+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 323

Thread: JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS-6CPC OMs-PLEA TO HON. PM

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

    Default JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS-6CPC OMs-PLEA TO HON. PM

    JUSTICE THROUGH RESTORATION OF PARITY TO ALL OLD PENSIONERS-6CPC OMs-PLEA TO HON’BLE PM

    In one of the popular and much debated threads titled “Injustices to Pre-2006 Pensioners…..” in the Gconnect.In, all of us had the opportunity to understand the plight of all sections of Pre-2006/ even earlier groups/ classes of pensioners, belonging to various pre-revised pay-scales from the lowest up to scale S-30., Leaving the top four (S-31 to 34) and a few in mid-way, all are affected. A variety of injustices has been meted out to them. Several ideas have emerged for charting out the course of action for JUSTICE.

    Therefore, all feel, the plea for JUSTICE has to be forceful and common to one and all of the Pensioners. Every Pensioner has to participate in this appeal for JUSTICE which we should all take to the highest level of Governance/ Execution- first to the Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India & his esteemed Office.


    In earlier posts, with lengthy deliberations, we had come to a point that we should focus our attention so as to bring injustice done to a large number of pensioners of pre revised pay scales S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S10,S11,S12,S13,S14,S15,16,S17,S18, S19,S20,S21,S22,S23,S25,S25,S26,S27,S28,S29 and S30 (and not only S29 and S30) to lime light. We had concluded that "modification" of DOP OM dated 3rd Oct.08 cannot supersede "acceptance and approval of Union Cabinet tabled in parliament". We had thought of starting new thread

    Background & Focus of the Appeal (Courtesy Shri Kanaujiami, Senior Pensioner from Railway- activist for all pensioners):

    The Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India in judgment dated 17th Feb.’1982 held that division of pensioners for the purpose of payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter, is both arbitrary and unprincipled and violative of Article 14 of Constitution . The argument that the cut off date had to be fixed in view of the limited financial resources available to cover up additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision of pay scale was also not accepted. V cpc gave parity to pensioners and assigned each pensioner V CPC pay scale.

    VI CPC also kept this fact in view.

    VI CPC has merged 27 pre-revised pay scales into only 4 pay bands, which resulted into bunching. It therefore, recommended allowing one increment for two such bunching, and provided a table giving each stage of pre-revised pay scale and pay in pay band allotted. For the pensioners, “modified parity” was recommended, stating in para 5.1.47 of its report that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum” of the pay in pay band (as provided in table) + grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale (S4 to S30) from which pensioner retired. This recommendation of VI CPC has been accepted by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08.

    However, Ministry of Personnel, issued OM dated 3rd Oct.08 giving “clarification” but actually issuing “modification” stating therein that pension cannot be lower than 50 % of “minimum of pay band” without having correspondence with pre-revised pay scale from which a pensioner retired. Thus what VI CPC had given to pensioner and which was accepted by Union Cabinet and notified in Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, was taken away by “modification” given in OM dated 3rd Oct.08. This has put to loss in revised pension ( plus DR thereon) per month as under (pl Read serially: Pre-revised Scale of Pay; From- To (Rs); LOSS in Rs Per Month) :


    S4 2750-4400 - 165
    S5 3050-4590 - 340
    S6 3200-4900 - 430
    S7 4000-6000 - 1120
    S8 4500-7000 - 1585
    S10 5500-9000 - 465
    S11 6500-6900 - 1395
    S12 6500-10500 - 1395
    S13 7450-11500 - 2280
    S14 7500-12000 - 2325
    S15 8000-13500 - 2790
    S16 9000 - 570
    S17 9000-9550 - 570
    S18 10325-10975 - 1805
    S19 10000-15200 - 1500
    S20 10650-15850 - 2105
    S21 12000-16500 - 3360
    S22 12750-16500 - 4060
    S23 12000-18000 - 3360
    S25 15100-18300 - 1145
    S26 16400-20000 - 1145
    S27 16400-20900 - 1145
    S29 18400-22400 - 3650
    S30 22400-24500 - 7225


    (PL. NOTE THE LOSS WILL BE OF RECURRING NATURE/COMPOUNDED BY THE EFFECT OF DR INCREASES EVERY SIX MONTHS- AND WILL ULTIMATELY RESULT IN GROSS LOSS WHEN FAMILY PENSION IS TO BE FIXED ! MOST IMPORTANT IS YOUR BASE FOR NEXT REVISION WILL BE MUCH MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO!!!!!)


