PDA

View Full Version : What next? Rti!



sundarar
11-01-2009, 09:22 AM
Dear Sirs,

WISH ALL MEMBERS A VERY HAPPY AND PENSIONFULL(BUT TENSION-FREE) NEW 2K9.

After a visit to hill station Gangtok with 11 degree C on LTC, I returned back home to observe that our forum is proceeding with hot discussions at >100 degree C. As a starter after the break, to start with from my side, I submit herewith my humble views on the next step amidst various Representations to the PMO & FMO with due analysis and strong base.

My view is to seek under RTI by raising simple questions, which our senior members also might have been planning already:

1. How many Civil Pensioners are in Central Govt. (including Pro-rata) and how many family pensioners are in Central Govt.
2. What is the quantum of ensurable minimum pension that will become payable under 50% of sum of minimum of PB+GP applicable and 50% of sum of minimum pay in the pay band for all pre-revised scales as per 6th CPC recommendations.
3. Which is the minimum pension to be ensured as per 6th CPC recommendations/Govt. Resolution and what is the minimum pension to be ensured as per O.M. dt. 3.10.2008.
4. Whether both pensions at S.No.3 are one and same.
5. If not, what is the remedial action to ensure that both pensions specified by 6th CPC/Govt. Resolution and the one under O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 are one and same.
6. Whether modified parity is achieved through O.M. dt. 11.12.2008 in respect of all pre-2006 pensioners and post-2008 pensioners in all respects.
7. Whether modified parity is achieved through O.M. dt.11.12.2008 in respect of allpre-Sep.2008 pensioners and post-August 2008 pensioners.
8. If answer is No, then what is the remedial action for the same.
9. How many representations from Civil Pensioners have been received after implementation of 6th CPC recommendation in respect of pensioners
10. Whether all the representations are acknowledged and details of action taken on the same.

These questions may be suitably modified/refined and will compel the authorities to open their file as well as 6th CPC Report. These will ensure timebound reply. Our representations should not be simply ordered to `file'. Instead, it ought to have been acted upon for an acceptable solution.

We have been pushed to subsequent steps after successful (!) implementation of 6th CPC recommendation (credit goes to O.M. dt.3.10.2008). The Telegraphic representation to PMO by Senior Member Shri VN is very apt and takes care the crucial point. Thanks for his august services towards the common cause.

I salute all Members who contribute more and more in the Forum with strong and undisputable base. Myself and my family wish one and all of the Members a VERY HAPPY PONGAL FOLLOWED BY A SWEET O.M. FROM THE PMO AND FMO SOON.

With Best Wishes and Regards,

Sundarar.

vnatarajan
11-01-2009, 11:16 AM
Dear Mr Sundaraar

Welcome back.
I think RTI exercises have already started.MANY INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS TO ACT PLEASE!
May be in the first instalment a few of the common items listed/ some other specific ones may be in for querying!

(I am going to start stocking POSTAL ORDERS- lest the same may be exhausted!)

Regards
vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
12-01-2009, 09:30 AM
Welcome back Mr. Sundrar. I have just now submitted following online grievance to PM's cell at website http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

Refer 5.1.47 VI CPC, Govt. accepting in Aug08 50 % Minimum Pay in the Pay Band of Fitment Tables, withdrawing in Oct08,contravening SC judgment 17.02.82. Dividing pensioners pre/post06 contravene Article14. My loss 3650 PM.My PPO NE/10118/232555dated29112001. Request withdraw amendment 3rdOct08, restore parity to pensioners of same status and pay and mitigate my loss in revised pension.

Let us all pensioners do it in whatever words they can do it in 500 characters.

As regards RTI, the act provides for asking for 'information'. Information Under finalisation cannot be asked. I have done it successfully. I am now going to put an RTI application to Prime Ministers Office seeking informaltion regarding my appeal submitted to PM on 14 10 08.
I would put up draft on gconnect justice thread soon.

G.Ramdas
13-01-2009, 10:15 AM
Would you like to know the performance of DP&PW in furnishing information as per RTI requests?
For the year 2006-07, they received 115 applications under RTI and collected Rs.1378. No application for information was rejected. This is as per the return filed by them under Sec 25 of RTI, as published in their web site.
So hopefully we can expect to get info from them for our RTI requests.

vnatarajan
13-01-2009, 11:08 AM
Dear Mr Sundarar/ Mr Ramdas/ All

I and Mr PKR for long had been trying to know some facts on these aspects- now can RTI provide the channel for this info- if so from same Ministry of Personnel?- pl see:

1.How many pensioners belong to the IAS Cadre?

2. How many of them have retired as Secretaries?Addl. Secretaries? Joint Secretaries? (to the Govt. of India)What is the present strength of Pensioners of the above three categories?

I think ther are other qns also.

vnatarajan

Dear Mr Ramdas

Any info on RTI stats on Pensions? How many queries etc. how many replied- not replied etc. I think the website may be closed from this year- as I find the "status" of on-line grievance remains "static". (for PKR- 30 days limit long back over. For me -another 3 days are left)
vnat

vnatarajan
14-01-2009, 08:54 AM
Dear All

Reverting back to Mr Ramdas's posting at sl. no 4, the statistics part is all BOGUS as many wd feel-

If u all remember, I started a thread "How effective is the system of Redressal of Grievances of Pensioners" earlier and there few people have given their experiences:

Mr A V Mukuntharajan gave his example:
mukuntharajan;1325

"i lodged a complaint with the Public Grievance through online about 2 - 3 years ago on rejection of my reimbursement claim by CGHS particularly for facilities not available in any of the referral hospitals. I got the registration number and I was checking the position online. my complaint was shown as referred to concerned authority for about 3 months and subsequently they have removed my complaint even though no decision was conveyed to me. i was not able to file reminders too.

if we go through the pendency of cases, we can find many cases are solved and some cases are pending for 2- 3 years also. all my information dates back to more than 2 years and i have lost faith in it and that is why i am not browsing that site at all. at one time the site showed there was no pending cases between 3 & 6 months but a few number of cases were pending for over 2 years.

one thing i understood was that if they feel the case is legally strong but rule-wise ineligible, they will neither reject nor approve as their impression is that we will go to court. the pub.grievance is in reality only making our approach to judiciary delayed".

So I think whatever info is publicised by the DoP&PW, it may not stand the test of scrutiny- unless we experience it this time BY GETTING ANSWERS TO OUR REPS.& GRIEVANCE REGNs etc. Let us see!

I THINK MORE RTI QUERIES ARE TO BE ASKED. MUST ACT.

vnatarajan

sundarar
26-01-2009, 05:23 AM
Central Public Information Officers

The following officials have been notified under section 5(2) & 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 as CPIOs for D/o Pension & Pensioners' Welfare , Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi -110003:
S.No. Name and Designation of the Central Public
Information Officer
Tele. No. Subject Matter Name of Appellate Authority with Designation/TeleNo.
1. Shri Harjit Singh, Under Secretary (Desk ‘A’) 24644634 Matters relating to all aspects of Pension; proposals regarding introduction of pension scheme for PUSs/Autonomous Bodies; Pension Act and Rules frames there under. Shri M.P Singh, Director (PP)
24624802


5. Shri N.M. Ranganathan,
Under Secretary
(Desk’B’) 24635754 Matters relating to all aspects of qualifying service; Sharing of pensionary liability between Central and State Government; Ex-Burma/ Goa / Pondicherry pensioners
Shri Geeta Ram,
Director (PW),
Tele: 24624752

6. Smt. Geeta Nair, Under Secretary (Pension) (Desk 'E') 24644632 Matters relating to family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, ex-gratia payment to CPF retirees and their families.
Shri K.S. Chibb,
Deputy Secretary
Tele: 24635979
7. Shri Sukar Singh, Under Secretary (Pension)(Desk 'C') 24644847 Pensioners’ Grievances Shri K.S. Chibb,
Deputy Secretary
Tele: 24635979

Signed Copy :
English Version Hindi Version

Mode of Payment of Fee for Seeking Information under RTI Act from DOP&PW

1. Cash against proper receipt to be given by the designated officer.
2. Demand Draft or Banker Cheque payable to Account Officer, DOPT.

vnatarajan
30-01-2009, 11:10 AM
Dear All

I think we must have to refresh our minimum fundas reg. the RTI Act 2005 and its provisions. You may go to any Ministry's website and catch the RTI Act on the net. There is a guide book (jan 2008) for citizens there- wh in short can educate all of us.

