PDA

View Full Version : Serious Anomalies and discrimination - an appeal to NAC members for 15th Feb.meeting



krishnan09
03-02-2011, 08:36 PM
The Central Governmental Employees working in different field offices throughout India are totally upset and the Department of Personnel and Training is slowly grabbing the government decisions and attempting to create two kinds of citizens by implementing the same Fundamental Rules (FR) in different ways for Central Secretariat and field office. Some of the serious discrimination and anomalies are brought to notice as under:

1. The DOPT vide OM No.AB.14017/61/2008-Estt(RR) dated 24th March, 2009 directed all the Ministries and Departments to amend the existing Service Rules/recruitment rules within six months in view of the 6th pay commission recommendations and it’s government decisions. Whereas this has been done only for the employees working in the Central Secretariat and discriminated the field offices.
2. The Govt. of India constituted National Anomaly Committees at the National level w.e.f. 12.th January, 2009 in order to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of 6th cpc in more than one Ministry/Department/field offices. Whereas only two meetings were held so far ie., 12.12.2009 and 27.3.2010 and the serious anomalies of field offices were not at all discussed in these two meetings. Further, the Govt. of India on 12.12.2009 itself issued orders to constitute separate Departmental Anomaly Committees for field level organizations and subordinate offices whereas no such anomaly committees were constituted so far . Whereas frequent monthly anomaly committee meetings are taking place for the employees of the Central Secretariat and their anomalies are being sorted by fixing pay at the minimum of the higher scale, granting higher grade pay, timely promotions or even ad hoc promotions and creation of posts to accommodate where there are no posts for promotion. These similar genuine benefits are forbidden for the employees of field offices. Now there is no Departmental anomaly committee for field organizations and there is no meetings and no reviews etc.


3. The examples of the attempt of keeping the citizens in two levels are (1) the employees those who were drawing the same scale of pay in the Central Secretariat and in the field offices are fixed at different level when there is only one FR and thereby the employees of the field offices drawing same scale of pay are getting less pay of Rs.3000 to 4000 in the basic pay itself every month and the seniors are getting very less than their juniors and junior most. 2) For the Central Secretariat employees, the pay of seniors were stepped up at par with their junior most whereas in the field offices, these stepping up are not allowed so far. 3) The employees who were promoted after 1.1.2006 in the Central Secretariat in different cadres were fixed at the minimum of the pre-revised and multiplied by 1.86 whereas for the field offices, this fixation at the minimum was not extended.

4. Another example of serious anomaly or discrimination is that “an employee who was drawing scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in the Central Secretariat on promotion as Assistant w.e.f. 2.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale of 5500-9000 were given fixation such as 7450x1.86+GP4600 . Whereas this is not allowed to field office. Further an employee who was drawing scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 prior to 1.1.2006 were denied fixation in 7450x1.86+4600 and he/she was allowed only 5500x1.86+4200 . This is a clear cut example of creating two type of citizens though both of them were drawing same scale of pay. These are only skeleton examples and like this there are many serious anomalies in the field offices.

In view of the above, we request the members of NAC to kindly take up this serious issue and discuss same in the NEXT NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD on 15th February, 2011 in order to apply the Fundamental Rules and CCS(R.P)Rules, 2008 uniformly.

Victor
03-02-2011, 10:45 PM
The anomalies indicated are serious and needs due consideration. I sincerly hope that staff side takes up the matter vigorously and forcefully at the next NAC meeting so that uniformity in rules and regulations is restored.

Victor

sundarar
04-02-2011, 07:10 AM
The anomalies indicated are serious and needs due consideration. I sincerly hope that staff side takes up the matter vigorously and forcefully at the next NAC meeting so that uniformity in rules and regulations is restored.

Victor

The fundamental question involved in r/o all anomalies referred to above, is whether there exists a Minimum Pay in the running Pay Band or otherwise. If exists as per definition provided under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 then the Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 relating to fixation of pay on promotion needs to be amended suitably to replace the terminology - minimum of the pay band - by `minimum of the pay in the running pay band' therein. In fact, the present Rule 13 is applicable only for a promotee from one pay band to another pay band, and mostly applicable promotees to PB4 in view of the enhanced minimum of the pay band beyond 1.86 mf aspect. (Similar situation in the case of pensioners also exists wherein the revision of pension under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008 is beneficial only for PB-1 to PB-3 in view of modified para 4.2 and for PB 4, the original para 4.2 ought to take care, but unfortunately the said modified para 4.2 brought reducing impact)

In one of the Circular issued by RB, it is indicated that `Sixth CPC has not prescribed minimum pay in the pay band for the purpose of fixation of pay on promotion in the case of any grade and, fixing of minimum pay in the pay band in the case of each grade pay for departmental promotees would defeat the very purpose of introduction of running pay band'.

