SC: Pension can’t be less than 50% of pay

 R Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent, The Tribune, New Delhi, March 17

 

In a bonanza to retired employees of the armed forces, the Supreme Court today directed the Centre to pay at least 50 per cent of the pay as pension to all of them as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission(CPC).

A Bench headed by Justice TS Thakur passed the order while dismissing about 50 appeals filed by the Centre challenging the rulings of various high courts and armed forces tribunals (AFTs). The HCs and AFTs had struck down the office memorandums (OMs) assessing the pension amount at less than 50 per cent for some categories of pensioners.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand had pleaded that payment of pension at 50 per cent or more would place an additional burden of Rs 1,500 crore. But the Bench said the pensioners were entitled to the CPC recommendations which had been accepted by the government.

 

They could not be denied of their dues just because some officials, who did not even have the authority to issue the OMs, had misinterpreted the recommendations, the Bench explained.

“We have already affirmed the orders of the HCs and AFTs” in a couple of cases earlier and there was no need for the Centre to come to the SC in each and every such case, the Bench said.

Today’s order should be implemented within four months extending the benefit to all those who were entitled to pension, irrespective of the fact whether they had gone to the AFT/court or not, the Bench clarified.

In one such case, the Delhi High Court had delivered its verdict on April 29, 2013, directing the Centre to ensure that pension was re-fixed at not lower than 50 per cent of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. Arrears should be paid within two months and any delay would entail 9 per cent interest, it had ruled while dismissing a batch of Centre’s petitions. The HC had said it was in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana HC in similar cases.

IESM CLARIFICATION REGARDING SC JUDGEMENT

ARREARS OF  PENSION  TO BE PAID  FROM 01 JAN 2006  TO   24 SEP 2012

Dear Veterans

This refers to arrears paid for increase in pension as per recommendations of 6 CPC to all employees of  of central Government w.e.f. 24 Sep 2012. 

  Government has already paid the arrears to members of the SAG (S-29) Association from 1 Jan 2006. However this was denied to Armed Forces personnel on most stupid ground that the arrears will not be paid to those who had not gone to court. 

  RDOA had gone to court for arrears to be paid to Armed Forces also. The case was won but the Government decided to file SLP against the SC judgment. The SLP came for hearing on 17 March 15, after many extensions. Honorable SC has declined admission of SLP and asked Government to release payment of arrears w.e.f. 1 Jan 2006 within four months. These arrears are for modified parity in pension paid w.e.f 24 Sep 2012.

  Government counsel once again told Honorable SC that the arrears w.e.f 1 Jan 2006 will be paid to only litigants. On this plea Honorable SC had said that this will again increase your and our work load because within few days rest of personnel will soon approach SC for the arrears and Government will have to pay. Therefore it is better that the arrears are paid to all personnel of armed forces. 

Government counsel appealed that Government does not have money for such large payment. On this plea again Honorable SC ruled that if Government can loose thousands of crore in coal blocks this payment is chickenfeed infront of that. Hence the arrears will have to be paid within four months.

  These were oral discussions in the court, we will have to wait for formal order by the Honorable SC and the reaction of Government on the judgment. IESM will go to court on behalf of all personnel of Armed Forces in case Government refuses to pay arrears to all affected Armed Forces Personnel.

Please wait for written judgment of Honorable Supreme Court. 

Regards

Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
Flat no 801, Tower N5

Narmada Apartments

Pocket D6 

Vasant Kunj

Nelson Mandela Marg
New Delhi. 110070
Mobile   09810541222

Every month Govt shifts stand on OROP to take to 7th CPC on the pertex of disagreement between SHQ & MOD

Tribune News Service

Rewari, March 16

Union Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit said today that the announcement about implementation of the one-rank,one-pension (OROP) scheme would be made immediately after the conclusion of parliamentery session. Interacting with media persons at his residence in Rampura village here today, he said the BJP government was committed to executing the OROP scheme for ex-servicemen.
 He maintained the financial burden on account of implementing the OROP scheme had been taken care of in the Budget. If needed, additional funds would be transferred for the scheme. “Any monetary problem will not be allowed to come in the way of the OROP scheme,” said Inderjit.
 
Dear Friends.
Please Chalk out the Next strategy to achieve OROP.In this connection I wold like to invite your Kind Attention that Modi Govt is going to celebrate their one year of completion in office in May 4th week.
If OROP is not declared Till then We have to make a contingency plan now itself to observe that day as a black day with processions all over India.

HIGHLIGHTS OF ESM RALLY HELD AT JHAJAR ON 14/03/2015

Attended ESM Rally at jhajar 14/3/15. Highlights:-

 
1. OROP stands sanctioned as per our presentation, for all rks and separately for X and Y gps wef 01/4/14. Mtg of RM and FM alongwith COAS with PM scheduled on 16/3 to chalk out timeline. Notification definitely by 30/4 if not by 31/3 after completing all formalities.

