PDA

View Full Version : Flaws in OM dated 11-12-2008 issued in favour of Post 1-1-2006 Pensioners



kkhameedkutty
05-01-2009, 12:47 PM
There is a flaw in Clarification OM dated 11-12-2008 issued in favour of employees retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-1-2008. The Revised CCS Pension Rules 2008 issued on 2-9-2008 in favour of Post 1-1-2006 mentioned that the date of effect of order is 1-1-2006 unless otherwise seperately mentioned in that order and put under para No. 5.4 " Pension of employees retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 is to be calculated based on CCS Pension Rules 1972 (Rules applicable on the date of retirement).

Now the clarification OM dated 11-12-2008 is silent on application of pension rules on employees retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 and mentioned that pension has to be calculated @ 50% of last pay drawn (CCS Pension Rules 2008) or avarage of last 10 months pay (CCS Pension Rules 1972) whichever is beneficial to the retiring employee. But, pension of those who retired with less than 33 years of service is to be calculated based on actual qualifying years of service (which is neither CCS Pension Rules 1972 nor CCS Pension Rules 2008). Pension Rules 1972 requires pension to be calculated after adding grace period allowed and is not based on actual qualifying service.

Now, all the retirement benefits other than pension of all the post 1-1-2006 pensioners are calculated based on Revised Rules 2008

Now Government has to clarify what rule is applied for calculation of pension of employees retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 on same conditions instead of issuing clarification orders favouring additional benefits of old rules and new rules to some pensioners and discriminating / putting loss on some other pensioners. This type orders will have no validity.

6th CPC recommendation on "linkage of pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with" also should have effect of 1st Jan. 2006 if calculation of pension @ 50% of last pay drawn is effected from 1-1-2006. Both are a single recommendation by 6th CPC and is a fundamental change from CCS Pension Rules 1972. 6th CPC has not given any prospective date for implementation of this single recommendation and hence this single recommendation has to be implemented from 1-1-2006 without dilution so that no pensioner retired after 1-1-2006 is put on loss and rules are applied equally to all the pensioners retired after 1-1-2006.

It is requested Senior Members of the Forum may please bring this anomoly to the notice of Government / DoP & PW through RREWA.

pokarram
08-01-2009, 12:50 PM
Sir, The provision of Memo dated 11 Dec 08 have not been made applicable to defence service personnel retired after 01 Jan 06 and before issue of new pr0cedure. Can you kindly confirm applicability to such retired personnel also.

asreedhar
08-01-2009, 01:08 PM
I fully agree with Mr Hameed Kutty; I join him in requested our senior fraternity to take up this issue at appropriate level and settle our grievance. I am sure it is not only me & Mr Kutty but there could be throusands of such pensioniers;

kkhameedkutty
08-01-2009, 02:13 PM
It seems our Pensioners associations (RREWA and IOFS) and highly respected senior members are trying to meet PM. They are kind enough and have already addressed these anomolies also in their letters to PM and DoP & PW alongwith other pre-1-1-2006 pensioners problems of Clarification order dated 3-10-2008 which is also totally wrong. DoP & PW should not have issued such a clarification order in view of a clear cut pay revision table prepared and issued by 6th CPC for every pre-revised scale showing minimum and maximium of pay in pay bands corresponding to the old scale of pay. Purpose of providing such a detailed table for every pre revised scale by 6th CPC was to make calculation of revised salary and revised pension easy based on pre-revised scale of pay. It seems somebody in DoP & PW or Ministry of finance is not happy with Pay Commission Recommendations and cabinet decisions on pensioners. That may the reason for issuing such arbitrary orders including what is issued on 11-12-2008 without applying any sense / legal points (equality). As per pay commission recommendations and cabinet decision, pension of Pre-1-1-2006 pensioners also should not be linked to 33 years of service. Pension should not be in any case less than 50% of pay last drawn (Post 1-1-2006) or minimum of pay in pay band (in the fitment table, not the clubbed pay band) corresponding to old scale (Pre 1-1-2006) with effect from 1-1-2006.

Let us wait one to two months more. if nothing happens, we will have to proceed with legal process. Nobody can stop what is eligible to every one of us. That is why Legislative, Executive and Judiciary are three different wings. Otherwise everything could be a single entity. Our cry is not only for eligible monitory benefits which is denied, but justice for equality to all the pensioners.

