+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 368

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

  1. #81
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Thanks Sundar Sir
    As always crystal clear in logic & language
    Regards

  2. #82
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    My regards Sundrar, Sir.
    Gopal Krishan

  3. #83
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    We are clear as the logic and language given by Sundarar are self-explanatory.
    Is it possible for some Delhi based senior members to meet Cabinet Secretary/Secretary, Deptt. of Pensions /Secretary, Deptt. of Law etc and put them " wise" on this matter--- which is affecting thousands of "voiceless pensioners" like us ?
    Regards

  4. #84
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Thanks to Shri Sundarar for echoing, enhancing and emphasizing my "parity views" which are taking their "fiull" shape and soon a new thread will be initiated at the appropriate time and in time to fight the greatest battle of PRE 2006 AND OLDER PENSIONERS... and I do hope all will join hands --

    Difficult Shri Imayan...
    The Injustice thread and Justice thread will show how "inert" these human beings had been...
    CAN COMPROMISE TO CONNIVE (?) BUT WILL NOT CORRECT OR CONCEDE ...
    WE WENT AS A LAST RESORT TO COURTS/TRIBUNALS OF JUSTICE..
    ETHICS in administration and governance is at a nadir now....
    EVEN TRIBUNALS/ COURTS ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THEM SEE WHAT IS JUST AND WHAT IS UNJUST...
    Otherwise after so many verdicts, why they will knock at the portals of justice again and again...
    PL DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH HOPES...THEY WILL PROVE TO BE TOTALLY USELESS ..

    WE WANT TO MAKE NAKARA INFALLIBLE-- NONE CAN DIVIDE THE PENSIONERS of our category (CCS Pension Scheme 1972) ...BY DIVIDING THE HOMOGENOUS CLASS...BY DATUM... BY wrong POLICY ..BY SCHEMING.......AND NOT EVEN BY CONSTITUTION ( as of now...)...'

    OF COURSE OLD PENSIONERS MUST BE DISCREET AND CORRECT IN QUOTING NAKARA JUDGMENT OR ITS RATIONAL PRINCIPLES OR ITS FORMULATION etc AND MUST NOT CITE IT FOR GETTING FREE A BONUS OF FREE T--------T PAPER AS AN ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGE.......and thereby ABUSE the HOLY ART 14......

    Regards,
    VN
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 22-08-2013 at 09:29 AM. Reason: of our category

  5. #85
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

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

    Dear pre 2006 pensioners with 20 plus years of service,

    Reproduced below is the section 5.1.46 of SPC:
    “Past pensioners –analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations:
    5.1.46 : The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past & present pensioners in Forces. The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986
    pensioners and a modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

    Do any one have an idea as to what was done to pre-1996 pensioners when the FPC was implemented? Was pro rata reduction done for pensioners with less than 33 years of service ignoring the ‘in no case’ clause?

    Request knowledgeable seniors to enlighten all concerned.

    Regards, Managoli

  6. #86
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Reference post no. 83.
    The Cabinet Secretary/Secretary or Department of Expenditure/Department of Pensions amy not meet individuals. Time has to be sought from them by some Pensioners Association or Confederation. Only there after it would be possible to meet them. I am a Delhi based pensioner. I am ready to participate in such a meeting in case time is taken from them on behalf of some Assocation etc.
    Gopal Krhshan
    9911178250

  7. #87
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    @ post 85.
    Very much prorated pension only allowed.
    For VRS retirees, 5 yrs weightage was given and then prorated pension is granted.
    Many such pensioners are in the group wh is fighting this issue.
    Let us await the verdict od PR BENCH CAT soon.....
    MY ASESSMENT 50- 50.
    SILVER LINING IS QUASHING OF THE 3/14 OCT 2008 AND 3 CAT VERDICTS SO FAR...
    Still I have my own doubts on a "Rule issue" which may need to be overcome.
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 22-08-2013 at 09:31 AM.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Respected Natarajan Sir,
    After our telephonic discussion, I discussed the matters with some of the officers concerned informally. From the discussion it appears that there is no choice but to implement the CAT's judgement on the Ist Novermber, 2011.
    Incidentally, I would request you to elaborate on "Rule issue" referred to in your post-86.
    Gopal Krishan

  9. #89
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Dear Sri Gopalkrishnaji and Sri VNji and all concerned,

    SPC has recommended in section 5.1.47 to refer to the Annexe 5.1.1(Fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners) for fixing the pension of past pensioners and also added that “The fixation as per this table 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 prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.”

    I have the following observations:
    1. The SPC has not ( I repeat not) recommended that the pension of the past pensioners who were drawing pro rated pension should be first brought back to normal number as if he had full service and then the table in Annexe has to be used to know the revised pension and then again pro rate it back to arrive at his basic pension. The SPC is clear that the pension fixed after referring to the table in Annexe has to be brought up to meet the minimum recommended pension for the grade.
    2. As an example, if the emolument of pre 2006 pensioner with 30 years of qualifying service (30 years superannuation case OR 25 years of VR case) was Rs.18504, his pension would be Rs. 8411 after pro rating and this would be revised as per table in Annexe to Rs. 12000. We will arrive at the same number if we were to annul pro rating initially and then refer the table and then again pro rate it back. (the corresponding numbers would be: without pro ratingRs. 9252, refer table  Rs. 13200, again pro rate it back Rs. 12000). If this pension (Rs. 12000) is less than the minimum pension for his grade, it needs to be stepped up. Hence again I reiterate that as per SPC, table in Annexe is sacrosanct and applicable to both 33 years and lesser service past pensioners. The minimum pension for the grade is also sacrosanct.
    3. Hence, the SPC has not differentiated between the full and pro rated amount of pension while arriving at the table in 5.1.1 and so the persons with 33 years of service will be fixed at higher pension as compared persons with lesser service. If the numbers so arrived (applicable to 33 years as well as to lesser service) is lower than the minimum of the pension for his grade then the pension has to be stepped up to meet the minimum guaranteed pension for the grade. It will be illogical and absurd to pro rate the pension again after bringing it up (that’s what the govt. has done now).
    4. The Govt with it’s resolution dt 29th Aug 2008 @ serial no. 12 accepted the recommendation and also in fact enhanced the amount of pension as compared to the table (in Annexe 5.1.1). Only this resolution has to be implemented correctly.
    5. With the above logic, Rule 49 should become non entity at least for past pensioners drawing lesser than minimum pension (because of pro rating)
    6. It was really nice of full bench in it’s verdict of CAT judgment dated 1st Nov.2011, to refer to even FPC recommendations and argue in favor of modified parity to ensure minimum guaranteed pension for past pensioners. (Refer #28 and #29 of judgment)

    Request Sri VNji to point out the intricacies if any in Rule 49

    Regards, Managoli

  10. #90
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    @GK -- thanks for info on SLP related obsvn..... Reg Rule 49, my explanation follows:


    We are reading too much in to the SCPC report/ its recos.

    RECOS ARE ONLY TO SERVE AS

    GUIDELINES FOR GOVT TO DECIDE. THEY MAY ACCEPT OR REJECT/ IN PART OR FULL ETC. Out of many SCPC recos, only few have been chosen for implementation. Para 5.1.47 is one of them .. with other paras in continuation of them.

    ALL MUST REALISE RULE 49 IS VERY MUCH ENTRENCHED IN THE CCS PENSION RULES.

    GAZ RESOLUTION DT 29 08 2008 FOR REVISION OF PENSION HAS BEEN "BIFURCATED EFFECTIVELY" AS "TWO SEPARATE EXCEUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS" ONE DATED 1ST SEPT 2008 FOR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS AND THE OTHER FOR POST 2005/2006 PENSIONERS.

    Both the above had "procedural formalities" more or less fulfilled - by getting approvals / endorsements up to CAG.

    PR BENCH CAT HAS ALREADY HELD THAT GOVT HAS POWERS/ PREROGATIVES TO INTRODUCE "PENSION SCHEMES" (menaing the two OMs. -1 AND 2 SEPT 2008..) and also to DECIDE ON THE "CUT-OFF" dates for implementing the changed schemes.... wh was 2 Sept 2008 for post 2006 pensioners. Applying the amended Rule 49 for post 2/9/2008 pensioners prospectively had no difficulties and was perfectly in order. SUCH CHANGED/AMENDED/RELAXED RULE 49 CAN NOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY ....

    HOWEVER, AFTER COM OF OROP RECOS IN JULY 2009, THE GOVT EXTENDED THE CHANGED RULE 49 "RETROSPECTIVELY" TO PRE 2/9/2008 MILITARY PENSIONERS FIRST AND THEN TO CIVILIAN PENSINERS LATER (DEC 2009)......Was this not a shifting of the "new scheme" backwards into " the domain of hang-over zone (I called it trisanku then) of pre 2006 pensioners" and then also shift the "cut-off date of 2/9/2008" backwards to 1 1 2006.... If such a retrospective application of the Changed Rule is possible to favour the "trisanku pensioners (ie sub 33 yr retirees including the VRS retirees) of the 1.1.2006 to 1 9 2008 period", BY SHIFTING EVEN THE "REAL CUT-OFF DATE" , why the GOVT can not shift the date further backwards from the pseudo Cut Off date of 1 1 2006......?

    However nullifying the effects of OMs of 3/14 Oct 2008 also may help in this regard to some extent....

    Rule 49 new provision on 20 yr qs / changes figure only in OM of 2 Sept 2008 and not in OM of 1 Sept 2008 (pl chk if I am correct....) and unless we challenge and nullify this OM's provision also effectively wrt Rule 49 provisions , our case may........I THINK THIS IS WHAT IS BEING TAKEN UP IN THE CASE ALSO.....

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 25-08-2013 at 08:18 AM.

  11. #91
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Respected Natarajan sir,

    I entirely agree with you, thanks.

    But, can we hope that the justice will be done vis-à-vis under mentioned facts?
    A. As mentioned by you, the fact that the govt. has already shifted the date once and gave retrospective benefit to 1.1.2006 to 1.9.2008 pensioners
    B. CAT PB judgment on OA No. 2461/2012 dated 30th July,2013, wherein Honorable Justice Sinha has ruled in favor of passing on the benefit of dispensing the requirement of 33 years of service for post 2006 retirees to pre 2006 pensioners also.
    C. Case of pro rating twice i.e. pro rating the pension after bringing it up to meet the minimum of the grade


    Regards, Managoli

  12. #92
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    MY VIEWS:

    I do not want to publicise my views here in detail as it may reach the destinations which may not be desirable......

    ONE POINT IS IMPT (this happens on every file dealing with such cases...)..... THE ADMIN WILL OPPOSE ANY RETROSPECTION TOOTH AND NAIL.... IT OPENS UP A PANDORA'S BOX AND SETS AN UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCE....... DO WE HAVE A READY LIST OF 20 YR PLUS/SUB 33 RETIREES....... SO RELIEF MAY BE LITIGATION-WISE LIKE SPL PAY CASES.... MORE LITIGATIONS...... MORE WASTAGE OF COURT TIME....AGAIN WHAT HAPPENS TO VRS RETIREES OF PRE 2006 ERA...... DO YOU RECOVER THE "5 YR BONUS" GIVEN TO THEM... HOW..... IN CASE OF "TRISANKU RETIREES', THE AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF AFTER CALCUALTING THE DIFFERENCE.....

    So let us find answers for these grey areas to be ready to convey when need arises.....

    Reg single bench judgment, it may be too premature to comment..... we shall wait for the main case wh shall come before a full bench soon.....

    Case of pro-rating is only once? How twice?. Pl note after 5th CPC, there is a ceiling on "old-pension" in the name of "MODIFIED PARITY" .... so all prorating is wrt the "MOD PARITY only for old pensioners......unless you win the "POINT TO POINT' case in future , which will open up the Pandora's box again .......

    OLD PENSIONERS THEREFORE MUST DRAW A LINE SOMEWHERE AND BE CLEAR.
    SAY...... NO ARREARS- NOTIONAL FIXATION- NO RETROSPECTION- "AS ON DATE"......PRORATING WRT MOD PARITY BASE......THIS WD MEAN A REDRAFTING THE POLICY AS IF IT IS A NEW ONE...CABINET APPROVAL......JUST LIKE OUR 28 JAN 2013 MIN GUARANTEED PENSION "SCHEMED SCHEME"......

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 26-08-2013 at 07:21 AM.

  13. #93
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    As I understand Pensioners retiring after 01.01.2006 are entitled to FULL PENSION (i.e. 50 % of past ten months average pay or last pay drawn whichever is beneficial). Past Pensioners or pre-2006 Pensioners are entitled to fixation of their pension as per fitment formula as on 01.01.2006 subject to ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’.

