PDA

View Full Version : Anomaly Committee



RSundaram
11-04-2009, 08:49 PM
I started this thread so that government pensioners of all ranks can share information on the progress of this Joint Consultation Process .To begin with here are ( given below) the Points so far formulated in so far as pensioners are concerned by the Staff Side of the Anomaly committee, according to Shri C.Srikumar a Member of the National Level JCM and the Anomaly committee. . Shri C.Srikumar , himself an employee of an Ordnance Factory has been kind enough to receive petitions from retired ordnance factory officers in scales S19 to S 30 pointing out the disparity arising from para 4.2 and interpretation of Minimum of Pay Band and has assured that he would take up the same. .

Agenda Points For Anomaly Committee Formulated So far By The Staff Side.

1. Commutation Of Pension

The minimum period of service for eligibility for pension is 10 Years . For appointment to Govt. service the minimum age is 18 Years. In view of this if a person is appointed at the age of 18 years he cannot become eligible for pension unless he has served for a period of 10 years and attained the age of 28 years, i.e., when his birthday falls in the 29th year.
The Table in OM Dated 2.9.2008 shows the next birthday after retirement at 20 . This needs rectification.

2. Parity In Pension of all pre 1996 Retirees with those who retired on after 1.1.1996

The Government has already accepted in principle that there shall be parity in pension amongst pensioners irrespective of date of retirement.
Accordingly pension of all pre 1986 retirees was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 by first determining the notional pay which would have been fixed as on 1.1.1986 ( treating as if the employees were in service on that date) and then the notional pension was updated by applying the same fitment formula which was applied to serving employees.
We, therefore demanded that the notional pay of all pre 1996 retirees may be fixed as on 1.1.1996 in terms of revised pay rules , 1996 and the notional Pension as on 1.1.1996 may be revised w.e.f 1.1.2006 by applying the same fitment formula which is applied in the case of serving employees i.e., by multiplying the notional pension as on 1.1.1996 by 1.86 + the Grade Pay of the Pay Scale (V CPC) from which they would have retired.
The revision of pension has been done by applying the formula of basic pension as on 1.1.1996 + Dearness Pension ( 50% of Basic Pension) + Dearness Relief on Basic Pension + Dearness Pension + 40% of Basic Function.
This is not the same that has been granted to serving employees. In whose case the Grade Pay which is the fitment benefit is 40% of the maximum of the Pre Revised pay Scale.
As such the Pensioners should also be granted 50% of the grade Pay of the pay Scale from which they had retired by way of fitment benefit and not 40% of basic Pension.

3. Anomaly in Pension to those retirees within first 9 months of 2006 not fully rectified.

The DOP &PW in their Clarification OM F.NO 38/37/08- P& PW dated 3.10.2008 at Sl No 5 Para 12 have stipulated that for the purpose of computing average emoluments in the case of Govt. servants who have opted for fixation of Pay in the revised Pay Band and retire within 10 months from the date of coming over to the Revised Pay Band, basic pay for the 10 months period preceding retirement shall be calculated by taking into account pay as follows.
I. For the period during which pay is drawn in the revised Pay Structure – Pay drawn in the prescribed Pay Band plus applicable Grade Pay or the Pay in the Pay Scale in case of HAG+ and above.
II. For the remaining period during which pay is drawn in the pre revised scale.
III. Basic Pay + Dearness Pay and Actual DA appropriate o the Basic Pay at the rates in force on 1.1.2006 drawn during the relevant period.
IV. Notional increase of Basic Pay by applying the fitment benefit of 40% on the Basic Pay in the pre revised Pay Scale.
The average emoluments so computed would not fully rectify the anomaly because those who have retired on 31.102008 and thereafter will get their average emoluments for all the 10 preceding months in the prescribed Pay band plus the applicable Grade Pay i.e., Basic pay in pre revised scale multiplied by 1.86 + Grade Pay which is 40% of the maximum of the pre=revised pay scale or even more than that in the case of S-16 upwards. On the other hand what has been allowed as per above clarification in the case of those retiring within 10 months is
Basic Pay in pre revised scale multiplied by 1.74 plus 40% of Basic Payin the pre revised scale.
With a view to remove the anomaly it is demanded that for the period preceding 10 months during which pre-revised pay is drawn , the pay of those retiring between 1.1.2006 and 30.9.2006 should be taken as under.
a) Basic Pay Mulitiplied by 1.86
b) Plus Notional Increase in the Basic pay by the Grade Pay applicable and not 40% of basic pay in the pre revised pay scale.

Contd....

