+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 7th pay Commission

  1. #1
    Senior Member G.Ramdas is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    185

    Default 7th pay Commission

    Dear All,

    7th pay Commission News – Prime Minister Approves the Constitution of Seventh Central Pay Commission; Recommendations are Likely to be implemented with effect from 1st January, 2016

    Now that the P.M has announced the 7cpc, it is time for us to finalize our program to ensure that Pensioners are heard properly and there is little chance of anomalies as in 6cpc.I am sure our veterans like VN would already have prepared an action plan . Eagerly waiting to hear them.

    G Ramdas

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

    Default

    Very good idea.
    VN Sir has been doing a lot for the welfare of the pensioners. I am sure that he would the needful in guding persons like us, with reference to the 7th CPC so that anomalies as existed in the 6th CPC are avaoided.
    Gopal Krishan

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

    Default


    Dear Shri GR/ Shri GK/Others Interested,

    Thanks for prompting .... I am not sure how we all shall join together, put our ideas together and go about it.

    WHILE I HAVE MY OWN IDEAS , I FEEL IT IS COLLECTIVE THOUGHT AND INSIGHT THAT SHALL HAVE TO BE SYNTHESISED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES.

    Certain basic principles must be followed to be clear in arriving at the OBJECTIVES and later the DEMANDS.

    ALL PENSIONERS GOVERNED BY THE CCS PENSION RULES 1972 BELONG TO ONE HOMOGENOUS CLASS ONLY AND MERE ISSUANCE OF SEPARTE OMSs FOR PAST AND WOUKD BE PENSIONERS CAN NOT BE USED AS A TOOL FOR DISCRINMINATION IN APPLYING THE LIBERALISED BENFITS SEAMLESSLY AND THE DATES OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH OMS CAN NOT BE USED AS CUT-OFF DATES FOR ANY DISCRIMINATION RESULTING IN RENDERING EQUALS AS UNEQUALS .

    GOVT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE ANY PENSION POLICY, DECIDE ON THE RATIO OF PAY THAT SHALL BECOME PENSION, APPLY ANY CUT-OFF DATE TO BRING INTO EFFECT SUCH CHANGES---- BUT ALL SUCH FORMULATIONS HAVE TO BE IN STRICT CONGRUENCE AND ACCORDANCE TO THE ACCEPTED ACTS/ RULES NOT VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY/ PROPRITY ETC ENSHRINED IN THE ARTICLES 14/16/21 OF THE CONSTITUION. EQUALS SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN EQUALS, BEFORE AND AFTER REVISIONS, WITHIN THE FRMAEWORK OF THE GUIDING PARAMETERS.

    PENSIONERS MUST MAKE A CORE DEMAND THAT THEIR INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY can not be done away with which is related very much to the 'LAST PAY DRAWN IN THE SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST HELD BY HIM/HER" AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT. IT IS LIKE A "SCROLL AND ROLE OF HONOUR" TO THE INDIVIDUAL PENSIONER AND IT SHALL NOT BE DONE AWAY WITH BY ANY POLICY/ ACT/ RULE, WHICH ON THE CONTRARY, HAS TO ENSURE ITS "EQUIVALENCE AND CONCORDANCE" ,BEFORE AND AFTER REVSION, EVERY TIME THE SAME MAY HAPPEN DUE TO CPC REVISIONS....

    Now some points of guidance:

    1. RE-DEFINING "PENSION" IS IMPORTANT AS IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONER'S PROPRIETY, PROPERTY AND RIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, PENSION HAS TO BE DEFINED AS A FIRM/ STIPULATED "RATIO" OF EMOLUMENTS. AND FUNDAMENTAL RULE 9/ITS SECTIONS HAVE TO BE SUITABLY AMENDED.

    2.FORMULATION OF INDIVIDUAL'S PENSION HAS TO BE BASED ON NAKARA PRINCIPLE AND RATIO. EQUALS MUST BE TREATED AS EQUALS, BASED ON THE PARAMETERS OF "SCALE OF PAY IN THE POST LAST HELD BY THE PENSIONER'" and QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR FULL PENSION/ PRO-RATED PENSION; For eg, RATIO ARRIVED AT (say 50% as of now) HAS TO BE APPLIED ON THE "LAST PAY DRAWN EQUATION" BASIS ONLY , WHICH MAY BE DEFINED IN A "CONCORDANT IR FITMENT TABLE" UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE TO PENSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES .

    3.THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION IN ARRIVING AT THE PENSION FORMULATION. THERE HAS TO BE AN UNIFORM APPROACH FOR OLD/CURRENT/FUTURE PENSIONERS. (Sixth CPC's flawed Pay Band based Mod parity system resulted in highly variable MF for even minimum pension. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE HAD BEEN AND UNIFORM FITMENT FOR PENSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES, AND SAME MF FOR ALL, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO MANY DISPUTES.

    4.THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THE "CUT-OFF DATE" WHICH IS MAINLY PROVIDED FOR THE EFFECTIVEE CHANGE OVER FROM THE OLD RATE TO THE NEW RATE OF PENSION.

    5.DISCRIMINATION BROUGHT IN CURRENTLY WRT QS MUST BE DONE AWAY WITH.

    6.WHETHER IT IS A PAY BAND SYSTEM OR A PAY SCALE SYSTEM, THE "LAST PAY DRAWN EQUIVALENCE" MUST MATCH ON EITHER SIDE OF REVISION TO AVOID DISPUTES. NOT BEING IN SERVICE HAS NO RELEVANCE AS "ANY LIBERALISED PENSION REVISION CAN NOT BE DENIED TO PAST PENSIONERS" ON THIS REASON. AT THE SAME TIME, OLD PENSIONERS MUST NOT ASPIRE FOR "ENHANCED ONE TIME RETIREMENT BENEFITS" LIKE GRATUITY/ LEAVE ENCASHMENT ETC....

    7. PENSIONERS' CAN NOT BE DENIED APPLICATION OF ALL RULES/ SECTIONS OF CCS PENSION RULES/ CCS PAY RULES AS MAY BE RELEVANT/ THEIR SECTIONS etc.
    .
    8. NEWLY INTRODUCED HASTY POLICY OF "MINIMUM GUARANTEED PENSION" MUST BE REPLACED BY THE "LAST PAY DRAWN BASED GUARANTEED PENSION" ....

    9. ONE RANK-ONE PENSION APPROACH WILL NOT SUIT CIVILIANS, PARTICULARLY IN THE SCIENTIFIC/ ENGINEERING STREAMS AS FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION CAN NOT BE STRUCTURED TO SUIT SEVERAL HEIRARCHIAL POSITIONS. THIS IS BECAUSE A SCIENTIST/ ENGINEER MAY HAVE TO CONTINUE IN A PROJECT OR SCHEME FOR SEVERAL YEARS CONTINUOUSLY AND HENCE THE APPROCH OF "NFFU" SYSTEM HAS ITS OWN MERITS. THIS PROVIDES FOR A SEMALESS GROWTH FINANCILALY FOR THE INCUMBENT VIS A VIS HIS "FUNCTIONAL" COUNTER-PART COLLEAGUES.

    10. CONTROVERSIAL / DISPUTED APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE FCPC/ SCPC RECOMMENDATIONS- IMPLEMENTATIONS HAVE RESULTED IN SEVERAL COURT CASES WHICH ARE STILL IN PROGRESS. THESE INCLUDE THE "20 YR PLUS /33 YEARS MINUS- FULL PENSION" FORMULATION ONLY FOR POST 1 1 2006 RETIREES; EXCLUSION OF SPECIAL PAY/ NPA ETC FOR COUNTING WITH BASIC PAY FOR PENSION; RETIREES WITH DATES OF BIRTH OF 1 1 1946 (OTHER OLD PENSIONRS SIMILARLY SITUATED) BEING DENIED THE "REVISED RETIREMENT BENEFITS' FOR NO FAULT OF THEIR AS CPC OUTCOMES WHICH OCCUR ONCE IN A DECADE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS MONTHLY/ ANNUAL EVENTS LIKE "NON-CPC CUT-OFF DATE RELATED" RETIREMENTS/ INCREMENST ETC. ALL THESE MUST BE RESOLVED WITH "ONE-TIME SOLUTIONS"......


    Above are some of my thoughts to lay a foundation to our approach. May be several ideas shall flow in now.

    PL NOTE THIS INITIATION IS NOT FOR QUANTIFICATION RIGHT NOW.
    I AM NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO PAY BANDS 1- 2 ETC RIGHT NOW AND HENCE MY OMISSIONS MUST BE PARDONED .

    Regards,
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 29-09-2013 at 01:14 PM.

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

    Default

    DEAR SHRI GR/SHRI GK/ALL PENSIONERS,

    I WRITE THIS IN CONTINUATION OF MY EARLIER POST ABOVE:

    WHILE DRAFTING THE BASIC DEMANDS FOR A SYSTEMATIC AND UNIFORM REVISED PENSION FORMULA FOR ALL PENSIONERS, SOME OF THE IMPORTANT LAND-MARK TRIBUNAL AND HON COURT JUDGMENTS HAVE TO BE KEPT IN VIEW.

    SHRI KSS JI/ SHRI MLK JI/ SHRI SUNDARAR JI AND SEVERAL OTHERS (SHRI GR IS AGREAT ANALYST/ SSHRI GK HIMSELF IS AN INFORMATION RESOURCE WHO CAN TAKE CARE OF ONE THEME OR OTHER...) - EVEN MILITARY VETERANS KNOW THE SUBJECT BETTER AND HENCE I PROMPT THEM TO ACTIVELY SUBSCRIBE TO THIS THREAD TO GUIDE VARIOUS PENSIONERS/ PENSIONER GROUPS/ PENSIONER FEDERATIONS ETC - AS SOME OF THEM MAY READ THIS - DIRECTLY OR AFTER KNOWING THE SAME FROM THEIR PENSIONER-FRIENDS.

    THESE JUDGMENTS ARE BASICALLY TRUE AND JUST IN LETTER AND SPIRIT.

    GOVT./ AUTHORITIES MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SPIRIT OF THESE JUDGMENTS TO AVOID LEGAL CONFRONTATIONS AFTER 7TH CPC ORDERS....

    1. DS NAKARA VS UOI JUDGMENT OF 17 DEC 1982 of HSC (5 bENCH....none of recent benches can undo this....)
    (All pensioners coming under the purview of CCSPension Rules 1972 form a homogenous class and EQUALS among them must be treated as EQUALS, irrespective of the date of retirement and irrespective of the cut-off date).

    2. SPS VAINS/ Others (Retd Maj Gens) VS UOI JUDGMENT Dt 9 SEPT 2008 of HSC
    (A Retd Maj gen has to draw the same pension another Retired Maj Gen, irrespective of the date of retirement or cut-off date)

    3.AKKARA vs UOI - JUDGMENT by HSC- reinforces Nakara principle among equals (Shri MLK ji will comment pl)

    4. (Buttar vs UOI - HSC case Judgment on Disability pension- Shri MLK ji to correct- No discrimination can be there based on date of retirement or cut-off date among pensioners for bestowing disability based pensionary benefits).

    5.PR BENCH CAT JUDGMENT OF CGS29PA?Others VS UOI in OA 655/2010 dt 1 11 2011- mainly focusing on CABINET DECISION / GAZETTE NOTIFIED ON 29 8 2008 FOR REVISED PENSION OF PAST PENSIONERS CAN NOT BE "LOWER THAN" THE MINIMUM LEVELS PRESCRIBED. This would clearly convey that the formula enunciated has to endure that Revised Pension has to be above this MINIMUM LEVEL. For eq, many Pre 2006 Pensioners get revised pension based on a MF operating on LAT PAY DRAWN basis or on basis of MINIMUNM PAY OF THE REVISED PAY SCALE/FIXED PAY (akin to VCPC Pension Revision formulation) for HAG levels ( Scales 30/31/32/33/34) and their revised pension is much above the MiNIMUM LEVELS PRESCIBED .

    6.PUNJAB & HARYANA HC JUDGMENT- RANBIR SEHGAL/ RK AGARWAL & Others vs HVPNL/State of Haryana - dtd 21 12 2012 WHICH HAS UPHELD THE PR BENCH CAT'S JUDGMENT AS THE GUIDING PRINICPLE - AND HAS GIVEN A CLEAR "DIRECTIVE" ON "FORMULATING THE REVSISION OF PENSION". According to this judgment, ..... Pay of the Pensioner has to be revised first accord to the FITMENT TABLE prescribed for Revision of Pay of employees, 50 % of the same has to be determined as pension, and then the same has to be verified so that it is "NOT LOWER THAN" the "Minimum Level" prescribed for the case . This in essence would mean POINT TO POINT PARITY. (SLP on this is pending at HSC but the same shall be dismissed at the admission stage itself if pensioners are alert... as it ahs happened in similar case on 29 July 2013....)as above in sl no 6 . These are State Govt pensioners- but the Stae Govt of Hrayana- while carrying out pay / pension revisions follow the CPC Recos and CG Rules for guidance and formulation of their parallel rules/ implementation orders.

    7. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HC JUDGMENT - ATMA SINGH/OTHERS VS UOI - dtd 14 Jan 2013 - This judgment delivered by the same double bench reiterated the earlier one at sl no 6, confirmed / upheld the PR BENCH CAT Judgment cited earlier. Earlier , Atma Singh & Other Groups ( 3 in all) who belong to CG Pensioners' category (CCS Pension Rules,1972 ) had fought their cases for PARITY in Pensions in CAT Chandigarh and won he same.

    8. CAT CHANDIGARH JUDGMENTS in 2011-12 - cases of ATMA SINGH & Others/ Kailash Chandra Verma & Others etc - 5 OAs in all- all praying relief on the principle -THERE CAN BE NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE PRE 2006 AND POST 2006 PENSIONERS- and their petitions were allowed by CAT Chandigarh. Though the judgment had cited the PR BENCH CAT judgment of 1 11 2011 for adoption, the petitionersSTRONGLY / RIGHTLY BELIEVE that as THEIR PETITIONS FOR ENSURING "NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PRE AND POST 2006 PENSINERS" HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CAT HANDIGARH/ P & H HC ETC, the justice is for ensuring POINT TO POINT PARITY and not for the Mod Parity as many of them belong to PB 1 , 2 and # and they do not gain by the 2 26 MF formulation or even on the MGP formulation now enunciated (earlier it was a reduced wrong formulation on MPB basis...).

    AUTHORITIES - PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS- FEDERATIONS / OTHERS CONCERNED MAY DO WELL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE "POSITIVE AND STRONG FOCUS ON POINT TO POINT (PTP) PARITY" THAT IS EMERGING IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF TRIBUNALS/ COURTS SO THAT THE PENSION REVISION PROBLEM CAN BE RESOLVED ONCE FOR ALL- BY RESORTING BACK TO THE "TIME-TESTED PRINCIPLE" OF BASING THE REVISED PENSION AS 50% (or even more after 7CPC) OF THE REVISED PAY (WHETHER IN A NEW PAY BAND OR IN REVISEDPAY SCALE) VIZ THE "LAST PAY DRAWN" BY THE PENSIONER IN THE SCALE OF PAY OF THE POST HELD BY HIM AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN A COMMON FITMENT TABLE ADOPTABLE FOR PENSIONERS/ EMPLOYEES WHICH IS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CPC RECOS THAT MAY EMERGE.....

    (Types of COMPLICATED-DISCRIMINATIVE- MULTIPLE FORMULATIONS AS ENUNCIATED IN Para 4.1 and 4.2 of OMs of 1 st Sept 2008 for pre 2006 pensioners MUST BE DONE AWAY WITH. There can not be "searate OMs' for pre and Post revision datum pensioners- as this leads to discrimination and reprehensive but "avidable" litigations later....)

    MODEL DRAFT RESOLUTION ON 4.2 PARA CAN BE PREPARED BY THE EXPERTS IN ADVANCE PL........

    Regards,
    vnatarajan


    PS: A MODEL:

    (THIS IS ALSO TO BE NAMED AS " MODEL 7TH CPC MODIFIED PARITY". PL NOTE WE ARE NOT GOING TO DEMAND "FULL PARITY WITH ALL CNSEQUENTIAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS". WE ARE FOCUSSING ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S "POINT TO POINT PARITY" ACCORDING TO A "FITMENT TABLE" WHICH AGAIN REPLACES "ESTWHILE YEARWISE STAGES' BY CONSOLIDATING DR WITH PAY SO THAT EFFECTIVELY "TWO STAGES IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE" ARE BUNCHED TO BE "MODIFIED" TO BECOME "ONE STAGE IN THE NEW PAY BAND' OR "NEW PAY SCALE").

    Say for Pre 2006 Pensioners:

    " 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 REVISED PAY IN THE PAY BAND PLUS GRADE PAY CORRESPONDING TO THE LAST PAY DRAWN IN THE PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE OF THE POST FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED, to be determined in accordance with the prescribed FITMENT TABLE / CONCORDANCE TABLE for establishing the "NOTIONAL" correspondence between pre-revised pay and revised pay in respective pay scales/ pay bands, transcending from one CPC to the other...."
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 29-09-2013 at 03:37 PM. Reason: Editorial... aDDING SUBSTANCE BASED ON SOME REPLIES....)

  5. #5
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    There have been generated lots of "ammunition" to the 7th CPC re: pension benefits as evidenced from VN's observations and findings.
    In addition, we should give proposals re: improvements of medical benefits for pensioners.

    Govt. passed a Resolution vide DOE No. 1/1/2008-IC dt. 29 Aug 2008 to examine the introduction of Health Insurance Scheme for Central Govt. Employees and Pensioners ,known as CGEPHIS. Though 5 years have passed, the scheme has not been introduced yet.

    It is essential that we should approach 7th CPC for immediate implementation of this scheme which is a long felt need.
    Other suggestions on medical benefits to pensioners are also requested from members.

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

    Default

    Thanks for a good start on the eve of constitution of 7th cpc.

    We all may be aware that the 5th cpc vide para 137.21 of its report said that
    "at the time of next pay revision, say in 2006, complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-96, and modified parity has to be given between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Let us hope the then goi will respect this recommendation, and maintain the parity of old and new pensioners".

    while the complete parity recommended by 5th cpc remains a question as on date,
    the recent developments in the court cases are pointing towards the same. As such, complete
    parity w.e.f. 1.1.2016 for all pre-2016 pensioners, could be the first and foremost agenda as far as pensioners are concerned.

    At the same time, it is also to be kept in view that the manner and methodology of revising
    pension shall be one and same for the single homogenous class of pensioners.

    While complete parity is linked with pay revision of existing employees, it cannot be said that pay revision and pension revision are entirely two different schemes.

    As 50% of last drawn emoluments only is getting revised for a pensioner of any time, in the name of revised pension, the parity aspects need not play any role in future, whether it is modified or complete.

    The revised pension structure shall be able to remove all band based/scale based anomalies till 31.12.2015.

    Bps may be able to get a seat in the commission as representative of pensioners community, through the good offices of scova, which is my wish and prayer.

    Thanks and best regards
    jai shri krishna.

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

    Default

    DEAR PRE 2006/ OLDER PENSIONERS,


    WHILE PREPARING FOR OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR 7TH CPC PENSION REVISION, IT COMES TO MY MIND THAT, ALL PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATIONS/ THEIR FEDERATIONS/ PENSIONERS MUST BE FULLY AWARE OF SOME MORE FRIVOLOUS, RIDICULOUS, UNJUST, UNFAIR, UNPRINCIPLED, UNETICAL, LEGALLY UNTENABLE AND WHAT NOT EXPLANATIONS, FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITIES FROM TIME TO TIME, TO DEFEND THEIR FAULTY/WRONG/ MISADMINISTERED ORDERS ADN PRACTICES RESULTING IN REDUCED AMOUNTS OF REVISED PENSIONS MANY ARE DCOCUMENTED NOW IN RTI-QUERIES-REPLIES, AS ANNEXURES OR TEXT IN COURT DOCUMENTS LIKE PETITIONS/ COUNTERS/ AFFIDAVITS, AND EVEN IN HON TRIBUNAL/ HON COURT VERDICTS/JUDGMENTS ETC AND SOME IMPORTANT BRIEFS MADE OUT OF THEM ARE PLACED HERE FOR FUTURE GUIDANCE.


    YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE ATTITUDE OF THE DOPPW/ OTHER PENSION AUTHORITIES WRT PENSIONERS' PROBLEMS AND GRIEVANCES, IF YIU CAN UNDERSTAND THESE BASIC POINTS WHICH ARE THE ROOT CAUSES OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND OLD PENSIONERS..


    MANY PENSIONER FEDERATIONS/ ASSOCIATIONS LEND A DEAF EAR TO THESE PROVOCATIVE CONFLICTS / EXXPLANATIONS AND THE SAME ARE THE METHODS ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES AT VARIOUS TIMES TO MAKE OLD PENSIONERS A SORT OF SCAPE-GOATS.


    OLD PENSIONERS' DIFFERED WAGE PRINCILED (BECAUSE OF GPF'S MATCHING COMPONENT OF GOVT CONTRIBUTION FORMING THE "UNACCOUNTED NOTIONAL ICORPUS OR PENSION FUND THAT HAS ACCRUED SO FAR TO THE TUNE OF 350 LAKH-CRORES " / WELL EARNED PENSION ENTITLEMENTS/ RIGHTS ARE TAPERED OFF TO ENHANCE THE PAY/ NEW PENSION FORMULATIONS - AND TO DEFEND THE SAME - THE MIS-USE OF "CUT-OFF DATE APPLICATIONS", " GOVT'S HAS AUHTORITY TO DECIDE ON PENSION AMOUNTS" ETC ARE OFFERED AS EXPLANATIONS INLEGAL CONFLICTS.


    THE MATERIAL PLACED ARE AN EXCHANGE OF INFO BETWEEN VN AND MLK AND SUPPORTED BY INPUTS FROM OTHER VETERANS INCLUDING SUNDARAR:


    (MAY APPEAR 3 PARTS : PART A, PART B, PART C)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (PART A)


    POINTS ARE RAISED BY VN.
    EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY MLK.


    QUOTE:
    Govt. ..............have been giving Counter Affidavits at various occasions against Petitions submitted to various Courts/CAT/AFT after the faulty implementation of SCPC Report in respect of Pensioners who retired prior to 01.01.2006. Important Govt. Arguments have been collected with the help of Shri V. Natarajan and several other pensioner friends and an attempt has been made here to put up reply against each such argument to help prepare Pensioners Rejoinder to Govt. Counter - M. L. Kanaujia, IRSSE, CCE(Rtd.), N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur.
    (1) No judicial review is called for as the revision of pension is as per SCPC recommendations approved by the Cabinet.
    Reply : Everything contained in OMs issued for implementation of SCPC Report is to be within the frame work of Constitution of India and law set by various decisions of the hon.ble Supreme Court on the matter concerned. Power mentioned here is, therefore, not absolute and is therefore, open for judicial review. The way the Govt. has implemented the SCPC Report in respect of past pensioners, is violative of Article 14 and various other hon.ble Supreme Court Judgments. Denial by Govt. to address the issues in favour of the pensioners has left no other alternative available except for judicial review by means of Petitions in CAT/Court.
    (2) The OM dated 3.10.2008 is a clarification but not a modification. It only interprets the initial version of para 4.2 to bring clarity but not substitute any new provisions than the accepted para 5.1.47 of SCPC Report/ para 4.2 of Om of 1 9 2008.
    Reply : Denied. It is very simple to find out what is clarification and what is modification /amendment from the final outcome. For example, revised pension of an s29 pre 2006 retiree (other conditions remaining the same) from Resolution dt. 29.08.08 comes to Rs. 27,350, whereas from OM dt 3.10.08 it has been reduced to Rs. 23,700. The definition of Minimum of the pay in the pay band has been equavated with Minimum of pay band. Furtehr, Minimum of the pay in the pay band has been made “irrespective” of p.r.p.s. from which pensioners retired instead of earlier “corresponding” to the p.r.p.s. from which a pensioner had retied.
    (3) In view of (2) above, actual implementation is as per initial OM dated 1.9.2008 only.
    Reply : OM dt 1.9.08 stated that revised pension of an s29 pre 06 retiree, with other conditions remaining the same, would be 50% minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to p.r.p.s. from which a pensioner had retired, which comes to half of Rs. 44,700 plus grade pay of 10,000 = 32,350. This is neither as per SCPC para 5.1.47 as accepted by Govt. vide Resolution dt. 29.08.08 nor as per OM dt. 3.10.08. This OM has atleast two versions with same letter number and
    date etc. which has further created confusion.
    (4) Parity in pension is not practically possible while comparing a pre-revised pay from which a pensioner had retired with a revised pay from which a pensioner retires after 1.1.2006. They can not be done with "mathematical precision".
    Reply : The statement is denied . Article 14 enshrines equality and DS Nakara Judgment has held that “if other conditions are same, amount of revised pension would be same, irrespective of date of retirement of a pensioner, whenever the same pension scheme is upgraded. Principles laid down in para 20 of hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of BJ Akkra, clearly define the “discrimination” or otherwise. On the basis of Article 14 and various Supreme Court Judgments,an s29 pensioner retired on 31.12.05, with a basic pay of 18, 400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400, after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years and an s29 pensioner retired on 31.01.06, with a basic pay of 18,400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400 after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years, both should have same pension namely Rs. 27,350
    (5) No violation of Article 14 of the Constitution has taken place.
    Reply : Denied. Violation of Article 14 has taken place because of differential treatment has been given to the past pensioners belonging to same class and forming same homogenous group, by dividing them artificially in different categories namely, pre 2006 and post 2006 and fixing their pension with different set of rules, at different amount, all other conditions remaining the same except the
    date of retirement.
    (6) Minimum of the Pay Band and Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band are one and same (for pre 2006 pensioners) and there is no need to differentiate between two.
    Reply : This is not universally true. Pay band 4 has been created after merging six p.r.p.scales. In order to obviate injustice to senior scale s29 merged with junior most scale s24, SCPC catered for, agianst two bunchings i.e. fixation of pay at same stage, addition into minimum of pay band Rs. 37,400, one increment equal to 3 % of minimum of pay band i.e. 3% of Rs. 37,400. There are 12 such bunchings between s24 and s29 when incremental stages of these two pre revised pay scales are compared . Therefore. six increments cumulatively have been added in minimum of pay band 4 to make for s29 “minimum of the Pay in the pay band.” Whereas, for Minimum of the pay in pay band for s24, it remains minimum of pay band i.e. Rs. 37, 400 only, but, for s29, it becomes Rs. 44,700. Please refer to para 2.2.21 (iii) of SCPC Report and Rule 7 (1) (A) (ii) of CCS (Revised) Pay
    Rules2008.


    (CONTD IN NEXT POST)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 01-10-2013 at 08:18 AM.

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

    Default

    PART B (CONTD FROM PREVIOUS POST):


    (7) The employer has every right to revise the pay of serving employees, AND erstwhile pensioners can have no say. Govt also is competent to decide what amount of pension one has to be given!
    Reply : Powers are not sweeping powers like it has been made here to look. Everything contained in OMs issued for implementation of SCPC Report is to be within the frame work of Constitution of India and law set by various decisions of the hon.ble Supreme Court on the matter concerned. Power mentioned here is, therefore, not absolute and is therefore, open for judicial review. The way the Govt. has implemented the SCPC Report in respect of past pensioners, is violative of Article 14 and various other hon.ble Supreme Court Judgments. Denial by Govt. to address the issues in favour of the pensioners has left no other alternative available except for judicial review by means of Petitions in CAT/Court.
    (8) The financial constraints also need to be looked into while considering any liberalisation of pensionary benefits.
    Reply : Financial implications were thought of by the SCPC while submitting its report and requirement of funds for implementation of the report has been spelt out. While making recommendations vide para 5.1.47 for past pensiones, the SCPC has clearly indicated, that expenditure involved has been taken into consideration.
    The financial constraints are being brought into the focus now therefore, are for diversion sake only. In various Judgments of the hon.ble Supreme Court, starting from DS Nakara case and ending wih the most recent one KJS Butter case, it has always been held that “for fixing revised pension and payment thereto”, cannot be
    denied on account of financial constraints.
    (9) Same fitment formula for revision of pension as has been done in the case of serving employees have been applied while revising.
    Reply : This is absolutely incorrect. Actually, if we consider it from following example, it would reveal the truth of the matter. An s29 pensioner retired on 31.12.05, with a basic pay of 18, 400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400, after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years and an s29 pensioner retired on 31.01.06, with a basic pay of 18,400 in p.r.p.s. of Rs. 18,400-22,400 after putting in a qualifying service of 33 years, both should have same pension namely Rs. 27,350. But, the pension of former has been fixed at 32,700 whereas pension of latter has been fixed at 27,350 although in two cases, all conditions are same except date of retirement. Thus, this is violative of Article 14, violative of “ law “ set by Constitutional Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara Judgment and “principles” laid down in
    the judgment of hon.ble Supreme Court in BJ Akkra case.
    (10) The National Anomaly Committee has already resolved this issue and the Staff side also has accepted the official side's views and hence no need to reopen the issue.
    Reply : Our issue has not been settled at all. In fact the case with regard to pensioners who retired as Gazetted Officers is not included in the terms of reference even and was never considered ever by the Anomaly Committee. Anomaly Committee is another divertive tactics of the Govt. to deny the past pensioners their legal due.
    (11) As per Art 73/ 77 Govt is competent to make / amend any Rule on behalf of the President.
    Reply : Article 73 states the “extent of the executive power of the Union” and the Article 77 states about “Conduct of business of the Government of India”. Article 73 (1) starts with the words that “These powers are subject to the provisions of this Constitution”. Evidently, the powers given to Govt. are therefore, not above the Constitutional provisions for equality enshrined in Article 14. Violation of Article 14 therefore, cannot be set aside by citing provisions of Article 73 or 77. Article 14
    is bound to prevail.
    (12) CCS (RP) Rules 2008 are not applicable to pre 2006 pensioners. As old pensioners are/ were no longer in service during the SCPC period, they are not entitled for any "REVISION OF PAY" applicable to those in service/ retired post 1 1 2006.
    Reply : The contention is denied on the following grounds :
    i) CCS(Revised)Pay Rules 2008 are “statuary” in nature as can be seen from the Notification , which says the Rules have been made “in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309, and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution” :

    These Rules, are therefore, above those executive instructions which have been issued by the Govt. after the date of enactment of the said Rules i.e. 29.08.2008. The executive instructions issued by way of MOP, OMs dated 1.9.08, 3.10.08 and 14.10.08 etc. cannot supersede the provisions made in these Rules. Proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) of CCS(Revised)Pay Rules, reads as under “Provided further that : Where, in the fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched, that is to say, gets fixed in the revised pay structure at the same stage in the pay band, then, for every two stages so bunched, benefit of one increment shall be given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. For this purpose, the increment will be calculated on the pay in the pay band. Grade pay would not be taken into account for the purpose of granting increments to alleviate bunching.“
    ii) SCPC Report para 2.2.21 (iii) reads as under : “In case more than two stages in the pre-revised pay scale are getting fixed at the same stage in the revised running pay band, benefit of one increment has been given so as to avoid bunching of more than two stages in the revised running pay bands. In the case of pay scales in higher administrative grade(HAG) in the pay band PB-4 benefit of increment due to bunching has been given taking into account all the stages in different pay scales in this grade. The detailed fixation chart (Table 2.2.2) showing stage-wise fixation of existing employees in the revised running pay bands should be utilized in every case of fixation of pay of the concerned employees in the revised running pay bands.”
    iii) SCPC Report para 5.1.47 has been accepted by the Govt. vide Resolution dated 29.08.08, Item 12 which says “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. “ Read with Para 2.2.21 (iii) of SCPC Report, quoted in (ii) above and proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) CCS(Revised)Pay Rules, quoted in (i) above, minimum of the pay in the pay band for pre revised pay scale s29 Rs. 18,400-22,400 comes to Rs. 44,700, which is more than minimum of pay band i.e. Rs. 37,400, because six increments have been added in Minimum of Pay band Rs. 37,400, @ 3 % of 37,400, cumulatively, against 12 bunchings because s24 reaches minimum of s29 after 12 bunchings.
    iv) MOF OM dated 30.08.08 has also given Minimum of the pay in the pay band in respect of s29 pre revised pay scale 18400-22400 as Rs. 44,700 which is more than minimum of pay band i.e.37,400, as, here also, six increments have been added in Minimum of Pay band Rs. 37,400, @ 3 % of 37,400, cumulatively, against 12 bunchings because s24 reaches minimum of s29 after 12 bunchings.
    v) Denial of s29 pre 2006 pensioners the minimum of the pay in pay band as 44,700 for the purpose of fixation of revised pension is against the hon.ble Supreme Court judgment in case of DG Posts Vs B. Ravindran (Civil Appeal No. 4077 of 1992) : (DOJ 08.11.1996) which has held that any modification done through the executive instructions i. e. OMs (such as OMs dated 1.9.08,3.10.08, 14.10.08) to the statuary provisions (such as proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) of CCS(Rev.)Pay Rules 2008) and these executive instructions issued under OMs dated 1.9.08, 3.10.08, 14.10.08 are invalid and without any authority of law.
    vi) Article 14 gives right to the equality to all. Hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment in DS Nakara case has held that “if other conditions are same revised pension should be the same irrespective of date of retirement”. Furtehr, priciples laid down in vide para 20 of hon.ble Supremce Court Judgment in BJ Akkra case also upheld that “adoption of different method of fixing revised pension, where other conditions remain the same, but simply because that one retired earlier and another latter, is
    discrimination under Article 14 of Constitution of India”.

    (CONTD IN NEXT POST)

    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 01-10-2013 at 08:19 AM.

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

    Default

    CONCLUDING PART C:

    PART C: (CONTD FROM PREVIOUS POST)

    (13) Clarificatory OMs/ Executive instructions need no Cabinet Approval. Nor they need be referred to CAG for concurrences.
    Reply : Denial of s29 pre 2006 pensioners the minimum of the pay in pay band as 44,700 for the purpose of fixation of revised pension is against the hon.ble Supreme Court judgment in case of DG Posts Vs B. Ravindran (Civil Appeal No. 4077 of 1992) : (DOJ 08.11.1996). In this judgment it has been held that any modification done through the executive instructions i. e. OMs ( such as OM dated 3.10.08) to the statuary provisions (such as CCS(Rev.)Pay Rules 2008) are “invalid and without any authority of law. “OM dated 03.10.08 actually carries modification to the statuary provision contained in Proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A)(ii) of CCS(Revised)Pay Rules and hence, and hence this modification, too is “invalid and without the authority of law.
    (14) CCS Pension Rules 1972 do not make provisions for revising pensions according to successive CPC Recos ( an ill-conceived / wantonly construed RTI Reply)
    Reply : Pre 2006 pensioners are not demanding that they should be treated like employees given pay accordingly. They are demanding equality with post 2006 pensioners, with all other conditions remaining the same, equality in pension with those who retired on and from 1.1.06 (specified date for implementation of SCPC Report) to 29.08.08 (date of issue of Resolution by MOP). CCS(Revised)Pay Rules 2008 containing certain terms with specific definition and meaning, which have been used in item 12 of Resolution dated 29.08.08 as well. Definition and Meaning cannot be different particularly when both these Notifications were issued and gazette notified on the same day (29.08.08). CCS(Rev.)Pay Rules 2008 are Statuary in nature and have acquired the status of law. The executive instructions contained in OM dated 1.9.08,03.10.08 and 14.10.08 cannot supersede Statuary provision and become automatically “invalid and without the authority of law”
    (15) Nakara/ Vains Judgments have already been watered down through other judgments.
    Reply : The words “watered down” in respect of DS Nakara Judgment or SPS Vains Judgment, has been used in at least one of the Judgments of the hon.ble Supreme Court but the context is different. When pensioners demanded, quoting DS Nakara Judgment and/or SPS Vains judgment, for something which was not there in these two judgments, the words ‘waterdowned” were used by the hon.ble Court, for pensioners. It only meant that pensioners are mis-using this cardinal Judgment and watering it down. The hon.ble Supreme Court has never meant that these two judgment itself have become “waterdowned” as is being interpreted by the Govt. It may be noted that DS Nakara Judgment was given by the Constitutional bench of the hon.ble Supreme Court comparising of highest number of judges and so far none of hon.ble Supreme Court judgments, have “set aside its ratio descendi” or Judgment held. Same is the case with hon.ble Supreme Court Judgment in SPS Vains case.
    (16) A Junior can draw more pension than a Senior scale pensioner depending upon the last emoluments drawn and length of service (... as if we are not aware of the same!- our submissions were in a different context!)
    Reply : This is a very sweeping statement. It is true that under all circumstances, junior cannot draw more pension than senior but under “certain” circumstances or even majority of cases, a junior cannot draw more pay or pension, because of application of NBR which has found its root from Article 14. Under Next below Rule, the pay of senior has to be stepped up equal to the Junior, if all other conditions are the same. This principle is prevailing all over in Govt. notifications and rule-books. Therefore, a senior getting lesser pension, if all other conditions are the same, is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rules enshrined in our Constitution.
    (17) 5CPC Modified parity is already settled. Now it is the Sixth CPC "Modified Parity" which has also been correctly implemented as per SCPC Recos.
    Reply :
    i) Kindly also see reply given in item 12 above.
    ii) As per FCPC, the revised pension is equal to minimum of the revised pay scale corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioners had retired. It may be noted that in case of FCPC, generally speaking, against each p.r.p. scale and new revised pay scale was given. It was therefore a simple matter. But the same is not true for the SCPC, which has not given a single Revised pay Scale against a single pre revised pay scale, starting from s4 to s30 except s31 and s32. Latter on, Govt. decided to take out s30 from pay band 4 and give it a separate single pay scale, in order to remove “disparity” (as stated in Committee of Secretaries Report). Had a Revised pay scale been provided against s29 pre revised pay scale of Rs.18,400 – 22,400, disparity of retirees from s29 pay scale, especially for those who retired prior to 1.1.06, would have been also removed up to some extent.
    iii) Now about the difference between a pay scale and the pay band. In SCPC, a number of pre revised pay scales have been merged to form a pay band. For example Pay Band 4 has been created by merging pre revised pay scales s24,s25,s26,s27,s28 and s29. To mitigate any injustice in fixation of pay and pension of a higher p.r.p. scale say, s29, Rs 18,400-22,400, merged with the lowest p.r.p.scale say, s24, Rs. 14,300-18,300, SCPC recommended allotting one additional increment against two bunchings, while fixing pay and pension of the higher p.r.p.scale. See SCPC Report para 2.2.21 (iii), which was also incorporated in CCS(Revised)Pay Rules 2008, Rule (1) (A)(ii).Pre revised pay scale s24 starts from 14,300 and ends at 18.300 whereas pre revised pay scale s29 starts from 18,400 and ends at 22,400. There are 12 bunchings i.e. stages which are to be crossed by s24 to reach just below the stage from where s29 starts. S29 was therefore, entitled to have minimum of the pay in pay band at Rs. 44,700, after addition of six increments @ 3 % of minimum of pay band, all cumulatively. in the minimum of the pay band. Para 5.1.47, which was accepted also under Resolution dated 29.08.08, item 12, saying that “Revised pension cannot be less than sum of 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay thereon, corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. This, in deed, is the SCPC modified parity, which pre 2006 pensioners are demanding and which has been denied vide MOP OM dated 03.10.2008. Govt. is making a propaganda that the “modified parity” has been given to all, but this is totally, wrong and false, as can be seen from above explanation.
    (18) Judgments of Military case pensioners can not be made applicable to Civil pensioners ( even Natural Principles of Justice?--- Military of India has some other Constitution ? )
    Reply : This statement is totally denied. There is nothing in law to support the same. It is another propaganda of the Govt. to differentiate the pensioners and create a wedge between them. From the law the powers are conferred to make rules, from rules the instructions flow and from instructions subsidiary instruction, manual and local supplementary instructions do flow, which could be different for different services, depending upon the local requirements. However, law remains the same for all. As far as Constitution of India is concerned, especially the Article 14, as applicable to pensioners and as considered and as observed upon in various Judgments of the hon.ble Apex Court, there is no “distinction” made between military or non-military and Law is made applicable to all without any distinction.
    UNQUOTE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vnatarajan
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 01-10-2013 at 08:20 AM.

  10. #10
    Member kssitaraman is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Ref: Posts 3 & 4 above of Respected Shri VNji.

    1. This of course is an important subject that has come up at the right time. That it is being initiated/developed by senior HAG officers from amongst the past Pensioners (Pre-2006 and now to be called as Pre-2016 Pensioners by inclusion of the Post-2006 Pensioners also in the Group), is a welcome sign as a qualitative presentation of all the Items affecting these pensioners will be assured now in emphatic terms, as they did with the Modified parity issue and brought the same to a successful conclusion.

    2. The Leadership has already brought out the basis on which the presentation is to be made and it can be assured that a final Paper will be ready soon after due deliberations.

    3. Before that, I wish to remind that grant of any benefit to the past pensioners on every issue has been denied to past pensioners as a matter of policy presumably taken by the Officials in the Departments of Pension and Finance (Expenditure), the exception being a few, which were given only at the intervention of the Courts. Some of the decisions (of such denial) are to be termed as unfortunate – like (1) the retention of the Rule granting only proportionate pension for those with less than 33 years service on technical grounds, even after the Sixth CPC had recommended de-linking of full pension with 33 years qualifying service and (2) denial of Pay Commission benefits to 1st January 46/38/28-born retirees only, again on technical/Acounts grounds, whereas the rest of the retirees born on any other day in 1946/38/28 including those born on 1st of the other months in these years were allowed to avail the benefits. Both issues arose from Pay Commission Recommendations and there seems to have been no proper appreciation of the letter and spirit of the recommendations in both cases and what can be perceived to be incorrect decisions appear to have been imposed. without any concern for the consequences. I shall be glad if these two cases are included in the presentation.

    4.1 As pensioners are aware, the Government of India have set up five sets of Rules for regulating the pensions of five categories of pensioners belonging to different Departments. All the Ministries and their Departments and the Field Subordinate Offices have been instructed to attend to grievances of retirees by strictly adhering to these Rules. Even the JCMs, SCOVA and the Anomalies Committees have been subjected to the strict observance of the said Rules, which by no means suit today’s conditions. A few of these Rules from a cursory glance appear to be archaic as these seem to be based on the old Pension Act of 1871 enacted by the British Rulers, which in turn were based on the Britishers’ favourite principle of NWNP. Replacement of this Act came up for discussion in the Parliament from time to time only to be shelved later on as explained in the following Quotes..

    Quote“In 1972, the Gajendragadkar Law Commission advised GOI that Pension Act 1871 has many provisions violating the Constitution of India, and it should therefore be replaced without delay. That Commission’s report has been lying in cold storage since then.

    “In April 1981, Sri N.V.Gadgil, M.P. of the then ruling Congress party, moved a private member’s new pension bill and presented it to the Parliament. This bill was discussed for full 2 days. Sri Gadgil severely condemned the various bad provisions in the Act, and convinced the Parliament that the Pension Act 1871 is outmoded, obsolete and not suited to our present society. All political parties ,including Sri Vajpayee who was then in the Opposition , supported the new bill of Sri Gadgil. In his bill, Sri Gadgil wanted – (i) Pension Act 1871 should be scrapped, (ii) Parity must be brought in the pension of old and new retirees, (iii) Pensioners must be paid compensation for rise in inflation and cost of living index, and (iv) commuted pension should be restored to the pensioners. But Sri Venkatasubbiah, the then Minister of State of Home Affairs, promised Sri Gadgil that the Government by itself will soon replace the Pension Act 1871 by a new official bill and requested Sri Gadgil to withdraw his bill. GOI has totally forgotten all about it thereafter.” Quote ends.

    The source of the above two Quotes in Italics is the Book entitled “Central Civilian Employees (Retiring and Retired) (Know Your Legitimate Rights), published by Late Shree P.M.Padmanabhan in August 2000. Yes, the GOI has totally forgotten all about the solemn promise even today and the Act is still in the Statute Book.

    4.2 No wonder the past pensioners are at the mercy of the officials armed with this 1871 Act. So this draconian Policy of denial of the grant of any benefit to past pensioners with the sanction of these Rules has to be changed and the 1871 Pension Act replaced by a new one reflecting today’s conditions. Short of these actions, the past pensioners will continue to have the same treatment as they had till the Nakara Judgment and again after the Sixth CPC implementations.

    5. So far as I am concerned, I am not conversant with the Rules governing the past pensioners and so I will not be of any use in preparation of the Paper mentioned by our Leadership. However, we have Experts in the field like Shri Sundarar, apart from the Senior (HAG) Officers, who will be of valuable help in this respect..

    6. So far as I am concerned, I would state the following: -

    6.1 It would be ideal if the Phrase “Protection of the interests of the past Pensioners (Pre-2016)” is also added in the Terms of Reference to be given to the proposed Seventh Central Pay Commission. This of course is beyond the ambit of the pensioners. Still a plea can be made to the Authorities concerned to consider this suggestion on merit.

    6.2 The Rules governing the employees/retirees of the Central Civilian Government, being cumbersome as they are, even the Chairman and the Members of a Pay Commission have to be briefed on the working of these Rules and this was being done by the Member Secretary in the Commission. Any lackadaisical or lop-sided briefing can have disastrous effect as experience has shown. That the outcome of the Sixth CPC’s Recommendations turned out to be one-sided is attributable to this singular fact, according to a majority view amongst the pensioners. This has to be taken care of by the Government while setting up the Commission. Of course again the Pensioners have no say in this exercise.

    6.3 While implementing the major recommendations of the Pay Commissions on Pay and Pension revisions, the existing Rules regulating the services/pension are amended with or without a suggestion from the Commission. Similarly, when landmark judgments on major issues such as the ones listed in Shri VNji’s Post above, are made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are treated as the Laws of the land, the relevant Rules should be amended and gazetted. Once these are added in the Statute Book, there will be no question of the famous judgments being watered down or worn thin by extraneous factors. So this plea is also to be included in the Presentation. (Very happy to find this already included in Part C of Shri VNji’s Post today).

    7. I would also suggest that the Final Paper can be given to BPS for submission to the DOP&PW and to the Seventh CPC when it invites the same from the Pensioners Federations. It can be seen from their Website that the BPS has already taken up this subject in right earnest with the necessary steps in this connection.
    Last edited by kssitaraman; 02-10-2013 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Important corrections have been made.

  11. #11
    Member Imayan is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    GROUP LIFE INSURANCE FOR PENSIONERS

    Assuming total number of Central Govt. Pensioners at about 8 lakhs, it is a sizable number which should receive adequate life insurance coverage as a social security measure.
    There can be a Group Life insurance coverage providing Rs. 10/- lakh coverage to each pensioner / family pensioner.
    Premiums will be reasonable as it will be a sizable Group of 8 lakh insured persons.
    Entire premium can be paid by Govt. as a social security measure.
    7th Pay Commission can be requested to agree to such a proposal of life insurance coverage.
    Other suggestions on life insurance benefits to pensioners are also requested from fellow pensioners.

    Thanks,

    Imayan

    N.B. Please see my post No. 5 also in this thread

    inttrade2008@gmail.com
    Last edited by Imayan; 11-10-2013 at 04:31 PM.

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

    Default

    Senior Member
    Join DateNov 2011Posts217
    Delayed holding of DPCs by the Govt. is resulting in financcial loss to retirees
    The consolidated guidelines on the DPC were last issfued on the 19th April, 1989. The earlier DPC instructions also had similar arrangements. Briefely, the guidelines did not put any specific bar on consideration of retired employes while preparing year-wise panels of those who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant yer. In other words these instruction provided for consideration of the ritired employees for promotion if tey were eligible for consideration in the relevant year . The concept of year wise panel was also introduced in the year 1980. Subsequently, when faced with a problem raised by the Department of Telecommunication about consideration of retired employees retrospectively when they had become eliogible for consideration during the period they were in service, the Department of Personnel examined the matter in the light of various judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court and in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs issued an OM on the 12th October, 1998 clarifying the postion with reference to the consolidated instructions. According to the clarfication (i) the retired officers who were within the zone of consideration at the relevant time should be considered while preparing year wise panels; and (ii) such officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. Unfortunately, the Department of Personnel has been interpreting (ii) above in such a way that even if some one is included in the panel retrospectively he would not be entitled to even pensionery benefits. As such all those aggrived started goint to CATHigh Courts/Supreme Court. Obviously, the CAT/HighCourts/Supreme Court generally started directing the Government for giving benefits to them. The DOPT instead of modifying their OM of 12th Otober, 1998 decided to restrict the benefits to only those who got favourable decision form CAT/High Court. That being a wrong policy we had represented to the DOPT in this regard. DOPT, in turn referred the matter to the Department Legal Affairs, who advised that where the DPCs were not held on time and promotions were not granted to the employyes concerned there a legal right accrues on all those eligible retired officers included in the selcti/suitability lists after holding DPC retrospectively to get notional promotion. This advice was received by DOPT as back as Ist week of September, 2010 . The matter is lying at that stage still.
    This matter also needs to be taken up with the Pay Commission so that wherever Government delays holding DPC and during that period a Government official who was found fit for promotion retires, he should be given notional pensionary benefits with reference to the promotional post for whihc he was found fit.
    Gopal Krishan



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

    Default



    EXCELLENT INPUTS ARE COMING IN FROM SEVERAL VETERAN PENSIONERS.

    PL CONTINUE TO ELICIT MORE ITEMS FROM YOUR FRIENDS/COPENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS.

    EVEN ROUTINE ITEMS WELCOME- SO THAT NO ITEM IS FORGOTTEN.

    SOMEONE AMONG US HAS TO LIST TEH CAPTIONS OF THE ITEMS ONCE IN A WHILE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A FINAL LIST AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

    ALREADY ONE FEDERATION HAS AGREED TO LOOK FORWARD TO SUGGESTIONS FROM THIS SOURCE LED BY PENSIONERS' FORUM.

    Regards, HAPPY DUSSERAH- HAPPY DIWALI!

    vnatarajan

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

    Default

    7th Pay Commission News – Minister of State for Finance replies Lok Sabha


    Press Information Bureau

    Government of India

    Ministry of Finance

    06-December-2013
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Process to Constitute the 7th Central Pay Commission Along with Finalization of Its Terms of Reference, The Composition and Time frame Initiated

    The Government has initiated the process to constitute the 7th Central Pay Commission along with finalization of its Terms of Reference, the composition and the possible time frame for submission of its Report. The date of effect thereof will be known once the Report is available.


    This was stated by Shri Namo Narain Meena, Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha here today.

    Source: Press Information Bureau
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vnatarajan

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Pay fixation as per 6th Pay Commission
    By kundum2000@yahoo.com in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-09-2010, 03:50 PM
  2. New pay structure under six pay commission
    By anilkgupta in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 31-08-2010, 10:09 AM
  3. vi pay commission arrears
    By samyraja in forum Arrears
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-05-2010, 10:31 AM
  4. Pay commission scale S - 10A
    By Anthony in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-04-2009, 09:33 PM
  5. pay commission report of u g c
    By badrinath in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 11:31 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