Some excerpts:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RT ACT 2005 – Some Guidelines to Citizens – January, 2008

2. What are the salient features of the Act?
Universal access to information held by the public authorities- all citizens have
access to information, pertaining to any period, in any form, in official language
Right to information includes inspection of records , works and taking certified
samples of material
'Information' broadly defined-includes: records, e-mails, samples and models
Applies to all public authorities ,NGOs, private bodies subject to provisions
Voluntary disclosure of maximum (17 categories of) information on nation-wide
network
Public Information Officers (“PIO”) to provide information
PIO has the duty to assist requesters and transfer the request to proper public
authority, if necessary
No prescribed form
Reasonable fees; No fees for persons below poverty line
No need to give reasons for requesting information but PIO should provide reasons
for rejection of the request
Information concerns the life and liberty to be provided within 48 hours
Information to be provided expeditiously, within 30 days of receipt of request
Deemed to be refused if no response is given
Only absolute exemption from disclosure of information
All other exemptions are subject to public interest test
Information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall
not be denied to you
Allows partial disclosure
Internal First Appeals against PIO's decisions on fees / form of access / rejection /
partial disclosures
Independent Information Commissions at Central and State levels
Citizens can directly make complaints and appeals to Information Commissions
Presumption in favour of disclosure of information--Onus to prove that a denial of
request was justified shall be on the PIO
Overriding effect on other secrecy laws
Penalties on delinquent PIOs
A Guide which includes the details of PIOs of all public authorities
Educational programmes to disadvantaged communities
Annual reporting by the Information Commissions

4. What is the Right to Information?
The Act gives you the right to access:
- information held by a public authority, information under the control of a public authority
and includes the right to:
inspect work, documents, records;
take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents
or records;
take certified samples of material;
obtain information in the form of diskettes, floppies,
tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode
or through printouts where such information is stored
in a computer or in any other device.

8. What is Information?
The Act defines information as any material in any form including:
:
Records
Documents
Memos
E-mails
Opinions
Advices
Press releases
Circulars
Orders
Logbooks
Contracts
Reports
Papers
Samples
Models
Data material held in any electronic
form and
Information relating to any private
body which can be accessed by a
public authority under any other law
for the time being in force.

11. What information will be proactively disclosed by public authorities?
Every public authority must publish in the local language the following information:
the particulars of its organisation, functions and
duties;
the powers and duties of its officers and
employees;
the procedure followed in the decision making
process, including channels of supervision and
accountability;
the norms set by it for the discharge of its
functions;
the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and
records, held by it or under its control or used by
its employees for discharging its functions;
a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation
by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or
implementation thereof;
a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or
more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to
whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open
to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for
public;
a directory of its officers and employees;
the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including
the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans,
proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated
and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it;
details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic
form;
the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the
working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these
publications every year;
Every public authority must also:
Publish facts behind important policies
Publish relevant facts before announcing decisions affecting you
Provide reasons for administrative / quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
The publications will be available to you free or at a reasonable
price. The information may be made available on the internet /
website of the public authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
30-01-2009, 04:15 PM
Dear All

Some more towards learning process and on the guidelines:

EXTRACTS FROM THE RTI ACT 2005
-----------------------------------
6. (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;

(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing.
(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,

the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pl note:Under the time-frame- 30days is given as limit with stipulations- but I am trying to see whether pensioners can try to use the minimum limit- as given below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposal of the Request:
.........................

Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction in Pension affects our life and property!
vnatarajan

vnatarajan
02-02-2009, 11:53 AM
Dear All

Today I have sent my RTI query to the DoP&PW by regd post AD.

Anybody wants a model may kindly send me email.

Regards

vnatarajan.

Model of the appeal I have posted in the other two threads titled " Justice......." &"Injustice......".One can use the draft as a model, frame new qns, edit and amend these qns but be sure the qn can get an answer - wh can be something like yes or no or some available info.! Replies may not be explanations, clarifications, reasoning etc!!!

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
05-02-2009, 03:03 PM
Dear All

Govt. has provided the channel of eliciting the informations from various sources thru RTI Act 2005.

Our Associations/ Federations must ustilise the same for getting such information which are useful to its members.

While on the subject, Pensioners' Forum Chennai (affiliated to AIFPA) has asked for clarifications on the anomaly committee vis-a-vis pensioners' grievances, contents of wh are posted in the columns under other parallel thread "Justice......" and " Injustice......."

Pl do ask some more info. thru RTI route pl.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
07-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Dear All

This has reference to the RTI postings made by me/others earlier (also in other threads).

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
08-02-2009, 06:27 AM
Dear Pensioner friends,
Some important posts on RTI isuue can be seen in the other thread 'Justice through Restoration--" posts #99 to 104.

Kanaujiaml
09-02-2009, 07:40 PM
My dear VN, GR, Sundrar, others. CIC has laid down certain instructions and guidelines for putting up 2nd appeal. We should adhere to these from very beginning because the same would be critically examined by CIC, when case goes to them in 2nd appeal. These instructiona and guidelines are available on CIC web site. Secondly and importantly, all those who have sent appeals/ representations to various authorities, should now seek information under RTI concerning their appeals/representations. No use of reminders but RTI route is the best one to know fate of such appeals/representations. Let us all pledge we would do so.

G.Ramdas
12-02-2009, 09:57 AM
Dear All

Today I have sent my RTI query to the DoP&PW by regd post AD.

Anybody wants a model may kindly send me email.

Regards

vnatarajan.

Model of the appeal I have posted in the other two threads titled " Justice......." &"Injustice......".One can use the draft as a model, frame new qns, edit and amend these qns but be sure the qn can get an answer - wh can be something like yes or no or some available info.! Replies may not be explanations, clarifications, reasoning etc!!!

vnatarajan
The article RTI reply of DOPT on the grade pay of ACP Inspectors of C.Ex appearing elsewhere in gconnect discussion board shows that the RTI reply could be specific to the point and even quite fast as in the case of Sh Venkataraman of Tuticorin who filed his query on 23/01/09 and got the reply on 3/2/09.
Let us wait for replies to our queries.
GR

G.Ramdas
03-03-2009, 12:43 PM
S/Sh.VN&K have received replies from RTI;so also some other members.To have a good case built up, it is necessary that we compile all RTI queries and the replies rceived at one pace, preferably with VN's Pensioner' Forum.
My RTI queries given below are yet to be answered by the DP&PW.Next set of queries , could be covering some other points where we do not have clear picture about the reasoning for some of the actions taken by the Govt.
RTI Queries

"1. Whether the CCS(pension ) Rules 1972 appearing in Pensioners' Portal have been updated and contain all amendments issued thereon, based on the implementation orders of the Sixth Central Pay commission Report. If not, what are the amendments and whether all these have been published in the gazette with the approval of the authority who originally approved these Rules. Copies of these amendments/orders may please be made available, if they are not available in DP&PW's web site/page.

2. While the term 'Pay' has been defined in para 4.2 of O.M No. F.N0.45/86/97-P&PW(A)- Part-1 dt 27th Oct 1997, as :" 'Pay' in these orders means the pay in the revised scales promulgated under the CCS (revised Pay) Rules, 1997"., has the there been any change in its definition subsequent to implementation of the 6CPC? If so what is it? Copy of the relevant document may please be furnished

3. The terms 'basic pay' and 'Pay in the Pay band' appearing in 6CPC recommendations have been defined in CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 2008. Do these definitions apply for pensioners as well? If not, what is the basis on which pension disbursements are authorized complying with para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC Recommendation, listed at No.12 DP&PW's Resolution N0.38/37/08-P&PW(A) , gazetted on 29/08/08

4. O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt. 3.10.08 gives clarification/modification to para 4.2 of O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)dt1.9.08.. It is mentioned that this OM. has been issued with the concurrence of Dept. of Expenditure. Please furnish a copy of the reference made to Dept. expenditure and their reply vide U.O. No.4.2/23/2008-1C dt.30.09.08

5. Kindly indicate which are the changes listed in O.M of 3.10.08 coming under the category-clarification and which, under the category-modifications.

6 .Why is it that the clarified/modified version of the para 4.2 is not used in DP&PW’s O.M of 11.02.09? Does it mean that modification/clarification issued on 3.10.08 are no more required/valid. Relevant decisions on this may please be communicated along with copies of notes/correspondence."

sundarar
11-03-2009, 12:51 PM
Dear Sirs,

I submit an extract of a write up on the aforesaid title by Ms. Vinati Dev, a Delhi-based political economy researcher as appeared in the Indian Express - Pune Edition dt. 5.3.2009.

"Nearly four years ago when Parliament passed the RTI, it was hailed as one of the most powerful and path-breaking legislations. The idea was that successful RTI applications would go a long way in making Govt. Responsible and accountable, therey having a positive impact on Governance. Unfortunately, some fundamental conceptual issues have emerged that prevent the RTI from creating systematic transparency.

1. The RTI is an outside measure. That is, it came about after a compaign by non-state actors. Its modus operandi thus makes it only partially effective as the burden of initiative disproportionately falls on a largely unorganised citizenry whose priority is to provide for their families and not spend personal resources (or time) collecting evidence against malpractices of the state. No one has an incentive to singly bear the costs, and thus the desired outcome doesn't happen. Results from the RTI are not immediately scalable or cumulative; rather the wheel must be reinvented each time by each individual. There is no class action version of teh RTI which can hold an entire organisation responsible and compensate all those who have suffered. This is also the reaoson why the RTI still needs powerful activitists. Without a collectivising body, the RTI in its current form does not bring about stemic change - though it might provide individuals incentives to bear the costs of filing an RTI because the benefits largely accrue to them. Understandably, if the benefits accrued to everyone, no one would file an RTI, hoping to free-ride on RTIs filed by others.

2. The RTI remains without sufficient bite. A number of security agencies still remain beyond its scope. In an environment where the Country debates the balance between civil liberties, privacy and national security, it is highly unlikely that archaic legislations like 1923 Official Secrets Act, which contains several provisions prohibiting the flow of information from the Govt. to ordinary people, will be reformed. Similarly, the present conduct rules for civil servants prohibit disclosure of official information to ordinary citizens. This is a large obstacle in the way of the RTI. After all, while the existing law prohibits govt. officials from sharing information, it is the same civil servant who has to facilitate RTI requests for information. How can the RTI be effective if those accused are meant to provide photocopies of inquiries against themselves,? Their incentive is to delay and dodge the process till litigation consumes it.

3. The Govt.'s Chief Information Officer has already publicly acknowledged that the act remains underpublicised.

4. The threats of parliamentary amendments always gather around this legislation. If enacted, tehy would undo the gains from the movement. Most importantly, the rural-urban divide in applications remains wide. The RTI requires an aware and educated individual to understand his rights; sadly that is not the case with most citizens. Thus, the RTI is not likely to bring about accountability.

What India deserves is immediate institutional reform, spearheaded by the present institutional leadership. Unlike the RTI, that will have to be endogenous change, built first on the acceptance that things are not right in-house. Still, committed leadership explains the difference between a successful PSU and a crumbling one. Once the system is made bigger and smarter than individuals, the likelihood of breaking rules diminishes. That is the goal of systematic change"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- As far as common man is concerned, `Something is better than nothing'.
Best Regards
Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
18-03-2009, 09:37 PM
my RTI queries and the replies recieved are as under

"1. Whether the CCS(pension ) Rules 1972 appearing in Pensioners' Portal have been updated and contain all amendments issued thereon, based on the implementation orders of the Sixth Central Pay commission Report. If not, what are the amendments and whether all these have been published in the gazette with the approval of the authority who originally approved these Rules. Copies of these amendments/orders may please be made available, if they are not available in DP&PW's web site/page.

2. While the term 'Pay' has been defined in para 4.2 of O.M No. F.N0.45/86/97-P&PW(A)- Part-1 dt 27th Oct 1997, as :" 'Pay' in these orders means the pay in the revised scales promulgated under the CCS (revised Pay) Rules, 1997"., has the there been any change in its definition subsequent to implementation of the 6CPC? If so what is it? Copy of the relevant document may please be furnished

3. The terms 'basic pay' and 'Pay in the Pay band' appearing in 6CPC recommendations have been defined in CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 2008. Do these definitions apply for pensioners as well? If not, what is the basis on which pension disbursements are authorized complying with para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC Recommendation, listed at No.12 DP&PW's Resolution N0.38/37/08-P&PW(A) , gazetted on 29/08/08

4. O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt. 3.10.08 gives clarification/modification to para 4.2 of O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)dt1.9.08.. It is mentioned that this OM. has been issued with the concurrence of Dept. of Expenditure. Please furnish a copy of the reference made to Dept. expenditure and their reply vide U.O. No.4.2/23/2008-1C dt.30.09.08

5. Kindly indicate which are the changes listed in O.M of 3.10.08 coming under the category-clarification and which, under the category-modifications.

6 .Why is it that the clarified/modified version of the para 4.2 is not used in DP&PW’s O.M of 11.02.09? Does it mean that modification/clarification issued on 3.10.08 are no more required/valid. Relevant decisions on this may please be communicated along with copies of notes/correspondence."

Replies:
1. All orders issued in implementation of 6CPC are available on the website of DP&PW.
2 &3 ‘Basic Pay’ for the purpose of computation of pension of those who retired after 1.1.2006 has been defined in para 4.2 of DP&PW O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 2.9.08. The orders for revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners, as contained in the OM dt 1.9.08 and 3.10.08 are based on the recommendation of 6CPC
4. Copies of relevant notes leading to the issue of OM dt 3.10.08 comprise of 5 pages
5.RTI is a forum for supply of information available with the Public Authority/ CPIO. It is beyond the scope of the RTI Act to make interpretation or to provide further clarification on available information.
6. There is no inconsistency in the instructions contained in para 4.2 of the OM dt 1.9.08 and those contained in OM dt. 3.10.08. The instructions in OM dt. 3.10.08 are very much valid and applicable for revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners.

