+ Reply to Thread
Page 52 of 77 FirstFirst ... 2 42 50 51 52 53 54 62 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,040 of 1540

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

  1. #1021
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    With reference to post No.1019 of Respected Shri VNji, the following latest info. is submitted.
    Item No. 13 Lucknow HC Ser.Ben.203/2010 s29 UP Officers 9.11.2011 For hearing
    Item No. 49 CAT–PB Delhi OA 1165 /2011 Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP 23.11.2011 Admitted on 16.05.11

    For kind information.

  2. #1022
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Pre-2006 pensioners with <33 yrs. Qualifying service for full pension

    1. State of Punjab Vs Justice S.S Dewan (Retired Chief Justice) and others [(1997) 4 Sec 569] by HSC

    “Conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and the quantum of pension. The formula adopted for determining last average emoluments drawn has an impact on the quantum of pension. In D.S. Nakara case the change in the formula of, determining average emoluments by reducing 36 months' service to 10 months' service as measure of pension, made with a view to giving a higher average, 'was regarded as liberalisation or upward revision' of the existing pension scheme. On the basis of the same reasoning it may be said that any modification with respect to the other determinative factor, namely Qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can also be regard liberalisation or upward revision of the existing pension scheme”.

    "Thus the Supreme Court referred to D.S.Nakara and held that any modification with respect to qualifying service made with a view to make it more beneficial in terms of quantum of pension can be regarded as liberalisation upward revision of the existing pension scheme".
    (UOI vs T.Mukundan DOJ 29.3.2005 by Mumbai High Court)

    2. The HSC in V.Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 81, in Para.21, has held as under :

    "21. If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara's case (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) would cover this category of cases."

    "Thus, the Apex Court has laid down the law to the extent that if an employee is entitled to have the benefits conferred upon the other similarly situated persons, such an employee cannot be deprived the benefits on the ground of giving effect of such benefit from a particular date".
    (M.N.Sheth vs State of Gujarat DOJ :3.10.2011 by Gujarat High Court)
    .. CONTD...

  3. #1023
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Electricity Board Vs. R. Veerassamy and others, (1999)3 Supreme Court Cases 414, has been pleased to lay down as under: -

    "8. As noticed earlier, the law is very well settled on the issue on hand. In the latest judgment dated 9-10- 1998 of this Court in V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay after noticing all the judgments of this Court up to that date on this issue, it was held as follows:

    "23. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if subsequently by amendment of the relevant pension rules any beneficial umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and when such a subsequent scheme comes into force, the erstwhile non-pensioner might have survived, then only if such extension of pension scheme to erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non- pensioner who has retired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non- pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep. The decisions of this Court covering such second category of cases are: Commander, Head Quarter v. Cap. Biplabendra Chanda and Govt. of T.N. v. K. Jayaraman to which we have made a reference earlier. If the claimant for pension benefits satisfactorily brings his case within the first category of cases, he would be entitled to get the additional benefits of pension computation even if he might have retired prior to the enforcement of such additional beneficial provisions. But if on the other hand, the case of a retired employee falls in the second category, the fact that he retired prior to the relevant date of the coming into operation the new scheme would disentitle him from getting such a new benefit."

    9. ......
    10. In Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P. This Court held as follows:

    "9. The only other question that survives for our consideration is whether the ratio in Nakara case will assist the appellant in getting the relief sought for. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India the question for consideration before this Court was whether on the basis of date of retirement the retirees can be classified into different groups and thereupon make provision granting some benefits to one group denying the others. In the aforesaid case, the provisions for pension were applicable to all retirees and, therefore, pensioners from a class as a whole. But when the Liberalised Pension Scheme was introduced, the said Scheme was made applicable to a group of pensioners and not to all and therefore, it was held by this Court that pensioners from a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion. It is to be noted that the aforesaid Bench judgment of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India wherein the decision of Nakara was explained and it was held that the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class and on the other hand, the Rules governing the provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the Rules governing pension and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to provident fund retirees. It was further held in the aforesaid case that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund Rules whereas in case of pension retirees, the obligation continues till the death of the employee. This Court categorically held that Nakara cannot be an authority for the decision in Krishena Kumar. In Union of India v. P.N. Menon a similar question came up for consideration and distinguishing Nakara and following Krishena Kumar and other similar cases, the Court held that whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefit to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such, any revised scheme in respect can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government. When the army personnel claimed the same pension irrespective of their date of retirement, this Court in the Constitution Bench case of the Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India considered the grievance of ex- servicemen who had laid the claim on the basis of Nakara but ultimately negatived the same and followed Krishena Kumar. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn v. Union of India when the validity of the introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was challenged on the ground that bank employees who retired prior to 1-1-1986 have not been given the benefit of the said Scheme, it was held by this Court that there is no arbitrariness in the same."

