pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity

[RSundaram]

Although in the above OM for pre 2006 pensioners or in any other related government document there is no specific reference to pre 1996 pensioners, it appears that the Pension Disbursing authorities are working on the premise that corrigendum PPOs applying the principles of Para 4.2 have to be prepared only in the case of post 1996 retirees.

It may be recalled that the VIth CPC recommended the pension fitment scheme by addition of 40 % of basic pension on 1.1.2006 to the Pension Plus Dearness Pension Plus Dearness Relief that the pensioner was getting on that date. In other words, the working formula consisted of multiplying the basic pension by 2.26 and treat this as consolidated pension as on 1.1.2006. This matched with the scheme for serving personnel, which required adding of grade pay to his pay in the relevant Pay Band pertaining to his scale of pay. To maintain near parity of pensioners retired before 1.1.2006 with person belonging to the same scale of pay and going to retire after 1.1.2006, a further recommendation was made that the pension fixed for earlier pensioners will not be less than at least minimum pension of subsequent retiree. The government issued formal orders accepting the scheme vide O.M. quoted under reference laying down normal fitment under Para 4.1 and protection of pension under Para 4.2 of the said O.M.
In this context it would be appropriate to recall that the Vth CPC in order to remove grave disparity between pre’86 and pre’96 retirees first brought them on par on one pay scale. In the second step these were brought on the near parity with post 96 retirees by giving them 50 % of minimum of pay scale so that they get nearly the same pension. The point to be stressed is that all pre’96 retirees were brought on same pay scale at minimum level irrespective of what pay scale they FACTUALLY held.
This has assumed importance because Govt. O.M. No. 38/37/08-PNPW (A) dt. 01.09.2008 states in Para 4.2 that the pension fixed in Para 4.1 would not be less than 50% of pay and grade pay of the employee in the same scale of pay from which the pensioner retired. However, if the term “ in the same scale of pay from which the pensioner retired’ is sought to be interpreted narrowly and in a restricted manner that such benefit would accrue only to those who FACTUALLY held the posts in Scales S -1 to S34 it would mean that the government has withdrawn the scheme of near parity conferred on pensioners so far.

Explaining further, if the notification is restricted to 50 % of the scale of pay the retiree FACTUALLY held earlier the purpose of the previous act of the government to bring pre ’86 and pre’ 96 retirees on same pay scale will be defeated. The fact of the matter is that the pre 96 and pre 86 pensioners got their Basic Pension Fixed as on 1.1.1996 based on the minimum of the replacement scale for the post from which they retired. That means that the government had conferred on them the post Vth Pay Commission revised pay scales as implemented with effect from 1.1.96 although they may not have FACTUALLY held the posts in the post 1996 pay scales. . This was the basic pension until 1.1.2006 under normal circumstances and therefore It will lead to an absurd situation since corresponding pay scales of pre’86 and pre’96 retirees had no FACTUAL relation at all; nor had they any FACTUAL relation with post’96 corresponding scale. Therefore the attempt to restrict the protection to 50 % of the pay scale FACTUALY held will be meaningless and an exercise in futility. The obvious step is to treat pre’86 and pre’96 pensioners on par with post 96 retirees on corresponding scale of pay. The above case makes the whole scheme of past meaningful as bringing the parity among retirees of previous years.
It is therefore considered that denial of protection to pre’86 and pre’96 retirees merely on the ground of not FACTUALLY holding the scale of pay will be discriminatory on the basis of date of retirement and grossly unethical.

In order to remove the misgivings of all pensioners who retired before 1.1.1996, once and for all it is requested that the government may please issue clear directives to the Pension Disbursing Authorities to afford protection under Para 4.2 of the OM to all of them i.e., 50 per cent of the minimum of the replacement scale regardless of their retirement date

[vnatarajan]

hi All

I agree with the insightful observations made by Mr R Sundaram and as pointed out by him, the ,matter needs an immediate resolution and once for all.

IT IS TO BE POINTED OUT that there is a concern that the para 4.2 of the OM cited is NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED in letter and spirit again and again- as the same thing is happening through the Corrigendum OM dtd 3rd Oct 2008 of the DoP on Pension and Family Pension of pre-2006 retirees.

Deptt of Pensions of the concerned Ministry has to take IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE STEPS to restore parity to all pensioners as enunciated time and again- particularly wrt to pre-1986, pre1996 and pre-2006.

Otherwise old pensioners, who look to Deptt of Pensions to play the role of their benefactor, connot knock on anybody'd doors as THEY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE. (Ministry of Finanace?......?.....?).

LET MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL etc/ DEPTT. OF PENSIONS do justice to all old Pensioners.

Natarajan, V

[vnatarajan]

Mr Sundaram may like to refer to the latest OM dtd 14th Oct 2008- gist/ my comments:

MY COMMENTS ON THE NEW OM of DoP/PW dtd 14th OCT 2008:
( attn: Pre-1986/1996/2006 retirees

The new OM No 38 37 08/PPW etc dt 14th oct on 6th CPC on implementation/revision of pension of pre-2006 pensions/ family pensions, inter alia, covers:


POSITIVE ASPECTS:

Concerned banks etc. have been asked to disburse current arrears/ addl. pension within a week (by 21st oct 2008).

Concordance tables provided for pre-1996/pre-2006/post-2006 pay-scales/bands for proper fixation BENEFICIALto pensioners. (THIS MAY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF Pre-1986 Retirees also)

Illustrations given for guidance.

Concerned banks etc. to disburse pension/ arrears as per OM of 1st Sep 2008.
DR amounts also to be added for periods relevant at rates already ordered.

All actions to be completed within a month (may be before 15th Nov 2008?)

Guidance has also been given as to the procedure to be followed in cases of missing details like DOB/age/ service details in the earlier PPOs etc and also in case of missing details like DOB among family pensioners.

(THIS IS HAPPENING IN MANY CASES_ ALL PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS MAY CHECK FOR MISSING DETAILS IN THE RESPECTIVE PPOs AND DECIDE ON THE COURSE OF ACTION TO FOLLOW. BANKS/ POs MAY PLEAD HELPLESSNESS. FRIENDS/ EX. COLLEAGUES/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS must come forward to ASSIST aged pensioners/ helpless family pensioners etc.)

( Banks etc also have to take action to ensure entries in the Pension Books/ Records and issue necessary Pension Orders with copies to the concerned authorities. Pensioners/ Family Pensioners shd watch/ enquire/ ensure to avoid future gaps!)

NEGATIVE:

I WAS HOPING THE ISSUE OF PENSION INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN PERPETUATED WILL BE RESOLVED THRU THIS OM - ONLY TO BE DISAPPOINTED! ALL AFFECTED MAY HAVE TO FIGHT & WAIT.

CORE ISSUE OF DISPARITY ARISING OUT OF BUNCHING PRE-2006 SCALES/BANDS (pl refer to my thread "Injustice to Pre-2006 .......") FOR PENSION PURPOSES and RELEGATING THE PARITY TO A LOWER STARTING LEVEL PAY IN THE NEW BUNCHED PAY BAND REMAINS OUTSTANDING.

DoP/PW and MOF to act fast to undo the damage and injustice.

vnatarajan

[sudacgwb]

The OM of 14/10/2008 has addressed to this problem properly..

[RSundaram]

Dear Mr Natarajan
Thank you very much. As you note the positive aspects are welcome. However, reckoning the pension on the basis of the bottom figure of the pay Band for several replaced scales is deplorable. This point is unreal, imaginary and has nothing to with the post from which people retired. In fact with the current level of scaled up computerisation it should have been possible to fix the pension at the exact equivalent point from which one retired for all pensioners by devising suitable programs. The least that could have been done is to fix it at the entry level pay fixation point used for serving employees. The second point which again discriminatory is the treatment of pensioners who retired between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 and post 1.9.2008 in the matter of extending full pension for eligible people without any proportionate calculation for qualifying years of service.
We must continue to urge the government to revisit these issues which are important for the pensioners.

[sudacgwb]

Dear Friend,

I beg to differ your objection to the mode of computing the MINIMUM PENSION OF THOSE RETIRE FROM DIFFERENT PAY BANDS.

Pension will be calculated in the usual standard way and it will be ensured the pension will not be 'less than the lowest of the pay band'. This is the fairest possible way to treat the pensioners retired from different levels.

Govt has been fair to pensioners.

[vijai kapoor]

This has ref to Mr sudacgwb

The purpose of the recommendation of the 5th CPC as well as 6th CPC was to reduce disparity in pension between the officers retiring now and those retired a few years back form the same rank/ scale by giving them atleast the minimum of the current pension. 6th CPC has used the term 'min of pay in payband plus gde pay corresponding to pre-revised scale' and not 'min of payband'- the term that has been used in P&PW OM of 3.10.08 and 14.10.08.

This amounts to misinterpretation of 6 CPC recommendation and introducing huge disparity between pre and post 2006 retirees against the intention of 5th and 6th CPCs.

This disparity hurts and is unjust. I think now you will better appreciate this point

[sudacgwb]

I will be glad if one example is given to show the disparity being made out here to appreciate the point of view.

Weather it is pre- or post- same yardstick is used. AT least one case may be presented. In all cases I know the minimum given as per OM dated 14th Oct. 2008 IMPROVES THE PENSION AND NOT OTHERWISE.

[vnatarajan]

Dear Mr Vijai Kapoor

Many thanks for pointing out the "key words" to understand the disparity:

I reproduce here what I have posted in my main thread on "Injustice to Pre-2006-----------------"

Many thanks to Mr VIJAI KAPOOR for bringing in the key words at the right time (under another posting elsewhere) for interpretation and to realize the injustice that is being pointed out by me and my distressed pensioner friends of several Departments in this thread:

The DoP/PW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 01.09.2008 CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOSLY ASSERTS:

“Fixation of PENSION will be subject to the provision that the REVISED PENSION in no case shall be lower than 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE “PAY IN THE PAY BAND” PLUS THE GRADE PAY “CORRESPONDING” TO THE PREREVISED SCALE FROM WHICH PENSIONER HAD RETIRED”


The MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-1C dt 13.09.2008 LISTS THE “ REVISED PAY” “GRADE PAY” AGAINST CORRESPONDING “PRE-REVISED SCALES” AS FOLLOWS: (all in Rupees)(pl read seriatum)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale Details;Pre-revised Basic(Min);Revised Pay with Revised Min Pay in the Pay band followed by Grade Pay;Revised Minimum Basic Pay; Revised Pension at 50% of Revised Basic Pay


1.S-30
22400-525-24500 22400 51850 12000 63850 31895
2.S-29
18400-500-22400 18400 44700 10000 54700 27350
3.S-28
14300-450-22400 14300 37400 10000 47400 23700
4.S-27
16400-450-20000 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
5.S-26
16400-450-20900 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
6.S-25
15100-400-18300 15100 39690 8700 48390 24145
7.S-24
14300-400-18300 14300 37400 8700 46100 23050

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the subsequent OMs of even nos.dt 03rd and 14th Oct 2008, the DoP/PW have chosen to GO AGAINST the letter and spirit of both the above cited references (pl. note one is that of MoF itself) and have BUNCHED all the above scales into a single PAY BAND (37400-67000) for the purpose of PENSION calculation with varying GRADE PAYs whose effect automatically gets nullified because of the unbelievable lowering of the minimum Revised Pay in the respective Pay Bands i.e. from 51850 in the case of the HAG level Officer at the top to 37400 at the bottom-most , which is that of a JAG level Officer!

As Mr Vijai Kapoor points out- IT IS UNJUST. IT HURTS- very very much!.

Mere crumbs of a few rupees in the grade pay can not compensate the huge difference!.

Compare the JUST PENSION as above against the UNJUST PENSION that is being mooted out:

S-30 HAG level officer,instead of drawing a basic pension of 31925 would now draw 24700
(erosion of 7225 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!).
S-29 SAG level officer -do------ 27350 ---do--- ---do--- 23700
(erosion of 3650 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!)

Similarly S-27,S-26,S-25 level officers also lose marginally from 400 to 500 pm (loss- more with DR)

Many of the HAG/ SAG level officers have functioned as Heads of Deptts with Cadre Controlling Authority/ full Financial Powers with more responsibilities/ accountability.
Many of those who worked in Scientific Depts. are National Award winners. Many have international/ national distinctions and credits. Their contributions to the Nation are not small!. In large Departments, several (hundreds of) JAG level officers were functioning under them!. HOW THE GOVT. CAN SO ARBITRARILY RELEGATE THEM TO A
LOWER PAY LEVEL FOR PENSION PURPOSES – almost to the JAG levels!!!

