Posts Tagged ‘Pension’

Timely Revision of Pension as per 7th CPC

Advertisement

Timely Revision of 7th CPC Pension – Instructions to credit the revised Pension and Arrears immediately: CPAO

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE

TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066
04.10.2018

CPAO/IT&Tech/Bank Performance/2017-18/132

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject :- Timely Revision of Pension as per 7th CPC

References have been received from pensioners and pensioner’s association that the revised pension and arrear of revised pension as per 7th CPC has not been credited into the account of the pensioners/family pensioners.

All the CPPCs of the Banks are, therefore, requested to credit the revised pension and arrears of revised pension immediately in the account of pensioners/family pensioners for which Special Seal Authorities (SSAs) have been issued to the banks and in any case not later than 30 days of receipt of the Special Seal Authority (SSA) from this office so that the grievances of and hardships faced by the pensioners/family pensioners could be minimised.

This issues with the approval of Chief Controller (Pension).

Sd/-
(Md. Shahid Kamal Ansari)
(Asstt. Controller of Accounts)

Source: Cpao.nic.in

Download Central Government Employees News iOS App . Click here Cg News for iPhone, iPad & iPod Touch app to download in your device.
Stay updated on the go with CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NEWS App. Click here Cg news for Phones app to download it for your device.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - October 9, 2018 at 8:57 am

Categories: 7CPC, Pension   Tags: , , , , ,

Monthly Pension Slip for CG Pensioners

Monthly Pension Slip for CG Pensioners

Pension Slip FAQ

1. What is pension slip?
A pension slip contains details of pension payment credited to a savings or current account held by a pensioner.

2. How can I generate a pension slip?
You need an Internet banking user name and password. The savings or current account which serves as the pension account must be mapped to the username. After you login to Internet banking you can generate a pension slip for any month in the previous or current year.

3. Can I generate a pension slip for multiple months?
No. Since Pension Payment is made on a monthly basis, you can generate the slip for any month starting October 2006 up to any past month in the current year.

4. Can I generate the pension slip for future months?
No. You can only generate the pension for months for which you have received a pension payment from the government.

5. Can I print a pension slip generated online?
Yes. You can print the pension slip details, whenever you require the payment details.

6. How long does it take to generate the pension slip?
You can instantaneously generate the pension slip for any past month in the current year or previous year.

7. How do I navigate to the Pension Slip tab?
Kindly log in to www.onlinesbi.com/personal. Select the “Enquiries” tab on the primary navigation bar. You would be displayed “Pension Slip” link on the left hand navigation column.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - October 5, 2018 at 9:29 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , ,

Government has no power to withhold Pensionary Benefits if departmental or judicial proceeding are pending: Supreme Court

Government has no power to withhold Pensionary Benefits if departmental or judicial proceeding are pending: Supreme Court

C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009)

State of Jharkhand & Ors. —- Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. — Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No. 6771/2013

(arising out of SLP(C) No. 1428 of 2009)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. Sikri, J

1. Leave granted. pensionary

2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings? The High Court has – answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent. Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following:

The respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand (Appellant herein) came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the appellant State. Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the respondent is pending. On 30th January, 2002, the appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002. The appellant sanctioned the release and payment of General Provident Fund on 25.5.2003. Thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the Appellant sanctioned 90 percent provisional pension to the respondent. Remaining 10 percent pension and salary of his suspension period (30.1.2002 to 30.8.2002) was withheld pending outcome of the criminal cases/ departmental inquiry against him. He was also not paid leave encashment and gratuity.

4. Feeling aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and non-release of the other aforesaid dues, the respondent preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity etc. in terms of Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980. The appellant, thereafter, considered the representation of the respondent but rejected the same vide orders dated 16.3.2006. The respondent challenged the rejection by filing another Writ Petition before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent filed C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009 Intra Court Appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench vide the – impugned orders dated 31.10.2007. The Division Bench has held that the question is squarely covered by the full Bench decision of that Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2007 (4) JCR 1. In the said full Bench Judgment dated 28.8.2007, after detailed discussions on the various nuances of the subject matter, the High Court has held:

” To sum up the answer for the two questions are as follows:

(i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the Proceeding.

(ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law”.

5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the fact that in so far as the Pension Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding a part of pension or gratuity. He, however, submitted that there are administrative instructions which permit withholding of a part of pension and gratuity. His submission was that when the rules are silent on a particular aspect, gap can be filled by the – administrative instructions which was well settled legal position, laid down way back in the year 1968 by the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma vs. Union of India 1968 (1) SCR 111. He, thus, argued that the High Court has committed an error in holding that there was no power with the Government to withhold the part of pension or gratuity, pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings.

6. The aforesaid arguments of the learned Senior Counsel based on the judgment in Sant Ram Sharma would not cut any ice in so far as present case is concerned, because of the reason this case has no applicability in the given case. Sant Ram judgment governs the field of administrative law wherein the Constitution Bench laid down the principle that the rules framed by the authority in exercise of powers contained in an enactment, would also have statutory force. Though the administration can issue administrative instructions for the smooth administrative function, such administrative instructions cannot supplant the rules. However, these administrative instructions can supplement the statutory rules by taking care of those situations where the statutory rules are silent. This ratio of that judgment is narrated in the following manner:

“It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade – officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions and inconsistent with the rules already framed”.

There cannot be any quarrel on this exposition of law which is well grounded in a series of judgments pronounced post Sant Ram Sharma case as well. However, the question which is posed in the present case is altogether different.

7. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words:

“The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?

What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition.

The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.[1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) IILLJ 377SC”.

8. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

9. Having explained the legal position, let us first discuss the rules relating to release of Pension. The present case is admittedly governed by –

Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof under certain circumstances. This Rule 43(b) reads as under:

“43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty to grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement”.

From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 43(b), following position emerges:-

(i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding.

(ii) This provision does not empower the State to invoke the said power while the department proceeding or judicial proceeding are pending.

(iii) The power of withholding leave encashment is not provided under this rule to the State irrespective of the result of the above proceedings.

(iv) This power can be invoked only when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before.

10. There is also a Proviso to Rule 43(b), which provides that:-

“A. Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment.

i. Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government.

ii Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.

iii Shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made:-

B. Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment shall have been instated in accordance with sub clause (ii) of clause (a) and

C. The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed.

It is apparent that the proviso speaks about the institution of proceedings. For initiating proceedings, Rule 43(b) puts some conditions, i.e, Department proceeding as indicated in Rule 43(b), if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty, then it shall not be instituted except:-

(a) With the sanction of the Government,

(b) It shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of the proceedings.

(c) Such proceedings shall be conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with the proceedings by which dismissal of the services can be made.

Thus, in so far as the proviso is concerned that deals with condition for initiation of proceedings and the period of limitation within which such proceedings can be initiated.

11. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the rules for withholding of the pension/ gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending.

12. Right to receive pension was recognized as right to property by the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar; (1971) 2 SCC 330, as is apparent from the following discussion:

“29. The last question to be considered, is, whether the right to receive pension by a Government servant is property, so as to attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This question falls to be decided in order to consider whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32. To this aspect, we have already adverted to earlier and we now proceed to consider the same.

