+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 18 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 368

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

  1. #141
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Any news on 30thJan2014?

  2. #142
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Mr.Pratap Narayan has replied as follows: "The case has been fixed for 27th Feb on the pleading of new GOI Advocates to allow more time to go through voluminous papers connected with the case."

  3. #143
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Latest "Magic Man" in the country is Shri Rahul Gandhi.
    Be it, increaring LPG cylinders to 12 , OROP etc. his intervention helps---towards solving problems. We have seen this happening now....

    Why can't senior citizen pensioners / pensioner's associations at New Delhi meet him and request his intervention towards sloving our sufferings.
    Wonders can happen !

    Imayan

  4. #144
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Mr.Pratap Narayan has replied as follows: On the GOI Advocate's plea of suffering from fever, the case has now been scheduled for 26th March.

  5. #145
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Pratap Narayan writes: The case has been adjourned to 30-4-2014 at the request of GOI Advocates as their Special Senior Advocate was tied up in High Court.

  6. #146
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vishwapurna View Post
    Pratap Narayan writes: The case has been adjourned to 30-4-2014 at the request of GOI Advocates as their Special Senior Advocate was tied up in High Court.
    Any idea what happened to this OA on 30thApril2014?

  7. #147
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default Oa:1165/2011 status

    Mr.Pratap Narayan has replied as follows:

    There is some confusion about the cases in this correspondence. Initially the correspondence was with reference to to the full pension after 10/20 years service but later it got mixed with the issue of modified parity. I am sorry for this mix up. The position with respect to the two cases is as under:
    (i) Full pension after 10/20 years service: On 26th March, GOI Advocate tried to seek deferment of consideration of this case by linking it with the case of S30 pensioners for full parity/revision of scale on par with S31/S32, currently under consideration of the full bench of CAT on being remanded by Delhi High Court. This was strongly opposed by our Advocate as being misleading and erroneous as the issue of minimum qualifying service for full pension was not at all involved in that case. Consequently, on our Advocate's suggestion, GOI was directed to file an Affidavit about their assertion that this case is linked with the outcome of another case of S 30 Pensioners, currently under consideration of the Full Bench of CAT.
    They have since filed an Affidavit running into 321 pages including Annexures, a copy of which was given to our Advocate only on 15th, thus not allowing us enough time to go through and counter it effectively. When the case was called on 17th April, our Advocate mentioned this point and wanted a short adjournment to enable us to file our response. The case has now been scheduled for 23rd May (the earliest date available).
    A quick reading of the GOI Affidavit shows that it is a poor attempt to mislead the Bench by linking it with S 30 OA, which was remanded by Delhi High Court to CAT. This is because S 30 case is for full parity (point to point) in fixation of pension with post 1-1-2006 pensioners as also seeking a higher grade on par with S 31scale. The issue of 33 years qualifying service does not figure there at all. We have now prepared our Counter Affidavit demolishing their false contention and hope to file it much in the next 2 days, much ahead of the NDH on 23rd May.
    (ii) Modified Parity: When the case was called before the full Bench on 30th April, GOI Advocate mentioned that a Curative Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court which was also scheduled for consideration on that very day by circulation before a 5 Judge headed by CJI. In view of this, the case has now been put off to 15th May. The Curative Petition has since been dismissed with the result that CAT verdict on this issue has attained legal finality. Hopefully, there would be some positive development in the Contempt proceedings on that day.

  8. #148
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.2461/2012 had pronounced on:30.07.2013 the following order by
    Honble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)

    ".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 were 6 applicants in this case-- all were ex-officials having retired from Dept. of Space and ISRO.Names of these Senior Scientists Grade "H" are S/shri R.C.Garg,Pranav S.Desai,V.S.Iyengar, N.S.Pillai,A.R.Dasgupta and Nilamani Mohanty. Shri R.C.Garg's address is shown as New Delhi and shri nilamani Mohanty as Bhuvaneswar.Other 4 pensioners are from Ahmedabad.
    Is there any news whether revised PPOs were issued in their case as per the above Judgement dt. 30.7.2013 of CAT PR. ?
    Can any of our friends find out the current status / development in this case by contacting these pensioners ?