Kanaujiaml
19-03-2009, 07:17 PM
My dear GRamdass. Ref. your post 18. I have tried to paste replies received from DOP against my RTI query here but failed to do so. Scanned copies are not accepted by gconnect forum. However, on rrewa.org under topic current issues, my RTI query and replies received are available and can be seen.

vnatarajan
21-03-2009, 09:37 PM
DOPPW NOT READY TO GO BEYOND THE LIMITED INFO? NOT COMPETENT? NOT READY TO INTERACT WITH FINANCE TO RESOLVE PENSIONERS' PROBLEMS? WHERE IS THE WELFARE?

Dear S/Shri K/ GR/ Sundarar/ all

By now I think many of us have got replies from the Pension Ministry/ Deptt and as I have been remarking in my posts under various threads, the RTI replies apparently follow a fixed thumb rule pattern (of course when we were in service we also used to follow similar thumb rules for answering parliament qns/ or Board Agenda matters etc.):

The info cited in replies always refer to:

1.SCPC Recommendations on pension (pre-2006)(mainly para 5.1.47)
2.Govt. Decisions Notified./ implementations through OMs 1st Sept;3rd & 14th Oct 2008 mostly (we have not yet understood the OM of 11 the Feb 2009, as replies are awaited)
3.Pre-2006 Pensions are guided by OMs of 1st Sept.2008/ 3 & 14 Oct 2008 (including ANNEXURES- repeat ANNEXURES).NO RULES -Only Govt. Decisions!
4.Post-2006 Pensions are guided by OM of 2nd Sept 2008/ with CCS (revised Pay) Rules 2008 (with spl definitions for EMOLUMENTS etc protecting their "last pay drwan" interests)
5.File Notings that led to the issue of OMs of 3rd & 14th Oct 2008.

(All OMs and the six pages of "file notings" are now with all of us- you may do whatever you like with them- ALL ANSWERS are answered within the framework of info available in them).

An additional piece of information has emerged thru another RTI answer- which I reproduce here:

".....revised pay structure has been introduced by the MOF on implementation of the 6th CPC. For any further details on this pay structure, you may approach MoF.
Regarding query ...., it is informed that the instructions for revision pension for pre 2006 pensioners are based on the decision of the Govt on the recommendations of the 6th CPC".

Now we may think of getting some info from MOF- reg our pre-2006 pensioners' revised pay structures!

Let them also become wiser and reply us!

FOCUS: WHAT IS THE "REVISED PAY STRUCTURE" APPLICABLE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS? NO SUCH STRUCTURE? NO DEFINITION OF EMOLUMENTS? NO RULES?----Only GOVT. DECISIONS TO IMPLEMENT A RECOMMENDATION (PARA 5.1.47 WRONGLY EXPRESSED OR ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED) OF SCPC- WITHOUT RESPECT TO ANY RULES AND AT THE SAME TIME DENYING THE BENEFIT OF CORRECT RULES BROUGHT OUT ON 2nd SEPT 2008 OM TO PRE -2006 PENSIONERS but giving benefit of the same to all pensioners POST-2006 as well as POST-2.9.2008. (RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT is already given from 2.9.2008 backwards upto 1.1.2006. Then why not before that period also, to cover all pre-2006 pensioners? What rules make such discrimination possible?)

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
23-03-2009, 12:47 PM
My dear VN. Ref. : Your post 20 above. You know as well as I do know and so know everybody concerned, as to why Pre-2006 pensioners which also includes pre 1996 pensioners, are denied what has been given to post 2006 and post 2nd Sept.08 pensioers because this lot is most unorganised and lot of them even do not know what is happening. They are old, infirm, fragile and dependant on others. They cannot go to court also because they do not have lakhs of Rupees required to put up a petition in Supreme Court. No body would come forward even to put up a PIL for them. Pressent Govt. is therefore, taking full advantage of this situation and next Govt., after elections, would undoubtly continue to do so. Very pessimistic ! But, it is factual. God bless them all.

Kanaujiaml
23-03-2009, 12:59 PM
Dear all. We decided to adopt RTI route to find out the position. We knew the position very well and knew what they may have done with old pensioners. The Gazette Notifications dated 29 08 08 and 30 08 08 were tempered with and all subsequent OMs issued contain different and twisted versions. They named it clarifications in trying to hide the true facts. The RTI replies received confirm our worst doubts. As I said elsewhere, these days, people try to kill those who are weak, frail, fragile, unprotected , dependant and ignorant upto some extent. They are however, inocent people, believing firmly that authorities concerned are there to ensure justice even for them. They treat authorites and the Govt. next to God.

Kanaujiaml
24-03-2009, 07:37 AM
My sincere and heartfelt Congratulaltions to the Gconnect and its viewers on the occasion of Gconnect Anniversary. Gconnect is doing great service to the cause of Pensioners. It is at Gconnect that pensioners like me are able to express views freely and fully and with full freedom. The effort of whole team of Gconnect is appreciable and laudable. At the same time, I wish to congratulate viewers of this forum, participants and the sponsers for making Gconnect a succesful endavour. I pray God to bestow upon Gconnect, its team of dedicated people, viewers, participants in discussion forum and last but not the least, the sponsers, all the best in coming future.

ranganathan
27-04-2009, 10:30 PM
RTI letter to DOE dated 13-3-09


Reference Central Civil Services ( Revised Pay ) Rules,2008, Notified vide Gazette Of India, GSR .622(E) dated 29 Aug 20

With regard to para 7 of the above notification which deals with Fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure,please inform, which of the following two illustrations, of initial fixation of pay, is correct in terms of para 7 (1) (A) (i) &(ii), in case of a serving officer in the pay scale of Rs 18400-500-22400., drawing basic pay at the minimum of Rs 18400/- of the scale, as on 01-01-06 ? . I am seeking this information under the RTI Act 2005.


Illustration I

Existion Scale of Pay Rs 18400-500-22400

Pay Band applicable : PB-4. Rs 37400-67000

Existing Basic pay as on 1-1-2006 : Rs 18400/-

Pay after multiplication by a factor of 1.86 Rs 34224/-(Rounded off to Rs 34230/-)

Minimu Of Pay Band Rs. 37400/- {Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) }

Grade Pay attached to the scale Rs 10000/-


Revised Basic Pay- Total of pay in the pay band Rs. 47400/

and grade pay


Illustration II

Existing Scale of Pay Rs 18400-500-22400

Pay Band applicable Rs. 37400-67000.

Pay after multiplication by a factor of 1.86 Rs 34224/-(Rounded to 34230)

Pay in the Pay Band Rs. 44,700/-( AnnextureI MOF,DOE,

OM F.No.1/1/2008-IC Dt 30-08-200 )

Grade pay attached to the scale Rs 10,000/-

Revised Basic pay –Total of pay in the pay band Rs. 54,700/-

And Grade pay



Reply from DOE. Dated 30-3-09


As per sec 2(f) read with sec 2(j) of the RTI. Act,2005, the Public Authority can only provide information which is available in any material form. Hence the Avt does not require the public authority to deduce some conclution from the ‘material’ held and supply the ‘conclusion’ so deduced to the applicant. Accordingly, the queries raised by the applicant need not be responded to under the RTI Act. 2005.

ranganathan
27-04-2009, 10:37 PM
Dear all
Here is the response to the first of my RTI queries from DP&PW . I shall of course be probing into this further .In my view the DP&PW do not have a logical set of explanation to the issues arising out of the definition of Min Pay vis-à-vis Min of Pay band.


