PDA

View Full Version : JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS-6CPC OMs-PLEA TO HON. PM



Pages : [1] 2

vnatarajan
08-01-2009, 10:26 AM
JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS-6CPC OMs-PLEA TO HON’BLE PM

In one of the popular and much debated threads titled “Injustices to Pre-2006 Pensioners…..” in the Gconnect.In, all of us had the opportunity to understand the plight of all sections of Pre-2006/ even earlier groups/ classes of pensioners, belonging to various pre-revised pay-scales from the lowest up to scale S-30., Leaving the top four (S-31 to 34) and a few in mid-way, all are affected. A variety of injustices has been meted out to them. Several ideas have emerged for charting out the course of action for JUSTICE.

Therefore, all feel, the plea for JUSTICE has to be forceful and common to one and all of the Pensioners. Every Pensioner has to participate in this appeal for JUSTICE which we should all take to the highest level of Governance/ Execution- first to the Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India & his esteemed Office.

In earlier posts, with lengthy deliberations, we had come to a point that we should focus our attention so as to bring injustice done to a large number of pensioners of pre revised pay scales S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S10,S11,S12,S13,S14,S15,16,S17,S18, S19,S20,S21,S22,S23,S25,S25,S26,S27,S28,S29 and S30 (and not only S29 and S30) to lime light. We had concluded that "modification" of DOP OM dated 3rd Oct.08 cannot supersede "acceptance and approval of Union Cabinet tabled in parliament". We had thought of starting new thread

Background & Focus of the Appeal (Courtesy Shri Kanaujiami, Senior Pensioner from Railway- activist for all pensioners):

The Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India in judgment dated 17th Feb.’1982 held that division of pensioners for the purpose of payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter, is both arbitrary and unprincipled and violative of Article 14 of Constitution . The argument that the cut off date had to be fixed in view of the limited financial resources available to cover up additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision of pay scale was also not accepted. V cpc gave parity to pensioners and assigned each pensioner V CPC pay scale.

VI CPC also kept this fact in view.

VI CPC has merged 27 pre-revised pay scales into only 4 pay bands, which resulted into bunching. It therefore, recommended allowing one increment for two such bunching, and provided a table giving each stage of pre-revised pay scale and pay in pay band allotted. For the pensioners, “modified parity” was recommended, stating in para 5.1.47 of its report that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum” of the pay in pay band (as provided in table) + grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale (S4 to S30) from which pensioner retired. This recommendation of VI CPC has been accepted by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08.

However, Ministry of Personnel, issued OM dated 3rd Oct.08 giving “clarification” but actually issuing “modification” stating therein that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum of pay band” without having correspondence with pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired. Thus what VI CPC had given to pensioner and which was accepted by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, was taken away by “modification” given in OM dated 3rd Oct.08. This has put to loss in revised pension ( plus DR thereon) per month as under (pl Read serially: Pre-revised Scale of Pay; From- To (Rs); LOSS in Rs 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

(PL. NOTE THE LOSS WILL BE OF RECURRING NATURE/COMPOUNDED BY THE EFFECT OF DR INCREASES EVERY SIX MONTHS- AND WILL ULTIMATELY RESULT IN GROSS LOSS WHEN FAMILY PENSION IS TO BE FIXED ! MOST IMPORTANT IS YOUR BASE FOR NEXT REVISION WILL BE MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO!!!!!)


I ,and Shri Kanaujiami, with anticipated endorsements of several seniorPensioners S/SHRI ,R Sundaram, G Ramadas, S C Maheshwari, K S Sitaraman,S Balasubramanian,P K Ranaganathan, A V Mukuntharajan, A Rajagopalan, Nagarajan S, Sundarar, several other senior Pensioners here request all other old pensioners to kindly take note of above and send representation to Prime Minister to arrange to withdraw “modification “ issued vide OM dated 3rd Oct.08 and restore the benefit given by the VI CPC which was accepted by Govt. and notified vide Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, to all pensioners who retired from pre-revised pay scales S4 to S30.

While on the subject we also note there is a very very old veteran Pensioners (say pre-1976/1986 etc. – a SILENT SUFFERERS GROUP (SSG)- who never get the benefits they deserve or entitled to (because of their being totally left out of any submissions) and they should also appeal once again.

We also urge the Pensioners Associations/ Federations to come out more in the open, be outspoken and join this issue by making a powerful appeal to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, to cover the entire spectrum of all Pensioners as a whole.

Our one-remedy immediate demand for PARITY RESTORATION is :

“Hon’ble Prime Minister to arrange to withdraw “modification “ issued vide OM dated 3rd Oct.08 and restore the benefit given by the 6 CPC which was accepted by Govt. and notified vide Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, to all pensioners who retired from pre-revised pay scales S4 to S30” and their equivalents in Pre-1986 periods.”

Posted by: V Natarajan and several senior Pensioners across the board..

Kanaujiaml
09-01-2009, 09:34 AM
My dear V Natarajan and other pensioners friends, whoose names have been mentioned in the first post of this thread and also all old pensioners starting from pre 2006 to pre 1996. We are all sufferers and we must not leave it here but continue with protest and representation. I may mention here that I have drafted a letter addressed to PM, detailing facts of injustice done to pensioners. It is a bit lengthy so I am not reproducing it here. I once again request all pensioners to kindly come forward and enrich this thread/forum for discussion with your views and suggestions. Long live Pensioners.

vnatarajan
09-01-2009, 10:56 AM
Dear Mr Kanaujiami /all friends/ well wishers (employees in service I mean future pensioners also requested to join as a measure of solidarity)

Yes. WE must draft few models so that whatever suits individual pensioners- it must be used as the basis.

1.Why not prepare a cammon "few-paragraph-simple-format" LETTER covering:

what pre-revised scale pensioner belongs to.
what pay band he is now pitched in.
what he got now.
what he shd have got in terms of the para 5.1.47 scpc or para 4.2 of OM of 1st sept.
what is the loss per month- its compounding effect- more of he is older than 80 yrs etc.
what reps he has made IF ANY/ what grievances he has regd. IF ANY.
what remedy is he seeking.


Another brief 500 character summary (hardly 10 lines of may be 10 words) has to be prepared to Register the same grievance online in PM's website.

vnatarajan

Sushil Kumar
09-01-2009, 12:16 PM
In my view the hon’ble PM should be requested for the following, through email:

1. To remove the misinterpretation of implementing officials in implementing MODIFIED Parity wherein decision of the cabinet for MODIFIED PARITY has been misinterpreted by implementing officials as under, which has affected around 40 lakhs pensioners including from Defence:
i) The term “minimum of pay in the pay band” has been misinterpreted as “minimum of pay band”.
ii) As per decision of Cabinet, there is no condition of 33 years service in MODIFIED PARITY which has been included by the implementing officials.

2. To appoint an Independent Arbitrator for examining the Judgments of Hon’b le Supreme Court so that the same can be implemented for all existing pensioners.

G.Ramdas
09-01-2009, 01:23 PM
Reg. Sh. Sushil Kumar's post#4, I repeat what I had said earlier. Let us not alter what the govt. had notified in the Gazette. It said "minimum of the pay in the pay band_--".If we delete, the definite article "the " the meaning gets changed. 'The pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale-' is important to us.

vnatarajan
09-01-2009, 05:05 PM
Dear all

For on line posting in PMO portal, I am trying to post this way, - model draft:

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


Here is exactly what I cd squeeze thru to PMO's portal on 10th Jan 2008- wh took me one hr to exercise & send- GOT ACK.WITH THANKS MESSAGE:

"President’s sanction of pension(para 5.1.47 of 6CPC), notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PWOMdt1/9/08 is to be not less than 50% of “min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale (Tab. in Exp.Dept.OM of 1/9/08).Lower OfficeDP&PW modified this thro'OMsdt 3& 14/10/08 substituting “irrespective of”for"corresponding to"&”min.of the pay in the pay band”for”min of pay band" &.reduced my pension to Rs.23700 instead of Rs 27350/- Pl intervene/do justice".

(PS: Name/ Address are given in boxes provided separately; I put the PPO no also alongside my name!!!!)

Regards

vnatarajan

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

I had to restrict it to 500 characters- (wh is about 10 lines of 50 characters each)

Let us see if some more drafts emerge.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
09-01-2009, 06:28 PM
My dear All Pensioners. Draft appeal to PM is reproduced below :

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,

vnatarajan
10-01-2009, 07:31 AM
Dear ALL/ Mr K

Many thanks to Mr Kfor the nice draft put up for the benefit of all.


Dear All

Mr Kanaujiami has kindly put up the draft for an APPEAL TO HON'BLE PM in the earlier posting above and I have also given a small one para limited rep. for registering ON LINE grievance in the PM's portal, earlier.

FOr those who were following the other thread on " INJUSTICE TO PRE_2006........" closely/ who have already made several reps. to various authorities/ wh have also regd. grievance in the portals of DoP/PW & PMO/ etc, another draft version of appeal to the HONBLE PM, prepared by Shri PKRanaganathan (little edition by me/others here; EG chosen here is S29 Pensioner- others can highlight their own examples/ cases) incorporating some more court cases is put up:

(PL. note any of these reps of Mr K & Mr PKR can be used for preparing individual reps./appeals to be sent to Honble PM. IT IS OUR EARNEST REQUEST THAT ALL MUST ACT / REQUEST OTHERS TO ACT/ MAKE COPIES & DISTRIBUTE TO HELP OTHERS WHO HAVE NO FACILITIES ALSO TO REPRESENT,so that the IMPACT OF THIS APPEAL IS FELT BY the HONBLE PM/ PMO)

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

Subject: Appeal to the Honble PM for Justice to Past pensioners

Ref :Min of Pers Public Grievances & Pension, Dept of Pension & Pensioners welfare, OM NOs, F. No .38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dated 3 sep 2008 and even No dated 14Oct 2008.

Respected Sir,

Deeply aggrieved by what I believe to be devastating injustice perpetrated on me and scores of other Pre 2006 pensioners like me, by the directives contained in the above two Oms, I had submitted my case for redressal to the Secretary DP&PW through four separate representations apart from registering my grievances with the Ministry’s grievances Cell
And also the grievances cell of your esteemed office. While the grievance has not been addressed so far by the secretary, DP&PW, it has not even been acknowledged till date and therefore this desperate bid to seek the honour of intervention of your august office, to remedy the injustice .

I beg to attach herewith copies of my above representations which bring out in detail my case and the redressal that I have been seeking.

Briefly stated, the above two Oms ( Issued under the authy of Dierctor PP in the pension Dept) have introduced modifications which materially alter the provisions in the statutory orders promulgated by Government through gazette notifications, and which has resulted in two different pay scales,
for most of the Grades in the relevant pay bands, one for those retiring after I Jan 2006 and the other for those retired prior to that date.

Sir, I and I am sure, my fellow pensioners are all personally ever so grateful, for the governments speedy acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC and including existing pensioners, in your dispensations . But , I am unable to accept, the inequity in the matter of MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION , created through an arbitrary and untenable interpretation , in complete disregard to the constitutional provisions, legal directives and established rule position. Curiously enough, the top four grades in the hierarchy, which perhaps is the exclusive retirement domain, mostly of the IAS, has been carefully, excluded from the operation of this calculated misinterpretation, by keeping them outside the pay band concept itself !

I crave your leave to place below just a few of the APEX court cited, constitutional provisions and humbly seek your kind and considered perusal of them- apart from the extracts of other relevant court orders , on the subject of Pension and Parity of pension among a class of pensioners, enclosed herewith.

“In Shri.Sita Ram Sugar C o Ltd, Vs Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277, 1297, the Supreme Court ( Mr Justice Thommen) has laid down that "Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi judicial, is open to challenge, if it is in conflict with the constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the Law of the Land, or if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it "

“Administrative action may be based on statute or may be be purely executive action of an administrative nature, that is, of non-statutory character. In either case, a statutory or non statutory order of the executive which is arbitrary may be set aside. ( Iron and Metal Traders vs Jaskiel, AIR 1984 SC 629.( and other judgments.)”

“If any classification is made relating to pay scales and such classification is unreasonable and if unequal pay is based on no classification, then Art. 14. will at once be attracted, and such classification should be set at naught. (In other words, , where unequal pay has brought about, a discrimination within the meaning of Art 14, it will be a case of " equal pay for equal work'as invisaged by Art 14.) (Supreme court employees welfare Assn Vs Union of India AIR 1990 SC 334 (Muratri mohan Dutt and K Thommen JJ)”

“Administrative Instructions Art 309) Though non-statutory Rules cannot modify Statutory Rules, there is nothing to prevent the Government from issuing administrative instructions on matters upon which the statutory Rules are silent ( Comptroller Vs Mohan(1992) 1SCC 20. ( which means that non-statutory Rules cannot modify staturoty Rules;administrative instructions can only be issued on matters that are silent in the statutory Rules)”
I submit that the mischievous modifications, brought into, both the Office memoranda under reference are guilty of all the above mentioned constitutional infringements and request your esteemed self to kindly cause a review examination of the issue of PARITY OF MINIMUM PENSION , between the same classes of pensioners, standing on either side of the date line of 01-01-06, in accordance with the principle of modified parity already accepted by Government vide Min of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) Dated 17 dec 98 ( Copy enclosed for ready reference ) and order repeal of the unjust and. incorrect interpretation, of this entity, introduced in the OMs referred to above in order to restore the Legitimate minimum pension to the Pre 2006 pensioners.

Sir, I retired from the pre revised scale of S29 (18400-500-22400) on 01-03-01. my basic pay at the time of retirement being Rs 19,900/- Under the provisions of office Memorandum F.N o. 38/37/09/P&PW (A) Pt I dt 14 oct 08, my revised minimum pension has been fixed at Rs.23650 which is 50% of the Pay Band minimum In of 37400+grade pay of 10000. This fixation is anomalous and unjust since the minimum pay for corresponding revised scale for my post ie.[Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India] is Rs.44700/- wef 1.1.2006[Ministry of Finance's OM FNo1/1/2008-1C,30/08/08 (Page 32/ 6CPC Pay Revision) Pre-revised Pay Scale (S 29) of Rs18400-22400 is revised to Rs 44700-67000]. Hence 50% of the minimum pay [44700] +Grade Pay[10000] works out to Rs.27350. as per the corresponding pay in PB4. The revised basic pension, after applying para 4.2. of Memorandum F.No. 38/37/P&PW (A) dt 01-09-08, is 50% of 54700 ie. Rs 27350/- Which therefore should be my revised minimum pension.

While I am not seeking full parity, sanctified by numerous court directives, which should allow my pension at Rs 33720/-, I am sanguine that my humble request for parity at least in my minimum pension with all those of my grade, which has the executive approval of the President, will find the favour of your kind and gracious review and acceptance and issue of suitable directives to all concerned. I and other similarly placed pre 2006 fellow pensioners pray for justice by the employer whom we served through all our best years of life, that we are not driven to the time consuming, costly and physically and mentally exhausting prospect of court cases in our withering days ahead.

Respectfully Yours,

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

VNatarajan
(thanks to MR PKR for researching on more court angles/ preparing the draft)

Kanaujiaml
10-01-2009, 08:19 AM
My dear Pensioner friends. In continuatiion to my post 7 above, I reproduce below the Annexure now for your information :

Annexure
Extract of para 5. 1. 47 of VI CPC Report.

5. 1. 47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the 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.

Extract of Ministry of P, PG & P (Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 - S N 12 of Annexure.

S N 12 Recommendation

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 the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (5 . 1 . 47)

Decision of the Govt. Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1 . 86, i. e. basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24 % as on 1 .1 . 2006, instead of 1 . 74.

Extract of 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 – Para 4.2

4.2 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 minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.


Extract of Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08 – Modified Para 4.2
Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.08

Clarification/modification

4.2 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. 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. For example, if a pensioner has retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs. 37400-67000and the corresponding grade pay being Rs. 10,000/- P.M., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50 % of Rs. 37,400+Rs.10,000(i.e. Rs. 23,700).A statement indicating the minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure.
The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service fro full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS(Pension) rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01 2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs. 3500/- p.m.
In case pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension.
The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the some of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner/deceased Government servant had last worked. In case the family pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as basic family pension

G.Ramdas
10-01-2009, 02:18 PM
With ref to Sh. Natarajan' post #6, I have drafted a slightly modified representation for online grievance redressal in PMO website,as under, whcih will be within 500 letters:

Great injustice to pensioners.
Min. guaranteed pension as per 5.147 of 6CPC, notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PW O.M of 1/9/08 -to be not less than 50% of the sum of the min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale. (Fitment table in Expenditure Dept. O.M of 1/9/08).
DP&PW arbitrarily modified this thro’ O.Ms of 3/10&14/10,substituting “irrespective of” for ‘corresponding to’ and changing ‘min. of the pay in the pay band’ to ‘min. of pay band’ and thereby reduced my pension by Rs.------( for S-29 --scale etc.)Representation to secretary DP&PW has fetched no reply.
Hence this appeal .

vnatarajan
10-01-2009, 03:55 PM
Dear All

Tomorrow being Sunday, I thought all may do some light Home Work!

The work wd relate to renamimg our well -wishers- the pension authorities in the Govt. who are supposed to deal with "Pensions & Pensioners' Welafare".

But in recent few months, since my birth-anniversary- i.e. 15th May 2008, they have scored a HAT-TRICK of debacles in the courts - that too within a period of may be three months - all relating to Pension cases. Pl. note most cases are taking a decade to settle.

1.Case of SPS Bains (9th Sept 2008) judgment by Supreme Court.
2.Case of R C Garg (15th May 2008) judgment by Delhi High Court.
3.Case of .............( 2008) Judgment by .......High Court.

(Last one I am not referring the details for some reasons, in the interest of the Pensioners)

In all the cases the Govt. lost and EVEN if they go to the ALMIGHTY they can not win these cases.

The renaming must aptly be addressed to Penals & Pensioners' Ill-fare!

I fail to understand the following:

1.Why the DOP/PW & MOF are hostile to the PENSIONERS' WELFARE? Does it justify any principles of ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE?
2.Are they not enlightened enough to respect the COURT VERDICTS in a decent manner befitting to respect the welfare concerns of their Seniors who retired from service before them?
3.Will they suffer or tolerate such DISPARITY/ INDIGNITY/ INJUSTICE after their retirement if similar things happen to them?
4.How conscious are they about the TIME and EXPENDITURE- a collossal waste on infructuous and tortuous court process which invariably ends against the Govt.and for which are they not answerable? Whom are they befooling?
5.Procedural infirmities (we have debated this for poking the loopholes- may be we may not raise it as they may be incinsequential) will be practised if it is to their advantage- but if necessary they may go to appeal on the very basis of the same (Not having accorded concurrence - by DOP/PW; MOF; Law Ministry etc - this is the basis for appeal in one case).
6.It is also felt the role of CAT has become infructuous as any favourable outcome to pensioner is challenged in High Courts and ultimately Justice is delayed to the pensioner-- his expenditure becomes manifold- and if he has to go to Supreme Court again, one can imagine the harassment to the pensioner! Some pensioners may not outlast the case!
7. It is our prayer that Courts come down heavily on the Govt. in all such infructuous cases and put a TOTAL STOP to such harassments to Pensioners at least henceforth.
8. I think all Pensioners/ Associations/ Federations have to appeal to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India highlighting the ineffective nature of the system and seek his intervention to stem the evil!.

I SHALL POST TOMORROW THE GIST OF ONE OF THE ABOVE CASES SUBSTANTIATING HOW RIDICULOUSLY THE GOVT.HAD APPEALED TO THE HIGH COURT AND ESCAPED WITH A DIGNIFIED REBUFF!!!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
10-01-2009, 06:47 PM
Dear Mr Ramdas/ others

Here is exactly what I cd squeeze thru to PMO's portal- wh took me one hr to exercise & send- GOT ACK.WITH THANKS MESSAGE:

"President’s sanction of pension(para 5.1.47 of 6CPC), notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PWOMdt1/9/08 is to be not less than 50% of “min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale (Tab. in Exp.Dept.OM of 1/9/08).Lower OfficeDP&PW modified this thro'OMsdt 3& 14/10/08 substituting “irrespective of”for"corresponding to"&”min.of the pay in the pay band”for”min of pay band" &.reduced my pension to Rs.23700 instead of Rs 27350/- Pl intervene/do justice".

Regards

vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 07:19 AM
Dear all
Pl see Sl No 12 posting for Registering Online Grievance in the PMO - the exact text what I cd squeeze thru after one hour of precis writing!
vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 07:24 AM
Dear all
You can also see what I cd post yesterday (10.01.09) as Grievance in PMO's portal in the other thread "Injustice to.......................".
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 07:45 AM
Dear all

THIS IS IN CONTINUATION OF MY POSTING AT SL NO 11:
(the text is reproduced from what I poste in Surispace.net)

This highlights how the Govt. uses its OWN OMISSIONS(or INFIRMITIES) AS REASONS FOR GOING FOR APPEALS IN HIGH COURTS - an absurd practice which crosses all ETHICS and this appears only to HARASS the pensioner(s):

THIS IS A CASE WHERE WHEN ONE ARM OF THE GOVT. i.e. A SECRETARY OF ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT/ ACHIEVING ENTITY VIZ DEPTT.OF SPACE OBEYED A CAT DECISION

AND

HOW HE (the Secretary I think) WAS MADE (HAD) TO GO FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST HIS OWN IMPLEMENTATION- THAT TOO AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS_ BECAUSE THE OTHER ARM(S) (here they are apparently Deptts of P/PW; MoF(deptt of Expenditure); Law Ministry what not?) OF THE GOVT. HAD NOT GIVEN THEIR CONCURRENCE BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUSTICE. !!!!

*WERE THESE OBJECTION RAISING ARMS SLEEPING ALL THE TIME? Who prevented them from giving concurrence.? In fact originally the orders had contained provisions of pension benefits on spl. pay as ypou will make out when you study the case.Pl chk & follow.
*ARE THEY ABOVE COURTS OF LAW? IF SO WHAT IS THE SPIRIT/ BENEFIT OF SUCH JUDGMENTS?
*JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. PENSIONER WHO WAS DRAWING HIS JUSTFUL PENSON FROM 2000 ONWARDS OR SO- THAT TOO AFTER A FIGHT FOR SOME YEARS- IS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT IN 2007/08 BY A (FORCED?) APPEAL AFTER A LONG GAP! IS THIS NOT MOST INHUMAN?
*EACH PENSION CASE TAKES TEN YEARS TO GET RESOLVED JUDICIALLY! IN EVERY CASE GOVT.LOSES.A WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY/TIME.

WHERE ARE THE ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE?

Here is the case detial:

Delhi HIgh Court
Judgment on WP1710/2007.
Judgment dt 15.05.2008
Deppt. of Space (Petitioner) vs R C Garg (Respondent)

Learned Judge deserves our praise for giving a very rational observation in the end- and for the grace shown by the honble Justice, the “behind the scene” masters have to be thankful.

WILL THEY AVOID FUTURE CASES? WHEN THEY ISSUE ORDERS WITH/ WITHOUT CONCERNED CONCURRENCES, THEY ARE SACROSANCT!
BUT WHEN IT DOESN”T SUIT THEM, THEY MAY GO TO ANY EXTENT TO THWART JUSTICE TO PENSIONERS EVEN AFTER DECADES- USING THEIR OWN OMISSIONS (or INFIRMITIES) AS REASONS FOR APPEAL?

MORAL: EVEN IF YOU WIN A CASE IN CAT, YOU ARE BOUND TO BE CHALLENGED BY THE GOVT. IN HIGHER COURTS-GIVING ANY REASONS FOR ITS APPEAL-MAY BE VALID OR ABSURD- YOU WILL ENJOY THE OUTCOME IF ONLY YOU LIVE TO DO SO!!

What a calamity the pensioners are to face!!

Regards
VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-01-2009, 08:01 AM
My dear Mr. G Ramdass. Good draft for online but it gives factual position and lacks the ground of your appeal. The ground is C/B Judgement dated 17 02 82 which gives equality to all pensioners under Article 14, which has been violated because of divisioning of pensioners into pre06,post06 and post08.

G.Ramdas
11-01-2009, 08:16 AM
Mr.Kanaujia.Your observation is correct ,but for online representation wherin you have to squeeze yr complaint in 500 charcters, something like what is drafted by Mr. Natarajan, at#12, specific and to the point , would be ideal.

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 11:06 AM
Dear Mr Ramdas/ Mr Kanaujiami/ all

No harm in sending more Grievance items- each of 500 charcters but content may vary and could cover different aspects.
I think Mr K can also draft one exactly to suit the Nakara Judgment on parity and put it up.
Earlier also I have sent one in a general manner reg. the injustice immediately after the issue of OM.3rd Oct 2008.
In my current draft, I had tried to personalise the case, and tried to accommodate the points wh Mr Ramdass had put up nicely in his draft.This may suit individuals to send each one's own case.
In fact I tried the average of Mr R's draft+ my draft and went on cutting the text as per limit requirement in the inset and ultimately the outcome is what I have posted.

Let us evolve a few more MODELS for registering successive online grievances.

All can suggest.

vnatarajan.

kkhameedkutty
11-01-2009, 06:22 PM
Dear Sir,

Please provide web address of PM's office so that every one can lodge his / her grievance directly on the site.

With Regards

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 07:19 PM
Dear kkk

Here is the link:http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

Today may be - portal is shut- but yes I tried -it comes up.
You have to rehearse in the box to accommodate exactly 500 characters. If it exceeds the limit, it cuts the text & gives a message. So again u have to edit to restrict the text to be within the limit.

Pl type yr PPO no/ dt etc alongwith Name or with Address wh are not counted.

You have to select "Grievances" in the menu

If your grievance is thru, you will get a "Thanks" message.

(save a copy of ur message or at least a copy of the text before you click to "submit".

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-01-2009, 07:29 PM
My dear Mr. kkhameedkutty. Web address of Prime Minister's Grievance Cell is :
http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

Kanaujiaml
11-01-2009, 07:44 PM
My dear G Ramdass and Vnatarajan. I have prepared a draft appeal to Prime Minister on behalf of rrewa.org and sent it to Mr. SC Maheshwari via e. mail.
rrewa has requested PM to grant a hearing for 10 minites. If possible, I would also go to Delhi to attend meeting with PM with other rrewa friends. Let us see when PM would be able to give us time.

I agree with Mr. G Ramdass that it is difficult to put in everything in 500 characters including spaces. Mr. Vnatarajan has rightly said that, we should each prepare draft in 500 characters including spaces, each giving his own view point and thus cover various arguments. I would also draft one appeal in 500 words and discuss with you before putting it on website http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

I would also request Mr. kkhammeedkutty also to prepare a draft concerning post 2006 pensioners, keeping in view latest OMs.

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 08:54 PM
Dear All

PLEASE NOTE IT IS NOT 500 WORDS. FOR ONLINE POSTING.
IT IS 500 CHARACTERS! JUST FIVE HUNDRED CHARCTERS INCLUDING BLANK SPACES
SO HARDLY THERE CD BE 60 WORDS. May be four or five well concieved sentences.
So the problem.

vnatarajan

ranganathan
11-01-2009, 10:58 PM
Dear all,

Have posted the following Grievance to PMO along with my ppo number etc..The total character count incl. space etc is 500.

"Modification of minimum pension pre 06 pensioners by director DP&PW through OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) of 03 Oct 08,reducing it arbitrarily, violates presidential notifications,court directives and constitutioal provisions.Has created duplicate payscales for same grades and negated parity granted by government among same class of pensioners.Several representations unheeded. Request intervene to remove this inequity and restore us legitimate pension

sundarar
11-01-2009, 11:38 PM
Dear Sirs,

One more model draft online representation to the PMO
is furnished hereunder:
-----------------------------------------------------------

"Kindly ensure full parity among pensioners as requested
below:

1.50% of minimum of the pay in the PB+ GP as MINIMUM
REVISED PENSION and 50% of Notionally Revised Basic
Pay corresponding to last pay drawn as REVISED PENSION
are requested.

2. 20 years qualifying service for full pension for all Pensioners
is requested".


Sundarar
PPO No.

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 09:15 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.

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Dear All

PLEASE NOTE IT IS NOT 500 WORDS. FOR ONLINE POSTING.
IT IS 500 CHARACTERS! JUST FIVE HUNDRED CHARCTERS INCLUDING BLANK SPACES
SO HARDLY THERE CD BE 60 WORDS. May be four or five well concieved sentences.
So the problem.

vnatarajan

Thanks for attention to mistake. I have made correction accordidngly.

vnatarajan
12-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Dear All

Encouraging and good progress. Already very gd. samples are available for online posting to PMO's portal.

Noted S/Shri Ramdas/ K/ PKR/Sundarar/ myself/ KKK (?) by now/ have already posted .

EXPERTS MUST ALSO DRAFT FOR LODGING 500 character APPEALS OF FAMILY PENSIONERS TO PMO -WE MAY GET THE PPO Nos FROM SOME OF THEM AND LODGE ON THEIR BEHALF AS A WELL_WISHER/ FRIEND/ SERVICE TO THEM

Others are requested to kindly send their ON LINE APPEALS quickly.

JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY IS ACHIEVABLE.

All actions need be completed by end of January- as from February- the budget session will start and no attention will be paid to us!

(Agenda includes- Online Appeal to PM- Appeal Letter to PM-RTI- Appeal (online/ letter) to NHRC- all within this month please)

For next month we have one more new/ serious/ shd be consciously but compassionately worded item- for wh draft is being suggested- to the Honible Chief Justice of India- purely based on judgments related to Pensioners' woes- delays by dragging cases for a decade & more- harassment by Govt subjecting us pensioners to go from CAT to HC to SC- Govt's repeated indifference to essence/ spirit of judgments/ making obvious departures & violations- waste of time/ money etc etc.

Legally well informed copensioners like S/Shri Bala/ S Rajagopalan (till now not in the fore)/Kanaujiami/ PKR/ GRamdas Sundarar/dnaga/KSS etc may kindly take pains to start the home work.

I am sure these efforts do keep us mentally/ physically agile- does give us a sense of satisfaction- that we are also useful in many ways including-to current employees-who are future pensioners/ future family pensioners etc. We are facing a challenge- and we are scoring excellent grades!

Regards

vnatarajan

subba Rao R S
12-01-2009, 11:56 AM
I have copied and sent to-day to PMs portal under grievences as given below. Since I exceeded the 500 words I have deleted a line to limit to 478 words

Iinjustice to pensioners.

Min. guaranteed pension as per 5.147 of 6CPC, notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PW O.M of 1/9/08-to be not less than 50% of the sum of the min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale. DP&PW arbitrarily modified this thro’ O.Ms of 3/10&14/10 substituting “irrespective of” for ‘corresponding to’ and changing ‘min. of the pay in the pay band’ to ‘min. of pay band’ and thereby reduced my pension by Rs------( for S-21 --scale etc.)Representation to secretary DP&PW has fetched no reply.
Hence this appeal .

Subba rao R S

vnatarajan
12-01-2009, 12:27 PM
Dear Mr Subba Rao-
Perhaps u restricted it to 478 characters- not words. LIMIT IS 500 CHARACTERS NOT WORDS.
IMPORTANT IS _DID U GET A "THANKS" MESSAGE IMMEDIATELY?
If u had got it, that means ur message has gone thru.
If u had not got it, u can once again try- if necessary cut short by editing and get it thru till u are able to get the "Thanks" message.
Regards
vnatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
12-01-2009, 03:44 PM
Dear all,
RREWA has posted the follwing on P.Ms site:
Kindly respect S.C. Constitution Bench Judgement
D S Nakra and others Verses Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 & other similar judgements. Grant parity to all pensioners enforcing one date of implementation for sixth P.C accepted recommendations i.e. 1-1-06

Sushil Kumar
12-01-2009, 04:37 PM
Dear all,
First of all we should highlight the misinterpretation in implementing the concept of "Modified Parity". This will provide some relief. The issue of equal pension or other legal issues may raised subsequently. A draft in 50 characters is appended below for the consideration and submission to PMO by all:
"Concept of modified parity started by V CPC, agreed by VI CPC and approved by Cabinet has been misinterpreted by Implementing Officials wherein “Minimum of the pay in the pay band” has been treated as “Minimum of pay band” & condition of 33 years service has been added. In Modified Parity minimum pension should be 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. Kindly get it corrected."

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 06:51 PM
Dear all,
First of all we should highlight the misinterpretation in implementing the concept of "Modified Parity". This will provide some relief. The issue of equal pension or other legal issues may raised subsequently. A draft in 50 characters is appended below for the consideration and submission to PMO by all:
"Concept of modified parity started by V CPC, agreed by VI CPC and approved by Cabinet has been misinterpreted by Implementing Officials wherein “Minimum of the pay in the pay band” has been treated as “Minimum of pay band” & condition of 33 years service has been added. In Modified Parity minimum pension should be 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. Kindly get it corrected."

There is no misinterpretation at all. Everything has been done with complete knowledge and conscious mind by Govt. rrewa had a meeting with DOP. They conveyed in no uncertain terms that Finance Ministry is not agreeable to do anything in the matter.
We must represent to PM who happens to be Finance Minister also, at present. I sent a representation to PM by speed post on 14 10 08. No response so far. I sent an appeal through speed post on 10 10 08 to Railway Bd.(I belong to Railways). It is learnt Railway Board sent it to DOP and DOP sent it to Finance Ministry. Nothing heard thereafter. Definitely Govt. is doing it intentioinally. Pehaps expenditure on Pensioners appears to be unnecessary for Govt, so it is depriving pensioners and money saved is being spent elsewhere.

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 06:56 PM
Dear all,
RREWA has posted the follwing on P.Ms site:
Kindly respect S.C. Constitution Bench Judgement
D S Nakra and others Verses Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 & other similar judgements. Grant parity to all pensioners enforcing one date of implementation for sixth P.C accepted recommendations i.e. 1-1-06

Good Maheshwariji. Encourage individual pensioners also to appeal on line please.

subba Rao R S
13-01-2009, 04:07 PM
Dear Mr Subba Rao-
Perhaps u restricted it to 478 characters- not words. LIMIT IS 500 CHARACTERS NOT WORDS.
IMPORTANT IS _DID U GET A "THANKS" MESSAGE IMMEDIATELY?
If u had got it, that means ur message has gone thru.
If u had not got it, u can once again try- if necessary cut short by editing and get it thru till u are able to get the "Thanks" message.
Regards
vnatarajan


Thanks for the info. Since I copied some ones, I really did not bother much. I did get a thanks message.

Thanks once again,

R S Subba Rao

vnatarajan
13-01-2009, 04:58 PM
Dear All

Today. I have sent my appeal to the NHRC by email. There is no limit.

Copy of the forwarding letter is being posted by me in the pther thread titled "Injustice to....................."

Main text of the complaint/ grievance is available in RREWA website.

(I have also the complaint filled in the full format of NHRC- and since it will be very long to post here, the same can be sent to anybody/ any group if they contact me by email- [email protected] preferably or other id u may have).

Hard copy can be sent by Regd Post AD.

Happy Pongal to all.Regards

vnatarajan

S.C.Maheshwari
13-01-2009, 07:29 PM
Full format prepared by Sh. V. Natarajan for complaint to NHRC is now available on RREWA web site Pl.
Maheshwari

Kanaujiaml
14-01-2009, 11:09 PM
Dear All

Today. I have sent my appeal to the NHRC by email. There is no limit.

Copy of the forwarding letter is being posted by me in the pther thread titled "Injustice to....................."

Main text of the complaint/ grievance is available in RREWA website.

(I have also the complaint filled in the full format of NHRC- and since it will be very long to post here, the same can be sent to anybody/ any group if they contact me by email- [email protected] preferably or other id u may have).

Hard copy can be sent by Regd Post AD.

Happy Pongal to all.Regards

vnatarajan


My dear VN, I have seen it on rrewa.org. Nice draft. Good work. Congrat.

vnatarajan
15-01-2009, 07:59 AM
Dear Mr K
Thank u very much. I think all will send their appeals to NHRC soon as we shd knock at every door before going to court.
I am on my detailed Rep. to PM- (wh u have already done)
After that may be next month- I think we shall be on Reminders & a REP to CJI.
Let us hope something happens to save our energy!
Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
15-01-2009, 09:38 PM
Dear Mr K
Thank u very much. I think all will send their appeals to NHRC soon as we shd knock at every door before going to court.
I am on my detailed Rep. to PM- (wh u have already done)
After that may be next month- I think we shall be on Reminders & a REP to CJI.
Let us hope something happens to save our energy!
Regards
vnatarajan.

My dear VNji. I have already sent my reminder to PM on 14 01 09, after waiting for 3 months, when I sent my appeal to PM. I have based my reminder with new developments but sticking to the basic facts. As far as NHRC is concerned, I am studying your appeal and some other suggestions. I would like to make my appeal very presise and short. Your appeal is elaborate and covers a hosts of items. It is therefore not necessary to include it all once again.

V.RAGHURAMAN
15-01-2009, 10:18 PM
Dear friends,

I had lodged my < 500 character grievance under 'Social Justice' with the PM Portal and it is worded
more or less as below.

Dear Mr. P.M.,
Regards, I am a pre 2006 retiree from DAE & retired in the pre revised scale of Rs.18400-500-.
My basic pension has been refixed by DP&PW and MF at Rs.23700 through misinterpretation and
in violation of 1]Supreme Courts' directives for not creating classes of pensioners out of those retiring in equivalent grade, pay and service and 2]Cabinets' approval of 6 th cpc recommendations on pension fixation. I request you to redress issue and fix my pension at Rs.27350. With best wishes.

I secured Thanks for views or something to the effect for my posting from the Portal Administrator..

vnatarajan
16-01-2009, 07:29 AM
Dear All

Now Anomoly Committee has been set up a couple of days ago.

Circular is available on MoP/PG/P- DoPT site.

Gist:

"Centre decides to set up anomaly committee for 6th pay panel
Thu, Jan 15 08:22 PM

New Delhi, Jan 15 (PTI) The Government has decided to set up an Anomaly Committee to settle disputes arising out of implementation of the sixth pay commission recommendations. The panel will receive anomalies upto six months from the date of its constitution and will dispose them within one year, the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Training said in its order.

DoPT sources today said the items already taken up by the Fast Track Committee will not be considered by the anomaly committee. They said there will be two Anomaly Committees -- national and departmental.

The national anomaly committee will deal with anomalies common to two or more departments and in respect of common categories of employees. The departmental anomaly committee will handle cases pertaining exclusively to the department concerned and will have no repercussions on the employees of another ministry or department.

The anomaly will include cases where the maximum of the revised scale is less than the amount at which one is entitled to be fixed and where the amount of revised allowance is less than the existing rate, they said. PTI."

PENSIONS- will the anomolaies be settled by this Committee?
THEN ONE YEAR?

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
16-01-2009, 09:32 AM
Relevant Parts of the Anomoly Committeee OM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.111212008-lCA DT 11th January 2009
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
lCA Section
Setting up of Anomaly Committee to settle the Anomalies arising out
of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations.

The undersigned is directed to say that in terms of an agreement with the
Staff Side of the National Council, it has been decided that appropnate Anomaly
Committees should be set up, consisting of representatives of the Official Side
and the Staff Side to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of
the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, subject to the following
conditions, namely:………….

Anomoly:
(a) Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that any
recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy
enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself without the
Commission assigning any reason; and
(b) Where the maximum of the revised scale is less than the amount at
which one is entitled to be fixed except in those cases where the
same is as a result of modified fixation formula adopted by the
Government; and


There will be 2 levels of Anomaly Committees, National and
Departmental, consisting of representatives of the Official Side and the Staff
Side of the National Council and the Departmental Council respectively.
(3) The Departmental Anomaly Committee may be chaired by the Additional
Secretary (Admn.) or the Joint Secretary (Admn.), if there is no post of
Additional Secretary (Admn.). Financial Adviser of the Ministry/Department
shall be one of the Members of the Departmental Anomaly Committee
(4) The National Anomaly Committee will deal with anomalies common to
two or more Departments and in respect of common categories of employees.
The Departmental Anomaly Committee will deal with anomalies pertaining
exclusively to the Department concerned and having no repercussions on the
employees of another Ministry/Department in the opinion of the Financial
Adviser. The items already taken up by the Fast Track Committee, will not be
considered by the Anomaly Committee.
(5) The Anomaly Committee shall receive anomalies through Secretary, Staff
Side of respective Council upto six months from the date of its constitution and
it will finally dispose of all the anomalies within a period of one year from the
date of its constitution. Any recommendations of the Anomaly Committee to
resolve the anomaly shall be subject to the approval of the Government
(6) Cases where there is a dispute about the definition of "anomaly" and those
where there is a disagreement between the Staff Side and the Official Side on
the anomaly will be referred to an "Arbitrator" to be appointed out of a panel of
names proposed by the two sides. However, this arbitration will not be a part of
the JCM Scheme.
(7) The Arbitrator so appointed shall consider the disputed cases arising in the
Anomaly Committees at the National as well as Departmental level.
(8) Orders regarding appointment of the Arbitrator and constitution of
Anomaly Committee at National Level will be issued separately.
(9) All Ministries/Departments are accordingly requested to take urgent action
to set up the Anomaly Committees for settlement of anomalies arising out of
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, as stipulated
above.

Deputy Secretary (JCA)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHERE DO THE PENSIONERS BUTT IN? NO SCOPE?
VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
16-01-2009, 06:03 PM
My dear all pensioner friends.

I have also seen the Govt. Notification regarding setting up of Anomally Committee. These Committees would deal with only the cases of working employees and NOT PENSIONERS. In the past also, Anomally Committee was dealing with cases of working employees only.There is no forum for Pensioners except Ministry of Personnel, Deptt of Pensioners and Pensioners welfare. This Deptt. has already done us great harm by issuing an OM dated
3rd Oct .We have following alternatices available :

1 Appeal to Prime Minister for not dividing pensioners into Pre2006, post 2006 and post 2008 in view of Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court of India judgment dated 17 02 9182 and other such Judgments.
2 Appeal to President of India on similar grounds.
3 Appeal to NHRC and other such statuary Authority who is ready
to take up our case with the Govt.
4 PIL in honorable Supreme Court.

dnaga57
17-01-2009, 07:03 AM
To my understanding, Anomalies committee will deal with 'anomalies across cadres, departments etc' in applying/implementing GoI memorandums. It will not deal with the Memorandums themselves, a fait accomplii.
Our case is 'faulty interpretation of PC recommendations' while issuing Memorandums. This would be out of purview of the said Committee.
Hence, we have recourse only to 'Appeal. Lobby, Knock on doors of justice'.

vnatarajan
17-01-2009, 05:26 PM
Dear All- PART ONE of DRAFT TO PM TODAY. PART II WILL FOLLOW SOON

As r u all aware, we have put up earlier two drafts- one by Mr K and another by Mr PKR- models for making our individual pleas to the hon. PM. sooner or a bit later.

I have also tried to bring out a "PILLAYAAR"- my draft- but as Mr Badri/ Mr Sundar may look at it - cd be an "HANUMAAR also- I dont mind - (I think hanumaar is the first Geologist- (my profession) as he carried the first rock sample (a mountain itself) to Lanka!'

Mine is a masala-mix of all- my rep to DoP&PW/NHRC/ K & PKRs drafts/ some legal tips of BRY-BRN Raos etc.

Appendix has to be added as one feels- say pension details from PPOs/ earlier reps copies/ gist of court judgments (NHRC- PKR drafts)/ OMs references (NHRC draft) etc.

This draft is very exhaustive - and one can cut/ size/ reduce/ add/ modify etc- purpose is to provide all with ready access to info!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT PREPARED BY VNATARAJAN FOR HIS APPEAL TO HON. PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, JAN.09


No: 2009-1 Dated Jan.,2009

From:
(Individual's name etc)

To:
THE HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA,
PMO’s Office, South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi -110011.

Sub. : - Implementation of Recommendations of 6 th CPC Report-INJUSTICE due to anomaly in fixation of Revised Basic Pension, between Pensioners of the same status and pay who retired prior to 01 01 2006 and those who retired after 01 01 2006.

Respected Sir,

With profound disappointment and utmost distress, I and many old, aged, support-less Pre-2006 and earlier Pensioners have to APPEAL to your esteemed office to look into the turmoil and turbulence that has been created amongst all of us due to the loss of our pension entitlements due to the disastrous Office Memorandums F.No 38/37/08-P&PW(A)(ptI/II) dtd 3rd and even No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)ptI dtd 14th October 2008 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (through their Deptt. Of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare). We feel the very edifice of Pensioners’ rights and protections based on Equality, Dignity and Justice, guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and also pronounced in various Judgments of the Supreme Court/ High Courts of India, stands shattered.

A. I retired as Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India in pre-revised scale Rs.18400-22400 on 31-05-1997. The revised pay band, irrespective od the pre-revised pay scales, for pensioners of erstwhile S25 to S-30 as per 6 CPC is Rs.37400-67000 + Grade Pay (GP)10000 [.OM 38/37/08- P&PW(A)pt1,14th Oct '08]. My revised pension is fixed accordingly at Rs.23700 which is 50% of the sum of minimum iof the pay band i.e Rs.37400+ GP10000. This fixation is anomalous, erroneous and unjust since the corresponding minimum pay in the equivalent scale for promotees to my rank [Dy Director General, Geological Survey of India] is Rs.44700 after 1.1.2006,- as the Pre-revised Pay Scale (S 29) of Rs18400-22400 is revised to Rs 44700-67000 (Ministry of Finance's OM FNo1/1/2008-1C,30/08/08 (Page 32/ 6CPC Pay Revision). Thus the 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band [Rs 44700] +Grade Pay Rs1000] works out to Rs.27350. Therefore my revised pension, IN THE LEAST, has to be fixed at Rs.27350.(instead of Rs23700). My submissions in this regard are presented hereunder

B. Pension Fixation Irregularities, Disparities among equally placed pensioners, and Details

1.In the pre-revised pay scales ( wef 1/1/1996) there were among others, the following 7 different scales S24,: S25,S26,S27,S28,S29 and S30.I retired from an SAG level post- Scale S29, as Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, on 31.05.1997(an).At the time of retirement my basic pay was Rs 19400/- in the pre- revised S29 Scale of 18400-500-22400. My basic pension was fixed at Rs9700, on the basis of this last pay drawn.

2.In the revised scales of pay accepted by the Government wef 1-1-2006, vide Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008 dt 30-08-08, the pay scales S24, S25, S26, S27, S28, S29 and S30, have been MERGED and designated as PB 4.

3.Although, this merger placed the pre-revised scales S24 to S30 under a single pay band PB4, the above Memorandum had logically and equitably preserved the IDENTITY of these different scales in the revised Pay Band effective from, 1-1-06. As can be gleaned from page 32 of the Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008-IC dt 30-08-08, pay band 4 (PB4) is not a monolithic table but a cluster of distinct tables, each table corresponding to a particular pre revised table of pay scale. This is as it should be, being the essential feature of every pay structure and revision of pay structures. On this basis the pr -revised scale of S29, ( 18400-500-22400 ) from which I retired as Deputy Director General, GSI, corresponds to the particular table in which the minimum pay is, Rs 44700 ,the Grade Pay (GP) is Rs10,000/- and the minimum basic starting pay which is the sum of pay in the pay band and the GP is Rs 54700/--. For comparison and distinction, the position in respect of all other pre-revised scales in the pay band PB 4, the revised structure is as under (all in Rs)::
Pay Pre-revised Minimum Pay in the Grade Pay Revised
Scale No Minimum Revised Pay Band PB4 Basic Pay
S24 14300 37400 8700 46100
S25 15100 39690 8700 48390
S26 16400 39690 8900 48590
S27 16400 39690 8900 48590
S28 14300 37400 10000 47400
S29 18400 44700 10000 54700
S30 22400 51850 12000 63850

4.The very substantial differences in the scales in the pre-revised and the corresponding differences in the revised structure may be noted. Merely because the pay band happens to be a single scale 37400 – 67000/- IT DOES NOT constitute a single table and therefore the MINIMUM of the pay band CAN NOT become the MINIMUM OF THE PAY for all the individual/ distinct pay scales/tables, as is obvious from above..

5.The Office Memorandum F. No 38/37/)OP& PW(A) dt 1-9-08, which lays
down the provisions applicable to pensioners, has prescribed in para 4.2, an over riding provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the PAY in the pay band plus the grade pay CORRESPONDING to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

6.In order to apply the above overriding provision of para 4.2, it is imperative to apply the appropriate TABLE of PAY in the Pay Band which corresponds to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner retired. In my case the pre-revised scale at the time of retirement was Rs18400-500-22400.On going through the tables in the said Memorandum F.No. 1/1/2008-IC dt 30-08-08., it is absolutely clear that the corresponding table in the pay band (PB4) is the table of which the lowest level ( minimum basic pay) is Rs54700/- ( 44700 + 10000). As explained under pt no 3 above, no single table is prescribed for all those who retired from pre revised scales, S24 to S 30.It is hence imperative to identify and apply the appropriate table in the Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008/IC dt 30-08-08. under PB4, applicable to S29, as shown under pt no 3 above.

7.It is submitted that revision of pension is not an autonomous exercise. But is rooted in the pre-revised pay at the time of retirement and the corresponding pay in the revised scale as per Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008-IC dt 30-08-08

8.The ready reckoned tables attached to the Memorandum F.No38/37/08-P&W (A) pt I dt 14 Oct 2008, have unjustifiably ignored the multi table feature of the Pay Bands, Grade Pay and revised Basic Pay of the Memorandum F.No 1/1/2009-1C dt 30-08-08. They have erroneously lumped together, disparate pre-revised pay scales.

9.Such an indiscrimination has also resulted in the introduction of two different starting basic pays for the same post one for the serving and the other for the retired on the one hand and the same minimum pay for all the seven pay scales, S-24 to S 30. from Junior Administrative Grade through Senior Administrative Grade to Higher Administrative Grade

10. For example a pre-2006 Pensioner of SAG level and minimum pay in pre-revised pay Scale of 18400 -22400 would be now entitled for a Revised Basic Pension 23700 only 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contd in PART II later

vnatarajan

badri mannargudi
17-01-2009, 07:37 PM
Dear friends,
This refers to post # 46 in the instant thread.
As those who are in the know of Bajanai Sampradayam, Radha Kalyanam (for that matter any Bajani Mahotsavam) starts with Ganapathi Poojai and the functions draw to a close with Pooja to Hanuman. Likewise, I wish success to Shri Natarajan and I pray to Lord Rajagopalaswamy.
Coming to the issue of enlighting the uninitiated blocks of retired officers, recently I had asked a friend of mine who retired as Superintendent of C.Excise way back in 1990, about his revised pension. With pleasure he declared that his Basic pension is about 9.5T (as of now). He had served Govt for 39 years and as a Group B officer he had served for 3 years. Then I told him with approximately same length of service in the said cadre (with over all service of 26 years service), I retired voluntarily today, I would be getting 13 T approx, he was not surprised and told me that it could not be faught against. It is then that I told him about GConnect and about Shri Natarajan.
(to be contd)
With regards,
Badri

vnatarajan
17-01-2009, 09:46 PM
Dear All,

I am posting the contn of my earlier posting at sl .no 46 above:---thiis is Part B- but it is contn of the same text. Some para pertains to individual data- so one can modify suitably:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Personal Submissions:

1.Functionally, I held the position of a Head of the Department/ Cadre Controlling Authority (GroupC/D) viz. as the Head of the Airborne Mineral Surveys & Exploration(AMSE) Wing of GSI and I was the controlling/reporting officer for about .....Sel. Grade Directors (S 24;Scale 14300-18300) among all the rest. Relegating me to the level of this lower scale for BASIC PENSION purpose is most unjust/ unfair/ illogical and against any rule. NO REVISION CAN REDUCE MY ENTITLEMENT TO ONCE FIXED BASIC PENSION EQUIVALENT (WHICH SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 27350) and payment of my deferred wage can not be reduced in an arbitrary and selective manner. Causing unwarranted reduction in my entitled BASIC PENSION (Rs 27350 to Rs 23700).

D. Plea for review and justice:

1.The glaring inequity/ inequality of treatment, resulting in hostile discrimination against the pre- 2006 pensioners is clear from the fixation irregularities and omissions presented above. The structuring of a single MINIMUM of the Pay Band for all the pre- revised pay scales ( for existing pensioners alone) is an exercise that cannot stand in the face of the basic feature of the multi table structure as per the Revised Pay Rules and multi-scales therein.. And is violation of the very scheme of the tables for revision of pay scales cast in Memorandum F.No.1/1/2008- IC dt 30-08-08.

2. Such treatment offends protection guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution and goes against the principle and spirit of parity among pensioners of the same class/rank/post irrespective of their dates of retirement, established/ enforced in several judgments of the Supreme court and accepted by the Government. Many of the Pay Commissions have also emphasized on this aspect clearly and justifiably. Recognizing my original rank/GRADE as higher for GRADE PAY only and not for BASIC PAY for arriving at the REVISED PENSION is untenable/ irregular/against any Rule. This will amount to denial/deprival of my RIGHTFUL/ LEGAL/ CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED (under Article 14) entitlement to the RIGHTFUL PENSIONARY BENEFIT of a SAG level retiree at all times at the minimum in the least. Hence my submission for parity/ equality in Pension with respect to the the same rank/ scale/grade of my peers/ equals now.

3.Reduction in Pay may be a sort of punishment for those in service!. Effective reduction in my entitled Pension- that too to the minimum of a new Pay Band –to that of the ‘Basic Pension equivalent’ of a lower scale (Sel. Gr. Director)- is like imposing punishment on a Pensioner for no offence of his, and this amounts to nothing but an unjust/ unfair/ unethical act of infliction of indignity.

4.. The discriminative actions perpetuated through the OMs of 3 rd and 14 th Oct 2008, have resulted in depriving me (us) the Equality, Dignity and Justice, the three cardinal principles of Human Rights for which I (and many aged/ helpless/ legal support-less/ some even disabled are) am entitled at this old age. Violation of Article 14 of Constitution by ignoring Court Judgments on pension parity/equality before Law and violation of Article 21 of Constitution by depriving me the right amount of pension which in turn deprives part of means to my livelihood (viz. protection to my Life/ Property/ Freedom etc), are very much against human rights and Constitutional guarantees. Hence the plea for remedy/ resolution by the highest office of the country stands justified.

E. Relief Sought:

1.I shall be grateful for a sympathetic and just scrutiny of my submissions and a positive decision to restore my pension to Rs 27350(p.m. w.e.f 1.1.2006) at the MINIMUM instead of Rs 23700 now fixed by my pension disbursing Branch. In fact my rightful entitlement as per full parity shall be Rs28025pm(w.e.f.1.1.2006)as the former is only a modified parity.

2.I also appeal once again to your kind good office to review and revise the pension orders suitably so that I and other similarly placed pre-2006 pensioners are given justice by the employer whom we all served through all the best years of life and are not driven to the time consuming, costly and physically and mentally exhausting prospect of court cases in their withering days ahead, for which our resources and legal assistance are neither affordable nor we can outlive the time/ delays involved (5-10yrs!).

Eagerly awaiting your considered positive benevolent actions and orders soon,.

Yours faithfully
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES UNDER VARIOUS ARTICLES:

Right to Equality
Article 14. Equal i ty before law.—The State shall not deny to any person
Equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.

Right to Freedom
Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECENT ARC REPORT (4) ON ‘ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE’ CONCLUDES:
“Rivers do not drink their waters themselves, nor do trees eat their fruit, nor do the clouds eat the grains raised by them. The wealth of the noble is used solely for the benefit of others”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITH REQUEST TOALL TO ACT AND BE QUICK IN DOING SO - BEFORE FEB 10th-say before budget session- as all wd get busy for budget- then elections etc.

Regards

VNatarajan

vnatarajan
18-01-2009, 07:27 AM
Dear All

I think my postings at sl nos 46 & 48, with Mr Badri's well wishes in between, are well within the normal protocol- pl forgive some grammatic/ american Spelling mistakes etc.

Now I am topping (in fact bottoming) the same with two appensices wh are the same attached to NHRC appeal- except that one of them contains more gist of court cases regarding the violation of the acceptable norms of authority- like DoP&PW modifying the text/ language etc-
in our case(I dont think President of India/ Hon PM wd have been pleased to do the same -without .....).

APPENDIX I will appear now. Later Appendix II.

THESE ARE APART FROM WHAT ONE HAS TO FURNISH IN TERMS OF PERSONAL DATA_ PPO references etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX I

Part A

PENSION PARITY/ EQUALITY-RELATION TO LIFE-CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

*Some citations of the Supreme Court judgments &
Andhra Pradesh high Court judgment on Tuesday 27.7.2004
in their order on Writ petitions Nos.13680,16407,23938 of 2001 & 6122 of 2002

1.All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs.Union of India—AIR 1992, SC 767): Hon.Mr Justice Ahamadi reasserted: “The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by the court time and again,. It is not charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for the past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee”.

2.Famous landmark-D.S.Nakra case (1982): The Supreme Court held that pension is neither a bounty nor a gratuitous payment depending solely upon the sweet will or grace of the employer. It is a right and its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the Government. Entitlement to pension to government servants being the product of statutory rule is an enforceable right. Pension is paid as a monthly benefit for past satisfactory service rendered while the employee was physically and mentally alert and in expectation that he would be looked after in the fall of life.
Classification of pensioners will have to answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, further held the court……
…..the Supreme Court concluded, pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a class. Such homogeneous class could not be arbitrarily divided when the pension undergoes an upward revision. The fixation of the cut off date was arbitrary ..... The division classifying pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle, held the Court.

3.Writ petitions Nos.13680, 16407, 23938 of 2001 and 6122 of 2002 .Ramachandra Raju and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh: The Fifth Central Pay Commission also required that as pension is not in the nature of a dole, it should be fixed, revised, modified and changed in ways not entirely dissimilar to the salary granted to the serving employees. A fortuitous circumstance of the date of retirement cannot constitute a legitimate ground for classification, and a classification founded on such fortuitous circumstance would not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4.R.L.Marwah vs. the Union of India and others: The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any acceptable explanation or justification, the classification of pensioners who were working in the Government/autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement is unconstitutional .....

5.Indian Ex-services League and others vs. the Union of India and others: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Nakra held that the pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and the benefits of liberalized pension should be extended equally to all retirees, irrespective of their date of retirement and could not be confined only to those who retired on or after the prescribed date. As a result of this ratio, the Supreme Court in Nakra struck down the relevant parts of the OM which confined the liberalized benefits to retirees on or after a specified date and extended the benefits to all retirees covered by the pension scheme.

6.Supreme Court judgment on 9.9.08 in Bains case:
“….The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution..….”

7.“If any classification is made relating to pay scales and such classification is unreasonable and if unequal pay is based on no classification, then Art. 14. will at once be attracted, and such classification should be set at naught. (In other words, , where unequal pay has brought about, a discrimination within the meaning of Art 14, it will be a case of " equal pay for equal work' as envisaged by Art 14.) (Supreme court employees welfare Assn Vs Union of India AIR 1990 SC 334 (Muratri mohan Dutt and K Thommen JJ)”

Part B

OTHER JUDGMENTS WHICH HIGHLIGHT THE OTHER WEAKNESSES/ INFIRMITIES OF THE OMs besides the parity angle:

“In Shri Sita Ram Sugar C o Ltd, Vs Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277, 1297, the Supreme Court ( Mr Justice Thommen) has laid down that "Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi judicial, is open to challenge, if it is in conflict with the constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the Law of the Land, or if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it "

“Administrative action may be based on statute or may be be purely executive action of an administrative nature, that is, of non-statutory character. In either case, a statutory or non statutory order of the executive which is arbitrary may be set aside. ( Iron and Metal Traders vs Jaskiel, AIR 1984 SC 629.( and other judgments.)”

“Administrative Instructions :( Art 309) Though non-statutory Rules cannot modify Statutory Rules, there is nothing to prevent the Government from issuing administrative instructions on matters upon which the statutory Rules are silent ( Comptroller Vs Mohan(1992) 1SCC 20. ( which means that non-statutory Rules cannot modify statutory Rules; administrative instructions can only be issued on matters that are silent in the statutory Rules)”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
18-01-2009, 07:31 AM
Dear All

This is in contn of my posting above al no 49.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX II

USEFUL REFERENCES:

GOVT. ORDERS dated 1.9.2008 relatingTO PENSION SANCTION AND IMPLEMENTION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS, which have been issued with the MANDATORY SANCTIONS OF PRESIDENT/ CABINET APPROVALS and the subsequent orders dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, WHICH ARE CONTRADICTORY and which have been issued without the express sanction of the President/Cabinet approval.

1.Gazette Notification issued vide Resolution No OM/38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 29th August 2008 conveyed the Govt.’s decision on the recommendations made by the 6th CPC on the pensionary benefits to the Central Govt. Employees etc.to accept broadly the same subject to certain modifications.

As such all the recommendations of different categories viz. ACCEPTED/ ACCEPTED WITH MODIFICATION/ NOT ACCEPTED are all listed in the said order.

This order is signed by the Secretary to the Govt. of India MoP/PG/P herself.

(It may be noted that the “modifications” detailed in this order have been made with the sanction of the President/Cabinet approval and stand sanctified through publication in the Gazette and do not invite any procedural lapse/ irregularity).

2.OM F.No.38/37/08-/P&PW(A) dtd 1st Sept 2008 conveyed the implementation of the above recommendations contained in the Resolution Order at sl.no 1 above and it relates to CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 etc. Its first paragraph states:

“The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, SANCTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS HEREBY ACCORDED TO THE REGULATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006, OF PENSION...."

This OM is also signed by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, MoP/PG/P herself.

(It may be noted that this OM has the sanction of the President. CAG concurrence indicated )

3. & 4..OMs F No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt-1 and Pt-2 both dtd 3.10.2008 state that in view of the large number of references received in the Deptt of Pensions/and Pensioners’ Welfare seeking clarifications regarding earlier OM (s) , the matter had been considered in consultation with the MINISTRY OF FINANCE, Deptt of Expenditure, and the necessary clarifications/ modifications thereon are being issued.

Provisions in the earlier OM are listed on one side and respective clarifications/ “modifications” are listed along-side

These orders are signed only by the Director, Deptt. Of Pension and Public Welfare –NOT BY THE SECRETARY- The orders have the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Deptt of Expenditure) vide their ICUO No 4.2/22/2008-C dtd 30th Sept 2008.No CAG concurrence.

HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that the sanction of the President, that is, the sanction/approval of the Cabinet has not been obtained for this purpose and to that extent the OM dated 3.10.008 exceeds the powers to issue clarifications/modifications, in gross violation of the intent and spirit of the OM dated 1.9.2008.They lack the mandatory requirement of sanction of President or approval/sanction of the Cabinet for such new “modifications”/ “interpretations”.

5.OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).Pt.1 dtd 14th Oct 2008 conveys again some clarifications regarding delay in pension disbursals, about the discussions held with all concerned including the PDBs, provides the ready reckoner, concordance table, some illustrations etc for calculation/ fixation of the pensions, DR additions, arrears, payment deadlines,entry in PPOs,intimation on the disbursal of revised pension to the CPAO/ AO,PAO’s office etc.;actions for the CGA/CPAO are also outlined.

This OM is also signed by the Director, Deptt of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare – NOT BY THE SECRETARY.

The deliberate and detrimental “modifications””clarifications” of OM of 3 rd Oct 2008 are perpetauated here in the Form of Annexures of concordant tables/ illustrative examples.

This OM/ all its contents, detrimental to the Pensioners do not have the mandatory requirements of the President or approval/ sanction of the Cabinet for such effectuations. No CAG concurrence .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now my draft for rep to Hon PM is contained in postings at sl nos.46 48 49 50 -pl check.
All the best
Regards
vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
18-01-2009, 12:44 PM
My dear Pensioner friends.I sent my appeal to PM on 14 10 08. Now after 3 months of waiting, I have sent a reminder, which I am reproducing below :

M L Kanaujia,
473, Indira Nagar Colony, P.O. New Forest,
Dehra Dun ( Uttrakhand ) – 248006.
No. Mlk/2008/4 Date 14 01 09

To,

Honorable Prime Minister Of India,
Prime Minister’s Office,
New Delhi – 110001.

Dear Sir,

Sub.:- Restoration of pension as recommended by VI CPC Report para 5.1.47, as accepted by the Govt. vide 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 and in accordance with the Fitment Tables annexed to the Finance Ministry’s(Implementation Cell) F.No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08.

Ref.:- My appeal No. Mlk/2008/3 dated 14 10 08.

With due respect I beg to invite your kind attention to my appeal No. Mlk/2008/3 dated 14 10 08 for restoration of my revised pension. Nothing has been heard so far nor any relief has appeared. I once again bring the following facts for your kind consideration and sympathetic action :

1 That, VI CPC has recommended parity for pensioners vide para 5.1.47 stating therein that ‘revised pension can not be lower than 50 % of sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay thereon corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. VI CPC had merged 30 pre-revised pay scales into only 4 pay bands which resulted into bunchings and therefore, for two such bunchings, one additional increment was envisaged and Fitment Tables were issued for each pre-revised pay scale giving “minimum pay in the pay band”

2 That, VI CPC recommendations contained in para 5.1.47 have been accepted by Govt. vide S N 12 of Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08. Accordingly, Revised Fitment Tables giving “minimum of the pay in pay band” for each pre-revised pay scale, were issued annexed to Finance Ministry’s F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08.

3 That, Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, in complete contravention of Govt. accepted recommendations as detailed in pare 2 above, has issued amendment (para 4.2) modifying “minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised pay scale as per fitment table” to “minimum of pay band without having any correspondance with pre-revised pay scale. Thus, Fitment Tables annexed to Ministry of Finance F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 for fixation of pension are not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners but the same are applicable to post 2006 pensioners and post 2008 pensioners. I am a pre 2006 pensioners and this arbitrary amendment to accepted and notified recommendations of VI CPC has reduced my pension by an amount equal to Rs. 3650.00 plus the DR thereon, per month, which has affected adversely my financial condition.

4 That, the division of pensioners into groups with cut off dates, for pension and pensionary benefits, i. e. pre 2006 , post 2006 and post 2008, is arbitrary and upprincipled and is in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as held by Constitutional Bench of honorary Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 17 02 1982.

In view of the foregoing, I request your honor to kindly look into the case and consider sympathetically the entire matter of fixation of pension and arrange to remove disparity amongst the pensioners namely, pre 2006 , post 2006 and post 2008 by withdrawing amendment ( para 4.2) issued vide Ministry of Personnel, P G & P (D O P & PW) OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW( A )Pt 1 dated 03 10 08, so that, justice is restored and my pension is fixed exactly as recommended by the VI CPC vide para 5 . 1 .47 and as accepted by the Government vide Ministry of Personnel, P G & P (D O P & PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 and, in accordance with the Fitment Tables annexed to Finance Ministry’s F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08.

I shall be grateful to you for ever for this act of kindness.

Thanking you in anticipation,

With regards,

Yours faithfully,


Date 14 01 09. Signature ( M L Kanaujia )
Rtd. Chief Communication Engineer,
N. E. Railway (PPO No.NE/10118/23255473,
Indiara Nagar Colony, Dehra Dun -248006

sudacgwb
18-01-2009, 07:19 PM
Dear Friends

Will somebody give me the email ID of PM/PMO for sending the representation? I feel even after sending the hardcopy, email soft copy is advisable.

Regards

ss

vnatarajan
18-01-2009, 09:37 PM
Dear Mr Sudacgwb,
I am also trying frantically for the same- I and couple of my friends are trying- but till now no success.
I thought Railway personnel may know the same- may be RREWA can inform us!
There is an email id for the MOS attached to PMO- I am trying to get it- worst comes to worst I am planning how to utilise the email id of the MOS- if I get it!
vnatarajan

sudacgwb
18-01-2009, 10:18 PM
Sir,

The days any complaint to PMO or responsible senior officers used to be acknowledged with an assurance of prompt action followed by prompt action has gone. The complaints are also treated with the same efficiancy as the issued that are responsible for the complaints to come up. More than the so many portals to receive the complaints, what is the need of the hour is not only to address the complaints as such, but to tackle the root cause for allowing things to go to such an extent as warranting the aggrieved to complain.

The need of the hour is to bring in a degree of accountability in govt service. There are so many cases where even the pension is not even revised!

It is astonishing to note the govt decided to give pension arrears in two instalments, for whose benefit?! What is the meaning of arrears? That which was due to the person but not yet paid...

It is equally strange nobody is taking up the case of family pensioners and very senior pensioners (> 80 years of age) to get their arrears in one instalment.

Let us hope with the effective intervention of RREWA things will change for the better. NOw govt has released funds to PEnsioners Associations which implies that (a) problem exists genuinely and (b) Associations can do a great deal to set right the things.

With regards

ss

badri mannargudi
18-01-2009, 11:28 PM
Dear Friends

Will somebody give me the email ID of PM/PMO for sending the representation? I feel even after sending the hardcopy, email soft copy is advisable.

Regards

ss
Dear SSjee,
Most of our friends may be aware of the fact that while the Website of Govt of India has given the Tel Number and Fax Number of PMO, as regards E mail Address it leads us to an area where, after giving certain details we can register the message in not more than 500 words.
This shows that the e mail address is classified. Viewed in light of this, I do not see any possibility of learning e mail address (if any) of our Hon'ble PM.
In my humble view, the secrecy maintained in this regard is understandable.
With regards,
Badri.

badri mannargudi
18-01-2009, 11:38 PM
Dear Mr Sudacgwb,
I am also trying frantically for the same- I and couple of my friends are trying- but till now no success.
I thought Railway personnel may know the same- may be RREWA can inform us!
There is an email id for the MOS attached to PMO- I am trying to get it- worst comes to worst I am planning how to utilise the email id of the MOS- if I get it!
vnatarajan

My dear friends,
I beg for a pardon for rushing in my last post in the instant thread.
In the official web site of Indian National Congress , ( www.congress.org.in ) The e mail address of our Hon'ble P.M is given. It is
[email protected]
I thank the Party which has provided the information which is not found in the Govt Website.
With regards,
Badri

vnatarajan
19-01-2009, 07:52 AM
Dear Mr Badri

Good and great job!
Trust this works. No doubt the filtering/security settings/ firewalling will be elaborate - but I do hope old pensioners' emaisl may worm thru the portal! Or else they will go to Trash or Junk mail can directly!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
19-01-2009, 08:05 AM
Dear all. I am eagerly awaiting what pensioners are going to do after learning the e. mail id of PM.

S.C.Maheshwari
19-01-2009, 12:12 PM
Friends,
Email address of PMO = [email protected]
Fax office 23012312,23016857,23018939,23014255
Minister for Rlys= [email protected]
FAx23387333, 23382637, 23017986 (Resi)
regards
maheshwari

vnatarajan
19-01-2009, 01:07 PM
Dear Mr Maheshwari./ All to note.

MANY THANKS.
I HAVE TESTED. I HAVE SENT MY REP TO PM AT 13.05 HRS TODAY 19TH JAN.2009. EMAIL ID IS PERFECT. NOT BOUNCED SO FAR!
TOTAL PAGES SENT TEN. NO LIMIT.
Also sent MY HARD COPY with all enclosures by Regd Post AD.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
19-01-2009, 03:29 PM
Dear All.

I have sent my appeal to Madam Sonia Gandhi by Registered Post as well as by e. mail, endorsing a copy to Shri Man Mohan Singh,PM :

An Appeal. Monday, 19 January, 2009 9:49 AM
From: "M. L. Kanaujia" <[email protected]>View contact details To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Message contains attachments VI MLKtoSoniaGandhi.doc (46KB) Respected Madam Sonia Gandhi. I am an old pensioner and I am enclosing herewith a file containing my appeal to you. I have every hope you would be kind enough to help us old pensioners. With kind regards. M. L. Kanaujia.

vnatarajan
19-01-2009, 05:13 PM
Dear All

WHETHER WE ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVE OF GETTING THE PROPER PENSION AT THE END OF THIS BATTLE OR NOT, MANY OF US WOULD HAVE LEARNT A LOT ABOUT MANY THINGS WHICH WE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR GRANTED BECAUSE OF OUR OWN OVERWHELMING WISDOM COMPLEX.

NOWADAYS- THANKS TO "SATYAM' RAJU- FUDGING HAS BECOME A COMMON SYSTEM OF PRACTICE-FUDGE IS SWEET ON ONE SIDE - BUT WHEN RAJU PERFECTED IT- PEOPLE CALL IT A DISHONEST PRACTICE.

IN OUR '"GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEMS" ALSO, FUDGING IS DONE VERY NICELY!

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AFTER STRUGGLING FOR SOMETIME, YOU REGISTER YOUR GRIEVANCE ON-LINE, YOU GET A COLOURFUL SWEET REGISTRATION NO. - VERY IMPRESSIVE! I ALSO GOT MINE FROM DOP&PW!

AFTER ONE MONTH, WHEN I WENT ON TO REMIND, I GOT A VERY QUICK MESSAGE IN RETURN:

"REMINDER/CLARIFICATION FORM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Case having Registration No. MIN1/W/2008/00005 is not Yet assessed. So reminder can not be entered.[/B]
------------------------------------------------------------------

MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR NOW.

Moral: So long as the case is not assessed , you can not remind!
If you venture to Register again, then 'love all' will start i.e. again from the beginning!
Consequently you do not know when the case will be assessed.
So everyday, after morning coffee and after evening tea, go on clicking all "Grievance Portals"to monitor your grievance.
Grievance on grievance will end up with same grievance!!!!!

[B]Transparency in Governance is stripping the pensioners naked!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
20-01-2009, 04:13 PM
My dear Pensioner friends. I am reproducing my appeal sent to honorable Madam Sonia Gandhi:


M L Kanaujia,
473, Indira Nagar Colony, P.O. New Forest,
Dehra Dun ( Uttrakhand ) – 248006.
No. Mlk/2008/5 Date 19 01 09

To,

Madam Sonia Gandhi,
Honorable Member of Parliament,
Chairperson UPA, President AICC,
10, Janpath,
New Delhi 110011 India
PH: 91-11-23014161, 23014481
E-Mail: [email protected]

New Delhi – 110001.

Respected Madam ,

Sub.:- An appeal for helping restoration of revised pension recommended by VI CPC
Report para 5.1.47 as accepted along with improvements, by the Govt. with the
approval of the Union Cabinet on 14 08 08.


With due respect I beg to state that, I am a Central Govt. Pensioner (PPO No.NE/10118/232555). I retired in 2001 from revised pay scale 18400-22400. After acceptance of VI CPC report my revised pension was fixed at Rs. 27,350 but now it has been reduced to 23,700, casing me a loss in revised pension of Rs 3650 per month. This has happened to all old pensioners who were in pre revised pay scale of S4 to S30. The fact of the case are as under :

That, VI CPC merged more than 24 pre revised pay scales to form four pay bands. This caused consecutive stages in pre revised pay scales getting fixed at same stage in new pay bands, an anomaly called “bunching”. To remove this anomaly, VI CPC allotted one additional increment in new pay band for two “bunchings” and issued Fitment Tables for each pre revised pay scale and its corresponding Pay band, showing therein, each stage of pre revised pay scale and equivalent pay in pay band. Revised pension was to be fixed at not lower than 50 % of minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. This recommendation (para 5.1.47) was approved by Union Cabinet with certain improvements . Accordingly Gazette Notifications were issued under Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 for fixation of pension and Ministry of Finance (IC) F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08 for fitment tables.

That, Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) issued vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW( A )Pt 1 dated 03 10 08 an amendment to pension fixation rule approved by Union Cabinet. According to this amendment, “ pension cannot be lower than 50 % of minimum of the pay band without having any correspondence with pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. “ This has reduced revised pension of all old pensioners. This OM is arbitrary, unprincipled, against norms that a lower authority cannot issue amendment or modification or any change without approval of the higher authority which is in this case Union Cabinet. This also violated Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and is in total contravention of Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court Judgment dated 17 02 82 and subsequent honorable Supreme Court Judgments dated 10 10 06 and 09 09 08 in respect of Pensioners. Pensioners all over India, including me, are suffering on this account and are in a state of shock.

That, appeals to Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) and Prime Ministder’s Office, have not been heard so much so that even a formal acknowledgement against appeal sent by speed post / registered post or electronic mode, has been received. Old pensioners are shocked with this treatment meted out to them by the Officials.

With an earnest hope, that, Madam, at least you would listen to us and do something in the matter that the justice denied to pensioners, as explained above, is restored back at an early date. I shall be grateful to you, along with all other old Govt. Pensioners all over the Country.


With kind regards,


Enclosure : Annexure with
relevant extracts.


Yours faithfully,


( M. L. Kanaujia )

Kanaujiaml
20-01-2009, 04:16 PM
Copy of Annexure sent with my appeal to Madam Sonia Gandhi is appended below :

Annexure

Extract of para 5. 1. 47 of VI CPC Report.

5. 1. 47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the 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.


Extract of Ministry of P, PG & P (Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 - S N 12 of Annexure.

S N 12 Recommendation (of VI CPC)

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 the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (5 . 1 . 47)

Decision of the Govt.

Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1 . 86, i. e. basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24 % as on 1 .1 . 2006, instead of 1 . 74.

Extract of 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 – Para 4.2

4.2 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 minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.


Extract of Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08 – Modified Para 4.2 Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.08

Clarification/modification

4.2 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. 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. For example, if a pensioner has retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs. 37400-67000and the corresponding grade pay being Rs. 10,000/- P.M., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50 % of Rs. 37,400+Rs.10,000(i.e. Rs. 23,700).A statement indicating the minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure.
The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service fro full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS(Pension) rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01 2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs. 3500/- p.m.
In case pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension.
The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the some of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner/deceased Government servant had last worked. In case the family pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as basic family pension

vnatarajan
21-01-2009, 08:08 AM
Dear MR K/ Shri Bala/ All

I feel with the Budget session round the corner and also the imminent election process etc that has to follow, I think the 'politicising' our grievance issue also must have some priority-

Our Govt. appears to have lost their initiative in keeping up the goodwill of the implementation of 6CPC in a proper manner.

IF THEY DO NOT SEE REASON IN THE PENSIONERS' GRIEVANCE SOON< WE MAY ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE SAME INITIALLY IN THE PORTAL OF OUR ASPIRING FUTURE PM_ SHRI L K ADVANI.

I have registered in his portal and soon I shall be posting coiuple of TOPICS in his FORUM- wh has a better readership and attraction than the dwindling portals of current powers wh do not even respond to our clicks and hammers!

I propose to start with a topic under his AGENDA - Good Governance Related to Administration- and my caption will be ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE- and the subject matter as you know will focus on our current grievance.

Here is the link and TRY;
http://www.lkadvani.in/eng/

Regards
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-01-2009, 07:32 PM
Dear All

As suggested by Mr Kanaujia in the thread on "Injustice.....", I have avoided my temptation to enter the LKA portal for the time-being.

In the meanwhile my detailed draft to Madam Soniaji on our case with more focus on the principles and ethics of good governance by UPA of wh she is the Chairperson is posted at sl nos 285-86 in the same thread "Injustice......".

This may help you to make your own drafts.

In any case please do read to understand how unethical our governance can be!

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
23-01-2009, 07:22 PM
DEAR SHRI BALA/ MR K/MR GR/MR KSS/MR RS/ MR RPG/ MR SUDHACGWB/MR SUNDARAR/MR BADRI/ MR NAGA/ MR VIJAY KAPOOR (not visible)/MR PKR?MR AVM and MR SCM and all who can put their heads together!

I reproduce below the Guidelines of Supreme Court for PIL.

FAMILY PENSIONERS/ well-wishers & guardians & custodians &caretakers of future FAMILY PENSIONERS - with no implications, I mean all of us have to take note and explore what can be done.

These will be the worst affected by the reduction of pension, done worse by compounding effect of DR losses, losing the base for next revision on account of this loss, losing the EQUALITY even before being in the picture- an infliction of injustice much ahead of becoming a party (you can not punish a child when it is still in the womb?)

Human Rights are very much part of PIL. Violation of Constitutional Rights under Article 14 is very much a material for PIL. So also provisions of Articlre 21.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ENTERTAINING LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED
IN THIS COURT AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.

No petition involving individual/ personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as indicated hereinafter.
Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be entertained as Public Interest Litigation:-

(10) Family Pension.

All letter-petitions received in the PIL Cell will first be screened in the Cell and only such petitions as are covered by the above mentioned categories will be placed before a Judge to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for directions after which the case will be listed before the Bench concerned.
If a letter-petition is to be lodged, the orders to that effect should be passed by Registrar (Judicial) (or any Registrar nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India), instead of Additional Registrar, or any junior officer.
To begin with only one Hon'ble Judge may be assigned this work and number increased to two or three later depending on the workload.
*Submission Notes be put up before an Hon'ble Judge nominated for such periods as may be decided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India from time to time.
**If on scrutiny of a letter petition, it is found that the same is not covered under the PIL guidelines and no public interest is involved, then the same may be lodged only after the approval from the Registrar nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
**It may be worthwhile to require an affidavit to be filed in support of the statements contained in the petition whenever it is not too onerous a requirement.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT CAN BE DONE? LET US ALL EXAMINE!

vnatarajan

dnaga57
24-01-2009, 08:25 AM
Thanks VN
If Family Pension is in the list of eligibility for PiL there could be 2 routes.
1. Get the names of a few FPs preferably of 80 years of age ( Chennai, Bangalore, Pune, Delhi could be good locales for this), brief them & have the PiL filed. We, the pensioners could share the cost of the litigation- it could be pro bono for them. Once the princilple of pension fixation is accepted , it will cover all.
2. Whether -would be FPs qualify for PiLs? If so all our spouses can become the litigants.

Just loud thinking

vnatarajan
24-01-2009, 08:45 AM
Dear Mr Naga

I think anybody having pity on the F/Ps in general (I think I and you for e.g.)can also take the initiative to file. A few signatures of the FPs may add wait.

No lawyer is required initially. Once the letter petition is accepted, we may have to work out later.

Certainly it is "WOULD BE PENSIONERS' who have to BLOW HOT with loud noise. The SC has to take note of this type of grievance at least for the first time. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I said you can not punish a child which is in the womb! Eroding the pension entitlement of the would be FPs and then compounding the loss/ reducing the base for next revision etc are to be highlighted.

I WANT TO UP-DATE & VERIFY THE LATEST LIST OF PIL ITEMS! Obviously till now no F/Pension PIL has been filed - also no NHRC petitions on Pensions have been filed.

Let us firm up our ideas steadily. I am building up the info-dossier for preparing the draft appeal to CJI - wh itself will contain our request to treat it as a PIL eventually- When many of us send, how can the same be ignored. Our spouses/would be FPs should also join while signing.

Regards
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
24-01-2009, 04:00 PM
REDUCTION IN PART OR FULL OR WITHHOLDING OF PENSION "FOR NEGLIGENCE" UNDER RULE:

Dear All

The Govt can not arbitrarily/ unauthorised/ autucratically reduce or withhold the PENSION -a point put forth by Shri Bala - in his draft question(s) to be raised in Parliament. IT CAN BE DONE ONLY AS PER RULES:

Here is a Ruling of the Supreme Court dtd 05 09 2008.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SC: GOVT CAN HOLD PENSION “FOR NEGLIGENCE”:Indian Express.com 5th Sept 2008.

(A Bench of Chief Justice YK Sabharwal, Justice CK Thakker and Justice PK Balasubramanyan said “pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule”)

After giving its Ruling on the Govt’s power to hold / withdraw in part or full, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the state government against the HC judgment and held that “Rule 10(1) is the authority of law under which the pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule”.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the state government against the HC judgment and held that “Rule 10(1) is the authority of law under which the pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule”.

“We are unable to appreciate how such a rule could be held ultra vires”, CJI Sabharwal, writing the judgment for the Bench, observed. Citing an earlier decision (State of Maharashtra vs MH Mazumdar (1988 2 SCC 52), the Bench pointed out that the “state government’s power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings against a government servant, even after his retirement, is expressly preserved by the rules”.
The Bench also said that “the question of an order withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in law on a legally permissible ground” was of course valid. An employee deprived of his pension by a government order could still challenge it, but the rule empowering the government by an authority of law to suspend, stop, cut or reduce pension of an employee is valid.
After the departmental inquiry, if the employee was found to be involved in a misconduct resulting in loss to the government, the state was “entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension”, the Bench said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As such this is an aspect which has to be kept in our view always - in our fight for equality. Less than equal means "REDUCTION" and that can not be permitted arbitrarily and only if it is as per Rules/ Law. In the "PAY BAND" MINIMUM case, the reduction is not only to the "MINIMUM" but to levels of "BELOW MINIMUM" (eg S 25 28 29 30 etc).

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
24-01-2009, 05:44 PM
The relevant provisions of CCS(Pension )Rules 1972 reads as under:

(1) Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. - Pension are not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good conduct vide Article 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons.

[G.I., M.F., U.O. No. D-2776/E, V/52, dated the 8th May, 1959.]

badri mannargudi
24-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Thanks VN
If Family Pension is in the list of eligibility for PiL there could be 2 routes.
1. Get the names of a few FPs preferably of 80 years of age ( Chennai, Bangalore, Pune, Delhi could be good locales for this), brief them & have the PiL filed. We, the pensioners could share the cost of the litigation- it could be pro bono for them. Once the princilple of pension fixation is accepted , it will cover all.
2. Whether -would be FPs qualify for PiLs? If so all our spouses can become the litigants.

Just loud thinking
Dear friends,
My response is restricted to the suggestion made by the learned friend, on the cost of litigation. I request some of the leaders like Shri VNjee to enable well wishers (would be pensioners, after all!) like myself to contribute what ever is possible. Since we are in service it should be possible for us to have some money earmarked for noble cause like the one under review.
With respects,
Badri

vnatarajan
25-01-2009, 11:28 AM
Thanks to Mr Badri for his nice gesture.

Dear All

Pl. visit the other thread titled " Injustice........" , to examine the welcome message and draft appeal to Hin'ble acting PM and MOF- Shri Pranab Mukherjee and other follow ups.

Draft is for improvements and despatch as usual.

Sgri Bala had given the suggestion for approaching Shri PM/ new aPM.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
26-01-2009, 08:29 AM
My dear all pensioner friends. A very happy Republic Day 26th Jan.09.

G.Ramdas
26-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Pension Loss

A chart indicating the loss to the pensioners in pre-revised scales S-24 t0 S-30 which have now merged in PB-4 , has been prepared by me which can be seen and down loaded from the link given below. This will explain the difference between "minimum of Pay band' and "minimum of the pay in the pay band" and consequential loss due to O.M of 3/10. If you have any difficulty in down loading, pl. let me know, i can send u by email.
G.Ramdas
email<[email protected]>
Link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f...eada0a1ae8665a

G.Ramdas
27-01-2009, 08:17 AM
Friends,
Since my last post yesterday the chart has been down loaded 12 times from the link given below.After reaching the web page you may have to open "my file' or Folder'pre-2006 pensioners -pension loss' to see the contents.
Thanks

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=fa057c68c53b2c552fb2ca15d7ea42d90aa8e2ed 06a21ee1b8eada0a1ae8665a

Kanaujiaml
28-01-2009, 07:51 PM
Pensioner Friends. What is next ? Hardly any more options left. So, decide now. I am with you.

Kanaujiaml
30-01-2009, 08:01 PM
Dear Pensioner friends. At last justice has been given to retired Major Generals and Lt. Geneals. The Ministry of Defence has issued letter dated 20 01 09 amending the Annexure -II of its letter dated 11 11 08. Now pension of a retired Brigadier would not be higher than his senior retired Major General or retired Lt. General. No other change has been made. This is now in line with Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court judgment dated 17 02 1982 regarding pensioners and honorable Supreme Cour Judgment dated 09 09 08 regarding Pension of Brigadier(a junior rank) can not be higher than his senior Major General and Lt. General. At least, now onwards i. e. after 01 01 06, this belated justice would prevail. Let us hope one day Govt. would understand problem of pre-06 and post-06 pensioners and agree soon atleast for "Minimum of pay in the pay band (as per fitment tables) corresponding to pre-revised pay scale" .
My heartiest congratulations to all retired Major Generals and Lt. Generals.

vnatarajan
30-01-2009, 08:58 PM
Dear Mr K/ Co-pensioners/ All

My and our hearty congratualtions to Shri SPS Bains - other fighting majors of th military- they deserve our praise for their relentless and perseverent fight for thier rights and right cause.

AT THE SAME TIME I CAN NOT IGNORE TO COMMENT ON THE SHAMEFUL MANNER THEY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO BY THE POWERS THAT WERE AND THAT ARE AND FOR THE IMMATURE INTERPRETATIONS------- Continuing Still? etc.

It is time Govt. acts with maturity and wisdom and does not go by the whims and fancies of powers that make mistakes and do not correct themselves in time!

(Caution: ARE U SURE THE SC JUDGMENT HAS BEEN PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED FOR THE GENERALS?

I FEEL THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG?

DO YOU ALL THINK WHAT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IS EQUALITY OF PENSION OF GENERALS AT ALL TIMES (EVEN AT THE MINIMUM) IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATES OF RETIREMENT?

DO U THINK THAT ADDING MSP TO 37400 plus 10000 in PB4 for Generals and making the figure ARITHMATICALLY more than Brigadeer makes any sense? Is it what they fought for? Is it what the judgment said? In our case we are ARITHMATICALLY already getting these "crumbs" (i mean higher than the junior ranks) because of the higher grade pay and where is the basis?

IF THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE MEANING OF PARITY or EQUALITY after 12 yrs of fight, I dont think we need to struggle & fight in the courts of law!

WE HAVE TO GO only to POLITICS now!)

I think we shall have to take the fight to other FORUMS !!!!!!!!!

vnatarajan

RSundaram
31-01-2009, 09:37 AM
My dear VN
You are absolutely right. The government vide their letter on 20/1/09 has merely added the Notional Military Service Pay just to make the Pension of Maj Gen higher than the Brig . Before the amendment Brig were given 26150 while a Maj Gen his boss 23700 and his super boss 24700. Now the revised pensions are Brig: 26150; Maj gen : 26700; Lt Gen : 27700.
This in no way affects our demand for modified parity as recommended by the VI CPC. In fact we should be able to rope in retired Military Officers to fight for the basic principles.

vnatarajan
31-01-2009, 04:10 PM
Dear Shri RS/ all

I went thru the Corrigendum OM in question.

It is a "SPEAKING ORDER" obviously to deive home the point that it is ensured now, the Generals wd not draw pension less than Junior Rank Offs- Brigs/ Cols!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT CASE OUTCOME!

This is another Ground being created for what? GOD ONLY KNOWS!

If Generals are aware, THEY MUST BE CONTINUING THEIR FIGHT FOR PARITY and outcome of SPS Bains case need be watched- if not shelved already!

I am reproducing parts of SC's judgment of SPS Bains case, from a blog site:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
“….The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution….”

“….The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension….”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WHAT SC HAS CRITICALLY REMARKED!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
31-01-2009, 08:16 PM
Dear Mr K/ Co-pensioners/ All

My and our hearty congratualtions to Shri SPS Bains - other fighting majors of th military- they deserve our praise for their relentless and perseverent fight for thier rights and right cause.

AT THE SAME TIME I CAN NOT IGNORE TO COMMENT ON THE SHAMEFUL MANNER THEY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO BY THE POWERS THAT WERE AND THAT ARE AND FOR THE IMMATURE INTERPRETATIONS------- Continuing Still? etc.

It is time Govt. acts with maturity and wisdom and does not go by the whims and fancies of powers that make mistakes and do not correct themselves in time!

(Caution: ARE U SURE THE SC JUDGMENT HAS BEEN PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED FOR THE GENERALS?

I FEEL THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG?

DO YOU ALL THINK WHAT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IS EQUALITY OF PENSION OF GENERALS AT ALL TIMES (EVEN AT THE MINIMUM) IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATES OF RETIREMENT?

DO U THINK THAT ADDING MSP TO 37400 plus 10000 in PB4 for Generals and making the figure ARITHMATICALLY more than Brigadeer makes any sense? Is it what they fought for? Is it what the judgment said? In our case we are ARITHMATICALLY already getting these "crumbs" (i mean higher than the junior ranks) because of the higher grade pay and where is the basis?

IF THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE MEANING OF PARITY or EQUALITY after 12 yrs of fight, I dont think we need to struggle & fight in the courts of law!

WE HAVE TO GO only to POLITICS now!)

I think we shall have to take the fight to other FORUMS !!!!!!!!!

vnatarajan

My dear VN. VI CPC has recommended that when a Brigadier is promoted as Major General, the pay in higher grade should be fixed taking into account the MSP(Rank Pay) notionally. Earlier this was not done because of which the Major Generals and Lt. General were drawing less pension. In the Circular dated 11 12 08, vide Annexure II, pension of MG and Lt G was fixed less than a Brigadier. The letter dated 20 01 09 has now ammended the Anx. II so that now MJ and Lt. G would get higher pension than Brigadier. That is what MG and Lt.G were demaning but Govt. adament not to accept it though VI CPC had recommended for it. This has happened as a result of hidden pressure resulted from SC verdict dated 09 09 08. This has showed a little silver lining that in future Govt. may consider our demand of atleast Mnimum paarity that is recommended by VI CPC. My above post may be read in this light and nothing more.

vnatarajan
31-01-2009, 10:04 PM
Thanks Mr K. I have posted few lines in the other thread- VN

vnatarajan
01-02-2009, 07:27 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, Chennai

Kanaujiaml
01-02-2009, 09:00 AM
Dear Shri RS/ all

I went thru the Corrigendum OM in question.

It is a "SPEAKING ORDER" obviously to deive home the point that it is ensured now, the Generals wd not draw pension less than Junior Rank Offs- Brigs/ Cols!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT CASE OUTCOME!

This is another Ground being created for what? GOD ONLY KNOWS!

If Generals are aware, THEY MUST BE CONTINUING THEIR FIGHT FOR PARITY and outcome of SPS Bains case need be watched- if not shelved already!

I am reproducing parts of SC's judgment of SPS Bains case, from a blog site:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
“….The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution….”

“….The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension….”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WHAT SC HAS CRITICALLY REMARKED!

vnatarajan

My dear VN. You referred about speaking order of 3rd Oct08 in injustice thread. From the very beginning I am telling it is deliberate harming order for all pensiioners, including that of Defence. Now the situation has changed a little. VI CPC recommended for fixing of pay of MG and Lt.G taking into account MSP they were drawing as Brigadier. This was not done for pensioners as can be seen from Anx.II of Defence Min. letter dt. 11 12 08. It has now for the first time done vide Def. Min. letter dt 20 01 09 vide amendment to Anx. II and pensioners have benefited. I am of the view that if right kind of pressure is applied, perhaps, Govt. may accept our demand and make correction to amendment of letter dt 03 10 08, particularly when Confedration of pensioners and BPS come into open. It may be remembered that Confedration of Pensioners/BPS would speak for all pensioners (S4 to S30) and not for one particular catagory. I hope they do so and talk about erstwhile Officers now pensioners, as well.

vnatarajan
01-02-2009, 10:18 AM
Dear Mr K-

the "Speaking Order" I referred to was the most recent Corrigendum II dt 20.1.2009 on the revised pension of Generals as to be above the jr rank officers.If u read that arder, it wd look as if the Govt, is answering in a manner- to convey that their decision is NOT:


"to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension….”

but to give them something more by adding the MSP!

We have to wait and see.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE OBSERVATION that for the first time a correction has been made to the concerned Annexure etc., wh is a positive step. If more such corrigenda follow from the authorities, I think all pensioners wd feel more and more confident that "PENSIONERS" WELFARE" is being cared for!

Regards

vnatarajan

"

Kanaujiaml
02-02-2009, 07:57 AM
Dear Mr K-

the "Speaking Order" I referred to was the most recent Corrigendum II dt 20.1.2009 on the revised pension of Generals as to be above the jr rank officers.If u read that arder, it wd look as if the Govt, is answering in a manner- to convey that their decision is NOT:


"to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension….”

but to give them something more by adding the MSP!

We have to wait and see.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE OBSERVATION that for the first time a correction has been made to the concerned Annexure etc., wh is a positive step. If more such corrigenda follow from the authorities, I think all pensioners wd feel more and more confident that "PENSIONERS" WELFARE" is being cared for!

Regards

vnatarajan

"

My dear VN. How do you draw that conclusion ? The letter dated 20 01 09 only has issued an amendment to Anx.II , giving benefit of MSP to pay fixation of MG and Lt.G. Nothing more and nothing less. They are talking of separate pay commission for Defence, why ? Just to give some extra to Defence and deny others ? Disparity after disparity. No body talks of pensioners. Even DOP, whoose existance is dependant on pensioners, is not even acknowledging the appeals ? And even pensioners are divided. S30 have formed separate Association so that they may get justice, let other pensioners suffer. Perhaps S 29 wish to do so but have not done it so far. When I talk about injustice to all pensioners S4 to S30, response is feeble. Myself and Mr. Maheshwari are trying to involve BPS because they talk about all pensioners. For legal action, BPS or Confedaration of Pensioners Associations, would need lot of money in their account before they start taking any action. The money should go to their account directly. For the time being they are silent about it as they are exploring other means. Let Mr. Maheshwari give us a lead about it.

vnatarajan
02-02-2009, 09:01 AM
Dear Mr K

I have made my note in the other thread. Perhaps there appear to be some misgivings on the contributions? or what?

Let Shri SCM convey the final modalities and guide all of us.

I and my "NETWORK" friends will certainly support all the steps in the legalk fight for all from S 4 to S30.

(If S30 has become separate at some place- we need not get disappointed. Ther are some S30 in other places - who are with us- Take Mr Ramdas G - he is also S 30 with us!)

If it is a qn of fighting for a few, I and my friends can always try to do it in Chennai or at Hyderabad for a small CAT affair- But if it is up to SC at Delhi- my resources are very limited! I and my network friends have to look to your groups to take the initiative!

Regards
vnatarajan.

vnatarajan
02-02-2009, 11:06 AM
Dear Friends

Some replies from Grievance Cell appear to have been received by Defence Pensioners!

To the effect- large no. of Grievances have been recieved in the cell- each has toio wait and bear the delay in processing - something on these lines!

Anybody can corroborate?

vnatarajan

PS: I MADE FURTHE ENQUIRIES TODAY(3rd Feb 2009) AND FOUND THAT IT IS A ROUTINE COMPUTRISED "E-MAIL" ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOME SORT!- So no progress!!!!

vnatarajan
03-02-2009, 07:50 AM
Dear Friends/ Co-pensioners

I think among the aggrieved pensioners- there are scores of retirees belonging to the categories of Scientists/ Engineers/ Administrators / other stream personnel- who at one time or other have been recognised and awarded National Levl recognitions.

I think as a mark of protest, all such personnel may indicate to surrender such Orders of Merit in protest if the Govt. does not take note and realise the significance of our genuine grievance.

Many of us hold such pieces of paper (now I realise that they may have no worth even to mark a protest! Shd be checked!)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-02-2009, 06:18 PM
Dear All

A draft RTI Query under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 is posted below:

From:
(Individual's name & address - can be as Senior Citizen!!!!)

To
The Central Public Information Officer,
(Attn:Shri.....................,Under Secretary/ Desk )‘
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare(DOP&PW),
Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pensions (MoP,PG&P)
Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi -110003

Sub: Request for Information under the Right to Information (RTI)Act 2005, Sections/ Para 6 (1), (2) & 7 etc.- Sixth Central Pay Commission’s Accepted/Notified Recommendations for Pre-2006 Pensioners & relevant Implementation Orders/ Office Memorandums (OMs), issued by the MOP,PG&P-DOP&PW)

Dear Sir,

Please provide the information on the items detailed below, sought by me under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, Sections/ Para 6 (1)&(2) (3) & 7 etc. (In case the said information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under Para 6.(3), under intimation to the undersigned)

1. WHETHER the "CLARIFICATIONS"/"MODIFICATIONS" in respect of Para 4.2 ,of the PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION contained in OM F.No .38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01 Sep. 2008, later introduced through:

(a) the OM F.No.38/37/08-P7PW(A) pt-1.dated 3rd Oct 2008; and
(b) the contents and the “Revised Pension Based on Revised Pay Bands etc” at Annexure I and the “Illustration For Fixation of Pension/ Family Pension etc” at Annexure II of the OM No 38/37/08-P&PW(A)pt1 dated 14th Oct 2008 (both issued by the MoP/PG/P, DoP/PW),

HAVE ALSO BEEN DULY ENDORSED WITH PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION/NOTIFIED/ PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA?

If so the REFERENCES/ COPIES may kindly be provided please.

2.Whether approvals/ sanctions of the competent authority/authorities with whose approvals/ sanctions the original notifications were issued, were taken before the issue of the clarifications/ modifications referred to in Query 1 above?

3.If the "Clarifications” "Modifications” as well as contents of the said OMs, their Annexure etc have NOT been notified/ published in the Gazette of India, THEN what are the provisions under which the above two OMs (Query 1 (a) & (b)) have been issued?
Procedures followed may please be indicated with the concerned references, orders, Rules/ Regulations, Acts, File noting and/or their extracts. ,and other similar records, if any.

4.The term 'pay in the pay band' is defined in CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 2008 for existing employees. What are the rules/provisions under which a different definition of the term has been given, in respect of Pre- 2006 pensioners, equating the 'minimum of the pay band' to the 'minimum of the pay in the pay band?
In other words, the statutory rules/ provisions governing the grant of two different pay scales and consequently, two different 'Minimum Pensions' for the same post under the government under the same dispensation (say sixth CPC implementation OMs) may be provided for information.

All information asked for may kindly be provided as certified hard copies by regd post as well as by email to the undersigned within the time-frame (s) stipulated. As the matter concerns pension which is an essential component of one’s LIFE & LIBERTY, all efforts may kindly be made to adhere to the minimum time-frame please.

I enclose an open Indian Postal Order No.-------------------dtd----------------for Rs 10/- towards the INITIAL FEE.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
03-02-2009, 06:35 PM
Dear All

A draft RTI Query under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 is posted below:

From:
(Individual's name & address - can be as Senior Citizen!!!!)

To
The Central Public Information Officer,
(Attn:Shri.....................,Under Secretary/ Desk )‘
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare(DOP&PW),
Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pensions (MoP,PG&P)
Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi -110003

Sub: Request for Information under the Right to Information (RTI)Act 2005, Sections/ Para 6 (1), (2) & 7 etc.- Sixth Central Pay Commission’s Accepted/Notified Recommendations for Pre-2006 Pensioners & relevant Implementation Orders/ Office Memorandums (OMs), issued by the MOP,PG&P-DOP&PW)

Dear Sir,

Please provide the information on the items detailed below, sought by me under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, Sections/ Para 6 (1)&(2) (3) & 7 etc. (In case the said information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under Para 6.(3), under intimation to the undersigned)

1. WHETHER the "CLARIFICATIONS"/"MODIFICATIONS" in respect of Para 4.2 ,of the PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION contained in OM F.No .38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01 Sep. 2008, later introduced through:

(a) the OM F.No.38/37/08-P7PW(A) pt-1.dated 3rd Oct 2008; and
(b) the contents and the “Revised Pension Based on Revised Pay Bands etc” at Annexure I and the “Illustration For Fixation of Pension/ Family Pension etc” at Annexure II of the OM No 38/37/08-P&PW(A)pt1 dated 14th Oct 2008 (both issued by the MoP/PG/P, DoP/PW),

HAVE ALSO BEEN DULY ENDORSED WITH PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION/NOTIFIED/ PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA?

If so the REFERENCES/ COPIES may kindly be provided please.

2.Whether approvals/ sanctions of the competent authority/authorities with whose approvals/ sanctions the original notifications were issued, were taken before the issue of the clarifications/ modifications referred to in Query 1 above?

3.If the "Clarifications” "Modifications” as well as contents of the said OMs, their Annexure etc have NOT been notified/ published in the Gazette of India, THEN what are the provisions under which the above two OMs (Query 1 (a) & (b)) have been issued?
Procedures followed may please be indicated with the concerned references, orders, Rules/ Regulations, Acts, File noting and/or their extracts. ,and other similar records, if any.

4.The term 'pay in the pay band' is defined in CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 2008 for existing employees. What are the rules/provisions under which a different definition of the term has been given, in respect of Pre- 2006 pensioners, equating the 'minimum of the pay band' to the 'minimum of the pay in the pay band?
In other words, the statutory rules/ provisions governing the grant of two different pay scales and consequently, two different 'Minimum Pensions' for the same post under the government under the same dispensation (say sixth CPC implementation OMs) may be provided for information.

All information asked for may kindly be provided as certified hard copies by regd post as well as by email to the undersigned within the time-frame (s) stipulated. As the matter concerns pension which is an essential component of one’s LIFE & LIBERTY, all efforts may kindly be made to adhere to the minimum time-frame please.


Thanking you

Yours faithfully
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

My dear VN. You really work very hard and I salute you for that. May I say something about the above draft and you would not feel otherwise ?

vnatarajan
03-02-2009, 07:28 PM
Dear Mr K/ all

(before going to my answers, Mr K is requested to edit and remove the Postal Order and its details. I tried to remove in my post also- but it reappears again!))

This is not my draft alone- it has the full involvement of mr PKR who has a long experience in service matters had edited my draft and also mr ramdas G( a seasoned HOD)- still there cd be some omissions-- may be there are loose ends-nothing is perfect-

I also know what can or will be the answers (from DoP&PW)- we have debated that also. I want the answers (also) the way I expect- (this will happen only if DOP&PW cares to answer the RTI query). We will be happy if the concerned "zero" on to the target- all other answers will be irrelevant and so also the qns!!!!

PL do add - edit - others can use improved versions-That shd be the way. Many shd ask better and correct questions. In fact, I would request you to send one more set of queries to add further weight to the issue.

I have already sent mine- so I may not be able act further on my draft-only others can use the improved versions.

Pressure has to be there since responses are not commensurate with our expectations even at the 'MINIMUM" !!!!

Pl go ahead.

Regards

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
04-02-2009, 04:57 PM
Dear Mr K/ all

(before going to my answers, Mr K is requested to edit and remove the Postal Order and its details. I tried to remove in my post also- but it reappears again!))

This is not my draft alone- it has the full involvement of mr PKR who has a long experience in service matters had edited my draft and also mr ramdas G( a seasoned HOD)- still there cd be some omissions-- may be there are loose ends-nothing is perfect-

I also know what can or will be the answers (from DoP&PW)- we have debated that also. I want the answers (also) the way I expect- (this will happen only if DOP&PW cares to answer the RTI query). We will be happy if the concerned "zero" on to the target- all other answers will be irrelevant and so also the qns!!!!

PL do add - edit - others can use improved versions-That shd be the way. Many shd ask better and correct questions. In fact, I would request you to send one more set of queries to add further weight to the issue.

I have already sent mine- so I may not be able act further on my draft-only others can use the improved versions.

Pressure has to be there since responses are not commensurate with our expectations even at the 'MINIMUM" !!!!

Pl go ahead.

Regards

vnatarajan.

My dear vn. As desired I have removed the postal order reference from my pos above. I understand the position. I have one more suggestion which I would come up latter with.

vnatarajan
04-02-2009, 05:53 PM
Dear K

Thanks for the correction. Also a couple of more senior pensioners asking RTI queries of different types may be useful. At least some qns have to be answered. Pension Act is sacro-sanct. Regulations, I believe Cabinet approved/ in turn are to be Presendially approved/sanctioned. Rules may be the area to play with- but then you can not go on changing the rules posthumously, particularly when u have issued one in as late as in sept 2008. I may be wrong.

Let us see how the reply comes.

Pl try to put some RTI query on the lines you are thinking. Because there cd be different perceptions of procedures. I HAVE BEST opinion from very good FRIENDLY (LEGAL ?)SOURCE in Delhi that Cabinet approval can not be contravened in way it has been done in our case!

One more advice (from Delhi (?)) is appeals to UPA Chaiperson shd be made by all aggrieved pensioners as the authorities appear to be caught in a juggernaut!

Also no hurry for legal recourse right now.

I have very gd response - say more than 20 by now - for BPS- RREWA led legal redressal (mr S C M may be getting the emails) -many are S29- some S30 - and some others. More will be coming forward.

Any info on your erstwhile Deptt. seeking particulars of any Pensioners- who has Regd. / sent Grievance letter to DoP&PW? At least one sr colleague from my deptt- at Calcutta- APPEARS to have been asked to furnish his particulars- an enquiry wh APPEARS TO HAVE come from the concerned Ministry (our Ministry)to our Deptt. wh in turn has been sent to the Pensioner for his submission. I am trying to get more info on this. Any such development in Railways?

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
05-02-2009, 08:00 AM
Dear K

Thanks for the correction. Also a couple of more senior pensioners asking RTI queries of different types may be useful. At least some qns have to be answered. Pension Act is sacro-sanct. Regulations, I believe Cabinet approved/ in turn are to be Presendially approved/sanctioned. Rules may be the area to play with- but then you can not go on changing the rules posthumously, particularly when u have issued one in as late as in sept 2008. I may be wrong.

Let us see how the reply comes.

Pl try to put some RTI query on the lines you are thinking. Because there cd be different perceptions of procedures. I HAVE BEST opinion from very good FRIENDLY (LEGAL ?)SOURCE in Delhi that Cabinet approval can not be contravened in way it has been done in our case!

One more advice (from Delhi (?)) is appeals to UPA Chaiperson shd be made by all aggrieved pensioners as the authorities appear to be caught in a juggernaut!

Also no hurry for legal recourse right now.

I have very gd response - say more than 20 by now - for BPS- RREWA led legal redressal (mr S C M may be getting the emails) -many are S29- some S30 - and some others. More will be coming forward.

Any info on your erstwhile Deptt. seeking particulars of any Pensioners- who has Regd. / sent Grievance letter to DoP&PW? At least one sr colleague from my deptt- at Calcutta- APPEARS to have been asked to furnish his particulars- an enquiry wh APPEARS TO HAVE come from the concerned Ministry (our Ministry)to our Deptt. wh in turn has been sent to the Pensioner for his submission. I am trying to get more info on this. Any such development in Railways?

Regards

vnatarajan

My dear VN. I will try for RTI soon. No information has been asked for by Deptt. concerned from any pensioner that is in my knowledge. SBI has asked pensioners to submit letter to them for getting pension fixed up as per para 4.2. A few have applied. I have also submitted a letter to them. The matter is being dealt with at Delhi by Central Pension Processing Centre.

vnatarajan
05-02-2009, 12:34 PM
Thanks to Mr K for updating.

Dear All

To ensure continuity and to keep our fight sustained, Pensioners' Forum, Chennai had asked for clarifications On the anomaly committee:

================================================== ==============

Correspondences: C/O General Secretary, Pensioners’ Forum, Madras,
1-A, Velayudham Apts, 61, Moti Lal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To

Director
Dept. of Pension
Lok Nayak Bhavan
New Delhi

January 29, 2009

Dear Sir

SUB: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT

At the outset I would request you, in case you are not presently the Central Public Information Officer, to kindly pass this application to the concerned officer for furnishing me the following information. Necessary Postal Order for Rs.10.00 is enclosed.

1. Whether the Anomaly Committee constituted to look in to the grievances of employees will also receive grievances from the pensioners and consider them?

2. If the said Anomaly Committee will not deal with the pensioners’ grievances, who will attend to them?

3. Will the Dept. of Pension appoint a separate Anomaly Committee or will they themselves look in to it?

Yours Faithfully

sd/
General Secretary
Pensioners’ Forum, Madras
================================================== ==============

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
05-02-2009, 01:12 PM
Thanks to Mr K for updating.

Dear All

To ensure continuity and to keep our fight sustained, Pensioners' Forum, Chennai had asked for clarifications On the anomaly committee:

================================================== ==============

Correspondences: C/O General Secretary, Pensioners’ Forum, Madras,
1-A, Velayudham Apts, 61, Moti Lal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To

Director
Dept. of Pension
Lok Nayak Bhavan
New Delhi

January 29, 2009

Dear Sir

SUB: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT

At the outset I would request you, in case you are not presently the Central Public Information Officer, to kindly pass this application to the concerned officer for furnishing me the following information. Necessary Postal Order for Rs.10.00 is enclosed.

1. Whether the Anomaly Committee constituted to look in to the grievances of employees will also receive grievances from the pensioners and consider them?

2. If the said Anomaly Committee will not deal with the pensioners’ grievances, who will attend to them?

3. Will the Dept. of Pension appoint a separate Anomaly Committee or will they themselves look in to it?

Yours Faithfully

sd/
General Secretary
Pensioners’ Forum, Madras
================================================== ==============

vnatarajan

Congrats Sh.Vn,
very fast action.Let's hope the reaction is equally fast.
Ramdas

vnatarajan
06-02-2009, 10:36 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

vnatarajan
07-02-2009, 12:12 PM
Dear All

This has reference to the RTI postings made by me/others earlier.

Today (07/02/2009) I have sent another RTI query- this time to the CPIO at the DOPT - concerning the JCA section- referring to both the OMs issued on the Anomalky Committe terms/ constitution etc.

I have asked all questions related to all our doubts and also on specifics like whether the Committee wil take up Pensioners' cases. etc.

Perhaps we may have to write to DOP&PW- seeking Status on our grievances- role of Anomaly Committee vis a vis Pensioners- whether separate committte or DOP&PW itself will look into the cases of Pensioner in case the current one is for Employees, time-frame, provision for Fast Track, & many more queries wh have relevance.

Members of the Anomaly Committee may haver to be approached for hearing us.Associations/ Federations/ etc must seriously put forward the pensioners' cases.

More involvement/ representations of all are needed if the current Anomaly Committeee has to take up the Pensioners' cases also.

Regards
vnatarajan

sudacgwb
07-02-2009, 07:23 PM
Sir,

Will some one give me:

1) link of anomaly comittee's terms and references

2) weather individual/association submit their submissions directly or only through their departments?

3) any time limit for submission of anomalies to it?

Thanks

ssudarshana

Kanaujiaml
07-02-2009, 08:36 PM
Sir,

Will some one give me:

1) link of anomaly comittee's terms and references

2) weather individual/association submit their submissions directly or only through their departments?

3) any time limit for submission of anomalies to it?

Thanks

ssudarshana

My dear Sudacab. Please surf the following site and you would find two letters for Anomaly Committee.
http://persmin.nic.in/Circular/CircularReport.asp?choice=12

My dear sudacab. I have now with me An.Com. formation and composition letters in MS word. If you desire I can now reproduce them here.

Kanaujiaml
07-02-2009, 08:45 PM
My dear Pensioner Friends. I have also sent an RTI application to Min.of Personnel/DOP 0n 06 02 09 through a Registered Post with AD. Main contents are as under :

Shri M P Singh,
Chief Public Information Officer (RTI) and
Director (PP), DOP&PW,
Ministry of Personnel, PG&P,
Room No. 312, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Markeet,
New Delhi – 110001.

Dear Sir,
Sub. : - Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

I would be obliged if you would kindly furnish me the following information under RTI Act 2005 para 6.1. If the information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under RTI Act 2005 para 6.3, under intimation to me on my address given at the top :


I would be obliged if you would kindly furnish me the following information under RTI Act 2005 para 6.1. If the information is not readily available with you, kindly take action under RTI Act 2005 para 6.3, under intimation to me on my address given at the top :

VI CPC Report para 5.1.47 concerning Pensioners was accepted by the Govt. and approved by hon’ble Union Cabinet and Gazette Notification were issued containing Ministry of Personnel PG&P, DOP&PW Resolution No. PG&P(DOP&PW) 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 and Ministry of Finance F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08. According to this the Revised “Pension cannot be lower than 50% of sum of minimum of pay in the pay band (as given in fitment tables), and grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Subsequently, Ministry of Personnel PG&P, DOP&PW OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, issued amendment that “pension cannot be lower than 50% of sum of minimum of pay band and grade pay thereon, without any correspondence with the pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired. Now, provide me ;

i) Certified copies of proposal/Justification for the issue of such an amendment along with name and designations of all the Authorities who signed it, together with copies of file Notings.

ii) The name and the designation of the financial Authority who concurred in the above proposal along with copies of file Notings.

iii) The name and the designation of the Authority who finally approved the above proposal before issuing the said OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08.

iv) Certified copy of approval of the hon’ble Union Cabinet under which the said amendment of the earlier authorization and approval of the Union Cabinet as notified under Gazette Notifications dated 29 08 08 and 30 08 08, was issued. If no such approval of Union Cabinet was obtained, reasons thereof, for not adhering to well established norms and rules that an amendment /modification to earlier approval of higher authority, cannot be issued by a lower authority.

A postal order for Rs. Ten is attached herewith as the application fee. Any further fee required for furnishing the said information, would be paid by me immediately on hearing from you about the amount etc.

G.Ramdas
07-02-2009, 10:02 PM
Dear Pensioner-friends,

Sh. Kanaujia has drafted a very nice RTI query going to the root of the issue. Let us see how the authorities react. My own RTi query will be issued on Monday

G.Ramdas

G.Ramdas
07-02-2009, 10:36 PM
My dear Sudacab. Please surf the following site and you would find two letters for Anomaly Committee.
http://persmin.nic.in/Circular/CircularReport.asp?choice=12
In this context Sh.VN's posts at #99&100 also refer. There are doubts at various quarters whether the pensioners cases are covered by the anomalies committees.
Though the terms of constituition of the anomalies committees do not specifically mention pensioners' cases, these can be brought under the ambit of the committee if the staff side can take up and convince the authorities that the modifications issued by the DP&PW on 3/10/08 cover the issues mentioned in the notification dt 4/02/09 defining terms of constitution of these Committees,extracts reproduced below:

'No.11/2/2008-JCA dt 4/02/09

The undersigned is directed to say that in terms of an agreement with the
Staff Side of the National Council, it has been decided that appropriate Anomaly Committees should be set up, consisting of representatives of the Official Side and the Staff Side to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, subject to the following conditions, namely:
(a) Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that any
recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy
enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself without the
Commission assigning any reason; '

The interpretation of the 6CPC's recommendation -para-5.1.47, as modified and conveyed in DP&PW's memo dt.3/10/08 is definitely in contravention with the principle and policy enunciated by the Sixth CPC. We must use the help of our friends still in service in various offices on the staff side to get this issue included under "Anomaly".After all they are the future pensioners.
G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
08-02-2009, 07:07 AM
Dear K.

Excellent on your draft/ follow ups. Pl see my noting in the other thread on "Injustice..."with the request to you to make another one on anomaly committee.

Dear Mr Ramdas,

The wordings are so nagging, it is difficult to pin down if the "Conditions" cover pensioners -

For example the statement says "recommendation is in contravention......" and refers more to the violation by the 6CPC itself, without assigning any reason.

In our case the 6CPC has made the correct/ near satisfactory reco (with some sort of parity)- whereas while implementing the same, the Min. of Personnel has done the wrong in OMs of 3rd & 14th Oct 2008 (that too perhaps without proper approvals/ sanctions- the aspects wh actually need justification/ clarification)

Second condition stipulated talks about the revision being more than the top of the scale etc!!!. In our case, the pay bands adopted (for pensioners) result in not only merging several scales at a time but also bunches all the increments within each scale, to the minimum of the pay band itself. SO WHERE IS "MINIMUM" or "MAXIMUM"? Both are same for pensioners! Pension will always be at the bottommos of the pay band - at the minimum!- IN FACT IT IS A SINGLE POINT "BAND" for Pensioners- IT IS AN AD-HOC FIGURE NOT EVEN A BAND. (only Grade Pay makes the difference in some cases)

To confuse the issue and to create the illusion of the whole implementation being to the pensioners' benefit, the 2.26 formula had been created wh apparently appears to work out to a figure more than what you will get fixed at in many cases, if you go by the "modified' "clarified" concordance/ illustration tables of OM of 14th Oct 2008!!

For pensioners, I think the conditions stipulated appear to be vague to include their cases automatically - unless the implementation aspects are also brought in. If the "conditions" stipulated refer only to the Recommendations of the CPC not being in order, our cases may not be automatically taken up.

But still I hope, as the Pension is always viewed as a continuum of the Pay and as a fringe-but rightful benefit- emerging out of the frozen pay- the Anomaly Committee has a onus to deal with the cases.

Regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 08:48 AM
My dear VN , other pensoner friends. I have already drafted a letter for Anomaly Committee which I have sent to RREWA, so that with necessary modifications, it could be sent to Anomaly Committe for considerations. I wanted to reproduce it here but could not do so as it is a long draft and gconnect is not accepting it here. I would request Mr. Maheshwari to put it up on rrewa.org

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 08:58 AM
In this context Sh.VN's posts at #99&100 also refer. There are doubts at various quarters whether the pensioners cases are covered by the anomalies committees.
Though the terms of constituition of the anomalies committees do not specifically mention pensioners' cases, these can be brought under the ambit of the committee if the staff side can take up and convince the authorities that the modifications issued by the DP&PW on 3/10/08 cover the issues mentioned in the notification dt 4/02/09 defining terms of constitution of these Committees,extracts reproduced below:

'No.11/2/2008-JCA dt 4/02/09

The undersigned is directed to say that in terms of an agreement with the
Staff Side of the National Council, it has been decided that appropriate Anomaly Committees should be set up, consisting of representatives of the Official Side and the Staff Side to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, subject to the following conditions, namely:
(a) Where the Official Side and the Staff Side are of the opinion that any
recommendation is in contravention of the principle or the policy
enunciated by the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself without the
Commission assigning any reason; '

The interpretation of the 6CPC's recommendation -para-5.1.47, as modified and conveyed in DP&PW's memo dt.3/10/08 is definitely in contravention with the principle and policy enunciated by the Sixth CPC. We must use the help of our friends still in service in various offices on the staff side to get this issue included under "Anomaly".After all they are the future pensioners.
G.Ramdas


My dear GRamdass and other Pensioner friends. You have very rightly surmised the entire issue. I also thought about it and requested Mr. Maheshwari via e. mail to send a letter to Anomaly Committee on old pensioners. He replied back saying that I should draft a letter and send it to him. Accordingly I drafted a long letter , including all aspects pertaining to pensioners, addressed to Secretary (Staff Side), National Council (JCM), 13-C Ferozeshah Road,New Delhi 110001.rrewa would send a letter soon to Anomaly Committee. I hope and desire that other pensioner's association all over India would send requests to Anomaly Committee. Even individual complaints can also be sent in the similar fashion.

vnatarajan
08-02-2009, 11:13 AM
Dear K

Very fast and really spectacular.

(In case it is long & Gconnect does not allow more than 10000 characters at a time, you may kindly post it half by half say two pages at a time or so.
You can post in two successive posts).

After you finalise, kindly e-mail the draft/ final version to me/ Shri Ramdas/Shr ARajagopalan/and we all will follow suit to send our requests to the Staff Council/ some individual members also.

In fact I have sent word to the AIFPA thru my Gen Sec to take up the issue and perhaps they will also act. From my FORUM's side, I will act.

So let us focus on this and get it going.

Regards

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 03:36 PM
Dear K

Very fast and really spectacular.

(In case it is long & Gconnect does not allow more than 10000 characters at a time, you may kindly post it half by half say two pages at a time or so.
You can post in two successive posts).

After you finalise, kindly e-mail the draft/ final version to me/ Shri Ramdas/Shr ARajagopalan/and we all will follow suit to send our requests to the Staff Council/ some individual members also.

In fact I have sent word to the AIFPA thru my Gen Sec to take up the issue and perhaps they will also act. From my FORUM's side, I will act.

So let us focus on this and get it going.

Regards

VNatarajan

My dear VN. Thank you for the compliment. I will try to put my draft sent to rrewa in two parts as suggested by you.

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 03:40 PM
Draft by M L Kanaujia. (This is only a draft laying down the initial foundation for representation and therefore can be amended or modified as considered necessary)

From rrewa

To,

Secretary (Staff Side),
National Council (JCM),
13-C Ferozeshah Road,
New Delhi 110001.

Dear Sir,

Sub. :- Anomalies arising out of implementation of recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission in respect
of Pensioners.

Ref. :- Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel &
Training JCA Section, North Block New Delhi’s letter NO.11/2/2008-JCA Dated the 4th February, 2009.

RREWA welcomes very much the newly formed national level Anomaly Committee as per directives issued under Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training JCA Section, North Block New Delhi’s letter NO.11/2/2008-JCA Dated the 4th February, 2009.

At the outset, I, on behalf of the RREWA, would like to say that RREWA not only represents Railway Pensioners but all Govt. pensioners in general and Railway Pensioners & working Railway Employees in particular, all over India. Our membership stands at ….. at the moment and it is increasing day by day. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring out the Anomalies that have been created during the course of implementation of recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission Report.. The Anomalies that we considered to be resolved on priority are described below :

1 That, VI CPC has recommended parity for pensioners vide para 5.1.47 stating therein that ‘revised pension can not be lower than 50 % of sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay thereon corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. VI CPC had merged 30 pre-revised pay scales into only 4 pay bands which resulted into bunchings and therefore, for two such bunchings, one additional increment was envisaged and Fitment Tables were issued for each pre-revised pay scale giving “minimum pay in the pay band”

2 That, VI CPC recommendations contained in para 5.1.47 have been accepted by Govt. vide S N 12 of Ministry of Personnel, PG&P (DOP&PW) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08. Accordingly, Revised Fitment Tables giving “minimum of the pay in pay band” for each pre-revised pay scale, were issued annexed to Finance Ministry’s F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08.

3 That, Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, in complete contravention of Govt. accepted recommendations as detailed in pare 2 above, has issued amendment (para 4.2)modifying “minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised pay scale as per fitment table” to “minimum of pay band without having any correspondence with pre-revised pay scale. Thus, Fitment Tables annexed to Ministry of Finance F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 for fixation of pension are no more applicable to pre-2006 pensioners but the same are applicable to post 2006 pensioners and post 2008 pensioner. This arbitrary amendment to accepted and notified recommendations of VI CPC has reduced revised pension per month (along with Dearness Relief) of old pensioners who retired from pre-revised pay scale.


Pre-revised pay scale - loss in Pre-revised pay scale - loss in
Pension Pension

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

Kanaujiaml
08-02-2009, 03:42 PM
4 That, the division of pensioners into groups with cut off dates, for pension and pensionary benefits, i. e. pre 2006, post 2006 and post 2008, is arbitrary and unprincipled and is in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as held by Constitutional Bench of hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 17 12 1982 in case of pensioners ;

“Constitution of India, Art. 14-Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Regulations governing pension for Armed Forces Personnel-Liberalisation in computation of pension effective from specified date-Divides pensioners so as to confer benefit on some while denying it to others-Classification arbitrary, devoid of rational nexus to object of liberalisation and violative of Art. 14 Constitution of India, Art. 14-Doctrine of severability-Severance may have effect of enlarging scope of legislation. Rules and Regulations governing grant of pension-Pension is a right-Deferred portion of compensation for service rendered-Also a social-welfare measure.”

(Entire Judgment is available on hon’ble Supreme Court of India website http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp )

5 That, hon’ble supreme court considered the case of pensioners in another case and gave judgment on 10 10 06;

20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well settled. They are :
a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is
subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.
b) But all retirees retiring with a particular rank do not form a single class for all purposes. Where the reckonable emoluments as on the date of retirement (for the purpose of computation of pension) are different in respect of two groups of pensioners, who retired with the same rank, the group getting lesser pension cannot contend that their pension should be identical with or equal to the pension received by the group whose reckonable emolument was higher. In other words, pensioners who retire with the same rank need not be given identical pension, where their average reckonable emoluments at the time of their
retirement were different, in view of the difference in pay, or in view of different pay scales being in force.
c) When two sets of employees of the same rank retire at different points of time, it is not discrimination if :
(i) when one set retired, there was no pension scheme and when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in force.
(ii) when one set retired, a voluntary retirement scheme was in force and when the other set retired, such a scheme was not in force; or
(iii) when one set retired, a PF scheme was applicable and when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in place. One set cannot claim the benefit extended to the other set on the ground that they are similarly situated. Though they retired with the same rank, they are not of the 'same class' or 'homogeneous group'. The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for is continuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.

(Entire Judgment is available on hon’ble Supreme Court of India website http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp )

6 That, hon’ble supreme court considered the case of pensioners in yet another case and gave judgment on 09 09 08;

"For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix minimum pay scale of the Major General above that of the Brigadier and grant pay above that of a Brigadier as has been done in the case of post 1.1.1996 retirees and consequently fix the pension and family pension accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."

(Entire Judgment is available on hon’ble Supreme Court of India website http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp )

From above, it is abundantly clear that the amendment to para 4.2 issued under Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08 is arbitrary, unprincipled, violative of Article 14 of Constitution and should be withdrawn. We shall be highly obliged and thankful.

With regards,

Enclosures : Annexure.


Yours faithfully,


( S C Maheshwari )
General Secretary

kkhameedkutty
09-02-2009, 10:01 AM
Dear Maheswari / Kanuajiaml Sirs,


The draft is nicely prepared addressing supreme court judgements. However, the last paragraph of draft letter gives an impression that anomaly is only on calculation of pension @ 50% minimum of pay in pay band in the case of pre 1-1-2006 pensioners. The Word "in no case" used by Pay Commission and Cabinet resolution is missing in the above draft. RREWA being an association catered for the benefit of all the pensioners, the above draft should be modified clearly addressing anomaly on calculation of pension @ 50% of last pay drawn to all the Post 1-1-2006 pensioners and @50% of minimum of pay in pay band + grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale to all the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners having 20+ years of service without linking pension with 33 years of service as recommended by pay commission, accepted by cabinet and moreover guaranteed through Supreme Court Judgements on putting cut off date. Adding condition of prorata reduction of pension to pensioners with less than 33 years of service was also a modification introduced on subsequent clarification orders issued by DoP & PW.

KKH Kutty

Kanaujiaml
09-02-2009, 07:17 PM
Dear Maheswari / Kanuajiaml Sirs,


The draft is nicely prepared addressing supreme court judgements. However, the last paragraph of draft letter gives an impression that anomaly is only on calculation of pension @ 50% minimum of pay in pay band in the case of pre 1-1-2006 pensioners. The Word "in no case" used by Pay Commission and Cabinet resolution is missing in the above draft. RREWA being an association catered for the benefit of all the pensioners, the above draft should be modified clearly addressing anomaly on calculation of pension @ 50% of last pay drawn to all the Post 1-1-2006 pensioners and @50% of minimum of pay in pay band + grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale to all the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners having 20+ years of service without linking pension with 33 years of service as recommended by pay commission, accepted by cabinet and moreover guaranteed through Supreme Court Judgements on putting cut off date. Adding condition of prorata reduction of pension to pensioners with less than 33 years of service was also a modification introduced on subsequent clarification orders issued by DoP & PW.

KKH Kutty

My dear friend. Let us not become sticky with some particular words or phrases. The intent is what matters. The intent is clearly stated. Moreover, Anomaly Committee has got everything available to them to refere to. Besides, extracts are aslo enclosed. You should understand the basic concept of our fight. The concept is that remove the artificial division of past pentioners. This means people who retired prior to 01 01 06 are past pensioners and the people who retired after 01 01 06 should be treated equivalent to who retired after 02 09 08. Two judgments referred to clearly state this principle. There are a number of issues which can be tackled only by sticking to this basic thing. Issue you have raised is covered up in SC judgment dated 10 10 06, which has been quoted there in the letter and that is the only ground on which you can fight for the case you are talking about(pensioners are a homogenious group and cannot be divided). There is no other ground. Or is there ?

Kanaujiaml
09-02-2009, 08:16 PM
My dear Pensioners friends. A large number of pensioners are having individual problems and anomalies. It is clear from views expressed by some of them on gconnect forum as well as elsewhere. Some of them have even sent e. mail to me. There are 12 members on Staff Side in Anomaly Committee, namely,
1. Shri U.M. Prohit
2. Shri M.Raghavaiah
3. Shri Rakhal Das Gupta
4. Shri RP.Bhatnagar
5, Shri Guman Singh
6. Shri C.Srikumar
7. Shri S.K Vyas
8. Shri Ch.Sankara Rao
9. Shri K S.Murty
10. Shri R Srinivasan
11. Shri KKN. Kutty
12. Shri S.G. Mishra

Letters can be sent to them (throught Registered Post with AD)without hesitaton individually highlighting individual problems/anomalies. (all pensioners are past employees and have rights to be heard by Anomaly Committee). Letters can be addressed to any of these 12 members and can be sent through "Secretary (Staff Side), National Council (JCM), 13-C Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi."

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

dnaga57
10-02-2009, 06:44 AM
""My dear friend. Let us not become sticky with some particular words or phrases. The intent is what matters. The intent is clearly stated. Moreover, Anomaly Committee has got everything available to them to refere to. Besides, extracts are also enclosed. You should understand the basic concept of our fight. The concept is that remove the artificial division of past pensioners. This means people who retired prior to 01 01 06 are past pensioners and the people who retired after 01 01 06 should be treated equivalent to who retired after 02 09 08. Two judgments referred to clearly state this principle. There are a number of issues which can be tackled only by sticking to this basic thing. Issue you have raised is covered up in SC judgment dated 10 10 06, which has been quoted there in the letter and that is the only ground on which you can fight for the case you are talking about(pensioners are a homogenious group and cannot be divided). There is no other ground. Or is there ?""

Dear Sir
I think Mt Khadeemkuutys point on quoting orders 'verbatim' is valid. In legal parlance these would assume importance. Also bulk of our representation on 'misinterpretations of words'
Submitted

Kanaujiaml
10-02-2009, 06:53 AM
""My dear friend. Let us not become sticky with some particular words or phrases. The intent is what matters. The intent is clearly stated. Moreover, Anomaly Committee has got everything available to them to refere to. Besides, extracts are also enclosed. You should understand the basic concept of our fight. The concept is that remove the artificial division of past pensioners. This means people who retired prior to 01 01 06 are past pensioners and the people who retired after 01 01 06 should be treated equivalent to who retired after 02 09 08. Two judgments referred to clearly state this principle. There are a number of issues which can be tackled only by sticking to this basic thing. Issue you have raised is covered up in SC judgment dated 10 10 06, which has been quoted there in the letter and that is the only ground on which you can fight for the case you are talking about(pensioners are a homogenious group and cannot be divided). There is no other ground. Or is there ?""

Dear Sir
I think Mt Khadeemkuutys point on quoting orders 'verbatim' is valid. In legal parlance these would assume importance. Also bulk of our representation on 'misinterpretations of words'
Submitted

My dear friend . I have no objection but I would still maintain what I have said earlier becausse law sees the " intent " and not words. Pl. see at the top of draft what I have written. Moreover, it is RREWA who has to take further action, not me. My individual appeal would go as I consider it fit to be sent. Anybody who has anything to say, should tell it to RREWA. I have already sent my draft to them.

dnaga57
10-02-2009, 07:04 AM
Dear Sir
Thanks for the harmony
Pardon my butting in.
Best regards

Kanaujiaml
10-02-2009, 08:03 AM
Dear Sir
Thanks for the harmony
Pardon my butting in.
Best regards

My dear dnaga. You are too humble and it is your greatness to say pardon. But, I do not think you have done or said anything wrong. Nevertheless, thanks for the same.

kkhameedkutty
10-02-2009, 06:06 PM
CHEERS!

Thanks

vnatarajan
10-02-2009, 08:01 PM
Dea All

All the 12 members nominated on the Staff Side appear to be from Employees Associations/ Federations/ Unions etc.

Or, is there any one/ few who is/are also associated with the Pensioners' associations/ Federations?

Any one can highlight?

It may be necessary for us to demand for a representative from SCOVA and a few frompensioners' groups to be inducted suitably,so that pensioners interests can be protected.

(We can write for inclusion of RREWA to be one if things can take shape- as many pensioners here have been in touch with RREWA and are aware of its efforts)

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
10-02-2009, 08:26 PM
Dea All

All the 12 members nominated on the Staff Side appear to be from Employees Associations/ Federations/ Unions etc.

Or, is there any one/ few who is/are also associated with the Pensioners' associations/ Federations?

Any one can highlight?

It may be necessary for us to demand for a representative from SCOVA and a few frompensioners' groups to be inducted suitably,so that pensioners interests can be protected.

(We can write for inclusion of RREWA to be one if things can take shape- as many pensioners here have been in touch with RREWA and are aware of its efforts)

Regards

vnatarajan

My dear VN. Basically JCM and JCA are for employees. All the 12 staff side members are pensioners themselves and are similarly affected. It is high time that we should all send our individual appeals as well to An. Com.

vnatarajan
10-02-2009, 09:27 PM
Dear K and all

Yes, we are on the job. In fact I am drafting one to be sent on behalf of Pensioners' Forum Chennai and I will send my individual rep also. Similarly, I and PKR are preparing a common draft for all our network pensioners to follow up with their reps.

WE are leaving a small gap of few day for some reasons.

Certainly the reps will go by next week.

All in this group also must follow up with the reps. Since all the members know the issue involved, the contents our reps need not be so elaborate and we can confine to the core 6CPC reco in the 5.1.47 Para and the malafide OMs. I think many know by heart now what to write and plead!

We must go ahead. and we will.

Regards

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
11-02-2009, 08:37 AM
My dear friends. RREWA has sent Representation to Anomoly Committee. It can be seen at current issues of rrewa.org/

vnatarajan
11-02-2009, 04:16 PM
Dear All

Thanks to Mr SCM/ Mr K for the above.

Dear All

Another important info. appearing in the RREWA website:

That is regarding the letter written by the Hon'ble MP of Lok Sabha Shri B K Tripathy of Biju Janata Dal written to the Secy, Min of Personnel, PG & Pensions, dt 31st January 2009.

OUR GRATEFUL THANKS TO SHRI B K TRIPATHY and Biju Janata Dal for their keen and abiding interests in the welfare of the PENSIONERS>

Regards

VNatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to AIFPA), Chennai



"

vnatarajan
11-02-2009, 05:55 PM
Bureaucratic Artistry or Autocratic Butchery????

Dear All

By now u all must have seen the OM of 11th Feb 2008 issued by Min of P/PG/P- DOP/PW!

What a poor defence by the Govt. ?

This outcome was expected. That is why the equality issue in terms of Court Judgments etc have been cited every time.

Again as Shri Bala observed in the other thread on "Injustice.....", the same play of words are being made to convey what has been done is always correct whether it is corresponding or irrespective and whether its is minimum of the pay or minimum of etc.

Of course this is the way even we might have answered if we were the perpetrators of the Tables (so alaborately done to eliminate us) and defend our actions when in similar position.Therefore everything were quite well artiiculated and preconcieved.

Disposing of all reps in one stroke is not tenable. It is not the language or the wordings wh was the issue. Our issue was the injustice by denial of even the modified parity- wh is being evaded and the ISSUE still remains.

6th CPC's guiding philosophy and principles and their concordance tables for pensioners never meant the twisted meaning now being given to the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008/ reiterating the correctness of the Table of Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008.

Fresh round of reps. will start now????

We have to go to the anomaly committee as debated. And exhaust that channel also.

IF THIS TYPE OF - MERGING AND DOWNGRADING DOZENS OF SCALES TO BE CONVERTED INTO A SINGLE PAY BAND WITH A MINIMUM AT "ZERO" FOR ALL SCALES FROM S 30 downwards- IS ADOPTED BY THE GOVT.IN FUTURE (nothing prevents them!), ONLY S 31 to S 34 scale pensioners will survive!. ALL THE REST WILL VANISH!

WHY NOT GOVT. DO THAT?

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-02-2009, 07:17 PM
Dear All

Thanks to Mr SCM/ Mr K for the above.

Dear All

Another important info. appearing in the RREWA website:

That is regarding the letter written by the Hon'ble MP of Lok Sabha Shri B K Tripathy of Biju Janata Dal written to the Secy, Min of Personnel, PG & Pensions, dt 31st January 2009.

OUR GRATEFUL THANKS TO SHRI B K TRIPATHY and Biju Janata Dal for their keen and abiding interests in the welfare of the PENSIONERS>

Regards

VNatarajan
President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to AIFPA), Chennai



"

My dear VN. Mr. Tripathi, hon'ble MP may not be seeing this forum. Why not write a letter for thanks to him directly ?

vnatarajan
11-02-2009, 07:50 PM
Dear K- Nice suggestion- we will do that. I think all of us must do that. We must also request him to raise the issue in the Parliament if there is a slot available- I doubt, as the time is short. I think by Feb 7th, all the qns must have been finalsied.
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
12-02-2009, 08:08 PM
Dear K- Nice suggestion- we will do that. I think all of us must do that. We must also request him to raise the issue in the Parliament if there is a slot available- I doubt, as the time is short. I think by Feb 7th, all the qns must have been finalsied.
vnatarajan

My dear VN. A thanksgiving letter at this stage would be welcome and encouraging. The hon'ble MP knows everything. The way the letter has been drafted, clearly suggests that he has been properly briefed. You may be knowing it already with your vast experience that an Officer to whom a letter is addressed by an hon'ble MP, is liable to reply suitably at the earliest. Let us see what reply comes.

vnatarajan
12-02-2009, 09:33 PM
Dear Mr K

(Only problem with me is- many know in my network what reply I used to draft on behalf of my DG to reply to the MPs/ Ministers/ PMO's office/ even President's office as well as the replies to Parliament Questions (about 100 each year) , year after year for 5 yrs- (I am still a novice at rules- but I use my common sense more!).

I only wish the Ministry gives a genuine and sincere reply to the Hon'ble MP's query- but what is MOST important for us is the weightage it adds to our efforts, the importance and the genuineness of the issue! That is where we are grateful to the VIP for drawing attention to our case.

(Here the dimension of the issue is so large and the affected population is so mature, I only felt sad that the MinP/PG/P DOP/PW had been blatantly impolite in brushing OFF all reps. in one stroke as if all the seniors who are breaking their heads for months together are idiots and the drafters of replies are masters in english literature and interpretation of the recommended decisions!)

Hope we come out of the atmosphere of stupidity sooner or later!

(In contrast- let us see how nowadays the PMO is acting! In my case, the PMO has followed a routine Babu-type procedure. Wording says "for approprite action"!!!!.In our times, even for transfers, we used to get a tagged label "WITH COMPLIMENTS FROM" PMO-and then a DO letter politely worded.That was Late Rajiv Gandhi's style! There was an onus to revert back to ensure that action is taken)

vnatarajan

RSundaram
13-02-2009, 12:48 PM
My dear VN
The OM Dated 11/2/2009 driving the last nail in the coffin burying the issue of disparity is fortified by the SC division Bench Judgment of 26/11/2006 (civil appeal 3174 of 2006) Justice HK Sema and PK Balasubramaniam which ruled that the benefits of up-gradation of scales of various posts need not be extended to pensioners who retired from those posts earlier to that date of upgradation. It also held that the Govt is empowered at executive level to issue such clarifications to policy resolutions and are treated as an integral part of such resolutions. .

In effect, to my understanding the government, in its clarification on 11/2/2009 says that old scales (or clusters of them) have been replaced by the Pay Bands and the benefit of fitment is in the nature of upgradation applicable only to those who were in service on 1.1.2006. Adding the grade pay is to distinguish retirees from different levels in the hierarchy. I think now the most optimal course against this gross injustice is to seek deliberation of the SC by a larger bench. I am doubtful if political leaders will go the extra mile to assuage the small community of affected S24 - S30 Pensioners/Family Pensioners.
Love
RS

vnatarajan
13-02-2009, 02:04 PM
Dear Shri Subdaram

Many thanks for the references.

The merger of pay-scales into pay-bands need not be contested if it is properly implemented without injustice!

After merger, the notional fixation at modified parity ie.the "MINIMUM" of the pay corresponding to the Pre-revised pay scale is the crux of the issue.

By relegating the Higher Grade/Rank pensioners in terms of basic pension ie, to half of same 37400 basic pay to all, IT IS DEGRADATION! If the learned JUDGES observed Upgradation need not be extended to all past pensioners, they would not have meant that DE-GRADATION can also be permitted.

Now let me seek an opinion from all, w.r.t the super class administrators - let us take a pre 1986 or pre-1976 highest executive rank pensioner say ex-Secretary- what will be his pension today? Will it be 40k? If yes, will it then be treated as upgaradation or 'at par' (or degradation)? Similarly, in HAG +, why meticulously they had been taken into individual scales without any 'merging"? THIS IS ONLY TO AVOID DEGRADATION!

Let us see how the matter develops.

There was no UPGRADATION ORDERS prior to 1.1.2006. Granting simple Grade Pay can not mean UPGRADATION! If higher Grade Pay means higher rank, then its corresponding basic also should not be denied! For Grade Pay if one is SAG or HAG, how can he be a JAG for basic pay - (as relevant to pensioners)- CONFUSING!

Regards
vnatarajan

RSundaram
13-02-2009, 03:54 PM
My dear VN
The V CPC in its report even while recommending corresponding pay scales to pre 1996 scales identified some posts for review and upgradation by the government like that of Controller General Of Defence Accounts, GM Rlys , Members Various Boards etc at higher reaches and some posts in clerical cadres. . In 1999 almost two years after the initial notification of the new pay scales , the government revised the pay scales of some posts wef 1.1.1996. Accordingly some Pension Accounting Authorities refixed the pension at 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale. Thus GM of Rlys who was fixed at 11200 ( Scale 22400-26000) in 1998 was refixed at 12025 (24050-26000) in 1999.

The CA& G objected to this fixation pointing out that the GMs who had retired before 1.1.1996 did not retire from the scale of 24050-26000 and therefore they are not entitled to this enhanced pension. I am taking GM Rlys only as an example. This applied across the Board to many posts in AIR, Prasar Bhartahi, CPWD, Dept Of Posts etc. Taking a cue from this , Govt issued a OM on 11/5/2001 to be applied retrospectively from 1.1.1996 reflecting the audit view and thus disenfranchising pre 1996 pensioners from getting pension according to upgraded pay scales which were being enjoyed by post 1.1.1996 officers. These cuts were enforced in some cases prospectively keeping recovery of arrears in abeyance and in some other cases retrospectively fully recovering the arrears with all round confusion.

The validity of this OM was challenged in many courts and CATs with varying results and finally culminated in the SC verdict which I referred to. This SC Judgment put paid to the spirit of the verdict in Nakara case and I believe, an obiter dictum by the Judge said that 'much water has flown down the Ganga after Nakara's case'.

I hope This background helps.
Love
RS

vnatarajan
13-02-2009, 06:51 PM
(Arguments hold good for several pay bands which have merged pay scales. I am arguing PB4 as an example. No emotions- no displeasure pl.))

Dear Shri Sundaram sir,

Still I believe the learned Judges would not have conveyed that Govt. can go on DOWN-GRADING! May be the Court meant : dont allow upgradation! But then how can you downgrade? If one closely analyses, what is happening here is DOWNGRADATION of many at the cost of upgradation of a few!

Where to draw the datum? Any Upgradation should not be at the cost of Downgrading some!

For example in the merged PB4 itself, S24 scale gets the maxmm benefit with a jump of more than Rs. 6800 Rs. They get full benefit of Rs 4000 of GP and also benefit of the enhanced basic pension of about Rs 2800!

Are S24 pensioners UPGRADED? Yes they are!

In effect in the same PB4 one Scale only (S24) is Upgraded and the rest/ most others S25 to S30 are Downgraded! Explanation given in the OM of 11th Feb 2009 is absolutely irrational!

The OM should demonstrate that NO UPGRADATION HAS BEEN APPLIED/ PERMITTED, INCLUDING TO THOSE OF S31 to 34 scales! Is it possible? IF GETTING FULL INCREASE IN BASIC PENSION AND FULL BENEFIT OF 50% OF GRADE PAY is not UPGRADATION, let the GOVT/ explain in a transparent manner what is UPGRADATION.?

We are all confused!

Is fitting the in-service employees of a particular Scale at a correct level commensurate with their basic in the Pay Band and not fittiing the pensioners (who were also drawing the same or even more basic pay while in service during the same Pay Commssion period) even at the correct/ corresponding "MINIMUM" level in the pay band, JUSTIFIED in the name of not permitting UPGRADATION. On the contrary it is denial of EQUALITY!

The manipulation has been done in such a way, that for pensioners, the pay bands are not bands- each pay band is a dot- for eg for PB4 it is a single pay figure 37400- with MINIMUM and also MAXIMUM being the same!

(IF BY THESE TYPEs OF OMs we allow the practice of DOWNGRADATIONs to follow, in the neXT revisions, there may be further mergers, further downgradations, and only one PB effectively spanning from some 25000 to 100000 may be there, and all pensioners be reduced to 25000 for pension purposes!)

ANYHOW ONE OF THE CORE ISSUES THAT IS NOT ANSWERED SO FAR IS THE EQUALITY/PARITY AMONG THE PENSIONERS OF EQUAL RANK/GRADE IRRESPECTIVE OF 1.1.2006 DATUM-which we have demanded (inter alia) and let the Govt. reply to that in black & white!

They are going in a round about way stating they can not allow UPGRADATION. LET THE GOVT. SAY THEY CAN NOT ALLOW EQUALITY AND then,I THINK THEY WILL BE THE FIRST DESTROYERS OF OUR HOLY CONSTITUTION!

Regards

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
13-02-2009, 08:33 PM
I am in agreement with some of the pensioner friends who feel that the issues raised in para2(iii) and 5 of O.M dt. 11/02/09 do not apply to most of us where the pay scales have been merged in various pay bands and the replacement scale or equivalent pay range,covering each stage of the pre-revised scale is given in the fitment Table.(though the govt.denied its applicability to the pensioners).

There is another class of pensioners whose pay scales are recommended for upgradation in 6CPC Report, vide para1.2.20viz., nurses,teachers,constables postmen etc.The O.M only says(or appears to say) that in such cases of upgradation the benfit will not be applicable to past pensioners.

This stand was taken earlier also as mentioned by Sh. Sundaram in post #133 above.We had similar instances in our Service where the posts were upgraded thro' cadre review but some of the retirees in those posts were not cleared by the ACC with the new upgraded Pay scales and therfore did not get the revised upgraded pension .
Since we do not know what exactly is the background of paras2(iii)and 5 let us not waste our time fighting this ghost. We have genuine points discused althrough the earlier posts and let us consolidate our thoughts on the same. If Government has failed to use the tem 'replacement scale/range in the pay band' let us use this term for clarity. As rightly mentioned by Sh.VN a band cannot have zero length.

GR

vnatarajan
13-02-2009, 09:13 PM
IN A LIGHTER VEIN- PL DO ENJOY THE HUMOUR BEFORE WE REGROUP!

Dear All,

Passion and Humour must go together if we have to have a balance in our approach:

Let the Futurists- our successors in Govt. service- who I feel are under great duress and may be many may still carry some regard and respect towards their retired colleagues (many in my Deptt - GSI do so - and I am very very proud of all of them!) see this and enjoy!

It may look like a joke- but the arithmetics are correct. Credit for this piece of "STUNNING" humour goes to Shri Raghuraman V, who for some reasons is not able to
write in the Gconnect till now- and so I have taken the liberty of pasting his exposition here ( without his permission - and he must excuse me for the same):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,

I do want to stress again that additionally, selective benefit of upgradation of posts w.r.t. to certain higher levels of pre 2006 retirees[HAG+] have been granted, whereas the same has been deliberately refused to pre 2006 retirees who retired in lower grades- by the introduction of pay band/grade pay concepts intended to serve only the aforesaid purpose.

Even amongst these lower grades, as an example,can we say that upgradation benefit has been given to the retirees of pre 2006 in the scale Rs. 14300-... and denied to scales Rs. 16400... and
Rs. 18400-500-..?

And again we are vociferously appealing against the down gradations whereas the OMs. cry hoarse that upgradation cannot be granted.

Can I also go humorous......! Of course I am not hitting any one below the belt...

Pensioners Pay Commission-1[PPC-1]

The 3 member newly constituted PPC-1 submitted its recommendation within 24 hours of
its constitution and framing of its terms of reference. They completed their assignment well within the allocated budget of Rs. 99.

The most notable amongst its recommendations are its daring and innovative revised pay structure. There will now be only one Pay Band i.e. PB-0. All pay scales will be brought under this PB-0 umbrella.

The scales run as follows....
1. [S-1][Lowest scale] - Rs.0 - 20 - ... -180000 - Grade pay - 0.99 Paise
2. [S-2] - Rs.1000-40- ..... -180000 - Grade pay- 1.99 Paise
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100. Highest scale[ S-100]-Rs.150000-6000-..180000 -Grade pay- 99.99 Paise.
[President of Bharathvarsha].

On retirement after completion of service[irrespective of the years of service rendered], the retiree will be fixed at a basic monthly pension of 50% of the minimum of pay in the one and only in pay band i.e. PB-0 plus the grade pay corresponding to the scale in which he retired.

Model

S-I - Basic Pension- 50% of[ 0.99 paise] ie. Rs. 0[ rounded off to the nearest Rupee]
S-100-Basic Pension-50% of [Rs. 99.99] i.e. Rs. 50[rounded off to the nearest Rupee]

Additional 100% pension will be paid when the pensioner completes 100 years after his retirement irrespective of :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributor of Poverty & Perennial Woes and despite the Mother of Fate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(last line edited by VN)

Vnatarajan ( by courtesy of Shri Raghuraman V)

vnatarajan
14-02-2009, 07:24 AM
(no hard feelings meant for thoise in lower pay scales in PB4- this is only for argument and providing example)

Dear Shri Sundaram/ Shri Ramdas & all

Now getting back to the Court Judgement cited, if one had been in a post of GM and then his previous scale was revised to a higher scale with the same GM designation, then the rationale of denail of UPGRADATION to the "pre-revised" GM can be understood!.

But in the current cases like ours, many of the SAG and HAG (minus level - my nomenclature for these) who were carrying higher scales of pay like 18400- 22400 and 22400-24500 are now being relegated to the level of 14300-18300! Many of us have held the office of the Heads of Deptts , controlling dozens of 14300-18300 level officers and others, besides being Cadre controlling authority for Gr C and D in a Region/ Specialised Wing with hundreds to thousands of total employees! I AM SURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOWN-GRADATION and not UPGRADATION! Giving a few 100s more in Grade Pay - does it justify the lowering of the basic equivalent? - which should have been at 44700 for SAG at the MINIMUM and +51300 for HAG(minus)at the MINIMUM.

MoF/ MoP/PG/P must be quite aware of the issues involved- AND unless they clarify the rationale in a transparent manner, WE HAVE TO TREAT THEIR OM OF 11TH FEB 2009 as the highest order of bluff!

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 07:40 AM
Dear Pensioner friends. So much is being said about upgradation. Therefore, I feel I should also try to express my views on it. VI CPC recommendations as accepted by Govt. provide for only higher grade pay for effecting upgradation, in cases of working employees. Thus, Upgradation has been given after revision of pay from old pre-revised pay scale to new pay band that too in respect of grade pay. The advantage of upgradation, was not given in any of the past pay commissions nor 6th pay commission has given it, for " Pensioners". Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment {para 20 c) (iii)} dated 10 10 06 is relevant in this respect and is not helpful at all, to the pensioners.

Krishnan V
14-02-2009, 07:42 AM
My dear VN
The OM Dated 11/2/2009 driving the last nail in the coffin burying the issue of disparity is fortified by the SC division Bench Judgment of 26/11/2006 (civil appeal 3174 of 2006) Justice HK Sema and PK Balasubramaniam which ruled that the benefits of up-gradation of scales of various posts need not be extended to pensioners who retired from those posts earlier to that date of upgradation. It also held that the Govt is empowered at executive level to issue such clarifications to policy resolutions and are treated as an integral part of such resolutions. .

In effect, to my understanding the government, in its clarification on 11/2/2009 says that old scales (or clusters of them) have been replaced by the Pay Bands and the benefit of fitment is in the nature of upgradation applicable only to those who were in service on 1.1.2006. Adding the grade pay is to distinguish retirees from different levels in the hierarchy. I think now the most optimal course against this gross injustice is to seek deliberation of the SC by a larger bench. I am doubtful if political leaders will go the extra mile to assuage the small community of affected S24 - S30 Pensioners/Family Pensioners.
Love
RS
My Dear Sir(RS)
I have a doubt as to whether up gradation of a post and revision of pay scales for the post are the same!
Has the pay commission recommended for revision of pay scales as well as for up gradation of all the posts.? ( so that the revision is granted only to the pre 2006 retirees and existing employees can be given the benefit of up gradation of getting their min pay fixed at a higher point in the scale)
Is it then the contention of the Ministry that all the posts in the Government have been up graded on 1st of Jan 2006 so that pre 2006 retirees are not eligible for the benefit of up gradation?.
Probably, under RTI we may be able to seek answer .
High regards
V.Krishnan
The relevant para of the OM dated 11th Feb is reproduced for those who read this post
"
5. In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the i.j" provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the ~ minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre- i~:~ revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, the benefit of Ot,- upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard. "

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 07:58 AM
My Dear Sir(RS)
I have a doubt as to whether up gradation of a post and revision of pay scales for the post are the same!
Has the pay commission recommended for revision of pay scales as well as for up gradation of all the posts.? ( so that the revision is granted only to the pre 2006 retirees and existing employees can be given the benefit of up gradation of getting their min pay fixed at a higher point in the scale)
Is it then the contention of the Ministry that all the posts in the Government have been up graded on 1st of Jan 2006 so that pre 2006 retirees are not eligible for the benefit of up gradation?.
Probably, under RTI we may be able to seek answer .
High regards
V.Krishnan

My dear Krishnan. Kindly see my post 138 above. Also, para 2 of Mr. Rsundram's note above is very clear and relevant. Besides, Illustrations given in the initial OMs for fixation of pay of employees benifited by upgradation, can be referred to.

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 08:17 AM
ba`ja ikSaaor i~pazI 9, Talkatora Road,
Braj Kishore Tripathi New Delhi 110001
Leader, Biju Janata Dal,(Lok Sabha)
Phone 011-23354939
011-32753544
Fax 011-23358307

No. 2009/085
31st January 2009

To,

The Secretary, Govt. Of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
(Deptt. Of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare),
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market,
New Delhi.

Madam,

This is regarding grievances of retired Central Government Employees relating to implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation. It is now reported that clarification contained in letter No. OM F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt I dated 03 10 08 in respect of para 4.2 of OM dated 01 09 2008 is more of a modification than a clarification as it has totally changed the intent of para 4.2 as well as that of 6th CPC Report, in as much as that as per accepted 6th CPC Report, pension was to be not less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay “ corresponding to the pre revised pay scale” from which the pensioner had retired. Whereas, now it is changed to minimum of pay band irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus the grade pay. Being aggrieved due to these disparities, retired Central Govt. Employees of pre 2006 have represented both individually and through their Association to remove the anomalies so that the retired employees will not incur any financial loss.

I would therefore, request you, the issue may be re-examined at the earliest so as to redress the grievances of the retired Central Govt. Employees in accordance with the 6th CPC Report which was totally accepted by the Govt. of India.

Thanking you,


Yours faithfully,


(Braj Kishore Tripathi)

vnatarajan
14-02-2009, 01:32 PM
Dear Mr K/ Mr Krishnan/ all

For eg.: The starting min. pay prescribed for employees in revised SAG scale in PB4 has been fixed at 44700- after taking into consideration the residency period in the feeder grade which is not less than 5 yrs. So five increments in feeder grade plus benefit of pay fixation etc have been taken into consideration to arrive at the figure of 44700. Even for lateral entry, due care has been taken to protect the interests of the likely incumbents. .Many of us have spent that period necessarily and compulsorily in the feeder grade. Therefore, this is no UPGRADATION. It is mere parity/ equality.

If the sel gr Director (S24) of 14300 gets a minim. of 37400, the same can not be the minimum for the next higher grades- Anyhow, for pensioners, all goofing up has been done to DOWN GRADE in effect the higher scales of PB4 to the lowest S24 and then justifying (such a Downgradation) by the so called "upgradation" -by granting "Grade Pay- which is also not fully added as a benefit to all.

In lower scales also- effects of Downgradations are there- people lose varying amounts as already pointed out. YOU CAN EASILY SORT OUT WHERE THE REAL UPGRADATIONS EXIST!

Aggrieved pensioners are not asking for upgradations- they are only insisting on correct grant of revisions based on modified parity that too at the minimum. This will benefit all within the available goofed-up framework. Older pensioners need be given the notional parity based on equivalent scales as per their old designatied posts/ equivalent scale of pay of last post held etc.

Let us wait and see as many replies are yet to come. Fresh round of reps will now start.

vnatarajan

(It took them 32 days from 1st Sept to 3rd Oct to complete this goofing up exercise-mainly to save the elite scales from such a downgradation effects!)

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 01:55 PM
Dear Mr K/ Mr Krishnan/ all

For eg.: The starting min. pay prescribed for employees in revised SAG scale in PB4 has been fixed at 44700- after taking into consideration the residency period in the feeder grade which is not less than 5 yrs. So five increments in feeder grade plus benefit of pay fixation etc have been taken into consideration to arrive at the figure of 44700. Even for lateral entry, due care has been taken to protect the interests of the likely incumbents. .Many of us have spent that period necessarily and compulsorily in the feeder grade. Therefore, this is no UPGRADATION. It is mere parity/ equality.

If the sel gr Director (S24) of 14300 gets a minim. of 37400, the same can not be the minimum for the next higher grades- Anyhow, for pensioners, all goofing up has been done to DOWN GRADE in effect the higher scales of PB4 to the lowest S24 and then justifying (such a Downgradation) by the so called "upgradation" -by granting "Grade Pay- which is also not fully added as a benefit to all.

In lower scales also- effects of Downgradations are there- people lose varying amounts as already pointed out. YOU CAN EASILY SORT OUT WHERE THE REAL UPGRADATIONS EXIST!

Aggrieved pensioners are not asking for upgradations- they are only insisting on correct grant of revisions based on modified parity that too at the minimum. This will benefit all within the available goofed-up framework. Older pensioners need be given the notional parity based on equivalent scales as per their old designatied posts/ equivalent scale of pay of last post held etc.

Let us wait and see as many replies are yet to come. Fresh round of reps will now start.

vnatarajan

(It took them 32 days from 1st Sept to 3rd Oct to complete this goofing up exercise-mainly to save the elite scales from such a downgradation effects!)

My dear VN. Absolutely right.

vnatarajan
14-02-2009, 02:24 PM
Dear K

Was ur Rep to PMO forwarded to the Secy, MoP/PG/P?- like mine- I sent on 20th Jan- after say 12 days of incubation. it was duly forwarded on 5th Feb 2009 to the Sect. MP/PG/P- DoP/PW for actions appropriate! I am not sure whether it will be dealt separately- as it is from PMO's office- as normally it is done so. In case of employees, such PM refernces wd be monitored effectively. I am not sure whether I will get any communication- if at all- reg. whether it also stands disposed etc. Others who have sent later than me are waiting. You had sent much much earlier.

Shri KSS is the first to open the innings with a reply from DOP/PW with a partial disposal of his case! One part had been disposed- not positively. He is waiting for the second part. Delay indicates HE MAY GET SONMETHING at least not totally negative!

No other feed backs so far.

regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-02-2009, 07:11 PM
Dear K

Was ur Rep to PMO forwarded to the Secy, MoP/PG/P?- like mine- I sent on 20th Jan- after say 12 days of incubation. it was duly forwarded on 5th Feb 2009 to the Sect. MP/PG/P- DoP/PW for actions appropriate! I am not sure whether it will be dealt separately- as it is from PMO's office- as normally it is done so. In case of employees, such PM refernces wd be monitored effectively. I am not sure whether I will get any communication- if at all- reg. whether it also stands disposed etc. Others who have sent later than me are waiting. You had sent much much earlier.

Shri KSS is the first to open the innings with a reply from DOP/PW with a partial disposal of his case! One part had been disposed- not positively. He is waiting for the second part. Delay indicates HE MAY GET SONMETHING at least not totally negative!

No other feed backs so far.

regards
vnatarajan

My dear VN. No, I have not received any response so far from PMO. Only AD has come back as it should.

G.Ramdas
17-02-2009, 08:01 AM
“The government considered and improved the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. This has benefited over 45 lakh (4.5 million) central government employees, including defence forces and paramilitary forces and over 38 lakh (3.8 million) pensioners,” Mukherjee said while presenting his interim budget for 2009-10 in parliament.

He expressed hope that the implementation of the pay commission recommendations “will not only improve the quality of administration but also help the economy by supporting the demand”.

-Indo-Asian News Service

Changing the Pay Band PB-4 from Rs. 39200-6700 recommended by the 6CPC to Rs.37400-67000 and giving 50% of the Minimum of this as pension -is it called improvemnt ?
FM has clearly been misled, so also the legislature and the people.
GR

Kanaujiaml
17-02-2009, 05:18 PM
My dear Pensioners friends. There is a good news. Bharat Pensioner Samaj has sent an appeal to Prime Minister vide its letter dated 16 02 09. It was decided in the meeting of pensiosner's associations that BPS would first write to PM and explore all possibilities of redressal of pensioenrs grievances before moving towards legal remedy. BPS has in fact demanded that an Anomaly Committee for pensioenrs should be set up to deal with pensioners grievances resulted from implementation of 6th CPC Report.

Kanaujiaml
17-02-2009, 06:51 PM
BHARAT PENSIONERS SAMAJ
(All India Federation of Pensioners Association)
(Registered No. 2023 of 1962-63)
Member Internatiion Federation of Ageing Monreal(Canada)
POST BOX No. 3303, JAGPURA EXTN.
N EW DELHI -110014

No. BPS / CPC / 09
Dated 16 02 09 T. No.2432 6640
2437 8583®
9818428385 (M)
To,

The Hon' ble Prime Minister of India,
Prime Minister's Office,
New Delhi -110001.

Sir,

Sub. : -Implementation of VI CPC Report -Anomaly in fixation of Revised Basic Pension, between
Pensioners of the same pay and status.

With due respect, I may be permitted on behalf of Bharat Pensioners Samaj, N. Delhi, to put forth the concern of 381ac of Central Govt. Pensioners who are in a state of gloom over the summary rejection (w/o giving them a chance of hearing) of their representations against :

1.Division of pensioners into categories on the basis of date of retirement,

2. Modification of Para 4.2 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) Pt. I dated 01-09-08, after cabinet's approval, by amending the contention of the said Para. &

3. Implementation of Para 5.2 of Ministry of Personnel, PG&P(DOP&PW) OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dated 02-09-08 with prospective affect i.e 2-09-08

The order rejecting their representations en masse vide OM No. 38/37/08 - P&PW (A) Dated 11-02-09 without giving a chance of hearing to the Pensioners Associations, is in contradiction to the Judgments of the Apex court Court which has held in D S Nakra case (judgement delivered on 17-12-82) in 1982 that all pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and cannot be classified merely on the basis of the date of retirement, and a cut off date on that basis is violative of articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

As it is a matter of livelihood of pensioners, BPS seek your intervention & in view of wide disparities created, as explained in the attached Annexure, request for constitution of a separate Anomaly committee for pensioners to sort out the anomalies.

With warm regards
Yours faithfully ,
Shyam Sunder,
Secretary General DA/Annexure

Kanaujiaml
17-02-2009, 06:54 PM
Annexure
A. Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners :

1. As per Para 4.1 of OM 38/37/08-P& PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, the revised pension has been given as: Basic pension x 1.86 + 40% thereof = 2.26 x Basic pension

2. As per para 4.2 this should in no case be lower than the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
Pay in pay band is well defined and occurs frequently in Annexure (Fitment Tables) to OM 1/1/2008-IC dated 30-08-08 on pay fixation for different pre-revised pay scales. Pay in pay band figures are given therein for different stages of pay in pre-revised pay scale. And the minimum of those amounts + grade pay for the particular pre-revised scale has to be taken, and 50% thereof should be the minimum pre revised pension.
For instance, a pensioner drawing Rs.6000 or 50% of minimum of pre-revised scale 12000-16000 will get Rs.13560 as per Annexure to OM dt.1.9.08 while as per calculation in preceding Para, the minimum works out to 50% of Rs.22320 + 7600) = 14960.
By OM 38/37/08-p&pw(A)-ptl dt.3.10.08, Govt. has given the minimum as 50% of (minimum of pay band + grade pay of PB3 into which the pre-revised scale goes, namely 11600 which is totally against the spirit and intention behind the introduction of 50% formula.

3. Further, this would mean that a pensioner retiring on 31.12.2005 or before with that minimum of Rs.6000 can only have basic pension of 13560. But a person who was in the same pre-revised pay scale and who continues in service and retires just after a month later will have 50% of his revised basic pay corresponding to Rs.12000, namely 50% of RS 29920 {22320+7600GP} = Rs.14960.This glaring anomaly needs to be removed instantly.

B. Reg. Fixation of Pension of post 1.1.06 retirees with 20 years of qualifying service :

Ministry of Personnel, PG & pension (DOP &PW) OM Dated 2"d September 2008 reg. fixation of pension etc w.r of post 1.1.06 retirees

Disparitv in pension between Pre 2.9.08 & post 2.9.08Pensioners with 20 years of qualifying service

Comparison of pension of two similarly placed pensioners with 20 years of qualifying service but different dates of retirement

Anomaly arising out of Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (DOP &PW) OM Dated 2"d September 2008 reg. fixation of pension etc with regard to post 1.1.06 retirees which lays down vide Para

5.2 Linkage Of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying service shall be dispensed with. Once a
Government servant has rendered the minimum Qualifying service of twenty years, pension shall be
paid at 50% of the emolument or average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is
more beneficial to him.
5.3 In cases where Government servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of
qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, pension in those
cases shall also be paid at 50% of the. emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial
to the Government .servant.
5.4 The revised provision for calculation of pension in Para 5.2 & 5.3 above shall come into force
5.5 with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. (i.e. 2-09-08).

Kanaujiaml
17-02-2009, 06:55 PM
This means that person with 20 years of qualifying service in the same pay band & at the same Basic pay retiring on 30-08-08 will get much less pension than the person with same qualifying service of 20 years retiring on 30-09-08, that is, just after one month.

Example

Pre revised scale in both the cases= 10000-325-15200
Both the persons were at the Basic pay of Rs 10000 in pre revised scale
Revised Pay Band PB 3 18600-39100 Grade pay 6600
Pay in revised Pay Band fixed as 18600+6600 G.P. as on 1-1-06
Date of increment in both cases =1.7 every year
Qualifying service in both cases =20 years
Basic pay on 1.7.08 in both the following cases = Rs 27550 in PB 3

Case 1. Person with 20 yrs qualifying service & date of VRS as 31-08-08 will get Basic pension on prorata basis based on Av emoluments of last 10 months. In this case Av. of 10 months pay comes to
= 26902
Therefore prorata basic gross pension (as per Vth CPC) = 26902 X 40 / 2 X 66 = Rs 8153 .

Case 2. Person with 20 years qualifying service & date of VRS = 30-09-08 =
basic gross pension will be 50% of Emoluments i.e. pay in Pay Band +Grade pay =26983 divided by 2
Therefore Basic gross pension as per Vlth CPC = Rs. 13492.Person retiring on 31.08.08 will suffer recurring loss of = Rs 5339 pm.
That means the person with 20 years of qualifying service in the same pay band & at the same basic retiring on 30-08-08 will get Rs 5339 pm less pension than the person wIth same qualifying service of 20 years retiring on 30-09-08, that is, just after one month.

This is a violation of the order of the Supreme Court which has held in D S Nakra case (judgement delivered on 17-12-82) in 1982 that all pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and cannot be classified merely on the basis of the date of retirement, and a cut off date on that basis is violative of articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Hence the prayer is that :

1. The amendment to Para 4.2 of DP& PW OM,F .No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) Dated 01 Sep 08 issued under DP&PW OM of even number Pt1 dated 03 Oct is arbitrary and inconsistent with the Apex Court directives for parity among same class of pensioners. At the same time, it is violative of principle of modified parity of Minimum pension/family pension accepted and notified by the Govt. and should straightaway be withdrawn. The consolidated revised pension/ family pension as per fitment formula, for any post/grade in all cases, irrespective of the date of retirement, shall not be lower than fifty percent/thirty percent of the notional revised minimum pay for the post/grade in the appropriate pay band under the revised pay rules plus the grade pay thereon, corresponding to the pre revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

2. Since the 6th CPC is implemented wef 01 Jan 2006, all pension norms applicable to serving employees under the same, should be equally applicable to all those who are already retired but notionally were in service on 01 Jan 06 irrespective of the date of issuance of various orders concerning these norms.

Shyam Sunder
Secretary General
Bharat Pensioners Samaj

G.Ramdas
19-02-2009, 10:22 PM
Has any body got any reply from Secretary,DP&PW or PMO or Minister rejecting his representation? To my knowledge none has got so far. DP&PW is silent whereas PMO has forwarded all the representations to Secy., Pensions. I also have an intimation from PMO that my representation has been forwarded to DP&PW.
A careful reading of the O.M o f 11/2/08 does not indicate convincingly that our representations are finally rejected. Where do we stand now?

GR

dnaga57
20-02-2009, 08:02 AM
A careful reading of the O.M o f 11/2/08 does not indicate convincingly that our representations are finally rejected. Where do we stand now?

Apropos Mr Ramdas's post quoted above, I can only suggest that we - BPS-RREWA start collecting funds for legal remedy.
With election impending, nothing is likely to happen for another 6 months at least. Our plea needs to be presented before summer vacations in Court.
Jo bhi karna hai kar guzro yeh dil ki rai hai
Sochnewala humesha sochta hi rah jaye hai.

Kanaujiaml
20-02-2009, 08:03 AM
My dear friends. I think all our representations to PM or DOP have been summarily rejected vide letter dated 11 02 09 from DOP. It is now very clear that the Govt. is not ready to listen to our plea at all. Actually, the Govt. has closed all doors for redressal of pensioners grievances arising from implementation of VI CPC Report.

Kanaujiaml
20-02-2009, 08:12 AM
A careful reading of the O.M o f 11/2/08 does not indicate convincingly that our representations are finally rejected. Where do we stand now?

Apropos Mr Ramdas's post quoted above, I can only suggest that we - BPS-RREWA start collecting funds for legal remedy.
With election impending, nothing is likely to happen for another 6 months at least. Our plea needs to be presented before summer vacations in Court.
Jo bhi karna hai kar guzro yeh dil ki rai hai
Sochnewala humesha sochta hi rah jaye hai.


My dear dnaga and other pensioner friends. A wonderful suggestion and an equally wonderful verse from dnaga. Now,why not request RREWA,BPS and other pensioners associations, to take lead and form a Committee and open a new Bank Account to collect contributions from pensioners for PIL to hon'ble Supreme Court.

kkhameedkutty
20-02-2009, 04:36 PM
I am interested in joining the legal process. Please let me know how much I have to contribute and to which account? Please confirm.

Also, please try to reach all the interested pensioners through the system administrators of the following webs.

1. Gconnect.in
2. Staffcorner.com
3. RREWA
4. Any other.

With Best Regards,

KKH Kutty

Kanaujiaml
28-02-2009, 08:37 PM
I am interested in joining the legal process. Please let me know how much I have to contribute and to which account? Please confirm.

Also, please try to reach all the interested pensioners through the system administrators of the following webs.

1. Gconnect.in
2. Staffcorner.com
3. RREWA
4. Any other.

With Best Regards,

KKH Kutty

Good gesture. Send e. mail to to Shri SC Maheshwari at [email protected]

vnatarajan
04-03-2009, 08:02 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all

Latest on famous SPS Bains (Sept 2008 judgment- review by Govt- now decision in Feb/Mar 2009) parity case: (reproduced from a Military Blog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, March 1, 2009
Dismissal of Petition seeking review of relief granted to Major Generals by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
The Sword of Justice has no scabbard - Antione de Riveral

Though I’m yet to see the order, it is learnt that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Union of India (Ministry of Defence, Govt of India) seeking a relook into the detailed decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs SPS Vains case that was decided on 09 Sept 2008. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was directed that there had to be a system of pension parity between officers retiring on different sets of dates. While the case did not directly deal with the principle of ‘One Rank One Pension’, it definitely sets into motion a regime for near parity where there is minimal difference in pension vis-ŕ-vis different retirement dates.

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

Govt. has to implement now. Let us see what happens. Even last stage is over!

vnatarajan

(I am not sure if the last stage is over. Shri Bala, later, has pointed our that there is another stage- "curative petition"- I am sure the Govt. will find out this avenue sooner or later- and I also understand that it is a funny stage- where the Govt. can plead it can not implement the orders of the court for whatever reasons they may choose to explain!!!

So the futility of the whole system is appalling!)

dnaga57
07-03-2009, 03:46 PM
I came across this in another site. Just sharing...


In what has created a resentment among the officers of the Central and state services, the government of India has offered additional allowance of 25 per cent of basic salary as special allowance to the officers of All-India Services posted in Northeastern states.
In this regard the ministry of personal, public grievances and pension has issued a separate notification on February 10 to the state governments of the region. The notification no 14017/4/2005- 2005 AIS (II), signed by director (services) Harjot Kaur said, “The ministry has decided to grant special allowances to officers belonging to any cadre of All-India Services working in Northeastern states. The allowance, known as special allowances, will be at the rate of 25 per cent of basic pay and in addition to other allowances payable to officers posted in Northeastern states.” If insiders are to be believed, there has been no recommendation of the Pay Commission in this regard or decision of the Cabinet.
The letter written to all chief secretaries and finance department of the Northeastern states said that this notification has been issued after an effective concurrence of the department of expenditure, ministry of finance and will be made effective since the day the notification has been issued (February 10, 2009).
The special incentive that has been given to IAS, IPS and IFS only has created resentment among the officers of other Central services and the state governments as well as they started questioning the relevance of this “special treatment”. This has come close on the heels of alleged distortion of Cabinet decision in September last year on the Pay Commission report by the government in formulating certain pay scales for IAS and IFS officers.
The exorbitant 25 per cent special allowance is also going to create a serious problem for the state governments which are yet to mobilise fund for its employees who are agitating for salary hike already given to Central government employees in the Sixth Pay Commission. Most of the Northeastern states have expressed their inability in implementing the Sixth Pay Commission of the Central government to its employees. The officers of other Central services posted in Assam and other Northeastern states have also expressed surprise that such important notification was issued “secretly” and not displayed on the sites of the ministry.

Kanaujiaml
13-03-2009, 10:06 PM
My dear G.Ramdass. I saw table prepared by you on rrewa.org in PDF format. Why don't you put it up on this forum and elsewhere ? It is definitely an improvement over table put up by me. If you have got it on MS word format, you can do it easily. It appears, only a few pensioners are active. Rest are satisfied with what they have received. Atleast, people should know about the loss they are incurring every month.

RPGoswami
20-03-2009, 05:03 PM
Latest circular of the DOPT stating that its interpretation of "minimum of the pay in the pay band" as "minimum of the pay band" is correct smacks of arrogance. So probably recourse to law is the only option left. Supreme Court in its latest judgment of 9/908 in Special Leave Petition(civil)12357 of 2006 has again reiterated that anything other than parity in pension fixing violates Art 14 of the Constitution. It would be interesting to find out if this judgment's ambit can be expanded to cover all pensioners.
And how would the pensioners of the Higher Judiciary be treated the DOPT way or the Supreme Court way ie there will be parity RPGoswami

Kanaujiaml
20-03-2009, 08:02 PM
Latest circular of the DOPT stating that its interpretation of "minimum of the pay in the pay band" as "minimum of the pay band" is correct smacks of arrogance. So probably recourse to law is the only option left. Supreme Court in its latest judgment of 9/908 in Special Leave Petition(civil)12357 of 2006 has again reiterated that anything other than parity in pension fixing violates Art 14 of the Constitution. It would be interesting to find out if this judgment's ambit can be expanded to cover all pensioners.
And how would the pensioners of the Higher Judiciary be treated the DOPT way or the Supreme Court way ie there will be parity RPGoswami

I fully agree with you. Finally, we have to go to hon'ble Supreme Court through PIL.

G.Ramdas
20-03-2009, 08:54 PM
Reference Sh Kanaujia's post above.
I would also suggest that you study the basis on which the Dept. has arrived at this conclusion.These are available with Sh.VN in the notes whcih he received from DP&PW thro' RTI route. After reading the notes you can draw your on conclusion.
SH. VN may kindly make available the notes extracts, leading to the conclusion that minimum of the pay in the pay band= minimum of the pay band( It could also be argued that the letters in italics could have been inserted by the original author as a structural engineer designs and inserts redundant members in a frame-work design!)
GR

G.Ramdas
20-03-2009, 09:58 PM
Dear Sh Kanaujia,
Apropos your post in the previous page regarding Loss of pension due to OM of 3.10.08
I could not post the chart in this forum as gconnect has a size limit of 19.5kb for doc and txt. files and only zip files can be attached even upto 97.7kb.
Since many readers do not have the facility to unzip and read the files i did not post a zipped file. However I am now attaching the Table in zip format ,so that at least those who have the facility can go thro. Thanks for the encouragement.
Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
21-03-2009, 07:51 PM
Dear Sh Kanaujia,
Apropos your post in the previous page regarding Loss of pension due to OM of 3.10.08
I could not post the chart in this forum as gconnect has a size limit of 19.5kb for doc and txt. files and only zip files can be attached even upto 97.7kb.
Since many readers do not have the facility to unzip and read the files i did not post a zipped file. However I am now attaching the Table in zip format ,so that at least those who have the facility can go thro. Thanks for the encouragement.
Ramdas

My dear GRamdass. Yes, file containing table, can be opened and read now. This table is also available on rrewa.org
Have you noticed my New draft to AC put up on rrewa.org current issues ? One more thing. Replies received from DOP clearly indicate the pattern and intention. In my humble opinian, representations would not be able to fullfil our desire of parity minimum or full, whatever we may do. Only PIL in SC would be helpful. But, unfortunately, Associations are not interested in it due to their own problems and aspirations. S 30 people have combined for legal action and so are now doing S 29 people. I am under pressure to join them but so far I have said no simply because I would like to cover all pensioners and all Departments and all Ministries (including off course, Defence Ministry) But individually they cannot go PIL way as their base would be limited. Petition in SC would cost five lakhs. PIL would cost less than a lakh. Let this last channel of AC also be exhausted. Then we would concentrate on PIL.

Kanaujiaml
24-03-2009, 07:36 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, 07:55 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

subba Rao R S
24-03-2009, 12:34 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

Kanaujiaml
25-03-2009, 07:40 PM
Dear All. Govt. has revised DA rates and raised it to 22 %. Nothing appears to have been done for raising of DR to 22 %. Can anybody explain reason for it ?

vnatarajan
25-03-2009, 08:13 PM
Dear K/All

DOPPW is delaying; last year they had issued on 19th March 2008 itself for the corresponding half year!- They are the people to issue! Anyhow it has to come!

Did u c Cong. Manifesto?

Here is a JOKE/ or HIMALAYAN LIE!

A paragraph in the Major Achievements Chapter reads:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It has restored secular and Constitutional values in governance. It has also made administration markedly more transparent. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a historic legislation. It is enabling lakhs of our citizens in villages, towns and cities to demand responsiveness and accountability from public officials and government at all levels.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can access it in the AICC website. You can give a 30 word feedback!

My feedback which I have sent to them thru the dialogue box provided in thei front page:

“Excellent.Pl. ensure Constitutional Values in Governance by advising the Ministry of Finance to honour Articles 14/21, equality in pension among equals/ obey Apex Court's veridcts.Pensioners/ Military veterans will be delighted!”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks message for the feedback was received. So site is working. Why not all try?

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
27-03-2009, 02:03 PM
Dear Friends,
While going thro' the various writes-up of Sh.VN on issues to be taken up with Anomalies Committee, I found that one of the key issue is non-implementation of the principles enshrishned in 6CPC reco. regarding 'maintenence existing parity between present and future pensioners' and extending the same 'fitment benefit for pensioners and employees'. I have prepared a write up on this anomaly for presentation to the Committee,which is attached as a zip file.In case of difficulty in opening the file pl.let me know, i can send thro' mail
my email id is: [email protected]

G.Ramdas
attachments:

vnatarajan
28-03-2009, 01:05 PM
Dear Copensioners/ Friends

At last the DR Circular had been issued by DOPPW.

No 42/12/2009-P&PW G dtd 27.03.2009.

DR is at 22% wef 1.1.2009.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
29-03-2009, 02:46 PM
Dear All

PENSION; PENSIONER BASICS; PLEASE BRUSH UP ONCE AGAIN!

Pension is a Right (pre 2004 Govt Employee under the old Pension scheme, contributing GPF etc); differed salary/wage; unpaid/ hidden component of salary/wage-equivalent of GPF contribution made- built up as hidden corpus; is a repayment for the past services rendered; etc.

Pensioner is a deemed Employee of the Govt; Govt continues to be the employer;

Proof: Pensioner is punishable by Reduction/ Withdrawal of Pension- under Pension Act/ Rules- for offences specified; Pensioners got Standard Deduction exemptions as Employees get under IT Act; Pensioners continue in schemes of Employees like CGHS etc.

Pension for pensioners is as much a committed expenditure of the Govt. as in the case of Salaray/ Wage of Employees. Budget provision has to be made in time (Courts have observed so). No Govt. can give excuses like "increased burden" "increased expenditure" etc. You have earned your entitlement by past services. In this there can be no discrimination between equals by "any" artificial divide like an arbitrary date/ irregular Govt. deciusion.

Pensioner, if taxable, pays his Income Tax like any other taxable Govt. Employee- there is no separate Head for Pension- It comes under "SALARY" only. It is also administered and processed like salary income.

(The following is for drafting Appeals to Anomaly Committee by Individuals/ for any discussions etc)

SCPC ANOMALIES: POINTS TO REMEMBER ON ANOMALY ISSUE (Please Refine & Use)

*An average Pensioner is not endowed with sufficient facilities to access the SCPC report, understand it, interpret it and find out what is an ANOMALY- as defined in the OM constituting the Anomaly Committee/Its Terms of Reference etc.. So the Anomaly Committee has to appreciate basically the situation and ground truth. A liberal view has to be taken in dealing with the situation.

*All issues are related to the CORE principle/policy-i.e. PARITY- minimum or full-
For pre 2006/ 20 yr/ less than 33 yr (pre-2006)/ family pensioners etc. and related to one major controversial Para/ its Applications/ Ramifications.

*SCPC has not apparently mentioned in precise terms what are its policies/ principles in relevance to REVISION OF PENSION- though there are several Para in the Report which had clearly expressed that Past Pensioners must get the same benefits of fixation/ fitment etc as Current Pensioners. But it had cautioned that if the Recommendations are implemented in parts/ pieces ie if not implemented in TOTO, it will certainly lead to several anomalies.

*Pension has been described in many ways- but so far as the RULES are concerned it is always in terms of the “PAY” of the Employee, just before his retirement (e.g. like 50% of last “Pay” (basic pay)drawn or like 50% of average of last ten months Basic “Pay” etc). In the current scenario, one will see the Pension loses its identity totally! It is “Pay” or “Emoluments” wh are defined and Pension is always a Ratio/ Percentage of it.

*In SCPC outcome – what has it become? IS it a formula (X 2.26)? No relevance to erstwhile Pay of the Pensioner?
*Sometimes it is in terms of the Minimum of a Pay Band which is a merged entity of several Pay Scales?
*Yet, sometimes it is the Minimum of a Pay Scale? (for the convenience of a few Top Scales)

*It is anomalous to have three formulae for Pension fixation under the same SCPC dispensations! Never it has happened. Never such confusions.

*In the current revision also, “care has been taken to define “EMOLUMENTS” vide OM of 2.9.2008- for post 1.1.2006/2.9.2008 pensioners – but glaringly in the OM issued 24 hrs earlier, dtd 1.9.2008, such a definition does not exist- for old/pre-2006 pensioners!

*Pensioners/ Pensioners’ Associations were not given enough time to go thru at the Draft Stage in April 2008- one week’s time was too short. Many knowledgeable among the Pensioners could not access the Report/ its Recos for quite some time.

*In the OM of 1.9. 2008, Para 4.2 is the most controversial, about which several Pensioners/ Associations have debated for long periods and yet SURPRISINGLY there appears to be no controversy in processing the same at the Govt. sources.! Can not be believed.

*Though the SCPC always aimed at parity in pensions (even for 20 yr retirees!), it is not clear how they have gone into the MINIMUM formula? That too at the MINIMUM of the MERGED PAY BAND? Not even using the MINIMUM of the Corresponding Revised Scales as Reference Pay Points or Slots?

*Compromising to the MINIMUM formula or phenomena, Pensioners thought at least a MODIFIED PARITY at the MINIMUM of the RESPECTIVE REVISED PAY SCALE will emerge for pension reckoning! Even this is denied by the MISCONSTRUCTION of the Para 4.2 of the OM of 1.9.2008 by changing the construction/ meaning of the key expression of the original SCPC’s Para 5.1.47!!!.Further confusions were compounded thru OM of 3rd Oct 2008 followed by illustrations in Table/ Annexure of OM of 14 th Oct 2008. WHY AT ALL THE PARA WAS RECONSTRUCTED?.

*ANOMOLOUS results in the current scenario is more a result of such misonterpretations/ misapplications/ erroneous departures/wrong OMs affecting the threshold itself- all against SCPC’s parity priniciple/ policy for Pension.

*GRADE PAY alone can not be the deciding factor for pension. It is only “thereon” with the Pension Basic and only then it has a meaning. “Grade Pay” can become part of “Pay” and NOT the reverse-!!!

*Pensioners can not lose the identity of their original scales.These are important for Pension Revisions. Pay Bands can not be allowed to decide the fate of Pension entitlement/ settglements based on Grade Pay alone.. It is the pay/ pay scale in which the employee drew his salary- that is relevant. Not the Pay Band or Grade Pay. FITMENT FORMULAS also will result in such destructions. (if u ask the Housing Ministry, any clarification on HBA advances- they wd say it can be related to Pay in the Pay scale only and not the Grade Pay!!!)

* Originally SCPC recommended same FITMENT for both pensioners and employees, but what has been implemented is entirely different. ANOMALIES have cropped up because of such departure.

* Indiscriminate MERGERS of several pre-revised scales into Pay Bands- have resulted in:

* erasing of Identity of relatively higher scales even for MINIMUM identification; *reduction of Pension Basic of higher level pensioners to the lowermost level in the Pay Band; such reduction is against Pension Rules; considerable loss in monthly pensions.
*two classes of pensioners one pre-2006 and another post-2006 for each post/ grade/ scale under the same dispensation!
*such reduction of pension now, results in pro-rata loss in DR component every six months, and ultimately erodes the very Base figure for NEXT PENSION REVISION!

*Violation of Court Judgments/ Articles 14/21 of Constitution; CCS (RP) Rules. etc are very apparent! If Govt. resorts to this precedence, helpless aged pensioners who are in the evening of their lives have to go to courts for JUSTICE! Time-frame and Expenses are most atrocious and unfavorable to a common pensioner!

*.None of the Appeals made to the DOPPW/MOPPGP/ various authorities/ those
which have been forwarded from even the PMO to the MOPPGP & DOPPW have been
answered or replied with!

*.An OM dated 11th Feb 2009 stating all reps are disposed off can not be accepted as the said OM has not answered many anomalies/ anomalous issues raised by Pensioners/ Their Associations.

*.Annexure I/ Tables of OM of 14Oct 2008 is stated to be non-applicable to pre-2006 pensioners- then to whom they are applicable? Why it is being quoted in RTI replies?

*. Many of the RTI queries raised bty Pensioners need attention of higher levels whereas routine sometimes evasive replies are being furnished from Desk? Lower levels (PIOs) and hence these are not acceptable- nor they can help the Pensioners/ Associations to find out the truth? accountability/ responsibility etc which are the essence/ essentials of RIGHT TO INFORMAION!

*Many times RTI queries are not being referred to the connected authorities/ higher ups when essential - say like to MOF etc- and pensioners are being forced to waste money/ time/ energy to find ways and means to resolve the anomalous issues.

*.One thing is CERTAIN.

GREATEST OF THE ANOMALIES IS STARING IN EVERYONE's FACE--DENIAL OF PARITY OF DIFFERENT TYPES/ FITMENT BENEFITS-TO DIFFERENT LEVELS/ SECTIONS/ CLASSES OF PENSIONERS (except the top 4 scales????) -IN DIFFERENT WAYS THROUGH CONFUSING/ CONFLICTING OMs/ - VIOLATING ALL NORMS/ RULES/ SCPC's MEANINGFUL PRINCIPLED/ POLICY-ENDORSED PARAGRAPHS of its REPORT ITSELF/ COURT JUDGMENTS/ CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES. Etc.

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

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
29-03-2009, 11:02 PM
We are discussing the issue of "justice thro' restoration of parity to all old pensioners" in this thread.
Many of us may not be aware of the damage caused by wrongful implementation of the principles enunciated by the 6CPC.While the Commission wanted that the Fitment benfit should be the same for employees and pensioners, what we got was only a paltry 18% of the revised pension as fitment benefit(as per 2.26 formula) wheras employees and consequently new pensioners got as much as 44% as increase in S-28, 42% in s-24and 29%in S-10.
While pensioners in all the scales are sufferers, the examples given in the chart attached will show how much we have lost ,in the race for parity.
GR

vnatarajan
31-03-2009, 02:37 PM
Dear All


Many of us have made appeals to the DOPPW & Hono'ble PM also, a few months back. Our apps. (at least in my case) to PM had been forwarded for "action as appropriate" to the DOPPW.

Till now no replies have come! Effect of "mass burial- I mean disposal" by DOPPW thru 11th Feb 2009 OM? Even no reply to PMO?

I thought we may try at least this info from DOPPW- so that a more"honest' &"sincere" straight forward answer can emerge from their end- as for this type of info- they need not be under duress or pressure!

What I have sent- as relevant to my case- is placed below:[/I]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To:
THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
(Attn: Shri ................, Under Secretary)
Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW)
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions(MOP,PG,P)
North Block, NEW DELHI 110001

Sub: Right to Information-under RTI Act 2005- Regarding my Appeals to the Prime Ministers’ Office (PMO) & Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pensions (MOPPGP)/Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW)

Dear PIO-Sir

I seek the following information under the provisions of the RTI ACT 2005, Sections/Para 6 (1),(2)(3) & 7. In case the subject/ matter is not dealt at your desk/ office, the same kindly be referred to the right source within the stipulated period.

A) PMO’s Reference
Kind attention is drawn to the letter no PMO ID No.8/3/2009-PMP3/20181 dated 05.02.2009 forwarding my appeal No VN/PMO/Pension/2009-1 dtd 20.01.2009 sent to the Honourable Prime Minister, to the Secretary to the GOI, Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare, M/O Pers, PG & Pensions for “ACTION AS APPROPRIATE” at the latter. In the said appeal I, a pre-2006 pensioner, had sought redressal of INJUSTICE due to the anomaly in fixation of Revised Basic Pension, based on issues like disparities with respect to my peers of post1.1.2006 retirees; my effective reduction in status to a JAG (Sel Gr) level for Pension Basic entitlement; not applying the correct minimum revised pay corresponding to my pre-revised pay-scale S 29 (Rs18400-22400); irregular structuring of a single pay band for several pre-revised pay scale; violation of Constitutional protection under Article 14 and denial of parity in pension among equals (SAG level in my case) as also established/ enforced through earlier Court Judgments; irregularity through Effective Reduction in my entitled Pension Basic which is not fair or just/illogical etc; and prayed for review/ relief and justice. Now more than 50 days have passed since the above communication from PMO’s Office. Therefore, I am constrained to seek the following information:

1.What “actions as appropriate” have been taken on the reference cited above viz on the contents of my Appeal to the Honourable Prime minister dtd 20.01.2009? Please furnish if they are in relevance to parts or full of my appeal?

2.Have the same been conveyed to the PMO?

3.If so, kindly provide copies of the relevant letter(s)/ notes/ related documents.

4.If not, what are the “actions as appropriate” that are proposed and the time-frame, if any, thereof, for responding to the said appeal of mine?

B) My Representations to the Secretary to the GOI, D/O P&PW,MOPPGP:
Kind attention drawn to my Representation NO VN/Pensions/2008-3 dated Dec,2008 on my Pension Revision consequent to 6th CPC implementation OMs by Bank-Error/Anomaly-plea. In the said appeal, I, a pre-2006 pensioner, had sought l for revision & justice based on issues like wrong fixation of my minimum basic pension by the Bank at Rs23700 instead of Rs 27350 pm; irregular Merging of several pre-revised pay scales including mine (Rs18400-22400;S29) into single Pay Band 4; not applying to my pay the corresponding revised pay table within the said Pay Band for fixing my pension; that minimum of the Pay Band 4 can not be the minimum of revised pay for my scale ; irrational relegation of my pre-retirement Status from that of a SAG level officer/ Head of Deptt to that of a JAG (Sel. Gr) officer for pension purpose in effect; Reduction of my entitled pension basic (on revision)being unfair/unjust/illogical and against Rule; such a denial of rightful pension being a violation of Constitutional protection under Article 14 and denial of parity in pension among equals (SAG level in my case) as also established/ enforced through earlier Court Judgments; restoring justice/ parity in pension with respect to my peers, at least at the minimum! Now, I seek the following information:

1.What is the status of my representation cited above?

2.Have ALL/ ANY of the issues been disposed off by any of your communications subsequently? If so, pl furnish details/ copies.

3.Is the Annexure I/ Table with it, of the OM dtd 14th Oct 2008 issued by the MOPPG&P/D/O P&PW, cited in my representation applicable in my case, a S29 scale (Rs 18400-22400) pre-2006 pensioner?

4. If yes, what are the cases of pre-2006 pensioners to which the said Annexure I/Table is NOT applicable?

5.If my representation has not been processed in part or full so far, what is the likely time-frame for the same ?

The requested information may kindly be sent by hard copy mode by Regd Post as well as by email(s). As the matter concerns PENSION which is a matter of life & liberty of pensioners, every effort may kindly be made to adhere to the time-frame(s) please.(Encl: IPO For Rs 10/-towards INITIAL FEE in f/o Accounts Officer, Department of Pension& Pensioners’ Welfare)

Yours faithfully’
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
01-04-2009, 08:11 PM
My dear pensioner friends. Now the Ministry wise Anomaly Committees are being constituted. Railway Ministry has already issued a letter about it. Others would follow soon. These would look into the anomalies which are peculiar to the Ministry and not applicable to others. They would receive applications for next six months and take a decision in another six monts.

RSundaram
03-04-2009, 11:12 AM
A Report from The Hindustan Times

THE ARMY didn't like the rough deal handed to it by the sixth pay commission. It protested and petitioned whoever could help.

Stonewalled at every stage, it is now ready to fire its most potent weapon yet: the vote.

* It appears middle rung officers and generals are bitter about the Sixth Pay Commission Report
* Veterans have been fighting a lonely battle for one rank one pension. There are over 20 Lakh Military Pensioners
* Serving and retired Defence Employees may constitute a vote bank of 4 Crore Votes
* Rank and Pay Concerns raised by the Army have still not been addressed.

There are 11.3 lakh men and women in the Indian Army and together with their families and ex-servicemen, they add up to one crore, according to one estimate.

ArmychiefGeneralDeepak Kapoor has directed all formations across the country to make vigorous efforts to achieve 100 per cent registration of service voters. Soldiers have also been asked to get their families registered as voters.

And the Army headquarters are not leaving it at that -just another order There is going to be regular follow-up. All units have been directed to send monthly reports on progress made.

"A large number of regiments have achieved complete registration of service voters," said an army officer, refusing to be named as he is not authorised to speak to the media.

"Soldiers now have the poten- tial to change political fortunes." This may make the UPA a litt1e nervous. The army believes the sixth pay commission handed it a bad deal.

There is sweeping discontent in the military over the government still sitting on a revised proposal to place lieutenant colonels and equivalent posts in the air force and navy in the same pay band as their counterparts in the paramilitary/ Group A services and IAS. There have been more such issues: gg The Army had to virtually wage a lonely battle with the government last year to restore the existing pensionary weightages for j awans from 50 per cent to 70 per cent to cater to their truncated careers.

gg The generalstoohavefeltbetrayed by the government with lieutenant generals and equivalent (who are not army commanders) being excluded from the HAG+ (higher administrative grade) pay band. Only army commanders and DGP (director generals of police) figure in this grade. Pay scales have traditionally determined inter-se status among government ofIicials.

ig The veterans are also unhappy as their demand for one-rank-one-pay has not been accepted. There are over 20 lakh defence pensioners in the country and ex-servicemen groups claim they can influence at least two to three crore votes.

"Rank and pay concerns raised by the armed forces have still not been addressed. As usual, the bureaucrats have walked away with the benefits," said a senior officer Discontent fuelled by the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission had triggered an exodus from the armed forces with officers in the middle rung seeking premature release in large numbers last year Now the army is fighting back with their votes.

Documents with Hindustan Times show that Army cantonments and military stations have been asked to make adequate provisions to address equests for canvassing by political parties in cantonment areas.

Citing relevant government rules, the Army headquarters has told all units that there is no need for them to seek prior permission from anyone for hosting public meetings on defence land.

The Army headquarters has instructed all commands including the Andaman and Nicobar Command and the Strategic Forces Command to encourage soldiers to cast their votes at their place of posting in the forthcoming elections.

Official Army identity cards may be accepted as proof of identity at the time of voting. Regiments have also been asked to explain the provisions for proxy voting and postal ballot to soldiers to have the highest ever service voter turn out.

vnatarajan
04-04-2009, 07:19 AM
Dear Shri RS/ Pensioners,

Some Political Parties have started using the occassion again- with slogans like OROP/ complete IT exemption / Rehabilitation etc for Military Veterans.

No sign of the civilian pensioners being addressed!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-04-2009, 04:39 PM
Dear All

Two things:

1.MOD appears to be acting on implementing the court verdict in Maj General's parity case after the Govt. appeal had been dismissed recently. Relevant copy of letter - Ihad sent to some pensioners.

2.Manifestos? We pensioners are apolitical! But our patience/ goodwill is not cheap!

Interesting to note some--- Brags Jargons Promises - whatever they are, surely a senior citizen/ pensioner would like to take note of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter of the Manifesto reads:

"Senior citizens: Care and respect for the elderly

The elderly deserve full support of both Government and society. The BJP is committed to the welfare of senior citizens. A separate department will be created in the Social Welfare Ministry to deal with senior citizens’ issues. We will:
1. Review pensions and pension policies to ensure benefits keep pace with the actual cost of living.
2. Study the feasibility of introducing higher interest rates on savings for all citizens above 60 years of age.
3. Rationalise travel concessions.
4. Introduce a health insurance policy that does not discriminate against the elderly.
5. Income tax benefits for senior citizens will be made available at 60 years, instead of 65 years as is the practice at present.
6. Review existing provisions of old age pension scheme and expand its application"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

dnaga57
06-04-2009, 08:39 AM
I am devouring all that is written here & whatever in RREWA site.
We have enough material, logic , cogency & of course fair play on these. ( As VN has succinctly written, the powers that be have been diabolically clever - in S 31 upwards to appear to conform but building in their grades what S4 - S30 seek.).
May be this could be an added point of 'insider trading' as it applies to Companies in deciding on foreknowledge & manipulation.
I request the following elucidations


Who will be representing Pensioners cause to Anom Comm. Individual association or a federation.
What is the time frame for seeking legal remedy - commencing the process that is.
Any estimate of cost - contribution expected fro members
Any body - treasurer set up to collect & keep books. It may be good to start now to facilitate 'installment payment' by at least some of the pensioners.
Firming up lawyer- preferably the one who took Gen Bains case.

Thanks for all you are doing. This is to reassert that I am with you the whole way

Kanaujiaml
06-04-2009, 04:49 PM
My dear friends.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - some guidelines. (Compiled by M L Kanaujia)

Q.1. How to file the PIL and what is the Procedure?

“ PlL” is filed in the same manner, as a writ petition is filed. If a PIL is filed in a High Court, then two (2) copies of the petition have to be filed (for Supreme Court, then (4)+(1)(i.e.5) sets) Also, an advance copy of the petition has to be served on the each respondent, i.e. opposite party, and this proof of service has to be affixed on the petition.
The Procedure
A Court fee of Rs. 50 , per respondent(i.e. for each number of party, court fees of Rs 50) have to be affixed on the petition. Proceedings, in the PIL commence and carry on in the same manner, as other cases. However, in between the proceedings if the Judge feels that he may appoint the commissioner, to inspect allegations like pollution being caused, trees being cut, sewer problems, etc. After filing of replies, by opposite party, or rejoinder by the petitioner, final hearing takes place, and the judge gives his final decision.

Q.2. When a PIL can be filed?

PIL can be filed only in a case where “Public Interest” at large is affected. Merely because, only one person is effected by state inaction is not a ground for PIL.

These are some of the possible areas where PIL can be filed.

a) Where a factory/ industry unit is causing air pollution, and people nearly are getting effected.
b) Where, in an area/ street there are no street lights, causing inconvenience to commuters.
c) Where some “Banquet Hall” plays a loud music, in night causing noise pollution.
d) Where some construction company is cutting down trees, causing environmental pollution.
e) Where poor people, are affected, because of state government’s arbitrary decision to impose
heavy “Tax”.
f) For directing the police/ Jail authorities to take appropriate decisions in regards to jail reforms,
such as segregation of convicts, delay in trial, before the court on remand dates.
g) For abolishing child labour, and bonded labour.
h) Where rights of working women are affected by sexual harassment.
i) For keeping a check on corruption and crime involving holders of high political officer.
j) For maintaining Roads, Sewer etc in good condition.
k) For removal of Big Hoarding and signboards from the busy road to avoid traffic problem.

Q.3. Who can file the PIL?

Earlier it was only a person whose interest was directly affected along with others, whereby his fundamental right is affected who used to file such litigation. Now, the trend has changed, and, any Public-spirited person can file a case (PIL) on behalf of a group of person, whose rights are affected. It is not necessary, that person filing a case should have a direct interest in this PIL. For e.g. a person in Bombay, can file a PIL for, some labour workers being exploited in Madhya Pradesh or as someone filed a PIL in supreme court for taking action against a Cracker factory in Sivakasi Tamilnadu, for employing child labour or the case where a standing practicing lawyer filed a PIL for release of 80 under trials in a jail, than the period prescribed as punishment for offence, for which they were tried. It is clear that, any person can file a PIL on behalf of group of affected people. However, it will depend on every facts of case, whether it should be allowed or not.


Q.4. Against whom a PIL can be Filed?

A PIL can be filed against a State/ Central Govt., Municipal Authorities, and not any private party. However, “Private party” can be included in the PIL as “Respondent”, after making concerned state authority, a party. For example- if there is a Private factory in Delhi, which is causing pollution, then people living nearly, or any other person can file a PIL against the Government of Delhi, Pollution Control Board, and against the private factory. However, a PIL cannot be filed against the Private party alone.

Q.5. Can a Letter Explaining Facts to Chief Justice be Treated as a PIL?

In early 90’s there have been instances, where judges have treated a post card containing facts, as a PIL. Many PIL has been filed on this basis in the past. Since, many people have tried to misuse the privilege of PIL, the court has required a detailed narration of facts and complaint, and then decide whether to issue notice and call the opposite party. However, as there is no statute laying down rules and regulations for a PIL still the court can treat a letter as a PIL. However, the letter should bring the true and clear facts, and if the matter is really an urgent one, the court can treat it as a PIL. Even a writ petition filed by the aggrieved person, whether on behalf of group or together with group can be treated as a PIL

Q.6. What are the various reliefs available by PIL?

There are many kinds of remedies, which can be given in a PIL, to secure the public interest, at large. They are:

(a) The court can afford an early interim measure to protect the public interest,
(b) The court may appoint a committee, or commissioner to look into the matter and
(c) The court may also give final orders by way of direction to comply within a stipulated time.

vnatarajan
06-04-2009, 05:05 PM
GUIDELINES AS AVAILABLE FROM SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ALSO CAN BE SEEN:

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ENTERTAINING LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED
IN THIS COURT AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.
(Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications).
No petition involving individual/ personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as indicated hereinafter.
Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be entertained as Public Interest Litigation:-
1. Bonded Labour matters.
2. Neglected Children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases).
4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-mature release)* and seeking release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer, release on personal bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right.
*$ Petitions for premature release, parole etc. are not matters which deserve to be treated as petitions u/Article 32 as they can effectively be dealt with by the concerned High Court. To save time Registry may simultaneously call for remarks of the jail Superintendent and ask him to forward the same to High Court. The main petition may be forwarded to the concerned High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Even in regard to petitions containing allegations against Jail Authorities there is no reason why it cannot be dealt with by the High Court. But petitions complaining of torture, custody death and the like may be entertained by this Court directly if the allegations are of a serious nature.
(5) Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody.
(6) Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
+ In such cases where office calls for police report if letter petitioner asks for copy the same may be supplied, only after obtaining permission of the Hon'ble Judge nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for PIL matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ Added based on Order dated 19.8.1993 of the then Chief Justice of India.
-2-
(7) Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co- villagers or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes.
(8) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance.
(9) Petitions from riot -victims.
(10) Family Pension.
All letter-petitions received in the PIL Cell will first be screened in the Cell and only such petitions as are covered by the above mentioned categories will be placed before a Judge to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for directions after which the case will be listed before the Bench concerned.
If a letter-petition is to be lodged, the orders to that effect should be passed by Registrar (Judicial) (or any Registrar nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India), instead of Additional Registrar, or any junior officer.
To begin with only one Hon'ble Judge may be assigned this work and number increased to two or three later depending on the workload.
*Submission Notes be put up before an Hon'ble Judge nominated for such periods as may be decided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India from time to time.
**If on scrutiny of a letter petition, it is found that the same is not covered under the PIL guidelines and no public interest is involved, then the same may be lodged only after the approval from the Registrar nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
**It may be worthwhile to require an affidavit to be filed in support of the statements contained in the petition whenever it is not too onerous a requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Added as per Order dated 29.8.2003 of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.
* As per Order dated 29.8.2003 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
-3-
**The matters which can be dealt with by the High Court or any other authority may be sent to them without any comment whatsoever instead of all such matters being heard judicially in this Court only.
Cases falling under the following categories will not be entertained as Public Interest Litigation and these may be returned to the petitioners or filed in the PIL Cell, as the case may be:
(1) Landlord-Tenant matters.
(2) Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and Gratuity.
(3) Complaints against Central/ State Government Departments and Local Bodies except those relating to item Nos. (1) to (10) above.
(4) Admission to medical and other educational institution.
(5) Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts.
In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of wife, children and parents, the petitioners may be asked to file a Petition under sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. Or a Suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest Legal Aid Committee for legal aid and advice.
__________________________________________________ _
** Modified keeping in view the directions dated 29.8.2003 of
the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
07-04-2009, 09:48 AM
To keep yourself posted as to what is happening to ex-service men's fight for justice here is something from 'reportmysignal.blogspot'

"Date: Friday, 3 April, 2009, 10:16 PM
Dear Colleagues,
The Jantar Mantar remains active.
Maha Rally on 12 Apr 2009
Preparations are continuing. We are expecting a large number of ESM. That day we are to also give out our advisory on the voting choice, which the environment has been consistently demanding. "

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
09-04-2009, 12:41 PM
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE DEPTT OF PENSIONS & PENSIONERS' WELFARE?

To bring back to everyone's memory, the Charter of the above Deptt. includes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pension Grievance Redress System
Pension Grievances Cell

The functions of the Pension Grievances Cell in the Department of Pension and P.W. are as under:-

To register the complaints received from various sources pertaining to pensionary matters
To forward the complaints to the concerned Ministries/Departments etc.,
To pursue with the Departments
To remind the Departments and
To review and monitor the position every fortnight
Pension grievances appearing in the Newspapers/media will be attended to and Editors informed of the action taken

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

None of our representations appear to have been answered.
None of our representations forwarded even from the great honourable PMO also appear to be unattended - or IGNORED?
None of our details/ queries etc appear to have been refrred to any other Ministry/ Departments.
No actions appear to have been initiated with any other concerned Deptt like MOF/ Deptt of Exp etc. Hence no reminders?
No attention appears to have been paid to any or all the items that have appeared in the Newspapers/ other media on our pre-2006 pensioner grievances (civil/ military) consequent to the SCPC implementations!

Where is the Department which is supposed to care for the Pensioners & Pensioners' Welfare?

HAVE THEY BEEN SILENCED NOT TO REACT AT ALL?

NOT EVEN A NEGATIVE REPLY?

vnatarajan

dnaga57
09-04-2009, 05:03 PM
I saw a News Flash in Headlines today & NDTV that SC has issued contempt notice to Def Secy & Army chief for contempt for non implementation of 5th PC orders by it
Anything further on it ? Is i8t the Genl Vains case?
If swo parity in case of 6th PC should be a corollary.

vnatarajan
09-04-2009, 05:50 PM
Dear Mr dnaga

U R CORRECT. News item reads:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Defence Ministry
NDTV Correspondent
Thursday, April 09, 2009, (New Delhi)
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Defence Ministry after some retired army officers approached the Court over discrepancies in pensions.

The Supreme Court has issued contempt notice to the Army chief and Defence Secretary for not implementing court's order on the 5th pay commission.

The apex court in October 2008 had said that there should not be any discrimination between pre-1996, post-1996 defence pensioners. The Defence Ministry did not implement the order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

Added info: Pl see some more details on this in the other thread "Injustice....." -vn

Kanaujiaml
10-04-2009, 02:00 PM
Dear all. I have received the second installment of remaining 60 % arrears of initial rev. pension(BC x 2.26) credited to my A/c on 31.03 09 by SBI, after deducting TDS. What is the position elsewhere ?

vnatarajan
10-04-2009, 08:08 PM
Dear MLK

Great! Nobody appears to have recieved in my circle (wh is quite wide) at Chennai!

At least first instalment has come! Are u with SBI?- Then it may be possible- because they have also given the DR rise with March pension in April.

CONGRATS>

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
10-04-2009, 09:51 PM
congrats to MLK.
I had mentioned in my post relating to the DR that there was no restriction in the circular, unlike in the case of D.A arrears, that it should be paid only after payment of March salary.but Sh.MLK had felt that it was not possible.
Sh. VN now confirms the payment. Thanks- SBI for the very prompt action.

G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
11-04-2009, 08:26 AM
My dear Gramdass. Ref. post 188. Thank you. However, I cannot restrict myself by saying that I still feel, the second installment of arrears, should have come after 31 03 09 i.e. in FY 2009-10, as announced by the Govt. In case of several other co-pensioners known to me the credit has been received on 2nd of April'09 i.e. in FY 2009-10. I am now facing a problem. I calculated my income tax dues and made payment accordingly. This last minute credit on last day of the FY 2008-09 has put me in a fix. I have to pay additional incometax @ 20 % now with penalty as well. A few week back, I had spoken to one of the Official in CPPC/SBI/New Delhi, who was very rude and perhps he has manupulated it. I am trying to find out if any body else has also received second installment on 31 03 09. Due to holidays, it would take 3-4 days time for me to know the real position. In the meanwhile, kindly keep me advising.

G.Ramdas
12-04-2009, 10:09 PM
Dear K and all
One has to sympathise with such pensioners who receive the arrears on 31.3.09
Though it is like a lottery you still can't enjoy it as the Bank may claim that it is a wrong entry arising out of a mistake which they would reverse.On the other hand if it is regularised then there is the problem of extra I.T and penalty for late payment.
We still do not know whether Sh. Kanaujia is the lone pensioner credited(!) with this.
GR

vnatarajan
13-04-2009, 07:09 AM
Dear GR/MLK

Cases of excess payments also create some nuisance.

Wrong excess payment of 800 Rs was made to me in Ist instalment of arrears payment - wh was there for a fewdays in my account and the same was recovered by bank with whatever interest due from me (with no loss to me) say Rs 825.

Similarly my commuted pension was not deducted from my first revised pension but after I pointed out, the same was recovered within the next 24 hrs with no loss to me.

The bank had to somehow COVER these payments by REVERSING the entries. However I had pointed out to them that in the certificate they would provide me for I/Tax purpose, mention or entry of any of these two "wrong" "excess" payments (or their recoveries,) must not occur.

IN MLK's case, the second instalment is a sizeable sum and I/Tax is also sizeable! Why the bank was in such a great hurry to credit it is surprising. Normally they dealy!

(this is my own observation).

vnatarajan.

subba Rao R S
13-04-2009, 08:19 PM
My dear Gramdass. Ref. post 188. Thank you. However, I cannot restrict myself by saying that I still feel, the second installment of arrears, should have come after 31 03 09 i.e. in FY 2009-10, as announced by the Govt. In case of several other co-pensioners known to me the credit has been received on 2nd of April'09 i.e. in FY 2009-10. I am now facing a problem. I calculated my income tax dues and made payment accordingly. This last minute credit on last day of the FY 2008-09 has put me in a fix. I have to pay additional incometax @ 20 % now with penalty as well. A few week back, I had spoken to one of the Official in CPPC/SBI/New Delhi, who was very rude and perhps he has manupulated it. I am trying to find out if any body else has also received second installment on 31 03 09. Due to holidays, it would take 3-4 days time for me to know the real position. In the meanwhile, kindly keep me advising.

Please see govt letter dated 01 Sep 2008. Para at Sl No 12 of the letter clearly states that 2nd instalment will be paid after 01-04-2009 (2009-10). A seperate order will follow. If 2nd instalment is paid by bank on 31-03-2009 with out the express letter from govt,you are bond to pay back with interest.

R S Subba Rao

Kanaujiaml
13-04-2009, 10:18 PM
Ref. posts 191 and 192. Thanks. Further, it is to inform that I am not the only person who has recieved 2nd installment amount credited on last day of the FY i. e. 31 03 04. There are others who have similarly got it. Banks are closed because of several holidays and would next open on 15 04 09. We would find out from them the real position and its cause. In the meanwhile kindly keep on advising me as to what further action can be taken by me and others who are suffering. Thanks once again.

Kanaujiaml
15-04-2009, 08:18 PM
Ref. posts 191,192 and 193 above. I visited my bank today. The person incharge told me that the amount credited on 31 03 09 is second part of the 40 % installment. This became due, as per him, after my refixation of Rev. pension in PB4. He was unable to produce any calculation sheet and was asking for one if I have worked it out. I did calculation once again and I feel it could not be part of 40 % even after refixation of my Rev. Pension as per PB4. I would show him my calculation sheet tomorrow. This is happening with those people whose Rev. pension is refixed as per Pay Band.Lot of confusion. Is not it ?

RSundaram
18-04-2009, 08:39 AM
Most of the GConnect discussions have been centered round the Civilian Officer category, particularly the high ranking but not so high ranking enough to write their own rules. Here is a circular I received which sets out anomalies in the case of veterans which are obviously so glaring that to me it appears that the , MPs MLAs, members of IAS, IFS and IPS have hatched a conspiracy to do all the others in. Even a high ranking judge like Justice Srikrishna could not fathom this gross and unconscionable discrimination forebodes ill for the future of the the majority of both Military and Civil services. The only weapon in our hand now is not to vote for UPA.




FAUJIYON KE SAATH KISI KA BHI NAHIN HAATH
- Pushpendra Singh

A very different kind of protest is underway at Delhi’s Jantar Manatr. It is dignified and disciplined, like the faujis sitting in protest. But, accustomed to violent, disruptive protests, this has got hardly any mention in the media. In fact Babustan has made it a point to smother all coverage of the protest. About 15,000 medals of ex-servicemen of all three services – Generals to Jawans – have been collected and returned to Supreme Commander, Pratibha Patil.

What do medals signify? To civilians these are trinkets which make ‘stupid’ faujis happy. But to a fauji, each medal is a reminder of courage, comradeship and sacrifice: the first time under fire - fear overcome and manhood gained; friends attaining veergati; some wounded or disabled. Hardship and separation from loved ones – perhaps, serving in Himalayas, protecting the very people who now deny him his dues, he became a father and yearned for the day he could proceed on leave to cuddle his newborn.
When Mrs Shikha Bhardwaj, mother of Shaheed Capt Umang Bhardwaj, packed his Shaurya Chakra, she renounced the most precious nishani of her ‘jigrey ka tukra’. Even the shaheed hero’s father, Col Bhardwaj returned his own Sena Medal to Pratibha Patil. Every ‘ma and mai-ka-lal’ will feel Shikha’s heart- wrench over her tyaag. Only, Pratibha Patil, was made to miss the occasion – even her Military Advisor was absent. Such is the power and heartlessness of Babustan! After imposition of the election model code, when she met IESM delegation, she told them she had not been informed!
What do faujis want; are they not paid enough? They seek justice and equity. Their demand is for one defined pension for every rank from Rifleman to General applicable to all retirees, irrespective of retirement dates (OROP). Due to steep promotion pyramid faujis face extreme supercession, based mainly on performance. Hence, denial of OROP affects them acutely. Consider some Army examples: there is only one Subedar-Major for 60,000 sepoys. Of 1100 officers commissioned every year, just three reach HAG-equivalent grade. In IAS/IPS there are more HAG posts than the intake level!

Performance-based promotions are as foreign to these services as Burkina-Faso. Out of 11 lac armymen, only eight are eligible for OROP. But, over 99% of IAS/IPS officers, 100% judges and MPs have entitled themselves to it.
Before Defence Forces were brought under ambit of the Central Pay Commissions (CPC), every rank had a specified pension. Thereafter, while subjected to the CPCs’ ‘awards’, they were denied representation in all of them - despite constituting 40% of all Central Employees. This is the key to Babustan’s steady erosion of Defence Forces’ emoluments and status. 6CPC took the cake. Not only were they denied representation, but were not even allowed to make even a presentation to the Commission! What is the result? ‘Anomalies’ from as far back as the 4CPC are still pending for 23 years! Atleast three are in Supreme Court .No wonder faujis term them ‘peeth mein chhura’! As cases drag on most faujis would never see benefits in their lifetimes; when these back-stabs are settled. That’s how Babustan denies justice to those who safeguard their air-conditioned lifestyles.
Babustan’s MoD has consistently played a pernicious role in heaping injustice on the faujis. 4PC (1986), for the first time unshackled the Forces from the steep hierarchical pyramid by adopting a running pay band and superimposing rank pay. However, sly manipulation by Defence Finance ensured that the basic pay was depressed by the amount of rank pay! What the CPC gave, diabolic accounting denied. Major Dhanapalan’s contention was upheld by Supreme Court. Quarter century later, far from conceding their mistake, MoD is still fighting other veterans in the Supreme Court.
5PC (1996) included Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) of Government doctors in their pensions. Subsequently, GOI reversed this for earlier retirees, forcing them to court. Having lost in High Courts, GOI appealed to Supreme Court. Later, better sense dawned on all other Departments, who withdrew their cases. But MoD still persists in singling out military doctors - the only group being discriminated against.
The 6PC fiasco revealed the purposeful machinations of MoD-bureaucrats to depress defence forces’ status, yet again. When the Chiefs protested, newspapers, once renowned for fearlessly frank journalism, carried explicit threats. Thankfully, many TV channels and intrepid journals defied MoD and exposedBabustan’s degradation of two crucial ranks. This had immediate ramifications in security-sensitive Kashmir at police-chiefs’/ Corps Commanders’ levels. Clearly, defence of the Republic is inconsequential; only ‘putting-the-Army-down’ counts.
More than 80% faujis retire before they turn 40 and nearly all before 60! However, while previous CPCs removed pension weightages which had partially compensated for early retirements, 6CPC further aggravated the disparities between pensioners. Today, a sepoy who retired in Dec 2005 gets 82% less pension than one who retired in Jan 2006! Even a pre-2006 Havildar gets 37% less pension than a sepoy - two ranks his junior. Surely, Parliament is there to safeguard fauji interests, as it is reflects the citizens’ solid support of their fauji bhaiyyas. Yes, the KP Singh-Deo Committee appointed back in 1980s first enunciated the term OROP and recommended it. But Babustan has been able to consistently ensure that it is not implemented.
DS Nakra, a retired FADS, approached the Courts when he in turn faced pension inequity. Supreme Court in its landmark judgment of 17-12-1982 upheld the principle of OROP. Revealing extracts from the judgment are quoted below:
"Pension is ….. but a payment for past services rendered”. The hon’ble court further stated, “Payment of Pension is a statutory liability incurred and must be provided in the Budget. The argument (regarding limitations of resources) is an argument of desperation ...without merit and must be rejected as untenable (Para 45)…” On 9-9-08, delivering judgment in a 5CPC-related case, whereby veteran Maj-Gens’ pensions were equalled to that of Brigs (junior rank) retiring prospectively, the Supreme Court quoted extensively from the Nakra case and ruled that different dates of retirement cannot be a basis for denial of equity in pensions - a senior rank-holder must get higher pension than his junior. At first 6CPC denied this to Brigs, Maj-Gens and Lt-Gens, all of whose pensions were made equal to Cols (junior to all) retiring prospectively. Only when faced with contempt notice, Babustan gave a nominal increase to these ranks. But still denies them OROP!
In a TV debate anchored by Karan Thapar in Feb ‘09, it was brought out that OROP was part of the Congress 2004 election manifesto. In light of the above judgements, Manoj Tewari had to defend the indefensible: INC’s denial of OROP during 41/2 years in office. He mouthed the party line, ‘I empathise with these people (sic), but due to legal, financial and administrative reasons, OROP cannot be given.’ One month later, now seeking election from Punjab, he issued a statement that, should he return as MP, he would ensure that OROP is granted to Defence Personnel!
If the citizens, Parliament and Supreme Court all favour granting OROP, what stops the Govt from acceding to this demand? Obviously, it is the Haath of Babustan. At a time when perilous security storms are gathering around us, the Defence Forces are forced to fight the might of Babustan for justice and honour. All patriotic citizens, who value the nation’s integrity, must vote for those who will support its fauji saviours and ensure that ‘farebi jhhootas’ are given the ‘joota’ in the polls.

Kanaujiaml
20-04-2009, 10:01 AM
My dear Rsundaram. My observation on the above post are slightly different. One rank one pension is not exactly for what hon'ble Supreme Court gave judgment in favour of. In absence of supportive Supreme Court judgment, nothing much can be achieved by giving emotional arguments. Hon'ble Supreme Court has given judgments for equality of pensioners under Article 14 of constitution, irrespective of their date of retirement. It means all those pensioners who retired from same status/level, same pay scale and same stage of pay scale, rendering same number of years of qualifying service, should be paid same amount of pension, irrespective of date of retirement. Now, with regard to military personnels, the biggest problem is number of years of qualifying service put in. Ex soldiers, unluckily do not complete full 33 years of services, in most of the cases. VI CPC considered this aspect and recommended that in future, a person retiring after completing twenty years of service, should be given full pension as the case is, for those who complete 33 years of service. However, while accepting this recommendations, Govt. has made it applicable w e f 02 09 08. We are all trying to convince the Govt. to implement this atleast w e f 01 01 06 that is, the date from which SCPC has been made effective in all other recommendations. Another, important matter is that Govt. has not even agreed for 'modified equality' (modified equality or modified parity is based on minimum of pay in pay band arrived at after adding one increment for each two bunchings of pay stages in pre-revised pay scales resulted from formation of a pay band by merging a large number of pre revised pay scales) recommended by SCPC, where as successasive judgments of hon'ble SC have granted 'full parity'. Full parity means "all those pensioners who retired from same status/level, same pay scale and same stage of pay scale, rendering same number of years of qualifying service, should be paid same amount of pension, irrespective of date of retirement ".We are all trying that the Govt. should respect SC judgments.

vnatarajan
23-04-2009, 07:12 AM
IMPORTANT
RTI Feed Back-FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS REG PARA 4.2 OF OM dated 1st Sept 2009 issued by DOPPW for pre-2006 pension revision

Dear All,

Through the RTI sources, it had been possible for one of our group members to establish that : :

1.The DOP/PW had made a proposal to amend the provisions relating to modified parity implemented in the case of Pre-2006 pensions following the implementation of Sixth CPC’s recommendations by the Govt.

2.The said proposal had been considered in the Department of Expenditure (DOE). In this connection, the DOE intimated the DOP&PW that the provision contained in para 4.2 of their OM dated 1-9-2008 had been issued in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet granted to the report of the Sixth CPC. Any change from the provisions will entail substantial financial implications.

3. The DOE also informed the DOPPW that it will not be possible for them to modify the same and therefore the issue may be treated as closed at the former’s (DOE’s) end.

This correspondence had taken place in January 2009, after many of our representations/ appeals had gone to the DOPPW.

You are all aware, subsequently, the OM dated 11th Feb 2009 had been issued by the DOPPW conveying some clarifications, followed by explanation regarding disposal of all representations of Pensioners.

I note the following::

1. DOP/PW as well as DOE are clear right from the beginning that “MINIMUM of the Pay in the Pay Band” is same as “MINIMUM of the Pay Band”.

2.Many of the Pensioners only were fondly hoping they do not convey the same meaning, because of the ambiguously constructed sentences, unwanted additional words, irrelevant modifications/ clarifications, syntaxial omissions to their advantage etc besides the circumstances of eager positive expectations and anxiety !

3.. SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 Recommendation, authority for which is the SCPC itself had also meant the same as above, as their TEXT is also similar. Only one authority is the link for both- the SCPC and DOE. It stands confirmed that the SCPC itself has committed the SOURCE ERROR IN RECOMMENDATION as I had conveyed in my earlier postings in Gconnect. THEY HAVE CERTAINLY VIOLATED THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES/ POLICIES in making the recommendation contrary to paras 11.33 and 11.35 (& other relevant paras) of their Report and hence the MAJOR ANOMALY has resulted, destroying all possible parities..

4.Now that the Financial Constraint is FOCUSSED as the main reason for any relaxation, any proposal to MODIFY the Cabinet approved/Gazette notified PENSION enhancement decisions of the Govt. will not find FAVOUR easily in the MOF/ DOE unless they review the case de-novo. UNDER the circumstances can the COURTs come to our rescue quickly? ( a few court judgments do give favourable rulings for PENSIONs on financial aspects- as in the case of equality principle)

5.Even if the Anomaly Committee accepts all PENSIONERs’ pleas, list of Anomalies etc and recommends for PENSION corrections/ modifications/ enhancements/ parity etc, will the GOVT. find Financial Resources to accept/ implement the same?

It shd be possible- New FY now!.- Economy is improving. New Govt. will have to take a positive view.

6.What should be the FOCUS for COURT cases/ when to go for it?

7.After AC or before AC ?

VNatarajan

Those in S30 scale(22400- 24500), may visit the yahoo! groups - and note a separate Group for "S30pensionersgrievance" is formed to fight out the case legally soon. It is necessary to PLUG the loopholes/ escape routes related to "FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS" in any such process.

Kanaujiaml
26-04-2009, 07:31 PM
My dear VN, others. Ref. 197. Kindly see, if you like, my post 592 in "injustice .." thread of this forum dealing with the same subject.

vnatarajan
28-04-2009, 04:29 PM
PROGRESS MADE THRU RTI- Pl see the RREWA website also:

Dear All

All pre-2006 pensioners are REQUESTED and ADVISED to see the RTI queries raised by S/Shri AR/ VN (self) and the Replies received which are put up in the RREWA website by Shri S C M a day or so back.

The DOPPW had been making all efforts to protect the interests of the aggrieved Pensioners and I , members of Pensioners Forum, other friends who share my views after seeing the matter in the RREWA website, would like to express our deep sense of gratitude to them and REQUEST THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR WISE COUNSEL AND UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT till the pre-2006 pensioners get their justice at least at the MINIMUM. We also place on record our full appreciation at this point of time. Till today, WE DO UNDERSTAND that we are not able to get our MINIMUM JUSTICE due to the "FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS".

We will appeal once again to them for a renewed and perseverent effort by them to PURSUE the matter and overcome the LIMITATIONS before our deciding to seek other avenues of justice.

I and few of us who are burning the midnight oil in this endeavour feel we are not getting appropriate feedback, unstinted support from other pensioners who are watching either from the side-lines or perhaps are somewhat indifferent to our efforts. THIS TIME KINDLY HELP ALL BY PARTICIPATING IN FULL TO VOICE OUR request for a total review by an impartial system by the Govt. to get us justice. ALL MUST SEND THEIR APPEALS/ REPRESENTATIONS (model draft will be circulated to all whose email ids are with us/will also try to put up in RREWA website) without fail and confirm the same to our team by email or by putting up on these blogs. We expect a few thousand reps./ appeals to go.

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
01-05-2009, 11:11 AM
Dear All

Pending any actions on making an ONE PAGE_ONE FOCUS appeal- I thought we may use the avialble time to appeal to the Hon PM by registering our grievance in the PMO's portal.

Steps to be followed- I think many may remember- Go to PMO's Website (type 'PMO INDIA PORTAL- it may just go for options for portal)- select MEET ME in the menu- select "Messages"- select "Grievances"- and the the entire page may open for making entries.

Yoiu can type Name- (add ur designation if u so desire here)
You can type address (add ur PPO no/ Dt if u so desire at the end)

In the main box for the text, 500 charcters are allowed.

What I have sent is as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir,Pre2006Pensioners seeking pension parity/ grievance redressal understand thru RTI that your kind office had sought comments of DOPPW in the matter.. In turn, MOS(PP) on19.1.09 referring the matter to MOS(S), sought approval of DOE for a PROPOSAL on a MODIFIED PARITY made by DOPPW & decision of MOS(F). Pre-2006Pensioners, request your kind intervention to expedite action in the matter and RENDER JUSTICE to the suffering aged helpless Pensioners without their approaching courts for such JUSTICE. VNatarajan,President PensionersForum.Chennai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pl modify the text to suit ur case- but this issue is common to all-Save the text/ screen if u can.
Then "submit". If you are successful, a "Thanks for ur message" will appear.

Pl. do try/ execute- and make/ help all pensioners to do the same.

Regards
VNatarajan

vnatarajan
02-05-2009, 01:20 PM
Dear All

1.Please find attached the Draft/ Model appeal to the Hon.ble Prime
Ministerwhich is based on copies obtained through RTI Act 2005, of three
Inter-ministerial correspondence between the DOPPW and the DOE, mainly in
end of January/ early February, 2009 (04.02.2009 to be precise).

2.Those interested may peruse those documents on the RREWA's website,
accessible for one and all, even may be without registration. Anyone desiring to get them by email may contact [email protected]

3.Please read those documents carefully and understand the implications.

4.We are aware, on 11th Feb 2009, an OM had been issure by the DOPPW,
calrifying certain aspects of their earlier OMs, in which they have also
mentioned that all the representations received by them till the said date
stand disposed off. I have to-day received individual communication in
answer to my RTI that my & other reps - even those referred to them from
the PMO have been disposed off,

5.However paragraphs 3,4,5 of the document dated 04.02.2009 from DOPPW to
the DOE appears to leave a grey area, regarding a proposal for accord of
Modified Parity to the Pre-2006 pensioners which appears to be still pending
with the MOF, as there is no precise information on the fate of this.

6.Moreover, disposing off such a proposal for Modified Parity which is in
accordance with the recommendations of SCPC and also their correct
interpretations, solely on FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS, is untenable.and hence this
appeal for a TOTAL REVIEW by the Hon PM and resolution of the grievance.

7. Please feel free to VERIFY the statements made/ edit/modify/ add/
subtract/ enclose annexures/ enclose yr earlier Rep if any to PMO etc as you
may deem fit. This draft is only for guidance.

8. Appeal may be sent to PMO as per the address furnished.in the draft
Emails also can be sent. Email id/ Fax Nos:
:Email address of PMO : [email protected] Fax office
23012312,23016857,23018939,23014255

9. Please endorse copy to the Secy, DOPPW (and also to the Secy, MOF if
necessary)

Best of luck.

VNatarajan

DRAFT / MODEL APPEAL TO THE HON’ PM BASED ON RTI INFORMATION FOR EXPEDITING THE DOPPW PROPOSAL PENDING AT THE DOE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No: Dated

From:

To:

THE HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA,
PMO's Office, South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi -110011

.
Sub. : - Implementation of Recommendations of 6 th Central Pay Commission’s (CPC) Report-INJUSTICE due to erroneous interpretation/ implementation of orders of Revised Minimum Assured Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners – Proposal of Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW), Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (MOPPGP)

Respected Sir,

As you are kindly aware, ever since the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC , the issue of a MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION to the Pre-2006 Pensioners at a modified parity with Post 2006 Pensioners, has been placed in jeopardy, to the dismay of the former. Several such aggrieved, helpless. ageing pensioners, including the undersigned, have already appealed for justice through your sympathetic intervention in this regard.

As against the above, they are facing the consequences of an insistent, incorrect interpretation of the said 6th CPC recommendations and provisions in the initial Govt. gazetted/ notified orders accepting the same, by one branch of the official entity which is bent upon denying them what otherwise is their legitimate due, in accordance with the Principles and Policies adopted by the 6th CPC itself in arriving at their final recommendations.

The inflexible contrary stand of the one single official entity has resulted in a state of stalemate. Hence this appeal for your esteemed intervention to resolve the same

The newly introduced pay structure under the SCPC (comprising 4 main Pay Bands and Grade Pay for posts ) as the switch-over from the pay structure of the 5th CPC ( post-wise scales ) issued by the Government leaves no one in any doubt that the Pay Band of the SCPC is not the equivalent of the Pay Scale of the 5th CPC and therefore to apply the Pay Band criteria in the place of the Pay Scale criteria, only for some segments
of Pre-2006 Pensioners to deny them the MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION, is inconsistent with the principles of equity and fair play on the part of Govt. Such denials in equality are against Supreme/ High Court Judgments, violation of Articles 14/21 of Constitution, and against applicable normal Rules for pensioners, at all times.

Thanks to the RTI Act 2005, for enacting which we shall remain forever grateful to your Government, the Pre-2006 pensioners have realized that, while the DP&PW (under the Ministry of PPGP ,the nodal authority for controlling pension administration) has favoured the grant of Minimum Assured Pension consistent with the Supreme Court directives on pension parity and the principle of Modified Parity accepted by the Govt and enshrined in the statutory CCS (pension) Rules at the time of implementation of the 5th CPC., the DOE under the MOF, appears to have side-lined the issue at its DIRECTOR level in a routine manner, on the untenable grounds of FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS and citing the correctly INTERPRETED proposal of the former as leading to MODIFICATION of earlier Cabinet Decision/ Orders, which are not so factually.

Perusal of relevant parts of the official views exchanged between the concerned authorities viz DOPPW and DOE through their inter-ministerial correspondence in January/ February 2009 (Copies of which were obtained through RTI by Pensioners) would lend credence to the above observations and the obstinate denial resulting in the unfortunate position being faced today, by lakhs of Pre-2006 pensioners whose misfortune is that they stand on the wrong side of an arbitrary dateline ( Pre 1.1.2006). All authorities and Pensioners are fully aware of court directions which establish the legal untenability of denying justice on the grounds of additional expenditure and division of the homogenous class of Pensioners on the basis of date of retiremen / date of revisions.


We are gratified to understand from the RTI responses, that even amidst the pressures of national leadership and governance, your august office had set aside your invaluable time to look into the petitions that we had earlier submitted and transmitted them down the line for consideration of the concerned authorities. It is equally heartening to find that both the Hon. MOS, Dept of Expend and MOS, Dept of P&PW, are still seized of the entire issue and the DP&PW, true to its charter, is still at the task of bringing justice to its pensioners.

The large section of the citizenry of the country comprising Senior Citizen Pensioners and Family Pensioners, now request your esteemed office to order an impartial review of the entire issue of the MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION to correctly implement the accepted recommendation of the SCPC in the spirit in which it was meant to be; that the "revised pension, in no case, shall be less than fifty percent of the sum of the revised pay in the running pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the minimum basic pay in the pre-revised scale from which the person had retired, as arrived at in accordance with the fitment tables given in annexure I of the Central Civil Services ( Revised Pay) Rules, 2008"

This benevolence, which we earnestly believe will not be denied to us will, in one stroke, ensure that the commitment of the Govt. as the model employer is met, the dignity of the Courts and Constitutional provisions are upheld and that we, aging and infirm pensioners, are not driven to the time-consuming, costly and physically and mentally exhausting prospect of court cases in our withering days ahead.

Your considered orders are hopefully anticipated by all the aggrieved community of Pensioners.

Yours faithfully

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

(add Annexures as itmay suit you/ text)

vnatarajan
06-05-2009, 08:01 AM
Dear All

Hope many are ahead in sending emails/ hard copy appeals to the Hon. PM and also /in grievance regns. in the PMO portal etc as per previous posts. PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR STRUGGLE.

Other developments on the Defence Pensions - parallel thinking needed:

Dear All.

Injustice to Defence Pensioners – SPS Vains case- Maj. Genls. Pension parity-THOSE pensioners who are following this Pension Parity case, may learn the status from the first paragraph reproduced hereunder..

Other paragraph shows the panic- Who is the root cause?

Babugiri? Babu-Mata? Time sought is three months! What for ? If the old regime came to power, manipulations may start again at love-all! If the new regime comes to power, they can change their plate either way and confuse them to play the game again from love-all!

I AM NOT SURE WHY THE THREE MONTHS’ TIME CAN NOT BE REDUCED TO A MONTH?

OR IS IT A GAME TO GO FOR ANOTHER ROUND_ CURATIVE PETITION? IS IT POSSIBLE?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts From the blog. Indian Military Servise & Benefits

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009

“Secondly, readers may be well aware of the SPS Vains Vs UOI case involving the pensions of Major Generals which was decided against the govt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even the review petition filed by the govt was dismissed. The judgement has still not been implemented but the Ministry of Defence has assured the Hon’ble Court in a Contempt hearing that it shall be duly implemented completely within a period of three months.

And Yes, the notification for disability pension according to 6th CPC formulae and rates has been issued. The new rates of disability pension, special family pension, liberalised pension, invalid pension and war injury pension have been notified. The poll has played its role. Last time the notification for disability and related benefits was released in January 2001, that is, three years after the 5th CPC was implemented (1998), but this time it has not even taken a year, thanks to the elections ???. Well, whatever, disabled veterans and NOK have something to look forward to.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
08-05-2009, 08:57 AM
Dear All

I have sent one more appeal on GRIEVANCE portal to the Hon PM as President, Pensioners' Forum.

This time, Grievance is related to the Charter/House Rules of functions of DOPPW and Sr Citizenz' Participation on Good Governance.

THOSE WHO CD NOT SEND EARLIER MAY SEND NOW.
OTHERS ALSO MUST SEND AGAIN- REPEAT AGAIN-
ASSOCIATIONS/FEDERATIONS MAY ALSO ACT PLEASE.

My text sent to PMO already Recd/ Thanks message received. PORTAL IS FUNCTIONING NICELY

THIS TIME YOU HAVE TO ENTER THE CODE WHICH APPEARS IN ALPHANUMERICS_ easy enough to copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir, WE Sr.CitizenPensioners,on RTI information,had appealed already to you for JUSTICE by acceding to DOPPW's proposa lon MODIFIED PARITY to PRE2006Pensioners per CCS(RP)R2008 which is turned down BY DOE on Financial Constraints, SAME not tenable per Court Verdicts/Constitution. "Sr.Citizens toENSUREGoodGOVERNANCE" demand you to ensure DOPPW discharges their RIGHT functions as PER THEIR CHARTER/HOUSE RULES to protect the PENSIONERS'WELFARE THRU CORRECT IMPLEMENTATION OF PARA 4.2OM1stSept2008. VNATARAJAN,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

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

G.Ramdas
09-05-2009, 07:42 AM
Here is an appeal sent to PM



"To
The Honourable Prime Minister of India,
Prime Minister’s Office,
New Delhi – 110001.

Respected Sir,

Sub: Injustice to Pensioners of S31 scale-

VI CPC Report para 5.1.47, as accepted by the Govt. vide Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) gazetted on 29 08 08 - Wrongly interpreted /modified by OMs no.38/37/08 –P&PW (A) Pt 1. dt. 03-10-08 and 14-10-08- Request for restoration of original orders-reg.


Ref.:-1 My representation dt.30. 10. 08. to Secy. DP&PW followed by reminder.

2. My Petition to the P.M on 20.01.09

3. Your Ack. No. PMO ID No. 8/3/2009-PMP3/23297 DT.13/02/09

4.My reminder of 2.2.09

Sir,

Thank you for forwarding my petition to the Secretary DP&PW. Unfortunately I still have not received any reply from the Dept. We understand that the Dept. is flooded with representations and is unable to answer our prayers.

Please spend just one minute to understand our grievance and take up with DoP&PW. The attached Power point presentation tells our case"

The PPt presentation is available on rrewa web site or can be accessed from the following link

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/aSGuest18002-184285-systematic-modifications-6cpc-reco-entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/

vnatarajan
12-05-2009, 12:59 PM
A REVIEW; SCPC RECOMMENDATIONS/IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS:

Dear All,

WE had been debating at various times on what PAY COMMISSION “Recommended” and what/how Govt. decisions "Modified” in regard to the Pre-2006 Pension Revision.

Main issues that have emerged following all the debates and exchange of info are summarised to the extent I have understood. I may stand corrected for better comprehension, improvements, suppements, additions etc.:

Pl. remember that NO past pensioner, excepting those of scales S-33/34, has been given full/ bountiful parity. AM I CORRECT? (clear violation of Court orders/Constitution)

NO FULL PARITY IF YOU DO NOT BELONG TO S33 &34

.( even for scales S31/32 pension’ is at the Minimum of their new Pay scale for pre-2006 Pensioners, but pension given even at the MINIMUM is bountiful- HENCE I HAVE REMOVED THEM FROM ARGUMENTS),

HOW MANY SUB-CLASSES ARE THERE WITHIN THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS NOW?

1.0..First category is of those with "MULTIPLIED FACTOR ("MF") PARITY" This is based on Multiplication Factor (MF) 2.26 - protects the last pay drawn/last Basic Pension as on 1.1.1996 and includes a 40 % fitment benefit .BUT HERE ALSO the departure is that the fitment promised by SCPC Reco is at the maximum of the pre-revised scale, but by incorporating it within the MF, it has been restricted to THAT POINT/ STAGE of LAST PAY which the pensioner was drawing!

1.1.HOW EVER "MF" PARITY MAY NOT BE AGAIN the "FULL PARITY"! When you check the cases with current Pensioners who get the FULL BENEFIT of GRADE PAY in lieu of fitment benefit, which (I mean GP) in many cases is more than 40% of maximum of the scale even (S 29- it is 10000 instead of 8800, and for S30 it is 12000 instead of 9800). Hence the DISPARITY or LOSS!

2.0 Next category is of those who are given “ MODIFIED PARITY “- these are the cases where the revised pension is fixed on the basis of "50% of MINIMUM of the PAY BAND together with (50% of) GRADE PAY". This fits in with the twisted definition of Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008. TYPICAL Examples are normally those whose MINIMUM of the Revised Pay Scales coincide with the MINIMUM of their respective PAY BANDS.

2.1.Modified Parity comes into reckoning only in the middle and higher levels, when the 2.26 formula works out to less than the "Modified Parity". Only few enlightened ones- and those who were on the verge of promotions to next grade- and those who have reached the top of their scales/ stagnated etc may be able to notice the disparity if they sit and work out the details.

3.0. Other category is the case of "NEGATIVE PARITY": or "REDUCED PARITY". These cases exist in every Pay Band. However in lower scales, they are overshadowed by 2.26 MF or even due to Modified Pairty effect, if on the border.

3.1. Here the Pre-revised Pay scale is relegated to the lower-most level in the Pay Band. For example in PB4, the top ones S30, S29 and others below them etc are brought down to be apparently equal to the S24 pre revised scale of 14300-18300, for fixing the MINIMUM of the pay in the pay band (unlike the post-2006 Pensioners -who get correct parity in terms of the pay fixation in the new scales). For them this is at 37400 wh again is the Minimum of 37400-67000. This MINIMUM is not a single MINIMUM. It is "seven minimums" rolled into one! A single "Multi-Minimum"!

3.2 Govt Decisions argue that they are compensated/ replaced by Grade Pay. As per the provisions, Grade Pay increases with REDUCTION/RELEGATION IN PAY SCALE. Is it allowable? How can your pay or pension can be reduced unless you are indicted by Disciplinary actiuion/ Court orders as a measure of punishment!

3.3. Pensioners must understand, Grade Pay identifies the POST and not the pay-scale. Higher Post is supposed to get Higher GP!

3.4 Here also Principles/ Policies are violated. For example, Grade pay is same 10000 for both S29 and S28 of which S29 is a HIGHER POST! It shd carry a higher GP than S28. Other examples cd be there.

3.5 The NEGATIVE/ REDUCED PARITY is a NEW EVOLUTION coming out of the absurd perverted actions of the Govt., much against every reasoning/ norm and against the main Principle/ Policy of the SCPC itself, which stand violated.

3.6. Related Recommendations are also fallacious and therefore must be made null & void.

EMERGENCE of the above THREE SUB-CLASSES of PENSIONERS within the same SCPC dispensation- without having any respect to a firm POLICY/ PRINCIPLE itself IS ANOMALOUS.

So let us be clear in comprehending the aboive aspects.

So also the SOLUTION within the framework of SCPC Paragraphs for Pre-2006 Pensioners lies in providing:

"MODIFIED PARITY" IN GENERAL in terms of REVISED PAY/ CCS(RP)RULES 2008 with Grade Pay etc without ambiguity

with the ALTERNATIVE of Parity in terms of 2.26MF

( PS:I wd prefer the inclusive 40% factor to be at the Max of the pre-revised Scale(special provision to cover stagnations if any) for these, as the current component within 2.26 ie the 0.40 beyond 1.86 is based only on their last pay).[/B]

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
14-05-2009, 10:07 AM
INCONSISTENCIE/ INFIRMITIES THAT EMERGE FROM THE LATEST OM REGARDING PENSION REVISION OF PRE-2006 RETIREES WITH 20PLUS- 33MINUS YEARS SERVICE- DENIAL OF PARITY.


Pl refer to OM No. dtd 12th May 2008 of DOPPW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend, Shri AV Mukuntharajan explains in this regard:

“on cut off date, the Apex court had held that the govt. has a right to fix cut off date which cannot be assailed by the court in the case of pre-1996 pensioners who demanded revision of the DCRG taking in to account the DR that they had drawn. this supreme court, i understand, had dismissed the review petition too.

However, the Madras High Court and i think Hyderabad High Court have struck down the cut off date in cases filed by the state governement employees which has gone to supreme court and is pending. if these cases are decided in the employees favour by reversing the earlier supreme court orders, then only the government will consider cases like full pensions sans prorata for less than 33 years service. this is for your information”.

My other friend, Mr Sundaraar, points out, with credibility and force, several related aspects:

“1. The dispensation of linkage of qualifying service of 33 years for full pension has not been made with prospective effect while the payment of full pension on retirement with 20 years service has been made with prospective effect and hence the representations erupted apart from the equal parity aspect..

2. The aforesaid inconsistency has been cooked up by disposing off all related representations.

3. In respect of persons on voluntary retirement prior to 2.9.2008 they would have got addition to qualifying service of about 5 years. Whereas, if a person retires on superannuation with 20 years or so, no addition would be there. Whether the Govt. want to send people who were post-1986 recruitees more gracefully, leaving rest of the personnel getting pro-rata based on 33 years service requirement. With a good faith only, they all have accepted govt. service that there will be an uniform service requirement of 33 years for full pension and were prepared to serve the entire term to get full pension thinking their juniors also will follow them with the same service condition..

4. In respect of Persons absorbed in PSU on exercise of option for pro-rata as against combined service pension, they had no other alternative and it is thrust upon them. In addition, they were not entitled for commutation. Moreover, the pro-rata pension did not entitle Dearness Relief. Their gratuity was seized for 7 years at a normal interest applicable for PF, which too got down from 12% to 8.5%. May there be some increments (2/3) would have been awarded while joining PSU. These people also joined PSU in good faith thinking that there will be long period to serve for combined pension and the PSU part will have to be borne by PSU and when such PSU may go sick, there is no guarantee for PSU part pension amount under combined pension, because there is no scope for continuing in Govt. and even if they are prepared, the absorption has come in between.

5. If the Govt. had told that for those who join service from a particular cut off date in future they will be governed by the new requirement of 20 years (as the pension scheme itself withdrawn for recruitees of post 2004), it would have been judicious.

6. There cannot be two different set of exit rules for those who entered on acceptance of the single set of exit rule that was prevailing and existing for so many years since the time of induction. I am fully aware that this is not a matter that can be settled through representations. As expected, the result is so. Here, I have been trying from very beginning as to what has happened when the pension service of 40 has been brought down to 33 in the past in respect of persons retiring with less than 40 years service before its implementation. Whether they also have been given the benefit of 33 years for full pension or pro-rata. But, I could not get the concerned Order copy. Senior veterans may be aware of the development that took place at that time may be prior to 1972.

7. The rejection of the aforesaid representations, no way come in between our other anomalies. 20 yrs. is entirely different issue and pertaining to a certain section of pensioners. Hence, without attaching much significance, because, even ourselves do not find any support from Pensioners Forum all over India for this particular cause as the aggrieved parties are minorities, the rest of the anomalies can be attended to as being planned so far.

I have not travelled much through the OM, but only one thing is worrying is the mention of Art. 14 in the OM. The OM has touched a honeyhive and the result will be known from some other angle. I am confident that this particular issue (20 years case) can be resolved only through Court, but the minorities would not even think of it. This is my humble view and first hand impression as gathered from similar group of persons “

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

Both AVM’s info and Sundaar’s comments are relevant, in making out a strong protest against the unilateral action of the GOVT. in changing the schemes without giving a chance for the incumbents to dwell, debate, sort out (and then OPT-why not?) what is right and correct.

Thare is another issue emerging out of this OM:

Before reading, my comments, pl. read Para 3 of the OM. (not reproducible here!)

My initial comments for those who can peruse and react in order to tie up some loose ends are:

1.If the MOPPG&P/ MOF & the concerned Departments were aware, sensitive, sincere and conscientious etc with DUE RESPOECT and REGARD to the COURT VERDICTS (including the APEX COURT’s) and the CONSTITUTION (Article 14/21 etc), why had they allowed the inequities/ infirmities/ irregulartities of OMs of 1/9, 3 & 14/10.2008 related to pre-2006 pensioners to take an ugly and highly objectionable dimension as of now and FORCING AGED PENSIONERS TO CONTEMPLATE TO GO TO COURTs?

2. Is it not a gross violation of their own Charter of Functions and dereliction of duties? If it was an omission by error/ misconstrual, could not be set right quickly?

3.Where was the need to circumvent the whole issue when the DOPPW tried to resolve the issue through a PROPOSAL in January, 2009, by CITING the unbelievable “FINACIAL CONSTRAINTS” as an excuse?

4.It is clear now that the Pre-2006 and Post 2006 NORMAL retirees (normal- ie not retired otherwise like VRS, etc) can not be Constitutionally differentiated as belonging to DIFFERENT SCHEMES OF PENSION and every RULE/AUTHORITY/ COURT can not violate the RIGHTS of thie pre-2006 class of pensioners Under Article 14 of the constitution.

AM I CORRECT?

Pl. participate/ write. Based on the collective views, I intend to make another appeal to the PM/ other authorities.

Regards

vnatarajan

(Pl see another thread "Effevtiveness & Applicability" also for points on 20 plus yrs issue.
All must react and address PM- Do not hesitate)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
15-05-2009, 07:41 AM
Dear ALL Pensioners,

The picture is getting clearer and clearer.

It is undisputable that the MAIN DAMAGE done to a segment of pensioners grossly, is mainly due to two factors:

1.The clear "tampering" done by one authority on 29.08 2008 so as to twist the CORRECT MEANING & INTERPRETATION of the SCPC RECOMMENDED/ CABINET APPROVED Para 5.1.47 (I am not referring to the "correction" of MF formula from 1.74 to 1.86) but IN REFRAMING THE SENTENCES/ REPLACING words to MAKE IT AMBIGUOUS in deciding the "MINIMUM" aspect!

2.The second stage of precipitation of the matter is by the Pension Accounting Authority on 25th/26th Sept 2008, when the "concerned" issued the DO letter with an Annexure II to all the Nodal Banks. Apparently, this was the one to convert/ replace the whole sentence "Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band" to "Minimum of the Pay Band" may be "FIRST TIME IN BLACK & WHITE" officially- God only knows under whose dictat and authority!

All of them - like us (ex.)- are Govt .Servants and if they are dutiful, they have to stand by truth and apply corrections where it is necessary and just.

Court/ Article 14?- there is always a seperior power to judge them!

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

We always quote Article 14. Let us also remember Artcle 21:

Pension is the part of right to life: Bombay HC
Pensioners now have a reason to smile. In a landmark judgment, the Bombay high court has held that pension is a vital aspect of social security and that the right to receive it constitutes a right to life under the constitution. Moreover, it held that pension must be paid regularly in the first week of the month.

The judgment was passed in a case where the Solapur civic body had challenged a direction of an industrial court which had labelled its action of delaying pension payments inordinately each month as an unfair labour practice and directed it to credit the monthly pension by the first day of each following month.

The civic body explained that it was in financial difficulties and said it could pay by the 15th and not the first. The civic body argued that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not mandate payment by the first of each following month. Justice D Y Chandrachud said, “Deprive a pensioner of the payment and you deprive him or her of the right to life. Delayed pensionary payments place a pensioner in a position of uncertainty and dependence which impinges on the quality of life under Article 21, and the right to dignified existence of the aged,’’

Source:The Times of India, December 23, 2008. Page no. 14---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan
16-05-2009, 04:20 PM
Dear All

(THOSE GOING TO COURTS NOTE THE LINES IN THIS JUDGMENT:

“the Presidential Order cannot be materially altered as modified by the subordinate authority by way of clarification memorandum dated 12.08.1999, issued in the subsequent official memorandum” )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:

Here is yet another example of how the GOI/ its “entity” etc act and (must be much to the embarrassment of MOPPGP/DOPPW) try their utmost to harass the old PENSIONERS, with utter disregard to their legitimate claims/ entitlement as per RULES/ COURT VERDICTS/ CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS under ARTICLES 14/21 etc.

This judgment is as good as the Maj. Genls. Case in so far as the sadistic approach of the govt. entity is concerned though slightly different in contents.

In spite of clear President sanctioned provision of Special Pay benefit for Pension entitlements and also after allowing the incumbents to draw the same initially for some periods, the “govt. entity” chose to get the issue reopened after a considerable gap of time, by appeals to higher courts- and went upto Supreme Court – where their SLP cd not even see the light of the day!

What a colossal waste of Govt. Money/ Time/ Resources etc and who is answerable for these? Are these EXPENDITURES not infructuous?

Yet such erring officials want more and more protections under “RULE OF LAW” and under constitutional provisions for them with a greater degree of TOTAL indemnity!
(This may also help them to get away from even other charges- like Corruption etc!)

What is the compensation to the aggrieved/ innocent PENSIONERS who were on the right side – but then they were made to suffer the harassment for long long times!

CASE DETAILS ARE POSTED UNDER THE THREAD TITLED " INJUSTICE TO......."

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

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
18-05-2009, 08:24 PM
My dear All. Kindly see my post on injustice thread and react.Thank you.

Kanaujiaml
23-05-2009, 11:31 AM
My dear VN, other pensioner friends. Kindly visit MOD site and read letter dated 21 05 09. All pre 2006 pensioners, who retired as Lt. Colonel or equivalent to other wings of Defence Forces are now given pay band four with grade pay 8000. Their pension is fixed now to 25700, which includes 3000 as MSP. Civilian pensioners in equivalent JAG grade are denied this preferencial treatment which is a great injustice. I request all Pensioners Associations and civilian pensioners affected by it, to represent to DOP immediately demanding same treatment of civilian pensioners as well.

vnatarajan
23-05-2009, 05:35 PM
Dear MLK,

All the hulla-gulla of Lt Cols "upgradation" is mainly due to the "Babus" making themselves eligible to elevate to Pay Band 4 - they having been in 14300-18300 scale.

If they deserve to be given the FREE RISE why not the Lt Cols?

Lt Cols had a better scale ie 15100-18700. They were above the Babu Scale of 14300-18300 (may be it is Functional) and also the NFSG (14300-18300) of other civilian departments.

Here is some extract from a Military Website (Dont put me the old qn!- who is the source?- remember?- all from Internet only):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieutenant Colonel
Years of service required to reach the rank : 14.5 years including training if assumed from the Indian Military Academy
4th CPC pay scale : Rs 4700-5900
5th CPC pay scale : Rs 15100-400-18700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.............there is lot more discussion on this topic in military websites.

The Lt Cols who are the real Field Officers in charge of a military unit on ground (perhaps more important than Colonels themselves) had really "BATTLED" well this time to win the PB4 Medal at last!

They do deserve!

Our JAGs who were at 12000-18000, I think are no comparison.

Also they lack the fighting qualities of the military!

Very few OF THEM WRITE or FIGHT!

THEY THEMSELVES ARE NOT CLEAR WHAT IS RIGHT & HOW TO FIGHT?

(I want to provoke them so that they will rise to voice their grievances by making a good study of their case!!!!!)

When SAGs like u and me are fighting FOR ALL with some HAGs to support us SOLIDLY (like GR) (themselves caught in a BIG DILEMMA whether to go up to the HAG bracket- or compromise to parity remaining within the PB4 BRAND), why will anybody else bother!!!!!

IF WE STOP WRITING HERE, the whole thread may vanish like the INDIAN ROPE!

So let us continue- a new EPISODE of battle is getting ready!

Let the MINISTRY form and settle!

We will start our next INNINGS!

Agenda is getting ready.

We will continue to keep the BABUs busy- thru RTI- & other channels- EVEN THE HON PM WILL NOT BE SPARED OF THE RTI ROUTE this time as his office also has an RTI chapter!!!

Regards

vnatarajan


.

vnatarajan
31-05-2009, 08:28 AM
FALLACIOUS OMs DATED 11TH FEB & 12TH MAY 2009 ISSUED BY MOPPGP/DOPPW.

Dear All

I trust all are making appeals/ representations to the ANOMALY COMMITTEE on various issues related to the Anomalies arising out of the violation of the Principles/ Policies in making their own Recommendations by the SCPC.

Definitions of Anomalies look complicated, but since the DOE have helped us by making all the Pension Recommendations look like TRASH, we need not bother about the said definitions- because anything and everything is an Anomaly now.

While on the subject, I would like to look at SOME POSITIVE DEDUCTIONS from the two OMs issued by the MOPPGP/ DOPPW dated 11th Feb 2009 and 12th May 2009.

In all your APPEALS henceforth you may consider mentioning them repeatedly, to all the authorities including the ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

1.OM of 11th Feb 2008:

This OM categorically states that the Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners for any dispensation towards Revision of their Pension.
The OM then QUOTES/REPEATS the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 for revising the Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

This is unacceptable as the Para 4.2 itself is the ALTERED/ MODIFIED VERSION of Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC. Notes of Files obtained under RTI clearly reveal such DELIBERATE alterations/ even pre-emptive actions (eg.CPAO’s DO lr dtd 26th Sept 2008 to Nodal Officers of Banks issued without any authority/ much before the OMs of 3rd/14th Oct 2008).

THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF OUR REPRESENTATIONS IS TOTALLY WRONG as we are basically appealing to the authorities to IMPLEMENT CORRECTLY THE GAZETTED/NOTIFIED RECOMMENDATION contained in Para 5.1.47 ( and not the vitiated Para 4.2).

FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW..

2.OM of 12th May 2009:

This OM takes shelter under a “KEY SENTENCE” extracted from the AKKRA CASE JUDGMENT dtd 10th Oct 2006 to suit their JAUNDICED explanation to differentiate the 20 yr plus pensioners on either side of a datum, and also tries to justify the same in terms of Article 14 of Constitution. (In fact what they are doing is exactly opposite!).

IMPORTANT POINT IS, the said judgment clearly DIRECTS the GOVT. to ensure that HOMOGENOUS CLASS of PENSIONERS must be given parity in pension irrespective of the dates/ datums, in essence, in the same Paragraph (no 20 of the judgment).

THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATIONS OF PLUS 20 Yrs RETIREES UNDER THE ABOVE EXCUSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

FURTHER FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW.

I feel every concerned pre-2006 PENSIONER must highlight and contest the two OMS and the summary DISPOSAL of our appeals on FLIMSY and UNRELATED grounds is objectionable.

FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL has to follow.

PL ACT.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
03-06-2009, 11:47 AM
Dear All

Thanks to Shri KSS, this interesting news item from TOI, MUMBAI, appearing on 3rd June 2009 edition related to RTI matter handled by the DOPT will convince many pensioners to resort to RTI route to raise some critical issue.

For eg., recent OM of 12th May 2009 of DOPPW/MOPPGP trying to apply the Akkara Judgment in a "bikini" mode on the "20 yr Plus- Less 33yrs" Pensioners, can be amplified to seek explanation from DOPPW- as to what actions they have taken or are taking to implement other sentences of the paragraph of the said judgment, of which the "bikini' part is only a "non-vital" exposure!

Now the News Item:

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

Meira Kumar elected Lok Sabha Speaker | Meira Kumar is first woman Speaker


CIC cracks down on DOPT for file notings
3 Jun 2009, 0531 hrs IST, Manoj Mitta, TNN

Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:



NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Central Information Commission on Tuesday issued notices to two officers of the department of personnel and
training (DOPT), which is the nodal department of RTI, to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for offences that could land them behind bars for a whole year.

The provocation was the DOPT's refusal, despite repeated directions to correct the misleading claim made on its website, that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under the RTI.

CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to appear on June 17 to explain why they should not be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and penalized under the RTI.

While other public authorities, including the law ministry and the Supreme Court, have long accepted the CIC's ruling that file notings are not exempt from disclosure, DOPT has maintained otherwise on its website, much to the CIC's chagrin. Habibullah found it ``appalling'' that the nodal department of RTI had ``sought to emasculate the mandate'' of Section 19(7) which stipulates that the CIC's decisions are ``binding''.

On an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the CIC said that by disobeying its directions, the two DOPT officers had rendered themselves liable to be punished under Section 166 IPC, which imposes imprisonment up to one year on a ``public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person''. The other two offences cited in the order are punishable with imprisonment up to six months--while Section 187 pertains to “omission to assist a public servant when bound by law to give assistance'', Section 188 deals with “disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant''.

Besides responding to allegations of committing criminal offences, Sarkar and Chagti will have to explain on June 17 why each of them should not be imposed the maximum prescribed penalty under the RTI of Rs 25,000. The CIC has also asked them to show cause why they should not be subjected under the RTI to departmental proceedings.

To its earlier directions, all that the DOPT officers told the CIC was that the whole of file notings had been placed before a committee of secretaries and that nothing could be done about the website until the committee gave its report. The file noting controversy first erupted in 2006 when the DOPT made an abortive attempt to amend the law so that file notings could be beyond the ambit of the RTI.

While giving the definition of information under the RTI, the DOPT website added on its own that the expression “does not include file notings''. The CIC had given several directions to the DOPT to desist from misquoting the RTI definition of information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
19-06-2009, 12:02 PM
]INSPIRATION TO BE CRITICAL![/COLOR]

Dear all,

The more you peruse the pitiable repetetive erroneous/no-sense text etc in the SCPC Pre-2006 Pension OMs and the RTI replies we have all seen or recieved, you feel more and more inspired to write greater sense!

Now, my friend/ copensioner - Shri PKR had made a brilliant synthesis of the RTI based deductions- and I have tried to add flavour to it with little cosmetic additions- and some of the outputs are posted here.

Each observation is a pearl of factual statement- which can be AUTHENTICATED to a large extent- and those going to CAT/ courts can make a good note of these:


i. That the Minimum of the Pay In The Pay Band is not the same as the Minimum Of the Pay Band. That these two are clearly different entities.

(My flavour:

No where there is a record!. It is your word against my word!

As on the day of the OM of 1st Sept 2008, the only official document whuch defined the SCPC pay etc is the MOF's detailed resolution dtd 30TH August 2008 which had the elaborate CONCORDANT Tables for all pre-revised scales, within the respective Pay-Bands!

That the above document is applied for S-31 to 34 proves that this has recognition for others' pension revisions also!)

ii. That the Minimum /least pension applicable to a number of posts /grades
wef 01- 01-2006 is different and higher than the pre-2006 minimum pension for the same posts /grades as has been granted under MOPPGP's OMs
of 03-10-08 and 14- 10-08

(My flavour: Same reference as (i) has to be consulted!)

iii That the Pre-2006 pensioners and post 2006 pensioners of a single grade, being governed by the same statutory CCS ( Pension) Rules 1972 and allied rules, all form a single homogenous class of pensioners

iv. That all new dispensations wrt pension consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC are merely modifications to the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 and the allied rules as the case may be.These dispensations DO NOT , by any means, constitute a new pension scheme ( brought in wef 01-01-06 )

v That it is discriminatory to introduce a benefit retrospectively ( or prospectively), fixing a cut off date arbitrarily, thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatments.

(My flavour:

This is what the DOPPW/MOPPGP have conveyed sincerely in their OM of 12th May 2009!-while disposing the representations of the pre-sept 2008 20 years plus retirees!

There is also a technical blunder here!- what they are CITING can apply only to NON-RECURRING benefits- and not for Pension Revision in the least!)

vi That in the absence upgradation for a pre-2006 post /scale, the corresponding new pay in the relevant pay band (sum of pay and grade pay) should apply for purposes of pension and hence the minimum pay in the pay band (sum of the minimum pay and the grade pay) corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised scale should apply for the assured minimum pension for the post, under the principle of modified parity.

(My flavour:

This is what the DOPPW/MOPPGP have confirmed in their OM dtd 11th Feb 2009 while disposing our representations en-masse)

vii That the legitimate MAP , as recommended by the 6CPC, approved by the cabinet and also reiterated by MOPPGP, as the nodal authority, is now being denied to the pre-2006 pensioners, not because of its legal or technical inadmissibility, but only (as perceived by the Dept of Expenditure ) because of the ‘substantial financial implications,in the event of any change in the provisions , as approved by the cabinet (already altered Para 4.2 of MOPPGP's OM dated 01-09-08 ).

(My flavour:

Pl see RTI material put on RREWA website- DOPPW had sent a proposal to the DOE in early Jan 2009 with a correctly "interpreted" SCPC's Para 5.1.47 to replace Para 4.2 of the OM!)

viii That this argument above is a fallacy, since the 6CPC recommendation and acceptance by the cabinet is for a minimum pension wrt to the MINIMUM PAY in THE PAY BAND and NOT wrt the MINIMUM of the PAY BAND and that the 6CPC is on record as having kept in view the financial implications ( para 11.52 ) in finalizing their recommendation and the Cabinet acceptance had taken these into account. The past pensioners are seeking this minimum pension and not its change for better or worse

ix. That, in any case, financial constraints, can NEVER undermine equality before law and interfere with equity and fairplay

ALL PLEASE NOTE AGAIN THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS OWE THEIR ORIGIN TO THE VERY OMs/ RTI ANSWERS etc.!

Since RTI bombardments are taking their TOLL, the various MINISTRIES are now trying to wriggle out of this system- sooner or later!

What a shame!

More to follow!

Regards

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
25-06-2009, 08:07 AM
WILL THE ATTORNY GENERAL PUTS INTO ACTION WHAT HE ADVOCATES?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT APPEARED IN THE WEBSITE “INDIAN MILITARY SERVICE BENFITS & INSSUES”
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009
New Attorney General would aim to reduce Govt vs Citizen litigation
Note : Comment moderation / uploads shall remain slow for a few days. Please bear with me.

A whiff of fresh air. The New Attorney General of India, Ghoolam E Vahanvati, a rock music fan and a lawyer of repute, has stated reduction of govt filed litigation as one of his top KRAs.

As we all know, govt is the biggest litigant in the country. Many-a-times, there are issues which should just not be taken to court, but are, and ultimately result in unnecessary wastage of Court time, govt and private resources. In fact, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had recently slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Haryana State for filing a ‘frivolous appeal’ against a citizen.

The problem with us is that we treat court matters against a backdrop of upmanship. A citizen getting his predicament addressed through a court results in triggering of a strange form of egotism in govt departments, which without any application of mind, ensure that they take the issue to a higher judicial level, whether they are right or wrong.

This happens in every organisation. A detailed must-read blog on the same problem within the defence establishment can be accessed by clicking here. The problem requires a change in mindset. Legal advisors in various departments need to be briefed that firstly issues that can be addressed in-house should be and citizens & employees should not be forced to approach Hon’ble Courts of Law. Secondly, the govt legal mechanism should be sensitised that their duty is not to ‘win’ cases in Courts but to assist the Hon’ble Courts in arriving at justice, and once justice is rendered, it should not lead to egotism but introspection as to what went wrong in-house.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:05 AM
Labels: law, Misc


Comments by VNatarajan:

VNatarajan, President, Pensioners' Forum (affil. to AIFPA Chennai Regd.), Chennai said...
Dear Maj Navdeep,

You have put up the write-up/blog at the appropriate time. One of the glaring examples of unwanted Govt. provoked/ sponsored/ contested litigation is the repetetive deprival of Pension Parity to the old, helpless(physically/ mentally/ financially/ logistically (for legal matters)), aged,pensioners- both CIVIL and MILITARY included. This offence is perpetrated by the Govt./ its Babus much against well known/ land-mark judgments of the Supreme Court/High Courts/CATs in several such cases, against the relevant Articles of the Constitution, and even against ots own Rules under the concerned Act!. You are aware of the fiasco of the Sixth Pay Commssion Pre-2006Pensioners' woes and also the nearly akin OROP demands. WHEN WILL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT WITH AN IRON HAND AGAINST THE ERRING GOVT. FUNCTIONARIES? Even the somewhat purposeful/ effective RTI Act Provisions found to be inconvenient to the Babus are perhaps being diluted with the blessings of Hon. top CEO of the country!
June 23, 2009 7:37 AM
================================================== ======

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
28-06-2009, 04:12 PM
Dear All

Yet another marvellous synthesised analysis of the anomalies arising out of the wrong interpretation/ implementation of the Recommendations of the Sixth CPC in respect of pre-2006 pensioners, covering the ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF ALL CADRES (Gr A B C D) of Pensioners had been submitted by our friend Shri G RAMDAS, as a Pensioners & Member of the PENSIONERS' FORUM, Chennai to the NAC on 27th June 2009.

Entire text running to 19 pages is put up in the RREWA website already by its GSec SCM, today.

GR also will be posting it in some more accessible websites soon and he will publish the "links" here.

The text specially covers the aspect of FITMENT BENEFITs and the implications thereof.

The entire analysis is supported by several Tables/ Graphic 2D- 3D diagrams, high tech outputs and many can easily comprehend by looking at the figures and tables.

Our hearty thanks and congratulations to GR for his timely efforts and presentations.

(Pl do not allow the LULL to continue for long. Lest the babus may think we have become dorment!)

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
29-06-2009, 04:40 PM
Dear Sh VN,
Thanks for making my job easier.
yes, I have sent a detailed representation to the Anomalies Committee, highlighting the anomalies and explaining how these have arisen and what are the effects on pre-2006 pensioners. To make the illustration easier, I have used Tables,graphs,2-d and 3-D bar charts( and of course, some materials borrowed from Sh VN).This, i hope will make it easy for the reader to grasp the subject in one glance.
The doument is available in the following link :
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f...018c8114394287
This is also posted in RREWA website and can be seen from the link:
http://www.rrewa.org/currentIssues.aspx

For the benefit of S-30 pensioners who are members of the Yahoo group, this has been posted in their website also

If you are pre-2006 pensioner but still think that you have not lost anything in implementation of the 6CPC Report, make sure that it is the case, by reading this document.At least some of the pensioners now feel that they were not aware of the losses .

G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
02-07-2009, 05:07 PM
DEAR ALL

HOPE FOR SOME JUSTICE ON THE BUDGET DAY!

PRANABDA MAY NOT LET US DOWN!

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
09-07-2009, 09:01 AM
My dear SCM,Bedekar,VN, Gramdas, other pensioner friends. All my appeals to all quarters have gone on the basis of loss being incurred to S 4 to S 30 and three supportive judgments of Supreme Cour. Drafts sent by me to rrewa and other pensioner's associations also were on the same lines and rrewa appeals were also based on the same principles. We appealed for full parity as SC judgments are supportive of it. Govt. even rejected modified parity given by SCPC. When Govt. can grant OROP to Defence Pensioners, why it cannot grant full parity, particularly when two earlier judgments of SC and latest one, are holding the grounds very well, inspite of all efforts of Govt. against these. In this connection I would like to mention about appeals sent by Mr. NP Mohan on behalf of Pensioner's Association, Chandigarh and appeal sent by Govt. Pensioner's Association, Dehra Dun (curtesy Shri NP Mohan). All these appeals are for S 4 to S 30. All this matter is already available with us and even on rrewa website, then, why start again afresh the debate.When we would stop debating and start some action ?

vnatarajan
01-08-2009, 09:15 AM
Dear K/ SLB/GR/all

I agree. Many will agree.

Decisionj to go to Courts for full parity for all (S4 to S30) is undisputed.
When & how?

I and PF would hope for a STRONG RESOLUTION to be passed at the ensuing BPS/ RREWA/ others meeting in early Aug 2009. Let the actions be formally concretised.

All aspects may be formally discussed and the LEAD may be given.

Contributions must be decided and the FUND RAISER must be identified. A suitable lawyer must be sounded (wh many might have done!).

Full Parity has no distinctions. A short crisp plea without much blah blah must be raised.

Three SC Judgements- and the weakness in the system- SC allows the Govt. again and again deny parity to pensioners- must be sealed once for all. Let us try- but WITHOUT GIVING A LOOP-HOLE to Govt to escape away from the current issues - under the "SUB JUDICE" garb.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
03-08-2009, 08:47 AM
I find www.rrewa.org is inaccessible. Anyone knowing the reason?

Dr.M.Jauhari
04-08-2009, 01:51 AM
It is mentioned that there is some problem of server migration

vnatarajan
04-08-2009, 11:17 AM
Today RREWA site may be alright. It was undergoing some restructuring/ updating/ maintenance etc.

Kanaujiaml
06-08-2009, 07:35 PM
My dear VN, Gramdass, Others. After obtaining a hard copy of MOD letter No. 4(110)07/D(Pen/Legal) dated 15 july 2009 and studying it carefully, it appears that, while implementing the hon. Supreme Court verdict in SPS Veins Case,concerning retired Major Generals, pay of Major Generals who retired prior to 1986, would be refixed on 1.1.96, on the basis of their pay fixed on 1.1.86.Similarly, the pay of those Major Generals, who retired between 1.1.86 and 31.12.95, would be refixed on 1.1.96 on the basis of pay drawn at the time of retirement. Such pay fixation would be done in the same manner as was done for other (regular)Officers of same rank, at that time. Arrears, would be payable from Oct.2001 till date, with 10 % interest. Commutation and gratuity etc. would not be recalculated or refixed or touched. It may be noted that these instructions talk about only "pay" and not "pension." In my view this amounts to "full parity".
It may also be noted that this is applicable to only Major Generals and not to any other Officers(Lt.Generals etc.) who retired prior to 1986 and prior to 1996. This is my personal opinian at this point of time and is subject to modifications, when new facts emerge.

Kanaujiaml
07-08-2009, 06:20 AM
In continuation of my post 224 above, I would like to point out one glaring descrepancy in MOD order dated 15 07 09. It has not said anything about refixation of pay of Rtd. Major Generals as on 01 01 06 after 6CPC, while implementing hon. SC orders ! There is a question mark with regard to option being obtained from Rtd. Major Generals for refixation of pay and pension aftrer hon. SC judgment dated 9.9.08. I doubt something is hidden there, too. Further, It would be prudent to work out for each incremental stage of pre 86 pay scale and fixation of pay against it on 01.01.86, after 4 CPC and thereafter on 1.1.96, after 5 CPC. Similarly, it would be interesting to work out for each incremental stage of pre 96 pay scale and fixation of pay against it on 1.1.96, after 5 CPC. On the basis of refixation of pay in above manner, pension can be refixed as per rules prevailing at the time of 4 CPC for pre 86 retirees and at the time of 5 CPC for pre 96 retirees.

vnatarajan
13-08-2009, 07:41 PM
Dear All,

JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE?

KILLING TWO BIRDS IN ONE SHOT?

DIVIDE & RULE?

Sometimes, the Govt. actions apparently appear to be doing JUSTICE in some form, but when you analyse in depth, you realize that the decisions/ actions perpetrated are nothing but a calculated move to inflict repurcussions elsewhere!

Apparently what looks to be to do JUSTICE to somebody- results in INJUSTICE to someone eksewhere?

This may be the recent autocratic trend of the administration which boasts of imbibing ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE through great reforms in administration!

Or – Are such actions aimed at DIVIDING the current employees from PENSIONERS? – mind that today’s EMPLOYEE is tomorrow’s PENSIONER!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier examples for the above practice is the IMPLENTATION OMs of SCPC for PENSIONERS of PRE-2006 ERA whose saga stiull continues.

Recent case in this series is the issue of orders for a brand new scale for HAG level – S30 Scale- Rs 67000- 79000 to replace the pre-2006 scale of 22400-24500 )MOF?DOE Orders Dtd 16th July 2009). The old S30 scale included in Pay Band PB4 is now taken out and oit is a separate scale like S31 onwards up. This scale is no lomger part of PB4.

JUSTICE DONE?

Apparently, pre-2006 S30 pensioners have a case to be happy- because once this revision is applied to them, all the INJUSTICE DONE in regard to modified/ negative/ reduced parity in pension provided to them thru OM of 1st Sept 2008, may get neutralized and they can hope to join the elite group of S31 to 34 with a minimum pension of Rs 33500 at the Minimum of the new scale.

In other words what shd have been Rs 31750 or so as against what was given as 25312 will get CORRECTED to 33500. ALL OUR STAND GET VINDICATED and the point ON INJUSTICE is proved. JUSTICE WILL BE DONE WHEN pension order is issued for the revision of pension of S30 scale.

IT MUST BE ROUND THE CORNER & None need be afraid of the delay or otherwise in issuance ofthis order!

INJUSTICE TO WHOM?

