+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 368

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

  1. #321
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Thanks for the info..

  2. #322
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Respected Sirs

    New Update on Pro Rata Pensioner's Association website:

    New Update(26/8/2015)

    Posted on August 26, 2015 by adminb37

    1. Rejoinder in case of removal of para-5 of OM dated 28-1-2013 has submitted to the Pr CAT-
    Delhi and respondent council.

    2. The case of 20 years full parity and 10 years full parity to be filed in sep-2015.

    3. It is listened from the resources that the case of 20 years is under consideration in DOPT
    after the decision of supreme court in the individual cases.


    4. Nothing is impossible if the pro-rata pensioners are united.


    (For your information )

    Regards
    Last edited by Monga J C; 27-08-2015 at 03:00 PM.

  3. #323
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Dear Shri Monga
    I am part of Shri Pratap Narain's group in <33 year's case ( already won in Delhi CAT. I am also part of the CP from S29 group in PR CAT.
    Is there one more group you are referring to If so who ar all there?
    Any other details?
    Thanks

  4. #324
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Dear Sirs, any update on Sri Inasu case in HSC on 26.08.2015?

  5. #325
    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
    Dear Shri Monga
    I am part of Shri Pratap Narain's group in <33 year's case ( already won in Delhi CAT. I am also part of the CP from S29 group in PR CAT.
    Is there one more group you are referring to If so who ar all there?
    Any other details?
    Thanks
    Respected Sir,

    I am sorry, I do not have any further knowledge about this group. I just happened to see this information on their website http://gsprpa.com/
    This, to me, seems an association of pensioners retired from DoT, MTNL, TRAI etc. Mr. Shaji Abraham may be in a position to give further insight as his name appears on one of the page as Joint Advisor, TRAI, Mob. 9818182970.

    With regards

  6. #326
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monga J C View Post
    Respected Sirs

    New Update on Pro Rata Pensioner's Association website:

    New Update(26/8/2015)

    Posted on August 26, 2015 by adminb37

    1. Rejoinder in case of removal of para-5 of OM dated 28-1-2013 has submitted to the Pr CAT-
    Delhi and respondent council.

    2. The case of 20 years full parity and 10 years full parity to be filed in sep-2015.

    3. It is listened from the resources that the case of 20 years is under consideration in DOPT
    after the decision of supreme court in the individual cases.


    4. Nothing is impossible if the pro-rata pensioners are united.


    (For your information )

    Regards
    Respected Sirs,

    In accordance with the CAT PR Bench Delhi directives dated 1.11.2011 in OA 655/2010 batch cases, pension of all pre-2006 pensioners shall be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008. The said pre-2006 pensioners include the Govt. servants on permanent absorption in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies who continue to draw pension separately from the Government. The pension of such absorbees will get updated in terms of DOP&PW OM dated 1.9.2008.

    Whereas, in accordance with DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008, `in cases where Govt. servants entitled to pension on completion of 10 years qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant'. The OM dated 2.9.2008 was given effect retrospectively from 1.1.2006 vide OM dated 10.12.2009. Similarly once a Govt. servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of twenty years pension shall be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the Govt. servant.

    That means, the Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as a whole is not applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to all retirees at the time of their retirement on or after 1.1.2006.

    While the said Rule 49 in respect of pre-2006 pensioners served its purpose in determining the basic pension of retirees at the time of retirement prior to 1.1.2006, the same Rule is enforced for effecting pro-rata reduction in Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 vide OMs 3.10.2008/14.10.2008 and para 5 of OM dated 28.1.2013, all of which stand quashed as on date.

    While the Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, has no linkage with a Minimum Revised Pension recommended and accepted by the Govt., on the other part, the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 also did not speak about the said Rule and no qualifying service criteria has also been prescribed vide the said Resolution.

    Under the circumstances, the pre-2006 pensioners (permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies) who were entitled to pension on completion of 10 years in accordance with Rule 49 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the Govt. servants retired with a qualifying service of 20 years and more are entitled to get
    Modified Parity based Minimum Revised Pension if the same is beneficial to them, without any proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service.

    The Modified Parity based Minimum Revised Pension under the extant orders is requested for, by all pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners..

    Discrimination in the same category of pensioners by prescribing different criteria, is not permissible in accordance with the D.S.Nakara case spirit.

    Regards

  7. #327
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Review petion 2565/2015 in HSC(UOI vs Inasu) listed for 26.08.2015

    Dear Sirs, I found the following info on the SC website:"Case-Pending". But in the case details, the pdf contents are:
    "S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
    R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015 IN SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015
    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s)
    VERSUS
    M. O. INASU Respondent(s)
    (with appln. (s) for c/delay and office report)
    Date : 26/08/2015 This petition was circulated today.
    CORAM :
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
    By Circulation
    UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
    O R D E R
    The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as
    well as on merits."

    What is the meaning of case-Pending?
    Has this case reached the legal finality?

  8. #328
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default Review petition in Supreme Court in Inasu case

    This case has attained legal finality on dismissal of Review Petition filed by the Govt. by the Supreme Court. Now based on this case pre-2006 pensioners can seek minimum pension without any proportionate reduction based on length of service. The only issue remains is whether the Govt. will implement the decision of the Supreme Court for all pre-2006 pensioners or the pre-2006 pensioners have to seek legal remedy. Now the effort should be on full parity.

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


    R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015
    IN
    SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015


    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)


    VERSUS

    M. O. INASU ... RESPONDENT(S)


    O R D E R


    Upon perusing the paper book, it has come to our notice that there is a delay of 136 days in filing this review petition and we do not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay.

    Even on merits, we have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this review petition.

    The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.



    .................................J.
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
    Signature Not Verified

    Digitally signed by
    Narendra Prasad
    Date: 2015.08.28
    14:54:57 IST
    Reason: .................................J.
    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]




    NEW DELHI;
    AUGUST 26, 2015.

    CHAMBER MATTER SECTION XIA

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015 IN SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015

    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    M. O. INASU Respondent(s)

    (with appln. (s) for c/delay and office report)


    Date : 26/08/2015 This petition was circulated today.


    CORAM :
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

    By Circulation


    UPON perusing papers the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.


    (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
    COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

    (Signed Order is placed on the file)



  9. #329
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shajimanamel View Post
    This case has attained legal finality on dismissal of Review Petition filed by the Govt. by the Supreme Court. Now based on this case pre-2006 pensioners can seek minimum pension without any proportionate reduction based on length of service. The only issue remains is whether the Govt. will implement the decision of the Supreme Court for all pre-2006 pensioners or the pre-2006 pensioners have to seek legal remedy. Now the effort should be on full parity.

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


    R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015
    IN
    SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015


    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)


    VERSUS

    M. O. INASU ... RESPONDENT(S)


    O R D E R


    Upon perusing the paper book, it has come to our notice that there is a delay of 136 days in filing this review petition and we do not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay.

    Even on merits, we have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this review petition.

    The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.



    .................................J.
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
    Signature Not Verified

    Digitally signed by
    Narendra Prasad
    Date: 2015.08.28
    14:54:57 IST
    Reason: .................................J.
    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]




    NEW DELHI;
    AUGUST 26, 2015.

    CHAMBER MATTER SECTION XIA

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015 IN SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015

    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    M. O. INASU Respondent(s)

    (with appln. (s) for c/delay and office report)


    Date : 26/08/2015 This petition was circulated today.


    CORAM :
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

    By Circulation


    UPON perusing papers the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.


    (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
    COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

    (Signed Order is placed on the file)


    Many thanks Sir. With this case achieving legal finality, let's hope the govt. implements the order at the earliest. But with OROP on one hand, and delay in 7 CPC, it is difficult to say what the govt. is upto. Let's hope for the best.

  10. #330
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monga J C View Post
    Many thanks Sir. With this case achieving legal finality, let's hope the govt. implements the order at the earliest. But with OROP on one hand, and delay in 7 CPC, it is difficult to say what the govt. is upto. Let's hope for the best.
    IMHO, the following are the probabilities going by past track..
    1, Govt will file a curative petition .. again after delay to keep on dragging
    2. It will accept to implement qua petitioner......
    3. It will drag other litigants also thru the same route appeal- slp - review- curative -qua... wasting both precious time & money

    It is advisable to launch as many cases as possible - quoting Nakara + ALL judgments including this one.
    Is it possible to provoke a PIL on waste of public funds on infructuous litigations?
    We get the Govt we elect..

  11. #331
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default

    The chances of Govt. filing a curative petition is dim as the the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only dismissed the Review Petition on merit but also the delay in filing the petition was not condoned. In fact not condoning the delay is a big factor. I am highlighting the grounds for Curative Petition as available in the wikipedia:

    The concept of Curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) where the question was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement/order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of a review petition.[1] The Supreme Court in the said case held that in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgements in exercise of its inherent powers.[2] For this purpose the Court has devised what has been termed as a "curative" petition. In the Curative petition, the petitioner is required to aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the review petition filed earlier and that it was dismissed by circulation. This has to be certified by a senior advocate. The Curative petition is then circulated to the three senior most judges and the judges who delivered the impugned judgement, if available. No time limit is given for filing Curative petition.[3]


    To entertain the curative petitions, the court has laid down certain specific conditions. Its laid down in order The requirements which are needed in order to accept the curative petitions are:
    1. The petitioner will have to establish that there was a genuine violation of principles of natural justice and fear of the bias of the judge and judgement that adversely affected him.
    2. The petition shall state specifically that the grounds mentioned had been taken in the review petition and that it was dismissed by circulation.
    3. The curative petition must accompany certification by a senior lawyer relating to the fulfillment of the above requirements.
    4. The petition is to be sent to the three senior most judges and judges of the bench who passed the judgement affecting the petition, if available.
    5. If the majority of the judges on the above bench agree that the matter needs hearing, then it would be sent to the same bench (as far as possible).
    6. The court could impose “exemplary costs” to the petitioner if his plea lacks merit.

  12. #332
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    The only doubt that was raised in the Misc. Application No.1228/2014 filed by DOP&PW and rejected by the CAT PR Bench, Delhi on 15.5.2014 as to whether the quashing of OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 would also affect the other decision contained in the said OMs, viz. proportionate reduction in pension based on length of service, repeatedly stands cleared by virtue of dismissals of SLPs and Review Petition by HSC in the case of pro-rata pensioners. Hence, no applicability of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for effecting pro-rata reduction in pension of a pensioner is allowed.

    The revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, therefore, shall in no case be lower than 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band and 50% of Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, irrespective of whether the pensioner had rendered 33 years or less than 33 years service.
    Last edited by sundarar; 30-08-2015 at 08:55 AM.

  13. #333
    Junior Member Avis2010 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    We are all one with you.
    How do we ensure and enforce this ?

  14. #334
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avis2010 View Post
    We are all one with you.
    How do we ensure and enforce this ?
    We have to allow some time to pass on after dismissal of Review Petition, to facilitate a final decision on further course of action.
    The issue is getting strengthened in favour of pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners day by day and there may be a situation that there is no other alternative
    but to implement the Court Orders for all pre-2006 pro-rata pensioners. Till then, we have to wait for some more time please.

  15. #335
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Thanks for the encouraging words

  16. #336
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Respected Sir

    From the website of Bharat Pensioners Samaj

    Proposed Agenda for 27th SCOVA meeting on 29th .09.2015


    Item No 4 in agenda:

    4. Incorrect implementation of of PCAT order dated 01-11-2011 in OA 655/2010, which quashed DOP & PW OM's of 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 & 11.02.2009

    "........PCAT order dated 01.11.2011 in order 655/2010 quashed DOP & PW OM's of 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 & 11.02.2009. Directing the govt. to revise pension of all pre 2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per OM 38/37/08 P&PW (A) dated 01.11.2008 which does not provide reduction of minimum guaranteed pension on pro rata to qualifying service. Thus para 5 of dated 28.01.2013 was in contradiction to PCAT judgement dated 01.11.2011 under reference, its continuation vide even no OM dated 30.07.2015 Para 4 amounts to contempt of Hon'ble PCAT which needs to be set right w/o any delay. ........."

    link: http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2015/09/p...a-meeting.html

    Regards

  17. #337
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default CASE No CWP 3423 of 2014

    Dear sirs, any idea as to what happened on 9.9.2015 for :PRO-RATA REDUCTION IN PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONRS -CASE No CWP 3423 of 2014

  18. #338
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    Dear sirs, any idea as to what happened on 9.9.2015 for :PRO-RATA REDUCTION IN PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONRS -CASE No CWP 3423 of 2014
    Next hearing on 16 Sept 2015

  19. #339
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Thanks Mongaji.. can you share your mail id [email protected]

  20. #340
    Member Monga J C is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    Thanks Mongaji.. can you share your mail id [email protected]
    Thanks, my mail id:
    [email protected]

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 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