PDA

View Full Version : Pension



RKPATHAK
23-11-2010, 04:30 PM
One of my friend was drawing basic pay of rs 18540+4600 and left the organisation on tendering resignation as a technical formality on his having joined an organisation where pension is not there. He served the organisation for 18 years. Office has fixed his pension 10413, i.e. pro rata ( Rs 11570/20*18). The demand of incumbent is to give the pay @ 50% of last pay drawn, i.e., 11570. Kindly clarify the stand of my office is in order or the demand of incumbent is genuine

sundarar
23-11-2010, 06:39 PM
If the qualifying service is 20 years, then only full pension of Rs.11570 is admissible. Since it is not so, based on actual qualifying service rendered, viz. 18 years, the pro-rata pension Rs.10413 fixed by the office is in order, according to me.

(If we see the case of a similar person retired from the corresponding pre-revised scale, prior to 1.1.2006 with the same service, his revised pension may be in the range of Rs.5989 or so (assuming a last pre-revised pay Rs.9700). Just a Cut off date of 1.1.2006 with liberalisation by delinking 33 years q.s. for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, makes this much difference in the pension between a similarly situated pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees)

SASI
23-11-2010, 07:35 PM
One of my friend was drawing basic pay of rs 18540+4600 and left the organisation on tendering resignation as a technical formality on his having joined an organisation where pension is not there. He served the organisation for 18 years. Office has fixed his pension 10413, i.e. pro rata ( Rs 11570/20*18). The demand of incumbent is to give the pay @ 50% of last pay drawn, i.e., 11570. Kindly clarify the stand of my office is in order or the demand of incumbent is genuine

As per OM No.F. No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dated, the 2nd September, 2008, 10 years qualifying service is necessary for full pension. Hence the demand of the employee is correct.

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

sasi

sundarar
23-11-2010, 08:35 PM
Rule 49 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972:

2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem.]; (b) in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than 1[Rupee three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem ; (c) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54.


Para 5.2 of the O.M. dated 2.9.2008 in respect of post-2006 pensioners is self-explanatory that minimum qualifying service for full pension is 20 years.

Para 5.3 only specifies the entitlement criteria for drawal of pension, which need not be necessarily full pension although 50% of emoluments will be the basic criteria.

If Para 5.3 is sufficient for drawal of full pension on completion of 10 years qualifying service, then for whom para 5.2 of the same OM will be applicable?

The Para 5.3 needs clarity, of course while para 5.2 is very clear on the qualifying service criteria of 20 years that replaces the pre-liberalised criteria of 33years that was made applicable to all pre-2006 pensioners.

RKPATHAK
23-11-2010, 10:00 PM
Para 5.2 & 5.3 seems to be confusing. I shall be grateful if Mr Venkat or Mr Victor may throw some light in the matter

SASI
24-11-2010, 06:32 AM
Swamy’s Handbook 2009 Page 238

"8.Calculation of Pension
[Swamy’s Pension Compilation]
From 2-9-2008.—Full pension is admissible to an employee with minimum qualifying service of not less than 10 years. The amount of pension will be 50% of the average emoluments or 50% of emoluments drawn on the date of retirement, whichever is more beneficial".

SASI

RKPATHAK
24-11-2010, 11:26 AM
This I have seen but still have got some doubt, whether a person who has not completed 20 years of service the full pension be admissible or proportaiontely reduced since Text Book CCS(Pension) Rules have got differnt view

mprabhakaran
24-11-2010, 03:16 PM
Central government employees retired and retiring on or after 01.01.2006 with 10 years and above QS serivce are entitled to full pension in terms of DOPT OM no 37/38/08- P& PW(A) dated 02nd September 2008 & 10th December 2009. In addition to Swamy's publication even the GOI website- Pensioners Portal confirm this position. The answer given to Q-55 under FAQ in the website does not stipulate that one should complete 20 years of QS to get full pension. The same is reproduced below:

55. What is the method of computing pension?
Pension is now payable @ 50% of the last 10 months’ average emoluments or last pay drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee.

Does not the above answer mean that those who are eligible pension will get full pension? The position is made further amply clear bythe Ministry of Railways vide their letter no. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13 dated 12th August 2010, addressed to all GMs. The above letter stipulates that all Railway employees who have retired on or after 01.01.2006 with 10 years and above QS are eligible for full pension. It further mentions that with the issue of instructions issued by DOPT vide their OM dated 02.09.2008 & 10.12.2009, the concept of pro rata pension cesed to exist with effect from 01.01.2006.

Therefore there is no ambiquity in the extant Rules that a retiree is eligible for full pension if he completes 10 years of QS. Let us not therefore interpret the Rule as per our convenience and our own perception and create more confusion.

In reply to Mr. Sundarar's query as to whom para 5.2 will apply, I would like to mention that it applies to those who could retire only after completion of 20 years and above QS as under Rule 48 & 48A of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.

tvenkatam
24-11-2010, 03:21 PM
Para 5.2 & 5.3 seems to be confusing. I shall be grateful if Mr Venkat or Mr Victor may throw some light in the matter

Dear friend,

Para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 are very clear. An employee after 10 years of qualifying service if becomes eligible for pension by virtue of attaining the age of superannuation, he will be entitled to pension @ 50% of emoluments. An employee after 20 years of qualifying service retires from service either on superannuation or voluntarily, he will also be eligible for pension @ 50% of emoluments. There is no question of pro rata or proportionate pension on retirement after 01.01.2006.

So far as the case of your friend is concerned, the relevant provisions of Appendix 5 (of FR &SR) have not yet been updated in line with OM dated 02.09.2008. Following is the rule on the subject existing today.
“On permanent absorption to CPSU/Autonomous bodies having no pension scheme, a Government servant will be eligible for the proportionate Service Gratuity or Pension & Retirement Gratuity as may be admissible under relevant rules.“
The above provision may be interpreted as below:
An employee with more than 20 years of qualifying service will be eligible for full pension and retirement gratuity on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of permanent absorption while those having less than 20 years of qualifying service would be eligible for Service Gratuity only.

mprabhakaran
24-11-2010, 04:54 PM
Dear Mr. Venkat,

Where is the sentence "by virtue of having attained the age of superannuation'" is used either in par 5.2 or 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008? It is your assumption and perception. How can only those who superannuate be seggregated for the benefit while others are left out? For example a person who retired on superannuation on 31.12.2005 would have got only 10/33x BP as pension while a person who retired under fr 56(k) with 18 years of service would have got 23/33x BP as pension. But on 31.01.2006, the former would get full pension and the latter will continue to get 23/33 or 18/20 X BP as pension. How can the position be reversed?

sundarar
24-11-2010, 07:50 PM
Thanks to all your goodselves, who have been participating in the discussion on the instant subject. Such an exercise will bring clarity at the end.

My views after going through all the above posts are submitted as hereunder:

1. The moment we call it as FULL PENSION under any circumstances, part-pension ie. pro-rata cannot be entirely ruled out as no where it has been mentioned in the implementation orders of 6th CPC recommendation in r/o post-2006 retirees to that extent.

2. At the same time, it is a fact that the Railway Board Order dated 12.8.2008 categorically indicates that `all employees becoming entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 69(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 on or after 1.1.2006, are eligible for pension equal to 50% of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to them. With the issue of these instructions, the concept of pro-rata pension has ceased to exist w.e.f. 1.1.2006. This provision is equally applicable to those employees who have been permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous bodies and have since become entitled to monthlypension in terms of the extant instructions'.

2. Similar to the above, the para 5.3 also talks about "cases where Government servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10years of qualifying service in accordance With Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more benefiCIal to the Government servant”.

3. Please note the particular words - IN THOSE CASES SHALL ALSO BE in Para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.2008 in r/o post-2006 retirees. By this, it is very clear that in all other cases,
the para 5.2 will be uniformly applied, ie. minimum qualifying service of 20 years for FULL PENSION. (Pl. note that 20 years qualifying service not required for just pension, but FULL PENSION). Thus, pro-rata pension for post-2006 retirees subject to a minimum eligiblity criteria of pension, viz. 10 years qualifying service, and subject to a minimum eligibility critera of FULL PENSION, viz. 20 years qualifying service, will be payable
wherever the qualifying service rendered is between 10 to 20 years.
Otherwise, ruling out of pro-rata from 1.1.2006 should have been clearly indicated in the speaking order dated 2.9.2008.

4. If at all 10 years q.s. will attract full pension and if 20 years q.s. is having no relevance for the purpose of full pension, the relevant rule may be having life only till 2014, as those who entered the Govt. service after 2004 will not be eligible to draw pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 .

5. Illustration as I understand: Mr.A with 10 years qualifying service retired before 31.12.2005 will be getting his basic pension at 10/33 X 50% of BP. Mr. B with 10 years qualifying service and retiring after 1.1.2006 in accordance with Rule 49(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 or as per the Railway Pension Rule 69(2) will be getting his basic pension at 50% of BP.
Mr. C with 10 years qualifying service and retiring after 1.1.2006 in accordance with other relevant Rules of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972/Railway Pension Rules, 1993 will be getting his basic pension at 10/20 X 50% of BP.

6. Unless suitable clarifications in r/o implementation orders or amendments to relevant Pension Rules are issued, multifold doubts in the minds of the pensioners community cannot be ruled out. However, in the instant subject initially raished Shri Pathakji, I still feel that the Office has rightly fixed the pension based on the available rule provisions, viz. para 5.2 of OM dated 2.9.2008.

(At this point of time, I intend to reproduce the adopted Resolution No.5 of 55th Annual Conference of Bharat Pensioners Samaj at New Delhi held on 20/21.11.2010 with regard to delinkage of 33 years for full pension in respect of Pre-2006 Pensioners for information. (www.rrewa.org):

Resolution No 5 (Delinking of Qualifying Service)
`This Conference emphasizes the rationale involved in extending the de-linkage of qualifying service of 33 years for full pension in respect of pensioners retired during the period from 1.1 =2006 to 1.9.2008 is equally valid and applicable for those, who retired prior to 1.1.2006. As the pensioners are a homogenous class as a whole, computation
of pension cannot be by different formulas thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended /revised, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment/revision takes effect. It is discriminatory to introduce a benefit by fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups as pre-2006 and post-2006?'
This conference of Bharat Pensioners Samaj therefore, urge upon GOI to redress the discrimination

RKPATHAK
24-11-2010, 08:25 PM
Thank you Mr Venkat. My view point is also the same. Now I can convince my friend

tvenkatam
24-11-2010, 09:54 PM
Dear Mr. Venkat,

Where is the sentence "by virtue of having attained the age of superannuation'" is used either in par 5.2 or 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008? It is your assumption and perception. How can only those who superannuate be seggregated for the benefit while others are left out? For example a person who retired on superannuation on 31.12.2005 would have got only 10/33x BP as pension while a person who retired under fr 56(k) with 18 years of service would have got 23/33x BP as pension. But on 31.01.2006, the former would get full pension and the latter will continue to get 23/33 or 18/20 X BP as pension. How can the position be reversed?

Dear friend,

Para 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 reads:
“5.3 In cases where Government servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10years of qualifying service in accordance With Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Government servant”.