    11. On 17-11-1998, a three-Judge Bench in All India PNB Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India while negativing an identical claim, held as follows: "This writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn v. Union of India. That judgment has rightly noted the distinction that Nakara case drew between a continuing scheme and a new scheme".
    (Dr. Pardaman Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 January, 2010 by Punjab-Haryana High Court)

    CONTD..

  4. #1024
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    4. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma, JT 2000 (Suppl.1) SC 41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considered the question, whether, the pensioner was eligible to the benefit conferred on the pensioners by amendment of the Pension Rules, which had prospective in nature, came into fore after the pensioner had retired. After examining the judgments in V.Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Another, JT 1998(7) SC 147, Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and Others Vs. Capt. Biplabendra Chand, JT 1996(12) SC 242, U.O.I. and Others Vs. Lieut (Mrs.) E.Lacats, 1997 (7) SCC 334 and T.N. Electricty Board Vs. Veerasamy and Others, JT 1999 (2) SC 429, the principles of law summed up were, as follows:- The conspectus of legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decisions are as under :-

    (a) Where an employee under the terms and conditions of service or under the relevant Rules relating to pension is not eligible to earn pension on his or her retirement, any amendment to the Rules covering a new class if pensioners would not confer pensionary benefits to the employee who has retired prior to coming into force of such amendment of Rules. (b) However, the position would be different if such an amendment in the relevant pension Rules is with retrospective effect as to cover a new class of employees including those employees who, at the relevant time, were not entitled to earn pension under the then existing Rules conditions of service. (c) Where an employee at the time of retirement is entitled to pension under the relevant Rules, any subsequent amendment to the relevant Rules enhancing pension or conferring additional benefit would be also application to him".
    (Ansal Bhawan vs Sh. Mohan Kainth DOJ: 8.12.2008 By Delhi High Court)

    Keeping the well settled position in view, the ratio in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nakara case is very much applicable for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service for full pension; The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara's case (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) would cover this category of cases.

  5. #1025
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Pension Retirees and PF Retirees

    5."The decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India has been distinguished in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court e.g. All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in which it was observed:

    10. Nakara's judgment has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalized all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalization and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalization on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalise an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakara's case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut-off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved".
    (National Institute Of Public ... vs Dr. D. Paul Choudhary on 3 March, 2006 by Delhi High Court)

    6. "8.4 In D.S. Nakara's case (supra), the Supreme Court struck down the classification made between pensioners for the purpose of grant of benefit of liberalization only on the basis of the particular date i.e. 3rd March, 1979. The judgment in Nakara's case (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India was considered by another Constitution Bench in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India . The facts of that case were that the petitioners, who were retired Railway employees challenged the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-1957 specified in the Pension Scheme introduced in place of Provident Fund Scheme. While repelling the challenge, the Supreme Court distinguished the ratio of Nakara's case (supra) by making following observations :

    In Nakara, the Court treated the pension retirees only as a homogeneous class. It was never held that both the pension retirees and the PF retirees formed a homogeneous class and that any further classification among them would be violative of Article 14. On the other hand the court clearly observed that it was not dealing with the problem of a "fund". The Railway Contributory Provident Fund is by definition a fund. Besides, on the retirement of an employee Government's legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to P.F. retirees. This being the legal position the rights of each individual P.F. retiree finally crystallized on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained, while on the other hand, as regard Pension retirees, the obligation continued till their death. The continuing obligation of the State in respect of pension retirees is adversely affected by fall in rupee value and rising prices which, considering the corpus already received by the P.F. retirees they would not be so adversely affected ipso facto. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the ratio decidendi in Nakara that the State's obligation must be the same as that towards the pension retirees. An imaginary definition of obligation to include all the Government retirees in a class, was not decided and could not form the basis for any classification for the purpose of this case. Nakara cannot, therefore, be an authority for this case.

    8.5 In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ratan 'Behari Dey and Ors. , the Supreme Court referred to the, judgments in Shushma Sharma's case (supra), D.S. Nakara's case (supra) and Krishena Kumar's case (supra) and upheld the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-1977 specified in the Corporation of Calcutta Employees
    (Death-cum-retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1982. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below :

    The State Government had acted reasonably in specifying the cut-off date April 1, 1977. That might have been the year in which the Left Front came into power in that State, but that does not detract from the validity of the reasons for fixing the date. It cannot be said that the reasons assigned by the State Government are neither relevant nor acceptable. Nakara was a case where an artificial date was specified classifying, the retirees, governed by the same Rules, and similarly situated, into two different classes, depriving one such class of the benefit of liberalized Pension Rules. Whereas in this case, the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1997 and those retiring thereafter were governed by different sets of rules.

    It is open to the State or to the Corporation; as the case may be, to change the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision or pay-scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the said power. The State can specify a date with effect from which the Regulations framed, or amended, as the case may be, shall come into force. It was within the power of the Corporation to enforce the Regulations either prospectively or with retrospective effect from such date as they might specify. Only condition is that in such cases the State cannot pick a date out of its hat. It has to prescribe the date in a reasonable manner, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf on ground of discrimination.

    8.6 In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India , the Supreme Court distinguished Nakara's case (supra) and applied the ratio of Krishena Kumar's case (supra) for rejecting the petitioner's plea that denial of the benefit of Pension "Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to those who had retired prior to 1-1-1996 was violative of Article 14. Their Lordships drew distinction between cases in which existing Pension Scheme is liberalized and in which new Pension Scheme is introduced and held :

    When the State decides to revise and liberalize an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily granted the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme".
    (State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Narsinhdas Krishnadas Agravat on 22 June, 2005 by Gujarat High Court)

    Thus the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class and on the other hand, the Rules governing the provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the Rules governing pension and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue what is not applicable to the provident fund retirees must be denied to the pension retirees also. The rights of each individual retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund Rules whereas in case of pension retirees, the obligation continues till the death of the employee, and even after the death in the form of family pension.

  6. #1026
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    Dear pre 2006 pensioners/ Others interested/ my spl friends Shri Sundarar & Shri MLK ji,

    I AM AWARE MORE THAN 100 PENSIONERS SEE THIS THREAD EVERYDAY AND I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR!

    THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT BY PR BENCH CAT DELHI ON THE FIRST FOUR CASES LISTED IN MY POST AT SL NO 1016 TOOK PLACE ON 1ST NOV 2011, AFTER THE FINAL HEARING WAS COMPLETED ON 19 OCT 2011.

    AS USUAL, THE ASG (very rightly) HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT TO ARGUE THE OTHERWISE "WEAK, POINTLESS, INFRUCTUOUS, PERVERTED, ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL" RESPONSE PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENTS VIZ DOPW AND DOE OF GOI.

    The four cases whose SOLE OR MAIN PLEA IN THEIR PETITIONS was for "SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" based on 'MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND CORRESPONDING TO THE PREREVISED PAY SCALE" as also approved/ sanctioned by the Cabinet/ Hon Prez and were seeking relief against the incorrectly/ illegally/ wrongly impkemented by the authorities on the baiss of "MINIMUM PAY OF THE PAY BAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES", were allowed through the landmark judgment pronounced on 1st Nov 2011, covring nearly a 1000 pre 2006 S29 scale retirees of first four groups listed in the post 1016.

    The cases pronounced are:

    Court No 1. 1st Nov 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI CHAIRMAN
    AND
    HON’BLE MR. M.L.CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
    AND
    HON’BLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
    ----------------------------------- STATUS/NDH

    1 O.A. 655/2010 CENTRAL GOVT. SAG(S-
    29) PENSIONERS’ ASSO
    SH. NIDHESH GUPTA,
    SENIOR
    ADVOCATE
    SH. TARUN GUPTA
    DIS
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
    SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
    SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
    SH. SUMET GOEL
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
    SH. R.K.SHARMA

    2 O.A. 3079/2009 CENTRAL GOVT.
    PENSIONERS ASSO OF
    ADDITIONAL/JOINT
    SECRETARY
    &EQUIVALENT OFFICERS
    SH. L.R.KHATANA DIS
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
    SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
    SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
    SH. SUMET GOEL
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
    SH. R.K.SHARMA

    3 O.A. 306/2010 D.L.VOHRA SH. S.K.MALIK DIS
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
    SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
    SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
    SH. SUMET GOEL
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
    SH. R.K.SHARMA

    4 O.A.507/2010 PPS GUMBER & ORS SH. S.K.MALIK DIS
    V/s -------------------------------------
    U.O.I. SH. RITESH KUMAR,
    SH. PIYUSH SANGHI
    SH. SIMRANJEET SINGH
    SH. SUMET GOEL
    SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
    SH. RAJESH KATYAL AND
    SH. R.K.SHARMA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I AM HAPPY TO ADD THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN POSITIVE AND THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FULLY ALLOWED FOR THE ISSUE OF SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY.

    SOON THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE AND THE OPERATIONAL/ SALIENT POINTS OF THE SAME WILL BE POSTED HERE.

    WE ONLY PRAY THE AUTHORITIES NOW AT LEAST PAY RESPECT TO THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE AND IMPLEMENT THE VERDICT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME IN A MORE HUMANE AND TRANSPARENT MANNER!

    vnatarajan.
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 02-11-2011 at 11:58 AM. Reason: TYPO

  7. #1027
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Hearty congrats to VN and the S-29 team for this achievement.
    G. Ramdas

  8. #1028
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    ..........
    WE ONLY PRAY THE AUTHORITIES NOW AT LEAST PAY RESPECT TO THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE AND IMPLEMENT THE VERDICT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME IN A MORE HUMANE AND TRANSPARENT MANNER!

    vnatarajan.[/B]
    Respected Shri VNji and other Senior Veterans,

    The current outcome is the outcome of valuable blessings of all your goodselves. I thank one and all of your goodselves for leading and taking up for ensuring complete justice to the Pensioners
    Community.

    At this point of time, I wish to submit the following extract of Press Report for kind information please.

    “Hon. Union Law Minister Shri Veerappa Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation
    NEW DELHI, June 24, 2010 Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation by
    Shri P. Sunderarajan. The Hindu

    Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily with Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati addressing a press conference on ‘National Litigation Policy’ at Shastri Bhavan in New Delhi on Wednesday the 23rd June, 2010.

    With the huge backlog of cases continuing to clog the wheels of justice, Union Law Minister M.Veerappa Moily on Wednesday launched a new policy initiative to ensure that government departments and agencies become more “responsible” in filing and pursuing cases.

    Recognising that the departments and agencies contribute the maximum to court cases, the new ‘National Litigation Policy' enjoins on these organisations to think twice before resorting to litigations, as well as in pursuing them.

    The policy statement makes it very clear that, “litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating” and that “false pleas and technical points will not be taken.”

    It also lays down that correct facts, all relevant documents should be placed before the court and that nothing should be suppressed or an attempt made to mislead any court or tribunal.

    The policy also directs that “the Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant” and states that, “the philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded” and that “the easy approach, ‘let the court decide' must be eschewed and condemned.” Drafted by the office of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, the policy provides a set of tools for its implementation, including a provision for appointment of well-trained nodal officers, with adequate legal background and expertise by each and every department and agency for a “pro-active” management of its cases and constitution of empowered committees to monitor the implementation of the policy.

    Acknowledging that frequent adjournments are resorted to by government lawyers, the policy states: “unnecessary and frequent adjournments would be frowned upon and infractions dealt with seriously.” Defaulting lawyers may even have their names removed or suspended from government panels.

    The policy also provides that in service matters, no appeal would be filed in cases where the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion or where the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.

    Further, an appeal would not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees and appeals would not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another. Challenges to orders of Tribunals would be an exception rather than a matter of routine.
    Mr. Moily said that in keeping with the new policy, all pending cases involving the government would be reviewed and categorised in order of priority so that they could be disposed of quickly".

    Keeping in view the said Policy, I am hopeful that judicious decision to implement the verdict
    will prevail in the days to come.