    I ,and Shri Kanaujiami, with anticipated endorsements of several seniorPensioners S/SHRI ,R Sundaram, G Ramadas, S C Maheshwari, K S Sitaraman,S Balasubramanian,P K Ranaganathan, A V Mukuntharajan, A Rajagopalan, Nagarajan S, Sundarar, several other senior Pensioners here request all other old pensioners to kindly take note of above and send representation to Prime Minister to arrange to withdraw “modification “ issued vide OM dated 3rd Oct.08 and restore the benefit given by the VI CPC which was accepted by Govt. and notified vide Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, to all pensioners who retired from pre-revised pay scales S4 to S30
    .

    While on the subject we also note there is a very very old veteran Pensioners (say pre-1976/1986 etc. – a SILENT SUFFERERS GROUP (SSG)- who never get the benefits they deserve or entitled to (because of their being totally left out of any submissions) and they should also appeal once again.

    We also urge the Pensioners Associations/ Federations to come out more in the open, be outspoken and join this issue by making a powerful appeal to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, to cover the entire spectrum of all Pensioners as a whole.

    Our one-remedy immediate demand for PARITY RESTORATION is :


    “Hon’ble Prime Minister to arrange to withdraw “modification “ issued vide OM dated 3rd Oct.08 and restore the benefit given by the 6 CPC which was accepted by Govt. and notified vide Gazette Notification dated 29th August’08, to all pensioners who retired from pre-revised pay scales S4 to S30” and their equivalents in Pre-1986 periods.”

    Posted by: V Natarajan and several senior Pensioners across the board..
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-01-2009 at 11:15 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear V Natarajan and other pensioners friends, whoose names have been mentioned in the first post of this thread and also all old pensioners starting from pre 2006 to pre 1996. We are all sufferers and we must not leave it here but continue with protest and representation. I may mention here that I have drafted a letter addressed to PM, detailing facts of injustice done to pensioners. It is a bit lengthy so I am not reproducing it here. I once again request all pensioners to kindly come forward and enrich this thread/forum for discussion with your views and suggestions. Long live Pensioners.
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 09-01-2009 at 09:37 AM.

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

    Default

    Dear Mr Kanaujiami /all friends/ well wishers (employees in service I mean future pensioners also requested to join as a measure of solidarity)

    Yes. WE must draft few models so that whatever suits individual pensioners- it must be used as the basis.

    1.Why not prepare a cammon "few-paragraph-simple-format" LETTER covering:

    what pre-revised scale pensioner belongs to.
    what pay band he is now pitched in.
    what he got now.
    what he shd have got in terms of the para 5.1.47 scpc or para 4.2 of OM of 1st sept.
    what is the loss per month- its compounding effect- more of he is older than 80 yrs etc.
    what reps he has made IF ANY/ what grievances he has regd. IF ANY.
    what remedy is he seeking.


    Another brief 500 character summary (hardly 10 lines of may be 10 words) has to be prepared to Register the same grievance online in PM's website.

    vnatarajan

  4. #4
    Junior Member Sushil Kumar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4

    Default Approach PM

    In my view the hon’ble PM should be requested for the following, through email:

    1. To remove the misinterpretation of implementing officials in implementing MODIFIED Parity wherein decision of the cabinet for MODIFIED PARITY has been misinterpreted by implementing officials as under, which has affected around 40 lakhs pensioners including from Defence:
    i) The term “minimum of pay in the pay band” has been misinterpreted as “minimum of pay band”.
    ii) As per decision of Cabinet, there is no condition of 33 years service in MODIFIED PARITY which has been included by the implementing officials.

    2. To appoint an Independent Arbitrator for examining the Judgments of Hon’b le Supreme Court so that the same can be implemented for all existing pensioners.

  5. #5
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Reg. Sh. Sushil Kumar's post#4, I repeat what I had said earlier. Let us not alter what the govt. had notified in the Gazette. It said "minimum of the pay in the pay band_--".If we delete, the definite article "the " the meaning gets changed. 'The pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale-' is important to us.
    Last edited by G.Ramdas; 09-01-2009 at 01:48 PM.

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

    Default

    Dear all

    For on line posting in PMO portal, I am trying to post this way, - model draft:

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


    Here is exactly what I cd squeeze thru to PMO's portal on 10th Jan 2008- wh took me one hr to exercise & send- GOT ACK.WITH THANKS MESSAGE:

    "President’s sanction of pension(para 5.1.47 of 6CPC), notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PWOMdt1/9/08 is to be not less than 50% of “min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale (Tab. in Exp.Dept.OM of 1/9/08).Lower OfficeDP&PW modified this thro'OMsdt 3& 14/10/08 substituting “irrespective of”for"corresponding to"&”min.of the pay in the pay band”for”min of pay band" &.reduced my pension to Rs.23700 instead of Rs 27350/- Pl intervene/do justice".

    (PS: Name/ Address are given in boxes provided separately; I put the PPO no also alongside my name!!!!)

    Regards

    vnatarajan

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

    I had to restrict it to 500 characters- (wh is about 10 lines of 50 characters each)

    Let us see if some more drafts emerge.

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 11-01-2009 at 07:15 AM. Reason: typographic

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear All Pensioners. Draft appeal to PM is reproduced below :

    To, The Honorable Prime Minister of India,
    Prime Minister’ Office , New Delhi -110001.
    Sir,
    Sub.: - Implementation of VI CPC Report – Division of pensioners in pre-2006, Post 2006 and Post 2008 for entitlement of pension and various other benefits in complete disregard to Judgment dated 17 02 1982 of Constitutional Bench of honorable Supreme Court and Recommendations made by VI CPC.

    Respectfully I beg to state that the Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of India gave decision on 17th Feb.’1982, in case of D S Nakara and others Vs Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305. One of the questions posed in the aforesaid case was whether a class of Pensioners could be divided for the purpose of entitlement and payment of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired thereafter. The question was answered by the Constitution Bench of Honorable Supreme Court, holding that such division being both arbitrary and unprincipled , the classification did not stand the test of Article 14. Further, the argument that the cut off date had to be fixed in view of the limited financial resources available to cover up additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision of pay scale/pension, was not accepted by the Constitution Bench of the honorable Supreme Court.

    2 VI CPC kept the above decision of the honorable Supreme Court in mind and stated in para 5.1.47 of its Report, and I quote verbatim “The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, 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 Government employees. The commission accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40 % of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50 % dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50 % of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74 % on pension (excluding effect of merger) has been taken for the purpose of computing revised pension as on 1/1 2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. A table (Annex 5.1.1 ) showing fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendations of this Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners. 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 minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. Unquote.

    3 This recommendation of VI CPC, has been accepted in Govt. Resolution as published in Gazette Notification No. 38/37/08/-P&PW(A) dated 29th August’08. (see S. No. 12 of Annexure). Fitment Tables giving “minimum of the pay in pay band” for each pre-revised pay scale, were issued annexed to Finance Ministry(Implementation Cell) F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08. Ministry of Personnel, PG and P, Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare incorporated it in para 4.2 of OM F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated Ist Sept.’08 and I quote verbatim “The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum 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.” Unquote. (Fitment Tables were required because of the merging of as many as 24 pre-revised pay scales into only four pay bands, resulting into bunching which necessacitated inclusion of one increment for two such bunching )

    4. However, Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare issued OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08, giving “clarification” but actually issuing “modification to para 4.2 and I quote verbatim “The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.” Unquote.

    5. Thus, what was given by VI CPC and the subsequent Govt. Resolution and Office Memorandum, to pensioners, as brought out in para 3 and 4 above, was taken away, in single stroke, vide “Modification/Amendment” brought out in para 4 above,
    resulting in loss to pensioners in revised pension per month, as under :

    Pre-revised pay scale - loss in Revised Basic Pension Per month
    S4 2750-4400 - 165
    S5 3050-4590 - 340
    S6 3200-4900 - 430
    S7 4000-6000 - 1120
    S8 4500-7000 - 1585
    S10 5500-9000 - 465
    S11 6500-6900 - 1395
    S12 6500-10500 - 1395
    S13 7450-11500 - 2280
    S14 7500-12000 - 2325
    S15 8000-13500 - 2790
    S16 9000 - 570
    S17 9000-9550 - 570
    S18 10325-10975 - 1805
    S19 10000-15200 - 1500
    S20 10650-15850 - 2105
    S21 12000-16500 - 3360
    S22 12750-16500 - 4060
    S23 12000-18000 - 3360
    S25 15100-18300 - 1145
    S26 16400-20000 - 1145
    S27 16400-20900 - 1145
    S29 18400-22400 - 3650
    S30 22400-24500 - 7225

