PDA

View Full Version : One Rank One Pension - pre 2006 pensioners



SK Jain
17-10-2008, 04:35 PM
ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP)

The demand of “One Rank One Pension (OROP)” has been raised time and again. But the successive pay commissions and the Governments have been shying away from this long outstanding demand of pensioners despite the fact that certain main political parties include this in their election manifestoes. This subject was also included in the President’s address to the Parliament in 2004 thereby making OROP the declared policy of Government (not of any particular political party).

The concept of OROP implies that Government Employees, who have retired from the same post with same length of service, should get same amount of pension irrespective to their dates of retirements. 6th pay commission has discussed this issue vide Paras 5.1.46 & 5.1.47 (Pages 338 & 339) of its report. 6CPC has held that “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 has retired.”

Accordingly, 6CPC has recommended as under: “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”. This recommendation has been accepted by the Government vide Resolution No. 12 and notified vide para 4.2 of Memorandum F No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1st September 08 in the same language. Thus, modified parity of pension between past pensioners and future pensioners has already been accepted and implemented by the Government.

Here, difference between “OROP” and “Modified Parity” needs to be made clear. In OROP, pay of a pensioner is to be notionally fixed in the revised pay band based on his Last Pay Drawn and then his pension is to be re-fixed. In Modified Parity, minimum revised pay of the post last held by a pensioner should be ascertained and the pensioner should be paid 50% of this minimum revised pay as pension. There is no mention of 33 years qualifying service in Modified Parity either by the 6CPC or by the Government in the accepted Resolution.

But clarifications issued vide F No 38/37/08 P&PW (A) Pt I dated 3rd October 08 have defeated the very concept of modified parity. For example, 7 existing pay scales (from S-9 to S-15) have been merged in the Pay band 2 (9300-34800). Minimum revised pay of an official, who has retired from pre-revised scale of 7450-225-11500 (S-13) shall be 18,457 (13857 in the pay band + 4600 grade pay). Accordingly, his minimum assured pension, in confirmation to the modified parity, should be 9228/- (50% of 18,457). But as per the clarifications dated 3rd October 08 his minimum assured pension shall be 6950/- (50% of 9300+4600). This minimum pension has been calculated at the minimum of the Pay Band and not at the minimum of his corresponding revised pay. Moreover, this minimum pension is to be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner had less than 33 years service. Ridiculously, officials who have retired in 7 erstwhile pay scales have been treated at par with regard to minimum basic pay and assured minimum pension (except Grade Pay). The condition of 33 years service is neither mentioned in the 6CPC report not in Government Resolution and it is not clear as to how this condition has been incorporated while clarifying the original orders. Obviously, the concept of modified parity has been completely ignored by the implementing authorities.

In this regard it is worth to discuss the rulings of the H’ble Supreme Court, which enjoy the status of LAW OF THE LAND. 6th Pay Commission has referred to the famous judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) vide Para 5.1.3 of its report. This Judgment pronounced by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the benefit of all who want to read it. The case dates back to 70s when the Government had introduced Liberalized Pension Scheme. Earlier pension was calculated based on the average salary of last 36 months. Under Liberalized Pension Scheme, the provisions were changed to calculate the pension based on the average salary of last 10 months. The case was file by one retired civil officer (subject to Central Civil Pension Rules 1972) and one retired defence officer (subject to Army Pension Regulations) and the third petitioner was a Registered Society. Only the following extracts of this judgment will clarify the LAW OF THE LAND:
“Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all
relevant considerations are the same, persons holding
identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter
of their pay merely because they belong to different
departments. If that can't be done when they are in service,
can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this
principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a
class, their computation cannot be by different formula
affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some
retired earlier and some retired later.”

“All pensioners whenever they retired would be
covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the
scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner
governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is
irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from
the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its
umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired
subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired
prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed
afresh”

Another recent Judgment pronounced by H’ble Supreme Court on 9th September 2008 is available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx for the information. This case was originally filed by some Retired Major Generals of the Army with regard to fixation of their pension after implementation of 5th Pay Commission. Government of India filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Punjab High Court, (Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12357 of 2006 Union of India Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others). In this case H’ble Supreme Court has directed as under:
“ We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis”

It is abundantly clear from the above extracts that the H’ble Supreme Court has already accepted the principle of OROP and this enjoys the status of the LAW OF THE LAND. However, the implementing officials of 6CPC have not even followed the concept of Modified Parity while issuing clarification vide F No 38/37/08 P&PW (A) Pt I dated 3rd October 08. It is not possible for the pensioners, especially in their advanced age to approach Courts of Law to seek justice. All concerned authorities are requested to look into this matter and initiate suitable action. All readers, pre-2006 pensioners and their well-wishers are also requested to make public this issue so that our Political Leaders are aware of it and can take some action.

sudacgwb
17-10-2008, 07:02 PM
The formula and the issuance of OM dated 15/10/2006 has addressed the problem to a large extent. The fitment procedure, ensuring the minimum pension based on the pay band and grade pay corresponding to the grades from which the pre and post 1.1.2006 pensioners retired is a welcome sign and must be responded accordingly.

Positive aspects including the implicit indication that the arrears are to be paid by 15/11/2008 shows the govt's concern for the senior citizens; Hope it means full arrears to the pensioners will be disbursed in one installment to the pensioners!

vnatarajan
17-10-2008, 07:15 PM
Dear Mr Jain.

My deep sense of appreciation for your vociferous arguments. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DRAW YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO MY THREAD titled "Injustice to Pre-2006 Pensioners...... etc" posted in this Discussion Board itself, on a similar issue of injustice!

I had been requesting several readers/ viewers to check for their own cases in view of the possible disastrous consequence of BUNCHING of several pay scales/mini pay bands into a limited number of Pay Bands, and that too applying the minimum of the pay in such Bunched-up pay bands for fixation of pension (mind that it is not so for Pay Purposes!), thus resulting in erosion of minimum entitled pension amounts to many pensioners. Current/Potential Family Pensioners would also be greatly affected ahich will be most UNJUST!.

YOU HAVE COME OUT WITH A CORRECT ANALYSIS AT THE RIGHT TIME.

Keep up the fight against injustice. I and all my co-pensioner friends are with you in this battle.

ALL AFFECTED MUST REPRESENT TO THE SECRETARY, DoP/PW immediately without loss of time. Mass protests must go via your pensioner associations. Your synthesis must find a place in leading newspapers of your area/ region,- as we are trying to do here at Chennai.

vnatarajan.

sudacgwb
17-10-2008, 07:46 PM
The OM dated 15/10/2008 makes it amply clear there is no differentiation between pre and post 1.1.2006 pensioners.

Even post 1.1.2006 the officials pay scales have been brought down to pay bands with grade pay. Similar treatment is given to pre pensioners.

There is also a rider which tells that in case normal calculation of pension is more beneficial to pensioner, then they will be given the figure that is beneficial to the pensioner.

When in most of the cases, the pension based on the minimum in the pay band and grade pay works out more than the normal way of computation. When this is the case, where is the injustice.

It is true 'injustice' existed before the OMs of October (3 nos) were issued. Time to see the positive aspects and have good health during post retirement times.

I will be glad if some one can tell me the case when the normal pension calculation is more (better) than the pension based on the minimum of pay band and grade pay.

SK Jain
20-10-2008, 11:57 AM
Dear Vnatarajan,
Thanks for your comments. As already requested, we all the pre-2006 pensioners should join together to bring the anomalies to the notice of our Political Leaders so that some action can be taken.
Dear Sudacgwb,
For OROP, which has been established as a Law by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court but not implemented by Govt, I shall request you to calculate your revised pay under 6CPC based on your Last Pay Drawn. You must get 50% of this revised pay as your basic pension. For Modified Parity, which has already been accepted by Govt but implemented with anomaly, please calculate minimum of revised pay under 6CPC for the post last held by you. You must get 50% of this minimum revised pay as your basic pension. I am sure your will understand the anomaly.
One thing more I would like to add, a junior employee (retired after 01-01-2006) can not draw more pension than his senior (retired before 01-01-2006).
Regards,
SK Jain

vnatarajan
20-10-2008, 12:31 PM
Dear Mr Jain

I endorse your views fully.

I and my co-Pensioner (pre-1996/ pre-2006) retired colleagues from my department/ sister departments from all over India, have taken up the issue on our parity case/ minimum pension eligible consequent to revision as realised by us, and we (nearing 90 or so) have sent our general representationon the erroneous OMs already to the Secy, DoPs last week.

Our retd pensioners associations also have been urged to pursue actions and soon some of them will be writing to the DoP/PW of MoP/PG/P and MoF in a day or two.

We will soon be publishing some items in one of the pensioners' Journals published from Chennai

Perhaps a few newspapers may highlight the disparity for which we are making efforts.

Similar actions could be initiated by several guests/ members/ bodies of pensioners etc.

As you rightly observed, those who have the access, should not hesitate to go to the Political leaders and I am sure some of them would lend their support without hesitation.

Pl. keep up the tempo of all your efforts- whether for OROP or for similar issues-and I and my friends/ my association are with you and your friends in this exercise.

vnatarajan

SK Jain
22-10-2008, 04:09 PM
It is reiterated that the concept of “Modified Parity” was introduced by 5CPC and carried forward by 6CPC. Some Mr. P.Vigneshwar Raju has forwarded the extracts of 5CPC to me and I want to share the same with all the readers:

“Recommendation
(Ref. To paragraph of the Report given in brackets)
(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) Decision of Government OM issued with no. and date
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”

As already brought out vide my thread, carrying forward the concept of Modified Parity 6CPC has recommended as under: “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”. This has been accepted by Government and implemented with anomalies.

It is quite clear from these extracts that under the modified parity, introduced by 5CPC and carried forward by 6CPC, minimum assured pension of all pre 2006 pensioners (Incl pre 1996 & 1986) should be worked out by firstly ascertaining the minimum revised pay under 6CPC of the post last held by the pensioners and secondly grant 50% of this minimum revised pay as pension. Clarifications issued in October works out minimum assured pension considering minimum of Pay Band (and not corresponding pay drawn in the running Pay Band related to the post last held) thereby altering the concept of Modified Parity.
For the term “Pay in the pay band” , please refer page 32 Para 3 (5) and page 43 Section II of the First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 available at http://www.india.gov.in/govt/studies/revised.pdf

vnatarajan
22-10-2008, 04:18 PM
hi All

For interrelated matters and to update on the various aspects of disparities, you may also study the petition/ appeal made by the Retired Railway Employees' Welfare Association to the PMO against the disparities that are being perpetuated through the recent orders /OMs of the DoP/PW details of which are available in their website www.rrewa.org please.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
27-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Dear all

Here is posting reg. Honble MP Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh's statement in RS.

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

vnatarajan
30-12-2008, 08:33 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!).

Kanaujiaml
02-01-2009, 08:59 AM
My dear Mr. S K Jain. In ref. to your post 1 and subsequent posts by various learned members of the forum, I may say that kindly read another string on this forum namely, " injustice to pre2006 pensioners ". You have rightly analysed the entire situation. In fact, on the same lines, I submitted a representation to Railway Board on 10 10 08 (I retired from Railway Service). I also sent a representation to Prime Minister, on 14 10 08 highlights of which are as under :

1 In reference to Govt. Of India Gazette Notification dated 29 08 08, for the implementation of VI CPC Report, along with various modifications accepted by the Govt. and, subsequent various Office Memorandums issued by various Ministries, it appears that Govt. has not done justice with the Pensioners, in the manner expected of them. As a result, an anomaly has occurred in fixation of Revised Basic Pension of Pensioners of the same rank and pay, who retired prior to 01 01 06 and after the cut of date 01 01 06.

2 In Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions (Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08, it is clearly laid down under item No. 12 that the Govt. had accepted the contention of para 5.1.47 of VI CPC Report with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multification factor of 1 . 86 i. e. basic pension + Dearness Pension(wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24 % as on 01 01 06 instead of 1 . 74. The VI CPC in para 5 1 .47 of its Report has said that “in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees.” The VI CPC concludes Para 5 . 1 . 47 by recommending that “The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. The Govt. accepted this without any objection.(kindly see Annexure A attached herewith for ready reference)

3 Ministry of Finance, Deptt of Exp. (Implementation Cell), vide their O M No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 issued detailed instruction for implementation of VI CPC Govt. accepted report, enclosing with it Fitment Tables S – 1 to S – 34, allotting Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay for each Pre-revised Pay Scale. In column 1 of each table the minimum pre-revised basic pay is indicated and in second column Minimum Pay in the Pay Band, in third column Grade Pay and in last column Revised Basic Pay are indicated. It may be noted that the Minimum Pay in Pay Band is not Minimum of the pay band but it is higher than that due to inclusion of the effect of bunching (see para 7 (A)(ii) of GSR 622(E) of Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure, Notification dated 29 08 08).

4 Ministry of Personnel, PG & P , Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare, while issuing the instruction for the implementation of the Govt.‘s decision and fixation of revised pension of pre-2006 pensioners/ family pensioners, again repeated in para 4.2 that the “ Revised Pension in no case, shall be lower than 50 % of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.” Obliviously, Minimum of pay in pay band was definitely not minimum of pay band, but the Minimum pay indicated in column 2 corresponding to pre-revised minimum pay indicated in column one of each of Fitment Tables as enclosed with the Finance Ministry’s OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08.

5 Now, Ministry of Personnel , PG & Pension , Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare , vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, has amended the contention of para 4 . 2 by saying that “ pension calculated at 50 % of the pay in pay band + grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band ( irrespective of the pre-revised pay scale) plus the grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale.” This means that the Minimum Pay in Pay Band as given in column 2 of Fitment Table annexed to Ministry of Finance O M No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 would not be applicable in case of pre-2006 pensioners but would be applicable to post-2006 pensioners, thus creating a wide gap in amount of Revised Basic Pension of pre-2006 pensioner and post-2006 pensioner of same status and pay. For example a pre-2006 Pensioner of SAG level and minimum pay in pre-revised pay Scale of 18400 -22400 would be entitle for Revised Basic Pension 23700 whereas a post -2006 Pensioner of same status and pre-revised pay and retiring on 31 01 06, would be entitle for Revised Basic Pension of 27350. Thus a Pre-2006 Pensioner would suffer a loss of 3650 plus DR thereon, per month for rest of his life, (which is left not much in any case) simply because he had retired a few days earlier than a post-2006 Pensioner of same status and pre-revised pay. This is bound to happen with each of the pre-2006 retiree, with a loss of varying amount of per month, depending upon his pre-2006 status and pay. This is a clear cut case of withdrawal of due once granted. Besides, it is a case of dividing pensioners in to two groups with a cut off date and creating wide disparity between the two groups while fixing their Revised Basic Pension.

6 Deprival of due and justified amount of Revised Pension has already created gloom as well as a great amount of resentment amongst the pre-2006 retirees. They feel that though the VI CPC had done justice with the pre-2006 retires and it was accepted by the Govt. also with the approved of the Union Cabinet but, subsequent modifications and amendment of method of fixation of Pension, issued under Ministry of Personnel , PG & Pension , Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, has shattered pre-2006 pensioners hope and aspirations beyond imagination.

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.”

8 It is satisfying to note that the Ministry of Defence, vide para 1 (vi) of Resolution No. 1 (E), dated 30 08 08 have laid down that “ in case of existing Major General / Lt. General , Military Service Pay (MSP) to be taken into account notionally, for fixation of pay on 01 01 06 with actual benefits being admissible prospectively.” This has removed anomaly of Brigadier level Officers having higher pay and latter pension as well, than his senior Major General because of addition of Military Service Pay (earlier called rank pay). Contrary to this, the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension , Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare have issued modification and amendment under OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, dividing the pensioners in to two groups namely, pre-2006 and post-2006 with cut off date 01 01 06, while fixing the formula for fixation of Revised Pension.

9 The Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India gave decision in case of D S Nakra and others Verses Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 . One of the questions posed in the aforesaid case was whether a class of Pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter . The question was answered by the Constitution Bench holding that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled , the classification did not stand the test of Article 14. 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 not accepted by the Constitution Bench of the honorable Supreme Court. This exactly applies to the case of pre-2006 and post 2006 Pensioners presently and thus it is a case of violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as well as against the ruling of Constitution Bench of honorable Supreme Court of India cited above.

10 Honorable Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2006 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12357 of 2006, Union of India and others .. Appellants Vs. SPS Vains (Rtd.) and others ... Respondents, gave Judgment on 09 09 08 involving the similar matter of equality wherein the honorable Supreme Court fully agreed with the decision given by Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India in D S Nakra case. Once again it can be said that the division of Pensioners in two groups namely pre - 2006 pensioners and post - 2006 pensioners, with a cut off date of 01 01 06, is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and against the ruling of the honorable Supreme Court of India.