PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

vnatarajan
07-10-2008, 08:43 PM
Today 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)

ranganathan
08-10-2008, 10:21 PM
The injustice set afoot by the DOPT OM dt 3 Oct, is there for all to see.The design behind reducing the minimum of PB4 by Rs 2000 and increasing the grade pay of SAG by half that amount to Rs. 10000/- should now be clear.The creation of the new 'HAG+' scale is an ingenious ploy, to keep that and the higher levels ( from which almost all the IAS cadre officers normally retire ) beyond the purview of arbitrary/ multiple stipulations, for the basic pay, under the pay band concept.interestingly both these departmental dispensations go beyond the recommendations of the 6th CPC

But will these differing decisions stand legal scrutiny?

It is strange that the DOPT should evolve a wrong interpretation against their own earlier correct interpretation.This action is completely opposed to the spirit behind the stipulations of minimum pension/family pension and the basic parity of all pensioners accepted by Govt apart from its intra department contradictions in substance .

vnatarajan
09-10-2008, 08:08 PM
Continuing to argue and amplify the need for upholding the protection enunciated thru para4.2 of the OM of 1st Sept of DoP etc, I reproduce below a noting that has appeared in the blog of Indian Military service officers:

"In a landmark decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs SPS Vains (Retd) (SLP No 12357 of 2006 decided on 09 September 2008) has upheld the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was directed that Major Generals retiring prior to 1-1-96 (implementation date of 5th Pay Commission) should be granted a pension at par with post 1-1-1996 retirees. The Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was filed by Major Generals who retired prior to 1-1-1996 and whose pension was fixed lower than post 1-1-1996 retirees. This had happened since the start of the pay scale of Major Generals (18400) was less than the starting pay of Brigadiers (16700+2400 Rank Pay = Rs 19100) leading thereby to a situation that the pension of a pre 1996 retiree Maj Gen was fixed at Rs 9200 but Rs 9550 for a Brigadier. To cater to this anomaly, the govt had stepped up the pension of pre 1996 Major Generals to Brigadier level thereby leaving them at a loss as compared to post 1996 retirees. The High Court had allowed the Writ Petition and had directed equal treatment for pre and post 1996 retirees. The orders were challenged by the Govt of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Apex Court through a detailed order has upheld the High Court directions and has also laid down a landmark law which would come as a relief to all defence retirees and the value of which shall be known in times to come"

(several paragraphs of judgements quoting paragraphs on the basis of Nakara case judgement also follow above notings)

WHAT APPEARS TO BE APPALLING IS EVEN AFTER THIS JUDGEMENT OF 9th Sept 2008, the DoP has issued an OM on 3rd Oct which NULLIFIES the minimum essence of equality among pensioners who have held the same posts/ scale of pay prior to and after the CPC reco' dates!

INJUSTICE INSPITE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENTS? IS IT POSSIBLE?

(if I am wrong, I MAY BE CORRECTED by anybody!)

Natarajan

ranganathan
09-10-2008, 09:51 PM
The basic parity ( equal minimum pension) among same grades of pensioners irrespective of date of retirement, is a settled matter both in legal pronouncements and executive orders.The dopt order of 03 Oct 08 ,in the wake of yet another Apex court order can only be attributed to administrative arbitrariness and lack of sensitivity.

vnatarajan
10-10-2008, 08:44 AM
My thanks to GCONNECT for providing the forum to convey the feelings and sentiments of old and aged pensioners who, for no fault of theirs, are put to lot of duress because of the repeated violations of pension parity and protection which is happening after every CPC reco's at least post -1996 and again now post- 2006 orders/ Oms etc.

At sl no.3 of postings above I had reproduced the extracts from the Indian military Services- Benefits blogspot, concerning the most recent judgement on pension parity, dated 09.sept 2008.

YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE MISERY and ANGUISH of the concerned pensioner who had to fight for over a decade as the case pertains to pre- and post-1996 pension parity/fixation!

I reproduce some more "Pearls of JUDGEMENT" uttered by the learned JUDGES in this case appearing in the same blogspot:

Here are some pearls from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :

“….The larger issue involved is whether there could be a disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those who retired thereafter….”


“….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 the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) 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 counter productive 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….”

“….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….”

WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE IS:

1.ARTICLE 14 of the CONSTITUTION is being allowed to be repeatedly violated by the various MINISTRIES which are dealing with the SENSITIVE SUBJECT of PENSION/ FAMILY PENSION of SR. Citizens .

2.UNNECESSARILY they are being made to go to COURTS in their old age to fight their cases, inspite of clear and unquestionable judgements! Many may not live to see the outcome as it takes years to undo the damages!

3.WILL THE Ministry of Personnel etc/ Deptt. of Pension/PW be kind enough to take up the issues and settle the matter quickly?.

4.WILL THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE be more meaningful in implementing in letter and spirit the pension parity assured by themselves under para 4.2 of the OMs concerned and uphold the learned judgements delivered time and again?.

Remarks for WATCH DOGS:

PLEASE NOTE THAT THOSE WHO ARE STAGNATING FOR YEARS AT THE TOP OF THEIR SCALES and whose old scales has been taken on to a new bunched up PAY BAND in the 6CPC orders, even at lower scales other than S-29/ S-30, MAY BE AFFECTED (and their cases will be similar to what I have pointed out for S 29/ S-30 cases).

Rajagopalan A
10-10-2008, 03:06 PM
Taking into account the arbitariness and lack of sensitivity by the existing Administration towards Pensioners, it is essential that a representative from Pensioners should invariably be included in all the decision making processes.
Rajagopalan

vnatarajan
10-10-2008, 07:54 PM
hi All viewers of this thread,

Since my posting this thread, I am satisfied to find that more than a century of views have been made within 3 days, and I am sure half of the viewers could be in the same syndrome of pension disparity caused by the DOP/PW's OM dtd 3rd Oct 2008.

Though I had put across the examples of S-29/ S-30 for arguments sake, I am aware the same type of problem can exist for many others in different scales, down the line.

JAG/ Sr & Jr Class I levels also may have similar pay disparity cases, particularly when they stagnate at the top of their respective scales- or due to gross-bunching of several scales into one Pay Band.

SEVERAL AFFECTED PENSIONERS HAVE STARTED REPRESENTING (using the facts presented in the text available in the first postings of the thread with suitable amendments) THEIR CASES THRU APPEALS TO THE DEPTT OF PENSION/PENSIONERS' WELFARE AND ALSO BY EMAILS.

Others who have not yet taken action, may also follow them. Unless this genuine grievance of the AGED SR CITIZENS is represented with a mass momentum, it may not have the desired impact and response.

WE HOPE DoP/PW WILL COME OUT WITH A SUITABLE SOLUTION SOON.

vnatarajan

ranganathan
11-10-2008, 09:32 PM
dear all,

i have gone thro the Nakra case and place below extracts therefrom that i consider very relevant

HELD: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State
action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is
attracted where equals are treated differently without any
reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is
that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated
alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same
situation and there should be no discrimination between one
person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the
legislation their position is substantially the same.
Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation. The
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from those that are left out of the group
and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In
other words, there ought to be causal connection between the
basis of classification and the object of the statute. The
doctrine of classification was evolved by the Court for the
purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed
to help weaker sections of the society. Legislative and
executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court
if the State satisfies the twin tests of reasonable
classification and the rational principle correlated to the
object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory action is
liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the
Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was
based on some valid principle which in itself was not
irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

If removal of arbitrariness can be brought about by
severing the mischievous portion, the discriminatory part
ought to be removed retaining the beneficial portion.
[198 F]

Their grievance is of the denial to them of the same by
arbitrary introduction of words of limitation. There is
nothing immutable about the choosing of an event as an eligibility
criteria subsequent to a specified date. If the event is
certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered
wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily selected having an
undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class and of
introducing discrimination the same can be easily severed
and set aside. It is therefore just and proper that the
words introducing the arbitrary fortuitous circumstance
which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and
struck down.

all pensioners governed by the 1972
Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to
pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme
from the specified date, irrespective of the date of
retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified

The benefit of
revised scales is not limited to those who enter service
subsequent to the date fixed for introducing revised scales
but is extended to all those in service prior to that date.
Even in the case of the new retiral benefit of gratuity
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, past service was
taken into consideration. The scheme of liberalisation is
not a new retiral benefit; it is
170
an upward revision of an existing benefit. Pension has
correlation to average emoluments and the length of
qualifying service and any liberalisation would pro tanto
ber etroactive in the narrow sense of the term.

Pension is a right; not a bounty or gratuitous
payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the
discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules
and a government servant coming within those rules is
entitled to claim pension. [186 A-B]

Pension is a right; not a bounty or gratuitous
payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the
discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules
and a government servant coming within those rules is
entitled to claim pension.

the petitioners in the fall of
life yearn for equality of treatment which is being meted
out to those who are soon going to join and swell their own
ranks,

Would differential treatment to pensioners related to
the date of retirement qua the revised formula for
computation of pension attract Article 14 of the
Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be
declared unconstitutional as being violative of Art. 14 ?

The principle underlying the guarantee of Article
14 is not that the same rules of law should be
applicable to all persons within the Indian
territory or that the same remedies should be made
available to them irrespective of differences of
circumstances. It only means that all persons
similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike
both in privileges conferred and liabilities
imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to
all in the same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another if
as regards the subject matter of the legislation
their position is substantially the same.The law can
make and set apart the classesaccording to the
needs and exigencies of the society and as
suggested by experience. It can recognise even
degree of evil,bu the classification should never
be arbitrary,artificial or evasive.

7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must
be rational, that is to say, it must not only be
based on some qualities or characteristics which
are to be found in all the persons grouped
together and not in others who are left out but
those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object of the
legislation. In order to pass the test, two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others and (2) that
differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the Act."

. The classification must not be arbitrary but must
be rational, that is to say, it must not only be
based on some qualities or characteristics which
are to be found in all the persons grouped
together and not in others who are left out but
those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object of the
legislation. In order to pass the test, two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others and (2) that
differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the Act."
The other facet of Art. 14 which must be remembered is
that it eschews arbitrariness in any form.

One such proposition held
well established is that Art. 14 is certainly attracted
where equals are treated differently without any reasonable
basis.

Thus the fundamental principle is that Art. 14 forbids
class legislation but permits reasonable classification for
the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy
the twin tests of classification being founded on an
intelligible differntia which distinguishes persons or
things that are grouped together from those that are left
out of the group and that differentia must have a rational
nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.

a discriminatory action
of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can
be shown by the Government that the departure was not
arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in
itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

The basic contention as hereinbefore noticed is that
the pensioners for the purpose of receiving pension form a
class and there is no criterion on which classification of
pensioners retiring prior to specified date and retiring
subsequent to that date can provide a rational principle
correlated to object, viz., object underlying payment of
pensions.

one can confidently say that if pensioners form a
class, their computation cannot be bydifferent formula
affording unequal treatment s on the ground that some
retired earlier and some retired later.

The equal treatment guaranteed in Art. 14 is
wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being
statutory in character, since the specified date, the rules
accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals
in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours
difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic
effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled.
Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Art.14

vnatarajan
12-10-2008, 09:04 AM
Hi All

After further deeper study, and also the legal aspects highlighted in the judgements on minimum parity for pension among all retirees who were in same/ equivalebnt revised pay scales (see my and Mr Ranaganathan's postings), I am of the view:

1.MANY ARE AFFECTED AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.
2.SOME MAY NOT BE AWARE THEY ARE AFFECTED!
3.PEOPLE AFFECTED MAY BE MUSING ON WHAT TO DO?

Actions suggested:

1.All Pensioners' Associations must act fast and send/highlight the grievances to Deptt of Pension/Pensioners Welfare (and also Ministry of Finance later) without delay.They must help other Co-pensioners who may not know the situation.Loss per month is considerable and is of increasingly recurring nature in future.

2.All affected individuals may appeal for REDRESSAL to the Secy, DoP/PW at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi 13, using the basic details and text available in the postings, with modifications.

3.Well meaning Associations/ Unions and their members ie Colleagues (future Pensioners) in Govt. Service at Delhi must help to bring the matter to the notice of the Deptt of Pensions/ PW (and also the Ministry of Finance). OTHERWISE SUCH (deliberate)GLARING UNLAWFUL REVISIONS THRU CORRIGENDUMS MAY BECOME PRECEDENCES and many benefits may get neutralised without any employee/ associations realising the same!

4.Media can take note and highlight the problem.

I AND MANY SEPTEGENARIANS and above (+80 and 90 years are feeling HARASSED and FRUSTRATED by the indiscrimination perpetuated!)

NOT HUMANLY RIGHT?

Natarajan, V

vijai kapoor
15-10-2008, 11:45 AM
The explanation given in OM of 3.10.08 is obviously erroneous. It reduces the basic pension to 23700 from the earlier estimated 27350 for the S-29 scale. Affected persons should register their grievance with deptt of P&PW quickly.

It can be done very easily online on Pensioners Portal. More people lodging their grievance will certainly lend weight. If there are active Pensioner's associations then they should also represent.

Let us give P&PW one more chance to correct their error.

sudacgwb
16-10-2008, 10:25 AM
Govt has issued yet again a OM dt: 14/10/2008 with more clarity and annexures which helps to solve all doubts regarding the Revised Pension / Revised Family Pension to all; Both Pre and Post 1.1.2006 retirees. Must be read by all the retirees/pensioners/family pensioners.!

vnatarajan
16-10-2008, 10:43 AM
Attn Sudacgwb:Thank u very much. I have gone thru the OM concerning Pre-2006 Pensions and I shall be posting my observations soon.

At the outset, I may remark, the OM is not addressing the basic issue of aggrieved pensioners whose earlier scales/ pay bands have been bunched together to a common pay/pension band which often starts at a much lower level/scale than what it should be for being at par with the earlier non-bunched levels and hence the problem.

Clarifications are being given just to emphasise that the DoP/PW (=KING) is always right and others ( =KNAVES=old, aged, helpless PENSIONERS) are idiots, who have to suffer the injustice/ indiscretion!

What has been pointed out earlier as the core issue stands!. Mr Ranganathan and Mr Vijai Kapoor have also explained the issue very well.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
16-10-2008, 04:12 PM
Thanks to Vijai Kapoor for his valuable obervations.

NOW MY COMMENTS ON THE NEW ON of DoP/PW dtd 14th OCT 2008:

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

Hi All concerned Pensioners - attn: Pre-1986/1996/2006 retirees:

The new OM No 38 37 08/PPW etc dt 14th oct on 6th CPC on implementation/revision of pension of pre-2006 pensions/ family pensions, inter alia, covers:


POSITIVE ASPECTS:

Concerned banks etc. have been asked to disburse current arrears/ addl. pension within a week (by 21st oct 2008).

Concordance tables provided for pre-1996/pre-2006/post-2006 pay-scales/bands for proper fixation BENEFICIALto pensioners. (THIS MAY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF Pre-1986 Retirees also)

Illustrations given for guidance.

Concerned banks etc. to disburse pension/ arrears as per OM of 1st Sep 2008.
DR amounts also to be added for periods relevant at rates already ordered.

All actions to be completed within a month (may be before 15th Nov 2008?)

Guidance has also been given as to the procedure to be followed in cases of missing details like DOB/age/ service details in the earlier PPOs etc and also in case of missing details like DOB among family pensioners.

(THIS IS HAPPENING IN MANY CASES_ ALL PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS MAY CHECK FOR MISSING DETAILS IN THE RESPECTIVE PPOs AND DECIDE ON THE COURSE OF ACTION TO FOLLOW. BANKS/ POs MAY PLEAD HELPLESSNESS. FRIENDS/ EX. COLLEAGUES/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS must come forward to ASSIST aged pensioners/ helpless family pensioners etc.)

( Banks etc also have to take action to ensure entries in the Pension Books/ Records and issue necessary Pension Orders with copies to the concerned authorities. Pensioners/ Family Pensioners shd watch/ enquire/ ensure to avoid future gaps!)

NEGATIVE:

I WAS HOPING THE ISSUE OF PENSION INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN PERPETUATED WILL BE RESOLVED THRU THIS OM - ONLY TO BE DISAPPOINTED! ALL AFFECTED MAY HAVE TO FIGHT & WAIT.

CORE ISSUE OF DISPARITY ARISING OUT OF BUNCHING PRE-2006 SCALES/BANDS FOR PENSION PURPOSES and RELEGATING THE PARITY TO A LOWER STARTING LEVEL PAY IN THE NEW BUNCHED PAY BAND REMAINS OUTSTANDING.

DoP/PW and MOF to act fast to undo the damage and injustice.

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
16-10-2008, 06:12 PM
The OM dated 14/10/2008 has rectified the so called "injsutice to pensioners who retired from 18400 and 22400" and govt has been pro-active in respect of pensioners.

IF at all there is a grave injustice, in my opinion, it is between 12000 and 14300 scale people who min pension changes abruptly from 11600 to 23050. No where it is so steep. Between pb-2 and pb-3 it is 7350 to 10500 and between pb4 and HAG+ scale it is from 24700to 37750.

There is enough scope to solve the lt gen case (regarding pb3 to 12k and pb4 to 14.3k)

vnatarajan
16-10-2008, 06:48 PM
I have already pointed out and cautioned that there could be similar disparities related to several scales being bunched for purposes of pension.

I agree with you- that similar disparity exists in the case of JAG level officers starting from 12k or so and who have stagnated (I think there are some CGWB officers- I am not sure if you are also from CGWB) and our group is fighting for them also for parity!

Basic issue is parity amongst pensioners, which is constitutional and emphasised again and again by Courts in battles fought for the same.

In a simplest example of the Judicial pronouncements in a famous case, the principle of equality among pensioners of the same class (rank/grade/pay scale) is quoted below:

“….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".

SO parity should exist pre and post CPC datums for the same class of pensioners, at the minimum.

HAG plus and above have no grievances( they are mostly the ELITE group!) because they are not relegated and brought down- but the lowest HAG level is bunched with SAG/ even JAG (sel. gr) (mostly scientists/ engineers/adminidtrators/ others) and they are sufferers, because they have been taken down to lower levels for pension fixation purposes.

(I and my group are fighting for parity at all levels wherever such disparity exists. Not merely for 18400-22400 scale- it was only an example!!!)

vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
17-10-2008, 05:23 PM
PLEA FOR JUSTICE:

Many thanks to Mr VIJAI KAPOOR for bringing in the key words at the right time (under another posting elsewhere) for interpretation and to realize the injustice that is being pointed out by me and my distressed pensioner friends of several Departments in this thread:

The DoP/PW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 01.09.2008 CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOSLY ASSERTS:

“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” PLUS THE GRADE PAY “CORRESPONDING” TO THE PREREVISED SCALE FROM WHICH PENSIONER HAD RETIRED”


The MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-1C dt 13.09.2008 LISTS THE “ REVISED PAY” “GRADE PAY” AGAINST CORRESPONDING “PRE-REVISED SCALES” AS FOLLOWS: (all in Rupees)(pl read seriatum)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale Details;Pre-revised Basic(Min);Revised Pay with Revised Min Pay in the Pay band followed by Grade Pay;Revised Minimum Basic Pay; Revised Pension at 50% of Revised Basic Pay


1.S-30
22400-525-24500 22400 51850 12000 63850 31895
2.S-29
18400-500-22400 18400 44700 10000 54700 27350
3.S-28
14300-450-22400 14300 37400 10000 47400 23700
4.S-27
16400-450-20000 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
5.S-26
16400-450-20900 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
6.S-25
15100-400-18300 15100 39690 8700 48390 24145
7.S-24
14300-400-18300 14300 37400 8700 46100 23050

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

In the subsequent OMs of even nos.dt 03rd and 14th Oct 2008, the DoP/PW have chosen to GO AGAINST the letter and spirit of both the above cited references (pl. note one is that of MoF itself) and have BUNCHED all the above scales into a single PAY BAND (37400-67000) for the purpose of PENSION calculation with varying GRADE PAYs whose effect automatically gets nullified because of the unbelievable lowering of the minimum Revised Pay in the respective Pay Bands i.e. from 51850 in the case of the HAG level Officer at the top to 37400 at the bottom-most , which is that of a JAG level Officer!

As Mr Vijai Kapoor points out- IT IS UNJUST. IT HURTS- very very much!.

Mere crumbs of a few rupees in the grade pay can not compensate the huge difference!.

Compare the JUST PENSION as above against the UNJUST PENSION that is being mooted out:

S-30 HAG level officer,instead of drawing a basic pension of 31925 would now draw 24700
(erosion of 7225 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!).
S-29 SAG level officer -do------ 27350 ---do--- ---do--- 23700
(erosion of 3650 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!)

Similarly S-27,S-26,S-25 level officers also lose marginally from 400 to 500 pm (loss- more with DR)

Many of the HAG/ SAG level officers have functioned as Heads of Deptts with Cadre Controlling Authority/ full Financial Powers with more responsibilities/ accountability.
Many of those who worked in Scientific Depts. are National Award winners. Many have international/ national distinctions and credits. Their contributions to the Nation are not small!. In large Departments, several (hundreds of) JAG level officers were functioning under them!. HOW THE GOVT. CAN SO ARBITRARILY RELEGATE THEM TO A
LOWER PAY LEVEL FOR PENSION PURPOSES – almost to the JAG levels!!!

There cannot be a greater humiliation in the life of a retired Govt.Servant.as in the case now!

FOR A CHANGE, LET ALL PAST & WOULD BE PENSIONERS FROM THE TOP-MOST LEVEL TO THE BOTTOM-MOST LEVEL DRAW THE SAME PENSION WITHOUT DISRIMINATION! WHY SO MANY PAY BANDS? WHY SO MANY CALCULATIONS? WHY CONFUSIONS/ FRUSTRATIONS/ DEJECTIONS?

P.S. to Readers:– pl do not mistake! Many of you might have been affected by bunching of the pay scales in a similar fashion as above. Pl examine and find out.

(pl ignore my typing mistakes!!!!)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 06:08 AM
hi Friends

I find similar debate/ parallel debate is going on thru the postings in the thread entitled "pre-1996 retirees ..... parity etc" by Mr R Sundaram and another "well presented" thread on "OROP-----etc" by Mr S K Jain.

Except for a little difference, many postings/ arguments in the debates have pointed out the disparity and the injustice angle in regard to pension parity/ equality among the same class of pensioners and also the relegation to even lower levels of disparity among equals( at least among quite a few scales from S-9 onwards upto S-30 - may be with some exceptions)

My explanations with scales/ bands, Mr SK Jain's and Mr Sundarar's examples highllight the disparity in true light.

CAN WE FIND A SOLUTION? WITHOUT BEATING TOO MUCH AROUND THE BUSH?

I feel a simple clarification/ corrigendum by the DoP/PW (who is responsible for issual of all the OMs in regard to Pensioners) may resolve the issue.

(They can clarify in UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS, that as things stand today, for the pension fixation purposes of all pre-2006/ pre-1996 and even earlier, the minimum pension must be fixed strictly in terms of para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 and the concordance tables/Annexures furnished with OMs 3 and 14 Oct 2008 cannot bring down the minimum pension so arrived at!

Also, they may also care to link the old Pay Scales/ new Pay Bands parity tables of MoF's OM of 13th Sept 2008 to ensure avoidance of confusion. This reference may be made in the footnote of the Concordance Tables/ Illustration tables of the OM of 14th Oct 2006, where para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 is cited. Reference to ANNEXURE I in paranthesis there creates all misgivings, because this Annexure nullifies the meaning/ essence of the said paragraph!)

Let us hope things get clear sooner than later.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 12:46 PM
Hi All

This is for information of all those who believe that injustice is being perpetuated in the OMs dtd 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2008 of the DoP/PW;

1.Retd Railway Employees Welfare Association, Gurgaon have also taken up the issue of the injustice that is being perpetuated to various classes of pensioners and already their representation have gone to the PMO on 16th Oct 2008.(Individual representations are also following the same.) In a table appended to their appeal to PMO, they have demonstrated how pensioners of 5th CPC scales S-4 to S-34 lose pension amounts per month from Rs 168 at the lowest to about Rs 7000 plus at the highest, plus DR of course.

They have also taken up the case of post 2000 - pre sept 2008 cases disparities as also being discussed in various threads .

2.Affected CSIR pensioners have also taken up the case of injustice as outlined in my main part of the thread!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 04:05 PM
hi All

Full details of the Retired Railway Employees' Welfare Association's appeal/petition to the PMO on the diaparities arising out of the pension OMs of DoP/PW can be seen in their website www.rrewa.org please.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
23-10-2008, 07:14 AM
If we observe the revision of pension in all pay bands, and compare with the pension fixation for post - 2006 pensioners we can find the injustice to pre-2006 pensioners clearly.

As an example take case of a pre-2006 pensioner who retired,

For a last pay drawn by the pensioner at Rs 14625/- as per table the revised pension is 16540/-. Had this pensioner were to be given the fixation in new pand on par with post 2006 pensioner his new last pay would have been Rs 34810/-(as per table of pay fixation). pension for this will be Rs 17405/-.

This clearly explains the injusties resuling in reduced pension of Rs 865/-, as copmared to the post 2006 pensioners.

I am sure this happens in every case and would like to draw the attention of the authorities concerned. Can expect other pensioners affected, to take re-look and intimate their views.

Another injusties is grouping of pay scales of pre-2006 to the new pay band. In every pay band pensioners in the higher scales of each pre-2006 pay scales are loosers and the lowest pay scales are the gainers resuling in injustice to persions in higher pay scales of pre-2006.

R S Subba Rao

vnatarajan
23-10-2008, 08:45 AM
Dear Mr Subba Rao

Thanks for presenting your example.

Yes, you are correct. It is happening to almost all pensioners who were in pre-revised scales from S-4 to S-30, leaving alone the top four S-31 to S-34 (about which I shall be making a separate anlaysis and presenting the same in this thread/ forum soon!).

Perhaps you must have seen the analyses presented by me and others in earlier postings in this thread and they are also similar cases.

TO KNOW THE DISPARITY AND THE LOSS FOR PAST PENSIONERS IN THE PRE_REVISED SCALES, PLEASE GO TO THE Retd Railway Pensioners' Employees Welfare Association's (RREWA) viz. www.rrewa.org WHERE THEY HAVE POSTED THE COPY OF THEIR APPEAL TO THE Hon'ble PM on this issue and see the table attached by them with the appeal. THIS TABLE WILL BE AN EYE-OPENER TO ALL!

The individual losses vary from Rs 168 to Rs 7250 pm plus DR and the affected pensioners fall in scales S-4 to S-30 save a few/ solitary exceptions.

Please urge every co-pensioner from your side to join the fight against injustice, send immediate appeal to the Secy, DoP/PW for redressal if not done already, and for any sample rep. you can take the first of my postings or even the model prepared by the RREWA for their pensioners (it is a bit lengthy- you may choose to edit and use the same).

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
25-10-2008, 05:14 PM
hi All

(PL DISSEMINATE THIS MESSAGE WIDE ACROSS ALL AFFECTED OLD & HELPLESS PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS AND PL.DO SOME SERVICE IF U CAN)

The debate so far has clearly brought out that there are disparities at various levels in pension fixation formulae for fixing the correct/ minimum pension to the pre-2006/ even earlier pensioners based on the directives issued through OMs of 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2009 by the DoP/PW and concerned authorities.

Ministry of Finance's clear cut concordance tables given in their OM of 13th Sept 2008 for fixing the revised pay-scales have been TOTALLY IGNORED for pension fixation and this is not only ridiculous but is ADMINISTRATIVELY most unethical.

IS THE MoF totally ignorant of this act of omission or overstepping ?

Or ARE THEY THE PERPETUATORS? If this is so,then such an action stands condemned and we the pensioners wil be compelled to view the same as most distrustful!

FOR THOSE OLD PENSIONERS WHO HAVE NOT ACTED SO FAR TO REPRESENT THEIR CASES:PLEASE ACT FAST.

Several models of appeals/ representations are already available. Many can see the Retired Railways Employees representations in their welfare association's website www.rrewa.org and copy the text to suit their cases. To know the exact amount of scale-wise disparities, Annexure attached to RREWA's appeal to PM may be seen.

Appeals may be sent to the Secy,DoP/PW.

Those who have received their final pensions as per 14th Oct 2004 OM of DoP/PW, they may perhaps address the same to the Anomaly Committee of the Ministry bOf Pensions/ Deptt. of Pensions etc.

More knowledgeable pensioners with means may kindly help other old/ sickly/ less enlightened pensioners.

ALL PENSIONERS" ASSOCIATIONS MUST ALSO TAKE UP THE MATTER SERIOUSLY AND SEND APPEALS FOR REDRESSAL TO G.O.I QAND ALL MINISTRIES/ DEPTTS CONCERNED.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
25-10-2008, 10:22 PM
Shri V natarajan,

Extremely thankful to you for appreciating the injustice and enlightening me on actions taken by others in this regard, Particularly Railway pensioners. I do take your advice and tell my fellow retirees to act.

R S Subba Rao

vnatarajan
27-10-2008, 10:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi All

HAPPIEST DIWALI GREETINGS TO EVERYBODY! ENJOY EVERY MOMENT OF THIS LIGHT-FULL AND DELIGHTFUL DAY WITH ALL!

SPECIAL WISHES TO GCONNECT AND ITS ESTABLISHMENT

vnatarajan & Co-pensioners/ families from Chennai

RSundaram
27-10-2008, 02:35 PM
Sixth Pay Commission

The Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations have brought some cheer to Central government employees in these difficult times. But a sizeable number of retired senior citizens have been left in the lurch. They include those who retired from some senior levels before January 1, 2006. The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare’s clarification of October 3, 2008, has reduced to naught all accepted official norms, contravening the decision of the Supreme Court. It has brought despair to an arbitrarily created section of the same grade of pensioners.

A spate of representations pointing out this anomaly has not met with any response. The government, in fact, reinforced the arbitrariness in its next clarification order dated October 14, 2008. The clarification has resulted in the denial of the minimum basic pay and the resultant minimum pension to those on one side of the chronological divide as on January 1, 2006.

As a typical example, between two officers at the level of Joint Secretary, the one who retired before January 1, 2006, will draw a pension of Rs.23,700 whereas the others retiring on or after the same date will draw Rs.27,350 per month.

P.K. Ranganathan,

vnatarajan
27-10-2008, 03:43 PM
Mr Sundaram/ Mr Ranganathan

If the letter is published already in the Hindu, we must draw the attention of the DOP/PW and as per their own guidelines on grievances of pensioners' etc., they are supposed to take cognisance and act.

vnatarajan

sundarar
30-10-2008, 06:01 PM
Dear Sir,

The following three rules are significant to draw attention of the authorities.

1. Rule 3(5) of CCS (RP) Rules - Pay in the Pay Band means the Pay drawn in the RUNNING Pay Bands specified in Col. 5 of the First Schedule.

2. Rule 13(i) of CCS (RP) Rules - One increment.... However, if the PAY in the Pay Band after adding the increment is less than the MINIMUM of the Higher Pay Band (The word `Pay' is missing after the word `Minimum') to which promotion is taking place, PAY in the pay band can be stepped to such minimum. (For example, if a person was fixed at Rs.4000 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 on promotion on 1.4.2008, his pay in the pay band need not be stepped to Rs.5200 which is the minimum of Pay Band, but to be stepped upto 7440 which is the minimum pay in the pay Band)

3. Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 - The revised pension cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of Pay Band + GP under col.8. (Here too, the word `Pay' is missing after the word `minimum').

4. The fitment Table also indicates as PAY IN THE PAY BAND for arriving the basic , THEN WHAT IS THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND. That is the minimum pay in the running pay band.
The Pay Band in general is nothing like scale of pay, and it is only an identification. In the scale of pay, if we see the minimum pay it will be the starting point of the scale. But in the Pay Band the case is entirely different because of the definition `Pay in the running pay band'. Pay Band and Running Pay Band - To be seen in letter and spirit.
Taking into account all the above points, it is seen that Minimum Pay in the Pay Band is the Pay drawn in the Running Pay Band as per the definition itself.(The Minimum Pay in the Running Pay Band. In the case of S-29, it will be Rs.44700 and, with GP, it is Rs.54700 and thereby the minimum revised pension to be ensured is 27350 and nothing less than that). Same yardstick for any other scale also.

Minimum of Pay Band is applicable only for direct recruits, where such minimum has been exclusively prescribed with reference to the GP admissible.

Further, the para 4.2 does not specify requirement of 33 years for such a 50% of sum of minimum of PB + GP. Once an employee is allowed to retire with pension prior to 1.1.2006 or 1.9.2008, the minimum revised pension that has to be ensured shall be arrived at only to the extent of 50% of Minimum Pay in the Running Pay Band + GP without any requirement of any reduction pro-rata w.r.t. no. of years service rendered.

The battle lies in between Pay in the Pay Band and Pay Band, and the matter requires immediate attention of the concerned Authorities.

I submitted my views on this matter, and incidentally, I am also an aggrieved person in this regard. Hope further clarification after seeing all our views, will be arriving soon.

Best regards.

vnatarajan
30-10-2008, 08:29 PM
Dear Mr Sundarar

Many thanks for your detailed analysis.
Let us all- aggrieved pensioners-now caught in this mire of interpretations/ counterinterpretations - find a favourable solution - which has to come from the authorities.

I am still not convinced that the authorities who have precipitated the matter for whatever reasons, will so easilly bail out a solution. That is the character of bureaucracy in this country!

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
30-10-2008, 09:49 PM
Dear Mr.Sundarar / VNatarajan,

Your concern for the pensioners in general and pre- 1.1.2006 is understandable as you are also a victim of OMs which is issued by the authorities without application of mind.

In this regard I would like to state the following simple modification will solve whole lot of confusion created due to the attempt to oversimplify the pay scales into 4 pay bands.

Apart from the 4 pay bands there must be sub-bands each for each 'grade pay' within the pay bands in such a way the end point of the sub pay bands must be same as the main pay band.

Whenever there is recruitment / promotion from one grade pay to another grade pay within the same pay band or next pay band, the sub-pay band should be applicable to the extent the minimum of the sub-pay band is to be ensured.

This step will solve most of the problems both to the serving employees as also the pensioners.

ss

vnatarajan
31-10-2008, 05:14 PM
Dear Mr Sudacgwb

Thanks for your nice suggestions.With simple statements as you have sampled, and with suitable title in the Column of the relevant Annexure (say title can be "Corresponding Sub Pay-band within the Pay Band") of the OM of say 14th Oct 08, issue may get some resolution. Of course all scales from S 4 to S 30 have to be checked!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-11-2008, 10:31 AM
Hi All

Any small coverage/ article on the Pensioners' despair in "Deccan Chronicle" of 31st Oct 2008 (Chennai/ Bangalore) ?
If any one has seen the same, can u pl copy the same and post it for viewing by all interested pensioners?
Thanks

vnatarajan

sudacgwb
01-11-2008, 10:37 PM
Mr.VNatarajan,

I viewed an edition of the Deccan Chronicle and there was no such article. Kindly elaborate, if known

ss

vnatarajan
02-11-2008, 05:10 AM
D/Mr Sudacgwb

I am currently at BGL. I have asked my friends at Chennai to check up and inform. May be by this evening or so - details if any-of anything published- may be recieved!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
02-11-2008, 11:55 AM
hi Friends/ Co pensioners

Letter that was published in the Deccan Chronicle, Chennai Ed, on 30th Oct 2008 (edited by the newspaper itself!) reproduced below (Courtesy Mr A V Mukuntharajan, Jr Member from Chennai)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deccan Chronicle 30th Oct 2008 Page 10 – Letters column


PENSION PLEA
Sir, There is no doubt that
implementation of the 6th
central pay commission recommendations
has brought
some cheer to the Central
government employees. But a
sizeable number of retired
senior citizens, including all
those who retired from senior
levels before January 1,
2006, have been left in the
lurch. This group is aggrieved
because the pension
department’s clarification of
October 3, 2008, brings to
naught all accepted norms
contravening the decisions of
the Supreme Court. A spate
of representations pointing
out this anomaly has not been
met with any response. We
appeal to the authorities concerned
to redress our grievances
and do justice.
P. K. RANGANATHAN
Chennai
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-11-2008, 07:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi All

While we are getting various clarifications through interpretative discussions/ debate here, it may be relevant to see other parallel threads on related aspects.

Mr Sundarar's thread on"Invalid Minimum of Pay Band" is one such. What Mr PKRanganathan has posted there y'day is very informative, which I reproduce here:
-----------
Dear shri. Sundar,

Yours is an excellent analysis of the issue of Minimum pay in the pay band Vis-a-vis, minimum of the payband . in summary the position is as under.

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 chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding start points within.There were 34 graded pay scales in the 5th CPC era . Under the 6th CPC, related Revised Pay Rules, these have now been accommodated into 4 running pay bands apart from one newly created super time scale and two fixed scale above them. The pay scales grouped into each pay band have appropriate starting points in the pay band with distinct grade pay for each. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) ed 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation and dop & pw OM. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08.



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.


iii) The modifications notified in the order 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.

By the foregoing, little is left to doubt that the minimum of the pay band is not and cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band, and for all purposes including pension and family pension of either pre or post 2006, pensioners, this minimum basic pay is the minimum pay in the pay band as notified in the finance ministry orders and confirmed in your first notified OM of 30 Sep 08.

Your examples under FR22, further reinforce the above correct position and the view all of us hold. I have no doubt that govt will open their eyes and correct their mistakes hopefully without our requirement to knock the doors of the courts of law.

regards.
PK Ranganahan.----------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan (thanks to Mr PKR)

sundarar
03-11-2008, 11:38 PM
Thank you very much Shri PKRji and Shri VNji for kind valuable observations.
As desired by all senior members of the Forum, I submit a draft letter for kind consideration of the Forum.

Best regards and thanks for providing an opportunity like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To November , 2008.


Shri M.P.Singh,
Director (PP)
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions
Loknayak Bhavan,
NEW DELHI-110 033. TELEFAX: 011-24624802


Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Pensioners of the Central Government, we would like to invite your kind attention to the O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt. dated 14.10.2008 regarding Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

The col.8 and 9 of Annexure-1 of the aforesaid O.M. indicates about the `sum of minimum of PB + GP/Scales’ for Pensioners and Family Pensioners to determine the minimum revised pension in respect of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the Pensioners had retired.