Whereas, without correlating with the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale, a corresponding running pay band cannot start its journey. On promotion to a higher grade, pay would have been fixed at the lowest stage of pre-revised scale of the said higher grade till 31.12.2005 and even till implementation of 6th CPC recommendation. On implementation, the promotional fitment benefit got reduced to that of financial upgradation under ACP, according to me. In both the cases, while GP applicable to the higher grade is granted - the running pay in the pay band after adding the benefit of 3% of revised pay with it, if happens to be lesser than a running pay in the pay band applicable to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the promoted grade, it can be stepped upto minimum of the pay band, only in the case of promotion. As we had seen so far, a minimum of the pay band can also plays the role of minimum of the running pay in the pay band only in respect of 4 pre-revised scales corresponding to minimum of PB1, 2, 3, and 4. There are many intermittent pre-revised scales within a particular pay band and when promotional benefits are granted, the same are more or less similar to that of ACP benefits, according to me. Our forum members may please clarify this aspect with their valuable inputs.

For want of minimum pay in the pay band just because the same is not specifically prescribed by the 6th CPC owing to the fact that it is nothing but corresponding to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale that is very much derivable, the due promotional benefits can not be fixed at a stage lower than the minimum of the pay in the pay band, ie. below the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the higher post in the revised structure.

The question is, whether a minimum pay in the pay band is required to be prescribed specifically by a Pay Commission under the given situation. The manner and methodology of interpretation during implementation, led to several reducing impacts in respect of promotees to higher grades, higher scale holders owing to merger as well as upgradation, pensioners for the purpose of deriving minimum revised pension, etc.

It is quite significant to note that the Dept. of Expenditure, vide their U.O. dated 14.12.2009 to DOPT while clarifying, have gone on record that `since the minimum pay in the pay band in the revised structure corresponding to the stage of Rs.5500 (pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000), is more than the minimum of the pay band PB-2(ie.) Rs.9300/- no benefit of bunching is admissible in this case'.

It is also said in the same U.O. Note that `6th CPC has not prescribed a minimum pay in the running pay band w.r.t. minimum entry level pay prescribed for direct recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006'.

Further, stepping up of pay on par with a MACP holder, is not prescribed anywhere in the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. The related Notes No.7 and 10 under Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 need further clarification, as to whether a person is required to be drawing more pay in the lower grade too than his junior - is not very clear in the case of Note No.7. Though the stepping up done through DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011 refers to Rule 10, it is given to understand that the junior official indicated in the said OM appears to be drawing more pay in the lower grade than the seniors whose pay have been stepped up. But, as said earlier, these seniors could be eligible to get what has been fixed w.e.f. 2.1.2006 from 1.1.2006 provided the minimum pay in the running pay band is ensured in all cases of promotion, replaced/upgraded/merged scales on or after 1.1.2006. To that extent,
a clear cut decision with regard to the terminology - MINIMUM PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND -WHICH IS NOTHING BUT BOTTOM OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE (BE IT REPLACED/PROMOTED/MERGED/UPGRADED SCALE) X 1.86) and its applicability, is inevitable.

Another very serious anomaly, according to me, is application of varying multiplication factor. All pre-revised pay shall have a uniform multiplication factor, and the purpose of introduction of pay band concepts is only to provide enhanced multiplication factor to scales above S-23. Need for parity among all employees irrespective of the pre-revised scales they were holding till 1.1.2006, is not taken note of by the serving community. That is the mother of all injustices and anomalies that followed.

It is hoped that the NAC will give its final verdict duly taking care of all the discussions that are being recorded in various public forums which are otherwise the feedback on implementation of 6th CPC recommendation and bring appropriate remedial measures to settle the problems once for all without pushing towards judicial remedy.

R.Devaraju
04-02-2011, 11:38 AM
SERIOUS ANOMALIES FOR CONSIDERATION BY NAC.

