PDA

View Full Version : PB 4 for S 21,22 and 23 V CPC scales retirees



subba Rao R S
30-01-2011, 10:34 AM
I wish to draw the kind attention of all pensioners of V CPC S21,22,23 Scale that Shri M Joga Rao Retired Director from GSI has made an appeal to Prime Minister and Finance Minister under copy to various persons and Dept. The report is exhaustive and covers inustice to other catagories also. Soft copy can be obtained from him. His e-mail id is mvjogarao@hotmail.com. I also want to intimate that such of those who would like to add/correct can do so. In case legal channel becomes must we may also form a platform/association to fight.

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
30-01-2011, 12:02 PM
Dear Shri Subba Rao,

This is a welcome intiative.

You may like to copy and post Shri Joga rao's draft appeal. here.

If the characters exceed 10000, please split the appeal as PART A/ PART B etc and post them in continuous posts as we didi for S29 Posts.

Regards,
VNatarajan

subba Rao R S
30-01-2011, 04:31 PM
Copy of Appeal Part A 19. Jan 2011
Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Honourable Prime Minister of India,
Room No.148 B, South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi – 110001

Shri Pranab Mukherjee,
Honourable Finance Minister,
Room No.134, North Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi – 110001

Sub : Inclusion of V CPC S-21, S-22 & S-23 JAG Regular Scales
Under PB-4 of VI CPC – Request For
Sir,
1. I retired as Director (Geophysics) from Geological Survey of India, Central Region on 31-5-1988 on superannuation (58 yrs) in the scale 3700 -5000 (IV CPC ) after putting in 31 ½ years of Service. My pro-rata pension was fixed as Rs.1989/- pm w.e.from 1-6-1988.
2. Again as per V CPC my pro-rata pension was fixed as Rs.5728/- pm as on 1-1-1996 in the scale 12000 – 16500 (S-21 of V CPC) which corresponds to the above 3700 - 5000 scale.
3. My pension was revised as Rs.12947/- pm. in the scale PB-3 (15600 – 39100 + GP 7600) of VI CPC as on 1-1-2006.
4. I very earnestly request that the Scales S-21 to S-23 also may be placed in PB-4 along with S-24, to remove the injustice done to these incumbents. The justification is given in the succeeding paragraphs.
Justification - 1
5. The V CPC Pay Scales S-21 (12000-165000), S-22 (12750 – 16500), S-23 (12000 – 18000) and S-24 (14300 – 18300) all come under the same JAG Category. There is no difference in the duties and responsibilities in the nature of their work. Originally, all these Scales and even up to S-27 were placed in PB-3 by the VI CPC. But subsequently it was revised and PB-4 was brought down to S-24 from S-27. Thus, a line has been drawn between S-23 & S-24 within the JAG level scales, putting S-24 in PB-4 and the others Viz., S-21 to S-23 were left in PB-3. This has resulted in a huge disparity causing a large anomaly in the pensions of the incumbents of S- 21, 22, 23 as compared to those of S-24.
6. As per the V CPC Pay Scales, taking 50 % of the Minima of the Scales, the pensions were Rs.6000 for S-21 & S-23, Rs.6375 for S-22, and that of S -24 was Rs. 7150. But as per VI CPC, the pension of the incumbents of S-21, 22, & 23 is Rs.11600 and that of S-24 it is Rs. 23050 The pension of S-21 to S-23 pensioners has increased not even two times ( from Rs.6000 to Rs. 11600) while that of the S-24 pensioner has increased by more that 3 times (from 7150 to 23050). The new pension of the S-24 pensioner is twice that of the S-21 to 23 Pensioners. The difference which was only about Rs.1150 as per V CPC has become Rs.11450 (as per VI CPC) i.e. a ten fold increase. Thus, injustice has been done to S-21 to S-23 Pensioners and a huge disparity has been created at this part of the Pay Band structure, which needs to be rectified.
Justification - 2
7. In this context, portions reproduced below from the letters of Secretary General of AICCPA, Delhi to the National Anomaly Committee, JCM, are relevant –
“- - - .The GOI have solved the problem of stagnation by introducing a selection grade functional/nonfunctional or a % age of posts in a higher scale of pay or grant of stagnation increments or ensure assured financial enhancement at definite intervals in situ say 16 and 26 years of service - - -“ ( Para -2, AICCPA letter No.6 CPC/PB/2k6-CCPA, dtd.16-3-2009 to National Anomaly Committee, JCM, New Delhi – 1, Pensioners Counsellor, April. 2009, page 159 ).
“ - - - But the greatest anomaly is the dividing line drawn between PB-3 & PB-4 relegating JAG regular to PB-3 band and nonfunctional JAG SG to PB-4. In GOI Pay structure JAG starts from 12000 (CPC V). Ministries/Departments/Secretariat level offices have introduced minor variations to this standard JAG initial scale and this has resulted in S-21, S-22, S-23 with S-24 as the non functional JAG S Grade. It will be seen the max of S-24 now in PB-4 is only 300/- more than S-23 max 18000. But as finalised by the Cabinet Review Committee and accepted by Govt. the grade pay for S-21, S-22 & S-23 is 7600 while for S-24 the grade pay is 8700. A difference of 300 in the maximum has resulted in a hike in Grade pay and a shift to the higher PB 4 band. In fact if the methodology followed by CPC VI is followed, the entire JAG together with SG should form a single block for purposes of Grade pay i.e., = 8700 instead of 7600 ., But the Govt. has allowed the anomaly to persist.” (AICCPA letter No.14-1(3)/2k6-CCPA dtd.19-3-09 to Chairman, National Anomaly Committee, Deptt. of Per & Trg, New Delhi, Pensioners Counselor, August, 2009, page 163, Para 4.1).
8. The justifications presented by the AICCPA reproduced above may please be considered and the Pay Band structure at this level be revised by putting S-21 to S-23 also under PB-4.
Justification - 3
9. If the pay scales corresponding to these S-21 to S-24 by the earlier CPCs are

studied, the injustice done by VI CPC can be seen clearly as shown below :–
(a) In Table – 1 below is presented the corresponding Pay Scales recommended by the earlier CPCs and the Pay Band + GP of VI CPC for S-21 to S-24.
TABLE -1
III CPC Scale IV CPC Scale V CPC Scale VI CPC Scale
S-21 1500-1800 3700-5000 12000-16500 15600-39100 + GP 7600
S-22 1500-1800 3950- 5000 12750-16500 15600-39100 + GP 7600
S-23 1500-2000 3700-5700 12000-18000 15600-39100 + GP 7600
S-24 2000-2250 4500-5700 14300-18300 37400-67000 + GP 8700
(b) The ratios of the increase of the Minima of the above pay scales by the successive CPCs are shown below in Table – 2:-
TABLE - 2
CPC Ratios
V CPC
Scales IV / III V / IV VI / V
S-21 3700/1500=2.467 12000/3700=3.243 23200/12000=1.933(lowest)
S-22 3950/1500=2.633 12750/3950=3.228 23200/12750=1.820(lowest)
S-23 3700/1500=2.467 12000/3700=3.243 23200/12000=1.933(lowest)
S-24 4500/2000=2.250 14300/4500=3.178 46100/14300=3.224
10. It can be seen from the above that the ratio of increase in the Minima of the scales of the VI CPC to V CPC are significantly lower being 1.933 & 1.820 only for S-21, 22 & 23 incumbents as compared to the others. This is not at all comparable with other ratios. This means that while the pay raise was 2.25 to 3.446 times in all the earlier cases, the pay raise in the case of S-21 to S-23 after VI CPC was not even 2 times. Also, it can be seen that the ratio increases from one CPC to the next CPC (pl. see horizontally) but when we come to the ratio of VI to V, instead of improving over the previous ratio, it decreased drastically in the case of S-21, S-22 & S23 incumbents. The great injustice done to S-21 to S-23 pensioners by the VI CPC is quite apparent & glaring. Hence, a reconsideration for placing these JAG cadre scales also under PB-4 along with S-24 (JAGSG) is highly justified.
Justification - 4
11. A brief analysis of the VI CPC Pay Band Structure is given below bringing out the large disparities at different levels which created huge anomalies in the pensions especially of the S-21 to S-23 (PB-3) incumbents vis-*-vis S-24 (PB-4) pensioners.
12. In Table – 3 (Enclosure -1) are given S-1 to S-34 scales of pay of V CPC, the original and the revised Pay Bands ‘Minima + Grade pay‘ of VI CPC and the ratios of Revised Pay Bands ‘Minima + GP‘ of VI CPC to the ‘Pay Minima’ of V CPC scales. In the Revised Pay Band structure of VI CPC, S-4 to S-8 are combined into PB-1, S-9 to S-15 are combined into PB-2, New Scale to S-23 are combined into PB-3, and S-24 to S-29 are combined into PB-4. If the ratios of the ‘minima + GP’ of VI CPC to the ‘Minima’ of the V CPC at both ends of each Pay Band are worked out, they will be as under:-
(a) For PB-1, the ratios are 2.55 (i.e., 7000/2750) for S-4 and 1.78 (8000/4500) only for S-8.
(b) For PB-2. the ratios are 2.70 (13500/5000) for S-9 and 1.84 (14700/8000) only for S-15.
(c) For PB-3, the ratios are 2.63 (21000/8000) for New Scale and 1.75 (23200/12000) only for S-21 & S-23 and 1.82 (23200/12750) only for S-22.
(d) For PB-4, the ratios are 3.22 (46100/14300) for S-24 and 2.58 (47400/18400) for S-29.
13. The above ratios show that the incumbents of the ending scales of each Pay Band were the maximum sufferers, be they in service or retired, with a pay rise of only 1.75 to 1.84 times, while the incumbents of the Pay scales at the beginning of the Pay Bands were the maximum gainers with an increase in their pay of more than 2.55 to 3.22 times. This is an anomaly which deserves the attention of the Government to rectify.
Justification - 5
14. Two graphs are presented in Fig.1 (Enclosure - 2), one showing the increase in the minima of the successive Pay scales of V CPC from S-1 to S-34 ( Fig.1A) and the other, the Revised ‘ minima + GP ‘ of the corresponding Pay Bands of VI CPC (Fig.1B). It can be seen that the minima of the Pay Scales of V CPC increases gradually from S-1 to S-34 showing a more or less a uniform gradient indicating a gradual increase. On the contrary, the ‘ Minima + GP ‘ of the corresponding VI CPC Pay Bands shows a step structure with steps at 3 places ( Viz., at the junctions of different Pay Bands), the one at the junction of PB-3 & PB-4 being the largest, giving rise to huge disparities.
Contnued as part B

subba Rao R S
30-01-2011, 04:34 PM
PB 4 for S 21,22 and 23 V CPC scales retirees Part B appeal by Shr Joga Rao

15. In Fig.2. (Enclosure - 3), the ratio ‘G’ (i.e., F/B) (pl. refer to enclosed Table 3) of the “Pay Minima + GP “ (F) of the VI CPC Pay Bands to the Pay Minima (B) of the corresponding V CPC scales S-1 to S-34 is presented. This graph shows several peaks indicating high ratio of G (F/B) indicating that maximum benefit has been enjoyed by the incumbents of the Scales at S-4, S-9, New Scale, S-24, S-28, and S-31. This ratio decreases from each of these peak levels up to the next Pay Band junction. The worst sufferers are those who fall in the troughs Viz. S-7& S-8, falling in PB-1, S-13, S-14 & S-15 falling in PB-2 and S-21, S-22 & S23 falling in PB-3. The injustice done was greatest for incumbents of S-21, S-22 & S-23 in the Pay Band Structure of VI CPC and needs to be redressed.
Justification - 6
16. In the original VI CPC recommendations, the following changes have been made by Govt:-
(a) The PB-1 (5 Scales) changed from 4860 – 20200 to 5200 – 20200.
(b) The PB-2 (7 Scales) changed from 8700 – 34800 to 9300 – 34800.
(c) The PB-3 (9 Scales) 15600- 39100 - No Change.
(d) The PB-4 (6 Scales) changed from 39200 – 67000 to 37400 - 67000
(e) The Grade Pay also was revised at several places.
(f) The PB-3 was originally recommended from a new scale (8000-13500) (Group A Entry) and from S-16 (9000) to S-27(16400-20900) (12 scales of V CPC + 1 new Scale). This was subsequently made applicable to the new scale and from S-16 to S-23.(12000-18000) (8 Scales + 1 new Scale). (S-24 to S-27 were removed from PB-3 and upgraded to PB-4).
(g) Originally PB-4 was from S-28 (14300-22400) to S-32 (24050-26000) (5 scales) but later it was made applicable from S-24 (14300 - 18300) to S- 29 (18400-22400) (6 scales). (S-30 to S-32 removed and upgraded)
(h) S-30, S-31 & S-32 scales have been removed from PB-4 (37400-67000). A new HAG scale 67000 - 79000 was introduced against S-30 (22400-24500) and S-31 & S-32 scales have been brought under new HAG + scale of 75500-80000, all the three with no Grade Pay.
(j) Similarly, in the Defence Services also, PB-3 was initially recommended from Lieutenant up to Brigadier level but later it was changed to PB-4 and made applicable from Colonel & Brigadier level. Subsequently, Lieutenant Colonels (13500-17100) also were brought under PB-4.
(k) Merging of V CPC Scales.
(i) S- 1 to S - 3 (4 Scales) have been merged as PB -1S.
(ii) S- 4 to S - 8 (5 Scales) have been merged as PB -1.
(iii) S- 9 to S -15 (7 Scales) have been merged as PB -2.
(iv) S-16 to S-23 (9 Scales including the New) have been merged as PB-3.
(v) S-24 to S-29 (6 Scales) have been merged as PB-4.
17. It is seen from the above that the PB-3 incumbents, be they in service in any of the Central Govt. Departments including the Ministries or retired, were the maximum sufferers as the difference in the starting of the old scales (Lowest & Highest) was 4000 or even 4750 (8000 for New Scale & 12000 for S-23 and even 12750 for S-22) and the new scale (PB-3) is same for all the 9 Scales (15000 – 39100 + GP varying from 5400 to 7600), The Grade Pay difference is only 2200 which is not commensurate to offset the disadvantage. This gave maximum benefit to the lowest scale pensioner and least to the top scale pensioner. Further, there are jumps at the junctions of the Pay Bands, the maximum being at the Junction of PB-3 and PB-4 (the starting Pay being nearly 2 ½ times i.e., 15600 & 37400 respectively) These jumps and the coalescing of a number of scales have given rise to anomalies in the pensions and consequently in the arrears. Even in the Grade Pay also, there is a big jump of 1100 from 7600 to 8700 between PB-3 (S-23) & PB-4 (S-24). Also, adopting different pension fixation rules for pre-2006 & post –2006 pensioners has aggravated the anomaly especially at the junction of PB – 3 & PB-4 in so far as S-21 to S-23 (JAG Regular) Pensioners are concerned as against S-24 Pensioners. Consequently, the pension of S-24 pensioners has become double that of the S-21 to S-23 pensioners which was not so in the V CPC Scales. This can be clearly seen in the Table of pre-2006 Pensioners (Annexure – 1 of OM No.38-37/08-P&PW(A) pt.1,dtd.14-10-2008 od D/o Pensions & PW – (From Pensioners Counselor, Dec, 2008) ) which shows 11600 for S-21 to S-23 Pensioners and 23050 for S-24 Pensioners. Also, while S-21 to S- 23 (PB-3) pensioners got around 70,000 as arrears, those in S-24(PB-4) got nearly 4 to 5 times. It is pertinent to mention here that an intermediate HAG Scale against S-30 (67000 – 79000 w/o GP) has been introduced which removed the big jump at this level. (i.e. between S-30 & S-31). Further, the two new scales HAG+ against S-31 & S-32 (both 75500 – 80000 w/o GP) have also been introduced later.
Redressals Prayed For
18. The Cabinet Review Committee subsequently made several changes in the original Recommendations of the VI CPC as enunciated above and were accepted by the GOI. They left the regular JAG Cadre untouched. As an aggrieved pensioner of S – 21 Scale and aged 80 years, I would request your Honour to spare a few of your precious moments to go through the above mentioned facts and issue suitable directions to undo the injustice done to the regular JAG Cadre incumbents ( S - 21, S - 22 & S - 23 ) by placing them also along with S – 24 (JAG NFSG) in PB – 4 of the VI CPC. For this act of your generosity and kindness, the entire pensioner community, who are adversely affected, would be ever grateful to you.
19. Further, I would pray for the following:-
(a) Pensioners, after retirement do not get HRA, CCA, LTC facilities. To compensate for this and to fill up the gap, it is requested that additional Pension at 5%, 10% and 15% may please be granted respectively when they attain the ages of 65, 70, and 75. VI CPCs recommendation is already there from the age of 80 and onwards.
(b) Pensioners do not get any increments after retirement and as such their pension may be allowed the benefit of calculating the Notional Pay as was done for pre-1986 pensioners and then fixing their pension on that basis whenever there is a revision due to CPCs.
(c) Treating the pre and post 2006 pensioners alike and applying the same rules for calculating the pensions.
(d) Extending the benefit of full pension for those pre 2006 pensioners also who had less than the qualifying service of 33 years since such pensioners may be a few only in number.

Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,

(M.V.Joga Rao)
Retd.Director (Geophysics), GSI.

Copy for information and necessary action to:
1. The Chairman, National Anomaly Committee & Secretary, to GOI, Deptt. of Personnel & Training, III Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110003.
2. The Secretary to GOI, Deptt. of Pensions, AR & Public Grievances, 5th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001.
3. The Secretary, to GOI, Deptt. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi – 110001.
4. The Dy. Secretary (JCA) & Member Secretary, National Anomaly Committee, Deptt. of Personnel & Training, III Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110003.
5. The Jt. Secretary (PG), M/o Mines, Room No. 322, 3rd Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.
6. Shri Umrao Purohit, Secretary (Staff Side).NC (JCM), National Anomaly Committee, 13-C, Firozshaw Road, New Delhi – 110001.
7. Shri S.S.Ramachandran, Hony. Secretary General, AICCPA, 144, Surya Kiran Apartments, Plot. No.65, Fifth Avenue, I.P.Extension, Patparganj, Delhi – 110092.
8. Shri S.K.Vyas, Member, National Anomaly Committee (Staff Side), 13-C, Firozshaw Road, New Delhi – 110001.
9. The Secretary General, The Co-ordination Committee of Central Govt. Pensioners Association, 1874/2, Sector 64, Phase X, Chandigarh – 160059. (SCOVA Member)
10. The President, Coordination Committee of Central Government Pensioners Association, Pensioners’ Room, AG’s Office Premises. Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004. (SCOVA Member).
11. Shri M. Raghavaiah, Member (Staff Side), NC (JCM), National Anomaly Committee. 13 – C Firozshaw Road, New Delhi - 110001

(M.V.Joga Rao)
Retd. Director (Geophysics). GSI.

Contnued as Part C

subba Rao R S
30-01-2011, 04:39 PM
Appeal by Shri Joga Rao Part C
Table – 3 Enclosure -1

Table Showing V CPC Minima, VI CPC Original Minima + GP & VI CPC Revised
Minima + GP of Scales

V CPC Scale V CPC Minima VI CPC Original Minima VI CPC (Original Minima + GP) VI CPC Revised Minima VI CPC (Revised Minima + GP) Ratio
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) f/b
S - 1 2550 4440 5740 4440 5740 2.25
S - 2 2610 4440 5840 4440 5840 2.24
S - 2A 2610 4440 6040 4440 6040 2.31
S - 3 2650 4440 6090 4440 6090 2.30
S - 4 2750 4860 6660 5200 7000 2.55
S - 5 3050 4860 6760 5200 7100 2.33
S - 6 3200 4860 6860 5200 7200 2.25
S - 7 4000 4860 7260 5200 7600 1.90
S - 8 4500 4860 7660 5200 8000 1.78
S - 9 5000 8700 12900 9300 13500 2.70
S –10 5500 8700 12900 9300 13500 2.45
S - 11 6500 8700 12900 9300 13500 2.08
S - 12 6500 8700 12900 9300 13900 2.14
S - 13 7450 8700 13300 9300 13900 1.87
S - 14 7500 8700 13500 9300 14100 1.88
S - 15 8000 8700 14100 9300 14700 1.84
NEW 8000 15600 21000 15600 21000 2.63
S - 16 9000 15600 21000 15600 21000 2.33
S - 17 9000 15600 21000 15600 21000 2.33
S - 18 10325 15600 21700 15600 22200 2.15
S - 19 10000 15600 21700 15600 22200 2.22
S - 20 10650 15600 22100 15600 22200 2.08
S - 21 12000 15600 22200 15600 23200 1.93
S - 22 12750 15600 23100 15600 23200 1.82
S - 23 12000 15600 23200 15600 23200 1.93
S - 24 14300 15600 23200 37400 46100 3.22
S - 25 15100 15600 23900 37400 46100 3.05
S - 26 16400 15600 24000 37400 46300 2.82
S - 27 16400 15600 24000 37400 46300 2.82
S - 28 14300 39200 48200 37400 47400 3.31
S - 29 18400 39200 48200 37400 47400 2.58
S - 30 22400 39200 50200 67000 67000 2.99
S - 31 22400 39200 52200 75500 75500 3.37
S - 32 24050 39200 52200 75500 75500 3.14
S – 33 26000 80000 80000 80000 80000 3.08
S - 34 30000 90000 90000 90000 90000 3.00

Enclosure – 2
Figure – 1.

These are graphs are posted since this is accepted.
Subba Rao R S




Enclosure - 3
Figure – 2.

subba Rao R S
30-01-2011, 04:44 PM
Dear Shri Subba Rao,

This is a welcome intiative.

You may like to copy and post Shri Joga rao's draft appeal. here.

If the characters exceed 10000, please split the appeal as PART A/ PART B etc and post them in continuous posts as we didi for S29 Posts.

Regards,
VNatarajan

Thanks for advise. I have posted the same may be some error in posting. This post did not accept figures.

Subba Rao R S

kittu23
09-02-2011, 10:47 PM
It is really astonishing fact that 12K is so deprived. The pension difference is too high and it attracts legal issues. I request, some one may file a case for this anomaly in the Apex court immediately.

subba Rao R S
11-02-2011, 11:15 AM
It is really astonishing fact that 12K is so deprived. The pension difference is too high and it attracts legal issues. I request, some one may file a case for this anomaly in the Apex court immediately.

I suggest that some serving officers of these scales should go for legal channel if the appeal is not favouarably accepted.

vnatarajan
12-02-2011, 04:43 PM
Dear Shri Subba Rao/ Others interested,

YOU ARE VERY CORRECT.

SERVING OFFICERS OF S21/ 22/ 23 MUST GO FOR STRONG PROTEST/ INDIVIDUAL & MASS APPEAL/ AND THEN ON TO COURTS FOR JUSTICE.

BEFORE THAT THEY MUST CONSOLIDATE THEIR POINTS FOR JUSTIFYING THE DEMAND.

MY EXPERIENCE IS - NOWADAYS- AS MOST OF THE DEPTTS ARE IN THE ORG. SERVICES MODE, PROVISIONS LIKE NFSG/ NFFU MAKE THEM COMPLACENT.

WE TRIED OUR BEST TO CONVINCE THE S29 SERVING OFFICIALS TO SEEK "SEPARATE SCALE" AS IN THE CASE OF "S30" BUT NONE HAVE REACTED NOR DID THEY WANT TO TAKE UP THE CUDGELS.

FOR SERVING S21/ 22/ 23 NOWADAYS, CROSSING FROM PB3 TO PB4 IN THE NFFU MODE MAY NOT BE THAT DIFFICULT, AND HENCE COMPLACENCY MUST HAVE CREPT IN.

SOME SERVING S21/ 22/ 23 FEEL THAT PENSIONERS LIKE SHRI JOGA RAO MUST FIGHT!THIS IS NOT JUSTIFIED.

I AM NOT SURE- WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE!

PROBLEM IS THAT OF SERVCING PERSONNEL - AND HOW A PENSIONER OF PRE 1996 ERA DEMAND FOR THE S21 ELEVATION/UPGARADATION TO PB4? NO COURT OR CAT WILL EVEN ADMIT A CASE ON THIS. EVEN IF THE CAT IS SYMPATHETIC, THEY WILL "DISPOSE THEM OFF" STATING MATTER IS THE CONCERN OG GOVT. AND CAT CAN NOT INTERFERE.!

AT BEST SUCH PENSIONERS CAN DEMAND FOR "MODIFIED PARITY" ONLY, IF SOME OF THEM ARE AFFECTED!

Let the affected serving/ pensioners of these categories ponder/ analyse and then act.

Regards,
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
12-02-2011, 09:20 PM
SUBSTANTIAL DISPARITY BETWEEN PRE-REVISED JAG SCALES 12000/12500- 18000 AND 14300-18300 WEST BENGAL GOVT

PL SEE HOW THEY HAVE RESOLVED THE PROBLEM TO SOMEXTENT THRU THEIR RECENT ORDERS DT 7TH FEB 2011.

APPLICATION IS EXTENDED TO THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ALSO - SOTHAT THE "MIN OF PAY BAND" CONTROVERSY IS REMOVED FOR THIS CATEGORY.

THEIR PB 4 (DIFFERENT FROM OUR PB 4 WHICH IS HIGHER)IS RESTRUCTURED INTO PB 4A AND PB4B.

Mature administration! Wise action.

vnatarajan

http://wbfin.nic.in/writereaddata/961-F_P_Splitting%20of%20Pay%20Band%204.pdf

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

Government of West Bengal

Finance Department

Audit Branch

No. : 961-F(P) Kolkata, the 7th February, 2011

MEMORANDUM

After promulgation of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) rules, 2009 on

the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, it has come to the notice that there occurred

substantial disparity in the matter of fixation of pay of the employees drawing pay in the unrevised

Scale No. 18 (Rs. 12000 – 18,000/-) and No. 19 (Rs. 14300 – 18,300/-) while they have been put into

Pay Band No. 4 and Pay Band No. 5 and corresponding Grade Pay for the unrevised Scales

respectively in the revised pay structure.

A huge difference has been notice in between minimum pension and family pension of the

Officers retired prior to 01.01.2006 from the unrevised Scale No. 18 and Scale No. 19 respectively as

per application of the provision of Para 4.4 of Finance Department Memo No. 200-F(Pen), dated

25.02.2009 as clarified in the Annexure-I to Finance Department Memo No. 460-F(Pen), dated

20.05.2009.

2. As the matter has been brought to the notice of the 5th Pay Commission, the Commission has

suggested some modifications in the structure of the Pay Band Scale No. 4.

3. After careful consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission the undersigned is

directed by order of the Governor to say that the Governor has been pleased to make the following

modifications in the WBS (ROPA) Rules, 2009 and in the Annexure-I to Finance Department Memo

No. 460-F(Pen), dated 20.05.2009 for removing the disparities in the matter of fixation of pay and

pensionery benefits to Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners :-

(i) In the revised pay structure the existing Pay Band No. 4 (Rs. 9000 – 40,500/-) shall be

splitted in the following manner :-

Existing Pay Scales (Rs.) Revised Pay Structure

Pre-revised

Scale No.

Pre-revised Scales under the

WBS (ROPA) Rules, 1998

Name of

Pay Band Pay Band Scale Grade Pay

12 4800-175-5850-200-6650-225-

8675-250-10,925/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,400/-

13 5000-175-5700-200-6500-225-

8525-250-11,275/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,600/-

14 5500-200-6300-225-8325-250-

11,325/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,700/-

15 6000-225-7800-250-9800-275-

12,000/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,800/-

16 8000-275-13,500/- PB – 4A Rs.15600-42000/- Rs. 5,400/-

17 10000-325-15,525/- PB – 4A Rs.15600-42000/- Rs. 6,600/-

22 10000-300-15100-350-16500-

375-18,000/- PB – 4A Rs.15600-42000/- Rs. 7,000/-

18 12000-375-18,000/- PB – 4B Rs.28000-52000/- Rs. 7,600/-

24 12500-375-18,500/- PB – 4B Rs.28000-52000/- Rs. 8,000/-

(ii) For allowing the benefit of fixation of pension and Family Pension as per provisions of Para

4.4 of Finance Department Memo No. 200-F(Pen), dated 25.02.2009 to the Pre-2006 Pensioners and

the Family Pensioners, the Annexure-I to Finance Department Memo No. 460-F(Pen), dated

20.05.2009 shall stand modified to that extent in case of newly introduced PB-4A : Rs. 15,600 –

42,000/- (in case of un-revised Scales No. 16, 17 and 22) and PB-4B : Rs. 28,000 – 52,000/- (in case

of un-revised Scales No. 18 and 24).

4. Consequent upon above restructuring of Pay Band No. 4 and introduction of new Pay Bands

namely PB-4A and PB-4B the provisions of the WBS (ROPA) Rules, 2009 shall stand modified to that

extent for the purpose of fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure while other provisions of

the rules ibid shall remain unchanged.

5. This order shall be deemed to have effect from the 1st day of January, 2006.

6. Necessary amendments of the relevant rules will be done in due course

subba Rao R S
13-02-2011, 09:37 AM
SUBSTANTIAL DISPARITY BETWEEN PRE-REVISED JAG SCALES 12000/12500- 18000 AND 14300-18300 WEST BENGAL GOVT

PL SEE HOW THEY HAVE RESOLVED THE PROBLEM TO SOMEXTENT THRU THEIR RECENT ORDERS DT 7TH FEB 2011.

APPLICATION IS EXTENDED TO THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ALSO - SOTHAT THE "MIN OF PAY BAND" CONTROVERSY IS REMOVED FOR THIS CATEGORY.

THEIR PB 4 (DIFFERENT FROM OUR PB 4 WHICH IS HIGHER)IS RESTRUCTURED INTO PB 4A AND PB4B.

Mature administration! Wise action.

vnatarajan

http://wbfin.nic.in/writereaddata/961-F_P_Splitting%20of%20Pay%20Band%204.pdf

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

Government of West Bengal

Finance Department

Audit Branch

No. : 961-F(P) Kolkata, the 7th February, 2011

MEMORANDUM

After promulgation of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) rules, 2009 on

the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, it has come to the notice that there occurred

substantial disparity in the matter of fixation of pay of the employees drawing pay in the unrevised

Scale No. 18 (Rs. 12000 – 18,000/-) and No. 19 (Rs. 14300 – 18,300/-) while they have been put into

Pay Band No. 4 and Pay Band No. 5 and corresponding Grade Pay for the unrevised Scales

respectively in the revised pay structure.

A huge difference has been notice in between minimum pension and family pension of the

Officers retired prior to 01.01.2006 from the unrevised Scale No. 18 and Scale No. 19 respectively as

per application of the provision of Para 4.4 of Finance Department Memo No. 200-F(Pen), dated

25.02.2009 as clarified in the Annexure-I to Finance Department Memo No. 460-F(Pen), dated

20.05.2009.

2. As the matter has been brought to the notice of the 5th Pay Commission, the Commission has

suggested some modifications in the structure of the Pay Band Scale No. 4.

3. After careful consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission the undersigned is

directed by order of the Governor to say that the Governor has been pleased to make the following

modifications in the WBS (ROPA) Rules, 2009 and in the Annexure-I to Finance Department Memo

No. 460-F(Pen), dated 20.05.2009 for removing the disparities in the matter of fixation of pay and

pensionery benefits to Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners :-

(i) In the revised pay structure the existing Pay Band No. 4 (Rs. 9000 – 40,500/-) shall be

splitted in the following manner :-

Existing Pay Scales (Rs.) Revised Pay Structure

Pre-revised

Scale No.

Pre-revised Scales under the

WBS (ROPA) Rules, 1998

Name of

Pay Band Pay Band Scale Grade Pay

12 4800-175-5850-200-6650-225-

8675-250-10,925/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,400/-

13 5000-175-5700-200-6500-225-

8525-250-11,275/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,600/-

14 5500-200-6300-225-8325-250-

11,325/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,700/-

15 6000-225-7800-250-9800-275-

12,000/- PB - 4 Rs. 9000-40500/- Rs. 4,800/-

16 8000-275-13,500/- PB – 4A Rs.15600-42000/- Rs. 5,400/-

17 10000-325-15,525/- PB – 4A Rs.15600-42000/- Rs. 6,600/-

22 10000-300-15100-350-16500-

375-18,000/- PB – 4A Rs.15600-42000/- Rs. 7,000/-

18 12000-375-18,000/- PB – 4B Rs.28000-52000/- Rs. 7,600/-

24 12500-375-18,500/- PB – 4B Rs.28000-52000/- Rs. 8,000/-

(ii) For allowing the benefit of fixation of pension and Family Pension as per provisions of Para

4.4 of Finance Department Memo No. 200-F(Pen), dated 25.02.2009 to the Pre-2006 Pensioners and

the Family Pensioners, the Annexure-I to Finance Department Memo No. 460-F(Pen), dated

20.05.2009 shall stand modified to that extent in case of newly introduced PB-4A : Rs. 15,600 –

42,000/- (in case of un-revised Scales No. 16, 17 and 22) and PB-4B : Rs. 28,000 – 52,000/- (in case

of un-revised Scales No. 18 and 24).

4. Consequent upon above restructuring of Pay Band No. 4 and introduction of new Pay Bands

namely PB-4A and PB-4B the provisions of the WBS (ROPA) Rules, 2009 shall stand modified to that

extent for the purpose of fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure while other provisions of

the rules ibid shall remain unchanged.

5. This order shall be deemed to have effect from the 1st day of January, 2006.

6. Necessary amendments of the relevant rules will be done in due course

Thanks for enlightening. In my opinion this is the best advise one can give. If serving officers can not take this advise and act accordingly nothing can be done. West Bengal governments' move is a very good step for better morale boost to serving officers which results in higher efficiency from these officers. Will Central Government on its own do similar action?. Let us hope for best.

Subba Rao R S

kittu23
09-03-2011, 02:52 PM
Our beloved PM moved Lt. Col who is in 12K (5th pay) to PB4 in (6th Pay)
UGC moved 12K to PB4.
I donot know, how and why DoPT issues orders with such disparity. We all should shoot mails to PM as done by Mr. Joga Rao.
Tell the press, what is happening. If you are afraid, ask your close friend to send a mail to PM.

subba Rao R S
19-04-2011, 12:46 PM
Thanks to Shri kittu.

Shri Kittu has given yet another info that !2K V CPC scale Assistant Prof in UGC were moved to PB 4. This is very good input to BPS who have wriitten a letter to PM for moving !2K Scale of V CPC to PB 4. Hope this will be taken note off by concerned in BPS. Shri Joga Rao may please draw the attention of BPS on this. Can BPS explain this to PM after fixing appointment personaly.

Subba Rao R S

ssr
22-04-2011, 08:48 PM
checkmail xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx

ssr
22-04-2011, 09:00 PM
We, the 12k engineers and scientists in leading scientific organisation of India are suffering a lot psychologically, due to the grave mistake of the goyt while implementing the SPC. recommendations. we 12k and 14.3K people had very narrow salary difference of Rs.2300 prior to SPC, were put into a state where the 14.3K people have awarded a basic salary of Rs.46100 and we are getting a basic of Rs.22900 - a huge difference.
In the absence of no major difference in service conditions and responsibilities, this difference is not at all justifiable.

Corrections to be done:
The state govts like tamilnadu and WB have taken a wise decision to put 12K officers into PB4.
Even a central govt organisation, the Indian Institute of agricultural research has awarded PB4 to 12K officers after the completion of 3 years service.

we had information that the dept level anomaly committees had recommended four increments to the 12K officers.
However, the NAC which was in place for last two years didnt look into this issue.
Hence the DOPT, must sort out this issue immediately, otherwise the srving engineers and scientists would be compelled to approach supreme court.
Also the seniors(pensioners) may take us along with you in the fight and advise us suitably.

subba Rao R S
23-04-2011, 01:02 PM
We, the 12k engineers and scientists in leading scientific organisation of India are suffering a lot psychologically, due to the grave mistake of the goyt while implementing the SPC. recommendations. we 12k and 14.3K people had very narrow salary difference of Rs.2300 prior to SPC, were put into a state where the 14.3K people have awarded a basic salary of Rs.46100 and we are getting a basic of Rs.22900 - a huge difference.
In the absence of no major difference in service conditions and responsibilities, this difference is not at all justifiable.

Corrections to be done:
The state govts like tamilnadu and WB have taken a wise decision to put 12K officers into PB4.
Even a central govt organisation, the Indian Institute of agricultural research has awarded PB4 to 12K officers after the completion of 3 years service.

we had information that the dept level anomaly committees had recommended four increments to the 12K officers.
However, the NAC which was in place for last two years didnt look into this issue.
Hence the DOPT, must sort out this issue immediately, otherwise the srving engineers and scientists would be compelled to approach supreme court.
Also the seniors(pensioners) may take us along with you in the fight and advise us suitably.

Shri SSR,

I request you and other serving officers to contact UGC 12 K Assistant Professors and Lt Col/Wg etc of serving Armed forces who have fought through department heads mustering their support leading to intermediation of no less than Hon PM himself. You have lot of input from the info posted in this thread to appeal leading to legal approach if this fails. Already 5 years have passed now. Only pensioners are raising this issue with lukemarm response. Late than never please start now and convince the authories for a justfull action. West Bengal govt move is a very good input for you. we pensioners are in the fag end of life and no energy to fight the injustice. I hope I have conveyed the message.

Subba Rao R S

sundarar
24-04-2011, 10:54 AM
Hence the DOPT, must sort out this issue immediately, otherwise the serving engineers and scientists would be compelled to approach supreme court. Also the seniors(pensioners) may take us along with you in the fight and advise us suitably.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER. NO TIME BARRED CASES MAY BE ENTERTAINED AND HENCE THE TIME FACTOR APART FROM EXHAUSTING EXISTING AVAILABLE REMEDIAL MECHANISMS IS MORE SIGNIFICANT. THE LITIGATION PROCESS STARTS WITH EXHAUSTING DEPARTMENTAL REMEDIAL MECHANISMS, CAT/HIGH COURT AFTERWHICH CAN ONE MOVE TO HON. SC, .

Meanwhile, the Official Minutes of 3rd NAC Meeting held on 15.2.2011 released on 21.4.2011 concluded that `the Chairperson requested the Staff Side to prioritse the issues to be discussed in the next Meeting'. Thus, it is for the Staff Side to ensure that no efforts are spared in removing all types of anomalies of serving employees and pensioners.

With regard to the instant subject, according to me, application of uniform multiplication factor over the existing pay/pension can bring in justice among the homogenous class of serving employees and the homogenous class of pensioners.

The following extracts of MEMORANDUM DATED 16.3.2011 SUBMITTED TO HON. PM BY BHARAT PENSIONERS' SAMAJ (Courtesy: www.rrewa.org) may please be noted in this regard.
.......
.......
"5 : Equal fitment benefit to pensioners at par with employees by adding 50% of Grade Pay.

There was no reason for the VI CPC to give a different fitment benefit to the pre-2006 retirees other than what was actually given to serving employees especially when the VI CPC in their Report (para 5.1.47) talk of granting equal fitment benefit to serving employees and pensioners. Merely adding 86% DR to their basic pensions did not amount to giving the same fitment benefit to the pensioners. While grade pay benefit given to employees ensured equal benefit to all those coming under each grade pay, the same was not the case with the pensioners since pensioners retired at various stages in pre-revised pay scales. This glaring anomaly in the matter of fitment benefit recommended to pre-2006 pensioners was not properly dealt with by the VI CPC while making the recommendation. The Government has also not come forward to do full justice to pensioners considering that different fitment benefits given to pensioners and serving employees resulted in further widening of disparities in pensions / family pensions of pre and post 2006 pensioners / family pensioners. Further, the benefit is not uniform at all levels in as-much-as the increase in basic pension was 2.26 times upto certain levels (ie PB III), it is much more at higher levels (upto 3.4) leaving a trail of deep sense of frustration and injustice at the lower levels.

This Convention therefore appeals to the Government to do justice to all the pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners by giving them same fitment benefit as given to serving employees w.e.f. 1- 1-2006 i.e. Basic pension + 86% DR + 50% of Grade Pay as allotted to the post from which they retired w.e.f. 1-1-2006 and uniform multiplication factor of i.e. Existing Pension x 3.4 be adopted to arrive at the minimum guaranteed pension".

In similar lines, if a uniform multiplication factor, let us say for illustration purpose, 3 for a while, if applied with the bottom of the pre-revised basic pay, viz. 12000/- (for S-21, 22 and 23), the revised pay in the pay band will be Rs.36000/- even in the absence of placing the same under PB4 exclusively.

Further, it is seen from the official minutes that there many items required to be revisited many issues by the Staff Side for reverting on whether they wish to pursue further. It is also indicated in the Minutes that issues relating to Officers of the grade of Addl. Secretary and equivalent are outside the ambit of the NAC and therefore not admitted for discusssions. In such a case, the issues relating to lower level than Addl. Secretary and equivalent must be within the ambit of the NAC and hence, the Staff Side may be able to present all such anomalies pertaining to serving employees as well as pensioners, in line with the Memorandum cited above, presented by the Bharat Pensioners' Samaj.

As a pensioner, these are my views.

subba Rao R S
24-04-2011, 03:19 PM
We, the 12k engineers and scientists in leading scientific organisation of India are suffering a lot psychologically, due to the grave mistake of the goyt while implementing the SPC. recommendations. we 12k and 14.3K people had very narrow salary difference of Rs.2300 prior to SPC, were put into a state where the 14.3K people have awarded a basic salary of Rs.46100 and we are getting a basic of Rs.22900 - a huge difference.
In the absence of no major difference in service conditions and responsibilities, this difference is not at all justifiable.

Corrections to be done:
The state govts like tamilnadu and WB have taken a wise decision to put 12K officers into PB4.
Even a central govt organisation, the Indian Institute of agricultural research has awarded PB4 to 12K officers after the completion of 3 years service.

we had information that the dept level anomaly committees had recommended four increments to the 12K officers.
However, the NAC which was in place for last two years didnt look into this issue.
Hence the DOPT, must sort out this issue immediately, otherwise the srving engineers and scientists would be compelled to approach supreme court.
Also the seniors(pensioners) may take us along with you in the fight and advise us suitably.

Another input for shri SSR and others. This is from web of retired raiealy employees welfare association. This in put may help in case of appeal/legal action.
================================================== =
Resolution No. 8 Anomaly in the case of JAG (S 21 to S 23)

Once an employee from Departmental channels is inducted into Group ‘A’ cadre on promotion, he/she is interpolated into Group ‘A’ seniority when he/she becomes member of homogenous Group ‘A’ services for further benefits. If the duties and responsibilities do not differ, he/she should not be discriminated against in the matter of pay fixation – {Supreme Court decision reported as 1987 (1) SCC 582 Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers (Class-I) Association & Ors. vs. UOI}.

In all departments of the Central Government including Railways, a Non Functional Selection Grade (NFSG Rs 14300—18000 ‘Vth CPC scale’) is provided in the JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE GRADE (JAG) to prevent stagnation. It constitutes 30% of the total Functional Junior Administrative Grade. (5th CPC Scales S-21 to 23). The designation, duties, Schedule of Powers, (Disciplinary and Financial) and responsibilities are the same for JAG as well as NFSG. In any case, NFSG is not a promotional grade. Railway Board’s letter RBE 135/2000 of 14-07-2000 which clearly spells out that “NFSG is a segment of JAG” and that “it will not be treated as a Promotion”. But while implementing 6th CPC recommendations, the said existing Scale 24 has been placed in PAY BAND 4 leaving behind JAG in PAY BAND 3. This has resulted in higher pay/Pension packet to the erstwhile S 24 than JAG (S-21 to 23) though the the duties & responsibilities remain identically the same and all these officers come from one source, i.e, “A” Group classified list / seniority.

This is an anomaly which is adversely affecting the minimum guaranteed pension of pre 2006 retirees & needs to be set right early by including these scales in PB 4
================================================== =
Subba Rao R S

sundarar
24-04-2011, 09:09 PM
While the purpose of introducing pay band concept is to remove scale based anomalies, what would happen if all the pre-revised scales of pay as on 31.12.2005 are placed under one single pay band for while subjecting to a band based revised structure, particularly when a minimum of the pay band is Rs.5200 and maximum of pay band is Rs.56680 (which is also a minimum and maximum of the single RUNNING pay in the pay band respectively). In such an event, a minimum of the pay in the pay band will be Rs.5200 starting from pre-revised scale S-4 and maximum will be Rs.56680 upto S29 scale.

The Grade Pay has its own independent relevance to corresponding pre-revised scale, based on which classification of posts also have been prescribed. As such, no useful purpose gets served by 4 different pay bands and their respective minimums.

The only missing point will be application of uniform multiplication factor over the pre-revised basic pay as on 31.12.2005. When a scale based revision can be prescribed for S-30 onwards with a multiplication factor of 3/3+ over the actual pre-revised basic pay drawn till 31.12.2005 , an average `3' MF can very well be applied over such a pre-revised basic pay as on 31.12.2005 for all scales from S-4 to S-29 to accommodate in the corresponding running pay in the pay band.

In the same manner, for pensioners retired prior to 1.1.2006 irrespective of their pre-revised scale from which they retired, the pre-revised basic pension if applied with such an uniform multiplication factor of `3' a judicious revision is quite possible.

In the present scenario of applying with different/varying multiplication factor, the same will prove that - in the past, the existing pay structure recommended by 5th CPC and implemented then was not rendering full justice till 31.12.2005 and hence this band based revision got introduced. If that is so, what will be the remedy for the past service rendered with lesser pay structure. In order to clear such ambiguities after a period of 10 years, a uniform methodolgy/manner in the application of multiplication factor, be it over the minimum of the pre-revised scale or with the actual basic pay/pension as on 31.12.2005, could be the only answer.

As far as duties and responsibilities of individual scale/post are concerned, I could not find any such guidelines on respective enhanced duties and responsibilities commensurating with the revised pay structure involving as far as application of varying multiplication factor for scales from S-4 onwards. At the same time, enhanced pay structure for all the scale holders/retirees do have so many factors based on economic conditions prevailing for leading a minimum reasonable life, which applies uniformly to all.

Being a past pensioner, I may not be aware too much about the intricacies and practicality of this suggestion in the present working environment. I know that my views could be incorrect also as considerable financial constraints do get involved. But we have to remember, we are subjecting a revision once in 10 years and we don't know when the next revision will take place. If we ought to involve a fair and justified manner of revision, financial constraints should not come in between. As I have been witnessing the grievances being shared by the serving as well as pensioners community, this is the only suggestion that comes in my mind that I have been sharing at this moment. It will definitely remove all kinds of major anomalies that may be existing as of date, according to me.

If at all this suggested methodology is required to be ruled out for the present, at least, by next revision, this can be thought of, so that grievances of date will not get repeated again and again. It is a fit case for discussion at appropriate levels too, particularly the staff side of the National Anomaly Committee as a priority item.

vvenkateswarrao
05-05-2011, 12:30 AM
The present problems come to fore because the equivalent minimum of the pay in the old scales and the new pay bands do not carry equivalent ratios. If a uniform yardstick of increasing the minimum by 1.5/2.0/2.5/3.0/3.5 is used, there would have been no problem because every one would have got equivalent benefit.
Also, when the Pay Commissions were revising the pay scales, till V Pay Commission, the new minimum of the proposed equivalent pay scale is always higher than the minimum of the old scale+DA etc. In VI Pay Commission, this is thrown to winds and the new minimum were put at lesser than the total emoluments at the minimum of the old scale.
Unfortunately, none of the serving colleagues realise that at one day they will become pensioners and will have to face the same consequences.

subba Rao R S
01-06-2011, 08:14 PM
To all concerned

I have pasted below an e-mail received by me which is very informative and such of those falling under this may please join hand to strengthen the AICCPA. On my part I have sent 2 e-money order one each for PATRON membership and another as first instalment of donation to legal fund. Interested may contact secy on phone and get first hand information on the status. Also you can keep in touch with secy or visit web site of AICCPA www.cccgpa.in

Subba Rao R S
================================================== ===============


Dated 12-5-2011.

Dear All,
You are perhaps aware that Shri C.U.Sarma of Hyd. had started a campaign through All India Central Confederation of Pensioners Associations (AICCPA), Delhi for legal redressal inviting S-21 aggrieved Pensioners who are willing to joim him. Subsequently he informed that AICCPA will take up our case. Two days back I talked with Shri S.S.Ramachandran, Sec. Gen, AICCPA who said that it is desirable to have at least 200 pensioners for going to CAT or COURT. cocerning PB-3 / PB – 4 anomaly. In fact, AICCPA is a strong supporter of JAG Regular Scales aggrieved Pensioners ever since the implimentation of the VI CPC. I actually quoted some paras from their Journals in my Appeal for PB - 4. .
AICCPA has started Legal Fund to help aggrieved pensioners, whose petitions have been turned down by GOI, even though genuine, to go for legal redressal. . Shri Ramachandran also informed that the National Anomaly Committee (NAC) have wound up their show on 31st March, 2011. As nothing favourable had come out from NAC for anybody, we are left with no alternative than to go to CAT or Court for legal redressal. I am not aware if there is any time limit.
As such, I would very earnestly request you all to join AICCPA as Patrons by paying Rs.600/-. and by contributing to their Legal Fund a minimum of Rs.500/- ( more is welcome by them ). Patrons will get the AICCPA’s monthly Journal ‘ Pensioners Counsellor’ . Contributions can be sent by a bank draft favouring AICCPA, Delhi, drawn on any bank in Delhi or New Delhi.and sent along with a letter giving details of the sender to the address given below. .
Shri M.V.Sankaranarayanan,
Flat No.46, Kailash Apartments,
Plot No.45, IP Extension,
Delhi – 110092. Ph. 011 – 2272 4236
Shri Ramachandran’s Ph no. is 011 – 2224 2322. . AICCPA’s e-mail address is ccpa1983@yahoo.co.in You can ring him up or send an e-mail to get more details. You can also send a copy of the representation, if any, sent by you earlier, to Shri Ramachandran.
In addition, I would also request you to spread this message to as many JAG Regular Scale Pensioners ( i.e. S-21, S-22 & S-23 of V CPC) as possible of all Departments like DOT, GSI, SOI, IT, DMI, IBM, DAE. ISRO, Railways, P&T, Customs etc., so that more such aggrieved Pensioners can join us in our fight for justice and our strength increases. Those of you who are already getting Pensioners Counsellor, must have seen a list of pensioners, mostly from DOT (about 40 to 45) who already expressed their willingness to join at the instance of Shri C.U Sarma
Shri Ramachandran opines that if the JAG Regular incumbents who are in Service also take up the fight through their Associations, it would strengthen our cause. Pl. try to contact such people, if you know anybody, and convince them. Pl. let me know your opinion in extending your support. If not through AICCPA, it would be very difficult for any body to enroll so many Pensioners. You may be aware that S-29 Pensioners , about 800 of them, joined together, got registered as ‘ S-29 Pensioners Association’ and went to CAT at Delhi to get redressal of their grievence. I wonder, whether we can do that and even so, who will take the initiative ? as our number may be too large compared to S-29, hope you will agree with me and convey your willingness and contributions to Shri Ramachandran at the earliest as our grievence is strongly genuine

I request those who do not come under S-21 retirees,.if any, also to join AICCPA. And those who are in service may try through their Associations.

You are perhaps aware that BPC introduced the PB-3/PB-4 anomaly in their Agenda of the II National Convention held at Secunderbad on 13th February, 2011 probably on the basis of my Appeal. They have included it as Resolution No.8 in their letter dated 4-3-2011 to the Secretary, D/o P & PW, GOI, M/o P, PG & Pensions. They have also included it as Resolution No.7 in their Journal of March, 2011. Those who have not seen, can see these two in their website rrewa.org
Confederation of Central Govt. Employees and workers have also sent a letter regarding this anomaly to Govt. as informed by Shri S.K.Vyas. I do not know the reply of the Govt. to these two.
I am highly grateful to these two organisations for taking up our case.
My Appeal is now pending with Jt. Secretary (PF-1), D/o Expenditure, GOI, since 7 – 2 – 2011. No reply as yet.

M.V.Joga Rao
Director (Geophysics), Retd, GSI,
Ph.0712 - 2535290, Mob. 9373286423

================================================== ===============

kittu23
02-06-2011, 10:20 AM
Every one, who eats food will agree that 12K (old) people are cheated in 6PC. Besides many departments/state govts placed 12K to PB4. But the central govt did not do this. We all should bring this parity through the press to understand our PM.

subba Rao R S
21-06-2011, 03:59 PM
Here is a bit of information to S 21-S 23 Scale retirees of V CPC please.

I got the news that the appeal by a few pensioners has reached Department expenditure and is under consideration. Request all the affected to send the Follwoing savingarm (in an inland letter) to Hon Finance minister Shri Pranab Mukharjee central secretaiat North Block new delhi 110001 with copy to hon Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, race Coursre Road, new Delhi.


'Pray consider our pettions pending with Dept of Expenditure for restoring S 21-24 in JAG in one pay band as recommended by CPC VI (.) pray order S21-S24 in one pay band to avoid man made anomalies (.) pray intervene addsd Hon Minister Finance copy Hon Prime Minister Dr manmohan singh, Race course Road, New delhi.

= Adversely affected pettioner pensioner=

postal Address and Name


Subba Rao R S

subba Rao R S
14-03-2012, 01:55 PM
I wish to draw the attention of Aggrieved pensioners retired from S-21, S-22 and S-23 of V CPC scales that AICCPA is planning to appeal in Pr bench of CAT Delhi for anomaly in separating S-24 (from erstwhile JAG ) and placing this under PB 4 of 6 CPC scales.
Originally all the above were in JAG as per V CPC. Similarly in Armed forces Lt Col and Col were in JAG. Col was placed in PB 4. Subsequently Lt Col were also placed in PB 4 to set right the anomaly.
However this has not been done in the case of civilian equivalent ranks namely S-21, S-22 and S-23 of V CPC scales. Lt Col in armed forces and S-21 scales were in JAG as per V CPC.
Draft petition is being prepared by AICCPA to fight the anomaly legally and is in the final stage. AICCPA have set up a legal fund and contribution to this fund is Rs 3000/-. Affected can become patron members by paying Rs 600/- for life and send legal fund money to Treasurer Shri Sankaranarayanan M V and sign vakalath. He is available on Phone no 01122724236 . In addition you may approach Shri Ramachandran S S (Secretary General) on ph No 01122242322 for details. You can also visit their web site www.cccgpa.in

Subba Rao R S

subba Rao R S
13-05-2012, 09:58 PM
PART _ !

Write up by Shri M V Joga Rao Director (retired) (Geophysics) GSI, on how JAG civilian officers of V CPC S 21, 22, and 23 scales were treated badly by GOI while implementing the 6 CPC recommendations. Details are in the following paragraphs.

The anomaly in 6 CPC recommendations and implementations.


PB-4 was taken from S-28 up to S-24 (JAGSG) leaving JAG Regular Scales in PB-3 thus clubbing them with non-administrative STS & JTS Scales

Originally, Scales S-28 to S-32 were under PB-4 (See Col. C). After Revision, Scales
S-24 to S-29 were placed in PB-4 removing S-30, S-31 & S-32 which were upgraded
And new scales were introduced as HAG & HAG+ against these

These changes have resulted in large disparities in the pensions of pre 1-1-2006
Pensioners, especially in the case of JAG Regular (S-21, S-22 & S-23) and JAGSG
(S-24) falling on both sides of the junction of PB-3 and PB -4 as shown below.

Effects on revision of pension to these scales.

1. As per V CPC, the difference in pension between JAG and JAGNFSG was only 1150 ( or even less for S-22 )

2. As per Table 5.1.1 originally given by VI CPC for Existing Pensioners the difference between S-21 & S-24 comes to 2461 only (slightly more than double which is almost in conformity with the increase in pensions). It can be seen that same M/F of 2.14 has been used for all.

3. But as per VI CPC Revised Pay Bands accepted by Govt., the difference in pensions between S-21 & S-24 becomes 9490, which is nearly 9 times the difference existing before VI CPC. ( If we actually take the figures given in the Annexure I of OM. Dt. 14-10-2008, the difference becomes 11450 (23050 minus 11600 which is almost 10 times).

