+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86

Thread: Pensioners with 1.1.46 as date of birth - deprivation of Sixth CPC

  1. #41
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default 61st birthday on effective date of revised retiral benefits

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    I feel there is some gap in understanding the situation.

    WAS HE A PENSIONER ON 31 12 2005? NO HE WAS NOT - HE WAS IN SERVICE.
    THEN WHEN DOES HE BECOME A PENSIONER- ON THE SAME DAY?
    THEN WHY PAY HIS WAGES FOR THAT DAY?

    SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PAID HIS WAGES FOR 1 JAN 2006, HE IS BEING DENIED THE REVISED PENSION BENEFITS AT THE REVISED RATES.

    RULES ARE MADE FOR GENERAL CASES- THEY CAN NOT FORESEE EXCEPTIONS/ RARE CASES - LIKE SHRI GK'S.

    vnatarajan
    Very correctly pointed out by our Respected Shri VNji.

    F.R. 56. (a) .......
    Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.


    Rule 5 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

    5. Regulation of claims to pension or family pension :-

    (1) .....

    (2) The day on which a Government servant retires or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service, as the case may be, shall be treated as his last working day.....
    Provided that in the case of a Government servant who is retired prematurely or who retires voluntarily under clauses (j) to (m) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or Rule 48 or Rule 48-A, as the case may be, the date of retirement shall be treated as a non-working day.
    -------------------------------
    I. Extracts – AP HC Judgment - Principal Accountant General and others vs Shri C. Subba Rao (DOJ: 27.1.2005)

    “F.R.56(a) creates a legal fiction. Even if a person attains the age of 60 years on any day of the month, he shall be retired on the afternoon of the last day of the month. A Government servant, who attains the age of 60 years on any day in a month, is deemed to have not attained the superannuation till the last day of the month.

    In the case of a Government servant, whose date of birth is first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years. In this case, actually and factually, a Government servant would have completed the age of 60 years a day before the date on which his date of birth falls. Therefore, there are two situations. In the first situation, a Government servant though he attains the age of 60 years on any day of the month, he is deemed to have not attained such age till the afternoon of the last day of that month. Assuming that such a situation is not contemplated - as in the case of persons holding constitutional offices like, Judges of Supreme Court, High Court, Members of Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General etc; if a Government servant is retired on a day before the actual date of birth on any day of the month and the increment of such Government servant falls on the first of the succeeding month, can he claim annual grade increment? The answer must be an emphatic "no". Because, by the date on which the increment falls due, such Government servant ceased to be a Government servant. It is therefore logical and reasonable to conclude that merely because for the purpose of F.R.56(a), a person is continued till the last date of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation, such an employee cannot claim increment which falls due on the first day of the succeeding month after retirement.

    18. In second situation, a Government servant, who is covered by the proviso to F.R.56, that is to say, whose date of birth is first of a month, such employee has to retire on the last day of the preceding month. In Courts' considered opinion, no distinction can be made in both the cases, as the Government servants retired on the last day of the month and with effect from first day of succeeding month ceases to discharge Government duties and no pay is payable. If an increment is denied to a Government servant falling under F.R.56(a) though he retires on the last day of the month, the same principle will have to be applied to a Government servant falling under first proviso to F.R.56. Such interpretation would subserve the principle of equality and has to be preferred to any other possible and plausible method of interpretation. It is well settled that a provision of law has to be interpreted in a non-discriminatory manner in tune with principle of equality before law and equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India (See in K.P. Vargese v. I.T. Officer, Ernakulam, (Para 17)). Yet another situation is where the date of birth of a Government servant falls on the last day of the month. In such a case, he has to necessarily retire on the same day on which his date of birth falls and even if his increment falls on the first day of the succeeding month, he would not be entitled for any annual increment.

    Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

    Retirement may by voluntary or on superannuation. The principles for payment of pension will not vary on the basis of these distinctions.

    According to Rule 83(1) of the Pension Rules, pension becomes payable from the date on which Government servant ceases to be born on the establishment (emphasis given). A Government servant continues to be borne on the establishment till midnight of the date of superannuation. That only means a Government servant gets the status of pensioner from the next day after date of retirement i.e., last day of the month on which he is retired.

    A Government servant retiring on the last working day of the month shall be deemed to have ceased be Government employee with effect from midnight of that day and immediately after commencement of the next day, i.e., after midnight 12'O clock he becomes pensioner. Though he is paid pension, he shall not be deemed to be on duty as a Government servant.

    A person is deemed to be retired on the day when such day commences and not after completion of the day.

    A Government servant retiring on last day of the preceding month is deemed to have become pensioner on the next day and therefore such pensioners also entitled for the benefit of enhanced gratuity (Full Bench Decision of the CAT Hyderabad in Shri T.Krishna Murthy’s case).

    As soon as first day of the succeeding month commenced, petitioner retired, entitled for the benefit of enhanced DA (Shri Banerjee case).

    In Venkatram Rajagopalan v. Union of India (supra) the full bench of the Tribunal was of the view that “"afternoon of 31st of March" or "forenoon of 1st of April" means one and the same thing

    A person retiring on the last day of the preceding month ceases to be borne on the establishment with effect from beginning of first day of the succeeding month and he would not be entitled for payment of any emoluments as soon as first day of the succeeding month commences, i.e., after 12.00 'O' clock in the night.

    From the midnight of the day of the superannuation, a Government servant becomes pensioner and all the benefits given by the Government with effect from first day of the month after retirement; assuming that such benefit is given - would be entitled for all the benefits”.

    CONCLUSION:

    Thus, a retiree acquire the status of a pensioner with effect from the first day of the month after retirement.

    In the instant case of Shri GKji, he acquired the status of a pensioner on 1.1.2006 because he, as a pensioner ceases to be borne on the establishment with effect from the beginning of 1.1.2006. The retirement gratuity is payable only to a person ceases to be borne on the establishment. We have seen in the preceding paragraphs that `A Government servant retiring on last day of the preceding month is deemed to have become pensioner on the next day and therefore such pensioners also entitled for the benefit of enhanced gratuity’.

    As per para 6.1 of the DOP&PW OM dated 2.9.2008 effective from 1.1.2006, the maximum limit of all kinds of gratuity shall be Rs.10 lakhs.

    Shri GKji acquired the status of a pensioner exactly on his 61st birthday, viz. 1.1.2006 and thereby become eligible for the benefit of enhanced gratuity, etc. not by virtue of date of superannuation, but by virtue of his 61st birthday and effective date of implementation of revised retrial benefits being one and same. Similarly, the employees who were born on 1.1.1928 and 1.1.1938 who retired on 31.12.1985 and 31.12.1995 are also entitled to such enhanced provisions that were made entitled from 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 respectively.

    The subjective clause of FR 56 (a) – “Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of (fifty eight or) sixty years”, indicates the effective date of cessation from service, the succeeding date of which, is the date of commencement of the status as a Pensioner.

    A clarification over the OM dated 2.9.2008 especially in respect of pensioners who who acquired the status of a pensioner on their 61st birthday, on applicability of retrial benefits from the effective date of 6th CPC recommendation (where the 61st birthday and the implementation date happens to be one and same), is all the more necessary.

    It is also significant to note that all retirees on superannuation do not acquire the status of a pensioner exactly on their 61st birthday except those who born on 1st of succeeding month of retirement. Hence, the specific need for clarification.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Shri VNatarajan Sahib, Sundrarajan ji, all interested and concerned pensioners,

    I am grateful for the interest being taken by you in our case of all those pensioners whose date of birth is the Ist January, 1946. All these points would be very relevant and useful for the beriefing of the advocate at the relevant time. As submitted earlier a representation from me in the capacity of a former staff side member of the Departmental Council of the Department of Personnel and Training has been delivered yesterday to the Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. Briefely, the suggestions are either to accept the recommendation of the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals as mentioned in post no. 34 or to add another proviso to FR 56 so as to retire all those born on the Ist January, 1946/1938/1928 on the 31st January.

    We may await the outcome of this last effort. Thereafter, I would trouble Shri Vnatarajan sahib, Shri Sundrarajan ji and Sitaraman sahib for guidance for taking up the matter in the CAT/Court. In fact enough matterial in terms of court judgements etc. is aready available with us.

    With regards,

    Gopal Krishan

  3. #43
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Dear 1.1.1946/1938/1928 born pensioners,

    All of us must have suffered loss of the benefits of the recommendations of the 6th/5th/4th
    Central Pay Commission, because of the fact that we retired a day before the effective date of the implementation of the decisions taken by the Government on those recommendations. That was because of the provision in the Fundament Rule 56, which provides that a government servant whose date of birth is the Ist of any month would superannuate on the last date of the preceding month. This requied an in deapth examination/review of the matter. The same has been examined by our very senior pensioners - Shri V. Natarajan sahib, Shri Balasubraminian sahib, Shri Sitaraman Sahib and Shri Sundararajn ji. It is concluded by them that the proviso to FR 56 is discriminitary against all those born on the Ist January, 1946/1938/1928. As such Shri Sitaraman sahib under the guidance and with the blessings of Shri V. Natarajan sahib, Shri Balasubramanian sahib and with the assistance of others have finalized a model representation which I would shortly be posting on Gconnect for adopting or utilizing for finalizing a representation by each of us and then sending the same to the three Secretaries to the Government of India so that our grievances are brought to their notice for redressal of the same at the earliest.

    Wishing every one a very HPPY DEEPAWALI,


    With regards,

    GOPAL KRISHAN
    09911178250

  4. #44
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Dear 1.1.1946/1938/1928 born pensioners,

    With reference to 43rd post, I am posting the model representation as follows:


    From
    To
    The Secretary,
    Department of Expenditure,
    Ministry of Finance, North Block,
    Government of India,
    NEW DELHI 110001

    Sub: Deprivation of all the Central Pay Commission benefits in terms of pay revisions, pensions and pensionary benefits, suffered by Pensioners born on 1/1/1946/1938/1928 owing to their respective retirements on 31/12/2005/1995/1985.

    Respected Sir,
    Ref: FR.56 (a) modified by the Ministry of Finance on 7/2/1975.

    This Representation is submitted by me as a Pensioner born on 1/1/1946 on my own behalf and on behalf of my Co-pensioners born on the same date as well as on 1/1/1938 and on 1/1/1928 to seek restoration of all the Central Pay Commission benefits in terms of pay revisions, pensions and pensionary benefits denied to us owing to our respective retirements on 31/12/2005/1995/1985 as a result of what is perceived to be a somewhat incorrect decision taken by the Ministry of Finance in April 1975 while implementing the Third Central Pay Commission recommendation to retire all Central government servants on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which the government servants attained their age of retirement/superannuation.

    2. Pension losses on this account were not very much insofar as the benefits that arose out of the Fourth and the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations were concerned, but the losses were colossal and unbearable when the benefits out of Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations are taken into consideration. The disparities had shot up very high between two colleagues with one of them born on 1/1/1946 and the other born on any other day in the same month and year and no Administration can watch such a condition and still allow it to prolong without rushing to correct the same. And yet it is sad to state that this condition has indeed been allowed to prolong for 37 years now and there has been no sign of any effort towards rectification as yet.

    3. As for prospective claimants, should Pay Commission benefits be now ordered to be extended to we unfortunate pensioners born on 1/1/1946/1938/1928, it is estimated that there will be only a miniscule number of claimants not exceeding 300. A majority of claimants are expected to be only family pensioners. The Government would also certainly be aware that pension increases on account of the Fourth and the Fifth CPC recommendations were only marginal and hence should not be worrisome to Finance Ministry.

    4. I now wish to place the following points/facts/justification pertaining to this case for a detailed examination, particularly since the case seems to have deeper implications including certain constitutional questions arising out of the manner in which the Third Central Pay Commission recommendations had been implemented and had been in force for some 37 years so far and still with the prospect of the same condition prolonging indefinitely.

    4.1 The Department is aware that till April, 1975, the basic fundamental rule by which every government servant without any exception retired on the afternoon of the day on which he attained the age of retirement/superannuation and received his pension the next day, i.e., his birth day, was in force. It can be seen that application of the rule has been universal and uniform for all government servants.

    4.2. Based on Paragraph 15 of Chapter 60 of the Report of the Third Pay Commission it was decided by the Government of India in the Department of Personnel in November 1973/May, 1974 that Civilian Government servants shall retire from services or posts from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement/superannuation falls. At that time the age of retirement on superannuation was 58 years. It will be appreciated that this decision also has been universal and uniform in respect of all the Government servants.

    4.3. Subsequently Ministry of Finance modified FR 56(a) on 7/2/1975 providing that every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. A note bearing No.7 was also incorporated providing that a government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of fifty eight years or sixty years as the case may be. This provision took effect from the 5th April, 1975. This Note about retirement on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month was later incorporated in the main Rule 56(a) as a Proviso. At present the relevant FR 56(a) reads as follows:

    Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years;

    Provided that a government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.

    Provided further that a Government servant who has attained the age of fifty-eight years on or before the first day of May, 1998 and is on extension in service, shall retire from the service on expiry of his extended period of service, or on the expiry of any further extension in service granted by the Central Government in public interest, provided that no such extension in service shall be granted beyond the age of sixty years.

    4.4. It will be seen that the modification of FR.56(a) with addition of a Proviso by the Ministry of Finance which came into effect from 5/4/1975 deviated from the usual time-tested rule of universality and uniformity, the most essential ingredients required in framing of any rule, especially a fundamental rule. The addition of proviso singled out the 1/1/1946/1938/1928-born pensioners for deprivation of the full Pay Commission benefits, which were granted to the rest of the pensioners, thus the application of the rule becoming bereft of the universality and uniformity maintained so far in keeping with upholding of a fundamental rule.

    5. Now, obviously the case hinges on the Government's readiness or willingness to relax or amend the FR.56 (a) and its Proviso to allow the Pay Commission benefits to 1.1.46/38/28-born retirees, though the Proviso in question was notified long after issue of the DOP's OM implementing the Third CPC’s recommendation. It is now well known to all including the Government that this Proviso stands in the way to extend the said benefits, despite the fact that the denial particularly discriminates against the retirees born on the said dates thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It is a general principle that framing or amending of any statutory rule should be common to all retirees without exception and there should not be any discrimination.

    6. The relevant Third CPC Recommendation in letter and spirit was applicable to all Government servants in equal measure but the amended FR.56 (a) & Proviso issued by the Ministry of Finance is not. .

    7. The proviso to FR56(a), effective from April 1975 requires every government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month to retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 58/60 years and in real terms it is the same as the basic and original fundamental rule which was in operation initially and by which all repeat all government servants (100%) uniformly retired on the respective days on which they attained the age of retirement and their pensions paid the next day on their birth days.
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 08-11-2012 at 08:32 PM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    8. It will be seen that the basic rule already stands relaxed by the Government itself consequent on its issuing FR.56(a) with the proviso on acceptance of the Third Central Pay Commission’s recommendation, by which almost all the government servants including those born on 1st of every month other than January, benefited, by way of extensions in their services besides the Sixth CPC Pay & Pension revision benefits, barring the 1st January-born government servants. The reason for barring the 1st January born employees in this manner is not known but presumably the problem in their case could be that the employee should have attained the age of 58/60 years for his retirement before the pensions can be drawn, which is exactly the basic rule mentioned above. While this initial relaxation has benefited the employees born on 2nd of January and onwards and even 1st of every month other than January (which virtually means all the remaining 364 days of the year), as in their case their retirement as per the basic rule on the preceding day happened in the same year (Post-2005), the relaxation was not applied in the case of the 1st January-born employees probably on ground that their retirement took place in the previous month and year (Pre-2006). It will be appreciated that this is a very clear case of discrimination against the 1st January-born employees. The hardship and damage is still far worse in the case of the 1st January 1946/38/28 born employees, since the disparity with their homogenous colleagues born on any of the remaining 364 days of the year, has widened hugely and artificially and the case surely and unquestionably attracted the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    9.1 Moreover, the Proviso is also to be termed inconsistent, since for the employees born on 2nd onwards right up to 31st December, application of the basic rule is inconsequential as they are not affected by it, but it directly and pointedly affects the 1st January-born employees. This violates the very spirit behind the recommendation of the Third CPC. The relaxation of FR 56 should have been made in an equitable manner by treating the application of the basic rule which stands amended in any case, inconsequential for the 1st January born employees also. The requirement of the old basic rule that a first January born employee should have attained/completed the age of superannuation is more than offset by the extension of their services also up to the last day of the month like the employees born on 2nd and onwards, viz., in rest of the days of the year.

    9.2 If a date of retirement/superannuation can be postponed to the last day of the month from the actual date of superannuation consequent on a Pay Commission recommendation, by circumventing, or in disregard of, the then extant rules, it will be appreciated, it must be possible to postpone the 1st January born government servant’s retirement/superannuation also to the last day of the same month (January) similarly by circumventing any extant rule (Proviso under FR.56(a) in this case), owing to the requirement as per the Constitution that every rule should be common, equal and uniform to all the government servants in its application.

    10. It will be seen that the rule as amended and made effective from April 1975 is flawed because of the two major inconsistencies/contradictions stated above. Any rule is supposed to be common and uniform and should be applicable to all employees equally and equitably but the amended rule does not appear to be so beside only creating still larger issues. Since it is found that the amended rule has serious lacunae as explained above, it should not have been issued and perhaps the Commission’s recommendation itself not accepted in the first place. Now this cannot be set right after a lapse of 37 years. The only way it can be remedied, is to remove the Proviso and make 1st January born employees also to retire notionally on the last day of January like other employees as per III CPC recommendation, so as to ensure that the amended rule is also common, uniform and universal and is applicable to all repeat all employees, including those born on the Ist January, 1946/1938/1928.

    11. In response to a representation from a similarly affected 1/1/46-born pensioner, the Department of Expenditure seems to have made a stock observation that for any such revision, a line has to be drawn and wherever the line is drawn, there will be persons who retired on a previous day and would lose the benefits of pay revision, We strongly feel that this analogy may not hold good in matters of pay & pension revisions consequent on the recommendation of Pay Commissions, since this happens not routinely but once in ten years as a measure of updating the pay & pensions, etc according to new economic conditions in the country and these recommendations encompass all government servants and there cannot be any exception by application of any extant rules, which are meant for only routine purposes.

    12. Further, in regard to 1/1/46-born retirees, their retirements have been notionally fixed on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month, i.e. 31/12/2005 consequent on a Third CPC recommendation, by clubbing them with the other retirees who would have retired normally on 31/12/2005. The line drawn for eligibility purposes is to forbid the latter rather than the former, since the 1/1/46-born retirees find themselves singled out and bracketed with the other earlier retirees only because of the Proviso to FR.56(a) introduced from 5/4/1975 consequent on a Third Pay Commission recommendation. In other words, it must be clear that a line has been specifically drawn to deprive 1/1/1946/1938/1928-born retirees only of the Pay Commission benefits, since the rest of the retirees born on the remaining 364 days of the year have been afforded full benefits There is undoubtedly a DISTINCTION between the two sets of retirees and it is clear that there has not been a proper application of mind before the Proviso was contemplated and brought into force. What has been resorted to has resulted in a huge discrimination and this has been allowed to persist for 37 years and it goes without saying that there is an urgent need to look into the matter afresh and set this right with immediate effect.

    13. Hardship has been felt quite harshly for about 37 years thus far by the 1st January 1946/1938/1928-born pensioners alone, having been singled out for deprivation of all Pay Commission benefits in terms of pay revision, pension and pensionary benefits, while those born on rest of the 364 days of the year were afforded full Pay Commission benefits, only due to the Proviso under FR.56 (a) introduced from April, 1975 consequent on implementation of a Third Pay Commission recommendation. There is absolute need to provide an enabling provision, by adding another suitable provision under FR.56 (a), so that this category of
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 08-11-2012 at 08:38 PM.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    pensioners, who have been left out for no fault of theirs – in fact it sounds as if they have been penalised for wrong-doing – can also avail the said benefits.

    14. In this connection, it is observed that the FR.56 (a) with the Proviso has been issued through a Notification by the Finance Ministry in April 1975, which gives rise to a doubt whether the Cabinet’s approval was taken. If not, may we request that opportunity may be taken now to take a fresh decision in the light of the several points/facts with justification furnished in the above paragraphs? If agreed, the suggestion given in the previous paragraph 13 can also be considered before approaching the Cabinet for approval.

    15. Thus there are several alternatives to remove the hardship being faced by the above-referred pensioners. First, addition of second Proviso to FR.56 as prayed for in the Paragraph 13 and second is suitable amendment to the Government Resolution dated 29/8/2008, the third is to retire the 1st January pensioners also on the 31st of the same month as suggested in Para 9.2 above and the fourth is to grant 1st January born pensioners also to enjoy like the rest of the pensioners all the Pay Commission benefits, extension of services etc. by following the same principle as applied to Senior pensioners for grant of enhanced pension on attainment of 80 years, 85 years, etc..vide Para 17.1 to 17.8 The best recourse will always be the removal altogether of the first proviso under this amended FR as requested for in Para 10.

    16. We wish to stress that in cases of pension revisions, unlike the one-time changes in Gratuity, etc., financial constraint cannot be the ground for not granting the pensionary benefits according to the law of the land pronounced by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Nakara case judgment. In any case, Pay and Pension revisions consequent on Pay Commission recommendations are to be placed on an entirely different footing.

    17.1 It would be relevant to mention here that based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India has decided to allow enhanced pension on attaining the age of 80 years, etc from the month in which the date of birth of the pensioner falls. It would be pertinent to mention here that the distinction of pensioners into different categories based on the actual date in which the date of birth falls during a month, for the purpose of enhanced pension of 20 % (30%) on attaining the age of 80 years (85 years) etc. has already been done away with. In the OM dated 3rd October 2008, this principle has already been conceded and is already being implemented in the case of a number of very senior pensioners. The suggestion would be clear from the following examples.

    17.2 ` Suppose pensioner A completes 80 years only on some date in October of a particular year, say, 15th October; even though he is less than 80 till 15th October, still enhanced pension of 20% has been granted to him for the whole of the month of October, right from the 1st of October of that year. (This is according to OM of 3.10.2008).

    17.3 This is true for pensioner B also who completes 80 years on any date in October, not necessarily 1st of October, but any other date in October, say, 31st October (to take an extreme case). Even though he has not completed 80 years right from 1st of October, still enhanced pension is admissible for him for the whole of October.

    17.4 Thus, the distinction between pensioners for enhanced pension on completion of 80 years, depending on the dates on which the completion takes place in a particular month, has been done away with.

    17.5 All pensioners who complete 80 years on any day in the course of a month, say October, get enhanced pension for the whole of that month of October. In other words, the actual date on which completion of 80 years takes place in a month has been made irrelevant, by grant of enhanced pension for the whole of that month irrespective of the date of such completion during that month.

    17.6 It is hoped that the point is made clear that the actual date of completion of 80 years in a month has become irrelevant, since the benefit is given for the whole of that month in the case of all pensioners who complete 80 years on any day during that month. Similar is the case for enhanced pension on completion of 85 years, 90 years and so on.

    17.7 It will also be noticed that there is no proportionate reduction in enhanced pension for the particular month in which a pensioner attains the 81st/85th birthday irrespective of the date, ie. 1st day of the month or any other day of the month, he is paid full enhanced pension. In other words, there is no proportionate reduction for the part of the month during which the pensioner is below 80 years since the benefit has been made available for the whole month.

    17.8 Viewed in this background, why a separate treatment is given when the date of birth falls on the1st January of a particular year after the person completes the age of superannuation, by his being denied the benefit for the whole of the month of January in which his date of birth falls, appears to be beyond logical comprehension, and in such cases, surely the proviso to FR 56(a) calls for a quick review, which is the purport of this representation.

    18. It is time to think of Administrative reforms to remove all such anomalous situation by the Govt. so that things can be put straight. They shall not view like yet another representation or grievance, but they need to take it as an improvement over the system that is prevailing. Such a right spirit will facilitate added repute to the HR based Administration of date. I think still many capable and positive oriented functionaries exist at top layer and hence the system keeps on and on in spite of all odd factors. Latest observation from the policy change towards Modified Parity based Minimum Revised Pension shows such a positive attitude. For any lapse, the serving employees' Federations/Associations also are responsible for not taking up right issues at appropriate forum in a fitting manner.

    19. It will be appreciated that there is a strong justification for inclusion of 1/1/1946/1938/1928-born pensioners also for grant of the Pay Commission benefits, as enjoyed by the rest of the other pensioners. It is hoped that necessary steps will be taken so that the hardship suffered by this category of pensioners due to what is considered as an incorrect decision taken in 1975 will be eliminated once and for all.

    20. I need hardly stress that this matter, which is unique, the rarest of rare cases, strange but true and seems to challenge even the administrative acumen thus far, has already been allowed to drag on for 37 years and the glaring injustice to this category of pensioners continues unabated.

    21. May I, therefore, request for a deep examination of the several issues raised hereinabove, with a view to finding a satisfactory and just solution to the hardship being faced by the pensioners referred to above?

    Thanking you, Sir,

    Yours faithfully,


    ( )

    Place:
    Date:

    Copy to: the Secretary, Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, Govt. of India, New Delhi - 110003

    Copy to: The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, Ministry of Personnel, Govt. of India, New Delhi - 110001

  7. #47
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Dear interested/affected pensioners

    It would be seen from the model representation that both the Departments,i.e., Department of Personnel and Department of Expenditure issued clarification/modification with reference to FR56. With this subject matter only one Department could be the concerned Department. As the subject matter would have been allotted to one Department by the Cabinder Secretariat under Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules. We have to keep this aspect also in mind.

    GOPAL KRISHAN
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 16-11-2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason: spelling mistake

  8. #48
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Dear interested/affected pensioners,

    A model representation for being sent to the Secretry, Department of Expenditure, by interested/affected pensioners individually, is being published in the monthly magazien of Bharat Pensioners Samaj. That would be a brief representation. However, detailed representation is available under this thread. That can also be used for sending to the Secretary, Department of Pensioners by interested/affected pensioners.

    with regards,

    Gopal Krishan
    9911178250

  9. #49
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Bhart Pensioners Samaj has taken up the matter with the Secretary, Deprtment of Pension and Pensioners Welfare immediately on receiving a request from us. Grateful thanks to the BPS.

