+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Re-fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners

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

    Question Re-fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners

    Respected Sirs,

    The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 pertaining to fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per recommendations of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and reproduced hereunder:

    "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 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. (5.1.47)".

    The Government 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.

    Based on this resolution, OM of even number dated 1.9.2008 was issued and its . Para-4.2 states that
    "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".

    The Hon. CAT PR Bench vide para 30 of their Judgment dated 1.11.2011 in O.A. No.655/2010 directed the Respondents to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of their observations made in the Judgment.

    Subsequently, on 28.1.2013 the DOP&PW issued an Executive Instruction and para No.2 of the same is reproduced hereunder:

    "It has been decided that the pension of pre-2006 pensioners as revised w.e.f.
    1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as
    amended from time to time, would be further stepped up to 50% of the sum of
    minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised
    pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the
    fitment tables annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM
    No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008.


    The para No.9 of the above OM indicates that "These orders will take effect from the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24.9.2012. There will be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 1.1.2006 and 23.9.2012, and, therefore, no arrears will be payable on account of these orders for that period". i.e. from 1.1.2006 and 23.9.2012.

    In short, as per the above OM dated 28.1.2013, a pre-2006 retiree in S-29 grade retired in December, 2005 will get his pension fixed at Rs.23700/- for the period from 1.1.2006 (in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time), and the same retiree will get his pension fixed at Rs.27350/- w.e.f. 24.9.2012 (by virtue of the decision taken vide OM dated 28.1.2013) onwards.

    Subsequent to the issue of aforesaid OM dated 28.1.2013, the Hon. High Court of Delhi in their Judgment dated 29.4.2013 in the Appeal case (Appeal preferred by DOP&PW against the Hon. CAT PR Bench verdict dated 1.11.2011 referred to) vide para No.2 pointed out as follows

    "2. The only issue therefore which survives is, with respect to paragraph 9, of the office memorandum aforenoted which makes it applicable with effect from September 24, 2012, and thereby denying arrears to be paid to the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006.

    3. In short, the Government of India has tacitly admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct".

    Accordingly, as per concluding Para No.9 of the aforesaid Judgment, `The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is upheld'

    By virtue of the aforesaid Judgement dated 29.4.2013 of the Hon. High Court of Delhi and in accordance with the directives to the Respondents vide para No.30 of the Hon. CAT Judgment dated 1.11.2011 `to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008', all pre-2006 pensioners including Non-Litigants are entitled to get their pension re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 strictly in accordance with the Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

    Incidentally, I wish to conclude my post of date with the extracts of the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi Judgment dated 22.1.2013 in the case of Original Application No.1750/2012 filed by Dr. O.P. Nijhawan and others.

    "19....... it is appropriate that the Union of India treat all much persons alike and to grant them the same benefits instead of driving each one of them to litigation in the course of which the Union of India itself is required to spend considerable public money".
    Last edited by sundarar; 02-08-2014 at 10:35 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Dear Sundar Sir
    A timely post.... the non-litigants of CAT (possibly even the litigants) should take note & write to their respective departments copy to DoP seeking implementation. Based on the reply they can - possibly litigate- for their own individually or collectively.

  3. #3
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Exclamation Implementation of hon. Court directives

    When the Contempt Case No.158/2012 was disposed on 15.5.2014, the directives given by the Hon. CAT PR Bench are the relief for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants. Neither the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi in their Judgment directed the Department to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 1.11.2011 qua the petitioners nor the Hon. High Court of Delhi gave any such directives.

    It is the Ministry of Law that is said to have been advised DOP&PW to implement the order of the Hon. CAT PR Bench dated 1.11.2011 qua the petitioners.

    If at all the DOP&PW choose to implement the order of the Tribunal qua the petitioners as against the directives of Hon. High Court of Delhi as well as the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi, I am afraid that -

    1. the DOP&PW OM dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 etc, may remain as it is for all Non-Litigants for the period from 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012.
    2. the aforesaid OMs may stand quashed in respect of the petitioners only.
    3. by virtue of Sl.No.2 above, there will be no change in the pension fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till 23.9.2012 for non-litigants.
    4.By virtue of Sl. No.3 above, stepping up of pension as ordered vide DOP&PW OM dated 28.1.2013 from 24.9.2012 may get involved only for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners and thus the said OM may become valid only for non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners.

    In short, the OMs dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008, 28.1.2013 etc. may become null and void for petitioners right from 1.1.2006 onwards, the OMs dated 3.10.2008, 14.10.2008 etc. may become null and void for non-litigants only from 24.9.2012 and the OM dated 28.1.2013 may get restricted to only non-litigants by virtue of its effective date, viz. 24.9.2012.

