PDA

View Full Version : Injustice to pre-2006 pensioners in old s-29 & 30 scales(18400-22400 & 22400-24500)



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

vnatarajan
10-01-2009, 07:19 AM
Dear All

Mr Kanaujiami has kindly put up a draft for an APPEAL TO HON'BLE PM in the other thread with the caption: "JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY......................." and I have also given there a small one para, limited rep. for registering ON LINE grievance in the PM's portal.

FOr those who are following this thread closely/ who have already made several reps. to various authorities/ wh have also regd. grievance in the portals of DoP/PW & PMO/ etc, a draft version of appeal prepared by Shri PKRanaganathan (little edition by me/others here; EG chosen here is S29 Pensioner)) incorporating some more court cases is put up:

(PL. note any of these reps of Mr K & Mr PKR can be used for preparing individual reps./appeals to be sent to Honble PM. IT IS OUR EARNEST REQUEST THAT ALL ACT / REQUEST OTHERS TO ACT/ MAKE COPIES & DISTRIBUTE TO HELP OTHERS WHO HAVE NO FACILITIES dso that the IMPACT OF THIS APPEAL IS FELT BY the HONBLE PM/ PMO)

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

Subject: Appeal for Justice to Past pensioners

Ref :Min of Pers Public Grievances & Pension, Dept of Pension & Pensioners welfare, OM NOs, F. No .38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dated 3 sep 2008 and even No dated 14Oct 2008.

Respected Sir,

Deeply aggrieved by what I believe to be devastating injustice perpetrated on me and scores of other Pre 2006 pensioners like me, by the directives contained in the above two OMS, I had submitted my case for redressal to the Secretary, Min. of P/PG/P- DoP&PW through several separate representations apart from registering my grievances with the Ministry’s grievances Cell
And also the grievances cell of your esteemed office. While the grievance has not been addressed so far by the Secretary, DoP&PW, none of the communications have been acknowledged till date and therefore this desperate bid to seek the honour of intervention of your august office, to remedy the injustice .

I beg to attach herewith copies of my above representations which bring out in detail my case and the redressal that I have been seeking.

Briefly stated, the above two OMs ( Issued under the authority of Dierctor PP in the Dept of P/PW) have introduced "modifications" which materially alter the provisions in the statutory orders promulgated by Government through gazette notifications, and has also resulted in creation of two different pay scales for most of the Grades in the relevant pay bands, one for those retiring after 1st Jan 2006 and the other for those who retired prior to the said date.

Sir, I and I am sure, my fellow pensioners are all personally ever so grateful, for the governments speedy acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC and including existing pensioners, in your dispensations . But , I am unable to accept, the inequity in the matter of MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION , created through an arbitrary and untenable interpretation , in complete disregard to the constitutional provisions, legal directives and established rule position. Curiously enough, the top four grades in the hierarchy, which perhaps is the exclusive retirement domain, mostly of the IAS, has been carefully, excluded from the operation of this calculated misinterpretation, by keeping them outside the pay band concept itself !

I crave your leave to place below just a few of the APEX court cited, constitutional provisions and humbly seek your kind and considered perusal of them- apart from the extracts of other relevant court orders , on the subject of Pension and Parity of pension among a class of pensioners, enclosed herewith.

“In Shri.Sita Ram Sugar C o Ltd, Vs Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277, 1297, the Supreme Court ( Mr Justice Thommen) has laid down that "Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi judicial, is open to challenge, if it is in conflict with the constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the Law of the Land, or if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it "

“Administrative action may be based on statute or may be be purely executive action of an administrative nature, that is, of non-statutory character. In either case, a statutory or non statutory order of the executive which is arbitrary may be set aside. ( Iron and Metal Traders vs Jaskiel, AIR 1984 SC 629.( and other judgments.)”

“If any classification is made relating to pay scales and such classification is unreasonable and if unequal pay is based on no classification, then Art. 14. will at once be attracted, and such classification should be set at naught. (In other words, , where unequal pay has brought about, a discrimination within the meaning of Art 14, it will be a case of " equal pay for equal work'as invisaged by Art 14.) (Supreme court employees welfare Assn Vs Union of India AIR 1990 SC 334 (Muratri mohan Dutt and K Thommen JJ)”

“Administrative Instructions :( Art 309) Though non-statutory Rules cannot modify Statutory Rules, there is nothing to prevent the Government from issuing administrative instructions on matters upon which the statutory Rules are silent ( Comptroller Vs Mohan(1992) 1SCC 20. ( which means that non-statutory Rules cannot modify staturoty Rules;administrative instructions can only be issued on matters that are silent in the statutory Rules)”
I submit that the mischievous modifications, brought into, both the Office memoranda under reference are guilty of all the above mentioned constitutional infringements and request your esteemed self to kindly cause a review examination of the issue of PARITY OF MINIMUM PENSION , between the same classes of pensioners, standing on either side of the date line of 01-01-06, in accordance with the principle of modified parity already accepted by Government vide Min of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) Dated 17 dec 98 ( Copy enclosed for ready reference ) and order repeal of the unjust and. incorrect interpretation, of this entity, introduced in the OMs referred to above in order to restore the Legitimate minimum pension to the Pre 2006 pensioners.

Sir, I retired from the pre revised scale of S29 (18400-500-22400) on 01-03-01. my basic pay at the time of retirement being Rs /- Under the provisions of office Memorandum F.N o. 38/37/09/P&PW (A) Pt I dt 14 oct 08, my revised minimum pension has been fixed at Rs.23700/-which is 50% of the Pay Band minimum In of 37400+grade pay of 10000. This fixation is anomalous and unjust since the minimum pay for corresponding revised scale for my post ie.[Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India] is Rs.44700/- wef 1.1.2006[Ministry of Finance's OM FNo1/1/2008-1C,30/08/08 (Page 32/ 6CPC Pay Revision) Pre-revised Pay Scale (S 29) of Rs18400-22400 is revised to Rs 44700-67000]. Hence 50% of the minimum pay [44700] +Grade Pay[10000] works out to Rs.27350. as per the corresponding pay in PB4. The revised basic pension, after applying para 4.2. of Memorandum F.No. 38/37/P&PW (A) dt 01-09-08, is 50% of 54700 ie. Rs 27350/- which therefore should be my revised minimum pension.

While I am not seeking full parity, sanctified by numerous court directives, which should allow my pension at Rs /-, I am sanguine that my humble request for parity at least in my minimum pension with all those of my grade, which has the executive approval of the President, will find the favour of your kind and gracious review and acceptance and issue of suitable directives to all concerned. I and other similarly placed pre 2006 fellow pensioners pray for justice by the employer whom we served through all our best years of life, that we are not driven to the time consuming, costly and physically and mentally exhausting prospect of court cases in our withering days ahead.

Respectfully Yours,

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

VNatarajan
(thanks to MR PKR for researching on more court angles/ preparing the draft)

vnatarajan
13-01-2009, 05:10 PM
Dear All

Today (13.01.2009). I have sent my appeal to the NHRC by email. (There is no limit for text).

Copy of the text of my forwarding letter is being posted here. I had attached the complaint in proper format of NHRC to it.

Main text of the complaint/ grievance is available in RREWA website.

(I have the complaint filled in the full format of NHRC- ready and since it will be very long to post here, the same can be sent to anybody/ any group if they contact me by email- [email protected] preferably or other id u may have).

Hard copy can be sent by Regd Post AD.

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

VN/NHRC/2009
Dated 13th January 2009



From: V.NATARAJAN To: THE NHRC (pl expand),NEW DELHI(see address below)
(Retd Dy. Director General ,
Geological. Survey of India; &
President, Pensioners' Forum
-affiliated to AIFPA)
7/Old 8,Jayaram Avenue, Sastri Nagar
Adyar PO, CHENNAI- 600020
Ph: 044-2491 4296; Cell 0-9884253887
(email:[email protected];[email protected])

Sub: Complaint related to the principles of Human Rights-denial by the Govt.
authorities to Senior Central Govt. Pensioners of the country.

Dear /Honourable Chairman and Esteemed Members of the National Human Rights
Commission of India,

This complaint addresses the issue of the essential principles of HUMAN
RIGHTS, namely EQUALITY, DIGNITY and JUSTICE, which have been denied
particularly to the CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS like me and lakhs of others who
are in the fading years of their life. Details of the complaint are
furnished in full in the attached document.

2.RECENT SIXTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION (CPC) RELATED PENSION IMPLEMENTATION
ORDERS (OM38/37/08-P&PW(A)PtI dtd.3rd & 14th Oct 2008) ISSUED BY THE
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS/ DEPTT OF PENSIONS &
PENSIONERS' WELFARE ARE MOST HUMILIATING to a large section of pre-2006
pensioners as it destroys the very protections given by the Apex/ High
Courts in their pension parity judgments (e.g. famous NAKARA case of
17.12.1982, recent SPS Bains Case of 9th Sept 2008). The courts have
repeatedly pointed out that such denials would amount to violation of the
ARTCLE 14 of our CONSTITUTION (of India)on the fundamental right to EQUALITY
among pensioners. The Constitution Bench of Hon. Supreme Court of India held
that division among pensioners for the purpose of entitlement and payment of
pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired
thereafter, being both arbitrary and unprincipled,

3.I AND SEVERAL OF HELPLESS AFFECTED PENSIONERS HAVE REPRESENTED AND
APPEALED REPEATEDLY (On Line/ E-Mails/ By Post)TO THE MINISTRY OF
PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Deptt. Of Pensions & Pensioners'
Welfare) several times, but till date no replies have been received nor any
acknowledgements even.

4.I, on my own behalf and as well-wisher of other pensioners, humbly submit
here that in spite of the abiding and emphatic parity directives of the
Apex/ other Courts of the country, if there are violations by any Authority,
such acts will have to be limited by a wider obligation for example by the
principles of dignity, equality and justice under the Human Rights
provisions, more precisely when such provisions are also guaranteed by the
Constitution.

5.Driven to the extreme limits of harassment, frustration, and distress, and
also being conscious of the TIME as we are in our fading ears of life, we
have to appeal to your kind authority for intervention with the Govt. to
bring us Equality, Dignity & Justice or even if necessary to take up the
matter to the portals of Justice, for which we have neither resources (Court
cases cost a fortune) or time (because court cases on pensions take anything
between 5 to 10 years or even more,).

6.Our heartfelt gratitude and sincere thanks are conveyed in advance for
your considered positive action in the case, which will be a landmark of
JUSTICE to a section of seniors of the country who have given their sweat
and blood to the development and governance of the country in their early
years.

Most faithfully yours,

Sd.
V NATARAJAN
(For my own and as a well wisher of many support-less pensioners)

PS: 1. NHRC, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110001 (eml:( [email protected]; [email] Other email id [email protected] (rebounds)
2. See post below- Shri S C M has stated full format version of complaint for attachment is available in RREWA site.
(Many thanks to Shri SCM for his prompt actions)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report 4 of ARC of India- "ETHICS OF GOVERNANCE" Extracts:

"Rivers do not drink their waters themselves, nor do trees eat their fruit,
nor do the clouds eat the grains raised by them. The wealth of the noble is
used solely for the benefit of others"

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

VNatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
13-01-2009, 07:23 PM
Dear sh. V.NATARAJAN,
Full format prepared by you for complaint to NHRC is now available on RREWA web site
Regards
Maheshwari

vnatarajan
16-01-2009, 07:37 AM
Dear All

Now Anomoly Committee has been set up a couple of days ago.

Circular is available on MoP/PG/P- DoPT site.

Gist:

"Centre decides to set up anomaly committee for 6th pay panel
Thu, Jan 15 08:22 PM

New Delhi, Jan 15 (PTI) The Government has decided to set up an Anomaly Committee to settle disputes arising out of implementation of the sixth pay commission recommendations. The panel will receive anomalies upto six months from the date of its constitution and will dispose them within one year, the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Training said in its order.

DoPT sources today said the items already taken up by the Fast Track Committee will not be considered by the anomaly committee. They said there will be two Anomaly Committees -- national and departmental.

The national anomaly committee will deal with anomalies common to two or more departments and in respect of common categories of employees. The departmental anomaly committee will handle cases pertaining exclusively to the department concerned and will have no repercussions on the employees of another ministry or department.

The anomaly will include cases where the maximum of the revised scale is less than the amount at which one is entitled to be fixed and where the amount of revised allowance is less than the existing rate, they said. PTI."

PENSIONS- will the anomolaies be settled by this Committee?
THEN ONE YEAR?

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
16-01-2009, 08:22 AM
Thanks for the latest info. Couldn't find the Govt. circular, though the news item is on PTI and other channels like Yahoo-news, Chennai online etc and also Surispace. Let us see the notification first to decide further course of action.
Ramdas

S.Balasubramanian
16-01-2009, 09:33 AM
The news item about Anomalies Committee has also appeared in The Hindu Delhi edition dated 16th January, 2009.
Some time back also, I had seen a mention about the Anomalies Committee in the Department of Expenditure/Implementation Cell of Finance Ministry. The strength of the Committee was stated as 1 Joint Secretary, 1 Director, 1 section officer/assistant and 2 private secretaries. I do not know whether Parkinson's law has operated and this unit is going to be called national committee and expanded so that the more the number, the merrier for everybody!
One of my friends had told me some time back that all represenations sent to the Department of Pensions stood auotmatically referred to the Anomalies Committee.
I believe there is no harm in again flooding the Anomalies Committee with more repeated representations, if necessary. I do not know how this weill affect the reference to the NHRC who may well be informed that the matter is within the scanner of the Anomalies Committee which has been given one year's time to dispose of them and the matter may then be kept pending by the NHRC or disposed of as they please.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
16-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Dear All

Here are most of the details of the OM dt 11th Jan 2009, wh I cd transfer to a word doc.

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


No.111212008-lCA DT 11th January 2009
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
lCA Section
Setting up of Anomaly Committee to settle the Anomalies arising out
of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations.

The undersigned is directed to say that in terms of an agreement with the
Staff Side of the National Council, it has been decided that appropnate Anomaly
Committees should be set up, consisting of representatives of the Official Side
and the Staff Side to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of
the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, subject to the following
conditions, namely:………….

Anomoly:
(a) Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that any
recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy
enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself without the
Commission assigning any reason; and
(b) Where the maximum of the revised scale is less than the amount at
which one is entitled to be fixed except in those cases where the
same is as a result of modified fixation formula adopted by the
Government; and


There will be 2 levels of Anomaly Committees, National and
Departmental, consisting of representatives of the Official Side and the Staff
Side of the National Council and the Departmental Council respectively.
(3) The Departmental Anomaly Committee may be chaired by the Additional
Secretary (Admn.) or the Joint Secretary (Admn.), if there is no post of
Additional Secretary (Admn.). Financial Adviser of the Ministry/Department
shall be one of the Members of the Departmental Anomaly Committee
(4) The National Anomaly Committee will deal with anomalies common to
two or more Departments and in respect of common categories of employees.
The Departmental Anomaly Committee will deal with anomalies pertaining
exclusively to the Department concerned and having no repercussions on the
employees of another Ministry/Department in the opinion of the Financial
Adviser. The items already taken up by the Fast Track Committee, will not be
considered by the Anomaly Committee.
(5) The Anomaly Committee shall receive anomalies through Secretary, Staff
Side of respective Council upto six months from the date of its constitution and
it will finally dispose of all the anomalies within a period of one year from the
date of its constitution. Any recommendations of the Anomaly Committee to
resolve the anomaly shall be subject to the approval of the Government
(6) Cases where there is a dispute about the definition of "anomaly" and those
where there is a disagreement between the Staff Side and the Official Side on
the anomaly will be referred to an "Arbitrator" to be appointed out of a panel of
names proposed by the two sides. However, this arbitration will not be a part of
the JCM Scheme.
(7) The Arbitrator so appointed shall consider the disputed cases arising in the
Anomaly Committees at the National as well as Departmental level.
(8) Orders regarding appointment of the Arbitrator and constitution of
Anomaly Committee at National Level will be issued separately.
(9) All Ministries/Departments are accordingly requested to take urgent action
to set up the Anomaly Committees for settlement of anomalies arising out of
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, as stipulated
above.

Deputy Secretary (JCA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHERE DO THE PENSIONERS BUTT IN? or LEFT TO THE MERCY OF DoP/&PW? or PLAY FOOTBALL BY SENDING TO DEPTTS CONCERNED FOR VERIFICATION? COMMENTS?

ONE YEAR IS INEVITABLE?

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
16-01-2009, 10:11 AM
I was just about to reproduce the order by Ministry of PPP as downloaded from its website. But it is not necessary now that Mr Natarajan has reproduced it in the earlier posting.
If one sees item 4, it talks of anomalies common to two or more Departments etc. in relation to pay of employees. One does not know whether pensioners would be covered under this item automatically.
In that case, the forwarding of representations re: pension anomalies, said to have been made to Anomalies Committee would be of no avail, in which case the Department of Pensions alone will have to handle them.
Hence perhaps one has to bring in the argument that pensioners are deemed employees and the department from which they had retired is a deemed employer,--(this opinion had been expressed in some of the Supreme Court judgments; from google search, I had seen a few of them which I had given in an earlier posting).-- so that one can advance an argument that any pension anomalies should also be referred to the Anomalies Committee. This is a matter for consideration.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
16-01-2009, 10:44 AM
Dear Shri Bala/ others

Fifth CPC cases of Pension anomolies appear to have been dealt by the "Govt." themselves - meaning the DoP&PW and not by the respective Deptts- as emerging from my discussions with Mr PKR who was the DDG (Personnel) in GSI when the 5CPC orders were implemented.

I also remember- pension fixation/ fitment type of anomolaies were resolved by appealing to CPAO - DoP&PW etc rather than to the parent Departments/ Ministries!

I am not sure- but I think points need more clarifications by Rule PUNDITS in the forum!

vnatarajan

I HAVE SENT MY HARD COPY APPEAL TODAY (16th Jan 2009) TO NHRC with a few Appendices by Regd Post AD, following my advance soft-copy sent by email on 13th Jan 2009..I TRUST MANY HAVE SENT THEIR EMAIL appeal and PERHAPS THEY WD also send the Hard Copy by post soon.

vnatarajan

ram mukhija
17-01-2009, 01:24 AM
Hi,

i am a new comer to this forum though not to the subject. Also, i have gone through most of the posts under this thread. Since i retired before 1.1.2006, i am deeply interested in the subject. Following are some stray thoughts on the subject/

1. We need to be clear as to what we are appealing against. Against the 6h CPC? Or Govt. decision on CPC recommendatin? Or an interpretation of a Govt. decision?
2. 6th CPC, as, indeed, 5th CPC as well, took a negative position on the principle of 'one rank one pension' - which is another name for full parity, in regard to refixation of pension of existing pensioners. They advocated 'modified parity', which is a contradiction in terms. There is either parity or no parity. Like, a person is either virgin or not. There is no mid way. At best modified parity is a nebulous concept not capable of being spelt out precisely. Take my example. Last basic pay drawn by me was 20900 in the pay scale : 18400 - 22400. Revised pension fixed, in terms of O.M dated 14.10.2008 is 23700. If our Representation is accepted my revised pension will be 27350. Both ,23700 and 27350 give me modified parity. Parity, as laid down in Supreme court decision in the case of SPS Vains, of 9.9.2008, would give me revised pension of 29435 ( after my last pay is notionally refixed, as on 1.1.2006 at 58870 )

3. There is a strong case of the principle of modified parity being upgraded to the principle of full parity on basis of our fundamental right of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.In a way it has already been accepted by Supreme Court in the case of SPS Vains, with reference to 5th CPC. In order that the same becomes applicable to 6th CPC some brave heart among us will have to approach High/Supreme Court. i do believe that that will be the flavour of the future because Fundamental Rights, in this case our Right under Article 14, cannot remain violated for long.

4. For the present, while we challenge the clarification/interpretation given by the DPPW of Para 5.1.47 vide its OM dated 14.10.2008 we should look at the relevant part of Para 5.1.47 of the Commission strictly from a linguistic angle.

5. Relevant part of the Para in question is as follows.

"The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that revised pension, in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired"

6. Interpretation of the above sentence by DPPW - vide its OM dated 14'10. 2008, mentioned above, is TOTALLY FLAWED. Question does arise, as apparently it perhaps arose in DPPW, whether clause 'corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' qualifies both clauses, viz. 'minimum of the pay in the pay band' and 'the grade pay thereon' or only one of them. DOPT concluded that clause 'corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired ' DOES NOT apply to clause 'minimum of the pay in the pay band'. It should be obvious to any one as, indeed, so apparently it was to DPPW that language in clause 'minimum of the pay in the pay band' implied that there are more than one minimum in the pay band which, therefore, necessarily have to correspond to different pre-revised pay scales which now stand bunched in one pay band. The ingenious way out DPPW found, as, in fact, it had to in order to make sense of its unique interpretation was to make 4 words disappear - yes, disappear- from clause under reference. Thus 'minimum of the pay in the pay band' fancifully becomes 'minimum of the pay band'. Apat from this there is resultant linguistic incongruity in the clause 'grade pay thereon corresponding to pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' which can be removed only if word 'thereon' does the vanishing trick.Thus the clause would read 'grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired'.
7. Thus original sentence at Para 5 above must read as follows in order to yield the meaning arrived at by the DPPW :

"The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of x x x x pay band and the grade pay x corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired"

xxxxx stand for the 5 words 'murdered' in order to arrive at an interpretation truly murderous of pre 1.1.2006 pensioners' legitimate intresets.

ram mukhija

vnatarajan
17-01-2009, 06:48 AM
Dear Shri Bala/ all,

I think we shd make a case for FAST TRACK disposal- because of the age of the Prnsioners-
I think since the OM is issued by the Min P/PG/P and that is where our reps are also pending- again as the culprit for causing the diaparity etc was also the same MoP/PG/P- we may pray that this be handled by the Fast Track Anomaly Committee for a dispassionate view and consideration in the matter.
If we are clear I think we cam make a separate general letter.
Regards

vnatarajan

dnaga57
17-01-2009, 06:56 AM
Well said Sir.
You have spelt the root of the disparity in interpreting the PC recommendation. This should form the cornerstone of Appeals- Litigation.
I would like to consider adding the 'inequity' of 'Full pension after 20 years of service' being applied to prospective retirees only from 2-9-08. In 'parity' , the applicability should be to ALL pensioners, the effective date from which 'applicable' be the date of notification.
These two steps would make Pensioners as one head & Employees as another , instead of 3 classes of Pensioners.
Incidentally, any news/update on the GoI's curative petition on Punjab High court decision appeal turned down by SC? I find quoting of Nakara judgement only & not the other in the posts.
As I had said earlier, I along with a number of my friends would support any common action planned.

G.Ramdas
17-01-2009, 07:51 AM
As mentioned bY MrVN, we have to see whether pensioners issue can be taken up thro' fast track.We are not quite clear, as to what are the issues referred to the Fast Track committee.As per Press rport of 15/01/08" DoPT sources today said the items already taken up by the Fast Track Committee will not be considered by the anomaly committee". Some one has to find out this from Dop and Min. of Finance

ram mukhija
17-01-2009, 08:07 AM
Hi,

In continuation of my Post 260 i have a few more points which follow from the earlier ones.

1. If my present goal is to get 27350 as my revised pension i am not challenging the merit/legality/constitutionality of the Recommendation of the 6th CPC. Therefore, reference to Supreme Court's decisions or my right under Article 14 is NOT relevant; it only confuses the issue. That must be saved for a future fight obviously in a different Forum viz. that of higher courts of the land. That will be a fight for my right to parity and will get me a pension of 29350.

2. If i restrict my present fight within the four corners of the Recommendation, in question, of the 6th CPC and its full acceptance by the Govt. i shall have the advantage of being focussed. And if my such representation is rejected or deemed to be rejected, if there is no response within a reasonable time, i could approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. That i believe will not be too expensive or inordinately time consuming. Any of the Pensioners Association (s) could consider such an approach.

ram mukhija

RPGoswami
17-01-2009, 10:52 AM
I agree with Shri Mukhija's argument that we should be focused in our approach. Concentrating on getting the DOPT's offending OM 'modifying 'the 6th CPC's award on pension cancelled should be our present aim
.As regards parity (calculating pension after notionally re-fixing pay in new band/scale) I would suggest patience There is the Supreme Court decision in favour of full parity. This will become applicable if the government does not go in appeal within the stipulated period or its appeal is rejected. In either case that will be a decisive judgment
Lets not waste energy by knocking at too many doors

vnatarajan
17-01-2009, 12:03 PM
Dear All

Sometimes, we have to refresh our own "memories" again and again.

I think till now all the issues have been fully debated and the options at hand have been precisely defined.

COURT IS THE LAST RESORT!

COURT MEANS FOR US IT IS CAT (to start ), BUT FOR GOVT. IT IS SUPREME COURT! IN THEIR DICTIONARY, CAT IS ONLY A MOUSE NOT EVEN RAT!

EVERY PENSIONER's CASE OF COMMON NATURE (as we are trying to focus) TAKES 5 to 10 years AND NOTHING FRUCTIFIES BEFORE THAT!

CATs' DECISION's ARE POOH POOHED and THE GOVT. TAKES UP ITS OWN LAPSES AS "CORNER STONES" FOR REVIEW/REVISION/APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT ( even after 3 to 4 years lapse)-AS IN THE CASE OF R C GARG (pl read my earlier postings)/ISRO-DRDL- Cases

AT THE MOMENT ALL ARE RECONCILED TO ASKING FOR ONLY MODIFIED PARITY AT THE MINIMUM-(NOT BELOW THE MINIMUM AS THEY HAVE MADE OUT NOW)

CAT DECISIONS MAY BE QUICKER -BUT NOT ULTIMATE-ALL HAVE TAKEN NOTE.

REFERENCE OF SUPREME COURT IS A ROUTINE MATTER LIKE OUR QUOTING THE RULES/ GAZETTED ORDERS etc! BECAUSE IF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE READ/HAVE UNDERSTOOD/ HAVE RESPECT TO ANY OF THESE, THE DELIBERATE MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED.

THEY ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE SITUATION AND THE OBSTACLE IS THE OBSTINATE MOF AS MANY THINK.

IF Honble PM -who is also having the Perpetrator (MIN of P/PG/P)- and also the Resistor (MIN of F)- shows grace- things can get resolved in no time with a two line order- ONE upholding the Minimum of the pay etc (extending the benefit uniformly to all pre-2006- i mean even oldest say upto pre-1976) and ANOTHER for 20yrs retirees parity.

We or many of us, have made reps/ grievance regn etc broadly as follows- (those who are systematically following the stages here):

1/2/3.. TO DOP&PW - three times- once immediately after OM of 3rd Oct; again on the interpretation of "MINIMUM" issue; third after the OM of 14th Oct or after recieving the final pension (as fixed by PDBs) and arrears. Reps were sent by emails and also by Regd Post AD/ Speed Post.

4.TO DOP&PW- Grievance has been registered on line and reminders are being made after 30 days.

5.TO NHRC-complaint lodged by email/ and Regd Post AD also.

6.(Some have represented to their erstwhile Dept- say like Rly Board; Some to Hon'ble PM also- in addition to the ones above)

For those who have to act further like me:

1.TO Honble PM- by 21-25 Jan 2009 (email id is not visible!- so only by Regd Post AD- with all reps) - (update: Many have acted/ acting- as on 23.01.2009)

2.TO Ms Sonia Gandhi, Hon. Chairperson, UPA - by 25-29 Jan 2009 (update: I have sent on 23.01.2009; Mr K has acted much earlier; May be all will follow/ some might have acted)

3.TO CJI- next month urging him (with full details/ revious judgments/ adamant nature & indifference of Govt. to Supreme Court/ High Court orders/ Constitutional provisions etc)for taking up the issue as a PIL.

4.After exhausting the Executive/ Judicial (CJI)channels WE SHALL REFER THE MATTER TO PRESIDENT OF INDIA ALSO- may be after a couple of months.

Then we can go to CAT/ COURTS etc.

In any case we have to get some reply from some one to know what is happening!

Therefore let there not be a limit to reps./ appeals/ on line complaints/ on line grievances etc.- the tempo of which must be aggressive and unlimited.

Regards to all

vnatarajan

dnaga57
18-01-2009, 07:22 AM
I just got this from a friend- a former CAT member.
F Y I


Dear Naga,
The effect of this committee will be that any case filed before CAT will in all likely hood be sent to the anomaly committee for their decision before CAT considers the issue. All available avenues have to be exhausted before going to CAT; that is in the CAT act.
SAS

Kanaujiaml
18-01-2009, 07:45 AM
dear all

sometimes, we have to refresh our own "memories" again and again.

i think till now all the issues have been fully debated and the options at hand have been precisely defined.

court is the last resort!

Court means for us it is cat (to start ), but for govt. It is supreme court! In their dictionary, cat is only a mouse not even rat!

Every pensioner's case of common nature (as we are trying to focus) takes 5 to 10 years and nothing fructifies before that!

Cats' decision's are pooh poohed and the govt. Takes up its own lapses as "corner stones" for review/revision/appeal to the high court ( even after 3 to 4 years lapse)-as in the case of r c garg (pl read my earlier postings)/isro-drdl- cases

at the moment all are reconciled to asking for only modified parity at the minimum-(not below the minimum as they have made out now)

cat decisions may be quicker -but not ultimate-all have taken note.

Reference of supreme court is a routine matter like our quoting the rules/ gazetted orders etc! Because if the authorities have read/have understood/ have respect to any of these, the deliberate modifications would not have been perpetrated.

They are fully aware of the situation and the obstacle is the obstinate mof as many think.

if honble pm -who is also having the perpetrator (min of p/pg/p)- and also the resistor (min of f)- shows grace- things can get resolved in no time with a two line order- one upholding the minimum of the pay etc (extending the benefit uniformly to all pre-2006- i mean even oldest say upto pre-1976) and another for 20yrs retirees parity.

we or many of us, have made reps/ grievance regn etc broadly as follows- (those who are systematically following the stages here):

1/2/3.. To dop&pw - three times- once immediately after om of 3rd oct; again on the interpretation of "minimum" issue; third after the om of 14th oct or after recieving the final pension (as fixed by pdbs) and arrears. Reps were sent by emails and also by regd post ad/ speed post.

4.to dop&pw- grievance has been registered on line and reminders are being made after 30 days.

5.to nhrc-complaint lodged by email/ and regd post ad also.

6.(some have represented to their erstwhile dept- say like rly board; some to hon'ble pm also- in addition to the ones above)

for those who have to act further like me:

1.to honble pm- by 21-25 jan 2009 (email id is not visible!- so only by regd post ad- with all reps)

2.to cji- next month urging him (with full details/ revious judgments/ adamant nature & indifference of govt. To supreme court/ high court orders/ constitutional provisions etc)for taking up the issue as a pil.

3.after exhausting the executive/ judicial (cji)channels we shall refer the matter to president of india also- may be after a couple of months.

then we can go to cat/ courts etc.

in any case we have to get some reply from some one to know what is happening!

Therefore let there not be a limit to reps./ appeals/ on line complaints/ on line grievances etc.- the tempo of which must be aggressive and unlimited.

Regards to all

vnatarajan

you have not considered pil to hon. Supreme court, if and when legal action is decided upon.

vnatarajan
18-01-2009, 08:33 AM
Dear All/ Dear Mr Mr K.

Sure. We must try. PIL is the best option. Can it happen somehow?

Elsewhere I think I have mentioned PIL in an oblique manner- that is our APPEAL to CJI itself will be our humble request to him to consider the issue as a PIL case! If he doesn't, then of course the court routes with whatever may be the choices left with!

Dear All

In my postings under the other thread on "Justice for restoration............" at sl nos 46, 48, 49 & %), I have made my draft for appeal to Honble PM. The initial note sets the background. The draft is in addition to those provided by MrK/ Mr PKR- wh I have used for my own draft/ inclusion of info etc and my thanks to them.

LET US ALL PUSH FAST OUR APPEALS TO HON'BLE PM before he gets busy with Budget Session (Feb 12 th I think- onwards) and then Elections????

Best of everything,

vnatarajan

(next draft will be the legalistic one fto be sent to Honble CJI- and I request S/Shri S Bala/ K/ PKR/ SCM and all to give the ideas/ notes etc.
(THEME: Gross Injustice perpetuated without respect to CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS/ Ignoring Court Verdicts on Pensioners' parity and indifference to Successive CPCs' endeavours to progress on on the same/ Denial of HUMAN DIGHTS i.e.violating the cardinal principles of EQUALITY/DIGNITY/JUSTICE; / Overstepping Authority-wh have also been critically viewed by Supreme/ other Courts earlier/ & finally OUR APPEAL TO CONSIDER OUR PLEA TO BE TAKEN UP AS A PIL- as a large section of suffering senior Pensioners/ Family Pensioners/ would be Family Pensioners are affected- who can not go to courts because of RESOURCES being not available to them/ inordinate DELAYS cayused by the Govt. DRAGGING infructuously pension cases up to Supreme Court.....)

Regards

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
18-01-2009, 11:47 PM
One more avenue strikes me, strange one might think, but I do not know how well it would be received.
As everyone is aware, whenever Government is in a fix or in a dilemma about what and how to decide, an approach is made to 10 Janpath, New Delhi, the Chairperson of the Congress Party, and immediately things start moving quickly and generally in favour of the people.
I believe a representation can be sent to Mrs Sonia Gandhi appealing to her to intervene, since one does not know the fate of the various repesentations already sent to the Department of Pension. A similar one may also be sent to Mr Abhishek Singhvi, spokesperson of the Congress Party, and an advocate who had successfully argued the case of pensioners in the Supreme Court on an earlier occasion, to place the same before the Chairperson and pleading for her intervention to render justice to pensioners. If that results in an appointment with PM, well and good. Otherwise, the status quo ante continues.
As things stand today, considering the various views expressed freely about the avenues which individual pensioners would like to explore, I believe the stage is geting set for a long drawn out struggle, postponing decisions at least for one year, citing the constitution of the anomalies committee. although one does not clearly know from the order of its constitution whether it is at all concerned with pensioners.
Let us wait and watch the reaction of individual pensioners who are all free to knock at whichver door they like.
S.Balasubramanian.

RPGoswami
19-01-2009, 09:22 AM
Wonder if the same injustice is being faced by the Armed Forces.
I saw that in case of Armed Forces Pension will not stop for a widow automatically if she remarries. Has that provision been extended to the civilians also?

vnatarajan
19-01-2009, 01:14 PM
Dear All

Mr SC Maheshwari had given the PMO’s email id as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends,
Email address of PMO = [email protected]
Fax office 23012312,23016857,23018939,23014255
Minister for Rlys= [email protected]
FAx23387333, 23382637, 23017986 (Resi)
regards
maheshwari
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Maheshwari./ All to note.

MANY THANKS.
I HAVE TESTED. I HAVE SENT MY REP TO PM AT 13.05 HRS TODAY 19TH JAN.2009. EMAIL ID IS PERFECT. NOT BOUNCED SO FAR!
TOTAL PAGES SENT TEN. NO LIMIT. Also, HARD COPY with Enclosures sent by Regd Post AD.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
19-01-2009, 03:21 PM
Dear All

Mr SC Maheshwari had given the PMO’s email id as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends,
Email address of PMO = [email protected]
Fax office 23012312,23016857,23018939,23014255
Minister for Rlys= [email protected]
FAx23387333, 23382637, 23017986 (Resi)
regards
maheshwari
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Maheshwari./ All to note.

MANY THANKS.
I HAVE TESTED. I HAVE SENT MY REP TO PM AT 13.05 HRS TODAY 19TH JAN.2009. EMAIL ID IS PERFECT. NOT BOUNCED SO FAR!
TOTAL PAGES SENT TEN. NO LIMIT. Also, HARD COPY with Enclosures sent by Regd Post AD.

vnatarajan

Thanks Shri VNatarajan,

I have sent now to PMs office by mail.

R S Subba Rao

Kanaujiaml
19-01-2009, 03:53 PM
My dear Pensioner friends. I have sent an appeal to Madam Sonia Gandhi by Registered Post today. I have aslo sent it via e. mail as endorsred below :

An Appeal.
Monday, 19 January, 2009 9:49 AM
From: "M. L. Kanaujia" <[email protected]>View contact details
To: [email protected] Cc: [email][email protected]
Message contains attachments VI MLKtoSoniaGandhi.doc (46KB)
Respected Madam Sonia Gandhi. I am an old pensioner and I am enclosing herewith a file containing my appeal to you. I have every hope you would be kind enough to help us old pensioners. With kind regards.
M. L. Kanaujia.

vnatarajan
19-01-2009, 05:15 PM
Dear All

WHETHER WE ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVE OF GETTING THE PROPER PENSION AT THE END OF THIS BATTLE OR NOT, MANY OF US WOULD HAVE LEARNT A LOT ABOUT MANY THINGS WHICH WE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR GRANTED BECAUSE OF OUR OWN OVERWHELMING WISDOM COMPLEX.

NOWADAYS- THANKS TO "SATYAM' RAJU- FUDGING HAS BECOME A COMMON SYSTEM OF PRACTICE-FUDGE IS SWEET ON ONE SIDE - BUT WHEN RAJU PERFECTED IT- PEOPLE CALL IT A DISHONEST PRACTICE.

IN OUR '"GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEMS" ALSO, FUDGING IS DONE VERY NICELY!

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AFTER STRUGGLING FOR SOMETIME, YOU REGISTER YOUR GRIEVANCE ON-LINE, YOU GET A COLOURFUL SWEET REGISTRATION NO. - VERY IMPRESSIVE! I ALSO GOT MINE FROM DOP&PW!

AFTER ONE MONTH, WHEN I WENT ON TO REMIND, I GOT A VERY QUICK MESSAGE IN RETURN:

"REMINDER/CLARIFICATION FORM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Case having Registration No. MIN1/W/2008/00005 is not Yet assessed. So reminder can not be entered.
------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR NOW.

Moral: So long as the case is not assessed , you can not remind!
If you venture to Register again, then 'love all' will start i.e. again from the beginning!
Consequently you do not know when the case will be assessed.
So everyday, after morning coffee and after evening tea, go on clicking all "Grievance Portals"to monitor your grievance.
Grievance on grievance will end up with same grievance!!!!!

Transparency in Governance is stripping the pensioners naked!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
19-01-2009, 06:38 PM
Wonder if the same injustice is being faced by the Armed Forces.
I saw that in case of Armed Forces Pension will not stop for a widow automatically if she remarries. Has that provision been extended to the civilians also?

Yes, so far , pensioners of Armed forces have got nothing. The Min. of Defence has issued letters available on its web site www.mod.nic.in
New directives talked about by PMO and others, have not found yet any shape in the form of OM there.

G.Ramdas
20-01-2009, 10:12 AM
My dear Pensioner friends. I have sent an appeal to Madam Sonia Gandhi by Registered Post today. I have aslo sent it via e. mail as endorsred below :

An Appeal.
Monday, 19 January, 2009 9:49 AM
From: "M. L. Kanaujia" <[email protected]>View contact details
To: [email protected] Cc: [email][email protected]
Message contains attachments VI MLKtoSoniaGandhi.doc (46KB)
Respected Madam Sonia Gandhi. I am an old pensioner and I am enclosing herewith a file containing my appeal to you. I have every hope you would be kind enough to help us old pensioners. With kind regards.
M. L. Kanaujia.

I have sent an appeal to Ms Sonia Gandhi which reads as under:

Respected Madam,
Sub: An Appeal from a Central Govt.-senior citizen- Pensioner

The VI CPC has recommended parity for pensioners vide para 5.1.47 stating therein that ‘revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50 % of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired’..
The above recommendations have been accepted by Govt. vide S. No. 12 of Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) published in Gazette of India dated 29 08 08 .


That, Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) vide OMs No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08 and 14 10 08, in complete contravention of Govt. accepted recommendations as detailed above, has issued amendment (para 4.2) modifying “minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale” to “minimum of pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay”..
That the above modification is a total distortion of the GOI decision, as this neither conveys the meaning of the original notification nor explains the reasons for the change. This modification appears to be a deliberate distortion totally against the letter and spirit of the VICPC recommendation and its acceptance by the Govt. The net result is that Pensioners like me are deprived of the pension approved by the Govt. and get only much less pension as modified by DP&PW.

Our representations to the Secretary DP&PW remain unanswered. I have filed an appeal to the P.M.
My appeal to you, madam, is to kindly get it examined how a GOI decision can be altered by a lower authority to modify the terms “minimum of the pay in the pay band” to “minimum of pay band” and “corresponding to” to “irrespective of”.
If you feel that such distortions are justifiable kindly ignore this appeal, else have the same reviewed by the competent authorities.
I may be excused for writing to you, but we, old pensioners, are driven to the wall by such modifications of GOI decisions and are left with no other alternative.

Kanaujiaml
20-01-2009, 05:30 PM
My dear Bala. In reference to your post 270, I would like to say that I have already sent my appeal to Madam Sonia Gandhi, which I am reproducing here under :

M L Kanaujia,
473, Indira Nagar Colony, P.O. New Forest,
Dehra Dun ( Uttrakhand ) – 248006.
No. Mlk/2008/5 Date 19 01 09

To,

Madam Sonia Gandhi,
Honorable Member of Parliament,
Chairperson UPA, President AICC,
10, Janpath,
New Delhi 110011 India
PH: 91-11-23014161, 23014481
E-Mail: [email protected]

New Delhi – 110001.

Respected Madam ,

Sub.:- An appeal for helping restoration of revised pension recommended by VI CPC
Report para 5.1.47 as accepted along with improvements, by the Govt. with the
approval of the Union Cabinet on 14 08 08.


With due respect I beg to state that, I am a Central Govt. Pensioner (PPO No.NE/10118/232555). I retired in 2001 from revised pay scale 18400-22400. After acceptance of VI CPC report my revised pension was fixed at Rs. 27,350 but now it has been reduced to 23,700, casing me a loss in revised pension of Rs 3650 per month. This has happened to all old pensioners who were in pre revised pay scale of S4 to S30. The fact of the case are as under :

That, VI CPC merged more than 24 pre revised pay scales to form four pay bands. This caused consecutive stages in pre revised pay scales getting fixed at same stage in new pay bands, an anomaly called “bunching”. To remove this anomaly, VI CPC allotted one additional increment in new pay band for two “bunchings” and issued Fitment Tables for each pre revised pay scale and its corresponding Pay band, showing therein, each stage of pre revised pay scale and equivalent pay in pay band. Revised pension was to be fixed at not lower than 50 % of minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. This recommendation (para 5.1.47) was approved by Union Cabinet with certain improvements . Accordingly Gazette Notifications were issued under Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 for fixation of pension and Ministry of Finance (IC) F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08 for fitment tables.

That, Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) issued vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW( A )Pt 1 dated 03 10 08 an amendment to pension fixation rule approved by Union Cabinet. According to this amendment, “ pension cannot be lower than 50 % of minimum of the pay band without having any correspondence with pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. “ This has reduced revised pension of all old pensioners. This OM is arbitrary, unprincipled, against norms that a lower authority cannot issue amendment or modification or any change without approval of the higher authority which is in this case Union Cabinet. This also violated Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and is in total contravention of Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court Judgment dated 17 02 82 and subsequent honorable Supreme Court Judgments dated 10 10 06 and 09 09 08 in respect of Pensioners. Pensioners all over India, including me, are suffering on this account and are in a state of shock.

That, appeals to Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) and Prime Ministder’s Office, have not been heard so much so that even a formal acknowledgement against appeal sent by speed post / registered post or electronic mode, has been received. Old pensioners are shocked with this treatment meted out to them by the Officials.

With an earnest hope, that, Madam, at least you would listen to us and do something in the matter that the justice denied to pensioners, as explained above, is restored back at an early date. I shall be grateful to you, along with all other old Govt. Pensioners all over the Country.


With kind regards,


Enclosure : Annexure with
relevant extracts.


Yours faithfully,


( M. L. Kanaujia )

vnatarajan
21-01-2009, 08:06 AM
Dear MR K/ Shri Bala/ All

I feel with the Budget session round the corner and also the imminent election process etc that has to follow, I think 'politicising' our grievance issue also must have some priority-

Our Govt. appears to have lost their initiative in keeping up the goodwill of the implementation of 6CPC in a proper manner.

IF THEY n( present Govt./ thru their Execurtive & Leaders) DO NOT SEE REASON AND MERIT IN THE PENSIONERS' GRIEVANCE SOON-WE MAY ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE SAME INITIALLY IN THE PORTAL OF OUR ASPIRING FUTURE PM-SHRI L K ADVANI.

I have registered in his portal and soon I shall be posting couple of TOPICS in his FORUM- wh has a better readership and attraction than the dwindling portals of current powers wh do not even respond to our clicks and hammers!

HE IS BUILDING UP AN AGENDA ON GOOD GOVERNANCE- I AM STARTING MY TOPIC under the caption "ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE".

Here is the link and TRY;
http://www.lkadvani.in/eng/

Regards
vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
21-01-2009, 09:59 AM
I have seen Advaniji's website and it will be a good forum for us to project our views. hoping to see the first post from VN
Ramdas

S.Balasubramanian
21-01-2009, 04:03 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan, Mr Kanaujia and other friends,
From the email id of PMO beginning with pmosb, I feel--I do not know how far I am jujstified in doing so--that is perhaps the email id of Mr Sanjay Barua(?) spokesperson of PMO. We do not know the delegated authority extended to him. But I have the apprehension that he may put up all the representations before PM with the remark: "Representations from pensioners; anomalies in implemenation of 6th cpc recommendations; may be forwarded to Department of Pensions/Anomalies Committee in Finance Ministry", and the chances are that PM may not even spend time in reading them which we we wanted him to do. We shall all then be informationless as to the disposal, and possibly we may be back in square 1. I do not know what else we could do from our end in that event.
It is a good idea to cultivate Mr Advani. Incidentally, I saw from the Lok Sabha bulletin that Mr Ananth Kumar of BJP has been nominated in place of Mr Vijay Kumar Malhotra as Member of the Parliamentary Pay Committee. I understand that the Committee is at the end of its tethers. So it may not be useful to brief Mr Anath Kumar.
There are two ways in which we can make use of their help for raising the matter in the Lok Sabha session which is going to be a lameduck session only for debating President's Address and passing vote on account.
(1) Starred questions can be given notice of by Members;
(2) Special mention can be made in Lok Sabha under rule 377;
(3) After the question is answered, if admitted as starred question, 2supplemetary questions can be asked by the first Member who has put the question, and one each by other Members whose names may have been clubbed along with the first Member, and thereafter one supplementary question each by other Members, subject to Speaker's discretion in regard to the time which may be allowed for that question;
If the question is admitted as unstarred, the answer will merely be laid on the Table of the House.
One should be prepared to see a typical bureaucratic reply: "A large number of representations have been received in this regard and they have been referred to the Anomalies Committee which is now seized of this matter".
We can do the spadework to supply briefs to Members for raising these mattes in the House.
That would mean that we shall still be inside the dark tunnel without even a ray of light.
Sometimes I begin to feel that having done our part, we should turn to Aditya Hridayam/Hanuman Chalisa to come to our help and give us success.
I shall try to frame suitable questions and also draft statement for special mention. But in the queue for so many such questions/special mentions,
everything will have to await its turn which may or may not actually materialize in view of the limited time available.
So, we are fighting against imponderable odds which sometimes leave us little hope. Nevertheless, we have to play our part leaving it to God to do the rest.
S.Balasubramanian.

Kanaujiaml
21-01-2009, 07:37 PM
I have sent an appeal to Ms Sonia Gandhi which reads as under:

Respected Madam,
Sub: An Appeal from a Central Govt.-senior citizen- Pensioner

The VI CPC has recommended parity for pensioners vide para 5.1.47 stating therein that ‘revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50 % of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired’..
The above recommendations have been accepted by Govt. vide S. No. 12 of Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) published in Gazette of India dated 29 08 08 .


That, Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) vide OMs No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08 and 14 10 08, in complete contravention of Govt. accepted recommendations as detailed above, has issued amendment (para 4.2) modifying “minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale” to “minimum of pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay”..
That the above modification is a total distortion of the GOI decision, as this neither conveys the meaning of the original notification nor explains the reasons for the change. This modification appears to be a deliberate distortion totally against the letter and spirit of the VICPC recommendation and its acceptance by the Govt. The net result is that Pensioners like me are deprived of the pension approved by the Govt. and get only much less pension as modified by DP&PW.

Our representations to the Secretary DP&PW remain unanswered. I have filed an appeal to the P.M.
My appeal to you, madam, is to kindly get it examined how a GOI decision can be altered by a lower authority to modify the terms “minimum of the pay in the pay band” to “minimum of pay band” and “corresponding to” to “irrespective of”.
If you feel that such distortions are justifiable kindly ignore this appeal, else have the same reviewed by the competent authorities.
I may be excused for writing to you, but we, old pensioners, are driven to the wall by such modifications of GOI decisions and are left with no other alternative.

My dear G Ramdass. It is an excellent appeal. I am surprised why others have not noted it . In fact we should flood Madam Gandhi and PM with such appeals.

Kanaujiaml
21-01-2009, 07:43 PM
Dear MR K/ Shri Bala/ All

I feel with the Budget session round the corner and also the imminent election process etc that has to follow, I think 'politicising' our grievance issue also must have some priority-

Our Govt. appears to have lost their initiative in keeping up the goodwill of the implementation of 6CPC in a proper manner.

IF THEY n( present Govt./ thru their Execurtive & Leaders) DO NOT SEE REASON AND MERIT IN THE PENSIONERS' GRIEVANCE SOON-WE MAY ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE SAME INITIALLY IN THE PORTAL OF OUR ASPIRING FUTURE PM-SHRI L K ADVANI.

I have registered in his portal and soon I shall be posting couple of TOPICS in his FORUM- wh has a better readership and attraction than the dwindling portals of current powers wh do not even respond to our clicks and hammers!

HE IS BUILDING UP AN AGENDA ON GOOD GOVERNANCE- I AM STARTING MY TOPIC under the caption "ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE".

Here is the link and TRY;
http://www.lkadvani.in/eng/

Regards
vnatarajan

My dear VN. Are you sure involving opposition at this stage is advisable ? This would start sort of war between ruling party and opposition and the net result, as usual, would be nothing for pensioners. Instead, we should find some willing MP for asking a question in lok sabha, about our cause.

Kanaujiaml
21-01-2009, 08:03 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan, Mr Kanaujia and other friends,
From the email id of PMO beginning with pmosb, I feel--I do not know how far I am jujstified in doing so--that is perhaps the email id of Mr Sanjay Barua(?) spokesperson of PMO. We do not know the delegated authority extended to him. But I have the apprehension that he may put up all the representations before PM with the remark: "Representations from pensioners; anomalies in implemenation of 6th cpc recommendations; may be forwarded to Department of Pensions/Anomalies Committee in Finance Ministry", and the chances are that PM may not even spend time in reading them which we we wanted him to do. We shall all then be informationless as to the disposal, and possibly we may be back in square 1. I do not know what else we could do from our end in that event.
It is a good idea to cultivate Mr Advani. Incidentally, I saw from the Lok Sabha bulletin that Mr Ananth Kumar of BJP has been nominated in place of Mr Vijay Kumar Malhotra as Member of the Parliamentary Pay Committee. I understand that the Committee is at the end of its tethers. So it may not be useful to brief Mr Anath Kumar.
There are two ways in which we can make use of their help for raising the matter in the Lok Sabha session which is going to be a lameduck session only for debating President's Address and passing vote on account.
(1) Starred questions can be given notice of by Members;
(2) Special mention can be made in Lok Sabha under rule 377;
(3) After the question is answered, if admitted as starred question, 2supplemetary questions can be asked by the first Member who has put the question, and one each by other Members whose names may have been clubbed along with the first Member, and thereafter one supplementary question each by other Members, subject to Speaker's discretion in regard to the time which may be allowed for that question;
If the question is admitted as unstarred, the answer will merely be laid on the Table of the House.
One should be prepared to see a typical bureaucratic reply: "A large number of representations have been received in this regard and they have been referred to the Anomalies Committee which is now seized of this matter".
We can do the spadework to supply briefs to Members for raising these mattes in the House.
That would mean that we shall still be inside the dark tunnel without even a ray of light.
Sometimes I begin to feel that having done our part, we should turn to Aditya Hridayam/Hanuman Chalisa to come to our help and give us success.
I shall try to frame suitable questions and also draft statement for special mention. But in the queue for so many such questions/special mentions,
everything will have to await its turn which may or may not actually materialize in view of the limited time available.
So, we are fighting against imponderable odds which sometimes leave us little hope. Nevertheless, we have to play our part leaving it to God to do the rest.
S.Balasubramanian.

My dear Bala. Please donot be disheartned and disappointed so soon. The battle has just started. Odds are against us at the moment because of very little time that is remaining for next elections. However, there is silver lining in it also. The ruling party needs votes. Therefore, at this juncture, they cannot ignore dissatisfaction amongsts the pensioners. The need of the hour is that we should flood the DOP , PM and Madam Sonia Gandhi and other Memebrs of Parliament and even any Central Ministers, with appeals. Not only electronically but by registered post as well. Let us send reminders after reminders. Every MP has got e. mail address <name>@sansad.nic.in
Make use of it. All VIPs depute some body to see e. mails received. Perhaps they would take note of it , too. As regards Anomally Committee, it's terms of refrence do not include pensioners at all. Then, what do you expect from it ?
Even when elections are notified and code of conduct is in place, DOP can withdraw 'modification' of 3rd Oct.08 without much of a problem, if FM/PM gives right signal.

vnatarajan
22-01-2009, 07:21 PM
Dear Mr K / All

I appreciate your suggestion- and so I have kept the LKA portal away from my temptation to flood it!

In the meanwhile, I have made my detaile presentation to Madam Soniaji- relevant to her Status as the Chairperson of UPA- and adding the theme on the principles and ethics of Good Governance- a part of Administrative Reforms- an item of CMP -which have been sacrificed in our pension OM case!

MY DRAFT IS PLACED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL WITH THE USUAL REQUEST TO UTILISE THE CONTENTS AS THEY WISH FOR THEIR OWN REPS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub: Pre-2006 Pensioners’ Grievance- Erosion of legitimate pension amounts –Sixth Central Pay Commission (SCPC) Recommendations & Govt’s Implementation OMs-Negating Principles & Ethics of Good Governance.

Dear Madam Sonia Gandhi,

I submit this appeal on my own behalf as a Central Govt. Pensioner, on behalf of several aged help-less/ support-less Pensioners and Family Pensioners and as the President of Pensioners’ Forum (affiliated to the AIFPA), Chennai.

At the outset we all express our gratitude to you for guiding the UPA Govt. as its Chairperson in making significant progress systematically in its execution of the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) Agenda. Though the Sixth Central Pay Commission (SCPC) was not part of any major item of agenda, it goes to the credit of you , Hon’ble PM –Shri Manmohan Singh and the Govt. for its efficient deliberations and reporting in time and the subsequent implementations for the Central Govt./ other Employees as well as Central Govt.Pensioners/ Family Pensioners.

This action had built an enormous amount of trust, credibility, sense of security and goodwill on the UPA and its CMP oriented Governance among all sections of senior citizens cum Central Govt. Pensioners/Family Pensioners and their dependents all over the country,

At the same time, though all the pensioners got their pension enhancements in terms of the usual and accepted formula of compensations/ calculations, most of them have lost a part of their legitimate entitlements/ dues due to a subsequent misconstrued, discriminatory and overriding order of the Govt. The grievance is explained hereunder:

GRIEVANCE AS PERCIEVED BY PENSIONERS::

1 The SCPC had recommended a (modified) parity for pensioners that their revised pension can not be lower than 50 % of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay thereon corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired . It had merged 30 pre-revised pay scales (leaving the top four S31 to S34) into 4 pay bands which resulted in bunching of increments in individual pay-scales as well as merging of number of pay-scales into pay bands. and therefore, for two bunched old increments, only one new increment was envisaged and Fitment Tables were issued for each pre-revised pay-scale and again each with an identified starting “minimum pay”: in the “pay-band”.

2 SCPC recommendations have been accepted by Govt. vide S N 12 of Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08. Accordingly, Revised Fitment Tables giving “minimum of the pay in pay band” for each pre-revised pay scale, were issued annexed to Finance Ministry’s F.No.1/1/2008-IC-dated-30.08.08.

3 But soon, within an interval of few days, the Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, in complete contravention of Govt. accepted/Cabinet approved/ Gazette notified recommendations as explained above, has issued amendment (para 4.2) modifying “minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised pay scale as per fitment table” to “minimum of pay band” without having any correspondence with pre-revised pay scale. Thus, Fitment Tables annexed to Ministry of Finance F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 for fixation of pension are not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners but the same are applicable to post-2006 pensioners and post-2008 pensioners only. For e.g., I am a pre-2006 pensioner and this arbitrary amendment to accepted and notified recommendations of VI CPC has reduced my pension by an amount equal to Rs. 3650.00 plus the DR thereon, per month. Most of the pre-2006 pensioners lose amounts varying from Rs 200 to Rs 7000 pm, depending on their pre-revised scale of pay. The loss gets compounded due to six-monthly part DR losses, and ultimately affect the pension eligibility at the time of next revision. Would be Family Pensioners would lose a great deal..


IMPLICATIONS OF THIS GRIEVANCE:


1 Division of pensioners into groups with cut off dates, for pension benefits, i. e. pre-2006 , post-2006 (and post 2008), is arbitrary and unprincipled and is in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as held by Constitutional Bench of honorary Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 17 02 1982 (Nakara vs Union of India). Several similar Apex Court/ High Court judgments can also be cited.

2.Reduction in entitlement of pension to the pensioners reduces their right to freedom of life as they are entitled to such a property and hence violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Reduction in pay can be iimposed as a punishment on a serving employee but effective reduction in pension by distortion of otherwise correct orders to an innocent pensioner is unjust/ unfair/ unethical. In the case of pensioners of pre-revised scales S29 and S30, the modifications have resulted in relegating their Basic Pension to that of a much junior level pensioner! (demotion of a pensioner –punishment while out-of-service!).




ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE:

As you are kindly aware, under the CMP agenda, the UPA Govt. had included the important item of “Administrative Reforms”. Accordingly, the Administrative Reforms Commission set up under the Chairmanship of Shri V Moily, have already submitted their report, with recommendations for revamping public administration, promotion of E Governance, Right to Information through the Act etc. It was believed the UPA Govt will take leadership to cut delays in High Courts and lower levels of Judiciary. All these are aimed at providing “GOOD GOVERNANCE” to the people, a BUZZ WORD or a MAGIC SLOGAN which has attracted the attention of all sections of the society- particularly the senior citizens and more so the Pensioners

Good Governance is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. The art of good governance simply lies in making things right and putting them in their right place. It signifies the way an administration ameliorates the standard of living of the members of its society by creating, and making available, the basic amenities of life; providing its people security and hope for the future. It also promises lesser regulatory processes and a better “Rule of Law” viz. ability of business and people to challenge government action in courts etc. The attribute of “Rule of Law” inherits as prerequisites “fair legal frameworks” that are enforced impartially and particularly “full protection of human rights”, especially of the vulnerable sections of the society.

AGED, HELP-LESS (Often sickly, some disabled) PENSIONERS’ DILEMMA AND FRUSTRATION.

I and many co-pensioners feel that the precipitate and disastrous action of reduction in the entitlement of pension or denying the pension, so assertively assured first, through a quick subsequent modificatory OMs of DOP&PW (which apparently do not have the Cabinet approval/ Presidential sanction/ Gazette status as there are no further Gazette Corrigendum to the original OM) have resulted in denying us (old/ aged/ resource-less) the HUMAN RIGHTS of EQUALITY, DIGNITY and JUSTICE.

All the principles of Good Governance appear to have been sacrificed in this case. It is not consensus based as the order is arbitrary and abrupt, not transparent as it is not authenticated by Gazette Corrigendum, and not equitable as it creates two classes of pensioners viz pre-2006 and post-2006 which was not the spirit of parity principle so firmly upheld (at least in a somewhat modified way) by the Chairman (Hon Justice Srikrishna) and members of 6CPC in their recommendations.

Also the concept of “Rule of Law” appears to have been totally ignored in this act of total discrimination and infliction of indignity/ perennial loss to pensioners who are in the evening of their life and have no means, time (balance of life; such pension cases take 5 to 10yrs in courts) , resources, and affordable legal support etc. Supreme Court/ High Courts Judgments on directing the Govts. to provide equal pension to equals in Rank/ Post/Scale etc irrespective of date of retirement (Nakara Case; 1982 and others) are not being adhered to. Constitutional protections under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Freedom- including property, life etc) are being paid scant respect.

Faith in E-Governance is dwindling because – either the portals are non-functional or not-up-to-date or when functional, the time-frame promised for redressing the grievance is not adhered to – nor the portal entertains the “reminder”!! Even Right to Information letters are not effective!

For the past three months many of us have sent repeated appeals/ representations/ reminders to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Deptt. Of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare) but till date no replies have been received. Not even proper acknowledgements!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTD in the next post ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-01-2009, 07:23 PM
CONTD from the previous post:
----OUR PLEA FOR REDRESSAL THROUGH YOUR INTERVENTION & LEADERSHIP:

Dear Madam- Having been driven to the extreme limit of frustration and disgust, I and fellow pensioners have approached your kind self to use your good office to resolve the crisis that has been imposed on us. In this process we would like to remind you that many may believe the country’s backbone of good governance through efficient administration and effective management is carried out by those in power, they are ignorant of the glaring omissions and commissions these make which nullifies all the ethical features and goodwill that could have otherwise been built up by the impartial humane Govt. appointed Commissions (6CPC here) and the Cabinet decisions (OM of 1st Sept 2008 of DOP&PW here) based on various recommendations to benefit various sections of the society (pensioner-senior citizens- a vast section).

Good Governance also comes through the practice of “Selflessness” .Simply put, this means holders of public offices are expected to conduct themselves such that they subserve public interest, as against interest of the self. If all scales of pensioners had got the same benefit based on the principles of equality and justice, there would have been no room for the current ambiguous and conflicting situation. The damaging and discriminatory “modifications” “clarifications” introduced in the OM dated 3 rd Oct 2008 of the Min of Personnel,PG & Pensions (Deptt. of P&PW) have to be made non-operational/ withdrawn so that the injustice perpetuated is redressed. The CSCPC Recommended/ Cabinet approved and accepted/ Gazette notified recommendations are to be implemented in the right manner.



I conclude by quoting the last sentence in the prologue of one of the ARC reports- on “ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE”:

“Rivers do not drink their waters themselves, nor do trees eat their fruit, nor do the clouds eat the grains raised by them. The wealth of the noble is used solely for the benefit of others.”

With warm felicitations,

Truly yours
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pl Note: I have added the two appendices of the NHRC letter to this also as appendices- One on the Gist of Court Judgments and another on the Gist of the OMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards to all

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
23-01-2009, 10:12 AM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
Your representation to Mrs.Sonia Gandhi has been extremely well drafted and I hope that she will read it and take some action. In any case, somebody in her office will read it and the more the representations, she will be obliged to read it and do something to redress the grievance.
I was just thinking whether we could put in a quarter page or half page advertisement in newspapers highlighting pensioners' grievances, just as Government does in the case of any strike etc. Of course, one has to find out the cost for such publication in reputed newspapers. This can be considered, whether it is worthwhile or feasible, and pensioners' associations could join in this endeavour if found feasible because then the media attention and attention by a larger group would impel Ministry to take note of it and consider the matter.
S.Balasubramanian.
S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
23-01-2009, 10:24 AM
Now that Parliament session has been announced, we could think of a starred question to be asked in Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha by one or more MPs, and I am placing below a draft for the same:

Will the hon.Prime Minister/Miniser of Finance be pleased to state:
(a) the total number of representations received from pre-2006 pensioners by the Department of Pensions;
(b) whether they have pointed out that the clarificatory OMs issued on 3rd October, 2008 and 14th October, 2008 have been issued without the sanction of the President and hence are in excess of the powers given to the Ministry;
(c) whether the above OMs seek to reduce pension/family pension from that granted by the gazetted order dated 1st Sepember, 2008 issued with sanction of President, and if so, whether show cause notices have been issued to the affected pensioners as required under CCS(Pension) Rules before effecting sujch reduction?
(d) whether they have also pointed out that since those OMs seek to classify the homogeneous class of pensioners arbitrarily merely on the basis of date of retirement, they violate article 14 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court repeatedly in a number of cases; and
(e) if so, when and how Goverment propose to end the constitutional infirmities and render justice to the pre-2006 pensioners?

S.Balasubramanian.

G.Ramdas
23-01-2009, 11:42 AM
President Obama's second swearing in is a shining example of how much sanctity and respect is attached each word mentioned in public.The only mistake in the first oath was that the word "faithfully" was wrongly transposed. Instead of " I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States" the oath rendered was "I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully", the word faithfully having shifted its position. So much efforts for the damage control.

But here we have great administrators,who convert 'minimum of the pay in the payband' to "minimum of pay band' and "correponding to" to 'irrespective of' without any remorse and refuse to accept their mistakes even when pointed out through various fora!

vnatarajan
23-01-2009, 03:43 PM
Dear Shri Bala

(Thanks for ur comliments!)

Yes. Reg Advt we had been thinking. If we go for a National English Paper like the Hindu- it runs into few lakhs- unless we settle for a small nook in terms of words/ lines wh may not draw attention of one all!

We may have to look to other papers like The DC/ The New Express- if they oblige may be - we may incur less expenses.

YOUR LS QN:

VERY NICELY DRAFTED. (First one - no. disposed? Any deadline?)

WE SHD GO AHEAD_ ANY Honble MP can oblige us?

Dear Shri Ramdas

Nice anecdote!. Only thing our Administrators do the REVERSE!

They UNDO the correct to DO wrong.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
23-01-2009, 03:56 PM
DEAR SHRI BALA/ MR K/MR GR/MR KSS/MR RS/ MR RPG/ MR SUDHACGWB/MR SUNDARAR/MR BADRI/ MR NAGA/ MR VIJAY KAPOOR (not visible)/MR PKR?MR AVM and MR SCM and all who can put their heads together!

I reproduce below the Guidelines of Supreme Court for PIL.

FAMILY PENSIONERS/ well-wishers & guardians & custodians &caretakers of future FAMILY PENSIONERS - with no implications, I mean all of us have to take note and explore what can be done.

These will be the worst affected by the reduction of pension, done worse by compounding effect of DR losses, losing the base for next revision on account of this loss, losing the EQUALITY even before being in the picture- an infliction of injustice much ahead of becoming a party (you can not punish a child when it is still in the womb?)

Human Rights are very much part of PIL. Violation of Constitutional Rights under Article 14 is very much a material for PIL. So also provisions of Articlre 21.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ENTERTAINING LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED
IN THIS COURT AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.

No petition involving individual/ personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as indicated hereinafter.
Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be entertained as Public Interest Litigation:-

(10) Family Pension.

All letter-petitions received in the PIL Cell will first be screened in the Cell and only such petitions as are covered by the above mentioned categories will be placed before a Judge to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for directions after which the case will be listed before the Bench concerned.
If a letter-petition is to be lodged, the orders to that effect should be passed by Registrar (Judicial) (or any Registrar nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India), instead of Additional Registrar, or any junior officer.
To begin with only one Hon'ble Judge may be assigned this work and number increased to two or three later depending on the workload.
*Submission Notes be put up before an Hon'ble Judge nominated for such periods as may be decided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India from time to time.
**If on scrutiny of a letter petition, it is found that the same is not covered under the PIL guidelines and no public interest is involved, then the same may be lodged only after the approval from the Registrar nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
**It may be worthwhile to require an affidavit to be filed in support of the statements contained in the petition whenever it is not too onerous a requirement.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT CAN BE DONE? LET US ALL EXAMINE!

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
23-01-2009, 07:53 PM
Now that Parliament session has been announced, we could think of a starred question to be asked in Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha by one or more MPs, and I am placing below a draft for the same:

Will the hon.Prime Minister/Miniser of Finance be pleased to state:
(a) the total number of representations received from pre-2006 pensioners by the Department of Pensions;
(b) whether they have pointed out that the clarificatory OMs issued on 3rd October, 2008 and 14th October, 2008 have been issued without the sanction of the President and hence are in excess of the powers given to the Ministry;
(c) whether they have also pointed out that since those OMs seek to classify the homogeneous class of pensioners arbitrarily merely on the basis of date of retirement, they violate article 14 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court repeatedly in a number of cases; and
(d) if so, when and how Goverment propose to end the constitutional infirmities and render justice to the pre-2006 pensioners?

S.Balasubramanian.
Thanks for the well made question. I suggest that a para may be inserted between b) and c)as under:
"whether the effect of these OMs would be to reduce the pension/family pension from what has been granted by the presidential order gazetted, and if it is so whether adequate show cause notices have been issued under CCS(pension ) Rules, to the affected pensioners before imposing the punishment of reduction in pension/family pension?"

G.Ramdas

S.Balasubramanian
23-01-2009, 11:33 PM
Dear Mr Ramdas,
The addition suggested by you has been made in the draft question, and the revised question can be seen in modified posting 288. I am reproducing it here for convenience.

Will the hon.Prime Minister/Miniser of Finance be pleased to state:
(a) the total number of representations received from pre-2006 pensioners by the Department of Pensions;
(b) whether they have pointed out that the clarificatory OMs issued on 3rd October, 2008 and 14th October, 2008 have been issued without the sanction of the President and hence are in excess of the powers given to the Ministry;
(c) whether the above OMs seek to reduce pension/family pension from that granted by the gazetted order dated 1st Sepember, 2008 issued with sanction of President, and if so, whether show cause notices have been issued to the affected pensioners as required under CCS(Pension) Rules before effecting sujch reduction?
(d) whether they have also pointed out that since those OMs seek to classify the homogeneous class of pensioners arbitrarily merely on the basis of date of retirement, they violate article 14 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court repeatedly in a number of cases; and
(e) if so, when and how Goverment propose to end the constitutional infirmities and render justice to the pre-2006 pensioners?

S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
24-01-2009, 12:01 AM
Now that Shri Pranab Mukherjee has ben given additional charge of Finance portfolio, (perhaps also assisted by Mr Chidambaram) one might consider the desirability of forwarding a representation to him also.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
24-01-2009, 04:06 PM
Dear Shri Bala/ All

Draft Qn has taken full shape! How to bell the cat?

Relevant to the Qn, I am posting some material on Reduction of Pension-Show Cause Notice etc:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDUCTION IN PART OR FULL OR WITHHOLDING OF PENSION "FOR NEGLIGENCE" UNDER RULE:

Dear All

The Govt can not arbitrarily/ unauthorised/ autucratically reduce or withhold the PENSION -a point put forth by Shri Bala - in his draft question(s) to be raised in Parliament. IT CAN BE DONE ONLY AS PER RULES:

Here is a Ruling of the Supreme Court dtd 05 09 2008.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SC: GOVT CAN HOLD PENSION “FOR NEGLIGENCE”:Indian Express.com 5th Sept 2008.

(A Bench of Chief Justice YK Sabharwal, Justice CK Thakker and Justice PK Balasubramanyan said “pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule”)

After giving its Ruling on the Govt’s power to hold / withdraw in part or full, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the state government against the HC judgment and held that “Rule 10(1) is the authority of law under which the pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule”.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the state government against the HC judgment and held that “Rule 10(1) is the authority of law under which the pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule”.

“We are unable to appreciate how such a rule could be held ultra vires”, CJI Sabharwal, writing the judgment for the Bench, observed. Citing an earlier decision (State of Maharashtra vs MH Mazumdar (1988 2 SCC 52), the Bench pointed out that the “state government’s power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings against a government servant, even after his retirement, is expressly preserved by the rules”.
The Bench also said that “the question of an order withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in law on a legally permissible ground” was of course valid. An employee deprived of his pension by a government order could still challenge it, but the rule empowering the government by an authority of law to suspend, stop, cut or reduce pension of an employee is valid.
After the departmental inquiry, if the employee was found to be involved in a misconduct resulting in loss to the government, the state was “entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension”, the Bench said.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As such this is an aspect which has to be kept in our view always - in our fight for equality. Less than equal means "REDUCTION" and that can not be permitted arbitrarily and only if it is as per Rules/ Law. In the "PAY BAND" MINIMUM case, the reduction is not only to the "MINIMUM" but to levels of "BELOW MINIMUM" (eg S 25 28 29 30 etc).

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
24-01-2009, 05:39 PM
With ref. to Sh. VN's post above, there has to be a reason for reduction of pension sanctioned for which a show cause notice is necessary before implementation. Normally all such cases arise only in cases of grave misconduct or criminal charges. The Govt. does not have the power to arbitrarily stop or redce the pension and this fact is admitted in CCS(Pension) Rules
"Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible

" Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. - Pension are not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good conduct vide Article 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons.
[G.I., M.F., U.O. No. D-2776/E, V/52, dated the 8th May, 1959.]"

In our case it could be argued that no formal order fixing the pension was issued, but the gazetted pension resolution and the subsequent O.M of 01/09of DP&PW are in the nature of conveying the sanction of the President for payment of pension, which cannot be modified by lower authorities or even by the President without giving an opportunity to the pensioner to explain his case.

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
25-01-2009, 09:18 AM
Dear Shri Bala/ Mr Ramdas/ Mr K /MR SCM/ Mr KSS/ Mr PKR etc and All Others

I hope all are acting to send Reps - one after another- at suitable intervals withour relent/ unmindful of the inconveniences. PLEASE CONTINUE.

W .R .T Shri Balas' posting at sl no 294, I have made a 'summarising' draft for appeal to the Honble MOF - and currently officiating PM- Shri Pranab Mukherjee for improvements etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Hon’ble Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee,

With eager expectations and fond hopes, we the senior Central Govt. Pensioners/ Family Pensioners welcome you to the new portals of additional responsibilities of the Nation’s highest and important offices.

You are kindly aware, the Sixth Central Pay Commission (SCPC) had recommended a modified parity for the pensioners according to which their pension fixation will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired.The same was accepted by the Cabinet, sanctioned by the President , notified in the relevant Gazette and OMs were issued with fitment tables/ illustrations.

Within a short interval, a new OM was issued by the Pension authorities that the pensions for pre-2006 pensioners will be fixed at half the sum of the minimum of the pay band (containing several pre-revised pay-scales merged into one) irrespective of the pre-revised pay and the Grade pay. New pensioners (post-2006- save some exceptions) are not affected by this OM.

The said modificatory/ clarificatory OM appeared to have no Cabinet approval/ President’s consent etc and no Corrigendum Gazette notifications have been issued,
Almost all the pensioners/ family pensioners are affected by the said OM and their pension entitlements have been eroded to the extent of about Rs 190 to Rs 7000 pm. And the loss gets compounded due to the effect of six-monthly DR additions. More important is the basis for next pension/ family pension revision will be grossly reduced. This OM also results in creation of two groups of pensioners one pre-2006 and the other post-2006 divided arbitrarily by 01.01.2006 datum for same ranks/ posts/ pay etc in the same CPC implementations which is against Rules/ Court decisions/Constitutional guarantees etc.

Following points are put forth for your kind appreciation:

1.Denial of equality among pensioners of equal rank/ pay/post irrespective of their date of retirements is against the rulings of Supreme Court/ High Courts of the country (famous Nakara Case, 1982, SPS Bains Case 2008 etc).

2,Denial of equality in Pension rights is violation of Article 14 of Constitution as observed by Apex/High courts.

3.Reduction of pension effectively by direct/ indirect methods and by arbitrary orders/OMs are against Pension Rules. Such unilateral actions without show-cause to the pensioners are contemptuous and infliction of continuously recurring and compounding loss,indignity and inequality, is most unfair and unjust. If such orders/ OMs are issued by lesser authorities without proper authorizations/ approvals/ sanctions etc, ultimately leading to reduction in Pensions/ Family Pensions, the matter will be of grave concern and will be a slur on good governance, Rule of Law, bad precedence etc.

(To clarify further, the CCS Pension Rules clearly spell out that:

"" Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. - Pension(s) are not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good conduct vide Article 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons.
[G.I., M.F., U.O. No. D-2776/E, V/52, dated the 8th May, 1959.]"

In this case after notifying the revised pensions for various groups, they were arbitrarily/ abruptly modified by DP&PW, reducing the eligble pension for most of the pre-2006 pensioners, much against the provisions of CCSPension Rules 1972)

4.Reduction in Pensions/ Family Pensions perpetrated in the above manner reduces the pensionary property rights and means of livelihood to the Pensioners/Family Pensioners, thus affecting their Right to Life- Lifestyle/ Freedom/Dignity etc and is violation of Article 21 of Constitution.

5.Reductions/ Denail of Rises/ Delays in respect of payments of Pensions can not be permitted under the excuses of "increased financial burden" "lack of financial resources" etc as such disbursals are as much of a committed expenditure of the Govt. as payment of salaries & wages to serving employees. Courts have negated these excuses and have pointed out that budget provisions have to provide for these expenses necessarily.

6. Both setbacks explained above at 4 and 5 affect the Human Rights of the Pensioners/ Family Pensioners and are totally against the cardinal principles of Human Rights – viz. Equality, Dignity and Justice.

7. Negating and grossly reducing/ denying the entitlements of future Family Pensioners is like killing a child while in the womb of its mother and it is not clear how such a grave injustice can be allowed to be perpetrated.

8.Injustice to Family Pensioners and to would-be-Family Pensioners will eventually lead to Public Litigations sooner or later.

9. Several appeals made though detailed representations/ registrations in Grievance portals to concerned authorities have not been favoured with any replies or even acknowledgements.

10. Frustration/ unrest is causing mental agony/ physical deterioration in health conditions of old Pensioners/ Family Pensioners, permitting which is most inhuman. Many pensioners/ family pensioners (few thousands all over the country) might have died in the last four months without realizing their due and the just/ rightful returns for the services rendered to the Nation and its posterity!

SIR - Left with very limited options and time, I, on my own behalf and also on behalf of several aggrieved, aged, resource-less, support-less, some disabled Pensioners/ Family pensioners submit my/ our grievances and concerns expressed above, for your considered review and immediate remedial action, within the shortest possible time.

A simple and immediate solution to this distressing Pension disparity problem could be to restore notional modified parity as envisaged in 6CPC RECOMMENDATION –PARA-5.1.47, accepted by the Govt. in Pension Resolution gazetted on29th Aug 08 and clarified in para 4.2 of the OM of 1st Sept 2008 pending any other considerations.(Few Examples of how a pensioner is affected by arbitrary reduction of pension, in violation of CCS Pension Rules,because of the modification done by O.Ms of 3 rd & 14 th/10/08 to earlier Gazette notification, is annexed).It would save the ordeal of Pensioners from eventually going for legal redressal for which they have neither the resources nor balance of life!

I, and all Pensioners/ Family Pensioners/ would–be-Family Pensioners, eagerly await your humane and compassionate orders to restore justice.

Yours faithfully

(own behalf/ on behalf of several Pensioners/ Family Pensioners/ would-be-Family Pensioners)

Annexure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPARITIES IN PENSION ENTITLEMENTS ARISING OUT OF MODIFICATIONS/CLARIFICATIONS INTRODUCED IN DOP&PW’s OMs Dtd 3 rd & 14 th OCT 2008

Read Serially:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)5CPC Pay-Scale/ (2) 6 CPC Pay-Band (PB)/ (3) Corresponding 6CPC PBs+Grade Pay(GP)/ (4)Pension= Half the Sum of MIN. of PB and GP for Pre-2006 Pensioners/ (5) Pension= Half the Sum of THE Pay in the PB and GP for Post-2006 Pensioners at MIN of their new Pay Scale/ (6)Difference in Pension between the Pre- and Post -2006 Pensioners st the MINIMUM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Few Examples:

S-4 (2750-4400) PB1 5200-20200 + 1800 3500 3685 185

S-25 (8000-13500) PB2 9300-34800 + 5400 7350 10190 2790

S-29 (18400-22400) PB4 37400-67000 +10000 23700 27350 3650

S-30 (22400-24500) PB4 37400-67000 +12000 24700 31925 7225

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

(Pl note that the disparity is due to the fact that for Employees, start of pay in their revised pay scale is somewhere at a higher point in the pay band, and also they get the full benefit of the addition of Grade Pay) (Another Annexure cd be the Gist of OMs attached with the appeals to NHRC/ PM etc- for ready reference)

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

S.Balasubramanian
25-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
I have seen your draft to Mr Pranab Mukherjee. I would like the last paragraph to spell out the modified notional parity, by pointing out that under para 4.2, the revised pension shall in no case be lower than 50% {(of the revised basic pay corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised pay scale as indicated in Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM dated 30.8.2008 re: revised pay fixation)+ grade pay}. An illustration could also be given either as annexure or as part of the body of the representation.
Re: reduction of pension without show cause notice also, an instance or two could be given.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
25-01-2009, 01:18 PM
Dear Shri Bala
Thanks for the suggestion. Para 4.2 - no problem in adding with example in an annexure. Reg Reduction in Pension- I think we can quote the Rule itself wh Mr Ramdas has cited:

"" Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. - Pension are not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good conduct vide Article 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons.
[G.I., M.F., U.O. No. D-2776/E, V/52, dated the 8th May, 1959.]"

(I think Shri Ramdas can help in drafting the Annexure part if he doesn't mind)

POINTS SUMMARISED BY ME ALSO CAN BE EDITED/ REDRAFTED. ADDITIONAL POINTS IF ANY MAY BE ADDED. Now draft looks it has the reqd contents!

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
26-01-2009, 08:31 AM
My dear Pensioner Friends. A very happy Republic day 26th Jan.09/.

vnatarajan
26-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Dear All

Thanks to Mr K for his Republic Day wishes and my reciprocation.

IN THE MEANWHILE, NECESSARY INCORPORATIONS/ CORRECTIONS/SOME ADDITIONS ARE MADE TO THE DRAFT LR TO SHRI PM- based on suggestions of Shri Bala etc.

I think all can make use of the same as they would like to.

ADDRESS OF SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE Office of MEA, South Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi 110011.

EMAIL ID FOR HIM: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Regards

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
26-01-2009, 10:34 AM
Pension Loss in chart

A chart indicating the loss to the pensioners in pre-revised scales S-24 t0 S-30 which have now merged in PB-4 , has been prepared by me which can be seen and down loaded from the link given below. This will explain the difference between "minimum of Pay band' and "minimum of the pay in the pay band" and consequential loss due to O.M of 3/10. If you have any difficulty in down loading, pl. let me know, i can send u by email.
G.Ramdas
Link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=fa057c68c53b2c552fb2ca15d7ea42d90aa8e2ed 06a21ee1b8eada0a1ae8665a

G.Ramdas
26-01-2009, 01:58 PM
Dear Shri Bala
Thanks for the suggestion. Para 4.2 - no problem in adding with example in an annexure. Reg Reduction in Pension- I think we can quote the Rule itself wh Mr Ramdas has cited:

"" Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. - Pension are not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good conduct vide Article 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons.
[G.I., M.F., U.O. No. D-2776/E, V/52, dated the 8th May, 1959.]"

(I think Shri Ramdas can help in drafting the Annexure part if he doesn't mind)

POINTS SUMMARISED BY ME ALSO CAN BE EDITED/ REDRAFTED. ADDITIONAL POINTS IF ANY MAY BE ADDED. Now draft looks it has the reqd contents!

Regards

vnatarajan

Dear Sh.VN,
I couldn't send you the write-up to be attached, as the table in that format was not getting loaded in the post.Also the doc. whch I sent to you by email , you mentioned ,could not be opened. Meanwhile i find that you have edited the draft at post#297, which has come out nicely.As far as my chart is concerned it can be seen and downloaded from the link given below:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=fa057c68c53b2c552fb2ca15d7ea42d90aa8e2ed 06a21ee1b8eada0a1ae8665a


G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
26-01-2009, 05:09 PM
Dear Mr Ramdas

Actually, because of the stringent filtering in my Yahoo mail, the attachment cdn't be opened. In the meanwhile, I remembered about the table wh Mr K used to often refer to, and I utilised parts of it to complete the draft. Later I opened the same thru hotmail by forwarding the email again to my hotmail id etc. Then your email with thre link also followed, Now no problem. HOW TO DISPLAY THE BAR CHART HERE? It shd be possible!

I HAVE ALREADY EMAILED MY REP TO HON'BLE SHRI PRANABJI. TOMORROW HARD COPY WD GO BY REGD POST AD WITH ONE OR TWO IMPTT.ANNEXURES.

Your chart is indeed wonderful and easlly understandable.

I think it can be prepared for other PBs also and made available to RREWA- MR SCM / Mr K- etc in case they want to make some PPT presentations to Hon/ble PM or some VIPs- or even in the RREWA.

I think one set of PPTs may be thought of for quick presentations in FORUMS- who care for the pensioners.

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
26-01-2009, 05:30 PM
Dear All

HERE IS MY UPDATE OF STATUS OF REPS/GRIEVANCES ONLINE/EMAILS.

(No replies/ responses have resulted so far!!!! - nearlt three and half months over since the first rep. was sent)

We or many of us, have made reps/ grievance regn etc broadly as follows- (those who are systematically following the stages here):[/COLOR]

1/2/3.. TO DOP&PW - three times- once immediately after OM of 3rd Oct; again on the interpretation of "MINIMUM" issue; third after the OM of 14th Oct or after recieving the final pension (as fixed by PDBs) and arrears. Reps were sent by emails and also by Regd Post AD/ Speed Post.

4.TO DOP&PW- Grievance has been registered on line and reminders are being made after 30 days.

5.TO NHRC-complaint lodged by email/ and Regd Post AD also.

6.To The Hon'ble PM of India (who is also Min of P/PG/P-covering all aspects- full details)(sent email/ regd post -third wk of Jan 2009; AD card recd back with PMO stamp!!!!!)

7.To Ms SONIA GANDHI, Chairperson, UPA (more focussed on Good Governance/Ethics in Governance vis-s-vis Pension OMs perpetrations of Injustice)( sent email/ regd post-third wk Jan 2009)

8.To Hon'ble Shri Pranab Mukherjee (PM I/C / Min of Fin caretake/ Min of F/Affairs) (email sent on 26- Regd Post on 27th Jan 2009)

9.(Some have represented to their erstwhile Dept- say like Rly Board; Some to Hon'ble PM also- in addition to the ones above)

For those who have to act further like me:

1.TO CJI- next month urging him (with full details/ revious judgments/ adamant nature & indifference of Govt. to Supreme Court/ High Court orders/ Constitutional provisions etc)for taking up the issue as a PIL.

2.After exhausting the Executive/ Judicial (CJI)channels WE SHALL REFER THE MATTER TO PRESIDENT OF INDIA ALSO- may be after a couple of months.

Then we can go to CAT/ COURTS etc.

Regards

vnatarajan[/B]

G.Ramdas
26-01-2009, 07:40 PM
Dear VN,
Thanks. Anybody can see the chart from the link mentioned by me above repeated below.I had sent a copy to Sh. K earlier and also to some other friends, while mailing to you. Now that the chart is accessible from the web, one can take a print out and modify to his needs.Meanwhile I will work on the charts for other scales
G.Ramdas
Pl. click the link below to access the chart or copy and paste as url:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f...eada0a1ae8665a

sundarar
26-01-2009, 11:42 PM
Dear Sirs,

At this point of time, I think there is some problem occured in the drafting of Resolution/O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 as well as O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 itself, which resulted in the corresponding tables released/annexed for Banks to disburse the revised pension.

As we observed the problem created by the missing word `Pay' in Pay Band, I am of the view that it shall be `minimum 50% of the pay in the pay band + GP applicable to corresponding pay irrespective of pay scale with which the pensioner had retired from service'.

The inadvertent error on both counts, instead of rectification is leading to so many representations. Let the authorities clarify that there is no error occured in drafting the resolution/OM dt.1.9.2008 and 3.10.2008. This will bring some clarity on the issue. Such typographical error can be
very well rectified at the Deptl. level without drawing all of us to the Hon. Court and avoid its valuable time from looking into such inadvertent mistakes.

The single agenda for the Hon. Court could be to facilitate `COMPLETE PARITY ON PAR WITH POST 2.9.2008 PENSIONERS' FOR ALL PENSIONERS OF PRE-1956/1966/1976/1986/1996/2006 PENSIONERS'.

1. Only payment of full pension based on qualifying service of 20 years, will have prospective effect.
2. Keeping Sl. No.1 in view, with the dispensation of linkage of qualifying service of 33 years for full pension without neither prospective nor retrospective effect, the qualifying service required for any pensioner at any point of time for full pension, is 20 years at all point of time, or otherwise, pro-rata. As far as the one time gratuity received for the period beyond 33 years, the same has nothing to do with the pension payable life time/family pension, it is just a gratitude from the Govt. for the actual service rendered by the pensioner. In fact, the Govt. Servant while in service did contribute towards PF for the entire duration of service whereas, there is no corresponding contribution from the other side.
3. The rectification of aforesaid error of OMs to the extent that `minimum 50% of pay in the pay band + GP applicable to corresponding pay irrespective of pay scale from which the pensioner has retired', will put at rest everything with due understanding of Sl. No.1 and 2 above.

Suitable amendments can address the problem very easily.

Prayers can be heard by the Govt. also and not necessarily by the Hon. Courts only. The will power is all needed for the concerned.

Further, the chart prepared by Shri GRD is highly professional and excellent. As suggested by Shri VN and as an input,
I submit the following data for any type of
presentation.


Pre- 50% of Min. of PB+GP(OM dt.3.10.2008)
rev. 50% of Min. of Pay in the PB +GP (OM 1.9.08)
scale Reduction in Pension/Loss of Pension

S-3 3500 3580 80
S-4 3500 3650 150
S-5 3550 3890 340
S-6 3600 4030 430
S-7 3800 4920 1120
S-8 4000 5580 1580
S-9 6500 6500
S-10 6500 7215 715
S-11 6500 8145 1645
S-12 6700 8145 1645
S-13 6700 9230 2530
S-14 10500 9375 2675
S-15 10500 10500
S-16 10500 11070 570
S-17 11100 11070 570
S-18 11100 12905 1805
S-19 11100 12600 1500
S-20 11600 13205 2105
S-21 11600 14960 3360
S-22 11600 15660 4060
S-23 11600 14960 3960
S-24 23050 23050
S-25 23050 24195 1045
S-26 23150 24295 1145
S-27 23150 24295 1145
S-28 23700 23700
S-29 23700 27350 3650
S-30 24700 31925 7225



Best Regards,

Sundarar.

dnaga57
27-01-2009, 08:16 AM
Dear learned, spirited, involved friends
All the needed info- data- comments- approaches have been listed.
What next?
One more round of appeals - PIL on behalf of FPs- Legal remedy under Nakara, Art 14 etc?
My humble view is we have to freeze options & move forward

vnatarajan
27-01-2009, 12:22 PM
Dear All

I think we have a separate ISSUE to be tackled before going to the LEGAL REDRESSAL ROUTES. I WILL COME TO THAT AT THE END.

In this stage- wh I call CONSOLIDATION STAGE- let me list what we can possibly do:

1.FLOODING OF REPS/ APPEALS (to any or all listed) including by those waiting in the wings/ silent watchers & REMINDERS to continue.

2.RTI queries- ONE IS ENOUGH if it is to the point & to the same MINISTRY- as replies will be same even if any no' of such queries are asked. RREWA has asked- so let us wait for reply. FEW MORE TO COVER OTHER ANGLES can be asked. Also to other MINISTRIES like FINANCE., SOCIAL JUSTICE etc.

3.CLARIFICATION Lr to Ministry of Personnel on Anomoly Committee(AC)- will they deal with Pensioners' cases? Major Issues like disparity/ equality etc. If yes whether Reps are to be made afresh? If not who will deal such anomalies? DoP&PW? Is there a sp cell there? Fast Track- how and for us ?

4.RTI- separate query can be asked on Anomaly Committee.

(I have purchased a PO & kept ready to ask the qn. ANY ONE help to draft the qn?)

THERE IS A NEED TO TAKE AWAY THE ANOMLALY COMMITTEE ISSUE FROM THIS THREAD.

SO-- A SEPARATE THREAD - I PROPOSE TO START- IT WILL AIM AT CONSOLIDATING AND LISTING ALL ANOMALIES (only LISTING please). SHRI S C MAHESHWARI HAS SUGGESTED for making a common representation to ANOMOLY COMMITTEEE by Associations/ Federations. ALL THE POINTS RELATED TO ANOMALIES of DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PENSIONERS say as Mr Sunadarar had mentioned- say pre1956------ to the last one now, & Family Pensioners - can be listed at one place. From this data, we can prepare a common draft memo.

After this - we can think of the Legal Rep. Stage - to CJI- etc.

Pl feel free to comment/ suggest/ guide.

Regards

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
27-01-2009, 11:23 PM
It is interesting to see that the expression 'pay in the pay band' has been used in the order by Ministry of Urban Delopment dt/27.11.2008 re:grant of house building advance referred to in the Gconnect forum itself The order defines 'pay' as 'pay in the pay band'. This would make the intention of para 4.2 clear that it is not minimum of the pay band but the minimum of pay in the pay band as defined in the fitment tables of OM re: pay fixation.
This order has been issued in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
It appears from this that it is only in the case of pensioners that the definition has been given as minimum of the pay band, while in the case of serving employees, pay has been defined as pay in the pay band.
This anomalous interpretation by the Dept. of Pensions in consultation with Dept. of Expenditure appears to be a case of the right hand blinding its eyes to what the left hand is doing.
S.Balasubramanian.

G.Ramdas
28-01-2009, 11:56 AM
It is interesting to see that the expression 'pay in the pay band' has been used in the order by Ministry of Urban Delopment dt/27.11.2008 re:grant of house building advance referred to in the Gconnect forum itself The order defines 'pay' as 'pay in the pay band'. This would make the intention of para 4.2 clear that it is not minimum of the pay band but the minimum of pay in the pay band as defined in the fitment tables of OM re: pay fixation.
This order has been issued in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
It appears from this that it is only in the case of pensioners that the definition has been given as minimum of the pay band, while in the case of serving employees, pay has been defined as pay in the pay band.
This anomalous interpretation by the Dept. of Pensions in consultation with Dept. of Expenditure appears to be a case of the right hand blinding its eyes to what the left hand is doing.
S.Balasubramanian.

The term 'pay in the pay band' is clearly defined in CCS(Revised Pay ) Rules 2008, published in the gazette of 29/08/08 as:
"'pay in the pay band" means pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in column 5 of the First Shedule.The schedule Gives a Table indicating the revised Pay structure in Pay bands and GP corrsponding to the existing pay scales.. e.g.,PB4 against S-24 to s-30 and so on.The exact pay for each of the stage for each of the pre-revised scale is available only in O.M. dt 30/01/08 issued by Dept. of expenditure.
Since 'Pay in the pay band' has not been defined in CCS(Pension Rules) and the terms 'pay drawn in running pay band' has no relevance to the pensioners, the modification has been done by DP&PW, detrimental to the interest of the pensioners.
In the 5h Pay commission the term replacement scale was used
which was unambiguous. If we go by the same logic and intention, the range in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale would be the replacement scale; the minimum of which should apply for calculation of pension.
Unless the Definition of 'Pay in the Pay Band' is made applicable to the pensioners also as "the pay in the running pay band corresponding to the stage of the pre-revised scale, as per the fitment table issued by Dept. of Expenditure F.No.1/1/2008-1c dt.30/08/08, there will be scope for deliberate misinterpretation and denial of due pension.

Kanaujiaml
28-01-2009, 07:46 PM
Dear learned, spirited, involved friends
All the needed info- data- comments- approaches have been listed.
What next?
One more round of appeals - PIL on behalf of FPs- Legal remedy under Nakara, Art 14 etc?
My humble view is we have to freeze options & move forward

My dear pensioner friends. Very good question. What is next ? Elections are due in Aprit 09. PM is on sick bed. We have not received a single response to any of our appeals. There are hardly any options left.

sundarar
28-01-2009, 11:29 PM
Dear Sirs,

In the words of Shri Balasubramanian, it is `a case of the right hand blinding its eyes to what the left hand is doing'. Yes, 100% correct.

