PDA

View Full Version : Pensioners' (nakra's) day 17.12.2009



sundarar
12-12-2009, 12:40 PM
Dear All,

Last year on 11th December, the DOP&PW OM on payment of pension at 50% of emoluments (Last Pay Drawn) or 50% of the average emoluments during the last ten months effective from 1.1.2006, for pensioners retired between 1.1.2006 and 2.9.2008, was issued.

This year on 10th December, the DOP&PW OM on linkage of qualifying service of 33 years to dispense with, effective from 1.1.2006 in stead of 2.9.2008 is issued.

The pensioners hope and wish that the aforesaid amendments will get extended in respect of pre-2006 pensioners too in addition to uniform modified parity at all levels, with all the Blessings of the Almighty..

The bonafide intention of the Authorities through latest OM of DOP&PW is rightly acknowledged by Shri VNji in `Effectiveness & Applicability' thread and the follow-up message is posted as `Crucial issues in the changed environment'. All of our Pensioner friends may please see the same for further information and observations, if any.

All PENSIONERS/ PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS etc may like to take note of the changing environment among the Pensioners’ Community for a renewed strategy keeping in view also, the forthcoming 7th Pay/Pension Commission, as otherwise the NAKRA JUDGMENT will not only become history - but it may be forgotten forever.

Coincidentally, on the pensioners’ day in the year 1998, it was on 17.12 1998 the Rule of original modified parity came into existence adopting the basis of MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE which stands even today to give a hope to pensioners that the same will not be diluted either in letter or in spirit.


Best Wishes
Sundarar.

vnatarajan
13-12-2009, 06:49 AM
CAN THE PENSIONERS REPEAT A NAKARA ?

Dear Sundarar/ All Pensioners,

Thanks to Sundarar for voicing the concerns and responses in time.

Pensioners all over the globe have to draw inspiration for the initiative, conviction, resilience ,perseverance, dedication and spirit of camaraderie shown by Late Nakara for the concern of old pensioners in our country, India, which brought them the much required equality and dignity in the fading years of their lives. No doubt, pensioners of all hues and shades in India pay him respect on the day 17th December (1982) and observe it as the “Pensioners’ Day” each year - in commemoration of the day he won the battle for equality in pensions among all equals-irrespective of the dates of pension revisions and fixations, and the justice done was in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the highest court of justice of the largest democracy

Govt. Pensioners belonging to the Central Govt (Civil/ Military)./ its undertakings etc alone are about 40 lakhs in number besides the State Govts. also follow the same old scheme of pension evolve way back in British times and the basic foundation is laid on the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

In the recent decade and a half, the Govt. pensioners have started witnessing certain trends in this country which do not bring credit to the ideals which Late Nakara tried to enshrine in terms of Constitutional Guarantees, Principles of Natural Justice, Ethics in Governance , Transparency in Administration and Pensioners’ Rights, in safeguarding the principles, policies and practices of pension administration by the Govt. in the country. These can be traced to the change in attitude of the concerned authorities which has come under heavy criticism in recent times. Very SANCTITY of the word EQUALITY is being destroyed by denying PARITY in pensions among EQUALS even at the MINIMUM. This change is not only deplorable but is dangerous for the vanishing tribe of old scheme pensioners if protective and corrective steps are not taken in time.

PARITY TO MODIFIED PARITY AND THEN TO REDUCED PARITY? WHAT NEXT?

Pensioners have forgotten FULL PARITY or EQUALITY in pensions among equals after the V CPC Revisions. Except the Retd Maj Generals (SPS Vains et al.), none-else appear to have contested the issue in courts seriously. Ultimately, the concept of "MODIFIED PARITY" has originated after the V CPC implementation orders. However it can not be denied that it has its roots in the principle of PARITY enunciated in various HSC/ other Court Judgments. In essence it BASES the EQUALITY at the thresh-hold level of MINIMUM of the NEW Scales replacing the OLD. After the Sixth CPC Revisions, when they are not so equal at the MINIMUM PAY levels, even the full benefit of the component of Grade Pay to compensate for the difference is being denied to many scales of old pensioners whereas it is being allowed for current pensioners .Grade Pay has to increase with increase in Rank and in turn it has to have relevance to old scales, while establishing concordance. What has been done now is - for eg. in PB4 for old pensioners as Grade Pay increases/ climb upwards , the MINIMUM BASIC PAY is made to slide downwards, nullifying the part of benefit of Grade Pay component. This results in a phenomenon -which can not be described properly as the RESULTANT PARITY even at the MINIMUM is DESTROYED. Is it a REDUCED OR NEGATIVE PARITY? ALL COURT JUDGMENTS & CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ARE THROWN TO WINDS! If Nakara was alive, his feelings would have been at the nadir!

A compounding effect of the “Reduced Parity” is a pro-rata reduction in Dearness Relief every six months. Can there be any change in the minimum assured quality of life of the pensioners?. The hang-over effect leads to reduction of family pension. Would be Family Pensioners belonging to same Grade pensioners become unequals even before they have to draw family pensions!

Another spin-off effect is the reduction in the BASE FIGURE for the next revision. For example, for those for whom the “Reduced Parity” has become effective, the net loss which was as high as 13% in some cases as on 1.1.2006, it has already become 17% and this is bound to reach more than 75% by the time nest CPC revision is due! (say by 2016).

Pension Revisions can not be allowed to be AUTOCRATIC exercises. Pensioners/ Pensioners’ Associations/ Federations are to take note of such distressing anti-pensioner practices.

WHAT ARE WE TO DO?

Under the circumstances the aging pensioners of old pension scheme have to take some strong preventive resolutions and actions to safe-guard their interests in the future:

1.Build a substantial Corpus Fund jointly and establish a TRUST- to fight legal redressal cases of mass grievances. A one time contribution by 40 lakh pensioners cutting across lines can help to build a huge corpus.

2. Pensioners’ Rights must come under the purview of Human Rights category in a country like India where there is no system of social security. Pension is the only alternative that too for a segment of the senior citizens only.

3.Constitutional Protection under Articles 14, 21 and all other clauses of EQUALITY and GUARANTEES must be ensured at all times for the Pensioners.

4.Government must make every effort to reduce litigations related to Pensions .

5.Fast track provisions must be ensured at all Courts for settlement f Pensioners’ Cases.

6.Pension Commission must be separately formed to ensure appropriate pension revisions as a subset of Pay Commission. Till such time suitable avenues must exist for representation in Pay Commissions.

7.Representatives of Pensioners/ Pensioner Associations/ Federations must be represented in all policy making bodies related to pensions.

8.Pension Revision must be based on uniform pension revisions for one and all. No scope must be allowed to dilute the principles of homogeneity and equity in the class of pensioners .

9. Pension must always be related to Basic Pay and no new concepts and approaches must be allowed to dilute the entitlements of old pensioners.

10. Pensioners Federations can be more pro-active and alive to the mass grievances of pensioners.

11. Periodic interaction with Govt. must be ensured through Annual Conferences/ Seminars/ Workshops etc.

12. PDA system through Banks need a thorough review and revision.

13. New entitlements of pensioners must be researched and provided for- like HRA, CCA, Conveyance, Relaxation, Medi Insurance etc etc

WHAT IS THE IMMEDIATEC REQUIREMENT?

In view of the widespread dissatisfaction arising out of the revised pensions after Sixth CPC implementation orders– are we to carry out another Nakara? Govt. must ponder and stem the deterioration that is taking place in the form of multiple court cases in the offing soon after the Nakara Day.

vnatarajan

sundarar
17-12-2009, 10:30 AM
Respected Sirs,

A new year starts in the Pensioner's Community with the commencement of 27th Pensioners' Day in our Country.

On this auspicious day (Guruwar), everyone remembers with full gratitude, the employees of yesteryears who 'when physically and mentally alert rendered unto master the best, and the Government who has been very responsibly undertaking the social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice by providing economic security as Pension in old age to those who toiled ceaselessly in the hey-day of their life'.

At this juncture, we also thank the CPAO, 6th CPC, NAC, DOP&PW, DOE, Ministries and Cabinet as well as the entire Govt. of India for implementing the 6th CPC and also calling for a feedback on the same to the NAC, who is presently considering the pensioners' cases.

We also thank the Hon. Courts for their landmark judgments in the case of Pensioners.

We wish that the Pensioners' Community is always remembered by one and all of the Country, for their loyalty and devotion coupled with responsibility and sincerety during and after the service under the Government of India.

Happy Pensioners' Day and Long Live Pensioners' unity.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

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

sundarar
18-12-2009, 07:28 AM
Dear Sirs,

As a general information to the Pensioners Community, the following excerpts from the D.S.Nakra Case Verdict furnished.

"What is Pension?

Pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon thediscretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion.

It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules.

Pension is a term applied to periodic money payments to a person who
retires at a certain age considered age of disability; payments usually continue for the rest of the natural life of the recipient.

Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 and clause (5) of Art. 148 of the Constitution ;

Pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered ;

The pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and in urtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a fillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare state.


What is a Pension scheme:

A Pension Scheme consistent with available resources must provide that the pensioner would be able to live: (i) free from want, with decency, independence and self-respect,and (ii) at a standard equivalent at the pre-retirement level”.

sundarar
18-12-2009, 11:01 PM
In continuation of the aforesaid general information, further excerpts from the Hon. SC verdict in the case of Shri D.S.Nakra are furnished hereunder:

"Pension has correlation to average emoluments (now emoluments last drawn) and the length of qualifying service and any liberalisation would pro tanto ber eteroactive (retrospective) in the narrow sense of the term.

New Pension Scheme:

A new retiral benefit to new recruits. (Totally a new concept without any relation to existing Scheme/Rules). An incentive to attract new recruits. In reality, it would be prospective.

Liberalised Pension Scheme:

It is only a revision of an existing Scheme. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit. A reward for past service. A revision of an existing benefit stands on a different footing than a new retiral benefit.

Only the pension will have to be recomputed in accordance with the provisions of the Liberalised Pension Scheme, as salaries were required to be recomputed in accordance with the recommendation (of 6th CPC w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners as is being done in the case of post-2006 pensioners)"

vnatarajan
25-12-2009, 02:17 PM
Dear All,

Our old pension scheme:

LET US BRUSH UP:

Chronological Events in Pension Scheme
1. India Pension Act introduced in 1871.
2. First increase in pension made in (1914-18) when First war was over.
3. Second temporary increase was sanctioned in 1943-1945 (2nd World War is
over) due to
high inflation.
4. Due to increase in high rate’s etc. some portion of pay (D.P.) was
ordered to add while
fixing pension w.e.f. 1.1.46 (Retired between 2.3.39 to 31.12.47). This was
effected w.e.f.
23.3.1947. This concession was extended up to 31.12.52.
5. F.R made effective from 1.1.1922. But pension rules were not consolidated
up to 1.10.38.
Liberalized Pension Rules 1950 were formed and made effective from
17-4-1950. Pension
rules 1972 were framed on the basis of Liberalized Pension Rules 1950.
6. As per Supreme Court decision dated 17-12-82 in Writ petition NO. 5939/80
that pension
is binding / obligation on Govt. it is not a gift / reward/bounty. (Nakra
Judgment)
7. Liberalised Pension Rules 1950 had provided DCRG/family pension for
restricted period.
½ rd commutation of pension amount was allowed and provision of nomination.
8. Supply of calculation sheet to pensioners started by order dated.
26-12-1970.
9. D.A. Committee granted following temporary increase w.e.f. 1-4-1958.
10. Ex-Pakistan Pension cases since 1948 to 1965.
11. Late P.M. Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri granted relief w.e.f. 1-10-1963.
12. Family pension scheme introduced w.e.f. 1-1-1964 (reducing 2 months
DCRG) Reduction
of 2 months D.C.R.G w.e.f. 22-9-1977. Spouses alive on 22-9-1977 were
granted Family
Pension w.e.f. 22-9-1977 in pursuance of the Supreme Court decision. If
record is not
available Affidavit was accepted as proof due to efforts of Shri B. S. Vaze.
13. Recommendation of Committee (Loksabha) submitted dated. 19-12-1968 to
the
Government.
14. Minimum Pension Rs. 100/- fixed w.e.f. 1-1-1973, Rs. 375/- W.e.f.
1-1-1986 and Rs.
1,275/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996. (Equal to minimum living standard).
15. Provision of Medical Aid introduced through CGHS in 1985.
16. Formation of SCOVA in 1986.
17. Formation of CAT in 1985 for Central Govt. Pensioners to get their
grievances solved
through it.
18. Restoration of full pension is expected after 15 years of retirement.
This is because
pension commutation is for the period of 15 years. However in many cases
disbursing
authorities did not take appropriate action and wanted specific orders from
pension fixing
authority. Association files writ petition in Supreme Court and decision
obtained in favour
of pensioners. Government of India has issued appropriate orders based on
NAKARA
case.
19. Physically and mentally handicapped children and widowed daughter of
pensioners are
now eligible for family pension. Government accepted this and the decision
is in force
since 1974. Further family pension is now admissible for unmarried and
divorced
daughters. There is no age limit for daughters but income limit is
applicable.
20. Association took up a case for granting of family pension to the spouse
where pensioner
absconds for 1 year. Earlier this limit had been 7 years. This decision is
implemented since
1997. (54.10.12).
21. Now parents of deceased pensioner are eligible for family pension
provided the parents
have no other children and their income is less than Rs. 2250.This is based
on
recommendation in memorandum submitted by the Association to Fifth CPC. CPC
accepted this and included in their recommendation [54(20)] to the
Government of India.
The Government accepted this and is in effect since 1-1-96.
22. Grant of ex-gratia payment to widows of CPF Retirees in 1986 (Rs. 150 +
D/r and Rs. 605
+ DR w.e.f. a.a. 1996).
23. Pensioners retired prior to 1986 were given relief by re-fixing pension
and payment of
pension was revised w.e.f. 1-1-1986. Dearness Relief also has been made
applicable to
this category of pensioners. (Fifth CPC).
24. This is not an achievement of the association. Noted here for
information only. All State
Governments have accepted and implemented recommendations of Fourth and
Fifth CPC
for their employees and pensioners.
25. Fixed Medical Allowance now admissible to Pensioners who are not
residing in Medical
Scheme like CGHS etc. w.e.f. 1-12-1997 vide orders dated 27-12-1997.
26. Dearness Relief allowed to Family Pensioners / Pension (2nd & 3rd)
w.e.f. 18-7-1997
dated. 25-6-1997 (Gazette dated. 19-7-1997- 55A.)
27. 50% Dearness Relief merged with basic Pension w.e.f. 1-4-2004, named as
Dearness
Pension.
28. Military Pensioners up to JCOs rank granted revised pension w.e.f.
1-1-2006. Tables
published by CDA (P) Alahabad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I NOTE THAT SOME IMPORTANT ITEMS ARE NOT COVERED.
FOR EXAMPLE : OM OF 17TH DEC1998 ON MODIFIED PARITY HAS TO BE THERE!
VNATARAJAN

sundarar
25-12-2009, 10:31 PM
Respected Shri VNji has nicely summarised the chronology of events as above, which will be a very useful for the Pensioners Community. As a follow-up, the classes of pension as briefed in the Staffcorner.com website,
is reproduced below for kind information of all.

Superannuation:
A superannuation pension shall be granted to a Government servant who is retired on his attaining the age of 60 years.

Retiring Pension:
A retiring pension shall be granted to a Government servant who retires, or is retired before attaining the age of Superannuation or to a Government servant who, on being declared surplus opts, for voluntary retirement.

Voluntary Retirement:
Any Government servant can apply for voluntary retirement, three months in advance, only after the completion of twenty years of his qualifying service, provided there is no vigilance or Departmental Enquiry pending /initiated against him/her.

Invalid Pension:
Invalid Pension may be granted if a Government servant applies for retirement from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him/her for the service. The request for invalid pension has to be supported by medical report from the competent medical board.

Compensation Pension:
If a Government servant is selected for discharge owing to the abolition of a permanent post, he shall, unless he is appointed to another post the conditions of which are deemed by the authority competent to discharge him/her to be at least equal to those of his own, have the option –

(a) of taking compensation pension to which he may be entitled for the service he had rendered, or
(b) of accepting another appointment on such pay as may be offered and continuing to count his previous service for pension.

Compulsory Retirement Pension:
A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted, by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity, or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full compensation pension or gratuity, or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. The pension granted or allowed shall not be less than Rs. 3500/- p.m.