The RTI Query: ( dated 2-3-09 to DP&PE )


I request you to kindly furnish the following information/ Documents, which I am seeking under the Provisions of The Right To Information Act 2005.


(A)Under Sr 12, of Ministry Of Personnel Public Grievances And Pension ,( Dept Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare ) No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dated 29 Aug 08, Published vide Gazette Of India: Extraordinary (Part1-Sec1), one of the recommendations of 6th CPC, as accepted by Govt .is as under:


Recommendation: “All past pensioners should be allowed fitment equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance /dearness reliefas pension( inspect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004)and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowd by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief /dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension( excluding the effect of merger)has been taken for purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006.This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case existing employees. The fixation of the pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension ,in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired ( 5.1.47) “


Acceptance: Accepted with the modification that the fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86, i.e. basic pension + dearness pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24% as on 1-1-2006, instead of 1.74.


(B) Under para 4.1 and 4.2, of DP&PW OM F. No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 01 Sep 2008, sancti0n of the President for implementation of revison of pension in terms of the above accepted resolution, was communicated.


(C) Under DP&PW OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A). Pt I , dated 3-10-2008, the following clarification/modification was communicated.


Provision in the OM No 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008:

“4.2 The fixation will be subject to the provision that the revised penstion , in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay from which the pensioner had retired “

Clarification/ Modification :

“The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay ) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. ……………….. Basic family pension “


In the light of the contents in , A,B and C , above, of your communications, please furnish the following information.


1.

Whether according to DP&PW, the entity called Pay Scale that existed prior to 01-01-2006( under 5th CPC), is the same as the entity called Pay Band, that exists now wef 01-01-06 (under 6th CPC),.since under ‘C’ above , the minimum in the pay band under 6th CPC has been construed as the revised minimum of the pay corresponding to the pay scale under the 5th CPC.

ii. If the information, in reply, to (i) is ‘Yes’ then, is the revised pay

structure adopted for the serving employees ,the same as (i ) above.


iii If the information in reply to (ii) is ‘NO’ then the copies of the rules under which DP&PW have adopted a different pay structure for past pensioners ( pre-2006 pensioners) to arrive at the minimum guaranteed pension, may please be furnished.


The Reply from CPIO, DP&PW dated 16-3-09


Please refer to your RTI application dated 3-3-09 on the above subject and to say that under the RTI act this CPIO can make available the information which is available with him. This CPIO is not supposed to make interpretation or give clarification on the available information. The instructions regarding revision of pension are contained in this Dept OM dated 1-1-08and 3-10-08which are already available with you ( as is clear from your RTI application) No further clarification can be given by the CPIO in this regard under the RTI ACT.


Regarding your specific queries (i) and (ii), based on the available in formation this CPIO can only say that a revised pay structure has been introduced by the MOF on implementation of the 6th CPC. For any further details on this pay structure, you may approach MoF. Regarding query (iii) it is informed that the instructions for revision pension for pre 2006 pensioners are based on the decision of the Govt on the recommendations of the 6th CPC.

ranganathan
27-04-2009, 10:42 PM
RTI letter to DOE dated 25-3-09


I am enclosing herewith copies of my application under the RTI Act, addressed to the CPIO, DP&PW, and his reply thereto. In the light of the advice of the of CPIO DP&PW, please furnish the following information on the basis of my application, which I am seeking under the RTI Act 2005.:


In the light of the contents in , A,B C of my application, please furnish the following information.



2.

Whether, according to the revised pay rules , the entity called Pay Band, that exists now wef 01-01-06 (under 6th CPC), is the same as the entity called, the pay scale that existed prior to 01-01-06, (under the 5th CPC.).since under ‘C’( Instructions of DP&PW) above , the minimum in the pay band under 6th CPC has been construed as the minimum of the pay scale under the 5th CPC.to arrive at the minimum assured pension for past pensioners ( Pre-2006 Pensioners).
3.

If the information, in reply, to (i) is ‘Yes’ then, is the revised pay

Structure adopted for the serving employees, the same as (i ) above.


iii If the information in reply to (ii) is ‘NO’ then the copies of the rules under which a different pay structure has been adopted for past pensioners ( pre-2006 pensioners) to arrive at the minimum guaranteed pension, may please be furnished.



Reply from DOE dated 13-409


“ In accordance with the recommendations of the sixth CPC, as accepted by the govt., the pre-revised pay scales have been replaced with different grade pays. Fixation of pay in the revised pay structure has to be done as per THE FITMENT TABLES GIVEN IN THE Annex-I to this Dept’s OM F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 2008 in accordance with the CCs(revised ) Pay Rules 2008.


Further, as per sec 2(f) read with sec 2(j) of the RTI. Act,2005, the Public Authority can only provide information which is available in any material form. Hence the Avt does not require the public authority to deduce some conclution from the ‘material’ held and supply the ‘conclusion’ so deduced to the applicant. Accordingly, the queries raised by the applicant need not be responded to under the RTI Act. 2005.

It is also informed that this dept is not concerned with the matters relating to pension. In this regard concerned Dept may be approached “

ranganathan
27-04-2009, 10:47 PM
RTI letter to DP&PW dated 25-3-09 (wrt DP&PW letter dtd 16-3-09 )

Kindly refer your letter No 38/7/09-P&PW(A) dated 12/16 March 2009, in reply to my application dated 02-02-09 under the RTI Act 2005.


Please note that the queries under (i) and (ii) do not involve any interpretation or clarification. They merely seek information on the interpretation already made and instructions issued thereon, by the DP&PW on a certain issue, and hence fall within realm of the RTI Act and the purview of the CPIO. However in view of your contention this is being referred to the Appellate authority.


Your kind reference also invited to the provisions under Sec 6.(3) (i) & (ii) of the Act under which, the relevant part of my application could have been referred to the Dept Of expenditure, for obtaining the information . This is however, now, being taken up by me with the DOE.


Wrt to query (iii) , please furnish information on the specific recommendation/ recommendations, of the 6th CPC, and the Government decision thereto, equating the MINIMUM OF PAY IN THE PAY BAND to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND, in case of past ( ie Pre-2006 ) pensioners, for deciding the minimum pension applicable .


I am enclosing herewith a postal order for Rs 10/- as per provisions.


Yours Sincerely,



(P.K.RANGANATHAN )


Copy To : Shri. D.V. Singh , Director & Appelate Authority, for

Consideration of my contention at para 1 above and

make available the information requested for.



DP&PW reply dated 01-4-09



“ Please refer to your RTI application dated 25-3-09 on the above subject. You have indicated in your application that you are submitting an appeal to the appellate autority on the reply given by this CPIO on 16-3-09.with reference to your application dated 2-3-09. This CPIO has therefore no comments to make in this regard. Rgarding your contention that your RTI application could be transferred to the DOE, your attention is invitedto the following sentence in your application “ Whether according to DP&PW, the entity……”


Since you had requested for the specific view of DP&PW, the question of transferring your application to any other Dpt does not araise.


The recommendations of the sixt CPC on pension mattersw and the decisions theeon,are contained in the resolution dated 29-8-08 referred to in your earlier RTI application dated 2-2-09. Based on this decision, orders were issued in 1-9-2008. In case you desire to have extracts of the notes in this Dpt’s fileleading to the issue the resolution dated 29-8-08 and OM dated 1.9.08, your are requested to make a payment of Rs18/- for nine pages ……so that shoto copies can be supplied to you.”


