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

sundarar
19-03-2009, 06:57 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.

Respected Shri RSundaramji,

Thank you very much for the kind gesture with wholehearted support at this crucial point of time. I have posted the Revised Draft now.
I request your goodself to kindly take up further as desired. I pray God
to shower HIS Blessings on one and all of you. Your very thinking itself is a great strength for the entire Pensioners Community. Your kind and affectionate intervention at the appropriate time is a God sent help. I am confident that your attempt will bring fruits soon. I do not have your mail id at present. Your valuable contribution in this regard will always be remembered with utmost gratitude by all.

With best regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
19-03-2009, 08:31 AM
Dear All

At the outset, I compliment and convey thanks to Mr Sundarar, for bringing to shape one of the model drfats for presentation to AC. I think every group/ individual shd adopt the material for making appeals/ representations easily, with info on their own cases.

Reg the elaborate Anomaly Issues I built up in Gconnect thru Parts I to VII, and a Forwarding letter also put up, I would like to add I have made a draft summary which will precede the compendiumwh I shall send from Pensioners' Forum, and the said summary is reproduced here.

I WOULD LIKE TO RECIEVE SUGGESTIONS ON THE LAST PART ( shd be more or less simmilar to prioritised remedies- NOTIONAL (MODIFIED)PARITY BASED on 4.2 and 4.1 -etc )- Not more than three paragraphs!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (under drafting)

A.GENERAL:

Anomalies have come up because of the lacunae of either improper understanding of the principles and policies of the SCPC or while implementing their recommendations on Revision of Pension of the Pre-2006 Pensioners, contained in the Para 5.1.47 of the Report.

The SCPC never recommended or meant to recommend Revised Pension to Pre-2006 Pensioners to be less than the “MINIMUM” of the Pension of Post-2006 pensioners, of same class/rank/post/grade/ category. In fact they had recommended in.Para 11.33 “ Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners” and in 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".

ANOMALIES are due to 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 itself! ( pl refer their Para 1.2.25 of SCPC Report)

OMs dated 3rd Oct.08 & 14 Oct 2008 conveyed and concretised the MOST IRREGULAR and UNJUST implementation- 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. If it had been “50% of the minimum of the revised pay in the pay band” corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, there would not have been any scope for several types of ANOMALIES/ ANOMALOUS issues, which are listed here:

B. ANOMALIES/ ANOMALOUS ISSUES:

1. LOSS IN MINIMUM ENTITLED PENSION – This is the overall effect and the loss is across the board, affecting all Pre-2006 Pensioners.

2..NOT DEFINING “EMOLUMENTS” FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS – Glaringly, in the OM of 1.9.2008 pertaining to Pre-2006 pensioners defining “Emoluments” is omitted whereas, on the very next day, OM of 2nd Sept defines the “Emoluments “ for post 2006 pensioners to protect their pensions based on last pay drawn and CCS (RevisedPay)Rules 2008 are applied.

3.. MISINTERPRETATION OF “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” TO BE SAME AS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”- IT WAS OBVIOUS BOTH CAN NOT BE THE SAME: This is the root cause for all types of anomalies and needs to be set right immediately.

4.INDISCRIMINATE MERGER OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES INTO PAY BANDS-NOT PROVIDING REPLACEMENT PAY SCALES FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS–RESULTS IN TWO CLASSES OF PENSIONERS FOR SAME POST (PRE-2006 VS POST-2006)- Defining the slots of “revised “Minimum” basic with respect to revised/replacement pay scales within pay band for the Pre-Revised Scales will remove this ambiguity and help for NOTIONAL FIXATION of pension at a minimum of modified parity. Such mergers/ repeated for older pensioners, cause greater erosion in minimum entitled pension to all. Recurring pro-rata reduction in DR compound the losses.Base for next Pension Revision gets reduced!.Family Pensioners suffer.

5. REDUCTION IN MINIMUM PENSION BASIC OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS- AGAINST ALL RULES!- This is glaring in cases of higher pre-revised pay scales say S30, S 29, S27, S26 etc where ultimate result is DOWNGRADATION of their pre-revised pension basic to the level of S 24 is seen. Such reductions are unjust/ unprincipled/ unprecedented/ against Rules and remedy suggested in 4 above will resolve the gross injustice.

6.ALL ANOMALIES ARE DUE TO CONTRAVENTION OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 14 & 21-AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND POLICY OF THE SCPC.- Though as cited earlier, the SCPC had recommended in.Para 11.33 “ Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners” and in 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’ etc which are strictly in accordance with the Court judgements/ Constitutional provisions/ SCPC’s own principles & policies, the outcome is different due to the Govt.’s wrong interpretation of Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report, implementation through OMs of conflicting and ambiguous nature, and finally not answering/ responding to any of the REPRESENTATIONS/ APPEALS of pre-2006 pensioners..


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: These are also on the same lines as above:


C.SUGGESTED INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER FOR RECOMMENDATION TOTHE GOVT. in order of priority:

1.The amendment to Para 4.2 of MOPPGP/DOPPW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 1st Sept.2008 issued under same aothorities’ OM of even no.PtI dtd 03 Oct 2008 is arbitrary/ its interpretations and implementations are incorrect and inconsistent with SCPC’s own principles/ policies and Apex Court’s directives on parity among same class of pensioners. It is also violative of the principle/policy of modified parity of MINIMUM pension/Family Pension accepted and notified by the Govt. and therefore the errors need be corrected.

2.The consolidated revised Pension/ Family Pension as per any formula, for any post/ grade in all cases, irrespective of the dates of retirement/ revisions, shall not be lower than fifty percent of the notional REVISED MINIMUM PAY for the post/ grade in the appropriate Pay Band under the Revised Pay Rules plus the GRADE PAY thereon, (all/both) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

3.Since the SCPC Recommendations are implemented w.e.f 01.01.2006, all pension norms applicable to serving employees under the same, must be made equally applicable to all those who are already retired but notionally were in service on 01.01.2006, irrespective of issuance of various orders concerning these norms. It is to be noted that Pensioners are deemed employees as observed by Courts and the Govt. continues to be their Employer..

(Final Recommendations may follow after detailed examination of the issues/. their merits/ individual anomalies etc.)


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

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

vnatarajan
20-03-2009, 08:39 AM
VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE

Dear S/SHRI MLK/Sundarar/ GR/SB/RS/KSS/ others

Suggestions emerging can be broadly under three categories- also in terms of priority:

1. FULL PARITY.

2.NOTIONAL MODIFIED PARITY (at the Revised MINIMUM)

3.Other dispensations including those with either/both of the above

Some of the suggestions I am listing here to recapitulate, and later arrive at a possible common summary for putting up to the AC in every representations of the Associations/ Forums/ Individuals who may broadly concur to follow the same:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VARIOUS SUGGESTIONS on recommendations TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE:

I..VN: As in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY posting: (following BPS’s appeal to PM- little modified)):

1.The amendment to Para 4.2 of MOPPGP/DOPPW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 1st Sept.2008 issued under same authorities’ OM of even no.PtI dtd 03 Oct 2008 is arbitrary/ its interpretations and implementations are incorrect and inconsistent with SCPC’s own principles/ policies and Apex Court’s directives on parity among same class of pensioners. It is also violative of the principle/policy of modified parity of MINIMUM pension/Family Pension accepted and notified by the Govt. and therefore the errors need be corrected.

2.The consolidated revised Pension/ Family Pension as per any formula, for any post/ grade in all cases, irrespective of the dates of retirement/ revisions, shall not be lower than fifty percent of the notional REVISED MINIMUM PAY for the post/ grade in the appropriate Pay Band under the Revised Pay Rules plus the GRADE PAY thereon, (all/both) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

3.Since the SCPC Recommendations are implemented w.e.f 01.01.2006, all pension norms applicable to serving employees under the same, must be made equally applicable to all those who are already retired but notionally were in service on 01.01.2006, irrespective of issuance of various orders concerning these norms. (Special dispensations can be provided to stagnation cases/ older Pensioners not getting true benefits of Revisions/ old Family Pensioners). It is to be noted that Pensioners are deemed employees as observed by Courts and the Govt. continues to be their Employer.

Final/ Full Recommendations can follow based on detailed considerations/ individual cases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Shri S Bala

“To remove the anomalies pointed out above, the following is suggested:
7.C.1: Para 4.1 of OM No.38/37/2008 P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 be amended as follows:
"The revised basic pension shall be 50% of (the notionally revised basic pay in the Pay band + Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired) as in the Fitment Table corresponding to the prerevised pay scale as in Annexure to OM dated 1.1.2008-IC dated 30.8.2008.
7.C.2. Para 4.2 of OM dated 38/37/2008 P & PW(A) dated 1.9.08 be amended as follows:
The revised basic pension as per para 4.1 above shall in no case be less than the revised basic pension corresponding to the existing basic pension, as indicated in Annexure to this OM".

The suggested 7.C.1 will take care of parity beween pre and post 2006 pensioners, and also ensure the same treatment to pensioners as for serving employees as recommended by 6 CPC.
The suggested 7.C.2 will take care of parity between pensioners with stagnation increments at the time of retirement, beween pre and post 2006 retirees.”
Both the above will meet the requirement of equality as in Article 14 of the Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..Shri G Ramadas:

“The draft apppears to be quite okay but we need to deliberate at what exactly should be our proposal.Sh Bala's recent comments appear to be the best acceptable.

Incidentally w.r.t your observation that the Commission had recommended in.Para 11.33 " Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners" be stressed,in the write up as the violation of this is a route cause for pensioners' agonies, aprt from the modification of OM of 1.9.08.This fits as an anomaly under the terms of reference of the anomalies Committee
I have enclosed a chart which will show the disparity in fitment benefit for the employees and pensioners.
Hoping to meet our pensioner friends tomorrow”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Bala’s observations on Shri Ramadas’s suggestions:

“Para 2 of your email needs to be stressed since the issue comes well within the terms of reference and constitutes an anomaly arising out of contravention of 6 cpc recommendations, which has to be resolved by the Anomalies Committee.
I am sure at your meeting and discussion with other friends tomorrow, the precise and appropriate formulation would emerge. Wishing you all success!
Regards”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri K S Sitaraman

“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. I request the honourable members on both sides of the Anomaly Committee 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 VI CPC. Full parity, by extending the scope of the said O.M. dated 10/02/1998 to pre-1996 and pre-2006 retirees now will be the real solution to the problems of past pensioners and not any modified parity, which has resulted in down-gradation in most cases. This one single stroke, viz., extension of the scope of the said O.M. dated 10/02/1998 to Pre-1996 and Pre-2006 retirees also, will wipe out almost ALL the complaints from the pensioners and it will be the Statistician’s delight in the Department of Pensions’ Pension Grievances Cell. It is hoped that the honourable members of the Anomaly Committee have the will power and desire to recommend this measure and the Government also demonstrates its commitment to ensure the welfare of the pensioners’ community by sanctioning it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.Shri Sundarar- extracts only presented here (references relate to OMs’ Paras- pl refer to OMs):

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.”

4.1.2The 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”

“…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.”

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pl note I could not access readily some more individual's/ associations' suggestions which I would like to be added up here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PENDING FINAL RECOS ON FULL PARITY,AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION THROUGH NOTIONAL MODIFIED PARITY AT THE MINIMUM OF THE REVISED SCALES WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE PAY BANDS, WITH SPECIAL DISPENSATION PROVISIONS TO OLDER BOTTOMLINE (REPEATEDLY MERGED PAY SCALE- CUM-BAND CASES) & STAGNATED PENSIONERS CAN BE AN INTERIM SOLUTION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VNatarajan

G.Ramdas
20-03-2009, 01:48 PM
[B]This thread has now over 500 posts and 22,087 views.
/B]We, the Forum Members take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the gconnect authorities to provide us this platform for exchange of views,healthy discussions and for projecting the views and grievances of lakhs of pensioners.Special appreciation to Sh. V. Natarajan who has contributed bulk of the posts in this thread.His fifth century in gconnect forum is also not far away.
Thanks to all of you once again

vnatarajan
22-03-2009, 07:25 AM
Grateful thanks Shri GR for his compliments.

Dear ALL

(I have posted this under the thread WHAT NEXT RTI - started by Shri Sundarar.)

DOPPW IS NOT READY TO GO BEYOND THE LIMITED INFO? NOT COMPETENT? NOT READY TO INTERACT WITH FINANCE TO RESOLVE PENSIONERS' PROBLEMS? WHERE IS THE WELFARE?

Dear S/Shri K/ GR/ Sundarar/ all

By now I think many of us have got replies from the Pension Ministry/ Deptt and as I have been remarking in my posts under various threads, the RTI replies apparently follow a fixed thumb rule pattern (of course when we were in service we also used to follow similar thumb rules for answering parliament qns/ or Board Agenda matters etc.):

The info cited in replies always refer to:

1.SCPC Recommendations on pension (pre-2006)(mainly para 5.1.47)
2.Govt. Decisions Notified./ implementations through OMs 1st Sept;3rd & 14th Oct 2008 mostly (we have not yet understood the OM of 11 the Feb 2009, as replies are awaited)
3.Pre-2006 Pensions are guided by OMs of 1st Sept.2008/ 3 & 14 Oct 2008 (including ANNEXURES- repeat ANNEXURES).NO RULES -Only Govt. Decisions!
4.Post-2006 Pensions are guided by OM of 2nd Sept 2008/ with CCS (revised Pay) Rules 2008 (with spl definitions for EMOLUMENTS etc protecting their "last pay drwan" interests)
5.File Notings that led to the issue of OMs of 3rd & 14th Oct 2008.

(All OMs and the six pages of "file notings" are now with all of us- you may do whatever you like with them- ALL ANSWERS are answered within the framework of info available in them).

An additional piece of information has emerged thru another RTI answer- which I reproduce here:

".....revised pay structure has been introduced by the MOF on implementation of the 6th CPC. For any further details on this pay structure, you may approach MoF.
Regarding query ...., it is informed that the instructions for revision pension for pre 2006 pensioners are based on the decision of the Govt on the recommendations of the 6th CPC".

Now we may think of getting some info from MOF- reg our pre-2006 pensioners' revised pay structures!

Let them also become wiser and reply us!

FOCUS: WHAT IS THE "REVISED PAY STRUCTURE" APPLICABLE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS? NO SUCH STRUCTURE? NO DEFINITION OF EMOLUMENTS? NO RULES?----Only GOVT. DECISIONS TO IMPLEMENT A RECOMMENDATION (PARA 5.1.47 WRONGLY EXPRESSED OR ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED) OF SCPC- WITHOUT RESPECT TO ANY RULES AND AT THE SAME TIME DENYING THE BENEFIT OF CORRECT RULES BROUGHT OUT ON 2nd SEPT 2008 OM TO PRE -2006 PENSIONERS but giving benefit of the same to all pensioners POST-2006 as well as POST-2.9.2008. (RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT is already given from 2.9.2008 backwards upto 1.1.2006. Then why not before that period also, to cover all pre-2006 pensioners? What rules make such discrimination possible?)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
23-03-2009, 12:41 PM
My dear VN. You know as well as I do know and so know everybody concerned, as to why Pre-2006 pensioners which also includes pre 1996 pensioners, are denied what has been given to post 2006 and post 2nd Sept.08 pensioers because this lot is most unorganised and lot of them even do not know what is happening. They are old, infirm, fragile and dependant on others. They cannot go to court also because they do not have lakhs of Rupees required to put up a petition in Supreme Court. No body would come forward even to put up a PIL for them. Pressent Govt. is therefore, taking full advantage of this situation and next Govt., after elections, would undoubtly continue to do so. Very pessimistic ! But, it is factual. God bless them all.

Kanaujiaml
24-03-2009, 07:35 AM
My sincere and heartfelt Congratulaltions to the Gconnect and its viewers on the occasion of Gconnect Anniversary. Gconnect is doing great service to the cause of Pensioners. It is at Gconnect that pensioners like me are able to express views freely and fully and with full freedom. The effort of whole team of Gconnect is appreciable and laudable. At the same time, I wish to congratulate viewers of this forum, participants and the sponsers for making Gconnect a succesful endavour. I pray God to bestow upon Gconnect, its team of dedicated people, viewers, participants in discussion forum and last but not the least, the sponsers, all the best in coming future.

vnatarajan
24-03-2009, 07:51 AM
Dear Gconnect/ Its Team/All

I , several co pensioners from the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai ,other well-wishers of pensioners, and friends greet the Gconnect ,its Administrators/ Owners on their successful completion of the first year of their "GconnectIn" website- cum-social network in an extraordinary manner maintaining International Standards (or even more)!.

We are also grateful to Gconnect for providing us the pensioners with a powerful and effective platform to disseminate important information without loss of time and also to exchange our views in a rapid manner.

On this occassion we all wish Gconnect to grow in strength and stature day after day and continue to serve the cause of the much neglected and exploited segment of the Nation- Govt. servants, with vigour and vision.

All the best

VNatarajan
Retd. Dy Director General, GSI; President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to AIFPA (Regd), Chennai);Associate Member, RREWA

Kanaujiaml
24-03-2009, 07:56 AM
Dear All. DA of Central Govt. employees has been raised w.e.f. 01 01 09 from 16 % to 22% vide OM dated 13 03 09. Similar raise of DR for pensioners was also expected but so far, no orders appears to have been issued. Why the delay ?

subba Rao R S
24-03-2009, 12:32 PM
Congatulation to the G connect team on this memorable day of one year of service to pensioners and senior citizen. This platform has done service through me to a number of pensioners and senior pensioners of age 80 years or more at Bangalore, in arriving at the Revised pension, through pension and arrears calculator in addition to serving as a platform to share views and informtion. all those who have got the service do not access like me aqnd wants me convey their gratitude.

I pray the god, the almighty, to bestow on the team long healthy life, prospeirity, and intellectuality to become a very big platform in this service.

R S Subba Rao[/COLOR]

vnatarajan
25-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Did u c Cong. Manifesto?

Here is a JOKE/ or HIMALAYAN LIE!

A paragraph in the Major Achievements Chapter reads:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It has restored secular and Constitutional values in governance. It has also made administration markedly more transparent. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a historic legislation. It is enabling lakhs of our citizens in villages, towns and cities to demand responsiveness and accountability from public officials and government at all levels.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can access it in the AICC website. You can give a 30 word feedback!

My feedback which I have sent to them thru the dialogue box provided in thei front page:

“Excellent.Pl. ensure Constitutional Values in Governance by advising the Ministry of Finance to honour Articles 14/21, equality in pension among equals/ obey Apex Court's veridcts.Pensioners/ Military veterans will be delighted!”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks message for the feedback was received. So site is working. Why not all try?

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
26-03-2009, 07:55 AM
Re VN's post above:
But one has to appreciate the fact that the RTI route fetches valuable information for thousands of citizens though we might not have got the desired results,due to a planned process in dept.of pensions in restricting information outflow on decision taking.
The latter portion of the claim "It is enabling lakhs of our citizens in villages, towns and cities to demand responsiveness and accountability from public officials and government at all levels"
is a factual statement that accountability and responsiveness have to be demanded and may not flow automatically

G.Ramdas

S.Balasubramanian
26-03-2009, 03:19 PM
Re:Posting No..509 regarding delay in DA announcement for pensioners.
I had sent an email to cccpao.nic.in on Friday pointing out the delay and with the request to assure pensioners that the order wll be issued early. But up to this moment, no order has been issued. One wonders why there is this delay when nothing is going to be paid in any case during this financial year and even if the order is issued, banks generally take a month or two to release the same saying that they have not received the copy of the order.
S.Balasubramanian.

Kanaujiaml
26-03-2009, 04:50 PM
REf. Post 509 and 513. I am fearing for my worst doubts. Is something cooking up there ? May be I am a little over active in the matter but pensioners have received a big jolt recently due to such delays in the matter of fixation of pension. In such matters you can not ask for information / file notings under RTI as "matter is still under process" and "decision not yet taken or approved."

Kanaujiaml
26-03-2009, 04:59 PM
Did u c Cong. Manifesto?

Here is a JOKE/ or HIMALAYAN LIE!

A paragraph in the Major Achievements Chapter reads:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It has restored secular and Constitutional values in governance. It has also made administration markedly more transparent. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a historic legislation. It is enabling lakhs of our citizens in villages, towns and cities to demand responsiveness and accountability from public officials and government at all levels.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can access it in the AICC website. You can give a 30 word feedback!

My feedback which I have sent to them thru the dialogue box provided in thei front page:

“Excellent.Pl. ensure Constitutional Values in Governance by advising the Ministry of Finance to honour Articles 14/21, equality in pension among equals/ obey Apex Court's veridcts.Pensioners/ Military veterans will be delighted!”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks message for the feedback was received. So site is working. Why not all try?

vnatarajan

My dear VN. It is election time. Be careful. Better avoid taking sides with any of the political parties. Also, we should not use this forum to criticise or praise any of the political parties, particularly at this juncture.

S.Balasubramanian
27-03-2009, 09:04 AM
Political parties may and do in fact make all kinds of statements and promises in their manifesto. We as seasoned government servants who know the working of government know very well that they do not always get translated into reality. I believe that we should continue to be neutral, becaue one does not know how the wind will blow and when it may knock us off our guard. It would be the better part of our discretion not to play into the hands of any party by reacting to their statements or promises or manifestoesat this critical election phase.
S.Balasubramaian.

vnatarajan
27-03-2009, 10:56 AM
(Oh No, Political Parties have no time for the welfare of the Janata- We are facing the reality!)

Dear All

Reverting back to DR, I find last year, the circular (for the corresponding half year) had been issued well in time - say on 19th March 2008, by the DOPPW!.

May be all the Deptt. personnel are drafted for election duty! So let us bear the delay. In any case March pension comes only in April!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
27-03-2009, 11:03 AM
Dear Shri GR

Reg.Your observation on : "It is enabling lakhs of our citizens in villages, towns and cities to demand responsiveness and accountability from public officials and government at all levels"

Already I and PKR have now experience oblique to this, while dealing with our Deptt.

After a strong letter to the Appellate authority, now the IO has started acting in a more responsive manner.

Many PIOs may not have been trained enough/ or empowered to reply beyond their Desk Levels and hence what response you get is not accountable/ responsible in any way-only mediocre! Higher levels may alse use this route to stay away from accountability (as u r seeing in our RTI Queries-Answers! etc). Till we experience something convincing, I think people like me will remain sceptical/unconvinced. Results must prove it otherwise. RTI must act as the route for AAM ADMi to arrive at basic truth. Otherwise it has no meaning!

We are too good at this game! We have gone through it!

(as the Tamil saying goes- hiding the whole PUMPKIN within (handful) of Rice!)

vnatarajan.

G.Ramdas
28-03-2009, 10:04 AM
You are absolutely right Sh.VN. But something is better than nothing. At least we have got a mechanism which can always be fine tuned, if their is a will.
GR

vnatarajan
28-03-2009, 01:07 PM
Dear Copensioners/ Friends

At last the DR Circular had been issued by DOPPW.

No 42/12/2009-P&PW G dtd 27.03.2009.

DR is at 22% wef 1.1.2009.

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
28-03-2009, 03:09 PM
The DR order has not till this moment (3 p.m.28.3.09) appeared in the pensionersportal website or the CPAO website. I do not know why. Normally, CPAO website loads it on their website immediately on the same day.
S.Balasubramanian.

G.Ramdas
28-03-2009, 04:02 PM
THE CIRCULAR IS AVILBLE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK :

http://persmin.gov.in/pension/CircularReportForPensionForm2.asp?choice=31"




gr

G.Ramdas
28-03-2009, 04:06 PM
THE CIRCULAR IS AVILBLE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK url:


http://persmin.gov.in/pension/CircularReportForPensionForm2.asp?choice=31

G.Ramdas

S.Balasubramanian
28-03-2009, 06:28 PM
Dear Mr Ramdas,
Many thanks for the information.
From the circular referred to, it is seen that a new website has been opened for pensioners, namely:
persmin.nic.in/pension
At the bottom of the circular, we find the following:
"Please visit persmin.nic.in/pension for the orders on
pension matters including above orders".
At present, one does not know whether the above website is a replacement for the other websites wherein such orders have been uploaded so far, or it is an additional one.
Pensioner friends may like to keep the URL of this new website also in their favourites for quick reference.
Regards.
S.Balasubramanian.

Kanaujiaml
28-03-2009, 09:20 PM
Dear All. The address for the website of persmin for pensioners is as given here under :

http://pensionersportal.gov.in/index.asp

This is the address of Home page. After opening this site you can choose the topic you are interested in. DR circular is not available on "sixth cpc " topic . Actually it is available under the topic "pensioners Circular/forms". You can keep Home page address in "favorites" so that, after opening the site from "favorites", you can select concerned topic for further surfing, without missing anything related to pensioners.

G.Ramdas
29-03-2009, 06:01 AM
The interesting aspect is that while the employees can draw the D.A relief only after the disbursement of March salary there is no such restriction for pensioners. DP&PW has been very graceful,or has timed the circular in such a way that the pensioner will not get the D.R before March Pension

GR

Kanaujiaml
29-03-2009, 07:20 AM
The interesting aspect is that while the employees can draw the D.A relief only after the disbursement of March salary there is no such restriction for pensioners. DP&PW has been very graceful,or has timed the circular in such a way that the pensioner will not get the D.R before March Pension

GR

Ramdassji. It doesnot matter. We do not receive pension during the month of March. We get our march pension and april pension, both, in April every year. Same is the case with the working people. They receive salary of march in april. One more thing. My son, who is an ITS Officer, says Circular regarding DA raise has not reached pay disbursing authorities till yesterday.
This indicates that Govt. wants this DA/DR burden go to to next Financial year.

vnatarajan
29-03-2009, 02:50 PM
Dear All

PENSION; PENSIONER BASICS: PLEASE BRUSH UP ONCE AGAIN!

Pension is a Right (pre 2004 Govt Employee under the old Pension scheme, contributing GPF etc); differed salary/wage; unpaid/ hidden component of salary/wage-equivalent of GPF contribution made- built up as hidden corpus; is a repayment for the past services rendered; etc.

Pensioner is a deemed Employee of the Govt; Govt continues to be the employer;

Proof: Pensioner is punishable by Reduction/ Withdrawal of Pension- under Pension Act/ Rules- for offences specified; Pensioners got Standard Deduction exemptions as Employees get under IT Act; Pensioners continue in schemes of Employees like CGHS etc.

Pension for pensioners is as much a committed expenditure of the Govt. as in the case of Salaray/ Wage of Employees. Budget provision has to be made in time (Courts have observed so). No Govt. can give excuses like "increased burden" "increased expenditure" etc. You have earned your entitlement by past services. In this there can be no discrimination between equals by "any" artificial divide like an arbitrary date/ irregular Govt. deciusion.

Pensioner, if taxable, pays his Income Tax like any other taxable Govt. Employee- there is no separate Head for Pension- It comes under "SALARY" only. It is also administered and processed like salary income.

(The folowing is for drafting Appeals to Anomaly Committee by Individuals/ for any discussions etc)

SCPC ANOMALIES: POINTS TO REMEMBER ON ANOMALY ISSUE (Please Refine & Use)

*An average Pensioner is not endowed with sufficient facilities to access the SCPC report, understand it, interpret it and find out what is an ANOMALY- as defined in the OM constituting the Anomaly Committee/Its Terms of Reference etc.. So the Anomaly Committee has to appreciate basically the situation and ground truth. A liberal view has to be taken in dealing with the situation.

*All issues are related to the CORE principle/policy-i.e. PARITY- minimum or full-
For pre 2006/ 20 yr/ less than 33 yr (pre-2006)/ family pensioners etc. and related to one major controversial Para/ its Applications/ Ramifications.

*SCPC has not apparently mentioned in precise terms what are its policies/ principles in relevance to REVISION OF PENSION- though there are several Para in the Report which had clearly expressed that Past Pensioners must get the same benefits of fixation/ fitment etc as Current Pensioners. But it had cautioned that if the Recommendations are implemented in parts/ pieces ie if not implemented in TOTO, it will certainly lead to several anomalies.

*Pension has been described in many ways- but so far as the RULES are concerned it is always in terms of the “PAY” of the Employee, just before his retirement (e.g. like 50% of last “Pay” (basic pay)drawn or like 50% of average of last ten months Basic “Pay” etc). In the current scenario, one will see the Pension loses its identity totally! It is “Pay” or “Emoluments” wh are defined and Pension is always a Ratio/ Percentage of it.

*In SCPC outcome – what has it become? IS it a formula (X 2.26)? No relevance to erstwhile Pay of the Pensioner?
*Sometimes it is in terms of the Minimum of a Pay Band which is a merged entity of several Pay Scales?
*Yet, sometimes it is the Minimum of a Pay Scale? (for the convenience of a few Top Scales)

*It is anomalous to have three formulae for Pension fixation under the same SCPC dispensations! Never it has happened. Never such confusions.

*In the current revision also, “care has been taken to define “EMOLUMENTS” vide OM of 2.9.2008- for post 1.1.2006/2.9.2008 pensioners – but glaringly in the OM issued 24 hrs earlier, dtd 1.9.2008, such a definition does not exist- for old/pre-2006 pensioners!

*Pensioners/ Pensioners’ Associations were not given enough time to go thru at the Draft Stage in April 2008- one week’s time was too short. Many knowledgeable among the Pensioners could not access the Report/ its Recos for quite some time.

*In the OM of 1.9. 2008, Para 4.2 is the most controversial, about which several Pensioners/ Associations have debated for long periods and yet SURPRISINGLY there appears to be no controversy in processing the same at the Govt. sources.! Can not be believed.

*Though the SCPC always aimed at parity in pensions (even for 20 yr retirees!), it is not clear how they have gone into the MINIMUM formula? That too at the MINIMUM of the MERGED PAY BAND? Not even using the MINIMUM of the Corresponding Revised Scales as Reference Pay Points or Slots?

*Compromising to the MINIMUM formula or phenomena, Pensioners thought at least a MODIFIED PARITY at the MINIMUM of the RESPECTIVE REVISED PAY SCALE will emerge for pension reckoning! Even this is denied by the MISCONSTRUCTION of the Para 4.2 of the OM of 1.9.2008 by changing the construction/ meaning of the key expression of the original SCPC’s Para 5.1.47!!!.Further confusions were compounded thru OM of 3rd Oct 2008 followed by illustrations in Table/ Annexure of OM of 14 th Oct 2008. WHY AT ALL THE PARA WAS RECONSTRUCTED?.

*ANOMOLOUS results in the current scenario is more a result of such misonterpretations/ misapplications/ erroneous departures/wrong OMs affecting the threshold itself- all against SCPC’s parity priniciple/ policy for Pension.

*GRADE PAY alone can not be the deciding factor for pension. It is only “thereon” with the Pension Basic and only then it has a meaning. “Grade Pay” can become part of “Pay” and NOT the reverse-!!!

*Pensioners can not lose the identity of their original scales.These are important for Pension Revisions. Pay Bands can not be allowed to decide the fate of Pension entitlement/ settglements based on Grade Pay alone.. It is the pay/ pay scale in which the employee drew his salary- that is relevant. Not the Pay Band or Grade Pay. FITMENT FORMULAS also will result in such destructions. (if u ask the Housing Ministry, any clarification on HBA advances- they wd say it can be related to Pay in the Pay scale only and not the Grade Pay!!!)

* Originally SCPC recommended same FITMENT for both pensioners and employees, but what has been implemented is entirely different. ANOMALIES have cropped up because of such departure.

* Indiscriminate MERGERS of several pre-revised scales into Pay Bands- have resulted in:

* erasing of Identity of relatively higher scales even for MINIMUM identification; *reduction of Pension Basic of higher level pensioners to the lowermost level in the Pay Band; such reduction is against Pension Rules; considerable loss in monthly pensions.
*two classes of pensioners one pre-2006 and another post-2006 for each post/ grade/ scale under the same dispensation!
*such reduction of pension now, results in pro-rata loss in DR component every six months, and ultimately erodes the very Base figure for NEXT PENSION REVISION!

*Violation of Court Judgments/ Articles 14/21 of Constitution; CCS (RP) Rules. etc are very apparent! If Govt. resorts to this precedence, helpless aged pensioners who are in the evening of their lives have to go to courts for JUSTICE! Time-frame and Expenses are most atrocious and unfavorable to a common pensioner!

*.None of the Appeals made to the DOPPW/MOPPGP/ various authorities/ those
which have been forwarded from even the PMO to the MOPPGP & DOPPW have been
answered or replied with!

*.An OM dated 11th Feb 2009 stating all reps are disposed off can not be accepted as the said OM has not answered many anomalies/ anomalous issues raised by Pensioners/ Their Associations.

*.Annexure I/ Tables of OM of 14Oct 2008 is stated to be non-applicable to pre-2006 pensioners- then to whom they are applicable? Why it is being quoted in RTI replies?

*. Many of the RTI queries raised by Pensioners need attention of higher levels whereas routine sometimes evasive replies are being furnished from Desk/ Lower levels (PIOs) and hence these are not acceptable- nor they can help the Pensioners/ Associations to find out the truth/ accountability/ responsibility etc which are the essence/ essentials of RIGHT TO INFORMAION!

*Many times RTI queries are not being referred to the connected authorities/ higher ups when essential - say like to MOF etc- and pensioners are being forced to waste money/ time/ energy to find ways and means to resolve the anomalous issues.

*.One thing is CERTAIN.

GREATEST OF THE ANOMALIES IS STARING IN EVERYONE's FACE--DENIAL OF PARITY OF DIFFERENT TYPES/ FITMENT BENEFITS-TO DIFFERENT LEVELS/ SECTIONS/ CLASSES OF PENSIONERS (except the top 4 scales????) -IN DIFFERENT WAYS THROUGH CONFUSING/ CONFLICTING OMs/ - VIOLATING ALL NORMS/ RULES/ SCPC's MEANINGFUL PRINCIPLED/ POLICY-ENDORSED PARAGRAPHS of its REPORT ITSELF/ COURT JUDGMENTS/ CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.
Etc.

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

vnatarajan
31-03-2009, 02:40 PM
Dear All

Many of us have made appeals to the DOPPW & Hono'ble PM also, a few months back. Our apps. (at least in my case) to PM had been forwarded for "action as appropriate" to the DOPPW.

Till now no replies have come! Effect of "mass burial- I mean disposal" by DOPPW thru 11th Feb 2009 OM? Even no reply to PMO?

I thought we may try at least this info from DOPPW- so that a more"honest' &"sincere" straight forward answer can emerge from their end- as for this type of info- they need not be under duress or pressure!

What I have sent- as relevant to my case- is placed below:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To:
THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
(Attn: Shri ..................... Under Secretary)
Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW)
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions(MOP,PG,P)
North Block, NEW DELHI 110001

Sub: Right to Information-under RTI Act 2005- Regarding my Appeals to the Prime Ministers’ Office (PMO) & Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pensions (MOPPGP)/Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW)

Dear PIO-Sir

I seek the following information under the provisions of the RTI ACT 2005, Sections/Para 6 (1),(2)(3) & 7. In case the subject/ matter is not dealt at your desk/ office, the same kindly be referred to the right source within the stipulated period.

A) PMO’s Reference
Kind attention is drawn to the letter no PMO ID No.8/3/2009-PMP3/20181 dated 05.02.2009 forwarding my appeal No VN/PMO/Pension/2009-1 dtd 20.01.2009 sent to the Honourable Prime Minister, to the Secretary to the GOI, Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare, M/O Pers, PG & Pensions for “ACTION AS APPROPRIATE” at the latter. In the said appeal I, a pre-2006 pensioner, had sought redressal of INJUSTICE due to the anomaly in fixation of Revised Basic Pension, based on issues like disparities with respect to my peers of post1.1.2006 retirees; my effective reduction in status to a JAG (Sel Gr) level for Pension Basic entitlement; not applying the correct minimum revised pay corresponding to my pre-revised pay-scale S 29 (Rs18400-22400); irregular structuring of a single pay band for several pre-revised pay scale; violation of Constitutional protection under Article 14 and denial of parity in pension among equals (SAG level in my case) as also established/ enforced through earlier Court Judgments; irregularity through Effective Reduction in my entitled Pension Basic which is not fair or just/illogical etc; and prayed for review/ relief and justice. Now more than 50 days have passed since the above communication from PMO’s Office. Therefore, I am constrained to seek the following information:

1.What “actions as appropriate” have been taken on the reference cited above viz on the contents of my Appeal to the Honourable Prime minister dtd 20.01.2009? Please furnish if they are in relevance to parts or full of my appeal?

2.Have the same been conveyed to the PMO?

3.If so, kindly provide copies of the relevant letter(s)/ notes/ related documents.

4.If not, what are the “actions as appropriate” that are proposed and the time-frame, if any, thereof, for responding to the said appeal of mine?

B) My Representations to the Secretary to the GOI, D/O P&PW,MOPPGP:
Kind attention drawn to my Representation NO VN/Pensions/2008-3 dated Dec,2008 on my Pension Revision consequent to 6th CPC implementation OMs by Bank-Error/Anomaly-plea. In the said appeal, I, a pre-2006 pensioner, had sought l for revision & justice based on issues like wrong fixation of my minimum basic pension by the Bank at Rs23700 instead of Rs 27350 pm; irregular Merging of several pre-revised pay scales including mine (Rs18400-22400;S29) into single Pay Band 4; not applying to my pay the corresponding revised pay table within the said Pay Band for fixing my pension; that minimum of the Pay Band 4 can not be the minimum of revised pay for my scale ; irrational relegation of my pre-retirement Status from that of a SAG level officer/ Head of Deptt to that of a JAG (Sel. Gr) officer for pension purpose in effect; Reduction of my entitled pension basic (on revision)being unfair/unjust/illogical and against Rule; such a denial of rightful pension being a violation of Constitutional protection under Article 14 and denial of parity in pension among equals (SAG level in my case) as also established/ enforced through earlier Court Judgments; restoring justice/ parity in pension with respect to my peers, at least at the minimum! Now, I seek the following information:

1.What is the status of my representation cited above?

2.Have ALL/ ANY of the issues been disposed off by any of your communications subsequently? If so, pl furnish details/ copies.

3.Is the Annexure I/ Table with it, of the OM dtd 14th Oct 2008 issued by the MOPPG&P/D/O P&PW, cited in my representation applicable in my case, a S29 scale (Rs 18400-22400) pre-2006 pensioner?

4. If yes, what are the cases of pre-2006 pensioners to which the said Annexure I/Table is NOT applicable?

5.If my representation has not been processed in part or full so far, what is the likely time-frame for the same ?

The requested information may kindly be sent by hard copy mode by Regd Post as well as by email(s). As the matter concerns PENSION which is a matter of life & liberty of pensioners, every effort may kindly be made to adhere to the time-frame(s) please.(Encl: IPO For Rs 10/-towards INITIAL FEE in f/o Accounts Officer, Department of Pension& Pensioners’ Welfare)

Yours faithfully’
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards
vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
31-03-2009, 11:13 PM
Dear Pensioner Friends,

Is it modified parity or ‘modified modified parity’
A.I have serious doubts about the argument that the un-tampered para 4.2 of the OM dt30.08.08 will ensure maintenance of the modified parity between pensioners as recommended by the 6CPC.
To analyze this issue let us look into what the 5 CPC recommendations were :
(a) Revision of pension of Pre-1.1.96 pensioners/family pensioners
“The Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended that total parity may be brought between the pre 1.1.86 and post 1.1.86 retirees, by notional fixation of pay of pre 1.1.1986 retires in the post. 1.1.86 scales of pay and refixing of pension of all pre 1.1.1986 retirees on basis of their notional fixation of pay. This recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission has been implemented by the Government and total parity has been achieved between pre 1.1.1986 retirees and those, who retired between 1.1.1986 and 31.12.1995.

The Government have also accepted the concept of 'Modified Parity' which stipulates that the consolidated pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the new pay scale, as revised by Government, based on Fifth Central Pay Commission. This will be with reference to the post held by the pensioner, at the time of retirement.” ( Directorarte General of Resettlement Min. of Defence on Pension issues)


B .6CPC Report for pensioners –para 5.1.47 says :

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 employeesC.

Now let us look at the above statements and sum up as below:

1.Total parity has been obtained between pensioners of pre 1.1.86 to post 1.186 but upto31.12.95

2. Modified parity between these pensioners at 1. above and post 1.1.96 pensioners, has been achieved by grant of 50% of the minimum of the new scale as revised pension for pre1996 pensioners and 50% of last emoluments for post1996 pensioners, after 5CPC.

3.Now as per 6CPC recommends grant of the same fitment benefit to the pensioners as for existing employees to maintain the existing modified parity.

D.What does it mean?

My interpretation is that the 6CPCommission has recommended retention of the modified parity between pensioners of classes(1 )and( 2) above and extend same fitment benefit to them as for the present employees , so that the cases of those pensioners who are enjoying modified parity will not be disturbed or reopened for complete parity with the new pensioners as was done at the time of 5CPC.
In other words the pre1996 pensioners and post 1996 pensioners(upto31.12.2005) will continue to have disparity in pension, the latter enjoying the benefit of 50% of emoluments on pre-revised scales as pension while the former will have only 50% of the min. of the scale for the post as pension.

If the pensions of all the post 1996 but pre-2006 pensioners are to be re-fixed notionally at the min. of the pay scales or pay bands this would amount to disturbing the existing modified parity and in fact will introduce a new concept of ‘modified modified parity’ which of course is not the intention of the Commission.

E.
I also feel that with the above arguments para 4.2 of the OM of 30.08.08 vitiates the principle enunciated in the 6CPC recommendations and the only way to implement the 6CPC recommendation is to notionally fix the pay in the pay band as for employees and work out pension as 50% of the same.

I think pensioners should have to re-look on the issue. I would like to be educated and enlightened if my contentions are wrong.
G.RAMDAS

S.Balasubramanian
01-04-2009, 02:56 PM
As I have been urging all along, Mr Ramdas' suggestion at E in last posting is the best solution and the need of the hour, to deal with cases of persons retiring at stages before reaching the maximum of the pre-revised scale.

In the case of persons retiring at maximum of pre-revised scale, the fitment will be the same for pre- as well as post-2006 pensioners. In their case the formula of 2.26 will be the same whether for pre- or post-2006 pnsioners.

But this will leave out persons retiring after having stagnation increments. In their case, the formula of 2.26 will have to be given by providing for it as in amended para 4.2 which I had been suggesting all along. Incidentally, this will also meet the requirement of Article 14.
S.Balasubramanian.

Kanaujiaml
01-04-2009, 08:31 PM
My dear Bala, Gramdass, VN and others. Ref. post 531. It appears that due to various suggestions, which we had been putting before rrewa (SCM), which are also contrary to some extent, the Sub Committee of Associations, has picked up only one issue of 2.26 formula(para 4.1). I am of the view from very beginning that we must concentrate only about para 4.2 and equality in terms of Article 14 and supportive three hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments. If para 4.1 is amended giving modified parity, some of pensioners would get lesser pension. By concentrating on 2.26 factor and para 4.1 and asking for same treatment as for working employees, we are loosing benefit of SC judgment of 10 10 06. which says equality is possible only within a homogenous group(pensioenrs and working employees are not homogenous one). I am at loss to understand why sub committee of Associations, did not choose for full parity as enshrined in Article 14 and supportive hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments ?

G.Ramdas
01-04-2009, 10:16 PM
Re Sh Bala' post #531.He mentioned:

"But this will leave out persons retiring after having stagnation increments. In their case, the formula of 2.26 will have to be given by providing for it as in amended para 4.2 which I had been suggesting all along. Incidentally, this will also meet the requirement of Article 14."

This is applicable only in respect of S-8 and below, where at the last 2 stages of stagnation increment, the 2.26 formula may be marginally higher than notional fixation.Even in these cases in all other stages, notional fixation will be beneficial.In all other scales,from minimum to max. of the stagnation stage, the notional fixation as per the Min. of Finance Table will be benefical to the pensioners.

Regarding Sh. K's observations that comparison between pensioner and employee is not justifiable,it has to be noted that this point was brought out because,this has been recommended by the Commission, but not implemented.Hence this becomes an anomaly. We have no reason to grudge about employees emoluments, but if in turn it upsets the parity between different classes of pensioners or widens the disparity there is every reason to complain. Post 2006 pensioners' pensions are directly proportional to the employees emoluments.
As regards full parity will that question be entertained by the Anomalies committee as the 6CPC has not recommended this;they had only suggested maintenance of modified parity?
I still haven't got answers to my doubts raised in post #530.

G.Ramdas

sundarar
01-04-2009, 11:30 PM
Dear Sirs,

Just because an insufficient Para 4.1 exists, another Para 4.2 has been felt necessary by prescribing a minimum revised pension.

Whether it is essential to treat the pensioners on par with serving employees even after ret..irement at least to the extent of 50%? Yes.

The pre-revised basic pay of the serving employee, when getting revised, the retiree of pre-2006 also was serving in the same corresponding pre-revised pay scale and by virtue of retirement, the 50% of what he was drawing has been prescribed as pre-revised pension, but 50% of the revised pay could not be even thought of till now by the authorities, instead chosen to prescribe a minimum at minimum level.

Such a pre-revised pay is nothing but another revised pay of post-1996, which again had its own pre-revised pay prior to 1.1.1996. Therefore,
as and when the pay scale is accommodated in a revised structure,
particularly when 50% of the pay drawn at the time of retirement in the said pay scale constituted basic pension prior to revision, the same yardstick has to be followed after revision too. In which case, there may not be any necessity to prescribe a minimum for a revised pension.

The Para 4.1 as well as Para 4.2 both have their own discrepancies in respect of Pre-2006 pensioners. Even if Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 does not have its own discrepancy, the discrepancies have been created/generated while attempting to clarify/modify vide another OM dt.3.10.2008 with an illustration by choosing an incorrect pay scale to define minimum pay in the pay band, as there is no such thing exist in that particular scale since both min. of Pb and mini. of pay in the pb are same for the said scale. To add salt further in the wound, the annexed table makes the discrepancy explicit.

What is the concept of 6th CPC in r/o treatment of pensioners vis a vis serving employees? At what point of time, the parity emerge followed by modified parity. Making things worse by discrepancies and then attempting to maintain parity/modified parity is putting the cart before the horse.

Therefore, as unanimously discussed by all of us, when the pay get revised, 50% of the said revision shall be the revised pension. We can call it notional fixation or for the purpose of maintaining parity or anything else.
The basic concept shall be 50% of revised pay to the corresponding pre-revised pay with which the pensioner had retired, shall be the revised pension from 1.1.2006. My only doubt is, even after this, whether any more para will be required to prescribe a minimum revised pension?

The minimum aspects have been troubling the serving employees also particularly in respect of certain pre-revised scales to which upgraded pre-revised scales have been prescribed. Such upgraded pre-revised scales were prescribed only for the purpose of identifying the grade pay applicable for the upgraded pre-revised scale. The pay in the pay band will however be 1.86xpre-revised pre-upgraded scale. As on 1.1.2006, an employee where upgraded scales have been prescribed in the pre-revised structure, in his hand has (a) Original Pre-revised Scale (b) Upgraded Pre-revised Scale limited to grade pay purpose (c) revised pay in the pay band according to (a) and grade pay according to (b) both of which constitute revised pay.
Therefore, minimum pay in the pay band as applicable to corresponding pre-revised upgraded scale is not at all possible even if a person was drawing Rs.7300 in the scale of 6500-10500 that has been upgraded to 7450- .
On this count, both pensioners as well as the serving employees have been made to suffer at one stroke out of misinterpretation on minimum aspects.

Same way, the CCS(RP) Rule No.13 relating to pay fixation on promotion that stipulates stepping up of pay in case after adding the 3% notional increment to the existing pay in the pay band on promotion, if falls short of minimum of .........., Here too, it is subjective provision that in case change in the pay band also is involved apart from change in GP.

There is a hesitation to understand that minimum of PB and minimum of the pay in the pay band are not one and same in respect of all the 30 pre-revised scales (There are only 4 exceptions as discussed already in someother topic) and the said hesitation reflected in various OMs creating discrepancies.

What is wrong in prescribing the minimum pay in the pay band as applicable to the corresponding pre-revised upgraded pay scale for the serving employees if the 1.86 multiplied by existing pre-revised pay of pre-upgraded scale is lesser than such minimum? Because, the pensioners of those pre-revised upgraded scales also may seek revised minimum pension as applicable to the pre-revised upgraded scale. That is the reason for issuing an urgent OM dt.12.2.2009 saying that no upgraded scales will matter in respect of minimum revised pension. At single stroke both pensioners as well as serving employees have been taken to task in respect of both minimum aspects as well as upgraded pre-revised scale aspects.

Nothing short of 50% of revised pay corresponding to last pre-revised pay drawn whie serving, will make the things alright in the matter of revised pension.

The above views are independent one, as we are in the verge of final appeal to AC, and no way related to just preceding posts of our seniors S/shri Balaji, K and GRD.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

S.Balasubramanian
01-04-2009, 11:48 PM
R: Mr Kanaujia's observations. "If a policy has been enunciated by the 6th cpc and it has been contravened by the cpc itself without assigning any reason", it becomes an anomaly within the definition of that term. The cpc has recommended same fitment formula for both serving employees and pensioners. Even though in the CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, the revised basic pay has to be fixed at 1.86 basic pay + grade pay in all cases, this has been violated and not been followed in all cases. Hence it is an anomaly to be considered by the Anomalies Committee.
I have always held the view that in terms of the above policy, read in conjunction with the Supreme Court judgments, our approach should be for parity as envisaged in article 14. But perhaps, mine is a minority view.
S.Balasubramanian.

Kanaujiaml
02-04-2009, 08:18 AM
Dear All. Ref. post 533. As far as I could understand from CPC report and what it recommended, CPC agreed to the extent of modified parity and not full parity. Even Govt. conceded it and issued gazette notifications but latter withdrew it. Is not this an anomaly ? My point is simply this. Why differentiate between a pensioner retired prior to 2006 and post 2006. As I have always maintained, you can appeal for anything you desire, to the Govt., in this case Govt. appointed committee, but beyond it you have to frame yours case relying on law, such as Article 14 and supoorting SC judgments. Why not at this very stage, bring this fact before, anomaly Committee, so that when they deliberate, consider this aspect as well. And one more thing. If para 4.1 is amended, as accepted by Sub Committee of Pensioners Associations, for consideration of AC, those pensioners, whoose Rev. pension has been fixed on multiplication factor of 2.26, would get lesser pension. We should not forget that in some cases Rev. pension as per 2.26 formula is more than the Rev. pension fixed as per para 4.2, even with modified parity. Therefore, we must not make issue complicated, as it appears to have been done, if what Mr. SCM has conveyed through e. mail, about the acceptance of sub committe of Associations namely reconsideration of formula of 2.26 and amendment to para 4.1, without taking up the case simaltaneously, for ammending para 4.2 as well, for full parity, as per Article 14 and supportive SC judgments. Why subcommittee of Associations has overlooked this aspect ? Where we have failed ?

vnatarajan
02-04-2009, 08:29 AM
Dear All

"Anomaly" as per the defined term - ie SCPC itself acting contrary or contravening its own GUIDING PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY/POLICY can be proved only throughts its own paragraphs 11.33/ 11/35/ 5.1.47.

Para 5.1.47 itself RECOMMENDS the 50% being subject to not less than sum of "MINIMUM" ......etc. SCPC meant it can not be less than that, cd have been more in fact if modified concordance are applied, even upto the MAXIMUM(rare?)etc.

All other points/ expressions emerging in the OMs are the creations of the GOVT. DECISIONS based on WRONG INTERPRETATIONS/IMPLEMENTATIONS through file notings/ OMs. NO RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED (old or new)

Fitment Formula is not a Recommendation of the SCPC- but certainly a 'FITMENT' equal to that of the Employees was recommended.

We are asking for FULL PARITY (wh is a dream according to me - as even last 5CPC gave only modified parity - and even SPS Bains case (latest)- if you carefully analyse, the outcome can only arrive at minimum parity! And to be logical I had been trying to project NOTIONAL MINIMUM PARITY FOR ALL (with spl dispensation to stagnation cases/ 20yr plus 33 yr minus retirees of pre-2006 era/ sufferers of multiple/successive merger of scales etc) based on FITMENT at the MINIMUM of the REVISED PAY SCALES by recognising the reference/ corresponding pay slots (ie corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised scales) - PENDING THE ACCORD OF FULL PARITY based on scrutiny of all individual/ collective anomalies as A FINAL SETTLEMENT.

1.86 MF FITMENT also will have to be based on the recognition of the above fitment reference/corresponding pay slots (because if it is based on pre-revised basic or minimum of the pay band, many may be losers!). WE SHOULD NOT GET NEGATIVE PARITY or REDUCED PARITY wh is a result of merged pay scales into Pay Bands without even recognising the MINIMUM equivalents for each scale. SUCCESSIVE mergers result in compounded reduction for older pensioners.

We have to look into the SCPC RECOMMENDATIONS vis-a vis the old pensioners mainly and confine to the anomalies within/ arising out of them. That may strike the target.

Regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-04-2009, 08:41 AM
My dear VN and other pensioner friedns. Ref. post 537. Yes, I agree. I have tried to say the same thing in fewer words. I would like to sound a word of caution. I once again would say that we should not involve all issues simaltaneously as it may complicate the main issue of parity for all pensioners. Govt. Officials, responsible for taking the decision, as in AC, as you all know, are very clever in confusing the issues and divert the attentioin towards that direction, which suites them.

G.Ramdas
02-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Ref. Posts above and Sh K's post at#536.
Sh. K mentioned in the above post "If para 4.1 is amended, as accepted by Sub Committee of Pensioners Associations, for consideration of AC, those pensioners, whoose Rev. pension has been fixed on multiplication factor of 2.26, would get lesser pension."
I am not quite clear about this statement. My own pension is fixed on the basis of 2.26 formula and I am losing Rs.6613p.m sice the fixation has not been done as per the original para 4.2 of the OM.
It is therfore, not correct to say that pensioners getting revised pension under 2.26 formual will be adversely affected.
However I am in full agreement with the argument that the notional fixation in the new scales be done and 50% granted as pension. This will still maintain the existing modified parity within past pensioners.

GR

vnatarajan
02-04-2009, 12:52 PM
Dear All

I agree with K's views, in summary..

LET US BE CLEAR.

My view is whatever we try to point out in terms of existing fitment formula , it should be only TO AUTHENTICATE/PROVE the ANOMALY involved and not recommend it as any "STANDARD FORMULA or MF" for deciding on or arriving at the final Pension of all pensioners. All shd be clear on this.

Pay Commission had clearly stated FITMENT for pensioners should be same as for EMPLOYEES. NOT BY USING ANY FORMULAE.

Which means PARITY as in the case of post-2006 pensioners, and FITMENT as recommended by SCPC- and not as formulated by the GOVT. in its OMs (MF 1.86 - MF 2.26 including the 40% FB).

There can not be a single MF for all scales for FITMENT- and that is where the ANOMALY (of different degrees) crops up and the same has been analysed and demonstrated I think by Shri GR, if I am correct, in the charts and tables..

As the current FITMENT is not same as in the case of post 2006 pensioners/ EMPLOYEES, it has to be rejected.

(Even as it is, EVERY PENSIONER HAS TO GET, EVEN AT THE MINIMUM, MORE THAN BY THE FITMENT MF- if proper GP Component is added.This is besides the main issue).

Paras 4.1/ 4.2 - already pointed out by many- suffuciently reworded - have to be considered for final outcomes in terms of SCPC's principles/policy; Pending the same, Para 5.1.47 must be truly/ correctly (based on Revised Pay) implemented for notional, modified, minimum parity as an interim measurre, as was done in VCPC.

I think AC will get clear as to the above and also be reasonable to help pensioners get justice soon.

SCPC's Para 5.1.47 Recommending modified MINIMUM parity itself is in CONTRAVENTION (without assigning any reason!)of their own recos at Para 11.33/ 11.35 which all suggest full parity! Hence ANOMALY is clear.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-04-2009, 04:35 PM
My dear Gramdass and VN. I would like to mention one case pertaining to Mr. Bedekar. As per details given by him, his revised pension has been fixed at 13560 (6000 x 2.26 = 13560. However, 50 % of min. of pay band plus Grade pay comes to 11600 (15600 + 7600 = 23200 divided by 2 = 11600). Thus he gets more pension with 2.26 formula. Our requirement is not amendment of para 4.1 but amendment of para 4.2 so that " pension is not less than 50 % of pay in pay band corresponding to stage in pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired (or pre revised pay scale notionaly allotted to pre96 pensioners by vth CPC), plus 50 % of grade pay concerning to corresponding pay band allotted by VI CPC. " This would then only stand the test under Article 14 and supporting SC judgments.

G.Ramdas
02-04-2009, 05:22 PM
Dear Sh. Kanaujia,
This is what exactly I had mentioned in para E of my post at # 530, with which Sh. Bala had agreed. This will also be the same as 50% emoluments notionally fixed on the new pay bands.
Let us not bother whether para 4.1 or 4.2 or both are to be amended

Our goal being clear, let us prepare a revised paper and proceed further for getting the principle enunciated by the Commission implemented
GR

vnatarajan
02-04-2009, 07:23 PM
Dear All

(By the By what is this Sub-Committee?" - may be it is not related to our debate here)

Our main object is the full parity- on which no dispute exists- and whether 4.1 or 4.2 Para- it is for the AC to take note and make amends.

Notional Minimum Pairty (the misguiding para 5.1.47) is only the helpless/ less preferred/ interim solution to help pensioners who are in advanced age to get some benefit- without waiting for long or going to court if former is rejected.

Even Courts are not now projecting at full parity based on last pay drawn as I pointed out.

Even the Elitists at the top four scales- were very magnanimous in accepting the 50% of the "MINIMUM OF THE PAY SCALE"- even without GRADE PAY as their pension!

Wordings- let the AC decide. I hope our synthesis gets conveyed in proper form.

However pl. do not fail to send your own REPS/ APPEALS also.

Shri Ramdas has already sounded the bell for the next item on the Agenda.

I think somewhere in the middle we had also thought of appealing to the Hon'ble CJI- before going to Courts.

I had made an enquiry thru my friend Shri PKR - his lawyer friend has said nothing wrong in that.

So after finishing with the Agenda of appeals to the AC we will certainly "lawfully" make our request to the Hon. CJI-

I also learnt - the Military Veterans were also planning to meet the Hon. CJI and submit a petition. I dont know what is the current status of this info!

I think all IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS of the earlier PARITY & OTHER RELEVANT JUDGMENTS, their nos., dates etc need be collected and posted here - so that a synthesis of the same can be made for appending to our Appeal.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
02-04-2009, 09:37 PM
My dear Gramdass, VN and other pensioner friends. Ref.542 and 543. I agree and fully appreciate what has been said in post 542 and 543. As far as I am concerned, I have already sent my own personal representation, based on these lines, to the Anomaly Committee, on 26 03 09, along with all the relevent extracts from VI CPC Report and subsequent OMs. In final concluding para I have said, and I quote "Under the circumstances, I appeal to the Anomaly Committee to kindly consider this great anomaly, in light of the above facts and (i) Remove violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India in respect of Pensioners as maintained in hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments dated 17 12 1982 in DS Nakara Case, dated 10 10 2006 in BJ Akkra Case and dated 09 09 08 in SPS Veins Case. (ii) withdraw all executive instructions, issued by Ministry of Personnel, PG&PDOP&P, Ministry of Finance, DOE, IC, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, modifying provisions of VI CPC report accepted by the Govt., approved by the Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette of India vide Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, DOP&PW Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 and, Ministry of Finance, Deptt of Exp. (Implementation Cell)v OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 (iii) arrange fixation of my Revised Pension equal to as that is fixed for post Sept. 2008 pensioners of same level , same pre-revised pay scale and same basic pay, irrespective of date of retirement.unquote.

vnatarajan
04-04-2009, 07:37 AM
Dear MLK/ GR/others,

I fully agree with whatever MLK has quoted- and that is the summary/ essence of all appeals/ representations- individually or collectively.

I, personally (being a little bit selfish- not able to wait that long to achieve the full parity) always add that PENDING THE SANCTION OF THE ABOVE-an interim IMMEDIATE sanction to provide the NOTIONAL PARITY at the MINIMUM of the REVISED PAY SCALE to all pensioners, as a modification of what NOTIONAL PARITY the Govt.has already given thru either 2.26 formula for some/ or at the Minimum of the Pay Band for many/ or at the MINIMUM of the Revised Pay Scale for the ELITE( and also for those whose Minimum of the Revised Pay Scale coincides withe the Minimum of the Pay Band.

Addition I made is accepted by our Pensioners Forum- as they feel the interim solution is necessary- in view of the controversially worded para 5.1.47 where the MINIMUM word has cropped up and all the after effects!

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
04-04-2009, 11:55 AM
My dear Pensioner friends. In some of my posts on this forum I have mentioned a sub Committee of pensioners associations. Mr. SCM has informed that it is not a sub committee but All India Confederation of Central Pensioners Associations. Kindly note that I stand corrected in that respect. I have requested Mr. SCM to provide more information about AICCPA.

vnatarajan
05-04-2009, 04:42 PM
Dear All

Two things:

1.MOD appears to be acting on implementing the court verdict in Maj General's parity case after the Govt. appeal had been dismissed recently. Relevant copy of letter - Ihad sent to some pensioners.

2.Manifestos? We pensioners are apolitical! But our patience/ goodwill is not cheap!

Interesting to note some--- Brags Jargons Promises - whatever they are, surely a senior citizen/ pensioner would like to take note of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter of the Manifesto reads:

"Senior citizens: Care and respect for the elderly

The elderly deserve full support of both Government and society. The BJP is committed to the welfare of senior citizens. A separate department will be created in the Social Welfare Ministry to deal with senior citizens’ issues. We will:
1. Review pensions and pension policies to ensure benefits keep pace with the actual cost of living.
2. Study the feasibility of introducing higher interest rates on savings for all citizens above 60 years of age.
3. Rationalise travel concessions.
4. Introduce a health insurance policy that does not discriminate against the elderly.
5. Income tax benefits for senior citizens will be made available at 60 years, instead of 65 years as is the practice at present.
6. Review existing provisions of old age pension scheme and expand its application"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

sundarar
06-04-2009, 06:46 AM
Dear Sirs,

I remember in one of the RTI Reply, an implied suggestion was to approach Ministry of Finance. Moreover, they are the one who accord concurrence to all expenditure related issues. Hence, it is desirable to
bring to their notice through a self contained note.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
06-04-2009, 07:10 AM
Dear Mr Sundarar

Yes. First RTI set has been sent. We are awaiting our reply. Our reply from CPAO (under MOF) is still awaited in the case of "MISSING ANNEXURE II" of one of his letters to Banks/ also in the website!- a mystery so far!

As u r aware, I can visualise what reply will come even from them- same type (as from DOP/PW) from within the framework of SCPC Recommendations/ Govt. acceptances- decisions/ OMs in relevant to the context/ File notings- as the DOP/PW had been following.

You can only get CORRECT answers if the Govt. adheres to the principles of RTI.

In the current scenerio, "INFORMATION" is what is readily held in hand by the desk officer./ section officer and at best within the Ministry (if convenient to cite)- and nothing beyond that.

Anything- not convenient to answer is avoided in one way or other- or shunted to the connected Sub-ordinate Department.

vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
06-04-2009, 11:08 AM
IN HASTE- MAKING A LAST MINUTE APPEAL TO THE HON> CHAIR PERSON OF UPA TO REVISIT OUR APPEAL ONCE AGAIN BEFORE THE IMPENDING NATIONAL EVENT.

Dear All

This is what I have sent:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR THE IMMEDIATE & GRACIOUS ATTENTION OF MADAM SONIA GANDHIJI- AN APPEAL
FROM AGED/ HELPLESS GOVT. PENSIONERS WHO ARE IN THE TWILIGHT OF THEIR LIFE!

No: VN/Pension/2009 (revisit) Dated 6th April,
2009

From:

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]

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.

Ref: My/ Pensioners' Appeal made vide lr of even no. dtd 23rd January 2009
(attached)

Dear Madam Sonia Gandhi,

Your kind attention is drawn to the letter enclosed- an appeal I and many
Copensioners made to your kind self/ office as Chairman of the ruling UPA to
set right the injustice meted out to the Pre-2006 Pensioners by the Govt.,
through their implementation OMs dated 3rd and 14th October 2008, isssued by
the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (MOPPGP)/ Deptt. of Pensions &
Pensioners' Welfare (DOPPW).

In a nutshell, the injustice perpetrated has resulted in a great loss,
recurring somewhat in nature, to all Pre-2006 Pensioners/ Family Pensioners
on account of:

1. Ignoring the principles/ policies of the SCPC containied in their
Recommendations ( Paras 11.33, 11.35 and even para 5/1/47).
2. Modifying what SCPC had clearly recommended for pension revision fitments
to all Pre-2006 Pensioners on the same basis as the Employees.
3. Wrongly modifying/interpreting and distorting the Recommendations of SCPC
through OMs of 1.9.2008/ 3 & 14th Oct 2008 (with Tables/ Annexure issued,
to result in REDUCTIONS in even MINIMUM entitled pension to many. This has
resulted in loss/recurring somewhat in nature. Reducing the ENTITLED BASIC
PENSION amounts to punishment after retirement which is clear violation of
Rules.
4.. Not defining the correct 'Pay' 'Emoluments' etc ,for pension revision is
another irregularity; irregular merger of several Pre-revised Pay scales
into Pay Bands without incorporating the Revised Pay Scales/ Reference Pay
Slots in correspondence has led to great anomalies.
5. Not applying RULES to Pre-2006 Pensioners' pension revisions and ad hoc
decisions have been taken by the Govt.resulting in sl no 3 above.
6. .Supreme Court Judgments on parity of pensions among equals irrespective
of dates of retirement/ revisions etc have been totally ignored,
though SCPC itself upheld the same.
7.Violating. Articles 14/21 of Constitution on guaranteed equality rights/
principles.

Madam, It is our sincere request to revisit our grievances once again as the
RESPECTED CHAIRPERSON of the UPA- which had earned the goodwill of all
Pensioners for a speedy implementation of the SCPC Recommendations.

But the blur that has been the result of some ill-conceived/ immature
administrative ad hocism, can easily be set right by a "CORRECTIVE" OM by
the Govt. to provide a NOTIONAL immediate relief at the MINIMUM PARITY to
all PENSIONERS (Civil/ Military) for which their entire community will be
grateful and help to sustain the IDENTITY of the UPA in the coming NATIONAL
events/ outcomes.

PL GUIDE THE CONCERNED TO SUSTAIN THE GOODWILL THAT HAS BEEN BUILT. UP. IT
IS NOT YET LATE.

Truly yours
sd/-

President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to AIFPA, Chennai- regd.),
Associate Member, RREWA
On his own behalf/ On behalf of several Pensioners/ Family Pensioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
06-04-2009, 04:45 PM
My dear VN. Ref. Post 550. Good appeal. I hope some response would come.

vnatarajan
07-04-2009, 07:45 AM
IGNORANCE is BLISS: Never it is late to wake up as it emerges

(Defore I post the new matter, thanks to MLK. Let us hope something shows up in the next few days!)

Though the Military Pensioners have been agitatng on the Injustice issue, now only they have started understanding the "Reduction in Pension" feature of the OMs of the Govt. and the Annexures issued in respect of their pensions. Ignorance is bliss- still for many!

Here is something on this written by one of the servicemen (around 6th April 2009):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCPC: A grave injustice to pre- 2006 defence pensioners
The 6th CPC recommended a same pay band PB-1 (5200-20200) for the three lower ranks (Sepoy, Naik and Havildar) and did not stipulate the maximum scale of pay for each rank to calculate the revised pension. Same is the case for the officers. Pension tables were prepared (Annexure II for Officers and Annexure III for PBOR) by taking the minimum pay of Rs.5200 for all the ranks (Sepoy to Hav) the same amount. How can the same basic pension of sepoy be taken for three different ranks to arrive at a revised pension for higher PBOR ranks? What is the justice for Senior/ Junior ranks?

The MOD officials have grossly erred, knowing very well that it a deliberate injustice. The tables Annexure II and III clearly showed reduction in the pension for Senior Ranks and increase in the pension for junior ranks. Even then the MOD did not attempt to correct or balance the tables so that the senior ranks are not affected. The MOD officials intelligently waved hand to refer Annexure I whenever Annexure II or III is not beneficial. It is a great mockery of justice. The officials responsible for this great/ grave mistake should be made to accept the fact and the entire orders on the revision of pension for the 6th CPC for the Defence pensioners (Pre 2006) to be withdrawn and re-issued in consultation with the representatives of the All India Ex-servicemen Organisations like IESM pending final decision by the government on the subject.

Detailed studies are being made on the subject with limited resources by ESM and their organisations. Unless the government comes out with clear orders on the subject and initiates immediate remedial measures, the adverse reactions are bound to demoralise the the ESM community further. In layman’s language, it is a question of cheating two million defence pensioners (Pre 2006) by the bureaucrats with the tip of their pens with tight lips and creating more anomalies to confuse the simple soldier.

Ex Sgt
Member .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-04-2009, 12:46 PM
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE DEPTT OF PENSIONS & PENSIONERS' WELFARE?

To bring back to everyone's memory, the Charter of the above Deptt. includes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pension Grievance Redress System
Pension Grievances Cell

The functions of the Pension Grievances Cell in the Department of Pension and P.W. are as under:-

To register the complaints received from various sources pertaining to pensionary matters
To forward the complaints to the concerned Ministries/Departments etc.,
To pursue with the Departments
To remind the Departments and
To review and monitor the position every fortnight
Pension grievances appearing in the Newspapers/media will be attended to and Editors informed of the action taken

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

None of our representations appear to have been answered.
None of our representations forwarded even from the great honourable PMO also appear to be unattended - or IGNORED?
None of our details/ queries etc appear to have been refrred to any other Ministry/ Departments.
No actions appear to have been initiated with any other concerned Deptt like MOF/ Deptt of Exp etc. Hence no reminders?
No attention appears to have been paid to any or all the items that have appeared in the Newspapers/ other media on our pre-2006 pensioner grievances (civil/ military) consequent to the SCPC implementations!

Where is the Department which is supposed to care for the Pensioners & Pensioners' Welfare?

HAVE THEY BEEN SILENCED NOT TO REACT AT ALL?

NOT EVEN A NEGATIVE REPLY?

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-04-2009, 05:52 PM
Important News on Parity Judgment (SPS Vains case -Sept/Oct 2008 ?????)

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

Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Defence Ministry
NDTV Correspondent
Thursday, April 09, 2009, (New Delhi)
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Defence Ministry after some retired army officers approached the Court over discrepancies in pensions.

The Supreme Court has issued contempt notice to the Army chief and Defence Secretary for not implementing court's order on the 5th pay commission.

The apex court in October 2008 had said that there should not be any discrimination between pre-1996, post-1996 defence pensioners. The Defence Ministry did not implement the order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same news in HT Online:

Army chief, defence secretary get contempt notice over pension
Thu, Apr 9 05:28 PM

New Delhi, April 9 (IANS) The Supreme Court Thursday issued notices to army chief General Deepak Kapoor and Defence Secretary Vijay Singh for allegedly ignoring its order for removal of discrepancies in pensions.

A bench of Justice Altmas Kabir and Justice Cyriac Joseph issued notices on a lawsuit filed by 19 retired army officers of major general rank.

The litigation alleged that the government has ignored a September 2008 Supreme Court order that there should not be any discrimination between officers of major general rank - those who retired before 1996 and those who retired after 1996.

In their lawsuit, the retired officers pointed out that the pension disparity had occurred due to implementation of the fifth pay panel report in a faulty way by the defence ministry.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Nidesh Gupta said the anomaly had resulted in brigadiers, an army officer one rank lower than the major generals, retiring after 1996 getting more pensions than the major generals retiring before 1996.

Gupta told the court that retired officers are demanding that the minimum pay of major generals should be fixed a notch above the maximum pay of brigadiers for removal of the anomaly and disparity resulting in the pay structures of the retired army officers.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had in June 2005 ordered any disparity should be abolished but the defence ministry moved the Supreme Court challenging the ruling.

The apex court eventually in September 2008 upheld the high court ruling and ordered the government to fix the pensions of the retired army officers within three months.

The government, however, chose to challenge it through a review petition, which continues to lie in the apex court's registry owing to some defects in the petition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
10-04-2009, 07:57 AM
My dear Pensioner friends. Good news. Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notices for contempt to Govt. yesterday. Concerned Retired Major Generals and Lt. Generals would get their pension refixed above Retired Brigadier and they would get payment alongwith arrears for eight years soon. Govt. is not bound to do so for other Army Officers, whoose names do not appear in the SLP. It would be interesting to see what finally Govt. does. One thing is certain. Judgment of 09 09 08 is most favourable to all pensioners who have been denied equal pension to all those who retired from same level, same pre revised pay scale, same basic pay in pre rev. pay scale. Division of pensioners in to groups like Pre 1996, pre 2006,post 2006 and post 1st Sept.2008, must go. However, for achieving this, you have to go to the hon'ble Supreme Court through a writ petition.

S.Balasubramanian
10-04-2009, 03:01 PM
In an earler posting it had been mentioned that the review petition (curative petition?) had been dismissed in Feb 2009, but the news items in Hindustan Times etc. give a different story namely that the review petition is pending.
Army pensioners have argued that notwithstanding the pendency of the review petition, Govt. have to implement the court order of Sep.2009. So, I believe the earlier posting about dismissal of review petition was not correct. Of course, no one is to be blamed for this, because everyone acts in good faith depending on the story given to him.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
10-04-2009, 05:46 PM
Dear Shri Bala

I think HT news is a bit vague.

Because the dismissal is referred in an official letter by the Chief of Naval Foundation Delhi Chapter (NFDC) to the MOD and the MOD( I think a Lt Gen, DG MP/PS, Adjutant's Office,MOD) has replied about implementimng the court orders after the processing which is going on in consultation with other departments- through a DO lr to the NFDC. HE HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE RECENT DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL.

Both lrs copies- may be seen in the RREWA website.

(Govt may try to avoid mentioning of "dismissal!"- usual face-saving!)

PS: I learn from my retd. army friend (Retired Col. active in IESM) that what is lying in the "Registry" is something regarding petition of some others who wanted to join the fray for getting same benefits (I was surprised to know from him that this pensing petition is already more than 3 years old- wantonly delayed- cd have been used by the Govt. to delay further the implementation??). But then this aspect was not perhaps allowed to affect the merits of the appeal of the maj. gen's case wh was disallowed (as confirmed in the letter from the Adjutant General's office to the NFDC- pl see in RREWA's website where a copy is displayed).

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-04-2009, 08:05 AM
My dear Bala,VN, Others. Ref. post 556 and 557. The facts of the case appear to have emerged now very clearly. After the verdict dated 09 09 08, in SPS Veins Case, Govt. tried to put up a review petition which was not found in order to be heard. The Govt. therefore, put up a curative review petition, which too was not found in order to be heard. A period of more than six months went by. Then, Respodents (SPS Veins and others) put up a Contempt Petition which has been heard by the hon'ble SC and notices have been issued to Army Chief and Secretary,MOD. So, whatever, we were hearing was not incorrect.

vnatarajan
11-04-2009, 09:02 AM
Dear MLK/Bala/all

MLK's analysis is perhaps correct- pl see my additional PS in 557 (more info added) as the others who wanted to join the fray appear to have made than petitions more than 3 yrs back as my army friend tells me!. Govt. cd have used such petitions to delay the case outcome/implementation further!. Perhaps they cdn't succeed beyond a point.

vn

vnatarajan
12-04-2009, 08:21 AM
1.ANOMALY COMMITTEE- new thread 2. Karan Thapar's observation in HT on 11th April reg. Exemption from IT in respect of Military personnel/ pensioners etc.

Dear All

Few Items:

1.Pl read the postings under the THREAD titled ANOMALY COMMITTEE started by our senior - respected Shri RS- giving a valuable contact for passing on our Anomaly Items etc. We can summarise and focus issues related to Anomaly and post there.

2. Reg the news item in HT dtd 11th April 2009, at the outset:

My comments:

MOST CIVIL PENSIONERS WILL BE PREPARED TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING THAT THEY WILL REFUSE ANY EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX IF ONLY THE GOVT. SINCERELY AND TRANSPARENTLY IMPLEMENTS THE PARITY IN PENSIONS AMONG EQUALS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DATES OF RETIREMENTS/ DATUM OF FIXATION.

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


d: 22:25 IST(11/4/2009)

Karan Thapar in Hindustan Times 11th April 2009

Shorn of its high-flown rhetoric and grand-sounding convictions, a manifesto is simply a set of promises a political party makes to the electorate, hoping to secure its vote. In that sense, it’s a political compact. Put a shade more crudely, it’s a deal or a bargain. Which is why most people accept that manifestos can get away with almost any promise and few people worry about their character, range or practicality. In fact, most doubt such promises will be implemented and, thus, tend to ignore manifestos altogether. And that includes politicians. Mayawati, for instance, doesn’t bother with a ‘manifesto’.

The BJP manifesto, however, has made a few commitments that deserve serious attention. At first sight they’re novel and enticing. They could make a substantial difference. But dig a little deeper and you might find they are also disturbing. They raise questions of principle that the party does not seem to have addressed.

I’m talking of the following promise: “all personnel of the Army, Air Force and Navy, as also paramilitary forces, will be exempt from paying income tax on their salaries and perquisites”. Alongside the badly-needed commitment to one-rank-one-pension, a separate Pay Commission for the services and incentive-based steps to make a career in the defence forces more exciting as a way of overcoming the officer shortfall — which I, for one, endorse and applaud — this will be widely welcomed by all serving soldiers and several retired ones. For many it could determine how they vote.

But is this particular promise justified? As far as I can tell no one seems to be asking that question. Let me raise a series of issues and then leave you to come to your own conclusion.

First, on what grounds should the defence and paramilitary services be treated as a unique category of the population to be exempted from income tax? If you argue that they perform a special function that calls for special tax treatment, what about doctors or nurses or teachers? If you anchor it to the fact that they risk their lives to protect ours, then the truth is that’s not the case right through their career. So, should tax only be exempt when they’re at war or fighting insurgency?

Second, in a poor democracy like India, where it’s said that 80 per cent of the people live on 20 rupees a day, it’s an article of faith that those who can afford to pay a fair tax have a moral duty to do so. You could argue that the famous slogan from the American War of Independence — ‘no taxation without representation’ — applies the other way around as well. Therefore, should any section of the people be deliberately excused from this moral duty?

Third, is it fitting that generals who earn Rs 60,000 a month or more, with access to DID rations and supplies at special prices, be exempt from tax whilst civilians who earn Rs 30,000 and have to buy food and supplies at market prices be required to pay tax?

Fourth, if soldiers and paramilitary personnel are exempt from tax then why not policemen? After all, they are the first line of security and the guardians of law and order for the ordinary citizen. Is it right to exclude them? Police officers are bound to say no.

However, my concern with the BJP’s promise to exempt all defence and paramilitary personnel from income tax goes beyond such issues of principle. I’m also worried about its consequences.

If implemented, might this not provoke a measure of resentment against its beneficiaries? So far — and with justification — our soldiers are held in enormous esteem by every Indian. Indeed, the Army is particularly beloved. But might that not be diluted by jealousy or resentment of unfair favours?