    Gopal Krishan
    former member of the Departmental Council of the Department of Personnel and Training (9911178250)
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 17-11-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Shri VN Sir, Sitaraman Sahib and Sundararajan ji,

    As decided I had submitted a copy each of the representation to the Secretaries of Expenditure Department, Department of Personnel as well to the Pensioners Welfare Department and the Administrative Department. The Department of Pensioners' Welfare has forwarded the representation to the Department of Expenditure for necessary action. I have been advised to pursue the matter with them.

    With regards

    Gopal Krishan

  11. #51
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Respected Natarajan Sir, Sitaraman Sahib and Sundararajan Ji,

    It appears that we may have to plan for going to CAT in the matter. Kindly advise as how to proceed in the matter.

    With regards,

    Gopal Krishan

  12. #52
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    I am giving below the developments in the matter during the last three months.

    Gopal Krishan
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 16-03-2013 at 05:58 PM.

  13. #53
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    In May, 2012 the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals (DCPC) had spoken to his counterpart in the Department of Expenditure (DOE) about the problem being faced by the pensioners with the Ist January, 1946 as their date of birth. The latter agreed to give the same a favourable look. Accordingly, the former referred the file to the latter with the recommendation that the grievance of the pensioners could be resolved by wasy of an amendment to the Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dated the 29th August, 2008, bringin in to effect the apy revision. It was suggested that in paragraph 2 of the said Resolution, which says that the pay revision shall be effective from 1.1.2006, it may be added that those whose date of birth was on the Ist January, 1946 but had to retire on the previous day will also be deemed to have retired on the Ist January, 2006 and the benefit of the pay revision will be extended to them.

    As is the procedure, he marked the file down below. A note was initiated by the concerned Section Officer stating that the Resolution was approved by the Cabinet and for any amendment to the same approval of the Cabinet was required. As such he felt that there was no merit in the proposal. This view was upheld by his senior Director and the Joint Secretary. This decision taken without the approval of the Secretary, who had agreed to give the same a favourable look was communicated to the DCPC.

    In view of these facts, on the 23rd October, 2012, I represented to the Secretary, DOE with a copy each of the notes of the Secretary, DCPC and the Section Officer, DOE. Simultaneously, I had also requrested the DCPC for taking up the matter with the DOE. The representation of mine submitted to the DOE was transferred on the 9th January, 2013 to the Department of Personnel and Training along with the other representation, which was received by them through the Department of Pensioners and Pensioners Welfare, stating that the subject matter of the grievance was the concern of the DOPT.

    Briefely, the suggestion made to the Secretary, DOE, who had agreed to give the same a favourable look could not be submitted at that level and the question about as to whihc Department had to handle the same is being examined by the DOPT and DOE. A final view is yet to be taken by the two Departments as to who should handle the same. As informally understood DOPT is also reluctant to proceed further in the matter as earlier the matter had been processed by DOE all along. In the meantime the representation submitted by me to the DCPC has also been sent to the DOE.

    GOPAL KRISHAn

  14. #54
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Shri GK,

    Progress is in the right direction.

    Rejection of the proposal based on the comments of lower functionaries is unfair/ unjust /arbitrary.
    THIS IS HOW GENUINE CASES GET SHORTED AND ABORTED.

    Now you know - what "info" to collect at "what time".

    Some positive and favourable NOTES AT THE HIGHER LEVELS ARE VERY IMPORTANT as they add strength to your case.

    So pl pursue ations keeping track as u r doing.

    Best of luck.

    Regards,
    vnatarajan

  15. #55
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default Pensioners with 1146 as their date of birth

    Respected Natarajan Sahib,

    Thanks a lot for your very encouraging observation.

    With regards

    Gopal Krishan

  16. #56
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    In continuation of my post no 53, I would like to bring to the notice of all concerned that a representation indicating the grievances of the Ist January, 1946/1938/1928 were brought to the notice of the Secretry, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare. That representation was sent to the Department of Expenditure for disposal. The Department of Expenditure transferred the same to the Department of Personnel for disposal.Briefely, without going into the merit of the case, the papers are being tossed about between the Department, as to who should process the matter relating to FR 56 and the Resolution passed by the Government dealing with the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission. At present all the papers are with the Department of Personnel. It appears that they feel the matter is for the Department of Expenditure to proceed further.

    Gopal Krishan

  17. #57
    Member kssitaraman is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Ref. Respected Shri GK Sir’s Post 33 of date in the Thread ”Pension fixation as per 28/1/13 OM”.

    Any reasonable assessment of this case is likely to lead to the conclusion that the 1146-born retirees also are to be given the VI Pay Commission benefits, since the rest of the government servants born on the days in the whole year from 2/1/1946 to 31/12/1946 without exception have been allowed the benefits by shifting their retirements to the last day of the month in which they attained superannuation in disregard of the extant rules regulating their retirements, consequent on implementation of the III CPC Recommendation. Perhaps, the same treatment is called for in respect of the 1146-born pensioners.

    The authorities are probably busy now and one can only hope that they would take the only inevitable right decision allowing the benefits that this case deserves soon at their earliest convenience. No response of course amounts to continuance of the denial of the benefits, which had been imposed for 38 years so far. A question arises whether continued infliction of this kind of injustice would lead to constitutional infirmity and if so, whether some quick steps will become expedient.

    One cannot measure the hardship these pensioners had suffered and how much they had lost by this denial thus far and whether their losses will not increase further by the continued delay in responding to their representations. It is hoped that JUSTICE WILL BE DONE TO THESE PENSIONERS early. In the case of Shri GK the hardship and the losses are more than the others and hence there is all the more reason to take the decision quickly.

    Respected Shri GK has to press the issue by sending reminders or meeting the officials in person. Of course, he had all the time in the world to pursue this issue and he could have clinched the issue whilst he was in service. He might recollect that he responded after quite a lot of time to the posting of Respected Shri VN Sir in this Blog reg. the outcome of his earlier efforts in this matter. He is the person who can guide him suitably now.

    Best regards,
    K.S.Sitaraman.
    Last edited by kssitaraman; 21-04-2013 at 07:10 AM. Reason: minor correction.

  18. #58
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Today I met the Director concerned in the Department of Personnel and Training and gave him a representation stating that the Department of Expenditure had wrongly transferred my earlier application addressed to the Department of Expenditure relating to the recommendation of the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, which were made after discussion with the Secretary of the Department of Expenditure. In the representation I had mentioned that the submissions I had made through that application to the Secretary, Department of Expenditure were in the nature of complaint against the junniors who did not submit the file to the Secretary, with whom the matter was discussed by tht other Secretary before sending the recommendation. In the representation I had also mentioned that in the cases of very senior pensioners the categorization of those born on the Ist of a month or otherwise has already done away with. As the matter is still with the Department of Personnel for taking a view in the matter I have requested him to expedite the matter.

    Gopal Krishan

  19. #59
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Presently the matter is stuck between the Department of Personnel and Training and the Department of Expenditure. The latter has transferred all the papers to the former for taking necessary action as according to them the DOPT is the concerned Department in the matter. That Department is still to take a view in regard to the matter whether they should at all handle the matter or send the same back to the Department of Expenditure to examine the issue. Only thereafter the matter would be examined on merit.

    Gopal Krishan

  20. #60
    Senior Member Gopal Krishan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    469

    Default

    According to my information it appears that the letter of the Bharat Pensioners Samaj on the subject dated the 15th November, 2012 landed in the Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare, whereas the reminder of May, 2013 from the Samaj reached the Department of Administrative Reformes. After the RTI application the CPIO concerned in the Department of Administrative replied to the Bharat Pensioners Samaj on the 20th June, 2013 with a copy each to the CPIOs of the Departments of Pension, Expenditure, and Personnel. The matter which has been taken up by the BPS with the Government of India is exclusively the concern of the Department of Personnel and Training. It appears that no meaningful action has been taken on the representation of the BPS which was sent to the Government of India as back as the 15th NOvember, 2012. As such I have requested the Secretary General of the Bharat Pensioners Samaj that the matter may be taken up either with the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel etc. or the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Bolock.I have also requested him kindly tokeep me informed so that I could assist the Bharat Pensioners Samaj in their efforts to help all those unfortunates who did not get the benefit of the 4th, 5th and the 6th Central Pay Commission which was their right.
    Gopal Krishan
    Last edited by Gopal Krishan; 24-07-2013 at 01:21 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 05:14 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25-07-2012, 02:36 PM
  3. Reimbursement of medical expenses for child birth
    By cgem in forum CGHS and Medical Attendance Rules
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2012, 11:19 AM
  4. Birth Day
    By R K Rao in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2010, 06:38 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2008, 09:17 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