PDA

View Full Version : pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity



RSundaram
30-09-2008, 11:11 PM
Although in the above OM for pre 2006 pensioners or in any other related government document there is no specific reference to pre 1996 pensioners, it appears that the Pension Disbursing authorities are working on the premise that corrigendum PPOs applying the principles of Para 4.2 have to be prepared only in the case of post 1996 retirees.

It may be recalled that the VIth CPC recommended the pension fitment scheme by addition of 40 % of basic pension on 1.1.2006 to the Pension Plus Dearness Pension Plus Dearness Relief that the pensioner was getting on that date. In other words, the working formula consisted of multiplying the basic pension by 2.26 and treat this as consolidated pension as on 1.1.2006. This matched with the scheme for serving personnel, which required adding of grade pay to his pay in the relevant Pay Band pertaining to his scale of pay. To maintain near parity of pensioners retired before 1.1.2006 with person belonging to the same scale of pay and going to retire after 1.1.2006, a further recommendation was made that the pension fixed for earlier pensioners will not be less than at least minimum pension of subsequent retiree. The government issued formal orders accepting the scheme vide O.M. quoted under reference laying down normal fitment under Para 4.1 and protection of pension under Para 4.2 of the said O.M.
In this context it would be appropriate to recall that the Vth CPC in order to remove grave disparity between pre’86 and pre’96 retirees first brought them on par on one pay scale. In the second step these were brought on the near parity with post 96 retirees by giving them 50 % of minimum of pay scale so that they get nearly the same pension. The point to be stressed is that all pre’96 retirees were brought on same pay scale at minimum level irrespective of what pay scale they FACTUALLY held.
This has assumed importance because Govt. O.M. No. 38/37/08-PNPW (A) dt. 01.09.2008 states in Para 4.2 that the pension fixed in Para 4.1 would not be less than 50% of pay and grade pay of the employee in the same scale of pay from which the pensioner retired. However, if the term “ in the same scale of pay from which the pensioner retired’ is sought to be interpreted narrowly and in a restricted manner that such benefit would accrue only to those who FACTUALLY held the posts in Scales S -1 to S34 it would mean that the government has withdrawn the scheme of near parity conferred on pensioners so far.

Explaining further, if the notification is restricted to 50 % of the scale of pay the retiree FACTUALLY held earlier the purpose of the previous act of the government to bring pre ’86 and pre’ 96 retirees on same pay scale will be defeated. The fact of the matter is that the pre 96 and pre 86 pensioners got their Basic Pension Fixed as on 1.1.1996 based on the minimum of the replacement scale for the post from which they retired. That means that the government had conferred on them the post Vth Pay Commission revised pay scales as implemented with effect from 1.1.96 although they may not have FACTUALLY held the posts in the post 1996 pay scales. . This was the basic pension until 1.1.2006 under normal circumstances and therefore It will lead to an absurd situation since corresponding pay scales of pre’86 and pre’96 retirees had no FACTUAL relation at all; nor had they any FACTUAL relation with post’96 corresponding scale. Therefore the attempt to restrict the protection to 50 % of the pay scale FACTUALY held will be meaningless and an exercise in futility. The obvious step is to treat pre’86 and pre’96 pensioners on par with post 96 retirees on corresponding scale of pay. The above case makes the whole scheme of past meaningful as bringing the parity among retirees of previous years.
It is therefore considered that denial of protection to pre’86 and pre’96 retirees merely on the ground of not FACTUALLY holding the scale of pay will be discriminatory on the basis of date of retirement and grossly unethical.

In order to remove the misgivings of all pensioners who retired before 1.1.1996, once and for all it is requested that the government may please issue clear directives to the Pension Disbursing Authorities to afford protection under Para 4.2 of the OM to all of them i.e., 50 per cent of the minimum of the replacement scale regardless of their retirement date

vnatarajan
08-10-2008, 06:13 AM
hi All

I agree with the insightful observations made by Mr R Sundaram and as pointed out by him, the ,matter needs an immediate resolution and once for all.

IT IS TO BE POINTED OUT that there is a concern that the para 4.2 of the OM cited is NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED in letter and spirit again and again- as the same thing is happening through the Corrigendum OM dtd 3rd Oct 2008 of the DoP on Pension and Family Pension of pre-2006 retirees.

Deptt of Pensions of the concerned Ministry has to take IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE STEPS to restore parity to all pensioners as enunciated time and again- particularly wrt to pre-1986, pre1996 and pre-2006.

Otherwise old pensioners, who look to Deptt of Pensions to play the role of their benefactor, connot knock on anybody'd doors as THEY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE. (Ministry of Finanace?......?.....?).

LET MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL etc/ DEPTT. OF PENSIONS do justice to all old Pensioners.

Natarajan, V

vnatarajan
16-10-2008, 05:39 PM
Mr Sundaram may like to refer to the latest OM dtd 14th Oct 2008- gist/ my comments:

MY COMMENTS ON THE NEW OM of DoP/PW dtd 14th OCT 2008:
( attn: Pre-1986/1996/2006 retirees

The new OM No 38 37 08/PPW etc dt 14th oct on 6th CPC on implementation/revision of pension of pre-2006 pensions/ family pensions, inter alia, covers:


POSITIVE ASPECTS:

Concerned banks etc. have been asked to disburse current arrears/ addl. pension within a week (by 21st oct 2008).

Concordance tables provided for pre-1996/pre-2006/post-2006 pay-scales/bands for proper fixation BENEFICIALto pensioners. (THIS MAY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF Pre-1986 Retirees also)

Illustrations given for guidance.

Concerned banks etc. to disburse pension/ arrears as per OM of 1st Sep 2008.
DR amounts also to be added for periods relevant at rates already ordered.

All actions to be completed within a month (may be before 15th Nov 2008?)

Guidance has also been given as to the procedure to be followed in cases of missing details like DOB/age/ service details in the earlier PPOs etc and also in case of missing details like DOB among family pensioners.

(THIS IS HAPPENING IN MANY CASES_ ALL PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS MAY CHECK FOR MISSING DETAILS IN THE RESPECTIVE PPOs AND DECIDE ON THE COURSE OF ACTION TO FOLLOW. BANKS/ POs MAY PLEAD HELPLESSNESS. FRIENDS/ EX. COLLEAGUES/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS must come forward to ASSIST aged pensioners/ helpless family pensioners etc.)

( Banks etc also have to take action to ensure entries in the Pension Books/ Records and issue necessary Pension Orders with copies to the concerned authorities. Pensioners/ Family Pensioners shd watch/ enquire/ ensure to avoid future gaps!)

NEGATIVE:

I WAS HOPING THE ISSUE OF PENSION INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN PERPETUATED WILL BE RESOLVED THRU THIS OM - ONLY TO BE DISAPPOINTED! ALL AFFECTED MAY HAVE TO FIGHT & WAIT.

CORE ISSUE OF DISPARITY ARISING OUT OF BUNCHING PRE-2006 SCALES/BANDS (pl refer to my thread "Injustice to Pre-2006 .......") FOR PENSION PURPOSES and RELEGATING THE PARITY TO A LOWER STARTING LEVEL PAY IN THE NEW BUNCHED PAY BAND REMAINS OUTSTANDING.

DoP/PW and MOF to act fast to undo the damage and injustice.

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
16-10-2008, 05:54 PM
The OM of 14/10/2008 has addressed to this problem properly..

RSundaram
16-10-2008, 06:07 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan
Thank you very much. As you note the positive aspects are welcome. However, reckoning the pension on the basis of the bottom figure of the pay Band for several replaced scales is deplorable. This point is unreal, imaginary and has nothing to with the post from which people retired. In fact with the current level of scaled up computerisation it should have been possible to fix the pension at the exact equivalent point from which one retired for all pensioners by devising suitable programs. The least that could have been done is to fix it at the entry level pay fixation point used for serving employees. The second point which again discriminatory is the treatment of pensioners who retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 and post 1.9.2008 in the matter of extending full pension for eligible people without any proportionate calculation for qualifying years of service.
We must continue to urge the government to revisit these issues which are important for the pensioners.

sudacgwb
16-10-2008, 06:19 PM
Dear Friend,

I beg to differ your objection to the mode of computing the MINIMUM PENSION OF THOSE RETIRE FROM DIFFERENT PAY BANDS.

Pension will be calculated in the usual standard way and it will be ensured the pension will not be 'less than the lowest of the pay band'. This is the fairest possible way to treat the pensioners retired from different levels.

Govt has been fair to pensioners.

vijai kapoor
16-10-2008, 07:03 PM
This has ref to Mr sudacgwb

The purpose of the recommendation of the 5th CPC as well as 6th CPC was to reduce disparity in pension between the officers retiring now and those retired a few years back form the same rank/ scale by giving them atleast the minimum of the current pension. 6th CPC has used the term 'min of pay in payband plus gde pay corresponding to pre-revised scale' and not 'min of payband'- the term that has been used in P&PW OM of 3.10.08 and 14.10.08.

This amounts to misinterpretation of 6 CPC recommendation and introducing huge disparity between pre and post 2006 retirees against the intention of 5th and 6th CPCs.

This disparity hurts and is unjust. I think now you will better appreciate this point

sudacgwb
17-10-2008, 09:26 PM
I will be glad if one example is given to show the disparity being made out here to appreciate the point of view.

Weather it is pre- or post- same yardstick is used. AT least one case may be presented. In all cases I know the minimum given as per OM dated 14th Oct. 2008 IMPROVES THE PENSION AND NOT OTHERWISE.

vnatarajan
18-10-2008, 11:13 AM
Dear Mr Vijai Kapoor

Many thanks for pointing out the "key words" to understand the disparity:

I reproduce here what I have posted in my main thread on "Injustice to Pre-2006-----------------"

Many thanks to Mr VIJAI KAPOOR for bringing in the key words at the right time (under another posting elsewhere) for interpretation and to realize the injustice that is being pointed out by me and my distressed pensioner friends of several Departments in this thread:

The DoP/PW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 01.09.2008 CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOSLY ASSERTS:

“Fixation of PENSION will be subject to the provision that the REVISED PENSION in no case shall be lower than 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE “PAY IN THE PAY BAND” PLUS THE GRADE PAY “CORRESPONDING” TO THE PREREVISED SCALE FROM WHICH PENSIONER HAD RETIRED”


The MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-1C dt 13.09.2008 LISTS THE “ REVISED PAY” “GRADE PAY” AGAINST CORRESPONDING “PRE-REVISED SCALES” AS FOLLOWS: (all in Rupees)(pl read seriatum)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale Details;Pre-revised Basic(Min);Revised Pay with Revised Min Pay in the Pay band followed by Grade Pay;Revised Minimum Basic Pay; Revised Pension at 50% of Revised Basic Pay


1.S-30
22400-525-24500 22400 51850 12000 63850 31895
2.S-29
18400-500-22400 18400 44700 10000 54700 27350
3.S-28
14300-450-22400 14300 37400 10000 47400 23700
4.S-27
16400-450-20000 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
5.S-26
16400-450-20900 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
6.S-25
15100-400-18300 15100 39690 8700 48390 24145
7.S-24
14300-400-18300 14300 37400 8700 46100 23050

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

In the subsequent OMs of even nos.dt 03rd and 14th Oct 2008, the DoP/PW have chosen to GO AGAINST the letter and spirit of both the above cited references (pl. note one is that of MoF itself) and have BUNCHED all the above scales into a single PAY BAND (37400-67000) for the purpose of PENSION calculation with varying GRADE PAYs whose effect automatically gets nullified because of the unbelievable lowering of the minimum Revised Pay in the respective Pay Bands i.e. from 51850 in the case of the HAG level Officer at the top to 37400 at the bottom-most , which is that of a JAG level Officer!

As Mr Vijai Kapoor points out- IT IS UNJUST. IT HURTS- very very much!.

Mere crumbs of a few rupees in the grade pay can not compensate the huge difference!.

Compare the JUST PENSION as above against the UNJUST PENSION that is being mooted out:

S-30 HAG level officer,instead of drawing a basic pension of 31925 would now draw 24700
(erosion of 7225 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!).
S-29 SAG level officer -do------ 27350 ---do--- ---do--- 23700
(erosion of 3650 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!)

Similarly S-27,S-26,S-25 level officers also lose marginally from 400 to 500 pm (loss- more with DR)

Many of the HAG/ SAG level officers have functioned as Heads of Deptts with Cadre Controlling Authority/ full Financial Powers with more responsibilities/ accountability.
Many of those who worked in Scientific Depts. are National Award winners. Many have international/ national distinctions and credits. Their contributions to the Nation are not small!. In large Departments, several (hundreds of) JAG level officers were functioning under them!. HOW THE GOVT. CAN SO ARBITRARILY RELEGATE THEM TO A
LOWER PAY LEVEL FOR PENSION PURPOSES – almost to the JAG levels!!!

There cannot be a greater humiliation in the life of a retired Govt.Servant.as in the case now!

FOR A CHANGE, LET ALL PAST & WOULD BE PENSIONERS FROM THE TOP-MOST LEVEL TO THE BOTTOM-MOST LEVEL DRAW THE SAME PENSION WITHOUT DISRIMINATION! WHY SO MANY PAY BANDS? WHY SO MANY CALCULATIONS? WHY CONFUSIONS/ FRUSTRATIONS/ DEJECTIONS?

P.S. to Readers:– pl do not mistake! Many of you might have been affected by bunching of the pay scales in a similar fashion as above. Pl examine and find out.

vnatarajan

(pl ignore my typing mistakes!!!!)

kkhameedkutty
18-10-2008, 05:06 PM
From : kkhameedkutty
To : RSundaram
Date : 2008-10-18 15:51
Title : Discrimination between Post 1-1-2006 Pensioners and Post 2-9-2008 Pensioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Sundaram,

Thank you so much for the reference made on the above subject. It is ridiculous to note that the 6th CPC, recommendation to grand full pension (for those completed 20 years of service) is applicable only after the acceptance of recommendation by government (w.e.f 2-9-2008) when 6th CPC recommends implementation of all other recommendations on pension matters w.e.f 1-1-2006 and also even full pension (for those completed 15 years) recommended for PBOR's w.e.f 1-1-2006. This is a total discrimination and injustice to those who retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 after completing 20 years of service like any other who are retiring after 2-9-2008. A junior with 20 years service who will take retirement in September 2008 is going to get much more pension than a senior who has retired after 20 years or even more years of service.. If that is the case, where is parity as mentioned by 6th CPC in its recommendations and EQUAL RANK EQUAL PENSION Policy as per Supreme Court Orders.

This can be rectified only by allowing full pension -50% (of pay as per revised scale + Grade pay) w.e.f 1-1-2006 to all who have done minimum of 20 years service without considering number of years of qualifying service in any case.

I am also interested to join in submitting any collective representation to government or challenging the same in court.


Please be in touch.

With Regards,

Hameed Kutty
Trivandrum

vijai kapoor
18-10-2008, 08:39 PM
This is for those who still donot understand the disparity point

It has rightly said that What was essential was to ensure a person retiring will get minimum pension a person gets from that grade/post/scale notwithstanding when he has retired/retiring.

However what has been done in order dt 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 is contrary to the above.

For example if a person has retired from S-29 scale (18400-22400) as per 6 cpc recommendation as well as order dt 1.09.08 para 4.2 he should get atleast 50% of the minimum pay in payband plus gde pay corresponding to pre-revised payscale. (This obviously meant minimun pay in payband corresponding to pre-revised scale plus gde pay corresponding to prerevised scale.)

As per the fitment tables issued by M of Fin on 30.08.08 for serving officer the minimum pay in payband is 44700 which is corresponding to the min of pre-revised scale i.e. 18400. With gde pay 10000 the min pension comes to 27350.

However the orders dt 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 has changed to 50% of minimum of payband (irrespective of pre-revsied scale) ie 37400 plus gde pay 10000 and thus min pension by this interpretation comes to 23700.

What can now be done is to request and demand from P&PWs to correct this erroneous interpretation and issue correct clarification letter and table in line with Min of Fin OM dt 30.08.08.

sudacgwb
18-10-2008, 09:04 PM
Displaying the bunching effect extended to the serving employees to ensure bunching wont takes place more than 2 stages now and (3 stages in 5 cpc) and complaining the similar benefit be given to the pension tantamount to revising the scale to pre 1.1.2006 regime. The inputs for the revision is based on the figures of 1.1.2006 and how it can be extended backwards? Point to ponder.

What is to be appreciated is the fitment table differentiate those who are getting bunched whereby the benefits will become variable. It is pertinent to note during any revision nobody looses and some may gain more and some may gain less.

When the pensioners post 1.1.2006 are being treated with an assurance that their pension will not be less than the computations made on minimum in the pay band plus grade pay, it is ridiculous past pensioners should be treated differently.

In the opinion of the writer, govt. has responded positively to the genuine demands within their own limitations.

sundarar
19-10-2008, 07:18 PM
Dear Sirs,

The Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 says: The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade pay(and not the table) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

The Pay Band Minimum and the Grade Pay thereon only has been referred to in the Para. As such, in case the minimum of the Pay band in the Table + Grade Pay as applicable has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the 50%, the said O.M. itself requires to be amended.

It is so in the case of serving employees who attain the minimum pay of Rs.8000 on promotion after 1.1.2006, his revised basic pay will be = (Pay band Pay of the Pre-promoted post + GP thereon) X 3% + Pay in the Pre-promoted post + GP of the promoted post, and there is no linkage to the table. What I mean to say is similar disparity exists in the case of promotees also. Hope clarification on clarification may follow in respect of such disparities also. Rgds.

sudacgwb
19-10-2008, 09:05 PM
Mr Sundarar,

I tend to believe you are mixing up the fixation on promotion with the minimum in the pay band of the corresponding post.

You have also lost site of the fact if on fixing the revised pension in tems of Para 4.1, happens to be higher than the one computed based on para 4.2 the higher one will be taken as revised pension.

The next point missed by you is for new entrants after 1.9.2008 will be the minimum of the respoective pay band with the corresponding grade pay.

Is it not true you are contesting the minimum that is being defined and not the fixation formula as such?

First Priority as stated by me elsewhere is to ensure the pensioners / family pensioners / senior pensioners (>80 years of age) will be given the pension on one go and not in two installmetnts.

vijai kapoor
20-10-2008, 04:13 PM
Mr Sudacgwb is very aggressively trying to defend the completely erroneous explanation given for para 4.2 in the P&PW OMs of 3.10.08 and 14.10.08, without even trying to appreciate the points raised in my earlier communicaition or mr Natrajan's elaborate and beautifully compiled notes.
Some persons in pre-revised scale S-24 may not be affected by the wrong explanation of P&PW but most of the pensioners specially in PB4 will be affected and will definitely appreciates the points given by us and will raise thier grievances with P&PW.
The issues of bunching or single payment are irrelevant in this issue of Pension parity. They can be debated elsewhere in some other thread.

sundarar
20-10-2008, 09:04 PM
Dear Sudacgwb Sir,

As per Para 4.1, the Pension Ready Reckoner has been provided in the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008.

In respect of the cases where the revised pension is higher than the one that will be arrived as per para 4.2, the disbursement of arrears should not take more time than the stipulated time of one week as per latest O.M. dated 14.10.2008. But
Till date no such arrears has been paid. According to O.M.dt.14.10.2008 vide clarification para 3`wherever the pension is disbursed through PS Banks, the Banks will pay and disburse the pension and arrears in accordance with the ready reckoner and also the addl. Pension to old pensioners and family pensioners within a week from the date of O.M’. Whether it is single instalment or double instalment, nothing is getting paid so far. When the pensioners other than the two categories indicated above will get their arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006? –

As per Para 4.2:
The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade pay(and not the table) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

An illustration will prove that clarity is required in respect of minimum pay in the Pay Band.

Mr. A drawing Rs.8000/- as pre-revised basic in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500 as on 1.11.2005 and retiring on 1.2.2006. Although the corresponding pay band is 9300-34500, the minimum revised pay in the said pay band is Rs.14880. If we keep minimum of pay band as 9300, then with GP of Rs.5400/- enhanced pension (50%) work out to be 7350. If we keep minimum revised pay in the pay band with GP, the
Enhanced pension work out to be Rs.10140.

Thus, the Pay fixation table not becoming valid after the pay fixation on 1.1.2006 especially to decide the minimum of pay in the Pay Band. . In the case of promotees also, since the fixation of pay in pay band relates to 3% of existing pay band pay +GP, the table being irrelevant. That is the reason, I mentioned the case of promotees also.

The particular stipulation 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band, therefore requires clarification. My intention is not to question about 40% or 100% arrears that will become payable. The doubt is centering around the enhanced pension that has to be ensured as per Para 4.2 of o.M. dt. 1.9.2008.

I may be corrected, if otherwise. Best regards.

vnatarajan
21-10-2008, 01:00 PM
hi Friends

Can someone pl. examiine and confirm- how promotees and new lateral entrants will be fixed in the new - revised scales/bands?

At the minimum of the new revised scales? or at different starting points within the respective new-revised pay-scale/ pay band?If YES- why SO? When they retire, what will be their pension? Will their pension also be at the minimum lof the new pay-scale/pay band? If NOT- why NOT? (PL CHECK FOR THE S 29 Scale (18400-22400) AS AN EXAMPLE !)

After all the revised pay-scales appear to be God-given to some and the mutilated pension amounts themselves appear to be a bounty and a result of grace of some in the power?

Every Pensioner- pre-1986 or pre-1996 or pre-2006 (or even pre- 2.9.2006, if proven) has a right to demand parity at the minimum among his equals.

Pl. REALISE pensioners are not beggars!. They have fought in the courts of law and established the right of justice of parity among equal class of pensioners at all times!

(Care taken to protect the interests of certain elite categories of the heirarchy is unbelievable and atrocious! What a gross/ quantum difference in pension alone!)

(LOWER SCALES HAVE BEEN BUTCHERED! In fact people at the lower end should have got a minimum pension much more than what is envisaged!)

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
21-10-2008, 02:15 PM
First to Mr Vijai Kumar,

The effect of OM of Pre- pensioners affecting the PB-4 officers cannot be helped as their pension will be with a minimum of pb-4 and corresponding grade pay. The effect of bunching is applicable to serving employees to ensure people with all stages coming to the same fixed pay in the pay band. In case retired pb-4 officials revised calculation works out less than the minimum as defined using the min of pay band and grade pay same will be ensured. Pensioners have been treated fairly by the govt. order.

to Mr.Sundarar,

Regarding the example given by you: yes two figures are coming and as per the govt. order actual pension will be maximum of the two. Is it not? When this is the case, where is the problem?

In case the entry level fixed pay for different grade pay within the same pay band is different permanently (those recruited between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 and thereafter also) then the govt. must create sub pay bands as 3A, 3B, 3C etc so that similar treatment exists for pre- pensioners also. However my interpretation for different entry fixed pay in the same pay band is the minimum of the pay band with DIFFERENT GRADE PAY hereafterwards. (from 1.1.2008 onwards).

to Mr.VNatarajan,

I concur with you the govt. has BUTCHERED the lower grade officials and the minimum pension should have fixed FAIRLY.

Regard to all.

Generally to All:

Pensioners not taking up the need for payment of arrears in one installment atleast to >80 age is shocking. They are keen to get still higher pension to pb-4 retirees.

IN FACT GOVT. SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER THAT THE DA ON PENSION WILL NOT BE PAYABLE IN CASE THE PB-4 PENSIONERS GET RE-EMPLOYED IN GOVT OR ELSEWHERE AS THE DA ELEMENT NEED NOT BE COMPENSATED TWICE.

vnatarajan
21-10-2008, 04:11 PM
hi Friends

Appeal for the IMMEDIATE payment of all/balance arrears to pensioners is already on way from our FORUM (viz Pensioners' Forum)

Spirit of our efforts shall be to reinforce and not divide!

(Govt. has played a very subtle game to protect the interests in certain echelons/ scales - with different starting points/ jump starts in the pay bands whenever promotions would take place/ or lateral entries are effected, CORRESPONDING TO THE pre-revised scales!. Why not give similar parity to the Pensioners who have served the Govt. for so long and till before 1.9.2008 such a status existed? Pl examine and correct me! If I am wrong this remark will be withdrawn!)

vnatarajan.

vijai kapoor
21-10-2008, 05:05 PM
Mr Sudhacgwb has talked about bunching. W.R.T.PC recommendations, bunching means when you are transfoming from one pre-revised scale to revised scale , one or more pre-revised stage coming to same post-revised level. In our discussions we are not at all talking about bunching so question of bunching is out.

We are talking about merger of 7-8 pre-revised scale into one PB and then giving sepaerate and much higher proper fitment to working officers even at the minimum of pre-revised scales, while herding all the pensioner to the lowest point of the PB. This has in fact murdered the recommendations of 5 CPC and 6 CPC. and this is the grievance and I am sure 99% pensioners understand this. If some people deliberately don't want to understand the point and defend this murder, nothing can be done. good luck to them.

vnatarajan
21-10-2008, 05:17 PM
Dear Mr Vijai Kapoor

Excellent explanation and I fully agree with you. I also stand corrected wherever I have used/ mis-used the word ""bunching" indiscriminately to convey the meaning of "merger" or "clubbing together" or so- more because of the haste!

However our focus is on the grievance so succinctly summarised by you!

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
21-10-2008, 08:04 PM
Point to be noted:

Govt has not fixed the minimum of the pay band and grade pay for pension. They have set this as the minimum pension to be given.

If this was the 'cap' (maximum) then all should rise their eyebrows! If one gets more than this it is welcome and no provisions of the pension rules stops them from getting the highter of the two.

sundarar
21-10-2008, 08:56 PM
Dear Sirs,

The Annexure-1 of the O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 indicates that for all those who retired from the pre-revised scales (S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12), the single Pay Band 9300-34800 has been taken as reference to determine the 50% of sum of the Minimum of Pay Band + GP. The GP Rs.4200 as well as Minimum of Pay Band Rs.9300 if taken together, Rs.6750/- becomes the revised pension that is supposed to be covered under Para 4.2 of O.M. dt.1.9.2008. All those who retired in 4 different scales, will thus entitle single amount as stated above.

At the same time, if we read once again the said Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 which stipulates that `50% of minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band +GP', every pre-revised scale will have its own corresponding 50% factor (sum of the Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band +GP of the corresponding revised Pay Band). In my view, Minimum of Pay Band in accordance with O.M. dt. 14.10.2008, and Minimum of the `Pay' in the Pay Band as per Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 are entirely different from each other. According to me minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band means, the revised pay in the pay band for the minimum of the corresponding pre-revised pay scale from which the Govt. servant had retired.

Thus, it is all the more necessary to confirm that Minimum of Pay Band as well as Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band are one and same or otherwise.

Apart from the above, till this moment, the arrears are yet to be disbursed.

Though no hurried solution is expected, the actual problem has to be taken note by the concerned, even if remedy thereon follows thereafter.

Let us hope for the best. Best rgds.

sundarar
21-10-2008, 09:59 PM
[QUOTE=sudacgwb;1017]
to Mr.Sundarar,

Regarding the example given by you: yes two figures are coming and as per the govt. order actual pension will be maximum of the two. Is it not? When this is the case, where is the problem?

In case the entry level fixed pay for different grade pay within the same pay band is different permanently (those recruited between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 and thereafter also) then the govt. must create sub pay bands as 3A, 3B, 3C etc so that similar treatment exists for pre- pensioners also. However my interpretation for different entry fixed pay in the same pay band is the minimum of the pay band with DIFFERENT GRADE PAY hereafterwards. (from 1.1.2008 onwards).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear (Sudacgwb)Sir,

The Maximum among the one as consolidated under Para 4.1 or the one as calculated under Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 can be actual pension. But, here that is not the case.

Within the Para 4.2 itself, in case we calculate for 50% of the Minimum of Pay in Pay Band + GP corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, such basic pension will differ from the one as arrived at by taking 50% of minimum of Pay Band + GP as indicated under col.8 of Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008. When the Annexure-1 itself has restricted to 50% Minimum of Pay Band + GP, there is no question of maximum within Para 4.2 as pointed out above. It is all the more essential to define the term `MINIMUM PAY IN PAY BAND' of Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 as well as `MINIMUM OF PAY BAND' under Col.8 of Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 by the concerned.
In the absence of suitable clarification, where will be the remedy? Let us hope for the best. Best rgds.

sudacgwb
22-10-2008, 01:37 PM
The comparision is between the min of the pay band and Grade Pay and the one computed with the factor 2.14 and the maximum is payable.

Unless the govt. clarifies weather the higher start within the same pay band for different entry levlel officials is only for those recruited between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 or a permanent feature for entrants from 1.1.2006, this problem persists.

In my view, which may not be shared by many, the new entrants to civil service after 1.9.2008, within the same pay band the fixed pay will be the minimum and the variable factor will be grade pay only.

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 01:38 PM
Hi All

This is for information of all those who believe that injustice is being perpetuated in the OMs dtd 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2008 of the DoP/PW;

1.Retd Railway Employees Welfare Association, Gurgaon have also taken up the issue of the injustice that is being perpetuated to various classes of pensioners and already their representation have gone to the PMO on 16th Oct 2008.(Individual representations are also following the same.) In a table appended to their appeal to PMO, they have demonstrated how pensioners of 5th CPC scales S-4 to S-30 lose pension amounts per month from Rs 168 at the lowest to about Rs 7000 plus at the highest, plus DR of course.

They have also taken up the case of post 2006 - pre sept 2008 cases disparities as also being discussed in various threads .

2.Affected CSIR pensioners have also taken up the case of injustice as outlined in my main part of the thread!

vnatarajan

SK Jain
22-10-2008, 02:25 PM
Dear vnatarajan,
Thanks for updating. I think truth shall prevail and some positive thing will come out.
Dear sudacgwb,
For entry pay in the revised pay structure please refer to Section II of the First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 (page 43). http://www.india.gov.in/govt/studies/revised.pdf
In definition section(page 32) para 3 (5) - "pay in the pay band" means pay drawn in the running pay bands ....

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 04:10 PM
hi All

Full details of the Retired Railway Eployees' Welfare Association's representation/ Appeal to the PMO against the disparitie in pension arising out of the latest OMs of DoP/PW etc sre posted in their website www.rrewa.org please.

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
22-10-2008, 08:03 PM
Mr.VNatarajan:
Thank you for the link. Very informative.

Mr: SKJain,

If the entry level pay within the pay band for different grade pay(s) then 'that' pay should be taken for calculation of minimum pension and not the minimum of the pay band.

They should have denoted it as payband-3A, 3B etc. Similarly should have given different starting pay for all grade pays to avoid heartburns to many.

I am sure with the intervention of Railway WFAs, positive response will come and bring cheers to pre- pensioners.

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 08:37 PM
Mr Sudacgwb

Thanks for the clarification you have provided (to Mr SKJain). Disparities have to be resolved and the authorities concerned have to apply their minds and expertise to be most non-controversial. After all, today's employees (old-clan-pre-April 2004 group) are tomorrow's Pensioners!

vnatarajan.

sudacgwb
23-10-2008, 07:09 AM
Dear Mr.VNatarajan,

It is pity the competence level in the MOF& DOPT in particular and GOI in general has reached such a sorry state of affairs. In an attempt to reduce the number of pay scales, they have stretched the things in such a way they have created a mess in the following aspects:

1. Minimum pension calculation by merging the different grade pay levels with different entry pay as ONE PAY BAND

2. Using terms like upgradation, merger without knowing the dictionary meaning and the difference between the two

3. Not allowing the minimum of the upgraded scales to those whose scales have been upgraded

4. Giving a special promotion after 4 years in grade pay 4800 (and equivalent) without elaborating this action vis a vis ACP/Promotion

5. Merging scales between which promotion/ACP have taken place between 1.1.2006 and the date of issue of Notification without clarifying the value of the promotion/ACP earned by them (in the intervening period)

6. Disbursing the arrears in two installments (%age wise) making it difficult to minimise the tax liability of the employee by spreading the arrears (although they could have given the arrears of 2006-07 now and 2009-08 next year)

7. By calling the small family incentive increment as allowance (meaningless) to avoid giving the arrears

8. and many more anomalies that will come to fore after the issuance of ACP OM

ss

vnatarajan
23-10-2008, 09:03 AM
Dear Mr Sudacgwb

I agree with you.

I am trying to present some more funnier aspects of the so-called merger of scales- may be later!

Merger of scales- if u take the scales from S-24 to S-30, it looks as if it has been done only to bring down the minimum benefit to the pre-2006 pensioners! NONE INTHE POST-2006 regime (leave alone the trisanku period) of the equivalent S-29 or S-30 scale officers will draw that pension (of Rs 23700) as they have ensured a jump fixation (pl check the revised pay scale tables of MOFs OM of 13th Sept 2006) - and even the lateral entry levels have been protected by ensuring a JUMP START for them!

SIMILAR INDISCRIMINATION or OMISSIONS ARE NOT RULED OUT in all Scales down below!.

TOP FOUR SCALES S-31 to 34 have got every protection, full benefits of fitment, grade pay etc and much more if you analyse the pension fixation! WHY AN UNIQUE TREATMENT TO THEM?

AFTER RETIREMENT, ALL PENSIONERS BELONG TO ONE CATEGORY ie "PENSIONER"- THEREFORE JUSTICE HAS TO BE EQUALLY DONE or AT LEAST SEEM TO BE DONE!

That was my line of argument- and perhaps you will also appreciate the same!

Thanks/Regards

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
23-10-2008, 10:18 AM
Dear VNatarajan sb,

I am sure with the effective intervention of RREWA, revised order will be issued before the Revised PPOs are prepared for the retired employees.

I tend to believe, the civilian pensioners association is not taking enough cue from RREWA. I have visited the site quoted by you and the effort of RREWA is laudable.

Bye

ss

ranganathan
24-10-2008, 07:53 AM
Dear Mr sudacgwb,

Let me quote you on your contention:

"Weather it is pre- or post- same yardstick is used. AT least one case may be presented. In all cases I know the minimum given as per OM dated 14th Oct. 2008 IMPROVES THE PENSION AND NOT OTHERWISE."

Kindly see for yourself whether this contention is right or( WRONG) from the following example, arising out of the 14th Oct OM.

"Between two officers at the level of Jt Secretary, with full qualifying service and drawing min pay at retirement , the one retired before 01-01 06, will draw a basic pension of RS. 23700/-ie.. 50% of (37400+10000) and the other retiring after 01-01-06 will draw a pension of Rs 27350/-ie 50% of ( 44700+10000 )"

This is just one actual example among several out of the the situation as brought in the discussions by several others above

I would request you to kindly react wrt this specific example for the benefit of those of us, unable to agree with you.

sudacgwb
25-10-2008, 04:21 PM
Dear Mr.Ranganathan,

You have responded to my earlier view instead of looking at the last post after which you have reacted.

It is sufficient if you are aware what has been envisaged in the OM is the fixation of the minimum and not the cap / maximum pension payable.

As stated earlier cases of pb-1, 2 should have been taken care by GOI instead of dis-proportortional hike to pb-4

I agree when they have fixed the starting 'variables' within the pay band corresponding to different grade pay they must have taken note of the same in respect of past pensioners while fixing their revised pension. There is no exception to pb-4 from this.

ss

vnatarajan
25-10-2008, 05:04 PM
hi All

The debate so far has clearly brought out that there are disparities at various levels in pension fixation formulae for fixing the correct/ minimum pension to the pre-2006/ even earlier pensioners based on the directives issued through OMs of 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2009 by the DoP/PW and concerned authorities.

Ministry of Finance's clear cut concordance tables given in their OM of 13th Sept 2008 for fixing the revised pay-scales have been TOTALLY IGNORED for pension fixation and this is not only ridiculous but is ADMINISTRATIVELY most unethical.

IS THE MoF totally ignorant of this act of omission or overstepping ?

Or ARE THEY THE PERPETUATORS? If this is so,then such an action stands condemned and we the pensioners wil be compelled to view the same as most distrustful!

FOR THOSE OLD PENSIONERS WHO HAVE NOT ACTED SO FAR TO REPRESENT THEIR CASES:PLEASE ACT FAST.

Several models of appeals/ representations are already available. Many can see the Retired Railways Employees representations in their welfare association's website www.rrewa.org and copy the text to suit their cases. To know the exact amount of scale-wise disparities, Annexure attached to RREWA's appeal to PM may be seen.

Appeals may be sent to the Secy,DoP/PW.

Those who have received their final pensions as per 14th Oct 2004 OM of DoP/PW, they may perhaps address the same to the Anomaly Committee of the Ministry bOf Pensions/ Deptt. of Pensions etc.

More knowledgeable pensioners with means may kindly help other old/ sickly/ less enlightened pensioners.

ALL PENSIONERS" ASSOCIATIONS MUST ALSO TAKE UP THE MATTER SERIOUSLY AND SEND APPEALS FOR REDRESSAL TO G.O.I QAND ALL MINISTRIES/ DEPTTS CONCERNED.

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
26-10-2008, 03:45 PM
Mr VNatarajan:

I want you to add the following items in your memorandum to Govt for redressal, apart from the modification of minimum pension computation corresponding to different grade pay within the pay band (rather than clubbing all scales within the pay band):

1. The revision of pension and redefining the "DEPENDENCY" CRITERIA has rendered many pensioners who were dependents and hence certain benefits as independent without benefits that were there earlier.

Many pensioners who retired from different grades have been revised to the amount more than Rs.3500/= minimum pension in govt. of india.

I request you to take up the cases of those pensioners/family pensioners who were dependants before the implementation of 6 cpc should continue to be treated as 'dependants' so that they are not robbed of the benefits they were getting earlier.

ss

vnatarajan
27-10-2008, 10:17 AM
hi All

HAPPIEST DIWALI GREETINGS TO EVERYBODY! ENJOY EVERY MOMENT OF THIS LIGHT-FULL AND DELIGHTFUL DAY WITH ALL!

SPECIAL WISHES TO GCONNECT AND ITS ESTABLISHMENT

vnatarajan & Co-pensioners/ families from Chennai

vnatarajan
28-10-2008, 07:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi All

Letters to the Editor of Hindu published on 27th Oct 2008 on one of the issues of 6th CPC reproduced (Courtesy : Mr R Sundaram/ Mr P K Ranganathan):

Letter To The Editor In The Hindu 27/10/08

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

Sixth Pay Commission

The Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations have brought some cheer to Central government employees in these difficult times. But a sizeable number of retired senior citizens have been left in the lurch. They include those who retired from some senior levels before January 1, 2006. The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare’s clarification of October 3, 2008, has reduced to naught all accepted official norms, contravening the decision of the Supreme Court. It has brought despair to an arbitrarily created section of the same grade of pensioners.

A spate of representations pointing out this anomaly has not met with any response. The government, in fact, reinforced the arbitrariness in its next clarification order dated October 14, 2008. The clarification has resulted in the denial of the minimum basic pay and the resultant minimum pension to those on one side of the chronological divide as on January 1, 2006.

As a typical example, between two officers at the level of Joint Secretary, the one who retired before January 1, 2006, will draw a pension of Rs.23,700 whereas the others retiring on or after the same date will draw Rs.27,350 per month.

P.K. Ranganathan,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
02-11-2008, 11:58 AM
hi All

Letter published in the Deccan Chronicle, Chennai Ed of 30th Oct 2008 reproduced here:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deccan Chronicle 30th Oct 2008 Page 10 – Letters column


PENSION PLEA
Sir, There is no doubt that
implementation of the 6th
central pay commission recommendations
has brought
some cheer to the Central
government employees. But a
sizeable number of retired
senior citizens, including all
those who retired from senior
levels before January 1,
2006, have been left in the
lurch. This group is aggrieved
because the pension
department’s clarification of
October 3, 2008, brings to
naught all accepted norms
contravening the decisions of
the Supreme Court. A spate
of representations pointing
out this anomaly has not been
met with any response. We
appeal to the authorities concerned
to redress our grievances
and do justice.
P. K. RANGANATHAN
Chennai
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Courtesy: AVMukuntharajan, Jr Member from Chennai/ PKR)

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
02-11-2008, 07:46 PM
S/Shri Natarajan, Sundaram, Sundarar, Ranganathan, Subba Rao, SK Jain, Sudacgwb, Pratap Singh Negi, Vijai Kapoor and a few others have made valuable presentations in this Blog on the plight of Pre-2006 pensioners and these have been further jmproved to a great extent by inputs from each other during the debate.

It would be perhaps a good idea if strong individual appeals are sent for publication, by a few of the abovenamed members of this Board, to the Editors of Newspapers based in New Delhi like The Hindustan Times, National Herald, New Delhi Editions of Times of India, Indian Express, the Hindu, Statesman, DNA etc, as there is greater likelihood of the articles being seen jn a New Delhi based Paper by the members of the Govt, who take decisions in pension matters. Regional newspapers are hardly perused.

While drafting the articles, it may be of help if only the terminologies used by VI CPC in its Report and by the Govt in its various OMs, are quoted or used, as suggested by Mr. Vijai Kapoor.

Will it not be simpler to give a poser to the govt. as to why different methods are adopted - one for revising the Pay of serving employees/post 2006 pensioners and another for pre-2006 pensioners? If financial constraint is one reason, the Apex Court has rejected the same in one case. One can find that this is one of the pleas presented by the Retired Railway Employees Welfare Association based at Gurgaon and manned by retired higher level officers of the Railways. The RREWA has used the very Reckoner or Concordant Table issued by the Ministry of Finance to highlight the wide disparity that arose thanks to adoption of different methodologies or yardsticks.

The articles by our honourable members, if published in Newspapers based in New Delhi, would be quite supportive of a very strong plea already lodged by the RREWA with PMO in this regard..

With regards,

kssitaraman
02-11-2008, 08:01 PM
S/Shri Natarajan, Sundaram, Sundarar, Ranganathan, Subba Rao, SK Jain, Sudacgwb, Pratap Singh Negi, Vijai Kapoor and a few others have made valuable presentations in this Blog on the plight of Pre-2006 pensioners and these have been further jmproved to a great extent by inputs from each other during the debate.

It would be perhaps a good idea if strong individual appeals are sent for publication, by a few of the abovenamed members of this Board, to the Editors of Newspapers based in New Delhi like The Hindustan Times, National Herald, New Delhi Editions of Times of India, Indian Express, the Hindu, Statesman, DNA etc, as there is greater likelihood of the articles being seen jn a New Delhi based Paper by the members of the Govt, who take decisions in pension matters. Regional newspapers are hardly perused.

While drafting the articles, it may be of help if only the terminologies used by VI CPC in its Report and by the Govt in its various OMs, are quoted or used, as suggested by Mr. Vijai Kapoor.

Will it not be simpler to give a poser to the govt. as to why different methods are adopted - one for revising the Pay of serving employees/post 2006 pensioners and another for pre-2006 pensioners? If financial constraint is one reason, the Apex Court has rejected the same in one case. One can find that this is one of the pleas presented by the Retired Railway Employees Welfare Association based at Gurgaon and manned by retired higher level officers of the Railways. The RREWA has used the very Reckoner or Concordant Table issued by the Ministry of Finance to highlight the wide disparity that arose thanks to adoption of different methodologies or yardsticks.

The articles by our honourable members, if published in Newspapers based in New Delhi, would be quite supportive of a very strong plea already lodged by the RREWA with PMO in this regard..

With regards,

vnatarajan
02-11-2008, 08:14 PM
Dear Mr Sitaraman/ Friends,

I endorse Mr Sitaraman's suggestion in toto. It is a 'MUST' step!

I am not clear why people from Delhi have not reacted pro-actively, inspite of the fact the RREWA having taken up the issue in full earnest!

I and my friends had tried our best to get some 'Letters' and 'Article/Report' published in newspapers from Chennai- and the result was- letters of PKRanganathan published in the Hindu of 27th Oct and the DC of 30th Oct., for which we are thankful to them!
However, no article/ review cd be published!

We need some more 'strength' or whatever u call it to get the matter published in leading dailies at Delhi and I do hope some of our friends wd have the avenues for the same!

(at Chennai, we are getting some items published in instalments- in the leading pensioners' journal- 'Pensioners' Advocate'- even the latest issue may contain some paragraphs)

SOMEONE AMONG US- GOOD IN DRAFTING/SUMMARISING THE CRUX OF THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF ISSUES/ DISPARITIES/ OMISSIONS/AMBIGUITIES in the OMS ISSUED SO FAR on Pensions (related to 6CPC AFFECTING THE PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS/ DEPENDENTS etc CAN PUT UP A GOOD DRAFT HERE and we can finalise the same quickly.
(I am too poor at drafting!).

Can we?

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-11-2008, 07:25 AM
hi All

While we are getting various clarifications through interpretative discussions/ debate here, it may be relevant to see other parallel threads on related aspects.

Mr Sundarar's thread on"Invalid Minimum of Pay Band" is one such. What Mr PKRanganathan has posted there y'day is very informative, which I reproduce here:
-----------
Dear shri. Sundar,

Yours is an excellent analysis of the issue of Minimum pay in the pay band Vis-a-vis, minimum of the payband . in summary the position is as under.

i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding start points within.There were 34 graded pay scales in the 5th CPC era . Under the 6th CPC, related Revised Pay Rules, these have now been accommodated into 4 running pay bands apart from one newly created super time scale and two fixed scale above them. The pay scales grouped into each pay band have appropriate starting points in the pay band with distinct grade pay for each. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) ed 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation and dop & pw OM. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08.



ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays.


iii) The modifications notified in the order of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

By the foregoing, little is left to doubt that the minimum of the pay band is not and cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band, and for all purposes including pension and family pension of either pre or post 2006, pensioners, this minimum basic pay is the minimum pay in the pay band as notified in the finance ministry orders and confirmed in your first notified OM of 30 Sep 08.

Your examples under FR22, further reinforce the above correct position and the view all of us hold. I have no doubt that govt will open their eyes and correct their mistakes hopefully without our requirement to knock the doors of the courts of law.

regards.
PK Ranganahan.----------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan (thanks to Mr PKR)

kssitaraman
03-11-2008, 02:27 PM
Dear Sri Natarajan

Thank you for the quick response to my posting on this thread of yesterday.

Wrt the last para of your posting yesterday @ 8-15 PM, getting a Draft here itself incorporating all the points agreed to between members under various threads of similar nature from to time will be a welcome and handy exercise.. Sri P.K.Ranganathan has already contributed a lot in this respect and has well prepared articles readily on hand for publication in newspapers, I think he can be requested to post here suitable Draft as quickly as possible. Other members who have been active and were deeply engrossed on this subject can be also requested to add their inputs and your goodself can vet and ready a final draft.

In this connection, the time factor is most important, as political developments are taking place too fast to our comfort and we should not find ourselves at too late a stage to do anything about it. So one can be sure the draft will be ready in a matter of days.

The final version can be sent by Email without attachment to the Editors, also giving besides our Email Id the postal address as some Papers are particular about the postal address.

If members prefer to send the articles individually they can be encouraged to do so. While telling so, an appeal from a group of members carries always more weight. So will it be O.K. if the articles are sent from the Pensioners' Forum presided over by you?

If approved, Sri PKR may be persuaded to do the needful.