Two more anomalies are under serious category .

The issue of pre-2006 pensioner .They are eligible to get full pension for 10 years service.The pensioners having less than 33 years service are getting only proportionate pension though their demand is upheld in several courts.

The second one is the case of Absorbed employees in Autonomous body. Several pension benefits were given to those who opted for pro-rata pension whereas the employees opted for counting past service are totally denied. The parent department has paid their pension benefits to the absorbing body for counting past service. Since employees opted pro-rata pension also gets full pension as per 6 CPC and the employees opted for counting past service do not get any additional pension benefit by counting past service they are put into loss. So, they shall be given a chance to exercise a fresh option beneficial to them so that they can also get their due pension.

In view of the above, we request the members of NAC to kindly take up this serious issue and discuss same in the NEXT NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD on 15th February, 2011 in order to apply the Fundamental Rules and CCS(R.P)Rules, 2008 uniformly.[/QUOTE]

sundarar
05-02-2011, 07:06 AM
Yes. Fixing a cut off date for extending the liberalised qualifying service requirements is against Art.14 of the Constitution as per well settled position.

The pre-2006 absorbees who had opted for pro-rata pension are still getting only pro-rata revised pension and not full pension.

For all types of absorption, superannuation, invalid pension, etc. 10 years qualifying service is sufficient for full pension. For Voluntary retirement cases, 20 years qualifying service is prescribed for full pension. But both these 10/20 have been prescribed only for those retiring after 1.1.2006.

D.S. Nakra Case Judgement 17.12.1982 Extract

"Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972 ('1972 Rules' for short) form a class as a whole ?
Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date ?
Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of Art. 14 ?

These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own feet.

Conclusion:

It is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible".

Whereas, the stand taken so far by the Dept. is that various court cases have allowed fixing a valid cut off date. May be, but in those cases, neither qualifying service nor emoluments for calculation of basic pension were not the core issues. Subsequent to D.S.Nakara case in 1982 where emoluments was the core issue, now it is the turn of both `emoluments' and `qualifying service' based on which re-computation of basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 followed by revision of the same from 1.1.2006 is required to be carried out.

Taking reference to the well settled position, the Dept. themselves could take suo moto revision without any need for bringing judicial intervention. The number of such pensioners may be very few and hence, a judicious decision from the Dept. themselves will be ideal. A specific clarification with regard to pre-2006 pensioners relating to qualifying service aspects is still awaited. Whatever justification were relied upon for extending the liberalised qualifying service/emoluments requirements to those who retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008, the same hold goods for all those pre-2006 retirees with less than 33 years qualifying service. Meanwhile, the NAC also is requested to take up this issue which too is a serious anomaly involving Constitutional requirements.

vnatarajan
05-02-2011, 05:45 PM
Dear Friends,

I appreciate the anxious concerns and constructive views/ opinions expressed by all of you.

BUT ALAS! THE STAFF SIDE ITSELF APPEARS TO BE VERY MUCH TOWING THE LINE OF THE DOPT/ DOPPW FOR THEIR OWN "SURVIVAL"!

OTHERWISE HOW DO YOU EXPECT A "LIFELESS AGENDA' AS APPEARING IN THE CONFEDERATION NEWS:

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

-Meeting of National Anomaly Committee...
Flash News from Secretary General of Confederation

National Anomaly Committee Meeting

Confederation General Secretary informs that the next Meeting of the National Anomaly Committee will be held on 15.02.2011.

We hope the following issues to be discussed in the meeting…

Employees whose date of increment is between Feb-June in Vth CPC issue…

Stepping up of pay of senior on par with the pay of higher pat granted to new entrants…

Health Insurance Scheme…

Source: CGStaffnews.com

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

THERE IS NO ITEM CONCERNING THE PENSIONERS OR THE BURNING ISSUE OF PENSION PARITYY!.

ALL OF YOU WILL RECOLLECT THAT IN THE FIRST NAC, ALL THE PENSIONERS' ITEMS WERE BULL-DOZED AND SIDE-LINED.

HOWEVER, IN THE SECOND NAC, AFTER SOME STRONG PROTEST BY SOME "MATURE" STAFF SIDE MEMBERS ( WHO INCIDENTALLY ARE PENSIONERS) THE "PENSION PARITY" ISSUE WAS SHOWN TO BE UNDER SCRUTINY!. (PL SEE THE MINUTES FOR EXACT WORDS/ DECISION).

