+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Anomalies in revised pension rule 2008

  1. #1
    Junior Member pratap singh negi is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Anomalies in revised pension rule 2008

    Disparity in pension between persons retired before and after 01-01-2006 from same grade/ post/ status/ pay scale (pr-revised)/ more than 33 years of qualifying service ( ie. retired from similar conditions.)
    From interpretation of revised Pay Rules 2008, Pension Rules 2008,office Memo of Govt of India on revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners dated 01-09-2008 and memo. Of Govt. of India on revision of pension of post-2006 pensioners’ date 02-09-2008, there is huge disparity in consolidated revised pension between post-1-1-2006 and pre-1-1-2006 pensioners/ family pensioners. Person retired after 1-1-2006 will get revised pension i.e. 50% of last pay drawn after revision of his pay, but the person retired before 1-1-2006 will get pension equal to Basic Pnsion X 2.26 wef 1-1-2006 subject to in no case lower than 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 had retired.
    2. According to revised Pay/ Pension Rules and Govt. Memo for implementation of pay and pension the pre-1-1-2006 retiree will get minimum pension 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band + grade pay corresponding to his pre-revised pay scale, whereas post-1-1-2006 retiree will get pension 50% of his revised pay. It means pre-1-1-2006 retiree at the bottom of pay scale (per revised) will get same pension as the retiree at the top of the same scale (pre revised). Consider pay scale (pre revised) 14300-400-18300, all retired from this scale either from the bottom stage 14300 or the top stage 18300 will get equal pension i.e. 23050 PM w.e.f. 1-1-2006. Even a person retired on last pay drawn 19100 (after earning 2 stagnation increments) will also get consolidated pension 23050 PM only. The post 1-1-2006 retirees in the same scale from stages bottom to top will get pension 50% of last pay drawn after revision of their pay in revised pay w.e.f. 1-1-2006, it means the person retired at the bottom of scale 14300 will get pension 23050 PM and person retired at the top of scale 18300 will get 26045 PM. Similarly person retired on 19100 will get pension 26700 PM.
    3. The disparity between post and pre 1-1-2006 pensioners is typically from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 6000 Per Month.
    5- Above anomalies happened because stages in pre revised pay scales have not been considered for fixing revised pension, whereas in revised pay fixation fitment benefit is considered for each stage and accordingly fitment table is provided for pay fixation. It is not understood, why disparity between 2 persons in revised pension, whereas both were getting equal pension before implementation of 6CPC recommendations. Benefit given in revised pension is justified and acceptable but the disparity is against natural justice and is also pinching and intolerable.
    6- The above anomalies can be eliminated if revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the pay and grade pay provided for each stage of pay scale (pre-revised) in fitment table for pay fixation of serving employees in revised pay corresponding to the pre-revised stage of pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The Para 4.2 of the Finance Ministry/ Department of expenditure Office Memo no. F. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1st September 2008 is required to be amended accordingly.
    Last edited by pratap singh negi; 17-10-2008 at 08:00 AM.

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

    Thumbs down Fitment table for pre 1.1.2006 pensioners!

    Expecting the govt. to give fitment table even to those who retired before 1.1.2006 implies that the revision has taken place even before the effective date of pay revision. This is ridiculous.

    What was essential was to ensure their pension is not below the lowest of the pay bands of the revised pay. This has been conceded and pensioners must be satisfied with it. Even after the issuance of the OM dated: 14/10/2006 grumbling there is no fair play is playing the old record even after the clarification. Is this necessary?

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

    Default

    Dear Shri Pratap Singh Negi

    Your arguments are very clear and absolutely within the framework of the Rules in force.

    What has been perpetuated by the DoP/PW in their orders of 3rd Oct and 14th Oct 2008 are not proper.

    Parity among equals at the minimum irrespective of their dates of retirement is a foregone conclusion as also emphasised in the judgments of Apex/High Courts. Your last paragraph is reiterating more or less the same and this has to be upheld without any prejudice.

    (you can also read other postings made in regard to somewhat related issues in other threads also and give your views and comments).

