+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 368

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

  1. #161
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nchandras View Post
    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
    Today this case has been adjourned to18.7.2014

  2. #162
    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

    Thanks for the feedback on next date of hearing.

    I also saw today on the website of CAT. But it is not clear whether the contention that repeatedly for those having less than 33 yrs service, pension is being reduced pro rata in each paycommission was deliberated. Mr Pratap Naraiin ji in his post of 6 May 14 had stated that affidavit was to be filed before hearing on 23 May 14.
    The reason for adjournment also is not known. Can someone pl throw somelight

  3. #163
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Proportionate reduction in pension

    Quote Originally Posted by nchandras View Post
    Thanks for the feedback on next date of hearing.

    I also saw today on the website of CAT. But it is not clear whether the contention that repeatedly for those having less than 33 yrs service, pension is being reduced pro rata in each paycommission was deliberated. Mr Pratap Naraiin ji in his post of 6 May 14 had stated that affidavit was to be filed before hearing on 23 May 14.
    The reason for adjournment also is not known. Can someone pl throw somelight
    Dear Sir, A very good point your goodself have raised about pension being reduced pro-rata in each pay commission.

    I think, in the 5th CPC vide OM dated 17.12.1998, the pre-1986 pensioners were given parity with post-1996 pensioners.
    While doing so, first time, the Minimum pension corresponding to 50% of bottom stage of pre-revised scale of pay was required to be prescribed, and prescribed accordingly also, which would have been meant for the pre-1986 pensioners only and there was no multiple application factors also over pre-1996 pension for different scale retirees. There was no change in the qualifying service also in between pre-1996 (including all pre-) and post-1996 pensioners. The said minimum pension was also subjected to pro-rata based on length of qualifying service, ie. less than 33 years.

    The question, whether there could be a sub-minimum, when there is a prescribed Minimum pension according to the scale from which the pensioner had retired, particularly in respect of pre-1986 pensioners was however not a point of issue then, as no one raised the same then.

    In the case of post-1996 pensioners, all pensioners would have got at least 50% of revised pay or pro-rata thereof based on length of their service, as their pension.

    Whereas, in the 6th CPC, amidst band based revision of pay for serving employees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the pre-2006 pensioners were also prescribed with a Minimum pension equivalent to 50% of Minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of Grade pay corresponding to the scale from which they retired, vide OM dated 1.9.2008. At the same time, there was no proportionate reduction from the said Minimum pension based on length of qualifying service, viz. less than 33 years

    The OM dated 3.10.2008 came with an amended prescription of a Minimum pension equivalent to 50% of Minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-reivsed scale and 50% of grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale (The terminologies and/plus, etc. we can ignore for the time being).

    It is the same OM dated 3.10.2008, the proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service, ie. less than 33 years qualifying service was also included which is as good as another amendment to the existing initial OM dated 1.9.2008.

    In the case of post-2006 retirees, the linkage of 33 years qualifying service was dispensed with and if 10 (for CPSU absorbees, etc.)/20 years qualifying service are rendered, 50% of emoluments last drawn or 50% of 10month's average emoluments whichever is beneficial will constitute their basic pension according to the said OM.

    So, once again the question, whether there could be a sub-minimum, when there is a prescribed Minimum pension according to the bottom stage of the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired in respect of all pre-2006 pensioners.

    This apart, application of two different methodologies in fixing the basic pension on retirement were emerged. For a pre-2006 pensioner, his basic pension on retirement was determined on the basis of 33 years or less than that. Wheras in the case of post-2006 pensioners, their basic pension on retirement is determined on the basis of 10/20 years as stated above.

    In the process, the revised pension on application of single multiplication factor, viz. 2.26 only for the retirees upto S-23, naturally happened to be more than the minimum pension prescribed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 if they had rendered 33 years service.
    If they had rendered less than 33 years, then the said minimum wherever higher than their existing revised pension will get reduced to pro-rata, thanks to OM dated 3.10.2008.

    In the case of scale retirees of scales from S-24 onwards upto S-29, their revised pension (which also got derived on application of uniform multiplication factor of 2.26 over the pre-revised pension) naturally happened to be less than the Minimum prescribed for them, because the serving employees of those scales were prescribed with a different pay revision pattern (through an indirect multiplie higher application of multiplication factors, ie. >1,86 over bottom stage of their pre-revised scales for the prupose of deriving minimum of the payband/pay in the pay band). Even then the pro-rata continued to exist in their case also, viz. proportionate reduction from Minimum pension prescribed based on length of qualifying service.

    The S-30 scale was prescribed with scale based revision pattern, so 50% of revised pay corresponding to bottom stage of pre-revised scale being the minimum revised pension, which agian happened to be more than their revised pension (which was derived through a single multiplication factor of 2.26 over the pre-revised pension).

    The stand with regard to pro-rata from minimum pension stand as it is even vide latest OM dated 28.1.2013 when the minimum pension was amended w.e.f. 24.9.2012.

    Under the circumstances, Orders for implementation of existing CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011, as well as the forthcoming CAT Judgment (on or after 18.7.2014) will speak further. Till then, we have to wait and pray.

    Best Regards

  4. #164
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Very good analysis by Sundarar.

    Notwithstanding the outcome arising out of Orders for implementation of existing CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011, as well as the forthcoming CAT Judgment (on or after 18.7.2014), these anomalies are to be brought to the notice of 7th CPC for a final re-look and reco.
    i am suggesting this because the last date for suggestions/ representations to 7th CPC are to reach them before 15.7.14.

    Imayan

  5. #165
    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

    Dear Sunderarji

    Compliments to u for ur knowledge and bringing out all the facets of the case crisply.

    I had, in my earlier post, had compared this pro rata reduction to the law of Natural Justice in the jurisprudence of the counrtry where None Can Be Punished Twice for the same offence. In the same analogy, in the case of pensioners with less than 33 yrs of service they are punished in each pay commission by the Babus inserting the clause of Pro rata pension (which will neither have any Govt resolution nor approval of Law Min) Thus such pensioners who were unable to complete 33 yrs service are being repeatedly beaten with lesser pension. This apart from the non application of 50 % of last pay drawn

    In case, this aspect alone is brought in our affidavit to CAT before the next hearing on 18 July 14, it might open the mind of the court (hopefully)

    Till then we shall wait and pray. Thanks to Mr Sunderarji once again

  6. #166
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Refer Posr#163 of Sri Sundarar

    Dear Sundarar,
    with ref to your post#163, you have nicely brought out the 'SUB-MINIMUM' pension issue. Thanks.
    Here, I would like to point out again that for pre-2006 pensioners (including pre-86, pre-96), the pension is calculated using a formula/table with his/her existing pension number (i.e. without fixing the notional salary as on 1.1.2006 unlike post-2006 cases) and this pension number is already a reduced number for <33 years QS cases. That is to say that you start with a reduced number, apply formula/table, adjust to meet MINIMUM criteria and then to everybody's HORROR reduce it to 'sub-minimum' number for <33 years cases. I say this as 'horror' as SPC and the cabinet would not have imagined that after raising the pension to meet the MINIMUM criteria, it would be again reduced. I repeat, "the starting number/pension for < 33 years cases is already a lower number' when the new pension is sought to be arrived at.
    Are we not justified in expecting the minimum pension for our grades and thus avoid feeling of humiliation?

  7. #167
    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

    These issues could be filed in Court, before the next date of hearing on 18 Jul 14, (if not already done) as brought out in the post on 6 May 14 that before the next date of 23 May 14 some submissions were to be included in the affidavit.

    But, the case is now adjourned to 18 July, hence repeated reduction in pro rata pension if not brought to the notice of court, it can be done now. If done immediately, then the opp party will also be compelled to file their reply before 18 July since the copy will be given to opp party

  8. #168
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Justification for basic pension from 1.1.2006

