JUDGEMENT BY CAT ERNAKULAM IN PRE-20006 PENSIONERS CASE

                CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

                           ERNAKULAM BENCH

                              O.A.No.747/11

                 Monday this the 23rd day of January 2012

C O R A M :

HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

P.K.Bhargavan Pillai,

S/o.late K.Krishna Pillai,

Retd. Administrative Officer Grade I,

Indian Space Research Organisation.

Residing at Daiveekom, Manjapra PO,

Ernakulam - 683 581.                                          ...Applicant

(By Advocate Mr.M.R.Hariraj)

                                V e r s u s

1.    Union of India represented by the Secretary

      to Government of India,

      Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,

      Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare,

      Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 003.

2.    Pay and Accounts Officer,

      Central Pension Accounting Office,

      Trikoot - 2, Bhikaji Cama Place,

      New Delhi - 110 066.

3.    The Controller,

      Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre,

      Indian Space Research Organisation,

      Valiamala PO, Thiruvananthapuram - 659 547.

4.    Manager,

      State Bank of Travancore,

      Angamaly Branch, Kallookaran Towers,

      Angamaly - 683 572.                                 ...Respondents

(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC [R1-3])

      This application having been heard on 17th January 2012 this

Tribunal on 23rd January 2012 delivered the following :-

                               O R D E R

HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      The applicant is a pre 2006 retiree and was earlier afforded pension

on the basis of order F No.38/27/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 vide

Annexure A-1. As per the said order, pension would in no case be lower

than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay

corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had

retired. The applicant, before his superannuation, was drawing his pay in

the scale of Rs.8,000 - 13,500, the corresponding revised pay being

Rs.15,600 - 39,100 plus grade pay of Rs 5,400/-. The extent of pension

he was drawing was Rs.10,500/- (being half of minimum pay of Rs 15,600

plus half of grade pay of Rs 5,400/-).  Arrears of pension on the basis of

the above calculation were also released to the applicant.      While so,

Revised Pension Order dated 27.1.2011 vide Annexure A-2 (one of the

impugned orders) was issued to the applicant whereby, his pension was

reduced to Rs 8,277/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006.     This led to issue of revision

authority dated 9.2.2011, vide Annexure A-3 (impugned herein). Faced

with such a drastic truncation of his pension, the applicant     moved a

representation dated 10.6.2011 vide Annexure A-4. In this representation,

he had stated that the pension under no circumstances shall be less than

half the minimum in the pay scale and the grade pay attached to the pay

scale for the post he was holding prior to his superannuation.        The

applicant thus requested for proper fixation in accordance with paras

4.1/4.2 of Annexure A-1 order. The respondents, however, continued to

pay the applicant the reduced pension of Rs.8277/- and in addition

recovery of Rs.2945/- had also been effected by the 4th respondent, as

could be seen from Annexure A-5 print out of the pension register. The

applicant has, therefore, moved this O.A seeking the following reliefs :-

       1.     To declare that the Central Civil Service (Pension)

       Amendment Rules, 2011 is discriminatory, arbitrary and ultra

       vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the

       extend it refuses to apply the liberalized principles of

       computing pension to pensioners who retired before 1.1.2006

       and that it is void to that extend.

       2.     To call for the records leading to issuance of Annexure

       A-2, Annexure A-3, O.M.No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated

       2.9.2008 and 10.12.2009 and to quash the same to the extend

       it refuses to apply the liberalized principles of computing

       pension to pensioners who retired before 1.1.2006.

       3.     To direct the respondents to compute the revised

       pension of the applicant at 50% of his emoluments or average

       emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, and to draw

       and disburse such revised pension to the applicant with all

       consequential benefits including arrears and arrears of

       pension and pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of

       12% per annum.

       4.     Alternatively, to direct the respondents to pay the

       applicant minimum basic pension of Rs.10500/- which is 50%

       of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding

       to the pre-revised pay scale from which the applicant retired.

       5.     To call for the records leading to recovery from pension

       of the applicant and quash the same.

       6.     To direct the respondents to refund the applicant any

       recovery already made from his pension.

2.     The respondents have contested the O.A. They have contended

that the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions had given a

clarification vide O.M dated 3.10.2008 on fixation of pension/family pension

of the pre 2006 retirees vide Annexure R-2. According to the same, para

4.2 of the O.M dated 1.9.2008 has been modified to the extent that the

pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the

maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 1.1.2006 subject to a ceiling of

minimum of Rs.3500/- per month.         The Ministry had issued revised

guidelines vide Annexure R-3 stating that wherever the pension is

disbursed through public sector banks, the banks will pay and disburse the

pension and arrears in accordance with the ready reckoner and also the

additional pension to the old pensioners. A revised concordance table in

respect of pre 1996, pre 2006 and post 2006 pay scales/pay bands were

also provided to facilitate payment of revised pension in terms of para 4.2

of O.M dated 1.9.2008.       The responsibility to revise and disburse the

enhanced pension and arrears in terms of para 4.2 of the O.M dated

1.9.2008 was vested with the pension disbursing public sector banks

concerned. In so far as earlier payment of pension without truncation, the

respondents have stated that the 4th respondent bank might have

implemented the instructions contained in the O.M dated 1.9.2008 on its

own without looking into the subsequent clarifications issued by the

Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare with regard to the revision

of pension of pre 2006 pensioners. As uniformity had not been maintained

in calculation or disbursement of pension, the Department of Space vide

communication dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure R-4) and letter dated 6.1.2010

(Annexure R-5) requested its constituent centres to have speedy action for

payment of pension, arrears etc. to pre 2006 retirees by liaising with public

sector banks concerned. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent worked out the

revised entitlement to pension of the applicant which came to be Rs.8277/-

and the same was communicated to the 2nd respondent, namely, Central

Pension Accounting Office (CPAO), New Delhi, vide Annexure R-6 letter

dated 27.1.2011.

