+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 77 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1540

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

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

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

    Today 02:32 PMvnatarajan
    INJUSTICE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S-29 & 30/ALSO OTHER SCALES (18400-22400 & 22400-24500 etc) THRU Corrigendum OM Dtd 03.10.2008 of Deptt of Pension etc.

    This has reference to Deptt of Pension's most recent office memorandum, F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03 Oct 2008, containing certain clarifications on their earlier OM of even number dated 01 sep 2008 with crucial modifications to the provisions, particularly on the fixations of minimum pension and family pension, of pre 2006 retirees.

    Under para 4.2 of the earlier OM dated 01 Sep 08,, the applicable minimum revised pension for pre 2006 pensioners,(ie 50% of the minimum of the pay in the corresponding revised pay band plus the grade pay) had been spelt out. The OM was silent on the minimum applicable Family Pension, as related to the pay last drawn .While seeking to correct this omission, the second OM of 03 Oct 2008, has in effect, negated the established position wrt the minimum pay of a grade and consequently the minimum pension /family pension, as already accepted by the government, at different levels and notified through various rules and notifications . It is to be noted that in respect of the 5th CPC also, minimum pension/ family pension wrt to the revised pay scales introduced wef 1-1-96 was not accepted initially.However,after detailed examination, Government accepted the logic and corrected the position, vide OM No , F.No 45/10/98-P&PW(A), dated, 17 Dec 98,and all pensioners/family pensioners ,were authorized pension of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay at the time of retirement and family pension subject to the minimum of 30% of the revised pay, irrespective of the date of retirement.

    Against this background, the undue restriction of the minimum pension through the notification of 03 Oct 08, is neither tenable nor justified as explained hereunder.

    i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a bunch of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding starting points for each one of them. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation ; and also through the DOP's resolution No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and DOP's OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08. It may be seen for example, that the revised basic pay under the 6th CPC, for the pre revised basic pay of Rs 18400 in the scale of 18400-22400, (S-29) has been prescribed as 54700/-( ie pay in the pay band Rs. 44700 + grade pay Rs. 10000) and similarly revised basic pay of Rs. 63850 for pre revised basic pay of Rs. 22400 in the pre revised HAG scale (S-30) and others.

    ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays. E.g. ( Rs. 53000 for SAG and Rs. 59100 for HAG)

    iii) The modifications notified in DOP's of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

    iv) The dual concept of minimum basic pay as provided for in the modified orders, could in many cases result in an employee retiring in higher grades before 2006, getting less pension than one retiring after 2006, from even two or more grades below, leaving alone, in the same grade, thus upsetting even the limited parity accepted by the government among pre and post 2006 pensioners.

    v) Excepting the existing family pensioners, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, are to be prospective, and therefore cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and anomalous between inequal grades. Lack of parity among them will perpetuate injustice in future!.

    vi) The recent DOP's OM of 3rd Oct 2008, in effect relegates the pre-2006 S-29 & 30 level pensioners with starting points at 18400 and even 22400 of their original pay scales to the lowest starting level of 14300 (S-24) for pension purposes- a decision most unjustifiable/ untenable/ unacceptable. For eg How can a person who throughout the period from 1996 onwards had been drawing pension based on say 50% of basic of 18400 be now relegated to start at 50% of basic of 14300 - as the effect of 40% fitment or even part of Grade Pay provided gets eroded due to the huge difference at the starting point itself!

    The entire issue needs a thorough review and fresh revised orders, fixing the correct minimum basic pension/family pension should be issued by the Govt., covering all existing pensioners.

    Principles enshrined in the constitutional Bench Judgement of the Supreme court, in the "NAKRA CASE" dated 17 Dec 82,which is hailed as the "MAGNA CARTA" for pensioners and on the foundation of which the current welfare based pension scheme, has been shaped by the Govt., should be kept in view always to do justice to all the PENSIONERS. (posted by vnatarajan)
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 13-10-2008 at 03:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Junior Member ranganathan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    22

    Default

    The injustice set afoot by the DOPT OM dt 3 Oct, is there for all to see.The design behind reducing the minimum of PB4 by Rs 2000 and increasing the grade pay of SAG by half that amount to Rs. 10000/- should now be clear.The creation of the new 'HAG+' scale is an ingenious ploy, to keep that and the higher levels ( from which almost all the IAS cadre officers normally retire ) beyond the purview of arbitrary/ multiple stipulations, for the basic pay, under the pay band concept.interestingly both these departmental dispensations go beyond the recommendations of the 6th CPC

    But will these differing decisions stand legal scrutiny?

    It is strange that the DOPT should evolve a wrong interpretation against their own earlier correct interpretation.This action is completely opposed to the spirit behind the stipulations of minimum pension/family pension and the basic parity of all pensioners accepted by Govt apart from its intra department contradictions in substance .
    Last edited by ranganathan; 08-10-2008 at 10:34 PM.

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

    Default Indian Military Service parity case.

    Continuing to argue and amplify the need for upholding the protection enunciated thru para4.2 of the OM of 1st Sept of DoP etc, I reproduce below a noting that has appeared in the blog of Indian Military service officers:

    "In a landmark decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs SPS Vains (Retd) (SLP No 12357 of 2006 decided on 09 September 2008) has upheld the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was directed that Major Generals retiring prior to 1-1-96 (implementation date of 5th Pay Commission) should be granted a pension at par with post 1-1-1996 retirees. The Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was filed by Major Generals who retired prior to 1-1-1996 and whose pension was fixed lower than post 1-1-1996 retirees. This had happened since the start of the pay scale of Major Generals (18400) was less than the starting pay of Brigadiers (16700+2400 Rank Pay = Rs 19100) leading thereby to a situation that the pension of a pre 1996 retiree Maj Gen was fixed at Rs 9200 but Rs 9550 for a Brigadier. To cater to this anomaly, the govt had stepped up the pension of pre 1996 Major Generals to Brigadier level thereby leaving them at a loss as compared to post 1996 retirees. The High Court had allowed the Writ Petition and had directed equal treatment for pre and post 1996 retirees. The orders were challenged by the Govt of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Apex Court through a detailed order has upheld the High Court directions and has also laid down a landmark law which would come as a relief to all defence retirees and the value of which shall be known in times to come"

    (several paragraphs of judgements quoting paragraphs on the basis of Nakara case judgement also follow above notings)

    WHAT APPEARS TO BE APPALLING IS EVEN AFTER THIS JUDGEMENT OF 9th Sept 2008, the DoP has issued an OM on 3rd Oct which NULLIFIES the minimum essence of equality among pensioners who have held the same posts/ scale of pay prior to and after the CPC reco' dates!

    INJUSTICE INSPITE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENTS? IS IT POSSIBLE?

    (if I am wrong, I MAY BE CORRECTED by anybody!)

    Natarajan

  4. #4
    Junior Member ranganathan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    22

    Default

    The basic parity ( equal minimum pension) among same grades of pensioners irrespective of date of retirement, is a settled matter both in legal pronouncements and executive orders.The dopt order of 03 Oct 08 ,in the wake of yet another Apex court order can only be attributed to administrative arbitrariness and lack of sensitivity.

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

    Default

    My thanks to GCONNECT for providing the forum to convey the feelings and sentiments of old and aged pensioners who, for no fault of theirs, are put to lot of duress because of the repeated violations of pension parity and protection which is happening after every CPC reco's at least post -1996 and again now post- 2006 orders/ Oms etc.

    At sl no.3 of postings above I had reproduced the extracts from the Indian military Services- Benefits blogspot, concerning the most recent judgement on pension parity, dated 09.sept 2008.

    YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE MISERY and ANGUISH of the concerned pensioner who had to fight for over a decade as the case pertains to pre- and post-1996 pension parity/fixation!

    I reproduce some more "Pearls of JUDGEMENT" uttered by the learned JUDGES in this case appearing in the same blogspot:

    Here are some pearls from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :

    “….The larger issue involved is whether there could be a disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those who retired thereafter….”


    “….The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution….”

    “….The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension….”

    WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE IS:

    1.ARTICLE 14 of the CONSTITUTION is being allowed to be repeatedly violated by the various MINISTRIES which are dealing with the SENSITIVE SUBJECT of PENSION/ FAMILY PENSION of SR. Citizens .

    2.UNNECESSARILY they are being made to go to COURTS in their old age to fight their cases, inspite of clear and unquestionable judgements! Many may not live to see the outcome as it takes years to undo the damages!

    3.WILL THE Ministry of Personnel etc/ Deptt. of Pension/PW be kind enough to take up the issues and settle the matter quickly?.

    4.WILL THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE be more meaningful in implementing in letter and spirit the pension parity assured by themselves under para 4.2 of the OMs concerned and uphold the learned judgements delivered time and again?.

    Remarks for WATCH DOGS:

    PLEASE NOTE THAT THOSE WHO ARE STAGNATING FOR YEARS AT THE TOP OF THEIR SCALES and whose old scales has been taken on to a new bunched up PAY BAND in the 6CPC orders, even at lower scales other than S-29/ S-30, MAY BE AFFECTED (and their cases will be similar to what I have pointed out for S 29/ S-30 cases).

  6. #6
    Junior Member Rajagopalan A is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Taking into account the arbitariness and lack of sensitivity by the existing Administration towards Pensioners, it is essential that a representative from Pensioners should invariably be included in all the decision making processes.
    Rajagopalan

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

    Default

    hi All viewers of this thread,

    Since my posting this thread, I am satisfied to find that more than a century of views have been made within 3 days, and I am sure half of the viewers could be in the same syndrome of pension disparity caused by the DOP/PW's OM dtd 3rd Oct 2008.

    Though I had put across the examples of S-29/ S-30 for arguments sake, I am aware the same type of problem can exist for many others in different scales, down the line.

    JAG/ Sr & Jr Class I levels also may have similar pay disparity cases, particularly when they stagnate at the top of their respective scales- or due to gross-bunching of several scales into one Pay Band.

    SEVERAL AFFECTED PENSIONERS HAVE STARTED REPRESENTING (using the facts presented in the text available in the first postings of the thread with suitable amendments) THEIR CASES THRU APPEALS TO THE DEPTT OF PENSION/PENSIONERS' WELFARE AND ALSO BY EMAILS.

    Others who have not yet taken action, may also follow them. Unless this genuine grievance of the AGED SR CITIZENS is represented with a mass momentum, it may not have the desired impact and response.

    WE HOPE DoP/PW WILL COME OUT WITH A SUITABLE SOLUTION SOON.

    vnatarajan

  8. #8
    Junior Member ranganathan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    22

    Default

    dear all,

    i have gone thro the Nakra case and place below extracts therefrom that i consider very relevant

    HELD: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State
    action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is
    attracted where equals are treated differently without any
    reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is
    that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated
    alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
    Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same
    situation and there should be no discrimination between one
    person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the
    legislation their position is substantially the same.
    Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
    classification for the purpose of legislation. The
    classification must be founded on an intelligible
    differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
    grouped together from those that are left out of the group
    and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the
    object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In
    other words, there ought to be causal connection between the
    basis of classification and the object of the statute. The
    doctrine of classification was evolved by the Court for the
    purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed
    to help weaker sections of the society. Legislative and
    executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court
    if the State satisfies the twin tests of reasonable
    classification and the rational principle correlated to the
    object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory action is
    liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the
    Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was
    based on some valid principle which in itself was not
    irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

    If removal of arbitrariness can be brought about by
    severing the mischievous portion, the discriminatory part
    ought to be removed retaining the beneficial portion.
    [198 F]

    Their grievance is of the denial to them of the same by
    arbitrary introduction of words of limitation. There is
    nothing immutable about the choosing of an event as an eligibility
    criteria subsequent to a specified date. If the event is
    certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered
    wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily selected having an
    undesirable effect of dividing a homogeneous class and of
    introducing discrimination the same can be easily severed
    and set aside. It is therefore just and proper that the
    words introducing the arbitrary fortuitous circumstance
    which are vulnerable as denying equality be severed and
    struck down.

