Hearing of 3SLP'S (C)
36148-50/2013 filed by UOI in supreme court regarding modified parity to
pre-2006 pensioners, which was adjourned on 30/04/2014 is now listed to be heard on 24/07/2014.Please note that these are the SLP'S in which the UOI has contested the payment of 50% pension to pre-2006 pensioners after 20 years service.At this juncture after the dismissal of curative petition,these SLP'S are also likely to meet with same fate as that of curative petition during hearing.
FLASH
FLASH
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now the onus is very much on the defendant counsel to forcefully present the case with the unwavering insistence on the fact that these SLPs merit outright rejection in the light of the dismissal of the cur.petition, the intrinsic features of the both being identical.
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with the views expressed by you
dear mr.menon, - please let me know of the main prayers put forth by the pre2006 pensioners in the contempt petition 158/2012
DeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteContempt petition is filed for non-implementation of CAT judgement in OA 655/2010.
Additional points are not allowed in contempt petition.You may refer the judgement in OA 655/2010.Alternatively you may refer the status of pending cases given in the bottom of the blog to refer 158/2012.
As advised, I referred to the the judgement of the hon'ble Delhi HC in the matter of 655/2010. In page 8 of the judgement, it is given in crystal clear manner that "in no case, the revised pension should be less than 50%of minimum of the pay in the payband plus grade pay, etc etc."This clause legally allows pre2006 pensioners with 20 years service at par with their post 2006 counterparts to avail of 50%pension as in the case of the latter.Now, that the SC having dismissed the cur.petition filed against this judgement,is it legally viable for the govt to have filed 3 SLPs mainly focusing on this 50% pension provision for pre2006 pensioners with 20 years service?Why I insist on this point is it is a known fact that when a case on interalia a certain point is contested in the SC, the recourse is available only upto curative petition and in the instant case that remedy available to the applicant(govt)is already exhausted with the dismissal of the cur.petition.Had this been pointed out to the SC by the defendants in a much too clear manner, these SLPs could have been stalled successfully even in the admission stage?! - That is my contention. Please give your comments in this regard
DeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThere was lacuna in the original petition that the petitioners had demanded only modified parity & not full parity but the court had granted full parity.The petitioners had also not demanded for full pension after 20 years since the petition had been filed by association of SAG-29 pensioners who have more than 33 years of service.This lacuna has already been pointed out by UOI counsel.
Even if full pension after 20 years is granted to pre-2006 pensioners by court,it will not be granted w.e.f. 01/01/2006.but it will be granted w.e.f.29/08/2008 only as per cabinet resolution clause No 3(please refer cabinet resolution given under the bottom of the blog)
Dear mr.menon,
DeleteThanks a lot for your clarifying the position. As the position stands as of now, some benefit, though legitimate and justifiable from the point of view of fundamental right "equality before law" as enshrined in the indian constitution, has been granted by the HC despite the lacuna as pointed out by you that the original prayer in the writ did not contain that particular demand since all applicants had more than 33 years of service.. May i know your contention on such issues as to whether such demand is sustainable in that backdrop?
Dear Ramaswamy,
ReplyDeleteDon't get disappointed.The court has not agreed to such plea of UOI & the Contempt proceedings are going on for the full judgement including 50% pension for 20 years.Let us hope for the best.There are many other judgements purely for 50% pension after 20 years by CAT & High courts(refer outstanding cases)The judgement in OA655/22010 is hence supported by this judgements which will definitely be taken note of by the court during contempt petition hearing.
Thank you very much mr.menon for your prompt and insightful reply. My nagging doubts in the matter are cleared now.
DeleteSir,As per CP 158/2012 dt 15th May 2014,GOI agreed to pay wef 1.1.2006
ReplyDeleteOA 2165 /2011 in CAT,Delhi : Next Hearing - 23rd May 2014.
OA2165 : For Full pension on 20yrs of service on VRS wef 1.1.2006
clubbed with
OA 247/2012(K.R.srinivasan)& OA1165/2011(S.B.Roy) : For Full Pension on 10yrs of service on Super Annuation /absorption in any PSU,
wef 1.1.2006 , as paid to post 2006 pensioners
My question is whether is there any link between OA 2165/2011 & 3 SLPs(C) 36148-50/2013 ??
MKIqbal
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThere is no link between OA2165/2011 & 3SLPs 36148-50/2013.The judgement in WP(C) 2348-50/2012 by DHC is challenged in 3SLPs.Your attention is drawn that the judgement by CAT PB in OA655/2010 & other 3 linked cases was challenged by UOI in DHC by WP(C) 1535/2012 & other 3 linked cases WP(c) 2348-50/2012.The clever UOI has challenged WP(c) 1535/2012 separately as SLP ,Review petition & curative petition.Now at last they have challenged WP(C) 2348-50/2012 in SC by 3 SLPs(c) 36148-50/2013
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeletepresently, the CAT has granted three months time to implement the order,which lasts on 14/08/2014.
.The said 3 SLPs are yet be made clear by SC, the schedule of hearing is on 24/07/2014. That means, the orders of CAT may be implement or not.
Kindly clarify
Dear menon
DeleteI again beg your valuable time to inference on my view i.e
Minimum pay in the pay band means basic pay last drawn by a pensionet* 1.86.for pre-2006 pensioners.To what extent it seems true?
There is no reason why GoI will be inclined to non implement the judgement in CAT PB oa, 655/2010 at this stage.The MOL has already advised to MOP to implement it.The only matter remains to be seen is wheather MOP issues memo granting revision of pension on 50% of pay last drawn by pre 2006 pensioners or minimum pay of there respective pay scales last held.The notification dated 29 Aug 2006 clearly grants full parity wef Jan 2006 with post 2006 pensioners.
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteIt is not correct.It is the starting pay in the pay band PB of 6th CPC.
A detailed chart is sent to your mail for easy understanding of the subject