RSundaram
11-04-2009, 08:49 PM
4. Revision Of Pension Of those Who retired during the period 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2006

The recommendations of the VI CPC for grant of full pension at 50% of average emoluments received during last 10 months or the pay last drawn whichever is more beneficial to all employees rendering minimum of 20 years of service has been accepted.
Rule 49 (2) (a) of CCS (Pension) Riules , 1972 shall have to be revised by providing 20 years for 33 years and Rule 34 of the CCS ( Pension) Rules 1972 will also undergo a change by including the last pay drawn if it is more beneficial as emoluments for the purpose of foxing pension.
It is therefore not correct to state that qualifying service of 20 years and average emoluments or the last pay drawn are not separable (vide DOPT OM F.No 38/37/08- P & PW (A) Pt II dated 3.10.2008)
The Commission’s recommendation that payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service may take effect prospectively i.e., from 2.9.2008 is to say the least unconstitutional in the light of the judgment dated 17/12/1982 of the Hon’ble Apex Court what is popularly known as the Nakara Judgment . They have rules ad under:-
That by introducing arbitrary eligibility criteria : being in service and retiring at subsequent date for being eligible for the liberalization in Pension Rules ( or any other liberalization in Pension Rules) and thereby dividing a homogenous class ( Pensioners, Past , Present and future) this classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of such liberalization and the eligibility criteria being thoroughly arbitrary we are of the view that the eligibility for the liberalized pension Scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date violates Art 14 of the Constitution and is unconstitutional and is struck down.
With due respect to the VI CPC, it is, therefore stated that the above recommendations vide para 5.1.33 of their report from a prospective date ( vide para 6.5.3 of VI CPC) is ultra vires of Art 14 of the Constitution and may therefore be rejected.
Not only those who have retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 but even those who retired prior to 1.1.2006 may be granted full pension if they had rendered 20 years of service i.e., 50% of the average emoluments for the last 10 months or the last pay if that be more beneficial.

5. Revision of Pension for those receiving two pensions.

Para 5.1 of the OM F38/37/P &PW(A) dated 1/9/08 lays down that where the consolidate pension /Family Pension works out to an amount less than Rs 3500/- the same shall be stepped to Rs 3500 and that will be regarded as Pension/Family Pension with effect from 1.1.2006. In the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension , the floor ceiling of Rs 3500 will apply to the total of all pensions taken together.
This is a clear retrograde step from the existing position whereby in terms of the DOP & PW OM
No 42/2/2004 P & PW (G) dated 21/6/2004 when a pensioner receives two pensions both are treated separately for the purpose of consolidation and not taken together.
It is therefore requested that status quo ante should be restored by issuing orders in supersession of para 5.1 ibid, laying down that minimum floor ceiling should apply separately to each pension and not to the total of the pension taken together.

6. Special Provisions for those who retired on or after 1.1.2006 but retain pre revised scale of pay.

The provisions made in para 13 of OM dated 2.9.2008 in respect of above category of employees are against the principle of natural justice and arbitrary in as much as they have neither been treated as pre 1.1.2006 retirees nor post 1.1.2006 retirees.
To meet the ends of justice their pension should be computed as in clause (ii) of para 13 wity reference to emoluments defined in FR 9(21)(a) (i) after inclusion of Dearness Pay and DA paid as on 1.1.2006 ( on basic pay plus dearness pay) and pension computed without notiomnal increase of the basic pay by applying the fitment benefit of 40% on the basic pay in the pre Revised scale. Similarly family Pension is to be calculated at 30% of basic pay after adding dearness pay as drawn fitment weightage of 40% of basic pay and DA as admissible on 1.1.2006 ( on BP + DP). The provisions made in para 13 are highly discriminatory and anomalous as pension/family pension to those retired /died prior to 1.1.2006 with the same pay in the revised scale.
Although such cases may be few who will be opting to draw pay in the pre revised structure , but to avoid discriminatory treatment and to protect that their pension / family pension is not less thyan what an employee gets on his retirement /death on 31/12/2005 , the provisions made in para 13 needs further suitable amendment/ amplification.

7. Commutation of additional pension on retrospective revision of pension in respect of post 31.12.2005 Retirees.

The recommendations mae by the VI CPC in para 6.5.3 as mentioned in Sl No 5 of the Resolution dated 29/8/2008 and accepted by the GOI is against the provisions of Rule 10 of CCS ( Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981. Neither the Government nor the pensioners are at liberty to alter/refuse the contract of commutation of pension after it becomes “absolute” . Since Govt,. servants who retired after 1.1.2006 and have commuted a portion of their pension which has now been retrospectively revised have to be allowed the commutation of additional now becoming due to the same percentage which he has applied earlier for commutation with reference to the purchase value for age next birthday which was taken into account at the time of ( date on which commutation became absolute) – initial commutation. The recommendation of VI CPC is also against the spirit of Rule 8 of CCS ( Commutation of Pension) Rules. Had the commutation table consisting of purchase value with reference to age has gone up , then the government would have applied Rule 10 ibid for commutation of additional pension and not with reference to revised upward rate. The DOP & PW cannot choose the latter provision by subverting the statutory Rule 10 of CCS ( Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 . It was for the Govt. not to accept the recommendations of the VI CPC as contained in para 6.5.3 of their report and status quo as per Rule 10 of CCS ( Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 continued as was done while implementing the 3rd, 4th, 5th, Pay Commission recommendations.
We therefore request the Govt. to maintain status quo by applying provisions of Rule 10 of CCS ( Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 for commutation of pension becoming due as a result of revision of pay/pension and modify the acceptance of recommendation as appearing against Sl 5 of the Resolution and Provisions made in para 9.3 of OM Dated 2.9.2008.

vnatarajan
11-04-2009, 09:41 PM
Dear Shri RS

I am not finding listing of anything related to parity between the pre-2006 pensioners vis a vis post-2006 pensioners, which is a core anomaly issue (if I am correct!).