    Under the circumstances, implementation of the Orders of the Tribunal dated 1.11.2011 by re-fixing the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants w.e.f 1.1.2006 strictly in accordance with the DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 and as per the Hon. Court directives without involvement of any reduction of pension pro-rata w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (which reduction has nowhere found place in the said OM dated 29.8.2008 as well as in any directives of Hon. Courts) where the pensioner had rendered less than the maximum qualifying service, is the need of the hour as `no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending any more'.
    Last edited by sundarar; 03-08-2014 at 09:14 PM.

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

    Default

    Dear Non-litigant pre 2006 pensioners affected by Mod Parity issue,

    THANKS TO SHRI SUNDARAR THIS POST HAS COME UP TIMELY.

    ON 25 JULY 2014, SHRI P K RANGANATHAN , ALONG WITH ME , ATTENDED THE "SANKALP SCHEME" MEETING CONVENED BY THE DOP AT CHENNAI. THE INVITEES INLCUDED ABOUT 15 SANKALP REGISTRED MEMBERS, BESIDES these, EC-MC MEMEBRS OF HALF A DOZEN PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERATIONS atended. AIFPA CHENNAI WAS PRESENT IN FULL FORCE WITH ITS PRESIDENT, GEN SEC, VPs . PENSIONERS' ADVOCATE EDITOR ETC. Three NGO Orgns like Banyan, Pratham, Helpage etc were there.

    In the Open session that followed the SANKALP SCHEME discussions , pensioners/ associations were given opportunity to voice their submissions on various issues . I voiced the plight of CGSAGPA, finality of legal battle for Mod Parity, the DOP's mischievous deliberate mis-interpretation of CAT JUDGMENT OF 15 5 2014 IN CP 158/2012 TO RESTRICT THE IMPLEMENTATION to QUA PETITIONERS only taking advantage of the inclusion of the submission of DOP wrt qua petitioners recorded in para 2 of the Judgment. The HON Secy DOP appeared to be unaware of this underhand play and the JS to DOP appeared to be rather confused between the two verdicts and went on citing the pendency of 3 Sister Gr SLPs (36148-50 ) at the HSc for NOT extending the CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 to all pre 2006 pensioners . I had given my submission in writing also which I shall put up here soon with documents which included an atrocious RTI REPLY from the CPIO DOP categoricall stating that CAT has agreed to the DOP's mischievous misinterpretation of CAT's verdict on restriction of jusdgment to petitioners of OA 655/ 2010 only.

    SHRI PKR , FOLLOWING MY TALK , gave a powerful explanation on the applicability of CAT verdict of 1 11 2011 wef 1 1 2006 to all pre 2006 pensioners , with all documents/ extracts etc. He had also submitted his written note.

    NOW ALL AGGRIVED NON-LITIGANT PRE2006 PENSIONERS/ THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/ FEDERATIONS ETC MUST MAKE "REPEATED SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING" TO CONCERNED AUTHORITIES BASED ON SHRI SUNDARAR'S WRITE-UP and after the response from the DOP on the same, plan further course of action.

    SHRI A RAJAGOPALAN, RTI ACTIVIST LIKE ME, IS ON THE LEAD IN THIS REGARD. HE CAN BE CONTACTED AT [email protected] fo further follow ups pl.

    Regards,

    vnatarajan



    IMPORTANT TO NOTE:

    HOW TO CHK WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 TO 23 9 2012 ?

    ANY PPE 2006 PENSIONER WHO HAS BEEN PAID/ HAS RECEIVED SOME ARREARS WEF 24 SEPT 2012 , SHALL ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE ARREARS FOR THE PRIOD FROM 1 1 2006 TO 23 9 2012 DUE TO THE "ENHANCED PENSION" FORMULATION WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE "SCPC CORRECT MODIFIED PARITY" FORMULA in terms of the Gaz Resolution dt 29 8 2008/ in line with PB CAT Judgment dt 1 11 2011 .
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 04-08-2014 at 08:49 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member dnaga57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Hope many are reading , most of them are listening.. planning to act

  6. #6
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default Pre-2006 pensioners with sub 33 years QS

    Respected VNji/Sundarar

    Please enlighten us if the 3 SLPs coming up on 7thAug14 will cover the pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years of QS (thus ensuring minimum pension for them corresponding to grades from which they had retired).
    In that case whether the other OA 1165/2011 will be redundant?

    Managoli

  7. #7
    Junior Member r21vvrao is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad
    Posts
    7

    Default Non litigant pre- 2006 pensioners

    I retired from pay scale of 16400-20000 in 1999. I got my pension revised and received payment of arrears from 24/9/2012 as per revised orders of 28/1/2013 on making a request to my PAO/CPAO. I am following your discussion and the chances of DOP making an interpretation for denying payment of arrears. Is it necessary to start writing representation to DOP at this stage or wait for some more time until final orders are issued? ........VVRao

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

    Default

    @tymanagoli: 3 SLPS SCHEDULED FOR 7 AUG 2014 -these were taken up on 1 Aug 2014 itself. Could not be taken up as time didn't permit. NDL has to be watched. To complicate matters, the UOI has filed 4 more new SLPs with them - they were filed on 1 7 2014 base on a P & H HC judgment dt 19 9 2013. THis is in addition to earlier verdicts of the P & H HC on the same mod parity issue of pre 2006 CG/ Haryana State sivil pensioners dt 14 Jan 2013 and 21 Dec 2012 respectively.

    This conernes the litigant pre 2006 pensioners- wrt mod parity only.

    Reg 20 yr plus issue u have to wait for the OA II^% may come uo this month- Sundarar may know better.

    @r21vvrao; IF U HAVE RECEIVED ARREARS WEF 24 SEPT 2012, THEN ITS COROALLRY IS THAT ARREARS ARE DUE TO YOU FROM 1 1 2006. IN FACT THIS IS GOOD CHECK.

    IF ANY PRE 2006 PENSIONER HAS GOT ARREARS BECAUSE OF THE "ENHANCED PENSION" FORMULA, THEN HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR "ARREARS WEF 1 1 2006 TO 23 9 2006" BUT HE HAS TO AGITATE AND GET THE SAME.

    You may like to get in touch with [email protected]

    VNATARAJAN
    Last edited by vnatarajan; 08-08-2014 at 07:07 AM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default Dismissal of Curative Petition and pending SLPs

    While the Contempt Petition case No. CP 158/2012 was getting disposed vide Order dated 15.5.2014, the Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi vide para 2 of their Order indicated as follows:

    "2. At the outset, Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from Ms. Tripti Ghosh, Director and Shri Harjit Singh, Dy. Secretary, submits that the Curative Petition preferred by them has already been rejected by the Hon ble Apex Court by order dated 30.04.2014",

    Vide their aforesaid Order dated 30.4.2014, the Hon'ble Apex Court decided as follows:

    "Application for oral hearing is rejected.
    We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr., reported in 2002 (4) SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed".

    It is clear from the above that whatever grounds that might have been relied upon by the Petitioner of the Curative Petition, the same could not make out a case, as declared by the HSC vide their Order dated 30.4.2014.

    When such is the case, those SLPs with particular reference to modified parity based correct minimum revised/guaranteed pension in accordance with the DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 that may be pending at various stages, may not serve any purpose except in delaying implementation of the Hon. CAT PR Bench verdict dated 1.11.2011 to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

    In view of what has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz. dismissal of the Curative Petition, it is high time to get the Hon. CAT PR Bench verdict implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006 strictly in accordance with the DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants, to avoid spending considerable public money by the DOP&PW as a petitioner, and by the Respondents of those pending SLPs, any likely Review Petitions, any likely Curative Petitions, etc.

  10. #10
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Question Timely implementation of final directives of Hon. Court for all pre-2006 pensioners

    The RSCWS website indicates the following message:
    "Govt. insists to restrict arrears of Modified Parity to only S-29 Petitioners. Files new Application in CAT to seek more time for implementation"

    In this regard, it may please be noted that arrears of Modified to all pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 24.9.2012 onwards had already been sanctioned vide DOP&PW OM dated 28.1.2013 which prescribed as follows:

    "4. A revised concordance table (Annexure) of the pre-1996, pre-2006 and post 2006 pay scales/pay bands indicating the pension/family pension (at ordinary rates) payable under the above provisions is enclosed to facilitate payment of revised
    pension/family pension".

    Same revised concordance table as Annexure giving effect from 1.1.2006 onwards for all pre-2006 pensioners is required to be issued in accordance with the final decision of Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi on 15.5.2014 in CP 158/2012 at the earliest. Only when a fresh decision as against the said final decision of the Hon. CAT PR Bench, is sought to be implemented by the DOP&PW only for petitioners, further litigation process will be getting continued. For getting a due revised pension from 1.1.2006 in accordance with DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008, whether pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants should keep on waiting further more, but for how long? What is the purpose that is going to be served in keeping this matter pending for continued litigation process when the legal position has reached its finality? It is expected that the Competent Authority in the Dept. of Pensioners' Welfare will take note the intention behind such fresh decisions involving an additional time period over and above that was granted by the Hon. Court of Law, as against the final legal decision that is existing as on date and implement the directives for all pre-2006 pensioners as per the existing directives of the Hon. Court of Law at the earliest possible time.

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

    Smile Consistency with employees

    The item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 pertaining to fixation of pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per recommendations of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain modifications and reproduced hereunder:

    "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 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. (5.1.47)".

    In the case of pre-2006 pensioners, application of multiplication factor of 1.86 over pre-revised pension was kept involved apart from 40% of fitment benefit that consists of 40% of pre-revised pension.

    Whereas in the case of serving employees, application of multiplication factor of 1.86 + 40% of max. of pre-revised scale of pay as fitment benefit (GRADE PAY) was kept involved.

    Can this be a consistency between pensioners and employees?, I am not aware.

    2. 40% OF MAXIMUM OF PRE-REVISED SCALE OF PAY in other words, 20% of Max. of Pre-revised Scale of pay which will very necessarily be less than 20% of last drawn emoluments (40% of pre-revised pension as fitment benefit.


    3. For maintaining modified parity, wherever the revised pension on application of Uniform mf of 2.26 over pre-revised pension happens to be LESS than 50% of Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band corresponding to bottom stage of pre-revised scale and 50% of grade pay, there was a need to step up the revised pension (Para 4.1), to Minimum Revised Pension (Para 4.2). .

    4. There is no place for for applying proportionate reduction in such an event? Already reduced basic pension is only required to be stepped upto 50% of minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to pre-revised scale held at the time of retirement and 50% of GP thereon.

    5. That is the reason, neither OM dated 29.8.2008 nor unamended OM dated 1.9.2008 touched the aspect of Rule 49.

    Thus, OM dated 29.8.2008 is applicable for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants with 33 years/<33 years as a whole without involving any proportionate reduction in whatever case that may be.

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

    Smile Directives to banks

    The amended letter dated 24.11.2009 of CPAO addressed to Banks indicated that the existing provision is amended to read as follows:
    "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 pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired".

    The above amended version explicitly point out that both pay in the pay band as well as the grade pay stand corresponding to pre-revised scale. Whereas the DOP&PW OM dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time made an attempt to maintain that both minimum of the pay band and minimum of the pay in the pay band are one and same and went further to clarify that such a minimum of the pay in the pay band will be irrespective of pre-revised scale, etc. and the same was maintained till 23.9.2012 for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants even while the legal struggle was going on.

    The OM dated 28.1.2013 `stepped up' in such a way that the pension being paid till 23.9.2012 in accordance with the OM dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time, it consists of 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.

    Thus, it is clear that the pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants are yet to get their pension re-fixed in accordance with initial OM dated 29.8.2008 that notified accepted recommendation of the 6th CPC with the approval of the Cabinet.

    Could we be able to find out any difference in between within OM 28.1.2013, OM 1.9.2008 (unamended), OM dated 29.8.2008 and the CAT PR Bench, Delhi verdict as far as the minimum revised guaranteed pension payable from 1.1.2006 to all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants?

    To what extent OM 29.8.2008 is going to be a non-applicable one as far as the non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners are concerned even while the Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi has directed the Respondents (DOP&PW) to re-fix from 1.1.2006 for all pre-2006 pensioners.

    Now that the OM dated 29.8.2008 overrules all subsequent communications including the latest OM dated 28.1.2013 with the CAT/Hon. HC directives, the existing CPAO directives to Banks also may have to be amended in line with the OM dated 29.8.2008 giving effect thereby w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for the new amended version. mainly because the previous provisions were not related to DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008 in particular..

    Such a new amended version will have its applicability for all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants, that is what expected at this moment.

  13. #13
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Arrow Happy deepavali gift

    The ongoing case at CAT PR Bench Delhi for determining applicability of 10/20 years qualifying service for full pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service that came up for hearing yesterday, stands adjourned to 29.9.2014 owing to Respondent's request for more time. The attempts to delay the Justice and even if Judicious decisions are made available then attempts to restrict to petitioners, etc. makes the pensioners community painful.

    Now, in the aforesaid case, the question involves two parts
    i. Applicability of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or otherwise, for determining minimum revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006
    ii.Applicability of revised manner and methodology to calculate basic pension in r/o pre-2006 pensioners, whose pension was fixed on the basis of length of service out of maximum required service, w.e.f. 1.1.2006. (The post-2005 pensioners' pension is calculated at 50% of last drawn emoluments if the qualifying service rendered is 10/20 years qualifying service , the same methodology shall be made applicable for similarly situated pre-2006 pensioners).

    The pre-revised basic pension is required to be calculated on the basis of revised manner and methodology, for revising the same w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in accordance with DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008.

    The D.S. Nakara spirit has direct relevance to point No.ii above, which we all are aware.