    all pensioners governed by the 1972
    Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to
    pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme
    from the specified date, irrespective of the date of
    retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified

    The benefit of
    revised scales is not limited to those who enter service
    subsequent to the date fixed for introducing revised scales
    but is extended to all those in service prior to that date.
    Even in the case of the new retiral benefit of gratuity
    under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, past service was
    taken into consideration. The scheme of liberalisation is
    not a new retiral benefit; it is
    170
    an upward revision of an existing benefit. Pension has
    correlation to average emoluments and the length of
    qualifying service and any liberalisation would pro tanto
    ber etroactive in the narrow sense of the term.

    Pension is a right; not a bounty or gratuitous
    payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the
    discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules
    and a government servant coming within those rules is
    entitled to claim pension. [186 A-B]

    Pension is a right; not a bounty or gratuitous
    payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the
    discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules
    and a government servant coming within those rules is
    entitled to claim pension.

    the petitioners in the fall of
    life yearn for equality of treatment which is being meted
    out to those who are soon going to join and swell their own
    ranks,

    Would differential treatment to pensioners related to
    the date of retirement qua the revised formula for
    computation of pension attract Article 14 of the
    Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be
    declared unconstitutional as being violative of Art. 14 ?

    The principle underlying the guarantee of Article
    14 is not that the same rules of law should be
    applicable to all persons within the Indian
    territory or that the same remedies should be made
    available to them irrespective of differences of
    circumstances. It only means that all persons
    similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike
    both in privileges conferred and liabilities
    imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to
    all in the same situation, and there should be no
    discrimination between one person and another if
    as regards the subject matter of the legislation
    their position is substantially the same.The law can
    make and set apart the classesaccording to the
    needs and exigencies of the society and as
    suggested by experience. It can recognise even
    degree of evil,bu the classification should never
    be arbitrary,artificial or evasive.

    7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must
    be rational, that is to say, it must not only be
    based on some qualities or characteristics which
    are to be found in all the persons grouped
    together and not in others who are left out but
    those qualities or characteristics must have a
    reasonable relation to the object of the
    legislation. In order to pass the test, two
    conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the
    classification must be founded on an intelligible
    differentia which distinguishes those that are
    grouped together from others and (2) that
    differentia must have a rational relation to the
    object sought to be achieved by the Act."

    . The classification must not be arbitrary but must
    be rational, that is to say, it must not only be
    based on some qualities or characteristics which
    are to be found in all the persons grouped
    together and not in others who are left out but
    those qualities or characteristics must have a
    reasonable relation to the object of the
    legislation. In order to pass the test, two
    conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the
    classification must be founded on an intelligible
    differentia which distinguishes those that are
    grouped together from others and (2) that
    differentia must have a rational relation to the
    object sought to be achieved by the Act."
    The other facet of Art. 14 which must be remembered is
    that it eschews arbitrariness in any form.

    One such proposition held
    well established is that Art. 14 is certainly attracted
    where equals are treated differently without any reasonable
    basis.

    Thus the fundamental principle is that Art. 14 forbids
    class legislation but permits reasonable classification for
    the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy
    the twin tests of classification being founded on an
    intelligible differntia which distinguishes persons or
    things that are grouped together from those that are left
    out of the group and that differentia must have a rational
    nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
    question.

    a discriminatory action
    of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can
    be shown by the Government that the departure was not
    arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in
    itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

    The basic contention as hereinbefore noticed is that
    the pensioners for the purpose of receiving pension form a
    class and there is no criterion on which classification of
    pensioners retiring prior to specified date and retiring
    subsequent to that date can provide a rational principle
    correlated to object, viz., object underlying payment of
    pensions.

    one can confidently say that if pensioners form a
    class, their computation cannot be bydifferent formula
    affording unequal treatment s on the ground that some
    retired earlier and some retired later.

    The equal treatment guaranteed in Art. 14 is
    wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being
    statutory in character, since the specified date, the rules
    accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals
    in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours
    difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic
    effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled.
    Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Art.14

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

    Default

    Hi All

    After further deeper study, and also the legal aspects highlighted in the judgements on minimum parity for pension among all retirees who were in same/ equivalebnt revised pay scales (see my and Mr Ranaganathan's postings), I am of the view:

    1.MANY ARE AFFECTED AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.
    2.SOME MAY NOT BE AWARE THEY ARE AFFECTED!
    3.PEOPLE AFFECTED MAY BE MUSING ON WHAT TO DO?

    Actions suggested:

    1.All Pensioners' Associations must act fast and send/highlight the grievances to Deptt of Pension/Pensioners Welfare (and also Ministry of Finance later) without delay.They must help other Co-pensioners who may not know the situation.Loss per month is considerable and is of increasingly recurring nature in future.

    2.All affected individuals may appeal for REDRESSAL to the Secy, DoP/PW at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi 13, using the basic details and text available in the postings, with modifications.

    3.Well meaning Associations/ Unions and their members ie Colleagues (future Pensioners) in Govt. Service at Delhi must help to bring the matter to the notice of the Deptt of Pensions/ PW (and also the Ministry of Finance). OTHERWISE SUCH (deliberate)GLARING UNLAWFUL REVISIONS THRU CORRIGENDUMS MAY BECOME PRECEDENCES and many benefits may get neutralised without any employee/ associations realising the same!

    4.Media can take note and highlight the problem.

    I AND MANY SEPTEGENARIANS and above (+80 and 90 years are feeling HARASSED and FRUSTRATED by the indiscrimination perpetuated!)

    NOT HUMANLY RIGHT?

    Natarajan, V
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 13-10-2008 at 03:38 AM.

  10. #10
    Junior Member vijai kapoor is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    12

    Default S-29 scale

    The explanation given in OM of 3.10.08 is obviously erroneous. It reduces the basic pension to 23700 from the earlier estimated 27350 for the S-29 scale. Affected persons should register their grievance with deptt of P&PW quickly.

    It can be done very easily online on Pensioners Portal. More people lodging their grievance will certainly lend weight. If there are active Pensioner's associations then they should also represent.

    Let us give P&PW one more chance to correct their error.

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

    Smile See the Latest OM now!

    Govt has issued yet again a OM dt: 14/10/2008 with more clarity and annexures which helps to solve all doubts regarding the Revised Pension / Revised Family Pension to all; Both Pre and Post 1.1.2006 retirees. Must be read by all the retirees/pensioners/family pensioners.!

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

    Default

    Attn Sudacgwb:Thank u very much. I have gone thru the OM concerning Pre-2006 Pensions and I shall be posting my observations soon.

    At the outset, I may remark, the OM is not addressing the basic issue of aggrieved pensioners whose earlier scales/ pay bands have been bunched together to a common pay/pension band which often starts at a much lower level/scale than what it should be for being at par with the earlier non-bunched levels and hence the problem.

    Clarifications are being given just to emphasise that the DoP/PW (=KING) is always right and others ( =KNAVES=old, aged, helpless PENSIONERS) are idiots, who have to suffer the injustice/ indiscretion!

    What has been pointed out earlier as the core issue stands!. Mr Ranganathan and Mr Vijai Kapoor have also explained the issue very well.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 16-10-2008 at 10:51 AM. Reason: typographical errors

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

    Default

    Thanks to Vijai Kapoor for his valuable obervations.

    NOW MY COMMENTS ON THE NEW ON of DoP/PW dtd 14th OCT 2008:

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

    Hi All concerned Pensioners - attn: Pre-1986/1996/2006 retirees:

    The new OM No 38 37 08/PPW etc dt 14th oct on 6th CPC on implementation/revision of pension of pre-2006 pensions/ family pensions, inter alia, covers:


    POSITIVE ASPECTS:

    Concerned banks etc. have been asked to disburse current arrears/ addl. pension within a week (by 21st oct 2008).

    Concordance tables provided for pre-1996/pre-2006/post-2006 pay-scales/bands for proper fixation BENEFICIALto pensioners. (THIS MAY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF Pre-1986 Retirees also)

    Illustrations given for guidance.

    Concerned banks etc. to disburse pension/ arrears as per OM of 1st Sep 2008.
    DR amounts also to be added for periods relevant at rates already ordered.

    All actions to be completed within a month (may be before 15th Nov 2008?)

    Guidance has also been given as to the procedure to be followed in cases of missing details like DOB/age/ service details in the earlier PPOs etc and also in case of missing details like DOB among family pensioners.

    (THIS IS HAPPENING IN MANY CASES_ ALL PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS MAY CHECK FOR MISSING DETAILS IN THE RESPECTIVE PPOs AND DECIDE ON THE COURSE OF ACTION TO FOLLOW. BANKS/ POs MAY PLEAD HELPLESSNESS. FRIENDS/ EX. COLLEAGUES/ PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS must come forward to ASSIST aged pensioners/ helpless family pensioners etc.)

    ( Banks etc also have to take action to ensure entries in the Pension Books/ Records and issue necessary Pension Orders with copies to the concerned authorities. Pensioners/ Family Pensioners shd watch/ enquire/ ensure to avoid future gaps!)

    NEGATIVE:

    I WAS HOPING THE ISSUE OF PENSION INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN PERPETUATED WILL BE RESOLVED THRU THIS OM - ONLY TO BE DISAPPOINTED! ALL AFFECTED MAY HAVE TO FIGHT & WAIT.

    CORE ISSUE OF DISPARITY ARISING OUT OF BUNCHING PRE-2006 SCALES/BANDS FOR PENSION PURPOSES and RELEGATING THE PARITY TO A LOWER STARTING LEVEL PAY IN THE NEW BUNCHED PAY BAND REMAINS OUTSTANDING.

    DoP/PW and MOF to act fast to undo the damage and injustice.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 16-10-2008 at 04:14 PM. Reason: editorial corrections

  14. #14
    Senior Member sudacgwb
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    209

    Cool Arrears to Pensioners - One Installment?

    The OM dated 14/10/2008 has rectified the so called "injsutice to pensioners who retired from 18400 and 22400" and govt has been pro-active in respect of pensioners.

    IF at all there is a grave injustice, in my opinion, it is between 12000 and 14300 scale people who min pension changes abruptly from 11600 to 23050. No where it is so steep. Between pb-2 and pb-3 it is 7350 to 10500 and between pb4 and HAG+ scale it is from 24700to 37750.

    There is enough scope to solve the lt gen case (regarding pb3 to 12k and pb4 to 14.3k)

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

    Default

    I have already pointed out and cautioned that there could be similar disparities related to several scales being bunched for purposes of pension.

    I agree with you- that similar disparity exists in the case of JAG level officers starting from 12k or so and who have stagnated (I think there are some CGWB officers- I am not sure if you are also from CGWB) and our group is fighting for them also for parity!

    Basic issue is parity amongst pensioners, which is constitutional and emphasised again and again by Courts in battles fought for the same.

    In a simplest example of the Judicial pronouncements in a famous case, the principle of equality among pensioners of the same class (rank/grade/pay scale) is quoted below:

    “….The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally".

    SO parity should exist pre and post CPC datums for the same class of pensioners, at the minimum.

    HAG plus and above have no grievances( they are mostly the ELITE group!) because they are not relegated and brought down- but the lowest HAG level is bunched with SAG/ even JAG (sel. gr) (mostly scientists/ engineers/adminidtrators/ others) and they are sufferers, because they have been taken down to lower levels for pension fixation purposes.

    (I and my group are fighting for parity at all levels wherever such disparity exists. Not merely for 18400-22400 scale- it was only an example!!!)

    vnatarajan.
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 17-10-2008 at 03:08 AM.

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

    Default

    PLEA FOR JUSTICE:

    Many thanks to Mr VIJAI KAPOOR for bringing in the key words at the right time (under another posting elsewhere) for interpretation and to realize the injustice that is being pointed out by me and my distressed pensioner friends of several Departments in this thread:

    The DoP/PW’s OM F No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt 01.09.2008 CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOSLY ASSERTS:

    “Fixation of PENSION will be subject to the provision that the REVISED PENSION in no case shall be lower than 50% OF THE MINIMUM OF THE “PAY IN THE PAY BAND” PLUS THE GRADE PAY “CORRESPONDING” TO THE PREREVISED SCALE FROM WHICH PENSIONER HAD RETIRED”


    The MoF’s OM F No 1/1/2008-1C dt 13.09.2008 LISTS THE “ REVISED PAY” “GRADE PAY” AGAINST CORRESPONDING “PRE-REVISED SCALES” AS FOLLOWS: (all in Rupees)(pl read seriatum)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scale Details;Pre-revised Basic(Min);Revised Pay with Revised Min Pay in the Pay band followed by Grade Pay;Revised Minimum Basic Pay; Revised Pension at 50% of Revised Basic Pay


    1.S-30
    22400-525-24500 22400 51850 12000 63850 31895
    2.S-29
    18400-500-22400 18400 44700 10000 54700 27350
    3.S-28
    14300-450-22400 14300 37400 10000 47400 23700
    4.S-27
    16400-450-20000 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
    5.S-26
    16400-450-20900 16400 39690 8900 48590 24295
    6.S-25
    15100-400-18300 15100 39690 8700 48390 24145
    7.S-24
    14300-400-18300 14300 37400 8700 46100 23050

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

    In the subsequent OMs of even nos.dt 03rd and 14th Oct 2008, the DoP/PW have chosen to GO AGAINST the letter and spirit of both the above cited references (pl. note one is that of MoF itself) and have BUNCHED all the above scales into a single PAY BAND (37400-67000) for the purpose of PENSION calculation with varying GRADE PAYs whose effect automatically gets nullified because of the unbelievable lowering of the minimum Revised Pay in the respective Pay Bands i.e. from 51850 in the case of the HAG level Officer at the top to 37400 at the bottom-most , which is that of a JAG level Officer!

    As Mr Vijai Kapoor points out- IT IS UNJUST. IT HURTS- very very much!.

    Mere crumbs of a few rupees in the grade pay can not compensate the huge difference!.

    Compare the JUST PENSION as above against the UNJUST PENSION that is being mooted out:

    S-30 HAG level officer,instead of drawing a basic pension of 31925 would now draw 24700
    (erosion of 7225 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!).
    S-29 SAG level officer -do------ 27350 ---do--- ---do--- 23700
    (erosion of 3650 pm & with DR loss will be much more per month!)

    Similarly S-27,S-26,S-25 level officers also lose marginally from 400 to 500 pm (loss- more with DR)

    Many of the HAG/ SAG level officers have functioned as Heads of Deptts with Cadre Controlling Authority/ full Financial Powers with more responsibilities/ accountability.
    Many of those who worked in Scientific Depts. are National Award winners. Many have international/ national distinctions and credits. Their contributions to the Nation are not small!. In large Departments, several (hundreds of) JAG level officers were functioning under them!. HOW THE GOVT. CAN SO ARBITRARILY RELEGATE THEM TO A
    LOWER PAY LEVEL FOR PENSION PURPOSES – almost to the JAG levels!!!

    There cannot be a greater humiliation in the life of a retired Govt.Servant.as in the case now!

    FOR A CHANGE, LET ALL PAST & WOULD BE PENSIONERS FROM THE TOP-MOST LEVEL TO THE BOTTOM-MOST LEVEL DRAW THE SAME PENSION WITHOUT DISRIMINATION! WHY SO MANY PAY BANDS? WHY SO MANY CALCULATIONS? WHY CONFUSIONS/ FRUSTRATIONS/ DEJECTIONS?

    P.S. to Readers:– pl do not mistake! Many of you might have been affected by bunching of the pay scales in a similar fashion as above. Pl examine and find out.

    (pl ignore my typing mistakes!!!!)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 17-10-2008 at 05:44 PM.

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

    Default

    hi Friends

    I find similar debate/ parallel debate is going on thru the postings in the thread entitled "pre-1996 retirees ..... parity etc" by Mr R Sundaram and another "well presented" thread on "OROP-----etc" by Mr S K Jain.

    Except for a little difference, many postings/ arguments in the debates have pointed out the disparity and the injustice angle in regard to pension parity/ equality among the same class of pensioners and also the relegation to even lower levels of disparity among equals( at least among quite a few scales from S-9 onwards upto S-30 - may be with some exceptions)

    My explanations with scales/ bands, Mr SK Jain's and Mr Sundarar's examples highllight the disparity in true light.

    CAN WE FIND A SOLUTION? WITHOUT BEATING TOO MUCH AROUND THE BUSH?

    I feel a simple clarification/ corrigendum by the DoP/PW (who is responsible for issual of all the OMs in regard to Pensioners) may resolve the issue.

    (They can clarify in UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS, that as things stand today, for the pension fixation purposes of all pre-2006/ pre-1996 and even earlier, the minimum pension must be fixed strictly in terms of para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 and the concordance tables/Annexures furnished with OMs 3 and 14 Oct 2008 cannot bring down the minimum pension so arrived at!

    Also, they may also care to link the old Pay Scales/ new Pay Bands parity tables of MoF's OM of 13th Sept 2008 to ensure avoidance of confusion. This reference may be made in the footnote of the Concordance Tables/ Illustration tables of the OM of 14th Oct 2006, where para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 is cited. Reference to ANNEXURE I in paranthesis there creates all misgivings, because this Annexure nullifies the meaning/ essence of the said paragraph!)

    Let us hope things get clear sooner than later.

    vnatarajan

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

    Default

    Hi All

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

    1.Retd Railway Employees Welfare Association, Gurgaon have also taken up the issue of the injustice that is being perpetuated to various classes of pensioners and already their representation have gone to the PMO on 16th Oct 2008.(Individual representations are also following the same.) In a table appended to their appeal to PMO, they have demonstrated how pensioners of 5th CPC scales S-4 to S-34 lose pension amounts per month from Rs 168 at the lowest to about Rs 7000 plus at the highest, plus DR of course.

    They have also taken up the case of post 2000 - pre sept 2008 cases disparities as also being discussed in various threads .

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

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 22-10-2008 at 12:48 PM.

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

    Default

    hi All

    Full details of the Retired Railway Employees' Welfare Association's appeal/petition to the PMO on the diaparities arising out of the pension OMs of DoP/PW can be seen in their website www.rrewa.org please.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 22-10-2008 at 04:12 PM.

  20. #20
    Member subba Rao R S is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    88

    Exclamation Injusties to pre -2006 pensioners

    If we observe the revision of pension in all pay bands, and compare with the pension fixation for post - 2006 pensioners we can find the injustice to pre-2006 pensioners clearly.

    As an example take case of a pre-2006 pensioner who retired,

    For a last pay drawn by the pensioner at Rs 14625/- as per table the revised pension is 16540/-. Had this pensioner were to be given the fixation in new pand on par with post 2006 pensioner his new last pay would have been Rs 34810/-(as per table of pay fixation). pension for this will be Rs 17405/-.

    This clearly explains the injusties resuling in reduced pension of Rs 865/-, as copmared to the post 2006 pensioners.

    I am sure this happens in every case and would like to draw the attention of the authorities concerned. Can expect other pensioners affected, to take re-look and intimate their views.

    Another injusties is grouping of pay scales of pre-2006 to the new pay band. In every pay band pensioners in the higher scales of each pre-2006 pay scales are loosers and the lowest pay scales are the gainers resuling in injustice to persions in higher pay scales of pre-2006.

    R S Subba Rao
    Last edited by subba Rao R S; 30-10-2008 at 03:29 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 77 1 2 3 11 51 ... 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