PDA

View Full Version : Delayed holding of DPCs by the Govt. is resulting in financcial loss to retirees



Gopal Krishan
21-03-2013, 07:59 PM
The consolidated guidelines on the DPC were last issfued on the 19th April, 1989. The earlier DPC instructions also had similar arrangements. Briefely, the guidelines did not put any specific bar on consideration of retired employes while preparing year-wise panels of those who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant yer. In other words these instruction provided for consideration of the ritired employees for promotion if tey were eligible for consideration in the relevant year . The concept of year wise panel was also introduced in the year 1980. Subsequently, when faced with a problem raised by the Department of Telecommunication about consideration of retired employees retrospectively when they had become eliogible for consideration during the period they were in service, the Department of Personnel examined the matter in the light of various judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court and in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs issued an OM on the 12th October, 1998 clarifying the postion with reference to the consolidated instructions. According to the clarfication (i) the retired officers who were within the zone of consideration at the relevant time should be considered while preparing year wise panels; and (ii) such officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. Unfortunately, the Department of Personnel has been interpreting (ii) above in such a way that even if some one is included in the panel retrospectively he would not be entitled to even pensionery benefits. As such all those aggrived started goint to CATHigh Courts/Supreme Court. Obviously, the CAT/HighCourts/Supreme Court generally started directing the Government for giving benefits to them. The DOPT instead of modifying their OM of 12th Otober, 1998 decided to restrict the benefits to only those who got favourable decision form CAT/High Court. That being a wrong policy we had represented to the DOPT in this regard. DOPT, in turn referred the matter to the Department Legal Affairs, who advised that where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employyes concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the selcti/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. This advice was received by DOPT as back as Ist week of September, 2010 . The matter is lying at that stage still. As such the same is required to be pursued by all sufferes in this regard.

Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
25-05-2013, 04:00 PM
I have requested the DOPT to allow inspection of that file and the otherfiles connected with the issue. After that I would take up the matter with the concerned.

Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
28-04-2014, 05:22 PM
I had onspected that file and found that the at the level of the Joint Secretary, it was decided to leave the matter at that. In the mean time it was also understood that the PM had directed the Ministry that in this type of cases when the retirees are considered for promotion at the relevant time, there names should be included in the select list of that time. It appears that the intenstion of the decision of the PM was all those shoud be given benefits of the next higher post in terms of retiral benefits notionally. Tht matter is required to be pursued.


Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
25-09-2014, 01:58 PM
RTI applications had been filed for getting information from the PMO and the DOPT. Unfortunately nothing positive has come out from them. In the mean time one of the officer of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has filed a case in PB CAT, Delhi as his case was also delayed and he was not given any pensioner benefits although his name was included in the panel for promotion retrospectively.
GOPAL Krishan

Gopal Krishan
20-11-2014, 03:21 PM
The DOPT have issued an OM on the 14th November, 2014, which retirees must be considered and included in the suitabiity/select list
Gopa Krishan

R.Devaraju
07-12-2014, 10:43 AM
.

Dear Sir,
I asked clarification about the circular dated 14.11.2014 from DOPT under public grievance. DOPT replied as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------
DoPT OM is very clear that promotion is only to be given to the persons who are actually available for promotion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It was stated that the item was closed. Below that one feedback column was available. I made further submission under that feedback only but Iam not sure whether DOPT will reply.
-------------------------------
My further submission to DOPT.
---------------------------------------


My department has not given promotion in 2012 when there was about 40 vacancies . If promotion had been given in 2012 itself, I would have got promotion. But it gave promotion only in 2014 after my retirement--- i.e after two years to the officers available on the date of promotion leaving retired officers like me. Since DOPT has given above clarification in one sentence, it is not clear whether the action of my department denying promotion to the eligible retired officers like me is correct or not. If DOPT furnish more information on the circular, it would be much appreciable.

With regards.
R.Devaraju
.9445644841resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png9445644841



Call (skype:+919445644841?call&origin=%7B'agent'%3A'FFTB%2F7.3.16540.9015'%2C'bro wser'%3A'mozilla%2F33.0'%2C'fingerprint'%3A'%7BFCE 80747-76E3-4FDC-A25C-3DA6FA384BD9%7D'%2C'uiid'%3A'0'%2C'number_type'%3A 'SPNR'%2C'url'%3A'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gconnect.in%2Ff orums%2Fshowthread.php'%7D)
Send SMS (skype:+919445644841?sms&origin=%7B'agent'%3A'FFTB%2F7.3.16540.9015'%2C'bro wser'%3A'mozilla%2F33.0'%2C'fingerprint'%3A'%7BFCE 80747-76E3-4FDC-A25C-3DA6FA384BD9%7D'%2C'uiid'%3A'0'%2C'number_type'%3A 'SPNR'%2C'url'%3A'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gconnect.in%2Ff orums%2Fshowthread.php'%7D)
Add to Skype (skype:+919445644841?add&origin=%7B'agent'%3A'FFTB%2F7.3.16540.9015'%2C'bro wser'%3A'mozilla%2F33.0'%2C'fingerprint'%3A'%7BFCE 80747-76E3-4FDC-A25C-3DA6FA384BD9%7D'%2C'uiid'%3A'0'%2C'number_type'%3A 'SPNR'%2C'url'%3A'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gconnect.in%2Ff orums%2Fshowthread.php'%7D)
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

Gopal Krishan
09-12-2014, 04:26 PM
The policy guidelines issued by the DOPT from time to time about holding of DPCs lay down that retirees are to be considered for promotion at the relevant time if DPCs get delayed. All those found suitable for promotion are required to be included in the panel(s). These guidelines also lay down that all those included in the panel(s) shall have no right to actual promotion. The DOPT has been interpreting the provision as if the retirees have no right to even notional promotion/pensionary benefits. This, according to various judgement of CAT/Courts, is unjust. They have given judgements in favour of the petitioners. IN FACT on a reference to the Department of Legal Affairs by the DOPT, the former advised the Department that all such retirees have a legal right to notional promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. That advice of the Law Ministry is lying with the DOP FOR more than four years without any action thereon. We may have to press for that.
Gopal Krishan 9911178250

Gopal Krishan
27-01-2015, 04:27 PM
One of my friends has represented to the Prime Minister. His representation is reproduced below. I seek comments, thereon.



Subject: Violation of the policy guidelines by various Ministries//Departments for years necessitating intervention by the Prime Minister.

As back as 1980 and 10.4.89 consolidated policy guidelines on the Departmental Promotion Committee were issued by the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel and Training. These guidelines did not lay down any restriction on (i) consideration of retired officials, who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year; (ii) inclusion of the names of suitable officials in the panels while preparing year wise panels; and (iii) then giving to all those included in the panels notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits with effect from the relevant year.

2.Later, however, as need arose, because of some difficulties about considering retired officials faced by one of the Departments, viz-a-viz UPSC, a general clarification to all the Ministries/Departments with reference to the guidelines referred to above was issued by the Government of India, in DOPT on 12.10.98 stating that (i) retired officials should be considered during the year they were due for such a consideration while preparing year wise panels and (ii) they shall have no right to actual promotion

3.In view of these policy guidelines various Ministries/Departments, including the Ministry of Information and Broad casting were/are considering retired officials for the year-wise panels of the relevant years and also including names of all those found suitable for promotion in the lists for promotion. Accordingly, after retirement in May 2005, the name of the undersigned was included, in the panel for promotion during the year 2005-06. However, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, refused to give the notional promotion and benefits in terms of revised pay and pension. When this was brought to the notice of the Ministry, the attention of the undersigned was invited to the clarification issued by the DOPT in 1998 laying down that ‘(ii) they shall have no right to actual promotion’, which meant to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that even notional benefits were not to be given to the undersigned.

4 .In this connection it may be stated that:-

(a) from 1980 it self there existed a policy as re-iterated/clarified in October, 1998 that all those included in the panels shall have no right to actual promotion, which by implication meant that they should be given notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits only.

(b)not giving notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits is against the very guidelines issued by the Government of India in DOPT as back as 1980s, which did not put any restriction on giving notional pensionary benefits;
(c) the clarification issued in 1998 could not create any new guideline/provision, as being interpreted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as the same was simply a clarification of earlier guidelines;

(d) a number of CAT/Court judgements are there in which directions had been given to the concerned Ministry/Department to give notional benefits;

(e)based on some of the Supreme Court judgements the Department of Legal Affairs in the year 2010 had advised the DOPT in their file No. 2011/4/1998-Estt(D) that such officials do have a legal right to notional benefits;

(f)vide recently issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, (Annexure I), the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice, which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification;

(g)the undersigned is being put to injustice in the matter of promotion as the DPC could not be held in time because of administrative fault; and

(h)denial of notional benefit is unreasonable and arbitrary

4. In the circumstances it would be seen that there is every justification for giving notional benefits to the undersigned. It is, therefore, requested that the matter may kindly be looked into afresh, particulary in the light of the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet referred to above and the undersigned may be given the notional pensionary benefits, if necessary, after further issuing a clarification to all Ministries/Departments including Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, in continuation of the OM of the 14th November, 2014 clarifying that the guidelines issued in 1980s did not put any bar on giving notional benefits to those included in the panels for promotion.

R.Devaraju
27-01-2015, 06:13 PM
Dear Shri.Gopalji !
Everyone shall thank the friend who represented the issue to the Prime Minister. But at the same time, on seeing the functions of PM during the past 8 months, I feel that it may not be sufficient to get the desired orders unless there is some political pressure. The final one is legal battle. Kindly inform the fate of the CAT case listed for hearing last month.
With regards,
R.Devaraju.

Gopal Krishan
28-01-2015, 05:06 PM
Of course he represented to the PM and the MINISTER of State in the Ministry of Personnel as that Ministry is under the control of the PM. After waiting for some days, we intend to take up the matter with the PM as the in charge of the Ministry through some MP etc.

His case would come up in the last week of March, 2015.
Gopal Krishan

R.Devaraju
29-01-2015, 08:21 PM
Of course he represented to the PM and the MINISTER of State in the Ministry of Personnel as that Ministry is under the control of the PM. After waiting for some days, we intend to take up the matter with the PM as the in charge of the Ministry through some MP etc.

His case would come up in the last week of March, 2015.
Gopal Krishan

Thank you very much sir. Kindly inform the developments then and there please.
With regards
R.Devaraju.

Gopal Krishan
30-01-2015, 06:45 PM
I would suggest that similar representations in general terms with reference to the direction of the PM issued vide OM dated the 14th November, 2014, could be sent by others concerned also to the P>M>
Gopal KRISHAN

R.Devaraju
01-02-2015, 07:44 AM
I would suggest that similar representations in general terms with reference to the direction of the PM issued vide OM dated the 14th November, 2014, could be sent by others concerned also to the P>M>
Gopal KRISHAN

Dear sir,
A very good advice. It may kindly be examined and advise whether uploading the petition in twitter to PM would work.

Thanks.
R.Devaraju.

Gopal Krishan
01-02-2015, 04:57 PM
Yes. That would also do. We could send a copy to the Minster of State in the Ministry of Personnel etc. NORTH Block, New Delhi. This problem of retired employees is likely to appear in some new papers tomorrow. Let us see the reaction of the Gvernment thereon.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
02-02-2015, 06:17 PM
Hindustan Times and a couple others carried a story under the title ' Retired employees an get benefits of missed promotions'
Gopal krishan

R.Devaraju
04-02-2015, 11:02 PM
Hindustan Times and a couple others carried a story under the title ' Retired employees an get benefits of missed promotions'
Gopal krishan


Economic Times article is placed below for information to all please.

R.Devaraju.

Economic Times.

Retired employees can now avail benefits of missed promotions

PTI Feb 1, 2015, 02.54PM IST

NeW DELHI: Retired government employees (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/government%20employees) who missed out on their promotions due to late meetings of the committees deciding on such departmental elevations will now be able to avail its post-retirement benefits.
"Instructions have been issued to all ministries and departments to give benefit of promotion to those employees who missed it due to late meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Departmental%20Promotion%20Committee) (DPC)," an official in the Department of Personnel and Training (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Department%20of%20Personnel%20and%20Training) (DoPT) said.


It would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year-wise zone of consideration or panel, as per the DoPT (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/DoPT) order.
Consequently, their juniors are considered (in their place) for promotions, who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the DPC had been held in time, it said.
"Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in the panel year," the order said, adding that this "undesirable trend negate the very purpose" of government's existing instructions for inclusion of such employees.
There have been reports that some of the eligible retired employees are not being given the benefit of promotion which they missed due to late DPCs. In fact the DPCs were being held very late, the official said.
The DoPT has asked all central government ministries and departments under it to ensure "strict compliance" of its instructions to include retiring employees for promotions in case the DPCs are delayed.
Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion, the DoPT official said.

R.Devaraju
03-04-2015, 01:33 PM
Sir,

I understand that the Prime Minister is now monitoring public grievances directly on 25th of every month.

I saw an order on this subject in G-connect. So I request all employees who lost their promotion due to delayed DPC to lodge their grievance under DOPT Public grievance portal. I have already lodged my grievance as under.

Grievance: - Denial of notional Promotion / pension benefits to the eligible retired officials whenever DPC is delayed---- Violation of the policy guidelines by various Ministries//Departments for years necessitating intervention by the Prime Minister.
Sir,
I retired as Joint Director in ESI Corporation. My date of retirement is 30.09.2012. The ESIC did not hold DPC for promotion to the post of Director during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 though there were about 50 vacancies. If the DPC was held in December 2011 or January 2012, I would have got promotion to the cadre of Director. Finally ESIC gave promotion to all the officers available in 2014 leaving all retired officers including me causing a huge financial loss. I beg to submit that the rules of Govt of India under which I am eligible for promotion. Copies of all correspondences made to ESI Corporation and connected rules of GOI are enclosed please.
The consolidated guidelines on the DPC were last issued on the 19th April, 1989. The earlier DPC instructions also had similar arrangements. Briefly, the guidelines did not put any specific bar on consideration of retired employees while preparing year-wise panels of those who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year. In other words these instructions provided for consideration of the retired employees for promotion if they were eligible for consideration in the relevant year. The concept of year wise panel was also introduced in the year 1980. Subsequently, when faced with a problem raised by the Department of Telecommunication about consideration of retired employees retrospectively when they had become eligible for consideration during the period they were in service, the Department of Personnel examined the matter in the light of various judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court and in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs issued an OM on the 12th October, 1998 clarifying the position with reference to the consolidated instructions. According to the clarification (i) the retired officers who were within the zone of consideration at the relevant time should be considered while preparing year wise panels; and (ii) such officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. Unfortunately, the Department of Personnel has been interpreting (ii) above in such a way that even if someone is included in the panel retrospectively he would not be entitled to even pensionery benefits. As such all those aggrieved started going to CAT High Courts/Supreme Court. Obviously, the CAT / High Courts / Supreme Court generally started directing the Government for giving benefits to them. The DOPT instead of modifying their OM of 12th October, 1998 decided to restrict the benefits to only those who got favourable decision form CAT/High Court. That being a wrong policy we had represented to the DOPT in this regard. DOPT, in turn referred the matter to the Department Legal Affairs, who advised that where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employees concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the select/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. This advice was received by DOPT as back as first week of September, 2010.
Recently DOPT issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice, which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification. This view is strengthened by the article published in Economic Times which is reproduced below. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Retired employees can now avail benefits of missed promotions
PTI Feb 1, 2015, 02.54PM IST NeW DELHI:
Retired government employees (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/government%20employees) who missed out on their promotions due to late meetings of the committees deciding on such departmental elevations will now be able to avail its post-retirement benefits. "Instructions have been issued to all ministries and departments to give benefit of promotion to those employees who missed it due to late meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Departmental%20Promotion%20Committee) (DPC)," an official in the Department of Personnel and Training (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Department%20of%20Personnel%20and%20Training) (DoPT) said.

It would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year-wise zone of consideration or panel, as per the DoPT (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/DoPT) order.
Consequently, their juniors are considered (in their place) for promotions, who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the DPC had been held in time, it said.
"Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in the panel year," the order said, adding that this "undesirable trend negate the very purpose" of government's existing instructions for inclusion of such employees.
There have been reports that some of the eligible retired employees are not being given the benefit of promotion which they missed due to late DPCs. In fact the DPCs were being held very late, the official said.
The DoPT has asked all central government ministries and departments under it to ensure "strict compliance" of its instructions to include retiring employees for promotions in case the DPCs are delayed.
Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion, the DoPT official said........
I sincerely submit that even after seeing the above developments, rules , guidelines, instructions etc, various Ministries//Departments are still violating them and denying notional Promotion / pension benefits to the eligible retired officials whenever DPC is delayed. Therefore, I humbly request the Honourable Prime Minister to kindly cause necessary action so that the DOPT order is properly followed by all Departments and Ministries including ESI Corporation extending due pension benefits to retired officials.
R.Devaraju.

soodeep
03-04-2015, 07:47 PM
Sir,

I understand that the Prime Minister is now monitoring public grievances directly on 25th of every month.

I saw an order on this subject in G-connect. So I request all employees who lost their promotion due to delayed DPC to lodge their grievance under DOPT Public grievance portal. I have already lodged my grievance as under.

Grievance: - Denial of notional Promotion / pension benefits to the eligible retired officials whenever DPC is delayed---- Violation of the policy guidelines by various Ministries//Departments for years necessitating intervention by the Prime Minister.
Sir,
I retired as Joint Director in ESI Corporation. My date of retirement is 30.09.2012. The ESIC did not hold DPC for promotion to the post of Director during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 though there were about 50 vacancies. If the DPC was held in December 2011 or January 2012, I would have got promotion to the cadre of Director. Finally ESIC gave promotion to all the officers available in 2014 leaving all retired officers including me causing a huge financial loss. I beg to submit that the rules of Govt of India under which I am eligible for promotion. Copies of all correspondences made to ESI Corporation and connected rules of GOI are enclosed please.
The consolidated guidelines on the DPC were last issued on the 19th April, 1989. The earlier DPC instructions also had similar arrangements. Briefly, the guidelines did not put any specific bar on consideration of retired employees while preparing year-wise panels of those who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year. In other words these instructions provided for consideration of the retired employees for promotion if they were eligible for consideration in the relevant year. The concept of year wise panel was also introduced in the year 1980. Subsequently, when faced with a problem raised by the Department of Telecommunication about consideration of retired employees retrospectively when they had become eligible for consideration during the period they were in service, the Department of Personnel examined the matter in the light of various judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court and in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs issued an OM on the 12th October, 1998 clarifying the position with reference to the consolidated instructions. According to the clarification (i) the retired officers who were within the zone of consideration at the relevant time should be considered while preparing year wise panels; and (ii) such officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. Unfortunately, the Department of Personnel has been interpreting (ii) above in such a way that even if someone is included in the panel retrospectively he would not be entitled to even pensionery benefits. As such all those aggrieved started going to CAT High Courts/Supreme Court. Obviously, the CAT / High Courts / Supreme Court generally started directing the Government for giving benefits to them. The DOPT instead of modifying their OM of 12th October, 1998 decided to restrict the benefits to only those who got favourable decision form CAT/High Court. That being a wrong policy we had represented to the DOPT in this regard. DOPT, in turn referred the matter to the Department Legal Affairs, who advised that where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employees concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the select/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. This advice was received by DOPT as back as first week of September, 2010.
Recently DOPT issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice, which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification. This view is strengthened by the article published in Economic Times which is reproduced below. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Retired employees can now avail benefits of missed promotions
PTI Feb 1, 2015, 02.54PM IST NeW DELHI:
Retired government employees (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/government%20employees) who missed out on their promotions due to late meetings of the committees deciding on such departmental elevations will now be able to avail its post-retirement benefits. "Instructions have been issued to all ministries and departments to give benefit of promotion to those employees who missed it due to late meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Departmental%20Promotion%20Committee) (DPC)," an official in the Department of Personnel and Training (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Department%20of%20Personnel%20and%20Training) (DoPT) said.

It would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year-wise zone of consideration or panel, as per the DoPT (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/DoPT) order.
Consequently, their juniors are considered (in their place) for promotions, who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the DPC had been held in time, it said.
"Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in the panel year," the order said, adding that this "undesirable trend negate the very purpose" of government's existing instructions for inclusion of such employees.
There have been reports that some of the eligible retired employees are not being given the benefit of promotion which they missed due to late DPCs. In fact the DPCs were being held very late, the official said.
The DoPT has asked all central government ministries and departments under it to ensure "strict compliance" of its instructions to include retiring employees for promotions in case the DPCs are delayed.
Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion, the DoPT official said........
I sincerely submit that even after seeing the above developments, rules , guidelines, instructions etc, various Ministries//Departments are still violating them and denying notional Promotion / pension benefits to the eligible retired officials whenever DPC is delayed. Therefore, I humbly request the Honourable Prime Minister to kindly cause necessary action so that the DOPT order is properly followed by all Departments and Ministries including ESI Corporation extending due pension benefits to retired officials.
R.Devaraju.


Thank you so much for sharing the information/views.

Gopal Krishan
10-04-2015, 05:25 PM
Unfortunately, the DoPT had issued guidelines in 1998 as re-iterated in the 14th November, 2014 OM, based on the direction of the Prime Minister, which provide that such retirees are to be considered and if found fit are required to be included in the respective panels. The guidelines do not provide for any notional promotion or notional pensionary benefits. That is the stand of the Government of India in the DOPT. Unless that is modified all would suffer as hitherto and would have to knock the doors of the courts.
Some of the Central Secretariat Service officers who also missed promotion to the level of Directors are also pursuing the matter with the DOPT and the Prime Minister. Unfortunately nothing has clicked so far.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
12-04-2015, 05:24 PM
Why my post is not getting loaded?

vnatarajan
12-04-2015, 05:42 PM
MY RTI SENT TODAY 12 APRIL 2015 TO CPIO, MINISTRY OF MINES (MY CADRE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY) IS POSTED HERE TO START THE CAMPAIGN FROM MY SIDE TO FIGHT FOR "TRUTH & JUSTICE" FOR ALL.

vnatarajan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTI EXTRACTS:
QUOTE:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE RECENT DOPTs (MINISTRY OF P, PG & PENSIONS) issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE , which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification. SUCH BENEFITS INCLUDE PENSION AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS.

RTI QUERIES FOLLOW WITH THE REQUEST TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIAL INFORMATION, FILE NOTE COPIES, OMs/GUIDELINES ETC :

1.ACTIONS TAKEN FROM THE YEARS 1995 (repeat YEARS 1995) ONWARDS BY THE MINISTRY OF MINES AND THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (a) TO PREPARE THE DPC PROPOSALs IN TIME FOR FILLING UP VACANT POSTS OF SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERALS IN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND (b) TO INCLUDE ( IN SERVICE / RETIRED) SAG LEVEL- DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERALS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (retrospectively as and if necessary) AS AND WHEN THEY HAD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE SAID PERIOD (WHILE IN SERVICE/ even AFTER RETIREMENT AS PER the said DOPT GUIDELINES).

2. WHETHER SUCH A LIST HAD TAKEN CARE TO INCLUDE MY NAME ( V NATARAJAN- one of the eligible Deputy Director Generals (Geology) of the Geological Survey of India for the said post of SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL IN GSI (served in that capacity since Aug 1993 onwards till date of retirement 31 May 1997 joined GSI in Jan 1961 as Asst. Geologist , later selected to Gr A Post in combined selection of Jr Mining Geologist IBM/ Geologist Jr of GSI (both under Ministry of Mines) in the UPSC Batch of 1962 Gr A since 17 Feb 1964 in IBM/ since 1 1 1966 in GSI after merger of Expl. Wing of IBM )

3.If the reasons to sl no 2 are negative, provide all such material information/ documents, extracts of copies of seniority lists, relevant DPA panel lists , at the earliest.

4. AGAIN, In case my name had NOT figured in the panel of lists in such proposal/ OR I had not been duly considered in such DPCs , then , PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS AS TO WHAT REMEDIAL ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INITIATED TO DO JUSTICE AND PROTECT IN THE LEAST MY PENSIONARY BENEFITS WEF DATE OF MY RETIREMENT (31 05 1997) AS I AM ENTITLED FOR NOTIONAL PENSIONARY BENEFITS AS MY JUNIORS BELONGING TO 1964 UPSC BATCH/ THOSE WITH WHOM I WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FOR CONSIDERAION FOR THE THEN VACANT POSTS OF SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERALS OF GSI IN 1995, 1996, 1997 & BEYOND, HAVE BEEN PROMOTED WITHIN SHORT PERIOD AFTER MY RETIREMENT.

5.AS REQUESTED , COPIES OF ALL MATERIAL INFORMATIUON/ FILE NOTES ETC MAY BE PROVIDED. NECESSAQRY FEE FOR THE SAME SHALL BE REMITTED ONCE THE AMOUNT / REMITTANCE DESTINATION ETC ARE INTIMATED BY THE CPIO

UNQUOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan
12-04-2015, 06:42 PM
I ALSO POST HERE THE DOPT'S OM COPY AS ACCESSED FROM A WEBSITE FOR READY REFERENCE.
ORIGINAL MAY BE ACCESSED FROM THE DEPT'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE.
vnatarajan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
Dated- 14th November, 2014
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: - Inclusion of eligible officers who are due to retire before the likely date
of vacancies, in the panel for promotion-Regarding.
***
The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of Personnel
and Training Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998
regarding consideration of retired employees who were within the zone of consideration
in the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held. The
said OM provides as follows:-
There is no specific bar in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated
April 10, 1989 or any other related instructions of the Department of Personnel
and Training for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year-wise
panel(s), who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s).
According to legal opinion also it would not be in order if eligible employees, who
were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually
in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing yearwise
zone of consideration/panel and, consequently, their juniors are considered
(in their places), who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the
DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered imperative to identify the
correct zone of consideration for relevant Year(s). Names of the retired officials
may also be included in the panel(s). Such retired officials would, however, have
no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s) may, if need be, prepare extended
panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the Department of Personnel and
Training Office Memorandum No.22011/8/87-Estt.(D) dated April 9, 1996."
2. Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not
consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in
the panel year. These undesirable trends negate the very purpose of the above said
Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998 and it is also
against the principle of natural justice.
3. All the Ministries/Departments are therefore advised to ensure strict compliance
of the instructions of the Department of Personnel & Training issued vide this
Department's OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998.
4. These instructions may please be brought out to the notice of all concerned
including attached and subordinate offices.
(S.K. rasad)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tele. No. 23040340
All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

vnatarajan
13-04-2015, 05:34 AM
DEAR SHRI GK JI/ SHRI R DEVARAJU JI/ SHRI SUNDARAR ,

(name "GK" appears to be auspicious for me to start with......)

