PDA

View Full Version : Minmum In The Pay Band Or Minimum Of The Pay Band



RSundaram
30-09-2008, 11:22 PM
For the pre 2006 Pensioners the orders for choosing between Basic Pension x 2.26 (para 4.1 of the OM) or 50 % Minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay from the post from which the person retired is ambiguous. This is explained in detail below.

1 It may kindly be recalled in the past, the pensioners of pre ‘86 vintage had a wide disparity with the pensioners of pre ’96 period. The 5th C.P.C in 1997 kindly noted this disparity and enunciated principles of parity between pensioners of pre and post implementation of revised pay scales. The 5th C.P.C also introduced a scheme of near parity of the pre 1996 pensioners with post ’96 pensioners belonging to same scale of pay by granting them a pension of fifty per cent of the minimum amount of the revised scale of pay. The difference between implementing full parity and the ‘near’ parity as implemented after the 5th CPC was that for pre 1996 pensioners their stage in the span of scale of pay was not taken into account. Since administratively it would have been cumbersome to calculate stage wise in the new pay scale for new pensioners, this scheme of parity was received not only with wide acceptance and relief but also gratefully by the pensioners..
2 You are aware that the 6th C.P.C too in their recommendations stated in para 5.1.46 have endorsed the spirit contained in 5th CPC by observing that they wish to continue the near parity. They accordingly recommended the fitment formula on the same lines as for existing employees. As against grade pay given to current employees, they recommended addition of 40 per cent of basic pension as fitment benefit. They provided another rider to ensure near parity and stated in para 5.1.47 that the pension so fixed i.e. of adding 40 per cent fitment benefit, should NOT be less than 50 per cent of the pay and grade pay of the existing employees belonging to the same scale of pay at least at the minimum stage. By ignoring the effect of stage in the span of pay scale, the near parity between post 2006 retirees and pre ’06 retirees would be maintained.
3 The government has already published the fitment table for pensioners (after adding 40 per cent fitment benefit). They have also published a table for existing employees. This indicates the pay plus grade pay of employees of all pay scales at various stages. It would therefore be logical and simple operation to read off the fitment of pensioners. It can be compared with fitment of existing employees of same scale of pay at minimum level. If pension fitment happens to be more than 50 per cent of existing employees fitment at minimum level of same scale of pay, the pensioners retains his figure; if this happens to be lower than 50 per cent employee figure, the pension is to be hiked up.
4 However, ironically it is reported that attempts are being made to adopt one methodology for determining pay of employees for making payment to him, while a different methodology for determining his pay for determining the protection of pension. It is obvious that if two methodologies are different, the parity will be destroyed defeating the very purpose of the recommendations.
5 To make the point more clear it may be stated that for fixing the pay of the employee the procedure provided is to multiply basic pay by 1.86 and then add grade pay. Where the pay X 1.86 is less than starting point of pay band, it is to be upgraded to start of P.B. otherwise the Pay X 1.86 is the operative figure with no relevance to starting of P.B.
6 In case of pensioners a view is being taken that if pay X 1.86 is less than starting of P.B. it will be upgraded but if it is more than starting of P.B. the pay will be fixed at minimum of instead of pay X 1.86. This would mean that protection of pension will be only up to 50 per cent of the start of P.B. instead of 50 per cent of pay X 1.86 which is illogical and destructive of parity. This would largely affect pensioners in lower pay scales.
7 To illustrate the point, following examples are worked out.
Illustration- 1 S24 Old Pay scale 14,300-18,800 Pay of employee of 14,300
Calculation of New Pay
Pay Band 4 ; 37,400-67,000 : Grade Pay . 8,700. Revised Pay would be 46,100 i.e. 37,400+G.P. 8,700.
While 1.86 x 14,300 plus grade pay, i.e., 35,298.
Calculation of Pension of pre 2006
The pension on the basis of 40 per cent uplift (Para 4.1) would be 7150x2.26 = 16,159
However, according to para 4.2, it will be upgraded to half of (Minimum Pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay i.e., ½ of 46,100 i.e. 23,050
Illustration-2 S 19Pay scale 10,000-15,200 (s-19): Pay Of Employee 10,000.
Calculation of new Pay
P.B.3 (15,600-39,100): G.P.6,600. Revised Pay of employee in the Pay Band would be 10,000 x 1.86 18,600
Total Pay will be 18600 + GP 6,600 =25200 (A)
Calculation Of Pension pre 2006.
On the basis of Para 4.1 Pension would be 5000x2.26 = 11300.
This results in denial of protection up to 12600 under para 4.2. By restricting it to the benefit to the minimum of pay band minimum pension comes to only 11100.
8 To sum up, instead of taking direct recourse to fitment table for employees by determining the minimum of replacement scales and treating 50% there of as protection figure for pensioners, a purely arbitrary figure of the pay band minimum is taken losing links with the post from which the employee retired. This figure of pay used for the purpose of fixing pension is unreal, imaginary, and prejudicial to interest of pensioners, especially in lower range of pay scales and it violates the basic idea of parity.
9 It is necessary, therefore, to issue strict and clear guide lines for pension determining authorities to revise pension under para 4.2 of O.M. F.N.38/37/08- P +PW (A) dated 1-9-2008 maintaining parity as it has been existing after the 5th CPC implementation.

RSundaram
05-10-2008, 08:42 PM
The Govt by the latest amendment dated 3.10.2008 has clarified that the Minimum of the Pay Band by an illustration.
If for eg., for 18400- 22400 pre revised scale the minimum of the Pay Band (PB4) is 37400 and grade pay is 10000 under para 4.2 the pension will be computed as 47400/2 = 23700.
For a person in the pre revised scale of 14300-18300 it will be half of (37400 + 8700) = 23050.
Similarly the person in S-32 (22400-24050) will get half of (37400 +12000) = 24700.
Whereas the HAG+ bloke will get 37750 and the super bureaucrats will get 40000.
This is absurd, atrocious and grossly unfair. No body from the IAS retires from a rank less than that of a Secretary and this is nothing but skulduggery by the IAS

vnatarajan
07-10-2008, 02:40 PM
Mr Sundaram has correctly pointed out the effects of the disastrous OM of 3rd Oct 2008 - a corrigendum to the earlier OM of 1st Sept.2008

All interested may see a separate and detailed note posted by me on the subject.

