+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: full Minimum Revised Pension for 20 years retiree

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

    Angry full Minimum Revised Pension for 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.

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

    Default

    hi all

    Here is what Mr AVMukuntharajan, GS,PF/JS,AIFPA has replied (to Mr Sundararajan).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    dear sir

    what i understand is that the VI CPC orders on 50% of last pay drawn or 10 months average pay is prospective from the date of orders. Supreme court had held that the govt. is right in fixing cut-of-date in the case of pre-96 retirees who wanted the merger of then Dearness Allowance of about 90% or so for DCRG purposes which post 96 retirees got. However Nakara judgement says all revised rules shall be extended to the past pensioners too with prospective effect.
    in the case of DCRG, there is no relevance as the DCRG settlement is already over and is not a continuing benefit like pension.

    i therefore feel tha the minimum pension of all will have to be revised to be effective from 2-9-2008 onwards.

    we are representing the matter to govt. to issue fresh clarification to this effect. if it fails the court is the remedy. the case is very strong to win because the pension is a continuing benefit unlike DCRG, Leave Salary, Commutation

    mukuntharajan

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

    vnatarajan

  3. #3
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Question

    Anything further on this

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

    Default

    hi All

    Mr Naga had set the ball rolling. Mr Sundarar has given a candid review and presenatation. Mr Mukuntharajan has given what a collective effort cd aim at with limtations!I sincerely express their minimum equitable eligibility must NOT be denied!

    What is required is a a common ready rep. wh can be quickly adopted by each and every aggrieved 20 yr retiree and each of them shd reach the altar of our pension gods
    by post/ email.

    No time can be wasted. Somebody may pl take up and mobilise such efforts thru networks/ emails and set the tempo at every locale where 20 yr retirees are present. Awareness and efforts to bring in awareness are important. Pl dont hesitate to take initiative and act; if not approach and get help.

    All associations/ unions/ societies of pensioners must be sensitised to act positively and proactively; I AM DISTRESSED TO NOTE EXCEPT FOR A FEW PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERATIONS,others have been INDIFFERENT to the pensioners' RECENT grievances so far! ARE THEY NOT AWARE or SERIOUS about the issues in sight?

    Current employees = Future pensioners (till 2067) and so th e former must help (pensiners ) and make strong foundations for their own post-retirement benefits and not play "same side goal" game at least! Suggestions and Corrections are welcome to boost up the helpless pensioners who have no access to the establishments once they retire. BANKS/ POs are useless in this regard!

    (Precedences like allowing erosion or dilution of equal parity or equality among the same class/ rank of pensioners must not be allowed in any manner- whether it is 20 yr retiree or full-service retiree!

    Cheers,

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 12-11-2008 at 08:22 AM.

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

    Default

    hi All

    Attention is drawn to the latest letter/ representation addressed by the RREWA on 8th Nov 2008 to the Secy. Min of P,PG & Ps which is an exhaustive presentation covering the pre 2006 and the trisanku post 2006 category of pensioners (some reference of 20 yr retiree is also there! I am not that expert to comment if it covers somewhat ur issue- may not) and I feel personnelly obliged to Shri Maheshwari, Gen Sec,RREWA for his deep involvement.
    He has also mentioned about all other pensioners apart from the Railway Pensioners.

    Pl visit www.rrewa.org for details.

    vnatarajan

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

    Thumbs up Full Pension for 20 years retiree (PRE-2006& PRE-2.9.2008)

    Dear Sirs,

    The website of rrewa is visited and after going through the various representations of the individual pensioners as well as the Association with regard to the subject matter, the following points are observed therefrom:

    1. No conditions have been attached to the acceptance of the dispensation of linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service vide the Gazette Notification dated 29.8.2008 in respect of Pensioners.

    2. The acceptance of recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service with prospective effect for all Govt. employees, is a case of dividing pensioners into group with a cut off date and creating wide disparity between the groups while fixing their revised pension (Here, as pointed out earlier by Shri AVM, 50% of last pay drawn or 10 months average pay may be prospective).

    3. Deprival of due and justified amount of Revised Pension has already created gloom as well as resentment amongst the Pre-2006 and pre-2.9.2008 (with 20 years qualifying service) retirees.

    4. The Constitution Bench of Hon. Supreme Court of India held that division among pensioners for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter, being both arbitrary and principled the classification did not stand the test of Article 14.
    (D.S. Nakra & others vs Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305).

    5. The VI CPC in Para 5.1.47 of its Report has said that "in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Govt. employees", and concluded the para by recommending "The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table"

    The Govt. accepted this without any objection.

    6. In one single voice, each and every aggrieved pensioner whether pre-2006 or pre-2.9.2008, ultimately urges for parity between the pensioners as a whole, duly honouring the Decision of the Hon. Supreme Court as held in the case referred to, in all respects.

    Thus, the ball is now in the DoP&PW's Court.

    Best Regards.
    Last edited by sundarar; 12-11-2008 at 10:57 PM.