According to me, what has happened is a pure typographical omission, which is not accepted till date by the issuing authority of Table at Annexure to OM dated 3.10.2008 and Note No.1 thereunder. AT first, let us quantify the
actual loss/reduction in pension owing to this typographical omission, as detailed hereunder:
Pre-rev. Scale
50% of pre-revised scale X 2.26 (Para 4.1 of OM Dt. 1.9.2008) : A
50% of Min. of PB+GP(OM dt.3.10.2008) : B
50% of Min. of Pay in the PB +GP (Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008) : C

A B C (C minus B)
S-3 3500 3500 3580 (80)
S-4 3500 3500 3650 (150)
S-5 3500 3550 3890 (340)
S-6 1600x2.26= 3616 3600 4030 (430)
S-7 2000x2.26= 4520 3800 4920 (1120)
S-8 2250x2.26= 5085 4000 5580 (1580)
S-9 2500x2.26= 5650 6500 6500 (nil)
S-10 2750x2.26= 6215 6500 7215 (715)
S-11 3250x2.26= 7345 6500 8145 (1645)
S-12 3250x2.26= 7345 6700 8145 (1445)
S-13 3725x2.26= 8418 6700 9230 (2530)
S-14 3750x2.26= 8475 7050 9375 (2325)
S-15 4000x2.26= 9040 7350 10140 (2790)
A (Entry)4000x2.26= 9040 10500 10500 (nil)
S-16 4500x2.26= 10170 10500 11070 (570)
S-17 4500x2.26= 10170 10500 11070 (570)
S-18 5163x2.26= 11668 11100 12905 (1805)
S-19 5000x2.26= 11300 11100 12600 (1500)
S-20 5325x2.26= 12034 11100 13205 (2105)
S-21 6000x2.26= 13560 11600 14960 (3360)
S-22 6375x2.26= 14407 11600 15660 (4060)
S-23 6000x2.26= 13560 11600 14960 (3360)
S-24 7150x2.26= 16159 23050 23050 (nil)
S-25 7550x2.26= 17063 23050 24195 (1145)
S-26 8200x2.26= 18532 23150 24295 (1145)
S-27 8200x2.26= 18532 23150 24295 (1145)
S-28 7150x2.26= 16159 23700 23700 (nil)
S-29 9200x2.26= 20792 23700 27350 (3650)
S-30 11200x2.26=25312 24700 31925 (7225)

ACTUAL LOSS/REDUCTION IN PENSION IS SHOWN IN BRACKETS (ie. C - B).

POINT 1:
The Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 indicates that `the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the PAY in the Pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay-scale from which the pensioner had retired’…….

POINT 2:
The clarification vide O.M. dated 3.10.2008 (in respect of Para 4.2 of O.M. dt.1.9.2008) Indicates that `the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum PAY in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the PAY in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale’.

POINT 3:
Annexure to O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 – col. 7 of the table shows 50% of sum of min. of PB+GP/scales.

POINT 4:
Note No.1 under Annexure to O.M. dated 3.10.2008 indicates that `as per Para 4.2 of O.M. Dated 1.9.2008 the revised pension of those who retired after completing maximum required qualifying Service (ie.) (33 years) before 1.1.2006 cannot be less than the pension indicated in col.7 above –
(ie. 50% of the sum of Minimum of Pay Band and Grade Pay/scale)Corresponding to the scale of pay the pensioners held at the time of their retirement’.

Qn.1 W.R.T. POINT NO.2 -
what about (ii) when there is only (i) remains in the Clarification?

QN.2 W.R.T. POINT NO.2 –
Whether minimum of the PAY in the Pay Band alone shall be irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay?

QN.3 W.R.T. POINT NO.2 - Whether Grade Pay alone shall be ought to be corresponding to the Pre-revised pay scale?

QN. 4 W.R.T . POINT NO.3 - Why sum of Min. of PB+GP/scales is given in Table col.7 as it shall be Minimum of Pay in the Pay Band + GP as per Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 and clarification Vide OM dt.3.10.2008?

QN.5 w.r.t. POINT NO.4 - Why sum of Min. of PB and GP/scale is given in the Note under annexure, as it shall be Minimum of Pay in the Pay Band + GP as per Para 4.2 of OM dt. 1.9.2008 and Clarification vide OM dt.3.10.2008?

I think that there is no need for further elaboration. I thank Shri VN and senior friends who stood as inspiration for me to keep on thinking about our grievances, and particularly our friends who corrected me to get the final version of the actual loss/reduction in pension aspects. In case of any errors and omissions from my side, please bear with me.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

S.Balasubramanian
30-01-2009, 05:08 PM
Dear Mr Maheshwari,
I was just thinking that RREWA could seek an appointment with Laluji and place before him the grievance in particular in regard to the interpretation of minimum of the pay in the pay band, about which most people are worried. I feel that he in his own uncanny way but as a practical person might help in forging a soltion out of the present impasse or firewall which we are facing.
You may consider the feasibility/desirability of this suggestion.
Regards.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
30-01-2009, 05:35 PM
Dear Shri Bala/ Mr Kanaujia/ all

Now that the Anomaly Committee(AC) is formed and the Govt. can take shelter under the same for its own convenience and in its own way even to delay the legal process etc,
I would request you all to critically examine the Order related to AC.

Pl note:

1.There is no reference to PENSION - but it refers to all recommendations of the 6CPC.

2.The AC may only take up anomalies which are violative of principles/ policy aspects wh are violated in the recommendations.

Now pl examine the Gazette Notification on pension- resolution:

It refers to the "principles wh shd govern the structure of pension etc etc"

Accordingly, the 6CPC has done its work and given the recommendations, wh were accepted with very limited modification as notified in the Gazette Resolution of 29.082008.

Now this "principle and the structure of pension" has been "modified' by the OM of 3.10.2008, violating the 6cpc recos! ANOMALY BY VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE,

So we must bring this to the notice of the AC and ask them to resolve the dispute or it shd directly go to arbitration- as DOP&PW can not be the Devil as well as the Angel -

vnatarajan




"

Kanaujiaml
30-01-2009, 07:37 PM
The term 'pay in the pay band' is clearly defined in CCS(Revised Pay ) Rules 2008, published in the gazette of 29/08/08 as:
"'pay in the pay band" means pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in column 5 of the First Shedule.The schedule Gives a Table indicating the revised Pay structure in Pay bands and GP corrsponding to the existing pay scales.. e.g.,PB4 against S-24 to s-30 and so on.The exact pay for each of the stage for each of the pre-revised scale is available only in O.M. dt 30/01/08 issued by Dept. of expenditure.
Since 'Pay in the pay band' has not been defined in CCS(Pension Rules) and the terms 'pay drawn in running pay band' has no relevance to the pensioners, the modification has been done by DP&PW, detrimental to the interest of the pensioners.
In the 5h Pay commission the term replacement scale was used
which was unambiguous. If we go by the same logic and intention, the range in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale would be the replacement scale; the minimum of which should apply for calculation of pension.
Unless the Definition of 'Pay in the Pay Band' is made applicable to the pensioners also as "the pay in the running pay band corresponding to the stage of the pre-revised scale, as per the fitment table issued by Dept. of Expenditure F.No.1/1/2008-1c dt.30/08/08, there will be scope for deliberate misinterpretation and denial of due pension.

My dear G Ramdass. I fully agree with you. CCS(Revised) pay rules do not apply to pensioners and reference of " pay in pay band " would be counter productive as in colum 5 of Scehduel only pay band is given(for example 37400-67000).

G.Ramdas
30-01-2009, 07:42 PM
Has anybody studied how the changes have been effected, in the Hindi version of the gazette notification as well the subsequent O.Ms
The Hindi version of the gazette is available in web but other O.Ms in Hindi could not be located.May be somebody could study and see whether there is consistency between both the versions. This will help the matter being taken up with Sh Laluji as suggested by Sh. Bala
G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
31-01-2009, 08:26 PM
My dear VN. VI CPC has recommended that when a Brigadier is promoted as Major General, the pay in higher grade should be fixed taking into account the MSP(Rank Pay) notionally. Earlier this was not done because of which the Major Generals and Lt. General were drawing less pension. In the Circular dated 11 12 08, vide Annexure II, pension of MG and Lt G was fixed less than a Brigadier. The letter dated 20 01 09 has now ammended the Anx. II so that now MJ and Lt. G would get higher pension than Brigadier. That is what MG and Lt.G were demaning but Govt. adament not to accept it though VI CPC had recommended for it. This has happened as a result of hidden pressure resulted from SC verdict dated 09 09 08. This has showed a little silver lining that in future Govt. may consider our demand of atleast Mnimum parity that is recommended by VI CPC. My above post may be read in this light and nothing more.

I would like to share the information with you that the reminder sent by me to PM has been recived in PMO and for the first time at least acknowledgement due has come to me. Now, after 10 - 15 days I would consider sending an RTI application, asking for information for action taken against it by the authorities in PMO.

vnatarajan
31-01-2009, 09:59 PM
Dear Mr K

Thanks for the clarification. My doubts are about the "Speaking Order" and its wordings- as if it is answering the court objection! If it is harmless, then it is fine!

Yes, PM's office was quick. I also got my duly stamped AD in less than a wk.

Ms Sonia Gandhi's office?AICC was the quickest- I got the AD duly stamped within four days! Fantastic! I hope she or her office-bearers read the Appeal!

The DOP&PW took the longest- about 14 days- and that too the AD was recieved with a signature wh looked like a qn mark!

NHRC is also delaying. Actng. PM's office also has to respond!.

MY RTI Query will go probably on monday.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-02-2009, 07:30 AM
DEAR ALL

I AND MANY EAGERLY WAITING PENSIONERS ARE DELIGHTED TO NOTE THE ITEM POSTED IN THE RREWA WEBSITE MOST RECENTLY:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On 26-01-09 During the meeting of BPS subcommittee for CPC affairs at NGP,
It has been decided that ‘Bharat Pensioners Samaj’ will immediately submit a memorandum to the P.M urging him to set right the anomalies due to incorrect interpretation and incorrect implementation of 6th CPC recommendations. It has also been decided that BPS will go to the court if Govt. does not respond favourably, for which it will appeal to pensioners and their organizations to raise funds."

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

ALL LIKE-MINDED ASSOCIATIONS/ INDIVIDUALS MUST RESPOND POSITIVELY AND STRENGTHEN THE HANDS OF BPS IN THIS FIGHT WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO SUCCEED 100%.

AS & WHEN THE MODE OF REMITTING THE AMOUNTS IS MADE KNOWN ACTIONS CAN?WILL FOLLOW FROM ALL AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS.

vnatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum,

Kanaujiaml
01-02-2009, 08:41 AM
DEAR ALL

I AND MANY EAGERLY WAITING PENSIONERS ARE DELIGHTED TO NOTE THE ITEM POSTED IN THE RREWA WEBSITE MOST RECENTLY:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On 26-01-09 During the meeting of BPS subcommittee for CPC affairs at NGP,
It has been decided that ‘Bharat Pensioners Samaj’ will immediately submit a memorandum to the P.M urging him to set right the anomalies due to incorrect interpretation and incorrect implementation of 6th CPC recommendations. It has also been decided that BPS will go to the court if Govt. does not respond favourably, for which it will appeal to pensioners and their organizations to raise funds."

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

ALL LIKE-MINDED ASSOCIATIONS/ INDIVIDUALS MUST RESPOND POSITIVELY AND STRENGTHEN THE HANDS OF BPS IN THIS FIGHT WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO SUCCEED 100%.

AS & WHEN THE MODE OF REMITTING THE AMOUNTS IS MADE KNOWN ACTIONS CAN?WILL FOLLOW FROM ALL AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS.

vnatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum,

My dear VN. I knew this was going to come as Mr. Maheshwari had talked to me about it. I even asked Mr. Maheshwari to prepare a draft to PM for BPS. Now the question is how can we all mobalize and contribute for legal action in order to strengthen BPS hands.

S.Balasubramanian
01-02-2009, 10:42 AM
Re: Hindi version of Govt. resolution on pension, the Hindi translation as available on website gives a faithful translation. I am not able to find
the Hindi versions of the OMs re:civil pensioners. Defence Ministry OMs contain Hindi versions. I shall go through them and see what the actual position is.
S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
01-02-2009, 10:51 AM
While Hindi version from Ministry of Defence for pay fixation is available, there is no Hindi version available on website so far as orders re: Army pensioners/Army family pensioners are concerned.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
01-02-2009, 01:34 PM
Dear Mr K
This is wrt posting at 321.

Funding:

1.If a separate a/c cd be opened at Gurgaon under the aegis of RREWA- (A/c Pensioners Legal Expenses-6CPC) something like that, many can send directly the contributions and so also in groups. Bank may be consulted. RREWA can adopt a resolution in the next council meeting- after consulting BPS and getting a commitment from them. I THINK RREWA is a constituent of BPS.

2.There cd be non RREWA participants - individuals/ groups etc- I think there shd be no problems on that.

Once these are sorted out, for my part I can inform all our network members - nearly 100 to act- and also their friends- some notional fixation of amounts is needed- say go by Fifty % of one months' likely gain in the first instant- subject to a minimum of 250 upto some scale- and then 500 upto the next limiting scale- or cd be pay band based etc Some norm may be decided. Also a form and an undertaking - an authorisation etc may be prepared and circulated for the willing participants to send their contributions- ppo details.

LEGAL REMEDY MAY/ CAN FOCUS ON SOME COMMON ISSUE(s)/FEATURE(s) ONLY IN THE LEGAL FIGHT

Reg, draft Memo to PM, with the said idea only (after the request of Shri SCM, I started a separate thread)- but then many are not giving the summaries as samples.

Part A - shd cover the grievances in general/ gross disparities/ infirmities etc like

a. I made one for Pre-1996 pensioners to start with. But then it is remaining static there!!!

b. For Pre-2006 ( Post 19996) cases, I think the Table of loss - now more or less refined by Sundaar (based on your earlier model for scale S 4 to 30) must form the basis- and the "Modification""Clarification" - then Minimum issue - then the issue of CCS (pension)Rules 2008 can form the common bais for all.

c. For 20 yrs case, I think Mr Naga can summarise

d. For post 2006- pre 2008 case somebody can attemt

e. For Family Pensioners case, I think only we may have to attempt- (the same can become a OIL issue also if well drafted)

I think enough data is available in the postings here and also in the Reps/ Appeals.

Part B can cover some Illistrations ( say the table I referred for the pre-2006 pensioners)

Part C shd be the solutions:

Part D: if time permits- can give the violations- (My draft to ShriPranab Mukherjee lists all- SC/High Court judgements; Constitutional Violations;CPC Recos/ acceptance - thenirregular Modifications, Rule violations, Not responding IN TIME to Grievance Regns. on line, Not responding to Reps/ Appeals, Omitting the Pensioners from Anomaly Committe references etc)

In 20 mts u may be able to present the gist.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-02-2009, 07:32 AM
Dear Mr K
This is wrt posting at 321.

Funding:

1.If a separate a/c cd be opened at Gurgaon under the aegis of RREWA- (A/c Pensioners Legal Expenses-6CPC) something like that, many can send directly the contributions and so also in groups. Bank may be consulted. RREWA can adopt a resolution in the next council meeting- after consulting BPS and getting a commitment from them. I THINK RREWA is a constituent of BPS.

2.There cd be non RREWA participants - individuals/ groups etc- I think there shd be no problems on that.

Once these are sorted out, for my part I can inform all our network members - nearly 100 to act- and also their friends- some notional fixation of amounts is needed- say go by Fifty % of one months' likely gain in the first instant- subject to a minimum of 250 upto some scale- and then 500 upto the next limiting scale- or cd be pay band based etc Some norm may be decided. Also a form and an undertaking - an authorisation etc may be prepared and circulated for the willing participants to send their contributions- ppo details.

LEGAL REMEDY MAY/ CAN FOCUS ON SOME COMMON ISSUE(s)/FEATURE(s) ONLY IN THE LEGAL FIGHT

Reg, draft Memo to PM, with the said idea only (after the request of Shri SCM, I started a separate thread)- but then many are not giving the summaries as samples.

Part A - shd cover the grievances in general/ gross disparities/ infirmities etc like

a. I made one for Pre-1996 pensioners to start with. But then it is remaining static there!!!

b. For Pre-2006 ( Post 19996) cases, I think the Table of loss - now more or less refined by Sundaar (based on your earlier model for scale S 4 to 30) must form the basis- and the "Modification""Clarification" - then Minimum issue - then the issue of CCS (pension)Rules 2008 can form the common bais for all.

c. For 20 yrs case, I think Mr Naga can summarise

d. For post 2006- pre 2008 case somebody can attemt

e. For Family Pensioners case, I think only we may have to attempt- (the same can become a OIL issue also if well drafted)

I think enough data is available in the postings here and also in the Reps/ Appeals.

Part B can cover some Illistrations ( say the table I referred for the pre-2006 pensioners)

Part C shd be the solutions:

Part D: if time permits- can give the violations- (My draft to ShriPranab Mukherjee lists all- SC/High Court judgements; Constitutional Violations;CPC Recos/ acceptance - thenirregular Modifications, Rule violations, Not responding IN TIME to Grievance Regns. on line, Not responding to Reps/ Appeals, Omitting the Pensioners from Anomaly Committe references etc)

In 20 mts u may be able to present the gist.

Regards

vnatarajan

My dear VN. Ask Mr. Maheshwari. But, I am of the opinian that rrewa would not get involved in the manner you have proposed. Even BPS may not like it. What about your Association ?

vnatarajan
02-02-2009, 08:41 AM
Dear Mr K

As you may be aware- our "Pensioners' Forum" is a very small (around 350) group of very very aged pensioners - many above 80- spent-force group and has a small percentage of the "seriously aggrieved group".

(What i write and discuss in Gconnect may not mean that my entire Forum is behind me-
I happen to be its head more out of compassion than for any other reason. I have regard/ respect to many of them due to their age and sincerity- nothing more! Even I do not approach the AIFPA - and I only request my Gen . Sec - who is also an office-holder there to act on my behalf- as the objective of AIFPA like many other Federations/Associations appears to be different! Like Mr Maheshwari in BPS- I have Mr AVM of AIFPA with me as my Gen Sec as he is also from my erstwhile Deptt.- that is all!)

Another weakness is we are far far away from Delhi!

Therefore I have mobilised a network of many of l my like-minded and similarly affected colleagues/ scientists/ engineers all over the country - may be around 90 to 100- half of them may be willing to fight out the issue by MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS for the same.

They are invisible in this Forum- may be they are not that computer-savvy- but many are perhaps reading these postings- but they do get all information thru emails.

If you and Mr Maheshwari and RREWA convince the BPS to fight out the issue for all groups- S4 to S30 etc many will certainly send their contributions directly to the BPS or to the RREWA. Already many are contacting for information in my network!

LET BPS or RREWA DECIDE THE MODALITY - and seek the contributions the way they want- My views are not binding on any body or any BODY-

WHAT ALL I CAN MENTION HERE IS CONTRIBUTIONS CAN DIRECLY FLOW TO BPS OR RREWA ONCE THEY INDICATE THE MODALITY AND TIME! Let some guidelines be decided. I WITHDRAW MY SUGGESTIONS IF any one thinks it is conditional or binding.THEY ARE NOT. THEY COULD BE ONLY AS ONE AMONG THE "SUGGESTIONS".

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
02-02-2009, 11:06 AM
Dear Friends

Some replies from Grievance Cell appear to have been received by Defence Pensioners!

To the effect- large no. of Grievances have been recieved in the cell- each has to wait and bear the delay in processing - something on these lines!

Anybody can corroborate?

vnatarajan

(PS: Today 3rd Feb 2009, I chk again and found that it was only a ready made computerised email acknowledgement)

vnatarajan
03-02-2009, 07:54 AM
Dear Friends/ Co-pensioners

I think among the aggrieved pensioners- there are scores of retirees belonging to the categories of Scientists/ Engineers/ Administrators / other stream personnel- who at one time or other have been recognised and awarded National Levl recognitions.

I think as a mark of protest, all such personnel may indicate to surrender such Orders of Merit in protest if the Govt. does not take note aand realise the significance of our genuine grievance.

Many of us hold such pieces of paper (now I realise that they may have no worth even to mark a protest! Shd be checked!)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
03-02-2009, 08:04 AM
Dear Mr K

As you may be aware- our "Pensioners' Forum" is a very small (around 350) group of very very aged pensioners - many above 80- spent-force group and has a small percentage of the "seriously aggrieved group".

(What i write and discuss in Gconnect may not mean that my entire Forum is behind me-
I happen to be its head more out of compassion than for any other reason. I have regard/ respect to many of them due to their age and sincerity- nothing more! Even I do not approach the AIFPA - and I only request my Gen . Sec - who is also an office-holder there to act on my behalf- as the objective of AIFPA like many other Federations/Associations appears to be different! Like Mr Maheshwari in BPS- I have Mr AVM of AIFPA with me as my Gen Sec as he is also from my erstwhile Deptt.- that is all!)

Another weakness is we are far far away from Delhi!

Therefore I have mobilised a network of many of l my like-minded and similarly affected colleagues/ scientists/ engineers all over the country - may be around 90 to 100- half of them may be willing to fight out the issue by MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS for the same.

They are invisible in this Forum- may be they are not that computer-savvy- but many are perhaps reading these postings- but they do get all information thru emails.

If you and Mr Maheshwari and RREWA convince the BPS to fight out the issue for all groups- S4 to S30 etc many will certainly send their contributions directly to the BPS or to the RREWA. Already many are contacting for information in my network!

LET BPS or RREWA DECIDE THE MODALITY - and seek the contributions the way they want- My views are not binding on any body or any BODY-

WHAT ALL I CAN MENTION HERE IS CONTRIBUTIONS CAN DIRECLY FLOW TO BPS OR RREWA ONCE THEY INDICATE THE MODALITY AND TIME! Let some guidelines be decided. I WITHDRAW MY SUGGESTIONS IF any one thinks it is conditional or binding.THEY ARE NOT. THEY COULD BE ONLY AS ONE AMONG THE "SUGGESTIONS".

Regards

vnatarajan

My dear VN. I understand your position better now. I pay my regards to all those pensioners with you. I am doing what I can from inside and out side of rrewa. Mr. Maheshwari is also on the job all the time. Now BPS and even Confedaration are a bit active. Soon some development would follow. In the meanwhile, appeals and representations should be sent by one and all pensioners in any shape they desired. You would agree, numbers counts in democracy. Perhaps Govt. is watching closely before taking any action.

Kanaujiaml
03-02-2009, 08:08 AM
Re: Hindi version of Govt. resolution on pension, the Hindi translation as available on website gives a faithful translation. I am not able to find
the Hindi versions of the OMs re:civil pensioners. Defence Ministry OMs contain Hindi versions. I shall go through them and see what the actual position is.
S.Balasubramanian.

My dear Bala. Hindi version is not different than English version.

vnatarajan
03-02-2009, 06:12 PM
Dear All

Useful Questions that could be asked under the RTI Act2005 provisions:

(courtesy VN/PKR/GR etc)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
(Individual's name & address etc - may be in his capacity as a citizen !)

To:
The Central Public Information Officer,
(Attn:Shri Under Secretary/ Desk : )
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare(DOP&PW),
Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pensions (MoP,PG&P)
Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi -110003

Sub: Request for Information under the Right to Information (RTI)Act 2005, Sections/ Para 6 (1), (2) & 7 etc.- Sixth Central Pay Commission’s Accepted/Notified Recommendations for Pre-2006 Pensioners & relevant Implementation Orders/ Office Memorandums (OMs), issued by the MOP,PG&P-DOP&PW)

Dear Sir,

Please provide the information on the items detailed below, sought by me under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, Sections/ Para 6 (1)&(2) (3) & 7 etc. (In case the said information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under Para 6.(3), under intimation to the undersigned)

1. WHETHER the "CLARIFICATIONS"/"MODIFICATIONS" in respect of Para 4.2 ,of the PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION contained in OM F.No .38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01 Sep. 2008, later introduced through:

(a) the OM F.No.38/37/08-P7PW(A) pt-1.dated 3rd Oct 2008; and
(b) the contents and the “Revised Pension Based on Revised Pay Bands etc” at Annexure I and the “Illustration For Fixation of Pension/ Family Pension etc” at Annexure II of the OM No 38/37/08-P&PW(A)pt1 dated 14th Oct 2008 (both issued by the MoP/PG/P, DoP/PW),

HAVE ALSO BEEN DULY ENDORSED WITH PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION/NOTIFIED/ PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA?

If so the REFERENCES/ COPIES may kindly be provided please.

2.Whether approvals/ sanctions of the competent authority/authorities with whose approvals/ sanctions the original notifications were issued, were taken before the issue of the clarifications/ modifications referred to in Query 1 above?

3.If the "Clarifications” "Modifications” as well as contents of the said OMs, their Annexure etc have NOT been notified/ published in the Gazette of India, THEN what are the provisions under which the above two OMs (Query 1 (a) & (b)) have been issued?
Procedures followed may please be indicated with the concerned references, orders, Rules/ Regulations, Acts, File noting and/or their extracts. ,and other similar records, if any.

4.The term 'pay in the pay band' is defined in CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 2008 for existing employees. What are the rules/provisions under which a different definition of the term has been given, in respect of Pre- 2006 pensioners, equating the 'minimum of the pay band' to the 'minimum of the pay in the pay band?
In other words, the statutory rules/ provisions governing the grant of two different pay scales and consequently, two different 'Minimum Pensions' for the same post under the government under the same dispensation (say sixth CPC implementation OMs) may be provided for information.

All information asked for may kindly be provided as certified hard copies by regd post as well as by email to the undersigned within the time-frame (s) stipulated. As the matter concerns pension which is an essential component of one’s LIFE & LIBERTY, all efforts may kindly be made to adhere to the minimum time-frame please.

I enclose an open Indian Postal Order No. dt 27/1/2009, Rs 10/- issued by .....PO, towards the INITIAL FEE.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

Signature of the SENIOR CITIZEN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-02-2009, 12:28 PM
Dear All

To ensure continuity and to keep our fight sustained, Pensioners' Forum, Chennai had asked for clarifications On the anomaly committee:

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

Correspondences: C/O General Secretary, Pensioners’ Forum, Madras,
1-A, Velayudham Apts, 61, Moti Lal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To

Director
Dept. of Pension
Lok Nayak Bhavan
New Delhi

January 29, 2009

Dear Sir

SUB: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT

At the outset I would request you, in case you are not presently the Central Public Information Officer, to kindly pass this application to the concerned officer for furnishing me the following information. Necessary Postal Order for Rs.10.00 is enclosed.

1. Whether the Anomaly Committee constituted to look in to the grievances of employees will also receive grievances from the pensioners and consider them?

2. If the said Anomaly Committee will not deal with the pensioners’ grievances, who will attend to them?

3. Will the Dept. of Pension appoint a separate Anomaly Committee or will they themselves look in to it?

Yours Faithfully

sd/
General Secretary
Pensioners’ Forum, Madras
================================================== ==============

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
05-02-2009, 03:30 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
I have sent the following question to some of my friends with the request for its being given notice of by some MP in Lok Sabha. Let us see what happens.

Will the Minister of Public Grievances, Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Anomalies Committee has been empowered to deal with anomalies and grievances of Central Government pensioners;

(b) if not, to whom will the pensioners have now to send their representations on pension anomalies; and

(c) whether any other Anomalies Committee would be set up only for dealing with pension anomalies and grievances and if so, the details thereof?

S.Balasubramanian.

dnaga57
05-02-2009, 04:27 PM
Well done Sir

vnatarajan
05-02-2009, 05:17 PM
Dear Shri Bala,

Nice of you to keep up the tempo and I am sure there will be some response somewhere.

I have drafted another qn in a different manner under RTI Act to be sent to the Min. of Personnel/ PG/ P - (Directot JCA).

Regards
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
06-02-2009, 10:41 AM
Dear All

An Order on the constitution of National level Anomaly Committe has been issued by the Govt. Details have been posted in the thread titled "Pensioners' Cases- will 6CPC relate .......". WE PRESUME THIS COMMITTEE WILL LOOK INTO PENSIONERS' APPEALS FOR JUSTICE also.

Staff side is represented by many eminent/ weel known trade union activists/leaders who are also Central Govt. PENSIONERS- and by now- they must be aware of our anomalies/ grievances/ main issues.

Pensioners/ Associations/ etc who have access to the STAFF SIDE members may kindly request them through all available channels to take note of our grievances/ anomalies/ INJUSTICES perpetuated by mere play of WORDS in OMs etc and resolve the same through their GOOD OFFICES.

(Our request is they should not tow the Govt. line on excueses like Budget constraints/ Govt's inability to meetincreased expenditure etc - as these are not TRUTHs and every budget has to take note of such expenditure as in the case of SERVING EMPLOYEES.)

Regards/ wishes

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
07-02-2009, 12:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All

This has reference to the RTI postings made by me/others earlier.

Today (07/02/2009) I have sent another RTI query- this time to the CPIO at the DOPT - concerning the JCA section- referring to both the OMs issued on the Anomalky Committe terms/ constitution etc.

I have asked all questions related to all our doubts and also on specifics like whether the Committee wil take up Pensioners' cases. etc.

Perhaps we may have to write to DOP&PW- seeking Status on our grievances- role of Anomaly Committee vis a vis Pensioners- whether separate committte or DOP&PW itself will look into the cases of Pensioner in case the current one is for Employees, time-frame, provision for Fast Track, & many more queries wh have relevance.

Members of the Anomaly Committee may haver to be approached for hearing us.Associations/ Federations/ etc must seriously put forward the pensioners' cases.

More involvement/ representations of all are needed if the current Anomaly Committeee has to take up the Pensioners' cases also.

Regards
vnatarajan

dnaga57
07-02-2009, 07:12 PM
Dear Shri VN
A request... Can you stick to Black & White fonts ? Some of your colorful fonts cause strain to read, thus taking the sheen of your excellent posts.
Pardon me if it is impolite of me

Kanaujiaml
07-02-2009, 08:43 PM
My dear Pensioner Friends. I have also sent an RTI application to Min.of Personnel/DOP 0n 06 02 09 through a Registered Post with AD. Main contents are as under :

Shri M P Singh,
Chief Public Information Officer (RTI) and
Director (PP), DOP&PW,
Ministry of Personnel, PG&P,
Room No. 312, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Markeet,
New Delhi – 110001.

Dear Sir,
Sub. : - Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

I would be obliged if you would kindly furnish me the following information under RTI Act 2005 para 6.1. If the information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under RTI Act 2005 para 6.3, under intimation to me on my address given at the top :


I would be obliged if you would kindly furnish me the following information under RTI Act 2005 para 6.1. If the information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under RTI Act 2005 para 6.3, under intimation to me on my address given at the top :

VI CPC Report para 5.1.47 concerning Pensioners was accepted by the Govt. and approved by hon’ble Union Cabinet and Gazette Notification were issued containing Ministry of Personnel PG&P, DOP&PW Resolution No. PG&P(DOP&PW) 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 and Ministry of Finance F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08. According to this the Revised “Pension cannot be lower than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band (as given in fitment tables), and grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Subsequently, Ministry of Personnel PG&P, DOP&PW OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, issued amendment that “pension cannot be lower than 50% of sum of minimum of pay band and grade pay thereon, without any correspondence with the pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. Now, provide me ;

i) Certified copies of proposal/Justification for the issue of such an amendment along with name and designations of all the Authorities who signed it, together with copies of file Notings.

ii) The name and the designation of the financial Authority who concurred in the above proposal along with copies of file Notings.

iii) The name and the designation of the Authority who finally approved the above proposal before issuing the said OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08.

iv) Certified copy of approval of the hon’ble Union Cabinet under which the said amendment of the earlier authorization and approval of the Union Cabinet as notified under Gazette Notifications dated 29 08 08 and 30 08 08, was issued. If no such approval of Union Cabinet was obtained, reasons thereof, for not adhering to well established norms and rules that an amendment /modification to earlier approval of higher authority, cannot be issued by a lower authority.

A postal order for Rs. Ten is attached herewith as the application fee. Any further fee required for furnishing the said information, would be paid by me immediately on hearing from you about the amount etc.

vnatarajan
08-02-2009, 06:39 AM
Dear K

Excellent. I think one more- this time on the Anomaly Committee- preferably addressed to the attn. of the source wh issued the same(Estt -JCA) of the Min of Personnel/PG/Pensions may be useful . Pl try. I have already sent one- to them yesterday (07.02.2009)

D/Naga

Thanks for the suggestion. I shall stick to black & white bold. I used the colours- only to draw attention etc.

Regards
vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
08-02-2009, 08:44 AM
The article on army veterans returning their medals today to protest against the discrimination to the pensioners and refusal of the authorities for 'one rank one pay principle', should be an eye opener for many.Here is the article from Times of India;

"Printed from Army veterans to return medals
8 Feb 2009, 0305 hrs IST, Rajat Pandit, TNN
NEW DELHI: Soldiers wear their medals with great pride. But a "large number" of ex-servicemen will return their gallantry awards and distinguished service medals to the President after a protest rally at Jantar Mantar here on Sunday to protest the non-implementation of the "one-rank, one-pay (OROP)" principle and the "raw deal" given to armed forces by the 6th
Pay Commission.
Among them will be Col (retd) Kanwar Bhardwaj and his wife Shiksha, who will surrender the Shaurya Chakra awarded posthumously to their son, Capt Umang Bhardwaj, who died fighting terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir in 2002.
While the protest may revolve around pension, it has melded with the demands of the serving military personnel over their new revised payscales - an issue yet to be fully resolved by the government.
The ex-jawans and havaldars who plan to join the protest march have the support of their former bosses. "The country is not recognizing the pillar which supports it," said former Navy chief Adm Sushil Kumar.
Added Col Bhardwaj, "The status of armed forces, which are keeping the country safe, has been systematically downgraded by bureaucrats and politicians. We love India but we have been pushed to the walls. My wife will return my son's Shaurya Chakra, while I will surrender my Sena Medal, awarded for gallantry in 1971."
Former Army deputy chief, Lt-Gen (retd) Raj Kadyan, in turn, said, "My medals are my proudest possession but I will hand them over to the President, the supreme commander of the armed forces, for safe-custody till our demands are met."
The ex-servicemen feel they have been taken for a ride by successive governments on OROP despite virtually all political parties promising its implementation in their manifestos, election after election. The governments, in fact, have even brushed aside recommendations by parliamentary committees to swiftly resolve "the disparity of pensionary benefits
between pensioners of the same rank" without much ado.
The UPA government, on its part, has rejected the OROP demand, holding that it will entail huge financial costs - well over Rs 3,500 crore, with annual liabilities of around Rs 700 crore. This estimate takes into account payment of arrears with effect from January 1, 1996, the date from which the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were effective.
"It's also not possible to implement OROP due to administrative reasons and possible repercussions from the civil side, public sector and autonomous bodies," said a defence ministry official.
Ex-servicemen, however, beg to disagree. Tenets of justice demand defence personnel of same rank and length of service should get the same pension, irrespective of the retirement date, says vice-chairman of the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM), Maj-Gen (retd) Satbir Singh, who will also return his Sena Medal on Sunday.
"But after the 6th Pay Commission, the government has created four classes within a class - pre-1996, post-1996 to December 2005, post-January 2006 to September 2008 and post-October 2008," he said.
"For instance, a havaldar who retired before 1996 draws less pension than a sepoy who retired after 2006, and a Lt-Gen draws less pension than a Lt-Col. Ex-servicemen have been on a relay hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since December 16 but nobody listens to us since we are not a votebank," he added.
But their votes do matter. Defence pensioners alone notch up a tally of around 20 lakh, with another 55,000 being added to it every year. If one adds family members, over one crore people in India are directly connected with defence personnel or ex-servicemen.
Maj-Gen Singh said four former chiefs - Gen V P Malik and Admirals Sushil Kumar, Madhvendra Singh and Arun Prakash - "had promised their support" to the rally on Sunday. "Not only have serving and retired personnel of armed forces been given less than their due by the pay commission, but
their status and respect has also been eroded. The sense of anguish and hurt is so deep that we are compelled to return our medals," he added.
The rally comes at a time when the principal personnel officers' committee of the armed forces has once again written to the government to seek clarifications on their demands for equating all Lt-Generals and their equivalents in the IAF (Air Marshal) and Navy (Vice-Admiral) with director-generals of police as well as grade pay parity of military officers with their
civilian counterparts."

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 08:45 AM
My dear VN , other pensoner friends. I have already drafted a letter for Anomaly Committee which I have sent to RREWA, so that with necessary modifications, it could be sent to Anomaly Committe for considerations. I wanted to reproduce it here but could not do so as it is a long draft and gconnect is not accepting it here. I would request Mr. Maheshwari to put it up on rrewa.org

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 03:48 PM
My dear friends. As advised by Mr. VN, I have put up draft letter to Anomoly Committee from RREWA side in two parts in " Justice ..." thread. Kindly see my posts 111 and 112 on page 12 " Justice ....." thread.

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 03:55 PM
The article on army veterans returning their medals today to protest against the discrimination to the pensioners and refusal of the authorities for 'one rank one pay principle', should be an eye opener for many.Here is the article from Times of India;

"Printed from Army veterans to return medals
8 Feb 2009, 0305 hrs IST, Rajat Pandit, TNN
NEW DELHI: Soldiers wear their medals with great pride. But a "large number" of ex-servicemen will return their gallantry awards and distinguished service medals to the President after a protest rally at Jantar Mantar here on Sunday to protest the non-implementation of the "one-rank, one-pay (OROP)" principle and the "raw deal" given to armed forces by the 6th
Pay Commission.
Among them will be Col (retd) Kanwar Bhardwaj and his wife Shiksha, who will surrender the Shaurya Chakra awarded posthumously to their son, Capt Umang Bhardwaj, who died fighting terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir in 2002.
While the protest may revolve around pension, it has melded with the demands of the serving military personnel over their new revised payscales - an issue yet to be fully resolved by the government.
The ex-jawans and havaldars who plan to join the protest march have the support of their former bosses. "The country is not recognizing the pillar which supports it," said former Navy chief Adm Sushil Kumar.
Added Col Bhardwaj, "The status of armed forces, which are keeping the country safe, has been systematically downgraded by bureaucrats and politicians. We love India but we have been pushed to the walls. My wife will return my son's Shaurya Chakra, while I will surrender my Sena Medal, awarded for gallantry in 1971."
Former Army deputy chief, Lt-Gen (retd) Raj Kadyan, in turn, said, "My medals are my proudest possession but I will hand them over to the President, the supreme commander of the armed forces, for safe-custody till our demands are met."
The ex-servicemen feel they have been taken for a ride by successive governments on OROP despite virtually all political parties promising its implementation in their manifestos, election after election. The governments, in fact, have even brushed aside recommendations by parliamentary committees to swiftly resolve "the disparity of pensionary benefits
between pensioners of the same rank" without much ado.
The UPA government, on its part, has rejected the OROP demand, holding that it will entail huge financial costs - well over Rs 3,500 crore, with annual liabilities of around Rs 700 crore. This estimate takes into account payment of arrears with effect from January 1, 1996, the date from which the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were effective.
"It's also not possible to implement OROP due to administrative reasons and possible repercussions from the civil side, public sector and autonomous bodies," said a defence ministry official.
Ex-servicemen, however, beg to disagree. Tenets of justice demand defence personnel of same rank and length of service should get the same pension, irrespective of the retirement date, says vice-chairman of the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM), Maj-Gen (retd) Satbir Singh, who will also return his Sena Medal on Sunday.
"But after the 6th Pay Commission, the government has created four classes within a class - pre-1996, post-1996 to December 2005, post-January 2006 to September 2008 and post-October 2008," he said.
"For instance, a havaldar who retired before 1996 draws less pension than a sepoy who retired after 2006, and a Lt-Gen draws less pension than a Lt-Col. Ex-servicemen have been on a relay hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since December 16 but nobody listens to us since we are not a votebank," he added.
But their votes do matter. Defence pensioners alone notch up a tally of around 20 lakh, with another 55,000 being added to it every year. If one adds family members, over one crore people in India are directly connected with defence personnel or ex-servicemen.
Maj-Gen Singh said four former chiefs - Gen V P Malik and Admirals Sushil Kumar, Madhvendra Singh and Arun Prakash - "had promised their support" to the rally on Sunday. "Not only have serving and retired personnel of armed forces been given less than their due by the pay commission, but
their status and respect has also been eroded. The sense of anguish and hurt is so deep that we are compelled to return our medals," he added.
The rally comes at a time when the principal personnel officers' committee of the armed forces has once again written to the government to seek clarifications on their demands for equating all Lt-Generals and their equivalents in the IAF (Air Marshal) and Navy (Vice-Admiral) with director-generals of police as well as grade pay parity of military officers with their
civilian counterparts."

My dear G. Ramdass. There are some changes made now. For example the pension of Major General and Lt. General is no more less than a Brigadier. The letter (Annexure II) of Defence Ministry in this connection is available at http:/mod.nic.in/

vnatarajan
08-02-2009, 09:54 PM
Dear Mr GR/K/All

I thought the Military veterans will somehow be persuaded to stop surrendering the honour/ medals etc by the Govt. at least in the last minutes.

BUT NOTHING OF THAT SORT HAS HAPPENED. BUREAUCRACY HAS DONE THE DIRTIEST BUTCHERY IN THIS COUNTRY.

WHATEVER HAS HAPPENED, IT IS A BAD PRECEDENCE.

MATURE POLITICIANS/ GOVT. IN POWER/ OPPOSITION etc SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INITIATIVE TO STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

NATIONAL HONOURS/MERIT/ SERVICE TO THE NATION HAVE NO VALUE IN THIS COUNTRY.

MPs WANT RISE NOW AND GOVT. WILL FIND FUNDS FOR THEM TO FILL THEIR KITTYs WH ARE ALREADY FULL! WHEREAS POOR VETERAN JAWANS ARE BEING MADE TO BEG FOR THEIR JUST DEMANDS.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(News in publication?)

Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, February 09, 2009
First Published: 05:50 IST(9/2/2009)
Last Updated: 05:52 IST(9/2/2009)

Print

More than 300 retired soldiers of varying ranks on Sunday marched to the
Rashtrapati Bhavan and returned medals won in combat and for distinguished
service as they sought equal pension for each rank. The veterans were among
the thousands who had gathered earlier in the day at the Jantar Mantar
observatory in the heart of the capital for a protest that some said marked
a black day for the Indian armed forces.

President Pratibha Patil did not personally receive the medals, which were
collected by some of her officials.

"Our main demand is 'one rank one pension'. As a mark of protest we are
returning the medals to the president. A soldier wears his medal with pride
but we are left with no choice," former army deputy chief Lt. Gen. Raj
Kadyan told IANS. The president is supreme commander of the armed forces.

Kadyan held the Param Vishisht Seva Medal, the Ati-Vishisht Seva Medal and
the Vishisht Seva Medal -- all of which he surrendered Sunday.

The soldiers, who also included three-star generals, marched under the
banner of the Indian Ex-servicemen's Movement (IEM).

The march was led by Shiksha Bharadwaj, mother of Captain Umang Bharadwaj.
Her son was killed by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir in 2002 and he was
posthumously awarded Shaurya Chakra.

Umang's father, Col Kanwal Bharadwaj, a Sena Medal winner, accompanied her
and other former soldiers.

"When you are not able to meet two ends, the medal is of no consequence,"
Col Bharadwaj said. "The government did not pay any heed to our demand. We
had to take this step."

The main demand of the protestors is that irrespective of the date on which
a soldier retires, he or she should get the same pension.

An army sepoy who retired before 1996 gets a monthly pension of Rs.3,670.
But one who retired between 1996 and December 2005 gets Rs.4,680. A sepoy
who retired after January 2006 gets Rs.8,700.

Effectively then, an army havildar, who retired earlier, gets pension money
that is less than that of a sepoy retiring after January 2006 though the
havildar enjoys a higher rank. The mismatch applies to all ranks.

"Most IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officers, judges, governors, MPs
and even the president enjoy this right (of one rank one pension)," pointed
out one retired soldier.

The government has rejected the 'one rank one pension' demand, saying that
it will entail huge financial cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEB 08, 2008 WILL BE A BLACK AND SAD DAY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION!

THERE CAN NOT BE MORE HUMILIATION THAN WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN NOW!

vnatarajan

sundarar
08-02-2009, 10:59 PM
Dear Mr GR/K/All

I thought the Military veterans will somehow be persuaded to stop surrendering the honour/ medals etc by the Govt. at least in the last minutes.

BUT NOTHING OF THAT SORT HAS HAPPENED. BUREAUCRACY HAS DONE THE DIRTIEST BUTCHERY IN THIS COUNTRY.

WHATEVER HAS HAPPENED, IT IS A BAD PRECEDENCE.................

FEB 08, 2008 WILL BE A BLACK AND SAD DAY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION!

THERE CAN NOT BE MORE HUMILIATION THAN WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN NOW!

vnatarajan

Dear Sirs,

Our Senior Member Shri VN's Message will be an eye-opener for
the authorities to make good the damage done. Hence I repeated/quoted extracts (as my message ended with 12000 characters and hence ought to restrict it) again with a view to avoid slipping of the above message just posted.

Meanwhile, here is a letter written by pre-2006 pensioners to
DoP&PW, for kind information please.

A letter sent by some of the pre-pensioners of DRDO


Below is an appeal sent by some of Pre Pensioners of to concerned Department fpr information of all Pre-pensioners
QUOTE

To BY SPEED POST
The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Pensions and Pensions welfare,
Loknayak Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 003

Sir/Madam

Subject: Removal of disparity between present and past pensioners.
Reference: Office Memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt.1 of Government of India, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensions welfare , Loknayak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 003 dated 03-OCT-08

1.0. This refers to the clarification given regarding Paragraph 4.2 of office memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01-SEP-08 in the above cited Memorandum. Citing the example of pensioners, who retired in the pre-revised pay scale of 18,400 – 22,400; the minimum pension to be fixed as on 1.1.2006 has been arrived at Rs. 23,700 by taking in to account minimum pay in the pay band 37,400 – 67,000 and the grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale.

1.1 This pay scale refers to pensioners, who retired as Scientist `G’ in DRDO and other Scientific Establishments.

2.0 The fixation of pension for pre-pensioners in this manner totally goes against the spirit with which Sixth CPC has arrived at its recommendations. Quoting recommendations of fifth CPC at paragraph 5.1.46 of its report, sixth CPC had taken pains to cite past recommendations made by fifth CPC, on removing disparity between pre and post 1-1-1986 pensioners and mentioned:

`Quote’
Past pensioners – analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations
5.1.46 The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past & present pensioners in Forces.


The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

`Unquote’

2.1 Clearly the intention of fifth CPC and also sixth CPC was to extend full parity between past and present pensioners.

3.0 The Government of India, Ministry of Finance Vide its Memorandum F. No. 1/1/2008-1C dated 30-AUG-08 has brought out fitment table and fixed the pay for the present employees corresponding to pre-revised pay scale (S-29) of 18,400 – 22,400; as per the details given in Table-1 (attached).

3.1 According to this table, the employees retiring on or after 1-1-2006 will get the advantage of pension-fixation of this table, the minimum of which will be half of Rs.54.700 i.e. Rs.27,350.

3.2 Even the pensioners retiring with effect from 1-1-2006 or later in the lower grade (Scientist `F’ in DRDO and other Scientific Establishments), in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.16400-450-20900 (S-27) will get the advantage of Table-2 (attached), minimum of which is half of Rs. 48,590 i.e. Rs. 24,295. This works out to be higher than minimum (Rs.23,700) a pre-pensioner in the grade of Scientist `G’ (higher rank) gets, as per above cited memorandum. The person, in Scientist `F’ (S-27) grade, retiring at higher basic than the minimum will get pension more than Scientist `G’ retiring at highest basic pay of pre-revised scale (S-29).

