+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 368

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

  1. #301
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default

    In our petition filed by TRAI officers we have sought relief for (i) refixing the pension by extending the principle contained in OM No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 and in OM No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 10-12-2009, vide which pension was granted to the pensioners retiring on or after 1.1.2006 after completion of ten year of service; and (ii) quash and set aside para 5 of O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 and refix the pension in such a way that the pension should not be less than the guaranteed minimum pension as per Resolution dt. 29.8.2008 i.e. without any proportionate reduction.


    Today the Govt. filed reply to the application in CAT. The reply of Govt. touches on (i) para 5.1.33 and 6.5.3 of VI CPC recommendations as accepted vide Resolution dt. 29.8.2008 for post 2006 retirees, implementation thereof through OM dated 2.9.08; (ii) implementation of VI CPC recommendations at para 5.1.47 through OM dated 1.9.2006 for pre-2006 retirees at para 4.1 and 4.2 and argues that, in terms of TOR, the modification in the procedure for calculation of full pension without linking it to full 33 years of qualifying service was recommended to be given effect prospectively, which means that the modified procedure was to be applicable for post-2006 pensions and not pre-2006 pensioners.


    Another argument of the Govt. is that paras 5.1.46 and 5.1.47 of VI CPC dealt with pre-2006 pensioners on the principle of modified parity concept of V CPC, 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 Grade Pay and thus this modified parity was only applicable for revision of amount of pre-revised pension linked to the minimum of the Pay Band and the Grade Pay and not by altering the structure of qualifying service of 33 years. Therefore, the concept of modified parity for pre-2006 pensioners and improvement in qualifying service without linkage with 33 years of service are two separate and different recommendations and not to be clubbed and seen as one composite whole.


    Another argument is that the recommendations of VI CPC for delinking full pension with 33 years of service is an outcome of deliberations in the context of the then prevailing circumstances and therefore it cannot be applied for circumstances obtaining before the date of effect of the recommendations.


    Touching on the judgment of CAT in OA 655/2010, the Govt. has also argued that the prayer for full parity was rejected by CAT in para 9 and therefore it is clear that in its judgment CAT did not accept the prayer for full pension without linking it with qualifying service of 33 years to pre-2006 pensioners.

    Regarding quashing of para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013 relating to proportionate reduction from minimum pension, the Govt. has put forward the same argument as given in OM dated 19.9.2014 regarding implementation of CAT Order in OA 655/2010 that the Delhi High Court while hearing the appeal in WP© No.1535/2012 had not raised any objection to the contents of para 5.

    Shaji Abraham


  2. #302
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Respected Sirs,

    Another letter written to Hon'ble PM for implementation of the PB CAT orders in our case.

    link:http://rscws.com/pdfdocs/Memo_to_PM_...Pensioners.pdf

    Regards
    Last edited by Monga J C; 13-08-2015 at 11:57 PM.

  3. #303
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Dear Shri Shaji Abraham

    I would like to make a couple of points:

    ".........Another argument of the Govt. ................full pension without linking it to full 33 years of qualifying service was recommended to be given effect prospectively, which means that the modified procedure was to be applicable for post-2006 pensions and not pre-2006 pensioners"

    " prospectively... means that the benefit shall be applicable to all pensioners, but the amount will be paid prospectively from the date when the recommendations are implemented.

    As far as the CAT judgement in OA655/2010 is concerned, the order states in para 30 as follows:

    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. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs

    The resolution dated 29.08.2008, does not refer to any pro rata reduction of the pension for pre 2006 pensioners.

    Finally, you can refer to the PB CAT judgement in OA 1165/2011 with OA 2165/2011 And OA 246/2012 Shri Pratap Narayan vs UOI case which states

    " 13. In view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra), V. Kasturi (supra), T.S. Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010 dated 20.11.2014, we are of the opinion that the prayer in the OAs is fully justified. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.10.2008 and 19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and direct the respondents that the qualifying service for earning full pension will be treated as twenty years also for those who retired from the Central Government service on or before 31.12.2005 and were alive on that day. The respondents are also directed to modify/amend all relevant government orders/ letters/ notifications in accordance with the above decision. It is made clear that this parity of pension between pre and post-1.01.2006 pensioners (on the question of eligibility of minimum pensionable service of twenty years) would apply both as regards pension and family pension. The respondents are granted three months time from the date of receipt of this order for implementation of directions contained in this order."

    Regards
    Last edited by Monga J C; 13-08-2015 at 11:36 PM.

