PDA

View Full Version : Effectiveness & Applicability of 20 years rule for Full Pension



dnaga57
10-02-2009, 07:44 AM
Dear friends
I was asked to write on this subject. Here is my attempt in listing the points as a draft.
The precedences in all amendments to Pension Applicability has been the New system would be

'Effective' from the date of notification
Applicable to ALL pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement.

Examples are

Pension used to be maximum 30/80 of LAP. When retirement age was raised to 33 years, Pension was recalculated as max 33/80 for All existing pensioners prospectively.
With revision of pension as n/66 n=< 33 this again was made applicable to all pensioners.
With provision of a 5 year weightage for VRS candidates, this was also made applicable to ALL pensioners.
In all above cases Effective was from date of notification implementation.

Therefore the guiding principle has been 'No Distinction amongst pensioners based on their date of retirement. Of course no backdated application or arrears were applicable too for past pensioners.
It is a transgression of this principle when 6th PC recommendation of Ful pension on completion of 20 years of service is implemented by creating 3 categories of Pensioners with different modes of applicability of Pension rules and their applicability

Pre 1-102006 pensioners
1-1-2006 to 1-9-2008 pensioners
post 2-9-2008 pensioners

There fore it is in fairness & just governance that the rule of 20 years qualifying service for Full Pension is made applicable to ALL Pensioners, effective though from 1-9-2008.
submitted for inputs. modifications, corrections etc.
DNaga57

dnaga57
10-02-2009, 07:51 AM
Dear friends
( Reposting as I seem to have goofed in formating)
I was asked to write on this subject. Here is my attempt in listing the points as a draft.
The precedences in all amendments to Pension Applicability has been the New system would be 'Effective' from the date of notification but
Applicable to ALL pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement.
Examples are
**Pension used to be maximum 30/80 of LAP. When retirement age was raised to 33 years, Pension was recalculated as max 33/80 for All existing pensioners prospectively.
**With revision of pension as n/66 n=< 33 this again was made applicable to all pensioners.
**With provision of a 5 year weightage for VRS candidates, this was also made applicable to ALL pensioners.
In all above cases Effective was from date of notification implementation.

Therefore the guiding principle has been 'No Distinction amongst pensioners based on their date of retirement. Of course no backdated application or arrears were applicable too for past pensioners.

It is a transgression of this principle when 6th PC recommendation of Full pension on completion of 20 years of service is implemented by creating 3 categories of Pensioners with different modes of applicability of Pension rules and their applicability
1. Pre 1-102006 pensioners
2. 1-1-2006 to 1-9-2008 pensioners
3. Post 2-9-2008 pensioners

There fore it is in fairness & just governance that the rule of 20 years qualifying service for Full Pension is made applicable to ALL Pensioners, effective though from 1-9-2008.
Submitted for inputs. modifications, corrections etc.
DNaga57

Kanaujiaml
10-02-2009, 08:17 AM
[FONT="Tahoma"]Dear friends
I was asked to write on this subject. Here is my attempt in listing the points as a draft.
The precedences in all amendments to Pension Applicability has been the New system would be 'Effective' from the date of notification
Applicable to ALL pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement.


Examples are

Pension used to be maximum 30/80 of LAP. When retirement age was raised to 33 years, Pension was recalculated as max 33/80 for All existing pensioners prospectively.
With revision of pension as n/66 n=< 33 this again was made applicable to all pensioners.
With provision of a 5 year weightage for VRS candidates, this was also made applicable to ALL pensioners.
In all above cases Effective was from date of notification implementation.
Therefore the giding principle has been 'No Distinction amongst pensioners based on their date of retirement. Of course no backdated application or arrears were applicable too for past pensioners.
It is a transgression of this principle when 6th PC recommendation of Ful pension on completion of 20 years of service is implemented by creating 3 categories of Pensioners with different modes of applicability of Pension rules and their applicability
Pre 1-102006 pensioners
1-1-2006 to 1-9-2008 pensioners
post 2-9-2008 pensioners

There fore it is in fairness & just governance that the rule of 20 years qualifying service for Full Pension is made applicable to ALL Pensioners, effective though from 1-9-2008.
submitted for inpouts. modifications, corrections etc.
DNaga57

[FONT="Tahoma"]

My dear dnaga. I entirely agree with you except the last lines. In my humble opinian (and I am holding this opinian since very beginning) that there should not be any divisioning amonst the pensioners who retired after 01 06 08. They are one homogenious group and they should be treated as such. This is what SC judgments dated 17 12 82 and 10 10 06 have said.

dnaga57
10-02-2009, 08:24 AM
Dear Sir
I do not get your point. I think I said the same thing that 'no distinctions amongst pensioners despite date of retirement. Have I goofed on any dates. I thought 20 years rule is - at present applicable to those retiring after 2-9-2008 only. Also dates of drawal of arrears would be from that date.I had suggested 'Applicable to all' & 'effective from 1-9-2008 for arrears'.
If it is an error of date kindly modify the draft
Thanks

badri mannargudi
10-02-2009, 08:45 AM
Dear Sir
I do not get your point. I think I said the same thing that 'no distinctions amongst pensioners despite date of retirement. Have I goofed on any dates. I thought 20 years rule is - at present applicable to those retiring after 2-9-2008 only. Also dates of drawal of arrears would be from that date.I had suggested 'Applicable to all' & 'effective from 1-9-2008 for arrears'.
If it is an error of date kindly modify the draft
Thanks

Dear friends,
I agree with Shree Nagajee in that the condition of Minimum service of 20 years for a person to qualify for full pension should be extended to all pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement, and the only fall out would be that the monetary benefits would be calclulated prospectively from 01.09.2008, the date of the Notification.
With regards,
Badri.

kkhameedkutty
10-02-2009, 05:47 PM
Dear Sirs,

It will be apt if you mention or just refer exact wording of pay commission on Chapter “Date of Effect” under Para 6.5.3 of its report and also that on the Gazette notifying government resolution. “Recommendation on Payment of full pension on completion 20 years will be implemented prospectively for all the employees on acceptance of its recommendation by government”. Pay commission has clearly stated in Para 5.1.1 of its report that “Employees” means all the present and past government employees recruited before 1-1-2004.

Moreover, pay commission has not stated that “Recommendation on Payment of full pension on completion 20 years will be implemented prospectively for all the employees retiring after the acceptance of this recommendation by government”.

The above shows clearly pay commission intention was to pay full pension to all the pensioners with effect from 2-9-2008 in view of Supreme Court Judgment in the case and that has been sabotaged by DoP & PW orders. Moreover, 6th CPC states that financial implication on implementing the same for present and former employees have already been considered while putting total financial burden on government in implementing 6th CPC report.

The following paragraphs of 6th CPC Report speaks that

5.1.1 As per its Terms of Reference, this Commission is required to examine the principles that should govern the structure of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension and other terminal or recurring benefits having financial implications for the present and former Central Government employees appointed before January 1, 2004.

5.1.2 The Commission, therefore, had to consider pension and other related issues of all the Central Government employees except those covered under the New Pension Scheme which extends to all the Central Government employees, except those belonging to Defense Forces, as had joined the Government on or before January 1, 2004.

5.1.3 Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 regulate pension of Central Government employees appointed on or before December 31, 2003. The employees of Union Territory Administrations and civilian Government employees in the defense services borne on pensionable establishments are also covered by these rules. The term pension is not specifically defined under these Rules. The Supreme Court in the famous judgment of D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) had observed that pension is a payment for past services rendered.

6.1.33. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant.


6.5.3 Recommendations on pay scales will also affect the pensions because the latter is paid as a percentage of the average salary. This, however, does not hold true in so far as the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service for Government employees other than the Personnel Below Officer Ranks (PBOR’s) in Defense Forces is concerned. Consequently, the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBOR’s in Defense Forces from the date it is accepted by the Government. PBOR’s are presently eligible for pension with reference to the maximum of the pay scale from which they retire. As discussed in Chapter 5.1, for PBOR’s, the pension on completion of 15 years or more of reckonable service will, from 1/1/2006, be computed at the rate of 50% of the pay last drawn or average emoluments (including grade pay, military service pay and classification pay), whichever is beneficial. All other recommendations relating to pension will take effect retrospectively from 1.1.2006.

Kanaujiaml
10-02-2009, 08:39 PM
Dear Sir
I do not get your point. I think I said the same thing that 'no distinctions amongst pensioners despite date of retirement. Have I goofed on any dates. I thought 20 years rule is - at present applicable to those retiring after 2-9-2008 only. Also dates of drawal of arrears would be from that date.I had suggested 'Applicable to all' & 'effective from 1-9-2008 for arrears'.
If it is an error of date kindly modify the draft
Thanks

My dear dnaga. Your date (01 09 08)appears to be incorrect. It should be
01 01 06. As I said earlier "inent" is important. What you wanted to say is very clear as far as intent is concerned. I always refer to SC judgments, which clearly say dividing a homogenious group of pensioners into sub groups for different pensionary benifits, is violative of Article 14.

dkp_cus
11-02-2009, 08:31 PM
Dear friends
( Reposting as I seem to have goofed in formating)
I was asked to write on this subject. Here is my attempt in listing the points as a draft.
The precedences in all amendments to Pension Applicability has been the New system would be 'Effective' from the date of notification but
Applicable to ALL pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement.
Examples are
**Pension used to be maximum 30/80 of LAP. When retirement age was raised to 33 years, Pension was recalculated as max 33/80 for All existing pensioners prospectively.
**With revision of pension as n/66 n=< 33 this again was made applicable to all pensioners.
**With provision of a 5 year weightage for VRS candidates, this was also made applicable to ALL pensioners.
In all above cases Effective was from date of notification implementation.

Therefore the guiding principle has been 'No Distinction amongst pensioners based on their date of retirement. Of course no backdated application or arrears were applicable too for past pensioners.

It is a transgression of this principle when 6th PC recommendation of Full pension on completion of 20 years of service is implemented by creating 3 categories of Pensioners with different modes of applicability of Pension rules and their applicability
1. Pre 1-102006 pensioners
2. 1-1-2006 to 1-9-2008 pensioners
3. Post 2-9-2008 pensioners

There fore it is in fairness & just governance that the rule of 20 years qualifying service for Full Pension is made applicable to ALL Pensioners, effective though from 1-9-2008.
Submitted for inputs. modifications, corrections etc.
DNaga57

It is nice to see someone writing a sensible and correct interpretation of the SPC recommendation on the matter. Unfortunatrly, we have babus to interprete things to their taste and refuse the just. May the truth prevail. Thanks a lot.

sundarar
11-02-2009, 09:02 PM
Dear Sirs,

The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 which accepted the Para 5.1.33 indicates that Linkage of full pension with qualifying service of 33 years should be dispensed with. (The prospective date or retrospective effect is not indicated).

The same Resolution which accepted the Para 6.5.3 indicates that the recommendation regarding PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION on completion of 20 years service will take effect prospectively.

According to Para 5.1.33 all pensioners are supposed to be brought on
par with a person retiring on such prospective date, ie. the date of issue of
O.M. based on the said Resolution. The pension based on 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata need to be recalculated in respect of pensioners who
had completed pensionable service upto 20 years. For the purpose of calculating such pension, the basic requirement will be to ascertain their notional basic pay in the revised structure, the 50% of which will constitute the revised pension for a person completed 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata. For those who had done more than 20 years service also, the notionally revised pay in the revised pay structure need to be ascertained for fixing 50% of the same as the revised pension. By this way only the parity
can said to have been achieved finally.

With regard to PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION, the Para 6.5.3 accepted vide the Resolution giving effect prospectively, the actual payment arising out of the recalculated pension based on 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata will commence from 1.9.2008 only. The date 1.1.2006 acquires significance to the extent of ascertaining the notionally revised pay as on that date to determine the revised pension as on 1.1.2006 although the payment of such revised pension will commence only from 1.9.2008

As said already by our members, it is the administrative mechanism which ought to understand first the implied purpose of recommendation by the CPC and acceptance of the same by the Govt. vide its Resolution. For this purpose, freedom to think and then to act is very essential for the mechanism. Every mechanism is bound to respond in line with the directions of its supreme power. When both fails, we are compelled to discuss as the above. The clarity if not prevailing upon inspite of so many pointing out
what had actually happened instead of the intended one, shall be attempted atleast by the issuing authority at first. Whereas, the other side is not prepared to listen and then how they will start debating. The one way traffic need to be converted into express highway and that's all our appeal. We want to hear the learned administrators as soon as they start with the speaking orders clarifying the Govt.'s stand on the views expressed so far
by the Pensioners in various forms/forums.

Based on my present understanding on the issue, I submitted the above views and it shall be treated as such.

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
11-02-2009, 09:08 PM
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE SHOCKER FROM DP&PW ISSUED TODAY CLICK THE LINK BLOW:

http://pensionersportal.gov.in/sixthCPC/38-37-08110209.pdf

sundarar
11-02-2009, 10:12 PM
Dear Sirs,

Thanks to Shri VN and Shri GRD for bringing hot news of date.

The OM of date although is shocker, but also an evader of truth.

The main query relating to what is the minimum of the pay in the pay band, there is no answer in the OM. But, they had just reiterated the para 4.2 as it is. The said Para 4.2 has failed to reflect as it is in the Annexure to OM dt.3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 and hence the very query exists. But why it took them so much time, near about 130 days to break their silence.

They are talking of representations directly addressed to them, it appears. But what about appeals with specific reference to Court Judgements made to the higher authorities. Whether those representations also had been sent to them for `disposing off'.

If Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band alone has to be adhered to, the annexure too should contain the same thing. We can write back our comments on the OM of date to the Min. of Finance - Dept. of Expenditure with a request to intervene.

This is not a reply to the representation. This OM will however be useful to us to submit as documentary evidence in respect of tainted Para 4.2 at the appropriate time. Their OM themselves differ with each other. Why that point is not addressed at all, we don't know. It is better to ignore
this disposal for the time being. No weightage need to be given to this OM according to me. The contents do not address the core issue. Knowingly or unknowingly, a written confirmation is available now once again that it is only Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band and not the Minimum of the Pay Band.
To that extent, the debate now starts if the concerned authorities are ready for the same. If they can be so transparent, they can display all those representations being cited by them for disposal in their web site, so that we also can know whether we have actually raised only the points addressed now leading to instant or belated disposal of the same.

Our continued action will remain in spite.

Best Regards.
Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
11-02-2009, 10:23 PM
Dear Sirs,

Thanks to Shri VN and Shri GRD for bringing hot news of date.

The OM of date although is shocker, but also an evader of truth.

The main query relating to what is the minimum of the pay in the pay band, there is no answer in the OM. But, they had just reiterated the para 4.2 as it is. The said Para 4.2 has failed to reflect as it is in the Annexure to OM dt.3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 and hence the very query exists. But why it took them so much time, near about 130 days to break their silence.

They are talking of representations directly addressed to them, it appears. But what about appeals with specific reference to Court Judgements made to the higher authorities. Whether those representations also had been sent to them for `disposing off'.

If Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band alone has to be adhered to, the annexure too should contain the same thing. We can write back our comments on the OM of date to the Min. of Finance - Dept. of Expenditure with a request to intervene.

This is not a reply to the representation. This OM will however be useful to us to submit as documentary evidence in respect of tainted Para 4.2 at the appropriate time. Their OM themselves differ with each other. Why that point is not addressed at all, we don't know. It is better to ignore
this disposal for the time being. No weightage need to be given to this OM according to me. The contents do not address the core issue. Knowingly or unknowingly, a written confirmation is available now once again that it is only Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band and not the Minimum of the Pay Band.
To that extent, the debate now starts if the concerned authorities are ready for the same. If they can be so transparent, they can display all those representations being cited by them for disposal in their web site, so that we also can know whether we have actually raised only the points addressed now leading to instant or belated disposal of the same.

Our continued action will remain in spite.

Best Regards.
Sundarar.

The O. M also talks of CCS(Revised Rules)2008 in para 4 of the O.M. What does it pertain to? To my knowledge it does not exist. They have goofed up again
GR

sundarar
12-02-2009, 07:20 AM
Dear Shri GRD,

After a second reading of the OM dt.11.2.2009, the following type of representations only have been scrutinised by them so far, for disposing the same and the Para 4 of the OM is the reply to these two types of representations.

(1) `Certain representations which sought certain pre-2006 scales of pay should be allowed pay band/grade pay or pay scales higher than that mentioned in col. 6 of annexure1 to OM dt.14.10.2008.

(2) It has been suggested that in cases where certain posts have been upgraded and allowed higher pay band/grade pay or pay scale the application of the provision in para 4.2 of OM dt. 1.9.2008 (as clarified from time to time) should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/gp or pay scale'.

The reply is that the applicable pay band + GP will be in accordance with the CPC recommendations as accepted by the Govt.

In my view, our turn has not yet come. Because, our questions
lie only on Parity aspects for which we support our arguments based on Court Judgements, apart from clarity on WHAT IS THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND'. As long these core issues are not addressed by them in the OM, we can ignore this oM as it does not pertain to matters raised by us.

Our turn will come soon.... with this hope.....

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

Kanaujiaml
12-02-2009, 06:08 PM
Dear Shri GRD,

After a second reading of the OM dt.11.2.2009, the following type of representations only have been scrutinised by them so far, for disposing the same and the Para 4 of the OM is the reply to these two types of representations.

(1) `Certain representations which sought certain pre-2006 scales of pay should be allowed pay band/grade pay or pay scales higher than that mentioned in col. 6 of annexure1 to OM dt.14.10.2008.

(2) It has been suggested that in cases where certain posts have been upgraded and allowed higher pay band/grade pay or pay scale the application of the provision in para 4.2 of OM dt. 1.9.2008 (as clarified from time to time) should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/gp or pay scale'.

The reply is that the applicable pay band + GP will be in accordance with the CPC recommendations as accepted by the Govt.

In my view, our turn has not yet come. Because, our questions
lie only on Parity aspects for which we support our arguments based on Court Judgements, apart from clarity on WHAT IS THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND'. As long these core issues are not addressed by them in the OM, we can ignore this oM as it does not pertain to matters raised by us.

Our turn will come soon.... with this hope.....

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

My dear Sundrar. This OM is in line with earlier similar OMs, wherein justice to pensioners has been denied. The core question is that the VI CPC gave recommendation vide para 5.1.47, which was accepted by Govt. and approved by the Union Cabinet and notified through a Gazette Notification. Where was the question than for clarification/modification/amendment that to, by a lower authority ? We have been asking this in our appeals. We had been mentioning Judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court as well. These two aspects have not been touched in OM dated 11 02 09. Let us see what reply comes from DOP on our specific RTI quary about this.

kkhameedkutty
12-02-2009, 06:56 PM
Dear Sirs,

The Resolution dated 29.8.2008 which accepted the Para 5.1.33 indicates that Linkage of full pension with qualifying service of 33 years should be dispensed with. (The prospective date or retrospective effect is not indicated).

The same Resolution which accepted the Para 6.5.3 indicates that the recommendation regarding PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION on completion of 20 years service will take effect prospectively.

According to Para 5.1.33 all pensioners are supposed to be brought on
par with a person retiring on such prospective date, ie. the date of issue of
O.M. based on the said Resolution. The pension based on 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata need to be recalculated in respect of pensioners who
had completed pensionable service upto 20 years. For the purpose of calculating such pension, the basic requirement will be to ascertain their notional basic pay in the revised structure, the 50% of which will constitute the revised pension for a person completed 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata. For those who had done more than 20 years service also, the notionally revised pay in the revised pay structure need to be ascertained for fixing 50% of the same as the revised pension. By this way only the parity
can said to have been achieved finally.

With regard to PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION, the Para 6.5.3 accepted vide the Resolution giving effect prospectively, the actual payment arising out of the recalculated pension based on 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata will commence from 1.9.2008 only. The date 1.1.2006 acquires significance to the extent of ascertaining the notionally revised pay as on that date to determine the revised pension as on 1.1.2006 although the payment of such revised pension will commence only from 1.9.2008

As said already by our members, it is the administrative mechanism which ought to understand first the implied purpose of recommendation by the CPC and acceptance of the same by the Govt. vide its Resolution. For this purpose, freedom to think and then to act is very essential for the mechanism. Every mechanism is bound to respond in line with the directions of its supreme power. When both fails, we are compelled to discuss as the above. The clarity if not prevailing upon inspite of so many pointing out
what had actually happened instead of the intended one, shall be attempted atleast by the issuing authority at first. Whereas, the other side is not prepared to listen and then how they will start debating. The one way traffic need to be converted into express highway and that's all our appeal. We want to hear the learned administrators as soon as they start with the speaking orders clarifying the Govt.'s stand on the views expressed so far
by the Pensioners in various forms/forums.

Based on my present understanding on the issue, I submitted the above views and it shall be treated as such.

Best Regards,

Sundarar.

Dear Sundarar Sir,

As per my undrerstanding, government decision on recommendation on "linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant" has to be implemented from 1-1-2006 as per government resolution, as there is no prospective or retrospective effect on this. That means all the post 1-1-2006 pensioners with 20+ years service should be eligible for pension @50% of pay last drawn from their date of retirement.

Whereas government decision on recommendation regarding "payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBOR’s in Defense Forces from the date it is accepted by the Government" should be implemented for all the past and present government employees with effect from 2-9-2008. This means all the Pre-1-1-2006 pensioners with 20+ years of service should be eligible for pension @50% of minimum of pay in pay band + grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale, with effect from 2-9-2008.