It’s not for me to advise the defence services, yet, if in their position, I would politely but firmly refuse this offer. Soldiers, I believe, should never accept discrimination — neither against themselves nor in their favour. As true Indians, they stand with the rest of us in support of justice and fair play
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
12-04-2009, 08:53 AM
Dear All. In continuation to my post 558 above, I now reproduce below operative part of the order given in para 31 of Judgement in SPS Veins Case :
" 31. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10% per annum. The respondents will not be entitled to payment on account of increased pension from prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. "

G.Ramdas
12-04-2009, 10:24 PM
Re Sh Kanaujia's post above.
Does the above judgement give us another chance to represent again on the grounds of unequal treatment for pre and post 2006 pensioners.Can anybody obtain a legal opinion on this ?
GR

dnaga57
13-04-2009, 06:57 AM
Dear All. In continuation to my post 558 above, I now reproduce below operative part of the order given in para 31 of Judgement in SPS Veins Case :
" 31. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10% per annum. The respondents will not be entitled to payment on account of increased pension from prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. "

It would appear that whenever we go for a writ petition, even court will provide relief from the date of our knocking at their doors. Does it have any implication for our 'action' ?

vnatarajan
13-04-2009, 06:28 PM
Dear Mr dNaga

My opinion is:

If we go to court, this may be the outcome unless we take care to plead & justify, stating it is not the "new benefit" we are seekimg, but a "denied" part of the eligible pension. Much may depend upon the competency of the lawyer and the mood of the "Justice" in the chair!

(On the contrary, if the Govt. relents and reviews, things may be notmal. We are not fully getting the picture of all the drama that is going on in Delhi- some S30 going separately (nobody is sharing the details!)- S29 dreaming to organise themselves without a resource in Delhi- some aged very old Pensioner going for some appeal (hearsay!_ I dont have access to full info!)- Military civilians vs Military veterans hoping for something soon!)

In the meanwhile Anomaly Committee is in the picture.

RTI answers are not at all coming back in TIME!. Some critical qns are not being answered!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
13-04-2009, 10:26 PM
Re Sh Kanaujia's post above.
Does the above judgement give us another chance to represent again on the grounds of unequal treatment for pre and post 2006 pensioners.Can anybody obtain a legal opinion on this ?
GR

As far as Representation is concerned, we can send it even now. In fact my representation to NAC is based on these lines and I have quoted the operating part of the judgment in the last para of my appeal.

As regards legal opinian, some body has to come forward and obtain it from some legal expert. From a littel law that I know, I would say, legally the case is extremely sound and a favourable judgment can be expected.

Kanaujiaml
13-04-2009, 10:39 PM
Ref.dnaga's post 563 and VN's post 564. A very valid question with regard to date for granting relief. The bigger question is that nobody has taken any real initiative, either S 30 group or any other group, so far. Let S 30 people go to SC, S 29 would also follow them and join them, so that whatever, judgment comes, is made applicable to them, too. As regards, any Pensioners Association or Confederation of Associations , it appears that they would first try NAC route and then persue Govt. They are unlikely to go to Court. So ball is in your court. You have to decide what to do now.

sundarar
14-04-2009, 10:33 AM
Dear Mr dNaga

My opinion is:

If we go to court, this may be the outcome unless we take care to plead & justify, stating it is not the "new benefit" we are seekimg, but a "denied" part of the eligible pension. Much may depend upon the competency of the lawyer and the mood of the "Justice" in the chair!

vnatarajan

Dear Sirs,

WISH THE GCONNECT AND OUR FORUM MEMBERS A VERY HAPPY TAMIL NEW YEAR.

As Shri VNji has rightly pointed out, it is a denied part of the eligible pension. The underlying principle behind the Judgement is to ensure uniform treatment among pensioners and serving employees. In the case of civil pensioners, the formulae and misintrepreted clarifications/modifications have created the problem. The formulae of 2.26 in the case of pensioners and 1.86 + GP as applicable for serving employees are not same and equal. Therefore, any corrective action shall also have the effect of implementation of the recommendation, viz. 1.1.2006. If one asks about the discrepancy, a copy of OM containing such discrepancy is being sent by the DoP&PW. This is not the purpose of RTI. The DoP has not taken in right spirit of the RTI avenue. Therefore, it is all the more necessary to approach the Secretary, DoP&PW again rather than junior level officers, to consider the valuable Judgement to make it applicable for civil pensioners also, in order to avoid the precious time and effort of the Hon. Judiciary, while parallely following up with NAC. Meanwhile, the mindset of the Govt. may also like to change keeping in view the latest directives of the Hon. Court. To avoid further embarrassment, definitely certain judicious view may also come out in favour of all the pensioners community. We may have to watch the response of the Govt. with regard to the contempt notice. Some relief must be on the way.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

dnaga57
14-04-2009, 01:27 PM
To avoid further embarrassment, definitely certain judicious view may also come out in favour of all the pensioners community. We may have to watch the response of the Govt. with regard to the contempt notice. Some relief must be on the way.

With respect to Sudarr's post quote above, I wish to submit that


the bureaucrat do not get 'officially' or 'personally' penalised in such cases ( There was one exception only a couple of yyears back)
The 10% interest will be borne by Govt not by 'adamant & intransient' bureaucrat
The legal expenses are borne by Govt. not by 'mis-interpreters.
Under such circs. with no penalty- allpower/sadistic pleasure, relief being on the way is a 'dream'.

G.Ramdas
14-04-2009, 01:58 PM
Regarding Sh Sundarar's post above. He mentioned that
"The formulae of 2.26 in the case of pensioners and 1.86 + GP as applicable for serving employees are not same and equal"
This is correct .

But the 1.86 plus G.P formula is only in paper and is not applied for all employees. Only upto S-23 (that too excluding S-6 and S-10) the 1.86 formula works for employees. Therafter there is quantum jump and it varies from 2.31 to 2.62(max. in S-24,25).

So, for S-24 to S-30 pensioners there is no need to have G.P as even without this the pay is much more than that envisaged by the 2.26 formula.
This itself is a serious anomaly leading ultimately to wider disparity between pre and post 2006 pensioners in scales s24 and above.

It is not possible to reduce the pay of employees and that leaves the only option as granting same pension to pre and post 06 employes in each post/grade
GR

Kanaujiaml
14-04-2009, 08:32 PM
Regarding Sh Sundarar's post above. He mentioned that
"The formulae of 2.26 in the case of pensioners and 1.86 + GP as applicable for serving employees are not same and equal"
This is correct .

But the 1.86 plus G.P formula is only in paper and is not applied for all employees. Only upto S-23 (that too excluding S-6 and S-10) the 1.86 formula works for employees. Therafter there is quantum jump and it varies from 2.31 to 2.62(max. in S-24,25).

So, for S-24 to S-30 pensioners there is no need to have G.P as even without this the pay is much more than that envisaged by the 2.26 formula.
This itself is a serious anomaly leading ultimately to wider disparity between pre and post 2006 pensioners in scales s24 and above.

It is not possible to reduce the pay of employees and that leaves the only option as granting same pension to pre and post 06 employes in each post/grade
GR

My dear Gramdass. Excuse me for butting in but it is necessary that we should be careful in presenting our case. Your calculation is correct but it does not fit in the scheme and arguments, as Pensioners cannot be equated with working employees. Such proposal would be outrightly rejected becasue working employees and pensioners are not homogenous group. The SC judgments deals between groups of pensioners and varying disparities in pensionary benefits. It does not deal with pensioners and working employees as such. Therefore, caution is needed while arguing not to bring in working employees in it, although indiretly, such things would appear automatically, when calculation of pension of post 2006 and post 2008 is seen in detail. Our emphasis should be equating pensioners who retired prior to 2006 and those who retired after 2006 and 2008, as envisaged in Article 14 and supporting SC judgments.

sundarar
14-04-2009, 10:05 PM
Dear Sirs,

As per the Delhi High Court Judgement dt.9.12.2003 with regard to revision of pension as per V CPC, the Revised Pension has to be minimum 50% of the bottom of the revised V CPC pay scale of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement (and not 50% of the bottom of the V CPC pay scale, corresponding to the pay scale on which the pensioner had retired). It was also questioned as to whether the clarificatory OM could override the express terms of the original OM which required pension to be fixed on the basis of the scale of pay of the post last held by the pensioner and not the scale of last held (irrespective of the post). The clarification has limited pensioners to pension of 50% of the bottom of the scale of pay last drawn by them, but in case of family pensioners, their pension has been fixed at 30% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay applicable to the post last held by the deceased govt. servant. In other words, the expression "Post Last Held" has been clarified (and restricted) only with respect to pensioners and not with respect to those entitled to family pension. Since the CAT has not taken note of this variation, the Delhi High Court held that the petitioner will be entitled to pension on the basis of pay of Rs.18400-22400 applicable to the post of DDG-AIR. When Govt. appealed against this verdict, the Supreme Court rejected the same.
- Extracts from `Important Judicial Verdicts' by Late Shri P.N. Padmanabhan IRSEE March 2005.

We are in a similar position. The clarificatory OM cannot override the original OM and in our case, it is Annexure that is overriding. So, the revised pay is significant. Upgradations might have been taken place in the pre-revised scale and pensioner would not have actually served in the said pre-revised scale actually. However, it is the revised pay of the post last held that matters.
Thus, it is now quite clear that 50% of the bottom of the pay in the pay band and 50% of the Grade Pay matters, and the pay bands cannot be equated to scale of pay although a group of pay scales come under a single pay band. Every pre-revised pay scale, therefore has its own corresponding bottom of the pay in the pay band. The Supreme Court's recent contempt notice also strengthen our hands. Whether a Defence or Civil pensioner? The underlying principle to treat pensioner and employee with respect to the manner of fixation of revised amount shall be uniform. There is no need to reduce the pay already fixed for serving employees. But it is necessary to fix 50% of the same applicable at least at the bottom of the level, ie. minimum of the pay in the pay band alongwith the 50% of the GP applicable, to upkeep the spirit behind the Judgement referred to above, which is nothing but Para 4.2 (actual) of the original OM and not pertaining to clarificatory annexure to OM dt.3/14.10.2008 that is overriding the original one. This is one thing.

The other is to strictly follow the recommendation of the Vth CPC for subsequent Pay Commissions/Govt. to bring parity between pre and post pensioners as has been followed in respect of pre-1986 pensioners with post-1996 pensioners as per OM dt.10.2.1998. Same way, pre-1996 and post1996 pensioners have to be brought on par, followed by pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. This itself is a delayed remedy for pre-1996 pensioners, and same delay should not get repeated and hence, the timely remedy is requested.

Whether it is 1.86 or >1.86, the corresponding 50% of the pay in the pay band applicable for serving employees alongwith 50% of the grade pay as applicable in respect of the post last held and pay (not scale of pay) last drawn by the pensioner, shall be the revised pension and whichever is beneficial - Para 4.1 or Para 4.2 to be amended in line with Shri Balaji's suggestion earlier, shall be made entitled. The terminology may differ such as notional fixation of pay in the revised structure. In reality, it is the treatment that matters while fixing pension in the revised structure, which shall no way be less than 50% of what is entitled to a serving employee in the revised structure. This may be applicable in post-2016 scenario also unless the said 50% is getting revised upwards in future.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
15-04-2009, 08:42 AM
Re Sh. K's observation:
1.Comparison of pensioners with employees was made by the 6cpc when they recommended the same fitment benefit both for pensioners as well as employees. I only referred this .
2. Read the last sentence of my post.Comparison between different classes of pensioners has already been stressed therein.Further today's employees are tomorrow's pensioners.Sh. Sundarar's latest post-last para- also confirms this argument

GR

Kanaujiaml
15-04-2009, 07:36 PM
Re Sh. K's observation:
1.Comparison of pensioners with employees was made by the 6cpc when they recommended the same fitment benefit both for pensioners as well as employees. I only referred this .
2. Read the last sentence of my post.Comparison between different classes of pensioners has already been stressed therein.Further today's employees are tomorrow's pensioners.Sh. Sundarar's latest post-last para- also confirms this argument

GR

My dear Gramdass. I have nothing to say further in the matter. Good luck.

vnatarajan
15-04-2009, 07:40 PM
Dear all

There are always two aspects to deal with:

1.What is ideal?- when you are shouting, shout for the maximum!

2.What is real? what we can hope for- under the given circumstances, the CITED recommendation in GAZETTED NOTIFICATION (para 5.1.47)- what the recent judgments convey etc.

For achieving 1 above, you have to certainly fight upto Supreme Court, with money and time at your disposal.

Even then outcome may be only 2 as you can know from Sundaarar's notings ("The clarification has limited pensioners to pension of 50% of the bottom of the scale of pay last drawn by them")/ also from several other judgments (Pamanabhan IRSEE's bk - cited by Mr KSS)- and I will not be surprised if same MINIMUM type fxation is done in Maj Gens' case also .

If we can achieve 2 above through our continued efforts- lobbying- Anomaly Committee's involvement etc, it will be a great success.

But in the meanwhile if some are in a hurry and are quite confident of winning thru court within a short time- nothing stops them. All can make their contributions towards such efforts. Justice may be DELAYED- but certainly, it will not be DENIED -though may be at the MINIMUM!'

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
15-04-2009, 08:03 PM
My dear VN. Regarding your observation that in case of Major General they may give minimum of the pay scale. Actually, as per Vth CPC, the pension of pre1996 pensioners was fixed at 50 % of the Minimum of the Vth CPC(VI CPC calls this pre-revised)pay scale, which was notionally allotted. However, in case of Brigadier, Rank Pay was included but for Major Generals rank pay was not included. This resulted in higher pension to Brigadiers than Mjor Generals. It is interesting to know that pay of working emploees was also fixed at Minimum of the Vth cPC (VI CPC calls this pre-revised)pay scale by the Vth CPC. I may mention it that VI cPC has done it to us and would do it to Major Gens. also, the same, unless MOD modifies ammended Annexure II of its letter once again. You are a pre 1996 retiree yourself. You may be knowing better than me. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

vnatarajan
16-04-2009, 07:46 AM
Dear K

Slight correction!

I am not a pre-1996 retiree- but post-1996 retiree cum pre VCPC implementation orders retiree (thrisanku like the 1.1.2006- 2.9.2008 category) and I got my parity in the sense what the employees got fixed- same thing was given to me by the CPAO- without requesting anything from my side! SO PAY OF WORKING EMPLOYEES/ THOSE RETIRED DURING TRISANKU PERIOD WERE NOT FIXED AT THE MINIMUM-BUT PRE 1996 RETIREES WERE FIXED AT THE MINIMUM.

As I retired in May 1997, I was also not affected by ten months average! Only grouse- I had topped the then pre-revised scale already and instead of the 5 increments drawn in earlier scale, I got two increments- and THAT IS THE PARITY FORMULA always adopted.

(Even a few others (if I remember well), who retired in 1995, fought and got parity- thanks to CPAO's justice actions (citing their own juniors etc) ).

One thing is sure NOW- as all of us belong to PRE-2006 ERA, the EQUALITY COULD BE MAINTAINED AMONG EQUALS, though at the MINIMUM! If Govt does this, no court is going to GO AGAINST IT- nor we cam HOPE ANYTHING MORE THANT THAT. Because Article 14 is very much applied- though at the minimum.

NONE SHOULD RUSH TO COURT HOPING FOR FULL PARITY!. All can try for MINIMUM PARITY- even if an year is wasted on this- and then go for legal process for FULL or MORE PARITY - but at least to neutralise the NEGATIVE PARITY which is inflicted on many who are in the danger of losing the IDENTITY OF THEIR PRE-REVISED SCLES!

In effect-technically all such pensioners would become "PAY-SCALE BASTARDS" who do not know their "FATHER PAY-SCALE"- if one lives to face that humiliation in the Seventh Pay Commission!

While first generation negative infliction is related to downsliding of the pay-scales, second generation negative infliction will be related to downsliding of GRADE PAYs! Baboozes can do anything!

vnatarajan

sundarar
17-04-2009, 07:42 AM
Dear all


2.What is real? what we can hope for- under the given circumstances, the CITED recommendation in GAZETTED NOTIFICATION (para 5.1.47)- what the recent judgments convey etc.


Even then outcome may be only 2 as you can know from Sundaarar's notings ("The clarification has limited pensioners to pension of 50% of the bottom of the scale of pay last drawn by them")/ also from several other judgments (Pamanabhan IRSEE's bk - cited by Mr KSS)- and I will not be surprised if same MINIMUM type fxation is done in Maj Gens' case also .

vnatarajan

Respected Sirs,

1. The very significant point in the Delhi High Court Judgement is
that THE CLARIFICATORY OM CANNOT OVERRIDE ITS ORIGINAL OM.

2. The Delhi High Court has made that particular OM inoperative and held that it is the bottom of the revised scale of pay that matters for fixing 50% of the same as minimum revised pension. In the same line, it is bottom of the pay in the pay band as applicable to the pre-revised scale, and not bottom of the pay band, which has a group of pre-revised scales. The latter one (Min. of PB) is against the above judgement and out of incorrect understanding as to what is pay in the pay band and what is pay band.

3. Though the SPC has not kept in view the Fifth PC Recommendation regarding parity aspects to the fullest extent, it is for the Govt. to act upon for which we have been appraising the NAC.

4. In the S.P.Vain's case also, it is the manner/method of fixing the revised pension as being done to serving employees was stressed upon.

5. The upgraded spirit of OM dt.10.2.1998 is naturally required to be applied in the case of all pre-2006 pensioners after a period of 10 years from 10.2.1998, when we have already entered new dimensions of pay packages involving 3% increment, Grade Pay, etc.

6. Once our representations are looked into by the appropriate authority, viz. NAC, a judicious view will definitely emerge.

7. Thus, though we have so many options on our hand to tackle the issue, we may have to keep the cards closed. First requirement is exhausting all possible avenues. We are surely on this stage now. We have to complete this stage to get the outcome, whatever may it be.

8. My wish and request is that more no. of pensioners shall send their grievances to the NAC, and every one shall make use of this opportunity effectively.

With full respects,

Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
17-04-2009, 01:08 PM
I think Sh.Sundarar has brought out valid arguments based on the Delhi High Court judgement about how a clarificatory memo cannot override the main O.M. These arguments can also be included in our appeals to the Anomalies committee.

GR

sundarar
17-04-2009, 08:08 PM
Dear Sirs,

A repeated reading of the clarificatory OM dt. 3.10.2008 particularly the following lines, raise a query - (i) is here; where is (ii)

The pension calculated (i) at 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.

If (i) is here, where is (ii)? Why (ii) is removed? or Why (i) only has been shown in the clarification. Is it the real transparency?

The Answer may lead to the solution.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
21-04-2009, 07:58 AM
My dear Sundarar. Ref. post 577. I have not seen the Delhi HC judgment but what you have said, Delhi HC judgment is exactly on the same lines as three SC judgments namely dated 17 12 1982, 10 10 2006 and 09 09 08. Further regarding OM dt. 03 10 08, there is no doubt at all that the clarification for para 4.2 is definitely an "amendment." The OM itself has given the caption
"clarification/modifications". It is nice to see that people have rightly understood what treatment Govt.has given to pensioners by issuing OM dt.03 10 08.However, lots of pensioner friends are still enjoing what they have already received, forgetting totally what more they actually missed. This forum has done all the efforts to awaken them but it has got its limitations.

vnatarajan
21-04-2009, 07:59 AM
Dear Sundarar/ MLK/GR others

Answers which are being received through RTI are really atrocious- totally NON-TRANSPARENT- VAGUE- FULLY -DOCTRINED and what not!.

TRANSPARENCY, RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY are totally absent and the RIGHT TO INFORMATION has become a farce.

Latest are a set of RTI Answers received by my colleague MR PKR both from DOPPW as well as DOE and the answers are so ridiculous, it is not clear why they do not want to be TRANSPARENT enough to call SPADE A SPADE!

THey can say clearly:

"YES -FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS, MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND is only MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND"

DO THEY NOT HAVE THE GUTS & GRIT TO STATE IT IN CLEAR TERMS and ALLOW THE GROUND OPEN FOR LRGAL FIGHT?

Instead they are asking us the pensioners to look into the Garbage/ Dustbin etc to find answers to the very queries which they have provoked us to ask !!!!

NO calibre- NO dedication- No responsibility- No transparency- No accountability --yet they deserve more than justice- MULTIPLE PAYS/ MULTIPLE PENSIONS- that is the privilege of a few only!

PKR will post his queries/ answers in RREWA site -shortly through SCM.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
21-04-2009, 08:21 AM
My dear VN. Ref. Your post 576. Thank you very much for enlightening me about the old happenings. I agree with you that both the FCPC and SCPC were reasonably fair. Had Govt. continued with the 'modified parity' given by SCPC, there would have been hardly any grouse. But I feel that we should ask for full parity meaning same pension for all those who retired from same status/level, same pay scale, same stage of pay scale (basic pay) and with same number of qualifying service. .

vnatarajan
21-04-2009, 03:50 PM
(Pl note- this is for an aggressive debate!)

Dear MLK/ Others interested,

If we analyse fully:

1.Pensioners get "Modified Parity" only if they belong to the "INTERIM TRISANKU PERIOD",
just preceding the implementation orders.

2.May be in the FCPC, some who retired in the later part (may be last 9 months) of 1995, also got "modified parity" because of pointing out the anomaly based on 10 month average, comparing with juniors and pleading for stepping up.

3.In the SCPC, thanks to doing away with the 10 months average, the "trisanku" category pensioners are not present perhaps. Otherwise, the 10 months average requirement would have brought in many "month-wise" anomalies!

4.In general, for older pensioners, the INTERIM NOTIONAL provision had been at the minimum of the succeeding Revised Pay Scales. For eg. Pre-1996 & older pensioners got Notional Fixations at the minimum of the respective new Revised pay scales of post 1996 era. On the same note, Pre-2006 pensioners could be given Notional Fixations at the minimum of the respective new Revised pay scales of post 2006 era!, with the proviso, that 2.26 formula, if beneficial may be applicable to such category of pensioners!.

5.This is the only possible "Bureaucratic" solution I expect to happen- if at all it happens- in the next few months!

6.Anomaly Committee may mostly go by the 2.26 MF formula and none (in the lower scales) wd feel the pinch for obvious reasons, as the MF is uniformly applied to all pensioners (of lower scales) on the basis of basic pension ( as on 1.1.1996) and the resultant gradient will be uniformly rising- till some of them try to compare with data/ parity based on Revised Pay Scales/ new pensioners etc- which none of them may or will do. AN AVEARAGE PENSIONER HAS NO MEANS TO ANALYSE OR UNDERSTAND. Pensioners' Associations? They must realise and act more aggressively!

7. Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band stilll is the controlling factor- and unless it is recognised that this Minimum is tha BOTTOM of the respective post 2006 REVISED PAY SCALE within the concerned Pay Band, we (I mean of the higher scales mostly ) may not even get the MINIMUM PARITY which at least had happened for pre-1996 pensioners during FCPC. We have already ended up with NEGATIVE PARITY most destructive happening in CPC's outcomes so far!.

9.Beginning of destruction of the IDENTITY of the PAY SCALES and replacing them by GRADE PAYS for old PENSIONERS sends a warning signal to all old PENSIONERS/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS and if such ANOMALOUS PRECEDENCES are not stemmed in the beginning itself, in future, there can be one pAY BAND running through from 3500 to 67000, with Grade Pays only to reckon for older PENSIONERS (with uniform MINIMUM PAY of 3500 for pension purposes!). Of course the ELITE class protects itself by independent pay scales for each one of them! What a graceful act!

10. CATS/ COURTS may meou/growl & maul the Govt. but the GOVT. may still not implement the verdicts in FULL and even escape the CONTEMPT!. It continues to happen again and again. Let us see what happens in Maj Gens. case!

11. To me FULL PARITY- POINT TO POINT - IS AN UTOPIAN EXPECTATION EVEN IF ALL THE ARTICLES OF CONSTITUTION "MEAN/ CONVEY" TO SUPPORT PENSIONERS or EVEN ALL THE COURTS GIVE VERDICTS IN FAVOUR OF PENSIONERS! Too much to expect to happen!

(not pessimism but realism!)

Regards

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
22-04-2009, 01:29 PM
Dear friends,
VN’s observations in the post above are very apt and relevant. His red letter paragraph reads as under"9.Beginning of destruction of the IDENTITY of the PAY SCALES and replacing them by GRADE PAYS for old PENSIONERS sends a warning signal to all old PENSIONERS/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS and if such ANOMALOUS PRECEDENCES are not stemmed in the beginning itself, in future, there can be one pAY BAND running through from 3500 to 67000, with Grade Pays only to reckon for older PENSIONERS (with uniform MINIMUM PAY of 3500 for pension purposes!). Of course the ELITE class protects itself by independent pay scales for each one of them! What a graceful act!"

But this was not what was envisaged by the 6CPC, when they said about grade pay
“11.4 All the employees belonging to Groups ‘A’, ‘B’ , ‘C’ & ‘D’ to be placed in distinct running pay bands. Every post, barring that of Secretary/equivalent and Cabinet Secretary/equivalent to have a distinct grade pay attached to it. Grade pay (being a fixed amount attached to each post in the hierarchy) to determine the status of a post with (apart from the two apex scales of Secretary/equivalent and Cabinet Secretary/equivalent that do not carry any grade pay) a senior post being given higher grade pay.”

However, while implementing these recommendations, the Govt. improved the Grade Pay and brought out a set of 19 Grade Pay figures for the 31 scales including the newly created Gr.A entry level as against the 31 independent G.P figures recommended by the 6CPC. Thus we have 4 different pay scales/posts having the same grade pay, much against the principles enunciated by the Commission.As Sh. VN has pointed out in earlier posts, the Commission had cautioned “if the Recommendations are implemented in parts/ pieces ie if not implemented in TOTO, it will certainly lead to several anomalies.”[/I]
This is what exactly has happened and the position will be much worse than pointed out by Sh.VN in his red letter para, as ther will be no mention of grade pay in instances where the fixation is as per para 4.1, and even where it is there, one cannot identify a post held by a pensioner , as the grade pays are the same for 3-4 grades.
Unless this serious flaw is rectified the pensioners are going to suffer further, in coming years[/I]

GR

Kanaujiaml
22-04-2009, 07:40 PM
My dear VN, others. Have you got Skype loaded on your computer with Speaker and Mike ? If so we can speak to each other and chat if required.

vnatarajan
22-04-2009, 09:02 PM
Dear K

Thanks a lot. I normally I do video conf (with my children) thru Windows Messenger. Do you have a camera ? Even with yahoo, we can converse. But Video Conf with W/messenger is wonderful nowadays. Right now I have not installed Skype- I shall try.

I have sent you an important RTI info (with my comments) obtained by one of our group members (AR) to our thinking group- and tomorrow I will post in Gconnect for info of all.Kindly see the same.

(If u remember, Shri SNGupta in the RREWA website made an observation on DOP making a positive proposal to MOF etc . Shri SNG suggested getting the said info thru RTI. He is correct.)

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
22-04-2009, 10:14 PM
friends,
I have skype in the name of gramdas. I also have windows live messenger in the name g (apart from google and yahoo)
My msn messenger is almost all the time signed in
GR

vnatarajan
23-04-2009, 07:14 AM
IMPORTANT
RTI Feed Back-FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS REG PARA 4.2 OF OM dated 1st Sept 2009 issued by DOPPW for pre-2006 pension revision

Dear All,

Through the RTI sources, it had been possible for one of our group members to establish that : :

1.The DOP/PW had made a proposal to amend the provisions relating to modified parity implemented in the case of Pre-2006 pensions following the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations by the Govt.

2.The said proposal had been considered in the Department of Expenditure (DOE). In this connection, the DOE intimated the DOP&PW that the provision contained in para 4.2 of their OM dated 1-9-2008 had been issued in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet granted to the report of the Sixth CPC. Any change from the provisions will entail substantial financial implications.

3. The DOE also informed the DOPPW that it will not be possible for them to modify the same and therefore the issue may be treated as closed at the former’s (DOE’s) end.

This correspondence had taken place in January 2009, after many of our representations/ appeals had gone to the DOPPW.

You are all aware, subsequently, the OM dated 11th Feb 2009 had been issued by the DOPPW conveying some clarifications, followed by explanation regarding disposal of all representations of Pensioners.

I note the following::

1. DOP/PW as well as DOE are clear right from the beginning that “MINIMUM of the Pay in the Pay Band” is same as “MINIMUM of the Pay Band”.

2.Many of the Pensioners only were fondly hoping they do not convey the same meaning, because of the ambiguously constructed sentences, unwanted additional words, irrelevant modifications/ clarifications, syntaxial omissions to their advantage etc besides the circumstances of eager positive expectations and anxiety !

3.. SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 Recommendation, authority for which is the SCPC itself had also meant the same as above, as their TEXT is also similar. Only one authority is the link for both- the SCPC and DOE. It stands confirmed that the SCPC itself has committed the SOURCE ERROR IN RECOMMENDATION as I had conveyed in my earlier postings in Gconnect. THEY HAVE CERTAINLY VIOLATED THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES/ POLICIES in making the recommendation contrary to paras 11.33 and 11.35 (& other relevant paras) of their Report and hence the MAJOR ANOMALY has resulted, destroying all possible parities..

4.Now that the Financial Constraint is FOCUSSED as the main reason for any relaxation, any proposal to MODIFY the Cabinet approved/Gazette notified PENSION enhancement decisions of the Govt. will not find FAVOUR easily in the MOF/ DOE unless they review the case de-novo. UNDER the circumstances can the COURTs come to our rescue quickly? ( a few court judgments do give favourable rulings for PENSIONs on financial aspects- as in the case of equality principle)

5.Even if the Anomaly Committee accepts all PENSIONERs’ pleas, list of Anomalies etc and recommends for PENSION corrections/ modifications/ enhancements/ parity etc, will the GOVT. find Financial Resources to accept/ implement the same?

It shd be possible- New FY now!.- Economy is improving. New Govt. will have to take a positive view.

6.What should be the FOCUS for COURT cases/ when to go for it?

7.After AC or before AC ?

VNatarajan

Those in S30 scale(22400- 24500), may visit the yahoo! groups - and note a separate Group for "S30pensionersgrievance" is formed to fight out the case legally soon. It is necessary to PLUG the loopholes/ escape routes related to "FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS" in any such process.

vnatarajan
26-04-2009, 08:28 AM
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS- PROVISION FOR MODIFIED PARITY TO AGGRIEVED PRE-2006 PENSIONERS



Dear All/ S/Shri KSS/Bala/ GR/Sunadarar/AR/PKR/ SCM/SNG (RREWA)/MLK/RaghuV/Premesh(S30)/ sevral others,

I have received a good amount of feedback thru emails and on phone on the above RTI info/ and the views I expressed. And I am also grateful to the RREWA for putting the said views on their website also

I would request the members to post the views on the Gconnect also.

AT THE OUTSET WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE DEPPT. OF PENSIONS & PENSIONERS' WELFARE for furnishing information of the type we received after nearly seven months of agony and distress- at least to EXPEL the doubt that they are to some extent SYMPATHETIC to the appeals and the RIGHTFUL pleas of the PRE-2006 pensioners.

At the same time, their HELPLESSNESS in not being able to OVERCOME the obstacle of MOF is OBVIOUS- but this can not stand in their way of EXERTING more - as the matter needs to be resolved by the CABINET and not by the unilateral administrative VETO of the MOF, who also happened to be the PERPETRATOR of the ANOMALY either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY!

WE, Pensioners. being in the twilight of our lives, are not in a position to venture into prolonged court battles- and therefore- we have to SOLICIT the DOPPW- to once again play a decisive role to pursue further the matter and provide JUSTICE. We all know PENSIONERS' WELFARE is their Chartered Function and taking a stand on this UNAMBIGUOS ANOMALY is very much justified.

Their disposing all our REPS./ APPEALS, as can be judged now, mainly on the basis of Financial Limitations can not be accepted as a valid reason and therefore they have to refer the matter to higher levels - like PMO - as the matter is of grave concern and BAD PRECEDENCE in ETHICAL GOVERNANCE. Future Pensioners will also suffer if this type of UNILATERAL and AUTOCRATIC decisions take place to set a trend!

At the same time, I and several aggrieved PENSIONERS also are of the opinion and expectation, that MORE TRANSPARENCY is required in explaining the FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS- and therefore, the DOPPW may also have to provide necessary explanations in this regard through an OM to all PENSIONERS! Their proposals if any must come to the knowledge of Pensioners/ Pensioners' Associations so that the latter can constructively provide proactive support.We do not want to go through a devious route everytime. Let the truth be given its due publicity.

WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS?

ANY IDEA? ANY FINANCIAL EXPERT to comment?

I am a novice at this game! In order that some innocent Pensioners may not be taken for a ride in this regard:

1.What was the total package untimately for SCPC implementations? 12000 Crores p.a.? 18000 Crores p.a.?

2.What was the component for Pensions?

3.Keeping in mind that the MOF has no option than to swallow their VETO and submit to the DEFENCE PENSION demands which may eliminate nearly 50% of the Pensioner community, balance left would be only 20 lakh pensioners.

What part of this 20 lakh Pensioners will really get relief thru Modified Parity/ Minimum Modified Parity?

4. Obviously the figure will get reduced to hardly 15 lakh Pensioners at the maximum.
Even if anaverage increase of Rs 500 is envisaged (e.g. lowest INCREASE will be less than Rs 200- highest will be Rs 6800- average for 30 scales- population is more skewed with more numbers at the lower values/ levels of pension- can not exceed Rs 500 on an average per pensioner- or Rs 6000 per annum).

This may work out to : 15 00 000 x Rs 6000 p.a.: 900 00 00 000:

Or Rs 900 Crores p.a.

(less taxes- It may come down to an even lower figure)

5.This is a pittance to the Govt. When so many WRITE OFFs of loans (60 000 to 75 000 crores)- schemes of ROJGARS etc (each one 15 000 to 30 000 Crores) are being met with, and also expenses related to other sectors of Govt. personnel being liberally permitted,

WHY ONLY DENY THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS their due?

Senior veteran Pensioners may kindly add Data/ imporove the figures/ provide input information so that we send another set of Reps/ Appeals mainly protesting against the FINANCIAL excuse to the DOPPW/ GOVT./PMO to deal the issue immediately and provide an INTERIM RELIEF pending the final outcome of AC wh will take its own time (2 yrs minimum!.

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
26-04-2009, 06:45 PM
friends,
I have skype in the name of gramdas. I also have windows live messenger in the name g (apart from google and yahoo)
My msn messenger is almost all the time signed in
GR

My dear Gramdas. I have added your name on my skype contact list. You can talk to me whenever I am on line.

Kanaujiaml
26-04-2009, 06:47 PM
Dear K

Thanks a lot. I normally I do video conf (with my children) thru Windows Messenger. Do you have a camera ? Even with yahoo, we can converse. But Video Conf with W/messenger is wonderful nowadays. Right now I have not installed Skype- I shall try.

I have sent you an important RTI info (with my comments) obtained by one of our group members (AR) to our thinking group- and tomorrow I will post in Gconnect for info of all.Kindly see the same.

(If u remember, Shri SNGupta in the RREWA website made an observation on DOP making a positive proposal to MOF etc . Shri SNG suggested getting the said info thru RTI. He is correct.)

vnatarajan

My dear VN. I have got skype loaded on PC. I do have web Camera as well. I have seen your message.

Kanaujiaml
26-04-2009, 07:24 PM
My dear VN and other pensioner friends. Ref. Post 588 and 589. I am of the view that Govt. knew from very beginning that Minimum of the pay in pay band included one increment for two bunchings of incremental stages emerging after creation of Pay Band after merging of several pre revised pay scales. After the Gazette Notifications and even after issue of OM dated 01 09 08 with (original) para 4.2, when time for implementation came, FM realized that they would need lot of money(you say, 900 crores p.a.). Then MF and MP must have discussed, and decided to shift the definition of "Minimum of the pay in Pay Band" to "Minimum of the pay band" without publishing any minutes of such meeting. Thereafter, as you know it now very well from DOP reply to my query, on 25 09 08, a note was put up by Director / DOP of MP, latter concurred in by DOE of FM and it came out in the shape of OM dated 03 10 08. Luckily, now "Confederation of Bharat Pensioners Associations" have understood the game very well as it is reflected in the Resolutions of last meeting dated 29 03 09.(This they have forwarded to AC already) I would once again say that this "shifting of definition" (a terminology used in Statistics) would be caught by hon'ble SC in a minute and would be corrected at once. The argument of paucity of funds would also not hold good as it was once considered in detail by Constitution Bench of hon'ble SC in DS Nakara Case and rejected outright with valid arguments.

dnaga57
27-04-2009, 06:30 AM
I would once again say that this "shifting of definition" (a terminology used in Statistics) would be caught by hon'ble SC in a minute and would be corrected at once. The argument of paucity of funds would also not hold good as it was once considered in detail by Constitution Bench of hon'ble SC in DS Nakara Case and rejected outright with valid arguments.

Well said Sir
The precondition to SC catching it is however dependent on our appeal reaching its doors & portals.
When will that happen?
I think like a frog being boiled in water, pensioners are getting used to being 'had'.
Uthishtata, Jagratah, Prabravan ma niboditah.

RSundaram
27-04-2009, 09:07 AM
SC is not exactly immune to arguments of paucity of funds by the government. Pre 1996 retirees claimed parity with post 1996 DCRG dispensation. The DRCG ceiling was Rs 1 Lakh before March 1995 and Rs 2 lakhs from March 1995 till December 1995 and Rs 3.5 Lakhs after 1.1.1996. Additionally post 1.1.1996 retirees were allowed to commute 40% as against 33% earlier. With the result, excluding one's own GPF amount the retirement benefits of those who retired on 31.1.1996 were fourfold comparaed to the one who retired in March 1995. The so called Hon'ble SC swallowed hook line and sinker the arguments of the government on paucity of finance and ruled parity need not be maintained in such one time giveaways. Perhaps , it was because by the time the arguments were heard within SC's august chambers- the brouhaha that there was a rip off by the government employees, in the form of benefits of the V CPC, reached a crescendo. We presume wrongly that the SC Judges have a special insight into preserving transcendental norms of justice. Just as in politics often it is better to know who the judge is rather than what the case is.

vnatarajan
28-04-2009, 04:41 PM
LANDMARK POSTING


PROGRESS MADE THRU RTI- Please see the info on RREWA website also:


Dear All

All pre-2006 pensioners are REQUESTED and ADVISED to see the RTI queries raised by S/Shri AR/ VN (self) and the Replies received which are put up in the RREWA website by Shri S C M a day or so back.

The DOPPW had been making all efforts to protect the interests of the aggrieved Pensioners and I , members of Pensioners Forum, other friends who share my views after seeing the matter in the RREWA website, would like to express our deep sense of gratitude to them and REQUEST THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR WISE COUNSEL AND UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT till the pre-2006 pensioners get their justice at least at the MINIMUM. We also place on record our full appreciation at this point of time. Till today, WE DO UNDERSTAND that we are not able to get our MINIMUM JUSTICE due to the "FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS".

We will appeal once again to them for a renewed and perseverent effort by them to PURSUE the matter and overcome the LIMITATIONS before our deciding to seek other avenues of justice.

I and few of us who are burning the midnight oil in this endeavour feel we are not getting appropriate feedback, unstinted support from other pensioners who are watching either from the side-lines or perhaps are somewhat indifferent to our efforts. THIS TIME KINDLY HELP ALL BY PARTICIPATING IN FULL TO VOICE OUR request for a total review by an impartial system by the Govt. to get us justice. ALL MUST SEND THEIR APPEALS/ REPRESENTATIONS (model draft will be circulated to all whose email ids are with us/will also try to put up in RREWA website) without fail and confirm the same to our team by email or by putting up on these blogs. We expect a few thousand reps./ appeals to go.

Regards

vnatarajan

dnaga57
28-04-2009, 05:04 PM
Thanks Sir
For all your efforts. My shoulder will always be with you. I will also enrol more
Best regards

Kanaujiaml
28-04-2009, 09:21 PM
SC is not exactly immune to arguments of paucity of funds by the government. Pre 1996 retirees claimed parity with post 1996 DCRG dispensation. The DRCG ceiling was Rs 1 Lakh before March 1995 and Rs 2 lakhs from March 1995 till December 1995 and Rs 3.5 Lakhs after 1.1.1996. Additionally post 1.1.1996 retirees were allowed to commute 40% as against 33% earlier. With the result, excluding one's own GPF amount the retirement benefits of those who retired on 31.1.1996 were fourfold comparaed to the one who retired in March 1995. The so called Hon'ble SC swallowed hook line and sinker the arguments of the government on paucity of finance and ruled parity need not be maintained in such one time giveaways. Perhaps , it was because by the time the arguments were heard within SC's august chambers- the brouhaha that there was a rip off by the government employees, in the form of benefits of the V CPC, reached a crescendo. We presume wrongly that the SC Judges have a special insight into preserving transcendental norms of justice. Just as in politics often it is better to know who the judge is rather than what the case is.

I would agree with you upto some extent. I have said that the paucity of funds cannot be made an argument for denial of due "pension" for achieving equality under Article 14 on the basis of exact decision given by CB of hon'ble SC in DS Nakara Case. We must not forget that the "pension" and "gratuaity" are different and so is the case of "arrears". One more thing. I do not talk about hon'ble SC judges ( I have highest regard for them) but about various judgments already delivered by hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the Court Judgments we should be talking about.

vnatarajan
01-05-2009, 11:18 AM
FOLLOW UPS AFTER RTI REPLIES OF DOPPW: REQUEST FOR HON. PM's INTERVENTION

Dear All

Pending any actions on making an ONE PAGE-ONE FOCUS appeal- I thought we may use the avialble time to appeal to the Hon PM by registering our grievance in the PMO's portal.

Steps to be followed- I think many may remember- Go to PMO's Website (type PMO INDIA PORTAL- it may just go for options)- select MEET ME in the menu- select "Messages"- select "Grievances"- and thenthe entire page may open.

Yoiu can type Name- (add ur designation if u so desire here)
You can type address (add ur PPO no/ Dt if u so desire at the end)

In the main box for the text, 500 charcters are allowed.

What I have sent is as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir,Pre2006Pensioners seeking pension parity/ grievance redressal understand thru RTI that your kind office had sought comments of DOPPW in the matter.. In turn, MOS(PP) on19.1.09 referring the matter to MOS(S), sought approval of DOE for a PROPOSAL on a MODIFIED PARITY made by DOPPW & decision of MOS(F). Pre-2006Pensioners, request your kind intervention to expedite action in the matter and RENDER JUSTICE to the suffering aged helpless Pensioners without their approaching courts for such JUSTICE. VNatarajan,President PensionersForum.Chennai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pl modify the text to suit ur case- but this issue is common to all-Save the text/ screen if u can.
Then "submit". If you are successful, a "Thanks for ur message" will appear.

Pl. do try/ execute- and make/ help all pensioners to do the same.

Regards
VNatarajan

G.Ramdas
01-05-2009, 02:11 PM
I have posted this 'modified' mesage in PMO website today

Sir,
Pre2006Pensioners seeking pension grievance redressal understand thru RTI that your kind office had sought comments of DPPW in the matter. MOS(PP) on19.1.09 referring the matter to MOS(S), sought approval of MOF for a newly drafted PROPOSAL, on MODIFIED PARITY in line with PENSION RESOLUTION gazetted on 29.8.08, & decision of MOS(F). Pre-2006Pensioners, request your kind intervention to expedite action in the matter and RENDER JUSTICE to the suffering aged helpless Pensioners, as all other doors are closed for them. G.Ramdas,a Central Gov.Pensioner

GR

dnaga57
01-05-2009, 04:59 PM
The Meet Pm link is blocked for Gen Elections, the site says. Can you give directions as to how you posted it - URL etc.
Thanks

G.Ramdas
01-05-2009, 05:44 PM
Pl.try the following lin

http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

GR

G.Ramdas
01-05-2009, 05:46 PM
Pl.try the following link

http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

GR

dnaga57
01-05-2009, 06:28 PM
Thank you - done.
Though your draft appears to have exceeded the 500 limit, I pruned it

vnatarajan
01-05-2009, 09:22 PM
Dear Shri naga

Link is:

http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
02-05-2009, 08:30 AM
Dear Shri naga

Link is:

http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

vnatarajan


Thanks for the info. I have sent to PMs office now and got the messgae "Thanks for the suggestions"

R S Subba Rao

vnatarajan
02-05-2009, 01:31 PM
Dear All

1.Please find attached the Draft/ Model appeal to the Hon.ble Prime
Ministerwhich is based on copies obtained through RTI Act 2005, of three
Inter-ministerial correspondence between the DOPPW and the DOE, mainly in
end of January/ early February, 2009 (04.02.2009 to be precise).

2.Those interested may peruse those documents on the RREWA's website,
accessible for one and all, even may be without registration. Anyone desiring to get them by email may contact [email protected]

3.Please read those documents carefully and understand the implications.

4.We are aware, on 11th Feb 2009, an OM had been issure by the DOPPW,
calrifying certain aspects of their earlier OMs, in which they have also
mentioned that all the representations received by them till the said date
stand disposed off. I have to-day received individual communication in
answer to my RTI that my & other reps - even those referred to them from
the PMO have been disposed off,

5.However paragraphs 3,4,5 of the document dated 04.02.2009 from DOPPW to
the DOE appears to leave a grey area, regarding a proposal for accord of
Modified Parity to the Pre-2006 pensioners which appears to be still pending
with the MOF, as there is no precise information on the fate of this.

6.Moreover, disposing off such a proposal for Modified Parity which is in
accordance with the recommendations of SCPC and also their correct
interpretations, solely on FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS, is untenable.and hence this
appeal for a TOTAL REVIEW by the Hon PM and resolution of the grievance.

7. Please feel free to VERIFY the statements made/ edit/modify/ add/
subtract/ enclose annexures/ enclose yr earlier Rep if any to PMO etc as you
may deem fit. This draft is only for guidance.

8. Appeal may be sent to PMO as per the address furnished.in the draft
Emails also can be sent. Email id/ Fax Nos:
:Email address of PMO : [email protected] Fax office
23012312,23016857,23018939,23014255

9. Please endorse copy to the Secy, DOPPW (and also to the Secy, MOF if
necessary)

Best of luck.

VNatarajan

DRAFT / MODEL APPEAL TO THE HON’ PM BASED ON RTI INFORMATION FOR EXPEDITING THE DOPPW PROPOSAL PENDING AT THE DOE.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No: Dated

From:

To:

THE HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA,
PMO's Office, South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi -110011

.
Sub. : - Implementation of Recommendations of 6 th Central Pay Commission’s (CPC) Report-INJUSTICE due to erroneous interpretation/ implementation of orders of Revised Minimum Assured Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners – Proposal of Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW), Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (MOPPGP)

Respected Sir,

As you are kindly aware, ever since the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC , the issue of a MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION to the Pre-2006 Pensioners at a modified parity with Post 2006 Pensioners, has been placed in jeopardy, to the dismay of the former. Several such aggrieved, helpless. ageing pensioners, including the undersigned, have already appealed for justice through your sympathetic intervention in this regard.

As against the above, they are facing the consequences of an insistent, incorrect interpretation of the said 6th CPC recommendations and provisions in the initial Govt. gazetted/ notified orders accepting the same, by one branch of the official entity which is bent upon denying them what otherwise is their legitimate due, in accordance with the Principles and Policies adopted by the 6th CPC itself in arriving at their final recommendations.

The inflexible contrary stand of the one single official entity has resulted in a state of stalemate. Hence this appeal for your esteemed intervention to resolve the same

The newly introduced pay structure under the SCPC (comprising 4 main Pay Bands and Grade Pay for posts ) as the switch-over from the pay structure of the 5th CPC ( post-wise scales ) issued by the Government leaves no one in any doubt that the Pay Band of the SCPC is not the equivalent of the Pay Scale of the 5th CPC and therefore to apply the Pay Band criteria in the place of the Pay Scale criteria, only for some segments
of Pre-2006 Pensioners to deny them the MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION, is inconsistent with the principles of equity and fair play on the part of Govt. Such denials in equality are against Supreme/ High Court Judgments, violation of Articles 14/21 of Constitution, and against applicable normal Rules for pensioners, at all times.

Thanks to the RTI Act 2005, for enacting which we shall remain forever grateful to your Government, the Pre-2006 pensioners have realized that, while the DP&PW (under the Ministry of PPGP ,the nodal authority for controlling pension administration) has favoured the grant of Minimum Assured Pension consistent with the Supreme Court directives on pension parity and the principle of Modified Parity accepted by the Govt and enshrined in the statutory CCS (pension) Rules at the time of implementation of the 5th CPC., the DOE under the MOF, appears to have side-lined the issue at its DIRECTOR level in a routine manner, on the untenable grounds of FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS and citing the correctly INTERPRETED proposal of the former as leading to MODIFICATION of earlier Cabinet Decision/ Orders, which are not so factually.

Perusal of relevant parts of the official views exchanged between the concerned authorities viz DOPPW and DOE through their inter-ministerial correspondence in January/ February 2009 (Copies of which were obtained through RTI by Pensioners) would lend credence to the above observations and the obstinate denial resulting in the unfortunate position being faced today, by lakhs of Pre-2006 pensioners whose misfortune is that they stand on the wrong side of an arbitrary dateline ( Pre 1.1.2006). All authorities and Pensioners are fully aware of court directions which establish the legal untenability of denying justice on the grounds of additional expenditure and division of the homogenous class of Pensioners on the basis of date of retiremen / date of revisions.


We are gratified to understand from the RTI responses, that even amidst the pressures of national leadership and governance, your august office had set aside your invaluable time to look into the petitions that we had earlier submitted and transmitted them down the line for consideration of the concerned authorities. It is equally heartening to find that both the Hon. MOS, Dept of Expend and MOS, Dept of P&PW, are still seized of the entire issue and the DP&PW, true to its charter, is still at the task of bringing justice to its pensioners.

The large section of the citizenry of the country comprising Senior Citizen Pensioners and Family Pensioners, now request your esteemed office to order an impartial review of the entire issue of the MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION to correctly implement the accepted recommendation of the SCPC in the spirit in which it was meant to be; that the "revised pension, in no case, shall be less than fifty percent of the sum of the revised pay in the running pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the minimum basic pay in the pre-revised scale from which the person had retired, as arrived at in accordance with the fitment tables given in annexure I of the Central Civil Services ( Revised Pay) Rules, 2008"

This benevolence, which we earnestly believe will not be denied to us will, in one stroke, ensure that the commitment of the Govt. as the model employer is met, the dignity of the Courts and Constitutional provisions are upheld and that we, aging and infirm pensioners, are not driven to the time-consuming, costly and physically and mentally exhausting prospect of court cases in our withering days ahead.

Your considered orders are hopefully anticipated by all the aggrieved community of Pensioners.

Yours faithfully

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

(add Annexures as itmay suit you/ text)

G.Ramdas
05-05-2009, 01:29 PM
Dear Pensioners
The recommendations in para 5.1.47 of the report of the 6CPC were drafted in simple and lucid language leaving no case for ambiguity. Yet, some of the Desi masters thought this language was not understood by the illiterate masses of pensioners and needed to be clarified. Clarifications were issued on 4 stages which totally distorted the recommendation and made it detrimental to the interest of the pensioners. After achieving the objective, now the Dept. says that there is no change or deviation from the original proposal accepted by the Cabinet. If there was no change why not withdraw the clarifications. They will simply not do this.The systematic destruction of the para can be seen in the power point presentation enclosed.View it as a slide show for better appreciation.

The inside story about these systematic amendments are slowly emerging.Let us wait for further details.
Meanwhile click the link below to see the PPt:
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/aSGuest18002-184285-systematic-modifications-6cpc-reco-entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/


G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
06-05-2009, 08:10 AM
Thanks to GR for his CREATIVE production of the PPt presentation. This PPt presentation will go on growing with INPUTs everyday. Those who are capable of giving any good INPUTs for 6 to 8 line PPt, may present the same here- so that GR will use the material to convert the same to a ppt and add in his ppt album for presentation..

Dear All

Hope many are ahead in sending emails/ hard copy appeals to the Hon. PM and also /in grievance regns. in the PMO portal etc as per previous posts. PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR STRUGGLE.

Other developments on the Defence Pensions - parallel thinking needed:

Dear All.

Injustice to Defence Pensioners – SPS Vains case- Maj. Genls. Pension parity-THOSE pensioners who are following this Pension Parity case, may learn the status from the first paragraph reproduced hereunder..

Other paragraph shows the panic- Who is the root cause?

Babugiri? Babu-Mata? Time sought is three months! What for ? If the old regime came to power, manipulations may start again at love-all! If the new regime comes to power, they can change their plate either way and confuse them to play the game again from love-all!

I AM NOT SURE WHY THE THREE MONTHS’ TIME CAN NOT BE REDUCED TO A MONTH?

OR IS IT A GAME TO GO FOR ANOTHER ROUND_ CURATIVE PETITION? IS IT POSSIBLE?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts From the blog. Indian Military Servise & Benefits

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009

“Secondly, readers may be well aware of the SPS Vains Vs UOI case involving the pensions of Major Generals which was decided against the govt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even the review petition filed by the govt was dismissed. The judgement has still not been implemented but the Ministry of Defence has assured the Hon’ble Court in a Contempt hearing that it shall be duly implemented completely within a period of three months.

And Yes, the notification for disability pension according to 6th CPC formulae and rates has been issued. The new rates of disability pension, special family pension, liberalised pension, invalid pension and war injury pension have been notified. The poll has played its role. Last time the notification for disability and related benefits was released in January 2001, that is, three years after the 5th CPC was implemented (1998), but this time it has not even taken a year, thanks to the elections ???. Well, whatever, disabled veterans and NOK have something to look forward to.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-05-2009, 08:59 AM
Dear All

I have sent one more appeal on GRIEVANCE portal to the Hon PM as President, Pensioners' Forum.

This time, Grievance is related to the Charter/House Rules of functions of DOPPW and Sr Citizenz' Participation on Good Governance.

THOSE WHO CD NOT SEND EARLIER MAY SEND NOW.
OTHERS ALSO MUST SEND AGAIN- REPEAT AGAIN-
ASSOCIATIONS/FEDERATIONS MAY ALSO ACT PLEASE.

My text sent to PMO already Recd/ Thanks message received. PORTAL IS FUNCTIONING NICELY

THIS TIME YOU HAVE TO ENTER THE CODE WHICH APPEARS IN ALPHANUMERICS_ easy enough to copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir, WE Sr.CitizenPensioners,on RTI information,had appealed already to you for JUSTICE by acceding to theDOPPW'sproposalon MODIFIED PARITY to PRE2006Pensioners per CCS(RP)R2008 which is turned down BY DOE on Financial Constraints, SAME not tenable per Court Verdicts/Constitution. "Sr.Citizens toENSUREGoodGOVERNANCE" demand you to ensure DOPPW discharges their RIGHT functions as PER THEIR CHARTER/HOUSE RULES to protect the PENSIONERS'WELFARE THRU CORRECT IMPLEMENTATION OF PARA 4.2OM1stSept2008. VNATARAJAN,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

dnaga57
08-05-2009, 03:15 PM
Thank you Sir
Done

G.Ramdas
08-05-2009, 09:24 PM
I have posted a slightly modified version

"Sir,
WE Sr.CitizenPensioners,on RTI information,had appealed already to you for JUSTICE by acceding to DOPPW's proposal on MODIFIED PARITY to PRE2006 Pensioners, in line with para 5.1.47 of 6SCPC reco. accepted by the Govt.,which is turned down by DOE on Financial Constraints. The original provisions altered 4 times detrimental to the interests of the pensioners.Request immediate intervention to mitigate grievances of hapless old pensioners."

G.Ramdas

ranganathan
08-05-2009, 10:55 PM
Sir,
WE Sr.CitizenPensioners,on RTI information,had appealed to you for JUSTICE by acceding to DOPPW's proposal on MODIFIED PARITY to PRE2006 Pensioners, in line with para 5.1.47 of 6CPC reco. accepted by the Govt.,which is turned down by DOE on Financial Constraints.Original acceptance altered 4 times to deprive legitimate minimum pension.Request immediate intervention to mitigate grievances of hapless old pensioners."
Ranganathan

Dear all,

above is my post to PMO

PKR

vnatarajan
12-05-2009, 01:04 PM
A REVIEW; SCPC RECOMMENDATIONS/IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS:

Dear All,

WE had been debating at various times on what PAY COMMISSION “Recommended” and what/how Govt. decisions "Modified” in regard to the Pre-2006 Pension Revision.

Main issues that have emerged following all the debates and exchange of info are summarised to the extent I have understood. I may stand corrected for better comprehension, improvements, suppements, additions etc.:

Pl. remember that NO past pensioner, excepting those of scales S-33/34, has been given full/ bountiful parity. AM I CORRECT? (clear violation of Court orders/Constitution)

NO FULL PARITY IF YOU DO NOT BELONG TO S33 &34

.( even for scales S31/32 pension’ is at the Minimum of their new Pay scale for pre-2006 Pensioners, but pension given even at the MINIMUM is bountiful- HENCE I HAVE REMOVED THEM FROM ARGUMENTS),

HOW MANY SUB-CLASSES ARE THERE WITHIN THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS NOW?

1.0..First category is of those with "MULTIPLIED FACTOR ("MF") PARITY" This is based on Multiplication Factor (MF) 2.26 - protects the last pay drawn/last Basic Pension as on 1.1.1996 and includes a 40 % fitment benefit .BUT HERE ALSO the departure is that the fitment promised by SCPC Reco is at the maximum of the pre-revised scale, but by incorporating it within the MF, it has been restricted to THAT POINT/ STAGE of LAST PAY which the pensioner was drawing!

1.1.HOW EVER "MF" PARITY MAY NOT BE AGAIN the "FULL PARITY"! When you check the cases with current Pensioners who get the FULL BENEFIT of GRADE PAY in lieu of fitment benefit, which (I mean GP) in many cases is more than 40% of maximum of the scale even (S 29- it is 10000 instead of 8800, and for S30 it is 12000 instead of 9800). Hence the DISPARITY or LOSS!

2.0 Next category is of those who are given “ MODIFIED PARITY “- these are the cases where the revised pension is fixed on the basis of "50% of MINIMUM of the PAY BAND together with (50% of) GRADE PAY". This fits in with the twisted definition of Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008. TYPICAL Examples are normally those whose MINIMUM of the Revised Pay Scales coincide with the MINIMUM of their respective PAY BANDS.

2.1.Modified Parity comes into reckoning only in the middle and higher levels, when the 2.26 formula works out to less than the "Modified Parity". Only few enlightened ones- and those who were on the verge of promotions to next grade- and those who have reached the top of their scales/ stagnated etc may be able to notice the disparity if they sit and work out the details.

3.0. Other category is the case of "NEGATIVE PARITY": or "REDUCED PARITY". These cases exist in every Pay Band. However in lower scales, they are overshadowed by 2.26 MF or even due to Modified Pairty effect, if on the border.

3.1. Here the Pre-revised Pay scale is relegated to the lower-most level in the Pay Band. For example in PB4, the top ones S30, S29 and others below them etc are brought down to be apparently equal to the S24 pre revised scale of 14300-18300, for fixing the MINIMUM of the pay in the pay band (unlike the post-2006 Pensioners -who get correct parity in terms of the pay fixation in the new scales). For them this is at 37400 wh again is the Minimum of 37400-67000. This MINIMUM is not a single MINIMUM. It is "seven minimums" rolled into one! A single "Multi-Minimum"!

3.2 Govt Decisions argue that they are compensated/ replaced by Grade Pay. As per the provisions, Grade Pay increases with REDUCTION/RELEGATION IN PAY SCALE. Is it allowable? How can your pay or pension can be reduced unless you are indicted by Disciplinary actiuion/ Court orders as a measure of punishment!

3.3. Pensioners must understand, Grade Pay identifies the POST and not the pay-scale. Higher Post is supposed to get Higher GP!

3.4 Here also Principles/ Policies are violated. For example, Grade pay is same 10000 for both S29 and S28 of which S29 is a HIGHER POST! It shd carry a higher GP than S28. Other examples cd be there.

3.5 The NEGATIVE/ REDUCED PARITY is a NEW EVOLUTION coming out of the absurd perverted actions of the Govt., much against every reasoning/ norm and against the main Principle/ Policy of the SCPC itself, which stand violated.

3.6. Related Recommendations are also fallacious and therefore must be made null & void.

EMERGENCE of the above THREE SUB-CLASSES of PENSIONERS within the same SCPC dispensation- without having any respect to a firm POLICY/ PRINCIPLE itself IS ANOMALOUS.

So let us be clear in comprehending the aboive aspects.

So also the SOLUTION within the framework of SCPC Paragraphs for Pre-2006 Pensioners lies in providing:

"MODIFIED PARITY" IN GENERAL in terms of REVISED PAY/ CCS(RP)RULES 2008 with Grade Pay etc without ambiguity

with the ALTERNATIVE of Parity in terms of 2.26MF

( PS:I wd prefer the inclusive 40% factor to be at the Max of the pre-revised Scale(special provision to cover stagnations if any) for these, as the current component within 2.26 ie the 0.40 beyond 1.86 is based only on their last pay).[/B]

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
14-05-2009, 10:09 AM
INCONSISTENCIE/ INFIRMITIES THAT EMERGE FROM THE LATEST OM REGARDING PENSION REVISION OF PRE-2006 RETIREES WITH 20PLUS- 33MINUS YEARS SERVICE- DENIAL OF PARITY.


Pl refer to OM No. dtd 12th May 2008 of DOPPW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend, Shri AV Mukuntharajan explains in this regard:

“on cut off date, the Apex court had held that the govt. has a right to fix cut off date which cannot be assailed by the court in the case of pre-1996 pensioners who demanded revision of the DCRG taking in to account the DR that they had drawn. this supreme court, i understand, had dismissed the review petition too.

However, the Madras High Court and i think Hyderabad High Court have struck down the cut off date in cases filed by the state governement employees which has gone to supreme court and is pending. if these cases are decided in the employees favour by reversing the earlier supreme court orders, then only the government will consider cases like full pensions sans prorata for less than 33 years service. this is for your information”.

My other friend, Mr Sundaraar, points out, with credibility and force, several related aspects:

“1. The dispensation of linkage of qualifying service of 33 years for full pension has not been made with prospective effect while the payment of full pension on retirement with 20 years service has been made with prospective effect and hence the representations erupted apart from the equal parity aspect..

2. The aforesaid inconsistency has been cooked up by disposing off all related representations.

3. In respect of persons on voluntary retirement prior to 2.9.2008 they would have got addition to qualifying service of about 5 years. Whereas, if a person retires on superannuation with 20 years or so, no addition would be there. Whether the Govt. want to send people who were post-1986 recruitees more gracefully, leaving rest of the personnel getting pro-rata based on 33 years service requirement. With a good faith only, they all have accepted govt. service that there will be an uniform service requirement of 33 years for full pension and were prepared to serve the entire term to get full pension thinking their juniors also will follow them with the same service condition..

4. In respect of Persons absorbed in PSU on exercise of option for pro-rata as against combined service pension, they had no other alternative and it is thrust upon them. In addition, they were not entitled for commutation. Moreover, the pro-rata pension did not entitle Dearness Relief. Their gratuity was seized for 7 years at a normal interest applicable for PF, which too got down from 12% to 8.5%. May there be some increments (2/3) would have been awarded while joining PSU. These people also joined PSU in good faith thinking that there will be long period to serve for combined pension and the PSU part will have to be borne by PSU and when such PSU may go sick, there is no guarantee for PSU part pension amount under combined pension, because there is no scope for continuing in Govt. and even if they are prepared, the absorption has come in between.

5. If the Govt. had told that for those who join service from a particular cut off date in future they will be governed by the new requirement of 20 years (as the pension scheme itself withdrawn for recruitees of post 2004), it would have been judicious.

6. There cannot be two different set of exit rules for those who entered on acceptance of the single set of exit rule that was prevailing and existing for so many years since the time of induction. I am fully aware that this is not a matter that can be settled through representations. As expected, the result is so. Here, I have been trying from very beginning as to what has happened when the pension service of 40 has been brought down to 33 in the past in respect of persons retiring with less than 40 years service before its implementation. Whether they also have been given the benefit of 33 years for full pension or pro-rata. But, I could not get the concerned Order copy. Senior veterans may be aware of the development that took place at that time may be prior to 1972.

7. The rejection of the aforesaid representations, no way come in between our other anomalies. 20 yrs. is entirely different issue and pertaining to a certain section of pensioners. Hence, without attaching much significance, because, even ourselves do not find any support from Pensioners Forum all over India for this particular cause as the aggrieved parties are minorities, the rest of the anomalies can be attended to as being planned so far.

I have not travelled much through the OM, but only one thing is worrying is the mention of Art. 14 in the OM. The OM has touched a honeyhive and the result will be known from some other angle. I am confident that this particular issue (20 years case) can be resolved only through Court, but the minorities would not even think of it. This is my humble view and first hand impression as gathered from similar group of persons “

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

Both AVM’s info and Sundaar’s comments are relevant, in making out a strong protest against the unilateral action of the GOVT. in changing the schemes without giving a chance for the incumbents to dwell, debate, sort out (and then OPT-why not?) what is right and correct.

Thare is another issue emerging out of this OM:

Before reading, my comments, pl. read Para 3 of the OM. (not reproducible here!)

My initial comments for those who can peruse and react in order to tie up some loose ends are:

1.If the MOPPG&P/ MOF & the concerned Departments were aware, sensitive, sincere and conscientious etc with DUE RESPOECT and REGARD to the COURT VERDICTS (including the APEX COURT’s) and the CONSTITUTION (Article 14/21 etc), why had they allowed the inequities/ infirmities/ irregulartities of OMs of 1/9, 3 & 14/10.2008 related to pre-2006 pensioners to take an ugly and highly objectionable dimension as of now and FORCING AGED PENSIONERS TO CONTEMPLATE TO GO TO COURTs?

2. Is it not a gross violation of their own Charter of Functions and dereliction of duties? If it was an omission by error/ misconstrual, could not be set right quickly?

3.Where was the need to circumvent the whole issue when the DOPPW tried to resolve the issue through a PROPOSAL in January, 2009, by CITING the unbelievable “FINACIAL CONSTRAINTS” as an excuse?

4.It is clear now that the Pre-2006 and Post 2006 NORMAL retirees (normal- ie not retired otherwise like VRS, etc) can not be Constitutionally differentiated as belonging to DIFFERENT SCHEMES OF PENSION and every RULE/AUTHORITY/ COURT can not violate the RIGHTS of thie pre-2006 class of pensioners Under Article 14 of the constitution.

AM I CORRECT?

Pl. participate/ write. Based on the collective views, I intend to make another appeal to the PM/ other authorities.

Regards

vnatarajan

(Pl see another thread "Effevtiveness & Applicability" also for points on 20 plus yrs issue.
All must react and address PM- Do not hesitate)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
15-05-2009, 07:26 AM
Dear ALL Pensioners,

The picture is getting clearer and clearer.

It is undisputable that the MAIN DAMAGE done to a segment of pensioners grossly, is mainly due to two factors:

1.The clear "tampering" done by one authority on 29.08 2008 so as to twist the CORRECT MEANING & INTERPRETATION of the SCPC RECOMMENDED/ CABINET APPROVED Para 5.1.47 (I am not referring to the "correction" of MF formula from 1.74 to 1.86) but IN REFRAMING THE SENTENCES/ REPLACING words to MAKE IT AMBIGUOUS in deciding the "MINIMUM" aspect!

2.The second stage of precipitation of the matter is by the Pension Accounting Authority on 25th/26th Sept 2008, when the "concerned" issued the DO letter with an Annexure II to all the Nodal Banks. Apparently, this was the one to convert/ replace the whole sentence "Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band" to "Minimum of the Pay Band" may be "FIRST TIME IN BLACK & WHITE" officially- God only knows under whose dictat and authority!

All of them - like us (ex.)- are Govt .Servants and if they are dutiful, they have to stand by truth and apply corrections where it is necessary and just.

Court/ Article 14?- there is always a seperior power to judge them!

vnatarajan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We always quote Article 14. Let us also remember Artcle 21:

Pension is the part of right to life: Bombay HC
Pensioners now have a reason to smile. In a landmark judgment, the Bombay high court has held that pension is a vital aspect of social security and that the right to receive it constitutes a right to life under the constitution. Moreover, it held that pension must be paid regularly in the first week of the month.

The judgment was passed in a case where the Solapur civic body had challenged a direction of an industrial court which had labelled its action of delaying pension payments inordinately each month as an unfair labour practice and directed it to credit the monthly pension by the first day of each following month.

The civic body explained that it was in financial difficulties and said it could pay by the 15th and not the first. The civic body argued that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not mandate payment by the first of each following month. Justice D Y Chandrachud said, “Deprive a pensioner of the payment and you deprive him or her of the right to life. Delayed pensionary payments place a pensioner in a position of uncertainty and dependence which impinges on the quality of life under Article 21, and the right to dignified existence of the aged,’’

Source:The Times of India, December 23, 2008. Page no. 14

vnatarajan
16-05-2009, 04:23 PM
Dear All

(THOSE GOING TO COURTS NOTE THE LINES IN THIS JUDGMENT:

“the Presidential Order cannot be materially altered as modified by the subordinate authority by way of clarification memorandum dated 12.08.1999, issued in the subsequent official memorandum” )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:

Here is yet another example of how the GOI/ its “entity” etc act and (must be much to the embarrassment of MOPPGP/DOPPW) try their utmost to harass the old PENSIONERS, with utter disregard to their legitimate claims/ entitlement as per RULES/ COURT VERDICTS/ CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS under ARTICLES 14/21 etc.

This judgment is as good as the Maj. Genls. Case in so far as the sadistic approach of the govt. entity is concerned though slightly different in contents.

In spite of clear President sanctioned provision of Special Pay benefit for Pension entitlements and also after allowing the incumbents to draw the same initially for some periods, the “govt. entity” chose to get the issue reopened after a considerable gap of time, by appeals to higher courts- and went upto Supreme Court – where their SLP cd not even see the light of the day!

What a colossal waste of Govt. Money/ Time/ Resources etc and who is answerable for these? Are these EXPENDITURES not infructuous?

Yet such erring officials want more and more protections under “RULE OF LAW” and under constitutional provisions for them with a greater degree of TOTAL indemnity!
(This may also help them to get away from even other charges- like Corruption etc!)

What is the compensation to the aggrieved/ innocent PENSIONERS who were on the right side – but then they were made to suffer the harassment for long long times!

Here are the case details:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ………………………
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ………………………….

WRIT PETITION NO : 267 of 2008

Between:
1 Union of India, Government of India Rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2 The Director General Research and Development Defence Research & Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, South block, DRDO Bhavan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110 011.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
(sl no 1 to 12 )
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 29-3-2007 in OA No. 184 of 2006 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and consequentially quash the same by declaring the said order as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of law.
Counsel for the Petitioner:……………………. (ASST SOLICITOR GEN)
Counsel for the Respondents : ………………………………. FOR R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTD in the NEXT POST at sl no 617)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
16-05-2009, 04:25 PM
(contd from previous post sl no 616 above)

The Court made the following :
ORDER: (Per…., J)
Aggrieved by the order, dated 29.03.2007, passed in O.A.No.184 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed.
The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the applicants in O.A.No.184 of 2006 filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the special pay of Rs.2,000/- per month granted in lieu of separate higher pay scale for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in O.A.
The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India had issued an office Memorandum, dated 03.02.1999, granting special pay to the Scientists, as an incentive, at the rate of Rs.2000/-per month in the pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/-, in lieu of separate higher pay scale after peer review and also two additional increments in the pay-scales of Rs.10,000-15,200; 12,000-16,500; 14,300-18,300 and 18,400-20,000 after their normal pay fixation. The applicants, who retired as Scientists ‘G’ in the pay scale of Rs.18,400/-500/-22,400/-, were granted special pay of Rs.2,000/- per month, in lieu of separate higher pay scale after peer review from the date of promotion as Scientist ‘G’ till the date of retirement, however, the same was not considered for computing the pension and retirement benefits. Therefore, they made representations to the respondents and the same were disposed of holding that the case of the applicants for counting special pay of Rs.2000/- per month for the purpose of pension was taken up with the Ministry of Finance, who have declined to agree to the said proposal. Thereafter, an official memorandum was issued by the respondents on 12.08.1999 clarifying that the special pay will not be treated as part of pay for the purpose of DA, HRA, pension etc.
While so, in O.A.No.1153 of 2002 filed by one of the employees of Department of Space, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the said clarificatory Official Memorandum and directed the respondents therein to reconsider and take an appropriate decision in the matter, including grant of special pay of Rs.2000/-per month to Scientists/Engineers ‘H’ in the Department of Space w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as part of pay, and the same has been implemented by the Department of Space and Department of Atomic Energy. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. However, as no material has been produced, nor the number of the said writ petition could be given, the Tribunal ordered O.A.184 of 2006, directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicants and if the applicants are similarly situated to that of applicant in O.A.No.1153 of 2002, they shall extend the benefits to them in the same manner as was done by Department of Space and Department of Atomic Energy. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed stating that under Rule 33 of CCS (Pension Rules) the term ‘emoluments’ for the purpose of drawing pension, does not include special pay and therefore, the special pay does not qualify to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of pension.
The applicants filed a counter-affidavit stating that the direction in O.A.No.184 of 2006 is based on the decision in O.A.No.1153 of 2002, which has been assailed by filing W.P.No.1710 of 2007 before the High Court, Delhi and the competent authority has decided to await final outcome in the said writ petition. Since there was no stay of the order passed in O.A.No.1153 of 2002, the applicants have got issued notice to the respondents and since there is no response from them, they were constrained to file C.C.No.60 of 2007. While the contempt case is pending before the Tribunal, the writ petitioners filed this writ petition and obtained interim suspension of the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioners mainly contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate Rule 9(21)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, which does not include the term ‘special pay’ to which a Government servant is entitled to. He further contended that as per Rule 33 of C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, the term ‘emoluments’, for the purpose of drawing pension, does not include special pay, and therefore, the special pay of Rs.2000/- sanctioned to the Scientists/Engineers does not qualify to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of pension. He also contended that the official memorandum, dated 03.02.1999, neither classified the special pay as pay under the provisions of FR 9(21)(a), nor is there any indication to that effect, and therefore, the special pay, which does not fall under FR 9(21)(a) cannot be allowed as part of ‘emoluments’ provided for under Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules for the purpose of calculation of pension.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants contended that once the President of India has passed the official memorandum, dated 03.02.1999, granting special pay, in lieu of higher pay scale, the question of restricting the said orders under Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules for the purpose of counting retiral benefits does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 9 (21) (a) of the Fundamental Rules, the special pay is also to be treated as part and parcel of the pay and even though Rule 33 of CCS (Pension Rules), does not cover the situation, the benefit of special pay cannot be ignored for calculation and inclusion of the said benefit for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as it was granted in lieu of higher pay scales. Learned counsel also contended that it is settled principle of law that the points which were not raised before the primary authority, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before the higher authority. Therefore, the writ petitioners are not entitled to raise the ground in respect of Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules for the first time before this Court.

Rule 9 (21)(a) of the Fundamental Rules reads as under;
”(21)(a) Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a government servant as-
(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre, and
(ii) overseas pay, special pay and personal pay; and
(iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the President”.
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”.

There is serious controversy between the parties as regards special pay of Rs.2,000/- being part of pay for all purposes including pensionary benefits.
On consideration of the material placed before it, the Tribunal, has observed that under FR 9(21)(a)(iii) it is open to the President to grant any other emoluments, including special pay, which may be classed as pay of a Government servant; that the Presidential Order cannot be materially altered as modified by the subordinate authority by way of clarification memorandum dated 12.08.1999, issued in the subsequent official memorandum and that the provisions of FR 9(21)(a)(ii) do not also exclude the special pay and personal pay as part of pay and accordingly the clarificatory Official Memorandum dated 12.08.1999 was quashed and set aside with regard to non-inclusion of the special pay as part of pay for the purpose of pension, having regard to the provisions of the earlier Official Memorandum issued by the Government on 03.02.1999 and also directed to reconsider the matter and take appropriate decision, including the grant of special pay of Rs.2,000/- per month to Scilentists/Engineers ‘H’ in the Department of Space/ISRO with effect from 01.01.1996 as part of pay, within three months from the date of order.
On perusal of the detailed order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. That apart, the writ petitioners are not entitled to raise the plea of Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules for the first time before this Court.
Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the writ petitioners are directed to implement the orders impugned within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs
Date:25.09.2008 sd/ Judges 1 & 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epilogue by VN:
When the Govt. did not implement the Court orders, the aggrieved went for Contempt proceedings, Govt sought one month’s time which was allowed on the condition it will be for implementing the judgment- BUT as usual the Govt. went for SLP to Supreme Court where it was dismissed at the admission stage itself on 20th April 2009 or so
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

sundarar
17-05-2009, 07:24 AM
Respected Sirs,

Shri VNji has provided a very quite significant input that no overriding
clarificatory order can alter subsequently, the mother OM that was issued with supreme authority's approval. It is very relevant and the decision needs to be taken care of in similar cases by the authorities and followed suo moto in such cases, without a need for new petitioners for approaching again. The significant point is that the Hon. Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP. So,
the implementation of the decision has to be adopted in similar cases too.
Hope and wish the new thinking of today's authorities, will look into the
pensioners' issue from a different dimension.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

dnaga57
17-05-2009, 02:51 PM
Respected Sirs,

Shri VNji has provided a very quite significant input that no overriding
clarificatory order can alter subsequently, the mother OM that was issued with supreme authority's approval. It is very relevant and the decision needs to be taken care of in similar cases by the authorities and followed suo moto in such cases, without a need for new petitioners for approaching again. The significant point is that the Hon. Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP. So,
the implementation of the decision has to be adopted in similar cases too.
Hope and wish the new thinking of today's authorities, will look into the
pensioners' issue from a different dimension.

Best Regards
Sundarar.
Is there any basis for such wish- hope ? I wonder

vnatarajan
18-05-2009, 04:53 PM
Dear All

Please recall the OM dtd 11th Feb 2009 issued by the MOPPGP/DOPPW, unilaterally disposing off all REPRESENTATIONS without having any REGARD to what is "TRUTH":

In fact the idea appears to MISLEAD ONE & ALL and also those going to courts.

PL NOTE:

1.What Pensioners represented upon relates to the TEXT viz the exact "SENTENCES & WORDS" that made the RECOMMENDATION which was accepted-OF the Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC Report.

2.Whereas the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 is a completely DISTORTED/ TAMPERED/ AMENDED version of the Para 5.1.47- and the TAMPERIUNG is done deliberately by one "ENTITY" of the Govt. and for which we have enough material to substantiate.

3.This TAMPERING done around 29th August 2008 ( and later put in black & white in OM of 1st Sept 2008 )was the first step of alteration of the original meaning towards arriving at the "Minimum of the Pay Band"- which ultimately was carried to execution by the CPAO on 25th/26th Sept 2008 through his DO letter and its misssing Annexure II

4.THEREFORE THE OM DATED 11th Feb 2009 is MISLEADING and it speaks of only Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2009 which is the ALREADY deliberately ALTERED/ AMENDED/DISTORTED version of the ORIGINAL Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC Report!

WHY CAN'T THE DOPPW/ MOPPGP issue a Corrigendum and REVERT back to NOTIFY the UNDILUTED/ UNALTERED/ UNAMBIGUOUF PARA 5.1.47 of the SCPC REPORT?

WHY CAN'T THEY STAND BY TRUTH & POINT THE FINGER AT THE DISTORTIONISTS?

It is high time they correct- and save all GOING TO COURTS for a BOGUS PROBLEM created purely by "MINISTERIAL ERROR" in ADMINISTRATIVE PARLANCE?

Equally baffling is the OM of 12th May 2009 which is also being used to PROJECT texts/ sentences etc which are convenient to cite to UNDERCUT the concerns of the 20 yr retirees.