  4. #304
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    1. While the CAT PR Bench Delhi vide their Order dated 1.11.2011 directed the Respondents to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008, question of raising any objection to the contents of Para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013 does not arise, as the appeal in WP (C) 1535/2012 itself got dismissed by the HSC. The dismissal, would thus mean, to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (and not from 24.9.2012) based on the resolution dated 29.8.2008. The decisions of both CAT PR Bench, Delhi as well as Hon. HC Delhi were upheld finally by the Highest Court of Land and executive instructions for complete implementation of the same for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years as on date, have been issued. At the same time, for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years, the viz. minimum revised pension corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, is subjected to proportionate reduction on the basis of the provisions of quashed OMs 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008, and para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013.

    2. The prayer for full parity vide para 2 of the CAT PR Bench Delhi order dated 1.11.2011 and the prayer for full minimum revised pension corresponding to pre-revised scale without linking it with qualifying service of 33 years to pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners are entirely two different matters. Thus, rejection of any prayer for full parity will have no relevance with the entitlement of modified parity based full minimum revised pension irrespective of qualifying service.

    3. The para 4 of the CAT PR Bench Delhi Order dated 1.11.2011 observed as follows:

    "In D.S. Nakaras case (supra) there was no dispute regarding implementation of the liberalized scheme from a cut off date. Rather the Apex Court in the said case in para-47 has categorically held that undoubtedly when an upward revision is introduced a date from which it becomes effective has to be provided. The challenge was made only to that part of the scheme by which the benefit of Liberalized Pension Formula was made applicable to government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after that date. What was the Liberalized Pension Formula has been mentioned in para-37 of the judgment. As can be seen from this para, under the earlier pension scheme the pension was related to average emoluments during 36 months just preceding retirement. On May, 25, 1979 the Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued OM No.F.19(3)EB-79 whereby the formula for commutation of pension was liberalized but it was made applicable to government servants who were in service on 31.03.1979 and retired from service on or after the specified date. The liberalized scheme introduced a slab system for commutation of pension, raised pension ceiling and provided for average emoluments with reference to the last 10 months service. Consequently, the pensioners who retired prior to the specified date had to earn pension on the average 36 months salary just preceding the date of retirement. Thus, they suffered triple jeopardy viz. lower average emoluments, absence of slab system and lower ceiling. It was in this context that the Apex Court held that pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by arbitrary, manipulated and unreasonable eligibility criteria for the purpose of grant of revised pension. The Apex Court held that the words `who were in service on or after are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and this part of the sentence was declared as unconstitutional and struck down. It was held that liberalized pension scheme will become operative to all pensioners governed by 1979 rules, irrespective of date of retirement".

    The para 43 of the CAT PR Bench Delhi Order dated 20.11.2014 in OA 937/2010 referred D.S.Nakara Judgment that stated
    "the date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that be the criterion those who retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification to be upheld for any valid purpose.
    xxxx xxxx xxxx

    The basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question".

    4. Stating that `the revised pension shall not be lower than.....' and stating that `the revised pension, IN NO CASE shall be lower than.....' are two different versions.
    In the latter one, it will amount to the factual position that the revised pension UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, the revised pension shall be lower than........
    The structure of the Resolution shall not be subjected to any alteration by an insertion of qualifying service criteria for full minimum revised pension for those who rendered less than 33 years service.

    5. There cannot be two different minimum revised pension for a post-2006 retiree with 10 years qualifying service and a similar pre-2006 retiree of a particular revised scale/pre-revised scale respectively. The modified parity principle does not speak of qualifying service, but relate to only the bottom stage of pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement for deriving 50% of revised pay corresponding to said bottom stage as pension.

    Incidentially, while allowing OA 915/2013 on 31.7.2015, the CAT Ernakulam Bench vide para 17 observed as follows:

    "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that it was
    repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that those who could not come to
    court need not be at a comparative disadvantageous position to those who
    rushed to the court, if they are otherwise similarly situated. Those who could not
    come to the court are also entitled to similar treatment. When a citizen
    aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the court
    and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, persons in like circumstances
    should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the Department
    concerned and expect that they will be given the benefit of such declaration
    without the need to take their grievance to court. It is also not in dispute that the
    endeavour of such departments or governmental organizations should be to
    minimize litigations by accepting the verdict given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
    and to extend the benefit to all similarly situated persons and to treat them alike
    and not to compel those persons to approach the court again which would in a
    way be disadvantageous to the departments as they may have to spend huge
    amount for conducting litigations besides waste of time and energy. National
    Litigation Policy is also in that line. (See the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
    in Inderpal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others, 1985(2) SCC 648 and and
    Amritlal Berry Vs. CCE (1975)4 SCC 714)".

    With the dismissals of 2 SLPs in the matter by the HSC, dismissal of one Writ Petition by Hon. HC, Delhi and several CAT Judgments allowing the OAs
    filed in the matter filed by pro-rata pensioners, particularly when the benefit of full minimum revised pension irrespective of qualifying service
    has been granted to some pro-rata pensioner applicants also, it is our prayer to extend the benefit to all similarly situated persons and to treat them alike
    and not to compel those persons to approach the court again
    which would in a way be disadvantageous to the departments as they may have to spend huge
    amount for conducting litigations besides waste of time and energy, and which will also be in line with the National Litigation Policy

  5. #305
    Junior Member esveepee is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Much depends upon the financial implications if qualifying service is not a criterion for full pension.

  6. #306
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by esveepee View Post
    Much depends upon the financial implications if qualifying service is not a criterion for full pension.
    In the matter of Kamla Jain (Supra) the Division Bench of the Hon. HC Madhya Pradesh has held in paragraph 6 thus:
    ".......even in the case of SPS Vains (Retd.) (supra) the Supreme Court has held that merely on the financial consideration the classification or of similarly situated pensioners is not permissible and if it creates a class, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India........."

    Implementing the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC without altering its structure by any insertion out of incorrect interpretation without approval of Competent Authority, does not have any relevance to financial implications as has been the case of similarly placed post-2006 retirees.

  7. #307
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Para 4-6 of the CAT Ernakulam Bench Judgment dated 31.7.2015 ( OA No.180/00635/2014 Shri P.R.Balakrishnan vs UOI) is reproduced hereunder for information.:

    "4. The respondents contest the claim on the basis of the 'clarification' dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. It has also been submitted in the reply statement that various orders of the Tribunal and Courts adverse to the interpretation given by the respondents have been challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLPs are still pending.

    5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant produced, in addition to the various orders of this Tribunal in similar cases, a copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8012/2013 and W.P.(C) No.8056/2013 dated April 09, 2015 where the issue has been considered comprehensively. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has quashed the office memorandum that introduced a cut off date and mandated that the pre-January, 2006 pensioners would have their pension fixed by proportionately reducing the same by such number of years if the service rendered is less than 33 years. It has been declared that the Writ Petitioners would be entitled to full pension post-January, 2006 without any pro rata cut therein. The learned counsel for the respondents agreed that the instant case would be fully covered by the said judgment. He also informed that even the three other SLPs that were pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against various orders of the Tribunal/High Court have since been dismissed.

    6. I have accordingly no hesitation in holding that the applicant is entitled to the revised fixation without discrimination on the basis that he is a pre-2006 retiree. His pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which he had retired. The OA is allowed accordingly.
    ....."

  8. #308
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Full minimum pension for 20+ years of service

    Quote Originally Posted by Monga J C View Post
    Respected Sirs

    Another piece of information related to our case from the website rscws.com

    PRO-RATA REDUCTION IN PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONRS -

    CASE No CWP 3423 of 2014

    The case regarding pro-rata reduction in pension to pre-2006 pensioners came up
    for hearing at the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 14-07-2015. Sarv shri P S Bedi,
    DIG (Retd) BSF, M S Toor, M S Sethi and N S Broca, Comdts,(Retd), CRPF
    attended the hearing. The case came up for discussion / argument little short of
    lunch break. The govt advocate referred to rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules for the
    pro-rata reduction in the pension of the pre-2006 pensioners. Our advocate pointed
    out that our case is based on the accepted recommendations of 6th CPC, as per
    orders issued vide OM dated 01-09-2008, Para 4.2. As the time for lunch
    approached the argument was deferred to post lunch session. When the argument
    was resumed post lunch session, our advocate referred to the judgement of Delhi
    High Court dated 07-05-2015. Referring to Para 1 of Delhi High judgement, wherein,
    it was mentioned that there was no difference in fixing the pension of pre-2006 and
    post 2006 pensioners, the Hon judge inquired from the govt advocate whether the
    orders for calculations of pension for post 2006 retirees were different from that of
    pre-2006 retirees. The govt advocate showed his ignorance about this, and sought
    adjournment . Our advocate pointed out that the petitioners were senior citizens,
    approaching 80 years of age. The four officers present in the court also stood up.
    However, to give some time to the govt advocate to get the information, he gave one
    month time.