With regards,

vnatarajan
03-11-2008, 03:13 PM
Dear Mr Sitaraman/Mr PKRanganathan/other willing contributors,

I have no hesitation in requesting Mr PKR to carry out FURTHER the exercise he had done on the subject and once it takes a final shape we will be able to send it from our Forum of which Mr PKR is also an active council member.

What we all would like to rely on is an enterprising link or source at Delhi (unfortunately I and PKR are too much outdated to renew our links!) who can get the matter published in such dailies of National stature! Anybody from Delhi who can help us on this aspect?(Even the new/ upcoming news media do not care to provide enough space to publish our material of Pensioners! Everywhere u require a lobby! Sometimes it is frustrating to see the return of our vent up expressions without treating them on merit!).

Pl all may feel free to advise.

vnatarajan

sundarar
03-11-2008, 11:30 PM
[QUOTE
Can we?

Regards

vnatarajan]

Respected Sir,

As desired by one and all senior members of the Forum, and keeping in view to confine to the critical issue of the day, I submit hereunder a humble draft for kind consideration of all the senior members. This may suitably be refined as deemed fit.

Best regards and thanks for providing an opportunity like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To November , 2008.


Shri M.P.Singh,
Director (PP)
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions
Loknayak Bhavan,
NEW DELHI-110 033. TELEFAX: 011-24624802


Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Pensioners of the Central Government, we would like to invite your kind attention to the O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt. dated 14.10.2008 regarding Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

The col.8 and 9 of Annexure-1 of the aforesaid O.M. indicates about the `sum of minimum of PB + GP/Scales’ for Pensioners and Family Pensioners to determine the minimum revised pension in respect of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the Pensioners had retired.

While the said Annexure-1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008 relates to minimum of PB, the O.M. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW emphasizes about MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GP of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

It may kindly be noted that the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND to a corresponding pre-revised scale can be none other than the minimum pay in the corresponding RUNNING Pay Band to such pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

As each pay band under the 6th CPC is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/corresponding minimum in the running pay band, the minimum of Pay Band referred to in the Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band for the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the Govt. servant had retired and started drawing pension. As such, the contention under Annexure-1 in this regard, actually is not in accordance with Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and therefore, requires to be modified in line with the Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW.

We therefore request you to look into the matter for appropriate action in this regard.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

( )
Copy forwarded
To
The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Pension & Personnel’s Welfare
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt. of India,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
NEW DELHI-110 033. - for kind information and necessary action please.

vnatarajan
04-11-2008, 07:54 AM
Dear All

Mr Sundarar, learned member, has taken the pains to prepare a draft on the CRITICAL ISSUE of the interpretation of the 'MINIMUM' of the PB.

Except for the word RUNNING(which may not be necessary at all as there is already a qualifying word - 'corresponding'), as a retired scientist Ifeel, the draft can be adopted for sending a number of individual appeals by post and Email to the DoP/PW immediately to keep alive our grievance issue. I am not competent to understand the language of the administrators and so others may kindly suggest amendments/ additions/ modifications etc so that all interested can send their appeals quickly.

However, can there be a line to suggest that if this appeal is attended to by the DOP/PW quickly, there may not be any need for issual of multiple PPOs in future, as the settling of this 'MINIMUM" issue may resolve many ambiguities!

(WE SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH APPEALS ON CORE ISSUES PENDING THE OTHER EXERCISE OF PREPARING THE ARTICLE FOR NEWSPAPERS)

Some actions to proceed further pl.

vnatarajan

(I and many of my colleagues/ copensioners have sent more than a hundred reps. to DOP/PW already in early/ middle/ late Oct 2008 on the injustice issue and none have recieved any response/ reply so far. I AM PERSONALLY INCLINED TO SEND MY SECOND APPEAL on the 'MINIMUM" issue by tomorrow/day-after- using Mr Sundaraar's draft, by email/post)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-11-2008, 01:33 PM
hi

Dear All

Mr R Sundaram's (our member?) letter appears to have been published in the Hindu, Chennai Edition today-reproduced from website of iofs:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sixth Pay Commission

Over the years, particularly after the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, near-parity has been established between past pensioners and those just retiring from Central government services. The Commission had hoped that full parity would become possible after computerisation. But the authorities are laying down rules that strike at the roots of the existing norms of parity, notwithstanding the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.

Now, there are two classes of pensioners — those who retired before and after 2006. Those retiring after 2006 reap the full benefits of protection of 50 per cent of the salary last drawn. But the pre-2006 retirees are being scaled down to an arbitrary point in the new scales termed minimum of pay bands which, in most cases, have no relevance to the posts from which they retired. The value of their service is thus being arbitrarily deflated.

R. Sundaram,

Chennai
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
04-11-2008, 09:50 PM
Kind attention of Sri Natarajan. We have received one Draft (within a day) from Sri Sundarar addressed to DOP dealing with one aspect of Pensioners. grievances, viz., different interpretation of the minimum of PB resorted to by the said Dept. There is a posting from Sri Vijai Kapoor under the Thread Invalid Minimum of Pay Band. Can it also be mentioned in Sri Sundarar.s draft if the matter is already not covered? I think that this draft can be finalised within a day or two. I have proposed to send this and all future final versions under my signature to DOP. I have so far not sent any representation to DOP.

It is hoped that a few more drafts on the other grievances highlighted here by those active members mentioned in an earlier posting will be forthcoming as soon as possible. May we also request them to come on line as frequently as possible unmindful of any inconvenience to present their drafts and to also touch up the other drafts. The drafts have to be finalised within 3/4 days and hence the request to them to be on line. It is hoped again that this job will also come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Lakhs of representations must have gone to the Pension Dept and nobody can guarantee that there would be a favourable outcome. Still as decided let us send the representations now in contemplation for the simple reason that trial costs nothing. We are left with only this option now and let us avail of it. As an erstwhile pessimist myself I am proposing this with full of optimism.

As a retired railway man myself, I have also joined today as Life Member of
the RREWA. this is managed by HOD and above level retired officers. I think it is alo recognised by the govt and is a member of some council with which the govt interacts from time to time. The office bearers of this Assn have direct access to Pension deciding authorities. so your request to this Assn to bring the immediate grievances of the pensioners to the authorities in the Govt is timely and is most likely to bear fruit.

With best regards

.

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 04:24 AM
hi All

Thanks to all- Mr Vijai Kapoor/ Mr KSS/MR PKR for giving shapes to the initiative of Mr Sundaar.

Here is what I posted in the other thread where Mr PKR's draft (final from our side) is available for letters to go to DOP/PW to save time.

Individuals/ Associations may amend the text as they desire to suit their cases/purpose.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi All

1.At the outset, thanks to Mr PKR for his immediate respones.

2.I and my copensioner friends here will take action to send the memo collectively thru our FORUM to the Secy DOP/PW (attn: Director- if necessary) with copies to all concerned Ministries (MoP,PG & P/ MOF.

3.I and few others who have time/ means will send the reps. individually thru Speed/Regd post/emails also.

4.It will be our request that as many pensioners / their associations/ bodies etc also take similar actions. (we will endorse copies to RREWA/ RRECS/ IOFSBROTHERHOOD etc for similar actions- copensioners there may pl. liaise for parallel actions)

5.Mr Mukuntharajan, Jr Member here and he, from our FORUM side will also be requested to pursue action with AIFPA to send similar memo to the destinations. He will also be active to get the memo publicised in the Pensioners' Advocate.

Thanks to all for supportive actions in advance.

vnatarajan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 07:33 AM
hi All

WE ALL HOPE REPS/APPEALS UTILISING THE DRAFTS OF PKR/ SUNDARAR/VIJAI KUMAR's POINTS ETC WOULD BE SENT BY ALL QUICKLY.

In the meanwhile PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE/ its members have taken pains to highlight some of the woes of the Pensioners consequential to the chaos created by 6cpc implementation orders in their editorial of October issue. I am trying to post it here for evereyone/ other Associations etc to see & follow actions:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(courtesy AVMukuntharajan, Gen. Sec, PF & Jt. Sec AIFPA)

PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE (oct 2008 ?)


EDITORIAL
CHAOS IN IMPLEMENTATION

The Central Government magnanimously ordered that the disbursing units i.e. post offices and banks should ensure that the revised pension as a result of 6th CPC recommendations and 40% of arrears thereof upto September 2008 should be paid to the pensioners and family pensioners before 30.9.2008. Pensioners and family pensioners thronged the post offices and banks with the fond hope that they would be receiving the revised pension including arrears as 30.9.2008 and celebrate the festivals and Diwali a little more happily . But they were badly disappointed
Reports received from various sources, - pensioners associations, pensioners and individuals reveal that except a few branches of State Bank of India, all other banks and post offices have not implemented the Govt’s orders in letter and spirit.
Some of the disbursing units, paid revised pension only without arrears.

Some of the post offices paid Rs. 25000/- or so to pensioners after
obtaining an undertaking that over payments if any, would be adjusted in subsequent pension payments.

Some post offices had their calculations ready but could not draw money from banks, due to strike by the bank employees on 24th and 25th September
and subsequent bank holidays on 30.9.2008 and 1st and 2nd October 08

Due to Dasara holidays, the payments will be further delayed . We will thank God if the arrears are paid atleast before Deepavali.

Some of the banks appear to have insisted on the surrender of the P.P.Os by the pensioners before effecting payment . The orders are very clear and the P.P.Os need not be surrendered .

In some post offices in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka , the payment of fixed medical allowance of Rs. 100/- had been with held. There are no orders for such an action. The authorities concerned should pay the withheld amount immediately to the pesnioenrs.

Several clarifications have been issued by the Pension Ministry on 3rd October 08 . They have been published else where in this issue.

One of the clarification is that the sum of 50% of pay + grade pay should be based on the minimum of the pay band and not on the minimum pay of the band corresponding to the 5th CPC scale. In effect, the benefit that would accrue to the pensioners is denied to them as the pension calculated as per fitment formula is higher than the pension as per fixation formula. Different interpretations of scales have been given in this regard. One for the pensioners, another for serving employees and yet another for direct recruits. Never in the history of past five pay commissions had this problem cropped up.

The clubbing of scales under four different pay bands , and with the same grade pay to some of these scales in the same band are the main reasons for such interpretations.

We request the Government to have a rethinking in the matter and restore the status of past pensioners by adopting the same pay fixation formula for pensioners and serving employees to remove the disparity that has crept in.

The rate of dearness relief to exgratia pensioners have not yet been announced Similarly, those serving employees who retired on after 1.1.2006 but opted out of revised pay scales are entitled to the dearness relief at the old rate which is 54% from 1.7.2008.

The BSNL retirees are outside the purview of the Sixth CPC recommendations . The merger of 50% dearness relief granted to serving BSNL employees have not been extended the BSNL pensioners . This need to be attended to immediately.

The non civilian defence pensioiners are unhappy because order have not been issued by the Defence Ministry in this regard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
05-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Dear Sri Natarajan
As decided, I have today Emailed as well as speed-posted to the DOP and the Secretary to Govt concerned the final draft prepared by Sri Sundarar, as it is, in my name and signature. I could feel a sense of fulfilment of a desire. As for Sri PKR's draft, I do note that the Forum would take care of it as it is proposed to be sent to many quarters collectively.

If and when newer drafts come up from members, I shall be quite willing to submit the same also in my signature.

With best regards

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 04:21 PM
Dear Mr Sitaraman
Thanks for the action/ update.
vnatarajan

kssitaraman
06-11-2008, 09:05 AM
Representation sent on 5/11 to DOP thro' Email Id <penweb@dpt-pension.delhi.nic.in> taken from its website was not delivered; obviously the Id is obsolete. However hard copies have been sent by speed post.

Any one knowing the correct Email Id of DOP may kindly post it here for future contacts.

K.S.Sitaraman

vnatarajan
06-11-2008, 10:24 AM
Dear Mr Sitaraman

I think the sr. official's email id is visible in the OMs themselves! For obvious reasons I am not spelling it here!

vnatarajan

ranganathan
06-11-2008, 09:23 PM
dear Mr. sitaraman,

The secretary, DOP&PW ' email ID is " rajni.razdan@nic.in

rgds

PKR

RSundaram
07-11-2008, 07:11 AM
An Article which appeared in The Hindu Businessline Today



Lost in translation

R. Sundaram

“For man proposes but God disposes" . In the case of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission by the Centre, this, perhaps, can mean, somewhat irreverently, what the cabinet giveth, the mandarins taketh away. By deft strokes of their miserly pens, the Department of Pensions has struck at the roots of parity between new and old retirees in the matter of pension.

A decade ago, after the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government had rightly recognised and treated the people who retired before the pay commission as equal to the new retirees. It wanted to grant full parity with the new retirees by locating the exact equivalent of the last pay drawn in the new scale from which the old persons retired, but thought it was cumbersome. It, therefore, stopped short and settled for 50 per cent of the minimum of the new pay scale for the old retirees and 50 per cent of the ten months average pay on the day of retirement for the new ones.

Under the “defined benefits” pension scheme of the governments in most part of the world, a percentage — even up to cent per cent of the last pay drawn — is given out as pension. A World Bank study in May 2006 on “Civil Service Pension Scheme Around the World” by Robert Palacios and Edward Whitehouse, observed critically that the Indian scheme suffers on account of ‘unpredictable income stream for old retirees and large differences between cohorts depending on the year they retire”.

Linked to pay bands

Therefore, minimum expectations were that the status quo would not be disturbed as confirmed by the Sixth Pay Commission in March this year which endorsed the continuance of parity. The Cabinet too, in its resolution, blessed the notion in its resolution in August. But when it was forged into executive orders, sadly, the benefits of parity enjoyed by the older pensioners till now were taken away at one fell swoop. This was done by clubbing as many as five to nine scales into each of the four long pay bands from Rs 5,200 to 67,000.

Pay bands are a useful HR concept to avoid over ranking and under paying by frequent cadre reviews to get higher posts. But by misinterpreting “minimum of the pay in the pay band” and linking the old retirees’ pension to the 50 per cent minimum of pay band at Rs 5,200, Rs 9,300, Rs 15,600 and Rs 37,400, as the case may be, smacks of arbitrariness but also annulment of all the advancement achieved by the old retirees in their career through stages of selection and promotion.
Dismay among old retirees

For example, a pensioner who retired as a Joint Secretary at Rs 18,400 would have normally received Rs 27350 as per the revised basic pay of his cohort under the old scheme but now will get only Rs 23,700 because of linkage to minimum of the pay band. Likewise, an individual retired at Rs 7,500 will get only Rs 7,050 under the new formula as against Rs 9,375.

This act of prestidigitation by the personnel ministry has caused a sense of deep dismay among all old retirees except those in the top rung. It so happens that vast majority of the latter are from the All-India services who can write rules and formulae to place themselves beyond the pale of the pay bands.

vnatarajan
07-11-2008, 09:39 AM
Dear Mr Sundaram

Excellent.This was the best effort so far! I posted a message immediately on seeing this in the morning! But it has disappeared.

Pl keep up the campaign to take it to the portals of the media in Delhi.

I think with some efforts articles in magazines like India Today/ Outlook can be published about the disturbing trends being set into motion to the pension system in our country.

However existing pensioners cannot suffer any INJUSTICE till the last of their tribe die!

Regards

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
07-11-2008, 01:01 PM
Dear Sri Ranganathan,

Thank you for the Email Id. Will use it for sending a personal pension grievance of mine pertaining to pre-96 retirees who retired in the middle rung of the ladder/scale of pay (IV CPC) say within a year or two of reaching the maximum of the scale of pay. I am not sure whether it is covered in the various articles presented here as the terms used are too technical for me to understand. While saying so, I must confess that I have a poor knowledge of Estt matters.

K.S.Sitaraman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sri Sundaram and Sri Natarajan,

It is a nice article by Sri Sundaram, which, if published in New Delhi Papers, is sure to make people there sit up and ponder.

K.S.Sitaraman

vnatarajan
08-11-2008, 09:42 AM
hi All

Railway Pensioners' Samaj, Chennai also have sent their representation on the disparity in parity of pension between the pre and post 2006 pensioners consequent to the 6th cpc related OMs, to the Secy, Min. of P,PG & P on 1.11.2008.

Copy of their representation can be seen on the website of RREWA- www.rrewa.org
,
We are encouraged by the action of the samaj!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-11-2008, 04:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi All

I had requested the Administration of the RREWA to further pursue the fight against injustice issue on 4th Nov 2008 and their prompt response/ appraisal of the issue are reproduced below, for info. of all:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request I made to RREWA/RSCWA Exec` Council:


From: Natarajan V Sent On: 11/4/2008 4:29:52 PM Status: Reply Sent by Admin
Subject:
Injustice to Pre-2006 Pensioners
Query:
Sirs/ RREWA council members As a retd. Central Govt. pre-2006 penwsioner and also as the President of the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai (affiliated to the AIFPA)I, and other Co-pensioners have sent numerous representations to the DoP/PW of the Ministry of P,PG & Pensioners in October 2008 (2nd to 3rd week)on th4e issue of the wide disparity in pensions that will crop up consequent to the implementation of 6th CPC related OMs dtd 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 of DoP/PW resulting in injustice to pre-2006 pensioners. We appear to be at dead end unless RREWA/ RSCWS etc take up the matter seriously by (1)HIGHLIGHTING THE PROBLEM in the newspapers at DELHI/ other media and (2)BY ULTIMATELY APPEALING TO Hon'nle LALLU PRASAD YADAVji to intervene and resolve the problem. Otherwise many OLD/AGED/HANDICAPPED Pensioners (like me)/family pensioners/ dependents will be helpless due to the reckless/inhuman attitude of the DoP/PW & MOF. VNatarajan (on behalf of hundreds of pensioners from Chennai) 4Nov08


Their Reply
Natarajan V Sent On: 11/4/2008 9:09:40 PM Status: Seen by You
Subject:
injustice to pensioners
Query: (RREWA's Reply)

Dear friend, Ultimately we may have to go to the court.S.C. judgment is favourable to us Some of our members like Mr............... retd. CCS & Mr...............retd.CCE are trying to mobilize opinion &to bring more &more persons on one plateform.We seek co operation of more &more associations. Iam trying to convince BPS &AICCPA top brass to take up the case. Iwill request you to keep in touch through e.mail Iam giving u the addresses hereunder. Regards Sincerely Yours, S.C.M..............., e.mail pensioner77@yahoo.com & rrewa@dataone.in

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

ALL AFFECTED ARE REQUESTED TO PURSUE ACTIONS WITH MORE & MORE ASSOCIATIONS/ UNIONS TO JOIN WITH THE POWERFUL BODIES LIKE RREWA FOR REMEDY/ JUSTICE.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
12-11-2008, 11:19 AM
hi All

Attention is drawn to the latest letter/ representation addressed by the RREWA on 8th Nov 2008 to the Secy. Min of P,PG & Ps which is an exhaustive presentation covering the pre 2006 and the trisanku post 2006 category of pensioners (some reference of 20 yr retiree is also there!) and I feel personnelly obliged to Shri Maheshwari, Gen Sec,RREWA for his deep involvement.
He has also mentioned about all other pensioners apart from the Railway Pensioners.