Para 11.33/ 11.35.5.1.47 of the SCPC Report has to be taken into FULL account in terms of the SCPC's PRINCIPLES/ POLICIES, to set right the anomalies resulting in the revision of pension of all pre-2006 retirees belonging to pre-revised scales S-4 to S30 with a very few exceptions.

The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 dtd 2.9.2008 which had been brought into effect wef 2.9.2008 to revise and fix the pay/ pension of pre-2.9.2008 pensioners retrospectively but only upto 1.1.2006 (and not prior to thet) and also that of post 2.9.2008 retirees must be made applicable to all pensioners!. This would entitle everyone to draw revised pension based on their last pay drawn, together with the Grade Pay component.

I think the Anomaly Committee has not yet listed the pre-2006 pensioners' CORE ISSUE so far! WILL THEY?

vnatarajan.

(I am making a small amendment to CORRECT myself:

In one of the items listed at sl no4, post 2 of RS, last para however reads:

"Not only those who have retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 but even those who retired prior to 1.1.2006 may be granted full pension if they had rendered 20 years of service i.e., 50% of the average emoluments for the last 10 months or the last pay if that be more beneficial.")

vn

RSundaram
11-04-2009, 11:15 PM
My dear VN
You are right. Staff Side has not flagged the issue of disparity which we have been highlighting so far. The representations by the Ordanace Factory Pensioners were given only to draw the attention of staff side to this serious issue since there an access to a member of the anomaly committee is locally available in Chennai. More pensioners should mark their copies of representations to him to strenghthen his hands to press our point during formulation of the agenda points.

His address is Shri C.Srikumar GenSec AIDEF Ordnance Clothing Factory , Avadi, Chennai 600054.

By the way, you may like to note that S30Pensioners have formed a Yahoo Group and according to a post there, they have engaged Mr AK Behera to file a suit in the CAT Principal Bench assisted by Mr Param Jit Singh , a SC lawyer and former HC Judge of Punjab and Haryana.

vnatarajan
05-06-2009, 09:46 AM
AC Means: ANOMALY COMMITTEE OR ABANDON COURSE?

Dear aggrieved Copensioners/ all,

One of my close friends/ our Forum functionary informs: "I heard a news from one of my friends who has close contacts with JCM members, most of them are in staff side of the anomalies committee, that the aforesaid committee seems to restrict their consideration only to the group D and LDC & UDC level in Group C only according to the terms of reference as explained by Secretary [DOPT} of the anomalies committee; the reason for not including other non gazetted persons seems to be because those drawing grade pay of Rs.4200 + are declared Group B non gazetted. It is emphatically stated that the committee will not consider Group B and A petitions. you may get it clarified through SOME SOURCE or through RTI" If what he conveys is true, many sections of Pensioners may again be taken for a ride- as is happening everytime. I do not know how many have realised thet twice we have been OFFICIALLY cheated in "DISPOSING OFF" our representations through OMs of 11th Feb/ 12th May 2009. Earlier we had been sufficiently "HOODWINKED" by the conflicting/ erronious/ misinterpreted/ wantonly tampered reproductions of Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report- through OMs dtd 1st Sept/ 3rd & 14th Oct 2008. More RTI queries need be made to DOPPW & MOF/DOE on these issues again. Those who are MORE ENERGETIC/ LOCATED AT DELHI/ WELL INFORMED may pl act please.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
05-06-2009, 07:27 PM
My dear VN, all. I suspected that. Nothing is going to come up from AC in our favour. We are doomed.

RSundaram
06-06-2009, 11:09 AM
As I understand , the Anomaly Committee as constituted under the JCM scheme in so far as it relates to serving employees is limited to Group C and Group D. However pensioners are not classified thus and their issues will be taken up regardless of their status during their service tenures. Additionally I also understand informally, the issue of Modified Parity particularly for S 24 up to S 30 has been formulated as an agenda point and already submitted by the staff side.

Kanaujiaml
06-06-2009, 07:35 PM
Thanks for giving encouraging news.

vnatarajan
13-06-2009, 09:34 AM
Good News or Bad news? Suspense continues on the Anomaly Committee's Role wrt Gr A/B Pensioners! Of course common issues could be the BRIDGE to resolve the crisis if any:

Dear All

AC will not attend to Gr A/B Pensioners’ anomalies- this news is disturbing:

The terms of reference of the Anomaly Committee do not put a specific restriction on considering the ssues related to any of the "so-called" pre-retirement cadres (A/B/C/D) of the Pensioners!

It is for the "Pensioners' Associations etc." (words used in the AC related OM of 23rd March 2009)to get this point "officially" clarified through a written commmunication- if necessary thru RTI (wh now we find that the concerned Deptt. do not respond to many "inconvenient" queries- particularly after the CIO had hauled up some authority for their omission).

We find, unfortunately, many Pensioners' Associations are indifferent to the relatively "higher" pension-drawing pensioners' expression of protests without understanding the BASICS of the issues that are common to all.

For example, out of the SCPC Related implementations, the following issues are common to all "categories/ cadres"-( I mean A,B,C,D if one wants to discern so!), which are results of violation of the very "Guiding Principles/ Policies" paving to the ultimate Recommendations:

1.Denial of Modified Parity to pre-2006 Pensioners right across the board. Each has to verify the 2.26 MF pension wrt his/her last pay drawn (ie pension basic as on 1.1.1996)vis-a-vis MODIFIED PARITY based on CCS (Revised Pay)Rules 2008 - MINIMUM of the Revised Pension for a post-2006 pensioner of equivalent scale (Shri GR's tables). Then only the pensioner will understand if there is some loss! At least 25 per cent of Pensioners would suffer a loss!

