+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74

Thread: pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity

  1. #21
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Vijai Kapoor

    Excellent explanation and I fully agree with you. I also stand corrected wherever I have used/ mis-used the word ""bunching" indiscriminately to convey the meaning of "merger" or "clubbing together" or so- more because of the haste!

    However our focus is on the grievance so succinctly summarised by you!

    vnatarajan

  2. #22
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Point to be noted:

    Govt has not fixed the minimum of the pay band and grade pay for pension. They have set this as the minimum pension to be given.

    If this was the 'cap' (maximum) then all should rise their eyebrows! If one gets more than this it is welcome and no provisions of the pension rules stops them from getting the highter of the two.

  3. #23
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Pre-pensioners

    Dear Sirs,

    The Annexure-1 of the O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 indicates that for all those who retired from the pre-revised scales (S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12), the single Pay Band 9300-34800 has been taken as reference to determine the 50% of sum of the Minimum of Pay Band + GP. The GP Rs.4200 as well as Minimum of Pay Band Rs.9300 if taken together, Rs.6750/- becomes the revised pension that is supposed to be covered under Para 4.2 of O.M. dt.1.9.2008. All those who retired in 4 different scales, will thus entitle single amount as stated above.

    At the same time, if we read once again the said Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 which stipulates that `50% of minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band +GP', every pre-revised scale will have its own corresponding 50% factor (sum of the Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band +GP of the corresponding revised Pay Band). In my view, Minimum of Pay Band in accordance with O.M. dt. 14.10.2008, and Minimum of the `Pay' in the Pay Band as per Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 are entirely different from each other. According to me minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band means, the revised pay in the pay band for the minimum of the corresponding pre-revised pay scale from which the Govt. servant had retired.

    Thus, it is all the more necessary to confirm that Minimum of Pay Band as well as Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band are one and same or otherwise.

    Apart from the above, till this moment, the arrears are yet to be disbursed.

    Though no hurried solution is expected, the actual problem has to be taken note by the concerned, even if remedy thereon follows thereafter.

    Let us hope for the best. Best rgds.
    Last edited by sundarar; 21-10-2008 at 08:59 PM.

  4. #24
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Pre-2006 Pensioners _ Parity

    [QUOTE=sudacgwb;1017]
    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).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear (Sudacgwb)Sir,

    The Maximum among the one as consolidated under Para 4.1 or the one as calculated under Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 can be actual pension. But, here that is not the case.

    Within the Para 4.2 itself, in case we calculate for 50% of the Minimum of Pay in Pay Band + GP corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, such basic pension will differ from the one as arrived at by taking 50% of minimum of Pay Band + GP as indicated under col.8 of Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008. When the Annexure-1 itself has restricted to 50% Minimum of Pay Band + GP, there is no question of maximum within Para 4.2 as pointed out above. It is all the more essential to define the term `MINIMUM PAY IN PAY BAND' of Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 as well as `MINIMUM OF PAY BAND' under Col.8 of Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 by the concerned.
    In the absence of suitable clarification, where will be the remedy? Let us hope for the best. Best rgds.
    Last edited by sundarar; 21-10-2008 at 10:01 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default

    The comparision is between the min of the pay band and Grade Pay and the one computed with the factor 2.14 and the maximum is payable.

    Unless the govt. clarifies weather the higher start within the same pay band for different entry levlel officials is only for those recruited between 1.1.2006 and 1.9.2008 or a permanent feature for entrants from 1.1.2006, this problem persists.

    In my view, which may not be shared by many, the new entrants to civil service after 1.9.2008, within the same pay band the fixed pay will be the minimum and the variable factor will be grade pay only.

  6. #26
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Hi All

    This is for information of all those who believe that injustice is being perpetuated in the OMs dtd 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2008 of the DoP/PW;

    1.Retd Railway Employees Welfare Association, Gurgaon have also taken up the issue of the injustice that is being perpetuated to various classes of pensioners and already their representation have gone to the PMO on 16th Oct 2008.(Individual representations are also following the same.) In a table appended to their appeal to PMO, they have demonstrated how pensioners of 5th CPC scales S-4 to S-30 lose pension amounts per month from Rs 168 at the lowest to about Rs 7000 plus at the highest, plus DR of course.

    They have also taken up the case of post 2006 - pre sept 2008 cases disparities as also being discussed in various threads .

    2.Affected CSIR pensioners have also taken up the case of injustice as outlined in my main part of the thread!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 25-10-2008 at 04:05 PM.

  7. #27
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Dear vnatarajan,
    Thanks for updating. I think truth shall prevail and some positive thing will come out.
    Dear sudacgwb,
    For entry pay in the revised pay structure please refer to Section II of the First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 (page 43). http://www.india.gov.in/govt/studies/revised.pdf
    In definition section(page 32) para 3 (5) - "pay in the pay band" means pay drawn in the running pay bands ....

  8. #28
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    Full details of the Retired Railway Eployees' Welfare Association's representation/ Appeal to the PMO against the disparitie in pension arising out of the latest OMs of DoP/PW etc sre posted in their website www.rrewa.org please.

    vnatarajan

  9. #29
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Mr.VNatarajan:
    Thank you for the link. Very informative.

