+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Relief of 6CPC Vs Price Rise

  1. #1
    Junior Member harryrakhraj is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default Relief of 6CPC Vs Price Rise

    The 6th CPC had given relief to Pensioners that for once, could not be faulted.
    The Revised pensions empowered the retired Govt Servants to live their remaining
    life with dignity, in keeping with the true intent of 'pension'.

    Not any more. The price spiral, especially that of Food & Essential items has all
    but neutralized that relief. So much so that, leave alone maintain a semblance of the
    Life-style they led while in Service, the pensioners are hard pressed even to keep alive. And this, despite the grant of periodic Dearness Relief installments. Things have come to such a pass that most pensioners are now increasingly dipping into their emergency funds just to stay alive.

    And the troubles do not stop here. With the DA/DR slated to cross the 50% mark soon, the 6CPC makes no provision for pensioners, like merging the Basic pension with DR.

    As for the prices coming down, what with the Agricultural Reforms not even taking off the ground, that is not going to happen. The best case scenario is that the rate of inflation will stabilize at reasonable levels, meaning prices will still rise but at a lower rate. Some consolation!
    So the moot Question: What does the Pensioner do?? Any answers, friends?

  2. #2
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Harry,

    It is unfortunate that the Pensioners Associations and thier Federations are very weak and are not well represented.

    PENSIONERS DO HEAD "POWERFUL" EMPLOYEES FEDRATIONS/ ASSOCIATIONS ETC BUT THEY DO CARE ONLY FOR "EMPLOYEES"AND NOT FOR THE "PENSIONERS" MUCH!
    FOR EXAMPLE IN THE "STAFF SIDE" OF NAC, THE JCM MEMBERS ARE INCLUDED BUT "NO PENSIONERS OR PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS" AS MEMBERS.

    PENSIONERS WERE SO NEGLECTED =- THAT AFTER SCPC IMPLEMENTATION ORDERS- WHEN THE GROSS INJUSTICES WERE POINTED OUT AND AN RTI WAS FIRED AT DOPPW FOR "INCLUSION" OR "OTHERWISE" OF THE PENSIONERS ANOMOLY CASES ETC FOR DELIBERATIONS BY NAC, THEN ONLY THE DOPW WOKE UP AND INCLUDED THEM IN THE "NAC DELIBERATIONS" WITH PECULIAR "DEFINITION OF ANOMALIES FOR PENSIONERS" AS TERMS!

    THE STAFF SIDE ALSO DOES NOT TAKE UP ALL ANOMALIES OF PENSIONERS (PB3/ PB4 ETC ) ARE LEFT OUT.

    MANY EMPLOYEES ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE NAC OR ITS STAFF SIDE MEMBERS" FOR "BVIOUS REASONS"!

    MANY EMPLOYEES FORGET THAT "TODAY' EMPLOYEES ARE TOMORROW'S PENSIONERS".

    MANY BELIEVE THAT; "The 6th CPC had given relief to Pensioners that for once, could not be faulted"- IS THE STATEMENT CORRECT?

    WHILE THE PB 1/ 2 PENSIONERS GOT REVISION AT 1.86 TIMES, THE "PENSION FUND" HAD BEEN EXPLOITED BY THE ELITE BY HAVING "REVISED PENSIONS AT 3.12 TIMES MORE".

    ALL MUST GO THRU THE TWO THREADS APPEARING BELOW THIS THREAD - ON "INSTICE...." AND "JUSTICE...." ETC. THOUGH TITLED TO FOCUS ON LESSER INJUSTICE FOR S29 / S30 PRE REVISED SCALES, THE SECOND THRESD FOCUSES ON ALL "PRE-REVISED SCALE PENSIONERS".

    I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT:

    "The Revised pensions empowered the retired Govt Servants to live their remaining
    life with dignity, in keeping with the true intent of 'pension'. Not any more."

    WITH HEALTHCARE PROVISIONS/ MEDICINES TAKING A "GREAT TOLL" ON MEDICAL EXPENSES AND THE EVER-INCREASING COSTS OF COMMODITIES/ GROCERIES/ VEGETABLES ETC CAUSING UNABATED "INFLATION", THE PENSIONERS' PLIGHT HAS BECOME UNBEARABLE!

    FOR UNDOING THE INJUSTICE METED OUT TO THE PENSIONERS THRUTHE SCPC IMPLEMENTATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN "MUTILATED" PENSIONS (OF WHICH MANY PENSIONERS MAY NOT BE FULLY AWARE- (MORE SO ABOUT LATER REPURCUSSIONS))-THERE ARE 42 COURT CASES BY CIVIL AND MILITARY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS- AND OUT OF THESE, THE AFTs, DELHI AND CHANDIGARH HAVE GIVEN VERDICTS ON 16 CASES IN SEPT/ NOV 2010 TO IMPLEMENT CORRECT REVISED PENSIONS AT THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" INSTEAD OF THE NEWLY CONCOCTED/ NON-EXIXTING EXPRESSION OF "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND", the authrities are sleeping!.

    You are aware, many pensioners dispoutes decided by Courts are never implkemented in time by authrities like MOD/ DOPW etc!

    They go on "pleading" for "adjournments" in CATs/ AFTs/Courts with no "spine" to face the "truth" before the anfels of justice!

    PLEASE MAKE THE PENSIONERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/ THEIR FEDERATIONS TO "WAKE UP" AND FIGHT FOR "JUSTICE" "EQUAL TREATMENBT" ETC ETC WELL BEFORE THE "7TH CPC" LEST "CHAMCHAS " AMONG THE PENSIONERS/ EMPLOYEES (particularly those dealing with pension matters in Ministries/Departments concerned)spoil the broth!

    happy New Year/ Wishes/ Regards,
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-01-2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason: typo/editorial

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

    Default Methodology of Revision

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    Dear Harry,

    WHILE THE PB 1/ 2 PENSIONERS GOT REVISION AT 1.86 TIMES, THE "PENSION FUND" HAD BEEN EXPLOITED BY THE ELITE BY HAVING "REVISED PENSIONS AT 3.12 TIMES MORE".

    happy New Year/ Wishes/ Regards,
    vnatarajan
    Thanks to Respected Shri VNji and Shri Harryji.

    The concept of uniform methodology while converting a pre-revised structure into a
    revised structure has been missing in the recommendations, which facilitated for
    modification/overriding clarifications while implementing the said recommendations.

    The 5th CPC has already settled `what would be the minimum revised pension corresponding to a particular scale from which the pensioner had retired'. While saying so, it has also suggested for complete parity in succeeding revisions, towards which the 6th CPC recommendation has not made any attempt. A full and complete parity must have been the attempt in the 6th CPC exercise.

    Whatever be the multiplication factor to be applied for converting a pre-revised pay/pension to a revised pay/pension, it should have been common to all the 34 scales, as ultimately, the basic pay drawn at the time of retirement/prior to revision plays the crucial role.

    Had the said uniform multiplication factor of about 3 is applied to all scales, there would not have been any necessity to prescribe a minimum assured guaranteed revised pension vide para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. The pensioner who is a dependant of it, also has other dependants with him, and not alone to survive in his post-retired life. Thus, the
    application of varying multiplication factor is the mother of all anomalies, that paved way for succeeding anomalies. It is not too late; even now, things can be straightened by appropriate suo moto review of the methodology of revision as the NAC is yet to give the final recommendations.

    Apart from the above, the spirit of `homogenous class of pensioners' as derived from the D.S. Nakara case judgement have not been taken note of. By virtue of cut off date 1.1.2006, the pensioners community have been dividied into two classes, viz. pre-2006 and post-2006 for the purpose of calculation of pension, viz. @50% of last emoluments drawn and particularly, the pensioners have been divided into five sub-classes, ie. Pay Band 1, Pay Band 2, Pay Band 3, Pay Band 4 and HAG+. for the purpose of deriving the minimum revised assured guaranteed pension. The last group owing to scale based revised structure, is given a different treatment - 50% of revised pay at bottom of the scale as minimum revised pension. The rest of the group owing to band based revised structure,
    has been prescribed and that too after implementation of the recommendation, a unique modified parity that brought home a reducing impact on such a minimum revised pension by the name of 50% of minimum of pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale and/plus 50% grade pay applicable to corresponding scale from which the pensioner had retired.

    The officers who retired on higher posts before 1.1.2006 cannot get pension less than the officers holding lower ranks after 1.1.2006. The object sought to be achieved must be to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all the pensioners of the same class equally irrespective of their date of retirement.

    Whereas, as per the Pensioners Portal website - `W.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Full pension with 10/20 years of qualifying service is 50% of the average emoluments or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Before 1.1.2006, for qualifying service of less than 33 years, amount of pension was proportionate to the actual qualifying service broken into completed half-year periods'.

    Incidentally, the purpose of enhanced revised package to higher scale holders
    must be that the same shall commensurate with the higher/highest responsibility being assumed by the concerned. With the same higher/highest responsibility, the pensioners' grievances shall be settled without much prolonging further, while the solution is not so far from truth. It is not a difficult challenging task to rectify what has happened. Thus, the willpower for ensuring the Justice is all what required to put into action at this point of time. Respected Shri VNji has rightly said - MANY EMPLOYEES FORGET THAT "TODAY' EMPLOYEES ARE TOMORROW'S PENSIONERS", .

    No pensioner will keep quiet when his genuine entitlements of pensionary benefits are getting curtailed as they also served in the same establishment till retirement. That is what happened in 1982 through Shri D.S. Nakara. It is better late than never, otherwise, Shri D.S.Nakaras will take instant rebirths again and again.

  4. #4
    Junior Member harryrakhraj is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    As an incorrigible optimist, I firmly believe that so long as a single
    person supports a just cause, the day will come when it will be realized.
    And behold! Already we are 4 of us on this Forum alone speaking out!!

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Denial of IT Relief U/S 89
    By akraiism in forum Income Tax
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20-08-2016, 02:45 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-01-2011, 08:26 PM
  3. Consumer Price Index and expected DA
    By kgkacharya in forum Allowances
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31-07-2010, 07:34 PM
  4. Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers
    By kgkacharya in forum Allowances
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31-03-2010, 08:38 PM
  5. IT Relief is eligible to me?
    By venkeesai in forum Income Tax
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 02:53 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