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

RPGoswami
28-03-2011, 10:42 AM
What the pre-2006 Pensioners are looking for are not OROP but much simpler 'Restoration of Modified Parity, which the DOPT's interpretation of 'minimum of the pay in the payband' as 'minimum op the pay band' has deprived them of. I dont know how we can make the DOPT see this simple point and get out of ther cussed attitude.RPGoswami

vnatarajan
28-03-2011, 04:57 PM
ALL METHODS HAVE FAILED TO CONVINCE THE SUPREMOS/ GOVT./ MINISTRIES CONCERNED/ DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED/ CAG EVEN/ NHRC ETC` AND THAT IS WHY 42 CASES ARE IN PR CAT/ CAT/ AFT/ HIGH COURTS/ HSC - MAINLY CONCERNING "THE SCPC MODIFIED PARITY" ISSUE.

EVEN THOUGH 16 OAs OF THE LOT PERTAINING TO "MODIFIED PARITY" OF MILTARY PENSIONERS IN 3 "AFT" JUDGMENTS HAVE COME OUT POSITIVELY, THE GOVT./DOPPW/ MOD ARE PLAYING HIDE AND SEEK WITHOUT IMPLEMENTING THE "ORDERS OF THE AFTs" WITHIN THE 3 MONTH PERIOD GIVEN.

AS USUAL THEY ARE UP FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF CONFRONTATION - BY GOING FOR AN APPEAL ETC AGAINST AFT JUDGMENT.

DOPT/ MOF / CAB SEC ETC - EVERY AUHTORITY THAT MATTERS ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE WHOLE MATTER- AND "BUREAUCRATIC APATHY"' AND "THE EVER- DETERIORATING STANDARDS OF GOVERNANCE" ARE THE MAIN REASONS FOR THE "IRRATIONAL AND INCORRECT IMPLEMENTATIUON OF THE SCPC RECO-RELATED ORDERS" AND EVEN AFTER MANY STATE-GOVTS LIKE PUNJAB/ UP/UK/ PARTLY WB- AND ABOVE ALL THE "JUDICIAL SERVICES PENSION REVISION" ETC HAVE SHOWN THE WAY AND INPLEMENTED "CORRECT MOD PARITY/ MINIMUM REVISED PAY BASED PENSIONS" FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS!

OUR GREAT PM TAKES THE BLAME UPON HIMSELF AND COMMITS TO THE NATION THAT HE IS "ACCOUNTABLE" FOR ALL THE LAPSES OF DOPT (AS HE IS ITS MINISTER!) IN THE EXAMPLE OF "CVC" APPOINTMENT- AND SO UNLESS HE ONCE AGAIN "SHOWS THE WAY TO RECTIFY THE PRE 2006 REVISED PENSION FIASCO", ALL BABUS MAY KEEP QUIET AND WATCH THE FUN!

SO WE MAY HAVE TO COMPLETE THE "JUDICIAL INTERVENTION" PROCESS BEFORE GETTING JUSTICE!

WHAT A SHAMEFUL TORTURE OF OLD PENSIONERS WHO HAVE SERVED THE NATION FOR OVER 3 TO 4 DECADES IN THE HARD/ PRIMARY SITUATIONS IN THE MOST FRUGAL ECONOMIC AND LOGISTIC CONDITIONS!

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
29-03-2011, 09:18 AM
May be we can get it raised in the Parliament in the light of the fact that there is a divergence in what the DOPT has done and what the Judicial Service has done. Two wings of the government cannot interpret the same thing differently. RPGoswami

vnatarajan
29-03-2011, 12:13 PM
Question was raised in the Parliament.
MOS PP_ Shri PRCHAVAN himself - gave a written reply.
Reply was a "reproduction" of the para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008.
IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT SCPC RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND NO FURTHER CHANGES ARE REQUIRED.

Babus write the reply to Parliament Questions.
Ministers read the same in the Parliament.
Who cares for the old pensioners?.

Question was perhaps raised by an MP of RS from Punjab (SAD MP) the same was replied in written form in the said way.
Our Association President/ couple of Members met him and explained to him about the false reply.
He wanted our submissions in writing.
We gave the same/ briefed him also.

He promised to get an appointment with Shri PRC, MOS PP, and take us for discussions

THAT WAS THE END OF THE SAD EPISODE!

ONLY RECOURSE FOR PENSIONERS / EMPLOYEES WHO ARE AGGRIEVED IN A MASS MANNER IS TO GO DIRECTLY TO CAT/ HC/ HSC ETC.
TODAY, THE BUREAUCRACY IS ATROCIOUSLY SELFISH/ INTERESTED IN THEIR WELFARE ONLY / TOTALLY IGNORANT OF RULE IMPLEMENTATIONS AS THEY DEPEND ON LOWER END BABUS FOR HELP/ LACK ETHICS/ POOR IN GOVERNANCE.

AND YOU CAN SEE IN SPITE OF 1000S OF APPEALS / PUTTING ACROSS MATTERS IN NAC/ INTENSIVE RTI QUESTIONING ETC THOUGH THEY ARE AWARE THAT THE MATTER IS A GENUINE GRIEVANCE, THEY DO NOT WANT TO SET RIGHT THE SAME. (Today the number of cases on " SCPC mod parity" has reached more than 46).

FOR SUCH POOR PERFORMANCE/ PROLIFERATION OF SCAM TECHNOLOGY, THEY ARE NOW "DREAMING FOR HIGHER INCENTIVE" IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS AT 20PER CENT (FEW LACKS OF RS IN ONE STROKE) THROUGH A BOGUS " DOCTRINED MANAGEMENT METHODOLGY" CALLED "RFD" AND THUS LOOT THE EXCHEQUER FURTHER!

GOD SAVE THIS COUNTRY!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
30-03-2011, 09:06 AM
Further to my reply above and to recapitulate the Parliament Qn and the Answer:


GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
RAJYA SABHA
QUESTION NO 3263
ANSWERED ON 26.08.2010

REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS .

3263 SARDAR BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDAR
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to satate :-


(a) whether Government have since taken a decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and

(c) if not, by when that is likely to be done?

ANSWER


Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Science and Technology; Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Earth Sciences; Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office; Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. (SHRI PRITHVIRAJ CHAVAN)

(a) to (c) : In accordance with the orders issued in implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission for revision of pension of Central Government Civil Pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006, all pre-2006 pensioners would get a minimum increase of 40% of their pre-2006 basic pension (excluding the element of merged dearness relief/dearness pension), in addition to the basic pension, dearness pension and dearness relief which they were getting as on 01.01.2006 based on their pre-revised pension. Besides, the revised pension will, in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay (in the case of HAG and above scales, fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. These orders are consistent with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and no change has been considered necessary by the Government in this respect.

RPGoswami
30-03-2011, 07:28 PM
I must thank Mr.Natarajan for bringing out the results of past efforts in trying the Parliamentary Route. My question is will a question raised in the following manner elicit some result? what I have in mind is a Question in the following form.
Is it fact that pension fixed by the DOPT for large number of pre-2006 pensioners are lower than what the Judicial Department and some State Governments have fixed for officers who retired from the similar grade before 1.1.2006
What the Government of India is going to do to rectify the position.

vnatarajan
31-03-2011, 08:27 AM
Dear Shri RPG/ Pre 2006 Pensioners,

Parliament questions and answers will not change the minds of hon Ministers/ hon MPs/ Bureaucratic masters who have written off their "senses of TRUTH/ JUSTICE/ HONESTY which was never so in our times!

TWO MINISTERS' TRUTHFUL, HONEST, JUST AND STRONG OPINIONS EXPRESSEED TO THE VERY AUTHORITIES WHO MATTER AND WHO DECIDE HAVE BEEN CONSIGNED TO WP BASKET AND POH-POOHED BY LESSER LEVEL BUREAUCRATIC DEALINGS, ONLY TO HIDE THE "VITIATED AND DELIBERATE MODIFICATIONS" THEY MADE TO SCPC'S CORE PARA 5.1.47 WHILE TRANSLATING IT AS PARA 4.2 OF OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 AND THEN IN THE MORE DAMAGING OMS OF 3RD AND 14TH OCT 2008.

EVEN AN EXPLICIT AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL OPINION GIVEN BY CAG TO THE HON PMO IN JAN 2010 HAVE ALSO BEEN DISPOSED OFF IN A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR FASHION BY THE ROUTINE BABUCRACY !

I AM TRYING TO PLACE FOUR OF SUCH DOCUMENTS HERE FOR THE BENEFITR OFR ALL CONCERNED- THOUGH THE SAME ARE AVAILABLE AT VARIOUS PLACES IN THIS MAMMOTH THREAD:

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

PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL
Minister of State for Finance(Expenditure, Banking & Insurance)and Parliamentary Affairs Government of India
10 NOV 2008
Esteemed Prime Minister Sahib,
I take this liberty to impringe upon your valuable time and to bring to your kind notice the grievances of the Paramilitary Forces Retired Officrs regarding disparities in pension of pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees arising as a consequence of the clarificatory OM dated 3rd October, 2008. A copy of their representation in this regard is enclosed herewith.
Clarification vide O.M. dated 3rd October, 2008 on O.M. of DOPT dated 1st September 2008 has changed the intent of para 4.2 of O.M. under reference, as also the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission. This has created following two major disparities for Pre-2006 pensioners:
A substantial financial loss to pre-2006 pensioners compared to the similarly placed post-2006 pensioners.
A pre-2006 pensioner who retired from a higher post or pay scale would get less pension than a Post-2006 pensioner retiring from a junior post with lower pay scale.
This disparity is causing widespread concern amongst pre-2006 pensioners. I shall be grateful if you could kindly direct that their request is considered sympathetically.
With profound regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd
(Pawan Kumar Bansal)
Shri Manmohan Singh,
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRITHVIRAJ CHAVAN
Minister of State
Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pensions
19 JAN 2009
Dear Pawan ji,
Kindly refer to your D.O. letter Dy. No.3534 dated 10.11.2008 addressed to Hon’ble Prime Minister regarding the disparities arisen as a consequence of the orders issued for revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners in implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. Prime Minister’s Office has sought the views of Department of Pension and PW in this respect.
2. I fully subscribe to your observations that the Orders, which intended to allow modified parity between pre-2006 and post-2005 pensioners, has, in fact, created disparities within pre-2006 pensioners and between pre-2006 and post-2005 pensioners. Department of Pension and PW has been constantly receiving representations from the affected pensioners and pensioner’s associations expressing their discontent. In this regard, appreciating their concern, the Department has taken up the matter with your Ministry (Department of Expenditure) on 21.10.2008 for approval of the following revised provision of Modified parity:-
“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 Annexure-I of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008”
The representations of pensioners received in this Department have also been forwarded to the Department of Expenditure for better appreciation of the problem.
3. The revised provision for modified parity, as mentioned in para 2 above, would not only redress the grievance of the pensioners but would also be in line with the modified parity allowed to the pre-1996 pensioners on implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission.
4. I shall be grateful if you could kindly have this matter examined in the Department of Expenditure and communicate the approval/decision of Ministry of Finance in the matter expeditiously.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Prithviraj Chavan)

Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal,
Minister of State of Finance
Govt. of India,
164, North Block,
New Delhi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEADER BJD'S LETTER
No. 2009/085
31st January 2009
To,
The Secretary, Govt. Of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
(Deptt. Of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare),
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market,
New Delhi.
Madam,
This is regarding grievances of retired Central Government Employees relating to implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation. It is now reported that clarification contained in letter No. OM F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt I dated 03 10 08 in respect of para 4.2 of OM dated 01 09 2008 is more of a modification than a clarification as it has totally changed the intent of para 4.2 as well as that of 6th CPC Report, in as much as that as per accepted 6th CPC Report, pension was to be not less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay “ corresponding to the pre revised pay scale” from which the pensioner had retired. Whereas, now it is changed to minimum of pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus the grade pay. Being aggrieved due to these disparities, retired Central Govt. Employees of pre 2006 have represented both individually and through their Association to remove the anomalies so that the retired employees will not incur any financial loss.
I would therefore, request you, the issue may be re-examined at the earliest so as to redress the grievances of the retired Central Govt. Employees in accordance with the 6th CPC Report which was totally accepted by the Govt. of India.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
sd/
(Braj Kishore Tripathi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRACT: CAG'S OPINION SENT TO HON PMO ON THE PETITION OF RAM PRATAP AND RELATED RTI ETC IN JAN 2010

Petition of Shri Ram Pratap.
"As per provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt, of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 1.9.2008 the revised pension, in no case, shall be lowerthan fi r!.)' percent of minimum of pay in the nay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. As rio separate minimum of pay has been prescribed for each post, it has been clarified by the Dcpu. of P&PW vide their 0\/1 dt.3.10.200R that the pension calculated at fifty percent of the minimum of pay in the pay hand plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. As the minimum of the pay of a pay band is taken into account [or di fferent posts placed in a particular pay band, the pensioners retired from the posts placed' at the bottom of each pay band are only benefited' [rom these orders. Other pensioners arc not benefited [rom these orders. The other pensioners can be benefited if, instead of minimum of pay in the pay band, revised pay fixed under CCS( Revised Pay) Rules, 200~ with reference to the minimum of pay in the pre-revised scale of pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired is taken into account for revising the pension of pre-200(i pensioners in terms of provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt. of P&PW 0M dt.l.9.2008".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A FEW MORE "DOCUMENTS OF OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS/ REPLIES" TO SUBSTATNTIATE THE CONTENTION THAT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" IS NOT SAME AS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" WILL FOLLOW : (such as DOPW's RTI Reply; CPAO's RTI Reply; CPAO's Cirrigendum dt 20-24th N0v 2009;CAG'S confirmation that he was not conwsulted on Pra 4.2 explanations given in the OM of 3rd Oct 2008;CAG's confirmation that his concurrence was not taken for the issue of OMs of 3rd/ 14th Oct 2008) and many more related ones!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHRI RPG'S LAST QUERY?
WHAT THE GOVT OF INDIA IS GOIMNG TO DO TO RECTIFY THE POSITION?
"CHULLU MEIN PAANI LEKHE DOOB KE MAREGA LEKIN TRUTH/ JUSTICE/ HONESTY KE SAAMNE NAHIN AAYENGE"
(My HINDI is bad- but I am honest in my expression!)

vnatarajan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/COLOR][/B]

vnatarajan
31-03-2011, 07:04 PM
(Contd from previous thread- Further references added will highlight the "helplessness of Cabinet Secretariat/ Hon PMO's Office in handling the "real matter of "INJUSTICE THROUGH LOSS IN PENSION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS))

EXTRACT: CAG'S OPINION SENT TO HON PMO ON THE PETITION OF RAM PRATAP AND THE PURSUANT ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CAB SECRETARIAT ETC:

As per provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt, of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 1.9.2008 the revised pension, in no case, shall be lowerthan fi r!.)' percent of minimum of pay in the nay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. As rio separate minimum of pay has been prescribed for each post, it has been clarified by the Dcpu. of P&PW vide their 0\/1 dt.3.10.200R that the pension calculated at fifty percent of the minimum of pay in the pay hand plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. As the minimum of the pay of a pay band is taken into account [or di fferent posts placed in a particular pay band, the pensioners retired from the posts placed' at the bottom of each pay band arc only benefited' [rom these orders. Other pensioners arc not benefited [rom these orders. The other pensioners can be benefited if, instead of minimum of pay in the pay band, revised pay fixed under CCS( Revised Pay) Rules, 200~ with reference to the minimum of pay in the pre-revised scale of pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired is taken into account for revising the pension of pre-200(i pensioners in terms of provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt. of P&PW 1 \1 dt.l.9.2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTER WRITTEN BY PRE 2006 RETIREE DY SECY TO THE JT SECY, CAB SECTT ON THE ABOVE MATTER:

Ph: 26517119 / 26865295
R.S. Jain 1/21. Sarvapriya Vihar
Retd. Deputy Secretary New Delhi-110016
Ministry of Labour
30th January. 2010
Shri Rajive Kumar
J oint Secretary
Cabinet Secretariat
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi-llOOOl

Respected Sir,
Kindly refer to your Order No. Fl20l5/239/2009-RTI, dated 11 January 2010 on my RTI petition. I am making this submission as a representation for your kind consideration.
2. During the course of my pleadings, I had referred to an identical representation addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister by some of the aggreived pensioners of various levels (copy enclosed). Most of them were dumped, either in the PMO or on being forwarded to the Deptt. of P&PW. However, one representation was forwarded by the PMO to the Comptroller & Auditor General on 22 December 2009. The CAG's office has sent its observations on 18/1/2010. I enclose a copy of the same for your kind perusal.
3. It may kindly be noticed that the CAG's office has tendered its opinion in a very guarded language. However, the last sentence of the communication clearly conveys that the clarification issued by the Deptt. of P&PW on 3/10/2008 has resulted in the non implementation of the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission contained in para 4.2 of the Deptt. of P&PW OM dated 1/9/2008.
4. Sir, I humbly request you to kindly advise the Deptt. of P&PW to either withdraw or suitably modify the clarification of 3/10/2008 and implement the recommendation taking into account the minimum of the pay in the pay band already determined by the Ministry of Finance in its OM No.1/1/2008-IC, dated 30/8/2008, of which there is, and can be, no alternative.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
(R. S. Jain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTI Act Matters!
CABINET SECRETARIAT
RASHTRAPATIBHAVAN
Enclosed please find a copy of representation dated 30.1.2010 received from Shri R.S. Jain, Retired Deputy Secretary from the Ministry of Labour about his grievances relating to revision of his pension.
2. Shri Jain has drawn attention towards observatio.f\s of the Controller and Auditor General of Accounts 10 Note dated 18.1.2010 addressed to the prime Minister's Office, which clearly conveys that the clarification dated 3-10-2008 by the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare is not as per recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission.
3. It is, therefore, requested that the matter may please be got examined in the light of CAG observations and factual position intimated to this Secretariat. Sd!
(Rajive Kumar)
Joint Secretary
Shri R.C. Misra, Secretary(Pension & AR), Deparartment of Pension & Pensioner's
Welfare, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi
Cabinet Secretariat U.O. No. F.12015/239/2009-RTI dated 3.3.2010

Copy forwarded for information to Shri R.S. Jain, 1/21 Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016.

Sunil Mishra)
Director & CPIO

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNFORTUNATELY, THE ISSUE WAS NOTAT ALL DEAlT PROPERLY - ON MERIT AND THEREFORE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS DID NOT GET "JUSTICE" AT THE "MINISTRY OF FINANCE" AS IT TURNED DOWN THE SAME (mainly under the "untenable excuse of financial constraint" when all provisions have been made for SCPC's correct implementations already. Piracy of some amounts of Revisewd Pensions of segments of pre 2006 pensioners thru "rEDUCED MPB BASED PENSIONS" went to enhance the revised pensions of some elite scalkes, and thus causing a shortfall of Rs 228 cr for making good again the loss to the former!. In reality, this Rs 228 cr was mech lesser and accordinbg to me even this could not have exceeded 70-80 Cr!!!!!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

sundarar
09-04-2011, 09:32 PM
As per provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt, of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 1.9.2008 the revised pension, in no case, shall be lowerthan fifty percent of minimum of pay in the nay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. As rio separate minimum of pay has been prescribed for each post, it has been clarified by the Dcpu. of P&PW vide their 0M dt.3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at fifty percent of the minimum of pay in the pay hand plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. As the minimum of the pay of a pay band is taken into account for different posts placed in a particular pay band, the pensioners retired from the posts placed' at the bottom of each pay band arc only benefited' [rom these orders. Other pensioners are not benefited [rom these orders. The other pensioners can be benefited if, instead of minimum of pay in the pay band, revised pay fixed under CCS( Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 with reference to the minimum of pay in the pre-revised scale of pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired is taken into account for revising the pension of pre-2006 pensioners in terms of provisions contained in para 4.2 of Deptt. of P&PW OM dt.l.9.2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

As rightly pointed out above by our Respected Shri VNji, the initial provisions of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 has been misinterpreted through a modificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 by inclusion of a `new' provision - `irrespective of pre-revised scale'.

The following paragraphs of the Hon. Andhra High Court judgement in the case of State Government Pensioners Association vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 10 September, 2003 will give clarity regarding interpretation of rules.

"52. It is settled rules of interpretation that an interpretation, which is unreasonable or leads to discrimination must be avoided. (See: Union of India v. Onkar S. Kanwar)

53. It is also beyond pale of controversy that while interpreting welfare legislation, beneficent construction has to be resorted to. It is the duty of the Court to give broad interpretation keeping in view the purpose of such legislation of preventing arbitrary action, but, however, subject to statutory rules. The Supreme Court in this regard observed "Whilst it is true that the law seems to be rather well settled as regards the 'bread and butter' statutes and the welfare legislation introduced in the statute book for the purposes of eradication of social malady, it is a duty incumbent on to the law Courts to offer a much broader interpretation since the legislation is otherwise designed to perpetration of any arbitrary action and no contra view thus is plausible." (See: Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, )".

Thus, the misinterpreted provision, in spite of CPAO's Corrigendum dated 24.11.2009, inserted through modificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 (as in no other subsequent OMs, this provision - `irrespective of pre-revised scale' find its place anywhere), is totally against the rules of interpretation as pointed out above. According to OM dated 3.10.2008 there should have been only 4 minimum of the pay in the pay bands irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. Even under OM dated 1.9.2008, there is only 30 minimum of the pay in the pay band exist (S-30 got excluded from band based revision in August 2009, so, it is 29 ultimately). When the Banks were required to undertake the job of revision of pension during 6th CPC recommendation implementation, there should not have been any difficulty to spell out such a minimum pay in the pay band (whether it is 4 or 29) as an Annexure to OM dated 1.9.2008. This shows that initially while implementing the accepted recommendations, there was no doubt about minimum of the pay in the pay band as every GP determined for a particular pre-revised scale, has its own corresponding pay in the pay band as per fitment table provided for revising the pay scales of serving employees. In the case of pensioners, it is only the bottom stage of pre-revised scale ought to be revised in a similar way and not point to point stage revision, under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. The banks were neither provided with any fitment table as to what constitutes a minimum of the pay in the pay band to a particular pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired alongwith for deriving 50% of the same to add with the 50% of GP determined. Even what is the GP applicable to a pre-revised scale was not notified through OM dated 1.9.2008. Both elements were supposed to be interpreted from the fitment table of serving employees. It is the CPAO's letter dated 26.9.2008 that went on record towards misinterpretation, which too was amended to read as per initial provisions of OM dated 1.9.2008, vide its Corrigendum dated 24.11.2009. Under the circumstances, what is the purpose in maintaining that the Corrigendum has to be read with OM dated 3.10.2008 but not with OM dated 1.9.2008 or the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC vide para 5.1.47. It is high time if the modificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 is ordered by the authorities as null and void so as to implement the actual accepted recommendation implemented through initial OM dated 1.9.2008 so as to make the 3-year long confusion duly clarified as per initial OM.

vnatarajan
06-05-2011, 11:03 AM
Thanks to Shri A Agarwal, Copensioner, who supplied us this piece of news.

SELFISH AND STUBBORN ATTITUDE OF BUREAUCRACY CRITICISED BY RAJASTHAN HC- IN DEALING WITH OLD PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS!

I HAD BEEN UTTERING SIMILAR EXPRESSION AS SEEN IN THE LAST PART OF THE NEWS ITEM ON THE JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT- AND IN MANY OF MY SOCIAL NETWORK WEBSITE POSTINGS LIKE GCONNECT ETC - THAT "TODAY'S EMPLOYEES ARE TOMORROW'S PENSIONERS" AND HENCE THEY MUST DEAL CAREFULLY ALL PENSION MATTERS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND PARTIALITY.

ALSO TODAY'S "NEO (OLD PENSION SCHEME) -PENSIONERS" WILL BECOME "OLD PENSIONERS " TOMORROW AND THAT THEY ALL SHD JOIN WITH US IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE AND DISPARITY.

But then everyone appears to be as selfish as they can only be!

Let us crusade together in time so that our voices are heard better!

I AM POSTING THE NEWS IN THE GCONNECT WEBSITE AND ALSO THE RREWA WEBSITE.

VN

News Item Source PTI - conveyed by Shri A Agarwal

Rajasthan HC says : Don''t make retirees run pillar-to-post for benefits
PTI – Wed, May 4, 2011

Jaipur, May 4 (PTI) The Rajasthan High Court has criticised the bureaucratic approach of government officials in releasing retirement benefits.

The single judge bench said the benefits must be given timely, without making the retirees run from pillar to post.

Justice Ajay Rastogi in a detailed order said the typical bureaucratic mindset of government officials needs to change.

The order came on a writ petition filed by Shakuntla Sharma, wife of a former Chief Engineer-cum-additional secretary who retired from the service in 1969.

The officer stopped getting pension after September, 1971 without any reason.

"The government failed to show why the pension has been stopped and only lame excuses have been given which shows that the government officials who are in service have no respect for retired persons," observed Justice Rastogi.

The court added a note of caution, observing, "those in service today must remember that they will also retire in time to come...this court records its displeasure with this bureaucratic approach of not granting due benefits."

The court directed the state government to release the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner from October 1971 with an interest of 9 per cent per annum.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
11-05-2011, 07:14 PM
Dear Pre 2006 and other pensioners,

Thanks to the patronage of Gconnect and co-posters of the Discussion Board/ interested viewers, this single/ unique thread in Pensioners' Forum, has more than 890 posts/ 84000 plus views over a period of 2y 7 months and average viewing per day is more than 70 to 80!

Highlighting the Injustice done to pre 2006 pensioners by denying the Minimum Guaranteed Pension (MGP) in terms of the SCPC recommende correct Modified Parity, the thread has covered almost every possible feature/ item/ justice/ rule etc and as a result of the exchange of views, the aggrieved pensioners and their Groups in Central and State in both Civil and Military categories , have gone to courts and tribunals for justice. In the last one year or so, more than 47 cases have been filed for justice. In three judgments by AFT/ its Principal Delhi and Chandigarh Benches covering 16 of the above 47 cases, have given clear and authentic favourable judgments directing the Govt to accord Modified Parity to petitioners who are Retd Lt Cdrs/ Majors/ Sqdrn Leaders. The Govt is dilly dallying and wating the valuable time of Courts/ Tribunals, by making the pensioners to run from pillar to post for further justice at HSC levels. What a shame???

MY PURPOSE OF PUTTING UP THIS POST IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE VAGUE AND MORE OF A SORT OF MISCHIEVOUS STAND TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENTS (GOCT/ ITS DEPARTMENTS) TO OFFER OBSTRUCTIONS TO OBTAIN JUSTIUCE THROUGH TRIBUNALS/ HIGH COURTS/ HSC ETC.

NOW THE HABITUAL EXPLANATIONS AND LAME EXCUSES OFFERED BY GOVT IN THEIR COUNTERS TO PENSIONERS' PETITIONS ARE SUMMARISED NICELY BY MR SUNDARAR AND SELF:

THEY ARE LISTED HERE:

1) No judicial review is called for as the revision of pension is as per 6th cpc recommendation approved by the Cabinet.

(2) The OM dated 3.10.2008 is a clarification but not a modification. It only interprets the initial version of para 4.2 to bring clarity but not substitute any new provisions than the accepted para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report/ para 4.2 of Om of 1 9 2008

(3) In view of (2) above, actual implementation is as per initial OM dated 1.9.2008 only.

(4) Parity in pension is not practically possible while comparing a pre-revised pay from which a pensioner had retired with a revised pay from which a pensioner retires after 1.1.2006. They can not be done with "mathematical precision".

(5) No violation of Article 14 of the Constitution has taken place.

(6) Minimum of the Pay Band and Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band are one and same (for pre 2006 pensioners) and there is no need to differentiate between two.

(7) The employer has every right to revise the pay of serving employees, AND erstwhile pensioners can have no say. Govt also is competent to decide what amount of pension one has to be given!

(8) The financial constraints also need to be looked into while considering any liberalisation of pensionary benefits.

(9) Same fitment formula for revision of pension as has been done in the case of serving employees have been applied while revising.

(10) The National Anomaly Committee has already resolved this issue and the Staff side also has accepted the official side's views and hence no need to reopen the issue.

(11)As per Art 73/ 77 Govt is competent to make / amend any Rule on behalf of the President.

(12) CCS (RP) Rules 2008 are not applicable to pre 2006 pensioners. As old pensioners are/ were no longer in service during the SCPC period, they are not entitled for any "REVISION OF PAY" applicable to those in service/ retired post 1 1 2006.

(13) Clarificatory OMs/ Executive instructions need no Cabinet Approval. Nor they need be referred to CAG for concurrences.

(14)CCS Pension Rules 1972 do not make provisions for revising pensions according to successive CPC Recos ( an ill-conceived / wantonly construed RTI Reply)

(15)Nakara/ Vains Judgments have already been watered down through other judgments.

(16) A Junior can draw more pension than a Senior scale pensioner depending upon the last emoluments drawn and length of service (... as if we are not aware of the same!- our submissions were in a different context!)

(17) 5CPC Modified parity is already settled. Now it is the Sixth CPC "Modified Parity" which has also been correctly implemented as per SCPC Recos.

(18) Judgments of Military case pensioners can not be made applicable to Civil pensioners ( even Natural Principles of Justice?--- Military of India has some other Constitution? )

ANY PENSIONER/ THIER GROUPS/ ASSOCIATION FILING A CASE FOR RELIEF/ OR THEIR COUNSELS APPEARING FOR ARGUMENTS MAY GET THEMSELVES PREPARED TO ARGUE AGAINST ON THE ABOVE POINTS TO GET RELIEF/ JUSTICE.

ALL ARE FREE TO / CAN GIVE THEIR COMMENTS FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE POINTS HERE FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES TO SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE.

WE `CAN ALSO CLARIFY AND SHARE ANY INFORMATION NEEDED BY ANY AGGRIEVED PENSIONER/ LITIGANT/ THEIR GROUPS/ ASSOCIATIONS.

All the best,

vnatarajan.

PS: A FEW REQUESTS/ SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED PERSONALLY BY ME FROM VERY VERY SENIOR/ OLD PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS TIME AND AGAIN TO BRING ALL THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF HON PRESIDENT OF INDIA ETC AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN REPEATING MY EFFORTS ONCE AGAIN TO BRING THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE/ INTEREST TO THE NOTICE OF THE AUGUST OFFICE SOON. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE HIGHEST OFFICES OF OUR NATION CAN DO FOR PENSIONERS LIKE US- THEY ARE ACTING LIKE "SUPER TRANSMITTERS" AND DOWN THE LINE ACTIONS ARE SO PERPETRATED THAT THE "PENSIONERS HAVE TO RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST TO GET JUSTICE" AS OBSERVED BY MANY VENUES/ COURTS OF JUSTICE. NEVERTHELESS WE SHALL FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!

vvenkateswarrao
12-05-2011, 08:26 PM
The only duty of the Present Government Employees both in the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of DOPT seems to see that the pensioners does not get their due. They are forgetting that they will be pensioners tomorrow and they will also be paid in the same coin. We are not asking what is not justified and according to law. They are forgetting that if they do justice to their fellowmen, then justice will be done to them. If the present interpretations are allowed to continue, then Government will one day deny pension to every one.

Kanaujiaml
18-06-2011, 09:45 AM
Dear friends. In above post by Shri VN, with help of from Shri Sundrar, has summarised, in brief certain arguments against Pensioners cases in CAT/Court. Against each such point a brief counter reply is needed, as well. This would help the viewers to understand the position in better way. I hope Shri VN would be kind enough to do this for the sake of pensioners.

vnatarajan
09-07-2011, 08:42 AM
Dear Pre 2006/Old/ Other Pensioners,

Attention is drawn to my post no 1011 and the rejoinder of Shri MLK ji at post no 1013.

The 18 points which I and Shri Sundaar made out have special significance related to the GRIEVANCES of the pension discrimination issues/ judicial interventions/ indiscriminate actions/ follow ups of the Govt- its functionaries on such issues.

Shri MLK ji in his post (1013) above had pointed out the need to prepare a brief counter for each one of them to help all aggrieved pensioners of past and pensioners seeking justice, even thru judicial intervention. Now Shri MLK ji himself has prepared a vauable document covering the above aspects and posted the same in the RREWA website.

In turn I had copied and posted them in the thread titled "JUSTICE THROUGH RESTOTATION.........." in this FORUM itself,at sl nos 316 to 318 yesterday. As the contents cover more than 24000 characters, I had to split them and post in three parts. For the same reason I am not repeating them in this thread.

The contents are most INFORMATIVE and of immense GUIDANCE value and are a DYNAMIC AND FORCEFUL REPLY TO THE 18 POINTS considering the DEVIOUS TECHNIQUES AND EXCUSES RESORTED TO BY THE GOI/ DEPT OF PENSIONS/ DOE ETC WHEN THEY DEAL OUR APPEALS/ RTI S/ EVEN COURT PETITIONS.

This action of MLK inspires me and many like me to probe deep into the frivolous and thoughtless adventures of the concerned Govt Departments/ their current Incumbents- Employees- Officials while dealing with the cases of old/ grand old pensioners, without keeping in view that one day they also would be pensioners.

MY REQUEST IS ALL PENSIONERS (PAST/ PRESENT/CURRENT/ WOULD BE) AND ALSO EMPLOYEES MAY KINDLY READ THRU THE SAME CAREFULLY AND GET ACQUAINTED WITH THE CONTENTS , AS MANY ISSUES COVERED HAVE RELEVANCE TO SERVICE MATTERS ALSO.

IN FACT MANY PENSIONERS/ EMPLOYEES WILL BE ABLE TO GUIDE MANY OTHER AGGRIEVED CATEGORIES OF PENSIONERS/ EMPLOYEES WHEN FACED WITH SIMILAR/ AND OR UNJUST SERVICE SITUATIONS.

OUR COMPLIMENTS ,CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS TO SHRI MLK JI.

Regards,
VNatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
16-07-2011, 07:24 AM
will you please give latest position of court cases

vnatarajan
18-10-2011, 03:12 PM
Dear Shri SCM/ Pre 2006 Pensioners,

Main case of correct SCPC modified parity of pre 2006pensioners - PH OA 655/2010 will be heard (final hearing) on 19 10 2011 by the Full Bench of the PR BENCH of CAT Delhi.
This is inspite of several hurdles which the Govt/ Pension Authorities have been trying to create to delay, obliterate and avoid the outcome of truth.
HOPE JUSTICE SHALL PREVAIL AS IT HAPPENED ON THE AFT CASES FOR MILITARY PENSIONERS IN LATE 2010/ EARLY 2011 IN THE AFT PR BENCH DELHI/ AFT CHANDIGARH WHICH DID JUSTIEC ON CORRECTSCPC MOD PARITY/ PARITY FOR PRE 2006 MILITARY PENSIONERS WHICH INCLUDED RETD MAJORS/ LT CDRS/ SQDRN LEADERS/ PRE 2006 RTD MAJ GENS ETC.

As desired by Shei SCM I am tring to post the List of Cases of pre 2006 pensioners' interest, which include cases for SCPC Mod Parity/ Full Parity/ New Scale etc. Disposed cases are "not on merit" but because of the limitations of the CAT like case at sl no 11 on seeking higher scale for pre 2006 pensioners which was observed by the Judge as to be a POLICY MATTER to be decided by the Central Govt.

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

Pl read the titles of columns seriatum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERSS IN VARIOUS COURTS :
AS ON 04.09.2011 (Compiled by M L Kanaujia updated upto 19 10 2011 by NSR).

S.N./ BEING HEARD BY/PETITION NO. & YEAR / OA -WPC / LEAD PETITIONER/ NEXT DATE FIXED FOR HEARING/REMARKS.
(Details appended below this table)
1 CAT-PB Delhi OA 3079/2009 LR Khatana 19.10.2011 For Final hearing
2 CAT-PB Delhi OA 201/2010 M L Gulati
3 CAT-PB Delhi OA 306/2010 D L Vohra
4 CAT-PB Delhi OA 507/2010 PPS Gambhir
5 CAT-PB Delhi OA 937/2010 s30 pensioners
6 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2087/2009 Ran Vir Singh
7 CAT-PB Delhi OA 655/2010 s29 pensioners
8 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2101/2010 CG Pensioners
9 CAT Hydrabad OA 568/2010 s29 Dr. Kotra For hearing
10 CAT Hydrabad OA/2010 Clubbed s26 Dr. Kotra For hearing
11 CAT Hydrabad OA 2413/2009 AJ Gurushanker Judgment delivered on 9.9.2011 Case disposed.
12 CATErnakulam OA 834/2010 s29 &s26 DRDO For hearing
13 Lucknow HC Ser.Ben.203/2010 s29 UP Officers 19.10.2011 For hearing
14 Delhi HC WP(C)3359/2010 s29,s26 Ex.ParaMil. 25.10.2011 For hearing
15 Haryana HC CWP19641/2009 RK Agarwal (s29) 28.11.2011 For hearing
16 Haryana HC CWP19642/2009 Satish Bhalla (s29) For hearing
17 Haryana HC CWP3452/2010 O P Kapur (s29) 16.11.2011 For hearing
18 Haryana HC CWP12638/2010 M L Kansal (s29) 16.11.2011 For hearing
19 Haryana HC CWP20725/2010 RK Sehgal (s29) 16.11.2011 For hearing
20 Haryana HC CWP20726/2010 R K Bali (s29) 16.11.2011 For hearing
21 Haryana HC CWP20727/2010 B K Jain (s29) 16.11.2011 For hearing
22 Haryana HC CWP20753/2010 CK Gupta (s29) 16.11.2011 For hearing
23 Supreme Court WP(Con) 64/2009 SPS Vains M.Gen. 27.01.2012 For hearing
24 AFT-PB Delhi OA 24/2010 Lt.Com.AvtarSingh DOJ 14.09.2010 Appeal allowed.
25 AFT-PB Delhi OA 270/2010 Sq.Ldr. VK Jain DOJ 14.09.2010 Appeal allowed.
26 AFT-PB Delhi OA 139/2009 Lt.Col.PK Kapur DOJ 30.06.10 Appeal allowed.
27 AFTChandigarh OA 277/2010 Romesh Chand DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
28 AFTChandigarh OA 312/2010 OP Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
29 AFTChandigarh OA 313/2010 MS Minhas DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
30 AFTChandigarh OA 314/2010 YS Nijjar DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
31 AFTChandigarh OA 325/2010 Dildar Singh Sahi DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
32 AFTChandigarh OA 326/2010 Gurlochan Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
32 AFTChandigarh OA 327/2010 Gurmeet Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
33 AFTChandigarh OA 445/2010 Balwant Singh DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
34 AFTChandigarh OA 476/2010 Karam Chand DOJ 01.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
35 AFTChandigarh OA 257/2010 Jagdish Chandar DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
36 AFTChandigarh OA 409/2010 N N Sud DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
37 AFTChandigarh OA 410/2010 HS Tonque DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
38 AFTChandigarh OA 521/2010 GS Kang DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
39 AFTChandigarh OA 522/2010 SS Matharu DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
40 AFTChandigarh OA 346/2010 DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
41 AFTChandigarh OA 728/2010 DOJ 25.11.2010 Appeal allowed.
42 AFTChandigarh OA 100/2010 SPS Vains M.Gen. DOJ 04.03.2010
Appeal allowed.
43 CAT Patna OA 284/2009 MMP Sinha DOJ 28.05.2010 Appeal Disallowed.
44 CAT-PB Delhi OA 1732 / 2010 Ram Murti Raina DOJ 25.05.10 Appeal allowed.
45 CAT Mumbai OA 780/2009 + 8 Dr. KR Munim DOJ 22.02.2011 Appeals Disallowed.
46 HC Patna CWJC10757/2010 MMP Sinha, s30 22.04.2011 Admitted.
47 Supreme Court T.P.(C) No.56/2007 UOI & Ors. Vs NK Nair & Ors. 22.11.2011 Final disposal matter.
48 Supreme Court Civil Appeal 2966/2011 UOI Vs SPS Vains 27.01.2012 Listing awaited.
49 CAT–PB Delhi OA 1165 /2011 Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP 18.10.2011 Admitted on 16.05.11

(post contd in the next one)

vnatarajan
18-10-2011, 03:16 PM
(Contd from previous post 1016)

Detailed Remarks :

Item 1 to 8 : These cases are being heard all together. Initially, Govt. Counsel took time at several occasions on some pretext or other and gained time. The last hearing 16.03.2011 was fixed with final warning to the Govt. Counsel that no further time would be given and case would be heard straight away. On 16.03.2011 the CAT Mumbai Judgment (DOJ 22.02.2011) was mentioned wherein Pensioners plea of strucking down of cut off date of 1.1.06, point to point fixation of pension and inclusion of NPA while computing revised pension were declared bereft of merit by the CAT Mumbai and case dismissed. Shri Nidehsh Gupta, Advocate of Petitioners, argued that CAT Mumbai case was different than ours where modified parity has been prayed for which was recommended by the SCPC vide para 5.1.47 and which was approved by Union Cabinet and Notified by Govt. vide MOP, DOP&PW Resolution dated 29.08.2008. After hearing, the case was adjourned for next hearing on 13.04.2011. CAT Mumbai case is based on arguments given in hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment of march 2008 in case of Govt. of AP Vs. N. Subbaranayudu. Shri Nidehsh Gupta, Advocate of Petitioners is expected to give his further plea with thread bare examination of CAT Mumbai Judgment as compared to Petitioners case. The case was adjourned on 13.04.11 for 28.04.11 but heard on 29.04.11 and finally heard and it was felt that the issue involved is serious and therefore, decided to be transferred to Full Bench of the CAT-Principal Bench for further hearing on 19.05.11. Presently posted for hearing on 19.10.2011

Item 9 to 10 : Clubbed cases. Details awaited. Dr. Kotra has retuned from foreign tour and now perusing the case. Date of next hearing is not yet known.

Item 11 : Case disposed by Judgment dated 9.9.2011.(see remarks given earlier at the beginning of the post)

Item 12 : No further date yet fixed for hearing.

Item 13 : This case was listed in Lucknow High Court several times in the past, as per directives given by the Hon.ble Supreme Court, but after hearing, has now been “admitted” on 01.03.2011 with direction that Govt. should submit Counter within two weeks and Petitioners then submit Rejoinder in further two week. On 04.04.11 Hon.ble Devi Prasad Singh J and Hon.ble SC Charausia J ordered : “As prayed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, a week’s time is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit. “On 04.07.11, following orders were passed by the Hon.ble HC “ List on 27.07.2011. As agreed by the parties’ counsel, the petition may be heard finally on that date. It shall be open for the parties’ counsel to submit chart of dates and events and compilation of case law and written argument on the next date of listing.”
The case is now listed to be heard on 24.08.2011. Next hearing on 19.10.2011.

Item 14. On 01.04.11, Govt. Advocate dealing with the case, failed to turn up. Instead a new Govt. Advocate turned up and informed that the earlier one has become member of some tribunal and he would now not be able to come back. The new Advocate then, sought the time to study the case. New date fixed is 07.07.11. Heard on 07.-7.11 when once gain Govt. Advocate wanted more time to submit Counter. Pensioner’s Advocate Shri Prashant Bhushan then pointed out that an years time has passed and Govt. is all the time avoiding submission of Counter and therefore, no further time should be given. The Court took this point seriously and fixed next date too, early on 12.07.11, directing the Govt. Advocate to submit the Counter definitely by that date. Case was heard on 12.07.11 but again Govt. Advocate failed to submit Counter and asked for time. Hon.ble Court was not happy at all but eventually allowed final four weeks time and fixed next date 11.08.2011 for hearing. Govt. again did not submit Counter. The hon.ble Court wanted arguments to be started but in absence of senior Advocates from both sides, arguments could not be started The case is now adjourned to 25.10.2011.

Item 15 to 16 : Argument already started and would continue in next hearing onwards. Next date fixed for hearing is 28.11.2011.

Item 17 to 22 : Govt. Counter has been received. Petitioners are yet to submit Rejoinder. Petitioners are expected to submit Rejoinder in a few week time. Next date fixed for hearing is 16.11.2011.

Item 23 : This is Contempt Writ Petition from Pensioners SPS Vains and Ors. The matter was listed 9 times earlier. There are no further orders for listing yet.

Items 24 and 25 : These cases pertain to pre 2006 Rtd. Majors, Sqd. Ldrs. and Lt. Com. from three wings of Defence Forces. Their appeal was "allowed with direction to respondents i. e. UOI to fix/refix the pension of all the petitioners on the basis of minimum of the pay in pay band i.e. Rs. 23,810/- and release all other benefits to them within four months from the date of receipt of this order ." As per latest information Govt. has submitted an SLP in Supreme Court and Pensioners, too have submitted a CAVEAT petition. Case would be heard first for “admission”. No listing/No date of hearing fixed yet. by the hon.ble Supreme Court.

Item 26 : Disability Pension allowed without cut off date of 01.01.2006 equally to all pensioners.

Items 27 to 42 : Appeal allowed by the AFT with direction to Govt. to fix revise pension and arrange payment giving 4 months time. No further progress is known.
(Contd in next post)

vnatarajan
------------------------------[

vnatarajan
18-10-2011, 03:19 PM
(Contd from previous post)

Item 43 : Shri MMP Sinha, a pre 2006 retiree from s30 p.r.p.s., petitioned CAT Patna for fixation of his revised pension on the basis of SCPC modified parity i.e. at 50 % of sum of minimum of the pay in pay band plus grade pay corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. In the meanwhile, based on recommendation of COS Report, s30 p.r.p.s. was taken out of pay band 4 and against it was allotted a new revised pay scale, re-fixing pension of pre 2006 retirees at 33500. Shri Sinha than modified his prayer asking for fixation of revised pension on point to point basis without any regard to cut off date of 1.1.06. He further prayed that his pension be fixed at equal to or higher than the maximum of revised pension a post 2006 retiree of s29 p.r.p.s. was fixed at, on the ground that the s30 p.r.p.s. was here than s29 p.r.p.s. and therefore, a junior cannot get higher pension than a senior. Petitioners prayers were disallowed on the ground (1) Application of Cut Off date is not a new phenomenon and it has been applied in several cases far last 27 years even after DS Nakara Judgment came (2) An s29 retiree would not be able to reach maximum of pay band 4 i.e. 67000 because, promote officers in s29 being at fag end of their service would retire soon, direct recruits would get promoted to s30/equivalent revised pay scale, both even not reaching middle of pay band 4 Rs. 37,400 -67000.


Item 44 : Shri Ram Murti Raina, an s30 retiree, petitioned that his application for higher pension @ 38500 (instead of 33500 already fixed) on the basis of point to point fixation without any regard to cut off date of 1.1.06 should be forwarded by Railway Board to DOP for action. His appeal was allowed accordingly. Nothing further is known about this case.

Item 45 : Dr. Munim petitioned that their pension should be fixed without having any regard to cut off date of 1.1.06 and while doing so , the NPA (Non practicing allowance paid to Doctors) should also be included. The CAT Mumbai dismissed this position on the ground that both the demands are bereft of any merit. CAT Mumbai Judgment has observed :

18. The applicants could have complained of discrimination only if a benefit had been introduced retrospectively by fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily; thereby dividing a single homogeneous class into two groups and subjecting them to different treatments. That is not the case here. The date 01.01.2006 for extending the benefit of pay revision has been fixed by expert body like the Pay Commission. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the date is fixed by the executive authorities keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many administrative and other attending circumstances and, therefore, it is expected from Courts/Tribunals to exercise and maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to legislative and executive domain. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & others Vs. N.Subbarayudu & others, [2008 (4) SLR 136], relevant paras of which are quoted below - 5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. 6. No doubt in D.S.Nakara & others Vs. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCC 305, this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's case (supra).

19. In N. Subbarayudu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of Lecturers in Private College. The age for superannuation was reduced from 60 to 58 years by amendment of the Education Code in 1993. Some retiree Lecturers preferred a Writ Petition challenging the cut-off date 01.11.1992 fixed by the Government for the purpose of pension as arbitrary and discriminatory. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition and on being challenged the same before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court was reversed.

19.1 It is evident from the reading of above paras 5 and 6 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Subbarayudu that in the ordinary course the Tribunal shall not interfere in the matter of a cut-off date unless the applicants make out a case of glaring discrimination and violation of the principle of equality as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also evident from the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that rigidity of the ratio of D.S. Nakara (Supra) has been considerably diluted in a catena of subsequent judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. Therefore, the Tribunal has to maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.

20. Furthermore, the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules are rank-neutral and class-neutral. In cases of all the retirees, pension is basically determined as per the provisions of Rule 49 of the CCS Pension Rules read with the provisions of Rules 33 and 34 thereof which have been reproduced above. That has been done in the case of the applicants. As such there is no case of any discrimination. Also, there is no provision in the Pension Rules for extending the benefit of pay revision retrospectively and, hence, the pay revision which has become effective from 01.01.2006 cannot be ipso facto and in toto made applicable to the present applicants, who have retired prior to 01.01.2006.

(Contd in next post)
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-10-2011, 03:20 PM
(Contd from previous post):

22. In fact, as discussed hereinabove, several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court have gone to the extent of saying that whenever the Government or an authority frames a Scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the date of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut off date, cannot be held to be unreasonable and irrational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It shall not amount to 'picking out a date from the hat'. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government.

Item 46 : This petition is against judgment of CAT/ Patna mentioned in Item 43 above. Shri MMP Sinha, who pleads his own case, has now gone in appeal to Patna High Court against CAT patna judgment. The CAT Patna Judgment that cut off date is being applied for last 27 years, even after DS Nakara Judgment and there it could be applied every where is not at all correct. Application of cut off date to divide a homogenous group of pensioners covered by same liberalised and upgraded pension scheme for the purpose giving benefit of revised pension discriminatingly, is violative of Article 14 and law set by DS Nakara Judgment constitutional bench of hon.ble Supreme Court and several other Judgments of hon.ble Supreme Court, such BJ Akkra Case (DJ 10.10.06), SPS Vains (DJ 8.9.08) and KJS Buttar (DJ 31.03.11). The second ground that neither a promotee nor a direct recruit s29 Officer would reach even middle of Pay Band 4 i. e. 37,400 -67,000, is a presumption. If none of the s29 p.r.p.s. retiree when in PB 4 would reach 67,000 as pay band pay, none of s30 p.r.p.s. retiree while in revised pay scale, would get higher pension. It however, opposite of it happens, which is not unlikely, than would not injustice violation of Article 14 prevail, for which situation CAT Patna has not taken care of, while delivering the Judgment. Appeal of Shri SPS Sinha has been admitted on 25.03.2011. Govt. Counter is awaited. Case came up for hearing on 22.04.11 when hon.ble Justice T. Meena Kumari and Justice Akhilesh Chandra ordered : “Let the matter be listed before appropriate Bench for hearing after taking due permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”

Item 47 : COURT NO. 12; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA. PART-A MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS I.A., CMPS, CRLMPS ETC 43. I. A. NO. 9 IN T.P.(C) No.56/2007, UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MR. D.S. MAHRA XVIA A/N-H Vs. N.K. NAIR & ORS. GP.CAPT.KARAN SINGH BHATI 106, 0, 0 S.(1801) (FOR MODIFICATION / DIRECTION MR. VISHWA PAL SINGH OF RECALL THE ORDER DATED MR. AJAY KUMAR 08.03.2010 AND OFFICE REPORT) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ) NOT TO BE LISTED BEFORE : 95, 0, 0 WITH I.A.NO.1 IN W.P (C) No.34/2009 K.K. ROHTAGI & ORS. MR. PRAVEEN JAIN X ADJD-O Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON 95,106, 0 S.(3900) (FOR DIRECTION) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ) PART-B FINAL DISPOSAL MATTERS.
The case had come up for hearing on 25 Apr 2011 in the court of Justice Aftab Alam & Justice RM Lodha. The UOI have filed the affidivit as asked by the court. The Solicitor General was not available for presenting the case as he was busy with a case in another court. The case has been now listed for 06 May 2011.

Item 48 : This is Civil Appeal from Petitioner UOI through Defence Secretary and Ors Vs Respondent SPS Vains & Ors. Matter was listed two times earlier. This appears to be the Civil Appeal against AFT/Chandigar Judgment given in OA No. 100 of 2010 (see item 42 above) but it is not yet confirmed. There are no orders for further listing yet.

49 : This case is basically for full pension for pre 2006 pensioners as in case of post 2006 pensioners, who retired with more than 20 but less than 33 years of qualifying service. The case was listed and heard on 16.05.11 and ordered for issue of notices to the respondents. Next hearing took place on 29.07.11. Next Hearing will take place on 18.10.2011.

As compiled by M L Kanaujia(with updation by NSR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri NSR may see/edit/ post in other threads as necessary)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

dnaga57
23-10-2011, 10:36 PM
Dear VN
Thanks aot for duch yeoman service...

sundarar
24-10-2011, 10:23 PM
With reference to post No.1019 of Respected Shri VNji, the following latest info. is submitted.
Item No. 13 Lucknow HC Ser.Ben.203/2010 s29 UP Officers 9.11.2011 For hearing
Item No. 49 CAT–PB Delhi OA 1165 /2011 Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP 23.11.2011 Admitted on 16.05.11

For kind information.

sundarar
26-10-2011, 08:19 PM
1. State of Punjab Vs Justice S.S Dewan (Retired Chief Justice) and others [(1997) 4 Sec 569] by HSC

“Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The formula adopted for determining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of pension. In D.S. Nakara case the change in the formula of, determining average emoluments by reducing 36 months' service to 10 months' service as measure of pension, made with a view to giving a higher average, 'was regarded as liberalisation or upward revision' of the existing pension scheme. On the basis of the same reasoning it may be said that any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely Qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regard liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme”.

