+ Reply to Thread
Page 27 of 77 FirstFirst ... 17 25 26 27 28 29 37 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 1540

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

  1. #521
    Member S.Balasubramanian is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Prasadnagar, New Delhi
    Posts
    64

    Default injustice to pensioners

    The DR order has not till this moment (3 p.m.28.3.09) appeared in the pensionersportal website or the CPAO website. I do not know why. Normally, CPAO website loads it on their website immediately on the same day.
    S.Balasubramanian.

  2. #522
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    THE CIRCULAR IS AVILBLE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK :

    http://persmin.gov.in/pension/CircularReportForPensionForm2.asp?choice=31"




    gr

  3. #523
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    THE CIRCULAR IS AVILBLE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK url:


    http://persmin.gov.in/pension/Circul....asp?choice=31

    G.Ramdas

  4. #524
    Member S.Balasubramanian is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Prasadnagar, New Delhi
    Posts
    64

    Default injustice to pensioners

    Dear Mr Ramdas,
    Many thanks for the information.
    From the circular referred to, it is seen that a new website has been opened for pensioners, namely:
    persmin.nic.in/pension
    At the bottom of the circular, we find the following:
    "Please visit persmin.nic.in/pension for the orders on
    pension matters including above orders".
    At present, one does not know whether the above website is a replacement for the other websites wherein such orders have been uploaded so far, or it is an additional one.
    Pensioner friends may like to keep the URL of this new website also in their favourites for quick reference.
    Regards.
    S.Balasubramanian.

  5. #525
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Arrow Pensioners portal.

    Dear All. The address for the website of persmin for pensioners is as given here under :

    http://pensionersportal.gov.in/index.asp

    This is the address of Home page. After opening this site you can choose the topic you are interested in. DR circular is not available on "sixth cpc " topic . Actually it is available under the topic "pensioners Circular/forms". You can keep Home page address in "favorites" so that, after opening the site from "favorites", you can select concerned topic for further surfing, without missing anything related to pensioners.
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 28-03-2009 at 09:24 PM. Reason: for editing.

  6. #526
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default D.R

    The interesting aspect is that while the employees can draw the D.A relief only after the disbursement of March salary there is no such restriction for pensioners. DP&PW has been very graceful,or has timed the circular in such a way that the pensioner will not get the D.R before March Pension

    GR

  7. #527
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G.Ramdas View Post
    The interesting aspect is that while the employees can draw the D.A relief only after the disbursement of March salary there is no such restriction for pensioners. DP&PW has been very graceful,or has timed the circular in such a way that the pensioner will not get the D.R before March Pension

    GR
    Ramdassji. It doesnot matter. We do not receive pension during the month of March. We get our march pension and april pension, both, in April every year. Same is the case with the working people. They receive salary of march in april. One more thing. My son, who is an ITS Officer, says Circular regarding DA raise has not reached pay disbursing authorities till yesterday.
    This indicates that Govt. wants this DA/DR burden go to to next Financial year.

  8. #528
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear All

    PENSION; PENSIONER BASICS: PLEASE BRUSH UP ONCE AGAIN!

    Pension is a Right (pre 2004 Govt Employee under the old Pension scheme, contributing GPF etc); differed salary/wage; unpaid/ hidden component of salary/wage-equivalent of GPF contribution made- built up as hidden corpus; is a repayment for the past services rendered; etc.

    Pensioner is a deemed Employee of the Govt; Govt continues to be the employer;

    Proof: Pensioner is punishable by Reduction/ Withdrawal of Pension- under Pension Act/ Rules- for offences specified; Pensioners got Standard Deduction exemptions as Employees get under IT Act; Pensioners continue in schemes of Employees like CGHS etc.

    Pension for pensioners is as much a committed expenditure of the Govt. as in the case of Salaray/ Wage of Employees. Budget provision has to be made in time (Courts have observed so). No Govt. can give excuses like "increased burden" "increased expenditure" etc. You have earned your entitlement by past services. In this there can be no discrimination between equals by "any" artificial divide like an arbitrary date/ irregular Govt. deciusion.

    Pensioner, if taxable, pays his Income Tax like any other taxable Govt. Employee- there is no separate Head for Pension- It comes under "SALARY" only. It is also administered and processed like salary income.

    (The folowing is for drafting Appeals to Anomaly Committee by Individuals/ for any discussions etc)

    SCPC ANOMALIES: POINTS TO REMEMBER ON ANOMALY ISSUE (Please Refine & Use)

    *An average Pensioner is not endowed with sufficient facilities to access the SCPC report, understand it, interpret it and find out what is an ANOMALY- as defined in the OM constituting the Anomaly Committee/Its Terms of Reference etc.. So the Anomaly Committee has to appreciate basically the situation and ground truth. A liberal view has to be taken in dealing with the situation.

    *All issues are related to the CORE principle/policy-i.e. PARITY- minimum or full-
    For pre 2006/ 20 yr/ less than 33 yr (pre-2006)/ family pensioners etc. and related to one major controversial Para/ its Applications/ Ramifications.

    *SCPC has not apparently mentioned in precise terms what are its policies/ principles in relevance to REVISION OF PENSION- though there are several Para in the Report which had clearly expressed that Past Pensioners must get the same benefits of fixation/ fitment etc as Current Pensioners. But it had cautioned that if the Recommendations are implemented in parts/ pieces ie if not implemented in TOTO, it will certainly lead to several anomalies.

    *Pension has been described in many ways- but so far as the RULES are concerned it is always in terms of the “PAY” of the Employee, just before his retirement (e.g. like 50% of last “Pay” (basic pay)drawn or like 50% of average of last ten months Basic “Pay” etc). In the current scenario, one will see the Pension loses its identity totally! It is “Pay” or “Emoluments” wh are defined and Pension is always a Ratio/ Percentage of it.

    *In SCPC outcome – what has it become? IS it a formula (X 2.26)? No relevance to erstwhile Pay of the Pensioner?
    *Sometimes it is in terms of the Minimum of a Pay Band which is a merged entity of several Pay Scales?
    *Yet, sometimes it is the Minimum of a Pay Scale? (for the convenience of a few Top Scales)

    *It is anomalous to have three formulae for Pension fixation under the same SCPC dispensations! Never it has happened. Never such confusions.

    *In the current revision also, “care has been taken to define “EMOLUMENTS” vide OM of 2.9.2008- for post 1.1.2006/2.9.2008 pensioners – but glaringly in the OM issued 24 hrs earlier, dtd 1.9.2008, such a definition does not exist- for old/pre-2006 pensioners!

    *Pensioners/ Pensioners’ Associations were not given enough time to go thru at the Draft Stage in April 2008- one week’s time was too short. Many knowledgeable among the Pensioners could not access the Report/ its Recos for quite some time.

    *In the OM of 1.9. 2008, Para 4.2 is the most controversial, about which several Pensioners/ Associations have debated for long periods and yet SURPRISINGLY there appears to be no controversy in processing the same at the Govt. sources.! Can not be believed.

    *Though the SCPC always aimed at parity in pensions (even for 20 yr retirees!), it is not clear how they have gone into the MINIMUM formula? That too at the MINIMUM of the MERGED PAY BAND? Not even using the MINIMUM of the Corresponding Revised Scales as Reference Pay Points or Slots?

    *Compromising to the MINIMUM formula or phenomena, Pensioners thought at least a MODIFIED PARITY at the MINIMUM of the RESPECTIVE REVISED PAY SCALE will emerge for pension reckoning! Even this is denied by the MISCONSTRUCTION of the Para 4.2 of the OM of 1.9.2008 by changing the construction/ meaning of the key expression of the original SCPC’s Para 5.1.47!!!.Further confusions were compounded thru OM of 3rd Oct 2008 followed by illustrations in Table/ Annexure of OM of 14 th Oct 2008. WHY AT ALL THE PARA WAS RECONSTRUCTED?.

    *ANOMOLOUS results in the current scenario is more a result of such misonterpretations/ misapplications/ erroneous departures/wrong OMs affecting the threshold itself- all against SCPC’s parity priniciple/ policy for Pension.

    *GRADE PAY alone can not be the deciding factor for pension. It is only “thereon” with the Pension Basic and only then it has a meaning. “Grade Pay” can become part of “Pay” and NOT the reverse-!!!

    *Pensioners can not lose the identity of their original scales.These are important for Pension Revisions. Pay Bands can not be allowed to decide the fate of Pension entitlement/ settglements based on Grade Pay alone.. It is the pay/ pay scale in which the employee drew his salary- that is relevant. Not the Pay Band or Grade Pay. FITMENT FORMULAS also will result in such destructions. (if u ask the Housing Ministry, any clarification on HBA advances- they wd say it can be related to Pay in the Pay scale only and not the Grade Pay!!!)

    * Originally SCPC recommended same FITMENT for both pensioners and employees, but what has been implemented is entirely different. ANOMALIES have cropped up because of such departure.

    * Indiscriminate MERGERS of several pre-revised scales into Pay Bands- have resulted in:

    * erasing of Identity of relatively higher scales even for MINIMUM identification; *reduction of Pension Basic of higher level pensioners to the lowermost level in the Pay Band; such reduction is against Pension Rules; considerable loss in monthly pensions.
    *two classes of pensioners one pre-2006 and another post-2006 for each post/ grade/ scale under the same dispensation!
    *such reduction of pension now, results in pro-rata loss in DR component every six months, and ultimately erodes the very Base figure for NEXT PENSION REVISION!

    *Violation of Court Judgments/ Articles 14/21 of Constitution; CCS (RP) Rules. etc are very apparent! If Govt. resorts to this precedence, helpless aged pensioners who are in the evening of their lives have to go to courts for JUSTICE! Time-frame and Expenses are most atrocious and unfavorable to a common pensioner!

    *.None of the Appeals made to the DOPPW/MOPPGP/ various authorities/ those
    which have been forwarded from even the PMO to the MOPPGP & DOPPW have been
    answered or replied with!

    *.An OM dated 11th Feb 2009 stating all reps are disposed off can not be accepted as the said OM has not answered many anomalies/ anomalous issues raised by Pensioners/ Their Associations.

    *.Annexure I/ Tables of OM of 14Oct 2008 is stated to be non-applicable to pre-2006 pensioners- then to whom they are applicable? Why it is being quoted in RTI replies?

    *. Many of the RTI queries raised by Pensioners need attention of higher levels whereas routine sometimes evasive replies are being furnished from Desk/ Lower levels (PIOs) and hence these are not acceptable- nor they can help the Pensioners/ Associations to find out the truth/ accountability/ responsibility etc which are the essence/ essentials of RIGHT TO INFORMAION!

    *Many times RTI queries are not being referred to the connected authorities/ higher ups when essential - say like to MOF etc- and pensioners are being forced to waste money/ time/ energy to find ways and means to resolve the anomalous issues.

    *.One thing is CERTAIN.

    GREATEST OF THE ANOMALIES IS STARING IN EVERYONE's FACE--DENIAL OF PARITY OF DIFFERENT TYPES/ FITMENT BENEFITS-TO DIFFERENT LEVELS/ SECTIONS/ CLASSES OF PENSIONERS (except the top 4 scales????) -IN DIFFERENT WAYS THROUGH CONFUSING/ CONFLICTING OMs/ - VIOLATING ALL NORMS/ RULES/ SCPC's MEANINGFUL PRINCIPLED/ POLICY-ENDORSED PARAGRAPHS of its REPORT ITSELF/ COURT JUDGMENTS/ CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.
    Etc.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 30-03-2009 at 11:42 AM.

  9. #529
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Dear All

    Many of us have made appeals to the DOPPW & Hono'ble PM also, a few months back. Our apps. (at least in my case) to PM had been forwarded for "action as appropriate" to the DOPPW.

    Till now no replies have come! Effect of "mass burial- I mean disposal" by DOPPW thru 11th Feb 2009 OM? Even no reply to PMO?

    I thought we may try at least this info from DOPPW- so that a more"honest' &"sincere" straight forward answer can emerge from their end- as for this type of info- they need not be under duress or pressure!

    What I have sent- as relevant to my case- is placed below:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To:
    THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
    (Attn: Shri ..................... Under Secretary)
    Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW)
    Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions(MOP,PG,P)
    North Block, NEW DELHI 110001

    Sub: Right to Information-under RTI Act 2005- Regarding my Appeals to the Prime Ministers’ Office (PMO) & Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pensions (MOPPGP)/Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW)

    Dear PIO-Sir

    I seek the following information under the provisions of the RTI ACT 2005, Sections/Para 6 (1),(2)(3) & 7. In case the subject/ matter is not dealt at your desk/ office, the same kindly be referred to the right source within the stipulated period.

    A) PMO’s Reference
    Kind attention is drawn to the letter no PMO ID No.8/3/2009-PMP3/20181 dated 05.02.2009 forwarding my appeal No VN/PMO/Pension/2009-1 dtd 20.01.2009 sent to the Honourable Prime Minister, to the Secretary to the GOI, Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare, M/O Pers, PG & Pensions for “ACTION AS APPROPRIATE” at the latter. In the said appeal I, a pre-2006 pensioner, had sought redressal of INJUSTICE due to the anomaly in fixation of Revised Basic Pension, based on issues like disparities with respect to my peers of post1.1.2006 retirees; my effective reduction in status to a JAG (Sel Gr) level for Pension Basic entitlement; not applying the correct minimum revised pay corresponding to my pre-revised pay-scale S 29 (Rs18400-22400); irregular structuring of a single pay band for several pre-revised pay scale; violation of Constitutional protection under Article 14 and denial of parity in pension among equals (SAG level in my case) as also established/ enforced through earlier Court Judgments; irregularity through Effective Reduction in my entitled Pension Basic which is not fair or just/illogical etc; and prayed for review/ relief and justice. Now more than 50 days have passed since the above communication from PMO’s Office. Therefore, I am constrained to seek the following information:

    1.What “actions as appropriate” have been taken on the reference cited above viz on the contents of my Appeal to the Honourable Prime minister dtd 20.01.2009? Please furnish if they are in relevance to parts or full of my appeal?

    2.Have the same been conveyed to the PMO?

    3.If so, kindly provide copies of the relevant letter(s)/ notes/ related documents.

    4.If not, what are the “actions as appropriate” that are proposed and the time-frame, if any, thereof, for responding to the said appeal of mine?

    B) My Representations to the Secretary to the GOI, D/O P&PW,MOPPGP:
    Kind attention drawn to my Representation NO VN/Pensions/2008-3 dated Dec,2008 on my Pension Revision consequent to 6th CPC implementation OMs by Bank-Error/Anomaly-plea. In the said appeal, I, a pre-2006 pensioner, had sought l for revision & justice based on issues like wrong fixation of my minimum basic pension by the Bank at Rs23700 instead of Rs 27350 pm; irregular Merging of several pre-revised pay scales including mine (Rs18400-22400;S29) into single Pay Band 4; not applying to my pay the corresponding revised pay table within the said Pay Band for fixing my pension; that minimum of the Pay Band 4 can not be the minimum of revised pay for my scale ; irrational relegation of my pre-retirement Status from that of a SAG level officer/ Head of Deptt to that of a JAG (Sel. Gr) officer for pension purpose in effect; Reduction of my entitled pension basic (on revision)being unfair/unjust/illogical and against Rule; such a denial of rightful pension being a violation of Constitutional protection under Article 14 and denial of parity in pension among equals (SAG level in my case) as also established/ enforced through earlier Court Judgments; restoring justice/ parity in pension with respect to my peers, at least at the minimum! Now, I seek the following information:

    1.What is the status of my representation cited above?

    2.Have ALL/ ANY of the issues been disposed off by any of your communications subsequently? If so, pl furnish details/ copies.

    3.Is the Annexure I/ Table with it, of the OM dtd 14th Oct 2008 issued by the MOPPG&P/D/O P&PW, cited in my representation applicable in my case, a S29 scale (Rs 18400-22400) pre-2006 pensioner?

    4. If yes, what are the cases of pre-2006 pensioners to which the said Annexure I/Table is NOT applicable?

    5.If my representation has not been processed in part or full so far, what is the likely time-frame for the same ?

    The requested information may kindly be sent by hard copy mode by Regd Post as well as by email(s). As the matter concerns PENSION which is a matter of life & liberty of pensioners, every effort may kindly be made to adhere to the time-frame(s) please.(Encl: IPO For Rs 10/-towards INITIAL FEE in f/o Accounts Officer, Department of Pension& Pensioners’ Welfare)

    Yours faithfully’
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regards
    vnatarajan

  10. #530
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default Is it modified parity or ‘modified modified parity’

    Dear Pensioner Friends,

    Is it modified parity or ‘modified modified parity’
    A.I have serious doubts about the argument that the un-tampered para 4.2 of the OM dt30.08.08 will ensure maintenance of the modified parity between pensioners as recommended by the 6CPC.
    To analyze this issue let us look into what the 5 CPC recommendations were :
    (a) Revision of pension of Pre-1.1.96 pensioners/family pensioners
    “The Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended that total parity may be brought between the pre 1.1.86 and post 1.1.86 retirees, by notional fixation of pay of pre 1.1.1986 retires in the post. 1.1.86 scales of pay and refixing of pension of all pre 1.1.1986 retirees on basis of their notional fixation of pay. This recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission has been implemented by the Government and total parity has been achieved between pre 1.1.1986 retirees and those, who retired between 1.1.1986 and 31.12.1995.

    The Government have also accepted the concept of 'Modified Parity' which stipulates that the consolidated pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the new pay scale, as revised by Government, based on Fifth Central Pay Commission. This will be with reference to the post held by the pensioner, at the time of retirement.” ( Directorarte General of Resettlement Min. of Defence on Pension issues)


    B .6CPC Report for pensioners –para 5.1.47 says :

    In order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees
    C.

    Now let us look at the above statements and sum up as below:

    1.Total parity has been obtained between pensioners of pre 1.1.86 to post 1.186 but upto31.12.95

    2. Modified parity between these pensioners at 1. above and post 1.1.96 pensioners, has been achieved by grant of 50% of the minimum of the new scale as revised pension for pre1996 pensioners and 50% of last emoluments for post1996 pensioners, after 5CPC.

    3.Now as per 6CPC recommends grant of the same fitment benefit to the pensioners as for existing employees to maintain the existing modified parity.

    D.What does it mean?

    My interpretation is that the 6CPCommission has recommended retention of the modified parity between pensioners of classes(1 )and( 2) above and extend same fitment benefit to them as for the present employees , so that the cases of those pensioners who are enjoying modified parity will not be disturbed or reopened for complete parity with the new pensioners as was done at the time of 5CPC.
    In other words the pre1996 pensioners and post 1996 pensioners(upto31.12.2005) will continue to have disparity in pension, the latter enjoying the benefit of 50% of emoluments on pre-revised scales as pension while the former will have only 50% of the min. of the scale for the post as pension.

    If the pensions of all the post 1996 but pre-2006 pensioners are to be re-fixed notionally at the min. of the pay scales or pay bands this would amount to disturbing the existing modified parity and in fact will introduce a new concept of ‘modified modified parity’ which of course is not the intention of the Commission.

    E.
    I also feel that with the above arguments para 4.2 of the OM of 30.08.08 vitiates the principle enunciated in the 6CPC recommendations and the only way to implement the 6CPC recommendation is to notionally fix the pay in the pay band as for employees and work out pension as 50% of the same.

    I think pensioners should have to re-look on the issue. I would like to be educated and enlightened if my contentions are wrong.
    G.RAMDAS

  11. #531
    Member S.Balasubramanian is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Prasadnagar, New Delhi
    Posts
    64

    Default injustice to pensioners

    As I have been urging all along, Mr Ramdas' suggestion at E in last posting is the best solution and the need of the hour, to deal with cases of persons retiring at stages before reaching the maximum of the pre-revised scale.

    In the case of persons retiring at maximum of pre-revised scale, the fitment will be the same for pre- as well as post-2006 pensioners. In their case the formula of 2.26 will be the same whether for pre- or post-2006 pnsioners.

    But this will leave out persons retiring after having stagnation increments. In their case, the formula of 2.26 will have to be given by providing for it as in amended para 4.2 which I had been suggesting all along. Incidentally, this will also meet the requirement of Article 14.
    S.Balasubramanian.

  12. #532
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear Bala, Gramdass, VN and others. Ref. post 531. It appears that due to various suggestions, which we had been putting before rrewa (SCM), which are also contrary to some extent, the Sub Committee of Associations, has picked up only one issue of 2.26 formula(para 4.1). I am of the view from very beginning that we must concentrate only about para 4.2 and equality in terms of Article 14 and supportive three hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments. If para 4.1 is amended giving modified parity, some of pensioners would get lesser pension. By concentrating on 2.26 factor and para 4.1 and asking for same treatment as for working employees, we are loosing benefit of SC judgment of 10 10 06. which says equality is possible only within a homogenous group(pensioenrs and working employees are not homogenous one). I am at loss to understand why sub committee of Associations, did not choose for full parity as enshrined in Article 14 and supportive hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments ?

  13. #533
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Re Sh Bala' post #531.He mentioned:

    "But this will leave out persons retiring after having stagnation increments. In their case, the formula of 2.26 will have to be given by providing for it as in amended para 4.2 which I had been suggesting all along. Incidentally, this will also meet the requirement of Article 14."

    This is applicable only in respect of S-8 and below, where at the last 2 stages of stagnation increment, the 2.26 formula may be marginally higher than notional fixation.Even in these cases in all other stages, notional fixation will be beneficial.In all other scales,from minimum to max. of the stagnation stage, the notional fixation as per the Min. of Finance Table will be benefical to the pensioners.

    Regarding Sh. K's observations that comparison between pensioner and employee is not justifiable,it has to be noted that this point was brought out because,this has been recommended by the Commission, but not implemented.Hence this becomes an anomaly. We have no reason to grudge about employees emoluments, but if in turn it upsets the parity between different classes of pensioners or widens the disparity there is every reason to complain. Post 2006 pensioners' pensions are directly proportional to the employees emoluments.
    As regards full parity will that question be entertained by the Anomalies committee as the 6CPC has not recommended this;they had only suggested maintenance of modified parity?
    I still haven't got answers to my doubts raised in post #530.

    G.Ramdas

  14. #534
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Served/serving employees

    Dear Sirs,

    Just because an insufficient Para 4.1 exists, another Para 4.2 has been felt necessary by prescribing a minimum revised pension.

    Whether it is essential to treat the pensioners on par with serving employees even after ret..irement at least to the extent of 50%? Yes.

    The pre-revised basic pay of the serving employee, when getting revised, the retiree of pre-2006 also was serving in the same corresponding pre-revised pay scale and by virtue of retirement, the 50% of what he was drawing has been prescribed as pre-revised pension, but 50% of the revised pay could not be even thought of till now by the authorities, instead chosen to prescribe a minimum at minimum level.

    Such a pre-revised pay is nothing but another revised pay of post-1996, which again had its own pre-revised pay prior to 1.1.1996. Therefore,
    as and when the pay scale is accommodated in a revised structure,
    particularly when 50% of the pay drawn at the time of retirement in the said pay scale constituted basic pension prior to revision, the same yardstick has to be followed after revision too. In which case, there may not be any necessity to prescribe a minimum for a revised pension.

    The Para 4.1 as well as Para 4.2 both have their own discrepancies in respect of Pre-2006 pensioners. Even if Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 does not have its own discrepancy, the discrepancies have been created/generated while attempting to clarify/modify vide another OM dt.3.10.2008 with an illustration by choosing an incorrect pay scale to define minimum pay in the pay band, as there is no such thing exist in that particular scale since both min. of Pb and mini. of pay in the pb are same for the said scale. To add salt further in the wound, the annexed table makes the discrepancy explicit.

    What is the concept of 6th CPC in r/o treatment of pensioners vis a vis serving employees? At what point of time, the parity emerge followed by modified parity. Making things worse by discrepancies and then attempting to maintain parity/modified parity is putting the cart before the horse.

    Therefore, as unanimously discussed by all of us, when the pay get revised, 50% of the said revision shall be the revised pension. We can call it notional fixation or for the purpose of maintaining parity or anything else.
    The basic concept shall be 50% of revised pay to the corresponding pre-revised pay with which the pensioner had retired, shall be the revised pension from 1.1.2006. My only doubt is, even after this, whether any more para will be required to prescribe a minimum revised pension?

    The minimum aspects have been troubling the serving employees also particularly in respect of certain pre-revised scales to which upgraded pre-revised scales have been prescribed. Such upgraded pre-revised scales were prescribed only for the purpose of identifying the grade pay applicable for the upgraded pre-revised scale. The pay in the pay band will however be 1.86xpre-revised pre-upgraded scale. As on 1.1.2006, an employee where upgraded scales have been prescribed in the pre-revised structure, in his hand has (a) Original Pre-revised Scale (b) Upgraded Pre-revised Scale limited to grade pay purpose (c) revised pay in the pay band according to (a) and grade pay according to (b) both of which constitute revised pay.
    Therefore, minimum pay in the pay band as applicable to corresponding pre-revised upgraded scale is not at all possible even if a person was drawing Rs.7300 in the scale of 6500-10500 that has been upgraded to 7450- .
    On this count, both pensioners as well as the serving employees have been made to suffer at one stroke out of misinterpretation on minimum aspects.

    Same way, the CCS(RP) Rule No.13 relating to pay fixation on promotion that stipulates stepping up of pay in case after adding the 3% notional increment to the existing pay in the pay band on promotion, if falls short of minimum of .........., Here too, it is subjective provision that in case change in the pay band also is involved apart from change in GP.

    There is a hesitation to understand that minimum of PB and minimum of the pay in the pay band are not one and same in respect of all the 30 pre-revised scales (There are only 4 exceptions as discussed already in someother topic) and the said hesitation reflected in various OMs creating discrepancies.

    What is wrong in prescribing the minimum pay in the pay band as applicable to the corresponding pre-revised upgraded pay scale for the serving employees if the 1.86 multiplied by existing pre-revised pay of pre-upgraded scale is lesser than such minimum? Because, the pensioners of those pre-revised upgraded scales also may seek revised minimum pension as applicable to the pre-revised upgraded scale. That is the reason for issuing an urgent OM dt.12.2.2009 saying that no upgraded scales will matter in respect of minimum revised pension. At single stroke both pensioners as well as serving employees have been taken to task in respect of both minimum aspects as well as upgraded pre-revised scale aspects.

    Nothing short of 50% of revised pay corresponding to last pre-revised pay drawn whie serving, will make the things alright in the matter of revised pension.

    The above views are independent one, as we are in the verge of final appeal to AC, and no way related to just preceding posts of our seniors S/shri Balaji, K and GRD.

    Best Regards,
    Sundarar.

  15. #535
    Member S.Balasubramanian is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Prasadnagar, New Delhi
    Posts
    64

    Default injustice to pensioners

    R: Mr Kanaujia's observations. "If a policy has been enunciated by the 6th cpc and it has been contravened by the cpc itself without assigning any reason", it becomes an anomaly within the definition of that term. The cpc has recommended same fitment formula for both serving employees and pensioners. Even though in the CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, the revised basic pay has to be fixed at 1.86 basic pay + grade pay in all cases, this has been violated and not been followed in all cases. Hence it is an anomaly to be considered by the Anomalies Committee.
    I have always held the view that in terms of the above policy, read in conjunction with the Supreme Court judgments, our approach should be for parity as envisaged in article 14. But perhaps, mine is a minority view.
    S.Balasubramanian.

  16. #536
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Dear All. Ref. post 533. As far as I could understand from CPC report and what it recommended, CPC agreed to the extent of modified parity and not full parity. Even Govt. conceded it and issued gazette notifications but latter withdrew it. Is not this an anomaly ? My point is simply this. Why differentiate between a pensioner retired prior to 2006 and post 2006. As I have always maintained, you can appeal for anything you desire, to the Govt., in this case Govt. appointed committee, but beyond it you have to frame yours case relying on law, such as Article 14 and supoorting SC judgments. Why not at this very stage, bring this fact before, anomaly Committee, so that when they deliberate, consider this aspect as well. And one more thing. If para 4.1 is amended, as accepted by Sub Committee of Pensioners Associations, for consideration of AC, those pensioners, whoose Rev. pension has been fixed on multiplication factor of 2.26, would get lesser pension. We should not forget that in some cases Rev. pension as per 2.26 formula is more than the Rev. pension fixed as per para 4.2, even with modified parity. Therefore, we must not make issue complicated, as it appears to have been done, if what Mr. SCM has conveyed through e. mail, about the acceptance of sub committe of Associations namely reconsideration of formula of 2.26 and amendment to para 4.1, without taking up the case simaltaneously, for ammending para 4.2 as well, for full parity, as per Article 14 and supportive SC judgments. Why subcommittee of Associations has overlooked this aspect ? Where we have failed ?

  17. #537
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear All

    "Anomaly" as per the defined term - ie SCPC itself acting contrary or contravening its own GUIDING PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY/POLICY can be proved only throughts its own paragraphs 11.33/ 11/35/ 5.1.47.

    Para 5.1.47 itself RECOMMENDS the 50% being subject to not less than sum of "MINIMUM" ......etc. SCPC meant it can not be less than that, cd have been more in fact if modified concordance are applied, even upto the MAXIMUM(rare?)etc.

    All other points/ expressions emerging in the OMs are the creations of the GOVT. DECISIONS based on WRONG INTERPRETATIONS/IMPLEMENTATIONS through file notings/ OMs. NO RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED (old or new)

    Fitment Formula is not a Recommendation of the SCPC- but certainly a 'FITMENT' equal to that of the Employees was recommended.

    We are asking for FULL PARITY (wh is a dream according to me - as even last 5CPC gave only modified parity - and even SPS Bains case (latest)- if you carefully analyse, the outcome can only arrive at minimum parity! And to be logical I had been trying to project NOTIONAL MINIMUM PARITY FOR ALL (with spl dispensation to stagnation cases/ 20yr plus 33 yr minus retirees of pre-2006 era/ sufferers of multiple/successive merger of scales etc) based on FITMENT at the MINIMUM of the REVISED PAY SCALES by recognising the reference/ corresponding pay slots (ie corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised scales) - PENDING THE ACCORD OF FULL PARITY based on scrutiny of all individual/ collective anomalies as A FINAL SETTLEMENT.

    1.86 MF FITMENT also will have to be based on the recognition of the above fitment reference/corresponding pay slots (because if it is based on pre-revised basic or minimum of the pay band, many may be losers!). WE SHOULD NOT GET NEGATIVE PARITY or REDUCED PARITY wh is a result of merged pay scales into Pay Bands without even recognising the MINIMUM equivalents for each scale. SUCCESSIVE mergers result in compounded reduction for older pensioners.

    We have to look into the SCPC RECOMMENDATIONS vis-a vis the old pensioners mainly and confine to the anomalies within/ arising out of them. That may strike the target.

    Regards
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 02-04-2009 at 12:28 PM.

  18. #538
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear VN and other pensioner friedns. Ref. post 537. Yes, I agree. I have tried to say the same thing in fewer words. I would like to sound a word of caution. I once again would say that we should not involve all issues simaltaneously as it may complicate the main issue of parity for all pensioners. Govt. Officials, responsible for taking the decision, as in AC, as you all know, are very clever in confusing the issues and divert the attentioin towards that direction, which suites them.

  19. #539
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Ref. Posts above and Sh K's post at#536.
    Sh. K mentioned in the above post "If para 4.1 is amended, as accepted by Sub Committee of Pensioners Associations, for consideration of AC, those pensioners, whoose Rev. pension has been fixed on multiplication factor of 2.26, would get lesser pension."
    I am not quite clear about this statement. My own pension is fixed on the basis of 2.26 formula and I am losing Rs.6613p.m sice the fixation has not been done as per the original para 4.2 of the OM.
    It is therfore, not correct to say that pensioners getting revised pension under 2.26 formual will be adversely affected.
    However I am in full agreement with the argument that the notional fixation in the new scales be done and 50% granted as pension. This will still maintain the existing modified parity within past pensioners.

    GR

  20. #540
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear All

    I agree with K's views, in summary..

    LET US BE CLEAR.

    My view is whatever we try to point out in terms of existing fitment formula , it should be only TO AUTHENTICATE/PROVE the ANOMALY involved and not recommend it as any "STANDARD FORMULA or MF" for deciding on or arriving at the final Pension of all pensioners. All shd be clear on this.

    Pay Commission had clearly stated FITMENT for pensioners should be same as for EMPLOYEES. NOT BY USING ANY FORMULAE.

    Which means PARITY as in the case of post-2006 pensioners, and FITMENT as recommended by SCPC- and not as formulated by the GOVT. in its OMs (MF 1.86 - MF 2.26 including the 40% FB).

    There can not be a single MF for all scales for FITMENT- and that is where the ANOMALY (of different degrees) crops up and the same has been analysed and demonstrated I think by Shri GR, if I am correct, in the charts and tables..

    As the current FITMENT is not same as in the case of post 2006 pensioners/ EMPLOYEES, it has to be rejected.

    (Even as it is, EVERY PENSIONER HAS TO GET, EVEN AT THE MINIMUM, MORE THAN BY THE FITMENT MF- if proper GP Component is added.This is besides the main issue).

    Paras 4.1/ 4.2 - already pointed out by many- suffuciently reworded - have to be considered for final outcomes in terms of SCPC's principles/policy; Pending the same, Para 5.1.47 must be truly/ correctly (based on Revised Pay) implemented for notional, modified, minimum parity as an interim measurre, as was done in VCPC.

    I think AC will get clear as to the above and also be reasonable to help pensioners get justice soon.

    SCPC's Para 5.1.47 Recommending modified MINIMUM parity itself is in CONTRAVENTION (without assigning any reason!)of their own recos at Para 11.33/ 11.35 which all suggest full parity! Hence ANOMALY is clear.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 02-04-2009 at 01:27 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 27 of 77 FirstFirst ... 17 25 26 27 28 29 37 ... 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