PDA

View Full Version : Re-fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners



sundarar
02-08-2014, 09:18 PM
Respected Sirs,

The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 pertaining to fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per recommendations of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and reproduced hereunder:

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

The Government Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86, i.e, basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74.

Based on this resolution, OM of even number dated 1.9.2008 was issued and its . Para-4.2 states that
"The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no
case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale".

The Hon. CAT PR Bench vide para 30 of their Judgment dated 1.11.2011 in O.A. No.655/2010 directed the Respondents to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of their observations made in the Judgment.

Subsequently, on 28.1.2013 the DOP&PW issued an Executive Instruction and para No.2 of the same is reproduced hereunder:

"It has been decided that the pension of pre-2006 pensioners as revised w.e.f.
1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as
amended from time to time, would be further stepped up to 50% of the sum of
minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised
pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the
fitment tables annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM
No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008.

The para No.9 of the above OM indicates that "These orders will take effect from the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24.9.2012. There will be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 1.1.2006 and 23.9.2012, and, therefore, no arrears will be payable on account of these orders for that period". i.e. from 1.1.2006 and 23.9.2012.

In short, as per the above OM dated 28.1.2013, a pre-2006 retiree in S-29 grade retired in December, 2005 will get his pension fixed at Rs.23700/- for the period from 1.1.2006 (in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time), and the same retiree will get his pension fixed at Rs.27350/- w.e.f. 24.9.2012 (by virtue of the decision taken vide OM dated 28.1.2013) onwards.

Subsequent to the issue of aforesaid OM dated 28.1.2013, the Hon. High Court of Delhi in their Judgment dated 29.4.2013 in the Appeal case (Appeal preferred by DOP&PW against the Hon. CAT PR Bench verdict dated 1.11.2011 referred to) vide para No.2 pointed out as follows

"2. The only issue therefore which survives is, with respect to paragraph 9, of the office memorandum aforenoted which makes it applicable with effect from September 24, 2012, and thereby denying arrears to be paid to the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006.

3. In short, the Government of India has tacitly admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct".

Accordingly, as per concluding Para No.9 of the aforesaid Judgment, `The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is upheld'

By virtue of the aforesaid Judgement dated 29.4.2013 of the Hon. High Court of Delhi and in accordance with the directives to the Respondents vide para No.30 of the Hon. CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 `to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008', all pre-2006 pensioners including Non-Litigants are entitled to get their pension re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 strictly in accordance with the Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

Incidentally, I wish to conclude my post of date with the extracts of the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi Judgment dated 22.1.2013 in the case of Original Application No.1750/2012 filed by Dr. O.P. Nijhawan and others.

"19....... it is appropriate that the Union of India treat all much persons alike and to grant them the same benefits instead of driving each one of them to litigation in the course of which the Union of India itself is required to spend considerable public money".

dnaga57
03-08-2014, 09:07 AM
Dear Sundar Sir
A timely post.... the non-litigants of CAT (possibly even the litigants) should take note & write to their respective departments copy to DoP seeking implementation. Based on the reply they can - possibly litigate- for their own individually or collectively.

sundarar
03-08-2014, 09:11 PM
When the Contempt Case No.158/2012 was disposed on 15.5.2014, the directives given by the Hon. CAT PR Bench are the relief for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants. Neither the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi in their Judgment directed the Department to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 1.11.2011 qua the petitioners nor the Hon. High Court of Delhi gave any such directives.

It is the Ministry of Law that is said to have been advised DOP&PW to implement the order of the Hon. CAT PR Bench dated 1.11.2011 qua the petitioners.

If at all the DOP&PW choose to implement the order of the Tribunal qua the petitioners as against the directives of Hon. High Court of Delhi as well as the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi, I am afraid that -

1. the DOP&PW OM dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 etc, may remain as it is for all Non-Litigants for the period from 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012.
2. the aforesaid OMs may stand quashed in respect of the petitioners only.
3. by virtue of Sl.No.2 above, there will be no change in the pension fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till 23.9.2012 for non-litigants.
4.By virtue of Sl. No.3 above, stepping up of pension as ordered vide DOP&PW OM dated 28.1.2013 from 24.9.2012 may get involved only for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners and thus the said OM may become valid only for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners.

In short, the OMs dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008, 28.1.2013 etc. may become null and void for petitioners right from 1.1.2006 onwards, the OMs dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 etc. may become null and void for non-litigants only from 24.9.2012 and the OM dated 28.1.2013 may get restricted to only non-litigants by virtue of its effective date, viz. 24.9.2012.

Under the circumstances, implementation of the Orders of the Tribunal dated 1.11.2011 by re-fixing the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants w.e.f 1.1.2006 strictly in accordance with the DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 and as per the Hon. Court directives without involvement of any reduction of pension pro-rata w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (which reduction has nowhere found place in the said OM dated 29.8.2008 as well as in any directives of Hon. Courts) where the pensioner had rendered less than the maximum qualifying service, is the need of the hour as `no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending any more'.

vnatarajan
04-08-2014, 08:17 AM
Dear Non-litigant pre 2006 pensioners affected by Mod Parity issue,

THANKS TO SHRI SUNDARAR THIS POST HAS COME UP TIMELY.

ON 25 JULY 2014, SHRI P K RANGANATHAN , ALONG WITH ME , ATTENDED THE "SANKALP SCHEME" MEETING CONVENED BY THE DOP AT CHENNAI. THE INVITEES INLCUDED ABOUT 15 SANKALP REGISTRED MEMBERS, BESIDES these, EC-MC MEMEBRS OF HALF A DOZEN PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERATIONS atended. AIFPA CHENNAI WAS PRESENT IN FULL FORCE WITH ITS PRESIDENT, GEN SEC, VPs . PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE EDITOR ETC. Three NGO Orgns like Banyan, Pratham, Helpage etc were there.

In the Open session that followed the SANKALP SCHEME discussions , pensioners/ associations were given opportunity to voice their submissions on various issues . I voiced the plight of CGSAGPA, finality of legal battle for Mod Parity, the DOP's mischievous deliberate mis-interpretation of CAT JUDGMENT OF 15 5 2014 IN CP 158/2012 TO RESTRICT THE IMPLEMENTATION to QUA PETITIONERS only taking advantage of the inclusion of the submission of DOP wrt qua petitioners recorded in para 2 of the Judgment. The HON Secy DOP appeared to be unaware of this underhand play and the JS to DOP appeared to be rather confused between the two verdicts and went on citing the pendency of 3 Sister Gr SLPs (36148-50 ) at the HSc for NOT extending the CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 to all pre 2006 pensioners . I had given my submission in writing also which I shall put up here soon with documents which included an atrocious RTI REPLY from the CPIO DOP categoricall stating that CAT has agreed to the DOP's mischievous misinterpretation of CAT's verdict on restriction of jusdgment to petitioners of OA 655/ 2010 only.

SHRI PKR , FOLLOWING MY TALK , gave a powerful explanation on the applicability of CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 wef 1 1 2006 to all pre 2006 pensioners , with all documents/ extracts etc. He had also submitted his written note.

NOW ALL AGGRIVED NON-LITIGANT PRE2006 PENSIONERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS ETC MUST MAKE "REPEATED SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING" TO CONCERNED AUTHORITIES BASED ON SHRI SUNDARAR'S WRITE-UP and after the response from the DOP on the same, plan further course of action.

SHRI A RAJAGOPALAN, RTI ACTIVIST LIKE ME, IS ON THE LEAD IN THIS REGARD. HE CAN BE CONTACTED AT [email protected] fo further follow ups pl.

Regards,

vnatarajan


IMPORTANT TO NOTE:

HOW TO CHK WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 TO 23 9 2012 ?

ANY PPE 2006 PENSIONER WHO HAS BEEN PAID/ HAS RECEIVED SOME ARREARS WEF 24 SEPT 2012 , SHALL ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE ARREARS FOR THE PRIOD FROM 1 1 2006 TO 23 9 2012 DUE TO THE "ENHANCED PENSION" FORMULATION WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE "SCPC CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" FORMULA in terms of the Gaz Resolution dt 29 8 2008/ in line with PB CAT Judgment dt 1 11 2011 .

dnaga57
04-08-2014, 08:39 AM
Hope many are reading , most of them are listening.. planning to act

tymanagoli
04-08-2014, 11:08 AM
Respected VNji/Sundarar

Please enlighten us if the 3 SLPs coming up on 7thAug14 will cover the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years of QS (thus ensuring minimum pension for them corresponding to grades from which they had retired).
In that case whether the other OA 1165/2011 will be redundant?

