+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 368

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

  1. #41
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Pre 2006 20 plus/33 minus yrs retirees,

    Shri D Naga or Shri Sundarar may be able to give the factual position.
    But Shri Sundarar is on the move to Kudangulam and hence his activity in the networking is paralysed.

    It was with great difficulty that a core group had been formed under Shri Pratap Narayan (President, CGS29PA- for which I am the Sr Vice President) who himself is a pre 2006 marginal sub 33 ye retiree of S29 Grade. THE GROUP IS LUCKY TO HAVE HIM AS THE LEADER.

    Instead of beating around the bush, all interested must join him and strengthen his hands in large numbers to fight out this issue- and in this regard my initial notes/ posts can be seen in this or parallel thread on the topic.

    As on date, perhaps two CATs have given favourable verdicts for the solo incumbeents who went for justice. One Dr Bhargavan Pillai at CAT Ernakulam and second one is perhaps Shri Bhat's, Retd IPS at Bangalore CAT. These judgments are available in CAT websites as well as with the two pioneers whom I have named above.

    PL DO NOT EXPECT MIRACLES TO HAPPEN AND THAT THE CAT'S JUDGMENTS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED SO SOON.
    EVEN IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED "BY MISTAKE" OR "ERRONEOUSLY", EACH AND EVERY ONE OF "SIMILARLY AFFECTED" HAS TO GO TO TRIBUNALS AND COURTS TO GET JUSTICE FOR THEMSELVES.

    I BELIEVE THE CASE OF THE PLUS 20 YRS GROUP HEADED BY SHRI PRATAP NARAYAN JI (ABOUT 35 IN NO)- VIZ OA 1165 OF 2011 AT PR BENCH CAT DELHI MAY BE COMING UP BY 7TH MAY 2013- IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS - AT THE PR BENCH CAT DELHI. THE TWO MEMBER BENCH AHD REMARKED IN THE LAST MEET THAT THEY SHALL AWAIT THE DHC VERDICT OF THE MAIN MOD PARITY CASE at the DHC (happened on 29 04 2013)

    Now that the main Mod Parity case of CGS29PA had been won by the PRE 2006 PENSIONERS in a resounding fashion, I hope the PLUS 20 YRS GR CASE AT PR BENCH CAT MAY HAVE a better foothold, as the two CAT verdicts (PILLAI/BHATT) can also be utilised to reinforce the same. My assessment is - a difficult case- PN ji's affidavit is very powerful- as of now 50 - 50 for : against- strength because of the MOD PARITY victory also)

    I WOULD ADVISE THAT THoSE WHO CAN BE GOOD "LEADERS" IN VARUOUS LOCALES MUST BE CAPABLE OF BUILDING UP NUMBERS AND ADD THEM TO THE MAIN GROUP.
    SHRI PN JI'S GR IS THE LEAD GROUP AND ALL SHD FALL INLINE WITH HIS GROUP.

    PL TRY TO ENHANCE THE NUMBERS TO AROUND 150 OR SO - SO THAT THIS CASE WH WILL GO UP TO HON SC CAN BE FOUGHT TO THE END.

    (SHRI R S SUBBA RAO FOLLOWED MY SUGGESTION AND OVE 4 YRS BUIL THE "SIGNIFICANT GROUP" OF S21-23 NOW FIGHTING THE CASE AT CAT DELHI AND CAT MUMBAI (ANOTHER GR).

    Hope you will not mistake my interruption - but thn someone has to make some "constructive suggestion" - show the moves to work out an "action plan" and follow up.

    PL TAKE SHRI D NAGA'S AND SHRI SUNDARAR'S ADVICES - INVOLVE THEM- JOIN WITH SHRI PN JI'S GR AND GO AHEAD.

    Regards,
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 04-05-2013 at 07:43 PM.

  2. #42
    Member nchandras is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Dear Mr Natarajanji
    Firstly I am extremely grateful to u for having given all insight into the case. It therefore, can never be an interruption. I do not know, how and from where u have got all these inputs. I would be obliged if u could share the OA numbers of both the cases cited by you to enable me to go thro the CAT website.

