+ Reply to Thread
Page 76 of 77 FirstFirst ... 26 66 74 75 76 77 LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,520 of 1540

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

  1. #1501
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I want to join this Group of 250 pre-2006 pensioners for strengthening the legal battle.
    How do I join this battle ?
    Do they have a yahoo group ?
    Can anyone help me with the e mail ID of SHRI A RAJAGOPALAN/ SHRI PK RANGANATHAN - (pioneers of this struggle ) ?


  2. #1502
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

  3. #1503
    Junior Member kvn is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9

    Smile Sir, I wish to join the Legal fight under your guidance. kvn

    viswanathlive@gmail.com
    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    DEAR SHARMA JI/ Other Old Pensioners who have been deprived of Full Parity/ Last Pay Drawn based pension,

    I AM WAITING TO SEE THE SCPC MOD PARITY ISSUE BEING RESOLVED SOON.

    FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE HAS NO END.

    FULL PARITY CASE NEEDS "OVERWHELMING SUPPORT" FROM ALL RETIREES - PRE 1986/ PRE 1996/PRE 2006 AND / POSSIBLY SOON THE "INNOCENT PRE 2016" SOON AFTER 7 CPC AND IF I GET AN ADVANCE INDICATION HERE, CERTAINLY THE ISSUE WOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH ALL SERIOUSNESS.

    IN THE MEANWHILE, THOSE WHO WANT THIS ISSUE TO BE TAKEN UP MAY SEND EMAILS TO SHRI SANT BHUSHAN LAL( santbhushanlal@gmail.com) HON SECRETARY OF CGSAGPA CURRENTLY, WHO MAY COORDINATE A NEW FORMATION SOON FOR THE PURPOSE.

    PL CONVEY TO ALL INTERESTED.

    vnatarajan


  4. #1504
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    @kvn- pl address email to the ids given in my previous post....VN

  5. #1505
    Member RPGoswami is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I knovv it is not the right place but I shall reach the most experienced ,so. My point as in majority cases last ten months average pay vvill be lovver than last pay dravvn shouldnt pension be fixed on vvhich ever is higher basis?//
    Last edited by RPGoswami; 27-11-2014 at 08:20 PM.

  6. #1506
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RPGoswami View Post
    I knovv it is not the right place but I shall reach the most experienced ,so. My point as in majority cases last ten months average pay vvill be lovver than last pay dravvn shouldnt pension be fixed on vvhich ever is higher basis?//
    In accordance with the D.S.Nakara spirit, the single homogenous class of pensioners shall be treated uniformly. The post-2006 pensioners have been provided with the manner of calculation of pension, viz. based on last drawn emoluments or last ten months average emoluments whichever is higher. Same provision shall be made applicable to similar pre-2006 pensioners. Once applicability of 10/20 years qualifying service for full pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service is accepted, probably this issue may also be addressed suitably by the DOP&PW without any need for fresh litigation for this issue alone.
    The qualifying service case will come up for hearing next on 15.12.2014. For information.

  7. #1507
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    WHERE THE ROUNDING UP TO NEAREST SIX MONTHS PACK IS INVOLVED, THERE COULD BE DIFFERENCE .....EXTRCAT IS REPRODUCED HERE:

    "W.e.f 1.1.2006, Pension is calculated with reference to average emoluments namely, the average of the basic pay drawn during the last 10 months of the service or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Full pension with 10/20 years of qualifying service is 50% of the average emoluments or last basic pay drawn whichever is beneficial. Before 1.1.2006, for qualifying service of less than 33 years, amount of pension was proportionate to the actual qualifying service broken into completed half-year periods. For example, if total qualifying service is 30 years and 4 months (i.e. 61 half-year periods), pension will be calculated as under:-

    Pension amount = R/2(X)61/66

    where R represents average reckonable emoluments for last 10 months of qualifying service or the last pay drawn as opted by the govt servant.

    Minimum pension presently is Rs. 3500 per month. Maximum limit on pension is 50% of the highest pay in the Government of India (presently Rs. 45,000) per month. Pension is payable up to and including the date of death"

    vnatarajan

  8. #1508
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    DEAR AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS,

    I WAS AWAITING FOR SOME POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS......
    I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE SOMETHING GOOD MAY HAPPEN....
    THANKS TO SHRI SCM JI, SECRETARY GENERAL , BPS & SHRI GOPAL MISHRA, SECRETARY GENL, JCM & THEIR EFFORTS THRU SCOVA ON 3 FEB 2014, IN THE LATEST MEETING.

    RELEVANT INFO FURNISHED BY BPS IN FB AND MY COMMENTS RECORDED THERE ARE REPRODUCED HERE:

    Bharat Pensioners Samaj

    2 hrs ·

    Item 10 of action taken report of 25th SCOVA came up for discussion in 26th SCOVA meeting on 03.02.2015:

    10. Extension of benefit of OM dt. 28.1.2013 w.e.f 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012 The matter is sub-judice. Secretary(P) mentioned that as and when the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the pending SLP, the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court will be implemented.

    (Action : DoPPW) DOPPW )

    Instructions have been issued to concerned Ministries/Departments to implement the order 15.05.2014/ 1.11.2011 of CAT, Pr. Bench New Delhi in respect of petitioners in OA No. 655/2010 only.

    Law Ministry had advised to await outcome of SLP No 36148-50/2013 before deciding in respect of other pre-2006 pensioner. The SLP no 36148-50/2013 pending for hearing on 17.02.2015.

    Comments by BPS Secy Genl.S.C.Maheshwari:

    Negative note sent by DOP &PW resulted in negative advice. DOP &PW can help pensioners by withdrawing the SLPS. JT Secy. retorted that she was not that powerful. Genl Secy JCM Com Shiv Gopal Mishra intervened to suggest that the Honorable MOS (PP) may intervene.MOS told Jt Secy to again put up note seeking Permission to withdraw SLPS

    Like · · Share

    (COMMENTS OF VN put up in FB following the BPS news above):

    Natarajan Venkataraman KUDOS TO SHRI SCM JI/ SHRI GOPAL MISHRA JI. HOPE DOP FOLLOWs THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON MOS..PL READ:GRATEFUL THANKS TO SHRI SCM SECY GENERAL, BPS & SHRI GOPAL MISHRA , GENL SECY,JCM; WE all shall await the outcome before 17 FEB 2015. VERY ENCOURAGING POSITIVE NEWS: EXACTLY ON THE LINES WITH THE GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT I LODGED WITHE HON PM "IN THE INTERACT WITH HON PM" PORTAL ON 30 JAN 2015 WHICH IS REPRODUCED: --------- " MY GRIEVANCE LODGED WITH HON. PM (PMOPG/W/2015/0029194 DT 21 1 2015) WAS ABOUT UNFAIR COMPULSIVE LITIGATION PRACTICE ADOPTED BY NEXUS OF DP&PW/ DOE/DOLA TO DELAY JUSTICE TO SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS EVEN AFTER THE UOI’S CURATIVE PETITION 126/2014 WAS DISMIISED BY HSC ON 30 4 2014. IT COVERS ALL THE 3 SLPS (36148-50) NOW BEING REFERRED BY DP&PW FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING TRIBUNAL ORDERS FOR ALL PRE2006PENSIONERS, EXPOSING THEIR GUILT. DP&PW MUST WITHDRAW 3SLPS& IMPLEMENT COURT ORDERS." ------ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: "Thank You for writing to the Hon’ble Prime Minister." I and many pre 2006 aggrieved segments of pensioners can be saved from continuing litigations if the GOI issues orders soon to make the OM 28 Jan 2013 to be effective from 1 1 2006 instead of 24 Sept 2012 and order payment of arrears suitably..BY SUCH AN ACTION, GOVT CAN ALSO SAVE LOT OF COURT TIME/ LITIGATION EXPENSES. Already the undisbursed componenet of the "administrative /legally due srrears amount over the priod of 6 3/4 yrs" has doubled by way of interest due and Govt has nothing to lose. IN FACT THEY SHALL GAIN BACK SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT THRU INCOME TAX........

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 05-02-2015 at 12:59 AM.

  9. #1509
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    CGSAGPA's case:

    MA 2381/2014 filed by UOI on implementation time-frame scheduled for today viz 6 2 2015 is now posted to 2 3 2015 along wilh all other new MAs filed by the NEWLITIGANTS if the pre 2006 pensioners.

    vnatarajan

  10. #1510
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    STATUS OF 3 SLPs CITED AS EXCUSE FOR NOT GRANTING REVISED PENSION WEF 1 1 2006 TO ALL PRE 2006 PENSIOERS- issue raised before Hon MoS for PENSIONs etc in the 26 SCOVA DEAR SHRI SCM JI/ OTHERS INTERESTED,

    CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ASSURANCE GIVEN BY THE HON MoS, IN THE RECENT SCOVA MEET OF 3 FEB 2015,SO FAR THERE APPEARS TO BE NO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY THE UOI/DOP ,WRT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SISTER GR SLPs WHICH ARE BEING CITED AS IMPEDIMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTEATION PB CAT J/MENT IN OA655/2010 DT 1 11 2011.

    IN THE ADV. CAUSELIST FOR 17 FEB 2015 OF HSC, THE CASES ARE LISTED ALMOST AT THE END OF THIS ADV .LIST, SL NO 146 , ONE BEFORE THE LAST, AS USUAL.

    EXACT SITUATION WILL BE KNOWN A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO 17 FEB 2015 WHEN FINAL LISTS ARE PUT UP COURTWISE/BENCHWISE . HOWEVER SL NO 146 MAY MEAN VERY LOW PRIORITY. THE CASES MAY OR MAY NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF THE DAY.

    SOLICIT ACTION BY BPS/ SCOVA/ JCM DEEM FIT TO REMIND THE DOP/ JCM etc FOR REMINDING THE HON MOS FOR HIS INTERVENTION AS ER SCOVA ASSURANCE. WARM REGARDS.

    VN
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    NMD ADVANCE LIST - AL/30/2015

    TUESDAY 17TH FEBRUARY 2015

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 59

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (INCLUDING FRESH MATTERS)

    TO BE LISTED ON TUESDAY 17TH FEBRUARY 2015
    NMD ADVANCE LIST - AL/30/2015 - (CASE TYPE WISE)


    148. C.A. NO. 8875-8876/2011
    XVII A/N-O
    8TH LISTING
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
    VS.
    VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
    (WITH OFFICE REPORT)
    (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
    MRS. ANIL KATIYAR
    GP. CAPT. KARAN SINGH
    BHATI
    MS. AISHWARYA BHATI

    WITH
    ..........
    ........

    SLP(C) NO. 34799/2013
    XIV A/N-O
    AMARENDRA NATH MISRA & ORS
    VS.
    U.O.I & ORS
    MR. LAKSHMI RAMAN
    SINGH
    MRS. ANIL KATIYAR


    SLP(C) NO. 36148-36150/2013
    XIV A/N
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
    VS.
    D.L. VHORA & ORS.
    (WITH OFFICE REPORT)
    MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
    MR. LAKSHMI RAMAN
    SINGH
    RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON
    MR. MUKESH JAIN
    MR. ROHIT KUMAR SINGH
    MS. ASHA JAIN MADAN
    M/S. PAREKH & CO.
    RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON

    THE ABOVE ARE LSITED WITH A NO of CAs / CADs AND FEW MORE SLPs , IN ALL NOW 53.
    .
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-02-2015 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Editorial

  11. #1511
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post

    STATUS OF 3 SLPs CITED AS EXCUSE FOR NOT GRANTING REVISED PENSION WEF 1 1 2006 TO ALL PRE 2006 PENSIOERS- issue raised before Hon MoS for PENSIONs etc in the 26 SCOVA
    .
    `FINALITY IN LAW is the concept that certain disputes must achieve a resolution from which no further appeal may be taken, and from which no collateral proceedings may be permitted to disturb that resolution. The importance of finality is the source of the concept of res judicata - that the decisions of one court are settled law, and may not be retried in another case brought in a different court.[3]' (Wikipedia)

    In the case of OA 655/2010 the said OA has been allowed by Hon. CAT PR Bench, vide Judgment dated 1.11.2011, Writ Petition filed before Hon. HC, Delhi, Review Petition and Curative Petition filed before the HSC were also dismissed.

    As per the Legal Advice dated 8.5.2014 by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, which stated that `having exhausted all possible available remedies, the Govt. is left with no other alternative but to implement the Order (1.11.2011) passed by the Hon. CAT which has been upheld by the Highest Court of Land',

    The Hon. CAT's decision dated 1.11.2011 applies to 4 OAs including OA 655/2010 and as such, it is a common decision as far as all the 4 OAs are concerned. The Hon. HC Delhi dismissed the 4 Writ Petition in all the above 4 OAs, duly upholding the Hon. CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011.

    The SLP No.23055/2013 filed in respect of one out of 4 OAs, ie. OA 655/2010 was dismissed by the HSC on 29.7.2013. Subsequently the Review Petition in OA 655/2010 filed by DOP&PW was also dismissed, followed by dismissal of Curative Petition filed by DOP&PW in OA 655/2010 on 30.4.2014 by the HSC.

    Meanwhile, SLP Nos.36148-50/2013 in respect of remaining 3 OAs were filed by DOP&PW in September/October 2013.

    The Hon. CAT PR Bench, during the hearing in CP 158/2012 (OA 655/2010) vide Para Order (Oral) on 15.5.2014 observed as follows:

    "........We are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months".


    The Pensioners' Community's prayer of date is - implementation of the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously for all pre-2006 pensioners including those retired with less than 33 years qualifying service, viz. by re-fixing pension of all pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the resolution dated 29.8.2008.


  12. #1512
    Administrator gconnect has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    56

    Default

    GConnect has come up with an online tool to estimate 7th Pay Commission Pension - Check the following link

    http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-bri...alculator.html

    Pl. check this tool and provide your valuable suggestions

  13. #1513
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear GCONNECT ADMINISTRATOR/ EXECUTIVES,

    EXTREMELY NICE OF YOU TO HAVE INITIATED A DISCUSSION/ GENRATED A WORKING TABLE FOR ARRIVING AT A GOOD TOOL WHICH CAN BE READILY AVAILABLE THE MOMENT THE 7 CPC RECOS/ GOVT DECISION/ IMPLEMENTATIO ORDERS COME OUT.

    I HAVE NOTED THAT YOUR "FORMULATION FOR PENSION" DEFINES THE THERSH-HOLD LEVEL - WHICH IS THE 4.1 PARA FORMULATION AND THIS IS BEING EXTENDED TO DEFINE THE "MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" ETC FOR REAPECTIVE MINIMUMS WRT TO MIN. PAY IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES/ PAY BAND.

    IN THIS FORMULATION , THERE IS AN OMISSION, WHICH MAY LEAD TO MAJOR ANOMALIES, AND SUBSEQUENTLY LITIGATIONS.

    FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE SAG/ S29 LEVEL, THERE ARE PRE 2016 PENSIONERS , WHO HAVE RETIRED IN POST 2006 TIMES ( say in 2011) - AND SOME OF THEM HAVE CROSSED RS 36350 AS BASIC PENSION ALREADY (I have PPO of one already). SOME MORE ARE LIKELY TO REACH THE TOP OF THE PAY BAND VIZ 67000 PLUS GP 10000 AND HENCE WHEN THEY RETIRE BEFORE 2016 ,THEY WILL DRAW 50% OF SUM OF 67000 AND 10000 GP AND THE DR OF SAY 120% . In short, their total PENSION will be Rs 84700 pm even prior to 1 1 2016.

    SAME ANOLOGY MAY HOLD GOOD FOR OTHER LOWER GRADES IN THE PAY BANDS. I HAVE A CASE OF ANOTHER S26 PENSIONER WHO HAS CROSSED 33000 BASIC PENSION ALREADY . AND HIS PENSION JUST PRIOR TO 1 1 2016 SHALL BE 72600 PM.

    THUS FOR EVERY GRADE IN EACH PAY BAND , THE TOP MOST POSSIBLE PENSION THAT COULD BE DRAWN JUST BEFORE 1 1 2016 ARE TO BE WORKED OUT AND THEY SHALL FORM THE "MINIMUM ELIGIBLE GUARANTEED PENSION" FOR EACH OF THEM WEF 1 1 2016 .

    One more column must be introduced to INDICATE THESE POSSIBLE PRE 2016 PENSION amounts ACCRUABLE/ ALREADY ACCRUED IN SOME CASES. EXPERTS LIKE MR SUNDARAR CAN WORK OUT THESE FIGURES AND PROVIDE.

    FAILING WHICH, ANOMALIES WILL CROP UP AND LITIGATIONS WILL FOLLOW.

    (My personal views)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 19-02-2015 at 08:43 PM.

  14. #1514
    Administrator gconnect has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners w.e.f 1st Jan 2006 as per revised concordance Table – Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed all appeals filed by Govt.

    http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-bri...urt-order.html

  15. #1515
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Kudos to Sri VNji

    Respected VNji, Kudos to you and your team on the fructification of efforts put in to get justice to pre-2006 pensioners(with the release of OM dated 30.07.2015).
    Managoli

  16. #1516
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Cool

    EPILOGUE FOR PART 1 - PREFACE FOR PART II

    DEAR GCONNECT ADMIN/ MR TYMANAGOLI & ALL AGGRIEVED SEGMENTS OF THE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS WHO HAVE RECEIVED JUSTICE NOW,

    MY HEARTY THANKS FOR BEING WITH ME/ MY CO-CRASADERS MANY OF WHOM U KNOW VERY WELL (INSIDE & OUTSIDE GCONNECT FORUMS ) RIGHT THROUGH ALL THESE LONG YEARS SINCE THIS THREAD IN THE FORUM STARTED,

    IT IS A HISTORIC VICTORY IN THE ANNALS OF PENSONERS' JUSTICE ......ULTIMATELY THE TRUTH AND JUSTICE HAD TO PREVAIL.

    I THANK THE VERY SAME BUREAUCRACY FOR ISSUING THE WONDERFUL ORDER OF 30 JULY 2015 -
    NICELY DRAFTED- I HAVE NO PERSONAL COMPLAINTS ON THE SAME-
    WHAT I EXPECTED AT THE MINIMUM, HAD COME OUT......

    INITIALLY I THOUGHT OF A VERY LONG "EPILOGUE" TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS JOURNEY FOR JUSTICE.......

    BUT NOW I AM IN TWO MINDS......

    THIS FORUM HAD BEEN LUCKY FOR ME AND MY FRIENDS.......CO-TRAVELLERS IN THIS JOURNEY...WE HAD WON EVERY CASE ON THIS ISSUE ..SO ALSO THE 20 YR PLUS ISSUE....

    RIGHT NOW , ANOTHER MAJOR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR ME AND MY FRIENDS TO FOCUS UPON......

    SENIOR GRADE PENSIONER CAN NOT DRAW LESSER PENSION THAN JUNIOR/ FEEDER GRADE.......

    MY OWN COPENSIONERS IN THE CG DOMAINS INCLUDING THOSE IN ADMINISTRATION/ BUREAUCRACY ETC .....OLD PRE 2006 AND STILL OLDER RETD PERSONNEL LIKE SECTION OFFICERS/ UNDER SECRETARIES/ DEPUTY SECRETARIES ARE DRAWING MUCH LESSER PENSION THAN THEIR CURRENT LOWER GRADE SUBEQUALS / AND ALSO LOWER PENSION THAN THEIR CURRENT EQUALS......

    WHEREAS THE TOP LEVELS ENJOY THE "OROP" TYPE PENSIONS....

    CAN A RETD HON'BLE SECRETARY/ CAB SECRETARY/ HON CHIEF JUSTICES/ HON JUSTICES / CHIEF'S OF ARMED FORCES...AND THE LIKE....BEING THE SENIORMOTS GRADE PENSIONERS BE ORDERED EVEN BY "MISTAKE" TO ACCEPT THE PENSION OF THEIR "LOWER/ FEEDER GRADE SUBEQUAL'S" PENSION.....? IMPOSSIBLE.....CAN NOT IMAGINE OR DREAM OF....

    WHY THEN FOR EXAMPLE SHOULD AN OLD SENIOR GRADE RETD SAG/ S29 PENSIONER DRAW "MUCH MUCH LOWER PENSION" THAN HIS "LOWER / FEEDER GRADE S24'S PENSION"...?

    I MUST APOLOGISE FOR THE QUERY....
    BUT I HAVE TO PUT IT FORTH BEFORE ALL CONCERNED SO THAT 7 CPC LOOKS INTO THIS TYPE OF HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION....

    WITH RECENT LANDMARK POWERFUL UNAMBIGUOUS TRIPLE BENCH PATNA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN CWJC 10757/ 2010 DT 18 O5 2015 ENERGISING THIS ISSUE - DRAWING THE INSPIRATION ON THE "PRINCIPLE OF LAW" THAT SENIOR GRADE PENSIONER CAN NOT GET LESSER PENSION THAN HIS FEEDER GRADE/ LOWER GRADE SUBEQUALS i.e.A MAJOR GENERAL CAN NOT GET LESSER PENSION THAN THE MAXIMUM PENSION OF A BRIGADIER , JUDGED BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HC IN SPS VAINS CASE WAY BACK IN 2005 OR SO AND THIS IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE HSC WHEN IT DISMISSED THE UOI"S SLP AGAINST THE ABOVE HC VERDICT IN EARLY SEPT 2008 , WITH A UPSCALE MODIFICATION ICATION OF THE VERDICT TO ENSURE AT THE SAME TIME THAT SUCH MAJ GENERAL'S PENSION HAS TO BE SAME AS THAT OF ANOTHER MAJ. GENERAL AT ALL TIMES ( EQUAL PENSION FOR EQUALS ON EITHER SIDE OF REVISION IN ESSENCE- APART FROM THE SAME BEING ABOVE THE JR/ FEEDER GRADE SUBEQUALS) BASED ON "PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY" ARTICLE 14.......

    AM I WRONG?

    EPILOGUE FOR THE THREAD HAS BECOME SHORT......

    BUT THIS IS MY PREFACE FOR THE NEXT JOURNEY WITH THE SAME TITLE ---PART TWO ....INJUSTICE CONTINUES...NEEDS TO BE SETTLED URGENTLY ...BEFORE 7 CPC....

    MY MESSAGE IS CLEAR....THIS TIME I AM WITH ALL LEVELS OF RETD CG PERSONNEL INCLUDING THOSE SUFFERERS WHO BELONGED TO ADMINISTRATION BUREAUCRACY WHO ARE BEING DENIED THE "SPS VAINS PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF PRECEDENCE OF SENIORITY/ EQUALITY" ......AND ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED INJUSTICE DUE TO REDUCED PENSIONS.....LOWER MFs...all these years must seek justice........

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 02-08-2015 at 09:34 AM. Reason: corrections ; editorial

  17. #1517
    Junior Member esveepee is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Great. And grateful thanks to VNji and others who led from the front and had the perseverance to follow through to completion. Good luck. Sincerely.

  18. #1518
    Junior Member kvn is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by esveepee View Post
    Great. And grateful thanks to VNji and others who led from the front and had the perseverance to follow through to completion. Good luck. Sincerely.
    My profound thanks to the great COUNSEL< VNj and team for benevolent striving up lift the millions of innocent
    pensioners and Family pensioners for years together. Taking my heart I salute Thee. May god bless You all..KVN

  19. #1519
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default


    Thanks Sirs,
    LAW SHALL HAVE TO BE ONE AND THE SAME FOR ALL.
    RULES ARE FOR FOOLS in (LIGHTER SENSE...)AND THAT IS HOW OLD PENSIONERS WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO INFINITE HARASSMENT....

    EVEN NOW HARASSMENT CONTINUES....

    FULL PARITY? or FOOL PARITY.../

    HIGHER GR MUST GET HIGHER PENSION THAN FEEDER GRADE (eg SAG VS JAG where there are no overlaps and length of total service is same or more by SAG retiree!)

