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]

Imayan
18-11-2014, 07:19 PM
I want to join this Group of 250 pre-2006 pensioners for strengthening the legal battle.
How do I join this battle ?
Do they have a yahoo group ?
Can anyone help me with the e mail ID of SHRI A RAJAGOPALAN/ SHRI PK RANGANATHAN - (pioneers of this struggle ) ?

vnatarajan
18-11-2014, 07:27 PM
[email protected]; [email protected] ....
vntarajan

kvn
18-11-2014, 08:49 PM
:)[email protected]
DEAR SHARMA JI/ Other Old Pensioners who have been deprived of Full Parity/ Last Pay Drawn based pension,

I AM WAITING TO SEE THE SCPC MOD PARITY ISSUE BEING RESOLVED SOON.

FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE HAS NO END.

FULL PARITY CASE NEEDS "OVERWHELMING SUPPORT" FROM ALL RETIREES - PRE 1986/ PRE 1996/PRE 2006 AND / POSSIBLY SOON THE "INNOCENT PRE 2016" SOON AFTER 7 CPC AND IF I GET AN ADVANCE INDICATION HERE, CERTAINLY THE ISSUE WOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH ALL SERIOUSNESS.

IN THE MEANWHILE, THOSE WHO WANT THIS ISSUE TO BE TAKEN UP MAY SEND EMAILS TO SHRI SANT BHUSHAN LAL( [email protected]) HON SECRETARY OF CGSAGPA CURRENTLY, WHO MAY COORDINATE A NEW FORMATION SOON FOR THE PURPOSE.

PL CONVEY TO ALL INTERESTED.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
19-11-2014, 05:01 AM
@kvn- pl address email to the ids given in my previous post....VN

RPGoswami
27-11-2014, 08:18 PM
I knovv it is not the right place but I shall reach the most experienced ,so. My point as in majority cases last ten months average pay vvill be lovver than last pay dravvn shouldnt pension be fixed on vvhich ever is higher basis?//

sundarar
29-11-2014, 07:07 AM
I knovv it is not the right place but I shall reach the most experienced ,so. My point as in majority cases last ten months average pay vvill be lovver than last pay dravvn shouldnt pension be fixed on vvhich ever is higher basis?//

In accordance with the D.S.Nakara spirit, the single homogenous class of pensioners shall be treated uniformly. The post-2006 pensioners have been provided with the manner of calculation of pension, viz. based on last drawn emoluments or last ten months average emoluments whichever is higher. Same provision shall be made applicable to similar pre-2006 pensioners. Once applicability of 10/20 years qualifying service for full pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service is accepted, probably this issue may also be addressed suitably by the DOP&PW without any need for fresh litigation for this issue alone.
The qualifying service case will come up for hearing next on 15.12.2014. For information.

vnatarajan
29-11-2014, 04:45 PM
WHERE THE ROUNDING UP TO NEAREST SIX MONTHS PACK IS INVOLVED, THERE COULD BE DIFFERENCE .....EXTRCAT IS REPRODUCED HERE:

"W.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Full pension with 10/20 years of qualifying service is 50% of the average emoluments or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Before 1.1.2006, for qualifying service of less than 33 years, amount of pension was proportionate to the actual qualifying service broken into completed half-year periods. For example, if total qualifying service is 30 years and 4 months (i.e. 61 half-year periods), pension will be calculated as under:-

Pension amount = R/2(X)61/66

where R represents average reckonable emoluments for last 10 months of qualifying service or the last pay drawn as opted by the govt servant.

Minimum pension presently is Rs. 3500 per month. Maximum limit on pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Government of India (presently Rs. 45,000) per month. Pension is payable up to and including the date of death"

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-02-2015, 02:01 AM
DEAR AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

I WAS AWAITING FOR SOME POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS......
I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING GOOD MAY HAPPEN....
THANKS TO SHRI SCM JI, SECRETARY GENERAL , BPS & SHRI GOPAL MISHRA, SECRETARY GENL, JCM & THEIR EFFORTS THRU SCOVA ON 3 FEB 2014, IN THE LATEST MEETING.

RELEVANT INFO FURNISHED BY BPS IN FB AND MY COMMENTS RECORDED THERE ARE REPRODUCED HERE:

Bharat Pensioners Samaj

2 hrs ·

Item 10 of action taken report of 25th SCOVA came up for discussion in 26th SCOVA meeting on 03.02.2015:

10. Extension of benefit of OM dt. 28.1.2013 w.e.f 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012 The matter is sub-judice. Secretary(P) mentioned that as and when the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the pending SLP, the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court will be implemented.

(Action : DoPPW) DOPPW )

Instructions have been issued to concerned Ministries/Departments to implement the order 15.05.2014/ 1.11.2011 of CAT, Pr. Bench New Delhi in respect of petitioners in OA No. 655/2010 only.

Law Ministry had advised to await outcome of SLP No 36148-50/2013 before deciding in respect of other pre-2006 pensioner. The SLP no 36148-50/2013 pending for hearing on 17.02.2015.

Comments by BPS Secy Genl.S.C.Maheshwari:

Negative note sent by DOP &PW resulted in negative advice. DOP &PW can help pensioners by withdrawing the SLPS. JT Secy. retorted that she was not that powerful. Genl Secy JCM Com Shiv Gopal Mishra intervened to suggest that the Honorable MOS (PP) may intervene.MOS told Jt Secy to again put up note seeking Permission to withdraw SLPS

Like · · Share

(COMMENTS OF VN put up in FB following the BPS news above):

Natarajan Venkataraman KUDOS TO SHRI SCM JI/ SHRI GOPAL MISHRA JI. HOPE DOP FOLLOWs THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON MOS..PL READ:GRATEFUL THANKS TO SHRI SCM SECY GENERAL, BPS & SHRI GOPAL MISHRA , GENL SECY,JCM; WE all shall await the outcome before 17 FEB 2015. VERY ENCOURAGING POSITIVE NEWS: EXACTLY ON THE LINES WITH THE GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT I LODGED WITHE HON PM "IN THE INTERACT WITH HON PM" PORTAL ON 30 JAN 2015 WHICH IS REPRODUCED: --------- " MY GRIEVANCE LODGED WITH HON. PM (PMOPG/W/2015/0029194 DT 21 1 2015) WAS ABOUT UNFAIR COMPULSIVE LITIGATION PRACTICE ADOPTED BY NEXUS OF DP&PW/ DOE/DOLA TO DELAY JUSTICE TO SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS EVEN AFTER THE UOI’S CURATIVE PETITION 126/2014 WAS DISMIISED BY HSC ON 30 4 2014. IT COVERS ALL THE 3 SLPS (36148-50) NOW BEING REFERRED BY DP&PW FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING TRIBUNAL ORDERS FOR ALL PRE2006PENSIONERS, EXPOSING THEIR GUILT. DP&PW MUST WITHDRAW 3SLPS& IMPLEMENT COURT ORDERS." ------ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: "Thank You for writing to the Hon’ble Prime Minister." I and many pre 2006 aggrieved segments of pensioners can be saved from continuing litigations if the GOI issues orders soon to make the OM 28 Jan 2013 to be effective from 1 1 2006 instead of 24 Sept 2012 and order payment of arrears suitably..BY SUCH AN ACTION, GOVT CAN ALSO SAVE LOT OF COURT TIME/ LITIGATION EXPENSES. Already the undisbursed componenet of the "administrative /legally due srrears amount over the priod of 6 3/4 yrs" has doubled by way of interest due and Govt has nothing to lose. IN FACT THEY SHALL GAIN BACK SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT THRU INCOME TAX........

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
06-02-2015, 04:40 PM
CGSAGPA's case:

MA 2381/2014 filed by UOI on implementation time-frame scheduled for today viz 6 2 2015 is now posted to 2 3 2015 along wilh all other new MAs filed by the NEWLITIGANTS if the pre 2006 pensioners.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-02-2015, 12:18 PM
STATUS OF 3 SLPs CITED AS EXCUSE FOR NOT GRANTING REVISED PENSION WEF 1 1 2006 TO ALL PRE 2006 PENSIOERS- issue raised before Hon MoS for PENSIONs etc in the 26 SCOVA DEAR SHRI SCM JI/ OTHERS INTERESTED,

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ASSURANCE GIVEN BY THE HON MoS, IN THE RECENT SCOVA MEET OF 3 FEB 2015,SO FAR THERE APPEARS TO BE NO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY THE UOI/DOP ,WRT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SISTER GR SLPs WHICH ARE BEING CITED AS IMPEDIMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTEATION PB CAT J/MENT IN OA655/2010 DT 1 11 2011.

IN THE ADV. CAUSELIST FOR 17 FEB 2015 OF HSC, THE CASES ARE LISTED ALMOST AT THE END OF THIS ADV .LIST, SL NO 146 , ONE BEFORE THE LAST, AS USUAL.

EXACT SITUATION WILL BE KNOWN A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO 17 FEB 2015 WHEN FINAL LISTS ARE PUT UP COURTWISE/BENCHWISE . HOWEVER SL NO 146 MAY MEAN VERY LOW PRIORITY. THE CASES MAY OR MAY NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF THE DAY.

SOLICIT ACTION BY BPS/ SCOVA/ JCM DEEM FIT TO REMIND THE DOP/ JCM etc FOR REMINDING THE HON MOS FOR HIS INTERVENTION AS ER SCOVA ASSURANCE. WARM REGARDS.

VN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NMD ADVANCE LIST - AL/30/2015

TUESDAY 17TH FEBRUARY 2015

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 59

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (INCLUDING FRESH MATTERS)

TO BE LISTED ON TUESDAY 17TH FEBRUARY 2015
NMD ADVANCE LIST - AL/30/2015 - (CASE TYPE WISE)


148. C.A. NO. 8875-8876/2011
XVII A/N-O
8TH LISTING
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
VS.
VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
MRS. ANIL KATIYAR
GP. CAPT. KARAN SINGH
BHATI
MS. AISHWARYA BHATI

WITH
..........
........

SLP(C) NO. 34799/2013
XIV A/N-O
AMARENDRA NATH MISRA & ORS
VS.
U.O.I & ORS
MR. LAKSHMI RAMAN
SINGH
MRS. ANIL KATIYAR


SLP(C) NO. 36148-36150/2013
XIV A/N
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
VS.
D.L. VHORA & ORS.
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
MR. LAKSHMI RAMAN
SINGH
RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON
MR. MUKESH JAIN
MR. ROHIT KUMAR SINGH
MS. ASHA JAIN MADAN
M/S. PAREKH & CO.
RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON

THE ABOVE ARE LSITED WITH A NO of CAs / CADs AND FEW MORE SLPs , IN ALL NOW 53.
.

sundarar
08-02-2015, 06:40 PM
STATUS OF 3 SLPs CITED AS EXCUSE FOR NOT GRANTING REVISED PENSION WEF 1 1 2006 TO ALL PRE 2006 PENSIOERS- issue raised before Hon MoS for PENSIONs etc in the 26 SCOVA .

`FINALITY IN LAW is the concept that certain disputes must achieve a resolution from which no further appeal may be taken, and from which no collateral proceedings may be permitted to disturb that resolution. The importance of finality is the source of the concept of res judicata - that the decisions of one court are settled law, and may not be retried in another case brought in a different court.[3]' (Wikipedia)

In the case of OA 655/2010 the said OA has been allowed by Hon. CAT PR Bench, vide Judgment dated 1.11.2011, Writ Petition filed before Hon. HC, Delhi, Review Petition and Curative Petition filed before the HSC were also dismissed.

As per the Legal Advice dated 8.5.2014 by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, which stated that `having exhausted all possible available remedies, the Govt. is left with no other alternative but to implement the Order (1.11.2011) passed by the Hon. CAT which has been upheld by the Highest Court of Land',

The Hon. CAT's decision dated 1.11.2011 applies to 4 OAs including OA 655/2010 and as such, it is a common decision as far as all the 4 OAs are concerned. The Hon. HC Delhi dismissed the 4 Writ Petition in all the above 4 OAs, duly upholding the Hon. CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011.

The SLP No.23055/2013 filed in respect of one out of 4 OAs, ie. OA 655/2010 was dismissed by the HSC on 29.7.2013. Subsequently the Review Petition in OA 655/2010 filed by DOP&PW was also dismissed, followed by dismissal of Curative Petition filed by DOP&PW in OA 655/2010 on 30.4.2014 by the HSC.

Meanwhile, SLP Nos.36148-50/2013 in respect of remaining 3 OAs were filed by DOP&PW in September/October 2013.

The Hon. CAT PR Bench, during the hearing in CP 158/2012 (OA 655/2010) vide Para Order (Oral) on 15.5.2014 observed as follows:

"........We are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months".


The Pensioners' Community's prayer of date is - implementation of the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously for all pre-2006 pensioners including those retired with less than 33 years qualifying service, viz. by re-fixing pension of all pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the resolution dated 29.8.2008.

gconnect
09-02-2015, 12:18 PM
GConnect has come up with an online tool to estimate 7th Pay Commission Pension - Check the following link

http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/7thcpc/7th-pay-commission-pension-calculator.html

Pl. check this tool and provide your valuable suggestions

vnatarajan
19-02-2015, 06:47 PM
Dear GCONNECT ADMINISTRATOR/ EXECUTIVES,

EXTREMELY NICE OF YOU TO HAVE INITIATED A DISCUSSION/ GENRATED A WORKING TABLE FOR ARRIVING AT A GOOD TOOL WHICH CAN BE READILY AVAILABLE THE MOMENT THE 7 CPC RECOS/ GOVT DECISION/ IMPLEMENTATIO ORDERS COME OUT.

I HAVE NOTED THAT YOUR "FORMULATION FOR PENSION" DEFINES THE THERSH-HOLD LEVEL - WHICH IS THE 4.1 PARA FORMULATION AND THIS IS BEING EXTENDED TO DEFINE THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" ETC FOR REAPECTIVE MINIMUMS WRT TO MIN. PAY IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES/ PAY BAND.

IN THIS FORMULATION , THERE IS AN OMISSION, WHICH MAY LEAD TO MAJOR ANOMALIES, AND SUBSEQUENTLY LITIGATIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE SAG/ S29 LEVEL, THERE ARE PRE 2016 PENSIONERS , WHO HAVE RETIRED IN POST 2006 TIMES ( say in 2011) - AND SOME OF THEM HAVE CROSSED RS 36350 AS BASIC PENSION ALREADY (I have PPO of one already). SOME MORE ARE LIKELY TO REACH THE TOP OF THE PAY BAND VIZ 67000 PLUS GP 10000 AND HENCE WHEN THEY RETIRE BEFORE 2016 ,THEY WILL DRAW 50% OF SUM OF 67000 AND 10000 GP AND THE DR OF SAY 120% . In short, their total PENSION will be Rs 84700 pm even prior to 1 1 2016.

SAME ANOLOGY MAY HOLD GOOD FOR OTHER LOWER GRADES IN THE PAY BANDS. I HAVE A CASE OF ANOTHER S26 PENSIONER WHO HAS CROSSED 33000 BASIC PENSION ALREADY . AND HIS PENSION JUST PRIOR TO 1 1 2016 SHALL BE 72600 PM.

THUS FOR EVERY GRADE IN EACH PAY BAND , THE TOP MOST POSSIBLE PENSION THAT COULD BE DRAWN JUST BEFORE 1 1 2016 ARE TO BE WORKED OUT AND THEY SHALL FORM THE "MINIMUM ELIGIBLE GUARANTEED PENSION" FOR EACH OF THEM WEF 1 1 2016 .

One more column must be introduced to INDICATE THESE POSSIBLE PRE 2016 PENSION amounts ACCRUABLE/ ALREADY ACCRUED IN SOME CASES. EXPERTS LIKE MR SUNDARAR CAN WORK OUT THESE FIGURES AND PROVIDE.

FAILING WHICH, ANOMALIES WILL CROP UP AND LITIGATIONS WILL FOLLOW.

(My personal views)

vnatarajan

gconnect
18-03-2015, 10:54 AM
Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners w.e.f 1st Jan 2006 as per revised concordance Table – Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed all appeals filed by Govt.

http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/revision-of-pension-of-pre-2006-pensioners-supreme-court-order.html

tymanagoli
30-07-2015, 06:51 PM
Respected VNji, Kudos to you and your team on the fructification of efforts put in to get justice to pre-2006 pensioners(with the release of OM dated 30.07.2015).
Managoli

vnatarajan
01-08-2015, 04:44 PM
EPILOGUE FOR PART 1 - PREFACE FOR PART II

DEAR GCONNECT ADMIN/ MR TYMANAGOLI & ALL AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WHO HAVE RECEIVED JUSTICE NOW,

MY HEARTY THANKS FOR BEING WITH ME/ MY CO-CRASADERS MANY OF WHOM U KNOW VERY WELL (INSIDE & OUTSIDE GCONNECT FORUMS ) RIGHT THROUGH ALL THESE LONG YEARS SINCE THIS THREAD IN THE FORUM STARTED,

IT IS A HISTORIC VICTORY IN THE ANNALS OF PENSONERS' JUSTICE ......ULTIMATELY THE TRUTH AND JUSTICE HAD TO PREVAIL.

I THANK THE VERY SAME BUREAUCRACY FOR ISSUING THE WONDERFUL ORDER OF 30 JULY 2015 -
NICELY DRAFTED- I HAVE NO PERSONAL COMPLAINTS ON THE SAME-
WHAT I EXPECTED AT THE MINIMUM, HAD COME OUT......

INITIALLY I THOUGHT OF A VERY LONG "EPILOGUE" TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS JOURNEY FOR JUSTICE.......

BUT NOW I AM IN TWO MINDS......

THIS FORUM HAD BEEN LUCKY FOR ME AND MY FRIENDS.......CO-TRAVELLERS IN THIS JOURNEY...WE HAD WON EVERY CASE ON THIS ISSUE ..SO ALSO THE 20 YR PLUS ISSUE....

RIGHT NOW , ANOTHER MAJOR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR ME AND MY FRIENDS TO FOCUS UPON......

SENIOR GRADE PENSIONER CAN NOT DRAW LESSER PENSION THAN JUNIOR/ FEEDER GRADE.......

MY OWN COPENSIONERS IN THE CG DOMAINS INCLUDING THOSE IN ADMINISTRATION/ BUREAUCRACY ETC .....OLD PRE 2006 AND STILL OLDER RETD PERSONNEL LIKE SECTION OFFICERS/ UNDER SECRETARIES/ DEPUTY SECRETARIES ARE DRAWING MUCH LESSER PENSION THAN THEIR CURRENT LOWER GRADE SUBEQUALS / AND ALSO LOWER PENSION THAN THEIR CURRENT EQUALS......

WHEREAS THE TOP LEVELS ENJOY THE "OROP" TYPE PENSIONS....

CAN A RETD HON'BLE SECRETARY/ CAB SECRETARY/ HON CHIEF JUSTICES/ HON JUSTICES / CHIEF'S OF ARMED FORCES...AND THE LIKE....BEING THE SENIORMOTS GRADE PENSIONERS BE ORDERED EVEN BY "MISTAKE" TO ACCEPT THE PENSION OF THEIR "LOWER/ FEEDER GRADE SUBEQUAL'S" PENSION.....? IMPOSSIBLE.....CAN NOT IMAGINE OR DREAM OF....

WHY THEN FOR EXAMPLE SHOULD AN OLD SENIOR GRADE RETD SAG/ S29 PENSIONER DRAW "MUCH MUCH LOWER PENSION" THAN HIS "LOWER / FEEDER GRADE S24'S PENSION"...?

I MUST APOLOGISE FOR THE QUERY....
BUT I HAVE TO PUT IT FORTH BEFORE ALL CONCERNED SO THAT 7 CPC LOOKS INTO THIS TYPE OF HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION....

WITH RECENT LANDMARK POWERFUL UNAMBIGUOUS TRIPLE BENCH PATNA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN CWJC 10757/ 2010 DT 18 O5 2015 ENERGISING THIS ISSUE - DRAWING THE INSPIRATION ON THE "PRINCIPLE OF LAW" THAT SENIOR GRADE PENSIONER CAN NOT GET LESSER PENSION THAN HIS FEEDER GRADE/ LOWER GRADE SUBEQUALS i.e.A MAJOR GENERAL CAN NOT GET LESSER PENSION THAN THE MAXIMUM PENSION OF A BRIGADIER , JUDGED BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HC IN SPS VAINS CASE WAY BACK IN 2005 OR SO AND THIS IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE HSC WHEN IT DISMISSED THE UOI"S SLP AGAINST THE ABOVE HC VERDICT IN EARLY SEPT 2008 , WITH A UPSCALE MODIFICATION ICATION OF THE VERDICT TO ENSURE AT THE SAME TIME THAT SUCH MAJ GENERAL'S PENSION HAS TO BE SAME AS THAT OF ANOTHER MAJ. GENERAL AT ALL TIMES ( EQUAL PENSION FOR EQUALS ON EITHER SIDE OF REVISION IN ESSENCE- APART FROM THE SAME BEING ABOVE THE JR/ FEEDER GRADE SUBEQUALS) BASED ON "PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY" ARTICLE 14.......

AM I WRONG?

EPILOGUE FOR THE THREAD HAS BECOME SHORT......

BUT THIS IS MY PREFACE FOR THE NEXT JOURNEY WITH THE SAME TITLE ---PART TWO ....INJUSTICE CONTINUES...NEEDS TO BE SETTLED URGENTLY ...BEFORE 7 CPC....

MY MESSAGE IS CLEAR....THIS TIME I AM WITH ALL LEVELS OF RETD CG PERSONNEL INCLUDING THOSE SUFFERERS WHO BELONGED TO ADMINISTRATION BUREAUCRACY WHO ARE BEING DENIED THE "SPS VAINS PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF PRECEDENCE OF SENIORITY/ EQUALITY" ......AND ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED INJUSTICE DUE TO REDUCED PENSIONS.....LOWER MFs...all these years must seek justice........

vnatarajan

esveepee
02-08-2015, 08:36 AM
Great. And grateful thanks to VNji and others who led from the front and had the perseverance to follow through to completion. Good luck. Sincerely.

kvn
02-08-2015, 12:01 PM
Great. And grateful thanks to VNji and others who led from the front and had the perseverance to follow through to completion. Good luck. Sincerely.

My profound thanks to the great COUNSEL< VNj and team for benevolent striving up lift the millions of innocent
pensioners and Family pensioners for years together. Taking my heart I salute Thee. May god bless You all..KVN

vnatarajan
05-08-2015, 07:35 AM
Thanks Sirs,
LAW SHALL HAVE TO BE ONE AND THE SAME FOR ALL.
RULES ARE FOR FOOLS in (LIGHTER SENSE...)AND THAT IS HOW OLD PENSIONERS WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO INFINITE HARASSMENT....

EVEN NOW HARASSMENT CONTINUES....

FULL PARITY? or FOOL PARITY.../

HIGHER GR MUST GET HIGHER PENSION THAN FEEDER GRADE (eg SAG VS JAG where there are no overlaps and length of total service is same or more by SAG retiree!)

PAY PARITY SCHEME IN NFU MODE - WHY PRE 2006 RETIREES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE?
DATUM 1 1 2006 HAS NO NEXUS TO THE OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED (BENEFIT OF PAY & PENSION) AS IT IS BEING USED TO DISCRIMINATE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS TO BE DENIED FOR THE PENSION PARITY BENEFIT WHEREAS POST 2006 RETREES ARE BEING CALLED TO THE FRONT TO BE GRANTED WITH A HIGHER REPLACEMENT SCALE / PAY & PENSION BENEFIT RIGHT FROM 1 1 2006 ONWARDS AS I CAN MAKE OUT....

AND PENSION AUTHORITIES ARE silent....? .....

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-08-2015, 02:07 PM
DEAR CONCERNED,

SOME SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' SUFFERED THE MOST "HOSTILE DICRIMINATION" EVEN AT "MINIMUM PARITY LEVELS" AND THE ROOT CAUSE FOR SUCHA "HOSTILITY" IS YET TO EMERGE.

PATNA HC IS THE ONE WHERE THE HON JUSTICES HAVE APPROPRIATELY DESCRIBED SUCH RECKLESS OUTCOMES OF ADMINISTRATIVE BUNGLINGS AS "HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION" IN THE RECENT VERDICT OF CWJC 10757 OF 201 DT 18 MAY 2015-A LANDMARK JUDGMENT WTH WHICH I HAD STRTED THE "PROLOGUE" FOR THIS HIGH GRADE PENSION VS LOW GRADE PENSION.....

PRE 2006 S29 MILITARY AND CIVIL PENSIONERS ARE THE WORST SUFFERERS OF THE SAID "HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION" AND TAGGED TO THEM WERE SEVERAL "INNOCENT AND IGNORANT" SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN THE OTHER SCALES , SUFFERING REDUCED PENSIONS FROM 198 PM TO 3650 (S29)....

I DO NOT PROPOSE TO END MY CAMPAIGN SO EASILY ....

LET ME CLARIFY FIRST TO ALL CONERNED AND INTERESTED WHAT THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT MEANS:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATNA HC JUDGMENT IN CWJC 10757/2010 ST 18 05 2015 MMP SINHA VS UOI

MY QUERIES AND MY ANSWERS AS I UNDERSTAND THE JUDGMENT:

WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT POINTS EMERGING FROM PATNA HIGH COURT JUDGMENTIN CWJC 10757/2010 DT 18 MAY 2010 MMP SINHA VS UOI?

1. Is relief applicable to all SIMILARLY STANCED PRE 2006 PENSIONERS as if it isa judgment in REM?
No, Relief is given only for PETITIONER though law laid down is of wider significance for similar justice.

2.What is th status now?
Time-frame of 90 days expires on 17 Aug 2015.
As per RTI reply recd by VN , DPPW has advised Rly Board to appeal in HSC through SLP, after consulting the DOE and DOLA.

2. What were the issue dealt and outcome in general terms? (p.1 )
a. Person retiring from a higher grade can NOT receive pension lss ethan a person retiring in the lower grade.
b. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others since reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125, the pension of the person in the higher grade would have to be stepped up accordingly.

3.What was the main argument out forth by SINHA?

Petitioner’s notional pay was fixed at the minimum of HAG (S-30) being 67,000 without Grade Pay;his pension was then fixed at 50% thereof being 33,500. On the other side, a person in (SAG) Grade S-29, which is an inferior and feeder grade for S-30, the Pay Band is 37,400-67,000 but there is a Grade Pay entitlement of Rs. 10000/-. Accordingly, the maximum pension that can be paid in Grade S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- and half of it (50%) would be Rs. 38,500/-.

4.How did HC react?

Thus, seen on the face of it, a person retiring in Grade S-29 at the maximum scale would get not only higher remuneration but consequently, higher pension than Grade S-30, for which it was feeder post both in terms of remuneration and pension. This is hostile discrimination, arbitrary and improper.
In brief, junior cannot get higher remuneration or pension than a senior.


5. What was the “theoretical” objection out forth earlier by Govt. and Railways and contradicted by SINHA ?

a. Junior s29 can not get higher remuneration than Senior S30 was the objection.

b. To CONTRADICT OBJECTION,SINHA filed sup. affidavit , giving facts and figures of at least three officers of the Railways, who have retired on different dates in the Senior Administrative Grade with Grade Pay in the scale of S-29 as against the petitioner, who was in the Higher Administrative Grade. They are receiving pension between Rs. 35690/- and Rs. 36640/-. Even though he is of Higher Administrative Grade, his pension is fixed at maximum of Rs. 33500/-.

c. He has given names of at least eight other persons , who again would be retiring from Senior Administrative Grade in near future and their pension would ordinarily be at Rs. 38500/- as against the petitioner of Rs. 33500/-.

d. Petitioner, thus, in theory and practical, has shown the discrepancy i.e. capable of happening and also happening. In fact, he submits that this is a clear case of impermissible discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.


6. WAS THERE ANY COUNTER IN DEFENCE AND WHAT REASONS WERE GIVEN IN DEFENCE BY THE GOVT?

(There was no counter to SINHA’S SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE FACTS).

Their only defence is that petitioner had retired prior to 2006 whereas the cases illustrated by him, are cases of persons, who retired after 01.01.2006 or are yet to retire. This, accordingly, is reasonable classification for lower pension in the higher Grade.

In other words, the only explanation given is retirement at different times

but there is no explanation as to why a person of a higher grade will get pension less than of a junior grade.

7. What is the dichotomy observed by HC?

SINHA brought to HC notice to a very unhappy situation : The maximum pay, as noticed above, of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- A person, who is in S-29 reaching the maximum level is then promoted to Higher Administrative Grade from Senior Administrative Grade. In S-30, there being no Grade Pay, he would come to the basic pay of that grade i.e. 67000/-.

Effectively, his remuneration upon promotion would stand reduced by Rs. 10000/- and in such an event, he would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof, the result would be quite ridiculous.

8. If there is no such pay protection, what happens?

He would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof), the result would be quite ridiculous. It is direct consequence of this that there is anomaly in pension.

9. What was the defence of the Govt. on this anomaly?

Respondents’ only defence is that this anomaly is inherent in the system and inherent in the pay and pay structure as fixed with effect from 01.01.2006.

10. What did HC observe on the above DEFENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS wrt the anomaly?

a.The question is whether inherent, apparent or latent discrimination is permissible. In our view, the short answer is that it cannot ever be permissible.

b.A person in the Higher Administrative Grade cannot draw less remuneration or less pension than a person of the Senior Administrative Grade which grade is the Feeder Grade for the Higher Administrative Grade. This is exactly what is happening in the present case.

c.This is exactly what has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others (Supra).

d.There it was noticed that the Brigadier in the Army was receiving higher pension than the Major General.

e.Brigadier, is the Feeder post for Major General.

f. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the only way out for the Central Government was to step up the pension of Major General so that this discrimination of junior getting higher pension than a Senior is removed.


11. WERE THE GOVT/ ITS COUNSEL ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE ABOVE APEX COURT JUDGMENT? WHAT ARE THE REMARKS OF THE PATNA HC?

a.Neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor the counsel for the Indian Railways is able to distinguish the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

b.Apart from saying that the said decision was based on pay basic scale, service conditions of defence services which are different from other civil services, there was no other distinction.

c.It is the principle of law decided that is to be considered.

d.The principle of law, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is plain and simple; that a senior officer cannot get pension less than his junior.

e. If that be, the effect of pay fixation than the pension would have to be stepped up to avoid such hostile discrimination.

f.There was no consideration of defence service or any special feature of defence service as distinguishing civil services. The distinction pointed out is illusionary.

12. WHAT WAS THE ORDER OF THE PATNA HC IN GIST?

a. The facts not being in dispute, as noted above, and the law not being in disputed, as noted above, the result is that the writ petition must succeed and

b.the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has to be set aside.

c.It has to be held that the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 has to be stepped up to Rs. 38,500/- to avoid discrimination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V NATARAJAN
07- 09 08 2015

gconnect
16-08-2015, 05:33 PM
Pre-2006 Pension arrears Calculator

Dear Pre-2006 Pensioners,

GConnect has come up with an online tool "Pre-2006 Pension arrears Calculator" which would calculate Revised Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners as on 1st January 2006 and month wise pension arrears from 1st January 2006. Pl have a look at the same using the link given below. Pl provide your valuable feedback so that the tool can be enhanced if needed

Click here for GConnect Pre-2006 Arrears Calculator (http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/pre-2006-pension-arrears-calculator.html)

vvenkateswarrao
24-09-2015, 05:24 PM
Sir,
It has become a practice now a days for the Government babus to state that the court judgment benefits will accrue only to the concerned. They are throwing the natural justice to winds. Can we allow it? The strength of winning a point lies in mass appeals. If a few appeal, naturally, the appeals will not see the light of the day. Why should an employee/pensioner knock the doors of court of law for simple matter of pay/pension revision? can't the babus see the natural justice while issuing the circulars? Why there should be n number of amendments to any first circular? If things are seen in the right perspective, lot of court cases cease and valuable time of the courts can be used for more valuable matters.

vnatarajan
22-03-2016, 08:09 PM
DEAR ALL,

AFTER SETTLING THE MOD PARITY ISSUE FOR ALL OLD PENSIONERS, I HAVE TAKEN UP THE NFU ISSUE FOR PRE 1 1 2006 RETIREES AND A FORUM " S24 PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION" IN FACE BOOK IS THE GROUP WHERE I HAVE MADE ELABORATE NOTINGS TO GUIDE THEM. WE HAVE FILED A FEW CASES ALREADY ON THE NFU ISSUE.

DEPRIVING NFU TO ELIGIBLE ORG SERV GR A PRE 1 1 2006 RETIREES HAS RESULTED IN REDUCED PENSIONS TO THE WRT THEIR POST 1 1 2006 RETIREE EQUALS , IN EACH DEPT/ ORGANISATION/ ORGANISE SERVICE GR A CADRE BELONGING TO THEM

MISCHIEF IS PLAYED MORE BY THE CADRE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.

DOPT IS NAIVE ON THIS SIXTH CPC PAY PARITY BENEFIT POLICY WRT 2 YR IAS JR BATCHES . DOPPW HAD NOT BEEN CONSULTED WRT PRE 1 1 2006 ELIGIBILITY/ PENSION ENTITLEMENT.....!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
27-02-2017, 06:39 PM
DEAR ALL,

AFTER SETTLING THE MOD PARITY ISSUE FOR ALL OLD PENSIONERS, I HAVE TAKEN UP THE NFU ISSUE FOR PRE 1 1 2006 RETIREES AND A FORUM " S24 PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION" IN FACE BOOK IS THE GROUP WHERE I HAVE MADE ELABORATE NOTINGS TO GUIDE THEM. WE HAVE FILED A FEW CASES ALREADY ON THE NFU ISSUE.

DEPRIVING NFU TO ELIGIBLE ORG SERV GR A PRE 1 1 2006 RETIREES HAS RESULTED IN REDUCED PENSIONS TO THE WRT THEIR POST 1 1 2006 RETIREE EQUALS , IN EACH DEPT/ ORGANISATION/ ORGANISE SERVICE GR A CADRE BELONGING TO THEM

MISCHIEF IS PLAYED MORE BY THE CADRE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.

DOPT IS NAIVE ON THIS SIXTH CPC PAY PARITY BENEFIT POLICY WRT 2 YR IAS JR BATCHES . DOPPW HAD NOT BEEN CONSULTED WRT PRE 1 1 2006 ELIGIBILITY/ PENSION ENTITLEMENT.....!

vnatarajan

THE ISSUE OF DISTORTED PAY STRUCTURING WITH IRRATIONAL HORIZINTAL AND VERTICAL RELATIVITIES MANIFESTED AS REDUCED PENSIONS WHICH HAD BEEN UNFAIRLY UNJUSTLY UNETHICALLY IMPOSED THRU MODIFIED PARITY POLICIES OF 5 and 6 CPC , ON SOME AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PRE 112006 RETIREES , HAS " GREATLY DISTURBED" THE PENSION EQUALITY BETWEEN PAST AND PRSENT PENSIONERS.