    As far as point No.(i) is concerned, here is an extract of Hon. High Court Delhi Judgment dated 2.7.2014:
    P L Singla vs Uoi And Anr. on 2 July, 2014

    "3.1 The petitioner, retired as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, on 31.01.1987, after completing 28 years and 4 months of qualifying service. The respondents, however, refused to pay him the pension in accordance with the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (in short Shetty Commission).

    3.2 It is the respondents' stand that since the petitioner had served less than the full qualifying service, which is, 33 years, he would be entitled only to such pension, which is proportionate to the time served by the petitioner.

    3.3 It may only be noted that the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21.03.2002, passed in WP (C) 1022/1989, titled All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., has accepted, the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which are contained in Chapter 23, in particular paragraph 23.18. As per the recommendations contained in the said paragraph, retired Judicial Officers are entitled to get 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time.
    ....

    3.5 It is also noticed from the record that in the very same writ petition filed in the Supreme Court, several interlocutory applications were moved including an application bearing: IA No.157. This application was filed by the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers' Association for setting aside :
    the Government order (G.O.) Ms. No.79, dated 17.07.2004, issued by the Law Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh (as it then was). The applicant above named was aggrieved by the fact that the said G.O. required proportionate reduction in payment of pension qua those who had completed less than the full
    qualifying service, which was, 33 years.
    3.6 The Supreme Court upon consideration of the said application i.e., IA No.157 agreed with the contentions of the applicant and consequently set aside that part of the G.O. which required proportionate reduction in payment of pension vis-a-vis those who had completed less than full qualifying service. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in respect of the said IA are as follows :-
    "..This application has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judicial Officers' Association for setting aside G.O.Ms No.79, Law Dep., dated 17th July, 2004 to the extent of the direction that who have put in full qualifying service at the time of retirement, and in respect of Judicial Officers who have put in less than the
    full qualifying service there shall be proportionate reduction. Further prayer is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh be directed to revise the pension uniformly to past pensioners irrespective of length of qualifying service, at 50% of minimum pay in the revised pay scale of the post from which the past pensioner retired. Chapter-23 of the Shetty Commission Report deals with pension structure for past pensioners. Chapter 22 deals with retirement benefits. For considering the pension structure for past pensioners, Chapter 22 has not relevance. The first recommendation of para 23.18 contained in Chapter 23 reads as under :-
    "The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as revised from time to time."

    Paragraph 22.33 in Chapter 22 recommends that the qualifying years of service should be 33 years for earning full pension except in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. This clause has no relevance for working out the benefit of pension under clause (1) of recommendation in para 23.18 above-noted. No other material has been shown to us which may justify the stipulation in para 8 of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Government dated 17th July, 2004, about the requirement of full qualifying service at the time of retirement and proportionate reduction in respect of judicial offices who have put in less than full qualifying service. The aforesaid recommendation has been accepted by this court in its judgment reported in 2002(4) SCC 247.

    Under these circumstances, the direction in respect of full qualifying service in the Government order dated 17th July, 2004 is set aside, as prayed in the application. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to work out the benefit strictly in terms of the first recommendation contained in para 23.18 of the Shetty
    Commission, as quoted above.."

    3.7 The aforementioned order in I.A. No.157 was passed on 21.11.2006.

    3.8 In line with the aforementioned judgment and order of the Supreme Court, Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs passed an order dated 26.05.2008. While the said order reflected the fact that the issue (which is also the issue raised in the instant writ petition) is, covered by the
    judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.'s case, it proceeded to add a caveat to the grant of relief which is that revision in pension would be subject to observance of Rule 49(2)(b) of the 1972 Rules. Notably, order dated 26.05.2008 specifically records that it has been issued with the approval of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.07.1996. It is this last aspect, which is the grant of exemption from observance of the provisions of Rule 49(2)(b) of the 1972 Rules (as I was told that respondents were seeking an exemption and that difficulty lay in only not being able to decide who was to grant exemption) that the instant writ petition had to be adjourned from time to time to enable the relevant/authorities to take a decision in the matter. As indicated at the very outset, the concerned authorities have failed to take a decision in the matter and, consequently, this court is left with no choice but to step in.

    4. Having regard to the fact that the law on the issue has been declared by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21.03.2002, passed in All India Judges Association and Ors', 2002 (4) SCC 247 and, the subsequent order dated 21.11.2006, passed in the same writ petition in : IA No.157, this court is inclined to direct that the petitioners be paid pension in terms of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission as contained in paragraph 23.18 of the Chapter 23, as accepted by the Supreme Court, in its aforementioned judgment and order. This would mean that the respondents need not now seek exemption from the provisions of Rule 49(2)(b) for payment of revised pension to the petitioner.

