tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53529841434699214212024-03-06T05:53:22.849+05:30Bharat Pensioners Samaj.Madhupur!Blog for Central and Bihar/Jharkhand State Govt.pensioners,attending day to day inconveniances of the pensioners,like,payment of Fixed Medical Allonces,Prompt sanction of Pension Loan,etc.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-48199522385484108002015-02-21T19:49:00.001+05:302015-02-21T19:49:22.991+05:30The next date of Modified party case of Pre-2006 pensioners.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The next date of modified parity case of C.G. Pre-2006 pensioners adjourned to 17th March,2015
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-11444635286096086372015-01-22T11:51:00.000+05:302015-01-22T11:51:14.092+05:30RELHS Facilities to the Family Pensioners other than the spouse and they are also entitled to draw FMARELHS FACILITIES TO THE FAMILY PENSIONERS OTHER THAN SPOUSE AND THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO DRAW FIXED MEDICAL ALLOWNCES ASPER PRESCRIBED RATES:
RELHS facilities to family pensioners, other than spouse i.e Widowed / Divorced / Unmarried dependent daughters of Rly. Pensioners and to their
Though in view of Rly Board’s letter No 2013/H/16/1/Misc dated 09.01.2013 & No 2003/H/28/1/RELHS dated 16.3.2009 All family pensioners are entitled to join RELHS but as the new RELHS cards are issued by the personnel branch (and not the Medical branch) they go by manual provision & as per the eligibility criteria prescribed vide Para 612 (2) iii of Indian Railway Medical Manual 2000 only the spouse family Pensioner is eligible to join RELHS Thus unless the eligibility criteria laid down in IRMM is amended Family pensioners other than the spouse will remain deprived of RELHS facilities.
Inspite of the issue being raised from different Forums like Human Rights Commission & SCOVA. Directorate General Railway Board has not taken adequate clarifactory steps by way of amendment to IRMM, to ensure that facility is made available to all Family Pensioners & their dependent Kids
Railway Board therefore is requested to disclose with file noting the action taken to amend eligibility criteria laid down in IRMM 2000 and to ensure that RELHS facility is available to all Family Pensioners without any hassle Disclosing also the status of various representations on the subject.nnormaly the family pensioners are also entitled to draw Fixed Medical Allownces asper aplicable rules and also asper the prescribed rates.
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-85464346754680914952013-06-06T10:52:00.002+05:302013-06-06T10:52:54.754+05:30HEALTH-CHECKUP OF THE MEMBERS OF BHARAT PENSIONER SAMJ,MADHUPUR!The Bharat Pensioner Samaj,madhupur organised a Pensioner's meet on 5th June,2013 at 04-30 pm at State Bank Of India,Madhupur Main Branch,that the function was sponsored by the SBI,Madhupur Branch.Sarbasri Dr.Arun Gupta,MedicalOfficer,Referel Hospital,Madhupur & Dr.Rajesh Kumar,Medical Officer (on contract)E.Rly,Health Unit,Madhupur examined the health of about 20 numbers of Senior Pensioners/family Pensioners of CentralGovt.Railways and the Pensioners of Jharkhand State.Sri R.N.Dutta,Hon'ble Vice-President (East),Bharat Pensioner Samaj presided over the function,Sri N.C.Jha,Hon'ble Principal Of Madhupur Collage was also invited as "Chief Guest",Sri B.B.Paul,Hon'ble President of Kolkata Custom PensionerAssociation and Sri R.N.Goswami,Rly Pensioner Of E.Rly,Burdwan were also invited to attend the said meeting.Both of them appreciated the roll of the General Secretary,Bharat Pensioner Samaj,Madhupur for organising such type of Pensioner's meet.The Chief Manager Of SBI,Madhupur,Sri Madhukar Sah and other Official Of SBI,Madhupur awarded the pensioners by offering some token of GIFT and sweets.
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-38471271779115585912013-05-01T10:35:00.000+05:302013-05-01T10:35:05.931+05:30Judgement Of Delhi High Court$~5-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 1535/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus CENTRAL GOVT. SAG & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.K.Ghosh and Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocates W.P.(C) 2348/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus D.L.VHORA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate W.P.(C) 2349/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 2 of 13
PPS GUMBER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate W.P.(C) 2350/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. We note that on January 28, 2013 the petitioners have issued an office order dated January 28, 2013 which reads as under:-
“OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners –reg. The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, orders were issued for revision of pension/family pensioners vide this Department’s O.M. No.38/37/08 P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time.
2. It has been decided that the pension of pre 2006 pensioners are 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
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 3 of 13
grade pay correspondent 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. In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above-referred OM dated 30.8.2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. 3. The normal family pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners as revised w.e.f. 01-01-2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the OM dated 01-09-2008 would also be further stepped up to 30% of the sum of minimum of pay in pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale from which the Government servant 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 30-08-2008. In case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above referred OM dated 30-08-2008 of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). 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. 5. The pension so arrived at in accordance with para 2 above and indicated in Col.9 of Annexure will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs. 3500/-p.m.
6. The family pension at enhanced rates (under sub rule (3) (a) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 4 of 13
in terms of para 4.1 or this Department’s OM No.1/3/2011-P&PW(E) dated 25.5.2012 would be further stepped up in the following manner:- (i) In the case of Government servants who died while in service before 01-01-2006 and in respect of whom enhanced family pension is applicable from the date of approval by the Government i.e.24.9.2012, the enhanced family pension will be 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 in which the Government servant had died, as arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30-08-2008. & In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the above referred OM dated 30-08-2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. (ii) In the case of a pensioner who retired before 01-01-2006 and in respect of whom enhanced family pension is applicable from the date of approval by the Government, i.e.24-09-2012, the enhanced family pension will be stepped up to the amount of pension as revised in terms of para 2 read with para 5 above. In case the pensioner has died before the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24.09, 2012 the pension will be revised notionally in terms of para 2 read with para 5 above. The amount of revised enhanced family pension will, however, not be less than the amount of family pension at ordinary rates as revised in terms of Para 3 above. 7. In case the pension consolidated pension/family pension/enhanced family pension calculated as per Para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 01-09-2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same ( higher consolidated pension/family pension ) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension.
8. All other conditions as given in OM No.38/37/08-P &
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 5 of 13
PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time shall remain unchanged. 9. These orders will take effect from the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24-09-2012. There will be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 01-01-2006 and 23-09-2012, and, therefore, no arrears will be payable on account of these orders for that period. 10. In their application to the persons belonging to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. 11 All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the contents of these orders to the notice of Controller of Accountants/Pay and Accounts Officer s and attached and subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis. All pension disbursing officers are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners. 12. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- (Tripti P.Ghosh) Director To All Ministries/Departments of Government of India As per mailing list.”
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.
4. As is well known, the recommendations of the 6th Pay
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 6 of 13
Commission did away with the hitherto fore applicable pay scales; replacing the same with pay bands having grade pay. For example, pay band I (PB-I) was `5200-20200 and embraced 12 previous pay scales between `2750-4400 and `8000-13500, but with 12 grade pays between `1800-5400.
5. How would the existing pensioners get pension was decided by the Government as per a resolution dated August 29, 2008 which accepted para 5.1.47 of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission to the following effect:-
“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.”
6. The respondents had made many submissions in their favour; two of which pertained to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1990 (4) SCC 270 D.S.Nakara Vs. UOI and (2008) 9 SCC 125 UOI Vs. S.P.S.Vains. The Tribunal has negated said pleas. However, reasoning of the respondents on other plea pertaining to
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 7 of 13
resolution No.12 aforesaid has found favour with the Tribunal.
7. We find that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding W.P.(C) No.19641/2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has referred to the decision impugned by the Tribunal, with reference to an identical question which arose in the State of Haryana because Government of Haryana had adopted the same policy decision of the Central Government. In the decision dated December 21, 2012, in paragraphs 21 to 26, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reasoned as under:-
“21. On the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it was argued before the Tribunal that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. It was argued that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. 22. The Tribunal has accepted this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 were contrary to the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for determination of the pension had been completely changed that too when these two subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were issued by the lower authorities having no power to issue such clarification.
23 After considering the arguments of learned counsels for all the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not even necessary to go into the various nuances and nitty grittys, which are insisted by learned counsels for the petitioners based on D.S. Nakara line of cases and N. Subbarayudu and others and S.R. Dhingra and others (supra), wherein ratio of D.S. Nakara is explained. We proceed on the basis
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 8 of 13
that fixation of cut off date by the government was in order and to this extent we agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal where similar arguments, as advanced by the petitioners before us, were rejected. The issue can be resolved on the interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself. It is not in dispute that vide resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the pension was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein. We have already reproduced the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications. Based on this resolution, OM dated 01.09.2008 was issued. We have also reproduced para 4.2 thereof. This states in unequivocal terms that “revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------”. The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired. However, notwithstanding the same and without any provocation, the junior functionaries in the Department of Pension nurtured a doubt “though there was none” and note was prepared on that basis, which led to issuance of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The effect of these two OMs was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band. To demonstrate this, Mr. H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing in some of these cases drew our attention to the following chart:-
Min of Pre-revised scale
Pay in the Pay Band
Grade Pay
Revised Basic Pay (2+3) (`)
Pension 50% of (2+3) (`)
1
2
3
4
5
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 9 of 13
S-24 (14300)
37400
8700
46100
23050
S-25 (15100)
39690
8700
48390
24195
S-26 (16400)
39690
8900
48590
24295
S-27 (16400)
39690
8900
48590
24295
S-28 (14300)
37400
10000
47400
23700
S-29 (18400)
44700
10000
54700
27350
The first 4 columns of the above table have been extracted from the pay fixation annexed with MOF OM of 30th August, 2008 (referred to in para 4.5 (iii) above). Revised pension of S 29 works out to `27,350 which has been reduced to `23,700 as per DOP OM of 03.10.2008 (para 4.8 (B) below). 24. As per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14,300/- is shown as 37,400/-. In addition, Grade Pay of `8700/- was given totaling `46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all the other pay scales were accepted by the aforementioned OM dated 14th October, 2008. The illegality which has been perpetrated in the present matter is apparent from the fact that whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of `14,300/- would now receive `37,400/- plus grade pay of `8700/- and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at `23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay `8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of `18,400/- or even `22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of ` 37,400/- plus grade pay of `10,000/-). 25. This has arisen because of resolution dated 29.08.2008 and has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008. This aspect is beautifully demonstrated by the Tribunal in its Full Bench judgement in the following manner with which we are entirely agree:
“25. In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage, it will be useful to extract the relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of the VI CPC recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution dated 29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the OM dated
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 10 of 13
1.9.2008 and subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification dated 3.10.2008, which thus read:
Resolution NO.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 – Para 5.1.47 (page 154-155)
Para 4.2 of OM DOP&PW OM No.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 1.09.2008 (page 38 of OA)
OM DOP & PW OM No.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 3.10.2008
The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale form which the pensioner had retired.
The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the(sum of the) minimum of the pay in the pay band plus (and) the grade pay (thereon) corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
The Pension Calculated at 50% 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] plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus) the grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of `18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being `37400-
67000 and the
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 11 of 13
corresponding grade pay being `10000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of `37400+`10000 (i.e. `23700)
Strike out are deletions and bold letter addition
Strike out are deletions and bold letters addition.
26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% 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 held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' and adding 'irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus' implying that the revised pension is to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the applicants. According to us, such a course was not available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification thereby altering the recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government. According to us, deletion of the words 'sum of the' 'and grade
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 12 of 13
pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale' 'and addition of the words 'irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay plus', as introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the recommendations of the VI CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet. Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring the matter to the Cabinet.” 26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% 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”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.”
W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 13 of 13
8. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not burden ourselves any further. We conclude by noting that as regards the substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government accepts its correctness, but insists to make the same applicable prospectively.
9. The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is upheld but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 29, 2013 mamta
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-36240291741196056772013-05-01T10:28:00.001+05:302013-06-22T17:25:02.270+05:30<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-18772964968530832642013-05-01T10:11:00.000+05:302013-05-01T10:11:41.992+05:30FINALY JUSTICE SEEMS TO HAVE WON!Finally justice seems to have won
Dear Friends
Finally, there is hope and justice seems to have won.
Our case came up today in Delhi High Court before the Bench consisting of Justice Nanadrajog and Justice Kameshwar Rao. Shri S.B. Lal and I attended the hearing and our Advocate was personally present.
Apparently the Bench had read our Counter and the Affidavit and straightaway started tackling the Government Advocate. The latter's half hearted pleadings to confuse the issue had no impact on the Bench. Seeing so many senior citizens, it was clear that the Bench was convinced about the injustice. Our Advocate clarified a few points.
While detailed verdict will be given in the next few days and it is our impression that GOI Writ has been dismissed. As soon as we get the detailed order, we propose to revive our Contempt petition in CAT to enforce the compliance of its 1-11-2011 verdict. In the meantime, this is for your information.
Paratap Narain
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-59006770625459164002013-04-04T21:06:00.003+05:302013-04-04T21:06:25.930+05:30<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div> [Bottom]
Home > Gazals Compressed Mp3 > FORGET ME NOT - JAGJIT SINGH
Join Our Facebook Page and Stay Updated
Files Are Arranged As Alphabetical Orders
Switch To Latest Updates
» aankhon se yun aansoo -Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2810Kb )
» abhi woh kamsin - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (3178Kb )
» husan walon ko - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2729Kb )
» in ashqon ko - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (3262Kb )
» koi fariyad - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (4230Kb )
» phool bhare hain -Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2344Kb )
» tera chehra hai aaina - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2268Kb )
» teri berukhi - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2609Kb )
» tum hamare nahi - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2802Kb )
» utha suraahi - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (3014Kb )
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-87701065665076781892013-02-01T10:30:00.002+05:302013-02-01T10:30:53.180+05:30Suoreme Court Judgement.Page 1
“ REPORTABLE”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8848-8849 OF 2012
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association,
Tamilnadu, etc. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu …. Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8850-8852 OF 2012
Tiruneveli Corporation city Pensioners Federation …. Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8853-8855 OF 2012
Madurai Corp. Retired Officers Welfare Association …. Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8856 OF 2012
Tamilnadu Retired Officers Assn. & Its Affiliate, etc. …. Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu …. Respondent
WITH
1
Page 2
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8857 OF 2012
N. Subramaniam & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8858 OF 2012
Chennai District Retired Officials Assn. …. Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8859 OF 2012
Tamilnadu Retired Govt. Employees Assn. …. Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8860 OF 2012
Navaneethakrishnan & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8861-8863 OF 2012
M.M.C. Pensioners Welfare Association & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8864 OF 2012
2
Page 3
G. Lakshmikanthan & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8865 OF 2012
L.N. Ranganathan & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8866 OF 2012
P.V. Thirumal & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8868 OF 2012
K.N. Alavandar & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8869 OF 2012
Retired Officials Association …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu …. Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8871 OF 2012
S. Jeevi Kanagammal & Ors. …. Appellants
3
Page 4
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8872 OF 2012
V. Thirunavukkarasu & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8873-8874 OF 2012
Tamilnadu Retired School-College Tech. Assn. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8875 OF 2012
Ramanathanpuram District All Pensioners & Senior
Citizens Welfare Assn. …. Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamilnadu …. Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8876 OF 2012
S. Shan Mugam & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8877-8878 OF 2012
S. Shanmugum & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
4
Page 5
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8879 OF 2012
R. Thanumoorthy & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8880 OF 2012
K. Parthasarathy & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8881 OF 2012
A. Sethu & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu …. Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8882 OF 2012
A. Shanmugathai & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8883 OF 2012
R. Kandasamy & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
5
Page 6
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8870 OF 2012
P. Chellappan & Ors. …. Appellants
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu has been issuing executive order
from time to time to determine the composition of allowances to be added
to pay for quantifying wages for calculating pension. It is the case of the
appellants, that the State Government followed a consistent practice of
treating ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ for the computation of
pension and other retiral benefits. Illustratively, we are informed, that by a
Government Order dated 11.3.1970 the State Government included
‘dearness allowance’ at the rate then prevalent, as a component of wages
for calculating average emoluments for determining pension, for those who
retired on or after 26.2.1970. The instant Government Order dated
11.3.1970 was applicable to employees who retired between 26.2.1970
and 1.10.1970.
2. One R. Narasimachar who had retired on 21.11.1969 was not
extended the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ drawn by him at the time of
his retirement, while computing his pension. This denial was because the
Government order dated 11.3.1970, extended the benefit referred to above
only to such employees who had/would retire on or after 26.2.1970.