Managoli

r21vvrao
04-08-2014, 11:56 AM
I retired from pay scale of 16400-20000 in 1999. I got my pension revised and received payment of arrears from 24/9/2012 as per revised orders of 28/1/2013 on making a request to my PAO/CPAO. I am following your discussion and the chances of DOP making an interpretation for denying payment of arrears. Is it necessary to start writing representation to DOP at this stage or wait for some more time until final orders are issued? ........VVRao

vnatarajan
04-08-2014, 01:50 PM
@tymanagoli: 3 SLPS SCHEDULED FOR 7 AUG 2014 -these were taken up on 1 Aug 2014 itself. Could not be taken up as time didn't permit. NDL has to be watched. To complicate matters, the UOI has filed 4 more new SLPs with them - they were filed on 1 7 2014 base on a P & H HC judgment dt 19 9 2013. THis is in addition to earlier verdicts of the P & H HC on the same mod parity issue of pre 2006 CG/ Haryana State sivil pensioners dt 14 Jan 2013 and 21 Dec 2012 respectively.

This conernes the litigant pre 2006 pensioners- wrt mod parity only.

Reg 20 yr plus issue u have to wait for the OA II^% may come uo this month- Sundarar may know better.

@r21vvrao; IF U HAVE RECEIVED ARREARS WEF 24 SEPT 2012, THEN ITS COROALLRY IS THAT ARREARS ARE DUE TO YOU FROM 1 1 2006. IN FACT THIS IS GOOD CHECK.

IF ANY PRE 2006 PENSIONER HAS GOT ARREARS BECAUSE OF THE "ENHANCED PENSION" FORMULA, THEN HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR "ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 TO 23 9 2006" BUT HE HAS TO AGITATE AND GET THE SAME.

You may like to get in touch with [email protected]

VNATARAJAN

sundarar
04-08-2014, 08:10 PM
While the Contempt Petition case No. CP 158/2012 was getting disposed vide Order dated 15.5.2014, the Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi vide para 2 of their Order indicated as follows:

"2. At the outset, Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from Ms. Tripti Ghosh, Director and Shri Harjit Singh, Dy. Secretary, submits that the Curative Petition preferred by them has already been rejected by the Hon ble Apex Court by order dated 30.04.2014",

Vide their aforesaid Order dated 30.4.2014, the Hon'ble Apex Court decided as follows:

"Application for oral hearing is rejected.
We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr., reported in 2002 (4) SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed".

It is clear from the above that whatever grounds that might have been relied upon by the Petitioner of the Curative Petition, the same could not make out a case, as declared by the HSC vide their Order dated 30.4.2014.

When such is the case, those SLPs with particular reference to modified parity based correct minimum revised/guaranteed pension in accordance with the DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 that may be pending at various stages, may not serve any purpose except in delaying implementation of the Hon. CAT PR Bench verdict dated 1.11.2011 to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

In view of what has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz. dismissal of the Curative Petition, it is high time to get the Hon. CAT PR Bench verdict implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006 strictly in accordance with the DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants, to avoid spending considerable public money by the DOP&PW as a petitioner, and by the Respondents of those pending SLPs, any likely Review Petitions, any likely Curative Petitions, etc.

sundarar
08-08-2014, 05:00 AM
The RSCWS website indicates the following message:
"Govt. insists to restrict arrears of Modified Parity to only S-29 Petitioners. Files new Application in CAT to seek more time for implementation"

In this regard, it may please be noted that arrears of Modified to all pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 24.9.2012 onwards had already been sanctioned vide DOP&PW OM dated 28.1.2013 which prescribed as follows:

"4. A revised concordance table (Annexure) of the pre-1996, pre-2006 and post 2006 pay scales/pay bands indicating the pension/family pension (at ordinary rates) payable under the above provisions is enclosed to facilitate payment of revised
pension/family pension".

Same revised concordance table as Annexure giving effect from 1.1.2006 onwards for all pre-2006 pensioners is required to be issued in accordance with the final decision of Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi on 15.5.2014 in CP 158/2012 at the earliest. Only when a fresh decision as against the said final decision of the Hon. CAT PR Bench, is sought to be implemented by the DOP&PW only for petitioners, further litigation process will be getting continued. For getting a due revised pension from 1.1.2006 in accordance with DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008, whether pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants should keep on waiting further more, but for how long? What is the purpose that is going to be served in keeping this matter pending for continued litigation process when the legal position has reached its finality? It is expected that the Competent Authority in the Dept. of Pensioners' Welfare will take note the intention behind such fresh decisions involving an additional time period over and above that was granted by the Hon. Court of Law, as against the final legal decision that is existing as on date and implement the directives for all pre-2006 pensioners as per the existing directives of the Hon. Court of Law at the earliest possible time.

sundarar
10-08-2014, 10:49 PM
The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 pertaining to fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per recommendations of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and reproduced hereunder:

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

In the case of pre-2006 pensioners, application of multiplication factor of 1.86 over pre-revised pension was kept involved apart from 40% of fitment benefit that consists of 40% of pre-revised pension.

Whereas in the case of serving employees, application of multiplication factor of 1.86 + 40% of max. of pre-revised scale of pay as fitment benefit (GRADE PAY) was kept involved.

Can this be a consistency between pensioners and employees?, I am not aware.

2. 40% OF MAXIMUM OF PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY in other words, 20% of Max. of Pre-revised Scale of pay which will very necessarily be less than 20% of last drawn emoluments (40% of pre-revised pension as fitment benefit.


3. For maintaining modified parity, wherever the revised pension on application of Uniform mf of 2.26 over pre-revised pension happens to be LESS than 50% of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to bottom stage of pre-revised scale and 50% of grade pay, there was a need to step up the revised pension (Para 4.1), to Minimum Revised Pension (Para 4.2). .

4. There is no place for for applying proportionate reduction in such an event? Already reduced basic pension is only required to be stepped upto 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement and 50% of GP thereon.

5. That is the reason, neither OM dated 29.8.2008 nor unamended OM dated 1.9.2008 touched the aspect of Rule 49.

Thus, OM dated 29.8.2008 is applicable for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants with 33 years/<33 years as a whole without involving any proportionate reduction in whatever case that may be.

sundarar
11-08-2014, 07:39 PM
The amended letter dated 24.11.2009 of CPAO addressed to Banks indicated that the existing provision is amended to read as follows:
"The revised pension in no case shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band PLUS the grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired".

The above amended version explicitly point out that both pay in the pay band as well as the grade pay stand corresponding to pre-revised scale. Whereas the DOP&PW OM dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time made an attempt to maintain that both minimum of the pay band and minimum of the pay in the pay band are one and same and went further to clarify that such a minimum of the pay in the pay band will be irrespective of pre-revised scale, etc. and the same was maintained till 23.9.2012 for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants even while the legal struggle was going on.

The OM dated 28.1.2013 `stepped up' in such a way that the pension being paid till 23.9.2012 in accordance with the OM dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time, it consists of 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Thus, it is clear that the pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants are yet to get their pension re-fixed in accordance with initial OM dated 29.8.2008 that notified accepted recommendation of the 6th CPC with the approval of the Cabinet.

Could we be able to find out any difference in between within OM 28.1.2013, OM 1.9.2008 (unamended), OM dated 29.8.2008 and the CAT PR Bench, Delhi verdict as far as the minimum revised guaranteed pension payable from 1.1.2006 to all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants?

To what extent OM 29.8.2008 is going to be a non-applicable one as far as the non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners are concerned even while the Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi has directed the Respondents (DOP&PW) to re-fix from 1.1.2006 for all pre-2006 pensioners.

Now that the OM dated 29.8.2008 overrules all subsequent communications including the latest OM dated 28.1.2013 with the CAT/Hon. HC directives, the existing CPAO directives to Banks also may have to be amended in line with the OM dated 29.8.2008 giving effect thereby w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for the new amended version. mainly because the previous provisions were not related to DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 in particular..

Such a new amended version will have its applicability for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants, that is what expected at this moment.

sundarar
14-08-2014, 05:50 AM
The ongoing case at CAT PR Bench Delhi for determining applicability of 10/20 years qualifying service for full pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service that came up for hearing yesterday, stands adjourned to 29.9.2014 owing to Respondent's request for more time. The attempts to delay the Justice and even if Judicious decisions are made available then attempts to restrict to petitioners, etc. makes the pensioners community painful.

Now, in the aforesaid case, the question involves two parts
i. Applicability of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or otherwise, for determining minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006
ii.Applicability of revised manner and methodology to calculate basic pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners, whose pension was fixed on the basis of length of service out of maximum required service, w.e.f. 1.1.2006. (The post-2005 pensioners' pension is calculated at 50% of last drawn emoluments if the qualifying service rendered is 10/20 years qualifying service , the same methodology shall be made applicable for similarly situated pre-2006 pensioners).

