+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 368

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

  1. #221
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Sundarar sir, any idea what happened to contempt petition by R C Garg on 3.3.2015?

  2. #222
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default OM dated 19.9.2014

    I have been trying to located O.M. dated 19.9.2014, but could not find. Anybody could help me with the link where this is available?

  3. #223
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    Sundarar sir, any idea what happened to contempt petition by R C Garg on 3.3.2015?
    Adjourned to 19.7.2015 pl.

  4. #224
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shajimanamel View Post
    I have been trying to located O.M. dated 19.9.2014, but could not find. Anybody could help me with the link where this is available?
    Both OMs 26.8.2014 and 19.9.2014 have not been uploaded in pensionersportal.gov.in website.
    May I know your e-mail id please.
    Thanks and Regards

  5. #225
    Junior Member shajimanamel is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Thanks Sir. My e-mail ID is shajimanamel@gmail.com

  6. #226
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Dear Sirs, any hearing took place on 09.03.2015?
    Managoli

  7. #227
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    Dear Sirs, any hearing took place on 09.03.2015?
    Managoli
    OA/1165/2011,MA/265/2015 AND MA2353/2014 WITH OA/247/2012 AND OA/2165/2011 posted 0n 3.3.2015 were adjourned to 9.3.2015,then to 10.3.2015 and again to 11.3.2015. But in the cause list of CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH for 11.3.2015 all these cases do not find aplace. What happened on 11.3.2015 is not known.

    ANY ONE FOLLOWING THESE CASES MAY PLEASE ENLIGHTEN.

  8. #228
    Junior Member rama1948 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11

    Default 20 yrs QS , Hearing on 12th March 2015

    Dear Friends,
    For a change, after spending the whole day in CAT, I am starting this mail on a positive note as we have sufficient reason to be happy.
    First of all, the Bench held a special sitting today afternoon exclusively for our case.
    Second, our Advocate gave a compendium of relevant verdicts of different Benches of CAT on this subject accepting the demand for removal of pro-rata reduction in pension, based on the Full Bench verdict dated 1-11-2011 quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008, 14-10-2008 and 11-2-2009 and directing implementation of GOI Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
    Third he also gave a compendium of various SC verdicts to bring out the that a homogenous group of pensioners can not be divided into two based on arbitrary cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the time of retirement, the benefit of its subsequent liberalisation cannot be denied to him. He then also highlighted that the argument of prospective implementation of this recommendation after 10/20 years of service to deny the benefit to pre 2006 pensioners is not valid as it only implies payment from that date and not to deny the same benefit from that date to those who had retired prior to that date, quoting various SC verdicts. Finally he dispelled the impression that Nakra verdict has been diluted by arguing that a five judge bench verdict can not be over ruled by less than a seven judge bench which has not happened. The distinction made is only in respect of one time payment like leave salary/gratuity which is on a different footing than pension which is a recurring payment subject to adjustment in line with similar payment to post retirees.
    He also drew the attention to the Full Bench verdict in S-30 allowing full pension without distinction between pre and post retirees.
    In reply the GOI Advocate drew attention to the submission made in their several applications before the Bench. This was effectively countered by our Advocate based on our own replies filed to GOI submissions from time to time. The arguments have thus concluded and the verdict is reserved. It may take about a month.
    It is our impression that the Bench was quite responsive to our submissions. Since we have been able to explain the legal position very effectively, I will not be surprised if I come back with some good news when the verdict is delivered. In the meantime, kindly join me in praying to the Almighty for our success.
    With regards,
    Yours sincerely,
    Pratap Narayan

  9. #229
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Great..At last we can hope for justice..

  10. #230
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rama1948 View Post
    Dear Friends,
    For a change, after spending the whole day in CAT, I am starting this mail on a positive note as we have sufficient reason to be happy.
    First of all, the Bench held a special sitting today afternoon exclusively for our case.
    Second, our Advocate gave a compendium of relevant verdicts of different Benches of CAT on this subject accepting the demand for removal of pro-rata reduction in pension, based on the Full Bench verdict dated 1-11-2011 quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008, 14-10-2008 and 11-2-2009 and directing implementation of GOI Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
    Third he also gave a compendium of various SC verdicts to bring out the that a homogenous group of pensioners can not be divided into two based on arbitrary cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the time of retirement, the benefit of its subsequent liberalisation cannot be denied to him. He then also highlighted that the argument of prospective implementation of this recommendation after 10/20 years of service to deny the benefit to pre 2006 pensioners is not valid as it only implies payment from that date and not to deny the same benefit from that date to those who had retired prior to that date, quoting various SC verdicts. Finally he dispelled the impression that Nakra verdict has been diluted by arguing that a five judge bench verdict can not be over ruled by less than a seven judge bench which has not happened. The distinction made is only in respect of one time payment like leave salary/gratuity which is on a different footing than pension which is a recurring payment subject to adjustment in line with similar payment to post retirees.
    He also drew the attention to the Full Bench verdict in S-30 allowing full pension without distinction between pre and post retirees.
    In reply the GOI Advocate drew attention to the submission made in their several applications before the Bench. This was effectively countered by our Advocate based on our own replies filed to GOI submissions from time to time. The arguments have thus concluded and the verdict is reserved. It may take about a month.
    It is our impression that the Bench was quite responsive to our submissions. Since we have been able to explain the legal position very effectively, I will not be surprised if I come back with some good news when the verdict is delivered. In the meantime, kindly join me in praying to the Almighty for our success.
    With regards,
    Yours sincerely,
    Pratap Narayan
    Thanks for the information. Let us pray and hope for the best.

  11. #231
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Post No. 186 by Shri NATARAJAN indicates that some case of full parity is also in progress. What is the latest?
    Gopal Krishan

  12. #232
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri GK ji / Interested

    As all may be aware by this time that the remand case of AIS30PA - that is OA 937/2010 is a full parity case - You all may rememeber that this was the lead s30 case of the 4 lot like oa 655 /2010 was the lead S29 case of 4 lot, all eight were being heard together in a bunch at pb cat way back in 2010-2011.

    This pre 2006 s30 case - oa 937/2010 plus others were heard by pb cat again based on remand order from dhc ad the same was decided in favour of the petitioners on 20 nov 2015 , allowing them "full parity" - in other wirds the pb cat ordered that their pension may be based on the baisis of "pay drawn instead of the minimum pay" in/of the pre-revised pay scale from whoch the pensioner had retired" .

    As some pre 2006 s29 petitioners were also involved and also the order was not explicit in providing relief wrt the present junior scale pensioners drawing more pension than old s30 retirees, a RP petition had been filed by the pensioners (rp/10/2015) seeking clarifications and the same will now come up after a couple of months or so. No CP had been filed by the petitioners and so the Govt is at ease!!!!

    Replying my RTI, the DOPW has stated that they will go for appeal in the HC .

    SO "FULL PARITY" CASE IS BOUND TO SUFFER DELAYS AND NOTHING OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE MAY HAPPEN BEFORE CPC REPORT........

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 16-03-2015 at 04:45 PM. Reason: typo/ editorial

  13. #233
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Dear Sirs, refer to the 'NEWS FLASH AND LATEST POSTS' at http://rscws.com/
    which says '• First SLP of Govt DISMISSED by Hon. Supreme Court Reg pro-rata Pension & for full Pension to Pre 2006 for less than 33 years & more than 20 years of service. (Ref M O Inasu's case dated 20 02 2015 - Copy of orders attached | Kerala High Court Judgement against the Order/Judgement in OA 715-2012 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, dated 16-08-2013 | SC Dismisses SLP reg Pro-rata Pension dt 20.2.2015 in Shri Inasu Case'
    Request Sri Sundarar and Sri VNji to comment/provide any other info available pending the judgement in OA/1165/2011

    Managoli

  14. #234
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rama1948 View Post
    Dear Friends,
    For a change, after spending the whole day in CAT, I am starting this mail on a positive note as we have sufficient reason to be happy.
    First of all, the Bench held a special sitting today afternoon exclusively for our case.
    Second, our Advocate gave a compendium of relevant verdicts of different Benches of CAT on this subject accepting the demand for removal of pro-rata reduction in pension, based on the Full Bench verdict dated 1-11-2011 quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008, 14-10-2008 and 11-2-2009 and directing implementation of GOI Resolution dated 29-8-2008.
    Third he also gave a compendium of various SC verdicts to bring out the that a homogenous group of pensioners can not be divided into two based on arbitrary cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the time of retirement, the benefit of its subsequent liberalisation cannot be denied to him. He then also highlighted that the argument of prospective implementation of this recommendation after 10/20 years of service to deny the benefit to pre 2006 pensioners is not valid as it only implies payment from that date and not to deny the same benefit from that date to those who had retired prior to that date, quoting various SC verdicts. Finally he dispelled the impression that Nakra verdict has been diluted by arguing that a five judge bench verdict can not be over ruled by less than a seven judge bench which has not happened. The distinction made is only in respect of one time payment like leave salary/gratuity which is on a different footing than pension which is a recurring payment subject to adjustment in line with similar payment to post retirees.
    He also drew the attention to the Full Bench verdict in S-30 allowing full pension without distinction between pre and post retirees.
    In reply the GOI Advocate drew attention to the submission made in their several applications before the Bench. This was effectively countered by our Advocate based on our own replies filed to GOI submissions from time to time. The arguments have thus concluded and the verdict is reserved. It may take about a month.
    It is our impression that the Bench was quite responsive to our submissions. Since we have been able to explain the legal position very effectively, I will not be surprised if I come back with some good news when the verdict is delivered. In the meantime, kindly join me in praying to the Almighty for our success.
    With regards,
    Yours sincerely,
    Pratap Narayan
    Thank you Pratap Narayanji and your team for this continuos and untiresome legal battle for Pre-2006 retirees.We pray sincerely to almighty for the positive verdict.