EVEN FOR CORRECT MOD PARITY, A GREAT LEGAL BATTLE HAD TO BE FOUGHT OVER 7 yrs. 2008 to 2015.

THE GOVT IS CARRYING THIS ERRONEOUS APPROACH FORWARD TO 7 CPC, BY COMMITTING THE SAME TYPE OF PAY STRUCTURE DISTURBANCES MANIFESTED IN ERRONEOUS H AND V RELATIVITIES , INNTHR SEVENTH CPC PAY MATRIX TABLE (7 PMT).

IF ACTIONS ARE NOT TAKEN TO CORRECT THE MEGA ANOMALY AND GROSS DISPARITY IN REVISED PENSIONS BETWEEN PAST AND PRESENT PENSIONERS BY CORRECTING / PROVIDING GUIDELINES IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS PMT, NUMEROUS DISPUTES WILL ARISE , LEADING TO UNENDING LITIGATIONS.

PRE 112006 PENSIONER CASE WILL BE SHOW CASED HERE.

OTHER SIMILARLY AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS, MAY COMPARE AND ORIENT.

THE PAY PARITY ACP MACP NFU COMPONENTS HAVE ALSO COMPOUNDED THIS ANOMALY/ DISPARITY.

LOSS IN ELIGIBLE PENSION AMOUNTS IS LIKEY TO BE ENORMOUS IN SOME CASES.

MY FIRST POST WILL ON THE FIRST TWO DEFINITIONS OF ANOMALY REFERRED TO NAC BY THE DOPT THRU THEIR OM DT 16 AUG 2016.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
28-02-2017, 03:04 PM
DEAR PRE 2006 S29/30 PENSIONERS AND ALSO OTHER PENSIONERS WHO HAVE SUFFERED/ WILL BE SUFFERING REDUCED PENSIONS, IF THE DISTORTED & DISTURBED HOR AND VERTICAL RELATIVITIES IN THE 5 CPC AND 6 CPC PAY STRUCTURES ARE NOT REMOVED AT LEAST IN THE 7 CPC PAY MATRIX TABLE, BEFORE THE MEGA ANOMALIES AND GROSS DISPARITY IN PENIONS BETWEEN THE PAST AND PRESENT PENSIONERS SHOW UP.

REFERRINFG SUCH MEGA AND GROSS ISSUES AS A NEW ITEM OF DEFINITION FOR THE 7 NAC FOR DEALING ANOMALY CASES OF EMPLOYEESS IS PURELY AN ACTION CONCERNING THOSE IN SERVICE.

WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGES ALREADY DONE TO THE OLDER/ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS CASES OF MEGA AND GROSS ANOMALY/ DISPARITY IN PENSIONS ISSUES?

BEFORE COMING TO THE THIRD DEFINITION OF ANOMALY AS REFERRED ABOVE, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE APPEAL I HAD SENT TO SHRI SHIV GOPAL MISHRA , SECRETARY , NC JCM, 7 CPC NAC, WHO WILL PERHAPS COORDINATE ALL 7 CPC CASES OF ANOMALIES, INCLUDING THOSE OF PENSIONERS .

MY LETTER TO SEC NCJCM DT 7 NOV 2016, SHOW CASES THE PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONERS ISSUES , BUT IN THEY CAN ALSO BE RELEVANT TO OTHER SCALES/ GRADES/ LEVELS.

COPY OF LETTER:

ON 7 NOV 2016, I HAVE SENT BY SP POST , THE APPEAL FOR PREEMPTIVE ACTIONS TO ANOMALY COMMITTEE SECRETARY , NS JCM, SHRI SHIV GOPLA MISHRA , BY SP POST ON THE 7 CPC GROSS ANOMALY ISSUES RELATED TO OPTIONS AND PAY MATRIX TABLE ON BEHALF OF OLD PENSIONERS. IT HAS A 9 PAGE DETAILED NOTE, SHOWCASING THE PRE 1 1 2006/OLDER SAG/S29 PENSIONERS , BUT THE POINTS MADE OUT IN GENERAL CAN BE APPLICABLE TO ALL SUCH GR A (NFU AFFECTED) CASES , INCLUDING THE ACP/MACP AFFECTED. IN ANTICIAPATION OF OK FROM SHRI DK JAIN, I HAVE INCLUDED EXTRACTS FROM HIS SUBMISSION)

VN
7 NOV 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE IS LENGTHY. SHALL TRY TO POST IT IN PARTS.
IT IS POSTED IN FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE GROUP "S24 PENSIONERS ASSOCAITION"

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
28-02-2017, 03:34 PM
contd from pre post 1525 ; note will follow later.

LINK TO LETTER NO: VN/ 7 CPC NAC/2016 Dated: 7 Nov, 2016 AND NOTE PUBLISHED IN FACE BOOK PAGE OF S24 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/620328361405904/permalink/940383142733756/

vnatarajan
28-02-2017, 06:20 PM
DOPT OM DT 20 FEB 2017 , ADDING THE THIRD DEFINITION OF 7 CPC PAY ANOMALY:

Study the OM carefully from part of it given at the end, introducing an addition to Definition of Anomaly.It reads "Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that the vertical and horizontal relativities have been disturbed as a result of the 7th Central Pay Commission to give rise to anomalous situation."

WHO WILL DEAL WITH THE MEGA ANOMALIES AND GROSS DISPARITIES IN REVISED PENSIONS OF OLD PENSIONERS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DISTURBED ALREADY SEVERAL TIMES DUE TO :

1. Bunching of increments in 5 and 6 CPC revisions.
2. Merging of higher pay scales with lower pay scales in 5 and 6 CPC.
3. Merging multiple pay scales of different hierarchical levels leading to gross disturbances in pay structures like PAY BANDS OF 6 CPC and now PAY MATRIX OF 7 CPC ATTEMPTING BUNDLIMG GRADES.
4. Not identifying the correct minimum and maximum for pre 2006 pay scales , in the PAY BANDS OF 6 CPC AND IN PAY MATRIX TABLE OF 7 CPC.
5. Policy of modified parity adopted in 5 and 6 CPC have reduced pension parity to absurd levels of disparity amounting to even 20k pm at S29 level.
6. DENYING PP FINANCIAL BENEFIT, ACP MACP PENSINARY BENEFITS WEF 112006 added to losses in pensions.
7. DENIAL OF SPL PAY NPA STAG INCREMENTS ETC FOR PENSION BENEFITS IS UNFAIR .
8. Entry pay of DRs CAN NOT be applied to PROMOTEES, WHOSE MINIMUM HAS TO BE ABOVE THE FORMER .
9. Higher grade pensioner had to get pension more than the maximum of the feeder/ jr grade pensioner for comparable service .

THESE HAVE RESULTED IN DISTORTIONS AND DISTURBANCES OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RELATIVITIES IN REVISED PENSIONS WHICH NEED TO BE SET RIGHT AT POLICY LEVELS, BEFORE INDIVIDUAL ANOMALIES ARE TAKEN UP.

PL THROW YOUR MIGHT AT THE NCJCM OF 7 CPC NAC.

vnatarajan

Extract of OM OF DOPT DT 20 FEB 2017 ( CAN be accessed in DOPT WEBSITE)

No.11/2 /2016-JCA
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training Establishment JCA Section
North Block, New Delhi Dated the 20th February, 2017
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Setting up of Anomaly Committee to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission's recommendations.
The undersigned is directed to refer to DoPT's OM of even number dated 16/8/2016 and to incorporate the following modification in the definition of anomaly:
"Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that the vertical and horizontal relativities have been disturbed as a result of the 7th Central Pay Commission to give rise to anomalous situation."
2.
read as follows:
With the incorporation of the above para in the O.M., the definition of anomaly will
(1) Definition of Anomaly
Anomaly will include the following cases;
a) Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that any recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself without the Commission assigning any reason;..........
.............
.....

vnatarajan
01-03-2017, 03:10 PM
DEAR ALL PRE 11 2006 & PRE 1 1 2016 RETIREES,

IN THE MEANWHILE LET ME UPDATE THE STATUS OF FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE REPORT ON IMPLENTATION OF 7 CPC OPTION 1 RECO. REPORT WENT FROM DP&PW TO DOEXP IN EARLY FEB 2017. AGAIN FROM THERE IT APPEARS TO HAVE COME BACK TO DP&PW (AFTER DOEXP SCRUTINY/ RECO etc) FOR FURTHER ACTIONS?

WILL IT GO TO CAB SECTT NOW?

VN
1 MAR 2017
__________________________________________________ ___________
7 CPC PRE 112016 REVISED PENSION WRT OPTION 1
Status of Feasibility Committee Reporting.

Here is my latest RTI TO DEPT OF EXP., WHERE THE REPORT OF THE FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE IS RESTING NOW :

VN
26 FEB 2017

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

Online RTI Request Form Details
RTI Request Details :-

RTI Request Registration number DOEXP/R/2017/50148
Public Authority Department of Expenditure

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Name V NATARAJAN

Description of Information Sought
DEAR CPIO,

IN RESPONSE TO MY GRIEVANCE PMOPG/E/2017/0044347 DT 22 Jan 2017 to HON PRIME MINISTER, I HAVE BEEN INFORMED ON 9 FEB 2017 THAT -QUOTE-The grievance is a representation for implementation of first option recommended by 7th CPC for revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners. A Committee has been set up as per the decision of the Cabinet to examine the feasibility of option 1 of the recommendations of 7th CPC for revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners. The Committee has submitted its report to Department of Expenditure. The recommendation of the above Committee would further be examined by Department of Expenditure and submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration and approval.- UNQUOTE

MY RTI QUERIES:

KINDLY FURNISH INFORMATION ON :

1.WHETHER THE DEPT OF EXPENDITURE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE MENTIONED REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF OPTION 1 OF 7 CPC RECOMMENDATION OF REVISION OF PENSION OF PRE 2016 PENSIONERS AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT.

2. WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE HAS COMPLETED ITS EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT AND SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE CABINET FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. PL FURNISH DETAILS AND THE DATE OF SUBMISSION TO CABINET.

3. IF NOT, REASONS FOR DELAYS AND THE LIKELY DATE BY WHICH THE SUBMISSION OF REPORT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED.

4.RECOMMENDATIONs OF THE FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE , AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE DEPT OF PENSION &PW AND THE DEPT OF EXPENDITURE.

V NATARAJAN 26 FEB 2017
( ON BEHALF OF SELF AND MANY OLD AGED DIGITALLY UNABLED PENSIONERS)
Concerned CPIO Nodal Officer
------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT: UPDATE ON 1 3 2017 : IT IS SEEN THAT THE DOEXP HAS TRANSFERRED THE RTI APPLICATION TO DP&PW (FROM WHERE I HAD RECD THE PMO'S REPLY, ON 27 FEB 2017 . IT IS NOW WITH THE CPIO(S) OF DP&PW, AND THE NEW REGN NO IS DP&PW/R/2017/80056 DT 27 FEB 2017. .....THIS MAY MEAN THAT THE DEPT OF EXP HAS SENT BACK THE FILE OF FEAS. COM REPORT BACK TO CHAIRMAN/ SECY DPPW FOR "SOME ACTION"..... IS IT THE USUALLY SHUNTING PRACTICE IN RED TAPISM CULTURE OR IS IT FOR THE SECY DPPW/ CHAIRMAN FEAS COM TO SEND THE REPORT TO CAB SECTT WITH DOEXP VIEWS? LET US WAIT AND WATCH.......

vnatarajan 1 MARCH 2017

vnatarajan
03-03-2017, 09:00 AM
Dear FRIENDS/ OLD & PRE 112006 PENSIONERS,

WE ARE AT OUR WITS END.

DEALING WITH THREE CORNERS OF A TRIANGLE WHOSE CARDINALS WOULD NEVER MEET!

DOPT & DPPW UNDER DIRECT CONTROL OF HON PM THRU HIS MOS AT THE BASE AND THE DOEXP AT THE TOP .....

YOU HAVE SEEN THAT ON 27 FEB, THE DOE HAD SHUNTED BY TRANSFER MY RTI ON THE SUBJECT TO THE DPPW.

NOW DPPW REPLIES TO THE TRANSFERRED RTI as FOLLOWS:

Online RTI Status Form

Note:Fields marked with * are Mandatory.
Enter Registration Number DP&PW/R/2017/80056
Name V NATARAJAN
Date of filing 27/02/2017
Public Authority Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF
Date of action 02/03/2017
Reply :- Committee constituted to examine the feasibility of option 1 of the recommendation of seventh CPC has submitted its report to Department of expenditure on 14.12.2016. remaining information solicited in the application pertains to Department of Expenditure.
CPIO Details :- S CHAKRABARTI
Phone:
First Appellate Authority Details :- Tripti P Ghosh
Phone:
Nodal Officer Details :-
Telephone Number 01127492567
Email Id [email protected]

SHOULD WE WEEP OR LAUGH?

WHAT A SHAME OF THE GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION RIGHT UNDER THE NOSE OF HON PMO?

Yes, I SHALL SEND A PUNGENT REJOINDER TO THE APEX AUTHORITIES IN A DAY OR TWO....

vnatarajan
3 MARCH 2017

vnatarajan
03-03-2017, 09:31 AM
Dear FRIENDS/ OLD & PRE 112006 PENSIONERS,

WE ARE AT OUR WITS END.

DEALING WITH THREE CORNERS OF A TRIANGLE WHOSE CARDINALS WOULD NEVER MEET!

DOPT & DPPW UNDER DIRECT CONTROL OF HON PM THRU HIS MOS AT THE BASE AND THE DOEXP AT THE TOP .....

YOU HAVE SEEN THAT ON 27 FEB, THE DOE HAD SHUNTED BY TRANSFER MY RTI ON THE SUBJECT TO THE DPPW.

NOW DPPW REPLIES TO THE TRANSFERRED RTI as FOLLOWS:

Online RTI Status Form

Note:Fields marked with * are Mandatory.
Enter Registration Number DP&PW/R/2017/80056
Name V NATARAJAN
Date of filing 27/02/2017
Public Authority Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF
Date of action 02/03/2017
Reply :- Committee constituted to examine the feasibility of option 1 of the recommendation of seventh CPC has submitted its report to Department of expenditure on 14.12.2016. remaining information solicited in the application pertains to Department of Expenditure.
CPIO Details :- S CHAKRABARTI
Phone:
First Appellate Authority Details :- Tripti P Ghosh
Phone:
Nodal Officer Details :-
Telephone Number 01127492567
Email Id [email protected]

SHOULD WE WEEP OR LAUGH?

WHAT A SHAME OF THE GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION RIGHT UNDER THE NOSE OF HON PMO?

Yes, I SHALL SEND A PUNGENT REJOINDER TO THE APEX AUTHORITIES IN A DAY OR TWO....

vnatarajan
3 MARCH 2017

Gopal Krishan
04-03-2017, 08:15 PM
Sear Sir,
For these three Departments it is nothing new. As your are aware I am pursuing another matter relating to retirement under FR 56 of those born on the Ist January on the last day of December. These three Departments had been passing on my representations to one or the others for years. Ultimately after it was concluded that the matter fell with in the jurisdiction of DOPT, I had to submit a detailed representation to that Department for a final view. At the same time according to the Cabinet Secretariat, administratively concerned with the Allocation of Business Rules, FR 56 from the very beginning was the concern of the DOPT, where as DOE informed me that since 1978 the subject matter was transferred to DOPT.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
07-03-2017, 09:07 AM
DEAR ALL INTERESTED !


IMPORTANT: 7 CPC REVISED PENSION OPTIONS:

MINUTES OF THE 7th MEETING OF THE 7 CPC OPTION 1 FEAS. COM WITH NC JCM , WHEREIN IT BECOMES INEVITABLE THAT OPTION 3 type resolution MAY EMERGE AS FEASIBLE RECO INSTEAD OF OPTION 1.

http://www.airfindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Minutes-of-the-meeting-held-with-Secretary-Pension-on-17.10.2016.pdf

As a consequence we may have to wait for DEPT OF EXPENDITURE's PROCESSING AND SUBMISSION TO CABINET FINALLY.......

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
10-03-2017, 12:03 PM
DEAR PRE 2006/2016 PENSIONERS,

My earlier RTI to DOEXP dt 26 Feb 2017 was shunted to DP&PW on 27 Feb 2017 promptly with a new Regn no 80056 dt 27 Feb 2017, only to be DISPOSED OF unilaterally stating that the FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE HAD SUBMITTED THE REPORT TO DOEXP ON 14 12 2016 AND ALL OTHER RTI QUESTIONS RELATE TO DOEXP!!!!

I HAVE NOW SENT MY REPEAT RTI TO DOEXP SEEKING THE INFORMATION AGAIN, WITH DP&PW'S RESPONSE. LET US SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

vnatarajan
10 MARCH 2017

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

Online RTI Request Form Details

RTI Request Details :-

RTI Request Registration number
DOEXP/R/2017/50189
Department of Expenditure
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Name
V NATARAJAN
7 JAYARAM AVENUE , SASTRI NAGAR, ADAYAR PO, CHENNAI
Pincode 600020

Request Details :-Description of Information Sought

DEAR CPIO SIR,

A. This has reference to my earlier RTI application DOEXP/R/2017/50148 dt 26 Feb 2017 , which was forwarded and transferred to DP&PW on 27 Feb 2017 for action. It was not clear why it was sent to DP&PW as all queries pertained to DOEXP. My original application is reproduced for ready reference . QUOTE .
IN RESPONSE TO MY GRIEVANCE PMOPG/E/2017/0044347 DT 22 Jan 2017 to HON PRIME MINISTER, I HAVE BEEN INFORMED ON 9 FEB 2017 THAT -QUOTE-The grievance is a representation for implementation of first option recommended by 7th CPC for revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners. A Committee has been set up as per the decision of the Cabinet to examine the feasibility of option 1 of the recommendations of 7th CPC for revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners. The Committee has submitted its report to Department of Expenditure. The recommendation of the above Committee would further be examined by Department of Expenditure and submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration and approval.- UNQUOTE

MY RTI QUERIES

KINDLY FURNISH INFORMATION ON

1.WHETHER THE DEPT OF EXPENDITURE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE MENTIONED REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF OPTION 1 OF 7 CPC RECOMMENDATION OF REVISION OF PENSION OF PRE 2016 PENSIONERS AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT.

2. WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE HAS COMPLETED ITS EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT AND SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE CABINET FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. PL FURNISH DETAILS AND THE DATE OF SUBMISSION TO CABINET.

3. IF NOT, REASONS FOR DELAYS AND THE LIKELY DATE BY WHICH THE SUBMISSION OF REPORT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED.

4.RECOMMENDATIONs OF THE FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE , AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE DEPT OF PENSION &PW AND THE DEPT OF EXPENDITURE.




UNQUOTE.




B. THE CPIO DP&PW , WHO DEALT THE TRANFERRED RTI WITH REGN NO DPP&PW/R/2017/80056 DT 27 FEB 2017 , had replied as follows . QUOTE-

REQUEST DISPOSED OF 02/03/17 Committee constituted to examine the feasibility of option 1 of the recommendation of seventh CPC has submitted its report to Department of expenditure on 14.12.2016. remaining information solicited in the application pertains to Department of Expenditure.

C. Under the circumstances, I request you to kindly furnish the material information solicited earlier without further loss of time ( PL REFER ABOVE - A 1 TO 4) as the REPORT concerned is very much in DOEXP wef 14 DEC 2016. IF NOT , CORRECT INFORMATION MAY PLEASE BE FURNISHED.

V NATARAJAN 10 MARCH 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Gopal Krishan
11-03-2017, 03:10 PM
Sir,
The Government of India in various Ministries/Departments have appointed Under Secretaries concerned with a particular subject matter, as the Central Public Information Officers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the information required to be supplied on that matter. In other words they are the concerned dealing officers as well as the holders/suppliers of the information/CPIOs under the RTI Act in respect of the same matter. There is general impression that RTI applications are being treated as a source of interference by the dealing officers, in their day to day functioning. It is also a common knowledge that they have developed a distaste for RTI. That is how the RTI application in this case has also been processed by these two Departments. My personal experience with all the three Departments, namely, DOPT, DoE and DPPW is also like that. One of my representation was initially transferred to DOE by DPPW. The former transferred to DOPT, who in turn sent the same back to DPPW. The DPPW returned the same to DOPT. In this manner time of two years was wasted.
Gopal Krfishan

vnatarajan
16-03-2017, 04:47 AM
World leaders congratulate PM on Assembly Election results
HON PM.NM JI, IT WAS A STUNNING VICTORY AT THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS , SPANNING ACROSS A VAST SEGMENT OF OUR COUNTRY, FROM NE TO SW THROUGH ITS CENTRAL PARTS...OLD SR CITIZENS & CG PENSIONERS LIKE ME HAD NO DOUBT THAT BJP UNDER YOUR AND AMIT JI'S INTIATIVE, WILL SAIL THROUGH .....NOW PEOPLE WOULD EXPECT BJP GOVT TO FULFIL AND DELIVER ITS PROMISES....( SIR, NOW I SUBMIT OUR MEAN EXPECTATION : GOVERNANCE IN DEPTS OF PERSONNEL, PENSION ( BOTH UNDER HON PMO) AND EXPENDITURE AND THEIR PUBLIC GRIEVANCE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS MUST BE SINCERE/ HONEST. THEIR TREATMENT AND ATTENTION FOR RESOLVING THE PENSION PROBLEMS OF OLD RETIRED CG SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS NEED YOUR ATTENTION AND INTERVENTION TO AVOID LITIGATIONS. THE SUFFERERS ARE THOSE VERY OLD SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS OF 1940 s to 1990s WHO HAD LAID THE STRONG FOUNDATIONS FOR MODERN INDIA'S GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TECHNOLOGY....PL GUIDE THE DEPTS..V NATARAJAN, ON BEHALF OF THOUSANDS OF RETD SR ADMIN GRADE AND OTHER PENSIONERS... OUR CONGRATS AND WISHES TO YOU AND BJP 15 MAR 2017 . http://nm-4.com/uc42

via NMApp

vnatarajan
03-04-2017, 02:50 PM
Dear friends ,

Doubts raised by SHRI B SADASHIV REDDY are the same that exist in minds of many.
My EML reply given to him is reproduced later.

I DO HOPE THE DEPARTMENTS OF PENSIONS, EXPENDITURE, LAW / LEGAL AFFAIRS AND ALSO DEPT OF PERSONNEL ETC SINCERELY AND HONESTLY FOLLOW WHAT THEY HAD PROMISED TO OLD PENSIONERS ON THE ISSUE , THRU THE FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE IN OCTOBER 2017 AND THEIR LETTERS ISSUED TO NCJCM IN OCT & DEC 2017 .

I ALSO HOPE THEY RESPECT THE APPEALS OF HON PM NM JI, HON MIN OF LAW RSP JI, HON CJI KESAR JI.

If they can not adhere to ethics of GOOD GOVERNANCE, we shall not be a passive worn out lot. WE SHALL SEEK JUSTICE AND ESTABLISH THE TRUTH.

vnatarajan

Dear Shri BSR JI,

You have not clearly stated u r pre 2006 retiree.
Presuming u to be so:

1. Option 1 may not be agreed upon.
2. Instead , another formulation , supposed to be equally or better than option based on the revision formula adopted in successive CPCS may be given . This also is supposed to remove anomalies .
3. This formulation is being recommended by the feasibility committee which was entrusted with the task, and its report is submitted in December 2016 middle to DOExpenditure, which in turn appears to have sent it to the CABINET SECY, who has to get the nod of the Govt.
4.IF IT IS ACCEPTED AND IF THE FORMULA / OPTION 3 IS FAVOURABLE OR AT LEAST COMPARABLE TO PRE 112016 RETIREES LOT, WITH NO GREAT DISPARITY IN PENSIONS OF EQUALS ON EITHER SIDE OF 1 1 2016, we may not need to seek legal redressal.

OTHERWISE, WE MAY HAVE TO GO FOR LITIGATION, WHICH MAY COST A FORTUNE , SAY ABOIT 50 LAKS AS THE BATTLE MAY DRAG UP TO HSC AND TOP COUNSELS WILL HAVE TO ENGAGED.

All the best,

VN
3 4 2017

vnatarajan
03-04-2017, 02:55 PM
Dear friends ,

Doubts raised by SHRI B SADASHIV REDDY are the same that exist in minds of many.
My EML reply given to him is reproduced later.

I SINCERELY HOPE THE DEPARTMENTS OF PENSIONS, EXPENDITURE, LAW / LEGAL AFFAIRS AND ALSO DEPT OF PERSONNEL ETC SINCERELY AND HONESTLY FOLLOW WHAT THEY HAD PROMISED TO OLD PENSIONERS ON THE ISSUE ,MTHRU THE FEASIBILITY COMMITTEE IN OCTOBER 2017 AND THEIR LETTERS ISSUED TO NCJCM IN OCT & DEC 2017 .

I ALSO HOPE THEY RESPECT THE APPEALS OF HON PM NM JI, HON MIN OF LAW RSP JI, HON CJI KESHAR JI .

If they can not adhere to ethics of GOOD GOVERNANCE, we shall not be a passive worn out lot. WE SHALL SEEK JUSTICE ANDCESTABLISH THE TRUTH.

vnatarajan

Dear Shri BSR JI,

You have not clearly stated u r pre 2006 retiree.
Presuming u to be so:

1. Option 1 may not be agreed upon.
2. Instead , another formulation , supposed to be equally or better than option based on the revision formula adopted in successive CPCS may be given . This also is supposed to remove anomalies .
3. This formulation is being recommended by the feasibility committee which was entrusted with the task, and its report is submitted in December 2016 middle to DOExpenditure, which in turn appears to have sent it to the CABINET SECY, who has to get the nod of the Govt.
4.IF IT IS ACCEPTED AND IF THE FORMULA / OPTION 3 IS FAVOURABLE OR AT LEAST COMPARABLE TO PRE 112016 RETIREES LOT, WITH NO GREAT DISPARITY IN PENSIONS OF EQUALS ON EITHER SIDE OF 1 1 2016, we may not need to seek legal redressal.

