+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: pension fixation as per 28 jan 2013 OM

  1. #1
    Junior Member ramadevik is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default pension fixation as per 28 jan 2013 OM

    Sir,
    My father retired from DoT on 31 Aug 1995. Scale 2000-50-2300-75-3200 and BP
    2450. V CPC corresponding scale was 6500-200-10500.

    Now in 6 CPC 6500-200-10500 has been merged with 7450-225-11500.

    As per the table to OM dt 28 Jan 2013, for 6500-200-10500 scale , pension should be fixed at 8145 and he has been fixed now.Then what about the merger of 6500-200-10500 with 7450-225-11500. Should his pension be fixed in 7450-225-11500 scale at 9230. Please guide. If it has to be so , then what is the course of action.

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

    Default

    Dear Ramadevik

    What is the doubt? Kindly specify in precise term.



    Gopal Krishan

  3. #3
    Junior Member ramadevik is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Sir,
    Since 6500-200-10500 scale has been merged with 7450-225-11500 and placed in PB2 9300-34800, GP 4600 , is this merger apllicable to pensioners also? what should be my fathers pension after OM dt 28 Jan 2013. As per the table in OM dt 28 Jan 2013, for 7450-225-11500, corresponding pension is to be fixed at 9230. My father has been fixed at 8145, corresponding to 6500-200-10500 scale, in which he retired. Effect of merger of above scale has not been taken into account.

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

    Default

    I am sure you must have got a reply in the other thread-injsutice to pre-2006 pensioners.

    Gopal Krishan

  5. #5
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ramadevik View Post
    Sir,
    Since 6500-200-10500 scale has been merged with 7450-225-11500 and placed in PB2 9300-34800, GP 4600 , is this merger apllicable to pensioners also? what should be my fathers pension after OM dt 28 Jan 2013. As per the table in OM dt 28 Jan 2013, for 7450-225-11500, corresponding pension is to be fixed at 9230. My father has been fixed at 8145, corresponding to 6500-200-10500 scale, in which he retired. Effect of merger of above scale has not been taken into account.
    Dear Mr. Ramadevik.There is no effect of merger. The only advantage of merger is entitlement of Grade Pay of 4600, which your father has alrady been allotted.As far as the OM dated 28.1.2013 is concerned, your father's pension can be calculated by either of the two formule, on the basis of which being higher. The first formula, as is well known by now, fixes revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, by multiplying the existing pension as on 31.12.2005, by a factor of 2.26. The second formula is that " the revised pension cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay, as per table given in OM dated 30.8.2008, corresping to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired.This is effective, of course only from 24.9.2012, in terms of OM dated 28.1.2013. Obiviously, it means that only that Table would be applicable, which is corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner retired or was allotted,if retired prior to 1.1.1996.I hope this explains the entire position clearly. Good luck.

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

    Default

    Dear Shri Kanaujiami,

    Going by your reply above, one whose pension was fixed at 12,235 as on the 31st December, 2005 would get his pension revised by multiplying the same by 2.26 factor, which is higher than the pension calculated by the other formula. Kindly confirm the position.


































    With regards,

    Gopal Krishan

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

    Default

    Dear Shri GK.Your post above. There is one exception though. If you retired on or after 1.4.2004, deduct first 50 % Dearness Pay earlier merged in your pension, before applying the formula of 2.26.

  8. #8
    Member ram
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Kanaujiaml wrote
    Dear Shri GK.Your post above. There is one exception though. If you retired on or after 1.4.2004, deduct first 50 % Dearness Pay earlier merged in your pension, before applying the formula of 2.26.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ram View Post
    Kanaujiaml wrote
    Dear Shri GK.Your post above. There is one exception though. If you retired on or after 1.4.2004, deduct first 50 % Dearness Pay earlier merged in your pension, before applying the formula of 2.26.
    Dear Shri Ram. I am trying to reply "with quote", which I was not able to send from.

  10. #10
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default Pension Fixation as per28 Jan 2013 O.M.

    The minimum Pension Rs 8145, fixed for pre 6500-10500 grade(S12), as per O.M. dated 28.01.2013 is based on Grade Pay of Rs.4200 and not Rs 4600.The correct minimum pension for this grade should be Rs.8345.

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

    Default

    Der Shri Kanaujiami,

    As I mentioned earlier one of my friends retired on the 31st December, 2005, with basic pay of Rs.16500 (S-21). Going by 2.26 formula his pension should be 18645. However, his pension was earlier revised at Rs. 18435. As such he would get his epension enhanced by only Rs. 210. Could you kindly confirm the position.

    With regards,

    Gopal Krishan

  12. #12
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    [QUOTE=Gopal Krishan;17735]Der Shri Kanaujiami,

    As I mentioned earlier one of my friends retired on the 31st December, 2005, with basic pay of Rs.16500 (S-21). Going by 2.26 formula his pension should be 18645. However, his pension was earlier revised at Rs. 18435. As such he would get his epension enhanced by only Rs. 210. Could you kindly confirm the position.

    Since you have said his basic pay was 16500, I take it, it doesnot include DP. His pension should have been fixed at 8250 (50 % of 16500) x 2.26 = 18645 and not at 18435.He should make an application through his Bank Branch wherefrom he is getting his pension, to the CPPC of the Bank, for correction in his revised pension in terms of para 4.1 of the DOP OM dated 1.9.2008 and OM dated 14.10.2008.This correction should be effective from 1.1.2006, which means payment of arrears, too.

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

    Default

    What about 10 months average pay rule? Does it not affect the BP. His figure of 18435 instead of 18645 cd be related to the ssaid factor (....if I am corrcet. Otherwise pl ignore)....VN

  14. #14
    Senior Member Kanaujiaml is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vnatarajan View Post
    What about 10 months average pay rule? Does it not affect the BP. His figure of 18435 instead of 18645 cd be related to the ssaid factor (....if I am corrcet. Otherwise pl ignore)....VN
    Yes, you are right. Never the less, it is upto Shri GK to ponder about becaue he informed about the pay. Not only that, what about qualifying service ? For full pension you required 33 yrs. qualifying service.

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

    Default

    Right U R- minor omissions do occur.......VN

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

    Default

    Sir,

    He had completed more than 33 years of service. In that case his pension should have been Rs. 18645/- Am I correct?

    Gopal Krishan

  17. #17
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaujiaml View Post
    Dear Mr. Ramadevik.There is no effect of merger. The only advantage of merger is entitlement of Grade Pay of 4600, which your father has alrady been allotted.As far as the OM dated 28.1.2013 is concerned, your father's pension can be calculated by either of the two formule, on the basis of which being higher. The first formula, as is well known by now, fixes revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, by multiplying the existing pension as on 31.12.2005, by a factor of 2.26. The second formula is that " the revised pension cannot be less than 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay, as per table given in OM dated 30.8.2008, corresping to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired.This is effective, of course only from 24.9.2012, in terms of OM dated 28.1.2013. Obiviously, it means that only that Table would be applicable, which is corresponding to pre revised pay scale from which pensioner retired or was allotted,if retired prior to 1.1.1996.I hope this explains the entire position clearly. Good luck.
    The minimum pension fixed at 8145 from 24.9.2012 is only based on a grade pay of Rs.4200. If the grade pay 4600 allotted to scale 6500-10500, is taken into account the minimum pension should be Rs.8345.

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

    Default

    Wrt Shri GK's post on 18645. If his 10 months' av basic pay was 16500, then it can be so. If 16500 was his last basic pay and the 10 months average was lesser than the same, then the figure of 18435 may still be correct..... VN

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

    Default

    Respected Vn Sir,

    Thanks a lot for the clarification. We are aware of paras 4.1. and 4.2 the OMs dated the Ist September and clarifications issued by the Department on the 3rd October and the 14th October, 2008. It is also clear that where pension is under 4.1. is higher that would be the basic pension for pre-2006 pensioners. The 2.26 formula requires some elaboration. Kindly oblige.

    With regards

    Gopal Krishan

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

    Default

    I think Shri MLK ji or Shri Sundarar will be competent to explain clearly.
    The para 4.1 of OM 1 Sept 2008 is nothing but the usaul 1.86 MF plus the 40% FITMENT BENEFIT.
    Lot of discrimination exists even in this fiment formula - and strictly speaking , it is not the same fitment as the serving employees.

    AS THIS FORMULA OPERATES ON THE "LAST PAY DRAWN (LPD)" BASIS (ie the exiting BASIC PENSION wh wsa 50% of the LPD), if the old pensioner had drawn more "increments" in the scale of pay of the post held by him before retirement, he gets more pension than another comparable retiree of the same scale but with less increments to his credit!. IF THE NO OF INCREMENTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH, THE 2.26 MF BASED OR PARA 4.1 BASED REVISED PENSION MAY HAPPEN TO BE MORE THAN EVEN THE "REVISED PENSION BASED ON THE CORRECT MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND" (PLUS GP COMPONENT) OR THE NOW ORDERED "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" and obviously it is not easy for an old retiree of PB 1 or PB 2 category to easily find out the correct beneficial pension.

    ALSO AS THE PROMOTIONS WERE FAR AND FEW IN CASE OF OLD RETIREES , MANY OF THEM MUST HAVE DRAWN SUFFICIENT NO OF INCREMENTS IN THE SCALE OF THE POST LAST HELD BY THEM , AND BABUS WERE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FORESEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO 'OBSTRUCTION OR NEGATIVE" FROM THE "PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS' WHICH ARE MOSTLY MADE UP OF SUCH CATEGORIES OF RETIREES.

    Also it is difficult for them to gather a huge resource to fight the cases till hon SC......

    IN FUTURE , ALL ASSOCIATIONS MUST BE MORE VIGiLANT AND "INSIST ON EQUAL TREATMENT IN REVISED PENSION" WHETHER THEY ARE BRANDED AS HOMOGENOUS OR HETEROGENOUS. Mere issue of OMs on different dates do not declassify the past pensioners as not belonging to the same class of homogenous pensioners as the later ones. IT IS BAUDOM'S HOODWINKING AND BLATANT LYING TECHNOLOGY- EVEN TO CONFUSE THE COURTS.

    MF SHALL BE SAME TO ALL. NO HANKY PANKY.

    Rgards,
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 09-04-2013 at 05:16 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 27-02-2016, 12:19 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-01-2013, 07:55 AM
  3. Income tax planning for assessment year 2013 - 14
    By tushar in forum Contribution of admin contents and useful links by members
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2012, 01:21 PM
  4. pay fixation and pension
    By subirs in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2012, 12:13 PM
  5. Fixation of pension
    By junior in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 26-12-2008, 04:56 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