    6. Due to division of Pensioners into three groups, depending upon their dates of retirement, Govt. issued orders separately giving different entitlements to pensioners of each group, for fixation of pension. While pension of one group was fixed depending on amount of pre-revised average basic pay of last ten months, whereas, another group’s pension was fixed on the basis of last pay drawn. Full pension was awarded to one group after completing 20 years of qualifying service and another group’s pension was reduced prorata basis where qualifying service was more than 20 years but less than 33 years. This constitutes violation of Article 14 of Constitution as held by Constitution Bench of honorable Supreme Court as mentioned in para 1 above. Entitlements should be the same for all pensioners.

    I , therefore, pray to your good self to kindly help mitigating losses being incurred by pensioners, by arranging withdrawal of modification/amendment to para 4.2 issued by Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08 and, arrange for restoration of the modified parity as accepted in Govt. Resolution and published in Gazette Notification No. 38/37/08/-P&PW(A) dated 29th August’08. ( S. No. 12 of Annexure) and Ministry of Personnel, PG and P, Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated Ist Sept.’08 , in para 4.2 namely, “Revised Consolidated Pension cannot be lower than 50 % of Minimum of the pay in Pay Band (as given in the Fitment Tables annexed to Finance Ministry, Implementation Cell, F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.08) plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired “. Discrimination as pointed out in para 6 above also should be removed, giving same entitlements to all pensioners.

    I assure you Sir, whole lot of pensioners, would be obliged to you for ever, for this act of kindness.

    With kind regards,

    Date ............ Yours faithfully,

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

    Default

    Dear ALL/ Mr K

    Many thanks to Mr Kfor the nice draft put up for the benefit of all.


    Dear All

    Mr Kanaujiami has kindly put up the draft for an APPEAL TO HON'BLE PM in the earlier posting above and I have also given a small one para limited rep. for registering ON LINE grievance in the PM's portal, earlier.

    FOr those who were following the other thread on " INJUSTICE TO PRE_2006........" closely/ who have already made several reps. to various authorities/ wh have also regd. grievance in the portals of DoP/PW & PMO/ etc, another draft version of appeal to the HONBLE PM, prepared by Shri PKRanaganathan (little edition by me/others here; EG chosen here is S29 Pensioner- others can highlight their own examples/ cases) incorporating some more court cases is put up:

    (PL. note any of these reps of Mr K & Mr PKR can be used for preparing individual reps./appeals to be sent to Honble PM. IT IS OUR EARNEST REQUEST THAT ALL MUST ACT / REQUEST OTHERS TO ACT/ MAKE COPIES & DISTRIBUTE TO HELP OTHERS WHO HAVE NO FACILITIES ALSO TO REPRESENT,so that the IMPACT OF THIS APPEAL IS FELT BY the HONBLE PM/ PMO)

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

    Subject: Appeal to the Honble PM for Justice to Past pensioners

    Ref :Min of Pers Public Grievances & Pension, Dept of Pension & Pensioners welfare, OM NOs, F. No .38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dated 3 sep 2008 and even No dated 14Oct 2008.

    Respected Sir,

    Deeply aggrieved by what I believe to be devastating injustice perpetrated on me and scores of other Pre 2006 pensioners like me, by the directives contained in the above two Oms, I had submitted my case for redressal to the Secretary DP&PW through four separate representations apart from registering my grievances with the Ministry’s grievances Cell
    And also the grievances cell of your esteemed office. While the grievance has not been addressed so far by the secretary, DP&PW, it has not even been acknowledged till date and therefore this desperate bid to seek the honour of intervention of your august office, to remedy the injustice .

    I beg to attach herewith copies of my above representations which bring out in detail my case and the redressal that I have been seeking.

    Briefly stated, the above two Oms ( Issued under the authy of Dierctor PP in the pension Dept) have introduced modifications which materially alter the provisions in the statutory orders promulgated by Government through gazette notifications, and which has resulted in two different pay scales,
    for most of the Grades in the relevant pay bands, one for those retiring after I Jan 2006 and the other for those retired prior to that date.

    Sir, I and I am sure, my fellow pensioners are all personally ever so grateful, for the governments speedy acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC and including existing pensioners, in your dispensations . But , I am unable to accept, the inequity in the matter of MINIMUM ASSURED PENSION , created through an arbitrary and untenable interpretation , in complete disregard to the constitutional provisions, legal directives and established rule position. Curiously enough, the top four grades in the hierarchy, which perhaps is the exclusive retirement domain, mostly of the IAS, has been carefully, excluded from the operation of this calculated misinterpretation, by keeping them outside the pay band concept itself !

    I crave your leave to place below just a few of the APEX court cited, constitutional provisions and humbly seek your kind and considered perusal of them- apart from the extracts of other relevant court orders , on the subject of Pension and Parity of pension among a class of pensioners, enclosed herewith.

    “In Shri.Sita Ram Sugar C o Ltd, Vs Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277, 1297, the Supreme Court ( Mr Justice Thommen) has laid down that "Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi judicial, is open to challenge, if it is in conflict with the constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the Law of the Land, or if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it "

    “Administrative action may be based on statute or may be be purely executive action of an administrative nature, that is, of non-statutory character. In either case, a statutory or non statutory order of the executive which is arbitrary may be set aside. ( Iron and Metal Traders vs Jaskiel, AIR 1984 SC 629.( and other judgments.)”

    “If any classification is made relating to pay scales and such classification is unreasonable and if unequal pay is based on no classification, then Art. 14. will at once be attracted, and such classification should be set at naught. (In other words, , where unequal pay has brought about, a discrimination within the meaning of Art 14, it will be a case of " equal pay for equal work'as invisaged by Art 14.) (Supreme court employees welfare Assn Vs Union of India AIR 1990 SC 334 (Muratri mohan Dutt and K Thommen JJ)”

    “Administrative Instructions Art 309) Though non-statutory Rules cannot modify Statutory Rules, there is nothing to prevent the Government from issuing administrative instructions on matters upon which the statutory Rules are silent ( Comptroller Vs Mohan(1992) 1SCC 20. ( which means that non-statutory Rules cannot modify staturoty Rules;administrative instructions can only be issued on matters that are silent in the statutory Rules)”
    I submit that the mischievous modifications, brought into, both the Office memoranda under reference are guilty of all the above mentioned constitutional infringements and request your esteemed self to kindly cause a review examination of the issue of PARITY OF MINIMUM PENSION , between the same classes of pensioners, standing on either side of the date line of 01-01-06, in accordance with the principle of modified parity already accepted by Government vide Min of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) Dated 17 dec 98 ( Copy enclosed for ready reference ) and order repeal of the unjust and. incorrect interpretation, of this entity, introduced in the OMs referred to above in order to restore the Legitimate minimum pension to the Pre 2006 pensioners.

    Sir, I retired from the pre revised scale of S29 (18400-500-22400) on 01-03-01. my basic pay at the time of retirement being Rs 19,900/- Under the provisions of office Memorandum F.N o. 38/37/09/P&PW (A) Pt I dt 14 oct 08, my revised minimum pension has been fixed at Rs.23650 which is 50% of the Pay Band minimum In of 37400+grade pay of 10000. This fixation is anomalous and unjust since the minimum pay for corresponding revised scale for my post ie.[Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India] is Rs.44700/- wef 1.1.2006[Ministry of Finance's OM FNo1/1/2008-1C,30/08/08 (Page 32/ 6CPC Pay Revision) Pre-revised Pay Scale (S 29) of Rs18400-22400 is revised to Rs 44700-67000]. Hence 50% of the minimum pay [44700] +Grade Pay[10000] works out to Rs.27350. as per the corresponding pay in PB4. The revised basic pension, after applying para 4.2. of Memorandum F.No. 38/37/P&PW (A) dt 01-09-08, is 50% of 54700 ie. Rs 27350/- Which therefore should be my revised minimum pension.

    While I am not seeking full parity, sanctified by numerous court directives, which should allow my pension at Rs 33720/-, I am sanguine that my humble request for parity at least in my minimum pension with all those of my grade, which has the executive approval of the President, will find the favour of your kind and gracious review and acceptance and issue of suitable directives to all concerned. I and other similarly placed pre 2006 fellow pensioners pray for justice by the employer whom we served through all our best years of life, that we are not driven to the time consuming, costly and physically and mentally exhausting prospect of court cases in our withering days ahead.

    Respectfully Yours,

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

    VNatarajan
    (thanks to MR PKR for researching on more court angles/ preparing the draft)

  9. #9
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear Pensioner friends. In continuatiion to my post 7 above, I reproduce below the Annexure now for your information :

    Annexure
    Extract of para 5. 1. 47 of VI CPC Report.

    5. 1. 47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, 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 Government employees. The commission accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40 % of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50 % dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50 % of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74 % on pension (excluding effect of merger) has been taken for the purpose of computing revised pension as on 1/1 2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. A table (Annex 5.1.1 ) showing fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendations of this Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners. 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 minimum of the pay in pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.

    Extract of Ministry of P, PG & P (Deptt. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare) Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 - S N 12 of Annexure.

    S N 12 Recommendation

    All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. 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 minimum 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. (5 . 1 . 47)

    Decision of the Govt. Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1 . 86, i. e. basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24 % as on 1 .1 . 2006, instead of 1 . 74.

    Extract of Ministry of Personnel, PG and P, Deptt of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated Ist Sept.’08 – Para 4.2

    4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.


    Extract of Ministry of Personnel, PG & P, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A)Pt I dated 3rd Oct.08 – Modified Para 4.2
    Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.08

    Clarification/modification

    4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum 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. The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner has retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs. 37400-67000and the corresponding grade pay being Rs. 10,000/- P.M., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50 % of Rs. 37,400+Rs.10,000(i.e. Rs. 23,700).A statement indicating the minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure.
    The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service fro full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS(Pension) rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01 2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs. 3500/- p.m.
    In case pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension.
    The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the some of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner/deceased Government servant had last worked. In case the family pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as basic family pension
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 10-01-2009 at 04:27 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    With ref to Sh. Natarajan' post #6, I have drafted a slightly modified representation for online grievance redressal in PMO website,as under, whcih will be within 500 letters:

    Great injustice to pensioners.
    Min. guaranteed pension as per 5.147 of 6CPC, notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PW O.M of 1/9/08 -to be not less than 50% of the sum of the min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale. (Fitment table in Expenditure Dept. O.M of 1/9/08).
    DP&PW arbitrarily modified this thro’ O.Ms of 3/10&14/10,substituting “irrespective of” for ‘corresponding to’ and changing ‘min. of the pay in the pay band’ to ‘min. of pay band’ and thereby reduced my pension by Rs.------( for S-29 --scale etc.)Representation to secretary DP&PW has fetched no reply.
    Hence this appeal .

  11. #11
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear All

    Tomorrow being Sunday, I thought all may do some light Home Work!

    The work wd relate to renamimg our well -wishers- the pension authorities in the Govt. who are supposed to deal with "Pensions & Pensioners' Welafare".

    But in recent few months, since my birth-anniversary- i.e. 15th May 2008, they have scored a HAT-TRICK of debacles in the courts - that too within a period of may be three months - all relating to Pension cases. Pl. note most cases are taking a decade to settle.

    1.Case of SPS Bains (9th Sept 2008) judgment by Supreme Court.
    2.Case of R C Garg (15th May 2008) judgment by Delhi High Court.
    3.Case of .............( 2008) Judgment by .......High Court.


    (Last one I am not referring the details for some reasons, in the interest of the Pensioners)

    In all the cases the Govt. lost and EVEN if they go to the ALMIGHTY they can not win these cases.

    The renaming must aptly be addressed to Penals & Pensioners' Ill-fare!

    I fail to understand the following:

    1.Why the DOP/PW & MOF are hostile to the PENSIONERS' WELFARE? Does it justify any principles of ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE?
    2.Are they not enlightened enough to respect the COURT VERDICTS in a decent manner befitting to respect the welfare concerns of their Seniors who retired from service before them?
    3.Will they suffer or tolerate such DISPARITY/ INDIGNITY/ INJUSTICE after their retirement if similar things happen to them?
    4.How conscious are they about the TIME and EXPENDITURE- a collossal waste on infructuous and tortuous court process which invariably ends against the Govt.and for which are they not answerable? Whom are they befooling?
    5.Procedural infirmities (we have debated this for poking the loopholes- may be we may not raise it as they may be incinsequential) will be practised if it is to their advantage- but if necessary they may go to appeal on the very basis of the same (Not having accorded concurrence - by DOP/PW; MOF; Law Ministry etc - this is the basis for appeal in one case).
    6.It is also felt the role of CAT has become infructuous as any favourable outcome to pensioner is challenged in High Courts and ultimately Justice is delayed to the pensioner-- his expenditure becomes manifold- and if he has to go to Supreme Court again, one can imagine the harassment to the pensioner! Some pensioners may not outlast the case!
    7. It is our prayer that Courts come down heavily on the Govt. in all such infructuous cases and put a TOTAL STOP to such harassments to Pensioners at least henceforth.
    8. I think all Pensioners/ Associations/ Federations have to appeal to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India highlighting the ineffective nature of the system and seek his intervention to stem the evil!.


    I SHALL POST TOMORROW THE GIST OF ONE OF THE ABOVE CASES SUBSTANTIATING HOW RIDICULOUSLY THE GOVT.HAD APPEALED TO THE HIGH COURT AND ESCAPED WITH A DIGNIFIED REBUFF!!!

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 10-01-2009 at 05:12 PM.

  12. #12
    Senior Member vnatarajan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    1,249

    Default

    Dear Mr Ramdas/ others

    Here is exactly what I cd squeeze thru to PMO's portal- wh took me one hr to exercise & send- GOT ACK.WITH THANKS MESSAGE:

    "President’s sanction of pension(para 5.1.47 of 6CPC), notified in gazette of 29/10/08 & DPP&PWOMdt1/9/08 is to be not less than 50% of “min. of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay, corresponding to pre-revised scale (Tab. in Exp.Dept.OM of 1/9/08).Lower OfficeDP&PW modified this thro'OMsdt 3& 14/10/08 substituting “irrespective of”for"corresponding to"&”min.of the pay in the pay band”for”min of pay band" &.reduced my pension to Rs.23700 instead of Rs 27350/- Pl intervene/do justice".

    Regards

    vnatarajan.
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 10-01-2009 at 06:50 PM.

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

    Default

    Dear all
    Pl see Sl No 12 posting for Registering Online Grievance in the PMO - the exact text what I cd squeeze thru after one hour of precis writing!
    vnatarajan.
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 11-01-2009 at 07:26 AM.

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

    Default

    Dear all
    You can also see what I cd post yesterday (10.01.09) as Grievance in PMO's portal in the other thread "Injustice to.......................".
    vnatarajan

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

    Default

    Dear all

    THIS IS IN CONTINUATION OF MY POSTING AT SL NO 11:
    (the text is reproduced from what I poste in Surispace.net)


    This highlights how the Govt. uses its OWN OMISSIONS(or INFIRMITIES) AS REASONS FOR GOING FOR APPEALS IN HIGH COURTS - an absurd practice which crosses all ETHICS and this appears only to HARASS the pensioner(s):

    THIS IS A CASE WHERE WHEN ONE ARM OF THE GOVT. i.e. A SECRETARY OF ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT/ ACHIEVING ENTITY VIZ DEPTT.OF SPACE OBEYED A CAT DECISION


    AND

    HOW HE (the Secretary I think) WAS MADE (HAD) TO GO FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST HIS OWN IMPLEMENTATION- THAT TOO AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS_ BECAUSE THE OTHER ARM(S) (here they are apparently Deptts of P/PW; MoF(deptt of Expenditure); Law Ministry what not?) OF THE GOVT. HAD NOT GIVEN THEIR CONCURRENCE BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUSTICE. !!!!

    *WERE THESE OBJECTION RAISING ARMS SLEEPING ALL THE TIME? Who prevented them from giving concurrence.? In fact originally the orders had contained provisions of pension benefits on spl. pay as ypou will make out when you study the case.Pl chk & follow.
    *ARE THEY ABOVE COURTS OF LAW? IF SO WHAT IS THE SPIRIT/ BENEFIT OF SUCH JUDGMENTS?
    *JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. PENSIONER WHO WAS DRAWING HIS JUSTFUL PENSON FROM 2000 ONWARDS OR SO- THAT TOO AFTER A FIGHT FOR SOME YEARS- IS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT IN 2007/08 BY A (FORCED?) APPEAL AFTER A LONG GAP! IS THIS NOT MOST INHUMAN?
    *EACH PENSION CASE TAKES TEN YEARS TO GET RESOLVED JUDICIALLY! IN EVERY CASE GOVT.LOSES.A WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY/TIME.

    WHERE ARE THE ETHICS IN GOVERNANCE?


    Here is the case detial:

    Delhi HIgh Court
    Judgment on WP1710/2007.
    Judgment dt 15.05.2008
    Deppt. of Space (Petitioner) vs R C Garg (Respondent)

    Learned Judge deserves our praise for giving a very rational observation in the end- and for the grace shown by the honble Justice, the “behind the scene” masters have to be thankful.


    WILL THEY AVOID FUTURE CASES? WHEN THEY ISSUE ORDERS WITH/ WITHOUT CONCERNED CONCURRENCES, THEY ARE SACROSANCT!
    BUT WHEN IT DOESN”T SUIT THEM, THEY MAY GO TO ANY EXTENT TO THWART JUSTICE TO PENSIONERS EVEN AFTER DECADES- USING THEIR OWN OMISSIONS (or INFIRMITIES) AS REASONS FOR APPEAL?


    MORAL: EVEN IF YOU WIN A CASE IN CAT, YOU ARE BOUND TO BE CHALLENGED BY THE GOVT. IN HIGHER COURTS-GIVING ANY REASONS FOR ITS APPEAL-MAY BE VALID OR ABSURD- YOU WILL ENJOY THE OUTCOME IF ONLY YOU LIVE TO DO SO!!

    What a calamity the pensioners are to face!!


    Regards
    VNatarajan

  16. #16
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    My dear Mr. G Ramdass. Good draft for online but it gives factual position and lacks the ground of your appeal. The ground is C/B Judgement dated 17 02 82 which gives equality to all pensioners under Article 14, which has been violated because of divisioning of pensioners into pre06,post06 and post08.
    Last edited by Kanaujiaml; 11-01-2009 at 08:03 AM.

  17. #17
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Mr.Kanaujia.Your observation is correct ,but for online representation wherin you have to squeeze yr complaint in 500 charcters, something like what is drafted by Mr. Natarajan, at#12, specific and to the point , would be ideal.

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

    Default

    Dear Mr Ramdas/ Mr Kanaujiami/ all

    No harm in sending more Grievance items- each of 500 charcters but content may vary and could cover different aspects.
    I think Mr K can also draft one exactly to suit the Nakara Judgment on parity and put it up.
    Earlier also I have sent one in a general manner reg. the injustice immediately after the issue of OM.3rd Oct 2008.
    In my current draft, I had tried to personalise the case, and tried to accommodate the points wh Mr Ramdass had put up nicely in his draft.This may suit individuals to send each one's own case.
    In fact I tried the average of Mr R's draft+ my draft and went on cutting the text as per limit requirement in the inset and ultimately the outcome is what I have posted.

    Let us evolve a few more MODELS for registering successive online grievances.

    All can suggest.

    vnatarajan.

  19. #19
    Member kkhameedkutty is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Thiruvananthapuram
    Posts
    37

    Default Web address of PM's office

    Dear Sir,

    Please provide web address of PM's office so that every one can lodge his / her grievance directly on the site.

    With Regards

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

    Default

    Dear kkk

    Here is the link:http://pmindia.nic.in/write.htm

    Today may be - portal is shut- but yes I tried -it comes up.
    You have to rehearse in the box to accommodate exactly 500 characters. If it exceeds the limit, it cuts the text & gives a message. So again u have to edit to restrict the text to be within the limit.

    Pl type yr PPO no/ dt etc alongwith Name or with Address wh are not counted.

    You have to select "Grievances" in the menu

    If your grievance is thru, you will get a "Thanks" message.

    (save a copy of ur message or at least a copy of the text before you click to "submit".

    vnatarajan

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-05-2012, 02:27 PM
  2. Pay parity for CSS/subordinate/autnomous bodies
    By pkkanwal in forum Anomalies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13-01-2009, 06:33 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2008, 09:17 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 07:48 AM
  5. pre 1996 Pensioners _ parity
    By RSundaram in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 08:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts