF P&H HC IS AT PRESENT BEFORE HSC. BY THIS WAY, THE CORRECT WAY OF REVISING THE PENSION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF MAY BE SPELT OUT AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.

9. ALL THE JUDGMENTS POINT OUT THAT THE REVISION OF BASIC PENSION IN THE CASE OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS HAS ACTUALLY NOT BEEN DONE IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED THROUGH THE RESOLUTION, AND THE CAT JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011 TOOK THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS CORRECT REVISION OF PENSION BY QUASHING THE MODIFICATORY/CLARIFICATORY OMs. THE FINAL STEP THEREFORE LIES IN

(A) BRINGING THE PAY OF THE GOVT. SERVANT RETIRED BEFORE 01.01.2006 TO THE LEVEL CORRESPONDING TO THE REVISED PAY SCALE AS PER 6TH CPC,

AND THEN

(B) FIXING THE PENSION IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SAME IS NOT LOWER THAN 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND AND THE GRADE PAY THEREON.

(A doubt may arise at this point of time while reading, that when the pay is brought to the corresponding level in the revised scale, 50% of it, will be definitely higher than 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of Grade Pay thereon, then where is the need for fixing in such a way that......? Here only, the words no case have enormous scope exclusively to nullify any proportionate reduction in ANY CASE. THEREFORE, EVEN IN THE CASE OF LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE PERSONNEL, THE ABOVE TWO ACTIONS (A) & (B) ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL. THE 5TH CPC RECOMMENDATION ON FULL PARITY IS VERY RIGHTLY REMEMBERED THROUGH THE JUDGMENT).

NOTHING MORE OR NOTHING LESS.

THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2012 IS THE REAL CLARIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION AT SL. NO.12 DATED 29.8.2008. FRESH IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS EFFECTIVE FROM 1.1.2006 (IN SUPERSESSION OF ALL EARLIER ORDERS) EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE SAID JUDGMENT IS THE ONLY NEED OF THE HOUR. THIS WILL ALSO TAKE CARE OF SPECIAL PAY ISSUE, NPA ISSUE, ETC. WE SALUTE FOR THE HON. JUDGMENT WITH SO MUCH CLARITY ALSO TAKING THE BASIS FROM CAT PR BENCH DELHI JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011, TO WHICH JUDGMENT ALSO WE STAND GRATEFUL AT ALL POINT OF TIME.

Best Regards

dnaga57
18-08-2013, 03:19 PM
Thanks Sundar Sir
As always crystal clear in logic & language
Regards:)

Gopal Krishan
18-08-2013, 06:05 PM
My regards Sundrar, Sir.
Gopal Krishan

Imayan
18-08-2013, 07:18 PM
We are clear as the logic and language given by Sundarar are self-explanatory.
Is it possible for some Delhi based senior members to meet Cabinet Secretary/Secretary, Deptt. of Pensions /Secretary, Deptt. of Law etc and put them " wise" on this matter--- which is affecting thousands of "voiceless pensioners" like us ?
Regards

vnatarajan
18-08-2013, 08:22 PM
Thanks to Shri Sundarar for echoing, enhancing and emphasizing my "parity views" which are taking their "fiull" shape and soon a new thread will be initiated at the appropriate time and in time to fight the greatest battle of PRE 2006 AND OLDER PENSIONERS... and I do hope all will join hands --

Difficult Shri Imayan...
The Injustice thread and Justice thread will show how "inert" these human beings had been...
CAN COMPROMISE TO CONNIVE (?) BUT WILL NOT CORRECT OR CONCEDE ...
WE WENT AS A LAST RESORT TO COURTS/TRIBUNALS OF JUSTICE..
ETHICS in administration and governance is at a nadir now....
EVEN TRIBUNALS/ COURTS ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THEM SEE WHAT IS JUST AND WHAT IS UNJUST...
Otherwise after so many verdicts, why they will knock at the portals of justice again and again...
PL DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH HOPES...THEY WILL PROVE TO BE TOTALLY USELESS ..

WE WANT TO MAKE NAKARA INFALLIBLE-- NONE CAN DIVIDE THE PENSIONERS of our category (CCS Pension Scheme 1972) ...BY DIVIDING THE HOMOGENOUS CLASS...BY DATUM... BY wrong POLICY ..BY SCHEMING.......AND NOT EVEN BY CONSTITUTION ( as of now...)...'

OF COURSE OLD PENSIONERS MUST BE DISCREET AND CORRECT IN QUOTING NAKARA JUDGMENT OR ITS RATIONAL PRINCIPLES OR ITS FORMULATION etc AND MUST NOT CITE IT FOR GETTING FREE A BONUS OF FREE T--------T PAPER AS AN ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGE.......and thereby ABUSE the HOLY ART 14......

Regards,
VN

tymanagoli
21-08-2013, 05:07 PM
Dear pre 2006 pensioners with 20 plus years of service,

Reproduced below is the section 5.1.46 of SPC:
“Past pensioners –analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations:
5.1.46 : The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past & present pensioners in Forces. The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986
pensioners and a modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

Do any one have an idea as to what was done to pre-1996 pensioners when the FPC was implemented? Was pro rata reduction done for pensioners with less than 33 years of service ignoring the ‘in no case’ clause?

Request knowledgeable seniors to enlighten all concerned.

Regards, Managoli

Gopal Krishan
21-08-2013, 08:40 PM
Reference post no. 83.
The Cabinet Secretary/Secretary or Department of Expenditure/Department of Pensions amy not meet individuals. Time has to be sought from them by some Pensioners Association or Confederation. Only there after it would be possible to meet them. I am a Delhi based pensioner. I am ready to participate in such a meeting in case time is taken from them on behalf of some Assocation etc.
Gopal Krhshan
9911178250

vnatarajan
22-08-2013, 08:45 AM
@ post 85.
Very much prorated pension only allowed.
For VRS retirees, 5 yrs weightage was given and then prorated pension is granted.
Many such pensioners are in the group wh is fighting this issue.
Let us await the verdict od PR BENCH CAT soon.....
MY ASESSMENT 50- 50.
SILVER LINING IS QUASHING OF THE 3/14 OCT 2008 AND 3 CAT VERDICTS SO FAR...
Still I have my own doubts on a "Rule issue" which may need to be overcome.
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
24-08-2013, 08:10 AM
Respected Natarajan Sir,
After our telephonic discussion, I discussed the matters with some of the officers concerned informally. From the discussion it appears that there is no choice but to implement the CAT's judgement on the Ist Novermber, 2011.
Incidentally, I would request you to elaborate on "Rule issue" referred to in your post-86.
Gopal Krishan

tymanagoli
25-08-2013, 12:35 AM
Dear Sri Gopalkrishnaji and Sri VNji and all concerned,

SPC has recommended in section 5.1.47 to refer to the Annexe 5.1.1(Fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners) for fixing the pension of past pensioners and also added that “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 prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.”

I have the following observations:
1. The SPC has not ( I repeat not) recommended that the pension of the past pensioners who were drawing pro rated pension should be first brought back to normal number as if he had full service and then the table in Annexe has to be used to know the revised pension and then again pro rate it back to arrive at his basic pension. The SPC is clear that the pension fixed after referring to the table in Annexe has to be brought up to meet the minimum recommended pension for the grade.
2. As an example, if the emolument of pre 2006 pensioner with 30 years of qualifying service (30 years superannuation case OR 25 years of VR case) was Rs.18504, his pension would be Rs. 8411 after pro rating and this would be revised as per table in Annexe to Rs. 12000. We will arrive at the same number if we were to annul pro rating initially and then refer the table and then again pro rate it back. (the corresponding numbers would be: without pro ratingRs. 9252, refer table  Rs. 13200, again pro rate it back Rs. 12000). If this pension (Rs. 12000) is less than the minimum pension for his grade, it needs to be stepped up. Hence again I reiterate that as per SPC, table in Annexe is sacrosanct and applicable to both 33 years and lesser service past pensioners. The minimum pension for the grade is also sacrosanct.
3. Hence, the SPC has not differentiated between the full and pro rated amount of pension while arriving at the table in 5.1.1 and so the persons with 33 years of service will be fixed at higher pension as compared persons with lesser service. If the numbers so arrived (applicable to 33 years as well as to lesser service) is lower than the minimum of the pension for his grade then the pension has to be stepped up to meet the minimum guaranteed pension for the grade. It will be illogical and absurd to pro rate the pension again after bringing it up (that’s what the govt. has done now).
4. The Govt with it’s resolution dt 29th Aug 2008 @ serial no. 12 accepted the recommendation and also in fact enhanced the amount of pension as compared to the table (in Annexe 5.1.1). Only this resolution has to be implemented correctly.
5. With the above logic, Rule 49 should become non entity at least for past pensioners drawing lesser than minimum pension (because of pro rating)
6. It was really nice of full bench in it’s verdict of CAT judgment dated 1st Nov.2011, to refer to even FPC recommendations and argue in favor of modified parity to ensure minimum guaranteed pension for past pensioners. (Refer #28 and #29 of judgment)

Request Sri VNji to point out the intricacies if any in Rule 49

Regards, Managoli

vnatarajan
25-08-2013, 08:13 AM
@GK -- thanks for info on SLP related obsvn..... Reg Rule 49, my explanation follows:


We are reading too much in to the SCPC report/ its recos.

RECOS ARE ONLY TO SERVE AS

GUIDELINES FOR GOVT TO DECIDE. THEY MAY ACCEPT OR REJECT/ IN PART OR FULL ETC. Out of many SCPC recos, only few have been chosen for implementation. Para 5.1.47 is one of them .. with other paras in continuation of them.

ALL MUST REALISE RULE 49 IS VERY MUCH ENTRENCHED IN THE CCS PENSION RULES.

GAZ RESOLUTION DT 29 08 2008 FOR REVISION OF PENSION HAS BEEN "BIFURCATED EFFECTIVELY" AS "TWO SEPARATE EXCEUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS" ONE DATED 1ST SEPT 2008 FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS AND THE OTHER FOR POST 2005/2006 PENSIONERS.

Both the above had "procedural formalities" more or less fulfilled - by getting approvals / endorsements up to CAG.

PR BENCH CAT HAS ALREADY HELD THAT GOVT HAS POWERS/ PREROGATIVES TO INTRODUCE "PENSION SCHEMES" (menaing the two OMs. -1 AND 2 SEPT 2008..) and also to DECIDE ON THE "CUT-OFF" dates for implementing the changed schemes.... wh was 2 Sept 2008 for post 2006 pensioners. Applying the amended Rule 49 for post 2/9/2008 pensioners prospectively had no difficulties and was perfectly in order. SUCH CHANGED/AMENDED/RELAXED RULE 49 CAN NOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY ....

HOWEVER, AFTER COM OF OROP RECOS IN JULY 2009, THE GOVT EXTENDED THE CHANGED RULE 49 "RETROSPECTIVELY" TO PRE 2/9/2008 MILITARY PENSIONERS FIRST AND THEN TO CIVILIAN PENSINERS LATER (DEC 2009)......Was this not a shifting of the "new scheme" backwards into " the domain of hang-over zone (I called it trisanku then) of pre 2006 pensioners" and then also shift the "cut-off date of 2/9/2008" backwards to 1 1 2006.... If such a retrospective application of the Changed Rule is possible to favour the "trisanku pensioners (ie sub 33 yr retirees including the VRS retirees) of the 1.1.2006 to 1 9 2008 period", BY SHIFTING EVEN THE "REAL CUT-OFF DATE" , why the GOVT can not shift the date further backwards from the pseudo Cut Off date of 1 1 2006......?

However nullifying the effects of OMs of 3/14 Oct 2008 also may help in this regard to some extent....

Rule 49 new provision on 20 yr qs / changes figure only in OM of 2 Sept 2008 and not in OM of 1 Sept 2008 (pl chk if I am correct....) and unless we challenge and nullify this OM's provision also effectively wrt Rule 49 provisions , our case may........I THINK THIS IS WHAT IS BEING TAKEN UP IN THE CASE ALSO.....

vnatarajan

tymanagoli
25-08-2013, 10:47 PM
Respected Natarajan sir,

I entirely agree with you, thanks.

But, can we hope that the justice will be done vis-ŕ-vis under mentioned facts?
A. As mentioned by you, the fact that the govt. has already shifted the date once and gave retrospective benefit to 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 pensioners
B. CAT PB judgment on OA No. 2461/2012 dated 30th July,2013, wherein Honorable Justice Sinha has ruled in favor of passing on the benefit of dispensing the requirement of 33 years of service for post 2006 retirees to pre 2006 pensioners also.
C. Case of pro rating twice i.e. pro rating the pension after bringing it up to meet the minimum of the grade

Regards, Managoli

vnatarajan
26-08-2013, 06:39 AM
MY VIEWS:

I do not want to publicise my views here in detail as it may reach the destinations which may not be desirable......

ONE POINT IS IMPT (this happens on every file dealing with such cases...)..... THE ADMIN WILL OPPOSE ANY RETROSPECTION TOOTH AND NAIL.... IT OPENS UP A PANDORA'S BOX AND SETS AN UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCE....... DO WE HAVE A READY LIST OF 20 YR PLUS/SUB 33 RETIREES....... SO RELIEF MAY BE LITIGATION-WISE LIKE SPL PAY CASES.... MORE LITIGATIONS...... MORE WASTAGE OF COURT TIME....AGAIN WHAT HAPPENS TO VRS RETIREES OF PRE 2006 ERA...... DO YOU RECOVER THE "5 YR BONUS" GIVEN TO THEM... HOW..... IN CASE OF "TRISANKU RETIREES', THE AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF AFTER CALCUALTING THE DIFFERENCE.....

So let us find answers for these grey areas to be ready to convey when need arises.....

Reg single bench judgment, it may be too premature to comment..... we shall wait for the main case wh shall come before a full bench soon.....

Case of pro-rating is only once? How twice?. Pl note after 5th CPC, there is a ceiling on "old-pension" in the name of "MODIFIED PARITY" .... so all prorating is wrt the "MOD PARITY only for old pensioners......unless you win the "POINT TO POINT' case in future , which will open up the Pandora's box again .......

OLD PENSIONERS THEREFORE MUST DRAW A LINE SOMEWHERE AND BE CLEAR.
SAY...... NO ARREARS- NOTIONAL FIXATION- NO RETROSPECTION- "AS ON DATE"......PRORATING WRT MOD PARITY BASE......THIS WD MEAN A REDRAFTING THE POLICY AS IF IT IS A NEW ONE...CABINET APPROVAL......JUST LIKE OUR 28 JAN 2013 MIN GUARANTEED PENSION "SCHEMED SCHEME"......

vnatarajan

SK Jain
26-08-2013, 10:43 AM
Respected Sirs,
As I understand Pensioners retiring after 01.01.2006 are entitled to FULL PENSION (i.e. 50 % of past ten months average pay or last pay drawn whichever is beneficial). Past Pensioners or pre-2006 Pensioners are entitled to fixation of their pension as per fitment formula as on 01.01.2006 subject to ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’.

Further, Rule 49 deals with the requirement of 33 years service for Full Pension. In letter dated 03.10.2008 (while introducing pro-rating) it has been mentioned that this Rule 49 was applicable as on 01.01.2006 which is a wrong statement NOW because 33 years condition for Full Pension has also been removed w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (consequent to amended date from 02.09.2008 to 01.01.2006). As such Rule 49 (which was earlier applicable on 01.01.2006) is no more applicable on 01.01.2006.

Since Pre-2006 Pensioners are not entitled to Full Pension, how Rule 49 can be made applicable to them? Also, pro-rating of ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ has neither been recommended by 6CPC nor Cabinet has decided the same. It is a simple case of Wrong Implementation of ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ which was accepted by Cabinet vide Resolution Item 12. I strongly feel that Pensioners Associations should point out the same irrespective to the on-going court cases.

Please comment if I am wrong somewhere.

vnatarajan
26-08-2013, 11:52 AM
DEAR MAJ JAIN SIR/ OTHERS INTERETSED,

Some clarifications/ my views:

" As such Rule 49 (which was earlier applicable on 01.01.2006) is no more applicable on 01.01.2006".
This statement / observation may not be correct. As on 3rd Oct 2008, the relaxation for the "trisanku pensioners (who retired between 1 1 2006 to 1 1 2009)" was still grey (pl note relaxation came only in Dec2009) and hence the OM of 3 Oct 2008 had no wrong statement.......

After necessary amendment :
RULE 49 SHALL STAND WITH THE REQUIRED AMENDMENT ON QS WHICH SHALL CHANGE FROM 33 YRS TO 20 YRS- for only those retiring from 1 1 2006 onwards.... for others (pensioners as on 31 12 2005) the earlier provision (33 qs) shall apply as there is no change notified for them.....ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC ORDERS MAY NOT SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTIONS.. Only Tribunals/ Courts can see the merits and law points and decide......

Pl note till to day, the two core EXEC INSTRUCTIONS vide DOPPW's OMs viz first one dtd 1 9 2008 for pre 2006 pensioners (those pensioners/ family pensioners as on 31 12 2005) and the second one dtd 2 9 2008 could not be/ can not be quashed for various reasons.

OM of 1 Sept 2008 had and will have no role to play in amending Rule 49 UNLESS WE WIN THE CASE IN TRIBUNALS AND COURTS...
OM of 2 Sept 2008 had and eeffectively defined the changes required in pension rule in its para 5.3/ parts.. and took care to amend the RULE 49.

When thre are no amendments, all Rules shall stand as they were existing before.

OUR WISHFUL THINKING AND PRESUMPTIVE ANALYSIS HAVE TO STAND THE SCRUTINY OF THE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS AND ONLY FOR THIS PURPOSE WE REQUIRE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. OM OF 1 SEPT 2008 AND OM OF 2 SEPT 2008 AND THEIR EXTENSIONS ARE OUR WEAKEST DOCUMENTS..... They can not help us in any way......

CONSEQUENTLY WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE....
DO U HAVE IN HAND PPOs OF A FEW EXAMPLES --- TO SHOW THE "DISPARITY IN PENSIONS" ON EITHER SIDE OF REViSION AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGES IN QS (with 1 1 2006 as one datum and 1 1 2009 as another datum .....)? ... (I WOULD HAVE TRIED FOR SUCH EVIDENCES TO SCORE MY POINTS.... I WITB SHR VRAGHURAMAN DID A METICULOUS COLLECTION OF PPOs IT FOR THIS PURPOSE AND THE EXAMPLES DID FIGURE IN THE PR CAT JUDGMENT)

May be a table at least is prepared and presented for appreciation of the Hon Judges.....

Regards,
vnatarajan

SK Jain
26-08-2013, 12:16 PM
Respected VN Sir,
Even the statement was correct as on 03.10.2008 but that statement is not correct as on date now in view of subsequent changes. Also, Rule 49 cannot be made applicable to pre-2006 Pensioners because they are not entitled to Full Pension. DOP&PW should have taken corrective measures accordingly.
My views may be wrong.

tymanagoli
26-08-2013, 02:01 PM
Respected Natarajan sir,

- Why I am referring it as prorating twice is as in my own example, I was drawing a prorated pre 2006 pension and as per OM dated 1st Sept 2008 my pension after all fitment weightage etc. was less than the minimum pension of my grade (in fact less than minimum of Pay Band itself) and hence it was raised to meet minimum criterion and again prorated back to fix at lower pension. Is it not equivalent to prorating twice? Had the pension been higher than the minimum of grade after all fitment weightage etc., I suppose they would not have prorated again as the fixation was taken up with prorated pension to begin with. Kindly see para 4.1 and 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. As per para 4.1, we start with existing pension (prorated or otherwise). Also see clarification for para 4.2 in OM dated 3.10.2008 when-in, at the end it says if pension calculated as per 4.1 is higher than minimum then it stays and no prorating is mentioned here . Is it logical to prorate the minimum pension?
- In the case of pre-1996 pensioners, may be it was OK(pro rating twice) as post 1996 pensioners themselves with lesser qualifying service were getting fixed at prorated pension. Again, is this logic correct?

Also, my understanding of para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.2008 is that the person becoming eligible for pension after completing 10 years of QS will also get full pension i.e. not prorated (is it as per para 5.6?)

Request you to clarify..

Regards, Managoli

vnatarajan
26-08-2013, 06:34 PM
Dear Shri Managoli,

EVEN IN THE OM DTD 28 JAN 2013 ON MIN GUARANTEED PENSION, PARA 5 NAILS THE ISSUE AGAIN BY STATING RULE 49 WILL OPERTAE AS IT WAS OPERATING EARLIER FOR PRE 11 2006 RETIREES.

"5. The pension so arrived at in accordance with para 2 above and indicated in
Co!. 9 of Annexure will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the
maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3,500/- p.m".

PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED I THINK ABOUT "FULL PENSION"...... FULL PENSION IS BASED ON LPD SUBJECT TO THE CEILING OF 2.26 ( para 4.1) OR MGP (para 4.2 modified now) FOR OLD PENSIONERS ...BUNCHING OF INCREMENTS/ MERGING OF SCALES INTO A PAY BAND DRAGS THEIR EFFECTIVE PENSION DOWNWARDS AND IT IS LSO A REDUCTION IN PENSION FOR MANY WHO HAVE DRAWN LARGE NUMBER OF INCREMENTS --- TOUCHED THE TOP OF SCALE AND EVEN GOT STAG INCREMENTS---MANY PRE 1986 /PRE 1996/PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ARE LIKE THAT ONLY.....

OLD PENSIONERS SUFFERING DOUBLE PRO-RATING MAY BE IMMINENT.....ONLY DIFFCE IS WHETHER 20 YRS IN PLACE OF 33 YEARS COMES TO THEIR RESCUE.... SAY A PRE 2006 RETIREE WITH 20 YRS SERVICE WAS GETTING PRORATED PENSION ON A RATIO OF 20/33. IF THE CASE SUCCEEDS , HE MAY GET PRORATED PENSION ON A RATIO OF 20/20.... IF IT IS LESS THAN 20 ..SAY 15 YEARS , HE MAY GET PRORATIO ACCORDING TO THE FACTOR OF 15/20......... AGAIN ENTIRE THING WILL DEPEND UPON THE LIMIT OF THE PENSION ALLOWED SAY 2.26 MF OR MGP....

Shri Sundarar or Shri MLK ji may be able to correct me if I m wrong........

