Ex-servicemen take their battle for one rank, one pension to PM

If one rank one pension is not accepted by August 15 this year, ex-servicemen across the country will launch a protest movement, reports RS Chauhan Indian defence veterans, dismayed and appalled by the mistreatment given to them by the bureaucrats of the defence and finance ministries over issues of pension, have now written to the prime minister as a last resort and have threatened to intensify their four-year-old agitation.

The letter, written by Maj Gen (retd) Satbir Singh, vice chairman of the Indian Ex-servicemen Movement, points out that section officers (lower level bureaucrats) send routine replies without going into the details of the ex-servicemen's grievances over the issue of one rank one pension.
'The IESM governing body is compelled to decide that incase the OROP is not sanctioned by 15 Aug 2012, the protest movement across the country will be intensified. Sir, this decision though very painful has been forced on the defence veterans since concerted efforts for the last over four years have been nullified by the govt apathy towards the welfare of defence veterans,' Gen Satbir has said in his letter to the prime minister.
'We are deeply concerned at the way the welfare issues of defence personnel are being dealt with by the govt. Letters to the PM are written only when all efforts to get the issues resolved have not borne results. Mr Prime Minister sir, we wish to inform you that we have appealed to every possible authority including your good self a number of times on the issue. It seems that your staff does not even put up our letters to you since no reply is received which has your approval. Accounts officers/section officers send the routine bureaucratic reply which does not even mention that the PM has considered and the draft of the reply has his approval,' Gen Satbir Singh wrote on July 5.

The retired officer has told the prime minister that the Rajya Sabha Petition Committee had strongly recommended granting of OROP to retired men in uniform and placed it in the house on December 19, 2011. An action taken report was to be submitted within three months, Gen Satbir has told the prime minister, but nothing has moved.
OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the armed 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 past pensioners.

Gen Satbir has quoted the Rajya Sabha committee report to point out that it has not agreed with the infructuous arguments offered by the government to deny OROP to defense pensioners/family pensioners. 'The committee observed that the three reasons, ie, financial, administrative and legal, given by government to deny OROP are untenable and merely a smoke screen to deny the ex-servicemen their rightful dues. The committee felt that such injustice to the defence forces is only due to bureaucratic apathy,' the letter to the prime minister says.

The defence veteran has told the prime minister that the Rajya Sabha committee has noted that 'out of the total financial liability of Rs 1300 crores for the year 2011-12 in case OROP is implemented fully for all the defense personnel in the country, the liability for the commissioned officers would only be Rs 235 crores and remaining for JCOs and other ranks. The committee feels that Rs 1300 crores is not a very big amount for a country of our size and economy for meeting the long-pending demand of the armed forces of the country.'

Maj Gen Satbir Singh further writes: 'Sir, the defence veterans are getting restless due to total apathy and disregard being shown to them. It also adversely affects the serving defence fraternity since most of them have veteran kith and kin and the fact that they would also be veterans in due course of time... OROP is as just and fair demand which must be sanctioned immediately. This affects over two million defence veterans and over three lakh widows.'

Central D.A. from July'12 may rise by 7% again.

Central D.A. from July'12 may rise by 7% again.
Subject to AICIN data for the next two months remaining in the current level, the following assumption is being made.
The AICPIN data for April 12 has been recently published. It rises to 4 points and reached 205. We know that D.A. is calculated on the basis for 12 months average. To calculate the D.A. payable from 1st July 2012, we need the figures of May and June 2012 which are to be released on 30.06.12 and 31.07.12 respectively. If the data remains for the next two months in the same level, the hike will be 7%. If it marginally changes by thes months, the rise will be still 7% which will take the total D.A. to 72% - as at present no major rise is expected in this period - as per present trends.

RE-PENSION THROUGH PSU BANKS

• Reg: Payment of pension by Public sector Banks: As per Item 34, of the Reserve bank of India, Master Circular dated 01 July,2009 , the instructions are: "...agency banks to spread over the disbursal of pension during the period of last four working days of the month, except for the month of March,which will continue to be credited on or after the first working day of April"

LIC PENSIONERS CASE LATEST NEWS

---

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN SUPREME COURT

Posted: 02 Jun 2012 05:26 AM PDT

Special Leave Petition may come up before the Supreme Court bench

hearing the case on 16th July 2012.  Details awaited.

PRE 2006 CENTRAL PENSIONERS CASE LATEST NEWS

• No hearing could be held in Delhi High Court on 21-5-2012 - Reg Modified Parity to Pre-2006 Pensioners (since the turn of the case came up at the fag end of the day. The case was adjourned till after vacation and fixed on 17th July, 2012. (Ref: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SAG & ORS. – W.P (C) NO. 1535/2012)

ONE RANK ONE PEMSION LATEST NEWS

‘Pay anomalies concerning ex-servicemen sent to Def Min'

Last Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 19:56

 0 Tweet 

Tags: VK Singh, Jhajjar, Defence Ministry

Jhajjar: Army Chief General VK Singh on Wednesday said that the anomalies concerning the ex-servicemen which emerged after implementation of the sixth pay commission recommendations have been sent to the Defence Ministry for their quick redressal.

The issue of One Rank-One Pension is under consideration of the Government, General Singh said this addressing an ex-servicemen rally held at village Palda in this district.

General Singh said that the government is sensitive to the needs of the retired soldiers.

He said that it is the duty of the Army to take care of the dignity and welfare of ex-servicemen, war widows and their family members.

Recently, General Singh had addressed a gathering of ex-servicemen in Haryana's Gurgaon where he had said that after the sixth pay commission, 46 anomalies were discovered which were causing losses to the ex-servicemen and had been put before the government.

Addressing the rally here, General Singh said that ex-servicemen are the legacy of our country and the fame of the Indian Army is only because of their efforts.

He said that such rallies are being organised all over the country and the aim of such rallies is to redress their grievances and to take care of their health and meet their needs.

The General said that keeping in view the welfare and honour of ex-servicemen, war widows and their families, the year 2012 has been declared as the year of Ex-Servicemen Welfare.

He said that under this initiative, for the redressal of their grievances an ex-servicemen cell has been set up and it is headed by a retired brigadier level officer.

Now, the ex-servicemen could register their complaints on the tollfree number 1800-111-6644 of the cell, he said, adding, they could also enquire about the redressal by calling on the same number.

While visiting the stalls of Health Camp, Pension Adalat, Sena Kalyan Awas Sanstha, Sena Samuhik Bima Yojna organised at the venue of the rally, he said, ex-servicemen should take full advantage of these facilities.

Gen Singh also honoured the war widows during the rally.

PRE 2006 PENSIONERS COURT PROCEEDINS IN BRIEF

Note:  Union of India & Ors. vs. Central Government SAG & Ors. – W.P (C) No. 1535/2012

Brief:  Note of the proceedings before Court No. 3 (Division Bench) of the Delhi High Court on 04.05.2012

(Prepared by Adv Vasav Anantharaman for Sr Adv. Mrs. Minakshi Arora)

The above captioned petition was called out for hearing today. For the Petitioner, Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhioke appeared, while Senior Advcoate Mr. Nidhesh Gupta appeared for the Respondent.

Mr. Nidhesh Gupta made only one statement, in the initial absence of Mr. Chandhioke, wherein he stated that the clarificatory notification dated 03.10.2008 could not be held valid inter alia on the ground that such clarification was issued by a Junior officer, without any approval. It was further contended by Mr. Gupta, and appreciated by the Hon’ble Court, that such clarification, if required to be issued, could have been issued only by either the same authority who issued the first notification dated 01.09.2008, or someone of equivalent or higher authority.

At this juncture, Mr.A.S. Chandhioke appeared, and began his arguments.

Arguments on behalf of Mr. A.S. Chandhioke, Counsel for the Respondents :

1.     At the outset, Mr. Chandhioke stated that his arguments would be restricted to the OM’s issued prior to the clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 only i.e. he would addressing and interpreting only the Notification dated 29.08.2008, and subsequent OM’s dated 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008.

2.     Mr. Chandhioke underlined that two crucial dates to the Hon’ble Court for the purpose of the present petition, i.e. 31.12.2005, and 01.01.2006.

3.     As per 6^th Pay Commission, the concept of ‘Pay Scale’ was modified to the concept of ‘Pay Band’. As a result of the same, the pay was calculated as per the Pay Band, which was fixed, in addition to which a Pay Grade was provided. He submitted that there was no dispute between the parties as to the concept of ‘pay grade’.

4.     Mr. Chandhioke further emphasized that as a result of the cut-off date of 01.01.2006, two broad categories of persons were created i.e. persons who retired ‘Pre-2006’, and thus were only connected to the Government Dept. for the purpose of ‘pension’, and persons who continued ‘Post-2006’, and thus included people who remained employees.

5.     On the basis of the above, Mr. Chandhioke raised a query as to whether the two broad categories of people mentioned above, i.e. ‘Pre-2006’ and ‘Post-2006’, are at par?

6.     Mr. Chandhioke proceeded to lead to Hon’ble Court through the impugned judgment of the CAT para-wise.

7.     Re: Para 8,  9  - Mr. Chandhioke submitted that as per these paras, Pensionary benefits to pre-2006 and Post-2006 persons cannot be the same.

8.     Re: Para  12 – Mr. Chadhioke laid emphasis that at the CAT referred to ‘Clarificatory OMs’ (Plural), and thus referred to both OM’s dated 03.10.2008 as well as 14.10.2008.

9.     Re: Para 13 – Mr. Chandhioke submitted that as per recommendation and decision of the Govt., there is no dispute that the persons pre-2006 have been not been put on par with persons Post-2006. Mr. Chandhioke laid emphasis on the following sentence at  Para 13 which states - “This is consistent with the fitment ebenfit being allowed in case of the existing employees”.

10.                        Mr. Chandhioke further submitted that as per the recommendation, there had been an increase of 2.26 times in the pension of the Pre-2006 retirees.

11.                        Re: Para 13 – Mr. Chandhioke further submitted that as per S. No. 12 (stated at Para 13 of the impugned order of CAT), the phrase ‘The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower…’ indicated that first, the  pension was to be calculated as per the method of calculation provided for in the first half of S. No. 12, and if the amount arrived failed to equivalent or more than the amount calculated as per ‘50% sum of the minimum…’ method, only then would the second half of S. No. 12 come in consideration.

Mr. Chandiooke further submitted that Cl. 4.1 of the OM dated 01.09.2008  provided for method for fixation of pension. If pension, as calculated as per Cl. 4.1 + 2.26 times would be less than Rs. 37, 400 (provided in PB-4), then it shall be hiked to the minimum amount provided as per Cl. 4.2.

12.     Mr. Chandhioke proceeded to submit :

·        fixation of pay differs from fixation of pension.

·        By virtue of OM dated 14.10.2008, the minimum ‘Pay in the Pay band’ of the ‘existing employees’, as on 01.01.2006, , was fixed at Rs. 44, 700/-.

·        As per requirements in the impugned order of the CAT, the basic pay in the pay band, for the purpose of calculation of pension for Pre-2006 pensioners was also be taken as Rs. 44, 700/-.

13.     It was further submitted by Mr. Chandhioke that two different classes of pensioners were created by the two OM’s dated 01.09.2008 and 02.09.2008 respectively, and the same was upheld in the impugned order by the CAT.

14.     Mr. Chandhioke proceeded to make the following submission : A ‘higher pay’  can be fixed for an existing employee vis-à-vis a retired employee, by virtue of that fact that he is an existing employee on the date, and actively working for the employer, and that such fixation of a higher pay for the existing employee has no bearing or effect on those employees who have already retired.

15.     At this juncture, the Hon’ble Court made an observation that fixation of the pay of an existing employee, Post-2006 in the present case, may have an effect on the pension of a person who has retired Post-2006.

16.     Re:  Para 16 – Mr. Chandhioke pointed out that the observation of the CAT that “The use of the words ‘sum of’, ‘and’ and ‘thereon’ leaves no doubt that both minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay have to correspond to the pre-revised pay scale.” was incorrect.

          The Hon’ble Court agreed with Mr. Chandhioke, and noted that the above sentence did not make sense, and was incorrect.

17.     The Hon’ble Court proceeded to note that the case of the Pre-2006 retirees is that the pension should be calculated using the formula – 50% of (44, 700 + 10, 000), and not 50% of (37, 400+10000).

18.     Mr.Chandhioke pointed that the amount of Rs. 44, 700 was ‘Pay fixed’ within the pay band. He further submitted that if the pension for the Pre-2006 retirees was granted as per the prayer as noted by the Hon’ble Court, then as an effect, a person who retires after 01.01.2006 will not get the pension as per the formula of  50% (44, 700+10000), and instead his pension shall be calculated as per 50% of (37, 400+10000).

19.      The Hon’ble Court posed the question as to whether an increase of pay to Rs 44, 700 within the pay band would result effectively in modifying the basic pay band itself, i.e. 37, 900 – 67000?

20.     Mr. Chandhioke proceeded to conclude by placing the following submissions:

·        Fixation of pay to existing employees cannot change or affect the pensionary benefits available to retired employees.

·        That as per the resolution, fitment benefit has been given at par with existing employees, and thus parity has been achieved.

·        That there is a difference between ‘Pay band’ and ‘fixation of pay’ (being the amount of Rs. 44, 700).

21.     The Hon’ble Court raised the following issue for determination – What will be the minimum pay in the pay band i.e. whether it shall be the starting/minimum amount stated in the Pay Band (i.e. Rs. 37, 400), or whether it shall be the minimum pay ‘fixed’ within the pay band (i.e. Rs. 44, 700)?

22.     The Hon’ble Court fixed the next date of hearing for 07.05.2012, and stated that the statement of the counsel for the Respondent in order dated 19.03.2012 that they shall not be pressing the contempt application before the Tribunal till the next date of hearing shall continue to remain in effect.

Note: - Union of India and Anr vs. Central Government SAG and Ors. – Proceedings dated 07.05.2012

Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Senior Advocate, commenced his arguments for the Respondent, and submitted the following points: -

1.    Mr. Gupta stated that he had two broad submissions:

a.    Reading of the 6^th Pay Commission Recommendation, as accepted by the Central Government, would show that the order of the CAT is correct.

b.    Supreme Court has held in various cases that classification based on “Pre-Post Date of Retirement” is bad in law.

2.    Mr. Gupta submitted that only ‘modified parity’ was sought by the pre-2006 pensioners, and not absolute parity.

3.    Mr. Gupta submitted that  Post-2006 ‘Serving’ employees will benefit and get much more after implementation of the CAT order, and that it does not affect them adversely.

4.    With reference to the notification dated 29.08.2008 and page 121 of the Paper-book, Mr. Gupta submitted to the Court that as per the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission, the pay-band recommended for S-24 was 15, 600-39, 100. However, the Central Government placed S-24 in the band (37, 400 – 67000).

5.    Mr. Gupta submitted that only with reference to S-28 and S-29, the Pay Commission had recommended ‘More than 37, 400-67000), but the Central Government placed S-28 and S-29 in the band (37, 400-67000).

6.    Thus, by the above submission, Mr. Gupta sought to show the Court that S-28 and S-29 were clearly prejudiced and were placed in a category lower than that which was recommended, whereas the Post/Grades below S-29, (S-24 onwards) have been upgraded, and given more than that which was recommended.

7.    Mr. Gupta proceeded to show the Hon’ble Court that the terms used in Para 5.1.47 of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 were “…shall in not case be lower than 50% of the sum  of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.”

8.    Mr. Gupta proceeded to emphasize that the term “Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band” is not the same as “Minimum of the Pay Band” , as was the effect of the clarificatory notification struck down by CAT.

9.    Mr. Gupta stated that the term “Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band… corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the Pensioners had retired” would necessarily mean the ‘Minimum Pay’ given in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 44, 700/-, and thus the pre-2006 pensioners would be entitled to use Rs. 44, 700/- in the formula for calculation of pension provided.  Mr. Gupta submitted that this would form ‘modified parity’, as defined by the Pay Commission, as a post-2006 person continuing after 01.01.2006, would in any case be entitled to a minimum pay of Rs. 44, 700/-, and if and when he/she would retire, his/her pension would be calculated on the pay last drawn by him, which shall necessarily be equal to or more than Rs. 44, 700/-. Thus, the parity achieved would be ‘modified parity’.

10. Mr. Gupta submitted that even the Govt. realized that the interpretation of OM dated 01.09.2008 will lead to the above interpretation, and thus issued the ‘clarificatory OM’, to rectify their mistake.

11. Mr. Gupta bolstered the above argument by stating that the Pay Commission  had never recommended ’37, 400’ for S-29 level, and had instead recommended ’39, 200’ in the first place.

12. Mr. Gupta argued that the term “Minimum Pay in the pay band” would correspond to Rs. 44, 700/- and the same thus must be used in the formula provided.

13. Mr. Gupta referred to the submission of Mr. Chandhioke that the OM was pertaining to ‘Fixation of Pay’ and not ‘Fixation of Pension’. Mr. Gupta rebutted the above submission by stating that the fixation of Pension for even Pre-2006 pensioners has been worked out on the basis of the same OM pertaining to ‘Revision of Pay’, and thus it was applicable to Pre-2006 pensioners as well.

14. The Hon’ble Court, before adjourning the matter to the next date of hearing, observed that the word ‘corresponding” as used in 5.1.47 of the notification dated 29.08.2008 and 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 were only used to determine the pre-revised scale, and not the ‘pay’ in that pre-revised pay scale.

15. The Hon’ble Court ordered that the contempt application of the Respondent before the CAT shall remain as not pressed till further orders.

16. Mr. Nidesh Gupta shall continue his submissions on 21.05.2012.