    5. Mr. Kakra at this stage makes two prayers. First, (which is explicitly part of the writ petition) that interest be granted on the arrears. Second, that the payment of arrears of pension be directed to be paid within a specific time frame given the advanced age of the petitioner, which he says is, 85 years, as of today.

    6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears to the petitioner within six (6) weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (simple) with effect from 30.06.2011, that is the date when, a representation was made in this behalf, by the petitioner, for the first time. It is, however, made clear that if the arrears alongwith interest is not paid within the stipulated period of six weeks, the interest will stand enhanced to 18% p.a. (simple) on the outstanding amount.

    7. With the aforesaid directions in place, the captioned petition and the pending application are disposed of".

    The pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service are similarly situated like the applicant in the above case.
    (To be Continued)

  14. #14
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Default

    (Contd..)
    In continuation of my previous post, my submissions are as follows:

    1. The OM dated 3.10.2008 that prescribed proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service already stands quashed.
    2. The OM dated 28.1.2013 invokes Rule 49 for determining minimum revised pension, which Rule has no relevance for working out the benefit of minimum revised pension as per DOP&PW OM dated 29.8.2008.
    3. The OM dated 29.8.2008 did not prescribe any proportionate reduction based on length of qualifying service.
    4. The instant case hearing had to be adjourned from time to time at the instance of Respondents to enable the relevant/authorities to commence even arguments. which is avoidable amidst settled position.
    5. All pre-2006 pensioners with less than 33 years qualifying service shall be given the benefit of the aforesaid Hon. High Court Delhi Judgment, including the interest part.

    The grounds that are relied upon against the application filed by the petitioners need to be spelt out before the Hon. CAT PR Bench, Delhi without taking enormous time by the Respondents, and as such, the delay is purely attributable to Respondents and thereby involving interest element.

    I request all pre-2006 pensioners including non-litigants to continue their attempts that includes active participation in this Discussion forum for legitimate due and entitled pension from 1.1.2006, while myself will be away from discussion with your deemed permission on certain urgent commitments.

    HOPE AND WISH THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS COMMUNITY IS GRANTED WITH A HAPPY DEEPAVALI GIFT 2014 WITH THE BLESSINGS OF LORD SHRI KRISHNA.

    BEST REGARDS
    JAI SHRI KRISHNA.

  15. #15
    Senior Member sundarar is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    631

    Smile Implementation of om 29.8.2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2006

    The RSCWS website indicated the following message:
    "Govt. insists to restrict arrears of Modified Parity to only S-29 Petitioners. Files new Application in CAT to seek more time for implementation"

    Today, the 21st August 2014, the M.A. is listed before CAT PR Bench Court No.1.

    12. M.A./2381/2014
    O.A./655/2010
    CENTRAL GOVT S A G
    -V/SSANJAY
    KOTHARI
    TARUN GUPTA
    --------------------
    RAJESH KATYAL

  16. #16
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Ma/2381/2014(oa/655/2010) is adjourned to 27.08.14.

  17. #17
    Member tymanagoli is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yenyem View Post
    Ma/2381/2014(oa/655/2010) is adjourned to 27.08.14.
    What is the issue being per-sued with this MA?

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

    Thumbs up Representations by Associations

    REVISION OF PRE-2006 PENSION WITH EFFECT FROM 01.01.2006 AS PER CAT ORDER DATED 01.11.2011 FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS AND NOT LIMITED ONLY TO PETITIONERS

    Bharat Pensioners Samaj has pointed out Government’s mis-interpretation of Hon’ble Princpal CAT’s Order for revising Pre-2006 Pension with effect from 01-01-2006, to the effect that the order would be applicable only to the petitioners who have filed the case before CAT and not to all Pre-2006 Pensioners. However, the contention of Bharat Pensioners Samaj in this regard is that Hon’ble CAT’s Order was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court and reached finality after Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Government’s SLP, Review Petition and as well as Curative Petition. Hence the same is not an order In personam

    No.SG/PBS/Legal/014/1
    Dated 02.07.2014

    Shri Sanjay Kothari
    IAS
    Secretary,

    M/O Personnel PG AR & Pensions

    Dear Sir,

    Sub: Implementation of the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 655/2010.

    1 Kindly connect DOP &PW letter No. 38/7 7-A/09-P8.PW (A) dated 29th May 2014 addressed to the Secretary (Shri Sant Bhushan Lal) Central Government SAG (S-29) on the above subject.

