+ Reply to Thread
Page 60 of 77 FirstFirst ... 10 50 58 59 60 61 62 70 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 1540

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

  1. #1181
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Thumbs up Setting up of Senior Citizen Commission in M.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    Respected Pensioners Community,

    Today, the 17th December 2012 - the very famous "NAKARA DAY" & "PENSIONERS' DAY" of the Pensioners Community in our Country, happens to be
    the 7th one in 6th CPC Era. While the 6th CPC recommendations effective from
    1.1.2006 got implemented before 4 years, some questions before us are yet to find
    their answers.

    (1) Whether 50% of minimum of the Revised Scale of Pay will constitute the Minimum Revised Pension for a pensioner retired from the corresponding pre-revised scale?

    (2) Whether the said 50% of Minimum of the Revised Scale of Pay is payable to those retirees with a minimum of 10/20 years qualifying service without any proportionate
    reduction thereon based on length of qualifying service - < 33 years?

    (3) Whether the basic pension while undergoing revision by successive CPC, shall be revised in a uniform manner by application of same and single multiplication factor for retirees of all the scales?

    (4) Whether a Govt. servant born on 1st of a month, retiring on superannuation shall also stand retired on par with those who born from 2nd onwards, by last day of the month in which he was born as against the last day of the preceding month?

    (5) Whether complete parity shall be given to past pensioners, as between pre-1996 and post 2006?

    (6) While the linkage of qualifying service with pension is dispensed with, whether there shall be some incentive by allowing some increase for service rendered in excess of the required length of service to become eligible for pension, so as to remove any anomalous and unjustified position? (Emoluments based vs Service based pension)

    (7) Whether complete parity shall be considered to past pensioners from 1.1.2016, as between pre-2016 and post-2016?

    All questions carry same and single answer with enough justification
    - YES PLEASE.

    These questions are of illustrative but not exhaustive.


    The DOP&PW today is striving hard to ensure the Pensioners Welfare by periodically reviewing the unsettled positions and attempting to reach remedial solutions by all possible manner. At the same time, in case a separate Department,
    exclusively for Pensioners Welfare, if formed, to address the issues of both Civilian as well as Defence Pensioners more effectively under a single roof, the Pensioners Welfare measures can be better evolved and timely remedies possible thereby in future..

    Similarly, an exclusive Pension Commission similar to Pay Commission will reduce the burden of the Core Pay Commission, so as to focus towards the problems and difficulties being faced by senior citizens of our Country for deriving an effective pension structure.

    Incidentally, the cases pending before various Hon. Courts and Tribunals shall
    get amicably settled, out of Court by an effective review mechanism, so as to reduce the burden and valuable time of the concerned Courts and Tribunals.

    The Pensioners Community have all along been very hopeful, faithful and loyal to their erstwhile Employer, viz. the Govt. during their entire service and thereafter too.. With the same faith and hope, they keep on waiting for answers to their respective grievances at the earliest possible time.

    Myself too join their prayers for a grievanceless PENSIONERS DAY!

    With full respects to all the Pension Policy Makers, SCOVA, National Anomaly Committee, Pensioners Welfare Associations - BPS, RREWA, RSCWS, and other Pensioners Associations, G Connect.in Administrators,

    A HAPPY PENSIONERS DAY 2012 TO THE RESPECTED PENSIONERS COMMUNITY.
    Courtesy : Bharat Pensioners Samaj/Shri S.C.Maheswariji, General Secretary
    "PTI

    BHOPAL, DEC 22:
    'The Madhya Pradesh Government has set up a “Senior Citizen Commission” to look into the problems of the elderly in the State.
    The decision to set up the commission was taken during a Cabinet meeting which was chaired by Chief Minister Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan yesterday, an official release said.
    Chouhan, at a meeting of old people at his house in April this year, had announced to set up a commission for them and the Cabinet had yesterday approved it.
    Parliamentary Affairs Minister Shri Narottam Mishra said the commission would comprise one Chairman and four members.
    He said the commission will after a look at the problems of the senior people of the State, and produce an ideal proforma for old persons’ policy for the welfare and solution of their problems'.

  2. #1182
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Dear Sundarar,

    Wonderful idea. Some Associations, cofederation etc to take up all these issues with the concerned authorities.

    With regards,

    Gopal Krishan

  3. #1183
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. Happy New Year 2013. May God bless you with good health and prosparity.

  4. #1184
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Thumbs up Hearing pensioners in person

    Courtesy: Bharat Pensioners Samaj

    "No. 5/40/2012-P&PW(C)
    Government of India
    Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
    Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare

    3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
    New Delhi,
    the 31st Dec., 2012

    OFFICE MEMORANDUM

    Subject: Introducing a dedicated day for attending pensioners in person - reg.

    The undersigned is directed to inform that in order to facilitate mitigation of problems of Central Civil Pensioners, it has been decided that on every Wednesday, concerned officers of the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare will be available between 1500 and 1600 hrs, in person, in Room No. 310, Lok Navak Bhavan (near Gate No.1) to meet pensioners and, as far as possible, answer the queries/points raised by the pensioners.

    2. The Central Civil Pensioners, aggrieved of pension related matters and seeking clarification etc., on application of any of the following rules/regulations may meet the concerned officers of this Department along with a written submission, by appearing in person, on the prescribed date, time and venue, and make use of this facility.

    3. The rules being administered by this Department are:
    (I) CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972;
    (ii) CCS(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981;
    (iii) CCS(Extra-ordinary Pension) Rules;
    (iv) GPF(CS) Rules, 1960; and
    (v) CPF(lndia) Rules, 1962.

    sd/-
    (Tripti P.Ghosh)
    Director (PP)"

    The aforesaid decision of DOP&PW is a welcome measure towards
    yet another grievance redressal exercise. On similar lines, the Banks also can
    prescribe a particular time period for meeting pensioners in person, to discuss and sort out the issues to the extent possible and also for taking up further with concerned where required.

  5. #1185
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    FIRST EVER HIGH COURT VERDICT ON CORRECT SCPC MODIFIED APRITY- JUDGMENT OF P & H HC CHANDIGARH DT 21 12 2012

    Thanks to Shri NSR/ Shri RKA we have the copy of the first ever HC judgment in favour of pre 2006 pensioners though concerning the State Govt cadre- but reiterates FULLY and FIRMLY the PR CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 in the case OA 655 of 2010 petitioned by CGS29PA / Others vs UOI/ DOPPW/DOE etc....

    OUR HEARTY CONGRATS TO HARYANA STATEGOVT/ UNDERTAKINGS’ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (S29 / OTHERS) led by S/Shri R K Agarawal/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc who are also prolific writers in this forum, FOR SCORING A BEFITTING VICTORY IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE SCPC MOD PARITY INJUSTICE.

    HATS OFF TO THE HON PUNJAB & HARYANA HC FOR THEIR UNBIASSED JUDGMENT DT 21 12 2012. ON: CWP No. 19641 of 2009 24;CWP No. 19642 of 2009;CWP No. 3452 of 2010;CWP No. 12638 of 2010;CWP No. 20725 of 2010;CWP No. 20726 of 2010;CWP No. 20727 of 2010;;CWP No. 20753 of 2010

    OUR HEARTY & GRATEFUL THANKS TO S/ SHRI RKAGARWAL - RANBIR SEHGAL- OTHERS WHO HAVE SCORED THE “FIRST ever HIGH COURT VICTORY” ON SCPC BASED MOD PARITY ADOPTED BY THEIR STATE GOVT FOLLOWING THE CG PATTERN - CHALLENGING THE SAME INJUSTICE ARISING DUE TO “MPB” IMPOSITION INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT “MPPB” FORMULA.
    THIS SOUNDS THE DEATHKNELL FOR THE UOI/DOPPW’S CHALLENGE AT DHC THRU THEIR WP C 1535 OF 2012 AGAINST THE PR CAT VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 ON OA 655 OF 2010 OF CGS29PA /OTHERS.

    Dear Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners,

    THE MUCH AWAITED P & H HC JUDGMENT ON WP C 19641 OF 2009- RK AGARWAL ETC VS STATE OF HARYANA ETC/ OTHER SIMILAR PETITIONS ON THE INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS OF HARYANA STATE-FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION SCPC RECOS/ ORDERS OF CG DITTO – METED OUT TO THEM BY THEIR GOVT HAS COME OUT.

    THE JUDGMENT – DELIVERED BY DOUBLE BENCH – WITH THE HON CJ HIMSELF PRESIDING IS THE FIRST HC VICTORY ON THE SCPC MODIFIED PARITY.THE MAJOR HIGHLIGHT IS THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT IS FULLY/TOTALLY BASED ON THE PR CAT VERDICT OF THE CASE OA 655/ 2010 OF OUR ASSOCIATION CGS29PA VS UOI/ OTHER THREE MORE OAS O, DELIVERED ON 1 11 2011,.

    IT SPECIALLY OBSERVES THAT THOUGH THE CENTRAL GOVT HAS GONE TO DHC ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PR CAT JUDGMENT of 1 11 2011 , THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO STAY GRANTED BY DHC ,CAUSES NO HINDRANCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE P & H HC.

    SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS/ TABLES REPRODUCED IN THE JUDGMENT OWE THEIR EXISTENCE TO OUR WRIT PETIOTION/ PR CAT JUDGMENT
    PL READ THE JUDGMENT ATTACHED. The judgment clearly mentions there are no “LEGAL NUANCES”. The Govt side in spite of their best efforts COULD NOT FABRICATE any LEGAL POINTS on which they could impress the Hon HC. What a miserable failure?

    FINAL OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT STATES :

    “26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central PayCommission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower
    than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also
    carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.”

    CHIEF JUSTICE

    JUDGE
    21.12.2012

    Comments of my learned friends like Shri MLK ji/ Shri NSR / Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc will soon follow/ will be presented here.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 09-01-2013 at 05:16 PM.

  6. #1186
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Thumbs up Re-fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post

    FIRST EVER HIGH COURT VERDICT ON CORRECT SCPC MODIFIED APRITY- JUDGMENT OF P & H HC CHANDIGARH DT 21 12 2012

    Thanks to Shri NSR/ Shri RKA we have the copy of the first ever HC judgment in favour of pre 2006 pensioners though concerning the State Govt cadre- but reiterates FULLY and FIRMLY the PR CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 in the case OA 655 of 2010 petitioned by CGS29PA / Others vs UOI/ DOPPW/DOE etc....

    OUR HEARTY CONGRATS TO HARYANA STATEGOVT/ UNDERTAKINGS’ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (S29 / OTHERS) led by S/Shri R K Agarawal/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc who are also prolific writers in this forum, FOR SCORING A BEFITTING VICTORY IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE SCPC MOD PARITY INJUSTICE.

    HATS OFF TO THE HON PUNJAB & HARYANA HC FOR THEIR UNBIASSED JUDGMENT DT 21 12 2012. ON: CWP No. 19641 of 2009 24;CWP No. 19642 of 2009;CWP No. 3452 of 2010;CWP No. 12638 of 2010;CWP No. 20725 of 2010;CWP No. 20726 of 2010;CWP No. 20727 of 2010;;CWP No. 20753 of 2010

    OUR HEARTY & GRATEFUL THANKS TO S/ SHRI RKAGARWAL - RANBIR SEHGAL- OTHERS WHO HAVE SCORED THE “FIRST ever HIGH COURT VICTORY” ON SCPC BASED MOD PARITY ADOPTED BY THEIR STATE GOVT FOLLOWING THE CG PATTERN - CHALLENGING THE SAME INJUSTICE ARISING DUE TO “MPB” IMPOSITION INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT “MPPB” FORMULA.
    THIS SOUNDS THE DEATHKNELL FOR THE UOI/DOPPW’S CHALLENGE AT DHC THRU THEIR WP C 1535 OF 2012 AGAINST THE PR CAT VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 ON OA 655 OF 2010 OF CGS29PA /OTHERS.

    Dear Pre 2006 S29 and other pensioners,

    THE MUCH AWAITED P & H HC JUDGMENT ON WP C 19641 OF 2009- RK AGARWAL ETC VS STATE OF HARYANA ETC/ OTHER SIMILAR PETITIONS ON THE INJUSTICE TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS OF HARYANA STATE-FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION SCPC RECOS/ ORDERS OF CG DITTO – METED OUT TO THEM BY THEIR GOVT HAS COME OUT.

    THE JUDGMENT – DELIVERED BY DOUBLE BENCH – WITH THE HON CJ HIMSELF PRESIDING IS THE FIRST HC VICTORY ON THE SCPC MODIFIED PARITY.THE MAJOR HIGHLIGHT IS THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT IS FULLY/TOTALLY BASED ON THE PR CAT VERDICT OF THE CASE OA 655/ 2010 OF OUR ASSOCIATION CGS29PA VS UOI/ OTHER THREE MORE OAS O, DELIVERED ON 1 11 2011,.

    IT SPECIALLY OBSERVES THAT THOUGH THE CENTRAL GOVT HAS GONE TO DHC ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PR CAT JUDGMENT of 1 11 2011 , THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO STAY GRANTED BY DHC ,CAUSES NO HINDRANCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE P & H HC.

    SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS/ TABLES REPRODUCED IN THE JUDGMENT OWE THEIR EXISTENCE TO OUR WRIT PETIOTION/ PR CAT JUDGMENT
    PL READ THE JUDGMENT ATTACHED. The judgment clearly mentions there are no “LEGAL NUANCES”. The Govt side in spite of their best efforts COULD NOT FABRICATE any LEGAL POINTS on which they could impress the Hon HC. What a miserable failure?

    FINAL OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT STATES :

    “26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central PayCommission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower
    than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also
    carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.”

    CHIEF JUSTICE

    JUDGE
    21.12.2012

    Comments of my learned friends like Shri MLK ji/ Shri NSR / Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc will soon follow/ will be presented here.

    vnatarajan
    The significant points observed are as follows:

    1. The Pension of all pre-2006 retirees is to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 and in the light of observations made by the Tribunal (CAT PR Bench) in their Order dated 1.11.2011.

    2. While the writ petitions challenging the aforesaid judgement are filed by the Union of India, which are pending before the High Court of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi
    has not granted any stay of operation of the said judgement of the Tribunal.

    3. The effect of the two OMs issued on 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band, even while the issue can be resolved on the
    interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself.

    4. " It is not in dispute that vide Resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the pension
    was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein".

    5. The recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications, based on which Resolution, OM dated
    01.09.2008 was issued. The para 4.2 thereof states that “revised pension in no case
    shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------”.

    6. "The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who
    retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired".

    7. " whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of Rs. 14,300/- would now receive Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs.8700/- and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at Rs. 23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay Rs. 8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of Rs. 18,400/- or even Rs. 22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-)".
    (Such a pension of a pre-2006 retiree from S-29 scale very well happen to be lesser than those who were drawing Rs.18400/- as on 31.12.2005 in the same scale and retiring after 1.1.2006 with its corresponding revised basic pay).

    8. Such a situation "has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008".

    9. "We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that
    Resolution".

    10. "Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications".

    As our Respected Shri VNji has rightly expressed, "OUR HEARTY CONGRATS TO HARYANA STATEGOVT/ UNDERTAKINGS’ PRE 2006 PENSIONERS (S29 / OTHERS) led by S/Shri R K Agarawal/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal etc who are also prolific writers in this forum, FOR SCORING A BEFITTING VICTORY IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST THE SCPC MOD PARITY INJUSTICE, we repeat the same once again here.

    Best Regards.
    Last edited by sundarar; 09-01-2013 at 09:29 PM.

  7. #1187
    Member RPGoswami is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default One More Voice of Support

    That is vvhat I shall call this judgement. But are those vvho are supposed to listen listening?

  8. #1188
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    HON PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT VERDICT DT 21 12 2012 ON CWP 19641 ET AL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS VS STATE OF HARYANA (Ref posts 1185/ 86)

    Dear Shri RK Agarawal ji/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal ji/Other Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested,

    Our grateful thanks to your teams ( RKA/RS et al) for REINFORCING THE PR CAT’S VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 WRT OUR CASES OA 655 OF 2010 AND OTHERS and this will go a long way in our fight against the GOVT’S MISADVENTURE AT DHC TERMING THE PR CAT VERDICT AS”ERRONEOUS’ ETC! So also at other High Courts at Hyderabad and Trivandum as well as at UP (Lucknow Bench).
    YOU HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE OPERATIVE PARA OF THE HON P & H JUDGMENT PRECISELY AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN AGREEING WITH YOUR OBSERVATION AT THIS POINT OF TIME.

    1.The pronouncement clearly brings alive the sentiments and ethics the of SPS Vains Case judgment of Hon SC dt 8 9 2009 in true perspective.

    2.Pensioners can not be denied the application of CCS RP RULES/ HCS RP RULES when it comes to revision of penion and the REVISED PENSION RULES have to take into account the same . AFTER ALL “PENSION IS ALWAYS DEFINED A SPERCENTAGE OF PAY/ EMOLUMENTS “ AND THEREFORE the confusions the Govt tries to create among is mischievous.

    3. The selected sentence of opertive para reads “...
    ".......this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought
    corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay
    thereon.....”.

    4. Para 19 of Judgment had earlier explained the context of the above:
    “19. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal found itself in agreement with another contention raised by the applicants in those cases. The argument was that even if the modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the resolution dated 29.08.2008 is to be taken as criteria for determining pension of pre-2006 retirees, still on account of subsequent clarification issued to para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 by the Central Government vide OM dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, criteria and principle for determining the pension had been given a complete go by. It was, thus, argued that these clarificatory OMs are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.”

    5.As explained in sl no 4 and 5 , they provide “enough scope” for opening the front for FULL PARITY in pension among all homogenous pensioners belonging to the OLD SCHEME governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and amended from time to time. Simple issuing of OMs which are just EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS at best, can not become DEIFFERENT SCHEMES – say one for the past pensioners and one for the future pensioners. MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (MGP) HAS TO BE EQUAL ON BOTH SIDES OF REVISION AND THIS DHOULD WITHSTAND THE CHECK ON NEXUS AND OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED. This rinciple and ratio explained vividly time and again in landmark JUdGMENTS LIKE NAKARA/ SPS VAINS ETC can not be denied. Date of executive instruction can not deny such MGP

    6.I FEEL COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT HC VERDICT with somewhat SIMILAR PRONOUNCEMENT BY HON SC IN SPS VAINS CASE MAY BE DONE – WRT “FULL PARITY”/ “NEXUS”/”RATIO”:
    a.SPS VAINS CASE JUDGMENT (9 9 2008) LAST PARA READS:
    31. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its eequivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from
    1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with
    b. P & H HC CURRENT JUDGMENT (21 12 2012) LAST PARA READS:
    26.”.........this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.........”
    21.12.2012

    KEY POINT IS THE NEXUS/ LINK/ RATIO to be applied to the PRE-REVISED PENSION WRT TO THE REVISED PAY SCALE - "A MOST CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE' WHICH THE BABUDOM HAD BEEN DENYING TO PRE SCPC OLD PENSIONERS, IN SPITE OF THE "ORIGINAL" PRINCIPLE OF "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" ENSURED BY/THRU THE FIFTH CPC MODIFIED PARITY.

    IT IS RATHER ASTONISHING, DISAPPOINTING, SADDENING AND RATHER SHOCKING THAT THE CURRENT LOWER LEVEL FUNCTIONRIES / FILE PUSHERS ARE "PROVIDING THE VERY BASE / AVENUE FOR SUCH A GROSS ERRONEOOUS APPROACH OF REDUCING THE EFFECTIVE PENSION AMOUNTS FOR PAST/OLD PENSIONERS (BOTH IN CIVIL AND MILITARY DOMAINS) , WHICH WILL CUT THEIR OWN ROOTS WHN THEY BECOME "PENSIONERS' IN FUTURE!

    SHOULD THEY NOT WAKE UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS PRACTICE? WHY THIS SELF-INFLICTING, RETROGRESSIVE, IMMATURE ACTIONS!. THEY MAY NOTE NONE LOSES ANYTHING BY FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT APPLICATION IN PENSION FORMULATIONS!!!

    THEY TRY TO EVEN CONFUSE THE JUDICIARY BY DRAGGING IN THE "CUT OFF DATES", GOVT'S UNBRIDLED POWER TO "FRAME NEW SCHEMES', "DECIDE WHAT AMOUNT NEED TO BE GIVEN AS PENSION TO OLD PENSIONERS", "KEEPING IN VIEW THE ECONOMIC CONSTARINTS" .

    ALL THE EXCUSES GIVEN ARE PROVED TO BE HOG-....... AND BULL-.......!

    THE ANTI-PENSIONER COUNSELLING ENTITIES WILL "UNNECESSARILY LOSE THEIR PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND GOODWILL" -IF THEY GO IN TO TAKE UP THESE TYPES OF BONAFIDE ANTI-PENSIONER CASES, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING VERY SENIOR HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE ERSTWHILE HOD LEVEL/ SAG LEVEL PENSIONERS AND OTHERS / NOW VERY SENIOR CITIZENS OF THIS NATURE- WHERE ALREADY IN TOTAL 40 OAs/ CWPs HAVE BEEN JUDGED BY CATs/ PR CAT/ AFTs/ and now the first HC, through nearly a dozen independent judgments have been delivered by not less than two dozen Hon Justices- many stting in DOUBLE/ TREBLE Benches UPHOLDING THE PLEA OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE CORRECT APPLICAION OF THE DOPPW'S GAZ RESOLUTION DATED 29 AUG 2008!!!

    HOPE THE MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR!.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 10-01-2013 at 07:11 PM. Reason: Improvement of content/ moderation

  9. #1189
    Member ybhaskar23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Dear VN Ji
    Does the High Court judgement specify Full Parity or Modified Parity?
    could you pl interpret on this issue,
    thanks,
    ybr

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post

    HON PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT VERDICT DT 21 12 2012 ON CWP 19641 ET AL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS VS STATE OF HARYANA (Ref posts 1185/ 86)

    Dear Shri RK Agarawal ji/ Shri Ranbir Sehgal ji/Other Pre 2006 Pensioners/ Interested,

    Our grateful thanks to your teams ( RKA/RS et al) for REINFORCING THE PR CAT’S VERDICT OF 1 11 2011 WRT OUR CASES OA 655 OF 2010 AND OTHERS and this will go a long way in our fight against the GOVT’S MISADVENTURE AT DHC TERMING THE PR CAT VERDICT AS”ERRONEOUS’ ETC! So also at other High Courts at Hyderabad and Trivandum as well as at UP (Lucknow Bench).
    YOU HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE OPERATIVE PARA OF THE HON P & H JUDGMENT PRECISELY AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN AGREEING WITH YOUR OBSERVATION AT THIS POINT OF TIME.

    1.The pronouncement clearly brings alive the sentiments and ethics the of SPS Vains Case judgment of Hon SC dt 8 9 2009 in true perspective.

    2.Pensioners can not be denied the application of CCS RP RULES/ HCS RP RULES when it comes to revision of penion and the REVISED PENSION RULES have to take into account the same . AFTER ALL “PENSION IS ALWAYS DEFINED A SPERCENTAGE OF PAY/ EMOLUMENTS “ AND THEREFORE the confusions the Govt tries to create among is mischievous.

    3. The selected sentence of opertive para reads “...
    ".......this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought
    corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay
    thereon.....”.

    4. Para 19 of Judgment had earlier explained the context of the above:
    “19. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal found itself in agreement with another contention raised by the applicants in those cases. The argument was that even if the modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the resolution dated 29.08.2008 is to be taken as criteria for determining pension of pre-2006 retirees, still on account of subsequent clarification issued to para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 by the Central Government vide OM dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, criteria and principle for determining the pension had been given a complete go by. It was, thus, argued that these clarificatory OMs are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.”

    5.As explained in sl no 4 and 5 , they provide “enough scope” for opening the front for FULL PARITY in pension among all homogenous pensioners belonging to the OLD SCHEME governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and amended from time to time. Simple issuing of OMs which are just EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS at best, can not become DEIFFERENT SCHEMES – say one for the past pensioners and one for the future pensioners. MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (MGP) HAS TO BE EQUAL ON BOTH SIDES OF REVISION AND THIS DHOULD WITHSTAND THE CHECK ON NEXUS AND OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED. This rinciple and ratio explained vividly time and again in landmark JUdGMENTS LIKE NAKARA/ SPS VAINS ETC can not be denied. Date of executive instruction can not deny such MGP

    6.I FEEL COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT HC VERDICT with somewhat SIMILAR PRONOUNCEMENT BY HON SC IN SPS VAINS CASE MAY BE DONE – WRT “FULL PARITY”/ “NEXUS”/”RATIO”:
    a.SPS VAINS CASE JUDGMENT (9 9 2008) LAST PARA READS:
    31. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its eequivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from
    1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with
    b. P & H HC CURRENT JUDGMENT (21 12 2012) LAST PARA READS:
    26.”.........this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.........”
    21.12.2012

    KEY POINT IS THE NEXUS/ LINK/ RATIO to be applied to the PRE-REVISED PENSION WRT TO THE REVISED PAY SCALE - "A MOST CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE' WHICH THE BABUDOM HAD BEEN DENYING TO PRE SCPC OLD PENSIONERS, IN SPITE OF THE "ORIGINAL" PRINCIPLE OF "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" ENSURED BY/THRU THE FIFTH CPC MODIFIED PARITY.

    IT IS RATHER ASTONISHING, DISAPPOINTING, SADDENING AND RATHER SHOCKING THAT THE CURRENT LOWER LEVEL FUNCTIONRIES / FILE PUSHERS ARE "PROVIDING THE VERY BASE / AVENUE FOR SUCH A GROSS ERRONEOOUS APPROACH OF REDUCING THE EFFECTIVE PENSION AMOUNTS FOR PAST/OLD PENSIONERS (BOTH IN CIVIL AND MILITARY DOMAINS) , WHICH WILL CUT THEIR OWN ROOTS WHN THEY BECOME "PENSIONERS' IN FUTURE!

    SHOULD THEY NOT WAKE UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS PRACTICE? WHY THIS SELF-INFLICTING, RETROGRESSIVE, IMMATURE ACTIONS!. THEY MAY NOTE NONE LOSES ANYTHING BY FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT APPLICATION IN PENSION FORMULATIONS!!!

    THEY TRY TO EVEN CONFUSE THE JUDICIARY BY DRAGGING IN THE "CUT OFF DATES", GOVT'S UNBRIDLED POWER TO "FRAME NEW SCHEMES', "DECIDE WHAT AMOUNT NEED TO BE GIVEN AS PENSION TO OLD PENSIONERS", "KEEPING IN VIEW THE ECONOMIC CONSTARINTS" .

    ALL THE EXCUSES GIVEN ARE PROVED TO BE HOG-....... AND BULL-.......!

    THE ANTI-PENSIONER COUNSELLING ENTITIES WILL "UNNECESSARILY LOSE THEIR PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND GOODWILL" -IF THEY GO IN TO TAKE UP THESE TYPES OF BONAFIDE ANTI-PENSIONER CASES, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING VERY SENIOR HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE ERSTWHILE HOD LEVEL/ SAG LEVEL PENSIONERS AND OTHERS / NOW VERY SENIOR CITIZENS OF THIS NATURE- WHERE ALREADY IN TOTAL 40 OAs/ CWPs HAVE BEEN JUDGED BY CATs/ PR CAT/ AFTs/ and now the first HC, through nearly a dozen independent judgments have been delivered by not less than two dozen Hon Justices- many stting in DOUBLE/ TREBLE Benches UPHOLDING THE PLEA OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE CORRECT APPLICAION OF THE DOPPW'S GAZ RESOLUTION DATED 29 AUG 2008!!!

    HOPE THE MESSAGE IS VERY CLEAR!.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vnatarajan

  10. #1190
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri Bhaskar / Interested,

    Relevant and Important question!.
    Modified Pairty or Full Pairty?

    RIGHT NOW I WOULD NOT LIKE TO OFFER MY FULL EXPLANATION- FOR SOME REASONS.
    SHRI RANBIR SEHGAL HAS ALREADY MADE SOME OBERVATIONS WRT "FULL PARITY"

    In the meanwhile , a thorough reading/analysis of the judgment is needed to understand the whole 'gamut"/ implication of this "OUTSTANDING BUT SIMPLE JUDGMENT ON A COMPLEX ISSUE OF PENSION PARITY"!

    1.Though the judgment is delivered with CHP 19641/642 of 2009 as the lead petitions, pl note the CORE JUDGMENT DISCUSSES THE CWP 12638 OF 2010 ( 27 RETD CHIEF ENGINEERS OF OLD PENSIONER CATEGORY) FOR BREVITY AND TOTALITY OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. In fact their prayer may cover all types of prayers contained in other petitions.

    2.The concerned petition , I am sure (only Shri Ranbir ji can explain in real perception ) must have sought relief wrt LPD/ FULL PARITY etc, besides the other mundane issues of mod parity/ nullification of OMs/ effective date as 1 1 2006/ interest on arrears etc.

    3.If Mod Pairty was the only issue to be judged , why choose CWP 12638- terming the reason as for "brevity"?

    4. ALL MAY NOTE THAT THE OPERATIVE/END PARA 30 OF JUDGMENT HAS FIRMLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT "ALL PETITIONs SUCCEED" AND THE MANDAMUS ISSUED FOR REVISED PENSION FIXATION OF EACH PENSIONER, SO THAT THE SAME IS "NOT LOWER THAN " THE FORMULA. based on MPPB and not MPB ...!. All the while the babudom had been fooling us around and so also the CPAO/ PAO domains, to make this revised value as the MAXIMUM that a pre 2006 pensioner can get at! THIS JUDGMENT CLEARLY ENDORSES MY VIEW THAT IT IS THE THRESHHOLD VALUE ONLY FOR PRE 2006 S29 AND SIMILARLY AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PENSIONERS IN SOME OTHER SCALES (WHERE THE 2.26 mf DOES NOT GIVE A HIGHER REVISION AS HAPPENS FOR EVEN PRE 2006 S29 AND ALSO ONLY IF THE UNREVISED BP OF THE PRE 2006 S29 WAS ABOVE 20900)

    5. IN FACT EVEN THE SO-CALLED SCPC MOD PARITY MEANT ONLY A "THRESH- HOLD VALUE" AND NOT THE "MAXIMUM VALUE " AS THE BABUS HAVE MADE IT OUT FOR THE PRE 2006 S29/ AND SIMILARLY AFFECTED GRADES. THUS SAY FOR EG. FOR PRE 2006 S29, IT (THRESHHOLD VALUE) HAS TO BE AT THE MINIMUM OF 27350 AND NOTHING PREVENTS FOR INDIVIDULAS TO BE FIXED AT RATES ABOVE IT! IT WAS CALLOUS INDISCRIMINATION TO PUT ALL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WITH PRE REVISED BP OF 18400 TO 20900 AS ONE LOT ( 5 YERS OF SERVICE PLUS ANOTHER 10 YERS IN S24 GRADE SAY TO REACH 18300 BEFORE BECOMING 18400 IN S29) TO RENDER THEM EQUALS TO UNEQUALS OF NEARLY 15 YEARS JUNIOR!!!!!

    6.Again quoting from the judgment, "...this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon". IN FACT THIS SETTLES THE CASE FOR EACH RETIREE (PL SEE THE SPECIFIC MENTION) SO THAT WHEN REVISED, HIS PENSION CAN NOT BE LOWER THAN THE FORMULA---- IT COULD BE EQUAL OR EVEN "HIGHER" A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL FIXATION FOR EACH RETRIEE can not be denied as each one of them is a litigant and each as a "RETIREE" covered by this verdict has to be rendered justice as HIS PETITION HAS SUCCEEDED.!

    Legal pundits will take care.

    I HAVE OTHER AXES TO GRIND - AND I SHALL COME FORTH WITH THE SAME AFTER SOME GAP.

    Full or Modified Parity? Individual can judge themselves pl..... after analysing the JUDGMENT because each and every petition has succeeded and a COMMON SIMPLISTIC ORDER CONTAINED IN LAST OPERATIVE PARA 30 (END) TAKES CARE OF EVERY DEMAND OF THE PETITIONERS.

    ISN'T THE JUDGMENT OUTSTANDING- FAIR- JUST- SIMPLISTIC- DEVOID OF LEGAL COMPLEXITIES?

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 11-01-2013 at 04:51 PM. Reason: EDITED FOR MORE CLARITY

  11. #1191
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. The Judgment by a High Court or Supreme Court discusses the arguments given by both sides and thereafter forms its opinian with the reason.The judgment can allow the prayor in full or in part or even can go beyond the prayor made and grant something more as found justified after judicial reviw as per law. As defined by legal experts a "Mandamus" is "a writ or order that is issued from a Court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, Municipal Corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation." Recent P & H High Court Judgement in case of CWP 19641 of 2009 has issued a "Mandamus" thus : “26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution, Once we find that this resolution ensures that ‘the 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 and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest 9% w.e.f. 01.03,2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. Therefore, in order to comply with the Mandamus, the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission.Does it not mean revision of pay as per revised rules and thereafter refixation of pension based on revised pay ?

  12. #1192
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Friends,

    Responding to my post at sl no 1190 on the P & H HC Judgment of 21 12 2012 and some doubts raised therin,Shri R K Agarwal had sent me an email and also has expressed he was unable to post the same in GCONNECT.In.

    I thank him for his valuable rejoinder and detailed explanations which I reproduce here :

    Quote:

    In G connect , you have desired to know why petition no. 12638 was chosen to discuss the case in the judgment while the lead petition was 19641. In this connection, it is to inform you that following four petitions exclusively relate to the case of Chief Engineers (18400-22400) only & no other category is covered in these petitions. All these petitions are similar in all respects and had pleaded for modified parity in accordance with Para 5.1.47 of Resolution dated 29.08.08.

    19641, 19642, 3452 & 12638

    Other four petitions also cover the Xens & SEs in addition to Chief Engineers. These petitions pleaded for parity & a host of other issues.

    No doubt the lead petition was 19641 of RK Aggarwal, but the bench chose to discuss petition no. 12638 (similar in all respects to petition no. 19641). As out of all the counsels of petitioners, Mr HL Tikku was the seniormost counsel, as per practice, he was required to initiate the arguments and plead the case of petitioners. He was the counsel for petition no. 12638 & so he argued on the basis of his petition. Hence this petition was chosed by the Bench. He covered most of the ground & explained the inns and outs of CAT judgment, produced various tables & distortion of modified parity. He took the maximum time. The counsels for other three petitions 19641, 19642 & 3452 enorsed the views of MR Tikku & further strengthened the case for modified parity.

    Thereafter other counsels pleaded for their points which were not covered by Mr Tikku. S/Shri RK Chopra & Karan Nehra,the Counsels for other four petitions viz 20625 t0 27 & 20753 also extensively pleaded their additional points not covered in earlier four petitions.

    I tried to put above clarifications in Gconnect but somehow I encountered problem & could not so though I am alredy registered & had entered correct password.

    I am sending this note just to clarify why petition no. 12638 was chosen. I hope that it would clarify the whole situation.

    R. K Aggarwal

    Unquote

    vnatarajan


    PS; I MUST ALSO ADD EXTRACTS FROM SHRI RANBIR SEHGALS' SEMAIL TO ME ON SOME OF HIS VIEWS ON THE JUDGMENT:

    QUOTE EXTRACTS:

    The judgment delivered by the Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice P&H HC states very clearly that the pay of the retiree is to be brought to the revised pay scale. This is in accordance with the HSC judgment in Maj-Gen SPS Vains case.

    This is marked improvement over the Modified Parity and amounts to Full Parity. Moreover, the arrears will become payable from 01.01.06.

    This decision will also help our retired Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers, who were drawing last pay of about Rs.18400 to 19000. Some of the points raised in our petitions have, however, not been covered such as Bunching and protection of pension with reference to feeder post etc. Even after this favourable judgment, the pension of pre-2006 retired CE is less than that of the SE and XEN retiring now. We will discuss with our advocates about the next step

    UNQUOTE.

    VN
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 14-01-2013 at 06:29 AM.

  13. #1193
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Shri V. Natarajan’s Posts above and his quote of Shri RK Agarwal’s Note have amply made the position clear. I would deal with it later but first I would myself like to answer my own question put up at the end of my post No. 465 above for reference and context. If you go through the judgment, you would find this question dealt with and answered.

    The term "full parity" includes all retiring benefits accrued at the time of retirement i.e. revised pension based on number of years of qualifying service put in, revised gratuity or any other benefits which are accrued with the retirement. Though Judgment has accepted as valid the cut off date of 1.1.2006 but it has not accepted the full parity between pre and post 2006 retirees.

    The judgment has declared all OMs issued after the Resolution dated 29.08.08 as illegal but on the other hand, it has declared Resolution dated 29.08.08 legally valid and even defined its outcome as brought out in para 26 of the Judgment. In my opinion and as I understand the outcome of this land mark Judgment, the “pay” (emphasis added) of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. With this, nether qualifying service would be considered once again for computing Revised Pension nor any other pensionary benefit would accrue to any pre 2006 retiree. This means it is neither full parity nor modified parity. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a true meaning to the OM dated 29.8.2008. However, needless to say that this Judgment has yet to pass the test of the hon.ble Supreme Court because UOI would definitely prefer an SLP (C) and fight tooth and nail to get it reversed, there.


  14. #1194
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Pre 2006 Pensioners/Interested,

    THE P & H HC ORDER IS CERTAINLY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE CATs'/ AFTs' ORDERS IN MANY WAYS AS ONE OF MY LEARNED FRIENDS HAD POINTED OUT.

    1.The Govt thru their Orders dtd 3/14 Oct 2008 tried to remove the "RELEVANCE and NEXUS of the LAST PAY/EMOLUMENTS OF THE RETIREES AS WELL AS HIS/ HER SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST HELD AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT" VIS A VIS THE "REVISION OF PENSION" ONCE FOR ALL.

    2.THIS WAS BECAUSE, THE SO CALLED 'MODIFIED PARITY" ENFORCED AFTER 5TH CPC WAS BLINDLY ACCEPTED BY THE PENSIONERS AND NONE CHALLENGED THE SAME PERSEVERENTLY upto hc/ hsc levels except......

    3.ONLY CASE I CAN SAFELY CITE IS THE LUCKY "FALL OUT" THAT OF PRE/POST 1996 RETD MAJ GENS UNDER SPS VAINS' LEADERSHIP AND FOR WHOM THE JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED - ENHANCING the revised pension TO MAKE IT OVER THAT OF THE RETD BRIGADEER BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT PRE 1996 RETD MAJ GENERALS ALSO GET THE REVISED PENSION AT PAR WITH POST 1996 RETD MAJ GENS, after intial blunders..

    4.THUS IN THE ABOVE CASE, "POINT TO POINT" PARITY IN REVISED PENSION CAME IN TO FORCE FOR THEM ....AND TO AVOID SIMILAR DEMANDS FROM "CIVLIAN EQUALS', THE DOPPW WENT OUT OF THE WAY TO ISSUE AN OM THAT "WHAT IS APPLICABLE TO MILITARY RETIREES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR CIVILIAN RETIREES CITING THE SPS VAINS CASE".

    5.ABOVE OM ITSELF IS RIDICULOUS AND I HAD CHALLENGED IT THRU A LETTER - AND NOW I FEEL I MUST SEEK FURTHER INFO ON THE SAME THRU RTI, BECAUSE WHAT WAS "ALLOWED FOR PRE 2006 RETD LT GENS" FORMED THE BASIS FOR "ALLOWING SIMILAR BENEFITS FOR EQUIVALENT PRE 2006 CIVILIAN RETIREES OF THE LEVEL OF ADDL SECRETARY/ S30 SCALE"IS THIS NOT IN CONTRADICTION OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN WRT SPS VAINS CASE APPLICATION FOR CIVILIANS?.

    COMING BACK TO THE JUDGMENT:

    6.THE PHHC J/MENT CLEARLY UNDERLINES/ HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT THE REVISED PENSION HAS TO HAVE NEXUS/ LINKAGE TO THE "PAY" OF THE RETIREE WHO RETIRED BEFORE 1 1 2006 AS WELL AS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE "REVISED PAY SCALE" .

    7. THIS jJUDGMENT CLEARLY CONVEYS THAT "BUNCHING OF THE STAGES IF PAY OF SEVERAL RETIREES WITH DIFFERNT PAYs AT THE TIME OF THEIR RETIREMENT" as well us "MERGING SEVERAL RETIREES WITH DIFFERENT PAYs AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT IN VARIOUS PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES" AND THEN TREATING ALL OF THEM AS ONE "SHEEP LOT' FOR REVISING THE PENSION IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR !!!! For eg. OP PARA OF JUDGMENT extracts : "the “pay” (emphasis added) of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission "......

    8.THIS JUDGMENT ALSO CONVEYS THAT FIXING THE THRESHHOLD AT "MINIMUM" LEVELS -WHETHER AS THAT OF THE " PAY OF THE PAY BAND (MPB BASIS)" OR EVEN THAT OF "THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND (MPPB BASIS) " - BOTH ARE WRONG !!!!. WE ALL HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SECOND ONE AT LEAST WILL GIVE US THE CORRECT SCPC MOD PARITY. Now this judgment is a clear pointer that even this impression is OUR OWN MAKING/ WEAK COMPREHENSION/NOT VALID.

    9.THE ABOVE IS EVEIDENT FROM THE ELABORATION SEEN IN THE EXTRACT OF OP PARA OF THE JUDGMENT : "...and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.". SO IT IS TO BE NOTD THAT THE "REVISED PENSION ARRIVED AT HAS TO BE COMPARED WITH THE "MPPB" ONLY TO ENSURE- REPEAT ONLY TO ENSURE -THAT IT IS " NOT repeat NOT lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon".

    10 WITH THE LIMIT OF MPPB IMPOSED FOR COMPARISON, IT REMOVES THE VEIL OF MAKING IT COMPULSORY MINIMUM FOR ALL THE INDIVIDUAL RETIREES WITH DIFFERENT REVISED PENSIONs AS PER THE JUDGMENT FORMULA .

    11. As the judgment addreses every RETIREE , each is entitled to a REVISED PENSION well above the MINIMUM level and with nexus to his PAY last drawn with its due crrespondence in the Revised Pat structure.

    LEGAL BRAINS MAY SEE THE WHOLE "JUDGMENT IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE in all 3DIMENSIONs " AND SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE TO ALL PRE 2006 RETIREES OVERCOMING ALL THE "VIRTUAL UNDEFINED MODIFIED PARITY" being practiced an enforced on all of us and also on the future retirees ILLEGALLY/ UNLAWFULLY- in violation of ART 14/16/21 of connstitution.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 16-01-2013 at 11:29 AM.