6
Page 7
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid denial, he filed Writ Petition no.1815 of 1986
contending, that his pension should have been calculated by taking into
consideration ‘dearness allowance’ which was being drawn by him at the
time of his retirement, as ‘dearness pay’. A learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as, the High
Court) allowed the aforesaid writ petition on 15.3.1990 by holding, that the
State Government was not right in restricting the applicability of the
Government Order dated 11.3.1970 only to employees who retired
between 26.2.1970 and 1.10.1970. The learned Single Judge directed,
that ‘dearness allowance’ which the appellant was drawing, at the time of
his retirement, be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating his pension. On
26.2.1991, the writ appeal filed by the State Government against the order
dated 15.3.1990 (passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ
Petition no.1815 of 1986), was dismissed.
3. Based on the aforesaid judgment dated 15.3.1990, which the State
Government accepted, a clarificatory Government Order dated 4.12.1991,
was issued. Under the Government Order dated 4.12.1991, even for
employees who had retired prior to 1.12.1966, ‘dearness allowance’
actually drawn by them, at the time of their retirement,would be taken as
‘dearness pay’ for purposes of calculating pension. For employees retiring
between 1.12.1966 and 25.2.1970, ‘dearness allowance’ upto the level
obtaining in December, 1966 would be taken into consideration as
‘dearness pay’ for determining pension (and gratuity). It is therefore
submitted, that ‘dearness allowance’ became a component of pension, for
all employees who had retired upto 25.2.1970.
7
Page 8
4. In order to place the sequence of facts in the correct perspective, it
was further brought to our notice that the Government order dated
11.3.1970 was clarified by a subsequent letter dated 4.12.1991. As per the
aforesaid order and letter, Government servants retiring from service on or
after 26.2.1970, and upto 1.10.1970, ‘dearness allowance’ up to the level
obtaining in December, 1966, was to be reckoned as ‘dearness pay’ for
purposes of pension (and gratuity). Thereupon, through a subsequent
Government order dated 4.12.1991, directions were issued for extending
the benefit contemplated by the Government order dated 11.3.1970 and the
Government’s letter dated 4.2.1991, even to those who had retired prior to
26.2.1970.
5. A Government order dated 4.12.1991 was then brought to our notice.
It provided, that notional revised pension payable from 1.6.1988 would be
encashable only with effect from 1.12.1991. It also provided, that those
Government servants who had retired prior to 26.2.1970 but had died
before 1.12.1991, would be ineligible for the benefits contemplated for
retirees prior to 26.2.1970. However, if the concerned Government
employee had died after 1.12.1991, the benefits contemplated for retirees
prior to 26.2.1970 would be released to the legal heirs of such retirees. It
is, therefore apparent, that for the benefits of the aforesaid Government
order, the retirees under reference would be deprived of the actual
monetary benefit payable to him, from the date of his or her retirement, till
30.11.1991 (as arrears of pension under the aforesaid Government orders
were payable only with effect from 1.12.1991).
6. The aforesaid R. Narasimachar again assailed the Government
order dated 4.12.1991, by contesting the determination of the State
8
Page 9
Government, in denying to him, the benefit of arrears from the date of his
retirement (on 21.11.1969) till 30.11.1991, by filing Writ Petition no. 4038
of 1992 before the High Court. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by
the High Court. The High Court held, that monetary benefits could not be
denied for the period preceding 1.12.1991. In other words, retirees before
1.12.1991 were held entitled to arrears from the date of their retirement till
30.11.1991. The cut off date (1.12.1991) for extending the benefit of
arrears was accordingly set aside.
7. The judgment rendered by the High Court in Writ Petition no. 4038 of
1992 on 15.6.1993, quashing the action of the State Government in limiting
payment of arrears, only with effect from 1.12.1991, was accepted by the
State Government. The judgment of the High Court was given effect to, by
a Government order dated 26.7.1993, whereby, the earlier Government
order dated 4.12.1991 was modified. Under the Government order dated
26.7.1993, pensioners were held eligible for arrears of pension from the
date of their actual retirement. The aforesaid benefit of arrears was also
extended to legal heirs of such pensioners, who had died in the meantime.
8. Based on the factual position narrated in the foregoing paragraphs, it
clearly emerges, that ‘dearness allowance’ was taken as ‘dearness pay’ for
employees retiring from government service, at all times, without any
interruption, for the computation of retiral benefits including pension. The
aforesaid narration also reveals, that the component of ‘dearness
allowance’ to be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for being taken into
consideration for calculating pension, was determined by the State
Government, through Government orders issued from time to time. The
9
Page 10
narration recorded hereinabove pertains to employees whose date of
retirement preceded 1.10.1970.
9. The factual position being recorded hereinafter relates to the period
after 1.10.1970.
10. On 6.2.1974, a Dearness Allowance Committee was constituted, to
inter alia make recommendations, of allowances which should be treated
as a component of wages, for calculating pension of retired/retiring
employees. On 7.7.1974, the Dearness Allowance Committee inter alia
recommended, that ‘dearness allowance’ be treated as ‘dearness pay’ in
full, for computing retiral benefits including pension. Accepting the
recommendations of the Dearness Allowance Committee, the Finance
Department, issued a Government Order dated 6.2.1975 directing, that
‘dearness allowance’ actually being drawn by employees retiring on or after
1.2.1975 be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating average pay ( by
taking not consideration 10 months wages, prior to the date of retirement),
for calculating pension, (gratuity and travelling allowance). It would be
relevant to mention, that at the aforesaid juncture, employees drawing pay
upto Rs.299/-, were entitled to Rs.55/- as ‘dearness allowance’; and those
drawing pay at Rs.300/- and above, were entitled to Rs.70/- as ‘dearness
allowance’. Accordingly, by the Government Order dated 6.2.1975, the
State Government, determined the component of ‘dearness allowance’
(Rs.55/- or Rs.70/-, as the case may be) to be taken into consideration, for
calculating pension. The intention of the instant Government Order was,
that employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975, should derive full benefit of,
the merger of the then existing ‘dearness allowance’ into wages, as
‘dearness pay’ for computing pension. The Government order dated
1
Page 11
6.2.1975 permitted employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975, an addition of
‘dearness allowance’ actually being drawn by them, (during the period of
ten months, prior to the date of their retirement), by treating the same as
‘dearness pay’, for calculating average wages. The said average wage,
would lead to the computation of pension actually payable.
11. K. Venkataraman filed Writ Petition no. 8237 of 1995 before the High
Court with a prayer that ‘dearness allowance’ drawn by him for a period of
ten months prior to the date of his retirement (on 30.6.1974) be treated as
‘dearness pay’ for calculating his pension. The benefit sought, had been
denied because he had retired on 30.6.1974, whereas, the benefit of the
Government order dated 6.2.1975 was extended only to such employees
who had retired after 1.2.1975. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be
transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as, the Administrative Tribunal). Before the Administrative Tribunal, the
Writ Petition was renumbered as T.A. 845 of 1991. The Administrative
Tribunal, by its order dated 1.4.1993, held that K. Venkataraman was
entitled to the benefits extended to other pensioners, irrespective of the fact
that he had retired (on 30.6.1974 i.e., prior to the cut off date (1.2.1975).
12. The State Government, accepted the decision of the Administrative
Tribunal in K. Venkataraman’s case (in T.A. no. 845 of 1991 decided on
1.4.1993), and implemented the same. For the aforesaid purpose, the
Finance (Pension) Department issued a Government order dated
23.9.1993. Accordingly, K. Venkataraman’s pension was recalculated by
treating ‘dearness allowance’ actually drawn by him, during the ten months
preceding the date of his retirement, as ‘dearness pay’. It therefore
emerges, that the manner of computing pension for retired and retiring
1
Page 12
employees were equated, in so far as the component of ‘dearness
allowance’ is concerned.
13. We were told, that when one or the other Government order
introduced a distinction in pensionary benefits, for computing pension, the
same was equated through judicial intervention. Such judicial interventions
were then adopted by the State Government, from time to time. This
aspect of the matter, factual as well as legal, was not disputed by the
learned counsel representing the respondents. This position continued
till the adoption of the recommendations of the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay
Commission Report, details whereof, shall be narrated soon hereafter.
14. On 1.1.1979, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Pension Rules”) came to be enforced. After the
promulgation of the Pension Rules, pension of retiring government
employees had to be determined in consonance with the said Rules. It is
not in dispute, that pension to Government employees is now regulated
under the Pension Rules. Under the Pension Rules, pension is calculated
on the basis of an employee’s emoluments/wages, immediately before his
retirement. For this, reference may be made to Rule 30 of the Pension
Rules, which is being extracted hereunder:-
“30. Emoluments—In the rules, unless the context otherwise
requires,--
(1) Emoluments means and include:-
(i) Pay, other than special pay granted in view of his
personal qualifications, which has been
sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or
in an officiating capacity (including temporary
capacity under emergency provisions) or to which
he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre:
(ii) special pay, dearness pay and personal pay; and
1
Page 13
(iii) any other remuneration which may be specially
claused as emoluments by the Government.”
(emphasis is ours)
The emoluments/wages to be taken into consideration for computing
pension is dependent on the allowances which are added to pay. The
composition and component of the said allowances is determined by the
State Government from time to time through Government orders. A
perusal of Rule 30 of the Pension Rules reveals, that ‘dearness pay’ is a
component of the wages to be taken into consideration for computing
pension. And ‘dearness pay’ is a component of ‘dearness allowance;
which on a declaration by the State Government approves (through a
Government order) for being taken into consideration for calculating
pension.
15. In 1986, the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission gave its report.
The Pay Commission recommended, that ‘dearness allowance’, prevalent
at the end of three years (after the Pay Commission’s recommendations),
should be treated as ‘dearness pay’, in order to ensure a reasonable
pension level. The Finance (Pension) Department having considered the
recommendations made by the Pay Commission, issued a Government
Order dated 30.4.1986, providing that ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘additional
dearness allowance’ sanctioned upto 30.9.1987 would be treated as
‘dearness pay’ for calculating pension, in respect of those who retired (or
died) on or after 1.10.1987. The concession of adding ‘dearness pay’ was
extended to the period of 10 months for calculating average emoluments,
for those who retired before or after 31.7.1987. But employees retiring on
or after 1.10.1987 were entitled to add ‘dearness allowance’ sanctioned
upto 1.10.1987 to their wages, for quantifying pension (family pension and
1
Page 14
death-cum-retirement gratuity). It is therefore apparent, that even after the
acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission report,
‘dearness allowance’ remained a component of wages. As such, ‘dearness
allowance’ continued to be taken into consideration for computing pension
of retiring government employees.
16. The Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission submitted its report in 1989.
The instant Pay Commission recommended, the following formula for
calculating pension:
Basic Pay Per Month Rate of Pension Per Month
i) Not exceeding Rs.1,500 30 percent of basic pay subject to
a minimum of Rs.375 p.m.
ii) Exceeding Rs.1,500 but not
exceeding Rs.3,000/-
20 per cent of basic pay subject
to a minimum of Rs.450 p.m.
iii) Exceeding Rs.3,000/- 15 per cent of basic pay subject
to a minimum of Rs.600 and a
maximum of Rs.1,250 p.m.
The Fifth Pay Commission also recommended different percentages of
increase in pension for existing pensioners, who had retired prior to
1.6.1988. By a Government Order dated 9.8.1989 the Finance Department
while accepting the recommendations of the Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay
Commission fixed a slab system, for adding ‘dearness allowance’ as
‘dearness pay’ for calculating pension. This decision of the State
Government was to be implemented for employees retiring on or after
1.6.1988.
17. Original Application no. 1919 of 1991 was filed by Ambasamudaram,
Taluk Pensioner Associations before the Administrative Tribunal. Likewise,
a large number of other Original Applications (including OA no. 4952 of
1992, O.A. no. 2227 of 1992, O.A. no. 4265 of 1992, O.A. no. 4953 of
1992, OA no.2645 of 1994 and OA no.2646 of 1994) were filed before the
1
Page 15
Administrative Tribunal. Through the aforesaid original applications, the
petitioners/applicants assailed the Government Order dated 30.4.1986
(issued in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Fourth Tamil
Nadu Pay Commission), as well as, the Government Order dated 9.8.1989
(issued in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Fifty Tamil
Nadu Pay Commission). All the aforesaid original applications were
disposed of by the Administrative Tribunal vide a common order dated
6.5.1996. The operative part of the order passed by the Administrative
Tribunal while disposing of the aforementioned original applications is
being extracted hereunder:
“OA 1919/91
We set aside the G.O.Ms. No.810 (Finance and Pay
Commission) Department dated 9.8.89 in so far as it affects the
applicant’s association and direct the respondent to extend the
benefits of 60% increase in the pre-revised pension plus the
Dearness Allowance at 608 points available to those who retired
prior to 1.6.60 to those pensioners and family pensioners of cases of
retirements or death occurring after 1.6.60.
OA 2227/92
We quash the G.O.Ms. No.371, Finance dated 30.4.1986 and
G.O.Ms.No.911, finance dated 4.12.1991 in so far as they have
restricted their applicability to the pensioners and family who retired
prior to 1.10.1987 listed in Appendix 1 and 2 and those who retired
during the period from 1.10.1987 to 31.5.1988 as listed in Appendix
from the services of Government, local bodies and aided educational
institutions and direct the respondent to count the DA and ADA as
dearness pay for all ten months preceding retirement for computing
average emoluments to fix their pensionary benefits including
pension and value of commutation and also direct the respondent to
pay the arrears of pension, gratuity and value of commutation of
pension on such refixation computed from the date of retirement or
death as the case may be to the pensioners and family pensioners.
OA 4265/92
We quash the G.O.Ms.No.115, Finance dated 6.2.1975 and
G.O.Ms.No.911 Finance dated 4.12.1991 in respect of the applicant
as far as it relates to classification of pensioners and direct the
respondent to extend the benefits of the impugned G.Os. to the
affected pensioners and family pensioners and pay the arrears of
pension and gratuity and the family pension computed on refixation
1
Page 16
of their original pension or family pension from the date of their
retirement or the date of death of the Government servant as the
case may be.
OA 4953/92
We quash G.O.Ms.No.371, Finance dated 30.4.1986 and
G.O.Ms.No.911 Finance dated 4.112.91 in respect of the applicant
as far as they have restricted their applicability to the pensioners and
family pensioners’ who retired or died as the case may be prior to
1.10.87 and after 1.4.78 and direct the respondent to allow the
pensioners who retired during the period from 1.10.87 to 31.5.1988
to count the DA and ADA as dearness pay for all the 10 months
preceding retirement for computing average emoluments and extend
the benefits of the impugned GOS to them, and pay them the arrears
of pension, gratuity and value of commutation on such refixation
computed on and from the date of retirement or death as the case
may be to the affected pensioners and family pensioners.
OA No.2645/94
We direct the respondents to extend the benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.679, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.9.93 to the
applicant also and revise his pension with effect from 1.11.1974
taking into account the Dearness Allowance drawn by him from
9.1.1974 to 31.10.1974 and pay him the arrears due to him
consequent on the revision from 1.11.1974.
OA No.2646/94
We quash the letter No.88079/Pension/93-I, Finance
Department, dated 1.10.1993 and direct the respondent to extend the
benefit granted in G.O.Ms.No.115, Finance dated 6.2.75 to those
who retired during the period from 1.10.70 to 1.2.75 and pay them
ar4rears of pension and DCRG from the dates of their retirement.
The applications are allowed. Taking into consideration the
fact that most of the applicants would have died or most of them
would have reached the age of more than 70, we direct the
respondent to refix their pension and pay the arrears within two
months from the date of receipt of this order or a copy thereof.”
18. The factual narration recorded hereinabove refers to the Government
orders issued from to time, directing the component of ‘dearness
allowance’, which was to be taken into consideration as ‘dearness pay’ for
computation of pension; the outcome of the challenges raised to the
aforesaid Government orders; and the eventual implementation thereof in
the context of the implementation of the component of ‘dearness pay’ to be
taken into consideration for calculating pension. Even though the
1
Page 17
exhaustive details of the same have been narrated above, it is necessary to
record a summary thereof, so as to have a bird’s eye view of the manner in
which ‘dearness pay’ has been extended to retired Government employees
from time to time. Accordingly, the aforesaid summary is being
paraphrased below:-
(i) Government order dated 11.3.1970 included ‘dearness
allowance’ as a component of wages for calculating pension
for only such employees who retired between 26.2.1970 and
1.10.1970. By judicial intervention, the aforesaid Government
order extending the benefit of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as
‘dearness pay’, was held to be applicable even to employees
who had retired prior to 26.2.1970. The State Government
accepted the aforesaid legal position and extended the same
benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ by treating the same as
‘dearness pay’ to all pensioners equally.
(ii) Government order dated 6.2.1975 was issued to give
effect to the recommendations made by the Dearness
Allowance Committee to the effect, that ‘dearness allowance’
sanctioned with effect from 1.4.1974 (Rs.55/- for employees
drawing pay upto Rs.599/-, and Rs.70/- for employees drawing
pay upto Rs.600/- and above) would be treated as ‘dearness
pay’ for employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975 ( by ‘adding
dearness allowance actually drawn by them during the ten
months preceding their retirement. By judicial intervention, it
was held that the aforesaid benefit would also extend to such
employees who had retired during the period between
1
Page 18
2.10.1970 and 31.1.1975, and that, ‘dearness allowance’
sanctioned from time to time and actually drawn by the retiring
employee would be treated as ‘dearness pay’ in case of those
who retired during the period between 2.10.1970 and
31.1.1975 (for calculation of pension).
(iii) Government order dated 30.4.1986, while accepting the
recommendation made by the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay
Commission, provided for certain pensionary benefits to
employees who had retired between 1.10.1987 and 31.5.1988,
by allowing them to count ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘additional
dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’. The concession of
‘dearness pay’ was extended for the entire ten months for
calculating average emoluments in case of those who retired
after 31.7.1987. By judicial intervention, it was held that the
concession of adding ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’
would extend even to employees who had retired (or died)
prior to 1.10.1987. It was also held, that pensioners who had
retired during the period between 1.10.1987 and 31.5.1988
would be entitled to count ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘additional
dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ (for all the ten months
preceding their retirement) for computing average wages for
calculating pension. The State Government accepted the
aforesaid legal position and extended the aforesaid benefits
equally to all pensioners.
(iv) Government order dated 9.8.1989, while accepting the
recommendations made by the Fifty Tamil Nadu Pay
1
Page 19
Commission, introduced a slab system, for adding ‘dearness
allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ into the component of wages for
calculating pension. A distinction was made between
employees retiring before and after 1.6.1988. By judicial
intervention, the benefit of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as
‘dearness pay’ was extended to employees irrespective of the
date of their retirement.
(v) Government order dated 4.12.1991 provided, that
arrears of pension based on recalculation of pension, by taking
into consideration the component of ‘dearness allowance’ as
‘dearness pay’, would be released to pensioners with effect
from 1.12.1991, even in cases where the concerned pensioner
had retired with effect from a date preceding 1.12.1991. By
judicial intervention, arrears of pension, based on recalculation
of pension, were ordered to be released to retired employees,
by taking into consideration the component of ‘dearness
allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ equally for all employees. The
State Government accepted the aforesaid legal position and
extended the said benefit to pensioners who had retired prior
to 1.12.1991.
19. The aforesaid factual/legal position is a historical narration of the
inclusion of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ from time to time for
computation of pension. What emerges from this narration is, that all
pensioners (past, present and future) were equally granted the benefit of
‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating pension. Whenever
a class of pensioners was discriminated against, for computation of
1
Page 20
pension, on the basis of dearness allowance/ pay judicial intervention
restored the equation. The equation was then given effect to by the State
Government from time to time. Clearly, judicial intervention repeatedly
erased the classifications created between pensioners, on the basis of
‘dearness pay’.
20. The present controversy yet again presents a dispute, inter se,
between the State Government and retired employees in respect of the
component of ‘dearness allowance’ liable to be treated as ‘dearness pay’,
for computing pension payable to retired Government employees. Even
though the instant controversy also arises out of Government order dated
9.8.1989, the same remained unsettled in the earlier rounds of litigation
(emerging out of the same Government order dated 9.8.1989), presumably
because none of the retired employees fell within the classes of
pensioners included in the present litigation. The employees herein are
those who retired on or after 1.6.1988. By the impugned Government order
dated 9.8.1989, pensionary benefits of an employee retired/retiring on or
after 1.6.1988 were required to be computed by adding ‘dearness
allowance’ to ‘dearness pay’ at a fixed percentage. By virtue of the
aforesaid determination, employees retiring on or after 1.6.1988 would be
at a disadvantage, as against the employees who had retired prior thereto.
21. The afore-stated challenge to the impugned Government order dated
9.8.1989 was raised before the Administrative Tribunal through an Original
Application (O.A. no. 5771 of 2001) by an Association of retired
Government employees. The aforesaid Original Application came to be
transferred to the High Court, wherein it was renumbered as Writ Petition
(T) no. 32045 of 2005. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed
2
Page 21
the aforesaid Writ Petition on 20.4.2006. The learned Single Judge held,
that the State Government, in not extending benefits to members of the
appellant Association, had discriminated against them. The impugned
Government order dated 9.8.1989, to the extent that it did not confer the
same benefits (based on the component of ‘dearness allowance’ treated as
‘dearness pay’), for employees who retired on or after 1.6.1988, was held
as unsustainable. Writ Petition (T) no. 32045 of 2005 was accordingly
allowed.
22. Dissatisfied with the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the learned
Single Judge, allowing Writ Petition (T) no. 32045 of 2005, the State
Government preferred a Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of the High
Court. The aforesaid Writ Appeal, alongwith writ petitions filed before the
High Court on the same subject, were taken up for collective adjudication.
By an order dated 17.12.2007, Writ Appeal no. 1002 of 2006 was allowed.
The order dated 20.4.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge (allowing
the claim of the employees who had retired on or after 1.6.1988), was set
aside. All writ petitions filed by retired employees on the same subject
matter which were taken up for disposal alongwith the Writ Appeal referred
to above, were simultaneously dismissed. Through the instant Civil
Appeals, different employees’ associations, as also employees (singularly
and collectively), have assailed the order passed on 17.12.2007 by the
Division Bench of the High Court, allowing Writ Appeal no. 1002 of 2006
(and connected appeals); and dismissing the writ petitions preferred by
employees (and employees’ associations) taken up for collective disposal,
alongwith the aforesaid Writ Appeal (no. 1002 of 2006).
2
Page 22
23. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the
appellants, first and foremost, vehemently contended, on the basis of the
legal and the factual position noticed above, that the benefit of ‘dearness
allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ has always equally been extended to all the
pensioners, irrespective of the date of their retirement. It was further
contended, that as and when there was discrimination on the above
subject, the same was suitably remedied by the State Government, by
amending/modifying the earlier Government orders. It was submitted, that
a similar discrimination emanating out of the same Government order
dated 9.8.1989, pertaining to a set of employees differently classified, was
corrected through judicial intervention (details already noticed above).
During the aforesaid course of repeated adjudication, on the subject under
consideration, the matter once came up to this Court, when Special Leave
Petition (Civil) no. 23643 of 1996, filed before this Court by the State
Government, was dismissed. Even a review petition filed before this Court,
by the State Government thereafter, admittedly met the same fate. It was
accordingly submitted, that the same principle which was made applicable
to different sections of pensioners, under the same Government order
dated 9.8.1989, should be extended to the instant class of retired
Government employees i.e., those who retired on or after 1.6.1988.
24. Besides the aforesaid legal premise, for assailing the impugned
Government order dated 9.8.1989, learned counsel representing the
appellants, invited our pointed attention to a compilation enclosed by the
Retired Officers’ Association (in Civil Appeal no. 8856 of 2012). The said
compilation was relied upon to demonstrate to us, the extent of
discrimination caused to the appellants (who retired on or after 1.6.1988).
2
Page 23
For this reason various hypothetical situations were illustratively placed
before us, for our consideration. In each such hypothetical illustration, the
appellants took into consideration the same number of years of service
rendered, against the same post, wherein the pensioner had also retired at
the same component of last pay drawn. Therefrom, it was sought to be
established, that employees who had retired on or after 1.6.1988 would be
at a substantial disadvantage. Illustratively, for the adjudication of the
present controversy, a hypothetical situation relating to an employee
holding the post of Deputy Collector is being placed below:
‘ A ’
Cadre taken : Deputy Collector
Date of retirement : 30.04.1988
Net qualifying service : 33 years
Scale of Pay : 1340-75—1715—90—2435
Pay last drawn : Rs. 2435/-
Average Emoluments : Rs. 2435/-
Original Pension fixed : Rs. 1218/-
Pension revised as per
G.O. 449 : Rs. 1448/-
Revision as per G.O. 810
As on 01.06.1988 : Rs. 1622/-
Pension as per G.O. 271 : 1622/-
Add: 50% increase : 811/-
-------------
Total Pension 2433/- (With effect from
1.6.1988)
(Pension as on 1.1.1966) : 2433/-
Add: 111% : 2701/-
Interim Relief-I 50/-
Interim Relief –II : 244/-
40% Hike : 974/-
------------------------
Total Pension : 6402/- (With effect from 1.1.1996)
xxx xxx xxx xxx
‘ B ’
Cadre taken : Deputy Collector
2
Page 24
Date of retirement : 30.06.1988
Net qualifying service : 33 years
Scale of Pay : 2200-75—2800—100—4000
Average Emoluments : Rs. 2515/- +
Add: 13% as per G.O. 810 : Rs. 327/-
: Rs.2842/-
Pension 50% : Rs.1421/-
As on 1.1.96:
Pension : Rs.1421/-
Add 148% : 2104/-
Interim relief-I : 50/-
Interim relief-II : 143/-
40% Hike : 569/-
-------------
Total Pension Rs.4287/- (With effect from 1.1.1996)
xxx xxx xxx xxx
‘ C ’
Cadre taken : Deputy Collector
Date of retirement : 30.06.1993
Net qualifying service : 33 years
10 months average
emoluments : Rs.2725/-
Add: 13% increase : Rs. 355/-
: Rs.3080/-
Pension fixed at 50% : Rs.1540/-
Revised pension as on
1.1.1996 : Rs.1540/-
Add Dearness Allowance
148% : 2280/-
Interim relief-I : 50/-
Interim relief-II : 154/-
40% Hike : 616/-
-------------
Total Pension Rs.4640/- (With effect from 1.1.1996)
After narrating the computations made in the illustrations referred to above,
it was submitted that it clearly emerged, that a person who had retired as a
Deputy Collector on 30.4.1988 (before 1.6.1988) would get pension of
Rs.6,402/-; while a Deputy Collector, who retired on 30.6.1988, would get
2
Page 25
Rs.4,287/-; and a Deputy Collector who retired on 30.6.1993, would get
Rs.4,640/- as pension, all of them having the same 33 years of qualifying
service, as well as, a similar last pay prior to their retirement. What is
important is, that the figures referred to above were accepted in the
response sought by the High Court from the Accountant General, Tamil
Nadu. In the response from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, the only
mistake found was the amount of pension depicted as Rs.6,402/- for a
Deputy Collector (who retired prior to 1.6.1988). According to the
Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, on a correct analysis, the said figure
would be Rs.6,808/-. It is therefore apparent, that in identical
circumstances, a Deputy Collector retiring prior to 1.6.1988 would draw
pension at the monthly rate of Rs.6,808/-, whereas, a Deputy Collector
retiring thereafter on 30.6.1988, would get a monthly pension of Rs.4,287/-.
This would show that a person who retired from the same cadre before the
crucial date i.e., 1.6.1988, would get about Rs.2,500/- per month more than
the one who had retired from the same cadre after the said date. The
aforesaid illustration has been highlighted by us, in order to determine the
correctness of the following inferences drawn by the Division Bench of the
High Court, while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2007:-
“Learned counsel for the parties circulated their respective
calculations showing working sheet of pension as admissible to a
class of employees, who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 in the
unrevised scales of pay and those similarly situated and retired after
1st June, 1988 in the revised scales of pay. Charts are varying.
While in the chart submitted by the State Government it has been
shown that those who retired after 1 s t June, 1988 will be getting a
little bit higher than those who retired prior to 1 s t June, 1988, the
calculation submitted by individual parties shows that those who
retired just prior to 1 s t June, 1988 may get a little higher emoluments
than those who retired after 1 s t June, 1988 . It is for the said reason,
we also sought for opinion from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu,
who has submitted its calculation chart, as circulated between the
parties and quoted hereunder:-
2
Page 26
“As per instructions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in
W.P. 11634 of 2002, the working sheets submitted by both the
Government and the petitioners in WA 1002 of 2006 have
been scrutinized and the following observations are made:-
A. Government Working Sheet:
Details of the case As it is As it
should
be
Designation: Tahsildar
Date of Retirement: 31.5.1988
Scale of Pay: Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950
Pay Rs.1880
Rs.1387 Rs.1573
Designation: Tahsildar
Date of Retirement: after 1.6.1988
Scale of Pay: Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200
Pay Rs.2300
Rs.1534 Rs.1534
1/579 revision is applied in this case, then the revised pension
from 1.6.88 works out to Rs.2000 + 18% D.A.
B. Petitioner Working Sheet: Out of nine illustrations, five
cases are found to be correct and in four cases, the
correct calculations are given below:-
Details of the case As it is As it
should be
Designation: Deputy
Collector (‘A’)
Date of Retirement:
30.4.1988
Scale of Pay:
Rs.1340-75-1715-90-
2435
Pay Rs.2435
Rs.2433
(from 1.6.88)
Rs.6402
(from 1.1.96)
Rs.2589
(from 1.6.88) Rs.6808
(from 1.1.96)
Designation: Block
Development Officer
(‘A’)
Date of Retirement:
31.1.1988
Scale of Pay:
Rs.1045-45-1450-65-
1675
Pay Rs.1515
Rs.849
(from 1.2.88)
Rs.1427
(from 1.6.88)
Rs.4303
(from 1.1.96)
Rs.947
(from 1.2.88) Rs.1592
(from 1.6.88)
Rs.4796
(from 1.1.96)
Designation:
Secondary Grade
Teacher (‘A’) (Sel.
Grade)
Rs.472
(from 1.1.88)
Rs.815
(from 1.6.88)
Rs.513
(from 1.1.88)
Rs.890
(from 1.6.88)
2
Page 27
Date of Retirement:
31.12.1987
Scale of Pay: Rs.
Pay Rs.820
Rs.2480
(from 1.1.96)
Rs.2790
(from 1.1.96)
Designation:
Tahsildar
Date of Retirement:
31.3.1990
Scale of Pay:
Rs.1160-50-1460-70-
1950
Pay Rs.2180 from
1.1.90
Rs.1232
(from 1.4.90)
Rs.3723
(from 1.1.96)
Rs.1209
(from 1.4.90) Rs.3654
(from 1.1.96)
It is certified that subject to the observations made supra the
illustrative calculations are in order.
Branch Officer/Pension 30”
From the aforesaid chart it appears that those who retired prior
to 1 s t June, 1988 or after 30 th June, 1988 from similar post, they wil l
get almost similar quantum of pension.
(emphasis is ours)
25. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out, that the
determination by the High Court to the effect, that employees who had
retired prior to 1.6.1988 from a similar post, would “…get a little higher…”
pensionary emoluments, than those who retired afterwards, was clearly
preposterous. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the
illustration narrated above, also invited our attention to the affidavit dated
15.12.2011 (filed by the first respondent in Civil Appeal no.8856 of 2012),
wherein the position canvassed at the behest of the appellants was
considered. According to the acknowledged position, the first respondent
(in the affidavit dated 15.12.2011), on proper calculations asserted, that in
identical circumstances, a Deputy Collector retiring prior to 1.6.1988 would
draw pension at a monthly rate of Rs.6,808/-, whereas, a Deputy Collector
retiring after 30.6.1988 would get a monthly pension of Rs.4,287/-. This
would show, that merely on account of the accident of retiring before or
2
Page 28
after 1.6.1988, one of the pensioners would draw pension at the rate of
about Rs.2,500/- per month more than the other. We are satisfied, that the
illustration referred to hereinabove, clearly negates the conclusion drawn
by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order dated
17.12.2007, to the effect, that retirees prior to 1.6.1988 from a similar post
would “…get a little higher” pensionary emoluments.
26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in
hand. First and foremost, it needs to be understood that the quantum of
discrimination, is irrelevant to a challenge based on a plea of arbitrariness,
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of
India ensures to all, equality before the law and equal protection of the
laws. The question is of arbitrariness and discrimination. These rights flow
to an individual under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The
extent of benefit or loss in such a determination is irrelevant and
inconsequential. The extent to which a benefit or loss actually affects the
person concerned, cannot ever be a valid justification for a court in either
granting or denying the claim raised on these counts. The rejection of the
claim of the appellants by the High Court, merely on account of the belief
that the carry home pension for employees who would retire after 1.6.1988,
would be trivially lower than those retiring prior thereto, amounts to bagging
the issue pressed before the High Court. The solitary instance referred to
above, which is not a matter of dispute even at the hands of the first
respondent, clearly demonstrates, that in a given situation, an employee
retiring on or after 1.6.1988 could suffer a substantial loss, in comparison to
an employee retiring before 1.6.1988. We are, therefore satisfied, that the
High Court clearly erred while determining the issue projected before it.
2
Page 29
27. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid
classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article
16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification (see, State of
Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310). A valid classification is based
on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective
presupposes, the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment,
over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests.
Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective.
And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another,
must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be summarized as, a
distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia,
which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved.
Whenever a cut off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to
categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others,
the twin test for valid classification (or valid discrimination) must
necessarily be satisfied. In the context of the instant appeals, it is
necessary to understand the overall objective of treating “dearness
allowance” (or a part of it) as “dearness pay”. There can be no doubt, that
‘dearness allowance’ is extended to employees to balance the effects of
ongoing inflation, so as to ensure that inflation does not interfere with the
enjoyment of life, to which an employee is accustomed. Likewise, the
objective of ‘dearness pay’ is to balance the effects of ongoing inflation, so
that a pensioner can adequately sustain the means of livelihood to which
he is accustomed . Having understood the reason why the Government
extends the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘dearness pay’, to its
2
Page 30
employees and pensioners respectively, we would venture to search for
answers to the twin tests which must be satisfied, for making a valid
classification (or a valid discrimination), in the present fact situation.
28. In the present context, it needs to be kept in mind, that ‘dearness
allowance’ is paid to Government employees keeping in mind the All India
Consumer Price Index. Inflation in the market place is sought to be
balanced by paying ‘dearness allowance’ to Government employees.
When a State Government chooses to treat ‘dearness allowance’ as
‘dearness pay’, the objective remains the same i.e., inflation in the market
place is sought to be balanced for retired employees by giving them the
benefit of ‘dearness pay’. Since the component of inflation similarly affects
all employees, and all pensioners (irrespective of the date of their entry into
service or retirement), it is not per se possible to accept different levels of
‘dearness pay’ to remedy the malady of inflation. Just like the date of entry
into service (for serving employees) would be wholly irrelevant to
determine the ‘dearness allowance’ to be extended to serving employees,
because the same has no relevance to the object sought to be achieved.
Likewise, the date of retirement (for pensioners) would be wholly irrelevant
to determine the ‘dearness pay’ to be extended to retired employees.
Truthfully, it may be difficult to imagine a valid basis of classification for
remedying the malaise of inflation. In the absence of any objective,
projected in this case, the question of examining the reasonableness to the
object sought to be achieved, simply does not arise. Our straying into this
expressed realm of imagination, was occasioned by the fact, that the
pleadings filed on behalf of the State Government, do not reveal any
reason for the classification, which is subject matter of challenge in the
3
Page 31
instant appeal. The only position adopted in the pleadings filed before
this Court for introducing a cut off date for differential treatment, is
expressed in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, filed by the State of Tamil
Nadu, which is being extracted herewith:.-
“With reference to the averments made in the Grounds of the
Special Leave Petition, I submit that the fifth Pay Commission has
revised pay and pension with effect from 1.6.1988. As per the
recommendation of the above Pay Commission, the Government
had issued orders for the revision of pension and Family Pension
with effect from 1.6.1988 in G.O.Ms. No. 810. Finance (PC)
Department, dated 9.8.1989. It is submitted that the fourth Tamil
Nadu Pay Commission has recommended that at the end of the
period of three years, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto that
period could be treated as Dearness Pay. The Fourth Pay
Commission revision was given with effect from 1.10.1984. Based
on the above recommendation, the Government has issued orders
in G.O.Ms. No.371, Finance, dated 30.4.1986, read with
Government letter No.124414/Pension/86-1, dt. 11.2.1987, that the
Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 30.9.1987 shall be treated as
Dearness Pay for the purpose of pensionary benefit in the case of
the Govt. Servant retiring on or after 1.10.1987. The orders
issued in G.O.Ms. 371, Finance dated 30.4.1985 as amended in
Government letter No.70707-A/Pension /86-1, dated 8.7. 1986 read
as follows:-
“The Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission have among
other things recommended that at the end of a period of
three years the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto the
period could be treated as Dearness Pay in order to ensure a
reasonable pension level. The Government accept the
recommendation of the Commission and direct that in the
case of Government servant, who will be retiring on or after
1.10.1987, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto
1.10.1987 shall be reckoned as Dearness Pay for purpose of
pension in the case of death of a Government servant
occurring on or after 1.10.1987 while in service the Dearness
Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.1987 shall be treated as
Dearness Pay for the purpose of computing Family Pension.”
It is therefore, evident, that the State Government has not disclosed any
object which is desired to achieve by the cut off date. Most importantly, the
financial constraints of the State Government, were not described as the
basis/reason for the classification made in the imputgned Government
order dated 9.8.1989.
3
Page 32
29. The issue in hand needs to examine from another perspective as
well. It must be clearly understood, that no employee has a right to draw
‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ till such time as the State
Government decides to treat ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’. And
therefore, the State Government has the right to choose whether or not
‘dearness allowance’ should be treated as ‘dearness pay’. As such, it is
open to the State Government not to treat any part of ‘dearness allowance’
as ‘dearness pay’. In case of financial constraints, this would be the most
appropriate course to be adopted. Likewise, the State Government has the
right to choose how much of ‘dearness allowance’ should be treated as
‘dearness pay’. As such, it is open to the State Government to treat a
fraction, or even the whole of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’.
Based on Rule 30 of the Pension Rules, it is clear that the component of
‘dearness pay’ would be added to emoluments of an employee for
calculating pension. In a situation where the State Government has
chosen, that a particular component of ‘dearness allowance’ would be
treated as ‘dearness pay’, it cannot discriminate between one set of
pensioners and another, while calculating the pension payable to them (for
the reasons expressed in the preceding paragraph). Of course, a valid
classification may justify such an action. In this case, the State
Government has not come out with any justification/basis for the
classification whereby one set of pensioners has been distinguished from
others for differential treatment.
30. The instant controversy should not be misunderstood as a
determination of the total carry home pension of an employee. All the
Government orders referred to above, deal with the quantum of ‘dearness
3
Page 33
allowance’ to be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for the calculation of pension.
‘Dearness pay’ is one of the many components, which go into the eventual
determination of pension. Therefore, the focus in the adjudication of the
present controversy must be on ‘dearness pay’, rather than on the eventual
carry home pension. The relevance and purpose of treating ‘dearness
allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’, has been brought out in the foregoing
paragraphs. Therefore, clearly, the object sought to be achieved by adding
‘dearness pay’ to the wage of a retiree, while determining pension payable
to him, is to remedy the adverse effects of inflation. The aforesaid object
has to be necessarily kept in mind, while examining the present
controversy. Any classification without reference to the object sought to be
achieved, would be arbitrary and violative of the protection afforded under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it would also be discriminatory and
violative of the protection afforded under Article 16 of the Constitution of
India.
31. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand,
it is not possible for us to find a valid justification for the State Government
to have classified pensioners similarly situated as the appellants herein
(who had retired after 1.6.1988), from those who had retired prior thereto.
Inflation, in case of all such pensioners, whether retired prior to 1.6.1988 or
thereafter, would have had the same effect on all of them. The purpose of
adding the component of ‘dearness pay’ to wages for calculating pension is
to offset the effect of inflation. In our considered view, therefore, the instant
classification made by the State Government in the impugned Government
order dated 9.8.1989 placing employees who had retired after 1.6.1988 at
a disadvantage, vis-à-vis the employees who retired prior thereto, by
3
Page 34
allowing them a lower component of ‘dearness pay’, is clearly arbitrary and
discriminatory, and as such, is liable to be set aside, as violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. It is also imperative for us to take into consideration, a few
judgments rendered by this Court, which were brought to our notice by the
learned counsel representing the State Government. Reliance was placed
on three judgments to substantiate the submissions advanced on behalf of
the respondents.
(i) First of all, reliance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in
Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon,. (1994) 4 SCC 68. Facts in the first cited
judgment reveal, that a recommendation was made by the Third Pay
Commission to the State Government, suggesting review of the existing
wage position, based on unprecedented inflation. The State Government
was asked (by the Third Pay Commission) to take a decision on whether
the dearness allowance scheme should be extended further; or in the
alternative pay-scales themselves should be revised. This suggestion of
the Third Pay Commission was based on the fact, that the price level index
had arisen above the 12 monthly average to 272. Having considered the
matter, the State Government decided to extend the dearness allowance
scheme. It simultaneously issued an Office Memorandum, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘O.M.’) whereby, a portion of ‘dearness allowance’ was to
be treated as pay for computation of retiral benefits. The benefit of the
aforesaid O.M. was extended only to those employees who had/would
retire on or after 30.9.1977. The aforesaid O.M, also contemplated, that
persons who had/would retire on or after 30.9.1977 but not later than
30.04.1979 would be allowed to exercise an option, to choose one out of
3
Page 35
the two alternatives. They could either seek the benefit of death-cumretirement
gratuity by excluding the element of ‘dearness allowance’,
alternatively, they could seek the same, by including the element of
‘dearness allowance’. The issue which came up for adjudication before
this Court was, whether the aforesaid O.M. was sustainable in law, as it did
not extend equal benefits to all retirees, irrespective of the dates of their
retirement. All the respondents had retired before 30.9.1997. While
determining the aforesaid issue, this Court took into consideration inter alia
the fact that the decision to merge a part of ‘dearness allowance’ with pay,
was taken with reference to the price index level. This decision was taken
on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. In the aforesaid
view of the matter, and specially because, an option was given to
employees who had retired between 30.09.1977 and 30.04.1979, to get
their pension and (death-cum-retirement gratuity) calculated, by including
or excluding the element on dearness pay, this Court ruled, that the State
Government had adopted measures ensuring similar benefits to all. And
that, there was no intention to create a class within a class. This Court felt
that the classification, had a reasonable nexus with the price level index at
272, on 30.09.1977. This according to this Court was just and valid. The
factual position, that needs to be highlighted, in so far as the first cited
judgment i.e. in P.N. Menon’s case (supra) is that, the respondent
employees had never been in receipt of dearness pay, when they retired
from service, and therefore, the O.M. in question could not have been
applied to them. This is how this Court examined the matter in the cited
case. This Court also noticed, that prior to the O.M. in question, the
pension scheme was contributory, and only with effect from 22.9.1977, the
3
Page 36
pension scheme was made non contributory. Since the respondent
employees in the first cited case, were not in service at the time of
introducing the same, they were held not eligible for the said benefit.
(ii) Next, learned counsel relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan
Vs. Amrit Lal Gandhi, (1997) 2 SCC 342. The facts, in the second cited
judgment were, that originally teachers of the Jodhpur University were
governed by contributory provident fund rules. There was no pension
scheme applicable to them. In 1983, a committee constituted by the
University Grants Commission, recommended the introduction of pensioncum-
gratuity for university and college teachers. Thereupon, the Senate
and Syndicate of the Jodhpur University resolved to introduce a pension
scheme for university teachers. The resolution of the Syndicate and Senate
also provided, that options would be sought from existing teachers, so as to
enable them, to choose whether they should be governed by the
contributory provident fund rules, or would like to accept the benefits under
the pension scheme. As the recommendation of the Syndicate and the
Senate, of the Jodhpur University had financial implications, approval of the
State Government was imperative. On examining the recommendations,
the State Government decided to introduce the pension scheme with effect
from 1.1.1990. Based thereon, the Syndicate and the Senate passed a
concurring resolution expressing, that the pension scheme would become
operational with effect from 1.1.1990. Based thereon, those teachers who
were in the service of the Jodhpur University on or after 1.1.1990, were
required to submit their options. The question which arose for
consideration in the second cited judgment was, whether employees who
had retired before 1.1.1990, had a similar right to claim pension, as was
3
Page 37
being extended to employees, who had/would retire on or after 1.1.1990.
The High Court partly accepted the plea of the retirees by holding, that the
pension scheme should be extended to employees who had retired on or
after 1.1.1986. This Court did not approve the decision rendered by the
High Court. This Court noticed, that the approval of the resolutions of the
Syndicate and Senate of the Jodhpur University had been accorded by the
State Government after the State Legislature had passed the University
Pension Rules, and the General Provident Fund Rules. This Court also
noticed, that the State Government in its affidavit had taken an express
stand, that the introduction of the pension scheme was economically viable
only with effect from 1.1.1990. In other words, the State Government
could bear the financial burden of the pension scheme, only if it was
introduced with effect from 1.1.1990. Based on the aforesaid position
adopted by the State Government, this Court concluded, that the
determination of the State Government in introducing the pension scheme
for employees, who had retired with effect from 1.1.1990 had not been
fixed arbitrarily or without any valid reason/basis. This Court accordingly,
set aside the judgment rendered by the High Court.
(iii) Finally, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by
this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Amar Nath Goel, (2005)6 SCC 754. In the
third cited case, employees both of the Central Government, as also, of the
State Governments of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, who had retired prior
to 1.4.1995 sought death cum-retirement gratuity, up to the increased limit
of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The claim raised by the employees was rejected in some
cases, whereas in some other cases the Central Administrative Tribunal
and the High Court took the view, that the benefit of increased quantum
3
Page 38
of death-cum-retirement gratuity, should be extended to employees, who
had retired between 1.7.1993 and 31.3.1995 as well. Having examined the
aforesaid controversy, this Court arrived at the conclusion, that the decision
of the Central Government and State Governments to limit the benefit only
to employees, who had retired ( or died) on or after 1.4.1995, was based
on a concrete determination of financial implications, as such, it was held
that the cut off date (1.4.1995) was neither arbitrary nor irrational, as
alleged. Consequently, the plea advanced at the hands of the employees
assailing the cut off date as arbitrary, and by alleging that it was not based
on any rational criteria, was rejected.
33. We have considered the submissions urged at the hands of the
learned counsel for the respondent, based on the judgments cited at the
bar. In our view, none of the judgments relied upon is relevant to the
present controversy.
(i) In so far as P.N. Menon’s case (supra) is concerned, having
examined the controversy. this Court arrived at the conclusion, that the
State Government adopted measures which would ensure, similar benefits
to all. This court also expressed the view, that there was no intention of the
State Government, to create any class within a class. The price level index
at 272 on 30.9.1977 was the determining factor for the State Government’s
decision. It was accordingly concluded, that there was a valid and
reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. But most
importantly this Court felt, that the decision of the State Government in not
extending benefits to the respondents was based on the fact, that they were
not in receipt of the any ‘dearness pay’ at the time of their retirement.
Moreover, since the family pension scheme was contributory when the
3
Page 39
respondents had retired, the respondents could not justifiably seek the
benefits, which were available only to the retirees after the pension
scheme was made non contributory. There is, therefore no co-relation of
the first cited judgment with the controversy in hand.
(ii) In Amrit Lal Gandhi’s case (supra) pension was introduced for the
first time for university teachers based on resolutions passed by the
Syndicate and the Senate of the Jodhpur University. The same were
approved by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1990. The instant
controversy is, therefore, not between one set of pensioners alleging
discriminatory treatment, as against another set of pensioners. There were
no pensioners, to begin with. Retirees were entitled to provident fund
under the existing Provident Fund Scheme. The question of discrimination
of one set of pensioners from another set of pensioners, therefore, did not
arise in the second cited judgment. Financial viability was, as such, a
relevant issue. The State Government adopted the stance, that the
introduction of the pension scheme was financially viable only if the
scheme was introduced with effect from 1.1.1990. The cut off date clearly
disclosed a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which had a
rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. There is
therefore, in our view, no correlation of the second cited judgment with the
controversy in hand.
(iii) In so far as the third cited judgment is concerned, this Court in Amrit
Lal Gandhi’s case (supra) examined an issue where, the increased deathcum-
retirement gratuity could only be claimed by employees, who had
retired after the cut off date (1.4.1995). Death-cum-retirement gratuity is a
one time benefit, whereas, pension enures to retired employees for the
3
Page 40
entire length of their lives. Pension is therefore a continuing benefit.
Death-cum-retirement gratuity, is a one time benefit, disbursed in
accordance with to the rules prevalent at the time (of retirement). Herein
also, the issue under consideration was not different measures for
computing, a continuing retiral benefit, based on any cut off date. We are
therefore of the view, that the instant judgment is also not relevant for the
adjudication of the controversy in hand.
In view of the above, we are satisfied, that none of judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondents, have any bearing to
controversy in hand.
