Posts Tagged ‘Pensionary Benefits’

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

Advertisement

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

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 3, 2018 at 4:06 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: , , , , , ,

Pay element relating to Running Staff/Loco Inspectors after the recommendations of 7th CPC

Pay element relating to Running Staff/Loco Inspectors after the recommendations of 7th CPC

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No.E(P&A)II-2015/RS-25

New Delhi,
dated:13.11.2017

The General Manager,
Metro Railway,
Kolkata.

Sub : Pay element relating to Running Staff/Loco Inspectors after the recommendations of Seventh CPC.

Please refer to your letter no. MRTS/E.345/0/12/Pt.IV/Misc dt. 05.05.2017 requesting a clarification about the percentage of pay element to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits in respect of Loco Inspectors. This issue has also been raised by GS/NFIR in his letter no. IV/RSAC/Conf/Pt. VIII dt. 15.09.2017.

2. Loco Inspectors are entitled to 30% add-on pay element for retirement benefits as per paragraph no. 5.5 of Board’s letter no. E(P&A)II/83/RS-10(iv) dt. 25.11.1992 which has not been amended as yet. It is clarified that the pay element (presently 30% until further orders) has to be reckoned in the revised pay structure of Seventh CPC for calculation of pensionary benefits of Loco Inspectors.

3. In this connection it is noted that many retired Loco Inspectors, even after getting the benefit of 30% add-on pay element at the time of pay fixation as Loco Inspectors, have gone to Courts of Law claiming 55% pay element for pensionary benefits equating themselves to the running staff. It is reiterated that Loco Inspectors are not classified as running staff and therefore are not entitled to 55% pay element for pensionary benefits. This fact may be conveyed to such Loco Inspectors while calculating their pensionary benefits.

4.This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.

S/d,
(Salim Md. Ahmed)
Deputy Director/E(P&A)II,
Railway Board

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - November 15, 2017 at 9:19 pm

Categories: 7CPC, Railways   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Another gimmick by the Modi Government: Cabinet decision on 3rd May 2017 related 7th CPC – Reg

Cabinet decision on 3rd May 2017 related 7th CPC – Reg. Another gimmick by the Modi Government

National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees
NFAEE
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
Regn.No.17/9615
Recognised by DAE vide DAE OM No. 8/1/2007 – IR&W/95 dated 13th June 2007
NFAEE Office, Opp. NIYAMAK BHAVAN, Anusaktinagar, Mumbai 400 094
Web site: www.nfaeehq.blogspot.com ; Email address: nfaee@yahoo.com

Ref. No: nfaee/17/085

Dated :04.05.2017

To
All Affiliates
NFAEE

Sub:  Cabinet decision on 3rd May 2017 related 7th CPC – Reg. Another gimmick by the Modi Government

Dear Comrades,

A press communique was issued by Ministry of Finance on 3rd May 2017 with a caption “Cabinet approves modification in the 7th CPC recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits.” Copy of the said communique is attached.

But in the said communique nowhere it was mentioned about any modifications in the recommendations on pay. It contains only two subjects, Revision of pensioners of pre – 2016 pensioners and family pensioners and Disability Pension for Defence Pensioners. The communique is left with half information with regards to pre 2016 pensioners as it was not clarified how the pension is going to regulate.

The attempt of the Government is to create confusion among the Central Government Employees in general and the Public at large, as the Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers has been announced its next course of action to hold dharna in front of the house of Finance Minister Arun Jaitely’s New Delhi on 23rd May 2017.

We can also expect statements from the so called NJCA leadership to congratulate the Government and may even claim because of their effort only the Cabinet too decision on pre – 2016 pensioners (or inaction?).

Beware of such leaders and the Government’s attitude and ensure grand success of the Dharna on 23rd May 2017 at Delhi and in all units as per the call from Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers. Be ready for Dharna

With fraternal Greetings

Comradely yours
S/d,
(Jayaraj KV)
Secretary General

Source : http://nfaeehq.blogspot.in/

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - May 13, 2017 at 9:28 am

Categories: Employees News   Tags: , , , , ,

Modifications in the 7th CPC recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits approved by the Cabinet on 3rd May, 2017

Modifications in the 7th CPC recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits approved by the Cabinet on 3rd May, 2017

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi approved important proposals relating to modifications in the 7th CPC (Central Pay Commission) recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits in the course of their implementation. Earlier, on 29th June, 2016, the Cabinet had approved implementation of the recommendations with an additional financial outgo of Rs.84,933 crore for 2016-17 (including arrears for 2 months of 2015-16).

The benefit of the proposed modifications will be available with effect from 1stJanuary, 2016, i.e., the date of implementation of 7th CPC recommendations. With the increase approved by the Cabinet, the annual pension bill alone of the Central Government is likely to be Rs.1,76,071 crore. Some of the important decisions of the Cabinet are mentioned below:

1. Revision of pension of pre -2016 pensioners and family pensioners

The Cabinet approved modifications in the recommendations of the 7th CPC relating to the method of revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners and family pensioners based on suggestions made by the Committee chaired by Secretary (Pensions) constituted with the approvalof the Cabinet. The modified formulation of pension revision approved by the Cabinet will entail an additional benefit to the pensioners and an additional expenditure of approximately Rs.5031 crore for 2016-17 over and above the expenditure already incurred in revision of pension as per the second formulation based on fitment factor. It will benefit over 55 lakh pre-2016 civil and defence pensioners and family pensioners.

While approving the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations on 29thJune, 2016,the Cabinet had approved the changed method of pension revision recommended by the 7th CPC for pre-2016 pensioners, comprising of two alternative formulations, subject to the feasibility of the first formulation which was to be examined by the Committee.

In terms of the Cabinet decision, pensions of pre-2016 pensioners were revised as per the second formulation multiplying existing pension by a fitment factor of 2.57, though the pensioners were to be given the option of choosing the more beneficial of thetwo formulationsas per the 7th CPC recommendations.

