PDA

View Full Version : pension fixation as per 28 jan 2013 OM



ramadevik
24-03-2013, 05:30 PM
Sir,
My father retired from DoT on 31 Aug 1995. Scale 2000-50-2300-75-3200 and BP
2450. V CPC corresponding scale was 6500-200-10500.

Now in 6 CPC 6500-200-10500 has been merged with 7450-225-11500.

As per the table to OM dt 28 Jan 2013, for 6500-200-10500 scale , pension should be fixed at 8145 and he has been fixed now.Then what about the merger of 6500-200-10500 with 7450-225-11500. Should his pension be fixed in 7450-225-11500 scale at 9230. Please guide. If it has to be so , then what is the course of action.

Gopal Krishan
25-03-2013, 01:21 PM
Dear Ramadevik

What is the doubt? Kindly specify in precise term.



Gopal Krishan

ramadevik
26-03-2013, 06:47 PM
Sir,
Since 6500-200-10500 scale has been merged with 7450-225-11500 and placed in PB2 9300-34800, GP 4600 , is this merger apllicable to pensioners also? what should be my fathers pension after OM dt 28 Jan 2013. As per the table in OM dt 28 Jan 2013, for 7450-225-11500, corresponding pension is to be fixed at 9230. My father has been fixed at 8145, corresponding to 6500-200-10500 scale, in which he retired. Effect of merger of above scale has not been taken into account.

Gopal Krishan
29-03-2013, 01:35 PM
I am sure you must have got a reply in the other thread-injsutice to pre-2006 pensioners.

Gopal Krishan

Kanaujiaml
02-04-2013, 08:26 PM
Sir,
Since 6500-200-10500 scale has been merged with 7450-225-11500 and placed in PB2 9300-34800, GP 4600 , is this merger apllicable to pensioners also? what should be my fathers pension after OM dt 28 Jan 2013. As per the table in OM dt 28 Jan 2013, for 7450-225-11500, corresponding pension is to be fixed at 9230. My father has been fixed at 8145, corresponding to 6500-200-10500 scale, in which he retired. Effect of merger of above scale has not been taken into account.

Dear Mr. Ramadevik.There is no effect of merger. The only advantage of merger is entitlement of Grade Pay of 4600, which your father has alrady been allotted.As far as the OM dated 28.1.2013 is concerned, your father's pension can be calculated by either of the two formule, on the basis of which being higher. The first formula, as is well known by now, fixes revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, by multiplying the existing pension as on 31.12.2005, by a factor of 2.26. The second formula is that " the revised pension cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay, as per table given in OM dated 30.8.2008, corresping to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired.This is effective, of course only from 24.9.2012, in terms of OM dated 28.1.2013. Obiviously, it means that only that Table would be applicable, which is corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner retired or was allotted,if retired prior to 1.1.1996.I hope this explains the entire position clearly. Good luck.

Gopal Krishan
03-04-2013, 04:12 PM
Dear Shri Kanaujiami,

Going by your reply above, one whose pension was fixed at 12,235 as on the 31st December, 2005 would get his pension revised by multiplying the same by 2.26 factor, which is higher than the pension calculated by the other formula. Kindly confirm the position.


































With regards,

Gopal Krishan

Kanaujiaml
05-04-2013, 07:34 AM
Dear Shri GK.Your post above. There is one exception though. If you retired on or after 1.4.2004, deduct first 50 % Dearness Pay earlier merged in your pension, before applying the formula of 2.26.

ram
05-04-2013, 09:34 AM
Kanaujiaml wrote
Dear Shri GK.Your post above. There is one exception though. If you retired on or after 1.4.2004, deduct first 50 % Dearness Pay earlier merged in your pension, before applying the formula of 2.26.

Kanaujiaml
05-04-2013, 07:54 PM
Kanaujiaml wrote
Dear Shri GK.Your post above. There is one exception though. If you retired on or after 1.4.2004, deduct first 50 % Dearness Pay earlier merged in your pension, before applying the formula of 2.26.

Dear Shri Ram. I am trying to reply "with quote", which I was not able to send from.

yenyem
06-04-2013, 06:54 PM
The minimum Pension Rs 8145, fixed for pre 6500-10500 grade(S12), as per O.M. dated 28.01.2013 is based on Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and not Rs 4600.The correct minimum pension for this grade should be Rs.8345.

Gopal Krishan
06-04-2013, 07:15 PM
Der Shri Kanaujiami,

As I mentioned earlier one of my friends retired on the 31st December, 2005, with basic pay of Rs.16500 (S-21). Going by 2.26 formula his pension should be 18645. However, his pension was earlier revised at Rs. 18435. As such he would get his epension enhanced by only Rs. 210. Could you kindly confirm the position.

With regards,

Gopal Krishan

Kanaujiaml
06-04-2013, 08:17 PM
[QUOTE=Gopal Krishan;17735]Der Shri Kanaujiami,

As I mentioned earlier one of my friends retired on the 31st December, 2005, with basic pay of Rs.16500 (S-21). Going by 2.26 formula his pension should be 18645. However, his pension was earlier revised at Rs. 18435. As such he would get his epension enhanced by only Rs. 210. Could you kindly confirm the position.

Since you have said his basic pay was 16500, I take it, it doesnot include DP. His pension should have been fixed at 8250 (50 % of 16500) x 2.26 = 18645 and not at 18435.He should make an application through his Bank Branch wherefrom he is getting his pension, to the CPPC of the Bank, for correction in his revised pension in terms of para 4.1 of the DOP OM dated 1.9.2008 and OM dated 14.10.2008.This correction should be effective from 1.1.2006, which means payment of arrears, too.

vnatarajan
07-04-2013, 08:28 AM
What about 10 months average pay rule? Does it not affect the BP. His figure of 18435 instead of 18645 cd be related to the ssaid factor (....if I am corrcet. Otherwise pl ignore)....VN

Kanaujiaml
07-04-2013, 10:02 AM
What about 10 months average pay rule? Does it not affect the BP. His figure of 18435 instead of 18645 cd be related to the ssaid factor (....if I am corrcet. Otherwise pl ignore)....VN

Yes, you are right. Never the less, it is upto Shri GK to ponder about becaue he informed about the pay. Not only that, what about qualifying service ? For full pension you required 33 yrs. qualifying service.

vnatarajan
07-04-2013, 05:51 PM
Right U R- minor omissions do occur.......VN

Gopal Krishan
07-04-2013, 09:14 PM
Sir,

He had completed more than 33 years of service. In that case his pension should have been Rs. 18645/- Am I correct?

Gopal Krishan

yenyem
07-04-2013, 09:28 PM
Dear Mr. Ramadevik.There is no effect of merger. The only advantage of merger is entitlement of Grade Pay of 4600, which your father has alrady been allotted.As far as the OM dated 28.1.2013 is concerned, your father's pension can be calculated by either of the two formule, on the basis of which being higher. The first formula, as is well known by now, fixes revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, by multiplying the existing pension as on 31.12.2005, by a factor of 2.26. The second formula is that " the revised pension cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay, as per table given in OM dated 30.8.2008, corresping to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired.This is effective, of course only from 24.9.2012, in terms of OM dated 28.1.2013. Obiviously, it means that only that Table would be applicable, which is corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner retired or was allotted,if retired prior to 1.1.1996.I hope this explains the entire position clearly. Good luck.
The minimum pension fixed at 8145 from 24.9.2012 is only based on a grade pay of Rs.4200. If the grade pay 4600 allotted to scale 6500-10500, is taken into account the minimum pension should be Rs.8345.

vnatarajan
08-04-2013, 02:22 AM
Wrt Shri GK's post on 18645. If his 10 months' av basic pay was 16500, then it can be so. If 16500 was his last basic pay and the 10 months average was lesser than the same, then the figure of 18435 may still be correct..... VN

Gopal Krishan
08-04-2013, 07:21 PM
Respected Vn Sir,

Thanks a lot for the clarification. We are aware of paras 4.1. and 4.2 the OMs dated the Ist September and clarifications issued by the Department on the 3rd October and the 14th October, 2008. It is also clear that where pension is under 4.1. is higher that would be the basic pension for pre-2006 pensioners. The 2.26 formula requires some elaboration. Kindly oblige.

With regards

Gopal Krishan

vnatarajan
09-04-2013, 05:12 PM
I think Shri MLK ji or Shri Sundarar will be competent to explain clearly.
The para 4.1 of OM 1 Sept 2008 is nothing but the usaul 1.86 MF plus the 40% FITMENT BENEFIT.
Lot of discrimination exists even in this fiment formula - and strictly speaking , it is not the same fitment as the serving employees.

AS THIS FORMULA OPERATES ON THE "LAST PAY DRAWN (LPD)" BASIS (ie the exiting BASIC PENSION wh wsa 50% of the LPD), if the old pensioner had drawn more "increments" in the scale of pay of the post held by him before retirement, he gets more pension than another comparable retiree of the same scale but with less increments to his credit!. IF THE NO OF INCREMENTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH, THE 2.26 MF BASED OR PARA 4.1 BASED REVISED PENSION MAY HAPPEN TO BE MORE THAN EVEN THE "REVISED PENSION BASED ON THE CORRECT MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" (PLUS GP COMPONENT) OR THE NOW ORDERED "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" and obviously it is not easy for an old retiree of PB 1 or PB 2 category to easily find out the correct beneficial pension.

ALSO AS THE PROMOTIONS WERE FAR AND FEW IN CASE OF OLD RETIREES , MANY OF THEM MUST HAVE DRAWN SUFFICIENT NO OF INCREMENTS IN THE SCALE OF THE POST LAST HELD BY THEM , AND BABUS WERE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FORESEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO 'OBSTRUCTION OR NEGATIVE" FROM THE "PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS' WHICH ARE MOSTLY MADE UP OF SUCH CATEGORIES OF RETIREES.

Also it is difficult for them to gather a huge resource to fight the cases till hon SC......

IN FUTURE , ALL ASSOCIATIONS MUST BE MORE VIGiLANT AND "INSIST ON EQUAL TREATMENT IN REVISED PENSION" WHETHER THEY ARE BRANDED AS HOMOGENOUS OR HETEROGENOUS. Mere issue of OMs on different dates do not declassify the past pensioners as not belonging to the same class of homogenous pensioners as the later ones. IT IS BAUDOM'S HOODWINKING AND BLATANT LYING TECHNOLOGY- EVEN TO CONFUSE THE COURTS.

MF SHALL BE SAME TO ALL. NO HANKY PANKY.

Rgards,
vnatarajan

Gopal Krishan
09-04-2013, 08:44 PM
respected Shri VN Sir,

Thank you very much for the guidance. Some of my other freinds who retired from Under Secretaries of equivalent posts are also facing the similar situation. My case may also be similar to them. We all earned maximum increments as DPCs for the next higher promotion posts got badly delayed by the Government. All of us retired at almost last of the stage of of the pay scale with 50% as Dearness Pay. Our pension appears to have been fixed through a computer fed package, which it appears had not taken into account the formula laid down under para 4.1 of the OM.

With regards,

GoplKrishan

vnatarajan
11-04-2013, 01:33 PM
You may kindly chk again - with Shri Sundarar.
Para 4.1 is the guiding factor for almost all those belonging to PB1 to 3 and particularly who has drawn a no of increments in their prerevised pay scale.
THE E-AUTHORITY IS PERHAPS BASED ON THE SAME CALCULATOR WHICH IS OFFCIALLY PUT UP ON THE WEBSITE OF DOPPW- "PENSIONERS' PORTAL".

if your basic pension as on 1 1 2006 is fixed well above the "MIN GUARANTEED PENSION" now prescribed for your scale in the OM of 28 1 2013, then the fixation may be ok.

Discrepancy can only be ther in those cases of Dep / Und Secretaries who have been just promoted and are at the bottom of their pre-revised pay scales say with two or three increments only....

SHRI MLK JI/ SHRI SUNDARAR MAY LIKE TO SEE/ COMMENT.

Regards,
VN

Gopal Krishan
11-04-2013, 07:43 PM
Shri MLK Ji and Sundrar Ji,

I am awaiting your comments.

Gopal rishan

kssitaraman
13-04-2013, 09:03 AM
This refers to Respected Shri GK’s case only.

Shri GK has retired on 31/12/2005 and his pension is being paid from 1/1/2006. His pension must have been fixed with 50% of the last pay drawn under ten months average emoluments rule as basis, which is full parity and the maximum. If he is drawing less, he has a case to ask for it. It is hoped that this view is correct, as I am not well versed with retirement rules.
Regards to all.
K.S.Sitaraman.

Gopal Krishan
13-04-2013, 01:32 PM
Respected

Shri Sitaraman ji,

It is my pleasure to get a mail from you. In fact some other cases also if pension is fixed under para 4.1. of the OM dated the Ist September, 2008 the position is different. The OM also stated that if pension is more under 4.1 (2.26 MF), that would be payable to the retiree.

With regards,

Gopal Krishan

kssitaraman
15-04-2013, 06:23 PM
Ref: Smt. Ramadevi’s query regarding her father’s pension in Pre-revised Scale Rs 6500-10500 vide Post 1 dt. 24/3/2013 in this Thread. (I stand corrected if the expression ‘Smt’ is wrong)

There is an article by Shri M.Somasekhar Rao, Vice-President, Bharat Pensioners Samaj on Modified Parity, posted in BPS’s Blog. A paragraph in this ‘Must Read’ article answers Ramadevi’s query by giving the current position of this and its merged scale Rs 7450-11500. The same is reproduced below – Courtesy BPS.

Quote. "It may be seen from the table annexed to DOP & PW’s OM dated 28.1.2013, grade pay of Rs.4200 was taken for those who retired in the pre revised scale of Rs. 6500 – 10500 for the purpose of modified parity while those in service as on 1.1.2006 coming from this grade to PB 2 have been given grade pay of Rs.4600. This indeed is gross discrimination striking at the very root of principle of modified parity as explained earlier. Grade pay of Rs.4200 was recommended by the VI CPC to the pre revised grades of Rs.5000 – 8000, 5500 – 9000 and 6500 – 10500 putting them together and working it out on the maximum of the last grade i.e.,Rs.10500 X 40% = Rs. 4200. While implementing, the post of Rs. 6500 – 10500 was merged with that of Rs. 7450 – 11500 and grade pay of Rs.4600 was allotted. On what analogy has the government treated the grade of Rs.6500 – 10500 for grade pay of Rs.4200 prior to 1.1.2006 and for grade pay of Rs.4600 after 1.1.2006? Considered from any angle, taking grade pay of Rs.4200 for modified parity in respect of those who retired in grade Rs. 6500-10500 prior to 1.1.2006 is irrational and devoid of any logic and reasoning." End of Quote.

So for pensioners in Scale Rs 6500-10500 who retired before 1/1/2006, the Grade Pay is Rs 4200 and for those who retired on and after 1/1/2006 they are given the GP of Rs 4600 in the upgraded and merged scale of Rs 7450-11500.

Denial of upgradation to Pre-1996 pensioners in prs 6500-10500 took place during the V CPC Reco. implementations. As regards the Organised Accounts department staff belonging to this pr scale, an OM sanctioning the upgradation, issued during V CPC implementation expresses this in so many words. Also in one of the National JCM meeting Minutes, this has been confirmed to the Staff side. The last straw was when as late as on 5/9/2007 an OM was issued citing the HSC’s judgment in the much discussed K.S.Krishnaswamy’s case, substituting certain paragraphs in some earlier OMs that had allowed the upgradation and by this substitution the Pre-1996 pensioners were denied the benefit once and for all. So during the VI CPC Reco. Implementation, the task had been made easier to allot the GP of Rs 4200 to Pre-2006 pensioners in prs Rs 6500-10500 and Rs 4600 to Post-2006 pensioners in the merged scale.

This indeed is a clear case of discrimination and how this passed muster in the Apex Court is bewildering.