3.3 This clearly indicates lot of disparity between past and present pensioners.

4.0 Going back to 6th CPC recommendations on fitment benefit, vide paragraph 5.1.47, the commission mentioned:

`Quote’
Fitment benefit to the past pensioners
5.1.47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners …….
…… The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.

`Unquote’

4.1 `The fixation of the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired’; cannot be construed to mean only grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale; as it does not address and extend the parity of past and present pensioners, as per the observations of Sixth CPC and as detailed at paragraph 2.0 above.

5.0 The anomaly is arising because of merger of number of scales into one pay band, due to which pre-pensioners retiring at the highest pre-revised pay scales are at disadvantage, while the present pensioners are getting advantage of revised pay fixation table.

5.1 The pre-pensioners, who retired as Scientist `F’ in DRDO and other scientific establishments will also be similarly affected.

6.0 We the past pensioners therefore earnestly appeal to you to kindly go through the recommendations of Sixth CPC carefully, with regard to extending parity between the present and past pensioners and take necessary steps to remove the disparity arising out of Office Memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A).pt.1 dated 03-OCT-08. We request you to fix the pension based on revised pay fixation tables applicable to present employers (as brought out Vide Memorandum F. No. 1/1/2008-1C dated 30-AUG-08 of Ministry of finance), which are also applicable to pensioners who retired on or after 01-O1-2006.

7.0 We hope necessary orders will be issued to pension disbursing authorities, removing this disparity at the earliest. We will be obliged to know the reasons, if any; if the decision is to maintain status-quo (as per above cited memorandum).

8.0 Request an early reply.

Regards.

(K. Mallikarjuna Rao)
for and on behalf of (36 ) signatories as per list attached
Sender’s address
K. Mallikarjuna Rao,
18-8-254/A/1/20, Bharat Ratna Colony,
Opp: Rakshapuram, Near DRDL,
P.O. Saidabad,
Hyderabad – 500 059

Enc: Two sheets of signatories.

UNQUOTE
If you are convinced about this letter, may I request all pre-pensioners to send similar appeal.

Kind Regards.
V. Vasudeva Murthy





Table-1

Pre-revised Scale (S-29) Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay
Rs. 18,400 – 500 – Rs.22,400 PB-4 Rs.37,400-67,000 +10000

Pre-revised basic pay Revised pay
Pay in the pay band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay
18,400 44,700 10,000 54,700
18,900 46,050 10,000 56,050
19,400 46,050 10,000 56,050
19,900 47,440 10,000 57,440
20,400 47,440 10,000 57,440
20,900 48,870 10,000 58,870
21,400 48,870 10,000 58,870
21,900 50,340 10,000 60,340
22,400 51,850 10,000 61,850
22,900 53,410 10,000 63,410
23,400 55,020 10,000 65,020
23,900 56,680 10,000 66,680

Table-2

Pre-revised Scale (S-27) Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay
Rs.16400-450-20900 PB-4 Rs.37,400-67,000 +10000

Pre-revised basic pay Revised pay
Pay in the pay band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay
16400 39690 8900 48590
16850 40890 8900 49790
17300 40890 8900 49790
17750 42120 8900 51020
18200 42120 8900 51020
18650 43390 8900 52290
19100 43390 8900 52290
19550 44700 8900 53600
20000 44700 8900 53600
20450 46050 8900 54950
20900 46050 8900 54950
21350 47440 8900 56340
21800 47440 8900 56340
22250 48870 8900 57770
----------------------
Like the above letter, We all attempt to get the authorities know what is happening around. But the other side is showing restraint with a vow not to speak at all.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
09-02-2009, 08:41 AM
Dear Sirs,

Our Senior Member Shri VN's Message will be an eye-opener for
the authorities to make good the damage done. Hence I repeated/quoted extracts (as my message ended with 12000 characters and hence ought to restrict it) again with a view to avoid slipping of the above message just posted.

Meanwhile, here is a letter written by pre-2006 pensioners to
DoP&PW, for kind information please.

A letter sent by some of the pre-pensioners of DRDO


Below is an appeal sent by some of Pre Pensioners of to concerned Department fpr information of all Pre-pensioners
QUOTE

To BY SPEED POST
The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Pensions and Pensions welfare,
Loknayak Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 003

Sir/Madam

Subject: Removal of disparity between present and past pensioners.
Reference: Office Memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt.1 of Government of India, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensions welfare , Loknayak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 003 dated 03-OCT-08

1.0. This refers to the clarification given regarding Paragraph 4.2 of office memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01-SEP-08 in the above cited Memorandum. Citing the example of pensioners, who retired in the pre-revised pay scale of 18,400 – 22,400; the minimum pension to be fixed as on 1.1.2006 has been arrived at Rs. 23,700 by taking in to account minimum pay in the pay band 37,400 – 67,000 and the grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale.

1.1 This pay scale refers to pensioners, who retired as Scientist `G’ in DRDO and other Scientific Establishments.

2.0 The fixation of pension for pre-pensioners in this manner totally goes against the spirit with which Sixth CPC has arrived at its recommendations. Quoting recommendations of fifth CPC at paragraph 5.1.46 of its report, sixth CPC had taken pains to cite past recommendations made by fifth CPC, on removing disparity between pre and post 1-1-1986 pensioners and mentioned:

`Quote’
Past pensioners – analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations
5.1.46 The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past & present pensioners in Forces.


The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

`Unquote’

2.1 Clearly the intention of fifth CPC and also sixth CPC was to extend full parity between past and present pensioners.

3.0 The Government of India, Ministry of Finance Vide its Memorandum F. No. 1/1/2008-1C dated 30-AUG-08 has brought out fitment table and fixed the pay for the present employees corresponding to pre-revised pay scale (S-29) of 18,400 – 22,400; as per the details given in Table-1 (attached).

3.1 According to this table, the employees retiring on or after 1-1-2006 will get the advantage of pension-fixation of this table, the minimum of which will be half of Rs.54.700 i.e. Rs.27,350.

3.2 Even the pensioners retiring with effect from 1-1-2006 or later in the lower grade (Scientist `F’ in DRDO and other Scientific Establishments), in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.16400-450-20900 (S-27) will get the advantage of Table-2 (attached), minimum of which is half of Rs. 48,590 i.e. Rs. 24,295. This works out to be higher than minimum (Rs.23,700) a pre-pensioner in the grade of Scientist `G’ (higher rank) gets, as per above cited memorandum. The person, in Scientist `F’ (S-27) grade, retiring at higher basic than the minimum will get pension more than Scientist `G’ retiring at highest basic pay of pre-revised scale (S-29).

3.3 This clearly indicates lot of disparity between past and present pensioners.

4.0 Going back to 6th CPC recommendations on fitment benefit, vide paragraph 5.1.47, the commission mentioned:

`Quote’
Fitment benefit to the past pensioners
5.1.47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners …….
…… The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.

`Unquote’

4.1 `The fixation of the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired’; cannot be construed to mean only grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale; as it does not address and extend the parity of past and present pensioners, as per the observations of Sixth CPC and as detailed at paragraph 2.0 above.

5.0 The anomaly is arising because of merger of number of scales into one pay band, due to which pre-pensioners retiring at the highest pre-revised pay scales are at disadvantage, while the present pensioners are getting advantage of revised pay fixation table.

5.1 The pre-pensioners, who retired as Scientist `F’ in DRDO and other scientific establishments will also be similarly affected.

6.0 We the past pensioners therefore earnestly appeal to you to kindly go through the recommendations of Sixth CPC carefully, with regard to extending parity between the present and past pensioners and take necessary steps to remove the disparity arising out of Office Memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A).pt.1 dated 03-OCT-08. We request you to fix the pension based on revised pay fixation tables applicable to present employers (as brought out Vide Memorandum F. No. 1/1/2008-1C dated 30-AUG-08 of Ministry of finance), which are also applicable to pensioners who retired on or after 01-O1-2006.

7.0 We hope necessary orders will be issued to pension disbursing authorities, removing this disparity at the earliest. We will be obliged to know the reasons, if any; if the decision is to maintain status-quo (as per above cited memorandum).

8.0 Request an early reply.

Regards.

(K. Mallikarjuna Rao)
for and on behalf of (36 ) signatories as per list attached
Sender’s address
K. Mallikarjuna Rao,
18-8-254/A/1/20, Bharat Ratna Colony,
Opp: Rakshapuram, Near DRDL,
P.O. Saidabad,
Hyderabad – 500 059

Enc: Two sheets of signatories.

UNQUOTE
If you are convinced about this letter, may I request all pre-pensioners to send similar appeal.

Kind Regards.
V. Vasudeva Murthy





Table-1

Pre-revised Scale (S-29) Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay
Rs. 18,400 – 500 – Rs.22,400 PB-4 Rs.37,400-67,000 +10000

Pre-revised basic pay Revised pay
Pay in the pay band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay
18,400 44,700 10,000 54,700
18,900 46,050 10,000 56,050
19,400 46,050 10,000 56,050
19,900 47,440 10,000 57,440
20,400 47,440 10,000 57,440
20,900 48,870 10,000 58,870
21,400 48,870 10,000 58,870
21,900 50,340 10,000 60,340
22,400 51,850 10,000 61,850
22,900 53,410 10,000 63,410
23,400 55,020 10,000 65,020
23,900 56,680 10,000 66,680

Table-2

Pre-revised Scale (S-27) Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay
Rs.16400-450-20900 PB-4 Rs.37,400-67,000 +10000

Pre-revised basic pay Revised pay
Pay in the pay band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay
16400 39690 8900 48590
16850 40890 8900 49790
17300 40890 8900 49790
17750 42120 8900 51020
18200 42120 8900 51020
18650 43390 8900 52290
19100 43390 8900 52290
19550 44700 8900 53600
20000 44700 8900 53600
20450 46050 8900 54950
20900 46050 8900 54950
21350 47440 8900 56340
21800 47440 8900 56340
22250 48870 8900 57770
----------------------
Like the above letter, We all attempt to get the authorities know what is happening around. But the other side is showing restraint with a vow not to speak at all.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

Excellent. Can you advise the same Association to send one like this to Anomaly Committee as well

vnatarajan
09-02-2009, 09:01 AM
Dear Dr. Kotre/ Dr Vasudeva Murthy/ other scientists/ engineers

As Mr Kanaujia has rightly pointed out, I think your group(s) with all the signatures/ individually also, can send appeal(s) to the Anomaly Committee .

You can add the HONOURs/ NATIONAL AWARDS bestowed on scientists/ engineers also have no value than the worth of the paper on which they are printed- in view of the treatment that is being meted out to the Medals/ Honour Rolls of the Service veterans!

Lat us save ourselves!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-02-2009, 02:28 PM
Dear MR K/ MR GR/ All Pensioners

I was trying to find out the Principles etc related to pension - which were adopted by the 6CPC, as these may be related to the Anomaly Committee conditions for deciding on the definition of "anomaly".

The principles are dealt in Chapter1.2 in the 6CPC Report.

While dealing with the "Pension", the last paragraph in this Chapter at 1.2.25, states as follows:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Implementation of
recommendations

1.2.25 The Report has been kept concise as the Commission is
of the view that lengthy and elaborate documents tend to get
ignored as well as are liable to be quoted out of context. Most of
the demands made before the Commission have been addressed
by recommending systemic changes. Such demands have not
been individually referred to in the Report. The number of
recommendations made by the Commission is also limited. All
the recommendations are inter-connected and need to be treated
as an organic whole. Partial implementation of these
recommendations will destroy the underlying spirit, break the
common thread and bring in several anomalies and
inconsistencies. The Report would, therefore, need to be
treated in a holistic manner and the recommendations
considered as a package".

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

SO,RECOMMENDATIONS COVER IMPLEMENTATIONS ALSO.
PRINCIPLES COVERING RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE THOSE ON PENSIONS ALSO.

Hence we should certainly impress on the Anomaly Committee to deal with our cases also in an appropriate manner.

Regards

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
09-02-2009, 05:22 PM
Re Sh Vn's Post above:

Now read the recommendatios at para5.1.47 of 6CPC Report along with the above.It makes a lot of sense when these are read together:

5.1.47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is
being recommended for the existing Government employees. -----This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. -- The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table."

It is clear that the Report of the Commossion is unambiguous and the confusion has been created only with the issue of modifications in O.M.dt 3/10/08.
GR

vnatarajan
09-02-2009, 07:18 PM
Dear All

In order to have the entire part relevant to PENSION vs PHILOSOPHY & GUIDING PRINCIPLES that were adopted by the 6th CPC, at one place, I am posting the extracts here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 1.2
Philosophy & the guiding principles

Extracts:

Changes in pension rules to facilitate early exit/ contractual appointment

1.2.12 The Commission has also recommended modifications
in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 that will enable payment of
pension at the rate of 50% of the average emoluments/ last pay
drawn without any reference to the qualifying service of 33
years for full pension. This will enable Government employees
to leave the service at a relatively young age, in case they feel
that they have more opportunities outside, or to opt for
contractual appointment for specified posts within the
Government. Simultaneously, the Government will be able to
tap the best available expertise from within or outside the
Government for senior positions. Shift from career based to
post based selection in the higher echelons of Government has
been recommended in order to get the best domain based
expertise. For Groups B and C, a fast track promotion
mechanism has been recommended by means of Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination that is proposed to be
introduced in most of the levels in Groups B and C.

Pension

1.2.15 Recommendations have been made to simplify the
procedure for computation of pension. As mentioned earlier,
the Commission has recommended delinking the payment of
full pension on completing 33 years of qualifying service.
Higher rates of pension have been recommended for retirees on
attaining the age of 80, 85, 90, 95 and 100 years. A revised
commutation factor for commuting pension has also been
suggested taking into account the prevailing mortality rates,
interest rates and fact that the commuted portion is restorable
after 15 years.

Implementation of
recommendations

1.2.25 The Report has been kept concise as the Commission is
of the view that lengthy and elaborate documents tend to get
ignored as well as are liable to be quoted out of context. Most of
the demands made before the Commission have been addressed
by recommending systemic changes. Such demands have not
been individually referred to in the Report. The number of
recommendations made by the Commission is also limited. All
the recommendations are inter-connected and need to be treated
as an organic whole. Partial implementation of these
recommendations will destroy the underlying spirit, break the
common thread and bring in several anomalies and
inconsistencies. The Report would, therefore, need to be
treated in a holistic manner and the recommendations
considered as a package.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
09-02-2009, 08:07 PM
My dear Pensioners friends. A large number of pensioners are having individual problems and anomalies. It is clear from views expressed by some of them on gconnect forum as well as elsewhere. Some of them have even sent e. mail to me. There are 12 members on Staff Side in Anomaly Committee, namely,
1. Shri U.M. Prohit
2. Shri M.Raghavaiah
3. Shri Rakhal Das Gupta
4. Shri RP.Bhatnagar
5, Shri Guman Singh
6. Shri C.Srikumar
7. Shri S.K Vyas
8. Shri Ch.Sankara Rao
9. Shri K S.Murty
10. Shri R Srinivasan
11. Shri KKN. Kutty
12. Shri S.G. Mishra

Letters can be sent to them (throught Registered Post with AD)without hesitaton individually highlighting individual problems/anomalies. (all pensioners are past employees and have rights to be heard by Anomaly Committee). Letters can be addressed to any of these 12 members and can be sent through "Secretary (Staff Side), National Council (JCM), 13-C Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi."

vnatarajan
11-02-2009, 04:19 PM
Dear All

Thanks to Mr SCM/ Mr K for writing the FIRST letter to the Anomaly Committee. Pl visit the RREWA website for details.

Dear All

Another MOST important info. appearing in the RREWA website:

That is regarding the letter written by the Hon'ble MP of Lok Sabha Shri B K Tripathy of Biju Janata Dal written to the Secy, Min of Personnel, PG & Pensions, dt 31st January 2009.

OUR GRATEFUL THANKS TO SHRI B K TRIPATHY and Biju Janata Dal for their keen and abiding interests in the welfare of the PENSIONERS>

Regards

VNatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to AIFPA), Chennai

S.Balasubramanian
11-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Dear friends,
I would like to draw your attention to the OM dated 11th February, 2009 issued by DOP rejecting outright all references/representations on para 4.2, again in consultation with Ministry of Finance and not with sanction of President. Special attention is invited to para 5 of the above OM where the benefit of minimum of para 4.2 is not applicable to upgradation of pay scale subsequent to retirement, in the case of pre-2006 pensioners. I feel that it smacks of a highly mischievous interpretation and indeed amounts to a saddistic beating of the pre-2006 pensioners with an iron rod.
I am not able to upload it in this forum board because of the size limit. But it can be seen in the URL
www.pensionersportal.gov.in
What action should be taken now in the face of this OM needs careful and deep consideration with the collective wisdom of all pensioners.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
11-02-2009, 05:49 PM
Dear All

This outcome was expected. That is why the equality issue in terms of Court Judgments etc have been cited every time.

Again as Shri Bala observed, the same play of words are being made to convey what has been done is always correct whether it is corresponding or irrespective and whether its is minimum of the pay or minimum of etc.

Of course this is the way even we might have answered if we were the perpetrators of the Tables (so alaborately done to eliminate us) and defend our actions when in similar position.Therefore everything were quite well artiiculated and preconcieved.

Disposing of all reps in one stroke is not tenable. It is not the language or the wordings wh was the issue. Our issue was the injustice by denial of even the modified parity- wh is being evaded and the ISSUE still remains.

6th CPC's guiding philosophy and principles and their concordance tables for pensioners never meant the twisted meaning now being given to the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008/ reiterating the correctness of the Table of Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008.

Fresh round of reps. will start now????

We have to go to the anomaly committee as debated. And exhaust that channel also.

IF THIS TYPE OF- MERGING AND DOWNGRADING DOZENS OF SCALES TO BE CONVERTED TO A SINGLE PAY BAND WITH A MINIMUM AT "ZERO" FOR ALL SCALES FROM S 30 downwards IS ADOPTED BY THE GOVT.IN FUTURE (nothing prevents them from doing so!), THEN ONLY S 31 to S 34 scale pensioners will survive. ALL THE REST WILL VANISH!

WHY NOT GOVT. DO THAT?

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-02-2009, 07:40 PM
My dear Pensioner friends. DOP's letter dated 11 02 09 is reiteration of the earlier orders. They are adament. There is therefore, more the reason that we should once again resolve to continue our struggle. S30 Association at Delhi was expecting that they would be given a separate Rev. pay scale. This also DOP has denied. The greatest hurdle before us are forthcomming elections. Because of elections, every politician is now busy in his own affair and they have no time to listen to anything else. This would prolong our struggle but eventually they would have to listen to us as they did in case of vth CPC. Not much time is left for the elections now.

vnatarajan
12-02-2009, 07:19 AM
Yes Mr K & all

Let us follow the Military track!

They have already counted they can influence 60 MP constituencies in Punjab/ Haryana/ Himachal Pradesh-alone- from where a gd chunk of Military veterans hail from- and also many of their kith & kin are now in services!

IT IS NOT A JOKE TO IGNORE THIS TYPE OF STATISTICS WH HAVE BEEN GATHERED METICULOUSLY.

ALSO THIS TIME EVERY ARMY FELLOW IS GOING TO VOTE (WHOM???????)_ AS POSTAL BALLOT IS IN VOGUE AND EVERY JAWAN IS ADVISED TO EXERCISE HIS FRANCHISE ( IN WHOSE FAVOUR????)

EVERY CIVILIAN PENSIONERs must also start thinking on these lines!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
12-02-2009, 08:18 AM
Yes Mr K & all

Let us follow the Military track!

They have already counted they can influence 60 MP constituencies in Punjab/ Haryana/ Himachal Pradesh-alone- from where a gd chunk of Military veterans hail from- and also many of their kith & kin are now in services!

IT IS NOT A JOKE TO IGNORE THIS TYPE OF STATISTICS WH HAVE BEEN GATHERED METICULOUSLY.

ALSO THIS TIME EVRY ARMY FELLOW IS GOING TO VOTE (WHOM???????)_ AS POSTAL BALLOT IS IN VOGUE AND EVERY JAWAN IS ADVISED TO EXERCISE HIS FRANCHISE ( IN WHOSE FAVOUR????)

EVRY CIVILIAN PENSIONERs must also start thinking on these lines!

vnatarajan

My dear VN. What is the guarantee that when opposition comes to power after elections, they would listen to us ? They are all of the same breed.

dnaga57
12-02-2009, 10:48 AM
Fair point.
It is not who wins which would matter but the possibility of 'losing' being made known. We need to extract justice during the Election period - not necessarily afterwords.
How are we going to decide on voting?
How we will instill some fear on this count?

vnatarajan
12-02-2009, 12:46 PM
Dear K/ naga/ all

It is not that the speculation on which we are depending. Yes the opposition may be also equally atrocious. But then right now- the current situation counts!. That is what the military veterans are highlighting slowly. Certainly, if a minority Govt. wants to retain power, it has to count every vote.

As you are very much aware it is the Employees Unions and Associations who are capable of making such bargains during the election times.

At the same time, the Pensioner Federations/ Associtions appear to be tooth-less- and apparently appear to be more obliged the Govrs. whoever is in power! I dont know if I am wrong! We have 12 experts on the Staff Side- all Pensioners- are they are not capable of protecting the in terests of pensioners- as the issue is very anomalous! They have the leverage of Vote Bank background!

Going back to the OM part:

(English language is so unique that our MOF/ MoP/PG/P are capable of twisting it to convey whatever they want without naswering the CORE queries that were raised!
Six independent minimums are eaqual to same minimum by their language!
say: (1) 14300 = 37400
(2) 18400 = 37400
-------------------------
(2)-(1) 4100 = 00000 )
-------------------------

If u allow these experts to continue to have their say forever, they can reduce everything to zero.

We have to follow Satyam formula now.

No taxes to start with!.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
12-02-2009, 01:50 PM
Dear All

I MUST SHARE THE VIEW THAT OUR PMO is very fast!- OUR HON.BLE PM's OFFICE HAD DULY RECIEVED MY APPEAL DTD 20th Jan 2009- may be by 24th or 25th Jan.

It was immediately forwarded with remarks to the Secy, DoP/PW, Min of P/PG/P with text- "A letter dated 20.01.2009, received in this office from Shri V. NATARAJAN is forwarded herewith for action as appropriate" -on 05.02.2009- i.e. in may be less than 12 days' time.

Only to be disposed off in a MASS- by MoP/PG/P vide the OM dtd 11 th Feb 2009? in the most unceremonious manner? May be or May not be. Let me wait & see!!!

What an irony?

vnatarajan

Sushil Kumar
12-02-2009, 03:40 PM
Dear all,

In the letter of detailment of anomaly committee there is a reference of "Arbitrator" to consider those aspects which the anomaly committee fails to resolve. After issue of recent letter dated 11/02/09, We should examine if we can ask for detailment of an Arbitrator to consider the issues being raised by pensioners. The associations/federations of pensioners as well as individual pensioners can represent to the President and P.M. for the detailment of an independent Arbitrator to listen to both the parties and take an independent decision to be followed by the implementing authorities.

Kanaujiaml
12-02-2009, 05:55 PM
Dear all,

In the letter of detailment of anomaly committee there is a reference of "Arbitrator" to consider those aspects which the anomaly committee fails to resolve. After issue of recent letter dated 11/02/09, We should examine if we can ask for detailment of an Arbitrator to consider the issues being raised by pensioners. The associations/federations of pensioners as well as individual pensioners can represent to the President and P.M. for the detailment of an independent Arbitrator to listen to both the parties and take an independent decision to be followed by the implementing authorities.

My dear Sushil Kumar. Arbitrator would be appointed to deal with those matters which remain unresolved by Anomaly Committee. Even, terms of reference of Anomaly Committee do not include matters related to pensioners. Even than rrewa has written a letter to Seceretary, Staff side, Anomaly Committee, highlighting injustice being done to pensioners. Let us see what Anomaly Committe decides about it. Actually, Anomaly Committee is part of JCM and JCM is for regular employees. Nevertheless, we maintain that Pensioners are past employees and therefore, their cases should be considered. The fact of the entire matter is that Govt. has given respnsibility of pensioners to DOP and DOP is adament not to do anything further, as is evident from letter dated 11 02 09. We need desperately, a heavy weight to interefere on behalf of pensioners. So far there is no luck.

vnatarajan
13-02-2009, 12:53 PM
Dear all

I am not able to put/place the full OM of 11th Feb here.

My doubts are:

I HAVE TAKEN THE EXAMPLE OF MERGER OF S24 to S30 Pre-revised Pay Scales into A SINGLE PAY BAND PB 4. ANSWERS TO BE BASED ON AVAILABLE FACTS & FIGURES and NOT ON INTERPRETATIONS.

1. All the pre-revised pay scales S24 to S30 are merged into a single pay band PB 4 and shown in Annexure 1 dtd 14th Oct 2008.WHAT IS THE DATE OF EFFECT OF THIS OM if any for benefit by upgradation/ or reduction by degradation to be reckoned? Can such a benefit/ reduction be retrospective?

2.All are aware prior to 1.1.2006, there are no OMs merging such pre-revised pay-scales into pay-bands. Is there any official record/ order/ document to the contrary? (The only acceptable record or document which developed the concept cd be 6CPC report itself but then that too came into existence only in March 2008)

3.Going to Para 4.2 of OM dtd 1.9.2008, the "famous" lines included the compounded word "pay-band"- and what was the "pay-band' available at that point of time? Certainly it can not be the concocted version of "pay-bands" that originated and found place in OMs much later- in OM dtd 14th Oct 2008.

4.The only available pay-bands were those which were shown in the OMs related to Pay Revision issued at the end of August 2008.? May be in the 6CPC Report tables of Pay.

5. In the OM of 11th Feb 2009, it is said that "the benefit of upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be permissible to pre-2006 pensioners". Is any one asking for it? Whom does this sentence address? pre-2006 pensioners are asking only for parity that too at the minimum! Also they are not asking for demotion to lower equivalents(S24 in this example))

6.If pre-revised S24 pensioner is placed in the Pay Band 4 for pension fixation which actually is applicable to his higher and still higher ranks/ grades also, would it mean upgradation? If no, then only Grade pay comes into reckoning for all purposes?

7.Does it mean the Pay Band 4 had no value other than a single point significance ie 37400 in value. Can this be a "Pay-Band"? IT is only a constant minimum figure of "PAY"- The word "band" need not be there. IT is the same MINIMUM as well as MAXIMUM in the new pay band for seven pre-revised pay-scales! IS IT NOT AN ANOMALY? IT IS A MANIPULATION to DISTORT THE ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE 6CPC that too posthumously, ONLY TO REDUCE THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS of all pre-2006 pensioners.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
13-02-2009, 01:52 PM
F. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)
Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan.. New Delhi-11 0003
3rcf Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan
Khan Market, New Delhi-11 0003
Dated the 11th February, 2009.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Representations regarding revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners.

The undersigned is directed to say that in accordance with instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale. It was clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable before 29.2008 and in no case it will be less than Rs 3500/- p.m. The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the sum of the minimum of ~" the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised [~~;~ pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. A Table indicating the revised ':1"" pension based on revised pay bands and grade pay was also annexed with this
Department's OM dated 14.10.2008.

2 A large number of representations/references are being received in this Department raising the following issues.

(i) It has been alleged that the above instructions are discriminatory/anomalous and are not in conformity with the decision taken on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;
(ii) It has been suggested that certain pre-2006 scales of pay should be allowed pay band/grade payor pay scales higher than that mentioned in Col. 6 in Annexure 1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008;
(iii) It has been suggested that in cases where certain posts have been upgraded and allowed higher pay bandlgrade payor pay scale, the application of the provision in para 4.2 of the OM dated 1 9.2008 (as clarified from time to time) should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/grade payor pay scale.

3. These representations/references have been examined in consultation with .. Ministry of Finance. The instructions/clarifications issued in this regard are in ~ consonance with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change is required to be made in this respect.

4. The Table in Annexure-1 of this Department's OM dated 14.10.2008 is based on the CCS(Revised Rules), 2008 which are applicable to the employees in the ~;\ service as on 1.1.2006 and no dispensation in this regard can be made in respect of pre-2006 pensioners for the purpose of application of the provision of Para 4.2 of this Department's OM dated 1.9.2008.

5. In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the i.j" provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the ~ minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre- i~:~ revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, the benefit of Ot,- upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard.

6. All references/representations received in this Department on the above issues stand disposed off accordingly.
...~ .
(M.P. Singh)
Director (PP)
Telefax No.24624802
To
1. All Ministries/Departments of Government of India
2. All Pensioners' Association

G.Ramdas
13-02-2009, 02:15 PM
I am reproducing Sh VN's post in the other thread and my reply therto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vnatarajan
Dear all

I think there was also a concordance table given for pensions in the 6CPC report wh will link/ confirm what the 6cpc meant and tried to convey.

I do remember the parity was given - may be not point to point- but at least one for two increments- and clearly for every pre-revised scale of pay, the equivalence was shown.

So, as far as my interpretation goes, the excuse being given on the "MINIMUM of the Pay" "Corresponding to" vs "MINIMUM IN" "IRRESPECTIVE OF" - as if they mean same to work out to the disadvantage of pensioners is nonsense.

If para 4'2 of OM of 1st sept 2008 is related to the 6cpc recommendation in letter and spirit, then clearly it must be linked to the concordance table of 6cpc itself to see what it means. IF IT IS NOT SO (can not be in the least), then we are in wilderness.

It is clear the MOF is taking shelter under semantics - not the facts obtainable in the Report and its annexures.

I dont know if I am correct! - BUT STILL IT MAY BE WORTHWHILT TO CHK THE ANNEXURES & see what the CPC meant to give exactly in terms of amounts & figures!

Anybody who can chk & find out pl.?

Regards
vnatarajan [/SIZE]
I have checked the Annexures to 6CPC Recommendations and find no concordance table for past pensioners. But in par 5.1.47 of the report the Commission says "The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees"
GR
The following para of 6CPC report is also relevant:
"5.1.3 Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 regulate pension of Central Government employees appointed on or beforeDecember 31, 2003. The employees of Union Territory Administrations and civilian Government employees in thedefence services borne on pensionable establishments are also covered by these rules. The term pension is not specifically defined
under these Rules. The Supreme Court in the famous judgment of D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) had observed that pension is a payment for past services rendered."

aritra78
13-02-2009, 02:23 PM
Respected Senior Pensioners',
All the pre-2006 pensioners except those who are in the elite group (S-31 onwards) and their family members are shocked at the rude response of DOP&PW vide their OMS dated 11.02.2009 & 12.02.2009. It may be noted that in spite of appeals of hundreds of individual old pensioners who held very high posts in Government Service and collective representation of pensioner associations the attitude of DOP&PW is highly adamant and inhuman. It is my personal view that most of the Government servants irrespective of rank and Dept. posted at New Delhi is very much indifferent to the problems of others. May be they feel that they will never draw pension in their life. In many of my personal cases also I got lot of humiliation in New Delhi.
Respected Natarajanji had yesterday got a formal acknowledgement from PMO, but I do not expect any positive outcome of that. All these letters are just to kill time with no fruitful result. I am handling a similar case of reimbursement with CGHS Kolkata via Directorate of Public grievance, Cabinet Secretariat. Initially I was happy at their response butnow I am getting exhausted because there is no positive result except wasting time.
I think after the Om dated 11.02.2009 there is no other channel left except approaching the Honourable court to get justice. Before that an appeal may be sent to Honourable President and Vice President requesting their kind intervention into the matter.While they handle the issue (if at all or simply forward it to DOP&PW with appropriate action which is of no use) in parallel the preparation for filing of case may be done. The necessary fund collection may be started right now by RREWA/Bharat Pension Samaj or any such association if they are willing.
Lastly may be the one of the youngest user of this thread I request you all that we should not give up hope. We should continue fighting like Robert Bruce till at least some relatively young pensioners can see that they have won the legal battle in the fag end of their life. If contributions are collected please put in this website so that i can request father to join it.
With regards to all senior pensioners,
ARITRA GANGULY

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 08:09 AM
Respected Senior Pensioners',
All the pre-2006 pensioners except those who are in the elite group (S-31 onwards) and their family members are shocked at the rude response of DOP&PW vide their OMS dated 11.02.2009 & 12.02.2009. It may be noted that in spite of appeals of hundreds of individual old pensioners who held very high posts in Government Service and collective representation of pensioner associations the attitude of DOP&PW is highly adamant and inhuman. It is my personal view that most of the Government servants irrespective of rank and Dept. posted at New Delhi is very much indifferent to the problems of others. May be they feel that they will never draw pension in their life. In many of my personal cases also I got lot of humiliation in New Delhi.
Respected Natarajanji had yesterday got a formal acknowledgement from PMO, but I do not expect any positive outcome of that. All these letters are just to kill time with no fruitful result. I am handling a similar case of reimbursement with CGHS Kolkata via Directorate of Public grievance, Cabinet Secretariat. Initially I was happy at their response butnow I am getting exhausted because there is no positive result except wasting time.
I think after the Om dated 11.02.2009 there is no other channel left except approaching the Honourable court to get justice. Before that an appeal may be sent to Honourable President and Vice President requesting their kind intervention into the matter.While they handle the issue (if at all or simply forward it to DOP&PW with appropriate action which is of no use) in parallel the preparation for filing of case may be done. The necessary fund collection may be started right now by RREWA/Bharat Pension Samaj or any such association if they are willing.
Lastly may be the one of the youngest user of this thread I request you all that we should not give up hope. We should continue fighting like Robert Bruce till at least some relatively young pensioners can see that they have won the legal battle in the fag end of their life. If contributions are collected please put in this website so that i can request father to join it.
With regards to all senior pensioners,
ARITRA GANGULY

My dear Aritra Ganguly. Your frustration is understandable. We are slowly moving towards the final destination " PIL in Supreme Court ". RREWA and Bharat Pensioners Samaj are working towards it. You can surf http:/irrewa.org/ and send e. mail to Mr. Maheshwari, Gen. Sec. of RREWA via [email protected] expressing your views, if you wish so.

vnatarajan
14-02-2009, 02:33 PM
Yes Mr Aritra. AS Mr Kanaujiami has suggested, pl do respond. Pl. mobilise more pensioners thru the efforts/ good offices of your father/ his colleagues to join hands with the RREWA/ BPS - to take the fight steadily to the ultimate goal.
Vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 07:38 PM
My dear VN. Today I have received the AD of my RTI query. The reply must come within 30 days. Let us see what happens. As you may be knowing it already, the Ministry of Finance actually decides everyting, though it remains hidden behind executive. Somehow an RTI query should go to them also. What do you think ?

vnatarajan
14-02-2009, 08:50 PM
Dear K
I fully agree. Till now, all the OMs pertaining to Pensioners are issued by the Min of P/PG?P as we all are aware and hence we had been keeping up the protocol!.
I think as you rightly said, we will address them at the right opportunity!
In the meanwhile, I am drafting a THANKS MESSAGE to Hon'ble MP Shri Tripathy- I want to send by Regd Post as also by email. I think I have to look for his email id in the MP's list.
I feel there must be still some answers/ clarifications to come from the MinP/PG/P. As others pointed out, I also feel UPGRADATION may not concern us! It may be for those Sel Gr Directors who might have stagnated at 18300 levels and got the stagnation increments and crossed 18400 - may be the next scale also! Let us see. Similarly there cd be SAG level fellows who might have crossed 22400! Still I am confused what they wanted to convey EXACTLY, wrt scales like ours!
In our rep on 11th Feb OM we will seek clarifications on these. We will go for RTI provision also wrt the COMPETENT authority wh vetted this decision- other than MOF!
vnatarajan
.

Kanaujiaml
16-02-2009, 08:00 PM
Dear All. We have seen earlier the Railway Budget. Today we have seen the Main Budget too. Actually it is not a budget but vote for acounts for first 3 monts of the next financial year. So, it appears the Govt. has fully come in election mode. It was not unexpected. Then, what should be our strategy for next 3 months ?

vnatarajan
16-02-2009, 09:04 PM
Dear K/ all

U r correct!. Hon. Shri Advaniji had grabbed the initiative to appease the Military Veterans by going full steam on the OROP!!!

No takers for Civil Pensioners?

Our position for next three months will be "ANOMALOUS" or "ANONYMOUS"!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
17-02-2009, 09:29 AM
Dear All

Now that 11 th Feb OM has been issued to clarify some doubts (if at all we understand and interpret the relevant points), I think we have to be clear as to ahat has happened to cases like many who have appealed for doubts other than those answered by this OM..

These two paragraphs are relevant perhaps from the point of view of parity/ equality::

Para "4. The Table in Annexure-1 of this Department's OM dated 14.10.2008 is based on the CCS(Revised Rules), 2008 which are applicable to the employees in the ~;\ service as on 1.1.2006 and no dispensation in this regard can be made in respect of pre-2006 pensioners for the purpose of application of the provision of Para 4.2 of this Department's OM dated 1.9.2008."

DOES THIS CLEARLY CONVEY-PRE-2006 Pensioners- all those even prior to that- older pensioners- are not affected by Table in Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008? EVEN THOSE PRIOR TO 2008?IF IT APPLIES TO THOSE PRIOR TO 2008- then upto what datum- say is it up to 1.1.2006 backwards? What about Annexure II (supposed to be illustrations of fixation of pension etc in terms of para 4.2 of OM of 1.9.2008?

Para-"5. In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the i.j" provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the ~ minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre- i~:~ revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, the benefit of Ot,- upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard."

Here the important point is UPGRADATION.

Since many of our scales have NOT been upgraded in 6CPC orders, question of denying any benefit as relevant to UPGRADATION does not arise- as otherwise also- NO PENSIONER WOULD MAKE SUCH A DEMAND!. Any example of post that is upgraded?

Hence. it boils down to either you are governed by 2.26 formula or with WHAT "BENEFICIAL" FIXATION/ IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH WHAT SCALE? SAME AS THOSE FOR SERVING EMPLOYEES?

So our arguments had been always on modifed parity that too at the minimum as already recommended/ accepted/ cabinet approcved/ President sanctioned/ gazette notified.

I feel- WE MUST NOW APPEAL TO THE DOPPW TO REVIEW OUR CASES IN THIS LIGHT_ as Banks have fixed us at the minimum of the respective pay bands and not based on the pay in the new equivalent pay structure at the appropriate corresponding minimum level of it. BECAUSE BANKS ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT!NOR CAN WE EXPECT THE DOP/PW TO ACT BASED ON EARLIER REPS.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
17-02-2009, 05:20 PM
My dear Pensioners friends. There is a good news. Bharat Pensioner Samaj has sent an appeal to Prime Minister vide its letter dated 16 02 09. It was decided in the meeting of pensiosner's associations that BPS would first write to PM and explore all possibilities of redressal of pensioenrs grievances before moving towards legal remedy. BPS has in fact demanded that an Anomaly Committee for pensioenrs should be set up to deal with pensioners grievances resulted from implementation of 6th CPC Report.

Copy of BPS letter is available on Justice Thread please.

S.Balasubramanian
18-02-2009, 11:31 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
The questions raised by you in regard to OM of 11.2.09 are well taken. If para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.08 for pre-2006 pensioners is not applicable to them, where was the need to incorporate it in that OM at all? If the intention is that pre-2006 pensioners will have to draw only existing basic pension x 2.26 for the whole of their life, irrespective of any subsequent upgradation, is the clarification in OM dt.3.10.2008 giving 23050 as minimum for those whose pre-revised pay scales are going into PB4, futile? In the latter case, will the amounts paid already on the basis of 23050 be reocvered in those cases? (It might be pertinent to mention here that in the case of some public sector employees who had drawn lump sum payment on absorption in PUs, and are drawing pensioin terms of court orders, on the basis of some audit instruction recoveries have been made/are being made by banks, and their representations to DOP have not evoked any response so far). The answers to these quesdtions can be obtained only from some friendly PAO who could raise these quesdions with DOP and get answers and share them with us.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
19-02-2009, 07:55 AM
Dear Shri Bala

Your observations are very interesting. Same as what was in my mind!- But then I reasoned the outcome to a positive side- because of the category of S24 affected/involved!

I think all the problems appear to be related to the interest in "UPGRADATION" - of the scale S24 (sorry they - i mean the "interest-less'' category in this scale shd not misunderstand me - as they appear to be "accidental' beneficiaries!) which had to be brought UP from PB3 to PB4!

Reality is 14300 - 18300 Scale had a grand UPGRADATION from PB3 level whose ending point was far far lower than 67000 - was taken to 37400-67000 level in one stroke which even many among them (at least in Scientific/ Engineering streams/cadres/ deptts) did not expect!

(even in Army- you will see the Lt Cols who were at 15100-18300 (i think) had to fight LATER to be included in PB4 wh ultimately the Govt. had to yield to take them to PB4 ie to 37400-67000 levels).

Now recently the Supreme Court Judicial Service orders have come - and you can see the same in the Supreme Court site- where also the 14300-18330 scale wh was recommended to be in PB3 has been taken on to the PB4 - to 37400-67000 level.

This shows S24 is the only UPGRADED post in the PB4 pay band. All the rest are "DOWN-GRADED" effectively if the "MINIMUMs" of their pays in the PAY BAND is also shown to be kept at 37400 in the Table attached to Annexure I of OM of 3rd Oct 2008.

Therefore the Table in Annexure I can not apply to pre-2006 pensioners- as the MINIMUMs of the pre-revised scales (for eg S25 to S30 in PB4- and similarly for other scales also in other pay bands))do not have the correct equivalents shown properly!

My positive way of looking at the fixation: Now the significance of application of the word UPGRADATION may point out that the pre-2006 pensioners of 14300-18300 scale may not get their fixations/ fitments at points higher than 37400 in any case! They can draw only 23050 i.e. at the MINIMUM IN THE PAY BAND. Consequently, DOES THIS MEAN OTHERS (S25 to 30)CAN GET MORE THAN MODIFIED PARITY/ EQUAL TO WHAT PAY COMMISSIOIN LITERALLY MEANT TO CONVEY - "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND ..........."etc?

This may spare any recovery aspect!

(there is some DISCORDANCE- somewhere- perhaps, if they stick to the type of arguments I have made, the S24 pensioners may be spared without recovery!)

Does it mean clarifications will come now?

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
20-02-2009, 03:57 PM
I am sorry to say that the draft questions which I had posted earlier for being asked in Lok Sabha re: action taken on representations and whether pension is covered by the Anomalies Committee have not seen the light of day, in view of the limitations on the number of questions per day. In any case, the first one has been answered by OM of 11.2.2009. Re:Anomalies Committee, let us await reply to representation already made to them.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
20-02-2009, 04:42 PM
Dear Shri Bala - all

I have already got the RTI reply on the OMs (excluding the OM of 11th Feb 2009).

As you pointed out, SUBJECT TOI THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE option being open or otherwise to us, my interpretation of OM of 11th Feb 2009 may pl be seen by all (I am a poor interpreter)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting with paras say 4 & 5 of OM of 11th Feb 2009.

4. The Table in Annexure-1 of this Department's OM dated 14.10.2008 is based on the CCS(Revised Rules), 2008 which are applicable to the employees in the ~;\ service as on 1.1.2006 and no dispensation in this regard can be made in respect of pre-2006 pensioners for the purpose of application of the provision of Para 4.2 of this Department's OM dated 1.9.2008.

5. In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the i.j" provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the ~ minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre- i~:~ revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, the benefit of Ot,- upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard

SEE Para 4 of the OM of 11th Feb 2009:

1.As per 4 above, Annexure I is not relevant to pre-2006 pensioners.

2. Annexure I is based on CCS (Revised Rules)2008.

3.CCS (Revised Rules 2008) are applicable to post 2006 employees.

4.No dispensation can be made for application of para 4.2 provisions in respect of the above to the pre-2006 pensioners.

Meaning that ANNEXURE II still stands to illustrate the examples fot fixation of pension/FP of para 4.2 of OM of 1.9.2008.

SEE Para 5 of the OM of 11th Feb 2009 now:

1. Sentence starting from “ fixation ......” upto “…….Retired" is same as in para 4.2 of the OM of 1st Sept 2008. (reproduced ditto)

2.Second part “Therefore upgradation of posts subsequent to retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard’”…. is EXACTLY what is applicable. NO BENEFIT OF UPGRADATION.

3.At this point of time, the ILLUSTRATION of ANNEXURE II appears to come in to seal your fate. THIS ANNEXURE indicates it is for “fixation of Pension/ FP in terms of para 4.2 of the OM of 1.9.2008.

4.Here under sl. Nos 7 , ILLUSTRATIONS of both types of fixation i.e. taking the minimum of PAY BAND (examples like S29) or minimum of the PAY SCALE (HAG + & above) are shown clearly.

5.Also, if you see the sl. No 6.illustration of of application of 4.1 is shown , wherein S30 is shown under the 33yr column and here S30 PENSION IS SHOWN as 25312
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HENCE THERE APPEARS TO BE NO OPTIONS LEFT!

Pl check and offer your comments please.

IF THE INTERPRETATIONS ABOVE ARE SO AS MADE OUT, then I THINK ALL THE REPS. APPEAR TO BE DISPOSED OFF IN ONE STROKE. unless the scope and meaning of UPGRADATION vis a vis DOWN-GRADTION provides some GAPs for contest/ resolution.

(Thereafter all may reconcile to PLAN FOR the next course of actions – LEGAL REMEDY- select the routes available- PIL or CAT-HC-SC .

LET THE BPS/ RREWA give us the guidance . Those who want to proceed on the legal route may take their own decisions and join the battle.)

PL check my analysis once again- right or wrong? No doubts should exist in any one’s mind.

VNatarajan (appearing for self….)

Kanaujiaml
20-02-2009, 05:41 PM
My dear VN. Your observations in post 379 are quite correct. I have already given my views in justice thread as well as rrewa forum.

vnatarajan
20-02-2009, 07:22 PM
My Dear K/ Shri Bala/ Mr Naga all

I saw urs/ Mr Naga's notings also.

Habits die hard!

Already some powerful counter-arguments will be forthcoming- and that is also part of need for provocation!

I shall post the same once I recieve the material. I am very delighted that all points are
being debated threadbare- and at least I am getting educated more & more. I am also vague on some points which I shall be seeking the info. under RTI act - qn 3 (my second qn is on anomaly committee and I hope to recieve the reply soon!)

Regards

sundarar
20-02-2009, 07:23 PM
Respected Sirs,

As desired by our senior member Shri VNji, I submit my humble views with regard to interpretation of the said OM dt.11.2.2009.

The para 5 of the said OM says, "In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the i.j" provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the ~ minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre- i~:~ revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

As our concern also is the same, that the revised pension in no case should be lower than fifty percent of the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND PLUS THE GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED", I am of the view that the para 5 requires follow up action by the Dept. to amend its annexures to OM dt. 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 in line with para 5. Annexures do not speak in line with para 4.2 and same way, the illustration given in O.M. dt.3.10.2008 also do not speak in the same line. Hence, follow up action to rectiry in accordance with para 5 of o.m. dt.11.2.2009.

The real problem occured in the Annexure to O.M. dt.3.10.2008 that followed in Annexure to O.M. dt.14.10.2008 while specifying 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band, the DOP&PW misinterpreted as 50% of the minimum of the pay band. The same misinterpretatin resulted in illustration given in the O.M> dt. 3.10.2008 also and hence we had even sent our initial representation to the Secretary, DoP&PW. Now, the DoP themselves are saying it is only MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND and NOT MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND. Therefore, after clarifying through a separate OM dt.11.2.2009 this aspect, the necessary correction in the respective Annexure and illustration also shall take place, which is not yet taking place.

To remove all the anomalies at one stroke, in case of seeking legal remedy,
a one line prayer may be the main text of the issue. This prayer will make para 4.1 and para 4.2 of O.M. dt.1.9.2008 and other OMs issued so far in respect of pre-2006 pensioners as null and void.

`MAINTAIN THE SPIRIT OF O.M. DT.10.2.1998 FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS TO ENSURE COMPLETE PARITY = which means fixation of revised pension in the notional revised pay entitled to the corresponding pay in the pre-revised scale from which a pensioner had retired, as on 1.1.2006.

SAME WAY, THE SECOND PRAYER FOR DISPENSATION OF LINKAGE OF 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE WITH FULL PENSION, IN RESPECT OF ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS retired with less than 33 years, ON PAR WITH POST-2.9.2008 PENSIONERS.

ONE DOUBT EXISTS IN THE O.M. DT.11.2.2009 - WHAT IS THAT UPGRADATION THEY MEAN AS? WHETHER WE HAD AT ANY POINT OF TIME
REQUESTED FOR UPGRADING THE PRE-REVISED SCALE IN THE REVISED STRUCTURE as on 1.1.2006? TO MY KNOWLEDGE NO. ONLY WHEN THIS ASPECT IS CLEAR I CAN ATTEMPT FURTHER INTERPRETATION ON PARA 4 OF O.M. DT.11.2.2009. SO FAR, I FOCUSSED ON ONLY PARA 5 PLEASE.

THE FOLLOW-UP ACTION BY DOP BASED ON THEIR CONFIRMATION THAT IT IS ONLY `MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND MATTERS AND NOT MINIMUM OF PAY BAND, ALL THE MORE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT OF TIME.

Best Regards.
Sundarar.

sundarar
20-02-2009, 07:38 PM
Dear Shri Bala


This shows S24 is the only UPGRADED post in the PB4 pay band. All the rest are "DOWN-GRADED" effectively if the "MINIMUMs" of their pays in the PAY BAND is also shown to be kept at 37400 in the Table attached to Annexure I of OM of 3rd Oct 2008.

Therefore the Table in Annexure I can not apply to pre-2006 pensioners- as the MINIMUMs of the pre-revised scales (for eg S25 to S30 in PB4- and similarly for other scales also in other pay bands))do not have the correct equivalents shown properly!

My positive way of looking at the fixation: Now the significance of application of the word UPGRADATION may point out that the pre-2006 pensioners of 14300-18300 scale may not get their fixations/ fitments at points higher than 37400 in any case! They can draw only 23050 i.e. at the MINIMUM IN THE PAY BAND. Consequently, DOES THIS MEAN OTHERS (S25 to 30)CAN GET MORE THAN MODIFIED PARITY/ EQUAL TO WHAT PAY COMMISSIOIN LITERALLY MEANT TO CONVEY - "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND ..........."etc?

This may spare any recovery aspect!

(there is some DISCORDANCE- somewhere- perhaps, if they stick to the type of arguments I have made, the S24 pensioners may be spared without recovery!)

Does it mean clarifications will come now?

vnatarajan

Respected Sir,

In continuation of my interpretation just now made, I am full agreeing with your above contention. The scales 5000-9000, 8000-13500 and
14300-34800 are the three scales where the respective minimum of the pay band and minimum of the pay in the pay band are one and same. I am of the view that the `Upgradation' meant by DoP&PW seems to be referring something else. For instance, the upgraded pre-revised scales as on 1.1.2006 as per Part B of the Revised Pay Structure.

For kind information please.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
20-02-2009, 08:51 PM
Dear Mr Sundaraar,

Thanks for joining the issue and giving your valuable time and comments.

I am on the RTI route to clarify some more loose ends- like the "MINIMUM" issue- the vague Rules issue- unbelievably jocular merging of seven pre-revised pay scales into one pay band with a CHARCTERISTIC single minimum being the same or equal to seven "MINIMUMS" -(etc)

Peolple in accounts/ administration must now appreciate this NEW APPROACH-result of FINANCIAL WIZARDRY-say in the past several scales starting at different minimums cd end at same MAXIMUM- I think one can cite many examples- but now a new APPROACH/ precedence is being created where for PENSIONERS- a pay band is being defined as if it is also a scale/range - with MINIMUM and MAXIMUM-both being the same ie for e.g.PB4-from 37400 to 37400- range is zero and it is so UNIVERSAL that it can take into it any number of scales- irrespective of they being superior or inferior to it, with features like all DOWNGRADATIONS which are defended to be called as UPGRADATIONS - only because of making some cosmetic additions (GPs)- irrespective of the amount of downsliding of the basic pays by thousands (say from 22400 to 14300 at the minimum level)! Definition of UPGRADING of posts is being re-interpreted????

Pl go on to debate further (see my next posting following this)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
20-02-2009, 09:00 PM
Dear All

This has reference to my earlier posting on the clarification of the latest OM of 11 th Feb 2009 wh is craeting some thoughtful reactions-

My partner in the Crusade- Shri PKR has called for the other side of the COIN- to join the issue. I am posting his views here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VN,

I am writing this after dropping castor oil in both my eyes.Yes, your
analysis is absolutely correct in as much as it reads into the mind of
the authority that crated the clarification and subsequent
justification to shore up that clarification. But the real issue here
(again to reiterate)is that the minimum of the pay band is NOT the
Minimum of the pay in the pay band for any post unless it happens to
coincide as such which may happen in respect of the lowest in the
hierarchy of all the pay scales arranged in one pay band .Against this
reality one may argue that within a pay band what distinguishes the
hierarchical scales is only the grade pay. I have no quarrel with this
if it is what has come about by application of the RPR 2008, for all
including those in service. It is not so and hence the two quantities
are different. Against the background of the parity or accepted
minimum parity issues,between past and present pensioners, Govt are
prevented from assigning two quantities for the same entity which in
this case is the minimum pay ( which comprises the two elements of pay
in the pay band and the grade pay) be it for the retired or serving
employing, in as much as the Govt pay scales are statutory matters
and not arbitrary grants.If the new pay structures are argued to be
not applicable the past pensioners for notional consideration then,
firstly, where is the question of payband ,grade pay etc which can
then apply only to those in service as on 01-01-06 and secondly, what
is minimum of pay scale for determining the minimum pension of
existing pensioners, in the absence any new scale and cessation of
the old scales?.There will emerge no logical explanation unless the
fundamental mistake is corrected. In order for East to be on the right
hand side one has to stand facing North . In this case Govt is
standing facing south and claiming that their right hand side is East.
We are trying to show them the compass needle for correcting their
posturing and hoping that they are not blind! If they are genuinely
blind then they will need the legal operations, to restore their
eyesight.

Rgds,

PKR
------------------------------------------------------------------

I WISH MR PKR & MR SUNDARAR ARE RIGHT AND I AM WRONG. Let me waitt for more views to get my feed for RTI!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
21-02-2009, 07:47 AM
Dear All

More responses have come to me/ my notice:

I reproduce them here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:10:45 +0530
Subject: Re: WHICH WAY TO PROCEED ?-OM of 11th Feb 2009 Gaps if any - Anomaly Committee -------

From: Shri AVM to VN/PKR/others

dear sirs

The interpretation and clarification can not be acceptable as the ruling given for pre 2006 retirees has also not been extended properly to pre 2006 pensioners. In pay band 2. There are 3-4 scales combined. the protection of 50 % is based on the lowest scale in the group only, in other scales which are though not upgraded protection of 50 % of the corresponding scales to the pre-revised scale is not given. Therefore the anomaly still persist whether the corresponding revised scale is upgraded or not.

unless there is categorical rejection of anomalies presented to the Govt., the judiciaries may not interfere; they may at best pass direction to govt. to dispose of the representations.

However there is a demand that could be placed before judiciary is for application of the Nakara case - pensioners are a homogenous class and there can not be class within class. Any revision should apply prospectively to all past pensioners.

mukuntharajan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Bala's response to AVM:

Dear Shri Mukuntharajan,
I am not a lawyer but having worked in a legislative forum for years, I have always felt on the same lines as in the last para of your email, but the route to the court is circumscribed by many conditions. A reading of the Supreme Court rules shows the following.
PIL to Supreme Court can only be in respect of famly pension and only from persons aggrieved, in whose case associations of which they are members may ask for being impleaded.
SLP can be only against High Court judgment. So, the route has to become longer to Supreme Court after pleading in HIgh Court.
Ordinary writ petitions on points of law by persons aggrieved or their association with them as parties, which take sometimes years to get listed.
Other implications would become clear only when a practising advocate throws light on it.
One has to be prepared to take the route along the dark and long tunnel, the light at the end of which one may not live to see.
I understand that some case of pensioners who became public sector absorbees is coming up in S.C. on 4.3.09, and ....................who argued the case of port and dock pensioners at Chennai and won the case is pleading the case for the public sector absorbee pensioners.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
21-02-2009, 10:56 AM
I agree with the view that we have to exhaust the channels of representation and only when they are rejected we should go to the Courts. We are also trying to get the issue referred to the Anomalies Committee.If some cases are filed in the meanwhile, the Govt. could, perhaps, say that the issue being sub judice need not be dealt in Anomalies Committe.

Right now none of us have any rejection letter from DP&PW and the grievance in pensoners portal are also not finally disposed off.The only document is the omnibus rejection by 11.2.09 O.M. Does it cover our cases?
The issues are mentioned in para 2 of this OM.

Issue2(ii) delas with requests of upgradarion of scales to levels higher than that that mentioned in col. 6 of annex. 1 of OM of 14.10.08 This does not apply to us. (According to DPPW, the entire Annex.1 of Om of 14.10.08 does not apply to us.)

Para2(iii)covers scales for posts which have been upgraded. these do not apply to us due to the reasons below:
OM No.1/1/2008/1-c dt.30/08/08 para 2(ii) which reads as
” The Tables in Annexure I will be applicable in cases where normal replacement scales have been approved by the Government. In case of upgradation ofposts and merger of pre-revised pay scales fixation will be done as prescribed in Note 2A&2B below Rule7(1) and in the manner indicated in Illustration 4A&4B respectively of the explanatory memorandum to CCS(RP) Rules”

Example; S-5 Rs3050-4590 has been upgraded to S-6 Rs.3200-4900

That leaves only para2(i) of the OM
Yes, we have been pleading that the clarifications are are discriminatory/anomalous and not in line with the 6CPC recommendations.We have only been saying that the para 4.2 of 1.9.08 should be read as it is.
This has not been disputed by DPPw but their interpretation remains the same that the minimum of the pay in the pay band is the same as minimum of pay band
Reasons for rejections of petitions as cited in para 4 and 5 of OM11.2.06 do not specificlly cover our cases.
So if our grievance is covered by 2(i) what exactly are the reasons for the rejection. This is not quite clear from this O.M. May be the replies to RTI queries may give an indication. Or we can represent again and wait for replies; meanwhile trying new avenues to include the item in Anomalies Committee.Of course we should be prepared for the legal battle as the last resort and look at the other side of the coin to see we have answers for all the arguments advanced /to be advanced by DPPW
GR

vnatarajan
21-02-2009, 12:24 PM
Dear All

On a review and rethinking, I feel there is still lot of scope for refining our thinking and interpretations:

1. There are quite a few posts (as AVM also mentions)right from lower to higher levels which have been UPGRADED senso-stricto. For example a post carrying a lower scale of pay had been UPGRADED to merge with another post carrying a higher scale of pay and redesignated.

Similarly certain HAG level posts have been certainly upgraded.

So also some PB3 level posts have been upgraded. (I think one in the Mininstry of Envt etc)

Therefore, the so called UPGRADATION may not apply to the cases- on which some of us are debating and they may not belong to the said category.

2. Minimum of the Pay in the Pay band- vs Min of the Pay Band-

This also as Mr Sundarar mentioned - may be we have to wait and watch.

SO- WHY NOT USE RTI MODE & ASK?

1.What are the various posts which have been UPGRADED consequent to the implementation of the 6CPC Recommendations and thereafter? Detailed info may be furnished as to which pre-revised scale (pre 6cPC/ pre 2006) they belong to, their revised scale i.e. post 2006/ post 6CPC; and to which pay band they belong to?

2.For each of the Pre-Revised (pre-2006)Scales S-4 to S34, AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 6CPC ORDERS, what are their respective:

a. MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY SCALE

b, MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND

c. MINIMUM IN THE PAY BAND

3.Rules applied may be cited. If not, procedures adopted, approvals/ sanctions obtained may be mentioned.

4.For each/ many of the Pre- Revised Scales S 4 to S 30 (prior to 6CPC/2006), in case of Serving Employees, the entry points for PAY/ fixation points of Pay in the respective Pay Bands, after merging quite a few such pay scales., have been defined, after revision of Pay (post 6CPC).

(a)What is the minimum basic pays for pension calculation purposes for them (S4 to 30) (post 2006 pensioners) after 6CPC revision?

(b)Similarly, what is the minimum basic pays for pension calculation purposes (S4 to S30) for pre-2006 pensioners, after the 6CPC revision?

5. If as above 4 (a) and 4 (b) result in two different figures for pension purposes, information as to what are the rules applied, approvals, authorities who sanctioned them,may be furnished.

I think we can think of more queries. REFINING THE ABOVE MAY BE NEEDED.

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
22-02-2009, 12:28 AM
In OM dt.11.2.09 DOP has stated in reply to RTI query that Annexure I referred to in para 4 to that OM applies only to post-2006 pensioners. In para 5, they have again reiterated that minimum of pay in pay band means minimum of pay band, and that Annexure II alone would apply to pre-2006 pensioners.
On the basis of Article guaranteeing equality between persons of the same class, borrowing an expression used by a distinguished MP, I would say: Damn the earlier OM, Damn the later OMs, and Damn them altogether. Let the right to equality prevail; to hell with any OM which denies it.
S.Balasubramanian.

dnaga57
22-02-2009, 07:38 AM
In OM dt.11.2.09 DOP has stated in reply to RTI query that Annexure I referred to in para 4 to that OM applies only to post-2006 pensioners. In para 5, they have again reiterated that minimum of pay in pay band means minimum of pay band, and that Annexure II alone would apply to pre-2006 pensioners.
On the basis of Article guaranteeing equality between persons of the same class, borrowing an expression used by a distinguished MP, I would say: Damn the earlier OM, Damn the later OMs, and Damn them altogether. Let the right to equality prevail; to hell with any OM which denies it.
S.Balasubramanian.

I defer ( not differ) to the view of the seniors on this thread.
My humble submission is that any amount of damning, cursing, posting interpretations (our side) ad nauseum in Gconnect do not have any impact on inching forward.
It is evident that a rsolution is not possible by conventional routes.The finality- from GoI's end is clear by the same OMs damned here.
What is holding us in moving for a legal remedy- if there is one ?
Is it Belling the cat syndrome?
I know of one group of S30 taking legal route. Should we not be in step?
I wish to clarify that while I am losing on Pension, it is adequate for my lifesyle.
My insistence is on behalf of those whose needs outstrip th pension.
Also for getting the 'right thing done'
:confused:

vnatarajan
22-02-2009, 08:57 AM
Dear All

Just now I have sent an email to some.

Yes, we can go to courts- we have decided long back!- when is the question.

Court shd be satisfied that we have exhausted all the channels. NOwadays even admission is difficult unless we have the corrrect clout. First CAT appeal is inevitable!

(we do have some source to guide at the proper time- but the sources has also advised NOT to RUSH & SPOIL your chances either way! EXHAUST ALL CHANCES-GET AS MANY REPLIES AS POSSIBLE- GET RTI answers, file notings etc)

Our outbursts and emotional submissions may have to be on firm grounds- on going to courts.

I feel we have to get more information.

Now we are getting the file notings regarding the OMs 3 rd and 14 th Oct 2008. We must also get the file notings as to why the Annexure I was nullified for pre-2006 pensioners- WHAT WAS THE LACUNAE? Did it take that long from 14 th oct 2008 to 11 th feb 2009 to find out that there is something wh made it necessary to resort to the above step?

Now the aspect of UPGRADATION has been brought in! what is the correct implication of this?

Therefore, we shall proceed steadily- if we are sure there are no DOUBTS/ LOOPHOLES - and- that we are at the ULTIMATE stage and there will be no point of return- that is the stage where even the courts may not say you go back and try this- or -that etc- then I think that is the time we shall proceed for the legal fight.

Answers to our RTI on Anomaly Committee (AC)is awaited . This will be one of the deciding factor. (Let answer come that our cases will not be referred to AC!!!)

Regards
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
23-02-2009, 11:27 AM
Dear S/Shri Bala/ Ramdas/K/Sundaar/Naga/KSS/ SCM/ aggrieved copensioners,

On Shri Bala's suggestion, I ,PKR & GR tried to find out about a DO letter written by the CPAO to the Nodal Banks reg disbursement of Pensions. This letter was dated 26th Sept 2008 (NOTE- it is before 3rd Oct OM (one carrying the "modification" "clarifications"etc) and tobviously much before the "perpetrating" 14th Oct 2008 with Annexures)

The said letter is reproduced here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.O. No. CPAO/Tech/6th CPC/Misc/1265
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
Central Pension Accounting Office
Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi.
Tripti P. Ghosh
Controller of Accounts
September 26, 2008
Dear
Sub: Implementation of Government's decision on the recommendations of the
Sixth Central Pay Commission-Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 for Central
Civil Pensioners.
Please find enclosed (Annex-I) O.M.No. F.No.38/37-08-P&PW (A) of Deptt. of
Pension & Pensioners' Welfare dated 1st September, 2008 (for Pre-2006 pensioners
along with ready reckoner) where by the Govt. has revised the pension.
The same is
available at the website of the Ministry of Finance –
www.finmin.nic.in. The resolution
related to pension is available in the Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners'
Welfare website as
"Resolution of Sixth Pay Commission." Separate orders have been issued
in respect of
employees, who retired / died on or after 1st January, 2006.
The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.
including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case
lower than the fifty
per-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the
pre-revised pay
scale from which the pensioner had retired. The revised pay-bands based on the
decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission and
the grade pay for each scale mentioned in Para 4.2 of the OM are
enclosed for ready
reference (Annexure-II). Pensioners who are 80 years and above will receive an
additional quantum as indicated in Para 4. 5 of the above O.M.
40% of the arrears of pension will be paid in the year 2008-09 and remaining
60% in the year 2009-10.
It is desired that all Pension Disbursing Authorities should ensure
that the revised
pension and the first installment of arrears due to the pensioners is
paid to them or
credited to their account by 30th September, 2008 or before
positively. Compliance may
be reported by each PSB Headquarters to CPAO on completion so as to reach
Controller of Accounts (Pension) by 20th October 2008. Instructions
regarding release of
second installment of arrears will be issued later.
Contd…2/-
(2)
You may prominently display these orders on notice boards for the benefit of
pensioners.
Yours sincerely,
Encl: As above
Sd/-
(Tripti P. Ghosh)
All Nodal Officers (Authorized Banks)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above letter had two Annexures I & II. Reg Annexure I, you can make out what it contains as it refers to Ist Sept OM, resolutions etc.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ANNEXURE II of this letter?. We tried to retreive this annexure from the website of CPAO- where the said DO letter is readily accessible.OBVIOUSLY it is now UNAVAILABLE!

Again, this DO letter also uses the sentence " minmum of the pay in the pay band " - which pay band(s)?

If we now recollect the Annexure I of DoPPW's OM of 14 th Oct, that Annexure appears to replace the so-called ORIGINAL Annexure II of the CPAO's letter of 26th on wh the banks had not acted till 3rd Oct./ 14th Oct.

Some Nodal banks are sure to have this missing Annexure (Annexure II of CPAO's 26 Sept lr) with the letter (dt 26th Sept)! How to get the same- Anybody from the network can attempt to get this?

There is need to UNDERSTAND what is the link between the AnnexureII of the CPAO's letter of 26th Sept and DOPPW's OM of 3rd/ 14th Oct and the latter's Annexure I.

Is there a possibility the banks were not allowed(?) to act on the former? Was there some ambiguity? Too many pay-bands? How the catch sentence appeared in his letter?

I think our task is to get the said Annexure to see what it is. Can any one try?

RREWA? Other sources?

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
23-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Dear S/Shri Bala/ Ramdas/K/Sundaar/Naga/KSS/ SCM/ aggrieved copensioners,

On Shri Bala's suggestion, I ,PKR & GR tried to find out about a DO letter written by the CPAO to the Nodal Banks reg disbursement of Pensions. This letter was dated 26th Sept 2008 (NOTE- it is before 3rd Oct OM (one carrying the "modification" "clarifications"etc) and tobviously much before the "perpetrating" 14th Oct 2008 with Annexures)

The said letter is reproduced here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.O. No. CPAO/Tech/6th CPC/Misc/1265
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
Central Pension Accounting Office
Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi.
Tripti P. Ghosh
Controller of Accounts
September 26, 2008
Dear
Sub: Implementation of Government's decision on the recommendations of the
Sixth Central Pay Commission-Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 for Central
Civil Pensioners.
Please find enclosed (Annex-I) O.M.No. F.No.38/37-08-P&PW (A) of Deptt. of
Pension & Pensioners' Welfare dated 1st September, 2008 (for Pre-2006 pensioners
along with ready reckoner) where by the Govt. has revised the pension.
The same is
available at the website of the Ministry of Finance –
www.finmin.nic.in. The resolution
related to pension is available in the Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners'
Welfare website as
"Resolution of Sixth Pay Commission." Separate orders have been issued
in respect of
employees, who retired / died on or after 1st January, 2006.
The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.
including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case
lower than the fifty
per-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the
pre-revised pay
scale from which the pensioner had retired. The revised pay-bands based on the
decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission and
the grade pay for each scale mentioned in Para 4.2 of the OM are
enclosed for ready
reference (Annexure-II). Pensioners who are 80 years and above will receive an
additional quantum as indicated in Para 4. 5 of the above O.M.
40% of the arrears of pension will be paid in the year 2008-09 and remaining
60% in the year 2009-10.
It is desired that all Pension Disbursing Authorities should ensure
that the revised
pension and the first installment of arrears due to the pensioners is
paid to them or
credited to their account by 30th September, 2008 or before
positively. Compliance may
be reported by each PSB Headquarters to CPAO on completion so as to reach
Controller of Accounts (Pension) by 20th October 2008. Instructions
regarding release of
second installment of arrears will be issued later.
Contd…2/-
(2)
You may prominently display these orders on notice boards for the benefit of
pensioners.
Yours sincerely,
Encl: As above
Sd/-
(Tripti P. Ghosh)
All Nodal Officers (Authorized Banks)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above letter had two Annexures I & II. Reg Annexure I, you can make out what it contains as it refers to Ist Sept OM, resolutions etc.

BUT WHAT ABOUT ANNEXURE II of this letter?. We tried to retreive this annexure from the website of CPAO- where the said DO letter is readily accessible.OBVIOUSLY it is now UNAVAILABLE!

Again, this DO letter also uses the sentence " minmum of the pay in the pay band " - which pay band(s)?

If we now recollect the Annexure I of DoPPW's OM of 14 th Oct, that Annexure appears to replace the so-called ORIGINAL Annexure II of the CPAO's letter of 26th on wh the banks had not acted till 3rd Oct./ 14th Oct.

Some Nodal banks are sure to have this missing Annexure (Annexure II of CPAO's 26 Sept lr) with the letter (dt 26th Sept)! How to get the same- Anybody from the network can attempt to get this?

There is need to UNDERSTAND what is the link between the AnnexureII of the CPAO's letter of 26th Sept and DOPPW's OM of 3rd/ 14th Oct and the latter's Annexure I.

Is there a possibility the banks were not allowed(?) to act on the former? Was there some ambiguity? Too many pay-bands? How the catch sentence appeared in his letter?

I think our task is to get the said Annexure to see what it is. Can any one try?

RREWA? Other sources?

VNatarajan

My dear VN. As desired I have sent via e. mail to you a file containing Annexure II. Kindly confirm receipt.

vnatarajan
23-02-2009, 08:01 PM
Dear K
I was also baffled by the "MOCK" Annexure II !!!!
The real one shd carry:
:"The revised pay-bands based on the decision of the Government on
the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the grade pay for each scale mentioned in Para 4.2 of the OM are enclosed
for ready reference (Annexure-II)."
Pl try again!!!
Regards
VNatarajan

(I think all of us may avoid reproducing the earlier postings of others to save e-space- simple reference of post no. may fulfil the reference- A SUGGESTION to help Gconnect)

vnatarajan
23-02-2009, 09:11 PM
Dear All

Legal actions have started- if not by us- by a retd Central Govt Official along with a retired Major on a common platform of "the "LOC" . Tomorrow will be the admisssion I think ! Pl refer to posting by Shri GR in the other thread "Justice":

In the meanwhile, I am trying to keep all preoccupied with Part 1 of the evolutionary history of the PAY IN THE PAY BAND.

PART 1:

IF YOU RECONSTRUCT THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF “THE PAY BAND”- YOU WILL UNDERSTAND MORE CLEARLY THE DAMAGE IT IS INFLICTING:

It is a wonderful way of executing a death sentence by the effects of inhalation of carbon monoxide- you get beautiful intoxicating slumberlike feeling and slowly all the oxygen in your blood is sucked off before you suffocate and die- but then you are not aware of the whole process!

(1).The Resolution NO 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 29th August 2008 , at sl. No 12 of its ANNEXURE, under the heading “Recommendations” conveyed:

“the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty per cent minimum of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

Pl note the significance of the word “thereon” which gives a secondary importance to the Grade Pay and it is not the primary subject (in the sentence) which is definitely the “minimum of the pay in the pay band”. (The Grade Pay gets its recognition only because of the pay scale which appears later on).

The decision of the Govt. showed the same is Accepted with the MODIFICATION on DR which made the MF to be 1.86 instead of 1.74.

THIS IS THE ONLY MODIFICATION WHCH STANDS SANCTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT AMONG THE 15 RECOS, OUT OF WHICH the last one at sn. No 15 was “NOT ACCEPTED”.

(2)The OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) of MOP,PG&P, dt 1.9.2008, made the FIRST DAMAGE – by omitting the word THEREON – and the resultant sentence as appeared under Para 4.2 is:

“the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty per cent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

Though the key words like MINIMUM OF THE PAY , PAY BAND, GRADE PAY etc appeared in the sentence, omissions of words “sum of” “thereon” etc and introduction of word “plus” in their place, apparently tried to convey similar – but not- same meaning and none thought that these innocuous changes may cause the CARBON MONOXIDE POISON effect of Pension Suffocation!

(3) The D.O. No. CPAO/Tech/6th CPC/Misc/1265 dated 26th Sept 2008 of the CPAO addressed to the Nodal Banks conveyed that:

“the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty per-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

Here further effect of suffocation is seen:

Here some more words “PAY IN THE” after the first appearance of the words MINIMUM OF have vanished and for the first time we come across that :

“minimum of the pay in the pay band” is replaced by “minimum of the pay band”

PART 2 will follow later. Good Night!

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
24-02-2009, 08:34 AM
My dear VN. I could locate T. Ghosh's DO on CPAO site but could not find any Annexure. Only Annexure II that I found on the same site was that I sent you. DOP letter of 14 10 08 gives Annexure II , wherein information you are looking is given. It still you need Anx II as attached to T. Gshosh's DO, you can ask for Anx II via RTI. I would also like to point out that the subject DO of T.Ghosh dated 26.09.08, also mentions in para 2 "Minimum of the pay band" and not "Minimum of the pay in pay band". One more thing I would like to mention here. We are talking a lot on this forum about fine technicalities. Why not focus on main issue. The main issue is equality amongsts all pensioners as enshrined in Article 14 of out Constitution. It covers all aspects of all pensioners, including ex soldiers, who have now gone on legal path. What are we doing about going to Court ?

vnatarajan
24-02-2009, 10:27 AM
Dear K

Yes, though it is not being put up here (shd not be premature!), we are in touch with SCM - to join issue if possible with the current litigants.

I and quite a few of our copensioners/ other interested pensioners will certainly follow whatever BPS / RREWA decides on this development.

Let the decision come. We can go ahead. Now that litigation has started, once ADMITTED in the court , the issue establishes its continuity. We will wait for today's result (from Delhi_ I think yoiu have to kindly monitor- so also SCM/RREWA)!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
24-02-2009, 02:25 PM
THIS IS CONTN OF MY POST 395: ON THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE PAY BAND;

PART 2
(I am not touching the Family Pension clarifications separately here)

4). At this point of time it is necessary to draw attention to the fact – that the CPAO’s letter dated 26th Sept.2008 had two Annexures; The Annexure I was (O.M.No. F.No.38/37-08-P&PW (A) of Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare dated 1st September, 2008 (for Pre-2006 pensionersalong with ready reckoner) whereby the Govt. has revised the pension.The same is available at the website of the Ministry of
Finance -www.finmin.nic.in.: and Annexure II was described to convey “The revised pay-bands based on the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the grade pay for each scale mentioned in Para 4.2 of the OM are enclosed for ready reference”.

What was this Annexure II? Why it is not accessible now? Had it anything to do with the developments that took place between 1st and 25th Sept. POSSIBLY on the merger of pay-scales into pay bands?. Or, did it truthfully provide revised pay bands in RESPECTIVE of each scale ?

If it was NOT so, nothing would have mattered!

All Nodal Officers were urged to act on this DO lr so that all amounts are paid by 30.9.2008. In fact ALL BANKS WERE DIRECTED TO DISPLAY THESE ORDERS ON NOTICE BOARDS PROMINENTLY for the benefit of the Pensioners! SBI/ some of its branches did act and paid many the revised pension by 29.09.2008 itself as per the fitment tables applying the 2.26 MF! Arrears were delayed.

(But many had to wait due to delays or some due to the fact that there was a need for the revision of pension to be done – i.e. where the FIXATION became NECESSARY as in case of the PB4 (and also other band) Pensioners!)

Others were much happy with the 2.26 MF – and were waiting for their turn to get their revisions OBLIVIOUS of any parity! (They did get their dues- arrears etc –in Oct 08– mostly/ ULTIMATELY !)

But many did not realize that the supply of CARBON MONOXIDE CYLINDERS was getting delayed due to some technical reasons- which quickly arrived in the form of OM dated 3rd Oct 2008 from the Min. of P,PG & P.-without the PROPER BRAND- obviously it is now thought to be a DUPLICATE BRAND- though still very very effective on the TARGET.
(Wait for Part 3)

vnatarajan

ranganathan
24-02-2009, 09:43 PM
Dear all,

WRT CPAO letter of 26 Sep,the following RTI query has been sent:




SUBJECT: Request For Information Under RTI 2005.

Sir,

Under the provisions of para 6 (1) of The RTI Act 2005, I request you to kindly furnish the following information / documents WRT to your office letter No: CPAO/Tech/6th CPC/ Misc/1265 Dated 26 Sep 2008.,signed by the controller of accounts.

1.Copies of Annexture I and II mentioned in para 1 and 2 respectively, of the above letter.

2. Para 4.2, of Dept Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare OM , F.No.38/37-08-P&PW, Dated 01 Sep 2008, relevant to the question of Minimum pension of Pre-2006 pensioners,
Stipulates:
Quote: “ The fixation of the pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”Unquote.
As against this, the above letter issued from your office, stipulates;
Quote: “The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fiftyper-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised payscale from which the pensioner had retired” Unquote
In this context, kindly inform/furnish the following:

a. Copies of file notings, minutes of discussions etc, leading to the decision to replace the expression” minimum of the pay in the pay band” with the expression “ minimum of the pay band’
b. The authority under which this decision was taken,along with copies of of Government notifications/rules.,if any, in support thereof.






.

vnatarajan
25-02-2009, 07:47 AM
Dear PKR/All

An excellent letter, well drafted. To the point. Let us wait for the outcome.
(MANY WELL INFORMED PENSIONERS GOT THEIR PENSIONS ON 29.09.2008 from SBI/ ITS BRANCHES. SO SBI has received/ implemented part of the 26th Sept guidelines of CPAO!THEY SURE MUST HAVE THE ANNEXURE II in search!- Some of us must try this route also!)

Dear All

Any news on Delhi HC admission of the case?

May be delayed on tech grounds. Pl get the info. Locus standi/ grounds have to be firm for admission. Counsel can make a difference. Numbers may also matter (Individuals as compared to Associations)

Any one who watched the CNBC- Karan Thapar vs Pensioners/ Govt. side on OROP?

May be it will find place for viewing thru internet!

Many army veterans are not for court route at this point of time as they do not want to lose the "political" lobby right now/ and the "goodwill/ sympathy" evoked by surrendering of "Medals/ Decorations" etc. Premature filing of case in the court will help Govt. to find an EXCUSE badly needed by them!.

vnatarajan

(Late Addition at 1130 AM: Tech ground appears to be mixing up of Military & Civilian Issues wh are dealt by separate benches. So again the Civilians may try separately and get admission. Military veterans appear to be somewhat divided on legal route! Shall have to ascertain more.)

Kanaujiaml
25-02-2009, 08:08 AM
I sent letter under RTI on Minimum of pay in pay band etc. Ack. has come but reply is still awaited. RTI query by Mr. Rangnathan is excellent. Let us hope some reply would emerge.

vnatarajan
25-02-2009, 07:33 PM
For info of all: (I dont know how old is the news?)

RSCWS NEWS:(Railway Senior Citizens' Welfare Society. Chandigarh)

(Retd) Chief Er. N.P Mohan, Working President, RSCWS, presents Memorandum to
Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, MOS Finance, against contravention of Sixth CPC
recommendations

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
26-02-2009, 08:12 AM
My dear VN. I have searched Delhi High Court website and tried to search orders judgwise but message appears that page cannot be displayed. What could be other source or sources to know the correct and detailed orders of the Delhi HC in respect ex soldier's case heard on 24 02 09 ?

vnatarajan
26-02-2009, 10:19 AM
Dear K

You wdn't get the result so soon. Cases listed & disposed off may perhaps be found out. But not the exact verdicts.

Only the lawyer or the petitioners may have to be contacted. I think SCM may be trying the sourcesi (e. IESM) who may know the petitioners

I am sending separately by email the info I sent to SCM. You may also look into the same. I think the Civil group may now be getting ready to go for fresh admission. Right time to work out the joint strategy.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
26-02-2009, 03:11 PM
My dear VN. Actually Mr. SCM spoke to me about it. Nothing new has emerged so far. Orders and Judgments are placed on Delhi High Court Website but updating takes a lot of time. It appears that they have done updating till 18 02 09, as regards cases dealt by hon'ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

vnatarajan
26-02-2009, 04:50 PM
Food for thought

Dear All

While doing the scrutiny on "UPGRADATION" aspect, following has emerged (courtesy Mr PKR):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A careful scrutiny of RPR 2008, would reveal that Pt A of first
schedule, contains the pre revised scales with their respective normal
replacement scales. Pt B and Pt C, contain the scales which have been
upgraded within the 5th CPC structure and then given their
corresponding revised structure under the 6th CPC. Hence for one thing
S-29 or S-30 are clearly not ungraded ones.This position finds
reiteration in para one of MOF letter of 13 Oct attd above by
VN.Therefore the demand of pensioners( WE) retired from these scales
seeking, the minimum pension wrt the minimum pay ( as notified under
RPR) corresponding to S-29 or S-30, stands UPHELD under para 5 of
DP&PW letter of read with para 2 (iii)

(letter of MoF dtd 13th Oct2008 on Upgradation of posts cited by VN originally is available in all concerned websites)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of us can see whether this is correct- and if so- next course of action will be TO REPRESENT for fixation of pension by respective Deptts- under intimation to the concerned Ministry/ CPAO/ PAO, who have all our records. Since DoPPW has given the clarification/ disposed all our reps. on this particular issue, we will not be wrong if we proceed this way.

(I also feel-NOTHING PREVENTS RAILWAYS FROM GOING AHEAD as they have their own authoritiesto execute these directives).

vnatarajan.

G.Ramdas
26-02-2009, 06:01 PM
With ref to Sh.VN's post above,
I would suggest we read para2(i) and para3 of the O.M dt. 11.02.09 again . It is my feeling that our rpresentations might have been rejected on this ground , ie the interpretation of 6CPC recommendations by O.Ms of 3.10 and 14.10.08- our views and Govt. views not being the same.
GR

vnatarajan
26-02-2009, 07:49 PM
Dear All

Let us examine both the view points - ie of PKR and GR. To recapitulate, contents of OM of 11th Feb are placed here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Para 2.
2 A large number of representations/references are being received in this Department raising the following issues.

(i) It has been alleged that the above instructions are discriminatory/anomalous and are not in conformity with the decision taken on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;
(ii) It has been suggested that certain pre-2006 scales of pay should be allowed pay band/grade payor pay scales higher than that mentioned in Col. 6 in Annexure 1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008;
(iii) It has been suggested that in cases where certain posts have been upgraded and allowed higher pay bandlgrade payor pay scale, the application of the provision in para 4.2 of the OM dated 1 9.2008 (as clarified from time to time) should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/grade payor pay scale

Points to be noted from other Paras:

1.Govt. maintains no change need be made in the instructions/clarifications issued (Para 3) meaning that OMs of 3rd and 14th Oct texts will not change
2.Table in ANNEXURE I of OM 14th Oct is as per CCS (RP)Rules 2008 does not apply to pre-2006 pensioners.(Para4)
3.Fixation of pension will be as per Para 4.2 of OM of 1.9.2008 (& benefit of UPGRADATION of posts (subsequent to retirement) not allowed for Pre-2006 pensioners)
(Para 5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel issue narrows down to:

1. ANNEXURE I of OM of 14th Oct being redundant to pre-2006 pensioners, what is the fate of Annexure II, wh swears by Para 4.2 of OM of 1.9.2009?. But the illustrations certainly OBEY MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND and not MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND. Hence it applies to UPGRADED POSTS ONLY. Not for UN-UPGRADED posts.

2.Para 5, of OM of 11 th Feb clearly says fixation of pension will be according to Para 4.2 of OM of 1.9.2008, without benefits of upgradation for pre-2006 pensioners (who asked?) and it has to be in terms of "minimum of the pay in the pay band" - wordings here are exactly same as the RPR 2008- (same as adopted for employees/ post 2006 pensioners) and so no ambiguity.In whatever manner their pay or pensions are fixed adopting this DEFINITION, same DEFINITION holds good for pre-2006 pensioners!

3.It is beyond doubt that S29 and S30 are not upgraded at all- and so the upgradation CONDITIONALITY is not applicable to these and OTHER SIMILAR CASES., in other pay bands.

4.As per rules available till now, no other definitions are available to circumvent the above, at least for pre-2006 pensioners.(Pl check) Only bungling letter was that of CPAO- which appears to have been submerged under 3rd/14th Oct OMs which are also now getting reinterpreted due to 11th Feb OM!!!

Welcome for more views!

(I THINK WE SHD ACT IN RESPONSE TO PARA 5 OF THE OM of 11th Feb 2009).

vnatarajan

V.RAGHURAMAN
26-02-2009, 10:17 PM
Dear friends,

1.OM dated 11-2-2009 clearly says that the Table presented as Annexure 1 of OM 14-10-2008 is not applicable to pre 2006 retirees.They have not mentioned about Annexure-2 which is just an extension of Annexure-1. Hence, Annexure -2 is also not applicable to pre 2006 retirees. In fact OM 14-10-2008 is not applicable to pre 2006 retirees at all and only for serving employees as on 1-1-2006.How, I do not know...it beats me...
2. OM dated 11-2-2009 appears to have been released in response to perhaps appeals received by DP& PW from some pre 2006 retirees to upgrade their scale into higher pay bands/grade pay etc. The OM rejects and disposes these appeals and reiterates that all their previous OMs. are in order with no scope for contradictions.
3. Now, OM 11-2-2009 is meant only for pre 2006 retirees and the last para i.e 'In accordance... retired' holds out a promise....The following
line ' Therefore.... regard.' again is applicable to specific pre 2006 retirees seeking up gradation. Otherwise, there was no reason to mention in OM 11-2-2009 that Annexure-1 of OM 14-10-2008 is not meant for pre 2006 retirees, since it would be very much applicable to pre 2006 retirees if their pensions were to be fixed at the bottom of the pay band irrespective of their seniority in the pay band.
4. DP& PW has said its last word.... 'In accordance..... retired' which implies that the pensions of pre 2006 retirees are to be fixed based on what 6 th CPC recommended as the modified parity pension[ pension fixed at not less than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the revised scale] which the Cabinet had accepted- and against which DP& PW has not issued any contradicting OMs. for pre 2006 retirees. They need not issue any more OMs. in this regard and have left it is for the disbursing authorities to understand and execute! OM dated 3-10-08 appears an aberration and DP& PW perhaps would prefer that it gets washed away.

ranganathan
26-02-2009, 11:45 PM
Dear all,

The actual intention of Govt is to deny
past pensioners the benefit of the correct interpretation of the Min.
Pension and they are very consistant in that respect though totally
inconsistent in the various communications expressing that intent.

The spirit behind my note is to show that
bureaucratic jugglery of words can be counter twisted to bring out an
unintended meaning, on the part of the jugglers.
There is absolutely no second view that our battle banks on the single
issue of the just and correct interpretation of the Min Pension of a
pre 2006 Scale wrt to its post 2006 Avtar.Once this falls in place,
the entire issue behind Modified Parity will be settled once and for
all and that precisely has been our case from the day of the
acceptance orders of 01 Sep 08, ie.
"The denial of even the modified parity of minimum pension legitimate
to their grade of retirement, accepted and notified by the Govt,
because of the arbitrary modification, resulting in a mix up between
two totally different entities; ‘Minimum Pay of a post in the
Pay-Band’ and the ‘Minimum of the Pay- Band’ itself" This is what we
keep saying in our brief to all those who matter, as in the following
quote on 11 Feb OM.

"The OM is self-contradictory, while it addresses none of the
contradictions brought out in the representations, as will be obvious
from the following:

i. Para 2 has listed none of the issues discussed in the
representations as above. And as far as the past pensioners are
concerned, it is not any higher pay or pay band or up gradation.The
request is for grant of the correct revised b asic/Minimum pay of the
post corresponding to the 6th CPC.for determination of the pension

ii..Para 3 merely reiterates the earlier modifications/clarifications
and does not indicate any in depth review, to have arrived at their
maintainability"

The arbitrary and omnibus disposal of genuinely maintainable and
serious representations through skewed word play that convey nothing
except that the Denial is Decided, should in my view be contested and
hence my own skewed reverse interpretation, whose senso stricto
technicalities could be seen, even if otherwise not implementable in
the face Annexture II to DP&PW OM of Oct 14, which has fixed the
revised pension, in quantitative terms adopting a ludicrous
interpretation of the Min pension.In this regard, here is a very
relevant Apex court direction:

"Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or
administrative or quasi judicial, is open to challenge, if it is in
conflict with the constitution or the governing Act or the general
principles of the Law of the Land, or if it is so arbitrary or
unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it "

If the Grade pay alone is the hierarchical separator of a bunch of
scales within a Pay band, then, that should apply to post 2006,as
otherwise two sets of pay structures will be created, a point we have
already stated in our representations.

If all the absurdities are eliminated from the propositions
surrounding the Minimum Pension,
the only up holdable interpretation will be what we are seeing for.

Rgds,

PKR

sundarar
27-02-2009, 07:33 AM
It is interesting to see that the expression 'pay in the pay band' has been used in the order by Ministry of Urban Delopment dt/27.11.2008 re:grant of house building advance referred to in the Gconnect forum itself The order defines 'pay' as 'pay in the pay band'. This would make the intention of para 4.2 clear that it is not minimum of the pay band but the minimum of pay in the pay band as defined in the fitment tables of OM re: pay fixation.
This order has been issued in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
It appears from this that it is only in the case of pensioners that the definition has been given as minimum of the pay band, while in the case of serving employees, pay has been defined as pay in the pay band.
This anomalous interpretation by the Dept. of Pensions in consultation with Dept. of Expenditure appears to be a case of the right hand blinding its eyes to what the left hand is doing.
S.Balasubramanian.


Respected Sir,

Your post No.310 under the thread `Injustice to...pensioners..' is
quoted at this point of time to submit my views for your kind consideration please.

In the case of serving employees also, the CCS(RP) Rules No.13
indicates that on promotion, if both pay band and grade pay is changed,
and when the pay in the pay band after adding 3% of existing pay in the pay band is lesser than the minimum of the pay band, then the pay in the pay band will be stepped upto such minimum.(of Pay band). Thus, within a same pay band although it has different grade pays, on promotion, the minimum pay in the pay band will be nothing but minimum of pay band. In a living example, an employee was promoted to the pre-revised pay scale Rs.4000-6000 on 1.4.2008 and fixed at the minimum of the pre-revised scale, ie. Rs.4000 for which the minimum of pay band is 5200. On promotion, the dept. has allowed 3% of existing pay in the pay band and after adding, the amount becomes lesser than the minimum of the pay in the pay band, ie. 7240. No stepping upto such minimum of the pay in the pay band is allowed.

Similarly, in respect of upgraded pre-revised scales from 1.1.2006, only the grade pay applicable to such upgraded scale was allowed. The pay in the pay band that was applicable to pre=upgraded scale only was allowed as it is. No pay fixation in the upgraded scale took place to arrive at the revised pay in the pre-revised scale to determine the corresponding pay in the pay band. Among all these, the definition for the term `pay in the pay band' refers to pay in the running pay bands. However, restrictions are only upto minimum of pay band for serving employees also as in the case of retired employees (pre-2006).

If we compare the pensioners and serving employees as on 1.1.2006, I could not find much difference with regard to `minimum' aspects and my views in this regard are as follows:

The minimum basic pay for a serving employee is determined by multiplying 1.86 factor, whereas the minimum basic pension for a retired employee is determined by 2.26 factor. Because the GP is added for serving employee for determining the basic pay, for the retired employee, 50% of the GP is to be added with 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band for the purpose of determining the minimum revised pension.

The natural question arises here is when there is a minimum revised pension that has to be ensured in respect of Para 4.2, what will be the maximum
Pension? (No answer is available in any Report, Resolution, OM, clarification, etc.). Or, one has to construe himself that either pension arrived by Para 4.1 or the minimum revised pension as arrived by Para 4.2 whichever is more will be the maximum revised pension for a particular pensioner.

But for the illustration in OM dt.3.10.2008 or the Annexures attached to OM dt.3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, the Content of all the OMs including the latest one, are very clear with regard to minimum of the pay in the pay band. Our focus need to be towards Brining out the discrepancy within the same OM particularly the OM Dt.3.10.2008. The same OM talks of both the things, viz. 1) Minimum Pay in the pay band as well as 2) Minimum of Pay Band. Thus, when it gets Conveyed to nodal agencies who disburse the pension as per the annexure table, too will go by the annexure table only without reading the mother OM viz. 3.10.2008 or the grandmother OM dt.1.9.2008. The Loss of Pension table due to this discprenacy as pointed out by Shri GRD earlier is bringing out the misinterpretation aspect very clearly.

To avoid such misinterpretation and further clarifications, , we have to take the help of OM dt.10.2.1998. Unless notional Fixation of pre-revised pay (last drawn) in the revised pay structure takes place, the 50% of The same could not be determined so as to get parity with the one retiring after 2006. It has nothing to do with either minimum of Pay band/minimum of the pay in the pay band aspects. My and our wishes are that there should not be any necessity for describing the minimum basic pension. The correct and appropriate pension applicab le in the revised structure for the last pay drawn will remove this necessity or the para 4.2 itself. I am yet to see whether para 4.1 also may also be not that significant in that case.
If we want parity with post-2006 pensioners who were serving employees as on 1.1.2006, notional fixation of pre-revised pay in the revised structure is the only remedy. The division of pensioners by a cut off year through different orders itself is very much against the Parity aspects. Yes, Not modified parity - but complete parity among pensioners is the prayer.

The above views are submitted to get myself more clarified and updated and hence it shall be viewed as such. With deemed permission from all seniors, I submitted this at this point of time, when the discussion on the thread is about to reach the intended target. I realise that seniors are on the job already as they have been from Day 1, and hence the light at the end of the tunnel is expected to emit its rays soon. I salute the leading role played by leadership personalities with being instrumental either directly or indirectly to get the things reach the higher authorities who can influence and re-direct the concerned towards remedial action, whatever may it be. I am preparing myself to keep thumps up for the success of pensioners community.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
27-02-2009, 09:14 AM
Dear Mr Sundarar

(At the outset, I want to say more of my wrirting below may be relevant to first part of your observations on UPGRDATIONS etc)

While I appreciate the points u r making out, all or most of the examples u r citing can have relevance to posts wh r UPGRADED!

