+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 16 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 368

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

  1. #101
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Shri Tymanagoli/ Others interested,

    So long as MGP has a over-riding stipulation of QS for full pension none can do anything by sticking to a "wishful interpretation of the Gaz Notification of 29 08 2008 " unless u prove the credibility in the court of law.

    This is possible only at Higher Courts.

    Answers for all your doubts can be found only thru ur suggestion at "C" - that is what we are trying- after exhausting all channels.

    IN THE PAST,... EVEN AFTER V CPC ,... EVEN ELITE OLD PENSIONERS WERE SLEEPING AND NEVER CAME FORWARD TO FIGHT OUT THE ISSUEs.

    LEADERS ARE RARE AMONG the RETD HoDs/ higher echelons/ and even among retd Old Generals of he country... to take up afight for correct pension....to have a network with like-minded pensioners.... even now many do not have the patience to stand the wear and tear of the exercises and coordinate to maintain an effective net-work.......

    EVEN AFTER SIXTH CPC---MANY WERE STILL IN DEEP SLUMBER..... PL GO THRU THIS GCONNECT THREAD RIGHT FROM OCT 8, 2008 WHEN IT WAS STARTED.... ONLY FEW ACTVSTS SPREAD WARENESS AND TOOK UP THE DECISION TO FIGHT OUT THE ISSUES..... TILL THE END.....

    Many big Pensioners' Federations/ Associations.... try to be always in the good books of the authorities as they are very much part of the system to cater to employees demands .... and hence to score a few points for them, they ignore the Old Pensioners.....

    We are talking about double prorating....because we r affected now.... what about the older pensioners....?

    What about triple/ multiple prorating ... pre 1986.... pre 1996 cases

    Regdg the calculations, I am no expert on it ( I am a etd scientist pl...) Shri Sundarar/ Shri
    MLK ji who are the real experts.....pl consult them .....

    (I ONY SHINE IN BORROWED FEATHERS......)

    Regards,

    vnatarajan


    Dear Shri TM,

    To do justice for the nice exel table you had prepared on the double pro-rating effect, I have forwarded the same to all concerned for their perusal.Shri Sundarar had been splly requested to examine and do needful follow up as necessary if it is of value to the 20yr plus case.....
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 30-08-2013 at 05:23 AM. Reason: useful addition

  2. #102
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Sir,

    Kindly forward your Excel table by e mail to: [email protected]

    Regards,

    Imayan

  3. #103
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    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
    Dear Sir,

    1. The 6th CPC while recommending that the revised pension shall in no case be lesser than.......
    , has not prescribed any proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service and so the accepted and notified version too.

    2. That is the reason, the initial OM dated 1.9.2008 has not talked of proportionate reduction from the minimum guaranteed pension in any of its para based on length of qualifying service.

    3. It is the OM dated 3.10.2008 that suo moto prescribed for proportionate reduction based on
    length of qualifying service, from the minimum guaranteed pension, which MGP itself was a reduced quantum by virtue of 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale.

    4. While the OM dated 28.1.2013 has implemented the original para 4.2 of its initial OM dated 1.9.2008 as it is, but only with effect from 24.9.2012, the said OM continued with the provisions relating to proportionate reduction spelt out in OM dated 3.10.2008.

    5. The OM dated 3.10.2008 stands quashed from all legal angles and the contempt of court proceedings also within next 4 weeks, a final decision will keep the proportionate reduction part in silent mode. But since the OM dated 28.1.2013 stipulates proportionate reduction from MGP payable from 24.9.2012, the said final decision shall be a speaking one without any ambiguity. That means, FULL MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION, will then become payable but w.e.f. 1.1.2006 itself.

    6. In the light of D.S. Nakara spirit, the single homgenous status is not restricted to the extent of MGP only. If both pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners are to be treated as single homogenous class of pensioners and when pension is calculated based on last drawn emoluments and qualifying service,
    the manner and methodology in deriving the basic pension cannot be different.

    7. The D.S. Nakara based revised pension in the case of 10/20 years q.s. retirees of pre-2006, means
    50% of emoluments drawn at the time of retirement revised notionally w.e.f. 1.1.2006. That alone can be called FULL PENSION IN THE REVISED STRUCTURE.

    8. The Shetty Commission in the case of Judicial Officers, had prescribed 50% of emoluments revised from time to time, as basic pension.

    9. Since the proportionate reduction aspect is getting decided soon by the Courts, based on final
    implementation orders, we can decide further appropriate action.

    10. Had the whole pension revision underwent with application of a single uniform multiplication factor as in the case of S-30 and above, scopes for such anomalous situations would not have arisen. If the pre-revised pension is applied with a MF of 3/3+ or even 50% of bottom stage of pre-revised scale is multiplied with a MF of 3/3+, no such need for prescribing any FULL MGP or otherwise, would have arisen. Thus, the band based structure said to have been introduced to remove anomalies of scaled based structure, was excluded only for S-30 and above, to avoid any band based anomalies.
    Best Regards

  4. #104
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Thanks Sundarar for your points summarizing all aspects.

    Let us hope at least a "minimum" justice will be delivered by our Honorable judges.

    Again, as every senior citizen agrees, it is not the question of money. Why should we suffer humiliation in comparison to post 2006 pensioners who had lesser QS and who were not even promoted to our scales (there will be plenty of examples...There is no intention here to hurt any one’s feeling, as we all know, promotions, appreciations etc. depend on so many factors and are generally beyond one’s control. Most of us believe in putting sincere and honest effort and leave rest to the system...).

    Regards, Managoli
    Last edited by tymanagoli; 31-08-2013 at 09:53 PM.

  5. #105
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,

    While introducing the condition of 33 years service and pro-rating of ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ in r/o pre-2006 Pensioners vide DOP&PW letter dated 03.10.2008 it has been mentioned that:

    “the pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less that Rs. 3500/- p.m.”

    Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 can be accessed at the following link:

    http://persmin.gov.in/pension/rules/pencomp7.htm#Amount of Pension

    A careful reading of Rule 49 reveals that there in no mention of term “FULL PENSION” in this Rule. It simply mentions that after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty three years the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments. The amount of pension calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments has been assumed as “FULL PENSION” especially in view of Rule 49 (2)(b). Statements of this Rule are quite clear which explain the “Amount of Pension” applicable to future pensioners.

    On implementation of 6CPC the amount of pension is now calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments (or last pay drawn) after completing qualifying service of not less than twenty years and this change is applicable to the pensioners retiring after 01.01.2006. A period of 5 years has lapsed after the recommendations of 6CPC were implemented but Rule 49 has not yet been amended by Govt. Functionaries. Please consider a hypothetical situation as to how this Rule can be amended in the light of 6CPC implementation and to whom it will be applicable?

    Pre-2006 pensioners are entitled to ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity Scheme’ as mentioned in Resolution Item No. 12 and related para of 6CPC Report. In my opinion Rule 49 is not applicable to past pensioners and has wrongly been linked to pre-2006 pensioners.

    Warm Regards

  6. #106
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Sirs,

    I agree with Sri SK Jain’s last sentence as-for all past pensioners the pension is revised based on prorated pension (Rule 49 already applied) and hence it should be highly inappropriate to apply Rule 49 to pre-2006 pensioners(again).
    Request seniors Sri VNji, Sri Sundarar to comment on Sri SK Jain’s above post.

    Regards, Managoli

  7. #107
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    My views wh are personal are very clear.

    PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WITH LESS THAN 33 YEARS OF SERVICE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THEIR PPOs/ REVISED PENSIONS ASTER SCPC REVISIONs LONG BACK AND THEY HAVE SUFFERED WHATEVER WE MAY CALL DOUBLE PRO-RATING ETC.....

    Rule 49 remains. where it was for them. The bottom line QS for "full rated pension" remains at 33 years for pre 2006 pensioners.

    AS ON DATE THERE IS NO DOCUMENT WH CAN SUPPORT THEM SO EASILY. LATEST AVALABLE DOCU,MENT IS VERY DANGEROUS... (OM OF 28 JAN 2013)

    It is not comparable to Mod Parity case won by Pre 2006 Pensioners, where a deliberate alteration/ modification was proved beyond doubt in the courts of law, successively.

    PRE 2006 20 YR PLUS CASE IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT---IT HAS TO BE ARGUED BY COMPETENT COUNSELS MORE ON GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION AND NOT ON MERE VERBAL ARGUMENTS...


    ALL I CAN SAY IS....MUCH OF OUR EXECTATIONS ARE WISHFUL THINKING ... (that 20 yr bottom line QS rule for full rated pension is suo moto available to pre 1 1 2006 ......not at all pl.....CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED ....)

    RULE 49 IS VERY CLEAR AND IS A PART OF THE CCS PENSION RULES 1972. For pre 2006 pensioners, it remains where it was prior to 1 1 2006 .... nothing is changed....

    WE ARE MIXING UP ALL STEPOS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUREs TO MAKE A CONCOCTION AND ARRIVE AT A STIMUALTIVE DRINK TO FIND SOLACE.. to suit our expectations....!

    PL NOTE THAT :

    1.CABINET DECISONS ARE NOTIFIED THRU GAZ NOTIFICATIONS WHICH DEFINE THE "POLICY". THEY ARE NOT "RULES"- WHICH ARE TRIVIAL AT THIS STAGE/ LEVEL.
    2.IN OTHER WORDS THE GAZ RESOLUTION GIVES THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK , SAY A NEW ONE WHEN IT IS ISSUED, AND IT SUPERCEDES EARLIER ONES IN RESPECT OF THE STATEMENT MADE THEREIIN TO COVER A SPECIFIC PART OF EARLIER POLICY... SAY A NEW FORMULATION FOR CALCULATION OF PENSION.......
    3.WHERE IT DOESNT TOUCH ANY PAST RULES/ GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY IN PART OR FULL, THE SAME SHALL REMAIN UNCHANHED- NO PRESUMPTIVE CONCLUSION OR RETROSPECTION OF A NEW GUIDELINE SPECIFICALLY INTRODUCED FOR POST 1 1 2006 CASES IS POSSIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT MENTIONED IT.
    4. GAZ RESOLUTION IS FOLLOWED BY A MOTHER "EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTION OR OM" WHICH DEFINES THE POLICY FRAME WORK IN DETAILS IN THE FORM OF A SET OF RULE BASED GUIDELINES OR AMENDMENTS TO EXUISTING RULES.
    5.THIS EXEC INSTRUCTION CAN BE FOLLOWED BY FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS (IN THE CASE OF CLARIFICATIONS , MOs ENDORSEMENT IS ENOUGH)and /or MODIFICATIONS (IN THE CASE OF MODIFICATIONS THEY DO REQUIRE CABINET ENDORSEMENTS/ AND CAG APPROVALS)..

    Pl fit in all your orders in the above steps and see which are in order to support your case by ckear documentation/ record and which are not in order.

    Pre 2006 pensioners were governed by that part of the Rule 49 which defined the BOTTOMLINE as 33 years of QS for getting the 10 months average emoluments as the "full rated pension" for prorating purpose.

    IF THIS QS IS TO BE BROUGHT DOWN to 20 yrs QS OR is TO BE EXTENDED RETROSPECTIVELY BACKWARDS SUO MOTO prior to 1 1 2006 from what is prescribed now to post 1 1 2006 pensioners , WE MUST PRODUCE AN ORDER OR OM WHICH SUPPORTS US in the form of an amendment order to the said rule or provision to existing guidelines ...eg OM of 2 Sept 2006 for post 2006 pensioners... extension of this backwards not only up to 1 1 2006 but beyond that backwards to pre 1 1 2006 cases ..!

    It is not a tricky mathematical problem which can be resolved by "reduction ad absurdum...."

    WHERE IS SUCH AN AMENDING DOCUMENT- OM OR GUIDELINE OR CLARIFICATION?

    Even the latest OM of 28 1 2013 which is based on a HPC report (more powerful then Pay Commission Report) - acceoted by Cabinet- announced by PM in parliament etc clearly says in its para 5, that in so far as pre 2006 pensioners are concerned, Rule 49 remains where it was and it is UNCHANGED so far.....

    EVEN GOD CAN NOT SAVE YOU ( it is not my wish or anyone's wish), TRUTH IS HARSH..... that is why I had been cautioning right from day one----

    RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF RULE 49 IS NOT TO BE "IMAGINED" as if it is available on a platter to us.....- IT HAS TO BE PROVED.... THE GIVT HAD TO BEND AND EXTEND IT RETROSPECTIVELY BY CHANGNG THE DATE OF EFFECT FROM 2 9 2008 TO 1 1 2006 BECAUSE OF RETD COM OFFICERS AND LATER THEY HAD TO EXTEND THE SAME TO "TRISANKU PENSIONERS".....

    So this has to be quoted with documentation as a precedence for recognizing the INJUSTICE ISSUE to the courts and the plead for equal treatment among equals among the homogenous class of pensioners on either side of datum of revision......

    MUCH DEPENDS ON OUR COUNSELS AND CONVINICING THE COURT OF LAW.....

    PL DO NOT IGNORE THE HPC REPORT EFFECT/ OM 28 JAN 2013 PARA 5 EFFECT......

    Sorry for some frank remarks... bit they are required to wake ourselves up instead of being over-confident or complacent...