2.Denial of "eligible" parity to the 20yr plus- 33yr minus Pensioners- how to arrive at the correct modus operandi- as the OM of 12th May 2006 trying to segregate them as NOT BELONGING to "HOMOGENOUS CLASS" will not find strength/ stand scrutiny.

3.One time relief/pragmatic NOTIONAL FIXATION for very old Pensioners who have suffered "multiple merger" of their "vanished" pay-scales due to repeated "Pay Banding" (likely to happen for pre-2006 pensioners also in the next Sevnth Pay Revision, if one lives to suffer this harassment!)

ABOVE COMMON ISSUES DO CONSTITUTE THE ROOT CAUSES FOR ALL INDIVIDUAL ANOMALIES.

MODIFIED PARITY IS BASIC AND SHD BE RECOMMENDED BY THE AC WITHOUT DELAY TO ALL AS AN INTERIM MEASURE.

OTHER ISSUES MUST BE CRITICALLY EXAMINED FOR RESOLUTIONS.

Other Individual Anomalies of course would require case to case resolutions based on the merits of each case/ their precedences.

vnatarajan

vnatarajan
15-06-2009, 11:31 AM
ADMINISTRATION AT THE LOWEST EBB!

CHAOTIC DISPENSATION UNDER SCPCs REVISION OF PENSION FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS!

WILL THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE LOOK INTO THIS FIRST?

PENSION OUTCOME-POOR PARA 5.1.47

What is the net result of this “misinterpretation of SCPC’s Para 5.1.47/ implementation through its altered version as Para 4.2 of OM dtd 1st Sept 2008 etc?

It has resulted in a MOST ANOMALOUS OUTCOME which needs to be addressed and resolved by the NAC quickly to stop such ludicrous practices in future and also stem the rot that has caused for selected segments of current pre-2006 pensioners:

The OMs dtd 1st Sept/3rd & 14th Oct 2008 iced by the DO lr of CPAO’s office dtd 26th Sept 2008, directly and indirectly resulted in three categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners according to the formula adopted for their pension revision:

(i) Adopting MF 2.26 on the basic pension of 1.1. 1996 (mostly useful upto PB3 Pensioners except for a few initial stages in each of the pre-revised scales with the result quite a lot of pensioners may get slightly more than “MODIFIED PARITY”. Others do not know that they have not got their due ie the “MODIFIED PARITY” in the least!)

(ii) Following the altered Para 4.2 decision in the OM of 1st Sept 2008 etc, further decimated by the DO letter of CPAO’s office dtd 26th Sept 2006, adopting “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” as the basis- having NO RELEVANCE to the pre-revised pay scale or revised pay-scale or Revised Pay Rules. In fact no RULES are applied! (mostly applicable to PB4 included scales except S24, with the result many get REDUCED or NEGATIVE PARITY ie much less than “MODIFIED PARITY”. Pensioners lose the total identity of their pre-revised pay scales/last pay drawn etc which are the very FOUNDATIONS FOR DEFINING/REVISING PENSIONs at all times!)

(iii)Adopting “MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE” .for the few privileged/Elite Scales- S31 to S34 –(with the fantastic result all of them get MUC MUCH MORE THAN MODIFIED PARITY and in fact a little short of full parity!).

Anomaly Committee needs to be appraised by all to ensure EQUAL/EQUITABLE BENEFITS in the least to the very HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS and not to ALLOW the creation of DIVISIONS among them by the irregular/ conflicting Orders of the Govt.

vnatarajan

G.Ramdas
17-06-2009, 10:46 AM
Sh. V. Natarajan has sent me the following message

"I am happy to inform you that today, 17th June 2009, I have sent to the Secretary (staff Side), Anomaly Committee, the finalised appeal on the SCPC Related Anomalies in response to the official circular. I have sent the same in my capacity as the President, Pensioners' Forum (affiliated to the AIFPA,Chennai)/Associate Member, RREWA, as an aggrieved pensioner etc and also on behalf of several other Pensioners/ Family Pensioners who do not have a Forum to represent them but who have been viewing the developments through social network websites like Gconnect. In/ Surispace.net/RREWA Portal etc.----


My request to all those who are quite capable physically/ mentally/ monetarily:

1.Pl see all of you make appeals to NAC (with selected parts from the appeal attached as necessary) without fail.
2.Pl pursue with others also to make appeals- give them copies and make them send.the same to the NAC.
3.Pl pursue actions with as many Associations/ Federations to for ward your appeals/ make similar appeals.
4.Those who have access to other powerful sources- including individual members of the NAC- pl send them copies and ensure they give attention to the appeal.
5.Any action at higher heirarchial levels like pursuing MPs/Miniusters etc will be very useful.
6.If you can get the press support for this appeal, it may be useful.

More when I see some clear actions that follow the above appeal!"

The complete text of the appeal has been uploaded to the link shown below and can be seen /downloaded therefrom

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=fa057c68c53b2c552fb2ca15d7ea42d9e2bac104 ec1b5a69ce018c8114394287

G.Ramdas

chillariga rama rao
18-06-2009, 06:39 AM
can I get the name of the yahoo group that has been formed by S30 officers.a group of senior scientists from the Defence Research and Development organisation has been formed at HYDERABAD with MR D PRABHAKAR as secretary.His EMAIL ID is"[email protected]".Thanks and regards,
C.RAMA RAO.

G.Ramdas
18-06-2009, 08:43 AM
The details of the all India S-30 group can be obtained from
<[email protected]>


You can also contact sh."Prem Sharma" <[email protected]>
P C Sharma,
Secretary, All India S30 Pensioners Association
A-301, Prerana Apartments,
Plot No.8, Sector -56,
GURGAON- 122011
Haryana, INDIA.
91 124-4284092, 91 9717221213 91 99716 49822

G.Ramdas
30-06-2009, 05:00 PM
Anomalies or absurdities in implementation of the sixth central Pay Commission Report!

1.Could you imagine two pensioners drawing same pension till 31.12.05, treated differently and one getting his pension revised to Rs.37,750/-, while the other is given only Rs. 25312/- or
2.Can you expect a pre-2006 pensioner's pension revised in such away that his juniors, working in pay scales even up to seven levels below him, will get higher pension than him? or
3.A provision incorporated, specifically ,to protect the interest of the pensioners, is amended in such a way that 96.5% of the pensioners in the revised pay band-PB-4 are denied the benefit of this or
4. Have you ever expected the authorities to give new meanings to English Language expressions converting 'pay in the pay band' to "pay band", "corresponding to" as "irrespective of"?
These and other absurdities or anomalies galore in the implementation of the 6CPC.
I have sent a representation to the Anomalies committee pointing out these anomalies and requesting immediate redressal of the pensioners' grievances. The paper is well illustrated with tables, graphs and 2-D, 3-D bar charts, so that the issues are easily and clearly understood.I can assure you that it will not be boring.
The document is available for viewing/downloading from the following links

http://www.rrewa.org/currentIssues.aspx
or
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=fa057c68c53b2c552fb2ca15d7ea42d9fef20fdc 67c21c4ece018c8114394287
copy and paste the link as url if you can't open the link on clicking
G.Ramdas

G.Ramdas
08-07-2009, 11:49 AM
Dear All,
Does anybody has any latest information about Anomalies Committee?
Are they going to hear representations from pensioners/ pensioner- associations, concerning grievances of Group Aand B officers?
Now that the budget is silent about OROP for defence officer-pensioners, it could only mean that this route is closed for civilian pensioners as well.
In that eventuality why not represent to the A.C and put pressure as one of the last resorts?

G R

Kanaujiaml
08-07-2009, 01:20 PM
Dear All,
Does anybody has any latest information about Anomalies Committee?
Are they going to hear representations from pensioners/ pensioner- associations, concerning grievances of Group Aand B officers?
Now that the budget is silent about OROP for defence officer-pensioners, it could only mean that this route is closed for civilian pensioners as well.
In that eventuality why not represent to the A.C and put pressure as one of the last resorts?

G R

My dear Ramdass. You have sent Budget is silent about OROP bu in Budget Speech FM has said that demand for OROP has been accepted as recommended by the Committee set up for the purpose. However, MOD has not issued any circular so far. We will know about the details on receipt of Circular which is expected shortly.

G.Ramdas
08-07-2009, 01:28 PM
Yes,
FM did say about OROP for retired jawans. What I mentioned in my post was about the officer-pensioners.
Things will be clear once the MOD notification is out.

GR

vnatarajan
09-07-2009, 07:52 AM
Dear K/All

This is with reference to Mr MLK's post at sl no 16.

I AM CERTAIN THE NAC WILL REFER THE ISSUE OF MODIFIED PARITY-Vis a Vis - INJUSTICE TO ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OF GR A/B/C/D etc.TO THE GOVT. IN ALL EARNESTNESS AS IT IS ONE OF THE MAIN ANOMALY FOR ALL GRADES OF SUCH PENSIONERS.

YES. I ALSO BELIEVE "FULL PARITY" HAS TO BE FOUGHT IN THE COURTS ONLY!

Time will take its toll!. None can overcome that weakness!

I will not be surprised if "Military Officers" recieve the modified parity soon!

Regards

vnatarajan.

dnaga57
09-07-2009, 11:03 AM
I am reminded of a sher
वे तो मुतमईन है की पत्थर पिगल नहीं सकता
मैं बेकरार हूँ आवाज़ से असर के लिए
We can post another thousand... but only court can - hopefully will give us remedy.
Are we willing?

vnatarajan
10-07-2009, 01:30 PM
DEAR ALL

1.I HOPE AND WISH ALL PENSIONERS HAVE REPRESENTED TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE AS ALREADY ADVISED BY VARIOUS SOURCES.

2.IF GROUP A/ B PENSIONERS HAVE ANY APPREHENSIONS, THEY ARE REQUESTED TO SEND THE APPEALS IN ADDITION TO THE DIRECTOR (PP) (ATTN Mr MPSingh,IAS), DEPTT OF PENSIONS & PENSIONERS’ WELFARE, MIN OF P,PG,P, LOK NAYAK BAHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI 110003.

3.IN ADDITION THEY, PARTICULARLY THE GROUP A / B PENSIONERS, MAY SEND SIMILAR APPEALS TO THE CABINET SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT, RASHTRAPATHI BAHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110004, -WITHOUT FAIL.

For info of all<

Today (10th July 2009) I have sent by Regd Post AD, separate appeals to the Director, DOPPW and to the Cabinet Secretary on my own behalf and on behalf of PENSIONERS’ FORUM, CHENNAI- and also on behalf of all aggrieved Pensioners/ Family Pensioners all over the country- and with these appeals I have also enclosed the massive appeal sent to the NAC on 17th June 2009.

Pl make once more a timely try and strike.

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
11-07-2009, 09:57 AM
Yes,
FM did say about OROP for retired jawans. What I mentioned in my post was about the officer-pensioners.
Things will be clear once the MOD notification is out.

GR

There was never a demand for OROP for Military Officers pensioners neither, Govt. had it under consideration at any time, nor Committee set up for OROP, considered or gave any recommendation in respect of Military Officers pensioners. They got MSP already. Military Officers Pensioners have not demanded even for modified parity or full parity, as far as I know. You are right things would be clear finally once the MOD Notification comes out. I think if military Officers pensioners start demaning modified parity, they would get it but we would not get it and would still be left high and dry

G.Ramdas
14-07-2009, 09:44 PM
Dar Sh Kanaujia,
The latest News on OROP confirms that the defence pensioners are also covered apart from the jawan pensioners. Read the news item from Tribune sent to us by Sh.NP Mohan


M A I N N E W S
‘One rank, one pension’ for officers, too
Tribune News Service/PTI
New Delhi, July 13
Defence Minister A K Antony today clarified in the Lok Sabha that "one rank, one pension" recommendation of the Cabinet Secretary-led panel had been accepted by the government for jawans as well as officers.
The government has accepted recommendations of the panel on "one rank, one pension" and other related matters concerning the armed forces, the Lok Sabha was informed today.
The decision is now nearer to the goal of “one rank, one pension” demand of nearly 1.5 million personnel, Antony said during question hour.
The total financial implications on account of benefits to the personnel would be Rs 2,144 crore, the minister said.
The committee has recommended inclusion of Classification Allowance for the Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) from January 1, 2006, and removal of linkage of full pensions with 33 years from the same date, he said.
The committee also recommended revision of pension of Lt Generals after carrying out a separate pay scale for them, bringing parity between pension pre and post October 10, 1997, for PBOR pensioners and further improving PBOR pensions based on award of Group of Ministers in 2006.
With regard to the separate pay commission, the minister said it had been agreed, and as and when necessary it would be set up in the future.
Antony said the government had also accepted the committee's recommendations regarding raising the pension amount for those disabled or injured in war.
"After considering all aspects of the issue, the committee made several recommendations to substantially improve pensionary benefits of Personnel Below Officer Rank and Commissioned Officers, which have been accepted by the government," the minister added.
Where does this leave the civilian pensiones?

Kanaujiaml
16-07-2009, 03:27 PM
Yes, your are right. I had already read the same from Mr. N P Mohan's e. mail. Lt. Generals are in S 30 grade. The tribune report talks about Lt. Generals getting a new scale. Does it include pensioners ? What about Civilians S30 Officers and Civilian S 30 pensioners ? Everything, it appears, is for Defence people. Nevertheleass, I am eagerly waiting for the Official Circular letter from MOD on OROP. Till date it has not appeared on the internet !

vnatarajan
07-10-2009, 08:56 AM
Dear Shri Sundaram,

Can you kindly use your good offices/ connections to know what is the progress in the NAC.

Has it met even once?

How many members have really accepted to serve on it?

What is the latest list of items that are likely to be take up - if you are able to get such an information as you had shared similar information earlier?

Any other advice you can render.

We have already sent the detailed appeal to NAC- individually/ collectively- and also informed a few members separately also!

Regards

vnatarajan

Kanaujiaml
07-10-2009, 08:30 PM
Dear Shri Sundaram,

Can you kindly use your good offices/ connections to know what is the progress in the NAC.

Has it met even once?

How many members have really accepted to serve on it?

What is the latest list of items that are likely to be take up - if you are able to get such an information as you had shared similar information earlier?

Any other advice you can render.

We have already sent the detailed appeal to NAC- individually/ collectively- and also informed a few members separately also!

Regards

vnatarajan

The most important question is whether the AC is ready to consider cases of Pensioners who retired from Gazetted posts ?

G.Ramdas
15-12-2009, 06:07 PM
Dear friends,
sh.VN mentioned that the minutes of the anomaly committee's first meeting are available in a web page. I reproduce theextracts of the same as far as they relate to Pensioners
"
Refixation of pension/family pension.
Para 9 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension's O.M. No. F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 states as under:-
"The consolidated pension / family pension as worked out in accordance with provisions of para 4.1 above shall be treated as final basic pension with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall qualify for grant of Dearness Relief sanctioned thereafter.".
This has left uncovered the provision made in para 4.2 of the same OM, which lays down as under:-
"The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension in no case, shall be lower than fifty present 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."
Since refixation of pension has been allowed both under paras 4.1 and 4.2, they should both he covered in para 9 of the OM. It is requested that para 9 of the said OM may be revised including both paras 4.1 and 4.2 thereof.
Decision.
Orders have been issued vide O.M.dated 12th and 14th September, 2009
Item. No. 9.
Anomaly in pension for Government Servants who retired/Died in harness between 1.1.2006 and 1.9. 2006
The Sixth Central Pay Commission lays down inter-alia that once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last down, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee.
As per the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension O.M. F.No. 38/37/08-P&P(W)(A) dated 2nd September 2008, these orders shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this OM, namely 2nd September 2008 and shall be, applicable to all Government Servants becoming entitled to pension after rendering the minimum qualifying service of 20 years or on completion of 10 years qualifying service in accordance with rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
However, the Govt. servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this OM (2.9.2008) have been debarred from this benefit. They will be governed by the rules/ orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of these orders. In other words their pension will be calculated on average emoluments received during the last 10 months and not on the actual pay last drawn. It is requested that this discrimination should be removed.
Decision.
Orders are under issue. The Staff Side raised the inordinate delay in fixing the revised pension and disbursement of arrears to pensioners. The official side assured to monitor the payment of arrears to pensioners. The refusal on the part of many banks to issue the due and drawn statement even on requisition was also brought to the notice of the Chairman. The Director (Pension) assured that suitable instructions would be issued in this regard to all Banks.
Item No.10.
Commutation of pension.
The minimum period of service for eligibility for pension is 10 years. For appointment to Government Service the minimum age is 18 years. In view of this, if a person is appointed at the age of 18 years he cannot become eligible for pension unless he has served for a period of at least 10 years and attained the age of 28 years i.e. when his birthday falls in the 29th years.
The table adopted a per the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension's OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2.9.2008 shows the minimum age of next birthday after retirement as 20 which is not understood. It is requested that suitable amendment to the table referred to may be notified.
The item was withdrawn by the Staff Side.
Item No.11 to 14. These items were deferred for discussion at the next meeting.
Item No.15.
Parity in pension of all pre 1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 1.1.2006
The Government have already accepted in principle that there shall be parity in pension amongst pensioners irrespective of the date from which they had retired.
Accordingly pension of all pre 1986 retirees was revised with effect from 1.1.96 by first determining the notional pay which would have been fixed as on 1.1.86 (treating as if the employees were in service on that date) and then the Notional Pension was updated by applying the same fitment formula which was applied to serving employees.
We, therefore demanded that the notional pay of all pre 1996 retirees may be fixed as on 1.1.96 in terms of Revised Pay Rules, 1996 and the notional pension as on 1.1.96 may be revised w.e.f. 1.1.06 by applying the same fitment formula which is applied in the case of serving employees i.e. by multiplying the notional pension as on 1.1.96 by 1.86 + the Grade Pay of the Pay Scale (V CPC) from which they would have retired.
The revision of pension has been done by applying the formula of Basic Pension as on 1.1.96 + Dearness Pension (50% of Basic Pension) + Dearness Relief on Basic Pension + Dearness Pension+40% of Basic Pension.
This is not the same that has been granted to serving employees. In whose case the Grade Pay which is the fitment benefit is 40% of the maximum of the Pre-revised Pay Scale.
As such the Pensioners should also be granted 50% the of Grade Pay of the Pay Scale from which they had retired by way of fitment benefit and not 40% of Basic Pension.
Decision.
The Staff Side pointed out that the 6th CPC in order to maintain the existing modified parity between the present and future retirees had indicated that it would be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees vide para 5.1.47 in page 338. However, the Commission recommended that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the basic pension. The statement and the recommendation made to give effect to the statement was at variance giving rise to anomaly and disparity in pension entitlement between the past pensioners and the future pensioners. After detailed discussion, the official side agreed to consider the issue once again.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Staff Side took up the matter concerning non representation of Postal Federations in the National Council as some members of a Federation which could not muster even 5% membership had been approaching one court or the other in a bid to delay the verification process and consequent recognition of the Associations and Federations in the Postal Department. As it would be a never ending process, the denial for the unions who had mustered more than 75% of the membership representation in the National Council would be a miscarriage of justice, the Staff Side added.. The Director (SR) of the Postal Department, who had represented the Postal Department in the official side agreed with the contention of the Staff Side and reported to the Chairman, that they had granted adhoc recognition to the Unions who had mustered the requisite membership and the Department Council had also been convened and met on adhoc basic. The question of granting of representation to the representatives of the Staff in the National Council had been referred to the Department of Personnel and their advice in the matter was being solicited. The Chairman assured the Staff Side to look into the matter and take appropriate decision soon.
The denial of revised higher Grade Pay to Master Craftsmen of Workshops in MMS in the Postal Department, while affording the same to those in Railways and Defence was also raised by the Staff Side. The Department of Expenditure pointed out that they had not received any reference from the Postal Department in this matter, whereas the official side representative of the Postal Department stated that they had referred this matter to them earlier. After some discussion, it was agreed that the Department of Expenditure and the Postal Department would sort out this matter expeditiously."