In the current evolution of Pay Bands, for e.g., the Govt. has done a great "DOWNGRADATION' trick by merging seven pre-revised scales into one Pay Band viz S24 to S30 pre-revised scales into PB4 ( similar cases do exist in lower pay bands also) wherein except S-24/ S28, all are down graded to the level of S24 for pension purposes!.

What more? Seven MINIMUMS of pre-revised pay scales become one MINIMUM of the so called Pay Band which has only one value 37400 !!!! Minimum or Maximum or Range - where is its identity for pre-2006 pensioners? Can it be a Pay Band? What is the definition of a Pay Band for Pensioners? Can it be a single value phenomena for pre-2006pensioners and a Range of 37400 to 67000 for others? I think fundamentally there is something wrong- wh must be visible in the ANNEXURE II of the CPAOs DO lr dtd 26th Sept 2008- -wh appears to have disappered! (I may be right or wrong- but my statement on Pay- Band is otherwise valid).

WHAT THEY (GOVT. IF THEY HAVE THE GUTS!) CD HAVE CLARIFIED IS:

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHATEVER IS THE PRE-REVISED PENSION WRT PRE-REVISED SCALES S24 to S30, REVISED PENSION WILL BE 50% of SUM OF 37400 AND GRADE PAY WHICH ALONE repeat ALONE WILL BE CORRESPONDING TO THE RESPECTIVE PRE-REVISED SCALES!

LET THE GOVT. GIVE THIS CLARIFICATION and all the debate will be over in a single minute!

Why beat around the bush?

THE CCS (RP)RULES 2008's Definition can not corroborate the above nor any administrators in the Govt. can set in such a precedence! AS SUCH A PRECEDENCE WILL BE A DOOM FOR THEMSELVES IN FUTURE ( e.g. IF AT ANY TIME IN FUTURE ARMY HAS A ROLE TO RUN THE ADMINISTRATION!!!! Nothing would prevent such an administration to follow my friend Mr Raghuraman's Formula- or make 37400 as 'zero' for all of them as I WOULD HAVE DONE)

vnatarajan

(THIS HAS TO GO AFTER GR's COMMENTS IN THE NEXT POST sl no 413. But then many may miss significance of the CATCH then):

(Shri GR is right- THE CATCH HAS TO BE "pay in the pay band" for the "DOWNGRADED". They have to say 'Pay in the Pay Band' for all pre-revised scales will be constant at 37400! They have to substantiate otherwise by clarifying all seven minimums are one and only 37400 as for S24-14300-18300 pre-revised scale! OUR RTI queries are directed towards the same - and let the twisted replies come, to convey the same/ similar to, as above!!!)

G.Ramdas
27-02-2009, 09:40 AM
One thing is still not clear. When the Govt. had modified/clarified the interpretation of para 4.2 thro' O.Ms of 3.10 and 14.10.08 what was the need to go back to the old terminology of 'pay in the Pay band' (instead of just 'pay band' as in the clarificatory O.Ms) in para 5 of the O.M of 11.02.09? There has to be a catch somewhere; or is it an escape route to concede to our demands at a later stage, without admitting that that they have erred!
I think we should all represent again as even appeals to the P.M have not fetched any reply, and the omnibus rejection vide 11.02.09 is still not convincing for the categories of pensioners whose posts are not upgraded.

GR

Kanaujiaml
27-02-2009, 01:36 PM
My dear VN, others. I had sent an RTI application on 06 02 09 to DOP. I have received part reply as under :

2. The OM dated 3.10.2008 only clarifies the provision regarding revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners and is not an amendment of the OM dated 1.9.2008.

3. The extracts of notes relating to OM dated 3.10.2008 contain the information/documents sought by you in para 2(i) to 2(iii) of your RTI application. These notes comprise five pages. It is requested that the payment of the requisite fees of Rs. ten may be made by way of Cash or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Orders in favour of the Accounts Officer, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, as per rules, so that photocopies of the requisite documents could be supplied to you.

4. Approval of the Union Cabinet was not required/taken for issue of OM dated 3.10.2008 as it was only a clarification of provisions in OM dated 1.9.2008.

From this it is abundantly clear that the modification/amendment/clarification to para 4.2 issued under letter dated 01 09 08 and 03 10 08 are intentional to deprive the pensioners Minimum of the pay in pay band by subsituting it by minimum of the pay band. . Also, it is now clearly established that for this modification no approval of the Union Cabinet was obtained although it was necessary as per norms and rules.

vnatarajan
27-02-2009, 03:28 PM
COMEDY OF ERRORS!

Dear K'/all who want to see the "COMEDY OF ERRORS" by DOPPW!

What shd I call the explanation! @$#%^&?*&? To be polite, I will say rubbish!

The OM of 3rd October 2008 clearly says "clarification" "modification" as the caption for the right side column!

I think since such a caption had been given, let them define which were DEEMED to be "clarifications" and which were DEEMED to be "modifications"?

Now that they have said these are only "clarifications"- how the erstwhile "modifications" became "clarifications"?

WILL THEY ISSUE AN "AMENDMENT" NOW-? at least to make us UNDERSTAND better ENGLISH- that all "modifications" in OM 3rd Oct are nothing but "clarifications"!

So that is the reason- they went TO GO back from "minimum of the pay band" to original EXPRESSION of Para 4.2 - "minimum of the pay in the pay band' etc..... WHAT A STRATEGY? CHANAKYA HAS TO LICK THEIR SHOES!

LET US HAVE MORE FUN BY CREATING MORE CONFUSION and BOMBARD with more RTIs! I think more HOWLERS will come out!

What a pitiable degeneration of ADMINISTRATION! No RULES at all?

Now it is clear- IF YOU CALL IT MODIFICATION or AMEND MENT,then you need CERTAINLY the approval and sanction- of the competent authority!

So call everything "CLARIFICATION" and be done with it- RETRACE BACK to ORIGINAL EXPRESSION!!! That is exactly the reason for reversion!

I wish JUSTICE CHAIRMAN of 6th CPC sees these and pardons all the UNEXPECTED outcomes, wherein all "modifications" became "clarifications"! WE WILL SEND HIM THESE RTI Qns & replies certainly! Let us compile all these at RREWA, for ready access/ and distribution.I SHALL SEND ONE SET of mine TO RREWA now. I REQUEST all others to follow the same! THEY CAN BE PUBLISHED IN THE RREWA journal to educate all!.

We are having a nice ride, THOUGH BUMPY- I enjoy!!

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
27-02-2009, 04:03 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar,
Please refer to your posting No.411. In the penultimate para you have suggested that para 4.1 alone giving pension as 50% of notional revised pay would be sufficient. I was also under the same impression, but when I started working out the implications at random, (as would be seen in the illustrations given below), I found that in the case of two pensioners retiring from same grade and same pay after getting one or more stagnation increments in the same pre-revised pay scale, one pre-2006 and the other post-2006, the latter draws less pension in some cases than the former, and this amounts to violation of article 14, and hence these cases are also to be provided for. It was with that in view that the amendments in attached illustrations wee suggested by me as a way out to deal with all possible pe-2006 and post-2006 cases, to ensure equality under Article 14.
S.Balasubramanian.

Example1: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-16500: Revised pay band: Rs.15600-39100 + grade pay Rs.7600
Existing basic pay Pension for pre-2006 Pension for post-2006
in Rs. Retirees in Rs. Retirees in Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000 13560 < 14960
16500 18645 < 19145
17625* 19919 < 20145
*Three stagnation increments after maximum

Example 2: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-18000: Revised pay band:PB3: 15600-39100 + Grade pay Rs.7600:

12000 13560 < 14960
18000 20340 < 20540
19125* 21614 > 21587
Example 3: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.7450-11500: Revised pay band: PB2: Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs.4600:
7450 8420 < 9230
11500 12905 < 12995
12175 13760 > 13625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus in all the cases, the above O.M.s seek to classify pensioners who form a homogeneous class, merely on the basis of the date of retirement, which, according to the Supreme Court judgment in D.S.Nakra case decided on 17.12.1982, and in Bains case, decided on 9.9.08, is violative of article 14 of the Constitution.
The only way in which these constitutional infirmities can be removed is by amending para 4.1 and para 4.2 of OM No.38/37/08 P &PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 and the clarifications issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 as follows:
“1. Existing para 4.1 be substituted by the following:
“4.1.The basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by
him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, will
be notionally fixed as per Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM No.
1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be
the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006. subject to the necessary
years of qualifying service.”

2.Existing para 4.2 be substituted by the following: .
“4.2. The revised basic pension calculated as per para 4.1 shall
in no case be lower than the revised basic pension corresponding
to the existing basic pension, as in Annexure to O.M. No.
38/37/08 P & PW(A) dated 1st September, 2008.”.
3.Clarification on para 4.2 of O.M.dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 be
deleted”.

sundarar
27-02-2009, 07:40 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar,
S.Balasubramanian.

Example1: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-16500: Revised pay band: Rs.15600-39100 + grade pay Rs.7600
Existing basic pay Pension for pre-2006 Pension for post-2006
in Rs. Retirees in Rs. Retirees in Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000 13560 < 14960
16500 18645 < 19145
17625* 19919 < 20145
*Three stagnation increments after maximum

Example 2: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-18000: Revised pay band:PB3: 15600-39100 + Grade pay Rs.7600:

12000 13560 < 14960
18000 20340 < 20540
19125* 21614 > 21587
Example 3: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.7450-11500: Revised pay band: PB2: Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs.4600:
7450 8420 < 9230
11500 12905 < 12995
12175 13760 > 13625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus in all the cases, the above O.M.s seek to classify pensioners who form a homogeneous class, merely on the basis of the date of retirement, which, according to the Supreme Court judgment in D.S.Nakra case decided on 17.12.1982, and in Bains case, decided on 9.9.08, is violative of article 14 of the Constitution.
The only way in which these constitutional infirmities can be removed is by amending para 4.1 and para 4.2 of OM No.38/37/08 P &PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 and the clarifications issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 as follows:
“1. Existing para 4.1 be substituted by the following:
“4.1.The basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by
him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, will
be notionally fixed as per Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM No.
1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be
the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006. subject to the necessary
years of qualifying service.”

2.Existing para 4.2 be substituted by the following: .
“4.2. The revised basic pension calculated as per para 4.1 shall
in no case be lower than the revised basic pension corresponding
to the existing basic pension, as in Annexure to O.M. No.
38/37/08 P & PW(A) dated 1st September, 2008.”.
3.Clarification on para 4.2 of O.M.dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 be
deleted”.


Respected Sir,

The proposed amendment will facilitate remedy. It is a qualified amendment in apt language. Thanks for enabling me to understand with clarity.

I have not mentioned that Para 4.1 alone would be sufficient. I repeat below my views partly in this regard.
"The correct and appropriate pension applicable in the revised structure for the last pay drawn will remove this necessity or the para 4.2 itself. I am yet to see whether para 4.1 also may also be not that significant in that case.If we want parity with post-2006 pensioners who were serving employees as on 1.1.2006, notional fixation of pre-revised pay in the revised structure is the only remedy. The division of pensioners by a cut off year through different orders itself is very much against the Parity aspects. Yes, Not modified parity - but complete parity among pensioners is the prayer".
Even while saying so, I have not kept in view the cases of stagnation/upgradation if any.

Ultimately, in order to nullify the minimum aspects (minimum pay in the pay band/minimum of pay band) that find utmost reluctancy on the part of DoP&PW to acknowledge/modify/clarify, and to ensure complete parity with post-2006 pensioners, in line with the spirit of OM dt.10.2.1998, the notional revision of last pay drawn at the time of retirement shall take place, in the revised structure and on such revision alongwith the applicable grade pay the 50% of the total notionally revised basic pay will constitute the revised pension under the normal circumstances. As you have rightly said, in respect of stagnation cases, there is a necessity to ensure minimum revised pension for which your proposed amendment point No.2 will take care..

Thus, there is no second opinion from anywhere that the existing para 4.1 and para 4.2 needs to be amended, and the proposed amendments are a fitting reply for the need of the hour.

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

sundarar
27-02-2009, 07:51 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar


(Shri GR is right- THE CATCH HAS TO BE "pay in the pay band" for the "DOWNGRADED". They have to say 'Pay in the Pay Band' for all pre-revised scales will be constant at 37400! They have to substantiate otherwise by clarifying all seven minimums are one and only 37400 as for S24-14300-18300 pre-revised scale! OUR RTI queries are directed towards the same - and let the twisted replies come, to convey the same/ similar to, as above!!!)

Respected Sir,

I too had a doubt as above, and hence in my letter sent through proper channel had indicated as follows:

Subsequently another O.M. dated 3.10.2008 issued by DoP&PW clarifies that `the pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006. The same O.M. also specifies that `the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus GP would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the GP corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale’. In that case, my revised pension may become Rs.37400+4200=41600/2=20800(mainly due to `irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay’) which is quite unreasonable but the contents of O.M. dt.3.10.2008 leads to this calculation.

My another doubt is what about point No. (ii) - I could not find anywhere else.

Mysteries over modified clarifications continue..........

Best Regards

Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
28-02-2009, 08:07 AM
My dear VN. Refere to post 414 and 415. (This is because you advise all of us that we should not burden gconnect with lengthy posts. Also, so many thoughts are being discussed in this forum at one and the same time and therefore this reference becomes important). Further to your observations, I may say that I have sent requisite fee to DOP on 27 02 09 and now 5 pages of 'information' asked by me, is awaited. When received,this would further expose the truth. All this masala would come handy to grill the Govt. in Court when time comes. After all, was it a clarification or modification or amendment would be decided by the Court. Second part is also important. Anything approved by Union Cabinet and notified through a gazette notification, can NOT be modified or amended by the lower authority. Court would take notice of it and decide. This reminds me that we cannot forget at this point of time judgments of 17 12 82 , 10 10 06 and 09 09 08 of hon'ble Supreme Court. These are all in our favour and modified parity with cut off date of 01 01 06 for homogeneous group of all past pensioners, is the minimum that we would be able to achieve.

vnatarajan
28-02-2009, 11:18 AM
Dear K/ others who are active on RTI front,

I think we shd pool up all qns and answers received at least at one repository - say RREWA- and if possible RREWA must open a separate COLUMN in its journal for publishing these as and when received (of course to avoid any embarassments- names of Govt. officials can be deleted). This will help to pool up the RTI info at one place.

The inconsistency is showing up already- in your case the stand taken is "no approvals needed for CLARIFICATIONS"- whereas in my case- the stand was approval was taken from "MINISTER of STATE"- .My answers were earlier. Wisdome has dawned in the interim time. This development shows for similar if not same info- already two cintradictory replies are emerging. When they found "APPROVAL/SANCTION from COMPETENT authority" is CERTAINLY REQUIRED, they have become wiser to change the answer to say it is only "clarification"- and NOT "MODIFICATION"!!!

We will continue with more RTI queries- More HOWLERS will come up. More the merrier. We must publish all these in pensioners' journals.When published, we will send the copies of such journals to Chairman of the 6th CPC.

You have said you received only part reply? What is the qn still pending? Has it some "STING"? (mlk brand! I like your perseverance and grass-root probe!) PL refresh that part.

(for copies of six pages notes, I have already sent the IPOs and letter)

Regards

vnatarajan.

(Latest "BAMBOOS" on sanctions exist in AP high court judgements of March- May 2009 (DRDO Scientists pension case- SCM may have a copy for his reference- not to be publicised for some reasons right now- where sanctity of RULES are also cited. Next expressions will be taken out from such JUDGMENTS to ask qns). Try framing couple of qns to Law MInistry under RTI- on sanctity of Rules- how admisntration can "modify" or "clarify" using same examples of Gazette Notifiactions to give twisted meanings- we are at it)

vnatarajan
28-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar

This is reg ur posting at sl no 418.

I think 2 (ii) of OM of 11th Feb is now apparently directed to UPGRADATION cases senso stricto!

I think more analyses is required.

Where do u get the figure of 4200 for GP? For 37400, minimum grade pay can not be less than 8700 I think- because minimum in PB4 is 23050 for pre-2006 pensioners.

I may perhaps be wrong.

Another observation to be made is - Reg Para 4.1 , sometimes it is made out to look full parity- with stagnation increments etc. Even 6th CPC has not recommended full parity - it has only given somewhat a modified parity- and what is being sought as a common cause is a modified parity on a NOTIONAL Basis of MINIMUM of the Pay in the Pay Band.

Cruciaal will be the conceding of fitting of the pre-revised scales in the Pay Bands as was given to the serving employees/ post 2006 pensioners and there u put the clause that whatever NORM is adopted for FIXATION of pension for cases of post 1.1.2006 retirees, same norms shd be allowed for pre 1.1.2006 pensioners also.

May be wording are ambiguous - but certainly NOTIONAL MODIFIED Parity at the MINIMUM shd not be mixed up with FULL PARITY!

vnatarajan

Sushil Kumar
28-02-2009, 05:39 PM
Dear all,
All the representations sent to PM have further been sent to the authorities who have committed the blunders. RREWA had sought for a personal interview of PM which has not yet been granted. Obviously, the authorities who have committed the blunders, are not likely to accept the same unless there is some pressure. Discussions for moving to the courts are already under way. Under these circumstances, I request the distinguished members of this blog to consider - if an open letter can be written to the PM through any National Daily Newspaper. This letter can be written by RREWA or BPS. In case no Newspaper undertakes its publication, can it be published in the form of an advertisement by making the required payment to the Newspaper. The expenditure so involved will be much lesser in comparison to the court case. I feel this will certainly have a wide implication.

SK

S.Balasubramanian
28-02-2009, 05:53 PM
I came across an interesting and telling poem by a 24-year army officer which I saw in a website and which aptly sums up the situation on 6th cpc. I thought I could share the same with all, and I am reproducing it below:

This poem has been composed by a fourth generation, 24-year old career officer in the Indian Armed Forces, spurred by the report of the Sixth Pay Commission and an insensitive article written by a 'respectable' denizen of the country in a national daily on the armed forces and the pertinence of the Sixth Pay Commission therein. This free-flowing verse has not been edited; it's to ensure that the originality of the angst is maintained. After all, when you are in pain, the language of expression is the last thing in your mind

"How you play with us, did you ever see?
At Seven, I had decided what I wanted to be;
I would serve you to the end,
All these boundaries I would defend.

Now you make me look like a fool,
When at Seventeen and just out of school;
Went to the place where they made "men out of boys"
Lived a tough life …sacrificed a few joys…

In those days, I would see my 'civilian' friends,
Living a life with the fashion trends;
Enjoying their so called "College Days"
While I sweated and bled in the sun and haze…
But I never thought twice about what where or why
All I knew was when the time came, I'd be ready to do or die.

At 21 and with my commission in hand,
Under the glory of the parade and the band,
I took the oath to protect you over land, air or sea,
And make the supreme sacrifice when the need came to be.

I stood there with a sense of recognition,
But on that day I never had the premonition,
that when the time came to give me my due,
You'd just say," What is so great that you do?"

Long back you promised a well to do life;
And when I'm away, take care of my wife.
You came and saw the hardships I live through,
And I saw you make a note or two,
And I hoped you would realise the worth of me;
but now I know you'll never be able to see,
Because you only see the glorified life of mine,
Did you see the place where death looms all the time?
Did you meet the man standing guard in the snow?
The name of his newborn he does not know...
Did you meet the man whose father breathed his last?
While the sailor patrolled our seas so vast?

You still know I'll not be the one to raise my voice
I will stand tall and protect you in Punjab Himachal and Thois.

But that's just me you have in the sun and rain,
For now at Twenty Four, you make me think again;
About the decision I made, Seven years back;
Should I have chosen another life, some other track?

Will I tell my son to follow my lead?
Will I tell my son, you'll get all that you need?
This is the country you will serve
This country will give you all that you deserve?

I heard you tell the world "India is shining"
I told my men, that's a reason for us to be smiling
This is the India you and I will defend!
But tell me how long will you be able to pretend?
You go on promise all that you may,
But it's the souls of your own men you betray.

Did you read how some of our eminent citizens
Write about me and ridicule my very existence?
I ask you to please come and see what I do,
Come and have a look at what I go through
Live my life just for a day
Maybe you'll have something else to say?

I will still risk my life without a sigh
To keep your flag flying high
but today I ask myself a question or two…
Oh India…. Why do I still serve you?

S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
28-02-2009, 06:52 PM
I was pleasantly surprised to see google.com having taken note of draft representation to NHRC suggested by me and published by RREWA in www.karmayog.org and reproducing it with the words "Courtesy-S,Balasubramanian".
I am happy that RREWA has got international recognition, since its important activities get noticed internationally and are being put on the website. All kudos to Mr Maheshwari and RREWA!
One lesson which we have to learn from all this is to remember that what we write in any (privately public forum) may some day become public internationally, and hence we have to be careful and 'truly parliamentary' in the choice of words when we give expression to our views on any public matter.
S.Balasubramanian.

sundarar
28-02-2009, 07:41 PM
Respected Shri VN Sir,

With due permission from Shri Balaji for so closely following his latest poem by this post, I submit the following for your kind information please.

Kindly refer to your post No.421 reg. my earlier post. If I had not made my view point clear, kindly excuse me.

Actually, I was mentioning in my post referred to by your goodself - that I too had sent a representation before two months to the DoP through my Dept. (through proper channel), where I was questioning the actual meaning of OM dt. 3.10.2008. My emphasis in my representation was to point out the `irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay' as well as `corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' as repeated here under.

"Subsequently another O.M. dated 3.10.2008 issued by DoP&PW clarifies that `the pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006. The same O.M. also specifies that `the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus GP would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the GP corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale’. In that case, my revised pension may become Rs.37400+4200=41600/2=20800(mainly due to `irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay’) which is quite unreasonable but the contents of O.M. dt.3.10.2008 leads to this calculation.

As you could kindly observe from the above, while prescribing the pension (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band since irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay (My pre-revised scale of pay at the time of retirement was 5500-9000), I questioned whether 50% of Rs.37400 + GP corresponding to my pre-revised scale Rs.4200 can be my revised pension as on 1.1.2006?

As Rs.4200 GP is applicable for my pre-revised pay scale, I had indicated the same as per OM dt.3.10.2008 and asked the DoP whether my assumption as above in my pension calculation is not quite unreasonable? This is just to point out the varying versions of irrespective of and corresponding to - pre-revised scale of pay. I quoted this in my present post just to point out that in spite of our various pointing out the crucial one, the Dept. of Pension has not chosen to come with their reply. I also asked in my representation
what about (ii) when there is already (i).

Therefore, all along, we all of the Forum have been maintaining the common line of thinking from day 1 and there will be no deviation from the common agenda from my side even though at times, I may not be able to present my views in clear terms. Particularly with regard to upgradation, earlier I was thinking only about S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12 where the 6th CPC has prescribed higher pay scales as upgraded one w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for fixing revised pay in the pay band as per fitment table alongwith the GP as applicable. After seeing the Brief (the particular 7 scales) I got myself cleared about the same. Shri Balaji also had elaborated about the stagnation cases and as cleared by your goodself, I now realise that notional revision alone may not be sufficient in such cases, and hence there is a need for prescribing minimum pension that has to be ensured, as per the proposed amendments of Shri Balaji.

I always agree with your valuable observations as well as other senior members who contribute both directly as well as indirectly. I enjoy the freedom available to get my doubts cleared then and there through Forum as well as Private Messages. My special thanks to Gconnect also for the kind
platform provided for the common cause.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
28-02-2009, 07:54 PM
My dear VN. My query againsst which reply from DOP is awaited were :

i) Certified copies of proposal/Justification for the issue of such an amendment along with name and designations of all the Authorities who signed it, together with copies of file Notings.

ii) The name and the designation of the financial Authority who concurred in the above proposal along with copies of file Notings.

iii) The name and the designation of the Authority who finally approved the above proposal before issuing the said OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08.

I am sending copies of letters, which are important, to rrewa.org These are generally put on website also. I have kept copies in my computer so that as and when these are needed, I would be able to send them whosoever wants it. I intend to send copy of my query under RTI alongwith replies received to rrewa. I am waiting for the rest of information in five pages from DOP, now.

vnatarajan
28-02-2009, 08:26 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar

Thank u and Shri Bala very much for your elaborations/ explanations. I was misled by your "irrespective" deal!. I stand corrected. Yes stagnation cases are very tricky to solve. There have to be some norms for those cases. It is difficult to mix up both Minimum Pairty and Parity at the Maximum/ and beyond that.I dont know what ready formula can be there! Only anomaly committee can decide such cases depending on the numbers. There cd be quite a few in the middle levels who must have got stagnated and had anomalies. Similarly there are quite a few who stagnated at S29 levels also and many are reconciled to get Minimum parity! (Worst are those who got special pay to the tune of 2000k at the top of S29( in Deptts like ISRO/DRDO/DAE etc who are being reduced to nothing even after their meritorious contributions! ie effectively from a basic of 22400 plus 2000 ie 24400 to 14300 levels!!!!)

Problem with 6CPC outcome is not unidirectional! (1)Lower scales have been "UPGRADED" and merged (2)Higher scales have been "DOWNGRADED" and merged -a practice unknown till now! (3) Middle levels have been butchered - because of the sole objective of elevating only one PRS (pre-revised scale) viz S24 (apology to S24)

If u see GR's graphs and your own tables, the problems are clear. If there had been an uniform UPWARD trend say with a factor of minimum MF of 2.46 through 10 bpts variations to 3.16 (Secretaries), things wd not have become anomalous or erratic.

(Stagnation cases have to be given additional dispensations (as fixation) over MINIMUM parity - according to me! --I may be wrong but this wd be my way of looking at NOTIONAL PARITY at the MINIMUM)

I am also learning more!

VNatarajan

vnatarajan
28-02-2009, 08:35 PM
Dear K (posting 426)

Your queries will be very embarassing for the DoPPW to answer. Anyhow, they have to reply.

Will be interesting to wait for the outcome. (I feel Minister of State for Personnel will be embarassed! I have him cited in my reply already)

I am also suggesting to my group here who are active with RTI- (VN/ PKR/ GR/AR) to pool upp all the queries at one place with answers and the notes etc whatever we get.

At appropriate time- or periodically- we will exchange and pass on to each other.

vnatarajan

sundarar
28-02-2009, 10:03 PM
I was pleasantly surprised to see google.com having taken note of draft representation to NHRC suggested by me and published by RREWA in www.karmayog.org and reproducing it with the words "Courtesy-S,Balasubramanian".
I am happy that RREWA has got international recognition, since its important activities get noticed internationally and are being put on the website. All kudos to Mr Maheshwari and RREWA!
One lesson which we have to learn from all this is to remember that what we write in any (privately public forum) may some day become public internationally, and hence we have to be careful and 'truly parliamentary' in the choice of words when we give expression to our views on any public matter.
S.Balasubramanian.

Shri Balaji's Very Outstanding Contribution by suitable introduction of our issue to the rest of India will definitely draw the attention of the concerned.
I am very much impressed with the last para of Shri Balaji's above post. It speaks many things. This I will keep in my mind even in my official and personal dealings also on everyday please. Very good visualisation and foreseeing. It makes me alert and cautious while offering comments on any public matter in particular.

As suggested by Shri VNji, the focus is now on raising RTI queries as much as possible as it is established that reply is possible as in the case Shri K.

Best Regards to Shri Balaji, Shri VNji and all,

Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
28-02-2009, 11:29 PM
"Originally Posted by S.Balasubramanian
I was pleasantly surprised to see google.com having taken note of draft representation to NHRC suggested by me and published by RREWA in www.karmayog.org and reproducing it with the words "Courtesy-S,Balasubramanian".
I am happy that RREWA has got international recognition, since its important activities get noticed internationally and are being put on the website. All kudos to Mr Maheshwari and RREWA!
One lesson which we have to learn from all this is to remember that what we write in any (privately public forum) may some day become public internationally, and hence we have to be careful and 'truly parliamentary' in the choice of words when we give expression to our views on any public matter.
S.Balasubramanian."

I was surprised to see my private message in gconnect forum, sent to Sh.VN under the category conversation between VNatarajan and G.Ramdas appearing in Google search for "G.Ramdas."
Yes, one has to keep up the propriety needs of public speaking/writing
G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
01-03-2009, 08:11 AM
My dear VN, other pensioner friends. You may be knowing recently court has convicted a person who had written something in some blog which was declared defamation. Therefore, be cautious not to write anything in this forum or any other place which may be constituted as unlawful or defamatory. The minute you write something on blog, it becomes a publication as is the case with a news paper. To some extent it is very much applicable to e. mails because you are sending so many e. mails addressed to many people simaltaneously. Also, we should not say anything against Govt. which is derogatory in character, false and unfounded or unparliamentary. I know we all are very careful people but there is nothing wrong if we keep reminding ourselveds about these precautionery measures while blogging.

sundarar
01-03-2009, 09:41 AM
Dear Sirs,

It is absolutely correct. Today's Times of India News Extract on the instant matter is reproduced below for information.

(ANI)
London: A word of caution for all those who open their hearts out on social networking websites. A British teenager has been sacked from her job after she called it boring on Facebook. `Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made (her job) untenable' - Boss Steve Ivell.

Brendan Barber, from the TUC Union, said that employees need to protect their privacy online and employers should be les sensitive to criticism. According to him, "Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends'. `Just because snooping on personal conversations is possible these days, it doesn't make it healthy' Barber added.

Right caution at Right time. Freedom to right and speak ought not to mislead the writer/speaker himself. Thanks for Shri Balaji and Shri K.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
01-03-2009, 11:15 AM
ANOMALY COMMITTEE- CLARIFICATION THRU RTI- PL SEE & REVERT LATER:

Dear All

Pensioners’ Forum, Chennai’s Gen Sec AVM has acted & the DOPPW has responded ON THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE. OUR THANKS TO DOP&PW FOR PROMPT ACTIONS

RTI Queries raised on 29.01.2009 on Anomaly Committee by the Pensioners’ Forum (affiliated to AIFPA), Chennai
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the Anomaly Committee constituted to look in to the grievances of employees will also receive grievances from the pensioners and consider them?

If the said Anomaly Committee will not deal with the pensioners’ grievances, who will attend to them?

Will the Dept. of Pension appoint a separate Anomaly Committee or will they themselves look in to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential points of reply: from DoPPW lr dtd 25.02.2009
The DoPT which has constituted the AC has informed that the said Committee will examine all kinds of anomalies which are covered under the DEFINITION OF ANOMALY as given in the AC OM dtd 12.01.2009.
IF THE STAFF SIDE and THE OFFICIAL SIDE AGREE THAT A PARTICULAR ISSUE RELATED TO PENSIONERS IS COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ANOMALY, SAME MAY BE TAKEN UP FOR DISCUSSION IN THE NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

Therefore, the onus is ALSO partly now on us/ all Pensioners’ Groups/ Forums/Federations to appeal , sensitise and ensure that the matter is taken up on A HIGH PRIORITY BASIS by the NAC so that the MAIN damage is reversed and all other damages done are undone quickly, before many pensioners and family pebnsioners breathe their LAST!

PLEASE SUGGEST COURSES OF ACTION that can be pursued. I have a few, but I will come up later. (I have given in my earlier postings why the Non-implementation of Accepted Recommendations uniformly for both Pensioners and Employees is against the Principles/ Philosophy of the 6th CPC )

VNatarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum,Chennai

ranganathan
01-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Reference OM F.No 38/37/ 08-P&PW Dated 11/02/2009. Para 3 to 6:

The following questions tend to arise:

PARA 3: Apart from the instructions / clarifications as mentioned, whether the MODIFICATIONS to the OM of even No dated 01 Sep. 2008, contained in OM of 03 Oct. 08 and 14 Oct. 08 , are also in consonance with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission ( For instance modification of the expression “ CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE ‘ TO ‘ ‘IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE- REVISED SCALE OF PAY’ against item para 4.2 in 0M of Oct. 3, 08 )


PARA 4:
(i) If Annexure I of OM of 14 Oct. 08 and the Dispensations of Para 4.2 of the OM of 01 Sep, are not applicable to Pre- 2006 Pensioners, as stated, then what is the dispensation, if any, applicable to them?
(ii) What is the rationale of Note 1and 2, under this Annexure I, which, AS PER PARA 4.2 of the same OM of 01 Sep. 08, stipulates, minimum pension and minimum family pension?
(iii) In view of the above stated limitations of non- applicability of the dispensations under para 4.2, to Pre -2006 pensioners, does Note-1 above, apply only to those who have completed the full qualifying service of 33yrs before 1.1.06, but retired after that date.
(iv) Annexure II of Oct 14 OM 08 sets forth examples of actual calculations, following the table of contents under its Annexure I . Item Serial No 8, is in fact the result of application of para 4.2 of OM of 01-09-2008, as acknowledged therein itself. How does one explain this contradiction with what is stated in para 4 of letter of 11Feb?

PARA 5:
(i) What is the rationale of the first sentence of this para, which reiterates ,the general application of para 4.2, of OM of DP&PW of 01 Sep 2008 irrespective the date of retiremnet, as opposed to the contents of para 4 above
(ii ) What is the linkage established between the provisions of para 4.2 above and the up gradation of posts due to the implementation of 6th CPC
recommendations.
(iii) What according to DP&PW are the pre revised scale upgraded due to the implementation of the 6th CPC, as compared to the lists given under shedule 1, part B &C of MOF notification dated 29 Aug?
(iv) . Are there separate governing UPGRADATION of posts from which one has retired before 01-01-06

PARA 6. How can the representations of most of us be deemed to have been disposed off in terms of the OM dated 11 Feb 2009, under reference, since none of the issues raised had been considered . The major issue raised was the differing perception of the entity called the Minimum of pay in the Pay band corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as distinct from the entity called the Minimum of the Pay band itself corresponding to the pre revised scale. This issue appears to have been not considered or clarified in the OM of Feb 11 08.

PKR

badri mannargudi
01-03-2009, 10:57 PM
Dear Sirs,

It is absolutely correct. Today's Times of India News Extract on the instant matter is reproduced below for information.

(ANI)
London: A word of caution for all those who open their hearts out on social networking websites. A British teenager has been sacked from her job after she called it boring on Facebook. `Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made (her job) untenable' - Boss Steve Ivell.

Brendan Barber, from the TUC Union, said that employees need to protect their privacy online and employers should be les sensitive to criticism. According to him, "Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends'. `Just because snooping on personal conversations is possible these days, it doesn't make it healthy' Barber added.

Right caution at Right time. Freedom to right and speak ought not to mislead the writer/speaker himself. Thanks for Shri Balaji and Shri K.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

Dear friends,
If the Messages/Reviews are not derogatory in nature, even if it is bordering on criticism there may not be any problem for retired persons. Even for serving officers, if the criticism does not relate to Govt policy then there should not any problem, in my view.
In any case, one has to be quite polite even while letting the world know one's legitimate grievance.
If the language is polite and it sounds more like an appeal rather than a command or demand, then, there smay not be any problem.
With regards,
Badri

sundarar
01-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Respected Sirs,

The queries raised by Shri PKR are very valid. Further,

The OM dt.1.9.2008 issued in respect of Pre-2006 pensioners - Para 4.2

1) The DoP may please provide the revised minimum pension amount to be ensured in accordance with Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 for all the pre-revised scale of pay S-1 to S-30 from which a pensioner would have been retired prior to 1.1.2006.

2) Whether the OM dt.11.2.2009 also support Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 particularly with regard to the revised minimum pension to be ensured.

3) As per the clarification provided vide OM dt.3.10.2008 in respect of
minimum revised pension that has to be ensured, what will be the
50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay for a pre-2006 pensioner.

4) Whether as per OM dt.3.10.2008, the linkage of qualifying service of 33 years for full pension has been dispensed with by having prospective effect or retrospective effect.

5) Whether the Annexures to OM dt.3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 have been
issued by taking reference to initial OM dt.1.9.2008?

6) If yes for Sl.No.5 above, what is the 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay as clarified vide OM dt.3.10.2008 and whether the same quantum of amount has been taken into account in the Annexures referred to also.

7) If yes for Sl.No.5 above, what is the 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band in accordance with Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008.

8) Whether only Grade Pay shall be corresponding to pre-revised scale of pay and the pay in the pay band can be irrespective of pre-revised scale of Pay as clarified vide OM dt.3.10.2008.

9) What is the necessity for issuing OM dt.10.2.1998 in respect of pre-1986 Pensioners.

10) Whether the same necessity/spirit exists for issuing a OM in respect of pre-1996 and pre-2006 pensioners at this time - If not what are the justifications.

Bonus query: Under the same pay structure (6th CPC), how the pension amount can be different for a person retired with less than 33 years between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 and the other retired after 1.9.2008 with less than 33 years while both were drawing their pay in the said pay structure at the time of retirement, by virtue of introduction of reduced qualifying service for full pension in respect of the later. What are the justifications

The above queries are illustrative and can be considered for posing as RTI queries after suitable modifications/refinement.

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

vnatarajan
02-03-2009, 07:30 AM
This is reg. the caution on parliamentary language at all times. Yes quite true. Once in a while aberrations occur in social networks- I have seen in another network in the same mode as ours- abusing the judiciary - in the "choicest' punjabi lingo- and the id is always hidden.

Even while in service - our top-man in my dept- and another senior vociferous man- both scientists - had used the choicest filth in person- in writing to abuse the bureaucracy- and though put to a hardship of some enwuiry etc.- they were let off with no punitive actions - as such actions were treated as part of "human outbursts'"due to vent of greivances. (Other side of the story is younger/ next line of "managers" were happy that their seniors were abused so well by others while they were not able to do so, Common in the Blocks in the capital!) Let us be frank enough to be graceful & face truth -not be harmful- NOT MEAN IN ANY WAY!

It is nice to be within good lingo.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-03-2009, 08:33 AM
My dear VN, Others. Ref. my post 431. There are divergent views being expressed and it is good. People have been punished in India too. Therefore, it is necessary that we should understand the implications after the enactment of Cyber Law in India. Prior to the Cyber Law it was almost difficult to start any proceeding but now it is not difficult at all. As regards hiding of identity, it is now not possible to do so. The Service Provider would be forced to expose the details of the person concerned available to him, to the law and he is obliged to do so under Cyber Law. Moreover, as per Cyber Law, Service Provider is not responsible for anything said in a blog but blogger himself or her self. My advice is that we should be cautious and put nothing on blogs which may be least offensive to any body. At the same time we are fully entitled to vent and discuss our grievances in parliamentary language.

dnaga57
02-03-2009, 09:10 AM
To my mind, whatever be the hurt- provocation, use of unparliamentary words in private or public is indicative of a 'sick' mind.
If our points- logic is sound, no need to do so.
If not, no use in doing so:p

vnatarajan
02-03-2009, 09:21 AM
Mr K is absolutely correct. Within the framework provided- without prejudice or contempt to the service provider, itis responsibility of the blogger and the blogged to act and react- in a decent manner.

Proocations do come- so not necessary to be too much worried- but be frank to criticise- express- dont think because you criticise, you will be sngled out and be punished-so loing as you are right- and you are just- it is your duty to make your case and express. Being harsh doesn't mean you are morally wrong or you are not courteous.

I think we shd now be making some inroads into Anomaly Committee someway or other.

Our trade union comrades do have a role to play. We hope they extend their goodwill to their veterans. I am trying to catch hold of my old comrades in arms from the (GSI)
employees side at Kolkota--- great gentlemen of the first order- S/Shri Mihir Bose, Nirmal Mukherjee etc

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-03-2009, 04:14 PM
My dear VN. Once in this forum I said let us flood the anomaly committee with the Representations. Today also I would say the same. Reply of DOP against RTI has removed all the doubts. I sent my appeal with the hope that somebody in anomaly committe would listen to it and take action. More the number of appeals more is the chance that staff side members would be able to convince others in anomaly committee to examine our request in light of our arguments. Then why delay ?

Kanaujiaml
02-03-2009, 04:16 PM
To my mind, whatever be the hurt- provocation, use of unparliamentary words in private or public is indicative of a 'sick' mind.
If our points- logic is sound, no need to do so.
If not, no use in doing so:p

Very well said.

vnatarajan
02-03-2009, 04:31 PM
Dear K

We are at it.

We are preparing a model rep. letter- outlining the core issue(s) wh is violative of the principles/philosophy of the 6th CPC- wh will enclose copies of our appeals made to the Secy, DOPPW at difft times, including our personal anomalies etc., specially for pensioners who may require such help.

Others can act on their own- but then focussing on the GUIDANCE given in the RTI answer I have placed.

Also appeals must go to quite a few members of staff and official side for their appreciation.

A number of Pensioners associations/ Organisations etc must send their appeals also in similar fashion.

I WONDER WHY THE DOPPW IS NOT ANSWERING EVEN A SINGLE REP.?

EVEN THOSE FORWARDED BY PMO?

I THINK ONE RTI ON THIS ALONE IS NEEDED TO BE SENT BY THOSE WHOSE REPS ARE FORWARDED BY THE PMO TO THE SECY., DOPPW for "APPROPRIATE ACTION" . LET US ASK WHAT "APPROPRIATE ACTION" THEY HAVE TAKEN? IF "YES" DID THEY REPLY PMO?
IF "YES" COPY TO BE SUPPLIED etcetc. (Copy of this RTI query can be sent to PMO also for their perusal)

vnatarajan.

G.Ramdas
02-03-2009, 05:33 PM
I have reminded PMO, as I have not received any reply from DP&PW even after the PMO had forwarded my petition to them. I have also requested the PM to get the matter referred to the Anomalies Committee in case DP&PW are not able to resolve the issues.
As suggested by ShVN let us all write to the various Staff Associations to take up the issue with JCM for inclusion in Anomalies committee agenda

G Ramdas

vnatarajan
03-03-2009, 08:08 AM
Dear GR/K/All

Yesterday, I again lodged my GREIVANCE complaint to the PMO ONLINE quoting his forwarding lr of my appeal sent to the Secy, MinPPGP, and the latters' inaction so far as against the PMO's direction for "APPROPRIATE ACTION"! It was registered with "THANKS" message as usual.

Now I will also follow what Mr GR has done- remind PMO by post -about the INACTION of DOPPW as against his directive for "APPROPRIATE ACTION" and then at least solicit for a REPLY- or reference for AC etc.

vnatarajan

ACTIONS TO WRITE TO AC MUST GO AHEAD. THIS TIME ALL PENSIONERS MUST ACT FULLY.

OF COURSE SOME PENSIONERS HAVE NO SOURCE TO ACT.THAT IS WHY THEY PAY SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ALL PENSIONERS' BODIES TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF.

THEREFORE ALL PENSIONERS" FEDERATIONS/ ASSSOCIATION MUST ACT TO TAKE THE MATTER TO ANOMALY COMMITTEE and ACHIEVE THE REMEDY quickly.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-03-2009, 08:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all

Latest on famous SPS Bains (Sept 2008 judgment- review by Govt- now decision in Feb/Mar 2009) parity case: (reproduced from a Military Blog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, March 1, 2009
Dismissal of Petition seeking review of relief granted to Major Generals by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
The Sword of Justice has no scabbard - Antione de Riveral

Though I’m yet to see the order, it is learnt that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Union of India (Ministry of Defence, Govt of India) seeking a relook into the detailed decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs SPS Vains case that was decided on 09 Sept 2008. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was directed that there had to be a system of pension parity between officers retiring on different sets of dates. While the case did not directly deal with the principle of ‘One Rank One Pension’, it definitely sets into motion a regime for near parity where there is minimal difference in pension vis-à-vis different retirement dates.

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

Govt. has to implement now. Let us see what happens. Even last stage is over!

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
04-03-2009, 10:14 AM
The news about review petition having been dismissed had come earlier, and the Government was proposing to file a 'curative' petition. Is the latest one a reiteration of the old news of review petition having been dismissed, or does it refer to curative petition having been dismissed? If it is dismissal of curative petition, then hope of getting a favourable decision from Supreme Court, if any case on parity is filed, brightens.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
04-03-2009, 12:36 PM
Dear Shri Bala

I am not sure- I picked this from the blog after my Army Pensioner friend briefed me during my morning walk today. I think the so called review petition cd have been dismissed in oct 2008 itself and I think this may be what u call as the "curative petition'!

SCM has sought info from the Retd. Generals and I think soon we will get to know the details.

One thing is sure- I DONT HAVE MUCH FAITH IN THE GOVT. OR JUDICIAL VERDICTS NOWADAYS!

YOU CAN ONLY GOVERN PEOPLE WHO ARE OBEDIENT! YOU CAN ONLY MAKE ACTS/REGULATIONS/RULES IF ONLY GOVT. FOLLOWS THEM IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE!

IF THE GOVT. ITSELF BELIEVES IN AD HOCISM & DESPONDENCY- COME WHAT MAY- THEY WILL NOT IMPLEMENT EVEN COURT VERDICTS OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS and EVEN THEIR OWN RULES! NO COURT VERDICT can be effective in such cases!

COURTS ARE FOR BELIEVERS -I AM NOT ONE OF THEM AT LEAST-BUT I DO PARTICIPATE IN A FIGHT FOR PRINCIPLE- WIN or LOSE- It makes no difference for me!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-03-2009, 06:38 PM
Dear Mr Sundaraar/ Mr Badri (missing since long)/ other Rules experts
A little home-work for coming out with "subtle" points.

1. When are the latest "MODIFICATIONS" to CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 brought out with the proper Presidential endorsements?
(clue: is it on 2nd Sept 2008?)

2.What is the definition of "Emoluments" for determing Pension- as on date/ prior to that/ prior to datums you may think relevant to cite- in terms of Rule 33 of Cent Civ Serv (pension) Rules 1972?

3.When was the first appearance of "GRADE PAY" as part of emoluments appeared for pension pusposes? Which OM? (clue: Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2006)

4.Is there any Definition of "Emoluments" with mention of "Grade Pay" prior to 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners? Pl cite OM if any?

5.If not what was/were the prevailing Definition(s) till then- say post 1972/ post 1986/ post 1996/ pre 2006? (clue- read OM of 1st Sept 2008 carefully!- till then perhaps "INTENTIONS" to deny the pre-2006 pensioners the correct pension was the ONLY PRIORITY!) .... ( then in the OM of 2nd Sept, all puindits appeared to leave no ambiguity and so the DEFINITION of "EMOLUMENTS" took proper and precise shape!)

(Now in my "proposed to be written" PART III of evolutionary history of the Pay Band- the importance of Grade Pay appears to attain some importance!)

6. Last qn for the day: In the absence of any tangible definition for "Emoluments" for pre-2006 pensioners, can ad-hoc definitions be applied with Grade Pay component included or will it be relevant to apply the same definition as in the case of post-2006 pensioners? (Mind both cases are retrospective (one partly (pre 2.9.l2008 pensioners) and another fully) as the date of issue of OM is 2nd Sept. If the logic of extending the definition of "Emoluments" is correct for pre-2.9.2008 pensioners, same has to hold good for even pre-2006 pensioners!)

VNatarajan.



2.

Kanaujiaml
04-03-2009, 08:07 PM
My dear VN. Ref. your post 448. I have tried to know the exact status of
SPS Vains Case. I couldnot find anything anywhere so far. One thing I observed, whatever we say in this forum, is availalble on search engines like google. Therefore, unless the information is correct and collborative, it should not be put up here. You can ask people about it through e. mail. Mr. SCM has sent me an e. mail and I have already sent reply to it. I have also received your e. mail which also I have replied to.

vnatarajan
04-03-2009, 08:35 PM
(I am not sure whether it is a FINAL DECISION ? as shri Bala has raised a doubt on "curative petition" aspect?)

Dear K/ all
Networks do copy and reproduce!
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-03-2009, 08:40 PM
Dear Mr Sundaraar/ Mr Badri/ others who can help to educate us!

Contn of my post 449 for Home-workers! PLEASE VERIFY THE PROVISIONS & comment.

