PDA

View Full Version : Pension anamoly



harishbetha
18-09-2008, 12:05 PM
The pensioners who have retired between 01-01-2006 and 01-09-2008 have been discriminated. They will be getting much less pension than what they would have other wise got under the 50% of the new pay. A person retiring in Sep'08 will be getting much more pension than a person who has retired in Aug'08, who could be a senior and put in more service. So now a situation arises that a junior will be drawing more pension than this senior.

While the rules say that junior should not draw more pay than a senior, now a junior will be drawing more pension than his senior. Is this justifiable?

So I request the Government to correct this anamoly and bring cheers to thousands of pensioners retired between 01-01-2006 and 02-09-2008.

pcsahay
19-09-2008, 11:14 AM
In the Gazette notification for pensioners the case of those who have completed 10 and 20 years of service but LESS THAN 33 YEARS of service has been dealt SEPARATELY and it is clearly mentioned that in their case it would be PROSPECTIVELY. This has been accepted. But in the OM of the Ministry they have NOT dealt it separately and its wordings are so that those who were otherwise being benefitted are being put to great loss. TO GIVE BENEFIT TO A PARTICULAR GROUP OF RETIREES THE BENEFIT OF OTHER ELIGIBLE GROUP HAS BEEN CUT RATHER PUT TO LOSS. THIS DOES NOT CARRY CONVICTION AND AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE. Govt SHOULD issue a CLARIFICATION so that who were already eligible are NOT put to LOSS.

prabhakaranm
19-09-2008, 12:20 PM
Where does the recommendation of 6th pay commission as accepted by the GOI mention that those who have rendered 10- 20 years of service as on 01.01.2006 and retired before 02.09.2008 are not eligible for 50% of their pay as pension? The recommendation as accepted by GOI says that the benefit will be effective prospectively,( except PBORS in defence services )which means that the pension will be as per the existing Rules as on Date of retirement and upto 01.09.2008 but thereafter the same shall be revised to 50% pay wef 02.09.2008. Is there any ambiquity in this?

Then why did the OM says that the benefit will be only for those who retire after 01.09.2008 and thereby wilfully dening the benefit to a group of employees who are eligible as per the approval of Cabinet? This situation has created an anomoly whereby junior within the same post and even those who are holding lower post with same or less years of service will draw more pension than his senior/ superior, which is legally untenable and assailable.

The department indeed overstepped and interpreted the recommendation of PC and decision of Cabinet to the disadvantage of a group of people.Hope this anomoly will be rectified without delay.

harishbetha
19-09-2008, 01:02 PM
Yes, u r perfectly right Sir. The Cabinet has decided something and the ministry has given something else, which is clearly against the letter and spirit of the Cabinet decision and the recomendations of the SPC. Let all those affected represent to the Government regarding the injustice. I have already done it.

saksammehrotra
22-09-2008, 02:13 PM
Most intreseting aspect of Government orders on pension is that even those who retired prior to 1.1.2006 will get the pension 50% of minimum of pay band + grade pay. Thus the minimum pension for a person retired with basic pay of Rs.7900/- in the scale of Rs.6500-10500/- will be Rs.7050/- (50% of 9300 +4800) whereas those retiring between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 will get much lesser pension.


Thus it appears that babus in the ministry do not apply their mind and simiply go by the instinct of harrassing the persons. They listen only when they are banged by the courts.

kvc_shekar
03-10-2008, 01:36 PM
Where does the recommendation of 6th pay commission as accepted by the GOI mention that those who have rendered 10- 20 years of service as on 01.01.2006 and retired before 02.09.2008 are not eligible for 50% of their pay as pension? The recommendation as accepted by GOI says that the benefit will be effective prospectively,( except PBORS in defence services )which means that the pension will be as per the existing Rules as on Date of retirement and upto 01.09.2008 but thereafter the same shall be revised to 50% pay wef 02.09.2008. Is there any ambiquity in this?

Then why did the OM says that the benefit will be only for those who retire after 01.09.2008 and thereby wilfully dening the benefit to a group of employees who are eligible as per the approval of Cabinet? This situation has created an anomoly whereby junior within the same post and even those who are holding lower post with same or less years of service will draw more pension than his senior/ superior, which is legally untenable and assailable.

The department indeed overstepped and interpreted the recommendation of PC and decision of Cabinet to the disadvantage of a group of people.Hope this anomoly will be rectified without delay.

I Perfectly agree with this view. Kindly let me know if there is any group/body formed to represent to the government on this issue, in order to get justice. I would like to join.

kkhameedkutty
14-10-2008, 04:34 PM
I Perfectly agree with this view. Kindly let me know if there is any group/body formed to represent to the government on this issue, in order to get justice. I would like to join.

I took retirement from government service on 2-1-2007 after completing 20 years, 2 months service in government. I was watching pay commission recommendations, Cabinet acceptance on CPC report and further pension orders issued by government. I found many items which pay commission didn't recommend have been allowed by cabinet and further order issued by Department. It looks both 6th CPC and Rule making authorities are thinking that availing VRS between 2-9-2008 and 1-1-2006 by those personnel who have served government for 20 years or more like any other government servent who will be availing VRS after 2-9-2006 is a "sin" and shall be punished by allowing only reduced pension. Recommendations of CPC, purposefully states that those who took VRS before acceptance of CPC report by govt should not be given full pension (prospectively) !!!!, but salary and pension are revised w. e. f. 1-1-2006retrospectively!!!! Why there should be an additional clause (5.4) in revised pension rule 2008????

I don't understand the logic.

Govt has issued 2 orders on pension. one is for pre-1-1-2006 pensioners and other for post 1-1-2006 and that for post 1-1-2006 pensioners clearly states that effective date of these new rules is 1-1-2006. Hence putting an additional clause "5.4" in OM F. No. 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 2-9-2008, is totally injustice and discrimination to a small group of pensioners who availed VRS between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008. More over, a junior of mine taking voluntary retirement after 2-9-2008 is going to get much more pension than a senior like me who took retirement on 2-1-2007, when pay commission recommendations on revision of salary and pension are implemented from 1-1-2006.

More over, the OM 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 1-9-08 for pre-1-1-2006 pensioners at para No. 4.2 states revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. That means all those who took VRS after completing 20 years before 1-1-2006 and those who are taking VRS after 2-9-2008, after completing 20 years are getting full pension (50% of basic pay). Only this small group who took VRS between 1-1-2006 and 1-9-2008 are only paid less amount of pension which is a biggest anomoly in the pension rule 2008.

I have already represented to Sectretary, Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare on this requesting to take necessary steps for removing para 5.4 of OM F. No. 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 2-9-2008 so that all those who retired / took VRS after 1-1-2006 will also get benefitted with full pension. Another aspect what I don't understand is, in view of revised pay scales, all the departments have to pay revised salary arrears to post 1-1-2006 pensioners like any serving employees. Then, why this discrimination on pension????

If nothing happens on representation made, court is the only solution.

I am joining our group. Please update on further developments on this.

Can anyone advise whom should I represent for amending the pension rules? Is it Dept. of Personnel & Training or Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare.

kkhameedkutty
15-10-2008, 07:40 PM
In view of the Dept. of Persion & Pensioners welfare issuing clarification on Post 1-1-2006 pension Orders without making any changes to benefit those who voluntarily retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008, the only solution is to bring it to the notice of Government / Ministry and or fight for justice in Court.

The clarification states that order was issued based on 6th CPC recommendations and particular clauses of CPC report are referred in it.

The problem is CPC recommendation to allow full pension to all, irrespective of number of years of qualifying service only from the date of acceptance of CPC report by government.

If we look at CPC report and cabinet decisions. There are many items which CPC didn't recommend, but cabinet allowed and many items which CPC recommended, but cabinet didn't allow. That means CPC recommendations are not final and government can consider adverse recommendation to benefit employees & pensioners once these anomolies are brought to the notice of government and P & PW Department could issue orders.

If we look at CPC recommendations, this is the only NEGETIVE recommendation CPC made. Otherwise, all the recommendations are either acceptance of propsals or rejection of proposal or modified acceptance of proposals.

If the purpose of such a recommendation made based on prevailing rule (pension Rule 1972) existed and applicable to pensioners who are retired before issue of new rules dated 2-9-2008, Why CPC and Government allow PBORS full pension w.e.f 1-1-2006. Why is there a negative rule (para. 5.4 of the order) within a totally positive rule (Pension Rules 2008 which is effective from 1-1-2006).

Hence, there is anomoly in the Post 1-1-2006 Pension Order and the clause 5.4 has to be debated and removed to benefit full pension to all who retired after 1-1-2006.

Look forward for views of other affected pensioners.