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

    Default

    hi All/Mr Sundarar

    Excellent summarising of all the relevant issues and points in relation to pension grievances of pre 1.1. & 2.9. 2008 pensioners.

    I am not that expert to review the tech details. All knowledgeable persons (pensioners/ others-including would be 20 yr retirees etc.) must examine for any additions of details.

    Once individuals/ groups are satisfied with the exercise, they can go ahead with appeals/ reps. without much waste of time.

    Thanks to Sundarar again

    vnatarajan.

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

    Red face

    Any draft appeal format available on this issue.
    I find RREWA is appealing for only 1-1-06 to 2-9-08 retirees in their 8th Nov letter. ( "We object to a 3rd category of pensioners" implying 2 categories pre 2006 - post 2006 is ok).
    Any comments on this

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

    Default

    Request:

    I suggest- Mr PKR/ MR AVM / Mr Sundarar may perhaps attempt to help depending on their preoccupations! - with a service motive to help others-Pl help each other with your own email network!

    Mr Naga himself can also try!

    vnatarajan

  10. #10
    Member kkhameedkutty is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Thiruvananthapuram
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Dear All,

    Govt. employees having 20 years service retired between 1-1-2006 and 2-9-2008 are getting Pension as per old pension rules and other pensionery benefits like gratuity, leave surrender and commutation of pension as per new pension rules. More over these pensioners were paid salary arrears as per revised rules. When salary is paid on revised rules as per 6th CPC, it is not understood how pension can be paid as per old rules. That means 3 different rules (on effective date of 6th CPC benefits) are applied to this category of pensioners for the payment of salary, pension and other retirement benefits respectively.

    It is injustice and has to be represented together by all affected.

    What 6th CPC recommended is to pay full pension to all government employees having 20 years of service prospectively, (means from 2-9-2008) without considering number of years of service (6.5.3) and pension in no case shall be less than 50% of sum of the minimum of pay band + grade pay in the revised scale corresponding to old scale in which govt. employee retired (5.1.47). However, since post 1-1-2006 pensioners were drawing salary even after 1-1-2006 in revised pay scale, their pension has to be in any case calculated based on pay drawn on revised pay scale + grade pay at the time of their retirement.

    The meaning of "all government employees" is very clear in Clause 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of 6th CPC report. "All Government Employees" means "all the present and former government employees who joined government service before 1-1-2004".Pay commission has not said that payment of full pension is applicable only to future pensioners or Present Government Employees after the acceptance of 6th CPC report by government.

    This is what was accepted by government through gazette notification. But, when, Dept. of Finance issued orders, they added conditions (reduction of pension on pro-rata basis based on number of years of service to all pre-2-9-2008 pensioners - which creates wide disparity between Post 2-9-2008 and Pre-2-9-2008 pensioners) and that is totally against the spirit of "FAIR DEAL APPROACH FOLLOWED BY 6th CPC TO BENEFIT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS EQUALLY TO ALL PENSIONERS BASED ON SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON NAKRA CASE " and Gazette Notification.

    Let us all together represent with one voice and one team for justice to all pensioners who have retired after 20 years service in government.



    This is not at all against any group or any pensioner, but different approach followed in making rules!! Refer to Clause No. 5.3 of OM dated 2-9-2008 for Post 1-1-2006 pensioners regarding payment of full pension (50%) to those post 2-9-2008 pensioners who are retiring on superannuation after completing 10 years of service. There is no such recommendation neither on 6th CPC report nor on Gazette Notification. It is not clear how is it appeared on Government Order. What pay commission recommended and government accepted is that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with and pay full pension to all government employees on completion of 20 years of service. There is no mention about those who are having 10 years of service on superannuation.

    However, we have to take this as a highly positive ruling and many government employees of old age who joined government service very late are going to get benefitted.

    But, it gives an impression that those who are responsible for drafting and finalising Office Memorandums in government can twist government decisions in their own way to benefit some people as they like and create hardship to some other group. This is not at all a fair deal.
    Last edited by kkhameedkutty; 15-11-2008 at 06:45 PM.

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

    Arrow Grievances of Pre-2006/Pre-Sep.2008 Pensioners

    Dear Sirs,

    A new thread under the topic `Grievances of Pre-2006/Pre-Sep.2008
    Pensioners has been posted by Srivignesh in the Pensioners Forum of the website staffcorner.com

    The same is reproduced below for kind information of all.

    1. The Constitution Bench of Hon. Supreme Court of India held that division among pensioners for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter, being both arbitrary and principled the classification did not stand the test of Article 14.(D.S. Nakra & others vs Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305).


    2. The VI CPC in Para 5.1.47 of its Report has said that "in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Govt. employees", and concluded the para by recommending "The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table" This has been accepted by the Govt. without any objection.

    1. At the outset, as per O.M. dated 2.9.2008 and the latest one dated 14.10.2008, no arrears have been received by many of the pensioners of Govt. of India till date in spite of a time bound programme slated in the latest O.M.