As regards item no.9 above orders have already been issued on 11.12.09,rectifying the ANOMALY.
For ITEM 15 relating to parity between pensioners of pre and post 2006, the Govt. appear to have agreed to reconsider on the lines discussed.It is however not clear whether the issue of min. of the pay band and min. of the pay in the pay band were discussed.
The proposal which was agreed for review is somewhat in lines of a detailed study I had done and presented under another thread"Grade pay for Pensioners" inthis forum itself, wherein I had given the following solution. Later on it was decided not to proced with this , as this was not the best option. It may still be of academic interest to go thro' the contents of that thread which suggested similar solution as arrived at now
G.Ramdas

vnatarajan
16-12-2009, 01:11 PM
Dear Shri GR/ Shri RS/ others interested,

COMMENTS ON record of FIRST NAC MEETING 12 12 2009. No authenticity of the record is vouched as it appears in a blog. paycommissionupdate.com etc.

MY OWN IMPRESSIONS:

NOTHING IN SIGHT TO BE SURE ABOUT THE OUTCOME AS SOME PENSIONERS’ CRUCIAL GRIEVANCES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY AVOIDED FOR MENTION..

CERTAIN INDIRECT STATEMENTS ARE LIKELY TO MISLEAD PENSIONERS SO THAT THEY MAY DELAY GOING TO COURTS- WHICH MANY MAY NOT FALL FOR.

NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS' MODIFIED PARITY ISSUE OR INJUSTICE.

ITEMS NOT DISCIUSSED 11 TO 14 WHAT ARE THEY? NOT KNOWN!

A. UNEXPLAINED POINTS:

1.”The official side clarified that all questions of disparity in relativities would also be addressed except on those on which the 6th CPC has gone into and taken decision enumerating reasons”

Comments:

Does it cover disparities in relativities - like "minimum of the pay band" vs "minimum of the pay on the pay band" - a "resultant" relativity brought in by DOPW's OMs and which were not there in earlier "relativities" which the "6cpc ( is it 6CPC or DOPPW? ) had gone into and took decisions enumerating reasons!"?

How 6th CPC can take decisions? It is the Cabinet who can take or took decisions !


2.
Item No.15.
“Parity in pension of all pre 1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 1.1.2006”

Comments:

Why no reference to parity or modified parity of pre-2006 retirees? Pl refer to this extract.
“We, therefore demanded that the notional pay of all pre 1996 retirees may be fixed as on 1.1.96 in terms of Revised Pay Rules, 1996 and the notional pension as on 1.1.96 may be revised w.e.f. 1.1.06 by applying the same fitment formula which is applied in the case of serving employees i.e. by multiplying the notional pension as on 1.1.96 by 1.86 + the Grade Pay of the Pay Scale (V CPC) from which they would have retired.”


Comments:

Why no demand is being made for pre-2006 retirees for their notional BASIC PENSION to be fixed as on 1.1.2006 in terms of Revised Pay Rules,2008 by taking advantage of the FITMENT TABLES (MOF’s OM dtd Aug 2008) for those for whom it is relevant? OR the correct MINIMUM OF THE PAY (obviously Revised Pay) IN THE PAY BAND IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREREVISED PAY-SCALE. For example for S29 , the reckoning figure is 44700 for 18400, but what is being given is the minimum figure corresponding to S28 scale ie 37400 for 14300. Thus the so called Grade Pay component/ fitment benefit get effectively ERASED for S29!

Because of this, typical injustice cases of PB 3 and PB 4(mainly)- appear to have 'not' been covered SO FAR!

B. FAVOURABLE? BUT AGAIN WHERE IS THE COMMITMENT?

Item No 15
“The Government have already accepted in principle that there shall be parity in pension amongst pensioners irrespective of the date from which they had retired.”

Comments:

Did they? Where and when? I think we should get the information as and when any official record of the Minutes would be made!

C. NEUTRAL:

Extracts:

“The Staff Side pointed out that the 6th CPC in order to maintain the existing modified parity between the present and future retirees had indicated that it would be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees vide para 5.1.47 in page 338. However, the Commission recommended that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the basic pension. The statement and the recommendation made to give effect to the statement was at variance giving rise to anomaly and disparity in pension entitlement between the past pensioners and the future pensioners. After detailed discussion, the official side agreed to consider the issue once again”.

Comments:

This is again a grey area. What the Official Side will look into may not be relevant to S29/ similarly placed retirees. Application of the Pay Banding concept blindly overrides any possible benefits that may accrue due to a favourable MF.

( For e.g. 50% of the Grade Pay of the scale is already available vide Para 4.2. What is crucial is - Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band - which too involves 1.86 mf for scales upto S-23 and 2.6 for scales upto S-29 and 3+ for rest - Again, what is allowed as on date is 1.86 mf over 50% of bottom of the pay band, for all the scales within the same pay band . Further, the said Grade Pay also 40% of max. of pre-revised scale for scales upto S-20, 45% from S-21 onwards)

(The crucial factor is not touched at all. Anomaly mainly arose because of modification of the PB mf factor(NOT MAINTAINING THE RESPECTIVE mfS 1.86- 2.6- over 3.10) irrespective of pre-revised scale. In this aspect, addl. homework could have been better for effective presentation in the meeting by the staff side - Even our earlier representations will speak volumes).

VNATARAJAN

Kanaujiaml
17-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Dear Pensioner friends.Happy Pensioners Day. On the occasion of Pensioners day 17th Dec.2009, I congratulate you. Warm regards.