"Thus the Supreme Court referred to D.S.Nakara and held that any modification with respect to qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can be regarded as liberalisation upward revision of the existing pension scheme".
(UOI vs T.Mukundan DOJ 29.3.2005 by Mumbai High Court)

2. The HSC in V.Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 81, in Para.21, has held as under :

"21. If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara's case (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) would cover this category of cases."

"Thus, the Apex Court has laid down the law to the extent that if an employee is entitled to have the benefits conferred upon the other similarly situated persons, such an employee cannot be deprived the benefits on the ground of giving effect of such benefit from a particular date".
(M.N.Sheth vs State of Gujarat DOJ :3.10.2011 by Gujarat High Court)
.. CONTD...

sundarar
26-10-2011, 08:20 PM
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Electricity Board Vs. R. Veerassamy and others, (1999)3 Supreme Court Cases 414, has been pleased to lay down as under: -

"8. As noticed earlier, the law is very well settled on the issue on hand. In the latest judgment dated 9-10- 1998 of this Court in V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay after noticing all the judgments of this Court up to that date on this issue, it was held as follows:

"23. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if subsequently by amendment of the relevant pension rules any beneficial umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and when such a subsequent scheme comes into force, the erstwhile non-pensioner might have survived, then only if such extension of pension scheme to erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non- pensioner who has retired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non- pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep. The decisions of this Court covering such second category of cases are: Commander, Head Quarter v. Cap. Biplabendra Chanda and Govt. of T.N. v. K. Jayaraman to which we have made a reference earlier. If the claimant for pension benefits satisfactorily brings his case within the first category of cases, he would be entitled to get the additional benefits of pension computation even if he might have retired prior to the enforcement of such additional beneficial provisions. But if on the other hand, the case of a retired employee falls in the second category, the fact that he retired prior to the relevant date of the coming into operation the new scheme would disentitle him from getting such a new benefit."

9. ......
10. In Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P. This Court held as follows:

"9. The only other question that survives for our consideration is whether the ratio in Nakara case will assist the appellant in getting the relief sought for. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India the question for consideration before this Court was whether on the basis of date of retirement the retirees can be classified into different groups and thereupon make provision granting some benefits to one group denying the others. In the aforesaid case, the provisions for pension were applicable to all retirees and, therefore, pensioners from a class as a whole. But when the Liberalised Pension Scheme was introduced, the said Scheme was made applicable to a group of pensioners and not to all and therefore, it was held by this Court that pensioners from a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion. It is to be noted that the aforesaid Bench judgment of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India wherein the decision of Nakara was explained and it was held that the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class and on the other hand, the Rules governing the provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the Rules governing pension and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to provident fund retirees. It was further held in the aforesaid case that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund Rules whereas in case of pension retirees, the obligation continues till the death of the employee. This Court categorically held that Nakara cannot be an authority for the decision in Krishena Kumar. In Union of India v. P.N. Menon a similar question came up for consideration and distinguishing Nakara and following Krishena Kumar and other similar cases, the Court held that whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefit to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such, any revised scheme in respect can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government. When the army personnel claimed the same pension irrespective of their date of retirement, this Court in the Constitution Bench case of the Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India considered the grievance of ex- servicemen who had laid the claim on the basis of Nakara but ultimately negatived the same and followed Krishena Kumar. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn v. Union of India when the validity of the introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was challenged on the ground that bank employees who retired prior to 1-1-1986 have not been given the benefit of the said Scheme, it was held by this Court that there is no arbitrariness in the same."

11. On 17-11-1998, a three-Judge Bench in All India PNB Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India while negativing an identical claim, held as follows: "This writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn v. Union of India. That judgment has rightly noted the distinction that Nakara case drew between a continuing scheme and a new scheme".
(Dr. Pardaman Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 January, 2010 by Punjab-Haryana High Court)

CONTD..

sundarar
26-10-2011, 08:23 PM
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma, JT 2000 (Suppl.1) SC 41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considered the question, whether, the pensioner was eligible to the benefit conferred on the pensioners by amendment of the Pension Rules, which had prospective in nature, came into fore after the pensioner had retired. After examining the judgments in V.Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Another, JT 1998(7) SC 147, Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and Others Vs. Capt. Biplabendra Chand, JT 1996(12) SC 242, U.O.I. and Others Vs. Lieut (Mrs.) E.Lacats, 1997 (7) SCC 334 and T.N. Electricty Board Vs. Veerasamy and Others, JT 1999 (2) SC 429, the principles of law summed up were, as follows:- The conspectus of legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decisions are as under :-

(a) Where an employee under the terms and conditions of service or under the relevant Rules relating to pension is not eligible to earn pension on his or her retirement, any amendment to the Rules covering a new class if pensioners would not confer pensionary benefits to the employee who has retired prior to coming into force of such amendment of Rules. (b) However, the position would be different if such an amendment in the relevant pension Rules is with retrospective effect as to cover a new class of employees including those employees who, at the relevant time, were not entitled to earn pension under the then existing Rules conditions of service. (c) Where an employee at the time of retirement is entitled to pension under the relevant Rules, any subsequent amendment to the relevant Rules enhancing pension or conferring additional benefit would be also application to him".
(Ansal Bhawan vs Sh. Mohan Kainth DOJ: 8.12.2008 By Delhi High Court)

Keeping the well settled position in view, the ratio in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nakara case is very much applicable for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service for full pension; The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara's case (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) would cover this category of cases.

sundarar
26-10-2011, 09:29 PM
5."The decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India has been distinguished in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court e.g. All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in which it was observed:

10. Nakara's judgment has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalized all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalization and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalization on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalise an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakara's case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut-off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved".
(National Institute Of Public ... vs Dr. D. Paul Choudhary on 3 March, 2006 by Delhi High Court)

6. "8.4 In D.S. Nakara's case (supra), the Supreme Court struck down the classification made between pensioners for the purpose of grant of benefit of liberalization only on the basis of the particular date i.e. 3rd March, 1979. The judgment in Nakara's case (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India was considered by another Constitution Bench in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India . The facts of that case were that the petitioners, who were retired Railway employees challenged the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-1957 specified in the Pension Scheme introduced in place of Provident Fund Scheme. While repelling the challenge, the Supreme Court distinguished the ratio of Nakara's case (supra) by making following observations :

In Nakara, the Court treated the pension retirees only as a homogeneous class. It was never held that both the pension retirees and the PF retirees formed a homogeneous class and that any further classification among them would be violative of Article 14. On the other hand the court clearly observed that it was not dealing with the problem of a "fund". The Railway Contributory Provident Fund is by definition a fund. Besides, on the retirement of an employee Government's legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to P.F. retirees. This being the legal position the rights of each individual P.F. retiree finally crystallized on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained, while on the other hand, as regard Pension retirees, the obligation continued till their death. The continuing obligation of the State in respect of pension retirees is adversely affected by fall in rupee value and rising prices which, considering the corpus already received by the P.F. retirees they would not be so adversely affected ipso facto. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the ratio decidendi in Nakara that the State's obligation must be the same as that towards the pension retirees. An imaginary definition of obligation to include all the Government retirees in a class, was not decided and could not form the basis for any classification for the purpose of this case. Nakara cannot, therefore, be an authority for this case.

8.5 In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ratan 'Behari Dey and Ors. , the Supreme Court referred to the, judgments in Shushma Sharma's case (supra), D.S. Nakara's case (supra) and Krishena Kumar's case (supra) and upheld the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-1977 specified in the Corporation of Calcutta Employees
(Death-cum-retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1982. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below :

The State Government had acted reasonably in specifying the cut-off date April 1, 1977. That might have been the year in which the Left Front came into power in that State, but that does not detract from the validity of the reasons for fixing the date. It cannot be said that the reasons assigned by the State Government are neither relevant nor acceptable. Nakara was a case where an artificial date was specified classifying, the retirees, governed by the same Rules, and similarly situated, into two different classes, depriving one such class of the benefit of liberalized Pension Rules. Whereas in this case, the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1997 and those retiring thereafter were governed by different sets of rules.

It is open to the State or to the Corporation; as the case may be, to change the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision or pay-scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the said power. The State can specify a date with effect from which the Regulations framed, or amended, as the case may be, shall come into force. It was within the power of the Corporation to enforce the Regulations either prospectively or with retrospective effect from such date as they might specify. Only condition is that in such cases the State cannot pick a date out of its hat. It has to prescribe the date in a reasonable manner, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf on ground of discrimination.

8.6 In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India , the Supreme Court distinguished Nakara's case (supra) and applied the ratio of Krishena Kumar's case (supra) for rejecting the petitioner's plea that denial of the benefit of Pension "Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to those who had retired prior to 1-1-1996 was violative of Article 14. Their Lordships drew distinction between cases in which existing Pension Scheme is liberalized and in which new Pension Scheme is introduced and held :

When the State decides to revise and liberalize an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily granted the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme".
(State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Narsinhdas Krishnadas Agravat on 22 June, 2005 by Gujarat High Court)

Thus the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class and on the other hand, the Rules governing the provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the Rules governing pension and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue what is not applicable to the provident fund retirees must be denied to the pension retirees also. The rights of each individual retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund Rules whereas in case of pension retirees, the obligation continues till the death of the employee, and even after the death in the form of family pension.

vnatarajan
02-11-2011, 11:10 AM
Dear pre 2006 pensioners/ Others interested/ my spl friends Shri Sundarar & Shri MLK ji,

I AM AWARE MORE THAN 100 PENSIONERS SEE THIS THREAD EVERYDAY AND I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR!

THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT BY PR BENCH CAT DELHI ON THE FIRST FOUR CASES LISTED IN MY POST AT SL NO 1016 TOOK PLACE ON 1ST NOV 2011, AFTER THE FINAL HEARING WAS COMPLETED ON 19 OCT 2011.

AS USUAL, THE ASG (very rightly) HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT TO ARGUE THE OTHERWISE "WEAK, POINTLESS, INFRUCTUOUS, PERVERTED, ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL" RESPONSE PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENTS VIZ DOPW AND DOE OF GOI.

The four cases whose SOLE OR MAIN PLEA IN THEIR PETITIONS was for "SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" based on 'MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO THE PREREVISED PAY SCALE" as also approved/ sanctioned by the Cabinet/ Hon Prez and were seeking relief against the incorrectly/ illegally/ wrongly impkemented by the authorities on the baiss of "MINIMUM PAY OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES", were allowed through the landmark judgment pronounced on 1st Nov 2011, covring nearly a 1000 pre 2006 S29 scale retirees of first four groups listed in the post 1016.

The cases pronounced are:

Court No 1. 1st Nov 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI CHAIRMAN
AND
HON’BLE MR. M.L.CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
HON’BLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
----------------------------------- STATUS/NDH

1 O.A. 655/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG(S-
29) PENSIONERS’ ASSO
SH. NIDHESH GUPTA,
SENIOR
ADVOCATE
SH. TARUN GUPTA
DIS
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
SH. SUMET GOEL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
SH. R.K.SHARMA

2 O.A. 3079/2009 CENTRAL GOVT.
PENSIONERS ASSO OF
ADDITIONAL/JOINT
SECRETARY
&EQUIVALENT OFFICERS
SH. L.R.KHATANA DIS
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
SH. SUMET GOEL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
SH. R.K.SHARMA

3 O.A. 306/2010 D.L.VOHRA SH. S.K.MALIK DIS
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
SH. SUMET GOEL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
SH. R.K.SHARMA

4 O.A.507/2010 PPS GUMBER & ORS SH. S.K.MALIK DIS
V/s -------------------------------------
U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
SH. SUMET GOEL
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
SH. R.K.SHARMA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I AM HAPPY TO ADD THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN POSITIVE AND THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FULLY ALLOWED FOR THE ISSUE OF SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY.

SOON THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE AND THE OPERATIONAL/ SALIENT POINTS OF THE SAME WILL BE POSTED HERE.

WE ONLY PRAY THE AUTHORITIES NOW AT LEAST PAY RESPECT TO THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE AND IMPLEMENT THE VERDICT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME IN A MORE HUMANE AND TRANSPARENT MANNER!

vnatarajan.

G.Ramdas
02-11-2011, 02:32 PM
Hearty congrats to VN and the S-29 team for this achievement.
G. Ramdas

sundarar
02-11-2011, 07:01 PM
..........
WE ONLY PRAY THE AUTHORITIES NOW AT LEAST PAY RESPECT TO THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE AND IMPLEMENT THE VERDICT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME IN A MORE HUMANE AND TRANSPARENT MANNER!

vnatarajan.[/B]

Respected Shri VNji and other Senior Veterans,

The current outcome is the outcome of valuable blessings of all your goodselves. I thank one and all of your goodselves for leading and taking up for ensuring complete justice to the Pensioners
Community.

At this point of time, I wish to submit the following extract of Press Report for kind information please.

“Hon. Union Law Minister Shri Veerappa Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation
NEW DELHI, June 24, 2010 Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation by
Shri P. Sunderarajan. The Hindu

Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily with Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati addressing a press conference on ‘National Litigation Policy’ at Shastri Bhavan in New Delhi on Wednesday the 23rd June, 2010.

With the huge backlog of cases continuing to clog the wheels of justice, Union Law Minister M.Veerappa Moily on Wednesday launched a new policy initiative to ensure that government departments and agencies become more “responsible” in filing and pursuing cases.

Recognising that the departments and agencies contribute the maximum to court cases, the new ‘National Litigation Policy' enjoins on these organisations to think twice before resorting to litigations, as well as in pursuing them.

The policy statement makes it very clear that, “litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating” and that “false pleas and technical points will not be taken.”

It also lays down that correct facts, all relevant documents should be placed before the court and that nothing should be suppressed or an attempt made to mislead any court or tribunal.

The policy also directs that “the Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant” and states that, “the philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded” and that “the easy approach, ‘let the court decide' must be eschewed and condemned.” Drafted by the office of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, the policy provides a set of tools for its implementation, including a provision for appointment of well-trained nodal officers, with adequate legal background and expertise by each and every department and agency for a “pro-active” management of its cases and constitution of empowered committees to monitor the implementation of the policy.

Acknowledging that frequent adjournments are resorted to by government lawyers, the policy states: “unnecessary and frequent adjournments would be frowned upon and infractions dealt with seriously.” Defaulting lawyers may even have their names removed or suspended from government panels.

The policy also provides that in service matters, no appeal would be filed in cases where the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion or where the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.

Further, an appeal would not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees and appeals would not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another. Challenges to orders of Tribunals would be an exception rather than a matter of routine.
Mr. Moily said that in keeping with the new policy, all pending cases involving the government would be reviewed and categorised in order of priority so that they could be disposed of quickly".

Keeping in view the said Policy, I am hopeful that judicious decision to implement the verdict
will prevail in the days to come.

Incidentally, around December, 2010 I came across a Senior citizen(Pensioner)'s grievance in another thread of this discussion forum which is reproduced below:
"we are required to go to courts for getting interpretation in each and every individual case. We can only hope and pray that we are able to see the cases through from CAT to High Court to Supreme Court within our life time. Even after the judgement is pronounced by the apex court, one does not know how much time the Accounting Departments will take to revise PPO. I have lost all hopes of getting what is due to me in my lifetime".

Best Regards and Thanks.

vnatarajan
02-11-2011, 07:52 PM
OPERATIONAL PART OF THE PR BENCH CAT JUDGMENT ON 1 11 2011 WRT THE OA 655/ 2010 OF CGS29PA VS UOI AND OTHER BUNCHED UP CASES AS ALREADY MENTIONED IN EARLIER POST OF MINE:

Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested Pensioners/ Friends,

Thanks to Shri Sundarar's posts seen above, We shall be pursuing actions on the same.

NOW I AM POSTING THE OPERATIONAL PART OF THE JUDGMENT MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THIS POST:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. ................., Senior Advocate with Mr. ................, Counsel for applicants in OA Nos.655/2010.

O R D E R
Hon ble Mr. .........., Member (J):
............
............
............

"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs.

Member (A) Member (J) Chairman

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

WE SHALL TRY TO POST THE FULL JUDGMENT AS ANNEXURE SOON.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
02-11-2011, 07:53 PM
Respected Shri VNji and other Senior Veterans,

The current outcome is the outcome of valuable blessings of all your goodselves. I thank one and all of your goodselves for leading and taking up for ensuring complete justice to the Pensioners
Community.

At this point of time, I wish to submit the following extract of Press Report for kind information please.

“Hon. Union Law Minister Shri Veerappa Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation
NEW DELHI, June 24, 2010 Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation by
Shri P. Sunderarajan. The Hindu

Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily with Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati addressing a press conference on ‘National Litigation Policy’ at Shastri Bhavan in New Delhi on Wednesday the 23rd June, 2010.

With the huge backlog of cases continuing to clog the wheels of justice, Union Law Minister M.Veerappa Moily on Wednesday launched a new policy initiative to ensure that government departments and agencies become more “responsible” in filing and pursuing cases.

Recognising that the departments and agencies contribute the maximum to court cases, the new ‘National Litigation Policy' enjoins on these organisations to think twice before resorting to litigations, as well as in pursuing them.

The policy statement makes it very clear that, “litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating” and that “false pleas and technical points will not be taken.”

It also lays down that correct facts, all relevant documents should be placed before the court and that nothing should be suppressed or an attempt made to mislead any court or tribunal.

The policy also directs that “the Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant” and states that, “the philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded” and that “the easy approach, ‘let the court decide' must be eschewed and condemned.” Drafted by the office of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, the policy provides a set of tools for its implementation, including a provision for appointment of well-trained nodal officers, with adequate legal background and expertise by each and every department and agency for a “pro-active” management of its cases and constitution of empowered committees to monitor the implementation of the policy.

Acknowledging that frequent adjournments are resorted to by government lawyers, the policy states: “unnecessary and frequent adjournments would be frowned upon and infractions dealt with seriously.” Defaulting lawyers may even have their names removed or suspended from government panels.

The policy also provides that in service matters, no appeal would be filed in cases where the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion or where the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.

Further, an appeal would not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees and appeals would not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another. Challenges to orders of Tribunals would be an exception rather than a matter of routine.
Mr. Moily said that in keeping with the new policy, all pending cases involving the government would be reviewed and categorised in order of priority so that they could be disposed of quickly".

Keeping in view the said Policy, I am hopeful that judicious decision to implement the verdict
will prevail in the days to come.

Incidentally, around December, 2010 I came across a Senior citizen(Pensioner)'s grievance in another thread of this discussion forum which is reproduced below:
"we are required to go to courts for getting interpretation in each and every individual case. We can only hope and pray that we are able to see the cases through from CAT to High Court to Supreme Court within our life time. Even after the judgement is pronounced by the apex court, one does not know how much time the Accounting Departments will take to revise PPO. I have lost all hopes of getting what is due to me in my lifetime".

Best Regards and Thanks.

This is really a good and positive step. Congrats to Shri V N and his huge team for this cause. Shri V N and others are guiding other pensioners also.

Will this modified parity will be applied to other pre 2006 pensioners also by the Government is to be seen in the light of Hon Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily with Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati addressing a press conference on ‘National Litigation Policy’ at Shastri Bhavan in New Delhi on Wednesday the 23rd June, 2010.

Let us hope for a an order to this effect by the DOP & PW for all pre 2006 pensioners with out resorting to legal channel again.

Even though I have been seeing the development I am not aware whether this will be only for S-29 pre 2006 pensioner or others also.

can I seek clarrity from Shri VN ji please.

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
02-11-2011, 08:02 PM
Dear Shri Subba rao,

I shall send u full judgment COPY.
I HAVE POSTED THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS A GENERALISED ONE.
IF MODIFIED PARITY IS BENFICIAL TO YOU / ANY PRE 2006 PENSIONER, RATHER THAN THE 2.26 MF, HE MUST ASCERTAIN THE FIGURES FIRST AND THEN APPLY FOR CORRECTION.
SUCH AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS ( SAY S21-23) CAN DEFINITELKY QUOTE THIS JUDGMENT AND SEEK RELIEF.

Regards
vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
02-11-2011, 08:12 PM
Dear Shri Subba rao,

I shall send u full judgment COPY.
I HAVE POSTED THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS A GENERALISED ONE.
IF MODIFIED PARITY IS BENFICIAL TO YOU / ANY PRE 2006 PENSIONER, RATHER THAN THE 2.26 MF, HE MUST ASCERTAIN THE FIGURES FIRST AND THEN APPLY FOR CORRECTION.
SUCH AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS ( SAY S21-23) CAN DEFINITELKY QUOTE THIS JUDGMENT AND SEEK RELIEF.

Regards
vnatarajan


Thanks for info. I belong to S-21 catagery and will seek relief as advised after getting the judgement copy. Thanks once again for the help you have offered. We in DRDO are planning to approach CAT for inclusion of 2 additional incerements anctioned to scintist(from jan 1996) for pension calulation as per the S/C judement which has come in our favour.

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
02-11-2011, 08:18 PM
Dear pre 2006 pensioners,

Those interetsed in accessing the PR BENCH CAT JUDGMENT ON OA 655/ 2010 OF CGS29PA VS UOI AND OTHER BUNCHD OAS WITH IT, delivered on 1 11 2011 may vist the following links of the CAT Delhi website:

http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx
http://cgat.gov.in/judgement_main.htm

Best of luck, Cheers,
vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
03-11-2011, 04:30 AM
The appeal in this case,if any, will presumably be in the High Court.As today,two cases on the same subject are pending in the High Courts of Lucknow and Delhi.Is there not a possibility that the DOP may take advantage of this and request the CAT to stay its judgement till the final outcome of the High Court cases? Shri Natarajan can enlighten.

vnatarajan
03-11-2011, 05:24 AM
Dear Dr MJ.,

A very good question at right time.

IN FACT IF THE DOPW BRINGS IN THE TWO CASES OF LUCKNOW AND DELHI HIGH COURTS, IT WILL GIVE US THE "LIVERAGE" TO GO TO HON SUP COURT POINTING OUT SINCE THE DIFEERENT VENUES OF JUSTICE MAY GIVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE SAME ISSUE , THERE IS A NEED FOR A COMMON VERDICT AND HENCE SUP COURT MUST INTERVENE TO DO JUSTICE.

In fact, personally my Gen Sec of Pensioners' Forum, wanted and advised us to "SIMPLY" file simultaneously in 3 or 4 CATS our "CASE" of same content/ issue and use such pending cases as the basis to approach the HSC for a common verdict. This is what many employees associations do.

So I feel we can use the said "leverage" besides the fact that TWO AFT TRIBUNALS have given verdicts on the correct MPPB can be cited- even though they are MILITARY PENSIONERS' CASES, the interpretation part on the correct MPPB which was the ESSENCE OF THE VERY VERDICT OF JUSTICE can not be ignored!

WE CAN CERTAINLY (TRY TO) GO TO HSC IN CASE THE DOPPW/ DOE CONTINUE TO PLAY THEIR "INDIFFERENT" AND "INCONGRUENT" ROLE IN SPITE OF THREEE MEMBER, UNANIMOUS, PR BENCH CAT VERDICT .

(PS: I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO KNOCK THE HSC AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WE HAVE SOME MORE "MATERIAL INFORMATION" WHICH HAD NOT BEEN USED FOR "ARGUMENTS" IN THE CURRENT CASE).

Regards,

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
03-11-2011, 08:44 AM
Dear Shri Natarajan,
Thanks for your prompt reply.I would only like to add that the UP IAS Association went straight to the HSC and argued at the time of admission that as different courts of the country might give different judgements on the issue of modified parity,it would be in the fitness of things that a final verdict be given by the HSC binding on all.But the court did not accept the argument and advised them to withdraw the petition or face dismissal.Finally,the petitioners withdrew the petition and the case was dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to go to the High Court ,if desired.
Best Regards.MJauhari

vnatarajan
03-11-2011, 09:12 AM
Dear Dr MJ,

You are right on the observations wrt UP IAS case.

THE HSC WAS A BIT HARSH BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS WENT DIRECT WITHOUT EVEN A "TRY" AT ANY LOWER COURT.

IT WAS THE GRACE OF THE HSC THAT THEY HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO GO TO HC AND NOT STARTING FROM CAT STAGE!

IN OUR CASE:

WE NOW HAVE A THREE JUDGE FULL BENCH PR CAT "unanimous" VERDICT IN OUR FAVOUR.

OUR JUDGMENET HAS TAKEN INTO CINSIDERATION HOW PATNA HIGH COURT HAS DEALT THE PRE S29 PENSIONER ISSUE OF CONSIDERING THE "CURRENT PENSION" AT TOP OF THE S29 SCALE ie 38500 AND THEY HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF MINIMUM PENSION AT THE BOTTOM!

SO ONE HC VERDICT IS ALREADY COVERED!

NOW THE TWO PENDING ONES ARE GETTING DELAYED BY REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS!

MANY UP IAS ETC RETIREES MAY ALREADY BE DRAWING THE PENSION OF 26500 (EQUAL TO DIRECT RECRUITEES) AFTER THE UP GOVT ORDERS ,BECAUSE THEY DRAW THEIR PENSION THRU TREASURIES. (I THINK THIS HAS TO BE DONE WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF CPAO, MOF AND HENCE I PRESUME THAT GOI IS IN THE PICTURE!)

BESIDES OUR PR CAT JUDGMENT, WE DO HAVE TWO AFT JUDGMENTS (SEPT 2010/ DEC2010) OF PR BENCH AFT DELHI, CHANDIGARH BENCH AFT, ON THE VERY ISSUE OF MODIFIED PARITY WITH CORRECT "DEFINITION OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" VIS A VIS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND"- ie the justice part on interpretatiion can not be ignored! Our PR CAT CASE has addressed the issue of tampering/ tinkering whereas the AFT verdicts have addressed the issue of MPPB vs MPB!

So we may have a better footing to go to HSC, if the GOVT tries the HC route!.

May be the Sr Counsel decides the choice!

Regards,
vnatarajan

ybhaskar23
03-11-2011, 03:31 PM
Dear Mr V Natarajan,
Great News,
Thanks for all the good work done,
I presume the judgement will be applicable to all cases of pre 2006 pensioners
whose pensions were fixed at the minimum of the pay band and not in the
minimum of the pay in the pay band.
I am pretty sure this anamoly would be existing in retirees belonging to all pay bands
ie pb 1, pb2,pb3, and pb4 also.
Pl confirm the above point and also confirm orders will be issued to cover all category of employees in all pay bands.
My congratulations personally to you and all your team mates
Thanking you
Y Bhaskar Rao

vnatarajan
03-11-2011, 05:36 PM
Dear Mr Bhaskar/ Other interetsed pre 2006 pensioners,

Let me reproduce the operational part of the PR CAT JUDGMENT on OA 655 0f 201 & Other Co -OAs , judged on 1 11 2011:
"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs."

1.Applicability of judgment: There is nothing in theis para which prevents other pre 2006 pensioners getting the benefit of the same, though the issue was fought by a specific groups of pre 2006 s29 scale retirees. We have to see how the GOi/ DOPW- DOE combine tries to restrict the application (they never apply any benefit "suo moto" to all nor they are graceful enough to concede tha application of court verdicts to "similarly stanced aggrieved" . This is the perverted policy of our Depts/ Ministries.

Once applied- "they call the judgment is SETTLED"!!!! So every time/ every "non-litigant" the "aggrieved" has to go to courts for similar- same - new justice.

2. Anomaly would exist in other forcibly pay banded pb1/2/3 pre-2006 retirees: Yes . you are right. A table was prepared to show how the pre 2006 retirees of 34 prerevised scales would be affected. Eight such scale retirees were definitely affected @ Rs 200 to Rs 3650 pm wef 1 1 2006(S30 got out - otherwise they suffered maxm. loss). In pre 2006 scales pb1/2/3, as promotions were rae, many have drawn sufficient increments and so the 2.26 MF provision which was based on the last pay drawn ( may be 10 mths average) by the old pensioner was perhaps beneficial to him rather than even the MPPB based one. Also not many did know the diffce between MPB and MPPB.

Unless each pold pensioner chks his own case, it is difficult to understand the difference or anomaly. May be not many were affected in pb1/2 that way.

In pb3, certainly S21/22/23 do have solid difference unless they have reached the top/ stagnated.

Shri G Ramadas prepared a table for refernce on this. It is available for guidance after verification. I HAVE ALSO POSTED IN THIS VERY THREAD EARLIER WHILE DEALING WITH "WHY APATHY .....". IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE , YOU MAY BE ABLE TO LOCATE TO SEE WHO WD BE AFFECTED WITH HOW MANY NO. OF INCREMENTS IN THE SCALE AS THRESHHOLD MARGIN ETC.

3. Orders being issued to all categories of pre 2006 pensioners: I DOUBT IF THE GOVT/ DOPPW WD BE MAGNANIMOUS TO ISSUE SUCH/ CORRECT ORDERS.

EVEN THOUGH THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATION (WHICH INDEED WAS A SAVING BECAUSE OF DEPRIVAL OF RIGHT PENSION TO THE MPB AFFECTED CATEGORIES) IS ONLY 228 CR AS ON 1 1 2006 AND THAT IS THE ONE EXCUSE USED BY THE DOE IN DISAPPROVING A DOPW'S CORRECT PROPOSAL OF 20/21 CT 2008 , WITH ALL CORRECTIONS OF PARA 4.2 OF DOPW'S OM OF 1 9 2008, SUBMITTED TO THEM. Even this 228 cr is a bloated figure, as my estimate is only 80-100 cr as on 1 1 2006, because many in pb1 and 2 were not affected due to the provision of 2.26 MF .. Only those who were fresh promotees before retirements/ or who had drawn less than say 3 to 5 increments would have been affected.

LET US WAIT FOR THE GOI RESPONSE IN THEMEANWHILE AS THE OTHE R AFFECTED GROUPS GET ORGANISED- WHICH IS A MUST.

Regards,
vnatarajan

So suo moto application across the spectrum of affected segments of pre 2006 pensioners may be a question mark


"

ybhaskar23
03-11-2011, 07:07 PM
Thanks for the reply.
The fact of the matter is that the 3rd oct and 14th oct clarifications are bad in law,
as such government has to issue fresh orders to include all aspects of the judgement,
which automatically will be applicable to all pre 2006 pensioners, hence there is no need for any pre 2006
non litigants to approach the courts in my view.
Y Bhaskar Rao

sundarar
03-11-2011, 08:59 PM
Thanks for the reply.
The fact of the matter is that the 3rd oct and 14th oct clarifications are bad in law,
as such government has to issue fresh orders to include all aspects of the judgement,
which automatically will be applicable to all pre 2006 pensioners, hence there is no need for any pre 2006
non litigants to approach the courts in my view.
Y Bhaskar Rao


Extracts of a News Item in Daily News Analysis Ahmedabad 28.4.2011

Law must dispense speedy and inexpensive justice

India is committed to the 'rule of law' which means 'be you ever so high, the law is above you'. In other words, law is supreme.

The rule of law is essential for business to prosper. Princeton economist William Baumol wrote in his famous book 'The Free-Market Innovation Machine' in 2001, "Without the rule of law, including the rights of property and the enforceability of contracts, the growth miracle of capitalism, indeed capitalism itself, might not have been possible." The political leaders also speak highly about the rule of law and how it is essential not only for growth and development but also for protection of fundamental human freedoms. Hon. Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh had once said, "The world marvels at our ability to seek our social and economic salvation in the framework of a functioning democracy committed to the rule of law..."
The rule of law ensures certainty and predictability. The final outcome must be certain - it has to happen, come what may - and it needs to be predictable also, just like a formula.
The role of 'procedural law' which along with the 'substantive law' is an integral part of the rule of law. Both have to be followed without any deviation. And, if there is any deviation, it must be within the provisions of law. The procedural law provides ample opportunities to challenge the matter in case of the slightest deviation and thus, delay the proceedings. The deeper the pockets, the longer one may possibly stretch the matter with better lawyers and more and more appeals.
Whereas the rule of law is a boon, strict and blind adherence becomes a bane.

Indisputably, the rule of law is a fantastic thing for business, but does the rule of law mean 'any' law? No. Law has to be just, fair, equitable and reasonable. It must dispense justice in a speedy and inexpensive manner".

The justice so rendered with a speedy manner can be inexpensive only if the verdicts are not appealed against further, particularly when the said Justice came in favour of Senior Citizens who had rendered a dedicated service to the Nation.

vnatarajan
06-11-2011, 08:56 AM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Others Interested,


Interesting News Item on the recent Three Judges PR BENCH CAT 's Unanimous judgment delivered on 1 11 2006 wrt the pre-S29 2006 pensioners OA 655 of 2010 and other 3 more bunched cases (pl see posts earlier on the subject) :

QUOTE

CAT grants relief to thousands of pre-2006 pensioners
Slams babus for apathy and errors
Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, November 5
Coming down heavily on government officials over their apathetic attitude in interpreting rules and directives, the full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has granted relief to central government pensioners who retired before 2006. It has allowed their petition seeking parity of their pension with that of similarly placed employees who retired in 2006 and after.
Anomalies in pay and pension fixation consequent to implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission had resulted in pre-2006 retirees drawing pension lower than post-2006 retirees. The CAT decision affects thousands of central government employees.
The CAT has held that the term “minimum of pay in the pay band” would mean minimum of pay corresponding to the scale held at the time of retirement and not minimum of the entire pay band itself as interpreted and implemented by the government through a clarification.
The Sixth Pay Commission had created four broad pay bands. Each band had, within it, several different scales corresponding to the rank and grade of an individual.
The trouble had arisen when the pension of the individuals concerned was fixed at the minimum of the entire pay band instead of the minimum of the scale corresponding to his rank.
“The CAT judgment is on the same lines as the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in the SS Matharu Vs UOI case,” Maj Navdeep Singh, a local lawyer dealing with service matters said.
“It would go a long way in bridging the gap between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners,” he added.
CAT observed, “What is worse is that there is no application of mind even at the level of Director and Secretary, who merely sign the note and the clarification is issued after obtaining finance concurrence and approval of Minister of State (PP), without going back to the Cabinet for such a modification.”
UNQUOTE

vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
07-11-2011, 12:57 AM
A question has arisen whether, as a last resort,the DOPT can go to the Cabinet and seek their approval for the modification they made in the Cabinet resolution by replacing MPPB by MPB and thus nullify the PCAT verdict.Many of the pensioners had made representations to the higher authorities including the Prime Minister pointing this out with no result.Thus ,it can be assumed that the fact of modification under the garb of clarification was known to the highest authority and yet it did not take any action.This could be due to various reasons.The first being the same as that pleaded by the DOPT viz., that it was merely a clarification and not a modification as claimed by the pensioners.The second could be that it was no more permissible to rectify it by going again to the Cabinet for ex post facto approval.The third could that it was permissible but they decided to wait for the court verdict and then go to the Cabinet for ex post facto approval,if necessary.The last was to implement the court verdict, if the clarification is found to be a modification and is held to be illegal by the highest court.As regards the second option,Shri Natarajan who is well versed with rules and regulation,can clarify.I have a feeling that this option is still available otherwise the CAT verdict would not have mentioned this.If this option is available to the DOPT, the chances of the CAT verdict being negated are high because the Finance Ministry may press on the basis of financial implications.If this option is not available,we have very good chances of getting our legitimate claim.I personally feel that we had better chances of getting the judgement implemented had we been near the General Elections.Will be grateful to have the views of Shri Natarajan and other experts.

ybhaskar23
07-11-2011, 10:14 AM
Going to the Cabinet to introduce minimum of pay band instead of minimum of pay in pay band
would be contrary to the Government resolution of 29th Aug and Office Memorandum of 30th Aug,
as both these have been issued with cabinet approval based on 6th cpc recommendations.
I don't see any other option is left to play mischief other than to implement the Cat judgement and the orders of
29th and 30th Aug.

vnatarajan
07-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Ref to Dr MJ's comments:
Shall discuss separately thru email/ ph.
Regards,
vnatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
07-11-2011, 09:34 PM
Pl. send email only as I am presently in USA.Will be back by 12th Nov.only.Best Regards.MJauhari

Dr.M.Jauhari
07-11-2011, 09:38 PM
Pl.use email as I am presently in USA.Will be back on 12th Nov.Best regards.MJ

ybhaskar23
07-11-2011, 10:21 PM
dear mr natarajan,
if the views on Mr MJ's comments are of general nature and not confidential,
then I hope other gconnect members like myself would also like to be aware of the same,
thanks
Y Bhaskar Rao

vnatarajan
08-11-2011, 05:31 PM
D/ yb,
Dr MJ's points are a bit serious and hence I didnt wish to express my views openly as this thread logs nearly more than 100 views everyday.
It certainly includes other parties also!
I ont mind sending some of my email to you also on this topic, if I so reply Dr MJ in the near future.
Pl send your email id to me/ or Sundaraar.
VN

ybhaskar23
08-11-2011, 07:14 PM
dear mr natarajan,
thanks for your reply
i understand the circumstances
yb

gconnect
10-11-2011, 05:34 PM
Dear Pre-2006 Pensioners,

An analysis of Judgement dated 01.11.2011 delivered by Hon'ble Principal Bench, CAT in O.A.No: 0655/2010 has been made in GConnect. Please read the same and provide your feedback as comments.

Click the following link

http://www.gconnect.in/6cpc-matters/principal-bench-of-cats-judgement-in-favour-of-pre-2006-pensioners.html

vnatarajan
11-11-2011, 05:58 AM
Dear Interested,

(AT THE OUTSET, LET ME THANK THE GCONNECT TEAM AND ITS ADMINISTRATION FOR PROVIDING A VERY BIG FORUM FOR OLD PENSIONERS LIKE ME TO EXCHANGE OUR VIEWS AND THOUGHTS, WHICH HAS GONE A LONG WAY IN SETTING IN AN AWARENESS AMONG THEM AND TO UNITE ANF FIGHT AGAINST "INJUSTICE AND UNTRUTH" DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND EXECUTED BY WHO-SO-EVER IT IS/ THEY ARE, WHICH HAD RESULTED IN OUR REDUCED PENSIONS- SUBSTANTIALLY FOR QUITE A FEW AMONG SUCH LOT. I THANK MY FRIENDS-IN ARMS LIKE MLK, GR, AR, PKR, SUNDARAR, AVM, DR MJ, DNAGA,SCM,RKA, RANBIR SEHGAL,AMONG MANY OF THEM WHO ACTIVELY PARTICIAPTED IN THIS LIVELY BLOG )

As the one who started this thread in this Forum, I feel happy that my/ my friends stand is vindicated after three yers of persistent struggle for justice.

I WAS A BIT DISAPPOINTED AS "SOME EMPLOYEES" (VIZ TOMORROW'S PENSIONERS) AND SOME "PAST PENSIONERS" WERE TOTALLY OPPPOSED TO MY INITIATIVE, GIVING REASONS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED BORDERING ABSURDITY!.

HOWEVER, AFTER HITTING 94000 VIEWS AND NEARLY 1000 PLUS POSTS in 53 poages IN THIS THREAD, THANKS TO GCONNECT ADMINISTRATION, "JUSTICE AND TRUTH" HAS PREVAILED AND A THREE MEMBER-FULL BENCH OF PR CAT DELHI HAS GIVEN ITS UNANIMOUS VERDICT - FINALLY HEARD ON 19 OCT 2011 AND PRONOUNCED ON 1 11 2011- in essence to convey it is the MPPB basis that has to be correctly adopted to "correspond" wrt scale of pay of the post last held by the pre 2006 pensioners AND NOT on the basis of MPB irrespective of the pre -revised scales of pay of the pre 2006 pensioners from which they retired, for revising their pensions "correctly" as per SCPC pension orders in terms of the Gaz Notification dtd 29 08 2008 and at the same time nullifying the negative elements introduced vid eOMs of 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 which resulted in reduced pensions for them. For Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners itwas as highas 3650 pm wef 1 1 2006 and today it is 5747 pm. ( WHERE 2.26 MF IS BENEFICIAL AS PER PARA 4.1 OF OM OF 1 9 2008 ( NOT QUASHED BY CAT FINALLY) OR IN THE CASE OF HAG/ABOVE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS DULY COVERED IN THE LATER PART OF PARA 4.2 OF THE OM DT 1 9 2008) THIS RELIEF OF CAT JUDGMENT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY)

NOW KINDLY PERUSE SOME OF MY OLD POST ON "WHY APATHY AMONG PRE 2006 PENSIONERS......."/ TABLE OF SHRI G RAMADAS / SHRI SUNDARAR'S PROJEXCTIONS AND POINTS RELATED TO WHO ARE "ACTUALLY" AFFECTED AND WHO NEEDS REMEDY, REPRODUCED FROM MY EMAILS TO SOME OTHERS IN OTHER GROUPS:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY THERE IS APATHY AMONG MANY PRE-2006 PENSIONERS TO SEEK REMEDY ON THE “MPB” VS “MPBB” ISSUE? ARE THEY NOT AFFECTED ?

(This write-up is based on a detailed analysis done by Shri G Ramdas , pre-2006 s30 pensioner and he had projected the data in the form of a table which had been since circulated many times.)

The “Modified Parity” as emerging from the implementation of 5th CPC orders vide DOPW’s OM F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dtd 17th Dec 1998, stipulated the guiding thumb-rule in terms of :

“President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996 of the post last held by the pensioner”.

As against the above, the President Sanctioned/ Cabinet approved/Gazetted notified SCPC related orders stipulated the revision of pension of Pre-2006 pensioners in terms of SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 which is well-known to every one of us. Its stipulation was the revised pension shall not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon…….. etc etc. For HAG’s, separate scales were mentioned.

WHEN EXAMINED IN DETAILS, WE CAN REALISE, HOW THE SCPC’S ‘ NEW MODIFIED PARITY IN TERMS OF THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” AFFECTS THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS:

1. Pre- revised Scales S 30 to S 34; For them, there is no PAY BAND Effect. Their pension is revised BASED ON / at 50 % “minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 2006 of the post last held by the pensioner” Same formula akin to 5th CPC implementation OM of 17th Dec 1998. "Revised Pay Scale" protection is suo moto.

2.Pre-revised Scales 16 , 24 & 28 : For them also there is practically noor negligible “Pay Band effect” : This is because, they are at the bottom of the merged Pay Scales that constitute the Running Pay Band. In both cases, “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” and “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” coincide as to become the start of the Running Pay Bands themselves ie 15000 in PB3 and 37400 in PB4. As a result , the need of "Revised Pay Scale" to protect their pension is neutralised.

3. Pre-revised Scales 1 to 4 are lower-most and are protected by the Min Pension of 3500. "Revised Pay Scale" is irrelevant for them.

4. For many others, the magic Multiplication Factor of 2.26 has camouflaged the difference between the “MPB” and “MPPB” based revised pensions. As the MF relates to last Basic Pay drawn / operates on old Basic Pension, if the pensioner had drawn enough increments, the pre-revised Basic Pension would be near / or even cross the threshold level of MPPB and hence the MF formula will be more beneficial automatically. Such Pre-revised scales with increments shown against , not affected by “MPPB” issue are:

(i) S 7 , S 8, S 11 to 15, S 17 to S 23 - all FOUR INCREMENTS & more
(ii) S 6 – FIVE INCREMENTS & more
(iii) S 5, S 10- SIX INCREMENTS & more
(iii) S 9- SEVEN INCREMENTS & more

Promotions being rare, most of the above categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners would have definitely drawn enough increments in their respective scales. Only those who were promoted just few years before their retirement , might be affected. Statistically such numbers would not be great to form a GROUP to fight the issue. "Revised Pay Scale" is of little interest for them

5. CONSEQUENTLY, this leaves only a few Pre-revised scales in PB 4 like S25, 26, 27 & 29 to be affected. Here again, the Disparity being not significant for the first three Pre-revised Scales, they are not in the AGGRIEVED GROUP! "Revised Pay Scale" is not of great consequence to them.So they are shy to join the fray!

6. HENCE, EFFECTIVELY IT IS ONLY THE PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONER GROUP WHICH IS GREATLY AFFECTED AND THEY HAVE TO FIGHT A BATTLE AGAINST “INJUSTICE” INFLICTED THROUGH SCPC RELATED ORDERS, AS OF NOW .

OTHER PRE-2006 PENSIONER LOTS- THOUGH THEIR LOSS COULD BE MINIMAL TO EVEN MODERATE, HAVE NOT REALISED THE VITAL NEED TO FIGHT BECAUSE OF THE “LONG-TERM- 10 YEAR – COMPOUNDED DR LOSS/ EROSION OF BASE LEVEL FOR 7 CPC REVISION/ FAMILY PENSION LOSS” ETC. AND THEY SHALL CERTAINLY SUFFER FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE LONG RUN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it depends much on the actual basic pension that was fixed for individual pre-2006 pensioners based on his "lastemoluments" drawn by him at the time of his retirement and the same would determine whether he is at loss or not!

SIMPLE GENERALISED PROJECTIONS MAY SEND WRONG SIGNALS AND I CAUTION ALL AGAINST ANY " PROJECTION OF MAJOR CHANGES " IN THE AMOUNTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONS EXCEPT WHERE THERE HAD BEEN "LARGE DIFFERENCES" AS IN CASES OF SAY PRE 2006 S29/ S20-23 ETC AND MAY BE FEW MORE IN LOWER SACLES/ PBs 1, 2 AND 3.

IN FACT IT CAN BE SEEN, THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED/ PERPETRATED BY GOVT, HAS RESULTED IN SAVINGS FROM THESE AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS, WHICH HAS GONE TO ENHANCE THE PENSIONS OF SOME HIGHER SCALE PENSIONERS (OM DTD 1 9 2008)AND ALSO BRINGING IN SOME PB3 CATEGORIES INTO PB4 CATEGORY ETC AS AGAINST WHAT WAS ENVISAGED IN THE ACCEPTED SCPC RECOS!

HOWEVER, ON THE WHOLE THERE ARE NO " FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS" AS THE "DENIAL" OF CORRECT PENSION TO THE AFFECTED PRE 2006 PENSIONERS HAS BEEN ONLY A SAVING, AND THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT HAS TO BE REIMBURSED TO SUCH PRE 2006 PENSIONERS!

THE JUDGMENT ALSO HAS IN EFFECT EXPLICITLY RULED THAT THERE CAN BE NO EVASION BY GOVT ON IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIONS , UNDER THE PRETEXT OF FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS!

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

esveepee
11-11-2011, 10:21 AM
Many thanks for your invaluable contribution. I have been reading your posts and the responses on this issue. You must be devoting a lot of time studying and explaining the nuances of various clauses of innumerable OMs and Circulars.
I have reason to believe that the latest CAT judgement will affect my pension. The reasoning is simple. It was originally fixed such that it was less than what I was drawing before 01 01 2006! After a lot of exchange of letters, a new OM was issued in 2009 to resolve the issue. That OM was nothing but a ham handed way of getting around the problem.
Is there any way I can get to know the scales of pay from time to time wef 1976? I was in the Junior Admin. Grade (Rs. 1300-1600) when I "retired" from Indian Railways and got absorbed in a PSU after completing a little more than 18 years of service. Thanks a lot. Sincerely...Padmanabhan SV

vnatarajan
11-11-2011, 01:24 PM
Pl contact Shri Sundarar, in this Forum itself thru private message, giving ur email id etc. VN

ramkanwar
14-11-2011, 10:00 AM
In para 30 of the CAT judgment dt 1/11/11, OM dated 3rd Oct 2008 & OM dated 14th Oct 2008 have been quashed & set aside. Further it says that the respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f 1.1.2006,based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of observations made above. In view of this,I feel that it should be applicable to all irrespective of pay band and pre-revised scale. However, the Govt. can be expected to do any thing.

Is there any news please regarding the case of S-29 officers at Lucknow fixed on 9/11/11 ?

vnatarajan
15-11-2011, 06:43 PM
Dear Shri RK,

Each one has to chk before knowing which is beneficial option 2.26 as per para 4.1 of Om of 1st Sept 2008 (still operative) or the one as per Gaz Notification of 29 08 2008.

Reg casv at Lucknow HC, date is 16 Nov 2011- tomorrow.

vnatarajan

sundarar
18-11-2011, 07:24 PM
Dear Shri RK,

Each one has to chk before knowing which is beneficial option 2.26 as per para 4.1 of Om of 1st Sept 2008 (still operative) or the one as per Gaz Notification of 29 08 2008.

vnatarajan

Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out to check whether revised pension happens to be more than the minimum revised pension as per OM dated 1.9.2008 para 4.2.

For easy reference, the minimum revised pension for a particular pre-revised scale if got divided by 2.26, to derive the corresponding pre-revised pension for the particular scale, above which if a pensioner drew pre-revised pension, then the minimum revised pension may not be beneficial to him.

The aforesaid calculation has been carried out and the outcome is given hereunder:

Pre-revised Scale No. pre-rev. pension > or = to
S-4 1621
S-5 1721
S-6 1783
S-7 2176
S-8 2471
S-9 2986
S-10 3192
S-11 3603
S-12 3603
S-13 4084
S-14 4148
S-15 4486
Gr.A (Entry) New Scale 4646
S-16 4898
S-17 4898
S-18 5710
S-19 5575
S-20 5842
S-21 6619
S-22 6929
S-23 6619

In case a pensioner of a particular pre-revised scale was drawing a pre-revised pension indicated above or more than that, the minimum revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 (50% of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to pre-revised scale + 50% of Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised scale), may not be beneficial, particularly because, the revised pension under para 4.1 itself will be equivalent or more than the said minimum revised pension. The arithmetical error if any in the aforesaid calculation may pl. be pointed out and got corrected.

2. Another significant factor is, in the case of pro-rata pensioners, the minimum revised pension will be derived proportionately based on length of qualifying service, and hence
in those cases, individually one has to check which of the two will be beneficial, and if they too have been drawing more than or equivalent (to) the amount indicated above, in their cases also para 4.1 only will be beneficial.

3. The particular OA 655/2010 has sought for maintenance of modified parity only, which is decided favourably. Complete parity was not the case by the Applicants.

4. TABLE SHOWING MINIMUM PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS prepared by the Working President, RSCWS Sh NP Mohan, Ex-CE, Western Rly. is available in website www.rscws.com, which may also please be seen for ready reference.

ybhaskar23
18-11-2011, 11:55 PM
dear mr sunderar,

the bench has squashed the 3rd oct and 14th oct Gov letters.

minimum of pay in pay band has to be fixed and not minimun of pay band. revised pay of all pre 2006 pensioners must be fixed as per fitment tables given in the 30th Aug 2008 office memorandum.

Those who have retired between 1-1-96 and 1-1-2006 in 5th cpc scales must have revised pay as per fitment tables given in 30thAug memo.Those retired in 3rd cpc and 4th cpc scales should be notionally fixed in 6th cpc scales as per fitment tables of 30th Aug.

Shri NP mohan table is incorrect.

According to his table s24 pensioners have 0 benefit.
This is wrong because of following.

An officer drawing 14300 basic in 14300---18300 pb4 is fixed at 46100 hence revised pension is 23050.but an officer drawing 17900 basic in 14300----18300 is to be fixed at 50820 hence his revised pension should be25410 and not 23050. This as per the 30th Aug fitment tables.

Infact the benefit is to each and every pre 2006 pensioner irrespective of whether he is in pb1, pb2,pb3,pb4 or HAG scale.

The benefit is on account of Point to Point Fixation in terms of 30th Aug office memo.

vnatarajan
19-11-2011, 03:01 AM
No point to point fixation possible FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS. What YB IS explaining is good for post 2006 pensioners on the basis of "pay drawn in the pay band"-basis or LAST EMOLUMENTS criteria.

Pre 2006 pensioners do not have the privilege of the "emoluments as drawn last' unless "nakara" stirs in the grave! MAY BE IT WILL BE DONE BY THE HSC IF GOVT DRAGS ALL TO HSC!

AS ON DATE "No full parity" FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS!
.
ONLY MODIFIED PARITY AT " SCPC RECOMMENDED CABINET DECIDED PRESIDENT SANCTIONED CORRECT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND WITH GRADE PAY" at 50% of the total IS THE BASIS AS PER DOPPW GAZ NOTIFICATION OF 29 AUG 2008 (MOF/DOE 30 08 2008 ORDER'S FITMENT TABLE USED ONLY FOR MINIMUM EQUATION) " WITH THE PROVISO CONTAINED IN 1ST SEPT 2008 OM (its annexed Table) AS AN ALTERNATE ie THE MF 2.26 ON THE LAST OLD BASIC PENSION DRAWN BY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS.

AS UNDERSTOOD BY ME AND AS CAN BE EXPLAINED IN A SIMPLE MANNER!

VNatarajan

ybhaskar23
19-11-2011, 04:42 AM
Dear VN,
I agree with your comments,
I misunderstood and thought that the judgement was for point to point fixation,
In that case the benefit for s24 is 0 as brought by Sri NP Mohan
thanks for putting me on track,
bye
YB

vnatarajan
19-11-2011, 05:48 AM
Dear YB,
STILL THERE IS A "GREY ELEMENT" ON THIS P TO P FEATURE WRT THIS VERY JUDGMENT "BY READING IN BETWEEN THE LINES" WHICH I DO NOT WANT TO STIR NOW.

LET US "TRY OUR OWN PATIENCE" TO GET THIS " UNPAID/ UNDISBURSED PENSION ARREARS "TO LIMITED (NOT ALL) PRE 2006 PENSIONERS'" WHICH THE GOVT AHS "SAVED" FROM "DISBURSAL".

TOTAL AS ON DATE SHD NOT BE MUCH AS GOOD AMOUNT GOES IN TAX.SOME HAVE DIED AND SOME SAVING IS THERE!.SHD BE LESS THAN 75 CR ONLY AS ON DATE.
Regards
VN

esveepee
19-11-2011, 11:05 AM
Dear Sir, I have responded to you separately by mail. Many thanks. Regards.
SV Padmanabhan


Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out to check whether revised pension happens to be more than the minimum revised pension as per OM dated 1.9.2008 para 4.2.

For easy reference, the minimum revised pension for a particular pre-revised scale if got divided by 2.26, to derive the corresponding pre-revised pension for the particular scale, above which if a pensioner drew pre-revised pension, then the minimum revised pension may not be beneficial to him.

The aforesaid calculation has been carried out and the outcome is given hereunder:

Pre-revised Scale No. pre-rev. pension > or = to
S-4 1621
S-5 1721
S-6 1783
S-7 2176
S-8 2471
S-9 2986
S-10 3192
S-11 3603
S-12 3603
S-13 4084
S-14 4148
S-15 4486
Gr.A (Entry) New Scale 4646
S-16 4898
S-17 4898
S-18 5710
S-19 5575
S-20 5842
S-21 6619
S-22 6929
S-23 6619

In case a pensioner of a particular pre-revised scale was drawing a pre-revised pension indicated above or more than that, the minimum revised pension under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 (50% of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to pre-revised scale + 50% of Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised scale), may not be beneficial, particularly because, the revised pension under para 4.1 itself will be equivalent or more than the said minimum revised pension. The arithmetical error if any in the aforesaid calculation may pl. be pointed out and got corrected.

2. Another significant factor is, in the case of pro-rata pensioners, the minimum revised pension will be derived proportionately based on length of qualifying service, and hence
in those cases, individually one has to check which of the two will be beneficial, and if they too have been drawing more than or equivalent (to) the amount indicated above, in their cases also para 4.1 only will be beneficial.

3. The particular OA 655/2010 has sought for maintenance of modified parity only, which is decided favourably. Complete parity was not the case by the Applicants.

4. TABLE SHOWING MINIMUM PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS prepared by the Working President, RSCWS Sh NP Mohan, Ex-CE, Western Rly. is available in website www.rscws.com, which may also please be seen for ready reference.

vnatarajan
19-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Dear Shri YB,

Regarding your observation that benefit to Pre-2006 (?) S24 is zero, I may add that for many other Sr Grades in PB4 , benefit is "nagative"! ( may be small to considerable amounts)
Hence the Court Cases, even from others ( say pre 2006 S27) at Hyd CAT - other than pre 2006 S29.
Regards

Regards,

VN

PS: Yes . Many other aggrieved pre 2006 pensioners - say some in PB 3 , really affected, had also been knocking at doors for sometime. It is for them to act in the way they deem fit.

sundarar
19-11-2011, 08:01 PM
Dear YB,
STILL THERE IS A "GREY ELEMENT" ON THIS P TO P FEATURE WRT THIS VERY JUDGMENT "BY READING IN BETWEEN THE LINES" WHICH I DO NOT WANT TO STIR NOW.

LET US "TRY OUR OWN PATIENCE" TO GET THIS " UNPAID/ UNDISBURSED PENSION ARREARS "TO LIMITED (NOT ALL) PRE 2006 PENSIONERS'" WHICH THE GOVT AHS "SAVED" FROM "DISBURSAL".

TOTAL AS ON DATE SHD NOT BE MUCH AS GOOD AMOUNT GOES IN TAX.SOME HAVE DIED AND SOME SAVING IS THERE!.SHD BE LESS THAN 75 CR ONLY AS ON DATE.
Regards
VN

Respected Shri VNji has very correctly brought out the clarity on the actual impact, and I agree with all the clarification provided by him, which throw more light for better understanding by all of us.

Best Regards and Thanks
Sundarar

vnatarajan
19-11-2011, 08:39 PM
Dear Interested,

THE PR BENCH THREE JUDGE VERDICT ON CASE OA655 OF 2010 IS AN EXTRAORDINARY ONE.

IT HAS TO BE READ SEVERAL TIMES BY OLD/PAST/ RECENT/ WOULD BEPENSIONERS!

FOR EXAMPLE TO WHAT EXTENT IT HAS SUPPORTED THE "GOVT'S" ANTI-PENSIONER STAND?

HAS THE GOVT RIGHT TO DECIDE CUT-OFF DATE LEFT & RIGHT?

CAN THEY INTRODUCE THRU SIMPLE UNASSUMING OMs - ONE FOR THE PAST AND ONE FOR THE WOULD BE PENSIONERS - AND THEN CALL THEM DIFFERENT SCHEMES?

CAN A HOMOGENOUS GROUP OFPENSIONERS BE DIVIDED BECAUSE OF SUCH OMs?

IF BY TWO OMS YOU CAN CREATE TWO CLASSES OF PENSIONERS, HOW DO WE CLASSIFY THEM? BOTH INDPENDENT "NEW HOMOGENOUS PENSIONERS"?

AGAIN IN ONE CASE- SAY THAT OF CURRENT AND WOULD BE LOT, PENSION IS BASED ON A SINGLE FORMULATION WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF PAST PENSIONERS YOU CAN HAVE SEVERAL "SUB-CLASSES"- LIKE SAY 2.26 MF CATEGORY/ MPPB CATEGORY/ MRPS (MIN OF REV PAY SCALE)

WHY A PAY BAND INTRODUCED LATER THAN AN "OPERATIONAL CUT-OFF DATE" BECOME THE DECIDING "INITIAL POINT" FOR DEFINING THE BASIC PENSION OF A VAST SEGMENT OF OLD PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR REVISED PAY SCALES?

IN FUTURE, CAN WE HAVE ONE "PAY BAND STARTING FROM SAY N RS 10,000 TO RS 150.000" WITH "FOUR GRADE PAY BANDS" MERGED WITHIN THEM AND HAVING THE PENSION FORMULATION EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE REVISED PAY BAND FROM WHICH THE OENSIONER RETIRED WITH "BAND GRADE PAY" ?

OR CAN THERE BE "INCREASE IN GRADE PAY" BUT "DECREASE IN BASIVC PAY" PROGRESSIVELY?

DO WE LOSE THE IDENTITY OF OUR PAY SCALES ALTOGETHER? THEN IDENTITY OF OUR PAY BAND ALTOGETHER?

CAN "FIXED PENSIONS" BE GRANTED TO ALL AS GRANTED TO S33 & 34 NOW?

We may formulate no of questions which may threaten and de-structure our pension scheme totally!

CURRENT EMPLOYEES QAND RECENT PENSIONERS MUST BE ON THE VIGIL AND BE PREPARED TO FIGHT THE ISSUES WELL IN TIME!

vnatarajan

ybhaskar23
19-11-2011, 09:11 PM
Dear Shri VN,
It was Shri NP Mohan and not me,
who had observed that there was 0 benefit to PB4 personnel,
as per the Table worked out by him.
YB

ybhaskar23
19-11-2011, 09:23 PM
Dear Shri VN,
Your comments today @03.09 PM. are much appreciated,
What baffles me is that The 6th cpc was deliberating for nearly 3 years,
prior to issue of it's recommendations,
and all the honorable Members seem to have either overlooked or knowingly not applied their
minds to all the issues raised by you above.
something appears to be wrong somewhere.
YB

sundarar
20-11-2011, 10:38 AM
Dear Shri VN,
It is was Shri NP Mohan and not me,
who had observed that there was 0 benefit to PB4 personnel,
as per the Table worked out by him.
YB

Dear Shri YBji,

It is quite natural that for PB2 S-9, PB-3 Gr.A New Scale (Entry), PB-4 S-24 & S-28, the benefit will be 0 only, particularly because minimum of the pay band as well as minimum of the pay in the band are one and same for the respective pre-revised scales. For S-30 onwards, being scale-based revision, no minimum of the pay in the pay band aspect is involved. For information.

vnatarajan
20-11-2011, 03:23 PM
Rather I feel, it should not be described as "Benefit".
What we are conecrned is rather "Disparity" as it is negative for pre 2006 S29 pension say (-) 3650 pm wef 1 1 2006, and that is why the dispute.
You may call it "difference between MPB and MPPB - (negative or positive wrt MPB).
vnatarajan

dnaga57
20-11-2011, 04:21 PM
Dear VN Sir
My salute to you for keeping up the flag flying

sundarar
20-11-2011, 05:47 PM
Rather I feel, it should not be described as "Benefit".
What we are conecrned is rather "Disparity" as it is negative for pre 2006 S29 pension say (-) 3650 pm wef 1 1 2006, and that is why the dispute.
You may call it "difference between MPB and MPPB - (negative or positive wrt MPB).
vnatarajan

Yes please. It shall be "Difference between MPB and MPPB", as very rightly pointed out by your goodself.

kssitaraman
21-11-2011, 09:07 AM
Rather I feel, it should not be described as "Benefit".
What we are conecrned is rather "Disparity" as it is negative for pre 2006 S29 pension say (-) 3650 pm wef 1 1 2006, and that is why the dispute.
You may call it "difference between MPB and MPPB - (negative or positive wrt MPB).
vnatarajan

If permitted to read in between the lines, I would say that it is neither a benefit nor difference but a loss - a pension loss - now ordered to be refunded. The judgement stipulates "..re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof ..."

K.S.Sitaraman

kssitaraman
21-11-2011, 11:59 AM
In contn. of my posting of this morning, it will be more apt to say it is "Restoration of original pension" by which the "loss" becomes the "diffrerence". So you are right.

vnatarajan
26-11-2011, 04:47 PM
DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

I AND SOME MORE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ARE GETTING PHONE CALLS ON THE PR CAT JUDGMENT OF 1 NOV 2011 REPEATEDLY, CONSTRUING THAT IT HAS PROVIDED ALL TYPES OF RELIEF TO ALL PROBLEMS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ OLDER PENSIONERS .

PL REMEMBER THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS ONLY "SCPC MODIFIED PARITY" , BY RESOLVING THE "MPB" CRISIS AND RESTORING ITS STATUS TO "MPPB". NOTHING MORE/ NOTHING LESS! ONLY PARA 4.2 OF OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 COMES INTO RECKONING ACCORDING TO ME!

SHRI SUNDARAR HAS PUT A CHK LIST FOR VERIFYING WHO (VIZ AMONG THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS) COULD POSSIBLY HAVE A "REDEMPTION OF THEIR LOSS" .

I REPEAT "THE LIST IN PART" HERE :

1.PL GO BACK TO YOUR PRE 2006 BASIC PENSION PPO (AS ON 1 1 1996 AFTER 5CPC REVISION OR AS ON THE DATE OF RETIREMENT IF YOU RETIRED LATER THAN 1 1 1996) AND PICK UP/ NOTE DOWN YOUR "BASIC PENSION" AMOUNT.

2.PL NOTE YOUR "PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY" OF THE POST HELD BY YOU FROM WHICH YOU RETIRED. (THIS PRE-REVISED SCALE PERTAINS TO PRE 2006 REGIME OF V CPC PAY SCALES) AND IDENTIFY ITS CODE- SAY S4 OR S5.... S29 AND SO ON.

3. PL CHECK IF IT IS "MORE THAN" OR "EQUAL TO" THE "GUIDELINE" AMOUNT INDICATED IN THE TABLE BELOW (AFTER SUNDARAR):

Pre-revised Scale No; pre-rev. BASIC pension IN RS "MORE THAN" or "EQUAL TO:
S-4 1621-
S-5 1721
S-6 1783
S-7 2176
S-8 2471
S-9 2986
S-10 3192
S-11 3603
S-12 3603
S-13 4084
S-14 4148
S-15 4486
Gr.A (Entry) New Scale 4646
S-16 4898
S-17 4898
S-18 5710
S-19 5575
S-20 5842
S-21 6619
S-22 6929
S-23 6619

FOR EXAMPLE, IF PRE 2006 S23 SCALE PENSIONER'S BASIC PENSION AS ON AFTER 5 CPC REVISION/ ON RETIREMENT BETWEEN 1 1 1996 T0 31 12 2005 WAS EQUALTO 6619 OR MORE THAN 6619, HE MAY NOT BE BENFITTED BY THE "MPPB" VERDICT, AS THE 2.26 FORMULA AS PER PARA 4.1 OF OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 WILL FETCH HIM MORE PENSION.

AS MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN PB 1, 2 AND EVEN 3 WOULD HAVE DRAWN A NO OF INCREMENTS (MAINLY DUE TO LACK OF PROMOTIONS TO HIGHER SCALES) , THE 2.26 MF ON THEIR LAST BASIC PAY BASIS BEFORE RETIREMENT WOULD FETCH THEM MORE PENSION THAN THE "MPPB" BASED ONE. ONLY FRESHLY PROMOTED CASES/ OR THOSE WHO HAD DRAWN VERY FEW INCREMENTS MAY HAVE TO CHK ON THIS TABLE TO BE SURE OF THEIR CASES.

Hope things are clear.
However, pl do the exercise yourself, conclude yourself- but do not "unlimit" the "judgment" beyond "its limited dimension- limited scope- limited application- limited "redemption of loss".
NO NEED TO IMAGINE THAT IT HAS OPENED A "PANDORA'S BOX" AS MANY HAVE COMMENTED ORALLY AND IN NEWSPAPER REPORTS ETC.
IT IS MISLEADING, MISCHIEVOUS, IRRELEVANT ALSO!

VNATARAJAN

dnaga57
28-11-2011, 03:51 PM
As usual a mature, pragmatic, factual, legally valid advice by VN Sir

vnatarajan
29-11-2011, 01:44 PM
Thanks Shri D Naga,

Dear Friends/ Pre 2006 Pensioners,

SOME PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS/ THEIR TOP EXECUTIVE MEMBERS ARE WRITING UNNECESSARILY TO THE AUTHORITIES ABOUT "FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT" ETC.

WHATEVER ESTIMATES ONE MAY MAKE, IN REALITY IT IS THE "SAVING" GOVT HAS ALREADY DONE BECAUSE WHAT HAS BEEN PAID SO FAR IS A "LOWER PENSION" THAN THE CORRECT ONE!

MOREOVER, ONCE AGAIN CAREFULLY READ THE JUDGMENT, PARA 29 d).:

"......d) That even the Minister of State for Finance and Minister of State (PP) taking note of the resultant injustice done to the pre-11.2006 pensioners (pages 169-170) had sent formal proposal to the Department of Expenditure seeking rectification but the said proposal was turned down by the officer of the Department of Expenditure on the ground of financial implications. Once the Central Government has accepted the principle of modified parity, the benefit cannot be denied on the ground of financial constraints and cannot be said to be a valid reason "

THE JUDGMENT HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT ONCE THE GOVT HAS ACCEPTED THE PRINCIPLE OF MODIFIED PARITY, THE BENEFIT CAN NOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND OF FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE A VALID REASON.

VNATARAJAN

vnatarajan
30-11-2011, 06:23 AM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners,

In spite of the unanimous 3 judge-full- bench PR CAT verdict in favour of pre 2006 S29 pensioners (not of great relevance/ advantage/ benefit to others except in some segments in other scales) , the authorities, as usual always, will proceed for protracted litigation.

THOSE AT DELHI- PRE 2006 PENSIONERS- THEIR FIRENDS (RETIRED / AND IN SERVICE) MAY PLEASE BRING TO NOTICE OF CONCERNED ANY "NEW DEVELOPMENTS" WRT THE CASE VERDICT.

Regards,
vnatarajan

ramanrao60
02-12-2011, 12:03 PM
The GOI OM no 45/73/97-P&PW(G) dt 2nd July, 1999 states that "In terms of the existing orders, Dearness Relief to pensioners and family pensioners is to remain suspended during the period a pensioner/family pensioner is re-employed/employed under the Central or State Government or in a Statutory Corporation/Company/Body/Bank under them in India or abroad. These orders are also applicable to pensioners and family pensioners permanently absorbed in a Statutory Corporation/Company/Body/Bank under the Central or State Government"

So if one were reemployed in the private sector there is no bar on payment of DR?
Pl clarify

Victor
02-12-2011, 12:45 PM
Yes this does not apply in the case of employment in the private sector.

Victor

ramanrao60
02-12-2011, 12:50 PM
:)
Yes this does not apply in the case of employment in the private sector.

Victor
Thanks a lot:)

sundarar
03-12-2011, 06:19 AM
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION ON AGEING E-NEWS NOVEMBER 2011
(Courtesy: Shri Er. S.C. Maheswari, Gen. Secy. RREWA)
"India - Bharat Pensioners Samaj (Association) Fight for the Rights of Retirees
By: Er. SC.Maheshwari

IFA members since June 2005, Bharat Pensioners Samaj (BPS) was established in 1955 and is based in New Delhi. BPS is the apex body of all Central Government Pensioners with more than 375000 members through Associations, Federations and Individuals from across the country. At this year's Annual General Body meeting held on 4 November 2011, Dr. K.R. Gangadharan, IFA Board Member and Regional Vice President for Asia, was honored to be the Chief Guest.

BPS is a member of the Government of India Standing Committee of Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA), fighting to highlight pension and health related grievances of pensioners and seeking redress through negotiations and discussions to implement Government policies for the welfare of Pensioners.

As part of its mandate and role, BPS publishes a monthly Journal, organizes National level Conventions, Annual General Meetings of its affiliates and provides support to members. Activity and accounting reports were presented and four associations were rewarded for their work (this year it was AICGPA PUNE, BSNL & DOT Pensioners Association Gujarat circle Ahemdabad, DAPWA Chandigarh and RSCWS Mohali).

Shyam Sunder, Secretary General BPS, while presenting his report, expressed concern and disappointment over the continued indifferent attitude of the Government of India towards pre 1 January 2006 Pensioners.

Every ten years the Government of India appoints a Central Pay commission to investigate on pay and allowance, medical facilities, and pensions of its employees and past employees. After considering certain contingencies such as inflation effects or working conditions and listening to the claims of Employees' Trade Unions and Pensioners Associations, the Central Pay Commission gives its recommendations. Each of these recommendations is carefully examined by a group of ministers who either accept or reject it.

Audience BPSThe Sixth Central Pay commission, which gave its recommendations in 2008, set 31st of December 2005 as a cut-off date which set new rules for pre and post retirees. Based on this dividing date, two different policies were developed to consolidate and revise the Pension Program. This created wide gaps as those who retired before the 31st of December 2005 from the same post with same seniority , and same pay scale are now getting much less pension than those who retired or will retire after 31 December 2005, creating therefore a strong resentment among over 5,000,000 pensioners.

Dr. Gangadharan, provided those present with an overview of the Draft National Policy of Senior Citizens 2011 which is awaiting approval of the Central Government of India. After long discussions, the Conference adopted 24 resolutions expressing vital grievances of pensioners.

For more infromation about Bharat Pensioners Samaj pl. contact Mr. Maheswari at [email protected]"

Resolutions adopted by 56th Annual Conference of BPS at New Delhi on 4.11.2011
(www.rrewa.org)

1) Extension of following benefits to pre 1-1-2006 retirees:
a) Same fitment benefit to pre 1-1-2006 pensioners as implemented for serving employees w.e.f. 1-1-2006 i.e. basic pension +86% DR +50% of grade pay.
Since Principal CAT Delhi in its judgement dated 01.11.2011 in OA 655/2010 has struck down
DOP & PW OMs dated 1.9.2008, 03.09.2008 & 14.10 2008. G.O.I should implement its commitment of being a good litigant. And without entering into further legal battle with helpless pensioners should accept the above demand.
b) Full pension for 20 years of service / 10 years in superannuation cases.
c) Last pay drawn or average of last 10 months pay whichever is beneficial to the retiring employee towards emoluments for computation of pension.

2) Full parity upto 1-1-96: Full parity may be brought upto 1-1-96 as recommended by the V CPC :
considering that V CPC enunciated this principle for a laudable purpose and abandoning it has done grave injustice to past pensioners. It needs to be appreciated that parity is not linked to cent per cent neutralization of price-rise as erroneously assumed by the VI CPC and both are different and for different purposes
Correct implementation of modified parity as on 1-1-2006.
Correct implementation of modified parity as on 1-1-2006 to do equal justice to all those who retired in various pre-revised pay scales. The manner in which modified parity has been implemented has violated the accepted principles and the established law. Introduction of Pay Bands in place of pre-retired pay scales should not act to the detriment of pre 1-1-2006 pensioners in the matter of modified parity. It is the bounden
duty of the government to fully protect the past pensioners under the new dispensation. This conference therefore urges the government to take early remedial measures
Modified parity to those who retired in IV CPC scale of Rs.1400-2300 on Indian Railways w.e.f. 1-1-96 and 1-1-2006.
“Certain categories of staff in scale Rs. 1400-2300 mentioned in Annexure B of RBE 138/97 dated 16/10/1997 were placed in higher scale of Rs. 1600-2660 by V PC, with corresponding scale Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. This scale Rs. 5000-8000 was in vogue till 31.12.2005 as mentioned in V PC PPOs.. Finance Directorate of RB unilaterally reduced this scale to Rs. 4500-7000 with PB 1+GP Rs. 2800 denying min. pension Rs. 6750 w.e.f. 1.1.2006, citing DOP & PW instructions. DOP &PW is nodal agency for pension matters and not for pay scales.
MOF(DOE) is the authority in the matter of pay scales. RB reducing the pay scale, without
consulting and without concurrence of MOF(DOE) is unjustified and untenable.
The arbitrary instructions of RB to the disadvantage of pre 1996 pensioners need to be withdrawn forthwith. "
3) Injustice to S 21-23
Implement Equal work equal pay as enunciated by the Hounourable Supreme Court
Once an employee from departmental Channel is inducted into Group ‘A’ cadre, he/she is interpolated into Group ‘A’ seniority & become member of homogenous Group ‘A’ services for further benefits and if the duties responsibilities do not differ he/she should not be discriminated against in the matter of pay fixation
{Supreme court decision reported as 1987 (1) SCC 582 Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers (Class-I) Association & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors &
the decision reported as 1987 (1) SCC 592 M.P.Singh vs. UOI & Ors}
In all departments of the Central Government including Railways. A Non Functional Selection Grade (NFSG Rs 14300—18000 ‘Vth CPC scale’) is provided in the JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE GRADE (JAG)to prevent stagnation. It constitutes 30% of the total Functional Junior Administrative Grade. (5th CPC Scales S.21 to 23) The designation, duties, Schedule of Powers, (Disciplinary and Financial) and responsibilities are the same for JAG as well as NFSG. NFSG is not a promotional Railway. Board’s letter RBE 135/2000 of 14-07-2000 which clearly spells out that “NFSG is segment of JAG” and that “it will not be treated as a Promotion”. But while implementing 6th CPC recommendations the said existing Scale 24 has been placed in PAY BAND 4 leaving behind JAG in PAY BAND 3. This has resulted higher pay packet to the erstwhile S 24 than JAG (S21-23) though theduties &responsibilities remain identically the same .This is an anomaly which need to be suitably addressed".
Remaining items can be viewed from www.rrewa.org website.

vnatarajan
06-12-2011, 07:00 PM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Others interested,

TODAY I NOTED THAT THIS THREAD RIGHTLY ENTITLED "INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S29---------------------------" HAD CROSSED A LANDMARK OF ONE LACK VIEWS REPEAT ONE LACK VIEWS IN NEARLY 3 YEARS 2 MONTHS' TIME.

CERTAINLY, IN RECENT TIMES, IN THE REALM OF SOCIAL NETWROKING WEBSITES, VERY FEW THREADS WOULD HAVE RECEIVED SO MUCH ATTENTION AS THIS ONE1

ITS OBJECTIVE, INCIDENTALLY WAS TO PROVE THE MOST UNQULAIFIED INJUSTICE DONE:

BY THE PENSION AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVT. TO SEGMENTS OF ITS OWN OLD PENSIONERS IN ALL BUT FEW PRE 2006 PAY SCALES, BY INTRODUCING A "REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM" CONCEPT WHICH AIMED AT COMPELLING EVERYONE WHO UNDERSTIOOD ENGLISH WELL ENOUGH, TO AGREE WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION/ FOLLOW WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS/ ACCEPT WHAT WAS THROWN AS "ALMS' CALLING THE SAME AS "REVISED PENSION" BY PROPOUNDING AND ORDERING THAT "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" IS ONE AND THE SAME AS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND"! AT HE SAME TIME, UNREPENTINGLY, THE VERY SAME AUTHRITIES DID 'ADMIT" THAT THEY HAVE "NO MATRIAL INFORMATION OR OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO CONFORM OR EQUATE THE TWO EXPRESSIONS TO BE ONE AND THE SAME"!

WHAT MORE? IN THE PROCESS, THE CONCERNED CARED NONE INCLUDING REFERENCES MADE BY VIPS LIKE TWO MOSs/ FEW MPs OF LOK SABHA AND RAJYA SABHA/ CAG/ CABINET SECRETARIAT/ PMO/ PRESIDENTIAL REFERNCES ETC ETC!

THOUSANDS OF APPEALS OF AGGRIEVED AND AFFECTED PENSIONERS WERE CONSIGNED TO MASS DISPOSAL ACTIONS BY THE VERY SAME PERPETRATORS OF INJUSTICE. HIGHER ECHELONS WERE AT BEST "INDIFFERENT" TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF SUCH OLD/ KNOWLEDGEABLKE PENSIONERS!.

THANKS TO THE RTI MECHANISM, A FEW UNRELENTING PENSIONERS WORKED HARD TO SEARCH AND FIND TRUTH FOR SUCH "COMPELLING EQUATIONS" PRACTISED SELECTIVELY BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIRARCHY- TO PLEASE SOME AT THE COST OF OTHERS. WHAT DID THEY GAIN? AREN'T THEY PLAYING "SAME-SIDE GOAL"? DO THEY DOLE OUT PENSIONS OUT OF THEIR POCKETS? GOVT MINTS AND PRINTING PRESSES OPERATE VERY EFFECTIVELY IN OUR COUNTRY.

EMPLOYEES- THEIR ASSOCIATIONS / PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS WERE SILENT WATCHERS EXCEPT A FEW LIKE RREWA, RCSWS, BPS, PF CHENNAI, AIFPA CHENNAI ETC.

NAC AND THE JCM IN THEM WERE/ ARE NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE SO FAR!

NO GREATER HUMILIATION OR SHAME WOULD HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UPON THOUSANDS OF VERY SENIOR RETIREES IN ALL CADRES MORE THAN THIS UNJUST IMPOSITION. LIKE A SECRETARY BEING ASKED TO COMPROMISE TO HAVE THE GRADE OF A JUNIOR SECRETARY AND HAVE THE BASIC PAY OF A GR D TO WORK OUT THE REVISED PENSION!

MANY RETD HEADS OF DEPTS/ NATIONALLY- INTERNATIONALLY HONOURED - RECOGNISED- "ACTIVE EVEN TODAY" SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS- HAD/ HAVE TO DESPAIR IN UTTER AGONY AND DISMAY THE TREATMENT THEY RECEIVED FOR ALL THE DECADES' ( MANY HAVE DONE MORE THAN 35 YEARS SERVICE) OF VALUABKLE SERVICES/CONTRIBUTIONS THEY MADE TO THE GROWTH OF THE NATION AND THE STRONG FOUNDATIONS THEY LAID FOR THE "DREAM GDP OF 8-9%" WHICH IS ENRICHING THE REMUNERATIONS/POCKETS OF MANY TODAY - EVEN THE UNSCRUPULOUS ONES!

OUR JUNIOS ARE HAPPY AT OUR SACRIFICES- WE LIVED IN NON AC - NON TECH ERAS AND SPENT LESS AS WE WERE PAID LESS- BUT NOW THEY ALL HAVE BECOME SO "ORGANISED" THANKS TO " THE ORGANISED SERVICES- ACP SCHEMES ETC) THAT THEY DRAW GREAT SALARIES AND DOUBLE OUR PENSIONS. WE DONT GRUDGE AS THEY ARE OUR HEIRS. OUR ONLY WISH IS THEY ALSO MUST NOT BE TREATED LIKE US BY A FEW "WITTY AND WHIMSICAL" IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER! THEY MUST BE CAUTIOUS FOR THEMSELEVS AND FOR US ALSO

I OWE A LOT TO MANY OF MY FRIENDS WHO STOOD BY ME IN & FOR THE WRITE-UPS HERE, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIKE MLK/ SUNDARAR/ GRAMDAS/ PKR/ RSUNDARAM/AR/ MJAUHARI/ DNAGA/ BALA/ KSS/ AVM ETC ETC AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR HELP IN THIS ENDEAVOUR.

INJUSTICE DONE TO US BY THE "CONCERNED AUTHORITIES" (IN THE GOVT) HAD BEEN PROVED WITH PR CAT FULL BENCH VERDICT PUBLISHED ON 1ST NOV 2011. OUR STAND HAD BEEN VINDICATED. TO SOME EXTENT OUR DIGNITY/ HONOUR IS RESTORED. MONEY IS SECONDARY. WE ARE THANKFUL TO THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SYSTEM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

FINALLY , GCONNECTIN, THEIR ADMINISTRATION- MODERATORS- MANAGERS DESERVE MY COMPLIMENTS AND APPRECIATION, THANKS AND GRATITUDE, FOR PROVIDING AN "EFFECTIVE PLATFORM " TO VOICE THE GRIEVANCE AND INJUSTICE AND GATHER ENOUGH COURAGE, SUPPORT, STRENGTH, MOMENTUM AND MIND TO CHIEVE THE GOAL NOW.

MISSION IS INCOMPLETE. I AND WE SHALL CONTINUE- IN GCONNECT MODE!

REGARDS TO ALL,
VNATARAJAN

TYPO ERROR EDITING DONE.

RPGoswami
06-12-2011, 08:32 PM
Thanks to Mr. Natarajans efforts and others who took pains to gather information and otherwise pitched in we have crosssed the first hurdle. I only hope that some one in the system will stop the pig headed elements. It is a hope RPGoswami

vnatarajan
08-12-2011, 03:15 PM
APPLICABILITY OF THE UNANIMOUS 3 JUDGE FULL PR BENCH CAT DELHI JUDGMENT OF OA 655/ 2010 OF CGS29PA VS UOI AND OTHER SIMILARLY LINKED CASES, DELIVERED ON 1 11 2011:

DEAR INTERESTED,

AFTER THE LANDMARK JUDGMENT OF CGS29PA’S OA 655/ 2010 & OTHER SIMILARLY PLACED CASES ON SCPC MODIFIED PARITY, MANY MILITARY PENSIONERS OF PRE 2006 ERA HAD BEEN RAISING DOUBTS.

MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH, BLOG OWNER OF “INDIAN MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS & ISSUES” HAS SUMMARISED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN HIS BLOG-WEBSITE, WHICH I REPRODUCE HEREUNDER.

THE POINTS MADE OUT BY HIM ARE AMPLY CLEAR FOR BOTH CIVIL AND MILITARY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS.

VN36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LINK: http://www.indianmilitary.info/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Clearing misconceptions related to the applicability of the CAT judgement on defence personnel

This blog had carried a report of a judgement pronounced by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) related to fixation of pension of pre-2006 retirees.


After the judgement, there have been chain mails circulating all around stating that the judgement shall result in enhancement of pension of all military ranks and that the Govt had decided not to challenge the judgement in the Supreme Court. I have also received a number of mails seeking clarification on the said orders.


With an attempt to clarify the issue, the following points are enumerated :


1. The CAT judgement has laid down nothing new for military pensioners and the same subject had last year been adjudicated upon by the Chandigarh and Principal Benches of the AFT for military pensioners on exactly similar lines. While the CAT has pronounced the judgement in Nov 2011, the same had been pronounced by the AFT in Sept and Nov 2010.


2. The CAT judgement has NO, repeat NO applicability on military pensioners since the CAT has jurisdiction over only civilian Central Govt employees / former employees.


3. The Govt has NOT, repeat NOT, taken any decision about challenging the judgement, and moreover, judgements of the CAT are challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court and not before the Supreme Court.


4. The Govt has already challenged before the Supreme Court the verdict in the Majors’ case on similar lines rendered by the AFT. The Supreme Court had issued a notice on the case but no stay has been granted on the AFT judgement.


5. In case the Govt does decide to implement the CAT decision or take a favourable decision on similar lines, then the same would automatically be extended to commissioned officers of the forces also since the interpretation involved is exactly the same.


6. The scope of the controversy regarding ‘minimum of pay within the pay band’ vs ‘minimum of the pay band itself’ has now become wider and directly affects all civil pensioners of the Central Govt and all Commissioned pensioners of the defence services. It does not affect lower ranks of the defence services since the calculation formula of Sepoy to Subedar Major is different than the formula used for commissioned officers or central civil govt retirees

is different than the formula used for commissioned officers or central civil govt retirees.

UNQUOTE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
08-12-2011, 07:07 PM
My thanks to Mr. Natarajan for clarifying the implications of the judgement. Question that comes up in my mind is what are the various ways the Government can delay implementation without actually going for appeal. Minister(Mr,Prpthiraj Chauhan ) had opined that equating minimum op the 'Pay in a Pay Band' with Minimum of the Pay Band is incorreft, hence my query

vnatarajan
09-12-2011, 04:47 PM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners,

May I request the pre 2006 pensioners/ pensioners' association to avoid any "unnecessary" correspondence to any authorities who have to take their time to process the judgment details in favour of the aggrieved pensioners.

ANY UNNECESSARY DETAILS WE MAY INCLUDE IN SUCH COREPONEDENCE MAY SOMETIMES BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR INTERESTS.

I NOTED THAT SOME OF THE ASSOCIATIONS/ PENSIONERS ETC ARE UNNECESSARILY PROJECTING MOST INCORRECT/ ILLOGICAL AMOUNTS OF "FINANCIAL COMPONENT" AS REQUIREMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING THE JUDGEMENT.

THIS SHOWS THEIR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE AND TO SOME EXTENT UNDERMINES THEIR REPONSIBILITY!
THEY HAVE NOT READ THE "FULL JUDGMENT" AT ALL!
CAT HAS RULED OUT ANY FINANCIAL LIMITATION AS IT IS A QUESTION OF REDEEMING THE CORRECT PENSION.

Our case was about payment of "DECREASED/ REDUCED/ MUTILATED LOWER REVISED PENSIONS" BASED ON "MINIMUM OF HE PAY BAND (MPB)" AMOUNT AS AGAINST THE "CORRECT AND PRECISE REVISED PENSIONS' IN TERMS OF SCPC ACCEPTED MODIFIED PARITY BASED ON "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND (MPPB) " , IF THE SAME IS BENEFICIAL TO THE AGGRIEVED ( PL note this is not relevant to those pre 2006 pensioners who have a better revised pension based on 2.26 Mf or because of the Minimum of the Pay in the Revised Pay Scale (HAGs) or in those cases where MPB and MPPB coincide to be one and the same (lowest of the merged scale in Pay Bands)).

IN FACT, GOVT HAD BEEN SAVING the difference OR NOT INCURRING "THAT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE" EACH YEAR.

Some assocoiations are quoting figures of over Rs 9000 cr which is absolutely an IRRESPONSIBLE/ ABNORMALLY bloated figure.

Even offcial figure given in Oct 2008 by DOPPW itself was 228 Cr upto that time.
Out of that, case of pre 2006 S30 has since been settled.
So in any case, the "SAVED EXPENDITURE" MAY BE IN TEREMS OF GOVT'S ESTIMATE ITSELF CD BE RS 200 CR EACH YEAR.

The savd expenditure has to be now disbursed to the pre 2006 pensioners who are affected by the MPB fiasco & in terms of the verdict of the CAT.

IN OUR EXHUBERANCE TO RUSH UP THE DECISION, WE MAY BE TREADING ON UNKNOWN GROUNDS AND IN THE PROCESS END UP IN A "QUICK SAND"!!

Pl bear with delays.
Appeals cd be moderate to simply REQUEST implement the CAT orders without delay and HELP TO AVOID further litigations!

Regards
vnatarajan

sundarar
14-12-2011, 07:47 AM
[QUOTE=vnatarajan;14520]
"Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Others interested,

TODAY I NOTED THAT THIS THREAD RIGHTLY ENTITLED "INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S29---------------------------" HAD CROSSED A LANDMARK OF ONE LACK VIEWS REPEAT ONE LACK VIEWS IN NEARLY 3 YEARS 2 MONTHS' TIME.

CERTAINLY, IN RECENT TIMES, IN THE REALM OF SOCIAL NETWROKING WEBSITES, VERY FEW THREADS WOULD HAVE RECEIVED SO MUCH ATTENTION AS THIS ONE1

ITS OBJECTIVE, INCIDENTALLY WAS TO PROVE THE MOST UNQULAIFIED INJUSTICE DONE:

INJUSTICE DONE TO US BY THE "CONCERNED AUTHORITIES" (IN THE GOVT) HAD BEEN PROVED WITH PR CAT FULL BENCH VERDICT PUBLISHED ON 1ST NOV 2011. OUR STAND HAD BEEN VINDICATED. TO SOME EXTENT OUR DIGNITY/ HONOUR IS RESTORED. MONEY IS SECONDARY. WE ARE THANKFUL TO THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SYSTEM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

FINALLY , GCONNECTIN, THEIR ADMINISTRATION- MODERATORS- MANAGERS DESERVE MY COMPLIMENTS AND APPRECIATION, THANKS AND GRATITUDE, FOR PROVIDING AN "EFFECTIVE PLATFORM " TO VOICE THE GRIEVANCE AND INJUSTICE AND GATHER ENOUGH COURAGE, SUPPORT, STRENGTH, MOMENTUM AND MIND TO CHIEVE THE GOAL NOW.

MISSION IS INCOMPLETE. I AND WE SHALL CONTINUE- IN GCONNECT MODE!

REGARDS TO ALL,
VNATARAJAN"

Respected Shri VNji has kindly and very rightly acknowledged the valuable provisions by the public domains - Gconnect, RREWA, RSCWS, etc. which really connect the minds and hearts of the pensioners community scattered all over the Country. Apart from creating the required awareness among the pensioners community, the discussions that have been taking place all along for the past 3+ years, have also facilitate the required inputs for setting the records straightaway, whether through RTI or representation, litigation, etc. With 3 days to go for the 4th Pensioners' Day after implementation of 6th CPC recommendation at this year end, in addition to the Junior Nakara of 1st November 2011, we also had a remarkable Judgment from the Hon. SC on 31st March, 2011 the extract of which is reproduced hereunder for reference:

K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union Of India And Anr. on 31 March, 2011 By HSC

“11. In our opinion, the restriction of the benefit to only officers who were invalided out of service after 1.1.1996 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is hence illegal. We are fortified by the view as taken by the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 323, where it was held that the benefit of the Amending Act 38 of 1986 cannot be restricted only to those High Court Judges who retired after 1986.
12. In State of Punjab vs. Justice S.S. Dewan (1997) 4 SCC 569 it was held that if it is a liberalization of an existing scheme all pensioners are to be treated equally, but if it is introduction of a new retrial benefit, its benefit will not be available to those who stood retired prior to its introduction. In our opinion the letter of the Ministry of Defence dated 31.1.2001 is only liberalization of an existing scheme.
13. In Union of India & Anr. vs. S.P.S. Vains (Retd.) & Ors. 2008(9) SCC 125 it was observed :
"26. The said decision of the Central Government does not address the problem of a disparity having created within the same class so that two officers both retiring as Major Generals, one prior to 1-1-1996 and the other after 1-1-1996, would get two different amounts of pension. While the officers who retired prior to 1-1-1996 would now get the same pension as payable to a Brigadier on account of the stepping up of pension in keeping with the fundamental rules, the other set of Major Generals who retired after 1-1-1996 will get a higher amount of pension since they would be entitled to the benefit of the revision of pay scales after 1-1-1996.
27. In our view, it would be arbitrary to allow such a situation to continue since the same also offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
28. The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years.
The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in D.S. Nakara where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counterproductive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.

30. However, before we give such directions we must also observe that the submissions advanced on behalf of the Union of India cannot be accepted in view of the decision in D.S. Nakara case. The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step-up principle envisaged in the fundamental rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension".


Whether it is the question of applicability of grade pay and minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired for deriving min. rev. pension, or the applicability of 20 years qualifying service for full pension, or any other grievances/anomalies, the basic criteria, as settled by the Hon. Courts till date and will be in future also, is that the single homogenous class of pensioners cannot be divided by virtue of date of retirement, and uniform manner and methodology shall prevail while subjecting their pension for revision.

While the well settled legal positions are clear, it is only a matter of time, as pointed out by the Respected Shri VNji in the previous post, for coming to a conclusive decision by the Authorities concerned. We are confident that a right decision in the interest of the Pensioners Community - who were once strong serving force till retirement, will very soon be made available as a Pensioners' Day/New Year Gift from the Mother, the Govt.

Incidentally, the National Litigation Policy also very significantly point out that

“.....Government is not an ordinary litigant and that a litigation does not have to be won at any cost”. and that Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant.

Thus, a favourable decision from the Govt. in line with the settled positions of date, is very eagerly awaited by the entire Pensioners Community.

With this hope and wish, we look forward the ensuing Pensioners' day falling on 17th December, 2011 for remarkable outcome of the year.

Best Regards

sundarar
17-12-2011, 05:33 AM
Respected Sirs, Namaskar Jai Shri Krishna.

At first, today the 17th December, 2011 being the 29th Pensioners' (D.S.Nakra's) Day, we salute and remember with gratefulness Late Shri D.S.Nakraji who passed away last year. On this auspicious day of Pensioners' I salute with full respects to all our Sr. Veterans, Pensioner friends, participants of the GConnect Discussion Forum, Pensioners Associations at Chennai, Gurgaon, Chandigarh, etc. as well as the GConnect Admin. for all their valuable services all along with a service motto.

I observed Shri Ramani's post in the Pensioners' forum posted yesterday, which is reproduced hereunder, and showing the present situation in which we keep moving as a Pensioner Community.

"Additional pension after 80

My father retired from Telephones and was drawing pension from the Post Office. He passed away at the age of 83 years before the VI CPC was announced. The arrears of pension was paid to my mother (family pensioner). Then we did not realise that the additional pension of 20 % after his 80 years of age was paid or not. Recently the post office asked for details about the age of my mother to include in the PPO (not indicated earlier) for the sake of additional pension. Then we enquired about the payment of additional pension for my father till his demise. The Head PO looked into it and prepared and paid additional pension due to him after 80 yersa of age till his demise. It beats me as to why this was not taken care of in the first instance itself when the arrears were prepared.
I am posting it in this site so that pensioners in similar situations can check on this and avail the benefit due to them.
Ramani"

A probable reason for the aforesaid situation could be that in general, when PSUs are formed with enmass absorption from the Central Govt. Department, after retirement of the erstwhile departmental employees and with fresh entrants as new recruits, the required attention gets missed for want of experience on the pension related matters. However, at last justice made to prevail in the above case.

In order to avoid such cases, and to bring maximum awareness among the Pensioners Community as well as the today's serving community, we all keep on discussing the anomalies/grievances/human errors, etc. with a view to facilitate for setting the records straight. If at all our submissions are taken in right spirit then and there, many mistakes and errors could have very well been avoided in time while dealing with pension matters. It is often said which is a fact and truth also that - `Today's employees are tomorrow's pensioners'. The Grievance Redressal measures in whatever form shall keep in view the TIME factor involved in settling the grievance and a positive approach is almost inevitable. IN PARTICULAR, I REQUEST THE SERVING EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATIONS ALSO WHO REPRESENT AS STAFF SIDE AT NATIONAL LEVEL IN VARIOUS FORUMS LIKE JCM, NC & NAC TO FOCUS THE PENSIONERS' GRIEVANCES/ANOMALIES TOO, FOR RESOLVING IN TIME.

On this memorable event, it is desirable to have the serving employees' participation also through such discussion forums, for ensuring an effective Administration of a Welfare State with appropriate policy with periodical review duly keeping in view the settled legal positions from time to time for the betterment of Pensioners' Community. This is also one way, a pensioner or a serving employee can contribute to the Progress of the Nation from their respective level. In short, the Pensioners' Community is having vast potential of rich experience on their shoulders. It is for rest, to make best use of the same. As myself also is one such beneficiary out of the guiding principles and methodologies and school of thoughts being provided all along by the Sr. Veterans who are backbones of today's development in working environment, I propose so.

On behalf of juniors like me, I pray for the blessings of all Senior Veterans with Best Regards to all of them.

MAY LORD SHRI KRISHNA BLESS FOR REPLACEMENT OF INJUSTICE WITH DUE JUSTICE IN ALL RESPECTS.

Thanks

Sundarar.

sundarar
20-12-2011, 07:03 PM
{Courtesy: Shri K. Srinivasan, Gen. Secy. RAILWAY PENSIONERS’ SAMAJ CHENNAI ( Affiliated to NFRP/Palghat)}
Resolutions passed in the “ ALL INDIA PENSIONERS’ DAY” Meeting held on 17th Dec 2011 at Padi, Chennai attended by 306 Railway Pensioners

"1. To implement the Judgment of Principal Bench, CAT/Delhi in O.A. No. 655 of 2010 at the earliest, without resorting to filing appeals in higher courts to the detriment of aged pensioners and dragging the matter further, for a number of years . This Judgment calls for implementation of VI PC recommendations to maintain modified parity in the pension of pre 2006 and post 2005 retirees, within a period of 3 months. ( DOP & PW & MOF)

2. Classification of a homogeneous group of pre 2006 railway pensioners into pre and post 1996 and denying V PC Recommended pay scales to those retired prior to 1.1.1996 and placing them in lower pay band and Grade pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006, by Railway Board is arbitrary, against canons of natural justice and also against Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993. A Senior who was drawing more pension than his Junior till 31.12.2005 under V PC dispensation, is made to receive less pension than the same Junior w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Request Railway Board to remove this anomaly forth with.
( RAILWAY BOARD)

3.Request Southern Railway Authorities to conduct Physical Verification of pensioners/family pensioners aged 70 and above, based on Railway Board instructions, in a hassle free manner, without causing any mental agony/ threat to the pensioners. In fact, this exercise is redundant and futile, since Pensioners have just visited Pension Paying Banks and given life certificates in the month of November this year. ( S.Rly.)

4. Request to increase existing Fixed Medical Allowance from Rs. 300 to Rs. 1000 . Employees retired from EPFO are getting medical allowance Rs. 1200 per month.
( DOP &PW & MOF)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, it is understood that the following items are the likely agenda points during the 4th NAC Meeting scheduled to be held on 5.1.2012 as per AIRF Website.

Item No. 11, 12, 13, 29, 30, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50.

It is our hope and wish that pending matters relating to pre-2006 pensioners will also get added as agenda points and resolved appropriately. We request the Staff Side of NAC to take up the same for inclusion and discussion.

dnaga57
21-12-2011, 07:00 AM
Dear VN sir
Perseverance has paid.. Patience will supplement. My salutation to your & others laudable efforts

sundarar
24-12-2011, 06:15 AM
MINUTES OF NAC FIRST MEETING HELD ON 12.12.2009
(Courtesy: www.cgstaffnews.com)

Agenda Item No.15, 16 & 17 -Parity in Pension to all Pensioners

Regarding parity in pension of all pre 1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 1.1.1996, the Staff Side stated that the pensioners were not given parity in pension irrespective of the date from which they had retired. The Government in the past have accepted the principle that there shall be parity in pension irrespective of the date from which they had retired. The benefit was given while implementing the 5th CPC recommendations. The Staff Side further stated that the 6th CPC in para 5.1.47 has stated that in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. However, while implementing the 6th CPC, the pensioners who retired prior to 01.01.2006 were given only 40% of the basic pension where as the serving employees were given 40% of the maximum of their pay scale. The Staff Side, therefore, demanded that the pensioners should be granted 50% of the Grade Pay in the scale from which they had retired by way of fitment benefit and not 40% of basic pension.

JS (Pers) informed that as per the recommendations of Sixth CPC, modified parity had already been granted to all pre-01.01.2006 pensioners. Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations regarding pension, all pre-01.01.2006 pensioners have been granted fitment benefit equal to 40% of their pre-revised basic pension, subject to the revised pension, in no case, being fixed 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.

At this, the Staff Side argued that a reading of the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission on the matter indicated that the intent of the Pay Commission was to grant modified parity to pre-1.1.2006 pensioners by allowing same fitment benefit as is being recommended to the existing Government employees subject to the provision that revised pension shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band prescribed for the grade pay and the sum of the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. On the other hand, the Government had approved modified parity with reference to the minimum of the pay band plus the grade pay which is not consistent with the recommendation of the Sixth CPC. Officers of Department of Expenditure stated that this was not the intent of the recommendation of the Pay Commission. After some discussions, the staff side requested the official side to examine the matter once again.

MINUTES OF NAC SECOND MEETING MINUTES 27.3.2010 (www.cgstaffnews.com)
(IV) Item No. 15. The official side stated that this was not acceptable even though they had examined it on the basis of the detailed submission by the Staff Side.
(V) Item No.16. (*) and 21
The official side stated that it would not be possible for them to concede the demand of the staff side as orders have been issued strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC, which the staff side contested. They also did not agree to extend the benefit of last pay drawn and full pension after 20 years qualifying service in respect of pre 2006 retirees.
(VI) Item No. 17.(*). The official side did not agree for the reasons they had stated against item No. 16
(VII) Item No. 18. (*) This anomaly has been removed by allowing the last pay drawn as the basis of pension computation for those retired on and after 1.1.2006.
(VIII) Item No. 19 (*)The anomaly has been removed in the case of all those retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 but did not agree to remove the anomaly in the case of persons retired prior to 1.1.2006"

We are aware that the above items have not found any place in the MINUTES OF THIRD NAC MEETING HELD ON 15.2.2011.

The PR Bench, CAT, New Delhi vide its Judgment dated 1.11.2011 has concluded with regard to minimum revised pension on the basis of modified parity as has been extended to pre-1996 pensioners during 5th CPC, as given hereunder:

"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we
accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs".

The Staff Side of NAC during 4th Meeting scheduled to be held on 5.1.2012 may please take up the pending items in respect of pre-2006 pensioners, in the light of CAT PR BENCH Verdict, for resolving the particular item as per the directives of the PR Bench, within the stipulated time period.

The Agenda items may also include remaining items and other grievances relating to pre-2006 pensioners for early resolving amidst third year of 6th CPC implementation, without waiting for continued exercise on litigation process.

The NAC's concern on pensioners issues is highly expected during this final meeting of NAC for a favourable conclusion in the interest of pre-2006 pensioners' community.

With Season's Greetings and Best Regards, Jai Shri Krishna.

sundarar
25-12-2011, 08:40 AM
As viewed by the Gujarat High Court Judgment in a pension case,

"if there is discrimination in separating a class ....... for granting some benefit or conferring an advantage, which is based on irrelevant consideration unrelated to the object sought to be achieved, it cannot stand the test of right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution",

the single homogenous class of pensioners cannot be divided/separated into various classes by virtue of date of retirement, scale based revision, band based revision, reduced length of qualifying service, last emoluments based basic pension, etc. to confer same benefit or advantage to the whole single class of pensioners. A uniform treatment is therefore, very much inevitable not only at present, but also in future.

Our fight for Justice aims at removing any such discrimination, and we always pray for treating as a single homogenous class of pensioners.

Wish one and all of our pensioners community, a Happy X-mas and Happy New Year 2012.

Best Regards Jai Shri Krishna.

vnatarajan
28-12-2011, 07:25 PM
Dear Pre 2006/ Other aggrieved pensioners affected by the MPB vs MPPB Injustice,

I had been appealing to various pre 2006 pensioners/ their associations etc to keep track of any developments in the centre of activity as to what is delaying the implementation of the PR CAT's UNMBIGUOUS, UNIQUE, UNANIMOUS. THREE JUDGE BENCH verdict upholding the main plea of the petitioners , pronounced on 1st Nov 2011.

Copy must have been received by the Respondents by middle of Nov 2011 itself.

90 days time will expire by middle of Feb 2012.

Pehaps no review is being sought at the PR Bench CAT.

Caveat will help pensioners to know if any stay or appeal writ is being filed at higher Courts.

I ALWAYS SAY HABITS DIE HARD/ DOG'S TAIL CAN NEVER BE STRAIGHTENED ETC.

ONCE BITTEN/ TWICE SHY IS NEVER UNDERSTOOD BY SOME.

Like RTI Act/ Public Grievance Portals, apex policy makers/ administrators are experts in building up teethless instruments wasting crores and crores of rupes of public money, leading to litigations/ waste of precious time of courts of justice!

LOKPAL MAY BE ANOTHER SUCH ADVENTURE!

LET US SEE WHAT THE OTHER MUCH PUBLICISED RECENT INSTRUMENT - "NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY, 2011" SAYS ABOUT APPEALS WRT TRIBUNAL JUDGMENTS ( precisely it addresses the compulsive litigants like DOPPW/ DOE etc in spite of the DoLAs discouraging opinions against continued/ compulsive litigations):

".”VI. FILING OF APPEALS
A) Appeals will not be filed against ex parte ad interim orders. Attempt must first be to have the order vacated. An appeal must be filed against an order only if the order is not vacated and the continuation of such order causes prejudice.
B) Appeals must be filed intra court in the first instance. Direct appeals to the Supreme Court must not be resorted to except in extraordinary cases.
C) Given that Tribunalisation is meant to remove the loads from Courts, challenge to orders of Tribunals should be an exception and not a matter of routine.
D) In Service Matters, no appeal will be filed in cases where:
a) the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion;
b) the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.
E) Further, proceedings will not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees. Appeals will not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another.

F) Proceedings will be filed challenging orders of Administrative Tribunals only if
a) There is a clear error of record and the finding has been entered against the Government.
b) The judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to a service rule or its interpretation by a High Court or the Supreme Court.
c) The judgment would impact the working of the administration in terms of morale of the service, the Government is compelled to file a petition; or
d) If the judgment will have recurring implications upon other cadres or if the judgment involves huge financial claims being made.”

WILL WE BE FACING SOME MORE "JOKES"?

PL DO MAKE SOME OBSERVATIONS AND ALSO IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE EXTRACTS FROM THE NLP, PARTICULARLY WRT "MAKING THE GOVT/ ITS DEPTS BECOMING COMPULSIVE LITIGANTS"

20 OAs on Mod Parity alone in 4 Judgment - 3 by AFTs and one by CAT PR BENCH in the last 12 months are not able to make the authorities understand that MODIFYING THE CAB DECISION FROM "MPB"' INTO "MPPB" IS ILLEGAL AND CAN NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER ANY "LAW" OR "ARTICLES OF CONSTITUTION" and can not stand the test of any HIGHER COURTS!

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL PENSIONERS.

Regards,
vnatarajan

vishwapurna
16-02-2012, 04:45 PM
Dear Friends,

Can anybody inform about the case AT–PB CAT Delhi OA 1165 /2011 Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP, the hearing of which is posted on 24.01.2012.

B.Ramadurai.

Gopal Krishan
16-02-2012, 07:42 PM
I understand that the department of Expenditure had advised the Department of Pensions to file an appeal against the deccision of the Principal Bench of CAT.

I have another problem in mind in respect of those having date of birht as the Ist January, 1946. All those would have retired on the 31st December, 2005 in view of the provision of Fundamental Rule, 56. It could be said that the FR is harshly operating against them. What could be the solution to this problem?

sundarar
18-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Dear Friends,

Can anybody inform about the case AT–PB CAT Delhi OA 1165 /2011 Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP, the hearing of which is posted on 24.01.2012.

B.Ramadurai.

The next hearing of the above case is fixed on 21.3.2012.

sundarar
18-02-2012, 08:20 PM
Two more cases for the same issue, viz. 20 years qualifying service for full pension for pre-2006 pensioners may also likely to be clubbed together.

vnatarajan
05-03-2012, 07:12 PM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Others Interested,

On many occassions, I wonder if it is the prerogative of few Departments of Govt of India ( say DOPPW & DOE etc) to pay SCANT RESPECT to CABINET DECISIONS, CAT / COURT JUDGMENTS, FLOUT POLICIES LIKE "NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY" ETC and still get away with it!

(Of course, it is poor knowledge of English and meaning of Ethical Goivernance could be "academic reasons" in such cases ).

The 90 days period for compliance by the twin characters - DOPPW/ DOE- for PR BENCH CAT's verdict of 1 11 2011 in favour of the pre 2006 s29 and other pensioners already highlighted earlier in this thread's postings , has ended on 17th Feb 2012.

We hear they (DOPPW/DOE) have gone for appeal instead to the Hon DHC. We are yet to confirm the same.
HOPE SUCH A FICTITIOUS APPEAL HAVING NO RHYME OR REASON GETS DUE TREATMENT AT THE THRESHOLD STAGE ITSELF - AT THE REGISTRY.

It shall not see the light of the day for setting a better precedence for good governance!
LEST ALL SHALL LOSE FAITH IN TRUTH JUSTICE HONOUR ETHICS PRINCIPLES CONSTITUTION ETC.

It shall be an insult to the NATION's judicial system if the weeds are allowed to grow in the form of such APPEALS by the guilty!

FOR EXAMPLE , A CABINET DECISION WHICH IS SACROSANCT HAS BEEN BLATANTLY FLOUTED BY PREMEDITATED CLARIFICATORY MODIFICATIONS IN THE ORDERS BY THE TWINS!

They act as HERO and VILLAIN in turns, switching over their roles and by changing their coats,

During VCPC Game, the objector on FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT was DOPPW and the saviour by canvassing for upholding the Cabinet decision was DOE.

Now, during VI CPC, the DOPPW has proposed to overcome the pronblem by submitting a proposal in Oct 2008 to rectify the mistake, but the objector is the DOE which is raising "FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT" as the reason?

WHAT A HYPOCRICY? HOW CAN THE SAME ORGAN OF FINANCE MINISTRY CHOSE TO SUPPORT OR OBJECT - TO THE CABINET DECISION, posing FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT either way? Looks unbelievable!

MAY THE ALMIGHTY BLESS THEM WITH BETTER COMPREHENSION AND MINDSET SO THAT VERY OLD AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE AND CONTINUED HARASSMENT through protracted unwarranted unjustified litigations !

VNatarajan

ybhaskar23
06-03-2012, 01:47 AM
Dear VN ,
Truth has to always survive and always win,
Justice will be done to one and all,
A few cannot fool and hold all to ransom,
The destination is known maybe the path is a little longer,
YB

Victor
17-04-2012, 11:01 PM
Shall be grateful if someone could update on the present status of the PR BENCH CAT's verdict of 1.11.2011 in favour of the pre 2006 pensioners.

Victor

vnatarajan
18-04-2012, 11:17 AM
Dear Mr VICTOR and other pre 2006 pensioners,

I shall be putting up a note soon here to express my views on the utter chaos that the system of governance is perpetrating in deling with the PR CAT JUDGMENT case by resorting to infructuous, irresponsible and absurd methods of litigations in the higher courts of justice, ultimately wasting the tax payers' money and the precious court time!

Such misadventures are being planned and excuted at the behest of lower level strategies to please the upper levels who appear to have "no know how" to settle the matter or have totally lost their sense of application of regard for truth and justice that too in their end phase of career!

4th May 2012 at DHC and 9th May 2012 at PR CAT (depending on the previous one) may be the dates to watch for.

VNatarajan

Dr.M.Jauhari
18-04-2012, 01:59 PM
Shall be grateful if someone could update on the present status of the PR BENCH CAT's verdict of 1.11.2011 in favour of the pre 2006 pensioners.

Victor
The Govt. has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court.They wanted a stay on PCAT judgement which was not granted.The case is fixed for 4/5/2012 for disposal.The pensioners had approached the PCAT with a contempt petition against the Govt.The contempt petition is postponed to 9/5/2012.

subba Rao R S
18-04-2012, 03:44 PM
Shall be grateful if someone could update on the present status of the PR BENCH CAT's verdict of 1.11.2011 in favour of the pre 2006 pensioners.

Victor

Please browse the following web sites for updates;

www.cccgpa.in
www.rrewa.org
and http://rscws.com/#

you will be able to see full text of the above case and also others if you are interested

Subba Rao R S

subba Rao R S
18-04-2012, 03:49 PM
Shall be grateful if someone could update on the present status of the PR BENCH CAT's verdict of 1.11.2011 in favour of the pre 2006 pensioners.

Victor

Please browse the following web sites;

www.cccgpa.in
www.rrewa.org
http://rscws.com/#

The above sites have full text of the case. in short the case is being heard on 4-5-2012 by High Court and by Pr CAT Delhi on 9-04-2012 for contempt.

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
18-04-2012, 04:20 PM
Shall be posting a note soon- VN

vnatarajan
20-04-2012, 02:39 PM
Dear Interetsed/ Pre 2006 pensioners,
This is the reproduction of a detailed explanation given by one of our old pensioners.
No criticism of any judicial review or utterances of individuals are intended.
Regards,
VN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISBELIEF AND CONCERN DRIVES ME TO REPRODUCE THESE UTTERANCES OF AN ENLIGHTENED AGED PENSIONER IN THE FIRMEST HOPE THAT “TRUTH AND JUSTICE” SHALL PREVAIL “SOONER THAN LATER”. “JUSTICE DELAYED HAS BECOME ALREADY JUSTICE DENIED TO MANY WHO HAVE BREATHED THEIR LAST IN THESE 3 ˝ YEARS” OF OUR EFFORTS TO GET RIGHT PENSION. I LEARN THE DECEASED'S’ FIGURE IS MORE THAN 2% OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN THE AGGRIEVED SEGMENT. HAVING ANGLED IN THESE TURBULENT THREE AND HALF YEARS ALREADY IN AN UNNECESSARILY “ IMPOSED” EXERCISE TO ESTABLISH RIGHTEOUSNESS, HOW MANY MORE YEARS ARE WE TO SUFFER FOR NO FAULT OF OURS?

Many pre 2006 pensioners must be wondering what is happening after the ‘THREE MEMBER BENCH’S UNANIMOUS VERDICT OF PR CAT DELHI PRONOUNCED ON 1 11 2011 IN THE OA 655/2010 & OTHERS BUNCHED UP WITH THEM.

SANER ELEMENTS IN ANY SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE WOULD HAVE RESPECTED THE PRINCIPLES OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE THAT WERE OUTLINED IN A MERE PARAGRAPHED VERDICT OF FEW LINES! But alas! What is happening is otherwise!

Misinterpretations and misrepresentations have become the “POLICY” of many units of Governance in the country, with the result, that “innocent and unwary” old/ helpless citizens – in this case the old pensioners in their evening of life (75% above 70 yrs) , are made to run from “pillar to post” for justice.

A STRAIGHT FORWARD, “HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD”, SHARP AND PRECISE PRONOUNCEMENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS BEING THROWN TO WINDS AND INSTEAD IN A “GROSS VIOLATION OF A NATIONAL………….. POLICY”, THE PERPETRATORS OF INJUSTICE ARE “EXTENDING THEIR MISADVENTURE” BY GOING FOR A WRIT IN THE NEXT COURTYARD OF “JUSTICE”

What is appalling and bewildering is- though apparently one of the policy makers appear to support for justice to the aggrieved pensioners by reminding on providing the financial component, that too for the second time –earlier in late 2008 and later in 2010 ( incidentally it must be remembered that it is already saved for the exchequer by earlier erroneous orders/ not disbursing the correct revised pensions) is very minimal (not more than 195 cr per annum, amounting to less than 975cr up to end of 2011) , the other “paisa-wala policy maker” who must have “engineered the lower pension fiasco” in real sense at that point of time had sought to oppose any outcome that aims at upholding natural justice the principles of “minimal equality” or “basic principles of natural justice” !.

Even more shocking is that “legal minded policy makers” who have been the great advocates to advise the Govt entities NOT TO BE COMPULSIVE LITIGANTS AT LEAST IN THE SERVICE MATTERS ETC- and are the guardians of the said “NATIONAL ------------ POLICY” , themselves (particularly depending on the talents from their “lowest levels”) , appear to NUDGE/ NAG/ AND PROMOTE unwarranted and extended litigation process by the concerned units to prevent them from ACCEPTING A MATURE , SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD VERDICT of the FULL BENCH PR CAT DELHI!

FAIR MINDED PERSONS WILL EASILY COMPREHEND THE PR CAT VERDICT IN ITS OP PARA 30 EASILY. But the pensioners concerned are in for facing another round of abnormal absurdity and sheer stupidity.

SIMPLY BECAUSE THE GOVT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED IN THEIR STAND IN SOME “SPECIFIC JUDGMENTS” ON CUT-OFF DATES/ CLASSIFICATION OF PENSIONERS/INTRODUCTION OF PSEUDO- PENSION SCHEMES (THRU SO CALLED OMs)/ FITMENT FORMULAE/ FULL PARITY/NEW SCALE ETC IT IS BEING ARGUED THAT THE PR CAT JUDGMENT IS “ERRONEOUS’”.

THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED HAVE FAILED TO “REALISE” THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE TOTALLY UNRELATED “ TO THE “SCPC’S CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY” AS ENSHRINED IN THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF 29TH AUG 2008. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PR CAT JUDGMENT IS BEING SUBJECTED TO A HAWKISH TREATMENT BY ARGUING THAT WHEN GOVT HAS POWERS TO DEAL WITH ALL SUCH ATTRIBUTES, WHY ITS POWER TO FIX A “REVISED PENSION AS THEY FEEL” IS BEING QUESTIONED!

ALL SHALL REMEMBER SOME ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF JUDGMENTS OF HIGHER COURTS IN OLD/ PAST PENSION CASES:

1.THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS OF HON SC HAS DEALT WITH PARITY/ FULL PARITY/ MODIFIED PARITY BUT HAVE DEALT WITH THE “EQUALITY” ENSHRINED IN THE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

2.ADVERSE JUDGMENTS AGAINST OLD PENSIONERS’ PLEAS ARE DUE TO SPECIFIC REASONS LIKE: A. THE OLD PENSIONERS DID NOT BELONG TO THE “SAME SCHEME” OF PENSION (eg. Retirees of CPF Scheme can not demand pension as those of GPF Scheme which might have been introduced subsequently) B.THEY ALSO DID NOT BELONG TO THE SAME HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS (eg. Currently, Retirees of “New Pension Scheme” (post 2004 employees ) can not demand same treatment as the pre 2004 recruits/ employees) C. THE OLD PENSIONERS SOUGHT GRATUITY/ LEAVE ENCASHMENT ETC AT REVISED RATES WITH ARREARS ETC . D. RELATED TO SPL OR OTHER PAYMENTS NOT SPECIALLY SANCTIONED SO BY PRESIDENT FOR COMBINING WITH BASIC PAY . E. RUNNING TIME ALLOWANCE IN RAILWAYS F. OR FOR SOME “INELIGIBLE” “OU OF THE WAY” “EXTRAORDINARY” DEMANDS .

3.HOWEVER ALL SUCH JUDGMENTS WHICH HAVE GONE AGAINST PENSIONERS DO ADMIT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT (Source Shri MLK ji- also text below):

a. When a pension scheme is revised, the benefits of revision, should be made equally applicable to all pensioners covered by the pre revised pension scheme, irrespective of date of retirement.( It would however, not apply if some new pension scheme, which is not a revision of earlier pension scheme, is being enforced for the first time.( For example New Pension Scheme introduced by the Govt. w.e.f. 01.04.2004.)

b. For this purpose, pensioners should be of same class and homogeneous group i. e. they should have retired from the same pre revised pay scale, same basic pay in same pre revised pay scale, with same number of years of qualifying service put in and were of same level and status, irrespective of date of retirement.

c. Govt. cannot take the plea of resource crunch because it knew in advance that funds would be required to implement revised pension scheme and benefits are to be given to working employees and the pensioners also, who retired prior to submission and acceptance of the recommendations of the Pay commission.

d. If above conditions are fulfilled but revised pension is fixed giving differential treatment, it would be "discriminatory" and liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14 on Equality and law set by Judgment of Constitutional Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara case and "principles" laid down in para 20 of the Judgment of the hon.ble Supreme Court in BJ Akkra case. The latest judgment of the hon.ble Supreme Court in case of KJS Butter declared on 31.03.2011 also has held the same view.

e. We have submitted our prayer to hon.ble CAT - PB / Delhi to strike down OMs dated 01.09.2008, 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 because these are "discriminatory

SEEING FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS (THANKS TO SHRI MLK JI) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PR CAT JUDGMENT IS VERY MUCH VALID IN LAW AND CONSTITUTION.

A CARDINAL POINT TO REMEMBER IN THE PR CAT’S JUDGMENT IS:

“the Pay Commissions are concerned with the revision of the pre-revised pay scales and also that in terms of Rule 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the pension of retirees has to be fixed on the basis of the average emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement. Thus, the pre-revised scale from which a person has retired and the emoluments which he was drawing at the time immediately preceding his retirement are a relevant consideration for the purpose of computing revised pension and cannot be ignored. As such, it was not permissible for the respondents to ignore the pre-revised scale of pay for the purpose of computing revised pension as per the modified parity in the garb of issuing the clarifications, thereby altering the modified parity/formula, which was accepted by the Central Government vide its resolution dated 29.08.2008”.

INSTEAD OF ENSURING THAT EQUALS BE TREATED ON PAR WITH EQUALS IN THE LEAST AT MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION LEVELS, ALL OUT UNJUST AND UNFAIR EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE EVEN IN THE PORTALS OF JUSTICE BY TRYING TO MAKE EQUALS AS UNEQUALS AND UNEQUALS AS EQUALS! HOWEVER WE SHALL WAIT/WATCH FOR DEVELOPMENTS ON 4TH MAY 2012 AT HON DHC FOR SOME SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS.

AS CONVEYED BY A A FIRM BELIEVER IN TRUTH AND JUSTICE THRU VN.

(WILL BE CONTD SOON…….)

vnatarajan
28-04-2012, 10:12 AM
[B]DEAR AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ OTHERS INTERESTED,

MANY INNOCENT/ AGGRIEVED/ VERY AGED/ HELPLESS PRE 2006 PENSIONERS , MOSTLY IN THE EVENING OF THEIR LIFE, ARE WAITING FOR "TRUTH AND JUSTICE" TO SEE THE LIGHT OF THE DAY SOON, IN THEIR FIGHT FOR RIGHTFUL AND CORRECT SCPC REVISED PENSIONS.

MANY HAVE SOUGHT "CLARIFICATIONS" AND "OPINIONS" ON THE PR CAT VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 AND THE CABINET DECISION (GAZ RESOLUTION DT 29 08 2008) ON WHICH THE SAME WAS FOCUSSED.

AS THE REP OF A VAST SEGMENT OF SUCH A LOT OF PENSIONERS, I HAVE TRIED TO GATHER INFORMATION AND TRIED TO SUMMARISE THE SAME - AND HENCE THE VIEWS/ INFORMATION ARE NOT MINE- BUT GATHERED FROM SEVERAL RETIRED EXPERTS-RETD MEMBERS OF TRIBUNALS/ LAWYERS/ SENIOR CITIZENS AND THE LIKE! NO PREJUDICE OR BIAS MEANT! NO OFFENCE TO ANY OFFICIALS/ FUNCTIONARIES/ BODIES/ INSTITUTIONS ETC!

VNATARAJAN

(PL IGNORE SP/GRAM MISTAKES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POINTS TO PONDER FROM THE CAT’S VERDICT 0F 1111 -RELATED CABINET DECISION GAZET NOTIFIED OF 290808-RELATED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ALREADY SUBMITTED:

1.CABINET DECISION ACCEPTING THE CORE RECO OF PARA 5.1.47 OF SCPC REPORT ESSENTIAL PART OF WHICH STATES THAT ” THE FIXATION OF PENSION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION THAT THE REVISED PENSION,IN NO CASE, SHALL BE LOWER THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF THE 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 RETIRED” , GAZETTE NOTIFIED AS A RESOLTION BY THE GOVT ON 29 08 2008, HAS BEEN DISTORTED BEYOND “ANY DOUBT” AND HENCE THE INJUSTICE TO THE PRE 2006 (S29) PENSIONERS IN THE FORM OF REDUCED PENSIONS (RS160 TO RS3650 PM WEF 1 1 2006).

2.CABINET DECISION CONCERNS THE FULL ACCEPTANCE OF PARA 5.1.47 OF THE REPORT OF SIXTH CPC. PL NOTE THAT THE PR CAT JUDGMENT OF 1 11 2011 HAD EMPHATICALLY STATED (Ref: para 29) :
a. THAT THE PAY COMMISSIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE REVISION OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES AND ALSO IN TERMS OF RULE 34 OF THE CCS(PENSION) RULES 1972, THE PENSION OF RETIREES HAS TO BE FIXED ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE EMOLUMENTS DRAWN BY THEM AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT.
b.THUS THE PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH A PERSON HAS RETIRED AND THE EMOLUMENTS WHICH HE WAS DRAWING AT THE TIME IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE RETIREMENT ARE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING REVISED PENSION AND CAN NOT BE IGNORED .
c.. AS SUCH, IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE GOVT. TO IGNORE THE ORE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING REVISED PENSION AS PER THE MODIFIED PARITY IN THEGARB OF ISSUING THE CLARIFICATIONS , THERE BY ALTERING THE MODIFIED PARITY / FORMULA, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT VIDE ITS RESOLUTION DATED 29 08 2008.

3. CABINET DECISION HAD BEEN MISINTERPRETED AND ALTERED BY THE DOPPW IN THE GARB OF CLARIFICATIONS TO EFFECTIVELY CONVEY THAT “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” IS SAME AS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”/ OR “MINIMUM PAY OF THE PAY BAND” ETC AND THESE INTERPRETAION ARE VERY MUCH ERRONEOUS ( in- reg . para 4.2 of OM 1 SEPT/ 3 OCT/14 OCT 2008/ 11 FEB 2009)

4.CABINET DECISION CAN NOT BE MODIFIED (UNDER THE GARB OF CLARIFICATION) BY A LOWER FUNCTIONARY UNAUTHORISEDLY AS IT HAPPENED HERE (OMs 3 OCT/14 OCT 2008)

5.CABINET DECISION’S GARBED ALTERATIONS/ MODIFICATIONS/MORPHOSIS HAVE GONE AHEAD WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AT HIGHER LEVELS. EVENTHOUGH A MOS’S ENDORSEMENT WAS OBTAINED, SUCH “IRREGULAR AND DELIBERATE” CHANGES WERE NEVER SENT TO CABINET AGAIN FOR PROPER AUTHENTIFICATION. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS TO HIDE THEIR “DELIBERATE INTENT” TO REDUCE THE REVSIED PENSION OF SUCH PRE 2006 PENSIONERS.

6.CABINET DECISIONS INCLUDE ALL FULL FINANCIAL PROVISIONS AND HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RAISING OBJECTIONS BASED ON “FINANCIAL CO NSTRAINT/ LIMITATION” ETC. ( ALL SHALL REMEMBER THAT IN THE CASE OF 5CPC MOD PARITY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE, THE VERY SAME DOE HAD CONFIRMED IT TO BE SO TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION WHEN THE DOPPW,PLAYING A REVERSE ROLE, OPPOSE THE PROVISION OF MOD PARITY AT THE MIN OF THE REVISED PAY AS IT WOULD ENTAIL MORE FINANCES!)

7.CABINET DECISION IS THE INSTANT “POLICY” THAT NEEDED TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND IT IS ABSURD TO “CONCOCT AND CONVEY” THAT CAT’S VERDICT WOULD DISTURB THE “VERY POLICY” IF THE “DISTORTIONS BROUGHT IN THROUGH SUBSEQUENT OMs ON SUCH A DECISION” ARE NOT APPRECIATED!.

8. TO ARGUE THAT AS THE OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 IS NOT QUASHED THERE IS NO “ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY” , AND HENCE , OTHER CLARIFICATORY OMs OF 3RD AND 14TH OCT 2008 CAN NOT BE OBJECTED TO, ONLY DEMONSTRATES THE “SHALLOWNESS OF UNDERSTANDING” OF THE WHOLE ISSUE AND THE PR BENCH’S MATURE AND THOUGHTFUL VERDICT;
a. CONCERNED AUTHORITIES MUST REALISE THAT THE PR CAT VERDICT IS “FOCUSSED” ON THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE SCPC’S CORE RECO OF ITS REPORT’S PARA 5.1.47 AS ENSHRINED IN THE GAZ RESOLUTION DT 29 08 2008, LATER REFLECTED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE OM OF IS SEPT 2008. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO NEED/ NOR IS IT PROPER TO “QUASH” THE ENTIRE OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008, AS THERE WERE OTHER VALID EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS . for eg: even for revision pre 2006 pensions:
b. THE SAID OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 IN ITS PARA 4.1 PROVIDED THE FORMULA FOR REVISED PENSION WITH 2.26 MF WHICH WAS ACCEPTABLE FOR MANY SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS AND HENCE THERE WAS NO NEED TO “QUASH” THE ENTIRE OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008.
c. MOST IMPORTANT IS THE PROVISION FOR REVISION OF PENSION OF HAG + AND ABOVE SCALES ON THE BASIS OF “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES” AS A SPECIAL SENTENCE AT THE END OF THE PARA 4.2 AND HOW CAN THE ENTIRE OM OF 1ST SEPT 2008 BE QUASHED WHICH WOULD THEN RENDER SUCH HAG+ RETIREES TO BE COVERED ONLY THROUGH PARA 4.1 WITH MF 2.26 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE MINIMUM OF THEIR PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE OR FIXED PAY! DON’T WE REALISE THE “NEED FOR NOT QUASHING THE ENTIRE OM” NOW? (I RESPECT THIS GESTURE VERY MUCH IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRE 2006 HAG+ RETIREES ).
d.AS THE “DISTRUCTIVE CLARIFICATIONS” IN THE OMs OF 3RD AND 14TH OCT 2008 WERE ESSENTIALLY DRAFTED TO “MODIFY” THE EXPRESSION--- FROM “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” WITH THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO PRE –REVISED PAY SCALES --- TO “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” WHICH SHALL BE IRREPSECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVSIED PAY SCALES (FROM WHICH THE PENSIONERS RETIRED/ THEY LAST HELD), ONLY THOSE OMs WERE “RIGHTLY” ORDERED TO BE “QUASHED” BY THE PR CAT VERDICT IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT!

9.TO ASSERT TIME AND AGAIN THAT THE “INTENT” OF THE SCPC WAS TO RESTRICT THE PRE 2006 PENSIONS AT “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” IS NOTHING BUT A DESPERATE “DO OR DIE” WAY OF DEFENDING THE “UNAUTHORISED/UNACCEPTABLE/ UNDEFENDABLE” DISTORTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE CABINET DECISION BY LOWER FUNCTIONARY LEVELS. TO ARGUE THAT THE EXPRESSION MPPB WAS USED ONLY TO MEAN THE STARTING STAGE/INITIAL PAY OF THE PAY BAND IS RIDICULOUS! ALSO TO SAY THAT THE FITMENT TABLE IS ONLY TO BE USED INTIALLY FOR EMPLOYEES AND THEREAFTER EVEN IT LOSES RELEVANCE CAN NOT BE AN EXCUSE TO DENY ITS APPLICATION FOR DERINING MPPB!

10. TO OFFER EXCUSES LIKE FIN CONSTRAINTS/ FISCAL- MACRO-ECONOMIC ISSUES WILL BE VITIATED IF THE PR CAT’S VERDICT IS IMPLEMENTED IS ABNORMALLY ABSURD. HOW CAN THE DISBURSAL OF THE “UNPAID OR WRONGLY DENIED” 975 CR OF THE PAST PENSIONERS TO BE PAID IN ARREARS WOULD SUBJECT THE NATION TO ECONOMIC MISERY? MOREOVER, A CABINET DECISION ALWAYS TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE ASPECTS BEFORE ACCORDING ITS ACCEPTANCE/SANCTION. SCPC ITSELF HAD COVERED THESE FINANCIAL ASPECTS VERY MUCH. IN PARLIAMENT, GOVT. INCLUDING THE RAILWAYS , HAD ASSURED THE PROVISIONS.

(contd in next post)

vnatarajan
28-04-2012, 10:13 AM
(Contd from previous post)

11. IT IS TO BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE PR CAT’S 1 11 2011 JUDGMENT HAD “FOCUSSED” ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF “ SCPC MODIFIED PARITY” WRT THE UNAUTHORISED MODIFICATIONS OF THE CABINET DECISION ON DENYING EVEN THE “MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION “‘ FOR THE EQUALS AND THEREFORE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO BRING IN ISSUES RELATED TO GOVT’S POWERS TO DECIDE ON CUT OFF DATE/ TWO SCHEMES OF PENSION/ DISSIMILAR SITUATIONS OF PRE & POST 2006 PENSIONERS & HENCE NO EQUALITY/ INELEIGIBLE FOR POINT TO POINT FITMENT AS EMPLOYEES/ CLAIM FOR APPLICATION OF RP RULES. THEREFORE ISSUES LIKE FULL PARITY, NEW SCALE, FITMENT POINT TO POINT OR AT THE TOP OF SCALES, SAME BENEFIT AS EMPLOYEES ETC HAVE NO RELATION/APPLICATION HERE.

12.. AGGRIEVED PAST PENSIONERS HAVE NOT CHALLENGED ANY “CUT-OFF” DATE/ NOR THE OM OF 2 SEPT 2008. ONLY THE LACUNAE IN PARA 4.2 OF OM OF 1ST SET 2008 THAT FOLLOWED THE CABINET DECISION GAZETTED IN RESOLUTION OF 28 9 2008 (SL NO 12) AND THE SUBSEUQENT MODIFICATIONS IN THE GARB OF CLARIFICATIONS IN OMS 3RD AND 14TH OCT 2008 WERE THE SUBJECTS OF CONTROVERSY. NOR THEY HAVE QUESTIONED THE OM OF 2ND SEPT 2008. IT IS ABUSRD TO ARGUE THAT AS THE OM OF 2 SEPT IS NOT CHALLENGED, HOW THE VERDICT CAN ENFORCE MINIMUM OF THE” PAY IN THE PAY BAND” AS PER FITMENT TABLE!

13. AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006/ PAST PENSIOERS NEVER SOUGHT FULL PARITY WITH POST 2006 EQUALS. THEY NEVER ASPIRED FOR “NEW SCALES” AS IT HAPPENED DUE TO “HIGH LEVEL HEAVEN’S SHOWER” OR “SECURED LOBBYING” IN CASE OF HAG LEVELS/ ABOVE!

14. THE SAID PRE 2006/ PAST PENSIONERS NEVER ASPIRED FOR A POINT TO POINT “FIXATION” OR “FITMENT” WITH THE POST 2006 RETIREES. PR CAT VERDICT ITSELF HAS CONSIDERED EXORESSED THAT THE FIXATION IN TERMS OF CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY WRT RULE 34 OF CCS PENSION RULES 1972 FOR THE PRE 2006 RETIREES.

15.THE SAID PRE 2006/PAST PENSIONERS NEVER WANTED TO DEBATE THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE SO-CALLED “PENSION SCHEMES” ( say OMs of 1st and 2nd SEPT 2006) POSTHUMOUSLY BRANDED SO BY THE RESPONDENTS….. IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE, EVERY EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTION APPEARS TO USHER IN A “NEW SCHEME” AS PER THE CONVENIENCE OF FILE PUSHERS WHEN THE MATTER GOES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW TO CORRECT THE INJUSTICE.

16.CABINET DECISIONS ARE MADE DULY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EVEN SUCH POSSIBLE “INVISIBLE INTENTS”!--- PROOF IS THAT THE CABINET MINISTERS OF THE LEVEL OF MINISTERS OF STATE HOLDING INDEPENDENT PORTFOLIOS (LRs OF MOS ON 19 01 2009 TO MOS EBI AND MUCH EARLIER MOS EBI HIMSELF ON 10 11 2008 ITSELF TO HON PM) AND WHO WERE MORE OR LESS CONCERNED WITH THE VERY PENSIONERS’ ISSUE, DID POINT OUT THE SERIOUS UNJUST ANOMALIES THAT RESULTED OUT OF THE DENIAL OF SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION BUT THEIR VIEWS WERE EFFECTIVELY NEGATED DOWN BY THE EFFORTS OF LOWER FUNCTIONARAIES! CAG HAD POINTED OUT THE DEFICIENCY OF SUCH AN INTENT IN HIS RTI RELATED LETTER TO HON PMO IN JAN 2010 STATING THAT DEPRIVING THE REVISION OF PENSION ON MPPB BASIS BY THRESHHOLDING IT ON MPB BASIS FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WILL RESULT IN LOWER PENSIONS TO MANY OF THEM !

17. CABINET DECISION NOR SCPC REPORT ITSELF NEVER USED THE EXPRESSION “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” FOR REVISION OF PENSIONS! THAT TOO “IRRESPECTIVE OF” PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES FROM WHICH THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS RETIRED IT WAS A DESTRUCTIVE CREATION OF THE DOPPW BASED ON DOUBTS RAISED BY FEW INNOCENT AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS ! BOTH DOPPW/ CPAO HAVE SUBMITTED IN RTI REPLIES THAT THEY HAVE NO MATERIAL INFORMATION TO CHANGE THE “CABINET DECISION’S & SCPC’S ” EXPRESSION OF “MINIMUM OF THE PAY PAY IN THE PAY BAND” TO “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” IN MAY 2009/ NOV 2009. ON FURTHER CHALLENGING ON A “CYBER CORRECTION OF QUESTIONABLE NATURE”, THE CPAO ISSUED THE FAMOUS “CORRIGENDUM” DT 20/24 NOV 2009 FOR CHANGING BACK THE EXPRESSION “MPB” INTO “MPPB” AGIN IN THEIR LETTER DT 26 09 2008 TO BANKS/PDAs.

18. CABINET DECISION RELATED “CORRIGENDUM” ISSUED BY CPAO, WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN SOME STATE GOVT’S “CORRECTING” THE PRE 2006 REVISE PENSIONS FROM “MPB” TO CORRECT “MPPB” BASIS, BASED ON FITMENT TABLES. THE ORDERS OF UP GOVT/ PUNJAB GOVT/HIMACHAL PRADESH (FOLLOWS PUNJAB)/WEST BENGAL GOVT ETC ARE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES.

19. THOUGH ADMITTING THE DISPARITIES ARISING DUE TO COMPARISION OF MINIMUM PENSIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF REVISION ARE DUE TO DIFFERENT SCHEMES AND ALSO DUE TO THE REASON THAT UNLIKE IN 5CPC, IN THE SCPC THE PAY BAND SYSTEM IS ADOPTED BY MERGING A NUMBER OF PREREVISED PAY SCALES INTO EACH PAY BAND, WHAT IS APPALLING IS THE CONCERNED’S ADAMANT STAND ON MPB TO BE SAME AS MPPB FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS! WHY THEY FAIL TO REALISE THAT THE VERY DIFFERENCES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE FOR PRE2006 PENSIONERS IF THE CORRECT MPPB HAD BEEN ALLOWED FOR PRE 2006 PENSION REVISIONS AS PER FITMENT TABLE? . FOR SAME DISPARITIES OF HIGH AMOUNTS, PRE 2006 S31 AND 32 PENSIONERS WERE GIVEN SEPARATE HAG + SCALES AND LATER PRE 2006 S30 PENSIONERS ALSO GOT THE BENEFIT OF A NEW REVISED SCALE, WITH MUCH MORE “POSITIVE BENEFITS” THAN EVEN 2.26 MF . THEIR PENSION REVISION WAS ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE”!

20. CAT VERDICT IS SIMPLE, STRAIGHT FORWARD, NO LGAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLEXITY, AND IS ONLY FOCUSSED ON CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE CABINET DECISION AS GAZETTE NOTIFIED ON 29 08 2008. BUT THE APPELLANTS APPEAR TO RELY FINALLY ON SEVERAL “OFF THE CUFF” ARGUMENTS/ EXCUSES -CITING REASONS LIKE --CATENA OF JUDGMENTS ON CUT OFF DATE, GOVT’S RIGHT TO REVISE PENSION/PAY, PREROGATIVE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES, DECISIONS BASED ON FIN & ADMIN & OTHER CONSTRAINTS – COURTS INTERFERE ONLY IF DECISIONS ARBITRARY/MALAFIDE- GRANTING PAY/ PENSION IS MATTER OF POLICY BASED ON ECONOMIC FIN OTHER CONSTRAINTS AND NO JUDICIAL REVIEW CAN BE CALLED FOR UNLESS IT IS ARBITRARY/ AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY/POLICY ISSUE IS NOT JUSTICIABLE UNLESS IT OFFENDS RULE OF LAW UNDER ART 14 ETC. COURTS SHD NOT ENTER UNCHARTERED AREA OF PUBLIC POLICY/CAT JUDGEMNT IS SELF CONTRADICTORY, CONTRARY TO MATERIAL ON RECORD, NOT TENABLE NOR IT IS ACCORDING TO LAW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(PL NOTE THAT THE AFT JUDGMENTS (Sept-Nov 2010) HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT IN HERE WHICH HAVE INDEPENDENTLY AND STRONGLY DEFINED THE "CORRECT SCPC MODIFIED PARITY" IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT FITMENT TABLES/ AND THE 5CPC RELATED DOPPW'S OM DT 17 12 1998 UPHOLDING THE PETITION OF PRE 2006 RETD LT CDRS/ MAJORS/ SQDRN LEADERS FOR THEIR MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSIONs)

ALL ARE SURE THAT “TRUTH AND JUSTICE” WILL SURFACE AGAIN AND AGAIN – WHATEVER MAY BE THE OBSTACLES WHICH ARE THE OUTCOME OF A BIASSED AND CORRUPTED INTERPRETATION/ MODIFICATION OF A CABINET DECISION! IF ARTICLES 77/ 73 ALLOW EXECUTIVE TO OVERIRDE TRUTH,LAW & JUSTICE, THEN ARTICLE 14 MUST REPAR THE DAMAGES AND STEM THE ROT THAT HAS SET IN IN THE GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENATIONS IN THE COUNTRY.
[/B]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sundarar
28-04-2012, 09:05 PM
Respected Shri VNji has very elaborately provided the 20 point valuable summarisation on the post-CAT judgment of 1.11.2011. A very detailed quality analysis that is a timely input for better understanding of the state of affairs of date.

There can not be two different methodologies in deriving the pension in the revised structure. While serving employees retiring after 1.1.2006 get their pension fixed in the revised structure on the basis of `PAY IN THE PAY BAND' as well as `GRADE PAY', the pre-2006 retirees also ought to get their pension fixed in the revised structure in the same analogy without any involvement of `PAY BAND'. PAY IN THE PAY BAND ALONE MATTERS APART FROM GRADE PAY (BOTH OF WHICH
VERY NECESSARILY BE CORRESPONDING TO PRE-REVISED PAY, AND FOR THE SAKE OF MINIMUM REVISED PENSION, THE MINIMUM OF SUCH A PRE-REVISED SCALE. JUST LIKE GRADE PAY VARIES DEPENDING ON THE PRE-REVISED SCALE IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS PLACEMENT UNDER A PARTICULAR "PAY BAND", THE MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND ALSO WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE BOTTOM PAY OF PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD ACTUALLY RETIRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PAY BAND UNDER WHICH SUCH A SCALE GOT GROUPED

The principle of Modified Parity that is required to be maintained as recommended vide Para 5.1.47 and also approved by the Govt. can hold good only in the case of 50% of minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band but not on 50% of minimum of the pay band. As long as pre-revised scale has a basis for the purpose of deriving minimum pension in the revised structure corresponding to bottom of such a pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired prior to 1.1.2006 in accordance with the aforesaid Modified Parity Principle ought to have been maintained, the said pre-revised scale can not have only part-basis for the purpose of determining 50% of GP alone. Overriding such a principle leading to reducing impact on
minimum revised pension is not the actual intention of the 6th CPC recommendation. If principle of modified parity is not required to be maintained at all, it would have never found its place in the aforesaid para 5.1.47.

The Sr. Veterans and the Applicants in the OA have all along been reiterating the correct revision to be implemented as per actual recommendation of the 6th CPC and the DOP&PW also in none of their OMs that have been issued so far
talked of 50% of Pay Band, but only in terms of pay in the pay band. Thus, 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band
corresponding to bottom pay of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, irrespective of Pay Band under which such a pre-revised scale got grouped, apart from 50% of Grade Pay as applicable shall be the minimum revised pension as per para 4.2 of Mother OM dated 1.9.2008.

Respected Shri VNji's summarisation may please be taken note by all concerned. Thanks and Best Regards

vnatarajan
03-05-2012, 09:41 AM
DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' AGGRIEVED LOT & OTHERS INTERESTED,

ALL OF US ARE SILENTLY WATCHING THAT VERDICTS ARE POURING IN ONE AFTER THE OTHER, REITERATING/ ENDORSING THE PR BENCH CAT DELHI'S VEDICT OF 1 11 2011 IN THE CASE OA655/2010 OF CGSAGPA VS UOI & OTHER BUNCHED UP CASES.

ONE CAT WHILE AFFIRMING THE PR BENCH CAT VERDICT, HAD ALSO CHOSEN TO POINT OUT THE GOVT'S PREROGATIVE ON SOME ISSUES WHICH CAN NOT BE INTERFERED BY THE CATS AND TRIBUNALS ETC .BUT WHAT HAS GROSSLY "ESCAPED ATTENTION OF MANY " IS THE FACT THAT THE PR BENCH VERDICT HAS DEALT FOCUSSEDLY ON THE "CABINET DECISION" WHICH WAS GAZETTE NOTIFIED ON 29 08 2008 BUT INSTEAD THE GOVT IMPLEMENTING IT SUBSEQUENTLY IN A CORRECT MANNER, HAD ALLOWED ITS UNAUTHOISED LOWER FUNCTIONARY LEVEL "MODIFICATIONS" UNDER THE GARB OF "CLARIFICATIONS" WHICH RESULTED IN REDUCED PENSIONS TO THE AGGRIEVED LOT OF PRE 2006 S29/ OTHER PENSIONERS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER "POST MORTEM EXCUSES/ EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE BEING ADVANCED IN THE LITIGATION MODE NOW AS THE SOLE PREROGATIVE OF THE GOVT TO INDULGE IN THE SAME OR IN EMPOWERMENT OF ARTICLES 77/73 OF CONSTITUTION".

EVEN IN SUCH AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE, THE POSITIVE SIDE OF THE VERDICT IS, THAT IN A NUTSHELL IT HAS REITERATED THE PR BENCH VERDICT "IN CONFIRMATION" AND PERHAPS "EFFECTIVELY" CONVEYED INDIRECTLY - THAT THE SAID VERDICT HAS TO REIGN SUPREME AS IT HAS ADDRESSED AN ISSUE WHICH IS "BEYOND SUCH PREROGATIVES" OF THE GOVT.

LIST OF SCPC MODIFIED PARITY VERDICTS IN FAVOUR OF FEW THOUSANDS OF PRE 2006 CIVIL PENSIONERS SINCE NOV 2011 INCLUDE; PR CAT DELHI; CAT ERNAKULAM; CAT HYDERABAD; CAT CHANDIGARH; CAT ERNAKULAM AGAIN IN ANOTHER CASE; ETC BESIDES THE THREE VERDICTS OF AFT PR BENCH DELHI / CHNADIGARH SINCE SEPT 2010.

IN SPITE OF SUCH REPEATED HAMMERINGS, THE GOVT/ CONCERNED DEPARTMENTS ARE CHOOSING TO INDULGE IN WASTING TAX PAYER'S MONEY IN COMPULSIVE LITIGATIONS AGAINST A "MUCH PUBLICISED" NATIONAL POLICY ON LITIGATIONS, AND IN THE PROCESS WASTING THE PRECIOUS TIME OF HON COURTS AND TRIBUNALS.

SUCH DEPLORABLE BIASSED UNJUST ATTITUDE AGAINST TRUTH AND JUSTICE IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION OF OLD/ AGED/ HELPLESS PENSIONERS - MANY OF THEM HAVE BREATHED THEIR LAST IN THE INTERIM PERIOD OF 3 AND 1/2 YEARS AND MANY MORE MAY NOT LIVE TO SEE THE FRUCTION OF THEIR SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE.

ONCE AGAIN I PLACE HERE WHAT ARE VITAL TO SETTLE THE ISSUE AT THE EARLIEST:

1.CONCERNED'S RESPECT FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SHALL BE THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR THE OUTCOME!

2. TRUTH: A CABINET DECISION NOTIFIED ON 29 08 2008 HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY, UNAUTHORIZEDLY BY "LOWER GOVT FUNCTIONARIES" IN THE GARB OF CLARIFICATIONS TO DENY THE "CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" OR "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" FOR PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONERS. THE ISSUE HAS NO RELATION TO ANY OTHER FACTORS LIKE SCHEMES/ CUT OFF DATES/ STAGEWISE FITMENTS/ STAGEWISE EQUAL FIXATIONS/ RULES BEING MADE APPLICABLE/GOVT'S PREROGATIVES UNDER ART 77/ 73 ETC.

3. JUSTICE: THE CABINET DECISION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY AS EMPHASIZED UNANIMOUSLY BY THREE JUDGE BY THE PR BENCH CAT DELHI ON 1 11 2011, SO THAT THE PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONER IS ENTITLED FOR HIS "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION": OF 27350 PM WEF 1 1 2006 INSTEAD OF 23700 NOW ALLOWED , TO ENSURE ARTICLE 14 IS NOT DEGRADED IN THE “LEAST”!

Let us hope for the best!

VNATARAJAN

vnatarajan
05-05-2012, 07:03 AM
In search of truth and justice:

DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' AGGRIEVED LOT & OTHERS INTERESTED,

ALL INTERESTED MUST BE EAGER TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON 4 5 2012 AT THE HON DHC WRT THE CASE IN QUESTION UOI VS CGSAGPA- WP C 1535/2012.

AS USUAL AFTER FAILING TO ENSURE OR OBTAIN PERMISSION FOR "ABSENCE" OF THE CONCERNED , THE GOVT SIDE HAD TO PROCEED WITH PRESENTING THEIR CASE/ THEIR ARGUMENTS.

ASSERTIONs ON ALL COUNTS MADE BEFORE PR BENCH CAT DELHI/ OTHER CATS AT ERNAKULAM/ HYDERABAD/ CHANDIGARH ETC HAVE BEEN RITUALLY FOLLOWED.

THEY ARE IN RELATION TO TH EXECUTIVE ACTIONS/ INSTRUCTIONS/ CLARI-MODIFICATIONS AND IN THEIR DEFENCE.

CABINET DECISION GAZETTED ON 29 08 2008 NOR ITS (unauthorise/ bad in law) TRANSFORMATIONS THRU THE ABOVE HAVE BEEN RELEGATED OR TOTALLY AVOIDED PERHAPS.

HOWEVER AS THE TIME WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PENSIONER'S COUNSEL TO REPLY TO ALL ASSERTIONS OF THE GOVT SIDE, THE HON DHC HAS GIVEN THE DATE MONDAY 7 5 2012 FOR THE SAME.

WE ALL FONDLY HOPE TO SEE THE EMERGENCE OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE ON 7 5 2012.

(IN CASE IT IS OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO NEED TO WORRY, AS WE WOULD HAVE CROSSED A MAJOR INTERIM LANDMARK "IN QUICK TIME" ON OUR JOURNEY TO THE HIGHEST ALTAR!! MAY BE WE LOSE PRESENCE OF SOME OF OUR "VERY AGED" CRUSADERS DUE TO FURTHER DELAY IN OBTAINING JUSTICE , BUT LET IT NOT BE SO)

REGARDS/ ALL THE BEST,
VNATARAJAN

vnatarajan
07-05-2012, 07:38 AM
Dear aggrieved Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners/ Interetsed,

AS INFORMED EARLIER IN THE ABOVE POST:
OUR CASE IS NOW LISTED FOR FINAL DISPOSAL TODAY THE 07 05 2012 AT COURT NO 3 OF HON DELHI HIGH COURT.

WE SHALL HOPE FOR THE BEST OUTCOME IN OUR FAVOUR AS LIES DO NOT LAST FOREVER!
ALMIGHTY AND PROVIDENCE TO TAKE RECOURSE TO ENSURE TRUTH AND JUSTICE PREVAILS!

IN ANY CASE, “DISPOSAL” IS CERTAIN, WHICH SHALL SAVE US LOT OF TIME.
REGARDS,
VN

DELHI HIGH COURT

Cause List for 7-5-2012

Court No.3; Judge/Officer HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ; Location Item No. Case No. 51 W.P.(C) 1535/2012
With CM APPL. 3387/2012 ; Matter Type FOR FINAL DISPOSAL; Party Petitioner Advocate UNIION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs CENTRAL GOVERNEMT SAG AND ORS, R........ M.......A`
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VNATARAJAN

vnatarajan
07-05-2012, 06:58 PM
Dear aggrieved Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners/ Interested,

AS SCHEDULED, THE SR COUNSEL OF CGSAGPA COULD START HIS ARGUMENTS IN REPLY TO THE ASG'S, ONLY AT 3 10 PM ON 7 MAY 2012 .

ONLY AN HOUR OR SO WAS AVAILABLE AND SO ONLY PART OF THE ARGUMENTS CD BE COMPLETED.
HON COURT HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ANOTHER DATE - 21ST MAY 2012 FOR HIM TO COMPLETE THE ARGUMENTS.

PROCEEDINGS ARE IN RIGHT DIRECTION AND IN ANY CASE THE FINAL STAGE APPEARS TO BE SET FOR 21ST MAY 2012 NOW.

LET US BE PATIENT- WAIT - AND - WATCH!

Regards,
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-05-2012, 06:07 PM
FOR THE ATTENTION OF PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONERS WHO ARE FIGHTING THE MAIN BATTLE:

Dear aggrieved Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners/ Interested,

Many times we are ordered BY THE MIGHTY to be precise and exlain in one sentence what is the issue involved. Say for example:

ONE SENTENCE EXPLANATION FOR OUR (pre 2006 S29/Other affected Pensioners) INJUSTICE :
(free for editing and improvement pl; TO BE KEPT IN PERMANENT MEMORY OF ALL INVOLVED IN COURT CASES)

CABINET DECIDED BASIS OF PRE -2006 PENSION REVISION ENSHRINED IN GAZ NOTIFICATION DT 29 08 2008 AS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND ( say 44700 for S29)” CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE (eg say 18400 OF SCALE 18400-22400 ; S29) FROM WHICH PENSIONER RETIRED WAS SYSTEMATICALLY MODIFIED UNAUTHORISEDLY, THROUGH SUCCESSIVE EXEC/ GARBED CLARIFICATORY, DOPPW’S OMS OF 1 SEPT (PARA 4.2) /3 & 14 OCT 2008 , TO THE BASIS OF "MINIMUM PAY" OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF ALL PRE REVISED PAY SCALES IN THE PAY BAND (SAY 37400 for pb 4); WITH GP OF 10000 FOR S29 ALLOWED; RESULTING IN A " NET REDUCED PENSION OF RS 3650 PM FROM BP OF 27350 PM TO BP OF 23700 PM WEF 1 1 2006 FOR PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONERS.

(PL NOTE i CHNAGED THE SECOND PART TO MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE!- "MINIMUM PAY" OF THE PAY BAND)

vnatarajan

P.S: NET REDUCED PENSION AMONGST AGGRIEVED PRE 2006 PENSIONER SEGMENTS VARIES FROM RS 160 PM TO RS 3650PM WEF 1 1 2006 FROM LOWEST UP TO S29 SCALES.

AS THE PR CAT JUDGMENT IS COMMON TO ALL SEGMENTS OF AFFECTED/ AGGRIEVED PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (DUE TO REDUCED PENSIONS) - , NOW WHOEVER IS CITING THE SAME, THEY CAN REFRAME THE SENTENCE TO SUIT THEIR REQUIREMENT.

VN

RPGoswami
16-05-2012, 09:13 PM
The principle of modified parity among pensioners require that those who had retired before introduction of a new scale of pay would receive a pension which can not be lower than fifty percent of the minimum pay of the relevant new scale of pay, no semantic jugglery should be permitted to negate it

vnatarajan
17-05-2012, 04:10 PM
Dear Dr RPG/ Interested Pre 2006 Pensioners,

RPG is very precise in stating the facts.

The evolution of the principle modified parity is very well realised by all pensioners right after the fifth CPC.

THE CURRENT ISSUE AFTER THE SIXTH CPC IS MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE UNAUTHORISED MODIFICATION OF THE CABINET DECISION GAZETTED ON 29 08 2008 AS VERY WELL ESTABLISHED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE PR BENCH CAT AT DELHI DATED 1 11 2011.

Its para 30 was unequivocal in firmly directing the GOvt/ DOPW to implement the CABINET DECISION within 90 days.

IN RECENT TIMES OUR GOVERNMENT HAS COME TO GREAT LOT OF CRITICISM WHICH IS SOULY THE MAKING OF THE BUREAUCRACY WHO HAVE BECOME MORE AND MORE "NON-FUNCTIONAL" AFTER THE "GREATER LIBERALISATION" OF THE "ORGANISED SERVICES BENEFITS" IN THE "PAY BAND " SYSTEM , WHEREBY NOW EVERY POST 2006 PENSIONER OF SUCH "ABU BEN ADAMS" HAS GOT SCOPE TO GET PENSION UP TO A MINIMUM OF 37505 RS PM OF HE HAS THE RIGHT ENTRY AGE AND 33 YEARS OF SERVICE ETC.