While the said Annexure-1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008 relates to minimum of PB, the O.M. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW emphasizes about MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GP of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

It may kindly be noted that the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND to a corresponding pre-revised scale can be none other than the minimum pay in the corresponding RUNNING Pay Band to such pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

As each pay band under the 6th CPC is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/corresponding minimum in the running pay band, the minimum of Pay Band referred to in the Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band for the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the Govt. servant had retired and started drawing pension. As such, the contention under Annexure-1 in this regard, actually is not in accordance with Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and therefore, requires to be modified in line with the Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW.

We therefore request you to look into the matter for appropriate action in this regard.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

( )
Copy forwarded
To
The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Pension & Personnel’s Welfare
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt. of India,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
NEW DELHI-110 033. - for kind information and necessary action please.

vnatarajan
04-11-2008, 07:57 AM
Dear All

Mr Sundarar, learned member, has taken the pains to prepare a draft on the CRITICAL ISSUE of the interpretation of the 'MINIMUM' of the PB.

Except for the word RUNNING(which may not be necessary at all as there is already a qualifying word - 'corresponding'), as a retired scientist Ifeel, the draft can be adopted for sending a number of individual appeals by post and Email to the DoP/PW immediately to keep alive our grievance issue. I am not competent to understand the language of the administrators and so others may kindly suggest amendments/ additions/ modifications etc so that all interested can send their appeals quickly.

However, can there be a line to suggest that if this appeal is attended to by the DOP/PW quickly, there may not be any need for issual of multiple PPOs in future, as the settling of this 'MINIMUM" issue may resolve many ambiguities!

(WE SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH APPEALS ON CORE ISSUES PENDING THE OTHER EXERCISE OF PREPARING THE ARTICLE FOR NEWSPAPERS)

Some actions to proceed further pl.

vnatarajan

(I and many of my colleagues/ copensioners have sent more than a hundred reps. to DOP/PW already in early/ middle/ late Oct 2008 on the injustice issue and none have recieved any response/ reply so far. I AM PERSONALLY INCLINED TO SEND MY SECOND APPEAL on the 'MINIMUM" issue by tomorrow/day-after- using Mr Sundaraar's draft, by email/post)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-11-2008, 01:36 PM
hi

Dear All

Mr R Sundaram's (our member?) letter appears to have been published in the Hindu, Chennai Edition today-reproduced from website of iofs:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sixth Pay Commission

Over the years, particularly after the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, near-parity has been established between past pensioners and those just retiring from Central government services. The Commission had hoped that full parity would become possible after computerisation. But the authorities are laying down rules that strike at the roots of the existing norms of parity, notwithstanding the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.

Now, there are two classes of pensioners — those who retired before and after 2006. Those retiring after 2006 reap the full benefits of protection of 50 per cent of the salary last drawn. But the pre-2006 retirees are being scaled down to an arbitrary point in the new scales termed minimum of pay bands which, in most cases, have no relevance to the posts from which they retired. The value of their service is thus being arbitrarily deflated.

R. Sundaram,

Chennai
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-11-2008, 05:36 PM
hi All

I have posted a query/request in the RREWA website, after registering there as a member, wh I reproduce here for info:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirs/ RREWA council members
As a retd. Central Govt. pre-2006 pensioner and also as the President of the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai (affiliated to the AIFPA)I, and other Co-pensioners have sent numerous representations to the DoP/PW of the Ministry of P,PG & Pensioners in October 2008 (2nd to 3rd week)on the issue of the wide disparity in pensions that will crop up consequent to the implementation of 6th CPC related OMs dtd 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 of DoP/PW resulting in injustice to pre-2006 pensioners.
We appear to be at dead end unless RREWA/ RSCWS etc take up the matter seriously by (1)HIGHLIGHTING THE PROBLEM in the newspapers at DELHI/ other media and (2)BY ULTIMATELY APPEALING TO Hon'ble LALLU PRASAD YADAVji to intervene and resolve the problem.
Otherwise many OLD/AGED/HANDICAPPED Pensioners (like me)/family pensioners/ dependents will be helpless due to the reckless/inhuman attitude of the DoP/PW & MOF.
VNatarajan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of you- the active debating members of this thread might not be aware, that as early as 8th May 2008, the Railway Senior Citizens' Welafar Society (pl chk for correct title),Chandigarh had taken up this issue and also other disparity items in their letter/ memo to the Empowered Committe of Secretaries, presided over by the Cabinet Secretary, wh reviewed the recos of 6th CPC.BUT NOTHING SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CARED FOR!
Pl visit their website and study the details.

vnatarajan

ranganathan
04-11-2008, 10:35 PM
On the suggestions of Mr Natarajan i have placed this modified letter, incorporating certain missing links.


Sub: Appeal to remove the ambiguity in the OM NO 38/37/08-(P/PWAngel smile emoticon) dt

14.10.2008 related to the MINIMUM of the pay band in the Annexure 1


Dear Madam

On behalf of myself and several aggrieved Pensioners of the Central Government, I invite

your kind attention to the O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt. dated 14.10.2008 regarding Revision

of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

The col.8 and 9 of Annexure-1 of the aforesaid O.M. indicates the `sum of minimum of PB +

GP/Scales’ for Pensioners and Family Pensioners to determine the minimum revised pension in

respect of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the Pensioners had retired.

While the said Annexure-1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008 relates the Pension to the minimum of PB,

the earlier O.M. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, also issued by your kind office,

relates the Pension to a MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GP of the corresponding

pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

It may kindly be noted that the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND to a corresponding

pre-revised scale cannot be anything, other than the minimum pay in the corresponding Pay

Band to such pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.This fact is verifiable

through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622

(E) ed 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08,

regarding pay fixation wrt various grades, within the pay bands, for promotees and direct

recruits

As each pay band under the 6th CPC is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC,

with appropriate/corresponding minimum in the running pay band, the minimum of Pay Band

referred to in the Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 cannot be construed as the minimum pay

in the pay band for the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the Govt. servant

had retired and started drawing pension.As such, the contention under Annexure-1 in this

regard, actually is not in accordance with Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008.It will also

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.The OM

therefore, requires to be modified in line with the correct position as rflected in Para

4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW and in

accordance with the Ministry of Finanace OMs mentioned above.

I and other co-pensioners, therefore, request you to look into the matter for appropriate

action in this regard.

We also submit that rectifying this ambiguity/ anomoly in time, will help avoid issuance of

multiple PPOs in future. Several Banks, from which Pensioners draw their pensions, have to

be guided appropriately by clarifying the matter soon so that the final PPOs to be, issued

are correct and and the pension and arrears drawn are justifiable.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(V Natarajan)

( )
Copy forwarded
To
The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Pension & Personnel’s Welfare
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt. of India,
Lok Nayak Bhavan

kssitaraman
05-11-2008, 12:02 AM
Dear Sri Ranganathan,

Your kind reference is invited to Sri Vijai Kapoor.s posting yesterday under the thread "Invalid minimum of Pay Band", wherein he has mentioned in terms of the OM dated 3/10 being the 'culprit' (quotation mine), rather than the OM of 14/10, which in effect is a general circular to all concerned and to the Pension Disbursing Banks. If you feel like, perhaps you may incorporate it in your draft.

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 04:15 AM
hi All

1.At the outset, thanks to Mr PKR for his immediate respones.

2.I and my copensioner friends here will take action to send the memo collectively thru our FORUM to the Secy DOP/PW (attn: Director- if necessary) with copies to all concerned Ministries (MoP,PG & P/ MOF.

3.I and few others who have time/ means will send the reps. individually thru Speed/Regd post/emails also.

4.It will be our request that as many pensioners / their associations/ bodies etc also take similar actions. (we will endorse copies to RREWA/ RRECS/ IOFSBROTHERHOOD etc for similar actions- copensioners there may pl. liaise for parallel actions)

5.Mr Mukuntharajan, Jr Member here and he, from our FORUM side will also be requested to pursue action with AIFPA to send similar memo to the destinations. He will also be active to get the memo publicised in the Pensioners' Advocate.

Thanks to all for supportive actions in advance.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 07:29 AM
hi All

WE ALL HOPE REPS/APPEALS UTILISING THE DRAFTS OF PKR/ SUNDARAR/VIJAI KUMAR's POINTS ETC WOULD BE SENT BY ALL QUICKLY.

In the meanwhile PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE/ its members have taken pains to highlight some of the woes of the Pensioners consequential to the chaos created by 6cpc implementation orders in their editorial of October issue. I am trying to post it here for evereyone/ other Associations etc to see & follow actions:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(courtesy AVMukuntharajan, Gen. Sec, PF & Jt. Sec AIFPA)

PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE (oct 2008 ?)


EDITORIAL
CHAOS IN IMPLEMENTATION

The Central Government magnanimously ordered that the disbursing units i.e. post offices and banks should ensure that the revised pension as a result of 6th CPC recommendations and 40% of arrears thereof upto September 2008 should be paid to the pensioners and family pensioners before 30.9.2008. Pensioners and family pensioners thronged the post offices and banks with the fond hope that they would be receiving the revised pension including arrears as 30.9.2008 and celebrate the festivals and Diwali a little more happily . But they were badly disappointed
Reports received from various sources, - pensioners associations, pensioners and individuals reveal that except a few branches of State Bank of India, all other banks and post offices have not implemented the Govt’s orders in letter and spirit.
Some of the disbursing units, paid revised pension only without arrears.

Some of the post offices paid Rs. 25000/- or so to pensioners after
obtaining an undertaking that over payments if any, would be adjusted in subsequent pension payments.

Some post offices had their calculations ready but could not draw money from banks, due to strike by the bank employees on 24th and 25th September
and subsequent bank holidays on 30.9.2008 and 1st and 2nd October 08

Due to Dasara holidays, the payments will be further delayed . We will thank God if the arrears are paid atleast before Deepavali.

Some of the banks appear to have insisted on the surrender of the P.P.Os by the pensioners before effecting payment . The orders are very clear and the P.P.Os need not be surrendered .

In some post offices in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka , the payment of fixed medical allowance of Rs. 100/- had been with held. There are no orders for such an action. The authorities concerned should pay the withheld amount immediately to the pesnioenrs.

Several clarifications have been issued by the Pension Ministry on 3rd October 08 . They have been published else where in this issue.

One of the clarification is that the sum of 50% of pay + grade pay should be based on the minimum of the pay band and not on the minimum pay of the band corresponding to the 5th CPC scale. In effect, the benefit that would accrue to the pensioners is denied to them as the pension calculated as per fitment formula is higher than the pension as per fixation formula. Different interpretations of scales have been given in this regard. One for the pensioners, another for serving employees and yet another for direct recruits. Never in the history of past five pay commissions had this problem cropped up.

The clubbing of scales under four different pay bands , and with the same grade pay to some of these scales in the same band are the main reasons for such interpretations.

We request the Government to have a rethinking in the matter and restore the status of past pensioners by adopting the same pay fixation formula for pensioners and serving employees to remove the disparity that has crept in.

The rate of dearness relief to exgratia pensioners have not yet been announced Similarly, those serving employees who retired on after 1.1.2006 but opted out of revised pay scales are entitled to the dearness relief at the old rate which is 54% from 1.7.2008.

The BSNL retirees are outside the purview of the Sixth CPC recommendations . The merger of 50% dearness relief granted to serving BSNL employees have not been extended the BSNL pensioners . This need to be attended to immediately.

The non civilian defence pensioiners are unhappy because order have not been issued by the Defence Ministry in this regard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

dnaga57
05-11-2008, 07:41 AM
Dear Messrs Sundar, Natarajan, Vijay Kapoor et al
A splendid job of drafting.
I am suggesting to a Railway group to send collective/indivdual representations on this line.
Are we sanguine that such a representation will deliver?
Are we considering legal recourse too.. if so please let me know so that I can muster support.
Can this be in CAT or court?

vnatarajan
05-11-2008, 01:14 PM
Dear Mr Naga

We shall try our best to convince the Govt./ and its Ministries/Deptts for redressal within a reasonable time, thru our appeals/ reps. individually and collectively. many of us have done that as the first round already.

The above letter will be second letter for many of us- may be first for some.

We plan one more appeal after getting the 'Mutilated' final pension, wh may be according to the OM of 14th Oct 2008.

A FEW OF US HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO THE HON'BLE PM THRU HIS WEBSITE! We would also make collective appeals to him.

We have planned recourse thru legal channel also- CAT - concurrently in a few locations- and courts in a fewer locales- may be after a month or so.

Your initiatives are most welcome.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
06-11-2008, 11:28 AM
D / All

I have sent the drafted rep.(amended as necessary) to the Secy Min of P,PG & P yesterday by email and today the hard copy by speed post, on my own behalf and also as the President of Pensioners' Forum on behalf of several co-pensioners.

My next step will be after what I recieve as my final 'mutilated' pension/ arrears from my Bank-the PPO supposed to be issued by them etc- may be by Nov end.

(We shall try to evolve a common format to suit individuals, if possible- as that will be our final appeal before resorting to further action thru avenues of justice)

vnatarajan

dnaga57
06-11-2008, 05:05 PM
Thanks Mr Natarajan
Count me & some of us Rly pensioners in a- for any efforts you are organising
Naga57

dnaga57
06-11-2008, 05:39 PM
I can see you are all seized of the pension interpretation across grades.
Is it possible to consider one more issue :
It is the applicability of 20 years rule for full pension prospectively.
When pension entitlement was revised from 30/80 to 33/80 & later to 33/66, in all these cases it was made applicable for erstwhile pensioners too. Only proviso was that it will apply from date of notification & not back dated from date of retirement.
The spirit again was non discrimination between existing & new pensioners in conditions.
Even in case of full commutation by persons on deputation - 1/3rd of original commutation amount was restored after 15 years plus DA on full pension (revised one that is).
As such , there are enough precedences of spirit of equity between the existing & new pensioners.
Will this merit a representation?
Naga 57

sundarar
06-11-2008, 06:57 PM
Dear Sri Ranganathan,

Your kind reference is invited to Sri Vijai Kapoor.s posting yesterday under the thread "Invalid minimum of Pay Band", wherein he has mentioned in terms of the OM dated 3/10 being the 'culprit' (quotation mine), rather than the OM of 14/10, which in effect is a general circular to all concerned and to the Pension Disbursing Banks. If you feel like, perhaps you may incorporate it in your draft.

Dear Sir,

Yourself and Shri Vijai kapoor are right in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.M. dt. 1.9.2008
Para 4.2:
Point 1: "The fixation of pension...... in no case, shall be lower than fifty
percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade
pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which
the pensioner had retired.

Point 2: In the case of HAG+ and above scales (S-31 to S-34), this will be
fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.M. dt. 3.10.2008
Modifications/Clarifications:
Para 4.2
Point 1: "The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in teh Pay Band plus Grade Pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the PB (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale"

Point 2: NO MODIFICATIONS/CLARIFICATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the accident spot as might have already been identified by the senior members, is explicit.

Best Regards.

vnatarajan
07-11-2008, 08:38 AM
hi All

We congratulate MR R SUNDARAM for his efforts in getting published an article in the Hindu Businessline- wh he has posted in the thread "Pre 1996 Pensioners ....."etc.

Artcle is title "Lost in Transition" reproduced here for all to view":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Article which appeared in The Hindu Businessline Today (7th Nov 2008)

Lost in translation

R. Sundaram

“For man proposes but God disposes" . In the case of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission by the Centre, this, perhaps, can mean, somewhat irreverently, what the cabinet giveth, the mandarins taketh away. By deft strokes of their miserly pens, the Department of Pensions has struck at the roots of parity between new and old retirees in the matter of pension.

A decade ago, after the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government had rightly recognised and treated the people who retired before the pay commission as equal to the new retirees. It wanted to grant full parity with the new retirees by locating the exact equivalent of the last pay drawn in the new scale from which the old persons retired, but thought it was cumbersome. It, therefore, stopped short and settled for 50 per cent of the minimum of the new pay scale for the old retirees and 50 per cent of the ten months average pay on the day of retirement for the new ones.

Under the “defined benefits” pension scheme of the governments in most part of the world, a percentage — even up to cent per cent of the last pay drawn — is given out as pension. A World Bank study in May 2006 on “Civil Service Pension Scheme Around the World” by Robert Palacios and Edward Whitehouse, observed critically that the Indian scheme suffers on account of ‘unpredictable income stream for old retirees and large differences between cohorts depending on the year they retire”.

Linked to pay bands

Therefore, minimum expectations were that the status quo would not be disturbed as confirmed by the Sixth Pay Commission in March this year which endorsed the continuance of parity. The Cabinet too, in its resolution, blessed the notion in its resolution in August. But when it was forged into executive orders, sadly, the benefits of parity enjoyed by the older pensioners till now were taken away at one fell swoop. This was done by clubbing as many as five to nine scales into each of the four long pay bands from Rs 5,200 to 67,000.

Pay bands are a useful HR concept to avoid over ranking and under paying by frequent cadre reviews to get higher posts. But by misinterpreting “minimum of the pay in the pay band” and linking the old retirees’ pension to the 50 per cent minimum of pay band at Rs 5,200, Rs 9,300, Rs 15,600 and Rs 37,400, as the case may be, smacks of arbitrariness but also annulment of all the advancement achieved by the old retirees in their career through stages of selection and promotion.
Dismay among old retirees

For example, a pensioner who retired as a Joint Secretary at Rs 18,400 would have normally received Rs 27350 as per the revised basic pay of his cohort under the old scheme but now will get only Rs 23,700 because of linkage to minimum of the pay band. Likewise, an individual retired at Rs 7,500 will get only Rs 7,050 under the new formula as against Rs 9,375.

This act of prestidigitation by the personnel ministry has caused a sense of deep dismay among all old retirees except those in the top rung. It so happens that vast majority of the latter are from the All-India services who can write rules and formulae to place themselves beyond the pale of the pay bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan reproducing Mr R Sundaram's article above.

dnaga57
07-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Have you seen thisv representation by rrwea avlbl at
http://www.rrewa.org/Circulars2/564/scan0001.pdf
I find it covers the interpretation disparity of para 4.2 of OM as well as the 20year rule being applied prospectively only.
Any views- coordination with them possible?

kssitaraman
07-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Dear Sri Sundarar,

Thank you for the efforts taken by you. Full credit to Sri Kapoor. I have 'hijacked' your draft representation and sent it in my own name to DOP also. In the event of it getting a favourable result, full credit would naturally go to you. Thanking you again,

K.S.Sitaraman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sri Sundaram and Sri Natarajan,

Since writing the one liner about Sri RS's article in the other thread, I now realise that the article literally deals with my own peraonal problem that I had ventilated in my posting to Sri PKR. I shall be happy to see this hotly pursued through the existing available channels and if it is not successful to resort to intervention by judiciary.

K.S. Sitaraman

vnatarajan
07-11-2008, 03:14 PM
Dear Mr Naga

Sure. We shall take care of the 20yrs retirees also!. May be we had no such demands on hand!. Pl. make a generalised request wh can be seen by all/ Mr PKR/ Mr Vijai/Mr Sundarar/Mr Sundaram/ Mr AVM etc. who know the rules / avenues for presenting the case properly!

vnatarajan

dnaga57
07-11-2008, 08:04 PM
I am reposting the points on 20 years retiree case: Appreciate the help

I can see you are all seized of the pension interpretation across grades.
Is it possible to consider one more issue :
It is the applicability of 20 years rule for full pension prospectively.
When pension entitlement was revised from 30/80 to 33/80 & later to 33/66, in all these cases it was made applicable for erstwhile pensioners too. Only proviso was that it will apply from date of notification & not back dated from date of retirement.
It generally has been that 'Any liberalisation of pension rules are APPLICaBLE to ALL pensioners but EFFECTIVE from date of notification. That is no back dated arrears are payablebeyond the date of notification.
The spirit again was non discrimination between existing & new pensioners in conditions.
Even in case of full commutation by persons on deputation - 1/3rd of original commutation amount was restored after 15 years plus DA on full pension (revised one that is).
As such , there are enough precedences of spirit of equity between the existing & new pensioners.
Will this merit a representation?
Naga 57

vnatarajan
07-11-2008, 08:20 PM
Hi All
Mr Naga has put forth his plea for consideration of the 20 y retirees with precedences that were made with a spirit of equality.
Experts who have been helpful in all the debates here may kindly offer their considered advice as to the merits of the case so that some appeal can be made to the DoP/PW by our Forum (I mean Pensioners' Forum,Chennai).
vnatarajan

sundarar
07-11-2008, 10:43 PM
Dear Sirs,

I am making an attempt to submit my thinkings:

O.M. dt. 3.10.2008
Modifications/Clarifications:
Para 4.2
"The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the PB (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.37400-67000 and the corresponding grade pay being 10,000/- p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs.37,400+10,000 (ie. 23,700. A statement indicating minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure."

POINT NO.1: "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY AND
CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY" -
HOW BOTH THESE CAN TRAVEL TOGETHER?

POINT NO.2: "50% of the minimum pay in the pay Band plus Grade pay
would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the
Pay Band" - Para 4.2 of O.M. dt.3.10.2008 as well as 1.9.2008.
If the above would be calculated as per (i) indicated above,
where is the other one to be calculated as per (ii). If there is
no (ii), what does (i) mean?

POINT NO.3 If Para 4.2 of both O.M. is in same voice, then how, only the
Annexure attached to O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 and also referring
therein the same Para but of O.M. dt.1.9.2008, can
prescribe new medicine - minimum of pay band, which is not at
all related/relevant w.r.t. Para 4.2 of both O.M.?

POINT NO.4 S-24 & S-25 S-26 & S-27 S-28/S-29 & S-30
23050 23150 23700
Only those who had actually travelled from S-24 to S-30
or its corresponding pre-revised scale during their remarkable
and devoted service knew how difficult it is to reach the
destination, viz. S-30. But everything has been finished with
an amount ranging between 650 (upto 3% - one increment?)
that will be applicable for the next 8 years to get subsequent
enhancement
Same is the case in respect of the corresponding lower grades
and thereunder. The necessity for prescribing a minimum itself arises because there is below minimum even after applying 2.26 factor.

POINT NO.5 WHETHER ANY PROBABLITY/POSSIBILITY OF TYPOGRAPHICAL/
INADVERTENT ERROR LEADING TO OMISSION OF `PAY IN THE
PAY BAND' IN THE TITLE - MINIMUM OF......... PAY BAND
UNDER COL.7 OF ANNEXURE TO O.M. DT. 3.10.2008 THAT
GOT REPEATED IN SUBSEQUENT O.M. dt.14.10.2008 also.

POINT NO.6 IF POINT NO.5 IS RULED OUT, THEN, HOW THE FIRST
SENTENCE (WHICH IS ALSO RESEMBLING 1.9.2008) AND
SECOND SENTENCE OF THE MODIFIED /CLARIFIED PARA 4.2
CANNOT TRAVEL TOGETHER TO EMPHASISE THE
LEARNED DECISION TAKEN VIDE O.M. OF 1.9.2008?

AS THE MATTER MAY BE UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY - CONSEQUENT UPON THE APPEALS PREFERRED TO THE DEPT., THESE ASPECTS CAN ALSO BE KEPT IN VIEW, TO FACILITATE A REMEDIAL SOLUTION. AS ONLY THE CONTENTS ARE BEING ANALYSED HERE, IT SHALL BE VIEWED ACCORDINGLY.

WITH DUE RESPECTS TO ALL,

BEST REGARDS.

vnatarajan
08-11-2008, 09:38 AM
hi All

Railway Pensioners' Samaj, Chennai also have sent their representation on the disparity in parity of pension between the pre and post 2006 pensioners consequent to the 6th cpc related OMs, to the Secy, Min. of P,PG & P on 1.11.2008.

Copy of their representation can be seen on the website of RREWA- www.rrewa.org
,
We are encouraged by the action of the samaj!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-11-2008, 04:33 PM
hi All

I had requested the Administration of the RREWA to further pursue the fight against injustice issue on 4th Nov 2008 and their prompt response/ appraisal of the issue are reproduced below, for info. of all:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request I made to RREWA/RSCWA Exec` Council:


From: Natarajan V Sent On: 11/4/2008 4:29:52 PM Status: Reply Sent by Admin
Subject:
Injustice to Pre-2006 Pensioners
Query:
Sirs/ RREWA council members As a retd. Central Govt. pre-2006 penwsioner and also as the President of the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai (affiliated to the AIFPA)I, and other Co-pensioners have sent numerous representations to the DoP/PW of the Ministry of P,PG & Pensioners in October 2008 (2nd to 3rd week)on th4e issue of the wide disparity in pensions that will crop up consequent to the implementation of 6th CPC related OMs dtd 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 of DoP/PW resulting in injustice to pre-2006 pensioners. We appear to be at dead end unless RREWA/ RSCWS etc take up the matter seriously by (1)HIGHLIGHTING THE PROBLEM in the newspapers at DELHI/ other media and (2)BY ULTIMATELY APPEALING TO Hon'nle LALLU PRASAD YADAVji to intervene and resolve the problem. Otherwise many OLD/AGED/HANDICAPPED Pensioners (like me)/family pensioners/ dependents will be helpless due to the reckless/inhuman attitude of the DoP/PW & MOF. VNatarajan (on behalf of hundreds of pensioners from Chennai) 4Nov08


Their Reply
Natarajan V Sent On: 11/4/2008 9:09:40 PM Status: Seen by You
Subject:
injustice to pensioners
Query: (RREWA's Reply)

Dear friend, Ultimately we may have to go to the court.S.C. judgment is favourable to us Some of our members like Mr............... retd. CCS & Mr...............retd.CCE are trying to mobilize opinion &to bring more &more persons on one plateform.We seek co operation of more &more associations. Iam trying to convince BPS &AICCPA top brass to take up the case. Iwill request you to keep in touch through e.mail Iam giving u the addresses hereunder. Regards Sincerely Yours, S.C.M..............., e.mail pensioner77@yahoo.com & rrewa@dataone.in

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

ALL AFFECTED ARE REQUESTED TO PURSUE ACTIONS WITH MORE & MORE ASSOCIATIONS/ UNIONS TO JOIN WITH THE POWERFUL BODIES LIKE RREWA FOR REMEDY/ JUSTICE.

vnatarajan

sundarar
09-11-2008, 07:24 PM
I am reposting the points on 20 years retiree case: Appreciate the help

I can see you are all seized of the pension interpretation across grades.
Is it possible to consider one more issue :
It is the applicability of 20 years rule for full pension prospectively.
When pension entitlement was revised from 30/80 to 33/80 & later to 33/66, in all these cases it was made applicable for erstwhile pensioners too. Only proviso was that it will apply from date of notification & not back dated from date of retirement.
It generally has been that 'Any liberalisation of pension rules are APPLICaBLE to ALL pensioners but EFFECTIVE from date of notification. That is no back dated arrears are payablebeyond the date of notification.
The spirit again was non discrimination between existing & new pensioners in conditions.
Even in case of full commutation by persons on deputation - 1/3rd of original commutation amount was restored after 15 years plus DA on full pension (revised one that is).
As such , there are enough precedences of spirit of equity between the existing & new pensioners.
Will this merit a representation?
Naga 57

Dear Sirs,

Shri Naga and the Sr. Member Shri V.N. had rightly pointed out about the 20 years retiree case. The need for representation arises, because, the O.M. dated 1.9.2008 does not contain any stipulation about the quantum of maximum qualifying service that has to be rendered for entitlement of minimum revised pension @ 50% of minimum of (pay in the pay band)+ GP corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired particularly because the Gazette Notification dated 29.8.2008 has already stipulated that `Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with' and a minimum pensionable qualifying service of 20 years has been prescribed. The same Gazetee Notification in subsequent para also indicates that the `recommendations regarding payment of full pension on qualifying service will take effect from all Govt. employees from the date it is accepted by the Govt.

This could be the reason for stipulating a minimum revised pension even after applying the 2.26 factor as per fitment table. And that is the reason for Para 4.2 of O.M. to ensure a minimum revised pension. If by calling it as a minimum revised pension, I don't know whether there will be pension even after application of Para 4.2 at any case. Live examples only can be helpful in this regard whether such minimum revised pension only is the maximum revised pension possible as per the table annexed to O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 or otherwise. With regard to the prospective effect, the intention could be of restricting arrears out of such MINIMUM REVISED PENSION by application of 50% of sum of ...............corresponding pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. Thus, with the prospective effect, a pensioner with qualifying service of 20 years or more shall also invariably be eligible for MINIMUM REVISED PENSION IN FULL and wherever the service is below 20 years it shall be on pro-rata basis on par with those who retire from 1.9.2008. The only difference is a post August 2008 pensioner will get 50% of his revised basic as pension subject to maximum qualifying service of 20 years, the corresponding pre-Sep. 2008 pensioners will be entitled as per Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008.

These aspects have got diluted vide O.M. dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The Gazette Notification dt.29.8.2008 as well as O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 have nowhere mentioned that the maximum qualifying service shall be 33 years only in respect of Pre-Sep. 2008 pensioners. There is enough ground for
representation and when the Notification is silence about certain things, the benefit of doubt shall be passed on to the aggrieved pensioners. The one more thing I wish to add here is that the intention of giving prospective effect could be to restrict people who have served 17 years as on 31.12.2005 should not come with a request for voluntary retirement in the immediate two three months. Hence, the prospective effect actually keeps in mind those who
will be leaving with just 20 years service immediately on implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations. As such, the enhancement in the pay and allowances, with other allowances like child care leave, transport allowance, Hostel fees, etc. were mainly to retain the existing employees who are well experienced. The Govt. does not want to see them off so soon. Keeping in view their future dedicated and more devoted service to the corresponding pay package, the Govt. wants them to fully utilise the services of its Human Resources. At the same time, the Gazetee Notification and the O.M. dated 1.9.2008 would have intended parity of pensioners only. The main problem lies in the interpretation of sum of minimum of........... corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. And the other problem lies in respect of `PROSPECTIVE EFFECT', when the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service had been dispensed with in toto, and here too, the interpretation only put all of us in aggrieved situation.

There should not be any problem in having a detailed review based on the feedback/representations/requests/from the individual pensioners as well as Associations, because those senior pensioners had contributed a lot and many of them have got restricted gratuity at the time of their retirement. The gratitude that is due, can be expressed by considering the plea of the Pensioners and Senior Citizens by keeping their WELFARE on top priority by suitable amendments to the areas which remain silent, in a way favourable to the aggrieved pensioners and senior citizens.

As they may deny arrears owing to prospective effect, an increase in 1000 or so do not make any difference, in the absence of which there may not be any necessity for prescribing a MINIMUM REVISED PENSION TO HAVE BEEN ENSURED.

Best Regards.

vnatarajan
10-11-2008, 11:02 AM
hi all

Please see the post made in the thread "Full Minimum Revised Pension for 20Years Retiree" - incorporating what Mr AVM had replied to Mr Sundararajan.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
12-11-2008, 11:18 AM
hi All

Attention is drawn to the latest letter/ representation addressed by the RREWA on 8th Nov 2008 to the Secy. Min of P,PG & Ps which is an exhaustive presentation covering the pre 2006 and the trisanku post 2006 category of pensioners (some reference of 20 yr retiree is also there!) and I feel personnelly obliged to Shri Maheshwari, Gen Sec,RREWA for his deep involvement.
He has also mentioned about all other pensioners apart from the Railway Pensioners.

Pl visit www.rrewa.org for details.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
13-11-2008, 03:33 PM
I have seen the representation addressed by the RREWA on 8th Nov 2008 to the Secy. Min of P,PG & Ps which is an exhaustive presentation covering the pre 2006 in their web site. I take this oppurtunity to thank the association and the Gen Sec,RREWA for their deep study, analysis and presentation. I hope there will be a postive response soon.


Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
13-11-2008, 05:50 PM
hi All Pensioners/ Family Pensioners,

I HAVE COME TO KNOW THE BANKS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DISBURSE EVEN OUR 'MUTILATED' PENSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOP/PW's OM of 14th OCT 08 BECAUSE, IN MANY CASES (INCLUDING MANY OF OURS HERE) THE PPOs DO NOT CONTAIN THE IMPORTANT INFO OF THE PAY SCALE IN WHICH THE PENSIONER RETIRED!

Consequently, the 2.26 formula is the best they can do for payments, wh is nothing but the Fitment Table of 3rd OCT's OM and wh many banks have already done.

I have thought about some alternative.

There is a RULE by which a GOVT SERVANT can get a copy of the SERVICE BOOK on a nominal payment. CAN SOMEBODY PICK IT (THE RULE/ CIRCULAR ? SWAMY"s BK) UP AND FLASH IT HERE SO THAT I CAN GO TO MY OLD OFFICE HERE AT BANGALORE TOMORROW AND DEMAND FOR IT?

Pl. help. (as it will at least in part help me to take up and fight out the issue with the Bank) ; the old PAO dealing with my office pleads helpless and is not willing to cooperate much as he has no mandate nor any OMs have reached him for any action!!!!!!
CPAOs at Regions want entire lot of pensioners' cases to reach them at one time which is next to impossible!

SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY!

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
13-11-2008, 10:00 PM
hi All Pensioners/ Family Pensioners,

I HAVE COME TO KNOW THE BANKS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DISBURSE EVEN OUR 'MUTILATED' PENSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOP/PW's OM of 14th OCT 08 BECAUSE, IN MANY CASES (INCLUDING MANY OF OURS HERE) THE PPOs DO NOT CONTAIN THE IMPORTANT INFO OF THE PAY SCALE IN WHICH THE PENSIONER RETIRED!

Consequently, the 2.26 formula is the best they can do for payments, wh is nothing but the Fitment Table of 3rd OCT's OM and wh many banks have already done.

I have thought about some alternative.

There is a RULE by which a GOVT SERVANT can get a copy of the SERVICE BOOK on a nominal payment. CAN SOMEBODY PICK IT (THE RULE/ CIRCULAR ? SWAMY"s BK) UP AND FLASH IT HERE SO THAT I CAN GO TO MY OLD OFFICE HERE AT BANGALORE TOMORROW AND DEMAND FOR IT?

Pl. help. (as it will at least in part help me to take up and fight out the issue with the Bank) ; the old PAO dealing with my office pleads helpless and is not willing to cooperate much as he has no mandate nor any OMs have reached him for any action!!!!!!
CPAOs at Regions want entire lot of pensioners' cases to reach them at one time which is next to impossible!

SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY! SERVICE BOOK COPY!

vnatarajan

I have retired in March, 2000. I am a civilian Gazzetted officer from DRDO and was paid from defence service estimates. I got a PPO(blue copy- pensioner's copy) which has on top the pay scale, Post Held and other details of pension and family pension issued by office of the chief CDA (pensions), Allahabad. I am unable to post that copy here. If you are in Bangalore, Please call me on Ph No 080-26711805. I will meet you and hand over a copy of my PPO if this helps. I am not sure, but I got the news that SBM has given the revised pension as per memo dated 14th Oct, 2008 as informed to me by my fellow pensioer.

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
14-11-2008, 03:52 AM
Dear Mr Subba Rao

Thanks. Problem is many HODs/DDOs in some Deptts. have not cared to make this entry(scale of pay at the time of retirement) in many PPOs. In my PPO, that detail is missing. Also there is no entry of DOB of the spouse/ would be family pensioner. Hence problems for people like us.
Now if all those unlucky pensioners have to go to their old deptts to get the details reg. their scale of pay/ or get some proof for the same etc it would mean a great harassment/ hardship!Banks do not/ can not have such details of INDIVIDUAL pensioners!

It was most unwise of the Ministry of P/PG/P to assign such responsibilities on Banks/Pos who do not have the requisite details , mainly because of the neglibence of the PAOs/COAs/ CPAOs etc who have not ensured that the PPOs should incorporate all such details as per their own proforma.

The PAOs/CPAOs /other PPO issuing authorities must come up with simple solutions now. OTHERWISE MANY PENSIONERS will be put to great difficulties!

Regards
vnatarajan.

kssitaraman
14-11-2008, 09:44 AM
Dear Sir,

I have not been able to get at the Rule or GOI order regarding collection of Service Book on payment. Others in this Group will, soon. But I suggest, Sir, that, as copying of an entire Service Book would consume a lot of time and entail delay, you may demand and collect from the Personnel Department a Service Certificate containing inter alia the last post held at the time of retirement and the Scale of Pay.

Here is a Quote from the Book “CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES (RETIRING & RETIRED) (KNOW YOUR LEGITIMATE RIGHTS)- By P.N. Padmanabhan, Millenium Edition (August 2000): -

“V CPC recommendation 139.9. The pay scale of post last held by the pensioner needs to be indicated in the PPOs. (Hitherto the pay scale of retirees were not being entered in the PPOs). GOI has agreed to implement this recommendation”

Soon after, MOP, vide their order No.45/14/97-P&PW of 22-7-1998, has issued instructions to all departments, that the pay scale of the post in which the employee retired, should be recorded in the PPO.

My own PPO issued in December 1991 by the FA & CAO of Southern railway Headquarters did not contain the last post held and the scale of pay (but the covering letter did!) However, the revised PPO issued in August 1999 soon after the V CPC Report implementation, did contain both the particulars including the V CPC equivalent of the Scale of pay.

Regards,
K.S.Sitaraman.

vnatarajan
14-11-2008, 11:22 AM
Dear Mr Sitaraman

Thanks for ur info. In my case, I am myself guilty because I was the HOD myself locally when I retired and I could have got evrything done had I known that such a thing will become pivotal after nearly 11 1/2 yrs after my retirement; that too because of the unusual directives of the OMs being issued quixotically by the current authorities of Personnel and Pensions of GOI.

How can they (MOP/DOP etc) ignore the fact that banks/ POs, except for the PPO copies, will not have any records for any missing information/ data on the pensioners??

They want others to do their work- an escapist and evasive step! Delay matters further!
Issue erronoeous orders to buy time!

Yes. It will be difficult to make copies of Service Books for each and every pensioner! But then I have found that in most cases- many less enlightened pensioners are LIABLE TO BE CONVINCED that the pension they get as per the 3rd Oct 08 OM (2.26 formula)is beneficial to them rather than getting fixed at half of the minimum of the pay band plus GP ! The cruel trick can not be easily understood by lacks and lacks of pensioners! This is because many have forgotten their old scale of pay etc! So they may rescind to their fate and keep quiet ! They may not indulge in further exercises!.

Regards

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
15-11-2008, 02:08 PM
Dear Members.