(Pl read OKKRA case judgment. Somebody may analyse & put up the facts here! Perhaps sentences may have some similarity! I am trying to be sure!!!- YOU ALSO TRY- Govt. trying to pay in your own COIN!)

More research pl!

Those going to courts- pl take note- verify-

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
18-05-2009, 08:16 PM
My dear Pensiners friends. Namaskar. I proceeded on vacation(infact I am still continuing)and therefore, could not participate here in discussion for past some time. New developments are interesting.I am referring to DOP letter dated 12 05 09. DOP is now taking shelter of same SC judgments for pensioners and Article 14, on the plea of which we submitted our representations, rejected by DOP summarily latter in single stroke.
Secondly, now that the new Govt. is installed,what should be our next step ?
Fresh spate of representations or what else ?

vnatarajan
19-05-2009, 09:57 AM
Dear MLK-

WELCOME- we were missing you- and I was wondering if u had gone abroad!

The OM of 12 th May 2009 is yet another example of "EXPLOITING THE PEARLS of WISDOM" from some JUDGMENTS by the Ministry- by selecting key sentences from the same- to justify their "PARTIAL" actions:

Pl Read Para 3 of OM of 12 th May 2009 of MOPPGP/ DOPPW carefully. I am not able to copy and paste it here.

It is based on part of Para 20 of S C Judgment dtd 10.10 2006 - case of B J Akkara vs UOI.

Relevant Para 20 Extracts::

“One set cannot claim the benefit extended to the other set on the ground that they are similarly situated. Though they retired with the same rank, they are not of the ’same class’ or ’homogeneous group’. The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.’

What is being used for eliminating the claims of 20 yr plus retirees of pre-2006 era/ upto 1.9.2008 even- is the SENTENCE IN BOLD -BLACK colour.

WHAT IS BEING IGNORED IS THE SENTENCE IN BOLD RED COLOUR - which is what shd have been applied to all HOMOGENOUS CLASS of pensioners like us to maintain parity!

HOW COME THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED FIRST SENTENCE and not cared to IMPLEMENT THE SECOND SENTENCE SO FAR?

WILL THEY AT LEAST PURSUE WITH GOVT./ DOE FOR MINIMUM/ MODIFIED PARITY FOR ALL IN TERMS OF THE SAME?

(sentence in black bold is almost "reproduced" in the OM!!!!)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
20-05-2009, 10:25 AM
My dear VN. Thank you for the responce. I was on vacation at such places where I was unable to utilizes internet services. Now the subject matter.You have missed my point entirely. Actually I was pointing out that DOP has indirectly conved that they are fully aware of SC verdict in favour of past pensioners. On 29 04 09 a news item appeared in TOI stating that the Govt. is thinking to have two groups of pensioners namely pre 2006 and post 2006. The news related to Defence Forces. On that day I was in a hurry to finish certain house hold chores before starting in the evening for vacation and therefore, couldnot persue it. On 18th May 09 I spoke to SCM and he assured me to find out from DOP circles as to what was cooking up there. He was to meet Director/P on some matter regarding "associations". Let us see something good comes up.

vnatarajan
20-05-2009, 05:10 PM
Dear MLK

If u r referring to the same "point", then my missing it is "purposely"!

I am aware- that DOP is fully aware of the JUDGMENT- and that is why "they have reproduced" parts of sentences from the same judgment to justify the non-recognistion of "parity' for the 20 yr retirees.

DOP is also aware- that WE ARE AWARE (including VN/his group - by name may be) - of the "SUCCEEDING SENTENCE" shown in red by me.

In fact both DOP and we are "MORE THAN AWARE" what we are trying to arrive at - and to avoid going to CAT/ COURTS which will be a cruel infliction on us.

WE ARE AWARE DOPPW can make the things straight/ SET THE THINGS RIGHT- and I think HOPEFULLY they must be at it- and the "Modified Parity" for all (despite OM of 12th May 2009 - though unfortunate in my opinion) - removes their HESITATION in EXTENDING THE GOOD PART OF THE SAME JUDGMENT to the "HOMOGENOUS CLASS" (according to them-GOVT/ SC rthough not so in our opinion)- of which they are aware.

Having made a "POSITIVE PROPOSAL" already for pre-2006 pensioners , killing it prematurely - for "FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS" can not be "MATURE ADMINISTRATION" ! They can do MORE THAN BETTER to overcome the hurdles!

I AND MANY HERE STILL BELIEVE DOPPW IS QUITE CAPABLE OF RESOLVING THE ISSUE VERY SOON without allowing the pensioners go to the CAT route!

"CAT-walkers" also must be elegant and slow- not RUSH!

Other Item Reg two groups of Pensioners:

Was it the news reg. NPS? - already provided to the Govt Employees from 1.4.2004, news of THROWING it open to PUBLIC was made public around the same date- as the Scheme was to come into force from 1st May 2009, LABOUR DAY!.

However, if something good comes up as you had mentioned in your post, we shall thank the DOPPW for their real efforts!

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
21-05-2009, 09:02 AM
My dear VN. Well said. Regarding the news item I referred to, it related to fixation of pension while implementing SCPC but it mentioned "Army" pensioners. I would trace out the paper when I reach back home on 27 05 09.

Kanaujiaml
23-05-2009, 11:28 AM
My dear VN, other pensioner friends. Kindly visit MOD site and read letter dated 21 05 09. All pre 2006 pensioners, who retired as Lt. Colonel or equivalent to other wings of Defence Forces are now given pay band four with grade pay 8000. Their pension is fixed now to 25700, which includes 3000 as MSP. Civilian pensioners in equivalent JAG grade are denied this preferencial treatment which is a great injustice. I request all Pensioners Associations and civilian pensioners affected by it, to represent to DOP immediately demanding same treatment of civilian pensioners as well.

vnatarajan
24-05-2009, 03:00 PM
Dear All

We are witnessing a phase of constrained repeated "brain-washing" type of OMs which try to justify "WRONG/ PRE-CONCEIVED" and "MISINTERPRETED"/"ARBITRARY" decisions as CORRECT decisions by the GOVT. and there are no violations of any type.

FOR EXAMPLE: LET ME PUT THE WORDS IN THE GOVT's MOUTH:

Govt. Can categorically issue a CORRIGENDUM stating that "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" is the same as the "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND"!

Why allow things to drift and go on giving VAGUE and ROUND-ABOUT answers?

This is because their own records at VARIOUS points of AUTHORITY show the ARBITRARINESS and the AUTOCRATIC style of decision-making that had been/ and are being adopted, to JUSTIFY the errors/ omissions.

So let us get more RTI answers, on OMs of Feb 2009 as well as May 2009 in regard to the questionable explanations the Govt. has given in DISPOSING off our REPRESENTATIONS.

Pl do remember:

"Right to information can empower citizens to take charge by participating in decision-making and by challenging corrupt and arbitrary actions at all levels. With access to government records, citizens can evaluate and determine whether the government they have elected is delivering the results that are expected. RTI is thus a tool that can change the role of the citizens from being mere spectators to that of being active participants in the process of governance".

All Senior Pensioner Citizens are aware that the Right to Information act aims at Right to Truth as also at ensuring accountability in Governance. Arbitrary actions need to be accounted for and if such actions try to justify the UNTRUTH as truth , the same need be authenticated with all the FILE NOTES , records documents, identity of persons responsible for DISTORTING the original Gazetted Orders by their own 'MODIFICATIONS' through ARBITRARY ACTIONS. We must get at them through RTI.

Final BRAMHAASTRA/ escape route adopted by the MOF/DOE without any CONVICTION or COURAGE TO FACE TRUTH is the false excuse of "FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS".

We shd also question the excuse as to the TYPE and MAGNITUDE of the FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS as the SCPC itself had made due and complete provision for the entire PENSION REVISIONS as mentioned in their ULTIMATE paragraph of their RECOMMENDATIONS in the Report. This is another example of CASUAL and ARBITRARY deciusion conveyed by an entity without proper credibility or credentials.

In OM of Feb 2009, the questionable parts relate to WRONG INTERPRETATION/ APPLICATION of Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report being twisted/ distorted to para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 3rd Oct-14th Oct 2008 through a dangerous VERSION of 26th Sept 2008 DO of CPAO!

In OM of 12th May 2009, the questionable parts relate to WRONG INTERPRETATION/ APPLICATION of para 20 of AKKRA's Case -SC Judgment of 10 th Oct 2006, affecting mainly the 20 yr plus-under 33 yrs(within their own eras/among own peers for their equations) who all certainly belong to HOMOGENOUS CLASS/GROUP of PENSIONERS- as good as the normal retireees of 33 yr plus service.

Pl act and continue to exercise your RIGHT to arrive at the TRUTH and expose all wrong/ arbitrary actioins.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
25-05-2009, 07:46 AM
Dear All

Continuing my opinions expressed in post 627 above, i put forth some more points for comments of all:

Has the Govt introduced any NEW SCHEME for 20 yr plus retirees pension? Has it discontinued the old Scheme?

Take the provision for VRS:

ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES REMAIN SAME. THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED. THESE DO NOT EFFECTIVELY REASON TO CLAIM THAT OLD SCHEME HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED AND NEW SCHEME HAD BEEN INTRODUCED!

*For VRS, in pre-2006 era, an additional benefit of 5 yrs max. had been given. THIS IS NOW CHANGED TO 13 years maximum!. AM I RIGHT?

*Other Retirement Benefits cd have been there like say Gratuity ( an ONE TIME payment). THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN brought down to NIL benefit now! This is because, already greater margin is being given NOW in the first item above-increase in the weightage to 13 yrs instead of 5 yrs (extra 8 yrs).

I think experts may review, compare and comment.

Simple changes in the quantitative aspects or even introduction of any new features will not disorient the earlier scheme. It is not like NPS in any way!

Why the Govt. is trying deperately ways and means to confuse the old-pensioners and try to divide them as HOMOGENOUS and INHOMOGENOUS class?

They are yet to do anything TO their own "RECOGNISED" HOMOGENOUS CLASS of Pensioners, well defined by the COURTS and PROTECTED by ARTICLES 14,16 & 21.

vnatarajan

(Modified/ Tried to improve, in the light of Mr KKK's additions/clarifications below)

Kanaujiaml
27-05-2009, 08:06 PM
My dear VN, others. Has any body received any reply (other than acknowledgement due) from PM via e. mail or post ?

vnatarajan
28-05-2009, 07:34 AM
Dear MLK/ all,

You are kindly aware/ others also, that many of us made an appeal to the Hon. PM in the first week of May 2009 wrt the DOPPW's magnanimous proposal "based on a "modi-modified" para 4.2" sent to DOE/ in turn turned down by them on the plea of "financial constraints (info gathered thru RTI efforts by PKR) requesting for his intervention for clearance/ acceptance of the same.

Many of us also registered the same in the PMO's portal.

I am aware the following Pensioners have received intimations in the third week of May 2009 or so,from the PMO to the effect that their appeals/ grievances have been referred to the Secretary, DOPPW/MOPPGP for "appropritae action" - as usual:

S/Shri PKR/KSS/GR/AR etc.

(I am yet to receive any response. May be I am blacklisted now- as I had been sending quite a few on-line grievances!, though they are quite bonafide/ justifiable in content).

In case I doint get any intimation in the next week or two, I propose to make an RTI query to the PMO as to the fate of all my Reps/ Appeals/ Grievances? Whether they are going for "appropriate actions" or to the "dustbin" directly?

Regards

vnatarajan

aritra78
28-05-2009, 10:57 AM
Sir,
I constantly remain in touch with your posts. What is been seen is that worst sufferers after implementation of 6th CPC recommendations is the civilian pre-2006 retirees except those in HAG plus and above grade. Government is not very keen to resolve their problems which is clear from the attitude of DOE which turned town the proposal of modified parity sent by DOP&PW. Also as seen from the last post, it is clear that again Hon. PMO is forwarding the appeals of pre-2006 pensions to DOP&PW for appropriate action. They should rather send them to DOE with a positive note In this context it may be please noted that Honourable PM is also the Minister of Personnel, PG and Pensions.
If we see the case of armed forces the officers of the rank of Lt Col or equivalent in other armed services got the PB4 band whereas their civilian counterparts suffered and is placed in PB3 and the difference between them is huge. This anomaly goes in the pension also and get magnified in the case of pre-2006 pensioners. This is very difficult to be sustained in organisations like DGQA, DRDO, MES etc where civilian and service officers work together. Earlier a retired PSCO (Pre-2006 retiree) of DGQA organisation got the same pension as his Lt Col. counterpart. Now there will be a huge difference in their pensions. The sufferers and pensioner associations must raise their voices against this anomaly. If i am not wrong the basic pension of a pre-2006 Lt col (equivalent to JAG grade in civilian side) is more than a pre-2006 Additional Secretary, as Lt Col is getting Military Service Pay(MSP) also. Recently Government upgraded the posts of Lt Gen to HAG Plus again creating another anomaly between civilian and armed forces counterpart especially in organisations mentioned earlier. I am not very optimistic whether the newly formed Government will try to redress the problems of old pensioners. Let us wait for the budget for any positive outcome and pray to god for things to be better.
ARITRA GANGULY

vnatarajan
31-05-2009, 08:30 AM
FALLACIOUS OMs DATED 11TH FEB & 12TH MAY 2009 ISSUED BY MOPPGP/DOPPW.

Dear All

I trust all are making appeals/ representations to the ANOMALY COMMITTEE on various issues related to the Anomalies arising out of the violation of the Principles/ Policies in making their own Recommendations by the SCPC.

Definitions of Anomalies look complicated, but since the DOE have helped us by making all the Pension Recommendations look like TRASH, we need not bother about the said definitions- because anything and everything is an Anomaly now.

While on the subject, I would like to look at SOME POSITIVE DEDUCTIONS from the two OMs issued by the MOPPGP/ DOPPW dated 11th Feb 2009 and 12th May 2009.

In all your APPEALS henceforth you may consider mentioning them repeatedly, to all the authorities including the ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

1.OM of 11th Feb 2008:

This OM categorically states that the Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners for any dispensation towards Revision of their Pension.
The OM then QUOTES/REPEATS the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 for revising the Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

This is unacceptable as the Para 4.2 itself is the ALTERED/ MODIFIED VERSION of Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC. Notes of Files obtained under RTI clearly reveal such DELIBERATE alterations/ even pre-emptive actions (eg.CPAO’s DO lr dtd 26th Sept 2008 to Nodal Officers of Banks issued without any authority/ much before the OMs of 3rd/14th Oct 2008).

THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF OUR REPRESENTATIONS IS TOTALLY WRONG as we are basically appealing to the authorities to IMPLEMENT CORRECTLY THE GAZETTED/NOTIFIED RECOMMENDATION contained in Para 5.1.47 ( and not the vitiated Para 4.2).

FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW..

2.OM of 12th May 2009:

This OM takes shelter under a “KEY SENTENCE” extracted from the AKKARA CASE JUDGMENT dtd 10th Oct 2006 to suit their JAUNDICED explanation to differentiate the 20 yr plus pensioners on either side of a datum, and also tries to justify the same in terms of Article 14 of Constitution. (In fact what they are doing is exactly opposite!).

IMPORTANT POINT IS, the said judgment clearly DIRECTS the GOVT. to ensure that HOMOGENOUS CLASS of PENSIONERS must be given parity in pension irrespective of the dates/ datums, in essence, in the same Paragraph (no 20 of the judgment).

THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATIONS OF PLUS 20 Yrs RETIREES UNDER THE ABOVE EXCUSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

FURTHER FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW.

I feel every concerned pre-2006 PENSIONER must highlight and contest the two OMS and the summary DISPOSAL of our appeals on FLIMSY and UNRELATED grounds is objectionable.

FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL has to follow.

PL ACT.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-06-2009, 03:25 PM
"ILL-FATED HISTORY OF SCPC REPORT's PARA 5.1.47"

(In continuation of the post 632 above)

Dear All (this time I am writing with a slant!)

As some clarifications were sought to know the full details of the stages of transformation of the SCPC Report's Para 5.1.47 to Para 4.2 of OM 0f 1st Sept 2008 through its "ILL-FATED" total annihilation on 26th Sept 2008 at the CPAO's office etc and its later rebirth/manifestations- metamorphism etc, I offer the following elaboration:

(I APOLOGISE TO THE DOE/ DOPPW FOR BEING FRANK & FAIR- and shall withdraw the matter if PROVED OTHERWISE-which I am sure nobody will dare to challenge!)

Let us start with the OM of 11th Feb 2009 ( where the full circle ended!):

This OM categorically states that the Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners for any dispensation towards Revision of their Pension.
The OM then QUOTES/REPEATS the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 for revising the Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

This is unacceptable as the Para 4.2 itself is the ALTERED/ MODIFIED VERSION of Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC. Notes of Files obtained under RTI clearly reveal the very first DETRIMENTAL alterations to the “GAZETTED TEXT” of the above Para 5.1.47 (done in the “Implementation Cell” of the DOE ?-!) - to introduce ITS first transformation to the “text” of Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008. Following this, on 25th/ 26th Sept, the CPAO’s office did ITS second transformation to result in the greatest damage by issuing the CAO’s DO lr dtd 26th Sept 2008 (without proper authority/ endorsements?- even RTI queries are not being answered SO FAR on this DO lr) to the Nodal Officers of the Banks, directing them to fix the pre-2006 revised pension at the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” etc. RTI notes further show that this was DONE much ahead of the OM of 3rd Oct 2008 wherein the text was again revised back effectively akin to Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008. Later the contents of the OM of 3rd Oct 2008 was further supported/ illustrated/ demonstrated for implementation purposes through the OM of 14th Oct 2008. When objections were raised by the pre-2006 pensioners on the OMs of 3rd & 14th Oct 2008, the mass “disposal” action through OM of 11th Feb 2009 took place., wherein a new strategy had been followed stating that the Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners confirming at the same time that revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners will follow Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2009.

CIRCLE WAS COMPLETED HAVING DONE THE DAMAGE THROUGH THE CPAO OFFICE"s DO LR, which anchored the pre-2006 pension revision to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND basis (exceptions being Elite class & those pensioners who cd be benefited to some extent by the 2.26 formula)!.(Refer to previous paragraph).( Pl note I have not disclosed all facts!)

THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS’ REPRESENTATIONS IS TOTALLY WRONG as we are basically appealing to the authorities to IMPLEMENT CORRECTLY THE GAZETTED/ NOTIFIED RECOMMENDATION contained in Para 5.1.47 ( and not its ALTERED/ MODIFIED VERSION as in Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept. 2008!)).

The various stages of “TRANSFORMATIONS” of the text of SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 as explained above appear to be somewhat “MOTIVATED” to DEPRIVE the pre-2006 pensioners of their legitimate/ MINIMUM GUARANTEED-ASSURED-ENTITLED PENSION and hence the actions of DOE/ DOPPW are questionable in the interest of “GOOD GOVERNANCE” promised by the Hon’ble Prime Minister !

Regrads

vnatarajan

(Members can copy this and post it in other Pensioner-oriented websites for wider circulation/ awareness)

vnatarajan
03-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Dear All

Thanks to Shri KSS, this interesting news item from TOI, MUMBAI, appearing on 3rd June 2009 edition related to RTI matter handled by the DOPT will convince many pensioners to resort to RTI route to raise some critical issue.

For eg., recent OM of 12th May 2009 of DOPPW/MOPPGP trying to apply the Akkara Judgment in a "bikini" mode on the "20 yr Plus- Less 33yrs" Pensioners, can be amplified to seek explanation from DOPPW- as to what actions they have taken or are taking to implement other sentences of the paragraph of the said judgment, of which the "bikini' part is only a "non-vital" exposure!

Now the News Item:

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

CIC cracks down on DOPT for file notings
3 Jun 2009, 0531 hrs IST, Manoj Mitta, TNN

Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:



NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Central Information Commission on Tuesday issued notices to two officers of the department of personnel and
training (DOPT), which is the nodal department of RTI, to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for offences that could land them behind bars for a whole year.

The provocation was the DOPT's refusal, despite repeated directions to correct the misleading claim made on its website, that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under the RTI.

CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to appear on June 17 to explain why they should not be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and penalized under the RTI.

While other public authorities, including the law ministry and the Supreme Court, have long accepted the CIC's ruling that file notings are not exempt from disclosure, DOPT has maintained otherwise on its website, much to the CIC's chagrin. Habibullah found it ``appalling'' that the nodal department of RTI had ``sought to emasculate the mandate'' of Section 19(7) which stipulates that the CIC's decisions are ``binding''.

On an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the CIC said that by disobeying its directions, the two DOPT officers had rendered themselves liable to be punished under Section 166 IPC, which imposes imprisonment up to one year on a ``public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person''. The other two offences cited in the order are punishable with imprisonment up to six months--while Section 187 pertains to “omission to assist a public servant when bound by law to give assistance'', Section 188 deals with “disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant''.

Besides responding to allegations of committing criminal offences, Sarkar and Chagti will have to explain on June 17 why each of them should not be imposed the maximum prescribed penalty under the RTI of Rs 25,000. The CIC has also asked them to show cause why they should not be subjected under the RTI to departmental proceedings.

To its earlier directions, all that the DOPT officers told the CIC was that the whole of file notings had been placed before a committee of secretaries and that nothing could be done about the website until the committee gave its report. The file noting controversy first erupted in 2006 when the DOPT made an abortive attempt to amend the law so that file notings could be beyond the ambit of the RTI.

While giving the definition of information under the RTI, the DOPT website added on its own that the expression “does not include file notings''. The CIC had given several directions to the DOPT to desist from misquoting the RTI definition of information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
03-06-2009, 08:19 PM
All Lt. Colonels retired prior to 2006, have been given PB4 vide MOD letter dt. 21 05 09, on the basis of "Pranav Mukherji Committee Report". On Civil side JAGs are equvalent to Lt. Colonels. Those retired JAG Officers, who have not been given PB4, should obtain under RTI, a copy of "Pranav Mukherji Committee Report" to find out the exact basis of allotting PB4 to Lt. Colonels. Study of this report would be helpful to present the case to An. Committee for grant of pB4 to all retired JAG Officers.

vnatarajan
05-06-2009, 09:48 AM
AC Means: ANOMALY COMMITTEE OR ABANDON COURSE?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Red"]Dear aggrieved Copensioners/ all,

One of my close friends/ our Forum functionary informs: "I heard a news from one of my friends who has close contacts with JCM members, most of them are in staff side of the anomalies committee, that the aforesaid committee seems to restrict their consideration only to the group D and LDC & UDC level in Group C only according to the terms of reference as explained by Secretary [DOPT} of the anomalies committee; the reason for not including other non gazetted persons seems to be because those drawing grade pay of Rs.4200 + are declared Group B non gazetted. It is emphatically stated that the committee will not consider Group B and A petitions. you may get it clarified through SOME SOURCE or through RTI" If what he conveys is true, many sections of Pensioners may again be taken for a ride- as is happening everytime. I do not know how many have realised thet twice we have been OFFICIALLY cheated in "DISPOSING OFF" our representations through OMs of 11th Feb/ 12th May 2009. Earlier we had been sufficiently "HOODWINKED" by the conflicting/ erronious/ misinterpreted/ wantonly tampered reproductions of Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report- through OMs dtd 1st Sept/ 3rd & 14th Oct 2008. More RTI queries need be made to DOPPW & MOF/DOE on these issues again. Those who are MORE ENERGETIC/ LOCATED AT DELHI/ WELL INFORMED may pl act please.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
05-06-2009, 07:25 PM
My dear VN. I suspected that. It appears nothing is going to come up from AC in favour of us. We are doomed.

G.Ramdas
07-06-2009, 07:20 AM
Pay /pension revision for T.N employees/pensioners
The T.N govt. has notified the revised pensions thro' a G.O It appears the pre-2006 pensioners' entitlements are similar to Central Govt. pensioners. Has any body seen the G.O and the provisions about the 50% of the pay in the pay band+G.P
It would be interesting to see how T.N proceeds
G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
07-06-2009, 07:53 PM
Dear GR/ all

What I cd make out from Para 2, item iv of the Pension Orders of TN Govt dated 1st June 2009 repeats verbatum our 5.1.47 Para almost-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"(vi) The fixation of pension shall 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 grade pay corresponding to
the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the
case of Pensioners / Family Pensioners for whom pension / family
pension has to be revised beneficial to them at 50% / 30% of the
minimum of the Pay + Grade Pay applicable to the post as on
1-1-2006, such of the Pensioners / Family Pensioners shall apply to the
Pension sanctioning authorities through the department they last
served in the prescribed form appended to this order. The authorities
concerned shall revise both the Pension and Family Pension of the
existing pensioners."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

May be others have a different view! Can they examine and express their views?

IS THERE A 2.26 PENSION FITMENT TABLE LIKE OURS? I HAVE NOT YET CHKED ON THIS!

Regards

vnatarajan

WE HAVE TO CONTACT SOME S29 (for a typical example!) Retd Official to see how HIS/HER PENSION IS BEING FIXED!

I AM SURE THEIR FATE WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT FROM OURS!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-06-2009, 11:24 AM
WHAT IS THE BIG IDEA IN HOLDING BACK MODIFIED PARITY ACCORD TO A SEGMENT OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS, PENDING THE FULL PARITY?

Dear All

Ultimately, conclusions are:

TO WHOM IN EFFECT THE MODIFIED PARITY IS ACTUALLY DENIED UNDER SCPC's IMPLEMENTATION OMs for Pre-2006 Pensioners?

My answer is:

Only S25 to 30 category of pre-2006 pensioners belonging to PB4(even in this one scale may be enjoying the Modified Parity- ie 14300-22400 or so- has to be chked)

1.Already, 2.26 MF covers all upto PB3 - with more than Modified Parity- as they are based on last pay drawn as well as 40% weightage on last pay drawn (more than 40% weightage on minimum of pre-revised scale, eventhough it is not at the maximum)

2.Top scales S31 to 34 are well enjoying the Modified Parity based on Minimum of their much much boosted scales of well over 3.10 MF.

Consequently, the remaining pensioners belong to PB4 with exception of S24 and may be one more scale within it (PB4).

WHY THE BABUs are holding back the Modified Parity for this segment?

There must be reason.

HAS IT GOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH 20yr plus pre-2006 Retirees of this segment? (with due apologies to 20 yr retirees). Because the 12th May 2009 OM creates a suspicion in this regard! Using a "key sentence" out of the Akkara judgment to reason out the disparity!

Or IS THERE ANY LEGAL ISSUE PENDING? Implementation of Judgment- SPS Vains Case?

We have to think and react!!!

I suspect something wrong somewhere!

vnatarajan

Shri GR has made a brilliant analyses of the whole parity/ minimum parity issue and has graphical and tabular outputs.

I request him to give a gist of his analyse here so that the ACTUAL LOSING OLD PENSIONERS may precisely check their pensions and appeal to the Anomaly Committee.

In addition to what I have "windowed" above wrt PB4 Pensioners, OTHER OLD PENSIONERS who may have been denied MINIMUM/ MODIFIED Parity cd belong to PB2 and PB3 Category/ Included Scales within them.

CUMULATIVE FIGURES ARE:

There are 46 stages out of a total of 179 stages in PB3 Scales who are losers by 2.26 MF formula.
There are 23 stages out of a total of 96 stages in PB2 Scales who are also loisers in a similar way.

BLIND ACCEPTANCE OF 2.26 MF as a PANACEA for MANY is DISASTROUS and the outcome as of now is quite MISLEADING.

Shri GR will correct me and post his analysis here for the benefit of all old pensioners with a view to make them write to the Secretary DOPPW and also to the AC precisely once again!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-06-2009, 07:05 PM
WHO ARE LOSERS- PRE-2006 PENSIONERS?

In continuation of the above:

A GIST OF THE PAINSTAKING ANALYSIS DONE BY SHRI G RAMDAS IS POSTED HERE FROM AN EMAIL HE SENT TO ME TO EXPLAIN WHAT I HAVE QUOTED (may be incorrectly) EARLIER:

The idea is to awaken more and more affected pensioners/ family pensioners/ their less-privileged-efacilityless pensioners to address the ANOMALY COMMITTEEE to highlight their disparities/ omissions in pension revisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GR's ANALYSIS:

I(GR) had indicated through the graphs-2.26MFvs para 4.2 that even the limited modified party as per para 5.1.47 is advantageous to all pay scales, though the no. of stages in each of these scale where the para 5.1.47 will benefit them will vary from scale to scale.

The pay fixation factor of 1.86 Mf is largely followed upto S-23 and the sudden upward jump from 1.86 starts only from S-24. Consequently the original Para 4.2 or 5.1.47 would be more beneficial to these officers(from S-24 onwards), rather than the concordance table.

I(GR) have examined this in detail;

S-6 to S15 merge in PB-2.and the cumulative no. of stages of all pay scales including 3 stagnation stages in each of the pay scale will work out to 179.

Out of these 46 stages will be benefitted by the 4.2 formula, concordance table being beneficial for others

Similarly in PB3, comprising of 8 scales excluding the new scale will have total 96 stages out of which 23 will be benefitted by the 4.2 para

For PB4 consisting of 7 scales and 85 stages, para 4.2 would be beneficial for all the scales except 2 stagnation stage-one each in S-27 and 28, which will only benefitted by the 2.26 MF

Thus out of the total no. of stages in Group B/C from S-6 which are bound to gain if para 4.2 is implemented is 46 out of 179. For Pb-3 it is 23/98 For Pb4 it is 73 out of 75

I(GR) hope this clarifies the position.

Yes PB4 are the biggest losers but there are losers in other pay bands and in all pay scales without any exception.

Courtesy: G RAMDAS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above are indicative/ comparative analysis based on current provisions. PL NOTE MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT I WRITE BELOW:

PROVISION/ IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTED PARA 5.1.47 (In terms of the CCS(RP)Rules 2008) WILL BE THE NEED OF THE HOUR FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT BENEFITED BY 2.26 FORMULA and the AC MUST MAKE AN INTERIM APPEAL TO THE GOVT. TO ACT ON THIS TO AVOID "AVOIDABLE" LITIGATIONS!

FINAL OUTCOME CAN BE BASED ON FINAL RECOS OF THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-06-2009, 11:47 AM
CAUTION: (added on 10th June 2009 Based on Shri GR's addendum by email)

This table is only a Draft. Shri GR has improved it and he is putting up the improved version in steps and stages.

This is only to SENSITISE & SHARPEN the old Pensioners to be alert in applying the 2.26 Formula blindly.

So KINDLY CHK FOR SGRI GR's IMPROVED VERSION OF THE TABLE IN THE LINK HE MAY PROVIDE LATER.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All, (PENSIONERS & PENSIONERS WELL-WISHERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS-FEDERATIONS)

PL FORWARD THIS BASIC DOCUMENT FROM ALL ORIGINAL POINTS TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEEE AS THE CONTENTS HERE MAY COVER MANY ANOMALIES OF INDIVIDUAL PENSIONERS WHO DO NOT OR WILL NOT HAVE MEANS TO ANALYSE & APPEAL INDIVIDUALLY!

PL DO AS A DEDICATED SERVICE!

This Detailed Table has been prepared by Shri G RAMDAS in an ingeneous manner, Taking trouble to toil over more than a fortnight in the interest of all pre-2006 pensioners, who need to understand precisely how they are ALL affected by the denial of MODIFIED PARITY which can only be ASSURED through CORRECT INTERPRETATION/ IMPLEMENTATION of PARA 5.1.47 of the SCPC REPORT (not its modified/ WANTONLY tampered/ mutilated/ WILFULLY distorted versions appearing in OMs of 1st Sept/ 3rd Oct/14th Oct 2008 etc and their related other OMs like 11th Feb 2009):

(Table gets distorted when copied & brought on to this web page. However pl feel free to clarify doubts, if needed. There are six columns A,B,C,D,E,F & G. Their titles are easily understandable. So also the respective figures which appear in seriatum).

Pl check your pre-2006 basic pension with the respective column and then ARRIVE AT HOW & HOW MUCH U R AFFECTED:

A.Pre-revised pay scale
B.Pay Range
C.Pension at min. of scale as per concordance table(MF 2.26)
D.Pension at max.of stagnation stages as per concord. table (MF 2.26)
E.Pension as per original para 4.2 .
F.Pay/stage in pre-revised scale for which para 4.2 is more beneficial than 2.26 MF .
G Pay/stage in pre-revised scale for which 2.26 MF formula is more beneficial than para 4.2


A. B. C. D. E. F. G.
S-7 4000-100-6000 2000x2.26= 4520 7119 4920 Upto 4300/4 From 4400/5
S-8 4500-125-7000 2250x2.26= 5085 8335 5585 Upto 4875/4 4900/5
S-9 5000-150-8000 2500x2.26= 5650 9548 6750 Upto 5900/7 6050/8
S-10 5500-175-9000 2750x2.26= 6215 10764 7215 Upto 6375/6 6550/7
S-11 6500-200-6900 3250x2.26= 7345 8475 8145 Upto 7100/4
Stagnation stage 7300/5
Stagnation stage
S-12 6500-200-10500 3250x2.26= 7345 12543 8145 Upto 7100/4 7300/5
S-13 7450-225-11500 3725x2.26= 8418 13757 9230 Upto 8125/4 8350/5
S-14 7500-250-12000 3750x2.26= 8475 14407 9375 Upto 8250/4 8500/5
S-15 8000-275-13500
4000x2.26= 9040 16186 10140 Upto 8825/4 9100/5
S-16 9000
4500x2.26= 10170 10170 11070 Fixed scale, para4.2 beneficial
S-17 9000-275-9550
4500x2.26= 10170 11724 11070 Upto 9550/3
stagnation stage 9825/4
stagnation stage
S-18 10325-325-10975
5163x2.26= 11668 13503 12905 Upto 11300/4
stagnation stage 11625/5
stagnation stage
S-19 10000-325-15200 5000x2.26= 11300 18276 12600 Upto 10975/4 11300/5
S-20 10650-325-15850 5325x2.26= 12034 19011 13205 Upto 11625/4 11950/5
S-21 12000-375-16500 6000x2.26= 13560 19915 14960 Upto 13125/4 13500/5
S-22 12750-375-16500 6375x2.26=14407 19915 15660 Upto 13875/4 14250/5
S-23 12000-375-18000 6000x2.26=13560 21610 14960 Upto 13125/4 13500/5
S-24 14300-400-18300 7150x2.26= 16159 23050 23100 All stages nil
S-25 15100-400-18300 7550x2.26= 17063 23050 24195 All stages nil
S-26 16400-450-20000 8200x2.26= 18532 24125 24295 All stages nil
S-27 16400-450-20900 8200x2.26= 18532 25142 24295 All stages except last 2 stagnation stages 21800/last 2 stagnation stages
S-28 14300-450-22400 7150x2.26= 16159 26837 23700 All stages except last stagnation stage 23750 last stagnation stage
S-29 18400-500-22400 9200x2.26= 20792 27007 27350 All stages nil
S-30 22400-525-24500 11200x2.26=25312 27685 31425 All stages nil

Notes:
1.Max. pension is based on max. of the pay scale including stagnation increments

2. Pension as per 4.2 is beneficial for all scales at min. of the scale.

3. Pension as per para 4.2 is beneficial for all stages, including stagnation stages, for all scales above S-24, but for a few instances of stagnation stages(See Col.F).
4. In all other scales para 4.2 is beneficial for the first 4 to 7 stages, (see col.F.)- beyond which concordance table-2.26 MF- is beneficial
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COURTESY: Shri G RAMDAS

Pl study & react.

G.Ramdas
09-06-2009, 03:51 PM
Re Sh. VN's post at S.No 642,
I have posted the following messge in the staffcorner discussion forum


"Are you a central Govt pensioner who has retired before 1.1.2006?
It is quite likely that your pension has not been properly fixed as per the original provisions of para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC and notified by the Dept of Pensions on 1.9.08, in view of the alterations subsequently made thro' OMs of 3.10 and 14.10 .08.
There is an opportunity for you to represent to the Anomalies committee pointing out the anomaly. You might think that the pension fixation as per the concordance Table (2.26 MF) is more beneficial to you than the modified para 4.2 provisions. Yet, you may be losing substantial amount due to the denial of original provisions contained in para5.1.47 of the 6CPC.
Pl. check from the attached table whether you are getting the rightful pension. If not appeal to the Anomalies Committee. You may be doing a favour not only for yourself but to the pensioner community at large. Thanks
G.Ramdas
The Table mentioned in sh.VN's post above can be seen/downloaded from the link below,where I have uploaded the file
http://www.mediafire.com/?mokyqrzzudw

The file /Table has been updated today-11.06.09

sundarar
09-06-2009, 08:19 PM
Dear Sirs,

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

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

PARA 5.1.47 OF 6CPC: ......the pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table'

(1) The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 at S.No.12 indicates acceptance of the Government in respect of the Para 5.1.47 that specifies `the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band AND the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' [/B]- without any modification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards
Sundarar.

sundarar
10-06-2009, 07:13 AM
Dear Sirs,

In continuation of my above post, according to advertisements at present from GOI for filling up of vacant posts, the basic pay for a recruitee consists of pay in the pay band and grade pay attached to the post. In such a case, 50% of such minimum basic pay shall be the guaranteed minimum revised pension for a retiree of Pre-2006 who retired from the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

aritra78
10-06-2009, 12:06 PM
Dear Sir,
Day before yesterday one news had come in a local Bengali Newspaper that Hon Railway Minister has stated that Railways is considering the full implementation of sixth pay commission recommendations and that will put additional financial burden of Rs 14000 crore, which it is trying to arrange from some source. I do not know whether this news include the consideration of pre-2006 pensioners. As such I request Railway pensioners as well as RREWA and other associations of Railway pensioners to make a fresh appeal to Mamata Banerjee for her kind intervention. Also when I was surfing the internet I found that Hon Minister of state for Finance is also a retired IPS officer (Pre-2006) retired from the post of ADG. The asoociations can also request his intervention into the matter.
With regards,
ARITRA GANGULY

vnatarajan
10-06-2009, 03:13 PM
RECAP PARA 5.1.47 Post 644 of Sundarar

Dear Shri Sundarar/ others interested in the subject,

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

Landmark points to be noted are:

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps they will never do that!

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

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

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

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

Coming to your concluding part:

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

IN EFFECT THEY ARE:

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

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

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

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

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

Regards. (more may follow)

vnatarajan

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

G.Ramdas
11-06-2009, 11:06 AM
I have the following observations.
1. The para 4.2 is not the same as para 5.1.47 of 6CPC and the damage had started there itself.
para 5.1.47 reads• 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.
With the alteration to the words 'the sum of' and 'thereon' the first step of systematic damage had commenced.
2.The term pay in the pay band is defined in CCS(RP) Rules 2008 and there is no other definition. I had asked in my RTI query whether there was any other definition for the pre-2206 pensioner- but this was not answered and was avoided.
As far as post 2006 pensioners OM of 3.10.08, applicabe to them tells the position only about them. Their pay having been fixed in the revised pay band, they have- a pay in the pay band- which unfortunately is not available to pre-2006 pensioners as their old pay is not notionally refixed in the new pay bands/pay scales.
So there is no hope of taking shelter under this OM

3.To avoid all disputes about 'corresponding or irrespective of ' the rewording of para 4.2 as suggested by DP&PW in their note de 2.1.09 to Do E would be ideal. we should strive for this.

“The Revised Pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the revised pay in the running pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to the minimum basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale, from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at in accordance with the Fitment Tables given in the Annexure I of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.”
G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
13-06-2009, 09:43 AM
ANOMALY COMMITTEE????

Good News or Bad news? Suspense continues on the Anomaly Committee's Role wrt Gr A/B Pensioners! Of course common issues could be the BRIDGE to resolve the crisis if any:

Dear All

AC will not attend to Gr A/B Pensioners’ anomalies- this news is disturbing:

The terms of reference of the Anomaly Committee do not put a specific restriction on considering the ssues related to any of the "so-called" pre-retirement cadres (A/B/C/D) of the Pensioners!