The above has been misinterpreted in OM's issued so far by DoP & PW. I hope the above will be looked into, by anomaly committe as the same is on employees who were in service after 6th CPC implementation.

It looks DoP & PW also has neither taken any decision on correcting the above anomaly nor rejected our representations on that.

sundarar
12-02-2009, 08:52 PM
Dear Shri Khameedkuttyji,

I fully agree with your views. The representations cited in the instant OM is not of ours. These are liable for rejection in the eyes of DoP hence the OM. I hope and wish that our representations on basic principle might have been re-directed to the Anomaly Committee by the Govt. on their own. The Committee which may have to look into the pay fixation etc. of the pre-2006 period of serving employees, they ought to look into the case of pensioners too when the Govt. also finding it difficult to dispose the same, as no contents of our representations do not figure in the O.M. It is altogether a different matter and not pertains to us, according to me.

The RTI reply will clear the clouds, we wish.

Best Regards..
Sundarar.

sundarar
12-02-2009, 09:18 PM
My dear Sundrar. This OM is in line with earlier similar OMs, wherein justice to pensioners has been denied. The core question is that the VI CPC gave recommendation vide para 5.1.47, which was accepted by Govt. and approved by the Union Cabinet and notified through a Gazette Notification. Where was the question than for clarification/modification/amendment that to, by a lower authority ? We have been asking this in our appeals. We had been mentioning Judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court as well. These two aspects have not been touched in OM dated 11 02 09. Let us see what reply comes from DOP on our specific RTI quary about this.

Dear Sir,

In my view, the representations referred to in the OM are entirely different and raised by some quarter. Hence, whatever may be the necessity to issue this OM, may be out of pressure from those quarter towards quick action. The clarification has nothing to do with our appeals. As you have pointed out the Para 5.1.47 as accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86 ie. basic pension + DP (whatever applicable)+DR of 24% as on 1.1.2006 instead of 1.74, is not disputed by us. Our concern is only on Para 5.1.33 and Para 6.5.3 apart from the core query on `what is the minimum of the pay in the pay band for a particular pre-revised scale of pay' and what is the need of minimum of PB,
particularly when even at this stage the OM too spell out only minimum of the pay in the pay band and not MINIMUM OF PAY BAND at all.

We can even make use of this OM to the extent possible in our
further appeals that the Para 4.2 as reiterated by the latest OM is not actually reflecting in the OM dt.3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008.

We hope our representations will be taking up for scrutiny shortly.

Best regards,

Sundarar.

G.Ramdas
12-02-2009, 10:39 PM
My dear Sundrar. This OM is in line with earlier similar OMs, wherein justice to pensioners has been denied. The core question is that the VI CPC gave recommendation vide para 5.1.47, which was accepted by Govt. and approved by the Union Cabinet and notified through a Gazette Notification. Where was the question than for clarification/modification/amendment that to, by a lower authority ? We have been asking this in our appeals. We had been mentioning Judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court as well. These two aspects have not been touched in OM dated 11 02 09. Let us see what reply comes from DOP on our specific RTI quary about this.

Doubts have been raised in various fora about the interpretation of the terms 'O.M' and 'Resolution' and their relative weightage and whether a 'resolution' published in the Gazette could be modified by alower authority by an O.M.

The definitions of both the terms in Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure are as under:
FORMS AND PROCEDURE OF COMMUNICATION
(3) Office Memorandum - This form is generally used for corresponding with other departments or in calling for information from or conveying information to its employees. It may also be used in corresponding with attached and subordinate offices. It is written in the third person and bears no salutation or supersession except the name and designation of the officer signing it.
.
(12) Resolution - This form of communication is used for making public announcement of decisions of government in important matters of policy, e.g., the policy of industrial licensing, appointment of committees or commissions of enquiry. Resolutions are also published in the Gazette of India.

So what is your conclusion ?

GR

sundarar
12-02-2009, 11:13 PM
Dear Sirs,

An illustration is given below for analysing the probable background of OM dt.11.2.2009 especially the para 5.

Mr. A retired from the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 prior to 1.1.2006. His basic pension multiplied by 2.26 will be the revised pension
as per pension table. As per Para 4.2 his minimum revised pension shall be
50% of........... corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which he retired.
Whereas, he represents on the plea that since the scale is now upgraded from 6500 to 7450 from 1.1.2006 for serving employees, the para 4.2 in toto
shall apply in his case also with reference to the upgraded pay band/gp or pay scale.

The DoP&PW scrutinises and reiterating vide Para 5 that in accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.2 of OM dt.1.9.2008, the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band + Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, the benefit of upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard..
Thus, it is those representations of personnel who retired prior to 2006 in whose pay scale has undergone revision vide Part B of the Resolution that only have been turned down.

The above are out of my understanding at this point of time. Byall means, I am of the view that the OM does not pertain to our matter.

Best Regards,
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
13-02-2009, 06:50 AM
Dear all

I think there was also a concordance table given for pensions in the 6CPC report wh will link/ confirm what the 6cpc meant and tried to convey.

I do remember the parity was given - may be not point to point- but at least one for two increments- and clearly for every pre-revised scale of pay, the equivalence was shown.

So, as far as my interpretation goes, the excuse being given on the "MINIMUM of the Pay" "Corresponding to" vs "MINIMUM IN" "IRRESPECTIVE OF" - as if they mean same to work out to the disadvantage of pensioners is nonsense.

If para 4'2 of OM of 1st sept 2008 is related to the 6cpc recommendation in letter and spirit, then clearly it must be linked to the concordance table of 6cpc itself to see what it means. IF IT IS NOT SO (can not be in the least), then we are in wilderness.

It is clear the MOF is taking shelter under semantics - not the facts obtainable in the Report and its annexures.

I dont know if I am correct! - BUT STILL IT MAY BE WORTHWHILT TO CHK THE ANNEXURES & see what the CPC meant to give exactly in terms of amounts & figures!

Anybody who can chk & find out pl.?

Regards
vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
13-02-2009, 07:57 AM
I think, by dealing unrelated subjects under this thread, we are following the footsteps of DP&PW opening part file evey time and issuing O.Ms, possibly with no notes in the mother file. Not that it would make much difference, but being an ex- babu, I think we should deal the subjects in the threads meant for the same.
Re Sh.VN's observation we will check up and revert
GR

vnatarajan
13-02-2009, 08:50 AM
Yesd - that part we must deal in the threads "Injustice...." and also """"Justice...."

I, as a "sclentistocrat", am asking for some doubts by postings in the thread "Injustice....." pertaining to the 11th Feb OM wh we may like to get examined.

vnatrajan

G.Ramdas
13-02-2009, 09:40 AM
Dear all

I think there was also a concordance table given for pensions in the 6CPC report wh will link/ confirm what the 6cpc meant and tried to convey.

I do remember the parity was given - may be not point to point- but at least one for two increments- and clearly for every pre-revised scale of pay, the equivalence was shown.

So, as far as my interpretation goes, the excuse being given on the "MINIMUM of the Pay" "Corresponding to" vs "MINIMUM IN" "IRRESPECTIVE OF" - as if they mean same to work out to the disadvantage of pensioners is nonsense.

If para 4'2 of OM of 1st sept 2008 is related to the 6cpc recommendation in letter and spirit, then clearly it must be linked to the concordance table of 6cpc itself to see what it means. IF IT IS NOT SO (can not be in the least), then we are in wilderness.

It is clear the MOF is taking shelter under semantics - not the facts obtainable in the Report and its annexures.

I dont know if I am correct! - BUT STILL IT MAY BE WORTHWHILT TO CHK THE ANNEXURES & see what the CPC meant to give exactly in terms of amounts & figures!

Anybody who can chk & find out pl.?

Regards
vnatarajan

I have checked the Annexures to 6CPC Recommendations and find no concordance table for past pensioners. But in par 5.1.47 of the report the Commission says "The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees"
GR

Kanaujiaml
13-02-2009, 02:05 PM
I have checked the Annexures to 6CPC Recommendations and find no concordance table for past pensioners. But in par 5.1.47 of the report the Commission says "The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees"
GR

My dear VN, GR , Others. Sorry to but in, but I am unable to stop myself from saying once again that , be it Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Personnel, all of them very well know the reality but they are intentionally doing it, rather continuing to do it. What VI CPC has given us and what Union Cabinet approved, these Ministries are convinietly taking it away and we are not able to do much about it.

kkhameedkutty
13-02-2009, 04:07 PM
Dear Shri Khameedkuttyji,

I fully agree with your views. The representations cited in the instant OM is not of ours. These are liable for rejection in the eyes of DoP hence the OM. I hope and wish that our representations on basic principle might have been re-directed to the Anomaly Committee by the Govt. on their own. The Committee which may have to look into the pay fixation etc. of the pre-2006 period of serving employees, they ought to look into the case of pensioners too when the Govt. also finding it difficult to dispose the same, as no contents of our representations do not figure in the O.M. It is altogether a different matter and not pertains to us, according to me.

The RTI reply will clear the clouds, we wish.

Best Regards..

Sundarar.

Dear Sundarar Sir,


I feel it is the time we have to think on legal process. It seems even post 1-1-2006 cases also have been disposed off by DoP & PW with order issued on 11-12-2008 and I don't think any further intervension will be there on our grievance on full pension for 20 years, by DoP & PW. Hence it is better to study court judgements. I just copy what is quoted on 10-10-2006 Judgement.

20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well settled.
They are :

a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension
cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal
treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and
some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the
time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is
subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get
enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of
pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In
such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment,
made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied
to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on
which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.

b) But all retirees retiring with a particular rank do not form a
single class for all purposes. Where the reckonable emoluments
as on the date of retirement (for the purpose of computation of
pension) are different in respect of two groups of pensioners,
who retired with the same rank, the group getting lesser pension
cannot contend that their pension should be identical with or
equal to the pension received by the group whose reckonable
emolument was higher. In other words, pensioners who retire
with the same rank need not be given identical pension, where
their average reckonable emoluments at the time of their
retirement were different, in view of the difference in pay, or in
view of different pay scales being in force.

c) When two sets of employees of the same rank retire at different
points of time, it is not discrimination if :

(i) when one set retired, there was no pension scheme and
when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in force.

(ii) when one set retired, a voluntary retirement scheme was
in force and when the other set retired, such a scheme
was not in force; or

(iii) when one set retired, a PF scheme was applicable and
when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in
place.

One set cannot claim the benefit extended to the other set on the
ground that they are similarly situated. Though they retired with
the same rank, they are not of the 'same class' or 'homogeneous
group'. The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for
introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for
discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory
is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively)
fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single
homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and
subjecting them to different treatment.
[Vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305], Krishna
Kumar v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India [1991 (2) SCC 104], V. Kasturi v. Managing
Director, State Bank of India [1998 (8) SCC 30] and Union of India v.
Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 (7) SCC 662]..

Now, on the basis of above, specifically the underlined portion of the judgement, we have to assertain whether "Introduction of full pension for 20 years of service and delinking pension with 33 years of service and further withdrawal of 5 years weightage is a WITHDRAWAL OF AN OLD SCHEME & INTRODUCTION OF A NEW SCHEME or Is it only just liberalisation of existing pension scheme (Reducing Qualifying service for full pension from 33 years to 20 years). As per the revised rule, pensioners retiring after 1-9-2008 are not eligible for additional gratuity for 5 years paid to Pre-1-9-2008 pensioners with less than 33 years of service.

Senior Pensioners who have experienced previous revisions from 1970 may be able to put some light on this.

Mr. DNaga57 had earlier quoted that

Pension used to be maximum 30/80 of LAP. When retirement age was raised to 33 years, Pension was recalculated as max 33/80 for All existing pensioners prospectively.
With revision of pension as n/66 n=< 33 this again was made applicable to all pensioners.
With provision of a 5 year weightage for VRS candidates, this was also made applicable to ALL pensioners.
In all above cases Effective was from date of notification implementation.


If that is the case, can we have copies of those orders which can be put as a supporting document while sending representation to anomaly committe and finally while seeking initiating legal process.

We have to further check Voluntary Retirement Scheme on completion of 20 years and or on attaining 50 years of age is still in force. Previously, voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years was possible only if it is accepted head of the department. If it is still applicable, that means voluntary retirement which in force only is still continued. But, full pension is an additional benefit and hence has to be 100% extended to all the pensioners irrespective of any previous orders, but on the basis of Supreme Court Judgement.

dnaga57
14-02-2009, 03:43 PM
Mr. DNaga57 had earlier quoted that

Pension used to be maximum 30/80 of LAP. When retirement age was raised to 33 years, Pension was recalculated as max 33/80 for All existing pensioners prospectively.
With revision of pension as n/66 n=< 33 this again was made applicable to all pensioners.
With provision of a 5 year weightage for VRS candidates, this was also made applicable to ALL pensioners.
In all above cases Effective was from date of notification implementation.
I have written the above from memory. I am sure there must have been Memorandum- Office orders for the above.
We can get them if some one in service can search archives or
via RTI asking GoI to provide the reference & documents.
This is the best I can suggest.

Kanaujiaml
17-02-2009, 07:00 PM
My dear Pensioners friends. There is a good news. Bharat Pensioner Samaj has sent an appeal to Prime Minister vide its letter dated 16 02 09. It was decided in the meeting of pensiosner's associations that BPS would first write to PM and explore all possibilities of redressal of pensioenrs grievances before moving towards legal remedy. BPS has in fact demanded that an Anomaly Committee for pensioenrs should be set up to deal with pensioners grievances resulted from implementation of 6th CPC Report.

Copy of BPS letter is available on Justice Thread please.

krishnaja
24-02-2009, 11:42 AM
The cut off date should be 1-1-2006. The date mentioned 1-9-08 is not correct. Otherwise it seems to nullify the whole purpose of the exercise. Implementation of the 6th PC recommendations in toto is expected, including the qualifying service for full pension and the method of calculation of pension should be the same for all post-2006 retirees. Accordingly, there should be only two categories of pensioners. The first, all former employees who have retired before the implementation of 6th CPC (before 1st January 2006) and the second, former employees who have retired on /or after 1st January 2006. The maximum qualifying service for full pension should be 20 years for all post1-1-2006 pensioners.
The payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service with effect from 2-9-08 for all Govt. employees, has virtually divided the pensioners into different categories with a cut off date. The disparity between these categories of pensioners while fixing their revised pensions based on this recommendation is glaring and not justifiable. Why these pensioners should suffer a permanent loss in their pension? The authorities should look into this anomaly and rectify it. How do you justify such an arbitrary decision. The recommendations of the 6th CPC should be implemented unconditionally, including the clause concerning the Qualifying service 20 years for full Pension. The concerned authorities may kindly review the entire pensioners problems as a whole with viable solutions in a justified manner.
Dr.Mrs.Krishnaja A.P. 23-2-09

Kanaujiaml
24-02-2009, 07:40 PM
That is exactly we are demanding. Only one cut off date i. e. 01 01 06. Govt. has rejected all our appeals and is bent upon not to listen to us. Than, what is the remedy ? I have suggested RREWA and BPS to form a confedration of Pensioners Associations and appoint a Committee for PIL in hon'ble Supreme Court. A Bank A/c should be opened and all willing pensioners should contribute for fighting the case. It appears, the matter is being considered by them and soon we would know about the outcome.

G.Ramdas
24-02-2009, 09:50 PM
The above arguments do not support the theory of One rank One pension, for which a case has already been filed in Delhi High Court. If we are to go to the court why not ask for full parity, which has been justified in various Cases, instead of a reduced parity? Today you find that your erstwhile subordinates, even one or two ranks lower , get more pension than you, if they have retired after 1.1.06.This is ridiculous.Why not apply the same fitment Table actually for post 1.1.06 staff and notionally for pre-2006 pensioners?

GR

Kanaujiaml
25-02-2009, 08:36 AM
The above arguments do not support the theory of One rank One pension, for which a case has already been filed in Delhi High Court. If we are to go to the court why not ask for full parity, which has been justified in various Cases, instead of a reduced parity? Today you find that your erstwhile subordinates, even one or two ranks lower , get more pension than you, if they have retired after 1.1.06.This is ridiculous.Why not apply the same fitment Table actually for post 1.1.06 staff and notionally for pre-2006 pensioners?

GR

As I have said earlier in my postings, we have only one ground to go to court and that is " equality amongsts pensioenrs " as enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution and as accepted in CB judgment of hon. SC dt 17 12 82 and subsequent judgments of hon. SC on same lines. Here we are fighting for what the Vth CPC had given and what VI CPC has given. Govt. has even denied this. We are demanding the same for all pensioners effective from one single date 01 01 06. It covers one rank one pay, pre2006 and post 2006 and even post 2008. This is indirectly "modified parity." Full parity means parity between working employees and the pensioners. There is no supportive SC judgment available for that. In fact SC judgment dated 10 10 06 is against it. This judgement says equality can be given only for homogenous groups. All pensioners form homogenous group. Pensioenrs plus working employees do not form homogenous group. As I have always said, you can proceed in Court of Law only on points of Law and ground supported by Law and by previous judgments of highest Court of the Country i.e. CB of hon. SC and other benches of hon. SC.These would be the points an Advocate would deal with and decide before proceeding further. Your demand cannot be on different lines. My intention is not to hurt anybody but to place my view in the light of what little I know about the grounds supported by Law and the previous SC judgments.

vnatarajan
25-02-2009, 10:08 AM
Dear K/ GR/ all

I agree with Mr K's views and notes which are very nicely summarised.

At the same time. I appreciate the spirit of GR's arguments.

While in service, you can NOT ask for stepping up of pay wrt ur juniors even, if the seniority is based on alternate positions for DPC and UPSC candidates as was in vogue in many deptts. Many DPC promotees, who get their promotions after waiting for long periods in the feeder grade, may draw more pay than the comparatively fresher and new direct entrants, interleaved with them in seniority! This was common in our Deptt. (Often DPC promotees who were promoted against DPC quota occupied their DPC slots, sometimes ahead of the UPSC selectees- as the latter took nearly two years to join after selection due to various formalities. Consequently DPC fellows always were up by a few increments wrt the UPSC appointees- and there was no question of stepping up wrt juniors in such cases)

Length of service is important for pensioners -may be in some cases only now!.Another comparison we can not contest/ inevitable! i.e. In future, certainly, the Sel Gr Director Pensioners of S 24 are going to draw more than the S29 or even S30 pensioners. Already many post 2006 Sel Gr Direcor pensioners are drawing more pension than me. If my pension is not raised to 27350 - it is going to be a great INSULT with INJURY!

(eg: PKR's younger borther certainly is going to draw more pension than PKR!- he is now in SEl. Gr Direcor's post- shortly we all wish - HE IS BECOMING S 29- and he will draw minimum pension say of 27350 if not more!)

So, the SC judgement of 10.10.06 is very much relevant in every context.

Our objective is for equality among pensioners of equal rank/ post/ grade (at the MINIMUM) irrespective of the date of retirement! (Equality is at the bottom of the revised scale to be precise- parity MODIFIED to be at the MINIMUM - not point to point - nor even the benefit of two bunched increments replaced by a new one))

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
25-02-2009, 03:12 PM
In reference to my Post 29 (in response to Krishnaja's post 28 , GR's post 30 and my rejoinder at post 31 and VN's Post 32, I would like to say that I am not against full parity if somehow it is possible to achieve it. But, I hold the view that in present circustances, it appears to be out of bound for us. To me it appears that the only course available, is to achieve modified parity with cut off date of 01 01 06 with the help of a PIL in hon'ble Supteme Court. If we win, this would bring parity amongsts all pensioners, who retired prior to 01 01 06. Post 06 pensioners would have a little edge but that is natural. Is not it ? This would not be a mean achievement in itself. Secondly and most importantly, this is achievable as, hon'ble Supreme Court's various judgments are supportive of it. Once again, I would like to say that this is my opinian and not binding on anybodyelse for that matter. Mr. GR can hold his opinian and I have great regard for him, as I have for Mr. VN and all other pensioner friends.

G.Ramdas
13-05-2009, 09:28 AM
The Govt. has issued yet another O.M rejecting representations from a section of pensioners who retired after 1.1.06 but before 1.9.08 and had not completed full 33 years qualifying service for pension.The details are available in the following link:


http://pensionersportal.gov.in/sixthCPC/F%20no%2038-37-08120509.pdf

kkhameedkutty
14-05-2009, 08:25 AM
The statements in the rejection order is wrong. Government has not introduced a new pension scheme and withdrawn an existing scheme. Eligibility for pension was 10 years for superannuation pension and that for voluntary retirement was 20 years before 2-9-2008 and computation of pension was done on prorata basis before considering 33 years as eligibility for full pension. Eligibility criterea for pension is same and there is no change in that even after 2-9-2008. Now, only difference is that method of computation of pension has been simplified by taking away Pro-rata reduction. Hence, it is only simplification of pension computation.

Pay Commission Statements:

Pension 1.2.15 Recommendations have been made to simplify the procedure for computation of pension. As mentioned earlier, the Commission has recommended delinking the payment of full pension on completing 33 years of qualifying service. Higher rates of pension have been recommended for retirees on attaining the age of 80, 85, 90, 95 and 100 years. A revised commutation factor for commuting pension has also been suggested taking into account the prevailing mortality rates, interest rates and fact that the commuted portion is restorable after 15 years.