Interpretation of Para 5.3:
Government servants becoming entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 only are eligible for pension at 50% of emoluments or average emoluments.

Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 reads:
2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem; (b) in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than Rupee three hundred and seventy-five per mensem ; (c) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54.

Interpretation of Rule 49(2):
Rule 49(2) covers only those Government servants who retire in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service. In other words Rule 49(2) covers only those who retire on superannuation with a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service. Employees seeking resignation/pre-mature retirement/deemed retirement are not covered under Rule 49(2).


Government must find an appropriate solution to ameliorate the conditions of pre 2006 retirees vis-*-vis post 2006 retirees as otherwise there would be vast disparity among these two sets of retirees.

SASI
25-11-2010, 09:08 AM
Rule 49 of Pension Rules regulate the amount of pension of all types. Not of retirement on superannuation alone. 49(1) refers to retirement before 10 years of qualifying service, 49(2) a, b & c refers to those with qualifying service of 33 years, 10 years and invalid pension respectively. Hence Para 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 is applicable to all types of pension and person eligible for pension with a qualifying service of 10 years are eligible for full pension.

SASI

tvenkatam
25-11-2010, 10:33 AM
Rule 49 of Pension Rules regulate the amount of pension of all types. Not of retirement on superannuation alone. 49(1) refers to retirement before 10 years of qualifying service, 49(2) a, b & c refers to those with qualifying service of 33 years, 10 years and invalid pension respectively. Hence Para 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 is applicable to all types of pension and person eligible for pension with a qualifying service of 10 years are eligible for full pension.

SASI

Dear Friend,

Retirement on superannuation, invalidation and compulsory retirement (with 10 years of qualifying service) are covered under Rule 49(2). The cases of retirement covered under this Rule are enforced which automatically/unconditionally makes the incumbents eligible for pension.

Pre-mature retirement on completion of 30 years of qualifying service is covered under Rule 48. All other cases of pre-mature retirement with qualifying service between 20 years and 30 years are covered under FR 56. The retirement under these Rules are voluntary/optional and the entitlement of pension is not automatic but subject to fulfillment of certain conditions such as acceptance by Government, notice of retirement, etc.

Para 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 talks of the former category of retirees with 10 years or more of qualifying service while Para 5.2 of OM relates to the latter category with 20 years or more of qualifying service.

Victor
25-11-2010, 12:38 PM
As SASI has rightly said, Rule 49 of Pension Rules regulate the amount of pension of all types. Govt. servants who retire or who are retired under FR 56 are entitled to "Retiring Pension" under Rule 36 (a) of CCS(Pension) Rules. The amount of "Retiring Pension" admissible is regulated under Rule 49 of CCS(Pension) Rules. Further, employees can also retire on completion of 20 years of qualifying service under Rule 48A of CCS(Pension) Rules.

The OM dated 2.9.2008 as amended now provides for full pension (i.e. 50 % of last basic pay drawn or average emoluments whichever is beneficial) to anybody who retires or is retired on completion of 10/20 years of qualifying service.

Victor

mprabhakaran
25-11-2010, 01:36 PM
Dear Friends,

My interpretation is different. Prior to 01.01.2006, there were 2 categories of pensioners viz., those who were entitled to addition to QS for the purpose of pension and DCRG and those who are not entitled for addition to QS. The former include all those who retire when they are still left with some period of service before attaining the age of compulsory retirement; Those who retire under FR 56 (K), 48 A of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 etc come under this category. The later category include those who retire on superannuation, under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules etc.

If you go back to the original recommendations of 6CPC ( para-5.133) pertaining to delinking 33 years of service for full pension and reducing it to 20 years of QS, we will find that the commission made such recommendation keeping in mind the former category of employees and not the latter category. The commission made this recommendation exclusively with the view to encourage people to leave early so that they can look for alternate career.The commission further says that older people who cannot look for alternate career continue in service without being motivated to make any significant contribution and this has an adverse effect on the government machinery.

From the above it is clear that this benefit of 10/20 years should be available only for those who retire on their own before the age of compulsory retirement and not for those who retire on superannuation as is being suggested by some of our friends in this thread. Thanks.

mprabhakaran
25-11-2010, 02:21 PM
Dear friend,

Para 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 reads:
“5.3 In cases where Government servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10years of qualifying service in accordance With Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Government servant”.

Interpretation of Para 5.3:
Government servants becoming entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 only are eligible for pension at 50% of emoluments or average emoluments.

Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 reads:
2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem; (b) in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than Rupee three hundred and seventy-five per mensem ; (c) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54.

Interpretation of Rule 49(2):
Rule 49(2) covers only those Government servants who retire in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service. In other words Rule 49(2) covers only those who retire on superannuation with a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service. Employees seeking resignation/pre-mature retirement/deemed retirement are not covered under Rule 49(2).


Government must find an appropriate solution to ameliorate the conditions of pre 2006 retirees vis-*-vis post 2006 retirees as otherwise there would be vast disparity among these two sets of retirees.

Dear Friend, Can you tell me what clause of CCS(Pension)Rules 1972, deals with retirement on attaining the age of superannuation making it to be the "retirement under these Rules"!

tvenkatam
25-11-2010, 07:43 PM
Dear Friend, Can you tell me what clause of CCS(Pension)Rules 1972, deals with retirement on attaining the age of superannuation making it to be the "retirement under these Rules"!

Dear Friend,

Post #15 above (in the same thread) may clarify.

The amount of pension admissible for those retiring on or after 01.01.2006 is prescribed in Paras 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008. Vide Para 5.1, a person retiring before completion of 10 years shall be entitled to only Service Gratuity and no pension. Vide Para 5.2, all those who retire with a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service (whether voluntary or otherwise) shall be eligible for pension at 50% of the emoluments. Vide Para 5.3, those who retire with a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service (on superannuation, invalidation or compulsory retirement) shall also be eligible for pension at 50% of the emoluments.

Currently there is no question of pro rata or proportionate pension and also no weightage of qualifying service is added on voluntary retirement as was admissible before 01.01.2006.

A person who opts to retire voluntarily on completion of less than 20 years of service will not be entitled to pension (Neither full rate of 50% of the emoluments nor pro-rata pension based on the actual service rendered). At the same time another person retiring on superannuation/invalidation/compulsory retirement on completion of a minimum of 10 years of service will be entitled to pension at 50% of the emoluments.

Victor
25-11-2010, 08:33 PM
Dear Friend,

Post #15 above (in the same thread) may clarify.

The amount of pension admissible for those retiring on or after 01.01.2006 is prescribed in Paras 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008. Vide Para 5.1, a person retiring before completion of 10 years shall be entitled to only Service Gratuity and no pension. Vide Para 5.2, all those who retire with a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service (whether voluntary or otherwise) shall be eligible for pension at 50% of the emoluments. Vide Para 5.3, those who retire with a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service (on superannuation, invalidation or compulsory retirement) shall also be eligible for pension at 50% of the emoluments.

Currently there is no question of pro rata or proportionate pension and also no weightage of qualifying service is added on voluntary retirement as was admissible before 01.01.2006.

A person who opts to retire voluntarily on completion of less than 20 years of service will not be entitled to pension (Neither full rate of 50% of the emoluments nor pro-rata pension based on the actual service rendered). At the same time another person retiring on superannuation/invalidation/compulsory retirement on completion of a minimum of 10 years of service will be entitled to pension at 50% of the emoluments.

A person with less than 20 years qualifying service cannot retire voluntarily under CCS(Pension) Rules. However, I agree that the earlier provisions of pro-rata pension and qualifying service does not exist w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Victor

sundarar
25-11-2010, 11:27 PM
Government must find an appropriate solution to ameliorate the conditions of pre 2006 retirees vis-*-vis post 2006 retirees as otherwise there would be vast disparity among these two sets of retirees.

Thanks to Shri TVenkatamji for endorsing the pre-2006 pensioners' grievances as a whole to maintain parity among the single homogenous class of pensioners that include post-2006 pensioners too.

Further, the instant discussion has concluded that a person with less than 20 years qualifying service cannot retire voluntarily under CCS(Pension) Rules and the earlier provisions of pro-rata pension and qualifying service does not exist w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Also, the minimum pensionable service of 10 years is sufficient to earn full pension.

At this point of time, it is also to be remembered that prior to 1.1.2006, there existed all types of pensioners, viz. those who retired voluntarily, those who retired on superannuation, those who got pro-rata pension on absorption in PSUs, etc. for whom the basic qualifying service requirement for full pension was 33 years.

While recommending the liberalised pension scheme from 1.1.2006, the following paragraphs of 6th CPC Report speaks that:

"5.1.1 As per its Terms of Reference, this Commission is required to examine the principles that should govern the structure of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension and other terminal or recurring benefits having financial implications for the present and former Central Government employees appointed before January 1, 2004.

5.1.2 The Commission, therefore, had to consider pension and other related issues of all the Central Government employees except those covered under the New Pension Scheme which extends to all the Central Government employees, except those belonging to Defense Forces, as had joined the Government on or before January 1, 2004.

5.1.3 Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 regulate pension of Central Government employees appointed on or before December 31, 2003. The employees of Union Territory Administrations and civilian Government employees in the defense services borne on pensionable establishments are also covered by these rules. The term pension is not specifically defined under these Rules. The Supreme Court in the famous judgment of D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) had observed that pension is a payment for past services rendered.


5.1.33 Presently, full pension is payable only on completion of 33 years of qualifying service. The rules also allow grant of upto 5 years of additional qualifying service for purposes of computing pension subject to certain conditions. Hence, an employee presently has to put in a minimum 28 years of qualifying service to become eligible for full pension. This acts as a disincentive for many employees for leaving the Government at an early age even though they have reached a plateau in their career and are not satisfied with their job, because they want to complete the minimum years of qualifying service prescribed for being eligible for full pension. By the time they complete such minimum years of service, they are too old to look for an alternative career and continue in the Government without being motivated to make any significant contribution. This has an adverse effect on the efficiency of the machinery. At the same time, the concerned Government employee is also prevented from pursuing an alternative career. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. This will not work as a disincentive to the employees putting in longer years of service because their pay will increase along with the tenure that will have a direct bearing on the pension payable to them. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum pensionable service is put in without any reference to qualifying service. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant


6.5.3 Recommendations on pay scales will also affect the pensions because the latter is paid as a percentage of the average salary. This, however, does not hold true in so far as the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service for Government employees other than the Personnel Below Officer Ranks (PBOR’s) in Defense Forces is concerned. Consequently, the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBOR’s in Defense Forces from the date it is accepted by the Government. PBOR’s are presently eligible for pension with reference to the maximum of the pay scale from which they retire. As discussed in Chapter 5.1, for PBOR’s, the pension on completion of 15 years or more of reckonable service will, from 1/1/2006, be computed at the rate of 50% of the pay last drawn or average emoluments (including grade pay, military service pay and classification pay), whichever is beneficial. All other recommendations relating to pension will take effect retrospectively from 1.1.2006".

I am not aware whether there is some other para in the 6th CPC Report based on which para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.2008 for post-2006 pensioners, involving minimum eligibility period of 10 years for full pension, is prescribed.

For a pre-2006 pensioners, if he had completed 10 years qualifying service, though he is entitled for pension, his pension will be derived by pro-rata basis w.r.t. 33 years q.s.
Even if he is an absorbee on retirement, the same was the situation.

The purpose and intention behind the liberalisation may have its own valid justification; but at the same time, one set of the same single homogenous class of pensioners, by virtue of a cut-off date should not have been deprived of the amended provisions from the date of effect, particularly when D.S. Nakara case judgment that was cited in the above paras, too insists that the object sought to be achieved shall be not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.

As I could observe from the discussions that S/shri TVenkatamji and Victorji have been providing valuable expertise inputs on interpretation of rule provisions, and since the pre-2006 pensioners with <33 years q.s. may be a very small group that may not attract much financial implications if the liberalised formula is extended to concerned pre-2006 pensioners on par with their counterparts, viz. post-2006 pensioners, I thought of sharing my view points at this point of time with the serving community of date. Ultimately, the spirit of D.S. Nakara should prevail in all respects, whether it is q.s. aspect or the revised pension aspect as a whole, which is my wishful submission.

mprabhakaran
26-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Dear Friends,

I do agree with the statement that there is no voluntary retirement with less than 20 years of QS under CCS (PENSION) Rules 1972. But Gp A or B officer can retire on attaining the age of 50 years provided he had joined service before attaining the age of 35 years,even with less than 20 years of QS under FR 56 (K) and get retiring pension. While there is a notice period of 3 months, no acceptance by Govt is necessary in such retirements unlike VR under Rule 48A of Pension Rules. Similarly Govt can also retire a person under FR 56(J) and pay him retiring pension. They are reciprocal rights available to both Govt and the Govt servants. In both these cases QS is not a criteria and they are eligible for pension if they have completed 10 years on the day of retirement. The only difference is that people opt to retire under 56(K) are eligible for addition to QS under Rule 48 B of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 while who are retired under 56(J) are not eligible for such addition to QS. Hence both thses cases are covered under Rule 49(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 and para 5.3 0f DOPT OM dated 02.09.2008Consequently they are eligible for full pension on their retirement.

sundarar
26-11-2010, 06:44 PM
The above provision may be interpreted as below:
An employee with more than 20 years of qualifying service will be eligible for full pension and retirement gratuity on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of permanent absorption while those having less than 20 years of qualifying service would be eligible for Service Gratuity only.

The para 5.1 of the DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008 in r/o post-2006 pensioners says:

'A Govt. servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 before completing minimum qualifying service of ten years shall not be entitled to pension but shall continue to be entitled to service gratuity in terms of Rule 49 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972'.

The formal amendments in respect of the revised provisions are however due. Since the Pension authorising offices of various departments will be interpreting in their own way in the absence of formal amendments, unless final revised pension payment order is received by the concerned pensioners, the doubts may continue to prevail. Any pensioner who retired with 10 years q.s., 10-20 years, and 20+ years after 1.1.2006 and in receipt of Revised PPO on implementation of 6th CPC recommendations may be able to confirm the actual position as to how their cases have been finally settled.

mprabhakaran
29-11-2010, 03:14 PM
CALCULATION OF PENSION

• Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is dispensed with from 1.1.2006. Once a govt. employee has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emolument last drawn or 50% of the average emoluments drawn during ten months immediately preceding the date of retirement whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employees, shall be applicable to all govt. servants retiring on or after 1.1.2006.

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

• Hence, the Govt. servant who is retiring under Rule No.30 (Post-graduate Research appointments), Rule No.35 (Superannuation), Rule No.37 (Absorption in an undertaking or Autonomous body, Rule No.38 (Invalid pension), Rule No.39 (Compensation pension), Rule No.40 (Compulsory retirement), Rule No.41 (Compassionate Allowance) & FR.56 (j & k) will be entitled for 50% of the emoluments last drawn or average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to Govt. servant if he had completed ten (10) years of qualifying service at the time of retirement, in accordance with Rule No.49(2) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

• The Govt. servant who is retiring under Rule No.29 (Voluntary retirement on declaring a govt. servant as surplus) will be entitled for 50% of the emoluments last drawn or average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to Govt. servant if he had completed fifteen (15) years of qualifying service on declaring as surplus and opts for voluntary retirement.

• The Govt. servant who is retiring under Rule Nos. 48 & 48A (Retiring pension – Retiring in advance of the age of superannuation) will be entitled for 50% of the emoluments last drawn or average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to Govt. servant if he had completed thirty (30) & twenty (20) years of qualifying service respectively.

• The benefit of adding additional years of qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension shall stand withdrawn. Rule No.29 (Voluntary retirement on declaring a govt. servants as surplus), Rule No.30 (Post-graduate Research appointments), Rule No.48 (Voluntary retirement on completion of 30 years of qualifying service), Rule No.48A (Voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years), Rule No.48C (Pioneer in general reserve engineering force), of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 & FR 56k (on attaining the age of 50 or 55 years as the case may be shall stand modified to this extent.

• For all classes of pension (including compassionate allowance), the method of determination of pension is the same.

• In no case, a pension including compassionate allowance granted shall be less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. and in the case of retirement on invalidation; the amount of monthly pension granted shall not be less than the amount of Family Pension admissible at the normal rates. The maximum pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Govt. (The highest pay in the govt. is Rs.90,000 since 01/01/2006).

• The amount of pension should be rounded off to the next higher rupee. This should be done only at the final stage (Rule No. 49 (4))

• Payment of pension for part of a month if worked out in fraction of a rupee should also be rounded off to the next higher rupee. (Rule No. 49 (4))

• The quantum of pension payable to the old pensioners shall be increased as follows :-

Age of pensioners Additional quantum of pension
From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of basic pension
From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of basic pension
From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of basic pension
From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of basic pension
100 years or more 100% of basic pension


The Pension Sanctioning Authorities should ensure that the date of birth and the age of the pensioner is invariably indicated in the pension payment order to facilitate payment of additional pension by the Pension Disbursing Authority as soon as it becomes due. The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his pension is Rs.10,000 pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs.10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs.2,000 pm. The pension on his attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs.10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs.3,000 pm.

The additional quantum of pension, on attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the first day of the month in which his date of birth falls including pensioners whose date of birth is first of the month.

tvenkatam
29-11-2010, 05:53 PM
CALCULATION OF PENSION

• Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service is dispensed with from 1.1.2006. Once a govt. employee has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emolument last drawn or 50% of the average emoluments drawn during ten months immediately preceding the date of retirement whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employees, shall be applicable to all govt. servants retiring on or after 1.1.2006.

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

• Hence, the Govt. servant who is retiring under Rule No.30 (Post-graduate Research appointments), Rule No.35 (Superannuation), Rule No.37 (Absorption in an undertaking or Autonomous body, Rule No.38 (Invalid pension), Rule No.39 (Compensation pension), Rule No.40 (Compulsory retirement), Rule No.41 (Compassionate Allowance) & FR.56 (j & k) will be entitled for 50% of the emoluments last drawn or average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to Govt. servant if he had completed ten (10) years of qualifying service at the time of retirement, in accordance with Rule No.49(2) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

• The Govt. servant who is retiring under Rule No.29 (Voluntary retirement on declaring a govt. servant as surplus) will be entitled for 50% of the emoluments last drawn or average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to Govt. servant if he had completed fifteen (15) years of qualifying service on declaring as surplus and opts for voluntary retirement.

• The Govt. servant who is retiring under Rule Nos. 48 & 48A (Retiring pension – Retiring in advance of the age of superannuation) will be entitled for 50% of the emoluments last drawn or average emoluments whichever is more beneficial to Govt. servant if he had completed thirty (30) & twenty (20) years of qualifying service respectively.

• The benefit of adding additional years of qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension shall stand withdrawn. Rule No.29 (Voluntary retirement on declaring a govt. servants as surplus), Rule No.30 (Post-graduate Research appointments), Rule No.48 (Voluntary retirement on completion of 30 years of qualifying service), Rule No.48A (Voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years), Rule No.48C (Pioneer in general reserve engineering force), of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 & FR 56k (on attaining the age of 50 or 55 years as the case may be shall stand modified to this extent.

• For all classes of pension (including compassionate allowance), the method of determination of pension is the same.

• In no case, a pension including compassionate allowance granted shall be less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. and in the case of retirement on invalidation; the amount of monthly pension granted shall not be less than the amount of Family Pension admissible at the normal rates. The maximum pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Govt. (The highest pay in the govt. is Rs.90,000 since 01/01/2006).

• The amount of pension should be rounded off to the next higher rupee. This should be done only at the final stage (Rule No. 49 (4))

• Payment of pension for part of a month if worked out in fraction of a rupee should also be rounded off to the next higher rupee. (Rule No. 49 (4))

• The quantum of pension payable to the old pensioners shall be increased as follows :-

Age of pensioners Additional quantum of pension
From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of basic pension
From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of basic pension
From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of basic pension
From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of basic pension
100 years or more 100% of basic pension


The Pension Sanctioning Authorities should ensure that the date of birth and the age of the pensioner is invariably indicated in the pension payment order to facilitate payment of additional pension by the Pension Disbursing Authority as soon as it becomes due. The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his pension is Rs.10,000 pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs.10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs.2,000 pm. The pension on his attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs.10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs.3,000 pm.

The additional quantum of pension, on attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the first day of the month in which his date of birth falls including pensioners whose date of birth is first of the month.

Dear Friend,

A Good piece of work done to consolidate and present the eligibility criterion and calculation of pension of post 2006 retirees.

sundarar
29-11-2010, 07:53 PM
Available documents for post-2006 pensioners:

While I too agree with Shri TVenkatamji's above views, I wish to focus only on the available documents and what are prescribed therein for post-2006 pensioners, although the other Rule positions quoted by Shri MPji are very much valid..

6th CPC reco. in r/o post-2006 pensioners, OM dt.2.9.2008 MODIFICATORY/CLARIFICATORY OM DATED 3.10.2008 and OM dated 10.12.2009


What is delinked/dispensed with - 33 years q.s.
What is withdrawn - Addition to q.s. of 5 years
What is the method of calculation of pension: 50% of emoluments last drawn (which is introduced from 1.1.2006) or 50% of average emoluments during the last 10 months which ever is beneficial.

Thus nowhere it is prescribed that pro-rata based pension is not available at all for post-2006 pensioners even when they are entitled to draw pension in accordance with Rule 49(2)
What is Rule 49(2) we have seen in the preceding page. The said Rule did not stand modified to any extent nor withdrawn.
If a person who is entitled to draw pension on completion of minimum qualifying service for pension under Rule 49(2) will naturally get pro-rata pension if his service is less than 20 years. We cannot assume or presume unless it is specifically/categorically spelt out.

The following words in the Para 5.2 and Para 5.3 are more significant:
Para 5.2
FULL PENSION
ONCE

Para 5.3

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

Two prescriptions - Para 5.3 based: A person shall meet the provisions of Rule 49(2) and if so, in his case also, the pension shall be paid at 50% of the emolument last drawn (which pension need not be necessarily full pension, but a proportionate one because he is meeting the very provisions of Rule 49(2) only, having done 10 years but less than 20 years.

Para 5.2 based: The other person retiring under any Rule with 20 years rather than 33 years need not link the qualifying service of 33 years for full pension.
Having done 20 years he gets full pension.

Otherwise, a person with 10 year q.s. and another with 20 years q.s. will be drawing same pension by quoting different rules. Whether that is the purpose of 6th CPC recommendation. Whether anywhere 6th CPC has clearly mentioned about 10 years requirement and if so, what is the purpose of drawing Rule 49(2) in between.

That is why, I am of the view that unless specific amendments/clarifications are issued
the doubts will keep on prevailing in the minds of pensioners as well as the implementing agency although it may be very clear to very few, as we cannot infer and get the implementation done.

However, these are my views and I know that others may differ with the above. If so,
I would like to get myself corrected appropriately.

Thanks and Best Regards to both Shri TVenkatamji and Shri MPrabahakaranji for their
active participation.

tvenkatam
29-11-2010, 11:03 PM
Dear Friends,

In essence, the revised pension entitlement of post 2006 pensioners is short listed in to Para 5 of the OM dated 02.09.2008. Apparently, Para 5 of the said OM makes a distinction between; (i) Those Government servants entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of QS in accordance with Rule 49(2) (Para 5.3); and (ii) Those Government servants who have rendered the minimum QS of 20 years (Para 5.2). In both the cases the amount of pension payable shall be 50% of the emoluments. If Rule 49(2) covers all kinds of pensioners as opined by some of our friends, then all those pensioners are entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of QS in accordance with Para 5.3. Under such an eventuality, there seemed to arise no need for distinguishing a separate class of pensioners with 20 years of QS as made out in Para 5.2 of the OM.

Para 13(ii) of the same OM specifies the same only rate of 50% of the emoluments as pension even in the case of those employees who retain the pre-revised scale of pay firmly suggesting little scope for pro-rata pension in the case of pensioners with 10 to 20 years of QS.

sundarar
30-11-2010, 12:21 AM
Dear Friends,

In essence, the revised pension entitlement of post 2006 pensioners is short listed in to Para 5 of the OM dated 02.09.2008. Apparently, Para 5 of the said OM makes a distinction between; (i) Those Government servants entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of QS in accordance with Rule 49(2) (Para 5.3); and (ii) Those Government servants who have rendered the minimum QS of 20 years (Para 5.2). In both the cases the amount of pension payable shall be 50% of the emoluments. If Rule 49(2) covers all kinds of pensioners as opined by some of our friends, then all those pensioners are entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of QS in accordance with Para 5.3. Under such an eventuality, there seemed to arise no need for distinguishing a separate class of pensioners with 20 years of QS as made out in Para 5.2 of the OM.

Para 13(ii) of the same OM specifies the same only rate of 50% of the emoluments as pension even in the case of those employees who retain the pre-revised scale of pay firmly suggesting little scope for pro-rata pension in the case of pensioners with 10 to 20 years of QS.

Thanks Shri TVenkatamji for a quick response with a clear cut summary.

Rule 49 (2) has three clauses, viz. (a) to (c)

The entire para 5 distinguishes the following:

1. Who is not entitled for pension - < 10 years service
2. Who is entitled for FULL Pension - 20 years service as against 33 years indicated in
Rule 49 (2)
3. Who is entitled for proportionate pension - 10 years service or more upto 20 years
as against 10 years or more upto 33 years
indicated in Rule 49 (2)
4. What is the Date of Effect : Prospective
5. What is the Minimum and Max. Pension: As specified vide para 5.5
6. To which extent clause (a) to (c) of Rule 49 (2) will stand modified: Para 5.2 & 5.3
7. Addl. Quantum of Pension for old pensioners: As specified vide para 5.7.

My contention is that no person on completion of 10 years is entitled to FULL Pension on par with one who completed 20 years service. To what extent para 5.3 is getting distinguished - to the extent of applicability of 50% of emoluments (that is introduced for the first time from 1.1.2006). In case para 5.3 is not indicating this factor, what would have been the position - A person with 20 years service will get his pension based on 50% of emoluments or 50% of average emoluments whichever is beneficial to him; whereas a person with min. 10 years service will get his pension only based on 50% of the average emoluments. That is why, the words `in those cases also' is acquiring significance.
For this specific purpose, what is needed is a speaking order as an amendment to Rule 49 (2) instead of citing the extensive part and leaving at the hands of the implementing agencies to infer and interpret as they like.

If we focus only on what is withdrawn/what is dispensed with/what is introduced as against the existing provisions.

However, the discussion is very meaningful as far as I am concerned so that ultimately clarity will prevail. A live case will be very much helpful to us for coming to the conclusion at the earliest on the instant matter.

mprabhakaran
30-11-2010, 12:17 PM
Dear Mr. Venkatam & Sundarar,

Thanks for your active and meaningful participation in the thread. Sundarar was right when he questioned whether the 6CPC recommended for full pension to those who have completed 10- 20 years of QS in it's report. The CPC recommended for full pension only for those who have put in 20 and above years of QS. Consequently they have also recommended for the withdrawal of addition to QS available under Rule 48 B of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. They have made no mention of full pension for those who have put in 10 years of service. This particular clause was included vide para 5.3. DOPT OM dated 02.09.2008.

This has lead to different interpretations by different ministries/ departments and even within the same deaprtment. This might have also resulted in wrong / over payments, of course depending on the final clarification/ amendment to be issued by GOI/ DOPT. Most of the departments have paid full pension to those who retired on superannuation with 10-20 years of QS. In Railways, all those who have completed 10 years have already been paid full pension. If finally DOPT decides to pay only pro rata pension to those who have put in 10-20 years of QS, there will be huge recovery in all such cases. Those adversely effected could take up the matter with CATs/ Courts.

Therefore DOPT should issue necessary speaking orders / clarification in the matter urgently so that further damages could be avoided. Thanks again friends.

sundarar
30-11-2010, 07:31 PM
I too agree with Shri MPrabhakaranji's views above and I am thankful to Shri TVenkatamji and Shri MPrabhakaranji for their presentation of respective views in a nice manner. Our common ultimate purpose of the discussion is to get the clarity emerge finally. With a hope and wish that speaking amendments not only on this particular issue, but also wherever they are due consequent on implementation of 6th CPC recommendation by 2008 will soon be issued by all concerned Departments, I thank the viewers also for their patient observing and my special thanks to the GConnect Admn. for very efficiently providing the e-platform for all of us.

Further, the aforesaid OM dated 2.9.2008 for post-Sep. 2008 pensioners owing to the prospective effect given then - especially the para 5 and the emoluments part had put those retired during 1.1.2006 to 2.9.2008 outside the purview of the OM through another OM dated 3.10.2008, who, however, at a later stage got covered through third OM dated 10/11.12.2008. Till this amendment was issued, the pre-2006 pensioners and the post-2006 pensioners of the above specified period 1.1.2006-2.9.2008 were treated as pre-Sep. 2008 pensioners and treated alike as far as Minimum revised pension is concerned. Thanks to the said amendment, all post-2006 pensioners were brought together and in their case, the minimum revised pension in effect will be 50% of Revised Basic Pay - means Pay drawn/Pay in the Running Pay Band applicable to corresponding revised scale bottom and 50% of Grade Pay (which Grade Pay is nothing but 40/45% of max. of the applicable pre-revised scale they would have been at the time of retirement but for their pay revision from 1.1.2006.

At the same time, the pre-2006 pensioners had been prescribed with a minimum assured pension consisting of 50% of minimum of the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale from which they retired) and 50% of - 40/45% of max. of the pre-revised scale from which they retired) - as Grade pay. This being a major anomaly in r/o pre-2006 pensioners of all the pre-revised scales, had been getting discussed all along right from the date of issue of OM dated 3.10.2008 for pre-2006 pensioners and at present brought out through a latest post as `Min. revised pension pre/post 1.1.2006' under the Anomalies thread which is self-explanatory.

Having dedicated almost half of the life period as Govt. service, no pensioner would prefer to get any undue advantage but only will pray and wish that he get his due share as per the entitlement in a judicious manner. Such a prayer and wish are getting strengthened by active participation of the serving community towards their common cause as could be seen from the Discussion Forum, which serving community will join the rest on successful completion of their career journey. As a Pensioner from the Govt., I wish on the eve of Pensioners' Day falling on 17.12.2010 (Shri D.S.Nakra's Day), all serving/served community a Happy and successful achievement of their respective targets in the walk of life.

"THEREFORE, GO ON EFFICIENTLY DOING YOUR DUTY AT ALL TIMES WITHOUT ATTACHMENT TO THE FRUITS OF ACTIVITIES, AS, BY DOING WORK WITHOUT ATTACHMENT, ONE ATTAINS THE SUPREME" - Lord Shri Krishna in Bhagavat Gita (Chapter 3 Text 19)

SHRI KRISHNA CHARANAM NAMAA.

veekumarv
01-12-2010, 03:15 PM
Dear All,
This is regarding the confusion on the Pension of post-1.1.2006 Retirees with a qualifying service of more than 10 years but less than 20 years. I am a pre -1-1-1996 retiree (a PSU absorbee under the Department of Power with less than 20 years of service). I may inform you all that I have received a Reply for my RTI Query on this subject, to DOP & PW dated 8th May 2010 which says, Full Pension is granted to all post-1-1-2006 Retirees with less than 20 years of QS. I am reproducing below my original RTI Query and the Reply received:

My RTI Query:

To

The Director
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 003

Dear Sir,

Sub: Request for Information under the provisions of RTI Act

At the outset, I would request you, in case you are not presently the Central Public Information Officer, to kindly pass this Request to the concerned officer for furnishing me the following information. The necessary Postal Order for Rs.10/= is enclosed.

1. Whether Central Govt employees getting absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertakings (Central PSUs), with a qualifying service of more than 10 years but less than 20 years, are eligible for Full Pension (and NOT pro-rata pension) as per provisions contained in item No. 5.3 under the category PENSION in OM F. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2nd September 2008?

2. If answer to the above is yes, will the past pensioners absorbed in Central PSUs before 1.1.2006, who did not avail 100% Commutation in lieu of the earlier pro-rata pension, are also eligible to get their Basic Pension refixed based on the principle under item (1) above in conjunction with the revision of Pension as per guidelines issued vide OM F.No. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1st September 2008?

The Reply received from DOP & PW:

Sir,

Please refer to your RTI Application dated 8.5.2010 received by this CPIO on 7.6.2010.

2. Regarding your query No.1, it is confirmed that para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.08 is applicable, among others, to Central Government employees absorbed in PSUs etc. on or after 1.1.2006.

3. Regarding Query No.2, the provisions of OM dated 2.9.08 are not applicable to those who retired / got absorbed in PSUs etc. before 1.1.2006. Their pension is to be revised w.e.f 1.1.2006 in accordance with OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.08 as clarified from time to time.

4. If you are not satisfied with the above reply, you may submit an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is Mrs. Tripti P. Ghosh, Director (PP), Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare.

From the above, it is amply clear that post-1-1-2006 retirees (of all categories including PSU absorbees) having less than 20 years QS (but more than 10 years anyway) are also eligible for Full Pension, which means NO pro-rata Pension any more. However, this benefit is not extended to pre-2006 retirees, which is a major descrimination. The maximum difference in Pension in respect of two persons retired from a comparable post, with one person in pre-2006 category and the other in post-2006, with a minimum of 10 years of QS in both cases, would amount to 230%!!!! This is a major injustice...

Regards to all,

Veerendra Kumar

ramanrao60
01-12-2010, 04:22 PM
Dear All,
This is regarding the confusion on the Pension of post-1.1.2006 Retirees with a qualifying service of more than 10 years but less than 20 years. I am a pre -1-1-1996 retiree (a PSU absorbee under the Department of Power with less than 20 years of service). I may inform you all that I have received a Reply for my RTI Query on this subject, to DOP & PW dated 8th May 2010 which says, Full Pension is granted to all post-1-1-2006 Retirees with less than 20 years of QS. I am reproducing below my original RTI Query and the Reply received:

My RTI Query:

To

The Director
Dept. of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 003

Dear Sir,

Sub: Request for Information under the provisions of RTI Act

At the outset, I would request you, in case you are not presently the Central Public Information Officer, to kindly pass this Request to the concerned officer for furnishing me the following information. The necessary Postal Order for Rs.10/= is enclosed.

1. Whether Central Govt employees getting absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertakings (Central PSUs), with a qualifying service of more than 10 years but less than 20 years, are eligible for Full Pension (and NOT pro-rata pension) as per provisions contained in item No. 5.3 under the category PENSION in OM F. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2nd September 2008?

2. If answer to the above is yes, will the past pensioners absorbed in Central PSUs before 1.1.2006, who did not avail 100% Commutation in lieu of the earlier pro-rata pension, are also eligible to get their Basic Pension refixed based on the principle under item (1) above in conjunction with the revision of Pension as per guidelines issued vide OM F.No. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1st September 2008?

The Reply received from DOP & PW:

Sir,

Please refer to your RTI Application dated 8.5.2010 received by this CPIO on 7.6.2010.

2. Regarding your query No.1, it is confirmed that para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.08 is applicable, among others, to Central Government employees absorbed in PSUs etc. on or after 1.1.2006.

3. Regarding Query No.2, the provisions of OM dated 2.9.08 are not applicable to those who retired / got absorbed in PSUs etc. before 1.1.2006. Their pension is to be revised w.e.f 1.1.2006 in accordance with OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.08 as clarified from time to time.

4. If you are not satisfied with the above reply, you may submit an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is Mrs. Tripti P. Ghosh, Director (PP), Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare.

From the above, it is amply clear that post-1-1-2006 retirees (of all categories including PSU absorbees) having less than 20 years QS (but more than 10 years anyway) are also eligible for Full Pension, which means NO pro-rata Pension any more. However, this benefit is not extended to pre-2006 retirees, which is a major descrimination. The maximum difference in Pension in respect of two persons retired from a comparable post, with one person in pre-2006 category and the other in post-2006, with a minimum of 10 years of QS in both cases, would amount to 230%!!!! This is a major injustice...

Regards to all,

Veerendra Kumar

congratulations
the first step is well done in that you have got the mist cleared around pro rata pension
so now there is no pro-rata pension after 1-1-2006. this much is clear
secondly a group of pensioners are already fighting to extend this benefit to those pensioners who retired before 1-1-2006 also but to give the monetary benefit w e f 1-1-2006,which is very well justified as all pensioners have to be treated as a homogenous group.
i think the remedy lies in seeking judicial intervention

veekumarv
02-12-2010, 01:32 PM
Dear Shri. Ramanarao,
Thank you for your post in the thread dated 1st Dec. I would like to know the details of the group of pensioners, who you have mentioned, are going to courts for seeking justice in this matter. If you can give me their contact details, it would be useful so that I could also join the issue with them.

Thank you

Veerendra Kumar

mprabhakaran
02-12-2010, 02:34 PM
Thanks veerendrakumar for sharing the details of RTI query and the reply given by DOPT thereon. It's quite clear from the reply that as per para 5.3 of OM dated 02.09.2008 and per the provisions of the subsequent OM dated 10.12.2009 all those who retired on or after 01.01.2006 under any retirement scheme is eligible for FULL PENSION after completion of 10 years of service. Since this is from horse's mouth, I only hope that the departments that have different opinion on this will immediately implement the provisions based on the reply given by DOPT to your RTI query and settle the pending cases. I have also published the details provided by you in my blog in anticipation of your permission. Thanks again Veerendrakumar. Thanks to Sundararji and Venkatamji as well, for their valuable contribution in this thread. We will meet in other threads and contribute meaningfully. Thanks to gconnect for giving us this amazing opportunity.

Kanaujiaml
12-12-2010, 05:53 PM
Dear friends. It is true without any doubt that " full " pension is now admissible on retirement from 01.01.2006 onwards, after completion of ten years of qualifying service, as pro rata system has been withdrawn.

sundarar
12-12-2010, 07:24 PM
Dear Sirs, Thanks to Shri MLKji for kind views on the 10 years q.s. requirement.
Almost many including Swamys' Hand Book have confirmed the same without any doubt.

Here are some food for thoughts:

a) When the 20 year q.s. requirement has no role to play at all in the case of post-2006 pensioners, for which type of pensioners, para 5.2 of OM dated 2.9.2008 is applicable? (I am unable to find any answer for the above)

b) If pro-rata concept is withdrawn from 1.1.2006 in view of para 5.3, and the said concept is very much valid even today for pre-2006 retirees-cum-absorbees, then whether there is a fresh set of pensioners, viz. pre-2006 absorbees and post-2006 absorbees emerge from 1.1.2006 for the purpose of `payment of pension', although both are `entitled' to drawn pension.

c) Already, the pre-2006 absorbees are in receipt of pro-rata minimum revised pension even when the para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 has prescribed minimum assured guaranteed revied pension, and not full minimum assured guaranted revised pension.

d) Even if they happen to be brought on par with post-2006 absorbees, for the purpose of calculating full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, in the absence of a fresh OM withdrawing the modified provisions - `50% of pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale)' they will anyhow be drawing full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension that is lesser than a minimum pension of a post-2006 pensioner of the same grade(which is nothing but 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale concerned). By drawing such a lesser pension, the higher scale retiree and lower scale retiree are equated to draw same amount of minimum revised assured guaranteed pension, which anomaly was sought to be removed during the past 2 years through various representations, RTI queries, etc.

My purpose of bringing out the aforesaid known issues again and again in all the discussions wherever possible, is to keep the post-2006 serving employees/retirees informed about what the pre-2006 pensioners are aggrieved with, even though they too belong to the single homogenous class of pensioners.

mprabhakaran
13-12-2010, 01:03 PM
Dear Sirs, Thanks to Shri MLKji for kind views on the 10 years q.s. requirement.
Almost many including Swamys' Hand Book have confirmed the same without any doubt.

Here are some food for thoughts:

a) When the 20 year q.s. requirement has no role to play at all in the case of post-2006 pensioners, for which type of pensioners, para 5.2 of OM dated 2.9.2008 is applicable? (I am unable to find any answer for the above)

b) If pro-rata concept is withdrawn from 1.1.2006 in view of para 5.3, and the said concept is very much valid even today for pre-2006 retirees-cum-absorbees, then whether there is a fresh set of pensioners, viz. pre-2006 absorbees and post-2006 absorbees emerge from 1.1.2006 for the purpose of `payment of pension', although both are `entitled' to drawn pension.

c) Already, the pre-2006 absorbees are in receipt of pro-rata minimum revised pension even when the para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 has prescribed minimum assured guaranteed revied pension, and not full minimum assured guaranted revised pension.

d) Even if they happen to be brought on par with post-2006 absorbees, for the purpose of calculating full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, in the absence of a fresh OM withdrawing the modified provisions - `50% of pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale)' they will anyhow be drawing full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension that is lesser than a minimum pension of a post-2006 pensioner of the same grade(which is nothing but 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale concerned). By drawing such a lesser pension, the higher scale retiree and lower scale retiree are equated to draw same amount of minimum revised assured guaranteed pension, which anomaly was sought to be removed during the past 2 years through various representations, RTI queries, etc.

My purpose of bringing out the aforesaid known issues again and again in all the discussions wherever possible, is to keep the post-2006 serving employees/retirees informed about what the pre-2006 pensioners are aggrieved with, even though they too belong to the single homogenous class of pensioners.
Dear Sundararji, We, the post-2006 pensioners are fully aware of the issues with pre-2006 pensioners, rather, we whole heartedly support them in their struggle to get their due benefits. We are also aware that soon, may be within next 5 years, we both will become one group called pre-2016 pensioners. So whatsoever you all will get now will pave the way for us to get the same benefits then i.e., when we become pre-2016 pensioners. Hence we are a homogenous group and it is only a matter of time before our issues converge and become common. Wish you all the very best!

vnatarajan
14-12-2010, 02:50 PM
Dear Interested pre/ post 2006 /all aould be 2016 pensioners,

I appreciate fully the above para of Mr MP and of course Mr Sundarar's views (who is one of my group's viz pre 2006 pensioners'- brain stormer- activist and data-base provider etc).

Many points will be clear if we put ourselves in the role of an immature "Babu" in the DOPW who has unnecessarily meddled with the originalprovisions of the SCPC Recos and accepted Cab Decisions- which has resulted in full chaos for pre-2006 pensioners.

Post 2006 pensioners will suffer the same fate if some of the "provisions" are allowed to continue.

THEY MUST BE OPPOSED AND NIPPED IN THE BUD.

For example, the "Super Babus" who are in the mode of ORG SERVICES will not suffer the wrath/ destruction of "MINIMuM OF THE PAY BAND" as all of them who entered/enetering service at 22yrs age will reach 77000 Basic Minimum - by hook or cook- work or no work etc.

WE MUST REALISE THE 20 YEAR RULE IS MADE TO HELP SUPER BABUS TO EXIT IN TIME AT 42 YEARS age- SO THAT THEY CAN GET "FULL PENSION" ON LPD on one hand AND THEN GO FOR "PRIVATE" OR "PSU" EMPLOYM,ENT FOR NEXT 20 YEARS OR MORE AND MAKE MAXIMUM "HAY": WHILE THE "SUN" SHINES!

TEN YEAR RULE IS ALSO MADE MAINLY FOR THE REVERSE PHENOMENON- TO ALLOW "SUPER BABUS" OR THOSE "WHO MISSED THE SUPER BABUDOM BUT ARE CLOSE TO THEM" TO ENTER LATE THE "BABUDOM" BY LATERAL/ DIRECT ENTRY SAY EVEN IN PB4 DOMAIN FOR EG AS JT SECY- SAY EVEN AT 50 YEARS- COMPLETE 10YEARS TO SUPERANNUATE WITH "10 YEARS" SERVICE AND GET FULL PENSION.

NOW pl CHK THE RULES AND INTERPRET THEM.THIS IS MAINLY FOR THE ABOVE TWO CATEGORIES IN ORG. SERVICES MODE.

NOTHING IS THERE MUCH FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

IN 7TH CPC, BOTH PRE 2006 AND PRE 2016 MAY CATCH UP- UNLESS THE "PAY BAND" IS "DOWNGRADED " FURTHER AS THEY HAVE DONE NOW FOR SOME PRE REVISED PAYSCALES IN PB 4/ PB 3 ETC.

Regards,
VNatarajan

PS: ALL PENSIONERS MUST REALISE THAT "PAY IN THE PAY BAND" IS SACRO-SNACT AND INDIVIDULISTIC- RELATED TO THE PENSIONER'S ORIGINAL SCALE OF PAY AND IS IMPORTANT FOR ARRIVING AT ANY "EQUALITY" AT ALL TIMES- SAY EITHER TO SRRIVE AT THE "MINIMUM OF REVISED PAY" OR AT THE "REVISED EQUIVALENT OF LAST PAY DRAWN".

ANY TAMPERING IS TO BE OPPOSED AS THEN ONE LOSES HIS VERY "NAME" AND "IDENTITY" .

SUCH TAMPERING VIOLATEES ALL FRS/ CCS PENSION RULES/ SRS/ OTHER RULES/ THE VERY ACT/ DISTORTS THE VERY BASIC APPROACH OF THE TERM "PENSION" WHICH IS ALWAYS IN TERMS OF THE "BASIC PAY".

"MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" FOR EXAMPLE - WHOSE PAY IT IS ? RIDICULOUS CONCOCTION BY AN INEBRIATED/ UNSOUND MIND IN OFFICE I THINK!

OTHERWISE SUCH GROSS BLUNDERS CAN NOT HAPPEN IN "PROPER RULE BASED GOVERNANCE" IN ANY DEPT/ MINISTRY!

ALL CURRENT PENSIONERS MUST TRY TO SET RIGHT ALL EVILS IN TIMJE AND FI9GHT FOR EVRY-TYPE OF EQUALITY IN PENSION- 10 YR / 20 YR/ VRS/ NO VRS ETC.

VN

sundarar
18-12-2010, 08:09 AM
Dear Interested pre/ post 2006 /all aould be 2016 pensioners,

I appreciate fully the above para of Mr MP and of course Mr Sundarar's views (who is one of my group's viz pre 2006 pensioners'- brain stormer- activist and data-base provider etc).

Many points will be clear if we put ourselves in the role of an immature "Babu" in the DOPW who has unnecessarily meddled with the originalprovisions of the SCPC Recos and accepted Cab Decisions- which has resulted in full chaos for pre-2006 pensioners.

Post 2006 pensioners will suffer the same fate if some of the "provisions" are allowed to continue.

THEY MUST BE OPPOSED AND NIPPED IN THE BUD.

For example, the "Super Babus" who are in the mode of ORG SERVICES will not suffer the wrath/ destruction of "MINIMuM OF THE PAY BAND" as all of them who entered/enetering service at 22yrs age will reach 77000 Basic Minimum - by hook or cook- work or no work etc.

WE MUST REALISE THE 20 YEAR RULE IS MADE TO HELP SUPER BABUS TO EXIT IN TIME AT 42 YEARS age- SO THAT THEY CAN GET "FULL PENSION" ON LPD on one hand AND THEN GO FOR "PRIVATE" OR "PSU" EMPLOYM,ENT FOR NEXT 20 YEARS OR MORE AND MAKE MAXIMUM "HAY": WHILE THE "SUN" SHINES!

TEN YEAR RULE IS ALSO MADE MAINLY FOR THE REVERSE PHENOMENON- TO ALLOW "SUPER BABUS" OR THOSE "WHO MISSED THE SUPER BABUDOM BUT ARE CLOSE TO THEM" TO ENTER LATE THE "BABUDOM" BY LATERAL/ DIRECT ENTRY SAY EVEN IN PB4 DOMAIN FOR EG AS JT SECY- SAY EVEN AT 50 YEARS- COMPLETE 10YEARS TO SUPERANNUATE WITH "10 YEARS" SERVICE AND GET FULL PENSION.

NOW pl CHK THE RULES AND INTERPRET THEM.THIS IS MAINLY FOR THE ABOVE TWO CATEGORIES IN ORG. SERVICES MODE.

NOTHING IS THERE MUCH FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

IN 7TH CPC, BOTH PRE 2006 AND PRE 2016 MAY CATCH UP- UNLESS THE "PAY BAND" IS "DOWNGRADED " FURTHER AS THEY HAVE DONE NOW FOR SOME PRE REVISED PAYSCALES IN PB 4/ PB 3 ETC.

Regards,
VNatarajan

PS: ALL PENSIONERS MUST REALISE THAT "PAY IN THE PAY BAND" IS SACRO-SNACT AND INDIVIDULISTIC- RELATED TO THE PENSIONER'S ORIGINAL SCALE OF PAY AND IS IMPORTANT FOR ARRIVING AT ANY "EQUALITY" AT ALL TIMES- SAY EITHER TO SRRIVE AT THE "MINIMUM OF REVISED PAY" OR AT THE "REVISED EQUIVALENT OF LAST PAY DRAWN".

ANY TAMPERING IS TO BE OPPOSED AS THEN ONE LOSES HIS VERY "NAME" AND "IDENTITY" .

SUCH TAMPERING VIOLATEES ALL FRS/ CCS PENSION RULES/ SRS/ OTHER RULES/ THE VERY ACT/ DISTORTS THE VERY BASIC APPROACH OF THE TERM "PENSION" WHICH IS ALWAYS IN TERMS OF THE "BASIC PAY".

"MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" FOR EXAMPLE - WHOSE PAY IT IS ? RIDICULOUS CONCOCTION BY AN INEBRIATED/ UNSOUND MIND IN OFFICE I THINK!

OTHERWISE SUCH GROSS BLUNDERS CAN NOT HAPPEN IN "PROPER RULE BASED GOVERNANCE" IN ANY DEPT/ MINISTRY!

ALL CURRENT PENSIONERS MUST TRY TO SET RIGHT ALL EVILS IN TIMJE AND FI9GHT FOR EVRY-TYPE OF EQUALITY IN PENSION- 10 YR / 20 YR/ VRS/ NO VRS ETC.

VN

Many thanks to Respected Shri VNji for emphasising the core theme. Also my thanks to Shri MPji for endorsing the grievances of pre-2006 pensioners.

Meanwhile, the following may please be seen by all serving employees and pensioners as on date.

Source: http://pensionersportal.gov.in/retire-benefit.asp#a1

Pension

"The minimum eligibility period for receipt of pension is 10 years. A Central Government servant retiring in accordance with the Pension Rules is entitled to receive superannuation pension on completion of at least 10 years of qualifying service.

In the case of Family Pension the widow is eligible to receive pension on death of her spouse after completion of one year of continuous service or before even completion of one year if the Government servant had been examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit for Government service.

W.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Full pension with 10/20 years of qualifying service is 50% of the average emoluments or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Before 1.1.2006, for qualifying service of less than 33 years, amount of pension was proportionate to the actual qualifying service broken into completed half-year periods. For example, if total qualifying service is 30 years and 4 months (i.e. 61 half-year periods), pension will be calculated as under:-

Pension amount = R/2(X)61/66

where R represents average reckonable emoluments for last 10 months of qualifying service or the last pay drawn as opted by the govt servant.

Minimum pension presently is Rs. 3500 per month. Maximum limit on pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Government of India (presently Rs. 45,000) per month. Pension is payable up to and including the date of death".

As Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed about the unjustified treatment w.r.t.
Minimum of the Pay in the pay band, particularly the pre-2006 pensioners even if they had been drawing full pension prior to 1.1.2006 under the pre-revised structure, when their basic pension was revised to a minimum assured guaranteed revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 that stand modified vide OM dated 3.10.2008, such a full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension is lesser than a similar retiree of post-2006 retiree with 10 years who also qualified full pension.

In the case of former, viz. pre-2006 pensioners, 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement and/+ 50% of Grade pay applicable to pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement is prescribed as MAGR Pension. Such a Minimum Assured Guaranteed Revised Pension - the 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band of a lower scale retiree and higher scale retiree being one and same within a particular pay band of 1, 2, 3, 4, actually resulting in reduced pension, as compared to a similarly retired personnel after 1.1.2006 retiring at bottom of a particular corresponding pre-revised scale, in whose case 50% of Revised Pay drawn (which consists of 50% of pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale and 50% of Grade Pay),

By this way, the ultimate situation that emerged is a post-2006 retiree with 10 year service gets more pension than a pre-2006 retiree with 33 years service at the minimum level itself. I pray that such a situation shall not get repeated in future revision and at the same, whatever discrepancies, anomalies etc. that happened so far owing to misinterpretations, etc. shall get resolved in time so that the pensioners will really have a peaceful retired life, without any need to take up through various remedial mechanisms and exhausting the same for the purpose of litigation that follows with numerous appeals from the respondents, etc. ( from pillar to pillar) as we have been
seeing as on date. It is time to recognise the spirit of Shri D.S.Nakara case judgment and issue appropriate orders accordingly to set the records straight. No pensioner shall be left with unfair treatment as a whole. Nothing less or Nothing more.
Best Regards.

Kanaujiaml
19-12-2010, 09:52 AM
Dear Sirs, Thanks to Shri MLKji for kind views on the 10 years q.s. requirement.
Almost many including Swamys' Hand Book have confirmed the same without any doubt.

Here are some food for thoughts:

a) When the 20 year q.s. requirement has no role to play at all in the case of post-2006 pensioners, for which type of pensioners, para 5.2 of OM dated 2.9.2008 is applicable? (I am unable to find any answer for the above)

b) If pro-rata concept is withdrawn from 1.1.2006 in view of para 5.3, and the said concept is very much valid even today for pre-2006 retirees-cum-absorbees, then whether there is a fresh set of pensioners, viz. pre-2006 absorbees and post-2006 absorbees emerge from 1.1.2006 for the purpose of `payment of pension', although both are `entitled' to drawn pension.

c) Already, the pre-2006 absorbees are in receipt of pro-rata minimum revised pension even when the para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 has prescribed minimum assured guaranteed revied pension, and not full minimum assured guaranted revised pension.

d) Even if they happen to be brought on par with post-2006 absorbees, for the purpose of calculating full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, in the absence of a fresh OM withdrawing the modified provisions - `50% of pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale)' they will anyhow be drawing full minimum assured guaranteed revised pension that is lesser than a minimum pension of a post-2006 pensioner of the same grade(which is nothing but 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom of the pre-revised scale concerned). By drawing such a lesser pension, the higher scale retiree and lower scale retiree are equated to draw same amount of minimum revised assured guaranteed pension, which anomaly was sought to be removed during the past 2 years through various representations, RTI queries, etc.

My purpose of bringing out the aforesaid known issues again and again in all the discussions wherever possible, is to keep the post-2006 serving employees/retirees informed about what the pre-2006 pensioners are aggrieved with, even though they too belong to the single homogenous class of pensioners.