    Incidentally, around December, 2010 I came across a Senior citizen(Pensioner)'s grievance in another thread of this discussion forum which is reproduced below:
    "we are required to go to courts for getting interpretation in each and every individual case. We can only hope and pray that we are able to see the cases through from CAT to High Court to Supreme Court within our life time. Even after the judgement is pronounced by the apex court, one does not know how much time the Accounting Departments will take to revise PPO. I have lost all hopes of getting what is due to me in my lifetime".

    Best Regards and Thanks.
    Last edited by sundarar; 02-11-2011 at 07:09 PM.

  9. #1029
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    OPERATIONAL PART OF THE PR BENCH CAT JUDGMENT ON 1 11 2011 WRT THE OA 655/ 2010 OF CGS29PA VS UOI AND OTHER BUNCHED UP CASES AS ALREADY MENTIONED IN EARLIER POST OF MINE:

    Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested Pensioners/ Friends,

    Thanks to Shri Sundarar's posts seen above, We shall be pursuing actions on the same.

    NOW I AM POSTING THE OPERATIONAL PART OF THE JUDGMENT MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THIS POST:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. ................., Senior Advocate with Mr. ................, Counsel for applicants in OA Nos.655/2010.

    O R D E R
    Hon ble Mr. .........., Member (J):
    ............
    ............
    ............

    "30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs.

    Member (A) Member (J) Chairman

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

    WE SHALL TRY TO POST THE FULL JUDGMENT AS ANNEXURE SOON.

    vnatarajan

  10. #1030
    Member subba Rao R S is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    Respected Shri VNji and other Senior Veterans,

    The current outcome is the outcome of valuable blessings of all your goodselves. I thank one and all of your goodselves for leading and taking up for ensuring complete justice to the Pensioners
    Community.

    At this point of time, I wish to submit the following extract of Press Report for kind information please.

    “Hon. Union Law Minister Shri Veerappa Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation
    NEW DELHI, June 24, 2010 Moily unveils new policy to cut down on government litigation by
    Shri P. Sunderarajan. The Hindu

    Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily with Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati addressing a press conference on ‘National Litigation Policy’ at Shastri Bhavan in New Delhi on Wednesday the 23rd June, 2010.

    With the huge backlog of cases continuing to clog the wheels of justice, Union Law Minister M.Veerappa Moily on Wednesday launched a new policy initiative to ensure that government departments and agencies become more “responsible” in filing and pursuing cases.

    Recognising that the departments and agencies contribute the maximum to court cases, the new ‘National Litigation Policy' enjoins on these organisations to think twice before resorting to litigations, as well as in pursuing them.

    The policy statement makes it very clear that, “litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating” and that “false pleas and technical points will not be taken.”

    It also lays down that correct facts, all relevant documents should be placed before the court and that nothing should be suppressed or an attempt made to mislead any court or tribunal.

    The policy also directs that “the Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant” and states that, “the philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded” and that “the easy approach, ‘let the court decide' must be eschewed and condemned.” Drafted by the office of Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, the policy provides a set of tools for its implementation, including a provision for appointment of well-trained nodal officers, with adequate legal background and expertise by each and every department and agency for a “pro-active” management of its cases and constitution of empowered committees to monitor the implementation of the policy.

    Acknowledging that frequent adjournments are resorted to by government lawyers, the policy states: “unnecessary and frequent adjournments would be frowned upon and infractions dealt with seriously.” Defaulting lawyers may even have their names removed or suspended from government panels.

    The policy also provides that in service matters, no appeal would be filed in cases where the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion or where the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.

    Further, an appeal would not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees and appeals would not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another. Challenges to orders of Tribunals would be an exception rather than a matter of routine.
    Mr. Moily said that in keeping with the new policy, all pending cases involving the government would be reviewed and categorised in order of priority so that they could be disposed of quickly".

    Keeping in view the said Policy, I am hopeful that judicious decision to implement the verdict
    will prevail in the days to come.

    Incidentally, around December, 2010 I came across a Senior citizen(Pensioner)'s grievance in another thread of this discussion forum which is reproduced below:
    "we are required to go to courts for getting interpretation in each and every individual case. We can only hope and pray that we are able to see the cases through from CAT to High Court to Supreme Court within our life time. Even after the judgement is pronounced by the apex court, one does not know how much time the Accounting Departments will take to revise PPO. I have lost all hopes of getting what is due to me in my lifetime".

    Best Regards and Thanks.
    This is really a good and positive step. Congrats to Shri V N and his huge team for this cause. Shri V N and others are guiding other pensioners also.

    Will this modified parity will be applied to other pre 2006 pensioners also by the Government is to be seen in the light of Hon Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily with Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati addressing a press conference on ‘National Litigation Policy’ at Shastri Bhavan in New Delhi on Wednesday the 23rd June, 2010.

    Let us hope for a an order to this effect by the DOP & PW for all pre 2006 pensioners with out resorting to legal channel again.

    Even though I have been seeing the development I am not aware whether this will be only for S-29 pre 2006 pensioner or others also.

    can I seek clarrity from Shri VN ji please.

    Subba Rao R S
    Last edited by subba Rao R S; 02-11-2011 at 07:57 PM.

  11. #1031
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    Dear Shri Subba rao,

    I shall send u full judgment COPY.
    I HAVE POSTED THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS A GENERALISED ONE.
    IF MODIFIED PARITY IS BENFICIAL TO YOU / ANY PRE 2006 PENSIONER, RATHER THAN THE 2.26 MF, HE MUST ASCERTAIN THE FIGURES FIRST AND THEN APPLY FOR CORRECTION.
    SUCH AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS ( SAY S21-23) CAN DEFINITELKY QUOTE THIS JUDGMENT AND SEEK RELIEF.

    Regards
    vnatarajan

  12. #1032
    Member subba Rao R S is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post


    Dear Shri Subba rao,

    I shall send u full judgment COPY.
    I HAVE POSTED THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS A GENERALISED ONE.
    IF MODIFIED PARITY IS BENFICIAL TO YOU / ANY PRE 2006 PENSIONER, RATHER THAN THE 2.26 MF, HE MUST ASCERTAIN THE FIGURES FIRST AND THEN APPLY FOR CORRECTION.
    SUCH AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS ( SAY S21-23) CAN DEFINITELKY QUOTE THIS JUDGMENT AND SEEK RELIEF.

    Regards
    vnatarajan
    Thanks for info. I belong to S-21 catagery and will seek relief as advised after getting the judgement copy. Thanks once again for the help you have offered. We in DRDO are planning to approach CAT for inclusion of 2 additional incerements anctioned to scintist(from jan 1996) for pension calulation as per the S/C judement which has come in our favour.

    Subba Rao R S

  13. #1033
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear pre 2006 pensioners,

    Those interetsed in accessing the PR BENCH CAT JUDGMENT ON OA 655/ 2010 OF CGS29PA VS UOI AND OTHER BUNCHD OAS WITH IT, delivered on 1 11 2011 may vist the following links of the CAT Delhi website:

    http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx
    http://cgat.gov.in/judgement_main.htm

    Best of luck, Cheers,
    vnatarajan

  14. #1034
    Junior Member Dr.M.Jauhari is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    I live in Lucknow
    Posts
    26

    Default

    The appeal in this case,if any, will presumably be in the High Court.As today,two cases on the same subject are pending in the High Courts of Lucknow and Delhi.Is there not a possibility that the DOP may take advantage of this and request the CAT to stay its judgement till the final outcome of the High Court cases? Shri Natarajan can enlighten.
    Last edited by Dr.M.Jauhari; 03-11-2011 at 04:32 AM. Reason: Correction

  15. #1035
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Dr MJ.,

    A very good question at right time.

    IN FACT IF THE DOPW BRINGS IN THE TWO CASES OF LUCKNOW AND DELHI HIGH COURTS, IT WILL GIVE US THE "LIVERAGE" TO GO TO HON SUP COURT POINTING OUT SINCE THE DIFEERENT VENUES OF JUSTICE MAY GIVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE SAME ISSUE , THERE IS A NEED FOR A COMMON VERDICT AND HENCE SUP COURT MUST INTERVENE TO DO JUSTICE.

    In fact, personally my Gen Sec of Pensioners' Forum, wanted and advised us to "SIMPLY" file simultaneously in 3 or 4 CATS our "CASE" of same content/ issue and use such pending cases as the basis to approach the HSC for a common verdict. This is what many employees associations do.

    So I feel we can use the said "leverage" besides the fact that TWO AFT TRIBUNALS have given verdicts on the correct MPPB can be cited- even though they are MILITARY PENSIONERS' CASES, the interpretation part on the correct MPPB which was the ESSENCE OF THE VERY VERDICT OF JUSTICE can not be ignored!

    WE CAN CERTAINLY (TRY TO) GO TO HSC IN CASE THE DOPPW/ DOE CONTINUE TO PLAY THEIR "INDIFFERENT" AND "INCONGRUENT" ROLE IN SPITE OF THREEE MEMBER, UNANIMOUS, PR BENCH CAT VERDICT .

    (PS: I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO KNOCK THE HSC AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WE HAVE SOME MORE "MATERIAL INFORMATION" WHICH HAD NOT BEEN USED FOR "ARGUMENTS" IN THE CURRENT CASE).

    Regards,

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 03-11-2011 at 05:26 AM. Reason: typo

  16. #1036
    Junior Member Dr.M.Jauhari is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    I live in Lucknow
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Dear Shri Natarajan,
    Thanks for your prompt reply.I would only like to add that the UP IAS Association went straight to the HSC and argued at the time of admission that as different courts of the country might give different judgements on the issue of modified parity,it would be in the fitness of things that a final verdict be given by the HSC binding on all.But the court did not accept the argument and advised them to withdraw the petition or face dismissal.Finally,the petitioners withdrew the petition and the case was dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to go to the High Court ,if desired.
    Best Regards.MJauhari
    Last edited by Dr.M.Jauhari; 03-11-2011 at 08:46 AM. Reason: Correction

  17. #1037
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Dr MJ,

    You are right on the observations wrt UP IAS case.

    THE HSC WAS A BIT HARSH BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS WENT DIRECT WITHOUT EVEN A "TRY" AT ANY LOWER COURT.

    IT WAS THE GRACE OF THE HSC THAT THEY HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO GO TO HC AND NOT STARTING FROM CAT STAGE!

    IN OUR CASE:

    WE NOW HAVE A THREE JUDGE FULL BENCH PR CAT "unanimous" VERDICT IN OUR FAVOUR.

    OUR JUDGMENET HAS TAKEN INTO CINSIDERATION HOW PATNA HIGH COURT HAS DEALT THE PRE S29 PENSIONER ISSUE OF CONSIDERING THE "CURRENT PENSION" AT TOP OF THE S29 SCALE ie 38500 AND THEY HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF MINIMUM PENSION AT THE BOTTOM!

    SO ONE HC VERDICT IS ALREADY COVERED!

    NOW THE TWO PENDING ONES ARE GETTING DELAYED BY REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS!

    MANY UP IAS ETC RETIREES MAY ALREADY BE DRAWING THE PENSION OF 26500 (EQUAL TO DIRECT RECRUITEES) AFTER THE UP GOVT ORDERS ,BECAUSE THEY DRAW THEIR PENSION THRU TREASURIES. (I THINK THIS HAS TO BE DONE WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF CPAO, MOF AND HENCE I PRESUME THAT GOI IS IN THE PICTURE!)

    BESIDES OUR PR CAT JUDGMENT, WE DO HAVE TWO AFT JUDGMENTS (SEPT 2010/ DEC2010) OF PR BENCH AFT DELHI, CHANDIGARH BENCH AFT, ON THE VERY ISSUE OF MODIFIED PARITY WITH CORRECT "DEFINITION OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" VIS A VIS "MINIMUM OF THE PAY BAND"- ie the justice part on interpretatiion can not be ignored! Our PR CAT CASE has addressed the issue of tampering/ tinkering whereas the AFT verdicts have addressed the issue of MPPB vs MPB!

    So we may have a better footing to go to HSC, if the GOVT tries the HC route!.

    May be the Sr Counsel decides the choice!

    Regards,
    vnatarajan

    Last edited by vnatarajan; 03-11-2011 at 09:15 AM. Reason: TYPO

  18. #1038
    Member ybhaskar23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Dear Mr V Natarajan,
    Great News,
    Thanks for all the good work done,
    I presume the judgement will be applicable to all cases of pre 2006 pensioners
    whose pensions were fixed at the minimum of the pay band and not in the
    minimum of the pay in the pay band.
    I am pretty sure this anamoly would be existing in retirees belonging to all pay bands
    ie pb 1, pb2,pb3, and pb4 also.
    Pl confirm the above point and also confirm orders will be issued to cover all category of employees in all pay bands.
    My congratulations personally to you and all your team mates
    Thanking you
    Y Bhaskar Rao

  19. #1039
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Mr Bhaskar/ Other interetsed pre 2006 pensioners,

    Let me reproduce the operational part of the PR CAT JUDGMENT on OA 655 0f 201 & Other Co -OAs , judged on 1 11 2011:
    "30. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs."

    1.Applicability of judgment: There is nothing in theis para which prevents other pre 2006 pensioners getting the benefit of the same, though the issue was fought by a specific groups of pre 2006 s29 scale retirees. We have to see how the GOi/ DOPW- DOE combine tries to restrict the application (they never apply any benefit "suo moto" to all nor they are graceful enough to concede tha application of court verdicts to "similarly stanced aggrieved" . This is the perverted policy of our Depts/ Ministries.

    Once applied- "they call the judgment is SETTLED"!!!! So every time/ every "non-litigant" the "aggrieved" has to go to courts for similar- same - new justice.

    2. Anomaly would exist in other forcibly pay banded pb1/2/3 pre-2006 retirees: Yes . you are right. A table was prepared to show how the pre 2006 retirees of 34 prerevised scales would be affected. Eight such scale retirees were definitely affected @ Rs 200 to Rs 3650 pm wef 1 1 2006(S30 got out - otherwise they suffered maxm. loss). In pre 2006 scales pb1/2/3, as promotions were rae, many have drawn sufficient increments and so the 2.26 MF provision which was based on the last pay drawn ( may be 10 mths average) by the old pensioner was perhaps beneficial to him rather than even the MPPB based one. Also not many did know the diffce between MPB and MPPB.

    Unless each pold pensioner chks his own case, it is difficult to understand the difference or anomaly. May be not many were affected in pb1/2 that way.

    In pb3, certainly S21/22/23 do have solid difference unless they have reached the top/ stagnated.

    Shri G Ramadas prepared a table for refernce on this. It is available for guidance after verification. I HAVE ALSO POSTED IN THIS VERY THREAD EARLIER WHILE DEALING WITH "WHY APATHY .....". IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE , YOU MAY BE ABLE TO LOCATE TO SEE WHO WD BE AFFECTED WITH HOW MANY NO. OF INCREMENTS IN THE SCALE AS THRESHHOLD MARGIN ETC.

    3. Orders being issued to all categories of pre 2006 pensioners: I DOUBT IF THE GOVT/ DOPPW WD BE MAGNANIMOUS TO ISSUE SUCH/ CORRECT ORDERS.

    EVEN THOUGH THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATION (WHICH INDEED WAS A SAVING BECAUSE OF DEPRIVAL OF RIGHT PENSION TO THE MPB AFFECTED CATEGORIES) IS ONLY 228 CR AS ON 1 1 2006 AND THAT IS THE ONE EXCUSE USED BY THE DOE IN DISAPPROVING A DOPW'S CORRECT PROPOSAL OF 20/21 CT 2008 , WITH ALL CORRECTIONS OF PARA 4.2 OF DOPW'S OM OF 1 9 2008, SUBMITTED TO THEM. Even this 228 cr is a bloated figure, as my estimate is only 80-100 cr as on 1 1 2006, because many in pb1 and 2 were not affected due to the provision of 2.26 MF .. Only those who were fresh promotees before retirements/ or who had drawn less than say 3 to 5 increments would have been affected.

    LET US WAIT FOR THE GOI RESPONSE IN THEMEANWHILE AS THE OTHE R AFFECTED GROUPS GET ORGANISED- WHICH IS A MUST.

    Regards,
    vnatarajan

    So suo moto application across the spectrum of affected segments of pre 2006 pensioners may be a question mark


    "
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 03-11-2011 at 08:32 PM. Reason: typo

  20. #1040
    Member ybhaskar23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Thanks for the reply.
    The fact of the matter is that the 3rd oct and 14th oct clarifications are bad in law,
    as such government has to issue fresh orders to include all aspects of the judgement,
    which automatically will be applicable to all pre 2006 pensioners, hence there is no need for any pre 2006
    non litigants to approach the courts in my view.
    Y Bhaskar Rao

+ Reply to Thread
Page 52 of 77 FirstFirst ... 2 42 50 51 52 53 54 62 ... 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