GK Chadha committe had recommended full pension on completion of 20 years and also recommended that all its recommendations should be implemented from a single date, namely 1-1-2006 and not any date later than that except for allowances which is to be implemented from 1-9-2008 and news was that MHRD has accepted all the recommendations of GK Chhadha Committe. But, now when order isued on 31-12-2008, it said that pensionary benefits including payment of full pension after 20 years of service will be as per central government CCS Pension Rules. That means somebody from Finance / Pension dept. has sabotaged that also. I hope teachers retired after 1-1-2006 with 20+ years of service will take up the case to government.

Delinking of pension with 33 years of service should be implemented in any case from 1-1-2006 in view of OM dated 11-12-2008. Pension can not be calculated applying two different rules.

Kanaujiaml
09-01-2009, 10:18 AM
My dear Pensioners. I am a new member of this particular thread on Pensions but I am a regular contributer to the thread " Injustice to pensioners...." Now this particular thread has been brought on newly introduced thread namely, "Justice to all Pensioners........." I request all pensioners to kindly participate in new thread too. The entire problem of pensioners is centred only to one point. Parity i. e. equality in entitlements to all pensioners pre 1996,pre 2006,post 2006 and post 2008. This parity has already been granted by Constitution Bench of honorable Supreme Court of India in judgement given on 17.02.1982, in D S Nakara Case. (this judgement is available in Supreme Court website - you can get full judgement searching datewise. Also, this judgement is available on rrewa.org website). As per this judgement dividing pensioners for entitlements due to retirements on different dates, is violative of Article 14 of Constitution. Everybody in Govt. knows this and Vth CPC, VI CPC and all other pay commissions, also know it fully and have given their reports, keeping this fact in view. However, Govt. plays with pensioners and at time, ignores it, so that some amount of money could be saved, to bestow benefits on Non-pensioners. Only awareness amongsts the pensioners can set the things right. You would find some new things about it on new thread "Justice to pensioners ......"

kkhameedkutty
09-01-2009, 12:14 PM
Dear Kanuajaml Sir,

I fully agree with you on this. However, though every one has raised all types of anomalies created when CPC recommendations are implemented, the newly started thread with "Justice to..................." addesses only anomaly in fixing pension based on minmum pay in respect of pre-1-1-2006 pensioners. This is to ensure parity with Post 1-1-2006 pensioners and not addressed even eligibility for 50% of minimum pay in pay band to all without linking 33 years of service in view of 6th pay commission recommendation which did not put any condition like reducing pension pro-rata basis. Instead, it said pension in no case shall be less than 50% of ..........

When the above case is demand for parity with post 1-1-2006 pensioners, we should first ask for parity among all the post 1-1-2006 pensioners which is violated by putting Clause 5.4 in Pension Revision order dated 2-9-2008 for Post 1-1-2006 pensioners and further by clarification order dated 11-12-2008. If there is no parity among post 1-1-2006 pensioners, how government can extent pairity to pre 1-1-2006 pensioners??

Hence it will be better if we follow correct sequence when we talk about pensioners as a whole and that will be most appropriate way for collective representation.

See pay commission recommendation in Para No. 5.1.33 "The Commission, accordingly, recommends 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. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant". This was accepted by cabinet. Please note that this recommendation is not talking anything about full pension and hence government acceptance on Pay Commission recommendation on another chapter in para No. 6.1.3 which is prospective effect, need not be read or clubbed with recommendation in chapter 5, para. 5.1.33. Moreover, this aspect has been now confirmed with issue of OM dated 11-12-2008, partially implementing para 5.1.33 with effect from 1-1-2006. It should be implemented in full from 1-1-2006. When that is done, parity among all the post 1-1-2006 pensioners is completed.

As per old pension rules also, eligibility for full pension is 33 years. But, all who have 28+ years service automatically get full pension. Like that, our demand is not full pension with effect from 1-1-2006, but linkage of pension with 33 years should be dispensed with from 1-1-2006 and pension should be paid @50% of last pay drawn on completion of 20 years with effect from 1-1-2006 without any condition as recommended by 6th CPC and that accepted by Cabinet.


Hence it is our humble request to Pensioners associations and senior forum members with due respect that please consider all these anomalies together with equal importance while taking the same to Prime Minister and DoP & PW. Otherwise, we will have to demand for parity in pensioners association's approach itself.

Kanaujiaml
09-01-2009, 06:18 PM
My dear K. I entirely agree with you. We are already working towards this. We are including all pensioners.I would request you to kindly put contention of your post on that thread also. I am going to put draft appeal format on that thread which includes all pensioners.