    SO OUR CASE HAS TO BE WELL PRESNETED- WELL ARGUED ......A DIFFICULT SITUATION BUT NOT THAT IT CAN NOT BE WON.....SHD WIN ON GROUNDS OF EQUALITY AMONG EQUALS AMONG THE HOMOGENOUS CALSS OF PENSIONERS.........

    Regards,
    vnatarajan

  8. #108
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Respected VN sir
    Thank you for your analysis, elucidation.
    I think - as I have quoted in earlier mails - even 6 CPC report carries historical data of all modifications to pension rules ( like 30 to 33, 50% etc) were applied universally on pre & post pensioner, but only from the date of implementation & not retrospectively.
    All pensioners were eligible for changes, the financial benefit from a uniform cut-off date. Our case is to maintain this practice -in line with pensioners being a homogeneous group .
    All pensioners to get full pension from 1-1-2006, in line with the above
    I think PNji is well briefed of the same, thus briefing our lawyer accordingly in presenting the case
    I would suggest-request not to do too much of analysis even in a 'private forum'' -it does not help, but may cause otherwise
    Regards

  9. #109
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    My experience is pensioners' don't listen when cautioned in time.
    28 Jan 2013 OM cd be a detractor.... especially when para 5 had been specifically brought in thru a Cab Decision.... THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF...
    Pl do not compare earlier CPC implementation orders with current SCPC orders...
    This is the first time separate OMs were issued as "EXEC INSTRUCTIONS for pre and post 2006 retirees dt 1 and 2 Sept 2006...
    (However I am not an affected pensioner..... but I am a well-wisher...)
    SO OVER-CONFIDENCE must be avoided.....
    vnatarajan

  10. #110
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear Shri VN,Others. I was not subscribing to this thread for quite some time. Today, when I opened it, I found a lively discussion going on. I am one of those who had been associated with the issue at hand namely, full pension at 20 yrs plus qualifying service. Let me remind every one that the issue generated from what is written there in item 12 of the Resolution dated 28.8.2008,duly accepted by the Union Cabinet, which I reproduce below, for convenience sake :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. Please note that here there is no mention that revised pension would be subject to reduction on pro rata basis if if qualifying service is less than 33 yrs.However, DOP OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 amended or modified this formula completely. It was this fact on which basis the case in CAT - PB was preferred by Shri Pratap Narain and others. Without any hesitation, it can be inferred that the prayer to the hon.ble CAT-PB has been made that the revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, when computed according to this formula, reduction in pension on pro rata basis, is not legally correct and should be struck down. I am certain, drawing any other conclusion,on the this case, would not at all be factual and correct.

  11. #111
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I agree with kanaujiaml.
    That is the correct and legalistic view.
    Good intentions of the Govt. as per resolution dt. 28.8.2008 cannot be highjacked by OMs dt. 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008.
    In any case, OM dt. 28.1.2013 is an after-thought.
    I think, Legal Counsel who is aware of these inconsistencies , would have to argue appropriately.
    PN will take care of this when the contempt case comes before Pr. CAT , I am sure.

    Imayan

  12. #112
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    I have already explained my views on the matter and cautioned on the grey area.
    POLICY DIRECTIVE APPROVED BY CABINET IS NOTIFIED THRU GAZETTE,
    If no details on QS are specifically mentioned, it doesn't mean that it shd be 20 yrs.
    EXTANT RULES WILL STAND UNMODIFIED.

    Govt has not hijacked any decision pl.......
    How many repeat "how many" OMs of 3rd Oct 2008 are quashed?

    MY CAUTIONING ON OM OF 29 JAN 2013 PARA 5 AND ALSO 8 MUST BE WELLL UNDERSTOOD PL.
    WHY IS IT TOUCHING RULE 49 SPECIFICALLY...... AT THIS POINT OF TIME.....IN JAN 2013? WE HAVE FAILED TO GET A COPY OF THE HPC REPORT NOR ANY DETAILS OF CAB NOTE PUT UP BY THE DEPT OF ESM WELFARE OF MOD WHICH IS A VITAL DOCUMENT IN THIS REGARD.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 04-09-2013 at 08:05 AM.

  13. #113
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    I have already explained my views on the matter and cautioned on the grey area.
    POLICY DIRECTIVE APPROVED BY CABINET IS NOTIFIED THRU GAZETTE,
    If no details on QS are specifically mentioned, it doesn't mean that it shd be 20 yrs.
    EXTANT RULES WILL STAND UNMODIFIED.

    Govt has not hijacked any decision pl.......
    How many repeat "how many" OMs of 3rd Oct 2008 are quashed?

    MY CAUTIONING ON OM OF 29 JAN 2013 PARA 5 AND ALSO 8 MUST BE WELLL UNDERSTOOD PL.
    WHY IS IT TOUCHING RULE 49 SPECIFICALLY...... AT THIS POINT OF TIME.....IN JAN 2013? WE HAVE FAILED TO GET A COPY OF THE HPC REPORT NOR ANY DETAILS OF CAB NOTE PUT UP BY THE DEPT OF ESM WELFARE OF MOD WHICH IS A VITAL DOCUMENT IN THIS REGARD.

    vnatarajan
    Dear Shri VN. I entirely agree with you.The CAT-PB Judgment dated 1.1.2011 has quashed OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, in respect of amendment/modification done in pension fixation formula for pre 2006 retirees and further asked refixation of revised pension in terms of item 12 of the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 and not in terms of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. This view was accepted by the hon.ble Dehi High Court and latter SLP preferred by UOI was also dismissed by the hon.ble Supreme Court.I may once again reproduce what has been said in item 12 of Resolution dated 29.8.2008 here for emphasis sake : 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. What I meant to say and I would repeat that here the words "reduction in pension on pro rata basis would be done" do not appear. It is also true that here words do not appear that "reduction in pension on pro rata basis would not be done ."
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 04-09-2013 at 09:30 AM. Reason: editing

  14. #114
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Dear Sirs
    While I appreciate, admire your interest, contribution, knowledge on the subject, may I request that we desist any further discussion in the open forum.
    Any such discussion could be within a select group of individuals.
    Thanks for understanding
    Regards

  15. #115
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    Dear Shri MLK ji/Shri D Naga/ Others Interested,

    No worry - we must learn to see how others look at our cases....
    I APPRECAIATE AND FULLY AGREE WITH SHRI MLK JI'S REMARKS...

    BUT NONE CAN HIDE THAT IN THE SAME GAZ RESOLUTION, AT SL NO 3 , THE ANNEXURE HAD NOTIFIED FIRMLY:

    "THE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PAYMENT OF FULL PENSION ON COMPLETION OF 2O YEARS OF QUALIFYING SERVICE WILL TAKE EFFECTIVELY PROSPECTIVELY .............."

    OM dtd 3 Oct 2008 Part 2 - carrying clarifications/ modifications on OM of 2nd Sept 2008 is yet to be dealt with. In the meanwhile OM of 28 Jn 2013 is carrying something undesirable at para 5...and also 8....

    We must note all our reliefs are coming only thru HPCs concerning OROP or enhancement of Military Pensions....
    IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR APPLYING THE 20 YR LIMIT WEF 1 1 2006 FOR "RETD COM OFFICERS" BASED ON RECO OF COM OF OROP THAT THE OM OF 3RD OCT 2008 PT II AMENDMENT OF PROSPECTIVE DATE WAS SHIFTED BACKWARDS TO 1 1 2006.... This only gave us the ground for venturing to seek further backward application of the date to cover pre 1 1 2006...... (I at least believe so....... Others may have different perceptions....this precedence is a documented one..... )

    As Shri Naga is cautioning again and agin, I am stopping here ---I have more points to raise.... but I do not want to raise them here...

    MY SUGGESTIN WAS TO STRENGTHEN THE CASE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE......

    Bye.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 04-09-2013 at 06:46 PM.

  16. #116
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    TODAY 17 TH SEPT 2013, THE 20 YR PLUS CASE OA 1165/2011 WITH TWO OTHERS IS COMING UP IN PR BENCH CAT DELHI FOR FINAL HEARING.

    ALL THE BEST FOR THE PRE 2006 PLUS 20 YRS PENSIONERS.

    vnatarajan

  17. #117
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    NDH is 9th Oct 2013.
    All the best.
    vnatarajan

  18. #118
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Breaking News-- as published in railway Pensioner's portal:

    “SLP filed by UOI in 3 other cases on Modified Parity (connected with SLP which had already been dismissed on 29-7-2013 - came up for hearing on 7-10-2013 in SC. The hearing was adjourned to 1-11-2013 without admitting the SLP. Request from ASG for stay on contempt proceedings was refused by the Bench.”

    If UOI does not issue orders effective from 1.1.2006 before 10.10.2013, they will face the contempt case.
    They have only 2 days in their oxygen tank !!!!

  19. #119
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Dear Imayan
    With reference to this thread kindly see post No. 117 by Shri VN Sahib.
    Gopal Krishn

  20. #120
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    My reference is re: SLP filed in Supreme Court---orders passed on 7.10.2013
    As the case has not been admitted yet, case number is not available.
    Last edited by Imayan; 08-10-2013 at 05:23 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 16 ... 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