For this we have to examine the Order on extending the benefit of Organised Services to non-IAS cadres in all other Departments/ Ministries etc:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
> Department of Personnel and Training
> New Delhi, the 24th April, 2009
> Office Memorandum
>
> Subject:- Non-Functional upgradation for Officers of
> Organised Group 'A' Services in PB-3 and PB-4
>
> Consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations of
> the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the following orders are issued:-
>
> (i) Whenever an Indian Administrative Services
> Officer of the State of Joint Cadre is posted at
> the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific
> grade pay in Pay band 3 or Pay Band 4, the
> officers belong to batches of Organised Group A
> Services that are senior by two years or more and
> have not so far been promoted to that particular
> grade would be granted the same grade on nonfunctional
> basis from the date of posting of the
> Indian Administrative Service Officers in that
> particular grade at the Centre.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From the above order it will be clear:
>
> 1.THE EXTRICATION/ "Throwing Out" OF THE S30 SCALE FROM THE ERSTWHILE PB4 of
> SCPC is purely a very calculated GIMMICK of the Bureaucracy!
>
IT is serving two purposes (killing two birds in one shot!)).
>
> (I) Satisfying the S30 Pensioners who may not be now going for litigation on
> this issue if their pension is revised ( as it gets a good jump upwards even beyond what they cd have anticipated (i.e. if they were within the PB4 and revised pension was given at an equivalence of “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY” within the pay band!)
>
>All must realize this is no bounty nor grace of the Govt, shown to them.
>
> (ii)But it is purely a very calculated move to restrict the growth of Group A Officers of other
> ORGANISED SERVICES (non-IAS) upto PB4 only- which is now WITHOUT the top scale
> S30 ("AS" level in Centre & Secretary level in States- a heirarchy level
> which they wd not like to share with others!).
>
> In other words:
>
> IT RESULTS in restricting the Gr A Officers of other Organised Services in their growth up to JS levels only,in NFSG mode. (you may note in earlier times – pre-2006 times-it (NFSG mode)was up to Sel Gr Director. Now it is up to SAG level. Nothing great)
>
>
> 2.Said Organised Services Orders issued in April 2009 are given effect from 1.1.2006 (retrospectively)
>
> 3.Pre 2006 S30 Pansioners" purpose to some extent would be served if PENSION
> orders applying the revised scale is extended to them also, by amending the relevant part of OM of 1st Sept 2008 and the same is issued soon. (I am not sure if arrears will be given)-
> but as it is called REVISION OF PAY, thie arrears may be PERMITTED)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Malafide:

Some of serving Gr A officers of my erstwhile Department had sought for my impartial views:.

Partial JUSTICE done to S30 pensioners – IN THIS DISCOURAGING MANNER IS WITH MALAFIDE INTENTIONS certainly - results in INJUSTICE to serving officers
>
Serving Gr A officers who have COMPILED LISTS already and were expecting possible NFSG elevations to them(JS level-S29) are thoroughly dejected. They may go to court and argue this step as discriminatory . >
>
At least officers during Trisanku period ie from 1.1.2006 to April 2009
> (date of issue of this OM) have a locus standi to fight against /for DEPRIVING them the FULL BENEFITS of the ORGANISED DSERVICES provisions.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Plea/ LITIGATION shd be for a just solution.:-
>
> Solution could have been (now late?) :
As envisaged by SCPC, Govt. cd combine S29&S30 into a separate Pay Band as originally deliberated- as PB5, with composirte scales (65000-77000 & 69000-79000) without Grade Pay and extend the Organised Services benefits upto PB5

THIS IS WRITTEN WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATE ALL AGGRIEVED’s GRIEVANCES.

Govt. shd not DIVIDE & RULE- PITCH ONE AGAINST THE OTHER!

vnatarajan.

Kanaujiaml
19-08-2009, 09:07 PM
Dear All. I have learnt from an Army pensioner that he has received remaining 60 % of arrears. I am trying to re-confirm from him and would revert back. In the meanwhile, kindly check at your place about it.

On reconfirmation, it has come out that those Defence Officers, who have been brought to pay band 4, have got their revised pension re-fixed and they have now been given second installment of 40 % arrears. Payment of 60 % arrears, therefore, appears to be far away.

vnatarajan
20-08-2009, 08:19 PM
Dear All

Our stand of INJUSTICE stands vindicated!

First to gain freedom from INJUSTICE is the S30 Pre-2006 Pensioners.

DOPPW has issued the revised pension orders for them today (20th Aug 2009) afternoon.

OUR CONGRATS TO THEM.

OUR REQUEST TO THEM TO STAND UNITED WITH US IN OUR FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL.

We hope their pension order is the beginning. of unwinding

Sooner or later we hope GOVT. will render justice to all levels of pensioners by doing justice in terms of the correct implementation of SCPC's recommendation- with proper parities- to all aggrieved pensioners including the older pensioners/ 2oyr retirees/ psu absorbees etc.

Cheers

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
22-08-2009, 08:53 AM
Dear All

Pl read and appraise all. Pl verify. Pl react.espond. Pl appeal again.

Dont relent.

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

WHO IS THE CULPRIT for the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” Fiasco.
Many times the qn has come up and many times I had tried to point out the SOURCE.
YET MANY PEOPLE HAD BEEN REVERTING BACK TO SQUARE ONE:

The black and white proof- two letters (unalterable pdf form letters- that can be edited only at the origin!)- from same source dated 26th Sept 2008 – with same despatch numbers- addressed to the Nodal Officers of the Banks – have been posted by me for the benefit of the S29 group of pre-2006 pensioners who are trying for some actions. In fact it is relevant to all SCALES of Pensioners right from BOTTOM to TOP. I am only reproducing the extracts of relevant para for brevity! And to avoid embarrassment to the concerned at this point of time:
_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.EXTRACTS WHEN THE SAID LETTER APPEARED IN THE SOURCE’s WEBSITE- WITH DESPATCH Dt 26.09.2008 AND REMAINED THERE TILL APRIL 2009 OR SO.

“The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.
including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty
per-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised payscale from which the pensioner had retired. The revised pay-bands based on the
decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and
the grade pay for each scale mentioned in Para 4.2 of the OM are enclosed for ready
reference (Annexure-II). Pensioners who are 80 years and above will receive an
additional quantum as indicated in Para 4. 5 of the above O.M.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.EXTRACTS OF THE SAID LETTER AS IT APPEARS NOW WITH SAME DESPATCH DETAILS (NO & DATE 26.09.2008) WITH CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE PARA “CHANGED”?

The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O. M.
including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty
per-cent minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The revised pay - bands based on the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the grade pay for each scale mentioned in Para 4.2 of the OM are enclosed for ready reference (Annexure-II). Pensioners who are 80 years and above will receive an additional quantum as indicated in Para 4. 5 of the above O.M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I HAVE SENT THE ORIGINAL COPIES TO THE Gen Secy,RREWA for appraising the BPS/RREWA EC etc of the implications of this .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Till now we had been debating why the authorities have tried to alter the para 5.1.47 of SCPC’s Report which had a clear meaning for the -50% of the sum of the MINIMUM OF THE PAY and THE GRADE PAY THEREON corresponding to the revised payetc etc to bring the whole equation to MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND!

BUT NOW, here is an authority who was the ROOT CAUSE for perpetrating the trouble in Sept 2008 and who started with a clear cut instruction to BANKS on pension to be in terms of “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” – HAS NOW ALTERED?CHANGED? “T>>>>>D” the document to change the said part to “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND”!

If the earlier version was correct, why he shd change it now? Why this realization after nearly seven to eight months or more? What is the reason for changing the contents now? TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS/ EDITORIAL MISTAKES Etc can not be the excuses to hood-wink the mature/ administratively well experienced millions of PENSIONERS and their ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS/ UNIONS etc.

THIS AMPLY PROVES THAT MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND and MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND can not be one and the same!.

How the gross INJUSTICE done to the pre-2006 pensioners will be undone? When?

NO LONGER THE GOVT. CAN TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE ERRING OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN MISLEADIMNG THE HIGHER UPS/ MINISTERS and EVEN Hon. PM, for which I CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER PROOF (at least upto Feb 2009!!!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR RTI Queries are yet to be replied by him. EVERY AUTHORITY- I am sorry to point out including the DOPPW who is fully aware of this GRAVE MISCHIEF (I have to call it so) are trying to evade the issue/ and not face the truth ethically!

WHY CAN’T THE DOPPW NOW AT LEAST POINT OUT THAT “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND”: IS NOT SAME AS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” and amend its own Annexures/ Circular/OMs issued for the convenience of such erring authorities and to the DETRIMENT of all categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

More to follow after few pensioners react/ respond! I find no responsible reactions many times!

Vnatarajan- on behalf of all “”FOOLED” PRE-2006 PENSIONERS who are continuing to be taken for a RIDE" by even the DOPPW- who are supposed to be our custodians!

nps
22-08-2009, 05:23 PM
Dear Sir,
I am sure there are at least a few readers like me may follow the discussion better if numbers are given as examples. We do understand the difference between Rs. 100 and Rs. 101.
Therefore, it will make a great impact if the difference between 'minimum of the pay band' and 'minimum of the pay in pay band' is explained with an example for a couple of pay scales from pre-2006 era.

If a Table is made which shows the difference in Rs. for all pay scales due to the different meanings of the quotes, please post the same. If such a table was already posted in a previous post, kindly give that post number.

Many thanks for keeping us informed and alert,
sincerely,
nps

vnatarajan
22-08-2009, 06:57 PM
Dear NPS-

If u r a regular reader, you would have come to know of the same much earlier.

However in this blog/ in the parallel blogs there are sevral posts by GRamadas/Sundarar/MLK etc etc which give a variety of calculations.

However, if u r computer savvy, you can visit the website of RREWA at www.rrewa.com for seeing the various projections made by GR.

GR will see this post certainly and give his advice to you very soon!

__________________________________________________ _________________________

An interim answer pending GR's comments:

Let me try to post the full table of GR here:

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

Read values Seriatum 1 to 4 corresponding to the Titles of the Column
1.Pre-revised pay scale ;
2,Min.Pension for post 1.1.06 retiree-50% of last emoluments Rs.
3.Min. pension for pre-06 pensioner( para 4.1 or 4.2 of OM of 1.9.08 whichever is beneficial) Rs.
4.Post 1.1.06 pensioners from lower scales drawing higher pension than pre-06 retirees of higher posts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2. 3. 4.
S-16 11070 10500 S15-from 3rd stage,S14 from 6th, S-13 from 8th, S-12 last 11stages, S-10 last 3 stages
S-17 11070 10500 -do-
S-18 12905 11665 S-17-last 3,S-15 from 7th,S-14 last 12,S-13 last 11,S-12 last 5
S-19 12600 11300 S-18 all stages,S-17 from 2nd,S-15 from 6th, S-14 last 11stages, S-13 last12,S-12 last 12stages
S-20 13205 12034 S-19 &S-18 all, S-17last 2 stages,S-15 from 9th, S-14 last 10, S-13 last8 ,S-12 last 3 stages
S-21 14960 13560 S-20 from 3rd, S-19 from 5th, S-18 from 4th, S-15 from 15th, S-14 last 3,S-13 last stage
S-22 15660 14407 S-21 all,S-20 from 5th stage, S-19 from 7th, S-18 last 1,S-15 last 7
S-23 14960 13560 S-22 all,S-21 all, S-20 from 3rd, S-19 from 5th, S-18 4th, S-15 from15th,S-14 last 3,S-13 last stage
S-24 23050 23050 -
S-25 23050 23050 S-24 all stages
S-26 23150 23150 S-25 all,S-24 from 3rd
S-27 23150 23150 S-26 all, S-25 all,S-24 from 3rd
S-28 23700 23700 S-27,26,25 all stages,S-24 from 5th stage
S-29 27350 23700 S-28,27,26,25 all stages,S-24 from 5th stage
S-30 31925 25312 S-29 all,S-28 from 7th stage, S-27 from 4th, S-26 from 4th, S-25- 5th, S-24 from 9th stage

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

I think now all can realise how the "DOWNGRADATION" or "REDUCTION IN MINIMUM EMTITLED PENSION" is PERPETRATED most illegally/ blatantly/ on the PRE_2008 PENSIONERS and it is for the NAC to take note of the EVIL system that is being brought into effect by the BABUs in the name of "PAY BANDING" through "AUTOCRATIC" style of merger of scales.

Why not all S31 to S34 Scales be merged into a PAY BAND running from 0 to 91000, with a "VERY HIGH" GRADE PAY thereon of Rs 12001 (Re 1 more than S30) and their pension be REVISED to half of the sum of Rs 0 and Rs 12001 wh works out to Rs 6000/50 p to save the NATION from the FINANCIAL CRISIS!
__________________________________________________ _____________________----

For your doubts you may post details here so that GR can comment.

He has worked out the break-even stages of BENEFITs as to whether MF 2.26 is beneficial or MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND is beneficial- for different stages in each and every scale.

What is important is the monthly "basic pension loss" alone is not the overwhelming factor. The compounded loss will be due to pro-rata loss of DR component, over a period of tenyears or so till next revision. It also affects your "Base" for the next revision.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
23-08-2009, 03:54 PM
Dear All

This has reference to my post at sl no 229 on the two versions of CPAO's letter on directives to Banks to fix our pensions. Our problem had started with the first version- and the resultant action on it by DOPW to issue the OM of 14th Oct 2008. with the damaging Annexure I - with it.

After debating many aspects, many of us thought some actions must be requested to be taken by DOPPW on the changed text of CPAO's letter - TO ACT IN A SIMILAR fashion as he had acted earlier:

A draft model letter is placed below- wh can be sent by many pensioners with or without attachments.

Options for attachments:

1.Brief one: Take extracts in post 229.

2.Otherwise go to RREWA website and download/ copy/ attach both versions wh are available- directly accessible.

3. If anypone wants by email; he can contact give a message in this forum with email id.

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




To
Shri M P Singh, I A S
Director (PP),Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare, Min. Of P,PG, P, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 110003

Sub: Pension Revisions of Pre-2006 Pensioners; Ref: DOPPW’s OM Nos: 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt.1 dt 1.92008/3.10 & 14.10.2008; UO of even no to DOE dtd 5.1.2009 (referring proposal on Para 4.2 Revision); earlier Gazette Notification dtd 29th Aug 2008 on Pay Revision/ MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-(IC) dtd 30th August 2008 (on Revised Pay); MOF’s GSR No 527(E)dtd 16th July 2009 on HAG Pay Scale revision;its Implementation OM No 1/1/2008-IC dtd 21st July 2009: CoA,CPAO’s Do lr No. CPAO/Tech/6thCPC/Misc/1265 dtd 26.09.2008 old version (OV) and of even no. & EVEN date new version (NV)
Dear Shri Singh,
On behalf of several aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners and also self, I had sent you a few appeals, but till now no concrete actions have followed to redress the core grievance and render justice.I once again submit the following on behalf of all aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners.
1.The CPAO vide his letter D O letter no 1265 dated 26th Sept 2008 (OV) cited/ attached, had directed that “The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty per-cent MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised payscale from which the pensioner had retired”.He had accordingly directed the PSBs to carry out the disbursals. He had quoted an Annexure(II) on Pay Bands/ Grade Pay etc which is untraceable by us till date.
2. Taking cognizance and conforming to HIS (CPAO’s) above directive/ rationale/ authority for restricting the basic component part of the Revised Pension to the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”, the DOPPW had issued the OM dated 14th October 2008, with a “revised”concordance table as Annexure I of the pre-1996/pre-2006/and post 2006 pay scales/ pay bands to serve as guidance for payment of revised pension/ family pension in terms of OM of 1st Sept 2008.
3.This is fully demonstrated under COLUMN 8 of Annexure I of the OM of 14th Oct 2008, where the Pension has been calculated on the basis of “50% of sum of Min of Pay Band + GP/scales.”.
4.Many pre-2006 pensioners have protested/ appealed and prayed for redressal as the above fixation has resulted in many disparities, ultimately leading to REDUCED/ NEGATIVE parity in revised pensions to many of them, instead of MODIFIED parity at the minimum of the revised scales as recommended in para 5.1.47 of the SCPC report/ accepted and notified by the Govt. Till now no solution/ remedy has resulted
5.Pre-2006 pensioners have clearly pointed out and argued that “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” can not be the same as “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” as the former results in REDUCED/ NEGATIVE parity and loss- whereas the latter, at least provides MODIFIED PARITY at the minimum of the revised scale, when applied in true spirit of SCPC recommendations to provide for parity in pensions of pre and post 2006 retirees.
4. Now the same CPAO, has MODIFIED/ ALTERED the contents of the same DO lr retaining its no and even DATE, cited/attached as New Version (NV) here, and has issued the instructions which is very much available on the CPAO’s website.
5.In this letter (New Version) in the second para, CPAO has directed that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fifty per-cent “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY” BAND plus grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Endorsement is made in the earlier version.
6. Therefore we the pre-2006 aggrieved pensioners request you to:
1) Please take cognizance and conform to CPAOS’s change of directive which leads to CONFIRM that MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND can not be same as MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND as amply explained with data and calculations by us/me.
2) Please revise and reissue OM of 14th October 2008, also Recasting its Annexures I and II of OM particularly Column 6 to show the correct Revised Pay scales as per Fitment Tables of MOF’s Gazette Notification / OM s of 29th/30th Aug 2008 and Column 8 to show the correct Revised Pension as per “50% MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY SCALE” +GP etc.
WE ARE ALL GRATEFUL FOR YOUR RAPID “GENEROUS” REVISED PENSION ORDER FOR S30 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WHOSE MAIN GRIEVANCE FOR REDRESSAL WAS ALSO FOR PROVIDING MODIFIED PARITY WHICH AGAIN PROVES THE INJUSTICE INFLICTED TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS .
OUR REQUEST IS FOR A JUST AND SPEEDY SOLUTION TO ALL AS THE CPAO’S MANDATE IS ALREADY IN PUBLIC VIEW AND WE CAN NOT BE DENIED JUSTICE BY DOPPW.

Truly yours

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

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
28-08-2009, 02:23 PM
My dear VN,Gramdass and all others. Retired IFS Officers have paved the way. They have already filed a writ petition in Supreme Court on 17 08 09.
I am trying to collect the full details.

vnatarajan
29-08-2009, 03:46 AM
Dear MLK

That is great. We must see how the parallel groups can align. If SC directs them to go to CAT, we should get prepared.

We can supply the latest RTI material- whatever that can help them-

IFS- is it Forest Service ?

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
29-08-2009, 07:21 AM
Dear MLK

That is great. We must see how the parallel groups can align. If SC directs them to go to CAT, we should get prepared.

We can supply the latest RTI material- whatever that can help them-

IFS- is it Forest Service ?

vnatarajan

Yesterday I had at Dehra Dun a meeting with a retired DG forest, CRPF and BSF Officers of S29. Rtd. DG forest himself is from s31 HAG + scale but he is fully committed for justice to all pensioners and knows very well the entire episode of injustice meted out to us. Rtd. Lucknow based Forest Officers, some IPS and IAS Officers included, have filed a suit in Supreme Court on 17 08 09. Shri Girish Chandra, a Rtd. A very senior and well respected IFS Officer(on sick bed at present) is main spirit behind it. I am not sure but perhaps, Shri S N Shukla is their Advocate. I am trying to get the details of the writ petition but it may take time. They are all oldies and do not operate Computers. I contacted Mr. SS Kothiyal at Dehra Dun, who is a Rtd. IG CRPF. He has given me a list of 30 CRPF and BSF Officers who retired from IG rank(s29). They are all ready for a writ in Supreme Court. But, they are of the view that we should engage from very beginning the top most lawyer who can argue our case before Supreme Court in very first hearing for admission of the writ. They feel that only a lawyer of repute can make the matter decided in our favour. It is therefore necessary that atleast 100 people should contribute five thausand per head. If we can increase numbers, the individual contribution could be lesser. Unfortunately, people on blogs talk too much but stop short of going to Supreme Court to some unknown fear and apprehension. That is why we are still stuck up.

vnatarajan
29-08-2009, 09:02 AM
D/MLK

Once you have the details OA/ Appeal details, and then how others can join as copetitioners/ coapplicants, we may motivate all to join the fight. (case no/ dt of filing (17.8.2009)- is it possible to get- and/or few names of petitioners of the case at Lucknow- so that we can ask our Lucknow groupo to find out!?

As you say enagaging a good lawyer is a must.

5k each and reqd number shd work out to 100 easily, once people get convinced on seeing the case details.

I and PKR have other strategy in mind also- wh we will write to you separately by email, if what has been filed is mainly S29 issue, without dilution of the case.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
29-08-2009, 05:04 PM
Friday,the 29th August 2008 is a day which many pensioners cannot easily forget..Today is the first anniversary of that day.The central Govt. pensioners,particularly senior pensioners who retired before 2006, were happy to see that Govt. issued a Gazette notification accepting the recommendations of the 6CPC,which promised them a minimum increase of 21.5% over their total pension on 1.1.06 (or 40% of the basic pension on 1.1.06) a modest increase to keep pace with the galloping cost of living. But there was much more for the pensioners to rejoice, as the notification also announced that extension of the same fitment benefit or increase in percentage, to the pensioners, as given to the employees.This was almost like a guaranteed minimum pension of 50% of the revised scale of pay.

Little did they know that their joy will be short-lived and that the Govt. will issue a notification on the very next working day subtly modifying the gazette notification and partly denying the benefits. The alterations and denials continued through the clarificatory OMs of 3.10 and 14.10.08, totally modifying the cabinet decisions and denying the pensioners the rightful dues. In their attempt to justify these changes, new lexicons were created where the expression "corresponding to' and "irrespective of " had the same meaning and "minimum of the pay in the pay band" meant "minimum of the pay band". English pundits scratched their heads as they could not fathom out the logic for such changes as no published dictionary gave these meanings. In their eagerness to give wide publicity to the new meanings, the CPAO wrote to the banks, (even before the DP&PW issued formal notification)not to pay the pension as per the original order but to allow only the limited increase as per the new definitions.

The 6 CPC boasted that there will be no cause for any anomaly if the recommendations were comprehensively implemented. Yet, from the very day the the implementation orders were issued, representations started pouring in.The government conceded some of the demands in piece -meal and redressed some of the grievances.The main grievance of the pre-2006 pensioners that they should get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band (as per fixation table applicable to the employees) plus 50% of the grade pay, for the corresponding post, has not met with any success. Though the information received from DP&PW convincingly say that the Govt. has not changed the provision relating to 'the minimum of the pay in the pay band' no orders were issued to the banks withdrawing the controversial clarifications. The RTI info. also confirms that DP&PW is prepared to agree to the originally intended provision, but this has not been approved due to financial constraints.
So the pensioners continue their fight and will solemnly pledge on 1.9.08 to renew their fight for justice.

G.Ramdas

Kanaujiaml
29-08-2009, 07:48 PM
D/MLK

Once you have the details OA/ Appeal details, and then how others can join as copetitioners/ coapplicants, we may motivate all to join the fight. (case no/ dt of filing (17.8.2009)- is it possible to get- and/or few names of petitioners of the case at Lucknow- so that we can ask our Lucknow groupo to find out!?

As you say enagaging a good lawyer is a must.

5k each and reqd number shd work out to 100 easily, once people get convinced on seeing the case details.

I and PKR have other strategy in mind also- wh we will write to you separately by email, if what has been filed is mainly S29 issue, without dilution of the case.

vnatarajan

I think it is not limited to s29 only. You will find nothing on Supreme Court website as writ filed are not listed till admitted. As I told you, those involved at Lucknow do not work on computers. Therefore accessing information is not easy.Today is anniversary of Gazette Extra Ordinary Notification dated 29 08 08. As Shri Gramdass has said, we must pledge and continue fighting the injustice.

vnatarajan
02-09-2009, 03:04 PM
Dear All

I have prepared the format for my FINAL APPEAL/ and also to serve as model
for any others who may like to use it for their own appeal. With slight modifications, it can go to Cab Sec/ MOF/PM/ President .It requires no enclosures. If any one wants to add enclosures, they may do so.It has all "legalistic" points- which can be authenticated by the OMs, SCPC recos- paragraphs, RTI replies, Rules, Swamy's Pub notes etc. PL CHK/EDIT.

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

SUB: APPEAL FOR REMOVAL OF DISPARITY IN PENSIONS BETWEEN PRE -2006 AND POST-2006 PENSIONERS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF SIXTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION (SCPC)’S RECOMMENDATIONS

Sub: Pension Revisions of Pre-2006 S29 Pensioners; Ref: DOPPW’s OM Nos: 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt.1 dt 1.9.2008/3 & 14.10.2008; UO of even no to DOE dtd 5.1.2009 (referring proposal on Para 4.2 Revision); earlier Gazette Notification dtd 29th Aug 2008 on Pay Revision/ MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-(IC) dtd 30th August 2008 (on Revised Pay); MOF’s GSR No 527(E)dtd 16th July 2009 on HAG Pay Scale revision; its Implementation OM No 1/1/2008-IC dtd 21st July 2009: CoA,CPAO’s Do lr No. CPAO/Tech/6thCPC/Misc/1265 dtd 26.09.2008 old version (OV) and of even no. & EVEN date new version(NV)-Edited at the source after months!

Dear Honourable / Respectful …………..

As one belonging to the large segment of most aggrieved senior pre-2006 S29 pensioners subjected to an indifferent treatment/ disparity by denial of MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSIONS (MGP)- resulting in “REDUCTION IN PENSION” leading to nothing short of humiliation in my fading years of life, I make the following submissions:

1.. The concept of Modified Parity (MP) arises out of the parent principle of parity amongst same/homogenous class of pensioners, being a Constitutional guarantee under Article 14. The Cabinet accepted/President sanctioned/ Gazette notified recommendations of the SCPC under para 5.1.47 clearly ASSURES the same for a Minimum Guaranteed Pension (MGP) for pre-2006 pensioners or for a Modified Parity (MP) in pension in effect.

2. Resolution of the Govt. and the implementation orders issued vide DOPPW ‘s OM dated 1.9.2008 under Para 4.2 (text slightly obliterated (purpose not clear) in parts w.r.t 1 above) have therefore bestowed statutory status to the Modified Parity between the past and new pensioners belonging to the same scales of pay and equal length of service on either side of the date of revision.

3.However, while implementing the above directive, the Govt./ concerned authorities have denied the MGP/ MP to the pre-2006 pensioners through administrative instructions contained in the COA, CPAOs letter dated 26.9.2008 (two contradictory/ questionable versions of the same letter no 1265 –marked old version & new version (both were seen in the website/ downloaded by many of us – almost the core cause for the reduction in pensions), followed by DOPPW’s OMs dated 3 and 14 .10.2008 (with Annexure I & II) which are totally arbitrary, misconstrued , in violation of Art 309, and are liable to be struck down.

4..Such arbitrary actions/OMs have resulted in destructuring the “Homogenous Class of pre-2006 pensioners of different scales” into several sub-classes which are again unconstitutional/ violation of Article 14/ against principles-policies of very SCPC who made a number of viable Recommendations to maintain the Homogeneity at least at the minimum in the form of Modified Parity. Instead , many pensioners have got reductions in Basic Pensions (with recurring losses in Dearness Relief raises every six months/ erosion of Base for next CPC review /loss in Family Pension eligibility) which is against every norm and Rule. Wide disparities in pensions resulted within homogenous class of pensioners even at the MGP levels or at Modified Parity. Examples among them are S29 and S30 scales with reductions to the tune of Rs 3850 and Rs 7000 appx. p.m. in their Basic Pensions alone.

5.Other undesirable precedences including successive merging of pay scales into pay bands without maintaining the identity of even the “MINIMUM REVISED PAY” for pension purposes will result in successive REDUCED PENSIONS in every revision. Identity of the pre-revised scale will be totally lost. Two classes of pensioners are being created ie “pre-2006” and “post 2006” for every scale of pensioner. Within SCPC dispensation, there will be three CATEGRIES of pensioners whose pensions will be fixed by different formulae- based on (i) 2.26 Multiplication Factor (ii) Minimum of the Pay Band and (iii) Minimum of the REVISED Pay Scale. For the first two categories, there are no applications of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 provisions or FITMENT TABLES issued by MOF vide Gazette/ OMs dtd 29/30.8.2008. No definition of “PAY” or “EMOLUMENTS” are furnished/ applied as in the case of post-2006 pensioners. ALL THESE DEPARTURTES ARE LIABLE TO BE CHALLENGED as they are discriminatory and have caused the DIAPARITIES between pre-2006 and post 2006 pensions. RTI replies go to the extent of pointing out that the pre-2006 pension revisions are based on “GOVT> DECISIONS” and appli action of CCS(RP)Rules 2008 is for post 2006 pensioners only. Even DOPPW’s OM dtd 2nd Sept 2008 states this, which is discriminatory!

6..Passionate, well reasoned, clear appeals made by scores of affected segments off pre-2006 pensioners have been disposed off en masse without answering any issues rationally or convincingly vide OM of 11.2.2009. RTI questions are replied vaguely by the DOPPW/ DOE /their Ministries, taking shelter under “Govt. Decisions” “OMs issued” instead of answering the queries raised precisely to find out the authority/ decisions which caused the “REDUCED/ NEGATIVE PARITY” instead of the Govt Notified MAP/MP, as it had meant so.

7. A well-reasoned/ non-controversial proposal submitted by the DOPPW to MOF/DOE in Oct 2008/ reminded in Jan 2009 read as follows: “:"THE REVISED PENSION IN NO CASE SHALL BE LOWER THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF THE SUM OF THE REVISED PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND AND THE GRADE PAY THEREON CORRESPONDING TO THE MINIMUM BASIC PAY IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED, AND ARRIVED AT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FITMENT TABLES GIVEN IN ANNEXURE I OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (REVISED PAY) RULES 2008". This proposal had been rejected by DOE (at a Director’s level) in mid Jan 2009 due to adverse “FINANCIALIMPLICATIONS”. Courts have also rejected any such “financial” excuses for pension provisions. Pensioners are not convinced of the grounds of rejection, as the SCPC itself has covered the aspect of full financial provisions for pensions also based on at least Modified Parity.

(THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN PUT UP TO HIGHER AUTHORITIES LIKE Minister Of State/ Finance Minister/ PMO as THE LAST HAD REFERRED THIS ISSUE OF “DISPARITIES” to the MOP(S) / DOPPW for a scrutiny in Oct/Nov 2008 itself).

8. Recently, based on the well-considered recommendation of the Committee of Secretaries (under Cabinet Secretary’s Chairmanship), Govt. has created the new HAG scale 67000-79000 (MOF’s OM dt 16. 7. 2009; its application to pre-2006 pensioners vide DOPPW’s Revised Pension Order for S30 dt 21. 7.2009; CPAO’s Lr dt 28. 8.2009) to reduce the DISPARITY in pensions between the pre-2006 and post 2006 S30 Scale Pensioners. This right step has brought relief to the old pre-2006 S30 Pensioners. It may be added here that originally the SCPC had recommended PB 4 to contain pre-revised pay scales of HAG/SAG levels of S-32/31/30/29/& 28. Out of these now only, the SAG levels S29/28 remain, but with JAG levels in the current PB4. A similar consideration/ action for S29/28 will do justice to the SAG level pensioners and remove their current “NOTIONAL post-retirement REDUCTION in BASIC PENSION” (against Pension Rules) which almost amounts to “post-retirement demotions”. Common causes that resulted in such wide DISPARITIES in case of S30 and all scale pensioners , have already been presented in earlier paragraphs.

9.In view of the above submissions and hoping for your kind/just intervention, we the aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners pray to::

(i) Declare null and void the distortions/ ambiguities introduced in the revision of pensions for pre-2006 pensioners, through DOPPW’s OMs dt 3 & 14.10.2008 and the infirmities of OMdt 11. 2.2009.

(I) Order similar relief as in the case of S30 pre-2006 pensioners to S29 and other pre-2006 Pensioners as necessary to REDUCE THE DISPARITIES that had resulted due to same reasons of MERGER of several PRE-REVISED SCALES into SINGLE PAY BANDS without identifying the ‘MINIMUM’ for each pre-revised pay scale within the respective pay band/ independent of pay bands, by providing:

(a) either new revised scales as in the case of S30 for S29 / others also OR

(b)recognizing the respective pay scales within the corresponding pay bands and identifying the REVISED PAY minimum for each pay scale as per the FIXATION TABLES provided with the CCS(RP)Rules 2008. for e.g. S29 pre-revised pension has to be fixed at a MINIMUM of Rs 27350 in the least, at par with the minimum/least pension, applicable to the post under the correct SCPC dispensation and in accordance with the accepted policy of Modified Parity. Proposal made by the DOPPW in Oct 2008 in this regard (cited earlier) may be considered on its MERITs.

Your sympathetic consideration and fair directions to the authorities concerned to correct the gross injustice and inequity , will certainly help the old, helpless, humiliated pre-2006 pensioners to get solace and justice and eliminate the demoralizing discrimination and necessity of going to the altars of court and litigation .

Yours faithfully

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

vnatarajan[/B]

vnatarajan
03-09-2009, 04:54 PM
Report of COS on OROP- Defence Pensioners

Dear All
Now after the COS Report on Defence Pensions- OROP etc- I have become more enlightened - because- whatever information I am getting on it in bits and pieces, they are "examples" for becoming "WISE" even though one may be otherWISE!
Important

LESSON :(1): Create a gross ANOMALY by a blunderous application (eg MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THA PAY BAND (MPPB)) being "equated" to be same as MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND (MPB))so that it results in a wide GAP in pensions between the pre-2006 and post 2006 pensioners. For this you use the SCPC Recommendations the way you want. Now

LESSON (2): Call it a DISPARITY. It takes a Committee of Six Secretaries with the CS at the top (wasting his time)to calculate such DISPARITIES in terms of percentages. Finally you arrive at a few percentage figures out of which you select only the largest one - say it may be 25%- say AT LT. Gen/ HAG/AS level. Simply remove the DISPARITY with a single "monotonous" reco to solve the DISPARITY for this LEVEL ONLY by taking them out of the shackles of PAY BAND and give them a NEW SCALE by which the DISPARITY is reduced to "0" and something more is also granted (for the damages?). RESULT: Reduction in Pension or Loss has become nil and some GAIN has been made!

MY QUESTIONS

1.Why create anomaly and then solve it through a COS?
2. Why reduce the DISPARITY to zero levels and even make it positive (gain) when all others are still suffering up to 15% DISPARITY even now?
3. Cant the HAG ( S30-pl excuse me-I apologise-- this is only for argument) also be kept at 15% DISPARITY if there is some Financial Implication for resolving the MPB issue?
4.Are the concerned authorities not aware that if they accord reckoning of MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY in the PAY BAND for revising pre-2006 pensions, it cd easily solve many pre-2006 pensioners' problems of DISPARITY including S30?
5. Dont they see, read and understand Our appeals/ tables/ Graphs?

MORAL: Learn to make blunders. Ignore all that matters!
vnatarajan

RSundaram
03-09-2009, 07:13 PM
My dear VN
I have not been able to see, since I did not have handy Internet access I have not been seeing Gconnect and your valuable contributions to the ongoing discussions and struggle on behalf on pre 2006 pensioners. I fully agree with you that the only and simple resolution to the problem is to issue a letter restoring modified parity in respect of all scales. What the government did in carving out a separate pay scale for HAG the government has made a grossly unfair and invidious distinction between HAG and SAG officers. For instance, in the Ordnance Factories functionally and responsibilty wise there is no distinction between HAG and SAG as both qualify to be the General Managers of the Units. Conventionally bigger units are headed by HAGs. However, fighting this distinction in courts may not be of much avail. Courts will always uphold the right of the government to constitute any new scale, regardless of pay commission recommendations, so long it does not deny some existing benefits to current incumbents. So to argue that S29 should get a separate pay scale as HAG guys fortuitously got ( PCSharma and others seem to think erroneously that this was the result of their campaign) may not wash legally. We must keep the fight on through appeals, lobbying and through courts to establish modified parity as an inviolable principle.

ramkanwar
03-09-2009, 07:19 PM
Dear MLK

That is great. We must see how the parallel groups can align. If SC directs them to go to CAT, we should get prepared.

We can supply the latest RTI material- whatever that can help them-

IFS- is it Forest Service ?

vnatarajan

mlk 41 has quote on 26/8/09 on rrewa site that "Supreme Court of India in three cases have repeatedly observed that denial of equality amongst a homogeneous group of pensioners on the ground of financial implications is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
We are from Haryana & intend to file a case. Will you please give the details of such cases as these may be helpful: RK Aggarwal

vnatarajan
04-09-2009, 07:30 AM
Dear RK

(My answer is with the presumption that u r also an aggrieved pre-2006 pensioner like us on account of SCPC's unintended repurcussions)

The 3 Supreme Court cases invariably and lostly referred are those of Nakra(1982/83), SPSVains (2006/08) and Akkara (2006and there are other Supreme Court/ High Court cases also on the side-lines.

All details are available for access in the website www.RREWA.org through its HOME page- menu list on the LHS- under the captions FETURES- Court Judgments.

You may formally register for access (free like Gconnect) and access the info.

HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE MY CAUTION FOR ALL:

1.ALL CASES FOR FULL PARITY WILL BE FOUGHT TILL SUPREME COURT FULL BENCH((Constitutional Bench?) AS THE USSUE INVOLVES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS/ Art. 14 etc ATTRACTIONS ETC.

2.SO ON AN AVERAGE IT TAKES 10-15 YRS. Lawyers may perennial compound your expenses in terms of lakhs of rupees.

3.HIGH COURTS TAKE LESS TIME BUT INVARIABLY ISSUE DOES NOT END THERE.

4.SO STRATEGICALLY, PL CONFINE YOURSELF STRICTLY TO AN ISSUE LIKE "MODIFIED PARITY' - I.E. within framework of RECOMMENDATIONS OF SCPC- AND THE LIKE ISSUE FOR WHICH YOU HAVE READY MATERIAL TO PROVE YOUR POINT. DO NOT GIVE GOVT. SCOPE FOR STRAYING OUT OF THE CASE.

5.LAWYERS ARE PRONE TO MISLEAD YOU UNLESS YOU ARE CLEAR IN YOUR OBJECTIVE.

5.YOU CAN ALSO ACCESS A GOOD LOT OF RTI MATERIAL ON THE SAME WEBSITE FOLLOWING THE SAME PATH- AND GO TO THE FEATURE-TITLED "RTI ACT"

Pl be in touch as we can mount many parallel cases all over INDIA with FOCUS only on MODIFIED PARITY.

I have also posted a CURRENT ISSUE topic on some Legalistic aspects of this Modified Parity issue in the RREWA website. Same appears in the form of an appeal here in an earlier post.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
04-09-2009, 08:15 AM
mlk 41 has quote on 26/8/09 on rrewa site that "Supreme Court of India in three cases have repeatedly observed that denial of equality amongst a homogeneous group of pensioners on the ground of financial implications is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
We are from Haryana & intend to file a case. Will you please give the details of such cases as these may be helpful: RK Aggarwal


My dear Ram Knwar. Send me your e. mail ID and I would send you copies of three SC judgments.

ramkanwar
04-09-2009, 08:19 PM
My dear Ram Knwar. Send me your e. mail ID and I would send you copies of three SC judgments.

Thanks for offer. My e-mail address is: - [email protected]

Kindly send the judgments.

RK Aggarwal

Kanaujiaml
05-09-2009, 07:06 AM
Thanks for offer. My e-mail address is: - [email protected]

Kindly send the judgments.

RK Aggarwal


I sent the e. mail with files for cases on 04 09 09. You have not responded so far.

vnatarajan
05-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Dear Shri RKA

You may also try to get details of this High Court case from the website of Mumbai High Court:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pension part of right to life: Bombay HC
23 Dec 2008, 0932 hrs IST, Swati Deshpande, TNN

MUMBAI: Pensioners now have a reason to smile. In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has held that pension is a vital aspect of social
security and that the right to receive it constitutes a right to life under the constitution. Moreover, it held that pension must be paid regularly in the first week of the month.

''Deprive a pensioner of the payment and you deprive him or her of the right to life. Delayed pensionary payments place a pensioner in a position of uncertainty and dependence which impinges on the quality of life under Article 21, and the right to dignified existence of the aged,'' said Justice D Y Chandrachud while directing the transport undertaking of Solapur Municipal Corporation to deposit the pensions of 13 retired employees on the first day of the succeeding month or latest by the seventh day.

The judge noted that pensioners can't be left to the mercy of the administration to receive what is a matter of right.

''Pensioners must lead their lives with a sense of self-respect and dignity,'' he held as he innovatively developed the rights of senior citizens, especially pensioners, in consonance with the guarantees expected under the constitution.

The judgment was passed in a case where the Solapur civic body had challenged a direction of an industrial court which had labelled its action of delaying pension payments inordinately each month as an unfair labour practice and directed it to credit the monthly pension by the first day of each following month.

The civic body explained that it was in financial difficulties and said it could pay by the 15th and not the first. The civic body argued that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not mandate payment by the first of each following month. It says payment has to be made ''on or after the first day...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
10-09-2009, 02:41 PM
My dear friends. Since yesterday, I find that "Compose" button on my yahoomail inbox page is missing. Can anyone guide me how to restore it back ? Thanks.

dnaga57
10-09-2009, 04:35 PM
My dear friends. Since yesterday, I find that "Compose" button on my yahoomail inbox page is missing. Can anyone guide me how to restore it back ? Thanks.
Dear Sir
Possibly your Ymail is upgraded. It has a button next to 'Check Mail' called 'New' with a drop down arrow. click on it , select email & you should be in business.:)

Kanaujiaml
10-09-2009, 06:19 PM
Dear Sir
Possibly your Ymail is upgraded. It has a button next to 'Check Mail' called 'New' with a drop down arrow. click on it , select email & you should be in business.:)

Thank you very much it worked.