  9. #149
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations
    of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and
    thus reads:
    "S. No. Recommendation Decision of Government
    12 ıAll past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the
    pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as
    pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for
    other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of
    conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness allowance as dearness pension/ dearness
    pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of
    merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006.
    This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing
    employees. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision 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. (5.1.47)"

    The CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 had clearly ordered
    "30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory
    OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon
    clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation
    was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we
    accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees
    w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our
    observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears
    thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

    ALL PRE-2006 RETIREES MENTIONED IN BOTH THE ABOVE ORDERS, INCLUDE PRE-2006 RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE ALSO, AND AS SUCH, THEIR PENSION ALSO SHALL BE RE-FIXED IN THE MANNER STIPULATED VIDE 12 OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008. THE MINIMUM QUALIFYING SERVICE VIZ. 33 YEARS FOR FULL MINIMUM PENSION IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED. THE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION BASED ON LENGTH IN QUALIFYING SERVICE, VIZ. LESS THAN 33 YEARS, ORDERED VIDE OM 3.10.2008 AND LATEST OM DATED 28.1.2013 SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.

  10. #150
    Junior Member Major (Retd.) S K Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Dear Sundarar Sir,

    I fully agree to your views. With the quashing of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 there will be no authority as on 01/01/2006 for pro-rata reduction of Modified Parity of pension. As per CAT order Govt. is supposed to re-fix pension of all pre-2006 retiree in accordance with Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and Resolution Item No 12 does not stipulate any pro-rata reduction.

  11. #151
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I also agree.
    Sundarar's view is unshakable.
    Will GOI do it ?
    Have they done it on receipt of CAT PR's Orders dt.30.7.2013 ?
    Can someone who is serving / had retired from Dept. of Space /ISRO throw some more light on this ?

    Hoping for the past (best ) news !

    Imayan

  12. #152
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    No action appears to have been taken in terms of the judgment.
    Perhaps Contempt Application may be in the offing.
    vnatarajan

  13. #153
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Pension of pre-2006 retirees with 10/20 years service from 1.1.2006

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations
    of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and
    thus reads:
    "S. No. Recommendation Decision of Government
    12 ıAll past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the
    pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as
    pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for
    other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of
    conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness allowance as dearness pension/ dearness
    pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of
    merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006.
    This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing
    employees. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision 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. (5.1.47)"

    The CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 had clearly ordered
    "30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory
    OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon
    clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation
    was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we
    accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees
    w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our
    observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears
    thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

    ALL PRE-2006 RETIREES MENTIONED IN BOTH THE ABOVE ORDERS, INCLUDE PRE-2006 RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS QUALIFYING SERVICE ALSO, AND AS SUCH, THEIR PENSION ALSO SHALL BE RE-FIXED IN THE MANNER STIPULATED VIDE 12 OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.8.2008. THE MINIMUM QUALIFYING SERVICE VIZ. 33 YEARS FOR FULL MINIMUM PENSION IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED. THE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION BASED ON LENGTH IN QUALIFYING SERVICE, VIZ. LESS THAN 33 YEARS, ORDERED VIDE OM 3.10.2008 AND LATEST OM DATED 28.1.2013 SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.
    In continuation of my above post, I submit the following:


    The HON. KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT of 4th June 2013 in the case of M.O.Innasu
    ordered as follows:
    "the Tribunal has not focused its attention pointedly to that, as also, the other relevant clauses as are pointed out by the
    applicants from out of the Resolution of the Government and also the consequential O.M. Under such situation, the ends of justice call for a re-hearing of all the relevant issues at the hands of the learned Tribunal".

    The Hon. High Court directed the parties to mark appearance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 26th June, 2013. The Tribunal was requested to re-hear the applicants and the establishment as regards the two original applications, viz., O.A.No.715 of 2012 and O.A.No.1051 of 2012. The Hon. High Court has concluded that "Since the applicants appear to be fairly senior by age, the Tribunal will make earnest endeavour to dispose of the matter, finally, at the earliest".

    Subsequent outcome is yet to be known.

    The Hon. High Court in their Order observed that "the original petitions by two pre-2006 retirees were filed challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing their claim to revised rates of pension on the basis of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission to the extent accepted by the Union of India and covered by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Resolution No.38/37/08- P& PW(A) dated 29th August, 2008. The Tribunal proceeded as if the short point that arose for decision before it was as to whether pre-2006 retirees can claim 50% of the minimum of the pay in the relevant Pay Band, plus Grade Pay, even if they do not have 33 years of qualifying service.
    The entire discussion and the conclusion of the Tribunal revolve on that pivot. But, on a deeper consideration of the contents of the Annexure to the aforesaid Resolution of the Government of India, we are of the view that what ought to have been juxtaposed for appropriate consideration are the entries at Sl. Nos. 2 & 12 of that Resolution, which is also supported by the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in furtherance of that Resolution of the Ministry concerned. Pointedly, it needs to be noted that clause 12 deals with grant of fitment benefit to past pensioners and that the said recommendation was accepted by the Government with certain modifications. The said clause has different limbs. It operates in such a manner that it takes care of multiple situations. There are certain sentences therein which are fundamentally exclusionary in content. We are of the view that in the result, impugned orders are set aside".

    As far as full Minimum Revised Pension is concerned, the Sl. No. 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 shall be implemented to all pre-2006 retirees with 10/20 years Qualifying service. As far as the fixing of their pre-revised pension as on 1.1.2006 is concerned, their pay at the time of retirement shall be re-fixed first as on 1.1.2006 for deriving 50% of such a notionally re-fixed pay, as revised pension, subject to the provision that such a 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, in accordance with the aforesaid Resolution dated 29.8.2008.
    The D.S.Nakara case spirit intends the same and similar methodology while fixing the pension in accordance with the revised structure for both pre- and post- pensioners. The need for notional re-fixation of last pay drawn w.e.f. 1.1.2006 arises owing to the reduction in qualifying service prescribed for pension from 33 years to 10/20 years w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

  14. #154
    Junior Member Major (Retd.) S K Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Dear Sir,

    I would like to submit that Resolution Item No. 2 relates to para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report. It is quite clear from a plain reading of para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report that this para contains recommendations in r/o future retirees hence not applicable to Past Pensioners. Only two paragraphs (5.1.46 and 5.1.47) of 6CPC report relates to Past Pensioners ie pre-2006 retirees. Hence only the Resolution Item No. 12 is applicable to Past Pensioners.

  15. #155
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default D.s.nakara spirit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Major (Retd.) S K Jain View Post
    Dear Sir,

    I would like to submit that Resolution Item No. 2 relates to para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report. It is quite clear from a plain reading of para 5.1.33 of 6CPC report that this para contains recommendations in r/o future retirees hence not applicable to Past Pensioners. Only two paragraphs (5.1.46 and 5.1.47) of 6CPC report relates to Past Pensioners ie pre-2006 retirees. Hence only the Resolution Item No. 12 is applicable to Past Pensioners.
    Respected Sir,
    Yes, Your goodself has correctly pointed out about the para 5.1.33. At the same time, it is significant to note that at the time of implementation of this recommendation vide OM dated 2.9.2008 for future pensioners, the benefit was given prospective effect, i.e. w.e.f. 2.9.2008 only. Subsequently, the retrospective effect of 1.1.2006 was given after about one year i.e. in 2009.

    The said dispensation of linkage of 33 years qualifying service recommended vide para 5.1.33, cannot be implemented only for the post-2006 pensioners and thereby involving two different manner and methodology for deriving pension of a retiree by virtue of their date of retirement, viz. pre- and post- , as per D.S. Nakara spirit.

    One more aspect also is involved, ie. 10 months' average emoluments based pension fixation for pre-2006 pensioners, AND 10 months' average or last drawn emoluments (whichever is beneficial) for post-2006 pensioners, which too did not meet with the D.S. Nakara spirit.
    (However, this aspect is not given the due focus so far).

    Further, those pensioners of pre-1996, pre-1986, etc. with less than 33 years qualifying service, should also get covered in the final order of DOP&PW, that may be inevitable out of the anticipated CAT Judgment.

    The pre-2006 pensioners with <33 years q.s. stand in the same platform, where once Shri D.S. Nakara stood, but he was affected by virtue of reduction to 10 months' average emoluments. Whereas the pre-2006 pensioners case involves the dispensation of linkage of 33 years q.s.

  16. #156
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Single manner and methodology in fixing pension of a retiree

    In continuation of my previous post, the para 2 of the CAT Lucknow Bench Judgment dated 23.3.2012 and the concluding paras 13 and 14 reproduced below may kindly be seen.

    "2. The applicants are Central Government Pensioners Association and individual pensioners who have filed these OAs making out a case that those who retired prior to 1.1.2006, and those who retired after this date should not be differentiated as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Another versus SPS Vains (Retired) & Ors. (2009(1) R.S.J. Page 5) and the said discrimination amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They have further contended that it is desirable to grant complete parity in pension to all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement, though, as per 5th CPC in para 137.13, this may not be feasible straight away as the financial implications should be considered. They have also pointed out that parity was maintained in the fixation of pension on acceptance of the pay of the 4th Pay report and 5th CPC on 1.1.1996. It is also pointed out that as per the instructions issued, the consolidated pension under 5th CPC shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. It is also averred that 6th CPC effective from 1.1.2006 did not recommend that pension of even pre-1996 pensioners be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1996 by adopting the same formula as for serving employees nor it recommended absolute parity betweenpre-2006 pensioners and post-2006 pensioners. ON 1.9.2008, 6th CPC continued the system of modified parity ( by equating the pension at least to 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale plus grade pay), but the 6th CPC revised the pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006 in such a way that no benefit would accrue to majority of pensioners. On 2.9.2008, the Government issued OM for linkage of full pension with years of qualifying service to be dispensed once an employee renders minimum qualifying service of 20 years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments of last ten months, whichever is beneficial to him. This provision has been given effect from 1.1.2006 only and according to the applicants, this is contrary to the settled principle of law in the case of V.Kasturi versus Managing Director State Bank of India (1999SCC(L&S) Page 78). The Association of Pensioners had made representations to Government/Anomaly Committee to remove disparity between pre 2006 and post 2006 retirees and the matter has been discussed in various meetings of Anomaly Committee, the Government has not considered the demand of parity between pre and post 2006 retirees. Therefore, they have filed this O.A praying for the following reliefs :-

    (i) Applicants may be allowed to file a single OA;
    (ii) Action of respondents in not extending parity of pension between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Respondents be directed to extend to the applicants (pre-2006 pensioners) absolute parity in pension with post 2006 pensioners of the Government of India with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits".

    ..........

    ...........

    "13. The contention of the applicants for differentiation of pre-2006 and post 2006 retirees notwithstanding the right of government to introduce new scheme or to withdraw the existing schemes are policy matters which cannot be gone into by the Courts and Tribunals. However, since the similar matter has been decided by the Full Bench of the Principal Bench, C.A.T. vide judgment dated 1.11.2011 in O.A.No.655 of 2010 and other connected OAs, we are bound by the decision of the Full Bench unless it has been upset by the higher judicial dispensation. The Full Bench has directed the respondents to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006 based on resolution dated 29.8.2008 and in the light of observations made above, in the preceding part of the order. Therefore, we have no option but to allow these three OAs in terms of the same order and direct the respondents to re-fix the pension of the applicants in these OAs without any discrimination between the two set of retirees.

    14. All the three OAs are disposed of in the above terms. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension and pay the arrears to the applicants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs".

    While the parity in general can be interpreted as grant of same and similar pension
    for a pre-revised scale retiree as that of a post-2006 retiree from the corresponding revised scale, where the pre-revised pay and its corresponding revised pay happened to be the last drawn one, the significance is to be attached more to the manner and methodology in fixing the pension from 1.1.2006 for a pre-2006 and thereafter for a post-2006 pensioners. D.S. Nakara spirit does not permit two differential treatment for one single homogenous class of pensioners.

    However, in reality -

    A post-2006 retiree gets the benefit of considering 50% of grade pay (which grade pay is equivalent to 40% of max. of pre-revised scale), as part of pension.

    A pre-2006 retiree gets only the benefit of 40% of pre-revised pension as fitment benefit.

    A post-2006 retiree gets the benefit of - fixation of 50% of 10 months' average emoluments or 50% of last drawn emoluments whichever is beneficial as his basic pension.

    A pre-2006 retiree got his pension fixed on the basis of 50% of 10 months' average emoluments only, irrespective of the fact whether it is beneficial or not.