  15. #235
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Smile First slp in full mrp for pro-rata pensioners dismissed by hsc on 20.2.2015

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    The Hon. High Court of Kerala vide their Judgment dated 7.1.2014 while dismissing in limine the Writ Petitions (OP CAT No.8 of 2014 (Z) filed by DOP&PW against the Order/Judgment in OA 715/2012 of CAT Ernakulam Bench dated 16.8.2013 of Shri M.O.Inasu case decided as follows:

    "ISSUES RAISED IN THESE ORIGINAL PETITIONS STAND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PRINCIPAL BENCH OF THE CAT IN OA NO.655/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN WP (C) NO. 1535 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES BY FOLLOWING A DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT SLP FILED AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE FAVOURABLE SUPREME COURT. WE ARE ALSO SHOWN A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT DATED 29.7.2013 DISMISSING SLA (C) NO.13280 OF 2013 AND SLP (C) nO.23055 OF 2013 FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THOSE DECISIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANYWAY TO DISAGREE WITH THEM. THESE ORIGINAL PETITIONS, THEREFORE, FAIL. THEY ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED in limine".


    Subsequently, the Hon'ble Tribunal issued order dated 8.4.2014 in CP/180/00020/214 in OA No.715/2012. It is mentioned in the Order that "When this Contempt Petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in the above Original Application".

    The above compliance by way of issuing Revised Calculation of Pension vide letter dated 7.3.2014 was followed by an addendum dated 13.5.2014 with an additional provision as follows:

    NOTE: "THE REVISED AUTHORITY IS ISSUED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.8.2013 AND THAT THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE OP (CAT)/SLP THAT MAY BE FILED BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA/HON. SUPREME COURT"
    The Special Leave to Appeal .../2014
    CC 21044/2014 (SLP 6567-6568) Dismissed on 20.2.2015
    Union of India vs Shri M.O.Inasu
    Extract of Order dated 20.2.2015

    "WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, WHICH IS DISMISSED".


    One of the Prayer in OA 715/2012 filed initially by Shri M.O.Inasu is as follows:

    "The Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had quashed the OM dated 03.10.1998 and 14.10.1998 and as such those Oms are no more in force. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is applicable to the applicant also as it is a judgement in rem".

    As rightly pointed out, the decision of the Hon. Tribunal being a Judgment in REM,
    is applicable to all pre-2006 pensioners including those who rendered less than 33 years qualifying service at the time of retirement, and as such, the pension of all the said pre-2006 pensioners is required to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on Resolution dated 29.8.2008 without any proportionate reduction in pension based on length of qualifying service. The OA with the said prayer has been allowed and the Hon. HC Kerala has also upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam Bench and at present, the SLP filed against the Judgment of Hon. HC Kerala, also stands dismissed by the HSC.


    Every pensioner is not to be expected to enter into litigation exercise, for implementation of the directives of the Courts, particularly when the Judgment dated 1.11.2011 is in REM. The dismissal of 3 SLPs 36148-50/2013 in 3 out of 4 cases of OA 655/2010 batch on 17.3.2015 also upheld the CAT PR Bench verdict 1.11.2011 and thus keeping in view the dismissal of SLPs in both Modified Parity based MRP as well as Modified Parity based Full MRP without any proportionate reduction for those who rendered less than 33 years qualifying service, a fresh OM in compliance with the directives of the Highest Court of Land, is expected and prayed for.

    BEST WISHES TO ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS COMMUNITY

  16. #236
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    The Judgment in Shri P.K. Bhargavan Pillai stated as follows:
    CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH
    O.A.No.747/11
    Monday this the 23rd day of January 2012
    "6. [B]The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and
    11.2.2009[
    /B] (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). Thus the stipulation that
    the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated
    3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by
    the respondents stands already quashed.
    Order dated 11.2.2009
    (Annexure R-11) which only reiterated the clarification contained in OM
    dated 3.10.2008 and earlier OM dated 1.9.2008 having also been quashed
    by the Full Bench,
    in the case of the applicant his entitlement remains
    intact at Rs.10500/- and the reduction communicated and executed vide
    Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 has thus become erroneous as the basis for such reduction itself is no longer available.

    The Honble High Court of Kerala in Union of India & Ors. Versus P.K. Bhargavan Pillai & Anr. [OP(CAT) Nos.1767/2012, 1872/2012 and 236/2013 decided by a common order dated 22.05.2014] wherein the Honble High Court has held as under:-

    "3. When these matter was taken up today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in OP 1767/2012 the issue at hand stands covered by judgment of this Court, which is produced as Ex.R1(A). It is pointed out that this court followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which in turn had followed the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High court on the very same issue. It is also pointed out that the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and special leave petition was rejected.

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to establish before us any reason why we should not follow the judgment of this court, which is produced as Ex.R1(A). In such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view". These petitions will stand dismissed.

    .........
    A timely decision by the concerned authorities suitably, will avoid further litigation exercise in a matter that attained legal finality by the highest court of land, and thereby could l save time end effort of the Judiciary.
    A Review Petition No. RP 741/2014 filed against the above Judgment of Hon. HC Kerala in respect of Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai was dismissed on 24.2.2015 by the Hon. HC Kerala.

    "5. The learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners pointed out that the respondent in OP(CAT). No.8 of 2014 and the first respondent in the instant case are not similarly placed and that therefore, the original petition needs to be decided afresh on merits.

    6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the respondent in OP(CAT). No.8 of 2014 and the first respondent in this case are similarly placed. According to him, both of them are Central Government pensioners who retired prior to the year 2006 and both of them were granted the very same relief by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

    7. Since it was contended by the review petitioners that the first respondent herein and the respondent in OP(CAT).No.8 of 2014 are not similarly placed, we called for the records in OP(CAT).No.8 of 2014. On a perusal of the records in OP(CAT).No.8 of 2014, we are satisfied that the first respondent herein and the respondent in that case are similarly placed.

    8. In the said circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the records to warrant interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. The review petition, in the said circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed"

    There are so many other similarly placed pro-rata petitioners retired prior to 1.1.2006 from Central Government who are non-litigants and it is not to be expected that each and every aggrieved pensioner on same issue that attained settled legal position, need to enter into repeated litigation exercise which will enhance additional time consumption and efforts of valuable judiciary to repeatedly reiterate the already settled legal position.

    Keeping in view the dismissal of SLP filed against Hon. HC Kerala Judgment in (Shri M.O.Inasu) OP (CAT 8/2014, on 20.2.2015 by the HSC, a timely decision by the concerned authorities suitably, will avoid further litigation exercise in a matter that attained legal finality by the highest court of land.

  17. #237
    Junior Member esveepee is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Depends upon the financial implications, coming on top of the OROP liability of Rs. 8000 crores (?) for defence personnel. The Govt is probably in a bind and may recommend payment of revised pension wef, say, 01 April 2015 and purchase of bonds by way of arrears. Or keep the issue alive for a suitable recommendation by the 7th CPC....

  18. #238
    Junior Member vishwapurna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default Victory for pre-2006 pensioners with 20 years of service for full pension

    I am re-producing the reply received from Mr.Pratap Narayan, the pioneer of legal battle for getting full pension for pre-2006 pensioners with 20 years of service.
    QUOTE:
    Yes I have received the copy of the verdict running into 20 pages. I do not have the soft copy t be able to forward to you. I am, however, reproducing below the operative part of the verdict for your information:
    Quote
    13. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara (supra), V.Kasturi (supra), T.S.Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA937/2010 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 impunged orders dated 3.10.2008 and 19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Hon'ble 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 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 20years) will 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.
    Unquote
    Pratap Narayan

    THANKS TO MR.PRATAP NARAYAN FOR HIS UNTIRESOME LEGAL BATTLE FOR GETTING THE JUSTICE.

  19. #239
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Hearty congratulations to Sri Pratap Narayan and team. We are curious to know the details in the verdict. Request Sri Pratap Narayan to share the soft/scanned copy of the verdict.
    Thanks, Managoli(managolity@hotmail.com)

  20. #240
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    Hearty congratulations to Sri Pratap Narayan and team. We are curious to know the details in the verdict. Request Sri Pratap Narayan to share the soft/scanned copy of the verdict.
    Thanks, Managoli(managolity@hotmail.com)
    Full judgement can be seen at CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH JUDGEMENT SECTION.CASE NO.
    OA1165/2011.DATE OF JUDGEMENT 21.04.2015.JUDGES.RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J)
    and P.K.BASU,MEMBER(A)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... 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