PDA

View Full Version : Pensioners' federations /pensioners' associations & 6cpc grievances



vnatarajan
15-11-2008, 11:45 AM
hi All

Let me first do the stock-taking:

Many of us here have done a lot of exercises so far on various points/ items/ types of grievances emerging out of the implementation OMs of Ministry Of Personnel,PG & Personnel and Ministry of Finance related to 6th CPC, which cut across all sections of the Pensioners irrespective of their rank/ grade/ scales of pay/type (of pensioner) etc.This is a stock-taking motivating exercise.

Pl see the 'same titled' thread for full contents.SORRY FOR DUPLICATION BY MISTAKE!

Thanks

vnatarajan

sundarar
16-11-2008, 07:17 AM
Dear Sir,

I would like to repeat your golden words which is applicable aptly
in the present situation.

"Current employees = Future pensioners (till 2067) and so th e former must help (pensiners ) and make strong foundations for their own post-retirement benefits and not play "same side goal" game at least! Suggestions and Corrections are welcome to boost up the helpless pensioners who have no access to the establishments once they retire. BANKS/ POs are useless in this regard!".

In this situation, if the All India Central Govt. Employees Federation or any other Federation which can directly take up with the Ministry of Personnel/Ministry of Finance, can help the Pensioners who were also once upon serving employees, for whose cause the Federations may be taking up so many other issues.

Alternatively, the CPC itself can be approached to take note of the
incorrect interpretation of its own recommendation at the implementation stage. They should not think that their job is over once Report is submitted.
The success of the Report itself lies in appropriate implementation with added bonanza if any from the Employer's (Govt.) side. Even the Govt. itself may like to revert the matter where mass representations are pouring, to CPC for their expertise opinion. The Ministries of Finance, Home, Railways shall also
take stock of the situation particularly when it is related to senior citizens like your goodself.

Thus, a Review CPC in the absence of a suitable decision from the concerned Department may be an alternate attempt to solve the problem.

Best Regards.

sundarar
09-12-2008, 10:56 PM
[QUOTE=sundarar;1388]Dear Sir,

I would like to repeat your golden words which is applicable aptly
in the present situation.

"Current employees = Future pensioners (till 2067) and so th e former must help (pensiners ) and make strong foundations for their own post-retirement benefits and not play "same side goal" game at least! Suggestions and Corrections are welcome to boost up the helpless pensioners who have no access to the establishments once they retire. BANKS/ POs are useless in this regard!".

Dear Sirs,

The current employees = Future pensioners (till 2067 or afterwards) may either not be aware or otherwise prefer to ignore the present day pensioner (whether pre-2006 or pre-Sep.2008). Even myself being a pre-2006 pensioner is yet to study the O.M. dt. 2.9.2008 in respect of post-2006 pensioners that bifurcates into another two categories, viz. pre-Sep. 2008 and post-2008 and hence unaware of the problems of post-2006 but pre-Sep. 2008 pensioners, where they stand completely.

My wish is if there is one ruling party, the opposition party shall also be only one, so that maximum benefit can be achieved. If the opposition parties are more than one, the ruling party will rule by dividing the parties further. Similarly, there are so many pension forums, different categories of pensioners like pre-1996, pre-2006, pre-Sep.2008 and so on. Even the discussion forums on pensioners are varying like staffcorner.com, gconnect etc. When we are talking about the grievances, the voice needs to be a single one to get the attraction of the ruler. What is being discussed on the same subject in other forums may not reach us and there is no time for us to visit so many forums. Recently, I had posted a message regarding funding of Govt. for web portal of Pensioners Associations. IN such a situation, there need to be a single forum through which the common voice shall be aired. I am confident that the RREWA is leading the `LAGAAN' Team in this regard. Dr. Munnabhais will be initially getting ignored, but at the end, will be felicitated by one and all, including those who were reluctant to recognise the voice of Dr. Munnabhai at stage 1.

So, let us associate ourselves by becoming Associate Members as we don't find any other centralised forum beyond discussion to put the same into action. The RREWA also if thinking of having discussion forum it will be too good in future. 5 Minutes Before a train comes to a particular station, wake up ring will usually been given for the passengers to get ready. Similarly,
the RREWA is giving the wake up call through Sr. Members like Shri VNjee,
Shri Maheshwari and other respected Members discussing at length on a common platform - the Gconnect. I thank at this point of time the Gconnect that provided the space with unrestricted space, so that we all can get accommodated conveniently and keep on doing `mindblowing' exercise among ThinkTank Group Commandos like our VERY SENIOR MEMBERS/SENIOR CITIZENS.

Today is the Day of Geethopadesh by Lord Shri Krishna to Shri Arjuna
in the battle field of Mahabharath. Subsequently the victory came and history made. Same way, the Same Lord Shri Krishna will make the authorities to get involved in `LATERAL THINKING' as originated by DR. EDWARD DE BONO, and thus our grievances will disappear as a snow before the LORD SURYA NARAYANA, WITH WHOM GODDESS MAHALAKSHMI ALSO
WILL GIVE US THEIR HOLY DARSHAN IN THE DAYS TO COME.

SHRI KRISHNA CHARANAM MAMAA.

Best Regards.

Sundarar.

sudacgwb
11-12-2008, 09:14 AM
Dear sundararji,

I have a specific query:

The family pension is wrongly fixed at the minimum of 3500 though it should be as per OM dated: 14/10/2008 Annexure-I in respect of Railway (SR) official

The communication sent to PPA given on the PPO in Oct 2008 is still to be acted upon by the authority.

Even the additional family pension (20%) due to family pensioner who is above 80 years is not given yet.

Pl let me know

(i) whom to address the reminder with copy of PPO (earlier was sent to PPAuthority given on PPO)

(ii) how to take an appointment for the pension adalat that may be due in Jan 2009?

(iii) Is there any role for the banker (SBMysore in this case) to fix the pension?

Thank you

ss

sundarar
11-12-2008, 09:44 PM
Dear Sir,

The concerned Office that issued the PPO Pension Book duly signed by the Administrative Officer, will have to ensure that the pension is paid correctly.
The Banks may require date of birth, etc. from the office. Meanwhile,
I request you to visit Pensionersportal.gov.in website where a revised calculator (updated on 28.11.2008) is available. If you give the required input in the webpage therein, you will find out the correct family pension/normal pension as the case may be. You can save a copy and forward to Bank as well as the
Administrative officer concerned. Some Banks do not actually have the O.M. copy itself. In that case, we can provide a copy. Even the addl. pension based on the date of birth, has to be authorised by the office concerned (Adm.O.) if the Banks have any problem.
If you can give the inputs, I will also convey you the correct pension. I think that it can be rectified once the Adm.o. and Bank are put in contact with each other by endorsing a detailed letter for rectifying the error to both.

Without much difficulty, I wish this will get solved. In our Office also, we have been seeking particulars of pensioners with their details of arrears received etc. to ensure further necessary action. Similarly, the concerned office will also be on the job at present. They have to give utmost priority in this case. Hence, please approach through normal channels, failing which further action can be thought of please. Hope this will soon be set right.

Best Regards.

Sundarar.

sudacgwb
11-12-2008, 10:31 PM
Thank you for rich information:

pensioners portal (where we can register our grievance)

govt. calculator

I have used both of them!

Hope to receive the response at the earliest

I will keep the developments posted for the information of rest

ss

S.C.Maheshwari
12-12-2008, 04:38 PM
Please also write to ppo issuing office giving proof of age and reference of registration on pensioners portal.It is advisible to keep a print out Grievance registration page showing the registration No or at least save the page on your system. For pension adalat write to DRM (P) of the division which issued the PPO .Bank will give old age additional pension only if they have valid age proof on their record. For any futher assistance send details to RREWA email
Pensioner77@yahoo.com . Membership is not a precondition for handling grievances of Family pensioners.
maheshwari

sudacgwb
30-12-2008, 05:56 PM
Maheswariji,

Print screen of complaint registered is saved; I will send the details by email, Sir.

ss

RSundaram
29-01-2009, 08:56 PM
When our forum has been agitated about the non implementation of Modified parity as recommended by VI CPC and approved by the Cabinet I would like to present here what our respected (?) SS Ramachandarn's ( AICPPA Prez) drivel in Pensioner's Counsellor which nitwits like me may not understand. Perhaps Mr VNATARAJAN may like to take the trouble to enlighten me.Kind Attention is drawn to para 5 and para 6.
caveat emptor Those who subscribe to this mag may reconsider in the light of its total apathy towards disparity caused by OM dated 3/10/2006 between pre and post 2006 pensioners.


