+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 368

Thread: Justice for 20 yr plus pre-2006 retirees of all pre-revised scales- action plan"

  1. #61
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Dear dnaga 57,

    My friend, a S 29 pensioner ( < 33 years service ) based in Chennai wants to be a volunteer.
    What all details / assistance you require from him?

    Imayan

  2. #62
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Dear Mr Imayan
    Your friend can become also a member-litigant of the ,33 years members fighting the case. For this he may write to Mr Pratap Narayan. He may pay Rs 5000 towards legal expenses.
    Also he may recruit more such pensioners - not necessarily of S29 only but across the board towards the cause /7 adding t the legal fund.
    The volunteering bit is best done by Delhi based members in sharing going to court etc.
    As the fruits of the struggle will help ALL aggrieved , it is only fair that likely beneficiaries chip in.

  3. #63
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Thanks dnaga57.
    Kindly give contact details of Pratap Narayan pl.
    His contact No. and e mail ID.

    Imayan

  4. #64
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Imayan View Post
    Thanks dnaga57.
    Kindly give contact details of Pratap Narayan pl.
    His contact No. and e mail ID.

    Imayan
    Pratap Narain <[email protected]>; Mr PN's email address is given

  5. #65
    Member kssitaraman is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default

    With due regards to Respected Shri DNaga, who has started this lively Thread on a subject of great importance to help out aggrieved pensioners, and to Respected Shri VN Sir, who has been giving timely fillip to the efforts being taken in this regard and who is also mobilising tremendous support for the movement with ideas in a way in which only he can thanks to his vast experience, I am placing below a Write-up prepared by me recently on this subject for their kind approval and for the general information and guidance of the affected past pensioners, especially the would-be litigants if interested, and to buttress the efforts already being taken all-round.

    A different approach is attempted in this Write-up by use of simple language to highlight and to try to suggest a solution to what undoubtedly is a vexed, complex problem faced by the aggrieved past pensioners to the satisfaction of all concerned.

    Respected Shri PNji and Shri Sundarar have seen the earlier version of the Write-up but have not seen this one, which has some newer but essential inputs.

    The Authorities may ignore the Write-up, as they have a policy of opposing grant of benefits to the past Pre-2006 pensioners, the Lower Courts may or may not appreciate the plea but it is expected to find favour with the Higher Judiciary.

    Hope the Viewers will give their considered views at their convenience.

    Now for the Write-up.

    Dispensing with linkage of full pension with qualifying service – A few new points and a plea to the Authorities and the Courts..
    -----
    1. Consequent on implementation of the Sixth CPC’s Recommendation in Para 5.1.33 of its Report, dispensing with linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service, two sets of Rules – one, regulating pensions etc of employees retired on or after 1/1/2006 and two, regulating pensions of past pensioners drawing proportionate pension, who retired before 1/1/2006 are being followed.

    2. The first set of Rules is as recommended by the Sixth CPC to be effective for the future till a future Pay Commission/Government brings in any change in the arrangement.

    3. The existing Rules affording proportionate pensions for those with less than 33 years qualifying service, have been retained/adopted to serve as the second set of Rules for past pensioners, by a decision taken by the Government. The Sixth CPC had made no suggestion as to the treatment to be given to them in the future consequent on this important recommendation that decided the future of employees/retirees. Probably the Commission felt that it was not necessary, as according to them the principle based on which the recommendation was made would take care of the past pensioners. However, this has not happened, when the time came for Government to take the decision.

    4. As can be viewed by every one concerned, the first set is open ended and it takes ample care of the employees for years to come, for which they should be thankful to the Commission and to the Government. In contrast, the second set is a closed one applicable to only a fixed group of past pensioners, who have been left high and dry without any benefit from the said recommendation.

    5. Unlike the vast group of employees catered by the first set of rules, the latter group of past pensioners is left no choice – they are told that they would continue to be governed by the same rules as before, implying that the Commission’s recommendation in question has nothing to do with them, which stance seems to be woefully erroneous.

    6. What are the demands of this unfortunate group? They might say that the country’s Constitution demands that the Pay Commissions/Governments should treat all present and past employees equally and there should not be any discrimination. The past pensioners only demand that the Sixth CPC’s recommendation under reference be extended to them also, which in actual terms would mean paying the difference between full pension they will be entitled to and the actual proportionate pension they now receive. They ask for nothing else.