    2. The Pay Commission’s recommendation vide Para 5.1.47 has prescribed minimum revised pension to be not lower than 50% of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the Pre-revised Pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, and Para 4.2 of your O.M. dated 1.9.2008 as well as 3.10.2008 also endorsed the same stipulations for arriving at minimum revised pension.

    Whereas, the illustration and annexure attached to O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 and 17.10.2008 are speaking otherwise, ie. only to the extent of sum of minimum of Pay band+GP/scales.

    Based on the Gazette Notification dated 29.8.2008 relating to Pensioners. In this regard, the following points may be noted.


    1. While, the dispensation of linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service has been accepted in toto, the acceptance of recommendation regarding Payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service with Prospective effect for all Govt. employees, has virtually divided the pensioners into groups with a cut off date and creating wide disparity between the groups while fixing their revised pension. For determining the emoluments, 50% of last pay drawn or 10months average, it could be prospective. But, when the corresponding pre-revised scale is going to determine the corresponding minimum pay in the pay band and GP as applicable for arriving at 50% of its sum as revised pension, the parity with regard to maximum qualifying service for
    entitlement of full revised pension has to be maintained in respect of Pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners.

    2. Similarly, in respect of pensioners who had retired during the period 1.1.2006 and prior to 2.9.2008, a situation has arisen owing to the aforesaid prospective effect that they could not avail neither the VCPC provisions nor VI CPC provisions particularly with regard to maximum qualifying service for full pension and they have been virtually became pre-2006 when they have to be treated as post-2006 but pre-2.9.2008, as one more classified category.

    3. Deprival of due and justified amount of Revised Pension in respect of Pre-2006 and pre-2.9.2008 pensioners has equated with that of a new recruit instead of with that of an existing employee as indicated in col. 8 of Annex. To O.M. dated 14.10.2008. as illustrated hereunder:-


    a) In 4 cases (S9, New, 24, 28) - pension based on 50% of minimum Pay + GP of entry level and that of existing employees (post-2006) is same.

    b) In 15 cases (S6-8, 11-15, 18-23 & 30) - pension based on 50% of minimum Pay + GP of entry level for new recruits, is less than the revised pension of Post-2006 pensioners. According to this, not even one pensioner, who retired from these 15 pre-revised scale of pay on the lowest pay will stand to benefit by the modified parity formula.

    The above interpretation of 50% of minimum pay + GP in respect of entry level pay of a new recruit as pension for the pre-2006 pensioners has deprived most of them the benefit of modified parity as recommended by VI CPC and also accepted by the Cabinet.

    3. Incidentally, there are certain doubts arises in the following areas (shown in bold letters) for want of clarity.

    (a) Modified/Clarified Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 3.10.2008 indicates that
    "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.

    (b) Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 and its modified/clarified version vide O.M. dated 3.10.2008 indicates that "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” (There is no mention about the other one to be calculated as per (ii)}

    (c) Para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 and its modified/clarified version vide O.M. dated 3.10.2008 indicates that "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, while the illustration (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 Rs.23,700 which is equivalent to fifty percent of the sum of minimum of Pay Band+ GP ie. Rs.37,400+10,000=47,400/2) speaks otherwise with its own interpretation as against the accepted recommendation of the Sixth CPC as well as the Department’s Office Memorandums referred to above.

    It may be noted that the MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND to a corresponding pre-revised scale cannot be anything, other than the minimum pay in the corresponding Pay Band to such pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired.This fact is verifiable through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation wrt various grades, within the pay bands, for promotees and direct recruits

    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. It will also 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.The OM therefore, requires to be modified in line with the correct position as reflected in Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW and in accordance with the Ministry of Finanace OMs mentioned above.

    The illustration and the Annexure of the O.M. dated 3.10.2008, and Annexure of the O.M. dated 14.10.2008 therefore, requires to be modified in line with the correct position as reflected in Para 4.2 of the O.M. dt. 1.9.2008 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, DoP&PW and in accordance with the Ministry of Finance OMs mentioned above.

    4. The minimum pension as per minimum of Pay Band formula works out in respect of S-24 & S-25 as 23050; S-26 & S-27 as 23,150; and S-28/S-29 & S-30 as 23700. The corresponding pay in the pre-revised scale of pay when not given weightage in the corresponding pay in the related pay band, the minimum of pay in the pay band has been straightway reduced to minimum of pay band and thereby an amount ranging between 650(upto 3% ie. One increment has been distributed in between these scales as the revised consolidated pensionary benefits, even after applying the 2.26 factor as on 1.1.2006. 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.

    Thus rectifying any ambiguity/ anomoly in time, will help to avoid issuance of multiple PPOs in future. Several Banks, from which Pensioners draw their pensions, have to be guided appropriately by clarifying the matter soon so that the final PPOs to be, issued are correct and and the pension and arrears drawn are justifiable.

    All the pensioners, invariably seek to maintain parity among them as a whole, duly honouring the Decision of the Hon. Supreme Court of India as held in the case referred to, and the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission accepted by the Government especially with regard to the parity aspects.


    Best Regards.

  12. #12
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Smile Uniform treatment for all pensioners of goi.

    Dear Sirs,

    Though the latest O.M. dt. 11.12.2008 has given some relief to pensioners who had completed 33 years and retired during the period
    1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008, the problem still exists. Those who had not
    completed 33 years and retired during the period will continue to receive pro-rata based pension on par with pre-2006 pensioners. Only difference is 50% of last pay drawn in the revised structure will be taken for the purpose of
    determining the basic pension on retirement is applicable for this category but on pro-rata basis depending on their total no. of service completed.

    The persons retiring after 2008 Sep.1, will get full pension based on 50% of last pay drawn even if they completed 20 years service. Coincidentally, today's news is `As per Administrative Reforms Commission Report, further continuance of the employees in Govt. service would depend upon the outcome of the intensive performance reviews". Further the report indicates that for motivating civil servants there was a need to recognise their outstanding work.

    The the question naturally arises as to how the retired pensioners' hard earned pay and the dedicated pensionable service will have a bearing on their present/future pension at all, in recognition of their outstanding work.
    One more point to add here is pre-2006 pensioners had received restricted gratuity of 3.5 lakhs only, whereas post-2008 pensioners can get gratuity upto 10 lakhs. If there is a need to recognise the outstanding work contributed by retired persons with pensionable service is felt by the authorities, keeping in view all the related factors prevalent during the service period of those pensioners whatever period they may belong to,
    they may consider bringing on par all Pensioners under one umbrella, equating the past pensioners with the present day pensioners(who will also be future pensioners), by applying the same yardstick of post-2008 pension calculation
    as a common Revised Pension Rule for Pensioners of any point of time, until further revision in future pay commission era.

    An expert view on this particular aspect will be very helpful. Our respected
    Sr. Members and Organised Bodies may kindly throw light to get
    justice to ensure `Modified Parity among Pensioners as a whole in all respects', which the Hon. Supreme Court also had all along been insisting.

    Hence, our approach may need to get reviewed to ensure Uniform Treatment among all Pensioners of Govt. of India in all respects.

    Best Regards.

  13. #13
    Junior Member kktaneja is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default Full pension after 20 years to all pensioners

    Previous representations on the applicability of 20 year rule for full pension to all pensioners appear to have been summarily disposed off by Dept O.M. dated 11th February, 2009.
    Since the new Govt has taken charge and the budget exercise is on, it is the right time to make a concerted pitch for reconsideration of this aspect by all affected pensioners by addressing simultaneous appeals to PM and FM. Can some member suggest a short draft to be sent at this juncture emphasising the violation of SC's orders on creating classes amongst pensioners and the comparatively minimal financial impact of this step.

  14. #14
    Member kkhameedkutty is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Thiruvananthapuram
    Posts
    37

    Default Full Pension Rejection & Reappeal

    Dear Taneja all other affected,

    I have drafted a representation as given below which can be sent to Anomaly Committe & again to PM & Grievance Cell.

    The statements in OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 12th May 2009 issued by DoP & PW quoting Apex Court Judgment and rejecting all the representations connected with denial of full pension to government employees retired before 2-9-2008 with maximum qualifying service of 20 years required for full pension is 100% wrong and the order is issued without understanding Supreme Court Judgment correctly, because of the following reasons. It is unfortunate that even after several judgements on pension matters stressing equality in computation of pension, order of this kind is issued.

    1. Government employees (appointed & retired) bound by CCS Pension Rules 1972 and retiring / retired with minimum qualifying service for pension (20 years for Retirement Pension & 10 years for Superannuation Pension) and maximum qualifying service for full pension (20 years) form a HOMOGENOUS CLASS in all respect as far as computation of pension is concerned and hence denial of newly introduced BENEFIT of full pension to those employees within the same HOMOGENOUS CLASS who retired before 2-9-2008 by putting a cut off date is totally DISCRIMINATION. This is to be read in conjunction with Apex Court Judgments of 1983 (Nakra Case) which clearly ruled that Pension is not an INCENTIVE, but, paid for PAST SERVICE RENDERED and also another Judgment dated 10-10-2006.

    2. Neither 6th CPC nor the government has introduced any new pension scheme / retirement scheme or withdrawn any existing scheme. The CCS Pension Scheme 1972 is the one existing before & after 6th CPC implementation and that is valid till 31st December 2003. All those who joined government service before 1-1-2004 are bound by CCS Pension Rules 1972. Whatever the changes made vide OM. F No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2-9-2008 are only amendments to the existing scheme as per the following recommendation of 6th CPC. “Para 1.2.15 of 6th CPC Report states "Recommendations have been made to simplify the procedure for computation of pension. As mentioned earlier, the Commission has recommended delinking the payment of full pension on completing 33 years of qualifying service”.

    3. If government has withdrawn additional weightage given on QUALIFYING SERVICE to those who opted for Premature Retirement, as per the recommendations of 6th CPC, it is because of the reason that Weightage given was only an INCENTIVE / COMPENSATION for the service left for completing 33 years required for full pension and the same is now removed because it has no RELEVANCE as stated in 6th CPC report.

    Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-10-2006

    “In regard to pensioners forming a class, computation of pension cannot be by different formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension scheme is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension as per the new formula of computation of pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation, the additional benefit under the amendment, made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.” The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension / retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment.” .

    Unfortunately, the order dated 12-5-2009 addresses only A SMALL SENTENCE ABOVE IN RED instead of reading the whole paragraph together from one of the Supreme Court Judgments dated 10-10-2008 which is based on a Famous Supreme Court Judgment on Pension Matters dated 1983, in the case of D.S. Nakra vs. Union of India and hence the statements referred in OM dated 12th May 2009 is not a reflection / conclusion / correct interpretation of HONORABLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT.

    Supreme Court has also ruled vide 1983 Nakra Judgment that Pension Paid as per CCS Pension rules 1972 is an obligation on government unlike a contributory pension scheme and hence financial constrains should not be a limitation for pension payment.
    Last edited by kkhameedkutty; 01-06-2009 at 04:30 PM.

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

    Default

    Dear KKK/ all affected Pensioners(20 yr plus),

    You (KKK) have prepared a neat/excellent draft and I think it covers all the points made out elsewhere in our discussions/ mails.

    A little more force and criticism cd be added on the OM of 12th May 2009, and bring out that what the OM is aiming at is trying to divide a HOMOGENOUS class by CONFUSING the issues which do not exist.

    Simply quoting a part of sentence from a SC Judgment and trying to justify a denial on legitimate parity can not convince one and all.

    The OM had tried to drag the Article 14 of Constitution- (if I am correct)- and I think u must not spare the Govt in criticising- what this OM is trying to inflict is exactly the opposite of the letter & spirit of Article 14.

    Once again it is a sad outcome of misinterpretation/ irregular application of the text of para 20 of Akkara judgment (wh was also in English!) as it had happened in the case of OM of 1st Sept 2008 onwards (wrt Implementation of Para 5.1.47 pf SCPC report).

    Regards

    vnatarajan

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

    Default


    ALL CONCERNED MUST BE ACTING ON SHRI KKK's DRAFT RELATED TO 20 YR PLUS retirees parity. Pl pursue actions. Also Associations/ Federations must take note.

    FALLACIOUS OMs DATED 11TH FEB & 12TH MAY 2009 ISSUED BY MOPPGP/DOPPW.

    Dear All

    I trust all are making appeals/ representations to the ANOMALY COMMITTEE on various issues related to the Anomalies arising out of the violation of the Principles/ Policies in making their own Recommendations by the SCPC.

    Definitions of Anomalies look complicated, but since the DOE have helped us by making all the Pension Recommendations look like TRASH, we need not bother about the said definitions- because anything and everything is an Anomaly now.

    While on the subject, I would like to look at SOME POSITIVE DEDUCTIONS from the two OMs issued by the MOPPGP/ DOPPW dated 11th Feb 2009 and 12th May 2009.

    In all your APPEALS henceforth you may consider mentioning them repeatedly, to all the authorities including the ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

    1.OM of 11th Feb 2008:

    This OM categorically states that the Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners for any dispensation towards Revision of their Pension.
    The OM then QUOTES/REPEATS the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 for revising the Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

    This is unacceptable as the Para 4.2 itself is the ALTERED/ MODIFIED VERSION of Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC. Notes of Files obtained under RTI clearly reveal such DELIBERATE alterations/ even pre-emptive actions (eg.CPAO’s DO lr dtd 26th Sept 2008 to Nodal Officers of Banks issued without any authority/ much before the OMs of 3rd/14th Oct 2008).

    THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF OUR REPRESENTATIONS IS TOTALLY WRONG as we are basically appealing to the authorities to IMPLEMENT CORRECTLY THE GAZETTED/NOTIFIED RECOMMENDATION contained in Para 5.1.47 ( and not the vitiated Para 4.2).

    FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW..

    2.OM of 12th May 2009:

    This OM takes shelter under a “KEY SENTENCE” extracted from the AKKRA CASE JUDGMENT dtd 10th Oct 2006 to suit their JAUNDICED explanation to differentiate the 20 yr plus pensioners on either side of a datum, and also tries to justify the same in terms of Article 14 of Constitution. (In fact what they are doing is exactly opposite!).

    IMPORTANT POINT IS, the said judgment clearly DIRECTS the GOVT. to ensure that HOMOGENOUS CLASS of PENSIONERS must be given parity in pension irrespective of the dates/ datums, in essence, in the same Paragraph (no 20 of the judgment).

    THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATIONS OF PLUS 20 Yrs RETIREES UNDER THE ABOVE EXCUSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    FURTHER FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW.

    I feel every concerned pre-2006 PENSIONER must highlight and contest the two OMS and the summary DISPOSAL of our appeals on FLIMSY and UNRELATED grounds is objectionable.

    FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL has to follow.

    PL ACT.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 31-05-2009 at 11:59 AM.

  17. #17
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Well settled positions w.r.t. pre-2006 pensioners

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post

    ALL CONCERNED MUST BE ACTING ON SHRI KKK's DRAFT RELATED TO 20 YR PLUS retirees parity. Pl pursue actions. Also Associations/ Federations must take note.

    FALLACIOUS OMs DATED 11TH FEB & 12TH MAY 2009 ISSUED BY MOPPGP/DOPPW.

    Dear All

    I trust all are making appeals/ representations to the ANOMALY COMMITTEE on various issues related to the Anomalies arising out of the violation of the Principles/ Policies in making their own Recommendations by the SCPC.

    Definitions of Anomalies look complicated, but since the DOE have helped us by making all the Pension Recommendations look like TRASH, we need not bother about the said definitions- because anything and everything is an Anomaly now.

    While on the subject, I would like to look at SOME POSITIVE DEDUCTIONS from the two OMs issued by the MOPPGP/ DOPPW dated 11th Feb 2009 and 12th May 2009.

    In all your APPEALS henceforth you may consider mentioning them repeatedly, to all the authorities including the ANOMALY COMMITTEE.

    1.OM of 11th Feb 2008:

    This OM categorically states that the Table/ Annexure I of OM of 14th Oct 2008 is not applicable to pre-2006 pensioners for any dispensation towards Revision of their Pension.
    The OM then QUOTES/REPEATS the Para 4.2 of OM of 1st Sept 2008 for revising the Pension of Pre-2006 Pensioners.

    This is unacceptable as the Para 4.2 itself is the ALTERED/ MODIFIED VERSION of Para 5.1.47 of the SCPC. Notes of Files obtained under RTI clearly reveal such DELIBERATE alterations/ even pre-emptive actions (eg.CPAO’s DO lr dtd 26th Sept 2008 to Nodal Officers of Banks issued without any authority/ much before the OMs of 3rd/14th Oct 2008).

    THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF OUR REPRESENTATIONS IS TOTALLY WRONG as we are basically appealing to the authorities to IMPLEMENT CORRECTLY THE GAZETTED/NOTIFIED RECOMMENDATION contained in Para 5.1.47 ( and not the vitiated Para 4.2).

    FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW..

    2.OM of 12th May 2009:

    This OM takes shelter under a “KEY SENTENCE” extracted from the AKKRA CASE JUDGMENT dtd 10th Oct 2006 to suit their JAUNDICED explanation to differentiate the 20 yr plus pensioners on either side of a datum, and also tries to justify the same in terms of Article 14 of Constitution. (In fact what they are doing is exactly opposite!).

    IMPORTANT POINT IS, the said judgment clearly DIRECTS the GOVT. to ensure that HOMOGENOUS CLASS of PENSIONERS must be given parity in pension irrespective of the dates/ datums, in essence, in the same Paragraph (no 20 of the judgment).

    THEREFORE DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATIONS OF PLUS 20 Yrs RETIREES UNDER THE ABOVE EXCUSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    FURTHER FORCEFUL APPEAL HAS TO FOLLOW.

    I feel every concerned pre-2006 PENSIONER must highlight and contest the two OMS and the summary DISPOSAL of our appeals on FLIMSY and UNRELATED grounds is objectionable.

    FURTHER/ FORCEFUL APPEAL has to follow.

    PL ACT.

    vnatarajan
    Respected Shri VNji has rightly pointed out that some portion of a particular case judgment is being relied upon to dispose the genuine representations of the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service for removing the cut off date for full pension, without looking into the actual case.

    For instance, “In the case of All India reserve Bank retired Officers Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664,
    it was observed that there is no doubt that whenever any rule or regulation being statutory flavour is made by an authority which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the choice of the cut-off date which has necessarily to be introduced to effectuate such benefits is open to scrutiny by the Court and must be suported on the touchstone of the Aticle 14. If the choice of the cut off date results in classification or division of members of a homogenous group, it would be open to the Court to insist that it be shown that the classification is based on an intelligible differential and on rationate consideration which bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The differential purpose and object thereof. The differential treatment accorded to those who retired prior to the specified date and those who retired subsequent there to must be justified in the touchstone of Article 14 for otherwise it would be offensive to the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution. In this case, while permitting the cut off date fixed by the Department, it was observed by the Court that:

    "In fixing the cut off date the respondents had not acted malafide with a view to deprive those who had retired on or before December 31, 1985 of the benefits of the pension scheme but for reasons stated above it was not practicable to extend the benefit to such retirees. The rationale for fixing the cut off date January 1, 1986 was the same as in the case of Central Govt. employees based on the recommendations of the fourth Pay Commission".

    By reading the above portion of the Judgment, any one can easily justify the imposition of the cut-off date, so the DOP&PW OM dated 12.5.2009 too might have relied up on the above portion.

    WHEREAS, in the very same case Judgment, the following para as observed by the Honorable Supreme Court in their judgement in the case of V. KASTURI vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY & ANR-DATE JUDGMENT (Civil Appeal No. 5048 of 1998): 09/10/1998 is very much valid as far as pre-2006 pensioenrs with less than 33 years qualifying service are concerned..

    "the Hon. Justice A.M. Ahmadi, J (as he then was), spoke for the Division Bench of two learned Judges. The case before this Court in the aforesaid decision was whether the cut-off date fixed for bringing into force the pension scheme which earlier did not exist for the Bank employees could be said to be discriminatory from any angle. The Court while distinguishing Nakara’s ratio held that: "Employees of the Reserve Bank of India were, prior to the introduction of the pension scheme, enjoying superannuation benefits comprising (i) CPF and (ii) gratuity.....". The pension scheme was being introduced for the first time from the cut-off date. In these circumstances, the employees who had retired earlier when pension scheme was not available could not make effective grievance in connection with those of a few other categories who retire latter when pension scheme had already come into force. Ahmadi, J., speaking for the Court in the aforesaid decision highlighted the observations in Nakara’s case found at page 333 para 46 to the following effect:
    ".... the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective from the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it
    is not a new scheme, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retrial benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit. If it was a wholly new concept, a new retrial benefit, one could have appreciated an argument that those who had already retired could not expect it."

    The portion mentioned in Nakara’s case clearly indicated that all the employees in Nakara’s case were governed by the existing scheme and were the recipients of retrial benefits. It was an upward revision of the existing benefit that would in normal course be made available to all such beneficiaries of existing retrial benefits. On the facts of the present case, as seen earlier, employees like the appellant who had retired prior to the amendment of clause (c) of rule 22(1) were not recipients of any existing benefit of pension. They were in fact out of the pension scheme whatsoever being employees who had not completed 50
    years of age even though they had completed 20 years pensionable service. For such employees there was no retrial benefit till appropriate amendment of clause (c) of rule 22(1). Consequently, the amended clause (c) must be held to be conferring a new retrial benefit and not enhancing the existing benefit for such employees. The aforesaid decision of this Court in the All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association case (supra) therefore, also could not be effectively distinguished by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that in that case there was no pension scheme while in this case there was an existing pension scheme.”

    In spite of the reliance on the preferred views to dispose the representations of post-2006 pensioners as well as pre-2006 pensioners by justifying imposition of a cut off date 2.9.2008,
    another OM dated 11.12.2009 was issued to extend the benefit of reduced length of service for full pension and last pay drawn emoluments for calculation of basic pension, to those retired between 1.1.2006 and
    2.9.2008.

    The justification involved in issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 are equally valid for issue of another OM to extend the said benefits to all pensioners who retired prior to 1.1.2006 with less than 33 years service.
    It is desirable to go through the full text of the Judgment rather than picking up a portion of the same which may be relevant to that particular case in question, but cannot be equated to cover an entirely different case.

  18. #18
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    In continuation of the above post, I wish to focus on the following:

    “The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension / retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme" - Quote from B.J. Akkara Case Judgment.

    "In fixing the cut off date the respondents had not acted malafide with a view to deprive those who had retired on or before December 31, 1985 of the benefits of the pension scheme but for reasons stated above it was not practicable to extend the benefit to such retirees. The rationale for fixing the cut off date January 1, 1986 was the same as in the case of Central Govt. employees based on the recommendations of the fourth Pay Commission" - Quote from the Judgment of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association Vs UOI 1992.

    The aforesaid views are relevant to the particular cases referred to, but at the same time cannot be made to applicable in the case of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service for full pension.

    In Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission & ors., JT (2003) 6 SC 184, the Apex Court held that a judgment of the Court is not to be read as a statute as it is to be remembered that judicial utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a particular case. Substantial flexibility; one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper.

    The very issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 made null and void the earlier OM dated 12.5.2009 that disposed all representations of post-2006 as well as pre-2006 pensioners for removing the cut-off date.

    Subsequent to issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 so many pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service had represented for similar benefit that was extended vide the said OM for post-2006 pensioners. The DOP&PW is yet to come out with their decision on the same till date. We firmly believe that the same are in consideration and soon a OM similar to that of 11.12.2009 will be issued soon, as no disposal of representation on the subject matter has taken place subsequent to issue of OM dated 11.12.2009.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundarar View Post
    In continuation of the above post, I wish to focus on the following:

    “The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension / retirement scheme or for discontinuance of any existing scheme" - Quote from B.J. Akkara Case Judgment.

    "In fixing the cut off date the respondents had not acted malafide with a view to deprive those who had retired on or before December 31, 1985 of the benefits of the pension scheme but for reasons stated above it was not practicable to extend the benefit to such retirees. The rationale for fixing the cut off date January 1, 1986 was the same as in the case of Central Govt. employees based on the recommendations of the fourth Pay Commission" - Quote from the Judgment of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association Vs UOI 1992.

    The aforesaid views are relevant to the particular cases referred to, but at the same time cannot be made to applicable in the case of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years service for full pension.

    In Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission & ors., JT (2003) 6 SC 184, the Apex Court held that a judgment of the Court is not to be read as a statute as it is to be remembered that judicial utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a particular case. Substantial flexibility; one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper.

    The very issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 made null and void the earlier OM dated 12.5.2009 that disposed all representations of post-2006 as well as pre-2006 pensioners for removing the cut-off date.

    Subsequent to issue of OM dated 11.12.2009 so many pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service had represented for similar benefit that was extended vide the said OM for post-2006 pensioners. The DOP&PW is yet to come out with their decision on the same till date. We firmly believe that the same are in consideration and soon a OM similar to that of 11.12.2009 will be issued soon, as no disposal of representation on the subject matter has taken place subsequent to issue of OM dated 11.12.2009.
    There is one more Judgement in Union of India vs S.R.Dhingra & others
    Date of Judgment 14.12.2007 by the Hon. SC where it was decided vide Para 25 as follows:

    "It is well settled that when two sets of employees of the same rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim the benefit extended to the other set on the ground that they are similarly situated. Though they retired with the same rank, they are not of the same class or homogeneous group. Hence Article 14 has no application. The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for
    discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment (vide Col B.J.Akkara (Retd) vs. Govt of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, D.S. Nakara vs.Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India
    (1990) 4 SCC 207, Indian Ex-Services League vs. Union of India (1991) 2
    SCC 104, V. Kasturi vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India (1998)
    8 SCC 30 and Union of India vs. Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma (2000)
    7 SCC 662).

    It is significant to note that the aforesaid decision is applicable to a case of railway pensioners (running staff) who retired prior to 1.1.1986 towards treating 45% /55% of their pay as allowances to be included in pay for the purpose of calculation of pension on retirement as per the provisions of a subsequent OM dated 10.2.1998. The Hon. SC after giving the above decision, denied the retrospective effect for the said OM.

    Whereas, the case of pre-2006 pensioners with respect to
    (a) Minimum Revised Pension as per initial para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 - where the minimum revised pension is required to be fully corresponding with the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, in toto.
    (b) Reduced length of qualifying service of 20 years for full pension - where the manner of calculation of basic pension as such is modified

    cannot be equated with neither the S.R. Dhingra case Judgment nor the All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' case. Same is the case in respect of B.J.Akkara case judgment, where the well settled positionof D.S. Nakara case judgment too is reiterated.
    As such, all these three cases basically cannot be relied upon in any minute imagination as justification for implemented orders in respect of pre-2006 pensioners.

    World of differences do exist between the respective cases. Disposal of representations
    by blindly placing reliance upon in one or two particular case judgment and by totally neglecting the well settled positions in various other judgments, is not the judicious approach. Effectiveness and Applicability of the case being relied upon to dispose is more significant before implementing the disposal.

    It is the Policy decision that matters keeping in view the precedence available through well settled position, for instance, the D.S. Nakara case Judgment, which is ever valid in the matter of calculation of basic pension based on `QUALIFYING SERVICE' and `BASIC EMOLUMENTS'.

    It is often reiterated that the Pay Commission is a Recommending Body. May be true, but once its recommendations are accepted and implemented with the Cabinet approval, inserting a modification through a clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 to give reducing impact on minimum revised pension is totally unjustifiable. Similarly, though the pay commission's recommendation in r/o 10/20 years for full pension is initially implemented with prospective effect from 2.9.2008, subsequently amended to have retrospective effect from 1.1.2006.
    The reason behind the said amendment must be, to implement the modified manner in calculation of pension with effect from the implementation date of 6th CPC recommendations. While it is applicable to post-2006 pensioners in a retrospective mode, through similar mode, the pre-2006 pensioners are also entitled to avail the extended benefit of such retrospective mode on par with their co-pensioners, when both of whom emerge as a single homogenous class of pensioners.

    There is a strong need to review the existing policy decision that relied upon certain particular case judgments alone for justifying the said decision.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Is 10 years of service or 10 years in a grade criteria for ACP
    By nazir_1367 in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-12-2011, 11:02 PM
  2. Revised Pension:When?
    By harryrakhraj in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 16-01-2011, 03:59 PM
  3. Full pension- Effective
    By lsudhakar in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 09:13 AM
  4. Anomalies in revised pension rule 2008
    By pratap singh negi in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 21-12-2008, 08:18 PM
  5. revised pension and arrears
    By subba Rao R S in forum Arrears
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 28-11-2008, 09:22 AM

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