There cannot be a greater humiliation in the life of a retired Govt.Servant.as in the case now!

FOR A CHANGE, LET ALL PAST & WOULD BE PENSIONERS FROM THE TOP-MOST LEVEL TO THE BOTTOM-MOST LEVEL DRAW THE SAME PENSION WITHOUT DISRIMINATION! WHY SO MANY PAY BANDS? WHY SO MANY CALCULATIONS? WHY CONFUSIONS/ FRUSTRATIONS/ DEJECTIONS?

P.S. to Readers:– pl do not mistake! Many of you might have been affected by bunching of the pay scales in a similar fashion as above. Pl examine and find out.

vnatarajan

(pl ignore my typing mistakes!!!!)

[kkhameedkutty]

From : kkhameedkutty
To : RSundaram
Date : 2008-10-18 15:51
Title : Discrimination between Post 1-1-2006 Pensioners and Post 2-9-2008 Pensioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Sundaram,

Thank you so much for the reference made on the above subject. It is ridiculous to note that the 6th CPC, recommendation to grand full pension (for those completed 20 years of service) is applicable only after the acceptance of recommendation by government (w.e.f 2-9-2008) when 6th CPC recommends implementation of all other recommendations on pension matters w.e.f 1-1-2006 and also even full pension (for those completed 15 years) recommended for PBOR's w.e.f 1-1-2006. This is a total discrimination and injustice to those who retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 after completing 20 years of service like any other who are retiring after 2-9-2008. A junior with 20 years service who will take retirement in September 2008 is going to get much more pension than a senior who has retired after 20 years or even more years of service.. If that is the case, where is parity as mentioned by 6th CPC in its recommendations and EQUAL RANK EQUAL PENSION Policy as per Supreme Court Orders.

This can be rectified only by allowing full pension -50% (of pay as per revised scale + Grade pay) w.e.f 1-1-2006 to all who have done minimum of 20 years service without considering number of years of qualifying service in any case.

I am also interested to join in submitting any collective representation to government or challenging the same in court.


Please be in touch.

With Regards,

Hameed Kutty
Trivandrum

[vijai kapoor]

This is for those who still donot understand the disparity point

It has rightly said that What was essential was to ensure a person retiring will get minimum pension a person gets from that grade/post/scale notwithstanding when he has retired/retiring.

However what has been done in order dt 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 is contrary to the above.

For example if a person has retired from S-29 scale (18400-22400) as per 6 cpc recommendation as well as order dt 1.09.08 para 4.2 he should get atleast 50% of the minimum pay in payband plus gde pay corresponding to pre-revised payscale. (This obviously meant minimun pay in payband corresponding to pre-revised scale plus gde pay corresponding to prerevised scale.)

As per the fitment tables issued by M of Fin on 30.08.08 for serving officer the minimum pay in payband is 44700 which is corresponding to the min of pre-revised scale i.e. 18400. With gde pay 10000 the min pension comes to 27350.

However the orders dt 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 has changed to 50% of minimum of payband (irrespective of pre-revsied scale) ie 37400 plus gde pay 10000 and thus min pension by this interpretation comes to 23700.

What can now be done is to request and demand from P&PWs to correct this erroneous interpretation and issue correct clarification letter and table in line with Min of Fin OM dt 30.08.08.

[sudacgwb]

Displaying the bunching effect extended to the serving employees to ensure bunching wont takes place more than 2 stages now and (3 stages in 5 cpc) and complaining the similar benefit be given to the pension tantamount to revising the scale to pre 1.1.2006 regime. The inputs for the revision is based on the figures of 1.1.2006 and how it can be extended backwards? Point to ponder.

What is to be appreciated is the fitment table differentiate those who are getting bunched whereby the benefits will become variable. It is pertinent to note during any revision nobody looses and some may gain more and some may gain less.