Kanaujiaml
10-01-2009, 04:37 PM
My dear kk and other pensioner friends.I am now putting below draft letter to PM. Para 6 concerns specifically post 06 retirees :

To,
The Honorable Prime Minister of India,
Prime Minister’ Office , New Delhi -110001.
Sir,
Sub.: - Implementation of VI CPC Report – Division of pensioners in pre-2006, Post 2006 and Post 2008 for entitlement of pension and various other benefits in complete disregard to Judgment dated 17 02 1982 of Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court and Recommendations made by VI CPC.

Respectfully I beg to state that the Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India gave decision on 17th Feb.’1982, in case of D S Nakara and others Vs 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 of Honorable Supreme Court, holding that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled , the classification did not stand the test of Article 14. Further, 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/pension, was not accepted by the Constitution Bench of the honorable Supreme Court.

2 VI CPC kept the above decision of the honorable Supreme Court in mind and stated in para 5.1.47 of its Report, and I quote verbatim “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 pensioners. 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 necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. The commission accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40 % of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50 % dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 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 allowance 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 Commission 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 thereon corresponding to the pre-revised 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.

3 This recommendation of VI CPC, has been accepted in Govt. Resolution as published in Gazette Notification No. 38/37/08/-P&PW(A) dated 29th August’08. (see S. No. 12 of Annexure). Fitment Tables giving “minimum of the pay in pay band” for each pre-revised pay scale, were issued annexed to Finance Ministry(Implementation Cell) F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08. Ministry of Personnel, PG and P, Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare incorporated it in para 4.2 of OM F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated Ist Sept.’08 and I quote verbatim “The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.” Unquote. (Fitment Tables were required because of the merging of as many as 24 pre-revised pay scales into only four pay bands, resulting into bunching which necessacitated inclusion of one increment for two such bunching )

4. However, Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare issued OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08, giving “clarification” but actually issuing “modification to para 4.2 and I quote verbatim “The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the 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.” Unquote.

5. Thus, what was given by VI CPC and the subsequent Govt. Resolution and Office Memorandum, to pensioners, as brought out in para 3 and 4 above, was taken away, in single stroke, vide “Modification/Amendment” brought out in para 4 above,
resulting in loss to pensioners in revised pension per month, as under :

Pre-revised pay scale - loss in Revised Basic Pension Per month
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

6. Due to division of Pensioners into three groups, depending upon their dates of retirement, Govt. issued orders separately giving different entitlements to pensioners of each group, for fixation of pension. While pension of one group was fixed depending on amount of pre-revised average basic pay of last ten months, whereas, another group’s pension was fixed on the basis of last pay drawn. Full pension was awarded to one group after completing 20 years of qualifying service and another group’s pension was reduced prorata basis where qualifying service was more than 20 years but less than 33 years. This constitutes violation of Article 14 of Constitution as held by Constitution Bench of honorable Supreme Court as mentioned in para 1 above. Entitlements should be the same for all pensioners.

I , therefore, pray to your good self to kindly help mitigating losses being incurred by pensioners, by arranging withdrawal of modification/amendment to para 4.2 issued by Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08 and, arrange for restoration of the modified parity as accepted in Govt. Resolution and published in Gazette Notification No. 38/37/08/-P&PW(A) dated 29th August’08. ( S. No. 12 of Annexure) and Ministry of Personnel, PG and P, Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated Ist Sept.’08 , in para 4.2 namely, “Revised Consolidated Pension cannot be lower than 50 % of Minimum of the pay in Pay Band (as given in the Fitment Tables annexed to Finance Ministry, Implementation Cell, F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08) plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired “. Discrimination as pointed out in para 6 above also should be removed, giving same entitlements to all pensioners.
I assure you Sir, whole lot of pensioners, would be obliged to you for ever, for this act of kindness.

With kind regards,

Date ............ Yours faithfully,

S.C.Maheshwari
10-01-2009, 06:56 PM
justice for equality to all the pensioners should be the only demand. No modified parity, it should be full parity to all pensioners with all accepted recomendations iplemented from one date 01-01-06. No prospective or reprospective effect.