4. The M/F used was 2.26 for S-21, S-22 & S-23 and nearly 3.2238 were used for S-24 for calculating the pensions. This resulted in large disparity in pensions. If the same M/F viz., 2.26 had been used, the new pension for S-24 would have been 16159. And the difference would then be 2599 only which is not much different from that shown in Para 2 above (i.e.2461).

5. Using a comparatively higher M/F (2.42 to 3.37) for S-24 to S-32 which Scales are already higher, had aggravated the disparities between PB-3 and PB-4.
(Starting (37400) itself of PB-4 is nearly 2.4 times that of PB-3 starting (15600))

In the light of the above stated facts, there is a need to create an intermediate scale such as say. 28000 – 52000 with a Grade Pay of 8200 covering the JAG Regular Scales of
S-21, S-22 and S-23 which removes the large disparity at the junction of PB-3 and PB-4. Or alternatively, to place these Scales also in PB-4 with a Grade Pay of 8000 as was done in the case of Lt. Colonels who also come under JAG. A second alternative is to adopt a M/F of 3.2 (which was used for S-24) for all the V CPC Scales from S-1 to S-23.

subba Rao R S
13-05-2012, 10:01 PM
PART _ 2


Table – 1
V CPC Scales from New Scale to S-32 and corresponding VI CPC Original and
Revised Pay Bands with Grade Pay

V CPC Scale Nos. V CPC
Scales VI CPC Scales +GP
Original VI CPC Scales + GP Revised
A B C D
New Scale 8000-13500 15600-39100+5400 PB-3_ 15600-39100+5400 PB-3
S-16 9000 15600-39100+5400 “ 15600-39100+5400 “
S-17 9000-9550 15600-39100+5400 “ 15600-39100+5400 “
S-18 10325-10975 15600-39100+6100 “ 15600-39100+6600 “
S-19 10000-15200 15600-39100+6100 “ 15600-39100+6600 “
S-20 10650-15850 15600-39100+6500 “ 15600-39100+6600 “
S-21 12000-16500 15600-39100+6600 “ 15600-39100+7600 “
S-22 12750-16500 15600-39100+7500 “ 15600-39100+7600 “
S-23 12000-18000 15600-39100+7600 “ 15600-39100+7600 “
S-24 14300-18300 15600-39100+7600 “ 37400-67000+8700 PB-4
S-25 15100-18300 15600-39100+8300 “ 37400-67000+8700 “
S-26 16400-20000 15600-39100+8400 “ 37400-67000+8900 “
S-27 16400-20900 15600-39100+8400 “ 37400-67000+8900 “
S-28 14300-22400 39200-67000+9000 PB-4 37400-67000+10000 “
S-29 18400-22400 39200-67000+9000 “ 37400-67000+10000 “
S-30 22400-24500 39200-67000+11000 “ 67000-79000+ Nil HAG
S-31 22400-26000 39200-67000+13000 “ 75500-80000+ Nil HAG+
S-32 24050-26000 39200-67000+13000 “ 75500-80000 + Nil HAG+


1. Figures in bold in Col. D indicate changes made by the Cabinet Review Committee and accepted by Govt.

2. PB-4 was taken from S-28 up to S-24 (JAGSG) leaving JAG Regular Scales in PB-3 thus clubbing them with non-administrative STS & JTS Scales (See Col. D)

3. Originally, Scales S-28 to S-32 were under PB-4 (See Col. C). After Revision, Scales
S-24 to S-29 were placed in PB-4 removing S-30, S-31 & S-32 which were upgraded
and new scales were introduced as HAG & HAG+ against these.


4. These changes have resulted in large disparities in the pensions of pre 1-1-2006
pensioners, especially in the case of JAG Regular (S-21, S-22 & S-23) and JAGSG
(S-24) falling on both sides of the junction of PB-3 and PB -4 as shown below.
.
Table – 2

V CPC Scale Nos. V CPC Pension
(50% of Min.of Scale VI CPC Pension as per Table 5.1.1
(original) VI CPC Pension as per Revised Pay Bands & GPs.
E F G H
S-21 JAG 6000 12840 13560*
S-22 JAG 6375 13643 14408*
S-23 JAG 6000 12840 13560*
S-24 JAGSG 7150 15301 23050 **

From Table 2 above it can be seen that

6. as per V CPC, the difference in pension between JAG and JAGNFSG ( See Col. F ) was only 1150 ( or even less for S-22 )

7. as per Table 5.1.1 originally given by VI CPC for Existing Pensioners ( See Col. G ), the difference between S-21 & S-24 comes to 2461 only (slightly more than double which is almost in conformity with the increase in pensions). It can be seen that same M/F of 2.14 has been used for all.

8. but as per VI CPC Revised Pay Bands accepted by Govt., the difference in pensions between S-21 & S-24 ( See Col. H ) becomes 9490, which is nearly 9 times the difference existing before VI CPC. ( If we actually take the figures given in the Annexure I of OM. Dt. 14-10-2008, the difference becomes 11450 (23050 minus 11600 which is almost 10 times).

9. In Column H, the M/F used was 2.26 for S-21, S-22 & S-23 (marked by single star) and nearly 3.2238 ( marked by double star) was used for S-24 for calculating the pensions. This resulted in large disparity in pensions. If the same M/F viz., 2.26 had been used, the new pension for S-24 would have been 16159. and the difference would then be 2599 only which is not much different from that shown in Para 2 above (i.e.2461).

10. Using a comparatively higher M/F ( 2.42 to 3.37 ) for S-24 to S-32 which Scales are already higher, had aggravated the disparities between PB-3 and PB-4.
( starting (37400) itself of PB-4 is nearly 2.4 times that of PB-3 starting (15600))

In the light of the above stated facts, there is a need to create an intermediate scale such as say., 28000 – 52000 with a Grade Pay of 8200 covering the JAG Regular Scales of
S-21, S-22 and S-23 which removes the large disparity at the junction of PB-3 and PB-4. Or alternatively, to place these Scales also in PB-4 with a Grade Pay of 8000 as was done in the case of Lt. Colonels who also come under JAG. A second alternative is to adopt a M/F of 3.2 ( which was used for S-24) for all the V CPC Scales from S-1 to
S-23.

M.V.Joga Rao

In view of the above;

Even now it is not late for the aggrieved pensioner/serving officers to join hand with AICCPA in their effort to appeal this anomaly through legal channels. My earlier post in this thread has the details of AICCPA and how to contact them. (Post No 24) in this thread

sundarar
14-05-2012, 07:11 AM
A second alternative is to adopt a M/F of 3.2 ( which was used for S-24) for all the V CPC Scales from S-1 to
S-23.

Our thanks to Shri MVJRji and Shri RSSRji for detailed inputs with alternative solution. The pre-revised scales S-24, 25, 31, 32 and 33 got 3+ as the actual MF. Thus, the alternate solution suggested above need to cover all the remaining scales including 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 even..

"Nakara decision directed parity in the principle of calculation of pension"

But, in the instant case of all remaining scales cited above, parity in the principle of calculation of pension even within the homogenous class of pre-2006 pensioners, who form a single homogenous group alongwith their post-2006 counterpart, is yet to take place.

Whether the formula adopted for computation of pension of all pensioners is the same? Yes but only to the extent of revised basic pension under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008. Whereas, the para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 supercedes para 4.1 quantum for certain scales with application varying multiplication factors. which inter alia means
different formulae adopted for computation of pension as a whole. Thus, the need for parity in the principle of calculation of pension even within the homogenous class of pre-2006 pensioners who form part of single homogenous group that includes post-2006 pensioners also.

"when body of persons formed a homogenous class for the purpose of availment of certain benefits, they cannot be subjected to sub-classification"

Whereas, all the remaining scales of pre-2006 have since been subjected sub-classification as far as Minimum Revised Pension is concerned.

Any remedial solution shall, therefore, remove the said sub-classification in toto, irrespective of the scales from which the pensioner had retired prior to 1.1.2006, particularly in order to avoid any similar sub-classification in future revisions of pension also.

subba Rao R S
27-02-2013, 11:03 AM
Attention : Retirees of V CPC Scale S 21-22 and 23 V CPC retirees

For information of the affected pensioners I write to inform, That Under leadership of AICCPA Gen Secy S S Ramachandran, petition has been filed on 22nd Feb 2013 at Pr bench of Delhi CAT on behalf of all retirees from most of the central Govt departments unlike AERWA who have filed the petition for Retirees of BARC under the leadership of AERWA.

Details of OA No is awaited. For details, interested may contact Shri S S Ramachandran Secy Gen AICCPA on Phone No 011 22242322. or e mail id
ccpa1983@yahoo.co.in

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
27-02-2013, 04:28 PM
Attention : Retirees of V CPC Scale S 21-22 and 23 V CPC retirees

For information of the affected pensioners I write to inform, That Under leadership of AICCPA Gen Secy S S Ramachandran, petition has been filed on 22nd Feb 2013 at Pr bench of Delhi CAT on behalf of all retirees from most of the central Govt departments unlike AERWA who have filed the petition for Retirees of BARC under the leadership of AERWA.

Details of OA No is awaited. For details, interested may contact Shri S S Ramachandran Secy Gen AICCPA on Phone No 011 22242322. or e mail id
ccpa1983@yahoo.co.in

Subba Rao R S

Welcome development.
Better late than never.

My hearty wishes for a successful outcome. Spl Congrats to Shri SSR/ Shri SCM/ Shri Subba Rao etc who had been active on this front.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE LONG BACK- SOON AFTER THE RETD .LT COLS WERE HIGH-JACKED TO PB 4.

Now it is for the counsel to handle the matter precisely and with force.
Regards,
VN

subba Rao R S
27-02-2013, 08:25 PM
Welcome development.
Better late than never.

My hearty wishes for a successful outcome. Spl Congrats to Shri SSR/ Shri SCM/ Shri Subba Rao etc who had been active on this front.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE LONG BACK- SOON AFTER THE RETD .LT COLS WERE HIGH-JACKED TO PB 4.

Now it is for the counsel to handle the matter precisely and with force.
Regards,
VN


Many many thanks for your wishes.

You may please re-call way back in 2010 I had taken your's and Shri SCM's advsise. My posting in gconnect also you have seen and advised me to pool up aggrieved. It has taken so much of time to reach this stage. Also Shri Nagarajan Sunderarajan and many others have also given lot of input for this case.

My special thanks to Shri S S Ramachandran Secy Gen of AICCPA who came forward to fight for our cause and pooled petitioners all over the country. I hope with this case and the on going case at CAT Mumbai by AERWA authorities will give us due justice.

I have appealed to RREWA and RSCWS to examine this and fight for the affected in Railways. I am yet to see their response. Thanking you once again

Subba Rao R S

subba Rao R S
10-03-2013, 08:11 PM
For information of aggrieved pensioners of V CPC S-21, 22 and 23 scales

Petition has been filed in Pr Bench of CAT Delhi on the subject under leadership of AICCPA and the same has been admitted.

Details are as under;

COURT NO: II CAT Pr Bench Delhi



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HON’BLE MR GEORGE PARACKEN JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


O A 789/2013

H.V. Dasen & Ors.

Vs

UOI Min of Finance Advocate Shri . Soumyajit Pani
MA 607/2013 Advocate Shri Krishnamani

Admitted on 06-03-2013

Next hearing on 25-04-2013



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

Subba Rao R S

subba Rao R S
11-03-2013, 11:44 AM
For info of aggrieved pensioners of S-21 to 23,

Details of case No etc are given below. Further info can be had from AICCPA

COURT NO: II CAT Pr Bench Delhi

HEARD ON WEDNESDAY THE
06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HON’BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA 789/2013
H.V. Dasen & Ors.

Vs
UOI Min of Finance
MA 607/2013


Advocate Shri . Soumyajit Pani
and Advocate Shri Krishnamani

Admitted on 6-03-2013

Next hearing on 25-04-2013

Gopal Krishan
17-03-2013, 08:12 PM
Earlier a proposal about grnt of PB 4 to the Deputy Secretaries of CSS(12000-16500 now in PB II was taken up by the Department of Personnel with the Department of Expenditure. The latter did not agree to the proposal moved by the Department of Personnel. However, subsequently on the basis of the CSS Group A Officers Association the matter was again taken up in September, 2011 with the Ministry of Finance as directed by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel etc. In other words the proposal had the support of the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel.

According to the information available that proposal was also not agreed to by the Ministry of Finance.


Gopal Krishan
9911178250

subba Rao R S
19-03-2013, 08:36 PM
Earlier a proposal about grnt of PB 4 to the Deputy Secretaries of CSS(12000-16500 now in PB II was taken up by the Department of Personnel with the Department of Expenditure. The latter did not agree to the proposal moved by the Department of Personnel. However, subsequently on the basis of the CSS Group A Officers Association the matter was again taken up in September, 2011 with the Ministry of Finance as directed by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel etc. In other words the proposal had the support of the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel.

According to the information available that proposal was also not agreed to by the Ministry of Finance.


Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Thanks for the info. I have requested AERWA and AICCPA to take note of this while progressing the case at CAT Mumbai and Delhi.

Subba Rao R S

Gopal Krishan
21-03-2013, 08:45 AM
In fact I had obtained a copy of the note from the Department of Personnel and Training, which was sent to the Department of Expenditure as directed by the Minister of State. In case a copy of the same is required I would send the same.


Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
23-03-2013, 01:30 PM
Dear Shri Rao,

I am reproducing below the note which was sent to the Ministry of Finance by the Department of Personnel and Training.

"The proposal under consideration on this file is about grant of PB-4 to the Depuuty Secretaries of CSS. Earlier, the representations of the CSS Forum in this regard were examined in the preceding notes (pp1-5/N and pp 8-11/N) and a proposal was referred to the Ministry of finance for grant of PB 4 to CSS Deputyr Secretaries. The proposal has not been agreed to the Minisgtry of Finance (pp 6-7/N and p 12/N).

2. On a representation from CSS Group A Officers Association , the matter has been reconsidered and Hon'ble MOS(PP) has directed that the proposal my be referred to the Ministry of Finance again.

3. The points raised in the representation of the CSS Group A Officers Association are recapitulated in the suggeeding paragraph.