    It is a fact that if and when Govt chooses to implement the judgement they will do it only for those who had sought legal remedy. There are apex court judgements, that similarly placed employees and affected personnel should be given the same benefit by the Govt stating that they should not be asked by Govt to seek justice again from the Courts. But, despite knowing this pronouncement by the supreme court, the BABUS ensure that each obtain a separate court verdict.

    I WISH TO JOIN WITH SHRI PN JI'S GROUP AND ALSO TRY TO BUILD NUMBERS OF SIMILARLY AFFECTED PERSONS IN AND AROUND OUR AREA SO THAT TASK UPTO APEX COURT BECOMES A REALITY.

    I AM ALSO AFFECTED IN S 21 - 23 CASE AND CANVASSING/BUILDING UP NUMBERS TO EITHER JOIN WITH CAT DELHI OR MUMBAI (FILED BY BARC0

    Thanks Shri Natarajanji for all the inputs and I shall await any further advice pl

  3. #43
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Pl see the post 35 for Bhargavan Pillai's judgment details , get the OA no and download the full judgment from the CAT webiste.
    Reg Bhat's , let me see if I acn furnish the details in the next post.
    Shhri D Naga may guide you reg other doubts you have raised.
    The OMs of 28 Jan and 13 Feb need not take cognisance of the CATs verdicts in 20 yr plus cases, as in so far as Govt is concerned even OMs of 3rd and 14 Oct 2008 are in order and hence the rules pertaining to 20 Yr plus cases existing prior to i i 2006 remain unchanged.

    Unless u challenge the OM of 2nd Sept 2006 wh is discriminatory as it speaks only of post 2006 incumbents and soes not provide for pre 1 1 206 retirees, nothing will change the status quo!
    PL NOTE THAT NONE OF THE TWO 20 YR PLUS JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED SO FAR AS I CAN MAKE OUT.
    THERE IS ALSO NO SCOPE FOR THEIR IMPLEMENTATION TILL THE PN JI GROUPS CASE AT PR BENCH CAT IS DECIDED.
    IN ANY CASE, THE BATTLE WILL CONTINUE FOR LONG. IT IS IN THE VERY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
    vnatarajan

  4. #44
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    In contn of the above post pl:

    All concerned may note, apart from the above two pro-verdicts, ther is also an anti-verdict.

    The OA no and related details are given below:

    Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
    Dr.M.S.N Balasubramaniyan vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2013
    RNAKULAM BENCH

    O.A. NO. 349/12
    Thursday, this the 31st day of January, 2013

    THOUGH THE FINAL VERDICT IS AGINST THE OA, A RIDING CLAUSE THAT VERDICT OF THE THE GOVT'S WP C IN 1535 OF 2012 MUST BE AWAITED. Now that the final verdict has come, this case gets a new life.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now here is Shri PN ji letter reg the main case progressing under his guidance, for your informationj::
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Friends
    The case was taken up today before CAT. The GOI Advocate mentioned
    that the hearing of the Writ in DHC against CAT verdict dated
    1-11-2011, quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008 and 14-10-2008 and granting
    modified parity, has been now scheduled for 29th April 2013 and
    therefore the hearing of this OA should be taken up after that. He
    also mentioned that he had already filed GOI reply against the third
    OA filed in this regard on behalf of S.B.Roy and others.
    2. At this, our Advocate mentioned that even though at the last
    hearing GOI Advocate had mentioned that the reply had been filed, its
    copy had yet not been furnished to us. At this the Bench directed GOI
    to supply copy to our Advocate today itself and we should file our
    Rejoinder within 4 weeks.
    3. Our Advocate also mentioned that our OAs can be taken up for
    hearing without waiting for the outcome of the case of modified parity
    in DHC as the two issues are independent of each other. However, the
    Bench after discussion amongst themselves felt that but for the issue
    of clarification dated 3-10-2008, which for the first time brought in
    the concept of prorata reduction, just as it brought in the
    formulation of minimum of the pay in the pay
    band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay), pre 1-1-2006
    pensioners having retired after 20/10 years service would not have
    been subjected to prorata reduction. And since OM dated 3-10-2008 has
    been struck down by CAT and which is subject of Writ in DHC, the Bench
    felt that the decision in that case in DHC will also have a bearing on
    this case. Consequently, the next hearing has now been scheduled for
    7-5-2013 i.e. after knowing the outcome of the case in DHC on
    29-4-2013. The Bench also directed that all written submissions should
    be completed by both the sides well before that date.
    4. A copy of GOI Counter mentioned in para 2 above was made available
    to our Advocate today, which is being studied by him to enable us to
    prepare the Rejoinder. In the meantime, this is for your information.
    With regards,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am searching for Bhat's case verdict.

