+ Reply to Thread
Page 48 of 77 FirstFirst ... 38 46 47 48 49 50 58 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 960 of 1540

Thread: Injustice to pre-2006 pensioners in old s-29 & 30 scales(18400-22400 & 22400-24500)

  1. #941
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear VN ji. The question has been framed very nicely. It clearly goes to say that pre 2006 pensioners retired from higher p.r.p.s. merged with those who retired from lower p.r.p.s., are given same revised pension, which is an anomally. The answer is simple and it would be that anomally committee has been set up to look into all types of anomallies. It is not the reply which is important. It is the "action" that it would generate in the anomally committee, which is important for us. Let us hope, something good would come out of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    RAJYA SABHA QN ON 26TH AUG 2010 ON PRE-2006 PENSION ANOMALY

    MANY COULD DOUBT THE USEFULNESS OF QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
    OF COURSE THEIR USEFULNESS OR OTHERWISE - NOBODY IS SURE!!
    AT LEAST SOME ATTEMPT IS MADE TO BRING THE "PRE-2006 PENSION ANOMALY" TO NOTICE IN RS!
    (We may not agree with the "framed-text" of the question - as there is some escape route in the question itself- through GP being provided which will nullify the "same pension" aspect!

    Because. with variable components of GP, though the Basic Pension Component is based on the "constant figure" of the Minimum of the Pay Band, the Revised Basic Pension may not be same for all pre-2006 pensioners coming within a Pay Band)

    Removal of anomalies in pensions

    3263. SHRI BALWINDER SINGH
    BHUNDER:

    Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:
    (a) whether Government have since
    taken a decision to remove anomalies
    having arisen in the grant of pensions to
    those who retired before 1st January, 2006
    from the higher scales in the bunched scales
    as same pension has been granted to a
    number of scales bunched together under
    the recommendations of the Sixth Central
    Pay Commission;

    (b) if so, the details thereof; and

    (c) if not, by when that is likely to be done
    ------------------------------------------------

    As usual, the question is for written reply. The Govt will escape by providing the Table/ Annexure of OMs to show that the pension is NOT SAME for all within a Pay Band and thus "fool" the Questioner.

    vnatarajan

  2. #942
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTR DATED 24TH AUGUST 2010 ON FULL PENSION FOR 10 YEAR PLUS SERVICE RETIREES ON OR AFTER 1.1.2006

    Dear Friends,

    RAILWAY HAVE CLARIFIED THRU THEIR CIRCULAR DTD 24TH AUG 2010 THAT ALL WHO HAVE RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.1.2006 WITH 10 YRS SERVICE WILL GET FULL PENSION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME RULES ETC) .

    A FEW DAYS BACK I HAD ALSO CIRCULATED A CASE WITH TITLE "STRANGE BUT TRUE" WHEREIN A CURRENT PENSIONER BORN ON 1.12046 WHO WAS MADE TO RETIRE ON 31 12 2005 INSTEAD OF 1.1.2006 (60 YRS SUPERANNUATION) (FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS AS IN VOGUE) WITH FULL (MORE THAN)33 YEARS OF SERVICE WAS NOT ALLOWED FULL PENSION!

    HAS THE POSITION CHANGED?

    EVEN MY AND PKR'S RTI QUERY ON THE "ELIGIBILITY OF FULL PENSION FOR A CG EMPLOYEE WHO DIED/RETIRED ON 1.1.2006 WITH PLUS 33 YEARS OF SERVICE" WAS NEVER ANSWERED IN A STRAIGHT MANNER AND PRECISE ANSWER WAS CAREFULLY AVOIDED!

    VN 36
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tuesday, August 24, 2010
    Admissibility of full pension to Railway servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006
    PC-VI -- 223/2010

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
    MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
    (RAILWAY BOARD)
    No. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13
    New Delhi, dated 10.08.2010

    The GMs & FA & CAOs,
    All Zonal Railways & Production Units,
    (As per mailing list).

    Sub: Admissibility of full pension to Railway servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006 - regarding.

    *** Clarifications are being sought from this office by the Zonal Railway Administrations in connection with the revised instructions issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare regarding grant of full pension to Government servants retiring on or after 01.01.2006, and its applicability to those employees who are absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous bodies.

    2. It is informed that the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, vide their O.M. dated 10.12.2009, circulated on the Zonal Railways etc. vide this office letter of even number dated 15.12.2009, has dispensed with the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service with effect from 01.01.2006, instead of the earlier to pension cut off date of 02.09.2008. As such, all employees becoming entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in accordance with Rule 69(2) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, on or after 01.01.2006, are eligible for pension equal to 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to them. With the issue of these instructions, the concept of pro-rata pension has ceased to exist with effect from 1.1.2006. This provision is equally to those employees who have been permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies and have since become entitled to monthly pension in terms of the extant instructions.

    3. All the Zonal Railways etc. are, therefore, advised to settle the pending cases accordingly.

    4. Please acknowledge receipt.

    s/d

    Deputy Director Finance (Estt.)III
    Railway Board

  3. #943
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    I AND MANY YOUNGER PENSIONERS SHD APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF ENDURANCE AND TOLERANCE OF MANY SENIOR S29- S30 PRE 2006 PENSIONERS FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!

    A WELL JUDGED DECISION WILL BRING JUSTICE TO MANY PRE-2006 PENSIONERS DOWN THE LINE UPTO THE LOWEST WHO ARE NOT BENEFITTED BY THE 2.26 MF REVISION!

    SEVERAL MILITARY PRE 2006 CO PENSIONERS ALSO ARE IN THE FRAY:

    Tomorrow 26th Aug 2010- is very important:

    List of Business at the PR CAT Delhi for tomorrow 26th Aug 2010 is sourced from the concerned website.

    ALL THE BEST TO ALL S29 AND S30 PRE 2006 PENSIONERS FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE.

    VNATARAJAN
    Chennai 20 DT 25th Aug 2010 7.30 pm.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    26/08/2010
    CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
    PRINCIPAL BENCH
    NEW DELHI
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LIST OF BUSINESS
    FOR
    THURSDAY THE 26TH AUGUST, 2010
    COURT NO : I
    (SECOND FLOOR)
    (AT 10.30 A.M.)
    HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI CHAIRMAN
    HON BLE MR. L.K.JOSHI VICE-CHAIRMAN(A)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    READY FOR HEARING MATTERS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    22 O.A. 3079/2009 MA. 2136/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSION ASSOCIATION ADDL./JT. SECRETARY SH. L.R. KHATANA
    REVISION OF
    PENSION V/s -------------------------------------
    A U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    WITH SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. R.K.SHARMA
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    O.A. 201/2010 M.L. GULATI SH. S.K. RAY
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. R.K.SHARMA
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    O.A. 306/2010 D.L. VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    O.A. 507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
    MA. 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

    26/08/2010 COURT NO: I LIST CONTD ---- 5 ----
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    23 O.A 937/2010 MA. 907/2010 A.I. S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION SH. TARUN GUPTA
    PAY FIXATION V/s -------------------------------------
    PPG &P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    WITH

    O.A. 2087/2009 RANVIR SINGH INPERSON
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I-M/O PPG&P SH. RAJENDER NISCHAL

    O.A. 655/2010 MA 476/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG (S-29) PENSIONERS SH. TARUN GUPTA
    DOP&T SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

    O.A.2101/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONER S ASSO SH. L.R.KHATANA
    MA 1681/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
    D.O.P.&T

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

    vnatarajan

  4. #944
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Two Years fight for justice to Pre-2006 Pensioners

    Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out the very patient approach of the Pre-2006 pensioners, particularly the senior veterans of S-29 and S-30 to bring in justice by sparing no efforts towards utilising all possible avenues right from initial representation, RTI Mechanism, Grievance Redressal Machinery, NAC's consideration, etc. Although a State Govt. had set a good precedence by prescribing a minimum revised pension as 50% of initial pay in the revised structure, it has been maintained all along that pay band and pay in the pay band are one and same in order to bring a reducing impact on revised pension by clarifying 50% of minimum of the pay band irrespective of pre-revised scale from which a pensioner had retired only to form part of min. revised pension apart from 50% of grade pay corresponding to such a pre-revised scale. As such, the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC ordered through initial OM dated 1.9.2008 is yet to be implemented.