    The next date of hearing fixed for 14-08-2015.

    It is hoped that our case will be finalised on 14-08-2015.

    P S Bedi, DIG(Retd) BSF
    Sir, any idea as to what happened to this case on 14th August 2015?

  9. #309
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Next date of hearing 09.09.2015

  10. #310
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnaga57 View Post
    [/I]

    Shri Pratap Narayan has written the following in S29 group mail
    Dear Friends,

    Kindly refer to my mail dated 28th May about the proceedings in our CP on 27th May. As indicated therein, after discussion with the Advocate, last month end I filed a Misc. Application in CAT bringing out that while we are directly affected party due to non implementation of its directive dated 1-11-2011, the other MAs/CPs swarming our CP are from others who were not party to earlier proceedings but were belatedly wanting to take advantage of this order. Consequently, we had sought de-linking of our CP and give us a separate hearing.

    This MA was listed today before the bench headed by Chairman. I attended the Court. It was mentioned by the Chairman that a notice has already been issued to GOI on our CP and the matter would be heard separately on the next date of hearing viz. 19-8-2015. This is for your information.

    With regards,

    Yours sincerely,

    Pratap Narayan
    Dear Sir

    Any news on the hearing dated 19-08-2015

    Regards

  11. #311
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    It is learnt that the next date of hearing is 7.10.2015.

  12. #312
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Thank you Sir.

  13. #313
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    The para 3 to 12 of the CAT Ernakulam Bench Order dated 14.8.2015 (Dr. V.N.Krishnamurthy vs the Director VSSC Trivandrum) in OA No.180/00883/2014 is reproduced hereunder for information.
    "3. Heard both applicants and respondents and perused all records submitted in the case. Applicants in this O.A are pre 2006 retirees drawing a pay scale which was revised under the 6th Central Pay Commission to a revised pay band with a grade pay. Applicants claim that in para 4.2 of Government of India O.M dated 1.9.2008 there is no stipulation of any minimum period of service for eligibility of pension. The said O.M also stipulates that 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired would be the revised pay of the pensioner under the 6th CPC. Para 4.2 also made it clear that pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In view of the Cabinet approval and the O.M of 1.9.2008, denial of 50% of the pay as basic pension is illegal and arbitrary.

    4. This is a matter which has already been adjudicated by this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.715/2012, High Court of Kerala in R.P.No.741/2014 and O.P.(CAT) No.4/2014, Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.655/2010 and others & O.A.No.1165/2011 and others, High Court of Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C) No.19641/2009 and the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8875-76 of 2011 with C.A.No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012, C.A.No.4599 of 2013 and C.A.No.1 of 2015 and S.L.P.(C) No.36148 - 36150 of 2013, S.L.P.(C) No.16780 - 16782 of 2014 and S.L.P.(C) No.16903 - 16904 of 2015 wherein the VI CPC pension recommendations and the Government of India approval of the same for pre 2006 pensioners was discussed at length.

    5. Prescribing differing criteria causes discrimination in the same category of persons, in this case pre and post 2006 pensioners. The Apex Court in D.S.Nakra & Others v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 held that pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro classified by arbitrary, manipulated and unreasonable eligibility criteria for the purpose of grant of revised pension. The Apex Court also held that the words 'who were in service', 'on' or 'after' were words of limitation, denying equality and declared the same unconstitutional and struck down the same.

    6. In the present case the point being adjudicated is the payment of 50% of pay plus grade pay as pension pursuant to the resolution of the Government accepting the VI Central Pay Commission recommendations.

    7. The formulation of VI CPC in para 5.1.47 and the subsequent Government resolution of 29.8.2008 clearly states 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. Any modification of the above without the approval of the Cabinet is ultra vires and such a course of action was not available to a functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, without referring the matter to the Cabinet to bring about a modification in a Cabinet resolution of 29.8.2008 approving the recommendations of VI CPC which included the payment of pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners payable with effect from 1.1.2006.

    8. This Tribunal in order dated 16.8.2013 in O.A.No.715/2012 with O.A.No.1051/2012 ruled that in no case the pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired proportionate to the length of his service and fix higher of the two as pension with effect from 1.1.2006.

    9. In O.P.(CAT) No.1767 of 2012 the High Court of Kerala did not find any reason to interfere as respondent in O.P.(CAT) No.8 of 2014 and the first respondent in the case are similarly placed as both are pre-2006 central government retired pensioners affected by VI CPC relief. This stand was upheld by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in WP No.19641 of 2009 in R.K.Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana and others. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision dated 21.12.2012 also confirmed that the clear purport and meaning of the recommendations of the VI CPC as contained in para 5.1.47 accepted by the Government vide Item No.12 of resolution dated 29.8.2008 is that those who retire before 1.1.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing the recommendations of the 6th CPC shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

    10. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal in order dated 1.11.2011 in O.A.No.655/2010 with O.A.No.3079/2009, O.A.No.306/2010 and O.A.No.507/2010 quashed and set aside the clarificatory O.M dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 and directed the respondents to refix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006 based on the resolution dated 29.8.2008 ie. the pay of pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. Any change in the Cabinet resolution cannot be made by administrative orders modifying the same.

    11. The Supreme Court on 7.1.2014 dismissed S.L.P.No.21044 of 2014. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8875-8876 of 2011 (Union of India and others v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others along with C.A.No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012, C.A.No.4599 of 2013 & C.A.No.1 of 2015 and S.L.P.Nos.36148-36150 of 2013 & S.L.P.No.16780- 16782 of 2014 dismissed the S.L.P on merit citing that no substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for their consideration and they saw no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

    12. Issues raised in this O.A stand covered by the above decisions of the Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court. We do not find any reason to add to the judgment already delivered in a similar adjudicated matter. Any modification of the Cabinet resolution by a subsequent administrative order is ultra vires. Accordingly, the O.A is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Orders to the applicants in the O.A specifying that pension of pre-2006 retirees will be calculated on the basis of 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of the respective post held at the time of retirement, proportionate to the length of his service and fix higher of the two as pension with effect from 1.1.2006 and corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pension within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

  14. #314
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Full minimum pension for 20+ years of service

    Sir, any idea about contempt case being pursued by sri. RC Garg?

  15. #315
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    The Writ Petition (Civil) No.2262/2015 filed in Shri R.C.Garg case before Hon. HC Delhi - Next Date of Hearing: 9.10.2015.
    The Contempt Petition filed by Shri R.C.Garg in CAT PR Bench is stayed till the next hearing.
    For information.

  16. #316
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Thank you sir...

  17. #317
    Junior Member esveepee is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16

    Default

    It is all very very confusing. I am a PSU absorbee and draw pension based on 18 yrs service. Can I demand full pension now without having to wait for any more hearings? This looks like a never ending business...

  18. #318
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default Review petition in Supreme Court in Inasu case

    The Review Petition filed by Govt. in Inasu case No. 2565/2015 will come tomorrow in the cabin of the Hon'ble Judge.

    Shaji Abraham

  19. #319
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shajimanamel View Post
    The Review Petition filed by Govt. in Inasu case No. 2565/2015 will come tomorrow in the cabin of the Hon'ble Judge.

    Shaji Abraham
    Dear Sirs, just to know the back ground, was any SLP in HSC dismissed in this case(and when) or is it the first time this case is coming before SC?

  20. #320
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default

    This is the first case where CAT, Ernakulam bench gave relief to the petitioner Mr. Inasu by way of minimum pension as per Govt. Resolution without any proportionate reduction by way order Order dated 16.8.2013 in OA No.715 along with OA No.1051/2012. The appeal filed by the Govt. against this Order in OP(CAT) No.8/2014 was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala vide Order dated 7.1.2014. Thereafter Mr. Inasu filed a Contempt Petition in the Ernakulam bench of CAT vide Contempt Petition No.CP/180/00020/2014 in OA No.715 of 2012. During the hearing of this Contempt Petition the Govt. informed the Tribunal that they have complied with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed the Order on 8.4.2014. Although the Govt. complied with the order of CAT, they went in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 20.2.2015 in PC210044/2014/2014 dismissed the appeal. Against this Order, the Govt. has filed a review petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is coming up tomorrow.

    Based on the orders in Mr. Inasu's case, the Ernakulam bench of CAT has already given orders in favour of pre-2006 pensioners in a number of cases. In another case of Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai also this Order in the case of Mr. Inasu was followed. This matter also went upto Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 22.5.2014 in SLP CC No.10820/2015 dismissed the appeal of the Government.

    Shaji Abraham
    Last edited by shajimanamel; 25-08-2015 at 05:41 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 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