The pre-revised basic pension is required to be calculated on the basis of revised manner and methodology, for revising the same w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in accordance with DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008.

The D.S. Nakara spirit has direct relevance to point No.ii above, which we all are aware.

As far as point No.(i) is concerned, here is an extract of Hon. High Court Delhi Judgment dated 2.7.2014:
P L Singla vs Uoi And Anr. on 2 July, 2014

"3.1 The petitioner, retired as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, on 31.01.1987, after completing 28 years and 4 months of qualifying service. The respondents, however, refused to pay him the pension in accordance with the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (in short Shetty Commission).

3.2 It is the respondents' stand that since the petitioner had served less than the full qualifying service, which is, 33 years, he would be entitled only to such pension, which is proportionate to the time served by the petitioner.

3.3 It may only be noted that the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21.03.2002, passed in WP (C) 1022/1989, titled All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., has accepted, the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which are contained in Chapter 23, in particular paragraph 23.18. As per the recommendations contained in the said paragraph, retired Judicial Officers are entitled to get 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time.
....

3.5 It is also noticed from the record that in the very same writ petition filed in the Supreme Court, several interlocutory applications were moved including an application bearing: IA No.157. This application was filed by the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers' Association for setting aside :
the Government order (G.O.) Ms. No.79, dated 17.07.2004, issued by the Law Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh (as it then was). The applicant above named was aggrieved by the fact that the said G.O. required proportionate reduction in payment of pension qua those who had completed less than the full
qualifying service, which was, 33 years.
3.6 The Supreme Court upon consideration of the said application i.e., IA No.157 agreed with the contentions of the applicant and consequently set aside that part of the G.O. which required proportionate reduction in payment of pension vis-a-vis those who had completed less than full qualifying service. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in respect of the said IA are as follows :-
"..This application has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers' Association for setting aside G.O.Ms No.79, Law Dep., dated 17th July, 2004 to the extent of the direction that who have put in full qualifying service at the time of retirement, and in respect of Judicial Officers who have put in less than the
full qualifying service there shall be proportionate reduction. Further prayer is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh be directed to revise the pension uniformly to past pensioners irrespective of length of qualifying service, at 50% of minimum pay in the revised pay scale of the post from which the past pensioner retired. Chapter-23 of the Shetty Commission Report deals with pension structure for past pensioners. Chapter 22 deals with retirement benefits. For considering the pension structure for past pensioners, Chapter 22 has not relevance. The first recommendation of para 23.18 contained in Chapter 23 reads as under :-
"The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time."

Paragraph 22.33 in Chapter 22 recommends that the qualifying years of service should be 33 years for earning full pension except in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. This clause has no relevance for working out the benefit of pension under clause (1) of recommendation in para 23.18 above-noted. No other material has been shown to us which may justify the stipulation in para 8 of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Government dated 17th July, 2004, about the requirement of full qualifying service at the time of retirement and proportionate reduction in respect of judicial offices who have put in less than full qualifying service. The aforesaid recommendation has been accepted by this court in its judgment reported in 2002(4) SCC 247.

Under these circumstances, the direction in respect of full qualifying service in the Government order dated 17th July, 2004 is set aside, as prayed in the application. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to work out the benefit strictly in terms of the first recommendation contained in para 23.18 of the Shetty
Commission, as quoted above.."

3.7 The aforementioned order in I.A. No.157 was passed on 21.11.2006.

3.8 In line with the aforementioned judgment and order of the Supreme Court, Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs passed an order dated 26.05.2008. While the said order reflected the fact that the issue (which is also the issue raised in the instant writ petition) is, covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.'s case, it proceeded to add a caveat to the grant of relief which is that revision in pension would be subject to observance of Rule 49(2)(b) of the 1972 Rules. Notably, order dated 26.05.2008 specifically records that it has been issued with the approval of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.07.1996. It is this last aspect, which is the grant of exemption from observance of the provisions of Rule 49(2)(b) of the 1972 Rules (as I was told that respondents were seeking an exemption and that difficulty lay in only not being able to decide who was to grant exemption) that the instant writ petition had to be adjourned from time to time to enable the relevant/authorities to take a decision in the matter. As indicated at the very outset, the concerned authorities have failed to take a decision in the matter and, consequently, this court is left with no choice but to step in.

4. Having regard to the fact that the law on the issue has been declared by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21.03.2002, passed in All India Judges Association and Ors', 2002 (4) SCC 247 and, the subsequent order dated 21.11.2006, passed in the same writ petition in : IA No.157, this court is inclined to direct that the petitioners be paid pension in terms of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission as contained in paragraph 23.18 of the Chapter 23, as accepted by the Supreme Court, in its aforementioned judgment and order. This would mean that the respondents need not now seek exemption from the provisions of Rule 49(2)(b) for payment of revised pension to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Kakra at this stage makes two prayers. First, (which is explicitly part of the writ petition) that interest be granted on the arrears. Second, that the payment of arrears of pension be directed to be paid within a specific time frame given the advanced age of the petitioner, which he says is, 85 years, as of today.

6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears to the petitioner within six (6) weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (simple) with effect from 30.06.2011, that is the date when, a representation was made in this behalf, by the petitioner, for the first time. It is, however, made clear that if the arrears alongwith interest is not paid within the stipulated period of six weeks, the interest will stand enhanced to 18% p.a. (simple) on the outstanding amount.

7. With the aforesaid directions in place, the captioned petition and the pending application are disposed of".

The pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service are similarly situated like the applicant in the above case.
(To be Continued)

sundarar
14-08-2014, 05:52 AM
(Contd..)
In continuation of my previous post, my submissions are as follows:

1. The OM dated 3.10.2008 that prescribed proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service already stands quashed.
2. The OM dated 28.1.2013 invokes Rule 49 for determining minimum revised pension, which Rule has no relevance for working out the benefit of minimum revised pension as per DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008.
3. The OM dated 29.8.2008 did not prescribe any proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service.
4. The instant case hearing had to be adjourned from time to time at the instance of Respondents to enable the relevant/authorities to commence even arguments. which is avoidable amidst settled position.
5. All pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service shall be given the benefit of the aforesaid Hon. High Court Delhi Judgment, including the interest part.

The grounds that are relied upon against the application filed by the petitioners need to be spelt out before the Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi without taking enormous time by the Respondents, and as such, the delay is purely attributable to Respondents and thereby involving interest element.

I request all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants to continue their attempts that includes active participation in this Discussion forum for legitimate due and entitled pension from 1.1.2006, while myself will be away from discussion with your deemed permission on certain urgent commitments.

HOPE AND WISH THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS COMMUNITY IS GRANTED WITH A HAPPY DEEPAVALI GIFT 2014 WITH THE BLESSINGS OF LORD SHRI KRISHNA.

BEST REGARDS
JAI SHRI KRISHNA.

sundarar
21-08-2014, 06:54 AM
The RSCWS website indicated the following message:
"Govt. insists to restrict arrears of Modified Parity to only S-29 Petitioners. Files new Application in CAT to seek more time for implementation"

Today, the 21st August 2014, the M.A. is listed before CAT PR Bench Court No.1.

12. M.A./2381/2014
O.A./655/2010
CENTRAL GOVT S A G
-V/SSANJAY
KOTHARI
TARUN GUPTA
--------------------
RAJESH KATYAL

yenyem
21-08-2014, 08:18 PM
Ma/2381/2014(oa/655/2010) is adjourned to 27.08.14.

tymanagoli
21-08-2014, 10:39 PM
Ma/2381/2014(oa/655/2010) is adjourned to 27.08.14.
What is the issue being per-sued with this MA?

sundarar
22-08-2014, 06:47 AM
REVISION OF PRE-2006 PENSION WITH EFFECT FROM 01.01.2006 AS PER CAT ORDER DATED 01.11.2011 FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS AND NOT LIMITED ONLY TO PETITIONERS

Bharat Pensioners Samaj has pointed out Government’s mis-interpretation of Hon’ble Princpal CAT’s Order for revising Pre-2006 Pension with effect from 01-01-2006, to the effect that the order would be applicable only to the petitioners who have filed the case before CAT and not to all Pre-2006 Pensioners. However, the contention of Bharat Pensioners Samaj in this regard is that Hon’ble CAT’s Order was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court and reached finality after Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Government’s SLP, Review Petition and as well as Curative Petition. Hence the same is not an order In personam

No.SG/PBS/Legal/014/1
Dated 02.07.2014

Shri Sanjay Kothari
IAS
Secretary,

M/O Personnel PG AR & Pensions

Dear Sir,

Sub: Implementation of the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 655/2010.