    PAY PARITY SCHEME IN NFU MODE - WHY PRE 2006 RETIREES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE?
    DATUM 1 1 2006 HAS NO NEXUS TO THE OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED (BENEFIT OF PAY & PENSION) AS IT IS BEING USED TO DISCRIMINATE PRE 2006 PENSIONERS TO BE DENIED FOR THE PENSION PARITY BENEFIT WHEREAS POST 2006 RETREES ARE BEING CALLED TO THE FRONT TO BE GRANTED WITH A HIGHER REPLACEMENT SCALE / PAY & PENSION BENEFIT RIGHT FROM 1 1 2006 ONWARDS AS I CAN MAKE OUT....

    AND PENSION AUTHORITIES ARE silent....? .....

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 05-08-2015 at 07:39 AM.

  20. #1520
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default



    DEAR CONCERNED,

    SOME SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' SUFFERED THE MOST "HOSTILE DICRIMINATION" EVEN AT "MINIMUM PARITY LEVELS" AND THE ROOT CAUSE FOR SUCHA "HOSTILITY" IS YET TO EMERGE.

    PATNA HC IS THE ONE WHERE THE HON JUSTICES HAVE APPROPRIATELY DESCRIBED SUCH RECKLESS OUTCOMES OF ADMINISTRATIVE BUNGLINGS AS "HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION" IN THE RECENT VERDICT OF CWJC 10757 OF 201 DT 18 MAY 2015-A LANDMARK JUDGMENT WTH WHICH I HAD STRTED THE "PROLOGUE" FOR THIS HIGH GRADE PENSION VS LOW GRADE PENSION.....

    PRE 2006 S29 MILITARY AND CIVIL PENSIONERS ARE THE WORST SUFFERERS OF THE SAID "HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION" AND TAGGED TO THEM WERE SEVERAL "INNOCENT AND IGNORANT" SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN THE OTHER SCALES , SUFFERING REDUCED PENSIONS FROM 198 PM TO 3650 (S29)....

    I DO NOT PROPOSE TO END MY CAMPAIGN SO EASILY ....

    LET ME CLARIFY FIRST TO ALL CONERNED AND INTERESTED WHAT THIS LANDMARK JUDGMENT MEANS:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PATNA HC JUDGMENT IN CWJC 10757/2010 ST 18 05 2015 MMP SINHA VS UOI

    MY QUERIES AND MY ANSWERS AS I UNDERSTAND THE JUDGMENT:

    WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT POINTS EMERGING FROM PATNA HIGH COURT JUDGMENTIN CWJC 10757/2010 DT 18 MAY 2010 MMP SINHA VS UOI?

    1. Is relief applicable to all SIMILARLY STANCED PRE 2006 PENSIONERS as if it isa judgment in REM?
    No, Relief is given only for PETITIONER though law laid down is of wider significance for similar justice.

    2.What is th status now?
    Time-frame of 90 days expires on 17 Aug 2015.
    As per RTI reply recd by VN , DPPW has advised Rly Board to appeal in HSC through SLP, after consulting the DOE and DOLA.

    2. What were the issue dealt and outcome in general terms? (p.1 )
    a. Person retiring from a higher grade can NOT receive pension lss ethan a person retiring in the lower grade.
    b. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others since reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125, the pension of the person in the higher grade would have to be stepped up accordingly.

    3.What was the main argument out forth by SINHA?

    Petitioner’s notional pay was fixed at the minimum of HAG (S-30) being 67,000 without Grade Pay;his pension was then fixed at 50% thereof being 33,500. On the other side, a person in (SAG) Grade S-29, which is an inferior and feeder grade for S-30, the Pay Band is 37,400-67,000 but there is a Grade Pay entitlement of Rs. 10000/-. Accordingly, the maximum pension that can be paid in Grade S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- and half of it (50%) would be Rs. 38,500/-.

    4.How did HC react?

    Thus, seen on the face of it, a person retiring in Grade S-29 at the maximum scale would get not only higher remuneration but consequently, higher pension than Grade S-30, for which it was feeder post both in terms of remuneration and pension. This is hostile discrimination, arbitrary and improper.
    In brief, junior cannot get higher remuneration or pension than a senior.


    5. What was the “theoretical” objection out forth earlier by Govt. and Railways and contradicted by SINHA ?

    a. Junior s29 can not get higher remuneration than Senior S30 was the objection.

    b. To CONTRADICT OBJECTION,SINHA filed sup. affidavit , giving facts and figures of at least three officers of the Railways, who have retired on different dates in the Senior Administrative Grade with Grade Pay in the scale of S-29 as against the petitioner, who was in the Higher Administrative Grade. They are receiving pension between Rs. 35690/- and Rs. 36640/-. Even though he is of Higher Administrative Grade, his pension is fixed at maximum of Rs. 33500/-.

    c. He has given names of at least eight other persons , who again would be retiring from Senior Administrative Grade in near future and their pension would ordinarily be at Rs. 38500/- as against the petitioner of Rs. 33500/-.

    d. Petitioner, thus, in theory and practical, has shown the discrepancy i.e. capable of happening and also happening. In fact, he submits that this is a clear case of impermissible discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.


    6. WAS THERE ANY COUNTER IN DEFENCE AND WHAT REASONS WERE GIVEN IN DEFENCE BY THE GOVT?

    (There was no counter to SINHA’S SUBMISSION ON THE ABOVE FACTS).

    Their only defence is that petitioner had retired prior to 2006 whereas the cases illustrated by him, are cases of persons, who retired after 01.01.2006 or are yet to retire. This, accordingly, is reasonable classification for lower pension in the higher Grade.

    In other words, the only explanation given is retirement at different times

    but there is no explanation as to why a person of a higher grade will get pension less than of a junior grade.

    7. What is the dichotomy observed by HC?

    SINHA brought to HC notice to a very unhappy situation : The maximum pay, as noticed above, of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- A person, who is in S-29 reaching the maximum level is then promoted to Higher Administrative Grade from Senior Administrative Grade. In S-30, there being no Grade Pay, he would come to the basic pay of that grade i.e. 67000/-.

    Effectively, his remuneration upon promotion would stand reduced by Rs. 10000/- and in such an event, he would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof, the result would be quite ridiculous.

    8. If there is no such pay protection, what happens?

    He would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof), the result would be quite ridiculous. It is direct consequence of this that there is anomaly in pension.

    9. What was the defence of the Govt. on this anomaly?

    Respondents’ only defence is that this anomaly is inherent in the system and inherent in the pay and pay structure as fixed with effect from 01.01.2006.

    10. What did HC observe on the above DEFENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS wrt the anomaly?

    a.The question is whether inherent, apparent or latent discrimination is permissible. In our view, the short answer is that it cannot ever be permissible.

    b.A person in the Higher Administrative Grade cannot draw less remuneration or less pension than a person of the Senior Administrative Grade which grade is the Feeder Grade for the Higher Administrative Grade. This is exactly what is happening in the present case.

    c.This is exactly what has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others (Supra).

    d.There it was noticed that the Brigadier in the Army was receiving higher pension than the Major General.

    e.Brigadier, is the Feeder post for Major General.

    f. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the only way out for the Central Government was to step up the pension of Major General so that this discrimination of junior getting higher pension than a Senior is removed.


    11. WERE THE GOVT/ ITS COUNSEL ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE ABOVE APEX COURT JUDGMENT? WHAT ARE THE REMARKS OF THE PATNA HC?

    a.Neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor the counsel for the Indian Railways is able to distinguish the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

    b.Apart from saying that the said decision was based on pay basic scale, service conditions of defence services which are different from other civil services, there was no other distinction.

    c.It is the principle of law decided that is to be considered.

    d.The principle of law, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is plain and simple; that a senior officer cannot get pension less than his junior.

    e. If that be, the effect of pay fixation than the pension would have to be stepped up to avoid such hostile discrimination.

    f.There was no consideration of defence service or any special feature of defence service as distinguishing civil services. The distinction pointed out is illusionary.

    12. WHAT WAS THE ORDER OF THE PATNA HC IN GIST?

    a. The facts not being in dispute, as noted above, and the law not being in disputed, as noted above, the result is that the writ petition must succeed and

    b.the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has to be set aside.

    c.It has to be held that the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 has to be stepped up to Rs. 38,500/- to avoid discrimination.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    V NATARAJAN
    07- 09 08 2015

+ Reply to Thread
Page 76 of 77 FirstFirst ... 26 66 74 75 76 77 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