When the pensioners post 1.1.2006 are being treated with an assurance that their pension will not be less than the computations made on minimum in the pay band plus grade pay, it is ridiculous past pensioners should be treated differently.

In the opinion of the writer, govt. has responded positively to the genuine demands within their own limitations.

[sundarar]

Dear Sirs,

The Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 says: The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade pay(and not the table) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

The Pay Band Minimum and the Grade Pay thereon only has been referred to in the Para. As such, in case the minimum of the Pay band in the Table + Grade Pay as applicable has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the 50%, the said O.M. itself requires to be amended.

It is so in the case of serving employees who attain the minimum pay of Rs.8000 on promotion after 1.1.2006, his revised basic pay will be = (Pay band Pay of the Pre-promoted post + GP thereon) X 3% + Pay in the Pre-promoted post + GP of the promoted post, and there is no linkage to the table. What I mean to say is similar disparity exists in the case of promotees also. Hope clarification on clarification may follow in respect of such disparities also. Rgds.

[sudacgwb]

Mr Sundarar,

I tend to believe you are mixing up the fixation on promotion with the minimum in the pay band of the corresponding post.

You have also lost site of the fact if on fixing the revised pension in tems of Para 4.1, happens to be higher than the one computed based on para 4.2 the higher one will be taken as revised pension.

The next point missed by you is for new entrants after 1.9.2008 will be the minimum of the respoective pay band with the corresponding grade pay.

Is it not true you are contesting the minimum that is being defined and not the fixation formula as such?

First Priority as stated by me elsewhere is to ensure the pensioners / family pensioners / senior pensioners (>80 years of age) will be given the pension on one go and not in two installmetnts.

[vijai kapoor]

Mr Sudacgwb is very aggressively trying to defend the completely erroneous explanation given for para 4.2 in the P&PW OMs of 3.10.08 and 14.10.08, without even trying to appreciate the points raised in my earlier communicaition or mr Natrajan's elaborate and beautifully compiled notes.
Some persons in pre-revised scale S-24 may not be affected by the wrong explanation of P&PW but most of the pensioners specially in PB4 will be affected and will definitely appreciates the points given by us and will raise thier grievances with P&PW.
The issues of bunching or single payment are irrelevant in this issue of Pension parity. They can be debated elsewhere in some other thread.

[sundarar]

Dear Sudacgwb Sir,

As per Para 4.1, the Pension Ready Reckoner has been provided in the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008.

In respect of the cases where the revised pension is higher than the one that will be arrived as per para 4.2, the disbursement of arrears should not take more time than the stipulated time of one week as per latest O.M. dated 14.10.2008. But
Till date no such arrears has been paid. According to O.M.dt.14.10.2008 vide clarification para 3`wherever the pension is disbursed through PS Banks, the Banks will pay and disburse the pension and arrears in accordance with the ready reckoner and also the addl. Pension to old pensioners and family pensioners within a week from the date of O.M’. Whether it is single instalment or double instalment, nothing is getting paid so far. When the pensioners other than the two categories indicated above will get their arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006? –

As per Para 4.2:
The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade pay(and not the table) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

An illustration will prove that clarity is required in respect of minimum pay in the Pay Band.

Mr. A drawing Rs.8000/- as pre-revised basic in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500 as on 1.11.2005 and retiring on 1.2.2006. Although the corresponding pay band is 9300-34500, the minimum revised pay in the said pay band is Rs.14880. If we keep minimum of pay band as 9300, then with GP of Rs.5400/- enhanced pension (50%) work out to be 7350. If we keep minimum revised pay in the pay band with GP, the
Enhanced pension work out to be Rs.10140.

Thus, the Pay fixation table not becoming valid after the pay fixation on 1.1.2006 especially to decide the minimum of pay in the Pay Band. . In the case of promotees also, since the fixation of pay in pay band relates to 3% of existing pay band pay +GP, the table being irrelevant. That is the reason, I mentioned the case of promotees also.

The particular stipulation 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band, therefore requires clarification. My intention is not to question about 40% or 100% arrears that will become payable. The doubt is centering around the enhanced pension that has to be ensured as per Para 4.2 of o.M. dt. 1.9.2008.

I may be corrected, if otherwise. Best regards.