1 Kindly connect DOP &PW letter No. 38/7 7-A/09-P8.PW (A) dated 29th May 2014 addressed to the Secretary (Shri Sant Bhushan Lal) Central Government SAG (S-29) on the above subject.

2. At the outset, we will like to point out that the above letter is in the nature of continuation of willful defiance of the CAT’s order by DOP &PW and is intended to GO AGAINST THE judicial directives. What is displayed in this letter under reference is a deliberate mis-interpretation and distortion of the Hon’ble CAT’s order dated 15. 5.2014. Para 2 of the above letter states that ‘As directed by the Hon’ble CAT, the order dated 01.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi is required to be implemented in respect of petitioners in OA No. 655/2010″ which is factually incorrect and misleading. Hon’ble CAT-PB vide its order dated 01.11.2011 quashed clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed to refix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. While dismissing WP (C) No 153512012 of UOI on 29-4-2013, Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the verdict of the CAT PB. Dismissing SLP (C) No.23055/2013 filed by UOI against the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 29-7-2013 and then Review Petition (C) No 2492/2013 on 12-11-2013 and finally Curative Petition (C) No 12612014 on 30.4.2011, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court with this, CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011. referred to 1 has attained legal finality.

3. On 15.05.2014, the Hon’ble CAT-PB disposed of Contempt Petition No 158/2012 directing the UoI to implement the directions of the Tribunal Honble Delhi High Court upholding the verdict of CAT PB, took note of DOP letter F.No. 38137/08-P&PW (A) dated 28th January, 2013 whereby the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners was stepped up from an arbitrary date of 24-9-2012 as per the Resolution dated 29-8-2008. Further in Para 2 & 3 of the Judgement it is noted that the Government of India has tacitly admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct and the only issue that survives are the denying arrears to be paid to the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006

4. The operative part of the Honble CAT’s order dated 15-5-2014 is contained in Para 3 and reads as “It would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respon-dents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months.” (Emphasis added). The direction of the Tribunal is with reference to its order dated 1-11-2011. The Hon’ble CAT never diluted its order dated 1.11.2011 nor could it have done so in its contempt jurisdiction especially when its order dated 1.11.2011 had got merged with the judgment dated 29.4.2013 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 1535/2012.

4.1 Consequently, contention of implementing this directive only in respect of the members of the SAG S-29 Association up to the date of filing of OA No. 06550010 is not valid. All retired Central Government employees covered under the category of pre-2006 pensionersare entitled for re-fixation of pension from 1-1-2006 as per the directive of the CAT-PB dated 1-11 -2011, which has been upheld right up to the Apex Court while dismissing SLP/Review petition/curative Petition in this case.

5. We, therefore, earnestly request you to please implement judicial verdict in its true spirit and content by issuing necessary instructions to the concerned authorities to disburse the arrears of pension tor the period 1-1-2006 to 23-9 2012 and stop further harassment and hardship to the aged pensioners in 70s and 80s (and a number of them being above 80-85 years at age) in their sunset years. For this, all that is required is to issue a corrigendum to your OM No 38140/12-P&PW(A) dated 28-1-2013 making it effective w.e.f. 1-1-2006.

Thanking you in anticipation.

With regards

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully.

sd/-
S.C. Maheshwari
Secretary Gent Bharat Pensioners Samaj
Posted by Confederation Of Central Government Employees

sundarar
22-08-2014, 06:48 AM
BCPC WRITES TO HON. MINISTER SEEKING JUSTICE TO ALL PRE_2006 PENSIONERS

"LET US FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS

The New NDA Government has taken a decision to implement the judgment on the contempt of court petition on the Pre-2006 Pensioners case only to the members of the petitioner pensioner organisations. It was intimated by the Government side during the hearing on 4th July, 2014 in Principal CAT that it will implement the decision to the petitioners. Subsequently a letter has been addressed by the Government to those petitioner organisations asking the details of the members to enable the Government to implement the judgment to them only. This shows the mindset of the Government that it do not want to extend the benefit of judgment to all pre-2006 pensioners. This is a grave injustice to the pre-2006 pensioners' community which is more than 38 lakhs in numbers.

At the same time the Government has filed another petition on the same issue in the Supreme Court against the judgment of another court and that hearing is coming up on 16th September, 2014.

BCPC has written to the Honourable Minister of State of Ministry of Personnel & P.G & Pensions of Central Government on this matter and has demanded that all pre-2006 pensioners should get the benefit. The letter of BCPC is produced below:

BHARAT CENTRAL PENSIONERS CONFEDERATION
2-13A, LGF (Backside), Jangpura – A, New Delhi – 110014
S.C. Maheshwari S.K.Vyas
Chairman Acting Secretary General
0-9868862322 09868244035


No.BCPC/Pen/Modified Parity/2014 July 21 , 2014

Dr. Jitendra Singh,
Hon'ble MOS (PP)
Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel & P.G & Pensions,
North Block,
New Delhi

Sub:- Implementation of order of Tribunal in regard to modified Parity.

Sir,

We would like to bring to your notice the bureaucratic distortion of orders of judiciary which if not corrected through your kind and personal intervention is bound to frustrate the entire community of pre 2006 retirees numbering more than 38.41 lakhs and force them to think that change in Government has been in vain as because the bureaucrats are even now being have been allowed to misinterpret judicial orders forcing affected pensioners to go to courts and thus multiply litigations in the country. While submitting the details of this case we also request you kindly to give us an opportunity to meet you to explain our request.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under:-

a). The VI CPC in Para 5.1.47 of their report recommended that the fixation of revised pension as per the table given by them "will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

b). The Government of India in their Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.8.2008 accepted the above proviso by reproducing it per verbatim at item 12 of the statement showing the relevant recommendations and decision of the Government thereon (vide Annexure the said Resolution).

c). In Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare O.M No. 38/37/ 08 P&PW dated 1.9.2008 same proviso has been incorporated at para 4.2 thereof.

d). The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare through their clarificatory O.M. No. 38/37/08 – P&PW (A) pt. 1 dated 3.10.2008 however modified the para 4.2 of their OM dated 1.9.2008 as under:

The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum pay in the pay band (irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay) plus grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale"

e). In other words in all cases it would be minimum pay of the pay band which would be taken and not the minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to the prerevised pay scale.

f). This clarification was challenged by the Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association in Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (vide O.A No. 655/2010). This Hon'ble Tribunal in their order dated 1.11.2011 quashed the above clarificatory order of Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare dated 3.10.2008 and directed the respondents refix the pension of all pre 2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006 based on Government Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

g). Government of India challenged the above decision of the said Tribunal before Delhi High Court vide WP (C) No.1535/2012 which was dismissed by the High Court vide their order dated 29.4.2013 upholding the decision of the Tribunal.

Government of India then filed the following S.L. Ps etc.

(i) SLP (C) No. 23055/2013 dismissed on 29.7.2013
(ii) Review Petition (C) No. 2492 / 2013 dismissed on 12.11.2013
(iii) Curative Petition (C)No. 126/2014 dismissed on 30.4.2014

Thus the CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011 attained legal finality.

h). On 15.5.2014 the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench New Delhi disposed of the contempt petition No. 158/2012 directing the Union of India to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months"

3. The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare in their letter No. 38/77-A/09-P&PW (A) dated 29.5.2014 written to the Secretary of Petitioner Association (Central Govt. SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association) has stated that as per the directions of Hon'ble CAT their order dated 1.11.2011 is required to be implemented "only in respect of Petitioners in O.A. No. 655/2010 and not in respect of all pre 2006 retirees as per the Tribunals order dated 1.11.2011. There is no such direction that it should be implemented only in respect of Petitioners. May be that Government Advocate had indicated that Government is willing to implement the judgment qua petitioners but the Tribunal had disposed of the contempt Petition by directing the Union of India to implement their directions dated 1.11.2011 expeditiously.

4. It will not be out of place to mention there that response to answer to Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 3406, the above directions of the CAT Principal Bench had already been implemented in respect of all pre 2006 retirees but from an arbitrarily fixed date of 24.9.2012 (vide Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare O.M. F.No. 38/40/12- P&PW (A) dated 28.1.2013. It was not restricted to members of the Petitioners Association Accordingly the direction to implement it w.e.f 1.1.2006 has to be in respect of all pre 2006 retirees also.

5. Bharat Central Pensioners Confederation which is the apex body of all Central Government Pensioners Federations and All India Associations therefore appeal to you to ensure the correct delivery of justice by implementing the above judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal (which had attained finality) in respect of all pre 2006 retirees so that they are not pushed to seek justice though multiple litigations.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,


(S.K.Vyas)
Secretary General

(Posted by All India Postal Employees Union Group)

yenyem
22-08-2014, 08:49 PM
What is the issue being per-sued with this MA?

As per Railway Senior Citizens Welfare Society web site the Misc. Application of Govt. is for
allowing 3months more time for implementation of CAT Judgement reg. Modified Parity for
petitioners and the hearing is fixed on 27.08.2014.

sundarar
23-08-2014, 08:57 PM
OM dated 29.8.2008 is applicable for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants with 33 years/<33 years as a whole without involving any proportionate reduction in whatever case that may be.


While implementing the Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission on Revision of pension of pre-1996 pensioners/family pensioners etc., then first OM dated 27.10.1997 part-I (similar to OM dated 29.8.2008 in 6th CPC) stated as follows:

5. Pension shall continue to be calculated at 50% of average emoluments in all cases and shall be subject to a minimum of Rs.1275/- and maximum upto 50% of highest pay in the Government (The highest pay in the Govt. is Rs 30,000 since 1.1.1996). Accordingly the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules shall stand modified. The other provisions contained in Rule 49 shall continue to apply".

The OM dated 27.10.1997 Part-II indicated as follows:

"5.1 Where the consolidated pension/family pension in terms of paragraph 4 above works out to an amount less than Rs. 1275/- the same shall be stepped upto Rs. 1275/-. This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.1996. In the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 1275/- will apply to the total of all pensions taken together.

5.2 Where the disability pension under the CCS(EOP) Rules, is drawn in addition to invalid pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the minimum limit of Rs. 1275/- will apply to total of two pensions as indicated in paragraph 5.1. Where the disability pension is drawn in isolation, the minimum limit of Rs. 1275/- will apply for 100% disability. For lesser degree of disability the minimum limit will be proportionately less".

Subsequently, the OM dated 10.2.1998 was issued and the last sentence of its para 2 indicated the following:

"2.........
The pension so worked out shall be consolidated as on 1.1.1996 in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 4.1 of this Department's O.M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A)-Part II dated the 27th October, 1997 and shall be treated as basis pension for the purpose of grant of Dearness Relief in future".

On 17.12.1998 the aforesaid paras of respective OMs were amended vide a fresh OM dated 17.12.1998 as follows:

A. O.M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) -Pt.I dated October 27,1997.
2.

The first sentence of paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum relating to "Pension" may be substituted by the following:

" Pension shall continue to be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments in all cases and shall be subject to a minimum of Rs. 1,275 per month and a maximum of upto 50% of the highest pay applicable in the Central Government, which is Rs. 30,000 per month since 1st January, 1996, but the full pension in no case shall be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January, 1996 for the post last held by the employee at the time of his retirement. However such pension will be suitably reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per the rule (Rule 49 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972) applicable to the pensioner as on the date of his / her superannuation / retirement and in no case it will be less than Rs.1275/- p.m."

B. O.M. No. 45/86/97 - P&PW(A) Pt. II dated October, 27, 1997
3.

The following may be inserted after the first sentence, "The amount so arrived at shall be……………with effect from 1. 1. 1996," in the sub-para of paragraph 4.1:

" However, in cases where the pension consolidated is treated as the final full pension, it shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the pensioner at the time of his retirement. Such pension will be suitably reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per the rule (Rule 49 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972) applicable to the pensioner as on the date of his / her superannuation / retirement and in no case it will be less than Rs.1275/- p.m. Similarly, in cases where the family pension so consolidated is treated as final, it shall not be less than 30 per cent of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner/ deceased government servant."

C. O.M. No. 45/86/97-Pt. III dated February 10, 1998
4..The last sentence of paragraph 2 may be substituted by the following:

"The pension so calculated shall be consolidated as on 1st January 1996 in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 4.1 of this Department’s O.M.No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) – Pt. II dated 27th October 1997. Such consolidated full pension shall not, however, be less than 50 per cent of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner. However such pension will be suitably reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per the rule (Rule 49 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972) applicable to the pensioner as on the date of his / her superannuation / retirement and in no case it will be less than Rs.1275/- p.m."

IT IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT RULE 49 OF CCS (PENSION) RULES 1972 THAT WAS NOT PRESCRIBED IN PREVIOUS OMs Part-I and Part-II both dated 27.10.1997 and subsequent OM dated 10.2.1998 were amended vide a later OM dated 17.12.1998.

IT IS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE OM DATED 17.12.1998 WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION OF MINIMUM REVISED PENSION UNDER RULE 49 OF CCS(PENSION) RULES 1972 IS BASED ON ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATIONS OF 5TH CPC IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD IS EXCLUSIVELY MEANT FOR PRE-1986 PENSIONERS WHO WERE BROUGHT ON PAR WITH THOSE RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.1.1996. HOWEVER, WHETHER A PRO-RATA PENSION WHILE STEPPNING UPTO MINIMUM LEVEL OF REVISED PENSION, CAN BE FURTHER SUBJECTED TO RE-PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION IS ALSO A QUESTION.

EXPERTS MAY LIKE TO THROW LIGHT ON THIS ASPECT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE OM DATED 3.10.2008/14.10.2008 STANDS QUASHED AS PER CAT VERDICT DATED 1.11.2011 (WHICH OMs PRESCRIBED FOR PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION ASPECT).
THE OM DATED 28.1.2013 WAS A SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TIME IS NOW THEREFORE TO IMPLEMENT THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER IN LETTER AND SPIRIT FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS INCLUDING NON-LITIGANTS (INCLUDING THOSE NON-LITIGANTS WITH <33 YEARS Q.S.).

yenyem
27-08-2014, 08:49 PM
as per railway senior citizens welfare society web site the misc. Application of govt. Is for
allowing 3months more time for implementation of cat judgement reg. Modified parity for
petitioners and the hearing is fixed on 27.08.2014.

ma/2381/2014 is adjourned to 07.10.2014

sundarar
06-09-2014, 10:46 PM
The Hon'ble Tribunal in their order dated 1.11.2011 quashed the amended provisions of OM 1.9.2008 issued from time to time till the date of the Order dated 1.11.2011 and directed the respondents refix the pension of all pre 2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006 based on Government Resolution dated 29.8.2008. The Contempt Petition was disposed on 15.5.2014 by the Hon. Tribunal with directions to implement the orders of the Tribunal vide Judgment dated 1.11.2011. Thus, neither the initial OM 1.9.2008 nor its amended provisions from time to time till date, have no role to play, while re-fixing pension of all pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

Thus, a fresh OM based on the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 only will give clear picture to the pension disbursing agencies and that alone will be a legally valid document. It is quite significant to note that there is no Court directive for extension of benefit of OM dt. 28.1.2013 (which also is one of the amended provision of OM 1.9.2008 apart from other amendments issued from time to time) w.e.f 1.1. 2006 instead of 24.9.2012 was ordered on 15.5.2014/27.8.2014. Therefore, the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 is required to be implemented in letter and spirit, if the orders of the Hon. Tribunal are to be complied with in to to. The pre-2006 pensioners are bound by the terms and conditions of Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008, but not by any other OM including those amended provisions from time to time till date.

Incidentally, the pre-2006 pensioners (non-litigants) are not respondent-writ petitioner as on date with particular reference to Modified Parity based Minimum Revised Pension. As such, no sub-judice issue is involved in the event of a fresh OM based on Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in accordance with the Hon. Tribunal Order dated 1.11.2011 for all pre-2006 pensioners (non-litigants).

sundarar
07-09-2014, 09:32 PM
The Hon. CAT PR Bench in the operating para 30 of their Judgment dated 1.11.2011 concluded as follows:

"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs".

It is quite significant to note that ultimately, the pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 is required to be re-fixed based on the GOVT. RESOLUTION dated 29.8.2008, and not on the basis of OM 1.9.2008 or its provisions as amended from time to time till date. It is a fact that OM 1.9.2008 was not quashed, but at the same time, it was not taken into account for re-fixing pension from 1.1.2006. So, the significance is more attached to the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 rather than DOP&PW OM dated 1.9.2008.
Thus all executive instructions with regard to modified parity based minimum revised pension issued on or after 1.9.2008 till date loose their respective significance, particularly since ultimately, the pension is not required to be re-fixed based on any of these instructions, but based on the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 only.

Though we are aware of the contents of both Resolution as well as OM 1.9.2008, the micro indepth look into the relevant portion is preferable.


The Govt. Resolution: The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than `fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' from which the pensioner had retired.


The Hon. Tribunal vide Para 16 of their Verdict dated 1.11.2011 pointed out as follows:The use of words sum of, and and thereon leaves no doubt that both the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay have to correspond to the pre-revised pay scale.

Para 4.2 of initial OM 1.9.2008: The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than `fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' from which the pensioner had retired.

Further, vide para 26 of their Verdict, the Hon. Tribunal asserted as follows:

"26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement.

Now, the reason for not bringing the OM 1.9.2008 in the operative para of the Judgment can be well understood.

The OM dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time till 28.1.2013 has been provided with another amended provision vide DOP&PW OM dated 28.1.2013 as follows;
2.....
`50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised payscale from which the pensioner had retired'

Still, the Hon. Tribunal in their final order dated 15.5.2014 did not extend the benefit of OM 28.1.2013 (the amended provisions of OM 1.9.2008) from 1.1.2006 till 23.9.2012 for all pre-2006 pensioners. But, they had directed to implement the order of the Tribunal. Thus, the focussed significance to Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 for implementation part, viz. re-fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants.

Thus, ultimately OM 1.9.2008 and its amended provisions till date, did not serve any purpose as far as re-fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants. Based on the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008, a fresh implementation order followed by CPAO's instructions to Banks alongwith concordance Table, etc. will only comply with the Hon. Tribunal's directives.

AS LONG AS OM 1.9.2008 DID NOT FIND PLACE IN THE OPERATIVE PARA NO.30 OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL VERDICT 1.11.2011, THE SAME AND ITS AMENDED PROVISIONS COULD FIND NO PLACE IN RE-FIXATION OF PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS INCLUDING NON-LITIGANTS W.E.F. 1.1.2006.

IT IS REQUESTED TO ISSUE A FRESH O.M. STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIVES OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL AND IN SUPERSESSION OF EXISTING OMs/EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS, WITH CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS THEREON TO DISBURSING AGENCIES AT THE EARLIEST POINT OF TIME.

sundarar
08-09-2014, 02:49 AM
http://scm-bps.blogspot.in
25th SCOVA meeting on 05.09.2014 Feedback
4. Implementation of OA655/2010 extension of OM dt 28.1.2013 wef from 01.01.06: Issue was very strongly raised by S.C. Maheshwari Secy. genl. BPS supported by JCM Secy Com Shiva Gopal Mishra & Com S.K.Vyas. After persistent pressure . Secy. Said “though I have just taken over, I have studied the case in detail. I am seized of the issue& trying to resolve give me some time. Govt. will have to implement Court’s orders”.

We are very much thankful to the Secretary. Also, we are thankful to Sr. Veterans, Shri S.C. Maheshwari Secy. genl. BPS supported by JCM Secy Com Shiva Gopal Mishra & Com S.K.Vyas.

The Hon. CAT PR Bench in the operating para 30 of their Judgment dated 1.11.2011 concluded as follows:

"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs".

The OM dated 11.2.2009 referred to above, was providing clarifications with reference to para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, including about the suggestion that application of the provision of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale (the suggestion got denied through the OM). It was not known whether quashing of OM dated 11.2.2009 with particular reference to the said suggestion was opposed in the Writ Petition before High Court, Delhi by DOP&PW.
Even before the Hon. Tribunal, during the disposal of Contempt Petition on 15.5.2014, the DOP&PW has not presented the factual position about the pending SLPs, and it is understood that one of the issue therein, may be pertaining to the quashing of OM 11.2.2009 with particular reference to the application of the provision of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 relating to upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale.

Since the decision is taken to comply with the Court Orders, pending decision with regard to grant of upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale, there could be no sub-judice if the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 as it is, for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants (including those pensioners, whose last pay scale got upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006) and in that event, no sub-judice may be involved. As and when the final decision on upgraded pay band/grade pay is available, action as required then can very well be taken.
As such, for implementation of the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in compliance with the Court directives, it cannot be said that the matter is sub-judice.

IT IS REQUESTED ONCE AGAIN TO ISSUE A FRESH O.M. STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIVES OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL AND IN SUPERSESSION OF EXISTING OMs/EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS (WITH EXCEPTION ON THE UPGRADED PAY BAND/GRADE PAY PART TILL THE FINAL DECISION), WITH CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS THEREON TO DISBURSING AGENCIES AT THE EARLIEST POINT OF TIME.

attaluri sundaresan
08-09-2014, 04:46 PM
DEAR SIR IAM FOLLOWING YOUR LINE OF THREAD. i lT cOL aTTALURI SUNDARESAN SERVED ia FOR 22YRS OF SERVICE. I will be contacting aarajagopalan. thanks a lot for the information

captkhanna
09-09-2014, 07:05 AM
With present dispensation early issuance of orders is expected
:D
http://scm-bps.blogspot.in
25th SCOVA meeting on 05.09.2014 Feedback
4. Implementation of OA655/2010 extension of OM dt 28.1.2013 wef from 01.01.06: Issue was very strongly raised by S.C. Maheshwari Secy. genl. BPS supported by JCM Secy Com Shiva Gopal Mishra & Com S.K.Vyas. After persistent pressure . Secy. Said “though I have just taken over, I have studied the case in detail. I am seized of the issue& trying to resolve give me some time. Govt. will have to implement Court’s orders”.

We are very much thankful to the Secretary. Also, we are thankful to Sr. Veterans, Shri S.C. Maheshwari Secy. genl. BPS supported by JCM Secy Com Shiva Gopal Mishra & Com S.K.Vyas.

The Hon. CAT PR Bench in the operating para 30 of their Judgment dated 1.11.2011 concluded as follows:

"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs".

The OM dated 11.2.2009 referred to above, was providing clarifications with reference to para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, including about the suggestion that application of the provision of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale (the suggestion got denied through the OM). It was not known whether quashing of OM dated 11.2.2009 with particular reference to the said suggestion was opposed in the Writ Petition before High Court, Delhi by DOP&PW.
Even before the Hon. Tribunal, during the disposal of Contempt Petition on 15.5.2014, the DOP&PW has not presented the factual position about the pending SLPs, and it is understood that one of the issue therein, may be pertaining to the quashing of OM 11.2.2009 with particular reference to the application of the provision of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 relating to upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale.

Since the decision is taken to comply with the Court Orders, pending decision with regard to grant of upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale, there could be no sub-judice if the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 as it is, for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants (including those pensioners, whose last pay scale got upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006) and in that event, no sub-judice may be involved. As and when the final decision on upgraded pay band/grade pay is available, action as required then can very well be taken.
As such, for implementation of the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in compliance with the Court directives, it cannot be said that the matter is sub-judice.

IT IS REQUESTED ONCE AGAIN TO ISSUE A FRESH O.M. STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIVES OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL AND IN SUPERSESSION OF EXISTING OMs/EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS (WITH EXCEPTION ON THE UPGRADED PAY BAND/GRADE PAY PART TILL THE FINAL DECISION), WITH CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS THEREON TO DISBURSING AGENCIES AT THE EARLIEST POINT OF TIME.

sundarar
09-09-2014, 01:21 PM
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P.K.Bhargavan Pillai vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 23 January, 2012
O.A.No.747/11

"6. The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and 11.2.2009 (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). Thus the stipulation that the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated 3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by the respondents stands already quashed. Order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure R-11) which only reiterated the clarification contained in OM dated 3.10.2008 and earlier OM dated 1.9.2008 having also been quashed by the Full Bench, in the case of the applicant his entitlement remains intact at Rs.10500/- and the reduction communicated and executed vide Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 has thus become erroneous as the basis for such reduction itself is no longer available. In view of the above, this application is allowed to the following extent :- (a) It is declared that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay in the scale of pay of Rs.15600 and 50% of the grade pay attached to it as pension".

AS SUCH, THE BASIS FOR REDUCING THE MINIMUM REVISED PENSION TO PRO-RATA THROUGH AMENDED PROVISIONS OF INITIAL OM 1.9.2008 STANDS QUASHED, AND SO THE OM DATED 28.1.2013 WHICH ONLY REITERATED THE CLARIFICATION CONTAINED IN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF OM 3.10.2008/11.2.2009 (THAT ARE QUASHED ON 1.11.2011), IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.

2. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 715 of 2012 w i t h Original Application No. 1051 of 2012 the 16th day of August, 2013

"7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed".

Thus, it can be seen where exactly the Rule 49 will have its application, ie. while deriving notional revised pension based on notional revised emoluments corresponding to the last drawn emoluments at the time of retirement, but not on MINIMUM REVISED PENSION.

It is now clear that for pre-2006 pensioners, the pension re-fixation has not taken place strictly in accordance with the settled position and as per the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008. Whether the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 also prescribes for revised proportionate pension based on notionally revised emoluments or full minimum revised pension for those who rendered less than 33 years service, is required to be analysed by experts.

The fresh OM that is being requested based on the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 may provide the fullest clarity, it is hoped.

sundarar
09-09-2014, 02:42 PM
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
M.O.Inasu vs Shri Sanjay Kothari on 8 April, 2014

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH

C.P/180/00020/2014 IN O.A NO.715 OF 2012 Tuesday, this the 8th day of April, 2014 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Ms.MINNIE MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER M.O.Inasu

Deputy Office Superintendent (Retd) Central Excise,

Manjali House, Kangarapady, Vadakode PO Cochin - 682 021 ... Petitioner (By Advocate Mr.CSG Nair)

versus

1. Shri Sanjay Kothari Secretary

Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi - 110 001

2. Shri S.Subramanian Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Central Revenue Building, I.S>Press Road Cochin - 682 018

3. Shri S.S.Lenka

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road Cochin - 682 018

4. Shri U.Unniukrishnan Pay and Accounts Officer

Central Excise

Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road Cochin - 682 018

5. Shri S.Anil Kumar Pay and Accounts Officer

Central Pension Accounting Office Trikoot II Complex, Bhikajicama Palace R.K.Puram, New Delhi - 110 66` ... Respondents (By Advocate Mr.George Joseph, ACGSC) The application having been heard on 08.04.2014, the Tribunal on the same day delivered the following: O R D E R

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application.

2. Therefore, Contempt Petition is closed as infructuous.

Dated, the 8th April, 2014
MINNIE MATHEW JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

sundarar
13-09-2014, 05:57 PM
The Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008 is not a subject matter of challenge in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.36148-50/2013 and hence, implementation of the same as ordered on 15.5.2014 by the Hon. Tribunal to all pre-2006 similarly placed pensioners like petitioners of the OA 655/2010 cannot be said to have been a subject matter of challenge.

The quashed provisions of OM dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 and 11.2.2009 have been reiterated vide DOP&PW OM dated 28.1.2013 that was issued even while the CAT decision of 1.11.2011 was under appeal by DOP&PW before the Hon. High Court, Delhi, and the matter, however, appealed against was about the quashed OMs. Consequent on dismissal of Curative Petition, the quashed OMs cannot be given any life through another clarificatory OM dated 28.1.2013, amending the provisions of initial OM dated 1.9.2008 with particular reference to full minimum revised pension irrespective of qualifying service, for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

The Hon. High Court while considering the appeal of DOP&PW with regard to quashed OMs referred to above, cannot be expected to comment on repetition of quashed provisions in OM dated 28.1.2013, as the issue was about correct Minimum Revised Pension. The Dept. of Pension had proceeded against the High Court verdict, and finally the Curative Petition also got dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court. The final decision of CAT PR Bench, Delhi on 15.5.2014 was to implement the order dated 1.11.2011 of the Hon. Tribunal While the final decision of the Hon. Tribunal is to re-fix the pension as per the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008, which Resolution did not prescribe for any pro rata based Minimum Revised Pension, the quashed provisions reiterated vide OM dated 28.1.2013 will also become null and void.

In the orders issued for implementation of the order dated 1.11.2011 in respect of the petitioners in OA No.655/2010, the operating para No.7- there is no indication that pension will be reduced pro rata where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS(pension)Rules,1972 as applicable beore 1.1.2006

Further, the extract of CAT Ernakulam Judgment reproduced below concluded that a pre-2006 pensioner is entitled to 50% of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus grade pay of the post from which he retired, w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

If at all, it can be said that grant of upgraded scale's grade pay is a matter of challenge as on date, there is no bar as such from implementing the order of the Hon. Tribunal dated 1.11.2011 as it is for ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE OF QUALIFYING SERVICE. Hence, for want of a final decision with regard to grade pay issue which may be relevant to a very few, the majority of the non-litigants are not required to keep on waiting for years together even after settled position.

"Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
T.K. Radhakrishna Pillai vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2014
Original Application No. 579 of 2013
This application having been heard on 31.01.2014, the Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The applicant took voluntary retirement as Inspector of Central Excise on 31.12.2000. He had a total service of 25 years, 03 months and 05 days including the weightage of 05 years. At the time of his retirement his pay scale was Rs. 6500-10500. According to him, the corresponding pay band as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 was Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 in respect of those who were in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 is Rs. 12090/-. His representation for revision of pension with effect from 01.01.2006 on the above basis was rejected vide Annexure A-9 order dated 01.05.2013. Aggrieved, he has filed this O.A for the following reliefs: (i) To call for the records leading upto the issue of Annexure A-9 and quash the same;
(ii)To declare that the applicant is entitled for revision of pension as per para 4.2 of Annexure A3 OM dated 01.09.2008, i.e., 50% of the minim of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of Inspector of Central Excise, which is Rs. 12090 + Rs. 4600 GP with effect from 01.01.2006;
(iii)To direct the respondents to issue revised PPO to the applicant specifying the pension on the basis of Annexure A4 and A6 and para 4.2 of Annexure A3 OM dated 01.09.2008 i.e., 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of Inspector of Central Excise which is Rs. 12090 + Rs. 4600 GP with effect from 01.01.2006 and also the corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pension within a stipulated period;
2. .. .
3…. .
4. I have heard Mr. C.S.G. Nair, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. George Josesph, learned ACGSC for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The issues for determination in this O.A are whether the applicant is entitled to grade pay of Rs. 4600/- and whether the applicant is entitled to 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band PB-2 plus the grade pay of the post from which he had retired..
6. As regards the first point, the applicant relies on O.M. dated 13.11.2009 for the benefit of upgradation of the post of Inspectors of Central Excise to grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. According to the respondents it is not admissible to him as per para 5 of O.M. dated 11.02.2009. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in paragraph 30 of the order dated 01.11.2011 in O.A. No. 655/2010 and connected cases, held as under :
"30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs."
(emphasis supplied)
As the O.M. dated 11.02.2009 has been set aside as above, the contention of the respondents that the applicant is not eligible for grade pay of Rs. 4600/- is not tenable.
7. Following the decisions of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 655/2010 and connected cases and the judgement dated 29.04.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.1535/2012 and connected cases, this Tribunal had allowed the O.A. Nos. 715/2012 and 1051/2012 as under:
"7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension of a pre- 2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under.
8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pension within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had dismissed the O.P.(CAT) Nos. 8/2014 and 4/2014 against the above order of this Tribunal, vide judgement dated 07.01.2014.
8. In the light of the settled law as above, a pensioner is entitled to 50% of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus grade pay of the post from which he retired. Hence the O.A is allowed as under:
Annexure A-9 dated 01.05.2013 is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order to the applicant specifying the pension on the basis of Annexure A4 and A6 and para 4.2 of Annexure A3 OM dated 01.09.2008 i.e., 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of Inspector of Central Excise, which is Rs. 12090 + Rs. 4600 GP with effect from 01.01.2006 and also the corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs." (Dated, the 31st January, 2014)
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

sundarar
13-09-2014, 10:18 PM
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P.K.Bhargavan Pillai vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 23 January, 2012
O.A.No.747/11

"6. The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and 11.2.2009 (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). Thus the stipulation that the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated 3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by the respondents stands already quashed. Order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure R-11) which only reiterated the clarification contained in OM dated 3.10.2008 and earlier OM dated 1.9.2008 having also been quashed by the Full Bench, in the case of the applicant his entitlement remains intact at Rs.10500/- and the reduction communicated and executed vide Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 has thus become erroneous as the basis for such reduction itself is no longer available. In view of the above, this application is allowed to the following extent :- (a) It is declared that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay in the scale of pay of Rs.15600 and 50% of the grade pay attached to it as pension".

The extract of final Orders of the Hon. High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 22,5,2914 in the case of UOI vs P.K.Bhargavan Pillai is reproduced hereunder, for information.

It is significant to note that the petitioner has not submitted as on 22.5.2014 that

- `implementation of the Court Orders is still a subject matter of challenge in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.36148-50/2013.will be sub-judice in view of the pending
SLPs before the Hon. Supreme Court
- OM dated 28.1.2013 has prescribed for application of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for those who rendered less than 33 years qualifying service
- the Hon. High Court has taken note of the OM dated 28.1.2013 and not ordered for grant of full minimum pension to those pre-2006 pensioners who had less than 33
years of qualifying service at the time of their retirement.
- the OM dated 1.9.2008 is amended once again on 28.1.2013 and thereby provided that pension will be reduced pro rata where the pensioner had less than the maximum
required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS(pension)Rules,1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006'
-----------------------------------------------------
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM


OP (CAT).No. 1767 of 2012 (Z)
----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 747/2011 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
DATED 23-01-2012

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLYHEARD ON 22-05-2014, ALONG WITH OPCAT.1872/2012, , OPCAT. 236/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

OP (CAT).No. 1767 of 2012 (Z)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1(A) - COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED7.1.2014 IN O.P(CAT) NO.8/2014 OF THIS
COURT.



Petitioners in all the cases challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal granting relief to the respondents, which reads as follows:

"(a) It is declared that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay in the scale of pay of . 15,600/- and 50% of the grade pay attached to it
as pension.

(b) Consequently, it is declared that Annexure A2 ( and Annexure A3 being erroneous are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly ordered."

We treat O.P.1767/12 as the leading case.

2. The applicants before the Tribunal retired prior to 01.01.2006. They were granted pension in terms of Annexure-1 which inter alia provides that pension would in no case be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired. While so, Annexure -A2 dated 27.1.2011 was issued whereby the pension was reduced. Annexure A3 was
issued. It is after moving the representation against reduction, remedies were sought against the reduction in pension.

3. When these matter was taken up today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in O.P.1767/12 the issue at hand stands covered by Judgment of this court, which is produced as Ext.R1(A). It is pointed out that this court followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which in turn had followed the judgment of Panjab & Hariyana High Court on the very same issue. It is also pointed out that the judgment of Punjab and Hariyana High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and special leave petition was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to establish before us any reason why we should not follow the judgment of this court, which is produced as Ext.R1(A) - (COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED7.1.2014 IN O.P(CAT) NO.8/2014 OF THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM). In such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view. These petitions will stand dismissed".

captkhanna
15-09-2014, 01:14 PM
Callous and unaccountable babus are continuing in DOPT to deny correct and legitimate entitlements to pensioners (pre 1.1.2006) The change of Government has made no difference to the dispensation.
Let us forget justice from this Government also.
The Highest Court of the land can deliver justice but cannot get executed the same.
Only God will ensure implementation when we are gone in His kingdom

sundarar
24-09-2014, 05:06 AM
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
M.O.Inasu vs Shri Sanjay Kothari on 8 April, 2014

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH

C.P/180/00020/2014 IN O.A NO.715 OF 2012 Tuesday, this the 8th day of April, 2014 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Ms.MINNIE MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER M.O.Inasu

Deputy Office Superintendent (Retd) Central Excise,

Manjali House, Kangarapady, Vadakode PO Cochin - 682 021 ... Petitioner (By Advocate Mr.CSG Nair)

versus

1. Shri Sanjay Kothari Secretary

Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market New Delhi - 110 001

2. Shri S.Subramanian Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Central Revenue Building, I.S>Press Road Cochin - 682 018

3. Shri S.S.Lenka

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road Cochin - 682 018

4. Shri U.Unniukrishnan Pay and Accounts Officer

Central Excise

Central Revenue Building, I.S.Press Road Cochin - 682 018

5. Shri S.Anil Kumar Pay and Accounts Officer

Central Pension Accounting Office Trikoot II Complex, Bhikajicama Palace R.K.Puram, New Delhi - 110 66` ... Respondents (By Advocate Mr.George Joseph, ACGSC) The application having been heard on 08.04.2014, the Tribunal on the same day delivered the following: O R D E R

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER, JUDICIAL MEMBER When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application.

2. Therefore, Contempt Petition is closed as infructuous.

Dated, the 8th April, 2014
MINNIE MATHEW JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

It can be seen from the above, there is no SLP, Review Petition, Curative Petition etc. involved. The Contempt Petition closure is the legal finality of the Hon. Tribunal's verdict. Similarly placed pensioners, even if they are non-litigants in other OAs like 655/2010 of Hon. CAT, PR Bench are entitled benefit of the aforesaid Verdict, and not each and every one of the aggrieved pensioner need to become a petitioner.

The case of pro-rata pensioners before Hon. Tribunal PR Bench will be coming up for hearing next on 29.9.2014.

The Rule 49 is applicable provided there is notional revision in pre-revised emoluments last drawn, for deriving correct pre-revised basic pension before subjecting the same for revision on 1.1.2006 in accordance with the Govt. Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

On dismissal of Curative Petition in OA 655/2010, the case attained legal finality and
implementation of settled position for non-litigants cannot be considered as sub-judice owing to the pending SLPs/CAs before the HSC which applications/appeals may get decided on 14.10.2014.

As such, the non-litigant pensioners with 33 years as well as those non-litigant pensioners with less than 33 years are entitled for re-fixation of their respective pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the light of legal finality attained on both the subject matters, viz. CORRECT MINIMUM REVISED PENSION/CORRECT REVISED PENSION as the case may be.

Gopal Krishan
25-09-2014, 01:39 PM
Could you kindly favour favour me with a copy of the order in the Erbakulam CAT case.
Gopal Krishan

sundarar
29-09-2014, 09:45 PM
The para 1 of the Common Judgment DATED 1.11.2011 while deciding the matter of 4 OAs of 2010 before the Hon. CAT PR Bench, indicated as follows:

"By this common order we propose to dispose of four connected Original Applications, as the issues involved in all are same, as is also suggested by the learned counsel representing the parties. Pleadings to the extent the same may be required to be mentioned are, however, extracted from OA No.655/2010 in the matter of Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners' Association and another v. Union of India & others".

Thus, all the subsequent Judgments thereafter in OA 655/2010 are also common Judgments in respect of all the four parties, whereby the pending 3 SLPs 36148-50/2013 in OA 655/2010 must also be having the same common issues decided by Hon. CAT PR Bench vide Order dated 1.11.2011.

Hence, citing these pending SLPs against one out of four parties in OA 655/2010 for non-implementation of the Order 1.11.2011 for re-fixing pension of all pre-2006 pensioners mainly to involve sub-judice aspect is not going to serve any purpose.

THE COMMON JUDGMENT 1.11.2011 IS COMMON FOR BOTH PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WITH 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE HAVING LESS THAN 33 YEARS AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT.

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT QUASHING OF THE OM DATED 3.10.2008 VIDE THE SAID HON. CAT ORDER 1.11.2011 AMOUNT TO QUASHING OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION BASED ON LENGTH OF QUALIFYING SERVICE, VIZ. LESS THAN 33 YEARS ALSO. HENCE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT OF OM 1.9.2008 THROUGH OM 28.1.2013 WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE QUASHED PROVISIONS ON PRO-RATA ALSO IS QUASHABLE ONLY.

THE GOVT. RESOLUTION DATED 29.9.2008 DID NOT PRESCRIBE ANY QUALIFYING SERVICE CRITERIA FOR DRAWAL OF MINIMUM REVISED PENSION

THE GOVT. RESOLUTION DID NOT PRESCRIBE WHETHER THE DISPENSATION OF LINKAGE OF 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE IS PROSPECTIVE AND THAT MEANS BENEFIT OUT OF SUCH DISPENSATION WILL ACCRUE FROM 1.1.2006 ONLY.

THUS, THE BENEFIT OF HON. CAT ORDER 1.11.2011 SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS INCLUDING NON-LITIGANTS WITH 33 YEARS/LESS THAN 33 YEARS.

sundarar
11-04-2015, 09:13 PM
As rightly pointed out by one of our Sr. Veterans - Morning, Afternoon, Evening and Night the pre-2006 pensioners measure their life with Court Petitions for rightful pension at their old age in spite of the available Judgment in REM that attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land repeatedly, and the latest on 17.3.2015 with the dismissal of pending SLPs 36148-50/2013.

Therefore, it cannot be treated now that the issue of revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 is subjudice.

Particularly, the Dept. of Legal Affairs vide their Advice dated 8.5.2014 also had advised that "in so far as the pending SLPs (36148-50/2013) are concerned, there may not be any objection in awaiting the final outcome of the cases before taking a FINAL DECISION".

Moreover, the outcome of the SLPs referred to, also happened to be more significant with the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 5.3.2015 (as available in pensionersportal.gov.in) by the DOP&PW wherein it is stated that the outcome would be brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments to whom the said OM was addressed. Therefore, the said outcome is very crucial for all non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners who were serving in those Ministries/Departments at the time of retirement and the implementation orders are due at present.

It is the wish and prayer of all pre-2006 pensioners that a timely and favourable final decision will make the pensioners community to continue their peaceful retirement life.

Jai Shri Krishna.