  15. #1195
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (SCPC RELATED) OR SCPC MODIFIED PARITY ORDERS FOR RETD PRE 2006 COMMISSIONED OFFICERS - ORDERS ISSUED YESTERDAY 17 01 2013

    DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

    YESTERDAY, 17 01 2013, ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ENSURING ELNHANCED PENSION FOR PRE 2006 RETD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WEF 24 09 2012, IN ACOORDANCE WITH THEIR "FITMENT TABLES' FORMULA RELATED TO SCPC PAY BANDS" , WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS THE DEMAND THAT WAS BEING MADE BY SOME GROUPS AMONG THEM LIKE US FOR "SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" AND WHICH IS ALSO THE ESSENCE OF THEIR AFT JUDGMENTS IN THREE CASES - WON BY THEM IN SEPT - DEC 2010 AT AFT PR BENCH DELHI AND AT AFT CHANDIGARH ETC.

    YOU CAN ACCESS ALL INFOMATION THRU MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH'S BLOG SITE ON INDIAN MILITARY SERVICES BENEFITS AND ISSUES ETC
    LINK: http://www.indianmilitary.info/

    EXTRACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thursday, January 17, 2013
    (Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today.

    The below mentioned letters have been issued today by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet.


    The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012.

    2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I expected similar orders would have been issued simultaneously for similarly aggrieved SEGMENTS OF Pre 2006 Civilian Pensioners (INCLUDING THE GREATLY SUFFERING PRE 2006 S29) for whom I and Shri MLK ji and others have been waging a series of battles almost becoming a war, with numerous PR BENCH/ CAT/ Recent P & H HC judgments issuing very clear orders for such MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION RELATED TO THE VERY INJUSTICE which this thread is discussing since more than 3 years.

    NEVERTHELESS IT WAS DECLARED IN LAST SCOVA MEET/ ALSO IN LKNO HIGH COURT THAT GOVT SHALL BE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND ISSUINAN OM SHORTLY.

    I AND SHRI MLK JI EXPECT THAT THIS ORDER BY DOPPW/ GOI WILL HAVE TO BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DELAY TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS .

    AS THE CAT JUDGMENTS/ ALSO RECENT P & HC JUDGMENT VERDICTS HAVE PRONOUNCED THAT THE DATE OF EFFECT IS FROM 1 1 2006, THE AUTHORTIES MUST ENSURE THAT THE ORDERS SPELL IT SO...... FAILING WHICH THERE WILL BE SCOPE FOR LITIGATIONS.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 18-01-2013 at 05:22 AM.

  16. #1196
    Member ybhaskar23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    my dear VN Ji,

    the orders for the civilians will naturally be on the same lines,

    firstly it was minimum of pay band

    and now it is minimum of fitment tables

    the 29th august resolution nowhere speaks of minimum of fitment table
    or effective date as september 2012

    where is the last pay drawn concept of the high court judgement disappeared,

    where is the concept of re fixation of revised pension within the fitment table gone

    well some thing is definitely better than the previous orders
    but a lot more is to be done

    may be another round of litigation in supreme court

    what about the Mandamus Action?

    where is the OROP for the Armed Forces?

    will that also come?

    your expert views please

    ybr







    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION (SCPC RELATED) OR SCPC MODIFIED PARITY ORDERS FOR RETD PRE 2006 COMMISSIONED OFFICERS - ORDERS ISSUED YESTERDAY 17 01 2013

    DEAR PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

    YESTERDAY, 17 01 2013, ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ENSURING ELNHANCED PENSION FOR PRE 2006 RETD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WEF 24 09 2012, IN ACOORDANCE WITH THEIR "FITMENT TABLES' FORMULA RELATED TO SCPC PAY BANDS" , WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS THE DEMAND THAT WAS BEING MADE BY SOME GROUPS AMONG THEM LIKE US FOR "SCPC RECOMMENDED CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" AND WHICH IS ALSO THE ESSENCE OF THEIR AFT JUDGMENTS IN THREE CASES - WON BY THEM IN SEPT - DEC 2010 AT AFT PR BENCH DELHI AND AT AFT CHANDIGARH ETC.

    YOU CAN ACCESS ALL INFOMATION THRU MAJ NAVDEEP SINGH'S BLOG SITE ON INDIAN MILITARY SERVICES BENEFITS AND ISSUES ETC
    LINK: http://www.indianmilitary.info/

    EXTRACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thursday, January 17, 2013
    (Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today.

    The below mentioned letters have been issued today by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet.


    The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012.

    2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I expected similar orders would have been issued simultaneously for similarly aggrieved SEGMENTS OF Pre 2006 Civilian Pensioners (INCLUDING THE GREATLY SUFFERING PRE 2006 S29) for whom I and Shri MLK ji and others have been waging a series of battles almost becoming a war, with numerous PR BENCH/ CAT/ Recent P & H HC judgments issuing very clear orders for such MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION RELATED TO THE VERY INJUSTICE which this thread is discussing since more than 3 years.

    NEVERTHELESS IT WAS DECLARED IN LAST SCOVA MEET/ ALSO IN LKNO HIGH COURT THAT GOVT SHALL BE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND ISSUINAN OM SHORTLY.

    I AND SHRI MLK JI EXPECT THAT THIS ORDER BY DOPPW/ GOI WILL HAVE TO BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DELAY TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION TO PRE 2006 PENSIONERS .

    AS THE CAT JUDGMENTS/ ALSO RECENT P & HC JUDGMENT VERDICTS HAVE PRONOUNCED THAT THE DATE OF EFFECT IS FROM 1 1 2006, THE AUTHORTIES MUST ENSURE THAT THE ORDERS SPELL IT SO...... FAILING WHICH THERE WILL BE SCOPE FOR LITIGATIONS.

    vnatarajan

  17. #1197
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Shri Bhaskar/ Interested,

    The Orders issued for Pre 2006 Military pensioners is based on the Recos of the HP Com appointed by the Hon PM related to the OROP issue - but it has perhaps dealt all other issues other than the OROP issue!

    Orders issued for Pre 2006 Military pensioners for enhancing their pension has got nothing to do with court cases / judgments thereof - least of all the recent P & H HC judgment ! It has nothing to do with any MANDAMUS etc. So... Where is the confusion? The Reprt of the Com was submitted much before this HC Judgment and accepted in Sept 2012 itself.

    FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES - IT IS A NEW POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CABINET BASED ON THE HP COM OF SECRETARIES APPOINTED BY THE HON PM ON THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF PENSIONs FOR PBORS /Others/AND some OTHER ITEMS, IN JULY 2012 WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO SUBMIT ITS RECOS BY AUG 2012- BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS DONE A BIT ALTE AND THEN THE OUTCOME IN SEPT 2012 WHICH ALL KNEW!

    THUS all your queries can not be answered by adrdressing this brand new policy decision. ANY COINCIDENCE IN IT/ ANY MENTION IN IT TO SCPC/ related FITMENT TABLEs for MILITARY or CIVIL Pensioners ETC ETC are of virtual value only but the REAL OUTCOME IS THAT YOU ARE NOW PROMISED A "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" BASED ON A 'FITMENT TABLE' WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE "SCPC RELATED ORDERS"

    ANY PRE 2006 RETIREE GETTING AN IDENTICAL MINIMUM PENSION AS THAT OF A POST 2006 RETIREE OF SAME STATUS (SCALE/ PAY/QS ETC) IS A PURE COINCIDENCE PL....IT IS BECAUSE OF THE "MAGIC" OF THE NEW POLICY- ON "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION"!!! the Date of Effect istelf is different and so is he new policy not different?

    HOWEVER AS YOU RIGHTLY SAID, THERE IS SCOPE FOR MORE LTIGATIONS TO FOLLOW- FIRST IS THEE DATE OF EFFECT- ARREARS- NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF SEVERAL JUDGMENTS AND TRYING TO SHORT THEM BY NEW POLICIES ETC ETC.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 18-01-2013 at 08:09 PM.

  18. #1198
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Thumbs up Correct revised pension from 1.1.2006

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    Dear Shri Bhaskar / Interested,

    Relevant and Important question!.
    Modified Pairty or Full Pairty?


    5. IN FACT EVEN THE SO-CALLED SCPC MOD PARITY MEANT ONLY A "THRESH- HOLD VALUE" AND NOT THE "MAXIMUM VALUE " AS THE BABUS HAVE MADE IT OUT FOR THE PRE 2006 S29/ AND SIMILARLY AFFECTED GRADES. THUS SAY FOR EG. FOR PRE 2006 S29, IT (THRESHHOLD VALUE) HAS TO BE AT THE MINIMUM OF 27350 AND NOTHING PREVENTS FOR INDIVIDULAS TO BE FIXED AT RATES ABOVE IT! IT WAS CALLOUS INDISCRIMINATION TO PUT ALL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WITH PRE REVISED BP OF 18400 TO 20900 AS ONE LOT ( 5 YERS OF SERVICE PLUS ANOTHER 10 YERS IN S24 GRADE SAY TO REACH 18300 BEFORE BECOMING 18400 IN S29) TO RENDER THEM EQUALS TO UNEQUALS OF NEARLY 15 YEARS JUNIOR!!!!!

    vnatarajan
    Respected Shri VNji has very correctly pointed out the anamolous situation.

    The basic pension itself has not undergone application of correct fixation formula due to which Pre 2006 S29 and similarly aggrived segments were left with lesser revised pension than the minimum, and hence the need for `fixation in such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band grade pay thereon’. Thus the issue of Modified Parity is getting settled accordingly, and if it is so, the effective date therefor can be none other than 1.1.2006. The landmark CAT PR Bench Judgment dated 1.11.2011 have well taken care this aspect and the implementation of the said Judgment will settle the position without any further recommendation or decision from anywhere else.

    2. Further, Whenever the question of disparity in fixation of pension with a cut off date among single homogenous class of pensioners is raised, the respondent states that `the Government had taken a policy decision to revise the provisions for determination of pay of the government servants with effect from 1.1.2006 which has resulted in higher pension of prospective pensioners. This policy is not discriminatory as in both the case as it accords different benefits to the pensioners of pre-2006 and post 2005 period and the policy cannot be equated with mathematical precision in case of petitioners and post 2005 retirees.... bifurcation of pensioners to pre-2006 pensioners and post 2006 retirees is valid and cannot be faulted with as it is a matter of policy and Courts and Tribunal should not review the policy matters. The Government has divided a single homogenous class of pensions into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment. The Government had taken a decision to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard to applicability of pension to two groups from different dates.

    In that regard, it was viewed by the CAT in one of the case that `differentiation of pre-2006 and post 2006 retirees notwithstanding the right of government to introduce new scheme or to withdraw the existing schemes are policy matters which cannot be gone into by the Courts and Tribunals'.

    Still in some other previous case on judicial review of policy decision, it was pointed out that `yet judicial review is not altogether excluded. The role in such circumstances is (to interpret a policy decision) to avoid arbitrariness and individual discrimination, and can interfere when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter'.

    The full parity issue stands as such accordingly.

    This is the situation in spite of the available 5th CPC recommendation in para 137.13 where it is stated that While it is desirable to grant complete parity in pension to all past pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement, this may not be feasible straightaway as the financial implications would be considerable. In para 137.14, it is stated that the consolidated pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post, as revised by Fifth CPC, held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. In para 137.21, it has been observed that the Commission has decided to enunciate a principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that complete parity should normally be conceded upto the date of last pay revision and modified parity ( with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay scale) be accepted at the time of each fresh pay revision. ..The enunciation of the principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision, say, in the year 2006,complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post2006 pensioners.

    Two questions arise after a period of about 15 years now.
    (1) Whether the financial implications by grant of complete/full parity in pension to pre-2006 pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement could not be feasible straightaway even now at this point of time. Then it can be never also. This apart, the 6th CPC too has not addressed this aspect.

    (2) Whether complete parity that `should have been given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996' has actually been given? Then when the complete/full parity will be given to past pensioners as between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners? Not addressed by 6th CPC in this regard.

    Full parity vs Correct Revision of Basic Pension, when both are not in the vicinity as of now, the pensioners community is yet to touch either of this aspect under the circumstances that was prevailing and even if the question of full parity is raised here and there, the situation prevails as stated above.

    The left out issue being Correct Revision of Basic Pension for all scale retirees of pre-2006/pre-1996/pre- , has so far not become an issue for addressing by the Judicial Review as the same is not raised by the aggrieved pensioners, in the absence of accepted modified parity.

    I am not aware which one out of full parity and correct basic pension revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006 will address all anomalies. But the latter one appears to be having enough justification to pray for. Treating a pre-2006 pensioner as such and providing with a correct fixation formula as against existing 2.26 MF for revising the pre-revised basic pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 will address all the issues including modified parity. If not possible, then COMPLETE/FULL PARITY AMONG THE SINGLE HOMOGENOUS CLASS OF PENSIONERS PLEASE.

    With the implementation orders due for issue any time now, the post-2008 scenario has been kept alive amidst elaborate discussion particularly through this MEGA THREAD FOR JUSTICE' initiated originally by our Respected Shri VNji and personally I feel very happy at this moment that the intended target is just very closer and thankful to the leadership and guiding path. With this happy occasion, I prefer leave for a while and on completion of my some urgent personal assignments, I will resume back at a later stage, may be with NEW YEAR GREETINGS please. Thanks and Best Regards

    Jai Shri Krishna.
    Last edited by sundarar; 19-01-2013 at 10:06 AM.

  19. #1199
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    DEAR PRE 2006 SEGMENTS OF AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS AFFECTED BY SCPC RELATED "MPB" VS "MPPB" ISSUE,

    While the Military counterpart pensioners have received their orders/ follow up actions by PCDAs concerned last week itself, the much expected orders for the civilian counterparts have not been issued. Hon Minister appears to be away.

    HOPEFULLY HE SHALL RETURN WELL IN TIME TO BE AT DELHI SO THAT HE CAN BE "BY THE SIDE OF THE HON PM" ON THE EVE OF THE REPUBLIC DAY.

    If he is on 24th itself at Delhi, we shall hope he remembers the SR CITIZENS OF THIS REPUBLIC WHO HAD SERVED THE NATION FOR LONG LONG YEARS and now pathetically fighting for their CORRECT PENSIONS AND SIGNS THE FILE without losing time. He has to uphold the promise made in SCOVA meeting in Sept 2012!

    LET US WAIT FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 23-01-2013 at 06:37 PM.

  20. #1200
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear friends. I wish you all a very happy Republic Day 26th Jan.2013. This is the day when we remember those who died for ensuring our indepence. Let us all pay tribute to them individually and collectively. We are indebted to them and therefore, by remaining united and alert towards keeping our independance unharmed all the time, we can show our gratitude. Warm regards.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 60 of 77 FirstFirst ... 10 50 58 59 60 61 62 70 ... 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