IN ORDER TO HASTEN UP THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION AND ALSO TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE READY TO GO FOR LITIGATION (PRE 2006 S24 PENIONERS FROM CHENNAI LED BY MY COLLEAGUES - S SHRI K GOPALAKRISHNAN (GSI) etc. some actions are to be initiated.

In this regard , I draw attention to GK ji's post of 9 Dec 2014 : "IN FACT on a reference to the Department of Legal Affairs by the DOPT, the former advised the Department that all such retirees have a legal right to notional promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. That advice of the Law Ministry is lying with the DOP FOR more than four years without any action thereon. We may have to press for that. Gopal Krishan 9911178250 ".....

Do you have a copy of the said legal advice?. IF NOT IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME AND / OR SHRI SUNDARAR JI TO OBTAIN THE SAME FROM DOLA THROUGH RTI SOON.

As you know such documents will be vital for fighting the FULL PARITY/ LPD BASED PENSION/ ORG SERV-ACP-ECP RELATED PENSION CASES soon if the Govt doesn't yield in time to do '"ONE TIME CORRECTION" JUSTICE to all.

Shri GK ji/ Shri Sundarar pl. to help to get the 'LEGAL ADVICE copy soon thru RTI.


vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
13-04-2015, 09:05 PM
Respected Natarajan Sahib,

I too have lot of blessings from Gopal Krishna of Gokul. In fact I had my schooling from Mathura only. With His blessings I am replying to your post.




Thank your very much for the interest shown in the matter which is affecting a very large number of Government of employees because of the inertia on the part of the Central Government. I have been receiving calls as well as SMSs from various retired officials from all over, who are suffering for no fault on their part but because of the administrative delays in holding DPCs. Some of them are in CAT and some other are preparing for the same.

Sir, I have already obtained copies of the notes from DOPT leading to the issue of (i) the OM on the 12th October, 1998 and (ii) the OM dated the 14th NOVEMBER, 2014. Copies of the note referring the matter to the Law Ministry and their advice are also available with me. Briefly, the Department of Legal Affairs advised the DOPT on a reference made to the former based on
representations from Shri Rajaseshan (unfortunately expired after fighting for justice for about ten years) and myself that
"(i) where the DPPcs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employees concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the select/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. However, with regard to payment of arrears of salary with retrospective effect from the notional dates in view of the settled principle of law it does not arise since , indisputable they had never worked during that period in the promotional post.

(ii) Any other view taken contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court may not withstand to judicial scrutiny and may put the referring department in an embarrassing situation."

This advice was tendered as back as the 3rd September, 2010 and with the approval of the Additional Secretary. There after the advice is lying with the Division concerned with the policy guidelines on the subject, i.e., ESTT Division of DOPT. The advice was submitted by the under Secretary concerned to Director(Estt) on 21/10/2010. The file remained between them till 20/9/2012. On the 21st September, 2011 a somewhat positive note was recorded by one Deputy Secretary to the JS. However, on the 24th Sept. 2012 the JS ordered for status quo to remain.
With regards
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
13-04-2015, 09:29 PM
Respected Sir,
I am giving below the reason for issue of the OM of the 14th Novembr, 2014.

The EO Div of DOPT in its ID Note No. 12/53/2012-EO(SM-II) dated the 4th September, 2012 had mentioned that
“ As per extant practice, DPC does not include an officer for in the panel if he/she is due to retire before the likely date of vacancy occurring in his turn, even though the officer may have been found fit.
2. The proposal of the Ministry of Defence seeking approval of the ACC for empanelment of officers for promotion the grade of Principal Director (PD) of Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) in the pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000/- + Grade of 1oooo/- for the panel year 2012-13 was submitted to ACC wherein Prime Minister has directed that all those found eligible by the DPC should necessarily be included in the panel even if they are due to retire before the likely date of vacancies as the likely date is susceptible to change in the event of death, resignation etc. off officers in the higher grade or the seniors in the panel. “

Unfortunately, the direction of the Prime Minister were kept pending for more than 18 months and no action was taken by the Estt(D) side. As such, a reminder was sent by the EO side on the 4th April, 2014. At this stage a reply was sent, in a routine manner on the 29th April, 2014 stating that the existing instructions on panels, required to be prepared year-wise and not vacancy-wise, covered the suggestion of the EO Divn. Yet another communication was sent by the EO Divn. vide 18/18/2014-SM-II dated the 11the September 2014 stating that “the ACC has again directed the Establishment Division (DOPT) on 04.09.2014 while considering the recommendation of DPC to issue clarificatory instructions to remove ambiguity, if any , in enforcing the earlier ACC directions that all eligible officers under the zone of consideration should necessarily be assessed by the DPC for promotion even if the officer may be retiring before the occurrence of the vacancies in the panel year.”
Only thereafter OM dated the 14th November, 2014 was issued.

With regards, Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
14-04-2015, 02:54 PM
Dear Shri GK ji/ Others affected- interested,

I have sent a separate email to you (Shri GK) in this regard.
Hope you will help us as required.

A GROUP IS WORKING ON THE ISSUE - while going in for some other issue also , which may be legally "fruitful" without ambiguity.

NOW WE REQUIRE THE OM OF MOF DT 1 5 1974- A SORT OF MOTHER OM - ON THE ISSUE OF ACP/ECP IN ORG SERVICES MODE FOR INCUMBENTS IN ALL CG DEPARTMENTS WHCIH MANY DEPARTMENTS DID NOT PURSUE AND IMPLEMENT.

THE SAME IS CITED IN SOME JUDGMENTS ALSO....ON DELAYED DPCs.

OM MAY BE COPIED AND PASTED HERE.
LINK MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ACCESSING THE SOURCE.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
14-04-2015, 07:35 PM
Sir,
If you could provide some more details about the OM of Ministry of Finance dated the Ist May, 1974 on the issue of ACP/ECP.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
15-04-2015, 03:51 PM
DEAR SHRI GK JI,

IT IS MINISTRY OF FINANCE'S RESOLUTION.
Ministry’s Resolution No.F.11/35/74-IC dated 1-5-1974.

COULD BE A GAZETTED ONE.
IT IS CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM ALL WEB SITES OF MIN OF FIN DEPARTMENTS.
WHEREAS MANY CLARIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS OMs WRT THE SAME APPEAR IN THE ARCHIEVES OF THE MOF WEBSITE.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE USUAL "NET STRATEGY" THAT IS ADOPTED SO THAT THE "RESOLUTION" IS NOT AVAILABLE EVEN TO KNOW THE CONTENTS, FOR PENSIONERS LIKE US.

TRANSPARENCY IS QUITE OFTEN A CASUALITY IN OUR BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
15-04-2015, 05:29 PM
Sir,
I would certainly make an attempt from the record available with the Central Secretariat Library to locate and get a copy of the Resolution.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Roy (WP ©No. 20812/2005) ruled that unless a junior is promoted during he service period of a petitioner, he cannot be promoted notionally and as a result no pensionery benefits given. That judgement was against the direction of CAT to the UOI to consider Rajinder Roy for promotion to the post of JAG from the date on which the vacancy in JAG occurred on his turn, if the same was prior to his date of superannuation. The judgement was based on two Supreme Court judgements, i.e. in the case of (i) K.K. Vadera(1989 Supp(2)SCC 625) and(ii) Baij Nath Sharma(2.9.1998) (1998 SCC (L&S) 1754). In the case of the former the Supreme Court over-ruled CAT’s direction to give promotion from the date the promotional post was created. In the case of Baij Nath Sharma, he sought promotion on notional basis on the ground that there were vacancies in the said service before he retired. Obviously he could not be considered against a vacancy unless his turn had reached or any of his juniours was so considered when he was in service, i. e., before his superannuation. The case of Baij Nath was exactly the same as that of Rajinder Roy. In the case of Baij Nath the Supreme Court had observed that the question for consideration was very narrow - whether under the rules applicable to the appellant promotion was to be given to him from the date the post fell vacant or from the date when order for promotion was made.
We have to keep this in mind while drafting a petition etc. for CAT etc.

Gopal Krishan

Victor
16-04-2015, 10:17 PM
DEAR SHRI GK JI,

IT IS MINISTRY OF FINANCE'S RESOLUTION.
Ministry’s Resolution No.F.11/35/74-IC dated 1-5-1974.

COULD BE A GAZETTED ONE.
IT IS CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM ALL WEB SITES OF MIN OF FIN DEPARTMENTS.
WHEREAS MANY CLARIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS OMs WRT THE SAME APPEAR IN THE ARCHIEVES OF THE MOF WEBSITE.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE USUAL "NET STRATEGY" THAT IS ADOPTED SO THAT THE "RESOLUTION" IS NOT AVAILABLE EVEN TO KNOW THE CONTENTS, FOR PENSIONERS LIKE US.

TRANSPARENCY IS QUITE OFTEN A CASUALITY IN OUR BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM.

vnatarajan

Ministry of Finance Resolution No.F.11/35/74-IC dated 1-5-1974 is available at the following link:

http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/1974/E-1269-1974-0105-56039.pdf

I sincerely hope that this is the Resolution you require.

Victor

vnatarajan
17-04-2015, 10:22 AM
Dear Mr Victor,

Thanks a lot.
SINCE THEN WITH THE LINK GIVEN BY YOU, I COULD ACCESS THE GAZ NOTIFICATION.

IT IS A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVT OF INDIA.
MUST BE BASED ON CAB DECISION /APPROVAL OF PRESIDENT OF INDIA.
Must have had the CAG approval also.

I and my friends shall be studying it for the firm and fair policy decisions emerging from the ACCEPTED RECOS of 3 CPC for further guidance.

vnatarajan

No

Gopal Krishan
17-04-2015, 12:49 PM
Sir,
Another matter which is also based on the recommendation of the 3rd CPC relating to Injustice suffered all along by the 1.1.1928/1938/1946 born pensioners also require attention of your team. Of course the matter is to be discussed under another thread.

Before the Third CPC Government servants used to retire on superannuation on their respective date of birth on attaining the age of superannuation on the preceding day of the date of birth, under the then statutory rules/regulations. As such those born on the Ist used to retire on the Ist on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of the preceding month

With a view to simplifying the accounting work, the 3rd CPC recommended "that the retirement of Government employees should take effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee concerned attains the age of superannuation instead of the afternoon of the actual date of his superannuation." Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, with the approval of the cabinet, accepted the recommendation vide notification of November, 1973. In order to give effect to the acceptance of the said recommendation by the Government, the DOPT, issued orders on the 24th November, 1973 and May, 1974 stating that the Government servants shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement falls. These orders meant that those born on the Ist of a month shall retire from the afternoon of the last day of the month of their birth.

In the absence of any reference to those born on the Ist, in the orders issued by the DOPT which clearly stated that government servant shall retire from service wef the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement according to FR 56 falls, doubts were raised by some Ministries/Departments, whether the decision about retirement of Government servants with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement falls was also applicable to those born on the Ist of a month. In other words whether those born on the Ist were also required to be continued and retired on the last day of the month, as under the then existing rules/regulations, they were also being retired on the Ist on attaining the age of superannuation. That was the only limited question put forth by various Ministries/Departments before the DOPT. However, as the Ministry of Finance and DOPT had already taken a decision, without detailed examination of the recommendation made under some misunderstanding of the then existing provision, they, more so in the case of DOPT, worked very hard to justify their earlier action, particularly in view of the stand already taken on a reference from the DG P&T. before issuing the OM of June, 1974. This OM, specifically, one can say arbitrarily, provided that all those born on the Ist would retire on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of the preceding month. Obviously the same was against the then existing statutory rules and as such void- ab- initio Subsequently, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, not empowered to do so, modified the statutory rules based on ab- initio- void executive instructions. In the process Department of Personnel and Training lost the focus on the ONLY issue, as posed by some of the Ministries/Departments whether the decision to retire all the Government servants on the last day of the month, would be applicable to Ist day born instead orders issued in June 74 mentioned “that various Ministries/Departments have sought clarification from time to time regarding the date of retirement of officers having the Ist of a month as their birthday.” They also ignored number other important points specifically that the basic understanding of the Commission of the then existing provisions was misplaced.
I have already prepared an OA on the subject, but the same being a general matter I am not sure whether I could file as an individual on behalf of all the pensioners of these categories.
With regards
Gopa KRISHAN

vnatarajan
17-04-2015, 04:11 PM
DEAR SHRI GK JI,

I NOTE FROM THE 1 5 1974 RESOLUTION FOLLOWING INFO (EXTRCATED) , WHOCH IS VERY SACRO SANCT - AND NONE CAN TAMPER WTH IT UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER SUBSEQUENT CAB DECISION.

MERE CLARIFCATIONS / MODIFICATIONS WRT STRANGE/ SOLITARY CASES LIKE YOURS MUST BE CHALLENGED :

"ACCPETED" RECO OF 3 CPC ON DATE OF SUPERANNUATION WRT DATE OF BIRTH READS AS FOLLOWS: ....