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    Dear Sundarar,
    with ref to your post#163, you have nicely brought out the 'SUB-MINIMUM' pension issue. Thanks.
    Here, I would like to point out again that for pre-2006 pensioners (including pre-86, pre-96), the pension is calculated using a formula/table with his/her existing pension number (i.e. without fixing the notional salary as on 1.1.2006 unlike post-2006 cases) and this pension number is already a reduced number for <33 years QS cases. That is to say that you start with a reduced number, apply formula/table, adjust to meet MINIMUM criteria and then to everybody's HORROR reduce it to 'sub-minimum' number for <33 years cases. I say this as 'horror' as SPC and the cabinet would not have imagined that after raising the pension to meet the MINIMUM criteria, it would be again reduced. I repeat, "the starting number/pension for < 33 years cases is already a lower number' when the new pension is sought to be arrived at.
    Are we not justified in expecting the minimum pension for our grades and thus avoid feeling of humiliation?
    Dear Sir, A very valid question. Thanks.

    There are some favourable Judgments of the Hon'ble CAT on the subject. Particularly, the CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 ordered to re-fix pension of all pre-2006 pensioners as per para 12 of Resolution dated 29.8.2008. The said Resolution as well as the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 did not prescribe any proportionate reduction in minimum revised pension based on length of qualifying service. It is the OM 3.10.2008 and subsequent OMs right upto the one dated 28.1.2013 `clarified' to that extent.

    Further, we are also justified in expecting that there should be single manner and methodology for deriving the basic pension at least from 1.1.2006 in r/o pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service. While the pre-2006 pensioners' pension was derived based on 33 years qs criteria, the post-2006 pensioners are prescribed with 10/20 years qs criteria.
    Whether the D.S. Nakara spirit support the differential treatment in calculation of basic pension? Notional fixation of last drawn emoluments in the revised structure to derive its 50% as basic pension from 1.1.2006 is inevitable. Though it may appear as seeking full parity with post-2006 pensionrs, the focus point shalll be on the differential treatment in calculation of pension rather than the quantum part. In such an event, there will be a disparity again. A pre-2006 retiree with less than 33 years qs by virtue of notional fixation may get more pension, than another pre-2006 retiree who retired with 33+ years qs in whose case there will be no notional fixation. The root cause lies in the fitment benefit, viz. 40% of pre-revised pension in lieu of 20% of maximum of pre-revised scale after applying 1.86 MF over pre-revised basic pension. Otherwise, application a uniform multiplication factor (3?) over 50% of bottom stage of pre-revised scale, as in the case of S-30 scale retirees, would have resolved all issues altogether.

    We have to wait till the present case Judgment before concluding in either way.
    Best Regards

  9. #169
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default S.No.2 and 12 of Resolution dated 29.8.2008

    In continuation of my previous post, I submit hereunder the extracts of the Hon. High Court Kerala Judgment dated 4.6.2013 in the case of Shri M.O.Inasu vs UOI

    "7. These original petitions by two pre-2006 retirees are 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. We see that 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 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.

    In the result, impugned orders are set aside and the parties are directed to mark appearance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 26th June, 2013. The Tribunal is 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. 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".

    In accordance with the above directives of the Hon. High Court, Kerala, the Hon. CAT, Ernakulam Bench ordered on 16.8.2013 as follows:

    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 is significant to note from the Hon. High Court, Kerala's Judgment that S.No.2 and S.No.12 of the Resolution have been given prominence. While we are fully aware of S.No.12, the S.No.2 pertains to accepted para 5.1.33 of the 6th CPC recommendation, which indicates as follows:

    "Linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficiial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/retired benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant".

    Thus, there shall be no calculation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on 33 years for both pre-2006 as well as post-2006 pensioners. In view of the significance attached to S.No.2 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 also, the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service are justified in expecting that their pension shall be re-fixed in accordance with the Sl.No.2 as well as S.No. 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008. That means, their last pay drawn shall get re-fixed notionally on 1.1.2006 to derive 50% of the same as Basic Pension in line with S.No.2 of the Resolution subject to the condition prescribed vide S.No.12 of the Resolution.

  10. #170
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    We have to agitate these issues before 7th CPC for getting the benefits wef 1.1.2006.
    How do we proceed further - legally and administratively ?