Pensioner's Counsellor
Fitment formula for pre 2006 pensioners as part of CPC VI implementation w-e-f 1.1.2006 Regarding
Re: CPC VI report chapter 2.2 para 21 and statement there of pay in CPC VI level.
We wish to place a minor disparity observed in the updating of pre-2006 pensioners and the employees
2. It is not disputed that the 6th CPC set aside the traditional method of fitment adopted since the CPC I and had initiated a concept of grade pay instead. The CPC VI had not formulated any set of payscales for the CG employees at 536 AICPI (IW) point vis a vis the current series 1982-100. At the same time linked the 1982 series and 2001 series by the available multiplying factor of 4.63. It has retained the CPC V scales intact. A multiplying factor of 1.86 has been provided to reach the new CPC VI level pay scale with a grade pay based on the CPC V pay scales. The CPC VI has also indicated how the grade Pay has been arrived at. The current CPC VI grade pay represents 40% of the maximum of the CPC V pay scales with slight adjustments to clearly demarcate the different pay scales. Thus the 40% used as fitment method for updating to the new CPC level have been replaced with anew avatar with a new base related to CPC V pay scales. That is the base being 40% max of the CPC payscales instead of pay/pension drawn and designated as "Grade Pay". GOI have also agreed to the method suggested by by CPC VI and issued orders.
3. Thus there is a favourable departure compared to previous fitment percentage tagged to the actual pay /pension drawn in the earlier pay scales. We have no dispute in the change from the earlier format since it is an improvement and a welcome enhancement.
4. The effect of the change of the base for the 40% from the "pay drawn" to max of the pay scale of the relate3d CPC V scale was analysed. We find the new formula provides an increase by afactor of 1.5. Thus the employees by this arrangement get 1 1/2 times as Grade Pay as against one in earlier fitment methods. The average factor is of the order of 1.5 vis a vis the minimum of 40%.
5. In respect of pensioners the CPC VI fitment format has been enhanced but 40% of basic pension has been retained. Thus the updating has not been on the same lines of the pay updating of the pre 2006 employees. This appears to be bordering on unintended discrimination and adeparture from the earlier practices and other of having the same format adopted for employees for pension updating. We request your honour to get the discrepancy rectified suitably and issue amended orders for having the grade % age already decided and implemented d for pre 2006 employees for pre 2006 pensioners suitably. It is to be noted the grade pay decided is added to the pay.
6. We suggest the fitment as far for pensions are concerned should be enhanced to 60% instead of 40% or grant 50% of the relevant grade pay and thus remove the unintended discrimination. Especially in view of the favourable set of grade pays on review by the pro-employee government. Addition of 50%of the grade pay now decided for the employees in CPC VI scale for pension updating also instead of 40% as pension fitment.
SS Ramachandran
Secy AICPPA and Hon Editor

badri mannargudi
29-01-2009, 10:56 PM
When our forum has been agitated about the non implementation of Modified parity as recommended by VI CPC and approved by the Cabinet I would like to present here what our respected (?) SS Ramachandarn's ( AICPPA Prez) drivel in Pensioner's Counsellor which nitwits like me may not understand. Perhaps Mr VNATARAJAN may like to take the trouble to enlighten me.Kind Attention is drawn to para 5 and para 6.
caveat emptor Those who subscribe to this mag may reconsider in the light of its total apathy towards disparity caused by OM dated 3/10/2006 between pre and post 2006 pensioners.


