+ Reply to Thread
Page 64 of 77 FirstFirst ... 14 54 62 63 64 65 66 74 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,280 of 1540

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

  1. #1261
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Shri GK may kindly highlight how the contempt issue of the DHC crops up? For example, the PR CAT Jment was allowed to be kept pensing by the Full Bench till the DHC verdict say.
    Now DHC verdict has come. So, the pensioners have the reason to revive the "pending contempt" at the PR CAT.

    HOW AND WHEN DOES THE CONTEMPT WRT DHC CROP UP - AT DHC? AFTER 90 DAYS PERIOD ALLOWED FOR GOVE TO SEEK LEAVE TO GO TO HON SC ? OR EVEN BEYOND THAT? No stay is given. Hon DHC has directed that PR CAT verdict stands. If the PR CAT Judgment is not implemented immediately, the Govt side does attarct the standing contempt? Does this get compounded to go to DHC after 90 days? Technically how the two contempts can follow one another?

    vnatarajan

  2. #1262
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Respected Sir,

    I am sure you are well aware of the legal position with reference to the contempt matter.i.e., wilful disobedience of the decision/orders of any of the Court, on the part of any of the officer(s) constitutes contempt of that particular court. Presently we are pursuing the contempt matter against the officer(s) specifically with reference to the CAT judgement. The judgement of the DHC is different from that of CAT. As such cause for filing contempt would arise only when it is felt that the orders of DHC are being deliberately violated by the Officer(s). In case the Government gets stay against the judgement of DHC before the specified time given by the DHC there would be no cause for filing a contempt in the DHC. In the absence of any such stay the situation would be different. I am sure you would also be aware that through contempt petition we cannot pray or get orders for getting the decision implemented but only action can be urged against the officer(s) concerned. Of course, that would coerce the officers into implementation of the orders.

    I am sure the situtuation forcing us to file a contempt petition in the DHC would not come as the officers would implement to decision of the CAT before that.

    With warmest regards,
    Gopal Krishan
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 25-05-2013 at 03:56 PM.

  3. #1263
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri GK ji,

    Extremely nice of u to have responded and given a very very valuable opinion on the prevailing situation wrt CONTEMPT.

    YES.SHOULD THERE BE ANY WILFUL OMISSIONS/ DELIBERATE AVOIDANCE IN SPITE OF THE TWO JUDGMENTS/ PARITICULARLY THE DHC VERDICT, I THINK THE ENTIRE AGGRIEVED PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' COMMUNITY CAN NOT BEAR THE UNCHARITABLE INJUSTICE INFLICTED ON THEM - BY DENYING THE "MINIMUM ASSURD OR GUARANTEED PENSION" RIGHT FROM 1 1 2OO6, MAINLY BY UNAUTHORISED ALTERATION OF THE CABINET DECSIION THEN.

    Now providing the relief in an indirect manner wef 24 9 2012 instead of 1 1 2006 the same MGP is nothing but an "vaoidance" or "deliberate non-compliance" of the two judgments!- by the concerned authority - who NOT ONLY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CAB DECSIION ALTERATIONS BUT NOW ARE FURTHER AGGRAVATING THE SITUATION BY ACT OF DISOBEYING THE HON JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS COURTS!.

    Individuals can not escape as they have damaged the system!

    Regards<
    vnatarajan

  4. #1264
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Respected Sir,

    I am sure u r aware of the fact that the decision about relief was taken with the approval of the Cabindet on the 24th September, 2012. I feel copies of the notes whihc u have asked for under RTI would through some light about this also. I these aspect we may have to keep in mind while proceeding with the contempt petition in the CAT

    With regards.

    Gopal Krishan

  5. #1265
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Replies given to RTI had not been specific to reflect the facts as to how the date 24 9 2012 or rather the effective date of the recent cabinet decsion beame the effective date.

    It is based on Dept of Ex Servicemen's note to Cabinet..
    However the Govt has classified the HPC report in such a way - unless it is de-classified, we may not get a copy.
    But they have tried to convey that the Report has not recommended the date as 1 1 2006.
    This explanation is neither here nor there.
    Simply because HPC not mentioning any date does not mean IT CAN NOT BE 1 1 2006.
    EVERYONE KNEW ISSUE IS LINKED TO sSCPC RECOS and date can not be anything other than 1 1 2006.


    It is DESM note/ and the later comments by various depts. which must have led to this blunder.
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 28-05-2013 at 06:07 AM.

  6. #1266
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default IN justice to pre-2006 pensioners

    To my mind also it appears that the Department of Pensions have not taken any conscious decision with the approval of the cabinet to change the initial approval of the Cabinet to the recommendation of the 6th CPC in this regard. Hence this blunder.

    Gopal Krishan
    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    Replies given to RTI had not been specific to reflect the facts as to how the date 24 9 2012 or rather the effective date of the recent cabinet decsion beame the effective date.

    It is based on Dept of Ex Servicemen's note to Cabinet..
    However the Govt has classified the HPC report in such a way - unless it is de-classified, we may not get a copy.
    But they have tried to convey that the Report has not recommended the date as 1 1 2006.
    This explanation is neither here nor there.
    Simply because HPC not mentioning any date does not mean IT CAN NOT BE 1 1 2006.
    EVERYONE KNEW ISSUE IS LINKED TO sSCPC RECOS and date can not be anything other than 1 1 2006.

    It is DESM note/ and the later comments by various depts. which must have led to this blunder.
    vnatarajan

  7. #1267
    Member RPGoswami is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Will delay in disbursement of pension be 'termed injustice'?. Many of us , all people I know here in Delhi are yet to get the revised pension. Banks have no clue. Do we have to take some measures at individual level?

  8. #1268
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    My experience these days is that unless u pursues the matter urself nothing would move. As such individual has to chase the matter with the concerned authorities.

    Gopal Krishan

  9. #1269
    Member RPGoswami is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Concerned authorities being the Bank?, CPO, The Department I retired from?

  10. #1270
    Junior Member captkhanna is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    New Delhi
    Posts
    21

    Smile

    Our present babu's are least concerned about us veterans,
    I have been persuing my case with my PAO and CCA since Feb.
    On personal visit I was assured that stepping up pension PPO will be sent to CPAO soon.
    I am awaiting
    As for concerned authority it is the PAO who issued your PPO initially.
    Wishing all of us good luck for early issue of stepped up PPO by PAO and then actual effective order by CPAO to your paying Bank.
    Only after the Bank gets Revised PPO will they pay you arrears and pension till then keep waiting.....

  11. #1271
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Nothing new. This happened wiht our predecessiors, is happening with us and would continue to happen as there is no system in such offices. In fact absence of system has become a system in such organizations.

    Gopal Krishan

  12. #1272
    Junior Member vijai kapoor is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    12

    Default

    PCDA pension, allahabad issued Circular No. 102 for defence civilian pensioners on 11-2-13,implementing revision ofpay w.e.f. 24-9-12, but Bank of India and some other banks say that they have not received the circular, so they have not revised pension. Have the other banks revised? Did anybody receiving pension through BOI got revised pension?

    Vijai Kapoor

  13. #1273
    Junior Member abhagwat is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default possible implementation of 28 Jan 2013 order from 1-1-2006 instead of 24-09-2012

    There seems to be a strong possiblity that the GOI MAY NOT apporach SC with SLP against the Haryana & DHC and implement the Jan 2013 order of stepping up of pension of pre 2006 retirees from 1-1-2006. Any comments??

  14. #1274
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    In connection with similar matter of Ministry of Defence, the Government is already in the Supreme Court with SLP. As such there is every possibility of filing an SLP in this case also. In any case at present nothing is final. The Govenment may file an SLP in this case or withdraw the other case of Ministry of Defence. All depends. Let us wait and watch.



    Gopal Kriashan
    9911178250

  15. #1275
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Pre 2006 Aggrieved segments of Pensioners,

    As Shri Agarwalji and Shri GK ji are mentioning- "every possibility" now depends on the whims and fancies of the so-called "policy doers and undoers- and the legal channels at the power centres" whose job appears to be only to "blindly go for Court adventurism" even in cases of well reasoned and merited judgements.

    WHAT IS THE LOGIC IN FIGHTING UP TO SLP/ REVIEW PETITION STAGES - IS THERE ANY "UNDERSTANDING" OR "GAINFUL MOTIVATION" SOMEWHERE?

    Why this UNFOUNDED, UNREASINED, OBSTINATE UNETHICAL dogmatism- that too against OLD AGED CIVIL AND MILIATRAY PENSIONERS - for no fault of theirs....?

    SLPs AGAINST AFT CASES AT HON SC ARE MOST ABNOXIOUS AND FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS......?

    DOE/ MOD ENTITIES blindly object to any expenditure (even if they concern past payments which are "due" ) and INDIRECTLY imply not to respect "any judgements".....

    HOWEVER A STATUS LIST OF CASES AS ON 01 07 2013 COMPILED BY SHRI MLK JI IS PUT FORTH HERE- could be an ye-opener to SOME "alert" POWERS who may look in to these items of information.......
    PL READ THE TITLES- DATA SERIATUM:

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

    STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERSS IN VARIOUS COURTS : AS ON� 01.07.2013
    COMPILED BY M. L. KANAUJIA, IRSSE / Chief Communication Engineer, N.E. Railway, (Rtd.)

    Item
    HEARD BY
    PETITION NO. & YEAR
    LEAD PETITIONER
    NEXT
    DATE
    FIXED
    FOR
    HEARING

    ������������� REMARKS IN BRIEF
    1

    CAT-PB Delhi
    OA 1165 / 2011
    Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/flOP
    25.07.2013

    Case is for modified parity plus full pension on� 20 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Govt. submitted its Counter on 11.07.12. Copy of Counter received on 17.12.12 and four weeks time was allowed for submission of� Rejoinder. In the meanwhile, MOP,DOP&PW vide OM No. 38 /37 / 08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.13 has unilaterally issued orders accepting fixation of revised pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the Table from which a pensioner had retired but prospectively i. e. from 24.09.12. Two issues are still remaining to be settled, namely, arrears from 1.1.06 and full pension at 20 years of� service as per Cabinet approved Resolution dated 29.08.08.��


    2
    CAT-PB Delhi
    OA 2165 / 2011
    KR Srinivasan & Ors Vs. MOP/flOP
    25.07.2013

    Same as for� item 1 above.


    3
    CAT-PB Delhi
    OA 247 of 2012
    17 Petitioners
    25.07.2013�

    Same as for� item 1 above.

    4
    Lucknow HC
    Ser.Ben.203 / 2010
    s29 UP Officers
    15.07.2013

    The case is for modified parity� i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired, in terms of� Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006. Petitioners are pre 2006 Pensioners belonging All India Service Officers of Govt. of U.P. retired from pre revised pay scale of� Rs. 18,400-22,400. The U.P. Govt. implemented SCPC Report with certain modifications and issued G.O. No. Sa/3/1358 /Das-2010 dated 19.07.2010 fixing their revised pension at Rs. 26,500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The Pensioners grieance is that thier pension shold have been fixed at Rs. 27,350 w.e.f.� 1.1.2006. The Court heard the case last on 1.7.2013, when as asked for by the Court earlier, UOI submitted a copy of the SCPC Report through a detailed affidavit. The Court is likely to hear the case again �in two week's time. ����

    �� ��
    5
    Delhi HC
    WP(C)3359/
    2010
    s29,s26 Ex.ParaMil.
    No further date fixed for hearing so far as per website till 01.07.13.

    The case is for modified parity� i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pension had retired, in terms of� Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006. MOP,DOP&PW vide OM No. 38 /37 / 08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.13 has unilaterally issued orders accepting fixation of revised pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the Table concerning to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired effective 24.9.12.. Issue remains to be settled� is for� arrears from 1.1.06�� as per Cabinet approved Resolution dated 29.08.08.�� �


    6
    Supreme Court
    Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009
    SPS Vains, Major General & Ors.
    29.07.13

    This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special Instructions. Petitioners are pre 2006 retirees Major Generals. MOD vide letter No. 1(11)/2012-D(Pen Policy) dated 17.01.13 has already ��stepped their revised pension at �50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band 4 plus grade pay and MSP, all corresponding� table of �pre revised pay scale from which they retired but w.e.f. 24.9.2012 and NOT� 1.1.2006. Issue remains to be settled� is for �arrears from 1.1.06, the date of implementation of SCPC Report.

    7
    Supreme Court
    Civil Appeal
    2966 / 2011
    U0I Vs SPS Vains Mj. General & Ors
    29.07.13

    This case is� same �as CP(C) No.64 of 2009 except� that in this case Petitioners are UOI & Ors. and Respondents are Pensioners. Issue remains to be settled� is for �arrears from 1.1.06, the date of implementation of SCPC Report. �Both cases are being heard� together by the hon.ble Supreme Court. �


    8
    Supreme Court
    Civil Appeal 8875-8876 of 2011.
    U0I & Ors.Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors
    (Avtar Singh)
    09 .07.13

    The case is for modified parity� i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pension had retired, in terms of� Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006. AFT has given Judgment in favour of Pensioners but UOI has gone in appeal to Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, MOD vide letter No. 1(11)/2012-D(Pen Policy) dated 17.01.13 has unilaterally issued orders accepting fixation of revised pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to the Table but prospectively i.e. from 24.09.12. Issue remains to be settled� is for �arrears from 1.1.06, the date of implementation of SCPC Report.


    9
    Supreme Court
    Civil Appeal 5367 -5368 OF 2005
    Principal Sec.(F & P), Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. Pensioners Samaj.
    19.07.13

    Three Judge Bench Matter.

    10
    Delhi HC
    WPC No. 4572 of 2012
    All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI
    02.07.2013

    Full parity case wherein� writ, order or direction sought are� : (a) setting aside the impugned judgment dated 6th March, 2012 passed by the Hon�ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.937 of 2010; (b) calling for the records of the case from the Respondent Authorities; (c ) granting the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners in their Original Application No.937 of 2010 filed before the Hon�ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi; and Judgment thereof.