    vnatarajan

  5. #45
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    In further contn of he above, what I cd get reg Shri Bhatt's case;

    OA NO 167/2010 AT cat bgl. jUDGMENT DTD 25 01 2012.

    This is one of the TWO CAT orders which has allowed the petition
    >> for granting “FULL PENSION AND NOT PRO-RATA PENSION FOR PRE 2006
    >> PENSIONER-
    >> PETITIONER WHO HAD COMPLETED 20YRS BEFORE TAKING VRS.....:”
    >>
    >> This petition has been allowed by the Member A of CAT, Bangalore
    >> on
    >> OA 167 / 2010 vide Order dt 25 01 2012.
    >>
    >> EXTRACTS OF RELIEF’S SOUGHT AND ORDER OF THE CAT BGL ARE REPRODUCED FURTHER
    >> BELOW.
    >>
    >> ( What is strange is: The Order pronounces: “Counsel for the
    >> respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for the
    >> OA
    >> to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.” )
    >>
    1.Reliefs sought;
    >>
    >> 8. RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR:
    >> In view of the facts stated above, the applicant
    >> prays
    >> that This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
    >> 1) Quash:
    >> (a) The 2nd clarificantion/modification in regard to para 4.2
    >> of
    >> R-1’s OM F No. 38/37/08-P &PW (A) dt 1.9.2008 (Annexure-A/4) Made by
    >> R-1’s
    >> OM F. No. 38/37/08 P&PWpt. 1 dt. 3.10.2008
    >> (Annexure A/6) which reads as under:
    >>
    >> The pension will be reduced pro-rata where the
    >> pensioner
    >> Has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule
    >> 49
    >> of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as applicable on 1.1.2006.
    >>
    >> And Note-1 below the annexure thereto.
    >> (b) Note-1 below Annexure 1 to R-1’s OM F.No. 38/37/08-P &PW
    >> (A)-pt.1 dt 14.10.2008 (Annexure A/7) which reads as under:
    >>
    >> Note-1: As per para 4.2 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dt. 1.9.2008,
    >> The revised pension of hose who retired after completing maximum required
    >> qualifying service (i.e., 33 yers) before 1.1.2006 cannot be less than
    >> the
    >> pension indicated in column 8 above (i.e. 50% of the sum of Minimum of
    >> Pay
    >> Band and Grade pay/scale corresponding to the Scale of pay the pensioners
    >> held at the time of their retirement). The Pension in Col.8. above will
    >> be
    >> reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required
    >> qualifying service (i.e., 33 years) for full pension as per Rule 49 of
    >> the
    >> CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as applicable on 1.1.2006.
    >> (ii) Declare that R-1’s O.M. No. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dt.
    >> 10.12.2009 (Annexure-A/10) is violative of art. 14 of the Constitution
    >> to
    >> the extent It restricts the benefit of dispensing with the linkage of
    >> full
    >> pension with 33 years of qualifying service. to those who retired on or
    >> after 1.1.2006, And excludes the pre-2006 pensioners from the said
    >> benefit;
    >>
    >> (iii) Declare that pre-2006 pensioner who has rendered a
    >> qualifying Service of 20 years, is entitled to revised pension at 50% of
    >> the
    >> minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to
    >> the
    >> pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner retired;
    >>
    >> (iv) Direct the respondents to refix pay w.e.f.
    >> 1.1.2006,applicant’s revised pension at Rs. 23,150.00 p.m. i.e., at 50%
    >> of
    >> the pay in the pay Band plus the grade pay corresponding to the
    >> pre-revised
    >> pay scale From which the applicant had retired; and
    >>
    >> (v) grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon’ble
    >> Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances, including costs.
    >>
    >> 9. INTERIM PRAYER
    >> Stay the operation of (i) the aforesaid 2nd
    >> clarification/modification in regard to para 4.2 of R-1’s OM F. No.
    >> 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dt. 1.9.2008 (Annexure-A/4) made by R-1’s OM F. No.
    >> 38/37/08-P&PW (A). pt. 1. Dt. 3.10.2008 (Annexure – A/6) and Note-1 below
    >> the Annexure hereto and (ii) the aforesaid Note-1.
    >>
    >> 2. ORDER OF THE CAT
    >> SINGLE
    >> JUDGE – MEMBER A
    >>
    >> SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)
    >>
    >> 1. The learned counsels on both sides are present and the
    >> learned
    >> counsel for the applicant submits that this matter is squarely covered by
    >> the judgement of the Principal Bench in OA.655/2010. The learned counsel
    >> for
    >> the respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for
    >> the
    >> OA to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.
    >>
    >> 2. Consequential prayer at para 8(3) & (4) are allowed. The
    >> respondents department shall carry out the fresh pension fixation and
    >> pass
    >> necessary order within a period of 2 months from the date of this
    >> judgement.
    >> No order as to costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vnatarajan