30. According to the petitioner the right to receive pension is property and the respondents by an executive order dated June 12, 1968 have wrongfully withheld his pension. That order affects his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get pension, but for the order passed on August 5, 1966. There is only a bald averment in the counter-affidavit that no question of any fundamental right arises for consideration. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, was not prepared to take up the position that the right to receive pension cannot be considered to be property under any circumstances. According to him, in this case, no order has been passed by the State granting pension. We understood the learned counsel to urge that if the State had passed an order granting pension and later on resiles from that order, the latter order may be considered to affect the petitioner’s right regarding property so as to attract Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of the Constitution.

31. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. By a reference to the material provisions in the Pension Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The Rules, we have already pointed out, clearly recognise the right of persons like the petitioner to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned therein.

32. The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India A.I.R. 1962 Pun 503. It was held that such a right constitutes ‘property’ and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India. The Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India v. Bhagwant Singh I.L.R. 1965 Pun 1 approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is ‘property’ within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution and he could be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. It was further held that the character of pension as ‘property’ cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority.

33. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. The State of Punjab I.L.R. 1967 P & H 278. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009 Court decision, on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant.

34. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde and Anr. MANU/SC/0030/1968 : [1968]3SCR489 had to consider the question whether a ‘cash grant’ is ‘property’ within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing ‘it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property’.

35. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1)of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law”.

13. In State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651, this Court recognized that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty- Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum– Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. Fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”.

14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under:

“300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. – No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.

15. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold – even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.

16. We, accordingly, find that there is no merit in the instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each.

……………………….J.

[K.S. Radhakrishnan]

………………………….J.

[A.K. Sikri]

New Delhi
August 14, 2013

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - October 3, 2018 at 4:06 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , ,

Supreme Court Judgement: Withholding of Pension or Gratuity

Supreme Court Judgement: Withholding of Pension or Gratuity

C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009)

State of Jharkhand & Ors.

….. Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.

…..Respondent(s)

WITH
C.A. No. 6771/2013
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 1428 of 2009)

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J

1.Leave granted.

2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings? The High Court has – answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent.

Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following:

The respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand (Appellant herein) came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the appellant State. Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the respondent is pending. On 30th January, 2002, the appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002.

 

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 28, 2018 at 8:38 am

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , ,

Reversion to Old Pension Scheme

Reversion to old pension scheme due to administrative delay

“NPS applicable to Government servants appointed to civil posts on or before 31.12.2003. The date on which the vacancies arose or the date on which the examination was conducted for filling up the vacancies is not relevant for deciding the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972″

Reversion to old pension scheme

In accordance with the scheme for National Pension System (NPS), as notified vide Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs)’s Notification No. 5/7/2003-ECB & PR dated 22.12.2003, the System is mandatory for all new recruits to the Central Government service (except armed forces) from 01.01.2004. Accordingly, as per Rule 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended on 30.12.2003, these rules are applicable to Government servants appointed to civil posts on or before 31.12.2003. The date on which the vacancies arose or the date on which the examination was conducted for filling up the vacancies is not relevant for deciding the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972.

Ministry of Home Affairs have not sought any advice from Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare on the question of having a policy to cover the paramilitary personnel appointed after 01.01.2004 under the Old Pension Scheme on the ground that the vacancies arose, or the examination was conducted, in the year 2003. However, a reference was received from Ministry of Home Affairs in a specific case relating to appointments as Sub-Inspector in various Central Para Military Forces after selection in August, 2003 on the basis of an Examination conducted in 2002.

Appointments on the basis of these selections were made in Central Reserve Police Force in 2003 and the candidates appointed were covered by the pension scheme under Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, in the Border Security Force, offers of appointment on the basis of the same examination/selection were issued in January, 2004. On a petition filed by some personnel appointed in the Border Security Force on the basis of that examination, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi directed to cover the petitioners under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the grounds of administrative delay on the part of Border Security Force in making appointments.

The order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs/Border Security Force in view of the peculiar circumstances of that case. The decision taken in that case is, however, not relevant for deciding applicability of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules to all appointments made on or after 01.01.2004 in the Central Para Military Forces or in any other Department/organization on the basis of year of examination/selection.

This information was provided by the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) Development of North-Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, Dr. Jitendra Singh in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha on 19.7.2018.

Source: PIB

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 26, 2018 at 9:02 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , ,

Conference on Implementation of National Pension System by Central Autonomous Bodies

PENSION FUND REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

PRESS RELEASE

Conference on Implementation of National Pension System by Central Autonomous Bodies

A conference on implementation of National Pension System by Central Autonomous Bodies (CABs) was organized by PFRDA on 13th June 2018 at New Delhi. The prime objective was to provide a forum to all Central Autonomous Bodies (CABs), where the progress in the implementation of NPS with respect to compliance of timelines in various NPS related activities could be brought to the fore and a way forward could be provided. Officials from most of the Central Autonomous Bodies (CABs) attended the conference.

Dr. Badri Singh Bhandari, Whole Time Member (Economics) in his opening remarks mentioned that currently there are 557 CABs which have about 1.73 lacs subscribers and about Rs.11800 crores of Asset Under Management (AUM). He further emphasised the need for discipline in submission of subscriber registration forms and remittance of the subscribers’ contributions. He also highlighted the responsibility of nodal officers handling NPS and advised that they should be aware of the NPS and its related process in detail for addressing the queries/grievances of the subscribers.

Chairman, PFRDA, Sh. Hemant Contractor, in his address emphasized the fact that NPS, being a Contributory scheme, was different from the earlier pension system and discussed various determinants of pension such as promptness of the Nodal offices in performing various NPS related activities mainly subscriber registration, upload/remittance of NPS contributions and also period of stay in the scheme, contribution level, returns on investments, annuity schemes chosen, annuity service providers chosen etc. In this regard, he stressed upon the need to work in tandem to ensure that NPS works efficiently and pensions are served effectively. He also highlighted endeavour of PFRDA in educating subscribers in handling their pension accounts, through a dedicated website, Pension Sanchay.

Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Govt. of India Sh. Ajay Narayan Jha, in his key-note address appreciated the initiative of PFRDA for holding this conference exclusively for Central Autonomous Bodies as it provided two-way communications between stakeholders for the ultimate benefit of the subscribers. He stressed to all participants on the need of becoming sensitive and responsible towards employee-subscribers currently covered under NPS in order to protect their interest, while monitoring various NPS related activities. He also stressed upon the role which can be played by the Head of Institutions and PrAOs of the respective CABs in streamlining NPS operations.