[vnatarajan]

hi Friends

Can someone pl. examiine and confirm- how promotees and new lateral entrants will be fixed in the new - revised scales/bands?

At the minimum of the new revised scales? or at different starting points within the respective new-revised pay-scale/ pay band?If YES- why SO? When they retire, what will be their pension? Will their pension also be at the minimum lof the new pay-scale/pay band? If NOT- why NOT? (PL CHECK FOR THE S 29 Scale (18400-22400) AS AN EXAMPLE !)

After all the revised pay-scales appear to be God-given to some and the mutilated pension amounts themselves appear to be a bounty and a result of grace of some in the power?

Every Pensioner- pre-1986 or pre-1996 or pre-2006 (or even pre- 2.9.2006, if proven) has a right to demand parity at the minimum among his equals.

Pl. REALISE pensioners are not beggars!. They have fought in the courts of law and established the right of justice of parity among equal class of pensioners at all times!

(Care taken to protect the interests of certain elite categories of the heirarchy is unbelievable and atrocious! What a gross/ quantum difference in pension alone!)

(LOWER SCALES HAVE BEEN BUTCHERED! In fact people at the lower end should have got a minimum pension much more than what is envisaged!)

vnatarajan

[sudacgwb]

First to Mr Vijai Kumar,

The effect of OM of Pre- pensioners affecting the PB-4 officers cannot be helped as their pension will be with a minimum of pb-4 and corresponding grade pay. The effect of bunching is applicable to serving employees to ensure people with all stages coming to the same fixed pay in the pay band. In case retired pb-4 officials revised calculation works out less than the minimum as defined using the min of pay band and grade pay same will be ensured. Pensioners have been treated fairly by the govt. order.

to Mr.Sundarar,

Regarding the example given by you: yes two figures are coming and as per the govt. order actual pension will be maximum of the two. Is it not? When this is the case, where is the problem?

In case the entry level fixed pay for different grade pay within the same pay band is different permanently (those recruited between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 and thereafter also) then the govt. must create sub pay bands as 3A, 3B, 3C etc so that similar treatment exists for pre- pensioners also. However my interpretation for different entry fixed pay in the same pay band is the minimum of the pay band with DIFFERENT GRADE PAY hereafterwards. (from 1.1.2008 onwards).

to Mr.VNatarajan,

I concur with you the govt. has BUTCHERED the lower grade officials and the minimum pension should have fixed FAIRLY.

Regard to all.

Generally to All:

Pensioners not taking up the need for payment of arrears in one installment atleast to >80 age is shocking. They are keen to get still higher pension to pb-4 retirees.

IN FACT GOVT. SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER THAT THE DA ON PENSION WILL NOT BE PAYABLE IN CASE THE PB-4 PENSIONERS GET RE-EMPLOYED IN GOVT OR ELSEWHERE AS THE DA ELEMENT NEED NOT BE COMPENSATED TWICE.

[vnatarajan]

hi Friends

Appeal for the IMMEDIATE payment of all/balance arrears to pensioners is already on way from our FORUM (viz Pensioners' Forum)

Spirit of our efforts shall be to reinforce and not divide!

(Govt. has played a very subtle game to protect the interests in certain echelons/ scales - with different starting points/ jump starts in the pay bands whenever promotions would take place/ or lateral entries are effected, CORRESPONDING TO THE pre-revised scales!. Why not give similar parity to the Pensioners who have served the Govt. for so long and till before 1.9.2008 such a status existed? Pl examine and correct me! If I am wrong this remark will be withdrawn!)

vnatarajan.

[vijai kapoor]

Mr Sudhacgwb has talked about bunching. W.R.T.PC recommendations, bunching means when you are transfoming from one pre-revised scale to revised scale , one or more pre-revised stage coming to same post-revised level. In our discussions we are not at all talking about bunching so question of bunching is out.

We are talking about merger of 7-8 pre-revised scale into one PB and then giving sepaerate and much higher proper fitment to working officers even at the minimum of pre-revised scales, while herding all the pensioner to the lowest point of the PB. This has in fact murdered the recommendations of 5 CPC and 6 CPC. and this is the grievance and I am sure 99% pensioners understand this. If some people deliberately don't want to understand the point and defend this murder, nothing can be done. good luck to them.