  6. #46
    Member R.Devaraju is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Dear Shri.Natarajan Sir,
    I am seriously affected by the option given at the time of absorption for counting past service. You are aware of the the facts that counting past service was beneficial and so everybody opted for that. Even many employees who had opted for pro-rata pension were all along fighting legally for counting service and Govt. has given one time option for change of option in 1999. But it is no longer attractive that too after 1.1.2006. Now I want to change my option for pro rata pension but it is not accepted by parent department. I have made an appeal to The Dept of pension. I feel that the Govt can give a special chance for revising their option as it gave in 1999. Kindly advise me to include in the cases jointly filed by pensioners. I think there may be several affected pensioners like me.

    R.Devaraju
    Phone: 24864841 cell: 9445644841.
    Last edited by R.Devaraju; 06-05-2013 at 08:58 PM.

  7. #47
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Re: OA No. 167/2010 and the related judgement dt. 25.1.2012, CAT ,Bangalore's Judgements site says: " Judgement not found".
    What could be the reason ?

    Imayan

  8. #48
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Means it is not yet loaded- VN

  9. #49
    Member nchandras is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    44

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

    Dear Shri Natarajan Ji
    Thanks a ton for your prompt input to my query. I cannot but appreciate the depth of ur knowledge in such matters.


    Govt instead of dragging the pensioners to court, for seeking remedies on such issues could utilise ur expertise so that interpretation of the rules are appropriate.

    Thanks once again for your prompt reply post pl. In case u come across the fate of CAT kerala verdict kindly post the details

    Chandrasekar


    All concerned may note, apart from the above two pro-verdicts, ther is also an anti-verdict.

    The OA no and related details are given below:

    Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
    Dr.M.S.N Balasubramaniyan vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2013
    RNAKULAM BENCH

    O.A. NO. 349/12
    Thursday, this the 31st day of January, 2013

    THOUGH THE FINAL VERDICT IS AGINST THE OA, A RIDING CLAUSE THAT VERDICT OF THE THE GOVT'S WP C IN 1535 OF 2012 MUST BE AWAITED. Now that the final verdict has come, this case gets a new life.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now here is Shri PN ji letter reg the main case progressing under his guidance, for your informationj::
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Friends
    The case was taken up today before CAT. The GOI Advocate mentioned
    that the hearing of the Writ in DHC against CAT verdict dated
    1-11-2011, quashing OMs dated 3-10-2008 and 14-10-2008 and granting
    modified parity, has been now scheduled for 29th April 2013 and
    therefore the hearing of this OA should be taken up after that. He
    also mentioned that he had already filed GOI reply against the third
    OA filed in this regard on behalf of S.B.Roy and others.
    2. At this, our Advocate mentioned that even though at the last
    hearing GOI Advocate had mentioned that the reply had been filed, its
    copy had yet not been furnished to us. At this the Bench directed GOI
    to supply copy to our Advocate today itself and we should file our
    Rejoinder within 4 weeks.
    3. Our Advocate also mentioned that our OAs can be taken up for
    hearing without waiting for the outcome of the case of modified parity
    in DHC as the two issues are independent of each other. However, the
    Bench after discussion amongst themselves felt that but for the issue
    of clarification dated 3-10-2008, which for the first time brought in
    the concept of prorata reduction, just as it brought in the
    formulation of minimum of the pay in the pay
    band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay), pre 1-1-2006
    pensioners having retired after 20/10 years service would not have
    been subjected to prorata reduction. And since OM dated 3-10-2008 has
    been struck down by CAT and which is subject of Writ in DHC, the Bench
    felt that the decision in that case in DHC will also have a bearing on
    this case. Consequently, the next hearing has now been scheduled for
    7-5-2013 i.e. after knowing the outcome of the case in DHC on
    29-4-2013. The Bench also directed that all written submissions should
    be completed by both the sides well before that date.
    4. A copy of GOI Counter mentioned in para 2 above was made available
    to our Advocate today, which is being studied by him to enable us to
    prepare the Rejoinder. In the meantime, this is for your information.
    With regards,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am searching for Bhat's case verdict.

    vnatarajan[/QUOTE]

  10. #50
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Tomorrow viz 7th May 2013 - is the crucial date at the PR CAT DOUBLE BENCH - as the lead case OA 1165 OF 2011 filed bythe group led by Shri PN ji and perhaps another impleaded one, will come up at Court no 1 (pl chk cause list fully) .

    WISH BEST OF LUCK FOR ALL THE pre 2006 20 YR PLUS RETIREES.
    ALL SUCH AGGRIEVED MUST JOIN SHRI PN JI/ HIS GROUP.

    Some are looking up for individual case resolutions thru this case- This may not be possible....

    You will note the issue under ltigation -in 20 yr plus case- is a policy cum rule case- instead of 33 yr for full pension, it has to be 20 yr (plus) - and therefore the cut-off date that was being imposed is "arbitrary/ artificial" and null and void.

    That the cut-off date is "arbitrary/artificial" also stands proved because the originally stipulated date of 2 9 2008 - dogmatically upheld for quite some time aginst pre 2006 pensioners' protests as well as pre 2/9/2008 pensioenrs, was later "modified" to 1 1 2006 as date of effect!

    If THE CUT-OFF DATE CAN BE SHIFTED FROM 2 29 2008 BACKWARDS TO 1 1 2006 , THEN WHY NOT FURTHER BACKWARDS TO DO JUSTICE FOR ALL?

    Artcle 14 is clearly violated.

    vnatarajan

  11. #51
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Today's proceedings at Pr Bench Cat Delhi (7th May 2013)- OA 1165 of 2011.

    Quoting Shri PN ji:

    "As advised earlier vide my mail of 7th December, our case for full pension after 10/20 years of service was scheduled for hearing in CAT today. As the Chairman was not well, it was listed before another Bench. However, the Government Advocate sought time, which was opposed by our Advocate who emphasized the need for early hearing. The case has accordingly been fixed for 25th July."

    My remarks: In the meanwhile, I think consoildation of DHC/ CAT EKLM/CAT BGJ verdicts will be done

    All the best.
    vnatarajan

  12. #52
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Similarity Between Two Cases - Modified Parity of Pension and Minimum Assured Pension for Pensioners with 20+ Years Service
    Respected Sirs,
    After going through the Judgement dated 29 Apr 2013 of Delhi High Court on Modified Parity of pension, I have tried to find out its similarity with minimum assured pension for pensioners having 20 plus years service. Pages 9 to 12 of DHC judgement are quite important wherein DHC has quoted paras 25 and 26 of Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement. And incidentally, paras 25and 26 of Principal Bench of CAT judgement have been quoted vide judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Judgement of Delhi High Court can be accessed here.
    http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/PNJ/judgemen...CW15352012.pdf
    A careful reading of paras 25 and 26 reveals that the h’ble courts have accepted the following reasoning:
    1. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.09.2008 whereby recommendations of 6 CPC were accepted by the Govt.
    2. Resolution dated 29.09.2008 cannot be amended/altered without referring the same to the cabinet.
    Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and its notification can be accessed here.
    http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/s...ycommresol.pdf
    Please read resolution No 12 vide which recommendations (para 5.1.47) of 6 CPC regarding minimum assured pension have been accepted by the Government. Relevant extract of the same is as under:
    “The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale form which the pensioner had retired.”
    Please note that it is not mentioned either in the recommendation of 6 CPC or in the acceptance of Govt. that the minimum assured pension is for 33 years service and the same will be reduced pro-rata for lesser service. As such, The minimum assured pension should be for a particular post from which a pensioner has retired without any relation to length of service rendered by a pensioner.
    Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 regarding revision of pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners was issued and Para 4.2 of this letter is in confirmation with the Govt. resolution and there is no mention of length of service in this para. This letter can be accessed here.
    http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/Cir...le_sixthpc.pdf

    As in the case of modified parity of pension, clarifications/modification were issued vide Govt. letter dated 3.10.2008. In this letter it was clarified/ modified 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.” This letter dated 03.10.2008 can be accessed here.
    http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/Cir....383708pti.pdf
    Since the letter dated 03.10.2008 has already been quashed by Principal Bench of CAT (upheld by Delhi High Court), it will no more be applicable. Now as remarked by Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Para 26 of its judgement:
    “A Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.09.2008 whereby recommendations of 6 CPC were accepted by the Govt.”
    *********

  13. #53
    Junior Member Avis2010 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Mr. Jain has given a lucid analysis.
    Legality is in our side.
    Denial is the weapon used by GOI !
    How and when do we "bell the cat " ?

    Imayan

  14. #54
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Pensioner Friends of the Plus 20 yrs (pre 2006) category.

    SHRI SK jAIN HAS VERY NICELY EXPLAINED THE WHOLE ISSUE. His last sentence is very important: "Now as remarked by Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Para 26 of its judgement: “A Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of 6 CPC were accepted by the Govt.”

    Both P & H HC and PR Bench Verdict - later endorsed by the DHC verdict have laready done the "belling of the CAT".

    NOW CLINCHING THE ISSUE DEPENDS UPON HE CASE IN PROGRESS AT PR BENCH CAT DELHI WHERE THE SPECIFIC "ISSUE" IS BEING DULY ADDRESSED- IN THE ACSE ALREADY MENTIONED BY ME UNDERTHE LEADERSHIP OF SHRI PRATAP NARAYAN JI.

    If I am the Judge, i would utter what Shri SK Jain ji so nicely pointed out. LET THE CAB DECISION GAZ ON 29 8 2008 BE TRULY AND ACCURATELY IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVT WITHOUT ANY "CLARRIFIACTION GARBED MODIFICATIONS" MADE THRU OMS OF 3RD OCT 2008 ETC.

    Rule 49 is not scro sanct and it needs sonly a change baseD on the Cab Decision which has prescribed the formula.