OTHERWISE, WE MAY HAVE TO GO FOR LITIGATION, WHICH MAY COST A FORTUNE , SAY ABOIT 50 LAKS AS THE BATTLE MAY DRAG UP TO HSC AND TOP COUNSELS WILL HAVE TO ENGAGED.

All the best,

VN
3 4 2017

vnatarajan
26-04-2017, 08:59 AM
CRPF MARTYRS OF SUKMA....
24 25 APRIL 2017


Dear Interested,
What I posted in FACEBOOK today 26 APRIL 2017.....
OUR GRATEFUL AND TEARFUL TRIBUTES AND SALUTES TO THE MARTYRED CRPF PERSONNEL...
.VN
26 APRIL 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRPF MARTYRS OF SUKMA ....WE SALUTE THEM IN MUTE AND STUNNED AWE ....A SAD SAGA NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN ....LEAST HON PM AND HOM HM CAN DO IS TO QUICKLY LOOK INTO SOMETHING PATHETICALLY DISCRIMINATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVY ABUSIVE, JUDICIALLY DELAYING, AND POLITICALLY PERVERT......

Dear Friends ....

JOIN ME IN MILLIONS TO PAY OUR RESPECTS and TRIBUTES TO THE DEPARTED SOULs, SHARE THE GRIEF OF THEIR NEAR AND DEAR. AND PRAY FOR THEIR SIULS TO REST IN PEACE.

MY STRONG MESSAGE TO HON PM, HON HM, THEIR MINISTRIES AND DEPARTMENTS, CONCERNED BUREAUCRACY AND LOWER HEIRARCHY ETC TO STOP ANYTHING THAT COULD LEAD TO UNJUSTIFIED DISCRIMINATIVE TREAMENT TO CONSTABLES OF CRPF AND THEIR OFFICER CADRES, AND LOOK INTO THEIR WELFARE ...Show concern for their families, children .....

( QUICKLY , LET THEM FIRST TAKE CARE OF THE CRPF WELFARE OBLIGATIONS...

CONSTABLES MUST GET MORE THAN ARMED FORCES....

OFFICERS MUST GET MORE THAN CIVILIAN BUREAUCRATS....

LET HON PM WHO CONTROLS Depts of P& T and PENSIONS / PW AND HON HOME MIN WHO CONTROLS MHA IMPLEMENT THE SIXTH CPC RELATED NFFU SLP HEARING COMMITMENT AT HSC ON 6 APRIL 2017 ( GJ SINGH CASE SLP 35548 54 OF 2015) .ACTION REQD. NOT MERE LIP SERVICE )

VNATARAJAN. PRESIDENT, PENSIONERS FORUM , CHENNAI , 26 APRIL 2017

vnatarajan

Sent from my iPad

vnatarajan
28-04-2017, 02:56 PM
WHAT IS POSTED BY ME TODAY 28 APRIL 2017 FOR HON PM SHRI NM JI's MANN KI BAAT PROGRAMME ON 30 APRIL 2017.
( WILL BE FOLLOWED UP WITH A POST IN NM' S PORTAL ON PUBLC GRIEVANCE ) ....VN
___________________________________________

Dear Hon PM Shri Modi ji, Your crucial advices and critical suggestions made out in many of your speeches. MKB programmes etc will have to be followed up with a system of feedback from the stake holders and also monitoring as needed. 1.MANY SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATIONS AND.NATIONAL LABORATORIES ARE HEADED TODAY BY SCIENTISTS , WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT BASED ON MERIT BUT BY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 2. THEY ARE NEITHER WELL ENDOWED AS SCIENTISTS NOR EXPERIENCED ENOUGH AS ADMINISTRATORS 3. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORGANISATION SUFFERS FROM DELIVERING THE BEST RESULTS. 4. THEY ARE DICTATED UPON BY LESSER LEVEL BUREAUCRACY OF THEIR MINISTRY OR LOWER LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE HEIRARCHY OF THEIR OWN ORGANISATION. Pl have a review of some of them to ENSURE YOUR MKB SUGGESTIONS AND YOUR MEANINGFUL ADVISES DO HAVE EFFECT. ....One eg : In spite of your effective POINTER AT DELHI HC GOLDEN JUB CELEBRATIONS IN OCT 2016 AND THE HON LAW MIN SHRI RSP JI IN ALLAHABAD HC CELEBRATION IN MARCH ,2017 ADVISING GOVT DEPARTMENTS TO REDUCE LITIGATIONS, no department appears to follow the same.... EVEN DEPTs OF PERSONNEL and PENSIONS do not give candid advice or directions to THE concerned DEPARTMENTS OR MINISTIES in SERVICE OR PENSION LITIGATIONS . They refer the directions of the courts to the latter with the catch expression , " for appropriate actions". THE LATTER , USING THE VAGUENESS IN IT, INDULGE IN " NEXT ROUND OF COMPULSIVE LITIGATIONS".....Is their an undesirable nexus somewhere,? Is there a deeper motive to cover up lapses? WHY REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT EVEN CLEAR COURT ORDERS?.....ONE DEPT .& MINISTRY WORTH REVIEWING IS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA UNDER MINISTRY OF MINES . Pl do examine the suggestion... V NATARAJAN, PRESIDENT, PENSIONERS FORUM, CHENNAI 28 APRIL 2017 http://nm-4.com/y4q4

via NMApp

vnatarajan
05-05-2017, 08:28 AM
Dear all,

Pl go thru what has appeared from PTI SOURCES ON THE ABOVE HOT ISSUE OF INTEREST TO ALL PRE 112006 and other retirees.

What is the alternative pension revision method called PAY FIXATION METHOD, which can be implemented with original PPO of a pensioner and which is supposed to be beneficial to more old pensioners and which also takes care of ANOMALIES?

PL ANALYSE AND GIVE YOUR EXPERT CANDID VIEWS at the appropriate times on likely injustices AS ANY LEGAL ACTION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO FIGHT OUT INJUSTICE WOULD DEPEND ON THE SAME .

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

Cabinet approves modifications in the 7th CPC recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi approved important proposals relating to modifications in the 7th CPC (Central Pay Commission) recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits in the course of their implementation. Earlier, in June, 2016, the Cabinet had approved implementation of the recommendations with an additional financial outgo of Rs 84,933 crore for 2016-17 (including arrears for 2 months of 2015-16).

The benefit of the proposed modifications will be available with effect from 1st January, 2016, i.e., the date of implementation of 7th CPC recommendations. With the increase approved by the Cabinet, the annual pension bill alone of the Central Government is likely to be Rs.1,76,071 crore. Some of the important decisions of the Cabinet are mentioned below:

1. Revision of pension of pre – 2016 pensioners and family pensioners

The Cabinet approved modifications in the recommendations of the 7th CPC relating to the method of revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners and family pensioners based on suggestions made by the Committee chaired by Secretary (Pensions) constituted with the approval of the Cabinet. The modified formulation of pension revision approved by the Cabinet will entail an additional benefit to the pensioners and an additional expenditure of approximately Rs.5031 crore for 2016-17 over and above the expenditure already incurred in revision of pension as per the second formulation based on fitment factor. It will benefit over 55 lakh pre-2016 civil and defence pensioners and family pensioners.

While approving the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations on 29th June, 2016, the Cabinet had approved the changed method of pension revision recommended by the 7th CPC for pre-2016 pensioners, comprising of two alternative formulations, subject to the feasibility of the first formulation which was to be examined by the Committee.

In terms of the Cabinet decision, pensions of pre-2016 pensioners were revised as per the second formulation multiplying existing pension by a fitment factor of 2.57, though the pensioners were to be given the option of choosing the more beneficial of the two formulations as per the 7th CPC recommendations.

In order to provide the more beneficial option to the pensioners, Cabinet has accepted the recommendations of the Committee, which has suggested revision of pension based on information contained in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to every pensioner. The revised procedure of fixation of notional pay is more scientific, rational and implementable in all the cases. The Committee reached its findings based on an analysis of hundreds of live pension cases.

The modified formulation will be beneficial to more pensioners than the first formulation recommended by the 7th CPC,

which was not found to be feasible to implement on account of non-availability of records in a large number of cases and was also found to be prone to several anomalies.

2. Disability Pension for Defence Pensioners

The Cabinet also approved the retention of percentage-based regime of disability pension implemented post 6th CPC, which the 7th CPC had recommended to be replaced by a slab-based system.

The issue of disability pension was referred to the National Anomaly Committee by the Ministry of Defence on account of the representation received from the Defence Forces to retain the slab-based system, as it would have resulted in reduction in the amount of disability pension for existing pensioners and a reduction in the amount of disability pension for future retirees when compared to percentage-based disability pension.

The decision which will benefit existing and future Defence pensioners would entail an additional expenditure of approximately Rs. 130 crore per annum.