34. The instant appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order
dated 17.12.2007 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. The
impugned Government Order dated 9.8.1989, to the extent that it extends
to employees who retire on or after 1.6.1988, a lower component of
‘dearness pay’, as against those who had retired prior to 1.6.1988, is set
aside, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
…………………………….J.
(D.K. Jain)
…………………………….J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
New Delhi;
January 17, 2013.
4<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-32999750118600173032013-02-01T10:17:00.000+05:302013-02-01T10:17:17.980+05:30Revision Of Pension for pre-1996-2006MINIMUM REVISED BASIC PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS W.E.F. 24-9-2012
AS PER DOP OM DATED 28-1-2013
Existing Pay Scales and
Revised Pay Structure as pr Sixth CPC
Pay structure & Pension as per accepted
Recommendations
Consoli
- dated
pension
with
40%
Fitment
Benefit
(vide
Para 4.1
of DOP
OM of
1-9-08)
i.e. 2.26
X B.P
Pen-sion
fixed
(as per
DOP OM
Dt 3/10/08
(By
misinterpr
eting
accep-ted
recommendations
of
SCPC)
Difference
Basic
Pen
-sion
(Col.7
Minus
Col. 8
or 9
whichever
is
higher)
Existing Pay
Scales as per
5th CPC
(BP)
SCPC
Pay
Band
Revised Pay
Structure
(Pay Band
+
Grade Pay)
Pay in
the Pay
Band
(corresp
onding
to minimum
of
Pre-
Revised
pay
scale)
Grade
Pay
(GP)
Revised
Basic
Pay
(Col. 4+
Col 5)
MINIMUM
REVISED
BASIC
PENSION
of Pre-2006
Pensioners
(50 %
of Col 6 )
W.e.f.
24-9-2012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
S-4(2750-4400) PB-1 5200-20200+1800 5530 1800 7330 3665 3500 3500 165
S-5(3050-4590) PB-1 5200-20200+1900 5880 1900 7780 3890 3500 3550 340
S-6(3200-4900) PB-1 5200-20200+2000 6060 2000 8060 4030 3616 3600 414
S-7(4000-6000) PB-1 5200-20200+2400 7440 2400 9840 4920 4520 3800 400
S-8(4500-7000) PB-1 5200-20200+2800 8370 2800 11170 5585 5085 4000 500
S-9 (5000-8000) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 9300 4200 13500 6750 5650 6750 0
S-10 (5500-
9000) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 10230 4200 14430 7215 6215 6750 465
S-11(6500-
6900) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 12090 4200 16290 8145 7345 6750 800
S12((6500-
10500) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 12090 4200 16290 8145 7345 6750 800
S-13 (7450-
11500) PB-2 9300-34800+4600 13860 4600 18460 9230 8419 6950 811
S-14 (7500-
12000) PB-2 9300-34800+4800 13950 4800 18750 9375 8475 7050 900
S-15 (8000-
13500) PB-2 9300-34800+5400 14880 5400 20280 10140 9040 7350 1100
New scale-GrA PB-3 15600-39100+5400 15600 5400 21000 10500 9040 10500 0
S-16,(9000) PB-3 15600-39100+5400 16740 5400 22140 11070 10170 10500 570
S-17(9000-
9550) PB-3 15600-39100+5400 16740 5400 22140 11070 10170 10500 570
S-18 (10325-
10975) PB-3 15600-39100+6600 19210 6600 25810 12905 11666 11100 1239
S-19 (10000-
15200) PB-3 15600-39100+6600 18600 6600 25200 12600 11300 11100 1300
S-20 10650-
15850) PB-3 15600-39100+6600 19810 6600 26410 13205 12035 11100 1170
S-21(12000-
16500) PB-3 15600-39100+7600 22320 7600 29920 14960 13560 11600 1400
S-22 (12750-
16500) PB-3 15600-39100+7600 23720 7600 31320 15660 14408 11600 1252
S-23 (12000-
18000) PB-3 15600-39100+7600 22320 7600 29920 14960 13560 11600 1400
S-24 (14300-
18300) PB-4 37400-67000+8700 37400 8700 46100 23050 16159 23050 0
S-25 (15100-
18300) PB-4 37400-67000+8700 39690 8700 48390 24195 17063 23050 1145
S-26 (16400-
20000) PB-4 37400-67000+8900 39690 8900 48590 24295 18532 23150 1145
S-27(16400-
20900) PB-4 37400-67000+8900 39690 8900 48590 24295 18532 23150 1145
S-28 (14300-
22400) PB-4
37400-67000+10000
37400 10000 47400 23700 16159 23700 0
S-29 (18400-
22400) PB-4 44700 10000 54700 27350 20792 23700 3650
1. Consolidated pension figure in col. 8 is for basic pension (B.P.) based on the minimum pay of pre revised scale.
2. Those whose Revised Pension has been fixed higher than Col 7, shall not be affected by these orders
- (Compiled by : N. P. Mohan, President RSCWS, Ex CE WR)
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-31155797674667747022013-01-19T13:48:00.003+05:302013-01-19T13:48:56.674+05:30Fitment TableThursday, January 17, 2013
Much awaited OM from MOD on pension based on fitment table is issued and is effective from 24-9-2012.Courtesy- Maj Navdeep Singh (Retd)
(Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today.
Click here to read orders
The below mentioned letters have been issued today by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet.
The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012.
1. Improvement in pension of pre-2006 released Honorary Officers, JCOs and other ranks: Pensionary weightages have been increased for Sepoy, Naik and Havildar to 12, 10 and 8 years respectively. The pensions of Honorary commissioned officers have also been increased. Fresh tables have been notified. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
3. Increase in family pension of post-2006 and also pre-2006 JCOs and other ranks: Changes have been incorporated in the family pensionary modalities of both pre as well as post2006 cases. The pre-2006 letter can be accessed by clicking here and the post-2006 letter can be accessed here.
4. Improvement in Casualty Pensionary Awards for pre-2006 commissioned officers, JCOs and other ranks:Minimum guaranteed Special Family Pension, Liberalized Family Pension, Dependant Pension (Special) and Second Life Awards shall now be determined on the basis of the minimum of fitment table for each rank as per the applicable Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay if applicable) rather than the minimum of the pay band itself.The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
5. Improvement in Casualty Pensionary Awards for post-2006 JCOs and other ranks: Modalities of some casualty pensionary awards of post-2006 cases of JCOs and other ranks have also been changed. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
6. Improvement in pensionary benefits of post-2006 released JCOs and other ranks: Weightages of pension for the ranks of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar increased to 12, 10 and 8 years and notionally been made applicable to post-2006 retirees also. Ordinary family pension also increased in the case of post-2006 JCOs and other ranks. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here.
7. Provisions of Dual Family Pension and Family Pension for life for handicapped family pensioners even in case of re-marriage: Letter for eligibility of dual family pension in case of families of pensioners who were drawing two pensions or were eligible to draw two pensions, and also letter clarifying the eligibility of a handicapped family pensioner even in case of remarriage also issued. It however may be pointed out that both these benefits had already been granted by Hon’ble Courts in the past. For instance, this decision of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and this one of the Chennai Bench may be perused. While the Courts have granted these benefits from the date of eligibility, the letters issued carry financial benefits only from 24 September 2012.
Other letters, as soon as they are made available, shall be posted on the blog.
At the outset, it may be pointed out that many of the provisions incorporated are utterly confusing and chaotic, and it is duly hoped that the offices of the CGDA and PCDA(P) clarify the implementation modalities by way of detailed circulars.
Any doubts or clarifications on the above may NOT please be directed towards me through email or phone and should be simply posted on the comments section of this blogpost.
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-26163683770374191142013-01-07T16:21:00.001+05:302013-01-08T16:51:24.953+05:304th National Conference Of The Rly Pensioner.
4th National Conference of the Railway Pensioner will be held on 9th February,2013 at Nagpur,Delegation Fee Rs.200/-per person.
FOR ACCOMODATION AND OTHER INFORMATION.
CONTACT to:-
J.N.Rao- Vice President (West),
Bharat Pensioner Samaj
Phone-0712 265 2335
Mobile-09421703511
Emal-jnrao36@rediffmail.com
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-7588459267401091022012-12-15T15:50:00.002+05:302012-12-15T15:50:37.031+05:30Next date of Court Case at NewDelhiAppeal of the GOI in W.P. No. 1535/2012 - (against CAT Judgment) in the Case for Modified Parity for Pre-2006 Pensioners - in the Delhi High Court - could not be taken up for hearing on 29.11.2012 , as one of the judges of the Bench Justice Siddharth Mridul was on leave The matter has been adjourned. The next date of hearing is fixed as 29.04.2013
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-26924629033054052752012-09-26T15:10:00.003+05:302012-09-26T15:10:44.825+05:30New Delhi: In what can be termed good news for ex-armed forces personnel, the Cabinet on Monday approved a pension plan of Rs 23,00 crore under the ‘One Rank One Pension’ scheme.
Services personnel who have retired before January 2006, will now be entitled to pension almost equal to their counterparts who superannuated after this date.
The estimated cost of this proposal will be approx Rs 2,300 crore per annum.
The Armed forces have been agitating for One Rank One Pension scheme for quite some time now.
As per the bonanza scheme, every ex-serviceman will be eligible for the same pension at his rank, regardless of when he joined or retired.
The ‘One Rank One Pension’ was a demand of 1.3-million strong defence personnel which got partly approved today based on the recommendations of a panel set up by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The slew of measures taken by the Government to increase pension and pay of the armed forces included enhancement of family pension, granting of dual family pension and family pension to mentally and physically challenged wards of defence personnel even after their marriage, officials said here.
An official release said steps taken by the Government are expected to largely "meet the demands of the defence pensioners for one rank one pension (OROP)."
The committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth had submitted its report on August 08, 2012.
Set up on July 13 this year on the orders of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the committee had Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Pulok Chatterjee and Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma as members, apart from secretaries of departments of expenditure, ex-servicemen's welfare, and personnel and training.
"The gap in pension of pre- and post-January 2006 retiree jawans will be bridged by determining the pension of pre- January 2006 pensioners on the basis of notional maximum for the ranks and groups across the three Services as in case of post-January 2006 retirees," the official release said.
"The pension of pre-January 2006 commissioned officer pensioners will be stepped up with reference to maximum fitment table for the ranks instead of minimum pay band," it said.
The decision would be implemented from a prospective date, Defence Ministry officials said.
As per the present system, personnel retiring under the 6th pay commission get more pension than their counterparts who have retired under previous pay commissions.
The Cabinet also accepted the enhancement of family pension for the families of serving and retired defence personnel who have lost their lives.
"The pension of pre-January 2006 family pensioners including officers, Junior Commissioned Officers and other ranks will be stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment table instead of the minimum pay band," the release said.
The government also allowed the Dual Family Pension which means that the pensioner would be allowed to draw both military and civil employment pensions.
It also agreed to the demand of granting family pension to mentally and physically challenged children of defence forces personnel even after their marriage.
This pension was so far granted to them only till their marriage.
Commenting on the virtual acceptance of the OROP demand, former Army Chief Gen VK Singh said, "They have done a lot for the good of the veterans community. They should have done it long back as it was long overdue."
Meanwhile, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is expected to have discussed a proposal to set up a training academy of the Coast Guard in Kerala and an IAF proposal for procuring equipment for their aircraft.
With PTI inputs
For Zee News’s Updates, follow us on Twitter , Facebook, Google+, Pinterest
First Published: Monday, September 24, 2012, 21:03
Post your Comments
Name:
Place :
Email :
Comments :
Comments
Devi Dutt Sharma - Panchkula
Thanks for all ESM who fought for this suprime work. Thanks a lot.
Reply
Ex. Petty Officer R.U.Barbhuiya - Shillong
It seems to be lollypop, lets wait and watch the actual outcome. However, thanks to Mr.PM and his team.
Reply
Ex-Sgt NS Choudhary - Shimla
The news has been wrongly published as well as highlighted. We have nothing joyous when we go through the nitty gritty detaila of proposal.In fact, we won`t get our due till the IAS bureaucrats are nominated to decide our fate. These bureaucrats have no stake in armed forces and they see it as futile expenditure except in times of war. A paltry enhancement of sum of Rs. 400 for Havildars and equivalent is like slap on our face. So pals continue to fight till end. If PM is so sincere in his efforts just let him avoid one scam of UPA Government and give the amount for OROP.
Reply
Ex-Sgt SHIB NATH CHAKRABORTY 642650-K - KOLKATA
LONG LIVE Mr PM &HIS ENTIRE TEAM.THANKS.
Reply
BRIG HS BRAR - chandigarh
gOOD NEWS, THOUGH LATE.
Reply
Ex.Sgt Amardas udasi - indore
OROP announce is not what OROP is supposed to be.please wait and watch ,what practically you are going to get..you all will come out of dream after few days.Be prepared to fight back.
Reply
Ex JWO U C PATRA - LUCKNOW
IT IS A GREAT SURPRISE OF RELEASING A LONG PENDING DEMAND OF EX SERVICEMEN. THANKS.
Reply
Ex-Sgt Deepak Pandya,Indian Air Force - Vadodara,Gujarat.
Sir, It is really a long pending task completed in very appropriate time of Ganeshostav time,forthcoming festivals like Dussera and Diwali ,hope the amount is credited in our account before Dewali atleast.I thank to the Central Govt. for thinking sensibly and implementing in right occassion.All Ex-Servicemen are in cheer mood after getting this news,Yesterday. Thanks and Regards,
Reply
Didar Singh Kalsi, Ex Sgt - Chandigarh
Congratulations to all EXS.Happy ending!
Reply
William George, Ex CPL - Kanpur
My heartiest thanks to the present Govt and its committee members for fulfilling the long awaited demands of lakhs of Ex-servicemen and Congratulations to all who would be benefited by this Festive Bonanza of 2012..
Reply
Pages:123456
Most liked Comments
colonel s n jha retd - patna
DEAR SIR . MAY I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY CLARIFY AS TO TO HOW MUCH BENEFIT A RETIRED SOLDIERS RANK WISE WILL GET BY GOVT GIVING ON RANK ONE PENSION. REGARDS
nb/sub sansar singh, retd - pune
Good news to hear after a waiting of long time. Credit goes to the leaders of the veterans who took this long outstanding demand to the highest level of the Govt. Finally the Govt has found the issue as an genuine and accord their approval. I salute the milions of veterans who got their dues in a very discipline and a systematic procedure. We have shown to Govt that we fight with external froces only and not internally. Thanks to the honorable prime minister who might have been waiting for a right time to declare.
635193-S EX Sgt Shakweel S. Shaikh (R.T.O) - Pune
Thanks to all the Persons who took pain for OROP and helped the needy EX Servicemen.May Almighty bless them. 635193-S Ex Sgt Shakeel Shaikh (R.T.O)
Top News
Kareena lost ‘Ram Leela’ over pregnancy
Support grows for Ajit Pawar
No replacement for Ajit Pawar: Praful
'Ajit Pawar should withdraw resignation'
Punjab ready to back FDI in retail?
UPA has commercialised politics: BJP
Bilawal-Hina love: Husband seeks details
`100 mn people will die by 2030`
Kareena lost ‘Ram Leela’ over pregnancy
Support grows for Ajit Pawar
No replacement for Ajit Pawar: Praful
'Ajit Pawar should withdraw resignation'
Punjab ready to back FDI in retail?
UPA has commercialised politics: BJP
Bilawal-Hina love: Husband seeks details
`100 mn people will die by 2030`
Most Popular Photo Galleries
Jal Satyagraha Against Dam
Jal Satyagraha Against Dam
Sivakasi Fire Tragedy
Sivakasi Fire Tragedy
Mumbai rains
Mumbai rains
Bharat Bandh
Bharat Bandh
Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices
Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices
US Consulates Attacked
US Consulates Attacked
Prince William, Kate on Asia tour
Prince William, Kate on Asia tour
9/11 Anniversary
9/11 Anniversary
ISRO`s 100th mission
ISRO`s 100th mission
Jal Satyagraha Against Dam
Jal Satyagraha Against Dam
Sivakasi Fire Tragedy
Sivakasi Fire Tragedy
Mumbai rains
Mumbai rains
Bharat Bandh
Bharat Bandh
Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices
Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices
US Consulates Attacked
US Consulates Attacked
Prince William, Kate on Asia tour
Prince William, Kate on Asia tour
9/11 Anniversary
9/11 Anniversary
Other News
Pawar biggest supporter of UPA-II: Azad
‘Naveen Jindal is an exploiter, not a Congressman’
FBI joins search for missing Indian-American student
Cabinet expansion: Congress, DMK hold talks
Close shave for Kingfisher passengers at Chennai airport
Blogs
View all Blogs
PM at 80: From 'underachiever' to defiant reformer
PM has had a roller-coaster ride since 2004.
Let the reforms continue...
PM has tried to send across a message that he is no lame duck head of the government.
special
More Special
ICC T20 World Cup 2012ICC T20 World Cup 2012
News | Schedule | In Pics | Points Tally
In PicsIn Pics
Emmy Awards 2012 | Blender`s Pride Fashion Tour 2012
Remembering Dev AnandRemembering Dev Anand
Slideshow | Pic Gallery
latest
Rave party: 44 people test positive
Dhoni`s off day
Support grows for Ajit Pawar
Hina, Bilawal Bhutto in love
NCP leader Kupekar passes away
Yeddyurappa to stay in BJP
Rave party: 44 people test positive
Dhoni`s off day
Support grows for Ajit Pawar
Hina, Bilawal Bhutto in love
NCP leader Kupekar passes away
more
SlideshowsMore »
Top 10 Bollywood Charmers
Kareena Kapoor – loveliness personified
Govt’s Big Ticket Reforms: India Inc Reacts
SHOWBIZ
When Madhuri and Sridevi danced on each other`s songs
Sonakshi Sinha whistles for Ajay Devgn!
Isha Sharvani’s choreographer Salman all set to make Bollywood debut
Showbiz
Sports
Business
Nation
Pawar biggest supporter of UPA-II: Azad
Read More »
© 1998-2012 Zee News Limited (An Essel Group Company), All rights reserved.
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Legal Disclaimer | SMS to 57575 | Register | Jobs With Us | Complaint Redressal | Investor info
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-28168986329056579592012-09-25T16:10:00.001+05:302012-09-25T16:10:45.002+05:30 Rs.2300 crore approved to meet the demands of Ex-servicemen pensioners Civilian Pensioners can not be denied the same benefit-We will have to struggle hard for our right
Civilian Pensioners can not be denied the same benefit-
Will have to struggle hard for our rights
Rs.2300 crore approved to meet the demands of Ex-servicemen pensioners
(Release ID :87953)
The Union Cabinet has approved the recommendations of the Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary for benefits to ex-servicemen on four issues. The financial implications of the improvements made as per the Cabinet decision on the four items are broadly estimated at Rs.2300 crore per annum. The details are as follows:
I. One Rank One Pension:
On One Rank One Pension, the demand of the Defence Forces and Ex-Servicemen Associations is that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.
The difference in the pension of present and past pensioners in the same rank occurs on account of the number of increments earned by the defence personnel in that rank. There is also a difference between the pension of pre 1.1.06 and post 1.1.06 retirees belonging to a particular rank. The UPA Government on two previous occasions has taken decisions to narrow the gap between the present and past pensioners, particularly those belonging to the ranks of JCOs and Other Ranks.
On the issue of One Rank One Pension, the following have been approved by the Cabinet:
(i) Bridging of the gap in the pension of pre 1.1.06 and post 1.1.06 JCO/OR retirees by determining the pension of pre 1.1.06 retirees on the basis of notional maximum for ranks and groups across the three Services as in the case of post 1.1.06 retirees. In addition, the weightage of qualifying service in the ranks of Sepoys, Naik and Havaldar would be increased by two years for both pre and post 1.1.06 retirees.
(ii) The pension of pre 1.1.06 Commissioned Officer pensioners would be stepped up with reference to the minimum of fitment table for the ranks instead of the minimum of pay band.
These are expected to largely meet the demands of the defence pensioners on one rank one pension.
II. Enhancement of Family Pension :
(i) The pension of pre - 1.1.2006 family pensioners(Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers, JCOs/ORs ) be stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment table instead of the minimum of the Pay Band;
(i) Establishing linkage of the family pension with the pension of JCOs/ORs, in those cases where the death takes place after the retirement of the JCO/OR since such a JCO/OR drew a pension based on the maximum of the pay scales, 60% of the pension applicable to JCO/OR pensioners would be granted to the family pensioner in case of normal family pension calculated a 30% of last pay drawn. Accordingly, based on the rank, group and length of service of thedeceased JCO/OR pensioner, his pension would first be determined on notional basis. In cases where death of JCO/OR took place after retirement, the family pensioners in receipt of normal family pension would become entitled to 60% of the said pension determined on notional basis and those in receipt of enhanced family pension will be entitled to 100% of this pension. Similar entitlements would be determined in the case of Special Family Pension; and
(ii) The family pensioner of the JCO/OR would be granted pension arrived at on the basis of the family pension worked out as per the formulation at (i) above or the pension on the basis of stepping up with reference to the minimum of the fitment table, whichever is beneficial. Further, the linkage of family pension with retiring pension be applied in the case of post 1.1.2006 family pensioners of JCOs/ORs also.
III. Dual Family Pension:
Dual family pension would be allowed in the present and future cases where the pensioner drew, is drawing or may draw pension for military service as well as for civil employment.
IV. Family pension to mentally / physically challenged children of armed forces personnel on marriage:
Grant of family pension to mentally/physically challenged children who drew, are drawing or may draw family pension would continue even after their marriage.
The above recommendations made by the Committee on pension issues of Ex-Servicemen may be implemented from a prospective date and payment made accordingly.
***
SH/SKS
Posted by SCM at 8:31 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link
Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
► 2010 (18)
► 2011 (135)
▼ 2012 (236)
► January (18)
► February (19)
► March (9)
► April (20)
► May (32)
► June (43)
► July (39)
► August (29)
▼ September (27)
Expected 7% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government E...
Latest information
NHRC Writes to CRB-Case regarding unmarried/divoce...
New Pension Scheme for Workers without benefit of ...
Railways told to reimburse employee’s medical bi...
Pensionary benefits to the employees of BSNL and...
High Court judge exhorts advocates to respect seni...
1.PCDA Orders : Issue of Individual / Plastic Card...
ATR- 20th SCOVA
Reduction in Pension and Recovery from Pension alr...
DOPT issued ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) on ...
Settle case with mom, court tells Mongia
Change in date of birth/Age of Pensioner/Family Pe...
BPS monthly magazine Sept 2009
SCOVA 21st-Official Agenda
News of the day
DearAll Happy Vinayaga Chaturthi toyou and your fa...
Why anyone should bother about FDI inretail(It is...
Take care of elderly parents to inherit pension
NOT BATTLE READYBy Manoj Joshi Gautam DattThe de...
Govt tweaks retirement rules to ‘ re- hire’ able o...
Providing free essential medicines is a welcome mo...
Central government employees, pensioners set to ge...
News of the day
Intelligence Bureau blames Maoists for Maruti mayh...
Appointment of Compassionate grounds - clarificati...
Rs.2300 crore approved to meet the demands of Ex-s...
There was an error in this gadget
Recent Posts
There was an error in this gadget
Pages
Home
Railway Pensioners
CGHS
BSNL & DOT Pensioners
Defence Pensioners
Senior Citizens
Railway Board Orders/Circulars
RELHS-97
GOI M/O P,PG & Pensions-DOP & PW
ECHS
BSNL-MRs
Court judgements
Total Pageviews
Sparkline 68,659
Follow by Email
Popular Posts
List of Government of India Gazetted Holidays and Restricted Holidays during the year 2012
List of Government of India Gazetted Holidays and Restricted Holidays during the year 2012 List of Government of India Gaz...
Expected 7% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government Employees/Pensioners w.e.f 1st July 2012
01.09. 2012 Expected 7% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government Employees/Pensioners w.e.f 1 st July 2012 1. Calculation ba...
Rewire, don’t retire
16 Jul 2012 Hindustan Times (Delhi) Rewire, don’t retire From page 01 Ithink India must be one of the few countries/societies where cu...
NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE MEETING - (NAC MEETING DETAILS FROM 2009 - 2012)
Anomaly Committee of the National Council (JCM) National Anomaly Committee Meeting : The committee of National Council JCM members to settle...
<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-86752344123442585982012-09-18T09:48:00.002+05:302012-09-18T10:06:09.675+05:30Day's News! Middle income group to pay Rs 20,000 for case in Supreme Courthttp://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/pay-just-rs-20-000-for-a-case-in-supreme-court_800222.htmlNew Delhi: In some good news, middle income group people can get their cases argued in the Supreme Court for a nominal fee of not more than Rs 20,000. To fulfil the requirement the annual gross salary should not exceed Rs 7.5 lakh or and the monthly income Rs 60,000. The scheme is available under the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society, which is headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court with the Attorney General of India as its ex-official vice president. Disclosing this at a news conference here on Monday, office bearers of the society and senior counsel Ranjit Kumar and Raju Ramachandran, said middle class people who can't afford the expensive litigation in the Supreme Court can avail the services of the society for a nominal amount. The society comprises 30 prominent senior advocates, besides 100-odd advocates on record. Counsel Ravindra Bana and president of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Sushil Kumar Jain were also present at the press meet. As per the Supreme Court rules it is only through advocates on record cases can be filed before it. According to Ranjit Kumar, any person desirous of availing the services of an advocate empanelled under the scheme will have to approach the secretary of the society by filing an application. The society's office is located at 109, Lawyers Chambers, Post Office Wing, located within the Supreme Court complex. Under the scheme even a senior advocate if engaged by a client can charge a maximum of Rs 9,000 for three days of hearing or for the entire case. The amount would start from as low as Rs 3,000 depending upon the stage of the petition at which it is argued. The counsel said that though the scheme was in vogue since 1995, the general public was not aware of it. Hence, efforts are being made to create awareness among the general public on the beneficial scheme. Free medicines for all at public health facilities soon: Monday, September 17, 2012,21:04 Free medicines, public health facilities, Health Ministry, 12th Plan outlay, NHMNew Delhi: With finalisation of 12th Plan outlay, Health Ministry is aiming to roll out its ambitious project for provision of free medicines to all at public health facilities across the country from November 1. Despite a scaled-down outlay of 1.95 per cent of GDP during the 12th Plan, Health Ministry officials say none of its planned schemes will be sacrificed and it is keen to launch the free medicines project soon."We should be able to work out all our schemes within the budget earmarked for the 12th Plan. No scheme will be sacrificed," a top Health Ministry official told PTI. He said, "We are keen to launch the free medicine scheme within the next two months. The effort is to launch it from November 1 and the model of Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation and that of Tamil Nadu, which has been a pioneer in this, are being studied."Once the scheme is launched, the government will provide free generic medicines to all patients coming to public health facilities - from primary and community health centres to district hospitals and medical colleges. The Health Ministry intends to earmark an amount of Rs 2,000 crore annually under the proposed National Health Mission (NHM) for supplementing the states` resources under the scheme, which will see its scaling up to Rs 6,000 crore for augmenting the supply chain management of medicines.While the Centre will supplement the states` efforts, the Health Ministry is mandating that besides creating a list of generic medicines, states should prepare standard treatment guidelines and evolve a system of procurement.The Ministry has favoured that medicines be procured centrally and their stocks be maintained which will help in drastic reduction in the cost of such medicines. Officials said by doing so, like in Rajasthan, there can be reduction in cost of medicines by up to 70 per cent.For the success of the project, the Centre is also pressing for prescription of generic medicines and ensuring that their quality is maintained through proper testing of drugs, besides developing a grievance redressal mechanism.Adequate supply of essential medicines at health centres has been an area of concern, with even the performance audit of National Rural Health Mission pointing to glaring deficiencies in the drug supply chain at health centres across India.So much so so that the CAG found expired drugs being supplied to patients at some places, defeating the very purpose of the scheme. During a performance audit of NRHM in 2008, the CAG had found essential medicines in short supply at a number of test -checked health centres.The CAG also found that the NRHM provision of two month medicine stock at a health centre was not being adhered to in most places.As many as 13 states including Assam, Delhi, Haryana, J&K, Punjab and Jharkhand had not cared to prepare the common formulary of essential drugs that should be available at a health centre, the CAG report said.The free medicines scheme being evolved now will finally take the ministry towards universal health care for all. The scheme aims to help reassert the faith of the common man in public health facilities, which the Ministry intends to strengthen across the country during the 12th Plan.PTIA REPORT FROM DECCAN CHRONICLE--- DOCTORS ARE PAMPERED BY PHARMA COMPANIESIn India, gift-giving drives drugmakers' marketing September 17, Sales representatives for Abbott Laboratories Inc's Indian subsidiaries know what it takes get a doctor to prescribe the drugs they market: a coffee maker, perhaps, or some cookware, or maybe a vacuum cleaner.These are among the many gifts for doctors listed in an Abbott sales-strategy guide for the second quarter of 2011. As laid out explicitly in the guide, doctors who pledge to prescribe Abbott's branded drugs, or who've already prescribed certain amounts, can expect some of these items in return.Consider the guide's entry for Nupod, an Abbott antibiotic generically known as cefpodoxime. It lists a medical textbook, a mosquito repellant and a coffee maker as incentives for doctors.It also provides a script of the social niceties for clinching the quid pro quo: "Dr presenting you advanced coffee maker from Philips which will make coffee within three minutes. Dr in the box we have made advancement easy for you by giving the ideal usage guidelines of the coffee maker. Dr I look forward for advancement in action i.e. our Nupod brand. Dr can get just 3 Rx per day for Nupod."Especially in India's poorer areas, says one Abbott rep, "if you give them a small gift, they are happy."A larger problemThe Abbott guide - reps say the company produces them regularly - is evidence of a larger problem in India. Dozens of doctors, drug reps and other healthcare insiders said domestic and multinational drug makers routinely shower Indian doctors with gifts, posh junkets abroad, and cash payments disguised as consultancy or other types of fees."Indian CRM," or customer-relationship management, is what industry insiders call this system of inducements. None of the doctors or reps who described their participation in this trade would speak on the record. Under Indian law, doctors are prohibited from accepting cash, gifts or travel from drug companies. Still, enforcement is rare, and drug makers may lavish gifts on doctors with impunity, though their home countries may punish the practice.In a country where doctors often make less than $10,000 a year, it can be an effective strategy."Somebody is doing something for you," says a Delhi-based cardiologist. "Obviously you will want to return the favor." He says he prescribes more drugs from companies that provide gifts and send him on paid vacations to Thailand, Hong Kong and elsewhere. One of those companies, he says, is the India-based Ranbaxy unit of Japan's Daiichi Sankyo Co."We do not sponsor vacations for doctors," a Ranbaxy spokesperson said. "We are viewed as a scientifically and academically orientated company and our promotional activities are built around academics and science."Chicago-based Abbott said that it complies with local laws and regulations in India. It added that company policy forbids employees to "offer or give a sponsorship, gift, meal or entertainment in exchange for an explicit or implicit agreement that Abbott Products will be used, purchased, ordered, recommended or prescribed or that Abbott or any Abbott products will receive any favorable treatment."So many choicesThe Indian market is particularly vulnerable to corruption because of the intense competition here. Until 2005, India flouted drug patents, refusing to rein in domestic copycats of Big Pharma's blockbusters. Brands proliferated. Today, an Indian doctor can choose from among 224 registered brands of the cholesterol-lowering drug atorvastatin, sold by Pfizer Inc as Lipitor in the U.S. and elsewhere.Foreign companies that want a piece of this crowded market "have to adapt, or they are not going to survive," says an executive with Biocon, a leading Indian biotech company. The executive says Biocon routinely gives doctors iPads, iPods, mobile phones, "you name it."A Biocon spokesperson said the executive's statements are "incorrect and absolutely untrue" and added that the company operates "in strict compliance" with the law.Public health experts and some Indian doctors say that as a result of drug companies' tactics, drugs are dangerously overprescribed and expensive brands are prescribed instead of cheap ones. That can be devastating for patients -- physically and financially -- in a country where health care is mostly private and unsubsidized and 400 million people live on less than $1.25 a day.At the Amrita Clinic, a private practice in Pune, Maharashtra State, physician Vinay Kulkarni says he refuses to accept gifts from reps, in part because he believes drug makers overcharge for their products to recoup marketing expenses. "Ultimately," he says, "everything is being paid by the patient."As Big Pharma has pushed into emerging markets like India in recent years, companies have been running into trouble with their home-market overseers. Many of the world's top drug makers have warned in recent regulatory filings of potential costs related to charges of corruption in foreign markets.Tea sets in ChinaLast year, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $70 million to settle U.S. charges that it paid bribes and kickbacks to win business in Greece, Iraq, Poland and Romania. Pfizer Inc recently agreed to pay $60.2 million to settle a U.S. government probe of the drug maker's use of illegal payments to win business overseas, including gifts such as cellphones and tea sets to doctors in China who prescribed the company's products.Abbott became the No. 1 pharmaceuticals company in India in 2010, when it paid $3.7 billion for the branded generics business of Mumbai-based Piramal Healthcare. Its thousands-strong Indian sales force has helped buoy the parent, as sales in emerging markets rose 23 percent to $2.59 billion in the second quarter of 2011 -- more than twice Abbott's global growth rate.Reps from Abbott True Care, Abbott Healthcare and Abbott Primary Care - all formerly part of Piramal and now subsidiaries of Abbott -- say sales plans are revealed to them at "cyclical sales meetings" every three or four months. These meetings, they say, sometimes include studying printed strategy guides like the one for second-quarter 2011 that Reuters reviewed.That guide offers no clarity on why particular gifts are paired with particular drugs. None of the items that come with Nupod, the antibiotic, go to doctors who prescribe Pantagon IT. That drug - a combination of itopride, for bloating and indigestion, and the antacid pantoprazole - comes with a stapler, a set of six glasses and a jar from Luminarc, and a Forbes Trendy Nano vacuum cleaner."THE PANTA REWARDS INPUTS MUST ONLY BE PRESENTED AT THE DRS HOME," the guide tells reps. When delivering the glassware, reps are instructed to say, "Thus Dr requesting your continuous prescription support for Pantagon IT."Prescriptions for Paraxin, a drug for typhoid fever, are rewarded with a hand sanitizer and an antique pen. Prescriptions for Lysupra, a multivitamin supplement, could earn a beaded car-seat cover "for the relaxation when you are traveling."Depending on the drug, a doctor might find himself the owner of a Kiwi shoeshine kit, an Ambi Pur car air freshener, a Birla steam iron, or a Pure Relaxation CD series. And if that's not enough, participation in a "Doctor Talent Contest" judged by Bollywood actor Boman Irani might seal the deal.Scanners and steam ironsAbbott reps say that so far this year, they have doled out, among other things, scanners, steam irons, shoes, stethoscopes and gift vouchers worth more than $100 to doctors - both private and government-employed.Amitava Guha, a member of the national working committee of the Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives' Associations of India, worked as a rep for decades, including for Piramal from 1997 to 2008, when he retired. "Everybody is doing it," he says. "I was doing it when I was in service.... They said that it is your job to go and give to the doctors."He says he resisted giving anything but the smallest gifts, like pens. Today, he says, he receives frequent complaints from reps across the country about the practice. It taints their professional image, he says. Also, it's hard work toting around all those gifts. "They have been given huge extra bags to carry," he says. "One on the shoulders and two others in the hands."The managing director of a large diabetes clinic in Calcutta says he sees as many as 25 reps a day. "Whatever you like, they can provide you," this doctor says.His interview with Reuters was interrupted when a man squeezed into his office and placed a big yellow box on the table. "Sir, this is an exquisite casserole set," the visitor said, slipping the doctor a note bearing the brand name Rostar, a cholesterol-lowering medicine from Mumbai-based Unichem Laboratories Ltd.Unichem did not respond to requests for comment.Guha, the union federation official, says that reps have begun reporting a shift in emphasis away from the types of gifts listed in Abbott's guide toward free "foreign tours" and outright cash payments, often made under the guise of public health initiatives or research.Every year, Abbott, collaborating with doctors and other groups, conducts hundreds of "health camps" across India to raise awareness about conditions such as diabetes, high cholesterol, anemia, breast cancer, sleep problems and thyroid disease.Abbott says these programs "generally incorporate diagnosis, prevention and education. � The focus of these camps is around disease and not products."In the name of scienceReps say public health isn't always the point. "This is a business transaction," says one. This rep says that at a diabetes camp he worked on, patients were given random blood-sugar tests - not a valid means of diagnosing diabetes - and based on the result, were prescribed Abbott oral diabetes medications by the participating doctor.Similarly, reps and doctors say companies try to boost sales through so-called non-interventional post-marketing studies, commonly used around the world to monitor the safety and efficacy of drugs after they have been approved for sale.Doctors and reps say that often, companies use these studies as cover for paying doctors to prescribe the drugs under study. According to one Abbott rep, the company doesn't pay doctors if sales at nearby pharmacies don't increase.A doctor who has done post-marketing studies in India says the companies rarely monitor the studies or check the data. "We all understand that post-marketing studies are not really true studies," says the doctor, a diabetes specialist at a Calcutta hospital. They're "just a way to offer an honorarium. So we also don't take them seriously."Posted by SCM at 8:50 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postSCOVA 21st-Official AgendaSCOVA 21st-Official agendahttps://dl.dropbox.com/u/22740206/SCOVA%2021st%20Official%20Agenda.pdfPosted by SCM at 2:55 AM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postSaturday, September 15, 2012BPS monthly magazine Sept 2009BPS monthly magazine Sept 2009Posted by SCM at 8:53 AM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postLabels: InformativeFriday, September 14, 2012Change in date of birth/Age of Pensioner/Family Pensioner-DOP & PW dated 13.09.2012Posted by SCM at 8:17 AM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postLabels: InformativeSettle case with mom, court tells MongiaSettle case with mom, court tells MongiaMUMBAI: A Mumbai court has asked former cricketer Nayan Mongia to settle a domestic violence case with his mother, saying that it involved his family and asking him to appear before the Lok Adalat on September 16, 2012. "We are ready to settle as we do not want this matter to drag on," said a source close to Mongia's mother Gyandevi (69). Mongia's lawyer Kshitij Mehta alleged the case was lodged at the instigation of Mongia's siblings. "The court suggested we settle the issue, but there is no direction. We will consider it," Mehta said. In her application, Gyandevi claimed that after her husband's death in December 2010, she was ill-treated by her son and daughter-in-law. She was forced to shift to Mumbai where her daughter lived in March, 2011. Gyandevi had a bypass surgery and has five stents in her heart. She said she spent around Rs 7-8 lakh for her treatment and alleged physical and mental violence and sought the court's direction to Mongia to pay her the money she spent on her treatment and a monthly maintenance. She alleged Mongia refused to give her the property her husband bequeathed to her. Mongia filed a case challenging the will. Mongia's lawyers challenged the jurisdiction of a Mumbai court to hear the case as Mongia and his mother lived in Baroda. The magistrate, though, observed that the Mumbai court could hear the case.Posted by SCM at 7:40 AM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postLabels: InformativeDOPT issued ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) on ‘Right to Information Act’ (RTI)DOPT issued ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) on ‘Right to Information Act’ (RTI)DOPT issued FAQ on RTIDepartment of Personnel and Training has issued an another clarifications on Right to Information Act (RTI) as in the form of FAQ. Nearly seventeen questions and answers are compiled with simple and effective information. We reproduced the contents of the FAQ and given below for your reference…FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) ON RTI (AS ON JANURARY 2012)Q.1. What is Information? Information is any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force. Q.2 What is a Public Authority? A "public authority" is any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted by or under the Constitution; or by any other law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature; or by notification issued or order made by the Central Government or a State Government. The bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government and non-Government organisations substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government also fall within the definition of public authority. The financing of the body or the NGO by the Government may be direct or indirect. Q.3 What is a Public Information Officer? Public authorities have designated some of its officers as Public Information Officer. They are responsible to give information to a person who seeks information under the RTI Act.Q.4 What is an Assistant Public Information Officer? These are the officers at sub-divisional level to whom a person can give his RTI application or appeal. These officers send the application or appeal to the Public Information Officer of the public authority or the concerned appellate authority. An Assistant Public Information Officer is not responsible to supply the information. The Assistant Public Information Officers appointed by the Department of Posts in various post offices are working as Assistant Public Information Officers for all the public authorities under the Government of India. Q.5. What is the Fee for Seeking Information from Central Government Public Authorities? A person who desires to seek some information from a Central Government Public Authority is required to send, along with the application, a demand draft or a banker’s cheque or an Indian Postal Order of Rs.10/- (Rupees ten), payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed for seeking information. The payment of fee can also be made by way of cash to the Accounts Officer of the public authority or to the Assistant Public Information Officer against proper receipt. However, the RTI Fee and the mode of payment may vary as under Section 27 and Section 28, of the RTI Act, 2005 the appropriate Government and the competent authority, respectively, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.Q.6. What is the Fee for the BPL applicant for Seeking Information? If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim to belong to the below poverty line. Q.7. Is there any specific Format of Application? There is no prescribed format of application for seeking information. The application can be made on plain paper. The application should, however, have the name and complete postal address of the applicant. Q.8. Is it required to give any reason for seeking information? The information seeker is not required to give reasons for seeking information.Q.9. Is there any provision for exemption from Disclosure of Information? Sub-section (1) of section 8 and section 9 of the Act enumerate the types of information which is exempt from disclosure. Sub-section (2) of section 8, however, provides that information exempted under sub-section (1) or exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 can be disclosed if public interest in disclosure overweighs the harm to the protected interest. Q.10. Is there any assistance available to the Applicant for filing RTI application? If a person is unable to make a request in writing, he may seek the help of the Public Information Officer to write his application and the Public Information Officer should render him reasonable assistance. Where a decision is taken to give access to a sensorily disabled person to any document, the Public Information Officer, shall provide such assistance to the person as may be appropriate for inspection.Q.11. What is the Time Period for Supply of Information? In normal course, information to an applicant shall be supplied within 30 days from the receipt of application by the public authority. If information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, it shall be supplied within 48 hours. In case the application is sent through the Assistant Public Information Officer or it is sent to a wrong public authority, five days shall be added to the period of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be. Q.12. Is there any provision of Appeal under the RTI Act? If an applicant is not supplied information within the prescribed time of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be, or is not satisfied with the information furnished to him, he may prefer an appeal to the first appellate authority who is an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer. Such an appeal, should be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the limit of 30 days of supply of information is expired or from the date on which the information or decision of the Public Information Officer is received. The appellate authority of the public authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of thirty days or in exceptional cases within 45 days of the receipt of the appeal. Q.13. Is there any scope for second appeal under the RTI Act? If the first appellate authority fails to pass an order on the appeal within the prescribed period or if the appellant is not satisfied with the order of the first appellate authority, he may prefer a second appeal with the Central Information Commission within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made by the first appellate authority or was actually received by the appellant.Q.14. Whether Complaints can be made under this Act? If yes, under what conditions? If any person is unable to submit a request to a Public Information Officer either by reason that such an officer has not been appointed by the concerned public authority; or the Assistant Public Information Officer has refused to accept his or her application or appeal for forwarding the same to the Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be; or he has been refused access to any information requested by him under the RTI Act; or he has not been given a response to a request for information within the time limit specified in the Act; or he has been required to pay an amount of fee which he considers unreasonable; or he believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information, he can make a complaint to the Information Commission. Q.15. What is Third Party Information? Third party in relation to the Act means a person other than the citizen who has made request for information. The definition of third party includes a public authority other than the public authority to whom the request has been made.Q.16. What is the Method of Seeking Information? A citizen who desires to obtain any information under the Act, should make an application to the Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority in writing in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is made. The application should be precise and specific. He should make payment of application fee at the time of submitting the application as prescribed in the Fee Rules. Q.17. Is there any organization(s) exempt from providing information under RTI Act? Yes, certain intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, are exempted from providing information excepting the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.Posted by SCM at 1:41 AM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postLabels: InformativeTuesday, September 11, 2012Reduction in Pension and Recovery from Pension already paid. By M. L. Kanaujia, IRSSE, CCE/N.E.Railway(Rtd.)Reduction in Pension and Recovery from Pension already paid.By M. L. Kanaujia, IRSSE, CCE/N.E.Railway(Rtd.)There is lot of confusion on the subject of Reduction in Pension already sanctioned and Recovery from Pension already paid.1. Central Govt. Pensioners except Railway :1.1. With regard to pensioners governed by the CCS(Pension) Rules1972, the Rule 8 provide for clearly the provision in this respect. According to this, the pension cannot be reduced, once sanctioned and no recovery from pension can be done, except , in case a pensioner has been convicted of serious crime by a Court of law or pensioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct, that too, after following the laid down procedure.1.2 The expression `serious crime' includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923).1.3 The expression `grave misconduct' includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned inSection 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) (which was obtained while holding office under the Government) so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State.1.4 Detailed procedure is provided in these rules if pension is to be reduced or recovery is to be effected , where pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct.1.5 These rules are therefore, very clear and unambiguous.1.6 Rule 8 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972, along with Govt. of India’s decisions, is attached herewith as Annexure 1 for ready reference. It may be mentioned here that these Rules do not cover Railwayemployees/officers for whom Railway Service Pension Rules 1993 exist, which are discussed later in this write up.2. Railway Pensioners :2.1 Railway Services Pension Rules 1993 as amended up to 28.3.2012, Rule 8 and 9 provide for rules and procedure to be followed for reduction in pension and recovery from pension. According to this, thePension is subject to future good conduct. Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. The appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold orwithdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.2.2 Serious crime includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923).2.3 Grave misconduct includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch plan, model, article,note, documents or information, such as is mentioned in section 5 of theOfficial Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) which was obtained while holding office under the Government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or security of the State.2.4 Detailed procedure is provided in these rules if pension is to be reduced or recovery is to be effected , where pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct.2.5 The provision of rules 8 & 9 are, therefore, very clear and unambiguous.2.6 However, there is further provision of Revision of pension after sanction contained in Rule 90 of Railway Services Pension Rules 1993 as amended up to 28.3.2012 which says “ Subject to the provisions of rules 8and 9 pension once sanctioned after final assessment shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the railway servant unless such revision becomes necessary on account of detection of a clerical error subsequently.”2.7 Detailed procedure has been given in Rule 90 when pension is to be revised to the disadvantage of the railway servant on account of detection of a clerical error subsequently.2.8 Surprisingly, no details are provided in Rule 90 as to what would constitute a “clerical error”.2.10 Provision of Rule 90 of Railway Services Pension Rules 1993 as amended up to 28.3.2012 are therefore, very “ambiguous” and are thus unlikely to stand in judicial review before a higher Court of law.2.11 Railway Services Pension Rules , Rules 8, 9 and 90 are attached herewith as Annexure 2, for ready reference.C. State Govt. Pensioners :The State Govts., for their Employees/Officers/Pensioners and for Officers of All India Services, have, in some form or the other made rules exactly on the lines of CCS(Pension Rules) 1972.D. Judicial Review :A number of Judgments of various High Courts of India, are available,holding that pension once sanctioned cannot be reduced or recovery from pension made except when a pensioner has been convicted of seriouscrime by a Court of law or pensioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct, that too, after following the laid down procedure in each case.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAnnexure 1. Extract Rule 8 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 :8. Pension subject to future good conduct(1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.2(b) The appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.Footnote 2. Substituted by G.I., Dept. of Per. & A.R., NotificationNo. 6 (A), Pen.(A)/79, dated the 19th May, 1980.3Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of 4[rupees three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem.Footnote 3. Inserted by G.I., Dept. of Per. & A.R., Notification No. F. 38 (4) Pen. (A)/80, dated the 8th August, 1980.4. Substituted by G.I., Dept. of P. P.W., Notification No. 2/18/87-P. &P.W. (PIC), dated the 20th July, 1988, published as S.O. No. 2388 in the Gazette of India, date the 6th August, 1988.(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction.(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule (1),(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of thenotice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the 1[appointing authority] such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; andFootnote : 1. Substituted by G.I., Dept. of Per. & A.R., Notification No. 6 (A), Per. (A)/79, dated the 19th May, 1980.(b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under Clause (a).(4) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the President, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.