Supreme Court Judgement

In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.

dnaga57
14-05-2009, 09:50 AM
Well said. Good points
But What do we do?

vnatarajan
14-05-2009, 11:40 AM
Dear Shri Naga/ Shri KKK

As usual, the babus are back in the game again. This time the "MINIMUM" hoax had been replaced by the "ARTICLE 14" hoax.

What is the Homogenous class of pensioners that is being referred to?
What are the two groups?
What was the old scheme of Pension they are referring?
Is it the one that is being discontinued?
What Scheme is replacing now?
Have they been notified?

Certainly, whenever a new scheme is introduced, there is always a qn of OPTION- at least for serving employees! For eg., when NPS was there, employees must have been given option.

Retirees getting "OPTION" treatment is also not out of practice.

For eg, post-2006 Retirees had to give options for fixation of pay scales etc and then they drew the revised benefits/ arrears.

Can old Pensioners have the provision of OPTION any time?

However, it is very clear, instead of sorting out the issue based on a RATIONAL APPROACH to group the 20 yr plus pensioners if they have different backgrounds and then tackle the parity issue, an excuse has been found to use the "ARTICLE 14" for creating confusion?

We were able to challenge the "MINIMUM" - but now-

How to prove that ARTICLE 14 which aims at equality, also aims at "INEQUALITY"?

Great strategy!

Pl do not give up. Analyse and regroup to challenge the misguidance!

Regards

vnatarajan

kkhameedkutty
14-05-2009, 02:15 PM
This confirm that purpose of forming Anomaly Committee and seeking representations from pensioners and assiciations is for one more harassment to pensioners. Nothing is going to happen with Anomaly Committee. There is no representation from pensioners in Anomaly Committee. SCM is an existing employee federation and DoPT, DoP & PW, MoF & MoL are on the other side. If they wanted to do something good to pensioners, there would have sought representations from pensioners / pensioners associations.

Everything has been decided by Babus and they are trying to justify their mistakes.

kkhameedkutty
23-05-2009, 05:50 PM
Dear Sirs,

Why government rejected our representations? I stronly feel that it is because of quoting "Violation of Art. 14" in our representations though we are 100% right. If government admit that the orders issued violated Art.14, it goes to a different level of governance / administration. We should have quoted only 6th CPC report and discripancy in implementation of 6th CPC report in our representation. But, every one did a mistake.

Now, what to do? What is the remedy?

KKH Kutty

vnatarajan
23-05-2009, 07:34 PM
Dear KKK/ all

There is no need to get perturbed.

Let us also follow the same route. It is good the OM has brought the ARTICLE 14 into real limelight.

What has been put in the OM is only one part of the para. the very next line defends the HOMOGENOUS class. If pensioners WHO are of equal scale of pay/ equal grade/ equal length of service belong to a HOMOGENOUS class , then nothing prevents the 20 yr retirees being HOMOGENOUS and at par with their peers irrespcetive of the dates!.

OM of 12th May 2009 is a GROSS BLUNDER -second in the series after MINIMUM fiasco. We will pursue the matter.

A HORSE (para 5.1.47 of SCPC) was FRUSTRATINGLY made to look like a "MULE" (Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept08- later dressed up miserably by by OMs of 3rd/ 14th Oct 2008) only to cover up the SUDDEN/ INDECENT STRIPPING of the horse carried out erroneously by a casual onlooker (A DO letter of 26th Sept 2008)! HORSE can not lose its identity!

Regards

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
24-05-2009, 10:24 AM
Dear Sh. Vn,

Great!
You have explained it aptly

G.Ramdas

krishnaja
28-05-2009, 02:16 PM
VI CPC Special Category Retirees (former employees retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 with 20 to33 years of service) denied full pension.

Why does the interpretation of the VI CPC by the enforcing authority discriminate between employees on the basis of the retirement date (2-9-08), effectively creating two classes of former employees / retirees (a special category of former employees who retired after 1-1-2006, but before 2-9-08 -the auspicious date fixed by the authorities).

According to VI CPC recommendations for pension benefits (implementation date 1-1-2006) and subsequently implemented by the Government, CG employees on completion of 20 years service are eligible for full pension (viz., 50 % of last pay drawn).

The Government gave effect to this order only from 2.9.2008 and for those who retired after 1-1-2006 but before 2.9.2008, completion of 33 years of service is mandatory for getting full pension.

Pension is linked to average emoluments and qualifying service and should be applicable to all former employees irrespective of retirement date, and not merely for the benefit of future retirees after a specific cut off date. Parity between all pensioners is the need of the hour.

Govt. employees with 20 to 33 years service retired between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 are governed by old pension rules. At the same time, benefits like commutation of pension gratuity, leave encashment are granted according to new pension rules. These pensioners are paid salary arrears as per revised rules. When salary is paid as per 6th CPC revised rules, is it not an anomaly that pension is paid as per the old rules? Essentially the 1-1-2006 / 2-9-2008 special category former employees / retirees are governed by 3 different rules (on effective date of 6th CPC benefits), for the payment of salary, pension and other retirement benefits respectively, courtesy the interpretation of the enlightened enforcement authorities. Not at all a just and fair deal.

The latest O.M. dated May 12, 2009, clarifies matters further for the uninitiated. To whose benefit, is a moot question. If you have taken retirement before the auspicious date of 2-9-08, your basic pension is determined on the basis of last pay drawn, on pro-rata basis, provided you have not completed 33 years of service at the time of retirement. Employees who have taken retirement on / after the auspicious date of 2-9-08 are eligible for full pension on completion of 20 years. What an arbitrary and illogical conclusion! This time the dessert is served with extra toppings of “there is no violation of Article 14 of the constitution”. Everything is justified in one stroke. Why don’t we have a positive administration? Why do we have to always fight for justice or resort to remedial action to get justice?

This is an earnest request to all the concerned authorities to review / reassess the issue based on a rational approach, without prejudice, to amend the unjustified and discriminatory pro rata clause of 33 years meant only for these special category former employees / retirees. Urgent action in this matter is needed to see that no section of former employees / retirees (1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 with 20 to 33 years of service) are adversely affected by the 6th CPC implementation and parity between pensioners is maintained. The expenses to the exchequer would not be too much, as the numbers may not be high.

Hope this won’t be another futile exercise like the anomaly committee seeking representations from unwary former employees / pensioners. The grievance redressal systems look attractive on the website http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in. I doubt if anyone has received a reply from them till today. It is the same story at the CPAO website http://cpao.nic.in/. It says you will get a reply in seven days. I am still waiting to receive one.

Dr.Mrs.Krishnaja A.P. 28-5-09

kkhameedkutty
31-05-2009, 03:43 PM
Dear all affected pensioners,

I have modified my draft based on some more information I could find from Supreme Court Judgement Dated 14-01-1988. Revised draft of my representation is given below which can be sent to Anomaly Committe & again to PM & Grievance Cell.

The statements in OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 12th May 2009 issued by DoP & PW quoting Apex Court Judgment and rejecting all the representations connected with denial of full pension to government employees retired before 2-9-2008 with maximum qualifying service of 20 years required for full pension is 100% wrong and the order is issued without understanding Supreme Court Judgment correctly, because of the following reasons. It is unfortunate that even after several judgements on pension matters stressing equality in computation of pension, order of this kind is issued.



Government employees (appointed & retired) bound by CCS Pension Rules 1972 and retiring / retired with minimum qualifying service for pension (20 years for Retirement Pension & 10 years for Superannuation Pension) and maximum qualifying service for full pension (20 years) form a HOMOGENOUS CLASS in all respect as far as computation of pension is concerned and hence denial of newly introduced BENEFIT of full pension to those employees within the same HOMOGENOUS CLASS who retired before 2-9-2008 by putting a cut off date is totally DISCRIMINATION. This is as per Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-10-2006 which is to be read in conjunction with Apex Court Judgments of 1983 (Nakra Case) which clearly ruled that Pension is not an INCENTIVE, but, paid for PAST SERVICE RENDERED and also another Judgment of Supreme Court dated 14-01-1988 which ruled that “Court has made a distinction between the pension payable on retirement and the gratuity payable on retirement. While pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive, gratuity is ordinarily paid only once on retirement and hence parity has to be ensured on computation of pension irrespective of date of retirement, but, no parity is required on gratuity paid among employees retired before and after a cut off date and government can put a cut off date for payment of enhanced or reduced gratuity”.


Neither 6th CPC nor the government has introduced any new pension scheme / retirement scheme or withdrawn any existing scheme. The CCS Pension Scheme 1972 is the one existing before & after 6th CPC implementation and that is valid till 31st December 2003. All those who joined government service before 1-1-2004 are bound by CCS Pension Rules 1972. Whatever the changes made vide OM. F No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2-9-2008 are only amendments to the existing scheme as per the following recommendation of 6th CPC. “Para 1.2.15 of 6th CPC Report states "Recommendations have been made to simplify the procedure for computation of pension. As mentioned earlier, the Commission has recommended delinking the payment of full pension on completing 33 years of qualifying service”.


Government can introduce any new pension / retirement scheme or withdraw an existing scheme. But, a BENEFIT introduced on pension computation, because of scheme change can not be denied to pensioners retired before the date of scheme change when pensioners of same length of service and same eligibility criteria form a HOMOGENOUS CLASS.


If government has withdrawn additional weightage given on QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION & GRATUITYto those who opted for Premature Retirement, as per the recommendations of 6th CPC, it is because of the reason that Weightage given was only an INCENTIVE / COMPENSATION for the service left for completing 33 years required for full pension and the same is now removed because it has no RELEVANCE as stated in 6th CPC report.


Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-10-2006

“In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.” “The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension / retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.” .

Unfortunately, the order dated 12-5-2009 addresses only A SMALL SENTENCE ABOVE IN RED instead of reading the whole paragraph together from one of the Supreme Court Judgments dated 10-10-2008 which is based on a Famous Supreme Court Judgment on Pension Matters dated 1983, in the case of D.S. Nakra vs. Union of India and hence the statements referred in OM dated 12th May 2009 is not a reflection / conclusion / correct interpretation of HONORABLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT.

Supreme Court has also ruled vide 1983 Nakra Judgment that Pension Paid as per CCS Pension rules 1972 is an obligation on government unlike a contributory pension scheme and hence financial constrains should not be a limitation for pension payment.

It is once again reiterated that Government Employees retiring / retired with 20 years of service before and after 2-9-2008 form a SINGLE HOMOGENOUS CLASS in all respect as far as Computation of Pension is concerned.

vnatarajan
03-06-2009, 11:52 AM
Dear All

Thanks to Shri KSS, this interesting news item from TOI, MUMBAI, appearing on 3rd June 2009 edition related to RTI matter handled by the DOPT will convince many pensioners to resort to RTI route to raise some critical issue.

For eg., recent OM of 12th May 2009 of DOPPW/MOPPGP trying to apply the Akkara Judgment in a "bikini" mode on the "20 yr Plus- Less 33yrs" Pensioners, can be amplified to seek explanation from DOPPW- as to what actions they have taken or are taking to implement other sentences of the paragraph of the said judgment, of which the "bikini' part is only a "non-vital" exposure!

Now the News Item:

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

Meira Kumar elected Lok Sabha Speaker | Meira Kumar is first woman Speaker


CIC cracks down on DOPT for file notings
3 Jun 2009, 0531 hrs IST, Manoj Mitta, TNN

Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:



NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Central Information Commission on Tuesday issued notices to two officers of the department of personnel and
training (DOPT), which is the nodal department of RTI, to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for offences that could land them behind bars for a whole year.

The provocation was the DOPT's refusal, despite repeated directions to correct the misleading claim made on its website, that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under the RTI.

CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to appear on June 17 to explain why they should not be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and penalized under the RTI.

While other public authorities, including the law ministry and the Supreme Court, have long accepted the CIC's ruling that file notings are not exempt from disclosure, DOPT has maintained otherwise on its website, much to the CIC's chagrin. Habibullah found it ``appalling'' that the nodal department of RTI had ``sought to emasculate the mandate'' of Section 19(7) which stipulates that the CIC's decisions are ``binding''.

On an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the CIC said that by disobeying its directions, the two DOPT officers had rendered themselves liable to be punished under Section 166 IPC, which imposes imprisonment up to one year on a ``public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person''. The other two offences cited in the order are punishable with imprisonment up to six months--while Section 187 pertains to “omission to assist a public servant when bound by law to give assistance'', Section 188 deals with “disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant''.

Besides responding to allegations of committing criminal offences, Sarkar and Chagti will have to explain on June 17 why each of them should not be imposed the maximum prescribed penalty under the RTI of Rs 25,000. The CIC has also asked them to show cause why they should not be subjected under the RTI to departmental proceedings.

To its earlier directions, all that the DOPT officers told the CIC was that the whole of file notings had been placed before a committee of secretaries and that nothing could be done about the website until the committee gave its report. The file noting controversy first erupted in 2006 when the DOPT made an abortive attempt to amend the law so that file notings could be beyond the ambit of the RTI.

While giving the definition of information under the RTI, the DOPT website added on its own that the expression “does not include file notings''. The CIC had given several directions to the DOPT to desist from misquoting the RTI definition of information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

vnatarajan

dkp_cus
22-09-2009, 07:26 PM
Dear all affected pensioners,

I have modified my draft based on some more information I could find from Supreme Court Judgement Dated 14-01-1988. Revised draft of my representation is given below which can be sent to Anomaly Committe & again to PM & Grievance Cell.

The statements in OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 12th May 2009 issued by DoP & PW quoting Apex Court Judgment and rejecting all the representations connected with denial of full pension to government employees retired before 2-9-2008 with maximum qualifying service of 20 years required for full pension is 100% wrong and the order is issued without understanding Supreme Court Judgment correctly, because of the following reasons. It is unfortunate that even after several judgements on pension matters stressing equality in computation of pension, order of this kind is issued.



Government employees (appointed & retired) bound by CCS Pension Rules 1972 and retiring / retired with minimum qualifying service for pension (20 years for Retirement Pension & 10 years for Superannuation Pension) and maximum qualifying service for full pension (20 years) form a HOMOGENOUS CLASS in all respect as far as computation of pension is concerned and hence denial of newly introduced BENEFIT of full pension to those employees within the same HOMOGENOUS CLASS who retired before 2-9-2008 by putting a cut off date is totally DISCRIMINATION. This is as per Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-10-2006 which is to be read in conjunction with Apex Court Judgments of 1983 (Nakra Case) which clearly ruled that Pension is not an INCENTIVE, but, paid for PAST SERVICE RENDERED and also another Judgment of Supreme Court dated 14-01-1988 which ruled that “Court has made a distinction between the pension payable on retirement and the gratuity payable on retirement. While pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive, gratuity is ordinarily paid only once on retirement and hence parity has to be ensured on computation of pension irrespective of date of retirement, but, no parity is required on gratuity paid among employees retired before and after a cut off date and government can put a cut off date for payment of enhanced or reduced gratuity”.


Neither 6th CPC nor the government has introduced any new pension scheme / retirement scheme or withdrawn any existing scheme. The CCS Pension Scheme 1972 is the one existing before & after 6th CPC implementation and that is valid till 31st December 2003. All those who joined government service before 1-1-2004 are bound by CCS Pension Rules 1972. Whatever the changes made vide OM. F No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2-9-2008 are only amendments to the existing scheme as per the following recommendation of 6th CPC. “Para 1.2.15 of 6th CPC Report states "Recommendations have been made to simplify the procedure for computation of pension. As mentioned earlier, the Commission has recommended delinking the payment of full pension on completing 33 years of qualifying service”.


Government can introduce any new pension / retirement scheme or withdraw an existing scheme. But, a BENEFIT introduced on pension computation, because of scheme change can not be denied to pensioners retired before the date of scheme change when pensioners of same length of service and same eligibility criteria form a HOMOGENOUS CLASS.


If government has withdrawn additional weightage given on QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION & GRATUITYto those who opted for Premature Retirement, as per the recommendations of 6th CPC, it is because of the reason that Weightage given was only an INCENTIVE / COMPENSATION for the service left for completing 33 years required for full pension and the same is now removed because it has no RELEVANCE as stated in 6th CPC report.


Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-10-2006

“In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.” “The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension / retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.” .

Unfortunately, the order dated 12-5-2009 addresses only A SMALL SENTENCE ABOVE IN RED instead of reading the whole paragraph together from one of the Supreme Court Judgments dated 10-10-2008 which is based on a Famous Supreme Court Judgment on Pension Matters dated 1983, in the case of D.S. Nakra vs. Union of India and hence the statements referred in OM dated 12th May 2009 is not a reflection / conclusion / correct interpretation of HONORABLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT.

Supreme Court has also ruled vide 1983 Nakra Judgment that Pension Paid as per CCS Pension rules 1972 is an obligation on government unlike a contributory pension scheme and hence financial constrains should not be a limitation for pension payment.

It is once again reiterated that Government Employees retiring / retired with 20 years of service before and after 2-9-2008 form a SINGLE HOMOGENOUS CLASS in all respect as far as Computation of Pension is concerned.

After CoS REPORT on the subject, this thread ought to have been active. Why the members r relaxing with hope only! Thanks

sundarar
23-09-2009, 07:26 AM
"The proposal to remove the linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying service w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 1.9.2008 in the case of Commissioned Officers may be agreed to. A similar dispensation will have to be extended to civilians who have retired between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008 .... and this will benefit only those who have taken voluntary retirement after rendering 20 to 28 years of service" - COS

For availing this benefit a person must have joined service on or after 1.1.1980 but not after 1.1.1988 and he should have retired voluntarily between 1.1.2006 and 31.8.2008. Just because a person retiring after 6th CPC with the above conditions, an additional benefit by way of fixing 50% of last pay drawn in the revised structure as basic pension, is also available for the sake of leaving the job after implementation of 6th CPC. What about those who retired prior to 1.1.2006 even with 33 years of qualifying service or more. For them, average emolouments during the last 10 months of service for both voluntary retirement as well as retirement on superannuation. Notional fixation in the revised structure for determining revised pension shall be the ideal way for them also especially who have completed the term of 33 years of service or more. For voluntary retirees also, they have not committed any misconduct by opting to retire voluntarily, but since there is a provision, they had just availed. Therefore uniform treatment in every aspect ought to be ensured without looking into only the financial implications. During the entire service, the Govt. servant has never thought about his financial constraints but served sincerely with a hope that he will be treated alike irrespective of his date of joining and date of relinquishing the job. Everything happens after he quits, but he has to bear the loss with retrospective effect but benefit with prospective effect for which too he will not be entitled.

Moreover, for CG civilians, the NAC appears to be on the job. However, in respect of those who have joined prior to 1.1.1980 and retired before 1.1.2006 voluntarily, linkage of full pension with 33 years of Q.S. has not been removed. For Early birds at induction level the above benefits does not appear to have been extended. Every one joined with same set of service conditions, which got altered at a later stage with a prospective effect(though not spelt so). Those who joined earlier and quit prior to 1.1.2006 have been deprived of this benefit. The ray of hope is the NAC for the time being. What is the alternative?

Kanaujiaml
23-09-2009, 09:25 AM
Dear all. Date of joining doesnot mean straight away full qualifying service.Unqualified period, if any has to be deducted from total service. COS's recommendation is very correct which gives full pension to a civilian pensioner after 20 years of qualifying service to those who retired voluntarilly between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008. This has been done to remove disparity between pre and post 1.9.2008 retirees and is on the lines of hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 17.12.1982. You cannot link it with pre and post 1996 retirees because it is a new scheme. In view of Supreme Court's decision, it is not mandatory in case of a new pension scheme or change in rule, to give effect retrospectivily. Expecting something not legally justified would end into a nightmare only. It would be very satisfying if the Govt. agrees to give on asking what is legally justified to pensioner.

sundarar
23-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Dear all. Date of joining doesnot mean straight away full qualifying service.Unqualified period, if any has to be deducted from total service. COS's recommendation is very correct which gives full pension to a civilian pensioner after 20 years of qualifying service to those who retired voluntarilly between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008. This has been done to remove disparity between pre and post 1.9.2008 retirees and is on the lines of hon'ble Supreme Court verdict dated 17.12.1982. You cannot link it with pre and post 1996 retirees because it is a new scheme. In view of Supreme Court's decision, it is not mandatory in case of a new pension scheme or change in rule, to give effect retrospectivily. Expecting something not legally justified would end into a nightmare only. It would be very satisfying if the Govt. agrees to give on asking what is legally justified to pensioner.

I beg to differ from the above view. First of all, the new pension scheme is applicable for only those who joined service on or after 1.1.2004 and not for any other retirees whether he is pre-2006, pre-1996, etc.

When the erstwhile retirees prior to 1.9.2008 entered their service, the CCS (Pension)Rules stipulated 33 years service for full pension. In case the Govt. wanted to bring changes in the basic Rules, it shall be applicable for new entrants after issue of such change. Whereas, the single sentence
that linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service is dispensed with - whether prospectively or retrospectively not indicated. What one pensioner expect as legally justified may not be viewed by another pensioner so, and it necessarily not be so. If there are no supporting points available, at least the pensioner's genuine expectations (as far as he is concerned) need not be belied upon. I want to reiterate here that reduction of qualifying service from 33 years to 20 years is part of CCS (Pension) Rules awaiting to be amended, and no way can be construed as a new pension scheme. It is a part of 6th CPC recommendation and a pensioner has his legitimate right if at all he considers that injustice has occured in his case to put forward his grievance for redressal. This should not be viewed adversely please.

dnaga57
23-09-2009, 04:56 PM
There are two aspects in this


Applicability of eligibility for Full Pension. There can be no discrimination on this between post 2-9-08, 1-1-06 to 1-9-08 & pre1-1-06 retirees. All need to be eligible
Effective from date - for payment of arrears etc. This could be 2-9-08 or 1-1-06 as decided by COS. The pre 2006 retiree cannot claim backdated arrears than the other pensioners.