Regards ,

vnatarajan

dnaga57
26-08-2013, 07:05 PM
MY VIEWS:

I do not want to publicise my views here in detail as it may reach the destinations which may not be desirable......

ONE POINT IS IMPT (this happens on every file dealing with such cases...)..... THE ADMIN WILL OPPOSE ANY RETROSPECTION TOOTH AND NAIL.... IT OPENS UP A PANDORA'S BOX AND SETS AN UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCE....... DO WE HAVE A READY LIST OF 20 YR PLUS/SUB 33 RETIREES....... SO RELIEF MAY BE LITIGATION-WISE LIKE SPL PAY CASES.... MORE LITIGATIONS...... MORE WASTAGE OF COURT TIME....AGAIN WHAT HAPPENS TO VRS RETIREES OF PRE 2006 ERA...... DO YOU RECOVER THE "5 YR BONUS" GIVEN TO THEM... HOW..... IN CASE OF "TRISANKU RETIREES', THE AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF AFTER CALCUALTING THE DIFFERENCE.....

So let us find answers for these grey areas to be ready to convey when need arises.....

Reg single bench judgment, it may be too premature to comment..... we shall wait for the main case wh shall come before a full bench soon.....

Case of pro-rating is only once? How twice?. Pl note after 5th CPC, there is a ceiling on "old-pension" in the name of "MODIFIED PARITY" .... so all prorating is wrt the "MOD PARITY only for old pensioners......unless you win the "POINT TO POINT' case in future , which will open up the Pandora's box again .......

OLD PENSIONERS THEREFORE MUST DRAW A LINE SOMEWHERE AND BE CLEAR.
SAY...... NO ARREARS- NOTIONAL FIXATION- NO RETROSPECTION- "AS ON DATE"......PRORATING WRT MOD PARITY BASE......THIS WD MEAN A REDRAFTING THE POLICY AS IF IT IS A NEW ONE...CABINET APPROVAL......JUST LIKE OUR 28 JAN 2013 MIN GUARANTEED PENSION "SCHEMED SCHEME"......

vnatarajan

Respected Sir
This is just w.r.t your point DO YOU RECOVER THE "5 YR BONUS" GIVEN TO THEM..
Any refixation gets into what should be vs what is. In this case the '5 year bonus' is built in in the current pension. Hence arrears from whatever the date would be 50% - current 'prorated' pension.
Does it not balance 'bonus' as you call it?

vnatarajan
26-08-2013, 07:29 PM
Pension part is OK.
What about the additional "one time retiral benefit" on account of the + 5 year effect ?... like Gratuity -- Leave Salary Component if any...
Railways (pl chk --- I may be wrong) wrote off the difference between arrears and recovery amount from such VRs retirees.... as the amount involved might have been wrt few nos of pensioners and also amount might have been smaller.
HERE ALSO WRITE OFF HAS TO BE INVOLVED.

I am not sure if PN ji has noted para 5 of OM of 28 Jan 2013 - as this also needs to be neutralized ---pl note only PARA 5 OF THIS NEW MGP DEFINING OM.... not he OM itself like 3/14 oCt 20108 OMs.... (I am not sure if an additional affidavit was filed on this OM in PR CAT in the 20 yr case as done in our main case at.DHC).

D Naga to kindly confirm/ chk.

Regards
VN

tymanagoli
29-08-2013, 11:58 AM
Respected VN sir and all concerned,

w.r.t Sri VNji’s post# 97 (OLD PENSIONERS SUFFERING DOUBLE PRO-RATING MAY BE IMMINENT.....), I have worked out a few cases in excel for seeing the effect of Double Prorating for pre-2006 pensioners and sent it to Sri VNji.
Request him to give his view for the benefit of all.
My observations/comments are:
A. In the example case of pre-2006 S4 scale (post 2006 PB1 with GP 1800), almost all (except pensioners with 9 or more increments with 32 years of QS) sub 33 years service pensioners will draw lesser than MGP because of Double Prorating. Similar are the cases for other Pay Bands
B. If multiple prorating continues, even pension of persons with 32 years of QS will be reduced again whenever the next pay/pension revision takes place. For instance, if in next revision, if the multiplication factor is 2.48 (assuming 15% hike over likely pension with DR of about 115%), the prorating may more than nullify the hike granted and thus placing the pre-2006 pensioners in more humiliating position.
C. Can we seek justice from our Honorable judges to get at least the MGP as per the orders in OM dated 1.9.2008 (para 4.1 and 4.2). The clarification in OM dated 3.10.2008 and the para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013 have sought to deny the MGP to pre-2006 pensioners
D. Why should we suffer perpetual prorating when the intension of SPC and the cabinet decision vide Gazette resolution dated 29.8.2008 are for providing MGP to past pensioners as modified parity (in fact full/point-to-point parity is recommended by Honorable justice Sinha as quoted by me in earlier post)

Regards, Managoli

vnatarajan
29-08-2013, 06:11 PM
Dear Shri Tymanagoli/ Others interested,

So long as MGP has a over-riding stipulation of QS for full pension none can do anything by sticking to a "wishful interpretation of the Gaz Notification of 29 08 2008 " unless u prove the credibility in the court of law.

This is possible only at Higher Courts.

Answers for all your doubts can be found only thru ur suggestion at "C" - that is what we are trying- after exhausting all channels.

IN THE PAST,... EVEN AFTER V CPC ,... EVEN ELITE OLD PENSIONERS WERE SLEEPING AND NEVER CAME FORWARD TO FIGHT OUT THE ISSUEs.

LEADERS ARE RARE AMONG the RETD HoDs/ higher echelons/ and even among retd Old Generals of he country... to take up afight for correct pension....to have a network with like-minded pensioners.... even now many do not have the patience to stand the wear and tear of the exercises and coordinate to maintain an effective net-work.......

EVEN AFTER SIXTH CPC---MANY WERE STILL IN DEEP SLUMBER..... PL GO THRU THIS GCONNECT THREAD RIGHT FROM OCT 8, 2008 WHEN IT WAS STARTED.... ONLY FEW ACTVSTS SPREAD WARENESS AND TOOK UP THE DECISION TO FIGHT OUT THE ISSUES..... TILL THE END.....

Many big Pensioners' Federations/ Associations.... try to be always in the good books of the authorities as they are very much part of the system to cater to employees demands .... and hence to score a few points for them, they ignore the Old Pensioners.....

We are talking about double prorating....because we r affected now.... what about the older pensioners....?

What about triple/ multiple prorating ... pre 1986.... pre 1996 cases

Regdg the calculations, I am no expert on it ( I am a etd scientist pl...) Shri Sundarar/ Shri
MLK ji who are the real experts.....pl consult them .....

(I ONY SHINE IN BORROWED FEATHERS......)

Regards,

vnatarajan

Dear Shri TM,

To do justice for the nice exel table you had prepared on the double pro-rating effect, I have forwarded the same to all concerned for their perusal.Shri Sundarar had been splly requested to examine and do needful follow up as necessary if it is of value to the 20yr plus case.....

Imayan
30-08-2013, 07:13 AM
Sir,

Kindly forward your Excel table by e mail to: [email protected]

Regards,

Imayan

sundarar
30-08-2013, 03:19 PM
Respected VN sir and all concerned,

w.r.t Sri VNji’s post# 97 (OLD PENSIONERS SUFFERING DOUBLE PRO-RATING MAY BE IMMINENT.....), I have worked out a few cases in excel for seeing the effect of Double Prorating for pre-2006 pensioners and sent it to Sri VNji.
Request him to give his view for the benefit of all.
My observations/comments are:
A. In the example case of pre-2006 S4 scale (post 2006 PB1 with GP 1800), almost all (except pensioners with 9 or more increments with 32 years of QS) sub 33 years service pensioners will draw lesser than MGP because of Double Prorating. Similar are the cases for other Pay Bands
B. If multiple prorating continues, even pension of persons with 32 years of QS will be reduced again whenever the next pay/pension revision takes place. For instance, if in next revision, if the multiplication factor is 2.48 (assuming 15% hike over likely pension with DR of about 115%), the prorating may more than nullify the hike granted and thus placing the pre-2006 pensioners in more humiliating position.
C. Can we seek justice from our Honorable judges to get at least the MGP as per the orders in OM dated 1.9.2008 (para 4.1 and 4.2). The clarification in OM dated 3.10.2008 and the para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013 have sought to deny the MGP to pre-2006 pensioners
D. Why should we suffer perpetual prorating when the intension of SPC and the cabinet decision vide Gazette resolution dated 29.8.2008 are for providing MGP to past pensioners as modified parity (in fact full/point-to-point parity is recommended by Honorable justice Sinha as quoted by me in earlier post)

Regards, Managoli

Dear Sir,

1. The 6th CPC while recommending that the revised pension shall in no case be lesser than.......
, has not prescribed any proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service and so the accepted and notified version too.

2. That is the reason, the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 has not talked of proportionate reduction from the minimum guaranteed pension in any of its para based on length of qualifying service.

3. It is the OM dated 3.10.2008 that suo moto prescribed for proportionate reduction based on
length of qualifying service, from the minimum guaranteed pension, which MGP itself was a reduced quantum by virtue of 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale.

4. While the OM dated 28.1.2013 has implemented the original para 4.2 of its initial OM dated 1.9.2008 as it is, but only with effect from 24.9.2012, the said OM continued with the provisions relating to proportionate reduction spelt out in OM dated 3.10.2008.

5. The OM dated 3.10.2008 stands quashed from all legal angles and the contempt of court proceedings also within next 4 weeks, a final decision will keep the proportionate reduction part in silent mode. But since the OM dated 28.1.2013 stipulates proportionate reduction from MGP payable from 24.9.2012, the said final decision shall be a speaking one without any ambiguity. That means, FULL MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION, will then become payable but w.e.f. 1.1.2006 itself.

6. In the light of D.S. Nakara spirit, the single homgenous status is not restricted to the extent of MGP only. If both pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners are to be treated as single homogenous class of pensioners and when pension is calculated based on last drawn emoluments and qualifying service,
the manner and methodology in deriving the basic pension cannot be different.

7. The D.S. Nakara based revised pension in the case of 10/20 years q.s. retirees of pre-2006, means
50% of emoluments drawn at the time of retirement revised notionally w.e.f. 1.1.2006. That alone can be called FULL PENSION IN THE REVISED STRUCTURE.

8. The Shetty Commission in the case of Judicial Officers, had prescribed 50% of emoluments revised from time to time, as basic pension.

9. Since the proportionate reduction aspect is getting decided soon by the Courts, based on final
implementation orders, we can decide further appropriate action.

10. Had the whole pension revision underwent with application of a single uniform multiplication factor as in the case of S-30 and above, scopes for such anomalous situations would not have arisen. If the pre-revised pension is applied with a MF of 3/3+ or even 50% of bottom stage of pre-revised scale is multiplied with a MF of 3/3+, no such need for prescribing any FULL MGP or otherwise, would have arisen. Thus, the band based structure said to have been introduced to remove anomalies of scaled based structure, was excluded only for S-30 and above, to avoid any band based anomalies.
Best Regards

tymanagoli
31-08-2013, 10:10 AM
Thanks Sundarar for your points summarizing all aspects.

Let us hope at least a "minimum" justice will be delivered by our Honorable judges.

Again, as every senior citizen agrees, it is not the question of money. Why should we suffer humiliation in comparison to post 2006 pensioners who had lesser QS and who were not even promoted to our scales (there will be plenty of examples...There is no intention here to hurt any one’s feeling, as we all know, promotions, appreciations etc. depend on so many factors and are generally beyond one’s control. Most of us believe in putting sincere and honest effort and leave rest to the system...).

Regards, Managoli

SK Jain
01-09-2013, 11:11 AM
Respected Sirs,

While introducing the condition of 33 years service and pro-rating of ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ in r/o pre-2006 Pensioners vide DOP&PW letter dated 03.10.2008 it has been mentioned that:

“the pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less that Rs. 3500/- p.m.”

Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 can be accessed at the following link:

http://persmin.gov.in/pension/rules/pencomp7.htm#Amount of Pension

A careful reading of Rule 49 reveals that there in no mention of term “FULL PENSION” in this Rule. It simply mentions that after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty three years the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments. The amount of pension calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments has been assumed as “FULL PENSION” especially in view of Rule 49 (2)(b). Statements of this Rule are quite clear which explain the “Amount of Pension” applicable to future pensioners.

On implementation of 6CPC the amount of pension is now calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments (or last pay drawn) after completing qualifying service of not less than twenty years and this change is applicable to the pensioners retiring after 01.01.2006. A period of 5 years has lapsed after the recommendations of 6CPC were implemented but Rule 49 has not yet been amended by Govt. Functionaries. Please consider a hypothetical situation as to how this Rule can be amended in the light of 6CPC implementation and to whom it will be applicable?

Pre-2006 pensioners are entitled to ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ as mentioned in Resolution Item No. 12 and related para of 6CPC Report. In my opinion Rule 49 is not applicable to past pensioners and has wrongly been linked to pre-2006 pensioners.

Warm Regards

tymanagoli
01-09-2013, 01:20 PM
Sirs,

I agree with Sri SK Jain’s last sentence as-for all past pensioners the pension is revised based on prorated pension (Rule 49 already applied) and hence it should be highly inappropriate to apply Rule 49 to pre-2006 pensioners(again).
Request seniors Sri VNji, Sri Sundarar to comment on Sri SK Jain’s above post.

Regards, Managoli

vnatarajan
01-09-2013, 05:16 PM
My views wh are personal are very clear.

PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS OF SERVICE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THEIR PPOs/ REVISED PENSIONS ASTER SCPC REVISIONs LONG BACK AND THEY HAVE SUFFERED WHATEVER WE MAY CALL DOUBLE PRO-RATING ETC.....

Rule 49 remains. where it was for them. The bottom line QS for "full rated pension" remains at 33 years for pre 2006 pensioners.

AS ON DATE THERE IS NO DOCUMENT WH CAN SUPPORT THEM SO EASILY. LATEST AVALABLE DOCU,MENT IS VERY DANGEROUS... (OM OF 28 JAN 2013)

It is not comparable to Mod Parity case won by Pre 2006 Pensioners, where a deliberate alteration/ modification was proved beyond doubt in the courts of law, successively.

PRE 2006 20 YR PLUS CASE IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT---IT HAS TO BE ARGUED BY COMPETENT COUNSELS MORE ON GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION AND NOT ON MERE VERBAL ARGUMENTS...


ALL I CAN SAY IS....MUCH OF OUR EXECTATIONS ARE WISHFUL THINKING ... (that 20 yr bottom line QS rule for full rated pension is suo moto available to pre 1 1 2006 ......not at all pl.....CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED ....)

RULE 49 IS VERY CLEAR AND IS A PART OF THE CCS PENSION RULES 1972. For pre 2006 pensioners, it remains where it was prior to 1 1 2006 .... nothing is changed....

WE ARE MIXING UP ALL STEPOS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUREs TO MAKE A CONCOCTION AND ARRIVE AT A STIMUALTIVE DRINK TO FIND SOLACE.. to suit our expectations....!

PL NOTE THAT :

1.CABINET DECISONS ARE NOTIFIED THRU GAZ NOTIFICATIONS WHICH DEFINE THE "POLICY". THEY ARE NOT "RULES"- WHICH ARE TRIVIAL AT THIS STAGE/ LEVEL.
2.IN OTHER WORDS THE GAZ RESOLUTION GIVES THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK , SAY A NEW ONE WHEN IT IS ISSUED, AND IT SUPERCEDES EARLIER ONES IN RESPECT OF THE STATEMENT MADE THEREIIN TO COVER A SPECIFIC PART OF EARLIER POLICY... SAY A NEW FORMULATION FOR CALCULATION OF PENSION.......
3.WHERE IT DOESNT TOUCH ANY PAST RULES/ GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY IN PART OR FULL, THE SAME SHALL REMAIN UNCHANHED- NO PRESUMPTIVE CONCLUSION OR RETROSPECTION OF A NEW GUIDELINE SPECIFICALLY INTRODUCED FOR POST 1 1 2006 CASES IS POSSIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT MENTIONED IT.
4. GAZ RESOLUTION IS FOLLOWED BY A MOTHER "EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTION OR OM" WHICH DEFINES THE POLICY FRAME WORK IN DETAILS IN THE FORM OF A SET OF RULE BASED GUIDELINES OR AMENDMENTS TO EXUISTING RULES.
5.THIS EXEC INSTRUCTION CAN BE FOLLOWED BY FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS (IN THE CASE OF CLARIFICATIONS , MOs ENDORSEMENT IS ENOUGH)and /or MODIFICATIONS (IN THE CASE OF MODIFICATIONS THEY DO REQUIRE CABINET ENDORSEMENTS/ AND CAG APPROVALS)..

Pl fit in all your orders in the above steps and see which are in order to support your case by ckear documentation/ record and which are not in order.

Pre 2006 pensioners were governed by that part of the Rule 49 which defined the BOTTOMLINE as 33 years of QS for getting the 10 months average emoluments as the "full rated pension" for prorating purpose.

IF THIS QS IS TO BE BROUGHT DOWN to 20 yrs QS OR is TO BE EXTENDED RETROSPECTIVELY BACKWARDS SUO MOTO prior to 1 1 2006 from what is prescribed now to post 1 1 2006 pensioners , WE MUST PRODUCE AN ORDER OR OM WHICH SUPPORTS US in the form of an amendment order to the said rule or provision to existing guidelines ...eg OM of 2 Sept 2006 for post 2006 pensioners... extension of this backwards not only up to 1 1 2006 but beyond that backwards to pre 1 1 2006 cases ..!

It is not a tricky mathematical problem which can be resolved by "reduction ad absurdum...."

WHERE IS SUCH AN AMENDING DOCUMENT- OM OR GUIDELINE OR CLARIFICATION?

Even the latest OM of 28 1 2013 which is based on a HPC report (more powerful then Pay Commission Report) - acceoted by Cabinet- announced by PM in parliament etc clearly says in its para 5, that in so far as pre 2006 pensioners are concerned, Rule 49 remains where it was and it is UNCHANGED so far.....

EVEN GOD CAN NOT SAVE YOU ( it is not my wish or anyone's wish), TRUTH IS HARSH..... that is why I had been cautioning right from day one----

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF RULE 49 IS NOT TO BE "IMAGINED" as if it is available on a platter to us.....- IT HAS TO BE PROVED.... THE GIVT HAD TO BEND AND EXTEND IT RETROSPECTIVELY BY CHANGNG THE DATE OF EFFECT FROM 2 9 2008 TO 1 1 2006 BECAUSE OF RETD COM OFFICERS AND LATER THEY HAD TO EXTEND THE SAME TO "TRISANKU PENSIONERS".....

So this has to be quoted with documentation as a precedence for recognizing the INJUSTICE ISSUE to the courts and the plead for equal treatment among equals among the homogenous class of pensioners on either side of datum of revision......

MUCH DEPENDS ON OUR COUNSELS AND CONVINICING THE COURT OF LAW.....

PL DO NOT IGNORE THE HPC REPORT EFFECT/ OM 28 JAN 2013 PARA 5 EFFECT......

Sorry for some frank remarks... bit they are required to wake ourselves up instead of being over-confident or complacent...

SO OUR CASE HAS TO BE WELL PRESNETED- WELL ARGUED ......A DIFFICULT SITUATION BUT NOT THAT IT CAN NOT BE WON.....SHD WIN ON GROUNDS OF EQUALITY AMONG EQUALS AMONG THE HOMOGENOUS CALSS OF PENSIONERS.........

Regards,
vnatarajan

dnaga57
02-09-2013, 08:15 AM
Respected VN sir
Thank you for your analysis, elucidation.
I think - as I have quoted in earlier mails - even 6 CPC report carries historical data of all modifications to pension rules ( like 30 to 33, 50% etc) were applied universally on pre & post pensioner, but only from the date of implementation & not retrospectively.
All pensioners were eligible for changes, the financial benefit from a uniform cut-off date. Our case is to maintain this practice -in line with pensioners being a homogeneous group .
All pensioners to get full pension from 1-1-2006, in line with the above
I think PNji is well briefed of the same, thus briefing our lawyer accordingly in presenting the case
I would suggest-request not to do too much of analysis even in a 'private forum'' -it does not help, but may cause otherwise
Regards

vnatarajan
02-09-2013, 08:32 AM
My experience is pensioners' don't listen when cautioned in time.
28 Jan 2013 OM cd be a detractor.... especially when para 5 had been specifically brought in thru a Cab Decision.... THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF...
Pl do not compare earlier CPC implementation orders with current SCPC orders...
This is the first time separate OMs were issued as "EXEC INSTRUCTIONS for pre and post 2006 retirees dt 1 and 2 Sept 2006...
(However I am not an affected pensioner..... but I am a well-wisher...)
SO OVER-CONFIDENCE must be avoided.....
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
03-09-2013, 07:11 PM
Dear Shri VN,Others. I was not subscribing to this thread for quite some time. Today, when I opened it, I found a lively discussion going on. I am one of those who had been associated with the issue at hand namely, full pension at 20 yrs plus qualifying service. Let me remind every one that the issue generated from what is written there in item 12 of the Resolution dated 28.8.2008,duly accepted by the Union Cabinet, which I reproduce below, for convenience sake :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 prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. Please note that here there is no mention that revised pension would be subject to reduction on pro rata basis if if qualifying service is less than 33 yrs.However, DOP OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 amended or modified this formula completely. It was this fact on which basis the case in CAT - PB was preferred by Shri Pratap Narain and others. Without any hesitation, it can be inferred that the prayer to the hon.ble CAT-PB has been made that the revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, when computed according to this formula, reduction in pension on pro rata basis, is not legally correct and should be struck down. I am certain, drawing any other conclusion,on the this case, would not at all be factual and correct.

Imayan
03-09-2013, 08:11 PM
I agree with kanaujiaml.
That is the correct and legalistic view.
Good intentions of the Govt. as per resolution dt. 28.8.2008 cannot be highjacked by OMs dt. 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008.
In any case, OM dt. 28.1.2013 is an after-thought.
I think, Legal Counsel who is aware of these inconsistencies , would have to argue appropriately.
PN will take care of this when the contempt case comes before Pr. CAT , I am sure.