NOW, THE STAFF SIDE ITSELF APPEARS TO BE GIVING "LEAST PRIORITY" TO THE PENSIONERS' ISSUES!

Pl correct me if I am wrong!

Regards,

VNatarajan

sundarar
06-02-2011, 04:27 AM
Dear Friends,

I appreciate the anxious concerns and constructive views/ opinions expressed by all of you.

BUT ALAS! THE STAFF SIDE ITSELF APPEARS TO BE VERY MUCH TOWING THE LINE OF THE DOPT/ DOPPW FOR THEIR OWN "SURVIVAL"!

OTHERWISE HOW DO YOU EXPECT A "LIFELESS AGENDA' AS APPEARING IN THE CONFEDERATION NEWS:

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

-Meeting of National Anomaly Committee...
Flash News from Secretary General of Confederation

National Anomaly Committee Meeting

Confederation General Secretary informs that the next Meeting of the National Anomaly Committee will be held on 15.02.2011.

We hope the following issues to be discussed in the meeting…

Employees whose date of increment is between Feb-June in Vth CPC issue…

Stepping up of pay of senior on par with the pay of higher pat granted to new entrants…

Health Insurance Scheme…

Source: CGStaffnews.com

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

THERE IS NO ITEM CONCERNING THE PENSIONERS OR THE BURNING ISSUE OF PENSION PARITYY!.

ALL OF YOU WILL RECOLLECT THAT IN THE FIRST NAC, ALL THE PENSIONERS' ITEMS WERE BULL-DOZED AND SIDE-LINED.

HOWEVER, IN THE SECOND NAC, AFTER SOME STRONG PROTEST BY SOME "MATURE" STAFF SIDE MEMBERS ( WHO INCIDENTALLY ARE PENSIONERS) THE "PENSION PARITY" ISSUE WAS SHOWN TO BE UNDER SCRUTINY!. (PL SEE THE MINUTES FOR EXACT WORDS/ DECISION).

NOW, THE STAFF SIDE ITSELF APPEARS TO BE GIVING "LEAST PRIORITY" TO THE PENSIONERS' ISSUES!

Pl correct me if I am wrong!

Regards,

VNatarajan


Respected Shri VNji has very rightly pointed out the sidelining of pensioners' grievances as a whole in spite of our continued struggle for the past 3 years.

The Second NAC Meeting Minutes in r/o Pensioners is reproduced hereunder:

ltem Nos. 15. 16, 17 & 21:- Parity/ modified parity in pension/revised
pension/familypension of all pre-1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 01.01.2006.
The Official Side stated that the matter has been examined in detail on the basis of note given by the Staff Side. However, it has not been found feasible to agree to the demand of the Staff Side as revised pension has been fixed strictly in accordance with the principles enunciated by the 6th CPC for the same. Director, Department of Pension
further informed that the matter was taken up with the Department of Expenditure and it has been decided that the modified parity adopted will stand as the same method was adopted after the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th CPC. However, even after a prolonged discussion in the matter, there was difference of opinion between the
Official and the Staff Side. In view of this deadlock, the Chairman stated that the view point the staff side has been understood by the official side and that the official side will take a stand in the matter after taking into account the views expressed by the staff side.
He then suggested moving on to the next agenda item.
ltem No.18: Anomaly in Pension of those retiring within the first 9 months of the year 2006..
Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare informed that suitable instructions have already been issued to allow the last pay drawn as the basis of pension calculation for those who retired on or after 1 .1,2006. As the anomaly has already been resolved, it was decided to treat the item as closed.
Item No.19: Revision of pension of those who retired during the period 1.1.2006 to1.9.2008.
Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare informed that suitable instructions have already been issued to the effect that the benefit of full pension on retirement after 20 years of service has also been extended to employees who retired between 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008. As the anomaly has already been resolved, it was decided to treat the item as closed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, the pre-2006 pensioners, are left with the following anomalies that arose on implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations.