A presentation was also made by the NSDL e-Governance Infrastructure Ltd, the Central Recordkeeping Agency for NPS about the operational issues and new functionalities released for the convenience of the nodal officers-PAOs/DDOs and the subscribers. A presentation was also made by Jamia Millia Islamia University about the best practices they have adopted to administer the subscribers’ interface effectively. While presenting the Vote of Thanks Shri Ashish Kumar, GM mentioned that PFRDA is periodically holding Review meetings/ Video conferences also with the CABs on important parameters having financial implications and expects significant improvement from the present state of affairs.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 24, 2018 at 1:04 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , ,

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT- OFFICIAL RETIRED ON 30th JUNE IS ELIGIBLE FOR INCREMENT DUE ON 1st JULY NOTIONALLY FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT- OFFICIAL RETIRED ON 30th JUNE IS ELIGIBLE FOR INCREMENT DUE ON 1st JULY NOTIONALLY FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2017
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
W.P.No.15732 of 2017

P.Ayyamperumal …

Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
High Court Complex,
Chennai-600 105.

2.Union of Indirep.by
the Chairman, CBEC,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.

3.Union of India rep.by
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi.

4.The Director of General (Inspection),
Customs & Central Excise,
“D” Block, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.

.. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in O.A./310/00917/2015 dated 21.03.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to treat the retirement date of the petitioner as on 01.07.2013 and grant all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits.

For Petitioner :: Mr.P.Ayyamperumal,
Petitioner-in-Person
For Respondents :: Mr.K.Mohanamurali,

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by
HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal in O.A./310/00917/2015 dated 21.03.2017 and to consequently direct the fourth respondent to treat the retirement date of the petitioner as 01.07.2013 and grant him all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Indian Revenue Service in Customs and Excise Department in the year 1982 and retired as Additional Director General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In view of the said amendment, the petitioner was denied the last increment, though he completed a full one year in service, ie., from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Hence, the petitioner filed the original application in O.A.No.310/00917/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and by order dated 21.03.2017, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner by taking a view that an incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that day. Since the petitioner was no longer in service on 1st July 2013, he was denied the relief. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed.

3.The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v.M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, wherein the appeal filed by the State challenging the order passed in the writ petition entitling the employee who was similarly placed like that of the petitioner, the benefit of increment on the ground that he has completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, was rejected. Referring to that judgment, the petitioner has submitted that the said benefit has to be extended to him. He further submitted that even though the above decision squarely covers his case, no mention has been made by the Central Administrative Tribunal as to how that decision is not applicable to him. With regard to the said issue, the petitioner has also referred to the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.311, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 31.12.2014, and submitted that in the said G.O., it has been mentioned that the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell has recommended that when the date of increment of a Government

servant falls due on the day following superannuation on completion of one full year of service, such service may be considered for the benefit of notional increment purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. Stating so, the petitioner prayed for allowing this writ petition.

4.Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 on the submissions made by the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5.The petitioner retired as Additional Director General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In view of the said amendment, the petitioner was denied the last increment, though he completed a full one year in service, ie., from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Hence,

the petitioner filed the original application in O.A.No.310/00917/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and the same was rejected on the ground that an incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that day.

6.In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on 30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.

7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs.

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No

(H.G.R.,J.) (T.K.R.,J.)
15.09.2017

KM

To

1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Complex,
Chennai-600 105.

2.The Chairman, CBEC,
Union of India,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.

3.Department of Personnel & Training,
Union of India,
New Delhi.

4.The Director of General (Inspection),
Customs & Central Excise,
“D” Block, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.

Download Order

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 21, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , , ,

Important Judgement: 7th CPC Pension Benefit – Retired from service on one day prior to 1.1.2016

Important Judgement: 7th CPC Pension Benefit – Retired from service on one day prior to 1.1.2016

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi

OA No.571/2017

Order Reserved on: 13.02.2018
Pronounced on: 17.04.2018

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
G.C. Yadav,
S/o late Kamal Singh Yadav,
(aged about 61 years)
(retired as Deputy Secretary)
R/o H.No.1627/3, Lane No.6,
Rajiv Nagar, Mata Road,
Gurugram – 122001.

Applicant
(By Advocate Shri L.R. Khatana)

-Versus-

Union of India
Through Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.

Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi – 110001.

Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel & Training ,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
North Block, New Delhi – 110001.

- Respondents

(By Advocate Shri N.D. Kaushik )

2 (OA No.571/2017)

ORDER

The applicant retired from the post of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India with effect from the afternoon of 31.12.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. His date of birth is 01.01.1956. He has been deprived of the benefits of 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, which came into effect w.e.f 01.01.2016 on the ground that he retired prior to that date i.e. 31.12.2015.

2. The applicant submitted his representation dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure A-4 colly.) to the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) (respondent no.3) stating therein that he would cease to be a Government servant in the midnight of 31.12.2015 and thus acquired the status of a pensioner in the forenoon of 1st January, 2016. Hence, he is entitled to all the pensionary benefits viz. gratuity, fixation of pay/pension as per 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations. The representation dated 14.12.2015 of the applicant was forwarded by the Additional Secretary (S&V), DoPT to the Joint Secretary, Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare (DoP&PW) vide letter dated 29.02.2016. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted below:

2. In his representation, Shri Yadav has contended that the pensionary benefits accrue to a person when he acquires the status of Pensioner. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee, the persons born on 1st January, 2015 were in Government service upto midnight of 31st December, 2015 and acquired the status of pensioner only in the forenoon of 1st January, 2016. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee, the persons born on 1st January, 1956 acquired the status of pensioner only in the forenoon of 1st January, 2016. The recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission are likely to be implemented with effect from 1st January, 2016.

3. Pursuant to the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, DoP&PW (respondent No.2) issued Annexure A- 2 OM dated 04.08.2016 revising the pension of pre- 2016 pensioners/family pensioners. The grievance of the applicant is that his retiral benefits have been fixed in terms of Annexure A-2 OM, treating him as a pre-2016 retiree whereas he should be treated as a retiree w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and thus the 7th Central Pay Commission’s benefits should accrue to him.

4. Respondent No.2 considered the representation dated 14.12.2015 of the applicant, which was duly forwarded by the DoPT vide aforementioned letter dated 29.02.2016 and vide impugned Annexure A-1 OM dated 03.01.2018 has declined the request of the applicant. The relevant portions of this OM are reproduced below:

4. In the case of Shri Yadav, he actually retired on 31.12.2015 and was not in service on 1.1.16. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri S. Benerjee has no relevance in his case. In fact Rule 5 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, has already been amended and as per the amended rule date of voluntary retirement is treated as the last working day. Therefore, those who retired voluntarily on 1.1.2016 would be eligible for pay and pension benefits of 7th CPC as a post 1.1.2016 retiree.

5. Since Shri Yadav retired on superannuation on 31.12.2015, he is to be treated as a pre -2016 pensioner and is accordingly entitled to the benefit in revision of pension under the OM No.38/37/46-P&PW(A)(ii), dated 4.8.16.”

5. Aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 OM dated 03.01.2017, the applicant has filed the instant OA praying for the following relief:

B) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned orders/action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same and be pleased to further hold that since the Applicant superannuated with effect from the afternoon of 31.12.2015 and relinquished the charge of the post of Deputy Secretary in the afternoon of that date, he, as per law, is deemed to have effectively retired on or with effect from 1.1.2016 and therefore, cannot be treated as pre- 2016 pensioner and direct the respondents to grant the retiral benefits such as fixation of pension, DCRG, commutation of pension, leave encashment etc. accordingly and pay the arrears thereof with 12% interest within a specified time-frame.”

6. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply in which they have broadly made the following important averments:

6.1 The applicant retired from Government service on 31.12.2015 and accordingly he has been treated as a pre-2016 pensioner and his pensionary benefits have been fixed in terms of the OM dated 4.8.2016 (Annexure A-2) of the DoP&PW.

6.2 As per the provisions of FR 56(a), a Government servant whose date of birth is first of a month shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years. Hence, the applicant, whose date of birth is 1.1.1956 is deemed to have been retired in the afternoon of 31.12.2015.

6.3 The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v. Union of India [AIR 1990 SC 295], relied upon by the applicant in para 4 (d) of the OA, is not relevant in the instant case. It is stated that Shri S. Banerjee had retired voluntarily and his date of retirement was 1.1.1986 whereas in the instant case the applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the afternoon of 31.12.2015 and as such was not in service on 1.1.2016.

7. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply, in which no substantial issue has been raised except saying that it is settled position of law by a catena of judgments of Hon’ble Tribunal, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person whose date of birth is 1st of a month is deemed to have retired from service from that date only.

8. On completion of the pleadings the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of the parties on 13.02.2018. Arguments of Shri L.R. Khatana, learned counsel for the applicant and that of Shri N.D. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Shri Khatana, besides reiterating the averments made in the OA relied on the following judgments to buttress his argument that the applicant is deemed to have retired from service on 1.1.2016 since his date of birth is 1.1.1956:

i) Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Union of India v. George , [2004 (1) ATJ 150]; held:

” 16. We are unable to accept this contention. The two officials had actually continued in service till the midnight of December 31, 1995. It is only from January 1, 1996 that they had ceased to be in service and acquired the status of pensioners. Resultantly their claim to pension had to be determined at the rate prevalent on the date. This is precisely what the Tribunal has given them. The case is in no way different from that of Banerjee. In both cases, the pay had been paid till December 31″

ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Union of India & others v. Col. Bhupinder Singh (Retd.) Major, [Writ Appeal No.3897 of 2005, dated 11.09.2009], held:

“The decision reported in 1989 Supp. 2 SCC 486 (S. Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors.) has been followed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. In that case the appellant had filed an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted from the forenoon of 1st January, 1986 and in that view of the matter, he was found to be entitled to the benefit of para 17.3 of the recommendation of the Pay Commission. This decision is not applicable to the case of the respondent in the instant case as per Army Rules, which is applicable to the respondent who retired on 31.12.1995. None of the decision cited by the respondent are applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the decision cited by the respondent are applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are applicable on all the fours to the case on hand and the impugned order calls for interference.”

iii) Judgment of Hon’ble Andhra High Court in Union of India and Ors. V. P.S.R. Kumar Sinha and Anr. ̧ [2006 (2) ALT 354:2006 (3) ALD 57]; held

” 6:17.Supreme Court Ruling In S. Benerjee v. Union of India, a definite finding is on record by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of mdia that when the employee has retired on the last date of the month, his date of retirement has to be treated as 1st date of succeeding month.

6:18. It is a direct decision on the issue before us.

6:19. Full Bench Decision of A.P. High Court Principal Accountant General A.P. v. C. Subba Rao While answering Point No. 2 the Full Bench of this Court categorically held as follows:

A Government servant who would be retiring on the last day of the month would cease to be Government servant by mid- night of that day and he would acquire status of pensioner and therefore he would be entitled for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month.”

iv) Order of this Tribunal in Satish Kumar v. Union of Inida & Ors., [OA No.792.2004, dated 25.11.2004], held:

“It is trite law that for want of any decision to the contrary of the High Court, under whose jurisdiction the Bench of the Tribunal is situated, a decision of the High Court of another State would be binding as a precedent on the Tribunal and having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 295, relied upon by Kerala High Court, the case of the applicant, in all fours, is covered by the ratio decidendi of the decision of the High Court. Having regard to the fact that he is deemed to have retired on 1.4.2004 special dispensation as mentioned in para 3 of the OM ibid would apply to him.”

8.1 Shri Khatana concluded his arguments by submitting that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the above judgments and hence the relief claimed may be granted.

9. Leaned counsel for the respondents by and large reiterated the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents.

10. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents annexed thereto. All the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts as well as of the Tribunal relied upon by the applicant are primarily based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-

“The question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retired on January 1, 1986. We have already extracted the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985 whereby the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that the petitioner retired on December 31, 1985? The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr. Anti Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired on December 31, 1985. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had retired from the service of this Court on December 31, 1985. Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from January 1, 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 as per the said order of this Court, that is to say, as soon as January 1, 1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But, nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1, 1986 and not on December 31, 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of paragraph 17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission.”

11. This judgment has attained finality and thus holds the field today. It is clearly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee (supra) that in case of all those Government servants whose date of birth is 1st of a month, they are supposed to have retired from that date only.

12. In the instant case, the applicant’s date of birth is admittedly 1.1.1956 and thus relying on the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee (supra), he is deemed to have retired from service on 1.1.2016. Hence, he is entitled for getting all his pensionary benefits in accordance with the 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations. Accordingly, this OA is allowed. The impugned Annexure A-1 order is declared illegal and accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to fix the retiral benefits of the applicant in accordance with the 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations which have been implemented vide O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A)( i), (ii) & resolution dated 04.08.2016 in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1.1.2016. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.

(K.N. Shrivastava)
Member (A)

‘San.’

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 7, 2018 at 9:32 pm

Categories: 7CPC, Pension   Tags: , , ,

CPAO: Mandatory use of Digital Signature

CPAO: Mandatory use of Digital Signature

CPAO/IT&Tech/Revision(7th CPC)/19.Vol-III (E)/2018-19/95

29.08.2018

Office Memorandum

Subject: Mandatory use of Digital Signature – Regarding.

Reference is invited to this office OM No. CPAO/IT&Tech/Revision (7th CPC)/19.Vol-lII/ 2016-17/37 dated 25.05.2017 followed by OM No. CPAO/IT&Tech/ Revision (7thCPC)/19.Vo1-III(B/E)/2016-17/127 dated-25.09.2017 and OM No. CPAO/ IT&Tech/ Revision (7thCPC)/19.Vol-III(E)/2016-17/147 dated 14.11.2017 on the above subject thereby in unavoidable circumstances only, PAOs were allowed to process the pension cases manually and forward to CPAO with the counter signature Pr. CCAs/CCAs/ CAs/AGs/Administrators of UTs with valid reasons.

Further, it has been observed that the PAOs are sending revision of pension authorities to the CPAO in a format other than the format prescribed by CPAO while processing the revision of pension cases manually under the 7th Central Pay Commission and without the counter signature by concerned Pr. CCAs/CCAs/ CAs/AGs/ Administrators of UTs with valid reasons.