    Further, Rule 49 deals with the requirement of 33 years service for Full Pension. In letter dated 03.10.2008 (while introducing pro-rating) it has been mentioned that this Rule 49 was applicable as on 01.01.2006 which is a wrong statement NOW because 33 years condition for Full Pension has also been removed w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (consequent to amended date from 02.09.2008 to 01.01.2006). As such Rule 49 (which was earlier applicable on 01.01.2006) is no more applicable on 01.01.2006.

    Since Pre-2006 Pensioners are not entitled to Full Pension, how Rule 49 can be made applicable to them? Also, pro-rating of ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ has neither been recommended by 6CPC nor Cabinet has decided the same. It is a simple case of Wrong Implementation of ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ which was accepted by Cabinet vide Resolution Item 12. I strongly feel that Pensioners Associations should point out the same irrespective to the on-going court cases.

    Please comment if I am wrong somewhere.

  14. #94
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    DEAR MAJ JAIN SIR/ OTHERS INTERETSED,

    Some clarifications/ my views:

    " As such Rule 49 (which was earlier applicable on 01.01.2006) is no more applicable on 01.01.2006".
    This statement / observation may not be correct. As on 3rd Oct 2008, the relaxation for the "trisanku pensioners (who retired between 1 1 2006 to 1 1 2009)" was still grey (pl note relaxation came only in Dec2009) and hence the OM of 3 Oct 2008 had no wrong statement.......

    After necessary amendment :
    RULE 49 SHALL STAND WITH THE REQUIRED AMENDMENT ON QS WHICH SHALL CHANGE FROM 33 YRS TO 20 YRS- for only those retiring from 1 1 2006 onwards.... for others (pensioners as on 31 12 2005) the earlier provision (33 qs) shall apply as there is no change notified for them.....ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC ORDERS MAY NOT SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTIONS.. Only Tribunals/ Courts can see the merits and law points and decide......

    Pl note till to day, the two core EXEC INSTRUCTIONS vide DOPPW's OMs viz first one dtd 1 9 2008 for pre 2006 pensioners (those pensioners/ family pensioners as on 31 12 2005) and the second one dtd 2 9 2008 could not be/ can not be quashed for various reasons.

    OM of 1 Sept 2008 had and will have no role to play in amending Rule 49 UNLESS WE WIN THE CASE IN TRIBUNALS AND COURTS...
    OM of 2 Sept 2008 had and eeffectively defined the changes required in pension rule in its para 5.3/ parts.. and took care to amend the RULE 49.

    When thre are no amendments, all Rules shall stand as they were existing before.

    OUR WISHFUL THINKING AND PRESUMPTIVE ANALYSIS HAVE TO STAND THE SCRUTINY OF THE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS AND ONLY FOR THIS PURPOSE WE REQUIRE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. OM OF 1 SEPT 2008 AND OM OF 2 SEPT 2008 AND THEIR EXTENSIONS ARE OUR WEAKEST DOCUMENTS..... They can not help us in any way......

    CONSEQUENTLY WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE....
    DO U HAVE IN HAND PPOs OF A FEW EXAMPLES --- TO SHOW THE "DISPARITY IN PENSIONS" ON EITHER SIDE OF REViSION AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGES IN QS (with 1 1 2006 as one datum and 1 1 2009 as another datum .....)? ... (I WOULD HAVE TRIED FOR SUCH EVIDENCES TO SCORE MY POINTS.... I WITB SHR VRAGHURAMAN DID A METICULOUS COLLECTION OF PPOs IT FOR THIS PURPOSE AND THE EXAMPLES DID FIGURE IN THE PR CAT JUDGMENT)

    May be a table at least is prepared and presented for appreciation of the Hon Judges.....

    Regards,
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 26-08-2013 at 11:56 AM.

  15. #95
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected VN Sir,
    Even the statement was correct as on 03.10.2008 but that statement is not correct as on date now in view of subsequent changes. Also, Rule 49 cannot be made applicable to pre-2006 Pensioners because they are not entitled to Full Pension. DOP&PW should have taken corrective measures accordingly.
    My views may be wrong.