1. Although the 5th CPC hoped that complete/full parity will be achieved in successive pay commission, while implementing 6th CPC, the existing modified parity as introduced by 5th CPC has not been maintained while revising the minimum assured guaranteed pension. Such a minimum pension that ought to correspond with the bottom of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired as per the modified parity originally introduced by 5th CPC, has now been restricted to 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED PLUS/AND 50% OF GRADE PAY AS APPLICABLE TO PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED, vide Overriding Modificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 as against the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 of DOP&PW. So, the Court cases presently under progress.
The NAC can very well assertively decide that there exists a `MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND' CORRESPONDING TO PRE-REVISED SCALE and the OM dated 3.10.2008 will become null and void particularly in view of the available `MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO PRE-REVISED SCALE as recorded in DOE U.O. Note attached with the DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011 in r/o serving employees. There cannot be two different Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band - one for serving employees/post-2006 pensioners and another for pre-2006 pensioners. Alternatively 50% of bottom of the revised pay corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired can be prescribed as Minimum Revised Assured Guaranteed Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

2. The Full/Complete Parity as had been done in the case of pre-1986 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996, is required to be followed by recomputation of basic pension in the case of pre-1996 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and subsequently from 1.1.2006 as well as pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 also in line with the 5th CPC recommendations.

3. The liberalised qualifying service requirements of 10 years for full pension in the case of CPSU absorbees, superannuation, invalid pension and 20 years for full pension in the case of voluntary retirement cases, as introduced in r/o Govt. servants retiring after 1.1.2006 shall be extended to all concerned pre-2006 pensioners with the prescribed qualifying service as above for full pension, in line with the well settled position vide D.S.Nakara Case Judgement to ensure adherence to Art. 14 of the Constitution..

4. The basic pension when undergoes revision shall have applicability of a uniform multiplication factor as has been applied to higher scales. While we talk of homogenous class of pensioners, applicability of varying multiplication factors actually create class within class. A single multiplication factor for all the 34 pre-revised scale retirees only can render justice.

Since the implementation part of the 6th CPC only has been focussed here to illustrate the core grievances being faced by the pre-2006 pensioners community, other grievances of the pensioners community as a whole, as being taken up by various Pensioners Associations such as BPS-RREWA, CCCGPA, RSCWS etc. are also need to be settled so as to provide a meaningful happy retired life of senior citizens. It is the opportunity to display the gesture and gratitude to the dedicated quality service rendered by senior veterans in the past amidst all sort of shortfalls and drawbacks that were prevailing then.
The NAC that consists of well qualified authorities and associates may please ensure that all grievances of pensioners are approached with a motherly touch and sorted out once for all.

sundarar
06-02-2011, 01:56 PM
Respected Shri VNji has very rightly pointed out the sidelining of pensioners' grievances as a whole in spite of our continued struggle for the past 3 years.

The Second NAC Meeting Minutes in r/o Pensioners is reproduced hereunder:

ltem Nos. 15. 16, 17 & 21:- Parity/ modified parity in pension/revised
pension/familypension of all pre-1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 01.01.2006.
The Official Side stated that the matter has been examined in detail on the basis of note given by the Staff Side. However, it has not been found feasible to agree to the demand of the Staff Side as revised pension has been fixed strictly in accordance with the principles enunciated by the 6th CPC for the same. Director, Department of Pension
further informed that the matter was taken up with the Department of Expenditure and it has been decided that the modified parity adopted will stand as the same method was adopted after the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th CPC. However, even after a prolonged discussion in the matter, there was difference of opinion between the
Official and the Staff Side. In view of this deadlock, the Chairman stated that the view point the staff side has been understood by the official side and that the official side will take a stand in the matter after taking into account the views expressed by the staff side.
He then suggested moving on to the next agenda item.
ltem No.18: Anomaly in Pension of those retiring within the first 9 months of the year 2006..
Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare informed that suitable instructions have already been issued to allow the last pay drawn as the basis of pension calculation for those who retired on or after 1 .1,2006. As the anomaly has already been resolved, it was decided to treat the item as closed.
Item No.19: Revision of pension of those who retired during the period 1.1.2006 to1.9.2008.
Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare informed that suitable instructions have already been issued to the effect that the benefit of full pension on retirement after 20 years of service has also been extended to employees who retired between 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008. As the anomaly has already been resolved, it was decided to treat the item as closed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, the pre-2006 pensioners, are left with the following anomalies that arose on implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations.

1. Although the 5th CPC hoped that complete/full parity will be achieved in successive pay commission, while implementing 6th CPC, the existing modified parity as introduced by 5th CPC has not been maintained while revising the minimum assured guaranteed pension. Such a minimum pension that ought to correspond with the bottom of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired as per the modified parity originally introduced by 5th CPC, has now been restricted to 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED PLUS/AND 50% OF GRADE PAY AS APPLICABLE TO PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED, vide Overriding Modificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 as against the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 of DOP&PW. So, the Court cases presently under progress.
The NAC can very well assertively decide that there exists a `MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND' CORRESPONDING TO PRE-REVISED SCALE and the OM dated 3.10.2008 will become null and void particularly in view of the available `MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO PRE-REVISED SCALE as recorded in DOE U.O. Note attached with the DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011 in r/o serving employees. There cannot be two different Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band - one for serving employees/post-2006 pensioners and another for pre-2006 pensioners. Alternatively 50% of bottom of the revised pay corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired can be prescribed as Minimum Revised Assured Guaranteed Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

2. The Full/Complete Parity as had been done in the case of pre-1986 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996, is required to be followed by recomputation of basic pension in the case of pre-1996 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and subsequently from 1.1.2006 as well as pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 also in line with the 5th CPC recommendations.

3. The liberalised qualifying service requirements of 10 years for full pension in the case of CPSU absorbees, superannuation, invalid pension and 20 years for full pension in the case of voluntary retirement cases, as introduced in r/o Govt. servants retiring after 1.1.2006 shall be extended to all concerned pre-2006 pensioners with the prescribed qualifying service as above for full pension, in line with the well settled position vide D.S.Nakara Case Judgement to ensure adherence to Art. 14 of the Constitution..

4. The basic pension when undergoes revision shall have applicability of a uniform multiplication factor as has been applied to higher scales. While we talk of homogenous class of pensioners, applicability of varying multiplication factors actually create class within class. A single multiplication factor for all the 34 pre-revised scale retirees only can render justice.

Since the implementation part of the 6th CPC only has been focussed here to illustrate the core grievances being faced by the pre-2006 pensioners community, other grievances of the pensioners community as a whole, as being taken up by various Pensioners Associations such as BPS-RREWA, CCCGPA, RSCWS etc. are also need to be settled so as to provide a meaningful happy retired life of senior citizens. It is the opportunity to display the gesture and gratitude to the dedicated quality service rendered by senior veterans in the past amidst all sort of shortfalls and drawbacks that were prevailing then.
The NAC that consists of well qualified authorities and associates may please ensure that all grievances of pensioners are approached with a motherly touch and sorted out once for all.

THERE ARE ABOUT TWELVE LAKHS RAILWAY PENSIONERS. GOVT. WILL DEFINITELY KEENLY OBSERVE THEIR CONCERNS & VOICES ON GRIEVANCES.

"Item No.1 of the proposed Discussion Paper for 2nd National Convention of Railway Pensioners Associations at Secunderabad to be held on 13.2.2011 on Railway Pensioners' Grievances, as downloaded from rrewa.org web site is reproduced hereunder for information. (Courtesy: www.rrewa.org http://scm-bps/blogspot.com)
[I]
"1. Pension (Fixation, Revision & Disbursement): We want to draw your particular attention to H’ble Supreme Court‘s Constitution Bench historic judgment delivered in case of D. S. Nakra on 17.12.1982 and request that it implemented in letter & spirit. Pensioners should not be divided on the basis of their date of retirement or otherwise and a uniform formula be adopted for the revision of all the pension irrespective of Class, Category or status while in service, i.e., if a multiplication factor of 3 is given to one section of pensioners then, by sheer logic, it should be uniformly adopted for all the Pensioners.

1(i) Pension to be net of Income Tax as was recommended by the CPC V vide their Para 167.11: Inflation is much more than any tax; it erodes the major part of already inadequate pension. To enable pensioners, at the fag end of their lives, to live honorably, they be spared from paying Income Tax. In the words of CPC V, ‘ Pension should be net of income tax.”

1(ii) Merger of DR with pension whenever it goes above 50%:- In the case of working personnel, their allowances automatically go up by 25% whenever D.A. goes above 50%. As pensioners do not get any allowances, they feel cheated. In order to strike a balance, DR should be merged with Pension whenever it goes beyond 50%."


Remaining items are available in the website rrewa.org