It is for the "Pensioners' Associations etc." (words used in the AC related OM of 23rd March 2009)to get this point "officially" clarified through a written commmunication- if necessary thru RTI (wh now we find that the concerned Deptt. do not respond to many "inconvenient" queries- particularly after the CIO had hauled up some authority for their omission).

We find, unfortunately, many Pensioners' Associations are indifferent to the relatively "higher" pension-drawing pensioners' expression of protests without understanding the BASICS of the issues that are common to all.

For example, out of the SCPC Related implementations, the following issues are common to all "categories/ cadres"-( I mean A,B,C,D if one wants to discern so!), which are results of violation of the very "Guiding Principles/ Policies" paving to the ultimate Recommendations:

1.Denial of Modified Parity to pre-2006 Pensioners right across the board. Each has to verify the 2.26 MF pension wrt his/her last pay drawn (ie pension basic as on 1.1.1996)vis-a-vis MODIFIED PARITY based on CCS (Revised Pay)Rules 2008 - MINIMUM of the Revised Pension for a post-2006 pensioner of equivalent scale (Shri GR's tables). Then only the pensioner will understand if there is some loss! At least 25 per cent of Pensioners would suffer a loss!

2.Denial of "eligible" parity to the 20yr plus- 33yr minus Pensioners- how to arrive at the correct modus operandi- as the OM of 12th May 2006 trying to segregate them as NOT BELONGING to "HOMOGENOUS CLASS" will not find strength/ stand scrutiny.

3.One time relief/pragmatic NOTIONAL FIXATION for very old Pensioners who have suffered "multiple merger" of their "vanished" pay-scales due to repeated "Pay Banding" (likely to happen for pre-2006 pensioners also in the next Sevnth Pay Revision, if one lives to suffer this harassment!)

ABOVE COMMON ISSUES DO CONSTITUTE THE ROOT CAUSES FOR ALL INDIVIDUAL ANOMALIES.

MODIFIED PARITY IS BASIC AND SHD BE RECOMMENDED BY THE AC WITHOUT DELAY TO ALL AS AN INTERIM MEASURE.

OTHER ISSUES MUST BE CRITICALLY EXAMINED FOR RESOLUTIONS.

Other Individual Anomalies of course would require case to case resolutions based on the merits of each case/ their precedences.

vnatarajan[/B][/B]

vnatarajan
15-06-2009, 11:34 AM
ADMINISTRATION AT THE LOWEST EBB!

CHAOTIC DISPENSATION UNDER SCPCs REVISION OF PENSION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS!

WILL THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE LOOK INTO THIS FIRST?

PENSION OUTCOME-POOR PARA 5.1.47

What is the net result of this “misinterpretation of SCPC’s Para 5.1.47/ implementation through its altered version as Para 4.2 of OM dtd 1st Sept 2008 etc?

It has resulted in a MOST ANOMALOUS OUTCOME which needs to be addressed and resolved by the NAC quickly to stop such ludicrous practices in future and also stem the rot that has caused for selected segments of current pre-2006 pensioners:

The OMs dtd 1st Sept/3rd & 14th Oct 2008 iced by the DO lr of CPAO’s office dtd 26th Sept 2008, directly and indirectly resulted in three categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners according to the formula adopted for their pension revision:

(i) Adopting MF 2.26 on the basic pension of 1.1. 1996 (mostly useful upto PB3 Pensioners except for a few initial stages in each of the pre-revised scales with the result quite a lot of pensioners may get slightly more than “MODIFIED PARITY”. Others do not know that they have not got their due ie the “MODIFIED PARITY” in the least!)

(ii) Following the altered Para 4.2 decision in the OM of 1st Sept 2008 etc, further decimated by the DO letter of CPAO’s office dtd 26th Sept 2006, adopting “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” as the basis- having NO RELEVANCE to the pre-revised pay scale or revised pay-scale or Revised Pay Rules. In fact no RULES are applied! (mostly applicable to PB4 included scales except S24, with the result many get REDUCED or NEGATIVE PARITY ie much less than “MODIFIED PARITY”. Pensioners lose the total identity of their pre-revised pay scales/last pay drawn etc which are the very FOUNDATIONS FOR DEFINING/REVISING PENSIONs at all times!)

(iii)Adopting “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE” .for the few privileged/Elite Scales- S31 to S34 –(with the fantastic result all of them get MUC MUCH MORE THAN MODIFIED PARITY and in fact a little short of full parity!).

Anomaly Committee needs to be appraised by all to ensure EQUAL/EQUITABLE BENEFITS in the least to the very HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS and not to ALLOW the creation of DIVISIONS among them by the irregular/ conflicting Orders of the Govt.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
15-06-2009, 07:38 PM
My dear VN. I cangratulate you for continueing the struggle.

vnatarajan
17-06-2009, 01:32 PM
Dear All

(this has reference to what Shri GR had posted today (17th June 2009) at my request in the other thread titled ANOMALY COMMITTEE)

I am happy to inform you that today, 17th June 2009, I have sent to the Secretary (staff Side), Anomaly Committee, the finalised appeal on the SCPC Related Anomalies in response to the official circular. I have sent the same in my capacity as the President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to the AIFPA,Chennai)/Associate Member, RREWA, as an aggrieved pensioner etc and also on behalf of several other Pensioners/ Family Pensioners who do not have a Forum to represent them but who have been viewing the developments through social network websites like Gconnect. In/ Surispace.net/RREWA Portal etc.----


My request to all those who are quite capable physically/ mentally/ monetarily:

1.Pl see all of you make appeals to NAC (with selected parts from the appeal attached as necessary) without fail.
2.Pl pursue with others also to make appeals- give them copies and make them send.the same to the NAC.
3.Pl pursue actions with as many Associations/ Federations to for ward your appeals/ make similar appeals.
4.Those who have access to other powerful sources- including individual members of the NAC- pl send them copies and ensure they give attention to the appeal.
5.Any action at higher heirarchial levels like pursuing MPs/Miniusters etc will be very useful.
6.If you can get the press support for this appeal, it may be useful.

More when I see some clear actions that follow the above appeal!"

The complete text of the appeal has been uploaded Kindly by SHRI G RAMDAS to the link shown below and can be seen /downloaded therefrom by all interested Pensioners/ Associations etc.

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f...018c8114394287

I shall try to post the full text if possible here- it is nearly 20 pages- as it covers more than eight vital issues concerning the anomalies etc. Of course many of the items are those which have been individually posted in Gconnect eralier by me.

Regards

vnatarajan

sundarar
18-06-2009, 06:22 AM
Respected Shri VNJI,

A Right action at right point of time, when we all were looking for
some remedial avenue, you had devoted entirely to see that no efforts are spared in bringing the matter quickly and nicely.

The compilation of various points involved with appropriate appealing
style, the Appeal has got legalised status. The document is well presented and it will definitely bring home the desired results.

Although every one is trying in their own way to make the common
cause strong, your present attempt has a global coverage.

The Appeal commensurate with the ultimate reader's competency and
all of us thank you and wish a Grand Success for your Herculean Task.

I request that more such qualified documents shall reach the
concerned Committee, Authorities and the highest power centre from all quarters of the pensioners circle.

Particularly, the pensioners other than CG also may like to make use
of the issues pointed out, and as such your valuable Appeal has become
a REFERENCE.

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

kkhameedkutty
18-06-2009, 04:18 PM
Dear VN Sir,

Thanks a lot for your good heart in bringing all the 6th CPC anomalies of pensioners in a right and comprehensive manner and for the continued struggle at this age on behalf of pensioners. You have blessings of God and all the pensioners.

With Regards,

KKH Kutty

vnatarajan
19-06-2009, 12:07 PM
(My sincere and grateful thanks to all my friends- KKK/NSR/KSS/GR/AR/AVSM(from abroad)/RT etc for the nice mails they have sent me. Shall revert later).

]INSPIRATION TO BE CRITICAL!

Dear all,

The more you peruse the pitiable repetetive erroneous/no-sense text etc in the SCPC Pre-2006 Pension OMs and the RTI replies we have all seen or recieved, you feel more and more inspired to write greater sense!

Now, my friend/ copensioner - Shri PKR had made a brilliant synthesis of the RTI based deductions- and I have tried to add flavour to it with little cosmetic additions- and some of the outputs are posted here.

Each observation is a pearl of factual statement- which can be AUTHENTICATED to a large extent- and those going to CAT/ courts can make a good note of these:


i. That the Minimum of the Pay In The Pay Band is not the same as the Minimum Of the Pay Band. That these two are clearly different entities.

(My flavour:

Nowhere there is a record!. It is your word against my word!

As on the day of the OM of 1st Sept 2008, the only official document whuch defined the SCPC's Recommended/Accepted pay etc is the MOF's detailed resolution dtd 30TH August 2008 which had the elaborate CONCORDANT Tables for all pre-revised scales, within the respective Pay-Bands!

That the above document is applied for S-31 to 34 proves that this has recognition for others' pension revisions also!)

ii. That the Minimum /least pension applicable to a number of posts /grades
wef 01- 01-2006 is different and higher than the pre-2006 minimum pension for the same posts /grades as has been granted under MOPPGP's OMs of 03-10-08 and 14- 10-08

(My flavour: Same reference as in (i) has to be consulted!)

iii That the Pre-2006 pensioners and post 2006 pensioners of a single grade, being governed by the same statutory CCS ( Pension) Rules 1972 and allied rules, all form a single homogenous class of pensioners

iv. That all new dispensations wrt pension consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC are merely modifications to the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 and the allied rules as the case may be.These dispensations DO NOT , by any means, constitute a new pension scheme ( brought in wef 01-01-06 )

v That it is discriminatory to introduce a benefit retrospectively ( or prospectively), fixing a cut off date arbitrarily, thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatments.

(My flavour:

This is what the DOPPW/MOPPGP have conveyed sincerely in their OM of 12th May 2009!-while disposing the representations of the pre-sept 2008 20 years plus retirees!

There is also a technical blunder here!- what they are CITING can apply only to NON-RECURRING benefits- and not for Pension Revision in the least!)

vi That in the absence upgradation for a pre-2006 post /scale, the corresponding new pay in the relevant pay band (sum of pay and grade pay) should apply for purposes of pension and hence the minimum pay in the pay band (sum of the minimum pay and the grade pay) corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised scale should apply for the assured minimum pension for the post, under the principle of modified parity.

(My flavour:

This is what the DOPPW/MOPPGP have confirmed in their OM dtd 11th Feb 2009 while disposing our representations en-masse)

vii That the legitimate MAP , as recommended by the 6CPC, approved by the cabinet and also reiterated by MOPPGP, as the nodal authority, is now being denied to the pre-2006 pensioners, not because of its legal or technical inadmissibility, but only (as perceived by the Dept of Expenditure ) because of the ‘substantial financial implications,in the event of any change in the provisions , as approved by the cabinet (already altered Para 4.2 of MOPPGP's OM dated 01-09-08 ).

(My flavour:

Pl see RTI material put on RREWA website- DOPPW had sent a proposal to the DOE in early Jan 2009 with a correctly "interp[reted" SCPC's Para 5.1.47 to replace Para 4.2 of the OM!).

viii That this argument above (excuse under money supply!) is a fallacy, since the 6CPC recommendation and acceptance by the cabinet is for a minimum pension wrt to the MINIMUM PAY in THE PAY BAND and NOT wrt the MINIMUM of the PAY BAND and that the 6CPC is on record as having kept in view the financial implications ( para 11.52 ) in finalizing their recommendation and the Cabinet acceptance had taken these into account. The past pensioners are seeking this minimum pension and not its change for better or worse

ix. That, in any case, financial constraints, can NEVER undermine equality before law and interfere with equity and fairplay

ALL PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS OWE THEIR ORIGIN TO THE VERY OMs/ RTI ANSWERS etc!

Since RTI bombardments are taking their TOLL, the various MINISTRIES are now trying to wriggle out of this system- sooner or later!

What a shame!

More to follow!

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
21-06-2009, 06:04 AM
My dear all. When do we expect our 2nd installment of pension arrears ? Is it after presentation of Union Budget on 6th July'09 ? Would it be 100 % of remaining 60 % ? Any opinians ?

G.Ramdas
21-06-2009, 12:14 PM
Re Sh VN's analysis in #655
He mentions in para ii) as under
"ii. That the Minimum /least pension applicable to a number of posts /grades
wef 01- 01-2006 is different and higher than the pre-2006 minimum pension for the same posts /grades as has been granted under MOPPGP's OMs of 03-10-08 and 14- 10-08 "

The 6CPC while promising the same fitment benefit for both the employees and pensioners actually gave only modified parity but even this was denied by the babus who added insult to the injury by delibeate alterations to para5.1.47 of 6CPC.
The net effect is that the pre-06 pesioners were not only discriminated from post2006 pensioners, but also humiliated by the lowering of their status to such low levels -even upto seven or eight scales lower than the post from which they retired.
For example, in the new dispensation a pre-06 pensioner in S-29 will get lower pension than all post 2006 retirees in all stages of S-28, S-27, S-26 and S-25,and all pensioners in S-24 from 5th stage. Similar is the fate for all other scales except some elite scales like S-24.
A full analysis of all Group A scales where pre-2006 pensioners draw much less pension than post 2006 pensioners in lower pay scales may be seen in the attachment below;

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
21-06-2009, 06:33 PM
TO BE READ WITH A PINCH OF SALT & CHILLI!

Dear GR/ all

Excellent Analysis.

Let me try to post the full table of GR here:

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

Read values Seriatum 1 to 4 corresponding to the Titles of the Column
1.Pre-revised pay scale ;
2,Min.Pension for post 1.1.06 retiree-50% of last emoluments Rs.
3.Min. pension for pre-06 pensioner( para 4.1 or 4.2 of OM of 1.9.08 whichever is beneficial) Rs.
4.Post 1.1.06 pensioners from lower scales drawing higher pension than pre-06 retirees of higher posts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2. 3. 4.
S-16 11070 10500 S15-from 3rd stage,S14 from 6th, S-13 from 8th, S-12 last 11stages, S-10 last 3 stages
S-17 11070 10500 -do-
S-18 12905 11665 S-17-last 3,S-15 from 7th,S-14 last 12,S-13 last 11,S-12 last 5
S-19 12600 11300 S-18 all stages,S-17 from 2nd,S-15 from 6th, S-14 last 11stages, S-13 last12,S-12 last 12stages
S-20 13205 12034 S-19 &S-18 all, S-17last 2 stages,S-15 from 9th, S-14 last 10, S-13 last8 ,S-12 last 3 stages
S-21 14960 13560 S-20 from 3rd, S-19 from 5th, S-18 from 4th, S-15 from 15th, S-14 last 3,S-13 last stage
S-22 15660 14407 S-21 all,S-20 from 5th stage, S-19 from 7th, S-18 last 1,S-15 last 7
S-23 14960 13560 S-22 all,S-21 all, S-20 from 3rd, S-19 from 5th, S-18 4th, S-15 from15th,S-14 last 3,S-13 last stage
S-24 23050 23050 -
S-25 23050 23050 S-24 all stages
S-26 23150 23150 S-25 all,S-24 from 3rd
S-27 23150 23150 S-26 all, S-25 all,S-24 from 3rd
S-28 23700 23700 S-27,26,25 all stages,S-24 from 5th stage
S-29 27350 23700 S-28,27,26,25 all stages,S-24 from 5th stage
S-30 31925 25312 S-29 all,S-28 from 7th stage, S-27 from 4th, S-26 from 4th, S-25- 5th, S-24 from 9th stage

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

I think now all can realise how the "DOWNGRADATION" or "REDUCTION IN MINIMUM EMTITLED PENSION" is PERPETRATED most illegally/ blatantly/ on the PRE_2008 PENSIONERS and it is for the NAC to take note of the EVIL system that is being brought into effect by the BABUs in the name of "PAY BANDING" through "AUTOCRATIC" style of merger of scales.

Why not all S31 to S34 Scales be merged into a PAY BAND running from 0 to 91000, with a "VERY HIGH" GRADE PAY thereon of Rs 12001 (Re 1 more than S30) and their pension be REVISED to half of the sum of Rs 0 and Rs 12001 wh works out to Rs 6000/50 p to save the NATION from the FINANCIAL CRISIS!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
25-06-2009, 08:09 AM
WILL THE ATTORNY GENERAL PUT INTO ACTION WHAT HE ADVOCATES?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT APPEARED IN THE WEBSITE “INDIAN MILITARY SERVICE BENFITS & INSSUES”
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009
New Attorney General would aim to reduce Govt vs Citizen litigation
Note : Comment moderation / uploads shall remain slow for a few days. Please bear with me.

A whiff of fresh air. The New Attorney General of India, Ghoolam E Vahanvati, a rock music fan and a lawyer of repute, has stated reduction of govt filed litigation as one of his top KRAs.

As we all know, govt is the biggest litigant in the country. Many-a-times, there are issues which should just not be taken to court, but are, and ultimately result in unnecessary wastage of Court time, govt and private resources. In fact, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had recently slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Haryana State for filing a ‘frivolous appeal’ against a citizen.

The problem with us is that we treat court matters against a backdrop of upmanship. A citizen getting his predicament addressed through a court results in triggering of a strange form of egotism in govt departments, which without any application of mind, ensure that they take the issue to a higher judicial level, whether they are right or wrong.

This happens in every organisation. A detailed must-read blog on the same problem within the defence establishment can be accessed by clicking here. The problem requires a change in mindset. Legal advisors in various departments need to be briefed that firstly issues that can be addressed in-house should be and citizens & employees should not be forced to approach Hon’ble Courts of Law. Secondly, the govt legal mechanism should be sensitised that their duty is not to ‘win’ cases in Courts but to assist the Hon’ble Courts in arriving at justice, and once justice is rendered, it should not lead to egotism but introspection as to what went wrong in-house.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:05 AM
Labels: law, Misc


Comments by VNatarajan:

VNatarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum (affil. to AIFPA Chennai Regd.), Chennai said...
Dear Maj Navdeep,

You have put up the write-up/blog at the appropriate time. One of the glaring examples of unwanted Govt. provoked/ sponsored/ contested litigation is the repetetive deprival of Pension Parity to the old, helpless(physically/ mentally/ financially/ logistically (for legal matters)), aged,pensioners- both CIVIL and MILITARY included. This offence is perpetrated by the Govt./ its Babus much against well known/ land-mark judgments of the Supreme Court/High Courts/CATs in several such cases, against the relevant Articles of the Constitution, and even against ots own Rules under the concerned Act!. You are aware of the fiasco of the Sixth Pay Commssion Pre-2006Pensioners' woes and also the nearly akin OROP demands. WHEN WILL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT WITH AN IRON HAND AGAINST THE ERRING GOVT. FUNCTIONARIES? Even the somewhat purposeful/ effective RTI Act Provisions found to be inconvenient to the Babus are perhaps being diluted with the blessings of Hon. top CEO of the country!
June 23, 2009 7:37 AM
================================================== ======

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
28-06-2009, 04:13 PM
Dear All

Yet another marvellous synthesised analysis of the anomalies arising out of the wrong interpretation/ implementation of the Recommendations of the Sixth CPC in respect of pre-2006 pensioners, covering the ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF ALL CADRES (Gr A B C D) of Pensioners had been submitted by our friend Shri G RAMDAS, as a Pensioners & Member of the PENSIONERS' FORUM, Chennai to the NAC on 27th June 2009.

Entire text running to 19 pages is put up in the RREWA website already by its GSec SCM, today.

GR also will be posting it in some more accessible websites soon and he will publish the "links" here.

The text specially covers the aspect of FITMENT BENEFITs and the implications thereof.

The entire analysis is supported by several Tables/ Graphic 2D- 3D diagrams, high tech outputs and many can easily comprehend by looking at the figures and tables.

Our hearty thanks and congratulations to GR for his timely efforts and presentations.

(Pl do not allow the LULL to continue for long. Lest the babus may think we have become dorment!)

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
29-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Dear Sh VN,
Thanks for making my job easier.
yes, I have sent a detailed representation to the Anomalies Committee, highlighting the anomalies and explaining how these have arisen and what are the effects on pre-2006 pensioners. To make the illustration easier, I have used Tables,graphs,2-d and 3-D bar charts( and of course, some materials borrowed from Sh VN).This, i hope will make it easy for the reader to grasp the subject in one glance.
The doument is available in the following link :
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=fa057c68c53b2c552fb2ca15d7ea42d9fef20fdc 67c21c4ece018c8114394287
This is also posted in RREWA website and can be seen from the link:
http://www.rrewa.org/currentIssues.aspx

For the benefit of S-30 pensioners who are members of the Yahoo group, this has been posted in their website also

If you are pre-2006 pensioner but still think that you have not lost anything in implementation of the 6CPC Report, make sure that it is the case, by reading this document.At least some of the pensioners now feel that they were not aware of the losses .

G.Ramdas

aritra78
29-06-2009, 04:41 PM
Sirs,
Last few days back I was listening to the DD News where I heard that Cabinet Secretary (who is the head of committee of secretaries) Mr. Chandrasekhar made a detailed presentation on "one rank one pension issue" mainly for Ex-Servicemen before the Honourable PM in PMO. The meeting was attended by Hon Finance Minister, Defence Minister and MOS in PMO. But the result of the meeting or PM's reaction was not given in DDNews. Any news about the development. If anyone can highlight if any detailed news appeared in any newspaper?
With regards,
ARITRA GANGULY

dnaga57
30-06-2009, 08:01 AM
Dear Shri Ramdass
w.r.t your quote below, I wish to thank you profusely for your gigantic effort in making the issue of parity ( modified or total) & 'pay in the pay band' issue succinctly well. It should be evident to any fair minded person as to how babudom has contrived its interpretations of a straight forward issue, thus depriving the whole lot of pre 2006 pensioners of their rightful due. Our blessings- along with God's will be with you.
I note that while you concentrated on the paras 4,1, 4,2 interpretation, you have not emphasised the 20 year full pension rule. 6th PC had recommended for the prorating rule for less than 33 years service to be dispensed with . It only suggested that the benefit be prospective for drawal of arrears.That is ALL pensioners with 20 years service will get full pension from 2-9-2008 & prorated pension before that date.
The babudom has interpreted this as 'applicable from 2-9-2008 thus depriving both pre 2006 & post 2006-pre 2-9-2008 pensioners of this benefit creating 3 classes of pensioners.
Can you exert your mind & hand in ilustrating this too.
Thanks in advance

Dear Sh VN,
Thanks for making my job easier.
yes, I have sent a detailed representation to the Anomalies Committee, highlighting the anomalies and explaining how these have arisen and what are the effects on pre-2006 pensioners

G.Ramdas
30-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Thank you dnaga,
I am sorry, my write up was basically restricted to the anomalies about the fitment benefits as mentioned in the introductory para. I agree that there are other anomalies including the denial for pensioners with less than 20 years service. Sh. Hamedkutty has done a wonderful job in sending a representation covering these aspects. In any case if i can be of any help to you all, i will certainly contribute along with Sh. Natarajan who is ever ready to fight for these causes.
G.Ramdas

dnaga57
30-06-2009, 03:55 PM
Dear Shri Ramdass
You can help by making one more representation on our behalf on this issue.
I have ben writing on this but lack the felicity of representing with facts & figures that you have.
Can you extend your kindness & indulge in this
Many thanks in advance

vnatarajan
02-07-2009, 05:09 PM
DEAR ALL

HOPE FOR SOME JUSTICE ON THE BUDGET DAY!

PRANABDA MAY NOT LET US DOWN!

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
07-07-2009, 08:35 AM
Sorry Sh VN,
Not only civilian pensioners, but defence officer- pensions have also been left high and dry in the budget exercise.
What next?
GR

vnatarajan
07-07-2009, 11:36 AM
Dear GR

Grey area is still:?- what has happened to the Maj Gen.'s case/ parity- wh was under contempt and to be disposed much before!

S30 Yahoo group perhaps may lead the way.

Those who aim at modified parity - must follow some common strategy:

WHY NOT INDIVIDUALLY GO TO CAT?

A COMMONLY DRAFTED AFFIDAVIT MUST BE FILED INDIVIDUALLY TO CAT AT VARIOUS PLACES ALMOST AT THE SAME TIME.

INDIVIDUAL PENSIONERS MAY NOT NEED TO ENGAGE LAWYERS.

OUR SUBMISSION SHD BE TO SAY WE HAVE NO RESOURCE TO ENGAGE LAWYERS AND HENCE INDIVIDUAL FILING.

WE WILL REQUEST THE CAT TO DECIDE ON MERITS OF THE CASE FOR PARITY.

WE WILL ATTACH ALL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE PRESENTED IN A NUT-SHELL.

LET HUNDREDS OF PENSIONERS COME FORWARD TO DO THIS STYLE OF PROTEST AND EXPRESSION OF PLEA FOR JUSTICE.

Suggestions/ comments welcome please.

(I am serious- and S/Shri PKR/ AR/ GR etc from Chennai will be able to add momentum)

Regards

vnatarajan

dnaga57
07-07-2009, 04:27 PM
I am willing to do so at Hyderabad. I will need the materials though.
Would be grateful to receive them & use them.
Some movement is called for......

Kanaujiaml
07-07-2009, 07:41 PM
Dear All. So finally Govt. has decided , as stated by the FM during Budget speech, to grant one rank one pay/pension to lower cadres of defence services. The details would only be known when Notification comes. So far, there is nothing on the net.

vnatarajan
09-07-2009, 11:46 AM
Dear All

Here is a review of the half-baked "OROP" announced by the FM in his budget speech. This has appeared in a military blog site- "Report My Signal"- editorial.

However we have to await the full details of the scheme.

Rs 2100 cr per annum for 12 lakh pensioners works out to Rs 17500 per annum per military pensioner or Rs 1500 per month!

Our projection for modified parity for all was around 6000 cr to 9000 cr maximum- for all-including civil and military pensioners in one stroke!

What an ill-conceived frustrating useless decision by the Govt.?

Even military officers-pensioners are left out- and they will have to fight like us for parity!

Govt. is penny-wise - pound-foolish- unless it is OTHERWISE?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENT ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
A skilfully crafted statement by the Finance Minister Mr Pranab Mukherjee on the long standing demand of the Defence Forces for One Rank One Pension (OROP), while presenting the 2009-10 budget, has created a wholly erroneous impression that OROP has finally been granted by the Congress Govt. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, available information indicates that the issue of OROP has not been even remotely addressed.
By bringing pre 1996 pensioners at par with the post 1996 pensioners, the Finance Minister has only rectified a 13 years old anomaly, which should have been done long ago. Revised pensions announced after the VI CPC had created three distinct classes of pensioners; pre 1996 retirees, 01 Jan 1996 to 31 Dec 2005 retirees and post 01 Jan 2006 retirees. As a result, similar personnel in each class received widely differing pensions. Equity and natural justice demanded that these artificial distinctions should have been removed whenever pensions were revised; post V and VI CPCs. In a litigation relating to equity between pre and post 1996 defence pensioners, even the Supreme Court had ruled in Sep 2008 that such distinctions violated Article 14 of our Constitution. In fact, one may argue that Mr Mukherjee’s reported magnanimity is guided more by the apex court judgment than any serious concern for the Defence Pensioners.
Importantly, the distinction between pre and post 2006 pensioners remains un-addressed. It needs reminding that the demand of the Defence Forces and Defence Pensioners for OROP was, in fact, ONLY for removal of this distinction. Such indifference of the Congress Govt for the Defence Forces and veterans is all the more galling, when viewed against the President’s statement, assuring early resolution of OROP, at the recent combined session of the Parliament. And, what is one to make of repeated statements of the MoD and the Raksha Mantri that the gap in pensions between the old and new pensioners will be substantially reduced and pensionery benefits of officers and jawans brought as close to OROP as possible?

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

Not many appear to be satisfied!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
10-07-2009, 01:32 PM
DEAR ALL

1.I HOPE AND WISH ALL PENSIONERS HAVE REPRESENTED TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE AS ALREADY ADVISED BY VARIOUS SOURCES.

2.IF GROUP A/ B PENSIONERS HAVE ANY APPREHENSIONS, THEY ARE REQUESTED TO SEND THE APPEALS IN ADDITION TO THE DIRECTOR (PP) (ATTN Mr MPSingh,IAS), DEPTT OF PENSIONS & PENSIONERS’ WELFARE, MIN OF P,PG,P, LOK NAYAK BAHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI 110003.

3.IN ADDITION THEY, PARTICULARLY THE GROUP A / B PENSIONERS, MAY SEND SIMILAR APPEALS TO THE CABINET SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT, RASHTRAPATHI BAHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110004, -WITHOUT FAIL.

For info of all<

Today (10th July 2009) I have sent by Regd Post AD, separate appeals to the Director, DOPPW and to the Cabinet Secretary on my own behalf and on behalf of PENSIONERS’ FORUM, CHENNAI- and also on behalf of all aggrieved Pensioners/ Family Pensioners all over the country- and with these appeals I have also enclosed the massive appeal sent to the NAC on 17th June 2009.

Pl make once more a timely try and strike.

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
17-07-2009, 03:14 PM
Dear All

Piece-meal actions noted.

Ministry of Finance has issued Gazette Notification for creation of new scale of Rs 67000 onwards equivalent to Rs22400-24500 - S30 today.

Problem of HAG resolved? Those in service can get some relief.

What about HAG pre-2006 pensioners?

Must also be covered.

Pre 2006 S30 Pensioners problem resolved most probably now!

CONGRATS IN ADVANCE for them if I am correct.

vnatarajan

PS: Part of the PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD is served. OBJECTIVE achieved partially (1 out of 26 & more)!

G.Ramdas
17-07-2009, 03:18 PM
This is the latest post in S-30 yahoogroup
"Friends,
Congratulations. New HAG scale announced by Government corresponding to S30 of VCPC is 67000-79000. Notification is in attachment.
Alertness of Mr G Ramdas brought this good news to me.
Deptt of Pensions should come out with notification for pensioners."


http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/notofication/hagscale170709.pdf

Kanaujiaml
18-07-2009, 09:48 AM
My dear G.Ramdas and other Pensioener friends in S30. I congratulate all of you. You have won the battle. Your pension would now be fixed at 50 % of 67000 = 33500 + DR w.e.f. 01 01 06.

dnaga57
18-07-2009, 05:00 PM
Can this be a fore runner for correction of past misinterpretations. Or S-29 downwards will continue to get emaciated ?
A simple order of making interpretation same as post 2006 retireeswould alleviate the suffering
Belling the cat ?????

vnatarajan
18-07-2009, 08:43 PM
Dear dnaga/ others interested,

Lt Gens fixation had to precede Maj Gens'- otherwise APPARENTLY, the latter wd have been drawing a higher PENSION if not the pay scale. Contempt time-frame is hanging as a sword over the Govt's head! Now the Lt Gens can draw a pension of 33500 (as against the earlier amount of 27000+) and Maj Gens' pension has to be fixed somewhere around 29000 now if not more!

Civilians S30 can not be ignored. So they got the parallel fixation. They also shd thank the retd Maj Gens for their getting a preference!

Threshhold for either side is the Mqaj Gens, because of the Sup Court contempt notice.

To satisfy the Jawans etc, near par OROP had been announced but the pension orders may all come together- ultimately.

Revised Pay Scales may enthuse the pensioners (military/ civil) now- but orders may take some time!

We have to wait & see.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
19-07-2009, 07:35 AM
My dear VN, others. Your above analysis appears to be right to some extent. To HAG and above, Govt. is now paying more than the modified parity. Case of M.Gen. has also been decided by adding MSP component both for pay fixation and pension fixation. Only payment of arrears is remaining, which eventaully would be done. After OROP implementation, case for modified parity to S 29 and below would remain and would continue to remain. Govt. has seen our strenth and struggle and is not worried about it. In my opinian, I still thing, we can get full parity if we could go to Supreme Court.

vnatarajan
19-07-2009, 11:17 AM
My dear K/ all

You have seen how Supreme Court shunts pensioners! In any case since what we are facing is a consequence of the SCPC implementations, we may have to follow the normal routes of CAT/ RAT etc. Supreme Court may as well DIRECT us to first approach CAT and then come to them!

(Unless we engage a lawyer of a very high repute and standing- much above the SC!)

Who has the time (AGE-WISE) amongst us to do the service? from Delhi!

Somebody as in the case of S30 has to do the job. Money will certainly not be a constraint as everyone will contribute easily up to 5k each at least from S29- cd be more if required later! OR Some big association/ federation has to take up the issue. If BPS/ RREWA sources cd do it in August meeting, it wd be fine.

Maj Gen's orders are not out if I am correct. So we have to watch for it. Thereafter it will be the elevation of S23 to PB4 as in the case of Lt Cols- which also I feel may be done.

Rest of the scales are not difficult for Govt. to decide as they are all either at or slightly above Modified parity- as mostly the revisions were based on last pay drawn or on MF of 2.26. If the formula is refined to 2.36 or more, it may remove some more anomalies.

Twenty year retirees have to come forward to suggest sacrificing the 5 yr benefit so that they can get a modified parity of 28/33 wrt current retirees of such category (I am letting out my thoughts to break any stalemate in the minds of such pensioners!- I may be pardoned if I am wrong or going off the track!).

I do understand your restlessness- but I think a silver lining will be visible soon.

If S30 is made to wriggle out of PB4 for being UNJUSTLY thrown down from the basic of 22400 to 14300 in PB4, by simple analogy, the topmost of S29 with 22400 basic (may be you or me or somebody) can not be left in the lurch!. For pension parity purpose at the minimum he has to have a basic of 67000-12000 plus 10000 which is 65000 for maximum of the scale (notionally) and minimum cd be 44700 plus 10000 which is 54700! Half of it is 27350- this is the modified parity at the minimum!. So rationale is not unfair. I think several Secretarial JS rank pensioners must be active! Some ex-members of CAT also belong to this category! They must be acting!

However as you realise, the HAG has been given "more than" modified parity of nearly 2k!. Why not S29?

WHY NOT ALL?

( WHY NOT all pre-2006 pensioners from S4 onwards- as a RIGHT- must get the revised pension corresponding to their LAST PAY DRAWN in the new PAY SCALE as per CCS (RP) Rules 2008 with the Grade Pay component as IN THE CASE of the post- 2006 pensioners wef 1.1.2006-more so IF GOVT IS READY TO GO ON amending THE CCS (RP) RULES 2008 piece-meal to suit their whims and fancies!

JUSTICE must SEEM TO BE DONE if not JUSTICE is done- by starting with GRANT OF MODIFIED PARITY FORTHWITH in terms of SCPCs correctly interpreted RECOs)

Let us wait for some more time!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
20-07-2009, 11:29 PM
My dear VN. Kindly re-read my post 678. I have received your e. mail and read questions raised by you. Kindly do not try to read too much into it.
S 30 people are lucky. They had received the support of top brass very early. A note had gone from MOP(P&PW) to MOF(DOE) before the year 2008 ended. It was pending and decision has come now. S30 are now a separate class like HAG+ and HAG++. As I have said in my earlier note, they have got more than the modified parity. I have spoken to some of them. They are happy but are now demanding full parity. Let us wait for Govt. Notification in respect of OROP and Lt. Generals. As I said earlier, Major Gens. have already got what SC gave except the arrears for eight years for which they are still waiting. They are in S29 grade and are still suffering like us (they have been denied modified parity so far) as SC verdict has not given them modified parity or full parity although in discussion these were commented upon. Govt. is now caught up in its own web. Congress party is expected to remain in power for next four and half years. Therefore, Govt. would try to wriggle out of this situation soon . Let us see what happens next.

dnaga57
22-07-2009, 10:50 AM
Am concerned that this site is going 'cold' Not even one fresh post a day.
Are we giving up... wearing out ?

vnatarajan
22-07-2009, 12:02 PM
Dear Naga/ all

For today's sensation as I expected- the Maj Gens case implementation orders have been issued - very very carefully worded- complicated- and of course to take care of any let ups that may happen to avoid any litigation further.

Those interested/ experts must read and interpret the same and post their observations here.

As my friend Shri MLK observeed earlier- is it only arrears- or some fixation based on a notional parity for all Maj Gens & equivalents retired prior to Oct 2001 is to be understood.

Individual pensioners are to apply providing particulars in an annexure.

Obviously fixation will be on full parity upto at least Oct 2001!

After that only- what will happen has to be seen!

One can see the orders in PCDA website pcdapension.nic.in/6cpc etc

http://www.pcdapension.nic.in/6cpc/armyOrder.htm

Circular No. 01 : Revision of Retiring Pension in respect of Major General’s and equivalent retired prior to 01.01.1996 in Implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 9.9.2008 in SLP No. 12357/2006 filed by UOI Vs Maj. Gen. S.P.S. Vains (Retd) and others.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
22-07-2009, 09:06 PM
Kindly refer to my post 680. I have gone through the contents of Shri VN's post 682 above and even clicked sites mentioned and studied the contents. I am still of the opinian that Major Generals pension has already been fixed at higher level after including MSP. So one part of the SC verdict has been complied. The second part is in respect of arears. For this, instructions have been issued and payment would be made to them soon. If you are expecting that SC order includes modified parity or full parity to Retired Major Generals, then perhaps, you may not be right there. Major Generals pension has been fixed at 50 % of sum total of minimum of pay band plus grade pay plus MSP and Notification is available on MOD website. Nothing more nothing less. This is my opinian and I do not mind if some one differs with me.

dnaga is right. gramdass and others have disappeared. We are missing them.

vnatarajan
23-07-2009, 07:57 AM
Dear All

MY brilliant younger friend (WHO WANTS TO REMAIN INVISIBLE) had once again come up with a few very valuable observations/ precedences from the judgments of apex court, as gathered from learned Late PNPadamanabhan, IREEE (retd)'s book , which I reproduce here, to share the information/ knowledge with all:

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

As we all are aware that the achievement in r/o Maj. Generals is the outcome of the great landmark judgments of the APEX COURT of INDIA -
Judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 9th September 2008 available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx :

(This case was originally filed by some Retired Major Generals of the Army with regard to fixation of their pension after implementation of 5th Pay Commission. Government of India filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Punjab High Court, (Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008, Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 12357 of 2006 Union of India vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others)).

In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed as under:

“We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis”.

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

To quote a few examples of such great landmark judgments of the APEX COURT of India,

"1. The restoration of commuted pension after 15 years.

2. The restoration of 1/3 of their commuted pension to PSU absorbees who had commuted 100% pension on their retirement.

3. Eligibility of all retiral benefits like DA/DR/increment, etc. sanctioned by the Govt. on the day next to the day of superannuation.

4. Counting of 75% of running allowance to railway's running staff retired between 1973 and 1988.

5. The reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred without any ceiling.

6. Payment of interest for delay in payment of retiral and other dues to retirees

7. Sanction of family pension to employees who got married after retirement from service.

8. Removal of cut-off-dates in several govt. notifications.

9. Sanction of family pension to spouses of all deceased Pre-1964 Retirees.

10. Cancellation of payment of two months gratuity to be eligible for family pension.

All above are achieved by the Judgements of the Supreme Court. All along the Judiciary has played a vital role in safeguarding the interest of Central/State Govt pensioners".

- By Late Shri P.N. Padmanabhan, IRSEE (Retd.) in his Book `Important Judicial Verdicts' for Pensioners (Page No.6/7)

In the Page No.6, the following are also given:

"SUPREME COURT {(1191) 4 SCC 54}

In Ujar Sagar Workers Ltd (Petitioners) Vs Delhi Administration and others (Respondents) Supreme Court [(2001) 3 SCC 635]

and

Bangalore Medical Trust (Petitioners) vs Muddappa and others (Respondents)

Supreme Court held that a policy decision of teh Govt. has no immunity from judicial review. If the policy decision is malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and/or is contrary to the public interest, the same can be interfered with.

Government's policy decision which has the effect of infiltrating on an arena covered by judicial orders, cannot stand scrutiny of law.

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

The benefit of judgment given in one case should be extended to all persons similarly placed though they were not parties in that decided case. Under the principles of Equality and Natural Justice, government cannot divide the people into two categories, viz. those who went to the court and those who did not go to the Court. When the Government is a party to the directions of the Court, its failure to extend the benefit as per the judgment to similarly placed persons, will amount to discrimination/violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

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

"Old aged pensioners certainly find it not so easy to go to a Court in every occasion to get their legitimate rights, as it involves good amount of money and long time as well".