If the distinction between Eligibility & Effective from is comprehended , there could be a unified decision without causing any discrimnation on this account.
Will NAC look into it or COS issue an elaboration of their decision.
Can this be an issue or point in case it goes to court?

vnatarajan
23-09-2009, 07:57 PM
Dear All

Once the issue of "parity" in its any form - "minimum' or "full" or "maximum(for OROP only)" is resolved, all others will follow course. None need to worry!. Usage of selected sentences in some of the OMs (particularly May 2009 ) can not nullify the otherwise HOMOGENITY of a class of pensioners. Retirees , say, having put in "20 yrs of service" (with material weightage/ or with time weightage which is only a one-time concession or grant like a bonus) as a minimum for the recognition of HOMOGENITY can not be denied the privilege unless they are different in their scale of pay- last pay criteria-as the length of service is taken care of. The 33 yr criteria (once I cross 33 years- it is immaterial if I put in 35 or even 37 yrs!!!) is replaced by 20 yr criteria. Where is the change of PENSION SCHEME involved?

VRS being used as a ruse for distinction now - may ultimately meet its own waterloo!

Let us hope things will start sorting out soon.

vnatarajan

aggarwal
07-10-2009, 02:54 PM
RREWA site shows letter from Sh Ajay Makan ,MoS, dated 30 sep 2009 to finance minister in this regard.
It mentions that it is understood that deptt of pensions has already sent its recommendation to finance ministry.
I hope full pension will soon be granted to those with 20 to 28 yrs of service and retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008.

Kanaujiaml
07-10-2009, 08:25 PM
RREWA site shows letter from Sh Ajay Makan ,MoS, dated 30 sep 2009 to finance minister in this regard.
It mentions that it is understood that deptt of pensions has already sent its recommendation to finance ministry.
I hope full pension will soon be granted to those with 20 to 28 yrs of service and retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008.

There is no doubt about it. It forms part of the recommendations of the Committee of Seceretaries. It cannot be stalled forever.

dnaga57
08-10-2009, 06:17 AM
There is no doubt about it. It forms part of the recommendations of the Committee of Seceretaries. It cannot be stalled forever.
How about pre 2006 pensioners... any hope of equity...

vnatarajan
08-10-2009, 04:43 PM
Dear Shri DNaga/ all interested

The steps that may follow in the next few weeks will bring in INDIRECTLY what is in store for the pre-2006 20 yr plus (VRS and Normal) retirees and their equity wrt post 2006 retirees of 20 yrs plus category.

Once the CCS Pensioin Rules are amended (Sunadarar's pointer) to take care of post-2006 20 years retirees UNIFORMLY- I mean Rules being uniform whether ONE seeks to quit after 20 years plus or whether ONE retires normally after 20 years plus service - then only the equity for extending the same/ similar benefits to pre-2006 retirees can be argued upon.

COS's report's reco in this regard- paves the way to bring in UNIFORMITY for the post 2006 category of civilians of plus 20 years service, who have taken VRS. The tag of VRS has to go- for the uniformity to be more decisive!.

Another complexity is the application of the limit of MODIFIED PARITY for the pre-2006 retirees.

All equations will be in terms of the limit of MODIFIED PARITY for old pensioners whereas such equations will be wrt to LAST PAY DRAWN for the post-2006 retirees.

So all decisions have to be related to the above aspects.

BUT ONE THING IS CERTAIN. EQUITY WILL NOT AND CAN NOT BE DENIED WITHIN THE FRAME-WORK OF "LIMITS" - OF "MODIFIED PARITY" VS "FULL PARITY".

Pre-2006 pensioners - whether they are 20 yrs plus VRS or NORMAL retirees can not get FULL PARITY overshooting the MODIFIED PARITY limit that is being applied at the MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND or MINIMUM OF THE PAY SCALE or EVEN at the LIMIT OF 2.26 MF- AS ON DATE- UNLESS D NAKARA COMES OUT FROM HIS ABODE OF REST BY THIS DEC 16TH AND TAKES UP THE CASE AGAIN!

(some old pensioners tend to forget the above aspect!- Hence the reminder!)

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
09-10-2009, 01:38 PM
Dear All

Pl refer to para 2 of my notes above. I myself was entangled in some confsions.Thanks to Mr AR, after discussions my doubts also got cleared. Because of AR, I went back to chk once again the contents of the OM of 2nd Sept 2008- issued for post 2006 pensions- and in its para 5.2, the dispensation has been described- except that it did not deal with the modality to regularise the VRS retirees of TRISANKU period- ie between 2.9.2008 and 1.1.2006.

May be the COS deliberation has taken advantage to cover this nebulous area and has touched upon it (like finding fault with SCPC for the MINIMUM fiasco!) - not in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner in any case!

AS I HAD BEEN MENTIONING, IF SIMILAR DISPENSATION AS IN PARA 5.2 IS MADE APPLICABLE T0 PRE-2006 PENSIONERS ALSO THROUGH A SUITABLE OM KEEPING THE LIMITATIONS OF PENSION PARITY THAT MAY BE PERMITTED, THINGS MAY GET STRAIGHTENED.

I THINK ALL PENSIONERS - IRRESPECTIVE OF NORMAL- OR- VRS CATEGORY- MUST APPEAL ACCORDINGLY TO DRIVE HOME THE POINT AND SEEK REDRESSAL.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
11-10-2009, 08:00 AM
TOWARDS REFINING THE IDEAS AND WINDOWING TO ADDRESS THE "SPECIFIC" RELIEF TO BE SOUGHT IN THE COURT ON THE 20 YR-33 YRS ISSUE FOR PRE-2006 PENSION REVISION

As a result of my interaction with KKHKutty and Sundaar, a precise conclusion had been drawn to seek the exact RELIEF in a COURT of law for resolving the problem and to get more or less the issue resolved and achieve some parity between the pre and post 2006 pensioners of this segment who are also part of the HOMOGENOUS Class in all respects.

INFORMATION/ CONTENTS EXCHANGED BETWEEN ALL THREE OF US ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE INTERESTED. IMPROVEMENTS ARE WELCOME.

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

Dear KKHKutty/Sundarar

Both of you have put this AGENDA ITEM on the even keel.

A crisp 4 or 5 SINGLE or TWO LINE statements may give the GUIDANCE to all- covering what is NECESSARY.

KKK has already outlined THE CONTENTS in his earlier summary, wh I think is one of the best write-ups on this issue:. I reproduce it here so that we may not lose track.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Regarding full pension on completion of 20 years of service, you may be aware that Committee of Secretaries have recommended and government accepted it to be implemented from 1-1-2006 for those who retired since 1-1-2006. But, orders on this is yet be released. This recommendation may be on the basis of classifying pensioners on the basis of Homogenous Groups. All those who retired since 1-1-2006 definitely form a homogenous class since their pension is fixed based on last salary they have drawn after 6th CPC and hence creating another group within this homogenous class is violation of Article. 14 whereas pension of those who retired before 1-1-2006 was revised after 6th CPC based on last pension drawn applying a fitment formula and hence government may be considering Pre 2006 pensioners as a seperate Homogenous Class.

Supreme Court has also ruled that there is no parity required in Gratuity / DCRG Payment and hence government can increase or decrease or withdraw gratuity any time as they wish since the same is a one time payment. There is no need of comparing gratuity received by employees retired at different period.

However, in my opinion all those who are in same pension scheme form a homogenous class as far as length of service and last pay drawn are concerned. Hence, pension of Pre 2006 pensioners also should be fixed based on last pay drawn in all the cases instead of average of last 10 months pay and full pension should be paid to those who have completed 20 years of service. We need to convince government/fight in court to prove that all those who joined government service before 1-1-2004 are in same pension scheme.

There are two amendments introduced in CCS Pension Rules 1972 after 6th CPC.

1. Computation of Pension based on last pay drawn instead of average of last 10 months pay.

2. Full Pension Eligibility on completion of 20 years instead of 33 years.

Hence, when we demand for parity against Post 2006 Pensioners, we should demand for both of the above two amendments in CCS Pension Rules 1972 since DoP & PW has already confirmed position of Supreme Court Judgement vide attached OM dated 27-10-2005 that "Where an employee at the time of retirement is entitled to pension under the relevant rules, any subsequent amendment to the relevant rules enhancing pension or conferring additional benefit would be also applicable to him."----------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR LAST SENTENCE OUTLINES THE DEMAND AND ALSO IF ONE GOES TO COURT-THE RELIEF MUST ADDRESS THIS ASPECT SPECIFICALLY. THIS CAN BE AMENDED - MODIFIED-EDITED BY LEGAL EXPERTS TO PUT IT ACROSS IN A COURT OF LAW.

AM I CORRECT?

VNATARAJAN

Background Material
From: kk hameed kutty To: V. Natarajan / sUNDARAR
Subject: Re: Re: Re: DOP&PW OM dt.5.12.2005 - SC JUDGEMENT 2005 BY HON. JUSTICE SHRI B.N. KRISHNA AND SHRI SABHARWAL

Please note that there is no VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) as such in government. Anybody who want to retire from government service can retire voluntarily after completing 20 years continuous service which need approval and acceptance by competent authority. Also one can retire voluntarity from government service on attaining 50 years of age which doesn't need acceptance by government. In all these cases, RTIREMENT PENSION is awarded after adding 5 years weightage as per Pre 6th CPC rules. Retiring Voluntarily and Voluntary Retirement Scheme are not the one. They are different. VRS was proposed by 6th CPC for employees completed 15 years of service in line with that offered in PSU's. But, the same was not accepted by the government. That means provision for "Voluntary Retirement" is still there in government even after 1-9-2008. If one desires to retire voluntarily on completing 20 years of service, he can not do it unless it is accepted by competent authority. There is a Judgement on this by some court last week published in "Central Government Employees" web site.

Here, please note that all those who availed voluntary retirement or retired normally after 1-1-2006 were receiving revised pay in 6th CPC Pay Scale. Pension of all these employees as on 1-1-2006 was recomputed based on revised pension structure introduced by goverment vide gazette notification dated 29-8-2008 and hence there is no doubt, all these employees form a HOMOGENOUS CLASS in respect of application of pension rules. There can not be a mini class within these government employees as far as application of rules are concerned.

As per various Supreme Court Judgements, Homogenous Class of Pensioners can not be divided in computation of pension. But they can be divided for payment of gratuity / DCRG.

If the above facility is to be extended to Pre 2006 pensioners, we have to prove / convince government / court that both Pre 2006 Pensioners and Post 2006 Pensioners form a Single Homogenous Class. DoP & PW is already convinced and they want it to be extended to Pre 2006 Pensioners. But, Finance Ministry is objecting on want of Financial Constrains.

If we look at PBOR's cases, there are lot of difference between Pre 2006 Pensioners and Post 2006 Pensioners in pension payment. That is why they demand for OROP. But, there is no difference in Pension computation among Post 2006 PBOR's.
KKH Kutty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: V. Natarajan to Sundarar
Subject: DOP&PW OM dt.5.12.2005 - SC JUDGEMENT 2005 BY HON. JUSTICE SHRI B.N. KRISHNA AND SHRI SABHARWAL

I fully endorse your observation.

Again the Veeraswamy case - may be it is something like introduction of our "NPS" wef 1.4.2004 wh none could challenge the scheme- even the CPI etc are only protesting and everyone knows that the Govt. has the right to introduce such a new scheme and make compulsory the same with the said cut-off date for employees who join later than that. For existing employees, they had to be given an option.

Similarly, NONE CAN DESTROY OUR OLD PENSION SCHEME! NOR COURT WILL PERMIT THAT- Even in case of alteration or withdrawal- an OPTION clause will emerge! Confusing that with cut-off dates will be off-the-mark. In fact many Retired Judges/ MPs/MINISTERS/ BUREAUCRATS are in the old pension scheme and it is not easy to strike it off.

The point for our consideration is:

1.What happens to VRS after 1.9.2008? It has to vanish? Because the service- requirement was 20 yrs for opting for VRS. Now the OM of 2nd Sept 2008 under Para 5.2 has kept silent without commenting on this! WHICH MEANS THE VRS IS NO LONGER A REALITY! ( am I wrong- pl correct). That is the reason I was always insisting that there is somethjng which is creating an obstacle in assuming this to be an automatic application without any reservation. May be for post 2.9.2008 cases it may be so- but I think modalities have to be outlined thru an IMPLEMENTATION order.

2.At the same time, the Govt. had to take into consideration people who have taken VRS during 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008- What happens to them? Did they enjoy the 5yr incentive plus the one-time grants? THEY MUST HAVE DRAWN THEM. Now you have to regularise them so that you HOMOGENISE all of them into NORMAL RETIREES. So also those who have normally retired with plus-20years service during that period. I DON’T SEE ANY MAJOR PROBLEM IN THIS. No arrears as threy have got other benefits. Prospectively they will draw the new revised pension wef 2.1.2008 at full eligibility.

3.Coming to pre-2006 sub-20 yr Retirees- once the above issues are settled, I do not find any valid reason for discrimination. NOTIONAL FIXATIONS WRT "MODIFIED PARITY' instead of '"LAST PAY DRAWN" mode is the only debatable point. ( I am not clear on the 10 yr absorbees etc)

Your observation on S30 also will set the trend for all. In fact this is the first time- that the application of CCS(RP) RULES 2008 had been invoked for pre-2006 pensioners - this was not done even for S 31, 32, 33 etc though their cases were similar! THE OM OF 2nd Sept 2008- IF I AM CORRECT SPECIFICALLY EMPHASISED THAT IT IS ONLY FOR POST-2006 PENSIONERS and for pre-2006 pensioners, the OM dtd 1st Sept 2008 has to be followed- WHICH WAS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF CCS(RP) RULES 2008!!!!!!!

Excellent analysis and valid points from your side. I am getting educatedc further!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vnatarajan

aggarwal
13-11-2009, 03:32 PM
it seems government is reluctant to accept recommendation of committee headed by cabinet secretary regarding giving full pension to those retired prior to 2/9/08 ,otherwise there should not be such a delay in issuing orders.

four and half months have passed since recommendations were submitted.

kkhameedkutty
14-11-2009, 02:41 PM
Dear Aggarwal,

Let us not conclude and jump to court. Better wait for some more time. Orders on other recommendations of CoS except that concerned to Additional Secretaries & Secretaries (S-30) are also not yet issued. Defence Minister said in Parliament that it is accepted. Finance Ministry has to clear and move file to DoP & PW. In view of yesterday's order on new grade pay for PB-2, it is felt that anomaly committee is also working on all the anomalies including this anomaly. Let us wait till anomaly committee's final reporting time is over and orders on other recommendations of CoS are also issued.

With Regards,

KKH Kutty

vnatarajan
16-11-2009, 06:52 AM
Dear Shri KKH / others,

I agree with KKH on this issue. The Govt having accepted to do away with the linkage of 33 yrs for full pension and agreeing to give full pensionary benefit (no pro-rata reduction wrt length of service) to 20 yr plus retirees thru para 5.2 of OM of 2nd Sept 2008, is committed to come out with orders sooner or later. Com on OROP had also given recommendations in a positive manner. All grey areas related to PBOR's improved pensions covering the20yr aspects also has to be cleared for them! Weightages given to them have to be taken into consideration while arriving at the 20 yr factor! Not an easy job. Moreover, everyday some Groups (military) of one service or other may bring in some GENUINE anomalies that may crop up in the form of litigations in future. So delay is inevitable.

KKH's voicing for patience is a mature thought.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
16-11-2009, 07:30 PM
Dear Aggarwal,

Let us not conclude and jump to court. Better wait for some more time. Orders on other recommendations of CoS except that concerned to Additional Secretaries & Secretaries (S-30) are also not yet issued. Defence Minister said in Parliament that it is accepted. Finance Ministry has to clear and move file to DoP & PW. In view of yesterday's order on new grade pay for PB-2, it is felt that anomaly committee is also working on all the anomalies including this anomaly. Let us wait till anomaly committee's final reporting time is over and orders on other recommendations of CoS are also issued.

With Regards,

KKH Kutty

My dear KKHK. Where is this "yesterday's order on new grade pay for PB-2" mentioned above. I find pension portal site for "circular" displaying "page cannot be found." I am curious to know the full orders. M. L. Kanaujia.

sundarar
16-11-2009, 07:44 PM
Congratulations friends finance ministry has granted 4600 grade pay to all those who were in the pre revised scale of 6500-10500 wef 01-01-2006. Lr.no.1/1/2008-ic dated 13-11-2009. order available in www.finmin.nic.in

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by svsankar; 13-11-2009 at 09:00 PM.

aneesh
16-11-2009, 10:10 PM
Congratulations friends finance ministry has granted 4600 grade pay to all those who were in the pre revised scale of 6500-10500 wef 01-01-2006. Lr.no.1/1/2008-ic dated 13-11-2009. order available in www.finmin.nic.in

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by svsankar; 13-11-2009 at 09:00 PM.

What about those who are in pre revised scale 5500-9000 who have been downgraded and merged with old 5000 Group C scale

sundarar
16-11-2009, 11:01 PM
In other words, the scale 5500-9000 stands merged with 6500-10500 although the Grade Pay is same Rs.4200. In case, the scale is merged to 6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006, the pay in the pay band shall also be as applicable to 6500-10500. But in reality, the pre-revised pay is getting multiplied with 1.86 to derive corresponding pay in the pay band. Hopefully, the NAC may be throwing light over this aspect as to determine what should be the corresponding pay in the pay band applicable to pre-revised scale.
If we see how a person drawing pre-revised pay Rs.7300 will be getting his revised pay in the pay band, even after the scale is upgraded to 7450-11500,
whether by multiplying with 1.86 mf or by multiplying Rs.7450 with 1.86 mf.
The next higher grade for promotion in r/o merged scales 5000 and 5500 will however be eligible for grade pay Rs.4600, for which promotion, the overall qualifying service of 5000 scale as well as 5500 scale will be taken into account, so that earliest promotion becomes possible. Only after NAC Report is out, we can draw our own conclusions, till then we have to wait.

kkhameedkutty
18-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Dear All,

Defence Department has isuued orders implementing dispensation of 33 years requirement for full pension with effective from 1-1-2006 instead of 2-9-2008 in line with report CoS. Additional gratuity received in leu of of 5 years weightage is also withdrawn with effect from 1-1-2006. We can expect same order in respect of civilians also soon.

With Regards,

KKH Kutty

dkp_cus
18-11-2009, 08:56 PM
Dear All,

Defence Department has isuued orders implementing dispensation of 33 years requirement for full pension with effective from 1-1-2006 instead of 2-9-2008 in line with report CoS. Additional gratuity received in leu of of 5 years weightage is also withdrawn with effect from 1-1-2006. We can expect same order in respect of civilians also soon.

With Regards,

KKH Kutty

Thanks a lot for the news, may we see the light at the end of this bureaucratic tunnel !!
With regards,
DKP

Kanaujiaml
20-11-2009, 07:43 PM
Dear All,

Defence Department has isuued orders implementing dispensation of 33 years requirement for full pension with effective from 1-1-2006 instead of 2-9-2008 in line with report CoS. Additional gratuity received in leu of of 5 years weightage is also withdrawn with effect from 1-1-2006. We can expect same order in respect of civilians also soon.

With Regards,

KKH Kutty

Good News indeed. Where is the letter ? I would like to read it. Civilian must also get the same soon.

vnatarajan
20-11-2009, 08:02 PM
D/MLK
I have sent the link. PL try.
vn

dkp_cus
03-12-2009, 01:23 PM
Good News indeed. Where is the letter ? I would like to read it. Civilian must also get the same soon.

There seems no interest in giving their dues to the civilians by their working counterparts. More than a month has passed, but no sign of the news reg. civilians in this matter. Hope for the best. God save my Country. Thanks

Kanaujiaml
04-12-2009, 07:34 PM
There seems no interest in giving their dues to the civilians by their working counterparts. More than a month has passed, but no sign of the news reg. civilians in this matter. Hope for the best. God save my Country. Thanks

Dear friends. It appears the Govt. has now given full control to MOF to decide and issue OMs. They are acting very very slowly for implementing COS report. On my RTI query I had received the reply from CPIO/MOF-DOE-IC that the whole matter is under consideration of the Govt. and is still being acted upon. Hence, as per RTI ACT provisions, information cannot be furnished at this stage. Budget for next FY would be presented to Parliament soon i. e. end of Feb.2010. Let us hope, by then, decisions would come.

dkp_cus
10-12-2009, 05:52 PM
Dear friends. It appears the Govt. has now given full control to MOF to decide and issue OMs. They are acting very very slowly for implementing COS report. On my RTI query I had received the reply from CPIO/MOF-DOE-IC that the whole matter is under consideration of the Govt. and is still being acted upon. Hence, as per RTI ACT provisions, information cannot be furnished at this stage. Budget for next FY would be presented to Parliament soon i. e. end of Feb.2010. Let us hope, by then, decisions would come.

Thanks a lot for the response Sir; as you have mentioned we may have to wait and wait. May be the declaration will come in Govt. style to make everyone concerned happy, when they would have lost hope of getting it. Thanks again.

Kanaujiaml
11-12-2009, 06:40 PM
Dear friends. As I said in my post 70 above, the Govt. is acting slowly. They have now issued OM dt 10.12.09 declaring full pension on 20 years of qualifying service effective 01.01.2006. Congratulations to those who are getting benifitted directly and to others as well for their constant support. Although I am not benifiecery of this particular relief but I am really glad to see this happening because we had been debating for this for quite sometime on this forum.

venkatcustoms
11-12-2009, 09:33 PM
Dear friends. As I said in my post 70 above, the Govt. is acting slowly. They have now issued OM dt 10.12.09 declaring full pension on 20 years of qualifying service effective 01.01.2006. Congratulations to those who are getting benifitted directly and to others as well for their constant support. Although I am not benifiecery of this particular relief but I am really glad to see this happening because we had been debating for this for quite sometime on this forum.

The copy of the order is available in
http://persmin.gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/Pension/FullPension_11122009.pdf

vnatarajan
12-12-2009, 09:10 AM
Dear All,

We pat ourselves?. No- we shall pat the authorities once for being graceful to act in the interest of pensioners also- though post 2006.

We shall continue our struggle for all other issues in hand which include:

1.Injustice to pre-2006 pensioners wrt provision of correct Modified Parity so that the revised pre-2006 pension is not less than the minimum of the post 2006 pensions in any case. Recently Govt has given relief appreciating the disparity between the two amounts. FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS have not stood in the way for such corrections. In any case, the SCPC never recommended any revised pension less tha that of modified parity as mentioned above.

2.Delinking of 33 years for full pensioinhas to be logically extended backwards to all pre 2006 pensioners who have retired with a minimum of 20 years. ( Here the "full pension" may equate to the "modified parity" based pension where applicable).

vnatarajan

sundarar
12-12-2009, 10:54 AM
Respected Sirs,

Shri VNji has rightly acknowledged the bonafide intention of the authorities who exhibited their motherly attitude towards the aggrieved pensioners and a remarkable change in the environment is being noticed by all the Pensioners Community with an added hope and wish for a conducive atmosphere to prevail during the post-2006 scenario. The hard work rendered during the service of retirees is thereby acknowledged positively.
Likewise, the remaining crucial issues also will get settled without putting the pensioners community into any more hardship, in the days to come. While hoping for the best in all respects, with regard to the solid points expressed by Shri VNji, I submit certain portions of the Judgement dated 10.10.2006 in the Transfer Case (Civil) 72 of 2004 - Col. (Retd.) Shri B.J.Akkara vs Govt. of India & Ors. (Bench: Hon. Justice Shri G.P. Mathur and Hon. Justice Shri R.V. Raveendran) hereunder:

1) "Para 4……...........................

Re : Pensioners retiring on and after 1.1.1996
The (Defence) Ministry issued a circular dated 3.2.1998, providing that the retiring pension of Armed Force Officer retiring on or after 1.1.1996 shall be calculated at 50% of average of reckonable emoluments during the last 10
months of service, (reckonable emoluments being basic pay including rank
pay, stagnation increment and NPA) for a qualifying service of 33 years, to
be reduced proportionately for lesser period of qualifying service.

Para 5. The Ministry by Circular dated 7.6.1999, conveyed the decision of the President that ’with effect from 1.1.1996, pension of all Armed Forces
pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1.1.1996 of the rank, held by the pensioner.’ The circular provided that the revision of pension should be undertaken as follows in case of commissioned officers (both post and pre 1.1.1996 retirees) :

i) "Pension shall continue to be calculated at 50% of the average
emoluments in all cases and shall be subject to a minimum of
Rs.1275/- p.m. and a maximum of upto 50% of the highest pay
applicable to Armed Forces personnel but the full pension in no
case shall be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of
pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.96 for the rank last held by the
Commissioned Officer at the time of his/her retirement. However,
such pension shall be reduced pro rata, where the pensioner has
less than the maximum required service for full pension. [vide
clause 2.1 (a)]


2) Para 20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well
settled. They are :

a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension
cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal
treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and
some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the
time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is
subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get
enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of
pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In
such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment,
made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied
to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on
which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.

b) ..............
c)
................ What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.[Vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305], Krishna Kumar v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India [1991 (2) SCC 104], V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India [1998 (8) SCC 30] and Union of India v. Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 (7) SCC 662]".
---------------------------

As all of us are aware, Seventeenth of December of every year is considered as PENSIONERS’ DAY or often called as NAKRA’S DAY. LONG LIVE PENSIONERS’ UNITY – as quoted by Late Shri P.N.Padmanabhan (IRSEE)
(in his Book “GENERAL KNOWLEDGE FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN PENSIONERS, Volume I). On the historic Judgment of the Hon. SC further excerpts from the Book are as follows:

“At last it was on 17-12-1982, on a writ petition No.5939-41/1989 filed by Sri D.S.Nakra in 1980, the Full Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by the then Chief Justice, Sri Y.V.Chandrachud, came to the rescue of pensioners, by giving a landmark judgment, all in favour of pensioners.

The Supreme Court held that “The judgment came as a magna carta for the pensioners. It is a landmark in the evolution of the pension structure for past pensioners and in the history of pensioners’ movement. It gave the pensioners a new lease of life. For pensioners, that has become the law of the land. It provided inspiration, strength and optimism amongst the pensioners. It also brought a good respectable status for the pensioners in India. Thereupon, a large number of pensioners’ associations sprang up all over India. This judgment brought awareness in the mind of the GOI, and it realized that it couldn’t ignore the pensioners any more. That is why 17th of December of every year is celebrated all over India as “Pensioners’ Day”. [Sri Nakra entered service as a Class I officer of the Defence Accounts department, and retired in 1971 as Financial Advisor to Ministry of Defence].”

Heavy reliance has all along been placed on the judgment of Hon. SC in D.S. Nakra vs Union of India case ("D.S. Nakra"). It was held that for being eligible for liberalized pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/ groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. That was a case of a continuing benefit like pension.

As brought out by the Hon. SC in the judgment State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/2005
BENCH: Hon. Y. K. Sabharwal & Hon.B. N. Srikrishna) the case of D.S. Nakara was one of revision of pensionary benefits and classifications of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date".

In short, the principle behind the Judgment of the D.S. Nakra case is not to create class within class and not to treat unequals as equals.

The 5th CPC on its part, vide its recommendation Para 137.21 had recommended that `at the time of next pay revision, say in 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified parity as between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Let us hope the then GOI will respect this recommendation, and maintain the parity of old and new pensioners’.

The 6th CPC also made the following recommendations:

Para 11.33: Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.

Para 11.35: Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more (beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.

Further vide Para 5.1.5, the 6CPC observed that ensuring a fair deal for pensioners is one of their objectives. Keeping the said objective in view, it has recommended Para 5.1.47 under its Report, which indicated that “A Table (Annex. 5.1.1) showing the pension of existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendation of the Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners”. The Commission also stipulated that the fixation as per this Table will be subject to the provision that the pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Coincidentally, on the pensioners’ day in the year 1998, it was on 17 12 1998 the Rule of original modified parity came into existence adopting the basis of MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE which stands even today to give a hope to pensioners that the same will not be diluted either in letter or in spirit.

There will be a difference of up to 40% in pension between homogeneous pensioners of pre and post 2006 in case the delinking of 33 years for full pensioin is not extended backwards to all pre 2006 pensioners who have retired with 20 years service or otherwise pro-rata.

Taking into account all the aspects with particular reference to the need for modified parity and uniform treatment among pensioners as a homogenous class, our prayers on the Pensioners' Day this year is to ensure Justice prevail at all levels and at all point of time.

Best Regards

Sundarar.

dkp_cus
12-12-2009, 11:19 AM
Dear friends. As I said in my post 70 above, the Govt. is acting slowly. They have now issued OM dt 10.12.09 declaring full pension on 20 years of qualifying service effective 01.01.2006. Congratulations to those who are getting benifitted directly and to others as well for their constant support. Although I am not benifiecery of this particular relief but I am really glad to see this happening because we had been debating for this for quite sometime on this forum.

Thanks a lot Sir, for the Congrats. I wonder when the babus will think rationally and reduce burden of all, including their own.!!

sundarar
12-12-2009, 12:04 PM
Shri VNji's post of date and the follow-up message of date are quite significant in regard to crucial issues before us. Let the same did not get distracted through intervening messages, because the intention is to focus our issues presently prevailing on the eve of the Pensioner's day. Hope this observation will be taken in right spirit.

dnaga57
20-12-2009, 07:16 PM
It appears that those with 20-32 years service of pre2006 need to form a group to look for parity wit post 2006 for pension.
Any suggestions how we can go about it?

vnatarajan
21-12-2009, 07:28 AM
Dear Shri Nagarajan,

As the opinion wd vary from pensioner to pensioners, it may be difficult to arrive at a conclusion.

As it is, and as all are aware, the core issue (for pre-2006 pensioners) that concerns all is the correct MODIFIED PARITY.

Though I have an open mind in adding a corollary plea in any petition- stating in a general manner- that "while extending the modified parity to pre- 2006, Govt. may/ must also consider waiving the linkage of 33 yrs/ and replace it with 20yrs plus for full modified parity"

Of course the two issues are of different dimensions/ basis, as all have debated for and against.

AS U HAVE RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, KINDLY TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN THIS THREAD ITSELF TO COLLATE ALL THE DATA/ MATERIAL/ LISTING OF INDIVIDUALS/RTI infos/ OMs/ Court Cases if any etc and get prepared.

Even S29 Group may have scope for dealing with the issue sooner if the Modified Parity issue is settled ahead of our expectations!

ISSUES AT HAND:

1.Correct Modified Parity- for plus 33 years.- pre 2006 (has become a Core Issue now) to pre.......

2.Extension of Modified Parity to sub 33 yrs plus 20 years retirees/ including VRS. pre-2006 to ....

3.Issues related to PSU absorbees/ retirees with related issues.

4.Family Pension disparities.

5.FULL PARITY

6. UNIFORMITY IN PENSION RULES FOR ALL. ( I DONT SUPPOIRT THE ELITIST APPROACH EVEN FOR THE TOP-MOST SCALES!!)

MAY BE MORE ITEMS CAN BE THERE IN THE AGENDA.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
21-12-2009, 07:55 AM
It appears that those with 20-32 years service of pre2006 need to form a group to look for parity wit post 2006 for pension.
Any suggestions how we can go about it?

My advice to those who completed 20 yrs. of qualified service but not 33 yrs. and are getting superannuated Pension, should send an appeal to DOP for similar benifit. Unfortunately, DS Nakara case,BJ Akkra case and SPS Vains case wouldnot help as equity can be demanded for homogeneous group of pensioners that is those who retired with same pre revised pay scale,basic pay,qualifying service and status. However, there is no harm in sending appeals.

dnaga57
21-12-2009, 08:48 AM
Thank you Sir
Good advice. We need to build a case by appeals- RTI - legal basis etc.
So far the convention in GoI has been to include all pensioners for applicability & a prospective common date for effective from.
It may be proper for asking for same from 1-1-2006 on individual appeals to start with.
Also if anomalies committee takes up for staff, they have to extend it to ALL employees

krishnaja
25-12-2009, 02:08 PM
Grant of full pension effective from 01-01-2006.
Grant of full pension to Government servants who retired on or after 01-01-2006.
It is heartening to know that at last (OM dated 10-12-2009), full pension on 20 years of qualifying service effective 01-01-2006 (instead of earlier announced cut off date 02-08-2008) has been declared. Linkage of full pension with 33 years of service has been dispensed with, effective from 01-01-2006 instead of 02-08-2008. I am a beneficiary of this specific relief. I am particularly glad this happened, since many of us who were directly affected or otherwise had been quite active regarding this matter on this Forum, since the time OM dated 02-09-2008 had been issued. It also points out to an overall better atmosphere for meaningful discussions and a ray of hope for those affected. Thank you to all concerned who made it happen.

Dr.Mrs.Krishnaja A.P. 25-12-2009.

Kanaujiaml
26-12-2009, 08:10 AM
:D Dear Friends,
Season’s greetings and very happy and prosperous new year 2010 to you and all the family members. May the God fulfill all your wishes and the aspirations in the coming new year.Warm regards
from M. L. Kanaujia, Dehra Dun.

sundarar
27-12-2009, 10:41 AM
Para 5.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service shall be dispensed with. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of theemoluments or average emoluments received during thelast 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him.

Para 5.3 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

In cases where Govt. servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant.

Para 5.4 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

The provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Govt. servant retiring on or after that date(2.9.2008).

The Govt. servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O>M. (2.9.2008), will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.12.2008:

It has been decided that the provision of payment of pension at 50% of the emoluments (pay last drawn) or 50% of average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to the retiring employee, shall be applicable to all Govt. servants retiring on or after 1.1.2006.

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated10.12.2009:
It has been decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006.
The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006). Para 5.4 will further stand modified to that extent.

As per the extant orders, only those Govt. servants retired/retiring after 1.1.2006 are entitled to get their pension calculated on the basis of revised methodology/formula spelt through the OM dated 11.12.2008 and 10.12.2009.

Under the circumstances, a genuine question may arise as to -

Whether a Govt. servant retired prior to 1.1.2006 can expect that his basic pension due on the date of retirement, will have to be recalculated
(i) based on his last pay drawn or average emoluments for the past 10 months prior to the date of retirement whichever is beneficial and
(ii) based on the minimum qualifying service of 20 years for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, strictly on par with those who retired/retiring after 1.1.Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India2006?

The Reply could be `YES’ - as long as the liberalised/amended decision is not a wholly new concept, a new retiral benefit, the Govt. servants who retired prior to 1.1.2006 will definitely expect for such recomputation of pension based on the amended/liberalised decision.

The following legal position that got projected in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India case will make it clear as to where exactly, the pre-2006 pensioners stand with reference to the elongation of the already accrued retiral benefit, that has a basic correlation with emoluments and qualifying service.

"If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases".

In the case State of Punjab Vs Justice S.S. Dawan (Retd. Chief Justice) & Ors. 1997(4) SCC 569, (as discussed in the aforesaid Judgment) it was held that:

`Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The Formula adopted for determining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of pension. D.S.Nakara case involved the change of formula for determining average emoluments and it was treated as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. On parity of reasoning it can be said that any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regarded as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme.

If an employee is already covered by an existing scheme and the main determinative factor for computation of his pension, at the time of his retirement, undergoes any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service then such a modification can be treated as elongation of the already accrued retiral benefit".

The petitioner Shri D.S.Nakara and the landmark Judgment in his case paving way for various valuable judgments are always live in the minds of the Pensioners' Community[/QUOTE]

vnatarajan
28-12-2009, 08:41 PM
Dear sub 33 years/ plus 20 years PRE-2006 pensioners/ others,

I believe Shri Sundarar has taken pains to put forth all th relevant details to serve as VITAL INPUTS for making appeals by the pre-2006- sub 33/ plus 20yr-other similarly affected pensioners to all the authorities AFRESH in a legalistic manner and thereby build up the BASE for a legal fight soon.

I congratulate him for achieving the OBJECTIVE in preparing this draft in an effective manner- which was not so easy!

THE PROPOSED LEGAL FIGHT CAN BE PLANNED TO FOLLOW THE PROGRESS OF THE "MODIFIED PARITY" CASE CLOSE ON ITS HEELS.

Success shall come only when we struggle!

Cheers- Happy New year to all.

Regards

vnatarajan

dnaga57
31-12-2009, 07:35 AM
A Very Joyous, purposeful, fulfilling New Year to all of you
:)
D Naga 57

G.Ramdas
22-01-2010, 06:37 AM
Dear All,
Sh. Sundarar's analysis is excellent:so also the comentary by Sh.VN. The extracts of the orders read as under

"Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated10.12.2009:
It has been decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006.
The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006). Para 5.4 will further stand modified to that extent."

This does not clearly state or clarify the position in respect of pensioners who come under the category of "sub20years of service , who retired after 1.1.06". Is it not that in their cases the pension will be pro- rata based on 20 years qualifying service instead of 33 years for full pension. If so the statement "linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006" should have been substituted by " linkage of full pension will be with 20 years of qualifying service instead of 33 years with effect from 1.1.2006 "
This would have avoided confusion. I understand that in respect of a pensioner who retired on 30.09.2008 with 19 years qualifying service, his pension has been fixed as 19 /33 and not 19/20.Better clarity in the O.Ms would have have been helpful to such pensioners

G.Ramdas

sundarar
22-01-2010, 07:23 AM
Dear All,
Sh. Sundarar's analysis is excellent:so also the comentary by Sh.VN. The extracts of the orders read as under

"Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated10.12.2009:
It has been decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006.
The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006). Para 5.4 will further stand modified to that extent."

This does not clearly state or clarify the position in respect of pensioners who come under the category of "sub20years of service , who retired after 1.1.06". Is it not that in their cases the pension will be pro- rata based on 20 years qualifying service instead of 33 years for full pension. If so the statement "linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006" should have been substituted by " linkage of full pension will be with 20 years of qualifying service instead of 33 years with effect from 1.1.2006 "
This would have avoided confusion. I understand that in respect of a pensioner who retired on 30.09.2008 with 19 years qualifying service, his pension has been fixed as 19 /33 and not 19/20.Better clarity in the O.Ms would have have been helpful to such pensioners

G.Ramdas

Thank you very much Shri GRDji.

The para 5.1 of the OM dated 2.9.2008 in respect of post-2006 pensioners prescribe a minimum pensionable service of 10 years for entitlement of pension.

Full pension requires 20 years service. A pensionable service of 10 years will entitle pension. But at what rate. It must definitely be on the basis of the service requirement for full pension. There cannot be two different service requirement (i) for full pension 20 years (ii) for pro-rata 33 years. In case if any pensioner's pension is fixed based on 19/33 after 1.1.2006 it would have been misinterpreted. No where it is mentioned that for pro-rata pension, that the existing service requirement of 33 years only will hold good. The pro-rata has a basis on the full pension that would be derived on the respective service requirement. Earlier, when the max. qualifying service of 30 years was revised as 33 years, the pro-rata pension of thoses retired after such revision with less than 30/33 years would also have been determined on the basis of revised qualifying service of 33 years.
There is a minimum q.s. for pension and also a min. q.s. for full pension.
As you had rightly pointed out the clarity must prevail to avoid any confusion leading to reducing effect or otherwise. In the case cited by your goodself, the pension would have been provisionally fixed for want of formal amendments in respect of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and may undergo further revision at a later stage. In case any pensioner got full pension based on 20 years service after 1.1.2006, then the pro-rata pension shall also be fixed based on the revised/liberalised/amended service requirement.

Best Regards Sundarar

sundarar
14-02-2010, 08:38 PM
Para 5.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of Qualifying Service shall be dispensed with. Once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of theemoluments or average emoluments received during thelast 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him.

Para 5.3 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

In cases where Govt. servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant.

Para 5.4 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

The provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Govt. servant retiring on or after that date(2.9.2008).

The Govt. servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O>M. (2.9.2008), will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders.

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.12.2008:

It has been decided that the provision of payment of pension at 50% of the emoluments (pay last drawn) or 50% of average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to the retiring employee, shall be applicable to all Govt. servants retiring on or after 1.1.2006.

Para 2 of DOP&PW OM F.No. 38/37/38-P&PW(A) dated10.12.2009:
It has been decided that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with, with effect from 1.1.2006.
The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and 5.3 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 shall come into force with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to the Govt. servants retired/retiring after that date (1.1.2006). Para 5.4 will further stand modified to that extent.
[/QUOTE]

The following paragraph in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India are quite significant to note.

“In the case of All India reserve Bank retired Officers Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664, A.M. Ahmadi, J (as he then was), spoke for the Division Bench of two learned Judges. The case before this Court in the aforesaid decision was whether the cut-off date fixed for bringing into force the pension scheme which earlier did not exist for the Bank employees could be said to be discriminatory from any angle. The Court while distinguishing Nakara’s ratio held that: "Employees of the Reserve Bank of India were, prior to the introduction of the pension scheme, enjoying superannuation benefits comprising (i) CPF and (ii) gratuity.....". The pension scheme was being introduced for the first time from the cut-off date. In these circumstances, the employees who had retired earlier when pension scheme was not available could not make effective grievance in connection with those of a few other categories who retire latter when pension scheme had already come into force. Ahmadi, J., speaking for the Court in the aforesaid decision highlighted the observations in Nakara’s case found at page 333 para 46 to the following effect:
".... the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it
is not a new scheme, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit. If it was a wholly new concept, a new retrial benefit, one could have appreciated an argument that those who had already retired could not expect it."
The portion mentioned in Nakara’s case clearly indicated that all the employees in Nakara’s case were governed by the existing scheme and were the recipients of retrial benefits. It was an upward revision of the existing benefit that would in normal course be made available to all such beneficiaries of existing retrial benefits. On the facts of the present case, as seen earlier, employees like the appellant who had retired prior to the amendment of clause (c) of rule 22(1) were not recipients of any existing benefit of pension. They were in fact out of the pension scheme whatsoever being employees who had not completed 50
years of age even though they had completed 20 years pensionable service. For such employees there was no retrial benefit till appropriate amendment of clause (c) of rule 22(1). Consequently, the amended clause (c) must be held to be conferring a new retrial benefit and not enhancing the existing benefit for such employees. The aforesaid decision of this Court in the All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association case (supra) therefore, also could not be effectively distinguished by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that in that case there was no pension scheme while in this case there was an existing pension scheme.”

Further, in the aforesaid All India Reserve Bank Retd. Officers Assn. case,
it was observed that there is no doubt that wheneer any rule or regulation being statutory flavour is made by an authority which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the choice of the cut-off date which has necessarily to be introduced to effectuate such benefits is open to scrutiny by the Court and must be suported on the touchstone of the Aticle 14. If the choice of the cut off date results in classification or division of members of a homogenous group, it would be open to the Court to insist that it be shown that the classification is based on an intelligible differential and on rationate consideration which bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The differential purpose and object thereof. The differential treatment accorded to those who retired prior to the specified date and those who retired subsequent there to must be justified in the touchstone of Article 14 for otherwise it would be offensive to the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution. In this case, while permitting the cut off date fixed by the Department, it was observed by the Court that:

"In fixing the cut off date the respondents had not acted malafide with a view to deprive those who had retired on or before December 31, 1985 of the benefits of the pension scheme but for reasons stated above it was not practicable to extend the benefit to such retirees. The rationale for fixing the cut off date January 1, 1986 was the same as in the case of Central Govt. employees based on the recommendations of the fourth Pay Commission".

Incidentally, it is all the more necessary to ensure that Decisions are to be applied in accordance with fact situation of a case. The case of pre-2006 pensioners stand on a different footing and hence while the petition in the aforesaid case was rejected, the anology of that case, however, will support the cause of pre-2006 pensioners. Same is the case in respect of the decision in respect of V.Kasturi case. Both the decisions in reality, are
supportive to remove the cut-off date in respect of pre-2006 pensioners.

Whatever the justification exists in removing the cut off date 2.9.2008 after a period of year long battle by replacing with 1.1.2006 in respect of post 1.1.2006 pensioners(but pre-2.9.08) for the purpose of calculation of pension based on completion of 20 years for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, holds good in the case of pre-2006 pensioners also, as there is no difference between pre-2.9.2008 pensioners and pre-2006 pensioners while initially allowing the dispensation of qualifying service of 33 years with prospective effect. It is once again emphasised here that only payment of pension will have prospective effect and hence the cut off date 1.1.2006 acquires significance to that extent for the homogenous class of pensioners which include pre-2006 as well as post-2006 retirees. Pension is all along determined on the basis of qualifying service and emoluments last drawn and hence it cannot have a reducing effect arbitrarily by involving a cut off date for the purpose of re-computation of entitled pension in the revised structure, but only for the purpose of disbursement of such pension arrived at, such cut off date may acquire significance to that extent.

It is also significant to note that the 6th CPC has recommended extension of formula/methodology as is being applied for serving employees, for the pensioners also. Thus, it is not only for dispensation of linkage of 33 years q.s. for full pension, but also for the purpose of entitled revised pension under para 4.1 (as para 4.2 will be a non-existance in that case) on the same anology followed for a similar retiree in the corresponding revised scale, the aforesaid recommendation matters.

dnaga57
13-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Can we take this issue forward thru a subgroup.....
There is more to gain by this benefit than modified parity. Those interested of 20+ years of qualifying service may post.

kktaneja
29-04-2010, 09:53 AM
I entirey agree. This is an issue which is of vital importance to those who are affected, though there may not be very many in civil services. There is a need to have a fix on the numbers/persons involved. This runs across all pay bands. Those affected or having info even of family pensioner may post. It may be worthwhile forming a group say y20 on lines of s29googlegroup.

dnaga57
30-04-2010, 07:50 AM
I entirey agree. This is an issue which is of vital importance to those who are affected, though there may not be very many in civil services. There is a need to have a fix on the numbers/persons involved. This runs across all pay bands. Those affected or having info even of family pensioner may post. It may be worthwhile forming a group say y20 on lines of s29googlegroup.

You seem to be clairvoyant Mr Taneja. I logged in today just to suggest that.
[The family pensioners are unaffected as they are cobered by 30% of MPB without reckoning qualifying years.]
I note as follows

S29 groups are in CAT for modified parity
s 30 group is in CAT for full parity
other pensioners groups are all over, Luvknow, Hyderabad, Chandigarh etc for different grievances
No one is looking for Full Pension parity for 20 years qualifying service

I endorse the sugestion for forming a group. It is best done - like S29 - with a Delhi base.
My opening post on this subject can be the preamble basis. We may have to get relevant OMs or PPOs of pre & post to illustrate.
The operative argument would be Effective from & Applicability. Also no divisio of pensioners into two calsses - pre 2006 & post 2006.
Any takers.
I can lend support from Secunderabad

Kanaujiaml
30-04-2010, 01:03 PM
My dear dnaga. One more pensioners association is soon going to Delhi High Court. They are in contact with me. Their Advocate wanted to discuss issue of revised pension to pre 2006 retirees and requested me to talk to the advocate on their behalf, which I did. The advocate concerned, a very renowned person, was of the opinian that the law has been set by DS Nakara Case Judgement. He opined that there cannot be descrimination between pre and post 2006 retirees, as descrimination amounts to violation of Article 14 and the law set by Constitutional Bench in DS Nakara case. He was of the opinian that SCPC recommendation of modified parity, earlier accepted by Govt. with the approval of Union Cabinet, can latter be denied, by modification, with the post facto approval of Union Cabinet. Once this is done i. e. post facto approval is obtained, case for modified parity would no longer stand in any Court. Therefore, he is of the opinian that case should be fought for "full parity" from very beginning. Incidentally, full parity means, full pension on completing 20yrs service as well.

dnaga57
30-04-2010, 01:26 PM
My dear dnaga. One more pensioners association is soon going to Delhi High Court. They are in contact with me. Their Advocate wanted to discuss issue of revised pension to pre 2006 retirees and requested me to talk to the advocate on their behalf, which I did. The advocate concerned, a very renowned person, was of the opinian that the law has been set by DS Nakara Case Judgement. He opined that there cannot be descrimination between pre and post 2006 retirees, as descrimination amounts to violation of Article 14 and the law set by Constitutional Bench in DS Nakara case. He was of the opinian that SCPC recommendation of modified parity, earlier accepted by Govt. with the approval of Union Cabinet, can latter be denied, by modification, with the post facto approval of Union Cabinet. Once this is done i. e. post facto approval is obtained, case for modified parity would no longer stand in any Court. Therefore, he is of the opinian that case should be fought for "full parity" from very beginning. Incidentally, full parity means, full pension on completing 20yrs service as well.

Dear MLK
Is it possible for me to join this group also..... Total nondiscrimination between pre & post 2006 retirees in ALL aspects would be worth fighting for.
I can pay the relevent fees to them...
Pls let me know.

vnatarajan
30-04-2010, 04:16 PM
Parity in Full Pension between pre and post 2006 retirees on completion of 20 years service, on the anology "initially denied to pre Sept 2008 retirees but later relaxed to them through 10th Dec 2009 of DOPPW" , makes a strong basis for the former category to go to PR CAT/ Courts.

I FEEL THE ISSUE OF "MODIFIED PARITY" CAN BE EASILY CIRCUMVENTED FOR THEM AS THE OM OF 10TH DEC 2009 PROVIDES A STRONG BASIS.

When a relaxation is given to pre Sept 2008 pensioners of same category, similar relaxation can be sought for the pre 2006 category also.

(Clear details must be collected as to how the VRS retirees in the Trisanku Period got the one-time benefits and of 5 yr plus factor etc)

A good home-work may make the case strong.

(My personal view).

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
01-05-2010, 07:37 AM
The case put up by V. Natarajan ji is based on administrative grounds. Govt. may or may not consider it. For pensioner, more likely that it may not work, there being no force or pressure behind it.

Kanaujiaml
01-05-2010, 07:41 AM
Dear MLK
Is it possible for me to join this group also..... Total nondiscrimination between pre & post 2006 retirees in ALL aspects would be worth fighting for.
I can pay the relevent fees to them...
Pls let me know.

My dear dnaga ji. This case is being put up by an association of para military forces retirees on whom CAT or any other tribunal is not applicable. Thus, they are free to approach High Court straight away. I hope you understand the implications.

dnaga57
01-05-2010, 07:43 AM
Parity in Full Pension between pre and post 2006 retirees on completion of 20 years service, on the anology "initially denied to pre Sept 2008 retirees but later relaxed to them through 10th Dec 2009 of DOPPW" , makes a strong basis for the former category to go to PR CAT/ Courts.

I FEEL THE ISSUE OF "MODIFIED PARITY" CAN BE EASILY CIRCUMVENTED FOR THEM AS THE OM OF 10TH DEC 2009 PROVIDES A STRONG BASIS.

When a relaxation is given to pre Sept 2008 pensioners of same category, similar relaxation can be sought for the pre 2006 category also.

(Clear details must be collected as to how the VRS retirees in the Trisanku Period got the one-time benefits and of 5 yr plus factor etc)

A good home-work may make the case strong.

(My personal view).

VNatarajan
cAN WE ORGANISE A Pre 200620 YEARS + Group.
The documents needed would be ( please correct- modify)

Relevent portions of 6th PC recommendations
Relevent OMs rgarding the applicability- 1st version w.r.t 2-9-2008 only
2nd revision extending it retrospectively to 1-1-2006
The historic points in my opening post in this thread
OMs w.r.t them where possible
PPOs - 1st & 2ndmodifying the 1st- of a 20 years+ person retiring in the period 1-1-2006 to 2-9-2008
Alegal mind to guide the course of action - possiblly one appeal then CAT

Will those concerned respond early

vnatarajan
01-05-2010, 10:59 AM
I think Shri KKHKutty had done lot of home-work wrt some of the items Shri dnaga has listed.

Since, first plan cd be to go to CAT, my suggestion is to form the group at S' bad itself if Shri dNaga can coordinate.

Lot of scientists/ engineers who have taken VRS/ fell short of 33 yrs etc may join to form this group.

There cd be about 10 or more of the CGSAGS29PA group members also falling in this category.

OMs- first denial of May 2009 (if I am correct)also relevant.

Com on OROP Report making the first suggestion of relaxation for the Defence Officers of pre Sept 2008 was the harbinger for relaxatiuon - if I am correct.

Bottlenecks have to be visualised.

STRATEGY shd be formulated. For example: (purely my view pl.)

Fir eg Demand could be "initially" drafted as if it is for "OFFICERS" only - otherwise the "admin" difficulty in implementing such a relaxation to all across the board for civil/ defence pre-2006 pensioners- running into lakhs and lakhs will be posed as an excuse ( for defence personnel, this may be a real difficulty as the no will be huge- same excuse as for their OROP).

(Accdg to me - Even for para-miltary it is going to be a difficult breakthrough- as the Defence pertsonnel can not be let out if they stand in comparison to Para-military)

vnatarajan

(RTI MATERIAL- AND FILE-NOTES INCLUDING THOSE FROM MIN OF LAW & JUSTICE FOR THE ISSUE OF OM OF MAY 2009 PERHAPS ARE AVAILABLE IN SHRI AR'S COLLECTION.

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION CD BE STUDIED. RELEVANT COURT CASES/ LEGAL ASPECTS CD BE ALSO SEEN THERE.

IF I AM CORRECT, HESITATION IN EXTENDING THE BENFIT RETROSPECTIVELY - BY SHIFTING FROM SEPT 2008 BACKWARDS TO JAN 2006 IS ALSO COVERED THEREIN THOUGH INDIRECTLY.

I MAY BE WRONG- AGE FACTOR VS MY MEMORY RETENTION- SO PL CHK)

FURTHER SUGGESTION:

DR KOTRA MALLIKARHUNA RAO RETD DRDO S29 PENSIONER CAN OTHERWISE HELP ALL TO FIGHT THIS CASE ALSO ALONGSIDE THE ONE HIS GROUP (70 PLUS STRONG AND MAY BE 20 MORE) HAS NOW PETITIONED AT CAT HYDERABAD FOR S29 MODIFIED PARITY (SCRUTINY OVER- OA NO TO BE ALLOTTED AFTER VACATION).

dnaga57
02-05-2010, 02:48 PM
Dear Shri VN
Can you give me shri Kotla Mallikarjuna Rao tel no or mail ID. I can talk to him, be useful in whatever manner I could be.
Thanks in advance:)

vnatarajan
02-05-2010, 05:23 PM
Dear Shri Naga

I shall send the email id of Shri Kotra separately.
Meeting him at Hyderabad may be quite useful.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
09-05-2010, 07:27 AM
Dear pre2006 <33years pensioner friends
In the other case S29 group has got PPOs of one pensioner of 31-12-05 & anothrt of 5-1-06.
Can we search for & find a similar case of 20+ retiree pre & post 2006, to show the gross disparity in retirement pension.
This could form the basis of a strong supplementary to any of the current cases.
Please start searching... chances are in Defence services.....

vnatarajan
19-05-2010, 08:58 AM
Not among Defence Retirees if I am permitted to comment pl.

Best to try in some of the Scientific Deptts like DAE/ DRDO/DRDL/CSIR Labs/ISRO-DOS etc
Also in ITS- Telecom Retirees.
Also Railways to some extent.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
20-05-2010, 07:38 AM
Thank you Sir
Let us hope there would be some responses :p

Haladhar Patal
21-05-2010, 03:28 PM
I was selected through UPSC directly in prerevised scale of 800-13500 in 1994 and after 6th CPC got GP 5400/- , now I will get 1st upgradation to GP 6600/- since I have completed 10yrs, next yr I may get promotion to higher post but same GP of 6600/-, when I will get 2nd financial upgradation to GP 7700/- , on completion of 10 yrs in 6600/- in 2020 or just after another 4 yrs in 2014 since I completed 1o yrs on 2004 and total 20 yrs on 2014

vnatarajan
22-05-2010, 02:05 PM
Dear Mr Patal- This is mainly a Pensioners' Forum- so pl post your query under the appropriate thread from the list dealing with those in service.

dnaga57
24-05-2010, 06:48 AM
Thank you Sir
Let us hope there would be some responses :p

I hope pensioners are still reading this site.
The 'modified parity' MPPB isuue predominantly affects S29.
The isuue of <33 years -actually 20-28 years service pnsioners affects ALL pensioners.
Any interest in moving the authorities collectively- through staff reps?
:(

dnaga57
02-06-2010, 07:57 AM
I hope pensioners are still reading this site.
The 'modified parity' MPPB isuue predominantly affects S29.
The isuue of <33 years -actually 20-28 years service pnsioners affects ALL pensioners.
Any interest in moving the authorities collectively- through staff reps?
:(

Any body interested-
Kindly note that the benefit of Full pension after 20 years will be more than Modified parity benefit.
Still waiting for some response ;)

vnatarajan
03-06-2010, 11:02 AM
B]Shri D Naga had been trying hard to convince many sub33 plus 20 pensioners:

In this regard, pl REALISE AND WORK OUT what is your loss?

For example a 20 yr VRS S29 Pensioners - may draw pension today:

23700 x 20/33 x 135/ 100 (with SR) : 23480 pm as pension approx.

Whereas, apost 2006 20yr S29 retiree will draw as much as:

27350 x 135/100 : 36922 p. m Loss as on today: 13400 pm or so

(Courtesy my friend Shri AR- and correctly pointed out)

Now make up yiur minds- fight or not to fight!

(Pl chk figures- I may go wrong)
VNatarajan

r21vvrao
03-06-2010, 01:40 PM
I am a pensioner , located at Hyderabad ,retired from S- 26 scale and my pension is fixed at the minimum of PB-4 +gp. Bank fixed it as per orders and sent Annexure 3 to CPAO . Normally CPAO has to acknowledge it to bank, but it did not do it and RBI auditors are asking the bank to obtain an acknowledgment from CPAO . So far CPAO has not done it and I also had sent a request to them to acknowledge it. This is one part of story, but I am getting pension without any problem.
I agree that justice has not been done to pre 2006 pensioners and an appeal must be made by all and if necessary to CAT and court also. In fact this problem is for all higher scales in all Pay bands. Successively all earlier pay commissions have ignored the seniority of officers ( and increments earned in a scale) in fixing pay in revised scales. Only sixth pay commission has done it by giving one increment for every two increments . However this has been ignored by Govt orders for pre 2006 pensioners and accepted it only for serving employees.I consider it as not correct . I can join the force that is fighting for this cause. I can send an individual appeal or if a drafted appeal is there , I can send it.
V. Venkata Rao

vnatarajan
03-06-2010, 03:53 PM
Dear Shri Rao,

Welcome.

This thread started by Shri D Naga- I think- addresses the problem of 20yr plus retirees etc and your problem is related to Modified Parity.

Pl read the threads - their titles starting the with "InUSTICE......" and also " JSUTICE......." and you will know the history that is happening since 20 months here.

Already 17 CAT/ PR CAT/ HIGH COURT/ SUPREME COURT cases are there- which pre-2006/1996 civil/ military pensioners are fighting and the main ISSUE is the MODIFIED PARITY - the one which you have touched upon.

THOUGH PRE- 2006 S26 PENSIONERS ARE NOT SO GREATLY AFFECTED ( in comparison to S29) by the SCPC Mod Parity issue- I am not mentioning about full parity losses) , it may be worthwhile to join the issue and fight it out.

Pl join the issue in the other threads. You may also try to form a group of pre-2006/ older S26 Pensioners so that you may join as co-petitioners in some Mod Parity Cat case at your location- Hyderabad under the leadership of Dr Kotra Mallikarjuna Rao, DRDO Scoinetist H- who is fighting out the S29 Pensioners' issue. Shri D Naga is also in touch with him

Regards
VNatarajan

dnaga57
03-06-2010, 07:04 PM
B]Shri D Naga had been trying hard to convince many sub33 plus 20 pensioners:

In this regard, pl REALISE AND WORK OUT what is your loss?

For example a 20 yr VRS S29 Pensioners - may draw pension today:

23700 x 20/33 x 135/ 100 (with SR) : 23480 pm as pension approx.

Whereas, apost 2006 20yr S29 retiree will draw as much as:

27350 x 135/100 : 36922 p. m Loss as on today: 13400 pm or so

(Courtesy my friend Shri AR- and correctly pointed out)

Now make up yiur minds- fight or not to fight!

(Pl chk figures- I may go wrong)
VNatarajan
Thanks VN
As always highlighting the vital bit.
A coorection on calculation
It should be 23700x25/33x 1.35 = 24238 p.m ( 20 years optees got 5 year weightage mostly)
One small addition to your calculation.

1..... PB4 with current scenario:
23700 x 135/100 = 31995 against 24238.00 i.e 7757
2. PB 4 with 27350 without 20 years weightage
27350x25/33 x 135/100 = 27971 against 24238 i.e 3733 only
As S29 pensioners group - of which we are part of will give us a benefot of 3733 only ( Welcome though)
As <33 years pensioners our benefit as it is would be 7757, with Modified parity it will be 12684.00
I hope you can see the benefit denied to us.
Since it was given retrospectively to post 1-1-2006 to 2-8-2009 retirees we have agood case on its being appplicable to ALL effective though from 1-1-2006.
Any takers !!!!!

r21vvrao
04-06-2010, 12:47 PM
Shri Natarajan,
Thank you for your quick reply. Can I get telephone no or E-mail of Dr K. Mallikarjuna rao at Hyderabad.
with regards
V.venkata rao

vnatarajan
04-06-2010, 02:23 PM
Shri D Naga,

Thanks for the observations.

But pl check on these:

- 1..... PB4 with current scenario:
23700 x 135/100 = 31995 against 24238.00 i.e 7757
2. PB 4 with 27350 without 20 years weightage
27350x25/33 x 135/100 = 27971 against 24238 i.e 3733 only

In an "ideal" case of S29 Post 2006 or rather 9/2008 (to avoid controversy of trisanku period) Retiree -who just gets/ is already in the Jt Secy scale at 20 yrs, then he will have a minimum basic of Rs 44700 plus GP 10000, and when he "retires" at that point of time , his pension has to be full - and no ratios. He will draw 27350. Today, it has to be 27350 x 1.35 = 36922!- HOW CAN YOU REDUCE HIS PENSION? Order says full pension. Weightage of 5 yrs will be gone wef 2.9.2008. That is my understanding! I dont know if I am wrong!

That is what I was pointing out.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
04-06-2010, 02:25 PM
D Shri VVR

Pl send a message on this Gconnect Discussion Board thru the options with ur email id.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
04-06-2010, 07:37 PM
Shri D Naga,

Thanks for the observations.

But pl check on these:

- 1..... PB4 with current scenario:
23700 x 135/100 = 31995 against 24238.00 i.e 7757
2. PB 4 with 27350 without 20 years weightage
27350x25/33 x 135/100 = 27971 against 24238 i.e 3733 only

In an "ideal" case of S29 Post 2006 or rather 9/2008 (to avoid controversy of trisanku period) Retiree -who just gets/ is already in the Jt Secy scale at 20 yrs, then he will have a minimum basic of Rs 44700 plus GP 10000, and when he "retires" at that point of time , his pension has to be full - and no ratios. He will draw 27350. Today, it has to be 27350 x 1.35 = 36922!- HOW CAN YOU REDUCE HIS PENSION? Order says full pension. Weightage of 5 yrs will be gone wef 2.9.2008. That is my understanding! I dont know if I am wrong!

That is what I was pointing out.

vnatarajan
Dear VN
Not clear on your observation.
I had said that scenario for pre 2006 <33 years pensioners only as
31995 without MPPB @ current rate of 23700 full &
27971 with MPPB i.e 27350 basic pension
The benefit to a <33 years pre 2006 retiree is substantially more if they fight for Full Pension for 20 yrs than MPPB ( not that I dilute our commitment to it , but it is a motivational pitch).
My take is that
1. the best scenario will be MPPB plus Full pension for +20 years pre 2006 retiree
2...2nd best is as it is now with Full pension for +20 years guys
3.... 3rd best is MPPB with NO Full pension
The trishanku guys are in 1st category.
I hope I am clear

vnatarajan
05-06-2010, 05:17 PM
FINE.

I think for sl no 2, a separate CAT case can be mounted for FULL PENSION FOR PRE 2006 PLUS 20 YRS RETIREES WHICH I THINK YOU HAD BEEN TRYING TO MOTIVATE.

It can cut across all scales.

"JUSTICE FOR 20 YR PLUS PRE-2006 RETIREES OF ALL PRE-REVISED SCALES- ACTION PLAN" - a thread may be started afresh- giving a "table of notional loss scalewise- slabwise etc". We shd try something as "old threads" have become weary !

AN EFFORT SHD BE MADE TO OBTAIN THRU RTI SOURCES ACTUAL Pre-2006 RETIREES IN THIS CATEGORY - a. VRS Cases and b. Normal Retirees, together with requisite details to the extent possible.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
07-06-2010, 01:15 PM
My dear VN ji. In para 20 of its Judgment dated 10.10.2006, in BJ Akkra Case (Transer Case Civil No. 72 of 2004) hon'ble Supreme Court has given certain observations.Entire Judgment is available on Supreme Court website. I would request you to kindly give your comments on it in this forum.

vnatarajan
07-06-2010, 02:40 PM
It is for the pre-2006 pensioners of this category themselves to get satisfied that they have a parity case or otherwise.

Personally I feel if "20 yrs service post 2006 retirees" are eligible for full pension, why not those of "pre-2006 20 yr retirees" ?

QS being same on either side - pension claim could be voiced. May be other one-time benefits can not be claimed.

Govt had given the benefit of full pension to Trisanku pensioners of this category, in Dec 2009 , after denying the same initially in May 2009!

How come this departure happened?

May be Shri DNaga will be able to explain better.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
07-06-2010, 03:51 PM
It is for the pre-2006 pensioners of this category themselves to get satisfied that they have a parity case or otherwise.

Personally I feel if "20 yrs service post 2006 retirees" are eligible for full pension, why not those of "pre-2006 20 yr retirees" ?

QS being same on either side - pension claim could be voiced. May be other one-time benefits can not be claimed.

Govt had given the benefit of full pension to Trisanku pensioners of this category, in Dec 2009 , after denying the same initially in May 2009!

How come this departure happened?

May be Shri DNaga will be able to explain better.

vnatarajan
I am still groping with mustering some numbers - which should be sizable, given it affects ALL <33 years pre 2006 retirees.
In the case of 'trishanku' retirees ( between 1-1-2006 & 2-9-2008, it is likely that they had weightage of 5 years for Gratutity. I suppose they have to pay back the excess or get it adjusted as per new pay scale.
Unless someone comes up with the info, my statement will be hypothetical only.
I wish to reiterate that

The 20 yr Full pension should be applicable to ALL
Its effectiveness would be date of retirement or 1-1-2006 whichever is later.
There is a greater loss to pensioners on this account than MPPB

Hope I will start getting some responses.
Also the curent cases will add this plea too

rama1948
07-06-2010, 06:42 PM
Sir,
I have taken VRS from Dept of space w.e.f 1.9.1993 after putting in 21 yrs 4 months( add 5 yrs in Qual.service= 53 Half Years) in S-24 and am getting Rs 18,400/- as my basic( 23050*53/66, my SBI pension cell in HYB has calculated it as 18400.00). I would like to join any legal recourse, if intended.
My email is : [email protected]

regards
Ramana Rao

dnaga57
08-06-2010, 07:05 AM
Sir,
I have taken VRS from Dept of space w.e.f 1.9.1993 after putting in 21 yrs 4 months( add 5 yrs in Qual.service= 53 Half Years) in S-24 and am getting Rs 18,400/- as my basic( 23050*53/66, my SBI pension cell in HYB has calculated it as 18400.00). I would like to join any legal recourse, if intended.
My email is : [email protected]

regards
Ramana Rao

Exactly.
You are losing 4650.00 by this.
MPPB will give you zero addition.
In my case my basic pension is 18313 ( 23700*51/66). i.e less 5387.00
In MPPB - prorated pension would be 21134 i.e a gain of 2821.00 only
Still 2500 less than above.
Of course MPPB with 20 years Full pension would be the best :)
Each <33 years pensioners can check their own position. Then we can move forward- if sufficient numbers join.

Kanaujiaml
11-06-2010, 10:05 PM
Exactly.
You are losing 4650.00 by this.
MPPB will give you zero addition.
In my case my basic pension is 18313 ( 23700*51/66). i.e less 5387.00
In MPPB - prorated pension would be 21134 i.e a gain of 2821.00 only
Still 2500 less than above.
Of course MPPB with 20 years Full pension would be the best :)
Each <33 years pensioners can check their own position. Then we can move forward- if sufficient numbers join.

Was it a volunteering retirement after putting twenty five and half years of service or was it a case of superannuation retirement ?

kktaneja
11-06-2010, 10:37 PM
Was it a volunteering retirement after putting twenty five and half years of service or was it a case of superannuation retirement ?

Mr Kanaujia
Could you please elaborate on the difference between voluntary and superannuation retirement with reference to 20 year full pension provision. I superannuated after 22 years and with 5 added years got 27/33 proportionate pension.

dnaga57
12-06-2010, 06:35 AM
Mr Kanaujia
Could you please elaborate on the difference between voluntary and superannuation retirement with reference to 20 year full pension provision. I superannuated after 22 years and with 5 added years got 27/33 proportionate pension.

Dear Mr Taneja
I may be wrong ( I took VRS in 1982, my memory of GoI rules may be erroneous) my perception is

If you opt for VRS when you have years of service left , one gets 5 years weightage
If one superannuates attaining the age of normal retirement with <33 years one does not get the weightage

The 5 year weightage was an Admin Reforms Commission recommendation to encourage people to leave when having age to serve elsewhere.
Of course, good luck to you if you are getting 5 years weightage...

kktaneja
12-06-2010, 12:56 PM
Dear Mr Taneja
I may be wrong ( I took VRS in 1982, my memory of GoI rules may be erroneous) my perception is

If you opt for VRS when you have years of service left , one gets 5 years weightage
If one superannuates attaining the age of normal retirement with <33 years one does not get the weightage

The 5 year weightage was an Admin Reforms Commission recommendation to encourage people to leave when having age to serve elsewhere.
Of course, good luck to you if you are getting 5 years weightage...
Dear Mr Nagarajan,
Or equally to encourage people to enter govt laterally to bring outside experience? The fact is that I superannuated in 1993 and got weightage under the applicable rules. My question is whether the new 20 year full pension rule makes any distinction in this regard.
K K Taneja

vnatarajan
12-06-2010, 03:37 PM
The OM of 2nd Sept 2008 had not elaborated upon any other aspect of "FULL PENSION" except stating that personnel retiring with 20 yrs qual service will get full pension and so also those with 10yrs QS under Rule 49(2).

This is perhaps applicable to both NORMAL and VOLUNTARY retirees.

I dont think any further benefit thru weightage etc will be showered upon anyone opting to retire after completimg the above QS.

REMOVING THE LINKAGE OF QS OF 33 YEARS FOR FULL PENSION ITSELF IS A BENEFIT SHOWERED UPON ALL AS WHAT SHD HAVE BEEN 20/ 33 OR (20+5)/33 HAS BECOME A CONSTANT 20 +/20+ (WH IS '1' ) FOR ALL - normal or voluntary ! )

WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF FURTHER WEIGHTAGE?

Hope I am not wrong!

vnatarajan

kktaneja
13-06-2010, 10:46 AM
The OM of 2nd Sept 2008 had not elaborated upon any other aspect of "FULL PENSION" except stating that personnel retiring with 20 yrs qual service will get full pension and so also those with 10yrs QS under Rule 49(2).

This is perhaps applicable to both NORMAL and VOLUNTARY retirees.

I dont think any further benefit thru weightage etc will be showered upon anyone opting to retire after completimg the above QS.

REMOVING THE LINKAGE OF QS OF 33 YEARS FOR FULL PENSION ITSELF IS A BENEFIT SHOWERED UPON ALL AS WHAT SHD HAVE BEEN 20/ 33 OR (20+5)/33 HAS BECOME A CONSTANT 20 +/20+ (WH IS '1' ) FOR ALL - normal or voluntary ! )

WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF FURTHER WEIGHTAGE?

Hope I am not wrong!

vnatarajan

Dear Mr Natarajan,
Thank you for clarifying that the voluntary or superannuation pension are to be treated on the same footing. When one gets 20/20 pension in the new dispensation, obviously any further weightage would be irrelevant.
K K Taneja

Kanaujiaml
13-06-2010, 07:21 PM
My dear Taneja ji. I would also try to answer your question. Superanuation Retirement is after attaining the age of retirement. Full pension was available on completing 33 yrs. or more of qualifying service but for lesser years, pension was fixed on pro-rate basis (six monthly). Under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme(VRS), one could retire after completing 20 yrs.of service with a weightage of five years and pension used to be fixed accordingly. Thus, a person with 28 yrs. of qualifying service could get full pension. With the issue of DOP OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)10.12.09, w.e.f. 01.01.06Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) has been abodoned and now a person retiring with 20 yrs. of qualifying service gets full pension. With this withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, a complication has arisen because now those who retire “under VRS” are not in same "homogensous" group as those who retire “on superannuation.” Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in its land mark judgement dated 17.12.1982 in DS Nakara case have said that under Article 14 of the Constitution, giving different pensionary benefits to those who retired earlier and those who retired latter from a “cut off date” cannot be discriminated upon. To date only one small modification has been made in Supreme Court Judgement dated 10.10.2006 in BJ Akkra case which says that, in order to get identical pension the group should be “homogenous”. It also says in para 20 of its judgement that “pensioners who retire with the same rank need not be given identical pension, where their average reckonable emoluments at the time of their retirement were different, in view of the difference in pay, or in view of different pay scales being in force.
c) When two sets of employees of the same rank retire at different points of time, it is not discrimination if :
(i) when one set retired, there was no pension scheme and when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in force.
(ii) when one set retired, a voluntary retirement scheme was in force and when the other set retired, such a scheme was not in force; or (iii) when one set retired, a PF scheme was applicable and when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in place.”

vnatarajan
14-06-2010, 02:16 PM
For purpose of arguments:

Govt. having extended backwards the 20 yr Rule wrt pre-2.9.2008 retirees, it can not draw another dividing line at 1.1.2006!

If Nakara has to be applied for homogenieity :

Equal Pension for Retirees in Equal Scales of Pay for Equal 20 Yrs of length of service shd hold good irrespective of the cut-off date!

GOVT. HAS BLUNDERED IN SHIFTING THE CUT-OFF DATE FROM 2.9.2008 TO 1.1.2006 WHICH WAS DONE FOR THEIR OWN "BABUDOM" REASONS AGAIN USING THE OROP COMMITTEE ROUTE.

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
14-06-2010, 09:34 PM
For purpose of arguments:

Govt. having extended backwards the 20 yr Rule wrt pre-2.9.2008 retirees, it can not draw another dividing line at 1.1.2006!

If Nakara has to be applied for homogenieity :

Equal Pension for Retirees in Equal Scales of Pay for Equal 20 Yrs of length of service shd hold good irrespective of the cut-off date!

GOVT. HAS BLUNDERED IN SHIFTING THE CUT-OFF DATE FROM 2.9.2008 TO 1.1.2006 WHICH WAS DONE FOR THEIR OWN "BABUDOM" REASONS AGAIN USING THE OROP COMMITTEE ROUTE.

vnatarajan

For the purpose of argument, I would like to point out that there is difference between those who retired after completing 20 yrs. of service on superanuation and those who retired with 20 yrs.of service on VRS. VRS is no more after 31.12.05 and therefore, there is no homogeneous group available for pre 2006 VRS retirees after 31.12.2005.

vnatarajan
15-06-2010, 07:39 AM
So it leads to the situation " pre-2006 non- VRS 20 yr plus / 33 yrs minus" retirees may stake a claim based on equality principle, as basis for full pension has been decided at 20yrs in place 33 yrs.

vnatarajan

dnaga57
15-06-2010, 08:16 AM
So it leads to the situation " pre-2006 non- VRS 20 yr plus / 33 yrs minus" retirees may stake a claim based on equality principle, as basis for full pension has been decided at 20yrs in place 33 yrs.

vnatarajan

If the benefit is prospective from 1-1-2006, then both VRS & Non Vrs guys can get the benefit. The weightage apparently has been given to both in pre -2006 situation. It is redundant in post 2006...
Being a bit selfish :)

vnatarajan
15-06-2010, 10:47 AM
On further thinking, I believe there is nothing wrong in your mission:

Pl. Sort out the equations and be clear:

PL REMEMBER- SCHEME OR NO SCHEME- MODE OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT DOES EXIST EVEN NOW AND YOU GET FULL PENSION BENEFIT INSTEAD OF THE "INCENTIVE" STUDDED BENEFIT.

1."Pre 2008 Normal Retiree of plus 20 yrs/ minus 33 yrs " may seek parity with a "Post 2006 Normal Retiree of plus 20 yrs" on whom undue benefit has been showered!

2."Pre 2006 VRS Retiree" must seek parity with "Post 2006 Voluntary Retiree" - with plus 20 yrs as the starting point.

Two fronts may have to be opened for the legal process.

It is for the petitioners to consolidate and work out the legal process to brief the lawyer.

PLEASE: Remember - Nakara- Akkara all judgments were delivered before the "20 yr FULL PENSION " Motivational Rule came into existence.

So no judgment is eternal according to the very Bureaucracy. Judgments do not become statutes forever. All cases suffer because of this excuse given by the Govt. to the HSC even .

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
15-06-2010, 10:05 PM
If the benefit is prospective from 1-1-2006, then both VRS & Non Vrs guys can get the benefit. The weightage apparently has been given to both in pre -2006 situation. It is redundant in post 2006...
Being a bit selfish :)

Those who retired prior to 1.1.06 with 20 yrs of service on superanuation, were retired on pension shceme which gave full pension at 33 yrs of qualifying service and those who retired post 1.1.06 with 20 yrs of qualifying service,were retired on pension shceme which gave full pension at 20 yrs. of service. Pension shcemes being different two groups would not be homogenous and then, would not SC judgement in BJ Akkra case come in the way when claim is tested in CAT/Court ? Can you suggest some legal remedy ? By way of Representation to Govt. you can appeal and demand for grant of anythining. But, for fighting a case in CAT/Court, against the Govt., you need legal answer for every question which arises.

vnatarajan
16-06-2010, 07:31 AM
My views:

All prior to .1 1 2004 belong to the Old Pension Scheme governed by CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
The interpretation that there are different Schemes is not at all correct. (The other Scheme wh came into existence after Jan 2004 - NPS - all are aware of. Options cd be given by the old pensioners for going over to NPS if I am correct. (According to many (including me) , Voluntary Retirement can not be compared to any such schemes- OPS or NPS).

Only Rules/Guidelines are being provided as sub-sets within the OPS and they are being changed.
Voluntary Retirement provision continues. Earlier VRS guidelines - if I am correct- were also part of the over-all "CCS (Pension)Rules controlled framework".

Now, the Trisanku pensioners who enjoyed the benefit of 5 yr weightage/one-time benefits etc may have to refund some amounts (if at all....). Any informatiuon on this?

Let us see what Govt. does or what Govt has done!
Somebody has to dig this information if they have to fight the case.

vnatarajan

(WE HAVE THE PPO OF A POST 2006 VOLUNTARY RETIREE ( WILL HE BE CALLED 'VRS' RETIREE?)- WHO RETIRED ON 6TH JAN 2006 VOLUNTARILY AND HE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE "FULL PENSION" BASED ON "LAST PAY DRAWN" BASIS, FOR HAVING SERVED ONLY 5 DAYS IN POST 2006 REGIME).

sundarar
16-06-2010, 10:02 PM
The following legal position that got projected in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs.Managing Director, State Bank of India case will make it clear as to where exactly, the pre-2006 pensioners stand with reference to the elongation of the already accrued retiral benefit, that has a basic correlation with emoluments and qualifying service.

"If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases".

In the case State of Punjab Vs Justice S.S. Dawan (Retd. Chief Justice) & Ors. 1997(4) SCC 569, (as discussed in the aforesaid Judgment) it was held that:

`Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The Formula adopted for determining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of pension. D.S.Nakara case involved the change of formula for determining average emoluments and it was treated as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. On parity of reasoning it can be said that any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regarded as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme.

If an employee is already covered by an existing scheme and the main determinative factor for computation of his pension, at the time of his retirement, undergoes any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service then such a modification can be treated as elongation of the already accrued retiral benefit".

THUS, THE FOREMOST QUESTION IS - WHETHER THE QUALIFYING SERVICE OF 20 YEARS SERVICE FOR FULL PENSION IS A NEW PENSION SCHEME OR A LIBERALISATION OF EXISTING SCHEME? AND IF 20 YEARS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR FULL PENSION, THEN WHAT ABOUT PRO-RATA PENSION FOR THOSE RETIRED WITH LESS THAN 20 YEARS PRIOR TO 1.1.2006? THE REVISED PENSION WILL HAVE NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, BUT ONLY PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006 AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF RE-COMPUTATION OF
PENSION ARISES BASED ON LIBERALISED FORMULA. IN D.S. NAKARA CASE, THE EMOLUMENTS ASPECT WAS INVOLVED; NOW, IT IS THE TURN OF QUALIFYING SERVICE. HENCE, WILL D.S. NAKARA NOT EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF QUALIFYING ASPECT ALSO?

THE SOLUTION LIES IN THE ANSWER ITSELF.

Kanaujiaml
17-06-2010, 07:15 AM
The following legal position that got projected in the Judgment passed on 9.10.1998 by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998 in V. Kasturi Vs.Managing Director, State Bank of India case will make it clear as to where exactly, the pre-2006 pensioners stand with reference to the elongation of the already accrued retiral benefit, that has a basic correlation with emoluments and qualifying service.

"If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases".

In the case State of Punjab Vs Justice S.S. Dawan (Retd. Chief Justice) & Ors. 1997(4) SCC 569, (as discussed in the aforesaid Judgment) it was held that:

`Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The Formula adopted for determining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of pension. D.S.Nakara case involved the change of formula for determining average emoluments and it was treated as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. On parity of reasoning it can be said that any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regarded as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme.

If an employee is already covered by an existing scheme and the main determinative factor for computation of his pension, at the time of his retirement, undergoes any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely, qualifying service then such a modification can be treated as elongation of the already accrued retiral benefit".

THUS, THE FOREMOST QUESTION IS - WHETHER THE QUALIFYING SERVICE OF 20 YEARS SERVICE FOR FULL PENSION IS A NEW PENSION SCHEME OR A LIBERALISATION OF EXISTING SCHEME? AND IF 20 YEARS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR FULL PENSION, THEN WHAT ABOUT PRO-RATA PENSION FOR THOSE RETIRED WITH LESS THAN 20 YEARS PRIOR TO 1.1.2006? THE REVISED PENSION WILL HAVE NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, BUT ONLY PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.1.2006 AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF RE-COMPUTATION OF
PENSION ARISES BASED ON LIBERALISED FORMULA. IN D.S. NAKARA CASE, THE EMOLUMENTS ASPECT WAS INVOLVED; NOW, IT IS THE TURN OF QUALIFYING SERVICE. HENCE, WILL D.S. NAKARA NOT EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF QUALIFYING ASPECT ALSO?

THE SOLUTION LIES IN THE ANSWER ITSELF.

Firstly, pl. rememebr Judgement given in 1998 is older than BJ Akkra case of 2006. DS Nakara case would be applicable subject to latter clarifications contained in para 20 of its judgement by Supreme Court in BJ Akkra case, which was found to be valid by SPS vains case in 2008, as well.Homogeneity has become now bone of contention in every case and Govt. Advocate is not likely to miss this point of importance. It would be a great win indeed for the pensioners even if Court agrees for equality in pension between pre and post 2006 homogenous groups of pensioners.

vnatarajan
17-06-2010, 03:48 PM
LIBERALISED PENSION TO MOTIVATE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT.

(MY VIEWS/ UNDERSTANDING WITH LIMITED CAPACITY)

"VRS" was once introduced as an abortive "Scheme"in the past to deal with surplus staff if I correctly remember - mostly in CSS. It must have died long back!

Making it encroach on every decision is the "jugglery" of the Babus I think.

Voluntary Retirement was and is one of the ingredients of the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 and introduction of changes and amendments to it do not make it a new Scheme every time.

Rules under it 49 -2 , 29 etc I dont remember exactly - may deal with it.