    Two years have passed since implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, and the pensioner's community are yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

    However, with all prayers of the Pensioner's community, today being the very important day as brought out by Respected Shri VNji, Lord Shri Krishna will definitely come in between to resolve all issues to the satisfaction of one and all.

    Best Regards and wishes to senior veterans of S-29 and S-30 for a very remarkable success in their fight for justice, which will pave way for the rest too in future.
    Last edited by sundarar; 26-08-2010 at 07:33 AM.

  5. #945
    Junior Member rksehgal31 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Our hopes and prayers for some positive and favourable action have been razed to the ground by the central government. The answer to Q.No.3263 given in the Rajya Sabha on 26.08.10 is given below for ready reference. Struggle will now be in the courts.

    Instead of fighting for the Minimum, we should straight away ask for the Maximum of the Pay band PB-4. After 33 years of service, you are at the Top of the scale and not at the Minimum of the scale. Then why Minimum of the scale?

    We, a group of about 100 engineers CEs, SEs and XENs of Haryana power companies, are going to the High Court shortly praying for the Maximum of PB-4 for 28 years service as AE and above.
    Other points are:
    a) Protection of notional pay, pension & family pension w.r.t Next-below junior for same length of service in the cadre

    b) Equal Pension for Equal Work for same length of service in the cadre

    c) Pre-revised pension should be raised to minimum 3 times instead of 2.26 times as the top pay scales have been raised to 3 times. India is a Socialist country!!!

    d) CE (S-29) scale should be revised to HAG as recommended by 6th CPC at para 1.2.9

    With regards and best wishes,
    Er RK Sehgal




    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
    MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
    RAJYA SABHA
    QUESTION NO 3263
    ANSWERED ON 26.08.2010

    REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS .

    3263 SARDAR BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDAR
    Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to satate :-


    (a) whether Government have since taken a decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;

    (b) if so, the details thereof; and

    (c) if not, by when that is likely to be done?

    ANSWER


    Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Science and Technology; Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Earth Sciences; Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office; Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. (SHRI PRITHVIRAJ CHAVAN)

    (a) to (c) : In accordance with the orders issued in implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission for revision of pension of Central Government Civil Pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006, all pre-2006 pensioners would get a minimum increase of 40% of their pre-2006 basic pension (excluding the element of merged dearness relief/dearness pension), in addition to the basic pension, dearness pension and dearness relief which they were getting as on 01.01.2006 based on their pre-revised pension. Besides, the revised pension will, in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay (in the case of HAG and above scales, fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. These orders are consistent with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and no change has been considered necessary by the Government in this respect.

  6. #946
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    a. ON RS ANSWER:

    Dear Shri RKS,

    The Parrots are repeating the words put in their mouths by the Babus!

    NOW THE KEY EXPRESSION IS CORRECTLY PUT IN THE ANSWER: " .......in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay.........."

    WHEREAS WHAT IS BEING IMPLEMENTED IS in terms of THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" !

    Is it not a blatant lie?

    Merging of the pre-revised pay scales into Pay Band for pre-2006 pension purposes had been side-tracked in answering!

    B. TODAY IN PR CAT:

    It appears the ASG wanted more time.
    So the PR CAT Cases have been posted to next date 21st Sept 2010.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 27-08-2010 at 09:21 AM.

  7. #947
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default 50% of actual revised pay as Revised Pension

    Thanks to Shri RKSji for the information and Shri VNji for bringining out the missing point in implementation part.

    Application of common multiplication factor will actually resolve the generated problem of Pay Band and Pay in the Pay Band aspects.

    In my view, to be more precise and since the time has come for seeking complete parity when the recommended modified parity is not accessible, the solution lies in re-computation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the last pay drawn that ought to be revised initially on par with serving employees, to determine 50% of the same as revised pension from 1.1.2006. In such a case, there will be no need to go for any minimum revised pension in the name of protecting the pension in the revised structure.

    Since emoluments and qualifying service are the two determinating factors,
    both can not be set aside through any reducing impact on pension.

    Many options are submitted to resolve a single overriding clarificatory/modificatory OM dt.3.10.2008. Even the corrigendum of CPAO could not come for rescue. While the departments are being advised to look into the grievance of single pensioner on top priority, the whole grievance of pre-2006 pensioners' community in implementation of the accepted recommendation is yet to be attended to. The experts with authority may kindly intervene for an immediate solution, rather than leaving to lower level to tackle as long as they can.

  8. #948
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    RAJYA SABHA PARLIAMENT QUESTION 3263 ON 26TH AUG 2010

    REMOVAL OF ANOMALIES IN PENSIONS . RAJYA SABHA QUESTION 26TH AUG 2010 P/Qn:3263 SARDAR BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDAR :Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state :- (a) whether Government have since taken a decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission;
    (b) if so, the details thereof; and(c) if not, by when that is likely to be done?

    WRITTEN ANSWER
    Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs (a) to (c) : In accordance with the orders issued in implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission for revision of pension of Central Government Civil Pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006, all pre-2006 pensioners would get a minimum increase of 40% of their pre-2006 basic pension (excluding the element of merged dearness relief/dearness pension), in addition to the basic pension, dearness pension and dearness relief which they were getting as on 01.01.2006 based on their pre-revised pension. Besides, the revised pension will, in no case, be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay (in the case of HAG and above scales, fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. These orders are consistent with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and no change has been considered necessary by the Government in this respect
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOW DOES THE WRITTEN ANSWER SOUND?

    DIABOLIC? FAR AWAY FROM TRUTH? SIDE TRACKING THE MAIN THEME/ FOCUS OF THE QUESTION THAT WAS ON "ANOMALIES"?

    Pl see some comments by an "Anonymous" aggrieved pre-2006 pensioner in the next post.

    vnatarajan

  9. #949
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    COMMENTS of an "anonymos" ON THE WRITTEN REPLY TO RAJYA SABHA QUESTION CITED IN THE ABOVE POST:

    All pre-2006 aggrieved segments of pensioners may note that the QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED certainly on behalf of the affected lot and precisely. THE THRUST OF THE QUESTION WAS ON: "decision to remove anomalies having arisen in the grant of pensions to those who retired before 1st January, 2006 from the higher scales in the bunched scales as same pension has been granted to a number of scales bunched together under the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission". IN CONTRAST - IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ANSWER PRESUMABLY (CAREFULLY AND CRAFTILY) DRAFTED BY THE CONCERNED IN DOPPW/MOPPGP, IS "MILES AND MILES" AWAY FROM WHAT THE "TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO THE PARLIAMENT/ ELDERS" HAD TO BE! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE MAJOR "ANOMALY" IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF "CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY". The same Hon MOS PP (who answered the PQn) in his letter dated 19th Jan 2009 addressed to the then Hon MOS EBI had asked for the approval/ decision on the DOPPW'S "correct modified parity" proposal submitted to the DOE on 21st Oct 2008 (asking for 228 Cr- a demand- which was NEEDLESSLY brought in as SCPC had covered all financial aspects already")and the DOE took the opportunity to turn it down on "FINANCIAL LIMITATION" - an out of context demand by DOPW and equally absurd denial decision by DOE! ARE THESE NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANOMALIES?WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO 1000'S OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS’ APPEALS ON ANOMALIES WHICH ARE DISPOSED OFF EN MASSE OR UNATTENDED TO EVEN ON MERITS? WHAT ABOUT THE LATEST MINUTES OF THE NAC- WHERE THE OFFICIAL SIDE APPEARS TO HAVE "BACK-TRACKED" ON THE STAFF-SIDE'S VERSION TO RECORD THAT THE VERY MATTER WILL BE LOOKED INTO (earlier in the actual 2nd NAC meeting, on this item, the views of Staff Side appears to have been bull-dozed without any consideration!)! The CAG in expressing his opinion to Hon PM in Jan 2010 had pointed out that the benefit of correct Modified Parity is not made available to relatively higher scale pensioners within the Pay Band as only the pensioners at the bottom-most scale of respective Pay Bands get the true protection. ANOMALIES DO EXIST AND THE ANSWER FURNISHED TO P/ QN IS A DELIBERATE DIVERSION/ DEVIATION FROM THE TRUTH. We have to act to bring the status and details of the TRUTH Of ANOMALIES to the Hon MP and the Pensioners concerned who have toiled hard to bring the MATTER INTO FOCUS IN PARLIAMENT - AT LEAST IN RAJYA SABHA.The contents of the Answer is an embarrassment to Hon MOS PP and the same is an unethical response to the “Serious Question” posed by an HONOURABLE MP for RESOLVING THE PLIGHT OF of aggrieved pre-2006 pensioners. This answer APPEARS TO BETRAY THE confidence of the Senior Cirizens/ Veterans in Parliament practices and their responsibility to the Nation.

    ( an Anonymous's views)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vnatarajan

  10. #950
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    IN CONTINUATION OF THE SUBJECT OF "ANOMALIES" A SUMMARY PUBLISHED IN THE CENTRAL GOvT EMPLOYEES E-NEWS WAY BACK in April 2009 IS REPORDUCED TO REFRESH:

    (UNFORTUNATELY- I AM NOT SURE WHETHER "RREWA" GOT IT PRESENTED OR NOT!)

    Tuesday, April 07, 2009
    SUMMARY OF THE DETAILED PRESENTATION TO BE MADE TO THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE
    by V.Natarajan, Retd DDG,GSI
    President, Pensioners’ Forum (affiliated to the AIFPA, Chennai)
    Associate Member, RREWA
    A.GENERAL:
    Anomalies have come up because of the lacunae in either improper understanding of the principles and policies of the SCPC while implementing their recommendations on Revision of Pension of the Pre-2006 Pensioners, contained in the Para 5.1.47 of the Report. The SCPC never recommended or meant to recommend Revised Pension to Pre-2006 Pensioners to be less than the “MINIMUM” of the Pension of Post-2006 pensioners, of same class/ category. In fact they had recommended in. Para 11.33 “ Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners” and in Para 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.

    ANOMALIES are due to the PARTIAL (in parts) and again PARTIAL (as opposed to impartial)/ improper implementation of the SCPC Recommendations related to the pre-2006 pension through successive, erroneous, confusing OMs with incorrect ”modifications” AND ”clarifications” and non-relevant Table/ Annexure etc which have broken the common/ uniform/ just approach, destroyed the underlying principles of parity, justice and protection and has ultimately resulted in several anomalies and inconsistencies as foreseen by the learned SCPC ( pl refer their Para 1.2.25 of SCPC Report)

    OMs dated 3rd Oct.08 & 14 Oct 2008 conveyed and concretised the implementation that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum of pay band” without having correspondence with pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired. If it had been “50% of the minimum of the revised pay in the pay band” corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, there would not have been any scope for several types of ANOMALIES/ ANOMALOUS issues, which are listed here:

    B. ANOMALIES/ ANOMALOUS ISSUES:
    1. LOSS IN MINIMUM ENTITLED PENSION – This is the overall effect and the loss is across the board, affecting all Pre-2006 Pensioners. 2..NOT DEFINING “EMOLUMENTS” FOR PRE-2006 PENSIONERS – Glaringly, in the OM of 1.9.2008 pertaining to Pre-2006 pensioners defining “Emoluments” is omitted whereas, on the very next day, OM of 2nd Sept defines the “Emoluments “ for post 2006 pensioners to protect their pensions based on last pay drawn and CCS (Revised Pay)Rules 2008 are applied. 3.. MISINTERPRETATION OF “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” TO BE SAME AS “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND”-BOTH ARE NOT BE THE SAME: This is the root cause for all types of anomalies and needs to be set right immediately. 4.INDISCRIMINATE MERGER OF PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES INTO PAY BANDS-NOT PROVIDING REPLACEMENT PAY SCALES –RESULTS IN TWO CLASSES OF PENSIONERS FOR SAME POST (PRE-2006 VS POST-2006)- Defining the slots of “revised “Minimum” basic with respect to revised/replacement pay scales within pay band for the Pre-Revised Scales will remove the ambiguity and help for NOTIONAL FIXATION of pension at a minimum of modified parity 5. REDUCTION IN MINIMUM PENSION BASIC OF THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS- AGAINST ALL RULES!- This is glaring in cases of higher pre-revised pay scales say S30, S 29, S27, S26 etc where ultimate result is DOWNGRADATION of their pre-revised pension basic to the level of S 24 is seen. Such reductions are unjust/ unprincipled/ unprecedented/ against Rules and remedy suggested in 4 above will resolve the gross injustice. 6.ALL ANOMALIES ARE DUE TO CONTRAVENTION OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 14 & 21-AGAINST GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND POLICY OF THE SCPC.- Though as cited earlier, the SCPC had recommended in. Para 11.33 “ Fitment formulas recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners” and in Para 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’ etc which are strictly in accordance with the Court judgments/ Constitutional provisions/ SCPC’s own principles & policies, the outcome is different due to the Govt.’s wrong interpretation of Para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report, implementation through OMs of conflicting and ambiguous nature, and finally not answering/ responding to any of the REPRESENTATIONS/ APPEALS of pre-2006 pensioners.. 7. ANOMALIES DUE TO DENIAL OF FULL PENSION @ 50% OF LAST PAY DRAWN TO PRE-SCPC- RETIREES WITH Plus 20 yrs service & ALSO to those who fell short of 33 yrs service (due to age etc)- EXTENDING SIMILAR BENEFITS AS THOSE OF POST-SCPC- RETIREES OF SAME CATEGORIES: These are also on the same lines as above:
    C.SUGGESTED INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR THE ANOMALY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER FOR RECOMMENDATION TOTHE GOVT. 1.The amendment to Para 4.2 of MOPPGP/DOPPW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dtd 1st Sept.2008 issued under same authorities’ OM of even no.PtI dtd 03 Oct 2008 is arbitrary/ its interpretations and implementations are incorrect and inconsistent with SCPC’s own principles/ policies and Apex Court’s directives on parity among same class of pensioners. It is also violative of the principle/policy of modified parity of MINIMUM pension/Family Pension accepted and notified by the Govt. and therefore the errors need be corrected.


    2.The consolidated revised Pension/ Family Pension as per any formula, for any post/ grade in all cases, irrespective of the dates of retirement/ revisions, shall not be lower than fifty percent of the notional REVISED MINIMUM PAY for the post/ grade in the appropriate Pay Band under the Revised Pay Rules plus the GRADE PAY thereon, (all/both) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.


    3.Since the SCPC Recommendations are implemented w.e.f 01.01.2006, all pension norms applicable to serving employees under the same, must be made equally applicable to all those who are already retired but notionally were in service on 01.01.2006, irrespective of issuance of various orders concerning these norms. (Special dispensations can be provided to stagnation cases/ older Pensioners not getting true benefits of Revisions/ old Family Pensioners). It is to be noted that Pensioners are deemed employees as observed by Courts and the Govt. continues to be their Employer.
    Final/ Full Recommendations can follow based on detailed considerations/ individual cases
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 02-09-2010 at 11:11 AM.

  11. #951
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    IN CONTINUATION OF THE POSTS 949 AND 950 ABOVE RELATED TO THE PARLIAMENT QUESTION OF HON MP BALWINDERSIGH BHUNDAR:

    DUCKING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION THROUGH AN ANSWER OF "DIVERSION/ DEVIATION FROM TRUTH" MISLEADS MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS WHO MAY FAIL TO REALISE THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION:

    WHICH SCALES OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS DOES THE ISSUE OF ":ANOMALY" AFFECT?
    WHY IT SHOULD BE TAKEN NOTE AND FOUGHT AGAINST?
    DID THE HON MP ASKE THE QUESTION TO WASTE "TIME OF THE PARLIAMENT"?
    WAS THE "ANSWER" AN HONEST & TRUTHFUL ONE?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (This write-up is based on a detailed analysis done by Shri G Ramdas , pre-2006 s30 pensioner and he had projected the data in the form of a table which had been since circulated many times.)

    The “Modified Parity” as emerging from the implementation of 5th CPC orders vide DOPW’s OM F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dtd 17th Dec 1998, stipulated the guiding thumb-rule in terms of :

    “President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 1996 of the post last held by the pensioner”.

    As against the above, the President Sanctioned/ Cabinet approved/Gazetted notified SCPC related orders stipulated the revision of pension of Pre-2006 pensioners in terms of SCPC Report’s Para 5.1.47 which is well-known to every one of us. Its stipulation was the revised pension shall not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon…….. etc etc. For HAG’s, separate scales were mentioned.

    WHEN EXAMINED IN DETAILS, WE CAN REALISE, HOW THE SCPC’S ‘ NEW MODIFIED PARITY IN TERMS OF THE “MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” AFFECTS THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS:

    1. Pre- revised Scales S 30 to S 34; For them, there is no PAY BAND Effect. Their pension is revised BASED ON / at 50 % “minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1. 1. 2006 of the post last held by the pensioner” Same formula akin to 5th CPC implementation OM of 17th Dec 1998. "Revised Pay Scale" protection is suo moto.

    2.Pre-revised Scales 16 , 24 & 28 : For them also there is practically noor negligible “Pay Band effect” : This is because, they are at the bottom of the merged Pay Scales that constitute the Running Pay Band. In both cases, “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND” and “THE MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” coincide as to become the start of the Running Pay Bands themselves ie 15000 in PB3 and 37400 in PB4. As a result , the need of "Revised Pay Scale" to protect their pension is neutralised.

    3. Pre-revised Scales 1 to 4 are lower-most and are protected by the Min Pension of 3500. "Revised Pay Scale" is irrelevant for them.

    4. For many others, the magic Multiplication Factor of 2.26 has camouflaged the difference between the “MPB” and “MPPB” based revised pensions. As the MF relates to last Basic Pay drawn / operates on old Basic Pension, if the pensioner had drawn enough increments, the pre-revised Basic Pension would be near / or even cross the threshold level of MPPB and hence the MF formula will be more beneficial automatically. Such Pre-revised scales with increments shown against , not affected by “MPPB” issue are:

    (i) S 7 , S 8, S 11 to 15, S 17 to S 23 - all FOUR INCREMENTS & more
    (ii) S 6 – FIVE INCREMENTS & more
    (iii) S 5, S 10- SIX INCREMENTS & more
    (iii) S 9- SEVEN INCREMENTS & more

    Promotions being rare, most of the above categories of Pre-2006 Pensioners would have definitely drawn enough increments in their respective scales. Only those who were promoted just few years before their retirement , might be affected. Statistically such numbers would not be great to form a GROUP to fight the issue. "Revised Pay Scale" is of little interest for them

    5. CONSEQUENTLY, this leaves only a few Pre-revised scales in PB 4 like S25, 26, 27 & 29 to be affected. Here again, the Disparity being not significant for the first three Pre-revised Scales, they are not in the AGGRIEVED GROUP! "Revised Pay Scale" is not of great consequence to them.So they are shy to join the fray!

    6. HENCE, EFFECTIVELY IT IS ONLY THE PRE 2006 S29 PENSIONER GROUP WHICH IS GREATLY AFFECTED AND THEY HAVE TO FIGHT A BATTLE AGAINST “INJUSTICE” INFLICTED THROUGH SCPC RELATED ORDERS, AS OF NOW .

    OTHER PRE-2006 PENSIONER LOTS( also MANY FAMILY PENSIONERS) - THOUGH THEIR LOSS COULD BE MINIMAL TO EVEN MODERATE, HAVE NOT REALISED THE VITAL NEED TO FIGHT THE ISSUE!

    IT IS TO BE REALISED BY THEM THAT THE “LONG-TERM- 10 YEAR – COMPOUNDED DR LOSS WILL BE SIGNIFICANT IN SOME CASES AND RESULT IN EROSION OF BASE LEVEL FOR 7 CPC REVISION/ ALSO FAMILY PENSION LOSS WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL

    THUS THEY SHALL CERTAINLY SUFFER FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE LONG RUN.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HON MP HAD ASKED THE QUESTION WITH DUE CONCERN, REGARD AND SYMPATHY ON THE PLIGHT OF THE NUMEROUS AGGRIEVED PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.

    CERTAINLY NOT TO WASTE THE TIME OF THE PARLIAMENT/ AFFECT ITS PROCEEDINGS.

    ANSWER FURNISHED IS NOT SINCERE ENOUGH/ HONEST ENOUGH/ TRUTHFUL ENOUGH AS MANY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS BELIEVE!


    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 02-09-2010 at 05:12 PM.

  12. #952
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL
    LET US HOPE FOR JUSTICE

    As you are aware, a number of Civil and Military cases have been filed all over the country for resolution of the CONTROVERSY OF SCPC’S CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY in terms OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND having been (erroneously/ deliberately) hijacked and in its place a transplant of MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND was made.

    Now a first verdict on the SCPC’S CORRECT MOSDIFIED PARITY appears to have emerged on 14th Sept 2010 at the AFT Prnicipal Bench Delhi in the case of OA 24/2010 –Lt Cdr Avtar Singh etc vs UOI :

    Extracts from the Indian Military: Service Benefits & Issues (blog of Rtd . Maj. Navdeep Singh, Military Advocate) reproduced with my comments recorded therein:

    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
    Pension shall not be less than 50% of minimum of pay within the pay-band corresponding to the pre-revised scale of a retiree : AFT
    As most of you would be aware, the 6th CPC had recommended that the revised pension shall not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band + the grade pay (+MSP in case of defence personnel) thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The minimum of pay within the pay band was notified by way of a fitment formula of Old Scale X 1.86 on the basis of which fitment tables were published by the govt………….

    The above formula was accepted by the government through a gazette notification. However, later a clarification was issued in which it was stated that it is not the minimum of pay in the pay band that shall be taken into consideration but the minimum of the pay band itself irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay. (Meaning thereby that the pension of all the three ranks - Lieutenants, Captains and Majors, was to be fixed by taking the minimum of Rs 15600 which happened to be the lowest point of the Pay Band itself and essentially the starting pay of a Lieutenant. This meant that the minimum possible pension of a Major was to be fixed at Rs 14,100 rather than Rs 18,205).

    To be fair to the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, they tried their best to reason out with the Department of Expenditure that their (DOE's) interpretation of pension fixation for pre-2006 retirees was not right and that it needed to be corrected and the clarification revised. But despite the fact that the Ministers (MoS) of both the Finance and the Personnel Ministries were in favour of the correction in the right spirit of the 6th CPC recommendations, it was ensured by the lower level babus at the Ministry of Finance that it did not happen. The case was taken up time and again by the DoP&PW but was always rejected by the DoE.

    The first correction now comes from the Hon’ble Principal Bench of the AFT which has rightly interpreted the term ‘minimum of pay’ as being the minimum of pay within the pay band and not the minimum of pay band itself. Hopefully the DoE shall see reason and ensure that the dockets of Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals are not burdened with unnecessary litigation on the same point and also see that pre-2006 retirees, both civilian and defence, are ensured equity. ……………………………………

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VN’s Comments in the above blog:

    Dear Maj Navdeep Singh/ Lt Cdr Avtar Singh and all,

    GREAT NEWS!

    AS YOU ARE VERY MUCH AWARE -this is what I and many pre-2006 pensioners (including CiVIL/ MILITARY- yourself too- and - ALSO RTD LT CDR AVTAR SINGH AND HIS GROUP WHO HAD ALWAYS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MY GROUP) had been pursuing since Oct 3rd, 2008 WITH THE GOVT TO OBTAIN justice FOR ALL WITHOUT GOING TO courts, ever since the "two pension authrorities viz CPAO (26th Sept 2008) and DOPW (3rd/14th Oct2008)" had brought in the expression "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND" into "an errornoeus operation" in their orders in the place of "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" (????) . IT HAS TAKEN AT LEAST TWO YEARS AND at last the AFT DELHI verdict had come up in support of the pre-2006 pensioners' prayers for JUSTICE.

    I hope all authorities concerned "wake up" to the reality of the situation and avoid all LITIGATIONs to save TIME of Hon Courts/ Tribunals and also avoid INFRUCTUOUS expenses of the Govt.
    VNatarajan

  13. #953
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Interested Pre 2006 Pensioners,

    A nice review prepared by Shri N P MOHAN, Rtd CE, W Rly, which had appeared in the RREWA Webiste on the related aspects of this thread is pasted here for information of all (with aniticipated "No Objectiuon" from Shri Mohan):
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners
    (Distinction between min. pay in PB & min. pay of PB)

    1 Gross injustice has been done in fixing pension of pre-2006 pensioners retiring from pay
    scales S 4 to S 29.Our case hinges round true, honest, religious and rational
    interpretation of the recommendations made by 6thCPC in para 5.1.47 of their report
    which have been accepted in toto (barring DA factor of 86% in lieu of 74%) by the
    UNION CABINET and notified in the Gazette on 29-8-08. The accepted
    recommendations have been systematically tempered with in the process of issuing
    implementation orders thereof by DOP in their OMs of 1/9/2008 and 3/10/2008 with
    the sole objective of denying modified parity as recommended by Commission.

    2 The principle of MODIFIED PARITY for pensioners having retired prior to a Pay
    Commission in vogue since 5thCPC (1-1-1996) has been fully endorsed by 6thCPC in the
    said para above. This principle as per 5th CPC recommendations envisaged fixing the
    pension at 50% of the min. of corresponding 5thCPC revised pay scale from which the
    pensioner had retired. For example, Senior Scale of Central Services Group ‘A’ was 3000
    -4500 prior to 1-1-96 (5th CPC),which scale was revised to 10000-15200 ( S 19) by 5th
    CPC. Basic pension was accordingly fixed at 5000 i.e. 50% of 10000 (min. of the
    corresponding 5th CPC revised pay scale).

    3 6th CPC adopted the system of PAY BANDS (PB) and GRADE PAY (GP) wherein a number
    of pre revised pay scales have been merged in a PB with varying GP. There are now 4
    pay bands comprising pay scales from S 4 to S 29 with separate scales for S 30 to S 34 on
    the pattern of 5th CPC. S 19 is grouped in PB 3 (15600-39100) with a total of 9 scales
    from S 15 to S23. In the absence of a separate revised scale for an old scale as hitherto
    (except S 30 to S 34), the Commission gave directions for complying with the
    sacrosanct condition of implementing modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners in the
    concluding portion of the para 5.1.47 as under;
    “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
    prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner retired.”

    4. Each stage of a pre revised scale has a distinct pay in the PB and the revised basic pay
    which forms the basis for pension is the sum total of two components namely pay in the
    pay band and grade pay. Thus in a PB where five pre revised pay scales with five stages of
    increment each have been grouped, there will be 25 different revised basic pays because
    of different pays in the pay band. The purpose of giving this example is to emphasise that
    pay in the pay band is an entity which is specific for every stage of a pre revised pay
    scale.

    5. As per accepted recommendations of Commission in para 5.1.47 (reproduced in para 3
    above), our entitlement for pension is for a minimum of pay in the pay band corresponding
    to the pre revised scale from which we have retired. For S 19, it is 18600 and with GP of
    6600, basic pension works out to 12600 as against consolidated pension of 11300
    (2.26xbasic pension).

    6. Despite a clear cut direction given by Commission without any ambiguity and with the
    emphatic word ‘SHALL’ (in no case, shall be lower …) used by the Commission for
    dispensing modified parity to pre-2006 pensioners in para 5.1.47, the accepted
    recommendations have not been translated truly in the implementation orders issued by
    DOP. In the operative orders issued by DOP vide OM dated 3/10/2008 in the name
    ‘CLARIFICATION’ to earlier OM of 1/9/2008, the minimum of the pay in the pay band is
    sought to be taken as the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the pre
    revised scale of pay plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised scale of pay.
    In other words, it is the grade pay alone which corresponds to the pre revised scale
    and the pay (which is a major component for determining pension) has been
    delinked from the post one has retired from. The legality or otherwise of this OM in
    contravention to the accepted recommendations is the moot question as it has reduced
    the individual pay in the PB to a common minimum pay of the PB for all the scales grouped
    in a PB. In the case of PB 3, it is taken as 15600 being the minimum of the PB 15600-39100.
    If the intention of the 6th CPC was to fix the pension of all the past pensioners in a
    particular pay band at minimum of the pay band they would not have used the expression
    minimum of the pay in the pay band.

    7. Pay in the Pay band has not been separately /exclusively defined for past pensioners by
    the Commission. There is a mention in para 2.2.22 of the Report and it is given as a worked
    out figure in the column of “Revised pay in the running pay band” in Table 2.2.2 at page 46
    for each stage of the pre revised scales. Table 2.2.2 of the Report is for fixation of pay in
    the pay bands and is based on the Pay Bands as recommended by Commission with annual
    increment of 2.5% and DA @ 74%. After the acceptance of the Report and taking into
    account changes in pay bands, GP, up gradation of some scales from PB 3 to PB 4, carving
    out of separate pay scales for S 31 & S 32, DA @ 86% and increment @ 3%, fitment Tables
    were issued by MOF on 30/8/2008 (an updated version of Table 2.2.2). Pay in the pay band
    is given in col.2 of these tables. The expression pay in pay band cannot have two different
    meanings one for the pensioners and other for the serving employees. If it were so, the
    learned Commission could have unambiguously used the term minimum of the pay of the
    pay band instead of minimum of the pay in the pay band. As per accepted
    recommendations of para 5.1.47, the pension of pre 2006 pensioners has to be based on
    the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
    prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner retired . The fitment Tables of 30/8/2008
    have, therefore, a limited purpose for pensioners in finding the pay in the pay band
    corresponding to minimum of pre revised scale one has retired from.

    8. By misinterpreting the accepted recommendations of 6th CPC and delinking the pension
    from the pay/post one has retired from, the pay in the pay band for S 19 (example taken
    above) pre-2006 pensioners has been taken as minimum of the pay band 3 i.e. 15600 along
    with all other pensioners from S 15 to S 23, whereas it should be 18600 (page 25 of
    Fitment Tables) as the pay in the pay band for pre revised minimum pay of 10000 for S 19.
    Pension and pay are interdependent. Pension cannot be fixed by taking any arbitrary pay
    and it has to be the revised pay corresponding to the minimum pay of the erstwhile scale
    of pay from where a pensioner has retired.

    9. Punjab & UP Govts. having implemented recommendations similar to para 5.1.47 of 6th
    CPC have correctly fixed the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners and have not delinked the
    pension from the post one has retired from as done in our case in pursuance of illegal and
    malaise instructions contained in DOP OM of 3/10/2008.

    10. In a recent judgment (14-9-2010) of AFT Delhi, in the case of Lt. Commanders and
    equivalent (OA 270/2010), the court has held that ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ is
    to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners.
    Pre revised scale of Lt. Commanders is 11600-14850 which is grouped in PB 3-(15600-
    39100) along with 3 other ranks. Pension of pre- 2006 Lt. Commanders was fixed by
    considering pay of 15600 (min.pay of pay band as done in our case) The court has ordered
    for taking pay as 23810 for the purpose of pension which is the minimum pay in the pay
    band corresponding to the minimum pay of 11600 as per their fitment tables similar to the
    tables of 30/8/2008 mentioned above.

    N.P. Mohan
    EX C.E. W. Rly.
    20-10-2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Posted by
    vnatarajan

  14. #954
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    As brought out by Respected Shri VNji and Respected Shri NPMji, the mismatch
    Between the accepted and implemented revision is explicit from the above write-up.

    Meanwhile, let us look back what was the vision and mission of the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendation on the instant subject.

    “LAND MARKS IN DEVELOPMENT

    Para 137.5 Nakara Case: The general practice in the past was to give the benefit of improvements in pension structure from a prospective date. A major change in the rules governing grant of pension was the introduction of the slab system of calculation of pension w.e.f. 31.3.1979. This liberalization came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in its judgment, dated 17.12.1982, in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983, SC 130) held that all Central Government pensioners were entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.4.1979 as computed under the slab system, irrespective of the date of their retirement. This was the first time that the benefit of improvements in the pension structure was extended to pensioners who had retired prior to the date from which improvements became effective. The following improvements in pensionary benefits were extended to past pensioners in terms of Nakara judgment:-

    a. Application of slab system for calculation of pension;
    b. Calculation of average emoluments over the preceding ten months instead of thirty-six months;
    c. Benefit of qualifying service upto 33 years instead of 30 years;
    d. Raising the ceiling on pension to Rs.1,500 per mensem;
    e. Extension of benefit of minimum pension.

    REASONS FOR DISPARITY IN PENSIONS

    Para 137.13: Our view: ………..The process of bridging the gap in pension of past pensioners has already been set in motion by the Fourth CPC when past pensioners were granted additional relief in addition to consolidation of their pension. This process of attainment of reasonable parity needs to be continued so as to achieve complete parity over a period of time.

    REVISION OF PENSION WITH REFERENCE TO MINIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES

    Para 137.20 Modified Parity conceded –
    …………There is force in the argument that the revised pension should be not less than that admissible on the minimum pay of the post held by the retiree at the time of retirement, as revised by the 5th CPC. We have no hesitation in conceding the argument advanced by pensioners that they should revise a pension at least based on the minimum pay of the post as revised by Fifth Pay Commission in the same way as an employee normally gets the minimum revised pay of the post he holds*. We recommend acceptance of this principle which is based on reasonable considerations.
    (*As per recent KSK case judgment, it is the minimum revised pay of the scale he held)

    Para 137.21 Principle enunciated:- The Commission has decided to enunciate a principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that the complete parity should normally be conceded upto the date of last pay revision and modified parity (with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay scale) be accepted at the time of each fresh pay revision. This guiding principle which we have accepted would assure that past pensioners will obtain complete parity between the pre-19086 and post-1986 pensioners but there will be only a modified parity between the pre-1996 and post-1996 pensioners. The enunciation of principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision, say, in the year 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners.

    137.25 : ……. We have already made in this Chapter a suitable recommendation that the revised pension/family pension shall not be less than that admissible on the minimum pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement or death as the case may be, as revised by the Govt. on our recommendations”.

    Having seen the ideology behind parity aspects, a natural question will now arise as to whether the intended modified parity has finally reached the pre-2006 pensioners while implementing the accepted recommendations of the Sixth CPC. No, As long as 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band alongwith 50% of GP together does not correspond with the minimum of the pre-revised payscale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement, the modified parity followed by complete parity as Visualized by the Fifth CPC remains neglected. Shri NPMji has very clearly brought out the mismatch for easy understanding of the crux of the issue.

    Alternatively, a uniform multiplication factor of 3 that was applied over 50% of minimum of pre-revised scale of pay in the case of S-30 and above scale retirees of pre-2006, can very well be got applied to similarly situated retirees of pre-2006 from remaining scales in order to avoid varying disparity in pensions of the homogenous class of pensioners.

    Apart from the above need for ensuring at least modified parity if not complete parity, as visualized/recommended as a guiding principle, Re-computation of pension based on emoluments drawn on the last day of retirement or average emoluments drawn during the preceding 10 months at the time of retirement whichever is beneficial, shall be carried out prior to revision of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as has been in the case of post-2006 pensioners. Incidentally, benefit of qualifying service of 20 years from 33 years for full pension or otherwise pro-rata, (as implemented in the case of pre-1979 pensioners in line with the principles of D.S. Nakara Judgment) as has been prescribed for post-2006 pensioners, ought to be extended to those who retired with <33 years service.

    Major anomalies having a bearing on majority of Pensioners Community need to be redressed/removed within least possible time by a new dimensional approach with the available guiding principles as discussed.

  15. #955
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. In on going litigations, Govt. has taken following stand as reflected from various "Counters" received :
    1. Under Rule 49, Govt. has every right to fix the amount of pension in each case.
    2. Modified parity has already been given. Minimum of the pay in the pay band is
    same as minimum of pay band for pre 2006 pensioners.
    3. Govt. has no funds to enhance amount of pension to bring equality in pre and post
    2006 pensioners.

  16. #956
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    This refers to point no. 3 in Sh Kanujia's post of yesterday.
    "3. Govt. has no funds to enhance amount of pension to bring equality in pre and post
    2006 pensioners. "

    Yes, very true;when it concerns pre-2006 pensioners!
    But they have enough funds for payment to post 2006 retirees as under:
    i. enhancement of gratuity to Rs.10 lacs from the earlier figure of Rs.3.5 lacs.One is lucky to hit the jackpot if he retired after 1.1.06
    ii.payment of full pension on completion of 20yrs of service ,which order has been amended to be effective from 1.1.06 for post 2006 retirees but denied to pre06 pensioners
    iii Enhanced HBA notified on 27.11.08, which has been made retrospectively effective from 1.1.06
    iv Pay/pension fixation as per fitment Table at much higher levels than pre-06 officers
    v Enhanced leave encashment
    vi To support the widening pension gap between pre and post 2006 pensioners, whenever there is a DR rise.
    vii to grant Non functional selection grade upgradation to all Gr A officers upto the level of Additional secretary for pay parity with IAS,to ensure that every Gr A officer, irrespective of the fact whether posts exist or not, gets higher pay;such mass upgradation not bound by any financial considerations.
    viii To have a new form of NSFG with unlimited posts, no higher responsibility etc; by relaxing the recruitment rules retrospectively(from 1.1.06)
    viii. To grant various benefits recommended by the 6CPC to be effective from a prospective date, retrospectively from 1.1.06, totally against the 6CPC recommendations which read as under
    "Implementation of the revised pay scales to be done retrospectively from January 1, 2006. Recommendations relating to allowances and other issues to be implemented prospectively."

    There may be many more issues to be compiled under this category of discrimination against pre-2006 retirees, but the ultimate result is that the authorities have ensured that the gap between pre and post 2006 retirees will in no case be reduced, but will only increase in a geometrical progression with the modified implementation of each one of the 6CPC recommendations

    G.Ramdas

  17. #957
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. Another Judgement in favour of modified parity for pre2006 pensioners for calculating revised pension as per fitment tables applied to post 2006 pensioners, has come, this time from AFT, Chandigarh, in case of retired Army Majors. Copy of full judgement is awaited.

  18. #958
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners,

    Fight against INJUSTICE/ fight for JUSTICE continues. Status subject to corrections given hereunder:

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

    IN HASTE- DRAFT

    PR CAT/ CAT/ AFT / HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT CASES OF INTEREST TO PRE-2006 S29/30 & OTHER (CIVIL/ MILITARY) PENSIONERS

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A (i). Pre 2006 S29 (Haryana State) Cases filed by retirees of HVPNL (erstwhile HSEB) in Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHANDIGARH

    1.. Civil writ petition 19641 of 2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Others vs State of Haryana
    Petitioner's Adv. : Veena Ashwani Talwar
    Next Date of Hearing: 17 December 2010 for arguments

    2. Civil Writ Petition 19642 of 2009 Satish Bhalla & others vs State of Haryana
    Petitioner's Adv. Veena Ashwani Talwar
    Next Date of Hearing: 17 December 2010 for arguments

    3.Civil Writ Petition 3452 of 2010 O.P. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana
    Petitioner's Adv.: Manohar Lall
    Next Date of Hearing: 10th Jan 2011
    Category: Govt Service (HY)/Retiral benefit.

    (ii)1, 2, 3, 4,. Four Civil Writ Petitions ifiled recently

    20725/ 26/ 27 and 29753 of 2010.

    Petitioners- Retd CEs/ SEs/ XENs (PB4) etc of Haryana Power Companies vs State of Haryana etc.

    Details awaited.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B (i). Cases in PR CAT, Delhi
    1.22 O.A. 3079/2009 MA. 2136/2009 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSION ASSOCIATION ADDL./JT. SECRETARY SH. L.R. KHATANA
    REVISION OF
    PENSION V/s -------------------------------------
    A U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    WITH SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. R.K.SHARMA
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    2.O.A. 201/2010 M.L. GULATI SH. S.K. RAY
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. R.K.SHARMA
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    3.O.A. 306/2010 D.L. VOHRA SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    4.O.A. 507/2010 P.P.S. GUMBER SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MALIK
    MA. 346/2010 V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I.-M/O PPG&P SH. R.K. SHARMA
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL
    SH. RAJINDER NISCHAL
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

    5.23 O.A 937/2010 MA. 907/2010 A.I. S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION SH. TARUN GUPTA
    PAY FIXATION V/s -------------------------------------
    PPG &P SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    WITH

    6.O.A. 2087/2009 RANVIR SINGH INPERSON
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I-M/O PPG&P SH. RAJENDER NISCHAL

    7.O.A. 655/2010 MA 476/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG (S-29) PENSIONERS SH. TARUN GUPTA
    DOP&T SH. KRISHAN KUMAR

    8.O.A.2101/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSO SH. L.R.KHATANA
    MA 1681/2010 V/s ---------------------------------------------
    D.O.P.&T

    Hearing began on 16th Aug 2010. Our Sr Counsel had initiated the case as Lead Adv. for S29 Cases. After initial deposition on the equality-inequality issue, the Judges had opined that as there is no response from Govt side, they may request the ASG to explain the Govt stand on the issue. After a few more more adjournments, the Govt had changed the ASG suddenly and on 1st Dec 2010, the new incumbent appears to have sought time to go through the case details being new!. Next Date given is 18th Jan 2011

    B. (ii). Pre 2006 S30 Pensioner Case ( Cause of Action same as AIS30PA, Delhi - Prem Sharma Group)at CAT, Patna/Delhi
    ( a )MMP Sinha Vs UOI (b) R M Raina
    Concluded in March 2010 Judgment DELIVERED on 28th and 25th May 2010. Details to be collected. (Raina’s Case at Delhi CAT appears to be disposed off with a suggestion to Govt to consider the petitioner’s plea that no S30 Pensioner shd draw less than highest possible S29 Pensioner ie not less than 67000 plus 10000 summed and divided by two wh is 38500- pl chk Judgment).

    B (iii) OA No 568 of 2010 (DeSPA) viz.DRDL etc Pre 2006 S29 Pensioners Vs UOI at CAT, HYDERABAD
    By Kotra Mallikarjuna Rao & Others-

    Dr Kotra writes:

    "The case could not come up on 21-10-2010, as one of the judges in the
    bench is on leave.Will be back after getting further information”

    B.(iv) Case at CAT,HYDERABAD.

    O.A. (SR) No.2413/9 of 15-09-2009
    Between:

    Petitioners:
    A.J Gurushankar, S/O Late A. Jagadia,
    Aged about 78 years.occ:Sr. Dy.G.M.S.C.Rly./SC
    Employee,R/O. Plot No.61,Gordhanpuri,
    Yapral,Secunderabad-500 087 and others.

    Vs
    Respondents:
    Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
    Dept. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,

    (Shri Gurushankar was in USA and hence case delayed. Now he is back from USA- but his lawyer is abroad. In the meanwhile Govt had given a Counter. A reply had been filed. Case will be poursued with a brother lawyer. New date will be sought)


    No date so far.

    B(v) S26 Pre-2006 Pensioners

    Dr Kotra informs:
    “The case is admitted and the No is OA 931/2010. I will be back to you all after further information is available with me”)

    B(vi) New DRODO Scientists’ CAT Case at ERNAKULAM:

    Dr Sivathanu Pillai had informed:

    S-26 and S 29 group jointly filed a case at CAT ,Ernakulam. It is admitted on 20 sep 2010 and No OA 834/2010. Relief prayed for both fixation and inclusion of special pay of Rs 2000 up to 2006 and 4000 from 2006 onwards.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    C.Case in UP High Court at Bench at LUCKNOW
    UP Retd IAS/IPS/IFS Officers’ Association Vs Union of India

    WP( C ) No: 203 (S/B) of 2010

    Was posted on 13th Oct 2010 but the said day turned out to be a holiday. NEXT DATE IS GIVEN AS 14TH DEC 2010.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    D. DELHI HIGH COURT


    COURT NO. 7
    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    Court No.
    1 W.P.(C) 3359/2010
    [PENDING] Order(s)
    Judgement(s)
    ALL INDIA EX-PARA MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION
    Vs. UNION OF INDIA ORS.
    Advocate : PRASHANT BHUSHAN
    Court No. :

    Next Date : 14th Dec 2010

    Admitted on 17 05 2010; Notice given to Respondents; Date given 11th AUGUST 2010. Govt. did not submit any "Counter" on 11.08.10 but requested for more time, which was given by the Court. Next date of hearing has been fixed . Details awaited..
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E (i). Rtd Maj Gen. SPS Vains Contempt Case

    Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009

    STATUS PENDING
    Cause Title

    MAJ. GEN. SPS VAINS & ORS.
    Vs.
    SH. VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

    Advocate Details
    Pet. Adv. MS. S. JANANI
    Res. Adv. MRS ANIL KATIYAR

    Subject Category

    MATTERS PERTAINING TO ARMED FORCES & PARA MILITARY FORCES
    Listing Details

    Matter was Listed 9 Times Earlier.
    Next Date of Listing 24 01 2011

    HSC Order on 6th Aug 2010 hearing:.

    An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the alleged contemnors indicating that the orders passed by this Court have been duly complied with.Matter was listed on 9th September, 2010,
    for consideration of the said affidavit. (In the meantime, the petitioners will be entitled to file an affidavit in respect of their contentions).
    However on 9th Sept 2010, Sr Adv of petitioners was indisposed. Case adjourned. Next Date fixed now 24 01 2011.


    E (ii) & (iii)
    AFT Directives on pre- 2006 Rtd Maj Gen parity case OA 100/2010 and another case by Rtd Soldiers (PBORs) on OROP AFT Chandigarh:
    verdict delivered on 4th March 2010 (?) in favour of the appellants with 3 months/ 4 months time-frame for Govt to implement.

    Adjourned to 1st Nov 2010.(?)
    (UPDATE/CORRECTION NEEDED)
    (Govt’s delay in FILING REPLY appears to have been dealt by CAT (?))

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

    THREE CASES TO BE DECIDED:

    F.(i) PR AFT, Delhi Case on Modified Parity by Rtd Lt Cdrs/ Majors (More than 135) etc Vs UOI

    OA No 24/2010
    WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY PETITIONERS. On 7th Sept 2010, in the hearing, RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TIME TO PERUSE AFFIDAVIT. Case heard/ Judgment delivered 15/16 Sept 2010 in favour of Petitioners. Posting of Judgment Copy in website www.rrewa.org
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) & (III) AFT, Chandigarh Cases on Modified Parity by Rtd Majors (Maj Navdeep Singh)-17 Rtd Majors plus 45 Sqdrn Leaders and also another Group for similar benefits to all Retd Majors – Decided on 1st Nov 2010 and 25th Nov 2010 respectively in favour of the petitioners extending same relief as in (1) above .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 17-12-2010 at 07:45 AM. Reason: Incorporated data on new cases furnished by Shri RKS at post 930 below

  19. #959
    Member R.Devaraju is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Sir,
    There are certain anomalies in the pension payable to the pensioners who were absorbed in PSU / Autonomous Body as detailed below. They could be set right only if orders are issued allowing them to exercise revised / fresh option for pro rata pension.

    Whenever an employee is absorbed in a PSU / AB, he has an option (a) to receive pro rata retirement pension
    or (b) continue to have the pension benefit of combined service on absorption.Employees desired full pension were opted for combined pension benefits and their service was counted. Pension benefit for past service was paid by Parent Dept to the PSU / AB.

    But the various pension rules amended subsequently have extended the following additional pension benefits to the employees who opted for pro rata pension, discriminating employees opted for combined service pension.
    1. Restoration of 1/3 rd commuted pension to the employees who opted for lump sum .. …. payment on absorption along with Dearness Relief wef1999.
    2. Dearness Relief on pension from 1999 to all pro rata pensioners.
    3. The VI Central Pay Commission has granted full pension for 10 years service.

    Had the Government of India allowed the above pension benefits at the time of absorption itself, the employees opted for counting service for combined service pension would have opted for pro rata pension. All such employees have now rendered more than 10 years service and that alone is sufficient to get full pension. The pension benefits paid by parent department has become an extra income to PSU / AB where as the absorbees are deprived of getting the benefits due to them. It is not known whether the National Anomaly committee would take up this issue or solve during its tennure. So, kindly inform the details of cases, if any, before the so called courts on this anomaly for redressal.

    Last edited by R.Devaraju; 15-12-2010 at 09:14 AM.

  20. #960
    Junior Member rksehgal31 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Dear Natrajan ji, Sundar ji and Kanaujia ji,

    On the auspicious occasion of the Pensioners' Day celebrations at Chandigarh, I convey my greetings and best wishes for the success of the delibrations. Please write the contact Tel Nos and e-mail IDs of the organisers at Chandigarh.

    Incidentally, two CWPs 19641/2009 and 19642/2009 filed by Chief Engineers of HVPN (erstwhile HSEB) Er RK Agarwal and others and Er Satish Bhalla and others for parity with post-2006 pensioners will come up for arguments in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on that very day i.e. 17.12.2010. We wish them success in their struggle.

    Another 4 CWPs (Nos. 20725, 20726, 20727 and 29753 all of 2010) have been filed in the high court at Chandigarh by about 100 pre-2006 pensioners (CEs, SEs and XENs) of PB-4 band of the Haryana Power companies for quashing Haryana govt notification dated 17.04.09, vide which two different Revised Pension Rules for pre- and post-2006 pensioners have been issued, specifically Rule 5, which revises the pension to 2.26 times only while the pay scales of PB-4 have been revised to 3.22-3.44 times and Rule 6, which fixes the minimum pension to minimum of the pay band for 33 years of service while an employee reaches the maximum of the pay scale in 33 years.

    Prayer has also been made to fix the pay and pension of the pre-2006 pensioners at par with that of their next-below junior of the same rank and having same length of service in the same cadre and also to quash the implementation rule 7(1) (A) which causes 2 stages to be bunched together in the fitment tables thereby snatching away the benefit of half the service, as it is against the very spirit of the running pay bands, which have been introduced to avoid stagnation.

    We have prayed to fix the pay of pre-2006 pensioners in PB-4 by giving one incremet for every year of service exceeding 12 years (as Asstt Engineer and above) and one increment for each promotion, thus the pay needs to be fixed at the maximum of the PB-4 i.e. Rs.67000 + GP for 26-28 years service in the engineering cadre and pension and family pension be revised accordingly wef 01.01.2006.

    Notice of motion has been issued for 23.12.2010.

    RK Sehgal

+ Reply to Thread
Page 48 of 77 FirstFirst ... 38 46 47 48 49 50 58 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Grade pay for past pensioners
    By yenyem in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28-12-2012, 05:43 PM
  2. Injustice done by cpc
    By balajeeva97 in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 29-05-2009, 07:09 PM
  3. pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity
    By RSundaram in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 08:22 PM
  4. 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