S.C.Maheshwari
RREWA

Kanaujiaml
10-01-2009, 07:53 PM
My dear Mr. Maheshwari, Vnatarajan and all other Pensioner friends.
I entirely agree with Mr. Maheshwari. Also, we should demand this on the basis of only one Judgement. Judgement dated 17 02 1982 of Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court of India, which has said " division of pensioners into groups with cut off dates, for various entitlements, amounts to violation of Article 14 of Consstitution." (All other judgements in different courts/benches are outcome of this basic judgement about Pensioners). Let us stick on this aspect and concentrate and focuss our attention.

kkhameedkutty
11-01-2009, 01:13 AM
Dear Kanuanjaml, Maheswari, Sundaram & Natarajan Sirs,

What Maheswari Saab said should be the only consoliditated demand we should put forward to PM. However, we may have to briefly put how the Supreme Court judgement has been violated in recent pension orders. Hence, I am putting here what I thought. However, senior members, particularly Mr. Maheswari Sir may correct my wording and angresi grammar in it.

1. The 6th CPC recommendations on pension & other retirement benefits were accepted by cabinet in total without any dilution / modification. But when orders were issued by implementing departments, major junk of pension benefits of employees retired before 2-9-2008 have been denied / taken away through clarification orders.

2. 6th CPC had recommended in Para No. 5.1.47 of its report that “The fixation of pension as per fixation table attached as annexure 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”.

Since 6th CPC had clubbed many pre-revised pay scales together, it may have felt that minimum of pay in pay band may be wrongly interpreted by minimum of revised pay band and hence 6th CPC even provided detailed pay band tables for every pre-revised pay scale as annexure to its report, to correctly fix minimum of revised pay in pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale as a supplementary document. Moreover, in view of 6th CPC recommendation under Para 5.1.33 to delink calculation of pension with 33 years of service, it clearly stated revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band.

But, Clarification Orders issued by DoP & PW states that revised pension should not be less than 50% of the minimum of pay band and pension of those who are having less than 33 years of service should be reduced pro rata basis which resulted huge loss on pension basic to all the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners. This is totally against 6th CPC Recommendation and Cabinet Decision. When government wanted to implement 6th CPC recommendation without any modification to benefit all its present and past employees, the very purpose of such a decision has been sabotaged by these orders.

3. Secondly, 6th CPC had recommended in Para No. 5.1.33 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. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant". This was accepted by cabinet. Pay commission has not put any prospective date for implementation of this recommendation and hence it is deemed that this is to be implemented from 1-1-2006. But, as per the orders issued, "linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with" is implemented only from 2-9-2008 when other portions of same recommendation including all other recommendations on pension and other retirement benefits are implemented from 1-1-2006 putting hardship to very few pensioners. Moreover, 5 years grace period allowed to employees retired with less than 28 years of service previously as per CCS Pension Rules 1972 is also taken away with a fresh clarification order issued on 11-12-2008 and trying to apply old CCS Pension Rules 1972 and Revised CCS Pension Rules 2008 (effective from 1-1-2006) together in calculation of pension of only very few pensioners retired after 1-1-2006 putting huge loss on basic pension of those pensioners. GK Chadha report on pay revision of central university employees under MHRD had also recommended to implement all its recommendations in line with 6th CPC recommendations including payment of full pension on completion of 20 years with effect from a single date, namely 1-1-2006 and not later than any date later than that.

4. The Honourable Supreme Court and high courts have stated several times in their judgement that pensioners should be considered as a single class and pensioners should not be divided by fixing cut off date in granting / improving their pension benefits and also stated division of pensioners into groups with cut off dates, for various entitlements, amounts to violation of Article 14 of Constitution. Now when all the pay commission including 6th CPC took this judgement of honourable supreme court with topmost importance and referred in pay commission reports to ensure that those judgements are complied to various recommendation, the 6th CPC implementing departments not only not bothered to see these judgements and 6th CPC statements on that, but, has been totally violated by issuing discriminatory and arbitrary OM’s and clarification orders.

Sir, your government was found very much kind enough to government employees and pensioners and as such constituted 6th Pay Commission at correct time as per 5th CPC recommendation and also took a decision to implement almost all the 6th Pay Commission recommendations on revision of salary and pension without any change or modification with effect from 1st January 2006. Every past and present government employee and their family members including all other well wishers were very happy on government decision and felt totally relaxed with such a decision by your government. In this, we are all totally indebted to you and very much thankful to your government.

But, Sir, it is unfortunate that the benefits approved by you are not reaching the intended beneficiary with the issue of discriminatory and arbitrary OM’s and clarification orders by the responsible departments. Hence, it is our plight and humble request of pensioners at various levels to you to look into our grievance with top most priority and help us, since there is no action from those departments even after many representations from almpst all the affected pensioners and pensioners association/ forum'ss and we find no other alternate way to address our grievance.


Yours faithfully,


Pensioners Association

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 09:18 AM
My dear all pensioners. I have registered following grievance on online prime minister's cell at website http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

Refer 5.1.47 VI CPC, Govt. accepting in Aug08 50 % Minimum Pay in the Pay Band of Fitment Tables, withdrawing in Oct08,contravening SC judgment 17.02.82. Dividing pensioners pre/post06 contravene Article14. My loss 3650 PM. My PPO NE/10118/232555 dated 29112001. Request withdraw amendment 3rdOct08, restore parity to pensioners of same status and pay and mitigate my loss in revised pension.

kkhameedkutty
12-01-2009, 01:28 PM
Dear Pensioners,

See my posing of grievance on PM's website http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

"I retired from GOI service on 2-1-2007 as Scientist "E" after 20+ years of service. My PPO No. XXXXXXXXXXXX. I am denied pension @50% of last pay drawn recommended for all employees with 20+ years of service by 6th CPC and approved by Cabinet effective from 1-1-2006, by applying Old CCS Pension Rules 1972 and Revised Pension Rules 2008 together on very few pensioners retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 with 20-28 years of service, when all others retired after 1-1-2006 are granted pension @ 50% of last pay drawn including other retirement benefits as per revised rules 2008."

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 07:08 PM
Dear Pensioners,

See my posing of grievance on PM's website http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

"I retired from GOI service on 2-1-2007 as Scientist "E" after 20+ years of service. My PPO No. XXXXXXXXXXXX. I am denied pension @50% of last pay drawn recommended for all employees with 20+ years of service by 6th CPC and approved by Cabinet effective from 1-1-2006, by applying Old CCS Pension Rules 1972 and Revised Pension Rules 2008 together on very few pensioners retired between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008 with 20-28 years of service, when all others retired after 1-1-2006 are granted pension @ 50% of last pay drawn including other retirement benefits as per revised rules 2008."


My dear friend. Your above appal is a factual statement. What is the ground for your appeal and what do you want and why ? Ground is only one for pensioners namely judgment dated 17 02 1982 of constitutional bench of honorable Supreme Court. All court judgments after 17 02 08 eminate only from this judgment. My appeal demands only parity i e no divisioning of pensioners and only one date of implementing VI CPC recommendations. It covers everyting and all pensioners. That is what we should all demand, in my opinian.

sundarar
12-01-2009, 08:00 PM
My dear friend. Your above appal is a factual statement. What is the ground for your appeal and what do you want and why ? Ground is only one for pensioners namely judgment dated 17 02 1982 of constitutional bench of honorable Supreme Court. All court judgments after 17 02 08 eminate only from this judgment. My appeal demands only parity i e no divisioning of pensioners and only one date of implementing VI CPC recommendations. It covers everyting and all pensioners. That is what we should all demand, in my opinian.

Dear Sir,

Your stand is correct. However, the 6th CPC has not taken note
of notional pay fixation on revision of pay structure as had been done in 1998 for pre-1986 pensioners. Rectifying the O.M. dt.3.10.2008 alone is not
sufficient. Parity with post-Sep.2008 pensioners in all respects is all requested, as you pointed out. If that is done, rest of the things will become null and void. As against modified parity prescribed by V and VI CPC, there ought to be complete parity among all pensioners as you had rightly pointed out. Moreover, the problem being faced by post-2006(pre-Sep.2008) and
pre-2006 pensioners is not a secret but are well known by this time to all authorities. Because the DOP is maintaining silence, we are compelled to disturb the higher office.
Why the DOP could not come forward amidst various representations to
spell out their stand in this regard, I am unable to visualise. Moreover,
we cannot send so many representations to the higher office and that is the reason, I preferred to go at one stroke. As so many models are emerging,
naturally clear picture also will emerge to the Authorities concerned and it is expected some action will be taken to clear the stand to avoid much more further representations. I consider the time of higher authorities as very precious to focus the attention on similar crucial issues and I hope the DOP will by this time realise to break their silence and offer their first comment on post-O.M. situation. Otherwise, the FMO also may like to intervene to lesser the burden of the office of higher authorities. The anxiety and concern of the senior citizens/family pensioners need to be addressed in time by the autorities concerned, otherwise, there is no meaning for the word `Welfare'.

Best Regards.

kkhameedkutty
13-01-2009, 12:02 AM
Dear Sir,

I wanted to refer Supreme Court Judgement on Parity among all the pensioners But, space allowed for putting grievance was limited (500 charactors only) However, I am happy that yourself and Mr Maheswari Sir and many others on behalf of all the pensioners have clearly referred Supreme Court Judgement and demanded parity. While reading, the reader will atleast understand there is no parity among post 1-1-2006 pensioners itself and hence further reading through other grievances and reference to Supreme Court Judgement, they will understand it is totally violated among all the pensioners.

Kanaujiaml
14-01-2009, 11:01 PM
My dear kk.
Fact of the case are as under :
Pensioners, who retired between 01 01 06 to 01 09 08 are called post 2006 pensioners. Pension of post 2006, as per latest OM, is to be fixed on the basis of last 10 months average of pay or last pay drawn, whichever is higher. However, if qualifying service is less than 33 years, revised pension would be reduced pro rata basis, depending upon exact amount of qualifying service put in. Post 2008 pensioners, that is pensioners, who retired after 01 09 08, would be getting pension based on last pay drawn (normally higher) and full pension on 20 years qualifying service. Actually, catagarisation of pensioners into pre 06, post 06 and post 08 is arbitrary and unprincipled and in violation of Article 14 as per C.B. of SC judgment dated 17 02 82. That is why, Pensioners are fighting for equality/parity.

asreedhar
16-01-2009, 04:20 PM
Please provide a final draft letter to be sent to Prime Minister of India on the subject that is in discussion. And also let me know where the said letter to be sent i.e., to any pensioners association that is representing the matter to the PM so that I can send a signed representation from me and my other similarly aggreived pensioners in my knowledge.

Kanaujiaml
17-01-2009, 08:31 AM
My dear Sundarar, KKhameedkutty, Sreedhar.

Sundararji, in my opinian and in the opinian of several others, including rrewa, the facts of the case are well known to DOP and FM(IC). They have issued instructions vide OM 3rd Oct.08 intentionally and they are not ready to listen and talk about it any more. Anomolly committee is not for us. Appeals to President, PM, NHRC, RTI and finally the PIL to honorable Supreme Court, are the avenues available to us and hope for us. VI CPC has not done any divisioning. Our demand should be to remove pre 06, post 06 and post 08 divisioning of pensioners and restortion without change VI CPC para 5.1.47 recommendations, as accepted under Gazette Notifications dated 29th Aug.08 and 30th Aug.08.

KKhameedkuttji, your action is appreciable. Sanjaiji is also suffering like you, being in post 06 catagory.

Sreedharji, please go through injustice thread and you would find my representation in it. If you want, you can send an e. mail to me for getting a copy direct. Actually, I would advise you as well as other new pensioner friends to kindly read 'injustice' and 'justice' threads from page 1 to last page and you would find interesting information and development of the case.

kkhameedkutty
17-01-2009, 12:05 PM
Dear Kanuajiaml / Maheswari Sirs,

I have also already represented to Dept of Public Grievances, Dept of DoP & PW, Prime Minister's Office and NHRC quoting Pay Commission Recommendations in Para 6.1.3, 5.1.33 and 5.1.47 on Payment of Full Pension @50% of last pay to all the employees (past & pesent employees of Pre 1-1-2004 recruitment as defined by 6th CPC in its report in para 5.1.1) with effect from 2-9-2008, the date of acceptance of recommendations by Government and Gazette Notification on that. All of us have every right to get full pension atleast from 2-9-2008 like any other employee retire from 2-9-2008 as we have also served government as long as 20+ years.

However, I can not refer anything about pre-1-1-2006 pensioners problems of fixing pension on 50% of minimum pay in pay band in my representations as the same is not applicable to me though that is also a violation of pay commission recommendation and cabinet decision. But, It is highly appeciated that all the pensioners associations have addressed all the problems together in their representations.

Since 6th CPC has recommended full pension to all w.e.f 2-9-2008, financial implecation on finance ministry on this also would have already taken care at the time of submitting its report and the budget amount quoted by 6th CPC for implementation of its recommendations includes financial implication on payment of full pesion to all wef 2-9-2008 and government would have clearly understood the same while accepting the recommendations and hence going back from that through OM and clarifications will not have any validity

Now, we have sent so many representations and there is no response from any quarter and it is understood that anomaly committe is not going to take up our anomaly as per the letter of reference.

Then what is the solution?? Should we start legal process now itself or should we seek clarification from anomaly committe Whether they will consider our grievance also and wait for the same. If it is so, who is the person to be contacted ??? Mr Maheswari can advice us on that. Could them meet PM as per their interview request??.


Let us keep the discussion moving.

K.K.H Kutty