Changing the motivational factor from 5 years additional weightage with one time benefits like Gratuity etc to an equivalence of 13 years weightage for full pension is nothing but LIBERALISATION of the relevant parts of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and this is now a part of the CCS (Pension) Rules wef 2nd Sept 2008 inItially - later on dragged back to be made efffective from 1.1.2006.

Voluntary Retirement continues to be one of the types of retirements dealt under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972/its amendments, in the past and even now.

As against this, the New Pension Scheme (wef 1.1.2004) has nothing to do with CCS Pension Rules 1972. The fate of Voluntary Retirees here may be decided by the Pension Regulating Authority/ their Guidelines I think- in cases who decide to quit the service early! ( may be wrong ?)

vnatarajan

(Taking Clue from Sundarar's Post below:

1.A "33 yr QS Pre 2k6 Normal Retiree" eligible for FULL PENSION may DEMAND parity with A "33 yr or even 20 yr QS Post 2k6 Retiree" of same post with equated scales of pay.

2.A "20 yr plus/ 33 yr minus service Pre 2k6 Normal Retiree eligible for prorated pension msut now APPEAL and CLAIM for FULL PENSION parity with a "20 yr QS Post 2006 Retiree" of same post even on NOTIONAL BASIS- of same post with equated scales of pay.

3.A "20 yr plus/ 33 yr minus service Pre 2k6 "Voluntary Retiree" who availed benefits also CAN APPEAL and CLAIM in the least for PARITY AT FULL (MINIMUM GUARANTEED) PENSION WRT A 20 yr plus Post 2k6 Voluntary Retiree even on a notional basis- of same post with equated scales of pay ( eXCESS DRAWN AMOIUNTS CAN BE REFUNDED).

(AS A CONSEQUENCE TO REGULARISING THE TRISANKU CATEGORY VR/ 20YR PLUS ETC RETIREES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FULL PENSION SINCE DEC 2009 ORDERS)

sundarar
18-06-2010, 06:34 AM
Firstly, pl. rememebr Judgement given in 1998 is older than BJ Akkra case of 2006. DS Nakara case would be applicable subject to latter clarifications contained in para 20 of its judgement by Supreme Court in BJ Akkra case, which was found to be valid by SPS vains case in 2008, as well.Homogeneity has become now bone of contention in every case and Govt. Advocate is not likely to miss this point of importance. It would be a great win indeed for the pensioners even if Court agrees for equality in pension between pre and post 2006 homogenous groups of pensioners.

For the purpose of refreshing ourselves, the para 20 of BJ Akkra case Judgment is submitted as follows:

"20. The principles relating to pension relevant to the issue are well settled.
They are :
a) In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension
cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal
treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and
some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the
time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is
subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get
enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of
pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In
such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment,
made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied
to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on
which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.
b) But all retirees retiring with a particular rank do not form a
single class for all purposes. Where the reckonable emoluments
as on the date of retirement (for the purpose of computation of
pension) are different in respect of two groups of pensioners,
who retired with the same rank, the group getting lesser pension
cannot contend that their pension should be identical with or
equal to the pension received by the group whose reckonable
emolument was higher. In other words, pensioners who retire
with the same rank need not be given identical pension, where
their average reckonable emoluments at the time of their
retirement were different, in view of the difference in pay, or in
view of different pay scales being in force.
c) When two sets of employees of the same rank retire at different
points of time, it is not discrimination if :
(i) when one set retired, there was no pension scheme and
when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in force.
(ii) when one set retired, a voluntary retirement scheme was
in force and when the other set retired, such a scheme
was not in force; or
(iii) when one set retired, a PF scheme was applicable and
when the other set retired, a pension scheme was in
place.
One set cannot claim the benefit extended to the other set on the
ground that they are similarly situated. Though they retired with
the same rank, they are not of the ’same class’ or ’homogeneous
group’. The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for
introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for
discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory
is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively)
fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single
homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and
subjecting them to different treatment.
[Vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305], Krishna
Kumar v. Union of India [1990 (4) SCC 207], Indian Ex-Services
League v. Union of India [1991 (2) SCC 104], V. Kasturi v. Managing
Director, State Bank of India [1998 (8) SCC 30] and Union of India v.
Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 (7) SCC 662]".

Thus, the employer cannot validly fix a cut-off date for liberalising any
existing pension scheme.


SPS Vains case Judgment:

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

27. The Constitution Bench has discussed in detail the objects of granting pension and we need not, therefore, dilate any further on the said subject, but the decision in the aforesaid case has been consistently referred to in various subsequent judgments of this Court, to which we need not refer.

28. In fact, all the relevant judgments delivered on the subject prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench have been considered and dealt with in detail in the aforesaid case.

29. The directions ultimately given by the Constitution Bench in the said case in order to resolve the dispute which had arisen, is of relevance to resolve the dispute in this case also.

30. However, before we give such directions we must also observe that the submissions advanced on behalf of the Union of India cannot be accepted in view of the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra). The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension.

31. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10% per annum. The respondents will not be entitled to payment on account of increased pension from prior to the date of filing of the writ petition".

Thus, the object sought to be achieved must be to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. A pre-2006 retiree and a post-2006 retiree is basically belong to the same class, viz. Pensioner who cannot be divided by a cut-off date based on the date of retirement.

Though the discussion pertains to qualifying service for full pension, all the above case judgments ultimately point out that there cannot be two differential treatment to homogenous class of pensioners. Thus, in the case of minimum assured guaranteed revised pension also, the aforesaid decisions hold good. A pre-2006 retiree and a post-2006 retiree cannot have two different yardstick for determining the minimum pension. Even in the case of emoluments for determining pension, there cannot be two different yardstick by a cut-off date.

In all the three cases, the exercise of re-computation/re-revision of the quantum of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 cannot be avoided ultimately.

ramanrao60
19-07-2010, 09:47 AM
dear senior g connectors

can some body explain to me lucidly what is the difference between 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service for pension and why full pension is admissible in both cases and what specific types of cases are covered by 10 yrs minimum qualifying service and 20 years minimum qualifying service proviso and if 10 years is enough then doesn't 20 years becomes redundant?

dnaga57
28-07-2010, 07:34 AM
I feel sad to see that

Gconnect site is becoming defunct for Pensioers link
Almost zero interest in application of 20 years cFull pension rule for pre'06 retirees

So be it....

vnatarajan
28-07-2010, 08:07 AM
Dear Shri Naga,

Pl do not lose the intitiative so easily.

First thing first.

Let the issue of SCPC Modified Parity be over.

Things will certainly improve. Many sub 33 are watching the above issue. So a little more time will be needed.

(My view pl.)

Regards,

VNatarajan

Kanaujiaml
29-07-2010, 08:24 AM
I feel sad to see that

Gconnect site is becoming defunct for Pensioers link
Almost zero interest in application of 20 years cFull pension rule for pre'06 retirees

So be it....
My dear dnaga. I had been advocating for equality among pre and post 2006 retirees of homogenous group as enshrined in Article 14 and Supreme Court Judgement based on this Article 14 (equality).Perhaps 20 yrs Qualifying service may be recognised for full pension if some judgement come sooner or latter. Let us see what will be judgement of SC in SPS Vains case and Delhi HQ in case of Para Military Retirees. As at present we are not even hopeful for SCPC modified parity in near future. In the meanwhile, why loose patience ?

vnatarajan
29-07-2010, 12:21 PM
Dear Shri Naga/ other VRS Retirees ( we need Sundarar's help/ leadership for this)

In the meanwhile may I take the liberty of suggesting to pick up the recently issued Cuirculars/ OMs issued on "how the Govt. is REGULARISING the "one time payments of Gratuity etc" paid to the "Trisanku" VRS retirees. Anybody tracking?

I casually read somewhere/ some OM- may be in RREWA website, which effectively directs that whatever 'additional" pension becomes eligible, must be adjusted against the excess GRATUITY already paid and if there is still some "unadjusted" amount, the same will be condoned/ exempted from recovery from the said TRISANKU VRS Retiees. I may be corrected if I am wrong ( as I am poor at reading Rules/ OMs).


At whose cost- is this adjustment? Must be many privileged ones- who have managed to take VRS and get absorbed in PSUs for some more time- knowing in advance the likely outcome of SCPC provisions! (amount may be small-but then----Still Govt doesn't find money for correct "Mod Parity").

When everythinbg is getting regfularised for the TRISANKU VRS retirees - even the "Motivational One-time Showers" why not the pre-2006 VRS also be treated on same footing ?.

A deep analysis - and then separate fight in the cat/ court has to follow.

(My views pl.)

vnatarajan

sundarar
29-07-2010, 08:59 PM
A copy of Letter dt 06.3.2010 from Shyam Sunder, Secy Genl, BPS to the Secretary, G.O.I. Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Deptt of Pension & PW, New Delhi - 110 003 (appeared in BPS Journal) is reproduced below
for kind information.


"Sub: Implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission regarding revision of pension of pensioners/family pensioners etc. - Grant of full pension to Government servants who retired on or after 1.1.2006



Sir, Attention is invited to Para 5.1.33 of 6th CPC recommendations where in the Commission recommended that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. This will not work as a disincentive to the employees putting in longer years of service because their pay will increase along with the tenure that will have a
direct bearing on the pension payable to them. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum pensionable service is put in without any reference to qualifying service. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant.

Sir, as is evident from the GOI Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions OM No 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 10-12-2010, the above recommendations of the commission stand implemented with effect from 01-01-06. However, this has resulted in the division of homogenous mass of Pensioners into two categories that is - pre & post 1.1.2006 retirees, which is discriminatory & violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is also clear from the Honorable Supreme Court judgement in the case of V. KASTURI vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA , BOMBAY & ANR-DATE JUDGMENT: 09/10/1998. where in the honourable apex court ruled :

“If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”

In view of the above facts, it is requested that, with respect to recommendation of 6th CPC vide Para 5.1.33, the pre & post 1.1.2006 pensioners may be brought to one level without denying the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners on the ground that he had retired prior to 1.1.2006 on which date aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force.. The basic elements for determining entitled pension in the revisied structure, viz. Qualifying Service and Emoluments when amended shall cover the entire homogenous class of pensioners without dividing them with a cut off date of retirement for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, once the min. qualifying service of 10 years are rendered to become eligible for pension..

dnaga57
30-07-2010, 08:15 AM
Thank you SundarR
As always, you have the updated position...
Dear VN - Thank you too... I am sceptical if the GoI will extend SPS Vains etc ( Defence personnel case) to civilian pensioners.
The cardinal principle in HR policies is 'When more than one interpretation of a rule is possible, the interpretation more beneficial to the employee should be applicable'
Unfortunately, the powers that be act contra.
Glad to note some renewed activity in this forum....:)

vnatarajan
30-07-2010, 09:19 AM
Dear Interested,

Here is how the Rly Board has decided for/ in facour of the TRISANKU VRS Retirees.

Why not now use the opportunity to "appeal" afresh for extending similar treatment to pre 1. 1.2006 VRS + 20 / even other sub 33 yr retirees?

Some "new issue as above " must be brought in and therefore the appeal.

VNatarajan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13

New Delhi, dated: 06.07.2010.

The GMs/FA&CAOs,
All Indian Railways & Production Units.
(As per Mailing List)
Subject: Grant of full pension to Government servants who retired on or after 01.01.2006 – recovery of excess payment of Retirement Gratuity from the employees who retired voluntarily after getting the benefit of adding years of service – Clarification reg.
*******
The Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOP&PW) vide their O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 10.12.2009, circulated vide this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 15.12.2009, have dispensed with the provision relating to linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service, with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 02.09.2008. These instructions, inter-alia, provide that the benefit of adding years of qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension and gratuity shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Simultaneously, para 4 of the said O.M. also provides that the overall calculation, may take into account revised gratuity and revised pension, including arrears up to the date of revision based on these instructions and that no recoveries would be made in the cases already settled

2. In this connection, clarification has been sought from this office as to whether in the case of employees who retired voluntarily during the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.09.2008, after getting the benefit of adding years of service, the excess payment of gratuity is to be recovered or adjusted from the arrears of pension and commuted value of additional pension arising out of implementation of the instructions contained in DOP&PW’s O.M. dated 10.12.2009 ibid. The matter has, therefore, been examined by this Ministry in consultation with DOP&PW and it is clarified that the recovery of excess payment of gratuity on the above account, shall be regulated as under:

S.No Point Clarification
1 In cases where the employees , retired voluntarily after 1.1.2006 with pro-rata pension calculated for the qualifying service Less than 33 years, pension will under go upward revision and additional amount of pension will also be commutable Excess payment of gratuity on account of withdrawal of weightage w.e.f. 01.01.2006 will be adjusted against arrears of pension (and not commuted value of pension). However, this adjustment will be restricted to the amount of arrears of pension. If the recovery of gratuity is more than the amount of arrears of pension, no recovery in excess of arrears of pension will be made.
2 In cases where employees retired voluntarily after 1.1.2006 after getting the benefit of adding years of qualifying service and were granted pension @ 50% of emoluments/average emoluments, as the case may be, due to their qualifying service having reached 33 years, there will be no revision in the amount of pension but the amount of retirement gratuity will undergo a change due to exclusion of the benefit of adding years of service, already extended to them. Where there is no increase of pension, no recovery of gratuity will be made.

3. All Zonal Railways etc., are, therefore, advised to settle the cases of the employees who retired voluntarily after 01.01.2006 but before 02.09.2008, in accordance with the above clarification.

sd/-
Deputy Director Finance (Estt.)III,
Railway Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kanaujiaml
30-07-2010, 08:35 PM
A copy of Letter dt 06.3.2010 from Shyam Sunder, Secy Genl, BPS to the Secretary, G.O.I. Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Deptt of Pension & PW, New Delhi - 110 003 (appeared in BPS Journal) is reproduced below
for kind information.


"Sub: Implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission regarding revision of pension of pensioners/family pensioners etc. - Grant of full pension to Government servants who retired on or after 1.1.2006



Sir, Attention is invited to Para 5.1.33 of 6th CPC recommendations where in the Commission recommended that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. This will not work as a disincentive to the employees putting in longer years of service because their pay will increase along with the tenure that will have a
direct bearing on the pension payable to them. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum pensionable service is put in without any reference to qualifying service. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant.

Sir, as is evident from the GOI Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions OM No 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 10-12-2010, the above recommendations of the commission stand implemented with effect from 01-01-06. However, this has resulted in the division of homogenous mass of Pensioners into two categories that is - pre & post 1.1.2006 retirees, which is discriminatory & violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is also clear from the Honorable Supreme Court judgement in the case of V. KASTURI vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA , BOMBAY & ANR-DATE JUDGMENT: 09/10/1998. where in the honourable apex court ruled :

“If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”

In view of the above facts, it is requested that, with respect to recommendation of 6th CPC vide Para 5.1.33, the pre & post 1.1.2006 pensioners may be brought to one level without denying the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners on the ground that he had retired prior to 1.1.2006 on which date aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force.. The basic elements for determining entitled pension in the revisied structure, viz. Qualifying Service and Emoluments when amended shall cover the entire homogenous class of pensioners without dividing them with a cut off date of retirement for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, once the min. qualifying service of 10 years are rendered to become eligible for pension..

The latest is that BPS is considering to go to CAT/Court as Govt. is not ready to listen.

dnaga57
22-08-2010, 07:47 AM
Any update on BPS going to court...
Can I participate in such a litigation along with similarly affected?

Kanaujiaml
23-08-2010, 11:12 PM
My Dear dnaga. Ask Mr. SC Maheshwari, Gen. Sec., RREWA, who is also working for BPS. He would be conversant with the latest position.



Any update on BPS going to court...
Can I participate in such a litigation along with similarly affected?

vnatarajan
24-08-2010, 02:57 PM
RECENT LR OF RAILWAY BOARD DT 24TH AUG 2010

Dear Friends,

RAILWAY HAVE CLARIFIED THRU THEIR CIRCULAR DTD 24TH AUG 2010 THAT ALL WHO HAVE RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.1.2006 WITH 10 YRS SERVICE WILL GET FULL PENSION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME RULES ETC) .

A FEW DAYS BACK I HAD ALSO CIRCULATED A CASE WITH TITLE "STRANGE BUT TRUE" WHEREIN A CURRENT PENSIONER BORN ON 1.12046 WHO WAS MADE TO RETIRE ON 31 12 2005 INSTEAD OF 1.1.2006 (60 YRS SUPERANNUATION) (FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS AS IN VOGUE) WITH FULL (MORE THAN)33 YEARS OF SERVICE WAS NOT ALLOWED FULL PENSION!

HAS THE POSITION CHANGED?

EVEN MY AND PKR'S RTI QUERY ON THE "ELIGIBILITY OF FULL PENSION FOR A CG EMPLOYEE WHO DIED/RETIRED ON 1.1.2006 WITH PLUS 33 YEARS OF SERVICE" WAS NEVER ANSWERED IN A STRAIGHT MANNER AND PRECISE ANSWER WAS CAREFULLY AVOIDED!

VN 36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Admissibility of full pension to Railway servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006
PC-VI -- 223/2010

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13
New Delhi, dated 10.08.2010

The GMs & FA & CAOs,
All Zonal Railways & Production Units,
(As per mailing list).

Sub: Admissibility of full pension to Railway servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006 - regarding.

*** Clarifications are being sought from this office by the Zonal Railway Administrations in connection with the revised instructions issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare regarding grant of full pension to Government servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006, and its applicability to those employees who are absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous bodies.

2. It is informed that the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, vide their O.M. dated 10.12.2009, circulated on the Zonal Railways etc. vide this office letter of even number dated 15.12.2009, has dispensed with the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service with effect from 01.01.2006, instead of the earlier to pension cut off date of 02.09.2008. As such, all employees becoming entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 69(2) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, on or after 01.01.2006, are eligible for pension equal to 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to them. With the issue of these instructions, the concept of pro-rata pension has ceased to exist with effect from 1.1.2006. This provision is equally to those employees who have been permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies and have since become entitled to monthly pension in terms of the extant instructions.

3. All the Zonal Railways etc. are, therefore, advised to settle the pending cases accordingly.

4. Please acknowledge receipt.

s/d

Deputy Director Finance (Estt.)III
Railway Board

aggarwal
29-08-2010, 11:42 AM
Dear Interested,

Here is how the Rly Board has decided for/ in facour of the TRISANKU VRS Retirees.

Why not now use the opportunity to "appeal" afresh for extending similar treatment to pre 1. 1.2006 VRS + 20 / even other sub 33 yr retirees?

Some "new issue as above " must be brought in and therefore the appeal.

VNatarajan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13

New Delhi, dated: 06.07.2010.

The GMs/FA&CAOs,
All Indian Railways & Production Units.
(As per Mailing List)
Subject: Grant of full pension to Government servants who retired on or after 01.01.2006 – recovery of excess payment of Retirement Gratuity from the employees who retired voluntarily after getting the benefit of adding years of service – Clarification reg.
*******
The Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOP&PW) vide their O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 10.12.2009, circulated vide this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 15.12.2009, have dispensed with the provision relating to linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service, with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 02.09.2008. These instructions, inter-alia, provide that the benefit of adding years of qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension and gratuity shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Simultaneously, para 4 of the said O.M. also provides that the overall calculation, may take into account revised gratuity and revised pension, including arrears up to the date of revision based on these instructions and that no recoveries would be made in the cases already settled

2. In this connection, clarification has been sought from this office as to whether in the case of employees who retired voluntarily during the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.09.2008, after getting the benefit of adding years of service, the excess payment of gratuity is to be recovered or adjusted from the arrears of pension and commuted value of additional pension arising out of implementation of the instructions contained in DOP&PW’s O.M. dated 10.12.2009 ibid. The matter has, therefore, been examined by this Ministry in consultation with DOP&PW and it is clarified that the recovery of excess payment of gratuity on the above account, shall be regulated as under:

S.No Point Clarification
1 In cases where the employees , retired voluntarily after 1.1.2006 with pro-rata pension calculated for the qualifying service Less than 33 years, pension will under go upward revision and additional amount of pension will also be commutable Excess payment of gratuity on account of withdrawal of weightage w.e.f. 01.01.2006 will be adjusted against arrears of pension (and not commuted value of pension). However, this adjustment will be restricted to the amount of arrears of pension. If the recovery of gratuity is more than the amount of arrears of pension, no recovery in excess of arrears of pension will be made.
2 In cases where employees retired voluntarily after 1.1.2006 after getting the benefit of adding years of qualifying service and were granted pension @ 50% of emoluments/average emoluments, as the case may be, due to their qualifying service having reached 33 years, there will be no revision in the amount of pension but the amount of retirement gratuity will undergo a change due to exclusion of the benefit of adding years of service, already extended to them. Where there is no increase of pension, no recovery of gratuity will be made.

3. All Zonal Railways etc., are, therefore, advised to settle the cases of the employees who retired voluntarily after 01.01.2006 but before 02.09.2008, in accordance with the above clarification.

sd/-
Deputy Director Finance (Estt.)III,
Railway Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE GUIDE:
What is meant by " arrears of pension" upto date of revision.
there may be a person who got his pension revised in Dec 2010 on basis of revised orders on matter.
There may be another whose case has still not been decided.
Does this mean , that authorities will deduct more in 2nd case as his accumulated arrears will be more?
Does it mean that by delaying revision more , still more adjustment can be done.
And how are they going to recover from pension arrears which will be calculated and paid by pension disbursing banks.