+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: What is Minimum Pay in the Pay Band?

  1. #1
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Thumbs up What is Minimum Pay in the Pay Band?

    Dear Sirs, Kindly excuse me for any inconvenience in reading this submission for your valuable opinion and analysis please.

    The CCS(RP) Rule No.13 indicates that:-
    One increment equal to 3% of the sum of pay in the PB and the existing GP will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10. This will be added to existing pay in PB. However, if the pay in the PB after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the higher PB to which promotion is taking place, pay in the PB will be stepped to such minimum.

    Now, the question arises, what is that minimum of the higher PB that has been referred to in the above Rule?
    Answer lies in another question: What is that pay in PB after adding the increment will be lesser than the aforesaid minimum of the higher PB?
    Is there any such Pay in the lower PB from which Promotion is taking place that may require to be stepped to `minimum of the higher PB'? NO.

    For illustration purpose, Scale No.S-1 to S-23 have been taken to analyse the above questions?
    (And in all promotion examples here, it is deemed that the individual was drawing minimum of the pre-promoted post. Even if with minimum, his pay could not be stepped to minimum of PB, then rest can very well be assumed)

    Assuming that the individual was drawing minimum pay in the pre-revised scale and with the corresponding revised pay in PB - If a person with such revised pay in PB gets promoted to another post, whether his pay in PB after adding the increment will be lesser than the minimum of the higher PB. For example, let us take S-6 Scale; The revised pay for the minimum of S-6 pay will be Rs.6060. Whether this pay after adding the increment will become lesser than 5200 at any point of time, (which is supposed to be the minimum of the higher pay band that is carrying higher GP also in this case?). Actually, this pay after adding the increment will be lesser than the minimum pay in the higher pay band, ie. 7440 which is the corresponding revised pay for the minimum pay in the higher pre-revised payscale (S-7) to which promotion is taking place.

    Since it is also indicated that `in cases where promotion involves change in the pay band also, the same methodology will be followed', let us take another example to suit this provision. If a person in S-8 Scale gets promoted to S-9 post, whether any stepping up is required - No. Because, the minimum pay in the higher Pay band itself is 9300(which is also the beginner of the PB and is being contended as minimum of PB). Suppose, if another person gets promoted from S-8 post to S-10 post, then whether his pay will be stepped upto 9300? If so, both will be drawing only 9300? No.
    There must be some purpose for provision of stepping up and that can be realised only through the definition of Pay in the Pay Band - Pay drawn in running pay band.

    Scale No. Pay PB Pay in PB GP
    S-1 2550 5200-20200 5200 1800
    S-2 2610 5200 1800
    S-3 2650 5360 1800
    S-4 2750 5530 1800
    S-5 3050 5880 1900
    S-6 3200 6060 2000
    S-7 4000 7440 2400
    S-8 4500 8370 2800
    S-9 5000 9300-34800 9300 4200
    S-10 5500 10230 4200
    S-11 6500 12090 4200
    S-12 6500 12090 4200
    S-13 7450 13860 4600
    S-14 7500 13950 4800
    S-15 8000 14880 5400
    NEWGR.A 8000 15600-39100 15600 5400
    S-16 9000 16740 5400
    S-17 9000 16740 5400
    S-18 10325 19210 6600
    S-19 10000 18600 6600
    S-20 10650 19810 6600
    S-21 12000 22320 7600
    S-22 12750 23720 7600
    S-23 12000 22320 7600

    If we look at another angle, a person on promotion on 1.2.2006 from S-12 to S-15 prior to notification of CCS (RP) Rules, acquired an increase of Rs.2690 (Both pre-revised pay is assumed to be at minimum) whereas after notification, the difference in pre-promoted and promoted Band pay with GP has been Rs.1680/- because the amount 9300 is treated as minimum of the higher pay band and thus no stepping up becomes possible. On the contrary, in the event of treating the Pay in Pay band Rs.14880 minimum of higher pay in the pay band, the difference in amount will be Rs.3690. Now, whether the RP Rules are towards enhancement or otherwise in this case. In my view, it is definitely for enhancement in all respects. The actual amendment required is just to add : MINIMUM PAY IN THE HIGHER PAY BAND as against Minimum of the Higher Pay Band, especially because PAY IN PAY BAND MEANS PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND.
    The above amendment is so required, because it has already been decided vide Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 in determining minimum revised pension as 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GRADE PAY corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It was never spelt out as Minimum of Pay Band in this Para 4.2.

    At the same time, the subsequent O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 has not noted the difference between Minimum of the Pay Band and that of Pay in the Pay Band, and even Banks have already been given incorrect impression about this factor. Keeping the Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and the CCS (RP) Rule 3 (5), as the base dictionary for defining Minimum Pay in the Pay Band, both CCS(RP) Rule 13 as well as the O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 may require suitable amendment to the extent PAY IN THE PAY BAND AS AGAINST MINIMUM OF PAY BAND.

    These are my humble views, and I may be incorrect either totally or partly. I wish myself to stand corrected always. For kind information please.

    Best Regards.

  2. #2
    Member RSundaram is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    48

    Default Minmum of pay band

    My dear Mr. Sundarar
    Thank you very much for your painstaking analysis and interpretation of Minimum in The Pay Band. However, the government may take a view that near parity has been retained in the case of pre 2006 pensioners by factoring in the grade pay of the post from which they retired. Your analysis will apply only in the case of post 2006 retirees. However, in any case they get 50% of the last pay drawn. I am not throwing cold water but I feel sincerely that there is a long fight ahead for pre 2006 pensioners to get parity restored even to the extent the implementation of the Vth Pay Commission achieved.
    love
    R.Sundaram

  3. #3
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Wink Band Pay = Pay in the Pay Band

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you very much for your kind observations. On seeing your message, I have once again gone through CCS(RP) Rules, 2008.

    The stepping up appears to have been applicable only in cases where promotion involves change in Pay Band, where the same methodology as in the case of promotion from one GP to another in the revised pay structure, will be followed..

    By applying the aforesaid yardstick, in the case of persons drawing Rs.6060, Rs.7440, and Rs.8370 (Pay Band 5200-20200) on 1.1.2006 and if promoted to another Pay Band (9300-34800), whether all their pay will be equally stepped upto 9300?

    My attempt is to establish that Minimum Band Pay (and not minimum of Pay Band) only has relevance while fixing pay on promotion, and while determining the minimum pension that has to be ensured in accordance with Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. The Minimum Band Pay is nothing but the Minimum Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to the Minimum Pay in the pre-revised scale. Thus, such Minimum Band Pay/Minimum Pay in the Pay Band that is applicable for a post to which either promoted or a post from which a person is retired, only to be seen for stepping up in the case of promotees as well as determining 50% of Minimum Band Pay/Minimum Pay in the Pay Band of the corresponding post from which the retirement took place in the case of retirees.

    The Minimum Pay in the Pay Band as per Fitment Table (corresponding to the pre-revised scale to which promotion has been taking place or the retirement has been taking taking place till date of Notification), cannot be ignored for determining fixation of pay on promotion by stepping up or minimum revised pension that should be determined. In respect of post-notification period, the posts and corresponding Pay Bands have to be clearly defined so as to decide what is the next higher grade for a particular grade, etc. We cannot avoid Fitment Table as a base reference with regard to MINIMUM OF PAY BAND at least till 30.8.2008.

    I am fully agreeing with your message. But I am hopeful of some clarification on this entire issue of Min. of PB by the authorities, and hence I am keeping the issue live from my side. Please excuse me for any mistakes.

    Best Regards.

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

    Default

    IS THIS ALSO USEFUL REFRENCE? (I am not an expert on Rules!)

    hi All

    I am posting Mr PKRanganathan's reply in the thread on "Invalid Minimum ........." on similar/ same subject, for info of all!
    -----------
    Dear shri. Sundar,

    Yours is an excellent analysis of the issue of Minimum pay in the pay band Vis-a-vis, minimum of the payband . in summary the position is as under.

    i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding start points within.There were 34 graded pay scales in the 5th CPC era . Under the 6th CPC, related Revised Pay Rules, these have now been accommodated into 4 running pay bands apart from one newly created super time scale and two fixed scale above them. The pay scales grouped into each pay band have appropriate starting points in the pay band with distinct grade pay for each. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) ed 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation and dop & pw OM. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08.



    ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays.


    iii) The modifications notified in the order of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.

    By the foregoing, little is left to doubt that the minimum of the pay band is not and cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band, and for all purposes including pension and family pension of either pre or post 2006, pensioners, this minimum basic pay is the minimum pay in the pay band as notified in the finance ministry orders and confirmed in your first notified OM of 30 Sep 08.

    Your examples under FR22, further reinforce the above correct position and the view all of us hold. I have no doubt that govt will open their eyes and correct their mistakes hopefully without our requirement to knock the doors of the courts of law.

    regards.
    PK Ranganahan.----------------------------------------------------------------------

    vnatarajan (thanks to Mr PKR)

  5. #5
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Draft letter on `minimum' aspects

    Respected Shri PKR and Shri VN,

    I am very much thankful for your kind observations and guidance.
    As desired by the senior members like your goodselves, I submit herewith a draft letter for kind consideration please.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    To November , 2008.

    Shri M.P. Singh,
    Director (PP)
    Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
    Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions
    Loknayak Bhavan,
    NEW DELHI-110 033. TELEFAX: 011-24624802


    Dear Sir,

    On behalf of the Pensioners of the Central Government, we would like to invite your kind attention to the O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW(A).pt. dated 14.10.2008 regarding Revision of Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners/Family Pensioners.

    The col.8 and 9 of Annexure-1 of the aforesaid O.M. indicates about the `sum of minimum of PB + GP/Scales’ in respect of Pensioners and Family Pensioners to determine the minimum revised pension in respect of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the Pensioners had retired.

    While the said Annexure-1 to O.M. dated 14.10.2008 relates to minimum of PB, the O.M. F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW emphasizes about MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GP of the corresponding pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

    It may kindly be noted that the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND to a corresponding pre-revised scale can be none other than the minimum pay in the corresponding RUNNING Pay Band to such pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.

    As each pay band under the 6th CPC is a chain of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/corresponding minimum in the running pay band, the minimum of Pay Band referred to in the Annexure-1 to O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 cannot be construed as the minimum pay in the pay band for the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the Govt. servant had retired and started drawing pension. As such, the contention under Annexure-1 in this regard, actually is not in accordance with Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and therefore, requires to be modified in line with the Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW.

    We therefore request you to look into the matter for appropriate action in this regard.

    Thanking you,

    Yours faithfully,

    ( )
    Copy forwarded
    To
    The Secretary to the Govt. of India,
    Department of Pension & Personnel’s Welfare
    Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt. of India,
    Lok Nayak Bhavan,
    NEW DELHI-110 033. - for kind information and necessary action please.

  6. #6
    Junior Member jprakash is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default what is minimum pay in the pay band?

    Dear sirs:
    Recently the Ministry has sent an OM, which virtually seals the fate of the Pensioners. One can find the full text of this OM " Representations regarding Revision of Pension of pre-2006 pensioners
    (dated 19/03/2010)" on http://pensionersportal.gov.in/.
    In my opinion by interpreting the minimum of pay in the PAY Band
    as the minimum of Pay Band the Government has played a cruel joke on the help less pensioners.
    Perhaps the only course now left is to go to court to get a correct interpretation of the clause 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9. 2008

    Can any one suggest a remedy?

    Sincerely,
    J Prakash

  7. #7
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Minimum Pay in the Pay Band of promoted post's pre-revised scale bottom stage

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    The CCS(RP) Rule No.13 indicates that:-
    One increment equal to 3% of the sum of pay in the PB and the existing GP will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10. This will be added to existing pay in PB. However, if the pay in the PB after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the higher PB to which promotion is taking place, pay in the PB will be stepped to such minimum.

    Now, the question arises, what is that minimum of the higher PB that has been referred to in the above Rule?
    Answer lies in another question: What is that pay in PB after adding the increment will be lesser than the aforesaid minimum of the higher PB?
    Is there any such Pay in the lower PB from which Promotion is taking place that may require to be stepped to `minimum of the higher PB'? NO.

    For illustration purpose, Scale No.S-1 to S-23 have been taken to analyse the above questions?
    (And in all promotion examples here, it is deemed that the individual was drawing minimum of the pre-promoted post. Even if with minimum, his pay could not be stepped to minimum of PB, then rest can very well be assumed)

    Assuming that the individual was drawing minimum pay in the pre-revised scale and with the corresponding revised pay in PB - If a person with such revised pay in PB gets promoted to another post, whether his pay in PB after adding the increment will be lesser than the minimum of the higher PB. For example, let us take S-6 Scale; The revised pay for the minimum of S-6 pay will be Rs.6060. Whether this pay after adding the increment will become lesser than 5200 at any point of time, (which is supposed to be the minimum of the higher pay band that is carrying higher GP also in this case?). Actually, this pay after adding the increment will be lesser than the minimum pay in the higher pay band, ie. 7440 which is the corresponding revised pay for the minimum pay in the higher pre-revised payscale (S-7) to which promotion is taking place.

    Since it is also indicated that `in cases where promotion involves change in the pay band also, the same methodology will be followed', let us take another example to suit this provision. If a person in S-8 Scale gets promoted to S-9 post, whether any stepping up is required - No. Because, the minimum pay in the higher Pay band itself is 9300(which is also the beginner of the PB and is being contended as minimum of PB). Suppose, if another person gets promoted from S-8 post to S-10 post, then whether his pay will be stepped upto 9300? If so, both will be drawing only 9300? No.
    There must be some purpose for provision of stepping up and that can be realised only through the definition of Pay in the Pay Band - Pay drawn in running pay band.

    Scale No. Pay PB Pay in PB GP
    S-1 2550 5200-20200 5200 1800
    S-2 2610 5200 1800
    S-3 2650 5360 1800
    S-4 2750 5530 1800
    S-5 3050 5880 1900
    S-6 3200 6060 2000
    S-7 4000 7440 2400
    S-8 4500 8370 2800
    S-9 5000 9300-34800 9300 4200
    S-10 5500 10230 4200
    S-11 6500 12090 4200
    S-12 6500 12090 4200
    S-13 7450 13860 4600
    S-14 7500 13950 4800
    S-15 8000 14880 5400
    NEWGR.A 8000 15600-39100 15600 5400
    S-16 9000 16740 5400
    S-17 9000 16740 5400
    S-18 10325 19210 6600
    S-19 10000 18600 6600
    S-20 10650 19810 6600
    S-21 12000 22320 7600
    S-22 12750 23720 7600
    S-23 12000 22320 7600

    If we look at another angle, a person on promotion on 1.2.2006 from S-12 to S-15 prior to notification of CCS (RP) Rules, acquired an increase of Rs.2690 (Both pre-revised pay is assumed to be at minimum) whereas after notification, the difference in pre-promoted and promoted Band pay with GP has been Rs.1680/- because the amount 9300 is treated as minimum of the higher pay band and thus no stepping up becomes possible. On the contrary, in the event of treating the Pay in Pay band Rs.14880 minimum of higher pay in the pay band, the difference in amount will be Rs.3690. Now, whether the RP Rules are towards enhancement or otherwise in this case. In my view, it is definitely for enhancement in all respects. The actual amendment required is just to add : MINIMUM PAY IN THE HIGHER PAY BAND as against Minimum of the Higher Pay Band, especially because PAY IN PAY BAND MEANS PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND.
    The above amendment is so required, because it has already been decided vide Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 in determining minimum revised pension as 50% OF MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND + GRADE PAY corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It was never spelt out as Minimum of Pay Band in this Para 4.2.

    At the same time, the subsequent O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 has not noted the difference between Minimum of the Pay Band and that of Pay in the Pay Band, and even Banks have already been given incorrect impression about this factor. Keeping the Para 4.2 of O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 and the CCS (RP) Rule 3 (5), as the base dictionary for defining Minimum Pay in the Pay Band, both CCS(RP) Rule 13 as well as the O.M. dt. 14.10.2008 may require suitable amendment to the extent PAY IN THE PAY BAND AS AGAINST MINIMUM OF PAY BAND.


    Best Regards.
    The PR Bench, CAT New Delhi's Judgment dated 1.11.2011 on the subject available at www.rrewa.org "Current issues" & at URL : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22740206/PCA...010%20s-29.pdf
    may please be referred by serving employees with particular reference to
    CCS (RP) Rule 13 which may require suitable amendment to read as follows:

    "One increment equal to 3% of the sum of pay in the PB and the existing GP will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10. This will be added to existing pay in PB. However, if the pay in the PB after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the pay in the higher PB to which promotion is taking place, pay in the higher PB will be stepped to such minimum"
    in lieu of the existing provision in the light of what has been decided vide the Judgment referred to.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Victor is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Delhi
    Posts
    1,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    The PR Bench, CAT New Delhi's Judgment dated 1.11.2011 on the subject available at www.rrewa.org "Current issues" & at URL : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22740206/PCA...010%20s-29.pdf
    may please be referred by serving employees with particular reference to
    CCS (RP) Rule 13 which may require suitable amendment to read as follows:

    "One increment equal to 3% of the sum of pay in the PB and the existing GP will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10. This will be added to existing pay in PB. However, if the pay in the PB after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the pay in the higher PB to which promotion is taking place, pay in the higher PB will be stepped to such minimum"
    in lieu of the existing provision in the light of what has been decided vide the Judgment referred to.
    My compliments to you for your consistent stand and strong views on "Minimum of pay in the pay band" as against "Minimum of the pay band" which has now been upheld by CAT in the pre-2006 pensioners case. I hope this concept is similarly extended to serving employees which would retify a lot of anomalies.

    Heartiest congratulations to all pre-2006 pensioners.

    Victor

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    My compliments to you for your consistent stand and strong views on "Minimum of pay in the pay band" as against "Minimum of the pay band" which has now been upheld by CAT in the pre-2006 pensioners case. I hope this concept is similarly extended to serving employees which would retify a lot of anomalies.

    Heartiest congratulations to all pre-2006 pensioners.

    Victor
    Thank you very much Shri Victorji for kind greetings and your valuable views. Your instant response gives added strength and support to the Pre-2006 Pensioners Community as a whole. I personally feel that minimum of the pay band has no role to play at all either for serving employees or for the pre-2006/post-2005 pensioners. Even for fixing the pay in the revised structure w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the pay in the pay band necessarily correspond to the pre-revised scale held by the serving employees till 31.12.2005, so the minimum of the said pay in the pay band do require to correspond with the pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement for pre-2006 pensioners.

    Respected Shri VNji has posted the following news item with regard to the instant Judgment of Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi, in the Injustice-thread under Pensioners Forum, which I reproduced
    hereunder, for kind information.

    CAT grants relief to thousands of pre-2006 pensionersSlams babus for apathy and errors
    Vijay Mohan
    Tribune News Service Chandigarh, November 5

    "Coming down heavily on government officials over their apathetic attitude in interpreting rules and directives, the full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has granted relief to central government pensioners who retired before 2006. It has allowed their petition seeking parity of their pension with that of similarly placed employees who retired in 2006 and after.
    Anomalies in pay and pension fixation consequent to implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission had resulted in pre-2006 retirees drawing pension lower than post-2006 retirees. The CAT decision affects thousands of central government employees.
    The CAT has held that the term “minimum of pay in the pay band” would mean minimum of pay corresponding to the scale held at the time of retirement and not minimum of the entire pay band itself as interpreted and implemented by the government through a clarification.
    The Sixth Pay Commission had created four broad pay bands. Each band had, within it, several different scales corresponding to the rank and grade of an individual.
    The trouble had arisen when the pension of the individuals concerned was fixed at the minimum of the entire pay band instead of the minimum of the scale corresponding to his rank.
    “The CAT judgment is on the same lines as the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in the SS Matharu Vs UOI case,” Maj Navdeep Singh, a local lawyer dealing with service matters said. “It would go a long way in bridging the gap between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners,” he added".


    According to me, the para 27 of the aforesaid Judgment, which is reproduced hereunder, assumes much significance with regard to correlation factors for deriving revised pension.

    "27. We also wish to add that the Pay Commissions are concerned with the revision of the pre-revised ıpay scalesı and also that in terms of Rule 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the pension of retirees has to be fixed on the basis of the average emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement. Thus, the pre-revised scale from which a person has retired and the emoluments which he was drawing at the time immediately preceding his retirement are a relevant consideration for the purpose of computing revised pension and cannot be ignored. As such, it was not permissible for the respondents to ignore the pre-revised scale of pay for the purpose of computing revised pension as per the modified parity in the garb of issuing the clarifications, thereby altering the modified parity/formula, which was accepted by the Central Government vide its resolution dated 29.08.2008".

    The case of the pre-2006 pensioners concerned, as such, is for ensuring modified parity in accordance with the accepted recommendation of 6th CPC and notified vide Resolution dated 29.8.2008 towards payment of correct minimum guaranteed revised pension.

    Further, for pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service, in the light of D.S. Nakara spirit, both the qualifying service and the average emoluments are two determinative factors for deriving basic pension on retirement. Since the requirement of qualifying service as well as the average emoluments (now, as we all aware, emoluments or average emoluments whichever is beneficial will constitute basic pension for a person rendered 20 years qualifying service) have since been liberalised from 1.1.2006 for post-2005 pensioners, the pre-2006 pensioners with <33 years service also are
    entitled to draw their basic pension in accordance with the liberalised formula in the revised structure, in view of the well settled position vide D.S.Nakara case Judgment by the HSC. The case of concerned
    pensioners is presently under progress, and soon we can expect the outcome of the same.

    Meanwhile, we are yet to know about the likely date of next meeting of NAC, which is scheduled to meet to decide all pending matters including pension.

    Incidentally, it is expected that executive instructions for implementing the instant verdict may be issued within a three months' period as per the directives of the PR Bench, CAT, New Delhi.

    Let us hope for the best.
    Last edited by sundarar; 06-11-2011 at 02:11 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Ramnath is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    142

    Default We still have time to rejoice???

    Dear Mr.Sundarar, Mr.Victor and other friends,
    I have not fully gone thro the discussions. But, I would like to place my layman view in this regard.
    1) What is not available for existing employees is given for fixation for those who are DR with minimum pay in the pay band which I think has been given Rs.12,390/- or so. Otherwise for 6500 scale to say, it should be uniformly Rs.9300 basic + Rs.4200 only. Only in this Pay Commn, serving employees/existing employees are drawing lesser than new recruits.

    2) And some junior got fixation at a higher level on promotion, because of which others got fixation at equivalent level thro some clarification which appears to be not correct and only added to further confusion. What is not available for senior is made available to them based on the same thing being available to junior. How?

    3) If the Grade pay element was not place, many (whose scale fell short of revised scale) would have got fixation in the minimum of revised pay scale. This has played spoil sport.

    4) Regarding CAT judgment, still the appeal provision whether would be used by Govt or not is to be seen.

    4) NAC - justice delayed is equal to justice denied as nothing is heard of it.

    5) I may be excused as I have not discussed the technical aspects of this in depth but just given a general view. If I am wrong on any point, it may be pointed out here dear boarders. Lets hope for the justice delivery without further loss of time.

    Ramnath

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

    Default Pre-revised scale cannot be ignored

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramnath View Post
    Dear Mr.Sundarar, Mr.Victor and other friends,
    I have not fully gone thro the discussions. But, I would like to place my layman view in this regard.
    1) What is not available for existing employees is given for fixation for those who are DR with minimum pay in the pay band which I think has been given Rs.12,390/- or so. Otherwise for 6500 scale to say, it should be uniformly Rs.9300 basic + Rs.4200 only. Only in this Pay Commn, serving employees/existing employees are drawing lesser than new recruits.

    2) And some junior got fixation at a higher level on promotion, because of which others got fixation at equivalent level thro some clarification which appears to be not correct and only added to further confusion. What is not available for senior is made available to them based on the same thing being available to junior. How?

    3) If the Grade pay element was not place, many (whose scale fell short of revised scale) would have got fixation in the minimum of revised pay scale. This has played spoil sport.

    4) Regarding CAT judgment, still the appeal provision whether would be used by Govt or not is to be seen.

    4) NAC - justice delayed is equal to justice denied as nothing is heard of it.

    5) I may be excused as I have not discussed the technical aspects of this in depth but just given a general view. If I am wrong on any point, it may be pointed out here dear boarders. Lets hope for the justice delivery without further loss of time.

    Ramnath
    Thanks for your kind views. As a pre-2006 pensioner, I would like to submit my views on the above, for the purpose of sharing with your goodself and other Readers.

    (1) The term `Pay in the Pay Band' only has been defined in CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and such a Pay in the Pay Band is derived my applying multiplication factor of 1.86 over pre-revised scale for Scales upto S-23. The term `Pay Band' finds no definition any where. For the present, we can equate with Gr.A, Gr.B...,etc. for understanding purpose and Gr. has no role in fixation of minimum pay as such. In the case of 9300, it is both minimum of the pay band as well as pay in the pay band for the pre-revised scale 5000-150-8000. Hence, in the light of the instant Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi Judgment referred to, wherever on fixation of pay on promotion, if the pay in the pay band so fixed happens to be lesser than minimum of the pay in the pay band (which stand corresponding to minimum of the pre-revised scale), it should be stepped to such minimum as against the existing provisions in the CCS RP Rule 13. In reality, such cases may be very less, but still it upholds the principles and well settled position. With regard to DR, it is for Employer to fix the initial pay for a new recruit based on the terms and conditions of such employment, and we can't have any comments although the promotee and DR of a particular grade pay are going to have same duties and responsibilities. In some cases, the initial pay in the pay band of DR may be less than minimum pay in the pay band of existing employees of the concernd GP, which can very well be checked.

    (2) This particular aspect has been discussed at length in the Forum and final conclusion I am not aware. Mr. Victorji may like to throw light in this regard.

    (3) According to Pay Commission Report, the band pay/grade pay aspects are introduced for removing scale based anomalies, but if still certain anomalies occur,
    appropriate timely action for removing the same is required to be taken.

    (4) Our concern is not the right of a respondent in preferring an appeal, but
    before proceeding with such a right, the settled position needs to be analysed thoroughly, as to whether any scope for appeal for the sake of brining an otherway
    decision. As para 27 of the instant Judgment clearly correlate the basic factors for revised pension, the said basic factors will always remain as it is even at the Appeal stage. If the rendered justice in a speedy manner is also required to be inexpensive,
    particularly when the matter pertains to pensioners, a judicious decision is inevitable for proceeding with further action. Ultimately, in either way, the Govt. will be the winner
    even if they accept the verdict as it is, because the records only get straightened on such implementation so that no further grievance can take place. Actually, grievances shall be addressed with a pro-active approach without consuming valuable time and effort of the Judiciary.

    (5) Awaiting for the date of next Meeting of NAC, as per the SCOVA Minutes

    (6) No regrets please. In one way, such discussions facilitate effective communication with the concerned authorities for better understanding of the issues involved. We are, all through our personal opinions in discussion, keep assisting a participative governance because we got bread and butter through our dedicated service, and hence we stand thankful always to the Mother - the Govt. It is for the Mother to look into why cries are more for further action.

    Thanks again for the opportunity. As our Sr. Veterans used to indicate that today's employees are tomorrow's pensioners. The awareness among pensioners is very vital so that they can assist for participative governance even after retirement, as some of us as pre-2006 pensioners have been doing occasionally through this Discussion Forum and credit goes to the GConnect Admin. for providing us a democratic stage to perform.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Minmum In The Pay Band Or Minimum Of The Pay Band
    By RSundaram in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-10-2010, 05:14 PM
  2. Fixation of pay in pay band PB-2 after 01-01-06
    By Anil in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 11:47 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