4. The Assocation has put forth the following arguments in support of the proposal for grant of PB 4 to CSS Deputy Secretaries:-

i) The 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) had placed Under Secretries, Deputy Secretaries, Director and DIGs on the civilian side and Majors, Lt. Colonelsl, Cplonels and Brigadiers on the Defence Forces side, in Pay Bnd 3

ii) However based on the recommendation of the Committee of Secretries, the Govenment placed Brigadiers/DIG/equilant and Directors/Colenels/equivalent in PB=4 and also changed the pay scale of the Pay Band-4 from 39200-67000 as recommended by Sixth CPC to 37400-67000 to accommodate more pre-revised pay scales as compared to the recommendation of the Sixth CPC. Lt. Colonel and Deputy Secretaries of CSS, however, were not included in the Pay Band=4.

Gopal Krishan
23-03-2013, 02:03 PM
iii) SDubsequently, on the representations of the Armed Forces Service Associations of the Armed Forces Service Association, Lt. Colonels were also granted Pay Band-4 with grade pay of Rs. 8000, leaving Deputy Secretaries of CSS in PB-3. This has not only disturbed the equivalance provided by the 6th CPC between the Lt. Colonel and Deputry Secretaries and fonfirmed by the Committee of Secretries but has also placed the Deputry Secretarfies of CSS in disadv antageous position.

iv) The Government, while rightly placing the Directors and Lt.; Colonesl in modified PB-4 with grade pay of Rs. 8700 and Rs. 8000 respectively, letting alon undortunately, the post of Deputy Secretary in the old Pay Band-3, whihc was againt the broad directions and principles enunciated by the 6th CPC and also the recommendation of the Committee of Secretaries.

v) The Director and Deputy Secretary as in charge of Division perform the same duties and responsiboiities so far as the Central Secretariat is concerned. Therefore, the posts of Director (pre revised scale of Rs. 14300-18300) and Deputry Secretry (pre revised scale of Rs. 12000-16500) have always been kept almost at par with reasonable difference in pay and perks. However, on implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission'srecommendations, it is seen that glaring difference has been made in their salary as under:-

DS Director Remarks

Pre-revised pay scale Rs. 12000-16500
Rs. 14300-18300
Difference of Rs 2000 at the minimum and the maximum

Revised Pay Band Rs. 15600-39100(PB-3)
Rs. 37400-67000(PB-4)
Difference of Rs. 20000 and Rs.28000 at the minimum and the maximun respectively

Gopal Krishan
23-03-2013, 02:20 PM
5. In continuation of their representation, the Assocation vide its letter dated 12th September, 2011 has mentioned that the Department of Expenditure, while disagreeing to the proposal for grant of PB-4 to the Deputry Secretries of CSS, cited the following two grounds in suport of their plea:

i) The department of Expenditure had already agreed to the proposal of DOP&T to grant two increments in the pay band to CSS officers on their promotion from the grade of Under Secretary to the grde of Deputry Secretry to provide additional monetrary benefits and improve the career porspects of deputry Secretary working in Secretariat, and

ii) The Department of Expenditure as part of the cadere restructuring proposals for the CSS agreed to extend to the CSS separately the dispensation approved by the Government on the recommendation of the 6th CPC in the case of CSS under whihc 15% of the posts of the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary will be placed in Director's pay scale in PB-4

6. With regard to the above poits, the ASSciation has submitted that

i) The nenefit of two additional increments at the time of promotion from rade of Under Secretry to Deputry Secretar was available to CSS officers even prior to implementation of 6th CPC Report. Therefor, grant to two increments on promotion ws only restoration of benefit already available to CSS officers and has nothing to do with any additional benefit as claimed by the Department of Expenditure.

ii) Furth, benefit of the dispensation of 15% posts in PB-4 given to CSSS said to be extended tdo CSS, it is clarified that no such benefit has been granted to CSS by the Dop&T so far and also promotion to the GRde ofDirector has has no link with the grant of scale of Deputy Secretary. Even after grant of this dispensation by the Dopt majority of Deputry Secretaries of CSS will no receive the benefit of Pay Band 4 as majority of them would retire witht promotion to the higher grade.

7. The Assocation is of the view tht there were no justifiable grounds for the Departmnt of Expenditure to reject the propo0sal for grant of PB4 to Deputry Secretary. The CSS Group A Officers Assocation has therefore prayed that in the interest of justice and to keep up the morale of the CSS officers, the posr of Deputry Secretary of CSS be placed in Pay Bandd 4 with a gradepay of Rs. 8000 equivalent to Lt. Colonel.

Gopal Krishan
23-03-2013, 06:51 PM
8. It may be seen that after the implementtion of the recommendations of the 6th CPC with modifications there is a huge gap in the pay of a Depuitry Secretary and a Director, the Pay Bands heing differentl Earlier the difference in pay was minimal. Further historically the Under Secretaries were being allowed the benefit of two increments on their promotion to the post of Deputy Secretry. This was continued after the 6th CPC with the approval of the Department of Expenditure.

8.1 Earlier parity was being maintained between the pay of a Deputry Secretary of CSS and Lt. Colonel of the Defence Forces, wnbich has been disturbed after the 6th CPC as would be clear from the following:-

subba Rao R S
24-03-2013, 07:40 PM
For information of those interested,

I would like to use this forum to inform interested the following.

As already known, petition has been filed at Pr Bench of Delhi CAT under OA no 789/2013 by AICCPA with 123 affected petitioners. Earlier some have contacted me to include their name as petitioners and I do not remember their names. Hence this communication

To day I got a tele call from Shri S S Ramachandran Secy Gen AICCPA intimating that he has to file an "imp-leading application" to CAT case OA 789 since two petitioners name was left out in the original petition. He would like to include other affected also if details are given. He may be contacted for details. Tel No and email ids are available in this thread above.

He asked me to inform others interested to contact him with details so that he can include others names also in the imp-leading application. Hence I request interested to contact him along with others who are interested.

Subba Rao R S

Gopal Krishan
25-03-2013, 01:16 PM
Dear Shri Rao,

Could you kindly indicate the purpose of the impleading application proposed to be filed.

With regards,


Gopal Krishan

subba Rao R S
25-03-2013, 06:10 PM
Dear Shri Rao,

Could you kindly indicate the purpose of the impleading application proposed to be filed.

With regards,


Gopal Krishan

Shri Goplal krishan,

This can be clarified by Shri Ramachandran Secy Gen or by Shri Sankaranarayanan of AICCPA better.
However what I came to know from them that names of two persons who had given vakalat was missing from the list of petitioners. This has to be included by an imp-leading application to CAT. I will request them to talk to you personally since they are located in Delhi. I was told they have already talked to once..

Subba Rao R S

Gopal Krishan
25-03-2013, 08:29 PM
Dear Subba Rao,

Yes please. They are in touch with me. I would send a copy of the note recorded by the DOPT and obtained by me from that Department under RTI Act with in next day or two. I also propose to meeet them when Shri Ramachandran would be in Delhi next month as at prseent he is in Mumbai.

With regards,


Gopal Krishan

nchandras
22-04-2013, 05:53 PM
For information of those interested,

I would like to use this forum to inform interested the following.

As already known, petition has been filed at Pr Bench of Delhi CAT under OA no 789/2013 by AICCPA with 123 affected petitioners. Earlier some have contacted me to include their name as petitioners and I do not remember their names. Hence this communication

To day I got a tele call from Shri S S Ramachandran Secy Gen AICCPA intimating that he has to file an "imp-leading application" to CAT case OA 789 since two petitioners name was left out in the original petition. He would like to include other affected also if details are given. He may be contacted for details. Tel No and email ids are available in this thread above.

He asked me to inform others interested to contact him with details so that he can include others names also in the imp-leading application. Hence I request interested to contact him along with others who are interested.

Subba Rao R S
Dear Mr Subba Rao

If you remember me I had corresponded with you thro this col on 1 Incr to those retiring on 30 June each year. I has asked you whether u are from BARC when u had replied that you are from DRDO.
Since I am also from Min of Def, you would be aware that Lt Col and equivalent are deputed for civ posts which is in PB 3. But by virtue of their rank they draw PB 4 while performing same duties as that of their Civ counterpart in the same org. This defeats the constitutional tenet under Art 14 giving Equal Pay for Equal Work. If you have any opinion or information whether anyone from Def org facing similar discrimination in pay band have filed a case in the court pl share the same with me.

Further, as brought out by you in the thread I have mailed the above discrimination to Mr SS Ramachandran Secy Gen AICCPA to check whether this issue can be linked to the OA 789/2013 coming up for hearing on 25 Apr 13 at Pr Bench CAT Delhi. For info pl

You may share any addl info on this matter

Gopal Krishan
22-04-2013, 06:47 PM
If I remember correctly there are orders/instructions from the Cabinet Secretariat equating the posts of Lt. General to that of Addl/Spl Secretary and the Director General of Police. Similarly the post of Major General has been equated with that of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and the Inspector General of Police. The instructions also equate the post of Brigadier with that of Director in the Government of India and the Deputy Inspector General of Police. I am not very sure about the further equation but going by the above equation one can very well imagine that the posts of Col or that of Lt col would have not been equated with that of Director in the Government of India, which is now in PB4.


Gopal Krishan

nchandras
22-04-2013, 10:52 PM
Dear Mr Gopal Krishan
Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, the order equating offrs of Defence and Civilian exist. But, these orders are also not final as many anomolies have been notices and the Services have expressed reservations and the Govt for many years have not given it a final shape. This however, is for the order of preference for protocol and other requirements. Thus, pay equations are kept seperately without linking it to the order of preferences
Therefore, Director in MOD is still not in the identical pay band viz a viz service officers.

vnatarajan
23-04-2013, 07:12 AM
Yes. Equations are there. Protocol was necessary because of mix-up of Civilians and Military in the HQ/ Off the Field- off battlefront assignments and that od Military and Civilians in the Field/ War Front asignments. FOR CLEAR PERCEPTION OF EQUATION BETWEEN THE TWO, PL VISIT THE WEBSITE OF INDIAN MILITARY " SERVICE BENEFITS AND ISSUES OF MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH OR EVEN EMAIL HIM (EMAIL ID AVAILABLE IN HIS WEBSITE) WHO CAN CLARIFY ALL DOUBTS.

In so far as the S21, 22 & 23 issue / equation is concerned, I had not supported the idea of bringing in the granting of PB 4 to Lt Cols after SCPC or Lt Cols equation with JAG on merely "scale based/ pay based equations " for some "strategic reasons" .

Let us see how the matter progresses in the Tribunals. Much depends on the Counsels who can pick up correct threads for arguments.

(Advice of Maj Navdeep Singh- off the court may be valuable for this case- as he can give valuable suggestions from legal point of view also.......)

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
25-04-2013, 08:42 PM
For information of affected pensioners of S-21 scale (5 CPC) please

OA 789/2013 filed at CAT Pr bench Delhi.

To day case came up at Pr bench of CAT Delhi and is posted to 18th July 2013. As already said in earlier thread a separate petition will be filed on the same appeal and both are to be heard together informs Secy Gen AICCPA.

Hence if any other affected S 21- pensioners wants to join they may please contact Shri Ramachandran Secy Gen on phone No 01122242322 or undersigned on Phone No 080 26711805 or Mob No 9449929978

Subba Rao R S

nchandras
27-04-2013, 03:14 PM
Thanks for the update on the next date of hearing of the case and also regarding any other affected pensioner wishing to join the case. I have contacted Mr SS Ramachandran to become a impleader in this case. Also few my colleague officers wishing to join is meeting Mr SS Ramachandran at Delhi in couple of days

Gopal Krishan
27-04-2013, 04:21 PM
I would also be meeting Shri Ramachandran in this regard.

Gopal Krishan

nchandras
27-04-2013, 07:53 PM
While I shall share the outcome of the meeting by my colleague I would be obliged if details of ur meeting are shared so that we can all pool our thought process and input with all Thanks

nchandras
03-05-2013, 12:07 PM
Dear Mr Subba Rao Ji
As advised, a retired offr friend met Mr Ramachandran Secy Gen at Delhi last week so that few of us could become a impleader in the case at Pr Bench Delhi. Mr Ramachandran after detailed deliberation suggested to my friend, that a fresh OA can be filed in Pr Bench CAT Delhi. U r also aware that a case at CAT Mumbai on the same issue has been filed by offrs of BARC but outcome nor OA ref is known to me. Mr Venugopal Retd Dy Secy in Atomic Energy Estt is co ordinating the case. If u are aware of the OA number I shall be obliged if u could share.
We are from BB but retd from Defence Deptt. Hence, can I have ur views whether fresh appl at CAT Delhi or join with BARC group as intervenors or impleaders. In BB we can discuss the case with the Lawyer,i feel. Is it necessary or continue with the suggestion of Mr Ramachandran to file a fresh OA at CAT Delhi
Request your advice pl

Gopal Krishan
09-09-2013, 03:26 PM
Could any one give the latest on the subject?
Gopal Krishan

nchandras
09-09-2013, 04:31 PM
Dear Gopal Kishan ji

Due to my preoccupation, I was not following it up and a colleague was interacting with Mr Ramachandran. I shall check the latest and come back to you


Chandrasekar

Gopal Krishan
17-09-2013, 02:10 PM
Any update? In fact I also tried to talk to Shri Ramachandran on mobile, but could not get him.
Gopal Krishan

goverdhanvalasa
29-09-2013, 01:08 PM
Dear Subbarao,
As i remember OA 789/2013 was posted foir hearing on 18/9/2013 at CAT/Delhi.
What is latest.I tried contact Sri Ramachandran from last 2 days but not able to rach him.
With regards
Goverdhan.V.K

sundarar
29-09-2013, 02:53 PM
Dear Subbarao,
As i remember OA 789/2013 was posted foir hearing on 18/9/2013 at CAT/Delhi.
What is latest.I tried contact Sri Ramachandran from last 2 days but not able to rach him.
With regards
Goverdhan.V.K

It is learnt that the above case is posted for 27th November, 2013. For information.

Gopal Krishan
29-09-2013, 06:05 PM
There is another similar case going on at Mumbai. Any up date about that?
Gopal Krishan

sundarar
29-09-2013, 09:28 PM
There is another similar case going on at Mumbai. Any up date about that?
Gopal Krishan

I heard that the CAT Mumbai case is posted for 30th October 2013.

sundarar
29-10-2013, 07:59 PM
I heard that the CAT Mumbai case is posted for 30th October 2013.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
WEDNESDAY THE 30TH OCTOBER , 2013 ( AT 11:00 Hrs )
IN THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE
HON'BLE SMT. C. MAJUMDAR , Member(J)
AND
HON'BLE DR. MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI , Member(A)
COURT NO. : 1 30/10/2013

FOR ORDERS

12 OA/135/2012 M. P. SANKARAN & 17 ORS., RAMMURTHY RAMESH
VS --------------------------------
D/O ATOMIC ENERGY AND 2 ORS. RAJPUROHIT N K\ REHEL J K( FOR R 1)

Gopal Krishan
03-11-2013, 06:48 PM
Any update?
Gopal Krishan

sundarar
03-11-2013, 08:13 PM
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
WEDNESDAY THE 30TH OCTOBER , 2013 ( AT 11:00 Hrs )
IN THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE
HON'BLE SMT. C. MAJUMDAR , Member(J)
AND
HON'BLE DR. MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI , Member(A)
COURT NO. : 1 30/10/2013

FOR ORDERS

12 OA/135/2012 M. P. SANKARAN & 17 ORS., RAMMURTHY RAMESH
VS --------------------------------
D/O ATOMIC ENERGY AND 2 ORS. RAJPUROHIT N K\ REHEL J K( FOR R 1)

It is learnt that the case is posted for January 2014. Exact details are not known.

Gopal Krishan
04-11-2013, 06:59 PM
Thank u sir.
Gopal Krishan

goverdhanvalasa
27-11-2013, 07:47 PM
The above case was to be heard today(27/11/2013).Any update .please advise

vnatarajan
28-11-2013, 06:26 AM
Dear Friends,

Thanks to Sundarar, Next Dates of hearing are shaown as 10 Feb and 10 Jan , in 2014 at CAT.

1. Placing S-21 to S-23 in PB-4

61 OA 789/2013 H.V. Dasen & Ors. Sh. Soumyajit Pani 5.2.14
MA 607/2013 V/S -------- ----------------------
FIXATION OF UOI M/O FINANCE SH. RAJEEV KUMAR
PAY
‘A’
U.O.I. M/O Finance SH. RAJEEV KUMAR




2. PRO-RATA PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION CASE




23 OA 3710/2012 Pro-Rata Pensioners Assn. & Ors. Sh. B.S.Sharma 10.1.14
MA
3157/2012
V/S ------
-------------------------
Pension M/O Communication Sh. Hilal Haider
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
05-01-2014, 10:27 AM
I was away with my personal problems and was not browsing this thread. I give below the latest on PB 4 for S21 retirees ;

Case at Mumbai CAT posted to 9th Jan. Case No is OA 135/2012 Bench II which is already available in earlier thread.

Case at Delhi is posted to 5th Feb 2014 and Case No is OA 789/2013.

As per usual practice the case at Delhi is adjourned due to respondents not replying and asking for adjournments.

Further details on OA 789/2012 can be had from Shri S S Ramachandran Secy Gen of AICCPA on phone No 011 22242322.

As already said in earlier postings the Pay is not the criteria since service pay scales are higher than Civilian equivalent. S-21 V CPC scales and Lt Col and equivalent in services come under JAG. But duties differ due to conditions of service. I feel the legal appeal is for placement of All JAG of V CPC in one band ie PB 4 as has been done for S 24 and Lt Col/Col with different grade pay.

Subba Rao R S

goverdhanvalasa
06-01-2014, 09:40 PM
Thank you subbarao sir for giving update

Gopal Krishan
07-01-2014, 07:08 PM
It appears that a similar case is before Hyderabad CAT also.
Gopal Krishan

subba Rao R S
08-01-2014, 04:00 PM
It appears that a similar case is before Hyderabad CAT also.
Gopal Krishan

To the best of my knowledge this case is by GSI officers. Eligibility of JAG officers who have fulfilled the requirement of 13 years of Service. There was an order that those who have completed 13 years are eligible for promotion to S-24 of V CPC in 2006. They are asking for PB 4 based on this and have gone on appeal in CAT Hyderabad.

I give below the posting by them in one of their mails sent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirs,
We belong to GSI and have filed a case in Hyderabad CAT for not getting PB-4 scale though as per the OM of 6-6-2000 all JAG(314sanctioned) have become eligible for completion of 13 years since joining JTS. The case was heard and the Orders are to be issued. As the Judicial Member is retiring on 9th Jan.2014. In case the Orders are not issued by that date what would be the future course action. Please advise.

drkameshwar
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subba Rao R S

Gopal Krishan
08-01-2014, 04:22 PM
Thanks

Gopal Krishan

goverdhanvalasa
20-01-2014, 05:25 PM
Any update on Cat/Mumbai case which was to be heard on 10/1/14

subba Rao R S
25-01-2014, 03:35 PM
Any update on Cat/Mumbai case which was to be heard on 10/1/14

As usual case has been adjourned to 1st April 2014 at Mumbai CAT. God only knows when the case will see the end.

Subba Rao R S

nchandras
25-01-2014, 05:18 PM
Mr Subba Rao

Thanks for the update. It appears that those in the Min have given a brief to all advocates to seek dates till constitution of the 7 pay commission. All cases are finding the same fate incl one where justice for pre 2006 retirees is being sought. This case also adjourned for one week from 20 Jan 14 (or so)

Let us keep our fingers crossed

Gopal Krishan
11-02-2014, 03:43 PM
Thecasewas to come up in Delhi CAT on the 5th Feb 2014. Latest?

Gopal Krishan

subba Rao R S
19-02-2014, 11:38 AM
It is learnt that the case is now posted to 24 April 2014.

AWERWA case is posted to 01 April 2014 on the same issue at Mumbai CAT.

Subba Rao R S

nchandras
19-02-2014, 03:10 PM
Thanks for the update. Let us keep our fingers crossed till Apr 14

Regards

Chandrasekar

Imayan
20-02-2014, 08:29 AM
Latest "Magic Man" in the country is Shri Rahul Gandhi.
Be it, increaring LPG cylinders to 12 , OROP etc. his intervention helps---towards solving problems. We have seen this happening now....

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

Imayan

goverdhanvalasa
09-04-2014, 07:37 PM
What is the latest position of AWERWA case at CAT/Mumbai which was to be heard on 1/4/2014

subba Rao R S
11-04-2014, 03:15 PM
What is the latest position of AWERWA case at CAT/Mumbai which was to be heard on 1/4/2014

As usual Case is adjourned to 16th June 2014. We have to now see about the case posted for 24th April at CAT Pr Branch Delhi petitioned by AICCPA. 17th Ap[ril another case related to this is slated for hearing, petitioned by IFS officers at Pr Branch of CAT Delhi.

Subba Rao R S

goverdhanvalasa
11-04-2014, 03:24 PM
Thank u Subbarao garu for update.

sundarar
23-04-2014, 08:12 PM
As usual Case is adjourned to 16th June 2014. We have to now see about the case posted for 24th April at CAT Pr Branch Delhi petitioned by AICCPA. 17th Ap[ril another case related to this is slated for hearing, petitioned by IFS officers at Pr Branch of CAT Delhi.

Subba Rao R S

Respected Sir, I could not locate both the cases at CAT Delhi from the cause list of 17th April 2014 and 24th April 2014.
There could be some changes in between in the listing. For kind information pl.

goverdhanvalasa
25-04-2014, 08:37 PM
What is the latest position of case no.789/2013

subba Rao R S
26-04-2014, 01:08 PM
What is the latest position of case no.789/2013

Case is posted for 29th May 2014. As usual Govt advocate has not submitted the reply/rejoinder to the petition. It appears judge was up set on this. We have wait patiently for justice.

Subba Rao R S

subba Rao R S
26-04-2014, 01:15 PM
Respected Sir, I could not locate both the cases at CAT Delhi from the cause list of 17th April 2014 and 24th April 2014.
There could be some changes in between in the listing. For kind information pl.

Both the case are listed in bench 2 of CAT Pr bench Delhi. probably you have missed. I could locate them. What can not be seen with new web is the date of next hearing. Other case is 971/2012 Details for 17th April was as pasted below
Details of IFS case are as follows:-

CP No.251/2012 in OA No.971/2012
Court hall 2
in the matter of S.N.Dixit & ors Vs UOI. (Secretary Department of Expenditure).
Next date in this matter is 17.04.2014

B K BARERA
--------------------
M.K. BHARDWAJ
H.K.GANGWANI
RAJESH KATYAL

COURT NO : 2
HON'BLE MR. G. GE ORGE PARACKEN MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. SHEKH AR AGARWAL MEMBER (A)

Subba Rao R S

goverdhanvalasa
30-05-2014, 11:17 PM
What is the latest of hearing of 29may2014

subba Rao R S
31-05-2014, 12:57 PM
What is the latest of hearing of 29may2014

As usual case posted for hearing on 10th July 2014.

Subba Rao R S

nchandras
11-07-2014, 05:39 PM
O.A./789/2013 H V DASU Vs. M/O FINANCE ADJOURNED 17/07/2014

Anyone who is aware what made the court to give such short adj of one week. Is it at the behest of the Govt. Were the arguments by us found favour with the court.
Can someone give brief summery

goverdhanvalasa
11-07-2014, 09:25 PM
what is the latest position of case no.971/2012 which came for hearing on 10 july 2014.Also what is the status of case filed by Atomicenergy people in MUMBAI CAT.Can some one give details.

nchandras
12-07-2014, 12:33 PM
O.A./971/2012 S N DIXIT Vs. R S GUJRAL ADJOURNED 17/07/2014
M.A./1644/2014 S N DIXIT Vs. R S GUJRAL

This case also adjourned to the same date as that of 789/2013. It is not clear whether both the cases are similar in nature so as to adjourn to the same date of next hearing i.e 17 July 14. Further, deliberations in the court in both the cases needs to be updated by some knowledgeable person in the matter.

The reason for such short adjournment of a week in both the cases, points to some new material having been submitted since MA/1644/2014 has been filed in the above case.

Will someone give a detailed update on both the issues

subba Rao R S
12-07-2014, 03:25 PM
O.A./971/2012 S N DIXIT Vs. R S GUJRAL ADJOURNED 17/07/2014
M.A./1644/2014 S N DIXIT Vs. R S GUJRAL

This case also adjourned to the same date as that of 789/2013. It is not clear whether both the cases are similar in nature so as to adjourn to the same date of next hearing i.e 17 July 14. Further, deliberations in the court in both the cases needs to be updated by some knowledgeable person in the matter.

The reason for such short adjournment of a week in both the cases, points to some new material having been submitted since MA/1644/2014 has been filed in the above case.

Will someone give a detailed update on both the issues

very difficult to answer this question. Those who are progressing this case only can answer if they see this thread.

However I wish give additional info. There is one more case OA 2130 on the same lines as that of OA 789 which is posted for 17th July 2014. Hence all the three case are posted to 17th July 2014. Let us wait.

Interested may contact Shri S S Ramachandran secy Gen of erstwhile AICCPA and now adviser BPS on Tele No 011-22242322/9868862322 for details.

Subba Rao R S

goverdhanvalasa
12-07-2014, 07:46 PM
Thanks sri Subbarao garu,LET US WAIT for 17 july 2014

goverdhanvalasa
12-07-2014, 08:02 PM
OA 135/2012 Filed by AWERWA in CAT/Mumbai was to come for hearing on 16 June 2014.Any news.

nchandras
13-07-2014, 12:55 PM
Thanks Shri Subbarao Garu for the info about 3 cases.

The Mumbai case also on the same issue although related to specific to BARC officers with regard to merging of pre 2006 scales in to one thus depriving some of classifying as PB 4 (as I understand) I am not from BARC hence my knowledge is limited on this issue. But generally, these scales are logically should have been given the status of PB 4 (each deptt has a specific point such as Min of Def offrs have both Lt Col and Civ carrying on similar duties as per Charter of Duties for the civ post. The Lt Col due to Army's relentless pressure with the support of all 3 service chief on the PM the anomoly cropped up) The constitutional dictum of Equal pay for Equal work HAVE BEEN GIVEN A GO BY . Legal eagles and Babus in Delhi are aware and not ready to play the pipe

goverdhanvalasa
18-07-2014, 08:01 PM
OA no.789/2013,4130/2013 along with 971/2012 were to be heard on 17/07/2014.What is the latest position.
Totally 3 cases are in CAT/Delhi,CAT/Mumbai for placement S 21-23 in PB4.
1)CAT/Mumbai OA 135/2012-Sri M.P.Sankaran&17others(AWERWA) last hearing-16/6/14
2)CAT/Delhi.OA789/2013-H.V.Dasan&others ,OA4130/2014 Balasubramanium&others-
Last hearing on 17/7/2014.
3)CAT/Delhi.OA971/2012-S.N.Dixit&others(Min.of External affairs)-Last hearing on
17/7/14
LET US HOPE JUSTICE PREVAILS

sundarar
27-07-2014, 07:07 AM
OA no.789/2013,4130/2013 along with 971/2012 were to be heard on 17/07/2014.What is the latest position.
Totally 3 cases are in CAT/Delhi,CAT/Mumbai for placement S 21-23 in PB4.
1)CAT/Mumbai OA 135/2012-Sri M.P.Sankaran&17others(AWERWA) last hearing-16/6/14
2)CAT/Delhi.OA789/2013-H.V.Dasan&others ,OA4130/2014 Balasubramanium&others-
Last hearing on 17/7/2014.
3)CAT/Delhi.OA971/2012-S.N.Dixit&others(Min.of External affairs)-Last hearing on
17/7/14
LET US HOPE JUSTICE PREVAILS

Thanks for providing details.

The case at Sl. No.2 above, viz. OA 789/2013 and 4130/2013 stand adjourned to 14.8.2014
The case at Sl. No.3 above, viz. OA 971/2012 stands adjourned to 20.8.2014.

For information.

goverdhanvalasa
14-08-2014, 08:04 PM
Case no.789/2013 was to be heard today.what is the latest.

subba Rao R S
12-09-2014, 03:24 PM
Case no.789/2013 was to be heard today.what is the latest.

It is to be heard on 16th Sep 2014 along with OA 4130 and OA 971 of IFS officers and as usual may be adjourned again.

Subba Rao R S

sundarar
15-09-2014, 08:05 PM
It is to be heard on 16th Sep 2014 along with OA 4130 and OA 971 of IFS officers and as usual may be adjourned again.