Date of Superannuation,

40. Retirement of Government servants
should take effect from the
afternoon of the last day of the month
In which they attain the age of superannuation
instead of the afternoon of
the actual date of their superannuation.
(Chapter 60, paragraph 15) ACCEPTED


NOW LEGALLY CONSIDERING:

IF YOU ARE BORN ON 1 1 1946 YOU CAN NOT BE MADE TO ACCEPT 31 12 1945 AS YOUR DOB AND MAKE YOU RETIRE IN THE AN OF 31 12 2005 INSTEAD OF 31 01 2006 .

BECAUSE - IN YOUR CASE OF SOLITARY NATURE AND WHICH IS RESULTING IN A GROSS "INJUSTICE" AND "MISADMINISTRATION OF RULE", THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION IS TO BE "LETRALLY INTERPRETED TO BE TRULY 60 YEARS AND CAN NOT BE 59 YEARS AND 365 WORKING DAYS " AND YOU "ATTAIN 60 YEARS" IT ONLY ON 1 1 1946 AND SO YOU CAN BE MADE TO RETIRE ONLY ON 31 JAN 2006.

YOU MUST GET THE BENEFIT OF RELIEF IN A BONAFIDE MANNER.

THE RESOLUTUON IS VERY CLEAR.
I DONT THINK A "GENERALISED" REASONING CAN BE APPLIED TO YOUR CASE....

YOU CAN GO TO CAT AND PROVE THE FALLACY.
REST OF YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FILE NOTES ETC MAY BE ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
18-04-2015, 03:12 PM
Sir,
I AM SURE YOU MUST have noticed from the resolution (as reproduced below) that earlier a notification was issued on the Ist NOVEMBER, 1973 about the decision of the Government of India on the recommendation of the 3rd CPC. That has to be with the approval of the cabinet.

" MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Expenditure)
RESOLUTION
New Delhi, the 1st May 1974
No. F.11/35/74-IC.—The decisions of the Government of India on the recommendations
of the Third Central Pay Commission relating to civilian employees of
the Central Government in Classes II. III and IV were notified in the Ministry
of Finance Resolution No. 70(34)/73-Imp. Cell dated 1st November, 1973. Government
have now given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Commission
relating to the pay scales, allowances, retirement benefits etc. in respect
of the Central Class I Services/posts, as also those in the All India Services, and
have decided that the recommendations of the Commission on matters aforementioned
in respect of these officers shall be accepted broadly, subject to the
modifications mentioned below. A comprehensive review shall however be made
of the system of special pays and the posts to which such pays should be
attached. The decisions regarding non-practising allowance to medical personnel
will be announced later."
The Government after giving careful consideration to the recommendations of the Commission
relating to the pay scales, allowances, retirement benefits etc. issued the resolution on the Ist May, 1974.
with regards
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
08-05-2015, 12:47 PM
In reply to a Lok Sabha question tabled by Shri Udit Raj, MP on the 6th May, 2015, the Minister for Personnel etc. stated that since the officers did not assume charge of the post they have no right for any benefits.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
09-05-2015, 08:51 PM
Dear Shri GK Ji,

Yes. I have noted the reply.

WE OLD PENSIONERS DO AGREE WITH THE LEARNED HON MINISTER'S REPLY

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ASSUMING CHARGE AND OBVIOUSLY NOT ASKING FOR BENEFITS.
AT THE SAME TIME , THE HON MINISTER MUST BE AWARE THAT BASED ON "JUDICCIAL REVIEWS", DEPENDING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASES AND RELIEFS PERMITTED BY JUDGMENTS, NOTIONALLY OFFICERS HAVE BEEN PROMEOTED AND ALLOWED DUE BENEFITS.

WE ARE ONLY REMINDING THE GOVT. OF THEIR OWN ADMISSION OF OMISSIONS AND REQUESTING THEM TO PROVIDE RELIEF AS A "JUDICIAL SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW".

OLD PENSIONERS CAN ONLY HOPE FOR "PENSION PARITY" OF THE TIMELY FRAMING OF RULES HAD TAKEN PLACE WHILE THEY WERE IN SERVICE AND ALSO IF TIMELY DPCs HAD TAKEN PLACE.

Notional "Pension Parity" is the solution which has to be worked out and the same must be imp,emented as a policy for all aggrieved/ sufferers.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
10-05-2015, 08:38 PM
Respected VN Sir,
I am giving below the details of the question and its reply as it is. We intend to further take up the matter with the Minister through some MP.
(a) whether the Government has since decided that the retired Government employees who missed their promotion due to late meetings of DPCs should also be given post retirement benefits of promotion.
(b)if so, whether retired officers of the Central Secretariat service who were included in the Selection Grade Select List for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 and who were eligible for inclusion in the suitability lists for the post of Director for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 but missed their promotion on account of inaction/delayed action are being considered for such promotion by holding review DPCs.
(c)if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; and
(d)the time by which such DPCs are proposed to be held in this regard?
ANSWER
(a) Department of Personnel and Training has not made any change in instructions contained in OM no. 22011/4/1998-Estt(D) DATED 12.10.1998 and reiterated vide OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated 14.11.2014. These instructions provide for consideration of retired employees, who are within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) while preparing year-wise panel(s) for promotion. Such retired officials, however, have no right for promotion as they are not available to assume charge of the higher post.
(b) to (d) In view of (a) above, does not arise.

In this connection attention is also invited to the following facts.

(a) from 1980 it self there existed a policy as re-iterated/clarified in October, 1998 that all those included in the panels shall have no right to actual promotion, which by implication meant that they should be given notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits only.

(b)not giving notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits is against the very guidelines issued by the Government of India in DOPT as back as 1980s, which did not put any restriction on giving notional pensionary benefits;
(c) the clarification issued in 1998 could not create any new guideline/provision, as being interpreted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as the same was simply a clarification of earlier guidelines;

(d) a number of CAT/Court judgements are there in which directions had been given to the concerned Ministry/Department to give notional benefits;

(e)based on some of the Supreme Court judgements the Department of Legal Affairs in the year 2010 had advised the DOPT in their file No. 2011/4/1998-Estt(D) that such officials do have a legal right to notional benefits;

(f)vide recently issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice, which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification;
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
11-05-2015, 04:05 AM
Dear Shri GK ji,

THANKS A LOT.
ALREADY PRE 2006 S24 GSI RETIREES ARE GATHERING ALL INFO .

SO ALSO PRE 2006 S29 GSI RETIREES.

I have a doubt.

DO THE TEXT FURNISHED IN PARAS e to f , AS "FOLLOWING FACTS" ARE ALSO ART OF THE REPLY AS EXPLANATIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTARUES?

Can u REPRODUCE/ EMAIL TO ME DETAILS me the QUESTION NO. (LOK SABHA?) DATE NAME OF MP AND ALSO REPLY / EXPLANATONS ETC SO THAT THE FULL DETAILS WOULD BE USEFUL FOR FURTHER ACTIONS ?

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
12-05-2015, 02:06 PM
Respected VN Sir,
That was a Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 6439 for 6th May, 2015 by Dr. Udit Raj, a BJP MP from Delhi soliciting information as at (a) to (d) from the Prime MINISTER. That being an unstarred question there was no question of any supplementaries. The facts as mentioned at (a) to (f) after the answer are the facts which are available with me based on the information gathered from DOPT under RTI ACT.
In these facts at (a) to (f) there is mention about Ministry of I and B. The reason behind was that one of my fried from that Ministry has filed a case in CAT. As such a note was prepared for his advocate. The other part of the brief I had deleted.Some how at one place the name of the Ministry continues. In fact based on the advice of the DOPT various Ministries/Departments are interpreting the clarification of 1998 that no body is to be given notional promotion or notional pensionery benefits.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
13-05-2015, 08:06 AM
Thanks once again Shri GK ji.
I shall be framing someRTI queries soon.

FOR US, THE INTERESTING PART OF THE QUESTION WAS "POST RETIRAL BENEFITS". THE QUESTION ITSELF HAD ADDRESSED THIS ITEM.

BUT THE REPLY FURNSIHED DELIBERATELY AVOIDED ANSWERING THIS ITEM.

So what is interesting is , "if nobody s to be given any notional promotion or notional pensionary benefits", then why the OM of 14 Nov 2015?

I think The NW DELHI MP who asked the LS Question is perhaps an EX IRS SENIOR OFFICIAL (he himself woukld be a sub 20 yr retiree and must be suffering the prorate reduction) and he needs to be appraised by all aggrieved pensioners - particularly the pre 2006 lot and persuaded to act to get justice for all.....

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
13-05-2015, 02:06 PM
Sir,
Your attention is invited to the reply at part (a) of the question, which was as follows:
a) Department of Personnel and Training has not made any change in instructions contained in OM no. 22011/4/1998-Estt(D) DATED 12.10.1998 and reiterated vide OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated 14.11.2014. These instructions provide for consideration of retired employees, who are within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) while preparing year-wise panel(s) for promotion. Such retired officials, however, have no right for promotion as they are not available to assume charge of the higher post.
As mentioned earlier consolidated guidelines on holding oF DPCs were issued way back in 1980/1989. One of the Central Department faced problems with the UPSC for considering retired officials who were eligible for such consideration. After considering the matter in the light of the provisions contained in the consolidated guidelines and various judgements of Supreme/High Court, in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs some clarification to the earlier consolidated guidelines was issued vide OM dated the 12th OCTOBER, 1998 by the DOPT. The clarification viewed in the light of the various judgements discussed in the notes and the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs, meant that retirees should be given notional benefits. However, DOPT has been taking a different stand at different time. They are sticking to one of their stands in reply to the question. What we have to challenge is the interpretation the DOPT is providing to the OM of 1998, which simply a clarification and not instructions as claimed in reply to the question. Clarification cannot create any new rule etc. but the DOPT is doing that, which goes contrary to the consolidated guidelines issued in 1980/1989

Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
21-06-2015, 03:09 PM
Respected VN Sir,
You had approached the DOPT for some information under RTI Act. Any development?
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
11-07-2015, 06:50 PM
DEAR SHRI GK JI,

AS I HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE RTI QUERIES WRT GSI - MY DEPT- THE QUERIES WERE SHUNTED TO GSI FOR REPLIES.
I AM PURSUING THE CASE.
I GOT MY DPC PROPOSAL COPIES IN PART FROM GSI THRU RTI.

THEY HAD NOT SUPPLIED MY SENIORITY INFO - WHICH IS CRITICAL FOR MY FIGHT.
I HAVE SENT A DETAILED APPEAL TO GSI WHICH IS NIW AN ATTACHED DEPT - WITH DGGSI HAVING WIDE POWERS.

IN THE MEANWHILE , I HAVE ALSO TAKEN UP THE "NFU" DISPARITY .
A NUMBER OF RETIRED GSI OFFICERS - WHO RETIRED POST 1 1 2006 BUT PRE 24 APRIL 2009 DOPT ORDERS OF PAY PARITY SCHEME OF NFU AS PER 6 CPC RECOS WHICH WERE GAZT NTOIFIED BY MOF/DOE ON 29 AUG 200B have been showered benefits like "NFU even after retirement - not actually being in service- in effect can not be fall-back option- based on their eligibility asper extant Rules when they were inservice" .....

THUS, IN EFFECT, UNDER THIS SCHEME, THE TRISANKU RETIREES HAVE BEEN GIVEN NFU FROM SAG TO HAG SCALE - IN THE NON-FUNCTIONAL MODE -EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD RETIRED IN 2007/2008/2009 PRIOR TO POLICY NOTIFICATION .

When sought clarification, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IS THAT THE PAY PAIRTY SCHEME IS EFFECTIVE FROM 1 1 2006 AND SO THEY WERE ALL GIVEN THE BENFIT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT IN SERVICE ON THE DAY OF NOTIFICATION OF POLICY OR EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS!!!.

WHEN ASKED WHY THE SAME BENEFIT "EVEN NOTIONALLY" IS NOT BEING EXTENDED TO PRE-2006 RETIREES same way as the trisanku retirees (AS IT IS A PAY PARITY SCHEME WHICH IN ESSENCE WOULD MEAN PENSION APRITY SCHEME ALSO), OUR ORGANISATION SAYS THE "RELEVANT DOPT ORDERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ".......

WHAT TO DO.

THE GAZ RESOLUTION NEVER STATED THAT THE SCHEME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO PRE 2006/ OLDER RETIREES!!! .
FAQ OM OF DOPT DT 1 8 2012 SIMPLY SAYS, THE NFU COVERS THE RETIREES ALSO (without specifying pre/ post 2006 etc) !!!!!
TAKING THE ABOVE TWO POINTS, WE HAVE TO LITIGATE.......



....SO I AM SEEKING INFO ON :

"IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTIVE FROM DOPT OR UOI OR ANY GOVT SOURCE WHICH CATEGORICALLY DECLARES THAT "PAY PARITY (NFU) SCEME WILL COVER ONLY POT 1 1 2006 RETUREES AND NOT THE PRE 2006 RETIREES REPEAT "NOT PRE 2006 RETIREES"


We shall be going to pb cat soon on follow up of MMP SINHA PATNA HC JUDGMENT IN CWJC 10757/2010 DT 18 MAY 2015 WHERE IN IT IS RULED "HIGHER GRADE PENSIONERS CAN NOT DRAW PENSION LESS THAN THE LOWER GRADE PENSIONERS'......on the same issue, also tagged with FULL PARITY....also tagged with NFU which is widening the pension disparity between pre and post 2006 retirees...