Compassionate Allowance:
(i) A Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:
Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension.
(ii) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (i) shall not be less than the amount of Rupees one thousand nine hundred and thirteen per mensem.

Extraordinary Pension:
Extraordinary Pension in the form of Disability pension/extraordinary family pension may be paid to the Government servant/his family if disablement/death (or the aggravation of disablement/death)of the Government servant, during his service, are attributed to the Government service. For the award of extraordinary pension, there should thus be a casual connection between disablement and Government service; and death and Government service, for attributability or aggravation to be conceded. The quantum of the pension, however,depends upon the category of the disablement/death.

Government servants appointed on or after 1.1.2004 are not covered by the CCS(Extraordinary Pension) Rules.

Family Pension:
Family pension is granted to the widow / widower and where there is no widow / widower to the children of a Government servant who entered in service in a pensionable establishment on or after 01/01/1964 but on or before 31.12.2003 or having entered service prior to that date came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964 if such a Government servant-

(i) dies while in service on or after 01/01/1964 or
(ii) retired/died before 31.12.1963 or
(iii) retires on or after 01/01/1964
and at the time of his death was in receipt of pension.

Family pension is payable to the children up to 25 years of their age, or marriage or till they start earning a monthly income exceeding Rs.3,500/- + DA admissible from time to time p.m. whichever is earlier.

Widow daughter / divorced daughter/ unmarried daughter of deceased Government servant is also entitled for the family pension till her remarriage or up to life time or starts earning a monthly income exceeding Rs.3,500/- + DA admissible from time to time p.m. whichever is earlier.

Family pension is also payable to the dependent parents of deceased Government servants w.e.f. 01/01/98, where there is no claimant i.e. spouse or child for family pension, alive.

If the son or daughter, of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years, the family pension can continue to be paid for life time subject to conditions.

Kanaujiaml
26-12-2009, 08:07 AM
:D Dear Friends,
Season’s greetings and very happy and prosperous new year 2010 to you and all the family members. May the God fulfill all your wishes and the aspirations in the coming new year.Warm regards
from M. L. Kanaujia, Dehra Dun.

sundarar
27-12-2009, 10:29 AM
Para 5.2 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

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

Para 5.3 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

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

Para 5.4 of DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sundarar
15-01-2010, 08:19 PM
The Railway Senior Citizens Welfare Society, Chandigarh vide their letter dated 30.8.2009 has represented to the NAC and one of the issues - Disparity in Pension between Pre and Post-2006 Pensioners is as follows:

"Minimum Pension should not be less than 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale
Ref:- DOP O.M. F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A), dated 1.9.08 & F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) pt.1 dated 3. 10. 2008
i) a) The Sixth Pay Commission, vide Para 5.1.47 noted that “modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all pensioners. Accordingly no further changes in the extant rules are necessary”.
b) Sixth CPC had recommended (at the end of Para 5.1.47) that “revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 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”. These recommendations had been accepted by the Cabinet and DOP & PW issued OM dated 01.09.2008.
ii) This was however followed by a “clarification” vide OM dated 3rd October, 2008 supra, in respect of Para 4.2 of OM dated 1st September, 2008, vide which the Pension will be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band - irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus Grade corresponding to the pre-revised scale. This is in absolute contravention of the recommendation & policy of the Sixth Pay Commission as it has totally changed the intent of Para 5.1.47 of 6th CPC Report accepted in Toto by the Govt. in Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1st September 2008. This has given rise to a substantial reduction in the pension of pre-2006 pensioners compared to post-2006 pensioners retiring from the same post / grade at the minimum of pay scale.
iii) Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre and post-1986 pensioners and modified parity between pre and post-1996 pensioners. It was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scales from which the pensioner had retired. This Recommendation of Fifth CPC had been accepted by the Government and taken note of by the Sixth CPC - as stated above.
iv) As a result of the change now effected vide item 4.2 of DOP letter dated 3.10.08, two major anomalies and disparities have arisen (as illustrated in Annexure below)
a) Pre-2006 Pensioners get substantially less Pension than even the minimum of the Pension of Post 2006 Pensioners retiring from the same Post – as per details indicated below:

Pay Band/scales Difference in pension p.m. of Pre & Post 2006 Pensioners
PB 1 (S 4 – S 8) Rs 165 to 500
PB 2 (S 9 – S 15) Rs 465 to 1100
PB 3 (S 16 - S 23) Rs 570 to 1400
PB 4 (S 24 – S 29) Rs 1145 to 3650
b). Pension of a pre-2006 pensioner and retiring from a higher post / pay scale would be lower than a post-2006 pensioner, retiring from lower pay scale / scales. (see Col. 7 of Annexure).
v) The difference in pension of two identical cases separated by a line of pre & post 2006 pensioners gives rise to a class within the class. This question was taken up by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of D. S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) where in it has been observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification. Such classification based on a cut off date has been held to be arbitrary and unprincipled which does not stand the test of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
vi) The principle of parity between pre & post 2006 Pensioners has already been accepted by the Government in the case of Defence Personnel and equivalent civilian categories by creating a replacement scale for S 30 – in lieu of the Pay Band and the Grade Pay. This principle of parity should also be extended between all pre & post 2006 Pensioners.
vii) It is requested that, the minimum Pension should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, as per accepted recommendations of 6th CPC Report"

It is expected with a hope for redressal of grievance by a common pensioner that the DOP&PW and NAC will take up this issue on priority basis during their ensuing Meeting for a remedial solution, as this being the major anomaly, has already been represented by eminent associations like RSCWS, RREWA and Pensioners Forum, Chennai and other individual pensioners and as such, enough input is made available. This is so because,
the RSCWS had initially submitted the same issue as early as 8.5.2008 to the Chairman, Empowered Committee on 6th CPC Report as given hereunder:

"1. DISPARITY IN PENSION OF PRE AND POST 1-1-2006 CATEGORIES
There will be a wide variation between the pensions in cases of Pre & Post 1-1-06 Retirees, even though they belong to the same Pay Band in both cases of retirees.
As per Para 5.1.47 of the 6th PC report, the pension of the pre 1-1-06 retirees is to be fixed as per Fitment Table (Annex 5.1.1) subject to the provision that the revised Pension shall in no case be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (The stage-wise pay fixation of the serving employees in the revised running pay bands has been given in Table 2.2.2 of the report).
The enclosed table (Table I) shows the comparison of the pension for all the existing scales from S-4 to S-34 (Pay Bands PB-2 to PB-4), in cases of Pre & Post 1-1-06 Retirees, even though they belong to the same Pay Band in both the cases of retirees. It would be seen that there is a wide variation between the pensions although the parent pay band is the same in both cases of retirees. A very anomalous situation arises because a person retiring on 31st Dec. 2005 gets a lower pension than his counterpart retiring at the initial stage of the same scale a month later. Justice demands that there should be no difference in pension when the same pay band is applicable in both the cases.
It will be appreciated that this inequality in pension needs to be removed as else it would be a great injustice to past pensioners and shall be a violation of laws of natural justice (as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nakara’s Case."

sundarar
15-01-2010, 09:00 PM
In continuation of the previous post of date, it is submitted that when the DOP&PW had called for views/comments on 6CPC recommendations relating to pensionary benefits, the RSCWS Chandigarh had much earlier even before implementation of the recommendation, represented vide their letter dated 24.4.2008 (within the stipulated period of 1 week for receipt of comments/views) as given hereunder:

Subject:- Views / comments on the recommendations of 6th CPC
- Relating to pensionary benefits.
Reference:-Your Memo No. DOP & PW memo.No.38/35/2008 P&PW(A) dated 17/04/2008 on the subject cited above.
Sir,
In response to the notice cited above, as an Association of the Railway Pensioners, we would like to draw attention of the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Government of India, towards the following points which need to be addressed to by the authorities while finalizing the implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission pertaining to the existing pensioners:
1. DISPARITY IN PENSION OF PRE AND POST 1-1-2006 CATEGORIES
There will be a wide variation between the pensions in cases of Pre & Post 1-1-06 Retirees, even though they belong to the same Pay Band in both cases of retirees.
As per Para 5.1.47 of the 6th PC report, the pension of the pre 1-1-06 retirees is to be fixed as per Fitment Table (Annex 5.1.1) subject to the provision that the revised Pension shall in no case be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (The stage-wise pay fixation of the serving employees in the revised running pay bands has been given in Table 2.2.2 of the report).
The enclosed table (Table I) shows the comparison of the pension for all the existing scales from S-4 to S-34 (Pay Bands PB-2 to PB-4), in cases of Pre & Post 1-1-06 Retirees, even though they belong to the same Pay Band in both the cases of retirees. It would be seen that there is a wide variation between the pensions although the parent pay band is the same in both cases of retirees. A very anomalous situation arises because a person retiring on 31st Dec. 2005 gets a lower pension than his counterpart retiring at the initial stage of the same scale a month later. Justice demands that there should be no difference in pension when the same pay band is applicable in both the cases.
2.It will be appreciated that this inequality in pension needs to be removed as else it would be a great injustice to past pensioners and shall be a violation of laws of natural justice (as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nakara’s Case".

A natural question will arise in the minds of a common pensioner as to whether in spite of all the above submissions on a particular grievance constituting as a major anomaly should there be a need to push the pensioners community towards seeking remedy for the same from other available sources by incurring expenditures out of their thin packets?
If the matter is taken up for consideration and communication of such an information itself will keep the pensioners community to firmly believe that their welfare is appropriately being looked into. All these prayers of the Pensioners Community may kindly be considered by all concerned, since already four years have passed.....

sundarar
16-01-2010, 06:28 AM
As a continuation of the preceding two posts of 15.1.2010, the root cause for the disparity/discrimination in pension of pre and post-2006 pensioners, as discussed in the representation dated 24.4.2008 addressed to the DOP&PW by the RSCWS, Chandigarh as their views on 6CPC report is analysed as follows:

INCOHERENCE AND PARTIALITY IN UPGRADATION OF PAY SCALES WITH RESULTANT EFFECT ON PENSIONS
Combining of the existing 34 scales into four pay bands and grade pay has given rise to many incongruent situations as mentioned below:
i) Ratio between the 5th PC scales and the new pay bands (both taken at the minimum level) is very erratic varying from 1.46 to 3.37 which will be evident from the enclosed table (Table II). Not only that, but also there is wide variation within the same pay band. This variation is 1.70 to 2.42 for PB 1, 1.61 to 2.58 for PB 2, 1.46 to 2.63 for PB 3 and 2.17 to 3.37 for PB 4. There is no justification for such huge variations within either between the 4 Bands or within each Band especially if the intention behind the Band is to group personnel who are manning the posts of almost equal responsibility.
It would be pertinent to point out here that a uniform ratio of 3.3 with plus minus variation of about 10% was adopted by 5th CPC while upgrading the scales of 4th CPC. The haphazard ratio, adopted by the Sixth CPC, in up-gradation of scales is resulting into a wide variation of increase in pay fixation of various scales with consequential effect on pensions. This will be clear from the enclosed table of pay fixation (Table III). Percentage increase in the pay over what was drawn on 1-1-06 is reflected in the last col. and the variation is from 21.02 % to 81.22 %. Such a huge inequality is unheard of. It is difficult to believe that such was the intention of the 6th CPC.
ii) For the past pensioners having a choice of selecting better of the pensions as per fitment table (Annex 5.1.1) or 50 % of the new pay bands with grade pay, a table (Table IV) is enclosed for all the pay scales. The beneficial pension is indicated in bold figures. It would be seen that increase in pension is just 15.1 % in most of the cases as the new pay bands give a lower pension in their case. Where-ever pension is more on the basis of pay bands, there also is a wide variation in percentage increase. In one case of scale S-28, the increase in pension is of the order of 81.2 %. What is the justification for such a vast variation is any body’s guess?
The above analysis clearly brings out the discrepancies in the pay bands giving rise to huge variations in revised pay as well as pension. This needs to be remedied in interest of justice and to avoid serious heart burning amongst the majority of the employees as well as the Pensioners.

The remedial solution put forth by the RSCWS, Chandigarh on the need for a COMMON MULTIPLYING FACTOR vide their Representation to the NAC on 30.8.2009 is as follows:

DISPARITY IN RISE OF PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN SCALES S- 4 TO S-23 – - CASE FOR 3 TIMES UNIFORM RISE OF PENSION AS IN SCALES S 24 TO S 34

Reference:- i) MOF Notification of Revised Pay Rules, 2008 G. S. R. 622 (E) 29. 08. 08
ii) DOP O.M. F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A), dated 1.9.08
iii) DOP O.M. F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) pt.1 dated 3. 10. 2008
i) Sixth Central Pay Commission had disturbed the existing relativities between the Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners who retired from various Pre-revised Scales from S-4 to S-23 on one hand and those who retired from pre-revised S 24 to S 34 on the other hand.

ii) The % age rise of minimum Pension is mostly 21.5 to 25.4% (and goes up to 45 % only in one single case) of Pensioners who retired from Pre-revised Scales of S- 4 to S-23 but it is as high as 51.8 % to 81.2 % (except 38.5% in one scale S 29) in case of those who retired from pre-revised Scales S 24 to S 34 (as apparent from Annexure).

iii) a) Rise of Minimum Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners who retired from Scales S 24 to S 34 is 2.8 to 3.4 times as against the average rise of just 2.26 to 2.6 times in case of Pensioners who retired from pre-revised Scales from S 4 to S 23 (as clear from Annexure).

b) This is totally unjustified and against the principle of natural justice and has caused much frustration amongst the Pensioners who retired from pre-revised Scales from S 4 to S 23.

iv) The said disparities can only be removed by applying a Common Multiple Factor (CMF) of 3 times rise of minimum of Pension of all Pensioners who retired from Pre-revised Scales from S 4 to S 23 as applicable in case of pre-revised Scales S – 24 to S – 34.

v) It is, therefore, requested that the Minimum Pension in all cases of Pre-2006 Pensioners in the pre-revised scales S4 to S 23 be fixed based on a uniform or Common Multiple Factor (CMF) of 3 times of minimum Pre-revised Pension at par with pre-revised pension of those in scales S 24 to S 34. (Enclosure - one Annexure).

Thus the above solution provides an opportunity, if considered favourably, to nullify the need for pushing the pensioners' community towards seeking external remedy by involving monetary expenditure, time and energy of not only the pensioners' community but also the precious time by adding more burden to Law enforcing authorities.

To conclude, the spirit of uniform treatment as settled in the D.S.Nakra case by adopting the same methodology as applied for the post-2006 pensioners, for pre-2006 pensioners not only in devising their revised pension, but also in the minimum revised pension as well as the requirement of 20 years qualifying service for full pension or otherwise, pro-rata
in the case of pre-2006 pensioners irrespective of the scales from which they retired, is required to be followed. It is not submitted only by few pensioners like Shri R.K.Seghal or this writer as a totally new and instant aspiration, but by various Pensioners Associations like RSCWS much earlier than the very implementation of 6CPC Recommendations and before the NAC too. It is for the Authorities concerned to take up for favourable consideration, in the interest of the common pensioner community.

sundarar
17-01-2010, 06:45 AM
The Pensioners Community had so far taken more pains in various ways to establish what shall be the minimum revised pension for pre-2006 pensioners as per para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008. The usage of language in the OM while getting interpreted through a modification/clarification has led to an adverse effect of reduction in the said minimum revised pension.

The para 4.2 is meant for ensuring modified parity in line with the recommendation made by 6CPC through its para 5.1.47. In spite of any type of words duly coined and incorporated subsequent to acceptance of recommendation vide Resolution No.12 dated 29.8.2008 (Gazette Notification), the central theme of modified parity is nothing but 50% of bottom of the revised scale of pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

This is the first time, a revised scale upto S-29 consists of two elements.
a. Pay in the Pay Band and b. Grade Pay

The confusion started in the minds of everyone, when such a pay in the pay band was replaced by pay band during modification/clarification vide DOP&PW OM dated 3.10.2008 only for the pensioners. Because, no employee who was receiving bottom of a pre-revised scale will get bottom of the pay band alongwith the Grade Pay applicable to such pre-revised scale in which he was working till 31.12.2005. Exceptions are five scales among 29 pre-revised scales, where both pay band minimum and minimum of the pay in the pay band are one and same.

In such a situation the final query arises, as to whether a pay in the pay band shall necessarily correspond to a single pre-revised scale of pay or a group of pre-revised scales that were formed as a single pay band 1, 2, 3 and 4. While a bottom of pay band will correspond to bottom of all pre-revised scales, it is the pay in the pay band that will correspond to only a single pre-revised scale that was held by a pensioner on the date of his retirement.

While the basic methodology of devising the minimum revised pension in the name of modified parity rests on 50% of bottom of the revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired,
the pensioners community shall be kept informed as to what is such 50% of bottom of the revised scale in the revised structure of 6CPC.

50% of what a serving employee gets as revised pay (having drawn bottom of the pre-revised scale as pay as on 31.12.2005) w.e.f. 1.1.2006 will be the 50% of bottom of the revised scale, and such a component form the minimum revised pension. The para 5.1.46 of the 6CPC clarifies in this regard and the extracts is as follows:

"THE FIFTH CPC EXTENDED FULL PARITY BETWEEN PRE AND POST 1.1.1986 PENSIONERS AND A MODIFIED PARITY BETWEEN PRE AND POST 1.1.1996 PENSIONERS. IN MODIFIED PARITY, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT PENSION COULD, IN NO CASE, BE LESS THAN 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE CORRESPONDING REVISED PAY SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED"

Keeping this para in view only, the succeeding para 5.1.47 has been recommended by the 6CPC, which para was finally accepted by the Govt.
The usage of words `sum' of 50% of pay in the pay band and 50% of the Grade pay had got modified as and/plus during issue of OM dt.1.9.2008 and while clarifying/modifying further during issue of OM dated 3.10.2008.
No point of time, the 6CPC had prescribed that 50% of pay in the pay band shall be irrespective of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, which is very significant to note. Relating pre-revised scale with both the componets, viz. pay in the pay band as well as grade pay only will mean a revised scale of pay as a whole. For establishing this very minute
point only, the pensioners community are expected to get the issue settled through other available sources.

Our prayer is not more than 50% of the Minimum of the corresponding revised pay scale shall be the minimum revised pension.

Still time is left to take a suitable decision which is very well lies with the pension policy makers. Even if a pensioner (irrespective of the scale from which he retired among 29 pre-revised scale) goes for legal remedy his prayer in the petition will be for "50% of the Minimum of the corresponding revised scale" with submissions to establish that a pay in the pay band always corresponds with a pre-revised scale from which a pensioner had retired.

Can he not get any opportunity to get settled the above matter without any legal course of action? The answer lies with the policy makers.

sundarar
05-12-2010, 06:12 PM
PENSIONERS' DAY CELEBRATIONS 2010
http://rscws.com/
RAILWAY SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE SOCIETY CHANDIGARH
"To commemorate the Pro-pensioners Historical judgment of
Supreme Court of 17th December, 1982 In the case of D. S. Nakara -vs- Union of India

COORDINATION COMMITTEE OF CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATIONS & RAILWAY SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE SOCIETY

EXTEND HEARTIEST FELICITATIONS TO ALL PENSIONERS
ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF “PENSIONERS DAY”

AND

CORDIALLY SOLICIT THE GRACIOUS PRESENCE OF
ALL MEMBERS & THEIR SPOUSES OF
AFFILIATED ASSOCIATIONS OF CCCGPA
AT THE
PENSIONERS’ DAY CELEBRATIONS
ON SUNDAY, 19TH DECEMBER, 2010 FROM 9.45 A.M. (Sharp) TO 12-30 P.M.
AT HOTEL PARK VIEW, SECTOR 24 B, CHANDIGARH
PROGRAMME:
GENERAL BODY MEETING; PENSIONERS DAY CELEBRATIONS;
LAUNCHING OF NEW WEBSITE WWW.CCCGPA.IN AND
MEDICAL SEMINAR ON
“ORTHOPAEDIC PROBLEMS IN OLD AGE –
(JOINT PAINS & ARTHRITIS)
SEASONAL AGGRAVATIONS, THEIR PREVENTION & TREATMENT”
"CARDIAC PROBLEMS IN OLD AGE –
THEIR PREVENTION & TREATMENT”
(COURTESY FORTIS HOSPITAL, MOHALI)

WITH COMPLIMENTS FROM:-
P & T Pensioners Welfare Association,
Railway Senior Citizens Welfare Society,
Paramilitary Forces Retired Officers Association,
Association of Retired Officers of I.A. & A.D. Chandigarh
ESIC Retired Officers Association
Central Government Pensioners Welfare Society
Association of Retired Officers of Labour Bureau
I.A. & A.D. Retired Officers Association, Panchkula
All India Association of Retired Officers of Survey of India
U. T. Pensioners Welfare Association
Chairman, CCCGPA Sr. Vice Chairman, CCCGPA, Secretary General, CCCGPA"

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

www.rrewa.org
RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, GURGAON

Second National Convention of BHARAT PENSIONERS SAMAJ (BPS) affiliated Railway Pensioners Associations scheduled to be held at Hyderabad on 13.02.2011 (Sunday)

sundarar
09-12-2010, 06:29 AM
The ensuing Pensioners' Day, 17.12.2010 is the third Pensioners' Day after implementation of 6th CPC recommendations in September 2008.

The Pensioners Community fo pre-2006 period, have been granted a revision of pension with certain deviations from the accepted recommendation, as well as from a judicious approach based on existing settled position out of various court judgments in the past, as listed hereunder:-

1. Revised Assured Minimum Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006:

While, the serving employees have not been granted with any revised assured minimum pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (exception is the initial entry level pay of new recruits after 1.1.2006) the pensioners have been awarded a revised assured minimum pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Although there have been 4 different pay bands have been formed consisting of certain pre-revised scales in each pay band, in reality there are three types of
serving employees/pensioners emerging from the implementation for the purpose of
deriving running pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale of pay in r/o serving employees, and, deriving minimum of pay band corresponding to the LOWEST
pre-revised scale within the particular pay band.

a. Scales from S-4 to S-23
b. Scales from S-24 onwards
c. Scales from S-30 onwards

These sections have undergone revision of pay/pension with varying methodologies. That is the reason, they had been converted into 4 different pay bands in order to suitably accommodate such varying methodologies..

For instance, in the case of PB 1 to PB 3, the minimum of the respective pay band
is derived by application of MF of 1.86 to the bottom of the LOWEST SCALE within
the particular pay band.

In the case of PB 4, the minimum of the pay band is derived by application of MF of 2.6 to the bottom of the LOWEST SCALE within the pay band 4 (ie. 14300 scale)

In the case of above PB4, viz. S-30 onwards, the concept itself had got modified by keeping away from the purview of pay band aspect, by fixing revised pay/pension corresponding to pre-revised scale, by application of MF 3/3+.

By virtue of the said varied application, an uneven pattern of revision has actually taken place by keeping aside a majority of the scale holders/scale retirees (S-4 to S-23) outside the purview of a justied revision owing to the basic varying methodology of application of a lesser MF over the pre-revised scale of pay that resulted in reduced minimum pension as a whole within S-4 to S-23.

As far as PB 4 is concerned, a justified revision had taken place as compared to the
lower pay bands, but at the same time, the highest scale, S-30 was taken out from the Pay band, to form part of the HAG scale of course may be with enhanced justified revision and thereby, the PB4 got the same treatment on par with that of the lower pay bands PB 1-3. ie. granted revision with lesser MF as compared to that of S-30 onwards..

By this way, certain pre-revised scales had assumed instant/sudden significance from 1.1.2006, while some other pre-revised scales have lost their significance as far as revision of pay/pension from 1.1.2006 is concerned. There must be no second opinion that all the 34 scales are to be treated and revised with a uniform methodology.
Had this uniform methodology taken place either in recommendation or in implementation,
there would be no need to prescribe any assured revised pension in the case of
pre-2006 pensioners as a whole. Ultimately, the end result is a major anomaly that has arisen with a situation in which a higher scale retiree and a lower scale retiree within a particular pay band got equated through another `uniform' treatment of fixing minimum assured pension as applicable to the lowest scale retiree for the rest within the particular pay band - irrespective of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Thus the section (a) above have got aggrieved on two counts, viz. application of lesser MF as compared to (b) and (c), and the higher scale retiree got equated with lower scale retiree for the purpose of calculation of minimum assured guaranteed revised pension.

Same is the case of the Section (b) above - who got application of lesser MF as compared to (c) and the higher scale retiree got equated with lower scale retiree for the purpose of calculation of minimum assured guaranteed revised pension.

2. The second anomaly has taken place through admissibility of qualifying service for full pension. Here, the homogenous class of pensioners were treated as two groups, viz. pre-2006 and post-2006 (which in reality is not existing in the case of serving employees and even in the event of certain pay anomaly between such deemed groups, stepping up with certain conditions are very much in existence for the purpose of parity to treat as a homogenous serving employees)

While pre-2006 pensioners got their basic pension derived on the basis of
a. 33 years qualifying service and b. 50% of average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months,

the post-2006 pensioners have been presribed with
a. 20 years qualifying service under para 5.2 of OM dt.2.9.2008
b. 10 years qualifying service under para 5.3 of OM dt.2.9.2008
c. 50% of emoluments or 50% of average emoluments whichever is beneficial for
grant of full pension,
-with the delinkage of 33 years for full pension and withdrawal of pro-rata based pension from 1.1.2006.

Thus, a basic pension drawn after 1.1.2006 by a pre-2006 retiree and a post-2006 involves a great variation, owing to the different methodology applied with regard to qualifying service as well as the emoluments.

The ever living D.S. Nakara Judgment in 1982 was relating to liberalised/amended provisions towards emoluments for the purpose of caluclation of pension and the following part of another Judgment duly specifying the concept involved in the D.S. Nakara case will speak of itself - "The liberalised pension scheme in the context of which the decision was rendered in Nakara provided for computation of pension according to a more liberal formula under which "average emoluments" were determined with reference to the last ten months’ salary instead of 36 months’ salary provided earlier yielding a higher average, coupled with a slab system and raising the ceiling limit for pension. This Court held that where the mode of computation of pension is liberalised from a specified date, its benefit must be given not nearly to retirees subsequent to the date but also to earlier existing retirees irrespective of their date of retirement even though the earlier retirees would not be entitled to any arrears prior to the specified date on the basis of the revised computation made according to the liberalized formula. For the purpose of such a scheme all existing retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement, were held to constitute one class, any further division within that class being impermissible. According to that decision, the pension of all earlier retirees was to be recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised formula of computation on the basis of the average emoluments of each retiree payable on his date of retirement. For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly stated that if the pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later’.

In another judgment - ".... the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalized pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it is not a new scheme, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit..."

Thus, where an employee at the time of retirement is entitled to pension under the relevant rules, any subsequent amendment to the relevant rules enhancing pension or conferring additional benefit would be also applicable to him”.

Though the above extracts are provided with particular reference to admissibility of qualifing service for full pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners, the spirit behind the said Judgments, are equally applicable with regard to Minimum Assured Revised Pension also.
A pre-2006 pensioner cannot be granted with a lesser minimum assured pension as compared to a post-2006 pensioner (though the minimum revised pension was not prescribed for a post-2006 pensioner, it is nothing but 50% of revised emoluments applicable to bottom of the pre-revised scale), in accordance with the spirit behind
the D.S. Nakara Judgment and the subsequent verdict on equal treatment among homogenous class of Pensioners.

Keeping in view all the above factors, even after 2 years since implementation of 6th CPC recommendatinons, the aforesaid prime anomalies cannot be kept unresolved. A serious consideration and review of the implementation at the highest level amidst various representations, RTI queries, Court Cases, etc. is the need of the hour please.

dnaga57
10-12-2010, 08:09 AM
The ensuing Pensioners' Day, 17.12.2010 is the third Pensioners' Day after implementation of 6th CPC recommendations in September 2008.

The Pensioners Community fo pre-2006 period, have been granted a revision of pension with certain deviations from the accepted recommendation, as well as from a judicious approach based on existing settled position out of various court judgments in the past, as listed hereunder:-

1. Revised Assured Minimum Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006:

While, the serving employees have not been granted with any revised assured minimum pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (exception is the initial entry level pay of new recruits after 1.1.2006) the pensioners have been awarded a revised assured minimum pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

Although there have been 4 different pay bands have been formed consisting of certain pre-revised scales in each pay band, in reality there are three types of
serving employees/pensioners emerging from the implementation for the purpose of
deriving running pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale of pay in r/o serving employees, and, deriving minimum of pay band corresponding to the LOWEST
pre-revised scale within the particular pay band.

a. Scales from S-4 to S-23
b. Scales from S-24 onwards
c. Scales from S-30 onwards

These sections have undergone revision of pay/pension with varying methodologies. That is the reason, they had been converted into 4 different pay bands in order to suitably accommodate such varying methodologies..

For instance, in the case of PB 1 to PB 3, the minimum of the respective pay band
is derived by application of MF of 1.86 to the bottom of the LOWEST SCALE within
the particular pay band.

In the case of PB 4, the minimum of the pay band is derived by application of MF of 2.6 to the bottom of the LOWEST SCALE within the pay band 4 (ie. 14300 scale)

In the case of above PB4, viz. S-30 onwards, the concept itself had got modified by keeping away from the purview of pay band aspect, by fixing revised pay/pension corresponding to pre-revised scale, by application of MF 3/3+.

By virtue of the said varied application, an uneven pattern of revision has actually taken place by keeping aside a majority of the scale holders/scale retirees (S-4 to S-23) outside the purview of a justied revision owing to the basic varying methodology of application of a lesser MF over the pre-revised scale of pay that resulted in reduced minimum pension as a whole within S-4 to S-23.

As far as PB 4 is concerned, a justified revision had taken place as compared to the
lower pay bands, but at the same time, the highest scale, S-30 was taken out from the Pay band, to form part of the HAG scale of course may be with enhanced justified revision and thereby, the PB4 got the same treatment on par with that of the lower pay bands PB 1-3. ie. granted revision with lesser MF as compared to that of S-30 onwards..

By this way, certain pre-revised scales had assumed instant/sudden significance from 1.1.2006, while some other pre-revised scales have lost their significance as far as revision of pay/pension from 1.1.2006 is concerned. There must be no second opinion that all the 34 scales are to be treated and revised with a uniform methodology.
Had this uniform methodology taken place either in recommendation or in implementation,
there would be no need to prescribe any assured revised pension in the case of
pre-2006 pensioners as a whole. Ultimately, the end result is a major anomaly that has arisen with a situation in which a higher scale retiree and a lower scale retiree within a particular pay band got equated through another `uniform' treatment of fixing minimum assured pension as applicable to the lowest scale retiree for the rest within the particular pay band - irrespective of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

Thus the section (a) above have got aggrieved on two counts, viz. application of lesser MF as compared to (b) and (c), and the higher scale retiree got equated with lower scale retiree for the purpose of calculation of minimum assured guaranteed revised pension.

Same is the case of the Section (b) above - who got application of lesser MF as compared to (c) and the higher scale retiree got equated with lower scale retiree for the purpose of calculation of minimum assured guaranteed revised pension.

2. The second anomaly has taken place through admissibility of qualifying service for full pension. Here, the homogenous class of pensioners were treated as two groups, viz. pre-2006 and post-2006 (which in reality is not existing in the case of serving employees and even in the event of certain pay anomaly between such deemed groups, stepping up with certain conditions are very much in existence for the purpose of parity to treat as a homogenous serving employees)

While pre-2006 pensioners got their basic pension derived on the basis of
a. 33 years qualifying service and b. 50% of average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months,

the post-2006 pensioners have been presribed with
a. 20 years qualifying service under para 5.2 of OM dt.2.9.2008
b. 10 years qualifying service under para 5.3 of OM dt.2.9.2008
c. 50% of emoluments or 50% of average emoluments whichever is beneficial for
grant of full pension,
-with the delinkage of 33 years for full pension and withdrawal of pro-rata based pension from 1.1.2006.

Thus, a basic pension drawn after 1.1.2006 by a pre-2006 retiree and a post-2006 involves a great variation, owing to the different methodology applied with regard to qualifying service as well as the emoluments.

The ever living D.S. Nakara Judgment in 1982 was relating to liberalised/amended provisions towards emoluments for the purpose of caluclation of pension and the following part of another Judgment duly specifying the concept involved in the D.S. Nakara case will speak of itself - "The liberalised pension scheme in the context of which the decision was rendered in Nakara provided for computation of pension according to a more liberal formula under which "average emoluments" were determined with reference to the last ten months’ salary instead of 36 months’ salary provided earlier yielding a higher average, coupled with a slab system and raising the ceiling limit for pension. This Court held that where the mode of computation of pension is liberalised from a specified date, its benefit must be given not nearly to retirees subsequent to the date but also to earlier existing retirees irrespective of their date of retirement even though the earlier retirees would not be entitled to any arrears prior to the specified date on the basis of the revised computation made according to the liberalized formula. For the purpose of such a scheme all existing retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement, were held to constitute one class, any further division within that class being impermissible. According to that decision, the pension of all earlier retirees was to be recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised formula of computation on the basis of the average emoluments of each retiree payable on his date of retirement. For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly stated that if the pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later’.

In another judgment - ".... the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalized pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it is not a new scheme, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit..."

Thus, where an employee at the time of retirement is entitled to pension under the relevant rules, any subsequent amendment to the relevant rules enhancing pension or conferring additional benefit would be also applicable to him”.

Though the above extracts are provided with particular reference to admissibility of qualifing service for full pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners, the spirit behind the said Judgments, are equally applicable with regard to Minimum Assured Revised Pension also.
A pre-2006 pensioner cannot be granted with a lesser minimum assured pension as compared to a post-2006 pensioner (though the minimum revised pension was not prescribed for a post-2006 pensioner, it is nothing but 50% of revised emoluments applicable to bottom of the pre-revised scale), in accordance with the spirit behind
the D.S. Nakara Judgment and the subsequent verdict on equal treatment among homogenous class of Pensioners.

Keeping in view all the above factors, even after 2 years since implementation of 6th CPC recommendatinons, the aforesaid prime anomalies cannot be kept unresolved. A serious consideration and review of the implementation at the highest level amidst various representations, RTI queries, Court Cases, etc. is the need of the hour please.

Thank you Mr Sudarr
For keeping up your interest & efforts on behalf of us even though being S30 you have moved a lot out of our situation.
You are an inspiration

sundarar
11-12-2010, 05:32 PM
I think your goodself is remembering about Shri GRD, who belong to S-30. However, though I do not belong to S-30, thanks for joining the discussion on the eve of Pensioners' Day.

As far as delinking of 33 years of qualifying service for full pension, there are two provisions under DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008 - Para 5.2 and Para 5.3 as discussed in the preceding messages.

There was a discussion earlier regarding filing of a case on this particular aspect. At the same, it is essential to exhaust all departmental remedies for getting the application admitted either by HC or CAT.

Subsequent to the OM dated 10.12.2009 that gave the provisions of OM dt.2.9.2008 a retrospective effect, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, we could not hear anything relating to pre-2006 pensioners in this regard.

Recently, the BPS - RREWA 55th Annual Conference held on 20/21.11.2010 have passed various Resolutions and forwarded to the Govt. The Resolution with reference to the instant subject is as follows:

`Resolution No 5 (Delinking of Qualifying Service)
This Conference emphasizes the rationale involved in extending the de-linkage of qualifying service of 33 years for full pension in respect of pensioners retired during the period from 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 is equally valid andapplicable for those, who retired prior to 1.1.2006. As the pensioners are a homogenous class as a whole, computation of pension cannot be by different formulas thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended /revised, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment/revision takes effect. It is discriminatory to
introduce a benefit by fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups as pre-2006 and post-2006?

This conference of Bharat Pensioners Samaj therefore, urge upon GOI to redress the discrimination'.

dnaga57
12-12-2010, 07:15 AM
I think your goodself is remembering about Shri GRD, who belong to S-30. However, though I do not belong to S-30, thanks for joining the discussion on the eve of Pensioners' Day.

.

Yes Sir
I think it was Mr G Ramdass..... Sorry for the error.
However it does not take the sheen from my gratitude to you, VN, MLK Sirs for keeping up the energy on both this site
& Yahoo.
Hope the 'doing away with 33 years qual service will be dispensed with 'suo moto' by babudom

Kanaujiaml
12-12-2010, 05:27 PM
Dear friends. Pensioners day (17.12.10) has approached again. This year it is special in view of the fact that, Shri DS Nakara is no more with us this year. We will ever remain gratefull to him.

rksehgal31
15-12-2010, 05:01 PM
Dear friends. Pensioners day (17.12.10) has approached again. This year it is special in view of the fact that, Shri DS Nakara is no more with us this year. We will ever remain gratefull to him.

Dear Sundar ji and Kanaujia ji,
On the auspicious occasion of the Pensioners' Day celebrations at Chandigarh, I convey my greetings and best wishes for the success of the delibrations. Please write the contact Tel Nos and e-mail IDs of the organisers at Chandigarh.

Incidentally, two CWPs 19641/2009 and 19642/2009 filed by Chief Engineers of HVPN (erstwhile HSEB) Er RK Agarwal and others and Er Satish Bhalla and others for parity with post-2006 pensioners will come up for arguments in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on that very day i.e. 17.12.2010. We wish them success in their struggle.

Another 4 CWPs have been filed by about 100 pre-2006 pensioners (CEs, SEs and XENs) of PB-4 band of the Haryana Power companies in the high court at Chandigarh.

RK Sehgal

sundarar
15-12-2010, 06:23 PM
Dear Sundar ji and Kanaujia ji,
On the auspicious occasion of the Pensioners' Day celebrations at Chandigarh, I convey my greetings and best wishes for the success of the delibrations. Please write the contact Tel Nos and e-mail IDs of the organisers at Chandigarh.

RK Sehgal

Respected Shri RK Sehgalji, Thank you very much for your kind valid input on the progress of the cases.

The information sought for by your goodself in respect of the Pensioners' Day Celebrations at Chandigarh, are available in the website WWW.CCCGPA.IN
Your goodself may also visit www.rscws.com website at your convenience.

We also join with your goodself in conveying the best wishes of homogenous class of pensioners on the eve of Pensioners' Day as well as the grand success of the cases for justice in all respects.

Once again thank you very much Sir.

Best Regards
Sundarar.

sundarar
11-04-2011, 07:19 AM
D.S. NAKARA SPIRIT AS DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS COURT JUDGMENTS:

"In D. S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1983 (2) SCR 165 it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that all petitioners entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules formed a class irrespective of the date of their retirement. There could not be a mini classification within this class. The classification based on retirement before or subsequent to the specified date was invalid. The scheme of liberalisation in computation of pension must be uniformly enforced with regard to all pensioners.

On the basis of the judgment of this Court on 22.10.1983 the Government issued orders extending the benefit of the judgment to all pensioners covered by CCS (Pension Rules) as well as Liberalised Pension Rules 1950. After promulgation of the Order dated 22.10.1983 doubts arose regarding the extent of the benefit of various liberalisations made from time to time in Pension Rules. It was clarified by the Government that only the benefit of this liberalisation should be allowed to all pensioners as had been mentioned in the Government Orders dated 22.10.1983. In all other respects the rules, prevalent on the date of retirement of the pensioners, will apply. According to the clarification issued by the Ministry of Finances the revised pension is to be computed on the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months of service. This rule will apply to all the pensioners. However the definition of emoluments as in force at the time of the retirement of an employee has not undergone any change.

Nakara's Case (supra) dealt with the manner of calculation. of pension on the basis Of average emoluments of a retired Government employee. Prior to the liberalisation of the formula for computation of pension made by the memorandum dated 25th May, 1979, average emoluments of the last thirty months of service of the employee provided the basis for calculation of pension. The 1979 memorandum provided that average emoluments must be calculated on the basis of the emoluments received by a Government servant during the last ten months of the service. That apart, a new slab system for computation of pension was introduced and the ceiling on pension was raised. As a result of these changes, the pensioners who retired prior to the specified date suffered triple jeopardy, viz., lower average emoluments, absence of slab system and the lower ceiling. This Court struck down the provision including the memorandum which provided that: "the new rates of pension are effective from 1st April, 1979 and will be applicable to all service

officers who became/become non effective on or after that date."

The Court further held:"Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date,

irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per

fresh computation is not admissible"


It merely held That if pension was to be calculated on the basis of the last ten months' emoluments of a Government servant, after 1.4.1979, there is no reason why those who have retired before 1.4.1979 should get pension calculated on the basis of average of last thirty six months' emoluments. In other words, the rule of computation must be the same.


The average of the last ten months' emoluments must form the basis for calculation of pension. The Constitution Bench in Nakara's Case has clearly laid down that there cannot be any mini classification of Government servants for calculating the amount of pension payable. That means the same method should be adopted for calculating pension for all Government servants. This principle of adopting last ten months' emoluments as the basis for calculation of pension must be uniformly applied to all persons drawing pension from the Central Government.


The Government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees. But if the principle of average of last ten months' emoluments has been adopted for some employees, then that Principle must be extended to all the employees who have retired before them.


When the Government decided that pension was to be calculated on the basis of average salary drawn over a period of last ten months, it was held in Nakara, that this principle has to be applied even to those persons who had retired before the notified date".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anomalies in revision of pension within the same group of pre-2006 pensioners:

The manner of calculation of pension at any point of time shall be uniform, according to the D.S.Nakara case spirit. For the first time, the 6th CPC recommendation/implementation witnessed various mini-classification of even within the same group of pre-2006 pensioners, by virtue of not allowing uniform multiplication factor to all the pre-2006 pensioners alike.

a. The Grade pay consisting of 40% of max. of pre-revised scale has been replaced by 40% of pre-revised pension, while determining basic revised pension under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008. Thus, instead of 1.86 mf over pre-revised pension + 40% of max. of pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, 1.86 + 0.40 = 2.26 of pre-revised pension has been allowed as basic revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

b. Under para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, while S-30 and above scale retirees were provided with scale based revision of pension, the remaining scale retirees were awarded with band based revision of pension and thereby leading to an anomaly as to minimum of the pay band vs minimum of the pay in the pay band, that is yet to be resolved.

c. Under the aforesaid para, the 50% of Grade Pay that is allowed for calculation of minimum revised pension, for scales upto S-20, the GP factor consists of 40% of max. of pre-revised scale. For rest of the scale retirees, the GP factor consists of 45% of max. of pre-revised scale.

d. The minimum revised pension for S-30 onwards worked out to application of an mf of 3/3+, the same for scales upto S-23, worked out to less than 2.26, and thereby making the very para 4.2 as null and void for them. For the scales S-24 and above, under modified para 4.2 it works out to involvement of an mf of 2.6 only.

Is this the manner of calculation that is settled by D.S. Nakara spirit? It is to be noted that the quantum of pension need not be same as compared to higher scale retirees. But, when the `emoluments' part on the date of retirement being static, the manner of calculation shall be carried out by uniform methodology, which is missing this time.

A pensioners' pension is derived out of his `emoluments' and `qualifying service' which did not involve any change. Whenever, the pension so derived out undergoes an upward revision, a uniform manner and methodology shall be applied, and that is what D.S. Nakara spirit justifies through its settled position.

sundarar
15-04-2011, 06:23 PM
EXTRACT OF MEMORANDUM DATED 16.3.2011 SUBMITTED TO HON. PM
BY BHARAT PENSIONERS' SAMAJ (Courtesy: www.rrewa.org)
.......
.......
"5 : Equal fitment benefit to pensioners at par with employees by adding 50% of Grade Pay
There was no reason for the VI CPC to give a different fitment benefit to the pre-2006 retirees other than what was actually given to serving employees especially when the VI CPC in their Report (para 5.1.47) talk of granting equal fitment benefit to serving employees and pensioners. Merely adding 86% DR to their basic pensions did not amount to giving the same fitment benefit to the pensioners. While grade pay benefit given to employees ensured equal benefit to all those coming under each grade pay, the same was not the case with the pensioners since pensioners retired at various stages in pre-revised pay scales. This glaring anomaly in the matter of fitment benefit recommended to pre-2006 pensioners was not properly dealt with by the VI CPC while making the recommendation. The Government has also not come forward to do full justice to pensioners considering that different fitment benefits given to pensioners and serving employees resulted in further widening of disparities in pensions / family pensions of pre and post 2006 pensioners / family pensioners. Further, the benefit is not uniform at all levels in as-much-as the increase in basic pension was 2.26 times upto certain levels (ie PB III), it is much more at higher levels (upto 3.4) leaving a trail of deep sense of
frustration and injustice at the lower levels.

This Convention therefore appeals to the Government to do justice to all the pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners by giving them same fitment benefit as given to serving employees w.e.f. 1- 1-2006 i.e. Basic pension + 86% DR + 50% of Grade Pay as allotted to the post from which they retired w.e.f. 1-1-2006 and uniform multiplication factor of i.e. Existing Pension x 3.4 be adopted to arrive at the minimum guaranteed pension.

6: Complete parity to pre 2006 Pensioners with post 2006 Pensioners:

The Fifth Central Pay Commission had, in Para 137.21 of their report, enunciated a principle
for future revision of pensions. According to this, “complete parity should normally be conceded up to the date of last pay revision and modified parity (with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay. scale) be accepted at the time of each pay revision. The enunciation of this principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision, say, in the year 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post 1996 and modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. The VI CPC did not recommend carrying forward this already accepted principle for implementation of ‘parity’ between pre and post 1996 pensioners.
They just abandoned this salutary principle on the untenable plea that cent percent neutralization of price-rise was given to all levels w.e.f. 1-1-96. While making this observation, the VI CPC ignored the fact that ‘parity’ as recommended by V CPC was not linked to any cent percent neutralization of price rise. Cent percent neutralization of price rise was there upto certain levels even prior to 1-1-96 and the ‘parity’ principle is meant to progressively bridge the gap in pensions of those retiring under 4 different Pay Commission scales of pay. By not carrying forward this salutary and just principle, the
VI CPC did grave injustice to pre 1-1-96 pensioners and family pensioners. The Commission also utterly failed to make any recommendation to eliminate wide disparities and bring about parity in pensions of past and present pensioners and present and future pensioners and to provide a uniform multiplication factor for revision of pension with respect to the existing pension. Thus, the Commission dealt a severe blow to the principle of parity in pensions. The Government of India too, which had earlier accepted this principle and implemented it to pre 1986 pensioners and family pensioners, completely abdicated its moral responsibility to its past employees and their families. This only speaks of the anti-pensioner attitude of the Government of India. Similarly, with regard to implementation of modified parity, the recommendation of the VI CPC was deliberately distorted and misinterpreted to deny the benefit of ‘stepping up’ to a large
number of pre 2006 pensioners and family pensioners. The V CPC enunciated the new concept of modified parity to ensure that the past retiree in a post would get not less than 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale at the time of revision and 30% in the case of family pension. Now, the introduction of Pay Bands and Grade Pays has been taken advantage of by the powers that be to deny the above benefit to pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners.

The benefit of modified parity would accrue to all pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners only if the pay in the Pay Band corresponding to the minimum pay of the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner retired with Grade Pay thereon is taken for this purpose. In implementation of the Government’s orders in this regard, a large number of those who retired in various prerevised pay scales have been deprived of this benefit and hence denied equal treatment. The manner in which the modified parity has been implemented under VI CPC recommendation amounts to gross discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In spite of this glaring irregularity being pointed out by individual affected pensioners as well as by the C.G. Pensioners’ Organizations across the country, the Government of India has turned a deaf ear to all their pleas.
This distorted interpretation of the recommendation and its implementation in the manner
explained above has the effect of widening the gap between the pensions of pre and post 2006 pensioners and family pensioners and this gap continues to widen with sanction of every additional installment of DR and also when the additional quantum of pension / family pension relating to age is granted. Unfortunately, the authorities have been ignoring these glaring irregularities and the recurring monetary loss to many pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners. While the Government could do justice to pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners in the above regard by issuing suitable modified instructions, it is unfortunate, that the aggrieved pensioners and family pensioners are being made to go from pillar to post in the evenings of their lives at great expense and physical and
mental strain to them, hardly behoving of an enlightened and model employer which the Central Government is expected to be.

Bharat Pensioners Samaj therefore, urge upon the Government of India to concede full parity up to 1-1-96 and implement modified parity as on 1-1-2006 in a manner that would do equal justice to all those who retired in pre-revised scales of pay and also to provide, irrespective of pre retirement official status, a uniform multiplication factor for revision of existing Pension".

Gopal Krishan
08-06-2012, 03:17 PM
Respected Sirs,
Our efforts in bringin out various points in favour of the pensioners have been exemplary. However, the expression about pre and post 2006 if modified to pre-2006 and post-2005 would give clearer picutre of the matter.

With regards