 
2. Annual incr on pension to maintain parity. Cheers we wont have to go to Jantar mantar again.

 
3. 7th CPC:-

   * 5 main anomalies of 6th CPC to b removed first.
*pensions to b fixed @ 70 % against 50%.

 
* Will take up case for toll tax exemption for ESM also.
*Broad banding of disability pension approved:-  ^30-50--50%

  ^50-80--80%
  ^80-100--100%

 
* Separate Directorate for ESM.

 
*6 acre land got for new Sthal Sena Bhavan
*War memorial and war museum sanctioned
*One card for all ECHS, CSD, ID etc
2. Chief Secy Har:
*Ex gratia for shaheeds 10L.
*Kanyadan to widows daughter 51000
* 1 L on passing out fm IMA, OTA, Naval or AF academies.
3. Finally had lunch with COAS and did 'line tod' happily.

Colonel  N K Balakrishnan ( Retd ) ,
" SINHGARH",Pulleppady,
Chittoor Road,Kochi-682018
Phone- ( 0484) 2380987

 

SOURCE;http://7thpaycommissionnews.in/

RECORD OF DISCUSSION WITH RM: 11 MAR 2015 BY Col Anil Kaul

I had the occasion to meet the RM today for a duration of 45 mins in his South Block Office. The COAS was also present.
A record of our discussion is appended below.

1. Disability Issues: The Hon’ble RM wanted a firsthand account of the effects of disability from a person who had undergone such trauma as against hearing it from other sources. Certain facts were conveyed including citing of personal examples which despite over twenty five years of consideration at various levels remain unresolved. A hard copy of all such issues was handed over to the RM.
2. Non-Implementation of Orders of SC/ Non Issue of Instructions on Disability Related issues of Def Pers including the following: -
(a) Na-Na Cases
(b) Less than 20% disability cases
(c) Disability when on leave
(d) Broad-banding for those who superannuated
(e) Broad-banding for those who took voluntary retirement?
(f) MOD is yet to issue letter for enhanced DP for enhanced pension WEF Sep`12, though case has been taken up by Service HQ.
Comments of RM: He said that all disability related issues would be taken up appropriately w.e.f. 13 Mar 2015.He assured me that we would soon see the issue of operative letters.
3. Additional Points: A few additional points regarding disability were also discussed with personal examples that would have an effect on the larger disabled environment of the disabled in the Armed Forces. These are enumerated below: -
(a) There no system of post disability trauma onset in any of the three services including counselling to enable a disabled soldier to start functioning anew albeit with a few parts missing. This needs immediate implementation.
(b) There has to be a clear cut divide between those placed in LMC in normal course and BC’s. This must percolate down to their employment and functioning. I suggested that for starters at least in the Army suitable disabled officers be posted in the AG’s & MS branches as only a disabled understands the effects of disability. Moreover such actions do not require any elaborate Govt sanctions.
(c) I submitted that “Constant Attendance Allowance” should be applicable suo moto to anyone with 50% disability especially as after superannuation all manner of physical support available in service ceases. The RMB should be the final authority with the PCDA (P) not having any say in this.
(d) Payment of double conveyance allowance, where authorised to disabled personnel should be as matter of course and not based on claims. We are all aware of who is authorised Government tpt is and who is not.
(e) All service group Insurances are private entities and should offer disability benefits to BC’s retained in service and who superannuate in the normal course.
2
The funds available are adequate and if necessary and additional levy on premium can cater for this aspect.
To deny this to one segment is a violation of the principle of equality. Notwithstanding what the Govt provides in such cases as that is a part of a service obligation whereas group insurances are private funds meant for this. The RM was appreciative of this logic and even suggested a methodology for the COAS to consider. The RM even mentioned that shortfalls if any could be made up by the MoD.
(f) As per AO 17/89 Battle Casualties have the option of taking disability pension as a capitalized value in service. However there is no provision of restoration of such commuted value as in the case of normal pension. Disability is for life and there needs to be a reconsideration of restoring the capitalized value after 15 years, for those who took this option, as in the case of normal pension. A detailed case study is as given below:
1. Reference AO 17/89.
2. On Superannuation every service personnel is entitled to service pension. This consists of the service element and the disability element. As a battle casualty I come under the purview of the AO ibid.
3. Personal Illustrative Case: I am 80% disabled due to battle injuries for life. As per AO 17/ 89 I was, entitled to, as were other BC’s, “War Injury Pay”. As per awards of the 4CPC, this was specified as “percentage of disability equivalent of percentage of pay drawn at the time of injury”. My pay at that point was approximately Rs 4200/- therefore I should have been entitled to 80% of which came to Rs 3360/- pm. This was later amended to “Not more than Rs 1500/- per month allowed for 100% disability due to normal service conditions”. This was to be proportionately reduced for lower percentages. Accordingly I was entitled to Rs 1200/- pm. A loss of 3360- 1200 = 2160/- As a result BC’s lost out on higher emoluments due to some change that was not noticed by those dealing with such cases.
4. A second provision of the AO was that one could take the capitalized value of this amount in service or await superannuation to get a disability pension. This was to be calculated for a time period of service to an age and service in the same rank that is in my case a Major. As can be seen I lost out on the following counts: -
(a) Reduction in overall authorized amount.
(b) No consideration for promotion beyond the rank of Major.
(c) No consideration for age applicable beyond the rank of Major.
5. I was paid such compensation after ten years of my injury. A request for interest on delayed payments was initially rejected till the Delhi High Court gave a ruling in my favour on which CDA (O) paid me the interest in the year 2000, i.e. after thirteen years of my injury and a court case lasting over two years.
6. The acerbic language of Army HQ, as a measure of no respect to battle casualties, stated, “ That the case stands closed and no further discussions would be appreciated” So much for winning a gallantry award and losing your limbs.
3
7. Appeal: Notwithstanding the above as in the case of commuted value of service element of pension that is restored after a finite period of 13/15 years, similarly the capitalized value of disability pension needs restoration after a suitable period of time. In my case, the capitalized value has been taken for the rank of “Major” superannuation was 50 years that I crossed in Jul 2001 a full four years before superannuating in 2005 in the rank of “Colonel”. Considering that the capitalized value was applicable from 12 Oct 1987 but paid to me in 1996, a total of 25 years have passed and therefore the disability element of pension paid as capitalized value in service now needs restoration, keeping in mind that the disability is for life and as one ages the effects become more debilitating.
(g) A staff check would show that there would be a handful of such personnel in such a predicament.
4. OROP The RM gave out the status of OROP as on date. The salient features of which are as follows: -
(a) The final document duly cleared by the FA (Def) and signed by him is being fwd to the FM today. I.e. 11 Mar 2015.
(b) The amount worked out remains at Rs 8298 Cr.
(c) He is scheduled to meet the PM & FM on 16 Mar 2015 on the issue.
(d) He is adhering to the time schedule as indicated on 2 Mar 2015 to the IESM delegation. I.e implementation instructions by 31/3 15. At worst case 30/4/15.
(e) 86% of beneficiaries are JCO’s & NCO’s, The balance 14% divided between Officers and family pensioners i.e. Vir Naris.
There being no other points the meeting was closed.

Anil Kaul
Col Anil Kaul, VrC
11 Mar 2015

https://www.facebook.com/ 

3SLP IN SC DELAYS REVISION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS

No.38177-AJ09-P&PW(A)(Pt.)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi-ll0 003
Dated the 5th March, 2015

Office Memorandum
Sub:- Revision of pension ofpre-2006 pensioners - reg.

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 Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare's 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.

2. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its common order dated 1.11.2011 in four petitions [OA No.655/2010, 306/2010, 50712010 and 3079/2009] directed that the past pensioners may be granted, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, a minimum pension with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of serving employees.

3. A large number of representations from pre-2006 pensioners are being received by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare for extension of benefits similar to what had been
allowed in case ofOA NO.655/2010 by CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

4. In this context, it is informed that four Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon'ble CAT in four OAs. These petitions were dismissed on 29.4.2013. Subsequently, four SLPs were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court over a period of time against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court. Of the four SLPs, the one pertaining to Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners' Association which was first in the series of said SLPs, has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.7.2013. As the Reviewl Curative Petition against the said order dated 29.7.2013 also failed, the Government of India decided to comply with the order by extending the requisite benefits to the parties involved in the said SLP. As regards the other three SLPs (Nos.36148-50/2013), Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 19.11.2013 issued notice and made the following observation: .
"Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of these petitions the respondent-writ petitioners shall not precipitate the matter by filing contempt proceedings either before the High Court or before the Tribunal. That statement is recorded. "

5. Thus the issue of revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as covered under SLP Nos. 36148-50/2013 in the Apex Court which have been tagged with Civil Appeal
No.887S-76/20 11 filed by Ministry of Defence in a similar matter is subjudice.

6. This is for information.
~ ~\
(S.K. Makkar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

7. The outcome of SLPs under reference in Para (4) would be brought to the Ministries/Departments.

To
All Ministries/Departments.
v6py to NIC for uploading the above OM on the website of the Department.