However, while on the subject of modified parity, I thought it proper to highlight a part of a nice note prepared by one competent ex-secretarial cadre pensioner of middle level which is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The entire recommendation of the VI CPC, as in para 5.1.47 of its Report,
is based on the principle of modified parity which had been evolved and
implemented at the time of V CPC. Para 1 of the Deptt.’s OM dated 17.12.1998
laid down as under:
‘The President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1.1.1996, pension
of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not
be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay
introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner’.
The above provision was clarified in the OM dated 11.5.2001 as under:
‘The second sentence of OM dated 17-12-1998, i.e. “pension of all
pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less
than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay w.e.f.
1.1.96 of the post last held by the pensioner” shall mean that
pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement
shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding
scale as on 1.1.96, of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the
time of superannuation/retirement.’
[50% of the minimum of pay in the revised pay scale (or minimum of the
revised scale as clarified) constituted the minimum pension of post-
1.1.1996 retirees and was automatically allowed to pre-1.1.1996 pensioners
also.]
The corresponding provision now made in para 4.2 of the OM dated
1.9.2008 reads as under:
‘The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the
revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the
minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay
corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner
had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty
percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.’
As will be observed from the underlined portions of the OM dated
17.12.1998 and para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008, ‘Pay’ is mentioned as ‘pay
in the revised scale of pay’ and ‘pay in the pay band’, respectively. While
minimum of the revised pay scale is also the ‘minimum of pay in the pay scale’,
as clarified in the OM dated 11.5.2001, minimum of the pay band is not the
‘minimum of pay in the pay band’ as has been treated by the Deptt. of P&PW
through OM dated 3.10.2008".

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

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
19-05-2012, 05:58 PM
ALL AGGRIEVED PRE 2006 PENSIONERS REQUIRE THE WISHES AND GOODWILL OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THE HIGHEST COMMITMENT AND RESPECT FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE- VNATARAJAN

[/I][/B]Cause List of DHC for 21st May 2012- Extracts (Courtesy Shri NSR):

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ADVANCE CAUSE LIST
LIST OF BUSINESS
FOR MONDAY,THE 21ST MAY,2012

1. APPELLATE JURISDICTION


COURT NO.3 (DIVISION BENCH-3)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

FOR FINAL DISPOSAL
20. W.P.(C) 1535/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR RUCHIR MISHRA`
CM APPL. 3387/2012 Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNEMT SAG AND ORS

vnatarajan
21-05-2012, 06:38 PM
LONG WAIT TO CONTINUE FOR OBTAINNG JUSTICE AT HON DHC!

Dear Pre 2006 Pensioner friends/ others interested,

Being a busy day with a lot of supplementary schedules, our conerned case wp c 1535/2012 plus other bunched cases came up only at 0445 pm and
due to lack of sufficient time it was postponed to a date beyond vacation- to 17th July 2012. In spite of pleadings by our Sr Counsel, no earlier date was possible.

Being partially heard we hope Bench shall not chnage. But indications appear to be to the contrary! Let us wait and watch. Two more months of patience and I AND MANY OF MY CO-PENSIONERS WISH ALL SHALL CONTINUE TO "BEAT" THE TIME IN THEIR OLD AGE SO THAT THEY REALISE THE OUTCOME OF THEIR CHALLENGE TO GET JUSTICE AT ANY COST.

Long wait shall bestow longer life to all of them/us!

Regards,
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
23-05-2012, 05:10 PM
Dear sir,
The contempt matter would come up on the 30th May, 2012. As their is no stay by the High Court, we may press for the implemtntation of the orders of the CAT as theyhad given only 3 months time to implement the orders.
with regards,

vnatarajan
23-05-2012, 07:19 PM
Dear Shri GK,

I understand that it was "remarked" on 21 May 2012 by the concerned that "contempt" will not be pressed till the outcome of 17 07 2012 proceedings.
The list of DHC shows the NDH as 17 07 2012.
I cd not see any sp orders.
WHOLE MATTER IS HAZY.
NO RECORDS ON "IMPORTANT" LINK LIKE CONTEMPT OR ON PART HEARD STATUS AS OF DATE.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
24-05-2012, 08:17 PM
Respected sir,
In my view contempt matter and the WP before the HC are two different things. The matter before the CAT is about violation of the orders of CAT in which the Bench directed the Department to implement the decision within three months. The order has now become absolute and non implementation of the same would amount to contempt of CAT, particularly when there is no stay by the High Court or any other superior court.
With regards,

vnatarajan
25-05-2012, 06:33 AM
Dear Shri GK,

You are very much right.

BUT OUT OF A "SITUATION" AT THE VENUE OF JUSTICE, OLD PENSIONERS HAD TO COMPROMISE DEFERING THE "CONTEMPT" AT CAT/ AOID THE GRANT OF A STAY ETC FOR OBTAINING A ":QUICK AND FINAL DISPOSAL" OF OIUR CASE.

Things were proceeding in the right duirection but as you know there is always a "deliberate slip" between the "cup" and "lip"

TWO HEARINGS ON 4TH AND 7TH MAY 2011 WERE UNDULY AND "DRAMATICALLY" DELAYED FOR ONE REASON OR OTHER. NOT BECAUSE OF PENSIONERS.

ON 21ST MAY 2011 AT LEAST WE HOPED FOR THE "FINAL-MOST DISPOSAL" - BUT ALAS- IT WAS NOT TO BE SO - AGAIN THE CULPRIT IS THE DELAY" AND "TIME FACTOR".

What was tried to be avoided - "DELAY" - has inevitably happened-

CONTEMPT CASE HANGS - BUT STILL IT IS A SWORD OF DEMOCLES (SP INCORRECT PL) ON WHOM IT CONCERNS.

OLD PENSIONERS shall wait and watch till 17 July 2011.

vnatarajan

vishwapurna
29-05-2012, 12:51 PM
Sir,
What is the present status of OA 1165/2011 (full pension for less than 33 years for pre-2006 pensioners at PCB,Delhi.)ASG completed his arguments on behalf of the Government. I heard the last hearing was on 7th May,2012.Afterwards I have not heard about the case.

Please update the information.

B.Ramadurai

Gopal Krishan
29-05-2012, 08:30 PM
Respected Natarajan Sahib
If we press of the contempt the Government would have to implement the orders of the CAT, which would serve our purpose. As mention by you the case is proceeding in right disrection, the HC courd would also not intervene in the orders of the CAT.
With regards,

sundarar
02-06-2012, 06:30 PM
Sir,
What is the present status of OA 1165/2011 (full pension for less than 33 years for pre-2006 pensioners at PCB,Delhi.)ASG completed his arguments on behalf of the Government. I heard the last hearing was on 7th May,2012.Afterwards I have not heard about the case.

Please update the information.

B.Ramadurai

Next Date of Hearing : 11.07.2012

Gopal Krishan
08-06-2012, 05:09 PM
Respected VN Sahib,
I am sure you would be aware of the following fact:

Under Chapter 2 (PENSION AND ITS DETERMINATION)in para 43 the Fourth Pay Commisssion observed that "one more facter deserves particular mention. I t has been declared to be the law of the land in Nakara's case tht pensioners for a class by themserves and this class is not divisible for purposes of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retire "before" and those who retire 'after' certain date arbitarily fixed for the purpose. Any such classification will be unrelated to any principle and will be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constiturion. This being the law, the factor reckon is that if the formula for compu7tqtion of pension undergoes a change, it will work back for the benefit of those pensioners who had retired earlier and were not entitle to its benefits when they retired.
With regards
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
12-06-2012, 05:28 PM
Dear Shri GK,

Many thanks for your rejoinders and valuable suggestions.

Reg sl no 1124 above, I would like to draw your attention to the commitment made in vide DHC Order dtd 19 03 2012 which prevents us from pressing for contempt- even after the decision of 21st May 2012 by the very court to start the proceedings afresh (not being treated as "part heard" - not to press for contempt etc):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R 19.03.2012
W.P.(C) 1535/2012 and Caveat No. 276/2012

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated
01.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 655/2010 and in other OAs. We feel that it
would be appropriate that the petitioner files separate writ petitions in
respect of each of the OAs which were filed before the Tribunal. The
present writ petition shall be considered as the writ petition in respect
of OA No. 655/2010. The respondent-caveators are represented in the
Court. We are issuing formal notice in this matter. They accept notice.
The caveat stands discharged. The learned counsel for the respondents
state that there would be no necessity to file a counter-affidavit and
they would be relying on the pleadings before the Tribunal.

List for disposal on 04.05.2012.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents state
that they shall not be pressing their contempt application before the
Tribunal till the next date of hearing.

Sd/- Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reg sl no 1126:

Yes. We have to argue and establish that Nakara Principle/ Ratio is the main objective to be maintained and achieved in all "Basic Pension" revisions , important aspect of which is that the formulation used to establish the minimum on either side of the datum has to be SO APPLICABLE that there is no disparity in the pensions between the pre and posr revised MINIMuM ASSURED/ GUARANTEED PENSIONS- lest the provisions of ARTICLE 14 SHALL STAND VIOLATED.

Coming to our case at DHC, the Govt side appears to be bent upon "misleading" all the presideing deities of truth and fairplay:

THEIR STRATEGY APPEARS TO BE: "BY REPEATED ASSERTION OF A LIE" ONE CAN CONVINCE ALL THAT THE SAID "LIE" IS NOTHING BUT "TRUTH"!

What a degeneration of values and respect for justice and truth?

Regards,
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
12-06-2012, 06:34 PM
Respected VN Sahib,
Thank you very much for your kind words. My experience with the present set up is also that they do not hesitate to tell lies even before the Court of Law. But that would not survive for long. Ultimately the truth shall prevail.
With regards,
GK

vnatarajan
18-07-2012, 09:06 AM
Not able to post anything since a few days- will the GC ADMIN chk pl? VN

Today 18 07 2012 - perhaps the difficulty is resolved. I shall soon post a few items- vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-07-2012, 06:56 PM
(WRT POST AT SL NO 1128 BY SHRI GK)

Dear Shri GK,
Many thanks for your kind rejoinder and kind words of encouragement.
VN

Dear Pre 2006 S29/ S21-23/ Other aggrieved segments of Pensioners/ Others interested,

(1) It is long time since I wrote something. I was waiting for the d-day. the17 JULY 2012, AT THE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE WP( C )/appeal FILED BY THE UOI AGAINST THE CGS29PA & Others , came up at Court No 3, before a new Division Bench no3 for ADMISSION under appellate jurisdiction. The Sr Hon Judge is the same one who presided before vacation and the second Hon Judge is new. Part heard status is gone. Case has to be heard de novo.DUE TO RUSH OF CASES/ LONG PENING LIST NEXT DATE IS GIVEN AS 29 NOV 2012 FOR ADMISSION .

IT WILL BE A DARK DAY IN THE ANNALS OF JUSTICE SYSTEM OF THIS COUNTRY , IF SUCH APPEALS ARE ADMITTED , EVEN AFTER HALF A DOZEN CLEAR CUT VERDICTS ON MORE THAN 30 OAs , PASSED IN FAVOUR OF 1000S OF OLD/ HELPLESS/ VERY SENIOR PRE 2006 CIVIL AND MILITARY PENSIONERS BY THE PR CAT (full bench)/ CATS / PR AFT(full bench) / AFTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DIRECTING THE GOVT TO IMPLEMENT THE CABINET DECISION GAZETTE NOTIFIED ON 29 08 2008/TO BE DONE IN TERMS OF RELEVANT FITMENT TABLES/ IN TRUE SPIRIT OF MINIMUM PAY IN THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE (SCALE OR BAND WHATEVER IT MAY BE) AS ENSURED IN OM OF 17 12 1998/ FOLLOWING THE CORRECT AND STANDING DEFINITION OF “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” (AND NOT THE “UNAUTHORISEDLY MODIFIED” version as “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”).

IT WILL BE A VERY VERY SAD AND DISTRESSING PRECEDENCE IF THE WRIT IS ADMITTED! . IT WILL BE IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14’S “MINIMUM IMPLICATION” INTERMS OF “MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION” FOR ALL BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVISION THRU PAY COMMISSIONS. FOR OLD PENSIONERS . Precious court time is being/will be wasted. Justice will be delayed and denied to many Sr Pensioner Citizens who are well above 70 years . Nearly 20 among those seeking justice , have died in the meanwhile in the last two- three years , waiting for justice. THIS PRECEDENCE IS ALSO IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF THE “NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY”.
It may be recollected that many such appeals of UOi have deserved dismissal at the first instance in earlier times!

(2) In the meanwhile, there is an interesting development worth noting by the Military Pensioners, as conveyed by the PIB: Link: http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=85337
PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, GOVT OF INDIA

Govt constitutes Committee to look into pay and pension related issues of defence services personnel and ex-servicemen

The Government has decided to constitute a Committee, under the chairpersonship of Cabinet Secretary, to look into pay and pension related issues of relevance to defence services personnel and ex-servicemen. The other members of the Committee will be:

(i) Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister
(ii) Defence Secretary
(iii) Secretary, D/o Expenditure
(iv) Secretary, D/o Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare
(v) Secretary, D/o Personnel and Training

The Committee’s ‘terms of reference’ will be to look into the following issues relating to:

(i) Defence services personnel:
• Common pay-scale for in-service JCOs/ORs
• Initial pay-fixation of Lt. Col/Colonel and Brigadier/equivalent
• Review and enhancement of grade pay
• Placing of all Lts General in HAG+ scale
• Grant of non-functional upgradation (NFU) to armed forces personnel

(ii) Ex-servicemen:
• One-rank one-pension
• Enhancement of family pension
• Dual family pension
• Family pension to mentally/physically challenged children of armed forces personnel on marriage

The Department of Expenditure will service the Committee. The Committee may co-opt any other member. The Committee will finalize its recommendations and submit its report to the Prime Minister by 8th August, 2012.
***
SC/LM
(Release ID :85337)

It may be noted that there is no mention of “Major Generals” or “Majors” and their equivalents in any part of the reference- for pay/ pension matters?

A sort of “step motherly treatment(/)” against them for seeking their legitimate pensionary benefits through JUDICIAL REVIEW?

IT IS NOT THEY WHO HAVE FILED APPEALS IN DHC/HSC AGAINST VERDICTS OF TRIBUNALS BUT THE GOVT!

YET IN THE LAST NAC MEETING, WHILE TOUCHING UPON THE CONCERNED AGENDA ITEM, THE OFFICIAL SIDE APPEARS TO HAVE GIVEN THE “EXCUSE” THAT THE “PENSION REVISION OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IS SUB-JUDICE”!

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
19-07-2012, 10:42 AM
De Novo hearing on 29th November(original hearing date 8th may) amounts to technical stay in favour of the government. We can only hope that hearing process would end within this year

Gopal Krishan
19-07-2012, 07:51 PM
We can still think of filing contempt petition in the CAT as there is no stay by the High Court. If necessary, we could file an application before the High Court in that regard and go ahead with the filing of the contempt petition. That would expedite the matter as the Government would either have to get stay from the High Court or would have to implement the decision of the CAT.

vnatarajan
20-07-2012, 02:41 PM
Dear Shri GK,

Yes. Changed circumstances must give us the cause for action. We do require to examine the formality for approaching the Hon DHC for a "review" of their standing order of 19 03 2012?

Regards,
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
20-07-2012, 03:12 PM
Respected Shri V. Natarajan Sahib,
As you are aware the Government, during the discussion in the Anomaly Committee, took a stand that the matter is sub-judice, we must fight the matter legally. In fact there was no restriction on the Government to decide the matter administratively out side the court. In fact our representatives should have taken that stand during the meeting. Now when they have taken that stand we must act accordingly.
With regards,
GK

vnatarajan
21-07-2012, 07:15 AM
Dear Shri GK,

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
AS ON DATE, ONLY THE JUDGMENTS OF PR BENCH CAT AND AFT PR BENCH , BOTH IN FAVOUR OF pre 2006 PENSIONERS' PETITIONS, COVERING MORE THAN 30 OAs STAND.

BOTH JUDGMENTS HAVE CLEARLY RULED "EFFFECTIVELY" THAT THE CABINET DECISION GAZETTE NOTIFIED ON 29 08 2008 HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY DUE TO THE "UNAUTHORISED' MODIFICATIONS EFFECTED THRU OMS OF 3RD/14 TH OCT 2008. THE MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION AHS TO BE IN TERMS OF THE "MPPB" AS OBTAINABLE WRT FITMENT TABLES/ PRINCIPLE OF MINIMUM OF PAY IN THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE ( 5CPC PRINCIPLE). FOR EG . FOR PRE 2006 S29 IT HAS TO BE 27350 WEF 1 1 2006 INSTEAD OF 23700 WEF 11 2006, AS "IMPOSED" BY THE DOPPW.

AGAINST AFT PR BENCH VERDICT, THEY HAVE GONE FOR SLP AT THE HSC WHICH IS YET TO BE ADMOITTED. THERE ALSO, THE GOVT/ MOD/DOP ETC COMBINATON HAD BEEN/IS DELAYING FOR ONE REASON OR OTHER BY NOT FOLLOWING SOME PROCEDURAL FORMALITIES.

AGAINST PR BENCH CAT'S VERDICT ALSO, THEY (GOVT SIDE) , SOMEHOW MANAGED TO WARD OFF THE CONTEMPT- AS YOU KNOW- AND THE PENSIONERS WHO WERE TO GET AN EARLY HEARING BY THE HON DHC ARE BEING DENIED NOW. ADMISSION IS BEING ABNORMALLY POSTPONED!

NOW THE NAC IS ANOTHER ROUTE OF "NON- FUNCTIONAL ARENA OF BARGAIN" WHERE THE "PENSIONERS' " ITEMS ARE DEALT ONLY FOR EYE-WASH.

ALL THE LEADERS WHO ARE NEGOTIATING FROM STAFF-SIDE ARE NEITHER LACKING THE TOTAL/ HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE "EMERGING SITUATION" ON THE PRE 2006 PENSION PARITY OR THEY ARE "APPARENTLY RELUCTANT TO SERIOUSLY DEAL WITH THE CASE".

JUDICIAL/ QUASI-JUDICIAL - NOTHING PREVENTS ADMINISTRATION TO "CARRY OUT' CORRECTIONS IN THEIR OWN ORDERS!

Branding the item as "sub judice" is most "evasive" and "irresponsible" excuse that could be allowed to be accepted by the Staff side!

vnatarajan

Regards,
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
21-07-2012, 08:04 AM
Respected Natarajan Sahib,
As you are aware the contempt petition has to be filed by name against particular officer(s), who intentionally contributed to the non-implementation of the order of the CAT. For that purpose we may have to inspect the files of the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, before the contempt petition is filed.
with regards,
GK

vnatarajan
21-07-2012, 09:24 AM
All done at PR CAT . We only allowed the Contempt Petition hearing to be deferred while the Govt tried to get their WP admitted at the DHC. As the situation was reaching adeadlock, we agreed for "not pressing the Cont Pet at the CAT' for not granting a stay by the DHC and for commencing the arguments.

AS ON DATE NOTHING PREVENTS US FROM RESUMING THE CP AT PR BENCH CAT- AFTER DULY OBSERVING THE FORMALITIES AT DHC WHO HAVE GIVEN AN ORDER ON 19 3 2012 GIST OF WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE STATED ABOVE.

THE CONTEMNORS ARE ALREADY OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED IN THE CP. ONLY THEN THE GOVT., STARTED ACTING - AFTER THE CP BROUGHT INTO THE ARENA THE TWO SECRETARIES!

We need no other formalities other than what is to be observed wrt the HONDHC's order of 19 03 2012.

vnatarajan

ybhaskar23
22-07-2012, 11:42 PM
dear vn ji,
pl see the following discussuions on youtube regarding the
senior defence committee set up by the prime minister.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqcns68kmI0
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz2elHr9Q1Y
The high level Committee headed by Cabinet Secy should have to submit report by 8th August.
Do these issues effect the civilians at all levels also,
your comments and other expert's comments are welcomed,
Thanks

vnatarajan
23-07-2012, 10:03 AM
Dear Shri YB/ Others interested,

I am yet to go thru the discussions cited by you wrt you tube.

BEFORE THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING INTO FOCUS CERTAIN POINTS.

1.THIS NEW COMMITTEE FORMATION IS ATROCIOUS AND MOST RIDICULOUS. IS IT NOT A FACT THAT THE FAMOUS "COMMITTEE OF OROP" HEADED BY THE THEN CAB SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA AND FIVE MORE SECRETARIES AS MEMBERS WHICH INCLUDED THOSE OF MOD/ ESM WELFARE/ EXP/DOPT/DOPW ETC HAD SUMMARILY REJECTED THE "OROP" IN JUNE 2009 THROUGH THEIR REPORT WHICH DEILIBERATED MANY OF THE ISSUES WHICH ARE BEING COVERED AGAIN NOW?

2.MOST OBVIOUS REJECTION BY THE ABOVE COMMITTEE WAS THE OROP! HOW DO ALL THE EX SM AND CURRENT MILITARY PERSONNEL EXPECT TO GET THE OROP? I AM NOT VERY SURE "UNLESS IT IS PAAP PARIHAR"! IF THEY DO NOT GET THE "OROP" NOW, IT WILL BE A "PURE CHEATING ACT" ! DONT YOU ALL AGREE?

3.MOST GLARING PARTIALITY AND VESTED BENEVALENCE WAS THE "CREATION OF A NEW SCALE FOR THE ADDL SECRETARIES / S30 USING "THE RETD LT GENERALS REVISED PENSION DISPARITY OF 26% " AS A RUSE FOR THE SAME, OMITTING ALL THE REST LIKE RETD MAJ GENERALS (15% DISPARITY"!

4. WHY ONLY THE S30/ EQUIVALENT LT GENS WERE COVERED IN THAT REPORT? IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE THAT A STATEMENT IS MADE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SCALE IS ACCORDING TO "SCPC RECOMMENDATION" WHICH NEVER EXISTED!. RTI REPLY WE OBTAINED ALSO CONFIRMED IT.

5.BACKGROUND FOR S30/ ADDL SECRETARY "NEW SCALE 67000-79000) " CREATION HAS NOW COME INTO BROAD DAYLIGHT AFTER WE OBTAINED THE FILE NOTE COPIES THRU RTI . EVERYONE WILL BE SHOCKED TO KNOW IT WAS ONE OF THE GLARING ACTS OF PARTIALITY, HIGH LEVEL LOBBY INFLUENCE, OUT OF THE WAY INTEREST TAKEN BY THE HIUGHEST EXECUTIVE ETC!

6.WHY RETD MAJ GENERALS/ S29 PENSION DISPARITY OF 15% WAS SIDELINED FOR ANY RESOLUTION? SO ALSO RETD MAJORS/ S21-23 ETC WHO ALSO SUFFERED GOOD AMOUNT OF REDUCED PENSIONS/ OR DESRVED BETTER REVISED PAYS/ PENSIONS?

7.WHAT IS THE NEED FOR NOW PROPOSING A NEW "HAG +" SCALE FOR LT GENERALS /EQUALS - WHO WERE GIVEN THE "S30" SCALE ONLY IN JULY 2009 AS MENTIONED EARLIER? IS IT NOW TO "PLEASE THEM" SO THAT "THEY CAN BE USED TO DISPLEASE ALL"? REJECT OROP AGAIN? SUBJUDICE OTHERS? ARE THEY BEING TAKEN INTO "GOOD BOOKS" THRU THIS NEW ENDOWMENT?

This formation of a " New Committee " appears to be more "political" than "real" and submitting a "Report" by 8th AUGUST 2012 means the "REPORT IS ALREADY MANUFACTURED! - and how is it that the same "executive" which comprised of "sSIMILAR COMPOSITION OF secretaries" will now act differently?

SOME POSITIVE HOPES:

1.HOWEVER I DO AGREE IF THE PRESENT SET OF MEMBERS OF THIS NEW COMMITTE -WITH THE NEW CAB SECY/ PR SEC OF HON PMO/ OTHER SECRETARIES AMONG THE TEAM- ALL MAY BE NEW INDIVIDUALS- IF THEY ARE UNBIASSED AND ARE PRAGMATIC- THEY CAN "UNDO ALL THE INJUSTICE DONE TO EX SER MEN AND OTHER CIVILIAN PENSIONERS"' AND BRING TO AN END MANY COURT CASES, CONCERNING MOD PARITY/ PENSION INJUSTICES/ OROP RELATED ISSUES/ EVEN RANK PAY DISPUTE OF OVER 3 DECADES ETC.

2.CAB APPROVAL MAY BE EXPLICIT AND EXPRESS.

(More on the you tube dialogues referred later pl if time permits)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
23-07-2012, 10:04 AM
Dear Shri YB/ Others interested,

I am yet to go thru the discussions cited by you wrt you tube.

BEFORE THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING INTO FOCUS CERTAIN POINTS.

1.THIS NEW COMMITTEE FORMATION IS ATROCIOUS AND MOST RIDICULOUS. IS IT NOT A FACT THAT THE FAMOUS "COMMITTEE OF OROP" HEADED BY THE THEN CAB SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA AND FIVE MORE SECRETARIES AS MEMBERS WHICH INCLUDED THOSE OF MOD/ ESM WELFARE/ EXP/DOPT/DOPW ETC HAD SUMMARILY REJECTED THE "OROP" IN JUNE 2009 THROUGH THEIR REPORT WHICH DEILIBERATED MANY OF THE ISSUES WHICH ARE BEING COVERED AGAIN NOW?

2.MOST OBVIOUS REJECTION BY THE ABOVE COMMITTEE WAS THE OROP! HOW DO ALL THE EX SM AND CURRENT MILITARY PERSONNEL EXPECT TO GET THE OROP? I AM NOT VERY SURE "UNLESS IT IS PAAP PARIHAR"! IF THEY DO NOT GET THE "OROP" NOW, IT WILL BE A "PURE CHEATING ACT" ! DONT YOU ALL AGREE?

3.MOST GLARING PARTIALITY AND VESTED BENEVALENCE WAS THE "CREATION OF A NEW SCALE FOR THE ADDL SECRETARIES / S30 USING "THE RETD LT GENERALS REVISED PENSION DISPARITY OF 26% " AS A RUSE FOR THE SAME, OMITTING ALL THE REST LIKE RETD MAJ GENERALS (15% DISPARITY"!

4. WHY ONLY THE S30/ EQUIVALENT LT GENS WERE COVERED IN THAT REPORT? IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE THAT A STATEMENT IS MADE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SCALE IS ACCORDING TO "SCPC RECOMMENDATION" WHICH NEVER EXISTED!. RTI REPLY WE OBTAINED ALSO CONFIRMED IT.

5.BACKGROUND FOR S30/ ADDL SECRETARY "NEW SCALE 67000-79000) " CREATION HAS NOW COME INTO BROAD DAYLIGHT AFTER WE OBTAINED THE FILE NOTE COPIES THRU RTI . EVERYONE WILL BE SHOCKED TO KNOW IT WAS ONE OF THE GLARING ACTS OF PARTIALITY, HIGH LEVEL LOBBY INFLUENCE, OUT OF THE WAY INTEREST TAKEN BY THE HIUGHEST EXECUTIVE ETC!

6.WHY RETD MAJ GENERALS/ S29 PENSION DISPARITY OF 15% WAS SIDELINED FOR ANY RESOLUTION? SO ALSO RETD MAJORS/ S21-23 ETC WHO ALSO SUFFERED GOOD AMOUNT OF REDUCED PENSIONS/ OR DESRVED BETTER REVISED PAYS/ PENSIONS?

7.WHAT IS THE NEED FOR NOW PROPOSING A NEW "HAG +" SCALE FOR LT GENERALS /EQUALS - WHO WERE GIVEN THE "S30" SCALE ONLY IN JULY 2009 AS MENTIONED EARLIER? IS IT NOW TO "PLEASE THEM" SO THAT "THEY CAN BE USED TO DISPLEASE ALL"? REJECT OROP AGAIN? SUBJUDICE OTHERS? ARE THEY BEING TAKEN INTO "GOOD BOOKS" THRU THIS NEW ENDOWMENT?

This formation of a " New Committee " appears to be more "political" than "real" and submitting a "Report" by 8th AUGUST 2012 means the "REPORT IS ALREADY MANUFACTURED! - and how is it that the same "executive" which comprised of "sSIMILAR COMPOSITION OF secretaries" will now act differently?

SOME POSITIVE HOPES:

1.HOWEVER I DO AGREE IF THE PRESENT SET OF MEMBERS OF THIS NEW COMMITTE -WITH THE NEW CAB SECY/ PR SEC OF HON PMO/ OTHER SECRETARIES AMONG THE TEAM- ALL MAY BE NEW INDIVIDUALS- IF THEY ARE UNBIASSED AND ARE PRAGMATIC- THEY CAN "UNDO ALL THE INJUSTICE DONE TO EX SER MEN AND OTHER CIVILIAN PENSIONERS"' AND BRING TO AN END MANY COURT CASES, CONCERNING MOD PARITY/ PENSION INJUSTICES/ OROP RELATED ISSUES/ EVEN RANK PAY DISPUTE OF OVER 3 DECADES ETC.

2.CAB APPROVAL MAY BE EXPLICIT AND EXPRESS.

(More on the you tube dialogues referred later pl if time permits)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
24-07-2012, 07:59 AM
(THIS IS WRT SHRI YB'S POST AT 1138- REG THE TV EPISODE ON THE DEFENCE COMMITTEE- PARTS 1 & 2- CITED IN YB'S POST. THE VIDEO CLIPS AOPEAR IS YOU TUBE/ MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH'S BLOGSPOT" INDIN MILITARY : SERVICE BENEFITS & ISSUES AND ALSO IN THE BLOGSPOT REPORT MY SIGNAL ETC)

DEAR SHRI YB/ OTHERS INTERESTED,

APPEARING BELOW IS WHAT I POSTED ON THE ABOVE CITED TV EPISODES, IN MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH'S BLOGSPOT "INDIAN MILITARY : SERVICE BENEFITS & ISSUES:

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

V Natarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum, Chennai said...
Dear Interested,

I as a Civilian Pre 2006 Pension Injustice crusader/ Pre 2006 Military Pensioners' Campaigner/ a sort of co-crusader with Maj Navdeep, was delighted to see the intiative of the TV Media highlighting the recent Defence Committee formation and related issues.

I agree with most of Mr Harry's well made out comments/points (whether I matter or not- the points do matter- he is a knowledge base on these ). Average "Civilians" - pl do understand are different from Babudom Civilians . They are as much sufferers as the Miliatry personnel in so far as Revised Pensions that too post 2006 era-are concerned.

To me and many, dear Retd Maj Gen SPS Vains is a SUPERMAN GOD for having fought a great battle and won it too on pre 1996 pension disparity/ injustice!. But where was he at the Media? I EXPECTED FIREWORKS FROM HIM! DEFUSED? The issue he won brought back Nakara again alive! NOT SIMPLY RETD MAJ GENS should DRAW MORE PENSION THAN RETD BRIGS as he made out is not the only point - BUT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF "EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14OF CONSTITUTION " WAS NOT FOCUSSED UPON. a very significant outcome OF THE JUDGMENT- ACCORDING TO ME IS- NO RETD MAJ GENERAL CAN DRAW LESS PENSION THAN ANOTHER RETD MAJ GEN OF EQUAL STANDING- LET IT BE PRE 1996/ PRE 2006 OR ANY DATE- IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CUT-OFF DATES!
WHY MAN- SPSV-PERHAPS WAS NOT WELL PRE PREPARED.

SO ALSO RETD MAJ SATHBIR SINGH- FROM WHOM I AND MANY OTHERS WD HAVE EXPECTED MORE TO FLOW OUT- BECAUSE OF HIS FAMOUS BLOGSPOT WRITE-UPS- WAS LACKING MUCH THRUST-TYPE INFO OR SUFFICIENT ELUCIDATION- I FELT UNCOMFORTABLE AT THE VERY RESTRAINED ORATION!

CONSEQUENTLY- MY GOOD FRIEND - MAJ NAVDEEP- YOUNG AND ENERGETIC- STOLE THE SHOW. NO DOUBT I AND MANY LIKE ME AMONG CIV- ELDER- PENSIONERS APPREIATE HIS SHARP REPLIES, UNMINICING WORDS OF CRITICISM CLOAKED IN WISDOM,GRASP OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. HE IS "THE CAMPAIGNER" WHO WOULD MATTTER TO UT THINGS ACROSS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE!

Maj Navdeep- I personally felt- (like I blow lids out many times)- some more "soft fireworks" to flow from you on the "legal aspects". WHY SUCH A "LOW PROFILE" ON THE LEGAL FRONT! WHAT IS SUBJUDICE? CO MANY CONTEMPT CASES AND NO ACTION BY GOVT? SEVERAL (MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN)CLEAR CUT "TRIBUNAL PR BENCH" VERDICTS ( ARMY AND CIVIL) COVERING MORE THAN 30 OAs ON SCPC RELATED PENSION INJUSTICE ALONE RELATED TO MIN GUARANTEED PENSION OF COM OFFICERS/ CIVILIAN OFFICERS ARE BEING THROWN TO WINDS AND ALL ARE MADE TO RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST FORJUSTICE. FOR EVRY CASE, HON SC APEARS TO BE THE ULTIMATE VENUE FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THAT TOO AFTER "CONTEMPT"? WHERE IS SO CALLED "NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY"?

Or are we discussing a "Stunt"ed Show on Pensions of Old Hags?

Hats off to you once again Maj NS- Regards-vnatarajan

July 24, 2012 5:51 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan
18-08-2012, 08:46 AM
JUSTICE MAY BE DELAYED BUT CAN NOT BE DENIED!

DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (33 YRS PLUS; 20 YEARS PLUS) / OTHERS INTERESTED,

I am of the view, "JUSTICE MAY BE DELAYED BUT CAN NOT BE DENIED".

Hope the ANGELS OF JUSTICE are fully awake to he problems of he AGED/ HELPLESS/ HANDICAPPED/ SENIOR PENSIONERS of the country who have served the Nation with devotion/ dedicaion/ and digniy - and in the evening of their living years, they have to fight for their MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION:

HON JUDGES HAVE BEEN KIND SO FAR- ALL THE TRIBUNALS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY- MILITARY OR CIVIL, HAVE UNEQUIVOCALLY "ALLOWED" THE APPEALS OF THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WRT THEIR PLEA(S) FOR CORRECT SCPC MODIFIED PARITY VIZ MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION RELATED TO THE (CORRECT) MINIMUM OF THE (PAY EQUAL TO THE MINIMUM OF THE REVISED) PAY IN THE (RESPECTIVE) PAY BAND WHICH INCIDENTALLY WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "FIMENT TABLES" ANNEXED WITH THE MOF'S OM OF 29 AUG 2008.

LIST BELOW, THANKS TO MY YOUNGER FRIEND SUNDARAR'S COMPILED INFO (SUBJECT O CONFIRMATION/ VERIFICATION) GIVES THE STATUS OF OUTCOME OF THE SUCCESSFUL OAs SO FAR:

(THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON WPs FILED SO FAR AGAINST UPHELD OAs IS AS FOLLOWS)

a. 1. OA No. 3079/2009, WP 1535/2012 FILED IN HC DELHI
2.OA No. 201/2010 - do -
3. OA No. 306/2010 - do -
4.OA No. 507/2010 - do -
5.OA No. 655/2010 - do -
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

b. 6.OA No. 843/2010 CAT Ernakulam DRDO advised to file WP
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

c. 7.OA No. 31/2011 CAT Ernakulam Draft WP by Dept. of Space vetted and returned
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

d. 8.OA No. 509/2011 CAT Chandigarh CAG requested to file WP.
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

e. 9.OA No. 568/2010 CAT Hyderabad DRDL advised to file WP.
10.OA No. 931/2010
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

f. 11.OA No. 51/2011 CAT Chandigarh Min. of I&B asked to file WP
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

g. 12.OA No.747/2011 CAT Ernakulam WP filed by ISRO
(Full minimum revised pension)

h. 13.OA No.1586/2010 CAT PR Bench Dept. of Revenue asked to file review
(Higher pension for HAG+)

i. 14.OA No. 167/2010 CAT Bangalore AG Karnataka asked to file Review/WP
(For No reduction in min. pension <33years)

.BESIDES THE ABOVE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBNALVERDICTS, THERE ARE NEARLY HALF A DOZEN AFT VERDICTS ON MODIFIED PARITY IN FAVOUR PRE 2006 MILITARY PENSIONERS - MAINLY RETD MAJORS/ SQDRN LEADERS/ LT CDRS.

After seeing the above list, a STRONG DOUBT arises in every LAW ABIDING CIIZEN'S MIND as to what a NATIONAL LIIGATION POLICY means and WHY THE VERY LAW MAKERS TURN INTO LAW BREAKERS BY SHOWING SCANT RESPECT TO THE WISE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF MORE THAN 25 JUDICIAL CHIEFS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and thereupon embark for appeals through WRIT PRAYERS to next higher courts? A COLOSSAL WASTE OF PRECIOUS COURT TIMES AND EXCHEQUER THROUGH INFRUCUOUS EXPENDITURE! NO AUSTERIY?

JUST "KEEPING IN VIEW THE NLP" APPEARS TO BE THE "POLICY" WRT NLP BY THE GOVT. ORGANS.

Why make such policies?

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
18-08-2012, 07:34 PM
one reason of anomaly in pension between brigadier and major general (which will apply in similar civilian cases) is that pension is not calculated only on the basic pay but also allowances (like flying allowance, etc) which were incidental to the post held. It is time that pension is linked strictly to the basic pay drawn and not include other sundry allowances (like non practicing allowance in case of doctors).

vnatarajan
22-08-2012, 05:16 PM
DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ INTERESTED OTHERS,

IT IS TO BE NOTED, THAT WHETHER IT IS THE RESULT OF THE “SCPS’S RECO AT PARA 5.147 OF THEIR REPORT/REPRODUCED AS CAB DECISION IN GAZETTE RESOLUTION DATED 29 08 2008"- OR REPEAT OR- IT IS THE RESULT OF DOPPW’S EXEC INSTRUCTION IN PARA 4.2 OF OM OF 01 09 2008/ ITS CLARI-MODIFICATIONS CONVEYED THRU OMS 3/ 14 OCT 2008, THE GLARING FACT REMAINS THAT THE SUFFERERS ARE SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS BECAUSE OF RESULTANT LESSER/ ARBITRARILY REDUCED BASIC PENSION AS AGAINST THE REVISED BASIC PENSION ARRIVED AT ACCORDING TO THE FITMENT TABLE ( ANNEXED TO MOF OM DT 29 08 2008).

THE ABOVE "GLARING FACT" HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN PARA 6.8 OF THE HIGH POWER COM OF OROP'S REPORT (CAB SEC PLUS FIVE SECS) DT 30 06 2009, WHOSE RECOS WERE IMPLEMENTED THEREAFTER FOR MILTARY PENSIONERS/ PRE 2006 S30 CIVIL PENSIONERS THRU ORDERS FROM JULY 2009 ONWARDS.

IN FACT, THE ABOVE COM BROUGHT OUT THE DISPARITIES IN REVISED PENSION FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF PRE 2006 RETD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, but ONLY THE CASE OF RETD PRE 2006 LT GENS / PRE 2006 RETD ADDITIONAL SECRETARIES-S30 SCALE PENSIONERS WERE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF CORRECTION/AMELIORATION THAT TOO THRU A REVISED PAY SCALE 67000-79000- MINIMUM OF WHICH RESULTED IN A REVISED PENSION OF 33500 AS AGAINST EVEN THE CORRECT MPPB –FITMENT TABLE BASED PENSION OF 31150 OR SO. MUCH MORE THAN EVEN THE CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY.

INFORMATION AVAILABLE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ABOVE FACILITATION WAS DUE TO THE EXTRAORDINARY GESTURE/ INTEREST/ LOBBY OF A VERY SENIOR NATIONAL LEVEL ADVISOR APPROACHING THE THEN HON MOS PP – THRU HIM THE THEN EXECUTIVE HEAD–AND THEREAFTER THE INITIATIVE THRU THE ABOVE MENTIONED COM OF OROP ETC.

IT IS SAD THAT SUCH A GLARING GROSS DISCRIMINATION AND INTEREST FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPARITY FOR ONLY THE TOP LEVELS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS , HAD LEFT THE AGGRIEVED REST (BOTH THE MILIATARY AND CIVIL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS) TO SUFFER INDIGNATION/ DISCRIMINATION/ PECUNIARY LOSS/ MENTAL AGONY , AND THEY AFTER EXHAUSTING THRU REPEATED APPEALS TO ALL CHANNELS FOR GETTING A CORRECT REVISED PENSION, HAD TO TAKE THE HARSH DECISION TO APPROACH JUSTICE AT OTHER ALTARS/VENUES..

SEVERAL TRIBUNAL/COURT CASES AS POSTED EARLIER HAVE RESULTED- ALL CASES FOR CORRECT MOD PARITY HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY RESPECTIVE TRIBUNALS ( both AFTs/ CATS).

AGAIN, WITHOUT ANY VALID GROUNDS, THE GOVT/ DOPPW/DOE ETC ARE FILING WP AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL JUDGMENTS MUCH AGAINST THE (national litigation policy) NLP , IN A COMPULSIVE MANNER, ONLY TO DELAY IMPLEMENTING JUSTICE. A COLOSSAL WASTE OF COURT TIME AND MONEY.

I HOPE SOME LEGAL LUMINARIES/ SOCIAL ACTIVISTS/ MEDIA READ THESE AND BRING TO NOTICE OF ONE AND ALL/ INTO LIMELIGHT-- HOW THE GROSS VIOLATION OF NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY IS TAKING PLACE

vnatarajan

sundarar
25-08-2012, 08:04 AM
DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ INTERESTED OTHERS,

WHETHER IT IS THE RESULT OF THE “SCPS’S RECO AT PARA 5.147 OF THEIR REPORT/REPRODUCED AS CAB DECISION IN GAZETTE RESOLUTION DATED 29 08 2008"- OR REPEAT OR- IT IS THE RESULT OF DOPPW’S EXEC INSTRUCTION IN PARA 4.2 OF OM OF 01 09 2008/ ITS CLARI-MODIFICATIONS CONVEYED THRU OMS 3/ 14 OCT 2008, THE GLARING FACT REMAINS THAT THE SUFFERERS ARE SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS BECAUSE OF RESULTANT LESSER/ ARBITRARILY REDUCED BASIC PENSION AS AGAINST THE REVISED BASIC PENSION ARRIVED AT ACCORDING TO THE FITMENT TABLE ( ANNEXED TO MOF OM DT 29 08 2008).

vnatarajan


Respected Shri VNji has very aptly brought out the glaring fact amidst numerous
cases on this particular aspect - Modified Parity based minimum revised pension as against band parity based minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners.

The 6th CPC having recommended that the modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996 pensioners to bring them at par as extended by 5th CPC, also clarified that "In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, vide Para 5.1.46 of its Report. Through Para 5.1.47 the 6th CPC further recommended that

“in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees”.

“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”.

The DOP&PW Resolution dated 29.8.2008 notified through Gazette accepted the above recommendation as it is particularly with regard to modified parity based minimum revised pension.

The aforesaid text on minimum revised pension, at the time of issue of executive instructions through OM dated 1.9.2008 Para 4.2, was subjected to a `slight change in the word used' therein by removing the word " the sum of" as indicated hereunder:

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

Such a `slight change in the word used' once again got further repeated while clarifying/ modifying the aforesaid para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 through
OM dated 3.10.2008 as indicated hereunder:

"pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised sale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale".

While the first change in the word is getting continued in all subsequent OMs, the
second change in the word does not find any place in the subsequent OMs.

It is also being maintained all the text has the same meaning and if that is so for a while, what is achieved as on date is just a BAND PARITY as against MODIFIED PARITY, particularly if we have to mean Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band as `the pay from which a band starts'.

Thus, it is a glaring fact that Modified Parity as recommended by 6th CPC and notified through Gazette on its acceptance, is yet to be ordered for implementation through Pension Disbursing Authorities w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners.

Is there a solution? We can't look for the same from outside. The solution lies in the `slight changes' itself for deriving the correct minimum revised pension as per 6th CPC, but not as per the extant Executive Orders.

RPGoswami
26-08-2012, 05:04 PM
What is obvious to any person is not so to those who chooses to be blind. So we have to wait for court verdict Hopefully in November

sundarar
27-08-2012, 07:30 AM
JUSTICE MAY BE DELAYED BUT CAN NOT BE DENIED!

DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (33 YRS PLUS; 20 YEARS PLUS) / OTHERS INTERESTED,

(THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON WPs FILED SO FAR AGAINST UPHELD OAs IS AS FOLLOWS)

a. 1. OA No. 3079/2009, WP 1535/2012 FILED IN HC DELHI
2.OA No. 201/2010 - do -
3. OA No. 306/2010 - do -
4.OA No. 507/2010 - do -
5.OA No. 655/2010 - do -
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

b. 6.OA No. 843/2010 CAT Ernakulam DRDO advised to file WP
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

c. 7.OA No. 31/2011 CAT Ernakulam Draft WP by Dept. of Space vetted and returned
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

d. 8.OA No. 509/2011 CAT Chandigarh CAG requested to file WP.
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

e. 9.OA No. 568/2010 CAT Hyderabad DRDL advised to file WP.
10.OA No. 931/2010
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

f. 11.OA No. 51/2011 CAT Chandigarh Min. of I&B asked to file WP
(Para 4.2 Modified Parity)

g. 12.OA No.747/2011 CAT Ernakulam WP filed by ISRO
(Full minimum revised pension)

h. 13.OA No.1586/2010 CAT PR Bench Dept. of Revenue asked to file review
(Higher pension for HAG+)

i. 14.OA No. 167/2010 CAT Bangalore AG Karnataka asked to file Review/WP
(For No reduction in min. pension <33years)

.BESIDES THE ABOVE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBNALVERDICTS, THERE ARE NEARLY HALF A DOZEN AFT VERDICTS ON MODIFIED PARITY IN FAVOUR PRE 2006 MILITARY PENSIONERS - MAINLY RETD MAJORS/ SQDRN LEADERS/ LT CDRS.

JUST "KEEPING IN VIEW THE NLP" APPEARS TO BE THE "POLICY" WRT NLP BY THE GOVT. ORGANS.

Why make such policies?

vnatarajan

The aforesaid question by the Respected Shri VNji is very significant if we see
the prevailing situation before the Courts of Law even with the illustrative writ petitions filed/being filed (against upheld cases by CAT.).

AT THE TIME WHEN THE CASE IS PRESENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION AT HC, DELHI ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF PARA 4.2 MODIFIED PARITY BASED MIN. REV. PENSION,
THREE MORE HCs - ANDHRAPRADESH, KERALA AND PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ALSO MAY BE CONSIDERING THE SAME ISSUE AS AND WHEN WRIT PETITIONS ARE GETTING FILED BY CONCERNED AGENCIES AS ADVISED `DULY KEEPING IN VIEW THE NLP'.

APART FROM THE ABOVE, AT PRESENT NO. OF CASES ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE UNDER PROGRESS AT VARIOUS CAT BENCHES AND ONCE UPHELD, THE WRIT PETITIONS AGAINST SUCH UPHELD CASES BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE HIGH COURTS MAY ALSO FOLLOW AS IS OF NOW.

WHETHER ROUTINE APPEALS ON SAME ISSUE AT VARIOUS HCs WILL ENSURE TIME BOUND SOLUTION? THE STAND TAKEN ALREADY THROUGH EXTANT ORDERS COULD VERY WELL BE SUBJECTED TO REVIEW BY APPROPRIATE LEVEL DULY KEEPING IN VIEW THE NO. OF CASES UPHELD BY VARIOUS CAT BENCHES AND THE SUO MOTO REMEDIAL DECISION THEREON WILL SAVE THE PRECIOUS TIME OF VARIOUS HCs ON THE SAME ISSUE.

As such, the issue pertains to the quantum of
a) correct minimum revised pension
b) full correct minimum revised pension irrespective of qualifying service

for pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

It is time to review the stand taken under the extant orders to resolve the aforesaid issue at the earliest by the Appropriate Authorities amidst the prevailing litigation exercise.

sundarar
28-08-2012, 07:40 AM
KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF KERALA
WP (C) NO. 1746 OF 2009 (G) JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2010 BY KERALA HIGH COURT ERNAKULAM

"6. ......."The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 17/7/2004 providing that in respect of Judicial Officers who had put in less than the full qualifying service, there shall be proportionate reduction in the pension benefits. I.A. No.157 was filed by the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers Association before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of along with several other interlocutory applications, as per Exhibit P7 order dated 21/11/2006. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Supreme Court reads as follows:

"I.A. No. 157:

This application has been filed by the Andra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers' Association for setting aside G.O.Ms. No.79, Law Dep., dated 17th July, 2004, to the extent of the direction that who have put in full qualifying service at the time of retirement, and in respect of Judicial Officers who have put in less than the full qualifying service, there shall be proportionate reduction. Further prayer is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh be directed to revise the pension uniformly to all past pensioners irrespective of length of qualifying service, at 50% of minimum pay in the revised pay scale of the post from which the past pensioner retired.

Chapter -23 of the Shetty Commission Report deals with pension structure for past pensioners. Chapter 22 deals with retirement benefits.

For considering the pension structure for past pensioners, Chapter -22 has not relevance. The first recommendation of para 23.18 contained in Chapter -23 reads as under: "The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the

minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time." Paragraph 22.33 in Chapter 22 recommends that the qualifying years of service should be 33 years for earning full pension except in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. This clause has no relevance for working out the benefit of pension under clause (1) of recommendation in para 23.18 above- noted. No other material has been shown to us which may justify the stipulation in para 8 of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Government, dated 17th July, 2004, about the requirement of full qualifying service at the time of retirement and proportionate reduction in respect of Judicial Officers who have put in less than full qualifying service. The aforesaid recommendation has been accepted by this Court in its judgment reported in [2002(4) SCC 247]. Under these circumstances, the direction in respect of full qualifying service in the Government order dated 17th July, 2004, is set aside, as prayed in the application. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to work out the benefit strictly in terms of the first recommendation contained in para 23.18 of the Shetty Commission, as quoted above.

The interlocutory Application is disposed of accordingly."


7. A contention was raised before the Supreme Court by the State of Andhra Pradesh that Chapter 22 of the Shetty Commission Report should be made applicable for the pension structure for past pensioners. That contention was negatived by the Supreme Court holding that Chapter 22 of the Shetty Commission Report has no relevance in considering the pension structure for past pensioners. Based on Paragraph 23.18 of Shetty Commission Report, the Supreme Court held that the direction in respect of full qualifying service in the Government Order dated 17/7/2004 was liable to be set aside."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the aforesaid extracts of Judgment in Para 6 and 7, the following points may please be noted:

1. "The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time."

2. "No proportionate reduction in minimum revised pension in respect of those who have put less than full qualifying service".

The Minimum Revised Pension will be nothing but 50% of the Minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time, whether it is a scale based revision or band based one.

The 6th CPC has no where indicated that there shall be proportionate reduction in minimum revised pension in respect of those who have put less than full qualifying service, while prescribing the manner and methodology to derive minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 vide Para 5.1.47.

Therefore, there is no point in attempting to establish again and again
that 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of minimum of the pay band are one and same, and simultaneously maintaining that 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale plus 50% of GP will be the minimum revised pension.

Ultimately, the minimum revised pension shall be 50% of (Basic) Pay in the revised structure for all past pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 including those who have put less than full qualifying service in line with the AP Retired Judicial Officers' Association case and the Kerala Retired Judicial Officers case where the stand taken in the former case is reiterated on 7.7.2010.

ybhaskar23
28-08-2012, 02:43 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar,
you have hit the nail on the head
whenwill the Govt open its eyes?
ybr




The aforesaid question by the Respected Shri VNji is very significant if we see
the prevailing situation before the Courts of Law even with the illustrative writ petitions filed/being filed (against upheld cases by CAT.).

AT THE TIME WHEN THE CASE IS PRESENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION AT HC, DELHI ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF PARA 4.2 MODIFIED PARITY BASED MIN. REV. PENSION,
THREE MORE HCs - ANDHRAPRADESH, KERALA AND PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ALSO MAY BE CONSIDERING THE SAME ISSUE AS AND WHEN WRIT PETITIONS ARE GETTING FILED BY CONCERNED AGENCIES AS ADVISED `DULY KEEPING IN VIEW THE NLP'.

APART FROM THE ABOVE, AT PRESENT NO. OF CASES ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE UNDER PROGRESS AT VARIOUS CAT BENCHES AND ONCE UPHELD, THE WRIT PETITIONS AGAINST SUCH UPHELD CASES BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE HIGH COURTS MAY ALSO FOLLOW AS IS OF NOW.

WHETHER ROUTINE APPEALS ON SAME ISSUE AT VARIOUS HCs WILL ENSURE TIME BOUND SOLUTION? THE STAND TAKEN ALREADY THROUGH EXTANT ORDERS COULD VERY WELL BE SUBJECTED TO REVIEW BY APPROPRIATE LEVEL DULY KEEPING IN VIEW THE NO. OF CASES UPHELD BY VARIOUS CAT BENCHES AND THE SUO MOTO REMEDIAL DECISION THEREON WILL SAVE THE PRECIOUS TIME OF VARIOUS HCs ON THE SAME ISSUE.

As such, the issue pertains to the quantum of
a) correct minimum revised pension
b) full correct minimum revised pension irrespective of qualifying service

for pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

It is time to review the stand taken under the extant orders to resolve the aforesaid issue at the earliest by the Appropriate Authorities amidst the prevailing litigation exercise.

ybhaskar23
28-08-2012, 06:31 PM
dear sundarar ji,
you have hit the nail on the head,
but the Govt appears to be deaf
ybr





Respected Shri VNji has very aptly brought out the glaring fact amidst numerous
cases on this particular aspect - Modified Parity based minimum revised pension as against band parity based minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners.

The 6th CPC having recommended that the modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996 pensioners to bring them at par as extended by 5th CPC, also clarified that "In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, vide Para 5.1.46 of its Report. Through Para 5.1.47 the 6th CPC further recommended that

“in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees”.

“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”.

The DOP&PW Resolution dated 29.8.2008 notified through Gazette accepted the above recommendation as it is particularly with regard to modified parity based minimum revised pension.

The aforesaid text on minimum revised pension, at the time of issue of executive instructions through OM dated 1.9.2008 Para 4.2, was subjected to a `slight change in the word used' therein by removing the word " the sum of" as indicated hereunder:

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

Such a `slight change in the word used' once again got further repeated while clarifying/ modifying the aforesaid para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 through
OM dated 3.10.2008 as indicated hereunder:

"pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised sale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale".

While the first change in the word is getting continued in all subsequent OMs, the
second change in the word does not find any place in the subsequent OMs.

It is also being maintained all the text has the same meaning and if that is so for a while, what is achieved as on date is just a BAND PARITY as against MODIFIED PARITY, particularly if we have to mean Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band as `the pay from which a band starts'.

Thus, it is a glaring fact that Modified Parity as recommended by 6th CPC and notified through Gazette on its acceptance, is yet to be ordered for implementation through Pension Disbursing Authorities w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners.

Is there a solution? We can't look for the same from outside. The solution lies in the `slight changes' itself for deriving the correct minimum revised pension as per 6th CPC, but not as per the extant Executive Orders.

sundarar
29-08-2012, 07:39 AM
7.10.2008 02:32 PMvnatarajan
INJUSTICE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S-29 & 30/ALSO OTHER SCALES (18400-22400 & 22400-24500 etc) THRU Corrigendum OM Dtd 03.10.2008 of Deptt of Pension etc.

This has reference to Deptt of Pension's most recent office memorandum, F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03 Oct 2008, containing certain clarifications on their earlier OM of even number dated 01 sep 2008 with crucial modifications to the provisions, particularly on the fixations of minimum pension and family pension, of pre 2006 retirees.

Under para 4.2 of the earlier OM dated 01 Sep 08,, the applicable minimum revised pension for pre 2006 pensioners,(ie 50% of the minimum of the pay in the corresponding revised pay band plus the grade pay) had been spelt out. The OM was silent on the minimum applicable Family Pension, as related to the pay last drawn .While seeking to correct this omission, the second OM of 03 Oct 2008, has in effect, negated the established position wrt the minimum pay of a grade and consequently the minimum pension /family pension, as already accepted by the government, at different levels and notified through various rules and notifications . It is to be noted that in respect of the 5th CPC also, minimum pension/ family pension wrt to the revised pay scales introduced wef 1-1-96 was not accepted initially.However,after detailed examination, Government accepted the logic and corrected the position, vide OM No , F.No 45/10/98-P&PW(A), dated, 17 Dec 98,and all pensioners/family pensioners ,were authorized pension of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay at the time of retirement and family pension subject to the minimum of 30% of the revised pay, irrespective of the date of retirement.

Against this background, the undue restriction of the minimum pension through the notification of 03 Oct 08, is neither tenable nor justified as explained hereunder.

i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a bunch of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding starting points for each one of them. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation ; and also through the DOP's resolution No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and DOP's OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08. It may be seen for example, that the revised basic pay under the 6th CPC, for the pre revised basic pay of Rs 18400 in the scale of 18400-22400, (S-29) has been prescribed as 54700/-( ie pay in the pay band Rs. 44700 + grade pay Rs. 10000) and similarly revised basic pay of Rs. 63850 for pre revised basic pay of Rs. 22400 in the pre revised HAG scale (S-30) and others.

ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays. E.g. ( Rs. 53000 for SAG and Rs. 59100 for HAG)

iii) The modifications notified in DOP's of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

iv) The dual concept of minimum basic pay as provided for in the modified orders, could in many cases result in an employee retiring in higher grades before 2006, getting less pension than one retiring after 2006, from even two or more grades below, leaving alone, in the same grade, thus upsetting even the limited parity accepted by the government among pre and post 2006 pensioners.

v) Excepting the existing family pensioners, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, are to be prospective, and therefore cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and anomalous between inequal grades. Lack of parity among them will perpetuate injustice in future!.

vi) The recent DOP's OM of 3rd Oct 2008, in effect relegates the pre-2006 S-29 & 30 level pensioners with starting points at 18400 and even 22400 of their original pay scales to the lowest starting level of 14300 (S-24) for pension purposes- a decision most unjustifiable/ untenable/ unacceptable. For eg How can a person who throughout the period from 1996 onwards had been drawing pension based on say 50% of basic of 18400 be now relegated to start at 50% of basic of 14300 - as the effect of 40% fitment or even part of Grade Pay provided gets eroded due to the huge difference at the starting point itself!

The entire issue needs a thorough review and fresh revised orders, fixing the correct minimum basic pension/family pension should be issued by the Govt., covering all existing pensioners.

Principles enshrined in the constitutional Bench Judgement of the Supreme court, in the "NAKRA CASE" dated 17 Dec 82,which is hailed as the "MAGNA CARTA" for pensioners and on the foundation of which the current welfare based pension scheme, has been shaped by the Govt., should be kept in view always to do justice to all the PENSIONERS. (posted by vnatarajan)

Respected Shri VNji commenced this thread `Injustice' about 4 years before wherein,
he had very correctly indicated the correct prescription of Minimum Revised Pension - 50% of minimum pay in the corresponding pay band plus 50% of Grade Pay applicable to pre-revised scale.

While S-30 scale afterwards given the treatment of scale based revision - which scale based revision also is nothing but 50% of Revised Pay corresponding to bottom stage of the pre-revised scale.

If minimum of the pay in the pay band will mean `the pay from which the particular pay band starts', as has been maintained nowadays, then what will be the minimum of the pay band?

Actually, minimum of the pay band means, `the pay in the pay band from which the particular pay band starts'.

THAT IS WHY, THE 6TH CPC HAS NOT PRESCRIBED 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND.


Minimum of the pay in the pay band is derived based on bottom stage of the pre-revised scale.

THAT IS WHY, THE 6TH CPC HAS PRESCRIBED 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND.

THAT IS WHY, THE CPAO ALSO HAD AMENDED ITS EARLIER VERSION OF `50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND' AS 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND.


The Shetty Commission in respect of pay revision of Judicial Officers has clearly defined minimum revised pension as `50% of Minimum Pay at the time of retirement, revised from time to time'.

In accordance with the minimum pay in the pay scale held at the time of retirement, 50% of its revised pay shall constitute minimum revised pension AS HAS BEEN THE CASE OF S-30 ONWARDS.

RPGoswami
29-08-2012, 04:33 PM
We can wake up one who is sleeping and not one who pretends to sleep

kssitaraman
30-08-2012, 09:08 PM
Ref: Shri Sundarar’s Post No.1148. dated 28/8/12 giving extracts of Kerala HC judgment over Case between Kerala HC Judges Association and the State of Kerala.

Details of the above Judgment have been brought to the notice of all concerned at the right time, when the very same two matters dealt in the Judgment have come up again for hearing in two different cases pertaining to past pensioners, one on Modified parity in the HC/Delhi, awaiting affirmation of an earlier judgment and the other in CAT/PB/Delhi on 20 years full pension awaiting a decision.

The Kerala High Court seems to have based its judgment in this case on an Order dated 21/11/2006 issued by the Supreme Court while disposing of Interlocutory Application No.157 from the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers’ Association and other Interlockutory Applications filed by others.

The significant and noteworthy feature of this Order of the Apex Court is that the Modified parity aspects have been defined in unequivocal terms and that the applicability of proportionate pension in respect of the past pensioners who had put in less than 33 years qualifying service has been declared to be not relevant for these pensioners, after taking cognisance of the Recommendations of the Shetty Commission of Andhra Pradesh in Paras 23 and 22 respectively. Thus both the issues have been disposed of by a single Order. The Order is reproduced below: -

Quote: “"I.A. No. 157:

This application has been filed by the Andra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers' Association for setting aside G.O.Ms. No.79, Law Dep., dated 17th July, 2004, to the extent of the direction that who have put in full qualifying service at the time of retirement, and in respect of Judicial Officers who have put in less than the full qualifying service, there shall be proportionate reduction. Further prayer is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh be directed to revise the pension uniformly to all past pensioners irrespective of length of qualifying service, at 50% of minimum pay in the revised pay scale of the post from which the past pensioner retired.

Chapter -23 of the Shetty Commission Report deals with pension structure for past pensioners. Chapter 22 deals with retirement benefits.

For considering the pension structure for past pensioners, Chapter -22 has not relevance. The first recommendation of para 23.18 contained in Chapter -23 reads as under: "The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time." Paragraph 22.33 in Chapter 22 recommends that the qualifying years of service should be 33 years for earning full pension except in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. This clause has no relevance for working out the benefit of pension under clause (1) of recommendation in para 23.18 above- noted. No other material has been shown to us which may justify the stipulation in para 8 of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Government, dated 17th July, 2004, about the requirement of full qualifying service at the time of retirement and proportionate reduction in respect of Judicial Officers who have put in less than full qualifying service. The aforesaid recommendation has been accepted by this Court in its judgment reported in [2002(4) SCC 247]. Under these circumstances, the direction in respect of full qualifying service in the Government order dated 17th July, 2004, is set aside, as prayed in the application. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to work out the benefit strictly in terms of the first recommendation contained in para 23.18 of the Shetty Commission, as quoted above.

The interlocutory Application is disposed of accordingly." End of Quote.

Obviously the aforesaid recommendations of the Shetty Commission were based on those of the Sixth CPC. Even if it is not so, the principle applied by the Apex Court through its judicial acumen in defining the Modified parity in the said Order should also apply wherever the issue is still in contention. The underlying principle governing the issue cannot vary or be different.

Likewise, as regards the proportionate pension case, as Shri Sundarar opined, the Sixth CPC has nowhere in its Report stated that ‘there shall be proportionate reduction in minimum revised pension in respect of the past pensioners who have put in less than full qualifying service’. It is obvious that the Commission had intended the ‘Recommendation to dispense with linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service’ to apply to all including the past pensioners. The aforesaid Order of the Highest Court of the land, it is hoped, will guide those concerned.

kssitaraman
04-09-2012, 08:36 PM
Reference my above Post No.1153 of 30/8/2012, a need arises to elaborate a bit further.

In the last sentence of the write-up, the words ‘those concerned’ are meant for those in whose hands lies the destiny or fate of past pensioners.

rksehgal31
15-09-2012, 04:48 PM
An article titled "One Rank One Pension for Civil Servants too" written by me has been published in The Tribune Chandigarh on Sept 07, 2012 at page 9 Oped Governance.

As per the 6th CPC recommendation at Para 1.2.9, the functional posts of S-29 and S-30 should also be placed in same pay scale HAG+ (Rs.75500-80000) as for S-31 and S-32. The 6th CPC has recommended a common pay band for the functional posts in S-29 to S-32 scales.

The pay of the serving officers should be revised by allowing one increment for each year service (beyond the eligibility for PB-4) and one increment for each promotion.

Other issues are to implement SC judgments, Equal Pension for Equal Work, Next-below junior, revision of pay on notional basis for pre-1996 and pre-2006 pensioners as was done for pre-1986 pensioners vide GOI order dated 10.02.1998.

Please visit the following sites:
http://epaper.tribuneindia.com/55620/The-Tribune/TT_07_September_2012#page/9/1
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120907/edit.htm#6

With best wishes,
Er RK Sehgal
(M) 9811932572

vnatarajan
25-09-2012, 05:24 AM
SCPC MODIFIED PARITY IN ANOTHER FORM- ie FITMENT TABLE BASED FIXATION INSTEAD OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND - (WEF 1 1 2006)ACCEDED FOR PRE 2006 RETD COM OFFICERS - SHALL INCLUDE RETD MAJ GENS/ RETD MAJORS / EQUALS- LET US WAIT & WATCH FOR CIVLIAN EQUALS!

PIB RELEASE IS AVAILABLE- link/ text appended.
HP DEFENCE COM ON OROP CONSTITUTED BY HON PMO- ITS FOUR RECOS GIVEN SHAPE- COVERS “SCPC MODIFIED PARITY” ON “FITMENT TABLE BASED MPPB BASIS” INSTEAD OF “MPB” BASIS WEF 1 1 2006 FOR PRE 2OO6 RETD MILITARY PENSIONERS – SHALL INCLUDE RETD MAJ GENS & EQUALS; RETD LT CDRS- MAJS-SQDRN LEADERS ETC WHO HAD WON THE CASES IN AFTS ON THE ISSUE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIB RELEASE:
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx

PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Rs.2300 crore approved to meet the demands of Ex-servicemen pensioners

The Union Cabinet has approved the recommendations of the Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary for benefits to ex-servicemen on four issues. The financial implications of the improvements made as per the Cabinet decision on the four items are broadly estimated at Rs.2300 crore per annum. The details are as follows:

I. One Rank One Pension:
On One Rank One Pension, the demand of the Defence Forces and Ex-Servicemen Associations is that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

The difference in the pension of present and past pensioners in the same rank occurs on account of the number of increments earned by the defence personnel in that rank. There is also a difference between the pension of pre 1.1.06 and post 1.1.06 retirees belonging to a particular rank. The UPA Government on two previous occasions has taken decisions to narrow the gap between the present and past pensioners, particularly those belonging to the ranks of JCOs and Other Ranks.

On the issue of One Rank One Pension, the following have been approved by the Cabinet:

(i) Bridging of the gap in the pension of pre 1.1.06 and post 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees by determining the pension of pre 1.1.06 retirees on the basis of notional maximum for ranks and groups across the three Services as in the case of post 1.1.06 retirees. In addition, the weightage of qualifying service in the ranks of Sepoys, Naik and Havaldar would be increased by two years for both pre and post 1.1.06 retirees.
(ii) The pension of pre 1.1.06 Commissioned Officer pensioners would be stepped up with reference to the minimum of fitment table for the ranks instead of the minimum of pay band.

These are expected to largely meet the demands of the defence pensioners on one rank one pension.

II. Enhancement of Family Pension :

(i) The pension of pre - 1.1.2006 family pensioners(Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers, JCOs/ORs ) be stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment table instead of the minimum of the Pay Band;

(i) Establishing linkage of the family pension with the pension of JCOs/ORs, in those cases where the death takes place after the retirement of the JCO/OR since such a JCO/OR drew a pension based on the maximum of the pay scales, 60% of the pension applicable to JCO/OR pensioners would be granted to the family pensioner in case of normal family pension calculated a 30% of last pay drawn. Accordingly, based on the rank, group and length of service of the deceaed JCO/OR pensioner, his pension would first be determined on notional basis. In cases where death of JCO/OR took place after retirement, the family pensioners in receipt of normal family pension would become entitled to 60% of the said pension determined on notional basis and those in receipt of enhanced family pension will be entitled to 100% of this pension. Similar entitlements would be determined in the case of Special Family Pension; and


(ii) The family pensioner of the JCO/OR would be granted pension arrived at on the basis of the family pension worked out as per the formulation at (i) above or the pension on the basis of stepping up with reference to the minimum of the fitment table, whichever is beneficial. Further, the linkage of family pension with retiring pension be applied in the case of post 1.1.2006 family pensioners of JCOs/ORs also.

III. Dual Family Pension:

Dual family pension would be allowed in the present and future cases where the pensioner drew, is drawing or may draw pension for military service as well as for civil employment.

IV. Family pension to mentally / physically challenged children of armed forces personnel on marriage:

Grant of family pension to mentally/physically challenged children who drew, are drawing or may draw family pension would continue even after their marriage.
The above recommendations made by the Committee on pension issues of Ex-Servicemen may be implemented from a prospective date and payment made accordingly.
***SH/SKS
(Release ID :87953)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDIAN MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS & ISSUES BLOG (MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH)
http://www.indianmilitary.info/

Monday, September 24, 2012
Cabinet approval granted to pensionary part of the report of the Committee of Secretaries
The cabinet has today approved the pensionary part of the PM appointed Committee of Secretaries.
What has been accepted and promulgated is the same as was placed on this blog on 09 August 2012.
An official press release can also be accessed by clicking here.
Service pension for various ranks shall now be the following:

For Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks (JCOs/OR): Add two years in the existing tables which can be accessed by clicking here. For example, to get to know the basic pension now admissible at 15 years, the amount reflected at 17 years may be seen.

For Officers: The admissible basic pension for pre-2006 retirees shall be as below:-
Lieut : Rs 13,500
Capt : Rs 15,350
Maj : Rs 18,205
Lt Col : Rs 26,265
Col : Rs 27,795
Brig : Rs 29,145
Maj Gen : Rs 30,350
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 9:50 PM 4 comments
Labels: Pay Commission, Pension, Policy and Be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT MY SIGNAL BLOG:
http://reportmysignal.blogspot.in/

Monday, September 24, 2012
One rank One Pension: Cabinet clears Rs. 2300 crore package
One rank One Pension: Cabinet clears Rs. 2300 crore package
Edited by Shamik Ghosh | Updated: September 24, 2012 20:14 IST
New Delhi: In a major victory for ex-servicemen, the government has set aside Rs. 2,300 crore to implement the one-rank-one-pension (OROP) demand that has been pending for years. This has been a major irritant between the armed forces and the bureaucracy.
In recognition of this demand, the Prime Minister in his Independence Day address this year, had announced OROP, apart from several other measures.
The Union Cabinet secretary Ajit K Seth was put in charge of a committee that has submitted its report, though after more than a month's delay.
OROP implies that servicemen of the same rank and same period of service should get the same pension, irrespective of when they retired. It also means that as and when pension is enhanced, the benefit will also be passed on to those who have retired earlier.
One rank One Pension: Cabinet clears Rs. 2300 crore packageComment: Happy news for the lakhs of retired Jawans struggling to keep pace with inflation. This small measure is sure to light up many Veteran Homes.

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

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
25-09-2012, 01:34 PM
Wonder if the recent OROP decision lead to justice to pre-2006 pensioers eventually?

vnatarajan
15-10-2012, 08:26 PM
ARE WE MAKING ANY HEADWAY IN RESOLVING THE PRE 2006 CIVILIAN PENSIONERS' INJUSTICE? TRUTH HAS TO SHOW UP SOONER THAN LATER!

Dear Shri RPG/ Others Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested,

Something has to progress.

IN THE LAST 21ST SCOVA MEETING HELD ON 27 09 2012 UNDER THE AEGIS OF DOPPW, THE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PENSION DISPARITIES. INEQUALITIES ETC CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION UNDER HE ATR CATEGORY.

TWO ITEMS SL NO 3 AND 12 WERE IN VIEW.

THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES AS CIRCULATED BY THE DOPPW RECENTLY (FEW DAYS BACK) IS REPRODUCED :

Sl. No. 3 & 12 of ATR :
(3)- Same fitment benefit to Pre-2006 pensioners as
recommended and implemented in respect of serving
employees by the VI CPC.
Parity between Past and Future Pensioners.
Stepping up of Pension and Family Pension to 50% and
30% respectively. Extension of new benefits
granted to the past pensioner.
(12)- The implementation of orders dated 01.09.2008
read with the orders dated 14.10.08 is not correct for
fixation of pension.

With regard to the issue of same benefit to pre-2006 pensioners as
given to serving employees by 6th CPC and parity between past and
future pensioners, the members were informed that CAT in its
judgement on 1.11.2011 had dismissed the issue.

With regard to issue of stepping up of pension and family pension to 50% and 30%
respectively of the minimum of pay in the payscale, the members
were informed that appropriate action in this regard is being taken
taken by the government. In view of the above, it has been treated
as closed.

CAN WE HOPE FOR A POSITIVE OUTCOME BEFORE DIWALI AND AVOID FURTHER "UNPLEASANT HIGHER COURT DISPUTES"?

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
17-10-2012, 07:32 PM
Will it mean that we need not wait for the High Court, where the case is scheduled for November?

Gopal Krishan
17-10-2012, 08:29 PM
Respected Vnatarajan Sahib,

It is INFORMALLY understood that the Government has taken a decision in the matter, which is favourable to pre-2006 retirees.

With regards

Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
17-10-2012, 08:31 PM
Dear Shri RPG

Obviously not if the decision is in favour of pre- 2006 retirees.

With regards,

Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
18-10-2012, 08:29 AM
Dear Shri RPG/ Shri GK,

Shri Gk ji has clarified.

1.Com on Def Pay/ Pension headed by Cab Sec himself has recommended the pre 2006 Retd Com Officers' pension wef 1 1 2006 to be formulated on the basis of the MP as per the FITMENT TABLES ( respectively/ applicable to the serving officers of various services obviously) .
2.This shall not contradict a number of AFT judgments in favour on their correct SCPC Mod Parity, which was also wrt the FITMENT TABLEs applicable to the serving officers.
3.We note that in their cases also, the Govt side had gone with SLPs to the HSC where they are still pending - even first hearing perhaps has not started as there had been some procedural lapses/ incorrect submission of records by the Govt side and the concerned Dy Registrar (Jud) had passed a written order with a discenting record on a hasty listing for admission etc.

Further, given the issue being one and the same wrt the MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION/ MINIMUM ASSUREDD PENSION on either side of revsiion for both Military and Civil pre 2006 pensioners , any order on such Pension Principle/Policy based revision/ stepping up/ enhancement/ correct formulation can not be adopted unilaterally for the former alone as it is "WHAT IS APPLICABLE TO CIVIL PENSIONERS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO MILITARY PENSIONERS" always!. It is not like an additional allownce or like Military Spl Pay etc. It is the MINIMUM BASIC PENSION which is under consideration here.

Therefore, I feel orders will be simultaneous for both categories of pre 2006 pensioners - if not first for the civilians - with full arrears of course wef 1 1 2006- and on priority with the already committed RANK PAY/ PENSION order wef 1 1 1986 for the old military pensioners ( benefits from which may be higher than the revised pension based on Mod Parity formula for them/ and as they shall get all arrears from ! 1 1 1986 as eligible)!!!!

NO NEED TO WAIT FOR HON HC OUTCOME - IT MAY BECOME VOID ALSO IF THE GOVT MEANS BUSINESS!

Regards,
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-10-2012, 07:25 AM
Kind Attn; Shri RPG/Shri YB/Shri Sundarar,

Reprodeced later is what I have posted in the thread titled "Grade Pay ....." wherein some point has been raised wrt the PRCs of S24 & S28 which had same minimum of 14300.

ALL JUDGMENTS ARE WRT "MINIMUM" ASPECT ONLY, BECAUSE OF THE SO-CALLED "MODIFIED APRITY" OF 5CPC FAME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PRECISELY DEFINED TO "MEAN OR CONVEY" THAT WHATEVER REVISIONS TAKE PLACE, THE "MINIMUMS ON WITHER SIDE OF REVISION SHALL ALWAYS BE EQUAL" SO THAT THE LINK OF THE OLD PENSIONERS' PENSION WRT PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE OF THE POST FROM WHCH THE PENSIONER RETIRED IS NOT DETROYED OR MUTILATED!

My post in the other thread:

"No confusion pl.

BETWEEN THE S24 AND S28, ONE MAY NOT HOPE FOR "STEPPING UP" WRT THE MPB OF 37400. (what Shri YB has stated is ok- difference here will be only in GP)

SUCH COINCDENCE MAY NOT HAPPEN FOR THE OTHER PAY SCALES INCLUDED IN THE PAY BAND 4- AS THEIR RESPECTIVE MINIMUMS MAY NOT BE SAME AS 14300.

TAKING THE CASE OF S29:

When STEPPING UP is prescribed as recoded in SCOVA record, it can not be simply beating around the bush, by sticking to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND blunder !

PR CAT and the Petitioner Pensioners have made clear what is MPPB based pension and MPB based pension.

FORMER(MPPB) IS WITH MINIMUM "CORRESPONDENCE" TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PRE 2006 PENSIONER RETIRED , wheras the latter is WITHOUT ANY SUCH CORRESPONDENCE BUT THE revised pension shall be with respect to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND "IRRESPECTIVE OF' THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES (OF THE POSTS) FROM WHICH THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS RETIRED FROM.

As such, we are aware, when a number of pay scales are merged to form the Pay Band, minimum/bottom of each of the pre-revised pay scales DO have a "corresponding minimum/ bottom" WITHIN the Pay Band.

For eg. Respective Bottoms of 14300 - 18400 and 18400-22400 Pre revised Pay scales can not be one and the same common "bottom" of 37400 as that of the Pay Band 4. They have respective bottoms at 37400 and 44700 as can be seen from the FITMENT TABLE annexed by MOF vide their Order of 30 08 2008.

What Sundarar has explained is quite precise.
(14300 and 18400 can not start at the same "bottoms" of the PAY BAND 4).

Obviously one has to refer to the FITMENT table which is being done for MILITARY pensioners (as per their own derivative FITMENT TABLEs, as committed by the HP Def Com recos.

Govt may not say so in Precise words- and what they have said at SCOVA does make some sense ........., but let us wait and see.

LET US HOPE THE GOVT NOW AT LEAST RESOLVES THE ISSUE WITHOUT MUCH ADO ...... AFTER 35 OAs AND ABOUT TEN AFT / PR CAT/ CAT JUDGMENTS INVOLVING MORE THAN A DOZEN JUDGES' VERDICTS UPHOLDING THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' APPEALS FOR SPEEDY JUSTICE/ TRUTH! "

vnatarajan

ybhaskar23
23-10-2012, 05:34 PM
Dear Sri VN Ji

As per the Armed Forces info ( Maj Navdeep Blog ) the minimum Pension for pre 2006 pensioners is as under

sl rank Grade Pay Minimum Pension Minimum Pension ( Armed Forces Pension minus 3000)
for Armed Forces applicable to civilians
1 LT 5400 13500 10500
2 capt 5600 15350 12350
3 maj 6600 18250 15250
4 Lt Col 8000 26265 23265
5 Col 8700 27795 24795
6 Brig 8900 29145 26145
7 Maj Gen 10000 30350 27350

The figures for Civilians for Minimum Pension for GP 5400 and above should be exactly as those shown above,
no matter what fitment tables are used.

Please Clarify this point

Thanks

YBR




Kind Attn; Shri RPG/Shri YB/Shri Sundarar,

Reprodeced later is what I have posted in the thread titled "Grade Pay ....." wherein some point has been raised wrt the PRCs of S24 & S28 which had same minimum of 14300.

ALL JUDGMENTS ARE WRT "MINIMUM" ASPECT ONLY, BECAUSE OF THE SO-CALLED "MODIFIED APRITY" OF 5CPC FAME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PRECISELY DEFINED TO "MEAN OR CONVEY" THAT WHATEVER REVISIONS TAKE PLACE, THE "MINIMUMS ON WITHER SIDE OF REVISION SHALL ALWAYS BE EQUAL" SO THAT THE LINK OF THE OLD PENSIONERS' PENSION WRT PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE OF THE POST FROM WHCH THE PENSIONER RETIRED IS NOT DETROYED OR MUTILATED!

My post in the other thread:

"No confusion pl.

BETWEEN THE S24 AND S28, ONE MAY NOT HOPE FOR "STEPPING UP" WRT THE MPB OF 37400. (what Shri YB has stated is ok- difference here will be only in GP)

SUCH COINCDENCE MAY NOT HAPPEN FOR THE OTHER PAY SCALES INCLUDED IN THE PAY BAND 4- AS THEIR RESPECTIVE MINIMUMS MAY NOT BE SAME AS 14300.

TAKING THE CASE OF S29:

When STEPPING UP is prescribed as recoded in SCOVA record, it can not be simply beating around the bush, by sticking to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND blunder !

PR CAT and the Petitioner Pensioners have made clear what is MPPB based pension and MPB based pension.

FORMER(MPPB) IS WITH MINIMUM "CORRESPONDENCE" TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PRE 2006 PENSIONER RETIRED , wheras the latter is WITHOUT ANY SUCH CORRESPONDENCE BUT THE revised pension shall be with respect to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND "IRRESPECTIVE OF' THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES (OF THE POSTS) FROM WHICH THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS RETIRED FROM.

As such, we are aware, when a number of pay scales are merged to form the Pay Band, minimum/bottom of each of the pre-revised pay scales DO have a "corresponding minimum/ bottom" WITHIN the Pay Band.

For eg. Respective Bottoms of 14300 - 18400 and 18400-22400 Pre revised Pay scales can not be one and the same common "bottom" of 37400 as that of the Pay Band 4. They have respective bottoms at 37400 and 44700 as can be seen from the FITMENT TABLE annexed by MOF vide their Order of 30 08 2008.

What Sundarar has explained is quite precise.
(14300 and 18400 can not start at the same "bottoms" of the PAY BAND 4).

Obviously one has to refer to the FITMENT table which is being done for MILITARY pensioners (as per their own derivative FITMENT TABLEs, as committed by the HP Def Com recos.

Govt may not say so in Precise words- and what they have said at SCOVA does make some sense ........., but let us wait and see.

LET US HOPE THE GOVT NOW AT LEAST RESOLVES THE ISSUE WITHOUT MUCH ADO ...... AFTER 35 OAs AND ABOUT TEN AFT / PR CAT/ CAT JUDGMENTS INVOLVING MORE THAN A DOZEN JUDGES' VERDICTS UPHOLDING THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' APPEALS FOR SPEEDY JUSTICE/ TRUTH! "

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
24-10-2012, 03:30 AM
What I understand is:
Principles of formulation in computing Basic Pay would be same.
Rest will depend upon the the pre-revied pay scales and of course the merged Rank Pay for military personnel!
What I wrote in the other thread " Grade Pay......" is reproduced here:

If the two sets of pay scales are identical - one to one, what is menioned can be true. i WAS NOT AN ACCOUNTS PERSON - NOR I HAVE ALL DATA!

I CAN ONLY SAY ABOUT S29 SCALE WHICH IS EXACTLY SAME FOR BOTH CIVIL AND MILITARY (BUT FOR MSP).
(FIGURES 30350 FOR PRE 2006 RETD MAJ GENS /EQUALS AND 27350 FOR CIVILIAN PRE2006 S29 ARE OK.).

SO WAS THE S30 VS LT GENS.
(BEFORE THE NEW SCALE AND AFTER THE NEW SCALE ALSO)

In other cases, where they cd be compared to some extent , the Miliatry Scales were kept a shade lesser but when Rank Pay is merged, such sales go higher than Civilians.

NOW WITH RANK PAY CASE JUDGEMNT IN THEIR FAVOUR, EVEN THE MAJOR'S SCALE MAY HAVE TO COME TO PB4!

vnatarajan

ybhaskar23
25-10-2012, 01:06 AM
Dear VN Ji

Even if the Rank Pay case has gone in the favour of the Armed forces,
How can a Major of GP 6600 or Lt Col of GP 7600/8000 draw more minimum gauranteed Pension ( after deduction of Rs 3000 pension on account of MSP) than Civilian Officers in same Grade Pay whether holding identical or non identical 5th cpc scales of pay.

The difference in minimum gauranteed pension of same grade pay military and civilian officers should under no circumstances exceed Rs 3000/-. for all pre 2006 pensioners between military and civilian officers as has been made applicable in Maj Gen and Lt Gen cases.

Grade Pay is a very important component of Status and Heirarchy for comparison purposes.

If major's are being upgraded to PB4 and their Grade Pay is also being changed then the Grade Pay of 12k and the rest of all the other officers also needs to be changed to maintain proper equation and coressponding status.

The Task at hand for the Government is not all that easy and needs total reworking if grade pays are being contemplated to be changed.

Let us await the final implementation orders for both the Military and Civilian Officers in all grade pay's upto Brigadiers rank having a GP of Rs 8900.

So many anamolies in the 6th cpc.

Request Comments

YBR

vnatarajan
25-10-2012, 07:02 AM
Problem is DUE TO -- not PROPERLY protecting the MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION which can not be IRRESPECTIVE OF PREREVISED PAY SCALE OF THE POST from which pensioners retired.IF THIS HAD TAKEN PLACE, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY CASE FROM CIVILIANS' SIDE.

MILITARY PENSIONERS , PARTICULARLY RETD MAJORS, ALSO WOULD NOT REALISE/ WOULD NOT HAVE REALISED TILL now ........"THE IMPLICATION OF RANK PAY" FIXATION IN THE NEAR FUTURE! WE HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. (I HAVE CAUTIONED A FEW WHO HAVE CONSULTED ME ON THE "IMPLICATION OF RANK PAY ADDITION" VIS A VIS "THE PAY BANDING") .

ALL CARE MUST BE TAKEN BY THE GOVT/ DOPPW AT ALL TIMES NOT TO DELINK THE SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER RETIRED AND WHEN REVISION TAKES PLACE, IF "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" IS THE PRINICPLE DEFINING THE POLICY, THEN THE "FORMULATION OF REVISION" MUST BE SO THAT SUCH MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION MUST BE EQUAL ON BOTH SIDES OF REVISION, FOR THE GIVEN SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST. NOW THE "EMOLUMENTS" SHALL INCLUDE "BASIC PAY / GRADE PAY" FOR CIVLIANS IN SUCH FORMULATION, AND FOR "MILITARY" THE GOVT HAS TAKEN THE RANK PAY ALSO. (i LEARN that SOMEWHERE, PART OF "MSP" ALSO HAS COME IN)

If RETD MAJORS GET STEPPED UP FROM 36500 BP/Emoluments ( as per mod. parity judgment-pension 18250 or s0)) IN PB 3 TO 39800 BP/Emoluments (say 19900 rank pay inluded pension) BY ADDTION OF "RANK PAY" FIXATION, THEY SHALL GO BEYOND PB 3 LIMIT!.

This is the dilemma the Govt may have to face !

LET US WAIT AND SEE.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-11-2012, 07:55 PM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Others interested,

One of the earliest cases of SCPC Modified Parity is beng fought by the UP Pre 2006 Retd S29 AIS cadre pensioners and its latest record of proceedings (UNOFFICAL) as available in a legal website is as follows:

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do


Court No. - 24
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 203 of 2010
Petitioner :- Society Of Retired Forest Officers
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secretary Deptt. Of Pension &
Pension
Petitioner Counsel :-
Respondent Counsel :-



“Dr. ............., learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of Union of India submits that the instant writ petition is receiving the attention of the Government of India. He has further stated that an Office Memorandum will be issued shortly.
Accordingly, list the matter after Deepawali holidays”.


Order Date :- 30.10.2012


What is the official memorandum that will be issued by the Govt?
LET US WAIT AND WATCH!
HAPPY DIWALI TO ALL,

VNATARAJAN

RPGoswami
13-11-2012, 05:09 PM
Diwali has come and no sign of any move on the part of the government. May be we have wait for the court to help us the poor pensioners. HAPPY DIWALI

Gopal Krishan
18-11-2012, 06:10 PM
Dear pre-2006 pensioners,

My infrmation is that the Government of India has taken a decision with the approval of the cabinet. Some formalities are yet to be completed. About payment of arrears there is some problem.

With regads,

Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
30-11-2012, 08:39 AM
The case was not taken up. The next is the 29th April, 2013.


Dear pre-2006 pensioners,

My infrmation is that the Government of India has taken a decision with the approval of the cabinet. Some formalities are yet to be completed. About payment of arrears there is some problem.

With regads,

Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
01-12-2012, 08:52 AM
Dear Interested,

Govt's WP 1535 of 2012 - UOI vs CGS29PA & Others - had to be delayed mainly because one of the judges of the bench is not available.

Govt is adamant in continuing the case - inspite of the categorical assurance given in the 21st SCOVA MEETING held on 27 Sept 2012 that the pre 2006 pensioners' pension will be stepped up wrt the minimum of the pay in the pay scales (instead of the pay band base) for which "appropriate action" was being taken.

THIS APPROPRIATE ACTION IS STILL ELUSIVE.

After waiting for any positive / appropriate actions by the Govt side, and there being no such development, the CGS29PA and other groups who had won the PR BENCH case on the very issue against whom/which the Govt has filed its WRIT AT DHC, the former (now RESPONDENTS) had no other OPTION THAN TO FILE A COUNTER EACH- just a few days before the 29 11 2012 hearing!!!

Instead of making any positive STATEMENT on the 'APPROPRIATE ACTION' assured in SCOVA MEETING OF SEPT 2012, the GOVT SIDE seeing the COUNTERs being admitted, chose to seek time which had been granted by the Hon Court. Though plea was made by the RESPONDENT PRE 2006 PENSIONERS for early hearing/ dates, the request was not granted as NO DATES are available prior to 29 APRIL 2013 - may be one of the hon justices is busy/ unable to be available till such time (needs confirmation when we get the record of the Hon DHC soon).

ALL CAN SEE THAT EVEN AT THE LKNO BENCH OF HON UP HC WHERE the case SERB 203 OF 2010 is being fought on the very issue by the Resrv. Forest Officers/ Other pre 2006 AIS Retd officers, IN AN EARLIER -OCT 2010 HEARING, IF I AM CORRECT, THE HON ASG HAD STATED THAT AN OM IS BEING ISSUED BY THE GOVT SHORTLY AND THE PETITIONERS PLEA ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE GOVT, whereas in the hearing on 21st Nov 2012, the Govt side - instead of providing more informaton on the STATUS OF THE OM , had chosen to seek time to file a REPLY to a SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT given by the Pettitioners (perhaps to draw the attention of the Hon Court wrt the PR CAT Judgment ...may be). THE EARLIER STATEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF GOVT'S OM/ FURTHER MENTION ON IT ETC HAVE BEEN GIVEN A GO-BY.....

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS BECOME DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE STAND OF THE GOVT./ DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED WHAT JUSTICE IS GOING TO BE DONE by GOVT WRT THE UNDISPUTED AFT/ PR CAT/ CAT VERDICTS NEARLY THREE DOZENS OF THEM- FROM EVERY NOOK AND CORNER OF THE COUNTRY- UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE CORRECT PRE 2006 REVISED PENSION WRT THE CABINET DECISION / GAZ RESOLUTION DT 29 08 2008 AND IN TERMS OF THE SCPC'S CORE RECO VIDE PARA 5.1.47 OF THEIR REPORT ACCEPTED BY THE CABINET/GOVT/ PRESIDENT SACNCTONED ETC- ie IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CABINET DECISION CORRECTLY WRT THE SCPC MOD PARITY ON THE BASIS OF THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO THE CORRECT MINIMUM PAY OF THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE EPNSIONER RETIRED' AND NOT/ REPEAT NOT/ ON THE BASIS OF THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE- REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER RETIRED'.

Hope Govt side sees reason and issues the correct orders soon - to implement the PR CAT VERDICT of 1 11 2011 without further delay.

IN THE MEANWHILE , AT THE HON P & H HC, IN THE CASE CWP 19641/2009 AND OTHER SIMILAR CASES CLUBBED WITH THEM VS THE GOVT OF HARYANA/ GOI ETC ON THE SAME PRE 2006 MOD PARITY ISSUE, THE HON BENCH , AT THE HEARING ON 29 11 2012 APPEAR TO HAVE SEEN MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR GENUINENESS. JUDGMENT IS RESERVED. ....ONE CAN EASILY FORESEE THE OUTCOME...... BUT WILL THEE GOVT AT LEAST SEE REASON FOR DOING SOMETHING MORE TO BE FAIR AND JUST TO THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WHO ARE VERY VERY OLD/ IN THE EVENING OF THEIR LIVES......?

vnatarajan.

RPGoswami
01-12-2012, 01:37 PM
At this rate with possibility of the government going to the Supreme Court we may have to depend on the Seventh Pay Commission for succor. We should stop believing in hints vaguely thrown in by counsels representing the government that resolution is in the pipe line.

Gopal Krishan
03-12-2012, 03:02 PM
We have to have patience in such matters. In any case a decision has already been taken with the approval of the cabinet. The decision has to he implemented at the earliest by the Government.

Gopal Krishan


At this rate with possibility of the government going to the Supreme Court we may have to depend on the Seventh Pay Commission for succor. We should stop believing in hints vaguely thrown in by counsels representing the government that resolution is in the pipe line.

RPGoswami
03-12-2012, 06:32 PM
We live on hope I was pinning it on Seventh Pay Commission distant though it may be. Hasn't the Government ignored the Nakra Judgement with impunity so far. And that was the judgement of the Supreme Court of India.

vnatarajan
10-12-2012, 07:40 AM
We live on hope I was pinning it on Seventh Pay Commission distant though it may be. Hasn't the Government ignored the Nakra Judgement with impunity so far. And that was the judgement of the Supreme Court of India.

Dear Intereted/ Pre 2006 Pensioners,

WHAT IS HOLDING THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO COME OUT WITH A PRAGMATIC OFFICE MEMORANDUM OR A MODIFIED PENSION WRT REVISED PAY SCALE FITMENT SCHEME FOR AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS’ REVISED PENSION WRT THE SCPC MODIFIED PARITY?

Inspite of several PR CAT?AFT Judgments as mentioned in previous posts, it is not clear why the authorities continue to deny JUSTICE and TRUTH to provide relief to the suffering aged pre 2006 retirees / petitioners!

An interesting news item which appears to have been reported in a News Paper in the North (I am trying to get a copy) makes good read at this juncture:. EXTRACTS (UNVERIFIED) (PL NOTE THE NEWS ITEM IS UNDER VERIFICATION):


Don’t defy court orders
New Delhi, December 8
Cautioning the authorities against taking court orders lightly, the S………. Court has issued a “stern warning” to a retired C………. S……….. of Bihar, G………. S…….. K…….., and endorsed the Rs 2,000 fine slapped on him for defying a Patna High Court order.
A Bench comprising …. T………. and ….. K………., however, set aside the two-month sentence imposed on the IAS officer, who had had a service of more than 30 years, by the H…C…., taking into account his age and remorse.
The S..C.. made it clear that it would not tolerate high-level officers who defied court orders with impunity in the first place and then tried to get away with their actions by offering regret and unconditional apology.
“Orders and judgments of the court are meant to be obeyed and not to be disobeyed with impunity. Of late, we come across several such instances where high-level officers of the administration display scant regard for the orders of the court and always come forward with lame excuses” for not complying with these, the Bench noted.
In his capacity as the Food and Civil Supplies Commissioner, …….. had cancelled the two promotions granted to Block Supply Officer S….. P……. S……, ignoring a high court order. Singh had been dismissed from service in 1977 on the charge of corruption, but was reappointed in 1980 following a representation from him. The reappointment letter made it clear that he would not be entitled to promotions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFTER SEARCHING, SHRI NPM WAS KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE SOME DETAILS OF THE JUDGMENT- PL ACCESS THE JUDGMENT FROM THE HONSC WEBSITE AND VERIFY ( UNDER VERIFICATION by me FROM THE WEBSITE PL):

Extracts/ Case no etc:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8819 OF 2012
(@ SLP (C) NO.7437 OF 2004)

….Appellant
VERSUS
.…Respondents


J U D G M E N T
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts:
11. In the light of the above conclusion of ours, on going
through the orders impugned in this appeal, we do not find any
scope to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Before us the learned counsel stated that the appellant has retired
from service and while appearing before us the learned counsel
submitted that the appellant expresses his deep regrets and sincere
apologies without any reservation for whatever conduct displayed by
him in the matter of non-compliance of the orders of the High Court
dated 21.8.95.

. 12. We, therefore, hold that the orders impugned in this appeal
in having concluded that the appellant committed contempt of its
order dated 21.08.95 does not call for interference. We, however,
take into account the age of the appellant as well as the remorse
conduct now displayed before us, as submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that the simple
imprisonment of two months alone need not be retained. We, however,
impose a “stern warning” to be recorded as against the appellant
apart from confirming the imposition of fine of Rs.2000/- to be
paid as per the order of the learned Judge impugned in this appeal.
We further direct that the said fine amount of Rs.2000/- shall be
paid, as directed by the learned Judge, within four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing compliance of the
said condition, the sentence of simple imprisonment of two months
shall stand revived. With the above directions, this appeal stands
disposed of.
J…………..
J………….
New Delhi;
December 07, 2012

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

vnatarajan
10-12-2012, 07:53 AM
Dear Interetsed,

Thanks to Shri MLK ji's compilation , the dimension of DEFYING COURT ORDERS can be realised wrt the pre 2006 revised pension- scpc mod parity cases- decided by AFTs/ CATs:Pl read the tabulated data seriatumin .-First 41 cases are shown here for which verdicts / court proceedings are important now. First 25 cases are undisputedly ALLOWED. in most cases the OTHER PARTY has filed WRITS in HON SC OR HCs much against the NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY or against the letter/ spirit of the judicial review, amounting to defying court orders; other cases .
vnatarajan

Now Details :

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERSS IN VARIOUS COURTS : AS ON 01.12.2012
COMPILED BY M. L. K
Ite m HEARD BY PETITION NO. & YEAR LEAD PETITIONER NEXT
DATE
FIXED
FOR
HEARING REMARKS IN BRIEF

I CAT-PB Delhi OA 3079/2009 LR Khatana s29 DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
2 CAT-PB Delhi OA 306/2010 D L Vohra s29 DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
3 CAT-PB Delhi OA 507/2010 PPS Gambhir s29 DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
4 CAT-PB Delhi OA 655/2010 s29 pen.Association DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
5 CAT Hydrabad OA 2413/2009 AJ Gurushanker DOJ
09.09.11 Full parity case. Appeal disallowed.
6 AFT-PB Delhi OA 24/2010 Lt.Com.AvtarSingh DOJ
14.09.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
7 AFT-PB Delhi OA 270/2010 Sq.Ldr. V K Jain DOJ
14.09.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
8 AFT-PB Delhi OA 139/2009 Lt.Col.PK Kapur DOJ
30.06.10 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
9 AFT Chandigarh OA 277/2010 Romesh Chand DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
10 AFT Chandigarh OA 312/2010 OP Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
11 AFT Chandigarh OA 313/2010 MS Minhas DOJ 01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
12 AFT Chandigarh OA 314/2010 YS Nijjar DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
13 AFT Chandigarh OA 325/2010 Dildar Singh Sahi DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
14 AFT Chandigarh OA 326/2010 Gurlochan Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
15 AFT Chandigarh OA 327/2010 Gurmeet Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
16 AFT Chandigarh OA 445/2010 Balwant Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
17 AFT Chandigarh OA 476/2010 Karam Chand DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
18 AFT Chandigarh OA 257/2010 Jagdish Chandar DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
19 AFT Chandigarh OA 409/2010 N N Sud DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
20 AFT Chandigarh OA 410/2010 HS Tonque DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
21 AFT Chandigarh OA 521/2010 GS Kang DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
22 AFT Chandigarh OA 522/2010 SS Matharu DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
23 AFT Chandigarh OA 346/2010 DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
24 AFT Chandigarh
OA 728/2010 DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
25 AFT Chandigarh OA 100/2010 SPS Vains M.Gen. DOJ
04.03.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
26 CAT Patna OA 284/2009 MMP Sinha DOJ
28.05.2010 Full Parity case. Appeal Disallowed.


27 CAT-PB Delhi OA 1732 / 2010 Ram Murti Raina DOJ
25.05.2010 Prayer for reconsideration allowed but UOI has done nothing in the matter.
28 CAT Mumbai OA 780/2009 + 8 Dr. KR Munim DOJ
22.02.2011 Full Parity case. Appeals Disallowed.
29 CAT Ernakulam OA 843/2010 S29 and s26
S.Parmasivan Pillai & Ors.

24.11.2011 This prayer was for modified parity and for counting of special pay for pension allowed
under DRDO letter dt. 10.10.2008. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months (1) As per OM dt 29.08.08 exactly as pronounced by CAT-PB in case of OA 655 of 2010 (2) Also to count special pay allowed under DRDO letter dt. 10.10.2008, to three of the ten petitioners, namely,S. Paramasivan Pillai. A.K.Prakash and Kalaga Sriharikumari.
30 AFT-PB/Delhi OAs 106/2009,76/ 2011 and 24/2011 Wg.Comm. V S Tomar
& Ors. Vs. UOl DOJ
07.12.2011 Petition is allowed in part and para 5 of Order dt.11.11.2008 (pension be in no case less than 50% of Minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to pay scale from which pensioner had retired I discharged, including MSP and X group pay where applicable) struck down being discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
31 CAT-PB/Delhi Contempt No.158 of 2012 S29 Pensioners Association Vs.
UOI & Ors 30.05.2012 This Contempt Petition is against Govt. which has failed to comply the orders of the CAT-PB given in Judgment in case of OA 0655/2010.(see item 4 above). It came up for hearing on 2.03.2012,13.03.12 and 28.03.12. On request from Pensioners Advocate, further proceedings have been postponed till 09.05.12. Further extended to 30.5.12. In view of case in DHC (see item 61) case dropped by the CAT/PB.
32 CAT Hydrabad OA 568/2010 s29 pensioners Dr. Kotra & Ors. DOJ
30.12.2011 Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt 29.08.08 exactly as pronounced by CAT-PB in case of OA 655 of 2010.
33 CAT Hydrabad 0A931/2010 Clubbed With OA 568/2010 s26 Pensioners. DOJ
30.12.2011 Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt 29.08.08 exactly as pronounced by CAT-PB in case of OA 655 of 2010.
34 AFT-PB Delhi OA 312 of 2010 Sub.Lt. Ram Singh
Vs UOl & Ors.
(Pl.see item 6,7 and
56) DOJ
02.01 .2012 Govt. has filed Civil Appeal No. 8875 &
8876 in Hon.ble Supreme Court against the
Judgment of AFT-PB in OA No. 270 and 24
(see item 6,7 and 56). This case being of similar nature, AFT-PB has therefore, adjourned the case sine-die, till the Judgment of hon.ble Supreme Court, becomes available
35 CAT-PB Delhi OA 937/2010 s30 pensioners s30 DOJ
06.03.2012 Judgment has come on 6.3.12. s30 full parity case has been dismissed. S29 modified parity case has been held valid based on Judgment dated 1.11.11 in OA 655.
36 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2101/2010 CG Pensioners s30 DOJ
06.03.2012 Judgment has come on 6.3.12. s30 full parity case has been dismissed. S29 modified parity case has been held valid based on Judgment dated 1.11.11 in OA 655.


37
AFT-PB Delhi OA 408 of 2010 Wg.Comm. AK Agarwal Vs UOl DOJ The Court ordered on 20.3.12 that “let the decision of HSC in case of SLP against AFT judgment in OA 106 of 2009 be awaited. Upon hearing of OA 126 , 289 and 408 on 16.8.12, AFT/PB has reserved the Judgment.
38 CAT-PB Delhi OA 201/2010 M L Gulati s29 Vs UOI DOJ
29.02.2012 Full Bench Court ordered on 29.02.12 to grant relief within 3 months as given in case of OA 655 Judgment dt. 1.11.11.
39 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2087/2009 Ran Vir Singh s30 DOJ
29.2.2012 Full Bench Court ordered on 29.02.12 to grant relief within 3 months as given in case of OA 655 Judgment dt. 1.11.11. For equality with post 2006, FB Court ordered to refer the case to Division Bench.
40 AFT-PB Delhi OA 126 of 2011 Wg.Comm.KG Rao Vs UOl DOJ At the request of learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned, at the joint request of parties. Upon hearing of OA 126 , 289 and 408 on 16.8.12, AFT/PB has reserved the Judgment.
41 AFT-PB Delhi OA 289 of 2011 Lt.Col.BGV Kumar Vs UOl DOJ At the request of learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned. At the joint request of parties, listed on 16th August 2012. Upon hearing of OA 126 , 289 and 408 on 16.8.12, AFT/PB has reserved the Judgment.

RPGoswami
10-12-2012, 11:03 AM
In each of these forty odd cases the government can go on appeal to the next higher court and wait. Only way out is for the Supreme Court to introduce 'Class Action Suit" there by disposing all these at one go. May be I am being cynic, but what will happen if general election is declared before this matter is brought to conclusion?

sundarar
17-12-2012, 05:08 AM
Respected Pensioners Community,

Today, the 17th December 2012 - the very famous "NAKARA DAY" & "PENSIONERS' DAY" of the Pensioners Community in our Country, happens to be
the 7th one in 6th CPC Era. While the 6th CPC recommendations effective from
1.1.2006 got implemented before 4 years, some questions before us are yet to find
their answers.

(1) Whether 50% of minimum of the Revised Scale of Pay will constitute the Minimum Revised Pension for a pensioner retired from the corresponding pre-revised scale?

(2) Whether the said 50% of Minimum of the Revised Scale of Pay is payable to those retirees with a minimum of 10/20 years qualifying service without any proportionate
reduction thereon based on length of qualifying service - < 33 years?

(3) Whether the basic pension while undergoing revision by successive CPC, shall be revised in a uniform manner by application of same and single multiplication factor for retirees of all the scales?

(4) Whether a Govt. servant born on 1st of a month, retiring on superannuation shall also stand retired on par with those who born from 2nd onwards, by last day of the month in which he was born as against the last day of the preceding month?