    Please take action (you and all in your group etc) to convey your misgivings to the Secy., Deptt of Pensions/ PW immediately without delay.

    vnatarajan

  4. #4
    Junior Member pratap singh negi is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Fitment table for pre 1-1-2006 pensioners

    Dear Sudacgb
    Kindly peruse following illustrations for the confirmation of disparity between post and pre 1-1-2006 pensioners. This type of disparity can only be eliminated if pension revised must not be less than the 50% of pay plus grade pay provided in Ministry of Finance, DOE memo no. F No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30-8-2008 for each and every stage/ scale of pay (pre revised) corresponding to stage (last pay drawn)/ pay scale from which pensioner retired.
    Illustration ‘one’----------------‘A’--------------‘B’
    Pay scale- 14300-400-18300 {pre Revised)
    Date of retirement---------------31-12-05------ 31-10-06
    Last pay drawn (pre revised)—19100----------14300
    Date of increment----------------1st Jan-----------1st Jan
    Pension sanctioned---------------14325----------10725
    (On retirement)
    Revised pay wef 1-1-06------- N A--------------46100 incl.GP
    Revised pension-------------------23050----------23050

    Illustration ‘two’------------------‘A’--------------‘B’
    Pay scale- 14300-400-18300 {pre Revised)
    Date of retirement---------------31-12-05------31-10-06
    Last pay drawn (pre revised)—19100----------15100
    Date of increment---------------1st Jan-----------1st Jan
    Pension sanctioned---------------14325-----------11325
    (On retirement)
    Revised pay wef 1-1-06------- N A-------------47230 incl.GP
    Revised pension---------------- 23050-----------23615

    Illustration ‘three’----------------‘A’-------------‘B’
    Pay scale- 16400-450-20000 {pre Revised)
    Date of retirement-------------- 31-12-05------- 31-10-06
    Last pay drawn (pre revised) 20000-----------16400
    Date of increment---------------1st Jan----------1st Jan
    Pension sanctioned-------------15000----------12300
    (On retirement)
    Revised pay wef 1-1-06------- N A-------------48590 incl.GP
    Revised pension-----------------23150-----------24295

    Illustration ‘four’-----------------‘A’------------‘B’
    Pay scale- 18400-500-23400 {pre Revised)
    Date of retirement---------------31-12-05------31-10-06
    Last pay drawn (pre revised)- 22400-----------18400
    Date of increment---------------1st Jan----------1st Jan
    Pension sanctioned-------------16800----------13800
    (On retirement)
    Revised pay wef 1-1-06------- N A-------------54700 incl.GP
    Revised pension-----------------25312-----------27350
    As seen from illustration ‘one’ ‘A’ retired only 10 month before ‘B’from same grade/pay scale. ‘B’ was getting 3600 PM less than ‘A’ before implementation of 6CPC recommendations but after revision of pay/pension both will be getting equal pension.
    From illustration ‘two’ ‘B’ was getting 3000 less than ‘A’ before revision but after revision ‘B’ will get 615 more PM than ‘A’.
    Illustration ‘three’ ‘A’ was getting 2700 pm more than ‘B’ but after revision ‘A’ will get 1245 less than ‘B’.
    Illustration ‘four’ ‘A’ was getting 4000 PM more than ‘B’ but now he ‘A’ will get 2038 PM less than ‘B’.
    Government must provide fitment table for revision of pension as provided for pay fixation so that this type of huge disparity is eliminated. Minor disparities are always acceptable during revision of pay and pension but disparity as illustrated above are intolerable.
    I QUOTE FURTHER
    SINIOR IN PAY SCALE AND GRADE IS GETTING LESS PENSION THAN HIS JUNIOR IN PAYSCALE/ GRADE.
    As seen from illustration 'two' and 'three' above a person of lower pay scale and grade retired on 31-10-2006 is getting more pension than his senior both in pay scale and grade retired on 31-12-2005 whereas before revision seniore was getting 3675 more than junior because senior's last pay drawn was 20000 and junior's was 15100.
    'A' SSP---------------------'B' Dy I G
    Pay scale 14300-400-18300-------------16400-450-20000
    (Pre revised)
    Date of retirement--31-10-2006---------31-12-2005
    Last pay drawn-----15100---------------20000
    Pension sanctioned--11325---------------15000
    (at the time of rtdment)
    Pension on revision---23615-------------23150
    Is it tolerable?
    Last edited by pratap singh negi; 06-11-2008 at 07:05 PM. Reason: addition

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

    Default

    hi Mr Negi

    Commendable exercise!. Your concluding lines reinforce the need for DoP/PW to wake up and pay attention to all the problems/ issues in earnest! Simply doing a novice job of bunching up increments/ merging scales was the least expected of them.

    Instead of providing a nice icing to the 6CPC Report/ its recos/ its parity tables for even the pension calculations, the DoP/PW has thrown its sanctity into the dustbin!

    Let us all hope for siome redemptions sooner than later!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 05-11-2008 at 02:13 PM.

  6. #6
    Member subba Rao R S is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default Anomalies in revised pension rule 2008

    Hi all,

    Yesterday I saw a representation to PM by the Retired Railway Emploees Welfare Association dated 16-10-2008 on the disparity between pre 2006 and post 2006 pensioners. An 8 page appeal and the same appeal to DOP. You may view this in web www.rrewa.org under what is new. This is for information of those who have not seen this.

    Subba Rao R S

  7. #7
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    You may find some more interesting representations/ appeals in the Railway Senior Citizens' Welfare Society's website (i think it is www.rscws.org or com?) wherefrom you will realise the problems had been brewing up as early as second week of May 2008 itself!. Some senior pensioners had taken up some of the disparity issues in right earnest with the Empowered Committe of the Secretaries, arising out of bunching up of increments/ merging of scales/ diffrential pay bands etc.(The annexures supporting the memo are lessons worth learning for everyone!). They had also highlighted the skewed aspects of revisions of Pay and Pensions which the Govt. is attempting based on morphosis of 6th CPC recos- But then--(Govt. -as the Tamil saying goes-instead of sculpting a Ganesha out of the mould, ended up with a Hanumar!- for us Hanumar is also acceptable if only it had the proper identity!)

    Nothing worthwhile emerged as we can realise now!

    Railway Pensioners/ their associations must pursue actions without relenting and everyone here would fully cooperate with all their initiatives.

    vnatarajan

  8. #8
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Pre-2006 and Post-2006

    Dear Shri Negi,

    The Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 2.9.2008 in respect of Post-2006 Pensioners defines Basic pay in the revised structure means the PAY DRAWN IN THE PRESCRIBED PAY BAND PLUS THE APPLICABLE GP, for the purpose of calculating the Pension applicable for those who retired in the revised structure.

    As per Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 in respect of Pre-2006 Pensioners, the revised pension of those who retired after completing maximum required qualifying service before 1.1.2006 cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of pay band plus the GP.

    The clarity required at this stage itself is why the revised pension of those who retired after completing maximum required qualifying service before 1.1.2006 cannot be less than 50% of the Pay as applicable in the Pay Band plus applicable GP corresponding to the Pre-revised Pay drawn on the date of retirement? If it is impossible, then why it cannot be atleast
    kept in line with the Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 2.9.2008, to read as not less than 50% of the Minimum Pay in the Pay band + GP corresponding to the Pre-revised Pay with which the pensioner had retired.

    As you have rightly pointed out and by our other members, just by a matter of 10 months, or even a day, the pensioners cannot be divided into two category. Today's post-2006 pensioner (and pre-Sep.2008 pensioner) along with the rest of the pensioners like us,will become pre-2016 pensioner in future. So, a pensioner is a pensioner irrespective of any revision. What is being appealed by all is to ensure the APPROPRIATE MINIMUM(?) REVISED PENSION CORRESPONDING TO THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GP APPLICABLE. It is desirable that Para 4.2 of both the O.M.s need to speak in similar voice, if not in same voice.

    One more point to add in your illustration is about one Mr.A retiring on 31.08.2008 after completing 20 years and Mr.B retiring on completion of 20 years, on 30.9.2008. For example, both were drawing Rs.100/- during the last 10 months, Mr.A will receive pension Rs.30/-
    while B will get Rs.50/-. Both the Pensioners are Post-2006 Pensioners!

    We will keep on analysing with a hope that there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

    Best Regards.

  9. #9
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Sundarar/ Mr PSNegi

    All of you have done commendable analysis and have posted them in various threads in this Forum

    Similarly in various other Forums/ Associations/ Unions etc, several knowledgeable persons have done similar exercises and have come to similar/ same conclusions.

    1.Injustice is done because of the disparities cropping up.

    2.Disparities are cropping up because irrational and illogical steps have been followed for arriving at the revised pensions for pre-2006 retirees in particular/ and most in general. (family pensioners included).

    3.Disparities crop up because of two reasons:

    (a) Bunching/ clubbing of all increments in a pre-revised scale and assigning them to the minimum point (point to point was never there; even bunching two old increments for one new as in 5th cpc outcome is also a dream now!) and/ or

    (b) Merging of several pre-revised pay scales to the famous 'pay band' in one stroke, and having a long run of increments from a minimum to a maximum for only PENSION REVISION purposes!
    (pl. note the long run of increments have no significance for an old pensioner because he has to look only atthe minimum here).

