PRE-2006 PENSIONERS CASE A REVIEW

The UOI  filed  appeal WP(c) 1535/2012in DHC against judgement by CAT PB in modified parity case of pre-2006 pensioners  in OA 655/2010.This appeal was heard  by DHC along with three other appeal  WP(C) 2348-50/2012   filed by UOI  against CAT judgement conferring full parity to pre-2006 pensioners. The judgements in above four cases were delivered together dismissing all the four appeals & conferred full parity in all the cases. 

The UOI preferred an SLP 23055/2013 in SC against the dismissal of its appeal WP(c) 1535/2012 by DHC & did not file appeal in SC in respect of other three cases (WP(C) 2348-50/2012)  & the SC dismissed the SLP 23055/2013. The UOI again made a last attempt by filing a review petition RP(C) 2492/2013 in SC against the dismissal of SLP 3055/2012.

The review petition also stands dismissed. The UOI has now left with no ammunition in their gun to fire against judgement in OA 655/2010 by CAT PB. Hence this judgement has been able to withstand the entire judicial scrutiny available in the country. Now it is awaiting a judicial contempt & administrative remedy.

The UOI has again  up on their foot with another 3 SLP’S  SLP(C) CC18339-41/2013 in SC against the  dismissal of the left over three appeal  WP(C) 2348-50/2012 by DHC. These appeals are coming for hearing again on 04/02/2014 for admission since argument on earlier occasion could not be concluded. Ironically the SC has granted stay on proceeding with contempt proceedings either in CAT or in DHC for implementation of the judgement by DHC in above three cases (WP(C) 2348-50/2012).

Even though the UOI has left with no arrows in their quiver, still  attempt to throw the empty quiver itself on the pensioners. There is no doubt that these SLP’S will also meet with same fate as earlier one.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF  PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

RAJYA SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO-846 By
Shri BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDAR

Benefits of Sixth Pay Commission to retirees: Govt reply in Rajya Sabha

The orders for implementation of the decision taken by the Government on the recommendations of 6th CPC for revision for pension of past pensioners were issued vide this Department’s Office Memorandum(OM) dated 1.9.2008. The provisions of Para 4.2 of this OM were clarified vide this Department’s letter dated 3.10.2008.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its order dated 1.11.2011 observed that by the OM dated 3.10.2008 the original orders of 1.9.2008 have been modified. Hon’ble CAT directed that the past pensioners may be granted, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, a minimum pension @ 50% of the minimum pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of serving employees.

 Writ Petitions were filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi challenging the above mentioned order.

 In its order dated 29.4.2013, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld the order dated 1.11.2011. After considering the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and various representations received in this regard, Special Leave Petition was filed by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare filed an SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against this order. This SLP came up for hearing on 29.7.2013 and was dismissed and the Review Petition was also dismissed.

Union of India has also filed SLP against the order dated 29.4.2013 in Writ Petitions No.2348/2012, 2349/2012 and 2350/2012 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which came up for hearing on 19.11.2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to list the SLP alongwith CA No.8875-8876 of 2011 filed by Ministry of Defence and is now listed for hearing on 4.2.2014. The matter is therefore sub-judice.

CONTEMPT PETITION IN CAT PB ADJOURNED

Dear friends,
The contempt petition No. 158/2012 filed  in CAT PB for non-implementation of it's  judgement in pre-2006 pensioners case 655/2010 which was listed to be heard on 18/12/2013 is again ADJOURNED  to 15/01/2014.It seems justice is again delayed to many of us & indeed denied to some of us.

6TH CPC RECOMMENDATION A REVIEW

Let us examine the of implementation of 6thCPC recommendation as applicable to pre2006 pensioners. After the submission of report by the 6th CPC, UOI adopted the following formulae for the revision of pension of pre-2006 retirees and revision of pay of those who were in service as on 1.1.2006.                                                                           

1. Revised Pension ::         =2.26×pre-revised pension
                                           =1.86×pre-revised pension +0.40×pre-revised pension
                                                   
                                          =1.86×pre-revised pension+40% of pre-revised
                                                       pension (I am putting this 40%="A")

2.Revised Pay                   = 1.86×pre-revised basic pay( rounded off to next
                                                  next higher multiple of 10) +G.P. as modified by UOI.

                                                 (Where-ever pay band and G.P. was applicable)

                  

3.Formula adopted by 6thCPC for determination of G.P.
 G.P.= 40%  of maximum of  pre-revised pay scale="B" If we compare "A" and  "B", formula adopted by 6thCPC appears quite reasonable. But actually, 6th C P C recommended G.P.s which was in excess of 40% of maximum of pre-revised pay scales in all the scales from S-18 to S-30. (Exception was scale S-21 i.e. 12000-16500, where recommended G.P. was exactly 40% of maximum of scale, i.e.40% of (6500=6600) Thus ,we find that G.P.s recommended  by 6th CPC were already more than 40% of maximum of  pre-revised pay scale ( S-21 as pointed out  above was an exception), still UOI enhanced these G.P.s  beyond what was  recommended by 6th CPC.(There was only one scale  S- 23, where it maintained the G.P. recommended by 6th C P C  )Here it is important to note that  at this point in time UOI was not aware of the proper interpretation of Para 5.1.47. The interpretation which it had visualised, according to that it concluded that enhancement in G.P.s will not result in any increase in the revised pension of pr-2006 retirees. Hence UOI without any justification, and caring for any additional financial burden/implication, enhanced the G.P.s beyond the recommendation of 6^th CPC. Their argument for additional financial burden/ financial constraints is only limited to pre-2006 pensioners which is deplorable.
                                            
 It is only when the question of payment  of arrears and re-fixation of pension  of pre-2006 pensioners comes , the same UOI which enhanced the G.P.s without any justification and  caring for financial constraints, puts  financial constraints as a stumbling block  in the rectification  of pension & payment of arrears to  pre-2006 retirees.
Pre-2006 pensioners are passing through very hard times & some of us might be banking upon the early payment of arrears so that they could discharge their responsibilities which will give away their worries in the last leg of their life.  We are not begging & asking for neither alms nor charity, let us keep our heads high. We are demanding  what is rightfully bestowed on us by the  6th CPC and duly  accepted by UOI in Cabinet meeting.

An article by

Mr.Faqir Chand

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS ON CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

It Seems that there is no ground on which  UOI can now challenge the verdict of CAT-PB  in OA  0655 since it  has lost its appeal twice in the Apex Court by the dismissal of SLP and RP.  I do not think the Apex Court will give any further reprieve for UOI by giving another chance for hearing in this particular case. The Contempt proceeding relates to non-implementation of judgement in the above case which in fact is the non-implementation of the 6th CPC recommendation duly accepted by UOI in cabinet meeting . The question of enunciation of modified parity even if it is the contention any of the three SLPs, can in no way put any hurdle in contempt proceedings. In fact, CAT has not given any thing new but has pointed out that this particular recommendation  ( which  tent amounts to application of full parity  in fixation  of pension of  pre-2006 retirees) was not understood properly by the concerned officials and  CAT has asked them to implement this  in its proper sense. The interpretation given by CAT has been upheld by Delhi High Court and twice by The Apex Court. In my opinion this case cannot be reopened under any circumstances and enunciation of modified parity, if it is there, can be of academic interest only. However, it is likely that UOI may try their level best for adjournment on some other pretext.
There was an apprehension on our part that CAT awarded full parity where as demand by pensioners was for modified one, therefore contempt proceedings will be contested by UOI. This contention also does not exist now since full parity award by CAT has stood judicial scrutiny.

  Mr.FAQIR CHAND
 (An active member of this blog)