(5) Whether complete parity shall be given to past pensioners, as between pre-1996 and post 2006?

(6) While the linkage of qualifying service with pension is dispensed with, whether there shall be some incentive by allowing some increase for service rendered in excess of the required length of service to become eligible for pension, so as to remove any anomalous and unjustified position? (Emoluments based vs Service based pension)

(7) Whether complete parity shall be considered to past pensioners from 1.1.2016, as between pre-2016 and post-2016?

All questions carry same and single answer with enough justification
- YES PLEASE.

These questions are of illustrative but not exhaustive.


The DOP&PW today is striving hard to ensure the Pensioners Welfare by periodically reviewing the unsettled positions and attempting to reach remedial solutions by all possible manner. At the same time, in case a separate Department,
exclusively for Pensioners Welfare, if formed, to address the issues of both Civilian as well as Defence Pensioners more effectively under a single roof, the Pensioners Welfare measures can be better evolved and timely remedies possible thereby in future..

Similarly, an exclusive Pension Commission similar to Pay Commission will reduce the burden of the Core Pay Commission, so as to focus towards the problems and difficulties being faced by senior citizens of our Country for deriving an effective pension structure.

Incidentally, the cases pending before various Hon. Courts and Tribunals shall
get amicably settled, out of Court by an effective review mechanism, so as to reduce the burden and valuable time of the concerned Courts and Tribunals.

The Pensioners Community have all along been very hopeful, faithful and loyal to their erstwhile Employer, viz. the Govt. during their entire service and thereafter too.. With the same faith and hope, they keep on waiting for answers to their respective grievances at the earliest possible time.

Myself too join their prayers for a grievanceless PENSIONERS DAY!

With full respects to all the Pension Policy Makers, SCOVA, National Anomaly Committee, Pensioners Welfare Associations - BPS, RREWA, RSCWS, and other Pensioners Associations, G Connect.in Administrators,

A HAPPY PENSIONERS DAY 2012 TO THE RESPECTED PENSIONERS COMMUNITY.

Kanaujiaml
17-12-2012, 09:15 AM
Dear Interetsed,

Thanks to Shri MLK ji's compilation , the dimension of DEFYING COURT ORDERS can be realised wrt the pre 2006 revised pension- scpc mod parity cases- decided by AFTs/ CATs:Pl read the tabulated data seriatumin .-First 41 cases are shown here for which verdicts / court proceedings are important now. First 25 cases are undisputedly ALLOWED. in most cases the OTHER PARTY has filed WRITS in HON SC OR HCs much against the NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY or against the letter/ spirit of the judicial review, amounting to defying court orders; other cases .
vnatarajan

Now Details :

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERSS IN VARIOUS COURTS : AS ON 01.12.2012
COMPILED BY M. L. K
Ite m HEARD BY PETITION NO. & YEAR LEAD PETITIONER NEXT
DATE
FIXED
FOR
HEARING REMARKS IN BRIEF

I CAT-PB Delhi OA 3079/2009 LR Khatana s29 DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
2 CAT-PB Delhi OA 306/2010 D L Vohra s29 DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
3 CAT-PB Delhi OA 507/2010 PPS Gambhir s29 DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
4 CAT-PB Delhi OA 655/2010 s29 pen.Association DOJ
01.11.11 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt
29.08.08.
5 CAT Hydrabad OA 2413/2009 AJ Gurushanker DOJ
09.09.11 Full parity case. Appeal disallowed.
6 AFT-PB Delhi OA 24/2010 Lt.Com.AvtarSingh DOJ
14.09.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
7 AFT-PB Delhi OA 270/2010 Sq.Ldr. V K Jain DOJ
14.09.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
8 AFT-PB Delhi OA 139/2009 Lt.Col.PK Kapur DOJ
30.06.10 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
9 AFT Chandigarh OA 277/2010 Romesh Chand DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
10 AFT Chandigarh OA 312/2010 OP Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
11 AFT Chandigarh OA 313/2010 MS Minhas DOJ 01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
12 AFT Chandigarh OA 314/2010 YS Nijjar DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
13 AFT Chandigarh OA 325/2010 Dildar Singh Sahi DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
14 AFT Chandigarh OA 326/2010 Gurlochan Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
15 AFT Chandigarh OA 327/2010 Gurmeet Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
16 AFT Chandigarh OA 445/2010 Balwant Singh DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
17 AFT Chandigarh OA 476/2010 Karam Chand DOJ
01.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
18 AFT Chandigarh OA 257/2010 Jagdish Chandar DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
19 AFT Chandigarh OA 409/2010 N N Sud DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
20 AFT Chandigarh OA 410/2010 HS Tonque DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
21 AFT Chandigarh OA 521/2010 GS Kang DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
22 AFT Chandigarh OA 522/2010 SS Matharu DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
23 AFT Chandigarh OA 346/2010 DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
24 AFT Chandigarh
OA 728/2010 DOJ
25.11.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
25 AFT Chandigarh OA 100/2010 SPS Vains M.Gen. DOJ
04.03.2010 Modified Parity case. Appeal allowed.
26 CAT Patna OA 284/2009 MMP Sinha DOJ
28.05.2010 Full Parity case. Appeal Disallowed.


27 CAT-PB Delhi OA 1732 / 2010 Ram Murti Raina DOJ
25.05.2010 Prayer for reconsideration allowed but UOI has done nothing in the matter.
28 CAT Mumbai OA 780/2009 + 8 Dr. KR Munim DOJ
22.02.2011 Full Parity case. Appeals Disallowed.
29 CAT Ernakulam OA 843/2010 S29 and s26
S.Parmasivan Pillai & Ors.

24.11.2011 This prayer was for modified parity and for counting of special pay for pension allowed
under DRDO letter dt. 10.10.2008. Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months (1) As per OM dt 29.08.08 exactly as pronounced by CAT-PB in case of OA 655 of 2010 (2) Also to count special pay allowed under DRDO letter dt. 10.10.2008, to three of the ten petitioners, namely,S. Paramasivan Pillai. A.K.Prakash and Kalaga Sriharikumari.
30 AFT-PB/Delhi OAs 106/2009,76/ 2011 and 24/2011 Wg.Comm. V S Tomar
& Ors. Vs. UOl DOJ
07.12.2011 Petition is allowed in part and para 5 of Order dt.11.11.2008 (pension be in no case less than 50% of Minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to pay scale from which pensioner had retired I discharged, including MSP and X group pay where applicable) struck down being discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
31 CAT-PB/Delhi Contempt No.158 of 2012 S29 Pensioners Association Vs.
UOI & Ors 30.05.2012 This Contempt Petition is against Govt. which has failed to comply the orders of the CAT-PB given in Judgment in case of OA 0655/2010.(see item 4 above). It came up for hearing on 2.03.2012,13.03.12 and 28.03.12. On request from Pensioners Advocate, further proceedings have been postponed till 09.05.12. Further extended to 30.5.12. In view of case in DHC (see item 61) case dropped by the CAT/PB.
32 CAT Hydrabad OA 568/2010 s29 pensioners Dr. Kotra & Ors. DOJ
30.12.2011 Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt 29.08.08 exactly as pronounced by CAT-PB in case of OA 655 of 2010.
33 CAT Hydrabad 0A931/2010 Clubbed With OA 568/2010 s26 Pensioners. DOJ
30.12.2011 Appeal allowed to refix pension in 3 months as per OM dt 29.08.08 exactly as pronounced by CAT-PB in case of OA 655 of 2010.
34 AFT-PB Delhi OA 312 of 2010 Sub.Lt. Ram Singh
Vs UOl & Ors.
(Pl.see item 6,7 and
56) DOJ
02.01 .2012 Govt. has filed Civil Appeal No. 8875 &
8876 in Hon.ble Supreme Court against the
Judgment of AFT-PB in OA No. 270 and 24
(see item 6,7 and 56). This case being of similar nature, AFT-PB has therefore, adjourned the case sine-die, till the Judgment of hon.ble Supreme Court, becomes available
35 CAT-PB Delhi OA 937/2010 s30 pensioners s30 DOJ
06.03.2012 Judgment has come on 6.3.12. s30 full parity case has been dismissed. S29 modified parity case has been held valid based on Judgment dated 1.11.11 in OA 655.
36 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2101/2010 CG Pensioners s30 DOJ
06.03.2012 Judgment has come on 6.3.12. s30 full parity case has been dismissed. S29 modified parity case has been held valid based on Judgment dated 1.11.11 in OA 655.


37
AFT-PB Delhi OA 408 of 2010 Wg.Comm. AK Agarwal Vs UOl DOJ The Court ordered on 20.3.12 that “let the decision of HSC in case of SLP against AFT judgment in OA 106 of 2009 be awaited. Upon hearing of OA 126 , 289 and 408 on 16.8.12, AFT/PB has reserved the Judgment.
38 CAT-PB Delhi OA 201/2010 M L Gulati s29 Vs UOI DOJ
29.02.2012 Full Bench Court ordered on 29.02.12 to grant relief within 3 months as given in case of OA 655 Judgment dt. 1.11.11.
39 CAT-PB Delhi OA 2087/2009 Ran Vir Singh s30 DOJ
29.2.2012 Full Bench Court ordered on 29.02.12 to grant relief within 3 months as given in case of OA 655 Judgment dt. 1.11.11. For equality with post 2006, FB Court ordered to refer the case to Division Bench.
40 AFT-PB Delhi OA 126 of 2011 Wg.Comm.KG Rao Vs UOl DOJ At the request of learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned, at the joint request of parties. Upon hearing of OA 126 , 289 and 408 on 16.8.12, AFT/PB has reserved the Judgment.
41 AFT-PB Delhi OA 289 of 2011 Lt.Col.BGV Kumar Vs UOl DOJ At the request of learned proxy counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned. At the joint request of parties, listed on 16th August 2012. Upon hearing of OA 126 , 289 and 408 on 16.8.12, AFT/PB has reserved the Judgment.

Dear Shri V. Natarajan. Thank you very much for mentioning my name in this forum with regard to my compilation of Pensioners cases in various Courts.Though I am an old member but I was not participating in this thread for quite some time becuase of my pre occupation but I always kept myself updated with the latest what is going on here and elsewhere with regard to Pensioners in general and the injustice for which this thread was started by you, in particular. It is being heard day in and day out these days that Govt. is considering to do something about mitigating our vows but so far nothing concrete has emerged. So much so that we have reached once again 17th Dec. , the pensioners day. So, Happy Pensioners Day. 17th Dec. each year Pensioners Day is celebrated for the memory of our great friend and elder as well as a legend amongst the pensioners Shri D S Nakara. We all know that the hon. Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench in DS Nakara case had given the land mark Judgment on 17.12.1982, which has given remarkable dignity to the Pensioners. Till then Pension was considered as "bounty" by general public but DS Nakara Judgment declared it "Deferred Wages" giving the Pension we receive a respectability which we cherish so much. We are equally thankful to the Judges of the Hon.ble Supreme Court which gave this Judgment. In spite of efforts these days at various level to dilute this Judgment in this way or that way, all attempts have failed and would lead to failures in future too. Let us propagate this message on this day even amongst ignorant pensioners and all others. Happy pensioners day once again. Warm regards.

sundarar
23-12-2012, 10:10 PM
Respected Pensioners Community,

Today, the 17th December 2012 - the very famous "NAKARA DAY" & "PENSIONERS' DAY" of the Pensioners Community in our Country, happens to be
the 7th one in 6th CPC Era. While the 6th CPC recommendations effective from
1.1.2006 got implemented before 4 years, some questions before us are yet to find
their answers.

(1) Whether 50% of minimum of the Revised Scale of Pay will constitute the Minimum Revised Pension for a pensioner retired from the corresponding pre-revised scale?

(2) Whether the said 50% of Minimum of the Revised Scale of Pay is payable to those retirees with a minimum of 10/20 years qualifying service without any proportionate
reduction thereon based on length of qualifying service - < 33 years?

(3) Whether the basic pension while undergoing revision by successive CPC, shall be revised in a uniform manner by application of same and single multiplication factor for retirees of all the scales?

(4) Whether a Govt. servant born on 1st of a month, retiring on superannuation shall also stand retired on par with those who born from 2nd onwards, by last day of the month in which he was born as against the last day of the preceding month?

(5) Whether complete parity shall be given to past pensioners, as between pre-1996 and post 2006?

(6) While the linkage of qualifying service with pension is dispensed with, whether there shall be some incentive by allowing some increase for service rendered in excess of the required length of service to become eligible for pension, so as to remove any anomalous and unjustified position? (Emoluments based vs Service based pension)

(7) Whether complete parity shall be considered to past pensioners from 1.1.2016, as between pre-2016 and post-2016?

All questions carry same and single answer with enough justification
- YES PLEASE.

These questions are of illustrative but not exhaustive.


The DOP&PW today is striving hard to ensure the Pensioners Welfare by periodically reviewing the unsettled positions and attempting to reach remedial solutions by all possible manner. At the same time, in case a separate Department,
exclusively for Pensioners Welfare, if formed, to address the issues of both Civilian as well as Defence Pensioners more effectively under a single roof, the Pensioners Welfare measures can be better evolved and timely remedies possible thereby in future..

Similarly, an exclusive Pension Commission similar to Pay Commission will reduce the burden of the Core Pay Commission, so as to focus towards the problems and difficulties being faced by senior citizens of our Country for deriving an effective pension structure.

Incidentally, the cases pending before various Hon. Courts and Tribunals shall
get amicably settled, out of Court by an effective review mechanism, so as to reduce the burden and valuable time of the concerned Courts and Tribunals.

The Pensioners Community have all along been very hopeful, faithful and loyal to their erstwhile Employer, viz. the Govt. during their entire service and thereafter too.. With the same faith and hope, they keep on waiting for answers to their respective grievances at the earliest possible time.

Myself too join their prayers for a grievanceless PENSIONERS DAY!

With full respects to all the Pension Policy Makers, SCOVA, National Anomaly Committee, Pensioners Welfare Associations - BPS, RREWA, RSCWS, and other Pensioners Associations, G Connect.in Administrators,

A HAPPY PENSIONERS DAY 2012 TO THE RESPECTED PENSIONERS COMMUNITY.

Courtesy : Bharat Pensioners Samaj/Shri S.C.Maheswariji, General Secretary
"PTI

BHOPAL, DEC 22:
'The Madhya Pradesh Government has set up a “Senior Citizen Commission” to look into the problems of the elderly in the State.
The decision to set up the commission was taken during a Cabinet meeting which was chaired by Chief Minister Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan yesterday, an official release said.
Chouhan, at a meeting of old people at his house in April this year, had announced to set up a commission for them and the Cabinet had yesterday approved it.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Shri Narottam Mishra said the commission would comprise one Chairman and four members.
He said the commission will after a look at the problems of the senior people of the State, and produce an ideal proforma for old persons’ policy for the welfare and solution of their problems'.

Gopal Krishan
24-12-2012, 08:41 PM
Dear Sundarar,

Wonderful idea. Some Associations, cofederation etc to take up all these issues with the concerned authorities.

With regards,

Gopal Krishan

Kanaujiaml
01-01-2013, 03:45 PM
Dear friends. Happy New Year 2013. May God bless you with good health and prosparity.

sundarar
04-01-2013, 07:03 AM
Courtesy: Bharat Pensioners Samaj

"No. 5/40/2012-P&PW(C)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare

3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi,
the 31st Dec., 2012

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Introducing a dedicated day for attending pensioners in person - reg.

The undersigned is directed to inform that in order to facilitate mitigation of problems of Central Civil Pensioners, it has been decided that on every Wednesday, concerned officers of the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare will be available between 1500 and 1600 hrs, in person, in Room No. 310, Lok Navak Bhavan (near Gate No.1) to meet pensioners and, as far as possible, answer the queries/points raised by the pensioners.

2. The Central Civil Pensioners, aggrieved of pension related matters and seeking clarification etc., on application of any of the following rules/regulations may meet the concerned officers of this Department along with a written submission, by appearing in person, on the prescribed date, time and venue, and make use of this facility.

3. The rules being administered by this Department are:
(I) CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972;
(ii) CCS(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981;
(iii) CCS(Extra-ordinary Pension) Rules;
(iv) GPF(CS) Rules, 1960; and
(v) CPF(lndia) Rules, 1962.

sd/-
(Tripti P.Ghosh)
Director (PP)"

The aforesaid decision of DOP&PW is a welcome measure towards
yet another grievance redressal exercise. On similar lines, the Banks also can
prescribe a particular time period for meeting pensioners in person, to discuss and sort out the issues to the extent possible and also for taking up further with concerned where required.

vnatarajan
09-01-2013, 05:13 PM
FIRST EVER HIGH COURT VERDICT ON CORRECT SCPC MODIFIED APRITY- JUDGMENT OF P & H HC CHANDIGARH DT 21 12 2012

Thanks to Shri NSR/ Shri RKA we have the copy of the first ever HC judgment in favour of pre 2006 pensioners though concerning the State Govt cadre- but reiterates FULLY and FIRMLY the PR CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 in the case OA 655 of 2010 petitioned by CGS29PA / Others vs UOI/ DOPPW/DOE etc....

OUR HEARTY CONGRATS TO HARYANA STATEGOVT/ UNDERTAKINGS’ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (S29 / OTHERS) led by S/Shri R K Agarawal/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc who are also prolific writers in this forum, FOR SCORING A BEFITTING VICTORY IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE SCPC MOD PARITY INJUSTICE.

HATS OFF TO THE HON PUNJAB & HARYANA HC FOR THEIR UNBIASSED JUDGMENT DT 21 12 2012. ON: CWP No. 19641 of 2009 24;CWP No. 19642 of 2009;CWP No. 3452 of 2010;CWP No. 12638 of 2010;CWP No. 20725 of 2010;CWP No. 20726 of 2010;CWP No. 20727 of 2010;;CWP No. 20753 of 2010

OUR HEARTY & GRATEFUL THANKS TO S/ SHRI RKAGARWAL - RANBIR SEHGAL- OTHERS WHO HAVE SCORED THE “FIRST ever HIGH COURT VICTORY” ON SCPC BASED MOD PARITY ADOPTED BY THEIR STATE GOVT FOLLOWING THE CG PATTERN - CHALLENGING THE SAME INJUSTICE ARISING DUE TO “MPB” IMPOSITION INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT “MPPB” FORMULA.
THIS SOUNDS THE DEATHKNELL FOR THE UOI/DOPPW’S CHALLENGE AT DHC THRU THEIR WP C 1535 OF 2012 AGAINST THE PR CAT VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 ON OA 655 OF 2010 OF CGS29PA /OTHERS.

Dear Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners,

THE MUCH AWAITED P & H HC JUDGMENT ON WP C 19641 OF 2009- RK AGARWAL ETC VS STATE OF HARYANA ETC/ OTHER SIMILAR PETITIONS ON THE INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS OF HARYANA STATE-FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION SCPC RECOS/ ORDERS OF CG DITTO – METED OUT TO THEM BY THEIR GOVT HAS COME OUT.

THE JUDGMENT – DELIVERED BY DOUBLE BENCH – WITH THE HON CJ HIMSELF PRESIDING IS THE FIRST HC VICTORY ON THE SCPC MODIFIED PARITY.THE MAJOR HIGHLIGHT IS THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT IS FULLY/TOTALLY BASED ON THE PR CAT VERDICT OF THE CASE OA 655/ 2010 OF OUR ASSOCIATION CGS29PA VS UOI/ OTHER THREE MORE OAS O, DELIVERED ON 1 11 2011,.

IT SPECIALLY OBSERVES THAT THOUGH THE CENTRAL GOVT HAS GONE TO DHC ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PR CAT JUDGMENT of 1 11 2011 , THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO STAY GRANTED BY DHC ,CAUSES NO HINDRANCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE P & H HC.

SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS/ TABLES REPRODUCED IN THE JUDGMENT OWE THEIR EXISTENCE TO OUR WRIT PETIOTION/ PR CAT JUDGMENT
PL READ THE JUDGMENT ATTACHED. The judgment clearly mentions there are no “LEGAL NUANCES”. The Govt side in spite of their best efforts COULD NOT FABRICATE any LEGAL POINTS on which they could impress the Hon HC. What a miserable failure?

FINAL OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT STATES :

“26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central PayCommission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower
than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also
carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.”

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE
21.12.2012

Comments of my learned friends like Shri MLK ji/ Shri NSR / Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc will soon follow/ will be presented here.

vnatarajan

sundarar
09-01-2013, 09:26 PM
FIRST EVER HIGH COURT VERDICT ON CORRECT SCPC MODIFIED APRITY- JUDGMENT OF P & H HC CHANDIGARH DT 21 12 2012

Thanks to Shri NSR/ Shri RKA we have the copy of the first ever HC judgment in favour of pre 2006 pensioners though concerning the State Govt cadre- but reiterates FULLY and FIRMLY the PR CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 in the case OA 655 of 2010 petitioned by CGS29PA / Others vs UOI/ DOPPW/DOE etc....

OUR HEARTY CONGRATS TO HARYANA STATEGOVT/ UNDERTAKINGS’ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (S29 / OTHERS) led by S/Shri R K Agarawal/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc who are also prolific writers in this forum, FOR SCORING A BEFITTING VICTORY IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE SCPC MOD PARITY INJUSTICE.

HATS OFF TO THE HON PUNJAB & HARYANA HC FOR THEIR UNBIASSED JUDGMENT DT 21 12 2012. ON: CWP No. 19641 of 2009 24;CWP No. 19642 of 2009;CWP No. 3452 of 2010;CWP No. 12638 of 2010;CWP No. 20725 of 2010;CWP No. 20726 of 2010;CWP No. 20727 of 2010;;CWP No. 20753 of 2010

OUR HEARTY & GRATEFUL THANKS TO S/ SHRI RKAGARWAL - RANBIR SEHGAL- OTHERS WHO HAVE SCORED THE “FIRST ever HIGH COURT VICTORY” ON SCPC BASED MOD PARITY ADOPTED BY THEIR STATE GOVT FOLLOWING THE CG PATTERN - CHALLENGING THE SAME INJUSTICE ARISING DUE TO “MPB” IMPOSITION INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT “MPPB” FORMULA.
THIS SOUNDS THE DEATHKNELL FOR THE UOI/DOPPW’S CHALLENGE AT DHC THRU THEIR WP C 1535 OF 2012 AGAINST THE PR CAT VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 ON OA 655 OF 2010 OF CGS29PA /OTHERS.

Dear Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners,

THE MUCH AWAITED P & H HC JUDGMENT ON WP C 19641 OF 2009- RK AGARWAL ETC VS STATE OF HARYANA ETC/ OTHER SIMILAR PETITIONS ON THE INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS OF HARYANA STATE-FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION SCPC RECOS/ ORDERS OF CG DITTO – METED OUT TO THEM BY THEIR GOVT HAS COME OUT.

THE JUDGMENT – DELIVERED BY DOUBLE BENCH – WITH THE HON CJ HIMSELF PRESIDING IS THE FIRST HC VICTORY ON THE SCPC MODIFIED PARITY.THE MAJOR HIGHLIGHT IS THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT IS FULLY/TOTALLY BASED ON THE PR CAT VERDICT OF THE CASE OA 655/ 2010 OF OUR ASSOCIATION CGS29PA VS UOI/ OTHER THREE MORE OAS O, DELIVERED ON 1 11 2011,.

IT SPECIALLY OBSERVES THAT THOUGH THE CENTRAL GOVT HAS GONE TO DHC ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PR CAT JUDGMENT of 1 11 2011 , THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO STAY GRANTED BY DHC ,CAUSES NO HINDRANCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE P & H HC.

SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS/ TABLES REPRODUCED IN THE JUDGMENT OWE THEIR EXISTENCE TO OUR WRIT PETIOTION/ PR CAT JUDGMENT
PL READ THE JUDGMENT ATTACHED. The judgment clearly mentions there are no “LEGAL NUANCES”. The Govt side in spite of their best efforts COULD NOT FABRICATE any LEGAL POINTS on which they could impress the Hon HC. What a miserable failure?

FINAL OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT STATES :

“26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central PayCommission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower
than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also
carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.”

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE
21.12.2012

Comments of my learned friends like Shri MLK ji/ Shri NSR / Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc will soon follow/ will be presented here.

vnatarajan

The significant points observed are as follows:

1. The Pension of all pre-2006 retirees is to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 and in the light of observations made by the Tribunal (CAT PR Bench) in their Order dated 1.11.2011.

2. While the writ petitions challenging the aforesaid judgement are filed by the Union of India, which are pending before the High Court of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi
has not granted any stay of operation of the said judgement of the Tribunal.

3. The effect of the two OMs issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band, even while the issue can be resolved on the
interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself.

4. " It is not in dispute that vide Resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the pension
was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein".

5. The recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications, based on which Resolution, OM dated
01.09.2008 was issued. The para 4.2 thereof states that “revised pension in no case
shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------”.

6. "The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who
retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired".

7. " whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of Rs. 14,300/- would now receive Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs.8700/- and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at Rs. 23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay Rs. 8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of Rs. 18,400/- or even Rs. 22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-)".
(Such a pension of a pre-2006 retiree from S-29 scale very well happen to be lesser than those who were drawing Rs.18400/- as on 31.12.2005 in the same scale and retiring after 1.1.2006 with its corresponding revised basic pay).

8. Such a situation "has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008".

9. "We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that
Resolution".

10. "Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications".

As our Respected Shri VNji has rightly expressed, "OUR HEARTY CONGRATS TO HARYANA STATEGOVT/ UNDERTAKINGS’ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (S29 / OTHERS) led by S/Shri R K Agarawal/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc who are also prolific writers in this forum, FOR SCORING A BEFITTING VICTORY IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE SCPC MOD PARITY INJUSTICE, we repeat the same once again here.

Best Regards.

RPGoswami
09-01-2013, 09:47 PM
That is vvhat I shall call this judgement. But are those vvho are supposed to listen listening?

vnatarajan
10-01-2013, 07:56 AM
HON PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT VERDICT DT 21 12 2012 ON CWP 19641 ET AL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS VS STATE OF HARYANA (Ref posts 1185/ 86)

Dear Shri RK Agarawal ji/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal ji/Other Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested,

Our grateful thanks to your teams ( RKA/RS et al) for REINFORCING THE PR CAT’S VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 WRT OUR CASES OA 655 OF 2010 AND OTHERS and this will go a long way in our fight against the GOVT’S MISADVENTURE AT DHC TERMING THE PR CAT VERDICT AS”ERRONEOUS’ ETC! So also at other High Courts at Hyderabad and Trivandum as well as at UP (Lucknow Bench).
YOU HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE OPERATIVE PARA OF THE HON P & H JUDGMENT PRECISELY AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN AGREEING WITH YOUR OBSERVATION AT THIS POINT OF TIME.

1.The pronouncement clearly brings alive the sentiments and ethics the of SPS Vains Case judgment of Hon SC dt 8 9 2009 in true perspective.

2.Pensioners can not be denied the application of CCS RP RULES/ HCS RP RULES when it comes to revision of penion and the REVISED PENSION RULES have to take into account the same . AFTER ALL “PENSION IS ALWAYS DEFINED A SPERCENTAGE OF PAY/ EMOLUMENTS “ AND THEREFORE the confusions the Govt tries to create among is mischievous.

3. The selected sentence of opertive para reads “...
".......this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought
corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay
thereon.....”.

4. Para 19 of Judgment had earlier explained the context of the above:
“19. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal found itself in agreement with another contention raised by the applicants in those cases. The argument was that even if the modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the resolution dated 29.08.2008 is to be taken as criteria for determining pension of pre-2006 retirees, still on account of subsequent clarification issued to para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 by the Central Government vide OM dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, criteria and principle for determining the pension had been given a complete go by. It was, thus, argued that these clarificatory OMs are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.”

5.As explained in sl no 4 and 5 , they provide “enough scope” for opening the front for FULL PARITY in pension among all homogenous pensioners belonging to the OLD SCHEME governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and amended from time to time. Simple issuing of OMs which are just EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS at best, can not become DEIFFERENT SCHEMES – say one for the past pensioners and one for the future pensioners. MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (MGP) HAS TO BE EQUAL ON BOTH SIDES OF REVISION AND THIS DHOULD WITHSTAND THE CHECK ON NEXUS AND OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED. This rinciple and ratio explained vividly time and again in landmark JUdGMENTS LIKE NAKARA/ SPS VAINS ETC can not be denied. Date of executive instruction can not deny such MGP

6.I FEEL COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT HC VERDICT with somewhat SIMILAR PRONOUNCEMENT BY HON SC IN SPS VAINS CASE MAY BE DONE – WRT “FULL PARITY”/ “NEXUS”/”RATIO”:
a.SPS VAINS CASE JUDGMENT (9 9 2008) LAST PARA READS:
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 eequivalent 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
b. P & H HC CURRENT JUDGMENT (21 12 2012) LAST PARA READS:
26.”.........this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.........”
21.12.2012

KEY POINT IS THE NEXUS/ LINK/ RATIO to be applied to the PRE-REVISED PENSION WRT TO THE REVISED PAY SCALE - "A MOST CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE' WHICH THE BABUDOM HAD BEEN DENYING TO PRE SCPC OLD PENSIONERS, IN SPITE OF THE "ORIGINAL" PRINCIPLE OF "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" ENSURED BY/THRU THE FIFTH CPC MODIFIED PARITY.

IT IS RATHER ASTONISHING, DISAPPOINTING, SADDENING AND RATHER SHOCKING THAT THE CURRENT LOWER LEVEL FUNCTIONRIES / FILE PUSHERS ARE "PROVIDING THE VERY BASE / AVENUE FOR SUCH A GROSS ERRONEOOUS APPROACH OF REDUCING THE EFFECTIVE PENSION AMOUNTS FOR PAST/OLD PENSIONERS (BOTH IN CIVIL AND MILITARY DOMAINS) , WHICH WILL CUT THEIR OWN ROOTS WHN THEY BECOME "PENSIONERS' IN FUTURE!

SHOULD THEY NOT WAKE UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS PRACTICE? WHY THIS SELF-INFLICTING, RETROGRESSIVE, IMMATURE ACTIONS!. THEY MAY NOTE NONE LOSES ANYTHING BY FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT APPLICATION IN PENSION FORMULATIONS!!!

THEY TRY TO EVEN CONFUSE THE JUDICIARY BY DRAGGING IN THE "CUT OFF DATES", GOVT'S UNBRIDLED POWER TO "FRAME NEW SCHEMES', "DECIDE WHAT AMOUNT NEED TO BE GIVEN AS PENSION TO OLD PENSIONERS", "KEEPING IN VIEW THE ECONOMIC CONSTARINTS" .

ALL THE EXCUSES GIVEN ARE PROVED TO BE HOG-....... AND BULL-.......!

THE ANTI-PENSIONER COUNSELLING ENTITIES WILL "UNNECESSARILY LOSE THEIR PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND GOODWILL" -IF THEY GO IN TO TAKE UP THESE TYPES OF BONAFIDE ANTI-PENSIONER CASES, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING VERY SENIOR HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE ERSTWHILE HOD LEVEL/ SAG LEVEL PENSIONERS AND OTHERS / NOW VERY SENIOR CITIZENS OF THIS NATURE- WHERE ALREADY IN TOTAL 40 OAs/ CWPs HAVE BEEN JUDGED BY CATs/ PR CAT/ AFTs/ and now the first HC, through nearly a dozen independent judgments have been delivered by not less than two dozen Hon Justices- many stting in DOUBLE/ TREBLE Benches UPHOLDING THE PLEA OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE CORRECT APPLICAION OF THE DOPPW'S GAZ RESOLUTION DATED 29 AUG 2008!!!

HOPE THE MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR!.



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

ybhaskar23
10-01-2013, 09:46 PM
Dear VN Ji
Does the High Court judgement specify Full Parity or Modified Parity?
could you pl interpret on this issue,
thanks,
ybr



HON PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT VERDICT DT 21 12 2012 ON CWP 19641 ET AL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS VS STATE OF HARYANA (Ref posts 1185/ 86)

Dear Shri RK Agarawal ji/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal ji/Other Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested,

Our grateful thanks to your teams ( RKA/RS et al) for REINFORCING THE PR CAT’S VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 WRT OUR CASES OA 655 OF 2010 AND OTHERS and this will go a long way in our fight against the GOVT’S MISADVENTURE AT DHC TERMING THE PR CAT VERDICT AS”ERRONEOUS’ ETC! So also at other High Courts at Hyderabad and Trivandum as well as at UP (Lucknow Bench).
YOU HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE OPERATIVE PARA OF THE HON P & H JUDGMENT PRECISELY AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN AGREEING WITH YOUR OBSERVATION AT THIS POINT OF TIME.

1.The pronouncement clearly brings alive the sentiments and ethics the of SPS Vains Case judgment of Hon SC dt 8 9 2009 in true perspective.

2.Pensioners can not be denied the application of CCS RP RULES/ HCS RP RULES when it comes to revision of penion and the REVISED PENSION RULES have to take into account the same . AFTER ALL “PENSION IS ALWAYS DEFINED A SPERCENTAGE OF PAY/ EMOLUMENTS “ AND THEREFORE the confusions the Govt tries to create among is mischievous.

3. The selected sentence of opertive para reads “...
".......this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought
corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay
thereon.....”.

4. Para 19 of Judgment had earlier explained the context of the above:
“19. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal found itself in agreement with another contention raised by the applicants in those cases. The argument was that even if the modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the resolution dated 29.08.2008 is to be taken as criteria for determining pension of pre-2006 retirees, still on account of subsequent clarification issued to para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 by the Central Government vide OM dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, criteria and principle for determining the pension had been given a complete go by. It was, thus, argued that these clarificatory OMs are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.”

5.As explained in sl no 4 and 5 , they provide “enough scope” for opening the front for FULL PARITY in pension among all homogenous pensioners belonging to the OLD SCHEME governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and amended from time to time. Simple issuing of OMs which are just EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS at best, can not become DEIFFERENT SCHEMES – say one for the past pensioners and one for the future pensioners. MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (MGP) HAS TO BE EQUAL ON BOTH SIDES OF REVISION AND THIS DHOULD WITHSTAND THE CHECK ON NEXUS AND OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED. This rinciple and ratio explained vividly time and again in landmark JUdGMENTS LIKE NAKARA/ SPS VAINS ETC can not be denied. Date of executive instruction can not deny such MGP

6.I FEEL COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT HC VERDICT with somewhat SIMILAR PRONOUNCEMENT BY HON SC IN SPS VAINS CASE MAY BE DONE – WRT “FULL PARITY”/ “NEXUS”/”RATIO”:
a.SPS VAINS CASE JUDGMENT (9 9 2008) LAST PARA READS:
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 eequivalent 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
b. P & H HC CURRENT JUDGMENT (21 12 2012) LAST PARA READS:
26.”.........this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.........”
21.12.2012

KEY POINT IS THE NEXUS/ LINK/ RATIO to be applied to the PRE-REVISED PENSION WRT TO THE REVISED PAY SCALE - "A MOST CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE' WHICH THE BABUDOM HAD BEEN DENYING TO PRE SCPC OLD PENSIONERS, IN SPITE OF THE "ORIGINAL" PRINCIPLE OF "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" ENSURED BY/THRU THE FIFTH CPC MODIFIED PARITY.

IT IS RATHER ASTONISHING, DISAPPOINTING, SADDENING AND RATHER SHOCKING THAT THE CURRENT LOWER LEVEL FUNCTIONRIES / FILE PUSHERS ARE "PROVIDING THE VERY BASE / AVENUE FOR SUCH A GROSS ERRONEOOUS APPROACH OF REDUCING THE EFFECTIVE PENSION AMOUNTS FOR PAST/OLD PENSIONERS (BOTH IN CIVIL AND MILITARY DOMAINS) , WHICH WILL CUT THEIR OWN ROOTS WHN THEY BECOME "PENSIONERS' IN FUTURE!

SHOULD THEY NOT WAKE UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS PRACTICE? WHY THIS SELF-INFLICTING, RETROGRESSIVE, IMMATURE ACTIONS!. THEY MAY NOTE NONE LOSES ANYTHING BY FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT APPLICATION IN PENSION FORMULATIONS!!!

THEY TRY TO EVEN CONFUSE THE JUDICIARY BY DRAGGING IN THE "CUT OFF DATES", GOVT'S UNBRIDLED POWER TO "FRAME NEW SCHEMES', "DECIDE WHAT AMOUNT NEED TO BE GIVEN AS PENSION TO OLD PENSIONERS", "KEEPING IN VIEW THE ECONOMIC CONSTARINTS" .

ALL THE EXCUSES GIVEN ARE PROVED TO BE HOG-....... AND BULL-.......!

THE ANTI-PENSIONER COUNSELLING ENTITIES WILL "UNNECESSARILY LOSE THEIR PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND GOODWILL" -IF THEY GO IN TO TAKE UP THESE TYPES OF BONAFIDE ANTI-PENSIONER CASES, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING VERY SENIOR HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE ERSTWHILE HOD LEVEL/ SAG LEVEL PENSIONERS AND OTHERS / NOW VERY SENIOR CITIZENS OF THIS NATURE- WHERE ALREADY IN TOTAL 40 OAs/ CWPs HAVE BEEN JUDGED BY CATs/ PR CAT/ AFTs/ and now the first HC, through nearly a dozen independent judgments have been delivered by not less than two dozen Hon Justices- many stting in DOUBLE/ TREBLE Benches UPHOLDING THE PLEA OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE CORRECT APPLICAION OF THE DOPPW'S GAZ RESOLUTION DATED 29 AUG 2008!!!

HOPE THE MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR!.



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

vnatarajan
11-01-2013, 11:37 AM
Dear Shri Bhaskar / Interested,

Relevant and Important question!.
Modified Pairty or Full Pairty?

RIGHT NOW I WOULD NOT LIKE TO OFFER MY FULL EXPLANATION- FOR SOME REASONS.
SHRI RANBIR SEHGAL HAS ALREADY MADE SOME OBERVATIONS WRT "FULL PARITY"

In the meanwhile , a thorough reading/analysis of the judgment is needed to understand the whole 'gamut"/ implication of this "OUTSTANDING BUT SIMPLE JUDGMENT ON A COMPLEX ISSUE OF PENSION PARITY"!

1.Though the judgment is delivered with CHP 19641/642 of 2009 as the lead petitions, pl note the CORE JUDGMENT DISCUSSES THE CWP 12638 OF 2010 ( 27 RETD CHIEF ENGINEERS OF OLD PENSIONER CATEGORY) FOR BREVITY AND TOTALITY OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. In fact their prayer may cover all types of prayers contained in other petitions.

2.The concerned petition , I am sure (only Shri Ranbir ji can explain in real perception ) must have sought relief wrt LPD/ FULL PARITY etc, besides the other mundane issues of mod parity/ nullification of OMs/ effective date as 1 1 2006/ interest on arrears etc.

3.If Mod Pairty was the only issue to be judged , why choose CWP 12638- terming the reason as for "brevity"?

4. ALL MAY NOTE THAT THE OPERATIVE/END PARA 30 OF JUDGMENT HAS FIRMLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT "ALL PETITIONs SUCCEED" AND THE MANDAMUS ISSUED FOR REVISED PENSION FIXATION OF EACH PENSIONER, SO THAT THE SAME IS "NOT LOWER THAN " THE FORMULA. based on MPPB and not MPB ...!. All the while the babudom had been fooling us around and so also the CPAO/ PAO domains, to make this revised value as the MAXIMUM that a pre 2006 pensioner can get at! THIS JUDGMENT CLEARLY ENDORSES MY VIEW THAT IT IS THE THRESHHOLD VALUE ONLY FOR PRE 2006 S29 AND SIMILARLY AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PENSIONERS IN SOME OTHER SCALES (WHERE THE 2.26 mf DOES NOT GIVE A HIGHER REVISION AS HAPPENS FOR EVEN PRE 2006 S29 AND ALSO ONLY IF THE UNREVISED BP OF THE PRE 2006 S29 WAS ABOVE 20900)

5. IN FACT EVEN THE SO-CALLED SCPC MOD PARITY MEANT ONLY A "THRESH- HOLD VALUE" AND NOT THE "MAXIMUM VALUE " AS THE BABUS HAVE MADE IT OUT FOR THE PRE 2006 S29/ AND SIMILARLY AFFECTED GRADES. THUS SAY FOR EG. FOR PRE 2006 S29, IT (THRESHHOLD VALUE) HAS TO BE AT THE MINIMUM OF 27350 AND NOTHING PREVENTS FOR INDIVIDULAS TO BE FIXED AT RATES ABOVE IT! IT WAS CALLOUS INDISCRIMINATION TO PUT ALL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WITH PRE REVISED BP OF 18400 TO 20900 AS ONE LOT ( 5 YERS OF SERVICE PLUS ANOTHER 10 YERS IN S24 GRADE SAY TO REACH 18300 BEFORE BECOMING 18400 IN S29) TO RENDER THEM EQUALS TO UNEQUALS OF NEARLY 15 YEARS JUNIOR!!!!!

6.Again quoting from the judgment, "...this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon". IN FACT THIS SETTLES THE CASE FOR EACH RETIREE (PL SEE THE SPECIFIC MENTION) SO THAT WHEN REVISED, HIS PENSION CAN NOT BE LOWER THAN THE FORMULA---- IT COULD BE EQUAL OR EVEN "HIGHER" A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL FIXATION FOR EACH RETRIEE can not be denied as each one of them is a litigant and each as a "RETIREE" covered by this verdict has to be rendered justice as HIS PETITION HAS SUCCEEDED.!

Legal pundits will take care.

I HAVE OTHER AXES TO GRIND - AND I SHALL COME FORTH WITH THE SAME AFTER SOME GAP.

Full or Modified Parity? Individual can judge themselves pl..... after analysing the JUDGMENT because each and every petition has succeeded and a COMMON SIMPLISTIC ORDER CONTAINED IN LAST OPERATIVE PARA 30 (END) TAKES CARE OF EVERY DEMAND OF THE PETITIONERS.

ISN'T THE JUDGMENT OUTSTANDING- FAIR- JUST- SIMPLISTIC- DEVOID OF LEGAL COMPLEXITIES?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-01-2013, 05:19 PM
Dear friends. The Judgment by a High Court or Supreme Court discusses the arguments given by both sides and thereafter forms its opinian with the reason.The judgment can allow the prayor in full or in part or even can go beyond the prayor made and grant something more as found justified after judicial reviw as per law. As defined by legal experts a "Mandamus" is "a writ or order that is issued from a Court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation." Recent P & H High Court Judgement in case of CWP 19641 of 2009 has issued a "Mandamus" thus : “26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution, Once we find that this resolution ensures that ‘the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% 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”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest 9% w.e.f. 01.03,2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. Therefore, in order to comply with the Mandamus, the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission.Does it not mean revision of pay as per revised rules and thereafter refixation of pension based on revised pay ?

vnatarajan
13-01-2013, 09:28 PM
Dear Friends,

Responding to my post at sl no 1190 on the P & H HC Judgment of 21 12 2012 and some doubts raised therin,Shri R K Agarwal had sent me an email and also has expressed he was unable to post the same in GCONNECT.In.

I thank him for his valuable rejoinder and detailed explanations which I reproduce here :

Quote:

In G connect , you have desired to know why petition no. 12638 was chosen to discuss the case in the judgment while the lead petition was 19641. In this connection, it is to inform you that following four petitions exclusively relate to the case of Chief Engineers (18400-22400) only & no other category is covered in these petitions. All these petitions are similar in all respects and had pleaded for modified parity in accordance with Para 5.1.47 of Resolution dated 29.08.08.

19641, 19642, 3452 & 12638

Other four petitions also cover the Xens & SEs in addition to Chief Engineers. These petitions pleaded for parity & a host of other issues.

No doubt the lead petition was 19641 of RK Aggarwal, but the bench chose to discuss petition no. 12638 (similar in all respects to petition no. 19641). As out of all the counsels of petitioners, Mr HL Tikku was the seniormost counsel, as per practice, he was required to initiate the arguments and plead the case of petitioners. He was the counsel for petition no. 12638 & so he argued on the basis of his petition. Hence this petition was chosed by the Bench. He covered most of the ground & explained the inns and outs of CAT judgment, produced various tables & distortion of modified parity. He took the maximum time. The counsels for other three petitions 19641, 19642 & 3452 enorsed the views of MR Tikku & further strengthened the case for modified parity.

Thereafter other counsels pleaded for their points which were not covered by Mr Tikku. S/Shri RK Chopra & Karan Nehra,the Counsels for other four petitions viz 20625 t0 27 & 20753 also extensively pleaded their additional points not covered in earlier four petitions.

I tried to put above clarifications in Gconnect but somehow I encountered problem & could not so though I am alredy registered & had entered correct password.

I am sending this note just to clarify why petition no. 12638 was chosen. I hope that it would clarify the whole situation.

R. K Aggarwal

Unquote

vnatarajan

PS; I MUST ALSO ADD EXTRACTS FROM SHRI RANBIR SEHGALS' SEMAIL TO ME ON SOME OF HIS VIEWS ON THE JUDGMENT:

QUOTE EXTRACTS:

The judgment delivered by the Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice P&H HC states very clearly that the pay of the retiree is to be brought to the revised pay scale. This is in accordance with the HSC judgment in Maj-Gen SPS Vains case.

This is marked improvement over the Modified Parity and amounts to Full Parity. Moreover, the arrears will become payable from 01.01.06.

This decision will also help our retired Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers, who were drawing last pay of about Rs.18400 to 19000. Some of the points raised in our petitions have, however, not been covered such as Bunching and protection of pension with reference to feeder post etc. Even after this favourable judgment, the pension of pre-2006 retired CE is less than that of the SE and XEN retiring now. We will discuss with our advocates about the next step

UNQUOTE.

VN

Kanaujiaml
14-01-2013, 09:21 AM
Shri V. Natarajan’s Posts above and his quote of Shri RK Agarwal’s Note have amply made the position clear. I would deal with it later but first I would myself like to answer my own question put up at the end of my post No. 465 above for reference and context. If you go through the judgment, you would find this question dealt with and answered.

The term "full parity" includes all retiring benefits accrued at the time of retirement i.e. revised pension based on number of years of qualifying service put in, revised gratuity or any other benefits which are accrued with the retirement. Though Judgment has accepted as valid the cut off date of 1.1.2006 but it has not accepted the full parity between pre and post 2006 retirees.

The judgment has declared all OMs issued after the Resolution dated 29.08.08 as illegal but on the other hand, it has declared Resolution dated 29.08.08 legally valid and even defined its outcome as brought out in para 26 of the Judgment. In my opinion and as I understand the outcome of this land mark Judgment, the “pay” (emphasis added) of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. With this, nether qualifying service would be considered once again for computing Revised Pension nor any other pensionary benefit would accrue to any pre 2006 retiree. This means it is neither full parity nor modified parity. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a true meaning to the OM dated 29.8.2008. However, needless to say that this Judgment has yet to pass the test of the hon.ble Supreme Court because UOI would definitely prefer an SLP (C) and fight tooth and nail to get it reversed, there.

vnatarajan
16-01-2013, 08:19 AM
Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/Interested,

THE P & H HC ORDER IS CERTAINLY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE CATs'/ AFTs' ORDERS IN MANY WAYS AS ONE OF MY LEARNED FRIENDS HAD POINTED OUT.

1.The Govt thru their Orders dtd 3/14 Oct 2008 tried to remove the "RELEVANCE and NEXUS of the LAST PAY/EMOLUMENTS OF THE RETIREES AS WELL AS HIS/ HER SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST HELD AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT" VIS A VIS THE "REVISION OF PENSION" ONCE FOR ALL.

2.THIS WAS BECAUSE, THE SO CALLED 'MODIFIED PARITY" ENFORCED AFTER 5TH CPC WAS BLINDLY ACCEPTED BY THE PENSIONERS AND NONE CHALLENGED THE SAME PERSEVERENTLY upto hc/ hsc levels except......

3.ONLY CASE I CAN SAFELY CITE IS THE LUCKY "FALL OUT" THAT OF PRE/POST 1996 RETD MAJ GENS UNDER SPS VAINS' LEADERSHIP AND FOR WHOM THE JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED - ENHANCING the revised pension TO MAKE IT OVER THAT OF THE RETD BRIGADEER BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT PRE 1996 RETD MAJ GENERALS ALSO GET THE REVISED PENSION AT PAR WITH POST 1996 RETD MAJ GENS, after intial blunders..

4.THUS IN THE ABOVE CASE, "POINT TO POINT" PARITY IN REVISED PENSION CAME IN TO FORCE FOR THEM ....AND TO AVOID SIMILAR DEMANDS FROM "CIVLIAN EQUALS', THE DOPPW WENT OUT OF THE WAY TO ISSUE AN OM THAT "WHAT IS APPLICABLE TO MILITARY RETIREES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR CIVILIAN RETIREES CITING THE SPS VAINS CASE".

5.ABOVE OM ITSELF IS RIDICULOUS AND I HAD CHALLENGED IT THRU A LETTER - AND NOW I FEEL I MUST SEEK FURTHER INFO ON THE SAME THRU RTI, BECAUSE WHAT WAS "ALLOWED FOR PRE 2006 RETD LT GENS" FORMED THE BASIS FOR "ALLOWING SIMILAR BENEFITS FOR EQUIVALENT PRE 2006 CIVILIAN RETIREES OF THE LEVEL OF ADDL SECRETARY/ S30 SCALE"IS THIS NOT IN CONTRADICTION OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN WRT SPS VAINS CASE APPLICATION FOR CIVILIANS?.

COMING BACK TO THE JUDGMENT:

6.THE PHHC J/MENT CLEARLY UNDERLINES/ HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT THE REVISED PENSION HAS TO HAVE NEXUS/ LINKAGE TO THE "PAY" OF THE RETIREE WHO RETIRED BEFORE 1 1 2006 AS WELL AS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE "REVISED PAY SCALE" .

7. THIS jJUDGMENT CLEARLY CONVEYS THAT "BUNCHING OF THE STAGES IF PAY OF SEVERAL RETIREES WITH DIFFERNT PAYs AT THE TIME OF THEIR RETIREMENT" as well us "MERGING SEVERAL RETIREES WITH DIFFERENT PAYs AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT IN VARIOUS PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES" AND THEN TREATING ALL OF THEM AS ONE "SHEEP LOT' FOR REVISING THE PENSION IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR !!!! For eg. OP PARA OF JUDGMENT extracts : "the “pay” (emphasis added) of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission "......

8.THIS JUDGMENT ALSO CONVEYS THAT FIXING THE THRESHHOLD AT "MINIMUM" LEVELS -WHETHER AS THAT OF THE " PAY OF THE PAY BAND (MPB BASIS)" OR EVEN THAT OF "THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND (MPPB BASIS) " - BOTH ARE WRONG !!!!. WE ALL HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SECOND ONE AT LEAST WILL GIVE US THE CORRECT SCPC MOD PARITY. Now this judgment is a clear pointer that even this impression is OUR OWN MAKING/ WEAK COMPREHENSION/NOT VALID.

9.THE ABOVE IS EVEIDENT FROM THE ELABORATION SEEN IN THE EXTRACT OF OP PARA OF THE JUDGMENT : "...and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.". SO IT IS TO BE NOTD THAT THE "REVISED PENSION ARRIVED AT HAS TO BE COMPARED WITH THE "MPPB" ONLY TO ENSURE- REPEAT ONLY TO ENSURE -THAT IT IS " NOT repeat NOT lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon".

10 WITH THE LIMIT OF MPPB IMPOSED FOR COMPARISON, IT REMOVES THE VEIL OF MAKING IT COMPULSORY MINIMUM FOR ALL THE INDIVIDUAL RETIREES WITH DIFFERENT REVISED PENSIONs AS PER THE JUDGMENT FORMULA .

11. As the judgment addreses every RETIREE , each is entitled to a REVISED PENSION well above the MINIMUM level and with nexus to his PAY last drawn with its due crrespondence in the Revised Pat structure.

LEGAL BRAINS MAY SEE THE WHOLE "JUDGMENT IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE in all 3DIMENSIONs " AND SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE TO ALL PRE 2006 RETIREES OVERCOMING ALL THE "VIRTUAL UNDEFINED MODIFIED PARITY" being practiced an enforced on all of us and also on the future retirees ILLEGALLY/ UNLAWFULLY- in violation of ART 14/16/21 of connstitution.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-01-2013, 05:18 AM
MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (SCPC RELATED) OR SCPC MODIFIED PARITY ORDERS FOR RETD PRE 2006 COMMISSIONED OFFICERS - ORDERS ISSUED YESTERDAY 17 01 2013

DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

YESTERDAY, 17 01 2013, ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ENSURING ELNHANCED PENSION FOR PRE 2006 RETD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WEF 24 09 2012, IN ACOORDANCE WITH THEIR "FITMENT TABLES' FORMULA RELATED TO SCPC PAY BANDS" , WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS THE DEMAND THAT WAS BEING MADE BY SOME GROUPS AMONG THEM LIKE US FOR "SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" AND WHICH IS ALSO THE ESSENCE OF THEIR AFT JUDGMENTS IN THREE CASES - WON BY THEM IN SEPT - DEC 2010 AT AFT PR BENCH DELHI AND AT AFT CHANDIGARH ETC.

YOU CAN ACCESS ALL INFOMATION THRU MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH'S BLOG SITE ON INDIAN MILITARY SERVICES BENEFITS AND ISSUES ETC
LINK: http://www.indianmilitary.info/

EXTRACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, January 17, 2013
(Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today.

The below mentioned letters have been issued today by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet.


The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012.

2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I expected similar orders would have been issued simultaneously for similarly aggrieved SEGMENTS OF Pre 2006 Civilian Pensioners (INCLUDING THE GREATLY SUFFERING PRE 2006 S29) for whom I and Shri MLK ji and others have been waging a series of battles almost becoming a war, with numerous PR BENCH/ CAT/ Recent P & H HC judgments issuing very clear orders for such MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION RELATED TO THE VERY INJUSTICE which this thread is discussing since more than 3 years.

NEVERTHELESS IT WAS DECLARED IN LAST SCOVA MEET/ ALSO IN LKNO HIGH COURT THAT GOVT SHALL BE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND ISSUINAN OM SHORTLY.

I AND SHRI MLK JI EXPECT THAT THIS ORDER BY DOPPW/ GOI WILL HAVE TO BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DELAY TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS .

AS THE CAT JUDGMENTS/ ALSO RECENT P & HC JUDGMENT VERDICTS HAVE PRONOUNCED THAT THE DATE OF EFFECT IS FROM 1 1 2006, THE AUTHORTIES MUST ENSURE THAT THE ORDERS SPELL IT SO...... FAILING WHICH THERE WILL BE SCOPE FOR LITIGATIONS.

vnatarajan

ybhaskar23
18-01-2013, 09:52 AM
my dear VN Ji,

the orders for the civilians will naturally be on the same lines,

firstly it was minimum of pay band

and now it is minimum of fitment tables

the 29th august resolution nowhere speaks of minimum of fitment table
or effective date as september 2012

where is the last pay drawn concept of the high court judgement disappeared,

where is the concept of re fixation of revised pension within the fitment table gone

well some thing is definitely better than the previous orders
but a lot more is to be done

may be another round of litigation in supreme court

what about the Mandamus Action?

where is the OROP for the Armed Forces?

will that also come?

your expert views please

ybr








MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (SCPC RELATED) OR SCPC MODIFIED PARITY ORDERS FOR RETD PRE 2006 COMMISSIONED OFFICERS - ORDERS ISSUED YESTERDAY 17 01 2013

DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

YESTERDAY, 17 01 2013, ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ENSURING ELNHANCED PENSION FOR PRE 2006 RETD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WEF 24 09 2012, IN ACOORDANCE WITH THEIR "FITMENT TABLES' FORMULA RELATED TO SCPC PAY BANDS" , WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS THE DEMAND THAT WAS BEING MADE BY SOME GROUPS AMONG THEM LIKE US FOR "SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" AND WHICH IS ALSO THE ESSENCE OF THEIR AFT JUDGMENTS IN THREE CASES - WON BY THEM IN SEPT - DEC 2010 AT AFT PR BENCH DELHI AND AT AFT CHANDIGARH ETC.

YOU CAN ACCESS ALL INFOMATION THRU MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH'S BLOG SITE ON INDIAN MILITARY SERVICES BENEFITS AND ISSUES ETC
LINK: http://www.indianmilitary.info/

EXTRACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, January 17, 2013
(Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today.

The below mentioned letters have been issued today by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet.


The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012.

2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I expected similar orders would have been issued simultaneously for similarly aggrieved SEGMENTS OF Pre 2006 Civilian Pensioners (INCLUDING THE GREATLY SUFFERING PRE 2006 S29) for whom I and Shri MLK ji and others have been waging a series of battles almost becoming a war, with numerous PR BENCH/ CAT/ Recent P & H HC judgments issuing very clear orders for such MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION RELATED TO THE VERY INJUSTICE which this thread is discussing since more than 3 years.

NEVERTHELESS IT WAS DECLARED IN LAST SCOVA MEET/ ALSO IN LKNO HIGH COURT THAT GOVT SHALL BE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND ISSUINAN OM SHORTLY.

I AND SHRI MLK JI EXPECT THAT THIS ORDER BY DOPPW/ GOI WILL HAVE TO BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DELAY TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS .

AS THE CAT JUDGMENTS/ ALSO RECENT P & HC JUDGMENT VERDICTS HAVE PRONOUNCED THAT THE DATE OF EFFECT IS FROM 1 1 2006, THE AUTHORTIES MUST ENSURE THAT THE ORDERS SPELL IT SO...... FAILING WHICH THERE WILL BE SCOPE FOR LITIGATIONS.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-01-2013, 08:02 PM
Dear Shri Bhaskar/ Interested,

The Orders issued for Pre 2006 Military pensioners is based on the Recos of the HP Com appointed by the Hon PM related to the OROP issue - but it has perhaps dealt all other issues other than the OROP issue!

Orders issued for Pre 2006 Military pensioners for enhancing their pension has got nothing to do with court cases / judgments thereof - least of all the recent P & H HC judgment ! It has nothing to do with any MANDAMUS etc. So... Where is the confusion? The Reprt of the Com was submitted much before this HC Judgment and accepted in Sept 2012 itself.

FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES - IT IS A NEW POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CABINET BASED ON THE HP COM OF SECRETARIES APPOINTED BY THE HON PM ON THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF PENSIONs FOR PBORS /Others/AND some OTHER ITEMS, IN JULY 2012 WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO SUBMIT ITS RECOS BY AUG 2012- BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS DONE A BIT ALTE AND THEN THE OUTCOME IN SEPT 2012 WHICH ALL KNEW!

THUS all your queries can not be answered by adrdressing this brand new policy decision. ANY COINCIDENCE IN IT/ ANY MENTION IN IT TO SCPC/ related FITMENT TABLEs for MILITARY or CIVIL Pensioners ETC ETC are of virtual value only but the REAL OUTCOME IS THAT YOU ARE NOW PROMISED A "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" BASED ON A 'FITMENT TABLE' WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE "SCPC RELATED ORDERS"

ANY PRE 2006 RETIREE GETTING AN IDENTICAL MINIMUM PENSION AS THAT OF A POST 2006 RETIREE OF SAME STATUS (SCALE/ PAY/QS ETC) IS A PURE COINCIDENCE PL....IT IS BECAUSE OF THE "MAGIC" OF THE NEW POLICY- ON "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION"!!! the Date of Effect istelf is different and so is he new policy not different?

HOWEVER AS YOU RIGHTLY SAID, THERE IS SCOPE FOR MORE LTIGATIONS TO FOLLOW- FIRST IS THEE DATE OF EFFECT- ARREARS- NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF SEVERAL JUDGMENTS AND TRYING TO SHORT THEM BY NEW POLICIES ETC ETC.

vnatarajan

sundarar
19-01-2013, 07:02 AM
Dear Shri Bhaskar / Interested,

Relevant and Important question!.
Modified Pairty or Full Pairty?


5. IN FACT EVEN THE SO-CALLED SCPC MOD PARITY MEANT ONLY A "THRESH- HOLD VALUE" AND NOT THE "MAXIMUM VALUE " AS THE BABUS HAVE MADE IT OUT FOR THE PRE 2006 S29/ AND SIMILARLY AFFECTED GRADES. THUS SAY FOR EG. FOR PRE 2006 S29, IT (THRESHHOLD VALUE) HAS TO BE AT THE MINIMUM OF 27350 AND NOTHING PREVENTS FOR INDIVIDULAS TO BE FIXED AT RATES ABOVE IT! IT WAS CALLOUS INDISCRIMINATION TO PUT ALL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WITH PRE REVISED BP OF 18400 TO 20900 AS ONE LOT ( 5 YERS OF SERVICE PLUS ANOTHER 10 YERS IN S24 GRADE SAY TO REACH 18300 BEFORE BECOMING 18400 IN S29) TO RENDER THEM EQUALS TO UNEQUALS OF NEARLY 15 YEARS JUNIOR!!!!!

vnatarajan

Respected Shri VNji has very correctly pointed out the anamolous situation.

The basic pension itself has not undergone application of correct fixation formula due to which Pre 2006 S29 and similarly aggrived segments were left with lesser revised pension than the minimum, and hence the need for `fixation in such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band grade pay thereon’. Thus the issue of Modified Parity is getting settled accordingly, and if it is so, the effective date therefor can be none other than 1.1.2006. The landmark CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 have well taken care this aspect and the implementation of the said Judgment will settle the position without any further recommendation or decision from anywhere else.

2. Further, Whenever the question of disparity in fixation of pension with a cut off date among single homogenous class of pensioners is raised, the respondent states that `the Government had taken a policy decision to revise the provisions for determination of pay of the government servants with effect from 1.1.2006 which has resulted in higher pension of prospective pensioners. This policy is not discriminatory as in both the case as it accords different benefits to the pensioners of pre-2006 and post 2005 period and the policy cannot be equated with mathematical precision in case of petitioners and post 2005 retirees.... bifurcation of pensioners to pre-2006 pensioners and post 2006 retirees is valid and cannot be faulted with as it is a matter of policy and Courts and Tribunal should not review the policy matters. The Government has divided a single homogenous class of pensions into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment. The Government had taken a decision to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard to applicability of pension to two groups from different dates.

In that regard, it was viewed by the CAT in one of the case that `differentiation of pre-2006 and post 2006 retirees notwithstanding the right of government to introduce new scheme or to withdraw the existing schemes are policy matters which cannot be gone into by the Courts and Tribunals'.

Still in some other previous case on judicial review of policy decision, it was pointed out that `yet judicial review is not altogether excluded. The role in such circumstances is (to interpret a policy decision) to avoid arbitrariness and individual discrimination, and can interfere when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter'.

The full parity issue stands as such accordingly.

This is the situation in spite of the available 5th CPC recommendation in para 137.13 where it is stated that While it is desirable to grant complete parity in pension to all past pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement, this may not be feasible straightaway as the financial implications would be considerable. In para 137.14, it is stated that the consolidated pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post, as revised by Fifth CPC, held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. In para 137.21, it has been observed that the Commission has decided to enunciate a principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that complete parity should normally be conceded upto the date of last pay revision and modified parity ( with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay scale) be accepted at the time of each fresh pay revision. ..The enunciation of the principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision, say, in the year 2006,complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post2006 pensioners.

Two questions arise after a period of about 15 years now.
(1) Whether the financial implications by grant of complete/full parity in pension to pre-2006 pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement could not be feasible straightaway even now at this point of time. Then it can be never also. This apart, the 6th CPC too has not addressed this aspect.

(2) Whether complete parity that `should have been given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996' has actually been given? Then when the complete/full parity will be given to past pensioners as between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners? Not addressed by 6th CPC in this regard.

Full parity vs Correct Revision of Basic Pension, when both are not in the vicinity as of now, the pensioners community is yet to touch either of this aspect under the circumstances that was prevailing and even if the question of full parity is raised here and there, the situation prevails as stated above.

The left out issue being Correct Revision of Basic Pension for all scale retirees of pre-2006/pre-1996/pre- , has so far not become an issue for addressing by the Judicial Review as the same is not raised by the aggrieved pensioners, in the absence of accepted modified parity.

I am not aware which one out of full parity and correct basic pension revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006 will address all anomalies. But the latter one appears to be having enough justification to pray for. Treating a pre-2006 pensioner as such and providing with a correct fixation formula as against existing 2.26 MF for revising the pre-revised basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 will address all the issues including modified parity. If not possible, then COMPLETE/FULL PARITY AMONG THE SINGLE HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS PLEASE.

With the implementation orders due for issue any time now, the post-2008 scenario has been kept alive amidst elaborate discussion particularly through this MEGA THREAD FOR JUSTICE' initiated originally by our Respected Shri VNji and personally I feel very happy at this moment that the intended target is just very closer and thankful to the leadership and guiding path. With this happy occasion, I prefer leave for a while and on completion of my some urgent personal assignments, I will resume back at a later stage, may be with NEW YEAR GREETINGS please. Thanks and Best Regards

Jai Shri Krishna.

vnatarajan
23-01-2013, 06:17 AM
DEAR PRE 2006 SEGMENTS OF AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS AFFECTED BY SCPC RELATED "MPB" VS "MPPB" ISSUE,

While the Military counterpart pensioners have received their orders/ follow up actions by PCDAs concerned last week itself, the much expected orders for the civilian counterparts have not been issued. Hon Minister appears to be away.

HOPEFULLY HE SHALL RETURN WELL IN TIME TO BE AT DELHI SO THAT HE CAN BE "BY THE SIDE OF THE HON PM" ON THE EVE OF THE REPUBLIC DAY.

If he is on 24th itself at Delhi, we shall hope he remembers the SR CITIZENS OF THIS REPUBLIC WHO HAD SERVED THE NATION FOR LONG LONG YEARS and now pathetically fighting for their CORRECT PENSIONS AND SIGNS THE FILE without losing time. He has to uphold the promise made in SCOVA meeting in Sept 2012!

LET US WAIT FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
25-01-2013, 05:12 PM
Dear friends. I wish you all a very happy Republic Day 26th Jan.2013. This is the day when we remember those who died for ensuring our indepence. Let us all pay tribute to them individually and collectively. We are indebted to them and therefore, by remaining united and alert towards keeping our independance unharmed all the time, we can show our gratitude. Warm regards.

vnatarajan
28-01-2013, 09:38 PM
Dear segments of pre 2006 pensioners affected by the MPB issue/ others interested,

After some delay in anticipation, we are happy to realise that the Govt./ DOPPW have at last issued the orders for stepping up the revised pension of pre 2006 pensioners superceding the om of 1st sept 2008 issued by the DOPPW.

This OM is issued today 28 01 2013 by DOPPW and in effect it is the correct scpc modified parity having nexue to the fitment tables provided with the RP RULES 2008 issued by the MOF/DOE on 30 Aug 2008.

It is christened as minimum guaranteed pension as was done for the pre 2006 military retd com officers recently.

The OM covers all the pre 2006 pensioners of all pay scales , but actual benefit may be only to those who are affected. May be in 8 scales- that too among those who have not earned say 4 to 8 increments in their pre-revised pay scales!

I shall post the copy of the OM soon here. (SINCE THE GCONNECT ADMINISTRATOR HIMSELF HAS POSTED IT AS PER POST APPEARING BELOW THIS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ME TO REPEAT)

I thank all those in this blog site and the adminitrators of gconnect.in who have been a great support to me in this struggle for truth and justice.

Battle is won- war shall continue. Heaps of injustice can not be wiped out with a meagre order of an arbitrary date of effect as 24 09 2012 instead of 1 1 2006.

Warm regards,

vnatarajan

ram
28-01-2013, 11:01 PM
It's really a happy news to pre-2006 pensioners.

Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners enhanced as per revised Concordance Table meant for linking pre-1996, Pre-2006 Pay Scales. Concordance Table revised on the basis of 6CPC revised pay fitment table applicable to Post 2006 Central Government Employees

Read this GConnect article for more details (http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/pension-of-pre-2006-pensioners-enhanced.html)

ssharma
31-01-2013, 06:53 PM
Hearty Congrats to all for the latest order issued by GOI. My query is - what should the basic pension be for a s-29 grade officer with 22400 basic at retirement and greater than 33 years of service?

G.Ramdas
31-01-2013, 08:25 PM
Congrats to all Pre-2006 pensioners!. Special congrats to Sh Natarajan for his untiring efforts and success.
G Ramdas

ybhaskar23
05-02-2013, 09:09 PM
Dear VN JI and Ramdas Ji

My congratulations to all pre 2006 pensioners,

The orders of 28th jan are welcome no doubt,

thanks to the efforts of VN Ji.

There is still a lot which needs to be addressed of course ,

a) the date of implementation,

b) the LPD or Last Pay Drawn in the 5th CPC or earlier has not been taken into consideration at all,
The gazette notification nor the 29th August 2008 Letter no where specifies
pension should be fixed based on the minimum of the relevant Fitment Tables

c) The LPD should be fixed at the appropriate stage in the appropriate Fitment Tables
for each of the employees and then pension and family pension arrived at.

d) The formula for family pension is 30% of LPD and not Repeat not 30% of the minimum pay
in the relevant fitment table.

e) To arrive at the correct family pension the LPD should be fixed at the appropriate stage in
the relevant fitment tables for each of the pre 2006 pensioners .

VN Ji's comments are also solicited

ybr

ssharma
08-02-2013, 07:22 PM
i was interested in knowing what members here felt about paying tax till all issues were resolved to the satisfaction of esteemed members here.

vnatarajan
04-03-2013, 07:52 AM
We have to follow what the Income Tax Act and its rules say about paying tax. We have no choice! Our feelings have no value nor they can make an impact on the Finance Minister who is the king of the treasury. No exceptions to rules unless we choose to "EVADE' which many "iNTENTIONAL NON-PAYEES" do! -
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-03-2013, 08:10 AM
Thanks Shri YB,

My answers:

a) the date of implementation: DHC HEARING ON 29 APRIL 2013/ UP HC HEARING ON 6 MARCH 2013 ARE TO BE WATCHED. HON P & HC IN THEIR JUDGMENT ON 21 12 2012 HAVE ALREADY ORDERED THE DOIMPLEMENTATION SHD BE 1 1 2006 PLUS ARREARS AT 6% ETC FOR HARYANA CIVIL PENSIONERS WHO HAVE NO "PAY COMMISSIONS'" BUT FOLLOW THE CG GUIDELINES/ RULES TO MAKE THEIR OWN RULES.

GOVT KNOWS WHAT IS IN STORE FOR THEM- IF THEY DONT FORESEE THE OUTCOME , THEY SHALL HAV TO PAY ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 AND INTEREST ON THE SAME FROM 3 2 2012.


b) the LPD or Last Pay Drawn in the 5th CPC or earlier has not been taken into consideration at all,
The gazette notification nor the 29th August 2008 Letter no where specifies
pension should be fixed based on the minimum of the relevant Fitment Tables

SHD HAVE BEEN FOUGHT BY VCPC RETIREES WELL IN TIME. OUR CASE AND THE CURRENT OUTCOME IS MORE RELATED TO "MINIMUM ENTITLED PENSION" ONLY.
HOW CAN GAZETTE NOTIFICATION WHICH WAS NOTIFIED ON 28 AUG 2008 MENTUON ABOUT A "FITMENT TABLE" WHICH SAW THE LIGHT OF THE DAY ONLY ON "29 AUG 2008" (ONE DAY LATER) AND THIS IS THE "WISOM OF BABUDOM" WHO UTILISE THE "LOOPHOLE TECHNOLOGY" VERY WELL!

c) The LPD should be fixed at the appropriate stage in the appropriate Fitment Tables
for each of the employees and then pension and family pension arrived at.

CORRECT. BUT WHY VCPC / OLD PENSIONERS DID NOT FIGHT THIS ISSUE WELL IN TIME? WE HAVE LOST MUCH CONTROL ON "LPD BASIS" BECAUSE OF THE ENTRENCHED "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE WRT THE SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST LAST HELD BY THE PENSIONER" - HOWEVER THIS ISSUE IS VERY MUCH IN MY AGENDA/ AGENDA OF LIKE NINDEED PAST PENSIONERS- BUT WE NEED A HUGE COPUS TO FIGHT THE LEGAL BATTLE- I HAVE THE MINDSET AND WILL/ SUPPORT AND STRENGTH TO TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE. RECENT P & HARYANA HC JUDGMENT OF 21 12 2012 AND THE HON SC JUDGMENT OF 17 01 2013 ARE REFRESHING AND THEY LAY A VERY STRONG FOUNDATION FOR THIS APPROACH.

d) The formula for family pension is 30% of LPD and not Repeat not 30% of the minimum pay
in the relevant fitment table.

NOT SURE. I BELIEVE IT IS ALSO MINIMUM BASED. SHRI SUNDARAR MAY COMMENT PLEASE, IF HE READS SO.

e) To arrive at the correct family pension the LPD should be fixed at the appropriate stage in
the relevant fitment tables for each of the pre 2006 pensioners .

RELATED TO (D) ABOVE.

Regards,
vnatarajan

RPGoswami
04-03-2013, 10:28 AM
I am getting confused as it was my understanding that a pensioner who retired before a Pay Commission Award will have Pension reworked on the basis of Formula prescribed (2.26 in case of Sixth Pay Commission). Such Pension would however be stepped up to the M.A.P. level if it is lower than 50% of the minimum of pay of the grade from which the officer had retired. If however the case is to continuously rework pension of an officer keeping in mind the stage in which the officer had retired from, then it is a separate issue. I would like to know what is exactly our contention.
Incidentally the 28th January circular is badly drafted. It talks of stepping up of Pension without explaining why the concerned circular was not put in force in the first place. i dont know whether ca case for arrear will be raise during the cases that will be heard during the year

vnatarajan
05-03-2013, 08:47 AM
Why this doubt late in the day?

Whole issue is THE MAIN SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS THREAD RIGHT FROM DAY ONE!

You are right.

Reg OM being badly drafted, the baudom's wisdom is obvuous as they DID NOT WANT TO DEVIATE FROM THE EARLIER MOD'D ORDERS FOR PRE 2006 RETD COM OFFICERS WHICH IN TURN WAS BASED ON DOESMW OF MOD' NOTE TO CABINET AND SO HAD TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME TO FIX THE IMPKEMENTATION DATE AS 24 09 2012.

So let us waait DHC verdic or UP HC lkno bench verdict soon in the offing ....

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
15-03-2013, 07:27 PM
Does the GOI Circular F No 38/3708-P&PN(A)

RPGoswami
15-03-2013, 07:33 PM
Does the circular 38/37/08 P&PA of February 13 have any implication regarding pension of pre-2006 retirees?

vnatarajan
15-03-2013, 08:26 PM
Yes pl.

DOPPW has clearly given the mandate to the concerned imcluding the PAOs to revise the pension of affected pre 2006 pensioners wrt the MINIMUM GUARNTEED PENSION (MGP) instead of the MPB based pension / and in accordance with the Fitment Tables of MOF's Om dt 30 08 2008 ( also attached in the form of a Concordance Table with the OM of 13 02 2013) in their OMs dt 28 01 2013 an later one dt 13 02 2013.

So it fulfils our demand partially- though given a new nomemclature like MGP- but date of effect is 24 09 2013 instead of 1 1 2006.

THE OM CONCERNS ONLY THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' SEGMENT AFFECTED BY THE SCPC MOD APRITY ISSUE FOR WHICH THIS THREAD WAS THRIVING TO SPREAD AWARENESS AGAINST THE INJUSTICE METED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES - REDUCING UNAUTHORISEDLY THE MPPB BASED REVISED PENSION CORRESPONDING TO PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE OF THE POST FROM WHICH PENSIONER RETIRED TO THE MPB BASED REVISED PENSION IRRESPECTIVE OF SUCH PRE REVISED PAY SCALES!!!

Hope this is clear now.

VN

vishwapurna
22-03-2013, 03:26 PM
Dear Shri.VN Ji,

Every order for Pre-2006 pensioners talks about minimum pension of revised pay scale .But the pension is calculated based only on last pay drawn of retiring employee all these years either before 2006 or after 2006.

Will there be any plead in the case at DHC, the HEARING of which is posted on 29 APRIL 2013? or we have file fresh petition for this claim?

Regards.

B.Ramadurai.

Gopal Krishan
23-03-2013, 12:11 PM
To my mind the same can be raised if the same was there in the original petition before the CAT. Otherwise we may have to move afresh application.

Gopal Krishan

gconnect
26-03-2013, 07:39 AM
GConnect.in has come up with this easy to use online tool which interprets Pension Concordance Table and estimates Revised Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners.
Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners - Pension Calculator (http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/pension-calculator-for-pre-2006-pensioners.html)
We request Pre-2006 Pensioners to have look at the same and give back their feedback

Kanaujiaml
26-03-2013, 08:26 AM
Dear friends. I would like to further add up what Shri VN has put in his reply to the question raised by Shri Goswami. The OM dated 28.1.13 is not at all badly drafted but it has been very "cleverly" drafted. For computing revised pension of all pre 2006 retirees SCPC gave two formule, one,which says multiply pre revised pension by a factor of 2.26 and second, take 50 % of some of "minimum of the pay in the pay band" and grade pay,corresponding to pre revised "pay scale" from which a pension retired.Revised pension was then to be fixed at the amount which is higher of the two formule. This recommendation was accepted with approval of Union Cabinet and published in GOI Gazette Extra Ordinary vide MOP, DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008. Subsequently,with the approval of MOS(P), DOP vide OM dated 3.10.2008 changed the second formula to 50% of sum of "minimum of pay band" irrespective to the pre revised pay scale and grade pay corresponding to pre revised pay scale, from which pensioner had retired. This had put those pre 2006 pensioners whose pension was computing higher with second formula, at disadvantageous position. Pensioners tried their best but had to go to the Courts. At this point of time there are at least 37 cases in various Courts which Pensioners have already won.UOI has gone in appeal against some Judgments in High Court/Supreme Court. This has forced the Govt.to have a re-thinking and the outcome has come in the form of OM dated 28.1.13 but revised pension is called "stepping up" for giving it the effect from 24.9.2012,so that, payment of arrears from 1.1.2006,could be avoided.

vnatarajan
26-03-2013, 08:09 PM
Dear GCONNECT ADMIN.,

Many thanks for the nice PENSION CALCULATOR innovated for the calcualtion of MGP or Minimum Revised Pension of pre 2006/older pensioners and it is quite effceive to arrive at the figure/ also to cross check if this revised pension is beneficial or not wrt the 2.26 based revised pensionI

I checked for the S29 pre 2006 retiree case:


(Pension Calculator for Pre-2006 Pensioners
When did you retire? (Period of demise of Employee/Pensioner in case of Family Pension) Before 1.1.1996 Between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.2005
What was the grade/scale of pay at the time of retirement (or demise in case of Family Pension) S-1 2550-55-2660-60-3200S-2 2610-60-3150-65-3540S-2A 2610-60-2910-65-3300-70-4000S-3 2650-65-3300-70-4000S-4 2750-70-3800-75-4400 S-5 3050-75-3950-80-4590S-6 3200-85-4900S-7 4000-100-6000S-8 4500-125-7000S-9 5000-150-8000S-10 5500-175-9000S-11 6500-200-6900S-12 6500-200-10500S-13 7450-225-11500S-14 7500-225-1200S-15 8000-275-13500New 8000-275-13500(Group A Entry)S-16 9000S-17 9000-275-9550S-18 10325-325-10975S-19 10000-325-15200S-20 10650-325-15850S-21 12000-375-16500S-22 12750-375-16500S-23 12000-375-18000S-24 14300-400-18300S-25 15100-400-18300S-26 16400-450-20000S-27 16400-450-20900S-28 14300-450-22400S-29 18400-500-22400S-30 22400-525-24500S-31 22400-600-26000S-32 24050-650-26000S-33 26000(Fixed)S-34 30000(Fixed)
Corresponding 6th CPC Pay Bands/scales 37400-67000
Corresponding Grade Pay 10000
Sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay/ minimum pay in the pay scale as per fitment table 54700
Pension= 50% of Sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay/ minimum pay in the pay scale as per fitment table 27350
DA @ 72% 19692
Total Pension 47042
Family Pension = 30% of Sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay/ minimum pay in the pay scale as per fitment table 16410
DA @ 72% 11815
Total Family Pension 28225

It is fine
vnatarajan

ramadevik
27-03-2013, 10:01 AM
Sir,
In the above new pension calculator, separate fixation is shown for 6500-200-10500 and 7450-225-11500 i.e. 8145 AND 9230 RESPECTIVELY. But in 6 CPC 6500-200-10500 is upgraded to 7450-225-11500 and placed under 4600 GP. Is this upgradation not applicable for pensioners? Should the pensioners who retired in 6500-200-10500 not be given 4600 GP like employees who are serving and place them in 9230. Please clarify.

vnatarajan
27-03-2013, 03:06 PM
My impressions:

Raising the conseerned scale to a higher GP level may mean UPGRADATION after the Sixth CPC.
AS A RESULT, THOSE NOT IN SERVICE ON THE DATE OF EFFECTIVE UPGRADTION ORDERS MAY NOT GET THE BENEFIT.

Of course this is injustice.
Past examples of departures from this rule may be there.

Litigations must have taken place (eg Rly Pensioners).

Going to CATs/ Courts may be inevitable for the retirees not covered by the raised GP!!!!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
27-03-2013, 06:28 PM
In reference to Shri V. Natarajan's post 1218 above, I would too, like to thank the gconnect team for the new pension calculator. gconnect is doing wonderfully well. I cangratulate them for the service being rendered by them especially, to elderly.

Kanaujiaml
27-03-2013, 06:34 PM
My impressions:

Raising the conseerned scale to a higher GP level may mean UPGRADATION after the Sixth CPC.
AS A RESULT, THOSE NOT IN SERVICE ON THE DATE OF EFFECTIVE UPGRADTION ORDERS MAY NOT GET THE BENEFIT.

Of course this is injustice.
Past examples of departures from this rule may be there.

Litigations must have taken place (eg Rly Pensioners).

Going to CATs/ Courts may be inevitable for the retirees not covered by the raised GP!!!!

vnatarajan
Dear Shri VN,Others. I believe some of the organisations have started giving Grade Pay of 4600 now. For example employees and pre 2006 pensioners of Survey of India are now getting GP 4600. Fact of the matter is that SCPC had left it the Department concerned to raise GP from 4200 to 4600, if they find it fit, with finance concerence from their Associated Accounts Branch.

Gopal Krishan
28-03-2013, 06:11 PM
Dear Gconnect Administrator

Many thanks for timely innovation for the calculation of the pension of pre-2006 pensioners. Many have been asking for calculating their revised pensions. The same is of great help to all of them.


Gopal Krishan

ssharma
27-04-2013, 10:07 PM
could someone clarify what should the pension be for someone with 37 years of service retiring from S-29 on aug 2005 and last basic of 22400 from the 18400-22400 bracket?

Kanaujiaml
28-04-2013, 08:14 AM
could someone clarify what should the pension be for someone with 37 years of service retiring from S-29 on aug 2005 and last basic of 22400 from the 18400-22400 bracket?
The revised pension effective 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012 would be 23700 + DR and from 24.9.2012 onwards it would be 27350 +DR.

vnatarajan
28-04-2013, 11:19 AM
SINCE STARTING THIS THREAD ON 7TH OCT 2008, I HAVE TRAVELLED ALONG IT -A LOT - HANGING ON TO IT FIRMLY - AND TRYING TO STRENGTHEN IT THROUGH POSTS
HERE.

IN THE PROCESS, I HAVE PICKED UP A COUPLE OF INVINCIBLE- NET-MSUKETEERS WHO ARE SUOERBLY KNOWLEDGEABLE- AS STUBBORN AND AS PERSEVERANT AS MYSELF- KEEPING COMPANY WITH ME TILL TODAY:

FIRST IS MY GREAT FRIEND SHRI MLK JI AND THE OTHER IS MY EVER-ACTIVE- EVER-READY- EVER-ALERT SHRI NSR JI.

THESE TWO HAVE MADE THIS THREAD MULTI-STRINGED AND POLY-COLOURED.

YESTERDAY, I HAD THE FIRST GLIMPSE OF MY OWN PPO / SSA EMAIL COPY-ISSUED BY THE CPAO TO MY CPPC BANK VIZ BOM AT PUNE , AUTHORISING DISBURSAL OF MY REVISED PENSION @ 27350 BASICPLUS DR PERMISSIBLE , WEF 24 9 2012!. A PART OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS CAMPAIGN HAD BEEN MATRIALISED, WHATEVER "COLOUR" OR "CAMOUFLAGUE" THE GOVT MAY USE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE......

THIS GLORIOUS CAMPAIGN IS UNPARALLELLED FOR MANY REASONS.

ONLY ONE EXAMPLE I SHALL MENTION NOW; THAT IS THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY A VERY SENIOR STALWART- PENSIONER SHRI KSS SIR AND HIS UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PENSIONERS' SUBJECT IS AMAZING! HE HAD BEEN OUR BHEESHMA PITA- MAHA IN THIS ENDEAVOUR...

OTHERS SHALL BE ENUMERATED IN DUE COURSE.

I THANK ONE AND ALL- AND BECAUSE OF THEIR ENCOURAGNENT ONLY, I WAITED WITH PATIENCE FOR THE DAY TO RECEIVE MY REVISED SSA- WHICH HAPPENED NEARLY AFTER A GAP OF 4 YEARS 6 MONTHS AFTER OCT 2008, MORE HAN 1000 POSTS IN THIS THERAD, VIEWINGS OF OVER 1,52000 IN THESE 1400 DAYS OR SO ALMOST @ 100 VIEWS PER DAY - CONISISTENTLY- MUST BE A RECORD.....

THANKS TO GCONNECT ADMIN ALSO.

vnatarajan

ssharma
28-04-2013, 12:02 PM
The revised pension effective 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012 would be 23700 + DR and from 24.9.2012 onwards it would be 27350 +DR.


Thank you Kanaujiaml ji since i have retired from the maximum of the S-29 scale should i not get the minimum of S-30 scale? Does this call for a separate legal action or is this being already covered under the court cases being fought by our esteemed colleagues?

ssharma
28-04-2013, 12:05 PM
SINCE STARTING THIS THREAD ON 7TH OCT 2008, I HAVE TRAVELLED ALONG IT -A LOT - HANGING ON TO IT FIRMLY - AND TRYING TO STRENGTHEN IT THROUGH POSTS
HERE.

IN THE PROCESS, I HAVE PICKED UP A COUPLE OF INVINCIBLE- NET-MSUKETEERS WHO ARE SUOERBLY KNOWLEDGEABLE- AS STUBBORN AND AS PERSEVERANT AS MYSELF- KEEPING COMPANY WITH ME TILL TODAY:

FIRST IS MY GREAT FRIEND SHRI MLK JI AND THE OTHER IS MY EVER-ACTIVE- EVER-READY- EVER-ALERT SHRI NSR JI.

THESE TWO HAVE MADE THIS THREAD MULTI-STRINGED AND POLY-COLOURED.

YESTERDAY, I HAD THE FIRST GLIMPSE OF MY OWN PPO / SSA EMAIL COPY-ISSUED BY THE CPAO TO MY CPPC BANK VIZ BOM AT PUNE , AUTHORISING DISBURSAL OF MY REVISED PENSION @ 27350 BASICPLUS DR PERMISSIBLE , WEF 24 9 2012!. A PART OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS CAMPAIGN HAD BEEN MATRIALISED, WHATEVER "COLOUR" OR "CAMOUFLAGUE" THE GOVT MAY USE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE......

THIS GLORIOUS CAMPAIGN IS UNPARALLELLED FOR MANY REASONS.

ONLY ONE EXAMPLE I SHALL MENTION NOW; THAT IS THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY A VERY SENIOR STALWART- PENSIONER SHRI KSS SIR AND HIS UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PENSIONERS' SUBJECT IS AMAZING! HE HAD BEEN OUR BHEESHMA PITA- MAHA IN THIS ENDEAVOUR...

OTHERS SHALL BE ENUMERATED IN DUE COURSE.

I THANK ONE AND ALL- AND BECAUSE OF THEIR ENCOURAGNENT ONLY, I WAITED WITH PATIENCE FOR THE DAY TO RECEIVE MY REVISED SSA- WHICH HAPPENED NEARLY AFTER A GAP OF 4 YEARS 6 MONTHS AFTER OCT 2008, MORE HAN 1000 POSTS IN THIS THERAD, VIEWINGS OF OVER 1,52000 IN THESE 1400 DAYS OR SO ALMOST @ 100 VIEWS PER DAY - CONISISTENTLY- MUST BE A RECORD.....

THANKS TO GCONNECT ADMIN ALSO.

vnatarajan


Shri Natrajan hats off to efforts put in by the persevering members. I'm under the impression that an important hearing is going to take place this month or has taken place at the Delhi High Court. Would you kindly enlighten me with the latest updates? Thank you.

vnatarajan
28-04-2013, 05:26 PM
PL Watch for tomorrow 29 April 2013- WP C 1535/ 2012 UOI vs CGS29PA & Ors - at Court No 4 pl - for ADMISSION ---- at Hon DHC-
ALL PENSIONERS PRAY THE CASE MUST BE REJECTED FOR ADMISSION ON ITS DEMERIT- AS THE GOVT , REALISNG ITS UNJUST ACTION THRU MPB FIASCO, HAS ISSUED THE NEW "MGP" BASED STEPPING UP PENSION ORDER, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A "SELF-CONFESSION" OF ITS ERRORNEOUS STAND. MOREOVER IT ALSO UPHOLDS THE CORRECTNESS OF PR ACT VERDICT, AGINST WH ONLY THIS WP IS FILED BY IT!

How long the Govt can play hide and seek? delay justice? Hide the truth?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
29-04-2013, 08:10 AM
Thank you Kanaujiaml ji since i have retired from the maximum of the S-29 scale should i not get the minimum of S-30 scale? Does this call for a separate legal action or is this being already covered under the court cases being fought by our esteemed colleagues?

Dear ssharma. As far as I know, there is no such case active at the moment.The fact of the matter is that those who tried for a separate pay scale or even so called "full parity" i. e. fixing revised pension on point to point basis,could not succeed even at very first legal battle. I can understand the agony of people like you (I too feel a little hurt personally with this situation), but SCPC failed badly in this respect and thereafter, Govt. decided to favour only s30 leaving others high and dry.Now, there is talk of 7CPC.We need to organise even more (s29 pensioners Association is already in existence now and fighting the modified parity case in Delhi HC) and bring before the Commission all these disparities with the hope that it would understand the psyche and hurt it gave to us and do something to rectify it.Agreed, age is acting against us, but that should not deter us to do nothing only because of it and loose hope without fighting, for the fight is not for "money" but for esteem.

Kanaujiaml
29-04-2013, 08:35 AM
Dear friends. Kindly refer to Shri V. Natarajan's post 1226 above. He has already received his revised SSA (PPO) and it is hoped,he would start receiving his stepped up pension with arrears soon,if not already done. My congratulation to him.I feel indebted firstly to the gconnect for giving us such a unique forum and then Shri V. Natarajan, for starting this particular thread and giving it his patronage throughout.I feel proud for having been a very small part of it but throughout.Since start of this thread, our fight has moved to various stages and today,we can proudly say that,after all we could succeed in our efforts, against all odds,and,force the Govt. to give us which SCPC gave to us and which even was given under Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 but which was latter withdrawn by the MOP(DOP) OM dated 3.10.2008.Of course,our fight has been won only partially, because the stepped pension is only effective from 24.9.2012 and not 1.1.2006,the date of implementation of SCPC Report, but one day we would win the remaining battle, too. This fight is not for money as section of people in general and the Govt., thought or even think today, but for restoring our "hurt psyche" and damaged "esteem".

Kanaujiaml
29-04-2013, 02:48 PM
Dear friends. I have got a special great news to share with pre 2006 pensioners, particularly from s29 pre revised pay scale. The Union of India "appeal" in Delhi High Court against CAT PB Judgment in OA No. 655 of 2010, was heard today (29.04.2013) and "dismissed" by the Delhi High Court. It is a great news and I congratulate all the pensioners friends for this achievement.

RPGoswami
29-04-2013, 04:24 PM
What exactly is the implication of this judgement?

RPGoswami
29-04-2013, 05:06 PM
You don't get any thing more on the fitment formula of 2.26 given by the sixth pay commission also
Thank you Kanaujiaml ji since i have retired from the maximum of the S-29 scale should i not get the minimum of S-30 scale? Does this call for a separate legal action or is this being already covered under the court cases being fought by our esteemed colleagues?

vnatarajan
29-04-2013, 05:57 PM
WRT Shri RPG's query at post 1233.

TIS IMPLIES THAT THE PR CAT JUDGMENT OF 1 11 2011 IN OA NO 655/ 2010 STANDS.
GOVT HAS GONE ON APPEAL TO HON DHC THRU WP 1535 / 2012 AGAINST THE ABOVE JUDGMENT , TERMING IT A S"ERRONEOUS". THE DHC VERDICT SHOW IT THE CORRECT PLACE....

IN EAR;IER POSTS U WILL GET THE OP PART OF THE PR CAT JUDGMENT. GIST OF WHICH
1.CAB RESOLUTION/ GAZ NOTIFICATION ISSUE THRU DOPPW OM 29 08 2008 HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED WEF 1 1 2006.
2.OMs OF 3/ 14 OCT 2008 ISSUED BY THE DOPPW WERE NULLIFIED.
3.AFFECTED SEGMENTS OF ORE 2006 PENSONERS WILL GET THE REVISED PENSION IN TERMS OF SL NO ( VIZ ON MPPB BASIS AND NOT ON MPB BASIS - WITH FULL ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF PR BENCH CAT'S JUDGMENT.

AS GOVT HAS NOT FOUND FAVOUR AT DHC, THE CONTEMPT FILED AGAINST THEM KEPT PENDING FOR THE DHC PROCEEDINGS,, WILL NOW BE REVOKED AND THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES HAVE TO FACE THE SAME - AS THE TEMP RELIEF GIVEN TO THEM SUO MOTO LAPSES NOW.

vnatarajan

ssharma
29-04-2013, 06:15 PM
WRT Shri RPG's query at post 1233.

TIS IMPLIES THAT THE PR CAT JUDGMENT OF 1 11 2011 IN OA NO 655/ 2010 STANDS.
GOVT HAS GONE ON APPEAL TO HON DHC THRU WP 1535 / 2012 AGAINST THE ABOVE JUDGMENT , TERMING IT A S"ERRONEOUS". THE DHC VERDICT SHOW IT THE CORRECT PLACE....

IN EAR;IER POSTS U WILL GET THE OP PART OF THE PR CAT JUDGMENT. GIST OF WHICH
1.CAB RESOLUTION/ GAZ NOTIFICATION ISSUE THRU DOPPW OM 29 08 2008 HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED WEF 1 1 2006.
2.OMs OF 3/ 14 OCT 2008 ISSUED BY THE DOPPW WERE NULLIFIED.
3.AFFECTED SEGMENTS OF ORE 2006 PENSONERS WILL GET THE REVISED PENSION IN TERMS OF SL NO ( VIZ ON MPPB BASIS AND NOT ON MPB BASIS - WITH FULL ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF PR BENCH CAT'S JUDGMENT.

AS GOVT HAS NOT FOUND FAVOUR AT DHC, THE CONTEMPT FILED AGAINST THEM KEPT PENDING FOR THE DHC PROCEEDINGS,, WILL NOW BE REVOKED AND THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES HAVE TO FACE THE SAME - AS THE TEMP RELIEF GIVEN TO THEM SUO MOTO LAPSES NOW.

vnatarajan

This is good news congratulations to all.

Kanaujiaml
29-04-2013, 08:46 PM
Thank you Kanaujiaml ji since i have retired from the maximum of the S-29 scale should i not get the minimum of S-30 scale? Does this call for a separate legal action or is this being already covered under the court cases being fought by our esteemed colleagues?

Your revised basic pension has been raised from 22400 /2 =11200 x 2.26=25312 to sum of 50 % of 44700 + 10000 =27350 vide OM dated 28.1.2013 effective 24.9.12. There is an increase of 2038 + DR @ 80% as at present. Further,
there is no law in support of minimum of s30 for those
who retired from s29, even when they were at highest
stage of the pre revised pay scale, as Article 14 or
Article 16 are not violated.Stepping of pay or pension of
senior equal to junior, if junior happens to get higher pay
or pension is not applicable if both are not from, same pre revised pay scale, same stream of seniority, same service
and hierarchy.Sad but true.

ssharma
29-04-2013, 09:12 PM
Your revised basic pension has been raised from 22400 /2 =11200 x 2.26=25312 to sum of 50 % of 44700 + 10000 =27350 vide OM dated 28.1.2013 effective 24.9.12. There is an increase of 2038 + DR @ 80% as at present. Further,
there is no law in support of minimum of s30 for those
who retired from s29, even when they were at highest
stage of the pre revised pay scale, as Article 14 or
Article 16 are not violated.Stepping of pay or pension of
senior equal to junior, if junior happens to get higher pay
or pension is not applicable if both are not from, same pre revised pay scale, same stream of seniority, same service
and hierarchy.Sad but true.


Please correct me if i'm wrong but in my understanding the CAT PB judgement of 1.11.2011 gives no other benefits than OM dated 28.1.2013 in my case (retiring on aug 2005 from maximum of S-29 with 37 years service)?

Ideally it should have been 50% of 67000 i.e. 33500. Seemingly S29 has been capped at 51850+10000=61850... where as it should have gone up to 67000.

rksehgal31
29-04-2013, 10:30 PM
Dear Natarajan ji & Kanaujia ji,
Congratulations on your well-deserved victory. Your dedicated efforts for more than 4 years have borne fruit. You can enjoy the fruits provided the government does not go to the Supreme Court in appeal.
The arrears from 01.01.06 to 31.03.13 work out to Rs.114.60 for every one rupee increase in pension.
In our case, HVPN has filed SLP in the SC today. We have also filed review application in the P&H HC for the left out points.
With best wishes,
Er RK Sehgal

Kanaujiaml
30-04-2013, 09:27 AM
Dear Natarajan ji & Kanaujia ji,
Congratulations on your well-deserved victory. Your dedicated efforts for more than 4 years have borne fruit. You can enjoy the fruits provided the government does not go to the Supreme Court in appeal.
The arrears from 01.01.06 to 31.03.13 work out to Rs.114.60 for every one rupee increase in pension.
In our case, HVPN has filed SLP in the SC today. We have also filed review application in the P&H HC for the left out points.
With best wishes,
Er RK Sehgal

Thanks a lot. This victory is not only ours but for entire pensioners fraternity. Yes, UOI would go to Supreme Court but there too, it would meet the same fate, I believe. Our good wishes are always with you and rest assured, victory would be of pensioners, because Govt. humiliated them and perpetuated injustice on them, forced them to go to the Court.

ssharma
30-04-2013, 12:37 PM
I'm happy we are mving from MPB to MPPB concept but i fail to understand this narrow mindedness on part of the government. the word 'minimum' is in itself unjust to use. the only word which should be used is 'Actual'.. Actual pay in the pay band. APPB.

kvn
30-04-2013, 01:43 PM
Dear friends. I have got a special great news to share with pre 2006 pensioners, particularly from s29 pre revised pay scale. The Union of India "appeal" in Delhi High Court against CAT PB Judgment in OA No. 655 of 2010, was heard today (29.04.2013) and "dismissed" by the Delhi High Court. It is a great news and I congratulate all the pensioners friends for this achievement.

Sir, My hearty thanks to You and best wishes. It is a great achievement on your part.

with warm regards
viswanathan.k (A 1991 Rly. pensioner-anxiously waiting to see the flash NEWS of joy)

vnatarajan
30-04-2013, 01:54 PM
All that matters is PPB -

AS THE DAYS ROLL BY, I JUST WONDER WHAT IS THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS MYSTERY....

WHY HOW WHO WHEN AND FINALLY WHO ORDERED THIS DELIBERATE CHANGE .....

WHAT WAS TO BE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND WITH DUE CORREPSONDENCE TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE" - WAS TRANSFORMED TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND IRREPSECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE" .......

When the reasearchers sought to unearth the "mystery in the babudom", the FILE was conveniently lost in the jungle of DOE.....

A GLARING CASE OF WANTON HAPPENING........FILE MUST HAVE BEEN HIDEEN ... AND REPORTED LOST.... LEST WE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TRUTH.....

INFLICTION OF SUCH A HARASSMENT AND ANGUISH AMONG THE VERY OLD HELPLESS PENSIONERS WILL NOT GO "UNREWARDED" AS THE "UNASSUAGED FEELINGS " OF THE "CHEATED" - SOME OF WHO ARE NO MORE- WILL HAUNT THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO ARE "IRRESPONSIBLY AND ARROGANTLY" RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS SHAMEFUL ACT.......

SO MANY TRIBUNAL/ COURT CASES.... SO MANY JUDGMENTS..... STILL THE EPISODE CONTINUES.....

AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT, WILL THE GOVT(S) GO TO HON SC AS IF THEY ARE THE ONES CHEATED?

YES. THEY WILL GO... ONLY TO BE THROWN OUT AT THE VERY POINT OF ENTRY ITSELF.......

Regards,

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
30-04-2013, 02:54 PM
Respected Natarajan Sahib,

Kindly accept my heartiest congratulations. Your efforts brought cheers all round.
In the case about 1.1.1946 born pensioners the DOE had played the same game. The file was intentionally misplaced and when the matter was taken up with the CIC and a notice was served on the officers concerned suddenly the file surfaced and the required information was supplied to me.

With regards,

Gopl Krishan

ssharma
30-04-2013, 03:21 PM
All that matters is PPB -

AS THE DAYS ROLL BY, I JUST WONDER WHAT IS THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS MYSTERY....

WHY HOW WHO WHEN AND FINALLY WHO ORDERED THIS DELIBERATE CHANGE .....

WHAT WAS TO BE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND WITH DUE CORREPSONDENCE TO THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE" - WAS TRANSFORMED TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND IRREPSECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE" .......

When the reasearchers sought to unearth the "mystery in the babudom", the FILE was conveniently lost in the jungle of DOE.....

A GLARING CASE OF WANTON HAPPENING........FILE MUST HAVE BEEN HIDEEN ... AND REPORTED LOST.... LEST WE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TRUTH.....

INFLICTION OF SUCH A HARASSMENT AND ANGUISH AMONG THE VERY OLD HELPLESS PENSIONERS WILL NOT GO "UNREWARDED" AS THE "UNASSUAGED FEELINGS " OF THE "CHEATED" - SOME OF WHO ARE NO MORE- WILL HAUNT THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO ARE "IRRESPONSIBLY AND ARROGANTLY" RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS SHAMEFUL ACT.......

SO MANY TRIBUNAL/ COURT CASES.... SO MANY JUDGMENTS..... STILL THE EPISODE CONTINUES.....

AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT, WILL THE GOVT(S) GO TO HON SC AS IF THEY ARE THE ONES CHEATED?

YES. THEY WILL GO... ONLY TO BE THROWN OUT AT THE VERY POINT OF ENTRY ITSELF.......

Regards,

vnatarajan

when retirees should be happily enjoying their retired life they are still being dragged into rubbish! what a shame this babudom is.

Imayan
01-05-2013, 09:58 AM
Hon'ble Delhi HC has quoted the following in their Judgement dt. 29.4.2013 :

"26.........
As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months.....

8.We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not burden ourselves any further......."

Mandamus for petitioners.
How about non-petitioners ?
How do we get the benefits faster ?

Best regards,

Imayan

vnatarajan
01-05-2013, 11:02 AM
THE GOVT'S WRIT PETITION 1535 of 2012 was against the CGS29PA & others but the litigation issue they raised was branding the PR BENCH CAT'S VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 IN OA 655 OF 2010 AS ERRONEOUS.

Since this WP is DISMISSED AND THE PR CAT JUDGMENT IS UPHELD, THE DIRECTIVES GIVEN BY THE PR BENCH CAT ON 1 11 2011 IN THE OPERATIVE PARA OF THE SAID JUDGMENT STANDS NOW.( Revised pension to be in ternms of the Gaz Resolution dt 29 08 2008 without dilution by OMs of 3/14 Oct 2008, D o Effect 1 1 2006; arrears to be paid within 3 months then etc)

CGS29PA Pensioners/ Others had agreed to keep the Contempt petition (filed by them after 90 days of 14 11 2011- viz D o Receipt of Judment copy by DOPPW) ) against Govt at the PR BENCH CAT pending till the verdict of DHC, which has happend now.

CONTEMLPT SHALL BE REVOKED at the PR BENCH CAT-
PR BENCH CAT JUDGMENT COVERS ALL AGGRIEVED / MPB AFFCTED PENSIONERS , irrespective of whether they are litigants aor not.-

FASTER?- no option than to approach CAT thru contempt revocation- as the Govt is known to be indifferent/ immune to Court verdicts.
Govt will delay by trying to go to HSC with a SLP (shamelessly - only to get a humiliation at the ntry point itself....)

But the legal hurdles and harassments inflicted by Govt functionaries on aged pensioners will have its own repurcussions ...... when the elections come up.........

vnatarajan

Imayan
01-05-2013, 12:08 PM
Thanks a lot,Mr. Natarajan,

We compliment you , being a lead crusader for the pensioners.
We will, certainly, follow your valuable advice in this regard.
Best regards,

Imayan

G.Ramdas
01-05-2013, 08:41 PM
Dear Friends,
Congrats to S-29 pensioners!Special appreciation to leaders - VN and Kanaujia and all others for leading the pensioners in the right direction!
G Ramdas

captkhanna
02-05-2013, 06:55 AM
Congratulations to all who have been fighting this battle led and initiated by Shri V N Natrajan Jee. But the battle is not fully won. All of us have been part of the now degraded and 'finger me and finger everyone' system. Our times were slightly better as objectivity and positivity was not abandoned by most of us. The present incumbents, specially in the positions of power, are into depravity and enjoy putting the veterans in as much difficulty as they can by denying them their rightful dues. But truth has to prevail ultimately.
Let us hope DOPT mandrins show some heart to accept their mistake and issue OM to implement the Court's directions immediately.