(1)Rule 33 of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:
“The expression ‘emoluments’ means basic pay as defined in Rule 9(21)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death; and will also include non-practising allowance granted to medical officer in lieu of private practice”.

(2)Under FR 9(21)(a)(iii) it is open to the President to grant any other emoluments , including GRADE PAY which may be classed as pay of a Government servant;

(3)the Presidential Order contained in the OM of 1st Sept 2008 cannot be materially altered as modified by the subordinate authority by way of clarification memorandum dated 3rd and 14th Oct 2008, and

(3) the provisions of FR 9(21)(a)(ii) can not exclude the GRADE PAY as part of pay and accordingly the clarificatory Official Memorandum dated 3rd and 14th Oct 2009 are to be declared REDUNDANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

sundarar
04-03-2009, 11:25 PM
Respected Sirs,

I wish and sincerely pray that the thread commenced on 7.10.2008 will yield the desired result atleast when it reaches the page 50 on 7.3.2009 particularly with the thread is nearing to 500 mark replies/posts and our Sr. Veteran Shri VNji is also about to reach the 500 posts by himself. The voluminous discussion speaks of itself. I will be continuing soon please. Thanks and Best Regards, Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
05-03-2009, 08:09 AM
My dear VN. I would request you to kindly close this topic for some time.

vnatarajan
05-03-2009, 09:48 AM
Dear K
Matter closed! (pl note I have deleted my remarks! in post 451. I hope/wish you also edit your post of 454)
I have already emailed you all info I had!
No problems.
VNatarajan

vnatarajan
05-03-2009, 03:47 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar/ others interested in following the FUNDAS on "EMOLUMENTS"

Thanks for your impromptu replies on my six points- and it was AMAZING- a walking encyclopaedia (SUNDARAR!) or what?- yes- most of the replies were as I was debating upon- and so they be!

Now coming to a point of contention:

PL READ THE OMS of (1) 1st Sept 2008 -for pre-2006 pensioners
(2) 2nd Sept 2008- for post 2006 pensioners/ post 02.09.2009 pensioners also!


1) WHAT CAN BE THE REASON FOR NOT DEFINING "EMOLUMENTS" in the OM of 1st Sept 2008 and defining the same in OM of 2nd Sept 2008.?

(definitely not an OMISSION or ERROR according to me. Things were very much decided by then according to me!)

2)If there is provision for extending the definition of "EMOLUMENTs" - RETROSPECTIVELY-to pensioners of pre 02.09.2008 (as the OM is issued on that date only)- how the same definition can be denied to the pensioners of pre-2006? A CUT OFF DATE FOR DEFINITION of EMOLUMENTS ALSO?

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-03-2009, 06:33 PM
Dear All

On the whole the CORE issue emerging for reference to Anomaly Committee centres around the misinterpretation and wrong application of para 4.2 of the OM of 1st Sept 2008 deliberately worded to deny the pensionary benefits to the pre-2006 pensioners of all categories other than the top 4 scales viz S31 to 34:

Category 1:

S31 to 34 Here the "minimum of the pay in the pay band" is irrelevant and for them "minimum of the pay in the pay scale" is so satisfactory because the Pay scale is one and the same as in the case of serving employees.

For these, REVISED PENSION is based on REPLACEMENT PAY SCALES and forever they are protected in regard to pension revisions/ family pension revisions.

Category 2

S4 to S 23 ( I may be wrong- needs checking)

For these, the equations in terms of replacement scales may not be apparently clear and hence the loss is not noticed-clouded by the illusionary 2.26 formula- (para 4.1)

Most of these are covered by Para 4.1- the standard addition based formula- here also many of them suffer a minimum loss of 10% in comparison to respective post-2006 pensioners at the minimum- and where they have reached the top of the scales/ drawn stagnation increments etc, their losses would be heavy.

Since several cases of "UPGRADATIONS" are covered here, much of the pensioners may not know what the denial of "benefit of upgradation" means and hence may not question the outcomes.

Category 3

S24 to S 30

Here, the rationale of any application or interpretation is awry! No Rules or Definitions (like for emoluments) are followed. Administrative/ executive instructions and notings on files appear to have been the order of the day and matter of convenience.

Maximum indifference to & violation of the Presidential sanction is totally exhibited here.

All norms have been flouted here.

A new feature "DOWNGRADATION" viz - downgrading the higher pre-revised scales (S30 to S25- HAG thru SAG) to a minimum/ starting point of a pay band - same as for the lower most pre-revised scale (S24- JAG) has been adopted which refuses to conform to any Rule/ Definition/ Precedence.

When questioned thru RTI, answers clearly confirm the above!

THREE TYPES OF DIVERGENTLY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS HAVE EMERGED and this itself is an anomalous situation.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
05-03-2009, 10:36 PM
Re Sh.VN's posts above.
1. Apart from emoluments the terms pay in the pay band and basic pay have also not been defined in the amendments to CCS(pension ) Rules 1972.
2. On the issue of downgradation ,please read the 6CPC recommendation below

"1.2.9 Distinct running pay bands have been recommended for
Government employees belonging to groups A, B and C. Within Group A, an additional separate running pay band has been prescribed for posts in the scale of Rs.18400-22400 and in higher administrative grade. This is because a common pool for all such posts that are not already encadred in any of the organized AIS/Group A services including posts under the Central Staffing Scheme has been recommended to which suitable officers of all services would be eligible for selection, based on their performance and merit. The common pool will ensure availability of the best talent for crucial posts in the highest grades. "

Now look what they have done. Pay scales S-24 to S-27 which were originally in PB-3 have been shifted to PB-4and PB-4 itself has been downgraded from the 6CPC recommendation of 39200-67000 to 37400-67000, though they call it upgradation.
(See extracts "Notification No.1/12008-Cdt 29/08/08 Resolution published in Gazette by Dept of expenditure Para1(a)
The following Pay Bands recommended by the Commission will be improved and the modified Pay bands will be as below:
PB-1 4860-20200 5200-20200
PB-2 8700-34800 9300-34800
PB-4 39200-6700 37400-67000)

Now with this 'improvement' and application of modified para 4.2 many pensioners get less pension than offered by the Commission.

So we have some more new equations apart from the earlier ones:
a. pay in the pay band= pay band,
b.corresponding to=irrespective of
c.modification=clarification
d.downgradation= improvement/upgradation.
I scratch my head, I dont know which English School I have to go to learn the basics of the this modern day bureaucratic vocab..

G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
06-03-2009, 11:20 AM
My dear VN. Gramdass, dnaga , sundrar and all other pensioner friends. I feel that Pensioenrs Associations all over India should send representations to Anomaly Committee. I have downloaded a list of Associations with addresses but I do not have their e. mail addresses. Can anybody help ?

vnatarajan
06-03-2009, 02:03 PM
Dear K/GR/PKR/AVM/Sundarar/Badri/naga- one and all,

As expressed by K, I have been asking my AIFPA, Chennai colleague to help me with the email ids!. So far I dont think he cd succeed.
Let us start by putting them on the post here- whoever has the emaid id- even one or two of them. It will start the listing.
We (GSI group/ its friends/ its network participants- well wishers) are waiting for a few replies under RTI. Once they are received, our model latter wh can go as a forwardoing letter for all- enclosing their own individual earlier Reps. made to the DOPPW for redressal- can be sent to the AC/ all Staff side Members/ and other sources as one feels.

Als we (at least some individuals/ office-bearers of smaller associations etc) plan to send Common one-page appeals to all Federations/ Associations- both by email as well as hard copy by post- and also to staff/ official side members as we deem fit.

Current employees Unions/ Associations also must be approached for cooperation and voicing this concern, as any precedence of this type of unilaterally resorting to "undesirable consequences" of implementatiuon by simple "Administrative Instructions/ Executive actions" are not perpetrated.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
06-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Dear Friends,
We are trying to collect the info. Apart from this, we should also be able to contact the office bearers of the present office-council/staff council of the various offices from where we have retired, who in turn are members of the JCM. These associations could be given copies of the Petition on Pension anomalies for taking up with JCM. It is also important to point out that pensioners in the junior levels are also adversely affected by the modified para 4.2

G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
07-03-2009, 08:01 AM
My dear Gramdass, VN, Others. Your suggestion is good. However, as far as Indian Railways are concerned, representation to An. Com. has gone from both Officers and Staff Associations. Regarding loss to lower level pensioners, in this very forum I had indicated loss occuring after modified para 4.2 for each pre-revised payscale S4 to S 30. We could bring it to the notice of only a few as generally, pensioers are not computer-literate. It is because of this that I wanted to know the e. mail addresses of the pensioners associations everywhere so that they could be persuaded to represent to An.Com. I have downloaded a list of 78 pensioners associations from DOP website. Atleast 18of them are computer-literate and must be having e. mail IDs. A new draft representation to An.Com. is also ready with me, which could be sent with due modifications, to An. Com. from Pensioners Associations.

vnatarajan
07-03-2009, 09:26 AM
Dear K-/ others

Nice efforts.Pl email the NEW draft version for our guidance to [email protected]/ [email protected]/ (also to me)- who will immediately circulate to our network group for guidance. Also we shall be happy to receive the address list/ email ids if any so that the process can be started.

We shall also be preparing s few more drafts to AC - based on the RTI replies received- so that there cd be some variations in the approach to the AC.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
07-03-2009, 06:53 PM
My dear VN. Ref post 463. I have sent the e. mail just now enclosing copy of new draft representation.

As you would see, in brief, the main demand is that all pensioners should be treated at par. This means past pensioners would also be able to get their pension fixed as per new pensioners. This means your revised pension would be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn (not 10 months average) and at appropriate stage of pay in pay band corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired or pre-revised pay scale a pensioners was assigned notionally (for pre-1996 pensioners). Also it would mean allowing full pension to those having 20 years of service or above. The demand is well supported by Law of the land i.e. Article 14 and relevant hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments dated 17 12 1982, 10 10 2006 and 09 09 08.

sundarar
08-03-2009, 10:02 PM
Dear Sirs,

I reproduce below the clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule 2 of Rule No.49-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

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

The OM dt.2.9.2008 in respect of post-2006 retirees says the provisions under the above clauses shall stand modified to the extent of Para 5.1 to 5.5
of the said OM.

Para 5.2 of the OM: Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with. Once a GS has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments received during the last 10 months whichever is more beneficial to him.

Para 5.3 of the OM: In cases where GS becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 pension in those cases shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments whichever is beneficial to the Govt. servant.

The revised provisions of the above shall come into effect from 2.9.2008.

However, vide OM dt.11.12.2008, the provision for payment of pension at 50% of the emoluments (pay last drawn) or 50% of average emoluments received during the last 10 months which ever is more beneficial to the retiring employees retiring on or after 1.1.2006 has been given extended benefit.

The point to be noted here is all the central govt. employees eligible to draw pension were offered initial appointment with the same set of terms and conditions particularly with reference to CCS (Pension) Rules. Any revision of the existing Rule if could not be extended to all pensioners of pre-2006 shall be made applicable only for those who are offered appointment on or after 1.1.2006 as the offer of appointment will also carry the modified provisions. But when the modified provisions are extended to those retiring after 1.1.2006who were also offered at their intial appointment with the full provisions of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 after 1.1.2006,
the said modified provisions shall equally be applied to similarly placed personnel, the retirees of pre-2006 in toto. Otherwise, it is a clear breach of contract.

The pensioners of post 1.1.2006 with qualifying service of 33 years = The pensioners of post 1.9.2008 with qualifying service of 20 years

The emoluments in respect of the above category will be the last pay drawn or the average emoluments during the last 10 months, which ever is more.

The pensioners of pre-2006 with qualifying service of 33 years are not made equal to the pensioners of post 1.9.2008 with qualifying service of 20 years.
The emoluments part in the case of pensioners of post-2006 will be the last basic pay drawn in the revised structure whereas, for the pre-2006 pensioners, it will be only the last basic pay in the pre-revised structure.
Such last basic pay drawn in the pre-revised structure will have its fullest effect towards deciding the revised pension only when it gets notionally revised, to determine 50% of the same as the revised pension.

The Anomaly Committee may like to throw light on this aspect as to how best the last pay drawn in the pre-revised structure can have its fullest weight in determining the maximum beneficial pension amount.

Best Regards
Sundarar

G.Ramdas
09-03-2009, 09:03 AM
Re: Sh Sundarar' post above:
This covers 2 aspects- 1. 50% of emoluments as pension as provided in CCS(pension ) Rules 1972 and 2.Qualifying service 33 yrs for full pension.First let us deal with 1.
I fully agree with Sh. Sundarar's views.
While the term emoluments has been defined for existing staff this has not been re-defined in the pension rules,1972. Yes there cannot be two different yardsticks one for pensioners who retired earlier to 2006 and one later.Though the Commission says that the fitment benefit for staff and pensioners are identical and is about 40 percent of the highest stage of each of the pre-revised scale, in reality this is not so.
While most of the employees get fitment benefit ranging from over 40% to 151%(S-31),and consequently 50% of this as pension, the concordance table for pre-06 pensioners is pegged at 40%fitment benfit.
The glaring anomaly is visble if the pension loss on this account for the minimum and max of the stages for each of the scale is viewed;
see the attached Tables which cover Gr A services ie., from S-16 to S-31.and the other table for rest of the scales.
due to space restriction the files have been zipped
GR

vnatarajan
09-03-2009, 09:54 AM
Material For Appeal to the Anomaly Committee-I

Dear Sundaraar/ all

Many thanks for the explanations under the posting at sl no 465.

One of the elaborations which I have made out for presentation to the Anomaly Committee is with reference to the aspect "EMOLUMENTS" - its definition etc;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not defining correctly for calculating pension, what are “Emoluments “ for pre-2006 pensioners in the Om dtd 1.9.2008 whereas taking care to define “Emoluments” in the OM of 2.9.2008 for post-2006 pensioners:

1. The origin of all the anomalous loss (Table - not displayed here- but can be referred/ incorporated/ Pension _table color.zip ) to pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners started with the implementation OM F NO 38/37/08 P&PW(A) of MOPPGP/DOPPW dtd 1st Sept 2008. wherein, it was stated in para 4.2 that “fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”.”In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale. This OM had the regulatory sanction of the President.

2.The above OM dtd 1st Sept. 2008 had not stated anything regarding any definitions of its expressions of pay/ Grade pay/their minimum etc or about “Emoluments”, which in all fairness it should have amplified. It was also silent on Presidential sanctions for any “modifications”. Whereas, in glaring contrast, exactly 24 hours later, another OM of even No. dated 2nd Sept 2008, was issued which conveyed that “the President is pleased to approve the following modifications in the Rules regulating Pension/……./Family Pension/…. Etc under the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 “ etc. etc. Date of effect of this OM was 1.1.2006 and was meant for those who retire/ die in harness on or after 1.1.2006

3.Under its Paras 4.1 & 4.2, the OM of 2nd Sept 2008 took care to define “EMOLUMENTS” as follows: “The term EMOLUMENTS for purposes of calculating various pensionary benefits other than various kinds of Gratuity shall have same meaning as in Rule 33 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. Basic Pay in the revised pay structure means the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable Grade Pay but does not include any other type of special pay etc.”

4.The point to be noted here is all the Central Govt. employees eligible to draw pension belonging to the old Scheme (prior to 1.4.2004) were offered initial appointment with usual terms and conditions,particularly with reference to the same CCS (Pension) Rule(s), that was/were in vogue. Any revision of the said Rule(s) has to be extended uniformly and precisely to all pre- 2006 pensioners also.. When the modified provisions are extended to those retiring after 1.1.2006 who are under the same pension scheme i.e. who were also offered at their initial appointment with the full provisions of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 the said modified provisions shall have to be applied to the retirees of pre-2006 in toto. There can not be any exclsusions.

5.Accordingly, the Revised Pension of pre-2006 pensioners has to be with reference to the last pay drawn in the prescribed pay band (plus the applicable Grade pay) and can not be the minimum of the pay band. What is important is Grade Pay alone can not be the determining feature for computing the pension but it is together with the the last Pay drawn that it should form the basis .

6. Attention is also drawn to the SCPC Report's Paras regarding pension::

Pension 11.33 Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of
existing pensioners/family pensioners.

Pension 11.35 Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever
is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.

It is not clear how the controversy has cropped up. Is it due to Recommendations of the 6CPC or due the misinterpretations/ erroneous implementation orders (OMs) of the MOPPGP/DOPPW.

Undefined, vague, casual administrative/ executive treatment of the approach to Revision of Pension for Pre-2006 pensioners is one of the reasons for destroying the real outcome of the guiding principles/ recommendations of the 6CPC.

P.S: One thing is clear. SCPC Chairman and its members did not ignore the spirit of parity/ equality as can be realised from their Para:5.1.3

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

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION PENSIONERS CAN NOT BE DISCRIMINATED ONCE THE PAST SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM ARE EQUAL IN RESPONSIBILITY AND LENGTH. i.e. THERE NEED BE EQUAL PENSION TO EQUALS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATES OF RETIREMENT OR REVISION.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pl suggest any improvements.

More write up to follow

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-03-2009, 03:07 PM
Material for Appeal to the Anomaly Committee- II

Dear All

This is another part - (which to some extent covers earlier models) -for representation to the Anomaly Committte.

This is focussed on the "MINIMUM of the PAY in the Pay Band" aspect:

(Pl note I have modified this on 12.03.2009 because of new infor obtained under RTI act from the DOPPW)

(Pl. note the earlier part and this part are related to OMs , 6CPC Reprot, RTI info etc.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation of the expression “Minimum of the pay in the pay band” – Modifications vs Clarifications:

1.Most anomalous expressions that have been used to perpetrate the loss in pension to the pre-2006 pensioners are ; “Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band” and “Minimum of the Pay Band”. The confusion was whether both meant the same OR they had different interpretations!. Any LKG kid having English knowledge would certainly point out both can not be the same! Otherwise why use the extra part “Pay in the” in the bigger expression?

2. The SCPC’s recommendation regarding pension, as in their Report’s Para 5.1.47 was accepted by the Govt ,approved by the Cabinet, notified in Gazette of India vide MOPPGP/DOP&PW’s Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 and obviously it is linked to the Ministry of Finance, Deptt of Exp. (Implementation Cell)vide their OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 (annexing fitment tables). It was clearly accepted , as clear at sl no 12 of the Resolution, that fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” and the “GRADE PAY THEREON” CORRESPONDING to the PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE from which the pensioner had retired”. NONE OF THE PENSIONERS WOULD HAVE SUSPECTED OR BELIEVED THAT THE SCPC ITSELF HAD MEANT - "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND " IS THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" at that point of time!

3.Expression in quotations above clearly conveyed that the main subject of the sentence was “MINIMUM OF THE PAY” and it had to be fixed in the “Pay Band” as corresponding to the Pre-Revised Pay Scale. The “GRADE PAY THEREON” was the secondary subject of the sentence.

4.Now in the succeeding MOPPGP/DOP&PW’s OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01 09 08, which conveyed the Presidential regulatory sanction vide para 4.2, again stated that “fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”.

5.The subtle “modification” introduced in the whole RECOMMENDATION sentence of Para 2 above went unnoticed!. “Sum of” was removed. “Plus” was introduced. Thus the expression “minimum of the pay band” now became more independent and only the “grade pay” appears to have been qualified by the expression “corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale! POOR Pre-2006 PENSIONERS COULD NOT FATHOM THESE MINOR/ SUBTLE but DESTRUCTIVE and DISTINCT changes in the construction of the sentence, till….

6. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, the MOPPGP/DOP&PW vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, issued clarifications/modifications in regard to their OM dated 1.9.08. With respect to Para 4.2 of the OM of 1 .9 .08, the clarification/ modification conveyed that : “the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade would be calculated at (i)at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale “. This OM of 3 .10. 08 was further explained through illustrations in Tables/Annexure I and II attached to their OM of 14.10.08.

7.Towards finding the facts, information/ file notings were sought from the DOPPW by the undersigned (VNatarajan) under the RTI Act 2005, and the following have emerged:

(i) Pensioners and their Associations, had sought “clarifications” and suggested some “modifications” through representations to the MOPPGP/DOPPW. Accordingly the same have been examined / and clarifications are given in the right side column of the OM of 3rd Oct 2008 under the caption “clarification/modification”. This may mean what exists in the left side columns of the said OM are still valid.

(ii) Regarding the Para 4.2, again the same explanation as above holds good. It looks as though the MOPPGP/DOPPW had never been in dilemma regarding the “ “Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band” and they are always focussed to maintain its interpretation to be “Minimum of the Pay Band “ only. (Does it indirectly convey the fault lies elsewhere?; SCPC itself?) ( Same point appears to have been echoed again in their later OM dated 11th Feb 2009.)

8. Consequently, NOW it has to be realized that the Recommendation made in Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC Report itself is FAULTY and ANOMALOUS. It is against the SCPC’s own guiding principles and philosophy , and hence needs a review and correction taking into consideration a holistic application and uniformity towards Revision of Pension for all.

9.In the above process of creating unwanted confusion through controversial/ debatable expressions in Recommendations/ their Acceptance etc, Pre-2006 pensioners have been made victims to suffer ANOMALOUS losses of pension as already pointed out.

10.The whole issue explained above clearly reveals the ad-hoc/ unjust way all the pre-2006 pensioners are subjected to loss of MINIMUM ENTITLED PENSION as already tabulated and shown elsewhere, and this clear case of ANOMALY inflicted on the pre-2006 pensioners must be immediately set right by restoring NOTIONAL MINIMUM PARITY in revised pension to all categories of Pensioners/ Family Pensioners. Many have already breathed their last (nearly a lakh all over the country)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
09-03-2009, 05:13 PM
Re Sh VN's post at #467
The Table mentioned in para 1 can be seen fromthe following attachment:

vnatarajan
09-03-2009, 06:38 PM
Material for the Anomaly Committee - III

Dear All

This is the next part- which is focussed on the Merger of Pre-revised Pay Scales into Pay Bands - (I apologise to all for selecting the PB4 as the example- (it was easy for me to draft the text as I was familiar with my own case and I had nmy material ready to handle). But all can study and make their own models with little effort.

(For lower scales- their mergers- I think you have to point out the stagnations at the top of the scales - and how the benefits are lost because of the camouflagging effect of the 2.26 formula. Grade Pay effect gets swallowed. That is why Mr Ramadas has prepared the losss in pension that occur for those who have reached the tops of their scales/ got stagnated there- and for scale-wise max. loss/ anomaly etc pl see the link in his earlier posting and study the same. Mr Sundaraar has also prepared ehjaustive tables wh are also valuedc material for consulting)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B).ANOMALIES arising because of NOT treating the Recommendations on revised pension implementation in a holistic manner :

1.Arbitrary and Indiscriminate Merger of several Pre-Revised Pay Scales (PRPS) belonging to several Grades (e.g. HAG/ SAG/ JAG) into a single Pay Band (e.g.PB4) that has resulted in two classes of pensioners for the same PPRS/post/rank/grade.


(.To illustrate the Anomalies that have arisen due to merger of several PPRS into a single Pay Band, example of merger of seven PPRS viz S30 to S24 into PB4 is discussed here.)



1.1.In the pre-revised pay scales ( wef 1/1/1996) there were among others, the following 7 different scales S24,: S25,S26,S27,S28,S29 and S30.

1.2.In the revised scales of pay accepted by the Government wef 1-1-2006, vide Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008 dt 30-08-08, the pay scales S24, S25, S26, S27, S28, S29 and S30, have been MERGED and designated as PB 4.

1.3.Although, this merger placed the pre-revised scales S24 to S30 under a single pay band PB4, the above Memorandum had logically and equitably preserved the IDENTITY of these different scales in the revised Pay Band effective from, 1-1-06. As can be gleaned from page 32 of the Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008-IC dt 30-08-08, pay band 4 (PB4) is not a monolithic table but a cluster of distinct tables, each table corresponding to a particular pre revised table of pay scale. This is as it should be, being the essential feature of every pay structure and revision of pay structures. On this basis the pre -revised scale of S29, ( 18400-500-22400 ) corresponds to the particular table in which the minimum pay is, Rs 44700, the Grade Pay (GP) is Rs10,000/- and the minimum basic starting pay which is the sum of pay in the pay band and the GP is Rs 54700/--. For comparison and distinction, the position in respect of all other pre-revised scales in the pay band PB 4, the revised structure is as under (all in Rs)::

Pay Scale No; Pre-revised Minimum; Minimum Pay in the Pay Band PB4; Grade Pay; Revised Basic Pay

S24 14300 37400 8700 46100 S25 15100 39690 8700 48390

S26 16400 39690 8900 48590
S27 16400 39690 8900 48590
S28 14300 37400 10000 47400
S29 18400 44700 10000 54700
S30 22400 51850 12000 63850

1.4.The very substantial differences in the scales in the pre-revised and the corresponding differences in the revised structure may be noted. Merely because the pay band happens to be a single scale 37400 – 67000/- IT DOES NOT constitute a single table and therefore the MINIMUM of the pay band CAN NOT become the MINIMUM OF THE PAY for all the individual/ distinct pay scales/tables, as is obvious from above..

1.5.The Office Memorandum F. No 38/37/)OP& PW(A) dt 1-9-08, which lays
down the provisions applicable to pensioners, has prescribed in Para 4.2, an over riding provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the PAY in the pay band plus the grade pay CORRESPONDING to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

1.6.In order to apply the above overriding provision of Para 4.2, it is imperative to apply the appropriate TABLE of PAY in the Pay Band which corresponds to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner retired. For example, if the pre-revised scale at the time of retirement was Rs18400-500-22400.,on going through the tables in the said Memorandum F.No. 1/1/2008-IC dt 30-08-08., it is absolutely clear that the corresponding table in the pay band (PB4) is the table of which the lowest level ( minimum basic pay) is Rs54700/- ( 44700 + 10000). As explained under pt no 3 above, no single table is prescribed for all those who retired from pre revised scales, S24 to S 30.It is hence imperative to identify and apply the appropriate table in the Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008/IC dt 30-08-08. under PB4, applicable to S29, as shown under pt no 1.3 above.

1.7.Refixation of pension is not an autonomous exercise. It has to take into full consideration all relevant facts and figures. It is rooted very much in the pre-revised pay at the time of retirement/ last pay drawn by the retiree and the corresponding pay in the revised scale as per Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008-IC dt 30-08-08

1.8.The ready reckoned tables attached to the Memorandum F.No38/37/08-P&W (A) pt I dt 14 Oct 2008, have unjustifiably ignored the multi table feature of the Pay Bands, Grade Pay and revised Basic Pay of the Memorandum F.No 1/1/2009-1C dt 30-08-08. They have erroneously merged together, disparate pre-revised pay scales without foreseeing the likely ANOMALIES that can be created by this unholistic/ partial approach.

1.9.Such an indiscrimination has also resulted in the introduction of two different starting basic pays for the same post one for the serving and the other for the retired on the one hand and the same minimum pay for all the seven pay scales, S-24 to S 30. from Junior Administrative Grade through Senior Administrative Grade to Higher Administrative Grade. All these under the same dispensation. Consequently ,two classes of pensioners for the same scales/posts/ gradea have emerged one pre1.1.2006 and another post 1.1.2006, with great disparities. For example, a PPRS SAG pensioner viz pre-2006 pensioner draws Rs 23700/- pm as pension wef 1.1.2006, whereas his post-2006 pensioner-equivalent at the MINIMUM draws on the same day a pension of Rs 27350/- pm. (pl refer to Tables presented elsewhere). (Not recognising the respective replacement pay scales for the pre-revised pay scales, notionally at least, for arriving even at the minimums is creating the disaster)

1.10.1.10. In essence:

(i)The modifications notified in MOPPGP/DOPPW’s OM dtad 3.10.2008/illustrated in OM dtd 14.10.2008, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

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

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

1.11. THIS GREAT ANOMALY IS MOST UNJUST AND UNPRECEDENTED. REPURCUSSIONS WILL BE FAR REACHING. IF THIS PRECEDENCE IS ALLOWED TO PERPETRATE.IT MAY LEAD TO DISATROUS CONSEQUENCES IN FUTURE, where only a selected few who have the powers to carry out AUTOCRATIC exercise of this type may take the benefit and deny the rest.

__________________________________________________ _______________---------------

To be contd. Idea is to discuss Reduction in Entitled (even Minimum) Basic Pension by "DOWNGRADATION" -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variety of material can be prepared and combined together to present to the Anomaly Committee.

I suggest few others prepare write-ups on some IMPORTANT aspects and post them here.

1. Mr Ramdas G/ Mr Sundarar- Loss at the Top of Pre-revised Pay scales/ Stagnation Cases. (Some of the Tables prepared by them/ Charts & Graphs of Shri Ramdas can go with the compendium finally).

2.Shri KSS/ Shri Bala- on old/ old /old Pensioners cases.(or whatever they feel like- as they are excellent in drafting)

3.Shri KKHKutty/ Shri Naga - on 20yr service Pensioners' cases- pre-2006 vs post 2006- parity- a must for refecting their Anomaly

4.Already Mr K, in his model, has given a gist of issues related to Supreme Court cases/ Article 14 etc. wh can be put together with all the material.

Regards

vnatarajan

(At least I propose to put all these together and send the Compendium to the NAC (on behalf of the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai)for a total review and appreciation).

sundarar
09-03-2009, 07:18 PM
Material for Appeal to the Anomaly Committee- II

[B]Dear All

This is another part - (which to some extent covers earlier models) -for representation to the Anomaly Committte.

This is focussed on the "MINIMUM of the PAY in the Pay Band" aspect:
.........

vnatarajan

Respected Sir,

Your goodself have triggered the brainstorming session and a marvellous shooting of points on the targetted topics. In regard to the instant topic - Minimum of the pay in the pay band, I wish to add the following also :

"Para 5 of OM dt.11.2.2009 also reiterates that in accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even No. dt.1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

Following up closely further please. Best Regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
09-03-2009, 07:45 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar

Yes. I wanted to keep this piece for the tail-end- to show how inconsistent the Govt. had been in see-sawing this "MINIMUM" aspect. In fact one small part is to be devoted to the OM of 11th Feb 2008- on wh we have sent some RTI qns - including this reversion back to the original "expression" of 4.2. We have sought clarification what was the need to issue ",modifications" by OM of 3rd Oct 2008 on 4.2.

(Once the reply comes, we can place the para drafted by you at the correct place. Now I have put it at the base of my Material II so that I dont forget its position- for suitable incorporation at the appropriate time.Thanks a lot)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
10-03-2009, 08:55 AM
Material for Appeal to the Anomaly Committee- IV

Dear All

Continuing further, this write-up is focussed on the Effective Reduction in Pension Basic- which is against all prevailing regulations and rules as I feel:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Reduction in Minimum entitled Pension (Basic) of the pre-2006 pensioners-

2.1 Taking the example of a pre-2006 pensioner of PRPS 18400-22400 , his minimum pension basic will be Rs 9200/- by any means. None has the right to reduce the same except according to Rules in vogue and under circumstances explained in later paragraphs.

2.2. In the current scenario, the Revised Pension for the said pensioner has been fixed at 50% of Minimum of the Pay Band PB4 viz Rs 37400 plus 50% of Grade Pay of Rs 10000. which works out to Rs 18700 plus Rs5000, which equals to Rs 23700/-. Whereas, as per the Revised/ Replacement pay scales for the same PRPS, it has to be 50% of 44700 plus 50% of Rs 10000 which works out to Rs 22350 plus Rs 5000, which equals to Rs 27350/-.Effective difference is Rs 3650 pm as on 1.1.2006 & onwards. (DR excluded)

2.3. From the above it is clear, the effective difference is the net REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM ENTITLED PENSION BASIC which is against all official Regulations/Rules/ Norms/ Guidelines in vogue.It appears as if the pre-2006 pensioner who retired from a higher scale/grade (e.g. here:18400-22400; SAG) has been brought down to a lower scale/ grade (14300-18300;JAG Sel.Gr) for fixing his Pension Basic- and it amounts to a post-retirement punishment by DOWNGRADATION! The same is explained further below:

2.4 . Circumstances in which pension may be reduced, withheld or withdrawn are as follows:

*A pension is not in the nature of a reward. It is an obligation on Government which can be claimed by a retired Government servant as a right.

*Question of making any reduction in “entitled” pension would not arise except in cases where provisions of Rule 9 relating to departmental or judicial proceedings are invoked.

*. The appointing authority can withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct [vide
Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972].

* Under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the President has reserved to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from the pension of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found, in a departmental
or judicial proceedings, to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including his service under re-employment.

2.5.In the current case, this type of FORCED UNJUST UNPRINCIPLED MERITLESS reduction in basic pension has been inflicted on all pre-2006 pensioners across the board and the Anomaly Committee has to address this issue and ensure that such erosion is not permitted below the Minimum levels, in the least, notionally. Because:

2.6. Pre-2006 pensioners are affected in different ways at different levels /scales and the Reduction in Pension is the loss.

• Bunching of increments within the pre-revised scales automatically results in modified parity and it is not appoint- to- point fixation. So Reduction in Pension is imminent.
• More the no. of increments/ stagnation increments drawn in the pre-revised scales means more loss.
• Merger of several pre-revised scales into a common Pay Band , reckoning its minimum as the only “minimum” value for all of them without any correlation/ correspondence to their start/end/range etc and finally deciding on 50% of the said minimum as the Revised Pension Basic for all such pensioners results in a heavy Reduction in Pension for all of them.
• Losses due to such reduction gets enhanced because of the corresponding DR losses every six months and hence the loss becomes of compounded nature.
• Such losses would greatly affect the Family Pension component also pro-rata.
• Most serious is the effective reduction of the base for the next Revision of Pension say during Seventh Pay Commission in future!.

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

(contd)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-03-2009, 07:38 AM
My dear Pensioners Friends. Happy Holi to you and all your family members.

vnatarajan
11-03-2009, 01:09 PM
Material for the Appeal to the Anomaly Committee- V

Dear All

This wrire-up is focussed on the omissions of the court verdicts/ Constitutional Provisions etc

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.Anomalies arising out of indifference to the spirit of Supreme Court/ High court judgements on pension matters and also to the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3.1. Successive Central Pay Commisssions have been headed by Chairmen who are retired Judges of SupremeCourt/ High Courts etc. Therefore it is unimaginable that the recommendations that are made in the CPC reports will be in violation of the spirit of judgements of past pension cases on parity in pensions among equal class/ rank/ pay scale/post pensioners irrespective of their date of superannuation/ datum of the pay commission implementations or against the provisions of the Constitution under Articles 14 on Right to Equality and 21 on Right to Quality of Life etc.

3.2. In the Fifth CPC implementations, some justice was done in terms of notional parity (at the minimum of the notional revised scales) for old pensioners (pre-1996 and older) and also some better modified parity for the post 1996 retirees , by replacing two old increments with one new, and determining the pension basic. However in the latest SCPC, though the recommendations appeared to at least ensure a “minimum” parity i.e. at the “minimum of the respective Revised/Replacement Pay Scales”, the “modification’ “clarifications” imposed through successive OMs of 3/14.10.08 have resulted in not only destroying any such parity but also, on the contrary, in leading to reductions/ losses in entitled pensions.

3.3. Several Supreme Court / High Court judgements emphasizing the equality in pensions irrespective of dates of retirement, importance of adhering to the Article 14 & 21 of the Consttitution of India, violation of Presidential sanctions in resorting to “modifications” in Regulatory orders/ Rules or ad-hoc practice of Revising Pensions outside the ambit of Rules etc are available and they are appended separately.Many Pensioners/ their Associations- Federations will cite examples in their appeals also (e.g .Famous Nakara Case, 1982; SPS Bains Case, Sept 2008 etc among many)(will be appended from earlier Reps. e.g. NHRC appeal)

3.4. It has also been held by the Courts that Pension is deemed salary, that a
pensioner is a deemed employee and the Department from which he has retired
is the deemed employer. Hence it follows that whenever any revision of
pension takes place, his pay as a deemed employee has to be refixed
notionally under such revision on that date, and then his revised pension
should be refixed.. That a pensioner is a deemed employee had been conceded when for the first time, standard deduction given on salary of serving employees was
extended also to pensioners in the year 1980. These views establish the validity of the claim that when any upward revision of pay takes place, the notional pay of the pensioner in the pay scale of the post from which he had retired has to be fixed first and then
the pension as due on that basis should be paid to him..

3.5. Most anomalies are the result of the above omossions and hence the Anomaly Committee has a responsibility to bring the decisions on pension revisions to proper, legally-constitutionally compatible, orders for correct implementations. Notionally, a minimum parity mode may resolve the crisis to start with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(contd)

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
11-03-2009, 04:47 PM
Sh.VN's Posts # 467,468,470

Sh. VN has done a magnificent work in compiling a variety of issues which could be referred to the Anomalies Committee.It is surprising to note that there has not been much reaction from the forum on the important Compilation.Does it mean that the forum members have nothing more to say or is it that some lethargy has set in, since nothing has happened so far.As some active members have been advocating, we have to convince the Staff and Official side about the various Anomalies and the need to sort them out, so that the pensioners grievances are redressed.

I have the following observations on the above posts.
Post# 467 -Part I
It is mentioned in para 5 that " Grade pay cannot be the defining feature for computing pension but it is the last Pay drawn---".
In the new scheme of Pay bands and grade pays any post in the hierarchy is identified with the grade pay and not by the pay band. While emoluments and the last pay include the grade pay the only exception is the case of pensioners who get pension fixed on the basis of concordance table which does not take into a/c the grade pay.
We are ,seperately pleading for extending the benefit of fitment table applicable for the serving employees , to the pensioners as well, for maintaining the parity in fitment benefit. From this angle we may have to modify the statement in para 5 as quoted above.
Post # 468 Part II
The fact that the O.M of 11.2.09 brings back the old definition of para 4.2 may also be mentioned after para 8.

Post# 470 PartIII

The fact that each pay band has distinct grades represented by distinct grade pay is emphasised in 6CPC Reort :
Para 2.2.19
iv-PB-3 pay band has 8 distinct grades represented by 8 different grades pay.
v – Pb-4 pay band has 3 grades represented by 3 grades pay.

This could be added in the write up.
Regarding Pb-4, the Commission's recommendation was only to include scales above 28 in this band.The Commission had recorded in para 1.2.9
"Within Group A, an additional seperate running pay band has been prescribed for posts in the scale of Rs.18400-22400 in Higher Administrative grades--"

comments in respect of Posts covering other parts will follow.
GR

vnatarajan
12-03-2009, 09:39 AM
Dear All

I had to make considerable changes in the Posting at sl no 468 regarding the issue on "Minimum of the pay in the Pay Band" after recieving file notes from the DOPPW under RTI act provisions.

It leaves to be decided whether the SCPC itself made the faulty recommendation in the paragraph 5.1.47 - by not being categorical and clear in their text and leaving scope for a literal interpretation which could be otherwise!

They (SCPC) cd have it made it more clear by stating "Minimum of the Pay in the respective Revised Pay Scales within the corresponding Pay Band and the Grade Pay applicable" etc, so that others would not have had the occasion to apply it to the disadvantage of the Pensioners!

Or was the SCPC itself was inclined to mean what had been implemented now?.

Should have been non-controversial. I think only Anomaly Committee has to come to our rescue now!

vnatarajan

sundarar
12-03-2009, 10:29 PM
Respected Sir,

Though it may be a repetition, I reproduce the Para 5.1.47 as it is.

Fitment benefit to the past pensioners - Para 5.1.47: (Page 338)

The Commission notes that the modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1.1.1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralisation of price rise on or after 1.1.1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended to the existing Government employees. The Commission accordingly recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fit benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merge of 50% Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief as pension at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension on 1.1.2006. This is in consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in the case of the existing employees ( A Table Annex. 5.1.1 showing the pension of existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendation of the Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners). The fixation as per this Table will be
subject to the provision that the pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.


The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in respect of the aforesaid Para 5.1.47: `Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on
a multiplication factor of 1.86 (ie.) basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + Dearness Relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74'.

The CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 defines pay in the pay band as pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in Col. 5 of the First Schedule.

Whereas, in the case of promotion of serving employees - the minimum aspects are entirely different.

Rule 13: In the case of promotion from one Grade pay to another in the revised pay structure, the fixation will be done as follows:

`One increment equal to 3% of sum of the pay in the pay band and the existing Grade pay will be computed and rounded off to the next multiple of 10. This will be added to the existing pay in the pay band. The GP corresponding to promotion post will thereafter be granted in addition to this pay in the pay band. In cases, where promotion involves change in the pay band also, the same methodology will be followed. However, if the pay in the pay band after adding the increment is than the MINIMUM OF THE HIGHER PAY BAND to which promotion is taking place, pay in the pay band will be stepped to such minimum'.

As per the accepted verdict of the 6th CPC Recommendation and as reiterated by DoP&PW themselves vide various OMs except Annexure or illustration in respect of revised pension of pre-2006 pensioners, the
Minimum pay in the pay band virtually means, the Minimum pay in the running pay bands specified in Col.5 of the First Schedule only and not at all Minimum of the Pay Band as has been maintained vide Annexure and illustration. The DOP&PW if not taking note of this fact, the Anomaly Committee will definitely take into account and bring order in the house.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
13-03-2009, 02:26 PM
Thanks Mr Sundarar

Material for Appeal to the Anomaly Committee- VI

Dear All

Today, I have taken the write-up of Shri KSS- for presenting the cases of very very old pensioners of pre-1996 era and may be even older- lakhs and lakhs of them- on whose membership many Pensioners' Associations/ Federations/ Vote Banks etc do derive strength- yet . who have been completely overshadowed and ignored!. I have taken the liberty of editing (cosmetic changes to generalise) Shri KSS's excellent presentation and putting up the same- so that some of the Individuals/ Groups can easily be able to use the same for their appeals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.Anomalies related to the cases of some over-shadowed category of pre-1996 (even older) pensioners: EYE OPENER FOR PRE-2006 - POST-2006 pension parity need

4.1. Pre-1996-Post 1986 Pensioners: Here we can see how the successive merging of the scales into Pay Bands by successive Pay Commissions and the totally indiscriminate implementations by the Govt. without creating the corresponding pay slots for revised pension fixations within the Pay Bands (i.e. adopting the “Minimum” attitude forever) have played havoc in the cases of these old old pensioners:

4.2. In one case the ‘Take Home’ pension inclusive of Dearness Reliefs as on 01/01/2006 was Rs 10116 and the Revised pension granted as per 2.26 fitment formula by the SCPC as on 01/01/2006 is Rs 10368, just an increase of Rs 252. It is only by adding 16% Dearness Relief from 01/07/2008 that the Pension amount now comes to Rs 12027. So in effect, adding up of the dearness reliefs has become the NEW PENSION for such old pensioners. Lakhs of past pensioners at middle and lower levels in their respective pay scales are similarly placed in this anomalous situation. Each one such pensioner can verify himself and conclude. In such cases, the Family Pension amount also gets affected in a significant manner.

4.3 It could not have been the Government’s intention to just make the revised pension of each pensioner as equal to or near about the actuals he was drawing. The Government must have really intended to give a specific increase in the pension without counting on the dearness reliefs, which are any way granted on different criteria altogether.

4.4. SCPC is on record to say (vide Para 5.1.47) that “full neutralisation of price rise on or after 01/01/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly no further changes in the extant rules are necessary.” This ruling and Government’s acceptance of the same is unjust, illogical and detrimental to the interests of the PAST PENSIONERS, since the rules for deciding grant of dearness reliefs every six months due to price rise, are based on entirely different criteria and the Pay Commissions set up once in ten years specifically to find ways and means for upward revision of pensions, were the least expected to deny the same on these grounds and that too to one section of the pensioners.

4.5. These post-1986 to pre-1996 era pensioners community were the original victims when the V CPC introduced the method of fixing this group’s pension at 50% of the minimum of its scale of pay after clubbing lesser grades along with it in its Recommendations. This surely benefited juniors in the lower grades. The SCPC followed suit in its Recommendations, also effecting wholesale mergers of all V CPC scales into just 4 (four) Pay bands, putting in the process past pensioners in further unbearable difficulties. From representations that might have been oir would be received, the Anomaly Committee can know that most anomalies have arisen due to merging of old scales successively into Pay Bands without realising the disastrous outcome of this type of COMPOUNDED MERGERS into Pay Bands..

4.6 So far as the past pensioners are concerned, there is now a potential danger of another batch of pensioners of post-1996 to pre-2006 era now being created and having the same fate as the post-1986 to pre-1996 group.

4.7.In a similar situation, the V CPC recommended full parity to Pre-1986 retirees and the Government accepted the same and afforded relief to Pre-1986 retirees by allowing notional fixation of pension, vide GOI, DOP&PW’s O.M.F.No.45/86/97-P&PW(A) dated 10/02/1998). As per Para 137.21, the V CPC had also recommended as under: -
“At the time of next pay revision, say in 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996, and modified parity has to be given between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Let us hope the then GOI will respect this recommendation, and maintain the parity of old and new pensioners.”

4.8 The Anomaly Committee has to bestow utmost consideration to this particular issue of an anomalous nature and recommend to the Government to implement the above recommendation of the V CPC, which has somehow been overlooked by the SCPOC. The Anomaly Committee should ponder over the pitiable condition of lakhs of past affected pensioners who are driven to satisfy themselves with dearness reliefs only rather than a revised pension in true sense of the term and resolve this BIG ANOMALY!.

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

Courtesy : Shri KSS

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
13-03-2009, 09:06 PM
My Dear Natarajan. When are you planning to send your representaion to Anomaly Committee ?

Kanaujiaml
13-03-2009, 09:36 PM
My dear VN, Other Pensioner Friends. Finally, I have received the RTI reply from Ministry of Personnel, which I would share with you shortly as it is a hard copy and I have to digitised it. In short, it appears that the note regarding pensioners was prepared by Office of Ministry of Personnel which was forwarded by Director/PP to Secretary Ms. Razdan, who signed it. Then it was sent to Mininistry of Finance for vetting. After the vetting was received, the note was put up to Secretary, Ministry of Personal, who forwarded it to MOS/PP, for approval. Finally, the note was approved by MOS/PP. Any reactions ?

vnatarajan
14-03-2009, 03:50 AM
Dear K/ all

I had also recieved the copy of the notes earlier. I had to change my earlier writings (poist 468 etc I think- I have given my reference there)due to the contents of the note.

I had written a private note- wh I will circulate later.

OM of 3rd Oct- all processing done in 24 hrs- on 25 & 26th Sept- none at lower levels to deal- no corrections- no doubts- no citings- no objections - unbelievably fast & clear? Fate of lakhs of pensioners decided in a single sitting of a day- by one official- with no interventions! (if what note supplied to us are the whole of the records!)

(so I chose to shift the blame to SCPC itself for the major controversy- making a wrong "recommendation" by the SCPC itself- for giving scope for such unique and "unambiguous" interpretation of "minimum of the pay in the pay band" AS "minimum of the pay band" itself!)

Point to note: According to DOPPW notes, all "modificatioons"- are suggested by pensioners only for their clarity!. So no change needed even in Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept. Even this is reiterated by the reproduction of the same under sl. no 5 of OM of 11th Feb 2009).Whether "corresponding to" or "irrespective of" - both same!

Moral: DOPPW is not to be blamed!. It is the 6cpc - wh is the root cause as it appears now! IT CD BE CORRECT ALSO!.

vnatarajan.

sundarar
14-03-2009, 07:24 AM
Respected Sir,

If at all an innocent attempt to interpret this aspect w.r.t. irrespective of/corresponding to, the modifications relating to Para 4.2 vide OM dt. 3.10.2008 shall be as follows:

"The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band (IRRESPECTIVE OF PAY OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE/(OR) IRRESPECTIVE OF PAY IN THE PRE-REVISED SCALE) plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

The possibilities could be out of `misplacement'/`displacement' of the word either `pay' or `pay in the' because such misplacements occured even in the Annexure too. The intended illustration therein could be to explain the aspect of minimum pay in the pay band. But fortunately, or unfortunately, the particular scale S-28 has been chosen. It is quite significant to note that there are three/four pay scales in the fixation table, viz. S-28, S-24, Group-A new entry, S-9, where both the minimum pay in the pay band as well as MINIMUM OF PAY BAND corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised scale of pay are ONE AND SAME. An appropriate pre-revised scale other than the above four, if taken up for illustration purpose in the OM, would have made the position what ever may it be, so clear to all of us.

That is the reason, today, I am posting (by Regd.A/D) an RTI Request with a single query as indicated below:

"In accordance with Para 4.2 of DoP&PW O.M. No.39/37/08-P&PW(A) dt.1.9.2008 issued in respect of pensioners, what shall be the actual quantum of amount as minimum revised pension that has to be ensured with effect from 1.1.2006 in respect of a Central Govt. pensioner who retired from pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000 after completing 33 years in the year 1997? (Please specify the actual quantum of amount)."

I hope the requested information will be received by me, which I will keep posted accordingly here on receipt.

Further, your reproduction of earlier Pay Commission Report's version containing guidelines to future pay commission relating to complete parity, has not been taken note of by 6th CPC, it shows. Your goodself have already brought out that pensioners are also deemed employees. The Anomaly Committee can throw light on these aspects.

Therefore, I wish to suggest that a compilation of supportive justifications apart from the discrepancies owing to misinterpretations, by a common representation to the anomaly committee by the entire pensioners community will bring out a comprehensive target. For this purpose, within our forum a core group consisting of Shri KSS/Shri Bala/Shri GRD/Shri K and other senior veterans under your chairmanship may kindly approve a common draft within a week so that we all on a particular day shoot out the elaborated representation as a whole to the Anomaly Committee. We, the rest of members can prepare our individual draft and send to the Secretary of the Core Group, to be identified by your goodselves for consolidation purpose. The approved common rep. can be placed in the forum for sending by the aggrieved pensioners community as a whole. I wish that we send the common rep. latest by 31.3.2009.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
14-03-2009, 07:55 AM
Dear Shri Sundarar,

Noted. Similar/ more pointed RTIs have been posed by me, PKR, AR etc and we are awaiting the responses and then we will post the same.

I have tried to put all types of anomalies and ramifications - commonly felt- in my posts I to IV.

Only three more write ups cd. make it full. (1) parity (min or mod)for + 20 yrs/ VRS pre-2006 retirees (2) parity for less than 33yrs (of course + 20 yrs) pre-2006 pensioners who cd not complete 33 yrs for reasons of age etc.

Reg. Family Pension parity- I have mentioned whereevr possible. Family Pensioners need a revision at least notionally- their pensions cannot be static!.

I propose to have the Pensioners Forum endorsement thru its EC meeting on 20th March.soon for issuing the appeal on behalf of the Pensioners Forum, Chennai. (This includes VN/PKR/AVM/AR among several members- besides GR etc will also join us to endorse).

Individuals will send their appeals also.

I can also mention that the said appeal also has the endorsements of several other pensioners- who hold similar view.

vnatarajan.

I FORGOT TO MENTION. IF THOSE INTERESTED CAN GO THRU THE WRITE-UPS, they can see that I HAVE TRIED TO INCLUDE MANY/ ALMOST ALL JUSTIFICATIONS POINTED OUT BY S/SHRI RamdasG, MLK, KKHK, Sundaarar, & others from time-to-time. Additions can be made by individuals/ Associations using the basic material in the write-ups. My wrtite-ups are mainly as an aide-de-memoir, for one and all.

vnatarajan
16-03-2009, 09:44 AM
Material for Appeal to the Anomaly Committe- Suggested Draft for Opening/ Forwarding letter:

Dear All

I tried to draft a letter with some available/ relevant pension-related SCPC paragraphs, RTI replies, suggestion from pensioners friends etc and the result is placed hereunder. With this as the preamble, other Materials can go as one feels. This letter above includes some parts which may have to be edited by individuals/ Associations etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:


To:
The Secretary (Staff Side)
National Council, JCM,
13-C, Ferozshah Road,
New Delhi 110001

Sub: Anomalies arising out of Implementation of Recommendations( including Modified) of Sixth Central Pay Commission (SCPC) in Respect of Pensioners (pre-1.1.2006 & older; pre 2.9.2008; Family Pensioners)

Ref: GOI’s Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (MOPPGP), Deptt of Personnel & training (DOPT)JCA Section, North Block, New Delhi 1’s Lr No 11/2/2008-JCA dated 4th Feb 2009

Dear Sir,

I and all co pensioners welcome the formation of National Level Anomaly Committee (NAC) to settle the anomalies related to the recommendations/ implementations of the SCPC. We are glad to be informed that the:

National Level Anomaly Committee can take up the Pension cases:

For some time, the pensioners were doubting whether anomalies related to pensions will be dealt by the said NAC at all!. Now in response to an RTI query , the Dept. of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW) have clarified vide lr no 38/1/09-P&PW(A) dtd 25th Feb 2009 that the DOPT which constituted the NAC, have informed the said Committee will examine all kinds of anomalies which are covered under the definition of anomaly as given in the OM no 11/2/2008-JCA dtd 12.01.2009. If the Staff Side and the Official Side agree that a particular issue related to pensions issue is covered under the definition of anomaly, the same may be taken up for discussion by the NAC.

How the Anomaly related to pre-2006 revision of pension?:

One of the definitions of anomaly has been described as ” where the Official Side and the staff Side are of the opinion that any recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission (SCPC) itself without assigning any reason” . In this regard attention is drawn to the following Extracts of the SCPC Report,:

“Chapter 1.2:
Philosophy & the guiding principles
Implementation of
recommendations

1.2.25 The Report has been kept concise as the Commission is of the view that lengthy and elaborate documents tend to get ignored as well as are liable to be quoted out of context. Most of the demands made before the Commission have been addressed by recommending systemic changes. Such demands have not been individually referred to in the Report. The number of recommendations made by the Commission is also limited. All the recommendations are inter-connected and need to be treated as an organic whole. *1Partial implementation of these recommendations will destroy the underlying spirit, break the common thread and bring in several anomalies and inconsistencies. *2The Report would, therefore, need to be treated in a holistic manner and the recommendations considered as a package.


IN MY OPINION, I FEEL MOST OR MAJOR ANOMALIES ARE RELATED TO VIOLATION IN LETTER & SPIRIT OF THE LAST TWO SENTENCES OF THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS ON PHILOSOPHY & GUIDING PRINCIPLES of the SCPC i.e.



A). ANOMALIES arising because of the PARTIAL (in parts) and again PARTIAL (as opposed to impartial)/ improper implementation of the SCPC Recommendations related to the pre-2006 pension through successive, erroneous, confusing OMs with incorrect ”modifications” AND”clarifications” and non-relevant Table/ Annexure etc which have broken the common/ uniform/ just approach, destroyed the underlying principles of parity, justice and protection and has ultimately resulted in several anomalies and inconsistencies as foreseen by the learned SCPC in their Para 1,2,25 quoted above.


1.Brief Review of the pre-2006 pension revision consequent to SCPC implementation orders:

1.1.For the pensioners, “modified parity” was recommended by the SCPC, stating in para 5.1.47 of its report that pension cannot be “ lower than 50 % of minimum of the pay in pay band (as provided in table for each pre-revised pay scale S4 to S30) plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale (S4 to S30) from which pensioner retired. This recommendation of SCPC has been accepted by Govt. Resolution as published in Gazette Notification No. 38/37/08/-P&PW(A) dated 29th August’08. (in S. No. 12 of its Annexure). Tables giving “minimum of the pay in pay band” for each pre-revised pay scale, were issued annexed to Finance Ministry(Implementation Cell) F. No. 1/12008-IC dated 30.08.08. However, Ministry of Personnel, issued OM dated 3rd Oct.08 giving “clarification” ”modification” but actually issuing mainly “modification” to the effect conveying therein that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum of pay band” without having correspondence with pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired.

1.2.Towards finding the facts, information/ file noting were sought from the DOPPW by the undersigned under the RTI Act 2005, and the following have emerged:

1.2.1.*Pensioners and their Associations, had sought “clarifications” and suggested some “modifications” through representations. Accordingly the same have been offered/ reflected in the right side column of the OM of 3rd Oct 2008 under the caption “clarifications/modifications”. This means what exists in the left side columns of the said OM are still valid. "Modifications" are at the instance of the pensioners or what?

1.2.2*From the file notes of MOPPGP/ DOPPW obtained under the RTI Act provisions (copy to be attached), it would be clear that the FATE OF LAKHS OF PENSIONERS ACROSS THE BOARD HAD BEEN THE RESULT OF PROCESSING OF ALL (Selected- Convenient?) REPRESENTATIONS seeking CLARIFICATIONS/ suggesting “SOME MODIFICATIONS” on OM of 1st Sept 2008- OF PENSIONERS & THEIR ASSOCIATIONS IN 24 HOURS on 25/26th SEPT 2008 BY ONE OFFICIAL (lowest in the executive hierarchy) IN A SINGLE NOTING followed by the DRAFT OM on the same (which was the OM of 3rd OCT later). IT IS AMAZING THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT ANY DOUBTS (including syntaxial- interpretative aspects)/QUERIES/ CLARIFICATIONS IN TERMS OF RULES- PROCEDURES-SANCTIONS etc UPTO THE HIGHEST HEIRARCHY/ including vetting by an M.O.S etc ON THE SAME DAY & 1st OCT 2008. ULTIMATELY OM WAS ISSUED ON 3.10.2008.

1.2.3.*Similarly, vetting has been done by the D.O.E/ Min of Finance also in a single day on 7th Oct 2008 (after a meeting on 6th Oct 2008) and after some routine signatures/ and the OM of 14th Oct 2008 had been issued. No vetting by M.O.S here.No queries/no doubts/ no clarifications anywhere!

1.2.4*Regarding the Para 4.2, again the same explanation as above holds good. It looks as though the MOPPGP/DOPPW had never been in dilemma regarding the “ “Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band” and they always maintain it meant the “Minimum of the Pay Band “ only.

1.3. Consequently now, it has to be EXAMINED by the ANOMALY COMMITTEE if the RECOMMENDATION made in Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC Report itself is faulty and anomalous. It is against the SCPC’s own guiding principles and philosophy, and hence needs a review. National Anomaly Committee has to focus on this issue and deal the Pension issues in a holistic manner.

1.3.1 ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE PARAGRAPHS 11.33 & 11.35 OF THE SCPC REPORT itself under PENSION sub-heading:::

1.3.1.Para 11.33 states : Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.

1.3.2.Para 11.35 states: Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.

1.3.3. From the above,it is apparent that the SCPC did not intend to create any ambiguity or deny pensioners the PARITY in any way. It is not clear how the controversy has cropped up. Is it due to “mis-expressioned” Recommendation(s) of the 6CPC (Para 5.1.47) or due to the misinterpretations/ erroneous/or "matter-of-convenience" implementation orders (OMs) of the MOPPGP/DOPPW.

1.3.4.P.S: Another aspect is clear. Hon’ble SCPC Chairman and its members did not ignore the recognition of the pensioners in regard to their PAST SERVICES which includes automatically the principles and spirit of parity/ equality as can be realised from their Para:5.1.3

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

1.3.6.IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION PENSIONERS CAN NOT BE DISCRIMINATED ONCE THE PAST SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM ARE EQUAL IN RESPONSIBILITY AND LENGTH. i.e. THERE NEED BE EQUAL PENSION TO EQUALS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATES OF RETIREMENT OR REVISION


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

(The above can be followed by personal/ issue-based Materials as already put up in the postings earlier)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
17-03-2009, 07:47 AM
My dear VN, Other Pensioner friends. Reference : my post 481 above. I have sent scanned copies of my RTI query and reply received from DOP to Shri SC Maheshwari, Gen. Sec. of rrewa with the hope that it would soon be put up in Current Issues topic of rrewa.org website. I cannot put it up here as this forum wouldnot accept it because of technical difficulties.

vnatarajan
17-03-2009, 06:39 PM
Material for Appeal to the Anomaly Committee - VII

Dear All

I am posting the last instalment of the material for appeal to the AC. This relates to pre-SCPC- 20 yr plus and 33 yr minus pensioners and their parity issue. Also a few lines about Family Pensioners have been mentioned in the end.

(I must admit I am a bit hazy on the above and hence my material may be sketchy. Nevertheless, others are putting up nice ddetailed drafts for the above cases. Pl see RREWA website also)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.ANOMALIES DUE TO DENIAL OF FULL PENSION @ 50% OF LAST PAY DRAWN TO PRE-SCPC- RETIREES WITH Plus 20 yrs service & ALSO to those who fell short of 33 yrs service (due to age etc)- EXTENDING SIMILAR BENEFITS AS THOSE OF POST-SCPC- RETIREES OF SAME CATEGORIES:

5.Pre- SCPC- Pensioners with 20 yrs plus service; and those with less than 33 yrs service.

5.1.Several representations must have already been made by above classes of Pensioners/ their Associations to the Anomaly Committee seeking parity at least (without retrospective benefits) prospectively on the above issue. Since such cases are not very large and also the financial expenditure involved is very negligible, it is suggested the Anomaly Committee must make an in depth review of the matter and recommend parity with respect to retirees of same categories/ classes. In this regard attention is drawn to the following:

5.2.The SCPC had in their report intended to extend the following ( in extracts):

*Para 11.35 Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever
is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.


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


*Para 5.1.33.The Commission, accordingly, recommends that linkage of full pension with 33
years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders
the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of
the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last
drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the
extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing
pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant.

*Para 6.5.3…… the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBOR’s in Defense Forces from the date it is accepted by the Government.

5.3.Hence the merit in these cases for a positive outlook.


8.FAMILY PENSIONERS:

8.1. Attention of the Anomaly Committee is drawn to the case of Family Pensioners as they become the most frustrated and neglected lot as no revisions/ reliefs other than DR are provided to them . There must be a provision for Notional Revisions in CPC deliberations.
The Anomaly Committee must make some positive recommendations for their immediate relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All can use the material available to make it a base for improved write-ups and representations to the AC. Pl do follow up and send reps. from your side and also thru Associations, by other pensioners etc.

vnatarajan

sundarar
17-03-2009, 09:42 PM
Respected Sirs,

I submit hereunder a draft appeal to the Anomaly Committee which has undergone first round corrections with the directions and guidance of the seniors. It can very well be edited further if felt necessary and made use of. As such the material, can also be made use of appropriately/ /straightaway both by individuals as well as the Associations.

Best Regards
Sundarar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:


To:
The Secretary (Staff Side)
National Council, JCM,
13-C, Ferozshah Road,
New Delhi 110001

Sub: Anomalies arising out of Implementation of Recommendations(including Modified) of Sixth Central Pay Commission (SCPC) in Respect of Pensioners (pre-1.1.2006 & older; pre 2.9.2008; Family Pensioners)

Ref: GOI’s Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (MOPPGP), Deptt of Personnel & training (DOPT)JCA Section, North Block, New Delhi’s Lr No 11/2/2008-JCA dated 4th Feb 2009

Dear Sir,

We, as Pensioners of the Govt. of India, welcome the formation of National Level Anomaly Committee (NAC) to settle the anomalies related to the recommendations/ implementations of the SCPC.

We submit herewith an Appeal for removal of Anomalies relating to
Revised pension consequent on implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations.

We request the Staff Side and the Official side to take up the same for discussion in the National Level Anomaly Committee, with a view to
make suitable recommendations for acceptance by the Competent Authority.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



( )
Copy to: The Secretary (official side) National Council (JCM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT APPEAL TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE


1.0 Background:

A pensioner is a deemed employee and the pension he receives is his deemed salary, as held by various Court Judgments.

1.1 The 5th CPC in its Report at Para 137.21 had recommended that `at the time of next pay revision, say in 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996, and modified parity has to be given between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Let us hope the then GOI will respect this recommendation, and maintain the parity of old and new pensioners’.

1.2 The 6th CPC in its REPORT VIDE PARA 5.1.47 notes that the modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1.1.1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1.1.1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended to the existing Government employees. The Commission accordingly recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fit benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merge of 50% Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief as pension at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension on 1.1.2006. This is in consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in the case of the existing employees ( A Table Annex. 5.1.1 showing the pension of existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendation of the Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners). The fixation as per this Table will be
subject to the provision that the pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.

1.3 The Supreme Court in D.S. Nakra case, held that Classification of pensioners will have to answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, further held the court……
…..the Supreme Court concluded, pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a class. Such homogeneous class could not be arbitrarily divided when the pension undergoes an upward revision. The fixation of the cut off date was arbitrary and constituted an eligibility criteria unrelated to the purposes of revision of pension. The division classifying pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle, held the Court.

2.0 Office Memorandums issued by DoP&PW:

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the following O.M. have been issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ welfare in respect of pre-2006 pensioners on implementation of 6th CPC recommendations.

1. O.M. dt.1.9.2008
2. O.M. dt.2.9.2008
3.O.M. dt.3.10.2008
4.O.M. dt.14.10.2008

2.1 The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in respect of the aforesaid Para 5.1.47: `Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on
a multiplication factor of 1.86 (i.e.) basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + Dearness Relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74'.

2.2 Fixation of Revised Pension as per Fitment Table:

The Para 4.1 of the O.M. dt.1.9.2008 indicates that:

The pension/family pension of existing pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:

(i) the existing pension/family pension
(ii) Dearness Pension, where applicable
(iii) Dearness Relief @24% of basic pension/basic family pension plus Dearness pension as admissible
(iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension where the existing pension in (i) above includes the effect of merger of 50% of Dearness Relief w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged Dearness Relief of 50% from the pension.

2.3 As per the above Para, the pre-revised basic pension shall be multiplied by 2.26 as shown in the fitment table annexed to the O.M. For serving employees, the pre-revised basic pay gets multiplied by 1.86 and the GP applicable gets added to determine the corresponding Revised pay. As per Para 4.1 the formula 2.26 consists of 1.86 of pre-revised basic and only 0.4% of the pre-revised basic pension (towards the GP part). Whereas, the serving employees provided with 40% of maximum of the pre-revised scale of pay as Grade pay. The difference between 0.4% of the pre-revised basic pension and 50% of the Grade Pay is an avoidable loss to the pensioner. In case, the intended parity has to be achieved, the pre-revised basic pension shall be multiplied by 1.86 and 50% of the Grade Pay shall be added to determine the revised basic pension.


3.0 Minimum Revised Pension:


The Para 4.2 of the OM dated. 1.9.2008 indicates that :

The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

3.1 In this regard, it is mentioned that among the pre-revised scales of S-1 to S-30, except four pre-revised pay scales – S-9, Gr. A Entry, S-24 and S-28, the remaining scales were having their own respective minimum of the pay in the pay band which is not equal to the minimum of the pay band. However, the illustration shown in the Annexure dated 3.10.2008 has chosen one of the aforesaid 4 pay scales S-28 to indicate that sum Of 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of GP as applicable will be the minimum pension that has to be ensured.

3.2 As pointed out, the pay band minimum and the minimum pay in the pay band are one and the same in this particular scale as well as the particular three scales cited above. Followed by this illustration, the Annexure to OM dated 3.10.2008 as well as Annexure to OM dt.14.10.2008 also indicates `sum of minimum of PB+GP’ as against `sum of Minimum of the pay in the PB + GP’ for all the 30 pay scales. Hence, there is considerable loss to the pensioner retired from the respective pre-revised scale prior to 1.1.2006.

3.3 It is quite significant to note that the recent OM dated 11.2.2009 also reiterates that it is only minimum pay in the pay band that matters and not Minimum of the pay band. Whereas, the Pension disbursing authorities, viz. Banks have been advised otherwise. Before attaining parity, the pensioner has been put to avoidable loss by mere misinterpretation through OM dated 3.10.2008 which was issued for the purpose of `clarifications/modifications’.

- To be concluded......

sundarar
17-03-2009, 09:44 PM
Contd.....

4.0 Qualifying Service for Full Pension:

The O.M. dated 2.9.2008 vide Para 5.2 indicates that Linkage of 33 years qualifying service for full pension has been dispensed with. If that is correct, the pensioners who have rendered less than 33 years, has to be recalculated based on the minimum qualifying Service of 20 years for full pension prescribed vide the said OM, or otherwise Pro-rata.

However, as per the OM, the payment of full pension based on 20 years qualifying service, or otherwise pro-rata, will have the prospective effect only. The revised pension disbursement, thus calculated vide the above Para shall commence from 2.9.2008. However, so far, there is no advice to the pension disbursement authorities in this regard.

In this regard, it is pertinent to note that all the Civil Servants at the time of joining initially, have been offered with the same terms and conditions, which include provisions of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 or made to govern subsequently prior to retirement. The said Pension Rules have undergone a revision on 2.9.2008 with a prospective effect, which will adversely affect the agreed/accepted offer of terms and conditions particularly with regard to qualifying service for full pension. Even those who have retired after 1.1.2006 but prior to 2.9.2008 are no exceptions for exclusion from this provision and that way, they have also been treated as pre-2006 pensioners particularly with regard to qualifying service aspects. Thus, this has resulted with the yet another loss out of implementation of 6th CPC through the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OMs under reference.


4.0 Parity among Pensioners:

To conclude, in order to ensure parity, the basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, need to be notionally fixed as per Annexure – Fitment Table to OM No.1/1/2008-IC dt.30.8.2008 and 50% thereof could be the revised pension as on 1.1.2006.

The Appeal to the Anomaly Committee is to upheld the spirit behind the various Court Judgments, the Pay Commission Recommendations and the OM dated. 10.2.1998, through appropriate amendments of the existing OMs to ensure and facilitate the actual intended and entitled pension amount for all Pensioners as well as Family Pensioners. A Table annexed herewith is self-explanatory with regard to the post-2006 situation of the pre-2006 pensioners.

This appeal is preceded by various representations to the Dept. of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare through individual correspondence as well as through various dignitaries, which are yet to be responded upon.

In case the first Para of this Appeal holds good at all times, then 50% of the emoluments entitled to a serving employee shall be the pension for the corresponding similarly placed retiree at all times.

We hope that the Anomaly Committee will bring justice to the aggrieved pensioners and family pensioners – most of whom have retired after serving with limited emoluments for majority of their service.

Pending final considerations and outcome of the entire issue, a NOTIONAL PARITY as was done after 5CPC - at the Minimum levels must be granted so that the pensioners who are in the evening of their life get at least "Minimum" benefits of their legitimate dues.

TABLE I
Minimum Pension Loss to Pre-2006 Pensioners.

Pre-rev.Scale
50% of pre-revised scale X 2.26 (Para 4.1 of OM Dt. 1.9.2008) Rs. (A)
50% of Min. of PB+GP(OM dt.3.10.2008) Rs. (B)
50% of Min. of Pay in the PB +GP (Para 4.2 of OM dt. 1.9.2008) Rs. (C)
Actual pension loss=C-A or C-B whichever is less Rs. (D)

A B C (C minus B) D

S-3 3500 3500 3580 (80) 80
S-4 3500 3500 3650 (150) 150
S-5 3500 3550 3890 (340) 340
S-6 1600x2.26= 3616 3600 4030 (430) 414
S-7 2000x2.26= 4520 3800 4920 (1120) 400
S-8 2250x2.26= 5085 4000 5585 (1585) 500
S-9 2500x2.26= 5650 6750 6750 (nil) nil
S-10 2750x2.26= 6215 6500 7215 (715) 715
S-11 3250x2.26= 7345 6500 8145 (1645) 800
S-12 3250x2.26= 7345 6700 8145 (1445) 800
S-13 3725x2.26= 8418 6700 9230 (2530) 812
S-14 3750x2.26= 8475 7050 9375 (2325) 900
S-15 4000x2.26= 9040 7350 10140 (2790) 1100
Gr.A (Entry)4000x2.26= 9040 10500 10500 (nil) nil
S-16 4500x2.26= 10170 10500 11070 (570) 570
S-17 4500x2.26= 10170 10500 11070 (570) 570
S-18 5163x2.26= 11668 11100 12905 (1805) 1237
S-19 5000x2.26= 11300 11100 12600 (1500) 1300
S-20 5325x2.26= 12034 11100 13205 (2105) 1171
S-21 6000x2.26= 13560 11600 14960 (3360) 1400
S-22 6375x2.26= 14407 11600 15660 (4060) 1253
S-23 6000x2.26= 13560 11600 14960 (3360) 1400
S-24 7150x2.26= 16159 23050 23050 (nil) nil
S-25 7550x2.26= 17063 23050 24195 (1145) 1145
S-26 8200x2.26= 18532 23150 24295 (1145) 1145
S-27 8200x2.26= 18532 23150 24295 (1145) 1145
S-28 7150x2.26= 16159 23700 23700 (nil) nil
S-29 9200x2.26= 20792 23700 27350 (3650) 3650
S-30 11200x2.26=25312 24700 31925 (7225) 6613
S-31 11200x2.26=25312 37750 37750 nil

Note:

1. The Loss indicated within bracket at Col. C is owing to misinterpretation
vide illustration and Annexure to OM dt.3.10.2008 and OM dt.14.10.2008

2. The Loss indicated at Col. D is the difference between Para 4.1 and Para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008.

3. The 50% of notionally Revised Pay of the minimum of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired is shown at Col. C.

4.Whereas, a revised pension - 50% of notionally revised pay of the corresponding pre-revised pay with which the pensioner had retired, only will bring complete parity among all Pensioners

RSundaram
18-03-2009, 09:42 AM
My dear Sundarar
Congratulations for the most succinct and lucid draft. I feel even those who are not well versed with details of Pension Rules 1972 etc.may be impressed by the critical part of the disruption in parity enjoyed prior to 1.1.2006. By the way, I know personally one of the staff side anomaly committee member and with your permission I am passing this on informally to him. Howsoever small the scale of influence that my letter to the member staff side may be I believe every bit of our action counts.

G.Ramdas
18-03-2009, 10:31 AM
Sh. Sundarar has brought out an excellent write-up for taking up with the Anomalies committee. While on the subject, I thought why not we approach the issue from a different angle, keeping aside the disputes on the interpretation of 4.2
Here is my suggestion:
Pensioners’ case- Why not a Compromise Formula?
Now that the Govt. has rejected all the petitions of the pensioners for grant of benefit under para 4.2 of the O.M of 1.9.08 and have re- stated that the minimum of the pay in the pay band means minimum of the pay band(thro’ replies to RTI queries) ,we have to look at the issue from a different angle, leaving aside the controversies and to take up the case in Anomalies Committee. Before that we have to examine whether there is an anomaly which can be considered by the Committee. Para 1.2.3 of the 6CPC Report reads as under:
#1.“ Fitment benefit:
The Commission is recommending a new structure of running pay bands and grade pay. In the structure, grade pay has been normally taken at 40% of the maximum of the pre-revised pay scale. Grade pay is, therefore, in the nature of fitment benefit.”
As far as pensioners are concerned the recommendation of the commission at Para 5.1.47 of the Report is under:
#2.“However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees”

Now let us see whether these 2 recommendations have been implemented.
As regards the first, the grade pay originally recommended by the Commission has been changed by the Govt. in respect of 10 of the pre-revised scales but to a large extent, the G.P is somewhat same or nearer the recommendation. For each of the Posts within the Pay band, the grade Pay or the Fitment benefit remains the same for all incumbents irrespective whether they are juniors or seniors in the same post.
But in the case of pensioners, the 2.26 formula given in para 4.1 of the O.M. dt 1.9.08 gives the 40% of the max. of the scale benefit only to those who are at the max. of the scale and the pensioners at the min. of the scale do not get this benefit. Thus, there is a clear discrimination in the applicability of the Fitment formula to pensioners vis-a-vis the employees which goes against the recommendation at #2 and makes this a fit case for Anomalies Committee.

What is the solution?
The total pension including dearness pension and D.R, as on 1.1.06, for any pensioner, is 1.86 times his basic pension. This would have continued with or without the 6CPC. This cannot be reduced. The only thing which is added now on the basis of 6CPC Report is the Fitment Benefit. This is in the form of Grade Pay for Employees.
Why not then give 50% of the Grade Pay for the post, to each pensioner as fitment benefit? Thus, the total pension on 1.1.06(1.86 times the basic pension) plus 50% of the Grade Pay will be the new pension. .
While the pensioners may crave for total parity, they will definitely be satisfied with this compromise Formula as mentioned above as an interim award.

sundarar
18-03-2009, 06:56 PM
Respected Sirs,

We all welcome Shri R. Sundaramji back to forum. I salute for his kind
initiative. Whatever my humble submissions are there in the forum and private messages, are out of what I have been learning through learned senior veterans' footpaths. Hence, there is no need of any permission or such sort from me please. I am always at all of your service. My request at this stage is that the draft appeal may deserve some more refinement and more appealing. Before we approach the intended source, we within ourselves can finalise so that a complete input can be passed on. This is my personal view. However, I will abide by senior veterans' decision. Shri RS if feels that this will be the right time to keep posted with early information, it is also Ok. I am confident that our submissions will yield the desired results.
At the same time, an interim result is also very much essential. To that extent, we will keep more focussed in our appeal. I continue to home work.
I once again thank Shri RS and respect his valuable help at this crucial stage.


Further, Shri GRD has pointed out with clarity. We can approach with para (of OMs) wise comments in the Appeal. For Para 4.1 of OM dt.1.9.2008 our approach is made now more clear.

In my view, notional fixation of pre-revised pay in the revised structure to determine the notional revised pay for deciding 50% of the same as revised pension is equal to pre-revised pension x 1.86 + 50% of GP as applicable. What has been provided so far is just 0.4% of pre-revised basic pension as against 0.5% of max. of pre-revised scale (in the name of GP).
The 50% emolouments of a serving employee is also nothing but
pre-revised pension x 1.86 + 50% of GP as revised pension.

The spirit behind OM dt.10.2.1998 is very much available for taking help in suggesting the aforesaid provision.

Still, there could be other thinkings that may emerge ultimately to the extent that whether this alone will be the maximum revised pension possible for a pensioner of pre-2006 or something more than this?

Looking into the gravity involving principle, I start to think that an interim solution is rather more necessary. First, the house need to be kept in order - I mean Para 4.2 which prescribes the minimum revised pension.
The mother of all misinterpretations took birth only at this stage in the form of `Minimum' aspects. Our initial representation to the Secretary has not still got acknowledged. That means, a corrective action within the level of Dept. might have been felt as an embarassment. The Anomaly Committee, being the appropriate authority can ensure removal of misinterpreted modification by replacing with Shri Balaji's suggested amendment which is available in this same thread. Thus, interim solution is the first agenda which will atleast ensure notional parity at minimum level followed by complete parity both in terms of revised pension by notional refixation and ultimately in terms of qualifying service. Similarly, the family pensioners' grievances also need to be addressed prominently.

The difference in hometaking pension on 31.12.2005 and 31.1.2006 is what matters for both Pensioners as well as family pensioners. To that extent if the fitment benefit/fixation of revised pension supports to the highest possible level, no one will have any grievance. In such a way, the presentation also has to be made. The responsibility therefore keeps on and on. I wish and pray that we are able to present the case in a befitting manner covering the entire episode so that no place for loopholes exist.

Our concerned and concerted efforts will lead us progressively....

Best Regards.
Sundarar.

RSundaram
18-03-2009, 07:16 PM
My dear Ramdas
It is a good suggestion but it is fraught with the potential of de-linking the pensions entirely from the posts from which people retired over time, say after the next pay Commission. In fact the VI CPC should have recommended full parity since it has retained all the scales of V CPC in tact in addition to giving a point to point concordance. Actually people who suffer most under the present dispensation are those of pre 1996 vintage who not only retired at the maximum but even drew stagnation increments. In my humble opinion we should have laser like focus on restoring at least "Modified Parity" for the pre 2006.

vnatarajan
18-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Dear Shri RS/ Shri GR/ all

I tend to agree with Shri RS on the opinion, that we shd be very much focussed on our goal of "MODIFIED" parity that may be achievable thru AC route if they appreciate the points that are made out and also they must be aware of!

1.86 formula is like a bull -dozer wherein the Identity of all higher scales (eg in PB4) are likely to be lost once for all and your GP only remains in the fore (I dont know if I am correct). It may be more beneficial to post 1996 retirees (that too those who served after the implementation dates or got promotion after the said dates- not like me who retired in 1997 itself).It may create a problem in the next revision if any! However the fitment/ formula they gave matched upto 2 bunched increments of 1996 revision- say in my case basBP was 9700 and this becomes 23042with 1.86 MF plus 5000 GP component! By 6CPOC formula I got something better- 23750!

What I am trying to focus is recognition of the revised "MINIMUM" pay of respective revised scale in the respective slot of the Pay Band - for eg. 44700 pay slot in the 37400- 67000 PB- for S 29 and so on. This will be in accordance with the reco of the 6CPC i.e. the correct "MINIMUM of the Pay in the Pay Band" as per the revised/ replaced pay scales and the corresponding Grade Pay follows. CCS (Revised Pay)Rules 2008 is applied at the minimum notional pay of the revised scale but not the last pay drawn. Similarly "Emoluments" are at the minimum notional pay plus the corresponding Grade Pay.

This solves problems of many who have not gone to the top of the scales and got stagnated.

I think for a NOTIONAL MODIFIED PARITY at the MINIMUM, this focus may suit! Provision must exist for Stagnation Cases as always provided at the top of the scales- but here it can be in addition to the minimum modified parity.

Best is -No harm in having both- whichever is beneficial!

I am not sure if I am clear.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
18-03-2009, 09:29 PM
My dear Ramdas
It is a good suggestion but it is fraught with the potential of de-linking the pensions entirely from the posts from which people retired over time, say after the next pay Commission. In fact the VI CPC should have recommended full parity since it has retained all the scales of V CPC in tact in addition to giving a point to point concordance. Actually people who suffer most under the present dispensation are those of pre 1996 vintage who not only retired at the maximum but even drew stagnation increments. In my humble opinion we should have laser like focus on restoring at least "Modified Parity" for the pre 2006.
I appreciate the views of Sh.Sundaram.But his apprehension that the pensions will be delinked from the posts is totlay unfounded. On the contrary it will attach the post's tag to each pensioner, as the Grade Pay represents the post. In fact in the present scenario, I get my pension under para 4.1 and that has no link with the post or pay scale. The situation will be just the opposite, in the other case.
In any case, the idea of presenting my view was to show that any way you look, you will still be a gainer than getting pension under the distorted para 4.2.
G.Ramdas

G.Ramdas
18-03-2009, 10:11 PM
While posting the above notes I hadn't studied Sh. VN's post above.Yes I agree with him that in some cases,like his, para 4.2 even in the distorted condition will be better than para 4.1.
What I had suggested is to change 2.26 formula by 1.86 plus fitment benefit
(50% of G.P)
If the Govt. had agreed about the existence of replacement pay scales within the pay bands there would have been no controversy,but unfortunately they are maintaining the stand that Pay Band replaces the Pay scales.
So why not we ask for both a) converting 2.26 formula to 1.86plus 50% G.P , to align this with the Commission's Recommendations of using G.P as fitment benefit for both employees and pensioners and
b)50% of the min. notional emoluments as the other option for pension,whichever being beneficial to the pensioner.

I would like to reiterate that notwithstanding the above observations I am always with the majority of the forum for presenting a focussed petition to the anomalies committee.

sundarar
18-03-2009, 10:19 PM
Respected Sirs,

One potential danger lies in taking a formula of
pre-revised basic pension x 1.86 + 50% of GP particularly in respect of S-24 to S-30.

For example, an officer retired from the S-26 pay scale with a basic pay of Rs.18200. The basic pension will be Rs.9100.

For the above pension the 2.26 formula if applied 9100x2.26 = 20566
If we apply pre-revised basic pension x 1.86 + 50% of GP
= 9100x1.86+4450= 22376

Whereas, as per actual Para 4.2, viz. 50% of sum of min. of Pay in the pay band + GP as applicable,
the revised pension = (39690+8900)/2
= 48590/2 = 24295

As per misinterpreted Para 4.2, viz. 50% of sum of min. of PB + GP
= (37400+8900)/2 = 23150

At the same time, 50% of notional fixation in the revised structure will be (42120+8900)/2 = 25510

That is the reason, 50% of revised emolouments(revised basic pay) of a serving employee, if granted to a pensioner who is otherwise a deemed employee and the pension he receives is his deemed salary, will constitute the corresponding revised pension of a pensioner. The Fitment table
of the serving employee holds good for retired employee also for determining the corresponding revised pension, which is nothing but 50% of revised pay in the fitment table.

To this extent, the modified parity at minimum level followed by complete parity corresponding to last pay drawn is the need of the hour. I hope this will be alright.

Keeping in view the above, a revised draft is being submitted shortly for further discussion please.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

sundarar
18-03-2009, 10:42 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar,
Please refer to your posting No.411. In the penultimate para you have suggested that para 4.1 alone giving pension as 50% of notional revised pay would be sufficient. I was also under the same impression, but when I started working out the implications at random, (as would be seen in the illustrations given below), I found that in the case of two pensioners retiring from same grade and same pay after getting one or more stagnation increments in the same pre-revised pay scale, one pre-2006 and the other post-2006, the latter draws less pension in some cases than the former, and this amounts to violation of article 14, and hence these cases are also to be provided for. It was with that in view that the amendments in attached illustrations wee suggested by me as a way out to deal with all possible pe-2006 and post-2006 cases, to ensure equality under Article 14.
S.Balasubramanian.

Example1: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-16500: Revised pay band: Rs.15600-39100 + grade pay Rs.7600
Existing basic pay Pension for pre-2006 Pension for post-2006
in Rs. Retirees in Rs. Retirees in Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000 13560 < 14960
16500 18645 < 19145
17625* 19919 < 20145
*Three stagnation increments after maximum

Example 2: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-18000: Revised pay band:PB3: 15600-39100 + Grade pay Rs.7600:

12000 13560 < 14960
18000 20340 < 20540
19125* 21614 > 21587
Example 3: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.7450-11500: Revised pay band: PB2: Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs.4600:
7450 8420 < 9230
11500 12905 < 12995
12175 13760 > 13625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus in all the cases, the above O.M.s seek to classify pensioners who form a homogeneous class, merely on the basis of the date of retirement, which, according to the Supreme Court judgment in D.S.Nakra case decided on 17.12.1982, and in Bains case, decided on 9.9.08, is violative of article 14 of the Constitution.
The only way in which these constitutional infirmities can be removed is by amending para 4.1 and para 4.2 of OM No.38/37/08 P &PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 and the clarifications issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 as follows:
“1. Existing para 4.1 be substituted by the following:
“4.1.The basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by
him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, will
be notionally fixed as per Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM No.
1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be
the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006. subject to the necessary
years of qualifying service.”

2.Existing para 4.2 be substituted by the following: .
“4.2. The revised basic pension calculated as per para 4.1 shall
in no case be lower than the revised basic pension corresponding
to the existing basic pension, as in Annexure to O.M. No.
38/37/08 P & PW(A) dated 1st September, 2008.”.
3.Clarification on para 4.2 of O.M.dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 be
deleted”.

The above amendments are the apt solution at this point of time.
This leads to complete parity. At the same time, making good the damage
occured owing to misinterpretation vide Para 4.2 as an interim measure
may be quite easier for the Anomaly Committee because, the mother OM and its child (annexure) differs with each other. Even the sister OM dt.11.2.2009 also supports the mother only and not the child.

Thus, the proposed amendments of Shri Balaji holds good at all times.
These amendments are our ultimate prayers. Parity with respect to
qualifying service will be an added incentive to the Appeal, whereby
even pre-2008(post-2006) pensioners also will get covered.

PRIORITY WISE:
1. Implementation of Correct and Actual meaning of Para 4.2 reg. `minimum
aspects'
2. Proposed Amendment of Para 4.1(can be referred as Para 4.2.1 for clarity) reg. `complete parity'
3. Minimum revised pension to be either Para 4.1 or Para 4.2 or Para 4.2.1 whichever is beneficial.
4. Parity with respect to qualifying service
5. Protection of the interests of Family Pensioners too.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

sundarar
18-03-2009, 11:33 PM
DRAFT APPEAL TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE (REVISION-01)

1.0 Background:

A pensioner is a deemed employee and the pension he receives is his deemed salary, as held by various Court Judgments.

1.1 The 5th CPC in its Report at Para 137.21 had recommended that `at the time of next pay revision, say in 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996, and modified parity has to be given between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Let us hope the then GOI will respect this recommendation, and maintain the parity of old and new pensioners’.

1.2 The 6th CPC in its REPORT VIDE PARA 5.1.47 notes that the modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1.1.1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1.1.1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended to the existing Government employees. The Commission accordingly recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fit benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merge of 50% Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief as pension at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension on 1.1.2006. This is in consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in the case of the existing employees ( A Table Annex. 5.1.1 showing the pension of existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendation of the Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners). The fixation as per this Table will be
subject to the provision that the pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.

1.3 The Supreme Court in D.S. Nakra case, held that Classification of pensioners will have to answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, further held the court……
…..the Supreme Court concluded, pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a class. Such homogeneous class could not be arbitrarily divided when the pension undergoes an upward revision. The fixation of the cut off date was arbitrary and constituted an eligibility criteria unrelated to the purposes of revision of pension. The division classifying pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle, held the Court.

2.0 Under the aforesaid circumstances, the following O.M. have been issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ welfare in respect of pre-2006 pensioners on implementation of 6th CPC recommendations.

1. O.M. dt.1.9.2008
2. O.M. dt.2.9.2008
3.O.M. dt.3.10.2008
4.O.M. dt.14.10.2008

2.1 Minimum Revised Pension:

The Para 4.2 of the OM dated. 1.9.2008 indicates that :

The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

2.2 In this regard, it is mentioned that among the pre-revised scales of S-1 to S-30, except four pre-revised pay scales – S-9, Gr. A Entry, S-24 and S-28, the remaining scales are having their own respective minimum of the pay in the pay band which is not equal to the minimum of the pay band. However, the illustration shown as Modification/Clarification to Para 4.2 (of O.M. dt.1.9.2008) vide O.M. dated 3.10.2008 has chosen one of the aforesaid 4 pay scales, viz. S-28 to indicate that sum of 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of GP as applicable will be the minimum pension that has to be ensured. Followed by this illustration, the Annexure to OM dated 3.10.2008 as well as Annexure to OM dt.14.10.2008 also indicate `sum of minimum of PB+GP’ as against `sum of Minimum of the pay in the PB + GP’ for all the 30 pay scales. It is quite significant to note that the recent OM dated 11.2.2009 also reiterates that it is only minimum pay in the pay band that matters and not Minimum of the pay band.

Therefore, it is requested to ensure that `the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Accordingly, the Pension Disbursing Authorities may please be provided with the Amended Annexures/illustration by choosing any other pre-revised scale than the four referred to above.

The Table attached herewith in this regard is self-explanatory to quantify the avoidable loss to the pensioner at the minimum level owing to misinterpreted version of `50% of sum of minimum of Pay Band+GP’ which is nowhere appearing in the Main O.M. dated 1.9.2008.

-TO BE CONCLUDED -

sundarar
18-03-2009, 11:37 PM
-CONTD...

3.0 Fixation of Revised Pension as per Fitment Table:

The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in respect of the aforesaid Para 5.1.47: `Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on
a multiplication factor of 1.86 (i.e.) basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + Dearness Relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74'.

The Para 4.1 of the O.M. dt.1.9.2008 indicates that:

The pension/family pension of existing pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:

(i) the existing pension/family pension
(ii) Dearness Pension, where applicable
(iii) Dearness Relief @24% of basic pension/basic family pension plus Dearness pension as admissible
(iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension where the existing pension in (i) above includes the effect of merger of 50% of Dearness Relief w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged Dearness Relief of 50% from the pension.


3.1 As per the above Para, the pre-revised basic pension shall be multiplied by 2.26 as shown in the fitment table annexed to the O.M.

To Illustrate:
Example1: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-16500:
Revised pay band: Rs.15600-39100 + grade pay Rs.7600
Existing basic pay Pension for pre-2006 Pension for post-2006
in Rs. Retirees in Rs. Retirees in Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000 13560 < 14960
16500 18645 < 19145
17625* 19919 < 20145
*Three stagnation increments after maximum

Example 2: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-18000: Revised pay band:PB3: 15600-39100 + Grade pay Rs.7600:

12000 13560 < 14960
18000 20340 < 20540
19125* 21614 > 21587
Example 3: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.7450-11500: Revised pay band: PB2: Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs.4600:
7450 8420 < 9230
11500 12905 < 12995
12175 13760 > 13625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus in all the cases, the above O.M.s seek to classify pensioners who form a homogeneous class, merely on the basis of the date of retirement, which, according to the Supreme Court judgment in D.S.Nakra case decided on 17.12.1982, and in Bains case, decided on 9.9.08, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The only way in which these constitutional infirmities can be removed is by amending Para 4.1 and Para 4.2 of OM No.38/37/08 P &PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 and the clarifications issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 as follows:

Existing Para 4.1 be substituted by the following:

“4.1.1The basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by
him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, will
be notionally fixed as per Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM No.
1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be
the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006. subject to the necessary
years of qualifying service.”

4.1.2 The revised basic pension calculated as per Para 4.1.1 shall
in no case be lower than the revised basic pension corresponding
to the existing basic pension, as in Annexure to O.M. No.
38/37/08 P & PW(A) dated 1st September, 2008.. The minimum revised pension as arrived at vide Para 4.1.1 or 4.1.2 or Para 4.2 or Para whichever is beneficial will become payable from 1.1.2006.

5.0 Qualifying Service for Full Pension:

The O.M. dated 2.9.2008 vide Para 5.2 indicates that Linkage of 33 years qualifying service for full pension has been dispensed with. If that is correct, the pensioners who have rendered less than 33 years, has to be recalculated based on the minimum qualifying Service of 20 years for full pension prescribed vide the said OM, or otherwise Pro-rata.

However, as per the OM, the payment of full pension based on 20 years qualifying service, or otherwise pro-rata, will have the prospective effect only. The revised pension disbursement, thus calculated vide the above Para shall commence from 2.9.2008. However, so far, there is no advice to the pension disbursement authorities in this regard.

In this regard, it is pertinent to note that all the Civil Servants at the time of joining initially, have been offered with the same terms and conditions, which include provisions of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 or made to govern subsequently prior to retirement. The said Pension Rules have undergone a revision on 2.9.2008 with a prospective effect, which will adversely affect the agreed/accepted offer of terms and conditions particularly with regard to qualifying service for full pension. Even those who have retired after 1.1.2006 but prior to 2.9.2008 are no exceptions for exclusion from this provision and that way, they have also been treated as pre-2006 pensioners particularly with regard to qualifying service aspects. Thus, this has resulted with the yet another loss out of implementation of 6th CPC through the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OMs under reference.

6.0 Parity among Pensioners:

To conclude, in order to ensure parity, the basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, need to be notionally fixed as per Annexure – Fitment Table to OM No.1/1/2008-IC dt.30.8.2008 and 50% thereof could be the revised pension as on 1.1.2006.

The Appeal to the Anomaly Committee is to upheld the spirit behind the various Court Judgments, the Pay Commission Recommendations and the OM dated. 10.2.1998, through appropriate amendments of the existing OMs to ensure and facilitate the actual intended and entitled pension amount for all Pensioners as well as Family Pensioners. A Table annexed herewith is self-explanatory with regard to the post-2006 situation of the pre-2006 pensioners.

This appeal is preceded by various representations to the Dept. of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare through individual correspondence as well as through various dignitaries, which are yet to be responded upon.
In case the first Para of this Appeal holds good at all times, then 50% of the revised emoluments (revised basic pay) entitled to a serving employee shall be the revised basic pension for the corresponding similarly placed retiree.

We hope that the Anomaly Committee will bring justice to the aggrieved pensioners and family pensioners – most of whom have retired after serving with limited emoluments for majority of their service.

Pending final considerations and outcome of the entire issue, a NOTIONAL PARITY as was done after 5CPC - at the Minimum levels must be granted so that the pensioners who are in the evening of their life get at least "Minimum" benefits of their legitimate dues.

TABLE WITH REMARKS (AS ATTACHED WITH DRAFT APPEAL - REVISION O)