I am quitting. Bye to all, With Best Wishes,

K.S.Sitaraman
email Id: kssitaraman@hotmail.com

vnatarajan
15-11-2008, 03:16 PM
Dear Mr Sitaraman

We will be missing your valuable contributions and advices. As you have given your email id we shall be in touch! My email id is v_nattu@yahoo.in.

It was a great pleasure to be associated with you. My personal gratitude to you.

Regards. All the best!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
20-11-2008, 06:36 AM
Hi All

I and my friends at Chennai have not received the second part of our mutilated pension from banks so far - ie as per 14th Oct 2008. Only after that we will know/ have proof what banks do.

Till then some breathing time!

Cheers

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
22-11-2008, 09:44 AM
My dear vNatrajan and other pensioner friends. I have joined this forum only today although I had been reading forum discussions with interest before joining. I am a regular contributor to rrewa.org and was instrumental in sending rrewa's representation to the Ministry. I may further inform you that I sent my first representation to Railway Board on 10 10 08 and latter to PM on 14 10 08. I had persued the Govt. Pensioners Association, Dehra Dun to send representaton to PM, which they did on 25 10 08. I think we all send individual representation to PM and flood the PM's Office with the representations. I would like to inform you that the GOI had gone with a Review Petition to honorable Supreme Court in SC decision dated 09 09 08 in SPS Vense case, which has been rejected. Now GOI is preparing a Curative Petition and approach once again to SC. It shows that the GOI is bent upon not to grant parity to pensioners enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution unless forced.

vnatarajan
22-11-2008, 01:54 PM
Dear KANAUJIAMI
Many thanks for ur info and the actions u are pursuing.
Now the Banks here at Chennai are finalising the fixation cases- mostly senior level officers- strictly according to the Oct 14th OM of DoP/PW.
As u observed, we have already posted some grievances in the PMOs website already.
We will also take actions to send our third - may be final one before going for justice thru other avenues-to all concerned and this will also be sddressed to the PM with a spl. covering letter.
Our draft for issuing notice is almost ready. We r finalising.
Your news of SPSVains case of 9.9.2008 judgement is quite informative and we will take note of it.
Pl. keep us posted. (my public eml id is v_nattu@hotmail.com.)
Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
22-11-2008, 02:43 PM
My dear vnatarajanji. Thanks for the response. I would like to share one more thing with you. News is taking round that Ministry of Personnel has sent some positive proposal to Ministry of Finance regarding the pre2006 pensioners. Inspite of our best efforts,we could not know the details of it. If it is true, we must wait till the final outcome of it is know. In the meanwhile, we should try to collect material for the Petition to the honorable Supreme Court. It should be PIL. That way the decision when given, would be applied universally. Besides, it involves less expenditure. I think rrewa should take the lead. I spoke to Mr. Mahaeshwariji about it. He said we would need money for which pensioners have to come forward. I have given my word to him. Whenever asked, I would contribute without hitch. Kindly find out from other pensioners about it. I am doing the same here and lot of them have already agreed with me. You must have seen that starting from the bottom to the top of pre revised pay scales, per month loss alongwith DR starts from Rs. 165 to 7225. Fifth pay commission had given modified parity. VI CPC has also given the modified parity. Govt. first agreed to it but latter vide OM dated 3rd Oct 08 reversed its stand. Why ?

dnaga57
22-11-2008, 05:16 PM
Thanks for all your effort.
I will contribute, persuade all mmy pensioner friends to do so also for PiL costs.

vnatarajan
22-11-2008, 09:49 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami,
Thank u once again.
Our group is quite active and already nearly 100 petitions, twice- one on the 'Injustice' issue and the other on the false 'Minimum' of the pay bands have gone as protests to DoP/PW.
Our next one will be with actual individual case details, after we get the final 'mutilated' pension thru banks- wh will be by 1st Dec 2008.
General outline is drafted -more or less in a legalistic format- as that will also be our notice to go to channels of justice- individually or collectively.
We also wish that the RREWA takes the lead in all seriousness and our group members will make their contributions without hitch!
Planning the strategy and timing is what we are now at- and your feedback and periodic info will be of great value.
We are also in touch with Shri Maheshwari- and we expect the RREWA- with its power shd be able to break the ice sooner than the court avenues!
Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
23-11-2008, 08:02 AM
Thank you dnaga57 and vnatarajan. I am sure you must have seen Defence Ministry's Notifications dated 11 11 08 for Army,Navy and AF and dated
12 11 08 for Defence Civilians. These notifications are on the same lines as for Civilians, completely on same lines as given in notification/clarification/amendment dated 3rd Oct 08 , except that the MSP has been counted till brigadier level, for arriving at the total pension. So much so that the pension of a Major General remains to be less than the Brigadier. What I wish to say is that the pensioners from Army, Navy, AF and Defence Civilians are also not given Modified Parity as recommended by VI CPC. I am sure something is cooking there which we do not know anything about.

kennar
23-11-2008, 10:18 AM
Dear All,

I have been following the discussion on `Implementation of 6CPC - Pension fixation` on G-connect discussion boards. I fully agree that the Government machinery has failed to implement the fixation of Pension as recommended by the 6CPC and approved by the Government. Instead they have created categories of retirees: Pre-1986, Pre-2006, post 2006, and post 2-9-08.

I feel that there should be only two categories of retiree. The first category consists of employees who have retired before the implementation of 6CPC (before 1 JAN 2006) and the second category consists of all employees who have retired on or after 1 JAN 2006.

The 6CPC has recommended that ‘linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee.’.

The commission also recommended that in the case of pre 1-1-2006 retirees, the fixation shall be done as per the table given at annexure, subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Hence, I request all pensioners to come together and take up the case with the Government to implement the following:

1. For all the pre-2006 retirees, the criteria for fixing the minimum pension should be the minimum pay in the new pay band corresponding to the minimum in the pre-revised scale in which the officer/employee was working before retirement, plus applicable grade pay of the revised scale appropriate to the grade of the retired officer in the pre-revised scale. This would be similar to the principle followed in 5thPC also. Hence there are different minimums for the different pre-revised scales with in the same pay band. The officers retired in senior scales with in the same pay band will get more pension.

2. For all post-2006 retirees, Implementation of 6CPC Recommendation ‘Pension should be paid at 50% of the Average emoluments received in the last 10 months or the Pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee’ thus accepting the recommendation of 6CPC, unconditionally.

3. The clause concerning the Qualifying service for full Pension may be implemented as recommended by the 6CPC and as approved by the Government. (33 years up to Sep 2008 and 20 years from 2-9-08)


Regards,
kennar

vnatarajan
23-11-2008, 02:11 PM
Dear Mr Kennar/ Mr Kanaujiami

Mr Kennar has precisely stated what we are striving for to achieve.
Reg Defence Pensioners, another thread is started by Mr PKR. As Mr Kanaujmani is doubting, something must be brewing up ;otherwise everyone will think the learned officials at MoF at the top do not know who is senior and more responsible or what are the ranks of army personnel!How can the nation survive if senior MOF administrators treat the second/ third level Generals this way? Brig at advantageous position than Maj Gen and Lt Gen for pensions? Or does the Govt. want army seniors to quit after reaching Brig level? Motivation to get out?
Funny things are happening! PENSION HOWLERS!

vnatarajan

dnaga57
23-11-2008, 04:27 PM
dear Mr Natarajan - Kennar
""The clause concerning the Qualifying service for full Pension may be implemented as recommended by the 6CPC and as approved by the Government. (33 years up to Sep 2008 and 20 years from 2-9-08)""
I think thi clause is as invidious as the interpretation of Minimum of the Grade. As I had written earlier, all liberalisation has been applicable to ALL pensioners. Why such a distinction now?
The re can be only 2 categories- past employees & current employees. Pensioners can only be one category

Kanaujiaml
23-11-2008, 06:04 PM
My dear dnaga57, kennar, vnataraj. I am dilighted to see that so many people are now coming to the same conclusion. I think we should start thinking in terms of court language. Court doesnot care for the merits i. e. individual aspects and results. It takes care of points on law. Our entire problem is caused by only one thing. Non acceptance of Govt. the Modified Parity recommended by the VI CPC. This is the clear violation of Article 14 of our Constitution. This happened in the past also in 1982. There are two rulings on it, as far as pensioners are concerned. One was given in D S Nakara case by the Constitution Bench of honorable Supreme Court on
17 02 1982. The Second ruling has been given recently on 09 09 08 by two judge bench of honorable Supreme Court. Against second ruling Govt. even submitted Revision Petition, which has also been rejected by the honorable Supreme Court. (You can find details of judgement by opening Supreme Court site and locating the string with the help of date of judgement). This is our Brahamastra.However, before going to honorable Supreme Court, we have to exhaust all normal channels available for redressal of grievances. A very small percentage of pensioners has sent appeals so far. More appeals must go individually. There are 18 Pensioners associations on Ministry of Personal list, having internet facilities. I do not have the e. mail addresses but postal addresses are available. We do not whether each one of them has sent an appeal. Let us focus our attention on this point and suggest what should one do next and how.

vnatarajan
24-11-2008, 03:26 PM
Dear Kanaujiami
I am trying to locate the Revision/ Review Petiotion of the Union of India against SPS Vains case! Till now I couldnt succeed. Also my friend Mr PKRanaganathan is trying- but so far no success.
Can u provide us the no., date etc so that we can try to see the details if any. Earlier you had said thisn appeal/ petition was rejected and again the UoI has gone for curative petition. Also pl help us to see these info on the SC of India site if possible.
I also tried to see the info on the blogsite of Indian Military: Service Benefits & Issues but could not locate anything other than SPSVains SLP 12357 judgement of 9th sept 08-wh is also seen in the SC website.
Regards.
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
24-11-2008, 05:20 PM
My dear vnatarajan. Revision Petition judgement in SPS Vense case is not available on website so far. I am in contact with the Petitioners (Rtd. Major Generals), who periodically tell me of the progress of the case. So far Curative Petition against the rejection of Revision Petition has not come up but there is speculation that it may come up from Govt. side. Regarding the judgement of DS Nakara Case, please open the SC website and seach the judgement giving date as 17 02 1982. Select the Judgement concerning Pensioners. Kindly let me know if you do not find it there. Then I would send copy of the judgement through e. mail.

vnatarajan
24-11-2008, 06:26 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami
Thanks for the info. I have access to all Judgements/ Copy of Nakara etc. No problem.
In case u get some info on the Revision petition, kindly inform me/ Mr PKR etc.
PIL is also a possible avenue.
Let us see.
vnatarajan

dnaga57
26-11-2008, 06:56 AM
I am giving below a personal mail from a former CAT member of Delhi. Hope this wouldbe useful here & ar rrewa too.
Dnaga57



Dear Naga,
PIL is not likely to work. It is not a matter of Public Interest but an administrative matter between the government and is employees. SC does not hear directly such matters and CAT can accept a matter only after all channels available to the petitioner have been exhausted. So we should organise to appeal through the officers federation.. That is the best way. Once the federation has exhausted the channels then it should go to CAT.
There is one proviso which the federation has to adhere to. The appeal has to be filed by the federation and one personally affected member. So some has to take the lead and become a petitioner along with the federation. This means those who want to go through the federation have to become its members. Much organisation is needed to win the case. A good lawyer is very very important. S/he has to be a person of stature eg Abhishek Singavi the congress spokes person. He appeared before me in a case and I can say he is very good.
SAS

vnatarajan
26-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Dear Mr Naga

Thank you for your involvemnent and the information provided.
All possible avenues need be explored.
May be there are different approaches to go for PIL- much would depend on the SC Judge to permit the same- technically- after the petition convinces him that it has a 'PIL' angle!Your last few lines are important that way!
When many helpless/ aged/ handicapped/ officially orphanned or unsupported Pensioners/ (some even shelterless and living in old age homes) and their 'nuclear' families, CONSTITUTE or FORM a considerable section/ percentatge of the public/ population of the society, I think no judge will fail to appreciate a PIL - that to if filed by a responsible,well-wisher, citizen from the Society!.If this is not judged as a PIL cause- it will be a blatant denial of human rights of the old/ senior citizen-pensioners- whether they plead for it or somebody pleads for it!
I think there must be some way to make it a PIL- if needed!
Let us all work it out!
Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
26-11-2008, 03:24 PM
My dear dnaga57 and vnatarajan. Thank you for warming up the string again. It is wonderful to see that dnaga57 has started exploring possibility of legal action. I may add what Mr. vnatarajan has already said in his rejoinder. Mr. Abhishek Singhvi is top most Advocate but he is too busy these days. This is our experience in one PIL case, which he himself showed unability to take up and suggested another Advocate of repute. Our case is fit to be taken up under PIL and that too directily in SC. This also we have checked up. Most of Senior Advocates charge no personal fee or very nominal amount in cases of PIL. We have to meet other expenses. In my opinian, too, there would not be any problem to go in for PIL in SC. However, we must wail till the fate of SPS Vense case is finally decided. If it goes in favour of SPS Vense and even than the Govt. does not do anything about our case, we can put up petition to SC citing Nakara case and SPS Vense case, asking for parity for everybody under Article 14 of Constitution. I sent an application to PM on
14 10 08. If I receive no reponse in two months time i. e. by 14 12 08, I am going to ask for information under RTI Act 12005 , regarding action taken on my application, from CPIO of PM's Office. Mr SK Agarwal from Gaziabad and several others are with us.

dnaga57
26-11-2008, 05:02 PM
Thanks. I am dutifully sharing views - opinions - suggestions from my circle of friends knowledgeable in this matter. Diverse views- experience would be useful in strategising our course of action.
I am not pushing for legal action but just collecting as much info plys mustering as much support as I can

Kanaujiaml
27-11-2008, 08:10 AM
My dear dnaga57. Thank you for your reply. As I had said earlier, you are doing wonderful job. Kindly continue with it. I may mention here that I had received an e. mail from Mr. Maheshwari, Gen. Sec. RREWA enclosing copy of your e. mail to him togetherwith ex CAT Member's views. He wanted my views on it. I sent reply to him on the same lines as I gave it you. Kindly do not have impression that I am in any way criticising any body. Not at all. I am in fact trying to put my view and giving information which is available to me. One more thing I would like to mention. If we adopt CAT' s path and then to SC than perhaps, the final decision would come, if at all, after, perhaps, when our life time is over. That is why, it is prudent only to go to SC and that to with a PIL so that the decision of SC is available quickly and applicable to all Pensioners (being PIL) and not only to a few petitioners. This is my view. Others are free to disagree and I asure you, I would not take any offence out of it. Thanks once again.

S.Balasubramanian
29-11-2008, 09:43 AM
Dear Mr Natarajan/Mr Kanaujia,
You may not know me personally. Yet I have ventured to place my suggestions in regard to the subject matter of your contritbution to the Gconnect forum, with a precise and deep analysis of the implications of the
Government OMs which do injustice to pensioners in violation of article 14 of the Constitution as per the Supreme Court judgments in Nakra case and Bains case.
Re: the interpretation of the phrase "minimum of pay in the pay band" a lot of discussion has taken place. A study of the fitment tables in Annexure to OM dated 30th August, 2008 and the Annexure I to OM dated 1.9.08 shows that the classification of pensioners on the basis of date of retirement, in violation of aricle 14 of the Constiution, is a feature common to all pensioners who retire after drawing pay at any stage in any of the pre-revised pay scales. It is something like the 'original sin' which haunts us at all stages. I was thinking how best this could be remedied and what type of amendments could be made to the OMs to preserve the homogeneity of all pensioners. It will be found from an analysis of the fitment tables and fixation of revised pension OMs, that in some cases, the one who retires after getting three stagnation increments in the pre-revised scales before 1.1.2006 gets a [I][I]higher pension than the one similarly placed who retires one month thereafter. In the majority of cases, the one who retires before 1.1.2006 gets a lower pension than one similarly placed who retires one month or more thereafer. The following amendments to the OMs dated 1.9.2008, 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, will, I feel,cure the present constitutional infirmity from which they suffer:
"OM No.38/37/08 dated 1.9.008:
1.Exising para 4.1 be substituted by the following:
"The basic pay of the pensioner in the pre-revised pay scale of
the post from which he had retired will be notionally fixed as on
1.1.2006 according to the Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM No.
1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be
the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006, subject to the
necessary years of qualifying service.
2.Existing para 4.2 of above OM be substituted by the following:
"4.2. The revised basic pension as per para 4.1 above shall
in no case be lower than the one corresponding to the existing
pension as given in Annexure I to this OM."

"OM No.38/37/08 Pt I dated 3rd October, 2008:
"The clarification on para 4.2 be deleted".

"OM No.38/37/08 dated 14th October, 2008:
"Amendments consequent to those in above OMs be made".
I believe this formulation will preserve the homogeneity of all pensioners and will ensure that persons who retire from the same grade and with the same pay will get the same pension, irressective of the date of retirement.
In regard to the curative petition likely to be filed, supposing it is rejected and the Government issues orders to cover the cases of the two individual petitioners, the oher pensioners will then be left to fend for themselves. If the Railwaymen's federation could implead themselves in that
curative petition, the judgment will then become applicable to all cases. This could be considered by RREWA.
While the Finance Miniser may be seized of the problem posed to him
frolm various fora, yet I think that no announcement can be expected before all the elections are over.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
29-11-2008, 12:16 PM
Dear Mr Naga/ Mr Kanaujia/Mr SBala

Many thanks to all of you for keeping the thread active and alive- as I am down with my PC and dependent on an old slow laptop.
Everybody is free to express/ suggest/ contradict - and none need be sorry or apologetic. We are all pensioners and therefore equals in our own way.

Mr Bala has made an exhaustive study and has supported it with some calculations/ tables in the form of annexures to support his points. They are very informative and correct.

However- recent Mumbai disturbances (we all feel sorry/ pay our homage to the martyrs-like Hemant Karkare, share the grief and agony of all affected personnel and citizens/ guests- personnel mainly are Govt. servants of varied hues and shades and affected include their families) and therefore the Govt. and bureaucratic machinery will be busy with more serious matters right now.

Pensioners will naturally be of least priority!.

However let us see how things shape up. I and some of my copensioners are waiting for the finalised 'mutilated' pension from the banks for this month ie Nov. 08 payable towards the end of the month!

Regards,
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
29-11-2008, 05:55 PM
My dear Mr. Bala,Mr Natarajan,Mr dnaga57. First of all my homage to Martyers of Bombay. It is a national calamity. Can we do something about it ? Regarding injustice to pensioners. I sent a format for appeal to PM which is available at rrewa.org/ Let pensioners send as many applications as possible. I am in constant touch with RREWA through Mr. Maheshwari. They are not yet ready for the PIL petition. Obiviously they are short of financial and other resources. In fact RREWA is waiting for response from pensioners about it. I feel response is lukewarm. I am leaving for Delhi on 1st Dec.08. I would go to Gurgaon too to meet Mr Maheshwari and others there and discuss with them about the strategy.

S.Balasubramanian
29-11-2008, 11:54 PM
My dear Mr Kanaujia, Mr Natarajan and Mr Naga,
The idea of doing something for the families of the martyrs of the Mumbai tragedy is laudable. This could be organized by a federation like RREWA, and I am sure all pensioners will have the national sense to contribute their mite.
I shall be happy to have the correct email id of you all, so that I can more freely be in touch with all of you, apart from the Gconnect discussion board, and I can send whaever attachments may be deemed useful with the email
My regards to all,
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
30-11-2008, 07:52 AM
Dear All.
As conveyed by Mr Bala/ Mr Kanaujiami- Exec Council of our Pensioners' Forum has already decided to meet by 11th Dec 08- and apart from the resolutions on Martyrs, we will also decide on contributions to the families of these Martyrs.
We will also send messages to our network of friends/ well-wishers for contributing their mite,
(our topic of PIL- we lk forward to Mr Maheshwari's views and the overall adopted).
Mr Bala
- I think many have my email id (v_nattu@yahoo.in is also my alternate id)) and that of my friends - who are in touch on this subject, for e.g.-Mr PKR (ranganathan.perumbadi@gmail.com ) and Mr AVM (mukuntharajan@gmail.com))
Regards
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
02-12-2008, 02:20 PM
Dear All,

While debating the Injustice Issue, I have also had the “repeated” occasions and “opportunities” to hear the usual comments from anti-Pensioners! I thought I would share those moments with all pensioners.

Many non-pensioners/ private sector employees/ even some of our own clan of (I call them SAME SIDE GOAL-SCORING) pensioners think/ believe:

Pension is being paid to pensioners from Tax payer’s money.
Pension is being paid to the retirees for doing nothing to the society.
Pensioners’ get periodic doles in the form D.R.s which is the reason for inflation.

It is high-time that such ill-conceived notions or mischievous statements are put at rest!

LET US ALL BRUSH OUR FUNDAS ABOUT GOVT. PENSIONS (pre 1.4.2004) and also enlighten others who need to be done so!.Here are some points:


1. Pension is not a gratuitous payment;
2. It is a social, moral and legal commitment; it is enjoined that the State should expand the scope of its coverage and not abridge it.
3. That includes protection of the class of people who are already entitled to it, like the government employees who constituted a class by themselves.
4. For the government employees pension was in substitution of the contributory provident fund and it is not as if the government was paying pension from out of taxes.
5. The scheme of pay-as-you-go is by no means an irrational concept and is in vogue in many countries. Be that as it may, pension for government employees is in reality, in lieu of government’s contribution to provident fund.
6. Merely because the government did not fund its contribution along with those of its employees and constitute a pension trust (as is done in many countries including in respect of Federal Social Security in the US, its character does not change.)
7. The government should make public what would be the value of the fund if such funding had taken place and not beguile the general public into believing that it is paid out of the revenue. (In respect of Social Security in the US, where the Trustees park the funds in US Treasury bonds whose worth, it is estimated, is a whopping $4.5 Trillion. This is what the Federal government must borrow in the first two decades, to substitute social security with private accounts – vide afore said article by Paul Krugman)
8. The central theme of providing pension is to ensure certainty of defined and adequate payment when the contingency of old age, disease, disablement or death occurst.
9. All along the government did not contribute to the Pension Fund as it would have done in respect of contributory provident fund. Has the government considered how much it would cost if it starts making the contribution and funding it and that too without the certainty of pension payments to the beneficiaries?


Let us all refresh our own knowledge about pension entitlements.

The amount of pension corpus now with the Govt. runs into several lacks of CRORES of rupees. Even Govt. hesitates nor it is ready to make public this figure. It is this corpus money which is issued as securities/ bonds etc. floated for several needs of the Govt.. Interest on this alone is enough to pay the pensions of the retirees. IN FACT ALL CAN BE PAID AT THE UNIFORM AND CORRECT RATES WITHOUT ANY CRUNCH!.

The campaign that there is financial crunch or burden to pay pensions or enhance pensions by the Govt. itself is most atrocious, IRRELEVANT and MISCHEIVOUS. Even courts have negated these arguments.

PENSIONERS who need the money in their old age must be compensated adequately and in a just manner !. Those pensioners who feel the amounts paid are surplus or more than required by them etc. need not feel guilty- but they are at liberty to donate and help others also. At least they may not affect the interests of several small-time pensioners who need enhancements/ periodic compensations most! In fact I and many of us would be certainly happy/ proud if the pensioners at the lower levels get at least 60 to 75% of their last pay as pensions.

Comments in the right spirit are always welcome. Once a Govt. servant became a pensioner, his past history is irrelevent i.e his being inefficient or not being above board etc., as otherwise Govt. could have stopped his pension!.

LET US- THE PENSIONERS NOT BEG! WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND AND WE SHALL CONTINUE TO DO SO!

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
02-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
You have put the concept of pensions as an enforcable statutory right and not a bounty or gratuitous payment at the sweet will of Government.
I am reminded of a parable by Shri Ramakrsishna. A fisherman cast his net with a bait. Some fish never got entangled and were moving freely outside. Some bit the bait and got ensnared but they struggled and came out. Some were happy with the bait and their sojourn in the net. Those who are happy with the present pension dispensation belong to the third category, while some of us belong to the second cateory and are struggling for justice, and we shall be moving onward. Those who do not bother about anything and are happy with whatever is given belong to the first category of those who are wholly and holy-indifferent.
With regards,
S.Balasubramanian.

Dear Mr Kanaujia,
We are eagerly waiting to hear about the shareable ideas emerging out of your discussion with Mr Maheshwari on 1.12.2008 at Gurgaon.
With regards,
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
02-12-2008, 04:30 PM
Dear Mr Bala,

Thanks for giving a logical explanation.
I THINK-LIKE YOU-I MUST ALSO BE IN THE SECOND CATEGORY!
May our TRIBE increase!

Regards

vnatarajan.

RSundaram
02-12-2008, 10:35 PM
My dear VN
Thank you very much for an excellent exposition on the rationale for granting pension. We must ask through RTI figures of sums held and disbursed on Pension Corpus with the GOI. To deny what was even agreed upon by tradition and convention and even by law Government will throw red herrings and sing the demographic liturgy as done in the West and Japan where they say that to sustain the pension burden of the increasing older population the younger folks have to work harder and harder. To you, it may not come as surprise. But many of other members senior or junior may not know that the government is even violating the basic principle that pension once fixed cannot be reduced except if there has been a clerical error. We need to publicize that Pension is not a gratuity to be given at the whim of the reigning bureaucracy.
By the way will it be too much trouble if I request you yourself to post the "rationale for pension" ( Heading is mine) in our website www.iofsbrotherhood.org. Thanking you in advance
Love and regards
R.Sundaram

badri mannargudi
03-12-2008, 12:35 AM
Respected Senior Citizens,

There can not be a better presentation on the subject than the one from Shree VN sir.
The Article should serve as an awakening call to those who are in slumbers.
It is high time the Serving Officers realised the importance and the need to remain united in making the Govt understand that Pensioners have earned their pension and it is not given out of Courtesy.
It may be true that in 1898 a an American Law Dictionary (Bouvier's Law Dictionary)put it as "penasions are the bounties of the Govt which the Congress hasw the right to give, , distribute or recall at its discretion" . But the definition/explanation is not applicable to Pensions given in our country.
In this Country, there is a legal provision of Pension even to a Single Term M.P./M.L.A. The country knows, most of them do not need it. But yet there is a legal provision.
Coming to the issue on hand, certainly those who worked sincerely and depend solely on pension, would know the real value of the pension. If Govt decides to deny justice to these stars, God will never forgive.
As an aside, my dear friends in this forum have taken a leading role in organising a fund for the welfare of the families of the Martyrs.
Friends may kindly let me know the address to which I can send my Contribution.
I have a doubt. It is common thing for a senior in a particular Grade(cadre) to always draw more pay ( in rare case equal pay, at least after getting remedy on the plea of pay anamoly), why is it that a person who retired in, say, 1991 as Superintendent of Excise should draw less pension than a person who retired in October 2008. With only about 16 years (I joined the current department only in 1992 as Inspr (DR)after serving Income Tax Dept as UDC for 10 years from 1982) service I would be getting pension of about Rs.10,000, (if I retired today - I am 52 yrs old)where as my friend who retired as Suplt in 1991 after serving the nation for over 38 years is getting pension of about 9000!? I do not understand.
I am sorry, if I have bored my friends.
With Respects,
Badri Mannargudi (Mobile) 09427581503.

vnatarajan
03-12-2008, 08:53 AM
Dear Mr RS/ Mr Badri and all,

I am extremely grateful to all of you for what you have written in support of my text. That inspires me.Thanks in particular to Mr RS- and I shall certainly post it in IOFSBrotherhood website for the benefit of all our brothers there. That is another website which keeps us awake and you have an occasion to realise and understand many features- particularly those by Mr RS- a prolific writer of high calibre and wisdom.

NOW FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO ARE COLLECTING DETAILS OF COURT CASES ON PARITY/ EQUALITY/ INJUSTICE ISSUES (may be INCLUDING THOSE OF plus 20YRS in future)- there is one more reference- pertaining to a case filed by All India Federation of Port and Dock Pensioners' Association- WP- 25115/05 in Madras High Court wherin retirees prior to 1/1/1997 & 1/1/19998 and thereafter sought parity and the same was ordered by the court. The concerned Ministry preferred appeal wh was also dismissed and thereafter it went for SLP in the Supreme Court which was also quashed by the said Apex Court.

Consequently, parity in pension was granted to all earlier retirees vide Ministry of Shipping, Rd Transport & Highways, Deptt of Shipping's ref: a-38011-20/05-PE-1 dt24.07.2008.

Can somebody verify and post the detaied extracts of the case for the benefit of all please?

MR AVM has provided the basic information as above for which we are thankful to him.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-12-2008, 08:39 AM
Dear All concerned,

This is by way of confirmation/ for information:

1.On producing the certified details reg my scale of pay at the time of my retiremment in May 1997 from My erstwhile Deptt. to my bankers viz Bank of Maharashtra, Besant Ngr Br, Chennai 90, my pension has been fixed at half of the total of the minimum of the Pay Band 37400- 67000 ie Rs 37400 plus grade pay Rs10000 i.e. at Rs 23700 plus DR @16% on it as on date. (less commuted part).

THE ABOVE FIXATION IS IN TERMS OF THE OM of 14th OCT 2008 of DoP/PW.

2.Earlier I had already receive my pension based on OMs of 1st Sept/ 3rd Oct 2008 and also arrears thereof in Octobet itself, which was strictly as per the 2.26 formula.

3. Arrears now arising out of the second fitment or fixation are yet to be worked out and paid.

4.This is what Banks can do -so far as my case is concerned. May be in similar cases also by other banhs/ POs.

Any grievances has to be now addrssed in real/ individual terms to the authorities/ remedial channels.

vnatarajan

rama1948
04-12-2008, 10:43 AM
Mr.VN,
A friend of mine got his revised pension as per 14th Oct GO from SBI, Trivandrum Pension cell.This happened 2 days ago. He was at the top of 14300-400-18300, but was fixed at 23050/-. So some movement in this respect, at last.

Kanaujiaml
04-12-2008, 07:46 PM
Congratulations to Mr. V Natarajan on receiving the full pension. I have not received it so far but I have no doubt that it would be paid to my by SBI soon. Actually our fight is to get pension at 50% of minimum of pay in pay band + grade pay, which in your case would also, be higher by 3650+DR per month. I read with interest the arguments given by Natarajanji regarding pension. I fully agree with him. I may add one more point. In one of the honorable Supreme Court verdicts, it has clearly been stated that the pension is " deffered wages ". I would request Mr. Natarajan to kindly write a letter to editor of some repute english paper highlighting this matter for general information of general people. Also we can put it on rrewa site for information of everybody as I feel even all pensioners may also not be aware of this fact.
My dear Mr.Bala. I reached Gurgaon yesterday night but Mr. Maheshwari would be available tomorrow only. So I would meet him tomorrow. I would definitely inform you about it.
My e.mail id is kanaujiaml@yahoo.co.in
I can send format for appeal to PM for bringing parity to all pensioners.
Thanks for viewing. M. L. Kanaujia from Dehra Dun.

S.Balasubramanian
05-12-2008, 06:27 PM
Hi everybody!

I am sharing a few ideas gleaned from websites seen with google search re: pension.

1.PENSION IS DEFERRED WAGE:
"10.1.1. Any progressive organisation not only takes care of is employees during the service, but also provides for his sustenance after his retirement from active service. This is true not only of the organisation but also of countries. It is well known that in many developed nations, old age pensons are met by the state, and many countries, as they develop, are planning for the welfare of the aged, including pension payments. In India also, old age pensions have made an appearance--special concessions for the aged are also provided for in the shape of forgoing of incometax, choice of travel, and many other benefits. Any model employer of government therefore devises programmes for the not so active.
10.1.2. It is inkeeping with this principle that government service has an inbuilt provision for a pension scheme. Pension is not only considered a deferred wage but also a necessity in these days of continuous erosion in money values. Receipt of a regular amount every month also gives the recipient a certain amount of self respect and a standing in the society, as a person who is still capable of getting some money.
10.1.3.It is unfortunate that due to the exoplosive erosion in the value of money, the pension in real terms has been steadily reducing. We have shown in earlier paragraphs how the value of money has fallen, requiring a major effort even to stay afloat. This becomes true after retirement. The Fourth Central pay Commission has recognised this and consequently had recommended "which was implemented" that the pension be sepped up to half of last pay dawn. The time has now come to upgrade this."-Memorandum by Federation of Railway Officers' Assolciations to the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

More will follow.

S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
05-12-2008, 11:16 PM
This is in continuation of ideas on pension gathered from websites seen wth google.search.

2.PENSION IS DEFERRED SALARY: PARITY BETWEEN PENSIONErS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF RETIREMENT:
"The Supreme Court has held that pension is not a bounty but is deferred salary and is akin to the right to property.Pension is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to employees as on the date of retirement.
A Bench consisting of Justices S.B.Sinha and P.P.Narolekar set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment, which upheld a State Government's noification fixing different cut-off dates for pension benefits to teachers of government colleges and aided colleges. The Bench said the state while implementing a new scheme of pensionary benefits might deny the same to a class of retired employees, which was governed by a different set of rules.
The extension of the benefits could also be denied to a class of employees if the same was permissible in law. But in this case the State Government notification was opposed to the basic principles of law, inasmuch as by reason of executive instructions an employee could not be deprived of a vested or accrued right. Once employees became entitled to revised scales of pay and consequently to revised pension, there could not be difference in fixing the qualifying date, as it would be violative of Articles 14 (equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution. The State Government by the July 2000 notification fixed the pension for government college teachers with effect from January 1, 1996 and for aided college teachers from April 1, 1998."---Link Age (August 2008)
Monthly Journal of Senior Citizens Bureau, (A.O.) No,.B-30, 1st Floor, Anna Nagar (East), Chennai-600 102 (Ph: 26282018).

More to follow.

S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
05-12-2008, 11:53 PM
This is in continuation of the earlier post on ideas on pension gathered from website seen with google.search.

3.PENSION IS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(VIDE ARTICLE 366(17) OF OONSTITUTION:
"It is very unfortunate that the Finance Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State goes on parroting that the Government has to spend a substantial amount on payment of dearness allowance to its pensioners, giving an impression to all and sundry that the Government is offering doles to hem. This is not a truth. What the pensioner gets is his moral, legal and a constitutional right. It should be understood not only by the Finance Minister but his Director Codes) of the Finance Department who is hell-bent on creating hardships for the pensioners by his whimsical interpretations to the pension rules.
According to Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition, page 1134), pension means: "Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally,monthly) with the amount of wages or salary of pensioner. Deferred compensation for services rendered".
Aricle 366(17) of the Constitution of India says: "Pension means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any perosn, and includes pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereo, of subscriptions to a provident fund".
"Pension is a property" has been declared by our Honourable Courts.
Honourable Supreme Court of India held: "Pension is not a bounty payable at the sweet will of the Government (AIR 1973, SC 834; AIR 1983 SC 130 at 136).
The right to pension is a valuable right vested in a Government servant and is a property and cannot be withheld by a mere executive order. The courts have also held that the claim to pension is property under Article 19(1)(f) and not saved by sub-Article (5) of Article 10 (Even after 44 Amendment Act, 1978). It still remains protected as property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
In 1972, Honourable Mr Justice Ahamadi made an emphatic reassertion:
"The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by the Court time and again It is not charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for the past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution."---(All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 767).
The imporant and special status attached to pension is also underlined by decisions which go to show that once pension has been paid, the courts are reluctant to direct recovery of the same by the employer even though strictly speaking such payment was not in order or lawful. Hence recovery has been disallowed. (Refer S.V.Bhima Bhatia vs.State of Karnataka JT 1996
(2) SC 236).
It is, therefore, for the Finance Minisdter JK to desist from projecting the State pensioners as burden on the State exchequer. His Director (Codes) is well advised to apply his mind before issuing clarifications to certain pension rules which are always to the detriment of the pensioners. He should issue fresh interpreation to Article 242BB in view of the recent Government of India orders on the subject."--Predhuman Joseph Dhar, Jammu-Tawi:www.daiily excelsior.com/00feb07/mail.htm.

S.Balasubramanian
06-12-2008, 12:21 AM
This is also in continuation of ideas on pension.

4.PENSIONER IS DEEMED EMPLOYEE:
(a) It has been held by the courts that pension is deemed salary, that a pensioner is a deemed employee and the Department from which he has retired is the deemed employer.
Hence it follows that whenever any revision of pension takes place, his pay as a deemed employee has to be refixed notionally under such revision on that date, and then his revised pension should be refixed.
(b) There are cases in which the courts have rendered institution of departmental inquiry after issuing of chargesheet, even after the retirement of the person, holding that he is a deemed employee in regard to the commission of the alleged offence, and that such action is valid and can be taken.
(c) That a pensioner is a deemed employee had been conceded when for the first time, standard deduction given on salary of serving employees was extended also to pensioners in the year 1980.
(d) There is one very peculiar case where an officer of the Kerala State Electricity Board was not promoted duly while in service because of a stay order by the Kerala High Court. The stay was vacated after his retirement.
The officer preferred an appeal to the Kerala high Court that benefits should be given as if he had been promoted while in service, because it was due to no fault of his that he had not been promoted but because of the court order. The Kerala High Court upheld his contention and allowed his appeal, saying that it is never the intention of the court to do any harm to anyone.
The court ordered that the officer would be deemed to have been promoted first as Junior Accounts Officer and later as Accounts Officer, but as per the rule "No work, no pay" he would not get any arrears of salary in such promoted posts, but the pensionary benefits as if he had been promoted to those posts on the due dates would be granted to him.

These views establish the validity of the claim that when any upward revision of pay takes place, the notional pay of the pensioner in the pay scale of the post from which he had retired has to be fixed first and then the pension as due on that basis should be paid to him.

S.Balasubramanian.

Kanaujiaml
06-12-2008, 03:41 PM
My dear Mr. Bala and all pensioner friends. I met Mr. Maheshwari, General Seceretary, RREWA on 5th Dec.08. A few other pensioner friends were also present there. We discussed all matters relating pensioners and most important of them was, the issue of " VI CPC". Mr. Maheshwari told me that he and some other pensioners had a meeting with Officials of Department of Pension in the Ministry of Personnel. Finally, finmin has turned down even the proposal of persmin for removal of some disparity. It appears, finmin is bent upon not to listen to anything for removal of disparity. He further informed me that an anomolly committee has been set up to look into anomollies arising out of implementation of vi cpc recommendations. In conclusion, I can say that the Govt. is in no mood to listen to our demand of equality for all pensioners as brought out in honorable SC judgements. So, finally , we have no other alternative left except to go to the honorable Supreme Court, possibly, through a PIL. One of our active pensioner friend from Gaziabad, Mr. S K Agarwal, informed me on phone yesterday evening, that he has started consultation with an Advocate, seeking his view whether such petition would be maintainable. He is expecting reply in writting in due course of time. If reply is yes, we would need financial contributions. Mr. Maheshwari and rrewa would lead us if sufficient financial resources in the shape of contributions from willing pensioners, are available. Firstly and most importantly, willing pensioners have to become life members of RREWA by paying membership fee of Rs.300/=.This would authorise RREWA to represent us. Secondly, we should locate atleast twenty pensioners, who can contribute Rs. 5000/= each.I would await the reaction from all pensioners friends. Thanks.

rama1948
06-12-2008, 04:16 PM
can a central civil type pensioner become a member of RREWA?( this is to raise contributions for legal action). Also, look for smaller amounts from many members. It should be possible. I am willing to contribute.

vnatarajan
06-12-2008, 05:10 PM
Dear Shri Kanaujiami/ Shri Maheshwari

Pl. go ahead with the legal action arrangements.
I can mobilise a number of Pensioners to becoime members of RREWA and also- to contribute

Mr Rama's suggestion is also welcome.

Once we know the total likely expenses, we can try to optimise the contributions and no.of persons.

For becoming members of RREWA, pl. let me know the details- say ap. form; draft in whose favour/; and then I will folow up.

Many thanks for your initiative , Shri Maheshwari's efforts and Shri SKAgarwal's impending actions.

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
06-12-2008, 05:12 PM
Dear Mr Bala

Great untiring persistent efforts! Really commendable! Pl keep the leading light lit always! The glow makes our path clearer and clearer!

Regards

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
06-12-2008, 09:04 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujia, Mr Natarajan and other friends,
Many thanks for untiring efforts at mobilising opinion for a way out of the present constitutional infirmities of the Government OMs and the initiatives being thought of for taking up the matter in the Supreme Court. Legal opinion sought for has to be awaited as to the form in which the petition can be filed, whether it should be PIL, or Special Leave Petition, or a writ petition seeking the original jurisdiction of the apex court since it is a matter concerning violation of article 14, and one would wish for a petition which would be admissible and would result in a speedy disposal of the matter. Since the Supreme Court has again and again reiterated their consistent opinion all along, we can hope for a favourable judgment. Hope lies eternal in the human breast but whether everyone can see its fruition is anybody's guess and one can only sing the nursery rhyme "Kesara, kesara, it is not for us to see".
Can a pensioner who has never worked in the railways become a member of RREWA? Will the retired railway employees accept that proposition? Has other pensioners becoming members found a place in their memorandum of association? If so, the name will have to be changed to retired railway employees and civil pensioners welfare association. I am raising this point since in Lok Sabha Secretariat, there is a Lok Sabha Employees Association, but even pensioners from that secretariat cannot become members thereof.
In case there is any difficulty in membership, what matters most is the financial support needed for taking the case to court, and I for my part am willing to make whatever contribution is needed, member or no member.
When arrangements are finalised, I would like to know the quantum of contribution, in whose favour the cheque or draft should be drawn and the address to which it should be sent.
I was thinking whether one more avenue could be exhausted before approaching the court. Some Pensioners' Associations jointly could seek an appointment with the Prime Minister who is also Minister of Finance and impress upon him the constitutional infirmities from which the Government OMs suffer and seek redressal on the lines suggested by me in an earlier post regarding the amendments of para 4.1 and 4.2, in particular, of OM dated 1.9.2008. I feel that he would be sympathetic to the cause of pensioners and when it is a question of violation of Constitution, the chances are that he may give a fresh look. No doubt, it would be difficult to get any appointment with him, but no harm in exploring this also. I believe we should confine ourselves to just one point without allowing any sidetracking, and that would be for amendment of para 4.1 and 4.2.
Maybe, another group might meet him to argue the points about qualifying service and commutation formula.
From the Ministry of Shipping order for All India Port and Dock Pensioners, as published, I find that Mr M N Krishnamani, Supreme Court advocate had argued their case. He is Delhi-based. He is the president of the Delhi Tamil Sangam. He is in the news off and on in reard to its activities. I know also that he is a great devotee of the Kanchi Sankarachya Mutt. I do not know much about his legal standing. and the scale of fees etc. which he would charge. Some clarification might be had from the Port and Dock Pensioners' Association at Chennai. But the rumour some time back was that he was tipped for High Court judgeship, but he refused the same as being below his merit and the least he expected was elevation to the Supeme Court Bench. I am mentioning this just by way of a passing thought.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
07-12-2008, 09:23 AM
Dear Mr Bala,

Very many thanks for your thoughtful notings.

I tried to verify the point on membership of RREWA- I think we have to read the Artcles/ Bye-Laws etc of the RREWA. Or we may await the advice of Shri Maheshwari.

From what I cd understand is- (from their home page)- i tmay again be like the example you have cited- mainly for Indian Railways personnel (serving/ ex).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Membership fee Life membership Fee
Uptill December 2007 - Rs 250.00
From January 2008 - Rs 300.00 Yearly membership Fee
Rs 50.00

Associate membership Fee
Uptill December 2007 - Rs 250.00
From January 2008 - Rs 300.00 Associate member Associations Fee
Rs 500.00 (One time Fee)

Eligibility for Membership

Life members / Yearly members
All Pensioners / Retirees / Family Pensioners of Indian Railways

Associate Members
Serving Indian Railway Personnel due to retirement in next five years
(Associate membership will automatically be converted to life member ship on retirement)

Associate associations
All C.G. / Defense/ Railway pensioners associations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think all CG associations can become associate associations.
CAN ALL PENSIONERS (say of CG) BECOME LIFE MEMBERS? (Pl read first line) or only of INDIAN RAILWAYS?

regards

vnatarajan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.C.Maheshwari
07-12-2008, 03:22 PM
Dear friend,
RREWA membership Form is avilable on its website www.rrewa.org at the top of the home page towards right hand side.It can be filled there only.Details of bank a/c and electronic transter also given chque/draft payable to RREWA Gurgaon can be sent to General Secretary RREWA 490A/16 Gurudwara Road Gurgaon-122001.
While Rly pensioners can become regular life members others can join as Associate life members
regards
maheshwari

sundarar
07-12-2008, 04:48 PM
Grant in aid to implement personers portal by pensioners association
Quote:
Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
Dear All

Not much response I find!.
Collecting base data folowed by collection of copies of Reps. sent by various Associations/ Federations will be very useful and important to fight our cause concerning different sections of pensioners.
Let us all strain a bit more to get more data.
(I have updated by incorporating "Govt. Pensioners' Association, Dehara Dun" based on info furnished by Mr Kanaujiami).

vnatarajan
Respected Sir,

The Dy. Secretary, DoP&PW in his letter to the Pay & Accounts Officer, DoP&PW on 20.11.2008 has given a list of various Pensioners' Association while writing on the subject ` Web based Pensioners Portal - a Mission Mode Project under National e-governance Plan - Release of grant in Aid to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs plus to Pensioners Associations for implementation of portal for the current financial year. This letter, I have sent to you by E-Mail separately. I think this list as well as the contents of the Dy. Secretary's letter will be a beginning to integrate various associations to raise the various grievances on common platform, which the senior members like your goodself have been insisting for all along. Your attempts had never failed to achieve the results. It will be so in this matter also. Best wishes and Best Regards,

Sundarar.
sundarar is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

vnatarajan
07-12-2008, 05:16 PM
Dear Copensioners,

I thought I may find out a thumb rule check for all scales of pensioners who might suffer injustice- knowingly or unknowingly. Let me try.

People like Sundarar/Jitendra must chk and endorse.

Pl use the Annexure II for the pre-2006 scales and Pay Band numbers

Read serially:

Pre 2006 Pay scale//New Pay Band// Check for fixation if you had crossed this basic in Pre-2006 scale

S 5 PB 1 3200
S 6 PB 1 3370
S 9 PB 2 6050
S10 PB 2 5975

The above pensioners may perhaps check for fixation. For other scales also I shall try this rule to see where the fixation point starts (if the above figures are OK!)

Dear Mr Sundarar

Thank you once again for all your involvement/ suggestions/ guidances periodically which are very valuable.

Regards

vnatarajan

sundarar
07-12-2008, 07:27 PM
Dear Copensioners,

I thought I may find out a thumb rule check for all scales of pensioners who might suffer injustice- knowingly or unknowingly. Let me try.

People like Sundarar/Jitendra must chk and endorse.

Pl use the Annexure II for the pre-2006 scales and Pay Band numbers

Read serially:

Pre 2006 Pay scale//New Pay Band// Check for fixation if you had crossed this basic in Pre-2006 scale

S 5 PB 1 3200
S 6 PB 1 3370
S 9 PB 2 6050
S10 PB 2 5975

The above pensioners may perhaps check for fixation. For other scales also I shall try this rule to see where the fixation point starts (if the above figures are OK!)

vnatarajan

Dear Sirs,

Pay scale//New Pay Band///Minimum Pay in PB) Check for fixation if you had crossed this basic in Pre-2006 scalePre 2006 P

S 5 PB 1 3050 5880
S 6 PB 1 3200 6060
S 7 PB 1 4000 7440
S 8 PB 1 4500 8370
S 9 PB 2 6050 9300
S10 PB 2 5975 10230
S11 PB 2 5500 12090
S12 PB 2 6500 12090
S13 PB 2 7450 13860
S14 PB 2 7500 13950
S15 PB 2 8000 14880
S16 PB 3 9000 16740
S17 PB 3 9000 16740
S18 PB 3 10325 19210
S19 PB 3 10000 18600
S20 PB 3 10650 19810
S21 PB 3 12000 22320
S22 PB 3 12750 23700
S23 PB 3 12000 22320
S24 PB 4 14300 37400
S25 PB 4 15100 39690
S26 PB 4 16400 39690
S27 PB 4 16400 39690
S28 PB 4 16400 37400
S29 PB 4 14300 44700
S30 PB 4 18400 51850

Note: The Min. of PB are given in bold for PB 1 2 4. For PB 3 it is 15600.

The Pay Band Passenger Train upto PB-3 had become Rajdhani in respect of serving employees for onward journey to Pay Band 4 and even within PB 4 intermediately. At the same time in respect of pensioners of pre-2006 S-24 (PB-4) to S-30 (PB-4), the passenger has just become Fast Passenger with a very meagre escalation in 100s or so, as 50% of minimum PB.
only has been taken into account on par with other PBs of pensioners.

The pensioners who retired with max. qualifying service of 33 years or more from the scales of S-1 to S-23 may have to satisfy themselves with the fitment table. The parity achieved among pensioners with min. 10 years and the one who completed 33 years from a particular scale (for both) have been brought on the same platform by prescribing a revised minimum pension that has to be ensured. For the pensioners who retired from the scales of S-24 to S-30 the small increase is only to pay tax. Thus there is virtually no rejoice for them even out of Rajdhani or fast passenger. Virtually they are also as good as the very passenger with which PB-1 boarded the train. (Because my father was a Retd. Rly. Pensioner(and no more now) and I am from Rly. High School at Goldenrock, I always link with Rlys. - my breadawarder of my family till I secured employment).

UNLESS THE MINIMUM PAY IN THE PAY BAND DOES NOT MATTER IN GETTING THE REVISED PENSION TO BE ENSURED, THE ABOVE PARA IS THE REALITY.
SIMILARLY, THE POST-2006 (BUT PRE-SEP.2008) PENSIONERS ALSO BECAME NEITHER PRE-2006 TO ENSURE MINIMUM PENSION NOR POST-2006 PENSIONERS. MY VIEW IS WHEN THE RESOLUTION DO NOT SPECIFY THAT
DISPENSATION OF LINKAGE OF FULL PENSION WITH 33 YEARS SERVICE ONLY WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. IT IS THE SUBSEQUENT SECOND THOUGHT THROUGH O.M. WHEN THE O.M. IS TALKING OF MINIMUM PAY IN PB HOW ITS ANNEXURE CAN SPEAK ABOUT MIN. OF PB WHICH IS NOT A MATTER TO RELATE.

The ONLY REMEDY TO ENSURE PARITY (NOT MINIMUM PENSION)
among past present future pensioners, is to make 50% of last pay drawn at the time of retirement as full pension if a person has rendered max. qualifying service of 20 years or otherwise pro-rata. In case of any subsequent revision of pay with which the pensioner had retired for serving employees, the corresponding equal 50% of revised pay will be the revised pension. No separate table for pensioners is required unless special concessions keeping pensioners welfare is awarded. The fitment table of pay fixation in revised structure is sufficient to determine the corresponding revised pay to the pre-revised pay with which the individual has retired and 50% of the revised pay will become the pension. Same is the case for family pensioners also according to the pay drawn and the modalities of fixing the basic pension.
This should be made applicable for all living pensioners and family pensioners irrespective of the fact whether they are pre-1956/1966/1976/1986/1996/2006 and so on till the entire pension package is entirely different in future. Wherever the max. qualifying service is not there, pro-rata basis can be applied. As it is it may look like remotely possible. In case, the case is taken up for legal remedy, the Competent Authority (highest) may give their valuable Judgement as to why it cannot be possible at all. It is will that require to make the wish to fulfil. We are confident that our Hon. Finance Minister of date will kindly look into the aspect of modified parity among ALL PENSIONERS (PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE).


Further, I have two suggestions - if any mistake is there please excuse me.

1. Reg. Associate Membership of RREWA, the gconnect members can be thought of to consolidate and forward the form fees etc. through Pensioners Forum at Chennai instead of sending directly so that the Pensioners Forum at Chennai also can take note of the same. We can send the amount to Chennai who will be sending on consolidation. Those who do not know how to fill or how to approach, can move through pensioners forum at chennai. Pensioner's forum at Chennai may please peruse this suggestion and as a major co-ordinator with RREWA.

2. The Pensionersportal.gov.in website have displayed Updated Revised Pension Calculator (updated by 28.11.2008). To know the actual pension with arrears of 40% and 60%, our Members are requested to visit the website - http://pensionersportal.gov.in/PensionCalculators/RevisedPensionCalculator/RevisedPensionCalculator.asp

With best regards,

Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
08-12-2008, 02:49 PM
My dear Mr. Bala,Mr. vnatarajan, other pensioner friends. I put some suggestion to you on 6th Dec. on this string. Mr. SC Maheshwari happens to be Gen. Sec. of rrewa and he has clearly stated here that non railway pensioners can become Associate Life Members. However, nobody is forcing anybody to become member. As regards further legal action, I find nothing concrete is emerging. So, should we leave it as it is and close the matter ?

S.Balasubramanian
08-12-2008, 05:11 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujia/Mr Natarajan,
As regards membership of RREWA, people like me can only become associate members, not having been railway employees. In what respect does associate membership and regular membership differ? One would be curious to know it academically at least.
As regards the outcome of the meeting with Ministry officials, what has happened is what was expected and nobody expected a rabbit to emerge out of the bag! That was just one more hurdle to cross.
Sorry to learn that the initial enthusiasm for a redressal of the grievances
through various channels one after the other seems to be vanishing. Perhaps, it is a question of financial resources for legal action through the Supreme Court. I still believe that the required number of pensioners will be willing to share the burden, even though they may not see the result during their lifetime. But that should not deter us from taking the right course for seeking justice.
With persons like you to bell the cat, I think we should pursue the matter in right earnest, and move forward, if possible, before the curative petition likely to be filed materialises. We should have a rough idea of the
total expenditure likely to be involved, molbilise the required resources by inviting contributions, as expected from everyone, from at least the g-connect pensioners/RREWA pensioners/assolciate members joining RREWA and go ahead without much delay.
A suitable proforma may be prescribed for contribution to meet the legal expenses, and requests may be made to the pensioners as listed above
to make their contributions.
The bleak picture which appears to emerge about closure of the entire matter should not make the g-connect forum a mere chandookana or a casual blogsite to spend time away without achieving anything. I believe the forum should go beyond that, and help in mobilising men and resources to continue the battle for justice instead of its remaining a mere colllection of rhetorical and scholarly write-ups.
I am sure the Supreme Court which has reiterated the aspect of violation of Article 14 repeatedly right from 1973 will not hesitate to frown again at the Government OMs which almost amount to contempt of court.
However, in the meantime, as I had suggested in an earlier post, I believe we should exhaust one more channel, namely meeting the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to place before him the constitutional infirmities of the OMs and seek a remedy. If that fails, then the last option of seeking justice may be exercised.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
08-12-2008, 05:56 PM
Dear Mr Bala/ Mr Kanaujia/ Mr Naga/ Mr Sundarar/ Mr Sitaraman/Mr Sundaram/ all copensioners/ and vitally Mr Maheshwari and my friends PKR/ AVM/ARajagopalan/etc.

I am not sure how some apprehensions are being aired regarding going to court or otherwise.

Let us estimate the expenditure to have an idea to start with and money will find its way!

Once modalities are indicated for collection, then -from the pensioners of Geological Survey of India/ and its sister organisations like Central Ground Water Board etc, we will have nodal persons at few locales to mobilise their collections and keep ready for expenses. WE ARE ON THE JOB.

Becoming members of RREWA also is in the sight.

We have other associations also- including the Pensioners' Forum to join hands directly or indirectly (because it has a proportion of unaffected members also!).

Be assured we wil not hesitate to go to court- right now the scene is very much depending on Shri Kanaujia/ Shrii Maheshwari and other friends at Delhi/ Gurgaon to lead us/ advice us/ guide us.

To concretise the final strategy, we want the initial picture to emerge.

(Before that we -ie a good number of affected pensioners of our category from our group- are yet to get their 'mutilated' final pension from their respective banks and after that we will send our final representation cum notice to all authorities- give time- and then the court of course)

Regards

vnatarajan.

dnaga57
08-12-2008, 07:21 PM
I have become a life member of rrewa - no big deal as I am a retired Rly man anyhow.
I am willing to chip in, get contribution to the legal fund once the intention is firmed up. Count me in for getting atleast 5 contributors. Maybe many more.
To take this lying in is to betray our wives as their family pension hinges on this ( I am in it for the sake of my wife - leaving her to have a life style including charitable generosity she is used to - a lot more than her personal needs.
Also I feel the country's malaise has been putting up with injustice - like a frog being boiled in the pot.
My disadvantage is not being in Delhi- but I have quite a few friends there.
Let us not accept injustice- after all we have not even chains to lose !!!!!!

S.Balasubramanian
09-12-2008, 12:14 AM
Dear Mr Natarajan/Mr Sundarar/Mr dnaga/Mr Kanaujia
I am glad to see a shining ray of hope in your posts. Injustice has to be fought at all costs, and we must move onward with abundant hope especially when all the Supreme Court judgments right from 1973 onwards are in favour of our viewpoint. But as you have stated we must have a clear picture of the legal map before we plunge into the ocean.
It is strange that despite the OM of 14th October, some banks are still not giving effect to para 4.2 granting even the mutilated pension, despite the target date for finalising all payments before 30.11.2008. I do not know whether a complaint can be addressed to the concerned PAO or the CPAO
who is supposed to monitor the implementation, for quicker settlement of fixation and arrears.
I shall send you later my suggestions for amendment of para 4.1 and 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, which will remove all inequalities, between pensioners whose pay before retirment was below the maximum of each pre-revised pay scale, or above the maximum with stagnation increments, and thus put an end to constitutional infirmities. It is only those who drew the maximum of each pre-revised pay scale who draw the same pension, irrespective of date of retirement. I shall give a few illustrations later to establish my suggestion.
After various formulations, I find that my formulation will take care of all cases, and remove all inequalities which the present OMs have introduced.
But these will only remain on paper as at present, because the Ministry is in no mood to do anything and is perhaps busy preparing the curative petition.
S.Balasubramanian.

badri mannargudi
09-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Respected Senior Citizens and my dear friends,
It will be shocking if Govt is thinking in terms of filing Curative Petition.
While acknowledging the Govt's legal right to seek legal remedies, I am wondered at the irony that time of the serving officers is spent on this aspect and in all probability, those officers, after their superannuation, may be paying victims themselves in the event of such curative petition being allowed.
This is not to say that they (the serving officers) should not do their duty. One must appreciate the fact that a judgment Supreme Court at the first instance itself should seal the matter. But, still, the Review petition is filed. Fine. But when this Review petition is also dismissed, if the Govt (read, officers at the helm of affairs are) is thinking interms of filing Curative Petition, then one is at a loss for words to describe the Determination 9on the part of the govt) not to give a man his due.
When will the time come for the serving officers to hold the mantle for retired officers?
With regards,
Badri

sundarar
09-12-2008, 10:09 AM
Dear friend,
RREWA membership Form is avilable on its website www.rrewa.org at the top of the home page towards right hand side.It can be filled there only.Detais of bank a/c and electronic transter also given chque/draft payable to RREWA Gurgaon can be sent to General Secretary RREWA 490A/16 Gurudwara Road Gurgaon-122001.
While Rly pensioners can become regular life members others can join as Associate life members
regards
maheshwari

Dear Sir,

It appears from the Web Site that associate membership can be done only by serving railway employees and association members by all C.G./Defence Associations. As Shri V.N.jee had asked, whether individual
associate membership is possible? As an individual, I want to become associate membership. I am an SBI A/c holder. How to make payment online. I am a pro-rata pensioner from the Dept. of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India, and immediately got absorbed in its PSE on exercise of option. Kindly guide me in this regard.

Best Regards.

Kanaujiaml
09-12-2008, 11:26 AM
My dear Mr. Maheshwari. I would request you to kindly tell every one through this forum, without referring to rrewa.org website, the procedure for becoming associate life member and regular member of rrewa. Also pl. provide the Bank a/c number for depositing membership fee. Also, I would request you to kindly tell in brief the rights and duties of regular members and associate members. It appears, Govt. pensioners are very much willing to join rrewa and to fight in Supreme Court case of injustice done to all pensioners. I may add here that U.P. has also decided to adopt vi cpc. Other states would also follow. State pensioners are also going to suffer in the similar fashion. Our fight is focussed on only one aspect. Give us what vi cpc has given without any modifications. Give equal rights and treatment to all pensioners. Do not differentiate. We would succeed without doubt. Mr. Bala has suggested that a delegation of confedaration of all pensioners association, should try to seek PM's hearing and if permitted, aprise him our grievances particularly in the light of SC decisions in respect of pensioners.

vnatarajan
09-12-2008, 01:07 PM
Dear All

Action has been taken by RREWA which makes other aspiring CG pensioners to become their associates.

I had no hesitation and I had registered, on my own behalf
.
My copensioners/ affected members of PForum / my huge professional cirlcle of colleagues so affected, all over India are perhaps watching the progress thru this website/ postings and they may take their own decisions to join RREWA or otherwise.THOSE NEAR GURGAON CAN PERHAPS CALL ON the RREWA..

As many good Pensioners' Associations as possible could be encouraged to enhance their membership/functions if they are in a location and have a mature vision to progress to resolve critical situations as we face now! MANY SMALL ASSOCIATIONS CAN NOT/ WILL NOT HAVE MEANS & RESOURCES TO FIGHT THESE CASES IN COURTS.

RREWA is one of the earliest associations who had made the injustice/ parity remedy move ahead of others and they are aware of the situation. They are in a good location. Once they acquire the legal access, I think things should be on the even keel to mount our fight for justice.

Home page of RREWA- their Membership page- give the necessary details for interested viewers.

vnatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
09-12-2008, 01:51 PM
Dear all,
To clarify further I am pasting relevent portion of revised RREWA Brochure



Revised Brochure

Retired Railway Employee’s Welfare Association (Regd.)
Registration No. 1213 of 1996
Sneh- Seva- sheyog
( Love- Service – co-operation)

Web sites : www.rrewa.org & www.karmayog.org/ngo/RREWA/-
Address : e mail &phones
490A/16 Gurudwara Road. Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana)
Registered office 698/7U.E. Gurgaon
Tele:- 2302262,Er. S.C.Maheshwari
General Secy. RREWA 09868488199,09911663100, Tele fax :0124 2302262
E mail:-
Pensioner77@yahoo.com



Membership fee

Life membership subscription from Jan. 2008= Rs 300
Yearly membership subscription=
Rs 50.00
Associate membership subscription from Jan. 2008 = Rs 300 (one time)
Associate member Associations subscription = Rs 500(one time)
Eligibility for member ship :-
Life members/yearly members =All pensioners/Retirees/family pensioners of Indian Railways
Associate Members = Serving Indian Railway Personnel due to retire in next five years {Associate membership will automatically be converted to life member ship on retirement}. Retirees of all other departments like C.G, PSUs, Defence, State govt. & Local bodies and also all the Sr.Citizens can join as Associate members
Associate associations = All C.G. /Defense/Railway pensioners associations
Note:- For the present Associate Members will not have right to vote in the election of office bearers.
Note: A Cheque / Draft For Rs 300/- only should be drawn in the favour of "RREWA, Gurgaon". For Out station cheques unless payable at par, please add additional Rs. 50 towards clearance charges. Cash / Cheques can also be deposited in S.B. A/c No. 00712010049910 of Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) under advise to General Secretary. For electronic tranfer of money to RREWA S.B. A/c. No. 00712010049910 use IFSC Code of OBC Bank :-
ORBC 0100071.
General Body RREWA reserves the right to revise member Ship fee as and when deemed necessary

Postal address :- 490A/16 Gurudwara Road .Gurgaon (Hr)-122001



Member Ship form
Is available on web site www.rrewa.org under the Button “Membership” located at the top of the home page to wards right side


Note :- 1.For full Brochure pl. give ur email address 2. Neccessary correction will shortly be done on the web page also 3. process for incorporation of provisions in the constitution as per revised brochure (approved by G.B.)is in progress.
Maheshwari

S.Balasubramanian
09-12-2008, 03:15 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan/Mr Kanaujia/Mr Maheshwari/other friends,
I am happy to find that the process of increasing the membership, associate or otherwise, is gathering momentum, as a prelude to contributions for the legal process which has become almost inevitable and I hope that in due time the inevitable will materialize. Meanwhile, sharing/exchange of ideas has to continue which will lead to a comprehensive approach to the fight.
May God give you all the mental strength and courage to take the next step forward at the appropriate time wholehearedly and without any lurking mental reservations or apprehensions! My support as a small fry is always available for such things as I am capable of doing.
With regards to all,
S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
09-12-2008, 03:33 PM
Dear Shri Badri Mannargudi,
You have given vent to your feeling of shock at the way in which the Ministry of Pensions is behaving and I am sure those who had met the officers of the Ministry of Pensions would have experienced it first hand.
The Ministry of Law and Justice would certainly have been in the picture in regard to the filing of the appeal, review petition and the proposed curative petition. I wonder whether one could also think of a small delegation of pensioners meeting the Law Minister specially to place before him once again
the constitutional infirmities from which the OMs suffer and seek his intervention as Law Minister to uphold the Constitution and to cure the
infirmities. If he also says he is not concerned and it is for the Ministry of Pensions, that would confirm once again how the Ministry of Pensions is making the wind blow.
This thought struck me and so I am sharing it with all.
S.Balasubramanian.

S.C.Maheshwari
09-12-2008, 05:19 PM
Friends,
Sh. S.K. Agarwal Retired CCS E. Rly one of the active life members of RREWA had been attempting to mobilize affected officers & consulting legal experts at Delhi has asked me to convey, to fellow pensioners the following message.

“ It is learnt that our petitions are under active examination by the Ministry of finance but matter being confidential nothing is certain, we are also examining whether legal remedy would be possible, for the present we may continue to send representations & reminders”

In case some of you like to contact Mr agarwal, his phone No. is 011-2230 3517 Mob: 09871308643
Postal address: - S.K. Agarwal, IRTS. Retd. Chief Commercial Superintendent.
Eastern Railway. Q-401.Anupam Apartments, East Arjun Nagar . Delhi-110032

Unfortunately Mr Agarwal does not have email address
Maheshwari

vnatarajan
09-12-2008, 05:39 PM
Dear All

Pl do not get disheartened or expect immediate solutions to follow. Wherever one feels a ray of light,an approach has to be made.We should if possible meet authorities who matter. Results? Dont bother. For eg. we had suffered a shocking setback in a seniority case even after one of our reps./his lawyer had the privilege of deposing in the Judge's chamber and getting a very encouraging hearing- only to find a result which was exactly opposite of what had to come! What happened wiithin 12 hours, GOD (if there was/ is one) only knows!

IT IS OUR DUTY TO TRY & TRY &TRY.......... LET US SUCCEED IF IT IS WILLED TO BE SO! OTHERWISE COURT IS THERE TO SETTLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

I HAVE NEVER LOST MY FIGHTS FOR JUST ENTITLEMENTS-MIND THAT IN SPITE OF MY NOT GETTING PROPER SENIORITY, ALL INCLUDING ME - MY THEN COPETITIONERS/ MY RESPONDENTS WERE ALL PROMOTED TO THE SAG LEVELS ALMOST AT THE SAME TIME -
(This was possible because, enough posts of SAG level were created through CADRE REVIEW- a strategy I could concieve and achieve- as I was entrusted with the responsibility of drafting it and steering it through (For this I have knocked at the doors of DOP at least more than a dozen times!). We remained equals on promotion to SAG level though our individual seniority remained a dispute!- None lost anything- but now????

WE WERE/ARE VERY GOOD FRIENDS IN LIFE ALL THROUGH!

IRONY OF LIFE IS-SOME OR MOST OF THEM ARE/WOULD BE PERHAPS FIGHTING THIS BATTLE ALONG WITH ME! WE ARE TOGETHER AGAIN!

Normally all human beings become one and the same after their demise- when their bodies are reduced to ashes! But here the DOP/PW & MOF & GOI etc are adopting a shortcut!

Regards,

vnatarajan


WHEN I WAS POSTING THIS NOTING< MR MAHESHWARI"S JUST OVERTOOK MINE!
GOOD OMEN?
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
09-12-2008, 07:32 PM
My dear Mr.Maheshwari. Thank you for giving details for membership. I believe, rrewa byelaws are under revisioning to allow voting rights also to associate members. Am I right about it ? Not that this is necessary at this juncture. What is essential is that we have a large membership in order to show it to Govt. when time comes. My second proposal is that we may try to seek hearing with PM. At least a letter can go to PMO about it requesting such hearing in the light of representation sent by rrewa to PM.

S.Balasubramanian
09-12-2008, 11:46 PM
Dear Mr Maheshwari,
Your last post keeps 'the hope alive in the human breast'. There is a Parliamentary Pay Committee, which, with its terms of reference which are published in the bulletin of the two Houses, can suggest changes in the Government orders on pay commission's reommendations, and submit their report to Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha. Of course, the report will not become public, but the action taken within the two Secretariats would certainly become public, and surely such changes would also have to be made by Government. The proceedings of the committee being privileged, not much can be spoken about them. It is understood that the associations of employees of the two Houses had appeared before them and had also raised pensionary issues. In all probability, Mr Chidambaram, who was a Member of it as Finance Minister would have noted points and sent them to the Ministry for examination. I do not know how his change of portfolio would alter the situation. Let us wait and see. Meanwhile, efforts at mobilisation of membership and cogitations/consultations in regard to the legal process may go on, so that adequate resources could be had for the legal process if and when it becomes necessary. As the phrase goes, 'Talk peace but keep the powder dry'.
S.Balasubramanian

S.Balasubramanian
10-12-2008, 12:13 AM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
When I read your last post, I felt really sorry for the agonising career you have had. Such things happen in the lives of most people and I have also had to go through similar experiences. Anyhow, try to forget the past and live the present in a useful manner.
There is a small poem on two sets of footprints which a person was seeing when he was walking in life's journey. Suddenly he found there was only one set of footprints, and he felt that God had forsaken him and therefore started praying to God and asking Him why He had left him in the midsea. God replied to him that so long as he was able to manage things with his capablities, He was just following him, but the moment he encountered problems on the way, He lifed him on his shoulders and was carrying him forward, and the single set of footprints that were seen were His only.
God is always there to help well-meaning individuals who never think of doing any harm to anyone. As Krishna says in the Bhagavadgita, He takes the burden of his devotees who constantly think of Him, on Himself. As Tennyson puts it, 'More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of'. Let us therefore constantly pray to him and always keep ourselves engaged in good action, without expectations of fruits of such action. This will keep our life's ship going on an even keel for God is always there to weather the occasional storms.
This post may appear somewhat philosophical, but I believe it will help in seeing things over which we have no control, in the proper perspective and help to keep the mind free from tension and worry. I hope this will free you from the agonising reminisences of the past.
With regards,
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
10-12-2008, 03:28 AM
Dear Mr Bala
I made a mention of the seniority issue only for an example to sustain one's efforts in all the possible manners to achieve the objective. One must work hard and desrve.
I work hard and I make others also work- that had been my approach.
If I dont get the fruits for myself- others do and DID get it.
Sorry to deviate and bore all!
We shall proceed by steps- as also conveyed to me by Shri SKAgarwal,a very senior pensioner of Railways- and let us see how things shape up.WE SHALL MOBILISE & CONSOLIDATE OUR UNITY. We must be recognised as a well-meaning societal force, fighting for justice.
I WISH OUR HON'BLE PM (who is also our FM) GIVES A PATIENT AND SYMPATHETIC HEARING FOR US.
Regards and Thanks.
vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
11-12-2008, 03:22 PM
Dear All,

From my side, as the starter of this thread, I feel highly gratified that I won lots of friends who without knowing me, have been encouraging me and also sending emails pledging their supports in all forms for the fight. I do not know how , when and in what fashion things will shape up. Till the postings reached a century in no., ie upto pages 11, we had been consolidating our views and precedences on parity related issues etc. Thereafter, suggestions started in terms of some actions.

A few important observations/suggestions in this regard are listed here (mostly from recent to backwards- ie from page 14 backwards…)

1.“ It is learnt that our petitions are under active examination by the Ministry of finance but matter being confidential nothing is certain, we are also examining whether legal remedy would be possible, for the present we may continue to send representations & reminders” posting by Shri S C Maheshwari, RREWA.

2. There is a Parliamentary Pay Committee, which, with its terms of reference which are published in the bulletin of the two Houses, can suggest changes in the Government orders on pay commission's reommendations, and submit their report to Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha. Of course, the report will not become public, but the action taken within the two Secretariats would certainly become public, and surely such changes would also have to be made by Government. Posting by Shri S Balasubramanian

3. Meanwhile, efforts at mobilisation of membership and cogitations/consultations in regard to the legal process may go on, so that adequate resources could be had for the legal process if and when it becomes necessary. Posting by Shri S Balasubramanian

4. the Supreme Court judgments right from 1973 onwards are in favour of our viewpoint. But as you have stated we must have a clear picture of the legal map before we plunge into the ocean. Posting by Shri S Balasubramanian

5 …. the initiatives being thought of for taking up the matter in the Supreme Court. Legal opinion sought for has to be awaited as to the form in which the petition can be filed, whether it should be PIL, or Special Leave Petition, or a writ petition seeking the original jurisdiction of the apex court since it is a matter concerning violation of article 14, and one would wish for a petition which would be admissible and would result in a speedy disposal of the matter Posting by Shri S Balasubramanian

6. what matters most is the financial support needed for taking the case to court-Posting by Shri S Balasubramanian

7. whether one more avenue could be exhausted before approaching the court. Some Pensioners' Associations jointly could seek an appointment with the Prime Minister who is also Minister of Finance and impress upon him the constitutional infirmities from which the Government OMs suffer and seek redressal on the lines suggested by me in an earlier post regarding the amendments of para 4.1 and 4.2, in particular, of OM dated 1.9.2008 Posting by Shri S Balasubramanian

8. From the Ministry of Shipping order for All India Port and Dock Pensioners, as published, I find that Mr M N Krishnamani, Supreme Court advocate had argued their case. Some clarification might be had from the Port and Dock Pensioners' Association at Chennai. Posting by SHri S Balasubramanian.

9. go ahead with the legal action arrangements.I can mobilise a number of Pensioners to become members of RREWA and also- to contribute Shri V Natarajan

10. RREWA membership Form is avilable on its website www.rrewa.org at the top of the home page towards right hand side.It can be filled there only.Detais of bank a/c and electronic transter also given chque/draft payable to RREWA Gurgaon can be sent to General Secretary RREWA 490A/16 Gurudwara Road Gurgaon-122001.
While Rly pensioners can become regular life members others can join as Associate life members

Retirees of all other departments like C.G, PSUs, Defence, State govt. & Local bodies and also all the Sr.Citizens can join as Associate members
Associate associations = All C.G. /Defense/Railway pensioners associations

For the present Associate Members will not have right to vote in the election of office bearers. Postings by Shri S C Maheshwari, Gen. Secy, RREWA.

IT WILL BE CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS/POSTINGS, WE MAY HAVE TO CONSOLIDATE OUR POSITIONS FIRMLY.

Points to keep in view.

1.Individual actions by repeated reps./ registering grievances.
2.Similar collective reps./registering grievances by associations/ fedrations etc
3.Seeking appointment with Honble PM/ FM to present our grievances in person by few Federations/ Associations.
4.Awaiting the outcome of the Review/ Curative Petition of the SPS Vains case which will be a pointer for legal planning the legal process.
5.Legal opinion that is awaited reg. PIL/SLP/WP? after that Legal process planning ( type/expert/ scope/content/resource required)
6.Parliamentary Pay Committee outcome- can we get info. About content/ outcome.
7.RREWA membership individuals as they may feel.
8.Resources – mobilize- keep ready-

Caution:

1,ANY LEGAL PROCESS OF THE TYPE THAT HAS HAPPENED (eg recent- SPSVains) may take few years/ decade also. OUTLAST SOME AGED PENSIONERS? GOVT. RESISTANCE RESULTS IN DELAYING JUSTICE!
2.SUCH LEGAL PROCESS ALSO ARE PROHIBITIVE IN COST NOWADAYS AND THEREFORE INVOLVEMEN OF A LARGE GROUP IS NECESSARY. LARGE GROUP MAY MEAN WIDE CANVAS UNLESS "ISSUE" IS FOCUSSED. SAY FOCUS ON PARA 4.2 AS A MEASURE OF JUSTICE TO ALL?
3.INVOLVEMENT OF A LEADER ASSOCIATION LIKE RREWA (because of the location also) WILL BE INEVITABLE.
(4.WHAT IF THE COURT SHUNTS BY MAKING DEPARTURES TO SUGGEST_ go to CAT first etc?- pardon me if my qn is wrong)

(I SHALL HAVE SOME BREATHING TIME NOW TO DRAFT & DESPATCH MY FINAL REP. & NOTICE TO THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. I HOPE ALL MY FRIENDS ALSO MAY BE DOING THIS)

Pl keep the fire burning.

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
12-12-2008, 10:20 AM
Dear All

Representations/ petitions must continue by one and all. Some associations like Railways Pensioners' Samaj, Tambaram, Chennai have given reminder/ rejoinder.

OTHER ASSOCIATIONS/FEDERATIONS etc can follow their example to build up a sense of urgency and continued efforts.

Details are available in the RREWA site.

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
12-12-2008, 01:05 PM
copied below is the extract of 5CPC recommendations which may be of interest;

Copying has come in the table format. Please parden me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement Benefits
Pension
Recommendation
(Ref. To paragraph of the Report given in brackets) Decision of Government OM issued with no. and date
(1) (2) (3)
(i) There should not be any ceiling on the amount of pension admissible and the present ceiling on a pension of Rs. 4500/- p.m. should be removed. (133.74) Accepted to the extent that the ceiling on the amount of pension will be 50% of the highest pay in the Government 45/86/97-P&PW(A)-Part I date 27.10.97 45/10/98-P&PW(A) date 17.12.98.
(ii) The pension of all the pre-1986 retirees may be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1986 by adopting the same formula as for the serving employees. Thereafter, all the past pensioners who have been brought on the Fourth CPC pay scales by notional fixation of their pay and those who have retired on or after 1.1.1986 can be treated alike regarding consolidation of their pension as on 1.1.1996 by allowing the same fitment weightage as may be allowed to the serving employees. However, the consolidated revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. (137.14) Accepted to the extent that pension of all pre 1.1.96 retires including pre-86 retires shall be consolidated as on 1.1.1996 as recommended, but the consolidated pension shall be brought on to the level of 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) dated 10.02.98 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17.12.98
(iii) Pending revision of the pension of pre-1.1.1986 retires, the pensioners should be provided immediate relief by authorising pension disbursing authorities to consolidate the pension by adding basic pension, personal pension wherever admissible, dearness relief as on 1.1.1996 on basic pension only, interim relief (I & II) and 20% basic pension. The consolidated pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum revised pay in the pay scale recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. (137.15) Accepted with the modification that 40% of the basic pension shall be added while consolidating the pension as on 1-1-1996 but the pension consolidated as on 1-1-96 shall be raised to 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) Part-II date 27.10.99 45/10/98-P&PW(A) date 17.12.98

1. Salient Recommendations of 5th CPC on Retirement Benefits.


Department of Personnel and Training
Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances.

This site is Designed, Developed & Hosted by NIC / NICSI

vnatarajan
15-12-2008, 12:01 PM
Dear All

This is to inform you all that the Grievance Portal of Deptt of Pension/ Pensioners Welfare could be easily accessed by me this morning around 11 AM through RREWA website- as earlier guided by Shri Maheshwari- and I could register my grievance on the disparity issue related to my pension fixation by Bank.

Your Grievance may be pruned to 4000 characters say 200 to 250 words at the maximum- without overloading the Grievance inset box(not including the initial personal details) and avoid upper case characters like apostrophes (" ' etc).

I hope Shri Maheshwari will now help all of us for a speedy processing. My thanks are to him for his continued interest.

vnatarajan

RPGoswami
15-12-2008, 08:09 PM
I posted a message on this subject wonder how long it would take to make it to the board/ Can some one kindly let me know at my email rg38@in.com? Thanks

badri mannargudi
15-12-2008, 09:09 PM
I posted a message on this subject wonder how long it would take to make it to the board/ Can some one kindly let me know at my email rg38@in.com? Thanks

Dear friends,
Shri Goswamijee may have by now discovered the simple procedure for having his reviews/message posted.
I look forward to seeing Shri Goswamijee's original post that missed print(read, jumped the post).

With regards,
Badri.

vnatarajan
15-12-2008, 09:17 PM
Dear Mr Goswami

If you had posted your previous message in the same way as the above one, it must have been on the screen earlier than the current one!

Sometimes- may be for editorial reasons it doesn't find its place on the screen!

My message-once I think disappeared- may be it was a bit undemocratic.

Similar things happen in many "Social Network" sites- as you may be aware- and in some of them if the readers "Flag" some postings, the same disappear all of a sudden.

Hope your posting finds it away to the screen soon. Otherwise, you can edit (I mean moderation if required) and post it again.

I AM IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH GCONNECT or ITS BOARD!

(Suddenly Mr Badri's message preceded mine- and he is also correct)

vnatarajan

sundarar
15-12-2008, 09:44 PM
Dear Sir,

The following three rules are significant to draw attention of the authorities.

1. Rule 3(5) of CCS (RP) Rules - Pay in the Pay Band means the Pay drawn in the RUNNING Pay Bands specified in Col. 5 of the First Schedule.

2. Rule 13(i) of CCS (RP) Rules - One increment.... However, if the PAY in the Pay Band after adding the increment is less than the MINIMUM of the Higher Pay Band (The word `Pay' is missing after the word `Minimum') to which promotion is taking place, PAY in the pay band can be stepped to such minimum. (For example, if a person was fixed at Rs.4000 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 on promotion on 1.4.2008, his pay in the pay band need not be stepped to Rs.5200 which is the minimum of Pay Band, but to be stepped upto 7440 which is the minimum pay in the pay Band)

3. Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 - The revised pension cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of Pay Band + GP under col.8. (Here too, the word `Pay' is missing after the word `minimum').

4. The fitment Table also indicates as PAY IN THE PAY BAND for arriving the basic , THEN WHAT IS THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND. That is the minimum pay in the running pay band.
The Pay Band in general is nothing like scale of pay, and it is only an identification. In the scale of pay, if we see the minimum pay it will be the starting point of the scale. But in the Pay Band the case is entirely different because of the definition `Pay in the running pay band'. Pay Band and Running Pay Band - To be seen in letter and spirit.
Taking into account all the above points, it is seen that Minimum Pay in the Pay Band is the Pay drawn in the Running Pay Band as per the definition itself.(The Minimum Pay in the Running Pay Band. In the case of S-29, it will be Rs.44700 and, with GP, it is Rs.54700 and thereby the minimum revised pension to be ensured is 27350 and nothing less than that). Same yardstick for any other scale also.

Minimum of Pay Band is applicable only for direct recruits, where such minimum has been exclusively prescribed with reference to the GP admissible.

Further, the para 4.2 does not specify requirement of 33 years for such a 50% of sum of minimum of PB + GP. Once an employee is allowed to retire with pension prior to 1.1.2006 or 1.9.2008, the minimum revised pension that has to be ensured shall be arrived at only to the extent of 50% of Minimum Pay in the Running Pay Band + GP without any requirement of any reduction pro-rata w.r.t. no. of years service rendered.

The battle lies in between Pay in the Pay Band and Pay Band, and the matter requires immediate attention of the concerned Authorities.

I submitted my views on this matter, and incidentally, I am also an aggrieved person in this regard. Hope further clarification after seeing all our views, will be arriving soon.

Best regards.

Dear Sirs, I thought of replaying this `Mother Thread' in my mind, which had more than 5000 views and responded with 142 replies crossing 15th page, to know the situation (as I entered only on 30.10.2008 in this thread that was started by Shri VN on 7.10.2008) where we stand.

There was a time we thought that 50% of sum of the minimum Pay in the Pay Band as against minimum of PB will be more beneficial as revised pension.
Whereas, today there is an O.M. that prescribes 50% of last pay drawn in the revised structure will be full pension subject to max. q.s. of 33 years, in respect of personnel retired in the revised structure before Sep.2008.

Had the post-Aug. 2008 retirees/serving employees are not allowed
max. q.s. of 20 years service for full pension, nobody would have thought of making any suggestion to make it allowable in the case of rest of the pensioners also, whether it is pre-Sep.2008, pre-2006, pre-1996 as the case may be. However, one category has been allowed. In that case, the rest will also expect PARITY among the pensioners of all times as a whole.


At the outset, how the 50% basis has been arrived at for Pensioners.
When an employee can lead his life with dependent family members out of his 100% earnings at a particular point of time, on retirement 50% of his earnings is considered bare minimum required to run the family without employment. (It may please be noted that all Pensioners are becoming
dependent family member on the one who was dependent of the pensioner when he was an employee and all dependent members are not conveniently placed economically the moment the employee retires from Service).
Keeping all these things, the 50% factor found to be reasonable for pensioner as long as a serving employee is provided with 100%. When the employee's earnings get revised over a period of 10 years through Pay Commission (not by promotion - as we are not expecting the retired pensioner also deemed to have been promoted and accordingly his pension should have been notionally arrived on such promoted pay), the 50% basic pay that determined basic pension should also get revised to 50% of revised basic pay that constitutes revised basic pension or by application of the formula arrived at based on
various factors considered by the Pay Commission, whichever is beneficial.
Apart from the pay/pension factor in revised condition, any other revised rule having a bearing on calculation of revised pension for retirees of post-revision era, the retirees of pre-revision era shall also given equal benefit on par with the later.

In the instant S-29 and S-30 cases, let us take an example,

Person A: (S-29)
B.P. on 1.1.2003: 18400
Dt. of Retirement : 31.1.2003 with 33 years qualifying service
Pension (Basic) : 9200 Pension (Revised by multiplying 2.26) = 20792
Min. Pension to be ensured based on 50% of sum min. of BP+GP=23700
Min. Pension to be ensured based on 50% of sum of min. Pay in PB+GP=27350

Incase, the 50% of Pay undergoes revision from 1.1.2006, then the revised pay will be 54700 and 50% of the same will be 27350
(So, the pension will be beneficial to him will be from 50% of sum of min. Pay in PB+GP/fixation of revised pension based on revised pay = 27350)

Person B: (S-29)
B.P. on 1.1.2003: 22400
Dt. of Retirement : 31.1.2003 with 33 years qualifying service
Pension (Basic) : 11200 Pension (Revised by multiplying 2.26) = 25312
Min. Pension to be ensured based on 50% of sum min. of BP+GP=23700
Min. Pension to be ensured based on 50% of sum of min. Pay in PB+GP=27350

Incase, the 50% of Pay undergoes revision from 1.1.2006, then the revised pay will be 61850 and 50% of it will be 30925
(So, the pension beneficial to him will be by fixation of revised pension based on revised pay=30925).

Here, in the absence of making 50% of last pay drawn for basic pension and corresponding 50% revised pay as revised pension, both pensioners one with minimum of pre-revised scale and the one who retired with maximum of pre-revised scale, will be receiving the same 27350.

Person C: (S-29)
B.P. on 1.10.2008: 18400 Revised Pay: 55620
Dt. of retirement : 31.10.2008 with 20 years service
Basic Pension: 27810

Person D: (S-29)
B.P. on 1.10.2008 : 22400 Revised Pay: 61270
Dt. of retirement: 31.10.2008 with 20 years service
Basic Pension: 30635

1. Who is standing with more benefit under the extant orders?
- Person C and D who are drawing 27810 and 30635 pension OR
- Person A and C who are drawing only 27350.

2. Who will stand benefitted more if all pensioners are uniformly treated
on par with post-Sep. 2008 retirees?
- Person A will get 27350 (retired at min. of pre-revised scale)
- Person B will get 30925 (retired at max. of pre-revised scale)
- Person C will get pension 27810 (which is more than Person A)
- Person D will get pension 30925 (which is more than Person B)

Here, at Sl.No.2 above, both the qualifying service rendered as well as
Hard Pay earned by individual (for any type) has a corresponding impact in determining the revised pension and more than that, the Modified Parity aimed at cannot be questioned here by anyone. This yardstick applied to all pay scales. While there may not be much enhancement when a person retired at minimum of pre-revised scale, the pay earned more than such min. will have corresponding effect.
Wherever, the q.s. is less than 20 years, pro-rata basis on par with present retirees can be extended in line with the Resolution/O.M.

It is not Mini. pay in the pay band, but the last pay drawn when correspondingly get revised on par with serving employee to determine 50% of such revised pay to prescribe as revised pension and with 20 years or pro-rata q.s., the retirees who drew pre-revised poorly placed payscales of the yester years will get some fruit to consume atleast belatedly.
So, the S-30 or any scale can be fit into respective workable example and the position will become clear as above.

Lord Shri Krishna has told that in Tamil Months, he is preferring to be
the month of MARGHAZHI, which starts tomorrow. Shri Andal has taken
Vrath by reciting Daily a song for 30 days and that is `THIRUPPAVAI' to
get the blessings of Shri Krishna and thereby attaining her own target.
Keeping this in view, I request one month Compensatory Off from the
Discussion Forum for a period upto 14.1.2009 and I will be joining after recouping myself with a hope and wish to share the sweet news of Pongal O.M.s removing all discrepancies/grievances by then for congratulating all ourselves.
I am always available at nsr2k6@yahoo.co.in however.
Thanks of 2008 and Welcoming 2009 from now onwards please. Approval is deemed to have been accorded by all of our Forum Members.
Best Regards.

S.Balasubramanian
15-12-2008, 11:50 PM
This has reference to Mr S K Agarwal's communication (post No.129)that all petitions are under examination by the Ministry. One was hoping that something favourable might emerge, but by the latest order in regard to qualifying service, dated 11.12.2008, the Ministry has confirmed their earlier decision with no favourable change. That signifies that nothing favourable is going to emerge from any petitions, and the only way out is the legal process, though cumbersome and time-elongated. This may be kept in view by all pensoners.
S.Balasubramanian.

RPGoswami
16-12-2008, 04:24 PM
There is some thing strange. It clearly shows i am logged in I type the messaage and click submit reply button and get nsg you are not logged in. So I give up .

vnatarajan
16-12-2008, 04:37 PM
Dear Mr Goswami,

Pl dont get disheartened.
Pl look at the top right of the FIRST PAGE of the thread you want to browse/ put up postings.

Pl type name and password correctly- once more- of you have already tried- but do it slowly- (tick the 'REMEMBER ME" button so that in future you may not have to login everytime).

In case a positive (Thank You) message appears, you will have np problems. You are logged in correctly. Then the typed postings will not disappear!

On the contrary,if the error message on user id/ PW appears, try to register ask for new password etc and you will not fail.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
16-12-2008, 04:59 PM
My dear Mr. Bala and other friends. I completely agree with you. However, we have to wait and see for some time more. In the meantime, explore other avenues.Actually I am still away from my home and am at present, at Delhi. As far as I could make out,from my meagre resources, curative petition in SPS Vense case has not come up, to my best knowledge. They cannot keep Lt. Generals and Major Generals continuing drawing lesser pension than the Brigadiers, for very long time now. One thing I would like to point out that past pensioners are in hot soup and nothing has changed. Any wishfull thinking, therefore, need to be corrected, by senior members.Thank you.

Kanaujiaml
16-12-2008, 06:20 PM
I have just received an e. mail from Mr. R P Mohan from Chandigarh. He says that 17th Dec.08 is pensioners day, which they are celebrating at Chandigarh, where about 200 pensioners are expected to collect. A format has also been prepared to distribute amongsts pensioners. He has enclosed the format as an attachment , which unfortunately, I am unable to download. I thought I must share this information with all my pensioners friends.

vnatarajan
16-12-2008, 06:37 PM
Dear Mr K and all

Nice to share the info on latest developments.
Let us continue in the meantime with our reps. and grievance reporting/ reminders.
I also wish Mr SKAgarwal gives some idea about PIL or otherwise soon. Shri SCM may be in a position to be in touch with him
Chandigarh meeting of pensioners may throw some light on the situation.

Problem of the whole situation is many senior pensioners' pension fight is starting after a decade of transigence. Ie had they been affected in 1996-5CPC- actions cd have been more aggressive.

It is a pity now many affected are 70 + or - and not 60 + or -! This makes a lot of difference.

It is criminal that Govt. is taking advantage of the AGE factor - expecting that the "spent force" including the sr Army officers will not be able to fight- NOT in terms of legal issues - but 'the TIME factor!'

Nevertheless we are taking the steps - with confidence. Though we and the Govt are not on the same level-playing ground.

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
16-12-2008, 10:46 PM
The latest in the series of rejections of petitions is the rejection of the demand of armymen for one-rank and one-pension. One more rejection, namely the representation in regard to the new commutation table can be expected any moment by way of clarification of the earlier OM. All may not be personally affected. But as a class or as a family of pensioners we shall all feel this type of behaviour on the part of the Ministry and we shall await how the events unfold themselves.
S.Balasubramanian.

badri mannargudi
17-12-2008, 12:00 AM
I have just received an e. mail from Mr. R P Mohan from Chandigarh. He says that 17th Dec.08 is pensioners day, which they are celebrating at Chandigarh, where about 200 pensioners are expected to collect. A format has also been prepared to distribute amongsts pensioners. He has enclosed the format as an attachment , which unfortunately, I am unable to download. I thought I must share this information with all my pensioners friends.
Dear friends, and respected senior citizens,
I greet all senior citizen pensioners on the occassion of Pensioners' day.
I pray to Lord Rajagopalaswamy (Presiding Deity of our local temple at Mannargudi, Tamilnadu) for the welfare of these stars who may have spent over thirty years for the development of our mother land. I wish their dreams come through and their grievances settled!
My greetings once again.
With Regards,
Badri

vnatarajan
17-12-2008, 07:24 AM
Dear Mr Bala/ friends

Administratively, every OM that is ssued is bound to be STUBBORNLY and MULISHLY adhered to unless some section of the serving employees/ post 2006 employees and their Unions/ Federations are able to apply pressure and derive some relief. Political lobbying is an added advantage.

For aged/ old/ spent-force/ sickly/ suffering pensioners, our strength is only unity- and the awareness of rules- and the ability to pen/ write- all of these many of us lack. GOVT. IS FULLY AWARE OF OUR PLIGHT AND HENCE TAKES FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME BY FLATLY DENYING EVERY VALID RIGHT OR ENTITLEMENT. Another bogie often raised is the "expenditure" / "increasing financial burden" both are INVALID arguments as even courts have negated the very explanations of such fallacious excuses!.

Mr Bala-is there a way ? - is there any enterprising - upcoming- brilliant lawyer or even a retired/ legally qualified govt. official-or legally knowledgeable retiree-who can file a
petition/ writ- citing the suffering of the aged pensioners - on account of the repeated INDIFFERENCE to the Supreme Court/ other Court judgements on pensions- resulting in further litigations wh is neither HUMANE nor in the interest of the State as these set a bad precedence (ignoring the judicial pronouncements)?

When a large section of the senior citizens of the society are subjected to unncessary hardships/ agony- both mental and physical, because of the State's refusal to implement legal pronouncements - will not such actions be considered as violation of HUMAN RIGHTS?

There must be a deeper examination of the PIL and Human Rights angles to bring out some valid points.

After the GRIEVANCE petitions to DoP/PW- I propose every affected pensioner must; (1) start lodging complaints/protests to the Law authorities/ Supreme Court on the PIL angle
(2) find out and lodge a complaint to NHRC on the inhuman/ autocratic attitude of part of authority which is inflicting unlimited/ infinite amount of mental/ physical harm to a large section of the society- ie nearly a few crores- ie 40 lack pensioners (in one way or
other) and their family members/ similarly placed pensioners from other sectoirs etc.

1. LEGALLY:GOVT. MUST KNOW "REVISION OF PENSION" ALONE/IN ISOLATION CAN NOT BE AN "AUTO-CRATIC'" EXERCISE THAT TOO IN CASE OF SOME SECTIONS OF PENSIONERS ONLY and ANY PRINCIPLES/FEATURES/ GUIDELINES OF "REVISION OF PAY" ARE AS MUCH APPLICABLE TO "REVISION OF PENSION" as TODAY'S PAY becomes TOMORROW"S PENSION - and hence both the exercises have to be as much "DEMOCRATIC" as they have to be, and 2.
THE VALUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS ARE VESTED IN PROMOTING DIGNITY, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE- are these being ignored by the Govt./ authorities in protecting the interests of Pensioners?!

This is one of the greatest weakness of the current 6CPC implementation orders- where even some sections of "EMPLOYEES" have been subjected to "AUTOCRATIC" merger of pre-revised Pay Scles into Pay Bands with unequal/ dispropotionate/ irrational features and without rhyme or reason!

Let us go ahead knocking at all GRIEVANCE portals including the PMO/ Courts etc.

vnatarajan

Now I found something more on the HUMAN RIGHTS angle:
Submission Of The Ontario Human Rights Commission To The Ministry Of Labour

“………….retirement schemes that are based on a minimum age combined with years of service and measures aimed at facilitating the transition from full-time employment to retirement would not likely be considered discrimination within the meaning of human rights law and policy.[4]”


Further Notings:

“Today, a similar scheme could be dealt with by considering whether it discriminates by making distinctions that are offensive to human dignity”.

My observations:

In the current issue, I find an UNDISPUTED element of discrimination that has been introduced in the said transition among the same pensioners of equal eligibility- one belonging to pre-2006 and another belonging to post-2006! Hence HUMAN RIGHTS of pensioners are not protected in an equitable and just manner among the same class/ rank of Govt. pensioners- all belonging to the GPF scheme.Basic values and discipline of the very scheme are being polluted by bringing in unwarranted distinctions that are offensive to Human Dignity.

vnatarajan


FRIENDS/ COPENSIONERS

WISH YOU ALL A HAPPY PENSIONERS’ DAY (17th DECEMBER 2008)

LET US ALL HAVE OUR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESERVED WITH DIGNITY,EQUALITY & JUSTICE

V NATARAJAN

S.Balasubramanian
18-12-2008, 11:29 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
In your last post, you have brought in the question of human rights violation.
From the website, I find that the National Human Rights Commission was consituted on 12.10.1993 through an Act of Parliament entitled "The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993".
Under Sec.2(d), "human rights" mean the rights relating to life, equality and dignity of the individual, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenant and enforceable by courts in India.
A representation to the Commission may at best be enquired into and recommendations may be made, but the Commission has no power to enforce its recommendations.
In the circumstances, personally I do not feel that any useful purpose will be served by any reference to them, except the satisfaction that our grievance has been ventilated in another forum.
Hence the way out happens to be only the legal process. I think we should look to seniors like Mr Maheshwari and Mr Kanaujia to take the lead in mobilising membership, planning for funding and organizing the whole thing in due course. No doubt, time is running out, but we have to hasten slowly with full awareness of the steps we intend to take.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
19-12-2008, 07:49 AM
Dear Mr Bala,/ Mr Sundaram

Yes. I am also of the opinion that remedy thru legal avenue has to be the final option.

However, since several courts have upheld the pensioners right for equality among their peers- also enshrined in Article 14-I am of the opinion there may be no harm in venting out the grievance in another forum viz NHRC (i think it is not a legal process)- by lodging a protest/ grievance appeal on this issue- FOR WHICH A WELL DRAFTED TEXT is required.

(Earlier we had made several notes in the postings in this thread reg. our pension injustice/ disparity which we have constructively used to finalise our rep. to the DoP/PW)

I request you/ other knowledgeable pensioners in this forum - each to draft a few lines/half a page appeal that could go as a grievance to the NHRC- so that all of us will use the RREWA portal quickly to lodge the same.

1.We have been discriminated time and again by not even replying or acknowledging our pension grievance in official channels/ commssions/ welfare matters etc which is not adding to our dignity or status as senior citizens in the society.

2.Our equality has been time and again denied inspite of the recommendations of the CPCs and also Apex/ other Court judgements strongly repudiating the Govt. and directing them to maitain equality/ parity in pensions among equals (at least in the least).

3,Justice is being denied in the same way, by acting contrary to judgements which is applicable to the total of pensioners. Justice in not being done in several official memos- glaringly- inspite of Gazetted notifications/ earlier OMs assuring certain entitlements - which are being totally "MODIFIED" in subsequent OMS as if they are "CLARIFICATIONS", which is fraudulent and unethical.

(while we are preparing for the legal processes- with the help of RREWA- I thought we can constructively utilise our energies to go to the NHRC process also.

Regards

Vnatarajan

Request for Mr SUNDARAM

Sir, why not another write-up to the Hindu/ Business Line on this angle also?

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
19-12-2008, 03:08 PM
Dear Mr Bala,/ Mr Sundaram

Yes. I am also of the opinion that remedy thru legal avenue has to be the final option.

However, since several courts have upheld the pensioners right for equality among their peers- also enshrined in Article 14-I am of the opinion there may be no harm in venting out the grievance in another forum viz NHRC (i think it is not a legal process)- by lodging a protest/ grievance appeal on this issue- FOR WHICH A WELL DRAFTED TEXT is required.

(Earlier we had made several notes in the postings in this thread reg. our pension injustice/ disparity which we have constructively used to finalise our rep. to the DoP/PW)

I request you/ other knowledgeable pensioners in this forum - each to draft a few lines/half a page appeal that could go as a grievance to the NHRC- so that all of us will use the RREWA portal quickly to lodge the same.

1.We have been discriminated time and again by not even replying or acknowledging our pension grievance in official channels/ commssions/ welfare matters etc which is not adding to our dignity or status as senior citizens in the society.

2.Our equality has been time and again denied inspite of the recommendations of the CPCs and also Apex/ other Court judgements strongly repudiating the Govt. and directing them to maitain equality/ parity in pensions among equals (at least in the least).

3,Justice is being denied in the same way, by acting contrary to judgements which is applicable to the total of pensioners. Justice in not being done in several official memos- glaringly- inspite of Gazetted notifications/ earlier OMs assuring certain entitlements - which are being totally "MODIFIED" in subsequent OMS as if they are "CLARIFICATIONS", which is fraudulent and unethical.

(while we are preparing for the legal processes- with the help of RREWA- I thought we can constructively utilise our energies to go to the NHRC process also.

Regards

Vnatarajan

Request for Mr SUNDARAM

Sir, why not another write-up to the Hindu/ Business Line on this angle also?

vnatarajan

Shri natarajan,

I and my friend sent an appeal to DOP & P W and sent the copy by e-mail to you and shri maheshwari. This was a generic one quoting the rectification undertaken while implementing the V CPC recommendations. Under mentioned paragraph has the reference of Govt letter correcting the injustice done to pre 1996 and pre 1986 pensioners in the appeal. will this letter throw some light for correcting the disparity now also. I could not get the letter. I understand the copy is available in swamy's news. Request examine.

"It is pertinent to state here that with view to prevent such discrimination suffered now, while implementing the V CPC recommendations on pension, the government wisely issued orders for notional fixation of pension of all the pre 1986 pensioners vide GOI D.P & P.W OM No F.45/86/97-P.&PW (A) dated 10-02-1998. A similar measure (or any other alternatively fair method) if adopted now will probably ensure justice to all pre 2006 pensioners."

Subba Rao R S

vnatarajan
19-12-2008, 04:37 PM
Dear Shri Subba Rao

Yes. I had noted the same. In fact I had been trying to check up Mr Swamy's- may be in a day or two I will come up with it.

WE SHALL INCLUDE THE PARAGRAPH IN OUR COMMON FINAL REP. TO THE HON'BLE PM- MANY GROUPS CAN SEND SUCH MEMOS after giving time for individual reps to reach(we have started sending - those whose "mutilated" final pensions have been recieved (since day before it has started) the DoP/PW and also for their scrutiny/ action if any!

.NOTIONAL FIXATION IS THE WISEST MOVE THEY CAN MAKE! - THAT IT IS OUT OF "DISCRIMINATION" is pointed out by Swamy's also!

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
19-12-2008, 04:48 PM
Dear All,

While doing some more home work on human roghts, based on the Act details given by Mr Bala, I post here minimum details as pertinent to our (pensioners')sufferings- mainly arising out of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India- as pronounced in court judgements also:
:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extracts from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (published 10/1994)

Chapter IV
PROCEDURE

12. Functions of the Commission

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation

17. Inquiry into complaints
The Commission while inquiring into the complaints of violations of human rights may-
(i) call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority or organisation subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it;
Provided that -
(a) if the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own;
(b) if, on receipt of information or report, the Commission is satisfied either that no further inquiry is required or that the required action has been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly;
(ii) without prejudice to anything contained in clause (i), if it considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint, initiate an inquiry

18. Steps after inquiry
The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act namely

(2) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary
(4) subject to the provisions of clause (5), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative;
(5) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission;
(6) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
20-12-2008, 07:09 PM
Dear Sirs,
Outcome of legal consultations sofar:
Total cost may be 5 lac + To seperate pettions one regarding S 30 & another regarding Cut off date
Time frame : No Guarantee may be 10years or more . CAT >High Court > SC
Chances of success : 50-50
For more details, contact Sh M.K.Misra Additional member commercial (Retd) Rly Bd.RREWA life member e.mail : misra38@gmail.com Mob : 09810048214, land line 0124 4060214
Regards
Maheshwari

S.Balasubramanian
20-12-2008, 07:31 PM
A draft represenation to NHRC is placed below re: revised basic pension:

The NHRC can enquire into cases of denial of human rights in violation of the Constitution, denial of justice, and compromising the dignity of a class of citizens.
Pensioners constitute a homogeneous class who cannot be classified merely on the basis of date of retirement, as per judgments of the Supreme Court reiterated from time to time. (Vide Appendix I for citations). But the OMs Nos.38/37/09-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 do so in violation of these judgments, since in the case of two persons retiring with same pay and in same grade, there is difference in their revised pension based on date of retirement (vide Appendix II). This violates equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The large number of representations sent by pensioners to the Ministry of
Pensions have not even been acknowledged, not to speak of favourable response. Thus, justice has been denied to them.
Further, many pensioners are senior citizens 70+ in age, and this type of treatment to them lowers their dignity in society as senior citizens, besides putting them to a lot of mental tension and agony.
The only way in which these constitutional infirmities can be removed is by amending para 4.1 and para 4.2 of OM No.38/37/08 P &PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 and the clarifications issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 as follows:
“1. Existing para 4.1 be substituted by the following:
“4.1.The basic pay drawn by the pensioner in the post held by
him in the pre-revised pay scale, on the eve of retirement, will
be notionally fixed as per Annexure (Fitment Table) to OM No.
1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and 50% thereof will be
the revised basic pension as on 1.1.2006. subject to the necessary
years of qualifying service.”
2.Existing para 4.2 be substituted by the following: .
“4.2. The revised basic pension calculated as per para 4.1 shall
in no case be lower than the revised basic pension corresponding
to the existing basic pension, as in Annexure to O.M. No.
38/37/08 P & PW(A) dated 1st September, 2008.”.
3.Clarification on para 4.2 of O.M.dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 be
deleted”.
NHRC is requested to take up the matter and have the necessary amendments made by the Ministry of Pensions and, if necessary, approach the Supreme Court for necessary orders or directions.

Appendix I

*Some citations of the Supreme Court judgments &
Andhra Pradesh high Court judgment on Tuesday 27.7.2004
in their order on Writ petitions Nos.13680,16407,23938 of 2001 & 6122 of 2002
1.All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs.Union of India—AIR 1992, SC 767): Hon.Mr Justice Ahamadi reasserted: “The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by the court time and again,. It is not charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for the past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee”.

2.D.S.Nakra case: The Supreme Court held that pension is neither a bounty nor a gratuitous payment depending solely upon the sweet will or grace of the employer. It is a right and its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the Government. Entitlement to pension to government servants being the product of statutory rule is an enforceable right. Pension is paid as a monthly benefit for past satisfactory service rendered while the employee was physically and mentally alert and in expectation that he would be looked after in the fall of life.
Classification of pensioners will have to answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, further held the court……
…..the Supreme Court concluded, pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a class. Such homogeneous class could not be arbitrarily divided when the pension undergoes an upward revision. The fixation of the cut off date was arbitrary ..... The division classifying pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle, held the Court.
3.Writ petitions Nos.13680, 16407, 23938 of 2001 and 6122 of 2002:D.Ramachandra Raju and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh: The Fifth Central Pay Commission also required that as pension is not in the nature of a dole, it should be fixed, revised, modified and changed in ways not entirely dissimilar to the salary granted to the serving employees. A fortuitous circumstance of the date of retirement cannot constitute a legitimate ground for classification, and a classification founded on such fortuitous circumstance would not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.R.L.Marwah vs.the Union of India and others: The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any acceptable explanation or justification, the classification of pensioners who were working in the Government/autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement is unconstitutional .....
5.Indian Ex-services League and others vs. the Union of India and others: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Nakra held that the pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and the benefits of liberalized pension should be extended equally to all retirees, irrespective of their date of retirement and could not be confined only to those who retired on or after the prescribed date. As a result of this ratio, the Supreme Court in Nakra struck down the relevant parts of the OM which confined the liberalized benefits to retirees on or after a specified date and extended the benefits to all retirees covered by the pension scheme.

6.Supreme Court judgment on 9.9.08 in Bains case:
“….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 the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) 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 counter productive 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….”






Appendix II:


Example1: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-16500: Revised pay band: Rs.15600-39100 + grade pay Rs.7600
Existing basic pay Pension for pre-2006 Pension for post-2006
in Rs. Retirees in Rs. Retirees in Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000 13560 14960
16500 18645 19145
17625* 19919 20145
*Three stagnation increments after maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.12000-18000: Revised pay band:PB3: 15600-39100 + Grade pay Rs.7600:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12000 13560 14960
18000 20340 20540
19125* 21614 21587
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 3: Pre-revised pay scale: Rs.7450-11500: Revised pay band: PB2: Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs.4600:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
7450 8420 9230
11500 12905 12995
12175 13760 13625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus in all the cases, the above O.M.s seek to classify pensioners on the basis of date of retirement and give them different amounts of pension in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

S.C.Maheshwari
21-12-2008, 12:56 PM
Shri natarajan,

I and my friend sent an appeal to DOP & P W and sent the copy by e-mail to you and shri maheshwari. This was a generic one quoting the rectification undertaken while implementing the V CPC recommendations. Under mentioned paragraph has the reference of Govt letter correcting the injustice done to pre 1996 and pre 1986 pensioners in the appeal. will this letter throw some light for correcting the disparity now also. I could not get the letter. I understand the copy is available in swamy's news. Request examine.

"It is pertinent to state here that with view to prevent such discrimination suffered now, while implementing the V CPC recommendations on pension, the government wisely issued orders for notional fixation of pension of all the pre 1986 pensioners vide GOI D.P & P.W OM No F.45/86/97-P.&PW (A) dated 10-02-1998. A similar measure (or any other alternatively fair method) if adopted now will probably ensure justice to all pre 2006 pensioners."

Subba Rao R S

Dear shri Subba Rao R S
Will you kindly re mail a copy of appeal under reference
Sorry for the inconvenience
Regards
maheswari

vnatarajan
21-12-2008, 05:32 PM
Dear All

Now the estimates are available for the legal battle- both in terms of financial implications and time-frame. My summary account had hinted at both aspects much earlier.

I and all my friends thank Mr SCM for his involvment and interactions. I can only request all our aggrieved pensioners to react positively and with ideas now at least.

I am sure many are watching this episode from behind the screen. Please come out in the open to put forth your ideas.

Pl. remember-

Many have represented to DoP/PW- once/ twice? If not why not? If yes pl do confirm.

Many may like to try few more channels - in the interim time- NHRC/ respective Ministries last served as a formality/ and the Hon. PM.

Many may -solo/ in groups - appeal to NHRC also (why not?)

After all our Govt. can not be our enemy- so why not give it some more time to appreciate our Reps. /Grievances and remedy it?

AFTER ALL THEY ARE BUSY IN OTHER SENSITIVE ISSUES (terrorism etc) and besides,LIKE US THEY ALSO HAVE TO CARE FOR FUTURE- ours is only Pension- for them it ELECTION- and then Pension/ or Income?

If they solve our problem, sure- they will have all our BLESSINGS/ WISHES!

After 5CPC implementation orders, they (GOVT.) took nearly 8 months for delivering the Notional Pension fixation orders in Feb 1998. This time issues are more for resolving anomolaies/ grievances- and so more time - stretched upto 1 year - may be reasonable

So let ideas come up and we will move ahead steadily.

Regards

vnatarajan (this time as an individual- after feeling the pressue that I had been building up for myself/ for others!)

subba Rao R S
21-12-2008, 08:25 PM
Dear shri Subba Rao R S
Will you kindly re mail a copy of appeal under reference
Sorry for the inconvenience
Regards
maheswari

Shri maheswariji,

I will be sending the e-mail again to-day with the exract of V CPC retirement benifits wherin the said letter No and other references are also available. This was down loaded from the web pertaining to V CPC.

R S Subba Rao

S.Balasubramanian
21-12-2008, 11:22 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
Pension being treated as human rights, with the Human Rights Commission dealing with the same and awarding relief to pensioners including award of litigation costs in one case, in Peru and UK is something which can be referred to in a summary form in an appendix (appendix III)to the complaint to NHRC.
A small addition may be made to the draft format as follows:
"There are precedents from other countries where pension has been treated as a human right and the Human Rights Commission has awarded relief to the pensioners who retired before a certain cut off date (vide Appendix III). Hence, it is requested that NHRC, India may take up the above grievance of pensioners and award them the necessary relief early".
S.Balasubramanian.

dnaga57
22-12-2008, 06:51 AM
Appeals have been sent
I suggest working out a per member contribution to legal fund - a separate account with say rrewa so that members can contribute lumpsum or installment

vnatarajan
22-12-2008, 08:22 AM
Dear All

For the benefit of all aggrieved, following points are made out:

1.Attention is drawn to Shri SCMaheshwari's posting on the legal process estimates/ timeframe (copied/posted here for ready referance):

"Dear Sirs,
Outcome of legal consultations sofar:
Total cost may be 5 lac + To seperate pettions one regarding S 30 & another regarding Cut off date
Time frame : No Guarantee may be 10years or more . CAT >High Court > SC
Chances of success : 50-50
For more details, contact Sh M.K.Misra Additional member commercial (Retd) Rly Bd.RREWA life member e.mail : misra38@gmail.com Mob : 09810048214, land line 0124 4060214
Regards
Maheshwari"

2.Postings made subsequently by Mr Bala and Mr Naga may be seen reg. sharing of expenses.

3.My posting on the requirement for all aggrieved to send reps. to DoP/PW- once/ twice/even finally third (like many of us )/ respective Ministry as a formality/NHRC/PM etc (copies to be preserved) and also to give the Govt. enough time to appreciate our grievances and act may also be seen. Starting point/time of the Action Plan/Time-frame depends on the guidance from the RREWA source for all those who may opt to join the fray.

4.Those who have not acted on sending reps are requested to do so. Many models/ examples are available. Even NHRC rep. draft will soon be available. One example is already given by Mr Bala.(If any need help- pl feel free to contact MR ARajagopalan - aarajagopalan@gmail.com - giving my reference).

5.Grievance portals of DoP/PW/- RREWA channel; respective Ministries/ PMO etc may be used to lodge abridged versions of grievance- if not done (COPY/REFERENCE TO BE PRESERVED).

6.Those from GSI/CGWB/DAE/ CSIR labs/ISRO etc who are already in touch with our coordinator (Mr ARajagopalan, exGSI-)may please give their info on reps. sent and their observattions on participation thru RREWA route/ or otherwise for CONSOLIDATION process. (so far our direct network which includes many from GSI/ CGW/DAE/ CSIR labs among others by individual contacts etc exceeds 90 thru email facility and in turn their contacts may be some more- they may please respond directly to MR AR).

7. Some - (i)because of OLD AGE- may desire to be left out (pl be assured you will not be neglected for the benefits that may accrue- though may be delayed). NO COMPULSIONS please.(ii) OTHERS (like me) may like to throw a stone - if it strikes the bull's eye, the target gets hit- ie BORDER CASES (mind that for the next 7CPC we will prepare for a tough stand- this time we feel let down badly by the group who represented us locally!) and (iii)the REST-the AGGRESSIVE-MOST RECENT pre-2006 retirees who are greatly affected will certainly be in fore-front! Pl. feel free to interact & help us to CONSOLIDATE.

WE shall await guidance from time to time from Shri SCM & others..

(All those who require clarifications on the legal process matters- may pl see Shri SCMs postings/ Shri MKMisra's contact id- ph-cell nos.Pl do interact as the matter is of importance).

Regards
vnatarajan

RPGoswami
22-12-2008, 02:40 PM
Regarding injustice to pre-2006 pensioners. It affects pensioners from grades other than S29 & S30 also. Reason Ministry of Personnel in its OM of 3/10/08 has wrongly interpreted " minimum of pay in the pay band" as "minimum of the pay band"
Mass representation by all affected pensioners should be the first e step This can be done by using the pension portal of the DOPT .

vnatarajan
22-12-2008, 03:25 PM
Thank you Mr Goswami for joining the discussions.

Many here are far far far beyond the grievance portal stage (I mean grievances already registered by many- some waiting for 50 days till now- though the portal says your grievance will be addressed in 30 days!!!)- already many have sent two/ some three(like me- my score so far:one grievance plus three reps to DoP/PW plus one general grievance to PMO etc)detailed representations- to DoP/PW.

Some examples of those detailed reps.- still continuing- may be seen in the portal of www.rrewa.org. Latest being that of Mr M K Misra (pl see posting at sl.164)- a very senior Rly Pensioner.

You are very correct/ your point is well/already taken- many are affected - in various scales- can be seen in various postings.

Our debates have now reached a "consensus" stage of going for the legal process- how/ when/resource mobilisation etc.

I think posting at sl no 164 may be clear to all those who are following the progress of the debate right from the beginning.

Regards
vnatarajan.

RSundaram
22-12-2008, 05:56 PM
My dear VN
I do not know if I have done my home work all right. While persuading my erstwhile colleagues at levels below S-23 to muster support I find many of them who retired after 1.1.1996 but before 1.1.2006 and at the top of their respective scales (some with stagnation increments) have gained considerably by para 4.1 They are therefore indifferent to our cause to rectify para 4.2 to compute pension on the basis of Minimum of the replacement scale in the new PB + Grade Pay Structure. I tried to explain to them that time will fly and the next Pay Commission effect is only seven years hence perhaps and they are sure to lose heavily if they are short sighted. The top echelons have successfully driven a wedge not only between pre and post 2006 but also between pre and post 1996. The government officials also know that it costs nothing for them to contest any court case whereas it would make such a deep hole in our pockets ( as seen from your post). Also the demographic profile of pensioners will comprise more than 60% of post 1996 pensioners since the government recruitment boom was in early sixties.

vnatarajan
22-12-2008, 08:40 PM
Dear Shri Sundaram

In many cases the 2.26 multiplication factor has done wonders as fixation in the revised scales would work out lower and so no one is normally bothered!

I think apparently, the 4.1 paragraph protection/ calculations may look lucrative for S23/lower categories- particularly with stagnation increments (I dont know how many?) for arriving at the pension - because their revised scale - like ours to some extent- is down-graded- to start at a lower level! Even with Grade Pay , the Revised one is apparently lower!

Now for eg: talking about the JAG level S-23- ( not the Selection Grade JAG level S 24- 14300-18300 which gets a good jump and forms the base of the new Pay Band- PB4 with scale 37400-67000 -same for S-29 and even S30) :

In fact some of those belonging to S-23 are joining the fight because their grouse is they have been given the fitment 2,26 factor but the revised scale denies them any benefit! If they are fixed in the revised scale, they will be losers! WHAT A PITY?

THE REVISED SCALE HAD BEEN MADE TO BENEFIT MAINLY TOP FOUR SCALES and S-24(this S-24 also has a bearing- Directors in the Ministries- between Dy Sec and Joint Secs.)

(Poor sufferers could be Joint Secys (S 29)/Addl. Secs if I am correct (S30) and I am not sure how they feel (I may be wrong) ! or may be nobody ever remains in S29/S30 or what?)

(Of course none of those in service in the above two scales will be affected in their pensions in future- because they get a higher fixation/ higher MINIMUM starting point - not at 37400 for obvious reasons - when they are promoted- within the same Pay Band PB4)

I am not sure of the individual cases- but each one has to analyse and find out where the hitch is!

Again IGNORANCE IS BLISS- even for me it could have been so but my idle brain has become a DEVIL's WORKSHOP!

Regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
22-12-2008, 09:46 PM
My dear v Natarajan. I sent an e. mail enclosing a table which gives loss in case of each pre revised pay scale. I could not put it here as it is in table format and would get distorted.

G.Ramdas
22-12-2008, 10:58 PM
1. The decision to accept the Pay commission’s recommendation for payment of minimum pension as 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, was notified by the Govt. in the Gazette on 29/08/08 and again thro’ O.M. dt 02/09/08

2. The clarification given by the DP&PW on 3/10 and 14/10 distorted this decision and gave a totally wrong interpretation. ‘Corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale’ was changed to ‘irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay ’ 3. By this master stroke, pre-2006 pensioners were deprived of the promised pensions; in most cases they would be getting much less than what is promised in the Gazette.
4.By what stretch of imagination the words 'corresponding to' could be changed to "irrespective of". Is there no acountability at any level?
This is like the court pronouncing "acquited" but the Estt. maintaining that it means "convicted".

5. All this talk about discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, Supreme court judgements, etc., are only secondary. If the Administration is hell-bent on distorting the words to give a totally different interpretation, is there no higher authority like Ministers/M.Ps to whom we could represent.The term "pay in the Pay Band" is also defined in CCS(Revised Pension Rules)2008 and Pay in the Pay Band against each stage of each of the Pay scales are also notified by Dept. of Expenditure thro' O.M. No. 1/1/2008-1c dt 30/08/08.There is no confusion and no need to for clarifications.

6.I would request all the ppre-2006 pensioners to study the Govt. decisions as Gazetted and then carefully scrutinise the clarifications of 03/10 &14/10/2008.You will know how deft changes made by DP&PW have left you in the lurch .

S.Balasubramanian
22-12-2008, 11:42 PM
A detailed study of fixation of revised pension corresponding to different stages of pay in the pre-revised pay scales shows that in the case of all pensioners drawing pension = 50 per cent of pay at all stages below the maximum of the prerevised pay scale, the formula of notional fixation of pay and 50% thereof is more beneficial, which in other words is 50 per cent of the sum of revised pay in the pay band plus grade pay; but in the case of those whose pension is 50% of pay in the pre-revised scale, beyond the maximum, that is, with stagnation increments, para 4.1 is more beneficial.
that is the reason why I have suggested in an earlier post suitable amendments of para 4.1 and 4.2 which would take care of both cases so that whatever is more beneficial would apply.
(40% fitment holds good only for those who draw 50% of the maximum of each pre-revised pay scale, as per Pay Commission's structure. In the case of those who draw pension = 50% of pay at any stage below the maximum of pre-revised scale, the grade pay works out to more than 40 per cent, while for those with stagnation increments beyond the maximum of each pre-revised pay scale*** the grade pay works out to less than 40 per cent.
Only the amendments that I had suggested in an earlier post would provide for both the cases).
In view of the news that army officers have been given a better deal by the Prime Minister who is also Minister of Finance, I think we should explore the possibility of a delegation meeting him to present the case of civilian pensioners, in the hope that we would also get a better deal.
(***For this category of pensioners, naturally para 4.1 is more beneficial, since revised pay in band is 1.86 times the basic pension but grade pay works out to less than 40%)
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
23-12-2008, 06:59 PM
Dear All

When we were considering the legal aspects and Human Rights etc, we are encouraged by a valauable piece of information sent by our senior copensioner- Shri K S Sitaraman from the pages of Times of India, Bombay edition of this morning (23rd Dec 2008).

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

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:43 AM, K S Sitaraman <kssitaraman@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sirs,

I append yet another Court judgment, this time the latest from the Bombay High Court appearing in the front page as well as at page 9 of the Times of India of today. (See TOI Website)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Give pensioners their due on time, rules HC
Swati Deshpande | TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Mumbai: Pensioners now have reason to smile. In a landmark judgment, the Bombay high court has held that pension is a vital aspect of social security and that the right to receive it constitutes a right to life under the constitution. Moreover, it held that pensions must be paid regularly in the first week of the month.
"Deprive a pensioner of the payment and you deprive him or her of the right to life. Delayed pensionary payments place a pensioner in the position of uncertainty and dependence which impinges on the quality of life under Article 21, and the right to dignified existence of the aged,'' said Justice D Y Chandrachud recently while directing the transport undertaking of Solapur Municipal Corporation to deposit the pensions of 13 retired employees on the first day of the succeeding month or latest by the seventh day.
In 2005, there were more than 4.5 lakh state government pensioners in Maharashtra. The judge noted that pensioners can't be left to the mercy of the administration to receive what is a matter of right.

Pension not a largesse or charity, says HC


Mumbai: The Bombay HC has struck a huge blow for teh rights of pensioners. "Pensioners must lead their lives with a sense of self-respect and dignity,'' held Justice D Y Chandrachud as he innovatively developed the rights of senior citizens, especially pensioners, in consonance with the guarantees expected under the constitution.
The judgment was passed in a case where the Solapur civic body had challenged a direction of an industrial court which had labelled its action of delaying pension payments inordinately each month as an unfair labour practice and directed it to credit the monthly pension by the first day of each following month. The civic body explained that it was in financial difficulties and said it could pay by the 15th and not the first. The civic body argued that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules do not mandate payment by the first of each month—they state payment has to be made "on or after the first day...''
But observing that "pensionary payments are neither a largesse nor a charity by the state but rather a legal right of the retired'' and interpreting the law, Justice Chandrachud said "on or after'' does not mean that the payment can be delayed indiscriminately as it would otherwise "defeat the pensioner's entitlement and make his rights and means for sustaining life illusory''. The principles of pension makes it implicit that it must be paid in a regular manner, the HC said, and not at the whim of the authority. Even on the 15th or 20th of the month, as in this case, would be unreasonable the court said.
"Constitutional rights can't be looked upon as mere debits in balance sheets. They represent the real entitlement of citizens, sanctified even by international law,'' the judge said, holding that "where social security has been made a law, the executive is duty-bound to implement it by making budgetary allocations and administrative infrastructure to ensure timely disbursal''.
The court noted that as life expectancy increases and the population of the aged rises, the law must recognize their concerns. "The problems of the aged have become acute with the changing social structure. The law must protect those who contributed to society and assure them a sense of dignity in their twilight years. Insensitivity of the state must not hasten the onset of darkness.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are grateful to Shri KSS for the pains he has taken to keep us updated.

vnatarajan

Yet in another case- the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rapped/ bombarded the MoD and Bureaucracy in dealing with an army pensioner:

HC raps MoD over reply in pension case. (Reported in a blog). Quoted from blog:

"Tailpiece: MoD= Monster of Deceipt. Ex Servicemen are systematically denied pension entitlements in spite of the spate of court rulings all over India. The Bureaucrats are saving the paisas by stealth and reducing the Security and Morale of its Patriotic and law abiding Citizens.
Posted by SIGNAL on Saturday, December 27, 2008"

WHAT A NICE DEFINITION of MoD and WHAT A NICE OBSERVATION ON THE BUREAUCRACY!

vnatarajan



.

S.C.Maheshwari
24-12-2008, 08:39 PM
Lok Sabha Question with reference to 6th CPC anomalies

Anomaly in the 6th Central Pay
Commission Report
2066. SHRI M. APPADURAI:
Will the PRIME MINISTER
be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Union Government has
received any representation/requests from
any individual of Association with regard
to anomaly in 6th Central Pay Commission
with regard to salary and other perks to
non-gazetted staff of Central Government;
(b) if so, the details thereof; and
(c) the steps taken by the Government
in this regard?

RREWA expresses its gratitude to Sh M.Appadurai and request him to put up a similar question regarding pensioners.
Let all Pensioners associations & individuals send request to him

S.C.Maheshwari
General Secretary RREWA

vnatarajan
26-12-2008, 03:14 PM
Dear All

Thanks to Shri Maheshwari for the important information.

Many more thanks to the very Honble MP Shri Appadurai for his humanistic gesture.

We do hope he also raises his voice for the PENSIONERS.

Anyone here who has access to MPs may kndly do the needful.

All associations/ Federations must take the initiative to request MPs for such actions in Parliament.

PENSION PARITY DENIALS are violative of ARTICLE 14 of Constitution -RIGHT TO EQUALITY.(eg NAKARA CASE 1983, SPS BAINS CASE 2008 etc)

PENSION PAYMENT DELAYS are violative of ARTICLE 21 of Constitution- RIGHT TO FREEDOM- ie denying the right to life- ie life of sustenance etc.(eg Recent Solapur civic body vs Pensioners case- Bombay High Court Judgement, TOI dt 23rd Dec2008- see post 172 above.).

So raising the PENSIONERS's woes in Parliament is a step needed in terms of CONSTITUTIONAL protections to the said section of senior citizens in the country.

It is also thus a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

Regards,

VNatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
26-12-2008, 09:19 PM
Dear Maheshwari Ji,
Bureaucrats have tried to block this news of ''FAST UNTO DEATH'' from being published in News Papers.Please see that this news is spread out to as many people as possible.Today is the 9th day of their fast.
Regards bhinder

--- On Fri, 26/12/08, "REPORT MY SIGNAL" (CS Kamboj) <kamboj@itintellectuals.com> wrote:

From: "REPORT MY SIGNAL" (CS Kamboj) <kamboj@itintellectuals.com>
Subject: "REPORT MY SIGNAL" - PLEASE DO VISIT JANTAR 1100-1300 HRS 27 DEC 08 - EMAIL 372/2008 - 26 DEC 08 - (A to B)
To: "Kamboj CS Brig" <csk551@dataone.in>
Date: Friday, 26 December, 2008, 6:41 PM

Brigadier C. S. Kamboj, VSM., VETERAN,
Email - kamboj_cs@yahoo.co.in Phone - (0120) - 2454279 (Prefix from Delhi -95120).
Snail Mail - 551, Sector 28, NOIDA - 201303. "REPORT MY SIGNAL - BLOG"
http://reportmysignal.blogspot.com "REPORT MY SIGNAL"MISSION
JUSTICE FOR DEFENCE SERVICES
26 Dec 08.
To,
All Members And ESM Organisations On Emailing List of "Report My Signal".
Dear Friends In and Around NCR,
Jai Hind.

We wish to show INDIA the strength of ESM support to the Veteran on Fast for Justice at Jantar Mantar on, Saturday, 27 Dec 08.

Please DO VISIT Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS, between 1100 hrs and 1300 hrs on Saturday, 27 Dec 08. WILL YOU PLEASE !!!

A map of the area showing the exact location of the IESM Tent on Jantar Mantar Road is attached to help you reach the location.

May be the road in front of the IESM site may be blocked. In that case plan parking your vehicle at any one of the following places -

1. Under ground parking at Palika Bhavan in Connaught Place.

2. Park Hotel, Parliament Street.

3. Any of the Car Parks on Janpath.

4. Patel Chowk Metro Station.

The IESM Shamiana on Jantar Mantar Road is at easy walking distance from Patel Chowk Metro Station.
It is about a Km from Palika Bazar underground parking.




In Service of Indian Military Veterans
Chander Kamboj.

-----------
THE END

RPGoswami
26-12-2008, 10:06 PM
Recourse to legal action is always tempting but it is both time consuming and expensive. In fact if we go to the court it would mean that DOPT will have no further responsibility in examining the , . complaint matter being in the court. Mass representation will be a much better way. If possible it may be focused in the media (I know it has been done already) Pressure on DOPT should continue to be built up Fifty days, is too short a period for getting dis-heartned in a fight like this

vnatarajan
26-12-2008, 10:13 PM
Dear Shri Maheshwari

I saw the posting in the RREWA website: Since I do not know how to reach
my/ our message to the ex-Jawans, I am sending the same to you for conveying
to them.


Your information on the RREWA website:
"Please be informed 5 Military ex-servicemen are on '' FAST UNTO DEATH '' at
Jantar Mantar,FOR EQUAL PENSION FOR EQUAL WORK.
regards ,
bhinder

RREWA express its solidarity with ex service men and pray for their success
& well being
S.C.Maheshwari
General Secretary
RREWA"


My Message:

"I on my own behalf and as the President, Pensioners' Forum, express our
solidarity with the Ex-servicemen who are justly fighting for the cause of
the fellow-pensioners.

We all wish for a speedy solution and a great success for them.

When the Govt. is not adhering to the Judgements of Apex/ High courts and
are also repeatedly violating the provisions of Article 14 (Right to
Equality) and 21 (Right to Freedom- which includes Right to Life- sustenace
of life etc), perhaps the noble Jawans had no other way to take the bold
decision. Govt. has to own the total responsibility for driving such
pensioners to extreme stage of patience.

I and sevral of my friends/ copensioners pray for the health and welfare of
all the 5 Ex-servicemen.

Matter needs the attention and intervention of the National Human Rights
Commission right now.

With utmost feelings of pain,

VNatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum
Chennai, India"

WE are also reaching the information to as many pensioners as possible across the country.

vntarajan

S.Balasubramanian
26-12-2008, 11:43 PM
Re:Posting No.173 by Shri Maheshwari:
I tried to locate the answer to Q.No.2066 by Mr Appadurai by clicking Lok Sabha question list in www.parliamentofindia.nic.in, but could not find the same.
I am not sure whether the number 2066 refers to the serial number of the questions received, or it refers to the questions admitted and coming up for
oral answer in the House as starred question or for written answer as unstarred questdion. If the date on which the question had come up is known, the answer could be located.
As for fresh questions, we have to wait for the short lameduck session of Lok Sabha in February 2009. We can frame some questions and request Shri Appdurai or other MPs to give notice of the same and wait to see what answer Government gives. I shall try to frame some questions in due course and explore that source after sharing it with you all.
Meanwhile, let us see what further developments take place.
S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
26-12-2008, 11:54 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
I have gone through the Peru and UK human rights cases and also the Mumbai High Court judgment as indicated by you in an earlier posting.
The Peru case also refers to arbitrary cut-off which has been held as a violation of equality, and it is interesting that the commission there has awarded litigation costs also to the pensioners.
As for the UK case, I feel that it does not provide a useful reference for us
since the problem agitated is different and the judgment finally is against the pensioners. No doubt, the observations on pension as human right will be useful addition to our case.
The Mumbai High Court judgment is also useful inasmuch as it recognises pension as a human right and has adduced excellent arguments in that regard, which we can make use of. But the prayer was for remedying delayed payment. If one goes by the doctrine of pith and substance of the case, those arguments re: nature of pension would only be treated as obiter dicta.
S.Balasubramanian.
I shall try to summarise the useful additions and share the same with you.

vnatarajan
27-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Dear Shri Bala

Thanks for your summary. Pension has become a undisputable debatable issue as a HUMAN RIGHT besides being underan articles of CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. Hence our basis for approaching the NHRC when others are not giving due attention to the problem. Noted for guidance.

Regards
vnatarajan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all

Here is posting reg. Honble MP Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh's statement in RS.(though a bit old- most relevant now).

Press Statement issued by Shri Jaswant Singh
Leader of the Opposition (Rajya Sabha)

The Bhartiya Janata Party views with concern the relay fast undertaken by
veterans of our defence forces at Jantar Mantar as it enters its 8th day
today. Sipahi Suleman Khan and Naik Lek Raj, who have been on 'fast unto
death', have now been joined by Captain Om Prakash and Subedar Major Dahiya.
The number of volunteers sitting on 'fast unto death' is likely to rise in
the days to come.

The basic demand of the veterans is 'One Rank one Pension' (OROP). The issue
has already been debated in Parliament and examined by the Parliamentary
Committee on Defence in detail. The unanimous recommendation is to accept
this demand. The BJP has always supported this vital concern.

Shri Jaswant Singh the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha had once
again raised the issue on the floor of the house on 23 October 2008. He has
also written to the Raksha Mantri drawing his attention to the matter
urgently.

Their demands are:-

One Rank One Pension (OROP)
Resettlement till the age of sixty
Consideration of an Ex Servicemen Commission
Services representation on all committees deciding issues of their concern.
Pension is a right for services rendered. Elementary logic suggests that two
individuals rendering equal service and reaching the same rank, thereby
having discharged the same level of responsibility, should get equal
compensation, irrespective of their dates of retirement.

The Bhartiya Janata Party therefore demands of the Government to immediately
take steps to save lives of the veterans, both being Personnel Below Officer
rank through suitable and urgent action
------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
27-12-2008, 12:50 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
Re: Your reference to Mr Jaswant Singh's statement in Rajya Sabha and press release re: one-rank-one-pension demand of armymen.
While the press release issued by him can be published by newspapers, there is reference to statement made by him in Rajya Sabha. The verbatim proceedings of Rajya Sabha are available on the website: www.parliamentofindia.nic.in.
By clicking Rajya Sabha, and clicking "verbatim proceedings" one can find the actual statement as made by him.
Sometimes, during zero hour, observations made by a Member without the
permission of the Chair are treated as "(Interruptions)-*Not recorded". One would like to rule out this possibility. If the observation had been made with the permission of the Chaisr, it would occur in the proceedings and can be verified from the verbatim proceedings.
With regards,
S.Balasubramanian.

S.Balasubramanian
27-12-2008, 01:00 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
On going through the verbatim proceedings of Rajya Sabha dated 23.12.2008 as well as the synopsis of debaes of 23.12.2008, I find that there is no mention about Mr Jaswant Singh's statement. Perhaps it had fallen in the category of observations not recorded and shown as interruptions. In such cases, the Member generally goes to the press with the request to publish a wrriten statement by him, and the press generally obliges him. Of course, according to the rules governing press coverage of parliamentary proceedings, this is not a welcome trend and in such cases, the point is brought home to the press in an appropriate manner outside public gaze.
With regards,
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
27-12-2008, 02:54 PM
Dear Shri Bala

You are correct in pointing out the details.

The date in question is 23rd OCTOBER 2008.

Only portion of the text may reflect the proceedings- not in any way the details.

I wanted to know if any debate took place at that time.

Demands- then some observations- look relevant to all:

"Pension is a right for services rendered. Elementary logic suggests that two
individuals rendering equal service and reaching the same rank, thereby
having discharged the same level of responsibility, should get equal
compensation, irrespective of their dates of retirement"

Also the whole item appears to have originated from BJP sources from Chennai (Janmejeyans's Blogspot or so).

Thanks for the pains you are taking. '

Regards

vnatarajan.

(Hunger strike crisis appears to be deepening at New Delhi)
(army pensioners here give me some news- about one of the PBOR fasting pensioner who had to be rushed last night for medical treatment!. They also corroborate that media had been asked not to cover the fasting details- mainly by the BUREAUCRACY!

Another rumour (cd be believable) goes that the Defence and Finance top bureaus- have advised the top Defence VVIP not to pay attention as army pensioners are a spent force and they have no teeth to bite!!!!!)

ONE VERY BOLD AFFECTED PUNJABI MILITARY LADY FAMILY PENSIONER APPEARS TO HAVE WRITTEN A TYPICAL AGGRESSIVE "PUNJABI" STYLE LETTER TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE COUNTRY,

vnatarajan.

vnatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
27-12-2008, 03:51 PM
Dear sir,
"Date is 12-12-08 Ministry of finance" I have mailed you the complete list.
Maheshwari

ksrmurthy48
28-12-2008, 10:40 AM
Dear Friends,
We at Hyderabad ,on behalf of the Scientists of DRDO, have made representation to Govt and copy is posted for information. All retired Scientists of DRDO, ISRO, DAE and other R&D establishments may kindly send copy of representations .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

`Unquote’

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

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

3.1 According to this table, the Scientists retiring at minimum of S-29 on or after 1-1-2006 will get the advantage of pension-fixation of this table, the minimum of which will be half of Rs.54.700 i.e. Rs.27,350.

3.2 Similarly the pensioners retiring at minimum of the scale with effect from 1-1-2006 or later , in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.16400-450-20000 (S-26) will get the advantage of Table-2 (attached), minimum of which is half of Rs. 48,590 i.e. Rs. 24,295. This works out to be higher than minimum (Rs.23,700) a pre-pensioner in the grade of Scientist `G’ (higher rank) gets, as per above cited
memorandum. The person, in Scientist `F’ (S-26) grade, retiring at higher basic than the minimum will get pension more than Scientist `G’ retiring at highest basic pay of pre-revised scale (S-29).

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

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

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

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

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

5.1 The pre-pensioners, who retired as Scientist `F’ in DRDO and other scientific establishments in the prerevised scale of S-26 will also be similarly affected, when compared to those retiring in the scale of 14300-400-18300(S-24) after 01-01-2006.

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

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

8.0 Request an early reply.

Regards.

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

Enc: Two sheets of signatories

Copy To: DGR&D ,DRDO Bhavan ,Newdelhi------With a request to take up the matter with Secretary,Govt of India for speedy disposal

vnatarajan
28-12-2008, 11:33 AM
(Pl refer my post at sl n0 183) RAJAYA SABHA QN.

Dear Shri Bala/ Shri Maheshwari,

I find some relevant proceedings are recorded perhaps on 23rd Oct 2008 in the site furnished by shri Bala:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MATTERS RAISED WITH PERMISSION OF THE
CHAIR
I. REQUEST TO ELIMINATE ANOMALIES IN THE
SIXTH PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS IN
RESPECT OF ARMED FORCES

THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION (SHRI JASWANT SINGH) :
We have had a demonstration of great discontent by
the Armed Forces and it is unusual for the Chiefs to have gone
to the extent of voicing that discontent in public. It is an unusual
step, but it an unusual circumstance that has compelled them to
do so. I request for the consideration of the Hon'ble Minister for
Defence, and the hon. Prime Minister, to consider very
sympathetically and attentively the questions that have been
raised or the aspects that have got underscored by the Sixth Pay
Commission's treatment of the Services.
We have got focussed particularly on the question of
pension, on the question of pay relating to two ranks, namely,
Lieutenant Colonel and Lieutenant General. The question is as
to why an army personnel does agree to die. The principal
motivation is honour and if you do not give honour to the
uniformed community, then you are robbing them of the central
impulse of military morale. My recommendation for the
Government, therefore, to consider is to please examine the
question of Inflation Indexing of pension, and with that, is
related the aspect which has now troubled us for some years.
Long years back when late Mrs. Gandhi was the Prime
Minister, a committee established for the benefit and welfare of
ex-servicemen after many months deliberating did make
recommendations. Some of them have got implemented, some
have not. There still remains the question, which is troubling us,
of 'one rank- one pension'. I recommend to the Government to
re-examine it in all its aspects and let us all work towards its
timely implementation.
There are just few other recommendations. One is to
constitute a commission for the welfare of ex-servicemen and it
ought to be really a statutory commission so that this periodic
problem does not arise. Second is the question, and it has
troubled us very greatly, of resettlement of ex-servicemen. It is a
very great pity that this trained and talented manpower is taken
away from the nation in their early age. It is very useful
national asset. A lot of recommendations have come. But lateral
induction, how many can be taken, as Jobs are scarce, I
recognize all that. But, then ex-servicemen are also a vital
category and their resettlement should be given due to
consideration.
My third recommendation is about representation of
serving and retired personnel in Pay Commission. The problem
arises when you constitute a Pay Commission and everyone else
is represented but the Services. If you have the Services
represented, there will be a representative of the service to
articulate their views when the Commission is functioning.
Now the Government must attend to eliminating the
anomalies of the Sixth Pay Commission as far as the Services
are concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure whether the details are full!

Pension issue figures.

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
28-12-2008, 01:20 PM
Dear S/Shri K M rao/KSMurthy & 36 Scientists of DRDO,

Thanks to all of you for sharing the information.

As you may be aware, I and my copensioners belonging to GSI have formed a network of more than 90 (scientists & engineers besides other stream personnel) and also we ahve quite a few senior pensioners from Deptts like CGWB, CSIR labs, etc

Some scientists from DoS/ NFCL etc are also in touch with us.

We have some active associates thru connections from Gconnect as you may note from the various postings here.

We are trying to forge a group which would be ready to take up and fight a legal battle at the appropriate time and for this we are in touch with Shri SC Maheshwariu, Gen. Secy, RREWA, Gurgaon- and the developments can be noted in the earlier postings.

WE are waiting for some time- ie give sufficient time for the Govt. to go thru our reps. and at least provide one reply to any one/ few/ all - negative or positive- so that we can catalyse our actions in the right direction.

TILL THEN WE ARE CONTINUING with reps.,-reminders for them evry 15 to 30 days/ regn of online grievance at the DoP&PW site/ PM's site.

We are also on for sending individual & collective reps. to the NHRC- for wh one draft is contained in a earlier posting by Shri S Balasubramanian, who has a vast experience in parliamentary matters. As many reps. as possible should go to NHRC also.

Pl continue flooding all concerned Govt. channels with reps. / grievances for the next few weeks/ months.

Also kindly be in touch with GSI/ others cordinator for this matter Mr A.Rajagopalan thru aarajagopalan@gmail.com.

(All progresses and other matters are being put up from our (GSI etc)side by me in Gconnect.

Regards

vnatarajan
(president, pensioners' forum, chennai/ retd ddg,gsi)

S.Balasubramanian
28-12-2008, 03:18 PM
Dear Shri Natarajan,
Re:Posting No.183--Shri Jaswant Singh's observations.
I have checked up again from the verbatim proceedings of Rajya Sabha of 23.12.2008. Shri Jaswant Singh's name does not appear anywhere in the proceedings. Owing to a lot of hullaballoo in the Rajya Sabha right from 11.00hrs. only formal business was transacted amidst interruptions which were not recorded, and the House had to be adjourned thrice, and whenever it met for a few minutes, only formal business was transacted such as papers laid on the Table and Bills passed without discussion and Message from Lok Sabha read out etc.
Obviously, as I had mentioned earlier, this seems to be a case of press release handed over to the press in advance by the Member, and the news
reporter has just published it as having been raised in the House without caring to verify whether it was actually raised and found a place in the vebatim proceedings. One is reminded of how Charles Dickens is supposed to have prepared reports of the House of Commons proceedings just by sitting at home and without ever having to visit the House!
With regards,
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
28-12-2008, 04:27 PM
Dear Shri Bala
I think there was no discussion/ debate on thius topic on 23rd December 2008.
What I could check and gather was related to Honble Jaswant Singh's statements/ points made out on 23rd OCTOBER 2008 proceedings only.
Regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
28-12-2008, 05:00 PM
My dear Mr. ksrmurthy. I am writing this in reference to your post 185. The representation has been well taken and well drafted. I would like to mention about para 5.1.47 of vi cpc report which is relevent and states quote
5. 1. 47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pentioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be ncessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Goverment employees. The commission accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40 % of the pension exluding the effect of merger of 50 % dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or aafter 1/4/2004 ) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50 % of dearness relief/dearness allownance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74 % on pension (excluding effect of merger) has been taken for the purpose of computing revised pension as on 1/1 2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. A table (Annex 5.1.1 ) showing fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendations of this Commissiion has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners. The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension , in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay threon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. unquote.
The last lines here are very important and are diretly applicable to us. It may be mentioned that this recommendation was accepted by the Government as contained in Gawette Notification dated 29th Sept'08. However, modifications to this was made vide OM dated 03 10 08 wherein instead of the words "minimum pay in pay band " were subsituted by 'minimum pay of pay band'. Correspondence with prereivised pay sacale was also ammended by 'no correspondence'. Intention is very clear. Deny that modified parity which was given by vi CPC even after Govt. aceptance of the same, in order to save money to utilize it elsewhere. I may mention here that I sent representaton to Prime Minister on 14 10 08 on similar lines. Not even acknowledgement has been received. The question is what should we pensioners do now ?

Kanaujiaml
28-12-2008, 05:49 PM
In continuation to my earlier post 190, I have to say that Vth CPC pay scale from which a pensioner retired or pay scale allotted by Vth CPC to pre 1996 pensioner and Loss occurring in pension + DR thereon, per month w.e.f.
01 01 06 is as follows :
2750-4400 - 165
3050-4590 - 340
3200-4900 - 430
4000-6000 - 1120
4500-7000 - 1585
5500-9000 - 465
6500-6900 - 1395
6500-10500 - 1395
7450-11500 - 2280
7500-12000 - 2325
8000-13500 - 2790
9000 - 570
9000-9550 - 570
10325-10975 - 1805
10000-15200 - 1500
10650-15850 - 2105
12000-16500 - 3360
12750-16500 - 4060
12000-18000 - 3360
15100-18300 - 1145
16400-20000 - 1145
16400-20900 - 1145
18400-22400 - 3650
22400-24500 - 7225

G.Ramdas
29-12-2008, 10:34 AM
With reference toSh.Kanaujiamal post above, I have the following comments:
The Govt.order gazetted on 29/08/08 was modfied by the DP&PW thro' the clarifications of 3/10 and 14/10/08.
The changes were "minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to" changed to "minimum of pay band irrespective of--"[/COLOR][/I][/B]
These clarifications totally changed the meaning of the Pay Commission's recommendation and its acceptance by the Govt.

vnatarajan
29-12-2008, 12:24 PM
HUMOURED? NO HAMMERED!!

*CALCULATED DELIBERATE MALAFIDE OMs TO PERPETUATE INJUSTICE, DESTROY EQUALITY AMONG PENSIONERS ONCE FOR ALL (THAT TOO AT HIGHER LEVELS), LOWER THE DIGNITY OF PENSIONER SCIENTISTS/ENGINEERS/FEW UNFORTUNATE IN OTHER STREAMS.

*A MEAN METHOD OF INSULTING NON-BUREAUCRATS.

*A DESPERATE DISPLAY OF DEFIANCE OF ORDERS OF JUDICIAL VERDICTS.

*AN UGLY PRECEDENCE OF LAW-MAKERS BEING LAW-BREAKERS. (RULES ARE FOR FOOLS!!!!)

*AN AMAZING TECHNIQUE OF INTERPRETATION IN "THE RECENTLY EVOLVED "INDIAN BUREAUCRATIC ENGLISH" = WHERE "CORRESPONDING = IRRESPECTIVE"; "CORRIGENDUM OR CLARIFICATION= MODIFICATION" "ACCEPTED = TOTALLY REJECTED" "GAZETTE NOTIFICATION = ZERO TO THE POWER OF INFINITY" "MINIMUM IN= MINIMUM OF" "COURT VERDICTS= DEFY AT ANY COST" "FAST UNTO DEATH : STRANGLE PRESS/ MEDIA" etc.

I LEAVE THE LIST TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHERS.

vnatarajan




*

G.Ramdas
29-12-2008, 04:00 PM
:mad: Don't be surprised if you find
acquitted= convicted

Kanaujiaml
29-12-2008, 07:44 PM
My dear Mr. G.Ramdas. Your observation is correct. I have calculated loss in case of each pre revised pay scale after taking into account the OM dated
3rd Oct 08, wherein, instead of " minimum pay in pay band (which include benefit of effect of bunching on account of merger of several pre revised pay scales into a pay band) has been modified to "minimum of pay band." Kindly refer to my two posts appearing above. I did this to demonstrate that pre 2006 and pre 1996 pensioners, in large numbers (not a few in higher pay scales only ) have been affected adverslyafter issue of OM dated 3rd Oct 08. Question remains. What to do after submitting Representatons, both individually and through Associations and waiting for several months ? I request my learned and well experienced pensioner brothers to suggest an answer.

G.Ramdas
29-12-2008, 10:47 PM
Dear Sh. Kanaujiaml,
I fully appreciate your efforts to bring out the span of the damage caused by "the clarifications".
As far as distorting the Govt. decision thro' clarifications, the higher authorities should have set it right by this time.The last chance is to go to the CAT.On this simple issue alone, we should get 100% success, as there seems to be no other meaning to the Govt. decision than what was conveyed thro' the Gazette on 29/08/08.
But when other issues are bunched- like discrimination amongst peers, parity between pre-2006 and post 2006 pensioners, one rank one pension,pro-rata pensions for qualifying service etc.etc.,, the interpretations could be different and nobody can guarantee 100% success from the courts in such a case.
My humble view is that the distortion of English language words will come for criticism in court and it is a sure case to win.Perhaps, we should file seperate cases , one for rectification of the distortion and the other over the larger issues of pension parity (which matter is already being taken up by the Associations).
The clarifications of the DP&PW show how much damage can be done by indiscriminate deletion of the definite article "the" from the sentence-wherby "minimum of the pay in the pay band " becomes "minimum of pay band"
I am also reminded of an old joke
'A passenger in London Tube Railway asked a co-passenger- an English man- "what is time?". Pat came the reply "Oh! That is an imponderable question."
The moral is don't play with 'the' and dont delete 'the' indiscriminately.

vnatarajan
30-12-2008, 11:14 AM
Dear Shri Kanaujiami and Shri Ramdas,

Yes ultimate destination is court!

But then if anyone rushes prematurely, it would also help the other side and then the issue would be twisted to make it subjudice and we may suffer for a long time!.

So we have to exhaust some time by representations- get at least some replies even if they are negative or to the contrary- even by RTI channel- even by asking unrelated question like "how many reps. have been recieved" "how many have been disposed off" "how many are pending etc."

Even if the replies are vague it does not matter!.

In any case anomoly committee also may take one year to resolve the problem! (HAS THE ANOMOLY COMMITTE BEEN FORMED IN DOP/PW? MOF?)

As Shri Ramdas said- I think, the least controversial and most general item has to be chosen for court process which is as simple as " equal pension for equal work among equals, irrespective of dates of retirement in all cases- pre1976/1986/1996/2006 etc".

Too many dilutions will only delay any outcome and many guys on the wrong side of 75 will only be able to help their Family!

Regards

vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
30-12-2008, 08:25 PM
Dear All

Our copensioner, Shri S Bala sent me the link for the ‘rediffnews’ wherein an ex- anguished ex-airforce fighter pilot Mr M PAnil Kumar had written an excellent article on the treatment meted out by the Govt. to the military pensioners.

I thought I should share the views expressed therin with all as a gesture of solidarity and as tribute to the veterans who fought for our Nation.. So I selected parts of the same and am posting them here for the benefit of all readers.

(SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE REMEDIAL MEASURES MAY BE RELEVANT TO NOTE)

VNATARAJAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec30,2008 - REDIFFNEWS
The government cons the military, again


M P Anil Kumar (author of the article that appeared under the above caption)
iInforms:

In a written reply, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Rajya Sabha on December 11 that the government has not found acceptable the demand for 'one rank one pension' (OROP) by the ex-servicemen

Our politicians may have no qualms about showering promises and reneging on them at will

The concept of 'one rank one pension' is fairly straightforward. Fairness demands that a soldier's pension be determined by just two factors: his rank and the length of his service. The Supreme Court gave its nod to the concept of OROP on December 17, 1982.

committee headed by K P Singh Deo made 62 recommendations, stamped its imprimatur on OROP. Govt., conceded many but not OROP and as a placatory gesture, it t granted a 'one time increase' in 1992. Later the fifth pay commission merged all the pre-1996 pensioners into one category, and created a new breed of post-1996 pensioners.

The politicians pledged to OROP both inside and outside Parliament. OROP has featured in the election manifesto of all major political formations. On April 10, 1999, George Fernandes [Images], then defence minister, proclaimed at Anandpur Sahib that OROP would become a reality in 'a few days.' Sonia Gandhi [Images] endorsed OROP in a Congress party rally at Chandigarh on November 23, 2002. OROP was part of the President's address to the Parliament in 2004, Parliamentary standing committee on defence chaired by Madan Lal Khurana spiritedly favoured OROP in its twentieth report.

Several meriting and forceful points have been placed.

Yet, Governmental reluctance to sanction OROP is truly mind boggling

'Why is Chandrayaan [Images] a resounding success? Because, there were no babus involved in the project!'

The Indian bureaucracy is evidently inspired by a skill of the weasel, an animal that sucks out the contents of eggs and leaves behind intact shells.

Instead of walking in lockstep with the guarantors of national security, the babus seem hell-bent on demoralising the forces that have time and again kept the flag flying despite severe stress. One hopes the country will grasp the perils of having a demoralised military

government apparently expects the military to abide by the code of omerta and to swallow the bureaucratic meanness without murmuring why.

WHAT OPTIONS NOW TO ACT?

For the spate of raw deals, the veterans and their kith and kin can join forces to vote against the UPA parties in the upcoming general election. Our politicians understand only the language of votes, and this step might make them sit up and take notice

Move the Supreme Court, but after the court order, one can expect a welter of sundry committees, protracted debates, trite counterpoints, circumnavigating files and other time-honoured methods of temporisation to be used by the babus to obstruct.

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

MY POSTING ( PERSONAL comments - some may not/ should not/ need not mistake me!) in ‘RedifflNews’ in response to the above (on 30th Dec2008):

Excellent summary. Very appropriate and justified arguments.IF OUR NEIGHBOURS SUFFER/ULTIMATELY PERISH-IT WILL BE BECAUSE OF THE MILITARY; WHERAS IF WE SUFFER AND DEGENERATE- ITWILL BE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BUREAUCRACY & BABUDOM!

ALL CAN REALISE THAT INDIA'S STRENGTH LIES IN ITS WELL-KNIT PATRIOTIC DEFENCE FORCES.YET BUREAUCRACY WANTS TO DECIMATE THEM! WHAT APITY?

INDIA'S ACHIEVENENTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FIELDS ARE MAINLY DUE TO DEDICATED SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS- not becuase of the boorish bureaucrats!

FORTUNATELY, THE BOORS HAD NO AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE IN MATTERS OF SPACE AND ATOMIC ENERGY_ the TWO SHINING EXAMPLES where INDIA's ACHIEVEMENTS ARE GLOBAL! THEIR CHAIRMEN BEING EX-OFFICIO SECRETARIES, THINGS WERE IDEAL FOR THESE DEPARTMENTS TO PROGRESS/ MATURE/ SUCCEED/ ACHIEVE.

The bad treatment that is being meted out to the Defence Pensioners/ other pensioners particularly from higher levels in Scientific/ Technical Deptts like GSI/ DRDL/CSIR/National Surveys/ RAILWAYS etc are bad precedences and these will result in many repurcussions.Ex-Scientists/Engineers who have done yeomen service to the Nation's strong development in the last six decades feel disgusted!

None of the Parents will be in a position to motivate their children to opt for Defence/ Science/Medicine/ Engineering tasks among the coming generations. BETTER TO BECOME A MEDIOCRE MIDDLE LEVEL BABU THAN TO BECOME A HIGH RANKING DARING SOLDIER OR AN ACHIEVING BRIGHT SCIENTIST or SCHOLAR! (their pensions are comparable now!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan
31-12-2008, 12:32 PM
Dear All

(NB: PLEASE GIVE AT LEAST ONE MONTH GAP AFTER YOUR LAST REP TO DOP/PW-AS THAT IS THE TIME THEY HAVE SET FOR THE PROCESSING OF GRIEVANCE!!!)

Draft for NHRC appeal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honble Chairman/Members. (NHRC)

This complaint addresses the issue of DENIAL OF EQUALITY, DIGNITY and JUSTICE which are essential principles of HUMAN RIGHTS, to the CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS like me and lakhs of others who are in the twilight years of thier life.

I and many like me are very aged Central Govt. Pensioners, -mostly 70 yrs and many even above 85, often of indifferent health, having limited resources, some living in old age homes, or in nuclear families, and importantly LEGAL- SUPPORTLESS to fight issues on pension injustices with the Central Government.

In spite of several judgements pronounced by the Hon'ble SUPREME COURT/ HIGH COURTS in our country directing the Govt. to maintain equality among pensioners of equal rank/ post/ grade IRRESPECTIVE of their DATES OF SUPERANNUATION and also very constructive recommendations given by the successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs; headed by JUDGES)) for such parity among pensioners, the authorities like Ministry of Personnel/Public Grievances & Pensions (including the Deptt of Pensions/Pensioners' Welfare)and Ministry of Finance etc have not adhered to this important aspect, thus totally negated the pensioners' rightful entitlements even at MINIMUM PARITY or EQUALITY in pensions.

RECENT SIXTH CPC RELATED PENSION IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS (OM38/37/08-P&PW(A)PtI dtd.3rd & 14th Oct 2008) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS/ DEPTT OF PENSIONS & PENSIONERS'WELFARE ARE MOST HUMILIATING to a large section of pre-2006 pensioners as it destroys the very protections given by the Apex/ High Courts in their pension parity judgements (eg famous NAKARA case, 1983, recent SPS Bains Case of 9th Sept 2008). The courts have repeatedly pointed out such denials are violation of the ARTCLE 14 of our CONSTITUTION (of India)on the fundamental right to EQUALITY among pensioners. The Constitution Bench of Hon. Supreme Court of India held that division among pensioners for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter, being both arbitrary and principled, the classification did not stand the test of Article 14.(D.S. Nakara & others vs Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305). Even in Bains case, reference is made to this aspect clearly. In fact as rightly delivered by the Hon’ble Suptrme Court, it is pointed out that such violations would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before such an arbitrary date ie 1.1.2006 in our case.


Another perpetuation is that the same orders/authorities referred above, also violate their own earlier GAZETTE NOTIFICATIONS by calling the latter ones as corrigendum/clarifications etc which are nothing but harmful "modifications" of contents negating the assuarances given on the very application of the orders (eg Para 4.2 of the OM FNo.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 1 st Sept. 2008 of the same Ministry/Deptt ) in utter disregard to even the minimum pension fixation which the pre-2006 pensioners are eligible./ entitled to!.

I and many helpless pensioners have been repeatedly representing to the authorities for correction of the orders, address our grievances, set right the anomalies etc to the concerned ie. the Deptt. of Pensions/ Pensioners' Grievance of the Ministry of P/PG/P, and also to others concerned like MOF and even Hon'ble PMO. So far, even after nearly two months gap, no replies have come. Not even proper acknowledgements.This greatly affects our morale and sense of DIGNITY in the society. Are we unwanted senior citizens in this Country to which we have rendered a generation of total service?

WITHIN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, ABOUT 30 PENSIONERS HAVE EXPIRED who were members of various associations affiliated to AIFPA. (Source: Monthly Journal PENSIONERS’ ADVOCATE). THIS FIGURE IS ONLY A TIP OF THE ICEBERG! IF FIGURES FROM ALL such federations/parent associations all over the country are collected, total may be 50 times more!. THEY ALL HAVE DIED WITHOUT REALISING THE LEGITIMATE FRUITS OF THEIR SERVICE! TIMELY MONETARY BENEFITS TO PENSIONERS COULD MAKE THEM AFFORD FOR BETTER HEALTH BENEFITS AND DENIAL OF THE SAME IS INHUMAN, UNJUST, AND AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS! Right to peoper quality of life is being usurped. Perhaps our lives are no longer useful.

To furnish A GLARING EXAMPLE of disparity , inequality and injustice, many affected pensioners viz., I and several others, belong to the pre-revised scale of pay S 29 (Rs 18400-500-22400) which is now revised to a pay scale of Rs 44700 -67000Basic Pay (BP) plus Grade Pay (GP) Rs 10000(OM FNo.1/1/2008-1C dt 30 th Aug 2008 of the Ministry of Finance) within the newly created Pay Band PB4 (Rs 37400 -67000 with different Grade Pays for different Grades) in the 6CPC implementations. Now, post 2006 pensioners/ new pensioners (all belonging to one and the same Pension Scheme –GPF) in the same scale/ post would draw a minimum pension of Rs 27350 because their starting point of Basic Pay is higher at Rs 44700 (which corresponds to Rs 18400 in the old scale) Their pension is half the SUM of Rs 44700 plus GP Rs10000 which works out to Rs 27350 pm of Basic Pension wef 1.1.2006. Whereas for the Pre-2006 pensioners like I and several others belonging to the same scale-post, the Basic Pension has been fixed at the lowest starting point of the Pay Band PB4 ie at a starting Basic Pay of Rs 37400 (which corresponds to Rs 14300 in a old scale that of a Junior level post) plus GP Rs 10000 in the PB4, and half of their sum ie Rs 23700 pm is our pension now fixed.. This is subjecting us to a net loss of Rs 3650 pm wef 1.1.2006 plus varying rates of DR, right through, and the loss is ever-increasing due to the effect of DR additions. Our means of livelihood and the entitlement to a healthy quality of life is at stake.

Moreover, formulating and applying two types of pay-scales explained earlier - one for those in service and the other one for the pensioners isresulting in the creation oftwo classes of pensioners -one pre-2006 and another post-2006 for the same posts/ scales/ grades within the same dispensation of the 6CPC pension implementation orders, is most controversial and questionable, by any scrutiny of justice.

Such a gross act of discrimination in pension revisions, indifference to application of justice as per earlier Court judgements, partiality in recognizing the equals among the same grade/scale of peers irrespective of the date of super-annuation, not paying due regard to our appeals for revisions, etc is affecting our DIGNITY, EQUALITY and ENTITLEMENT of JUSTICE which are totally against the principles enshrined in our Constitution under Article 14.

It may not be out of place here to point out the following pearls of justice and words of wisdom pronounced by the Honble Judge of Mumbai High Court in a case of the Pensioners vs Solapur Ciic Body in Dec. 2008:


*Pensionary payments are neither a largesse nor a charity by the state but rather a
legal right of the retired.
*Payment delayed indiscriminately defeat the pensioner's entitlement and make his rights and means for sustaining life.
*Deprive a pensioner of the payment and you deprive him or her of the right to life. Delayed pensionary payments place a pensioner in the position of uncertainty and dependence which impinges on the quality of life under Article 21, and the right to dignified existence of the aged
. *Constitutional rights can't be looked upon as mere debits in balance sheets. They represent the real entitlement of citizens, sanctified even by International law

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

In countries like Peru, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada etc – several cases of helpless/ support-less Pensioners’ rights have been taken up and argued by the Human Rights bodies.

In India, the NHRC, among its important functions, can enquire into cases of denial of human rights in violation of the Constitution, denial of justice, and compromising the dignity of a class of citizens.

THEREFORE, SIRS, WE HUMBLY PRAY TO YOU TO VIEW OUR PLEA MOST COMPASSIONATELY AND JOIN ISSUE WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO SET RIGHT OUR GRIEVANCE BY GRANTING US THE RIGHTFUL EQUALITY IN PENSION AMONG EQUALS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATES OF RETIREMENT.

SUCH A STEP WILL GIVE US THE DIGNITY, EQUALITY & JUSTICE TO WHICH WE ARE ENTITLED HAVING GIVEN OUR SWEAT AND BLOOD TO THE NATION’s GOVERNANCE IN OUR YOUNGER TIMES.

WE HAVE NO MEANS ARE BALANCE OF LIFE (ie TIME ) TO GO TO COURTS WHICH WOULD CONSUME REST OF OUR LIVES! IN CASE MATTER HAS TO BE DECIDED BY COURT(S), KINDLY DO US THE GRACE OF TAKING OUR CASE TO THE PORTALS OF JUSTICE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(PS: PL GIVE ONE MONTH'S GAP AT LEAST AFTER YOUR LAST REP. TO DOP/PW)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
31-12-2008, 12:39 PM
Dear All

Above draft has been prepared as a model for my and similar cases- others can modify the relevant paragraphs.You can reduce the text. Pl. feel free to modify/ add / subtract to suit your requirements ideas.What I have posted is only for improvement. Let us also use the NHRC avenue . If you read the text above you can see the scope of the complaint- NHRC's role etc.

The draft is inspired by Shri Bala's original draft which is also another model to follow.

NHRC's complaint portal can be accessed thru RREWA's portal or Directly. It is easliy accessible.

Complaint incident date can be 14th Oct 2008 when the damaging Om was issued.

There appears to be no limit for the text as the box expands.

Hard copy can follow with annexures etc.

Regards

vnatarajan

Shri K S Sitaraman has suggested addition of a small paragraph in the main body at the appropriate place. May be in the/ end of the fourth para from the top. As the main body is limited by 10,000 characters, I cd not put it there now. I am posting the para down below for the benefit of all those who can incorporate the same:

"It has been declared by the Law of the Land in Nakara's Case, that the Pensioners form a class by themselves and this class is not divisible for purpose of entitlement and for payment of pension, into those who retired 'before' and those 'after' a certain date arbitrarily fixed for the purpose. Any such classification will be unrelated to any principle and will be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This being the law, the factor to reckon is that, if the formula for computation of pension undergoes a change, it will work back for the benefit of those pensioners who had retired earlier and were not then entitled to its benefit when they retired."

vnatarajan ( Thanks to Shri KSS for his suggestion)

G.Ramdas
31-12-2008, 01:48 PM
Friends
I am told that a news item “Now, Pensioners Up in Arms” in the Pioneer newspaper of 29-12-2008 has highlighted the problem of wrong interpretation by Government of the words “the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale” in the SCPC’s recommendation relating to pre-2006 pensioners.
I have not seen this.In case any of the readers are aware of this he/she may like to highlight the same for the benefit of the Forum
Wish you all a very happy New Year which will see the fruition of our efforts

G.Ramdas
31-12-2008, 01:56 PM
I have just located the news item mentioned in my last post, which is here:

Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

Minor change in wordings results in lesser post-retirement benefits

The misinterpretation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation by the Department of Pension may adversely affect the retirement benefits to thousands of Central Government employees.

Unrest is brewing among the Central Government pensioners who have complained that the Pension Department’s mistake threatens to erode their hard-earned retirement benefits by as much as 20 per cent.

A case in point is the plight of retired Chief Post Master General, who stands to lose more than Rs 6,000 per month.

KR Rambhad, the retired Chief Post Master General (CPMG) has detailed the ‘mistakes’ made by the Department of Pension in a complaint to the Secretary of Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. The official has pointed out glaring ‘mistakes’ in assessing the modified parity to the pensioners prescribed by the Sixth Pay Commission.

“By the fault of the department my guaranteed pension comes to Rs 24,700, whereas according to the Pay Commission’s recommendations it should be Rs 31,925. This happened due to misreading of the recommendations by the Department of Pension,” wrote Rambhad, who retired from the postal service on 2001, in his complaint.

The pay panel had recommended that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provisions that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50 per cent of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale in which the pensioner had retired.”

Misinterpreting the Commission’s and the Government’s orders, the Department of Pension said, “The fixation of pension will be subject to the provisions that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than the 50 per cent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

The slight change of wording, sum of the minimum changed to minimum of the pay, is the root of the problem, which is giving nightmares to the retired employees.

Explaining the nitty-gritty of the calculation of parity in pensions, the complaint says: “The Sixth Pay Commission had not intended to dilute the guarantee on modified parity but the Department of Pension while communicating the orders on the implementation sought to do it by omitting the crucial words used by the Commission.”

Kanaujiaml
31-12-2008, 02:36 PM
My dear G Ramdass and all other pensioner friends. Happy new year 2009. May new year 2009 fullfil our desire of parity. Mr. Ramdass has given full version of the complaint of Mr. Ram Bhad in post 202. This is exacltly our demand also. People are coming forward and this would definitely one day make the Govt. listen to us.

vnatarajan
31-12-2008, 03:34 PM
Dear Shri Ramdas/Shri Kanaujiami/ friends

At the outset let me wish -MAY THE NEW YEAR BRING US THE CHERISHED BENEFIT FOR THE NEXT DECADE AND ALSO GIVE US EQUALITY,DIGNITY & JUSTICE! MY GREETINGS TO ALL.

Pioneer News Service deserves our grateful thanks for highlighting the problem through the veteran Shri Rambhad-CPMG's wordings and I think our vocabulary discussed earlier has attained some meaning (in between the lines!).

IF THE OUTCOME AS MR K HOPES emerges- NOTHING CAN BE BETTER THAN THAT- I and many friends here also feel so!

After all, in this case to ERR is also divine - and to forgive is also DIVINE (humans ???? my lengthy text may go to waste!)

I THINK IF SHRI RAMBHAD CAN HIGHLIGHT THE SAME IN MORE MEDIA/ NEWSPAPERS IN NEW DELHI (this was also our long cherished desire) WE MAY BECOME MORE NOTICEABLE!

(Lt Generals/ Lt Colonels going away from the lot - though they would be happy- still leaves the rest of the lot in muddy waters even among defence pensioners!).

CONVICTED with pension indignity = ACQUITTED with pension equality? will it become a reality?

YES! DOP/PW WILL GRACEFULLY BRING US JOY IN EARLY 2009.

Regards

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
31-12-2008, 10:23 PM
Let me take this oppurtunity to wish all "a happy new year - 2009". Let us be optimistic and hope that, the conerned will give a re-thinking on the 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 letter and issue necessary orders at the earliest to give justice to the recommendations of the 6 CPC. By now the DOP and PW must have received a number of repesentation and appeals some mild and a few in anger(this is bound to happen with majority of the affected pre 2006 pensioner).

Time taken for giving effect to the 5 CPC recommendations was more than a year. With the quick response and representaions by the affected the concerned dept may act fast.

If the RREWA's effort to convnce the PM/FM (after an interview) materialises, the justice may be quick by a revised OM on this.

Also let us hope that certain other anomalies also receieves patient hearing and gets corrected in early 2009.

We live to-day hoping for a better to-morrow.

R S Subba Rao

vnatarajan
01-01-2009, 09:03 AM
Dear All

Once again very very Happy New Year wishes to all.

RREWA site has a piece of encouraging information concerning the Military Veterans.

While some part of the information is history, the epilogue appears to refer to the Govt. consideration for certain improvements in the pensions being given to old pensioners.

Any modified parity normally should include civilians also as it was between pre and post 1996 retirees consequent to 5CPC.

LET US HOPE THERE WILL BE BEST OUTCOME BEFORE THE END OF JANUARY/ FEBRUARY 2009, for both Military and Civilian veterans.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-01-2009, 02:48 PM
Dear All

From Yahoo News

"Thu, Jan 1 01:26 PM

In a major New year bonanza for the armed forces, the Prime Minister's Office has informed the Defence Ministry that the armed forces personnel would henceforth have a separate pay commission, which is delinked from the civilian pay panel.

In a communication to the Defence Ministry the PMO also granted the demand for placing 12,000 odd Lieutenant Colonels under equivalence in Navy and Air Force in the pay band four of the sixth central pay commission."

From here to where?

May be for the future! WHAT HAPPENS TO THE "OLD" PENSIONERS? WILL THEIR PROBLEMS BE SETTLED BEFORE THE ONSET OF THE NEW DEFENCE PAY COMMISSION?

Buying Time? Election Strategy?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
01-01-2009, 06:52 PM
My dear Mr. Vnatarajan. Happy new year. In reference to your post 207, I could find the piece of news there in yahoo news. I feel Govt. is trying to find out ways & means to grant special packages to Defence Personnels, keeping civilians away from it at the same time, so that the expenditure is minimised. Question is " why do they do it ? " Are they not supposed to look after every body equally ? Question arises " what about para military forces ? " If they are doing it keeping an eye on next elections, this may not give them the desired result. It may even go against them. One thing is certain. Govt. cannot supress dues of old pensioners, for which even 6 CPC gave recommemendation for, for a very long time. In the meanwhile let us keep our morale high. KANAUJIAML

vnatarajan
01-01-2009, 08:02 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami

Thank you for your rejoinder. I happened to visit another website - http- suriscape.NET where also I was one of the earliest to start the debate on the pensioners' grievance consequent to 6 cpc OMs. Unfortunately it had not picked up so much on the discussion side.

But few active pensioners - like Mr G Ramdas had been writing there and of course the consensus is very similar to what has emerged here.

Yesterday I visited that site and under one of the news items( I think)- in the comments column etc- I had also described in a posting the developments that are taking place here.

There are quite a few like-minded affected senior/ other level pensioners who perhaps would join the bandwagon of our fight for justice.

There is another strong well-knit group of DRDO at Hyderabad under the leadership of Dr K M Rao- you have seen their rep. already - and they are also in the line.

We will keep our momentum with proper inputs from time to time.

If you analyse - effectively- the rhetoric vociferous group is that of S 29/30- S 23 and perhaps a few more! Defence also has similar categories. Lt Generals have been denied the HAG plus parity. Consequently there also S30 (Lt Gen) and S29 (Maj Gen) become vital, Their Lt Col solution eliminates the S 23 problem. Improvements for the pension of some old pensioners - hinted by Def. Min- would it apply to them piecemeal- leaving the Civilians aside? I can not think so!

- Jt Secys/ Addl. Secys have to be covered! Defence Civilians, scores of Accounts/ Audit stream senior pensioners, and as a follow up P & T, Railways pensioners etc will have to be taken care of.

It is Civilians in the fore always till now. May be with the new Defence Pay Commission coming up for the future, things may be different in the next Pay Commission episode!

Worst comes to worst- a new baby may be born next time- I mean -WE may end up with RAILWAYS PAY COMMISSION next- I think all of you (ex/ current Railway guys) must get ready and do the home work in advance for the benefit of the juniors! I strongly support such a resolution to emerge immediately if the Govt. does not heed to our plea in time. At least Railways do earn and that too with profit

Regards

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
02-01-2009, 08:21 AM
My dear Mr. Vnatarajan. In ref. to your post 209 I would like to draw your attention towards my post 191, wherein I have given loss occuring per month in pension to pensioners who retired before 01 01 06.What I wish to point out is, that, a large number of pensioners even in lower pay scales have been adversely affected by OM dt. 3rd Oct.08. It is however, true that the loss is higher to those who retired from higher pay scales but this is but natural. Secondly, with regard to separate pay commission for the Railways, you have talked about, I would say, it would be a sad thing to happen, although I am myself a Railway Retiree. Think then, what would happen to those people who are left behind unprotected. This divide and rule policy would not work for long. I particularly, welcome the Govt.'s decision to raise pension of soldiers to 70 %.They mostly retire after 15 years of service and get meagre pension. However, what would happen to existing ex soldiers, who are on hunger strike ? Would they get this benifit of 70 % ? And what about para military forces. They work in similar conditions as Army. Are they not entitle to similar benifits as Army ? Govt. has opened a pandora box after announcing a separate pay commission for Army.

vnatarajan
02-01-2009, 09:33 AM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami

I agree with you fully on all points.

(1) Many affected in lower scales are not aware of the same. The msileading 2.26 fixation formula gives an apparent benefit of say 20 to 25% and many are happy with that rise. They may not be aware that they are entitled for more. Again, because of the age/ lack of access to communication/ helplessness makes them compromise to situations. WE WILL CERTAINLY VOICE THEIR GRIEVANCES. IN FACT MAKING 70% basic as Pension for soldiers is not enough. IT CD and SHD BE 100% if alternate employment is not provided. SIMILARLY LOWERMOST CIVILIAN CATEGORY MUST ALSO GET NOT LESS THAN Rs 5000 K as pension if not more!
(2)Existing soldier pensioners shd get parity WHICH NOT EVEN ALMIGHTY CAN DENY to them IF OUR CONSTITUTION has the grain of salt and our GOVERNANCE has a sense of respect for it. SUPREME COURT has to take cognisance of the situation in case such a benefit is not bestowed on the Military pensioners concurrently based on equality.
(3)Yes Para Military forces also shd get similar benefits.
(4) I was thinking the learned Honble PM who is also our FM now can really solve the problems sooner than anybody- but the way the Defence Pay Commssion is springing up- I thought it is only to delay/ run away from poblems for the time-being rather than address the total situation. If it is DEFENCE PC today( lakhs of pensioners) why Not RLYs tomorrow (with good no. of pensioners???). I DONT WISH IT SHOULD HAPPEN! (But if driven to the wall ?)
(5)DIVIDE and RULE policy is the inherited hangover from the BRITISH which our bureaucracy has totally adopted - more in recent days! CONCEDING THE DEFENCE PAY COMMISSION is a clear indication of failing bureaucracy and they should see the writing on the wall! IT IS NOT A FEATHER in their cap! It is a sad reflection on their incompetency to hold on the Nation's executive as a whole! Lack of wisdom and maturity is glaringly visible! They may contain the Lt Generals/Maj. Genls. this time- but in future?

(Where from the Money will come? this qn has been answered so many times! Actual qn should be WHERE THE PENSIONERs' FROZEN WAGEs HAVE GONE? Recent Mumbai High Court verdict gives the answer. It is for the Executive to plan and make it available accordingly in the Budgets. Infinite amounts of money crop up for populistic measures (from AKSHAYA PATRA)- see how my state Tamil Nadu gives so liberally everyday for every need under various populistic schemes!!! )

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
02-01-2009, 05:54 PM
In my posting No.158, I had suggested a draft representation to NHRC,
along with Appendices I and II.
I am giving below Appendix III relating to an interesting case in Peru wherein the Association of Human Rights had intervened on behalf of five pensioners and got justice for them from the Supreme Court of Peru which directed the Peruvian Government to pay $3000 to each pensioner and also litigation costs for violation of right to fair trial and right to pension which is a property right.

APPENDIX III

Justice to pensioners on intervention
by Association of Human Rights in Peru

There is an interesting case in Peru, where five pensioners had been guaranteed a certain amount of pension by the Peruvian Government but the Government arbitrarily reduced their pension in 1992. They filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Peru in 1994. The Court ordered the Government to restore their pension, but the Government failed to do so.
The pensioners then went before the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru which also directed the Government to honour the Supreme Court verdict, but the Government again failed to comply with it.
In February 1995, the Human Rights Programme of the Labour Advisory Centre of Peru (CEDAL) and the Association for Human Rights (APRODEH) filed a petition with the Human Rights Commission, and the Commission decided in favour of the pensioners after a merits hearing and brought the case before the Court in December 2001. CEDAL and the Centre for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) acted jointly as the pensioners’ counsel before the Court. The Court heard them and then found that Article 25(2) had been violated since the Peruvian Government had violated the pensioners’ right to fair trial and to judicial protection.
Further, the Court found that the State’s arbitrary reduction of pensions was a violation of article 21, the right to private property. The Court had elevated the status of a social service from privilege to property right which cannot be limited or rescinded for any purpose other than for reasons of public utility or social interest.
In its decision on damages, the Court ordered the Peruvian Government to pay $3000 to each pensioner plus litigation costs for violation of Articles 21 and 25.

This Appendix may also form part of the draft petition to NHRC given in posting No.158.

S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
03-01-2009, 03:53 PM
Dear All

Hope all are keeping track and continue to send the representations/ register the grievance/ prepare for the legal battle etc. PL DO NOT RELENT.

You can see from the Item of news below that the DoP/PW is getting flooded with representations but then the MOF appears to be the obstacle.

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

NEWS ITEM IN SURISPACE.NET undet the title "SIXTH PAY COMMISSION- losers Class I Officers" gives the following summary:

Secretary, Pensions and Public Grievances, Rajni Rajdan, is flooded with representation of pensioners of central services who retired at the level of Additional Secretary. Their pension is fixed at a few thousand rupees above those who retired at director level, much lower than the retired IPS/IFS officers who usually retire at the level of DGP or PCCF. Rajdan has been pleading their case but Finance Ministry is unwilling to listen. The union cabinet had overruled the latter and gave a specific scale 75,500 - 80,000 to DGPs and PCCFs due to effective lobbying by All India Services. Class I officers of CCS reach up to the level of Additional Secretary only. They failed to get a pay scale of 74,500 - 79,000 and this level remains bunched in the lower Pay scale. It appears that the Finance Ministry will not even take the matter up to the cabinet and Class I CSS officers will retire in a pay scale that begins at a paltry 37,400 while their colleagues in IPS/IFS retire in a pay scale that begins at 75,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

S.Balasubramanian
03-01-2009, 04:18 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan,
The information you have given about non-all-india-service officers is very interesting. As somebody had remarked humourously, the whole exercise of pay commission and Secretaries' Committee was for IAS, by IAS and of IAS, and no wonder they had taken care of their close fortress. This was evident from the illustration given in the OM dated 3.10.08, giving clarification on para 4.2, citing PB4 case only without bothering about how that interpretation would adversely affect others in other pay bands.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
03-01-2009, 07:03 PM
Dear Shri Bala
What you have put forth is the real situation-
As I had remarked earlier, if our Executive (I mean other than Judiciary and Parliament) gets divided in the coming years, it will be mainly because of the self-styled selfish top scum of the bureaucracy only.
I had urged that Rly should get out of this Pay Commission business like Military- though I do not wish so!
Judiciary shd be happy with their raise- but I only wish at least and pray to them that they be humane enough to uphold the Constitutional Rights of the pensioners - by at least taking note of the flood of grievances of the old pensioners and come out with a compassionate public interest pronouncement.
Another interesting thing was the OM of 14th October 2008. The moment we realised the damages contained in the 3rd Oct 2008 OM, we started acting (mostly S 29 level retirees)- from 5th October itself - much before 14th October- and as if to nail us, the example cited was that of S29 scale in the Annexure II - not S30 or S28/27 etc!!! IT looked like an exhibition of autocracy through contradictingly-worded (CORRESPONDING vs IRRESPECTIVE!!!) orders!
RRSCS had protested much earlier to the Secretary's committee etc on the S29/30 scales in late April/ early May itself- much much before the OMs of Sept/Oct but I think scant respect was shown to such a high level representation.
Let us see how things develop further.
Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
03-01-2009, 07:32 PM
My dear Mr. vnatarajan. Your analysis of situation in above post is entirely correct. I may further add that it becomes our duty to make all the pensioners, who are adversely affected, aware of their loss. On 15 11.08 I read a paper in Govt. Pensioners Association, Dehra Dun, highlighting this particular aspect. This Association has got membershipt of Central and State Govt. pensioners and pensioners from Defence Forces and Para Military forces. I am again going to do it on 11 Jan.'09. I am also trying to write in News papers, if possible. Many members of this forum are capable people and can write to News Papers, whereever feasible, so that awareness amongsts pensioners as well as public in general, takes place. Besides this, all of us should represent, if not already done. In a democracy, voice of people cannot be ignored for long, particularly if it is supported by law and justice. You are a senior member of this forum and most enightened one. Please keep it going.

vnatarajan
03-01-2009, 08:28 PM
Dear Mr K
Efforts u are making to spread the awareness is very laudable.
Also pl take pains to enlighten some more aspects- particularly for those-who are bnot clear about "PENSIOIN' itself.

1.Define?
2.What is it? Why is it? (frozen amount of wage- GPF vs CPF- unpaid component of PF held by Govt.)
3.It is a salary for a Retired "EMPLOYEE"?
4.Any budget has to take care of it along with salary of the employees? (Doubting thomases- where from money comes)
5.What is GDP/ What is the Role of Govt. employee in administering the whole country's infrastructure to attain the said GDP?What is it exactly in India (eg Rlys/ Telecom/ Ports- Airpoorts- Highways/ PSUs contributions etc etcin India? What the Govt. spends on Govt. admin in a country like ours (socialistic democracy))? What is the expenditure on Govt. employees wages - pensions vis a vis GDP?
6.Let not the Pensioners feel Guilty.Their usaefulness to society has no relevance after retirement!It is Govt. wh has retired them. They have done enough service to the Nation. If Nation wants to take more work from them- many wd be prepared to contribute!
7. What are Pensioners' Rights- Constitutionally/ Lawfully/ Human Rights-wise?
8.What Role the Pensioners' Associations/ Federations shd play- shd not become stooges to any political party or parties!


With a quick prologue and thru PPT presentation on the CURRENT SCENERIO I think you will certainly make a terrific impact! (Epilogue- I think Shri Maheshwari has some Masala in his ppt.)

Pl. keep all of us informed/. Also put up a PPT album on RREWA site wh we can access and see and utilise.

Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
04-01-2009, 08:45 AM
My dear Mr. Natarajan, S Balasubramanian and other pensioner friends.
First of all I would like to thank Mr. Balasubramanian for enlightening us of
" Peru Case " in his post 212. Subsequent posts 213,214,215 and 217 are also very interesting. Further, I would invite your kind attention to my post 216 once again. My view is that sufficient awareness has been created by now amongsts this forum members and the rrewa.org watchers/contributors. But the fact remains that number of such pensioners is very small who surf internet. Without creating proper awareness amongsts the pensioners who do not surf the net and without the active or even passive participation of such pensioers, it would be difficult to put pressure on Govt. to listen to our plight.
I therefore, suggest the learned forum members to write in news papers (in any form and language) highlighting the fact that " old pensioners were given by vi cpc, some due benifits by way of modified parity, which Govt. had also accepted first on 29th Sept.08 vide Gazette Notifications but latter denied the same by issuing OM dated 3rd Oct.08." We should not forget to emphasize the fact that not only one or two higher prerevised pay scale pensioners have been put to loss but a very large number of almost all prerevised pay scale pensioners have been put to loss in pension every month, due to denial of modified parity and benefit derived from it. Any comments ?

vnatarajan
04-01-2009, 11:10 AM
Dear Mr K

Absolutely fine.
What I was suggesting is:

Pre-Main theme: Prologue for those who are not yet fully aware/ non-believers!!!

MAIN THEME: YOUR ENTIRE ANALYSIS OF HOW EACH AND EVERY PENSIONER IS AFFECTED- wrt 6th CPC OMs (Not only the top levels- but at all levels- if necessary pl do make a distinct comparison between post-2006 pensioners- how they get the full benefit of everything ie more than our fitment plus full benefit out of Grade Pay component, whereas pre-2006 pensioners lose (a lot) in terms of these two "supposed" incremental benefits)

Epi-logue: What options/ actions aggrieved pensioners have to pursue.

I think, this may clarify my views for a presentation.

Of course depending upon the audience/ participant, the contents of the presentation can be shotened/ modified etc.

Regards
vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
04-01-2009, 01:06 PM
I fully appreciate the views of Sh. Kanaujiaml.The vast majority of pensioners do not browse the internet and are not aware of what is happening in these forums.Further , many pensioners who have been benefitted by cl 4.2 of the notification as clarified on 14/10/08 , feel that hey have been adequately paid, though this may not be the case. Even, I was not aware of the fact of the exact loss to each group of pensioners as clearly brought out in Sh. Kanaujiaml's post no.191.
This has to be brought to the notice of all pensioners. Rrewa or some other pensioners' association should write to all the pensioners organisations highlighting this. A list of pensioners' association is available in Pensioners' portal under the heading "related resources".
The present thread has a heading which apparently restricts itself to pre-revised S-29 and S-30 scales. As per Sh. Kanaujiaml's post at no.191, S-21 and S-22 scales are also affected the damage deing upto Rs. 4060. Perhaps a new thread can be started by Sh. Kanaujiaml himself or some senior members to bring all these affected parties to our forum

G.Ramdas
04-01-2009, 04:57 PM
Regarding the clarifications issued on 3/10 and 14/10 I asked a legal expert the following question:
Why are Goverment decisions gazetted?Can the gazetted decisions be changed by routine clarifications which are not gazetted?
Answer is "no" by Sidh Vicky in 'ibibo sawaal'

vnatarajan
04-01-2009, 07:48 PM
My view:

"...The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to, amend or vary....."

If not done aleady/ or even if it is not in the pipe-line/ it may happen from time to time.....

Gazette Notification can be amended/ added/ subtracted by another Gazette Notification
(thai is what I think!!!!)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
04-01-2009, 08:35 PM
My dear Mr. Ramdass Vnatarajan and other pensioner friends. I am delighted to see Mr. Ramdass's post 219. He has very rightly caught the basic idea of my argument. As regard new thread, it does not matter because all sorts of Ideas are emerging from this basic thread, which I think we should continue with under the guidience and leadership of Mr. vnatarajan. With regard to point you have made in your post 221 above, I may humbly state that, I had taken note of this aspect and even pointed this to PM in my representation vide par 7, which I reproduce below for your kind information :

"7 It is wondering us as to how a Union Cabinet reversed its own approval and denied the Pensioners their justified due. Or, perhaps Union Cabinet’s approval was not obtained before issuing modification and amendment of method of fixation of Revised Basic Pension as mentioned in para 5 above, simply on the name of issuing “clarifications.” (Full text of my representatio to PM is available on rrewa.org)

With apologies, I would like to say that I do not agree with Mr. Natarajan (post 220) that Govt. has right to issue Gazette Notification for everything.

In this case decision was approved by the Union Cabinet and thereafter a Gazette Notification was issued. This decision can be reversed or even modified with the approval of Union Cabinet only and thereafter, a similar Gazette Notification would become necessary. OM dated 3rd Oct.08 has been issued by Ministry of Personell with backing of Finance Ministry and there is every likilyhood that Union Cabinet's approval was not taken. That is why the said OM talks about "clarifications". They know the old pensioners are unorganised and weaker lot and would not dare to challenge the Govt. any where.

vnatarajan
04-01-2009, 09:28 PM
Dear Mr K / Mr Ramdas

Your arguments are valid to the extent that they ( I mean the Recommenadations) are mentioned in the order.
This had been the point of debate between me and my another colleague MR PKR who is a rule-man!

Many recos are shown as "accepted" in Gazette Notifications.

But in the final OM- it will be mentioned "Under Scrutiny" "Deferred" or some other phraseology. I think there are some more recos which are shown as accepted- but no mention of them in subsequent OMs.

Like you, I also stuck to my arguments with Mr PKR- only to reconcile finally with the outcome.

The TEXT appearing within inverted commas below "My view" in posting 222 is not my wordings-but quoted from the text of a Gazette Notification itself!!!

Therefore still I have doubts about the sanctity of Gazette Notifications and I feel the Govt. can always 'ex-post facto' ratify any 'corrections' 'clarifications' and issue a fresh amendment/ addition/ subtraction to such Notifications.

I wish I am wrong- but still the Govt. unfortunately is the King- Law-Maker & Law-Breaker!

Let us hope for the best!

vnatarajan


.

S.Balasubramanian
04-01-2009, 10:45 PM
Dear Mr Natarajan/Mr Kanaujia/Mr Ramdas,
Re:postings 222/224 about Central Government's power to notify.
Under any statute, Government is given delegated power by Parliament to frame rules/notifications ec. which they have to publish in the official Gazette, and these notifications have to be laid on the Table of both houses of Parliament during the same session or the session immediately following them.
Instances have been there, where in the notifications, Government have exceeded the powers given to them under the statute and provided for things not covered by the statute, by framing rules making amendments, modifications or clarifications etc. Such cases come within the purview of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation in both the Houses of Parliament.
The Committee has all the powers of a Parliamentary Committee including power to summon witnesses from the Ministry etc. and then make their recommendations. They scrutinise all these notifications from time to time, examine them to see whether they are within the powers delegated by Parliament to the executive or have exceeded the same. Then they present their report to Parliament with their recommendations, to be followed up by action-taken reports from the Ministry concerned.
In the light of this, I feel that this avenue also can be explored, and pensioners' associations can send letters to the Committee pointing out that
the notifications have exceeded the powers given to them under the statute, and the Committee will call for facts and get seized of the matter.
This is the idea which strikes me on reading the above postings.
I shall try and see the Pension Act from the websites if available for the actual powers delegated to Parliament and then get in touch with you.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
05-01-2009, 06:58 AM
Dear Mr K/ Mr Ramdas and Mr Bala

Good the debate is producing some useful outcome. So let us wait for Mr Bala to come up with his views and then we can add this also as a malafide violation of the statutory provisions by the Govt. (Executive). I only wish the Govt. had not moved ahead of us!

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
05-01-2009, 08:38 AM
My dear Mr. Ramdass, Mr. Bala , Mr vnatarajan and other pensioner friends.Debate is hotting up with regard to Govt.' issue of "modification" vide OM 3rd Oct.08. Mr. Natarajan and other friends are missing one point. It is a normal practice and perhaps some fundamental rule, that, the Authority, which gives approval, cannot reverse or modify it. The reversal and modification can only be done by an Authority which is atleast one step higher than the one which gave the approval to the decision. In present case, Union Cabinet's approval was obtained. Since there is no higher Authority above the Union Cabinet, in this particular instance, the reversal or modification of decision was possible only with the approval of Union Cabinet. Notifications whether Gazetted or not, are not very important. In this particular case Gazette Notification has become important because through this only one could know that the decision carries highest Authority Namely Union Cabinet.
2. The next very important point I would like to mention that Ministry of Personnel vide notification dated 29th Sep.'08 had clearly stated in Item 12 of the table that Union Cabinet has approved "Acceptance of Para 5.1.47 of vi CPC report" (except raising of factor from 1.74 to 1.86). It may not be forgotten that after Union Cabinet's Acceptance, the same action taken vi cpc report was put up on the table of Lok Sabha and passed by Lok Sabha.

3. Now, I will ask my friends, who do not agree with my argument, was Modificatiion to Item 12 (para 4.2)was approved by Union Cabinet and same was then put on the Table of Lok Sabha and passed by Lok Sabha and only thereafter, OM dated 3rd Oct.'08 was issued ? Apparently, NOT. Therefore, the Modification is not at all legal in the eyes of Law.

4. Bravo to Mr. G. Ramdass. I am having a second thought. Why not start new thread afterall with new meaningful caption to attract all sorts of Govt. Pensioner to this forum ? Mr. V Natarajan can do it as I am not in favour of starting various thread by everybody as these thread become dead after some time. Comments/Crticisisim to my above individual points are most welcome !

vnatarajan
05-01-2009, 12:07 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami/ friends

I have no objection to start a new thread- but what can be the caption to attract one and all? - again it will be only all of us here who will mainly debate! Many as you have observed earlier do not have the means to know- even after you,I and others have been shouting that ALL/ MOST ARE LOSERS by some amount at least! Responses are not good enough. From my own network of 90 odd people created for this purpose only half a dozen come up to express here! At the same time I am sure many are reading the debate here. Of course all have their own limitations and do not have at home facilities and hence we may not mistake them. We will carry them along.

Reg para 3 of you noting, why not go for a quick RTI query in the interim period?. I am waiting for Shri Bala's note. Even otherwise I would explore the possibility of the same soon.

Govt. violates in many such and in even more serious matters and circumvents everything inclluding Supreme Court! See the Creamy Layer issue! What if they go for ratification later in our case.?

Fighting on technicalities of procedures wrt modifications may only help to delay matters ultimately and may not be helpful for us to achieve our objectives quickly, but fighting on the actual contents of the modifications which has caused us injustice has to be the main focus. Nevertheless the 'irregular' modification has to be one of the issues- I do agree.

This is my opinion.

We shall debate.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
05-01-2009, 12:26 PM
I think RTI query is a good option.

vnatarajan
05-01-2009, 01:54 PM
Dear K/ Mr Ramdas/ Mr Bala/ Friends

I have some more masala now and a good starting point to focus on. Thanks to perseverant Mr K, I have no other option than to satisfy him and of course myself too:

Pl see the title for the new thread proposed:

"GAZETTE NOTIFICATIONS: SACROSANCT DOCUMENTS OR MERE SLAPDASH SLIMY SLIPS?

(A Note can follow the new thread based on some postings that are above/matter from other sources).

Regards

vnatarajan

badri mannargudi
05-01-2009, 02:24 PM
Dear Shri Bala
What you have put forth is the real situation-
As I had remarked earlier, if our Executive (I mean other than Judiciary and Parliament) gets divided in the coming years, it will be mainly because of the self-styled selfish top scum of the bureaucracy only.
I had urged that Rly should get out of this Pay Commission business like Military- though I do not wish so!
Judiciary shd be happy with their raise- but I only wish at least and pray to them that they be humane enough to uphold the Constitutional Rights of the pensioners - by at least taking note of the flood of grievances of the old pensioners and come out with a compassionate public interest pronouncement.
Another interesting thing was the OM of 14th October 2008. The moment we realised the damages contained in the 3rd Oct 2008 OM, we started acting (mostly S 29 level retirees)- from 5th October itself - much before 14th October- and as if to nail us, the example cited was that of S29 scale in the Annexure II - not S30 or S28/27 etc!!! IT looked like an exhibition of autocracy through contradictingly-worded (CORRESPONDING vs IRRESPECTIVE!!!) orders!
RRSCS had protested much earlier to the Secretary's committee etc on the S29/30 scales in late April/ early May itself- much much before the OMs of Sept/Oct but I think scant respect was shown to such a high level representation.
Let us see how things develop further.
Regards
vnatarajan.

Dear friends!
That pension is not a dole, but instead, it is compensation for the officer who spent his entire energy to the cause of the development of his Mother Nation.should be understood. This point is emphasided by Shri VNjee when he meant that (the entire community of ) the officers who (were) retired on superannuation are prepared to render service in what ever capacity.
As for the attitude shown by serving officers from Bureocracy in meting out undesirable, unacceptable and intolerable treatment to those Class I officers [from services other than the obvious(read "elite")ones, I have only to say that every one would become a pensioner himself and these officers who are/were instrumental in issuance of orders ridden with injustice may become victims to their own such attitudes (read "medicine").
Last, but not the least, learned Members of this Forum may educate serving persons like me, as to how and which manner we can help to the cause of all those pre 01.01.2006 Retirees.
As a theist, I conclude with the time tested saying "God sees the truth, but waits.
With Regards,
Badri

S.Balasubramanian
05-01-2009, 04:19 PM
Re: Pension Act, 1871 as amended from time to time:The provision in the Act for rule-making power reads as follows:
"14.Power to make rules.-"[In each State] the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, with the consent of the [appropriate Government], from time to time make rules consistent with this Act respecting all or any of the following matters :- (1) the place and times at which, and the person to whom, any pension shall be paid; (2) inquiries into the identity of claimants; (3) records to be kept on the subject of pensions; (4) transmission of such records; (5) correction of such records; (6) delivery of certificates to pensioners; (7) registers of such certificates; (8) reference to the Civil Court, under section 6, of persons claiming a right of succession to, or participation in, pensions or grants of money or land-revenue payable by Government; and generally for the guidance of officers under this Act. All such rules shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereupon have the force of law. 15. Power of Central Government to make rules. 5[15. Power of Central Government to make rules.-The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a)the manner and form in which any nomination may be made under section 12A and the manner and form in which such nomination may be cancelled or varied by another nomination; (b)the manner in which provision may be made, for the purposes of the second proviso to section 12A, in any such nomination for conferring on some person other than the nominee the right to receive moneys payable to the nominee if such nominee predeceases the pensioner, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ibs. by Act 20 of 1982, s. 3. 2. Subs, by the A.O. 1937, for "L. G". 3. Ins., ibid. 4. Subs. ibid., for "L. G.". 5. Ins. by Act 20 of 1982, s. 4. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 132 (IV-Miscellaneos. Schedule) 16.Laying of rules.-Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act and every rule made under section 14 by a Chief Controlling Revenue Authority with the consent of the Central Government, shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.] [SCHEDULE.] Rep. by the repealing Act, 1938 (1 of 1938), s. 2 and Sch".

On a layman's reading, it appears from the above section that quantum of pension or interpretation of provisions regarding the same does not form the subject-matter of rules. Rules for guidance of officers may be made to give effect to Government resolutions or decisions.
On the basis of this understanding, one may argue that the OMs dt.3.10.08 giving clarifications of earlier OM dt.1.9.08 appear to exceed the rule-making power, since they seek to go beyond the Resolution of Government by giving a strange and unintended interpretaion re:quantum of pension behind the back or without the formal approval of Central Goverment. If this understanding is correct, then it becomes a matter which can be taken cognizance of by the Committee on Subordinate Legislation in both houses of Parliament, and they can call for factual note from the Ministry after the receipt of which they can summon the Ministry officials/or others to clarify the position and then present their report to Parliament, which has to be followed by action-taken report by the Ministry.
If this understanding of mine is correct, the Committee on Subodinate Legislation in both Houses may be requested to take up the matter for examiation.
S.Balasubramanian.

vnatarajan
05-01-2009, 06:46 PM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami/ Mr Bala/ Mr Ramdas/K M Rao & Group/ Friends watching this flip flap rattles,

Thanks to the grilling by Mr K and subsequent notings by Mr Bala, I thought of becoming wiser.

Every time the Govt had been trying to act whimsically and they are in the habit of not adhering to the Gazette Notifications or Presidential Orders!

I have some inputs from somewhat similarly aggrieved pensioners of "mutilated pension" fame belonging to an earlier era- and perhaps they are adept by now in tackling the situation.

What I could make out is:

(1)that the Hon'ble President can grant any emoluments, including special/ grade pay etc, which may be classed as pay of a Government servant; (2)that the Presidential Order cannot be materially altered as modified by the subordinate authority by way of clarification/ corrigendum memorandum dated 3rd and 14th October 2008, issued subsequent to the Official Memorandum of Ist September 2008.

With these as core points, I think one more set of reps. of pointed grilling has to go to the DoP/PW and MoF together this time- because the hasty alteration perhaps is the decision of the latter ( I think in the OMs there is something like issued with the concurrence of the MoF perhaps in the OM of 3rd Oct and not so in the OM of 14th Oct wh appears to be solely by MoP/PG/P - DoP/PW - and both do not make mention of any Presidential cauthorisations/ Gazette refernces -to be checked)

I think Mr Bala/ some more experts can attempt to draft a small succint rep. for a quick appeal.

Regards

vnatarajan

( Now, one can go down to postings BELOW at sl nos 235/ 236/237 etc by Mr Bala/ Mr Ramdas to finalise a draft to suit each one's case. I HAVE NOT POSTED THESE REMARKS THERE BECAUSE THEN PEOPLE MAY MISS READING THE SAID NOTINGS WH ARE IMPORTANT TO DRAFT Reps. Many of us have contested the "Minimum" issue already and of course with the current analysis also one can again put across the same. All of us have to flood the DoP/PW & MoF with reps again protesting to their questionable OMs issued without proper authorisation. I shall act very soon on my own behalf and on behalf of the Forum I head)

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
05-01-2009, 07:21 PM
I suggest another caption to new thread.

"Restore parity to all pensioners as per accepted vi cpc report para 1.5.47 and withdraw amendment vide OM dated 3r Oct.08."

G.Ramdas
05-01-2009, 10:32 PM
Mr.Natarajan You are right. The O.M of 3/10 was issued with the concurrence of Min. of Finance ,Dept. of expenditure.It says"The matter has been considerd in consultation with Min. of Finance, dept. of Expenditure and the following clarifications/modifications are made in regard to the aforesaid O.M of 1/09/08." So these are modified versions of the Govt. decision.But the "pension resolution" gazetted on 29/08/08 remains untouched so far. We do not know when that will also be modified. Both theO.Ms are also issued with the concurrence of CAG. Are there no IA&AS pensioners aggrieved by these modifications? Should they not take up with CAG on this issue?

S.Balasubramanian
06-01-2009, 02:37 AM
Dear Mr Natarajan and other friends,
The following may be a draft for pursuing the matter in regard to definition of minimum of pay in pay band
Serious doubts have been raised whether the OM Pt I and Pt II dated 3.10.2008 giving clarifications/modifications of provisions of OM dated 1.90.2008 have been issued after obtaining the proper sanction of the Central Government/Cabinet with whose sanction the original OM of 1.9.2008 was issued.
One can understand clarifications or modifications in consonance with provisions of OM dated 1.9.2008 being issued by the Ministry at their level, but when it is a question of undoing or modifying of provisions of OM dated 1.9.2008 to the detriment of pensioners, the Ministry officers cannot overstep their powers or arrogate to themselves such powers and issue such clarifications/modifications behind the back of the Cabinet and without their sanction/approval.
A careful reading of the language of the three OMs confirms this irresistible conclusion that the OMs of 3.10.2008 have been issued without obtaining the sanction/approval of the Cabinet. It seems to be a case of two Directors in the Department of Pensions and the Department of Expenditure arrogating to themselves such powers and issuing such clarifications/modifications, in a casual manner over a cup of tea without realizing the serious consequences of such casual decision which would affect quite a large number of pensioners whose class they will be joining sooner or later and would affect their own interests sooner or later.

The language used in the OM of 1.9.2008 is as follows:
“The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, SANCTION OF HE PRESIDENT IS HEREBY ACCORDED TO THE REGULATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006, OF PENSION/…”.
In other words, the order of OM dated 1.9.2008 was based on the Government Resolution notified earlier on the subject.

But the language of the OMs of 3.10.2008 reads thus:
“The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, sanction of the President was accorded to the regulation with effect from 1.1.2006, of pension….A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS ARE BEING RECEIVED IN THIS DEPARTMENT SEEKING CLARIFICATIONS IN REGARD TO THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE AFORESAID OM. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE), AND THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS/CLARIFICATIONS ARE MADE IN REGARD TO THE AFORESAID OM DATED 1.9.2008.”
Clearly, the sanction of the President, that is, the sanction/approval of the Cabinet has not been obtained for this purpose and to that extent, where the OM dated 3.10.008 exceeds the powers to issue clarifications/modifications, in gross violation of the intent and spirit of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and to the detriment of pensioners, to that extent, those parts of the OM dated 3.10.2008 are not legally valid since they lack the mandatory requirement of sanction of President or approval/sanction of the Cabinet for such new interpretations.

An important case in point is in regard to the clarification issued on para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 which says 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 plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
The expression “pay in the pay band” is a term generic to the OM dated 30.8.2008 regarding fixation of revised pay and has been clearly indicated for different stages of basic pay in the pre-revised pay scales, in the Annexure thereto along with the .grade pay corresponding to such scales. So, the intention clearly is that the minimum of those amounts of pay in the pay band for each pre-revised pay scale has to be taken into account along with the grade pay corresponding to that scale, and 50% of their sum has to be the minimum revised pension.
But the clarification of para 4.2 in OM dt.3.10.2008 sets at nought this intention and gives a strange twist by providing:
“The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale”
. In the illustration given, and in the Annexure to that OM, a new interpretation has been given that the minimum referred to is the minimum of the pay band, a definition totally contrary to the well-defined formula followed in OM dt.30.8.08 re: revised pay, and to the utter detriment of most of the pensioners.
Since this goes beyond the powers of the Ministry and the express sanction/approval of the Cabinet has not been taken for such twist in the interpretation, to that extent, that particular part of the OM dated 3.10.2008 is legally invalid.
As per the judgment of the Supreme Court on 17.12.1982 in D.S.Nakra case, where it was contended by the Attorney General that the OM was a whole package and if any particular part was unconstitutional, the whole OM goes, the Supreme Court after quoting precedents held that under the doctrine re: severability, it is only the unconstitutional part which would be struck down but the constitutional part of the OM will stay.
On this basis, the mischievous clarification issued in regard to para 4.2 in the OM dated 3.10.2008 in this regard deserves to be struck down as legally invalid, and the accepted definition of the minimum of pays in pay band corresponding to the different stages of pay in the pre-revised pay scale has to be taken into account for calculation of minimum of revised pension.
It is hoped that the Department of Pensions will amend OM dt.3.10.2008 and give the correct clarification of para 4.2 as established above and relieve the old pensioners and senior citizens from the agonizing treatment being meted out to them at present.
S.Balasubramanian

G.Ramdas
06-01-2009, 07:56 AM
I fully agree with Sh. Bala subramaian.
As regards my last post I stand corrected. The O.M. of 3/10 was NOT issued with the concurrence of CAG. If it is argued that the pensioners cases are not to be referred to CAG, why was it done in the first instance, while issuing O.M. on 01/09/08.Is CAG aware of the modifications?. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

G.Ramdas

aritra78
06-01-2009, 02:25 PM
Dear Sirs,
First of all I shall admit that I am not a pensioner and don't know whether I should write on this subject. But my father is a pensioner of S-30 scale who is affected by the orders issued by DOP/PW on 3.10.08 and he has already sent appeals to Secretary DOP/PW with copy of last letter to Shri Maheshwariji, General secretary RREWA. I am in touch with this site (especially this thread )and see the opinions/comments of experts. From the present situation I feel that Ministry of Finance(MOF) is the main culprit who is obstructing the legitimate dues of all pre-2006 pensioners. Even if I assume that DOP/PW has approached Dept of Expenditure (DOE), MOF with some positive recommendation in this regard (if at all), DOE is overruling the recommendation in the context of additional financial burden . This is done by MOF in most of the issues. Before going to the legal battle which of course may be long and the last step if no other alternatives are available I request the following steps to be tried out as early as possible:
1. The pensioner associations (Like RREWA and others who are fighting for justice) may write about the discrimination and injustice done to pre-2006pensioners(number of affected people will be lakhs) to those Member of Parliaments who are sympathetic to problems of Government servants and pensioners. One of them raised the issue of Non Gazetted servants very recently in Parliament. In this context I feel that RREWA, etc should also approach Rajya Sabha members nominated by Government of India like former ISRO chief, etc. Being former Government servants they can at least understand the problem of other pensioners and may raise the question in parliament during the upcoming budget session or write to Government of India. Also a copy of representation may be sent to UPA Chairperson,Honourable President of India and Lok Sabha speaker and their intervention may be requested.
2. The affected pensioners of Dept of Space can also request the present Chairman ISRO and also send collective representations to Former president A.P.J.Abdul kalam and request for his intervention. This can be done by pensioners of DRDO also.
3. Being a former scientist of ISRO, it is my view that as Space & Atomic Energy are two Depts directly controlled by Honourable PM and he himself is looking into the MOF, if there is collective representation of pensioners of these Depts some positive results can come. Actually Honourable PM if I am not wrong was Member of Space commission and so he is aware of the activities of these Depts. and may be sympathetic to pensioners.
It is my personal view that if we send only representations to DOP/PW positive results may not come or the matter may stretch too long and if Lok Sabha elections are over, everything will end.
Thanking You,
Yours sincerely,
ARITRA GANGULY

vnatarajan
07-01-2009, 07:34 AM
Dear Dr Aritra

I appreciate your well thought out and comprehensive suggestions.

Your first paragraph clinches the issue and explains the ground truth.

If the said MoF has assumed the dimension of a STATURE in recent times which is above the President/ Supreme Court & HIgh Court/ Gazette Notifications etc and issues OMs left and right by itself or through its corollary i.e. MoP/PG/P (DoP/PW), all the other avenues you have suggested will have no effect! THIS IS THE TRUTH which is happening till today.

The MOF is very mich aware by any number of court strictures- two of them as early as in August/ Sept 2008 that what they are perpetauating is against rules/ presidential notifications/against law/ against Constitutioinal guarantees.

They are also in reciept of thousands of complaints/ grievance registrations/ appeals & representations- directly to them or thru DoP/PW or even referred by PMO etc and yet they will not even acknowledge or act?


Regarding your 3 points for action:

1. MPs raising qns in LS or RS- I think if it has to be on priority, we have to approach TEHELKA for modalities. Nevertheless some pensioners who had served the Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha sincerely over long tenures- are trying. Success (for the qn to come up)has eluded on a couple of occasions!. May be next session- some qn may crop up!

MORE PENSIONERS /ASSOCIATIONS/FEDERATIONS SHD TRY - MANY PENSIONERS ARE LOOKING FORWARD FOR SOME TO ACT! LET US SEE.

2. Suggestion is good. I only wish the Chairmen are sympathetic and they would act. But such Chairmen quickly forget the Scientists on whose blood and sweat they have got their glory and their main occupation in Parliament would never cover any aspect of welfare of the Scientists in the least. Even if they had the opportunity they will ignore to act! ARE THEY NOT AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING? Pensioner Scientists are quickly forgotten- out of sight- out of mind!

Otherwise why the ISRO/ DRDO Scientists wd need to go to higher Courts for their own pension protections in spite of favourable/ just verdicts given by CATs? Are their Secretaries (some Ex-Officio - powerful) not bold enough to IMPLEMENT FIRST the COURT DIRECTIVES and then face the MOF if they have objections? Even if the appeals against CAT verdict is to be made why not the MOF do it?

IF I HAD BEEN IN SUCH A ROLE (of a Secretary, DOS or DRDO etc)first I wd implement the COURT ORDERS and then leave the courts to tackle in case MOF/ CGA/ or any authority which raises objections? What are they afraid of? Their extensions?

(Pl check for the recent Pension verdict of MR KMRao & others vs Secretary, DRDO etc AP High Court verdict- August 2008- Pension protection of retired S-G/H level Scientists!)

So where is the obstacle? what is the barrier?

3.One of the powerful money earning Government's organ- Railways- it's one of the retired employees association- ie RREWA at Gurgaon has sought an INTERVIEW with the Hon'ble PM for only 10 minutes a couple of weeks ago and it is yet to materialise! Regarding the Heads of DOS/ DAE helping out the pensioners of their domains- I wish it happens and PM obliges them at least!

SOME SENIOR/ INLUENTIAL RETIRED SCIENTISTS MUST SINCERELY TRY FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.Dr ARITRA is very much right in his suggestion. Why such senior retired scientists are hesitating? At least they can send reps. to Prof S Kasturirangan etc. and request to help all concerned.

Let us all try with full vigour- big and small- and I am sure something will happen.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
07-01-2009, 08:13 AM
My dear G Ramdass, Vnatarajan,S.Bala and all other pensioner friends and senior members of this forum. We welcome Mr. Arita. His suggestions are good but not easy to put into practical shape. However, we must continue with our efforts. Further, in earlier posts, with lengthy deliberations, we had come to a point that we should focus our attention so as to bring injustice done to a large number of pensioners of pre revised pay scales S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S10,S11,S12,S13,S14,S15,16,S17,S18, S19,S20,S21,S22,S23,S25,S25,S26,S27,S28,S29 and S30 (and not only S29 and S30) to lime light.We had concluded that "modification" of DOP OM dated 3rd Oct.08 cannot supersede "acceptance and approval of Union Cabinet tabled in parliament". We had thought of starting new thread with suitable caption to invite attention of 90 % of pensioners put to loss but stopped after that. I therefore appeal once again to senior members to kindly think and take action further in that direction.

vnatarajan
07-01-2009, 09:24 AM
Dear Mr K/ all

Yes. We have to draft a suitable note to explain the title. I think some of the points made out in postings can be included. Mr K refers to para 1.5.47. But I think it is 5.1.47.

I am averse to the text of that para- because that was one of the most- confusing paragraphs in the Chapter- using words like "subsuming" etc.

Second aspect- is however much we explain the "loss"- it is looked upon as something like a "loss in gain" and many are reconciled with the 2.26 formula. This aspect needs to be projected in a very very brief comprehensive manner to convince all to join the issue.I am aware many are with the fight. But the Federations/ major Associations are not joining the issue in a big way!

If at all any executive solution is in the coming, it will be only wrt the para 5.1.47.of scpc and OM of 1st Sept.2008.(I think para 4.2)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
07-01-2009, 01:02 PM
Dear all

Pending further developments related to the Injustice issue, I thought of having little diversion on the ethical aspects:

The Civil Service Reforms II Report has been submitted to the Govt. already and is available to the public.

Shri R Sundaram has already put up a theme/ thread in the Discussion Board for the benefit of all interested.

There are several Chapters/ annexed Reports I think and Report IV deals with "ETHICS OF GOVERNANCE".

Last sentence of the Report reads as follows:

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

Can somebody elaborate/ comment what it may mean to OLD PENSIONERS like us?

What Ethics does the above sentence relate to in Governance?

Whether our all powerful Bureaucracy wants to drink all the water, eat all the fruits and consume all the grains?

Wealth of the Nation's exchequer - major part of the benefits should only go to them? If the money goes to their benefits-while in service or after service- will not such increases result in more "expenditure"? Why it will be so only for other pensioners?

Ethics in Governance title needs modification!

It must be Ethics in Governance- for ----------by----------of-----------.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
07-01-2009, 04:21 PM
My dear Mr. Vnatarajan. In reference to your post 241, I stand corrected. The concerned para is 5.1.47. As far as brief is concrned, I have prepared it and I place it here for all old pensioners, who retired from pre-revised pay scales S4 to S 30, including those, who retired prior to Vth CPC and were assigned Vth CPC pre-revised pay scales S4 to S30.
The Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India in judgment dated 17th Feb.’1982 held that division of pensioners for the purpose of payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter, is both arbitrary and unprincipled and violative of Article 14 of Constitution . The argument that the cut off date had to be fixed in view of the limited financial resources available to cover up additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision of pay scale was also not accepted. V cpc gave parity to pensioners and assigned each pensioner V CPC pay scale.

VI CPC also kept this fact in view.

VI CPC has merged 27 pre-revised pay scales into only 4 pay bands, which resulted into bunching. It therefore, recommended allowing one increment for two such bunching, and provided a table giving each stage of pre-revised pay scale and pay in pay band allotted. For the pensioners, “modified parity” was recommended, stating in para 5.1.47 of its report that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum” pay in pay band (as provided in table) + grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale (S4 to S30) from which pensioner retired. This recommendation of VI CPC has been accepted by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08.

However, Ministry of Personnel, issued OM dated 3rd Oct.08 giving “clarification” but actually issuing “modification” stating therein that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum of pay band” without having correspondence with pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired. Thus what VI CPC had given to pensioner and which was accepted by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, was taken away by “modification” given in OM dated 3rd Oct.08. This has put to loss in revised pension ( plus DR thereon) per month as under :

S4 2750-4400 - 165
S5 3050-4590 - 340
S6 3200-4900 - 430
S7 4000-6000 - 1120
S8 4500-7000 - 1585
S10 5500-9000 - 465
S11 6500-6900 - 1395
S12 6500-10500 - 1395
S13 7450-11500 - 2280
S14 7500-12000 - 2325
S15 8000-13500 - 2790
S16 9000 - 570
S17 9000-9550 - 570
S18 10325-10975 - 1805
S19 10000-15200 - 1500
S20 10650-15850 - 2105
S21 12000-16500 - 3360
S22 12750-16500 - 4060
S23 12000-18000 - 3360
S25 15100-18300 - 1145
S26 16400-20000 - 1145
S27 16400-20900 - 1145
S29 18400-22400 - 3650
S30 22400-24500 - 7225

I request all old pensioners to kindly take note of above and send representation to Prime Minister to arrange to withdraw “modification “ issued vide OM dated 3rd Oct.08 and restore the benefit given by the VI CPC which was accepted by Govt. and notified vide Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, to all pensioners who retired from pre-revised pay scales S4 to S30.

G.Ramdas
07-01-2009, 06:13 PM
Well drafted.However I have a small observation.
This refers to Sh. Kanaujia’s last post #243. para 2 says “--50% of 'minimum pay' in pay band--”
Let us not make the same mistake which DP&PW made- deleting ‘the’ where it really mattered. The pension resolution and O.M of 01/09/08 talk of minimum of the pay in the pay band. The original decision of GOI has 2 parts:
a) ‘the minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale’ and
b) the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.
The former portion(a) has been amended to ‘minimum of pay band irrespective of pre-revised scales of pay’ ,where as the latter portion is retained intact.
The term pay in the pay band is defined in CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 as “pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in Column 5 of the first Schedule”. This does not need any other definition. As far as pensioners are concerned the pay drawn should mean notional pay deemed to have been drawn in the new pay band (instead of actually drawn).This will be same for pensioners and working officers and are well detailed in the Fitment Tables issued by Dept. of Expenditure in O.M.1/12008-1C dt30/08/08 for each stage of each of the pre-revised scales.

vnatarajan
07-01-2009, 08:34 PM
Dear Mr K/ Mr Ramdas/ Others for action pl (on RTI)/ can the RREWA also note?

Thanks for the excellent notings in 243 and 244. Let us see if some more points crop up.
To morrow I shall try to finalise the thread in view.

In the meanwhile to refresh on the OMs on Pensions- to the extent how the modified OMs of 3rd Oct and 14th Oct deviated procedurally etc have been listed by me and I am trying to draft an RTI query to the concerned Ministries on the superceding of authority etc.

The same is reproduced below for the benfit of all and for suggestions on the RTI QUERT:

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

GOVT. ORDERS RELATED TO PENSION SANCTION AND IMPLEMENTION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS; INFORMATION TO BE SOUGHT UNDER RTI ACT-WHICH ORDERS HAVE THE MANDATORY SANCTIONS OF PRESIDENT/ CABINET APPROVALS- andWHICH ARE CONTRADICTORY?.

1.Gazette Notification issued vide Resolution No OM/38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 29th August 2008 conveyed the Govt.’s decision on the recommendations made by the 6th CPC on the pensionary benefits to the Central Govt. Employees etc.to accept broadly the same subject to certain modifications.

As such all the recommendations of different categories viz. ACCEPTED/ ACCEPTED WITH MODIFICATION/ NOT ACCEPTED are all listed in the said order.

This order is signed by the Secretary to the Govt. of India MoP/PG/P herself.

(It may be noted that the “modifications” detailed in this order stand sanctified through publication in the Gazette and do not invite any procedural lapse/ irregularity).

2.OM F.No.38/37/08-/P&PW(A) dtd 1st Sept 2008 conveyed the implementation of the above recommendations contained in the Resolution Order at sl.no 1 above and it relates to CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 etc. Its first paragraph states:

“The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, SANCTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS HEREBY ACCORDED TO THE REGULATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006, OF PENSION...."

This OM is also signed by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, MoP/PG/P herself.

(It may be noted that this OM has the sanction of the President. CAG concurrence indicated )

3. & 4..OMs F No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt-1 and Pt-2 both dtd 3.10.2008 informed about the number of references received in the Deptt of Pensions/and Pensioners’ Welfare seeking clarifications regarding earlier OM (s) , matter had been considered in consultation with the MINISTRY OF FINANCE, Deptt of Expenditure, and conveyed the clarifications/ modifications theron.

Provisions in the earlier OM are listed on one side and respective clarifications/ “modifications” are listed along-side

These orders are signed only by the Director, Deptt. Of Pension and Public Welfare –NOT BY THE SECRETARY- The orders have the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Deptt of Expenditure) vide their ICUO No 4.2/22/2008-C dtd 30th Sept 2008.No CAG concurrence.

HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that the sanction of the President, that is, the sanction/approval of the Cabinet has not been obtained for this purpose and to that extent the OM dated 3.10.008 exceeds the powers to issue clarifications/modifications, in gross violation of the intent and spirit of the OM dated 1.9.2008.They lack the mandatory requirement of sanction of President or approval/sanction of the Cabinet for such new “modifications”/ “interpretations”.



5.OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).Pt.1 dtd 14th Oct 2008 conveys again some clarifications regarding delay in pension disbursals, about the discussions held with all concerned including the PDBs, provides the ready reckoner, concordance table, some illustrations etc for calculation/ fixation of the pensions, DR additions,arrears, payment deadlines,entry in PPOs,intimation on the disbursal of revised pension to the CPAO/ AO,PAO’s office etc.;actions for the CGA/CPAO are also outlined.

This OM is also signed by the Director, Deptt of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare – NOT BY THE SECRETARY.

The deliberate and detrimental “modifications””clarifications” of OM of 3 rd Oct 2008 are perpetauated here in the Form of Annexures of concordant tables/ illustrative examples.

This OM/ all its contents detrimental to the Pensionaers do not have the mandatory requirements of the President or approval/ sanction of the Cabinet for such effectations.No CAG concurrence.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Regards

vnatarajan

RSundaram
07-01-2009, 09:01 PM
My dear VN
It just occurred to me while reading the posts today that there is a case for full parity for post 1.1.96 Pensioners on par with Post 1.1.2006 since there is a point to point concordance available authentically. During the implementation of recommendations of previous pay commissions the serving personnel had to get their pay fixed based on adding elements like the previous pay, DA and IR1 , IR 2 etc and then some percentage for uplift rounded off to the nearest point in the new pay scale. This used to result in bunching and the necessity to step up pay of seniors with reference to Juniors in many cases. Therefore it was difficult to get total parity for pensioners for those who retired before 1.1.96. Now under the new dispensation the revised format is not a scale but a band in which definite concordance is available for every point in pre 2006 scales I think our effort could be for
1) Modified parity for those who retired before 1.1.96 based on the pay in the pay band plus grade pay , pay in the pay band being reckoned as corresponding to the minimum of the scale after the V th Pay Commission. Example 18400-22400 at the Minimum of 18400
2) Full parity for those who retired after 1.1.1996 on the same basis as those who retire after 1.1.2006. If some one had retired after two stages in the scale 18400-22400 say at 19400 he/she should get pension from the point which will be read off for the post 1.1.2006 officers.
Love and Regards
RS

G.Ramdas
07-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Dear Mr. Natarajan,
With ref to your post #245, would you like to add the fact that while the O.M of 01/09/08 was issued with the concurrence of Comptroller and Auditor General of India, his concurrence has not been taken for the subsequent modifications issued thro'O.Ms of 3/10&14/10/08.

vnatarajan
08-01-2009, 06:28 AM
Thanks to Shri RS and Shri GR for their suggestions. (Shri GR's info has been incorporated in 245 thru editing).
For RTI query, Shri Bala has already given his info by email.
Let us see further developments.
I shall be making my NHRC appeal on 16th Jan as the one month gap to DoP/PW ends on 15th Dec2008. As many literate/ well informed pensioners/ groups as possible may act and try to register the NHRC complaint online - so that the necessary impact can be made.
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
08-01-2009, 08:13 AM
My dear Mr. Ramdass. In referecne to your note 244, I would like to thank you first for giving observation to my post 243. You have given the emphasis on the preposioon "the" , which I have no objection if added in the phrase "minimum of the pay in the pay band".

S.Balasubramanian
09-01-2009, 11:40 PM
In one of the write-ups in one of the threads, I saw a reference to the need for RBI circular to facilitate pension for diabled, sick etc. pensioners. I found from the pensioners' portal that a master circular updated from RBI is available. I wanted to reproduce the same by attachment for easy access by those who may not have seen it but since it exceeds the limit of 19.5 kb.,I am not able to do so. Master circular dt.1.7.2008 giving RBI guidelines on the operation of bank accounts by old/sick/incapacitated customers is available in the pensioners portal website.
S.Balasubramanian.