    Mr: SKJain,

    If the entry level pay within the pay band for different grade pay(s) then 'that' pay should be taken for calculation of minimum pension and not the minimum of the pay band.

    They should have denoted it as payband-3A, 3B etc. Similarly should have given different starting pay for all grade pays to avoid heartburns to many.

    I am sure with the intervention of Railway WFAs, positive response will come and bring cheers to pre- pensioners.
    Last edited by sudacgwb; 22-10-2008 at 08:21 PM.

  10. #30
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Mr Sudacgwb

    Thanks for the clarification you have provided (to Mr SKJain). Disparities have to be resolved and the authorities concerned have to apply their minds and expertise to be most non-controversial. After all, today's employees (old-clan-pre-April 2004 group) are tomorrow's Pensioners!

    vnatarajan.

  11. #31
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Post

    Dear Mr.VNatarajan,

    It is pity the competence level in the MOF& DOPT in particular and GOI in general has reached such a sorry state of affairs. In an attempt to reduce the number of pay scales, they have stretched the things in such a way they have created a mess in the following aspects:

    1. Minimum pension calculation by merging the different grade pay levels with different entry pay as ONE PAY BAND

    2. Using terms like upgradation, merger without knowing the dictionary meaning and the difference between the two

    3. Not allowing the minimum of the upgraded scales to those whose scales have been upgraded

    4. Giving a special promotion after 4 years in grade pay 4800 (and equivalent) without elaborating this action vis a vis ACP/Promotion

    5. Merging scales between which promotion/ACP have taken place between 1.1.2006 and the date of issue of Notification without clarifying the value of the promotion/ACP earned by them (in the intervening period)

    6. Disbursing the arrears in two installments (%age wise) making it difficult to minimise the tax liability of the employee by spreading the arrears (although they could have given the arrears of 2006-07 now and 2009-08 next year)

    7. By calling the small family incentive increment as allowance (meaningless) to avoid giving the arrears

    8. and many more anomalies that will come to fore after the issuance of ACP OM

    ss
    Last edited by sudacgwb; 23-10-2008 at 07:12 AM.

  12. #32
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Sudacgwb

    I agree with you.

    I am trying to present some more funnier aspects of the so-called merger of scales- may be later!

    Merger of scales- if u take the scales from S-24 to S-30, it looks as if it has been done only to bring down the minimum benefit to the pre-2006 pensioners! NONE INTHE POST-2006 regime (leave alone the trisanku period) of the equivalent S-29 or S-30 scale officers will draw that pension (of Rs 23700) as they have ensured a jump fixation (pl check the revised pay scale tables of MOFs OM of 13th Sept 2006) - and even the lateral entry levels have been protected by ensuring a JUMP START for them!

    SIMILAR INDISCRIMINATION or OMISSIONS ARE NOT RULED OUT in all Scales down below!.

    TOP FOUR SCALES S-31 to 34 have got every protection, full benefits of fitment, grade pay etc and much more if you analyse the pension fixation! WHY AN UNIQUE TREATMENT TO THEM?

    AFTER RETIREMENT, ALL PENSIONERS BELONG TO ONE CATEGORY ie "PENSIONER"- THEREFORE JUSTICE HAS TO BE EQUALLY DONE or AT LEAST SEEM TO BE DONE!

    That was my line of argument- and perhaps you will also appreciate the same!

    Thanks/Regards

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 23-10-2008 at 09:06 AM.

  13. #33
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Dear VNatarajan sb,

    I am sure with the effective intervention of RREWA, revised order will be issued before the Revised PPOs are prepared for the retired employees.

    I tend to believe, the civilian pensioners association is not taking enough cue from RREWA. I have visited the site quoted by you and the effort of RREWA is laudable.

    Bye

    ss

  14. #34
    Junior Member ranganathan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Dear Mr sudacgwb,

    Let me quote you on your contention:

    "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."

    Kindly see for yourself whether this contention is right or( WRONG) from the following example, arising out of the 14th Oct OM.

    "Between two officers at the level of Jt Secretary, with full qualifying service and drawing min pay at retirement , the one retired before 01-01 06, will draw a basic pension of RS. 23700/-ie.. 50% of (37400+10000) and the other retiring after 01-01-06 will draw a pension of Rs 27350/-ie 50% of ( 44700+10000 )"

    This is just one actual example among several out of the the situation as brought in the discussions by several others above

    I would request you to kindly react wrt this specific example for the benefit of those of us, unable to agree with you.

  15. #35
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Dear Mr.Ranganathan,

    You have responded to my earlier view instead of looking at the last post after which you have reacted.

    It is sufficient if you are aware what has been envisaged in the OM is the fixation of the minimum and not the cap / maximum pension payable.

    As stated earlier cases of pb-1, 2 should have been taken care by GOI instead of dis-proportortional hike to pb-4

    I agree when they have fixed the starting 'variables' within the pay band corresponding to different grade pay they must have taken note of the same in respect of past pensioners while fixing their revised pension. There is no exception to pb-4 from this.

    ss

  16. #36
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    The debate so far has clearly brought out that there are disparities at various levels in pension fixation formulae for fixing the correct/ minimum pension to the pre-2006/ even earlier pensioners based on the directives issued through OMs of 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2009 by the DoP/PW and concerned authorities.

    Ministry of Finance's clear cut concordance tables given in their OM of 13th Sept 2008 for fixing the revised pay-scales have been TOTALLY IGNORED for pension fixation and this is not only ridiculous but is ADMINISTRATIVELY most unethical.

    IS THE MoF totally ignorant of this act of omission or overstepping ?

    Or ARE THEY THE PERPETUATORS? If this is so,then such an action stands condemned and we the pensioners wil be compelled to view the same as most distrustful!

    FOR THOSE OLD PENSIONERS WHO HAVE NOT ACTED SO FAR TO REPRESENT THEIR CASES:PLEASE ACT FAST.

    Several models of appeals/ representations are already available. Many can see the Retired Railways Employees representations in their welfare association's website www.rrewa.org and copy the text to suit their cases. To know the exact amount of scale-wise disparities, Annexure attached to RREWA's appeal to PM may be seen.

    Appeals may be sent to the Secy,DoP/PW.

    Those who have received their final pensions as per 14th Oct 2004 OM of DoP/PW, they may perhaps address the same to the Anomaly Committee of the Ministry bOf Pensions/ Deptt. of Pensions etc.

    More knowledgeable pensioners with means may kindly help other old/ sickly/ less enlightened pensioners.

    ALL PENSIONERS" ASSOCIATIONS MUST ALSO TAKE UP THE MATTER SERIOUSLY AND SEND APPEALS FOR REDRESSAL TO G.O.I QAND ALL MINISTRIES/ DEPTTS CONCERNED.

    vnatarajan

  17. #37
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Mr VNatarajan:

    I want you to add the following items in your memorandum to Govt for redressal, apart from the modification of minimum pension computation corresponding to different grade pay within the pay band (rather than clubbing all scales within the pay band):

    1. The revision of pension and redefining the "DEPENDENCY" CRITERIA has rendered many pensioners who were dependents and hence certain benefits as independent without benefits that were there earlier.

    Many pensioners who retired from different grades have been revised to the amount more than Rs.3500/= minimum pension in govt. of india.

    I request you to take up the cases of those pensioners/family pensioners who were dependants before the implementation of 6 cpc should continue to be treated as 'dependants' so that they are not robbed of the benefits they were getting earlier.

    ss

  18. #38
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    HAPPIEST DIWALI GREETINGS TO EVERYBODY! ENJOY EVERY MOMENT OF THIS LIGHT-FULL AND DELIGHTFUL DAY WITH ALL!

    SPECIAL WISHES TO GCONNECT AND ITS ESTABLISHMENT

    vnatarajan & Co-pensioners/ families from Chennai
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 27-10-2008 at 10:29 AM.

  19. #39
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

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

    hi All

    Letters to the Editor of Hindu published on 27th Oct 2008 on one of the issues of 6th CPC reproduced (Courtesy : Mr R Sundaram/ Mr P K Ranganathan):

    Letter To The Editor In The Hindu 27/10/08

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

    Sixth Pay Commission

    The Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations have brought some cheer to Central government employees in these difficult times. But a sizeable number of retired senior citizens have been left in the lurch. They include those who retired from some senior levels before January 1, 2006. The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare’s clarification of October 3, 2008, has reduced to naught all accepted official norms, contravening the decision of the Supreme Court. It has brought despair to an arbitrarily created section of the same grade of pensioners.

    A spate of representations pointing out this anomaly has not met with any response. The government, in fact, reinforced the arbitrariness in its next clarification order dated October 14, 2008. The clarification has resulted in the denial of the minimum basic pay and the resultant minimum pension to those on one side of the chronological divide as on January 1, 2006.

    As a typical example, between two officers at the level of Joint Secretary, the one who retired before January 1, 2006, will draw a pension of Rs.23,700 whereas the others retiring on or after the same date will draw Rs.27,350 per month.

    P.K. Ranganathan,
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vnatarajan

  20. #40
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    Letter published in the Deccan Chronicle, Chennai Ed of 30th Oct 2008 reproduced here:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Deccan Chronicle 30th Oct 2008 Page 10 – Letters column


    PENSION PLEA
    Sir, There is no doubt that
    implementation of the 6th
    central pay commission recommendations
    has brought
    some cheer to the Central
    government employees. But a
    sizeable number of retired
    senior citizens, including all
    those who retired from senior
    levels before January 1,
    2006, have been left in the
    lurch. This group is aggrieved
    because the pension
    department’s clarification of
    October 3, 2008, brings to
    naught all accepted norms
    contravening the decisions of
    the Supreme Court. A spate
    of representations pointing
    out this anomaly has not been
    met with any response. We
    appeal to the authorities concerned
    to redress our grievances
    and do justice.
    P. K. RANGANATHAN
    Chennai
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Courtesy: AVMukuntharajan, Jr Member from Chennai/ PKR)

    vnatarajan

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Grade pay for past pensioners
    By yenyem in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28-12-2012, 05:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

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