My dear Sundarar ji. I appreciate the deep knowledge that you exihibit in your posts on this forum. First, I would give my observation on Full pension on 10 yrs.QS. DOP has issued three OMs namely, dated 02.09.08,11.12.08 and 10.12.09. These are to be read in conjunction with Rule 49 of CCS(Pension)Rules.The OM dated 10.12.09 is ruling one and it removes differentiation amongsts those who retired between 1.1.06 to 01.09.08 and those who retired from 02.09.08 onwards. A person would get full pension with more than 10 but less than 20 years of Qualifying Service only when he is otherwsie entitled to any of the pension such as Supreanuation,Retiring,Invalid, Compulsory etc.Second, the issue of differentiation between pre and post 06 pensioners, it is clearly an artificial divisioning done by DOP and DOE. Some relief has been given to its pre 06 retirees by Punjab Govt., U.P.Govt. and A.P. Govt.U.P. Govt. has even extended the benefits to its All India Service Officers also comparising of IAS,IPS,IFS etc. Shri V. Natarajan says a few of GSI pre 06 pensioners are also somehow getting the same benefit. Central Govt. acting through DOP and DOE is not at all concerned even after so many cases have been listed and pending in CATs/High Courts. AFT/Chandigarh and AFT/Delhi have given favourable judgements but here too, Central Govt. is still silent and showing indifferent attitude. People like you and V. Natarajan and others learned ones have to keep the issue alive and continue creating awareness not only amongsts pensioners but public at large as well.

sundarar
20-12-2010, 06:48 AM
Source: http://pensionersportal.gov.in/retire-benefit.asp#a1

Pension

"The minimum eligibility period for receipt of pension is 10 years. A Central Government servant retiring in accordance with the Pension Rules is entitled to receive superannuation pension on completion of at least 10 years of qualifying service.

W.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Full pension with 10/20 years of qualifying service is 50% of the average emoluments or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Before 1.1.2006, for qualifying service of less than 33 years, amount of pension was proportionate to the actual qualifying service broken into completed half-year periods. For example, if total qualifying service is 30 years and 4 months (i.e. 61 half-year periods), pension will be calculated as under:-

Pension amount = R/2(X)61/66

where R represents average reckonable emoluments for last 10 months of qualifying service or the last pay drawn as opted by the govt servant.

Minimum pension presently is Rs. 3500 per month. Maximum limit on pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Government of India (presently Rs. 45,000) per month. Pension is payable up to and including the date of death".


Thanks to Shri MLKji once again.

As could be seen from the above retirement benefits - calculation of pension for post-2006 retirees, both 10 as well as 20 years qualifying service are valid as on date.
While Railway Board's Circular dated 22.8.2010 talks of only 10 years service, para 5.2 of OM dated 2.9.2008 indicates the requirement of 20 years service too for the purpose of FULL pension.

It is also confirmed that prior to 1.1.2006 those who retired with less than 33 years service
are entitled for proportionate amount of full pension as per the calculation shown above.

In case a retiree after 1.1.2006 is able to get full pension on completion of 10 years service, a similarly retired employee before 1.1.2006 is also required to be allowed full pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in line with the settled position of Shri D.S. Nakara case judgment.

In the case of 20 years service retirees of pre-1.1.2006 also, the same shall be the situation.

So far, we have not come across with any clarification on the applicability of 10/20 years service for full pension in r/o retirees of pre-1.1.2006. Either the pre-2006 pensioners are yet to exhaust their departmental remedies, or the Dept. is considering the Resolutions submitted by Pensioners Associations like BPS-RREWA.

It has become now clear that the anomaly relating to Minimum of the pay in the pay band/Minimum of the Pay band is very much explicitly existing, as a full pension retiree of pre-2006 and another of post-2006 at bottom of the pre-revised scale/corresponding revised scale are not getting the same amount of full pension, in the revised structure w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

In the case of pre-2006 full pension retirees, only 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band as applicable to the lowest scale grouped under the pay band as against the scale held at the time of retirement togetherwith GP, is allowed as full pension.

In the case of post-2006 full pension retirees at corresponding bottom of the revised structure, 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band as applicable to the scale held at the time of retirement togetherwith GP, is allowed as full pension.

Under the circumstances, when a 33 year service retiree is getting equated with a 10/20 year service retiree after 1.1.2006 and even when such an equation falls shorter than the equal amount of full pension at minimum level at least, how the Deptl. remedial mechanisms are going to address this issue even if all the pre-2006 pensioners submit their representations individually, before proceeding towards judicial remedy.

Since we are not able to hear about the National Anomaly Committee Proceedings at present, how the grievance/anomaly is going to be redressed by the concerned Departmetns? Whether the available well settled positions are not sufficient enough, so as to make a fresh attempt to reiterate the same settled positions?

A serious consideration of the long pending issue over 2 years period, is all the more necessary.

Kanaujiaml
20-12-2010, 07:18 PM
My dear Sundarar ji. The crux of the story is that there is inequality in revised pension fixation formula for pre and post 2006 pensioners. Everyone knows that this is violative of Article 14 and the law set by DS Nakara Judgement but Govt.is not ready to listen to our pleas.I have no hope from anomally
committee,too. As I have already said in my earlier post, four judgements, two each from AFT/Chandigarh and AFT/Delhi, have given direction to Govt. to remove this differentiation but so far Govt. has not acted upon. A number of cases are in various CAT/High Courts. Our hope is haging on to the outcome of those cases.

sundarar
20-12-2010, 07:24 PM
Source: http://pensionersportal.gov.in/retire-benefit.asp#a1

Pension

"The minimum eligibility period for receipt of pension is 10 years. A Central Government servant retiring in accordance with the Pension Rules is entitled to receive superannuation pension on completion of at least 10 years of qualifying service.

W.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Full pension with 10/20 years of qualifying service is 50% of the average emoluments or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Before 1.1.2006, for qualifying service of less than 33 years, amount of pension was proportionate to the actual qualifying service broken into completed half-year periods. For example, if total qualifying service is 30 years and 4 months (i.e. 61 half-year periods), pension will be calculated as under:-

Pension amount = R/2(X)61/66

where R represents average reckonable emoluments for last 10 months of qualifying service or the last pay drawn as opted by the govt servant.

Minimum pension presently is Rs. 3500 per month. Maximum limit on pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Government of India (presently Rs. 45,000) per month. Pension is payable up to and including the date of death".


Thus, we have seen in my previous post, the position of pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners with particular reference to the qualifying service.

Now, the other determinative factor of basic pension, viz. emoluments,
prior to 1.1.2006, Pension was calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service.

Whereas, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial.

In this particular context of emoluments part also, many pensioners who got promoted during the last 10 months of service could not get their last basic pay drawn that was beneficial towards calculation of basic pension. Over and above, even for those who got promoted to a higher scale as a last promotion in their service, could not get the benefit of such a scale with regard to minimum assured guaranteed revised pension, particularly since the 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band will be irrespective of pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement. That is the pay earned during the additional service in the higher grade was not having a bearing/impact over their minimum assured guaranteed pension, but they have been equated with the lowest scale retirees of the pay band that was assumed to be held by the pre-2006 pensioners at the time of retirement.

On both the counts, viz. qualifying service and emoluments, the pre-2006 pensioners are left aggrieved with, as on date.

While the case is so, the following well settled position is very clear about treating all pensioners, viz. pre and post alike for the purpose of uniform treatment of liberalised/enhanced pensionary benefits under the very same CCS(Pension) Rules 1972.

Excerpts of Shri D.S. Nakara case Judgment delivered on 17.12.1982:

“Jaila Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 428 and Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [1982]1S.C.C.618, relied on.
…….
…..
(vii) The court is not making the scheme of liberalisation retroactive by its approach. Retroactiveness is implicit in the theory of wages. When revised pay-scales are introduced from a certain date, all existing employees are brought on to the revised scales adopting a theory of fitments and increments for past service. The benefit of
revised scales is not limited to those who enter service subsequent to the date fixed for introducing revised scales but is extended to all those in service prior to that date.

Even in the case of the new retiral benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, past service was taken into consideration. The scheme of liberalisation is not a new retiral benefit; it is an upward revision of an existing benefit. Pension has
correlation to average emoluments and the length of qualifying service and any liberalisation would pro tanto be retroactive in the narrow sense of the term. Assuming the government had not prescribed the specified date and thereby provided that those retiring, pre and past the specified date, would all be governed by the liberalised pension
scheme it would be both prospective and retroactive. Only the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. A statute is not properly called retroactive because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time
antecedent to its passing.
[195 H, 196 H, 196 G, 196 D, 196 B-D]

……………
………….
That is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: ’being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalized pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date’ in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P-I and P-2, violates Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down.
Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under: In other words, in Exhibit P-1, the words:
"that in respect of the Government servants who were in service on the 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date"
and in Exhibit P-2, the words:
"the new rates of pension are effective from 1st April 1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become non-effective on or after that date."
are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement”.



Again the question again and again comes in the minds of a common pensioner either pre or post is - Whether the available well settled positions are not sufficient enough, so as to make a fresh attempt to reiterate the same settled positions?

mprabhakaran
22-12-2010, 03:54 PM
Thanks to Shri MLKji once again.

As could be seen from the above retirement benefits - calculation of pension for post-2006 retirees, both 10 as well as 20 years qualifying service are valid as on date.
While Railway Board's Circular dated 22.8.2010 talks of only 10 years service, para 5.2 of OM dated 2.9.2008 indicates the requirement of 20 years service too for the purpose of FULL pension.

It is also confirmed that prior to 1.1.2006 those who retired with less than 33 years service
are entitled for proportionate amount of full pension as per the calculation shown above.

In case a retiree after 1.1.2006 is able to get full pension on completion of 10 years service, a similarly retired employee before 1.1.2006 is also required to be allowed full pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in line with the settled position of Shri D.S. Nakara case judgment.

In the case of 20 years service retirees of pre-1.1.2006 also, the same shall be the situation.

So far, we have not come across with any clarification on the applicability of 10/20 years service for full pension in r/o retirees of pre-1.1.2006. Either the pre-2006 pensioners are yet to exhaust their departmental remedies, or the Dept. is considering the Resolutions submitted by Pensioners Associations like BPS-RREWA.

It has become now clear that the anomaly relating to Minimum of the pay in the pay band/Minimum of the Pay band is very much explicitly existing, as a full pension retiree of pre-2006 and another of post-2006 at bottom of the pre-revised scale/corresponding revised scale are not getting the same amount of full pension, in the revised structure w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

In the case of pre-2006 full pension retirees, only 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band as applicable to the lowest scale grouped under the pay band as against the scale held at the time of retirement togetherwith GP, is allowed as full pension.

In the case of post-2006 full pension retirees at corresponding bottom of the revised structure, 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band as applicable to the scale held at the time of retirement togetherwith GP, is allowed as full pension.

Under the circumstances, when a 33 year service retiree is getting equated with a 10/20 year service retiree after 1.1.2006 and even when such an equation falls shorter than the equal amount of full pension at minimum level at least, how the Deptl. remedial mechanisms are going to address this issue even if all the pre-2006 pensioners submit their representations individually, before proceeding towards judicial remedy.

Since we are not able to hear about the National Anomaly Committee Proceedings at present, how the grievance/anomaly is going to be redressed by the concerned Departmetns? Whether the available well settled positions are not sufficient enough, so as to make a fresh attempt to reiterate the same settled positions?

A serious consideration of the long pending issue over 2 years period, is all the more necessary.
There are instances where different departments have differently interpreted the provisions of Para 5.3 of DOPT OM dated 02.09.2008 read with OM dated 10.12.2009 regarding payment of FULL PENSION to all those who have completed 10 years and above Qualifying Service. I have taken up the matter with particular reference to those who have opted to retire under FR 56(K), with GOI, Ministry of Personnel, P.G.& Pensions, Department of Pensions & pensioners’ Welfare through an RTI query dated 02.12 2010. DOPT promptly replied vide their letter no. 38/7/10 - P&PW (A) dated 16 December 2010, the operative part of it is as given below:

” The provisions of Para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.2008 and the OM dated 10.12.2009 are applicable to all cases of pension, including pension on retirement under FR 56(K)”

I place on record my sincere thanks and gratitude to Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare for the promptness of their response and for settling this matter once and for all.

M.Prabhakaran

sundarar
23-12-2010, 06:05 AM
The following query was raised much earlier in July 2010 in Other Service Matters - Gratuity in case of premature retirement thread by a Senior Member, which did not attract notice of all of us and hence I reproduce the same as it is:

dear senior g connectors

"can some body explain to me lucidly what is the difference between 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service for pension and why full pension is admissible in both cases and what specific types of cases are covered by 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service proviso and if 10 years is enough then doesn't 20 years becomes redundant? "

ybhaskar23
23-12-2010, 10:45 AM
The following query was raised much earlier in July 2010 in Other Service Matters - Gratuity in case of premature retirement thread by a Senior Member, which did not attract notice of all of us and hence I reproduce the same as it is:

dear senior g connectors

"can some body explain to me lucidly what is the difference between 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service for pension and why full pension is admissible in both cases and what specific types of cases are covered by 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service proviso and if 10 years is enough then doesn't 20 years becomes redundant? "

Excellent Question, I always had this in mind ever since the 10 year issue came up. I am eagerly awaiting
for a learned response. Thanks.

sundarar
17-01-2011, 10:41 PM
It is learnt from reliable information that a govt. servant if becomes eligible for
pension after 10 years qualifying service, he will get full pension in case of his superannuation, absorption in PSUs, invalidation, etc.

In case he becomes eligible for retirement under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules,
he will get pension if he had acquired minimum 20 years qualifying service.

Thus, no pro-rata concept is applicable after 1.1.2006.

It is a fact that many decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court allows the employer to fix a cut off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme, but the ever living D.S.Nakara case stands for calculation of
pension based on `Qualifying Service' and `Emoluments' - and particularly, the Emoluments
requirement when undergone revision at that time from 36 months average to 10 months average, the Hon. Supreme Court had given its verdict in favour of pensioners, whereby no cut off date is allowable. By citing the very judgment, those decisions refered to above followed for disposing off the cases, because neither qualifying service nor emoluments was the issue therein.

Now it is the turn of `Qualifying Service' for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service.. But unfortunately,it is being maintained that only post-2006 pensioners are homogenous class of pensioners, and pre-2006 pensioners will not get included in that homogenous class of pensioners, which means there are two homogenous class of pensioners in every pay commission - Pre Pay Commission pensioner and post pay commission pensioner. Can it be still said that no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution took place by imposing such a cut off date among the Pensioners for availing the revised methodology for calculation of pension, whether it is minimum of the pay in the pay band or full pension?.

mprabhakaran
18-01-2011, 12:20 PM
Dear all,
Grant of full pension on completion of 10 years in respect of post 6CPC is a settled issue now. Better we stop discussing the merit and de-merits of such a decision. Any way, it is a benefit to pensioners. We should only focus ourselves to get the same benefit extended to pre-2006 pensioners. Let us all join together to achieve it.

sundarar
18-01-2011, 09:28 PM
Dear all,
Grant of full pension on completion of 10 years in respect of post 6CPC is a settled issue now. Better we stop discussing the merit and de-merits of such a decision. Any way, it is a benefit to pensioners. We should only focus ourselves to get the same benefit extended to pre-2006 pensioners. Let us all join together to achieve it.

Dear Sir, Thanks for your kind support towards extending the benefit to pre-2006 pensioners. However, I wish to point out that from the simple reading of OM dated 2.9.2008, the grant of full pension on completion of 10 years in respect of post 6 CPC had not become a settled issue. It is only after RTI queries, from the replies received, the reliable information duly authenticated has reached the RTI applicants, who are sharing the same. We never discuss why it was given to post-2006 or merits/de-merits as apprehended by your goodself in your above post. Our point is whether a pre-2006 pensioner and post-2006 pensioner together form a single homogenous class of pensioners to get the benefit extended to the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service. Now only, it is learnt that the cases of superannuation, PSU absorbees, invalidation, etc. are eligible to get full pension on min. q.s. of 10 years, and for those retiring under Rule 48-A, it is 20 years for full pension. In many pensioners mind, still the doubt persists in this regard and hence we take pains to share information then and there.

From the Order issued on 10.12.2009, by extending the benefit to pre-2.9.2008 (post-1.1.2006), it appears that only this category is treated as single homogenous class of pensioners together with post-2.9.2008 pensioners. Then, naturally, the discussion will centre and focus on what about pre-2006 pensioners. Particularly when well settled position is already existing through D.S.Nakra case judgment, a pro-active decision is anticipated, for which purpose the discussion at present. Had the Order dated 2.9.2008 a speaking one, no subsequent RTI queries relating to the applicability of 10 years q.s., 20 years q.s. etc. even for post-2006 pensioners would have arisen. (Some of the post-2006 pensioners even indicate that they have not received their revised pension order).

Because the pre-2006 pensioners community do consist of the above referred cases, Unless the position is made clear in r/o post-2006 cases, even for representation purpose, they may be missing certain factual input and hence this repeated exercise please.

I too agree with your views that the intended target has to be achieved with the help of the entire Pensioners Community.

Just before 7 months of the Order dated 10.12.2009, it was informed through OM dated 12.5.2009 that in the light of the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowing the employer to fix a cut off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme, the decision of the Government is in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court and there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Though the pre-2.9.2008 pensioners' case got settled by subsequent OM dated 10.12.2009, the pre-2006 pensioners' case is yet to be addressed.

Whether those decisions indicated above pertain to calculation of pension, based on either `qualifying service' or `emoluments'. We are aware that D.S.Nakara case judgement had emphasised mainly these two points for fixing of any cut off date, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Whether modifications in the provisions relating to the manner for calculation of Pension on the basis of 10/20 years service, can be equated as a new pension/retirement scheme or as a discontinuance of an existing scheme, for not extending the said benefit to pre-2006 pensioners by virtue of the implementation date of Pay Commission recommendation, ie. 1.1.2006?

I am confident that answers for the above questions will be favourable to pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service definitely.

rksehgal31
19-01-2011, 01:19 PM
The landmark judgment was delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in favour of the pensioners in the famous case of DS Nakara & others vs. Union of India (1983 AIR 130).

By a Memorandum dated May 25, 1979 the Government of India introduced Liberaliised Pension Scheme, which liberalised the formula for computation of pension in respect of employees governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and made it applicable to employees retiring on or after March 31, 1979. The benefit was not extended to the pensioners who had retired prior to 31.03.1979.

Counsel for petitioners had contended that all pensioners entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules form a class irrespective of the dates of their retirement and there cannot be a mini-classification within this class; that the differential treatment accorded to those who had retired prior to the specified date is violative of Art. 14 as the choice of specified date is wholly arbitrary and the classification based on the fortuitous circumstance of retirement before or subsequent to the specified date is invalid; and that the scheme of liberalisation in computation of pension must be uniformly enforced with regard to all pensioners.


The Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court held that the government memorandum dividing the homogeneous class of pensioners on the basis of the date of retirement violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and was stuck down. The court stated that:

"With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: ’being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date’ in impugned memoranda violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down."


The judgment has become Magna Carta for the pensioners. The Fifth and Sixth Central Pay Commissions (CPC) have not cared to follow the above judgment of the Constitution Bench in the revision of pension of the past pensioners in the pay revision effective from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. The Fifth CPC coined the unusual term "Modified Parity" which ensured minimum pension at the minimum of the revised pay scale. This was designed to favour the past pensioners of the senior ranks of the Cabinet Secretary, Chief Secretary and other Secretaries, whose pay scales were of one to three steps only.

The sixth CPC has not applied its mind at all to the problem faced by the past pensioners. It has devoted a small para of less than half a page to the past pensioners. While it states that same benefit has been given to the past pensioners and that the gap in pension of the past (pre-2006) and present pensioners has been reduced, yet the facts are totally different.

The gap in the pension of the pre-2006 and present pensioners of the same rank with the same length of service in the same cadre has become astronomical. In the case of Chief Engineers, the gap in basic pension is about Rs.9000 per month and with DA it is Rs.13000 pm in the very first year of revision. A situation has already developed that the pension of a pre-2006 retired Chief Engineer is much less than that of the recently retired SDOs and XENs. Similar is the case of the pre-2006 retired Major-Generals and other officers of the Armed forces.

The senior bureaucrats are misguiding the government and causing harrasment to the retired civilian and armed forces officers. These bureaucrats have helped themselves and their retired predecessors by creating two Higher Administrative Grades HAG (6 steps) and HAG+ (2 steps), over and above the recommendation of the sixth CPC in addition to the Apex scale (Fixed). For others they keep on repeating in a parrot like fashion that the recommendation of the sixth CPC have been followed. With these pay scales of very short duration, the officers in service get higher pay at the time of revision and the past pensioners of these ranks get higher revised pension (under the minimum 50 % rule 4.2). Rule 4.2 has been designed for them. We get fringe benefit only and for that too, we have to fight a long legal battle.

A large number of cases have been filed by the pre-2006 pensioners, both civilians and armed forces, in the High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunals and Armed Forces Tribunals for removal of anamolies and praying for parity with the present pensioners.

The following points are relevant to consider:

1...The central govt. can amend the pension rules from time to time but these revised pension rules have to be common for all the pensioners covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, irrespective of the date of retirement.

2...The govt can specify a cut-off date from which the enhanced benefits of pension are to be paid, but this date and the benefits have to be same for all the pensioners covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, irrespective of the date of retirement.


3...As per the pension rules, pension is calculated on the basis of last pay/ average employments, length of qualifying service and other rules. Hence, in the revised pay scenario, the pay of the past pensioners has to be revised first and then the revised pension/ family pension has to be calculated. This is as per the judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Maj-Gen Vains case delivered in Sept. 2008, where the govt was directed to revise the pay first at par with similar ranked officers.

3...The past pensioners can, therefore, ask for revised pay and pension at par with Next-below junior officers of the same rank having similar length of service in the same cadre following the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.

3...The govt can offer a new set of Pension Rules/ scheme to fresh employees who are recruited after a cut-off date or can introduce a new pension scheme for employees, who are not covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules but it can not divide the pensioners covered by a particular pension scheme on the basis of the date of retirement.