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

Coming back to Maj. Gen. case, the legal initiative would have been filed initially after 1996 and the judgment has just been delivered. Even if we approach for any legal remedy at present, the immediate reply will be that "the NAC is on the job and hence till the outcome of NAC, no preconclusion is possible".

As Shri PNP has rightly pointed out, the benefit of judgment given in SPS Vains case should be extended to all persons similarly placed though they were not parties in that decided case. Hence, the DOP&PW without waiting for another SPS Vains, should suomoto implement the operative portion for aggrieved pensioners as a whole.

That is parity between pre-1996 and post-1996 in first instance followed by parity between pre-2006 and post-2006 is all the more necessary.

(A rejoinder to NAC from Pensioners' Associations in this regard taking reference to the latest development of the above case as well as S-30 will be very ideal, according to my friend).

I am looking through some more of his comments on MF which I may revert to later.

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

Regards/ Thanks to him/ his initiative.

vnatarajan


I

G.Ramdas
23-07-2009, 01:58 PM
Dear MLK and others,
This refers to post #683 above. I have not disappeared from the scene, and my posts can be seen in this forum as well as in surispace.net and yahoogroup. Staffcorner is temporarily closed. I did not participate in the discussion on major-genl's pay, as the implementation is time consuming and more clarificatons are needed which should be forthcoming in the coming days. There was no point in participating in a discussion for the sake of creating controversy or imposing one's view on others. The real test is to find out how the decisions affect other pre-2006 pensioners.Has this decision,in major-genl's case, made only to comply with the Court's orders or has the Govt. taken initiative to redress the agrievances of all pensioners, starting with maj-genls?
All the nuances of legal opinions will be of help if the pensioners intend to go to court.But since nobody seems to be prepared to take the lead, the pensioners are left with only option to plead with NAC and other administrative authorities, pointing out how a section of pensioners are isolated and treated differently.I can commit my help for this common cause.

G.Ramdas
p.s at present I am busy updating all my ppt.presentations, including the ones in RREWA site

Kanaujiaml
23-07-2009, 07:47 PM
Dear MLK and others,
This refers to post #683 above. I have not disappeared from the scene, and my posts can be seen in this forum as well as in surispace.net and yahoogroup. Staffcorner is temporarily closed. I did not participate in the discussion on major-genl's pay, as the implementation is time consuming and more clarificatons are needed which should be forthcoming in the coming days. There was no point in participating in a discussion for the sake of creating controversy or imposing one's view on others. The real test is to find out how the decisions affect other pre-2006 pensioners.Has this decision,in major-genl's case, made only to comply with the Court's orders or has the Govt. taken initiative to redress the agrievances of all pensioners, starting with maj-genls?
All the nuances of legal opinions will be of help if the pensioners intend to go to court.But since nobody seems to be prepared to take the lead, the pensioners are left with only option to plead with NAC and other administrative authorities, pointing out how a section of pensioners are isolated and treated differently.I can commit my help for this common cause.

G.Ramdas
p.s at present I am busy updating all my ppt.presentations, including the ones in RREWA site

My dear g ramdass. I am really delited to know that you are not leaving gconnect and other sites. You have got great wisdom and you analyse and present the picture on any matter in a remarkable manner. As you know the Govt. is liable to execute in full the operative part of the judgment in any SC orders and Major General' case, is not an exception. However, rulings given in the whole judgment at various places, can be quoted with context, in deliberations while arguing in any other similar case. It is therefore, to be seen whether Govt. considers and implements principle of equality enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution, as far as pre 2006 pensioners are concerned.

Dr.M.Jauhari
24-07-2009, 12:54 AM
Originally PB4 included Jt Secy/Addl Secy/Spl Secy only.Subsequently, many lower posts were included which led even to the lowering of min. of this band from 39200 to 37400.This resulted in the lowering of min. pensions of JS/AS/SplS.The Govt in its wisdom have taken out the posts of AS/SplS from this band leaving JSs in lurch.It is high time that pensioners Assocs should strive for a separate pay scale for JS with suitable min. to ensure proper pension to pre 2006 retirees.Even Maj. Gens will now be drawing a min pension of 26700 due to inclusion of MSP.Min. pension admissible to S29 is only 23700.
There seems to be no justice for JS level officers as they are now virtually relegated to the level of Directors.The Govt. cannot ignore the fact that for highly qualified scientists/engineers working in such important scientific organization such as CSIR/BARC/DRDO and other Depts of the Govt, this is almost the highest scale attainable after 33 years of service.This scale therefore merits special consideration.Many pre 2006 retirees who retired on the max of JS scale i.e 7300 will be just getting a pension of 23700.At the time of their retirement their pension was just Rs350 less than that of a Secy. Today it falls short by Rs16300. What a glaring parity!

vnatarajan
24-07-2009, 12:33 PM
Dear All/GR

Welcome to Dr MJ to this blog. Though late, his participation withall his friends shall widen the spread and bandwidth of this fight!

For today's menu, I thought I shall post something from my interaction in the Military Blogs.

I feel there is good lot of thinking is needed at the bureaucratic levels to rationalise the issues right from Scales 4 to 29 now. I had been watching and closely interacting with some knowledgeable bloggers in military websites. I found some points summarised by Maj N on 20th July 09 wh give an idea of the trends that may be! Civil precedes Military or Vice Versa- is anybody'd guess but so long it is GOOD for all PENSIOONERS BOTTOM to top, it is OK for me & may be for all!

Extracts from Military Blog- summarised by Maj N:

"Monday, July 20, 2009
Update / Tidbits

1. The Govt has finally issued a letter for enhancing the pensions of Major Generals affected by the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs SPS Vains case. The Hon’ble SC is currently hearing a contempt petition in the matter.

2. Ministry of Defence (Finance) has sanctioned fixation of pay in pursuance of 6th CPC for re-employed officers and the final Govt sanction letter is expected to be issued soon.

3. As per the current thought process keeping in view the various announcements made in the last few days, the pension of a pre-06 discharged Sepoy with 17 years of service is expected to be raised to anything between appx Rs 4700 to 5500 basic per month. Unless the Govt decides to be a little more magnanimous. Please however wait till the final announcement is made since modalities are still being worked out.

4. Ok, so there you have it. As expected and stated in the blogpost dated 18 July 2009, all civilian HAG officers are also now officially in the new scale of Rs 67000-79000. You may click here to peruse the notification. Probably something is in the offing for SAG and lower scales too ! Should take care of pension blues for all"

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

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
24-07-2009, 06:56 PM
Originally PB4 included Jt Secy/Addl Secy/Spl Secy only.Subsequently, many lower posts were included which led even to the lowering of min. of this band from 39200 to 37400.This resulted in the lowering of min. pensions of JS/AS/SplS.The Govt in its wisdom have taken out the posts of AS/SplS from this band leaving JSs in lurch.It is high time that pensioners Assocs should strive for a separate pay scale for JS with suitable min. to ensure proper pension to pre 2006 retirees.Even Maj. Gens will now be drawing a min pension of 26700 due to inclusion of MSP.Min. pension admissible to S29 is only 23700.
There seems to be no justice for JS level officers as they are now virtually relegated to the level of Directors.The Govt. cannot ignore the fact that for highly qualified scientists/engineers working in such important scientific organization such as CSIR/BARC/DRDO and other Depts of the Govt, this is almost the highest scale attainable after 33 years of service.This scale therefore merits special consideration.Many pre 2006 retirees who retired on the max of JS scale i.e 7300 will be just getting a pension of 23700.At the time of their retirement their pension was just Rs350 less than that of a Secy. Today it falls short by Rs16300. What a glaring parity!


My dear Dr. Jauhari. You are welcome to this blog. We are sailing in the same boat you are sailing in. I may point out that when SG level officers were brought in pay band 4, grade pay of S29 was raised to 10000. Now after exclusion of S30, pay band 4 has been further diluted. Govt. should either carve out a suitable revised pay scale for S 29 or give atleast modified parity, if not, full parity.

vnatarajan
26-07-2009, 02:11 PM
Dear All

Dear All S29 Pensioners,

While our common struggle/ mission to seek justice across the board goes on, it is necessary for us to adopt differnet strategies from time to time.

We are happy, the S30 Group had set the tempo and achieved a success which hopefully will end up to some extent with the issue of Pension Orders for them. Afterwards, I am sure they will still continue to be with us, as the main objective of FULL JUSTICE is far away!.

Now as a strategic follow up- some S29 Group may be formed soon – may be at Delhi – and one of our ‘G’OOD ‘R’ESEARCHERs (S30) had given me a prelim.information for assessing the support.

I have orally conveyed to our GOOD RESEARCHER that the S29 pensioners in our network would be ready to join the FORMATION at DELHI.

This is not to alienate S29 or the rest from one another- but we find going piece-meal leaves behind a WIDE CANVAS for the Govt. to be able to come out with an appropriate REMEDY for all.

This is an advance information. If the proposal takes shape soon, it will be nice. LET US TRY.

I AM OF THE OPINION THAT A NOTIONAL PARITY AT LEAST THREE STAGES INCREMENT POINTS ABOVE MINIMUM MODIFIED PARITY WILL BE GOOD TO LAY A CORRECT FOUNDATION FOR RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSIES IN MOST CASES.

Contribution depends upon the number who will come forward. Will be decided soon.
OUR S29 BATTLE could be SIMPLER than the S30 as they had more items perhaps for their objective.

PLEASE CONFIRM PARTICIPATION BY RETURN MAILS TO SHRI A RAJAGOPALAN.

Regards

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
27-07-2009, 02:23 AM
Dear Mr. Natarajan,
If you observe pay fixation table for S29,you will notice that the max. fixation is 66680 corresponding to 23900 taking stagnation increments into account.I conjecture that this prompted the Govt to give a min. of 67000 to HAG .On this analogy,, the min of pay scale in lieu of S29 should be higher than the max initial fixation of S27 which is 57770 corresponding to 22258 taking into account stagnation increments.Therefore,the min. for pay scale in lieu of S29 should, at least, be 58000. The newly carved scale for S29 could thus be 58000-77000. You may consider this.My logic could be wrong.M.Jauhari

vnatarajan
27-07-2009, 07:47 AM
Dear Mr Johari/Mr GR- all interested,

In fact I had suggested a model for "future guidance" to be worked out by my friends like Shri GR.FOR ALL SCALES STARTING FROM S4 UPWARDS SAY up to S29; (already S30 fits into this model)

I had prepared the worksheet and circulated to few of the pensioner- friends in the think-tank- for refining the idea.

The approach is based on the same "basis" as u r explaining:

TOP OF THE ONE BELOW SCALE parity (as the basis for minimum modified parity for succeeding higher scale pensioner) is the approach.

The minimum of a higher-scale pensioner SHOULD NOT BE LESS than the HIGHEST PENSION of the pensioner belonging to the immediately preceding LOWER SCALE.

To take care of the stagnation amounts raising the top of the scale limit, the above minimum has to be slightly higher-say by three stages correspondingly in the revised scales. This may more or less correspond to the latest "S30 HAG pension" if REVISED shortly (only revised pay scale order had been issued; Pension order is yet to be issued- to be watched!)

In V CPC, to avoid huge amount of point-to-point fixations of OLD pensioners, the Govt. resorted to (I think) an approach of MINIMUM of the pay in the REVISED PAY SCALE for pension revisions of old pensioners. Thus the Notional Fixations resulted in the so-called Modified Parity at the minimum.

This time, if the GOVT. wants to have a similar approach, they can resort to a NOTIONAL PARITY which is three stages above the TOP OF THE ONE BELOW SCALE I have suggested.

I have already posted my suggestion in the RREWA website (www.rrewa.org) for consideration as item for discussion in the ensuing BPS/RREWA meeting in the first week of August, 2009.

Regards

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
27-07-2009, 05:24 PM
Dear All,
I think, when we discuss about parity, it is the parity between the 2 different classes of pensioners, pre and post 2006 pensioners.This should be our goal, though we have been willing to accept a modfied parity even. The solution evolved by Sh.VN, looks at parity within the pre-2006 group only.For that ,it may not be necessary to tinker with all cases of 'revised basic pay' corresponding to the pre-revised scales. An additional rider-(could be para4.3),if added, stipulating that the pension so arrived at (by para4.1 and 4.2), shall in no case, be less than the maximum pension permissible (on.1.1.06)to the feeder post- will solve the problem of a pensioner from a junior scale drawing more pension than the senior scale pensioner, all belonging to the pre-2006 category. This ,still will not solve the problem of dis(pariity)between pre and post pensioners, as post 2006 retirees can go up to the end of the pay band-not just the end of the max. pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale.
Point to point Notional fixation in the revised pay structure will give relief, but there could still be some cases in future, where the junior level post holder may reach higher pay levels than the ones corresponding to the maximum of the prerevised scale he was holding, and draw more pension than the pre-2006 senior level pensioner.
I fully agree that S-29 and other affected scales should get full justice.In fact the harm done to S-29 is clear when one reads para 1.2.9 of the SCPC report
"Within Group A, an additional seperate pay band has been prescribed for posts in the scale of Rs18400-22400 and in higher administrative grades.--"
This establishes the fact that SAG and HAG posts were to be treated alike, which has not been done.
I would request veterans in this forum like VN,MLKand NSR to kindly examine these issues.My personal opinion is that we should not suggest new models, if there is no consensus.

G.Ramdas

sundarar
27-07-2009, 09:38 PM
Dear All,
I think, when we discuss about parity, it is the parity between the 2 different classes of pensioners, pre and post 2006 pensioners.This should be our goal, though we have been willing to accept a modfied parity even. An additional rider-(could be para4.3),if added, stipulating that the pension so arrived at (by para4.1 and 4.2), shall in no case, be less than the maximum pension permissible (on.1.1.06) to the feeder post- will solve the problem of a pensioner from a junior scale drawing more pension than the senior scale pensioner, all belonging to the pre-2006 category. This ,still will not solve the problem of dis(pariity)between pre and post pensioners, as post 2006 retirees can go up to the end of the pay band-not just the end of the max. pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale.

Point to point Notional fixation in the revised pay structure will give relief, but there could still be some cases in future, where the junior level post holder may reach higher pay levels than the ones corresponding to the maximum of the prerevised scale he was holding, and draw more pension than the pre-2006 senior level pensioner. .... I would request veterans in this forum like VN,MLKand NSR to kindly examine these issues.My personal opinion is that we should not suggest new models, if there is no consensus.

G.Ramdas

The proposed suggestion of a Pensioners' Forum as given below was
considered by our senior veterans and the modification to the same suggested by them will be taking care of point to point parity.
At the same time, similar point to point parity in similar line already pending in respect of pre-1996 pensioners with post-1996 pensioners need to be ensured followed by the said parity between pre-2006(who are post-1996) and post-2006/post-2.9.2008 so that the intended target as a whole will get completed in all respects.

“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.”

Suggestion No.1 for modification of above Para
Notional fixation on the fitment table will give only pay in the pay band . to this G.P has to be added to arrive at the revised basic pay..

Suggestion No.2 for modification of Para 4.1.1

"The pre-revised 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 at the revised pay in the corresponding pay band (being the sum of the pay in the running pay band plus the relevant grade pay), as per Annexure (Fitment Table) to O.M. dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006, subject to the necessary number of years of qualifying service".

The above referred suggestion will take care of parity aspects and make the actual Para 4.1 and Para 4.2 as null and void. There will be no necessity for prescribing a separate multiplying factor that lead to prescribing a separate guaranteed minimum revised pension, in view of a single para with suggested modification to ensure the revised pension in real terms, will cover to give complete clarity. Moreover the 6CPC has actually recommended that the fixation formulae of employees shall be extended to the Pensioners too and the above para meets this requirement. Further, the 5CPC at its tenure itself, also was suggesting actually the same for the Government at the time of 6CPC. So nothing less or nothing more if a serious consideration is
facilitated by the Authorities keeping in view the remuneration of yester years that contribute today's entitled pensionary benefits.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
28-07-2009, 07:48 AM
Dear all. I believe, when we talk of Parity, it means parity betwenn the old pensioners and the regular working employees of the same status, pre revised pay scale, the stage of basic pay in pre revised pay scale and Qualifying Service, before applying the 50 % formula for arriving at the revised pension. The retirees after 02 09 08, with 20 years of service, get full pension. This anamoly, should also be removed, atleast for those, who retired, between 01 01 06 and 01 09 08. This is what equality is meant under Article 14 of the Constitution and three hon. SC judgments support it. However, the Govt. is distributing the benifits here and there in a very unprincipled manner, particularly, while implementing 6 CPC report, which must stop.

Kanaujiaml
28-07-2009, 07:56 PM
In one of the blogs, Rtd. Major General, who was behind the entire exdercise of SLP in SPS Vens Case, states as under :

Although, the SC orders are quite clear that we should get the same pension/family pension as our post 1.1.96 counterparts, we still are not cofident that we will get our dues.You are an expert,so can you kindly firstly, confirm whether our pension/family pension should be based on the basic pay of Rs20,900/- or Rs21,400/-?

G.Ramdas
28-07-2009, 08:23 PM
Dear All,
We(pre-2006 pensioners) have been talking about parity with post 1.1.06 retirees and the injustice meted out to us. Did you ever think even in your wildest dreams that some post- 2006 pensioners can also fight for parity with their pre-2006 counterparts. You may ask the question -why?
Because, there are cases of post 2006 pensioners , in at least 8 scales, in some stages, where they will draw less pension than their pre-2006 counterparts.
Not convinced? wait for my next post.

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
30-07-2009, 09:53 AM
Dear All

Here is some info on what is in store for Defence Pensioners as per a Military Blog source (outcome is related to Cab Sec Comm. Recos)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCORDING TO IT:

Main features of the accepted report of the Committee on OROP / PIP

The govt has accepted the recommendations of the committee on defence pension anomalies headed by the Cabinet Secretary. The govt sanction letters dealing with the subject would be published and notified in the (very) near future.

The major accepted and soon to be implemented recommendations are :

(a) Pensions of pre-2006 PBOR to be computed by taking into account the top end of 5th CPC scales and notionally (through fitment formula) configuring it within the 6th CPC pay bands instead of basing the same on the minimum of the new scales. Practically speaking, a pre-06 Sepoy who was placed at about Rs 3700 basic pension after the 6th CPC would now be granted a basic pension of appx Rs 5500, a jump of almost Rs 1800. There may now emerge some cases wherein the pension of pre-06 retirees may turn out to be more than those of post-06 retirees at certain levels. It may be recalled that prior to the 6th CPC, pensions of the first three ranks were calculated by taking into account the end of scale whereas for civilian employees and officers the start of scale was taken into consideration. However the 6th CPC had blurred this edge because of the introduction of running pay bands and abolition of separate pay scales for each rank.

(b) Pensions of pre-06 Lieutenant Generals to be upgraded to Rs 36,500 per month. The figure of Rs 36,500 is arrived at by taking into account 50% of the minimum of new HAG scale (Rs 67000-79000) and adding an MSP fitment of Rs 3000 (50% of MSP @6000).

(c) No further improvement or OROP for commissioned officers.

(d) Ceiling on war injury pension (that the total of service element and war injury element of war injury pension should not exceed the last drawn pay) has been removed.

(e) Anomalies in other casualty pensionary awards to be deliberated upon by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (ESW) at MoD )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT DO THESE CONVEY?

ANY IMPLICATIONS FOR CIVILIAN PENSIONERS?

INSTEAD OF MINIMUM PARITY _ DOES IT CONVEY MAXIMUM PARITY WRT OLD SCALES -BUT WITHIN THE PAY BAND? TOP OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE WITHIN PAY BAND?

WHY PAY BANDS? WHY PARA 4.2 LIKE RECOMMENDATIONS?

WHY PAY COMMISSION AT ALL?

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
31-07-2009, 07:29 AM
As Lt Genls have been given a separate payscale, they may not get benefit of MSP.They may get a min. pension of 33500 only.

vnatarajan
31-07-2009, 10:14 AM
Dear Dro Jauhari/ all interested

Lt Gen pensioners may get the MSP benefit also!

Here is what Maj Navdeep in his famous blog informs about MSP for Lt Gens' Pension(most of the time he is corerect).
He has laso mentioned about 33 yrs reqt. for full pension being undone even for "Trisanku" pensioners now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, July 31, 2009
Two clarifications on the new pensionary modalities post-acceptance of the report of Committee of Secretaries
Two lingering queries of veterans remained unanswered in my previous post. So I’ll clarify them :

In case of officers, will abolition of linkage of 33 years’ service for earning full pension be made applicable wef 1-1-06 instead of September 2008 ?

Yes, the abolition of requirement of serving for 33 years to earn full pension will now be made applicable wef 01 January 2006 instead of September 2008. Hence, officers who retired with 20 years of qualifying service after 1-1-06 would be entitled to full pension and their pension shall not be reduced on a pro-rata basis. Take this as 100% only once the govt letter is issued in black and white though.

50% of minimum of the new pay band (Rs 67000-79000) for Lieutenant Generals is Rs 33500, will pre-06 Lieutenant Generals be placed at a basic pension of Rs 33500 or 36500 as articulated in the previous post ?

Lt Gens who retired prior to 1-1-06 would be granted a basic pension of Rs 36,500 since an element of Rs 3000 in the form of 50% of the MSP fitment shall be added into the basic pension of Lt Gens. Take it for granted that Lt Gens shall be placed at a basic pension of Rs 36,500. Post-06 Lt Generals would be granted a pension @ 50% of last drawn emoluments depending upon their pay scale, that is, Rs 67000-79000 for Lt Gens in HAG and Rs 75500-80000 for Lt Gens in HAG+. Army Commanders and selected Corps Commanders in the Apex Grade (Rs 80000 fixed) shall continue to receive Rs 40,000 fixed basic pension. Pre-06 Army Commanders shall also continue to receive Rs 40,000 as fixed basic pension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
31-07-2009, 06:32 PM
My dear VN, Dr. Jauhari, others. With reference to VN's post above and that of Dr. Jauhari's post above, a doubt has errupted in my mind. There is lot of logic in what Dr. Jauhari has said. Major Navdeep speaks from knowledge he gains from military circles and the MOD but so far no notification has appeared. I think, they may be carving a new revised pay scale for Major Generals as well to do away MSP for them forever. This is likely after the SC judgment in Rtd. Major Generals case. The bone of contention there was Rank pay now called MSP. Taking inspiration from Dr. Jauhari's contention in post 691 above, the revised pay scale for S 29 could be 58000 - 77000. Strange things have happened in the past and future cannot be an exception.

vnatarajan
31-07-2009, 07:29 PM
Dear MLK/Dr J (Others may excuse us for this S29 oriented discussion)

This is what I had tried to point out earlier.

Top of the immediate lower scale model analogy is based on this. My table (circulated to some in our network)was worked out to REASON out that the scale has to be somewhat 54700 or above to start with WITHOUT grade pay or 44500 plus grade pay 10000 which was shown as the RP for S29 in MOF's OM of 30th Aug 2008). All Military pensioners- ex Maj Gens are sitting tight- wh means something is brewing up or they are also waiting for things to happen?!

Let us watch how things are developing.

In the meanwhile, I learn from S30 Group that a few of their S29 pensioners are forming a separate group to go for legal action- must be Delhi based.

I am also keeping track of it.

Regards

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
01-08-2009, 12:09 AM
If I remember correctly, I read in some Govt order that the benefit of MSP may be given to Maj/Lt Genls as Col/Brig (who get MSP benefit) are also included in PB4. Now once Lt Genls are out they may not get this benefit as it might have been already factored into their new pay scale. Army officers in HAG+ and above also do not get this benefit. Well, this is just a conjecture.I will be happy if they get the benefit.My good wishes. There is,however a strong case for S29 to get a suitable pay scale.There will then be more homogeneity in PB4 and less bickering.With the latest inclusion of Lt.Cols in PB4 there is already a murmur from PScO rank scientists for upgradation to PB4.I will not be surprised if Deputy Secy rank officers also raise their voice for upgradation to this band.I will once again request Mr VN and other senior members to press for a separate pay scale for S29.In the present scenario, only pensioner Assocs. will be heard. There is no scope for individuals to represent.

dnaga57
03-08-2009, 07:41 AM
Based on the posts in the Forum, I did some search & came across Mr Bansals name. His mail to me is below.
Can we work with him- his group?


Rajendra P Bansal" <[email protected]> Add sender to Contacts (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTBsdTZpcnZpBF9TAzM5ODMwMTAyNwRhYwNhZGRBQ g--/SIG=1pduq7ek7/**http%3A//address.mail.yahoo.com/yab%3Fv=YM%26A=m%26simp=1%26e=rajendra.p.bansal%25 40gmail.com%26fn=Rajendra%26ln=P%26.done=http%253A %252F%252Fus.mc654.mail.yahoo.com%252Fmc%252FshowM essage%253FsMid%253D0%2526fid%253DPay%25252520Comm ission%2526filterBy%253D%2526midIndex%253D0%2526mi d%253D1_22930_ABkJDUwAAJ0mSnWrkQuXuAHjxSk%2526f%25 3D1%2526m%253D1_22930_ABkJDUwAAJ0mSnWrkQuXuAHjxSk% 25252C1_176_ABYJDUwAAUrhSXpWTAtLHx7bHOM%25252C1_11 35_ABsJDUwAALgHSXG7rworKw9r5hA%25252C1_2104_ABkJDU wAAX3%25252FSW4iWwlQaBtVdyU%25252C1_3017_AB0JDUwAA CMpSRqqqgYpKFi7aCw%25252C1_3745_ACEJDUwAAWS3SRqoCQ DlwkmfShA%25252C%2526sort%253Ddate%2526order%253Dd own%2526startMid%253D0%2526pSize%253D10%2526hash%2 53Db494a3531fc1c449b5bfacc5e692b1bf%2526.jsrand%25 3D2893039%2526acrumb%253DDyaM.6.X6nx%2526.rand%253 D1946499455%2526enc%253Dauto) To:
"D. Nagarajan" <[email protected]>

Cc:
[email protected]

Thanks Mr. Nagrajan,

Our group is for S29 pensioners who retired before 01.01.2006, so if you are a pensioner prior to Jan. 2006 then you are welcome, in fact we are in search for all such S29 retired persons to fight for a common cause, the cause is very simple, if a person retired from S29 (18400-500-22400) grade then pension fixation after VIth pay commission will be much less compared to a person retired after 01.01.2006,

So if you are a pensioner prior to Jan 2006, then we welcome you and also request to search such persons and ask them to join us also send details to us,

Regards,

vnatarajan
03-08-2009, 09:21 AM
Dear dnaga

Thanks for the info.

Mr Bansal had been emailed.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
03-08-2009, 11:35 AM
My dear dnaga57. Refer your post 704 above. I have,too, sent an e. mail to Mr. Bansal just now, showing my willingness to join the s29group.

dnaga57
03-08-2009, 02:32 PM
My dear dnaga57. Refer your post 704 above. I have,too, sent an e. mail to Mr. Bansal just now, showing my willingness to join the s29group.
Thanks Mr VN, Mr. Kanaujiaml,
Since Mr Bansal is Delhi based, we should give him support with both the fantastic material in our forum plus anything else he- the group may need.
Let us see how it moves.
Mr Maheshwari's site RREWA has become inaccessible !!!!!

vnatarajan
03-08-2009, 05:29 PM
Dear dnaga/K,

No problem. Waiting for Mr Bansal's response. He can follow the same procedure of forming and registering the association/ group on ALL INDIA BASIS as in the case of S30 yahoo group.

Registration on All India basis is important as then only members from all over India can benefit from contesting the issue legally. Seven pensioners from different states have to be present at Delhi for Registration. So this homework need to be done in advance.

S30 Gen Sec (Shri Prem) can be contacted by Shri Bansal (if necessary).

Dnaga/ K - WERE YOU ABLE TO ACCESS THE S29 Group in GoogleGroups. If so please send the link to me. This can be circulated so that all S29 Pensioners can now join the said group quickly- for SHORT-LISTING the serious ones. We have already a few responses.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
03-08-2009, 08:13 PM
My dear dnaga57,Vnatarajan. I have sent an e. mail again and now waiting for the response from Mr. Bansal. RREWA site has become accessable now. I would like to know from leaders of s29 group the help that they require from us, both moneyotry and otherwise. I am trying to contact other s29 retirees facing similar problem. Mostly, they are not computer oriented and believe in postal communication. Those who are working on computers, should come forward and e. mail their willingness to join the S29 group. I am ready to do this at Dehra Dun. Right now I am awaiting response from Mr. Bansal.

Dr.M.Jauhari
04-08-2009, 01:48 AM
I have contacted Shri Bansal on his email address as given.Waiting for his reply

vnatarajan
04-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Mr Bansal has responded.

First step is to become a Google account holder so that we can access the googlegroup site in the Google Groups web page. I have done that.

Mr Bansal/ Mr Soni have to allow us to be able to access the "group" based on our email ids. Mr Bansal says it is done. But I am yet to succeeed to access any web page in the Google Groups with the title "s29pensioners" (in Yahoo Groups, the s30 pensioners had a separate web page which all members could see and know the details of entire activity/ members etc.) if there is one such "group site" - or it is only a "mail- group" in which case by addressing "[email protected]" our letters may get circulated to all members. I am trying again.

Other aspect is: of forming a Regd All India association needs consideration. Our strength will depend upon a large no. say of the order of 250 to 300 - all over India- becoming members- and then giving the POWER to the Regd Association to fight our parity case EXCLUSIVELY.

Reg. the APPEAL- there are enough material to project and argue- and hence what is required is- all MEMBERS must have appealed at least once after joining the Group!. We have enough proof (Regd Post Office Recepts/ Ack Dues etc) that we had sent Appeals to A to Z authorities (only CJI was spared) which have been summarily dismissed by the MOPPGP/ DoPPW in Feb 2009.

S29 parity case is not going to dilute any other cases in any manner - and there is no need for other scale pensioners to feel bad or de-motivated. Our network will CONTINUE to address the cause of all scales of pensioners irrespective of their fighting their battles in any other manner (individually or in groups). Our main theme is based on "Mass Campaign/ Awareness" and its objective is to awaken the Govt. for implementing the SCPC decisions in a correct / just manner for all. For example many S30 pensioners will extend their support to all pensioners in this type of movement/ campaign.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
06-08-2009, 10:09 AM
Mr Bansal has responded.

First step is to become a Google account holder so that we can access the googlegroup site in the Google Groups web page. I have done that.

Mr Bansal/ Mr Soni have to allow us to be able to access the "group" based on our email ids. Mr Bansal says it is done. But I am yet to succeeed to access any web page in the Google Groups with the title "s29pensioners" (in Yahoo Groups, the s30 pensioners had a separate web page which all members could see and know the details of entire activity/ members etc.) if there is one such "group site" - or it is only a "mail- group" in which case by addressing "[email protected]" our letters may get circulated to all members. I am trying again.

Other aspect is: of forming a Regd All India association needs consideration. Our strength will depend upon a large no. say of the order of 250 to 300 - all over India- becoming members- and then giving the POWER to the Regd Association to fight our parity case EXCLUSIVELY.

Reg. the APPEAL- there are enough material to project and argue- and hence what is required is- all MEMBERS must have appealed at least once after joining the Group!. We have enough proof (Regd Post Office Recepts/ Ack Dues etc) that we had sent Appeals to A to Z authorities (only CJI was spared) which have been summarily dismissed by the MOPPGP/ DoPPW in Feb 2009.

S29 parity case is not going to dilute any other cases in any manner - and there is no need for other scale pensioners to feel bad or de-motivated. Our network will CONTINUE to address the cause of all scales of pensioners irrespective of their fighting their battles in any other manner (individually or in groups). Our main theme is based on "Mass Campaign/ Awareness" and its objective is to awaken the Govt. for implementing the SCPC decisions in a correct / just manner for all. For example many S30 pensioners will extend their support to all pensioners in this type of movement/ campaign.

vnatarajan

I too, have joined the s29 group but what is the strategy there ? It appears to be another Discussion Forum. What would you say ?

Kanaujiaml
06-08-2009, 07:27 PM
My dear VN, Gramdass, Others. After obtaining a hard copy of MOD letter No. 4(110)07/D(Pen/Legal) dated 15 july 2009 and studying it carefully, it appears that, while implementing the hon. Supreme Court verdict in SPS Veins Case,concerning retired Major Generals, pay of Major Generals who retired prior to 1986, would be refixed on 1.1.96, on the basis of their pay fixed on 1.1.86.Similarly, the pay of those Major Generals, who retired between 1.1.86 and 31.12.95, would be refixed on 1.1.96 on the basis of pay drawn at the time of retirement. Such pay fixation would be done in the same manner as was done for other (regular)Officers of same rank, at that time. Arrears, would be payable from Oct.2001 till date, with 10 % interest. Commutation and gratuity etc. would not be recalculated or refixed or touched. It may be noted that these instructions talk about only "pay" and not "pension." In my view this amounts to "full parity".
It may also be noted that this is applicable to only Major Generals and not to any other Officers(Lt.Generals etc.) who retired prior to 1986 and prior to 1996. This is my personal opinian at this point of time and is subject to modifications, when new facts emerge.

Kanaujiaml
07-08-2009, 06:24 AM
In continuation of my post 713 above, I would like to point out one glaring descrepancy in MOD order dated 15 07 09. It has not said anything about refixation of pay of Rtd. Major Generals as on 01 01 06 after 6CPC, while implementing hon. SC orders ! There is a question mark with regard to option being obtained from Rtd. Major Generals for refixation of pay and pension aftrer hon. SC judgment dated 9.9.08. I doubt something is hidden there, too. Further, It would be prudent to work out for each incremental stage of pre 86 pay scale and fixation of pay against it on 01.01.86, after 4 CPC and thereafter on 1.1.96, after 5 CPC. Similarly, it would be interesting to work out for each incremental stage of pre 96 pay scale and fixation of pay against it on 1.1.96, after 5 CPC. On the basis of refixation of pay in above manner, pension can be refixed as per rules prevailing at the time of 4 CPC for pre 86 retirees and at the time of 5 CPC for pre 96 retirees.

vnatarajan
07-08-2009, 03:51 PM
Dear MLK

Ref ur post at sl no 712. TIME HAS TO BE GIVEN May be a couple of months. We are not repeating reps/ appeals. We will reinforce whichever group which GOES TO COURT FIRST at DELHI! In the worst case we will fight our case at Chennai in our own way if we are that helpless at Delhi! I do not want to fritter away energy at this age.

Many S29 pensioners are waking up only now!. Why - even many S30 were lagging behind- but they had the "boost" up of the "peer" group at Delhi lobbying for them and the MOF heeding to their demands in RECORD time.

Similar "peer" group of JS level pensioners appear to be docile in DELHI!

Why not they (S29) demand for CONCURRENT issue of revised pension based on WHATEVER PAY SCALE THAT had already been fixed for their equivalents in service in the MOF's original OM dtd 30th August 2008- with a minimum of 44700 within the pay band 4 with grade pay 10000 to start with?

Govt. had been gracious enough not only to accord a "decent" revised pay for S30 - but also they have "wriggled" them out of Pay Band 4 forever!

WE do not envy such actions - but only request the Govt. to be similarly JUST and REASONABLE to redress the grievance of all such aggrieved pensioners not only in PB4 BUT ALSO IN ALL OTHER PAY BANDS wherever the 2.26 MF is not beneficial.

vnatarajan

sundarar
07-08-2009, 09:47 PM
Respected Sirs,

The Modified draft Resolutions (being processed & perused by RREWA) for BPS spl G.B.meeting on 09.08.09 are available at present in rrewa website. For kind information. Best Regards. Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
08-08-2009, 09:26 AM
Respected Sirs,

The Modified draft Resolutions (being processed & perused by RREWA) for BPS spl G.B.meeting on 09.08.09 are available at present in rrewa website. For kind information. Best Regards. Sundarar.

errewa.org appears to be out of service. I tried several times. Can you send me a copy of the draft via e. mail ?

dnaga57
08-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Respected Sirs,

The Modified draft Resolutions (being processed & perused by RREWA) for BPS spl G.B.meeting on 09.08.09 are available at present in rrewa website. For kind information. Best Regards. Sundarar.
They had another resolution - very comprehensive- on pensions. That seems to be missing. The present one is on Medical entitlements.
Hope both resolutions will be tabled, discussed, passed & shared with GoI.

vnatarajan
08-08-2009, 03:06 PM
Dear All

S/Shri KSS/GR/ self etc had been interacting with the Gen Sec ., RREWA, giving suggestions on the text of the Resolutions to suit all- and also removing the ambiguities and 'undeserved' compliments (to organisations like CGHS- I do not want to hide their performance at Chennai in particular!). Refining process will be ongoing and even after the meeting, we would still have time to resolve correctly.

I and all Co-pensioners/ Family Pensioners from everywhere wish in advance the BPS/ RREWA GB meeting a Grand Success.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
08-08-2009, 05:32 PM
I find very few members of S 29 in Mr Bansal's group.
Can we enroll in larger numbers?

vnatarajan
09-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Dear dnaga/ S29 pensioners,

Yes. Response is not that spontaneous- though many do visit the thread regularly as I can see the no. of vists averages to nearly hundred or more for this!

However there is RVKrishnan's NAL/CSIR Group of nearly 30.

Our (GSI) group could be 25 or so.

Kotre Mallikarjuna Raos's Group from Hyderabad has to be his 13 plus some more (total cd be 20).

There are other solo/ limited entities wh may also total to another 25.

MLK's Dehra Dun Group cd be another 25.

At Delhi - there are quite a few from Rlys and other souces.

Sub 33 Groups also will be there.

I think number may be NOT less than 200 if all respond.

First the committed list has to be prepared.

HCS has rightly started with the address/ contact details. THIS FILE SHOULD BE UPLOADED IN THE S29 Group's web-page. As on date there are 27 members who have joined and out of thet only 7 or 8 have furnished the address details.

ACTION PLAN NEED BE DRAWN. Say:

ASSOCIATION FORMATION/EXECUTIVE BODY/ REGISTRATION AS NEEDED- Regn at Delhi on All India basis or even local basis. MOA/ Bye Laws to be drafted ( can be borrowed from any similar body and quickly recasted).

CONTRIBUTIONs/FUNDING/ BUDGETTING/ COLLECTION/BANKING

APPEALS BY THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET DONE SO.

LEGAL ASPECTS.

TIME-FRAME

MAIN OBJECTIVE: LEGAL REMEDY.

So on - So forth

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-08-2009, 06:31 PM
My dear All. MOP,DOP&PW Om dated 14 07 09 has clarified that "NPA" would not be counted while fixing revised pension under the formula "pension cannot be less than 50% of sum total of minimum of the pay band plus grade pay thereon". On the other hand, Mililtary Officers have been allowed to count "Military Service Pay" while fixing revised pension under same formula. Why such contradictions ?

vnatarajan
12-08-2009, 05:09 PM
DOE?- ARE THEY NOT FOR THEMSELVES EVEN?

Dear All

Swine Flu? Drought? Failure of Monsoons? Budget Hang-over?

DELAY IN 60% pension arrear payment appear to be another form of INJUSTICE to all old pensioners- many of them have already reached the other world, without even tasting a part of their own eligible pension!

Extract from a Military Services realted website, quoting the CDAO, Pune:

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

(Unless DOE issues specific orders, arrears may not come quickly!)
CDAO Pune, in case of defence personnel, appears to have clarified:

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

6CPC 60% Arrears - Clarification

Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Expenditure O.M. No. F.No. 1/1/2008-IC, dated 16-3-2009

Extract of the above O.M is reproduced below..............
Vide this department's O.M. of even number, dated 30 Aug 2008 on the subject of implementation of SPC recommendations, instructions were issued, inter alia regarding payment of 40% arrears during the year 2008-09. The last sentence of Para 2(v) of the said O.M. clearly stated the following :-

"Orders in regard to second instalment of arrears will be issued separately."