    RULE SPECIFYING 33 YRS IS LIBERALISED TO 20 YRS FOR ALL PENSIONERS -THOUGH THE BENFITS WILL COME INTO FORCE WEF 1 1 2006.
    IT IS NOT A CUT-OFF DATE FOR DENYING THE APPLICATION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS BUT IT EFFECTS THE APPLICATION OF LIBERALISED PROVISION WH COMES INTO EFFECT FROM 1 1 2006 FOR ALL PENSIONERS.
    NO PRE 2006 PENSIONER OF THIS CATEGORY CAN CLAIM ARREARS .

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 05-06-2013 at 09:31 AM.

  15. #55
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default >33 years case for pension without pro-rating

    I think the points are well stated alreaady in the posts just before starting from VNji.
    Our action points are
    1. Enroll members from ALL payscales ... it is not only a S29 issue
    1. I recall - a bit hazily that 6th PC report on 'full pension after 20 years' states that with this recommendation as it is implemented there will be no need to maintain pro rata tables- calculations etc. I will search for that para & post it here as well as in S 29 group.
    1. With Mr Pratap Narain's self less leadership we are able to maintain the fight. More volunteers - Delhi based for this particular segment is necessary
    Will get back shortly

  16. #56
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I am actually cutting & pasting relevant paras from PC report below:

    Changes made in the past in retiring pension
    Page 330 onwards of PC Report...


    5.1.25 While considering the pension package for Central Government employees, the Commission has kept in view the various changes that have evolved in the pension benefits over the past decades.
    5.1.26 The formula for computing pension has been substantially liberalized since the time of First Central Pay Commission. The pension was earlier payable at the rate of 30/80 (37.5%) of the average emoluments. This was later revised to 41.25% (33/80).
    From 31/3/1979, a slab system for payment of pension was introduced, wherein pension was paid at various rates ranging from 50% to 42.86%.
    The formula was further liberalized by the Fourth Central Pay Commission and from 1/1/1986, the pension is payable at the rate of 50% of the average emoluments comprising basic pay, dearness pay, non-practicing allowance and stagnation increments.
    5.1.27 From 1/1/1996, full neutralization of dearness relief has been allowed to all pensioners. This was in conformity with the recommendations made by the Fifth CPC extending 100% neutralization of the increase in the price index to all the serving Central Government employees.
    [ All the above provisions of earlier Pay Commission were applied to pre & post Pay Commission pensioners in each case . The only exception of dividing the Pensioners as Pre & Post is from 6th PC Implementation only, though the PC recommendations are clear Refer Pension 11.33 of page 647 quoted below]


    5.1.28 Central Government employees are also allowed to commute part of their pension for a lump-sum payment which is the commuted value of that portion of the pension. The lump-sum payment is computed by multiplying the commutation factor by 12 and further multiplying the product by the amount of pension offered for commutation. The commutation factor is taken from the commutation table with respect to the age next birthday.
    Originally, the amount of pension once commuted was not restored for life. However, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in writ petitions nos. 3958-61 of 1983, orders were issued allowing restoration of the commuted portion of pension both in case of civilian and defence pensioners after a period of 15 years on
    the ground that the commuted value of pension had to be restored once the lump-sum commutation paid and the interest thereon was fully adjusted.
    The Fifth CPC had recommended an increase in the percentage of commutable pension from 33% to 40% of pension along with its restoration after 12 years. The Commission had also considered the issue of revising the commutation table that has not been revised since March, 1971 and recommended that a detailed
    review of the commutation scheme based on current data should be carried out that would be more representative and closer to ground realities. The Government accepted the recommendation regarding increase in the percentage of commutable pension without taking any action on the other two recommendations relating to restoration of the commuted pension and devising a new commutation scheme. The present position is, therefore, that a pensioner can commute upto 40% of the pension which would be restored after 15 years.
    5.1.33 Presently, full pension is payable only on completion of 33years of qualifying service. The rules also allow grant of upto 5 years of additional qualifying service for purposes of computing pension subject to certain conditions. Hence, an employee presently has to put in a minimum 28 years of qualifying service to become eligible for full pension.
    This acts as a disincentive for many employees for leaving the Government at an early age even though they have reached a plateau in their career and are not satisfied with their job, because they want to complete the minimum years of qualifying service prescribed for being eligible for full pension. By the time they complete such minimum years of service, they are too old to look for an alternative career and continue in the Government without being motivated to make any significant contribution. This has an adverse effect on the efficiency of the machinery. At the same time, the concerned Government employee is also prevented from pursuing an alternative career.
    The Commission, accordingly, recommends that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee.
    This will not work as a disincentive to the employees putting in longer years of service because their pay will increase along with the tenure that will have a direct bearing on the pension payable to them. With this, qualifying service will cease to have any relevance as full pension will be payable once minimum pensionable service is put in without any reference to qualifying service.
    Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant

  17. #57
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Pension on completion of 20 years
    6.2.7 In Chapter 5.1 of the Report, the Commission has recommended payment of pension equal to 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. This will ensure that the willing employees leave the Government at a relatively younger age without waiting to complete 28 years of qualifying service that along with the weightage of 5 years, would entitle them for full pension under the extant rules. No further inducement is, therefore, required for employees who have completed 20 years of qualifying service in the Government.


    Summary of main recommendations Chapter 13 of PC report
    Page 647

    Pension 11.33 Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.
    11.34 Rates of Constant Attendant Allowance to be increased by five times to Rs.3000 p.m.
    11.35 Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.
    11.36 A liberal severance package for employees leaving service between 15 to 20 years of service.
    11.37 Higher rates of pension for retirees and family pensioners on attaining the age of 80, 85, 90, 95 and 100 years.
    11.38 Revision of the commutation table suggested for commutation of pension.
    11.39 Framing of an appropriate insurance scheme suggested for meeting the OPD needs of pensioners in non-CGHS areas.

  18. #58
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    From the actual wordings above, it would be clear that 6th PC recommendations have been unambiguous, applicable to all pensioners with no cut off date for eligibility.
    The date from which these will be applicable would be the date of recommendations , viz. 1-1-2006 meaning the arrears payable are from that date.
    I suugest that our senior members comment on this so that this can go on to our plea, arguments quoting the letter & spirit of 6th PC recommendations

  19. #59
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    I intended to highlight the following two points related to ‘minimum assured pension’ for pre-2006 pensioners having 20+ (and less than 33) years service:
    1. As decided by Principal Bench of CAT (Full Bench) in its judgement dated 01.11.2011 and by Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 21.12.2012 the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 is the prime document which is to be implemented without any addition/alternation by Govt. Functionaries. There is no condition of 33 years’ service in the resolution and this condition has subsequently been added vide Govt. letter dated 03.10.2008 (similar to the case of modified parity of pension).
    2. Govt. letter dated 03.10.2008 has already been quashed by Principal Bench of CAT and this judgement has been upheld by Division Bench of Delhi High Court. As such the condition of 33 years’ service for ‘minimum assured pension’ no more exists.
    As mentioned by respected dnaga57, those recommendations of 6CPC have been accepted vide Item Nos. 2 and 3 of Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and are also quite relevant. The basic solution remains that Govt. Resolution should be implemented without any addition/alternation.
    *********

  20. #60
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default For attention of ALL Pensioners of ALL payscales with <33 years service

    Quote Originally Posted by dnaga57 View Post
    I think the points are well stated alreaady in the posts just before starting from VNji.
    Our action points are
    1. Enroll members from ALL payscales ... it is not only a S29 issue
    1. I recall - a bit hazily that 6th PC report on 'full pension after 20 years' states that with this recommendation as it is implemented there will be no need to maintain pro rata tables- calculations etc. I will search for that para & post it here as well as in S 29 group.
    1. With Mr Pratap Narain's self less leadership we are able to maintain the fight. More volunteers - Delhi based for this particular segment is necessary
    Will get back shortly
    Please note the need for more volunteers giving time, energy & assistance to PNji & his team. Pls start enrolling whom all you know irrespective of S 29 or not...
    Thanks

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... 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