Imayan

vnatarajan
04-09-2013, 08:02 AM
I have already explained my views on the matter and cautioned on the grey area.
POLICY DIRECTIVE APPROVED BY CABINET IS NOTIFIED THRU GAZETTE,
If no details on QS are specifically mentioned, it doesn't mean that it shd be 20 yrs.
EXTANT RULES WILL STAND UNMODIFIED.

Govt has not hijacked any decision pl.......
How many repeat "how many" OMs of 3rd Oct 2008 are quashed?

MY CAUTIONING ON OM OF 29 JAN 2013 PARA 5 AND ALSO 8 MUST BE WELLL UNDERSTOOD PL.
WHY IS IT TOUCHING RULE 49 SPECIFICALLY...... AT THIS POINT OF TIME.....IN JAN 2013? WE HAVE FAILED TO GET A COPY OF THE HPC REPORT NOR ANY DETAILS OF CAB NOTE PUT UP BY THE DEPT OF ESM WELFARE OF MOD WHICH IS A VITAL DOCUMENT IN THIS REGARD.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
04-09-2013, 09:24 AM
I have already explained my views on the matter and cautioned on the grey area.
POLICY DIRECTIVE APPROVED BY CABINET IS NOTIFIED THRU GAZETTE,
If no details on QS are specifically mentioned, it doesn't mean that it shd be 20 yrs.
EXTANT RULES WILL STAND UNMODIFIED.

Govt has not hijacked any decision pl.......
How many repeat "how many" OMs of 3rd Oct 2008 are quashed?

MY CAUTIONING ON OM OF 29 JAN 2013 PARA 5 AND ALSO 8 MUST BE WELLL UNDERSTOOD PL.
WHY IS IT TOUCHING RULE 49 SPECIFICALLY...... AT THIS POINT OF TIME.....IN JAN 2013? WE HAVE FAILED TO GET A COPY OF THE HPC REPORT NOR ANY DETAILS OF CAB NOTE PUT UP BY THE DEPT OF ESM WELFARE OF MOD WHICH IS A VITAL DOCUMENT IN THIS REGARD.

vnatarajan

Dear Shri VN. I entirely agree with you.The CAT-PB Judgment dated 1.1.2011 has quashed OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, in respect of amendment/modification done in pension fixation formula for pre 2006 retirees and further asked refixation of revised pension in terms of item 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 and not in terms of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. This view was accepted by the hon.ble Dehi High Court and latter SLP preferred by UOI was also dismissed by the hon.ble Supreme Court.I may once again reproduce what has been said in item 12 of Resolution dated 29.8.2008 here for emphasis sake : 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 prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. What I meant to say and I would repeat that here the words "reduction in pension on pro rata basis would be done" do not appear. It is also true that here words do not appear that "reduction in pension on pro rata basis would not be done ."

dnaga57
04-09-2013, 01:46 PM
Dear Sirs
While I appreciate, admire your interest, contribution, knowledge on the subject, may I request that we desist any further discussion in the open forum.
Any such discussion could be within a select group of individuals.
Thanks for understanding
Regards

vnatarajan
04-09-2013, 03:10 PM
Dear Shri MLK ji/Shri D Naga/ Others Interested,

No worry - we must learn to see how others look at our cases....
I APPRECAIATE AND FULLY AGREE WITH SHRI MLK JI'S REMARKS...

BUT NONE CAN HIDE THAT IN THE SAME GAZ RESOLUTION, AT SL NO 3 , THE ANNEXURE HAD NOTIFIED FIRMLY:

"THE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION ON COMPLETION OF 2O YEARS OF QUALIFYING SERVICE WILL TAKE EFFECTIVELY PROSPECTIVELY .............."

OM dtd 3 Oct 2008 Part 2 - carrying clarifications/ modifications on OM of 2nd Sept 2008 is yet to be dealt with. In the meanwhile OM of 28 Jn 2013 is carrying something undesirable at para 5...and also 8....

We must note all our reliefs are coming only thru HPCs concerning OROP or enhancement of Military Pensions....
IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR APPLYING THE 20 YR LIMIT WEF 1 1 2006 FOR "RETD COM OFFICERS" BASED ON RECO OF COM OF OROP THAT THE OM OF 3RD OCT 2008 PT II AMENDMENT OF PROSPECTIVE DATE WAS SHIFTED BACKWARDS TO 1 1 2006.... This only gave us the ground for venturing to seek further backward application of the date to cover pre 1 1 2006...... (I at least believe so....... Others may have different perceptions....this precedence is a documented one..... )

As Shri Naga is cautioning again and agin, I am stopping here ---I have more points to raise.... but I do not want to raise them here...

MY SUGGESTIN WAS TO STRENGTHEN THE CASE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE......

Bye.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
17-09-2013, 09:34 AM
TODAY 17 TH SEPT 2013, THE 20 YR PLUS CASE OA 1165/2011 WITH TWO OTHERS IS COMING UP IN PR BENCH CAT DELHI FOR FINAL HEARING.

ALL THE BEST FOR THE PRE 2006 PLUS 20 YRS PENSIONERS.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-09-2013, 07:31 AM
NDH is 9th Oct 2013.
All the best.
vnatarajan

Imayan
08-10-2013, 09:25 AM
Breaking News-- as published in railway Pensioner's portal:

“SLP filed by UOI in 3 other cases on Modified Parity (connected with SLP which had already been dismissed on 29-7-2013 - came up for hearing on 7-10-2013 in SC. The hearing was adjourned to 1-11-2013 without admitting the SLP. Request from ASG for stay on contempt proceedings was refused by the Bench.”

If UOI does not issue orders effective from 1.1.2006 before 10.10.2013, they will face the contempt case.
They have only 2 days in their oxygen tank !!!!

Gopal Krishan
08-10-2013, 04:02 PM
Dear Imayan
With reference to this thread kindly see post No. 117 by Shri VN Sahib.
Gopal Krishn

Imayan
08-10-2013, 05:19 PM
My reference is re: SLP filed in Supreme Court---orders passed on 7.10.2013
As the case has not been admitted yet, case number is not available.

vnatarajan
09-10-2013, 04:21 PM
Query/ developmnts are related to the "Injustice to......" thread.
Must be dealt there to avoid confusion.
(They have filed a Review Petition........shall try heaven and eartn to overcone Contempt damage.....they may succeed also......)
AFTER ALL THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF BULL-DOZING EVEN THE APEX COURT'S DIRECTIVES IN THE RETD MAJ GEN SPS VAINS CASE WHOSE CONTEMPT PETITION/ ORDERS PASSED LONG BACK..VIZ in CP 64/2009 IS YET TO CONCLUDE....COMING UP IN HON SC ON 17TH OCT2013...
vn

Gopal Krishan
09-10-2013, 05:42 PM
VN Sir is always right. My experience in the Government service has been that if some one/group knocks the door of any Court it becomes a prestige issue for one and all in power. Even if the contention is genuine it is decided to contest the same. No body is to lose any penny as the expenditure is to be paid out of the taxes collected from the public.
Gopal Krishan

tymanagoli
11-10-2013, 01:06 PM
Dear Sirs,

Any idea what happened to this CAT PB OA on 9th Oct 2013?

Regards, Managoli

Imayan
11-10-2013, 01:58 PM
Adjourned to 27.11.2013

tymanagoli
11-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Dear IMayan,

I thought this date is for contempt case CP. 158/2012 Central Govt. S.A.G.(S-29).
Or both are on same date? Pl clarify.

Regards, Managoli

Imayan
11-10-2013, 04:22 PM
OA 1165/2011 is posted for 22.11.13 in CAT,PB

sundarar
26-10-2013, 09:59 PM
ABOVE JUDGMENT EXTRACTS:

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench

OA No.2461/2012

Reserved on: 08.05.2013
Pronounced on:30.07.2013


... the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA seeking the following main relief(s):-
.....
(ii) To issue directions to the respondents to re-fix their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees only in order to bring them at par with the Post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
.......
23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Member (A)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(pl chk original from CAT Website pl)

vnatarajan

The aforesaid CAT Judgment brought out the significant quotes of D.S. Nakara Judgment of HSC, which are reproduced hereunder for kind information.

‘is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula foi computatiŕn of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date’?

‘would. diffeiential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being
violative of Article 14’?

The CAT Judgment narrates further -
"The (Nakara) judgment has commenced by tracing the liberalization of pension scheme from the first CPC (1946-47). which
enhanced the age of retirement uniformly to 58 years for all services and the scale of pension should be 1/80 of the emoluments for each year of service, subject to a li1rf 35/80 with a ceiling of Rs.8000/- per year for 35 years service. Marching on from there in 1979, the Government of India made the formula of computation of pensiŕn liberalized but it was confined to the government servants who retired or ater March :31,1979 and tho who retired prior to the specified date would not be entitled to the benefits of the liberalized pension formula. This judgment recognizes- that under
Article 14 of the Constitution, a reasnable classification is permitted for the purpose of legislation but it must be founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the qbject sought to be ačhieved by the statute.

These questions have been answered in paragraphs 46 & 65 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:—
“46. ........ Pension is thus not an incentive but a reward for past. service. And a revision of an existing benefit stands on a different footing than a new retiral benefit. And even ‘in case of new retiral benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 past seńlce was taken into consideration.’ Recall at this stage the method adopted when pay-stales are revised. Revised pay-scales are Introduced from a certain date. All existing employees are’ brought on to the revised scales by adopting a theory of fltments and increments for past service. In other ‘uÔrds,. benefit of revised scale is not limited to those /flI\ who enter service subsequent to the date X fixed for introducing revised scales but the benefit is extended to ‘all those in service prior to that date.

This is just and fair. Now if pension as we view It, is some kind of retirement wages for past service, can it be denied to those who retired earlier, revised retirement benefits being available to future retirees only. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the Court by its approach would be making the scheme retroactive, became: It is implicit In theory of wages."

"65. That is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of soclo-economic justice, the socialist Republic :d welfare State which we endeavour to set up. and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who. retired when emolumen wreV comparatively low and are - exposed to vagaries of continuous rising prices, the falling of the rupee consequent upon inflatión 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 ‘‘ classifi cation being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects Sought to be achieved by giant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised ‘Z’ being thoroughly arbitra,, we , are, of the view that the eligibililty for liberalised pension scheme of ‘being: in servjce on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in impugned. memoranda,
......
......
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".

The CAT Judgment dated 30.7.2013, keeping in view the above D.S. Nakara spirit, has observed that "the question may arise here that the judgment in D.S. Nŕkara’s case (supra) will be confined only to the petitioners therein or what has been enunciated here is a general principle and the same will he universal application. However, a plain reading of the judgment in D S Nakara’s case (supra) would reveal that what has been arbitrary and discrimhiatory is that the libersiization of pension will be effective from the date from which it is granted to the other applicants. Therefore, it is applicable".

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND THE OPERATING PARA OF THE CAT JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2013, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT A PRE-2006 PENSIONER WITH A MINIMUM 20 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE IS ENTITLED TO GET HIS PENSION REVISED BY TAKING FULL PENSION (50%) WHICH IS GRANTED UPON 20 YEARS OF COMPLETED SERVICE FOR POST-2006 RETIREES AND THEREBY BROUGHT AT PAR WITH THE POST-2006 RETIREES WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF 1.1.2006.

Para 4.1 and Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 need to be modified in line with the above, for the purpose of revision of pension in respect of all pre-2006 pensioners.

Imayan
28-10-2013, 05:55 PM
Sir,
Judgement was pronounced on 30.7.13.
Almost 3 months are over.
Have those 6 Scientists been given full pension for service which was less than 33 years ?

sundarar
02-11-2013, 12:57 PM
SIGNIFICANT EXTRACTS OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 5.3.2013 (CWP 10153 OF 1995)

"What is the nature of the change made by the amendment? Is it by way of upward revision of the existing pension scheme? Then obviously the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara's case would apply. If it is held to be a new retiral benefit or a new scheme then the benefit of it cannot be extended to those who retired earlier.

8. Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The formula adopted for determining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of pension. In D.S. Nakara's case (supra) the change in the formula of determining average emoluments by reducing 36 months' service to 10 months' Service as measure of pension, made with a view to giving a higher average, Civil Writ Petition No. 10153 of 1995 [5 ]
was regarded as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. On the basis of same reasoning it may be said that any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regarded as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme.

Amidst such an upward revision of the existing pension scheme by delinking 33 years q.s. and by replacing it with 20 years service for pension for post-2006 retirees,
in line with the D.S. Nakara spirit, the pre-2006 pensioners retired prior to 1.1.2006 with a minimum 20 years qualifying service, the pre-revised basic pension
can be recalculated, ie. 50% of emoluments (last drawn or 10 months average emoluments whichever is beneficial) and thereafter applying with multiplication factor of 2.26 under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008, the revised basic pension entitled from 1.1.2006 can be derived. In case such a revised basic pension is lower than 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale+50% of grade pay applicable corresponding to the pre-revised scale, then the said Minimum Guaranteed Revised Pension in full shall become the revised basic pension.

I think the above methodology could ensure D.S. Nakara spirit in the case of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service, for deriving basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

sundarar
02-11-2013, 04:09 PM
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
In continuation of my previous post, the significant extracts of the CAT Ernakulam Judgment is furnished hereunder for information:

"M.O Inasu vs Union Of India on 16 August, 2013
CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 715 of 2012
w i t h
Original Application No. 1051 of 2012
Friday, this the 16th day of August, 2013

.........
.........
Prayers:
..........
(ii)One is entitled for full pension on completion of 20 years service instead of 33 years. Applicant has more
than 26 years of service and as such he is entitled for full pension;

.......
.......

5. The respondents' contention is that even though para 4.2 of O.M. dated 01.09.2008 [which reiterates para 12 (supra)] states that an employee who retired from service on or before 01.01.2006 is eligible to get pension equivalent to 50% of the last pay drawn, it does not refer to or permit waiver of the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for becoming eligible for full pension.
.......
.........
7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under.
8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of
pension within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

It appears that the Judgment has directed to fix revised pension either at 50% of REVISED PAY proportionate to the length of service corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired i. e. full parity, or at 50% of MINIMUM OF PAY BAND plus grade pay corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired (not proportionate to length of service), WHICH EVER IS HIGHER.

For information. Best Regards

sundarar
02-11-2013, 06:28 PM
5. The respondents' contention is that even though para 4.2 of O.M. dated 01.09.2008 [which reiterates para 12 (supra)] states that an employee who retired from service on or before 01.01.2006 is eligible to get pension equivalent to 50% of the last pay drawn, it does not refer to or permit waiver of the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for becoming eligible for full pension.
.......
.........
[/QUOTE]

The 6th Pay Commission did recommend in this regard as follows:
"Pension
11.33 Fitment formula recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.

11.35 Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension".

While implementing the aforesaid recommendation at para 11.33, 50% of Grade Pay allowed for serving employees, was denied to pre-2006 pensioners, who have, instead, been provided with 40% of pre-revised basic pension as fitment benefit.
The para 11.35 invariably applies to all pensioners, viz. pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Whereas, while implementing the recommendation, the pensioners were divided with a cut-off date with reference to retirement, which is against the D.S. Nakara spirit. The settled position for treating the pensioners as a single homogenous class, has conveniently been ignored.

tymanagoli
25-11-2013, 10:32 AM
OA 1165/2011 is posted for 22.11.13 in CAT,PB

Any news on this OA 1165/2011 on 22-11-2013?

Imayan
25-11-2013, 10:52 AM
NDH for OA 1165/2011 is 19/12/2013

vnatarajan
25-11-2013, 06:53 PM
Yes pl.The same link-delink-divide-confuse technology is being adopted> Last minute communications are effected to seek adjournments. The venue of justice are magnanimous to give repeated opportunities to the erring authorities to come to the right track....may be at what time?..... Let us see what more excuse can be given on 19 12 2013..... SAME AGAIN, AS I CAN FORESEE....

vnatarajan

tymanagoli
21-12-2013, 08:44 AM
NDH for OA 1165/2011 is 19/12/2013

Hi,
Any update for this OA on 19.12.2013?

Imayan
21-12-2013, 09:47 AM
"Heard on 19.12.13,when UOI wanted to link the case
in SC in case of SLP 118339-341 etc. but on
opposing by petitioners advocate, Court
declined it. Thereupon, UOI advocte asked
for time to submit some papers and Court
adjourned the case granting time but with
directive that then, there would be a final
hearing in the case."
NDH : 23.1.2014

Gopal Krishan
21-01-2014, 05:21 PM
Ref post No. 130. Is that the final decision? Any appeal etc.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
21-01-2014, 06:36 PM
You have to know what happens on 23 Jan 2014..... day after tomorrow....VN

nchandras
24-01-2014, 03:30 PM
Any update on the outcome of the hearing on 23 Jan 14 (yesterday) in the Court

vishwapurna
25-01-2014, 08:59 AM
Reply from Mr.Pratap is as follows;"The usual tricks are being played by the bureaucracy. When our case was called, two new Advocates got up to say that the earlier Advocate has been changed and they had not received the file. They therefore wanted an adjournment. This was opposed by our Advocate who pleaded that at best the case may be taken up for arguments on Monday, with which the Bench initially agreed. However, on persistent pleading by the Advocates, the Bench allowed only one weeks time and the case will now come up on 30th Jan."

tymanagoli
01-02-2014, 11:12 AM
Any news on 30thJan2014?

vishwapurna
03-02-2014, 05:10 PM
Mr.Pratap Narayan has replied as follows: "The case has been fixed for 27th Feb on the pleading of new GOI Advocates to allow more time to go through voluminous papers connected with the case."

Imayan
20-02-2014, 08:31 AM
Latest "Magic Man" in the country is Shri Rahul Gandhi.
Be it, increaring LPG cylinders to 12 , OROP etc. his intervention helps---towards solving problems. We have seen this happening now....

Why can't senior citizen pensioners / pensioner's associations at New Delhi meet him and request his intervention towards sloving our sufferings.
Wonders can happen !

Imayan

vishwapurna
01-03-2014, 04:06 PM
Mr.Pratap Narayan has replied as follows: On the GOI Advocate's plea of suffering from fever, the case has now been scheduled for 26th March.

vishwapurna
04-04-2014, 08:26 AM
Pratap Narayan writes: The case has been adjourned to 30-4-2014 at the request of GOI Advocates as their Special Senior Advocate was tied up in High Court.

tymanagoli
01-05-2014, 01:51 PM
Pratap Narayan writes: The case has been adjourned to 30-4-2014 at the request of GOI Advocates as their Special Senior Advocate was tied up in High Court.

Any idea what happened to this OA on 30thApril2014?

vishwapurna
06-05-2014, 08:21 AM
Mr.Pratap Narayan has replied as follows:

There is some confusion about the cases in this correspondence. Initially the correspondence was with reference to to the full pension after 10/20 years service but later it got mixed with the issue of modified parity. I am sorry for this mix up. The position with respect to the two cases is as under:
(i) Full pension after 10/20 years service: On 26th March, GOI Advocate tried to seek deferment of consideration of this case by linking it with the case of S30 pensioners for full parity/revision of scale on par with S31/S32, currently under consideration of the full bench of CAT on being remanded by Delhi High Court. This was strongly opposed by our Advocate as being misleading and erroneous as the issue of minimum qualifying service for full pension was not at all involved in that case. Consequently, on our Advocate's suggestion, GOI was directed to file an Affidavit about their assertion that this case is linked with the outcome of another case of S 30 Pensioners, currently under consideration of the Full Bench of CAT.
They have since filed an Affidavit running into 321 pages including Annexures, a copy of which was given to our Advocate only on 15th, thus not allowing us enough time to go through and counter it effectively. When the case was called on 17th April, our Advocate mentioned this point and wanted a short adjournment to enable us to file our response. The case has now been scheduled for 23rd May (the earliest date available).
A quick reading of the GOI Affidavit shows that it is a poor attempt to mislead the Bench by linking it with S 30 OA, which was remanded by Delhi High Court to CAT. This is because S 30 case is for full parity (point to point) in fixation of pension with post 1-1-2006 pensioners as also seeking a higher grade on par with S 31scale. The issue of 33 years qualifying service does not figure there at all. We have now prepared our Counter Affidavit demolishing their false contention and hope to file it much in the next 2 days, much ahead of the NDH on 23rd May.
(ii) Modified Parity: When the case was called before the full Bench on 30th April, GOI Advocate mentioned that a Curative Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court which was also scheduled for consideration on that very day by circulation before a 5 Judge headed by CJI. In view of this, the case has now been put off to 15th May. The Curative Petition has since been dismissed with the result that CAT verdict on this issue has attained legal finality. Hopefully, there would be some positive development in the Contempt proceedings on that day.

Imayan
18-05-2014, 05:07 PM
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.2461/2012 had pronounced on:30.07.2013 the following order by
Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)

"….revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is
granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the
post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order."

There were 6 applicants in this case-- all were ex-officials having retired from Dept. of Space and ISRO.Names of these Senior Scientists Grade "H" are S/shri R.C.Garg,Pranav S.Desai,V.S.Iyengar, N.S.Pillai,A.R.Dasgupta and Nilamani Mohanty. Shri R.C.Garg's address is shown as New Delhi and shri nilamani Mohanty as Bhuvaneswar.Other 4 pensioners are from Ahmedabad.
Is there any news whether revised PPOs were issued in their case as per the above Judgement dt. 30.7.2013 of CAT PR. ?
Can any of our friends find out the current status / development in this case by contacting these pensioners ?

sundarar
20-05-2014, 06:47 AM
The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations
of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and
thus reads:
"S. No. Recommendation Decision of Government
12 ıAll past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the
pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as
pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for
other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of
conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness allowance as dearness pension/ dearness
pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of
merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006.
This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing
employees. The fixation of pension 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. (5.1.47)"

The CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 had clearly ordered
"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory
OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon
clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation
was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we
accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees
w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our
observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears
thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

ALL PRE-2006 RETIREES MENTIONED IN BOTH THE ABOVE ORDERS, INCLUDE PRE-2006 RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE ALSO, AND AS SUCH, THEIR PENSION ALSO SHALL BE RE-FIXED IN THE MANNER STIPULATED VIDE 12 OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008. THE MINIMUM QUALIFYING SERVICE VIZ. 33 YEARS FOR FULL MINIMUM PENSION IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED. THE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION BASED ON LENGTH IN QUALIFYING SERVICE, VIZ. LESS THAN 33 YEARS, ORDERED VIDE OM 3.10.2008 AND LATEST OM DATED 28.1.2013 SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.

Major (Retd.) S K Jain
20-05-2014, 10:40 AM
Dear Sundarar Sir,

I fully agree to your views. With the quashing of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 there will be no authority as on 01/01/2006 for pro-rata reduction of Modified Parity of pension. As per CAT order Govt. is supposed to re-fix pension of all pre-2006 retiree in accordance with Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and Resolution Item No 12 does not stipulate any pro-rata reduction.

Imayan
20-05-2014, 06:12 PM
I also agree.
Sundarar's view is unshakable.
Will GOI do it ?
Have they done it on receipt of CAT PR's Orders dt.30.7.2013 ?
Can someone who is serving / had retired from Dept. of Space /ISRO throw some more light on this ?

Hoping for the past (best ) news !

Imayan

vnatarajan
21-05-2014, 08:09 PM
No action appears to have been taken in terms of the judgment.
Perhaps Contempt Application may be in the offing.
vnatarajan

sundarar
21-05-2014, 09:22 PM
The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations
of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and
thus reads:
"S. No. Recommendation Decision of Government
12 ıAll past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the
pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as
pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for
other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of
conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness allowance as dearness pension/ dearness
pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of
merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006.
This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing
employees. The fixation of pension 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. (5.1.47)"

The CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 had clearly ordered
"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory
OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon
clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation
was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we
accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees
w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our
observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears
thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

ALL PRE-2006 RETIREES MENTIONED IN BOTH THE ABOVE ORDERS, INCLUDE PRE-2006 RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE ALSO, AND AS SUCH, THEIR PENSION ALSO SHALL BE RE-FIXED IN THE MANNER STIPULATED VIDE 12 OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008. THE MINIMUM QUALIFYING SERVICE VIZ. 33 YEARS FOR FULL MINIMUM PENSION IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED. THE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION BASED ON LENGTH IN QUALIFYING SERVICE, VIZ. LESS THAN 33 YEARS, ORDERED VIDE OM 3.10.2008 AND LATEST OM DATED 28.1.2013 SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.

In continuation of my above post, I submit the following:


The HON. KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT of 4th June 2013 in the case of M.O.Innasu
ordered as follows:
"the Tribunal has not focused its attention pointedly to that, as also, the other relevant clauses as are pointed out by the
applicants from out of the Resolution of the Government and also the consequential O.M. Under such situation, the ends of justice call for a re-hearing of all the relevant issues at the hands of the learned Tribunal".

The Hon. High Court directed the parties to mark appearance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 26th June, 2013. The Tribunal was requested to re-hear the applicants and the establishment as regards the two original applications, viz., O.A.No.715 of 2012 and O.A.No.1051 of 2012. The Hon. High Court has concluded that "Since the applicants appear to be fairly senior by age, the Tribunal will make earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter, finally, at the earliest".

Subsequent outcome is yet to be known.

The Hon. High Court in their Order observed that "the original petitions by two pre-2006 retirees were filed challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing their claim to revised rates of pension on the basis of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission to the extent accepted by the Union of India and covered by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Resolution No.38/37/08- P& PW(A) dated 29th August, 2008. The Tribunal proceeded as if the short point that arose for decision before it was as to whether pre-2006 retirees can claim 50% of the minimum of the pay in the relevant Pay Band, plus Grade Pay, even if they do not have 33 years of qualifying service.
The entire discussion and the conclusion of the Tribunal revolve on that pivot. But, on a deeper consideration of the contents of the Annexure to the aforesaid Resolution of the Government of India, we are of the view that what ought to have been juxtaposed for appropriate consideration are the entries at Sl. Nos. 2 & 12 of that Resolution, which is also supported by the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in furtherance of that Resolution of the Ministry concerned. Pointedly, it needs to be noted that clause 12 deals with grant of fitment benefit to past pensioners and that the said recommendation was accepted by the Government with certain modifications. The said clause has different limbs. It operates in such a manner that it takes care of multiple situations. There are certain sentences therein which are fundamentally exclusionary in content. We are of the view that in the result, impugned orders are set aside".

As far as full Minimum Revised Pension is concerned, the Sl. No. 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 shall be implemented to all pre-2006 retirees with 10/20 years Qualifying service. As far as the fixing of their pre-revised pension as on 1.1.2006 is concerned, their pay at the time of retirement shall be re-fixed first as on 1.1.2006 for deriving 50% of such a notionally re-fixed pay, as revised pension, subject to the provision that such a 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, in accordance with the aforesaid Resolution dated 29.8.2008.
The D.S.Nakara case spirit intends the same and similar methodology while fixing the pension in accordance with the revised structure for both pre- and post- pensioners. The need for notional re-fixation of last pay drawn w.e.f. 1.1.2006 arises owing to the reduction in qualifying service prescribed for pension from 33 years to 10/20 years w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Major (Retd.) S K Jain
22-05-2014, 10:46 AM
Dear Sir,

I would like to submit that Resolution Item No. 2 relates to para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report. It is quite clear from a plain reading of para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report that this para contains recommendations in r/o future retirees hence not applicable to Past Pensioners. Only two paragraphs (5.1.46 and 5.1.47) of 6CPC report relates to Past Pensioners ie pre-2006 retirees. Hence only the Resolution Item No. 12 is applicable to Past Pensioners.

sundarar
22-05-2014, 07:18 PM
Dear Sir,

I would like to submit that Resolution Item No. 2 relates to para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report. It is quite clear from a plain reading of para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report that this para contains recommendations in r/o future retirees hence not applicable to Past Pensioners. Only two paragraphs (5.1.46 and 5.1.47) of 6CPC report relates to Past Pensioners ie pre-2006 retirees. Hence only the Resolution Item No. 12 is applicable to Past Pensioners.

Respected Sir,
Yes, Your goodself has correctly pointed out about the para 5.1.33. At the same time, it is significant to note that at the time of implementation of this recommendation vide OM dated 2.9.2008 for future pensioners, the benefit was given prospective effect, i.e. w.e.f. 2.9.2008 only. Subsequently, the retrospective effect of 1.1.2006 was given after about one year i.e. in 2009.

The said dispensation of linkage of 33 years qualifying service recommended vide para 5.1.33, cannot be implemented only for the post-2006 pensioners and thereby involving two different manner and methodology for deriving pension of a retiree by virtue of their date of retirement, viz. pre- and post- , as per D.S. Nakara spirit.

One more aspect also is involved, ie. 10 months' average emoluments based pension fixation for pre-2006 pensioners, AND 10 months' average or last drawn emoluments (whichever is beneficial) for post-2006 pensioners, which too did not meet with the D.S. Nakara spirit.
(However, this aspect is not given the due focus so far).

Further, those pensioners of pre-1996, pre-1986, etc. with less than 33 years qualifying service, should also get covered in the final order of DOP&PW, that may be inevitable out of the anticipated CAT Judgment.

The pre-2006 pensioners with <33 years q.s. stand in the same platform, where once Shri D.S. Nakara stood, but he was affected by virtue of reduction to 10 months' average emoluments. Whereas the pre-2006 pensioners case involves the dispensation of linkage of 33 years q.s.

sundarar
22-05-2014, 10:08 PM
In continuation of my previous post, the para 2 of the CAT Lucknow Bench Judgment dated 23.3.2012 and the concluding paras 13 and 14 reproduced below may kindly be seen.

"2. The applicants are Central Government Pensioners Association and individual pensioners who have filed these OAs making out a case that those who retired prior to 1.1.2006, and those who retired after this date should not be differentiated as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Another versus SPS Vains (Retired) & Ors. (2009(1) R.S.J. Page 5) and the said discrimination amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They have further contended that it is desirable to grant complete parity in pension to all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement, though, as per 5th CPC in para 137.13, this may not be feasible straight away as the financial implications should be considered. They have also pointed out that parity was maintained in the fixation of pension on acceptance of the pay of the 4th Pay report and 5th CPC on 1.1.1996. It is also pointed out that as per the instructions issued, the consolidated pension under 5th CPC shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. It is also averred that 6th CPC effective from 1.1.2006 did not recommend that pension of even pre-1996 pensioners be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1996 by adopting the same formula as for serving employees nor it recommended absolute parity betweenpre-2006 pensioners and post-2006 pensioners. ON 1.9.2008, 6th CPC continued the system of modified parity ( by equating the pension at least to 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale plus grade pay), but the 6th CPC revised the pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006 in such a way that no benefit would accrue to majority of pensioners. On 2.9.2008, the Government issued OM for linkage of full pension with years of qualifying service to be dispensed once an employee renders minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments of last ten months, whichever is beneficial to him. This provision has been given effect from 1.1.2006 only and according to the applicants, this is contrary to the settled principle of law in the case of V.Kasturi versus Managing Director State Bank of India (1999SCC(L&S) Page 78). The Association of Pensioners had made representations to Government/Anomaly Committee to remove disparity between pre 2006 and post 2006 retirees and the matter has been discussed in various meetings of Anomaly Committee, the Government has not considered the demand of parity between pre and post 2006 retirees. Therefore, they have filed this O.A praying for the following reliefs :-

(i) Applicants may be allowed to file a single OA;
(ii) Action of respondents in not extending parity of pension between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Respondents be directed to extend to the applicants (pre-2006 pensioners) absolute parity in pension with post 2006 pensioners of the Government of India with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits".

..........

...........

"13. The contention of the applicants for differentiation of pre-2006 and post 2006 retirees notwithstanding the right of government to introduce new scheme or to withdraw the existing schemes are policy matters which cannot be gone into by the Courts and Tribunals. However, since the similar matter has been decided by the Full Bench of the Principal Bench, C.A.T. vide judgment dated 1.11.2011 in O.A.No.655 of 2010 and other connected OAs, we are bound by the decision of the Full Bench unless it has been upset by the higher judicial dispensation. The Full Bench has directed the respondents to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006 based on resolution dated 29.8.2008 and in the light of observations made above, in the preceding part of the order. Therefore, we have no option but to allow these three OAs in terms of the same order and direct the respondents to re-fix the pension of the applicants in these OAs without any discrimination between the two set of retirees.

14. All the three OAs are disposed of in the above terms. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension and pay the arrears to the applicants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs".

While the parity in general can be interpreted as grant of same and similar pension
for a pre-revised scale retiree as that of a post-2006 retiree from the corresponding revised scale, where the pre-revised pay and its corresponding revised pay happened to be the last drawn one, the significance is to be attached more to the manner and methodology in fixing the pension from 1.1.2006 for a pre-2006 and thereafter for a post-2006 pensioners. D.S. Nakara spirit does not permit two differential treatment for one single homogenous class of pensioners.

However, in reality -

A post-2006 retiree gets the benefit of considering 50% of grade pay (which grade pay is equivalent to 40% of max. of pre-revised scale), as part of pension.

A pre-2006 retiree gets only the benefit of 40% of pre-revised pension as fitment benefit.

A post-2006 retiree gets the benefit of - fixation of 50% of 10 months' average emoluments or 50% of last drawn emoluments whichever is beneficial as his basic pension.

A pre-2006 retiree got his pension fixed on the basis of 50% of 10 months' average emoluments only, irrespective of the fact whether it is beneficial or not.

A post-2006 retiree got his basic pension fixed on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service, whereas a pre-2006 pensioner got his basic pension fixed on the basis of 33 years qualifying service. In other words, pro-rata if the service happened to be <33 years.

These differential treatments need to be addressed by applying the D.S. Nakara spirit so as to ensure Judicious revision of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

tymanagoli
22-05-2014, 11:28 PM
Thanks sri.Sundarar, we could not agree more with you.

At the cost of repeatation, I would like to mention the following:

1. For post-2006 retirees, the pay is fixed first and then the pension is determined as per the gazette notification/resolution
2. For pre-2006 retirees, as per the SPC, the notional pay as on 1.1.2006 is not determined before arriving at the pension amount but the pension is fixed as per a formula/table using the existing pension. It must be noted here that the existing pension is already a proportionately reduced number for < 33 years QS. The SPC has recommended and govt. has accepted through the resolution that if this calculated pension is less than the minimum of the grade from which the pensioner had retired, then the pension has to be fixed at at-least the minimum
3. Now, having calculated the pension for pre-2006 retirees with < 33 years of QS using already the pro-rated number, is it just to reduce/pro-rate it again? Reducing again from the minimum, is it not against the natural justice?
4. The govt. has already implemented the dispensation of minimum 33 years of QS from 1.1.2006 even though it implemented the same initially from 2.9.2008 by issuing the appropriate orders. Is it not injustice to pre-2006 retirees for not extending the benefit to them?
5. If this multiple pro-rating was already meted to pre-96 and pre-86 retirees, is it not time to rectify and do justice? If this justice is denied to all pre-2006 retirees even now, multiple pro-rating may continue post-2016 also.
6. Hope the principle of natural justice and Nakara principle will prevail and justice will be done to all pre-2006 pensioners sooner or later. Hope the judges/authorities will keep the age factor of old pensioners in mind and do the justice.

nchandras
23-05-2014, 05:14 PM
The explanation given, above at the cost of repetition is the whole point. Natural justice as defined in law and constitution is that no one can be punished twice for the same crime. If a pensioners inability to achieve 33 yrs of service can be called a crime.
Further, 6th pay commission without specifying post 2006 or pre 2006 have recommended 50 % pension on the last pay drawn. Thus Govt (Babus in the Ministries who think they will NEVER RETIRE) has divided it to pre 2006 and post 2006 while issuing Govt order.
How can the pensioner whose pension has already been reduced due to prev rule of 33 yrs qualifying service for full pension prior to 2006 CAN BE PUNISHED AGAIN in 6th pay commission pension by reducing the pension in relation to similarly placed persons of pre 2006 with 33 yrs serrvice.
This point alone in any court will give justice to all pre 2006 pensioners with less than 33 yrs service. Any other point made, will merely confuse the court and will give ammunition to the Babus to confuse the court while filing reply affidavits. Lawyers of the pensioners will be forced to clarity other points while main issue of REPEATED REDUCTION IN PENSION WILL BE LOST IN THE DIN OF THE ARGUMENTS

nchandras
25-05-2014, 10:55 AM
Ref Mr Pratap Narainji post on the Court case of 6 May 14 8.21 AM post

The case came up for hearing on 23 May 14. Delinking of the issue with curative petition and S 29 case was also to be filed before next hearing ie by 20 May 14. Was it done. If so during the hearing on 23 May 14 whether this affidavit challenging the attempt of GOI advocate to confuse the court was deliberated.

Can fresh light be thrown on the latest position

nchandras
25-05-2014, 03:44 PM
It is seen from CAT Pr Bench link that the case no 1165/2011 is adjourned to 28 May 14. But whether the affidavit as stated by Mr Pratap Narayanji in the post on 6 May 14 is not known and whether this new averment thro the affidavit was deliberated during the proceedings is also not known.

Can someone familiar with the case, throw light on the deliberations on 23 May 14

yenyem
28-05-2014, 10:00 PM
It is seen from CAT Pr Bench link that the case no 1165/2011 is adjourned to 28 May 14. But whether the affidavit as stated by Mr Pratap Narayanji in the post on 6 May 14 is not known and whether this new averment thro the affidavit was deliberated during the proceedings is also not known.

Can someone familiar with the case, throw light on the deliberations on 23 May 14

Today this case has been adjourned to18.7.2014

nchandras
28-05-2014, 11:00 PM
Thanks for the feedback on next date of hearing.

I also saw today on the website of CAT. But it is not clear whether the contention that repeatedly for those having less than 33 yrs service, pension is being reduced pro rata in each paycommission was deliberated. Mr Pratap Naraiin ji in his post of 6 May 14 had stated that affidavit was to be filed before hearing on 23 May 14.
The reason for adjournment also is not known. Can someone pl throw somelight

sundarar
30-05-2014, 07:23 AM
Thanks for the feedback on next date of hearing.

I also saw today on the website of CAT. But it is not clear whether the contention that repeatedly for those having less than 33 yrs service, pension is being reduced pro rata in each paycommission was deliberated. Mr Pratap Naraiin ji in his post of 6 May 14 had stated that affidavit was to be filed before hearing on 23 May 14.
The reason for adjournment also is not known. Can someone pl throw somelight

Dear Sir, A very good point your goodself have raised about pension being reduced pro-rata in each pay commission.

I think, in the 5th CPC vide OM dated 17.12.1998, the pre-1986 pensioners were given parity with post-1996 pensioners.
While doing so, first time, the Minimum pension corresponding to 50% of bottom stage of pre-revised scale of pay was required to be prescribed, and prescribed accordingly also, which would have been meant for the pre-1986 pensioners only and there was no multiple application factors also over pre-1996 pension for different scale retirees. There was no change in the qualifying service also in between pre-1996 (including all pre-) and post-1996 pensioners. The said minimum pension was also subjected to pro-rata based on length of qualifying service, ie. less than 33 years.

The question, whether there could be a sub-minimum, when there is a prescribed Minimum pension according to the scale from which the pensioner had retired, particularly in respect of pre-1986 pensioners was however not a point of issue then, as no one raised the same then.

In the case of post-1996 pensioners, all pensioners would have got at least 50% of revised pay or pro-rata thereof based on length of their service, as their pension.

Whereas, in the 6th CPC, amidst band based revision of pay for serving employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the pre-2006 pensioners were also prescribed with a Minimum pension equivalent to 50% of Minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of Grade pay corresponding to the scale from which they retired, vide OM dated 1.9.2008. At the same time, there was no proportionate reduction from the said Minimum pension based on length of qualifying service, viz. less than 33 years

The OM dated 3.10.2008 came with an amended prescription of a Minimum pension equivalent to 50% of Minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-reivsed scale and 50% of grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale (The terminologies and/plus, etc. we can ignore for the time being).

It is the same OM dated 3.10.2008, the proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service, ie. less than 33 years qualifying service was also included which is as good as another amendment to the existing initial OM dated 1.9.2008.

In the case of post-2006 retirees, the linkage of 33 years qualifying service was dispensed with and if 10 (for CPSU absorbees, etc.)/20 years qualifying service are rendered, 50% of emoluments last drawn or 50% of 10month's average emoluments whichever is beneficial will constitute their basic pension according to the said OM.

So, once again the question, whether there could be a sub-minimum, when there is a prescribed Minimum pension according to the bottom stage of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired in respect of all pre-2006 pensioners.

This apart, application of two different methodologies in fixing the basic pension on retirement were emerged. For a pre-2006 pensioner, his basic pension on retirement was determined on the basis of 33 years or less than that. Wheras in the case of post-2006 pensioners, their basic pension on retirement is determined on the basis of 10/20 years as stated above.

In the process, the revised pension on application of single multiplication factor, viz. 2.26 only for the retirees upto S-23, naturally happened to be more than the minimum pension prescribed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 if they had rendered 33 years service.
If they had rendered less than 33 years, then the said minimum wherever higher than their existing revised pension will get reduced to pro-rata, thanks to OM dated 3.10.2008.

In the case of scale retirees of scales from S-24 onwards upto S-29, their revised pension (which also got derived on application of uniform multiplication factor of 2.26 over the pre-revised pension) naturally happened to be less than the Minimum prescribed for them, because the serving employees of those scales were prescribed with a different pay revision pattern (through an indirect multiplie higher application of multiplication factors, ie. >1,86 over bottom stage of their pre-revised scales for the prupose of deriving minimum of the payband/pay in the pay band). Even then the pro-rata continued to exist in their case also, viz. proportionate reduction from Minimum pension prescribed based on length of qualifying service.

The S-30 scale was prescribed with scale based revision pattern, so 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom stage of pre-revised scale being the minimum revised pension, which agian happened to be more than their revised pension (which was derived through a single multiplication factor of 2.26 over the pre-revised pension).

The stand with regard to pro-rata from minimum pension stand as it is even vide latest OM dated 28.1.2013 when the minimum pension was amended w.e.f. 24.9.2012.

Under the circumstances, Orders for implementation of existing CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011, as well as the forthcoming CAT Judgment (on or after 18.7.2014) will speak further. Till then, we have to wait and pray.

Best Regards

Imayan
30-05-2014, 09:19 AM
Very good analysis by Sundarar.

Notwithstanding the outcome arising out of Orders for implementation of existing CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011, as well as the forthcoming CAT Judgment (on or after 18.7.2014), these anomalies are to be brought to the notice of 7th CPC for a final re-look and reco.
i am suggesting this because the last date for suggestions/ representations to 7th CPC are to reach them before 15.7.14.

Imayan

nchandras
30-05-2014, 10:24 AM
Dear Sunderarji

Compliments to u for ur knowledge and bringing out all the facets of the case crisply.

I had, in my earlier post, had compared this pro rata reduction to the law of Natural Justice in the jurisprudence of the counrtry where None Can Be Punished Twice for the same offence. In the same analogy, in the case of pensioners with less than 33 yrs of service they are punished in each pay commission by the Babus inserting the clause of Pro rata pension (which will neither have any Govt resolution nor approval of Law Min) Thus such pensioners who were unable to complete 33 yrs service are being repeatedly beaten with lesser pension. This apart from the non application of 50 % of last pay drawn

In case, this aspect alone is brought in our affidavit to CAT before the next hearing on 18 July 14, it might open the mind of the court (hopefully)

Till then we shall wait and pray. Thanks to Mr Sunderarji once again

tymanagoli
01-06-2014, 12:07 PM
Dear Sundarar,
with ref to your post#163, you have nicely brought out the 'SUB-MINIMUM' pension issue. Thanks.
Here, I would like to point out again that for pre-2006 pensioners (including pre-86, pre-96), the pension is calculated using a formula/table with his/her existing pension number (i.e. without fixing the notional salary as on 1.1.2006 unlike post-2006 cases) and this pension number is already a reduced number for <33 years QS cases. That is to say that you start with a reduced number, apply formula/table, adjust to meet MINIMUM criteria and then to everybody's HORROR reduce it to 'sub-minimum' number for <33 years cases. I say this as 'horror' as SPC and the cabinet would not have imagined that after raising the pension to meet the MINIMUM criteria, it would be again reduced. I repeat, "the starting number/pension for < 33 years cases is already a lower number' when the new pension is sought to be arrived at.
Are we not justified in expecting the minimum pension for our grades and thus avoid feeling of humiliation?

nchandras
01-06-2014, 01:23 PM
These issues could be filed in Court, before the next date of hearing on 18 Jul 14, (if not already done) as brought out in the post on 6 May 14 that before the next date of 23 May 14 some submissions were to be included in the affidavit.