This Department has been receiving references from some ministries / departments seeking clarification as to whether the remaining 60% of arrears can be paid in the next Financial Year 2009-10 without separate orders of this Department. In this connection it is clarified that the second instalment of arrears should only be paid after specific orders in this regard are issued by Dept of Expenditure.

In the light of the above, it is conveyed that orders as per above extract are yet to be received

(source: Military Services blog-website- quoting CDAO, Pune)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
12-08-2009, 06:24 PM
My dear VN. Do not expect remaining 60 % arrears before 30th March'2010. It would be paid then in order to recover Income Tax due.

vnatarajan
13-08-2009, 07:43 PM
Dear All,

JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE?

KILLING TWO BIRDS IN ONE SHOT?

DIVIDE & RULE?

Sometimes, the Govt. actions apparently appear to be doing JUSTICE in some form, but when you analyse in depth, you realize that the decisions/ actions perpetrated are nothing but a calculated move to inflict repurcussions elsewhere!

Apparently what looks to be to do JUSTICE to somebody- results in INJUSTICE to someone eksewhere?

This may be the recent autocratic trend of the administration which boasts of imbibing ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE through great reforms in administration!

Or – Are such actions aimed at DIVIDING the current employees from PENSIONERS? – mind that today’s EMPLOYEE is tomorrow’s PENSIONER!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier examples for the above practice is the IMPLENTATION OMs of SCPC for PENSIONERS of PRE-2006 ERA whose saga still continues.

Recent case in this series is the issue of orders for a brand new scale for HAG level – S30 Scale- Rs 67000- 79000 to replace the pre-2006 scale of 22400-24500 )MOF?DOE Orders Dtd 16th July 2009). The old S30 scale included in Pay Band PB4 is now taken out and oit is a separate scale like S31 onwards up. This scale is no lomger part of PB4.

JUSTICE DONE?

Apparently, pre-2006 S30 pensioners have a case to be happy- because once this revision is applied to them, all the INJUSTICE DONE in regard to modified/ negative/ reduced parity in pension provided to them thru OM of 1st Sept 2008, may get neutralized and they can hope to join the elite group of S31 to 34 with a minimum pension of Rs 33500 at the Minimum of the new scale.

In other words what shd have been Rs 31750 or so as against what was given as 25312 will get CORRECTED to 33500. ALL OUR STAND GET VINDICATED and the point ON INJUSTICE is proved. JUSTICE WILL BE DONE WHEN pension order is issued for the revision of pension of S30 scale.

IT MUST BE ROUND THE CORNER & None need be afraid of the delay or otherwise in issuance ofthis order!

INJUSTICE TO WHOM?

For this we have to examine the Order on extending the benefit of Organised Services to non-IAS cadres in all other Departments/ Ministries etc:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
> Department of Personnel and Training
> New Delhi, the 24th April, 2009
> Office Memorandum
>
> Subject:- Non-Functional upgradation for Officers of
> Organised Group 'A' Services in PB-3 and PB-4
>
> Consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations of
> the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the following orders are issued:-
>
> (i) Whenever an Indian Administrative Services
> Officer of the State of Joint Cadre is posted at
> the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific
> grade pay in Pay band 3 or Pay Band 4, the
> officers belong to batches of Organised Group A
> Services that are senior by two years or more and
> have not so far been promoted to that particular
> grade would be granted the same grade on nonfunctional
> basis from the date of posting of the
> Indian Administrative Service Officers in that
> particular grade at the Centre.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From the above order it will be clear:
>
> 1.THE EXTRICATION/ "Throwing Out" OF THE S30 SCALE FROM THE ERSTWHILE PB4 of
> SCPC is purely a very calculated GIMMICK of the Bureaucracy!
>
IT is serving two purposes (killing two birds in one shot!)).
>
> (I) Satisfying the S30 Pensioners who may not be now going for litigation on
> this issue if their pension is revised ( as it gets a good jump upwards even beyond what they cd have anticipated (i.e. if they were within the PB4 and revised pension was given at an equivalence of “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY” within the pay band!)
>
>All must realize this is no bounty nor grace of the Govt, shown to them.
>
> (ii)But it is purely a very calculated move to restrict the growth of Group A Officers of other
> ORGANISED SERVICES (non-IAS) upto PB4 only- which is now WITHOUT the top scale
> S30 ("AS" level in Centre & Secretary level in States- a heirarchy level
> which they wd not like to share with others!).
>
> In other words:
>
> IT RESULTS in restricting the Gr A Officers of other Organised Services in their growth up to JS levels only,in NFSG mode. (you may note earlier times – pre-2006 times-it (NFSG mode)was up to Sel Gr Director. Now it is up to SAG level. Nothing great)
>
>
> 2.Said Organised Services Orders issued in April 2009 are given effect from 1.1.2006 (retrospectively)
>
> 3.Pre 2006 S30 Pansioners' purpose to some extent would be served if PENSION
> orders applying the revised scale is extended to them also, by amending the relevant part of OM of 1st Sept 2008 and the same is issued soon. (I am not sure if arrears will be given)-
> but as it is called REVISION OF PAY, thie arrears may be PERMITTED)
>
Malafide:

Some of serving Gr A officers of my erstwhile Department had sought for my impartial views:

Partial JUSTICE done to S30 pensioners – IN THIS DISCOURAGING MANNER IS WITH MALAFIDE INTENTIONS certainly - results in INJUSTICE to serving officers
>
Serving Gr A officers (particularly the JS levels S29) who have COMPILED LISTS already and were expecting possible NFSG elevations (to S30) to them are thoroughly dejected. They may go to court and argue this step as discriminatory . >
>
At least officers during Trisanku period ie from 1.1.2006 to April 2009 (date of issue of this OM) have a locus standi to fight against /for DEPRIVING them the FULL BENEFITS of the ORGANISED DSERVICES provisions.


Plea/ LITIGATION shd be for a just solution.:-
>
> Solution could have been (now late?) :
As envisaged by SCPC, Govt. cd combine S29&S30 into a separate Pay Band as originally deliberated- as PB5, with composite scales (65000-77000 & 69000-79000) without Grade Pay and extend the Organised Services benefits upto PB5

THIS IS WRITTEN WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATE ALL AGGRIEVED’s GRIEVANCES.

Govt. shd not DIVIDE & RULE- PITCH ONE AGAINST THE OTHER!

vnatarajan.

Dr.M.Jauhari
14-08-2009, 12:20 AM
Dear Shri VN,
Secy/PSecy in state is equated with JS/AS at centre. Probably, a pensioner assoc cannot fight for a separate scale/band.This is to be done by serving officers and their assocs. A pensioner assoc can only fight for modified parity which,if approved, cannot be given selectively to a particular scale but to one and all. This will have much more financial implications than parity achieved selectively via the route of a separate payscale as achieved by S30&31.

vnatarajan
14-08-2009, 09:05 AM
Dear Dr MJ/ others interested in knowing the implications!

(not for creating any controversy- but to clear myself of any ambiguities!)

Govt. is befooling pensioners in many ways!

My note above is more relevant to GR A Officers (all in general and particularly S29 say) in Organised Services now to take note and fight as they had sought my views.

In one way they are also "Future Pensioners" and if they dont fight now, they will also lose hefty pension amounts in future- recurring/ non-recurring, with ultimate erosion of their basic pension significantly when Seventh CPC will review/revise the figures!.

If they are deprived of the "AS" scale paper-promotion,by throwing the S30 out of PB4, that too after 3months of issue of the OM on the extension of Org. Services benefits, IT MUST HAVE SOME ulterior motives, and hence I and PKR went deep into the subject.

(It is clear neither the S30 pensioners' fight nor our modified parity appeals nor the demands of S30 officers in service fighting for parity with S31 appear to have yielded results!.

ON THE CONTRARY, it is the necessity to curtail the Gr A officers of ORGANISED SERVICERS from reaching the AS levels automatically, that has resulted in the creation of the new S30-HAG Scale in July 2009- three months after the issue of the OM of Organised Services for non-IAS cadres!

Otherwise, what was then the necessity to take them out of PB4 pay band?

Other aspect is:

If S30 pensioners woes were the prime reason, the Govt. cd have kept them inside the PB4 and simply accorded the Modified Parity at "the minimum of the pay (in the revised pay scale)'' within the pay band PB4, a thing which would have helped to resolve all the crises in one stroke!)

No pensioner is going to fight for any scales.

If our case is fought in Supreme Court, it will be for the "parity" issue that will figure mainly in our appeals - whether it is "modified' or "full" has to be decided by the Court itself in its wisdom and judgment, based on previous judgments on similar issues.

Caution for S30 Pensioners:

The OM on new HAG Scale dt 16th July 2009 says it is according to the CCS(RP)Rules 2008.

The Pension OM of 2nd Sept 2008 revising the pension of post 1.1.2006 pensioners
somewhere mentions that the revised pay rules are applicable only to the post 1.1.2006 retirees and not to pre-2006 retirees.

Can somebody check on it and be clear? what are the implications?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-08-2009, 08:30 PM
On the Occasion of " Shri Krishna Janmashtmi " and " Independance Day 15th August 09 " I congratulate all the viewers and the partcipants of this website.

Dr.M.Jauhari
14-08-2009, 11:11 PM
Dear Shri VN and friends,
I had sent a representation regarding modified parity via the pension grievance mechanism available on Pensioners Portal on 12/7/2009. It is indicated there that it takes 30 days to asses the grievance. But so far my representation remains unassesed. When I tried to send a reminder, a message comes that a reminder cannot be sent unless the grievance is assesed. Some of you might be having experience of dealing with this website.Can you advise any future course of action?

vnatarajan
15-08-2009, 04:16 AM
Dear Dr MJ

No use.
Here at least you get a reply like "not yet assessed etc." that too recorded!

PMO's office is worst.

U get polite "thank you" for every grievance regn- and that is the end of it.

We have all crossed these "useless portals" since long and we are in the final stage of ASSESSING the S29 Support for a "MINIMUM" legal action and also for the support of ALL SECTIONS OF Pensioners through a major body like BPS/ thru RREWA (pl see the RREWA website for such mass actions; if u have not done so) for "FULL" legal action! Location for such fights have to be DELHI. So we are hoping some Delhi based pensioners/ associations will take the lead.

As u r aware, we do hope THE S29 GOOGLE GROUP formed only for the former purpose recently, does swing into action in a couple of months.

If it doesn't succeed, I and a few S29 Pensioners located in different places, shall go for some typr of PARALLEL actions at our stations to the extent our AGE and RESOURCES wd permit.

PL BE REST ASSURED, THE MEMOIR OF THIS THREAD IN ITS MORE THAN 73 PAGES would reveal that we HAVE NOT STOPPED SHORT OF KNOCKING AT EVERY PORTAL EXCEPT CJI ( for an appeal)- and the CAT/ COURTS SO FAR.

So it is our wits end. A fork at the end of the road- where either we take the route to go home or take the other route to prepare for final BATTLE THRU COURTS.

Regards

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
15-08-2009, 05:51 AM
Dear Shri VN,
Find herewith a comment of ML Gupta copied from India Today on OROP:-
"Jauhari is absolutely correct to say that originally joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary were in one pay band. It was so because under the rules for transaction of business in the government of India all the three enjoyed similar powers, excepting in appointments and vigilance cases.

What it meant in practice was that the Joint Secretary could take an independent objective view of the issues involved before taking a decision or going to the government i.e. The Executive (President/Prime Minister/Minister) for a decision with an analysis that was all encompassing. It led to decisions being fair, just and objective.

Show a single file in the GOI where a Joint Secretary misled the Executive on facts and obtained a wrong decision without becoming a vigilace case for life.Not one shall be possible. This could be done because a civil servant would have put in more than 20 years of service before becoming a Joint Secretary To The Government Of India.

Once a joint secretary, he/she would have normally risen to the rank of the secretary if no racial discrimination were to be practised, as has become a norm in the past 6 years.A joint Secretary's level used to be a crucial level in govt of india. In the process it hit vested interests hard.Now we have governments that want the bureaucrat to sign on the dotted lines, even though it might comprimise national interests as was recently done in PMs of India & Pakistan signing joint declaration.

Bureaucrats have no spine now. They will as easily justify another emergency. But a bureaucrat is not supposed to do that. He/ she must have the courage and fortitude to state the facts and make the government aware of issues rather than succumbing to pressures. That is what they are trained for. Would anybody tolerate an army that surrenders to the enemy even before the war starts?

There is a sanctity of government records called the file. Orders have to be reasoned and in writing. Which PM/Minister can have the guts to ask the General to surrender before start of the war? The law will imprison him. The permanent government is this record. Now by reducing the Joint Secretary in rank, pliable officers are sought to be inducted to do the bidding.

They have yet to disabuse their minds of the authority of the Chief Minister and MLAs and all kinds of political riff-raffs and enlarge their vision and learn official objectivity in a vastly extensive frame where local gets enlarged by global outlook. Without this quality, they will not be able to function fair and just. But compelled to compromise, they will become handicapped for life to eat only from the hands of the politician.

After all they have more than half their service time to spend -it will be for them to decide how they would prefer to spend such time, in happy bliss or misery. The Additional/Secretary is already setting example of the way such Joint Secretary should be behaving, since he/she has got the assurance of a 5 year post retirement sinecure with MOS status/ constitutional status/Governorship/Membership of UPSC etc.

Government can do anything and many things. Samajhdaari issi men hai ki iss baat ko achhi tarah samajh liya jaye. Otherwise the Government is doing injustice to itself by clubbing the joint secretaries with Directors.

It is an act against the interests of the government and the public to do so . The government should immediately restore the original position and put the JS/AS/Secretary in one band as originally proposed.Then alone Truth can Prevail (Satyamev Jayate) ! "

Kanaujiaml
15-08-2009, 08:42 AM
Dear Shri VN and friends,
I had sent a representation regarding modified parity via the pension grievance mechanism available on Pensioners Portal on 12/7/2009. It is indicated there that it takes 30 days to asses the grievance. But so far my representation remains unassesed. When I tried to send a reminder, a message comes that a reminder cannot be sent unless the grievance is assesed. Some of you might be having experience of dealing with this website.Can you advise any future course of action?

My experience is that this site is totally useless for us.

vnatarajan
15-08-2009, 11:46 AM
Dear Dr MJ/ other interested S29 personnel,

The write-up is really striking and most pertinent. It bares the facts to the core. While the exposition is more emphatic about the bureaucratic practice and the importance of JS levels in Administration, how many are fully aware of the role of S29 levels in various Departments/ Organisations of Govt. of India?

Many S29 level officers can be credited with:

1. Heads of the Organisations itself (with full HOD powers).

2.Heads of Regions/ Zones/Circles/National outfits within a major Organisation with independent HOD powers/ status.

3.Heads of Projects - time-bound - missions of National/ Global relevance.

4.Heads of National Laboratories/ Institutions and the like

Many of them are Scientists/ Engineers of National-Global eminmence/ even Technical Managers-cum-Administrators.

Many of them are National/ International Award winners.

Many of them have innumerable original Contributions/ Publications (authors) / Copy-Rights/Patents etc.

Most of the Panditj's Dreams of Modern India that have become national symbols of development owe their erection/ execution/ completion to this level of Scientists & Engineers. Railways/ Telecommunication/ Power projects/ Irrigation Projects/Space Technology etc all over the country bear testimony to the same!

Deptts like ISR0/DOS/DRDO/NAL/GSI/SOI/NGRI/CGWC/DAE-AMD/ASI/BSI/ZSI and so on - are full of S29 scientists whose contributions to the Nation's growth/ development/ future can not be described in mere words.

We can go on elaborating more & more abouit this crucial level of functionaries- whether in administration or in any other role in various Department/ Organisation.

Greatest humiliation is "REDUCING THE BASIC PENSION" to the LOWEST level of the PB 4 (S30 is to be out now) S29 to S24- as if inflicting a SERIOUS PUNISHMENt- posthumously!

This play of power may not be the brain-wave of the top levels - but I HAVE A STRONG notion- that somebody has committed a GROSS ERROR by negligence/ motive and now such sources are under the protection of the same clan!

Other-wise, by now the MINIMUM correction would have taken place.

PIECE-MEAL actions are following which are questionable.

Pressure appears to have more effect than pragmatism.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
15-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Dear All,
I fully agree with Sh. VN.
The President's office is no better. When I sent an appeal under CCS(pension) Rules, where the President is the appellate authority, they simply forwarded it to the administrative ministry and told them to to inform me directly.I have'nt got any letter from the Ministry, though months have passed
I was told to liaise with the administrative Ministry directly(probably not to trouble the Prez's office again)
All these portals and online grievance redressal machinery are of little help to the aggrieved
G.Ramdas

S.C.Maheshwari
16-08-2009, 08:55 AM
Pension is a deferred wage, paid in consideration of past service which an employee rendered sacrificing the prime of his youth for the sake of the Government & the quantum of such pension should be such that he is able to lead a dignified life in his twilight years maintaining as far as possible the standard of living he was used to during his service life! It is in view of this basic principle that the apex court of the country has repeatedly ruled that any classification of pensioners at any time will have to answer the test of article 14 of the Constitution and further concluded that pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a homogeneous class and such a homogeneous class could not be arbitrarily divided on the basis of dates of retirement whenever the pension undergoes an upward revision and hence the fixation, at any time, of any cut off date for any new benefit is arbitrary. Any act which seeks to classify or divide pensioners into two or more classes is not based on any rational principle, and hence it would constitute a violation of article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, parity of pension as between one who retires with a certain pay and a certain rank on a particular date and another one who draws the same pay and with the same rank but retires on a subsequent date is thus a constitutional right guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution and sanctified by the apex court and many High Courts in their landmark judgments. The demand for one-rank-one pension for all Defence personnel or pension equal to 50% of the pay as notionally revised in the new pay structure corresponding to the scales from which the employee retired is therefore a just one, which the government should readily accept .The argument of huge financial burden on the national exchequer and the danger of the economy being thrown out of gear to reject this just demand is just a bogey and indeed this has never been accepted by the apex court and many High Courts. . If the arbitrary and frequent increase in the remuneration of Members of legislatures without any public discussion and generally by voice vote, and of Ministers & top bureaucrats (read IAS) or those in the higher echelons of administration, the huge expenditure on the security of politicians, which is generally more of a status symbol than any genuine security cover, the circulation of fake Currency, the absence of any effort to rein in the parallel grey market economy, the gobbling of resources earmarked for social welfare schemes by politicians and vested intermediaries etc. are not going to involve a huge drain on the national exchequer and thereby derail the Indian economy, then how can the just demand of those who actually spared no effort and bore on their shoulders during the prime period of their lives the brunt of running the administration to meet the loud articulations of the rising hopes and aspirations of the common man in the newly emerging independent India, can be thrown out on the ground that it would cause a serious financial imbalance and throw the Indian economy out of gear? Why is only the poor pensioner being made to suffer for no fault of his? He is suffering perhaps because he has so far not realized his own power i.e. the power of vote. It need hardly be pointed out that generally one retired person has in his hands the power of 6 votes i.e of himself, his spouse, his son, his daughter-in-law, his grand daughter & grand son. There are almost two crores of such pensioners (i.e from the Centre, the States, the Defence establishments, the Railways, the PSUs, Banks, the Education department etc.) and they would thus constitute a vote bank of about 12 crores. So the clarion call to all the pensioners is: “Stop crying, wake up and realize the enormous power in your hands. The Governments & the politicians seem to understand only the language and power of the Vote Bank. You cannot fight your battle individually, nor do you generally have the wherewithal to do so. So, join the larger community of senior citizens and consolidate your own Vote Bank. Once you do so, the politicians will come running to you & you will get what you want. Let not any further time be lost in consolidating the vote bank. So, hasten, lend your helping hand and strengthen the hands of the organizations that have dedicated themselves to improving the lot and welfare of the pensioners”.
S.C.Maheshwari
www.rrewa.org

Kanaujiaml
16-08-2009, 10:12 AM
My dear SCM. It is nice to see you once again participating in this forum with such detailed analysis of the situation. You are a vetran and a large number of such vetrans are attached to this forum. This forum has, therefore, discussed the "injusstice" to old pensioners for quite some time and it appears, no aspect concerning the problem, has been left undiscussed . But, I feel now time has come to "act" as well. Act in such a fashion that the deaf ears of the authorities concerned, get penitrated. We are doing precious nothing about it. Kindly excuse me if I am sounding a little harsh but the fact remains that the "action" has even not started and there is no hope, it would ever start.

vnatarajan
16-08-2009, 11:08 AM
COURT JUDGMENTS ARE BEING PUT TO MOCKERY AGAIN AND AGAIN!

Dear MLK/ SCM/all,

In spite of the well worded and clear judgments, our Govt. and its wise-guys have a penchant for always going tangentially, irrespective of the consequences- because time and "public" money are on their side.

I and MLK have been closely following the SPSVains case and its judgment implementation "consequent" to even a contempt proceedings in early/ mid July 2009:

What is going to be the fate of pension parity for retired Maj Gens- post 1.1.2006 - was the moot point which we were interested to know.

We had raised the issue in even MILITARY BLOGS and none were able to provide any answers. Retd Maj Gens themselves were perhaps less informed on this! Or were they expecting Govt. to be reasonable to give them parity AUTOMATICALLY post 1.1.2006 also?

NOW PL READ REPRODUCTION of THIS NEWS in Deccan Chronicle- age, dtd 16th Aug 2009:

Ex-Armymen plan to sue Centre

August 16th, 2009

By Our Correspondent New Delhi

Aug. 15: A group of former major-generals is planning to file a lawsuit against the government for not granting “One Rank One Pension” for ex-servicemen.
A corpus fund could also be created to fund the proposed legal battle against the government.
One of the former major-generals, speaking on condition of anonymity to this newspaper, said that the group of former major-generals are also planning to send a legal notice to the defence secretary, ministry of defence (MoD).
The group of former major-generals who retired before 2006 is considering a legal battle on the grounds that they are getting less pension than Brigadiers who retired after June, 2006.
“This issue was deliberated at length and it was decided that government is not likely to approve OROP. Veterans would have to knock at the door of courts to get a favourable decision and force the Govt to agree to give OROP ... It was decided that preparation for filing the lawsuit should be completed at the earliest and lawsuit should be filed without delay,” stated a former officer.
OROP refers to the grant of pensions (according to rank) irrespective of the date of retirement.
For instance, this means that an officer retiring as major-general ought to get the same pension as another officer who retired as major-general irrespective of date of retirement. In his Independence Day address, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, “We are proud of our brave soldiers.
It is our duty to ensure that ex-servicemen are able to lead a life of comfort.
We have accepted the recommendations of the committee constituted to examine the issue of pension of ex-servicemen.
This will lead to increased pension for about 12 lakh retired jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers.” However, ex-servicemen point out that there was no mention of “One Rank One Pension” for former (full-commission) officers in the speech and add that the government has not accepted OROP even for jawans and JCOs (who are personnel below officer rank-PBOR).
The government had recently announced measures for reducing the disparities in pensions among PBORs.

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

IF SPSVAINS' Case judgment is correctly implemented - in "letter and spirit"- ie parity was to be ensured after revisions on 1.1.1996 and THERAFTER- the above situation may not arise.

So taking advantage of ambiguity in ENGLISH SENTENCES like our "MINIMUM" episode is the play-field of bureaucracy nowadays. What a poor choice?

What is the USE of going to COURTS if this is the outcome?

vnatarajan

Samir Kumar Banerjee
16-08-2009, 12:57 PM
Sri VN,
I am glad to note the real analysis of the issue which includes ' Greatest humiliation is reducing the basic pension----------serious punishment posthumously'
At times i felt you unhappy for slow action from affected pensioners. In practice many of us wrote as one should, in personal capacity,highlighting own case.I wrote
highlighting 'humiliation' which could not have any effect.
I wrote twice to Dvc Management(without effect ), once in 'Telegraph' with caption " Demotion long after retirement"(not published) and have now written to the
Anomaly committee & others ( a copy is sent to your address by post )
I believe the sincere efforts being taken by you all ,will lead us to the goal.
Samir Kumar Banerjee
Retd .Chief Engineer (DVC )

vnatarajan
16-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Dear All Pre-2006 S29 Pensioners

FOR COURT ORIENTED APPROACH -

AND TO CHALK OUT A PLAN OF ACTION-

PRE-2006 S29 AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS MAY KINDLY FOLLOW THE PROGRESS BY JOINING WITH THE S29Pensioners GOOGLE GROUP under the coordination of S/SHRI HCS/ RPB.

Those at Delhi may pl contact Shri HCS ove r phone even. May be a meeting can take place soon.

The message can be made known to every similarly placed S29 pre-2006 pensioner.

Our Court fight would certainly secure justice not only for S29 pensioners of pre-2006 era- BUT TO ALL such aggrieved pensioners.

Regards

vnatarajan

(Pl try this link for the S29 P G Group- http://groups.google.com/group/s29pensioners?hl=en)

S.C.Maheshwari
17-08-2009, 02:32 PM
Dear sh.Mlk.
As you said earlier. Pensioners want Associations & Federations to perform w/o involving themselves actively either by active physical participation or Monetary contribution. Most of them are happy thinking that they are drawing more pension than their Salary at the time of retirement. You may agree unless power of pen is supplemented by physical, monetary as well as judicial strength, you can hardly achieve any thing in this country.
If the Federation/Association give a call fr protest March or Dharna. White colored pensioners(read officers ) avoid it .others expect that like political parties, conveyance, Tea ,Snacks& Lunch etc should be arranged by the Federations/Associations. So much so, even some office bearers expect reimbursement of expenses fr attending meetings &office. Legal battles are long and costly . Many of us may not be there to see implementation of judicial decision even if it is favourable. So instead of giving up in disgust, let us do some long planning. That is plan to create & consolidate Senior Vote Bank. Let us work hard for the next five years on this Target.

dnaga57
17-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Dear sh.Mlk.
As you said earlier. Pensioners want Associations & Federations to perform w/o involving themselves actively either by active physical participation or Monetary contribution. Most of them are happy thinking that they are drawing more pension than their Salary at the time of retirement. You may agree unless power of pen is supplemented by physical, monetary as well as judicial strength, you can hardly achieve any thing in this country.
If the Federation/Association give a call fr protest March or Dharna. White colored pensioners(read officers ) avoid it .others expect that like political parties, conveyance, Tea ,Snacks& Lunch etc should be arranged by the Federations/Associations. So much so, even some office bearers expect reimbursement of expenses fr attending meetings &office. Legal battles are long and costly . Many of us may not be there to see implementation of judicial decision even if it is favourable. So instead of giving up in disgust, let us do some long planning. That is plan to create & consolidate Senior Vote Bank. Let us work hard for the next five years on this Target.
Dear Shri Maheshwari
A lot in what you say as indifference, apathy, non participation etc.
I agree that more activation is called for.
On the point of Vote bank, I beg to differ that it would be an effective means.... while the numbers are large, they are spread across the country & even in Metros into different constituencies to make an impact.
Court is the only way.....to bell the CAT ( pun unintended). half months pension as contributin would be a good start. Can we start harnessing ?

S.C.Maheshwari
18-08-2009, 12:14 PM
Dear Shri Maheshwari
A lot in what you say as indifference, apathy, non participation etc.
I agree that more activation is called for.
On the point of Vote bank, I beg to differ that it would be an effective means.... while the numbers are large, they are spread across the country & even in Metros into different constituencies to make an impact.
Court is the only way.....to bell the CAT ( pun unintended). half months pension as contributin would be a good start. Can we start harnessing ?
Elderly Vote Bank:Yes difficult but not impossible. If AARP can do it in USA, why cant we do here. Already AISCCON Mumbai & Senior Citizen Federation A.P has adopted the idea and have started working on it. Some other Sr. Citizen websites like silverinnings & verdurez are displaying my Elderly vote Bank ppt.
Regarding legal Battle : Frankly speaking RREWA does not have infrastructure fr it .For legal struggle, it depends on BPS .According to BPS it is last option.

S.C.Maheshwari
18-08-2009, 10:23 PM
With Reference to TOI 16/08 /09 Mumbai & Online edition –Article
.Babus now get more pension than last salary,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4898109.cms

Usually such articles like the three published in TOI 16/8/09 are Govt. sponsored and are based on imaginary persons. This may be a propaganda/publicity stunt of Govt. to keep public opinion on its side. On 16/8/09 I recorded following comments on TOI site below one of the articles which they have so far not moderated & published. “If Mr. Bhel is not imaginary person, considering the price levels and the difference in cost of living, he would have been much happier with his 6317 of Oct. 1995 than of 16000/-of today. He would have received max. Rs 30000/- as 40% arrears, and a 18% raise in his take home pension as in Nov.2008 after 6th CPC revision. If he purchases a car he will spend Rs5000/PM on its maintenance (Minimum utilization). He will require another 5000/-PM for the maintenance & utilization of AC. With the Balance 6000/- he will not be able to buy raw food items to give 2500 calories of cooked food for two (leaving aside cooking cost) . So he should apply fr BPL card right now.”

S.C.Maheshwari
www.rrewa.org

vnatarajan
20-08-2009, 08:21 PM
FREEDOM FROM "INJUSTICE" TO S30 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS- OUR STAND PARTIALLY VINDICATED!

Dear All

Our stand of INJUSTICE stands vindicated!

First to gain freedom from INJUSTICE is the S30 Pre-2006 Pensioners.

DOPPW has issued the revised pension orders for them today (20th Aug 2009) afternoon.

OUR CONGRATS TO THEM.

OUR REQUEST TO THEM TO STAND UNITED WITH US IN OUR FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL.

We hope their pension order is the beginning. of unwinding

Sooner or later we hope GOVT. will render justice to all levels of pensioners by doing justice in terms of the correct implementation of SCPC's recommendation- with proper parities- to all aggrieved pensioners including the older pensioners/ 2oyr retirees/ psu absorbees etc.

Cheers

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
20-08-2009, 09:38 PM
My dear Gramdass and other pensioner friends who retired from S30 pre-revised pay scale. Congratulation once again. The orders for pensioners are also out paving the way for refixation of revised pension and payment of arrears thereof.

vnatarajan
22-08-2009, 08:58 AM
Dear All

Pl read and appraise all. Pl verify. Pl react.espond. Pl appeal again.

Dont relent.

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

WHO IS THE CULPRIT for the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” Fiasco.
Many times the qn has come up and many times I had tried to point out the SOURCE.
YET MANY PEOPLE HAD BEEN REVERTING BACK TO SQUARE ONE:

The black and white proof- two letters (unalterable pdf form letters- that can be edited only at the origin!)- from same source dated 26th Sept 2008 – with same despatch numbers- addressed to the Nodal Officers of the Banks – have been posted by me for the benefit of the S29 group of pre-2006 pensioners who are trying for some actions. In fact it is relevant to all SCALES of Pensioners right from BOTTOM to TOP. I am only reproducing the extracts of relevant para for brevity! And to avoid embarrassment to the concerned at this point of time:
_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.EXTRACTS WHEN THE SAID LETTER APPEARED IN THE SOURCE’s WEBSITE- WITH DESPATCH Dt 26.09.2008 AND REMAINED THERE TILL APRIL 2009 OR SO.

“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 payscale 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.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.EXTRACTS OF THE SAID LETTER AS IT APPEARS NOW WITH SAME DESPATCH DETAILS (NO & DATE 26.09.2008) WITH CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE PARA “CHANGED”?

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 in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the prerevised 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I HAVE SENT THE ORIGINAL COPIES TO THE Gen Secy,RREWA for appraising the BPS/RREWA EC etc of the implications of this .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Till now we had been debating why the authorities have tried to alter the para 5.1.47 of SCPC’s Report which had a clear meaning for the -50% of the sum of the MINIMUM OF THE PAY and THE GRADE PAY THEREON corresponding to the revised payetc etc to bring the whole equation to MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND!

BUT NOW, here is an authority who was the ROOT CAUSE for perpetrating the trouble in Sept 2008 and who started with a clear cut instruction to BANKS on pension to be in terms of “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” – HAS NOW ALTERED?CHANGED? “T>>>>>D” the document to change the said part to “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND”!

If the earlier version was correct, why he shd change it now? Why this realization after nearly seven to eight months or more? What is the reason for changing the contents now? TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS/ EDITORIAL MISTAKES Etc can not be the excuses to hood-wink the mature/ administratively well experienced millions of PENSIONERS and their ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS/ UNIONS etc.

THIS AMPLY PROVES THAT MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND and MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND can not be one and the same!.

How the gross INJUSTICE done to the pre-2006 pensioners will be undone? When?

NO LONGER THE GOVT. CAN TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE ERRING OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN MISLEADIMNG THE HIGHER UPS/ MINISTERS and EVEN Hon. PM, for which I CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER PROOF (at least upto Feb 2009!!!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR RTI Queries are yet to be replied by him. EVERY AUTHORITY- I am sorry to point out including the DOPPW who is fully aware of this GRAVE MISCHIEF (I have to call it so) are trying to evade the issue/ and not face the truth ethically!

WHY CAN’T THE DOPPW NOW AT LEAST POINT OUT THAT “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND”: IS NOT SAME AS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” and amend its own Annexures/ Circular/OMs issued for the convenience of such erring authorities and to the DETRIMENT of all categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

More to follow after few pensioners react/ respond! I find no responsible reactions many times!

Vnatarajan- on behalf of all “”FOOLED” PRE-2006 PENSIONERS who are continuing to be taken for a RIDE" by even the DOPPW- who are supposed to be our custodians!

G.Ramdas
22-08-2009, 12:25 PM
My dear Gramdass and other pensioner friends who retired from S30 pre-revised pay scale. Congratulation once again. The orders for pensioners are also out paving the way for refixation of revised pension and payment of arrears thereof.

Thanks Sh Kanaujia. It was a pleasure to work with you all and share the experience. I am still available to help the cause of all pensioners.
Just now I have posted the message of Sh. VN on "who is the culprit", in another webspace-Surispace.net .I think somebody should answer why and how this misinterpretation and subsequent cover up was allowed to happen

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
23-08-2009, 03:57 PM
Dear All

This has reference to my post at sl no 746 on the two versions of CPAO's letter on directives to Banks to fix our pensions. Our problem had started with the first version- and the resultant action on it by DOPW to issue the OM of 14th Oct 2008. with the damaging Annexure I - with it.

After debating many aspects, many of us thought some actions must be requested to be taken by DOPPW on the changed text of CPAO's letter - TO ACT IN A SIMILAR fashion as he had acted earlier:

A draft model letter is placed below- wh can be sent by many pensioners with or without attachments.

Options for attachments:

1.Brief one: Take extracts in post 229.

2.Otherwise go to RREWA website and download/ copy/ attach both versions wh are available- directly accessible.

3. If anypone wants by email; he can contact give a message in this forum with email id.

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

To
Shri M P Singh, I A S
Director (PP),Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare, Min. Of P,PG, P, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 110003

Sub: Pension Revisions of Pre-2006 Pensioners; Ref: DOPPW’s OM Nos: 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt.1 dt 1.92008/3.10 & 14.10.2008; UO of even no to DOE dtd 5.1.2009 (referring proposal on Para 4.2 Revision); earlier Gazette Notification dtd 29th Aug 2008 on Pay Revision/ MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-(IC) dtd 30th August 2008 (on Revised Pay); MOF’s GSR No 527(E)dtd 16th July 2009 on HAG Pay Scale revision;its Implementation OM No 1/1/2008-IC dtd 21st July 2009: CoA,CPAO’s Do lr No. CPAO/Tech/6thCPC/Misc/1265 dtd 26.09.2008 old version (OV) and of even no. & EVEN date new version (NV)
Dear Shri Singh,
On behalf of several aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners and also self, I had sent you a few appeals, but till now no concrete actions have followed to redress the core grievance and render justice.I once again submit the following on behalf of all aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners.
1.The CPAO vide his letter D O letter no 1265 dated 26th Sept 2008 (OV) cited/ attached, had directed that “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 payscale from which the pensioner had retired”.He had accordingly directed the PSBs to carry out the disbursals. He had quoted an Annexure(II) on Pay Bands/ Grade Pay etc which is untraceable by us till date.
2. Taking cognizance and conforming to HIS (CPAO’s) above directive/ rationale/ authority for restricting the basic component part of the Revised Pension to the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”, the DOPPW had issued the OM dated 14th October 2008, with a “revised”concordance table as Annexure I of the pre-1996/pre-2006/and post 2006 pay scales/ pay bands to serve as guidance for payment of revised pension/ family pension in terms of OM of 1st Sept 2008.
3.This is fully demonstrated under COLUMN 8 of Annexure I of the OM of 14th Oct 2008, where the Pension has been calculated on the basis of “50% of sum of Min of Pay Band + GP/scales.”.
4.Many pre-2006 pensioners have protested/ appealed and prayed for redressal as the above fixation has resulted in many disparities, ultimately leading to REDUCED/ NEGATIVE parity in revised pensions to many of them, instead of MODIFIED parity at the minimum of the revised scales as recommended in para 5.1.47 of the SCPC report/ accepted and notified by the Govt. Till now no solution/ remedy has resulted
5.Pre-2006 pensioners have clearly pointed out and argued that “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” can not be the same as “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” as the former results in REDUCED/ NEGATIVE parity and loss- whereas the latter, at least provides MODIFIED PARITY at the minimum of the revised scale, when applied in true spirit of SCPC recommendations to provide for parity in pensions of pre and post 2006 retirees.
4. Now the same CPAO, has MODIFIED/ ALTERED the contents of the same DO lr retaining its no and even DATE, cited/attached as New Version (NV) here, and has issued the instructions which is very much available on the CPAO’s website.
5.In this letter (New Version) in the second para, CPAO has directed that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty per-cent “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY” BAND plus grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Endorsement is made in the earlier version.
6. Therefore we the pre-2006 aggrieved pensioners request you to:
1) Please take cognizance and conform to CPAOS’s change of directive which leads to CONFIRM that MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND can not be same as MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND as amply explained with data and calculations by us/me.
2) Please revise and reissue OM of 14th October 2008, also Recasting its Annexures I and II of OM particularly Column 6 to show the correct Revised Pay scales as per Fitment Tables of MOF’s Gazette Notification / OM s of 29th/30th Aug 2008 and Column 8 to show the correct Revised Pension as per “50% MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY SCALE” +GP etc.
WE ARE ALL GRATEFUL FOR YOUR RAPID “GENEROUS” REVISED PENSION ORDER FOR S30 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WHOSE MAIN GRIEVANCE FOR REDRESSAL WAS ALSO FOR PROVIDING MODIFIED PARITY WHICH AGAIN PROVES THE INJUSTICE INFLICTED TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS .
OUR REQUEST IS FOR A JUST AND SPEEDY SOLUTION TO ALL AS THE CPAO’S MANDATE IS ALREADY IN PUBLIC VIEW AND WE CAN NOT BE DENIED JUSTICE BY DOPPW.

Truly yours

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

vnatarajan

chillariga rama rao
24-08-2009, 06:48 AM
C.RAMA RAO.
Thanks to MR NATARAJAN and others,the mystery surrounding the origin of the famous(or notorious!)phrases"MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" and"MINIMUM IN THE PAY BAND" is now resolved.I hope this matter will now rest and the Govt. will instruct the various pay disbursing authorities to pay all of us correctly.Do you think this will happen now?Or we have to start the representation procedure once again?Let me pray the good sense will prevail.There is nothing wrong in accepting a (genuine?)mistake.Regards,C.RAMA RAO.

chillariga rama rao
24-08-2009, 06:56 AM
C.RAMA RAO.
Thanks to the efforts by MR NATARAJAN and others,the mystery of the origin of the NOW FAMOUS(or NOTORIOUS)PHRASES"MINIMUM OF PAY IN THE PAYBAND" AND"MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" seems to have been resolved.It only remains for the Govt to accept the mistake(or BLUNDER) and issue the necessary instructions to the disbursing authorities.Thanks and regards,C.RAMA RAO.