Letter to

Shri. Harjit Singh

U/S and Public Information Officer,

Dept Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,

Govt Of India,

NEW DELHI. (dated 21-4-09 )



Subject: Request for information under the R.T.I. Act


Sir,


Kindly refer to your letter No 38/7/09-P&P.W(A) dated 01 Apr 09.


The undersigned had merely requested for information on the specific recommendation /recommendations of the 6th CPC, and the Government decision thereto, equating the MINIMUM OF PAY IN THE PAY BAND to the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND,

In case of past( Pre -2006) pensioners, for deciding the minimum pension applicable. The documents referred to in the last para of your letter under reference, ie. Resolution dated 29-08-08 and orders dated 01-09-08, do not seem to contain this information that I have sought for. I therefore, request for supply of this information only, from your end, either from the documents mentioned by you or from any other source held with you. In case no such information is available/held by you this may be confirmed.


I am enclosing herewith a postal order for Rs 18/- towards the cost of supply of the copies of the file noting mentioned in your reply.

PKR

sundarar
28-04-2009, 07:02 AM
Pay Commission:
The fixation of the pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension ,in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired ( 5.1.47) “



(B) Under para 4.1 and 4.2, of DP&PW OM F. No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 01 Sep 2008, sancti0n of the President for implementation of revison of pension in terms of the above accepted resolution, was communicated.


(C) Under DP&PW OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A). Pt I , dated 3-10-2008, the following clarification/modification was communicated.


Provision in the OM No 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008:

“4.2 The fixation will be subject to the provision that the revised penstion , in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay from which the pensioner had retired “

Clarification/ Modification :

“The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay ) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. ……………….. Basic family pension “

-Shri Ranganathan
------
Respected Sirs,

Shri Ranganathan has taken more efforts and pain to unearth the misinterpretation part. His attempt further will bring more and more information.

The DoP&PW had maintained in one of the reply under RTI to Shri GRD that there is no inconsistency between OM dt.1.9.2008 and OM dt.3.10.2008 particularly with regard to Para 4.2.

Whereas, if we read the actual versions of the respective OMs,
in the later one, a fresh terminology `irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay from which the pensioner had retired' is made applicable for deciding 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band, which terminology is not available in the OM dt.1.9.2008 as well as the latest OM dt.3.10.2008. It may be the brainchild of the Dept. of Expenditure (CPAO) vide letter dated 26.9.2008 which is nothing but 50% of minimum of the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale. The necessity for putting up a proposal on 25.9.2008 vide Noting by providing two options to Min. of Finance is also unwarranted, particularly when the OM dt.1.9.2008 (Para 4.2) hold good even today as reiterated by OM dt.11.2.2009. Thus, after issuing the OM dt.1.9.2008
as a second thought, an exercise had been successfully made to alter the main OM through CPAO and OM dt.3.10.2008 by the aforesaid insertion of new terminology, which is not appearing even in the accepted recommendation of Pay Commission Report Para 5.1.47. In spite, it is maintained that there is no inconsistency.

The minimum pay in the pay band particularly for serving employees drawing pre-revised pay at minimum in respect of S-24 to S-30 will vary from 1.1.2006 according to Fitment Table.

Whereas, according to OM dt.3.10.2008 (not according to OM dt.1.9.2008)same employees if retired prior to 1.1.2006 with such pre-revised pay at minimum in those scales, will draw equal amount as 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of their pre-revised scale of pay from which they retired plus 50% of the Grade pay corresponding to their pre-revised scale of pay from which they retired. This is applied to all the 30 scales. The inconsistency is therefore explicit. What prompted DoP&PW to propose with two options to DOE when the recommendation of pay commission is accepted and conveyed through OM dt.1.9.2008, is to be unearthed.

Similarly, what was the proposal that has been turned down by DOE quoting financial constraints, beyond implementation of Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 is also to be unearthed.

The inability of DoP&PW to implement its own OM dt.1.9.2008 as it is,
to be exposed. A sleeping person can be awaken, but not one who pretends. I was having more faith in RTI exercise before four months. Now at this stage, I think they can only serve what is available with them and not travel towards corrective action. Still we have to unearth more and more information to make them realise at one point of time. However, The inconsistency, inequality etc. may have to be attended by the highest authorities to bring in executive directions. A new perception towards aggrieved pensioners is the need of the hour. Since issue of revised PPO is under progress in all the Departments, an urgent remedial action will avoid any re-revised PPO after they realise at a later state, although better late than never. Almost every pensioner in whose case Para 4.2 will be
more beneficial, may please represent as suggested vide OM dt.23.3.2009 even if they have no other grievance other than that.

I pray God to give clarity in the mindset of the Executive so that the agony of aggrieved pensioners is removed once for all.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
28-04-2009, 04:34 PM
PROGRESS MADE THRU RTI- Please see the info on RREWA website also:


Dear All

All pre-2006 pensioners are REQUESTED and ADVISED to see the RTI queries raised by S/Shri AR/ VN (self) and the Replies received which are put up in the RREWA website by Shri S C M a day or so back.

The DOPPW had been making all efforts to protect the interests of the aggrieved Pensioners and I , members of Pensioners Forum, other friends who share my views after seeing the matter in the RREWA website, would like to express our deep sense of gratitude to them and REQUEST THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR WISE COUNSEL AND UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT till the pre-2006 pensioners get their justice at least at the MINIMUM. We also place on record our full appreciation at this point of time. Till today, WE DO UNDERSTAND that we are not able to get our MINIMUM JUSTICE due to the "FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS".

We will appeal once again to them for a renewed and perseverent effort by them to PURSUE the matter and overcome the LIMITATIONS before our deciding to seek other avenues of justice.

I and few of us who are burning the midnight oil in this endeavour feel we are not getting appropriate feedback, unstinted support from other pensioners who are watching either from the side-lines or perhaps are somewhat indifferent to our efforts. THIS TIME KINDLY HELP ALL BY PARTICIPATING IN FULL TO VOICE OUR request for a total review by an impartial system by the Govt. to get us justice. ALL MUST SEND THEIR APPEALS/ REPRESENTATIONS (model draft will be circulated to all whose email ids are with us/will also try to put up in RREWA website) without fail and confirm the same to our team by email or by putting up on these blogs. We expect a few thousand reps./ appeals to go.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
28-04-2009, 09:28 PM
My dear VN, othe pensioner friends. I congratulate all those who sought informaltion under RTI and got it and put up before all of us. All the facts are now known to us. These have confirmed our doubt that the Govt. has back tracked in order to deny us modified parity given by SCPC using the old game of "shifting of definition".

ranganathan
30-04-2009, 12:10 AM
Dear all,

following are the RTI queries to CPAO , for which reply is still awaited

I first RTI sent on 24/2/09

Under the provisions of para 6 (1) of The RTI Act 2005, I request you to kindly furnish the following information / documents WRT to your office letter No: CPAO/Tech/6th CPC/ Misc/1265 Dated 26 Sep 2008.,signed by the controller of accounts.

1.Copies of Annexture I and II mentioned in para 1 and 2 respectively, of the above letter.

2. Para 4.2, of Dept Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare OM , F.No.38/37-08-P&PW, Dated 01 Sep 2008, relevant to the question of Minimum pension of Pre-2006 pensioners,
Stipulates:
Quote: “ The fixation of the pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”Unquote.
As against this, the above letter issued from your office, stipulates;
Quote: “The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fiftyper-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised payscale from which the pensioner had retired” Unquote
In this context, kindly inform/furnish the following:

a. Copies of file notings, minutes of discussions etc, leading to the decision to replace the expression” minimum of the pay in the pay band” with the expression “ minimum of the pay band’
b. The authority under which this decision was taken,along with copies of of Government notifications/rules.,if any, in support thereof.

II Second .RTI dated 25-3-09

1.What is the least BASIC PENSION in rupees per month applicable to officers of the Grade of JOINT SECRETARY and ADDITIONAL SECRETARY to the Govt of India, retiring after 01 Jan 2006 with full qualifying service of 33 years,

2. What is the total number of IAS pensioners ( Direct Examination Quota ) as on 31 Dec 2005 ? How many out of these are retired from the Grades, above that of Additional Secretary?

I am to draw your kind attention to the specific provision of RTI Act, under which you may kindly forward my request to the appropriate authority if any of the above information is not available with you.

( for both reply is still awaited)
PKR










.

vnatarajan
30-04-2009, 08:33 AM
ALL MAY READ PKR's POST ABOVE ON HIS RTI QUERIES TO CPAO FIRST.

(In retrospect- going down my memory lane and also after recollecting many cases where many old Pensioners had paid rich compliments/ words of appreciation to the Office of the CPAO - for rendering them JUSTICE in fixations of CORRECT PENSIONS - never denying them what is RIGHTful! Is the current situation diffrent? Is there any reason for departure? Why "Shifting of Definitions" ? Who is the cause and who brought in the effect? What is truth? Office of CPAO need not mistake my arguments!)

Dear PKR/Sundaraar/ all Pensioners

It is clear, as also already pointed out by one of my close associate earlier in many of his posts/ drafts, the CRITICAL PERIOD for the origin of controversy is between 1st Sept 2008/ 2nd Sept 2008 (two OMs one for the pre 2006 retirees without RULES and the other for post-2006 retirees with RULES) and 26th Sept 2008 when the CPAO- the erstwhile JUSTICE for Pensions REVEALED or INCURRED the FIRST BLUNDER.

HE IS PERHAPS THE ROOT CAUSE TO "DEMI-OFFICIALLY" CONVEY TO THE BANKS AND PENSIONERS thru his DO cited in PKR's RTI on which we had debated much earlier and on which several reps also have gone to various Departments/ HODs etc and perhaps to SHIELD HIS BLUNDER or to hide all the ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION, the OPAQUE actions must have followed either orally or on so-called "Part-Files".

Many are not aware that his is the first document (because it is dated 26th Sept 2008)- though a Demii- Official letter- from where the CORE MISINTERPRETATION and ROOT PROBLEM created for the pre-2006 pensioners had been given an OFFICIAL status later.

PKR has quoted the contents:

"2. Para 4.2, of Dept Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare OM , F.No.38/37-08-P&PW, Dated 01 Sep 2008, relevant to the question of Minimum pension of Pre-2006 pensioners,

Stipulates:
Quote: “ The fixation of the pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”Unquote.

As against this, the above letter (CPAO's letter in discussion now) issued from your office, stipulates;
Quote: “The fixation of the pension will be based on the provisions of the above O.M.including the requirement that the revised pension shall be in no case lower than the fiftyper-cent minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised payscale from which the pensioner had retired"

AS the protests flowed and flooded unabated to MOF/ CPAO, the ANNEXURE II of his DO letter had disappeared from the website mysteriously. The reason for this - we did not realise for long- and that is why after much debate in our group, PKR had asked for the same on 24.2.2009 through his RTI. We are not able to locate this Annexure II on the CPAO's website - and till recently, a dummy ANNEXURE II- some "form" for filing some return- used to appear as "ANNEXURE II" on clicking! (somebody - expert in Computers- must visit the CPAO's website- check the DO- check for its Annexure II-click- check and Report the position now- that is how we sensed the problem in Feb 2009- and PKR took action)

It is very clear now- that the DOPPW who are very COMPETENT to comprehend the meaning of any text in SIMPLE ENGLISH like that in Para 4.2 have been DRIVEN (scapegoatism?) to issue a hasty "elaborate -out-of-way-explanatory" OM on 3rd Oct 2008 - mainly to COVER UP the short-comings and the blunders of the CPAO's DO letter and its Annexure II.

Result: CPAO's DO letter's ANNEXURE II had vanished from the website to become ANNEXURE I of the DOPPW's OM dated 14th Oct 2008, which followed their OM of 3rd Oct 2008.

Otherwise what was the URGENT need for DOPPW to come out exactly one week after CPAO's DO letter with such elaborate OMs of 3rd Oct & 14th Oct.with Table/ Annexure I to ensure that all Pre-2006 Pensioners are CRUCIFIED at the MINIMUM levels of the PAY BAND? (2.24 MF protected pensioners are saved to some extent if they were at the bottoms of their scales or with limited no. of. increments). The IRONY is - most of the PROTESTS had gone from S29pensioners (because even S30 pensioners who were caught in the myth of 2.24 formula benefit, did not fully realise the loss at that time due to confusion) and THEREFORE the example that is chosen to demonstarte in the OM of 3rd Oct is that of S29 Scale 18400-22400!

Why the CPAO did not issue the said elaborations/ cover-ups? SO between 26th Sept 2008 and 3rd Oct 2008, the startegy must have been worked out to make the DOPPW to issue the OMs- notings of which we have with us- and GLARINGLY we note that all notings have been made on a single day- on 25.9.2008/ approved on 26.9.2008- almost on the same day when CPAO's DO letter must have gone for despatch!

How such big issues involving several REPS/ APPEALS/PROTESTS of pre-2006 pensioners cd be processed on a single day (25th Sept 2008- no queries/ no doubts/ no errors)?

Similarly, the OMs that have followed on 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 are also issued without doubts/ queries etc as if there had been perfect understanding everywhere- as revealed by the File Notes.!

HOWEVER, the only silver lining is the DOPPW's later proposals in January 2009- and I and some of us are NOT YET clear whether their (proposals) FATE IS SEALED by MOF's objection of FINANCIAL LIMITATION or there is still some life in them!

We are waiting for some more details- to clear our doubts!

Good luck!

vnatarajan

NB:Also Pl note my expressions are my own but the sentiments are those of many whom/ whose interests I represent and also I MAKE IT CLEAR IT IS NOT TO DEMEAN any well-meaning authority! This is my way of facing the TRUTH- all thru my service/ and beyond it- I can not change over-night! PENSIONERS CAN FACE INDIFFERENCE BUT THEY CAN NOT BE SUBJECTED TO EXHAUSTION! I would certainly CHANGE/ WITHDRAW my opinions if there is proof to the contrary!

PS: PL see the RREWA website regarding the OM of 11 Feb 2009- and that is where I am worried- whether it would darken the "SILVER LINING" seen in a communication dated a week earlier!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL ADDITION MADE HERE SO THAT ALL DO NOT MISS SEING SUNDARAR's COMMENTS at POST 33.

SUNDARAR HAS HIT THE NAIL HARD ENOUGH_ NOTHING MORE_ NOTHING LESS NEED BE DONE BY THE AUTHORITIES- A SIMPLR REJOINDER WILL SETTLE THE MATTER!

BRILLIANT EXPLANATION- LONG LIVE SUNDARAR! My hearty thanks.

(PS: DO letter is still available- go to CORRESPONDENCE in the menu of CPAO website- there are only few letters- four or so and this is first I think- I saw it today also- Annexure II is only a dummy)

vn

sundarar
01-05-2009, 10:35 AM
[QUOTE=vnatarajan;3706][B]

ALL MAY READ PKR's POST ABOVE ON HIS RTI QUERIES TO CPAO FIRST.

HOWEVER, the only silver lining is the DOPPW's later proposals in January 2009- and I and some of us are NOT YET clear whether their (proposals) FATE IS SEALED by MOF's objection of FINANCIAL LIMITATION or there is still some life in them!
Shri V.NJi.
---------------------
Dear Sirs,

Shri VNji's views in the entire message are correct and Life exists always.

As suggested, I visited the website of cpao and I am unable to find the letter at present. However, under FAQ on 6th Pay Commission related matters, the following question and answer is available. website: www.cpao.nic.in/faq6pc.htm

"Qn. No.4 What is the revised basic pension due to me w.e.f. 1 Jan 2006?
To arrive at your revised basic pension please follow these steps:

Pension based on normal fixation
As per para 4.1 of the DP&PW OM dated 1 Sep 2008, your revised basic pension w.e.f. 1 Jan 2006 will be arrived at by adding the following:
i. Basic Pension
ii. Dearness Pension (50% of basic pension)
iii. 24% of the sum of Basic Pension and Dearness Pension
iv. 40% fitment on Basic Pension.

Revised Basic Pension based on Minimum of VI PC Pay band plus Grade pay
As per para 4.2 of the DP&PW OM dated 1 Sep 2008 read with the DP&PW OM dated 3 and 14 October 2008, if your qualifying service was 33 years, your pension should not be less than 50% (30% in case of family pension) of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay under the VI Pay Commission corresponding to the scale you retired from (concordance with IV and V Pay Commission scales given in the Annexure I of DP&PW OM dated 14 October 2008). In case your qualifying service was less than 33 years, your pension will be reduced pro-rata.

It is also mentioned under Correspondence - `If you have written a letter to CPAO, fill the fields given therein. CPAO will respond within 7 days by post/mail, etc. as per the choice of the applicant'."
website address: http:/cpao.nic.in/corres.htm
-----------
This is available even today in CPAO Website, in spite of DoP&PW's OM dt.11.2.2009 which would also have been issued after vetting and concurrence by the Dept. of Expenditure. Further, the General Circulars section are not updated beyond March, 2008. Prior to that all Circulars are available.
It appears that there is no circular issued after March 2008 or otherwise and whether the letter dt.26.9.2008 to banks may not be treated as General Circular..

As regards the latest OM dated 11.2.2009 on Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008, particularly the para 5 is significant to note:

"In accordance with the circumstances contained in Para 4.2 of this Dept's OM of even No.dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner, had retired. (Therefore, the benefit of upgradations of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard)"According to me these upgradations pertain to Part-B Scale revision meant for serving employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (For example 6500-10500 has been upgraded to 7450-11500). Although this aspect of upgradation may fall under `anomaly' to be looked into appropriately and hence, I wish to focus only Para 4.2 in this message.

As could be seen from the above contentions of CPAO as well as DoP&PW's latest OM dt.11.2.2009 pertaining to Para 4.2, the glaring differences/inconsistencies exist as it is. Probably, the same and also other alleged anomalies, necessitated calling for representations from aggrieved pensioners on alleged anomalies to be addressed to the Anomaly Committee vide OM dt.23.3.3009.

Thus, the following correction with regard to Para 4.2 is very necessarily to be communicated to the Nodal Banks, in partial modification of the CPAO letter dated 26.9.2008, which will put at rest the grievances in respect of Para 4.2.

"The revised pension in no case shall be lower than the 50% of the sum of the Revised Pay in the running pay band and Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the minimum basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at in accordance with the fitment tables given in Annexures-1 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008".
(This correction is nothing but an already settled matter in similar case of VCPC implementation by the Delhi High Court)

The above correction(to be issued) is neither modification nor clarification but exactly equivalent to Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008/Para 5 of OM dt.11.2.2009 and the said correction except in respect of the language part,
does not involve any more financial implications than the accepted Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 as it is. The subsequent OMs dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 can suitably follow the said correction by re-drawing the related Annexure in accordance with actual Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. It is very important that Banks should be kept clear about actual disbursement strictly in accordance with the accepted Para 4.2. Hence, this correction is all the more necessary as long as Para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008 and Para 5 of OM dt.11.2.2009 w.r.t. Para 4.2 are to be implemented as it is without changing its original meaning.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
03-05-2009, 01:27 PM
Dear All,
While on the issue of failure of CPAO to give timely and satisfactory replies, it is worth reading the following article which appeared inthe Tribune Dt.20.3.09
" The Tribune Exclusive
Govt apathy taking toll on CIC
Pending cases cross five-figure mark due to staff shortage
Girja Shankar Kaura
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 19
The government has been turning a blind eye to the needs of one of its apex independent office as a result of which a number of cases, in connection with the Right to Information (RTI), pending with the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been rising.

While the shortage of Information Commissioners (as reported by The Tribune earlier) is one of the issues, the government has been overlooking the demand of the CIC for more staff to tide over with the pending cases, which have now crossed the five-figure mark.

Repeated letters written by the Information Commissioners to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Minister of State for Personnel, PG & Pensions has only evoked a response that the staff deputed with the CIC at present was adequate. A letter from the Department of Personnel and Training said a staff of only seven persons could be provided to the Information Commissioners to carry out all functions.

Information Commissioner Sailesh Gandhi has been writing to two government departments seeking a staff of 16 persons per Information Commissioner which would enable them to dispose off as many as 4,000 cases per year while at present the number stands at just about 2,000.
There is a growing feeling that the government’s apathy may soon send the CIC on the same path as the Indian courts are at present.

According to the Department of Personnel and Training, staff of seven persons per Commissioner has been finalised in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.

Gandhi had initially written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in November last pointing to the shortage of staff with the Information Commissioners.

He had pointed out that a significant stumbling block in the implementation of the great citizen-empowerment Act was the problem of mounting pending cases. At the Centre and in various states, citizens wait for eight to 18 months to get a decision on their appeals and complaints. The pending cases are slowly mounting and at this rate a citizen would have to wait for years before the matter is adjudicated.

However, as there was no response, he addressed his second letter to Minister of State for Personnel, PG & Pensions Prithiviraj Chavan trying to bring to his notice the problem being faced by the Information Commissioners.

He got a response which said a staff of only seven persons could be provided to the Information Commissioners to carry out all functions as was decided by the Department of Expenditure.

Incidentally, Gandhi has been using the services of five interns, on whom he spends around 70 per cent of his post-tax salary to clear the cases pending with him. And as a result he has managed to clear 1,179 cases in the past two months itself.

He pointed out the same also to Minister of State for Personnel, PG & Pensions but to no avail.

It only means that the sole criterion behind not appointing more staff with the Information Commissioners was the expenditure. If this be the case, it would still be prudent to have less Information Commissioners and give them adequate staff, Gandhi pointed out in the letter.

For the records, one Central Information Commissioner costs the nation over Rs 25 lakh annually. Providing additional staff to the serving Commissioners would cost in the region of another Rs 10 lakh per annum.

However, it would increase the output to more than double. At 4,000 cases per year, the seven commissioners would be able to dispose off as many as 28,000 cases, much more than the present backlog itself.

The sheer economics is strongly in favour of providing more qualified staff to the existing Commissioners. Appointing new Commissioners without adequate staff would be like sending Generals to a battle without soldiers, Gandhi points out."

GR