CAN U HELP ME WITH SCAN COPIES OF RTI REPLIES (FILE NOTES) U GOT REG DELAYED DPC ETC....

Regards,

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
17-07-2015, 02:03 PM
Sir I have obtained a lot of material from DOPT regarding delayed DPCs. If you could indicate details of the copies of notes etc received, I would send whatever additional I have with me.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
17-07-2015, 02:30 PM
Sir I have obtained a lot of material from DOPT regarding delayed DPCs. If you could indicate details of the copies of notes etc received, I would send whatever additional I have with me.
Gopal Krishan

Dear Shri GK ji,

AS MY RTI QUERY WAS SPECIFIC WRT MY CASE, THE DOPT FOUND IT CONVENIENT TO SEND IT TO MIN OF MINES, WHO INTURN SENT IT TO GSI, WHO GAVE ME PAPERS (PART ONLY) CONCERNING MY DPC PROPOSAL, THEN THE COPY OF FINAL ORDER ISSUED WHICH WAS AFTER RETIREMENT.

THE GSI CAREFULLY AVOIDED SENDING SOME OF THE ANNEXURES WHICH WOULD PROVE MY POINT OF NOT SHOWING MY SENIORITY PROPERLY AND OTHER DETAILS.

IN ANTHER RTI QUERY RELATING TOFILE NOTINGS ON NFU IN GSI, THE DOPT AGAIN INFORMED THAT THEY DO NOT RETAIN ANY FILES SENT BY THE DEPARTMENTS AND AS PER THEIR PRACTICE, THEIR VIEWS/ DECISIONS ARE RECORDED IN THE FILE SENT BY THE DEPT AND THE SAME IS SENT BACK. NO DATA/ INFO ARE RETAINED BY THEM.

IN BOTH CASES, AS MY QUERIES WERE LINKED TO MOM-GSI, I HAVE NOT GOT ANY FILE NOTE OF USEFUL PURPOSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY USEFUL MATERIAL "PERTAINING TO DELAYED DPC" WHICH ACTUALLY LED THE DOPT TO ISSUE SUCH AN OM , THAT TOO NOW IN 2014. WHAT PROMPTED THEM TO ISSUE IT IN NOV 2014? WHICH CASES?

I WANT TO KNOW WHY SUCH A DIRECTIVE WAS ISSUED? WITH WHAT PURPOSE? IS IT ONLY A WASTE PAPER? HAS T GOT OTHERWISE ANY MEANING? ANY CASES SETTLED THERAFTER?...LIKE THAT...some such material to tell the CAT why we are approaching them late in the day....I have already made a detailed appeal to DG GSI on this delayed DPC as u know, based on the RTI material I received from GSI pointing out the deficiency/ omissions in the DPC proposal as wellas subsequent DPC selection that took place omitting me/ few others like me who were in the original proposal.

YOU MUST HAVE SEEN MY BRIEF ON MY CASE. BY BELONGING TO 1962 UOSC GRA DIRECT INTERVIEW BATCH, I WAS EFFECTIVELY NEXT TO DG GSI IN 1995 WHO ALSO BELONGED TO THE SAME UPSC INTERVIEW BATCH AS THE IN-BETWEEN OFFICER LEFT GSI TO JOIN SCHOOL OF MINES AND OPOTED TO REMIAN THERE . ALL 3 OF US WERE CLASS-MATES OF IIT- KHARAGPUR!!!!.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
18-07-2015, 05:47 PM
Sir
Almost a similar problem our group and one of my friends in the Ministry of I and B are facing. In that connection we had prepared some brief and also some material was prepared for the MP. The same is reproduced below. About the OM of the 14th November, 2014, I have obtained information from the DOPT. According to the information obtained the direction were given by the ACC headed by the Prime Minister when a case for promotion to the level of Director from Ministry of Defence was placed before them. For the detailed of the case I have requested the Ministry of Defenc. From them final reply is still awaited.



As back as the 30th December,1976 and then on 10.4.89 consolidated policy guidelines on the Departmental Promotion Committee were issued by the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel and Training. These guidelines did not lay down any restriction on (i) consideration of retired officials, who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year; (ii) inclusion of the names of suitable officials in the panels while preparing year wise panels; and (iii) then giving to all those included in the panels notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits.

2.Later, however, as need arose, because of some difficulties about considering retired officials faced by one of the Departments, viz-a-viz UPSC, a general clarification to all the Ministries/Departments with reference to the guidelines referred to above was issued by the Government of India, in DOPT in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs on 12.10.98 stating that (i) retired officials should be considered during the year they were due for such a consideration while preparing year wise panels (ii) names of those found suitable included in the panel(s) and (iii) they shall have no right to actual promotion

3.In view of these policy guidelines various Ministries/Departments, including the Ministry of Personnel etc. were/are considering retired officials for the year-wise panels of the relevant years. Accordingly, some of the Selection Grade officers of CSS were considered for inclusion in the Suitability Lists of Directors for the years 2000 and 2001after retirement. Unfortunately, names of some of the officers were not considered. Not only that even names of those found suitable for the lists for the years 2000 and 2001 were not included in the lists on the plea that they had retired by then.

4.In this connection your attention is invited to the answer to Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 6439 stating that the Department of Personnel and Training has not made any change in instructions contained in OM dated the 12th October 1998 and reiterated vide OM dated the 14th Novembr, 2014. It would be relevant to mention here that the latter OM was issued at the instance of the PM.

5. From the copies of the notes available with the aggrieved officers I have noticed that because of the violation of the policy guidelines on the part of various Ministries/Departments to consider some of the retired officers at the relevant time the Prime Minister had to intervene and direct that such non-consideration/inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice.

6. In the circumstances, I am sure, you would agree that there is need to look in to the matter at your level and to see that the direction of the Prime Minister are implemented by your Department.


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


4 .In this connection it may be stated that:-

(a) from 1980 it self there existed a policy as re-iterated/clarified in October, 1998 that all those included in the panels shall have no right to actual promotion, which by implication meant that they should be given notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits only.

(b)not giving notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits is against the very guidelines issued by the Government of India in DOPT as back as 1980s, which did not put any restriction on giving notional pensionary benefits;
(c) the clarification issued in 1998 could not create any new guideline/provision, as being interpreted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as the same was simply a clarification of earlier guidelines;

(d) a number of CAT/Court judgements are there in which directions had been given to the concerned Ministry/Department to give notional benefits;

(e)based on some of the Supreme Court judgements the Department of Legal Affairs in the year 2010 had advised the DOPT in their file No. 2011/4/1998-Estt(D) that such officials do have a legal right to notional benefits;

(f)vide recently issued OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated the 14th November, 2014, (Annexure I), the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel, based on the observation of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, re-iterated/clarified once again that non-inclusion of the names of the retired officials in the panel(s) negated the very purpose of the OM dated the 12th October, 1998 and was also against the principle of natural justice, which meant that all those are to be given notional benefits in the light of the policy guidelines issued in 1980s, which could not be altered by 1998 clarification;

(g)the undersigned is being put to injustice in the matter of promotion as the DPC could not be held in time because of administrative fault; and

Gopal Krishan
02-09-2015, 06:03 PM
DOPT has convened a meeting of the officers of the Departments of Legal Affairs, Expenditure and Revenue to sort out the issues.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
30-10-2015, 03:47 PM
R. Devaraju of Chennai, who retired as Joint Director, ESI also suffered because of delayed DPC. He showed interest in joining any legal action in this regard. Others interested could also come forward for further action in the matter.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250
[email protected]

Gopal Krishan
02-11-2015, 02:54 PM
Shri Inder Raj of Ambala has filed a case in CAT Chandigarh. He is depending on very important and recent judgements givene by Hon'ble Supreme Court (Maj. General HM Singh, Jan 2014). According to him under this judgement once some is included in a select list it becomes his fundamental right to get promotion. The other case is of Subhash Chander Parashar dated the 3rd August, 2013 - 6464/2013 decided by the Chandigarh High Court. The case of Shakti Chand dogra is also favourabel which by decided by the Himachal High Court on the 22nd April, 2014.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
06-11-2015, 12:47 PM
According to the SMS received earlier Shri RC Mehta retired on the 31st December, 2004 and the DPC was held in April, 2005. Obviously he also suffered financial loss which is getting compounded every month.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
10-11-2015, 01:23 PM
A few days earlier I received a call from Shri Bachan Lal an engineer of Door Darshan, who also suffered loss in pension because of delayed holding of DPC by the Government.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
02-12-2015, 07:22 PM
Reference post at No. 46. The meeting had been postponed. The matter is yet to be discussed and a final view taken.
The DOPT are consulting the other Departments of Expenditure/Pension/Legal Affairs etc.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
31-12-2015, 02:29 PM
As I had received a couple of telephone calls inquiring the latest in the matter. I am indicating the same as follows:

In August, 2015 it was felt by the DOPT to reconsider the matter in the light of the (i) reference from the MP and (ii) advice of the Department of Legal Affairs and also the fact that (iii) the earlier views of the Department of Expenditure as available with the DOPT were fifteen years old and (iv) the Pension Rules had undergone changes.

With that end in view on the Ist September, 2015 a meeting was convened by the JS(Estt.) of DOPT.

In this connection it would be relevant to mention that initial policy guidelines of 1976 were issued in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. and those guidelines do not put any bar to (i) consider retirees (ii) include them in the select lists etc and then (iii) giving notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select lists. Those guidelines have not undergone any change. As such denying notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select/suitability lists would be in violation of the original policy guidelines. This is in line with the thinking of the DOPT which is reflected in the previous files of the DOPT while examining the objections raised by the UPSC relating to consultation of Department of Expenditure in connection with the issue of October, 1998 clarification. In the note dated the 16th September, 1998 it was specifically stated that “no new practice is being introduced which may require consultation with Ministry of Finance & Department of Pensions. Ministry of Law have already consented to the proposal.” As such there is no need to consult the MOF or DOPPW at this stage.
What is required is to issue clarification in continuation of the earlier one that retires are to be given notional pensionery benefits.

Accordingly a representation was submitted to the PM. The PMO has directed the DOPT to give a reply and that the same may be uploaded on the portal. The matter is in process in the DOPT. Others interested could also send the same to the PM.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
22-01-2016, 05:27 PM
During the first week of December, 2015, the DOPT referred the matter to the Departments of Expenditure and Pensions for their comments. Their comments are awaited by the DOPT. This is for the information of those interested in the matter particularly those who rang up to check up the latest position.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250




The consolidated guidelines on the DPC were last issfued on the 19th April, 1989. The earlier DPC instructions also had similar arrangements. Briefely, the guidelines did not put any specific bar on consideration of retired employes while preparing year-wise panels of those who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant yer. In other words these instruction provided for consideration of the ritired employees for promotion if tey were eligible for consideration in the relevant year . The concept of year wise panel was also introduced in the year 1980. Subsequently, when faced with a problem raised by the Department of Telecommunication about consideration of retired employees retrospectively when they had become eliogible for consideration during the period they were in service, the Department of Personnel examined the matter in the light of various judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court and in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs issued an OM on the 12th October, 1998 clarifying the postion with reference to the consolidated instructions. According to the clarfication (i) the retired officers who were within the zone of consideration at the relevant time should be considered while preparing year wise panels; and (ii) such officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. Unfortunately, the Department of Personnel has been interpreting (ii) above in such a way that even if some one is included in the panel retrospectively he would not be entitled to even pensionery benefits. As such all those aggrived started goint to CATHigh Courts/Supreme Court. Obviously, the CAT/HighCourts/Supreme Court generally started directing the Government for giving benefits to them. The DOPT instead of modifying their OM of 12th Otober, 1998 decided to restrict the benefits to only those who got favourable decision form CAT/High Court. That being a wrong policy we had represented to the DOPT in this regard. DOPT, in turn referred the matter to the Department Legal Affairs, who advised that where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employyes concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the selcti/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. This advice was received by DOPT as back as Ist week of September, 2010 . The matter is lying at that stage still. As such the same is required to be pursued by all sufferes in this regard.

Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
19-02-2016, 08:35 PM
It is understood that comments from the Department of Pensions as well as from the Department of Expenditure have been received by the DOPT. At the same time it has been noticed from the copies of the notes earlier obtained from DOPT that it was not necessary to obtain comments of both the Departments as initially the policy guidelines relating to DPC were issued after consulting both the Departments as well as UPSC. The OMs issued in Oct. 1998 and on the 14th November, 2014 related to clarification and not fresh instructions. As such some of us who are interested in the matter intend to write to the DOPT seeking information as to under which rule/instructions comments of both the Departments were sought. At the same time we intend to request for copies of the comments received from both the Departments by the DOPT
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
21-03-2016, 08:15 PM
Although we had written to the Department of Personnel and Training almost a month before under RTI Act, their reply is still awaited.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

vnatarajan
22-03-2016, 07:56 PM
Dear all- hope all fine...yes I am also on the hot track on this issue.....with my dept....my dpc proposal was sent 18 months late , 35 days bfore my retirement, with wrong eligibility list, and no seniority list, with no reasons for delay in the second year, and finally when sent, they had put the remark that as i do not have 3 months time for service if promoted, name may not be considered as per prevailing guidelines at that time (april 25, 1997- i retired in may 1997).

In spite of a slp ruling in july 1991 itself , my seniority was not corrected by vested interests and i was not at all aware of the hsc slp ruling which i had come to know only after the nov 214 om of dopt when i tried to do some research on such a case.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:04 PM
Despite strict instructions issued from time to time by the Government of India in the DOPT about timely holding of DPC meetings, various Ministries/Departments in violation of the same delayed holding of DPCs but meticulously followed the illogical/irrational/illegal policy of the DOPT which deprive the employees of the pensionery benefits, who missed promotion as a result of delayed holding of DPCs and retired on superannuation in the mean time

As back as the 30th December, 1976 vide OM No. 22011/6/75-Estt(D), the Department of Personnel and Training issued consolidated instructions on the constitution and functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and the procedure to be followed in processing and implementing their recommendations. Thereafter, instructions had also been issued from time to time clarifying/modifying certain aspects included in the instructions. Accordingly some instructions were issued relating to bringing out of year-wise select lists. These instructions did provide for convening of DPCs at regular annual intervals to draw panels which could be utilized for making promotions against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year. It was also laid down that it was essential for the concerned authorities to initiate action well in advance of the expiry of the previous panel. On 10.4.89 consolidated policy guidelines in the form of . “Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees” were issued by the Government of India, in the Department of Personnel and Training. Still there had been delays in taking advance action in various Ministries/Departments, which resulted in reiteration of earlier instructions. Such a reiteration was also done vide of OM No. 22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated the 8th September, 1998 stating that delays in promotions resulted in considerable frustrations amongst officers, thereby adversely affecting their morale and overall productivity. As a remedial measure a time schedule for convening DPCs was also prescribed. Still DPCs were not being held in advance. Need for strict compliance of the instructions was reiterated vide OM No. 22011/9/98- Estt(D) dated the 14th December, 2000. The unsatisfactory position also created problems to UPSC inasmuch as the Commission had to stop accepting incomplete proposals wef the Ist August, 2010. In March, 2011, referring to instances of delays, the DOPT also brought to the notice of the Ministries/Departments that administrative delays in holding DPCs had been viewed adversely by the courts and was the main reason for litigation before CAT and various High Courts. The Department also observed that non-adherence to time frame of DPCs was a matter of serious concern to the Government. The Department also desired that an officer of the level of JS should be designated to ensure timely holding of DPCs.

2. Despite strict instructions from the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training meetings for preparing panels for promotions were and are not being held in advance of the vacancy year. As a result officials, particularly on the verge of retirement were/are suffering financially for no fault on their parts. However, those who had/have assumed charge even for a day get pension for the higher post although suffer in terms of arrears of pay and allowances for no fault on their part. But in the cases of those who retired on superannuation in the meantime and missed promotion for no fault on their parts suffered financially, which is getting compounded with the passage of time. Unfortunately the DOPT is not bothered for the plight of the retirees, who were/are suffering financially. The DOPT continue with their illogical/irrational/illegal stand, which they are changing from time to time resulting in continued denial of justice to the retired old pensioners in terms of arrears of pay and allowances as well as pensionery benefits.

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:10 PM
3. Coming to the shifting stand of the DOPT from time to time it may be mentioned that the guidelines issued in April, 1989, referred to above, did not lay down any restriction on (i) consideration of retired officials, who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year; (ii) inclusion of the names of suitable officials in the panels while preparing year wise panels; and (iii) giving to all those included in the panels notional promotion and notional pensionary benefits.

4. Later, however, as need arose, because of some difficulties about considering retired officials faced by the Department of Telecommunication, viz-a-viz UPSC, a clarification repeat clarification and not new instructions to all the Ministries/Departments with reference to the guidelines referred to above were issued on 12.10.98 by the Government of India, in DOPT in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs. The clarification stated that (i) retired officials should be considered during the year they were due for such a consideration while preparing year wise panels (ii) names of those found suitable included in the panel(s) and (iii) they shall have no right to actual promotion. It would be pertinent to mention here that the difficulties referred to above related to the fixation of inter-se seniority in a particular grade in the Department of Telecommunication by merging two different streams. From one of the two streams promotions were made on regular basis whereas from the other ad-hoc promotions could be effected. ONLY with reference to the latter category (officers of that category did get pension on the basis of the pay drawn in officiating capacity) the expression in general term for all the posts/services in various Departments/Ministries whereas the decision was taken with reference to the facts as prevailed in the Telecommunication Department. Not only that the expression is being wrongly given a meaning in general terms , i.e. even after inclusion in the panel the empanelled retired officers would have no right even to notional pensionery benefits. This stand of DOPT with reference to a clarification is not only (i) illogical/ irrational/illegal but also (ii)contrary to the policy guidelines issued in April, 1989 wherein no such bar had been prescribed.

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:14 PM
5. When the matter was referred to the department of Legal Affairs in the year 2009 at the instance of the CS Division of the DOPT, that Department advised that such officers do have a right for notional promotion and notional pensionery benefits. Unfortunately, the concerned Division of the DOPT sat over the legal advice for years. Pending a final view on the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs, based on the direction of the ACC of September, 2012, headed by the Prime Minister the DOPT issued an OM dated the 14th November, 2014 directing all the Ministries/Departments to include names of all the eligible officers who are due to retire before the likely date of vacancies. The ACC observed that non inclusion of the names of such officers is against the principles of natural justice.

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:16 PM
6.Despite direction of the ACC headed by the Hon’ble Prime Minister, various Ministries/Departments have not yet started considering and then including the names of officials found fit for inclusion in the suitability lists, what to talk of giving them notional pensionery benefits.

7.It would not be out of place to mention that, with a view to denying the pensionery benefits, the DOPT has been taking illogical/irrational/illegal stand from the very beginning. After the issue of clarification of October, 1998, they started denying the benefits on one or the other pretext as would be seen from the record available with the DOPT more importantly the basis of the provision that they shall have no right

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:19 PM
to actual promotion. This provision was not at all applicable to the officers other than those of Department of Telecommunication. Later in 2010 after the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs, the DOPT changed its stand but continued denying justice by taking a stand that the names of those retired persons were being included in the eligibility lists to arrive at a correct zone of consideration. At one stage they took a stand that even if they are given notional promotion that would not entitle them to pensionery benefits. Another stand has been that when those in service are being given promotion from a prospective date how can retirees could be given retrospectively (one wrong cannot justify another wrong) Now the latest plea is “while promotions will be made in the order of the consolidated select list, such promotions will have only prospective effect even in cases where vacancies relate to earlier years(s) i.e. from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post.” This was stated in response to a Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 6439 replied on the 6th May, 2015, although prior to that an official mentioned to the PTI that all those missed such a promotion would get notional benefits and order to that effect had been issued. That fact was reported in various new papers on the 2nd Feb. 2015. This stand of the DOPT in reply to the question is based on FR 17 (I), which exclusively pertains only to those officials, who are in service and not retirees. An MP had written a DO letter on the 18th May, 20015 in this regard. A reminder has also been sent by him on the 22nd September, 2015 and also in December, 2015. Similar stand had also been taken in the case of Shri DC Mehandiratta, a pensioner from the Ministry of I and B. This stand again is illegal as would be seen from Part IV of the consolidated instructions, which are applicable to those in service and would get promotion on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC. Moreover, these instructions being consolidated ones can not go contrary to the original instructions issued way back in 1976/1989. In any case the instructions under which the retirees are being now denied notional promotion and notional pensionery benefits are not at all applicable to them. In this connection an observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in almost a similar case of Janakiraman is relevant. The same is reproduced below:

“The normal rule of ‘no work no pay’ is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that FR 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.”

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:28 PM
8.In any case there is no possibility of retired officials’ assuming charge as they had already relinquished charge of the post on the day they relinquished the charge of the post they had held before attaining the age of superannuation. All this is resulting in Injustice by the DOPT even by changing their stand from time to time to the retirees who missed promotion for no fault on their part but because of delay on the part of the Government. There is every justification for notional pensionery benefits to them. Of course, there is every reason to take action against those officers who delay holding of DPCs in violation of the policy decision of the Government of India in DOPT.

9. In August, 2015 it was felt by the DOPT to reconsider the matter in the light of the (i) reference from the MP and (ii) advice of the Department of Legal Affairs and also the fact that (iii) the earlier views of the Department of Expenditure available with the DOPT were fifteen years old and (iv) the Pension Rules had undergone changes.

10With that end in view on the Ist September, 2015 a meeting was convened by the JS(Estt.) of DOPT. The meeting, however, was not held and it was decided to obtain the comments of the Departments of Expenditure and Pensions before a final view is taken on the reference from the M.P. Accordingly references were made to both the Departments in the first week of December, 2015.

Gopal Krishan
24-03-2016, 01:32 PM
11.In this connection it would be relevant to mention that initial policy guidelines of 1976/1989 were issued in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. This is in line with the thinking of the DOPT which is reflected in the previous files of the DOPT while examining the objections raised by the UPSC relating to consultation of Department of Expenditure in connection with the issue of October, 1998 clarification. In the note dated the 16th September, 1998 it was specifically stated that “no new practice is being introduced which may require consultation with Ministry of Finance & Department of Pensions. Ministry of Law have already consented to the proposal.” As such there was no need to consult the MOF or DOPPW at that stage as well. As already stated above the guidelines do not put any bar to (i) consider retirees (ii) include them in the select lists etc and then (iii) giving notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select lists. Those guidelines have not undergone any change. Whatever was done in October, 1998 was a clarification to the earlier policy decision, which cannot change the complexion of the original guidelines. As such denying notional pensionery benefits to those included in the select/suitability lists would be in violation of the original policy guidelines.
What was required was to issue clarification in continuation of the earlier one that those retirees, who after consideration at the relevant tine are found fit, are to be given notional pensionery benefits. Unfortunately DOPT, instead of taking action against the officers, who are responsible for dalaying holding of DPCs despite their repeated instrunctions, are penalizing the retirees, even by shifting their stand from time to time. Need less to say that the retirees had suffered, without any fault on their part, in terms of pay and allowances because of omissions/commissions on the part of officers , who delayed the holding of DPCs.

Gopal Krishan
29-04-2016, 01:26 PM
As I had requested for some information and inspection of some of the files on the subject, the CPIO concerned has written to me for visiting him on mutual convenient date and time.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
29-04-2016, 07:29 PM
NOTED PL. KINDLY CHK IF AT ALL ANY RELIEF HAD BEEN GIVEN TO ANY AGGRIEVED RETIREE AFTER THE ISSUE OF OM OF 14 NOV 2014.....LIKE EVN NOTIONAL PENSIONARY BENEFIT.....IN MY DEPT., MY (DELAYED DPC / NON-PROVISION OF NFFU RELIEF) GRIEVANCE REPRESENTATION HAD BEEN "DISOSED OFF" STATING THAT THE MATTER IS SUBKUDICE IN THE OA 3590/2015 WHICH I (LEAD PETITIONER) & 84 GSI PRE 2006 S29 RETIREES HAD FILED WRT THE MMP SINHA CASE JUDGMENT (HIGHER GR PENSIONER TO GET PENSION HIGHER THAN MAX. OF HIS FEEDER GR OFFICERS) BASED ON SPS VAINS CASE PRECEDENCE, WHICH IS ALMOST A REM JUDGMENT.......I HAD ALSO CITED THE OM OF 14 NOV 2014 AS AN ANNEXURE ...
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
04-05-2016, 09:56 PM
Sir,
I visited the CPIO, DOPT yesterday. Inspected various files relating the delayed holding of DPCs by various Ministries/Department resulting in loss to the retirees by way of losing promotion during their service period and then losing in pension also.

In my humble opinion the stand of your Department that the matter is sub-judice is wrong as the issue in the OA referred in your post and the matter I am pursing with the DOPT are not the same. My posts at 58 to 64 give complete background of the matter. The OM of the 14th November, 2014 is simply reiteration of the OM of the 12th October, 1998, which provides that the retirees are to be considered at the relevant time when they were due for such consideration for promotion had they been in service and in case they are found fit their names should be included in the list for promotion. However, the present policy (may sound absurd) of the Government of India through DOPT which has to be followed by various Ministries/Department is that as even if their names are included in the promotion lists no notional pensionery benefits to be given as they had not assumed charge of the higher post. However, in August, 2015 the DOPT decided to review this matter in consultation with the Department of Pension, Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs, although the same was not necessary as mentioned in the posts referred to above. I have obtained a copy each of the comments offered by the three Departments, which I am reproducing below:
DOLA: "Where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the emp;loyees concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the select/suitqabiloity lists after holding
DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. However, with regard to payment of arrears of salary with retrospective effect from notional dates in view of the settled principle of law it does not areise since, indisputably they had never worked during that period in the promotional post."

D/Pension: (i)It is felt that when DPCs are not held in time due to administrative lapse/reasons and timely promotions are denied to the employees (whether service or retired) for no fault of their, it would be unfair/unjustified to deny them the benefit of notional promotion from the date from which such promotion would have been made if the DPC meeting had taken place on time. (ii) There would be no need for Review DPCs in such cases. As per the existing instruction. the DPC is required to prepare year wise panels for promotion based on the eligibility list for the respective years(iii) As opined by DoLA the arrears of salary from the date of wuch notional promotion would not be payable as such employees have not actually performed the duties of the higher post.(iv)in case a retired employees is allowed retrospective notinal promotion without payment of arrears of Pay and Allowamces from, the date of such notional promotion, the pension would still be determined on the basis of the pay acutally received by that employee immediately before retirement by virtue of provisions of Rule 33 of the CCS(Pension)Rules.(v) In case it is finally decided by DOPT to allow retrospective notional Promotion in cases delayed DPCs, Rule 33 of the CCS(P) Rules may also have to be simultaneously amended to provide for determination of pension based on the notional pay arrived at on the the basis of such notional retrospevtdive promotion
D/Expenditure: i. Policy with regard to DPC procedures is the primary concern of DOPT and this Department does not have any direct role on the subject. As such this Department does not have any specific comments of offer on the subject. ii. However, the comments offered by this Department vide ID Note dated 24.5.200 is reiterated which states that if notional promotion to retired employees is allowed serving employees may also have a case to grant of notional benefit from the date DPC should have been constituted without being placed or acually performing the jnob of higher post. This will not be appropriate and the issue of revised general order is not warranted.

Follow up action is being taken by the DOPT in the light of the comments of the three Departments to decide whether to issue further revised clarification or to continue with the old stand about retired officials who missed promotion and also suffered in terms of pensionery benefits.
With regards
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
09-05-2016, 08:16 PM
For the information of those who talked to me on telephone and those who tried but could not talk:
The Government of India in DOPT is yet to take a final view in the matter.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

vnatarajan
25-06-2016, 03:13 AM
DEAR SHRI GK SIR,

WE ARE FIGHTING OUR CASE ON H GR PENSION WRT FEEDER GR MAXI PENSION AS MAIN RELIEF / PLUS FULL APRITY/ PLUS NFU PENSION DISPARITY AS THRESHHOLD .....THE FOUR CASES ARE GSI CENTRIC.....OA 3590/2015 PRE 2006 DDG GSI V NATARAJAN ORS VS GSI/MOM ETC IS MAIN CASE ....

AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE CITED DELAYED DPC IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE ARE POINTING OUT FOR LOSING OUR BENFITS.....IN GENERAL AND IN PARTICULAR CASES LIKE MINE.

FILE NOTE COPIES WILL BE VERY USEFUL FOR MY CASE. I AM NOW IN FRISCO- TX USA.......I AM NOT SURE ....HOW EVER I HAVE REQUESTED MY COUNSEL ( SHRI G NATARAJAN, RETD S29 HSC ) TO TAKE NOTE OF THE POINTS YOU HAVE SUMMARISED IN THE EARLIER NOTE......

( MY CASE WILL COME UP ON 1 8 2016 AT PB CAT....)

vnatarajan....24 06 2016

Gopal Krishan
25-06-2016, 04:31 PM
Respected Sir,
As rightly pointed out by you delayed DPC is the basic cause for losing benefits by pensioners in general including you. The latest unjustified stand of the various Ministries/Departments is that since retirees did not assume charge of the higher post so no pay and allowances of the higher post and consequently no pensionery benefits of that post. Of course, this stand is based on the policy guidelines of the DOPT. As mentioned earlier in my one of the posts the DOPT has decided to review its policy guidelines. The matter is still under consideration. Final view is yet to be taken.

Sir, as you are aware I am pursuing this matter for quite some time. It would me my pleasure to assist your advocate in this regard on any point.

With regards
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
17-07-2016, 06:38 PM
Final view is yet to be taken by the Government of India through the Department of Personnel and Training
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
25-08-2016, 05:03 PM
After my last post of the 17th July, 2016, a number of calls, from all over the country, have been received inquiring about the latest position in the matter. As already indicated in my previous post that the Department of Personnel, the policy framer in the Government of India in this regard, have not taken a final decision in the matter. The same is still under their consideration. Those affected in the matter can send representations to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi 110001 requesting him to get the decision expedited as the sufferers are all very senior pensioners in the age of 70+.
In case any assistance is required I could be contacted on Mob.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

vnatarajan
25-08-2016, 05:18 PM
DEAR SHRI GK ,
AS I AM IN USA AND SHALL BE BACK IN INDIA BY MID SEPT 2016 I CAN ACT. In my case, not able to reply my grievance inbwhich I HAD POINTED THE DEFECTIVE SENIORITY IN THE PROPOSAL EVEN AFTER THE DIRECTIVE OF AN SLP JUDGMENT, the Dept kept silent for 7 months and then linked it to a OA filed for H GR PENSION WRT JR GR RETIREES ( OA 3590 OF 2015 ) in which I happen to be lead petitioner for a group of 88 SAG S29 GSI RETIREES.....LINKING WAS DELIBERATE AS THEY CD NIT ANSER DELAYED DPC ISSUE.....Can u eml me what shd be my approach in the interim time....DOPT SIMPLY ACTS AS A PO ONCE MY LETTER SHOWS I BELONG TI GSI AND FIRWARD IT STATING FOR " SETTLING THE GRIEVANCE"....IF U GIVE SOME REFERENCE, I CAN VEHEMENTLY PUT THE FACTS BEFORE DOPT...VN

Gopal Krishan
25-08-2016, 07:03 PM
Sir,
As mentioned by you earlier your case was to come up on the Ist August, 2016. Kindly favour me with the gist of the orders passed on that date.
Separately I had sought for some information from the Under Secretary concerned in the DOPT under the RTI Act. As no satisfactory information was forth coming from him and the FAA I had taken up the matter with the CIC. The Commission has directed him to allow inspection of various files to me on the subject. I am awaiting a reference from him. Perhaps thereafter I would be able to give you the latest in the matter. At present fact remains that the line of the DOPT, which is being implemented by various Ministries/Departments, is that as retirees were not in a position to assume charge of the higher post so not notional benefits to them. Of course this line of DOPT is absurd.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
01-09-2016, 03:08 AM
DEAR SHRI GK JI, OUR PRE 2006 GSI S29 CASE OF HGR PENSION IN OA 3590/2015 IS NOW POSTED TO 3 OCT 2016 TO ENABLE US TO FILE THE REJOINDER TO GOVT COUNTER AND ALSO AN ADDITIONAL MA TO SUBMIT JUDGMENTS/ DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE COME UP IN SUPPORT OF OUR MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT & RELATED ISSUES. IN CASE YOU GET OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT DOPT FILES N THE DELAYED DPC ISSUES. KINDLY GET COPIES OF RECENT NOTES WHICH HAVE A BEARING IN OUR DELAYED DPC ISSUE. I HAVE REFEREED THE DOPT OM OF 14 NOV 2014 ON DELAYE DPC AS ONE OF THE CAUSES FOR ACTION TO GO FOR LEGAL REMEDY AS SUCH DELAYED DPCs HAVE RESULTED MY CHANCE TO GO TO HIGHER GRADE WHILE IN SERVICE AND NOW WIT THE NFUPP IN PRACTICE, EVEN NON-FUNCTIONAL SEL GR DIRECTORS WHO ARE OUR FEEDER GR/JR GRADE ARE DRAWING MORE PENSION. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE PRECEDENT JUDGMENTS .

BEING NOT IN POSITION AND IN SERVICE , MAY BE OK FOR NOT PAYING THE ARREARS OF PAY FROM THE DUE DATE OF NOTIONAL PROMOTION, BUT THE PENSION HAS TO ACCRUE FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT. ( PL NOTE IN CASE OF INTRODUCTION OF A NEW S30 SCALE IN JULY 2009 , THE FINACIAL BENEFIT WAS PASSED ON TO EVEN PRE 112006 SEAMLESSLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE RETIRED LONG BACK/ EVEN DECEASED/ EVEN FAMILY PENSIONERS!!!!) .

Gopal Krishan
01-09-2016, 03:48 PM
Respected VN Sir,
I have a query at this stage. The OMs of the 12th October, 1998 and the 14th November, 2014 of the DOPT clarified that retirees if they could not be considered for promotion because of the delayed holding of DPCs have a right to be so considered and if found fit for promotion have a right to be included in the select list. Presently the issue whether such of the officers who are included in the select list are to be given notional promotion and notional pensionery benefits of the higher post, is under active consideration of the Govt. in the Department of Personnel.
In case it is decided favourably by the Govt. in the DOPT and thereby you and others similarly placed get notional promotion/ benefits of the higher post whether your OA would become infructuous?
With regards,
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
02-09-2016, 05:05 AM
SHRI GK JI,

IF DOPT GIVES SUCH A RULING, IT WILL RESOLVE ONE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ...ONLY for A COUPLE OF OUR 88 MEMBERS FIGHTING THRU THE OA 3590 for HIGHER GR PENSION.

2. MY DEPT HAD LINKED MY PERSONAL GRIEVANCE TO THE OA ONLY TO ESCAPE FROM THEIR OMSISSIONS AND ALSO FOR NOT FIXING CORRECT SENIORITY INSPITE OF A SLP HSC VERDICT and thus sending erroneous delayed dpc promotion and placing my ELIGIBILITY below my
JUNIOR UPSC BATCH.

3. OUR OA 3590 WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROBLEM BUT IT MAY HELP GOI GSI TO SAVE SOME EMBARASSMENTS IN COURT

(I SENT ONE LINK ON SOME HSC JUDGMENT YDAY SEPARATELY. By eml . PL CHK)

REGARDS,

Gopal Krishan
02-09-2016, 06:51 PM
Respected Sir,
We are yet to inspect the file although a letter had been received from DOPT long back for inspection. In fact the file in question is under submission for a final decision after the DOPT had decided a year back to review their earlier decision not to give notional pensionery benefits even to those who were included in the select/suitability list for promotion. Comments as sought for by the DOPT have been received from the Department of Legal Affairs as well as Department of Pension. The same are favourable. In my view consultation at this stage was not required and DOPT could have taken a view in the matter. That Department is solely responsible for the mess. The consolidated instructions on constitution and functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and the procedure to be followed in processing and implementing their recommendations were initially issued by the DOPT in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. These instruction did not put any bar on the (i) consideration of retirees at the relevant time, (ii) inclusion of the names in the select list of those found suitable and (iii) then giving them notional benefits. But unfortunately, a decision taken in Oct. 1998, which was limited to a set of officers of a particular Department was applied universally by the DOPT. That, according to my understanding was a mistake on the part of the DOPT. The DOPT instead of correcting the mistake despite number of opportunities to do so during the intervening period decided from time to time not to give the rightful due to the retirees on one or the illogical/irrational ground even after the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs which was received way back on 2009/2010. ( Incidentally I had sought for the information about the rule/instructions under which the legal advice had been ignored. The CIC has directed the CPIO to indicate the OM No. etc. to me). The latest absurd stand of the DOPT, which was conveyed to the Lok Sabha also in reply to a Parliament question is that as the retirees are not in a position to assume charge of the higher post, so no notional benefits. Of course this is absurd to expect any retiree to assume charge of the senior post. Now some how to get out of the situation the DOPT is trying to rope in the Departments of Expenditure, Pension and Legal Affairs, which is delaying the decision. As already mentioned above consultation was not necessary as the subject matter under consideration is solely within the purview of the DOPT. They had created a mess of the matter. Now instead of taking responsibility of the mistake/mess are involving other Departments and as a result delaying the justice to the sufferers
With regards
GK .

Gopal Krishan
04-10-2016, 08:10 PM
Respected Natarajan Sahib,
Kindly favour me with the developments in respect of the case in the court.
With regards,
Gopal Krishan
Respected Sir,
We are yet to inspect the file although a letter had been received from DOPT long back for inspection. In fact the file in question is under submission for a final decision after the DOPT had decided a year back to review their earlier decision not to give notional pensionery benefits even to those who were included in the select/suitability list for promotion. Comments as sought for by the DOPT have been received from the Department of Legal Affairs as well as Department of Pension. The same are favourable. In my view consultation at this stage was not required and DOPT could have taken a view in the matter. That Department is solely responsible for the mess. The consolidated instructions on constitution and functioning of the Departmental Promotion Committees and the procedure to be followed in processing and implementing their recommendations were initially issued by the DOPT in consultation with the Department of Expenditure etc. These instruction did not put any bar on the (i) consideration of retirees at the relevant time, (ii) inclusion of the names in the select list of those found suitable and (iii) then giving them notional benefits. But unfortunately, a decision taken in Oct. 1998, which was limited to a set of officers of a particular Department was applied universally by the DOPT. That, according to my understanding was a mistake on the part of the DOPT. The DOPT instead of correcting the mistake despite number of opportunities to do so during the intervening period decided from time to time not to give the rightful due to the retirees on one or the illogical/irrational ground even after the advice of the Department of Legal Affairs which was received way back on 2009/2010. ( Incidentally I had sought for the information about the rule/instructions under which the legal advice had been ignored. The CIC has directed the CPIO to indicate the OM No. etc. to me). The latest absurd stand of the DOPT, which was conveyed to the Lok Sabha also in reply to a Parliament question is that as the retirees are not in a position to assume charge of the higher post, so no notional benefits. Of course this is absurd to expect any retiree to assume charge of the senior post. Now some how to get out of the situation the DOPT is trying to rope in the Departments of Expenditure, Pension and Legal Affairs, which is delaying the decision. As already mentioned above consultation was not necessary as the subject matter under consideration is solely within the purview of the DOPT. They had created a mess of the matter. Now instead of taking responsibility of the mistake/mess are involving other Departments and as a result delaying the justice to the sufferers
With regards
GK .

vnatarajan
17-10-2016, 01:26 PM
Dear Shri GK JI,

I after inspired by yr prompting, Shri Deavaraju's appeal, and the repeated reminders of the DOPT on the issue of DELAYED DPC took up a meticulous exercise for building up sufficient documents and establishing an appropriate bunch of CAUSE OF ACTION for a separate OA , at least to plead for a higher grade of pension from the date allowable to me if I get a favourable verdict of justice. I started my actions in mid 2014 thru RTI with my dept.IN THE MEANWHILE , SHRI MMP SINHA CASE and PATNA HC JUDGMENT IN MAY 2015 AND its endet accepted by CAT WRT A RA IN AIS30PA JUDGMENT OF FULLPARITY,
in Sept 2015, set the tempo for my legal action to go for a HIGHER GR PENSION ABOVE THE MAXIMUM OF FEEDER OR LOWER GR PENSION, AS THESE LATEST JUDGMENTS ARE PRECEDENT ON SPS VAINS CASES OF RETD MAJ GENS GETTING HIGHER PAY-PENSION ABOVE BRIGADIERS AND ALSO GET EQUAL PAY- PENSION AMONG THEIR EAQUALs.

In gist what I did is narrated below.

IN MY CASE, CAUSE OF ACTION WRT DELAYED DPC.HAD AUTHENTICITY , ( even) for a separate case. ( I MAY STILL DO IT LATER).

I KNEW GSI HAD DELAYED THE DPC AND CERTAINLY MY NAME HAD TO FIGURE IN IT IF PROPOSAL HAD BEEN SENT IN TIME. SO I TOOK A CHANCE TO SEE IF THERE HAD BEEN MANIPULATION OF ANY KIND.

SOON AFTER THE OM DT OF 14 NOV 2014, I SOUGHT FROM GSI THRU RTI CITING THE SAID OM, INFORMATION ON POSTS OF SR DDG VACANT IN 1995 96 97 DPC PROPOSALs SENT TO FILL THEM, AND IF MY NAME WAS INCLUDED OR NOT, COPY OF DPC PROPOSAL, ANNEXURES RELATED TO SENIORITY ELIGIBILITY ETC SENT WITH DPC...AND SO ON.

I GOT PART OF THE PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS VIZ MINUS SENIORITY WHICH THEY NEVER FINALISED, DPC WAS SENT 39!DAYS BEFOR MY RETIREMENT, NEARLY ONE YR SIX MONTHS LATER THAN VACANCIES .... ETC.. PROPER REASONS FOR DELAYED SENDING OF DPC WAS NOT GIVEN. LIST HAD TEN NAMES FOR 3 VACANT POSTS WITH REMARKS THAT FOUR OF US MANY NOT BE HAVING 3 MONTHS TIME IF DPC IS NOT HELD IN TIME ETC....

SO SUCH CRUCIAL MATERIAL PROVIDED ME CAUSE TO ACT AND SEEK JUSTICE....AS WE HAD POINTED OUT THAT GSI WAS LATE ALWAYS WRT SUBMISSION OF DPC PROPOSALS, MANY OF US HAD LOST CHANCES TO GET TO HIGHER GRADE POSTS AND SO ON.......

I AM NOT SURE, HOW OTHERS CAN BUILD UP THEIR CASES METICULOUSLY.

I HAVE HALF A DOZEN DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE CLINCHING ONE, WHERE GSI GAVE THEIR FINAL REPLY TO DISPOSE MY DELAYED DPC GRIEVANCE BY LINKING IT TO THE OA 3590 OF 2015 ( this case seeks relief for 88 PETITIONERS of higher pension than maximum of FEEDER grade ).. GSI's ACTION was funny .. stating the matter is subjudice. wrt my personal grievance !!!!!!!!!

Now court has to decide what is relevant and not relevant.. I AM SAVED OF FILING A DELAYED DPC OA......ALL MATERIAL IS NOW SUBMITTED THRU A REJOINDER / MA AND IS LINKED TO THE OA ..

Gopal Krishan
23-10-2016, 04:27 PM
Respected VN Sahib,
As rightly observed by you it would not be possible for others to build up their cases meticulously. However, generally speaking despite strict instructions issued from time to time by the Government of India in the DOPT about timely holding of DPC meetings, various Ministries/Departments, in violation of the same, delayed holding of DPCs in time. On the other hand these Ministries/Departments meticulously followed the illogical/irrational/illegal policy of the DOPT laying down that retirees are required to be considered at the relevant time when they were due for such consideration while in service and included in the select list if found suitable. These instructions, by implication, also lay down that those included would have no right to notional pensionery benefits without assuming charge of the higher post. The same deprived the concerned of timely promotion and also of pensionery benefits. These instructions about notional pensionery benefits is being reviewed by the DOPT.
As pointed out by you it is absurd to link up your case with the OA.
With regards,
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
02-12-2016, 07:38 PM
The Government in the DOPT is yet to take a final view in the matter. We met the
Secretary, DOPT in the first week of November, 2016 in this regard.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
17-12-2016, 06:09 PM
All interested,
After seeing that the Government is allowing things to drift, the huge number of pensioners are concerned with the matter and also various judgements in this regard, I still feel that there are good number of pensioners who are not aware about the adverse affect of the illegal policy of the Government. Many of them may not be clear as to what to do at this stage.
I have some suggestion to make in this regard. All Pensioners' Associations must act fast and write about the grievances to Deptt of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi immediately. They must help sufferer pensioners who may not know the situation.Loss per month is considerable and is getting compounded every month.
Those who can must bring the grievance to the notice of the media so that the same could be high lighted.
Many MANY very very senior citizens are feeling HARASSED and FRUSTRATED by the inaction on the part of the Government, in view of the fact that in August, 2015, the DOPT had decided to review their stand under which even notional pensionery benefits are not being allowed. Still final decision after the review is awaited by all those affected.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

vnatarajan
28-02-2017, 08:54 PM
DOPT is more generous to protect the interest of those in service and the current retirees.

They took care to protect even the interest of POST 112006 PAY BAND SYSTEM RETIREES FOR REVISED PENSION ON LPD BASIS WHEREAS, FOR PRE 112006 it is at the SIXTH CPC MOD PARITY BASIS .HOPE U WILL BE FOLLOWING UP THE DOPT FILES ON THE DELAYED DPC ISSUE.

MEANWHILE, OUR OA ON HIGH GR PENSION HAS THE NDH In first week of APRIL 2017.

vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
04-03-2017, 08:01 PM
Thanks a lot VN Sir. Of course we are pursuing the matter with the DOPT. One of our friends has requested for inspection of the file to see the action taken after the decision taken by the DOPT to review their earlier policy referred to in my post No. 81 laying down that no benefits to the retirees even if their names are included in the select list(s). In one of the cases the CIC directed the CPIO/Under Secretary concerned to allow inspection of the file to me. Unfortunately the file has not come down to the CPIO for the last more than about six months as such it has not been possible for him to invite us for inspection of the file. He has assured that as soon as the file comes back to him he would inform us for inspection.
Sir, if it possible for you or your friends, who are also affected by the policy referred to above, to write to the Secretary, DOPT for expediting a decision in the matter, please do that .
With regards
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
06-05-2017, 04:41 PM
Reference my post No. 78.
It is now informally understood that the file has been referred to Department of Expenditure by the DOPT although that was not necessary as the consolidated policy guidelines framed by the DOPT relating to holding of DPCs were issued after consulting that Department also and those instructions did not put any bar on (i)considering the retirees at the relevant time when they were due for such consideration, while in service and (ii) giving them notional promotion and pensionery benefits. It is also understood that a view has been expressed while processing the matter that decision, when taken, in this regard would be made applicable from a prospective date.
As such I would request Shri VN Sir for writing to the Secretary, Expenditure in this regard on behalf of the Forum he is heading.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
06-05-2017, 07:10 PM
Thanks Shri GK sir.
As I would like to issue it from PENSIONERS' FORUM , CHENNAI ( afgltd to AIFPA, CHENNAI ) , CAN I request Shri GK JI TO EML me a draft appeal with whatever references are to be cited, to make it an effective one, to my EML I'd.
I SHALL DULY SEND THE APPEAL.
SHRI GK ALSO MAY HELP IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AT DELHI.
Thankd
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
07-05-2017, 02:23 PM
Respected VN Sir,
It would be my pleasure to send you a draft appeal to the Finance Secretary. I would do that in a day or two. Of course the same would be based on facts of the case.
Incidentally, kindly indicate the latest about your case referred to in your post No. 80.
With regards,
GK

Gopal Krishan
05-07-2017, 08:35 PM
I have already sent a draft to Sh VN Sir. In the meantime DOE has sent their comments to DOPT stating that the DPC matter is for them to decide in the light of the comments received from DPPW and DOLA. Now it is for DOPT to take a call. We have to put pressure on DOPT to expedite a decision.
The Department of Expenditure in their note referred to the proposal of DOPT for extending the benefit of notional promotion from the date of vacancy to both serving as well as the retired employees.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
15-07-2017, 06:57 PM
It is likely that the decision for extending the benefit of notional promotion from the date of vacancy to both serving as well as the retired employees would be applicable from a prospective date. All concerned may note.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
15-07-2017, 07:07 PM
It is likely that a decision when taken may be applicable to only those who suffer in future. This may be noted.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
18-08-2017, 07:21 PM
Pensioners Forum, Madras has written to the Secretary, DOPT for expediting the decision in the matter.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
22-10-2017, 04:27 PM
Reference post No 85: CPIO, DOPT telephoned to advise that we could come for inspection of the relevant file. Next week we wd do so.
Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
22-10-2017, 04:54 PM
Great SHRI GK JI.
PL TRY TO GET COPIES OF FILE NOTINGS VITAL FOR OUR OBJECTIVES.
WHY NOTIONAL PENSIONARY BENEFITS IN THE LEAST CAN NOT BE ACCORDED,BOTH FOR DELAYED DPC AND IAS BATCH PARITY BASED NFFU FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF PENSION WEF 112006.
vnatarajan
22 Oct 2017

Gopal Krishan
23-10-2017, 03:48 PM
Respected Natarajan Sir,
As back as the year 2010, Department of Legal Affairs advised DOPT that all those whose names are included in the panel(s) are required to be promoted and given pensionery benefits NOTIONALLY. DOE and DPPW have also offered Comments. Now it is for DOPT to take a call.
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
06-11-2017, 06:38 PM
We inspected the files last week

Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
13-01-2018, 05:58 PM
For the information of those (i) who have been writing to me about their cases involving holding of delayed DPCs,(ii) who have been contacting me through mails and (iii) who have been talking to me on phone.
DOPT referred the matter to UPSC for their comments. The same are still awaited.
With reference to post at 94 by Shri Vnatarajan Sir, we could not find any thing specifically in those files, we inspected but it was mentioned by the CPIO that some thing was being done on All India Services (AIS) side of the Department relating to the delayed holding of DPCs. There is lot of material available with us with reference to the case, which I would like to share with those interested in the matter.
I would once again request the Pensioners Forum, Madras to take up the matter at the level of the Minister as the proposal as present being moved by the Department is to give the benefit prospectively. Some officers are also feeling that as the affected are negligible in number we could go ahead on those lines in the matter.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
20-01-2018, 06:45 PM
Respected VN Sir,
I have separately sent a reply to your email with reference to your case O No. 3590/2015. As you are aware thousands of pensioners are interested in the matter. A good number of them have been writing to me and talking to me also. For their benefit it would be desirable to post various developments in this regard under this thread.
In your emal your had mentioned that 'even the all other Depts have not objecte?' Could you kindly elucidate the same.
My case relating to 111946 is listed for the 26th February, 2018. The Govt. sought for permission to file an additional affidavit which was allowed last time.
With regards,
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
02-05-2018, 06:27 PM
respected VN Sir,
Your case was to come up on the Ist May. What has been the outcome of the hearing?
With regards,
Gopal Krishan

Gopal Krishan
08-06-2018, 07:34 PM
The Government in the Department of Personnel and Training are still awaiting comments from the Union Public Service Commission before they could take a final decision in the matter.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
14-10-2018, 02:29 PM
In a reply to an application under RTI Act, the UPSC has mentioned that the reference received from the DOPT ln August, 2017 is still under examination/consideration.
Those interested could send reminders to the UPSC in that regard so that the matter could be expedited.
Gopal Krishan
9911178250

Gopal Krishan
19-11-2018, 12:48 PM
Reply by the UPSC has been sent to the DOPT and copy thereof has been obtained by me through RTI application. Now comments from all the concerned organizations have been received by the DOPT. It is now for them to take a final view in the matter.
As I am at this stage also busy with Court cases about the matter I am pursuing with the Government, I may not be able to devote much time to this matter. I may not be able to post further development in the matter under this thread. Those interested contact me on telephone or through email as is being done by some of the aggrieved in the matter. My number and email address :

9911178250
[email protected]

Gopal Krishan
15-01-2020, 03:36 PM
Government in the Department of Personnel has realized that some thing has to be done for doing justice to the aggrieved. But unfortunately they are moving to apply the revised decision prospectively, wef the year 2016.