  11. #171
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default Prorata reduction in pension of pre-2006 pensioners

    I alongwith a few officers of TRAI who had earlier retired from Government on permanent absorption in TRAI has already filed a petition in CAT Delhi against proportionate reduction in pension for pre-2006 pensioners. We retired from Group A scale before taking absorption in TRAI. It is seen that a large number of employees who had taken permanent absorption in TRAI after 1.1.2006 have been drawing very high pension than us, even LDCs are drawing about 2 times pension than us. With the implementation of VI CPC recommendations even employees with 10 years of service get full pension. It is also seen that in the case of two similarly placed officers retiring on 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 respectively the difference in pension is more than 340%. The next date of hearing of our case is 25.7.2014.
    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    In continuation of my previous post, I submit hereunder the extracts of the Hon. High Court Kerala Judgment dated 4.6.2013 in the case of Shri M.O.Inasu vs UOI

    "7. These original petitions by two pre-2006 retirees are 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. We see that 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 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.

    In the result, impugned orders are set aside and the parties are directed to mark appearance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 26th June, 2013. The Tribunal is 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. 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".

    In accordance with the above directives of the Hon. High Court, Kerala, the Hon. CAT, Ernakulam Bench ordered on 16.8.2013 as follows:

    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 is significant to note from the Hon. High Court, Kerala's Judgment that S.No.2 and S.No.12 of the Resolution have been given prominence. While we are fully aware of S.No.12, the S.No.2 pertains to accepted para 5.1.33 of the 6th CPC recommendation, which indicates as follows:

    "Linkage of full pension with 33 years qualifying should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficiial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/retired benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant".

    Thus, there shall be no calculation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on 33 years for both pre-2006 as well as post-2006 pensioners. In view of the significance attached to S.No.2 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 also, the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service are justified in expecting that their pension shall be re-fixed in accordance with the Sl.No.2 as well as S.No. 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008. That means, their last pay drawn shall get re-fixed notionally on 1.1.2006 to derive 50% of the same as Basic Pension in line with S.No.2 of the Resolution subject to the condition prescribed vide S.No.12 of the Resolution.

  12. #172
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Favourable verdicts

    Quote Originally Posted by Imayan View Post
    We have to agitate these issues before 7th CPC for getting the benefits wef 1.1.2006.
    How do we proceed further - legally and administratively ?
    In addition to the case discussed in previous post, there are some more favourable verdicts existing.
    1. CAT PR Bench Delhi OA No.2461/2012
    Shri R.C.Garg & Others vs UOI DOJ 30.7.2013

    2. CAT Chandigarh Bench OA No.509/CH/2011 & 2 OAs DOJ 23.3.2012

    3. CAT Bangalore Bench OA No. 167/2010
    Shri N.B.Bhatt IPS (Retd.) vs UOI DOJ 25.1.2012

    4. CAT Ernakulam Bench OA No. 147/2011
    Shri P.K.Bhargava Pillai vs UOI DOJ 23.1.2012

    OA No. 579/2013
    Shri T.K.Radhakrishna Pillai vs UOI DOJ 31.1.2014


    Subsequent developments with regard to the above verdicts are not known.


    In general, the CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 paves way for implementation of para 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 in letter and spirit.
    Most of the above verdicts have the same as basis.

    While the D.S. Nakara spirit involves application of same qualifying service criteria like that of post-2006 retirees for deriving basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for pre-2006 pensioners, in which event re-calculation of basic pension based on modified length of qualifying service for pension is inevitable, the para 12 of the Resolution is the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC, involves no proportionate reduction in minimum pension based on length of qualifying service, viz. <33 years.

    We have to wait till the implementation of CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 as well as the expected Judgment of CAT PR Bench on or after 18.7.2014 in full pension case.

  13. #173
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default TRAI Case

    Quote Originally Posted by shajimanamel View Post
    I alongwith a few officers of TRAI who had earlier retired from Government on permanent absorption in TRAI has already filed a petition in CAT Delhi against proportionate reduction in pension for pre-2006 pensioners. We retired from Group A scale before taking absorption in TRAI. It is seen that a large number of employees who had taken permanent absorption in TRAI after 1.1.2006 have been drawing very high pension than us, even LDCs are drawing about 2 times pension than us. With the implementation of VI CPC recommendations even employees with 10 years of service get full pension. It is also seen that in the case of two similarly placed officers retiring on 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 respectively the difference in pension is more than 340%. The next date of hearing of our case is 25.7.2014.
    Welcome Sir. We wish and pray all success in your case too. Please keep participating in the discussion with your updates of the case. Thanks and Regards

  14. #174
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default Oa:1165/2011

    As per Principal CAT cause list details in court No:5,NDOH for the case: OA:1165/2011 is 13.08.2014. Can somebody highlight the proceedings of the case.

  15. #175
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shajimanamel View Post
    I alongwith a few officers of TRAI who had earlier retired from Government on permanent absorption in TRAI has already filed a petition in CAT Delhi against proportionate reduction in pension for pre-2006 pensioners. We retired from Group A scale before taking absorption in TRAI. It is seen that a large number of employees who had taken permanent absorption in TRAI after 1.1.2006 have been drawing very high pension than us, even LDCs are drawing about 2 times pension than us. With the implementation of VI CPC recommendations even employees with 10 years of service get full pension. It is also seen that in the case of two similarly placed officers retiring on 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 respectively the difference in pension is more than 340%. The next date of hearing of our case is 25.7.2014.
    Dear Sir,
    May we know the outcome of hearing on 25.7.2014. If possible, please provide the case number details, to enable us to see from the CAT PR Bench Website. Thanks and Regards

  16. #176
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default Oa:1165/2011

    As per Principal CAT cause list,NDOH for OA:1165/2011,MA:2353/2014,OA:247/2012,OA:2165/2011 is 29.09.2014 in court No:5.

    Can some body highlight the proceedings?

  17. #177
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    NDH may be 29 Sept 2014. PL chk.

  18. #178
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default Oa:1165/2011

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    NDH may be 29 Sept 2014. PL chk.
    Sir,
    I have also quoted the same date as 29.09.2014 which I saw in the cause list. Can you please give any details of the case hearing?

  19. #179
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    OA 1165 0F 2011'

    Shri PN ji informs (Extracts only pl):

    ......... To ensure that the application filed by me earlier, I had been to CAT on 11th and made sure that it is put on the file after our Advocate complained in writing to Joint Registrar.
    Despite this, the usual story was repeated of the GOI Advocate seeking time to file their reply to a simple MA filed by us on 23rd May, a copy of which was given to him on 26th May. And despite protest by our Advocate and me, the Bench agreed to allow time and the next hearing is now fixed for 29th September....

    vnatarajan

  20. #180
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Justice delivery delay

    Respected VNji,
    Having utmost respect to our judicial system, I would like to express the following:
    - I am not a proponent of judicial system favoring ‘poor’ in ‘rich’ VS ‘poor’ cases whether it is speed or otherwise as far as the justice delivery is concerned. The speed of justice delivery will help though equally all.
    - But in the case of ‘old pensioners’ VS ‘UOI’ cases, will it not be apt for our judiciary to look at the contenders as belonging to two un-equal parties? On one side, you have ageing pensioners with limited resources and limited energy and whose number will keep decreasing by the year (as they move on to heavenly abode) and on the other side, you have ‘chiranjeevi’ officials with almost limitless resources and time (if one set of representing officials retire, next set will take over)
    - Will it not be apt to speed up the cases to reach the final conclusion through CAT/HC/HSC? If in case the judicial system in the end finds that the ‘past pensioners’ were right, many pensioners would have missed to enjoy the benefits. It would have served past pensioners in not feeling humiliated vis--vis younger lot of pensioners. It would have served them to have the ‘legitimate’ funds to enjoy and to fund their medical expenses(thus depending less on their family members). In case the judiciary finds that the past pensioners have no case, at least that will be a settled matter and they do not live in false hopes.
    - The above sentiments apply for OA 1165.
    - In case of OA 655, officials having admitted the error in correct implementation of gazette notification on SPC, why to delay/deny the disbursement of money that legitimately belongs to past pensioners.
    Request VNji to comment. Are there any recourses in our justice system to address this issue? I suppose, PI in PIL will not apply here.
    Regards,
    Managoli
    Last edited by tymanagoli; 18-08-2014 at 08:33 AM. Reason: Typo

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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