+ Reply to Thread
Page 68 of 77 FirstFirst ... 18 58 66 67 68 69 70 ... LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,360 of 1540

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

  1. #1341
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear Mr Tymanagoli/ Friends,

    Yes pl. Extracts are being posted here for view of all. Original copy may be accessed from CAT website....and verified in full.


    Central Administrative Tribunal
    Principal Bench

    OA No.2461/2012

    Reserved on: 08.05.2013
    Pronounced on:30.07.2013


    Honble Dr. Member (A)


    ..........................


    O R D E R


    The applicants, who have retired as Senior Scientists Grade-H from the Department of Space and ISRO, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging their revised Pension Pay Orders annexed at Annexure A-1 to A-5.

    ............................................

    5. The applicants thereafter submitted an application on 09.02.2011 giving reference to the aforesaid judgment which, inter alia, and sought that the pension of pre-2006 retirees should be derived notionally as if they had been in service on 01.01.2006 and then apply the same as applicable to post-2006 retirees. The applicants further sought that any special pay, which was an integral component of pay, should be added notionally and counted towards pension. When this request of the applicants was not acceded to, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA seeking the following main relief(s):-
    (i) To give the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs.4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants which has been recommended as per the CCS Pay Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

    (ii) To issue directions to the respondents to re-fix their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees only in order to bring them at par with the Post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.

    (iii) Quash and set aside the Revised Pension Pay orders of all the applicants so as to clearly mention and include Grade from which they have retired by giving them a separate pay scale or merge them with the pay scale of a feeder post so that they do not stand to loose in a out of the sight situation for all the present and future pensionary benefits.


    6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the OA vehemently opposing the claim of the applicants. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents has also filed on behalf of the applicants. Besides hearing the arguments of both the parties, they were permitted to submit their written submissions, which have also been placed on record.

    .................................................. .....................................


    22. In view of the above discussions and having answered the questions in favour of the applicants, I am satisfied that the applicants, for the reasons stated above, have succeeded in proving their case. I also take into consideration of the fact that the present mode of pension is already in the process of getting phased out as the last pensioner, being the Government employee, will have retired sometime in the year 2014 or so.

    23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
    Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside;
    Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
    The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
    There shall be no order as to costs
    .


    Member (A)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    (pl chk original from CAT Website pl)

    vnatarajan

  2. #1342
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    DEAR PRE 2006/OLDER PENSIONERS,

    THIS IS WRT MY POST NO 1316 DT 9 AUG 2013 ON GRIEVANCE APPEAL TO HON PRESIDENT OF INDIA ;

    So far more than 50 Grievance Appeals have been registered with the President's Secretariat. Picture is given at the end.
    The Secretariat has started acting like a "low-grade post office" for warding the appeals to other Grievance centres ...

    FUNNILY AND SHOCKINGLY TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN TRANSERRED TO THE JS (E & PG),MOD WITH WH AT LEAST THE TWO PENSIONERS WERE NOT AT ALL CONCERNED. ANOTHER TWO TO THE DIRECTOR, DOPPW. TRANSFERS OF OTHERS WILL FOLLOW SOON..... PL CHK FOR "WRONG" DESTINATIONS... AND OBJECTIONs CAN BE REGISTERED AGAIN.....

    UPDATE AS ON 16 8 2013 06 10 AM

    S/Shri /Dr - D NAGA/NK AGARWAL/ R N PADHI/ARUP DAS GUPTA/ INDER MALHOTRA/BALDEV SAHAI/JK JAIN/AK PARAKALAN/V RAGHURAMAN/R RAMAN/GS SRIVASATAVA/ K RAMARATHNAM/ASHOK AGARWALA/ AK MISRA/MANMOHAN KRISHAN/KRISHNAMACHAR SRINIVASAN/KK MALIK/KEWAL TANEJA/RAJINDER BHINDRA/ VIJAY GHUMRE/BSR MURTY/ SAMPATH JAYARAM/ M B RAGUNATH/K V RAJAGOPAL (INFORMED ON PH)/ D VASUDEVAN /TAPAN BANERJEE/KISHORE NAYAK/BALDEV UMMAT/CL RAJENDRA KUMAR/VAIDYANATHAN/N RAMASWAMI(by email)/B RATHI/SVGK RAO/RAMACHANDRAIHA CHALLA/HV KUMAR/AK MAJUMDAR .... BESIDES ME ....have registered so far their GRIEVANCE at the Hon President of India's Helpline.

    ALSO DR GITA CHATTERJEE WAS TRYING.....

    FEW MORE- S/SHRI/DR/PROF -IMAYAN/SS SHARMA/ RTD MAJ SK JAIN/TMV RAGHAVAN/ K VISWANATHAN/PROFs AL AGARWAL /RAMESH CHATURVEDI/RAM PUNIYANI/J PRAKASH / BASANT SAHU/ S N SHRINGI (OUTSIDE OUR GR) HAVE ALSO REGISTERED.

    We can monitor the progress after 7 days of our grievance registration in the same portal /same website...

    MANY MORE 'MUST' FOLLOW SOON.... PL DO RESPOND to create some good impact on the DOPPW after the SLP fiasco... This time registration process is very fast and less cumbersome.... Many can do it in the first attempt itself......
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vnatarajan

  3. #1343
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    My online grievance petition (lodged on the website of President of India) has been sent on 16 Aug 2013 to Ms. Tripti P. Ghosh, Director in Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. It is also mentioned in the Note that President's Secretariat Helpline will remind the concerned Department after 15 days from the date of forwarading of petition.
    Last edited by SK Jain; 17-08-2013 at 10:41 AM.

  4. #1344
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    A number of online grievance petitions have been submitted on the website of President of India and most of the petitions shall reach the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. These petitions may force the dealing officials to raise their eyebrows but there are bleak chances of desired results. Govt. functionaries are less likely to correct their mistakes gracefully.

    It is abundantly clear now that it is a case of Wrong Implementation of Govt. Decision wherein ‘minimum assured pension under modified parity’ as accepted vide Govt. Resolution Item No. 12 dated 29.08. 2008 has been wrongly implemented by incorporating two amendments vide letter dated 03.10.2008. Now, efforts should be made to raise this wrong action of Govt. Officials and resultant injustice to pre-2006 pensioners by all possible means. As I think the point ‘WRONG IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVT DECSION BY OFFICIALS’ has not yet been forcefully raised. Following options can be explored and more options may be added by all of you:

    1. Associations of Pensioners should appeal to Govt. Authorities asking for their response. As can be understood Govt. Authorities are required to reply to the correspondence of Recognised/ Registered Associations.
    2. Appropriate point should be raised through other available platforms like SCOVA and JCM etc.
    3. Online petitions can be sent to political leadership. A beginning can be made with Leaders (and Leaders of Opposition) of both the houses of parliament. This action will be more fruitful if initiated under the banner of Pensioners Associations.
    4. In case any pre-2006 pensioner has access to any MP or politician, the same can be used to impress upon these facts of wrong implementation of Govt. decision.
    5. Editors of national dailies/periodic magazines can be impressed upon to highlight the injustice through their publications.

    All readers who are members of Pensioners Associations are requested to please examine and approach their Associations to take immediate action.

  5. #1345
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    I have tried to prepare a short Brief on 'Wrong Implementation of Govt. Decision' which can be suitably amended by the learned readers. The Brief is appended.

    Brief – Wrong Implementation of Govt. Decision On ‘Minimum Assured Pension Under Modified Parity’ in r/o pre-2006 Pensioners

    Recommendations of 6CPC in r/o Govt. Pensioners, as accepted by Govt. of India, have been notified vide resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29.08.2008. Resolution Item No. 12 based on Para 5.1.47 of 6CPC Report deals with Past Pensioners (pre-2006 Pensioners). This Resolution covers the ‘Fitment Formula’ and ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity’ in r/o pre 2006 pensioners. ‘Minimum Assured Pension’ as defined and accepted under this Resolution reads as under:

    “The fixation of the 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.”

    Subsequently, Govt. Functionaries issued clarifications in relation to ‘minimum assured pension’ vide letter No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt.1dated 03.10.2008. These clarifications read as under:

    “The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.
    The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006.”

    As can be seen from the above, following two amendments have been incorporated to the decision taken by Cabinet, under the guise of clarifications:

    1. Minimum of pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised pay scale was treated as minimum of pay band irrespective to pre-revised pay scale.
    2. A condition of pro-rata reduction of Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity was added for the pensioners having less than the maximum required service of 33 years for full pension.

    Here, it is worth mentioning that ‘Full Pension’ (i.e. 50% of past ten months average pay or last pay drawn) is a term applicable to future pensioners which has been dealt with separately vide Resolution item No.2. Past Pensioners are entitled to ‘Minimum Assured Pension under Modified Parity’. Since Past Pensioners are not entitled to ‘Full Pension’ this term has wrongly been linked to them. Also, there should not be a pension lower than the ‘minimum assured pension’.

    The amendment mentioned at Serial No. 1 above has since been withdrawn from 24.09.2012 whereas the same should have been withdrawn from 01.01.2006. Thus the old pensioners have been denied their legitimate dues for the intervening period.

    Various judgements have been pronounced by Armed Forces Tribunals and Central Administrative Tribunals in favour of old pensioners. However, Govt. Functionaries are not implementing such judgements and resorting to repeated APPEALS in HIGHER COURTS. Judgement dated 01.11.2011 of Principal Bench of CAT (a Full Bench) in OA No. 655/2010 is most important wherein letter dated 03.10.2008 incorporating amendments to Govt. Resolution has been set aside and directions have been issued to re-fix pension of all pensioners in terms of Resolution Item No. 12. This judgement has subsequently been upheld by Double Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and by Double Bench of Delhi High Court. Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain Govt. Appeal thereby dismissing SLP against the orders of High Courts.

    A period of 5 years has lapsed after 6CPC was implemented. Govt. Functionaries are not yet prepared to correct their mistakes gracefully. This affected group of old pre-2006 pensioners is running pillar to post in search of justice. Meanwhile many old pensioners have already left for heavenly abode without getting their legitimate dues. May we request you to come forward in support of these so called senior citizens who are old Govt. pensioners and have already given their younger days in the service of their country.
    *********

  6. #1346
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    DEAR MAJ SK JAIN SIR/ all pre 2006-older pensioners,

    Very well drafted by Maj SKJ..

    [COLOR="navy"]In the meanwhile I have to highlight on some "Grievance Disposal" info.
    THIS IS WRT MY EARLIER POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT.

    The individual grievance appeals are being shunted by the Hon Prez's Secretariat to any destinations which comes to the mind of the staff handling at that point of time. Such destinations include:

    1. DIRECTOR PP, DOPPW.MP PG & P
    2.JT SEC (E & PG), DOD, MOD
    3.JT SEC (PG), MOM (in one cse of GSI retiree)
    4.JT SECY(PG), DOJ.

    Several grievances have been shunted already. We don't know how the Jt Secy s of sl nos 2 to 4 will teat the appeals with wh they may not be concerned. Let us wait and see.

    DIRECTOR PP, DOPPW HOWEVER HAS INFORMED THE GRIEVANCE STATUS ( DISPOSED OFF ...) WRT THE FOLLOWING TWO RETIREES WHICH MAY BE TAKEN NOTE OF:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.DR SVGK RAO

    Grievance Status of my Registration Number :PRSEC/E/2013/13019. I received SMS informing that my Registration No: PRSEC/E/2013/13019 dated 15.8.2013 has been disposed.Logon to http://pgportal.gov.in/for further details.

    The details are as follows:

    Date of action taken :19.8.2013
    Forwarded to Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare

    Reply/information provided :

    Govt. filed SLP No. 23055 of 2013 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter. The SLP came up for hearing on 29.7.2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. The Department is examining the Judgement dated 29.7.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

    2.SHRI M L KANAUJIA

    Registration Number : PRSEC/E/2013/13074

    Name : Mr. M. L. KANAUJIA

    Date of Receipt : 16 Aug 2013

    Current Status : Case disposed of

    Date of Action : 19 Aug 2013

    Details :

    Government filed SLP No.23055 of 2013 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter.The SLP came up for hearing on 29.7.2013 before the Honorable Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. The Department is examining the judgment dated 29.7.2013 of Hon. Supreme Court.