In view of the above all Pr. CCAs/CCAs/CAs/AGs/Administrators of UTs are once again requested to instruct the PAOs under their jurisdiction to process the revision of pension cases in the prescribed format manually only in exceptional circumstances when it is not possible to process the pension case through the e-Revision utility of CPAO and forward to this office only after counter signature by the concerned Pr. CCAs/ CCAs/CAs/AGs/Administrators of UTs with valid reasons.

This issues with the approval of Chief Controller (Pensions).

(Md. Shahid Kamal Ansari)
(Asstt. Controller of Accounts)
Ph No.011-26103074

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 5, 2018 at 3:21 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , ,

Payment of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners

Payment of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners

Circular No. 200

No.AT/Tech/263-XXIII

Dated: 12/04/2018

To

The Chief Accountant, RBI Deptt. of Govt. Bank Accounts, Central office C-7, Second Floor, Bandre- Kurla Complex, P B No. 8143, Bandre East, Mumbai-400051
The Director of Treasuries of all State
The Manager CPPC of Public Sector Banks including IDBI
The CDA (PD) Meerut
The CDA, Chennai
The Nodal Officers (ICICl/AXIS/HDFC Bank)…………………………………………….
The Pay & Accounts Officer……..
The Military. & Air Attache, Indian Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal
The D.P.D.O……………
Post Master, Kathua (J & K) and Camp Bell Bay

Sub: Payment of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners: Clarification thereof.

Ref: This office Circular No. 166 dated 07/03/2013, Circular No. 173 dated 07/04/2014 and Circular No. 179 dated 12/05/2015.

Provisions for payment of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners is laid down in Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare) OM No. 45/73/97-P&PW(G) dated 02/07/1999 issued under this office Important Circular No. 07 dated 13/08/1999. As per the ibid OM, before 18/07/1997, in terms of the existing orders, Dearness Relief to pensioners and family pensioners is to remain suspended during the period a pensioner/family pensioner is re-employed/employed under the Central or State Govt. or in a Statutory Corporation/Company/Body/Bank under them in India or abroad. The above facts are also applicable to the pensioners and family pensioners permanently absorbed in Statutory Corporation/Company/Body/Bank under the Central or State Government.

2. Representations from various agencies as well as pensioners/family pensioners including Pension Disbursing Agencies are being received for clarification on Payment of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners. The matter has been examined in this office and following points are clarified.

3. However, w.e.f. 18/07/1997, it has been decided by the Govt that: (i) In so far as re-employed pensioners are concerned, the entire pension admissible is to be ignored at present only in the case of those civilian pensioners who held post below Group ‘A’ and those ex-servicemen who held post below the ranks of Commissioned Officers at the time of their retirement. Their pay, on re-employment, is to be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which they are re-employed. Such pensioners will consequently be entitled to Dearness Relief on their pension. (A) For this purpose, the Central Government Departments concerned, including subordinate organizations. State Government, Corporation/Company/Body/Bank etc. employing a Central Government pensioner shall be required to issue of certificate indicating the following:

(a) The re-employed pensioner retired from a civil or military post in the Central Government and was holding a post not included in classified as group ‘A’ or a post below the rank of commissioned officer in the armed forces;

(b) The entire amount of pension sanctioned by the Central Government was ignored in fixation of the pay on re-employment i.e. no part of the pension was taken into account in such fixation of pay in the pay scale of the post in which the Central government retired/retiree was re-employed/absorbed; and

(c) The pay of the re-employed/absorbee was/is fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which he had/has been initially re-employed after his retirement from the Central Government.

(d) If the pay fixed at a higher stage because of advance increments and no protection of the last pay drawn is being given.

(B) In the cases where PBOR (below Commissioned Officer) retired before attaining the age of 55 years and re-employed thereafter and their pay fixed at a higher stage because of advance increments and no protection of the last pay drawn were given, the pay should be treated as fixed at a minimum for the purpose of ignoring the entire pension and allowing Dearness Relief on pension. For benefit of advance increments, the policy for the same should exist in the re-employing department and a copy of such policy matter should be enclosed with the required certificate. But, after granting benefit of advance increments, the last pay drawn by the pensioner is protected, the pensioner in such case will not be entitled for dearness relief on pension.

Click to see the full article

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - September 1, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , ,

Disposal of PPO – death of the pensioner with no claimant authorized for family pension in the same PPO

Disposal of PPO – death of the pensioner with no claimant authorized for family pension in the same PPO.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
TRIKOOT-II, BI-IIKAJI CAMA PLACE.
NEW DELHI-110066
PHONES 26174596, 25174455, 261 74436

CPAO/IT&Tech/Bank Performance/37 Vol.III/2018-19/85

17/20.08.2018

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Manner of disposal of PPO – death of the pensioner with no claimant authorized for family pension in the same PPO.

Attention is invited to this office OM No. CPAO/Tech/Bank Performance/2014¬15/511-581 dated- 23.09.2011- (copy enclosed) wherein all Heads of the CPPC and Heads of Government Business Department of the Banks were instructed to return both halves of PPO to CPAO where no nominee is authorized for pension on the same PPO so that the family pension could be authorized to other eligible members of the family of the pensioner.

It has been observed that the both halves of the PPOs are not being returned by the CPPCs of the banks which has resulted in a number of court cases for delay in the commencement of family pension to the family pensioner other than the spouse.

It is reiterated that both halves of the PPO may be returned to the CPAO in case there is no nominee authorized for family pension on the same PPO exist as stipulated at per Para 23.3 of the Scheme for Payment of Pension to Central Government Civil Pensioners by Authorized Banks (Fourth Edition, 3rd December, 2004).

As per Para 23.3 of the Scheme for Payment of Pension to Central Government Civil Pensioners by Authorized Banks (Fourth Edition, 3rd December, 2004), wherein it is clearly stated that “The paying branch will enter the date of death of the pensioner in the disburser’s portion of the PPO as well as pensioner’s portion and in the register in the form as in Annexure VIII (pg. 33). The pensioner’s half of PPO will then be returned to the nominee if family pension stands authorized through the same PPO; otherwise it will be returned to the Link Branch/CPPC along with the disburser’s half, for onward transmission to the CPAO. The latter will up-date its record and transmit both halves of the PPO after keeping the necessary note in their records, to the PAO/AG who had issued the PPO for similar action and record”.

All the Heads of the CPPC and Heads of Government Business Department of the Banks are requested to adhere to the above guidelines and return both halves of the PPO to the CPAO in order to avoid delay in finalization of family pension cases other than spouse.

This issues with the approval of Chief Controller (Pensions].

(Md. Shahid Kamal Ansari)
(Asstt. Controller of Accounts)

The non-compliance of these instructions by the banks is resulting increase in receipt of number of court cases and legal cases in CPAO, non-updation of CPAO’s and PA0’s relevant record, delay in authorization of family pension to the eligible family members for whom a new PPO is to be issued, causing hardship to the claimants, points raised by the Pensioners’ Welfare Associations from different platforms including SCOVA meetings.

The Para 6.3.1 of the CPPC Guidelines also stressed upon the strict adherence to the codal provisions of “Scheme Booklet“, CCS(Pension) Rules, Orders, Guidelines on Pension issued by Government of India/Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

Non-compliance of codal provisions by the banks is a very serious lapse on their part. Therefore, it is imperative to instruct the Heads of CPPC of all the banks/ Heads of Govt. Business Divisions to take a stock of these cases and send a Review Report within seven days from the receipt of this Office Memorandum followed by returning of both the halves of all such PPOs wherein pensioner/spouse has died and no claimant for family pension has been authorized in the PPO. The matter may be taken on priority as it is under review at the higher level.

This issues with the approval of Chief Controller (Pensions).

The Hindi version will follow.

(M.M..lidrrahik)
Asstt. Controller of Accounts

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - August 24, 2018 at 7:03 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , , ,

Implementation of the recommendation of the 7th CPC – Option regarding commutation of additional amount of pension

Implementation of the recommendation of the 7th CPC – Option regarding commutation of additional amount of pension

7thCPC-KVS

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN (HQ)
18, Institutional Area,
SaheedJeet Singh Marg
New Delhi-110016.
Phone no. : 26561153, 26858570,
www,kvsangathan.nicin

Dated: 21.08.2018

F.110230(Misc.)2018/KVS(HO)/P&I /2362
The Deputy Commissioner/Director,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
All Regional Offices/ZIETs,

Sub:- Implementation of the recommendation of the 7th CPC- Option regarding commutation of additional amount of pension.

It is to inform that Govt. of India vide its OM No. 42/14/2016-P&PW(G) dated 24.10.2016 has provided an option to the pensioners retired between 01.01.2016 to 04.08.2016, in relaxation of Rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules,1981, not to commute the pension which has become additionally commutable on revision of pay/pension on implementation of recommendations of the 7th CPC.

The Govt. of India OM is also enclosed for ready reference.

Yours faithfully

(A.K. Srivastava)
Assistant Commissioner (Finance)

Source: KVS

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - August 23, 2018 at 9:53 pm

Categories: 7CPC, KV School   Tags: , , , , ,

Revision of Casualty Pensionary Awards in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Officer and JCOs/Ors pensioners

7th CPC and OROP: Revision of Casualty Pensionary Awards in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Officer and JCOs/ORs pensioners – Clarification

OFFICE OF THE PR. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014

Circular No. 604

Dated: 16.08.2018

To,

The Chief Accountant, RBI, Deptt. Of Govt. Bank Accounts, Central office C-7, Second Floor, Bandre- Kuria Complex, P B No 8143, Bandre East Mumbai- 400051
All CMDs, Public Sector Banks including IDBI Bank
Nodal Officers, ICICl/ HDFC/ AXIS/ IDBI Banks
Managers, All CPPCs
Military and Air Attache, Indian Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal
The PCDA (WC), Chandigarh
The CDA (PD), Meerut
The CDA, Chennai
The Director of Treasuries, All States
The Pay and Accounts Officer, Delhi Administration, RK Puram and Tis Hazari, New Delhi
The Pay and Accounts Office, Govt of Maharashtra, Mumbai
The Post Master Kathua (J&K)
The Post Master Camp Bell Bay
The Pr. Pay and Accounts Officer, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair

Sub:- Revision of Casualty Pensionary Awards in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Officer and JCOs/Ors pensioners: Clarification.

Ref:- This office Circular No. 569 dated 19.10.2016.

There are several representations from various War Veteran Associations demanding the benefit of Maximum of Term of Engagement in OROP as well as in 7th CPC revision quoting the Para-3 of Circular No. 569 dated 19.10.2016. Thus, it appears that there are some misinterpretation /confusion about Para-3 of Circular No. 569 dated 19.10.2016, which needs to be clarified in this regard.

Earlier vide Annexure No.-II of MoD letter No. 200847/Pen-C/71 dated 24.02.1972, there was a provision that Service Element of War Injury Pension will be equal in amount to the normal retiring pension of the rank held at the time of disablement for maximum service of rank. It means Service Element of War Injury Pension was admissible for maximum term of engagement subject to restriction that War Injury Pension should not be more than last pay drawn. Prior to 6th CPC the Service Element/ Service Pension was given 50% of the reckonable emoluments for 33 years of Qualifying Service including weightage, and for lesser period it was proportionately reduced. It is pertinent to mention that after evolution of 6th CPC provision concept of pro-rata reduction has been dispensed with. As per 6th CPC orders pension will be 50% of the last pay drawn irrespective of Qualifying Service. Therefore, relevance of Maximum Term of Engagement becomes obsolete.

The minimum guaranteed pension after implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission, was initially determined on the basis of minimum of the Pay in Pay Band plus Grade Pay vide MoD letter dated 11.11.2008 (Circular No. 397 of this office). This was further modified with issue of MoD letter No. 1(04)/ 2015 / (1)-D (Pen/ Pol) dated 03.09 .2015 for revision of Service Pension/ Service Element in respect of Pre-2006 Commissioned Officers/JCOs/ORs pensioners on the basis of minimum of fitment table for the Rank in the revised Pay Band as indicated under fitment tables, and accordingly Circular No. 547 and 548 has been issued for PBORs and Commissioned Officers respectively. The ibid minimum guaranteed pension was calculated as 50% of minimum of fitment table for 33 years of Qualifying Service including weightage with pro-rata reduction for lesser period.

The minimum guaranteed disability element/war injury element was not covered in the ibid MoD letter dated 03.09.2015. Therefore, .MoD letter No. 16(01)/2014/ D(Pen/ Pol) dated 18.05.2016 was issued (Circular No. 560) for revision of Casualty Pensionary awards in respect of Pre-2006 Armed Forces Officers and JCO/ORs Pensioners/ Family Pensioners, which provides for minimum guaranteed Disability Element/War Injury Element. The clause of pension upto Maximum Term of Engagement in case of War Disabled Pensioners which was admissible prior to 6th CPC was omitted in both the above circulars of minimum guaranteed pension. Therefore, there was a need to clarify this issue and hence the Para-3 has been inserted in Circular No. 569 dated 19.10.2016. After issue of GOI MoD letter No. 1(2)/2016-D(Pen/Pol) dated 30.09.2016 for delinking of qualifying service of 33 years for revision of pension under minimum guaranteed pension, Para No, 3 of Circular No. 569 has become redundant and therefore this Para-3 may be treated as deleted.

After implementation of 6th CPC and subsequently also in 7th CPC, pension will be determined on the basis of 50% of last pay drawn irrespective of Qualifying Service, so the relevance of pro-rata reduction for lesser qualifying service become redundant as full pension is admissible for each qualifying service in each rank. Therefore, pension upto term of engagement has also become redundant. Further, the pension as per OROP rates was based on the live data of 2013 retirees where pension was given as per 6th CPC provisions. Therefore, the demand of pension upto term of engagement has also become obsolete.

Therefore, it is requested that the issue may be dealt with accordingly and the pensioner approaching for this may be clarified on similar lines duly stating that pension upto term of engagement in case of war disabled pensioners in OROP as well as 7th CPC revision is irrelevant.

This circular has been uploaded on official website of this office www.pcdapension.nic.in

No. Gts/Tech/05/LXXX
Dated: 16.08.2018

(Sushil Kumar Singh)
Jt. CDA(P)

Source: pcdapension.nic.in

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - August 22, 2018 at 8:20 pm

Categories: OROP   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

REINTRODUCTION OF OLD PENSION SCHEME

Reintroduction Of Old Pension Scheme

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 4075
TO BE ANSWERED ON AUGUST 10, 2018/SHRAVANA 19, 1940 (SAKA)
REINTRODUCTION OF OLD PENSION SCHEME

Shri Rakesh Singh

Will the Minister of FINANCE be pleased to state

  • the details of drawbacks of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) introduced for the Government officials;
  • whether the NPS is not as beneficial monetarily as the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and if so, the details thereof;
  •  whether the Government employees are disgruntled with the NPS and if so, the details thereof; and
  • whether the Government proposes to reintroduce the OPS replacing the NPS, if so, the details thereof and the action taken by the Government in this regard?

ANSWER

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance
(Shri Shiv Pratap Shulda)

(a) & (b) National Pension System (NPS) has been designed giving utmost importance to the welfare of the subscribers. Government has made a conscious move to shift from the defined benefit pension scheme to defined contribution pension scheme i.e. NPS, due to rising and unsustainable pension bill. There are a number of benefits available to the employees under NPS. Some of the benefits are enlisted below:

  • NPS is a well designed pension system managed through an unbundled architecture involving intermediaries appointed by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) viz. pension funds, custodian, central record keeping and accounting agency, National Pension System Trust, trustee bank, points of presence and Annuity service providers. It is prudently regulated by PFRDA which is a statutory regulatory body established to promote old age income security and to protect the interest of subscribers of NPS.
  • The pension wealth which accumulates over a period of time till retirement grows with a compounding effect. The all-in-costs of the institutional architecture of NPS are among the lowest in the world.
  • Contribution made to the NPS Tier-I account is eligible for tax deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. An additional tax rebate of Rs.50000 is also allowed for contributions made to NPS Tier-I under Section 80CCD (1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  • Subscribers can withdraw up to 25% of their own contributions before attaining age of superannuation, subject to certain conditions. Further, PFRDA vide “PFRDA (Exits and Withdrawals under the NPS) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2017″ dated 10.08.2017 has liberalized norms for partial withdrawals which also include reduction of requirement of minimum years of being enrolled under NPS from 10 years to 3 years from the date of joining.
  • PFRDA has increased the maximum age limit from 60 years to 65 years for joining NPS-All Citizen Model and Corporate Sector Model, vide “PFRDA (Exits and Withdrawals under the NPS) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2017” dated 06.10.2017.
  • PFRDA vide “PFRDA (Exits and Withdrawals under the NPS) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018″ dated 02.2018 has facilitated easy exit & withdrawal in case of disability and incapacitation of the subscriber covered under NPS.
  • Transparency and Portability is ensured through online access of the pension account by the NPS subscribers, across all geographical locations and portability of employments.

(c) & (d) Representations have been received which inter alia also include the demand that the Government may revert to old defined benefit pension system. However, due to rising and unsustainable pension bill and competing claims on the fiscal, there is no proposal to replace the NPS with old pension scheme in respect of Central Government employees recruited on or after 01.01.2004.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - August 10, 2018 at 5:14 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , ,

Holding of Pension Adalats on 18th September 2018

Holding of Pension Adalats on 18th September, 2018: CGA to all Pr.CCAs/CCAs/CAs

Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
O/o Controller General of Accounts

Mahalekha Niyantrak Bhawan
Block-E, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi.

NO.CDN/MF-CGA/Misc/2018/244

Dated 30 July, 2018

Office Memorandum

Subject: Holding of Pension Adalats on 18th September, 2018

The undersigned is directed to refer to D.O letter No. 42/11/2018-P&PW(G) dated 1ot July, 2018 from Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions to the Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments with a appeal to hold Pension Adalats on September 18, 2018 with a objective of prompt and quick redressal of pensioners’ grievances. A copy of DO letter which is self explanatory is enclosed.

2. It is needless to mention that Pay and Accounts offices and Central Pension Accounting Office have a pivotal role in pension related matters, by organising pension adalats grievances of the pensioners can be minimised.

Therefore, all the Pr.CCAs/CCAs/CAs (with independent chrages) and Chief Controller ( P) are requested to extend wide publicity for Pension Adalat and suitably instruct their field PAOS/RPAOs/ZAOS to hold Pension Adalat on September 18, 2018.

3. Outcome of the Pension Adalats organised by your Ministry/Department may be intimated in the enclosed proforma.

Encl: as above

Sd/-
(Bhaskar Verma)
Joint. Controller General of Accounts

Source: http://cga.nic.in/

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - July 31, 2018 at 10:01 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , ,

Disbursement of Old Age, Disability and Widow Pensions

Ministry of Rural Development
Disbursement of Old Age, Disability and Widow Pensions

Posted On: 26 JUL 2018 5:59PM by PIB Delhi

Resolution of technical issues, if and when faced by the Banks, in dealing with assistance being disbursed through them is an ongoing process. No Bank has raised any issue related to any specific training requirement for their human resources for handling the pension issues.

Government has adopted the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) Scheme for direct transfer of benefit into the bank/post office accounts of beneficiaries of schemes under National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). Instructions have been issued to the States for getting the due consent for seeding the Aadhaar details. Instructions also mention that disbursement of pension of any beneficiary could not be affected due to non-availability of Aadhaar number. Further, NSAP guidelines provide that given their physical, social and economic vulnerability, States should ensure that an infirm/old beneficiary will not have to travel far distance to access his/her pension account. As far as possible, for people who cannot cover distance physically, the objective is to provide door step delivery.

Several Banks in many states are using the services of Bank Sakhi’s coming from self help groups to provide cost effective solutions for delivery of pensions at home.

This information was provided by the Minister of State for Rural Development, Shri Ram Kripal Yadav today in a written reply to a Lok Sabha question.

PIB

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - July 26, 2018 at 7:52 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Scheme of Pension to Meritorious Sportspersons

Scheme of ‘Pension to Meritorious Sportspersons’

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
Pension to Sportspersons

Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Youth Affairs and Sports Col. Rajyavardhan Rathore has said that government gives lifelong pension under the Scheme of ‘Pension to Meritorious Sportspersons’, sportspersons who have won medals for the country in the international competitions only and have retired from active sports. In a written reply in Lok Sabha today, the Minister said at present, 588 Sportspersons are getting pension. The rate of pension has been revised with effect from 1.4.2018. The rate of pension has been doubled of the rates of pension existing earlier.

The revised rates of pension with effect from 1.4.2018 are as under:

S. No. Category of meritorious sportspersons Rate of Pension
(Rs./per month)
1 Medallists at the Olympic Games / Para Olympic Games 20,000
2 Gold medallists at the World Cup/World Championship* in Olympic and Asian Games disciplines 16,000
3 Silver and Bronze medallists at the World Cup in Olympic and Asian Games disciplines 14,000
4 Gold medallists of the Asian/ Commonwealth Games/Para Asian Games 14,000
5 Silver and Bronze medallists of the Asian/Commonwealth Games/ Para Asian Games 12,000

World Cup/World Championship held once in four year only shall be considered.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - July 20, 2018 at 3:04 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , ,

Reversion to old pension scheme

Reversion to old pension scheme

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Reversion to old pension scheme

In accordance with the scheme for National Pension System (NPS), as notified vide Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs)’s Notification No. 5/7/2003-ECB & PR dated 22.12.2003, the System is mandatory for all new recruits to the Central Government service (except armed forces) from 01.01.2004.

Accordingly, as per Rule 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended on 30.12.2003, these rules are applicable to Government servants appointed to civil posts on or before 31.12.2003. The date on which the vacancies arose or the date on which the examination was conducted for filling up the vacancies is not relevant for deciding the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972.

Ministry of Home Affairs have not sought any advice from Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare on the question of having a policy to cover the paramilitary personnel appointed after 01.01.2004 under the Old Pension Scheme on the ground that the vacancies arose, or the examination was conducted, in the year 2003. However, a reference was received from Ministry of Home Affairs in a specific case relating to appointments as Sub-Inspector in various Central Para Military Forces after selection in August, 2003 on the basis of an Examination conducted in 2002.

Appointments on the basis of these selections were made in Central Reserve Police Force in 2003 and the candidates appointed were covered by the pension scheme under Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, in the Border Security Force, offers of appointment on the basis of the same examination/selection were issued in January, 2004.

On a petition filed by some personnel appointed in the Border Security Force on the basis of that examination, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi directed to cover the petitioners under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the grounds of administrative delay on the part of Border Security Force in making appointments.

The order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs/Border Security Force in view of the peculiar circumstances of that case. The decision taken in that case is, however, not relevant for deciding applicability of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules to all appointments made on or after 01.01.2004 in the Central Para Military Forces or in any other Department/organization on the basis of year of examination/selection.

This information was provided by the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) Development of North-Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, DrJitendra Singh in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha today.

PIB

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - at 2:59 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , , ,

PCDA: Restoration of pension in respect of Defence Service Personnel

PCDA: Restoration of pension in respect of Defence Service Personnel

PCDA

OFFICE OF THE PR. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014

Circular No. 602

Dated: 10.07.2018

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

Subject : Restoration of pension in respect of Defence Service Personnel who had drawn lump sum payment on absorption in Public Sector Undertakings/ Autonomous Bodies-delinking of qualifying service of 33 years for revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006.

Reference:- This office Circular No. 568 dated 13.10.2016 and Circular No. 592 dated 05.12.2017.

A Copy of Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Deptt of ESW letter No. 1(04)/2007/D(Pen/Pol) dated 20.06.2018 on the above subject, which is self explanatory, is forwarded herewith for your information, guidance and necessary action.

2. In terms of GoI, MoD letter No. 1(2)/2016-D(Pen/Pol) dated 30.09.2016, revised consolidated pension and family pension of pre-2006 Armed Forces pensioners w.e.f. 1.1.2006 shall not be lower than 50 % and 30% respectively of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired/ discharged/ invalided out/ died including Military Service Pay and “X” Group pay, if any, without pro rata reduction of pension even if they had rendered qualifying service of less than 33 years at the time of retirement.

3. Now it has been decided by the Government that while determining the revised pension of above said category of absorbe pensioners/family pensioners with effect from 1.1.2006, the pension/ family pension shall also be revised in accordance with the provisions contained in the GoI, MoD letter No. 1(2)/2016-D(Pen/Pol) dated 30.09.2016 referred above.

4. The pension in terms of this order will be revised by the respective Pension Sanctioning Authorities Suo-moto by issuing Corrigendum PPOs in all affected cases. No application in this regard shall be called for either from the pensioners or from the PDAs concerned. Further, PDAs would also brought into notice of PSAs, such left out cases, if any, for revision of pension.

5. All other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.

6. This circular has been uploaded on PCDA (P) website www.pcdapension.nic.in.

(Sushil Kumar Singh)
Jt. CDA(P)

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - July 18, 2018 at 5:11 pm

Categories: Defence   Tags: , , ,

Procedure for extending the benefits of Old GPF / Pension Scheme to those casual workers covered under the Scheme of 1993 and regularized on or after 01.01.2004

Old GPF / Pension Scheme to those casual workers regularized on or after 01.01.2004 – Procedure for extending the benefits: Instructions by CPAO

CPAO

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066

CPAO/IT&Tech/Clarificarion/P&PW/13 (Vol-III)/2018-19/68

13.07.2018

Office Memorandum

Subject : Procedure for extending the benefits of Old GPF / Pension Scheme to those casual workers covered under the Scheme of 1993 and regularized on or after 01.01.2004.

It has been observed that the pension cases of casual labour who were regularized on or after 01.01.2004 and eligible for old GPF/Pension Scheme vide DOPT OM No.49014/2/2014-Estt(C) dated 28.07.2016 have not been processed by the concerned Ministries/Departments. In order to avoid the hardship to the pensioners all the Ministries/Departments/PAOs have been requested to finalise the pension cases of the pensioners after following the procedure below:

1) Deptt. may issue the order that the old GPF Scheme/ Pension Scheme is applicable to the concerned official.

2) CPAO may be requested through concerned Pay & Accounts Office to stop Provisional Pension after cancellation of PPO, if issued.

3) NSDL may be requested by the concerned PAO to deposit the NPS subscription, Govt. Contribution plus interest thereon into the Govt. Account through ERM of NSDL.

4) On receipt of the amount it may be classified by the concerned PAO as below:

Sl.No Component Head of Account
i) Adjustment of employee’s contribution in Accounts Amount may be credited to the individual,s GPF Account and the account may be recast permitting upto date interest as applicable from time to time (FR-16 & Rule 11 of GPF Rule)
ii) Adjustment of Government contribution under NPS in Accounts To be accounted for as [-) Dr.to object Head “70 Deduct Recoveries under major Head 2071 – Pension and Other Retirement Benefits” and Minor Head “911 Deduct Recoveries of Overpayment” (Para 3.10 of List of Major Minor Heads)
(iii) Adjustment of increased value of subscription account of appreciation of investment May be accounted for by crediting the amount to Govt. Account under Major Head “0071- Contribution and Recoveries towards pension and Other Retirement Benefits” and Minor Head “800-Other Receipts”.
(Note under the above Major Head in List of Major Minor Heads)

5) GPF and Pension case of the concerned official may be processed as per the GPF Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after adjusting the Provisional Pension paid to the pensioner, if paid.

This issues with the approval of the Chief Controller (Pensions).

(Praful Dabral)
Sr. Accounts Officer (IT & Tech)

Source: cpao.nic.in

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - July 17, 2018 at 2:58 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Next Page »