(5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1), passed by any authority other than the President, shall lie to the President and the President shall, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit.EXPLANATION. - In this rule, -(a) the expression `serious crime' includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923);(b) the expression `grave misconduct' includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan,model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned inSection 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) (which was obtained while holding office under the Government) so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State.8. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISIONSStoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible Intimation of cases of convicted pensioners(1) Stoppage or reduction of pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. - Pension are not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Theirforfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good conduct videArticle 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons.[G.I., M.F., U.O. No. D-2776/E, V/52, dated the 8th May, 1959.](2) Intimation of cases of convicted pensioners. - Under Article 351, CSR [Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] future good conduct is an implied condition of the grant of every pension and Government has the right to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct. It is, therefore,necessary to ensure that cases where pensioners are convicted by a Court of any crime are also brought to the notice of Government. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, therefore, request that if the State Government have no objection, instructions may kindly be issued toprosecuting officers under the control of the State Government to ensure the prompt intimation of such cases to the administrative authorities concerned in future.[G.I., M.H.A., O.M. No. 50/2/59-Ests. (A), dated the 7th October, 1959.]Annexure 2.Railway Services Pension Rules 1993 as amended up to 28.3.2012Extract Rule 8 :8. Pension subject to future good conduct- (1)(a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.(b) The appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amountof such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem.(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction.(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in subrule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order under the sub-rule (1)(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit , within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the appointing authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and (b) stake into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a).(4) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the President, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.(5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1), passed by any authority other than the President shall, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, pass such orders on such appeal, as he deems fit.Explanation: In this rule the expression-(a) serious crime includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923);(b) grave misconduct includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch plan, model, article, note, documents or information, such as is mentioned in section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) which was obtained while holding office under the Government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or security of the State.Extract Rule 9 :9. Right of the President to withhold or withdraw pension.(1) The President reserves to himself the right of with holding or withdrawing a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from apension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Railway, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of hisservice, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement; Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed.Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred seventy five per mensem.(2) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rue (1) -(a) if instituted while the railway servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the railway servant, be deemed to be proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they commenced in the same manner as if the railway servant had continued in service.Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President;(b) if not institute while the railway servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment-(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President;(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which and order in relation to the railwayservant during his service.(1) In the case of a railway servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings arecontinued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in rule 10 shall be sanctioned.(Authority: Railway Board s letter No. F(E)III/99/PN 1/(Modification) dated 23.5.2000)(4) Where the President decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissibleon the date of retirement of a railway servant.(5) For the purpose of this rule -(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the railway servant or pensioner, or if the railway servant has been placed under suspension froman earlier date, on such date; and(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognisance, is made; and(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.Extract Rule 90 :90. Revision of pension after sanction.(1) Subject to the provisions of rules 8 and 9 pension once sanctioned after final assessment shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the railway servant unless such revision becomes necessary on account ofdetection of a clerical error subsequently:Provided that no revision of pension to the disadvantage of thepensioner shall be ordered by the Head of Office without the concurrence of the Railway Board if the clerical error is detected after a period of two years from the date of sanction of pension.(2) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the retired railway servant concerned shall be served with a notice by the Head of Office requiring him to refund the excess payment of pension within a period of two months fromthe date of receipt of notice by him.(3) In case the railway servant fails to comply with the notice,the Head of Office shall, by order in writing, direct that such excess payment shall be adjusted in installments by short payments of pension in future, in one or more installments, as the Head of Office may direct.Posted by SCM at 9:53 AM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLinks to this postLabels: InformativeOlder Posts HomeSubscribe to: Posts (Atom)Blog Archive ► 2010 (18) ► 2011 (135) ▼ 2012 (225) ► January (18) ► February (19) ► March (9) ► April (20) ► May (32) ► June (43) ► July (39) ► August (29) ▼ September (16) Expected 7% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government E... Latest information NHRC Writes to CRB-Case regarding unmarried/divoce... New Pension Scheme for Workers without benefit of ... Railways told to reimburse employee’s medical bi... Pensionary benefits to the employees of BSNL and... High Court judge exhorts advocates to respect seni... 1.PCDA Orders : Issue of Individual / Plastic Card... ATR- 20th SCOVA Reduction in Pension and Recovery from Pension alr... DOPT issued ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) on ... Settle case with mom, court tells Mongia Change in date of birth/Age of Pensioner/Family Pe... BPS monthly magazine Sept 2009 SCOVA 21st-Official Agenda News of the dayThere was an error in this gadget Recent PostsThere was an error in this gadgetPages Home Railway Pensioners CGHS BSNL & DOT Pensioners Defence Pensioners Senior Citizens Railway Board Orders/Circulars RELHS-97 GOI M/O P,PG & Pensions-DOP & PW ECHS BSNL-MRs Court judgementsTotal PageviewsSparkline 65,205Follow by Email Popular Posts List of Government of India Gazetted Holidays and Restricted Holidays during the year 2012 List of Government of India Gazetted Holidays and Restricted Holidays during the year 2012 List of Government of India Gaz... Expected 7% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government Employees/Pensioners w.e.f 1st July 2012 01.09. 2012 Expected 7% Rise in DA/DR for Central Government Employees/Pensioners w.e.f 1 st July 2012 1. Calculation ba... NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE MEETING - (NAC MEETING DETAILS FROM 2009 - 2012) Anomaly Committee of the National Council (JCM) National Anomaly Committee Meeting : The committee of National Council JCM members to settle... Rewire, don’t retire 16 Jul 2012 Hindustan Times (Delhi) Rewire, don’t retire From page 01 Ithink India must be one of the few countries/societies where cu...<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-31924985569025431172012-07-18T12:17:00.001+05:302012-07-18T12:21:29.478+05:30NEXT DATE OF CASE No.1535Case Reg: MODIFIED PARITY for Pre-2006 Case W.P. 1535/2012 Reg: Appeal against Judgment of CAT Delhi (in OA 655-2010) reg. Modified Parity for Pre-2006 Pensioners, came up before a new Bench (of Hon'ble Justice Badar Durrez Ahmad and Hon’ble Justice Siddharth Mridul) at item. 13) in Delhi High Court on 17.7.2012. It was adjourned for hearing on 29th November, 2012.<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-48350187373172920762012-07-03T15:01:00.001+05:302012-07-03T15:05:21.329+05:30Revision of pre-2006 pensionersRevision of Pre-2006 Pensioners as per Para-4.5, Special benifits in case of death & disablity in service, Payment & Commutation value of Pension in respect of employees who retired on & after 01-01-2006 But before 02-09-2008 and expired and gratuty dt in r/o who received pension in pre-revised scale.Revision of Pre-2006 Pensioners as per Para-4.5, Special benifits in case of death & disablity in service, Payment & Commutation value of Pension in respect of employees who retired on & after 01-01-2006 But before 02-09-2008 and expired and gratuty dt in r/o who received pension in pre-revised scale.<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-88962240562224611382012-06-29T09:08:00.003+05:302012-06-29T09:18:40.164+05:30Ministers and Portfoliosमंत्रिमंडल के सदस्य एवं विभाग<br /><br />क्र.स.<br /> <br /><br />मंत्री का नाम<br /> <br /><br />विभाग का नाम<br /><br />१.<br /> <br /><br />श्री अर्जुन मुंडा, मुख्यमंत्री <br /> <br /><br />कार्मिक, प्रशासनिक सुधार एवं राजभाषा विभाग,<br />मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय एवं समन्वय, गृह (कारा सहित),<br />मंत्रिमंडल निगरानी, <br />विधि (न्याय विभाग), ऊर्जा, पथ निर्माण, सूचना एवं जन - सम्पर्क , योजना एवं विकास, निबंधन विभाग तथा ऐसे सभी विभाग, जो किसी को आवंटित नही है |<br /><br />२.<br /> <br /><br />श्री सुदेश कुमार महतो, उपमुख्यमंत्री<br /> <br /><br />ग्रामीण विकाश, पंचायती राज, एन.आर.ई.पी.(विशेष प्रमंडल सहित), ग्रामीण कार्य विभाग, जल संसाधन, वन एवं पर्यावरण, कला, संस्कृति, खेलकूद एवं युवा ३.<br /> <br /><br />श्री हेमंत सोरेन, उपमुख्यमंत्री<br /> <br /><br />वित्त, वाणिज्यकर, नगर विकास,आवास,<br />पेयजल एवं स्वच्छता, <br />नागर विमानन,<br />खनन एवं भूतत्व विभाग |<br /><br />४.<br /> <br /><br />श्री बैधनाथ राम, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />मानव संसाधन विकास विभाग |<br /><br />५.<br /> <br /><br />श्री हेमलाल मुर्मू, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />स्वास्थ्य, चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग, <br />संसदीय कार्य विभाग |<br /><br />६.<br /> <br /><br />श्री चंद्रप्रकाश चौधरी , मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />भवन निर्माण, श्रम, <br />नियोजन एवं प्रशिक्षण,<br />विज्ञान एवं प्रावैद्यिकी विभाग |<br /><br />७.<br /> <br /><br />श्री हाजी हुसैन अंसारी, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br /> सहकारिता, अल्पसंख्यक कल्याण (कल्या ८ .<br /> <br /><br />श्री मथुरा प्रसाद महतो, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />राजस्व एवं भूमि सुधार,<br /> खाद्य, सार्वजनिक वितरण एवं उपभोकता मामले विभाग |<br /><br />९ .<br /> <br /><br />श्री चम्पई सोरेन, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />आदिवासी कल्याण (कल्याण विभाग का भाग, परिवहन विभाग |<br /><br />१०.<br /> <br /><br />श्री गोपाल कृष्ण पातर, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />उत्पाद एवं मद्य निषेध,<br />आपदा प्रबंधन विभाग |<br /><br />११.<br /> <br /><br />श्रीमती विमला प्रधान, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />समाज कल्याण, महिला एवं बाल विकास एवं पर्यटन विभाग |<br /><br />१२.<br /> <br /><br />श्री सत्यानन्द झा, मंत्री<br /> <br /><br />कृषि एवं गन्ना विकास विभाग, पशुपालन एवं मत्स्य विभाग | का<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-35741988063236438692012-05-12T10:00:00.002+05:302012-05-12T10:04:40.642+05:30Provide Representation to Pensioners' Associations in all forums & Committee!15.PROVIDE REPRESENTATION TO PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATIONS IN ALL THE FORUMS & COMMITTEES: While this Convention appreciates Govt. of India’s positive gesture in agreeing to include representatives of Pensioners’ Associations in the constitution of Sr. Citizens Council, it urges the Govt. to provide adequate representation to Pensioners’ Associations in all the Forums & committees like JCM on Pension matters, National / Departmental Anomaly committees/Hospital committees etc where in issues/policies concerning Pensioners are discussed & decided and also to upgrade the institutions of SCOVA and Pension Adalat to the level of JCM.<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-85951714131052277992012-05-05T09:59:00.001+05:302012-05-05T10:02:23.297+05:30Next date of hearing of OA-655/Hearing of the case No WP 1535 / 2012 started on 4-5-2012 in Court No 3 of Delhi High Court - reg Appeal of Union of India against PB CAT Delhi Judgment in OA 655 / 2010. The case was "Part Heard" (Govt pleader completed his arguments). Further hearing will continue on Monday 7th May, 2012<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-83455958288453090302012-04-29T17:24:00.001+05:302012-04-29T17:26:59.955+05:30Pre-Budget memorandum to the Finance MinisterBharat Pensioners Samaj Submits Pre budget Memorandum to the Finance Minister <br /><br />Raise Basic Income Tax exemption for Sr.Citizens to INR 500000/- for 60+ yrs & to INR 700000/- for 80 yrs & above - Bharat Pensioners Samaj Submits Pre budget Memorandum to the Finance Minister<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-10682546371854592582012-04-29T07:56:00.002+05:302012-04-29T08:02:46.089+05:30Press Release Of Rajya Sabha!Press Release on Report of Rajya Sabha Committee for the Grant of One Rank One Pemnsion to Armed Forces<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-88365076364235910722012-04-20T08:49:00.003+05:302012-04-20T08:57:43.299+05:30Letter submitted to the DRM/E.Rly,Asansol on 20-04-2012!The Bharat Pensioner Samaj,Madhupur,is an welfare Organisation,consisting the membership of the Central Govt,including Railways,defence,postal and other Central Govt.retirees and for the Jharkhand and Bihar State Govt Pensioners at Madhupur area.<br /><br />The following demands have been placed particularly, for the welfare of the Railway Pensioners,those who reside either at Madhupur Local Town area or at the nearby villages.<br /><br />1.PROVISION OF OFFICE ACCOMODATION:-<br /><br />As recommended by 5t CPC in their para 141-24,Railway Board permit allotment of Railway Lands and Building to staff welfare organizations,which the pensioners’ organizations in fact are ,on the ground of pension being “Deferred Wage” Subjet to future good conduct.There are Institutes,wefare entres & Women Welfare Organisations etc,which are being nursed and encouraged for welfare of the various segaments of the Railway Employees and their families,then let’s why only pensioners’ welfare organizations’ are being discriminated against?In the absence specific guidelines from the Railway Board.Railway Board is therefore,requested to consider the matter sympathetically in the light of the 5th CPC reommendations vide there para 141-24 and issue definite guideline in this regard. Bharat Pensioner SamajMadhupur,being the largest pensioners’ Organisation at this area,request for allotment of office accommodation at Madhupur station premises,at any suitable place.<br /><br />2.The following irregularities have been noticed,in payment of pension of the pensioners/family pensioners:-<br /><br />(a).Smt Chitra Shiekh,widow of Late Sanjeet Kumar ShiKh,ex Sr Khal.PPO/No.020221536011,SB/Acc.No.11159111890<br />is supposed to draw enhanced rate of family pension I,e,Rs.1900/-upto 20-07-2008,but uptill now,she is drawing the pension in enhanced rate.<br /><br />(b).Md Salim,Ex.Shuntman (Opg) retired on 31-10-2004.PPO/No.02022482904,SB/Ac.No.11159123246,Last Pay drawn-Rs.4030/-inscale Rs.(3050-4590/-monthly pension fixed to Rs.2725/-his revised pension in accordance to 6th CPC fixup and may be intimated to the SBI/Madhupur BR.<br /><br />©.Md.Mansoor Ali, Ex.DSL/Asstt.under Loco Foreman,Madhupur,PPO/No.02021939399,SB/Ac.No.11159105401 retired from service on 31-07-1999 total length of service is 36 years 9months and 21 days..his pension has been fixed to Rs.5400/-in 5th CPC it ia clearly indicated thatg on completion of 33 yrs service,the pension will be fixed 50% of the last pay drawn.so it is requested that his basic pension asper 5th CPC may be fixed and then,may be revised asper 6th CPC.An application has been sent to your Officed on 24-03-2012 by Registered Post to your Office.. <br />(d).Md Younush,exGoods Driver under Loco Foreman,Madhupur, retired from the service w.e.f.31.01.1997,last pay drawn Rs.1720/-total length of service 38 yrs 11 months 15 days,,his basic pansion has been fixed to Rs.1716/-according to the recommendation of 5th CPC,who has completed 33 yrs qualifying service ,50% of the last pay should be the basic pension,.Kindly fixup his pension in accordance to 5th & 6th CPC.<br /><br />Locoforman,Sitarampur,PPO/No.12013/ER/ASN,now resides at Madina Muhalya,Madhupur, 2.5 KM away from Rly Health Centre,Madhupur,claimed fixed Medical Allownces w.e.f. 01.12.1997.and sento the Sub-Post Master, B.Deoghar,but the SPM (Pen),B.Deoghar directed the same undertaking forms for further clarification to the Director Of Accounts (Postal),Patna G.P.O.Campus,stating that “In this respect it is to intimate that Rly Hospital exist at Madhupur and fixed medical allowance i<br />(e).Smt.Kamla Doss-Widow of Late M.A.Doss,ex s not being drawn since the start of Railway Pension to Late M.A.Doss. (Zerox copy of such letter is enclosed).Kindly intimate Hd Post Master,B.Deoghar the recent directive in ragrd to payment of FMA.<br />Posted by Krishna Pada Ghosh at 19:57 0 comments<br />Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-33288842604649984332012-04-13T10:29:00.001+05:302012-04-13T10:29:45.219+05:30Bharat Pensioners Samaj: BPS monthly magazine April 2012<a href="http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2012/04/bps-monthly-magazine-april-2012.html?showComment=1334293085713#c4131677557945830335">Bharat Pensioners Samaj: BPS monthly magazine April 2012</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5352984143469921421.post-56128565544843220772012-04-13T08:46:00.000+05:302012-04-13T08:48:19.767+05:30Discssion paper presented to 3rd National Conference Of Rly Pensioner!Discussion paper presented to 3rd National Convention of Railway Pensioners Associations at New Jalpaiguri on 29.3.2012<br />Discussion paper presented to 3rd National Convention of Railway Pensioners Associations at New Jalpaiguri on 29.3.2012<br /><br />URL: http://db.tt/RqPcfG92 <br /><br />Resolutions adopted for further transmission to Govt.<br /><br />( It may be noted that final document is still under preparation & will include justification for each & every demand.) <br /><br />URL: http://db.tt/dX1tVAXK<br />Posted by SCM at 3:10 AM 0 comments<br />Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook<br />Links to this post<br />Labels: Informative, Pensioners Associations, Rly. Pensioners Associations<div class="blogger-post-footer">All Raiway Pensioners/Family Pensioners are requested to attend 3rd National Conference of the Railway Pensioner at New Jalpaiguri on 29-03-2012.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02228991267898248253noreply@blogger.com0