Subba Rao R S

As per tomorrow's causelist of Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi the following matters stand adjourned to 23.09.2014.

1. O.A./971/2012
PENSION
M.A./1644/2014
WITH
O.A./4130/2013
S N DIXIT
-V/S-
R S GUJRAL
B K BARERA
--------------------
M.K. BHARDWAJ
H.K.GANGWANI
RAJESH KATYAL
23-09-2014

2. O.A../789/2013
PAY FIXATION
H V DASU
-V/S-
M/O FINANCE
SOMYAJIT PANI
--------------------
RAJEEV KUMAR
RAJESH KATYAL
23-09-2014

yenyem
23-09-2014, 08:18 PM
As per tomorrow's causelist of Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi the following matters stand adjourned to 23.09.2014.

1. O.A./971/2012
PENSION
M.A./1644/2014
WITH
O.A./4130/2013
S N DIXIT
-V/S-
R S GUJRAL
B K BARERA
--------------------
M.K. BHARDWAJ
H.K.GANGWANI
RAJESH KATYAL
23-09-2014

2. O.A../789/2013
PAY FIXATION
H V DASU
-V/S-
M/O FINANCE
SOMYAJIT PANI
--------------------
RAJEEV KUMAR
RAJESH KATYAL
23-09-2014

ALL THE THREE OAs ARE ADJOURNED TO 25.09.2014

sundarar
25-09-2014, 07:33 PM
ALL THE THREE OAs ARE ADJOURNED TO 25.09.2014

ALL THE THREE OAs ARE ADJOURNED TO 17.10.2014

goverdhanvalasa
17-10-2014, 10:27 PM
what is the latest position after 17/10/2014

subba Rao R S
18-10-2014, 08:23 PM
what is the latest position after 17/10/2014

As usual case adjourned to 05th Nov 2014.

Subba Rao R S

sundarar
06-11-2014, 06:30 AM
All the three cases adjourned to 7.11.2014 (friday) as per the hon. Cat
pr bench delhi cause list status of 5.11.2014.

goverdhanvalasa
06-11-2014, 11:00 PM
Thank u sir for the latest.Let us wait for the development on 7/11/14

sundarar
08-11-2014, 06:12 AM
Thank u sir for the latest.Let us wait for the development on 7/11/14

Adjourned to 10/11/2014 (Monday).

sundarar
11-11-2014, 12:10 PM
thank u sir for the latest.let us wait for the development on 7/11/14

adjourned to 1.12.2014 pl.

sundarar
30-11-2014, 04:44 PM
Daily cause list
central administrative tribunal
principal bench
new delhi
list of cases to be heard on monday the 1st december 2014
court no : 2
hon'ble mr. G. George paracken member (j)
hon'ble mr. Shekhar agarwal member (a)

at 10:30 am

part heard matters

33.
O.a./971/2012
pension
m.a./1644/2014
s n dixit
-v/s-
r s gujral
b k barera
dr. D.c.vohra
--------------------
m.k. Bhardwaj
h.k.gangwani

with
o.a./4130/2013
s k balasubramaniam
-v/s-
m/o finance
soumyajit pani
--------------------
rajesh katyal

34............

35.o.a./789/2013
pay fixation
h v dasu & others
-v/s-
m/o finance & others
somyajit pani
--------------------
rajeev kumar
rajesh katyal

Gopal Krishan
01-12-2014, 08:09 PM
Adjourned to 13th Jan, 2015
Gopal Krishan

sundarar
01-12-2014, 08:10 PM
All the three cases at hon. Cat pr bench delhi adjourned to 13.1.2015

subba Rao R S
13-01-2015, 08:17 PM
It looks that the case at CAT Delhi Pr bench is coming to an end. I understand that the order is reserved in respect all the 3 cases. Date of of pronouncement of judgment is not known. Hope justice will be bestowed on us.

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
13-01-2015, 08:43 PM
CONGRATS IN ADVANCE.

"RESERVED" NORMALLY PUTS THE RESPONDENTS (HERE U KNOW WHO THEY ARE) ON THE BACK-SEAT....

LET US SEE.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
14-01-2015, 09:34 AM
CONGRATS IN ADVANCE.

"RESERVED" NORMALLY PUTS THE RESPONDENTS (HERE U KNOW WHO THEY ARE) ON THE BACK-SEAT....

LET US SEE.

vnatarajan

Shri V natarajan,

Thanks for the support.

Needless to mention that your back up support and timely advise has brought the case to this stage. Another person you may know already is Shri S S Ramachandran,(along with the team at Delhi) and Former Secy Gen AICCPA and now adviser to BPS has taken the lead in this case and cr3edit goes to him.

Subba Rao R S

goverdhanvalasa
14-01-2015, 09:28 PM
Shri V natarajan,

Thanks for the support.

Needless to mention that your back up support and timely advise has brought the case to this stage. Another person you may know already is Shri S S Ramachandran,(along with the team at Delhi) and Former Secy Gen AICCPA and now adviser to BPS has taken the lead in this case and cr3edit goes to him.

Subba Rao R S
IT IS A SWEET NEWS.Let us hope justice prevails

vnatarajan
29-01-2015, 12:46 AM
WHAT IS THE OUTCOME?

I HEAR THE OUTCOME IS NOT ENCOURAGING.
PL CONFIRM. JUDGMENT RESERVED 13 JAN 2015. PRONOUNCED ON 29 JAN 2015.
SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS MIGHT DISSUADE HON ANGELS TO BE FAVOURABLE ON SOME OCCASIONS.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
29-01-2015, 08:28 AM
For inf please,


It is learnt that this case judgement is being pronounced to-day and the judgement is not favourable to us.


subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
29-01-2015, 09:04 AM
DEAR CONCERNED,

HON JUDGES HAD TO GO DEEP INTO THE PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE INHOMOGENITY OF THE PETITIONERS WRT THEIR QULAIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, NATURE OF DUTIES, DIVERSE DEPARTMENTS , ETC ETC AND SO LOT OF SUBJCETIVE REASONING. ARGUMENTS ARE INVOLVED.

May have to approach Hon HC for justice.....on law/ legality....

A FEW PARAGRAOPHS AT THE END OF THE JUDGMETS ARE REPRODUCED HERE:

Link: http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx

QUOTE:

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA-971/2012
MA-1644/2014
with
OA-789/2013
OA-4130/2013

Reserved on : 13.01.2015.

Pronounced on : 29.01.2015.

Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)

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

15. In our view, the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench is clearly erroneous. It is well settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts.

In the above mentioned cases Honble Supreme Court has pointed out the limitation of the Courts in determining the issue of pay parity and has observed that it requires an Expert Body to do so. It cannot be done by self serving affidavits or counter affidavits. Further, they have laid down that such parity can be granted only after considering the nature or quantum of work, source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, responsibilities, reliability, experience and other functional needs, etc. Further, they have stated that this principle can be invoked only if there is wholesale identity between the two groups.

19. In the instant case it is admitted position that applicants are much junior to those with whom they are seeking parity namely those working in S-24 and higher grades. Such incumbents would be having different nature of duties and responsibilities, would be different in experience level, would have come through different methods of recruitment/appointment and would be discharging different duties all together. In fact, the applicants themselves are not homogenous group working in different grades, having different qualification and experience etc. As such, their claim for parity with those in S-24 to S-27 grades is not sustainable.
20. In their reply the respondents have also stated the circumstances under which it had become necessary to tinker with the report of the Pay Commission and place S-24 to S-27 in PB-4 instead of PB-3 resulting in jump in their benefits. The respondents have also asserted that Pay Commission is a recommendatory body and it is not incumbent on the Government to accept its recommendations in toto, and that they have a right to modify the same before implementation wherever considered necessary for administrative reasons or otherwise. This contention of the respondents has not been disputed by the applicants themselves. We also find merit in the same.
21. In view of the above, we find that there is no merit in this O.A. and the same is dismissed. No costs.
22. A copy of this order be placed in OA-789/2013 and OA-4130/2013 also.


Member (A) Member (J)
----------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

sundarar
01-02-2015, 04:12 PM
A second alternative is to adopt a M/F of 3.2 ( which was used for S-24) for all the V CPC Scales from S-1 to
S-23.

Our thanks to Shri MVJRji and Shri RSSRji for detailed inputs with alternative solution. The pre-revised scales S-24, 25, 31, 32 and 33 got 3+ as the actual MF. Thus, the alternate solution suggested above need to cover all the remaining scales including 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 even..



"Nakara decision directed parity in the principle of calculation of pension"

But, in the instant case of all remaining scales cited above, parity in the principle of calculation of pension even within the homogenous class of pre-2006 pensioners, who form a single homogenous group alongwith their post-2006 counterpart, is yet to take place.

Whether the formula adopted for computation of pension of all pensioners is the same? Yes but only to the extent of revised basic pension under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008. Whereas, the para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 supercedes para 4.1 quantum for certain scales with application varying multiplication factors. which inter alia means
different formulae adopted for computation of pension as a whole. Thus, the need for parity in the principle of calculation of pension even within the homogenous class of pre-2006 pensioners who form part of single homogenous group that includes post-2006 pensioners also.

"when body of persons formed a homogenous class for the purpose of availment of certain benefits, they cannot be subjected to sub-classification"

Whereas, all the remaining scales of pre-2006 have since been subjected sub-classification as far as Minimum Revised Pension is concerned.

Any remedial solution shall, therefore, remove the said sub-classification in toto, irrespective of the scales from which the pensioner had retired prior to 1.1.2006, particularly in order to avoid any similar sub-classification in future revisions of pension also.

Pay Scales Min pay
4CPC Min pay
5CPC Min pay
6CPC Multi-
plication
factor Multi-
plication
factor
(A) (B) (C) (D) C/B D/C
S1 750 2550 6050 3.4 2.3
2 775 2610 6260 3.4 2.3
3 800 2650 6580 3.3 2.4
4 825 2750 7330 3.3 2.6
5 950 3050 7780 3.2 2.5
6 975 3200 8060 3.3 2.5
7 1200 4000 9840 3.3 2.4
8 1350 4500 11170 3.3 2.4
9 1400 5000 13500 3.5 2.7
S10 1640 5500 14430 3.9 2.6
11 2000 6500 16290 3.2 3.1
12 2000 6500 16290 3.2 2.5
13 2375 7450 18460 3.1 2.4
14 2500 7500 18750 3.0 2.5
15 2200 8000 20280 3.6 2.5
16 2630 9000 22140 3.4 2.4
17 2630 9000 22140 3.4 2.4
18 3150 10325 25810 3.2 2.4
19 3000 10000 25200 3.3 2.5
20 3200 10650 26410 3.3 2.4
21 3700 12000 29920 3.2 2.4
22 3950 12750 31320 3.2 2.4
S23 3700 12000 29920 3.2 2.4
24 4100 14300 46100 3.4 3.2
25 4800 15100 48390 3.1 3.2
26 5100 16400 48590 3.2 2.9
27 5100 16400 48590 3.2 2.9
28 4500 14300 47400 3.1 3.3
29 5900 18400 54700 3.1 2.9
S30 7300 22400 67000 3 2.9

Note: The bottom stage of pre-revised scales from S-24 and above, have undergone Revision by involving a Multiplication factor of about 3 as stated above, while the remaining scales are left with a MF of about 2.4.

Whereas, the gap was not so wide in 5th CPC as compared to 4th CPC among the respective multiplication factor of all the 30 scales – where a uniform multiplication factor of about 3 as whole has been Involved.

Thus in comparison with 5th CPC revision pattern which introduced the Principle of Modified Parity for revision of pension, the relief for pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 could be application of uniform manner and methodology in deriving modified parity based Minimum Revised Pension in respect of all scale retirees, viz. MF of 3 over FIFTY PERCENT OF bottom stage of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired (5th CPC), particularly for pre-2006 pensioners Such a uniformity only could be real MODIFIED PARITY BASED MINIMUM REVISED PENSION IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED.
There could be no bar to take suitable decisions independent of Pay Commission Recommendation by the Policy makers.

Gopal Krishan
01-02-2015, 04:51 PM
Reference post No. 116. Could some one elaborate on "A copy of this order be placed in OA-789/2013 and OA-4130/2013 also" appearing in the ordr of CAT?
Gopal Krishan

sundarar
01-02-2015, 04:58 PM
Reference post No. 116. Could some one elaborate on "A copy of this order be placed in OA-789/2013 and OA-4130/2013 also" appearing in the ordr of CAT?
Gopal Krishan

As the issue involved in three OAs O.A./971/2012, O.A/4130/2013 and OA/789/2013 are same and the Judgment being common one for all the three OAs, a copy of the Order has been directed to be placed in rest of the two cases, viz. OA 789 and OA 4130.

subba Rao R S
17-03-2015, 09:30 PM
Dear Pensioners of S-21 V CPC scales,

With the judgment of CAT on PB 4 to JAG regular against our appeal to reduce the gap of pay of JAG regular and JAG NFSG, it looks to me to close this thread with the feeling that JAG regulars have been demoralized thereby reducing their output efficiency in Government particularly in research and Development organizations like DRDO(where officers of Armed forces and civilians work together), Dept of Space and Dept of Atomic energy.

Let us hope 7th CPC will do their best to reduce the pay gap and implementation group will accepts the same for boosting the demoralized.

Thanks for all the contributors to this thread and advisers like Shri V Natarajan and shri S S Ramachandran former secy Gen of AICCPA and of course to Admin gconnect for this platform

Subba Rao R S .

subba Rao R S
17-03-2015, 09:32 PM
Dear Pensioners of S-21 V CPC scales,

With the judgment of CAT on PB 4 to JAG regular against our appeal to reduce the gap of pay of JAG regular and JAG NFSG, it looks to me to close this thread with the feeling that JAG regulars have been demoralized thereby reducing their output efficiency in Government particularly in Research and Development organizations like DRDO(where officers of Armed forces and civilians work together), Dept of Space and Dept of Atomic energy.

Let us hope 7th CPC will do their best to reduce the pay gap and implementation group will accepts the same for boosting the demoralized.

Thanks for all the contributors to this thread and advisers like Shri V Natarajan and shri S S Ramachandran former secy Gen of AICCPA and of course to Admin gconnect for this platform

Subba Rao R S .