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

    Pl note the standard reply that has been drafted. Let us watch till 29 Aug 2013 for the "examination" to be complete
    ........

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 20-08-2013 at 04:54 PM.

  7. #1347
    Junior Member kvn is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9

    Default

    kvn
    Sir, MY Registration no:PRSEC/E/2013/12863 Dt. 13.08.13 for reddressal of grievance is Transferred to Justice department on 16th Au gust,2013 .
    Grievance - K.VISWANATHAN
    Transferred to Justice department on 16th AUGUST,2013
    JOINT Secretary-Name-SNEHALATA SRIVASTAVA,rOOM NO:12/jAISALMAR HOUSE/mANSIGH ROAD/NEWDELHI.
    You are requeted to further liase in the matter with Joint Secretary. This is the information I got today from "STATUS". Thanks.
    with warm regards
    kvn

  8. #1348
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Reference 1346.
    My experience with such representation is that nothing would move unless some one pursue the same with the officer to whom the representation has been sent or one could say shunted. In fact with these representations only the Minister of Finance would be concerned. At present the matter relating to the follow up action about the implementation of the finanal judgement or otherwise is with the Department of Expenditure. It appears that the Government would have no choice but to implement the judgement of the Ist Novermber, 2011.
    Gopal Krishan

  9. #1349
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    You may like to read a discussion at the following link:

    http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/foru...p#.UhmG2xunqR8

  10. #1350
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    From the link referred to by Shri Jain confirms the position that the Government would have no choice but to implement the decision of the CAT dted the 1st November, 2011. In addition the officers who were responsible for deliberate disobeying the direction of the would be liable to be punished under the provision of the Contempt Act,
    Gopal Krishan

  11. #1351
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    THANKS TO MAJ JAIN AND SHRI GK JI,

    WE SHALL AWAIT THE 28TH AUG 2013 LIMIT FOR RP AS WELL AS THE CONTEMPT CASE OF 25 SEPT 2013.....

    vnatarajan

  12. #1352
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Respected Sirs,
    My online grievance petition has been closed with the following remarks:

    "This is only prayer of pensioner and not a grievance"

  13. #1353
    Member RPGoswami is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default Supreme Court Decision

    What exactly will be the implication of the Supreme Court Verdict in the Pension case. Finance Minister has already acknowledged it in the Parliament

  14. #1354
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    IMPLICATION:

    1. Govt can file a RP and face its consequences (...dismissal at admission imminent.).
    2.Govt may try to plead before the PR BENCH CAT to argue that they had "erroneously judged the case" and the same is "self-contradictory" paras 3 to 11 support the Govt's stand wrt Cut-Off date- Deciding the amount of Pension for old pensioners- introducing "New Schemes" with every scheming OM....
    3.Gracefully accept the verdicts of Tribunals/ Hon HCs and implement the PR CAT JUDGMENT dt 1 11 2011 if full - ie to pay the arrears from 1 1 2006 to 23 9 2013 to the aggrieved segments.

    LAST ACTION WILL IMPLY HAT THEY RESPECT TRUTH AND JUSTICE, HAVE REGARD TO JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AND THEY HAVE BELIEF IN THE "NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY"......
    has the Govt done that way anytime.....in time.....

    vnatarajan

  15. #1355
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear Shri VN. Your post at 1354 above. 30 days time allowed for Review Petition is already over. Neither the RP from UOI has appeared so far nor MOP(DOP) has issued any OM on the case. The Review Petition can still be filed together with application for condoning the delay in doing so. We do not know what is brewing in the mind of Govt., particularly, MOF(DOE), which would have final say in the matter. Luckily for us, our Contempt Petition in CAT-PB against non-compliance of latter's directives issued while giving Judgment in our case on 1.1.2011, is listed for hearing on 25.9.2013.We do not know whether the case would be finally heard on that date or hearing would be postponed once again for another date in future.For the time being our hopes are resting on this date. In the mean while, let us pray God for the early settlement of our case.
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 03-09-2013 at 07:33 PM. Reason: editing

  16. #1356
    Junior Member SK Jain is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Sirs,
    An extract of Bharat Pensioners September Magazine 2013 is appended below for info of all concerned:

    “After the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No 23055/
    2013 filed by the GOI against the Delhi High
    Court Judgment in respect of pre-2006
    pensioners’ case in WP1535/2012 upholding
    The Principal CAT judgment dated 01.11.2011
    was dismissed on 29-07-2013.
    However, Govt. has so far not issued any
    order implementing CAT judgment dated
    01.11.2011.
    According to the information available to
    BPS as on 04.09.2013, the file is still with M/O
    of Finance-DOE for their decision in the matter.
    S-29 Pensioners’ Association which is one
    of the original Petitioners in CAT Principal
    Bench Delhi has filed Contempt Petition in CAT
    requesting implementation of its order by GOI.
    The next hearing in this contempt petition is
    fixed for 25/09/2013.”

    Above magazine can be viewed at the following link:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/y988e2kgys...azine-2013.pdf

  17. #1357
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Sirs,
    According to my information the Department of Pension had referred the file to the Department of Expenditure with their view that CAT's judgement might be implemented.



    Gopal Krishan

  18. #1358
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    We pray that Gopal Krishan's information is soon seen as an OM/Notification/Circular etc........
    Three cheers,then....!

    Imayan

  19. #1359
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    A copy of the order of the High Court is reproduced below. Latest?

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
    W.P.(C) 4572/2012
    ALL INDIA S-30 PESIONERS ASSOCN. and ORS. ...................... Petitioners,
    Represented by: Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Tarun Gupta and
    Mr.Daphne Menezes, Advocates ....versus ....... UNION OF INDIA and ORS. .
    Respondents, Represented by: Mr.Joginder Sukhija, Advocate with
    Mr.Yogesh Yogi, Advocate.
    W.P.(C) 7342/2012
    CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSOCN. OF ADDL./JOINT SECRETARY and
    EQUIVALENT OFFICERS .......... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Tamali Wad,
    Advocate. ..........versus............. UNION OF INDIA and ORS. ..... Respondents
    Represented by: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna,
    Advocate for R-1
    Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate with Mr.R.N.Singh, Advocate for R-3
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
    O R D E R
    19.08.2013
    1. The petitioners of the above captioned writ petitions are associations
    of pre-2006 retirees who were being paid salary in the S-30 scale. They
    impugnan order dated March 6, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative
    Tribunal disposing of OA No. 937/2010 as also OA No.2102/2010, in which
    Original Applications the petitioners prayed for removal of disparity in
    pension between the pre and the post January 01, 2006 retirees. Further,
    the petitioners had sought pension to be fixed of their members at par
    with the S-31 scale retirees.
    2. The original application(s) have been dismissed by the Tribunal and
    we find that for rejecting the prayer the Tribunal has relied upon its decision
    dated November, 01, 2011 pertaining to retirees in the S-29 scale.
    3. As per the petitioners, the originals applications filed by them as
    also the one filed by the S-29 scale retirees were being heard together
    till when the S-29 retirees restricted their claim to ?modified parity?
    and gave up their claim ?full parity? . As per the petitioners they
    maintained a claim for full parity.
    4. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the fact that the
    retirees of S-29 scale had given up the claim for full parity the
    Tribunal specifically restricted them to argue their case on the issue of
    modified parity, but while deciding the said matter, even decided the
    issue of full parity, and for which assertion by the petitioners they
    have drawn our attention to the written submissions filed before the
    Tribunal by the retirees of S-29 scale. Indeed, we find that the
    counsels therein had restricted their submission on the issue of modified
    parity. Yet in spite thereof we find that the Tribunal, in its decision
    dated November 01, 2011, has decided the issue of full parity; and the
    grievance urged before us is that said decision has been applied even to
    the petitioners and the results is that the petitioners have been denied
    an opportunity to argue their case for the reason we find that after the
    judgment was pronounced in the case of S-29 scale retirees, arguments
    were not heard.
    5. It is the case of the petitioners that there can be no disparity in
    pension on the basis of the date of retirement. Admittedly pre-2006 S-30
    scale retirees are receiving not only less pension vis-a-vis post 2006
    retirees but in some cases even less than the post 2006 S-24 scale to S-
    29 scale retirees.
    6. We find that this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal.
    7. We find an issue of parity raised between S-30 scale retirees and S-31
    scale retirees and for which we find that in the impugned decision the
    Tribunal has only noticed the historical comparison between the two
    scales which shows that the minimum of both pay scales has always been
    the same, until the instant impugned action based upon the
    recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. In the writ
    petitions, the petitioners have specifically referred to the following
    additional averments made, all of which have not been noted by the
    Tribunal :-
    (a) With regard to the above, it is relevant to note that S-29 Officers
    can be promoted to both S-30 and S-31 scales directly, after rendering
    three years service in S-29 scale. Thus, S-30 and S-31 are promotional
    posts for S-29 officers after rendering the same amount of service.
    (b) Further, for S-30 officers to enter S-31 service, nil experience is
    required in S-30 service.
    (c) Appointments to S-30 and S-31 are interchangeable in nature. The
    factum of their being interchangeable also shows the similar nature of
    duties etc. being carried out by the employees of S-30 and S-31.
    (d) It is submitted that it is for the Government to show what was their
    reasonable basis or intelligible differentia for giving a higher minimum
    scale to S-31 employees than that being offered to S-30 employees, when
    the Government had all along maintained parity at the minimum level in
    the two scales. The said onus rests on the Respondents which they have
    completely failed to discharge. A reference to the judgments of the
    Hon?ble Supreme Court on this aspect shall be made during the course of
    hearing.
    (e) It is further relevant to note that both S-30 and S-31 officers
    require the same length of time i.e. two years service in the respective
    scales before being promoted to the next higher scale of S-33. This fact
    also conclusively establishes the similar nature of the two services.?
    8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, none of which are disputed by
    learned counsel for the respondents, with consent of learned counsel for
    the parties we set aside the impugned decision(s) dated March 06, 2012
    and simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 for
    fresh adjudication on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the
    petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be rendered after giving
    full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated
    November 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale
    retirees shall not be treated as binding upon it by the Tribunal for the
    reasons on the subject of full parity the said decision was pronounced
    notwithstanding said retirees giving up the claim for full parity.
    9. The matter would be decided in remand as early as possible and
    preferably within three months from today.
    10. Parties shall appear through their counsel before the Registrar of
    the Tribunal in the two original applications on September 09, 2013 on
    which date OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 shall be listed before the
    Registrar.
    11. The writ petitions stand disposed of.
    12. No costs.
    13. Dasti.
    PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
    AUGUST 19, 2013


    Gopal Krishan

  20. #1360
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    We have to wait for the actions that may be initiated by the Pre 2006 S30 Pensioners in the PR BENCH CAT based on the Hon DHC judgment.......No visibility so far......

    What are DOE / DOPPW doing on PRE 2006 PENSIOENRS' MGP issue related SLP Dismissal by Hon SC on 29 July 2013---at this rate it would not be surprising if the '"FILE IS LOST IN D-E" as usually it happens in many cases.......

    NO REPLIES TO RTI QUERIES......

    SCOVA MEETING IS ON 20 SEPT 2013...

    WILL THE HON MINISTER MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT AS HE DID LAST TIME ?

    ATR CIRCULATED BY DOPPW TODAY (16 SEPT 2013) IS AVAILABLE IN GCONNET.IN FRONT PAGE... BUT NO CLUE ON THIS ISSUE....

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 16-09-2013 at 05:30 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 68 of 77 FirstFirst ... 18 58 66 67 68 69 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