But, the case is now adjourned to 18 July, hence repeated reduction in pro rata pension if not brought to the notice of court, it can be done now. If done immediately, then the opp party will also be compelled to file their reply before 18 July since the copy will be given to opp party

sundarar
01-06-2014, 03:15 PM
Dear Sundarar,
with ref to your post#163, you have nicely brought out the 'SUB-MINIMUM' pension issue. Thanks.
Here, I would like to point out again that for pre-2006 pensioners (including pre-86, pre-96), the pension is calculated using a formula/table with his/her existing pension number (i.e. without fixing the notional salary as on 1.1.2006 unlike post-2006 cases) and this pension number is already a reduced number for <33 years QS cases. That is to say that you start with a reduced number, apply formula/table, adjust to meet MINIMUM criteria and then to everybody's HORROR reduce it to 'sub-minimum' number for <33 years cases. I say this as 'horror' as SPC and the cabinet would not have imagined that after raising the pension to meet the MINIMUM criteria, it would be again reduced. I repeat, "the starting number/pension for < 33 years cases is already a lower number' when the new pension is sought to be arrived at.
Are we not justified in expecting the minimum pension for our grades and thus avoid feeling of humiliation?

Dear Sir, A very valid question. Thanks.

There are some favourable Judgments of the Hon'ble CAT on the subject. Particularly, the CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 ordered to re-fix pension of all pre-2006 pensioners as per para 12 of Resolution dated 29.8.2008. The said Resolution as well as the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 did not prescribe any proportionate reduction in minimum revised pension based on length of qualifying service. It is the OM 3.10.2008 and subsequent OMs right upto the one dated 28.1.2013 `clarified' to that extent.

Further, we are also justified in expecting that there should be single manner and methodology for deriving the basic pension at least from 1.1.2006 in r/o pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service. While the pre-2006 pensioners' pension was derived based on 33 years qs criteria, the post-2006 pensioners are prescribed with 10/20 years qs criteria.
Whether the D.S. Nakara spirit support the differential treatment in calculation of basic pension? Notional fixation of last drawn emoluments in the revised structure to derive its 50% as basic pension from 1.1.2006 is inevitable. Though it may appear as seeking full parity with post-2006 pensionrs, the focus point shalll be on the differential treatment in calculation of pension rather than the quantum part. In such an event, there will be a disparity again. A pre-2006 retiree with less than 33 years qs by virtue of notional fixation may get more pension, than another pre-2006 retiree who retired with 33+ years qs in whose case there will be no notional fixation. The root cause lies in the fitment benefit, viz. 40% of pre-revised pension in lieu of 20% of maximum of pre-revised scale after applying 1.86 MF over pre-revised basic pension. Otherwise, application a uniform multiplication factor (3?) over 50% of bottom stage of pre-revised scale, as in the case of S-30 scale retirees, would have resolved all issues altogether.

We have to wait till the present case Judgment before concluding in either way.
Best Regards

sundarar
01-06-2014, 07:34 PM
In continuation of my previous post, I submit hereunder the extracts of the Hon. High Court Kerala Judgment dated 4.6.2013 in the case of Shri M.O.Inasu vs UOI

"7. These original petitions by two pre-2006 retirees are filed challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing their claim to revised rates of pension on the basis of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission to the extent accepted by the Union of India and covered by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Resolution No.38/37/08- P& PW(A) dated 29th August, 2008. The Tribunal proceeded as if the short point that arose for decision before it was as to whether pre-2006 retirees can claim 50% of the minimum of the pay in the relevant Pay Band, plus Grade Pay, even if they do not have 33 years of qualifying service. We see that the entire discussion and the conclusion of the Tribunal revolve on that pivot. But, on a deeper consideration of the contents of the Annexure to the aforesaid Resolution of the Government of India, we are of the view that what
ought to have been juxtaposed for appropriate consideration are the entries at Sl. Nos. 2 & 12 of that Resolution, which is also supported by the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in furtherance of that Resolution of the Ministry concerned. Pointedly, it needs to be noted that clause 12 deals with grant of fitment benefit to past pensioners and that the said recommendation was accepted by the Government with certain modifications. The said clause has different limbs. It operates in such a manner that it takes care of multiple situations. There are certain sentences therein which are fundamentally exclusionary in content. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not focused its attention pointedly to that, as also, the other relevant clauses as are pointed out by the applicants from out of the
Resolution of the Government and also the consequential O.M. Under such situation, the ends of justice call for a re-hearing of all the relevant issues at the hands of the learned Tribunal.

In the result, impugned orders are set aside and the parties are directed to mark appearance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 26th June, 2013. The Tribunal is requested to re-hear the applicants and the establishment as regards the two original applications, viz., O.A.No.715 of 2012 and O.A.No.1051 of 2012. Since the applicants appear to be fairly senior by age, the Tribunal will make earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter, finally, at the earliest".

In accordance with the above directives of the Hon. High Court, Kerala, the Hon. CAT, Ernakulam Bench ordered on 16.8.2013 as follows:

7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of
the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of
the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised
pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension
of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised
pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay
scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then
find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix
higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the
minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office
Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from
01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under.

8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order
(PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the
O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band
plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding
family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of
pension within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order".

It is significant to note from the Hon. High Court, Kerala's Judgment that S.No.2 and S.No.12 of the Resolution have been given prominence. While we are fully aware of S.No.12, the S.No.2 pertains to accepted para 5.1.33 of the 6th CPC recommendation, which indicates as follows:

"Linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficiial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/retired benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant".

Thus, there shall be no calculation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on 33 years for both pre-2006 as well as post-2006 pensioners. In view of the significance attached to S.No.2 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 also, the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service are justified in expecting that their pension shall be re-fixed in accordance with the Sl.No.2 as well as S.No. 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008. That means, their last pay drawn shall get re-fixed notionally on 1.1.2006 to derive 50% of the same as Basic Pension in line with S.No.2 of the Resolution subject to the condition prescribed vide S.No.12 of the Resolution.

Imayan
03-06-2014, 02:38 PM
We have to agitate these issues before 7th CPC for getting the benefits wef 1.1.2006.
How do we proceed further - legally and administratively ?

shajimanamel
06-06-2014, 06:27 PM
I alongwith a few officers of TRAI who had earlier retired from Government on permanent absorption in TRAI has already filed a petition in CAT Delhi against proportionate reduction in pension for pre-2006 pensioners. We retired from Group A scale before taking absorption in TRAI. It is seen that a large number of employees who had taken permanent absorption in TRAI after 1.1.2006 have been drawing very high pension than us, even LDCs are drawing about 2 times pension than us. With the implementation of VI CPC recommendations even employees with 10 years of service get full pension. It is also seen that in the case of two similarly placed officers retiring on 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 respectively the difference in pension is more than 340%. The next date of hearing of our case is 25.7.2014.
In continuation of my previous post, I submit hereunder the extracts of the Hon. High Court Kerala Judgment dated 4.6.2013 in the case of Shri M.O.Inasu vs UOI

"7. These original petitions by two pre-2006 retirees are filed challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing their claim to revised rates of pension on the basis of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission to the extent accepted by the Union of India and covered by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Resolution No.38/37/08- P& PW(A) dated 29th August, 2008. The Tribunal proceeded as if the short point that arose for decision before it was as to whether pre-2006 retirees can claim 50% of the minimum of the pay in the relevant Pay Band, plus Grade Pay, even if they do not have 33 years of qualifying service. We see that the entire discussion and the conclusion of the Tribunal revolve on that pivot. But, on a deeper consideration of the contents of the Annexure to the aforesaid Resolution of the Government of India, we are of the view that what
ought to have been juxtaposed for appropriate consideration are the entries at Sl. Nos. 2 & 12 of that Resolution, which is also supported by the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in furtherance of that Resolution of the Ministry concerned. Pointedly, it needs to be noted that clause 12 deals with grant of fitment benefit to past pensioners and that the said recommendation was accepted by the Government with certain modifications. The said clause has different limbs. It operates in such a manner that it takes care of multiple situations. There are certain sentences therein which are fundamentally exclusionary in content. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not focused its attention pointedly to that, as also, the other relevant clauses as are pointed out by the applicants from out of the
Resolution of the Government and also the consequential O.M. Under such situation, the ends of justice call for a re-hearing of all the relevant issues at the hands of the learned Tribunal.

In the result, impugned orders are set aside and the parties are directed to mark appearance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 26th June, 2013. The Tribunal is requested to re-hear the applicants and the establishment as regards the two original applications, viz., O.A.No.715 of 2012 and O.A.No.1051 of 2012. Since the applicants appear to be fairly senior by age, the Tribunal will make earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter, finally, at the earliest".

In accordance with the above directives of the Hon. High Court, Kerala, the Hon. CAT, Ernakulam Bench ordered on 16.8.2013 as follows:

7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of
the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of
the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised
pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension
of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised
pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay
scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then
find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix
higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the
minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office
Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from
01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under.

8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order
(PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the
O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band
plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding
family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of
pension within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order".

It is significant to note from the Hon. High Court, Kerala's Judgment that S.No.2 and S.No.12 of the Resolution have been given prominence. While we are fully aware of S.No.12, the S.No.2 pertains to accepted para 5.1.33 of the 6th CPC recommendation, which indicates as follows:

"Linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficiial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/retired benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant".

Thus, there shall be no calculation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on 33 years for both pre-2006 as well as post-2006 pensioners. In view of the significance attached to S.No.2 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 also, the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service are justified in expecting that their pension shall be re-fixed in accordance with the Sl.No.2 as well as S.No. 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008. That means, their last pay drawn shall get re-fixed notionally on 1.1.2006 to derive 50% of the same as Basic Pension in line with S.No.2 of the Resolution subject to the condition prescribed vide S.No.12 of the Resolution.

sundarar
06-06-2014, 08:20 PM
We have to agitate these issues before 7th CPC for getting the benefits wef 1.1.2006.
How do we proceed further - legally and administratively ?

In addition to the case discussed in previous post, there are some more favourable verdicts existing.
1. CAT PR Bench Delhi OA No.2461/2012
Shri R.C.Garg & Others vs UOI DOJ 30.7.2013

2. CAT Chandigarh Bench OA No.509/CH/2011 & 2 OAs DOJ 23.3.2012

3. CAT Bangalore Bench OA No. 167/2010
Shri N.B.Bhatt IPS (Retd.) vs UOI DOJ 25.1.2012

4. CAT Ernakulam Bench OA No. 147/2011
Shri P.K.Bhargava Pillai vs UOI DOJ 23.1.2012

OA No. 579/2013
Shri T.K.Radhakrishna Pillai vs UOI DOJ 31.1.2014


Subsequent developments with regard to the above verdicts are not known.


In general, the CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 paves way for implementation of para 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in letter and spirit.
Most of the above verdicts have the same as basis.

While the D.S. Nakara spirit involves application of same qualifying service criteria like that of post-2006 retirees for deriving basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners, in which event re-calculation of basic pension based on modified length of qualifying service for pension is inevitable, the para 12 of the Resolution is the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC, involves no proportionate reduction in minimum pension based on length of qualifying service, viz. <33 years.

We have to wait till the implementation of CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 as well as the expected Judgment of CAT PR Bench on or after 18.7.2014 in full pension case.

sundarar
07-06-2014, 09:33 PM
I alongwith a few officers of TRAI who had earlier retired from Government on permanent absorption in TRAI has already filed a petition in CAT Delhi against proportionate reduction in pension for pre-2006 pensioners. We retired from Group A scale before taking absorption in TRAI. It is seen that a large number of employees who had taken permanent absorption in TRAI after 1.1.2006 have been drawing very high pension than us, even LDCs are drawing about 2 times pension than us. With the implementation of VI CPC recommendations even employees with 10 years of service get full pension. It is also seen that in the case of two similarly placed officers retiring on 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 respectively the difference in pension is more than 340%. The next date of hearing of our case is 25.7.2014.

Welcome Sir. We wish and pray all success in your case too. Please keep participating in the discussion with your updates of the case. Thanks and Regards

vishwapurna
19-07-2014, 11:42 AM
As per Principal CAT cause list details in court No:5,NDOH for the case: OA:1165/2011 is 13.08.2014. Can somebody highlight the proceedings of the case.

sundarar
26-07-2014, 09:16 PM
I alongwith a few officers of TRAI who had earlier retired from Government on permanent absorption in TRAI has already filed a petition in CAT Delhi against proportionate reduction in pension for pre-2006 pensioners. We retired from Group A scale before taking absorption in TRAI. It is seen that a large number of employees who had taken permanent absorption in TRAI after 1.1.2006 have been drawing very high pension than us, even LDCs are drawing about 2 times pension than us. With the implementation of VI CPC recommendations even employees with 10 years of service get full pension. It is also seen that in the case of two similarly placed officers retiring on 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 respectively the difference in pension is more than 340%. The next date of hearing of our case is 25.7.2014.

Dear Sir,
May we know the outcome of hearing on 25.7.2014. If possible, please provide the case number details, to enable us to see from the CAT PR Bench Website. Thanks and Regards

vishwapurna
14-08-2014, 11:29 AM
As per Principal CAT cause list,NDOH for OA:1165/2011,MA:2353/2014,OA:247/2012,OA:2165/2011 is 29.09.2014 in court No:5.

Can some body highlight the proceedings?

vnatarajan
15-08-2014, 09:30 AM
NDH may be 29 Sept 2014. PL chk.

vishwapurna
16-08-2014, 08:42 AM
NDH may be 29 Sept 2014. PL chk.

Sir,
I have also quoted the same date as 29.09.2014 which I saw in the cause list. Can you please give any details of the case hearing?

vnatarajan
17-08-2014, 10:29 AM
OA 1165 0F 2011'

Shri PN ji informs (Extracts only pl):

......... To ensure that the application filed by me earlier, I had been to CAT on 11th and made sure that it is put on the file after our Advocate complained in writing to Joint Registrar.
Despite this, the usual story was repeated of the GOI Advocate seeking time to file their reply to a simple MA filed by us on 23rd May, a copy of which was given to him on 26th May. And despite protest by our Advocate and me, the Bench agreed to allow time and the next hearing is now fixed for 29th September....

vnatarajan

tymanagoli
18-08-2014, 12:05 AM
Respected VNji,
Having utmost respect to our judicial system, I would like to express the following:
- I am not a proponent of judicial system favoring ‘poor’ in ‘rich’ VS ‘poor’ cases whether it is speed or otherwise as far as the justice delivery is concerned. The speed of justice delivery will help though equally all.
- But in the case of ‘old pensioners’ VS ‘UOI’ cases, will it not be apt for our judiciary to look at the contenders as belonging to two un-equal parties? On one side, you have ageing pensioners with limited resources and limited energy and whose number will keep decreasing by the year (as they move on to heavenly abode) and on the other side, you have ‘chiranjeevi’ officials with almost limitless resources and time (if one set of representing officials retire, next set will take over)
- Will it not be apt to speed up the cases to reach the final conclusion through CAT/HC/HSC? If in case the judicial system in the end finds that the ‘past pensioners’ were right, many pensioners would have missed to enjoy the benefits. It would have served past pensioners in not feeling humiliated vis-ŕ-vis younger lot of pensioners. It would have served them to have the ‘legitimate’ funds to enjoy and to fund their medical expenses(thus depending less on their family members). In case the judiciary finds that the past pensioners have no case, at least that will be a settled matter and they do not live in false hopes.
- The above sentiments apply for OA 1165.
- In case of OA 655, officials having admitted the error in correct implementation of gazette notification on SPC, why to delay/deny the disbursement of money that legitimately belongs to past pensioners.
Request VNji to comment. Are there any recourses in our justice system to address this issue? I suppose, PI in PIL will not apply here.
Regards,
Managoli

vnatarajan
18-08-2014, 01:53 PM
Old Pensioners form a miniscule of the citizens of India.
In what way resolving the issue of arrears payment for old pensioners help to DRASTICALLY SYNERGISE THE JUDCIAL SYSTEM or how its prioritization is more appropriate than many other SOCIAL EVILS that are in DISPUTE before the apex court...?

SO "RECOURSE' CAN BE ARRIVED AT BY THE PRINCIPLE OF "REDUCTIO AD ABSERDUM"....

We have to grind thru.NO PIL on CG Pension possible.

vnatarajan

tymanagoli
18-08-2014, 11:49 PM
I could not agree more..
Thanks.
Managoli

sundarar
28-09-2014, 06:34 PM
The para 1 of the Common Judgment DATED 1.11.2011 while deciding the matter of 4 OAs of 2010 before the Hon. CAT PR Bench, indicated as follows:

"By this common order we propose to dispose of four connected Original Applications, as the issues involved in all are same, as is also suggested by the learned counsel representing the parties. Pleadings to the extent the same may be required to be mentioned are, however, extracted from OA No.655/2010 in the matter of Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners' Association and another v. Union of India & others".

Thus, all the subsequent Judgments thereafter in OA 655/2010 are also common Judgments in respect of all the four parties, whereby the pending 3 SLPs 36148-50/2013 in OA 655/2010 must also be having the same common issues decided by Hon. CAT PR Bench vide Order dated 1.11.2011.

Hence, citing these pending SLPs against one out of four parties in OA 655/2010 for non-implementation of the Order 1.11.2011 for re-fixing pension of all pre-2006 pensioners mainly to involve sub-judice aspect is not going to serve any purpose.

The full pension case coming up for hearing tomorrow 29.9.2014, may have to focus this particular point as to whether the benefit of common Judgment dated 1.11.2011 is implementable in respect of petitioners of the case who are non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners in OA 655/2010 in particular.

Wth the HSC's dismissal of Curative Petition filed by the DOP&PW against the Common Judgment dated 1.11.2011, the said Judgment need to be complied with, by issuance of appropriate implementation orders for all non-litigants as far as the common Judgment is concerned.

The manner of fixing pension for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service who too happen to be non-litigants as far as common Judgment is concerned, as per Govt. Resolution 29.8.2008 is already prescribed very clearly vide favourable Judgments of Hon. CAT Ernakulam Bench discussed in this Discussion thread.

NO PURPOSE WOULD SERVE IN PROLONGING THE COMMON ISSUE ANY MORE.

BEST OF LUCK TO ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

yenyem
29-09-2014, 08:21 PM
[QUOTE=vishwapurna;20226]As per Principal CAT cause list,NDOH for OA:1165/2011,MA:2353/2014,OA:247/2012,OA:2165/2011 is 29.09.2014 in court No:5.


ALL THE ABOVE CASES ARE ADJOURNED TO 26.11.2014

tymanagoli
30-09-2014, 03:36 PM
[QUOTE=vishwapurna;20226]As per Principal CAT cause list,NDOH for OA:1165/2011,MA:2353/2014,OA:247/2012,OA:2165/2011 is 29.09.2014 in court No:5.


ALL THE ABOVE CASES ARE ADJOURNED TO 26.11.2014

Any thing transpired before adjournment?

vnatarajan
02-10-2014, 04:17 PM
Extract from some report (29 9 2014 hearing at CAT)

The usual story was repeated today. GOI Advocate first
mentioned that we should be asked to file a fresh OA, in
view of having dropped the demand for full parity. Our
Advocate opposed this by saying that we have already filed
Miscellaneous Application way back in March as desired by
the Bench and a copy thereof was also given to GOI Advocate.
The Bench agreed with this and ruled that it is not
necessary to file a fresh OA.
Thereafter, GOI Advocate again mischievously mentioned that
the case of S 30 pensioners for full parity was finally
argued before the Full Bench last week and the judgement has
been reserved and we should await the same.
Our Advocate strongly opposed the same by saying that
there is no connection between the two as the question of
full pension after 10/20 years service is not involved in
that case, which is for seeking revision of the grade on par
with S 31. He also pointed out that there are already 4
verdicts on this issue by different Benches of CAT,
including one by a Single Member of the Principal Bench at
Delhi striking down the provision of proportionate reduction
as invalid in the light of quashing of OMs dated 3-10-2008
and 14-10-2008. However, the Bench decided that we should
await the full Bench verdict and postponed the next hearing
to 29-11-2014.

So you have to wait ........Perhaps CAT is not ready to conclude ......

vnatarajan

tymanagoli
02-10-2014, 05:38 PM
Thanks VNji.. Hope finally the due justice prevails..

yenyem
26-11-2014, 09:57 PM
[QUOTE=yenyem;20300]

Any thing transpired before adjournment?

ALL THE CASES ADJOURNED AGAIN TO 15.12.2014

Gopal Krishan
16-12-2014, 04:28 PM
Any progress?
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
16-12-2014, 06:09 PM
NDH 29 JAN 2015
NOW GETTING LINKED TO THE NEW JUDGMENT OF AIS30PA CASE OF FULL PARITY DELIVERED ON 20 11 2014.
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
17-12-2014, 03:40 PM
Thanks a lot, Sir
Gopal Krishan

tymanagoli
02-02-2015, 10:58 AM
Any idea what happened to this OA on 29thJan15?

sundarar
05-02-2015, 07:04 PM
Any idea what happened to this OA on 29thJan15?

Adjourned to 23.2.2015

sundarar
05-02-2015, 07:17 PM
D.S.NAKARA SPIRT NEVER GETS WATERED DOWN IN SO FAR AS THE MATTER OF PENSION IS CONCERNED.

EXTRACTS OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.W.P.No.11739 of 2007 (T) ALLOWED BY HON. HC MADRAS ON 22.12.2014
Shri N.Subramanian vs The Govt. of Tamilnadu

"The petitioner entered into service as B.T. Assistant. He was promoted as Headmaster in 1966. He
was permitted to retire voluntarily on 10.07.1983. He rendered more than 30 years of service, when
he retired voluntarily from service.

2.Accordingly, pension pay order dated 20.02.1984 was passed by the fourth respondent, by taking
into account the qualifying service as 30 years and 14 days in favour of the petitioner......

3.After his retirement in 1983, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1108, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.12.1987 giving weightage of service for five years for
the persons, who were going on voluntary retirement. Thus, the Government has liberalised the
pension scheme by giving certain benefits. The Government could have thought that by giving such
weightage more persons could leave the service.

4.Whenever, the pension scheme is liberalized by giving certain benefits, it has been well-settled by
a catena of decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in D.S.Nakara V. Union of India
reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 that the Government cannot arbitrarily fix the cut off date for the
liberalised scheme of pension.

5.The claim of the petitioner is that the weightage of 5 years in the case of voluntary retirement shall
be given to him also and the monetary benefits could be given from the date of issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.1108, P & AR Department, dated 18.12.1987 and he could not be denied the weightage of
five years.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.The facts are not in dispute. It is true that the petitioner retired on 10.07.1983 and the weightage
of 5 years service along with the service rendered at the time of voluntary retirement was introduced
only by way of G.O.Ms.No.1108, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated
18.12.1987.

11.But it is well-settled law that whenever the Government introduces any scheme liberalising
pension, the same cannot be denied to the employees, who retired prior to the date of issuance of
the G.O. But the Government could only say that the persons like the petitioner could get monetary
benefits only from the date of issuance of G.O.

12.It has been held so categorically in D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1983 SC 130). .
65. ..... 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. ......... 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. .....

13.The same principle is also reiterated in the judgment of the Apex Court in V.Kasturi V. Managing
Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Another, AIIR 1999 SC 81.
š1.If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till
the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get
enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of
computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of
the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very
same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a
situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on
the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was
conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the
scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing
their roots to the ratio of nakara's case (supra) would cover this category of cases.

14.In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, I am of
the view that the order of the third respondent dated 14.01.2003 and the order of the second
respondent dated 23.04.2003 are liable to be quashed. However, I am not inclined to set aside
G.O.Ms.No.1108, P & AR Department, dated 18.12.1987 and it has to be understood in the light of
the judgments of the Apex Court that the said G.O. is also applicable to the persons like the
petitioner, who retired prior to the date of issuance of the G.O. also, but the benefits shall be given
only from the date of issuance of the G.O.

15.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents 1 to 3 to send appropriate proposal revising
pension and other terminal benefits of the petitioner to the fourth respondent within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the fourth respondent is directed to
authorise pension and other benefits within a period of three weeks thereafter.

16.This writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs".

sundarar
07-02-2015, 11:07 PM
EXTRACTS OF HSC JUDGMENT IN SHRI K.L.RATHEE VS UOI DATED 7.7.1997 FOR APPLICATION OF D.S.NAKARA SPIRIT FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE W.E.F. 1.1.2006

(A) "When the Government decided that pension was to be calculated on the basis of average salary drawn over a period of last ten months, it was held in Nakara, that this principle has to be applied even to those persons who had retired before the notified date".

(When the Government decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006 the revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&amp;PW (A) dated 2.9.2008 shall be applicable to the Govt. servant retired/retiring on or before the notified date, viz. 1.1.2006). [/I][/B]


(B) "The Government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees. But if the principle of average of last ten months' emoluments has been adopted for some employees, then that Principle must be extended to all the employees who have retired before them".

(The following principle that has been adopted for some employees, viz. those retired on or after 1.1.2006, then that principle must be extended w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to all the employees who have retired before them -

i. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifyingservice of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emolument or averageemoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial tohim.Para 5.3

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


(C) "The Constitution Bench in Nakara's Case has clearly laid down that there cannot be any mini classification of Government servants for calculating the amount of pension payable. That means the same method should be adopted for calculating pension for all Government servants. This principle of adopting last ten months' emoluments as the basis for calculation of pension must be uniformly applied to all persons drawing pension from the Central Government. This was all that was laid down in Nakara's case"

(There cannot be any mini classification of Government servants for calculating the amount of pension payable. That means the same method should be adopted for calculating pension for ALL GOVERNMENT SERVANTS. This principle of adopting 50% of emoluments or last ten months' emoluments whichever is beneficial as the basis for calculation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, then the said principle must be uniformly applied to all pensioners drawing from the Central Govt. This was all that was laid down in Nakara's case)

(D) Nakara's Case (supra) dealt with the manner of calculation. of pension on the basis Of average emoluments of a retired Government employee. Prior to the liberalisation of the formula for computation of pension made by the memorandum dated 25th May, 1979, average emoluments of the last thirty months of service of the employee provided the basis for calculation of pension. The 1979 memorandum provided that average emoluments must be calculated on the basis of the emoluments received by a Government servant during the last ten months of the service. That apart, a new slab system for computation of pension was introduced and the ceiling on pension was raised. As a result of these changes, the pensioners who retired prior to the specified date suffered triple jeopardy, viz., lower average emoluments, absence of slab system and the lower ceiling. This Court struck down the provision including the memorandum which provided that:

"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." The Court further held:

"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"

(All pensioners governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, viz. 1.1.2006 irrespective the date of retirement. Arrears of pension w.e.f. the specified date as per fresh computation is admissible)

(E) "It is to be seen that the judgment did not strike down the definition of 'emoluments'. It merely held That if pension was to be calculated on the basis of the last ten months' emoluments of a Government servant, after 1.4.1979, there is no reason why those who have retired before 1.4.1979 should get pension calculated on the basis of average of last thirty six months' emoluments. In other words, the rule of computation must be the same".

(The rule of computation must be the same for pre-2006 pensioners as well as post-2006 pensioners retired/retiring with 10/20 years qualifying service irrespective of their date of retirement, ie. prior to 1.1.2006, and, on or after 1.1.2006. If pension was to be calculated on the basis of 50% of emoluments or emoluments received during the last 10 months for those retired/retiring on or after 1.1.2006, there is no reason why those who retired before 1.1.2006 should get pension calculated only on the basis of emoluments received during the last 10 months even when 50% of emoluments drawn happened to be beneficial;
If pension was to be calculated on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service for those retired/retiring on or after 1.1.2006, there is no reason why those who retired before 1.1.2006 should get proportionately reduced pension calculated on the basis of 33 years qualifying service)


F. "there should be no discrimination among the persons getting pension from the Government. There cannot be any classification among the retired Government employees on the basis of date of retirement".

(There should be no discrimination among thepersons getting pension from the Government. There cannot be any classification among the retired Government employees on the basis of date of retirement - those retired on or after 1.1.2006 and those retired on or before 1.1.2006)


G. "All petitioners (pensioners) entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules formed a class irrespective of the date of their retirement. There could not be a mini classification within this class. The classification based on retirement before or subsequent to the specified date was invalid. The scheme of liberalisation in computation of pension must be uniformly enforced with regard to all pensioners".

(All pensioners, viz. those retired prior to 1.1.2006 and those retired on or after 1.1.2006 entitled to receive pension under the relevant Rules, viz. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 formed a class irrespective of the date of their retirement. There could not be a mini classification within this class. The classification based on retirement before or subsequent to the specified date, viz. 1.1.2006 was invalid. The scheme of liberalisation in computation of pension must be uniformly enforced with regard to all pensioners, ie. including those retired on or before 1.1.2006)

H. "It was clarified by the Government that only the benefit of this liberalisation should be allowed to all pensioners as had been mentioned in the Government Orders dated 22.10.1983. According to the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance the revised pension is to be computed on the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months of service. This rule will apply to all the pensioners".

(It is yet to be clarified by the Government that the benefit this liberalisation as per accepted 6th CPC recommendation should be allowed to all pensioners (including pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service) as had been mentioned in the Resolution dated 29.8.2008. According to the Resolution issued by the Govt., the revised pension is to be computed prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service and on the basis of 50% of emoluments or 50% of the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months of service. This liberalised rule shall have application to all the pensioners, i.e. including pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service)

sundarar
08-02-2015, 08:11 AM
The 6th CPC recommended vide para 6.5.3 of its Report that its recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Govt. employees other than PBORs in Defence Forces from the date it is accepted by the Government. The said recommendation has been accepted vide Resolution dated 29.8.2008 (Sl. No.3).

The 6th CPC recommended vide para 5.1.33 of its Report that `Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee'.

Accordingly, the OM dated 2.9.2008 has also been issued.
The Para 5.2 of the said OM dated 2.9.2008 stated that `Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualiying service shall be dispensed with. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emolument or average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him'.

The Para 5.3 of the said OM dated 2.9.2008 stated that `in cases where Governemtn servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10 years qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant'..

The Para 5.4 of the said OM dated 2.9.2008 stated that `the revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Govt. servants retiring on or after that date (2.9.2008). The Govt. servant who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O.M. (2.9.2008) will continue to be governed by the Rules/Orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

Subsequently, the Office Memorandum 10.02.2009 was issued by DOP&PW
The Para 2 of the said OM dated 10.2.2009 stated that `in partial modification of the instruction/order issued in this respect, it has now been decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006 instead of 2.9.2008. The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2.9.2008 shall be applicable to the Govt. servant retired/retiring on or after that date.(1.1.2006). Para 5.4 will further stand modified to that extent'.

The Resolution accepting 6th CPC recommendation as notified at Sl. No.3 giving effect prospectively, does not discriminate among the persons getting pension from the Government, as there cannot be any classification among the retired Government employees on the basis of date of retirement - those retired on or after 1.1.2006 and those retired on or before 1.1.2006. It is also a fact that the Resolution actually does not lay down that the recommendation is prospective from the date of retirement of any pensioner. The cut-off date as prescribed, viz. 1.1.2006 (as per amended OM dated 10.12.2009), does not restrict its recommendation to those retiring on or after 1.1.2006 as there is only one class of Government employees for the purpose of calculation of pension and there cannot be any mini classification of Government servants for calculating the amount of pension payable as per D.S.Nakara's case decision.

That means the same method should be adopted for calculating pension for all Government servants. There is no question of giving effect from the respective date of retirement of all pensioners, however, and hence the prospective effect, ie. from 1.1.2006. Even if pension is calculated on the basis of the same formula for all pensioners, the same will have effect from 1.1.2006 only, and to that extent actually, the accepted recommendation is having prospective effect.

The significant point involved is that the principle of `payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively' must be uniformly applied to all persons drawing pension from the Central Govt prospectively from 1.1.2006. This was all that was laid down in Nakara's case. Same applies also to the principle of `pension in cases where Govt. servant becomes entitled to pension in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant' which too must be uniformly applied to all persons drawing pension from the Central Govt. prospectively from 1.1.2006...

The Resolution dated 29.9.2008 thus applies to

a) all pre-2006 pensioners with particular reference to 50% of last pay drawn as pre-revised pension for subjecting to revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (if the same is beneficial as compared to that derived with 50% of average emoluments during the last 10 months)

b) all pre-2006 pensioners retired with less than 33 years qualifying service with particular reference to 50% of last pay drawn as pre-revised pension for subjecting to revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service having dispensed with(if the same is beneficial as compared to that derived with 50% of average emoluments during the last 10 months).


The CAT PR Bench dated 1.11.2011 in OA 655/2010 has directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008


The aforesaid Judgment that attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land is yet to be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for all pre-2006 pensioners including those who retired with less than 33 years.

sundarar
13-02-2015, 04:49 AM
Respected Sirs,

Thanks to Gconnect administrators for the welcoming change in display of our posts - the latest post gets displayed at very first page of the thread as I noticed now.

The 7th CPC recommendations are expected in a very short period of time.

At the same time, there remains some questions unanswered.

Whether the pre-2006 pensioners in general, are in receipt of revised pension in accordance with the executive instructions that are valid today and if so,
Whether any invalid provisions of an executive instruction can continuously get invoked?

Whether there could be two different types of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band in respect of a particular pre-revised scale where one type will correspond to and the other will be irrespective of pre-revised scale?

Whether there could be two different types of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to a particular pre-revised scale, where one type will have effect from 1.1.2006 and the other will have effect only from 24.9.2012?

Whether there could be two different types of pre-2006 pensioners entitled to pension as per two different OMs - one type in accordance with OM dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time and the other type in accordance with OM dated 26.8.2014/19.9.2014?

Whether the terminology - Single homogenous class of Pensioners serve any purpose While one set of pensioners' getting their pension fixed as per liberalised qualifying service requirement, the other set of pensioners' were deprived of the said liberalisation benefits, at least from the prospective date of 1st January 2006.

Whether there exists any legal opinion/Legal Advice or settled law position that suggests to keep re-fixation of pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008.
Likewise, there are many more questions of the day that could not find its corresponding answers, and thus remain as they are.

The 7th CPC recommendations are expected in a short period of time.

Best Regards

sundarar
14-02-2015, 06:23 AM
The Para 30 of the Hon. CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 decided as follows:

“….we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 ..”

The operating para of the Tribunal's Order dated 1.11.2011 would mean, that the provision relating to proportionate reduction in revised pension - `The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 1.1.2006' introduced vide OM dated 3.10.2008/14.10.2008 also stand quashed.

The operating para of the Tribunal's Order dated 1.11.2011 would mean, that the pension payable w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in respect of the pensioners who had less than maximum required service for full pension also, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the gradepay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

There is no other executive instructions exist for reducing the pension payable w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in respect of the pensioners who had less than maximum required service for full pension.

However, subsequently, the aforesaid quashed provisions introduced vide OM dated 3.10.2008/14.10.2008 was re-introduced with effect from 24.9.2012 vide OM dated 28.1.2013.

Similarly, while implementing the Tribunal's Order dated 1.11.2011 qua the petitioners of OA 655/2010, the quashed provisions re-introduced with effect from 24.9.2012 vide OM dated 28.1.2013 did not exist in the said OM dated 28.1.2013.

Subsequently, the re-introduced provisions of quashed OM dated 3.10.2008/14.10.2008 vide OM dated 28.1.2013 effective from 24.9.2012, was repeated again vide OM dated 19.9.2014 effective from 1.1.2006.

While the Respondents in OA 655/2010 batch cases were directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners based on the Resolution dated 29.8.2008, as on date,
the Tribunal's Order is implemented only in respect of pensioners who had rendered 33 years qualifying service

As such, the respondents have re-fixed the pension of pre-2006 pensioners who are also petitioners of OA 655/2010 but rendered less than 33 years qualifying service based on the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 but with a subjective clause of reduction in pension pro-rata.

Further, the respondents are yet to re-fix the pension of other pre-2006 pensioners who are non-petitioners of OA 655/2010 including those rendered less than 33 years qualifying service, based on the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 without any modification/alteration under the pretext of reduction in pension pro-rata

The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 did not prescribe for any reduction in pension payable w.e.f. 1.1.2006 pro-rata under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 where the pensioners had rendered less than 33 years qualifying service at the time of retirement.

As already ordered vide the CAT PR Bench in Dr. D.K.Jain vs UOI, the Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules is an enabling Rule to determine the basic pension at the time of retirement from service based on length of qualifying service and emoluments

Thus, an inapplicable rule provision is enforced in spite of quashing of OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 and the pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service as well as in respect of pre-2006 pensioners with 33 years service, as per the provisions of quashed OMs, which is legally not permissible.

Whether the DOP&PW has any other alternative for not implementing the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 with effect from 1.1.2006 in the cases referred to above, is not known.

Whether the concerned pre-2006 pensioners have any possible avenue to get the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 as it is with effect from 1.1.2006 at the earliest,
is also not known.

sundarar
14-02-2015, 07:05 PM
The Judgment in Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai stated as follows:
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.747/11
Monday this the 23rd day of January 2012
"6. The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and
11.2.2009[/B] (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). [B]Thus the stipulation that
the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated
3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by
the respondents stands already quashed. Order dated 11.2.2009
(Annexure R-11) which only reiterated the clarification contained in OM
dated 3.10.2008 and earlier OM dated 1.9.2008 having also been quashed
by the Full Bench, in the case of the applicant his entitlement remains
intact at Rs.10500/- and the reduction communicated and executed vide
Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 has thus become erroneous as the basis for such reduction itself is no longer available.

The Honble High Court of Kerala in Union of India & Ors. Versus P.K. Bhargavan Pillai & Anr. [OP(CAT) Nos.1767/2012, 1872/2012 and 236/2013 decided by a common order dated 22.05.2014] wherein the Honble High Court has held as under:-

3. When these matter was taken up today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in OP 1767/2012 the issue at hand stands covered b judgment of this Court, which is produced as Ex.R1(A). It is pointed out that this court followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which in turn had followed the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High court on the very same issue. It is also pointed out that the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and special leave petition was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to establish before us any reason why we should not follow the judgment of this court, which is produced as Ex.R1(A). In such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view. These petitions will stand dismissed.

Thus, it is very clear that there is no basis for -

a) issuance of OM dated 19.9.2014 involving reduction in pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on length of qualifying service in respect of pro-rata pensioners who are also petitioners of OA 655/2010, and also.

b) effecting reduction in pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on length of qualifying service citing provisions of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

c) invoking provisions of OMs quashed vide the Order dated 1.11.2011 by the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi for reduction in pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on length of qualifying service

A timely decision by the concerned authorities suitably, will avoid further litigation exercise in a matter that attained legal finality by the highest court of land, and thereby could l save time end effort of the Judiciary.

shajimanamel
16-02-2015, 05:46 PM
The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in PK Bhargavan Pillai case was based on the judgment of the High Court in the case of OA No.715/12 MO Inasu Vs Union of India and others and OA No.1051/12 K. Ramachandran Unnithan vs UOI & others. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had dismissed the petition filed by UOI in the above cases and the petitioners had filed contempt petition in CAT Ernakulam bench. The Hon'ble Tribunal issued order dated 8.4.2014 in CP/180/00020/214 in OA No.715/2012. It is mentioned in the Order that "When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application". After this Order, the pension of Mr. Iansu was refixed and he was paid arrears. It is now learnt that the Government has filed a petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the pension was refixed and arrears paid. The matter is not yet admitted. This shows that the Government wants to delay everything and to harass individual affected pensioners.

Gopal Krishan
16-02-2015, 05:53 PM
I confirm the position as stated in the preceding post. I happened to discuss this case with one of the officers in the DOPPW, who also told me exactly the same what has been stated in the post. The matter is in appeal. Of course, arrears etc. have been paid to Iansu.
Gopal Krishan

tymanagoli
16-02-2015, 11:02 PM
Request you to post the executive part of the judgement(if possible the logic put forth by the Honorable Judge) in Mr.Inasu case.

Thanks, Managoli

tymanagoli
17-02-2015, 01:03 PM
Dear Sirs,
The order is available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124258608/

Managoli

vnatarajan
18-02-2015, 07:22 PM
Nowadays, the Govt is practicing its "hidden policy" more openly, after the new Govt has come to power.

BUT THIS CAN NOT CONTINUE FOR LONG.

THE DIVIDING AND CONFUSING TECHNOLOGY PRACTISED IN THE 3 SISTER GR SLP CASES LINKED TO MILITARY CAs WILL SOON BE EXPOSED ON 20 FEB 2015 AT HSC....LET US WATCH ....

In cases where the petitioner-pensioner is able to file the CP in time and revert back to the same after every higher court pro-verdict, to avoid CP strictures, the "SELECTIVE/ CONDITIONAL IMPLEMENATION" is being carried out, with babudom orders , mentioning the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" that are included , as is done by vendors to market third rate goods...

QUITE A FEW JUDGMENTS AS IN INASU'S CASE ARE SIMILAR- EVEN IN OUR CGSAGPA'S CASE, ONLY "QUA PETTITIONERS'" ARE GETTING THE JUDGMENT BENEFIT , EVEN AFTER THE SUPREME LEGAL FINALITY ....

vnatarajan

sundarar
19-02-2015, 04:25 AM
Request you to post the executive part of the judgement(if possible the logic put forth by the Honorable Judge) in Mr.Inasu case.

Thanks, Managoli

The Hon. High Court of Kerala vide their Judgment dated 7.1.2014 while dismissing in limine the Writ Petitions (OP CAT No.8 of 2014 (Z) filed by DOP&PW against the Order/Judgment in OA 715/2012 of CAT Ernakulam Bench dated 16.8.2013 of Shri M.O.Inasu case decided as follows:

"ISSUES RAISED IN THESE ORIGINAL PETITIONS STAND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PRINCIPAL BENCH OF THE CAT IN OA NO.655/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN WP (C) NO. 1535 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES BY FOLLOWING A DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT SLP FILED AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE FAVOURABLE SUPREME COURT. WE ARE ALSO SHOWN A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT DATED 29.7.2013 DISMISSING SLA (C) NO.13280 OF 2013 AND SLP (C) nO.23055 OF 2013 FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THOSE DECISIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANYWAY TO DISAGREE WITH THEM. THESE ORIGINAL PETITIONS, THEREFORE, FAIL. THEY ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED in limine".


Subsequently, the Hon'ble Tribunal issued order dated 8.4.2014 in CP/180/00020/214 in OA No.715/2012. It is mentioned in the Order that "When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application".

The above compliance by way of issuing Revised Calculation of Pension vide letter dated 7.3.2014 was followed by an addendum dated 13.5.2014 with an additional provision as follows:

NOTE: "THE REVISED AUTHORITY IS ISSUED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.8.2013 AND THAT THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE OP (CAT)/SLP THAT MAY BE FILED BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA/HON. SUPREME COURT"


A MATTER THAT ATTAINED LEGAL FINALITY BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAND ON DISMISSAL OF CURATIVE PETITION FILED AGAINST COMMON VERDICT, IS REPEATEDLY KEPT PENDING WITHOUT SERVING ANY PURPOSE THEREBY, MAINLY FOR CHALLENGING THE SAID LEGAL FINALITY INDIRECTLY THROUGH A VARIETY OF SEPARATE SLPs AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT 1.11.2011/29.4.2013 OF HON. CAT PR BENCH, DELHI AND THE HON. HC, DELHI RESPECTIVELY IN OA 655/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, LEADING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT AT HSC. ALREADY, THE LEGAL ADVICE DATED 8.5.2014 HAD CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO IMPLEMENT THE VERDICT.

THE VERDICT OF HSC, IS GETTING CHALLENGED THROUGH MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS, WHICH ATTEMPT NEED TO BE DISCOURAGED. THE LEGAL FINALITY IS GETTING CHALLENGED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE, AND THE ONLY SOLUTION IS IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011 FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008. SUCH A DECISION WILL AVOID FILING ANY FUTURE SLPs, AND FURTHER LITIGATION COURSE OF ACTIONS THEREAFTER. THE PENSIONERS COMMUNITY NEED TO PUT A FULLSTOP FOR CONTINUED LITIGATION ATTEMPTS THROUGH WHICH PENSIONERS ARE GETTING DRAGGED IN TO FIGHT FOR ACHIEVING RE-FINALITY IN SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

A STAY FROM LEGAL ANGLE COULD BE THOUGHT OF BY PENSIONERS COMMUNITY ON ALL LITIGATION ATTEMPTS AGAINST THE UPHELD VERDICT OF HON. HC DELHI/HON. CAT PR BENCH DELHI DATED 29.4.2013 AND 1.11.2011 RESPECTIVELY.

sundarar
22-02-2015, 09:56 PM
The para G of the Curative Petition filed by DOP&PW in OA 655/2010 stated as follows:
"Because the common impugned order which was subject matter of the SLP (C) 23055 of 2013 and Review Petition 2492 of 2013 is a subject matter of pending Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No.36148-50/2013 and the next date of hearing is 22.4.2014 (now it is 17.3.2015)"

The said Curative Petition was dismissed by the HSC on 30.4.2014 and the subject matter attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land and thus, there is no point in awaiting the final outcome of the pending SLPs for taking any final decision in the subject matter. Moreover, the subject matter is implemented for petitioners of OA 655/2010 who had rendered minimum 33 years service. For rest of the petitioners in OA 655/2010 who rendered less than 33 years of service, outcome of pending SLPs is expected by DOP&PW with particular reference to grant of full Minimum Revised Pension as per Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

The SLP (C) 23055/2013 referred to in the Curative Petition was dismissed by the HSC on 29.7.2013 and the pending SLPs referred to, viz. 36148-50/2013 were filed two months thereafter. While filing these 3 SLPs, the fact that a similar SLP on the same subject matter had been dismissed on 29.7.2013 WAS NOT DISCLOSED THEREIN. Had it been mentioned in the SLPs while filing, even admission of these three SLPs would have been a question.

Further, the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi vide their Order (Oral) dated 15.5.2014 decided as follows:

"In view of the fact that Curative Petition has been rejected by the Hon. Apex Court and also in view of the submission made by Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on instructions made by the departmental representatives, that they have been advised by the Ministry of Law to implement the order of this Tribunal, in our view the Miscellaneous Application No.1228/2014 has become infructuous, and the same is therefore, rejected".

The aforesaid submission referred to that DOP&PW have been advised to implement the order of this Tribunal, is also not maintained. Having submitted that the CAT order dated 1.11.2011 is getting implemented, the said order is not implemented fully qua the petitioners of OA 655/2010. As far as pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners who are also petitioners of OA 655/2010, they are also treated as non-litigants and kept waiting for the final outcome of the pending SLPs that were very much avoidable ones on the date of filing itself.

The following points will never change particularly after dismissal of Curative Petition by the Highest Court of Land, as the subject matter attained legal finality thereby.

(1) Minimum of the pay in the pay band as per Resolution dated 29.8.2008 (effective from 1.1.2006) and OM dated 28.1.2013 (effective from 24.9.2012) is one and same.

(2) Resolution dated 29.8.2008 did not prescribe any qualifying service criteria for fixing pension from 1.1.2006 as the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 also did not require any minimum qualifying service for revision of pension based on Pay Commission Recommendation.

(3) Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is only an enabling rule to determine the basic pension BASED ON LAST DRAWN EMOLUMENTS AND ACTUAL QUALIFYING SERVICE RENDERED at the time of retirement, but not afterwards.

(4) Invoking provisions of any quashed OMs is not legally permissible.

(5) IN A FEW CASES, TRIBUNAL/HIGH COURT HAVE ALLOWED THE FULL MINIMUM REVISED PENSION TO THOSE WHO HAVE RENDERED LESS THAN QUALIFYING SERVICE OF 33 YEARS.

(6) The curiosity to issue provisional implementation order as against the final implementation order, citing future WPs/SLPs that may be going to be filed against the settled position of law will serve no purpose, but to prolong the subject matter by keeping pending even after attaining legal finality by the Highest Court of Land.

(7) NEED OF THE HOUR IS ONLY TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008 IN LETTER AND SPIRIT, MAINLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION/AMENDMENT TO THE SAID RESOLUTION THAT NOTIFIED THE ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATION VIDE PARA 5.1.47 OF 6TH CPC REPORT. THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008 IS NOT UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE ANY COURT OF LAW.

FOR WHAT OUTCOME THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS HAVE TO WAIT? .

sundarar
26-02-2015, 05:57 AM
The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in PK Bhargavan Pillai case was based on the judgment of the High Court in the case of OA No.715/12 MO Inasu Vs Union of India and others and OA No.1051/12 K. Ramachandran Unnithan vs UOI & others. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had dismissed the petition filed by UOI in the above cases and the petitioners had filed contempt petition in CAT Ernakulam bench. The Hon'ble Tribunal issued order dated 8.4.2014 in CP/180/00020/214 in OA No.715/2012. It is mentioned in the Order that "When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application". After this Order, the pension of Mr. Iansu was refixed and he was paid arrears. It is now learnt that the Government has filed a petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the pension was refixed and arrears paid. The matter is not yet admitted. This shows that the Government wants to delay everything and to harass individual affected pensioners.

Latest updates:

The REVIEW PETITION 741 of 2014 filed by UOI against the Hon. High Court of Kerala's Common Judgment dated 22.5.2014 has been listed last on 10.2.2015 before the Hon. HC, Kerala.

The Common Judgment dated 22.5.2014 in
O.P.(CAT) No. 1767 OF 2012 - UOI VS SHRI P.K.BHARGAVAN PILLAI
O.P.(CAT) No. 1872 OF 2012and O.P.(CAT) No. 236 OF 2013 - UOI VS SHRI K.VENUGOPALAN NAIR & OTHERS,

was appealed against before the Hon. Supreme Court, but not through a common SLP, but ONLY IN R/O OP CAT NO.1872 OF 2012 AND OP CAT NO. 236 OF 2013 - Shri K.Venugopalan Nair & others.

The said SLP is dismissed by the HSC on 12.2.2015 and the HSC Record of Proceedings is reproduced hereunder:

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s).
2001-2002/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/05/2014
in OPCAT No. 1872/2012 and OPCAT No. 236/2013 passed by the High
Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER'S
WELFARE AND ORS.ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
K. VENUGOPALAN NAIR RTD. SCIENTIST/ENGINEER-SG,
VSSC AND ANR. ETC. Respondent(s)
(With c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
Date : 12/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG
Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Heard Ms. Pinki Anand, learned ASG for the Union of India.
The special leave petitions are dismissed on merits.
(R.NATARAJAN) (VEENA KHERA)
Court Master Court Master

THUS, THE REVIEW PETITION FILED IN SHRI P.K.BHARGAVAN PILLAI CASE AGAINST COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 22.5.2014 MAY BECOME INFRUCTUOUS.

THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 22.5.2014 RELIED UPON HON. HC KERALA JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2014 IN OP CAT NO.8/2014 IN SHRI M.O. INASU CASE.

THE IMPLEMENTATION ORDER ISSUED IN MARCH 2014 TO SHRI M.O.INASU WAS MADE PROVISIONAL IN MAY 2014 AND SUBJECTED TO THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE SLP TO BE FILED.

BY VIRTUE OF DISMISSAL OF SLP THAT WAS FILED AGAINST COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 22.5.2014 (WHICH RELIED UPON HON. HC JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2014), THE SUBJECT MATTER ATTAINED LEGAL FINALITY BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAND AS OF NOW.

IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS IN RESPECT OF PRO-RATA PENSIONERS GRANTING FULL MINIMUM REVISED PENSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008 (AS PER CAT PR BENCH DELHI JUDGMENT 1.11.2011) ARE DUE.

THE `PROVISIONAL' IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS ISSUED IN R/O SHRI M.O. INASU OUGHT TO BE FINAL.

THUS, THE NON-LITIGANT PRE-2006 PENSIONERS (INCLUDING PRO-RATA PENSIONERS) ARE ENTITLED TO GET FULL MINIMUM REVISED PENSION W.E.F. 1.1.2006 AS THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE SERVED BY PURSUING PENDING SLPs 36148-50/2013 ANY MORE.

IN SHORT, THE PROVISIONS OF QUASHED OMs 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008, 11.2.2009 (CLARIFYING FOR REDUCTION IN MODIFIED PARITY BASED MINIMUM REVISED PENSION, REDUCTION IN FULL MIN. REV. PENSION BASED ON LENGTH OF QS, DENIAL OF GP APPLICABLE FOR UPGRADED PRE-REVISED SCALE, ETC.) CAN NEVER BE REVOKED.

PENSION OF ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS (WITHOUT ANY PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION IN MINIMUM REVISED PENSION FOR THOSE WHO RENDERED LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE) NEED TO BE RE-FIXED W.E.F. 1.1.2006 BASED ON ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATION OF 6TH CPC NOTIFIED THROUGH RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAT PR BENCH DELHI JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011 THAT ATTAINED LEGAL FINALITY BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAND.

BEST WISHES AND PRAYERS FOR COMPLIANCE.

tymanagoli
26-02-2015, 09:37 AM
Any idea as to what happened to OA hearing that was posted on 23rd Feb15? Any hopes of DOJ?
Regards, Managoli

yenyem
26-02-2015, 03:27 PM
Any idea as to what happened to OA hearing that was posted on 23rd Feb15? Any hopes of DOJ?
Regards, Managoli


THE OAs ARE ADJOURNED TO 3.3.2015

shajimanamel
27-02-2015, 11:23 AM
The review petition filed by the Government in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court day before yesterday.

shajimanamel
27-02-2015, 11:51 PM
The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the matter of minimum 50% pension without proportionate reduction based on qualifying service is a major development. The judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court was in fact a common judgment dated 22.5.2014 was a common order covering three cases that of Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai, Shri R. Kamath and Shri Venugupalan Nair. The reasoned judgment was given in the case of Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai and in the other two cases the judgment in the case of Shri Pillai is linked. As far as I know the Government had filed review petition in the case of Shri Pillai and Shri Kamath. The review petition filed by the Government in the case of Shri Pillai was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala day before yesterday and the review petition in the case of Shri Kamath is pending in the High Court.

While the review petition is pending at the High Court, the Government filed appeal in Supreme Court in the case of Shri Kamath and Shri Venugopalan Nair and the same is now dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not understood why the Government had not also included the case of Shri Pillai, which is also coming out of the common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 22.5.2014, in the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? In fact Shri Pillai's case was the leading case in which only reasoned order is given. Is the Government trying to play the same trick as in the case of the three pending SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court?

The order of the Supreme Court in this SLP may not bring relief to all the pre-2006 pensioners who are unjustly subjected to proportionate reduction even from the guaranteed minimum pension recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the Government vide Resolution dated 29.8.2008. This is because after quashing of OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 by the Hon'ble CAT the Government has issued OM dated 28.1.2013. Para 5 of this OM has again introduced proportionate reduction from the guaranteed minimum 50% pension. Unless this provision of the OM dated 28.1.2013 is quashed all pre-2006 pensioners may not get relief. The intention of the Government is clear from the OM implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT dated 1.11.2011 in OA 655 of 2010 where it is mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted the provisions of OM dated 28.1.2013 relating to proportionate reduction while considering the appeal of the Govt. against the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT dated 1.11.2011.

The application filed by me along with my colleagues in TRAI before the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench has challenged para 5 of the OM dated 28.1.2013. The Govt. has so far even after a year not filed any reply. This case was before the Registrar all the time and in the last hearing on 26.2.2015 this was listed before a single judge bench. However, due to paucity of time this was heard only for five minutes and the matter is adjourned to 24.3.2015.

sundarar
28-02-2015, 07:30 AM
The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the matter of minimum 50% pension without proportionate reduction based on qualifying service is a major development. The judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court was in fact a common judgment dated 22.5.2014 was a common order covering three cases that of Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai, Shri R. Kamath and Shri Venugupalan Nair. The reasoned judgment was given in the case of Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai and in the other two cases the judgment in the case of Shri Pillai is linked. As far as I know the Government had filed review petition in the case of Shri Pillai and Shri Kamath. The review petition filed by the Government in the case of Shri Pillai was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala day before yesterday and the review petition in the case of Shri Kamath is pending in the High Court.

While the review petition is pending at the High Court, the Government filed appeal in Supreme Court in the case of Shri Kamath and Shri Venugopalan Nair and the same is now dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not understood why the Government had not also included the case of Shri Pillai, which is also coming out of the common judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 22.5.2014, in the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? In fact Shri Pillai's case was the leading case in which only reasoned order is given. Is the Government trying to play the same trick as in the case of the three pending SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court?

The order of the Supreme Court in this SLP may not bring relief to all the pre-2006 pensioners who are unjustly subjected to proportionate reduction even from the guaranteed minimum pension recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the Government vide Resolution dated 29.8.2008. This is because after quashing of OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 by the Hon'ble CAT the Government has issued OM dated 28.1.2013. Para 5 of this OM has again introduced proportionate reduction from the guaranteed minimum 50% pension. Unless this provision of the OM dated 28.1.2013 is quashed all pre-2006 pensioners may not get relief. The intention of the Government is clear from the OM implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT dated 1.11.2011 in OA 655 of 2010 where it is mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted the provisions of OM dated 28.1.2013 relating to proportionate reduction while considering the appeal of the Govt. against the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT dated 1.11.2011.

The application filed by me along with my colleagues in TRAI before the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench has challenged para 5 of the OM dated 28.1.2013. The Govt. has so far even after a year not filed any reply. This case was before the Registrar all the time and in the last hearing on 26.2.2015 this was listed before a single judge bench. However, due to paucity of time this was heard only for five minutes and the matter is adjourned to 24.3.2015.

Thanks for a detailed analysis Sir.

Respondent R 3. R. KRISHNA KAMATH,ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.9.2012 IN I.A. 11661/12 - as per Hon. HC Kerala Judgment dated 22.5.2014 in OP (CAT) 1767/2012 UOI vs Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai,

The subject matter of dismissed SLP 23055 in OA 655/2010 (DOJ 1.11.2011 by Hon. CAT PR Bench), the dismissed SLP in Shri K.Venugopalan Nair case, and the pending 3 SLPs 36148-50/2013 in OA 655(2010) is one and same.

Dismissal of Review Petition by Hon. HC Kerala upheld its common Judgment dated 22.5.2014 in Shri P.K.Bargavan Pillai case and thus, there can be no proportionate reduction in Minimum Revised Pension prescribed vide Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

HSC's dismissal of SLP filed by DOP&PW against common Judgment dated 22.5.2014 in Shri K.Venugopalan Nair case reiterates the matter that attained legal finality already by the Highest Court of Land, ie. "minimum of the pay in the payband corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired” referes to and means starting point of the pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

The clarificatory provision hiding the real face of the aforesaid minimum of the pay in the pay band and stating that minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised) scale would refer to and means starting point of the pay band introduced vide OMs 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 has become nulll and voide consequent on quashing of the said clarificatory/modificatory OMs by Hon. CAT PR Bench on 1.11.2011, and the said Order has been implemented for petitioners of OA 655/2010.

We have been repeatedly pointing out that there cannot be two starting points, viz. one for petitioners of OA 655/2010 and other for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners.

Thus, the dismissal of two SLPs referred to above, necessitates withdrawal of pending 3 SLPs 36148-50/2013.

Apart from non-applicability of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules while re-fixing pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per Resolution dated 29.8.2008, invoking quashed OMs for effecting proportionate reduction in Minimum Revised Pension in the case of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service is not legally permissible as decided by Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi in Dr. D.K.Jain vs UOI.

WHAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT TIME OF LEGAL FINALITY IF
REPEATED LITIGATION EXERCISE ON SETTLED POSITION IS RESORTED TO?

Gopal Krishan
28-02-2015, 02:57 PM
What would be the implication of these orders to those pre-2006 pensioners who have put in 33 years or more service?
Gopal Krishan

sundarar
28-02-2015, 04:53 PM
What would be the implication of these orders to those pre-2006 pensioners who have put in 33 years or more service?
Gopal Krishan

For the pre-2006 pensioners who have put in 33 years or more service, if the pension fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 by application of multiplication factor 2.26 over pre-revised basic pension happened to be more than the sum of

50% of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired
plus
50% of Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired,

then these orders are not having any implication.

In case, the Revised Pension under para 4.1 is less than what is applicable under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 (without any modification/clarification), then the Minimum Revised Pension will become payable as per Para 4.2 of the said OM. The OM dated 1.9.2008 was issued based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

Our view point is unless the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 is amended/clarified/modified, then the OM 1.9.2008 that relied upon the said Resolution too cannot be clarified/modified/amended from time to time and thus all subsequent OMs have no role to play for re-fixing pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008. The pension in r/o petitioners of OA 655/2010 was also fixed in accordance with the Resolution dated 29.8.2008. Same and similar treatment is requested for by non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners.

Gopal Krishan
01-03-2015, 11:56 AM
Thanks a lot for quick response.

In the case of M.O. Inasu following was the decision.

"7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of
the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of
the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised
pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension
of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised
pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay
scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then
find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix
higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the
minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office
Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from
01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under."

Will that amount to full parity to those who retired with the 5th CPC pay scales.
Gopal Krishan

esveepee
01-03-2015, 12:37 PM
I am a PSU absorbee and 'retired' from Indian Railways after just 18 years service. My pension was fixed accordingly. Am I to understand that I will be eligible for full pension if the CAT judgement is upheld and acted upon? Please enlighten me. Thanks.

sundarar
01-03-2015, 01:22 PM
Thanks a lot for quick response.

In the case of M.O. Inasu following was the decision.

"7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of
the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of
the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised
pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension
of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised
pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay
scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then
find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix
higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the
minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office
Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from
01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under."

Will that amount to full parity to those who retired with the 5th CPC pay scales.
Gopal Krishan

No please.

The Applicant Shri M.O.Inasu retired with more than 26 years qualifying service.
The prayers as per OA 715/2012 filed by him include the following:

(iii) In para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008, there is no stipulation of any minimum period of service for eligibility of pension @ 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired. According to para 4.2, it is made clear that the pension should in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the provisioner had retired. Therefore, denial of 50% of the pay as basic pension is illegal and arbitrary.

(iv)The Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had quashed the OM dated 03.10.1998 and 14.10.1998 and as such those Oms are no more in force. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is applicable to the applicant also as it is a judgement in rem.

The CAT Ernakulam Bench Ordered on 16.8.2013 as follows:

"8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order
(PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the
O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band
plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding
family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of
pension

The Hon. HC Kerala upheld the above Judgment, in OP (CAT) 8 dated 22.5.2014.
The implementation orders were also issued in March 2014 to the petitioner but the same was made provisional subject to final outcome of future Writ Petition/SLP to be filed.

Whereas in the case of Shri R.C.Garg vs UOI in OA 2461/2012 the prayers of the applicant Shri R.C.Garg includes

`(i) To give the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs.4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants which has been recommended as per the CCS Pay Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
(ii) To issue directions to the respondents to re-fix their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees only in order to bring them at par with the Post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006'

The CAT PR Bench vide its Order dated 30.7.2013 ordered as follows:

23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-

`Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006'.


This Judgment dated 30.7.2013 will amount to full parity to those who retired with less than 33 years service prior to 1.1.2006.

The Review Petition filed before the above Judgment dated 30.7.2013 was dismissed by the CAT PR Bench, Delhi.

The Contempt Petition is filed by the pro-rata pensioner Shri R.C.Garg at present and the same will be coming up for hearing on 3.3.2015.

sundarar
01-03-2015, 04:39 PM
I am a PSU absorbee and 'retired' from Indian Railways after just 18 years service. My pension was fixed accordingly. Am I to understand that I will be eligible for full pension if the CAT judgement is upheld and acted upon? Please enlighten me. Thanks.

Yes please.

At first, the para 12 of Resolution dated 29.8.2008 did not prescribe any minimum qualifying service for Minimum Revised Pension and thus, it did not recommend any proportionate reduction in Min. Rev. Pension based on length of qualifying service, viz. <33 years.

Even the OM dated 1.9.2008 which was issued based on said Resolution also did not prescribe/recommend as has been the case of Resolution.

The Modified Parity issue before CAT PR Bench was "What should be the minimum pay in the pay band for the purpose of calculation of revised pension with effect from 1.1.2006 under Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. This issue took birth initially owing to issuance of clarificatory/modificatory OMs dated 3.10.2008, 14.10,2008 and 11.2.2009.
The Tribunal vide Order dated 1.11.2011 quashed all three OMs and directed to re-fix pension of all pre-2006 pensioners based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

The subject matter attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land consequent on dismissal of Curative Petition filed by Dept.

The DOP&PW took a decision to implement the order qua the petitioners. and implemented also accordingly vide OM 26.8.2014. However, those petitioners who rendered less than 33 years were imposed with proportionate reduction in minimum revised pension vide OM 19.9.2014. For all non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners pendency of SLPs 36148-50/2013 is cited saying the matter is sub-judice.

With regard to OM dated 28.1.2013 (effective from 24.9.2012) issued for stepping up of minimum revised pension fixed as per OM 1.9.2008 `as amended from time to time', owing to the fact that there is no difference between Minimum Revised Pension as per Resolution 29.8.2008, OM 1.9.2008 and OM 28.1.2013, the said OM is not having any effect as of now, particularly since the pension is to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and not from 24.9.2012.

The non-litigants' case and pro-rata petitioners/pensioners' case will be coming up in this week.

Let us pray for the Best.

esveepee
01-03-2015, 07:49 PM
Thank you very much Sir. Sounds too good to be true and a Prayer is indeed called for going by the roller-coaster like developments on this issue. My admiration for members like you who have taken it upon themselves to fight for a cause. Thanks again and best regards.

yenyem
03-03-2015, 09:58 PM
the oas are adjourned to 3.3.2015

again adjourned to 9.3.2015

tymanagoli
03-03-2015, 10:26 PM
Sundarar sir, any idea what happened to contempt petition by R C Garg on 3.3.2015?

shajimanamel
04-03-2015, 12:19 PM
I have been trying to located O.M. dated 19.9.2014, but could not find. Anybody could help me with the link where this is available?

sundarar
04-03-2015, 08:22 PM
Sundarar sir, any idea what happened to contempt petition by R C Garg on 3.3.2015?

Adjourned to 19.7.2015 pl.

sundarar
04-03-2015, 08:24 PM
I have been trying to located O.M. dated 19.9.2014, but could not find. Anybody could help me with the link where this is available?

Both OMs 26.8.2014 and 19.9.2014 have not been uploaded in pensionersportal.gov.in website.
May I know your e-mail id please.
Thanks and Regards

shajimanamel
05-03-2015, 02:45 PM
Thanks Sir. My e-mail ID is [email protected]

tymanagoli
12-03-2015, 10:07 AM
Dear Sirs, any hearing took place on 09.03.2015?
Managoli

yenyem
12-03-2015, 02:33 PM
Dear Sirs, any hearing took place on 09.03.2015?
Managoli

OA/1165/2011,MA/265/2015 AND MA2353/2014 WITH OA/247/2012 AND OA/2165/2011 posted 0n 3.3.2015 were adjourned to 9.3.2015,then to 10.3.2015 and again to 11.3.2015. But in the cause list of CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH for 11.3.2015 all these cases do not find aplace. What happened on 11.3.2015 is not known.

ANY ONE FOLLOWING THESE CASES MAY PLEASE ENLIGHTEN.

rama1948
13-03-2015, 10:24 AM
Dear Friends,
For a change, after spending the whole day in CAT, I am starting this mail on a positive note as we have sufficient reason to be happy.
First of all, the Bench held a special sitting today afternoon exclusively for our case.
Second, our Advocate gave a compendium of relevant verdicts of different Benches of CAT on this subject accepting the demand for removal of pro-rata reduction in pension, based on the Full Bench verdict dated 1-11-2011 quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008, 14-10-2008 and 11-2-2009 and directing implementation of GOI Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
Third he also gave a compendium of various SC verdicts to bring out the that a homogenous group of pensioners can not be divided into two based on arbitrary cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the time of retirement, the benefit of its subsequent liberalisation cannot be denied to him. He then also highlighted that the argument of prospective implementation of this recommendation after 10/20 years of service to deny the benefit to pre 2006 pensioners is not valid as it only implies payment from that date and not to deny the same benefit from that date to those who had retired prior to that date, quoting various SC verdicts. Finally he dispelled the impression that Nakra verdict has been diluted by arguing that a five judge bench verdict can not be over ruled by less than a seven judge bench which has not happened. The distinction made is only in respect of one time payment like leave salary/gratuity which is on a different footing than pension which is a recurring payment subject to adjustment in line with similar payment to post retirees.
He also drew the attention to the Full Bench verdict in S-30 allowing full pension without distinction between pre and post retirees.
In reply the GOI Advocate drew attention to the submission made in their several applications before the Bench. This was effectively countered by our Advocate based on our own replies filed to GOI submissions from time to time. The arguments have thus concluded and the verdict is reserved. It may take about a month.
It is our impression that the Bench was quite responsive to our submissions. Since we have been able to explain the legal position very effectively, I will not be surprised if I come back with some good news when the verdict is delivered. In the meantime, kindly join me in praying to the Almighty for our success.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Pratap Narayan

tymanagoli
13-03-2015, 10:42 AM
Great..At last we can hope for justice..

yenyem
13-03-2015, 12:00 PM
Dear Friends,
For a change, after spending the whole day in CAT, I am starting this mail on a positive note as we have sufficient reason to be happy.
First of all, the Bench held a special sitting today afternoon exclusively for our case.
Second, our Advocate gave a compendium of relevant verdicts of different Benches of CAT on this subject accepting the demand for removal of pro-rata reduction in pension, based on the Full Bench verdict dated 1-11-2011 quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008, 14-10-2008 and 11-2-2009 and directing implementation of GOI Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
Third he also gave a compendium of various SC verdicts to bring out the that a homogenous group of pensioners can not be divided into two based on arbitrary cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the time of retirement, the benefit of its subsequent liberalisation cannot be denied to him. He then also highlighted that the argument of prospective implementation of this recommendation after 10/20 years of service to deny the benefit to pre 2006 pensioners is not valid as it only implies payment from that date and not to deny the same benefit from that date to those who had retired prior to that date, quoting various SC verdicts. Finally he dispelled the impression that Nakra verdict has been diluted by arguing that a five judge bench verdict can not be over ruled by less than a seven judge bench which has not happened. The distinction made is only in respect of one time payment like leave salary/gratuity which is on a different footing than pension which is a recurring payment subject to adjustment in line with similar payment to post retirees.
He also drew the attention to the Full Bench verdict in S-30 allowing full pension without distinction between pre and post retirees.
In reply the GOI Advocate drew attention to the submission made in their several applications before the Bench. This was effectively countered by our Advocate based on our own replies filed to GOI submissions from time to time. The arguments have thus concluded and the verdict is reserved. It may take about a month.
It is our impression that the Bench was quite responsive to our submissions. Since we have been able to explain the legal position very effectively, I will not be surprised if I come back with some good news when the verdict is delivered. In the meantime, kindly join me in praying to the Almighty for our success.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Pratap Narayan

Thanks for the information. Let us pray and hope for the best.

Gopal Krishan
14-03-2015, 01:09 PM
Post No. 186 by Shri NATARAJAN indicates that some case of full parity is also in progress. What is the latest?
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
15-03-2015, 07:46 PM
Dear Shri GK ji / Interested

As all may be aware by this time that the remand case of AIS30PA - that is OA 937/2010 is a full parity case - You all may rememeber that this was the lead s30 case of the 4 lot like oa 655 /2010 was the lead S29 case of 4 lot, all eight were being heard together in a bunch at pb cat way back in 2010-2011.

This pre 2006 s30 case - oa 937/2010 plus others were heard by pb cat again based on remand order from dhc ad the same was decided in favour of the petitioners on 20 nov 2015 , allowing them "full parity" - in other wirds the pb cat ordered that their pension may be based on the baisis of "pay drawn instead of the minimum pay" in/of the pre-revised pay scale from whoch the pensioner had retired" .

As some pre 2006 s29 petitioners were also involved and also the order was not explicit in providing relief wrt the present junior scale pensioners drawing more pension than old s30 retirees, a RP petition had been filed by the pensioners (rp/10/2015) seeking clarifications and the same will now come up after a couple of months or so. No CP had been filed by the petitioners and so the Govt is at ease!!!!

Replying my RTI, the DOPW has stated that they will go for appeal in the HC .

SO "FULL PARITY" CASE IS BOUND TO SUFFER DELAYS AND NOTHING OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE MAY HAPPEN BEFORE CPC REPORT........

vnatarajan

tymanagoli
21-03-2015, 03:13 PM
Dear Sirs, refer to the 'NEWS FLASH AND LATEST POSTS' at http://rscws.com/
which says '• First SLP of Govt DISMISSED by Hon. Supreme Court Reg pro-rata Pension & for full Pension to Pre 2006 for less than 33 years & more than 20 years of service. (Ref M O Inasu's case dated 20 02 2015 - Copy of orders attached | Kerala High Court Judgement against the Order/Judgement in OA 715-2012 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, dated 16-08-2013 | SC Dismisses SLP reg Pro-rata Pension dt 20.2.2015 in Shri Inasu Case'
Request Sri Sundarar and Sri VNji to comment/provide any other info available pending the judgement in OA/1165/2011

Managoli

vishwapurna
22-03-2015, 03:03 PM
Dear Friends,
For a change, after spending the whole day in CAT, I am starting this mail on a positive note as we have sufficient reason to be happy.
First of all, the Bench held a special sitting today afternoon exclusively for our case.
Second, our Advocate gave a compendium of relevant verdicts of different Benches of CAT on this subject accepting the demand for removal of pro-rata reduction in pension, based on the Full Bench verdict dated 1-11-2011 quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008, 14-10-2008 and 11-2-2009 and directing implementation of GOI Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
Third he also gave a compendium of various SC verdicts to bring out the that a homogenous group of pensioners can not be divided into two based on arbitrary cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the time of retirement, the benefit of its subsequent liberalisation cannot be denied to him. He then also highlighted that the argument of prospective implementation of this recommendation after 10/20 years of service to deny the benefit to pre 2006 pensioners is not valid as it only implies payment from that date and not to deny the same benefit from that date to those who had retired prior to that date, quoting various SC verdicts. Finally he dispelled the impression that Nakra verdict has been diluted by arguing that a five judge bench verdict can not be over ruled by less than a seven judge bench which has not happened. The distinction made is only in respect of one time payment like leave salary/gratuity which is on a different footing than pension which is a recurring payment subject to adjustment in line with similar payment to post retirees.
He also drew the attention to the Full Bench verdict in S-30 allowing full pension without distinction between pre and post retirees.
In reply the GOI Advocate drew attention to the submission made in their several applications before the Bench. This was effectively countered by our Advocate based on our own replies filed to GOI submissions from time to time. The arguments have thus concluded and the verdict is reserved. It may take about a month.
It is our impression that the Bench was quite responsive to our submissions. Since we have been able to explain the legal position very effectively, I will not be surprised if I come back with some good news when the verdict is delivered. In the meantime, kindly join me in praying to the Almighty for our success.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Pratap Narayan

Thank you Pratap Narayanji and your team for this continuos and untiresome legal battle for Pre-2006 retirees.We pray sincerely to almighty for the positive verdict.

sundarar
25-03-2015, 08:37 PM
The Hon. High Court of Kerala vide their Judgment dated 7.1.2014 while dismissing in limine the Writ Petitions (OP CAT No.8 of 2014 (Z) filed by DOP&PW against the Order/Judgment in OA 715/2012 of CAT Ernakulam Bench dated 16.8.2013 of Shri M.O.Inasu case decided as follows:

"ISSUES RAISED IN THESE ORIGINAL PETITIONS STAND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PRINCIPAL BENCH OF THE CAT IN OA NO.655/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN WP (C) NO. 1535 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES BY FOLLOWING A DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT SLP FILED AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE FAVOURABLE SUPREME COURT. WE ARE ALSO SHOWN A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT DATED 29.7.2013 DISMISSING SLA (C) NO.13280 OF 2013 AND SLP (C) nO.23055 OF 2013 FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THOSE DECISIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANYWAY TO DISAGREE WITH THEM. THESE ORIGINAL PETITIONS, THEREFORE, FAIL. THEY ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED in limine".


Subsequently, the Hon'ble Tribunal issued order dated 8.4.2014 in CP/180/00020/214 in OA No.715/2012. It is mentioned in the Order that "When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application".

The above compliance by way of issuing Revised Calculation of Pension vide letter dated 7.3.2014 was followed by an addendum dated 13.5.2014 with an additional provision as follows:

NOTE: "THE REVISED AUTHORITY IS ISSUED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.8.2013 AND THAT THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE OP (CAT)/SLP THAT MAY BE FILED BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA/HON. SUPREME COURT"



The Special Leave to Appeal .../2014
CC 21044/2014 (SLP 6567-6568) Dismissed on 20.2.2015
Union of India vs Shri M.O.Inasu
Extract of Order dated 20.2.2015

"WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, WHICH IS DISMISSED".


One of the Prayer in OA 715/2012 filed initially by Shri M.O.Inasu is as follows:

"The Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had quashed the OM dated 03.10.1998 and 14.10.1998 and as such those Oms are no more in force. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is applicable to the applicant also as it is a judgement in rem".

As rightly pointed out, the decision of the Hon. Tribunal being a Judgment in REM,
is applicable to all pre-2006 pensioners including those who rendered less than 33 years qualifying service at the time of retirement, and as such, the pension of all the said pre-2006 pensioners is required to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008 without any proportionate reduction in pension based on length of qualifying service. The OA with the said prayer has been allowed and the Hon. HC Kerala has also upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam Bench and at present, the SLP filed against the Judgment of Hon. HC Kerala, also stands dismissed by the HSC.


Every pensioner is not to be expected to enter into litigation exercise, for implementation of the directives of the Courts, particularly when the Judgment dated 1.11.2011 is in REM. The dismissal of 3 SLPs 36148-50/2013 in 3 out of 4 cases of OA 655/2010 batch on 17.3.2015 also upheld the CAT PR Bench verdict 1.11.2011 and thus keeping in view the dismissal of SLPs in both Modified Parity based MRP as well as Modified Parity based Full MRP without any proportionate reduction for those who rendered less than 33 years qualifying service, a fresh OM in compliance with the directives of the Highest Court of Land, is expected and prayed for.

BEST WISHES TO ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS COMMUNITY

sundarar
27-03-2015, 07:23 PM
The Judgment in Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai stated as follows:
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.747/11
Monday this the 23rd day of January 2012
"6. The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and
11.2.2009[/B] (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). [B]Thus the stipulation that
the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated
3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by
the respondents stands already quashed. Order dated 11.2.2009
(Annexure R-11) which only reiterated the clarification contained in OM
dated 3.10.2008 and earlier OM dated 1.9.2008 having also been quashed
by the Full Bench, in the case of the applicant his entitlement remains
intact at Rs.10500/- and the reduction communicated and executed vide
Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 has thus become erroneous as the basis for such reduction itself is no longer available.

The Honble High Court of Kerala in Union of India & Ors. Versus P.K. Bhargavan Pillai & Anr. [OP(CAT) Nos.1767/2012, 1872/2012 and 236/2013 decided by a common order dated 22.05.2014] wherein the Honble High Court has held as under:-

"3. When these matter was taken up today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in OP 1767/2012 the issue at hand stands covered by judgment of this Court, which is produced as Ex.R1(A). It is pointed out that this court followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which in turn had followed the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High court on the very same issue. It is also pointed out that the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and special leave petition was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to establish before us any reason why we should not follow the judgment of this court, which is produced as Ex.R1(A). In such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view". These petitions will stand dismissed.

.........
A timely decision by the concerned authorities suitably, will avoid further litigation exercise in a matter that attained legal finality by the highest court of land, and thereby could l save time end effort of the Judiciary.

A Review Petition No. RP 741/2014 filed against the above Judgment of Hon. HC Kerala in respect of Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai was dismissed on 24.2.2015 by the Hon. HC Kerala.

"5. The learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners pointed out that the respondent in OP(CAT). No.8 of 2014 and the first respondent in the instant case are not similarly placed and that therefore, the original petition needs to be decided afresh on merits.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the respondent in OP(CAT). No.8 of 2014 and the first respondent in this case are similarly placed. According to him, both of them are Central Government pensioners who retired prior to the year 2006 and both of them were granted the very same relief by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

7. Since it was contended by the review petitioners that the first respondent herein and the respondent in OP(CAT).No.8 of 2014 are not similarly placed, we called for the records in OP(CAT).No.8 of 2014. On a perusal of the records in OP(CAT).No.8 of 2014, we are satisfied that the first respondent herein and the respondent in that case are similarly placed.

8. In the said circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the records to warrant interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. The review petition, in the said circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed"

There are so many other similarly placed pro-rata petitioners retired prior to 1.1.2006 from Central Government who are non-litigants and it is not to be expected that each and every aggrieved pensioner on same issue that attained settled legal position, need to enter into repeated litigation exercise which will enhance additional time consumption and efforts of valuable judiciary to repeatedly reiterate the already settled legal position.

Keeping in view the dismissal of SLP filed against Hon. HC Kerala Judgment in (Shri M.O.Inasu) OP (CAT 8/2014, on 20.2.2015 by the HSC, a timely decision by the concerned authorities suitably, will avoid further litigation exercise in a matter that attained legal finality by the highest court of land.

esveepee
28-03-2015, 09:59 AM
Depends upon the financial implications, coming on top of the OROP liability of Rs. 8000 crores (?) for defence personnel. The Govt is probably in a bind and may recommend payment of revised pension wef, say, 01 April 2015 and purchase of bonds by way of arrears. Or keep the issue alive for a suitable recommendation by the 7th CPC....

vishwapurna
30-04-2015, 08:01 AM
I am re-producing the reply received from Mr.Pratap Narayan, the pioneer of legal battle for getting full pension for pre-2006 pensioners with 20 years of service.
QUOTE:
Yes I have received the copy of the verdict running into 20 pages. I do not have the soft copy t be able to forward to you. I am, however, reproducing below the operative part of the verdict for your information:
Quote
13. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara (supra), V.Kasturi (supra), T.S.Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA937/2010 with OA 2101/2010 dated 20.11.2014, we are of the opinion that the prayer in the OAs is fully justified. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impunged orders dated 3.10.2008 and 19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and direct the respondents that the qualifying service for earning full pension will be treated as twenty years also for those who retired on or before 31.12.2005 and were alive on that day. The respondents are also directed to modify/amend all relevant government orders/letters/notifications in accordance with the above decision. It is made clear that this parity of pension between pre and post 1.01.2006 pensioners(on the question of eligibility of minimum pensionable service of 20years) will apply both as regards pension and family pension. The respondents are granted three months' time from the date of receipt of this order for implementation of directions contained in this order.
Unquote
Pratap Narayan

THANKS TO MR.PRATAP NARAYAN FOR HIS UNTIRESOME LEGAL BATTLE FOR GETTING THE JUSTICE.

tymanagoli
03-05-2015, 09:39 PM
Hearty congratulations to Sri Pratap Narayan and team. We are curious to know the details in the verdict. Request Sri Pratap Narayan to share the soft/scanned copy of the verdict.
Thanks, Managoli([email protected])

yenyem
04-05-2015, 08:25 PM
Hearty congratulations to Sri Pratap Narayan and team. We are curious to know the details in the verdict. Request Sri Pratap Narayan to share the soft/scanned copy of the verdict.
Thanks, Managoli([email protected])

Full judgement can be seen at CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH JUDGEMENT SECTION.CASE NO.
OA1165/2011.DATE OF JUDGEMENT 21.04.2015.JUDGES.RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J)
and P.K.BASU,MEMBER(A)

tymanagoli
04-05-2015, 10:18 PM
Thanks....

esveepee
05-05-2015, 12:34 AM
Great! Congratulations and sincere thanks to all who persevered all along. What could possibly be the next move of the Govt?

soodeep
05-05-2015, 06:56 AM
Thanx from me too...

Monga J C
07-05-2015, 09:40 AM
Thank you very much for the unprecedented efforts put in for all of us.

Monga J C
07-05-2015, 12:28 PM
The following is the link for CAT Judgement.

http://www.govtempdiary.com/2015/05/full-pension-on-20-years-service-for-pre-2006-pensioners-cat-judgement/

sundarar
09-05-2015, 08:44 AM
PLEASE SEE HON. HC COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 7.5.2015 IN WP 8012/2013 & WP 8056/2013 FILED BY PRO-RATA PETITIONERS.
THE JUDGMENT IS UPLOADED IN WEBSITE OF HON. HC DELHI.
THE DECISION OF HON. HC DELHI IS:

"It is declared that the writ petitioners would be entitled to full
pension post January 01, 2006 without any pro-rata cut therein".

Monga J C
09-05-2015, 11:29 AM
Dear Sir,
The relevant portion of the judgement is as follows:

" Thus the normal corollary would be
that the procedure laid down under para 4.2 of the OM dated September 01, 2008 shall remain in respect to pre-2006 retirees and the clarifications
issued by OMs dated October 03, 2008, October 14, 2008 and January 28,
2013 whereby the words „the pension of the pensioners who retired prior
to 2006 will be reduced pro-rata wherein the pensioner who has less
than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of
CCS (Pension) Rules 1972’ needs to be quashed. "


"26. The writ petitions are allowed. The Office Memorandums
introducing the cut-off date and mandating that pre January 01, 2006
pensioners would have their pension fix by pro-rata reducing the same by
such numbers of years they have rendered less service than 33 years are
quashed. It is declared that the writ petitioners would be entitled to full
pension post January 01, 2006 without any pro-rata cut therein. Pension
deducted from the petitioners (after it was correctly fixed and paid but
later on reduced and hence deductions made) shall be refunded as also the
arrears paid within six weeks from today failing which the amount
payable would bear simple interest @ 9% per annum reckoned six weeks
hereinafter. "

The link to full judgement:
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/PNJ/judgement/06-05-2015/PNJ07052015CW80122013.pdf

nchandras
16-05-2015, 12:01 PM
It is seen from the gist of the judgement of Hon HC Delhi dt 7 May 15, that the word Writ Petitioners are mentioned. Does it mean it would apply only to those litigants and others have to knock on the doors of the court once again.

Surely, the Govt Babus are likely to latch on these words and deny others of their legitimate benefit.

Any views pl

sundarar
16-05-2015, 07:23 PM
Dear Sir,

"The Office Memorandums introducing the cut-off date and mandating that pre January 01, 2006 pensioners would have their pension fix by pro-rata reducing the same by such numbers of years they have rendered less service than 33 years are quashed".

By virtue of above decision by the Hon. HC Delhi, the quashing of OM is not restricted to only the petitioners. A quashed OM can never remain quashed for some who happened to be petitioners and can be made valid at the same time for rest of the pro-rata pensioners who happened to be non-litigants.

As per the CAT PR Bench directive dated 1.11.2011 also (on its attaining the legal finality by the Highest Court of Land), the said OM 3.10.2008 alongwith two other OMs dated 14.10.2008 and 11.2.2009 remain quashed, and only by treating the said OMs as quashed, a fresh OM dated 26.8.2014 was issued for re-fixing pension based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008 for pre-2006 pensioners who are also petitioners of OA 655/2010.

At the same time, for pro-rata pensioners who are also petitioners of OA 655/2010 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 got the above re-fixation with a cut in in pension based on length of qualifying service. The aggrieved petitioners' (pro-rata pensioners) contempt petition will be coming up next for hearing on 27.5.2015.

Once the pension of a pre-2006 pensioner is required to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008, no qualifying service criteria comes in between, as proportionate reduction in pension was not prescribed in Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

Not only because of the 10/20 years qualifying service criteria for post-2006 retirees for fixing basic pension at the time of their retirement, but also because of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008, no proportionate reduction in Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in r/o pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners can be kept involved, as there is no authority to do so. No cabinet approval for effecting any proportionate reduction in pension to be fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners exists at any point of time and hence all pre-2006 pensioners' (including pro-rata pensioners') pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 is required to be re-fixed based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008 without any proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service.

nchandras
16-05-2015, 10:18 PM
Mr Sunderar
Thanks for the quick and exhaustive, concise reply
All doubts clarified.
Shall await result on 27 May