+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Modified Parity of Pension – Pre-2006 Pensioners

  1. #1
    Junior Member Major (Retd.) S K Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default Modified Parity of Pension – Pre-2006 Pensioners

    Modified Parity of Pension – Pre-2006 Pensioners

    It is seen from the official minutes of first meeting of National Anomaly Committee that intension of Pay Commissions for introducing Modified Parity of Pension has not been understood correctly. In this regard paragraphs 5.1.46 and 5.1.47 of 6th CPC report appear to be relevant.

    The demand of One Rank One Pension has been discussed by 6th CPC vide paragraph 5.1.46 of its report jointly for civilian employees and armed forces personnel. Para 5.1.46 states that, “The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre & 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 Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

    (Note: The definition of ‘Modified Parity’ as given in this para and relied upon by 6th CPC is to be understood carefully)

    6th CPC, while discussing the issue further vide para 5.1.47 of its report states that, “modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary.”

    (Note: It is quite evident from the above extracts that 6th CPC has carried forward the extant rules of ‘Modified Parity’ which was introduced by 5th CPC without any change)

    6th CPC has accordingly recommended that “the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

    The above recommendation has been accepted by the Government without any changes. However, the phrase ‘Minimum of the pay in the Pay Band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired’ has been treated as ‘Minimum of the Pay Band’ at the time of implementation, which has created obvious anomaly defeating the very purpose of introduction of the concept of Modified Parity by 5th CPC. In this regard following points need to be highlighted:

    1. Since 6th CPC has continued the concept of ‘Modified Parity’ which was originally introduced by 5th CPC, the definition of this term is to be understood in relation to the analysis done by 6th CPC vide para 5.1.46 of its report.

    2. The phrase “minimum of the pay in the Pay Band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired” is different from the phrase “minimum of the Pay Band”. The figure of Minimum of the Pay Band has been worked out on the basis of minimum of the lowest Pay Scale which has been merged in each Pay Band by the 6th CPC in their scheme of Pay Bands.

    The anomaly in implementation of Modified Parity in respect of pre-2006 pensioners must be quite clear from the above discussion. It is more evident in respect of Armed Forces Officers where pension of all pre-2006 Lt Cols, Cols, Brigs & Major Generals has been calculated at Rs. 37400/- which is the minimum of Pay Band 4 and applicable only to Lt Cols. Similarly, pension of all Lts, Capts. & Majors has been calculated at Rs. 15600/- which is the minimum of Pay Band 3 and applicable only to Lts.

    It is also pertinent to mention that 6th CPC has not recommended that the minimum pension under Modified Parity scheme will be applicable for 33 years of service and will be reduced pro-rata in respect of lesser service. No such condition has either been added by the Government while accepting the recommendations of 6th CPC. As such minimum assured pension under Modified Parity scheme should be given to all pre-2006 pensioners without any linkage of the same to the erstwhile condition of 33 years service for full pension. This has become more relevant since the condition of 33 years service for earning full pension has completely been removed. All pre-2006 pensioners should be extended this benefit at least in relation to Modified Parity of Pension, which is based on minimum of the 6th CPC revised pay for each rank/post.

    This point is pending for discussion by the National Anomaly Committee. I wish and pray that the issue be discussed in the right spirit by the National Anomaly Committee. Incidentally, if the anomaly is not settled by the National Anomaly Committee, I request the Pensioner’s Associations to consider if the Government can be approached to detail a separate Arbitrator to consider this anomaly of pensioners. Government has already stated in its letter dated 12/01/2009 that an Arbitrator is to be appointed to consider the disputed cases arising in Anomaly Committees. The letter is available at this Link http://www.persmin.nic.in/writedata/...2_2008_JCA.pdf.


    Major (Retired) S K Jain

  2. #2
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Major Jain,

    Perhaps you are a very new entrant to this Gc Discussion Board.

    There are at least two main threads and two more minor in this Forum Topic -" Pensioners"- itself which have served the cause of "modified parity" focussing on several aspects.

    Kindly go through the threads titled "Injustice......", "Justice.......", "Effectiveness......" etc all- starred threads which have dealt extensively on the toipic.

    Several mile-stones have been crossed.

    As a result:

    There are at least Six CAT/ Court cases - on the very issue- many coming up in March 2010.- and the famous Rtd Maj Gen Vains Contempt Case 7th attempt for final hearing after six adjournments is due on 19th Feb 2010.

    Please get in touch with Lt Cdr Avtar Singh who had spear-headed the steering of a "Mod Parity'" Case for Lt Cdrs- Majors in the AFT coming up for admission in the first week of March 2010. ( I am proud to have enthused him/ helped him ( with some info) to draft the case under the able Legal Direction of Cdre S.Singh if I am correct.!)

    Please see the list of cases in the last post of the thread just below the one started by you- titled "Injustice......"

    Welcome and cheers.

    Regards

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 17-02-2010 at 06:39 AM. Reason: typo

  3. #3
    Junior Member Major (Retd.) S K Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default Modified Parity of Pension – Pre-2006 Pensioners

    Dear VN Sir,

    Thanks for your comments. This is a clear case of anomaly in implementation of Modified Parity of Pension. Concept of Modified Parity of Pension is to be understood in relation to implementation of 5th CPC and this aspect has not yet been highlighted adequately. Since avenue of Arbitrator is still open, it is to be considered if there is any harm in trying this avenue simultaneous to the legal cases. Para 6 of Govt. letter dated 12/01/2009 states that the Arbitration will not be under JCM scheme. Hence, efforts can be made so that a retired Judge is detailed as Arbitrator and Pensioner’s Associations are made a party of the Arbitration. No representation has been given to Pensioners’ Association in National Anomaly Committee as the same was under JCM scheme. In case some Pensioner’s Association jointly try and succeed in detailment of a separate Arbitrator to consider the anomaly of pensioners there may be some hope of justice through this channel.

    These are my views for the consideration of learned members like you.

    Regards

  4. #4
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Major Jain,

    One of the exhaustive Appeals have been given by me to the NAC on behalf of the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai (affiliated to the AIFPA, Chennai-(Regd)) and also thru RREWA, Gurgaon etc. - A gist of the same appears in the Central Govt. Employees News website- under the posts on NAC etc. Also in Surispace.Net- RREWA website.

    I am not sure if the JCM will be effective in breaking the ice- as you see the dispute even in record of the minutes.

    First meeting took place on 12 12 2009 - but then we are not sure when the second meeting took place or a JCM group met the Official side somewhere in the first week of Jan 2010- It is not clear when the routine will be completed.

    None of the individual appeals to the Govt.- thousands of them- from knowledgeable pensioners- have not made any impact. Nor was there any response.

    Having exhausted all channels- pensioners have gone/ are going to courts!

    In the meanwhile, more than a lakh pensioners must have breathed their last - without enjoying the benefits of their service to the Nation - fading unheard!. Military pensioners' plight is much more - as I see.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 18-02-2010 at 08:46 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 07:58 PM
  2. One rank one pension - pre 2006 pensioners
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 16-07-2009, 12:53 PM
  3. One Rank One Pension - pre 2006 pensioners
    By SK Jain in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 08:59 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-12-2008, 04:59 PM
  5. pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity
    By RSundaram in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 08:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts