+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 77 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1540

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

  1. #41
    Member kssitaraman is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Dear Sri Ranganathan,

    Your kind reference is invited to Sri Vijai Kapoor.s posting yesterday under the thread "Invalid minimum of Pay Band", wherein he has mentioned in terms of the OM dated 3/10 being the 'culprit' (quotation mine), rather than the OM of 14/10, which in effect is a general circular to all concerned and to the Pension Disbursing Banks. If you feel like, perhaps you may incorporate it in your draft.

  2. #42
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    1.At the outset, thanks to Mr PKR for his immediate respones.

    2.I and my copensioner friends here will take action to send the memo collectively thru our FORUM to the Secy DOP/PW (attn: Director- if necessary) with copies to all concerned Ministries (MoP,PG & P/ MOF.

    3.I and few others who have time/ means will send the reps. individually thru Speed/Regd post/emails also.

    4.It will be our request that as many pensioners / their associations/ bodies etc also take similar actions. (we will endorse copies to RREWA/ RRECS/ IOFSBROTHERHOOD etc for similar actions- copensioners there may pl. liaise for parallel actions)

    5.Mr Mukuntharajan, Jr Member here and he, from our FORUM side will also be requested to pursue action with AIFPA to send similar memo to the destinations. He will also be active to get the memo publicised in the Pensioners' Advocate.

    Thanks to all for supportive actions in advance.

    vnatarajan

  3. #43
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    WE ALL HOPE REPS/APPEALS UTILISING THE DRAFTS OF PKR/ SUNDARAR/VIJAI KUMAR's POINTS ETC WOULD BE SENT BY ALL QUICKLY.

    In the meanwhile PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE/ its members have taken pains to highlight some of the woes of the Pensioners consequential to the chaos created by 6cpc implementation orders in their editorial of October issue. I am trying to post it here for evereyone/ other Associations etc to see & follow actions:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (courtesy AVMukuntharajan, Gen. Sec, PF & Jt. Sec AIFPA)

    PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE (oct 2008 ?)


    EDITORIAL
    CHAOS IN IMPLEMENTATION

    The Central Government magnanimously ordered that the disbursing units i.e. post offices and banks should ensure that the revised pension as a result of 6th CPC recommendations and 40% of arrears thereof upto September 2008 should be paid to the pensioners and family pensioners before 30.9.2008. Pensioners and family pensioners thronged the post offices and banks with the fond hope that they would be receiving the revised pension including arrears as 30.9.2008 and celebrate the festivals and Diwali a little more happily . But they were badly disappointed
    Reports received from various sources, - pensioners associations, pensioners and individuals reveal that except a few branches of State Bank of India, all other banks and post offices have not implemented the Govt’s orders in letter and spirit.
    Some of the disbursing units, paid revised pension only without arrears.

    Some of the post offices paid Rs. 25000/- or so to pensioners after
    obtaining an undertaking that over payments if any, would be adjusted in subsequent pension payments.

    Some post offices had their calculations ready but could not draw money from banks, due to strike by the bank employees on 24th and 25th September
    and subsequent bank holidays on 30.9.2008 and 1st and 2nd October 08

    Due to Dasara holidays, the payments will be further delayed . We will thank God if the arrears are paid atleast before Deepavali.

    Some of the banks appear to have insisted on the surrender of the P.P.Os by the pensioners before effecting payment . The orders are very clear and the P.P.Os need not be surrendered .

    In some post offices in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka , the payment of fixed medical allowance of Rs. 100/- had been with held. There are no orders for such an action. The authorities concerned should pay the withheld amount immediately to the pesnioenrs.

    Several clarifications have been issued by the Pension Ministry on 3rd October 08 . They have been published else where in this issue.

    One of the clarification is that the sum of 50% of pay + grade pay should be based on the minimum of the pay band and not on the minimum pay of the band corresponding to the 5th CPC scale. In effect, the benefit that would accrue to the pensioners is denied to them as the pension calculated as per fitment formula is higher than the pension as per fixation formula. Different interpretations of scales have been given in this regard. One for the pensioners, another for serving employees and yet another for direct recruits. Never in the history of past five pay commissions had this problem cropped up.

    The clubbing of scales under four different pay bands , and with the same grade pay to some of these scales in the same band are the main reasons for such interpretations.

    We request the Government to have a rethinking in the matter and restore the status of past pensioners by adopting the same pay fixation formula for pensioners and serving employees to remove the disparity that has crept in.

    The rate of dearness relief to exgratia pensioners have not yet been announced Similarly, those serving employees who retired on after 1.1.2006 but opted out of revised pay scales are entitled to the dearness relief at the old rate which is 54% from 1.7.2008.

    The BSNL retirees are outside the purview of the Sixth CPC recommendations . The merger of 50% dearness relief granted to serving BSNL employees have not been extended the BSNL pensioners . This need to be attended to immediately.

    The non civilian defence pensioiners are unhappy because order have not been issued by the Defence Ministry in this regard
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vnatarajan

  4. #44
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default Injustice to pre 2006 pensioners

    Dear Messrs Sundar, Natarajan, Vijay Kapoor et al
    A splendid job of drafting.
    I am suggesting to a Railway group to send collective/indivdual representations on this line.
    Are we sanguine that such a representation will deliver?
    Are we considering legal recourse too.. if so please let me know so that I can muster support.
    Can this be in CAT or court?

  5. #45
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Naga

    We shall try our best to convince the Govt./ and its Ministries/Deptts for redressal within a reasonable time, thru our appeals/ reps. individually and collectively. many of us have done that as the first round already.

    The above letter will be second letter for many of us- may be first for some.

    We plan one more appeal after getting the 'Mutilated' final pension, wh may be according to the OM of 14th Oct 2008.

    A FEW OF US HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO THE HON'BLE PM THRU HIS WEBSITE! We would also make collective appeals to him.

    We have planned recourse thru legal channel also- CAT - concurrently in a few locations- and courts in a fewer locales- may be after a month or so.

    Your initiatives are most welcome.

    vnatarajan

  6. #46
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    D / All

    I have sent the drafted rep.(amended as necessary) to the Secy Min of P,PG & P yesterday by email and today the hard copy by speed post, on my own behalf and also as the President of Pensioners' Forum on behalf of several co-pensioners.

    My next step will be after what I recieve as my final 'mutilated' pension/ arrears from my Bank-the PPO supposed to be issued by them etc- may be by Nov end.

    (We shall try to evolve a common format to suit individuals, if possible- as that will be our final appeal before resorting to further action thru avenues of justice)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 06-11-2008 at 06:51 PM. Reason: removeed extra part

  7. #47
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Thanks Mr Natarajan
    Count me & some of us Rly pensioners in a- for any efforts you are organising
    Naga57

  8. #48
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Wink

    I can see you are all seized of the pension interpretation across grades.
    Is it possible to consider one more issue :
    It is the applicability of 20 years rule for full pension prospectively.
    When pension entitlement was revised from 30/80 to 33/80 & later to 33/66, in all these cases it was made applicable for erstwhile pensioners too. Only proviso was that it will apply from date of notification & not back dated from date of retirement.
    The spirit again was non discrimination between existing & new pensioners in conditions.
    Even in case of full commutation by persons on deputation - 1/3rd of original commutation amount was restored after 15 years plus DA on full pension (revised one that is).
    As such , there are enough precedences of spirit of equity between the existing & new pensioners.
    Will this merit a representation?
    Naga 57

  9. #49
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Talking corresponding/irrespective of pay scale 1.9.2008vs3.10.2008

    Quote Originally Posted by kssitaraman View Post
    Dear Sri Ranganathan,

    Your kind reference is invited to Sri Vijai Kapoor.s posting yesterday under the thread "Invalid minimum of Pay Band", wherein he has mentioned in terms of the OM dated 3/10 being the 'culprit' (quotation mine), rather than the OM of 14/10, which in effect is a general circular to all concerned and to the Pension Disbursing Banks. If you feel like, perhaps you may incorporate it in your draft.
    Dear Sir,

    Yourself and Shri Vijai kapoor are right in this regard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    O.M. dt. 1.9.2008
    Para 4.2:
    Point 1: "The fixation of pension...... in no case, shall be lower than fifty
    percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade
    pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which
    the pensioner had retired.


    Point 2: In the case of HAG+ and above scales (S-31 to S-34), this will be
    fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale".
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    O.M. dt. 3.10.2008
    Modifications/Clarifications:
    Para 4.2
    Point 1: "The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in teh Pay Band plus Grade Pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the PB (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale"

    Point 2: NO MODIFICATIONS/CLARIFICATIONS.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think the accident spot as might have already been identified by the senior members, is explicit.

    Best Regards.

  10. #50
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    We congratulate MR R SUNDARAM for his efforts in getting published an article in the Hindu Businessline- wh he has posted in the thread "Pre 1996 Pensioners ....."etc.

    Artcle is title "Lost in Transition" reproduced here for all to view":
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An Article which appeared in The Hindu Businessline Today (7th Nov 2008)

    Lost in translation

    R. Sundaram

    “For man proposes but God disposes" . In the case of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission by the Centre, this, perhaps, can mean, somewhat irreverently, what the cabinet giveth, the mandarins taketh away. By deft strokes of their miserly pens, the Department of Pensions has struck at the roots of parity between new and old retirees in the matter of pension.

    A decade ago, after the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government had rightly recognised and treated the people who retired before the pay commission as equal to the new retirees. It wanted to grant full parity with the new retirees by locating the exact equivalent of the last pay drawn in the new scale from which the old persons retired, but thought it was cumbersome. It, therefore, stopped short and settled for 50 per cent of the minimum of the new pay scale for the old retirees and 50 per cent of the ten months average pay on the day of retirement for the new ones.

    Under the “defined benefits” pension scheme of the governments in most part of the world, a percentage — even up to cent per cent of the last pay drawn — is given out as pension. A World Bank study in May 2006 on “Civil Service Pension Scheme Around the World” by Robert Palacios and Edward Whitehouse, observed critically that the Indian scheme suffers on account of ‘unpredictable income stream for old retirees and large differences between cohorts depending on the year they retire”.

    Linked to pay bands

    Therefore, minimum expectations were that the status quo would not be disturbed as confirmed by the Sixth Pay Commission in March this year which endorsed the continuance of parity. The Cabinet too, in its resolution, blessed the notion in its resolution in August. But when it was forged into executive orders, sadly, the benefits of parity enjoyed by the older pensioners till now were taken away at one fell swoop. This was done by clubbing as many as five to nine scales into each of the four long pay bands from Rs 5,200 to 67,000.

    Pay bands are a useful HR concept to avoid over ranking and under paying by frequent cadre reviews to get higher posts. But by misinterpreting “minimum of the pay in the pay band” and linking the old retirees’ pension to the 50 per cent minimum of pay band at Rs 5,200, Rs 9,300, Rs 15,600 and Rs 37,400, as the case may be, smacks of arbitrariness but also annulment of all the advancement achieved by the old retirees in their career through stages of selection and promotion.
    Dismay among old retirees

    For example, a pensioner who retired as a Joint Secretary at Rs 18,400 would have normally received Rs 27350 as per the revised basic pay of his cohort under the old scheme but now will get only Rs 23,700 because of linkage to minimum of the pay band. Likewise, an individual retired at Rs 7,500 will get only Rs 7,050 under the new formula as against Rs 9,375.

    This act of prestidigitation by the personnel ministry has caused a sense of deep dismay among all old retirees except those in the top rung. It so happens that vast majority of the latter are from the All-India services who can write rules and formulae to place themselves beyond the pale of the pay bands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vnatarajan reproducing Mr R Sundaram's article above.

  11. #51
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Have you seen thisv representation by rrwea avlbl at
    http://www.rrewa.org/Circulars2/564/scan0001.pdf
    I find it covers the interpretation disparity of para 4.2 of OM as well as the 20year rule being applied prospectively only.
    Any views- coordination with them possible?

  12. #52
    Member kssitaraman is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Dear Sri Sundarar,

    Thank you for the efforts taken by you. Full credit to Sri Kapoor. I have 'hijacked' your draft representation and sent it in my own name to DOP also. In the event of it getting a favourable result, full credit would naturally go to you. Thanking you again,

    K.S.Sitaraman
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Sri Sundaram and Sri Natarajan,

    Since writing the one liner about Sri RS's article in the other thread, I now realise that the article literally deals with my own peraonal problem that I had ventilated in my posting to Sri PKR. I shall be happy to see this hotly pursued through the existing available channels and if it is not successful to resort to intervention by judiciary.

    K.S. Sitaraman

  13. #53
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Naga

    Sure. We shall take care of the 20yrs retirees also!. May be we had no such demands on hand!. Pl. make a generalised request wh can be seen by all/ Mr PKR/ Mr Vijai/Mr Sundarar/Mr Sundaram/ Mr AVM etc. who know the rules / avenues for presenting the case properly!

    vnatarajan

  14. #54
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I am reposting the points on 20 years retiree case: Appreciate the help

    I can see you are all seized of the pension interpretation across grades.
    Is it possible to consider one more issue :
    It is the applicability of 20 years rule for full pension prospectively.
    When pension entitlement was revised from 30/80 to 33/80 & later to 33/66, in all these cases it was made applicable for erstwhile pensioners too. Only proviso was that it will apply from date of notification & not back dated from date of retirement.
    It generally has been that 'Any liberalisation of pension rules are APPLICaBLE to ALL pensioners but EFFECTIVE from date of notification. That is no back dated arrears are payablebeyond the date of notification.
    The spirit again was non discrimination between existing & new pensioners in conditions.
    Even in case of full commutation by persons on deputation - 1/3rd of original commutation amount was restored after 15 years plus DA on full pension (revised one that is).
    As such , there are enough precedences of spirit of equity between the existing & new pensioners.
    Will this merit a representation?
    Naga 57
    Last edited by dnaga57; 08-11-2008 at 07:28 AM. Reason: Emphasisins the point

  15. #55
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Hi All
    Mr Naga has put forth his plea for consideration of the 20 y retirees with precedences that were made with a spirit of equality.
    Experts who have been helpful in all the debates here may kindly offer their considered advice as to the merits of the case so that some appeal can be made to the DoP/PW by our Forum (I mean Pensioners' Forum,Chennai).
    vnatarajan

  16. #56
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Lightbulb Accident spot

    Dear Sirs,

    I am making an attempt to submit my thinkings:

    O.M. dt. 3.10.2008
    Modifications/Clarifications:
    Para 4.2
    "The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the PB (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.37400-67000 and the corresponding grade pay being 10,000/- p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs.37,400+10,000 (ie. 23,700. A statement indicating minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure."

    POINT NO.1: "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY AND
    CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY" -
    HOW BOTH THESE CAN TRAVEL TOGETHER?

    POINT NO.2: "50% of the minimum pay in the pay Band plus Grade pay
    would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the
    Pay Band" - Para 4.2 of O.M. dt.3.10.2008 as well as 1.9.2008.
    If the above would be calculated as per (i) indicated above,
    where is the other one to be calculated as per (ii). If there is
    no (ii), what does (i) mean?

    POINT NO.3 If Para 4.2 of both O.M. is in same voice, then how, only the
    Annexure attached to O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 and also referring
    therein the same Para but of O.M. dt.1.9.2008, can
    prescribe new medicine - minimum of pay band, which is not at
    all related/relevant w.r.t. Para 4.2 of both O.M.?

    POINT NO.4 S-24 & S-25 S-26 & S-27 S-28/S-29 & S-30
    23050 23150 23700
    Only those who had actually travelled from S-24 to S-30
    or its corresponding pre-revised scale during their remarkable
    and devoted service knew how difficult it is to reach the
    destination, viz. S-30. But everything has been finished with
    an amount ranging between 650 (upto 3% - one increment?)
    that will be applicable for the next 8 years to get subsequent
    enhancement
    Same is the case in respect of the corresponding lower grades
    and thereunder. The necessity for prescribing a minimum itself arises because there is below minimum even after applying 2.26 factor.

    POINT NO.5 WHETHER ANY PROBABLITY/POSSIBILITY OF TYPOGRAPHICAL/
    INADVERTENT ERROR LEADING TO OMISSION OF `PAY IN THE
    PAY BAND' IN THE TITLE - MINIMUM OF......... PAY BAND
    UNDER COL.7 OF ANNEXURE TO O.M. DT. 3.10.2008 THAT
    GOT REPEATED IN SUBSEQUENT O.M. dt.14.10.2008 also.

    POINT NO.6 IF POINT NO.5 IS RULED OUT, THEN, HOW THE FIRST
    SENTENCE (WHICH IS ALSO RESEMBLING 1.9.2008) AND
    SECOND SENTENCE OF THE MODIFIED /CLARIFIED PARA 4.2
    CANNOT TRAVEL TOGETHER TO EMPHASISE THE
    LEARNED DECISION TAKEN VIDE O.M. OF 1.9.2008?

    AS THE MATTER MAY BE UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY - CONSEQUENT UPON THE APPEALS PREFERRED TO THE DEPT., THESE ASPECTS CAN ALSO BE KEPT IN VIEW, TO FACILITATE A REMEDIAL SOLUTION. AS ONLY THE CONTENTS ARE BEING ANALYSED HERE, IT SHALL BE VIEWED ACCORDINGLY.

    WITH DUE RESPECTS TO ALL,

    BEST REGARDS.
    Last edited by sundarar; 07-11-2008 at 10:47 PM.

  17. #57
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    Railway Pensioners' Samaj, Chennai also have sent their representation on the disparity in parity of pension between the pre and post 2006 pensioners consequent to the 6th cpc related OMs, to the Secy, Min. of P,PG & P on 1.11.2008.

    Copy of their representation can be seen on the website of RREWA- www.rrewa.org
    ,
    We are encouraged by the action of the samaj!

    vnatarajan

  18. #58
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi All

    I had requested the Administration of the RREWA to further pursue the fight against injustice issue on 4th Nov 2008 and their prompt response/ appraisal of the issue are reproduced below, for info. of all:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The request I made to RREWA/RSCWA Exec` Council:


    From: Natarajan V Sent On: 11/4/2008 4:29:52 PM Status: Reply Sent by Admin
    Subject:
    Injustice to Pre-2006 Pensioners
    Query:
    Sirs/ RREWA council members As a retd. Central Govt. pre-2006 penwsioner and also as the President of the Pensioners' Forum, Chennai (affiliated to the AIFPA)I, and other Co-pensioners have sent numerous representations to the DoP/PW of the Ministry of P,PG & Pensioners in October 2008 (2nd to 3rd week)on th4e issue of the wide disparity in pensions that will crop up consequent to the implementation of 6th CPC related OMs dtd 3rd and 14th Oct 2008 of DoP/PW resulting in injustice to pre-2006 pensioners. We appear to be at dead end unless RREWA/ RSCWS etc take up the matter seriously by (1)HIGHLIGHTING THE PROBLEM in the newspapers at DELHI/ other media and (2)BY ULTIMATELY APPEALING TO Hon'nle LALLU PRASAD YADAVji to intervene and resolve the problem. Otherwise many OLD/AGED/HANDICAPPED Pensioners (like me)/family pensioners/ dependents will be helpless due to the reckless/inhuman attitude of the DoP/PW & MOF. VNatarajan (on behalf of hundreds of pensioners from Chennai) 4Nov08


    Their Reply
    Natarajan V Sent On: 11/4/2008 9:09:40 PM Status: Seen by You
    Subject:
    injustice to pensioners
    Query: (RREWA's Reply)

    Dear friend, Ultimately we may have to go to the court.S.C. judgment is favourable to us Some of our members like Mr............... retd. CCS & Mr...............retd.CCE are trying to mobilize opinion &to bring more &more persons on one plateform.We seek co operation of more &more associations. Iam trying to convince BPS &AICCPA top brass to take up the case. Iwill request you to keep in touch through e.mail Iam giving u the addresses hereunder. Regards Sincerely Yours, S.C.M..............., e.mail pensioner77@yahoo.com & rrewa@dataone.in

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

    ALL AFFECTED ARE REQUESTED TO PURSUE ACTIONS WITH MORE & MORE ASSOCIATIONS/ UNIONS TO JOIN WITH THE POWERFUL BODIES LIKE RREWA FOR REMEDY/ JUSTICE.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-11-2008 at 04:39 PM.

  19. #59
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Angry 20 years retiree

    Quote Originally Posted by dnaga57 View Post
    I am reposting the points on 20 years retiree case: Appreciate the help

    I can see you are all seized of the pension interpretation across grades.
    Is it possible to consider one more issue :
    It is the applicability of 20 years rule for full pension prospectively.
    When pension entitlement was revised from 30/80 to 33/80 & later to 33/66, in all these cases it was made applicable for erstwhile pensioners too. Only proviso was that it will apply from date of notification & not back dated from date of retirement.
    It generally has been that 'Any liberalisation of pension rules are APPLICaBLE to ALL pensioners but EFFECTIVE from date of notification. That is no back dated arrears are payablebeyond the date of notification.
    The spirit again was non discrimination between existing & new pensioners in conditions.
    Even in case of full commutation by persons on deputation - 1/3rd of original commutation amount was restored after 15 years plus DA on full pension (revised one that is).
    As such , there are enough precedences of spirit of equity between the existing & new pensioners.
    Will this merit a representation?
    Naga 57
    Dear Sirs,

    Shri Naga and the Sr. Member Shri V.N. had rightly pointed out about the 20 years retiree case. The need for representation arises, because, the O.M. dated 1.9.2008 does not contain any stipulation about the quantum of maximum qualifying service that has to be rendered for entitlement of minimum revised pension @ 50% of minimum of (pay in the pay band)+ GP corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired particularly because the Gazette Notification dated 29.8.2008 has already stipulated that `Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with' and a minimum pensionable qualifying service of 20 years has been prescribed. The same Gazetee Notification in subsequent para also indicates that the `recommendations regarding payment of full pension on qualifying service will take effect from all Govt. employees from the date it is accepted by the Govt.

    This could be the reason for stipulating a minimum revised pension even after applying the 2.26 factor as per fitment table. And that is the reason for Para 4.2 of O.M. to ensure a minimum revised pension. If by calling it as a minimum revised pension, I don't know whether there will be pension even after application of Para 4.2 at any case. Live examples only can be helpful in this regard whether such minimum revised pension only is the maximum revised pension possible as per the table annexed to O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 or otherwise. With regard to the prospective effect, the intention could be of restricting arrears out of such MINIMUM REVISED PENSION by application of 50% of sum of ...............corresponding pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. Thus, with the prospective effect, a pensioner with qualifying service of 20 years or more shall also invariably be eligible for MINIMUM REVISED PENSION IN FULL and wherever the service is below 20 years it shall be on pro-rata basis on par with those who retire from 1.9.2008. The only difference is a post August 2008 pensioner will get 50% of his revised basic as pension subject to maximum qualifying service of 20 years, the corresponding pre-Sep. 2008 pensioners will be entitled as per Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008.

    These aspects have got diluted vide O.M. dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The Gazette Notification dt.29.8.2008 as well as O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 have nowhere mentioned that the maximum qualifying service shall be 33 years only in respect of Pre-Sep. 2008 pensioners. There is enough ground for
    representation and when the Notification is silence about certain things, the benefit of doubt shall be passed on to the aggrieved pensioners. The one more thing I wish to add here is that the intention of giving prospective effect could be to restrict people who have served 17 years as on 31.12.2005 should not come with a request for voluntary retirement in the immediate two three months. Hence, the prospective effect actually keeps in mind those who
    will be leaving with just 20 years service immediately on implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations. As such, the enhancement in the pay and allowances, with other allowances like child care leave, transport allowance, Hostel fees, etc. were mainly to retain the existing employees who are well experienced. The Govt. does not want to see them off so soon. Keeping in view their future dedicated and more devoted service to the corresponding pay package, the Govt. wants them to fully utilise the services of its Human Resources. At the same time, the Gazetee Notification and the O.M. dated 1.9.2008 would have intended parity of pensioners only. The main problem lies in the interpretation of sum of minimum of........... corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. And the other problem lies in respect of `PROSPECTIVE EFFECT', when the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service had been dispensed with in toto, and here too, the interpretation only put all of us in aggrieved situation.

    There should not be any problem in having a detailed review based on the feedback/representations/requests/from the individual pensioners as well as Associations, because those senior pensioners had contributed a lot and many of them have got restricted gratuity at the time of their retirement. The gratitude that is due, can be expressed by considering the plea of the Pensioners and Senior Citizens by keeping their WELFARE on top priority by suitable amendments to the areas which remain silent, in a way favourable to the aggrieved pensioners and senior citizens.

    As they may deny arrears owing to prospective effect, an increase in 1000 or so do not make any difference, in the absence of which there may not be any necessity for prescribing a MINIMUM REVISED PENSION TO HAVE BEEN ENSURED.

    Best Regards.

  20. #60
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    hi all

    Please see the post made in the thread "Full Minimum Revised Pension for 20Years Retiree" - incorporating what Mr AVM had replied to Mr Sundararajan.

    vnatarajan

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 77 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... 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