    (pl.also note that for PAY FIXATION purposes, each such long PAY BANDS had several shorter PAY BANDS within them, each having its own minimum and maximum, CORRESPONDING to respective pre-revised scales!)

    4.Disparities have been deliberately brewed up- because what was consciously notified as "CORRESPONDING" on 1.9.2008 became "IRRESPECTIVE" on 3.10.2008 in clarifications/corrigendum (while qualifying the pre-revised scales), to enlighten PENSIONERS in the use of a foreign language!

    Nothing more need to be done to prove or debate the calamity, when almost 75 to 80 % of the old pensioners are sure to be affected in the revisions with losses already estimated by many. Pl. see the thread "VANISHING TRICK....", to see how even the mutilated pensions would suffer erosion because of the underrated new indices (?)!

    When several aged/ old/ veteran pensioners feel dejected/ unhappy/ fustrated at the outcome, DO YOU THINK SELF-CENTRED DECISION MAKING HIGHER-UPs can be happy?

    TIME WILL TAKE CARE!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-11-2008 at 08:49 PM.

  10. #10
    Junior Member pratap singh negi is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default Huge disparity between pre and post-2006 pensioners

    Dear Shri V Natrajan
    I wish to quote few more illustrations:-
    Further illustration to show intolerable disparity between pre and post 2006 Pensioners.
    Particulars-------------‘A’---------------‘B’
    Pay scale/ grade—14300-450-22400 (both)
    Date of retirement-31-12-05------31-10-06
    ---------------------(and before)---(and after)
    Qualifying service- 33yrs---------33 yrs
    Date of increment--1st Jan.-------1st Jan.
    Last pay drawn-----22400---------22400
    Pension sanctioned
    at the time of reti-
    ment---------------16800----------16800
    Pay revised---------N A------58870 (BP+GP)
    Revised Pension---25312--------29435
    ‘A’ and’ B’ both were drawing equal pension till implementation of 6th CPC recommendations but on revision of pension ‘B’ will get 4123 more PM than ‘A’. Huge difference in gratuity is also to be seen.
    Particulars-------------‘A’---------------‘B’
    Pay scale/ grade—18400-500-22400 (both)
    Date of retirement-31-12-05------31-10-06
    ---------------------(and before)—(and after)
    Qualifying service- 33yrs---------33 yrs
    Date of increment--1st Jan.-------1st Jan.
    Last pay drawn-----22400---------22400
    Pension sanctioned
    at the time of reti-
    ment---------------16800----------16800
    Pay revised---------N A------61850 (BP+GP)
    Revised Pension---25312------30925
    ‘A’ and’ B’ both were drawing equal pension till implementation of 6th CPC recommendations but on revision of pension ‘B’ will get 5613 more PM than ‘A’.
    Huge difference in gratuity will also be there.
    Particulars-------------‘A’---------------‘B’
    Pay scale/ grade—‘A’-22400-525-24500
    ----------------------‘B’-14300-450-22400
    Date of retirement-31-12-05------31-10-06
    ----------------------(and before)---(and later)
    Qualifying service- 33yrs---------33 yrs
    Date of increment--1st Jan.-------1st Jan.
    Last pay drawn-----24500---------22400
    Pension sanctioned
    at the time of reti-
    ment-----------------18375----------16800
    Pay revised---------N A------58870 (BP+GP)
    Revised Pension---25312--------29435
    ‘A’ retired from senior pay scale / grade and was drawing 1575 more PM than to ‘B’ but after revision of pension ‘B’ a two grades junior will draw 735 PM more to his two grades senior. Both retired from the top stage of their pay scale (pre- revised).

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

    Default

    Dear Mr PSNegi

    IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF THE OLD-PENSIONERS/(ALSO SOME IN TRANSIT) WILL BE AFFECTED EXCEPT THE TOP FOUR "EXCEPTIONALLY PRIVILEGED CATEGORIES" WHO MADE/ MAKE DECISIONS.

    IT IS ALSO OBVIOUS, INSTEAD OF LOOKING INTO THE WELFARE OF ALL TOGETHER, THE CURRENT TOP ECHELONS HAVE TAKEN CARE NOT ONLY TO SECURE THEIR OWN PENSIONS IN FUTURE, BUT ALSO TO AVOID ANY ADVERSE REACTIONS/ CRITICISMS FROM THEIR RETIRED EQUALS- IN OTHER WORDS THEIR MENTORS! OTHERWISE HOW COME THE LINE IS DRAWN SO EXACTLY AS TO SPARE ONLY THE TOP FOUR SCALES?

    IN THIS EXERCISE, SOME CURRENT ASSOCIATES ALSO HAVE TRIED TO BUTTER THE POWERFUL AND BATTER THE POWERLESS!

    (I may be pardoned if I am wrong!)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 09-11-2008 at 07:48 AM.

  12. #12
    Member kssitaraman is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default Pensioners' woes

    Dear Sri Natarajan,

    Your statement above is aptly made; it reflects exactly the current state of affairs vis-a-vis the pensioners' woes. I see nothing wrong in it and there is absolutely no reason for you to be apologetic.

    A glance of every Thread in this Pensioners' blog right from the beginning reveals your untiring efforts to reach every one of the pensioners and help out with guidance.

    Sir, we are indeed fortunate to have you in our midst and advise us. We are indeed proud.

    Assuring you of cooperation always,

    K.S. Sitaraman

  13. #13
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    Attention is drawn to the latest letter/ representation addressed by the RREWA on 8th Nov 2008 to the Secy. Min of P,PG & Ps which is an exhaustive presentation covering the pre 2006 and the trisanku post 2006 category of pensioners (some reference of 20 yr retiree is also there!) and I feel personnelly obliged to Shri Maheshwari, Gen Sec,RREWA for his deep involvement.
    He has also mentioned about all other pensioners apart from the Railway Pensioners.

    Pl visit www.rrewa.org for details.

    vnatarajan

  14. #14
    Junior Member harryrakhraj is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Shri PS Negi,has given solid examples of lack of fairness between the pre-& post-2006 retirees. Of particular interest to me is the fixation of pay for people who retired in the old pay-scale of 14300-400-18300 (which also happens to be the scale from which I retired). As per Govt Memo:Govt OM No:38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt.1 Dt 14Oct 2008, the pre-2006 retirees from this scale should have their min. pension fixed at 23050/-plus DP.

    The representation of the Railways Employees Association(www.rrewa.org) to the PM appears to suggest that the above OM has been superceded/ammended/misinterpreted, resulting in further loss to the pre-06 retirees. As if to bear out this disturbing interpretation, my own pension has been refixed by my Bank at 19997/-(all inclusive). I retired after 33+ years service drawing basic of 15100/- in the above scale, with a basic pension of 7550/-,in 2002.

    Will my brother pensioners kindly comment on this!
    Last edited by harryrakhraj; 03-12-2008 at 01:38 AM.

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

    Default Disturbing interpretations

    Quote Originally Posted by harryrakhraj View Post
    Shri PS Negi,has given solid examples of lack of fairness between the pre-& post-2006 retirees. Of particular interest to me is the fixation of pay for people who retired in the old pay-scale of 14300-400-18300 (which also happens to be the scale from which I retired). As per Govt Memo:Govt OM No:38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt.1 Dt 14Oct 2008, the pre-2006 retirees from this scale should have their min. pension fixed at 23050/-plus DP.

    The representation of the Railways Employees Association(www.rrewa.org) to the PM appears to suggest that the above OM has been superceded/ammended/misinterpreted, resulting in further loss to the pre-06 retirees. As if to bear out this disturbing interpretation, my own pension has been refixed by my Bank at 19997/-(all inclusive). I retired after 33+ years service drawing basic of 15100/- in the above scale, with a basic pension of 7550/-,in 2002.

    Will my brother pensioners kindly comment on this!
    Dear Sirs,

    The problem in this particular case lies with the concerned Bank which has wrongly fixed 19997, which is not supported by any O.M., when the correct pension shall be Rs.23050. Hence, RREWA Representation has nothing to do with this discrepancy owing to Bank's miscalculation. Shri Harrayrakhraj may kindly give a copy of O.M. dated 14.10.2008 to the concerned Bank for
    undertanding the discrepancy. As per Fitment Table itself, the pension amount works out to Rs.17,063/- and the annexure to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008
    clearly indicates the revised consolidated minimum pension payable as Rs.23050. Moreover, when there is no response for RREWA Representation from the Govt., how only this particular pension case can be said to have been interpreted in a disturbing manner. The matter, therefore, needs to be settled with the concerned Bank, particularly because the minimum pay band
    and minimum pay in the pay band in respect of this particular scale is one and the same.

    Coming to the Representations by rest of the Pensioners,

    The entire episode in this regard lies in only one aspect -

    Minimum Pay Band and Minimum Pay in the Pay Band. Except in an illustration of O.M. dated 3.10.2008 and the Annexure to O.M. dated 14.10.2008, all the O.M.s issued so far relating to Pension talk only about minimum Pay in the Pay Band. As such, Pay means Pay drawn in the running Pay Band.

    In the aforesaid illustration also, the particular pay band 37400-64000 for which both minimum of pay band as well as minimum pay in the pay band are one and same, has been taken conveniently.

    Similar problem occurs in the case of promotion also.

    Only when change of pay band also is involved, the pay in the
    lower pay band ought to be stepped up to the minimum of the higher pay band, in case after adding notional increment 3% with the existing pay
    happens to be lesser than such minimum. Here too, the minimum aspect
    is very silent. It is not spoken as to whether minimum pay in the higher pay band which only is practically possible.

    If the above view reg. stepping up has to be strictly taken as it is then there had to be only three promotions one from PB-1 to PB-2, second from PB-2 to PB-3, and third from PB-3 to PB-4. If that is so, whether
    in any rarest case, is there any possibility after 1.1.2006, the need to step up the pay that may happen to be lesser than the minimum of the higher pay band will arise in any such promotion? If any one is anticipating any such promotion, kindly give an example to undertstand myself that the CCS(RP) Rules in this regard means something that is possible.

    It is the first time in the history as far as I know, the O.M. (Para 4.2 in particular) says something and subsequent o.M. also seconds the same thing, but varies 90 degree opposite while illustrating and annexing the table.
    Unless both Annexure and its mother speaks in one voice, the interpretations will keep on disturbing. The silence on the part of the Authorities could not be understood in stead of this much voluminous voices. Whether RTI, legal remedies, etc. are there for such knowingly created problems?

    An acknowledgement from the Pensioners Portal regarding the
    grievances is all the more necessary, let alone arriving at the solution part.

    Best Regards.

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

    Default

    Dear Mr Harry

    Your pension has to be fixed and WILL be fixed, if not done by now, at 23050/- basic as on 1.1.2006 as there are hundreds of such officers in my erstwhile deptt. viz Geological Survey of India who retired in the DIrector (Sel. Gr)- a non-functional grade- carrying the scalke 14300-18300 and WHO HAVE BEEN fixed at 23050 basic.

    YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY AT ALL.

    In fact the 14300-18300 prerevised scale is almost the null point for being the '0' loser in the revised pension pay bands, starting at 37400 basic with a grade pay of 8700 for the same, which makes it 46100 at the minimum and dividing it by 2, you get your pension at 23050.

    Your reaching 15100- through a couple of increments , effect is lost in bunching/ clubbing the increments.

    ON THE CONTRARY, IF YOUR SCALE IS NOT CORRECTLY or NOT AT ALL INCORPORATED IN YOUR earlier PPO, YOU MAY BE FIXED IN THE LOWER SCALE of DIRECTOR/JAG level officer based on a basic of 15100 and this will create a confusion and anomoly!

    So pl check your PPO for the scale of pay- pre-2006 (S-24 ?) and immediately approach your pension disbursing bank/ authority for remedy.

    Best of luck/ cheers

    Regards
    vnatarajan

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

    Exclamation

    Dear MrHarry

    Hope your pension is refixed as correctly computed by MrVNatarajanji. If not yet, pl write to your PPO citing the OM dated 14/10/2008 and the pension will be revised to the correct figure.

    IN the case that I dealt (family pension of my mother) they had fixed at 3500 earlier and revised after my representation to 4050 (by PPO).

    MrHarry must state the latest position to square up the position!

    ss

  18. #18
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Default Re-fixing of pension to pre 1.1.2006 retirees

    A correction to my previous submission.

    I have found the family pension is not yet revised and what is seen as 4050 is actually 4060 (3500 pension and the balance DA portion!). They have not yet acted on the representation for revision of family pension as per OM dated 14/10/2008.

    ss

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Education Loan - Treatment in IT 2008-09
    By imported_admin in forum Income Tax
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31-07-2009, 04:28 PM
  2. Anomalies
    By pkkanwal in forum Anomalies
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-11-2008, 05:55 PM
  3. cghs rule clarification, please.
    By rksimra in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-08-2008, 08:29 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