+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 368

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

  1. #121
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Query/ developmnts are related to the "Injustice to......" thread.
    Must be dealt there to avoid confusion.
    (They have filed a Review Petition........shall try heaven and eartn to overcone Contempt damage.....they may succeed also......)
    AFTER ALL THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF BULL-DOZING EVEN THE APEX COURT'S DIRECTIVES IN THE RETD MAJ GEN SPS VAINS CASE WHOSE CONTEMPT PETITION/ ORDERS PASSED LONG BACK..VIZ in CP 64/2009 IS YET TO CONCLUDE....COMING UP IN HON SC ON 17TH OCT2013...
    vn

  2. #122
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    VN Sir is always right. My experience in the Government service has been that if some one/group knocks the door of any Court it becomes a prestige issue for one and all in power. Even if the contention is genuine it is decided to contest the same. No body is to lose any penny as the expenditure is to be paid out of the taxes collected from the public.
    Gopal Krishan

  3. #123
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Dear Sirs,

    Any idea what happened to this CAT PB OA on 9th Oct 2013?

    Regards, Managoli

  4. #124
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Adjourned to 27.11.2013

  5. #125
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Dear IMayan,

    I thought this date is for contempt case CP. 158/2012 Central Govt. S.A.G.(S-29).
    Or both are on same date? Pl clarify.

    Regards, Managoli

  6. #126
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    OA 1165/2011 is posted for 22.11.13 in CAT,PB

  7. #127
    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


    ... the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA seeking the following main relief(s):-
    .....
    (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.
    .......
    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
    The aforesaid CAT Judgment brought out the significant quotes of D.S. Nakara Judgment of HSC, which are reproduced hereunder for kind information.

    ‘is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula foi computatiān of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date’?

    ‘would. diffeiential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being
    violative of Article 14’?

    The CAT Judgment narrates further -
    "The (Nakara) judgment has commenced by tracing the liberalization of pension scheme from the first CPC (1946-47). which
    enhanced the age of retirement uniformly to 58 years for all services and the scale of pension should be 1/80 of the emoluments for each year of service, subject to a li1rf 35/80 with a ceiling of Rs.8000/- per year for 35 years service. Marching on from there in 1979, the Government of India made the formula of computation of pensiān liberalized but it was confined to the government servants who retired or ater March :31,1979 and tho who retired prior to the specified date would not be entitled to the benefits of the liberalized pension formula. This judgment recognizes- that under
    Article 14 of the Constitution, a reasnable classification is permitted for the purpose of legislation but it must be founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the qbject sought to be ačhieved by the statute.

    These questions have been answered in paragraphs 46 & 65 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:—
    “46. ........ Pension is thus not an incentive but a reward for past. service. And a revision of an existing benefit stands on a different footing than a new retiral benefit. And even ‘in case of new retiral benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 past seņlce was taken into consideration.’ Recall at this stage the method adopted when pay-stales are revised. Revised pay-scales are Introduced from a certain date. All existing employees are’ brought on to the revised scales by adopting a theory of fltments and increments for past service. In other ‘uÔrds,. benefit of revised scale is not limited to those /flI\ who enter service subsequent to the date X fixed for introducing revised scales but the benefit is extended to ‘all those in service prior to that date.

    This is just and fair. Now if pension as we view It, is some kind of retirement wages for past service, can it be denied to those who retired earlier, revised retirement benefits being available to future retirees only. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the Court by its approach would be making the scheme retroactive, became: It is implicit In theory of wages."

    "65. That is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of soclo-economic justice, the socialist Republic :d welfare State which we endeavour to set up. and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who. retired when emolumen wreV comparatively low and are - exposed to vagaries of continuous rising prices, the falling of the rupee consequent upon inflatiķn inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria; ‘being in service and retiring subsequent to. the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and,. ‘thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the ‘‘ classifi cation being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects Sought to be achieved by giant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised ‘Z’ being thoroughly arbitra,, we , are, of the view that the eligibililty for liberalised pension scheme of ‘being: in servjce on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in impugned. memoranda,
    ......
    ......
    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".

    The CAT Judgment dated 30.7.2013, keeping in view the above D.S. Nakara spirit, has observed that "the question may arise here that the judgment in D.S. Nākara’s case (supra) will be confined only to the petitioners therein or what has been enunciated here is a general principle and the same will he universal application. However, a plain reading of the judgment in D S Nakara’s case (supra) would reveal that what has been arbitrary and discrimhiatory is that the libersiization of pension will be effective from the date from which it is granted to the other applicants. Therefore, it is applicable".

    IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND THE OPERATING PARA OF THE CAT JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2013, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT A PRE-2006 PENSIONER WITH A MINIMUM 20 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE IS ENTITLED TO GET HIS PENSION REVISED BY TAKING FULL PENSION (50%) WHICH IS GRANTED UPON 20 YEARS OF COMPLETED SERVICE FOR POST-2006 RETIREES AND THEREBY BROUGHT AT PAR WITH THE POST-2006 RETIREES WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF 1.1.2006.

    Para 4.1 and Para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 need to be modified in line with the above, for the purpose of revision of pension in respect of all pre-2006 pensioners.
    Last edited by sundarar; 26-10-2013 at 10:06 PM.

  8. #128
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Sir,
    Judgement was pronounced on 30.7.13.
    Almost 3 months are over.
    Have those 6 Scientists been given full pension for service which was less than 33 years ?

  9. #129
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Liberalisation/upward revision of existing pension scheme

    SIGNIFICANT EXTRACTS OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 5.3.2013 (CWP 10153 OF 1995)

    "What is the nature of the change made by the amendment? Is it by way of upward revision of the existing pension scheme? Then obviously the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara's case would apply. If it is held to be a new retiral benefit or a new scheme then the benefit of it cannot be extended to those who retired earlier.

    8. 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. In D.S. Nakara's case (supra) the change in the formula of determining average emoluments by reducing 36 months' service to 10 months' Service as measure of pension, made with a view to giving a higher average, Civil Writ Petition No. 10153 of 1995 [5 ]
    was regarded as liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme. On the basis of same reasoning it may 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.

    Amidst such an upward revision of the existing pension scheme by delinking 33 years q.s. and by replacing it with 20 years service for pension for post-2006 retirees,
    in line with the D.S. Nakara spirit, the pre-2006 pensioners retired prior to 1.1.2006 with a minimum 20 years qualifying service, the pre-revised basic pension
    can be recalculated, ie. 50% of emoluments (last drawn or 10 months average emoluments whichever is beneficial) and thereafter applying with multiplication factor of 2.26 under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008, the revised basic pension entitled from 1.1.2006 can be derived. In case such a revised basic pension is lower than 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale+50% of grade pay applicable corresponding to the pre-revised scale, then the said Minimum Guaranteed Revised Pension in full shall become the revised basic pension.

    I think the above methodology could ensure D.S. Nakara spirit in the case of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service, for deriving basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

  10. #130
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
    In continuation of my previous post, the significant extracts of the CAT Ernakulam Judgment is furnished hereunder for information:

    "M.O Inasu vs Union Of India on 16 August, 2013
    CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH
    Original Application No. 715 of 2012
    w i t h
    Original Application No. 1051 of 2012
    Friday, this the 16th day of August, 2013

    .........
    .........
    Prayers:
    ..........
    (ii)One is entitled for full pension on completion of 20 years service instead of 33 years. Applicant has more
    than 26 years of service and as such he is entitled for full pension;

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

    5. The respondents' contention is that even though para 4.2 of O.M. dated 01.09.2008 [which reiterates para 12 (supra)] states that an employee who retired from service on or before 01.01.2006 is eligible to get pension equivalent to 50% of the last pay drawn, it does not refer to or permit waiver of the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for becoming eligible for full pension.
    .......
    .........
    7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It meas that pension of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under.
    8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of
    pension within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

    It appears that the Judgment has directed to fix revised pension either at 50% of REVISED PAY proportionate to the length of service corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired i. e. full parity, or at 50% of MINIMUM OF PAY BAND plus grade pay corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired (not proportionate to length of service), WHICH EVER IS HIGHER.

    For information. Best Regards

  11. #131
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    5. The respondents' contention is that even though para 4.2 of O.M. dated 01.09.2008 [which reiterates para 12 (supra)] states that an employee who retired from service on or before 01.01.2006 is eligible to get pension equivalent to 50% of the last pay drawn, it does not refer to or permit waiver of the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for becoming eligible for full pension.
    .......
    .........
    [/QUOTE]

    The 6th Pay Commission did recommend in this regard as follows:
    "Pension
    11.33 Fitment formula recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.

    11.35 Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension".

    While implementing the aforesaid recommendation at para 11.33, 50% of Grade Pay allowed for serving employees, was denied to pre-2006 pensioners, who have, instead, been provided with 40% of pre-revised basic pension as fitment benefit.
    The para 11.35 invariably applies to all pensioners, viz. pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Whereas, while implementing the recommendation, the pensioners were divided with a cut-off date with reference to retirement, which is against the D.S. Nakara spirit. The settled position for treating the pensioners as a single homogenous class, has conveniently been ignored.

  12. #132
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Imayan View Post
    OA 1165/2011 is posted for 22.11.13 in CAT,PB
    Any news on this OA 1165/2011 on 22-11-2013?

  13. #133
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    NDH for OA 1165/2011 is 19/12/2013

  14. #134
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Yes pl.The same link-delink-divide-confuse technology is being adopted> Last minute communications are effected to seek adjournments. The venue of justice are magnanimous to give repeated opportunities to the erring authorities to come to the right track....may be at what time?..... Let us see what more excuse can be given on 19 12 2013..... SAME AGAIN, AS I CAN FORESEE....

    vnatarajan

  15. #135
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Imayan View Post
    NDH for OA 1165/2011 is 19/12/2013
    Hi,
    Any update for this OA on 19.12.2013?

  16. #136
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    "Heard on 19.12.13,when UOI wanted to link the case
    in SC in case of SLP 118339-341 etc. but on
    opposing by petitioners advocate, Court
    declined it. Thereupon, UOI advocte asked
    for time to submit some papers and Court
    adjourned the case granting time but with
    directive that then, there would be a final
    hearing in the case."
    NDH : 23.1.2014

  17. #137
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Ref post No. 130. Is that the final decision? Any appeal etc.
    Gopal Krishan

  18. #138
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    You have to know what happens on 23 Jan 2014..... day after tomorrow....VN

  19. #139
    Member nchandras is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Any update on the outcome of the hearing on 23 Jan 14 (yesterday) in the Court

  20. #140
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Reply from Mr.Pratap is as follows;"The usual tricks are being played by the bureaucracy. When our case was called, two new Advocates got up to say that the earlier Advocate has been changed and they had not received the file. They therefore wanted an adjournment. This was opposed by our Advocate who pleaded that at best the case may be taken up for arguments on Monday, with which the Bench initially agreed. However, on persistent pleading by the Advocates, the Bench allowed only one weeks time and the case will now come up on 30th Jan."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 ... 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