    11
    CAT-PB/Delhi
    Contempt No.158 of 2012
    CG SAG (S29) Pensioners Association, Shri Satish Verma, Rtd.CE Vs. Shri RC Mishra, Sec. DOP, MOP,GOI. and Shri Sumit Bose, Sec.DOE,MOF,GOI.
    07.08.2013

    This Petition is against non-compliance of orders passed by CAT-PB while giving Judgment in case of� OA 0655/2010 with other OAs. In view of� IR granted by Delhi HC on 21.5.12, hon.ble Court on 30.5.12 closed the case with liberty to move application� for revival of� CP as per the Orders of� hon.ble Delhi HC. Accordingly, after the dismisal of UOI Petition in Delhi HC, the revival application was put up which was heard on 24.5.13 and 28.5.13 and orders for isuue of notices to respondents� were passed.

    12
    Supreme Court
    SLP (Civil) 19784 of 2013
    Haryana Viduat Prasaran Nigam� Ltd & Ors Vs R K Agarwal and Ors
    Date of listing for hearing for admission is not fixed till updating on� 1.7.13

    This SLP is againsst Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in case of CWP No. 19641 of 2009 R K Agarwal &Ors. Vs. HVPN Lt

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


    PS: UP HC LKNO BENCH CASE IS NOW COMING UP AFTER 15TH jULY 2013. tHE gOVT IS TRYING TO DELAY- BY FILING A LONG (INFRUCTUOUS) REPETETIVE SUPPL COUNTER UNER THE PRETEXT OF THE HON HC ASKING FOR A COPY OF THE SCPC REPORT/ DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISSUED BASED ON THE FOLLOW UP IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.....
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-07-2013 at 09:28 AM. Reason: UPDATING

  16. #1276
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Totally negative mind set in the Government of India for matters relating to pensioners.
    Gopal Krishan

  17. #1277
    Member RPGoswami is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Some times it is also callous attitude. After the 6th Pay Commission Banks were authorized to issue revised pension and no separate revised PPO was issued. Why the same route can not be followed now? Any idea?

  18. #1278
    Junior Member vijai kapoor is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    12

    Default revised pension wef 24-9-2012

    Sir,

    Defence forces pensioners are receiving revised pension w.e.f.24-9-2012 in terms of pcda pension circular no.502 issued on 17-1-2013. However defence civilian pensioners (pre-2006) are still in doldrums although pcda issued circular no. 102 on 11-2-2013 for revised pension w.e.f. 24-9-2012, BOI says they did not receive it. SBBJ has paid revised pension to DCPs in May 13. Some other banks may also have paid. I will request members to please tell whether other banks have paid revised pension to defence civilian pensioners/ other pensioners and whether anybody receiving pension through BOI has got the revised pension

  19. #1279
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Dear Mr. Vijay Kapoor,
    I am a pensioner-- central civil. My Bank i.e.SBI has not received any instructions from CPAO re: revised pension wef 24.9.2012.

  20. #1280
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    Dear Mr Vijay Kumar/ Mr Imayan,

    Quite a few SBI Bank Branches/ Other nationalized Bank Branches have disbursed the revised pension with arrears as per OM dt 28 Jan 2013 of DOPPW for Civilian Pensioners and OM dt 17 Jan 2013 of PCDA for Defence Civilians already. Some have followed the Railway Board/ Zonal Rly FCs instructions .

    WRT Defense Civilians etc- the RBI has issued circulars on 13/ 22 April 2013 to all Chairmen of Banks - SBI/ Nationalized/Private etc who are disbursing Govt Pensions to adhere to their instructions - and have also mentioned about the liability to pay interest in case of delays. (If u can send email ids to me, I can forward the pdf copies of Circulars . I tried to copy and paste them here- but was unsuccessful). Perhaps Mr SUNDARAR may do it ......

    Pl visit RBI website to get the Circulars.

    Delays in case of CPAO served Civilain Pensioners are due to switching over to E_Authority mode and day before y'day I have received my E_AUTHORITY version of the Reviused PPO from my PAO - even though much earlier the latter had issued me the manual version based on which the CPAO had issued the SSA for Revised Pension advising my CPPC of the PPB of mine Bk of Maharshtra earlier.

    The PPBs (Pension Paying Bank's branch) also add to delays - they wait for only the Original SSAs - and do not entertain the Pensioners' Copy signed version even! However after some repeated email corresp., the Ch Gr Officer of the PPB settled my case in a single day!

    vnatarajan

+ Reply to Thread
Page 64 of 77 FirstFirst ... 14 54 62 63 64 65 66 74 ... 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