  16. #96
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Respected Natarajan sir,

    - Why I am referring it as prorating twice is as in my own example, I was drawing a prorated pre 2006 pension and as per OM dated 1st Sept 2008 my pension after all fitment weightage etc. was less than the minimum pension of my grade (in fact less than minimum of Pay Band itself) and hence it was raised to meet minimum criterion and again prorated back to fix at lower pension. Is it not equivalent to prorating twice? Had the pension been higher than the minimum of grade after all fitment weightage etc., I suppose they would not have prorated again as the fixation was taken up with prorated pension to begin with. Kindly see para 4.1 and 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. As per para 4.1, we start with existing pension (prorated or otherwise). Also see clarification for para 4.2 in OM dated 3.10.2008 when-in, at the end it says if pension calculated as per 4.1 is higher than minimum then it stays and no prorating is mentioned here . Is it logical to prorate the minimum pension?
    - In the case of pre-1996 pensioners, may be it was OK(pro rating twice) as post 1996 pensioners themselves with lesser qualifying service were getting fixed at prorated pension. Again, is this logic correct?

    Also, my understanding of para 5.3 of OM dated 2.9.2008 is that the person becoming eligible for pension after completing 10 years of QS will also get full pension i.e. not prorated (is it as per para 5.6?)

    Request you to clarify..

    Regards, Managoli
    Last edited by tymanagoli; 26-08-2013 at 04:31 PM.

  17. #97
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri Managoli,

    EVEN IN THE OM DTD 28 JAN 2013 ON MIN GUARANTEED PENSION, PARA 5 NAILS THE ISSUE AGAIN BY STATING RULE 49 WILL OPERTAE AS IT WAS OPERATING EARLIER FOR PRE 11 2006 RETIREES.

    "5. The pension so arrived at in accordance with para 2 above and indicated in
    Co!. 9 of Annexure will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the
    maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
    1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3,500/- p.m".

    PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED I THINK ABOUT "FULL PENSION"...... FULL PENSION IS BASED ON LPD SUBJECT TO THE CEILING OF 2.26 ( para 4.1) OR MGP (para 4.2 modified now) FOR OLD PENSIONERS ...BUNCHING OF INCREMENTS/ MERGING OF SCALES INTO A PAY BAND DRAGS THEIR EFFECTIVE PENSION DOWNWARDS AND IT IS LSO A REDUCTION IN PENSION FOR MANY WHO HAVE DRAWN LARGE NUMBER OF INCREMENTS --- TOUCHED THE TOP OF SCALE AND EVEN GOT STAG INCREMENTS---MANY PRE 1986 /PRE 1996/PRE 2006 PENSIONERS ARE LIKE THAT ONLY.....

    OLD PENSIONERS SUFFERING DOUBLE PRO-RATING MAY BE IMMINENT.....ONLY DIFFCE IS WHETHER 20 YRS IN PLACE OF 33 YEARS COMES TO THEIR RESCUE.... SAY A PRE 2006 RETIREE WITH 20 YRS SERVICE WAS GETTING PRORATED PENSION ON A RATIO OF 20/33. IF THE CASE SUCCEEDS , HE MAY GET PRORATED PENSION ON A RATIO OF 20/20.... IF IT IS LESS THAN 20 ..SAY 15 YEARS , HE MAY GET PRORATIO ACCORDING TO THE FACTOR OF 15/20......... AGAIN ENTIRE THING WILL DEPEND UPON THE LIMIT OF THE PENSION ALLOWED SAY 2.26 MF OR MGP....

    Shri Sundarar or Shri MLK ji may be able to correct me if I m wrong........

    Regards ,

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 27-08-2013 at 07:44 AM. Reason: typo

  18. #98
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    MY VIEWS:

    I do not want to publicise my views here in detail as it may reach the destinations which may not be desirable......

    ONE POINT IS IMPT (this happens on every file dealing with such cases...)..... THE ADMIN WILL OPPOSE ANY RETROSPECTION TOOTH AND NAIL.... IT OPENS UP A PANDORA'S BOX AND SETS AN UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCE....... DO WE HAVE A READY LIST OF 20 YR PLUS/SUB 33 RETIREES....... SO RELIEF MAY BE LITIGATION-WISE LIKE SPL PAY CASES.... MORE LITIGATIONS...... MORE WASTAGE OF COURT TIME....AGAIN WHAT HAPPENS TO VRS RETIREES OF PRE 2006 ERA...... DO YOU RECOVER THE "5 YR BONUS" GIVEN TO THEM... HOW..... IN CASE OF "TRISANKU RETIREES', THE AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF AFTER CALCUALTING THE DIFFERENCE.....

    So let us find answers for these grey areas to be ready to convey when need arises.....

    Reg single bench judgment, it may be too premature to comment..... we shall wait for the main case wh shall come before a full bench soon.....

    Case of pro-rating is only once? How twice?. Pl note after 5th CPC, there is a ceiling on "old-pension" in the name of "MODIFIED PARITY" .... so all prorating is wrt the "MOD PARITY only for old pensioners......unless you win the "POINT TO POINT' case in future , which will open up the Pandora's box again .......

    OLD PENSIONERS THEREFORE MUST DRAW A LINE SOMEWHERE AND BE CLEAR.
    SAY...... NO ARREARS- NOTIONAL FIXATION- NO RETROSPECTION- "AS ON DATE"......PRORATING WRT MOD PARITY BASE......THIS WD MEAN A REDRAFTING THE POLICY AS IF IT IS A NEW ONE...CABINET APPROVAL......JUST LIKE OUR 28 JAN 2013 MIN GUARANTEED PENSION "SCHEMED SCHEME"......

    vnatarajan
    Respected Sir
    This is just w.r.t your point DO YOU RECOVER THE "5 YR BONUS" GIVEN TO THEM..
    Any refixation gets into what should be vs what is. In this case the '5 year bonus' is built in in the current pension. Hence arrears from whatever the date would be 50% - current 'prorated' pension.
    Does it not balance 'bonus' as you call it?

  19. #99
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Pension part is OK.
    What about the additional "one time retiral benefit" on account of the + 5 year effect ?... like Gratuity -- Leave Salary Component if any...
    Railways (pl chk --- I may be wrong) wrote off the difference between arrears and recovery amount from such VRs retirees.... as the amount involved might have been wrt few nos of pensioners and also amount might have been smaller.
    HERE ALSO WRITE OFF HAS TO BE INVOLVED.

    I am not sure if PN ji has noted para 5 of OM of 28 Jan 2013 - as this also needs to be neutralized ---pl note only PARA 5 OF THIS NEW MGP DEFINING OM.... not he OM itself like 3/14 oCt 20108 OMs.... (I am not sure if an additional affidavit was filed on this OM in PR CAT in the 20 yr case as done in our main case at.DHC).

    D Naga to kindly confirm/ chk.

    Regards
    VN
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 26-08-2013 at 08:42 PM. Reason: typo

  20. #100
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Justice against repeated Prorating for past pensioners with sub 32 years of QS

    Respected VN sir and all concerned,

    w.r.t Sri VNji’s post# 97 (OLD PENSIONERS SUFFERING DOUBLE PRO-RATING MAY BE IMMINENT.....), I have worked out a few cases in excel for seeing the effect of Double Prorating for pre-2006 pensioners and sent it to Sri VNji.
    Request him to give his view for the benefit of all.
    My observations/comments are:
    A. In the example case of pre-2006 S4 scale (post 2006 PB1 with GP 1800), almost all (except pensioners with 9 or more increments with 32 years of QS) sub 33 years service pensioners will draw lesser than MGP because of Double Prorating. Similar are the cases for other Pay Bands
    B. If multiple prorating continues, even pension of persons with 32 years of QS will be reduced again whenever the next pay/pension revision takes place. For instance, if in next revision, if the multiplication factor is 2.48 (assuming 15% hike over likely pension with DR of about 115%), the prorating may more than nullify the hike granted and thus placing the pre-2006 pensioners in more humiliating position.
    C. Can we seek justice from our Honorable judges to get at least the MGP as per the orders in OM dated 1.9.2008 (para 4.1 and 4.2). The clarification in OM dated 3.10.2008 and the para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013 have sought to deny the MGP to pre-2006 pensioners
    D. Why should we suffer perpetual prorating when the intension of SPC and the cabinet decision vide Gazette resolution dated 29.8.2008 are for providing MGP to past pensioners as modified parity (in fact full/point-to-point parity is recommended by Honorable justice Sinha as quoted by me in earlier post)


    Regards, Managoli

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... 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