MACP is entitled from the date of completion of 10/20/30 years and not from 01.09.2008 - Delhi High Court Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELID

W.P.(C) 3549/2018

SUNIL KUMAR TYAGI		..... Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocate.
	versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR		..... Respondents
	Through:	Ms Archana Gaur and Ms Ridhima Gaur, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

01.05.2019

1. There are three prayers in this writ petition - one is for a direction to the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the benefit of the first Assured Career Progression ('ACP') Scheme with effect from October, 1999, when the Petitioner had actually completed 12 years of service instead of 30th December, 2000. The second is that the benefit of the MACP should be granted with effect from October, 2007 (instead of 1'1 September, 2008), when the Petitioner completed 20 years of service. The third prayer is that the benefit of the MACP should be given by placing the Petitioner in the scale of Sub Inspector ('SI') i.e. Rs.5500-9000 (pre-revised).

2. As far as the first prayer is concerned, the same has already been granted by the Respondents to the Petitioner. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the issue is covered in favour of the Petitioner by the judgment dated 8th December, 2017 of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn (2018) I I SCC 99. The Supreme Court has in the above judgment clarified that the benefit of the MACP which was on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission to be extended with effect from 1st January, 2006 and not from 1st September, 2008, as was directed by the Respondents.

3. As regards the fixing of the correct pay scale of the Petitioner, it is seen that in BSF/General Duty, there is no post of ASI/General Duty in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 (pre-revised) which had been converted into Pay Band-I i.e. 5200-20200 in the grade pay of Rs.2800 having pay band of 8560 with the total pay (basic pay) of Rs.11360. Thus, in the case of the Petitioner, the second financial upgradation was required to be given in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (pre-revised). Since this was not granted to other similarly placed as the Petitioner, writ petitions were filed in this Court. A series of judgments have been passed by this Court in those writ petitions, as a result of which the Respondents extended the benefit of financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to all personnel who had completed 24 years of regular service during the period 9th August, 1999 to 31st August, 2008.

4. The counter affidavit of the Respondents does not dispute the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Balbir Singh Turn (supra) or the applicability of the other orders of this Court, including the order dated 18th December, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.11725 (Digamber Singh ASI v UOI) concerning the appropriate pay scale for the purposes of grant of the MACP benefits.

5. Consequently, this Court directs as under:

1. The Petitioner would be given the benefit of the MACP with effect from October, 2007 instead of 1st September, 2008; and
2. The above benefit will be given by placing the Petitioner in the pay scale of of Sub Inspector i.e. 5500-9000 (pre-revised).
3. The appropriate orders will be issued and the arrears will be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which the Respondents will be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears for the period of delay.

6. The petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S.MEHTA, J.

MAY 01, 2019

OROP CASE INTIRIUM ORDER BY SUPREME COURT

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

 Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 419/2016 

 INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS. Petitioner(s) 

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)

 (WITH IA 33253/2017 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION) Date : 01-05-2019 

This petition was called on for hearing today.

 CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD 

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
 During the course of the hearing, the principal submission of the petitioners is that the recommendation of the Koshyari Committee for thegrant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) was endorsed by the Budgetary Speech of the Finance Minister on 17 February 2014 and by the Minister of Defence on 26 February 2014, following which the Controller General of Defence Accounts was directed to work out modalities. This was further re-affirmed on 10 July 2014 by the Finance Minister and on 2 December 2014 by the Minister of State for Defence. However, the Union government, on 7 November 2015, while implementing OROP adopted a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners would be bridged at“periodic intervals”. The petitioners have highlighted specifically three aspects of the anomalies which have arisen. They are summarised in a written note of submissions tendered before the Court, which is extracted below: “(i) Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014. (ii) Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation.For example, if 8(i) and (ii) are implemented, two soldiers who have served for same length of years, holding the same rank will draw different pension. A Sepoy (Group Y) who retired prior to 31 Dec2013 will get Rs.6665 p.m. and another Sepoy (Group Y) who retired on and after 1 Jan 2014 would get Rs 7605 p.m. Further, on account of such implementation, a higher rank Naik soldier who retired before 31 Dec 2013 would draw a lesser pension of rs.7170p.m., than a junior rank Sepoy who retired after 1 Jan 2014 as his pension would be Rs.7605. This fact is illustrated by a tabular chart which is enclosed. (See Pg.1, CC). Therefore, implementation of this new definition of OROP defeats the very principle of OROP by creating a class within a class of the same officers, which in practice tantamounts to one rank different pensions. This is also contrary to the judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125. Another fallacy in the new definition of OROP which detracts from the principle of OROP is: (iii) Pension Equalization every five years: It is submitted that Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees.” Certain concrete examples have been indicated in charts which are annexed to the note submitted before this Court by Mr Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. At this stage, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the Union government scrutinizes the grievances which are placed before the Court in the above note. It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement, are duly considered by the Union government at an appropriate level. We would expect the government to seriously consider the grievances and to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, justice canbe provided for the satisfaction of all concerned.
 List the Writ Petition on 6 August 2019.
 (SANJAY KUMAR-I) AR-CUM-PS
 (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER

OROP- DETAILS OF HEARING , SUPREME DIRECT GOVERNMENT TO HOLD DISCUSSION WITH ESM

Today 1 May 2019, OROP case was heard by bench of Honourable justice Chandrachud and Honourable justice Hemant GUPTA in Honourable Supreme Court. Our case was listed at S no 1 but
Honourable justice decided that they want to hear the arguments in detail and will attend to OROP after lunch.
During hearing Honourable Justice recounted the anomalies introduced in OROP released by GOI vide letter dated 7 Nov 2015.
Honourable justice also recorded that word AUTOMATIC equalisation of Pension for past pensioners has been replaced by GOI with word PERIODIC equalisation (five years) in the letter dated 7 Nov 2019. This is the main anomaly along with fixing of pensions of past pensioners one and a half increment behind with respect to present pensioners ( post 2014). Honourable justice questioned the Govt lawyer why equalisation cannot be done automatically? Govt lawyer Mr Rana Mukherjee replied that veterans want equalisation as a running scale on touch of a button. To this our counsel Mr Hujefa Ahmadi replied that though it is possible to achieve instant equalisation with latest computing technology in India but veterans will be happy with yearly equalisation in rates of pensions.
OROP counsel Mr Hujefa also quoted examples by showing tables how these anomalies are adversely affecting  morale of veterans and lowering izzat and status of past pensioners. It was conveyed succinctly that with these anomalies today a senior rank Naik (past pensioner) is getting less pension than junior rank Sepoy (retired post 2014). Similarly armed forces widows have been getting lesser pensions than post 2014 widows.
Honourable Justice also accepted that life of armed forces personnel is very difficult at Siachen glaciers and in wild deserts apart from their early retirement. They were also considerate to note that soldiers are also boarded out on minor disability and hence their working conditions are very harsh. Govt should do everything to mitigate their difficulty.
Govt attorney was asked to approach Govt and get the response of Govt on the way forward to solve these anomalies and to redress veterans grievances.
Honourable justice advised Govt attorney that Govt must call veterans for discussion and find a mutually acceptable solution to these anomalies.
Honourable Justice gave an order accordingly and fixed next date of hearing on 6 Aug 2019.

OROP CASE PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT ON 23/04/2019

Today 23 Apr OROP case was argued by our lawyer Mr Hujefa Ahmadi in HSC. Strong arguments were given by our lawyers. Honourable justice Chandrachud and justice Shah understood plea of exservicemen  wanted to understand how veterans are getting affected with this Govt version of OROP. Gp CAPT Gandhi explained to Honourable justice that veterans have been denied firstly given less pension by one and half increment, second veterans have not been given full benefit of 7 CPC and thirdly they have been denied full benefit of delinking of 33 yr rule.
Honourable justice fully understood our problems and are favourable to our problems. Arguments are still incomplete and will be further argued on next Wednesday 1 May.

One Rank One Pension to all Pre-01.06.1953 Defence pensioners and their families: PCDA Circular No. 622

OFFICE OF THE PR. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)

DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014

Circular No. 622

Dated: 03.04.2019

To,
1. The Chief Accountant, RBI, Deptt. Of Govt, Bank Accounts, Central Office, C-7, Second Floor, Bandre- Kurla Complex, P B No. 8143, Bandre East Mumbai- 400051
2. CMDs, All Public Sector Banks.
3. The Nodal Officers, ICICI/HDFC/AXIS/IDBI Banks
4. All Managers, CPPCs
5. Military and Air Attache, Indian Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal
6. The PCDA (WC), Chandigarh
7. The CDA (PD), Meerut :
8. The CDA, Chennai
9. The Director of Treasuries, All States
10. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Delhi Administration, R K Puram; and Tis Hazari, New Delhi.
11. The Pay and Accounts Office, Govt of Maharashtra, Mumbai
12. The Post Master, Kathua (J&K); and Camp Bell Bay.
13. The Principal Pay and Accounts Officer, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair.

Subject:- Implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’ to all Pre-01.06.1953 Defence pensioners and their families.

Reference:- Gol, MoD letter No. 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Policy)-Part-ll dated 3rd Feb 2016 (Circular No. 555 dated 04.02.2016), Circular 557 dated 17.03.2016, Circular 580 dated 05.07.2017, Circular 581 dated 02.08.2017 and Circular 591 dated 13.11.2017.

Pension Disbursing Agencies (PDAs) are aware that as per this office Circular No. 555 dated 04.02.2016, pension of Armed Forces Personnel is to be revised w.e.f. 01.07.2014 by the PDAs as per tables attached with the circular.

2. In continuation of the same, the rates of ordinary family pension, Special Family Pension, 2nd life award of SFP, Liberalized Family Pension, 2nd life award of LFP, Disability/Liberalized disability element for 100% Disability, War Injury Element for 100% disability (Invalid out cases) meant for post -53 retirees JCOs/ORs of Regular Army of Group “Y” may be allowed to the families of pre-53 retirees under OROP scheme.

3. Further, cases where data is not available with PDAs, the same may be referred to PCDA(P) Allahabad for issue of Corr. PPOs.

4. In view of the above, this office Circular No. 591 dated 13.11.2017 stands cancelled in toto.

5. This Circular has been uploaded on this office website www.pcdapension.nic.in for dissemination of all concerned.
No. Gts/Tech/0167/XXX
Dated: 03.04.2019 

Sd/-

(Sushil Kumar Singh)

Addl. CDA (Pensions)

GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF X GROUP PAY

WHY PENSION UPDATION

 It is an accepted fact there is erosion of money value.The salaried class are badly affected by this phenomenon.In order to contain   this loss to a certain extent  due to depletion of money value Dearness Allowance is introduced.In the long run Dearness Allowance also become insufficient to safe guard money value & purchasing power due to unforeseen economic conditions, Pay revision is resorted to make up loss of money value & purchasing power beyond the ambit of dearness allowance .Now coming to the subject of pension, Supreme court has already  declared that Pension is not a bounty, it is differed wages for the services reentered & a right. Although Dearness allowance is given in pension also to make up the erosion of money value & purchasing power, but discriminated from salaried successors by denying pension updation during wage revision, even though pension is a differed wage as declared by Hon Supreme Court.Hence this is a case which comes under Article 226.

AN ARTICLE BY MBC MENON