3.   The respondents have also stated in para 11 as under :-

     "11. As regards para 4.12 of the O.A., it is submitted that the

     Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare had issued a

     revised concordance table of the pre 1996, pre 2006 and post

     2006 pay scales/pay bands along with its OM dated

     14.10.2008    in  order to     facilitate payment of revised

     pension/family pension in terms of para 4.2 of the OM dated

     1.9.2008 (as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008) in all cases

     where fixation of pension under that provision is more

     beneficial. Note 1 appended below the said concordance table

     clearly provides that 'the revised pension of those who retired

     after completing maximum required qualifying service (ie.33

     years) before 1.1.2006 cannot be less than the pension

     indicated in column 8 above (ie. 50% of the sum of minimum of

     pay band and grade pay/scale corresponding to the scale of

     pay the pensioners held at the time of their retirement). The

     pension in col.8 above will be reduced pro-rata, where the

     pensioner had less than the maximum required qualifying

     service (ie. 33 years) for full pension as per Rule 49 of the

     CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 1.1.2006 and in

     no case it will be less than 3500/- p.m. In case, the pension

     consolidated as per para 4.1 of above OM is higher than the

     pension calculated in the manner above, the same (higher

     pension) will be treated as basic pension'.      Obviously, the

     applicant who is a pre 2006 retiree, is ipso facto ineligible for

     revised pension at the rate of 50% of the minimum of the pay

     in the band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre revised

     pay scale from which he retired, since he doesn't have the

     maximum required qualifying service of 33 years for full

     pension as per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As

     such, the contentions of the applicant that his pension ought

     not be below 50% of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus

     grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from

     which he retired in view of the fact that the qualifying service

     for full pension had been reduced to 20 years instead of 33

     years and liberalized principles of pension cannot be refused

     to the past pensioners, etc., are not borne out of facts and the

     same may kindly be rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

4.     The respondents have also reiterated that as per the Memorandum

issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, fixation of

pension and payment of arrears in respect of pre 2006 retirees is a

responsibility of the pension disbursing authority including public sector

banks.

5.     Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the error committed by

the respondents in reducing the payment of pension has been fully

appreciated by the Tribunal.      In its full Full Bench judgment dated

1.11.2011 in O.A.No.0655 of 2010 and connected O.As the Tribunal has

dealt inextenso the extent of pension admissible to pre 2006 retirees. Para

2 onwards of the said order of the Full Bench reads as under :-

        "2.    Applicants, who are pre-2006 retirees, are claiming

        pension at par with post-2006 retirees based on the

        recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission, which

        became effective from 1.1.2006. Considering that the issues

        involved have great ramifications and in the meanwhile Bombay

        Bench and Patna Bench of the Tribunal rendered judgment(s)

        against their cause., the matter was referred to the Full Bench

        vide order dated 29.04.2011. The grievance projected by the

        applicants in these OAs are that the employees, who retired

        prior to 1.1.2006 (specified date) and those who retried

        thereafter form one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify

        them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of

        pensionary benefits was not found on intelligible differentia,

        which has a rationale nexus with the object sought to be

        achieved.   To substantiate this argument reliance has been

        placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.S.

        Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 and

        Union of India v. S.P.S. Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125. The further

        grievance raised by the applicants is that their notional pay

        fixation and consequent pension should not be lower than 50%

        of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the

        grade pay thereon corresponding to scale of pay from which

        they had retired, as accepted by the Government vide

        resolution dated 29.08.2008 and the clarification issued by the

respondents    vide impugned       OM     dated    3.10.2008  and

14.10.2008 contrary to the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and

OM dated 1.9.2008 in regard para 4.2, are illegal, arbitrary,

discriminatory, unreasonable and unjust, as according to the

applicants in the clarification/modification order dated 3.10.2008

respondents had added and deleted certain words, which

completely changed its meaning as per the recommendations

of the Commission as accepted by the Government. In other

words, the grievances raised by the applicants are that the

respondents have not revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees

even as per the modified parity/formula recommended by the

Pay Commission and adopted by the Government vide

resolution dated 29.08.2008. It may be stated that challenge

has been made only to the aforesaid issues though the

additional points raised by the applicants in OA-2087/2009 and

2101/2011 have not been pressed by the learned counsel for

the applicants.

3.     In order to decide the aforesaid issue, few relevant facts

may be noticed.      The Government of India constituted VI

Central Pay Commission (VI CPC) on 05.10.2006, inter alia, to

examine the principles which should govern the structure of

pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension and

other terminal or recurring benefits having financial implications

to the present and former Central Government employees

appointed before 1.1.2004. The report was submitted by the

Commission on 24.03.2008.         The Pay Commission made

separate recommendations for revision of pension of the past

pensioners and for determination of pension of those retiring

after implementation of its recommendations.          In regard to

determination of pension of those retiring after implementation

of its recommendations, the Commission recommended linkage

of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be

dispensed with.     Once an employee renders the minimum

pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50%

of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months

or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the

retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding

years of qualifying service for purposes of computing

pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no

longer be relevant. However, regarding revision of pension of

past pensioners the Commission made recommendations as

per para 5.1.47 of the report which recommendation of the

Commissioner was accepted by the Government with certain

modifications to which we will advert at a later stage. Thus, this

modified formula formed basis for revision of the pension of the

pre-2006 retirees, as adopted by resolution dated 29.08.2008,

which according to applicants has not even been followed by

the respondents in its true letter and spirit. Since the VI CPC

has made separate recommendations for pre-2006 retirees and

post-2006 retirees as such the Government issued two different

OMs based upon the recommendations of the Central Pay

Commission, i.e., one regarding revision of pension of past

pensioners and second regarding post-2006 retirees. It is in the

light of the aforesaid factual aspects the matter is required to be

examined."

After threadbare analysis of the entire issue, the Full Bench had

arrived at the following decision:-

"12. Now let us advert to last grievance raised by the

applicants viz. that even if the modified parity, as recommended

by the Pay Commission and accepted by the resolution dated

29.08.2008 is to be taken as criteria for determining pension of

pre-2006 retirees, still on account of subsequent clarification

issued to para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 by the officers of

the respondents vide OM dated 3.10.2008 and             14.10.2008

criteria and principles for determining the pension has been

given a complete go-bye. Thus, these clarificatory OMs are

illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust and are

required to be quashed and set aside. At this stage, we wish to

mention that this issue was not raised and considered by the

Patna and Bombay Benches of the Tribunal, as such no finding

on this aspect was given. However, in paras 66 and 67 of the

judgment Patna Bench has given a direction that the

Government should examine this aspect of S-29 pay scales

retirees being able to retire at the maximum of the pay band 4

pay scale with the grade pay of Rs.10,000/- which would bring

their pension to Rs.38,500/-.        Suffice it to say that the

observation made by the Patna Bench was given without taking

into consideration the modified parity as recommended by the

Pay Commission and accepted by the Central Government vide

its resolution dated 29.08.2008, which formed the basis to grant

pension to pre-2006 retirees.

13.    In order to determine the issue, at this stage, it will be

useful to quote item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-

P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the

VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47, was accepted with certain

modifications and thus reads :-

 S.No.              Recommendation                       Decision of

                                                         Government

         "All past pensioners should be allowed Accepted         with    the

         fitment benefit equal to 40% of the       modification that fixation

         pension excluding the effect of merger    of pension shall be based

         of 50% dearness allowance/dearness        on a multiplication factor

         relief  as   pension    (in  respect    ofof 1.86, i.e basic pension

         pensioners retiring on or after </2004)

         and    dearness    pension    (for  other +    Dearness     Pension

         pensioners) respectively. The increase    (wherever applicable) +

         will be allowed by subsuming the effect   dearness relief of 24% as

         of conversion of 50% of dearness          on 1.1.2006, instead of

         relief/dearness allowance as dearness     1.74

         pension/dearness pay. Consequently,

         dearness relief at the rate of 74% on

         pension     (excluding   the   effect   of

         merger) has been taken for the

         purposes of computing revised pension

         as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with

         the fitment benefit being allowed in

         case of the existing employees. The

         fixation of pension will be subject to the

         provision that the revised pension, in

         no case, shall be lower than fifty

         percent of the sum of the minimum of

         the pay in the pay band and the grade

         pay thereon corresponding to the pre

         revised pay scale from which the

     12 pensioner had retired. (5.1.47)

Based on this resolution, respondents issued OM of even

number dated 1.9.2008. Para-4.2 whereof, which is relevant

for the purpose, reads as follows :

      "The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision

      that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than

      fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band

      plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay

      scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of

      HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the

      minimum of the revised pay scale."

14.   On the basis of the recommendations made by VI CPC,

which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it has been

argued that principle for determining the pension has been

completely altered under the garb of clarification. According to

the learned counsel for the applicants on the basis of the

aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-

2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of

the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay

scale from which the pensioner had retired.

15.    Applicants in para-11 of the Additional-Affidavit have

explained how the Note prepared by a junior functionary (at the

level of an Under Secretary) in the Department of Pension &

Pensioners Welfare in regard to para-4.2 of the OM dated

1.9.2008 has been given a go-by to the resolution dated

29.08.2008. The Note so prepared has been extracted in this

para, which thus reads :

       "Whether the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum

       pay in the pay band would be calculated (i) at the

       minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the

       pre-revised   scale    of  pay)   plus  the   grade   pay

       corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, or (ii) at the

       minimum of pay pay in the pay band which an employee

       in the pre-revised scale of pay will be getting as per the

       fitment tables at Annex I of the CCS (Revised Pay)

       Rules, 2008 plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-

       revised pay scales."

16.    It is pleaded that first the need for such a doubt

being raised is not clear as both the formulation of the CPC in

para 5.1.47 as well as in Government Resolution dated

29.8.2008 (Annexure A-7 of the OA) is clear that "the fixation

of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised

pension in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum

of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the

grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale

from which the pensioner had retired." (emphasis added).

The use of words `sum of', `and' and `thereon' leaves no doubt

that both the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade

pay have to correspond to the pre-revised pay scale.

Second, without bringing out merits or demerits of either

formulation, the lower functionary in DOP & PW incorporates

in the clarification against item 4.2 in the OM dated 1.9.2008,

the first option about "minimum of pay in the pay band

(irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay)". What is worse

is that there is no application of mind even at the level of

Director and Secretary who merely sign the note and the

clarification is issued after obtaining finance concurrence and

approval of MOS (PP), without going back to the Cabinet for

such a modification.

17.    The learned counsel has further argued that the resultant

injustice done to the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners had even been

recognized by MOS (F) and MOS (PP) in their letters to the

PM and MOS (F) respectively, copies of which are at

Annexures      A-11 (page 169) and A-12 (page 170) of the OA.

A formal proposal was also sent by DOP & PW to Department

of Expenditure seeking rectification but was not accepted

 by the latter.    It was also incorrectly mentioned that the

 earlier provision in para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 has been

 issued in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet granted

 to the Report of the Sixth CPC and any change would entail

 substantial financial implications and this was done only

 with the approval of the Secretary (Expenditure) without putting

 up the note to MOS (F) who had himself supported the

 change. A copy of this Note dated 2.1.2009 is enclosed as

 Annexure 5.

 18.   As regards the grievance to OM dated 14.10.2008 based

 on the OM dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified by OM dated 3.10.2008)

 whereby a revised table (Annexure A-1) of the pre-2006

 pensioners pay scale/pay was finalized to facilitate payment of

 the revised pension/family pension, applicants have prepared a

 chart in respect of minimum of the pre-revised scales (modified

 parity) of S 29 along with 5 scales included in PB-4 works out

 as under and thus reads :

 Min of     Pay in the   Grade Pay       Revised      Pension 50%

   Pre      Pay Band                     Basic Pay      of (2+3)

 revised                                   (2+3)          Rs.

  scale                                     Rs.

        1             2             3               4             5

S-24

(14300)          37400           8700          46100          23050

S-25

(15100           39690           8700          48390          24195

S-26

(16400)          39690           8900          48590          24295

S-27

(16400)          39690           8900          48590          24295

S-28

(14300)          37400          10000          47400          23700

   S-29

(18400)          44700          10000          54700          27350

       The first 4 columns of the above table have been

 extracted from the pay fixation annexed with MOF OM of 30th

 August 2008 (referred to in para 4.5 (iii) above).     Revised

 pension of S 29 works out to Rs.27350 which has been

 reduced to Rs.23700 as per DOP OM of 3-10-2008 (para 4.8

 (B) below).

It was explained during arguments that pay in the Pay Band

indicated in column No.2 above table relates to the pay in the

revised pay scale corresponding to the minimum pay in the pre-

revised pay scale.

19.    On the basis of this chart it has been pleaded that as per

the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers

the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14300/- is

shown as 37400. In addition, Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- was

given totaling Rs.46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all

the other pay scales were accepted by the aforementioned OM

dated 14th October, 2008.       The illegality which has been

perpetrated in the present matter is apparent from the fact that

whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and

receiving a pay of Rs.14,300/- would now receive Rs.37,400/-

plus grade pay of Rs.8700 and his             full pension would

accordingly be fixed at Rs.23050 (i.e. 50% of 37400 pay plus

grade pay Rs.8700) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC

recommendations after 1.1.2006, whereas a person belonging

to the Applicant Association, who was drawing a pay of

Rs.18,400/- or even Rs.22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-

revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23700/-

(i.e. 50% of pay of Rs.37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs.10000).

However, the misinterpreted revised basic pay of Rs.37400 has

caused a grave miscarriage of justice since those officers who

belong to a much higher grade have now been equated with

those who were working under them in a lower rank/grade. It is

further relevant to note that those officers belonging to S-29

who would retired after 1.1.2006 would, however, be placed in

the revised pay scale differently. For instance, a person who

was in the pre-revised pay scale of 18000-22400 (S29) at

Rs.18,400/- would now get Rs.44,700/- in addition to Grade

Pay of Rs.10,000/- i.e. the revised basic pay of Rs.61,850/-.

However, a person who retired only one day prior i.e. on 31st

December 2005, even if he had received pre-revised pay of

Rs.22400/- would now be placed in the revised pay of

Rs.37400/- only in addition to the Grade Pay of Rs.10,000.

Thus the illegality which has been committed in the present

matter also relates to equating the pre-revised pay scale of

Rs.18,400-22,400/-     with  the     pre-revised  pay   scale  of

Rs.14,300-18,300/-.

20.    In order to buttress the aforesaid submission applicants

have given specific instance of an officer in para-6 of the

Additional Affidavit who retired at a higher pay on 31.12.2005

getting a much higher pension at that time than another officer

who retired only 5 days later, i.e., on 5.1.2006 at a lower pay.

After implementing the VI CPC recommendations, as illegally

modified by the Department of Personnel, the result is that the

concerned person who retired on 31.12.2005 is getting far

lower pension than the person who retired 5 days later. A copy

of the said chart amplifying the above position has also been

reproduced, which is to the following effect :

    Name          Ashok         K.             R.K. Goel

                  Ghosh

  Department        Railways             Heavy Water Board

Scale of Pay       18400-500-           18400-500-22400

                   22400

Date           of 31.12.2005            05.01.2006   i.e.

Retirement                              only 5 days

Last      Pay     Rs.22900       (incl.        Rs.21400

Drawn             one     Stagnation

                  increment)

 Average       10 Rs.34350              Rs.31737.50       or

 months                                 31738

 Emoluments

 incl.  Dearness

 Pay

Original Pension Rs.17175              Rs.15869

fixed

Revised Pension       Rs.2587(i.e.      Rs.29435

Fixed   after  6th  Rs.22900x2.26)

CPC                         2

implementation

21.   Applicants have also explained as to how the disparity

has resulted on account of implementation/acceptance of

VI CPC recommendations by the Government vide resolution

dated 29.08.2008.      As can be seen from the clarificatory

order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure A-6 at pages 139-147)

regarding pay scale of S-24 to S-29, the pay scales of the

V CPC of Rs.14300-18300 in respect of S-24 employees,

the VI CPC has placed them in Pay Band-3 and recommended

the Pay Band of Rs15,600-39100/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.7600

per month.     However, the Government has upgraded the

said S-24 category to Pay Band 4 and placed them in the pay

Band of Rs.37,400-67,000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-

per month.      It is, therefore, absolutely clear that the

Government authorities have increased the pay of S-24

employees by far more than double. Further, it is very relevant

to note that the said impact would be not only on the retired

S-24 officers but also on the large base of serving employees.

Similarly, the same is the position with regard to S-25, S-26

and S-27 all of whom were recommended by the Sixth

Pay Commission to be in the pay band of Rs.15,600-39,100/-

but were placed by the Government in the pay band of

Rs.37,400-67,000/-. Similarly in the case of employees who

were placed in S-29 pay scale they were recommended

Pay Band of Rs.39,200-67000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.9,000/-

per month by the VI CPC, whereas the Government has

revised pay structure to Rs.37,400-67000/- plus Grade Pay of

Rs.10,000/- per month. This has resulted in the anomaly which

is essentially to be rectified.

22.    It is submitted that the applicants are in the category

of retired employees and are a diminishing category.

In contrast, the serving employees of S-29 category are being

given the benefits of the recommendations of the VI CPC.

Further, as explained earlier, the benefits available in S-24

to S-27 grade are available not only to retired employees but

also to the large base of serving employees. The financial

effect of the same is many-many times that of the small

additional expenditure which will be incurred on account of the

benefits sought by the Applicants. Therefore, the argument

sought to be raised by the Union of India during the course of

hearing regarding the so-called financial impact has no factual

basis at all.

23.    Thus,    according    to the   applicants   the  aforesaid

disparity, which has been caused on account of granting

enhanced scales in S-24 to S-27 grade contrary to the

recommendations of the VI CPC and further reducing the

scales recommended by the Pay Commission in respect of

S-29 grade to be at par with the employees who were placed in

S-24 to S-27 grade is required to be set right. According to the

learned counsel of applicants even if the cut off date of

1.1.2006 for revision of the pay scale and grant of pensionary

benefits on the basis of VI CPC is to be upheld, even then the

applicants are entitled to relief based upon the Resolution

dated 29.08.2008 whereby the recommendations of the Pay

Commission was accepted and on account of disparity, which

has resulted in granting different pay scales, as recommended

by the VI CPC, which has caused prejudice to the applicants

and thus has to be set right.

24.    The stand taken by the respondents is that the

recommendations of the VI CPC, as accepted by the

Government vide Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and further

clarification issued by the respondents is in consonance with

the recommendations so accepted. It is stated that there may

be a slight change in the word used in the clarification issued

by the Government subsequently but has the same meaning as

in the latter part of para 5.1.47 of the report of the VI CPC as

accepted by Government. The phrase "minimum of the pay in

the Pay Band" has been used and this phrase carries the same

meaning i.e., the pay from which a pay band starts. It is stated

   that the clarification on OM dated 3.10.2008 was issued

   after due exercise in Department of Pension and Pensioners

   Welfare and Ministry of Finance and with the approval of the

   Hon'ble Minister of State.       It is further stated that VI CPC

   has not made any recommendation for complete parity

   between      the   pre-1996    and     post-1-1-1996   pensioners.

   Therefore, question of allowing complete parity between pre-

   1996 and post 1.1.1996 pensioners would not arise. It is stated

   that the OM dated 1.9.2008 has been further clarified on

   3.10.2008 that pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of

   the pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at

   the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-

   revised sale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the

   pre-revised pay scale.

   25.     In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage,

   it will be useful to extract the relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of

   the VI CPC recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution

   dated 29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and

   subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification dated

   3.10.2008, which thus read :

Resolution            Para   4.2    of   OM OM DOP&PW OM No.

No.38/37/8-P&PW DOP&PW OM No. No.38/37/8-P&PW(A)

(A)            dated No.38/37/8-P&PW          dated 3.10.2008

29.08.2008-Para       (A) dated 1.09.2008

5.1.47 (page 154- (page 38 of OA)

155)

The fixation as The fixation as per The                 Pension

per above will be above       will   be Calculated at 50% of

subject   to   the subject      to   the the    [sum    of   the]

provision    "that provision "that the minimum of the pay

the       revised revised pension, in in the pay band [and

pension,   in   no no case, shall be the          grade      pay

case,   shall   be  lower than 50% of    thereon

lower than 50% of   the(sum     of  the) corresponding to the

the sum of the      minimum of the pay   pre-revised         pay

minimum of the      in the pay band      scale]    plus    grade

pay in the pay      plus    (and)    the pay       would      be

band    and    the  grade pay (thereon)  calculated (i) at the

grade          pay  corresponding     to minimum of the pay

thereon             the prerevised pay   in    the   pay   band

corresponding to    scale from which     (irrespective of the

the     prerevised  the pensioner had    pre-revised scale of

pay scale form      retired.             pay plus) the grade

which          the                       pay     corresponding

pensioner      had                       to    the  pre-revised

retired.                                 pay     scale.      For

                                         example,        if    a

                                         pensioner           had

                                         retired in the pre-

                                         revised scale of pay

                                         of    Rs.18400-22400,

                                         the     corresponding

                                         pay     band      being

                                         Rs.37400-67000 and

                                         the     corresponding

                                         grade     pay     being

                                         Rs.10000 p.m., his

                                         minimum guaranteed

                                         pension would be

                                         50%                  of

                                         Rs.37400+Rs.10000

                                         (i.e. Rs.23700)

                   Strike out are        Strike    out    are

                   deletions     and     deletions        and

                   bold        letter    bold          letters

                   addition              addition.

   26.   As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution

   dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by

   the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised

   pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of

   the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the

   grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale

   held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as

per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum

of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay

thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the

pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the

words "sum of the" "and grade pay thereon corresponding to

the pre-revised pay scale" and adding "irrespective of the pre-

revised scale of pay plus" implying that the revised pension is

to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has

substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by

the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations

made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to

the applicants.    According to us, such a course was not

available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of

clarification thereby altering the recommendations given by the

VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government. According to

us, deletion of the words "sum of the" "and grade pay thereon

corresponding to the pre-revised scale" "and addition of the

words "irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus", as

introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide

OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment to the

resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the

recommendations of the VI CPC as also the OM dated

1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the

aforesaid resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet.

Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of

the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own

level without referring the matter to the Cabinet.

27.    We also wish to add that the Pay Commissions are

concerned with the revision of the pre-revised `pay scales' and

also that in terms of Rule 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

the pension of retirees has to be fixed on the basis of the

average emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement.

Thus, the pre-revised scale from which a person has retired

and the emoluments which he was drawing at the time

immediately     preceding    his   retirement  are    a    relevant

consideration for the purpose of computing revised pension and

cannot be ignored. As such, it was not permissible for the

respondents to ignore the pre-revised scale of pay for the

purpose of computing revised pension as per the modified

parity in the garb of issuing the clarifications, thereby altering

the modified parity/formula, which was accepted by the Central

Government vide its resolution dated 29.08.2008.

28.    The above view is also fortified by paras 137.15, 137.20

and 137.21 of the V CPC recommendations, as reproduced

below, leading to modified parity, which were also accepted by

the VI CPC and accepted by the Central Government and thus

read:

"Immediate relief to pensioners

137.15       While the work relating to revision of pension of pre

1.1.1986 retires by notional fixation of their pay shall have to be

undertaken by the pension sanctioning authorities to be

completed in a time-bound manner, we suggest that the

pensioners should be provided some relief immediately on

implementation of our recommendations.              The pension

disbursing authorities may be authorized to consolidate the

pension by adding (a) basic pension; (b) personal pension,

wherever admissible; (c) dearness relief as on 1.1.1996 on

basic pension only; (d) Interim Relief (I and II) and (e) 20% of

basic pension. The consolidated pension shall be not less than

50% of the minimum pay, as revised by the Fifth CPC, of the

post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. This may

be stepped up by the pension disbursing authorities, wherever

feasible, to the level of 50% of the minimum pay of the post

held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. (emphasis

supplied)

xxx   xxx    xxx   xxx   xxx

Modified parity conceded

137.20       We have given our careful consideration to the

suggestions. While we do not find any merit in the suggestion

to revise the pension of past retirees with reference to

maximum pay of the post held at the time of retirement, as

revised by the Fifth CPC, there is force in the argument that the

revised pension should be not less than that admissible on the

minimum pay of the post held by the retiree at the time of

retirement, as revised by the Fifth CPC. We have no hesitation

in conceding the argument advanced by pensioners that they

should receive a pension at least based on the minimum pay of

the post as revised by Fifth Pay Commission in the same way

as an employee normally gets the minimum revised pay of the

post he holds. We recommend acceptance of this principle,

which is based on reasonable considerations.             (emphasis

supplied).

Principle enunciated

137.21       The Commission has decided to enunciate a

principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that

complete parity should normally be conceded up to the date of

last pay revision and modified parity (with pension equated at

least to the minimum of the revised pay scale) be accepted at

the time of each fresh pay revision.       This guiding principle

which we have accepted would assure that past pensioners will

obtain complete parity between the pre-'86 and post-'86

pensioners but there will be only a modified parity between the

pre-'96 and post-'96 pensioners.       The enunciation of the

principle would imply that at the time of the next pay revision

say, in the year 2006, complete parity should be given to past

pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified

parity be given between the pre-2006 and post-2006

pensioners." (emphasis supplied)

29.    From the above extracted portion it is clear that the

principle of modified parity, as recommended by the V CPC and

accepted by the VI CPC and accepted by the Central

Government provides that revised pension in no case shall be

lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the

pay band and grade pay corresponding to revised pay scale

from which the pensioner had retried.      According to us, as

already stated above, in the garb of clarification, respondents

interpreted minimum of pay in the pay band as minimum of the

pay band. This interpretation is apparently erroneous, for the

reasons :

a)     if the interpretation of the Government is accepted it

would mean that pre-2006 retirees in S-29 grade retired in

December, 2005 will get his pension fixed at Rs.23700/- and

anther officer who retired in January 2006 at the minimum of

the pay will get his pension fixed at Rs.27350/-. This hits the

very principle of the modified parity, which was never intended

by the Pay Commission or by the Central Government;

b)     The Central Government improved upon many pay

scales recommended by the VI CPC. The pay scale in S-29

category was improved from Rs.39200-67000/- plus Grade Pay

of Rs.9,000/- with minimum pay of Rs.43280/- to Rs.37,400-

67000/- with grade pay of Rs.10,000/- with minimum pay of

Rs.44,700/- (page 142 of the paper-book). If the interpretation

of the Department of Pension is accepted, this will result in

reduction of pension by Rs.4,00/- per month.       The Central

Government did not intend to reduce the pension of pre-2006

retirees while improving the pay scale of S-29 grade;

c)     If the erroneous interpretation of the Department of

Pension is accepted, it would mean that a Director level officer

retiring after putting in merely 2 years of service in their pay

band (S-24) would draw more pension than a S-29 grade

officer retiring before 1.1.2006 and that no S-29 grade officer,

whether existing or holding post in future will be fixed at

minimum of the pay band, i.e., Rs.37,400/-. Therefore, fixation

of pay at Rs.37,400/- by terming it as minimum of the pay in the

pay band is erroneous and ill conceived; and

        d)     That even the Minister of State for Finance and Minister

        of State (PP) taking note of the resultant injustice done to the

        pre-11.2006 pensioners (pages 169-170) had sent formal

        proposal to the Department of Expenditure seeking rectification

        but the said proposal was turned down by the officer of the

        Department of Expenditure on the ground of financial

        implications. Once the Central Government has accepted the

        principle of modified parity, the benefit cannot be denied on the

        ground of financial constraints and cannot be said to be a valid

        reason.

        30.    In view of what has been stated above, we are of the

        view that the clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM

        dated 14.10.2008 (which is also based upon clarificatory OM

        dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby

        representation was rejected by common order, are required to

        be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do.

        Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006

        retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated

        29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above.

        Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears

        thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a

        copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with

        no order as to interest and costs."

6.    The Full Bench had set aside the orders dated 3.10.2008 and

11.2.2009 (Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-11). Thus the stipulation that

the pension will be reduced pro-rata as contained in para 4.2 of OM dated

3.10.2008 which was the basis of fixation of pension at the reduced rate by

the respondents stands already quashed.             Order dated 11.2.2009

(Annexure R-11) which only reiterated the clarification contained in OM

dated 3.10.2008 and earlier OM dated 1.9.2008 having also been quashed

by the Full Bench, in the case of the applicant his entitlement remains

intact at Rs.10500/- and the reduction communicated and executed vide

Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 has thus become erroneous as the basis

for such reduction itself is no longer available. In view of the above, this

application is allowed to the following extent :-

(a)   It is declared that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay

in the scale of pay of Rs.15600 and 50% of the grade pay attached to it as

pension.

(b)   Consequently, it is declared that Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3

being erroneous are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly

ordered.

7.    Respondents, especially, respondent No.2 shall forthwith authorize

respondent No.4 to reschedule the pension as earlier available to the

applicant (ie. Rs.10500/- p.m). Any recovery that has been effected in the

wake of issue of Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 orders shall be refunded

to the applicant.

8.    The applicant has claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As

the mistake committed by the respondents is not in the character of

deliberate misinterpretation of the rule, showing indulgence no interest is

directed to be paid by the respondents.

9.    The applicant has also challenged the Amendment Rules, 2011 to

the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules.           Though counsel for the

applicant advanced his argument focusing upon the aforesaid relief, we are

of the considered view that in view of the quashing and setting aside of

Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 orders, no orders may be necessary to be

passed in connection with the prayer at 8 (1).

10.   The time limit calendered for passing of necessary orders by the

respondent No.2 is one month from the date of communication of this

order. The time limit scheduled for restoring the pension at Rs.10500/- is

within two weeks from the date of receipt of the authority from respondent

No.2 by respondent No.5. And time limit fixed for payment of arrears of

pension and also refund of recovery already made is four weeks from the

date of receipt of the communication from the respondent No.2 by

respondent No.5 restoring the pension.

11.   Under the above circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

                (Dated this the 23rd day of January 2012)

K.GEORGE JOSEPH                                          Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

asp

PRE-2006 PENSIONERS CASE IN KERALA HIGH COURT

SIMILAR TO THE PRE-2006 PENSIONERS CASE(WP(C) 1535/2012) PENDING BEFORE DELHI HIGH COURT ANOTHER CASE OF SAME NATURE IS PENDING BEFORE KERALA HIGH COURT AS SHOWN BELOW

KERALA HIGH COURT
CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Case Status         :  PENDING

Status of          OP (CAT)  1767        of    2012            UNION OF INDIA                 Vs.                  P.K.BHARGAVAN PILLAI Pet's Adv.            :   SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMO                    Res's Adv.           :   SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ     Last Listed On :     Friday, September 14, 2012      Category             :   Central Civil Service Rules (CAT) CONNECTED APPLICATION (S)        CMAP     3001    of   2012         IA     11661    of   2012 CONNECTED MATTER (S) No Connected Matter Case Updated on:   Friday, September 14, 2012

PRE -2006 PENSIONERS CASE IN CAT ERNAKULAM

IN A LAND MARK  JUDGEMENT FOR PRE- 2006 PENSIONERS , ERNAKULAM CAT HAS ORDERED TO PAY 50% OF THE REVISED PAY(INCLUDING GRADE PAY) AS PENSION.


TO REFER THE FULL TEXT OF JUDGEMENT CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK
 http://judis.nic.in/judis_cat/CaseNo_Cat_Result.aspx

LIC PENSIONERS CASE LATEST SUPREME COURT ORDER

ITEM NO.3               COURT NO.4             SECTION XV

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

                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                    

IA  No.3  In  Petition(s)  for  Special  Leave  to  Appeal  (Civil)

No(s).29956-29957/2011

L.I.C.                                            Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC.            Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for clarification and office report)

Date: 17/10/2012  This I.A. was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) Dr.A.M.Singhvi, Sr.Adv.

 Mr.Parag P.Tripathy, Sr.Adv.

                     Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.

 Mr.Surajit Bhaduri, Adv.

For Respondent(s)/ Mr.Amarendra Sharan, Sr.Adv.

Applicant Mr.R.K.Singh, Adv.

 Mr.Kumar Gaurav, Adv.

                     Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.

 Mr.Aakash D.Pratap, Adv.

 Ms.Vimla Sinha, Adv.

 Ms.Sushma Suri, A.O.R.

           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

                               O R D E R 

I.A.No.3 of 2012 In SLP(C)No.29957 of 2011

This  is  an  application  by  the  respondent  for

clarification of order dated 14.11.2011.

We  have  heard  Shri  Amarendra  Sharan,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  applicant  and  Dr.A.M.Singhvi,  learned  senior

counsel for the SLP-petitioner and are satisfied that order dated2

14.11.2011 needs to be clarified so that neither party may remain

under  a  mistaken  impression  about  the  purport  of  this  Court's

order.

In  view  of  the  above,  paragraph  3  of  order  dated

14.11.2011 is substituted with the following:

"In  the  meanwhile,  the  proceedings  pending

before the High Court under the Contempt of Courts

Act,  1971  shall  remain  stayed  subject  to  the

condition that within eight weeks from today, the

petitioner  shall  deposit  in  the  Registry  of  the

High Court the amount due to the pensioners i.e.

the writ petitioners with effect from the date of

their eligibiity to get retiral benefits."

I.A. No.3 of 2012 is disposed of in the manner indicated 

above.

As a sequel to disposal of I.A.No.3 of 2012, I.A.No.4 of

2012 in I.A.No.3 of 2012 in SLP(C)No.29957 of 2011 is also disposed

of. 

    (Satish K.Yadav)          (Phoolan Wati Arora)

      Court Master            Court Master

THE MUCH AWAITED ENHANCEMENT OF PENSION MAY BE DELAYED FURTHER. 

CLICK THIS LINK FOR LATEST NEWS ON OROP IN HEADLINES TODAY TV CHANNEL

LIC PENSIONERS- LATEST JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT

ITEM NO.20                               COURT NO.10                                 SECTION XV

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

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).16117-16118/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2011 in DBSAW No.493/2010 in SBCWP No. 6676/1998 & DBSAW No. 494/2010 in SBCWP No.654/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ORS.
                                          Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.
                                     Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief)

Date: 15/07/2011                   These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

                HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
                HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU

For Petitioner(s)                     Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr.Adv.
                                            Mr. A.V. Rangam,Adv.
                                            Mr. Buddy A. Rangandhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s)                  Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
                                            Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
                                            Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O  R  D  E  R

These petitions are directed against order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the special appeals filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Single Judge in the matter of grant of dearness
allowance to the respondents were dismissed. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Since the petitions filed by the petitioners for review of the order passed by the Division Bench are pending consideration, these petitions are disposed of with a request to the Division Bench of the High Court to make an endeavour to decide the review petitions as early as possible, but latest within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

We also direct that till the disposal of the review petitions, the proceedings initiated against the officers of petitioner No.1 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall remain stayed.

(A.D. Sharma)                                                           (Phoolan Wati Arora)

Court Master                                                                   Court Master

Abo

LIC SLP IN SUPREME COURT CRRENT STATUS

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Status of : Special Leave Petition (Civil)    29956 -29957    OF   2011

Case Status Status : PENDING

L.I.C.   .Vs.   KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC.

Pet. Adv. : MR. ASHOK PANIGRAHI   Res. Adv. : MR. RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL

Subject Category : SERVICE MATTERS - RETIRAL BENEFIT CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO VIEW http://courtnic.nic.in/courtnicsc.asp

Listed 2 times earlier.  There are no further orders of listing

Last updated on Dec 11 2011

ANSWER TO QUESTION ASKED IN RAJYA SABHA REGARDING OROP

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF  DEFENCE
RAJYA SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO-1296
ANSWERED ON-05.12.2012

Decision on one rank one pension scheme

1296 .    SHRI PRAKASH KESHAV JAVADKAR
HUSSAIN DALWAI

(a) whether Government has taken any decision regarding the demand of ‘one rank one pension’ for the ex-servicemen;

(b) if so, the details thereof;

(c) if not, the reasons therefor; and

(d) how Government proposes to give full ‘one rank one pension’?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
(SHRI JITENDRA SINGH)

(a) to (d): Government has always been sensitive to the demand of One Rank One Pension. Keeping in view the spirit of the demand, several Commissions / Committees were appointed. Though the demand was not accepted, their recommendations resulted in improving the pension of past pensioners.

A Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary in June, 2009. The Committee went into the demand and other related issues. It made seven recommendations aimed at narrowing the gap between earlier and current pensions. This has benefited about 12 lakh retired PBORs / Officers at an annual cost of Rs.2200/- crores approximately.

Government constituted another Committee in July, 2012, headed by Cabinet Secretary for looking into the pay and pension related issues of relevance to Defence service personnel and Ex-servicemen. The Committee submitted its report. Its recommendations have been accepted by the Government and are in the process of implementation.

Substantial improvements have been made in the pensions of Armed Forces Personnel after 01.01.2006. However, improvement of pensionary benefits is an ongoing process.

source -http://rajyasabha.nic.in/

LATEST NEWS ON PRE-2006 CASE IN DELHI HIGH COURT

 A writ petition WP(C) 1535/2012 has been filed by UOI for grant of stay against the order dated   01.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal  Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 655/2010 and in other OA. The case came up for hearing on 4/5/12,7/5/12 & 17/7/12 in which  following orders have been passed.

"We feel that it  would be appropriate that the petitioner files separate writ petitions in   respect  of  each of the OA which were filed before the Tribunal. The  present writ petition shall be considered as the writ petition in respect  of OA No. 655/2010.  We are issuing formal notice in this matter."   The learned counsel for the respondents state that there would be no necessity to file a counter-affidavit and  they would be relying on the pleadings before the Tribunal and shall not press the contempt application before the  Tribunal till the next date of hearing.  An adjournment slip has been filed on behalf of the respondent. 

  The case was again heard on 29.11.12. Respondents submitted Counters to the  Petition with a point wise reply  in writing. Court gave 4 weeks time to UOI to submit  their Rejoinder.Next date of hearing as per listing is 29/04/2013 .
( unreliable sources says that the  Govt. may issue orders before the next date of hearing accepting modified parity prospectively to avoid embarrassment as in the case of rank pay case of defense officers in which govt was directed to pay the arrears retrospectively with interest w.e.f. 1986. )

ORDERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF  ENHANCEMENT OF PENSION(ESM)TO BE ISSUED BY THE END OF DEC 2012 & DISBURSEMENT ALONG WITH PENSION OF MARCH 2013
NEW DELHI: The defence ministry on Wednesday took several decisions to ensure ex-servicemen get their pensions in time, stung by criticism over the huge delay in former NSG commando Surender Singh getting all his dues. Anti-graft crusader Arvind Kejriwal had raised the case of Singh, who was injured in the 26/11 terror attacks, last month, forcing the government to admit there had been a considerable delay since the soldier's retirement "paperwork'' had not been completed in time. 

At a meeting chaired by defence minister A K Antony, it was decided that 50% of the pension of soldiers who are "invalidated out" or are "war casualties" should be disbursed immediately, pending the completion of retirement/medical board formalities. It was also decided the Army and Navy should follow the IAF's example of the which has established " e-tracking process" to ensure pensions are disbursed in time. 

Antony also directed that orders for the recently announced Rs 2,300 crore pension package for ex-servicemen should be issued by this month-end. ``The minister said the disbursement of the enhanced pensions should begun by March 31,'' said an official. 

Minister of state for defence Jitendra Singh will also hold a meeting with different banks this month to bring "uniformity'' in the disbursement of pensions. Antony also asked his officers to ensure "faster disposal'' of decisions taken by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 

Ex-servicemen, however, still remain unhappy over the non-implementation of their long-standing demand for one rank, one pension mechanism, which has been promised by most political parties over the years but has never been implemented. 

The defence community of 14 lakh serving and 23 lakh retired military personnel, after all, swells into a sizable - albeit diffused - votebank of around 1.5 crore people if family members are also taken into account.

CHANDIGARH HIGH COURT LIC PENSIONERS CASE 

CWP No.16346 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

*****

CWP No.16346 of 2010

Date of Decision: 09.11.2012

*****

Madan Lal Gandhi and others ………... . . .Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others ……………. . . . Respondents

*****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

*****

Present: Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate, ….for the petitioners.

Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate, …..for respondent No.1.

Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, ….for respondents No.2 to 4.

*****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

The petitioners are all retired Class I officers of Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘the Corporation’), who have challenged the discrimination against employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.8.1997 while framing Rules with regard to grant of Dearness Relief to pensioners at par with in-service employees, up-gradation of pension and have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari forquashing order dated 3.6.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for removal of anomaly in the matter of rate of Dearness Relief to the pensioners and Dearness Allowance to serving employees on the same amount of pension/salary and up-gradation of pension on pay revision and further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to implement the decision passed by the Corporation in its meeting of the Board of Directors dated 24.11.2001 and also for issuance of direction by way of mandamus for striking down the words “as on 1.8.1997” in clause (3) of Section 1 “Short title, commencement and application” in the notification dated 22.6.2000 and words “as on 1.8.2002” in Notification dated 5.9.2005 with consequential effects and for issuance of direction to fix pension of the petitioners as per the substitutedscales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable to them in the scrapped pay scale as on the date of their retirement and pay, pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on and from 1.8.1997 and thereafter on and from 1.8.2002 with all consequential benefits with 12% interest. The petitioners have given a note in the index of the writ petition that a similar case i.e. CWP No.654 of 2007 titled as Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs. LIC of India and others was allowed by the Rajasthan High Court directing therespondent-Corporation to take a decision for implementation of the Resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board holding that the Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of Dearness Allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997 and as such, the benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit.

The text of the directions of the order in CWP No.654 of 2007 titled as Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs. LIC of India and others decided on 12.1.2010 by the Single

Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, attached as Annexure P-20 with the writ petition, is as under:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that resolution passed by the Board of LIC does not need approval of the Central Government thus the Corporation may give effect to its resolution dated 24.11.2001 to avoid discrimination amongst existing pensioners. In light of the discussion madeabove, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cutoff date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit

arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent corporation so thatevery retired employee may get the same benefit. Costs made easy.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid judgment which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.494 of 2010 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others decided on 21.1.2011, with the following observations:

“We are of the view that whatever grievance with regard to the implementation of the Board’s resolution dated 24.11.2001 is concerned, the same can be raised by the Union of India who has chosen not to file any appeal in the matter and this can easily be considered as an approval of the said resolution of the Board dated 24.11.2001 which was allegedly pending for nine years. The Board of LIC, who is the appellant before us against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had itself taken a decision to remove thedisparities and the discrimination with regard to the payment of Dearness Allowance and pension to the retired employees under its resolution of the Board dt. 24.11.2001, which was in public interest. It could not and should not have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge as thelearned Single Judge has provided an umbrella to the appellant for the implementation of the decision ofthe Board dt. 24.11.2001 on the categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and not assailed in appeal by the Union of India. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Union of India before the learned Single Judge, we find that these appeals filed by the L.I.C. of India have no merit and the same stand dismissed.”

Although counsel for the Corporation has submitted that SLP has been preferred against the aforesaidorder of the Division Bench but its operation has not been

stayed by the Apex Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are

of the considered opinion that since it is not in dispute that similar relief prayed for by the petitioners has been granted by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra) which has been

maintained in appeal and the petitioners are satisfied with the same order, the present writ petition is thus, allowed, in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid case namely Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra).

(A.K. SIKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

NOVEMBER 09, 2012

COURTSY & SOURSE LINK:- http://airief-chd.blogspot.in/2012/11/chandigarh-high-court-case.html

REPORTS FROM VISHAL RALLY HELD AT JANTAR MANTAR NEW DELHI  ON 01 DEC 2012

Dear Colleagues,

The planned IESM rally was held at Jantar Mantar On December 01. We had advertised the rally widely and great hype had been built up.  Unfortunately the attendance of around 3000 was much below expectations. Thankfully, the enthusiasm of those present did overcome the lack of numbers to some extent.  As a policy of gradual escalation a vehicle with medals mounted on it has been prepared and is scheduled to go around Delhi and NCR during the coming days. The vehicle was parked on site and drew great appreciation from all. There were many enthusiastic speakers that took the mike and spoke their mind on government’s repeated stonewalling our demand of OROP. Unfortunately, this upset our time schedule and we had to call off our planned march – along with the medal vehicle – on roads around Connaught Place.   

On 02 December was the General Body meeting and the elections. There was no voting and all the old members of the Governing Body have been returned unopposed. Colonel KK Malhotra, Hony Captains Bhim Singh and Nagender Singh are the new members of the team. The General Body reaffirmed its resolve to continue with the struggle till our demands are met. 

The pension enhancement coming out of the of Rs 2300 Crore that the Govt has sanctioned is expected to be announced by 15 December 2012.  

Best regards,

Lt Gen Raj Kadyan
Chairman IESM
262, Sector - 17A
Gurgaon - 122 001

THE DOUBTFUL DISTRIBUTION

THE DOUBTFUL DISTRIBUTION OF RS.2300 CRORE SANCTIONED BY THE GOVT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCEMENT OF PENSION (PRE-2006 EX-SERVICE MEN)

It has been declared by the govt that an amount of  Rs. 2300 is sanctioned by the govt for  the enhancement of pension as recommended by the committee of secretaries & approved by the cabinet.There was another development in between& the govt was directed by the apex court to pay the amount due to officers in the rank pay case.The MOD is seems to have  included this out go also in the earlier sanctioned Rs.2300 crore to pre-2006 pensioners thus reducing the enhancement of pension to a megre amount. This is evident form the report submitted by the Rajya Sabha committee which has calculated the total outlay for implementation OROP in full with the help of department of expenditure as RS. 1300 crore.All members are requested to discuss this matter seriously.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2012

Decision on 'one rank one pension' scheme will be queried in Rajya Sabha

Some important questions are scheduled for written answer to be given by MoD on 05th December, 2012 regarding One Rank One Pension.  An unstarred question number 1296 also wants clarification from govt about proposal to give full 'One Rank One Pension.  The details of question are given below:- 

RAJYA SABHA

List of Questions for WRITTEN ANSWERS to be asked at a sitting of the 

Rajya Sabha to be held on

Wednesday, December 5, 2012/Agrahayana 14, 1934 (Saka)

Decision on 'one rank one pension' scheme

Will the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to state:

1296. SHRI PRAKASH JAVADEKAR:
SHRI HUSAIN DALWAI:

(b) if so, the details thereof;

(c) if not, the reasons therefor; and

(d) how Government proposes to give full 'one rank one pension'?

(a) whether Government has taken any decision regarding the demand of 'one rank one pension' for the ex-servicemen;

COURTESY:-       http://karnmk.blogspot.in/

http://164.100.47.5/EDAILYQUESTIONS/sessionno/227/3536RS.pdf