    7. What is the problem for the Government in taking care of the past pensioners’ interests then vis-ŕ-vis this recommendation? Keeping two sets of rules is certainly no solution, as it definitely comes in conflict with the Constitution by meting out different treatment to the present and past employees, who are placed on either side of the prospective date that has since been converted into a cut off date, namely 1/1/2006, for the past employees, shall we say, for the specific purpose of denying the benefit of the recommendation.

    8. The real solution seems to be to consider the recommendation in Para 5.1.33 of the Sixth CPC as common to both Pre and Post 2006 pensioners irrespective of the fixation of a prospective date, since the principle, based on which the Commission had made this recommendation should necessarily be applicable to both past and present employees and since the same cannot be limited to any artificial barrier like a prospective date or cut off date. It transcends all barriers. The Commission has also not made any stipulation to the contrary probably for the same reason. The implementation of the recommendation could be deemed to have been completed only if the past pensioners with the requisite pensionable service (derived from their present quantum of qualifying service) are also granted their full pension. One could find that every thing falls in place including the prospective date 1/1/2006 from this recommendation.

    9. Application of two sets of rules, apart from the disparity aspects between the two groups (split from a single homogenous group that was existent before implementation of the recommendation) on either side of the prospective date widening further, has also resulted in the qualifying service for one Group being rendered irrelevant and for the other Group as very much relevant and thus a Pre-2006 pensioner is made to find a Post-2006 colleague of his with far less qualifying service drawing full pension. Does this discrimination between the said two Groups artificially created by a Government decision (and not specifically recommended by Pay Commission) not repeat not come in conflict with the provisions of Article 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution? This decision further entails maintenance of two sets of records for an indefinite period in respect of the two Groups governed by different Rules, which in turn is liable to give room for errors, grievances, etc. apart from the costs of maintenance of two separate records. The said decision is therefore to be termed as not only bad in law but also as erroneous from administrative point of view.

    10. The decision has also introduced a sub-classification of the already fragmented Pensioners groups as –

    - Pre-2006 pensioners with 33 years qualifying service drawing full pension,
    - Pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service drawing proportionate pension and
    - Post-2006 pensioners with 20/10 years pensionable service drawing full pension.

    This sub-classification as also the lacunae pointed out in Para supra could have been avoided by dispensing with the linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service (recommended by the Sixth CPC) altogether from the pension regulation mechanism. .

    11. From the foregoing it can be seen that the implementation decision taken by the Government insofar as Pre-2006 retirees are concerned has not only been improper but it is also discriminatory and arbitrary..

    12. We, therefore, pray to the Authorities/Courts to intervene to protect the interests of the Pre-2006 pensioners also. A reading of Para 5.1.33 of the Report of the Sixth CPC, which recommends dispensing with linkage of full pension with qualifying service from a prospective date, clearly indicates that it is a measure common to all employees, past and present, and is uniformly applicable to all the employees. While its implementation has been quite at ease with respect to the post-prospective date employees, it also fits in well the Pre-prospective date retirees with the full blessings of the Constitutional provisions. We pray that amongst the latter group whomsoever has the required pensionable service derived from the erstwhile qualifying service of his/her, may be granted full pension. There is no further demand from this Group as far as this recommendation is concerned. As it is a closed fixed group perhaps this will be a permanent hassle-free solution.

    13. We are unable to comprehend how a prospective date fixation can change one set of rules into two. Where does this interpretation come from? Any one can be sure that this interpretation is absolutely incorrect.

    14. The Government in its decision on past pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service and drawing proportionate pension, has treated the imposition of the prospective date namely 1/1/2006 as the cut-off date, just to deny the full pension that accrues to these pensioners from recommendation in Para 5.1.33 of the Sixth CPC.

    15. These pensioners challenge this decision as outrageous and seek its review on grounds that the principle behind the particular recommendation of the Sixth CPC, namely, --

    -- dispensing with linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying service, grant of full pension for those employees on rendering minimum 20 years pensionable service and qualifying service ceasing to have any relevance, --

    is also applicable to past pensioners (Pre-2006) as the recommendation is deemed to be common in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary by the Commission, as explained in Para 8 above.

    K.S.Sitaraman
    On behalf of the aggrieved past pensioners drawing proportionate pension..

  6. #66
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I agree in toto with KSS.
    Very forthright status paper.
    What a simple and powerful presentation !
    What should be the action plan now ?

    Imayan

  7. #67
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    All these well articulated points & more are covered in our Affidavit at the CAT. Once the earlier PR CAT verdict gets substantiated by SLP getting rejected, this anamoly would automatically get corrected thru CAT verdict.
    Kindly be patient

  8. #68
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    ALL THE BEST IN TODAY'S 25 JULY 2013 PROCEEDINGS AT THE PR CAT DELHI......IN THE OA 1165/2011 & OTHERS.......
    vnatarajan

  9. #69
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Not much of hearing it seems.... posted to 17 Sept 2013 as I learn.......
    vnatarajan

  10. #70
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Unhappy

    Dear VNji
    New date is concurrent with an excellent rejoinder from our team at Delhi. A wait for 2 months - possibly keeping an eye in SLP too.
    We can also have 5 or 12 Rupee meal meanwhile from our leaders & babus so sensitive to Seniors

  11. #71
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear DNaga/ Other interested pre 2006 pensioners of all categories,

    SLP CYBER- MANIPULATIONS ARE UNPARALLELELED..
    DESPERATION...CONTEMPT...EX PARTE... LINKING WITH OTHER SLs/ CASES ......What "modern high-tech efforts"?......"

    INNOCENT HELPLESS AGED (SOME EVEN NOT AT ALL WELL VERSED IN ENGLISH....)PRE 2006 PENSIOENRS ..WHO HAVE WON THEIR CASES AT CATs/ HC s ARE TAKEN FOR A "CYBER-RIDE" OVER-NIGHT IN AN UNIMAGINABLE MANNER.....

    I SHALL PORTRAY THE ENTIRE HAPPENINGS IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.....AFTER 29TH JULY 2013....
    IT IS LIKE UNRAVELLING HOW SUBTLE MANIPULATUONS CAN TAKE PLACE AT THE HIGHEST VENUES OF JUSTICE- IF I AM CORRECT......

    UNLESS ONE KEEPS AWAKE AND MAINTAINS MIDNIGHT VIGIL - FROM FRIDAY NIGHTS ONWARDS...YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT IS IN STORE FOR MONDAY...NEXT MONDAY .....29 JUKLY 2013 IS ALSO NO EXCEPTION

    vnatarajan

  12. #72
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Question SLP Dismissed.

    Dear friends. This is in reference to Shri V. Natarajan's Post above. On the Dismissal of SLP by Hon.ble Supreme Court on 29.7.13 I would first, like, in general, to congratulate the Pensioners Community as a whole, and Shri V. Natarajan in particular, besides the President Shri Pratap Narain,Patron Shri JK Jain,GC Shri SBL,Shri NP Mohan, Shri HC Soni,Shri Bafna, Sr.Advocate Shri Nidesh Gupta, Advocate and colleague Shri SK Mullick and members of MC and LC of the Association. Their untiring effort directly and behind the curtain, is so much praiseworthy that I am unable to find suitable words to express the gratitude we owe to them. This Judgment of hon.ble Supreme Court is a landmark Judgment in the present day scenario.This judgment also paves the way of similar achievement in Pensioners case for more than 20 yrs. service, now under proceedings with the CAT-PB. This is because the OM dated 29.8.2008 has upheld and it does not say anything about reducing revised pension on pro rata basis when revised pension is to be calculated at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Warm regards

  13. #73
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected VN Sir, Kanaujiaml Sir, dnaga57 Sir and other learned pre-2006 Pensioners,

    I request all of you, who are associated to Pensioners Associations or can approach Pensioners Association to make all out efforts to get the order of H’ble CAT implemented in letter and spirits. All additions/alternations to Govt. Resolution and their impact should be done away. Accordingly, ‘modified parity of pension in r/o past pensioners’ should be implemented as per Resolution Item 12 dated 29.08.2008 without any linkage to the terms ‘Full Pension’ and ‘33 years’ service for Full Pension’.

    I have gone through Resolution Item No. 2 (and Para 5.1.33 of 6CPC Report), Resolution Item No. 3 (and Para 6.5.3 of 6CPC Report) and Resolution Item No. 12 (and Para 5.1.47 of 6CPC Report) and my findings are as under:
    1. Resolution Item No. 2 (Para 5.1.33 of 6CPC Report) deals with ‘Full Pension’ (i.e. 50% of past ten months average pay or last pay drawn) in respect of future Pensioners. This also covers that linkage of 33 years’ service for ‘Full Pension’ should be dispensed with, in respect of future Pensioners. In my opinion, this Resolution and the terms ‘Full Pension’ ’33 years’ service for Full Pension’ mentioned therein are not applicable to Past Pensioners.
    2. Resolution Item No. 3 (Para 6.5.3 of 6CPC Report) deals with the date of applicability of ‘Full Pension’ and other pension related benefits in r/o Future Pensioners.
    3. Resolution Item No. 12 (Para 5.1.47 of 6CPC Report) deals with Past Pensioners (pre-2006 Pensioners) and covers the ‘Fitment Formula’ and ‘Minimum Assured Pension as per Modified Parity’ in r/o pre 2006 pensioners. There is no mention of terms ‘Full Pension’ and ‘33 years’ service for full pension (pro rata reduction)’ in this Resolution/Para. In my opinion these terms are not applicable to Past Pensioners.
    For those readers, who desire to go through the above documents the links are given below:

    http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/s...ycommresol.pdf

    http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/s...sionreport.pdf

    I feel that Govt. Resolution Item No. 12 is quite clear and the terms of ‘Full Pension’ and ’33 years’ service for full Pension (pro rata reduction)’ have wrongly been linked to Past Pensioners.
    *****
    Last edited by SK Jain; 30-07-2013 at 12:50 PM.

  14. #74
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    For full pension for 20+ years of service, I have a few points:

    1. With ref to Sri SK Jain’s post at sr. no. #73, it is true that the SPC has recommended dispensing with 33 years of service for full pension prospectively but in para 5.1.47 the SPC has dealt with minimum pension for past pensioners without any reference to 33 years of service. Even though the SPC has not mentioned that this minimum pension is applicable to past pensioners also with less than 33 years of service, but it is only logical that when SPC is talking about minimum pension, there cannot be anything lower than minimum(like pro-rata reduction). Unfortunately, this point is not mentioned in SPC and the DOPT has coolly meted out lower than minimum pension to past pensioners with less than 33 years of service. This needs to be corrected by our Honorable judges.
    2. If we take for example (can anybody give real example?), two colleagues working together, one with less than 33 years of service and other with 33 years and if one with less than 33 years gets promotion (say to S-24) and retires in December2005 and other retires without promotion after January 2006 than we can clearly imagine the humiliation felt by the promoted pensioner when his pension will be lower than his friend’s.
    3. Most importantly, with ref to post at sr. no. #50 of respected Sri. Natarajan, wherein he has most aptly pointing out the violation of Article 14 (Sri. Natarajan says “If THE CUT-OFF DATE CAN BE SHIFTED FROM 2 29 2008 BACKWARDS TO 1 1 2006 , THEN WHY NOT FURTHER BACKWARDS TO DO JUSTICE FOR ALL? ‘’)
    What justification can be there to shift the date from 29thFeb2008 to 1stJan2006 especially to voluntary retirees who had already retired (for their own reasons) without waiting for release of SPC report?

    I might not have articulated the points in the best manner, request Sri VNji, Sri. DNaga, Sri. Pratap Narayanji and others to cover these points when we seek justice.
    Regards,
    Managoli

  15. #75
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    As per CAT PB judgment on OA No. 2461/2012 dated 30th July,2013, Honorable Justice Sinha has clearly ruled in favor of passing on the benefit of dispensing the requirement of 33 years of service for post 2006 retirees to pre 2006 pensioners also. It is very interesting order where in the CAT PB has indicated that all the benefits have to be same for all pensioners irrespective of date of retirement, benefits can be different for future pensioners only if they are applicable to fresh recruits (as and when they retire!!).
    I have the judgement copy forwarded by my friend.
    Regards, Managoli

  16. #76
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    D/ Tymanagoli,

    Pl paste/post the first part viz prayer- relief sought for part and the last operational part of the PR CAT Judgment here as it may be vital for our final stage fight in the Mod Parity case also....

    In the meanwhile I cd access it directly from website... also my friends had sent meearlier I am trying to post parts of it in the next post.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 14-08-2013 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Editing to focus on the copy of judgment parts...

  17. #77
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    ABOVE JUDGMENT EXTRACTS:

    Central Administrative Tribunal
    Principal Bench

    OA No.2461/2012

    Reserved on: 08.05.2013
    Pronounced on:30.07.2013


    Honble Dr. Member (A)


    ..........................


    O R D E R


    The applicants, who have retired as Senior Scientists Grade-H from the Department of Space and ISRO, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging their revised Pension Pay Orders annexed at Annexure A-1 to A-5.

    ............................................

    5. The applicants thereafter submitted an application on 09.02.2011 giving reference to the aforesaid judgment which, inter alia, and sought that the pension of pre-2006 retirees should be derived notionally as if they had been in service on 01.01.2006 and then apply the same as applicable to post-2006 retirees. The applicants further sought that any special pay, which was an integral component of pay, should be added notionally and counted towards pension. When this request of the applicants was not acceded to, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA seeking the following main relief(s):-
    (i) To give the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs.4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants which has been recommended as per the CCS Pay Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

    (ii) To issue directions to the respondents to re-fix their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees only in order to bring them at par with the Post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.

    (iii) Quash and set aside the Revised Pension Pay orders of all the applicants so as to clearly mention and include Grade from which they have retired by giving them a separate pay scale or merge them with the pay scale of a feeder post so that they do not stand to loose in a out of the sight situation for all the present and future pensionary benefits.


    6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the OA vehemently opposing the claim of the applicants. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents has also filed on behalf of the applicants. Besides hearing the arguments of both the parties, they were permitted to submit their written submissions, which have also been placed on record.

    .................................................. .....................................


    22. In view of the above discussions and having answered the questions in favour of the applicants, I am satisfied that the applicants, for the reasons stated above, have succeeded in proving their case. I also take into consideration of the fact that the present mode of pension is already in the process of getting phased out as the last pensioner, being the Government employee, will have retired sometime in the year 2014 or so.

    23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
    Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
    Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
    The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
    There shall be no order as to costs.

    Member (A)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    (pl chk original from CAT Website pl)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 14-08-2013 at 09:24 AM. Reason: Editorial

  18. #78
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. In reference to Shri V. Natarajan's above Post, I would like to add that this issue is expected to be decided on the outcome of OA 1165 of 2011,in case of Pratap Narain & ors. Vs. UOI & ors. which is next slated to be heard by the CAT-PB on 17.09.13.Let us hope for the good then.

  19. #79
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default 20 plus/ 30 minus years of service-case for not pro rating the pension:

    - The Govt. has already extended the benefit of not pro rating the pension for seven scales (S-1 to S-6) in PB-1 band by proving the minimum pension of Rs.3500. If pro rating were to be applied to these scales, the pension would gone below Rs.3500. This benefit will not be available to other scales in PB-1 itself. So if Rule 49 is not sacrosanct for these scales, why it should be applied to other scales when SPC and the Gazette resolution #12 dt. 29th Aug 2008 as accepted by Govt. clearly mandates the minimum pension eligibility for each grade?
    - Also, I do not see any pro rating for family pension for any of the scales. (Is it correct or I have not understood some thing?)

    Regards, Managoli

  20. #80
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    ABOVE JUDGMENT EXTRACTS:

    Central Administrative Tribunal
    Principal Bench

    OA No.2461/2012

    Reserved on: 08.05.2013
    Pronounced on:30.07.2013


    Honble Dr. Member (A)


    ..........................


    O R D E R


    23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
    Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
    Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
    The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
    There shall be no order as to costs.

    Member (A)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    (pl chk original from CAT Website pl)

    vnatarajan
    Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out the parity aspect with post-2006 retirees through the aforesaid CAT Judgment.

    We all may be aware, that the Punjab & Haryana High Court in their Judgment dated 21.12.2012 in CWP No.19641 of 2009 - Shri R.K.Aggarwal vs State of Haryana, decided as follows:

    " 26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs
    dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall 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”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay
    thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In
    case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013
    ".

    1.THE PR CAT IN THEIR JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011 FOCUSSED ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF "MODIFIED PARITY" AS THE COMMON ISSUE.

    2.THEY ALSO MADE IT CLEAR -THEY WILL DELIBERATE WRT OA 655/2010 ONLY --- AND INCIDENTALLY THE GR IS CGS29PA WHO PRAYED FOR RELIEF ONLY FOR PRECISELY DEFINING THE MINM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND AS PER GAZ RESOLUTION AFTER REMOVING THE SUBSEQUENT DISTORTIONS DONE PARTICULARLY THRU OMs 3 & 14 OCT 2008 ...11 FEB 2009 .... BY NULLIFYING THEM.

    3.HOWEVER, WHILE FINALLY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS VIDE PARA 30 OF THE JUDGMENT, THE OR BENCH ORDERED THE PRESCRIBED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GAZETTED RESOLUTION DT 29 AUG 2008 QUASHING THE OMs IMPUGNED.

    4. THE GAZ NOTIFICATION HAD USED THE EXPRESSION "NOT LOWER THAN" TO DEFINE THE THRESHHOLD VALUE. WHY DIDNT THEY USE "EQUAL TO"'OR "SAME AS" OR "NOT HIGHER THAN"...IN PLACE OF "NOT LOWER THAN"?

    5.CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS ONLY PRE 2006 S29 (AND MAY BE ANOTHER ONE OR TWO SUCH SCALES) WHOSE REVISED PENSION BY ANY FORMULATION WAS ALWAYS "LESS THAN" THE THRESH HOLD VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE GAZ RESOLUTION FORMULA. IN CASE OF A CONDITION " EQUAL TO" OR "NOT HIGHER THAN" THEN THE SITUATION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

    6. THEREFORE, THE HON P & H HC IN THEIR WISDOM - perhaps to avoid further litigations (on full parity?) ..... DID ONE STEP BETTER IN THEIR JUDGMENTs DT 21 12 2012 FOUND THAT THE RESOLUTION SL. NO.12 OF 29.8.2008 would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay
    thereon.


    7. THE MANNER AND METHODOLOGY OF REVISION OF PENSION IN RESPECT OF ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS HAVE VERY CLEARLY BEEN SPELT OUT BOTH BY P&H HC FIRST ON 21.12.2012 AND NOW BY THE CAT PR BENCH ON 30.7.2013 AND THEREBY RESOLVING FULL PARITY ISSUE AS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER APPLICATION OF MF 2.26 IN CASE OF PENSIONERS WHO HAVE DRAWN MAXIMUM INCREMENTS / ALSO STAGNATION INCREMENTS ...

    8. WE ALL MAY ALSO BE AWARE THAT THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT OF P&H HC IS AT PRESENT BEFORE HSC. BY THIS WAY, THE CORRECT WAY OF REVISING THE PENSION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF MAY BE SPELT OUT AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.

    9. ALL THE JUDGMENTS POINT OUT THAT THE REVISION OF BASIC PENSION IN THE CASE OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS HAS ACTUALLY NOT BEEN DONE IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED THROUGH THE RESOLUTION, AND THE CAT JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011 TOOK THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS CORRECT REVISION OF PENSION BY QUASHING THE MODIFICATORY/CLARIFICATORY OMs. THE FINAL STEP THEREFORE LIES IN

    (A) BRINGING THE PAY OF THE GOVT. SERVANT RETIRED BEFORE 01.01.2006 TO THE LEVEL CORRESPONDING TO THE REVISED PAY SCALE AS PER 6TH CPC,

    AND THEN

    (B) FIXING THE PENSION IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SAME IS NOT LOWER THAN 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND AND THE GRADE PAY THEREON.

    (A doubt may arise at this point of time while reading, that when the pay is brought to the corresponding level in the revised scale, 50% of it, will be definitely higher than 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of Grade Pay thereon, then where is the need for fixing in such a way that......? Here only, the words no case have enormous scope exclusively to nullify any proportionate reduction in ANY CASE. THEREFORE, EVEN IN THE CASE OF LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE PERSONNEL, THE ABOVE TWO ACTIONS (A) & (B) ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL. THE 5TH CPC RECOMMENDATION ON FULL PARITY IS VERY RIGHTLY REMEMBERED THROUGH THE JUDGMENT).

    NOTHING MORE OR NOTHING LESS.

    THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2012 IS THE REAL CLARIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION AT SL. NO.12 DATED 29.8.2008. FRESH IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS EFFECTIVE FROM 1.1.2006 (IN SUPERSESSION OF ALL EARLIER ORDERS) EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE SAID JUDGMENT IS THE ONLY NEED OF THE HOUR. THIS WILL ALSO TAKE CARE OF SPECIAL PAY ISSUE, NPA ISSUE, ETC. WE SALUTE FOR THE HON. JUDGMENT WITH SO MUCH CLARITY ALSO TAKING THE BASIS FROM CAT PR BENCH DELHI JUDGMENT DATED 1.11.2011, TO WHICH JUDGMENT ALSO WE STAND GRATEFUL AT ALL POINT OF TIME.

    Best Regards
    Last edited by sundarar; 18-08-2013 at 10:27 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-05-2012, 09:35 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-08-2009, 07:17 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 31-05-2009, 01:27 PM
  4. New O.M. dt. 11.12.2008 for post-2006 retirees.
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29-12-2008, 11:05 PM
  5. Scales for new joinees after 2006
    By anu_dual in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18-09-2008, 02:23 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