    A post-2006 retiree got his basic pension fixed on the basis of 10/20 years qualifying service, whereas a pre-2006 pensioner got his basic pension fixed on the basis of 33 years qualifying service. In other words, pro-rata if the service happened to be <33 years.

    These differential treatments need to be addressed by applying the D.S. Nakara spirit so as to ensure Judicious revision of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
    Last edited by sundarar; 22-05-2014 at 10:11 PM.

  17. #157
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Thanks sri.Sundarar, we could not agree more with you.

    At the cost of repeatation, I would like to mention the following:

    1. For post-2006 retirees, the pay is fixed first and then the pension is determined as per the gazette notification/resolution
    2. For pre-2006 retirees, as per the SPC, the notional pay as on 1.1.2006 is not determined before arriving at the pension amount but the pension is fixed as per a formula/table using the existing pension. It must be noted here that the existing pension is already a proportionately reduced number for < 33 years QS. The SPC has recommended and govt. has accepted through the resolution that if this calculated pension is less than the minimum of the grade from which the pensioner had retired, then the pension has to be fixed at at-least the minimum
    3. Now, having calculated the pension for pre-2006 retirees with < 33 years of QS using already the pro-rated number, is it just to reduce/pro-rate it again? Reducing again from the minimum, is it not against the natural justice?
    4. The govt. has already implemented the dispensation of minimum 33 years of QS from 1.1.2006 even though it implemented the same initially from 2.9.2008 by issuing the appropriate orders. Is it not injustice to pre-2006 retirees for not extending the benefit to them?
    5. If this multiple pro-rating was already meted to pre-96 and pre-86 retirees, is it not time to rectify and do justice? If this justice is denied to all pre-2006 retirees even now, multiple pro-rating may continue post-2016 also.
    6. Hope the principle of natural justice and Nakara principle will prevail and justice will be done to all pre-2006 pensioners sooner or later. Hope the judges/authorities will keep the age factor of old pensioners in mind and do the justice.
    Last edited by tymanagoli; 22-05-2014 at 11:46 PM. Reason: typo

  18. #158
    Member nchandras is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    44

    Default Injustice to pre 2006 pensioners - Repeated reduction in pension due to pro rata rule

    The explanation given, above at the cost of repetition is the whole point. Natural justice as defined in law and constitution is that no one can be punished twice for the same crime. If a pensioners inability to achieve 33 yrs of service can be called a crime.
    Further, 6th pay commission without specifying post 2006 or pre 2006 have recommended 50 % pension on the last pay drawn. Thus Govt (Babus in the Ministries who think they will NEVER RETIRE) has divided it to pre 2006 and post 2006 while issuing Govt order.
    How can the pensioner whose pension has already been reduced due to prev rule of 33 yrs qualifying service for full pension prior to 2006 CAN BE PUNISHED AGAIN in 6th pay commission pension by reducing the pension in relation to similarly placed persons of pre 2006 with 33 yrs serrvice.
    This point alone in any court will give justice to all pre 2006 pensioners with less than 33 yrs service. Any other point made, will merely confuse the court and will give ammunition to the Babus to confuse the court while filing reply affidavits. Lawyers of the pensioners will be forced to clarity other points while main issue of REPEATED REDUCTION IN PENSION WILL BE LOST IN THE DIN OF THE ARGUMENTS

  19. #159
    Member nchandras is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    44

    Default Injustice to Pre 2006 pensioners - Full pension to 20 yrs plus pensioners

    Ref Mr Pratap Narainji post on the Court case of 6 May 14 8.21 AM post

    The case came up for hearing on 23 May 14. Delinking of the issue with curative petition and S 29 case was also to be filed before next hearing ie by 20 May 14. Was it done. If so during the hearing on 23 May 14 whether this affidavit challenging the attempt of GOI advocate to confuse the court was deliberated.

    Can fresh light be thrown on the latest position

  20. #160
    Member nchandras is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    44

    Default Injustice to Pre 2006 pensioners - Pro rata reduction in Pension in each Pay com

    It is seen from CAT Pr Bench link that the case no 1165/2011 is adjourned to 28 May 14. But whether the affidavit as stated by Mr Pratap Narayanji in the post on 6 May 14 is not known and whether this new averment thro the affidavit was deliberated during the proceedings is also not known.

    Can someone familiar with the case, throw light on the deliberations on 23 May 14

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 18 ... 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