Many affected can try to collect information that will help them to seek remedy.

Natarajan.

However I am posting a copy of the note here itself for ready reference as the subject is same:

vnatarajan
This has reference to Deptt of Pension's most recent office memorandum, F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03 Oct 2008, containing certain clarifications on their earlier OM of even number dated 01 sep 2008 with crucial modifications to the provisions, particularly on the fixations of minimum pension and family pension, of pre 2006 retirees.

Under para 4.2 of the earlier OM dated 01 Sep 08,, the applicable minimum revised pension for pre 2006 pensioners,(ie 50% of the minimum of the pay in the corresponding revised pay band plus the grade pay) had been spelt out. The OM was silent on the minimum applicable Family Pension, as related to the pay last drawn .While seeking to correct this omission, the second OM of 03 Oct 2008, has in effect, negated the established position wrt the minimum pay of a grade and consequently the minimum pension /family pension, as already accepted by the government, at different levels and notified through various rules and notifications . It is to be noted that in respect of the 5th CPC also, minimum pension/ family pension wrt to the revised pay scales introduced wef 1-1-96 was not accepted initially.However,after detailed examination, Government accepted the logic and corrected the position, vide OM No , F.No 45/10/98-P&PW(A), dated, 17 Dec 98,and all pensioners/family pensioners ,were authorized pension of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay at the time of retirement and family pension subject to the minimum of 30% of the revised pay, irrespective of the date of retirement.

Against this background, the undue restriction of the minimum pension through the notification of 03 Oct 08, is neither tenable nor justified as explained hereunder.

i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a bunch of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding starting points for each one of them. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation ; and also through the DOP's resolution No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and DOP's OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08. It may be seen for example, that the revised basic pay under the 6th CPC, for the pre revised basic pay of Rs 18400 in the scale of 18400-22400, (S-29) has been prescribed as 54700/-( ie pay in the pay band Rs. 44700 + grade pay Rs. 10000) and similarly revised basic pay of Rs. 63850 for pre revised basic pay of Rs. 22400 in the pre revised HAG scale (S-30) and others.

ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays. E.g. ( Rs. 53000 for SAG and Rs. 59100 for HAG)

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

iv) The dual concept of minimum basic pay as provided for in the modified orders, could in many cases result in an employee retiring in higher grades before 2006, getting less pension than one retiring after 2006, from even two or more grades below, leaving alone, in the same grade, thus upsetting even the limited parity accepted by the government among pre and post 2006 pensioners.

v) Excepting the existing family pensioners, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, are to be prospective, and therefore cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and anomalous between inequal grades. Lack of parity among them will perpetuate injustice in future!.

vi) The recent DOP's OM of 3rd Oct 2008, in effect relegates the pre-2006 S-29 & 30 level pensioners with starting points at 18400 and even 22400 of their original pay scales to the lowest starting level of 14300 (S-24) for pension purposes- a decision most unjustifiable/ untenable/ unacceptable. For eg How can a person who throughout the period from 1996 onwards had been drawing pension based on say 50% of basic of 18400 be now relegated to start at 50% of basic of 14300 - as the effect of 40% fitment or even part of Grade Pay provided gets eroded due to the huge difference at the starting point itself!

The entire issue needs a thorough review and fresh revised orders, fixing the correct minimum basic pension/family pension should be issued by the Govt., covering all existing pensioners.

Principles enshrined in the constitutional Bench Judgement of the Supreme court, in the "NAKRA CASE" dated 17 Dec 82,which is hailed as the "MAGNA CARTA" for pensioners and on the foundation of which the current welfare based pension scheme, has been shaped by the Govt., should be kept in view always to do justice to all the PENSIONERS.

sundarar
09-06-2009, 09:44 PM
Dear Sirs.

With due attention to post 642/643 under `Injustice' thread, I repeat
post 644 hereunder as the topic relates to the instant thread also.
Dear Sirs,

The posts No.642 and 643 are very significant and to be repeatedly
studied.

Further, a recap on Para 5.1.47 and subsequent implementation are
as summarised hereunder:

PARA 5.1.47 OF 6CPC: ......the 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. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table'

(1) The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 at S.No.12 indicates acceptance of the Government in respect of the Para 5.1.47 that specifies `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' [/b]- without any modification.

(2) The O.M. dated 1.9.2008 of DoP&PW seconded the above accepted version by repeating the same as it is vide its Para 4.2.

(3) The Third communication in r/o Pre-2006 pensioners has been released vide CPAO's letter dated 25.9.2008, the para 2 of which modifies that `the fixation of the pension will be based on the provision of the O.M. (dated 1.9.2008) including the requirement the revised pension in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay band PLUS the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired'

(4) The O.M. dated 3.10.2008 has further modifies the Para 4.2 that `the pension would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) PLUS the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale..

(5) Para 5 of OM dated 11.2.2009 indicates that `in accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's O.M. of even No. dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of penson will be subject to the provision that the revsied pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band PLUS the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired'.

AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECAP BY ALL, I SUBMIT HEREWITH
THE FOLLOWING:

WHETHER ONLY THE PENSION CALCULATED AT THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IN THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY WILL BE GETTING AS PER THE FITMENT TABLES AT ANNEXURE 1 OF THE CCS(RP) RULES 2008 PLUS THE GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE COULD BE THE MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARA 4.2 OF OM DATED 1.9.2008?

The above question arose in my mind after seeing repeated confirmation that
there is no dispensation can be made from the original text of Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 and the minimum revised pension will be strictly in accordance with Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 only. It is significant to note that the clarification provided vide OM dt.3.10.2008 AND ANNEXURES TO OM DT.3.10.2008/14.10.2008 nowhere REFLECTS in the latest OM on the subject dated 11.2.2009.

If Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008, the accepted Para 5.1.47 of 6cpc through resolution and OM dt.11.2.2009 speaks of same thing, then the intervening
clarifications and tables annexed to OM dt.3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 may not be relevant to the subject. Therefore, I once again submit

WHETHER ONLY THE PENSION CALCULATED AT THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IN THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY WILL BE GETTING AS PER THE FITMENT TABLES AT ANNEXURE 1 OF THE CCS(RP) RULES 2008 PLUS THE GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE COULD BE THE MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS, STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARA 4.2 OF OM DATED 1.9.2008?

If the Answer is `Yes', then it meets Para 5.1.47 as well as Para 4.2 of OM
dated 1.9.2008 and if `otherwise', then OTHERWISE.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
10-06-2009, 05:09 PM
(I am repeating what I have posted in the INJUSTICE thread)

RECAP PARA 5.1.47 Post 644 of Sundarar in the "Injustice" Thread

Dear Shri Sundarar/ others interested in the subject,

Your question may be difficult for many to comprehend- unless they have closely followed the debates all thru.

Landmark points to be noted are:

1. Text of Para 5.1.47 has NEVER BEEN REPRODUCED and its SANCTITY has never been maintained in any of the succeeding OMs or Do lr (of CPAO).

2.Text of Para 4.2 in OMs wherever it appears is only a WILFULY EDITED/ WANTONLY MODIFIED version of 5.1.47 by CAREFULLY REPLACING A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUAL/SETS
OF WORDS.

3.This subtle editing is evident in the same RTI File Notes (p2) obtained - one by VN and another by Mehra- both of which are separately posted in RREWA website. VN's copy shows the "proposed draft" text for Para 4.2 (which is same as 5.1.47) whereas Mehara's copy shows the "hand corrected" version amending the text of 5.1.47 to that of 4.2 as it appeared later in the OM of 1st Sept 2008.

4.Why the above editing was necessary?- This was the first STAGE of biassing the interpretation- from the possible "Minimum of THE PAY" being understood as the "Minimum of the Revised Pay" (by those who understand simple English!) and also to separate the two components of the Pay from having CORRESPONDENCE to the REVISED PAY!

5.CPAO's DO letter had two paragraphs referring to ":MINIUMUMs". Para cited by you is more or less the same as Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008. But, just below that, in the very next para, the banks were instructed to revise the pension with "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND"- not "minimum of the pay in the pay band". THIS WAS THE FIRST PRE_MATURE OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION which let the CAT OUT OF THE BAG!. Fate of old Pensioners were sealed with this communication. THIS HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT PROIPER AUTHORITY. So far neither the CAO nor his Appellate authority have replied our RTI Queries sent to them!

Perhaps they will never do that!

6.The above was covered up quickly through DOPPW's subsequent OMs of 3rd Oct/ 14th Oct 2008.

7. Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not to be applied for dispensation of REVISION of pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners- but Para 4.2 remains applicable at all times.

THIS IS BECAUSE, After so many conflicting OMs etc, the DOPPW had stood its GROUND to BRAINWASH all the pensioners as if PARA 4.2 is the correct accepted/ recommendation whereas it SHOULD BE ONLY- REPEAT ONLY Para 5.1.47 of SCPC report and none of its modified versions! SCPC's PARA 5.1.47's CORRECT INTERPRETATION/ IMPLEMENTATIUON is vital for all old pre-2006 pensioners!.

( To some extent DOPPW made a refined proposal to DOE in early Jan 2009, redefining the para 4.2 which was more or less a CORRECT INTERPRETATION of Para 5.1.47 in terms of the Revised Pay Structure/ Rules, but the said proposal was "terminated" UNAUTHORISEDLY by the DOE on the grounds of "FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS". We must fight for its resurrection fully!)

Coming to your concluding part:

If you examine the first/ORIGINAL Resolution dated 29th August 2008 issued by DOPPW conveying the acceptance of recommendations of SCPC, the pre-2006 pensioners were given two options (at sl no 12 of the Order).

IN EFFECT THEY ARE:

1.Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report ( seen on the LHS of the Order)
2.MF of 1.86 with Fitment of 40% (seen on the RHS of the Order)

THE SAME SHD HOLD GOOD NOW FOR AN INTERIM/ MINIMUM SOLUTION, pending final settlements, with the following CORRECT INTERPRETATIONs:

1.Para 5.1.47 shd stand with REVISED PAY & REVISED PAY SCALES with respect to tables/ annexures of CCS(RP)Rules 2008 - same as post 2006 pensioners except the fixation having been frozen at respective CORRESPONDING repeat CORRESPONDING minimums in each revised scale, to provide revised pension to all those for whom it is beneficial, and to provide a minimum MODIFIED PARITY.

2.MF option has become 2.26 and is based on LAST PAY DRAWN. (this will work out slightly more than minimum MODIFIED PARITY for some or many upto some stages in their scales.). i.e. This wd be beneficial to about 25% of old pensioners depending upon the respective "stages" of the last pay drawn by them in their respective scales as can be made out from Shri GR's table.

Hence this OPTION also will have to stay. Both options as originally provided, shall have to continue, with CORRECT INTERPRETATION/ APPLICATION.

Regards. (more may follow)

vnatarajan

MINIMUM MODIFIED PARITY (the original Default Class) IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR with the ALTERNATE OF MF 2.26 (original main clause for many upto PB3) whichever is beneficial.IT IS VITALTO ALL CLASSES OF PENSIONERS. EVEN FOR VRS/ MIGRATING RETIREES, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP (if I am correct).

sundarar
30-12-2009, 12:03 AM
Further, a recap on Para 5.1.47 and subsequent implementation are
as summarised hereunder:

PARA 5.1.47 OF 6CPC: ......the 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. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table'

(1) The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 at S.No.12 indicates acceptance of the Government in respect of the Para 5.1.47 that specifies `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' [/b]- without any modification.

(2) The O.M. dated 1.9.2008 of DoP&PW seconded the above accepted version by repeating the same as it is vide its Para 4.2.

(3) The Third communication in r/o Pre-2006 pensioners has been released vide CPAO's letter dated 25.9.2008, the para 2 of which modifies that `the fixation of the pension will be based on the provision of the O.M. (dated 1.9.2008) including the requirement the revised pension in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay band PLUS the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired'

(4) The O.M. dated 3.10.2008 has further modifies the Para 4.2 that `the pension would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) PLUS the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale..

(5) Para 5 of OM dated 11.2.2009 indicates that `in accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's O.M. of even No. dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of penson will be subject to the provision that the revsied pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band PLUS the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired'.


After a period of about 14 months since the commencement of this thread and subsequent discussions, there is a development by issue of a Corrigendum vide letter dated 24/25.11.2009 of the CPAO in respect of their initial letter dated 26.9.2008 to the Banks.

The first version as per initial letter dated 26.9.2008 of the CPAO:

The Revised Pension shall be in no case be lower than the fifty percent of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

(A plain reading of the above is understandable like this:
50% of bottom of the Pay Band irrespective of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired - In case, this understanding is correct, then it is not meeting with what has been spelt out by the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 under para 4.2 which gives an understanding that ultimately it is nothing but 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired - In 5th CPC implementation too, 50% of revied pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale from which the pensiner had retired, only constituted as minimum revised pension for the particular scale retiree)

Further, in line with the above first version of the CPAO's letter dated 26.9.2008, the DOP&PW O.M. dated 3.10.2008 of the DOP&PW had modified the para 4.2 of initial OM dated 1.9.2008. As per the modifed version of Para 4.2 which was in line with the above first version of CPAO letter dated 26.9.2008, a concordance table based on the modified OM dated 3.10.2008
as its Annexure. The said Annexure refers to initial para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 and not the modified version of para 4.2 through the OM dated 3.10.2008 with which it got annexed. Moreover, it was based on Rule 3 & 4 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

Since pre-1996 pay scales were not provided in the said Table, a revised concordance table indicating the said scales was issued vide OM dated 14.10.2008. This table was based on OM dated 14.10.2008 (that means,
neither based on OM dated 1.9.2008 nor OM dated 3.10.2008). It is significant to note that the concordance table annexed with OM dated 3.10.2008 is said to have been based on OM dated 1.9.2008 with a reference to CCS (RP) Rules 3 and 4 of 2008, but in reality it was not so, because, the modified version of OM dated 3.10.2008 itself had a basis of initial version of first letter dated 3.10.2008 of the CPAO, as seen above, which itself was not meeting the para 4.2 of initial OM dated 1.9.2008.

Thus, it is understandable that the para 4.2 of initial OM dated 1.9.2008 remains unimplemented, and hence this thread in the Discussion forum started its journey.

The Corrigendum issued vide CPAO letter dated 20/24.11.2009 amends its initial version of first letter dated 26.9.2008 like this:

THE REVISED PENSION SHALL BE IN NO CASE BE LOWER THAN THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND PLUS GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED.

The second version/amended version of CPAO letter dated 20/24.11.2009 has also been sent to the Banks for necessary action. The aforesaid version meets actually the para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. While the modification has been implemented through a concordance table that was based on such modified version/illustration made in OM dated 3.10.2008, it had not in reality related to para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. Otherwise, there would not have been any need for corrigendum vide letter dated 20/24.11.2009.
Having put the records straight by issue of corrigendum, the implementation part of actual para 4.2 is still pending for want of revised re-concordance table. This is so, because, it is already confirmed in one occasion that the table annexed to OM dated 3.10.2008 is based on that OM only (viz. modified version of para 4.2)

The very relevant question now may appear in the minds of the Pensioners Community as to

WHETHER THE INITIAL VERSION OF CPAO LETTER DATED 26.9.2008 RESULTED IN ANY AFFECT ON THE PENSION OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN COMPARISON TO THE PENSION ADMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS AS CLARIFIED IN OM DATED 3/14.10.2008?
(While the first version on 26.9.2008, clarification on 3/14.10.2008 does not meet the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 (para 4.2) as seen above, the pre-2006 pensioners are made entitled to less than 50% of Revised pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale, in accordance with the aforesaid communications barring OM dated 1.9.2008 and hence, there is definitely affect (reducing effect on pension) on the pension due and payable in accordance with para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 in respect of the pre-2006 pensioners, w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

WHETHER THE AMENDED VERSION OF CPAO LETTER DATED 26.9.2008 OF CPAO THROUGH THEIR LETTER DATED 20/24.11.2009 WILL RESULT IN ANY AFFECT ON THE PENSION OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN COMPARISON TO THE PENSION ADMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS AS PER OM DATED 1.9.2008 (PARA 4.2)
- Yes (an effect of enhancement of pension that is pending)
(While the amended version actually meets initial OM dated 1.9.2008 para 4.2, the pension of pre-2006 pensioners is required to be recomputed to determine the actual minimum revised assured guaranteed pension as per para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. In which case, a revised re-concordance table strictly meeting para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 and the CPAO letter dated 26.9.2009 (amended version). In case the pensioners community is looking for any other justification for this recomputation request, they may kindly visit the `Pensioner's(D.S.Nakra's) Day' thread. On the same topic, the RREWA website also has provided a separate Article in detail (www.rrewa.org).

The above are personal views and for information purpose to the Pensioners community for better awareness. In case any corrections on the views are felt necessary and offered from our Pensioner friends, I am prepared to stand corrected.

sundarar
08-10-2010, 05:53 AM
What is a Pay Band and What is a Pay in the Pay in the Pay Band -
These are the basic criteria in fixing revised pay as well as minimum revised pension, while the 40% of max. of pre-revised scale that was held by a serving employee as on 31.12.2005 and by a pensioner at the time of retirement (exceptions are upgraded/replaced higher scale).

A Pay Band consists of running pay in the pay band corresponding to
various pre-revised scales of pay grouped together under such Pay band.
It has various grades under a single pay band.

A Pay in the Pay band is running pay in the pay band corresponding to particular stage of a particular single scale of pay.

Thus, a bottom/minimum of the pay band can never correspond to all pre-revised scales grouped under that particular pay band, but can only correspond to the lowest pre-revised scale grouped under that particular pay band by virtue of multiplying with 1.86 mf over bottom of such lowest pre-revised scale - in respect of PB1, PB2 and PB3.

Whereas, a bottom/minimum of pay in the pay band, being a running pay in the pay band, definitely corresponds with a single pre-revised scale.

The K.S. Krishnaswamy case Judgment pointed out that `It is common knowledge that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a pay commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale'.

The increase in the pay scale by virtue of 6th Pay Commission is
required to be passed on in toto to the serving employees in all respects
and to the extent of at least 50% to the pensioners while fixing minimum revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008.

First, if we see the case of serving employees, particularly those
who were promoted to a particular higher grade prior to 1.1.2006,
their pay in the pay band as on 1.1.2006 is determined by application of 1.86 mf over the pre-revised pay held by him as on 31.12.2005. On the contrary, for a direct recruit after 1.1.2006 to such a promoted grade the pay in the pay band is fixed quantum according to the grade pay of the promoted grade. Here, the new entrant's pay in the pay band happens to be more than the employee promoted before 2006 and got his pay revised in such promoted grade w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The anomaly is being scrutinised and pay being stepped up department wise.

At the same time, wherever their pre-revised scale of pay got upgraded/replaced to/with a higher pre-revised scale of pay as on 1.1.2006, their pay does not get refixed in such upgraded/replaced pay scale before revision of their pay but their last pay on 31.12.2005 in the pre-upgraded scale only gets application of 1.86 mf over the same for
deriving the corresponding pay in the pay band. Here the anomaly
arising out of a new recruit to such a replaced/upgraded post getting
higher pay in the pay band than serving employee as on 1.1.2006, is
not considered for removal.

Further, on promotion of a serving employee the fitment benefit by way of 3% over his pre-revised basic pay to be added to pay in the pay band of the pre-promoted grade, can be stepped upto the level of bottom/minimum of the pay band (NOT BOTTOM/MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND), if on addition of such 3% fitment benefit, the pay in the pay band is lesser than bottom/minimum of the pay band.
Here too, the post-2006 promotee happens to draw lesser pay than
that of a new entrant to that promoted grade after 1.1.2006.
This anomaly also is not considered for removal under the contention that a promotion and recruitment are two different things.

The Pay Commission implementation took place on 1.9.2008.
Prior to that date, an employee promoted after 1.1.2006 to a particular grade and fixed at minimum of that scale and another recruited to that grade after 1.1.2006 were drawing same minimum basic of the pre-revised scale of pay applicable to such promoted/recruited grade.
On implementation of 6th CPC recommendation, since the
promotee's pay in the pay band is restricted to bottom of the pay band
as against bottom of the pay in the pay band, the direct recruit of post-2006 who too got his pay fixed at bottom of the pre-revised scale,
by virtue of fixed amount of pay in the pay band as applicable to the grade pay admissible for the pre-revised scale, draws more pay in the pay band, than his counterpart, viz. post-2006 promotee of same pre-revised basic.

The aforesaid anomaly is due to the concept that a Pay in the Pay band can be irrespective of pre-revised scale and only a Grade Pay will correspond to a single pre-revised scale held before 31.12.2005.
In other words, the differentiation between a Pay band and a Pay in the Pay Band is not well understood while implementing the recommendations of the 6th CPC.

While the revised pay as per 6th CPC reco. consists of both pay in the pay band and grade pay - both the elements will naturally correspond to a particular scale of pay, what has been implemented is part-correspondence with pre-revised scale. Thus, THE INCREASE IN THE PAY SCALE FROM 1.1.2006 AS RECOMMENDED BY 6TH CPC IS NOT EFFECTED AS A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE PRE-REVISED SCALE IN TOTO. The anomaly in the case of post-2006 promotees can be
removed only by amending the provision that where after adding the 3% fitment benefit to the pay in the pay band of a promoted employee, if found lesser than MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND, the same has to be stepped upto such MIMINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND and not Minimum of the Pay Band.

Coming to the scenario of revision of pre-revised pension for pre-2006 pensioners to ensure that the same is not lesser than the minimum revised assured/guaranteed pension consisting of 50% OF PAY IN THE PAY BAND PLUS 50% OF GRADE PAY AS APPLICABLE, BOTH
THE ELEMENTS DO HAVE RELEVANCE/CORRESPONDENCE WITH A SINGLE PRE-REVISED SCALE THAT WAS HELD AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT.
Whereas, it is still being maintained that pay band and pay in the pay band are one and the same in spite of a Corrigendum and so many clarifications, which ceremoniously avoid the words `50% of minimum of the pay band' and instead maintain it is `50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band' only matters - In actual effect, it is misinterpreted
that a Pay in the Pay Band will be irrespective of the pre-revised pay scale and so a pay band only matters for deriving 50% of the same,
TOGETHERWITH 50% of Grade Pay applicable to/corresponding to
a single pre-revised scale that was held at the time of retirement, for deriving the Minimum Assured/Guaranted Revised Pension.

The Recent AFT Judgment delivered on 14.9.2010 directed to look into the definition part of `pay in the pay band'. Thus, the differentiation between a Pay band and a Pay in the Pay band, if well understood, even now, all anomalies arising out of the same can be easily removed.

Incidentally, taking cue from the golden words `an increase in the pay scale in 6th CPC (in today's context) is a corresponding increase in the pay scale' for serving employees to the fullest extent

for pensioners, such an increase in the pay scale in 6th CPC being a corresponding increase in the scale, 50% of such an increase shall be
passed on to pre-2006(all pre- here) pensioners. For which purpose,
their last pay in the pre-revised scale shall be revised first in the 6th CPC pay scale for deriving 50% of such revised pay as their REVISED PENSION W.E.F. 1.1.2006. Otherwise, the increase in the pay scale
gets reduced to 50% of minimum of the pay band (which virtually means 50% of the pay in the pay band corresponding to lowest pre-revised scale) irrespective of the pre-revised scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement and only 50% of grade pay will get correspondence with pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

THERE CAN BE ONLY REVISION OF PENSION ON CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE PRE-REVISED SCALE, BUT NO REDUCTION OF PENSION IN SPITE OF SUCH AN INCREASE.

TO CONCLUDE, AGAIN THE QUESTION STANDS BEFORE US
- WHAT IS A PAY BAND AND WHAT IS A PAY IN THE PAY BAND.
DEFINITION ONLY CAN DEFINE THE WAY.

RKPATHAK
08-10-2010, 09:23 AM
Pension should not be less than 50% of minimum of the pay band+grade pay the employee was working at the time of retirement. This amount is 30% in case of family pension

vnatarajan
09-10-2010, 06:16 PM
Dear Pensioners,

(1) Pay Band concept might have been introduced wef 1 1 2006 to serve the cause of the "EMPLOYEES" in service in many ways.

It has its own advantages for them.

With introduction of Org Services benefits for GR A (may be Gr B also) it takes on very effectively.

IF YOU CAN ENTER THE GR A SERVICE AT 20 1/2 OR 21 YRS - AS MANY OF US DID - YOU CAN BE SURE OF REACHING 67000 PLUS GP 10000 OR EVEN MORE -BY THE TIME YOU REACH 60 YRS AGE.

YOU DONT HAVE TO SLOG AND PREPARE FOR THE ELITE EXMAS. IT IS USELESS. WASTE OF TIME.

LATER after joining service - LEARN HOW TO MAINTAIN A STEADY PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE PATH- CUM- ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIP TECHNIQUE AND THUS GROW IN CAREER WITHOUT HINDRANCE.

(2) For others also, I am sure it is advantageous - with the provisions of ACPs and MACPs etc. Some perfections/ refinements are to be achieved.

(3) It is not clear how this "Pay Bandism" is being imposed on pre-2006 pensioners for revising their pensions.

IT IS FUNNY AND RIDICULOUS AND WHO-SO-EVER IS THE "AUTHOR OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION- HE DESERVES TO BE "DE-SERVICED" AT THE EARLIEST FOR AVOIDING FURTHER CHAOS IN THE SYSTEM, EVEN AFTER THE LEGAL BATTLES:

FOR eg, in case of pre-2006 S29- I am one of them-

- There is only one MINIMUM for all from S24 to S29, for revising the pensions .

- I and many had crossed the actual equivalent of this MINIMUM long back as S24 while in service.

- Even as S29, many have reached the top of the scale 22400 and even drawn upto 2 stag increments.

- Start of S29 itself is higher than the top of the S24!

- This RETROSPECTIVE COVERAGE of so-called new liberalisation neutrliases in effect all our service of the period from 14300 basic to 20900 basic in S24 to S29 effectively as all will draw same pay component of basic pension (37400).

-In effect more than 15 yrs of service is neutralised/ nullified in both S24 and S29.

-In S29 alone, more than 5 years of service is neutralised/ nullified (18400 to 20900).

- I AM EQUATED TO S24 FOR PAY COMPONENT OF BASIC PENSION

- I AM EQUATED TO S28 FOR GP COMPONENT OF BASIC PENSION.

- I HAVE LOST MY ID AS A PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONER ! WHAT A TRAGEDY?

- WHEN FITMENT TABLE - WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A "READY RECKONER" GIVES THE CORRECT EQUATIONS, WHY IT IS BEING "HIDDEN" ?

(4) UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW SHALL I DEFINE "PAY BAND" FOR A PRE 2006 PENSIONER?

In the present circumstances,I SHALL HAVE TO DEFINE IT AS:

IT IS A ONE POINT PAY STAGE(eg 37400 for S29) WITH A NUMBER OF "GRADE PAY" COMPONENTS, PURPORTEDLY AND AD- HOCLY DECIDED TO HEIRARCHIALLY RANK "ONE" OR "MORE" PRE-REVISED/ PRE-2006 PAY SCALES, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE REVISED PENSION OF SUCH PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

(5) NOW WHAT IS THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND ( SAY FOR eg pre-2006 Pensioners)

-IT IS A ONE POINT PAY FOREVER FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WHOSE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES PURPORTEDLY/ AD HOCLY FALL WITHIN THE IMAGINARY PAY BAND, WHOSE STARTING POINT COINCIDES WITH IT!

( i.e. IT COINCIDES WITH THE "BOTTOM" OF THE PAY OF THE RESPECTIVE PAY BAND FOR POST 2006 PENSIONERS).

NOW BOTH ARE ABSURD! HIGHLY COMPLICATED/ PERVERT? NEBULOUS? NONSENSE!

Therefore, one has to understand clearly and cleverly all that was intially envisaged by the SCPC to be meningful, but later the same were "atrociously" and "arrogantly" disarrayed by a few- and hence it is necessary to arrive at RATIONAL DEFINITIONS- which are common to both pre and post 2006 pensioners.

THERE CAN NOT BE TWO VERSIONS! One for the pre 2006 and another for post 2006 pensioners.

Regards,
vnatarajan

sundarar
17-10-2010, 01:53 AM
SINGLE MINIMUM FOR SEVERAL SCALES

- "There is only one MINIMUM for all from S24 to S29, for revising the pensions" - Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out the crux of the issue..

The pattern of revision of pension as well as min. revised pension as per original recommendation that was accepted can be scrutinised as given below in the order of seriatim:

Pre-Revised Scale No.
Bottom/Min. of respective Pre-revised Scale
Revised Pension under Para 4.1
Min. Revised Pension under original Para 4.2
S-24 S-25 S-26 S-27 S-28 S-29 S-30
14300 15100 16400 14300 14300 18400 22400
16159 17063 18532 18532 16159 20792 25312
23050 24195 24295 24295 23700 27350 33500

MINIMUM REVISED PENSION UNDER MODIFIED PARA 4.2
23050---------- 23150---------- 23700---------- 33500
(As Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out, under the modified
para 4.2, there is only one minimum (Rs.37400) playing the role for deriving 50% of the same as 50% of the minimum pay band for all the scales from S-24 to S-29 and the same is also called as 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale).
The variations between the scales and between original & modified version of para 4.2 will speak volumes of itself.

It is significant to note that Higher Scale Pensioners of S-25, S-27, and S-29 had to draw revised pensions at Lower Levels than what they should have been entitled had their "Respective Equivalent Minimums" were identified within the Composite Pay Scale!.

It is also significant to note the difference even between the revised pensions at lower levels, viz. Rs.100, Rs.550 while the variation under para 4.1 itself is ranging in Rs.1000 plus at every next higher scale.

It is equally important to keep in view that even higher stage retirees within a particular pay scale is to get what the lowest stage retiree gets as minimum revised pension, since para 4.1 is no longer beneficial. Thus the last pay drawn lost its identity, and so the last scale held. Even the basic pension on the date of retirement lost its identity at the time of revision as it does not correspond to the corresponding minimum revised pension to the respective pre-revised scale/pre-revised pay held at the time of retirement.

On the contrary, if we observe the original accepted version based
minimum revised pension, which is shown under respective scale, the variation is ranging in Rs.1000 plus at every next higher scale.

Thus, the concept involved in para 4.1 as well as original para 4.2
has been nullified to bring a reducing impact in the range of the said 1000 plus at every next scale, instead a meagre 100 and 550 has been
the net result.

That is why, again and again, the pensioners community is taking all their pains to point out that 50% of a bottom/minimum of the pay band, viz. Rs.37400 in the case of PB4, cannot be part of minimum revised pension for all the remaining scales, viz. S-25, S-26, and S-29apart from 50% of grade pay applicable to respective scale. Instead, 50% of a bottom/minimum of the running pay in the pay band corresponding to the respective pre-revised scale will ensure at least that the higher scale retiree is getting his appropriate minimum revised pension and the hierarchy as being maintained in the Revised pay minimum will also be getting maintained in the case of minimum revised pension.

In the case of S-30, no such problem is encountered, thanks to re-revision of their pay in the revised structure by excluding pb/gp aspects.

The modification/clarification to the accepted recommendation/notified resolution has resulted with the aforesaid reducing impact in the case of
pensioners' whose pay band minimum and minimum pay in the pay band
are not one and same, ie. S-25. S-26 and S-29.
Though we took PB-4's pre-revised scales for the analysis here,
the situation remains same in the case of remaining pay bands and their pay scales. The loss of pension is ranging from 165 to 3650 for all the 29 scales (exceptions the 4 scales having minimum of pb, ie. min. of pay in pay band for respective scales among the four)

The Pay Band 1, 2, 3, 4 are the category identification such as Gr.D, Gr.C, Gr.B and Gr.A respectively. Actually, the Gr.A has been bifurcated as Gr.A Jr. (PB3), Gr.A Sr.(PB4) and Gr.A HAG.
Thus, the minimum of respective Groups has nothing to do with the
minimum revised pension.
What is important is the minimum of the respective group vs minimum of the respective scale, while the former is nothing but a minimum of a particular lowest pre-prevised scale under a particular group or band we can say for the time being, the latter is nothing but a minimum of actual particular single pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement - Both minimum, viz. minimum of the lowest scale in a group/band and minimum of a particular scale actually held at the time of retirement are getting revised to a particular running pay in the band. In the case of pre-revised scale S-4, S-9, Gr.A Entry and S-24, the actual running pay in the pay band starts/commences its journey of `running'.
The starting/commencing point of these particular scales can never be
starting/commencing point of remaining scales under the respective pay band, as every next higher pre-revised scale has its own corresponding
starting/commencing point of journey of `running'. The latter one cannot be equated with the former. This is as simple as it is.

Such analysis had already been elaborately made by many senior veterans under the injustice thread. However, since new viewers may also get a recap of what is the environment under which the 25 scale
retirees of pre-2006 era have been undergoing since implementation of 6th CPC recommendation towards modified parity and hence this submission.

A new dimension oriented approach towards extending FULL AND COMPLETE PARITY AMONG THE HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS
by exploring the consequences of re-computation of pension, i.e. based on NOTIONALLY revised pay corresponding to the last pay drawn, for the purpose of deriving 50% of the same as REVISED PENSION from 1.1.2006
mainly to ensure higher scale retiree/higher pay retiree gets his
entitled pension in the revised structure, can very well put at rest all the existing anomalies. Any way, those who retired at bottom of the pre-revised scale will also be getting their entitled min. revised pension under original para 4.2. The seniors' identity in all respects will get protected by this approach. Future revision too will have lesser problems by this approach.

VIJAYA DASAMI is meant for Victory in all respects for one and all.
This is a particular struggle where both sides will be the winners and there will be no losers on either side, if a positive approach is involved for removal of the anomalies/grievances with a long term view..

sundarar
23-10-2010, 07:25 AM
Pension should not be less than 50% of minimum of the pay band+grade pay the employee was working at the time of retirement. This amount is 30% in case of family pension

The OM dated 13.9.2008 of the Dept. of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) reg. clarifications on CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 2008 prescribes the following under a Note:
"CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 define the term "Basic Pay" in the Revised Pay structure as the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay........ In respect of HAG+ and above, basic pay means the pay in the prescribed scale.

Every pre-revised scale has various stages within it starting from minimum to maximum.

Every stage (Pay) of pre-revised scale will definitely have its corresponding revised pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

So, the minimum of pre-revised scale will also have its own corresponding revised pay
w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

As clarified in the OM referred to above, pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay constitutes the BASIC PAY in the Revised Structure w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

A Basic Pay in the Revised Structure will have a bottom/Minimum.

Such a bottom/Minimum of the Basic Pay in the Revised Structure shall/will correspond
to respective bottom/minimum of the pre-revised scale's basic pay.

50% of such a Basic Pay at bottom/minimum in the Revised Structure should be determined as Minimum Revised Assured Guaranteed Pension under Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 in line with the 6th CPC reco. vide para 5.1.47.

ULTIMATELY, WHETHER A HAG+ AND ABOVE SCALE RETIREE OF PRE-2006, OR A <HAG+ SCALE RETIREE OF PRE-2006, IT IS THE REVISED BASIC PAY THAT MATTERS FOR DERIVING 50% OF SUCH A MINIMUM REVISED BASIC PAY AS MINIMUM REVISED PENSION.

Where is the need for Clarification/Modification/Corrigendum involving pb alias ppb and gp.

LET THE MINIMUM REVISED PENSION BE IN TERMS OF 50% OF BASIC PAY AT BOTTOM/MINIMUM IN THE REVISED STRUCTURE CORRESPONDING TO RESPECTIVE MINIMUM/BOTTOM OF PRE-REVISED SCALE, W.E.F. 1.1.2006. IT IS THAT SIMPLE AS IT IS.

vnatarajan
23-10-2010, 05:14 PM
Dear Interested Pre 2006 Pensioners,

A nice review prepared by Shri N P MOHAN, Rtd CE, W Rly, which had appeared in the RREWA Webiste on the related aspects of this thread is pasted here for information of all (with aniticipated "No Objectiuon" from Shri Mohan):

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

Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners
(Distinction between min. pay in PB & min. pay of PB)

1 Gross injustice has been done in fixing pension of pre-2006 pensioners retiring from pay
scales S 4 to S 29.Our case hinges round true, honest, religious and rational
interpretation of the recommendations made by 6thCPC in para 5.1.47 of their report
which have been accepted in toto (barring DA factor of 86% in lieu of 74%) by the
UNION CABINET and notified in the Gazette on 29-8-08. The accepted
recommendations have been systematically tempered with in the process of issuing
implementation orders thereof by DOP in their OMs of 1/9/2008 and 3/10/2008 with
the sole objective of denying modified parity as recommended by Commission.

2 The principle of MODIFIED PARITY for pensioners having retired prior to a Pay
Commission in vogue since 5thCPC (1-1-1996) has been fully endorsed by 6thCPC in the
said para above. This principle as per 5th CPC recommendations envisaged fixing the
pension at 50% of the min. of corresponding 5thCPC revised pay scale from which the
pensioner had retired. For example, Senior Scale of Central Services Group ‘A’ was 3000
-4500 prior to 1-1-96 (5th CPC),which scale was revised to 10000-15200 ( S 19) by 5th
CPC. Basic pension was accordingly fixed at 5000 i.e. 50% of 10000 (min. of the
corresponding 5th CPC revised pay scale).

3 6th CPC adopted the system of PAY BANDS (PB) and GRADE PAY (GP) wherein a number
of pre revised pay scales have been merged in a PB with varying GP. There are now 4
pay bands comprising pay scales from S 4 to S 29 with separate scales for S 30 to S 34 on
the pattern of 5th CPC. S 19 is grouped in PB 3 (15600-39100) with a total of 9 scales
from S 15 to S23. In the absence of a separate revised scale for an old scale as hitherto
(except S 30 to S 34), the Commission gave directions for complying with the
sacrosanct condition of implementing modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners in the
concluding portion of the para 5.1.47 as under;
“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
prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner retired.”

4. Each stage of a pre revised scale has a distinct pay in the PB and the revised basic pay
which forms the basis for pension is the sum total of two components namely pay in the
pay band and grade pay. Thus in a PB where five pre revised pay scales with five stages of
increment each have been grouped, there will be 25 different revised basic pays because
of different pays in the pay band. The purpose of giving this example is to emphasise that
pay in the pay band is an entity which is specific for every stage of a pre revised pay
scale.

5. As per accepted recommendations of Commission in para 5.1.47 (reproduced in para 3
above), our entitlement for pension is for a minimum of pay in the pay band corresponding
to the pre revised scale from which we have retired. For S 19, it is 18600 and with GP of
6600, basic pension works out to 12600 as against consolidated pension of 11300
(2.26xbasic pension).

6. Despite a clear cut direction given by Commission without any ambiguity and with the
emphatic word ‘SHALL’ (in no case, shall be lower …) used by the Commission for
dispensing modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners in para 5.1.47, the accepted
recommendations have not been translated truly in the implementation orders issued by
DOP. In the operative orders issued by DOP vide OM dated 3/10/2008 in the name
‘CLARIFICATION’ to earlier OM of 1/9/2008, the minimum of the pay in the pay band is
sought to be taken as the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre
revised scale of pay plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised scale of pay.
In other words, it is the grade pay alone which corresponds to the pre revised scale
and the pay (which is a major component for determining pension) has been
delinked from the post one has retired from. The legality or otherwise of this OM in
contravention to the accepted recommendations is the moot question as it has reduced
the individual pay in the PB to a common minimum pay of the PB for all the scales grouped
in a PB. In the case of PB 3, it is taken as 15600 being the minimum of the PB 15600-39100.
If the intention of the 6th CPC was to fix the pension of all the past pensioners in a
particular pay band at minimum of the pay band they would not have used the expression
minimum of the pay in the pay band.

7. Pay in the Pay band has not been separately /exclusively defined for past pensioners by
the Commission. There is a mention in para 2.2.22 of the Report and it is given as a worked
out figure in the column of “Revised pay in the running pay band” in Table 2.2.2 at page 46
for each stage of the pre revised scales. Table 2.2.2 of the Report is for fixation of pay in
the pay bands and is based on the Pay Bands as recommended by Commission with annual
increment of 2.5% and DA @ 74%. After the acceptance of the Report and taking into
account changes in pay bands, GP, up gradation of some scales from PB 3 to PB 4, carving
out of separate pay scales for S 31 & S 32, DA @ 86% and increment @ 3%, fitment Tables
were issued by MOF on 30/8/2008 (an updated version of Table 2.2.2). Pay in the pay band
is given in col.2 of these tables. The expression pay in pay band cannot have two different
meanings one for the pensioners and other for the serving employees. If it were so, the
learned Commission could have unambiguously used the term minimum of the pay of the
pay band instead of minimum of the pay in the pay band. As per accepted
recommendations of para 5.1.47, the pension of pre 2006 pensioners has to be based on
the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner retired . The fitment Tables of 30/8/2008
have, therefore, a limited purpose for pensioners in finding the pay in the pay band
corresponding to minimum of pre revised scale one has retired from.

8. By misinterpreting the accepted recommendations of 6th CPC and delinking the pension
from the pay/post one has retired from, the pay in the pay band for S 19 (example taken
above) pre-2006 pensioners has been taken as minimum of the pay band 3 i.e. 15600 along
with all other pensioners from S 15 to S 23, whereas it should be 18600 (page 25 of
Fitment Tables) as the pay in the pay band for pre revised minimum pay of 10000 for S 19.
Pension and pay are interdependent. Pension cannot be fixed by taking any arbitrary pay
and it has to be the revised pay corresponding to the minimum pay of the erstwhile scale
of pay from where a pensioner has retired.

9. Punjab & UP Govts. having implemented recommendations similar to para 5.1.47 of 6th
CPC have correctly fixed the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners and have not delinked the
pension from the post one has retired from as done in our case in pursuance of illegal and
malaise instructions contained in DOP OM of 3/10/2008.

10. In a recent judgment (14-9-2010) of AFT Delhi, in the case of Lt. Commanders and
equivalent (OA 270/2010), the court has held that ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ is
to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners.
Pre revised scale of Lt. Commanders is 11600-14850 which is grouped in PB 3-(15600-
39100) along with 3 other ranks. Pension of pre- 2006 Lt. Commanders was fixed by
considering pay of 15600 (min.pay of pay band as done in our case) The court has ordered
for taking pay as 23810 for the purpose of pension which is the minimum pay in the pay
band corresponding to the minimum pay of 11600 as per their fitment tables similar to the
tables of 30/8/2008 mentioned above.N.P. Mohan
EX C.E. W. Rly.
20-10-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by
vnatarajan