Pl visit www.rrewa.org for details.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
13-11-2008, 05:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi All Pensioners/ Family Pensioners,

I HAVE COME TO KNOW THE BANKS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DISBURSE EVEN OUR 'MUTILATED' PENSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOP/PW's OM of 14th OCT 08 BECAUSE, IN MANY CASES (INCLUDING MANY OF OURS HERE) THE PPOs DO NOT CONTAIN THE IMPORTANT INFO OF THE PAY SCALE IN WHICH THE PENSIONER RETIRED!

Consequently, the 2.26 formula is the best they can do for payments, wh is nothing but the Fitment Table of 3rd OCT's OM and wh many banks have already done.

I have thought about some alternative.

There is a RULE by which a GOVT SERVANT can get a copy of the SERVICE BOOK on a nominal payment. CAN SOMEBODY PICK IT (THE RULE/ CIRCULAR ? SWAMY"s BK) UP AND FLASH IT HERE SO THAT I CAN GO TO MY OLD OFFICE HERE AT BANGALORE TOMORROW AND DEMAND FOR IT?

Pl. help. (as it will at least in part help me to take up and fight out the issue with the Bank) ; the old PAO dealing with my office pleads helpless and is not willing to cooperate much as he has no mandate nor any OMs have reached him for any action!!!!!!
CPAOs at Regions want entire lot of pensioners' cases to reach them at one time which is next to impossible!

SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
20-11-2008, 06:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All

I and my friends at Chennai have not received the second part of our mutilated pension from banks so far - ie as per 14th Oct 2008. Only after that we will know/ have proof what banks do.

Till then some breathing time!

Cheers

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
20-11-2008, 07:27 AM
It is almost certain the govt is not going to do justice regardng the minimum pension corresponding to the minimum in the pay band corresponding to the grade pay. It is unfortunate this has happened inspite of the best efforts of the Associations.

What is shocking is that nobody has taken any action for the payment of full arrears (family pensioners, those who are above 80 years of age (pensioners or family pensioners) in one installment rather than 2 installments.

Better to be late than never. Will some one take action in this regard.

ss

vnatarajan
21-11-2008, 04:07 AM
Dear Mr Sudacgwb,

I am not sure how many associations/ federations of pensioners' really care for the pensioners!. I have posted a separate thread to elicit some information!. But responses are not that informative so far!

Here is what Pensioners' Forum wrote to the authorities:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSIONERS' FORUM, MADRAS
[Regd.84/87]

PATRON PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
S. Soundararajan, I.A.A.S [Retd] V. Natarajan K.A.Rajagopalan,I.P.S [Retd]
Dy.Comptroller & Auditor General [Retd] Dy. Director General [Retd] Superintendent of Police
Geological Survey of India CBI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address for Correspondences: A.V.Mukuntharajan, General Secretary, Pensioners’ Forum, Madras,
1-A, Velayudham Apts, 61, Moti Lal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
Ms. Sushma Nath
Secretary
Dept. of Expenditure
Govt. of India
New Delhi
October 19, 200
Dear Madam

Sub: Payment of arrears of pension / family pension

Sixty percent of the arrears of pension / family pension arising out of the revision of pension / family pension due to the implementation of the VI Central Pay Commission has been withheld due to financial constraints. In this connection we request that the matter may please be considered compassionately in the light of the following submission.

Many of the pensioners in the age group 80+, who have been sanctioned additional pension / family pension for meeting their medical needs and other vital necessities opine that the benefits meant to help in their advanced age reaches them forthwith, lest the very purpose of the VI CPC recommending it will be defeated. They feel that the benefit is extended by the VI CPC is more for meeting their vital necessities and better comfort, and not to bequeathed by their legal heirs as property, as they are quite uncertain if they will be blessed to see the next year or so. Quite a few would be delighted to see the benefits before it is too late! Many do not have any support to pursue such matters or liaise with any authorities. Many are not aware what is happening to their pensions and are resigned to the saying: ‘Ignorance is bliss’!. Everyone of us are made to feel that it is our duty to meet their expectations sooner than later.

It may be observed that the impounded arrears of 60% of most of the pensioners / family pensioners, nearly 95%, may range hardly from Rs.10,000 to Rs.20,000 each and should not cause any severe strain on the exchequer. Considering their advanced age and the uncertainty of their living to next year it is fair that their aspirations to enjoy the benefits and tide over their geriatric health problems is not only genuine but a very pressing need to be compassionately addressed.

We appeal to you, Madam to kindly reexamine the matter and use your good offices to alleviate the hardships of these hapless senior citizens and order to release all the balance of arrears in one lot without delay. Many individual Pensioners/ Groups of Pensioners have appealed to us to pursue this action on their behalf.

Our grateful thanks in advance for your pro-active and considered immediate decision.

Yours faithfully

A.V.Mukuntharajan
General Secratary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards
vnatarajan

sudacgwb
25-11-2008, 10:11 PM
Dear VN!

Thank you for your prompt, as always, response. Hope the representation will receive attention of the govt of India.

I will be contacting the addressed given by you, whom I must thank for the timely action on behalf of senior citizens/pensioners.

I have one more point to make to you, which may please be seen at your conveniance:

Pensioners who were dependents before the pension revision have become "non-dependents' of their serving govt servants and consequently disadvantages are more than advantages. I will give an example (case of my mother who is 80+ and 60% handicapped (paralysis):

Her family pension was 1250 (pre 1.1.2006) and hence was official dependent on me. I was getting her medical facility, benefit of sec 80-D as she is physically challenged person. Her monthly medical bill is plus 2000 pm with additional expenses towards the whole time care taker (nursing).

Now her family pension is revised to Rs.4200/= or so and certainly above rs.3500/= minimum pension/family pension. As per the revised definition she cannot be called as my official dependent and I cannot get the medical and sec.80-D benefit.

Is there any rule "those who were dependents before the issuance of revision of family pension as per 6cpc recommendations will continue to be recognised as dependents"?

Alternatively can my mother refuse to accept the pension revision and ask the govt to continue to give old pension with revised DA so that her income will be less than Rs.3500 pm and hence my dependent?

Your response pl

ss

RSundaram
25-11-2008, 10:33 PM
Dear SS
This may not be a direct answer to the question posed by you on a practical situation. If you are paying income tax you may like to examine the posibilty of seeking exemption up to Rs 50,000 ( I think) with a doctor's certificate.

REX88
25-11-2008, 11:11 PM
There is a RULE by which a GOVT SERVANT can get a copy of the SERVICE BOOK on a nominal payment. CAN SOMEBODY PICK IT (THE RULE/ CIRCULAR ? SWAMY"s BK) UP AND FLASH IT HERE SO THAT I CAN GO TO MY OLD OFFICE HERE AT BANGALORE TOMORROW AND DEMAND FOR IT?

Pl. help. (as it will at least in part help me to take up and fight out the issue with the Bank) ; the old PAO dealing with my office pleads helpless and is not willing to cooperate much as he has no mandate nor any OMs have reached him for any action!!!!!!
CPAOs at Regions want entire lot of pensioners' cases to reach them at one time which is next to impossible!

SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY!

vnatarajan

Sri. VN Ji, very recently I came across an order from CIC [RTI 2nd Appellate Authority] that the pay details of any govt. employee is a public information and hence you may apply for the same under the RTI Act, to get your info. Hope this helps, - with reg, Raj.

vnatarajan
26-11-2008, 10:26 AM
Dear Mr Sudacgwb,

Mr RS has made some observation.
However, from Pensioners' point of view, your query is logical. I would suggest kindly email our PF's General Secy- Mr AVMukuntharajan at mukuntharajan@gmail.com and I think he / his council members group who have good knowledge on these matters will be able to interpret and provide an answer or even suggest a course of action.

Dear Mr Rex
RTI act is not necessary and it is a bit inconvenient for old pensioners.
Our serving colleagues in our old Deptts are quite cooperative.
Reg. Service Bk copy, I have given a noting in another thread, titled "Clarifications-----"
Thanks for your interest in the discussions/ follow ups.
vnatarajan

sudacgwb
27-11-2008, 07:43 PM
Dear VN,
I have sent an email to gen. sec as suggested. Thank you for the contact email.

2nd Point:

The bank has not fixed the pension correctly as per the latest OM and not taken the grade pay into consideration while fixing the family pension which is clearly given in the revised OM = clarification OM on pension computation.

Also:

the revision payment fixation copy is also not given to the pensioner. ONly passbook indicates the revised family pension.

The senior citizen additional pension is also not given.

Any advise to get it revised? Communication to address given in the PPO is still not replied.


with regards

ss

RSundaram
27-11-2008, 08:43 PM
My dear ss
You may be aware of the existence of a form in pensioner's portal for grievances or if the concerned Pension Disturbing Accounts Office's website it may also have a form for pensioners' grievance. You may like to utilise these facilities in addition to representing to the Branch of the Bank where the pension account is held. I had brought to the notice of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (www.pcdapension.nic.in) through the form provided therein about the delay in awarding pension as per para 4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised to receive a copy of their prompt communication ( by Registered post) to my bank asking them to do the needful forthwith.

sudacgwb
02-12-2008, 08:22 PM
With the revision of family pension of my mother she cannot be considered as "Dependant" and I am at a disadvantageous position.

Pl let me know

how to seek the pre-revised family pension.

wether the extra allowance to the handicapped pensioners towards the service of nursing staff is available to family pensioner? (link)

the link given for SBI pensioners is given; can someone give the link for SBMysore (PDA)?

SS