In order to provide the more beneficial option to the pensioners, Cabinet has accepted the recommendations of the Committee, which has suggested revision of pension based on information contained in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to every pensioner. The revised procedure of fixation of notional pay is more scientific, rational and implementable in all the cases. The Committee reached its findings based on an analysis of hundreds of live pension cases. The modified formulation will be beneficial to more pensioners than the first formulation recommended by the 7th CPC, which was not found to be feasible to implement on account of non-availability of records in a large number of cases and was also found to be prone to several anomalies.

2. Disability Pension for Defence Pensioners

The Cabinet also approved the retention of percentage-based regime of disability pension implemented post 6thCPC, which the 7th CPC had recommended to be replaced by a slab-based system.

The issue of disability pension was referred to the National Anomaly Committee by the Ministry of Defence on account of the representation received from the Defence Forces to retain the slab-based system, as it would have resulted in reduction in the amount of disability pension for existing pensioners and a reduction in the amount of disability pension for future retirees when compared to percentage-based disability pension.

The decision which will benefit existing and future Defence pensioners would entailan additional expenditure of approximatelyRs.130 crore per annum.

3. Changes in Pay Structure and Revision of the three Pay Matrices:

The Cabinet, while approving the 7th CPC recommendations for their implementation on 29thJune, had made two modifications in the Defence Pay Matrix as under:

(i) Index of Rationalisation (IOR) of Level 13A (Brigadier) may be increased from 2.57 to 2.67.

(ii) Additional 3 stages in Levels 12A (Lt. Col.) , 3 stages in Level 13 (Colonel) and 2 stages in Level 13A (Brigadier) may be added.

The Cabinet has now approved further modifications in the pay structure and the three Pay Matrices, i.e. Civil, Defence and Military Nursing Service (MNS). The modifications are listed below:

(i) Defence Pay Matrixhas been extended to 40 stages similar to the Civil Pay Matrix: The 7th CPC had recommended a compact Pay Matrix for Defence Forces personnel keeping in view the number of levels, age and retirement profiles of the service personnel.Ministry of Defence raised the issue that the compact nature of the Defence Pay Matrix may lead to stagnation for JCOs in Defence Forces and proposed that the Defence Pay Matrix be extended to 40 stages. The Cabinet decisionto extendthe Defence Pay Matrix will benefit the JCOs who can continue in service without facing any stagnation till their retirement age of 57 years.

(ii) IOR for Levels 12 A(Lt. Col. and equivalent)and 13(Colonel and equivalent)in the Defence Pay Matrix and Level 13 (Director and equivalent)in the Civil Pay Matrix has been increased from 2.57 to 2.67: Variable IOR ranging from 2.57 to 2.81 has been applied by the 7th CPC to arrive at Minimum Pay in each Level on the premise that with enhancement of Levels from PayBand 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and onwards, the role, responsibility and accountability increases at each step in the hierarchy. This principle has not been applied in respect of Levels 12A (Lt. Col. and equivalent), 13 (Colonel and equivalent) and 13A (Brigadier and equivalent) of Defence Pay Matrix and Level 13 (Director and equivalent) of the Civil Pay Matrix on the ground that there was a disproportionate increase in entry pay at the level pertaining to GP 8700 in the 6thCPC regime. The IOR for Level 13A (Brigadier and equivalent) in the Defence Pay Matrix has already been revised upwards with the approval of the Cabinet earlier. In view of the request from Ministry of Defence for raising the IOR for Levels 12 A and 13 of the Defence Pay Matrix and requests from others, the IOR for these levels has beenrevised upwards to ensure uniformity of approach in determining the IOR.

(iii) To give effect to the decisions to extend the Defence Pay Matrix and to enhance the IORs, the three Pay Matrices -Civil, Defence and MNS -have also been revised. While doing so, two calculation errors noticed in the MNS Pay Matrix have also been rectified.

(iv) To ensure against reduction in pay, benefit of pay protection in the form of Personal Pay was earlier extended to officers when posted on deputation under Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) with the approval of Cabinet. The benefit will also be available to officers coming on Central Deputation on posts not covered under the CSS.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - May 5, 2017 at 10:40 am

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

30% add on pay element to the retiring Loco Inspectors for reckoning pensionary benefits

30% add on pay element to the retiring Loco Inspectors for reckoning pensionary benefits

No.IV/RSAC/Conf./Part VII

Dated:28/03/2017

The Secretary (E),
Railway Board,
New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Sub: Thirty percent (30%) add on pay element to the retiring Loco Inspectors for reckoning pensionary benefits-reg.

Ref: Railway Board’s letter No.E(P&A)II-2015/RS-25 dated 24/01/2017
The Railway Board vide letter dated 24th January 2017 has clarified to the Zonal Railways that the Running Staff are entitled for 55% add on pay element on their 7th CPC Pay for Pensionary benefits. However, clarification with regard to continuance of 30% add on pay element for retiral benefits to the retiring Loco Inspectors has not been incorporated in Board’s letter dated 24th January 2017, referred to above. Railway Board’s attention is also invited to its letters No.E(P&A)II/83/RS-10 (iv) dated 25/II/l992 and No.E(P&A)II-2005/RS-34 dated 26/12/2008 (RBE No.20212008) on the subject.

NFIR, therefore, requests the Railway Board to issue clarification for reckoning 30% add on pay element to the last pay drawn by retiring Loco Inspectors for payment of pensionary benefits. Copy of Railway Board’s letter No.E(P&A)II-2005/RS-34 dated 26/12/2008 is also enclosed.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(Dr.M.Raghavaiah)
General Secretary

Source: NFIR

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - March 29, 2017 at 2:37 pm

Categories: Railways   Tags: , , , , , ,

Resolution on pensionary matter on recommendation of 7th CPC

Resolution on pensionary matter on recommendation of 7th CPC

(TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF (EXTRAORDINARY), PART SECTION III)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE

RESOLUTION

New Delhi, the
30th September, 2016

The Terms of Reference of the Seventh Central Pay Commission as contained in Ministry of Finance (Department or Expenditure) Resolution (A), dated 28.2.2014, as amended vide Resolution, dated 8.9.2015, inter alia , included the following:-

To examine. review, evolve, and recommend changes that are desirable and feasible regarding the principles that should govern emoluments structure, concessions and facilities/benefits, in cash or kind well the retirement benefits of the personnel belonging to the Defence Forces, having regard to the historical and traditional parities, with due emphasis on the aspects unique to these personnel.

2. The Commission submitted its report to the Government on 19th November, 2015. Government has considered the recommendations of the Commission on pensionary benefits to the personnel belonging to the Defence Force contained in Chapter 10.2 of the Report of the Commission and have decided that the recommendations shall broadly accepted subject to certain modifications.

3. Detailed recommendations the Commission relating to pensionary benefits and decisions taken thereon by the Government are listed in the statement annexed to this Resolution.

4. The revised provisions regarding pensionary benefits will be effective from 01.01.2016.

sd/-
(K. Damayanthi)
Joint Secretary the Govt. of India

ANNEXURE

Statement showing the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission relating to principles which should govern the structure of pension and other terminal benefits contained in Chapter 10.2 of the Report and the decisions of Government thereon.

 

Item No. Recommendation for past Defence Forces personnel Decision of Government
1 Revision of Pension of pre 7th CPC retirees
The Commission recommends the following pension formulation for Defence Forces Personnel who have retired before 01.01.2016 :

(i) All the Defence Forces who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations ) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he 1 she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Military Service Pay shall be added to the amount which is arrived at after notionally fitting him in the 7th CPC matrix. Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension.

(ii) The second calculation to be carried out is as follows. The pension, as had been fixed at the time of implementation of the VI CPC recommendations, shall be multiplied by 2.57 to arrive at an alternate value for the revised pension.

(iii) Pensioners shall be entitled to the higher of the two.

It is recognized that the fixation of the pension as per formulation (i) above may take a little time since the records of each pensioner will have to be checked to ascertain the number of increments earned in the retiring level. It is, therefore, recommended that in the first instance the pension, may be fixed in terms of formulation (ii) above, till final fixation of the pension under the Seventh CPC matrix is undertaken.

(Para 10.2.87 & 10.2.88 of the Report)

Both the options recommended by the 7th Central Pay Commission as regards pension revision be accepted subject to feasibility of the implementation.
Revision of pension using the second option based on fitment factor of 2.57 be implemented by multiplying the pension drawn on 31.12.2015 immediately. The first option may be made applicable if its implementation is found feasible after examination by the Committee comprising Secretary (Pension) as Chairman and Member (Staff) Railway Board, Member (Staff) D/o Posts, Additional Secretary &FA M/o Home Affairs and Controller General of Accounts as Members
2 Rates of Pension, Family Pension & Special Family Pension

The Commission does not recommend any further increase in the rate of Pension for JCOs/ORs. (Para 10.2.22)

No change is being recommended by the Commission for either civilian or defence pensioners in Enhanced Ordinary Family Pension. (Para 10.2.33)

No further increase in the existing rate of Special Family Pension is recommended by the Commission. (Para 10.2.35)

Accepted.
3 Additional Pension and Family Pension to the older pensioners.

No further increase in the existing rate of additional pension and additional family pension with advancing age is recommended by the Commiss:ion.(Para 10.2.24)

No further increase in the existing rate of additional pension and additional family pension with advancing age is recommended by the Commission.(Para 10,2.37)

Accepted.
4 Pre-2006 Honorary Naib Subedar

This Commission does not find any merit in re-opening an issue that has been clearly settled. Therefore no change is Being recommended in this regard. (Para 10.2.26 )

Accepted.
5 Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel

The Commission does not recommend reduction in the qualifying service for entitlement of second pension to Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel from 15 to 10 years. (Para 10.2.28)

Accepted.
6 Depression in Pension for Qualifying Service

The Commission observes that pension formulation is appropriate and finds no justification for a review of the existing arrangements with regard to pension of Territorial Army personnel.(Para 10.2.30)

Accepted.
7 Inclusion of War Injury Element/Disability Element in Computation of Family Pension

The Commission has not recommended any further change in the existing provisions with regard to inclusion of war injury element/disability element in the computation of family pension. (Para 10.2.39)

Accepted.
8 Enhancement in rate of disability pension.

The Commission is of the considered view that the regime implemented post VI CPC needs to be discontinued, and recommended a return to the slab based system. The slab rates for disability element for 100 percent disability would be as follows

Rank Levels Rate per
month(INR)
Service Officers 10 and above 27000
Honorary Commissioned Officers
Subedar Major /Equivalents 6 to 9 17000
Subedar /Equivalent
Naib Subedar /Equivalents
Havildar/Equivalents 5 and below 12000
Nailc/Equivalents
Sepoy/Equivalents
Accepted
9 Enhancing the Cover of Disability.

The Commission recommends broad-banding of disability for all personnel retiring with disability, including premature cases/ voluntary retirement cases fo disability greater than 20 percent.(Para 10.2.57)

Accepted.
10 Additional old age Pension should be Applicable for Disability/War Injury Pension.
No further enhancement by inclusion of elements of disability/ war injury pension has been recommended by the Commission.(Para 10.2.59)
Accepted.
11 Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated (NANA) cases, be awarded Disability Pension

The Commission recommends that while the existing regulations involving disability Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated (NANA) by service may continue, it is for the authorities to establish, in each case, through a reasoned order that disability was Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated ANA) by military service. (Para 10.2.61)

Accepted.
12 War Injury Pension where Individual is Retained in Service

The Commission does not recommend any change in the. existing regime of payouts for those with war injury and retained in service. (Para 10.2.63)

Accepted.
13 Ex-gratia Lump Sum Compensation to Invalided out Defence Personnel.

The Commission has recommended an increase in the existing lump sum compensation of Rs. 9 lakh for 100 percent disability to Rs. 20 lakh. However it finds no justification to recommend broad banding for payment of Ex-gratia award to service personnel boarded out on account of disability/war injury attributable to or aggravated by
military service.(Para 10.2.65)

Accepted.
14 Ex Gratia Disability Award to Cadets.

The Commission, however, keeping in views the facts relating to cadets recommends an increase ex-gratia disability award from the existing Rs. 6,300 per month to Rs. 16,200 per month for 100 percent disability. (Para 10.2.67 )

Accepted.

Click to read the resolution
Authority: http://www.desw.gov.in/

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - October 2, 2016 at 7:52 am

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

Pensionary Benefits drawn by Director level officers vis-d-vis lower level officers at the level of DS/US

Pensionary Benefits drawn by Director level officers vis-d-vis lower level officers at the level of DS/US – Question raised in Lok Sabha. Minister’s reply:-
“The Sixth Central Pay Commission in para 2.2.18 of its Report recommended, inter-alia, that pre-revised pay scales ranging from Group `A` entry level to S-27 scale of Rs. 16400-20900 may be placed in the common Pay Band-3. The Commission further recommended Grade Pay of Rs.6100/- for an Under Secretary level officer, Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- for a Deputy Secretary level officer and Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- for a Director level Officer. As part of the modifications made by the Government, while the Grade Pay of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary level Officers were enhanced to Rs.6600/- and Rs.7600/- respectively, pre-revised Pay Scales from S-24 (applicable to Director level Officers) to S-27 have been placed in Pay Band-4. Both in pre-revised and revised pay structure, the pay scale applicable io a Director level Officer has been higher than that in case of a Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary level Officer and since pension is a function of pay drawn by an Officer at the time of superannuation, pension in case of a DS/US level officer is independent of that in case of a Director level officer. Thus, the question of taking any steps in this regard does not arise.”

Details of Lok Sabha Question:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 4687

ANSWERED ON 21.02.2014

PENSIONARY BENEFITS

4687 . Muhammed HAMDULLA A. B. SAYEED

Will the Minister of FINANCE be pleased to state:-

(a) whether pay band for Director level officers was clubbed with the pay band of other lower level officers as per the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission and if so, the details thereof;

(b) whether the Government delinked the pay band of Director level officers from the band attached to lower level officers;

(c) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor and its impact on pensionary benefits drawn by Director level officers vis-d-vis lower level officers at the level of DS/US; and

(d) the steps taken by the Government to address the issue?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(SHRI NAMO NARAIN MEENA)

(a) to (d): The Sixth Central Pay Commission in para 2.2.18 of its Report recommended, inter-alia, that pre-revised pay scales ranging from Group `A` entry level to S-27 scale of Rs. 16400-209C0 may be placed in the common Pay Band-3. The Commission further recommended Grade Pay of Rs.61007- for an Under Secretary level officer, Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- for a Deputy Secretary level officer and Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- for a Director level Officer. As part of the modifications made by the Government, while the Grade Pay of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary level Officers were enhanced to Rs.6600/- and Rs.7600/- respectively, pre-revised Pay Scales from S-24 (applicable to Director level Officers) to S-27 have been placed in Pay Band-4. Both in pre-revised and revised pay structure, the pay scale applicable io a Director level Officer has been higher than that in case of a Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary level Officer and since pension is a function of pay drawn by an Officer at the time of superannuation, pension in case of a DS/US level officer is independent of that in case of a Director level officer. Thus, the question of taking any steps in this regard does not arise.

 

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - April 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Categories: 6CPC, Pension   Tags: , , , , ,

Cabinet likely to accept minimum pension Rs.1000 per month

Cabinet likely to accept minimum pension Rs.1000 per month

According to media news, Union cabinet may accept the proposal to ensure Rs.1000 minimum monthly pension under the pension scheme run by retirement fund body EPFO.

Acceptance of this agenda, immediately benefit goes to more than 28 lakh pensioners and 5 lakh widows in India.

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - February 28, 2014 at 2:52 am

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , ,

Delay in payment of pensionary benefits to Ex-Servicemen – Financial Services Orders

Delay in payment of pensionary benefits to Ex-Servicemen – Financial Services Orders

F.No.8/1/2012-B.0.III
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Financial Services
(B.O.III Section)
******

2nd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building
10, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001
07th June, 2013

To
(i). The Chief Executives of all Pension Paying Banks.
(ii). The Chief General Manager, In-charge, Customer Service Department,
Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai.

Sub.: Delay in payment of pensionary benefits to the Ex-Servicemen.

Sir,
I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that a case of non-payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 9 lakhs by the UCO Bank, Jhajjar Branch came to the notice of the Department of Financial Services with the approaching that there may be more cases of nonpayment of pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen causing frustration and feeling of isolation in the minds of those who gave their best of life for defence of nation. Such instances may be easily lapped up by the media to paint a negative picture of the PSBs and the Government which could be avoided with a little alacrity on the part of the banking officials.

2. It is therefore requested to kindly look into the matter on top priority basis by sensitizing the bank officials to be more prompt on payment of pensionary benefits to the ex-servicemen without any further delay and also to the CPPCs which need to be streamlined for timely release of pensionary dues to the Armed Forces pensioners. Action taken in this regard be intimated to this Department at the earliest.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(Rakesh Kumar Gupta)
Under Secretary
Tel: 011 23348993

Source: www.financialservices.gov.in
[http://financialservices.gov.in/download.asp?rec=270&NotificationType=C]

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - June 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , , , , ,

AIRF published 8 important agenda items on pensionary matters : Agenda Items for Pensioners

AIRF published 8 important agenda items on pensionary matters : Agenda Items for Pensioners

All India Railwaymen’s Federation General Secretary Shri.Shiva Gopal Mishra have posted a letter on his official blog regarding that the eight agenda items has sent to Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare for the forthcoming meeting with Secretary(Pension). We have reproduced full text of the letter and given below for your ready reference…

Pensionary Benefits :
AIRF has sent agenda items to Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare for the forthcoming meeting with Secretary(Pension).

ALL INDIA RAILWAYMEN’S FEDERATION
4, State Entry Road, New Delhi-110055 INDIA

No.AIRF/NC/JCM(GC)(Pension)

May 18, 2013

The Secretary,
Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110003

Dear Sir,
Sub: Agenda items

We are sending herewith 08 agenda items on pensionary matters for discussing the same in the forthcoming meeting with the Secretary( Pension).

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(Shiva Gopal Mishra)
General Secretary

Item No.1
Sub: Less payment of pension to pre-96 and pre-2006 retirees
It has been noted that the employees drawing pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 in V CPC were allotted pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 in V CPC, and subsequently they were placed in scale Rs.9300-34800 in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200. But it is surprising that, pre-1996 retirees have been placed in PB-I pay scale Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800.

In AIRF’s opinion, this is discrimination with the employees retired before 1.1.1996.

Necessary action, therefore, needs to be taken in the matter urgently.

Item No.2
Sub: Provision of HRA for PensionerslFamily Pensioners
A Government Servant while in service is paid either House Rent Allowance or government accommodation. After retirement he is left with no facility of government accommodation or House Rent Allowance. As such, a pensioner has to pay a major part of his pension as a rent for accommodation. On account of high prices of residential houses, it is not possible for a retired employee to purchase even a small house out of his retirement dues.

AIRF, therefore, requests that, some provision, for payment of HRA to Pensioners/Family Pensioners, should be made to enable them to spend their retirement life comfortably.

Item No.3
Sub: Increase in Family Pension
A government employee gets pension @ 50%of his Basic Pay after retirement, which is considered sufficient to meet the expenses on day-to-day requirement of the family such as food, clothes etc., but after the demise of pensioner, only 30% pension is admissible as Family Pension to his widow. As such, the family gets 40% less pension in comparison to the pension admissible to the employee. It is understood that, after the demise of pensioner, the expenses are not reduced by 50%, which is perhaps the base of fixing FarnIy Pension. Moreover. besides expenses on food, there are some other miscellaneous expenses, which cannot be overlooked. In the circumstances, the existing provision of 30% pension to the family of deceased pensioner is inadequate for survival.

AIRE is, therefore, of the view that the Family Pension should be increased at least from 30% to 40%.

Item No.4
Sub: Arbitrary orders denying revision of Pension and Family Pension in favour of the pensioners who were in receipt of Compulsory Retirement Pension and Compassionate Allowance under Rules 40 and 41 of the Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972
In terms of rule 40 & 41 of Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972, Compulsory Retirement Pension and Compassionate Allowance are sanctioned. Such Compulsory Retirement Pension and Compassionate Allowance, whenever sanctioned, are revised at par with other pensioners. But DOP&PW’s O.M. No.38/37/08—P&PW(A) dated 03.10.2008 has stated that, there should not be any revision on the Compulsory Retirement Pension and Compassionate Allowance. This order will adversely affect the living standard of the such retired employee.

AIRF, therefore, urges upon that, this order may please be called back and the revision, already undertaken, should be allowed to stay.

Item No.5
Sub: Revision of PPO in favour of Pensioners/Family Pensioners
Ministry of PPG&P(Departrnent of Pension) vide Para 11 of F. No. 38/ 37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01.09.2008 has issued order that revised PPO should be suo-moto issued by the pension sanctioning authority. This has been revised vide PPG&PW’s subsequent F. No.38/37/08—P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 14.10.2008 stipulating that the disbursing authority should furnish calculation in respect of revision of Pension/Family Pension to the pension sanctioning authority, and on receipt of the same, pension sanctioning authority would revise the PPO in favour of pensioner/family pensioner.

This order has created utter confusion and the same was raised in the ordinary meeting of the NCIJCM, held on 15.05.2010, when it was assured that the matter would be sorted out early. Unfortunately, after lapse of long 18 months, the matter could not be sorted out, resulting in, large number of pensionerslfamily pensioners of pre 01.01.2006 could not get the revised PPO.

AIRF, therefore, urges that, necessary action may be taken to issue revise PPO to the PensionerslFamily Pensioners of pre 01.01.2006 retirees.

Item No.6
Sub: Fixation of pension of pre-2006 retirees in terms of VI CPC pay scales
AIRF feels that the pension of pre-2006 retirees should be fixed on the basis of corresponding pay stage in new Pay Band plus Grade Pay of their last pay drawn in pay scale held by them at the time of their retirement.

In this regard, the Hon’ble CAT, New Delhi vide its judgement dated 01.11.2011 in OA Nos.0655/2010, 3079/2009, 306/2010 and 0507/2010 have given the direction to fix the pension of pre-2006 retirees as stated above.

AIRF understood that, instead of Implementing the judgernent of the CAT, DoP&PW has challenged the judgement before the Hon’ble High Court, New Delhi.

AIRF, therefore, requests, that the DoP&PW, instead of fighting against Hon’ble CAT’s orders, may consider the justified demand in the interest of the pre-2006 retirees.

Item No.7
Sub: Restoration of commuted portion of pension
Presently, there is a provision for restoration of commuted portion of pension after 15 years. On an average, a small number of pensioners attain the age of 75 years. As such, most of the pensioners are deprived of the benefit of restoration of pension.

AIRF, therefore, requests that the period of 15 years may be reduced to 12 years so that some more pensioners could get the benefit of restoration of commuted portion of pension.

In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that the Fifth CPC had also recommended to reduce this period to 12 years.

Item No.8
Sub: Enhancement of age related to additional basic pension
There has been a demand from certain Pensioners Associations! Pensioners Samaj on the issue of enhancement of pension on attaining the age of 65, 70, 75 and 80 and so on by 5% every time.

Presently, age related enhancement in pension is admissible to the pensioners having 80 years of age completed.

As all are well aware that, a handful pensioners survive up to the age of 80 years. As such, majority of pensioners are unable to get the benefit of enhanced pension.

AIRF, therefore, requests the government to take a positive view to reduce minimum age limit from 80 to 65 years for giving the benefit of enhanced pension.

Source : ALL INDIA RAILWAYMEN’S FEDERATION (AIRF)
[http://airfindia.com/AIRF%202013/Agenda%20items%20on%20Pensionary%20Benefits_19.05.2013.pdf]

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - May 20, 2013 at 4:21 pm

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

Pension Portal Orders – Amendment in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules

Pension Portal Orders – Amendment in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules

 

Amendment in Rule 5(2), 29, 29-A, 30 ,31, 32(1), 37, 37(A), 48A(5),48(B) and 48(C) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 


MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 21st December, 2012
G.S.R. 928(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution and, after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to conditions of service of persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, namely
(1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2012.
(2) Save as otherwise provided, these rules shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) in rule 5, in sub-rule (2), the proviso shall be omitted and shall be deemed to have been omitted with effect from the  Day of January, 1996.
3. In the said rules, rule 29 shall be omitted.
4. In the said rules, for rule 29A, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“29A – Ex-gratia under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme.- A permanent Government servant, who, on being declared surplus to the establishment in which he was serving, opts for Special voluntary Retirement Scheme, shall be entitled for determination of ex-gratia in addition to the pension”.
5. In the said rules, rule 30 shall be omitted.
6. In the said rules, for rule 31, the following rule shall be substituted, namely :—
“31. Deputation to United Nations and other organisations—A Government servant who is deputed on foreign service to the United Nations’ Secretariat or other United Nations’ Bodies or the International Monetary Fund or the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development or the Asian Development Bank or the Common wealth Secretariat or any other International organization and who becomes entitled for pensionary benefits from that Organization, may at his option,—
(a) pay the pension contributions in respect of his foreign service and count such service as qualifying for pension under these rules; or
(b) avail the retirement benefits admissible under the rules of the aforesaid organization and not count such service as qualifying for pension under these rules:
Provided that where a Government servant opts for clause (b), retirement benefits shall be payable to him in India in rupees from such date and in such manner as the Government may, by order, specify:
Provided further that pension contributions, if any, paid by theGovernment servant, shall be refunded to him”.
7. In the said rules, in the rule 32.—
(a) for the marginal heading, the following heading shall be substituted, namely:
“Veñfication of qualifying service after eighteen years service or five years before retirement.—”;
(b) in sub-rule(1), for the words “twenty-five years”, the words “eighteen years” shall be substituted.
8. In the said rules, in rule 36, in clause (b), for the words “Rule 29 of these rules” the words “Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme relating to voluntary retirement of surplus employees.” shall be substituted.
9. In the said rules, in rule 37, in sub-rule (3), the words “pro rata” shall be “omitted.
10. In the said rules, for rule 37A, the following rule shall be substituted, namely;—
“37A. Conditions for payment of pension on absorption consequent upon conversion of a Government Department into a Public Sector Undertaking.—
(1) On conversion of a department of the Central Government into a Public Sector Undertaking, all Government servants of that Department shall be transferred en-messe to that Public Sector Undertaking, on terms of foreign service without any deputation allowance till such time as they get absorbed in the said undertaking, and such transferred Government servants shall be absorbed in the Public Sector Undertaking with effect from such date as maybe notified by the Government.
(2) The Central Government shall allow the transferred Government servants an option to revert back to the Government or to seek permanent absorption in the Public Sector Undertaking.
(3) The option referred to in sub-rule (2) shall be exercised by every transferred Government servant in such manner and within such period as may be specified by the Government.
(4) The permanent absorption of the Government servants as employees of the Public Sector Undertaking shall take effect from the date on which their options are accepted by the Government and on and from the date of such acceptance, such employees shall cease to be Government servants and they shall be deemed to have retired from Government service.
(5) Upon absorption of Government servants in the Public Sector Undertaking, the posts which they were holding in the Government before such absorption shall stand abolished.
(6) The employees who opt to revert to Government service shall be redeployed through the surplus cell of the Government.
(7) The employees including quasi-permanent and temporary employees but excluding casual labourers, who opt for permanent absorption in the Public Sector Undertaking shall, on and from the date of absorption, be
governed by the rules and regulations or bye-laws of the Public Sector Undertaking.
(8) A permanent Government servant who has been absorbed as an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking and his family shall be eligible for pensionary benefits (including commutation of pension, gratuity, family pension or extra-ordinary pension), on the basis of combined service rendered by the employee in the government and in the Public Sector Undertaking in accordance with the formula for calculation of such pensionary benefits as may be in force at the time of his retirement from the Public Sector
Undertaking or his death or at his option, to receive benefits for the service rendered under the Central Government in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government.
“Explanation:- The amount of pension or family pension in respect of the absorbed employee on retirement from the Public Sector Undertaking or on death shall be calculated in the same way as calculated in the case of a Central Government servant retiring or dying, on the same day”.
(9) The pension of an employee under sub-rule (8) shall be calculated on fifty percent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him.
(10) In addition to pension or family pension, as the case may be, the employee who opts for pension on the basis of combined service shall also be eligible to dearness relief as per industrial Dearness Allowance pattern.
(11) The benefits of pension and family pension shall be available to quasi permanent and temporary transferred Government servants after they have been confirmed in the Public Sector Undertaking.
(12) A Permanent Government servant absorbed in a Pubic Sector Undertaking or a temporary or quasi-permanent Government servant who has been confirmed in the a Public Sector Undertaking subsequent to his absorption therein, shall be eligible to seek voluntary retirement after completing ten years of qualifying service with the Government and the Public Sector Undertaking taken together, and such person shall be eligible for pensionary benefits on the basis of qualifying service.
(13) The Central Government shall create a Pension Fund in the form of a trust and the pensionary benefits of absorbed employees shall be paid out of a such Pension Fund.
(14) The Secretary of the administrative Ministry of the Public Sector Undertaking shall be the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees which shall include representatives of the Ministries of Finance, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Labour, concerned Public Sector Undertaking and their employees and experts in the relevant field to be nominated by the Central Government.
(15) The procedure and the manner in which pensionary benefits are to be sanctioned and disbursed from the Pension Fund shall be determined by the Government on the recommendation of the Board of Trustees.
(16) The Government shall discharge its pensionary liability by paying in lump sum as a one time payment to the Pension Fund the pension or service gratuity and retirement gratuity for the service rendered till the date of absorption of the Government servant in the Public Sector Undertaking.
(17) The manner of sharing the financial liability on account of payment of pensionary benefits by the Public Sector Undertaking shall be determined by the Government.
(18) Lump sum amount of the pension shall be determined with reference to Commutation Table laid down in Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.
(19) The Public Sector Undertaking shall make pensionary contribution to the Pension Fund for the period of service to be rendered by the concerned employees under that undertaking at the rates as may be determined by the Board of Trustees so that the Pension Fund shall be self-supporting.
(20) If, for any financial or operational reason, the Trust is unable to discharge its liabilities fully from the Pension Fund and the Public Sector Undertaking is also not in a position to meet the shortfall, the Government shall be liable to meet such expenditure and such expenditure shall be debited to either the Fund or to the Public Sector Undertaking.
(21) Payments of pensionary benefits of the pensioners of a Government Department on the date of conversion of it into a Public Sector Undertaking shall continue to be the responsibility of the Government and the mechanism for sharing its liabilities on this account shall be determined by the Government.
(22) Nothing contained in sub-rules (13) to (21) shall apply in the case of conversion of the Departments of Telecom Services and Telecom Operations into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, in which case the pensionary benefits including family pension shall be paid by the Government.
(23) For the purposes of payment of pensionary benefits including family pension referred to in sub-rule (22), the Government shall specify the arrangements and the manner including the rate of pensionary contributions to be made by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to the Government and the manner in which financial liabilitles on this account shall be met.
(24) The arrangements under sub-rule (23) shall be applicable to the existing pensioners and to the employees who are deemed to have retired from the Government.
(25) Upon conversion of a Government Department into a Public Sector Undertaking,-
(a) the balance of provident fund standing at the credit of the absorbed employees on the date of their absorption in the Public Sector Undertaking shall, with the consent of such undertaking, be transferred to the new Provident Fund Account of the employees in such undertaking;
(b) earned leave and half pay leave at the credit of the employees on the date of absorption shall stand transferred to such undertaking;
.
(c) the dismissal or removal from service of the Public Sector Undertaking of any employee after his absorption in such undertaking for any subsequent misconduct shall not amount to for feiture of the retirement benefits for the service rendered under the Government and in the event of his dismissal or removal or retrenchment the decisions of the undertaking shall be subject to review by the Ministry administratively concerned with the undertaking.
(26) In case the Government disinvest its equity in any public sector undertaking to the extent of fifty-one per cent or more, it shall specify adequate safeguards for protecting the interest of the absorbed employees of such Public Sector Undertaking,
(27) The safeguards specified under sub-rule (26) shall include option for voluntary retirement or continued service in the undertaking or voluntary retirement benefits on terms applicable to Government employees employees of the Public Sector Undertaking as per option of the employees and assured payment of earned pensionary benefits with relaxation in period of qualifying service, as may be decided by the Government”
(11) In the said rules, after rule 37A, the following rule shall be inserted, namely;-
“37B. Conditions for payment of pension on absorption consequent upon conversion of a Government Department into a Central Autonomous Body.-
(1) On conversion of a department of the Central Government into an Autonomous Body, all Government servants of that Department shall be transferred en-masse to that Autonomous Body on terms of foreign service without any deputation allowance till such time as they get absorbed in the said body and such transferred Government servants shall be absorbed in the Autonomous Body with effect from such date as may be notified by the Government.
(2) The Central Government shall allow the transferred Government servants an option to revert back to the Government or to seek permanent absorption in the Autonomous Body.
(3) The option referred to in sub—rule (2) shall be exercised by every transferred Government servant in such manner and within such period as may be specified by the Government.
(4) The permanent absorption of the Government servants of the Autonomous Body shall take effect from the date on which their options are accepted by the Government and on and from the date of such acceptance, such employees shall cease to be Government servants and they shall be deemed to have retired from Government service.
(5) Upon absorption of Government servants in the Autonomous Body, the posts which they were holding in the Government before such absorption shall stand abolished.
(6) The employees who opt to revert to Government service shall be redeployed through the surplus cell of the Government.
(7) The employees including quasi-permanent and temporary employees but excluding casual labourers, who opt for permanent absorption in the Autonomous Body, shall on and from the date of absorption, be governed by the rules and regulations or bye-laws of the Autonomous Body.
(8) A permanent Government servant : who has been absorbed as an employee of an Autonomous Body an his family shall be eligible for pensionary benefits (including commutation of pension, gratuity, family pension or extra-ordinary pension), on the basis of combined service rendered by him in the government and Autonomnus Body in accordance with the formula for calculation of such pensionary benefits as may be in force at the time of his retirement from the Autonomous Body/death or at his option, to receive benefits for the service rendered under the Central Government in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government.
Explanation:- The amount of pension or family pension in respect of the absorbed employee on retirement from Autonomous Body or death shall be calculated in the same way as would be the case with a Central Government servant retiring or dying, on the same day.
(9) The pension of an employee under sub-rule (8) shall be calculated at fifty percent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him.
(10) In addition to pension or family pension, as the case may be, the absorbed employees who opt for pension on the basis of combined service shall also be eligible to dearness relief as per central dearness allowance pattern.
(11) The benefits of pension and family pension shall be available to quasi-permanent and temporary transferred Government servants after they have been confirmed in the Autonomous Body.
(12) The Central Government shall create a Pension Fund in the form of a trust and the pensionary benefits of absorbed employees shall be paid out of such Pension Fund.
(13) The Secretary of the administrative Ministry of the autonomous body shall be the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees which shall include representatives of the Ministries of Finance, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Labour, concerned Autonomous Body and their employees and experts in the relevant field to be nominated by the Central Government.
(14) The procedure and the manner in which pensionary benefits are to be sanctioned and disbursed from the Pension Fund shall be determined by the Government on the recommendation of the Board of Trustees.
(15) The Government shall discharge its pensionary liability by paying inlump sum as a one time payment to the Pension Fund the pension or service gratuity and retirement gratuity for the service rendered till the date of absorption of the Government servant in the Autonomous Body.
(16) The manner of sharing the financial liability on account of payment of pensnary benefits by the Autonomous Body shall be determined by the Government.
(17) Lump sum amount of the pension shall be determined with reference to Commutation Table laid down in Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.
(18) The Autonomous Body shall make pensionary contribution to the Pension Fund for the period of service to be rendered by the concerned employees under that body at the rates as may be determined by the Board of Trustees to that the Pension Fund shall be self-supporting.
(19) If, for any financial or operational reason, the Trust is unable to discharge its liabilities fully from the Pension Fund and the Autonomous Body is also not in a position to meet the shortfall, the Government shall be liable to meet such expenditure and such expenditure shall be debited to either the Fund or to the Autonomous Body, as the case may be.
(20) Payments of pensionary benefits of the pensioners of a Government Department on the date of conversion of it into an Autonomous Body shall continue to be the responsibility of the Government and the mechanism for sharing its liabilities on this account shall be determined by the Government.
(21) Upon conversion of a Government Department into an Autonomous Body .–
(a) the balance of provident fund standing at the credit of the absorbed employees on the date of their absorption in the Autonomous Body shall, with the consent of such body, be transferred to the new Provident Fund Account of the employees in such body.
(b) earned leave and half pay leave at the credit of the employees on the date of absorption shall stand transferred to such body.
(c) the dismissal or removal from service of the Autonomous Body of any employee after his absorption in such body for any subsequent misconduct shall not amount to for feiture of the retirement benefits for the service rendered under the Government and In the event of his dismissal or removal or retrenchment the decisions of the body shall be subject to review by the Ministry administratively concerned with the body.
(22) In case the Government disinvests its equity in any Autonomous Body to the extent of fifty-one per cent or more, it shall specify adequate safeguards for protecting the interest of the absorbed employees of such Autonomous Body‘
(23) The safeguards specified under sub-rule (22) shall include option for voluntary retirement or continued service in the body, as the case may be, or voluntary retirement benefits on terms applicable to Government employees or employees of the Autonomous Body as per option of the employees, assured payment of earned pensioriry benefits with relaxation in period of qualifying service, as may be decided, by the Government.
(24) Nothing contained in this rule shall be applicable to the officers or employees including members or Indian Information Service, Central Secretariat service or any other service or to the persons borne on cadres outside Akashvani and Doordarshan, serving in the Akashvani and
Doordarshan and engaged in the performance of functions transferred to Prasar Bharati established under Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act. 1990.
(12) In the said rules, in rule 48A,-
(i) sub-rule (5) shall be omitted.
(ii) in sub-rule (6), for clause (a), the following clause shall be substituted,namely;—
“(a) retires under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme relating to voluntary retirement of surplus employees, or
(13) In the said rules, rule 48B shall be omitted;
(14) In the said rules, rule 48C shall be omitted;
[F. No. 38/80/08-P&PW]
TRIPTI P.GHOSH,
Director
Source: www.pensionersportal.gov.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D3/D03ppw/Notification1_211212.pdf]

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - February 7, 2013 at 2:04 am

Categories: Pension   Tags: , , ,

Pensionary and GPF benefits to the staffs of Non-Statutory Departmental Canteens Staffs

Pensionary and GPF benefits to the staffs of Non-Statutory Departmental Canteens Staffs

 

No.12/4/97-Dir (C) (Vol.II) 
Government of India 
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions 
Department of Personnel and Training
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, North Block, New Delhi,
dated the 26.11.2012
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Implementation of the Order dated 30.4.12 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (Civil) No.5695/2000 – Pensionary benefits to the employees of Non-Statutory Departmental Canteens – Regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s Office Memoranda Nos.12/3/92-Dir (C), dated 16.11.92 and 16.12.93 (copies enclosed) which provided for Pensionary and GPF benefits admissible to the Non-Statutory Departmental Canteen employees. These provisions had been against by a section of canteen employees. The Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in two such petitions bearing Nos.572/96 and 2136/98 have ordered on 3.12.99 and 13.1.2000 respectively as under :-

i) “……….The respondents are, therefore directed to grant the benefits of the entire past service prior to the Applicants having been declared as Government Servants for counting towards pensionary benefits”
ii) “………Respondents are directed to take a decision in terms of the decision given by the Tribunal in O.A. No.572/96 i.e.to take into account the entire past service of the applicants for purpose of  counting towards pensionary benefits”.
2. However, Government decided to file an appeal against the said orders of the CAT before Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, an appeal was filed vide W.P. No.5695/2000 against of the CAT. Pending disposal of W.P.No.5695/2000 in the Delhi High Court, it was decided to implement the CAT’s Order dated 3.12.99 vide OM No.12/9/2000-Dir (C), dated 8.11.2000. Now, W.P. (C) No.5695/2000 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide their order dated 30.04.2012 for devoid of merits.
3. The matter has been accordingly considered by the Government and it has been decided that the entire past service rendered on regular basis by the non-statutory canteen employees will be reckoned as “Qualifying Service” for the purpose of calculation of pension in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and related orders. This admissibility will be subject to the refund of the entire amount received as employers’ contribution to the EPF, if any, including interest received by them alongwith interest at the rate applicable to GPF accumulation from time to time as prescribed in Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare’s OM No.38/34/2001-p&PW (F), dated 29/4/2002 (copy enclosed). The interest will be calculated for the period from the date of receipt of employers’ share of EPF contribution by the employee to the date of refund to the Government.
4. In view of the above, the provisions contained in this Department’s Office Memoranda bearing No.12/3/92-Dir (C), dated 16/11/92, 16/12/93 and 8/11/2000 shall stand modified to the extent of the provisions specified herein above.
5. The Ministries/Departments are requested to issue instructions to their attached/subordinate offices to take immediate necessary action to settle the cases of the employees afresh who retired/died in harness on or after 1/10/91.
6. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure U.O. Note No.1(17)/E.V/2000, dated 7/11/2012 and Ministry of Home Affairs, Home (Finance) Dy. No.CF 147351/AFA (F-1), dated 8/11/2012.
7. Hindi version of this will follow.
sd/-
(Pratima Tyagi)
Director (Canteens)
Source: www.persmin.nic.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/Canteen_261112.pdf]

Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by admin - December 6, 2012 at 7:45 am

Categories: Latest News   Tags: , , , , , , ,