The above are my personal views subject to correction and certainly not shared by the BPS.

Shri Sundarar who is fuly aware of this subject and had gone into the bottom of the said case may be able to give minute details, when he comes on board.

As our Respected Shri Natarajan Sir rightly stated in his mini-analysis regarding the pensions arrived at through the modified parity formula being far lesser than the pension arrived at through the Fitment formula under Para 4.1 for certain prs scales, the present one being one of them, the employees in these scales badly lacked any scope for promotions and they pulled on drawing only the annual increments. So is it not an irony, when at the fag end of their career, upgradation of the scale should be sanctioned and promptly, these pensioners should be denied the benefit of the upgradation also?

I am grateful to Respected Shri Gopal Krishanji for taking up this thread to help Ramadevi and for bringing with him the great Senior Veterans who have the fundamentals of the entire Pension mechanism in their finger tips, like Respected Shri Kanaujia Sir and Respected V. Natarajan Sir, Shri Sundarar is another great Expert, who it is hoped will be available for guidance.

It is pleasing to note that the BPS’s Central Managing Committee has passed a number of Resolutions, including one on this subject. It is great of them to do so.

Regards,
K.S.Sitaraman.

vnatarajan
16-04-2013, 07:27 AM
We all owe a great deal to our sr pensioner- Shri KSS Sir, who in spite of his age, dedicates his tilme to review, analyse and post the details patiently with clear expression and reasoning. My/ Our thanks to him.

AS HE HAS POINTED OUT - K S KRISHNASWAMY CASE HAS GIVEN A HANDLE FOR THE GOVT. TO USE "UPGRATION" AS AN ESCAPE ROUTE- BUT IT IS APPLLLING THAT THE JUDGES HAVE IGNORED THE "BOTTOM-LINE TRUTH" THAT SUCH A PRONOUNCEMENT ERODES THE VERY NORM OF ART 14 OF EQUALIT "AT THE MINIMUM".

Things cd be fairer- if it was left to the depts to deal with the cases on this scale and the "useless NAC"- also made up of many old Penioners do not have the imagination and diplomacy to "take away" such delicate cases and "put them" back into the domain of respective dets so that the issues cd be resolved to some extent and avoid litigations.

ELSEWHERE I READ - IF I AM NOT WRONG- THAT THE 4200-4600 GP CASES ARE BEING DEALT BY SOME DPTS THEMSELVES- DO THEY COVER PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ALSO?

If one Dept resolves the issu, others can follow the example. Pre 2006 Pensioners can even fight a bettr case in CATs.

BPS MUST BE MORE VOCIFEROUS IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE LOGIC IS STRAIGHT FORWARD AND CLEAR!

To avoid the expression "upgradation" in the case of pre-2006 s30 scale, it was explained (in RTI replies) that as the pre-revised s30 pay scale was taken out of PB 4 and a new scale was granted to servng s30 personnel, the Govt had to apply the revised pay scale, and ironically this came by an order much later than 1 1 2006 - ie issued in July 2009. THIS FEATURE WAS NOT TERMED AS "UPGRADATION" ????

Then why this partial approach in the case of 4200 GP- an illogical posture is being adopted by the Govt? As the pre 2006 4200 GP scale has been replaced with a 4600 GP scale ( may be bit alte...) , pre 2006 pensioners must be given the "min equality" under the "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" formulation / ideology!

(My views)

vnatarajan

kssitaraman
17-04-2013, 12:26 PM
I convey my grateful thanks to Respected Shri Natarajan Sir for his support to the past pensioners in this Scale. .

As regards his query about the GP cases being dealt by the Departments themselves, the same might have happened, since the VI CPC or the DOP&PW had left to the other Ministries and Departments the choice to take up upgradation proposals on merit subject to concurrence by Finance but it appears that no Pre-2006 pensioners have been allowed the benefit in view of the embargo clamped against them. I shall try to get the details in a few days time. In fact I am preparing a small write-up, which will be posted here.

With thanks once again,
K.S.Sitaraman.

kssitaraman
18-04-2013, 10:10 PM
Kind reference: Respected Shri VN Sir.

I am sorry I could not get the GP details of Pre-2006 pensioners in respect of the pr scale 6500-10500 referred by you. However, I remember to have seen this somewhere like correspondences of the Employees’ Associations with the Government or in presentation to meetings, but I didn’t keep track of these. What I however know is that no Pre-2006 retiree in prs 6500-10500 had the GP of 4600.

During the V CPC period, however, for a short period from Feb. 2005 to Sept. 2007 the pre-1996 pensioners were granted modified parity in higher scale only after retirement, as explained hereunder: It is preumed that Shri Somashekar Rao, VP/BPS had mentioned this in his article.: -

O.M. dated 26/4/2004 of DOP&PW. This seems to be the main O.M. (to be read with the O.M. of 17/12/1998 and DOE’s O.M.F.No.6/82.E.III(B)/91 dt 28/2/03) whereby the pay scale of certain posts and their equivalent posts in the organized Accounts cadres existing in various Ministries/Departments of the Government of India were upgraded on notional basis wef 1/1/96 with actual payments being made from the date on which the decision was approved by the Government as per a Table given in the OM for 4 scales including the one in discussion.Earlier, the Govt. had approved grant of higher scales for the Accounts staff of Railways on notional basis wef 1/1/96 and keeping in view the fact that pay scales of corresponding categories in various organized Accounts cadres have traditionally been on par, orders were issued extending the dispensation approved in case of the Accounts staff of Railways to the corresponding categories in all the organized Accounts cadres vide DOE’s OM cited.

The OM also gives the points raised and the clarifications therefor in a tabular form. on matters of fixation of pay, pension, gratuity and commutation of pension, etc in the light of issue of aforesaid OM of the DOE and the OM of 17/12/1998 of DOP&PW. As modified parity had been introduced wef 1/1/96, the same had been followed.

Well, as regards the Pre-1996 pensioners, for the Point ‘Whether the benefit of fixation of pension with ref. to upgraded scales could be extended to pre-96 retirees also’, the clarification was – ‘Revision of pension in respect of pre-96 retirees will be on the basis of corresponding revised scales as on 1/1/96. In other words, the benefit of upgraded pay scales will not be admissible in the case of pre-96 retirees.

OM dated 8/2/2005 of DOP&PW. In this OM, perhaps as a result of certain representations from staff, substitutions of certain paragraphs in the Points/Clarification Table contained in the OM of 26/4/2004 including the one reg. Pre-96 retirees.have been made The new ruling in respect of Pre-96 retirees is as under:

7.(ii) Whether the benefit of fixation of pension with reference to upgraded scales could be extended to pre-96 retirees also. The benefit of upgraded pay scales will not be admissible in the case of pre-96 retirees, however, their pension/family pension will not be less than 50% and 30% respectively of the upgraded scale of pay as per the instructions contained in this Department’s OM.

OM dated 5/9/2007 of DOP&PW. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment on 23/11/2006 in KSK’s case, amendments to the Oms of 26/4/2004 and 8/2/2005 were made to make these compatible with the Supreme Court judgment and in respect of the Pre-96 retirees, the answer to “Whether the benefit of pension with ref. to upgraded scales could be extended to pre-96 retirees also, is an emphatic NO. The saving grace was that it was also ordered that ‘No recoveries shall be made, on account of revision of pensionary benefits earlier granted in terms of OM dated 26/4/2004. and that all other terms and conditions stipulated in OM dated 26/4/04 read with 8/2/05 shall remain unchanged.

All the abovementioned OMs are available in the Circulars List under 'Revision of pension' in the Department's Pensioners' Portal. What was on offer in these OMs for Post-1996 pensioners can be seen in the OMs.

I also find that all dealings in respect of employees/retirees in this scale have been regarding the organized Accounts staff, since they only seemed to have agitated for it. If there has been upgration activity in Non-Accounts side, it has not been visible These must have been on technical side but the administrative office staff seemed to be not as effective.

I am also not aware whether the situations during the V CPC period and the VI CPC period can be inter-related. If these are not inter-related how can one proceed further?

Besides giving the actual position as above, I have nothing more to state.

Warm regards,
K.S.Sitaraman.

kssitaraman
19-04-2013, 02:54 PM
Further to my above Post, I wish to add the following: -

Yet there is another O.M. issued on 5/11/2008 in respect of the Organized Accounts staff of all Departments in the scale under reference. (This is also available in the Pensioners’ Portal).

The employees of Organized Accounts cadres who retired during the period from 1/1/96 to 18/2/2003 could not get the benefit of the upgraded pay scales in the matter of fixation of their pension, as a result of application of Rules 33 and 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which rules that the pension of a retiring government servant is calculated on the basis of pay which the government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement and the pay not actually drawn is not taken into account for this purpose.

On a review, Pension of all the pensioners who had retired from organized Accounts cadres during 1/1/96 to 18/2/03 would be fixed as per the upgraded scale notionally extended wef 1/1/96 with no arrears paid for the said period. And the pension with ref. to the higher revised pay scale shall actually be paid only wef 19/2/2003. The average emoluments notionally drawn by a pensioner consequent on the above revision of pay scales of the organized Accounts cadres will also be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of pension subject to the usual condition reg. the arrears.

In accordance with the instructions contained in the Oms of 17/12/98 and 11/5/2001 the benefit of revised upgraded pay scales will not be extended to the Pre-1/1/1996 pensioners, as clarified in the OM dated 5/9/2007.

The above benefits of notional upgradation of pay wef 1/1/96 has been extended to the pensioners who retired from the organized Accounts cadres as a special case for reasons of hardship felt by the pensioners in certain circumstances and the instructions are therefore not to be quoted as a precedent for extension of similar benefits, in cases where the pay of a government servant on the date of retirement is drawn on notional basis.

The instructions /clarifications issued in Oms of 26/4/2004, 8/2/2005 and 5/9/2007 will stand modified accordingly.

It is found that that relaxation of rules under CCS(P) Rules, 1972 have been made for reasons of hardship felt by the pensioners concerned with condition that the same should not be quoted as a precedent. Can a relaxation of FR.56(a) Proviso be requested because of hardship similarly, without quoting this case? Respected Shri GK may also kindly see.

With regards,
K.S.Sitaraman.

Gopal Krishan
19-04-2013, 07:25 PM
Respected Sitaraman Sir,

I am really grateful for the interest taken by you in respect of 1146 born pensioners. As you are awar my individual case has changed its shape now. The Secretary of my administrative Department had discussed the matter wiht the Secretary, Department of Expenditure and the latter had agreed to give his recommendation a favourable look. The former had felt that FR 56 has caused hardship to all those born on the Ist January, 1946 as they retired on the the 31st December, 2005 losing all the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. Those recommendation has not been processed properly in the Department of Expenditure at the lower levels and through an absurd examination the matter was closed. Later when I represented to the Secretary, Expenditure in that regard that representation along wiht some other representation has been transferred to the Department of Personnel and Taining stating that the subject matter is their concern. That Department has not examined that matter on merits but it is understood that they are not agreeable to the view of the Deprtment of Expenditure that the Department of Personnel is concerned with the matter. In any case my representation to the Secretary, about absurd axamination of the proposal of the Secretary of my administrative Department done at the lower levels is still to be considered by the Department of Expenditure. Matter is still lying at that stage althoug my representation dates back to October, 2012

with regards,

Gopal Krishan

kssitaraman
20-04-2013, 08:47 AM
Thanks for taking the pains to give the position. The 1146 case seems to be one of those imponderables!

Gopal Krishan
20-04-2013, 08:28 PM
With their negative mindset the case has been made imponderable by the officers of the Department of Expenditure. Every other Department or the Officers of the Department are very much in a position to assess the case.

kssitaraman
20-04-2013, 10:14 PM
Kindly see the rejoinder in the 1146 Thread.

Gopal Krishan
21-04-2013, 12:31 PM
Thanks a lot to Shri Sitaraman Sahib for the valuable observations in the other thread.

Gopal Krishan