    2. At the outset, we will like to point out that the above letter is in the nature of continuation of willful defiance of the CAT’s order by DOP &PW and is intended to GO AGAINST THE judicial directives. What is displayed in this letter under reference is a deliberate mis-interpretation and distortion of the Hon’ble CAT’s order dated 15. 5.2014. Para 2 of the above letter states that ‘As directed by the Hon’ble CAT, the order dated 01.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi is required to be implemented in respect of petitioners in OA No. 655/2010″ which is factually incorrect and misleading. Hon’ble CAT-PB vide its order dated 01.11.2011 quashed clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed to refix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. While dismissing WP (C) No 153512012 of UOI on 29-4-2013, Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the verdict of the CAT PB. Dismissing SLP (C) No.23055/2013 filed by UOI against the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 29-7-2013 and then Review Petition (C) No 2492/2013 on 12-11-2013 and finally Curative Petition (C) No 12612014 on 30.4.2011, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court with this, CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011. referred to 1 has attained legal finality.

    3. On 15.05.2014, the Hon’ble CAT-PB disposed of Contempt Petition No 158/2012 directing the UoI to implement the directions of the Tribunal Honble Delhi High Court upholding the verdict of CAT PB, took note of DOP letter F.No. 38137/08-P&PW (A) dated 28th January, 2013 whereby the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners was stepped up from an arbitrary date of 24-9-2012 as per the Resolution dated 29-8-2008. Further in Para 2 & 3 of the Judgement it is noted that the Government of India has tacitly admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct and the only issue that survives are the denying arrears to be paid to the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006

    4. The operative part of the Honble CAT’s order dated 15-5-2014 is contained in Para 3 and reads as “It would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respon-dents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months.” (Emphasis added). The direction of the Tribunal is with reference to its order dated 1-11-2011. The Hon’ble CAT never diluted its order dated 1.11.2011 nor could it have done so in its contempt jurisdiction especially when its order dated 1.11.2011 had got merged with the judgment dated 29.4.2013 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 1535/2012.

    4.1 Consequently, contention of implementing this directive only in respect of the members of the SAG S-29 Association up to the date of filing of OA No. 06550010 is not valid. All retired Central Government employees covered under the category of pre-2006 pensionersare entitled for re-fixation of pension from 1-1-2006 as per the directive of the CAT-PB dated 1-11 -2011, which has been upheld right up to the Apex Court while dismissing SLP/Review petition/curative Petition in this case.

    5. We, therefore, earnestly request you to please implement judicial verdict in its true spirit and content by issuing necessary instructions to the concerned authorities to disburse the arrears of pension tor the period 1-1-2006 to 23-9 2012 and stop further harassment and hardship to the aged pensioners in 70s and 80s (and a number of them being above 80-85 years at age) in their sunset years. For this, all that is required is to issue a corrigendum to your OM No 38140/12-P&PW(A) dated 28-1-2013 making it effective w.e.f. 1-1-2006.

    Thanking you in anticipation.

    With regards

    Thanking you,

    Yours faithfully.

    sd/-
    S.C. Maheshwari
    Secretary Gent Bharat Pensioners Samaj
    Posted by Confederation Of Central Government Employees
    Last edited by sundarar; 22-08-2014 at 07:00 AM.

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

    Default

    BCPC WRITES TO HON. MINISTER SEEKING JUSTICE TO ALL PRE_2006 PENSIONERS

    "LET US FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL PRE-2006 PENSIONERS


    The New NDA Government has taken a decision to implement the judgment on the contempt of court petition on the Pre-2006 Pensioners case only to the members of the petitioner pensioner organisations. It was intimated by the Government side during the hearing on 4th July, 2014 in Principal CAT that it will implement the decision to the petitioners. Subsequently a letter has been addressed by the Government to those petitioner organisations asking the details of the members to enable the Government to implement the judgment to them only. This shows the mindset of the Government that it do not want to extend the benefit of judgment to all pre-2006 pensioners. This is a grave injustice to the pre-2006 pensioners' community which is more than 38 lakhs in numbers.

    At the same time the Government has filed another petition on the same issue in the Supreme Court against the judgment of another court and that hearing is coming up on 16th September, 2014.

    BCPC has written to the Honourable Minister of State of Ministry of Personnel & P.G & Pensions of Central Government on this matter and has demanded that all pre-2006 pensioners should get the benefit. The letter of BCPC is produced below:

    BHARAT CENTRAL PENSIONERS CONFEDERATION
    2-13A, LGF (Backside), Jangpura – A, New Delhi – 110014
    S.C. Maheshwari S.K.Vyas
    Chairman Acting Secretary General
    0-9868862322 09868244035


    No.BCPC/Pen/Modified Parity/2014 July 21 , 2014

    Dr. Jitendra Singh,
    Hon'ble MOS (PP)
    Government of India,
    Ministry of Personnel & P.G & Pensions,
    North Block,
    New Delhi

    Sub:- Implementation of order of Tribunal in regard to modified Parity.

    Sir,

    We would like to bring to your notice the bureaucratic distortion of orders of judiciary which if not corrected through your kind and personal intervention is bound to frustrate the entire community of pre 2006 retirees numbering more than 38.41 lakhs and force them to think that change in Government has been in vain as because the bureaucrats are even now being have been allowed to misinterpret judicial orders forcing affected pensioners to go to courts and thus multiply litigations in the country. While submitting the details of this case we also request you kindly to give us an opportunity to meet you to explain our request.

    2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under:-

    a). The VI CPC in Para 5.1.47 of their report recommended that the fixation of revised pension as per the table given by them "will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired".

    b). The Government of India in their Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.8.2008 accepted the above proviso by reproducing it per verbatim at item 12 of the statement showing the relevant recommendations and decision of the Government thereon (vide Annexure the said Resolution).

    c). In Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare O.M No. 38/37/ 08 P&PW dated 1.9.2008 same proviso has been incorporated at para 4.2 thereof.

    d). The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare through their clarificatory O.M. No. 38/37/08 – P&PW (A) pt. 1 dated 3.10.2008 however modified the para 4.2 of their OM dated 1.9.2008 as under:

    The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum pay in the pay band (irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay) plus grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale"

    e). In other words in all cases it would be minimum pay of the pay band which would be taken and not the minimum pay in the pay band corresponding to the prerevised pay scale.

    f). This clarification was challenged by the Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association in Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (vide O.A No. 655/2010). This Hon'ble Tribunal in their order dated 1.11.2011 quashed the above clarificatory order of Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare dated 3.10.2008 and directed the respondents refix the pension of all pre 2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006 based on Government Resolution dated 29.8.2008.

    g). Government of India challenged the above decision of the said Tribunal before Delhi High Court vide WP (C) No.1535/2012 which was dismissed by the High Court vide their order dated 29.4.2013 upholding the decision of the Tribunal.

    Government of India then filed the following S.L. Ps etc.

    (i) SLP (C) No. 23055/2013 dismissed on 29.7.2013
    (ii) Review Petition (C) No. 2492 / 2013 dismissed on 12.11.2013
    (iii) Curative Petition (C)No. 126/2014 dismissed on 30.4.2014

    Thus the CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011 attained legal finality.

    h). On 15.5.2014 the Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench New Delhi disposed of the contempt petition No. 158/2012 directing the Union of India to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months"

    3. The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare in their letter No. 38/77-A/09-P&PW (A) dated 29.5.2014 written to the Secretary of Petitioner Association (Central Govt. SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association) has stated that as per the directions of Hon'ble CAT their order dated 1.11.2011 is required to be implemented "only in respect of Petitioners in O.A. No. 655/2010 and not in respect of all pre 2006 retirees as per the Tribunals order dated 1.11.2011. There is no such direction that it should be implemented only in respect of Petitioners. May be that Government Advocate had indicated that Government is willing to implement the judgment qua petitioners but the Tribunal had disposed of the contempt Petition by directing the Union of India to implement their directions dated 1.11.2011 expeditiously.

    4. It will not be out of place to mention there that response to answer to Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 3406, the above directions of the CAT Principal Bench had already been implemented in respect of all pre 2006 retirees but from an arbitrarily fixed date of 24.9.2012 (vide Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare O.M. F.No. 38/40/12- P&PW (A) dated 28.1.2013. It was not restricted to members of the Petitioners Association Accordingly the direction to implement it w.e.f 1.1.2006 has to be in respect of all pre 2006 retirees also.

    5. Bharat Central Pensioners Confederation which is the apex body of all Central Government Pensioners Federations and All India Associations therefore appeal to you to ensure the correct delivery of justice by implementing the above judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal (which had attained finality) in respect of all pre 2006 retirees so that they are not pushed to seek justice though multiple litigations.

    Thanking you,

    Yours faithfully,


    (S.K.Vyas)
    Secretary General

    (Posted by All India Postal Employees Union Group)

  20. #20
    Member yenyem is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tymanagoli View Post
    What is the issue being per-sued with this MA?
    As per Railway Senior Citizens Welfare Society web site the Misc. Application of Govt. is for
    allowing 3months more time for implementation of CAT Judgement reg. Modified Parity for
    petitioners and the hearing is fixed on 27.08.2014.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 16-04-2016, 07:11 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-02-2015, 06:42 PM
  3. One rank one pension - pre 2006 pensioners
    By sundarar in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 16-07-2009, 12:53 PM
  4. One Rank One Pension - pre 2006 pensioners
    By SK Jain in forum Pensioners
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 08:59 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-12-2008, 04:59 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