Pensioner's Counsellor
Fitment formula for pre 2006 pensioners as part of CPC VI implementation w-e-f 1.1.2006 Regarding
Re: CPC VI report chapter 2.2 para 21 and statement there of pay in CPC VI level.
We wish to place a minor disparity observed in the updating of pre-2006 pensioners and the employees
2. It is not disputed that the 6th CPC set aside the traditional method of fitment adopted since the CPC I and had initiated a concept of grade pay instead. The CPC VI had not formulated any set of payscales for the CG employees at 536 AICPI (IW) point vis a vis the current series 1982-100. At the same time linked the 1982 series and 2001 series by the available multiplying factor of 4.63. It has retained the CPC V scales intact. A multiplying factor of 1.86 has been provided to reach the new CPC VI level pay scale with a grade pay based on the CPC V pay scales. The CPC VI has also indicated how the grade Pay has been arrived at. The current CPC VI grade pay represents 40% of the maximum of the CPC V pay scales with slight adjustments to clearly demarcate the different pay scales. Thus the 40% used as fitment method for updating to the new CPC level have been replaced with anew avatar with a new base related to CPC V pay scales. That is the base being 40% max of the CPC payscales instead of pay/pension drawn and designated as "Grade Pay". GOI have also agreed to the method suggested by by CPC VI and issued orders.
3. Thus there is a favourable departure compared to previous fitment percentage tagged to the actual pay /pension drawn in the earlier pay scales. We have no dispute in the change from the earlier format since it is an improvement and a welcome enhancement.
4. The effect of the change of the base for the 40% from the "pay drawn" to max of the pay scale of the relate3d CPC V scale was analysed. We find the new formula provides an increase by afactor of 1.5. Thus the employees by this arrangement get 1 1/2 times as Grade Pay as against one in earlier fitment methods. The average factor is of the order of 1.5 vis a vis the minimum of 40%.
5. In respect of pensioners the CPC VI fitment format has been enhanced but 40% of basic pension has been retained. Thus the updating has not been on the same lines of the pay updating of the pre 2006 employees. This appears to be bordering on unintended discrimination and adeparture from the earlier practices and other of having the same format adopted for employees for pension updating. We request your honour to get the discrepancy rectified suitably and issue amended orders for having the grade % age already decided and implemented d for pre 2006 employees for pre 2006 pensioners suitably. It is to be noted the grade pay decided is added to the pay.
6. We suggest the fitment as far for pensions are concerned should be enhanced to 60% instead of 40% or grant 50% of the relevant grade pay and thus remove the unintended discrimination. Especially in view of the favourable set of grade pays on review by the pro-employee government. Addition of 50%of the grade pay now decided for the employees in CPC VI scale for pension updating also instead of 40% as pension fitment.
SS Ramachandran
Secy AICPPA and Hon Editor

Respected sernior citiens,
I join Shri Sundaram sir, in as much as the contents of the Letter from Shree Ramachandran are all "Greek and Latin" to me.
I now realise that even a "[I]reasonable knowledge on English Grammar and usage coupled with some knowledge in Rules and Regulations"[/I will not be sufficient to know what is told.
I beg for some interpretation by Learned Friends like VNsir.
Thanks, in Advance.

With regards,
Badri

vnatarajan
30-01-2009, 09:29 AM
Dear Shri Sundaram/ Mr Badri

I am as much a novice in this game of interpretation of Rules etc as you try to impress me!

I only wish, in the process of suggesting the new approach, it is not a same side goal for the pensioners.

Basic TRUTH is - every present employee and every post 2006 (or say post sept 2008) pensioner gets the FULL BENEFIT OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE plus GRADE PAY whereas this is not the case for pre-2006 pensioners, worst among them being the older annd older pensioners!

So whatever formula is worked out, should include aggregating the fitment and Grade pay benefits. Not one replacing the other!

Hence paragraphs 5 and 6 of Shri SSR may have to be examined by our Mr.SUNDARAR and I think he will catch my point and expose the fallacy, IF ANY, here.

(Pl remember, it is only the elitist group S-31 to 34 scale pensioners who get the total (& above) benefit of both fitment and Grade pay . Others get only partial, except the S-24. Then again I think it is S-13 )

Let people like Shri SSR plead for what the 6th CPC near justifiably recommended something more favourable in their report at 5.1.47 paragraph for pensioners wh was accepted by the cabinet and notified in the Gazette. etc. and conveyed in the OM of 1st Sept 2008 for pensioners etc. WHY THIS SHD BE DESTRUCTIVELY MODIFIED/ CLARIFIED within a short time on 3rd Oct 2008? This implementation will give some modified parity to all, without great loss. Then, later, the anomaly committee can take care of specific infirmities/ disparities- say for older pensioners, for 20 yr retirees etc.

Many may not agree with his paragraphs!!!

Regards

vnatarajan

sundarar
30-01-2009, 07:59 PM
Dear Sirs,

First of all, the counselling by Learned Prez SSR is very difficult to understand - against which direction he is throwing the ball and the ball belongs to which game, Cricket or football. He prefers to play any ball in the chess board, it appears.. However, with great difficulties, I could get
some idea where he misleads the reader.

(For reference sake, the quoted paras of Prez SSR is given below
4. The effect of the change of the base for the 40% from the "pay drawn" to max of the pay scale of the relate3d CPC V scale was analysed. We find the new formula provides an increase by afactor of 1.5. Thus the employees by this arrangement get 1 1/2 times as Grade Pay as against one in earlier fitment methods. The average factor is of the order of 1.5 vis a vis the minimum of 40%.
5. In respect of pensioners the CPC VI fitment format has been enhanced but 40% of basic pension has been retained. Thus the updating has not been on the same lines of the pay updating of the pre 2006 employees. This appears to be bordering on unintended discrimination and adeparture from the earlier practices and other of having the same format adopted for employees for pension updating. We request your honour to get the discrepancy rectified suitably and issue amended orders for having the grade % age already decided and implemented d for pre 2006 employees for pre 2006 pensioners suitably. It is to be noted the grade pay decided is added to the pay).


1. The Learned Prez. SSR pats the Govt. in paras 5 & 6, if my understanding of the same is correct, for the 1.86 formula applied for employees drawing pay scale in the pre-revised structure till 2006 vide his statement in para 3.

2. At the same time, he could not digest the 1.86+40 = 2.26 formula for pensioners of pre-2006. He is not bothered about Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 or Para 4.2's clarification vide OM dt. 3.10.2008 and the Annexure to it as well.

3. His main concern appears to be Para 4.1 of OM dt.1.9.2008 where the fixation of revised pension is on the basis of 2.26 times of basic pension received prior to 2006.

4. He failed to realise such basic pension is nothing but 50% of the pay drawn in the pre-revised scale. It is an act of dividing the employees and pensioners and in the name of `parity' attempting to reduce the pension by applying same formula as the one applied for the employees.

But he has forgotten to note that after 1.86, there is a grade pay factor
that gets added to the pay in the pay band and unlike pensioners, the actual pay drawn in pre-revised scale gets multiplied by 1.86 before such addition of grade pay as applicable. Whereas, in the case of pensioners, it is only 50% of minimum of the pay in the Pay band (yet to be interpreted accordingly although OMs spell out but for the Annexure) and 50% of the Grade pay constitutes revised basic pension that has to be ensured.

He indirectly prompts to make Para 4.1 as revised pension after converting to 1.86 formula as against 2.26 formula. This entire statement of Shri SSR is untimely issued one and not having noble intention and thus will not serve any purpose except to satisfy the authorities that they had served the cause of employees as well as pensioners by incorrect interpretations. Employees may or may not have grievance. But, they need not compare with pensioners who had quit service after rendering hard devotional sincere work for nearly 75% of their life. Moreover, as Shri VN rightly used to put,
today's employees are tomorrow's pensioners. We, the pensioners never had any regret for whatever be the demand or expecation of the serving employees, because we also were once upon a time serving employees only.
At the same time, such demands shall not be at the cost of pensioners.

I am compelled to quote these things, because the chapter he had chosen to refer pertains to fixation of pay in the pay band and Grade Pay by the 6th CPC. I have a small doubt, whether it is really a Pensioner's Counsellor. However, the statement as it is does not convey any proper
useful purpose and the motives behind the letter at this point of time when almost all pre-Sep.2008 pensioners are seriously considering what could be their next step, cannot be said to have been having noble intention.

In stead of confusing the readers, he can put his arguments pointwise so that we can comment upon accordingly. Otherwise, I may interpret in the way as I can best understand the same, like I did above. One more thing I wish to add: Prez SSR has patted on behalf of employees, whether Employees Association will welcome his statement in this aspect paritcularly when they had been thinking of next move even very recently, I don't know.

I will continue further in my second attempt after the break.

I at this time, thank Shri R.Sundaram and senior members like Shri VN and Shri GRD, for bringing to our Members' notice about the misapprehensions around us, when we are already fighting against the same all along.

Best Regards.
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
01-02-2009, 07:33 AM
DEAR ALL

I AND MANY EAGERLY WAITING PENSIONERS ARE DELIGHTED TO NOTE THE ITEM POSTED IN THE RREWA WEBSITE MOST RECENTLY:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On 26-01-09 During the meeting of BPS subcommittee for CPC affairs at NGP, It has been decided that ‘Bharat Pensioners Samaj’ will immediately submit a memorandum to the P.M urging him to set right the anomalies due to incorrect interpretation and incorrect implementation of 6th CPC recommendations. It has also been decided that BPS will go to the court if Govt. does not respond favourably, for which it will appeal to pensioners and their organizations to raise funds."

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

ALL LIKE-MINDED ASSOCIATIONS/ INDIVIDUALS MUST RESPOND POSITIVELY AND STRENGTHEN THE HANDS OF BPS IN THIS FIGHT WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO SUCCEED 100%.

AS & WHEN THE MODE OF REMITTING THE AMOUNTS IS MADE KNOWN ACTIONS CAN?WILL FOLLOW FROM ALL AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS.

vnatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum,

vnatarajan
06-02-2009, 10:39 AM
Dear All

An Order on the constitution of National level Anomaly Committe has been issued by the Govt. Details have been posted in the thread titled "Pensioners' Cases- will 6CPC relate .......". WE PRESUME THIS COMMITTEE WILL LOOK INTO PENSIONERS' APPEALS FOR JUSTICE also.

Staff side is represented by many eminent/ weel known trade union activists/leaders who are also Central Govt. PENSIONERS- and by now- they must be aware of our anomalies/ grievances/ main issues.

Pensioners/ Associations/ etc who have access to the STAFF SIDE members may kindly request them through all available channels to take note of our grievances/ anomalies/ INJUSTICES perpetuated by mere play of WORDS in OMs etc and resolve the same through their GOOD OFFICES.

(Our request is they should not tow the Govt. line on excueses like Budget constraints/ Govt's inability to meetincreased expenditure etc - as these are not TRUTHs and every budget has to take note of such expenditure as in the case of SERVING EMPLOYEES.)

Regards/ wishes

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
06-02-2009, 07:26 PM
Dear Pensioner friends. It appears we have to fight very hard even to get heard and listned to in Anamolly Committee as present terms of referecne of this Anamolly Committee do not include cases related to pensioners. For them Pensioners do not exist.

sundarar
23-03-2009, 08:47 PM
Dear Sirs,

Today's OM issued by DoP&PW available in the pensionersportal.gov.in
advises as follows:

"All Pensioners Associations etc. are advised to send their representations relating to alleged anomalies in the orders of the Government relating to the pension to the Secretary (Staff Side)............ New Delhi".

The right time has come now to knock the door.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

sundarar
24-03-2009, 05:15 AM
Respected All,

WE WISH THE GCONNECT MANY MORE RETURNS OF THE DAY ON THE HAPPY OCCASSION OF THEIR FIRST ANNIVERSARY TODAY THE 24TH MARCH 2009. WE RECORD OUR SINCERE GRATITUDE FOR THEIR VALUABLE SERVICE IN ALL RESPECTS ESPECIALLY TO THE PENSIONERS' COMMUNITY. WE PRAY
FOR MUCH MORE HEIGHTS FOR THE GCONNECT AND THE CREDIT GOES TO THE GCONNECT ADMINISTRATORS. THE CONCERN AND CONSCIOUSNESS TOWARDS THE SOCIETY OF INDIA BY THE GCONNECT WILL ALWAYS BE REMEMBERED WITH FULL OF THANKS BY ONE AND ALL.

WE PRAY GOD TO SHOWER HIS FULL BLESSINGS ON ONE AND ALL OF THE GCONNECT AND ITS VIEWERS.

I AM CONFIDENT THAT GCONNECT WILL CREATE RECORDS DAY BY DAY AND GROW FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH AT ALL POINT OF TIMES.

BEST REGARDS TO ALL,

SUNDARAR.

Kanaujiaml
24-03-2009, 07:38 AM
My sincere and heartfelt Congratulaltions to the Gconnect and its viewers on the occasion of Gconnect Anniversary. Gconnect is doing great service to the cause of Pensioners. It is at Gconnect that pensioners like me are able to express views freely and fully and with full freedom. The effort of whole team of Gconnect is appreciable and laudable. At the same time, I wish to congratulate viewers of this forum, participants and the sponsers for making Gconnect a succesful endavour. I pray God to bestow upon Gconnect, its team of dedicated people, viewers, participants in discussion forum and last but not the least, the sponsers, all the best in coming future.

vnatarajan
24-03-2009, 07:47 AM
Dear Gconnect/ Its Team/All

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

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

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

All the best

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

G.Ramdas
24-03-2009, 07:58 AM
Congratulations -gconnect
and pensioner friends on this occasion.
We, the senior citizens in the pensioners forum of gconnect are extremely thankful for the the opportunity given to us through this platform.
The freedom of expression which we did not have while in service is fully enjoyed by us and we know how much it matters.
Thanks again to gconnect and friends
G.Ramdas

kkhameedkutty
24-03-2009, 12:02 PM
Long Live G-Connect !!!!

Many Thanks to G-Connect and its administrators for giving an oppertunity to express view of GOVT. PENSIONERS on various matters.

KKH Kutty

subba Rao R S
24-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Congatulation to the G connect team on this memorable day of one year of service to pensioners and senior citizen. This platform has done service through me to a number of pensioners and senior pensioners of age 80 years or more at Bangalore, in arriving at the Revised pension, through pension and arrears calculator in addition to serving as a platform to share views and informtion. all those who have got the service do not access like me aqnd wants me convey their gratitude.

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

R S Subba Rao[/COLOR]

Gopal Krishan
15-03-2012, 07:48 PM
There are cases of my type where their date of birth being 1.1.1946 retired on the 31st December, 2005 depriving them of the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. Their cases also deserved to be pursued.

sundarar
18-03-2012, 07:57 AM
There are cases of my type where their date of birth being 1.1.1946 retired on the 31st December, 2005 depriving them of the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. Their cases also deserved to be pursued.

Dear Sir, Pl. check for CAT PR Bench Delhi Judgment dated 26.3.2010 in this regard from CAT Website. The OA No. is 2232/2009. The OA was dismissed.

Gopal Krishan
04-05-2012, 02:27 PM
Dear Sir, Pl. check for CAT PR Bench Delhi Judgment dated 26.3.2010 in this regard from CAT Website. The OA No. is 2232/2009. The OA was dismissed.





As advised I have gone through the case. Background of my case is as follows:-

2. Based on the 3rd Pay Commission report, Ministry of Finance modified FR 56(a) vide 7(7)-EV(A)/74 dated the 7th February, 1975 providing that every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. A note bearing No. 7 was also incorporated providing that a government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of preceding month on attaining the age of fifty eight years or sixty years as the case may be . This provision took effect from the 5th April, 1975.

3. FR 56 and FR 5A are relevant in my case.


4. Obviously the government servants used to retire on the last date of the month in which their dates birth fell even after issue of the orders by the Government in the Department of Personnel in November, 1973 and May, 1974 pursuant the acceptance of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. That is why need arose for the Ministry of Finance to modify the provisions FR 56(a). Those provisions were made applicable only from the 5thh April, 1975. In other words government servants started to retire, post-third pay commission, on the last day of the month in which their dates of birth fell from November, 1973/May 1974, which continued till the 4th April, 1975.

5. My date of birth being the Ist January, 1946, I superannuated on retirement on the 31st December, 2005

6. On my request, prior to July, 2009, the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals, in view of the fact that after rendering 37 years of meritorious service and after my retirement I was found suitable retrospectively for inclusion in the suitability list of Directors of CSS for the year 2000 but without any benefits of that post, felt that my case was a rare and exceptional one, as in addition to the loss already suffered . Hence the Department opined that as in my case, in which I had already suffered on the promotion front as Director, FR 56 was causing undue hardship and that I be allowed to retire notionally on the 31st January, 2006 and accordingly pay revised notionally and pensionary benefits allowed as in the cases of post-2005 pensioners. Thereafter, as provided in FR 5A the opinion/decision referred to above was taken up for the concurrence of the Department of Expenditure.


7. The Department of Expenditure did not concur in the opinion/decision on the following grounds:

(a) “Shri Gopal Krishan may not be the only Government employee(s), retired or serving, whose date of birth falls on 1st day of any of months and they have retired/would retire from the Government service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month. Hence, his case cannot be categorized as an exceptional case.”

(b) ” Further, there are strong possibilities of such cases at the time of implementation of recommendation of preceding Central Pay Commissions as a cut off date was also drawn for implementations of their recommendations. If relaxation in the instant case is allowed then there are possibilities that claims from such other retired employees may also surface. “

© “Further, the fact that after his retirement on 31.12.2005 he was found suitable for inclusion in the suitability list of Directors of CSS for the year 2000 cannot be a ground for relaxation in terms of FR 5A as there are other employees who are found eligible for promotion in their next grade after their retirement only due to administrative reason. However, it is a co-incidence that Shri Gopal Krishan happens to be the sufferer on both the counts.”

8. Logic at (a) above is misplaced as in all other cases, wherein date of birth falls on the 1st day of any month including January ,would not cause any detriment in terms of pensionary entitlement and terminal benefits. The position changed radically in the light of the entitlements of payouts to all the employees, in the wake of the 6th Central Pay Commission’s (CPC) recommendations. Since the sixth CPC set 01.01.2006 as the cut off date for the new and enhanced entitlement, an employee with date of birth as the 1st January, 1946 only, was bound to suffer substantial losses in pay and other allowance if he were to retire a day prior to his date of birth under FR 56. With reference to (b) above it may be stated that decisions based on the recommendations of the 5th and 4th Central Pay Commissions were made applicable from the 1st January, 1996 and the 1st January, 1986 respectively. As such only those with dates of birth as the 1st January, 1936 or the 1st January, 1926 would be effected. In any case the Government of India, for the first time, decided that the additional quantum of pension/family pension on attaining the age of 80 years and above would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which the date of birth falls. This decision of the Government was also only post- sixth Pay Commission. Similar treatment is required to be given to those whose date of birth is the 1st January, 1946 as not doing so would be discriminatory. The argument at (c) above is also illogical. When one is suffering hugely (not getting PB IV) on one count and because of the provision of FR 56 he is made to suffer on another count that would mean that the rule in question is harshly operating against him only, who is already a sufferer. Had that case been a normal one, i.e., without loss of PB IV, the position would have been different. Loss of promotion after inclusion in the promotion list in other cases may not be that huge. Moreover that may not be in respect of those with the date of birth as the Ist January, 1946. As such the case of the undersigned stands alone.


9. At this stage, keeping in view the above points, the problem was discussed informally with the then Director, Shri Manoj Sahay, in the Department of Expenditure. He suggested that I should get a representation, suggesting that the matter may be restricted to the 6th CPC in the light of the points mentioned above, forwarded from my Department. Accordingly a representation was submitted to the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals, which was forwarded to the Department of Expenditure on the 4th September, 2009 for favourable consideration.

10. As during another informal discussion a couple of points had come to light, such as, number of such cases would be very large, the cases would involve extension in service etc. etc., I submitted a representation, to the Department of Expenditure on the 14 October, 2009 stating that (a) on the basis of the data I obtained from the Central Pension Accounting Organization (CPAO) number of such pensioners would be negligible (b) in the light of the fact that after the sixth Pay Commission additional quantum of pension/family pension had been allowed from the month in which the date of birth falls it would be discriminatory if the same treatment is not given to those whose date of birth was 1.1.1946 and (c) the Fundamental Rules provide for extension in service to all those whose date of birth is other than 1st of a month, whereas those whose date of birth is 1st of a month are being deprived of the same.

11. Without taking any action on the communication dated the 4th September, 2009 from the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals, the Department vide their communication dated the 11th January, 2010 forwarded the gist, as understood by them, of my representation dated the 14th October, 2009 referred to above, to the Department of Personnel for comments in the matter. Before comments of the Department of Personnel could be received by the Department of Expenditure, on the 26th February, 2010, I suggested to them that if old precedents/guidelines as to what would constitute “hardship” are not available the Department may like to take a view on that also. This suggestion of mine was forwarded to the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals on the 17th May, 2010 for examination in the light of Rule 5A of FR/SR and then to refer the case to Ministry of Finance for concurrence.



12. In reply to the communication of the Department of Expenditure dated the 11th January, 2010, Department of Personnel and Training wrote back on the 29th March, 2011 to the Expenditure Department practically offering no comments. It was, however, suggested that the Department of Pension might be consulted. On the other side, in response to the O.M. of the Department of Expenditure the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals suggested vide their OM dated the 18th April, 2011 that all such cases wherein individuals are deprived of the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission may be treated as “hardship” cases under FR 5A and relaxation given in FR 56. It was also mentioned that earlier the request of the undersigned had been considered in the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals and it was decided to relax the provision of FR 56(a) in terms of FR 5A with the approval of the Secretary. The same was referred to the Department of Expenditure for concurrence as the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals was competent to do so only with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance.