From: Vinod Gandhi [mailto:vk_gandhi@yahoo.com]
Sent: October-10-10 12:44 AM
To: Darshan Nangia; CK Sharma; mil; indianveterans
Cc: Kamboj cs; LALIT KUMAR COL ANAND; ajay Col mehndiratta; Vaidun Gp Capt Vidyadhar; DSOI Canada
Subject: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Veteran Nangia sir
I am reproducing my mail to environment about the funds required by IESM to continue with the struggle for OROP. Based on the appeal following veterans have very kindly donated to IESM and more are coming forward.
Col LK Anand 500/per month
Col A Mehnidratta 500/per month
Veteran Kulvinder 500/ per month
Gp Capt V Vidyadhar 100/per month
I thank all of them for this kind gesture and appeal to other veterans to come forward and help IESM. IESM is planning AGM and elections to the Gov Body on 27 Nov 2010 and a rally on the 28 Nov 2010 to press for the demand of OROP. The approximate expenditure for these two events is likely to be around 5 lacs.
Admin arrangement on 27 Nov (Booking chareges for venue and tentage) 50000/
Lunch for participants (expected strenghth 500 lunch Rs 120 per person) 60000/
Arrangements for election on 27 Nov 10000/
Admin arrangements for Rally on 28 Nov 2010 50000/
Part Travel reimbursement for the participants for the rally on 28 Nov 2010 150000/
Lunch for participants (expected strength 5000 lunch at 25 per person) 125000/
Tea and water arrangement at AGM and rally 25000/
---------
Total 470000
IESM is looking for the sponsors who would like to donate for IESM or else would like to sponsor any of the event full or part.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STEP FORWARD AND BE COUNTED IN THE STRUGGLE OF VETERANS FOR OROP AND SELF RESPECT
Dear Veteran Kulvinder Singh
Your donation of Rs 500/ per month for two years to IESM is a big help and will harden our resolve to fight for the right of veterans and OROP for all veterans. t\Thankyou very much for the donation. I am sure many more veterans' would follow you and donate generously for the IESM. Earlier also following veterans have donated Rs 500/ per month to IESM.
Col LK Anand Rs 500/per month
Col A Mehnidiratta Rs 500/ per month
I take this opportunity to request all veterans' to kindly open your heart and help IESM to fight for the injustice being meted out to all veterans by the Govt. Veterans can help in volunteering physically to attend all the rallies organized by IESM and most effectively DONATE GENEROUSLY FOR IESM. Treasurer will get touch with you soon on the issue and to streamline the procedure.
IESM is in need of lot of funds to plan larger rallies and demonstrations to press for the demands of veterans'. IT IS ONCE AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT ALL RALLIES PLANNED BY THE IESM WOULD REMAIN NON VIOLENT, PEACEFUL AND WILL BE WITHIN THE LAW OF THE LAND.
VETERANS PLEASE DONATE GENEROUSLY
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Donation from canada..Veteran Kulvinder singh
From: DSOI Canada
To: Vinod Gandhi
Sent: Mon, 11 October, 2010 2:04:00 AM
Subject: RE: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Gp. Capt. Gandhi,
I have asked my friend Col. S.S. Chaudri to send you a cheque for Rs. 12,000.00 to cover the monthly contribution of Rs.500p.m. for the next two years.
Once again I would suggest that this request for contribution should be extended to all the serving officers since you and your Team of Veterans is working for their future too.
Regards.
Kulvinder (Kul) Singh
Col. (Armed Forces Veteran)
Ps
May I request you to not float my e-mail except to the managing committee as I like it that way.
To: Vinod Gandhi
Sent: Mon, 11 October, 2010 2:04:00 AM
Subject: RE: Shortage of Funds. REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
Dear Gp. Capt. Gandhi,
I have asked my friend Col. S.S. Chaudri to send you a cheque for Rs. 12,000.00 to cover the monthly contribution of Rs.500p.m. for the next two years.
Once again I would suggest that this request for contribution should be extended to all the serving officers since you and your Team of Veterans is working for their future too.
Regards.
Kulvinder (Kul) Singh
Col. (Armed Forces Veteran)
Ps
May I request you to not float my e-mail except to the managing committee as I like it that way.
Monday, October 4, 2010
IESM ..AGM on 27 Nov 2010 at AVCC NOIDA..1030 HRS TO 1400 HRS
URGENT
1.NOTICE FOR AGM TO THE OF INDIAN EX-SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT
2.NOTICE FOR THE ELECTION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
on 27 Nov 2010, Saturday at 1030h at AVCC sector 37 NOIDA
Dear All
AGM of IESM wil be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday from 1030 hours to 1400 hours at AVCC, Sector 37 Noida 201301.
Election to the Governing body of the IESM will also be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday at AVCC Noida immediately after AGM.
Agenda for the meeting is given below.
Welcome by Gen Sec
Address by Chairman.
To receive, consider and adopt the audited Balance Sheet as on 31 March 2010, Income & Expenditure Account for the period ended on that date and the Auditor’s Report thereon.
To appoint auditors for the year 2010-2011.
Address by the Chairman
Discussion on the points raised by the members if any.
Elections for the Gov Body of IESM
Closing address by the new Chairman
Vote of thanks.
All members are requested to attend the meeting and send their confirmation of attendance to the Gen Sec at the earliest.
All members are requested to make own arrangement for travel and stay at Noida/Delhi. Members are requested to forward their points for inclusion in the agenda.
Duly audited account statement of year 09-10 will be forwarded to all as soon as it is cleared by the auditors.
Guidelines with a guide map to reach AVCC Noida is attached for the convenience of all members.
PROGRAM OF ELECTION OF GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
The existing governing body of IESM has completed two years in the office. As per MOA term of the Governing Body is due to be completed in Dec 2010, It has been therefore decided that the election to the Governing Body of IESM will be held immediately after the AGM on 27 Nov 2010 by the General body of IESM.
Independent Chief election officer will be nominated. He would choose his team of election officers to conduct free and fair elections. Name of the Chief election officer and his team would be announced soon to the environment.
Schedule for the election is given below. All members of the IESM are eligible to contest the election. A fee of Rs 100 is fixed to file members' name for election. Election will be held for 17 posts of the Governing body. Elected members of the GOV body will then choose the Chairman, VC, Treasurer, Gen Sec and Jt sec with in one week of the elections.
Eligibility criteria for the elections; All members of the IESM are eligible to contest elections
Notice for the election 30 Sep 2010 (Email) to 7 Oct 2010 (By post)
Filing of nomination papers 1 Nov 2010
Checking of nomination papers 4 Nov 2010
Withdrawal of names 4 Nov 2010
Circulation of names of candidates 10 Nov 2010
Election to the Governing body 27 Nov 2010
Declaration of the result 1700h on 27 Nov 2010
Nomination form will be sent to the memberes interested to contest elections.
All members are requested to inform other members of IESM who do not have access to internet. Please spread the message to all veterans'.
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
1.NOTICE FOR AGM TO THE OF INDIAN EX-SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT
2.NOTICE FOR THE ELECTION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
on 27 Nov 2010, Saturday at 1030h at AVCC sector 37 NOIDA
Dear All
AGM of IESM wil be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday from 1030 hours to 1400 hours at AVCC, Sector 37 Noida 201301.
Election to the Governing body of the IESM will also be held on 27 Nov 2010 Saturday at AVCC Noida immediately after AGM.
Agenda for the meeting is given below.
Welcome by Gen Sec
Address by Chairman.
To receive, consider and adopt the audited Balance Sheet as on 31 March 2010, Income & Expenditure Account for the period ended on that date and the Auditor’s Report thereon.
To appoint auditors for the year 2010-2011.
Address by the Chairman
Discussion on the points raised by the members if any.
Elections for the Gov Body of IESM
Closing address by the new Chairman
Vote of thanks.
All members are requested to attend the meeting and send their confirmation of attendance to the Gen Sec at the earliest.
All members are requested to make own arrangement for travel and stay at Noida/Delhi. Members are requested to forward their points for inclusion in the agenda.
Duly audited account statement of year 09-10 will be forwarded to all as soon as it is cleared by the auditors.
Guidelines with a guide map to reach AVCC Noida is attached for the convenience of all members.
PROGRAM OF ELECTION OF GOVERNING BODY OF IESM
The existing governing body of IESM has completed two years in the office. As per MOA term of the Governing Body is due to be completed in Dec 2010, It has been therefore decided that the election to the Governing Body of IESM will be held immediately after the AGM on 27 Nov 2010 by the General body of IESM.
Independent Chief election officer will be nominated. He would choose his team of election officers to conduct free and fair elections. Name of the Chief election officer and his team would be announced soon to the environment.
Schedule for the election is given below. All members of the IESM are eligible to contest the election. A fee of Rs 100 is fixed to file members' name for election. Election will be held for 17 posts of the Governing body. Elected members of the GOV body will then choose the Chairman, VC, Treasurer, Gen Sec and Jt sec with in one week of the elections.
Eligibility criteria for the elections; All members of the IESM are eligible to contest elections
Notice for the election 30 Sep 2010 (Email) to 7 Oct 2010 (By post)
Filing of nomination papers 1 Nov 2010
Checking of nomination papers 4 Nov 2010
Withdrawal of names 4 Nov 2010
Circulation of names of candidates 10 Nov 2010
Election to the Governing body 27 Nov 2010
Declaration of the result 1700h on 27 Nov 2010
Nomination form will be sent to the memberes interested to contest elections.
All members are requested to inform other members of IESM who do not have access to internet. Please spread the message to all veterans'.
Regards
Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
L - 48, Sector - 25,
NOIDA. 201301
Tele no 01204313951
Mobile 09810541222
Views of AVM RP Mishra
From: RP Mishra [mailto:avmrpm@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
Hello Radha,
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
Regards
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
Hello Radha,
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
Regards
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
Letter By Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan
“AMCHINARANGAM”,
193, Vira Ma Munivar St,
Bastin Ngr, Madurai-625016.
Date: 2009-01-28
To,
The Secretary,
Dept of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Ministry of Defence, GOI,
198 B, South Block, New Delhi-110011
Dear Sir,
Sub: Anomaly in Revision of Pension wrt to Officers Retired on or before 31Dec2005
Ref: Your office letter # 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pens/Policy) dated 11 Nov 2008 duly amended on 11 Dec 2008 and my letter on this aspect dated 24 Dec 2008 and 02 Jan 2009.
Thank you very much for your prompt action to set right the anomaly in fixing the pension of Major General and Lieutenant General, through the corrigendum dated 20 Jan 2009. Encouraged by your response, I take the liberty to point out that in my letter dated 02 Jan 2009, I had highlighted not only the anomaly in the pension of the General Officers that rose due to not accounting the MSP, but also the anomaly in all ranks of the Commissioned Officers due to misinterpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ in paragraph 5 of your policy letter dated 11 Nov 2008.
This aspect is perhaps under study by your officials. I have not received any communication from your office acknowledging the receipt of my letters. I shall feel more confident if an acknowledgement is posted to me.
I am enclosing as Appendix ‘A’ giving a detailed analysis that covers the anomaly in pension of the officers of the rank from Captain to Lieutenant General and their equivalent in the Air Force and Navy on account of the misinterpretation of the phrase mentioned above.
I am confident you would do the needful and at an early date, and restore the confidence of all Ex-servicemen in the fairness of the Government.
Thanking you
Yours truly,
Sd RN Radhakrishnan
Appendix ‘A’
Anomaly of the Revised Pension of Officers of the Rank of Captain to Lieutenant General Drawing Pension As On 31 Dec 2008
By
RN Radhakrishnan (Retd Major General)
Ref MOD letter # 17(4)/2008(1)/D (Pen/Policy) dated 11Nov08, 11Dec08 and Annexure II (Revised) to the letter dated 20Jan09
The revised pension for commissioned officers of the rank of Captain to Lieutenant General (please note the points analyzed are equally applicable to the Air Force and Naval equivalent officers as well) has been worked out much lower than what is due to them. The reason for such incorrect revision is the misinterpretation of the policy by the concerned officials. The table at annexure ii has been drawn taking the minimum figure
· 15600 of the Pay Band 3 for all officers from Lieutenant to Lieutenant Colonel
· 37400 of the Pay Band 4 for all officers from Colonel to Lieutenant General
Simplification of the many existing pay scales into just two for Class A officers necessarily leads to a figure for the minimum of each band. But that minimum figure can in no way be equated to the minimum pay which is applicable to each of the higher ranks.
Here the words ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ has to be interpreted correctly. Minimum pay of these senior ranks has to, perforce, be much higher than the minimum of the pay band. The event of the officers of higher ranks getting pay at the minimum of pay band is unlikely. Promotion is in accordance with a policy and a minimum service is stipulated for promotion to each of the higher rank. Therefore, the minimum pay applicable to higher ranks will invariably be higher than that of the lower rank.
6CPC acknowledges this fact. Now let us see the comments made by the 6CPC regarding the minimum pay. Under the comments for paragraph 5.1.47 in page 251 it says ‘The condition that revised pension may not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay band is based on minimum of the lowest scale in that band. And is not equal to the presumed minimum had a separate revised scale been recommended for each case’. SAI 2/S/2008 dated 14 Oct 2008 has done just that. Each rank has a specific pay scale. Can one justify using the minimum of the pay band, not minimum stipulated pay of the rank as given in SAI 2/S/2008 dated 14 Oct 2008 for fixing the pension for the existing pensioners?
And if that minimum pay, the one arrived at through correct interpretation, is used, this anomaly in fixing the pension shall vanish. Please see the table below.
Rank Min figure in PBMin Pay in SAI2/S/2008Correct PensionWrong Pension
Lt 15600 15600 13500 13500
Capt 15600 18600 15350 13850
Maj 15600 23810 18205 14100
Lt Col15600 28090 20845* 14600
Col 37400 40890 27795 26050
Brig 37400 43390 29145 26150
Maj Gen37400 44700 30350 26700
Lt Gen 37400 51850 34925 27700
* for Lt Col the pension shall go up to 25500 as and when they are placed at Pay Band 4
Thus it leads to the reasonable conclusion that the revised annexure referred above is based on wrong interpretation of the principles of revision of pension and must be treated as null and void. Hence, the department must take immediate action to withdraw this annexure with necessary announcement in the leading newspapers to that effect for the information of all the pensioners across the country.
It is worth giving a thought on the effect, the present policy has on some of the officers who retired on 31Dec08 and due for retirement subsequently. A matter of few minutes of time difference in the birth makes a difference in pension to the extent of near about ten thousand. The following questions are pertinent:
· Is such a policy is drawn in accordance with the law of natural justice?
· Is arbitrariness of the date 01Jan06 not the cause for creating such an injustice?
· Can there not be a better and a fairer way of distribution of the resources, conceding the constraint of the National Economy?
· Is that not the area where the financial wizards show their innovative skill?
---------
From: RP Mishra [mailto:avmrpm@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 September 2010 10:21
To: Radha Krishnan RN; Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri; Brig CS Kamboj
Subject: Re: 20100926(1) – AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
Hello Radha,
I fully agree with you with what you have written in the mail referred to..I do hope that MoD issues a letter refixing pensions based on the judgement of AFT. Earlier, IESL had sent a mail that MoD is likely to issue such a letter as per their information.
As far as role of IESL and IESM are concerned, both are required. Their mission is same. While one is applying pressure by going to media, organising peaceful protests etc, the other is trying to achieve same thing diplomatically. It is said that even mother gives milk when child cries. Child has started crying. I feel IESL and IESM are complementary to each other, if ego does not come in the way, they can really look after the welfare of ESM.
I am pasting text of a mail I had forwarded to Air Force friends of mine.
"Hello Friends, I am attaching the judgement delivered by AFT in Majors case. Operative part is on page 29-30 which reads,"For all pre retirees of Lt Cdr and other ranks, their minimum of pay has to be accepted as determined by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006i.e.Rs. 23810. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay band, i.e. Rs. 23810 with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months."
For Majors and equivalent, total pay works out to 23810+6600 (grade pay) +6000 (MSP)=36410. Pension would be 18205 and family pension 10923. Present take home pension would be 26398 and 15839 (including DA @ 45%) respectively.
With the input from IESL (which is quite authentic) that pensions of all ranks will be re-fixed on this basis, GoI may not go for appeal against AFT judgement.
I am giving below, in the bracket, existing pension, amount if the pension is re-fixed, total take home pension after re-fixation with 45% DA and arrears expected for the duration Jan 06 to Dec 2010 for ranks of Major to Major General.
Major (14464, 18205,26398,263340), Lt Col (25700,26265,38085,39810), Col (26050,27795,40303,122916), Brigadier (26150,29145,42260,210964) and AVM (26700,30350,44008,257118)"'
Regards
AVM RP Mishra (Vice President IESL)
In tabular form – Chander Kamboj à
RankPresent
PensionLikely Revised
PensionRevised
Pension
Plus 45% DAArrears
Jan 2006
to Dec 2010
Major144641820526398263340
Lt Col25700262653808539810 Error
Col260502779540303122916
Brig261502914542260210964
Maj Gen267003035044008257118
------------
THE END
Military Pay and Pension by Maj Gen Radha Krishnan RN
From: Radha Krishnan RN [mailto:rnrkrish@yahoo.com]
Sent: 26 September 2010 19:50
To: Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: CS Kamboj Brigadier; Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; RP Mishra; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri
Subject: AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
SOVEREIGNTY & SERVICES
by
Major General (Emeritus) RN Radhakrishnan
Part -9
Where Do We Go?
Section 10
AFT Defines Minimum Pay
AFT has ruled in favour of the petitioners of the rank of Lt Cdr and Sq Ldr. The ruling is that the minimum pension for these ranks and Equivalents has to be based on the minimum of the pay that is indicated in the relevant Service Instructions, not the minimum of the pay band, as interpreted by the CDA/ PDA. Thus, the minimum pension of these ranks amounts to Rs 18205/= (50% of the sum of 23810+6600+6000). Immediately on issue of the pension policy dated 11-11-2008 and as early as Jan 2009, this misinterpretation was brought to the notice of the PM, RM, Secretary ESW, and the three Chiefs, requesting to apply the correct interpretation as the ‘minimum of the pay in the pay scale carved out of the Pay Bands and accepted through relevant Service Instructions. (Please refer to the attachment and my mail numbered 20090124(1) sent in Jan 2009 addressed to Military Veterans.) Approximately 100 odd officers of various ranks sent out letters demanding for correct interpretation, while implementing the pension policy dated 11-11-2008.
The reaction from the Ministry was, as expected, reiteration of their interpretation. What frustrated was the stand taken by our Service HQrs, trying to educate how to interpret the policy letters, as if on having retired from the Services we have lost our appreciation skill and analytical capability in formulation and interpretation of the policy letters.
Now that the AFT has upheld this correct interpretation, let us see what the reaction of the Government is likely to be. The Government took the task of bridging the gap in the pension quite seriously by enhancing the pensions and adopting the concept of ‘modified parity’, which strictly means parity limited to only the pensioner of pre 2006 vintage. Pensions of the Personnel other than the Commissioned Officers, Lt Cols and Lt Gens have been enhanced, no doubt. Left are only the Majors, Colonels, Brigadiers and Major Generals. Government is not at convinced that here exists an ethical obligation on their part to establish parity among all pensioners across the board with no regard to the date of retirement.
The present ruling by AFT has come as a face saving measure to the Government. Hence, there is a distinct possibility of the Government accepting the verdict and implement it quite soon for Majors and the equivalents. It is also possible that the Government chooses to show an extent of magnanimity by extending the ruling to the other three ranks, though I won’t be surprised if they wait until similar verdict is obtained by going to the court by some of these ranks. An efficient attempt to compromise and thwart confrontation!
Now a few of us are apprehensive of possible setback. Will our quest for Parity in Pension (termed ‘OROP’ by IESM) be affected due to this verdict? My impression is that it cannot. The ruling of AFT is limited to the interpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ of the policy letter with reference to revising the pension of pensioner, pre 2006. On the contrary our demand is questioning the very logic of revising the pension with incorrect relation to the revised pay structure. Our demand is for establishing equality with an equal with no regard to the date of retiring.
But the question is how we are setting about it, reason with the Government through IESL or coerce them through peaceful demonstration promoted by IESM.
Whatever be the path, we have to be clear on one aspect. What defines equality? If you analyse the pension pattern of those retiring after 01-01-2006, an alarming fact shall glare at you. Pensioners post 2006 stand to get different pension even if they are equal in rank and the number years of service, total or in that particular rank. Pension cell of IESM should collect data from those who have retired since Jan 2006 and verify my statement. If that is the case, what kind of equation we are planning on to ask for equal pension?
I suggest that a few of us get together with neither any affinity nor any enmity to any organization (above all no ‘I know all or more than you’ attitude), analyse the issue of equality which is crucial. We have to have a clear idea of what we want from the Government or from the court. Leaving it either to the court or the Government to work it out for us based on our over simplified definition of our demand phrased as “any two pensioners of the same rank and same number of years of service must get the same pension” can lead to disaster.
Attached is Pension – Letter to Secretary 090128
End Section 10
------------
Major General RN RADHAKRISHNAN (Retd)
Tele- 0452-2389989
Email: rnrkrish@yahoo.com
Sent: 26 September 2010 19:50
To: Veterans; MilitaryPayand Pension
Cc: CS Kamboj Brigadier; Col N Viswanathan; Satbir Singh General; RP Mishra; Gulia RKS Brigadier; Raman SN Colonel; Vijay Oberoi Lt Gen (Rtd); Satish Kumar Bahri
Subject: AFT Verdict in Favour of Majors and its effect
SOVEREIGNTY & SERVICES
by
Major General (Emeritus) RN Radhakrishnan
Part -9
Where Do We Go?
Section 10
AFT Defines Minimum Pay
AFT has ruled in favour of the petitioners of the rank of Lt Cdr and Sq Ldr. The ruling is that the minimum pension for these ranks and Equivalents has to be based on the minimum of the pay that is indicated in the relevant Service Instructions, not the minimum of the pay band, as interpreted by the CDA/ PDA. Thus, the minimum pension of these ranks amounts to Rs 18205/= (50% of the sum of 23810+6600+6000). Immediately on issue of the pension policy dated 11-11-2008 and as early as Jan 2009, this misinterpretation was brought to the notice of the PM, RM, Secretary ESW, and the three Chiefs, requesting to apply the correct interpretation as the ‘minimum of the pay in the pay scale carved out of the Pay Bands and accepted through relevant Service Instructions. (Please refer to the attachment and my mail numbered 20090124(1) sent in Jan 2009 addressed to Military Veterans.) Approximately 100 odd officers of various ranks sent out letters demanding for correct interpretation, while implementing the pension policy dated 11-11-2008.
The reaction from the Ministry was, as expected, reiteration of their interpretation. What frustrated was the stand taken by our Service HQrs, trying to educate how to interpret the policy letters, as if on having retired from the Services we have lost our appreciation skill and analytical capability in formulation and interpretation of the policy letters.
Now that the AFT has upheld this correct interpretation, let us see what the reaction of the Government is likely to be. The Government took the task of bridging the gap in the pension quite seriously by enhancing the pensions and adopting the concept of ‘modified parity’, which strictly means parity limited to only the pensioner of pre 2006 vintage. Pensions of the Personnel other than the Commissioned Officers, Lt Cols and Lt Gens have been enhanced, no doubt. Left are only the Majors, Colonels, Brigadiers and Major Generals. Government is not at convinced that here exists an ethical obligation on their part to establish parity among all pensioners across the board with no regard to the date of retirement.
The present ruling by AFT has come as a face saving measure to the Government. Hence, there is a distinct possibility of the Government accepting the verdict and implement it quite soon for Majors and the equivalents. It is also possible that the Government chooses to show an extent of magnanimity by extending the ruling to the other three ranks, though I won’t be surprised if they wait until similar verdict is obtained by going to the court by some of these ranks. An efficient attempt to compromise and thwart confrontation!
Now a few of us are apprehensive of possible setback. Will our quest for Parity in Pension (termed ‘OROP’ by IESM) be affected due to this verdict? My impression is that it cannot. The ruling of AFT is limited to the interpretation of the phrase ‘minimum of the pay in the pay band’ of the policy letter with reference to revising the pension of pensioner, pre 2006. On the contrary our demand is questioning the very logic of revising the pension with incorrect relation to the revised pay structure. Our demand is for establishing equality with an equal with no regard to the date of retiring.
But the question is how we are setting about it, reason with the Government through IESL or coerce them through peaceful demonstration promoted by IESM.
Whatever be the path, we have to be clear on one aspect. What defines equality? If you analyse the pension pattern of those retiring after 01-01-2006, an alarming fact shall glare at you. Pensioners post 2006 stand to get different pension even if they are equal in rank and the number years of service, total or in that particular rank. Pension cell of IESM should collect data from those who have retired since Jan 2006 and verify my statement. If that is the case, what kind of equation we are planning on to ask for equal pension?
I suggest that a few of us get together with neither any affinity nor any enmity to any organization (above all no ‘I know all or more than you’ attitude), analyse the issue of equality which is crucial. We have to have a clear idea of what we want from the Government or from the court. Leaving it either to the court or the Government to work it out for us based on our over simplified definition of our demand phrased as “any two pensioners of the same rank and same number of years of service must get the same pension” can lead to disaster.
Attached is Pension – Letter to Secretary 090128
End Section 10
------------
Major General RN RADHAKRISHNAN (Retd)
Tele- 0452-2389989
Email: rnrkrish@yahoo.com
Friday, October 1, 2010
Punjab Vidhan Sabha passes OROP resolution
Chandigarh, September 30
The Punjab Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed a resolution supporting one rank, one pension for ex-servicemen. In another resolution that was passed today, ... edited ...
FROM DAINIK BHASKAR
-- चंडीगढ़ . पूर्व सैनिकों को वन रैंक, वन पेंशन का प्रस्ताव वीरवार को पंजाब विधानसभा में सर्वसम्मति से पारित हुआ। विधायक बलबीर सिंह बाठ ने प्रस्ताव पेश करते हुए कहा कि पंजाब में पूर्व सैनिकों की स्थिति काफी खराब है।खरड़ के विधायक बलबीर सिंह सिद्धू, जालंधर कैंट के विधायक जगबीर सिंह बराड़, अजायब सिंह भट्टी और विपक्ष की नेता राजिंदर कौर भट्ठल ने उनका पूरा समर्थन करते हुए कहा कि सरकार इस प्रस्ताव को पारित कर केंद्र सरकार को भेजे। बाद में स्पीकर ने सर्वसम्मति से इस प्रस्ताव को पारित किया। इन्होंने भी उठाए मुद्दे शून्यकाल के दौरान ही कांग्रेस विधायक मक्खन ¨सह ने मालवा में कैंसर के प्रकोप का मुद्दा उठाया। उन्होंने कहा, फरीदकोट इलाके के पानी में यूरेनियम की मात्रा काफी अधिक है। भाभा अटोमिक रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट में इसकी पुष्टि हुई है। संगरूर के विधायक सुरिंदर पाल सिंह सिबिया ने डेलीवेज पर काम कर रहे कर्मचारियों का मामला सदन में रखा धूरी से विधायक इकबाल सिंह झूंदा ने चौकीदारों का मामला उठाया। अजीत सिंह मोफर ने ट्रैफिक नियमों को सख्त करने की मांग की।
COMMENTS BY VETERANS ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY Pb VIDHAN SABHA
-------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-1------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
A Great Day for `Sanjha Morcha`. Multi-pronged `attacks` by senior veterans have carried the day for us for now. Tally Ho to the Parliament Session with all `guns blazing`.
Expose the `unscrupulous netas & babus` of the MOD. The spectators galleries must be filled with war veterans/disabledsoldiers/widows when the OROP issue is raised in Parliament. We have been taken for a ride for too long - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!
Why is the IESL silent ? They promised to give feedback of their meetings with COAS etc
ref Col Bhag Singh`s pts in meeting held in office of RSB, Chandigarh which I also attended
& specifically asked him to give feedback on IESL`s efforts on OROP/other issues.
UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE ATTEMPT TO REUNITE & STAND TO FIGHT !!!
Brig SS Jaswal, Veteran Madras Sapper,
IESM, Panchkula.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-2--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All.
We must all congratulate General Vijay Oberoi,Brig Harwant Singh and Brig Ghuman .
Last evening Gen Oberoi sent a brief to CM Punjab,Brig Harwant sent brief to Finance Minister Punjab and Brig Ghuman and self briefed MLA Sidhu who in turn briefed Capt Amarinder.
The same has resulted in Punjab Assembly passing resolution for grant of OROP unanimously.
We will request other states to follow suit.
We have also prepared a brief for MP,s which will be given to Punjab MP,s and and with the request that other states MP,s must also be contacted by Veterans so that they are sensitised before winter session startting on 7 Nov.
Regards,
Nawab
The Punjab Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed a resolution supporting one rank, one pension for ex-servicemen. In another resolution that was passed today, ... edited ...
FROM DAINIK BHASKAR
-- चंडीगढ़ . पूर्व सैनिकों को वन रैंक, वन पेंशन का प्रस्ताव वीरवार को पंजाब विधानसभा में सर्वसम्मति से पारित हुआ। विधायक बलबीर सिंह बाठ ने प्रस्ताव पेश करते हुए कहा कि पंजाब में पूर्व सैनिकों की स्थिति काफी खराब है।खरड़ के विधायक बलबीर सिंह सिद्धू, जालंधर कैंट के विधायक जगबीर सिंह बराड़, अजायब सिंह भट्टी और विपक्ष की नेता राजिंदर कौर भट्ठल ने उनका पूरा समर्थन करते हुए कहा कि सरकार इस प्रस्ताव को पारित कर केंद्र सरकार को भेजे। बाद में स्पीकर ने सर्वसम्मति से इस प्रस्ताव को पारित किया। इन्होंने भी उठाए मुद्दे शून्यकाल के दौरान ही कांग्रेस विधायक मक्खन ¨सह ने मालवा में कैंसर के प्रकोप का मुद्दा उठाया। उन्होंने कहा, फरीदकोट इलाके के पानी में यूरेनियम की मात्रा काफी अधिक है। भाभा अटोमिक रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट में इसकी पुष्टि हुई है। संगरूर के विधायक सुरिंदर पाल सिंह सिबिया ने डेलीवेज पर काम कर रहे कर्मचारियों का मामला सदन में रखा धूरी से विधायक इकबाल सिंह झूंदा ने चौकीदारों का मामला उठाया। अजीत सिंह मोफर ने ट्रैफिक नियमों को सख्त करने की मांग की।
COMMENTS BY VETERANS ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY Pb VIDHAN SABHA
-------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-1------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
A Great Day for `Sanjha Morcha`. Multi-pronged `attacks` by senior veterans have carried the day for us for now. Tally Ho to the Parliament Session with all `guns blazing`.
Expose the `unscrupulous netas & babus` of the MOD. The spectators galleries must be filled with war veterans/disabledsoldiers/widows when the OROP issue is raised in Parliament. We have been taken for a ride for too long - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!
Why is the IESL silent ? They promised to give feedback of their meetings with COAS etc
ref Col Bhag Singh`s pts in meeting held in office of RSB, Chandigarh which I also attended
& specifically asked him to give feedback on IESL`s efforts on OROP/other issues.
UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE ATTEMPT TO REUNITE & STAND TO FIGHT !!!
Brig SS Jaswal, Veteran Madras Sapper,
IESM, Panchkula.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT-2--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All.
We must all congratulate General Vijay Oberoi,Brig Harwant Singh and Brig Ghuman .
Last evening Gen Oberoi sent a brief to CM Punjab,Brig Harwant sent brief to Finance Minister Punjab and Brig Ghuman and self briefed MLA Sidhu who in turn briefed Capt Amarinder.
The same has resulted in Punjab Assembly passing resolution for grant of OROP unanimously.
We will request other states to follow suit.
We have also prepared a brief for MP,s which will be given to Punjab MP,s and and with the request that other states MP,s must also be contacted by Veterans so that they are sensitised before winter session startting on 7 Nov.
Regards,
Nawab
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Points by Col MMP Kalra on 6th Pay Comm
Dear Brigadier,
I am sending herewith one page brief.
With best regards,
Col MMP Kala
A CASE FOR ONE RANK ONE PENSION
1 The Pay Commission has done a great injustice to the pensioners by on the one hand grouping the serving personnel in to four pay bands PB1 to PB4 instead of 30 pay scales existing till 2005, and on the other hand it has kept fixed pay scaled for the Secretaries of the Government of India and the Cabinet Secretary and equivalent. It has stipulated that the pre2006 pensioners will get pensions as applicable to the lowest rung of the pay band. The result of the former is that while the post 2005 retirees get the pension for the entire length of their service, and draw pensions accordingly, the pre2006 pensioners:-
(a) Sepoys to Havildars, having put in 17 to 21 years of service are getting pensions as if they had served for ju served for just one year in the Army, the difference in their pensions being the pension on the rank pay.;
(b) Naib Subedar to Subedar Majors, having put in 28 to 32 years of service respectively get the same
(c) pension as the Naib Subedar with one year service, plus the pension on the rank pay;
(d) Captain with 20 years and Majors with 30 years service get the pension as if they had served just for one year in the Army, difference in their pension being due to pension on the rank pay;
(e) Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels, Brigadiers and Major Generals, having put in 33 years and more of reckonable service get the pension as if they had served for only 14 years in the Army, difference in their pensions being due to the pension on the rank pay.
2. The result of the above has created differences such that a new sepoy draws more pension than old havildar, a new Naib Subedar retiree draws more pension than a Subedar Major, a new retiree honorary lieutenant draws more pension than an older retiree Major; a new retiree Lieutenant Colonel who commanded some 100 plus men would draw more pension than an old retiree Major General who commanded over 15000 thousand men, scores of tanks and guns, and was possibly responsible for the defence of more than a 100 to 1000 times of territorial area. The state off the family pensioners, especially those of other rank is pathetic. Further, the disability pension scales differ for the pre 2005 disabled soldiers. IS THIS JUSTICE? IS EQUAL WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO BE REWARDED EQUALLY OR HAVE THE RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM PRE2006 RETIREES BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ? ARE THEY ALIENS TO BE SO TREATED?
3 The fixation of fixed scales for the top notches is the bane of the pension scales. A more judicious pension scale for all would have emerged had the entire officer cadre, irrespective of status, rank and station been bracketed in one pay in one pay band or alternatively there had been separate pay scales for each rank
.
4 The new pensioners are a happy lot, little realizing that come the next pay commission, if this Government comes to power in the next General Elections, their fate will be similar to the pre 2005 retirees.
5 The Government has indicated thee objections ie administrative, legal and financial. One cannot see any administrative grounds against OROP. As for the Legal ground, indeed the civilian employees will seek parity, and why not; they too are the citizens of this country and arguments applicable to OROP are also applicable to them. As for the financial aspects, the Government has been more than magnanimous to the Ervin soldiers and civilian employees, then why has been unkind to the old pensioners? The Government increased the annual increment from pay commission recommendation of 2 to 3 percent, granted stagnation pay in 8th, 16th and 24th year which is a reward for inefficiency, and has granted allowances like a liberal transport allowance, air travel facility Is the stringency only for the old pensioners?
I am sending herewith one page brief.
With best regards,
Col MMP Kala
A CASE FOR ONE RANK ONE PENSION
1 The Pay Commission has done a great injustice to the pensioners by on the one hand grouping the serving personnel in to four pay bands PB1 to PB4 instead of 30 pay scales existing till 2005, and on the other hand it has kept fixed pay scaled for the Secretaries of the Government of India and the Cabinet Secretary and equivalent. It has stipulated that the pre2006 pensioners will get pensions as applicable to the lowest rung of the pay band. The result of the former is that while the post 2005 retirees get the pension for the entire length of their service, and draw pensions accordingly, the pre2006 pensioners:-
(a) Sepoys to Havildars, having put in 17 to 21 years of service are getting pensions as if they had served for ju served for just one year in the Army, the difference in their pensions being the pension on the rank pay.;
(b) Naib Subedar to Subedar Majors, having put in 28 to 32 years of service respectively get the same
(c) pension as the Naib Subedar with one year service, plus the pension on the rank pay;
(d) Captain with 20 years and Majors with 30 years service get the pension as if they had served just for one year in the Army, difference in their pension being due to pension on the rank pay;
(e) Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels, Brigadiers and Major Generals, having put in 33 years and more of reckonable service get the pension as if they had served for only 14 years in the Army, difference in their pensions being due to the pension on the rank pay.
2. The result of the above has created differences such that a new sepoy draws more pension than old havildar, a new Naib Subedar retiree draws more pension than a Subedar Major, a new retiree honorary lieutenant draws more pension than an older retiree Major; a new retiree Lieutenant Colonel who commanded some 100 plus men would draw more pension than an old retiree Major General who commanded over 15000 thousand men, scores of tanks and guns, and was possibly responsible for the defence of more than a 100 to 1000 times of territorial area. The state off the family pensioners, especially those of other rank is pathetic. Further, the disability pension scales differ for the pre 2005 disabled soldiers. IS THIS JUSTICE? IS EQUAL WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO BE REWARDED EQUALLY OR HAVE THE RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM PRE2006 RETIREES BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ? ARE THEY ALIENS TO BE SO TREATED?
3 The fixation of fixed scales for the top notches is the bane of the pension scales. A more judicious pension scale for all would have emerged had the entire officer cadre, irrespective of status, rank and station been bracketed in one pay in one pay band or alternatively there had been separate pay scales for each rank
.
4 The new pensioners are a happy lot, little realizing that come the next pay commission, if this Government comes to power in the next General Elections, their fate will be similar to the pre 2005 retirees.
5 The Government has indicated thee objections ie administrative, legal and financial. One cannot see any administrative grounds against OROP. As for the Legal ground, indeed the civilian employees will seek parity, and why not; they too are the citizens of this country and arguments applicable to OROP are also applicable to them. As for the financial aspects, the Government has been more than magnanimous to the Ervin soldiers and civilian employees, then why has been unkind to the old pensioners? The Government increased the annual increment from pay commission recommendation of 2 to 3 percent, granted stagnation pay in 8th, 16th and 24th year which is a reward for inefficiency, and has granted allowances like a liberal transport allowance, air travel facility Is the stringency only for the old pensioners?
Mil update by Maj Navdeep Singh
From: Navdeep Singh [mailto:navdeepsingh.india@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 October 2010 08:13
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Mil update
Friday, October 1, 2010
Full modified parity restored to disability / liberalised / extra-ordinary pensioners on the civil side
The orders for modified parity for pre-2006 disability / liberalised / extra-ordinary family pensioners have been issued yesterday on the civil side.
With this, the calculation of all pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners in receipt of disability / extra-ordinary / liberalised pension shall be based on percentage basis of the new post-2006 scales rather than the old basic pension X 2.26 formula.
To take an example, the disability element of pension of a person with 100 % disability irrespective of date of retirement would be calculated on the basis of 30% of the new (post-2006) pay band + Grade Pay rather than 30% of old (post-1996) scale X 2.26 as was the case till date.
The fresh benefits have been granted with effect from 01-01-2006.
The OM issued by Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare can be accessed by clicking here. This OM is to be read with the one issued on 03-02-2000 after the 5th CPC.
Since the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare is the nodal authority for formulating pension related policies for civil, defence and railway pensioners, the MoD and the Rail Ministry are expected to soon implement this OM with suitable modifications. This would also be in line with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara’s case.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 4:45 AM 1 comments
Labels: Pay Commission, Pension, Policy and Benefits
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Another category added to ex-gratia compensation scheme w.e.f 01 January 2006
Lumpsum ex-gratia payment is admissible to families of defence personnel in the following cases :
Deaths occurring due to accidents in the course of duty : Rs 10 lacs
Deaths in the course of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists etc : Rs 10 lacs
Deaths occurring in enemy action in wars, border skirmishes, action against militants / terrorists etc : Rs 15 lacs
Deaths occurring in enemy action, international wars or other engagements specifically notified by the govt : Rs 20 lacs
The Govt of India has now added an additional category to the scheme of ex-gratia payment w.e.f 01 Jan 2006 :
Deaths occurring while on duty in specified high altitude area, inaccessible border posts etc on account on natural disasters and extreme weather conditions : Rs 15 lacs
The above has been added vide GoI MoD Letter No 20(5)/2009/D(Pay/Services) dated 04 June 2010.
It may also be noted that the categories are not in the form of water-tight compartments and are to be interpreted liberally and not literally. The Govt has already explained in detail as to what kind of situations would be covered in these categories and such guidelines are provided in GoI MoD Letter No 20(1)/D/(Pay/Services) dated 22 Sept 1998. The said letter liberally conveys as to how these categories are to be construed for granting benefits to claimants.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:01 AM 6 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Monday, September 27, 2010
Comparative Analysis by KSB of various benefits and concessions to veterans
Veterans are usually at a loss when it comes to a comparison of various benefits and concessions available to them from States and UTs.
This link would throw light on varied aspects of the issue as compiled by the Kendriya Sainik Board.
The hand book on comparative analysis contains information on the census of veterans and widows in States and UTs, re-employment benefits and reservation offered to veterans and also about other exemptions, concessions and forms of financial assistance available.
Veteran organisations are requested to peruse and analyse this data while interacting with the Rajya Sainik Boards on welfare related issues of the defence community.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:20 AM 0 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Toll tax exemption is NOT repeat NOT available to retired personnel
This issue keeps cropping up every year or so.
Some officers are again circulating a letter purportedly issued by the NHAI in which it has been stated that retired defence personnel are entitled to toll exemption.
The above mentioned letter is fake. Please do not embarrass yourself or the service by using it or fighting with toll barrier staff on its basis. This has been clarified by me time and again.
An excerpt of a news report wherein the subject was dealt with by the Supreme Court is also floating around. The said judgement was related to the private vehicles of serving personnel only and had no relevance to retired personnel. The Supreme Court had upheld toll exemption to the private vehicles of serving defence personnel only.
Anyone who may want to know about the issue in greater detail may go through previous posts on the subject by clicking here.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 8:00 AM 4 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits, toll tax
Monday, September 20, 2010
‘Ex-Serviceman’ status to boarded out recruits
This is related to the post on ECHS facilities to recruits.
Many boarded out recruits keep inquiring whether they are to be treated as ‘ex-servicemen’ or not.
The answer is in the positive. While the DoPT definition of ‘ex-serviceman’ clearly includes personnel in receipt of disability pension, the MoD has also clarified vide its OM No 12/I/2005/D dated 01 February 2006 that boarded out recruits in receipt of disability pension shall be treated as ex-servicemen for all practical purposes.
It may be recalled that a recruit released from service due to an attributable / aggravated cause is entitled to disability pension including service element under the provision of Regulation 181 of the Pension Regulations.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:22 AM 4 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Thursday, September 16, 2010
It’s 10% for serving and retired
The increase in Dearness Allowance (DA) is what I’m talking about.
DA stands raised by 10% with effect from 01 July 2010 for serving employees and pensioners of the Central Govt.
The next instalment of DA enhancement after the current one shall also result in an increase in all allowances (including Travelling Allowance) by 25% since the 6th CPC had recommended that allowances shall go up by 25% when DA touches the 50% mark.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 6:30 PM 9 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Sent: 01 October 2010 08:13
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Mil update
Friday, October 1, 2010
Full modified parity restored to disability / liberalised / extra-ordinary pensioners on the civil side
The orders for modified parity for pre-2006 disability / liberalised / extra-ordinary family pensioners have been issued yesterday on the civil side.
With this, the calculation of all pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners in receipt of disability / extra-ordinary / liberalised pension shall be based on percentage basis of the new post-2006 scales rather than the old basic pension X 2.26 formula.
To take an example, the disability element of pension of a person with 100 % disability irrespective of date of retirement would be calculated on the basis of 30% of the new (post-2006) pay band + Grade Pay rather than 30% of old (post-1996) scale X 2.26 as was the case till date.
The fresh benefits have been granted with effect from 01-01-2006.
The OM issued by Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare can be accessed by clicking here. This OM is to be read with the one issued on 03-02-2000 after the 5th CPC.
Since the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare is the nodal authority for formulating pension related policies for civil, defence and railway pensioners, the MoD and the Rail Ministry are expected to soon implement this OM with suitable modifications. This would also be in line with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara’s case.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 4:45 AM 1 comments
Labels: Pay Commission, Pension, Policy and Benefits
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Another category added to ex-gratia compensation scheme w.e.f 01 January 2006
Lumpsum ex-gratia payment is admissible to families of defence personnel in the following cases :
Deaths occurring due to accidents in the course of duty : Rs 10 lacs
Deaths in the course of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists etc : Rs 10 lacs
Deaths occurring in enemy action in wars, border skirmishes, action against militants / terrorists etc : Rs 15 lacs
Deaths occurring in enemy action, international wars or other engagements specifically notified by the govt : Rs 20 lacs
The Govt of India has now added an additional category to the scheme of ex-gratia payment w.e.f 01 Jan 2006 :
Deaths occurring while on duty in specified high altitude area, inaccessible border posts etc on account on natural disasters and extreme weather conditions : Rs 15 lacs
The above has been added vide GoI MoD Letter No 20(5)/2009/D(Pay/Services) dated 04 June 2010.
It may also be noted that the categories are not in the form of water-tight compartments and are to be interpreted liberally and not literally. The Govt has already explained in detail as to what kind of situations would be covered in these categories and such guidelines are provided in GoI MoD Letter No 20(1)/D/(Pay/Services) dated 22 Sept 1998. The said letter liberally conveys as to how these categories are to be construed for granting benefits to claimants.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:01 AM 6 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Monday, September 27, 2010
Comparative Analysis by KSB of various benefits and concessions to veterans
Veterans are usually at a loss when it comes to a comparison of various benefits and concessions available to them from States and UTs.
This link would throw light on varied aspects of the issue as compiled by the Kendriya Sainik Board.
The hand book on comparative analysis contains information on the census of veterans and widows in States and UTs, re-employment benefits and reservation offered to veterans and also about other exemptions, concessions and forms of financial assistance available.
Veteran organisations are requested to peruse and analyse this data while interacting with the Rajya Sainik Boards on welfare related issues of the defence community.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:20 AM 0 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Toll tax exemption is NOT repeat NOT available to retired personnel
This issue keeps cropping up every year or so.
Some officers are again circulating a letter purportedly issued by the NHAI in which it has been stated that retired defence personnel are entitled to toll exemption.
The above mentioned letter is fake. Please do not embarrass yourself or the service by using it or fighting with toll barrier staff on its basis. This has been clarified by me time and again.
An excerpt of a news report wherein the subject was dealt with by the Supreme Court is also floating around. The said judgement was related to the private vehicles of serving personnel only and had no relevance to retired personnel. The Supreme Court had upheld toll exemption to the private vehicles of serving defence personnel only.
Anyone who may want to know about the issue in greater detail may go through previous posts on the subject by clicking here.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 8:00 AM 4 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits, toll tax
Monday, September 20, 2010
‘Ex-Serviceman’ status to boarded out recruits
This is related to the post on ECHS facilities to recruits.
Many boarded out recruits keep inquiring whether they are to be treated as ‘ex-servicemen’ or not.
The answer is in the positive. While the DoPT definition of ‘ex-serviceman’ clearly includes personnel in receipt of disability pension, the MoD has also clarified vide its OM No 12/I/2005/D dated 01 February 2006 that boarded out recruits in receipt of disability pension shall be treated as ex-servicemen for all practical purposes.
It may be recalled that a recruit released from service due to an attributable / aggravated cause is entitled to disability pension including service element under the provision of Regulation 181 of the Pension Regulations.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:22 AM 4 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
Thursday, September 16, 2010
It’s 10% for serving and retired
The increase in Dearness Allowance (DA) is what I’m talking about.
DA stands raised by 10% with effect from 01 July 2010 for serving employees and pensioners of the Central Govt.
The next instalment of DA enhancement after the current one shall also result in an increase in all allowances (including Travelling Allowance) by 25% since the 6th CPC had recommended that allowances shall go up by 25% when DA touches the 50% mark.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 6:30 PM 9 comments
Labels: Policy and Benefits
OROP-Punjab Assembly passes resolution for its grant
Dear Friends ,
1. You will be pleased to know that the Punjab Assembly has passed a UNANIMOUS resolution asking the Central Govt to grant OROP to the Ex-Servicemen . Leader of the Opposition , a Congress MLA , Mrs RK Bhathhal strongly supported the Resolution.
2. We the ESM of Punjab , of ALL shaded , shapes and Organisations were at it for quite some time , but the biggest credit goes to our Hon'ble Finance Minister (Mr Manpreet Singh Badal and Hon'ble MLA Capt BS Baathh(Ex JAT Regt) in persuading the Hon'ble CM (Mr PS Badal) about passing the Resolution. The Finance Minister spoke to Gen Oberoi for inputs on OROP yesterday , who sent an excellent brief to him .
3. Now our focus is to have similar 'Resolutions' passed by HP , UK (Uttar Khand), Rajasthan , Gujrat , Sikkim and other states . ALL, irrespective the org you belong to , are requested to approach your politicians for doing the needful . We are approaching MPs of ALL parties to lend big support to the OROP in the Winter Session of the Parliament .
4. Given as under is the 'Brief ' prepared for by Gen Oberoi and below in the trailing mail is one prepared by the undersigned . You are requested to give your inputs , 'Synthesise'' the two briefs in to ONE SINGLE brief which could be used by the politicians at the State and Central levels.The Brief MUST be ''BRIEF'' and MUST NOT exceed ''ONE'' Page please .
5. Your valuable inputs will be most welcome and are eagerly awaited .
With Warm Regards,
Brig Harwant Singh (Retd),
1. You will be pleased to know that the Punjab Assembly has passed a UNANIMOUS resolution asking the Central Govt to grant OROP to the Ex-Servicemen . Leader of the Opposition , a Congress MLA , Mrs RK Bhathhal strongly supported the Resolution.
2. We the ESM of Punjab , of ALL shaded , shapes and Organisations were at it for quite some time , but the biggest credit goes to our Hon'ble Finance Minister (Mr Manpreet Singh Badal and Hon'ble MLA Capt BS Baathh(Ex JAT Regt) in persuading the Hon'ble CM (Mr PS Badal) about passing the Resolution. The Finance Minister spoke to Gen Oberoi for inputs on OROP yesterday , who sent an excellent brief to him .
3. Now our focus is to have similar 'Resolutions' passed by HP , UK (Uttar Khand), Rajasthan , Gujrat , Sikkim and other states . ALL, irrespective the org you belong to , are requested to approach your politicians for doing the needful . We are approaching MPs of ALL parties to lend big support to the OROP in the Winter Session of the Parliament .
4. Given as under is the 'Brief ' prepared for by Gen Oberoi and below in the trailing mail is one prepared by the undersigned . You are requested to give your inputs , 'Synthesise'' the two briefs in to ONE SINGLE brief which could be used by the politicians at the State and Central levels.The Brief MUST be ''BRIEF'' and MUST NOT exceed ''ONE'' Page please .
5. Your valuable inputs will be most welcome and are eagerly awaited .
With Warm Regards,
Brig Harwant Singh (Retd),
Brief on OROP
From: VIJAY OBEROI [mailto:oberoivijay@hotmail.com]
Sent: 30 September 2010 07:54
To: Kamboj Chander
Subject: BRIEF ON OROP
Dear Chander,
Shri Badal had rung me up late last night. I am currently in Pune.
The Akali Dal government is tabling the issue of OROP in the Vidhan Sabha today.
I have sent him a brief just now, a copy of which I am enclosing for everyone's information.
Warm regards.
· Vijay Oberoi
Sent: 30 September 2010 07:54
To: Kamboj Chander
Subject: BRIEF ON OROP
Dear Chander,
Shri Badal had rung me up late last night. I am currently in Pune.
The Akali Dal government is tabling the issue of OROP in the Vidhan Sabha today.
I have sent him a brief just now, a copy of which I am enclosing for everyone's information.
Warm regards.
· Vijay Oberoi
OROP by Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi
BRIEF ON ‘OROP’ FOR SHRI MANPREET SINGH BADAL,
FINANCE MINISTER OF PUNJAB
By
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi
Meaning of OROP
‘One Rank One Pension’ or OROP means that a soldier's pension be determined by just two factors: his rank and the length of his service. That is, two military pensioners who retired in the same rank after rendering equal service should get equal pension irrespective of their dates of retirement. Nobody has so far cogently rebutted this rationale to be unreasonable.
Rationale
The concept of rank is unique to the military. Those in non-military services may carry designations/posts like 'director general', ‘secretary’ etc. but these have no formal sanctity the world over. However, those in/from the military are always referred to by his rank, even after death.
While those serving in the military retire by rank, the other government employees retire by age. To keep the forces young, all jawans retire in their mid-30s; all JCO’s retire in their mid-40’s and the bulk of officers retire in the early fifties. Only a handful-about 60 Lt Gens serve up to 60 years. On the other hand, all civilian government employees serve up to the age of 60 years, whether they are peons or constables or secretaries and DGP’s. Since the date of retirement also determines the quantum of pension, with each pay commission (with periodicity of 10 years), the military veterans who retired early receive lesser pension compared to those who retired later with the same rank and same service. As military pensioners are subjected to three or more pay commissions in their lifetime, they have to suffer the disparities bred by it every 10 years.
The take-home package of a jawan for example and a constable hardly bears comparison, as the jawan starts getting half pay (pension) at the average age of 35 years, while the constable continues to serve till the age of 60 years, thus getting full pay for another 25 years. In addition, he gets pay rise with each subsequent pay commission, as well as increments. Furthermore, if we take the current average age of death (67 years), the constable will perhaps see only one pay commission after his retirement but the jawan will see a minimum of three or four pay commissions, each of which will further downgrade his pension when compared to the serving jawans or his comrades who retired in subsequent years. Where is equity and fairness? Should the veteran not get compensated? OROP will fill this lacuna.
The governments reasoning that civilian pensioners will also demand OROP is simply a bogey. They have never sought the equivalent of OROP to date, as they understand that their requirements are adequately met by serving up to 60 years. Further, when the 'one time increase' was granted to the armed forces, civilian pensioners never made it a bone of contention.
The pension structure of the defence personnel is distinct and no other central service has sought a similar structure or parity with the ex-servicemen.
The parliamentary standing committee in its 2004 report had estimated the annual cost of implementing OROP to be Rs 614 crores. Even after catering for inflation, the resultant amount is small change to governments that unabashedly hand out princely sums to patronise cronies, to cultivate vote banks and to feather their nest.
It is a great pity that the government, and the blinkered bureaucracy that steers it, do not think straight, merely on the assumption that the military will accept whatever is given to them without complaining. I am afraid the military veterans have now reached the end of their tethers and are in no mood to drop their highly legitimate demand.
Major Landmarks in the Tortuous Journey of OROP
In the early eighties, with a view to rationalise military pensions, the Supreme Court gave its nod to the concept of OROP on December 17, 1982. Consequently, a committee headed by K P Singh Deo was tasked two years later to settle the issues raised by the ex-servicemen. It made 62 recommendations including for OROP. While most of these were accepted, about 15 others, including OROP remained unresolved.
In a placatory gesture, the government granted a 'one time increase' in 1992. Later the fifth pay commission merged all the pre-1996 pensioners into one category, and created a new breed of post-1996 pensioners.
All political parties pledged bipartisan backing to OROP, both inside and outside Parliament. OROP has featured in the election manifesto of all major political parties. On April 10, 1999, George Fernandes, then defence minister, proclaimed at Anandpur Sahib that OROP would become a reality in 'a few days.'
Sonia Gandhi endorsed OROP in a Congress party rally at Chandigarh on November 23, 2002.
The parliamentary standing committee on defence, chaired by Madan Lal Khurana spiritedly favoured OROP in its twentieth report and it urged the inter-ministerial committee to examine the issue and operationalise it expeditiously.
It was the report of the sixth pay commission that broke the camels back on account of its highly biased and anti-military formulations, The committee of secretaries tasked to reconcile the contentious proposals did little for the military as the bureaucrats were hell-bent in keeping the ‘military in its place’, as publicly stated by no less a person than the Cabinet Secretary.
The central government further drove the nail in the coffin by their kowtowing with the bureaucrats. In a written reply, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2008 that the government has not found acceptable the demand for 'one rank one pension' (OROP) by the ex-servicemen. The defence minister did not assign any compelling reasons for dumping OROP. Hence the government’s reluctance to sanction OROP is truly boggling.
30 September 2010
------------
THE END
FINANCE MINISTER OF PUNJAB
By
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi
Meaning of OROP
‘One Rank One Pension’ or OROP means that a soldier's pension be determined by just two factors: his rank and the length of his service. That is, two military pensioners who retired in the same rank after rendering equal service should get equal pension irrespective of their dates of retirement. Nobody has so far cogently rebutted this rationale to be unreasonable.
Rationale
The concept of rank is unique to the military. Those in non-military services may carry designations/posts like 'director general', ‘secretary’ etc. but these have no formal sanctity the world over. However, those in/from the military are always referred to by his rank, even after death.
While those serving in the military retire by rank, the other government employees retire by age. To keep the forces young, all jawans retire in their mid-30s; all JCO’s retire in their mid-40’s and the bulk of officers retire in the early fifties. Only a handful-about 60 Lt Gens serve up to 60 years. On the other hand, all civilian government employees serve up to the age of 60 years, whether they are peons or constables or secretaries and DGP’s. Since the date of retirement also determines the quantum of pension, with each pay commission (with periodicity of 10 years), the military veterans who retired early receive lesser pension compared to those who retired later with the same rank and same service. As military pensioners are subjected to three or more pay commissions in their lifetime, they have to suffer the disparities bred by it every 10 years.
The take-home package of a jawan for example and a constable hardly bears comparison, as the jawan starts getting half pay (pension) at the average age of 35 years, while the constable continues to serve till the age of 60 years, thus getting full pay for another 25 years. In addition, he gets pay rise with each subsequent pay commission, as well as increments. Furthermore, if we take the current average age of death (67 years), the constable will perhaps see only one pay commission after his retirement but the jawan will see a minimum of three or four pay commissions, each of which will further downgrade his pension when compared to the serving jawans or his comrades who retired in subsequent years. Where is equity and fairness? Should the veteran not get compensated? OROP will fill this lacuna.
The governments reasoning that civilian pensioners will also demand OROP is simply a bogey. They have never sought the equivalent of OROP to date, as they understand that their requirements are adequately met by serving up to 60 years. Further, when the 'one time increase' was granted to the armed forces, civilian pensioners never made it a bone of contention.
The pension structure of the defence personnel is distinct and no other central service has sought a similar structure or parity with the ex-servicemen.
The parliamentary standing committee in its 2004 report had estimated the annual cost of implementing OROP to be Rs 614 crores. Even after catering for inflation, the resultant amount is small change to governments that unabashedly hand out princely sums to patronise cronies, to cultivate vote banks and to feather their nest.
It is a great pity that the government, and the blinkered bureaucracy that steers it, do not think straight, merely on the assumption that the military will accept whatever is given to them without complaining. I am afraid the military veterans have now reached the end of their tethers and are in no mood to drop their highly legitimate demand.
Major Landmarks in the Tortuous Journey of OROP
In the early eighties, with a view to rationalise military pensions, the Supreme Court gave its nod to the concept of OROP on December 17, 1982. Consequently, a committee headed by K P Singh Deo was tasked two years later to settle the issues raised by the ex-servicemen. It made 62 recommendations including for OROP. While most of these were accepted, about 15 others, including OROP remained unresolved.
In a placatory gesture, the government granted a 'one time increase' in 1992. Later the fifth pay commission merged all the pre-1996 pensioners into one category, and created a new breed of post-1996 pensioners.
All political parties pledged bipartisan backing to OROP, both inside and outside Parliament. OROP has featured in the election manifesto of all major political parties. On April 10, 1999, George Fernandes, then defence minister, proclaimed at Anandpur Sahib that OROP would become a reality in 'a few days.'
Sonia Gandhi endorsed OROP in a Congress party rally at Chandigarh on November 23, 2002.
The parliamentary standing committee on defence, chaired by Madan Lal Khurana spiritedly favoured OROP in its twentieth report and it urged the inter-ministerial committee to examine the issue and operationalise it expeditiously.
It was the report of the sixth pay commission that broke the camels back on account of its highly biased and anti-military formulations, The committee of secretaries tasked to reconcile the contentious proposals did little for the military as the bureaucrats were hell-bent in keeping the ‘military in its place’, as publicly stated by no less a person than the Cabinet Secretary.
The central government further drove the nail in the coffin by their kowtowing with the bureaucrats. In a written reply, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2008 that the government has not found acceptable the demand for 'one rank one pension' (OROP) by the ex-servicemen. The defence minister did not assign any compelling reasons for dumping OROP. Hence the government’s reluctance to sanction OROP is truly boggling.
30 September 2010
------------
THE END
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Stop Misusing the Army...Mail Today sep 26 By Brig v Mahalingam ( Retd) CLICK BELOW
Monday, September 27, 2010
Membership IESM..Brig R P Nautiyal
From: RAjinder Nautiyal [mailto:rpnautiyal17@hotmail.com]
Sent: 23 September 2010 19:43
To: report my signal kamboj
Subject: Report my signal mail
Dear Sir,
I have sent Rs 2000 for life members ship. Till date I have not received a receipt for it nor my membership number. In spite of protracted correspondence and assurances I have yet to get any concrete response on the subject. I have now given up on it as an exercise in futility.
Kindly do sent me report my signal mails if convenient
Service No IC 19071W
Rank and Name as per Service Records. Brig R P Nautiyal
Date of Retirement. 30 Jun 2001
Your present address, including PIN, and Phone numbers
Clement Villa
Bell Road
Clement Town
Dehra Dun 248002
With warm regards
Nautiyal
Sent: 23 September 2010 19:43
To: report my signal kamboj
Subject: Report my signal mail
Dear Sir,
I have sent Rs 2000 for life members ship. Till date I have not received a receipt for it nor my membership number. In spite of protracted correspondence and assurances I have yet to get any concrete response on the subject. I have now given up on it as an exercise in futility.
Kindly do sent me report my signal mails if convenient
Service No IC 19071W
Rank and Name as per Service Records. Brig R P Nautiyal
Date of Retirement. 30 Jun 2001
Your present address, including PIN, and Phone numbers
Clement Villa
Bell Road
Clement Town
Dehra Dun 248002
With warm regards
Nautiyal
HOSTING OF BARAKAHANA FOR RETIRED JCOs, NCOs & OR OF THE ARMY, NAVY & AIR FORCE ON 02 OCT 2010 BY ARMED FORCES VETERAN OFFICERS AT BANGALORE
AN APPEAL
Kind presence of all retired Officers
of the Army,Navy & Air Force at Bangalore is requested
at Ex-Servicemen BARAKAHANA (Lunch)
(being hosted by Armed Forces Veteran Officers)
for retired JCOs, NCOs & OR of the Army, Navy & Air Force
and Defence Family Pensioners
at 12 Noon on Saturday, 02 Oct 2010
at Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute, adjacent to India Garge
on lower Agram Road, near ASC College & Centre, Bangalore
Please download attachment to view Sketch showing location of Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute
Please confirm your participation by Post Card
giving details of your Regtl No. Rank & Name
RSVP
Col SS Rajan, Veteran, IESM Convenor Karnataka & South Zone
77, 1st Cross, Opp. Shankar Mutt, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004
Cell No. 9449043770 / 9448024377 Email: colonelrajan44@gmail.com
INVITATION
Admiral OS Dawson, PVSM, AVSM
(Former Chief of Naval Staff)
&
All retired Officers of the Army, Navy & Air Force at Bangalore
cordially invite retired JCOs, NCOs & OR of the Army, Navy & Air Force
and Defence Family Pensioners
for BARAKHANA (Lunch)
at 12 Noon on Saturday, 02 Oct 2010
at Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute, adjacent to India Garge
on lower Agram Road, near ASC College & Centre, Bangalore
Please download attachment to view Sketch showing location of Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute
For ease of enrolment of Members on 2 Oct, Membership Form has been printed on the reverse of the Invitation as per attachment
Please confirm your participation by Post Card
giving details of your Regtl No. Rank & Name
RSVP
Col SS Rajan, Veteran, IESM Convenor Karnataka & South Zone
77, 1st Cross, Opp. Shankar Mutt, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004
Cell No. 9449043770 / 9448024377 Email: colonelrajan44@gmail.com
Kind presence of all retired Officers
of the Army,Navy & Air Force at Bangalore is requested
at Ex-Servicemen BARAKAHANA (Lunch)
(being hosted by Armed Forces Veteran Officers)
for retired JCOs, NCOs & OR of the Army, Navy & Air Force
and Defence Family Pensioners
at 12 Noon on Saturday, 02 Oct 2010
at Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute, adjacent to India Garge
on lower Agram Road, near ASC College & Centre, Bangalore
Please download attachment to view Sketch showing location of Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute
Please confirm your participation by Post Card
giving details of your Regtl No. Rank & Name
RSVP
Col SS Rajan, Veteran, IESM Convenor Karnataka & South Zone
77, 1st Cross, Opp. Shankar Mutt, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004
Cell No. 9449043770 / 9448024377 Email: colonelrajan44@gmail.com
INVITATION
Admiral OS Dawson, PVSM, AVSM
(Former Chief of Naval Staff)
&
All retired Officers of the Army, Navy & Air Force at Bangalore
cordially invite retired JCOs, NCOs & OR of the Army, Navy & Air Force
and Defence Family Pensioners
for BARAKHANA (Lunch)
at 12 Noon on Saturday, 02 Oct 2010
at Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute, adjacent to India Garge
on lower Agram Road, near ASC College & Centre, Bangalore
Please download attachment to view Sketch showing location of Pioneer Corps JCOs & OR Institute
For ease of enrolment of Members on 2 Oct, Membership Form has been printed on the reverse of the Invitation as per attachment
Please confirm your participation by Post Card
giving details of your Regtl No. Rank & Name
RSVP
Col SS Rajan, Veteran, IESM Convenor Karnataka & South Zone
77, 1st Cross, Opp. Shankar Mutt, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004
Cell No. 9449043770 / 9448024377 Email: colonelrajan44@gmail.com
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Ladakh Renewal Project - Community Centre.
Dear Col Chaturvedi
I am attaching 4posters that will give you some background on our effort and a thumbnail note entitled 'The Clouds Silver Lining' that outlines the measurable energy we need in the form of money to put up a Ladakh Renewal Project - Community Centre.
The Clouds Silver Lining
The aftermath of a disaster presents a unique opportunity to reinvent a society in a way that it outgrows certain endemic weaknesses and even cultural limitations. Ladakh presents exactly such an opportunity and we are working on the following project as outlined for your consideration and support.
The Ladakh Renewal Project-LRP ( or 6 integrated Ideas for Sustainable change/improvement)
1. A new kind of sun baked brick for improved reconstruction. 15 Lacs
2. The healing touch as a vector of social change and a dynamic community centre.
for rebuilding an improved community. 26.5 Lacs.
3. Design for New Growth or Building Brand Ladakh. 11 Lacs
4. The spiritual spirit. Apricot products Candy, Apricot paapar (Similar to Aam paapar)
Jam and Brandy for high value returns.7.3 Lacs
5. Value added education with Career Launching. 15.5 Lacs.
6. The 1000 Poets reading for Poetree and Ladakh an event in Delhi. 25 Lacs.
Needless to say the high mountain passes close in less than 4 weeks and so time is of the essence. I am traveling with the last load to be there for the winter and I do look forward to celebrating some good news from this project with you in the spring.
Tagore said " Faith is the bird that sees the light and sings when the dawn is dark "
I am sure that you too would have sung this song in your life out turn to sing it for Ladakh pl respond as soon as you are able
With gratitude
and abiding respect
Amit Dahiyabadshah
Poet Laureate SEC-CIP G Town Philadelphia,
Founder DelhiPoetree
Member India Poetry Foundation
Team Leader The Ladakh Renewal Project
9958323256, 9313120050, 9212010142
Amit Dahiyabadshah
ladakhrenewalproject@gmail.com
Ground Floor, Ladakh Renewal Project, C-269, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 India.
Tsering Tashi (Of Zanskar)
Village Choglamsar,
Tashi Tongsmon Ning,
House No: 126, Leh
Ladakh,
Pin 194101.
I am attaching 4posters that will give you some background on our effort and a thumbnail note entitled 'The Clouds Silver Lining' that outlines the measurable energy we need in the form of money to put up a Ladakh Renewal Project - Community Centre.
The Clouds Silver Lining
The aftermath of a disaster presents a unique opportunity to reinvent a society in a way that it outgrows certain endemic weaknesses and even cultural limitations. Ladakh presents exactly such an opportunity and we are working on the following project as outlined for your consideration and support.
The Ladakh Renewal Project-LRP ( or 6 integrated Ideas for Sustainable change/improvement)
1. A new kind of sun baked brick for improved reconstruction. 15 Lacs
2. The healing touch as a vector of social change and a dynamic community centre.
for rebuilding an improved community. 26.5 Lacs.
3. Design for New Growth or Building Brand Ladakh. 11 Lacs
4. The spiritual spirit. Apricot products Candy, Apricot paapar (Similar to Aam paapar)
Jam and Brandy for high value returns.7.3 Lacs
5. Value added education with Career Launching. 15.5 Lacs.
6. The 1000 Poets reading for Poetree and Ladakh an event in Delhi. 25 Lacs.
Needless to say the high mountain passes close in less than 4 weeks and so time is of the essence. I am traveling with the last load to be there for the winter and I do look forward to celebrating some good news from this project with you in the spring.
Tagore said " Faith is the bird that sees the light and sings when the dawn is dark "
I am sure that you too would have sung this song in your life out turn to sing it for Ladakh pl respond as soon as you are able
With gratitude
and abiding respect
Amit Dahiyabadshah
Poet Laureate SEC-CIP G Town Philadelphia,
Founder DelhiPoetree
Member India Poetry Foundation
Team Leader The Ladakh Renewal Project
9958323256, 9313120050, 9212010142
Amit Dahiyabadshah
ladakhrenewalproject@gmail.com
Ground Floor, Ladakh Renewal Project, C-269, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 India.
Tsering Tashi (Of Zanskar)
Village Choglamsar,
Tashi Tongsmon Ning,
House No: 126, Leh
Ladakh,
Pin 194101.
Urgent for The Ladakh Renewal Project
From: IESM_GovBody@yahoogroups.com [mailto:IESM_GovBody@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi
Sent: 23 September 2010 14:43
To: GovBody
Subject: [IESM_GovBody] Fwd: Urgent for The Ladakh Renewal Project [4 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi included below]
The floods in Ladakh have rendered thousands homeless. With waters receding, the problems of restarting life are just beginning. Moreso, ,with the severe winters approaching.
A mail received from an NGO is forwarded herein for your information and action as deemed appropriate by your conscience.
Clothes, money. Whatever you feel you can do.
There are JUST FOUR WEEKS left before the road link gets closed due to the snow. This is the time available to finish stocking, and reconstruction/ starting rehabilitation.
The IDs are left intact, for those interested, to contact Mr Amit direct.
With Warm Regards,
Col RP Chaturvedi,
A-35, Sector 36,
Noida 201303.
Mob: +919891279035
Skype: rakesh.prasad.chaturvedi
Sent: 23 September 2010 14:43
To: GovBody
Subject: [IESM_GovBody] Fwd: Urgent for The Ladakh Renewal Project [4 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi included below]
The floods in Ladakh have rendered thousands homeless. With waters receding, the problems of restarting life are just beginning. Moreso, ,with the severe winters approaching.
A mail received from an NGO is forwarded herein for your information and action as deemed appropriate by your conscience.
Clothes, money. Whatever you feel you can do.
There are JUST FOUR WEEKS left before the road link gets closed due to the snow. This is the time available to finish stocking, and reconstruction/ starting rehabilitation.
The IDs are left intact, for those interested, to contact Mr Amit direct.
With Warm Regards,
Col RP Chaturvedi,
A-35, Sector 36,
Noida 201303.
Mob: +919891279035
Skype: rakesh.prasad.chaturvedi
Disability Pensio by Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi
--- On Wed, 22/9/10, VIJAY OBEROI wrote:
From: VIJAY OBEROI
Subject: RE: DISABILITY PENSION
To: colram40@yahoo.com
Cc: kamboj@itintellectuals.com
Date: Wednesday, 22 September, 2010, 6:03 PM
Dear Raman,
I am sorry I could not revert to you till now. The following is a detailed answer, so that it can be
given wide publicity, perhaps through the "Report My Signal - Blog" of Chander Kamboj.
There are anumber of anomalies in the war injury pay / disability pay as applicable to pre Jan-2006 personnel and post Jan-2006 personnel. The two most important are:
Lump sum approach for pre-2006 and percentage of pay for post-2006 disabled / war injured pers.
This is patently wrong and adopted by the MoD arbitrarily, as the Sixth Pay Commission had recommended the percentage of pay approach for all, as is applicable to civilian disabled personnel since the Fourth Pay Commission. In the lump sum approach all affected personnel tend to lose out.
The anomalous situation of Broadbanding, for which the MoD again created two classes, viz. those who were invalided out soon after their war injury / disability and those who opted to serve and went home on superannuation or on completion of pensionable service.
I wrote to the Raksha Mantri on both the above aspects. However, when no action was taken by the MoD, I filed a case against the anomaly of Broadbanding with AFT, Chandigarh Bench and won the case. It is a
very detailed judgement of 30 pages, but the crux of the judgement, dated 04-08-2010, is as under:
"it is held that the persons including the petitioners, being discharged on attaining the age of superannuation, or on completion of tenure, or being retired etc., if found to be suffering from disability to the extent of 20 % or above, and being attributable to or aggravated by military service, would be entitled to the benefit of rounding off / broad banding, at par with the persons, who are prematurely invalided out.
The respondents are directed to make calculations, and make payment of the amount becoming due, in consequence of this judgement, within a period of six months from today, faiing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% w.e.f. the date the amount became payable till actual receipt of the amount by the respective petitioners."
The judgement is for all affected cases and not just for me. The MoD has two options now. Firstly, appeal against the verdict and fight in a higher court or secondly, accept the verdict and issue an implementation
letter before the time stipulated by the AFT. So far, the MoD has taken no action. My gut feeling is that the MoD is unlikely to challenge the verdict.
Now, coming to the second and bigger anomaly, viz. lump sum versus percentage dispensation. Again, I had requested the Raksha Mantri for rationalisation. No action has been initited by the MoD on this either. It is on this that Col Kahlon now wants to go to court. I have already filed my case in AFT Chandigarh and I hope to win this too, for all affected personnel. Col Kahlon must have come to know of it and hence his offer.
My suggestion is that there is no need for everyone to file individual cases and waste money, as my case has already started and the AFT has asked the MoD to file their comments.
To answer your specific query whether litigation is the only answer? It seems to be so as many overtures made by different individuals and organisations have not borne fruit with the MoD. Some people are even trying for ‘Modified parity", which in my view is a weakening of the case, as our case is very strong.
I am endorsing a copy to Chander.
Warm regards.
· Vijay Oberoi
Former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS)
Former Director Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)
RESIDENCE
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
'DAULAT'
#673, Sector - 6
Panchkula - 134109
From: VIJAY OBEROI
Subject: RE: DISABILITY PENSION
To: colram40@yahoo.com
Cc: kamboj@itintellectuals.com
Date: Wednesday, 22 September, 2010, 6:03 PM
Dear Raman,
I am sorry I could not revert to you till now. The following is a detailed answer, so that it can be
given wide publicity, perhaps through the "Report My Signal - Blog" of Chander Kamboj.
There are anumber of anomalies in the war injury pay / disability pay as applicable to pre Jan-2006 personnel and post Jan-2006 personnel. The two most important are:
Lump sum approach for pre-2006 and percentage of pay for post-2006 disabled / war injured pers.
This is patently wrong and adopted by the MoD arbitrarily, as the Sixth Pay Commission had recommended the percentage of pay approach for all, as is applicable to civilian disabled personnel since the Fourth Pay Commission. In the lump sum approach all affected personnel tend to lose out.
The anomalous situation of Broadbanding, for which the MoD again created two classes, viz. those who were invalided out soon after their war injury / disability and those who opted to serve and went home on superannuation or on completion of pensionable service.
I wrote to the Raksha Mantri on both the above aspects. However, when no action was taken by the MoD, I filed a case against the anomaly of Broadbanding with AFT, Chandigarh Bench and won the case. It is a
very detailed judgement of 30 pages, but the crux of the judgement, dated 04-08-2010, is as under:
"it is held that the persons including the petitioners, being discharged on attaining the age of superannuation, or on completion of tenure, or being retired etc., if found to be suffering from disability to the extent of 20 % or above, and being attributable to or aggravated by military service, would be entitled to the benefit of rounding off / broad banding, at par with the persons, who are prematurely invalided out.
The respondents are directed to make calculations, and make payment of the amount becoming due, in consequence of this judgement, within a period of six months from today, faiing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% w.e.f. the date the amount became payable till actual receipt of the amount by the respective petitioners."
The judgement is for all affected cases and not just for me. The MoD has two options now. Firstly, appeal against the verdict and fight in a higher court or secondly, accept the verdict and issue an implementation
letter before the time stipulated by the AFT. So far, the MoD has taken no action. My gut feeling is that the MoD is unlikely to challenge the verdict.
Now, coming to the second and bigger anomaly, viz. lump sum versus percentage dispensation. Again, I had requested the Raksha Mantri for rationalisation. No action has been initited by the MoD on this either. It is on this that Col Kahlon now wants to go to court. I have already filed my case in AFT Chandigarh and I hope to win this too, for all affected personnel. Col Kahlon must have come to know of it and hence his offer.
My suggestion is that there is no need for everyone to file individual cases and waste money, as my case has already started and the AFT has asked the MoD to file their comments.
To answer your specific query whether litigation is the only answer? It seems to be so as many overtures made by different individuals and organisations have not borne fruit with the MoD. Some people are even trying for ‘Modified parity", which in my view is a weakening of the case, as our case is very strong.
I am endorsing a copy to Chander.
Warm regards.
· Vijay Oberoi
Former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS)
Former Director Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)
RESIDENCE
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
'DAULAT'
#673, Sector - 6
Panchkula - 134109
DISABILITY PENSION
From: col h s kaushal
To: jagga17_chd@dataone.in
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:28 AM
Subject: DISABILITY PENSION
Dear Col Kahlon Sir,
I have forwarded some of the emails to you. Hope some material with regard to disability pension would be usefull to you for prepering the case. You may contact Lt Gen Oberoi for more info, he being the President of the disabled soldiers' org..
Also you may like to contact Maj Navdeep who is the Advocate at Punjab & Haryane High Court.
Regards
Col H S Kaushal
--------------
Attatchment
Pre-2006 disability pensioners may have something to look forward to
During the 5th CPC regime, disability pension of defence personnel was calculated on a slab-system basis while civil disability pensioners were placed on a percentage basis.
While defence personnel were granted disability element @ Rs 2600 for officers, 1900 for JCOs and 1550 for Other Ranks (all rates for 100% disability), civilians were granted a disability element @ 30% of basic pay. The slab system was beneficial for some lower ranks of the forces but was not quite congenial to the overall scenario.
Recognising this anomaly, the 6th CPC rightly recommended that even defence personnel should be placed on a percentage system of calculating disability element. However while accepting the new dispensation, the Govt made it applicable only to post-2006 pensioners while retaining the old slab system for pre-2006 pensioners. This resulted in a great disparity between pre and post-2006 disabled personnel. To take an example, a General who may have retired on 31 December 2005 was entitled to a disability element of Rs 5880 per month while a General who retired a day later with the same disability on 01 January 2006 was entitled to Rs 27000 as disability element. The injury is the same, the rank is the same but the disability element, well… The issue has been discussed in more detail in this earlier post with examples.
The above seemed even more unjustified in the light of the fact that when the percentage system was introduced for civil disability pensioners in the 5th CPC, it was made applicable to pre-1996 (pre-5th CPC) pensioners as well. Moreover when the 6th CPC had tried to remove this anomaly between defence and civil disability pensioners, the said rectification had to date back to the inception of the anomaly (1996) and not from a prospective date. The Hon’ble Courts have also time and again ruled that when an anomaly is rectified, it has to date back to the time when such an incongruity came into being and not from the date when the decision of such rectification is taken.
Thankfully, there are indications that the new stipulation is going to be extended to pre-2006 disability pensioners too, very soon. Personnel who retired prior to 01 January 2006 would then also be placed on a percentage system for calculation of disability element. Of course this shall be subject to a minimum grant of Rs 3100 as disability element for 100% disability. This should take care of a very major grey area as far as our disability pensioners are concerned.
------------
2
To: jagga17_chd@dataone.in
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:28 AM
Subject: DISABILITY PENSION
Dear Col Kahlon Sir,
I have forwarded some of the emails to you. Hope some material with regard to disability pension would be usefull to you for prepering the case. You may contact Lt Gen Oberoi for more info, he being the President of the disabled soldiers' org..
Also you may like to contact Maj Navdeep who is the Advocate at Punjab & Haryane High Court.
Regards
Col H S Kaushal
--------------
Attatchment
Pre-2006 disability pensioners may have something to look forward to
During the 5th CPC regime, disability pension of defence personnel was calculated on a slab-system basis while civil disability pensioners were placed on a percentage basis.
While defence personnel were granted disability element @ Rs 2600 for officers, 1900 for JCOs and 1550 for Other Ranks (all rates for 100% disability), civilians were granted a disability element @ 30% of basic pay. The slab system was beneficial for some lower ranks of the forces but was not quite congenial to the overall scenario.
Recognising this anomaly, the 6th CPC rightly recommended that even defence personnel should be placed on a percentage system of calculating disability element. However while accepting the new dispensation, the Govt made it applicable only to post-2006 pensioners while retaining the old slab system for pre-2006 pensioners. This resulted in a great disparity between pre and post-2006 disabled personnel. To take an example, a General who may have retired on 31 December 2005 was entitled to a disability element of Rs 5880 per month while a General who retired a day later with the same disability on 01 January 2006 was entitled to Rs 27000 as disability element. The injury is the same, the rank is the same but the disability element, well… The issue has been discussed in more detail in this earlier post with examples.
The above seemed even more unjustified in the light of the fact that when the percentage system was introduced for civil disability pensioners in the 5th CPC, it was made applicable to pre-1996 (pre-5th CPC) pensioners as well. Moreover when the 6th CPC had tried to remove this anomaly between defence and civil disability pensioners, the said rectification had to date back to the inception of the anomaly (1996) and not from a prospective date. The Hon’ble Courts have also time and again ruled that when an anomaly is rectified, it has to date back to the time when such an incongruity came into being and not from the date when the decision of such rectification is taken.
Thankfully, there are indications that the new stipulation is going to be extended to pre-2006 disability pensioners too, very soon. Personnel who retired prior to 01 January 2006 would then also be placed on a percentage system for calculation of disability element. Of course this shall be subject to a minimum grant of Rs 3100 as disability element for 100% disability. This should take care of a very major grey area as far as our disability pensioners are concerned.
------------
2
Lt Cdr Avtar Singh Case judgment is given below
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
1
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 270/2010
With
O.A. No. 24/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others .........Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Others .......Respondents
[With Lt. Cdr. Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.]
For applicant: Cmde (Retd.) Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate.
For respondents: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MATHUR, CHAIRPERSON.
HON’BLE LT. GEN. M.L. NAIDU, MEMBER.
O R D E R
14.09.2010
1. Both the cases involve identical question of law one from the Navy and other from the Air Force, therefore, they are disposed by the common order.
2. In the case of Sqn. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain, this petition has been filed by Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain along with other applicants having equivalent ranks i.e. Major from the Army and
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
2
some of the Lt. Commanders from the Navy who have since retired. In the case of Lt. Cdr. Avtar Singh, a joint petition has been filed by all the retired Lt. Commanders of the Navy. Both these petitions are espousing the case of officers of equivalent ranks from all three Forces i.e. Army, Air Force and Navy i.e. Majors in the Indian Army, Sqn. Leaders from Air Force and Lt. Commanders from Navy. The grievance in both the petitions is with regard of pension. The Sixth Pay Commission came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and in implementation of that Ministry of Defence has passed various orders from time to time. The issue before us is limited one that how the persons of these rank and other equivalent rank in the other forces should be fixed in the Sixth Pay Commission. Joint grievance of all the petitioners is that their fixation has not been done in accordance with the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission and the implementation order issued by the Ministry of Defence from time to time. It has been prayed that the letter issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 03rd October, 2008 and Government of India‟s letter dated 11th November, 2008 may be quashed to the extent of methodology on fixation of pension of pre 2006 retirees and has further sought a relief that respondents may be directed to amend
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
3
para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 as per its wording reproduced in OM dated 03rd October, 2008 and direct the respondents for fixation of pension in terms of the judgment given in the case of Union of India SPS Vains – 2008 (12) SCALE 360.
3. The first order in sequence of is dated 01.09.2008 by which the Ministry of Defence has implemented the Government decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the revision of the pension of the pre 2006 pensioners and family pensioners etc. which reads as under :-
“F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated the 01st September, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Implementation of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission – Revision of penson of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners etc.
1. The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the regulation, with effect from 1.1.2006, of pension/family pension of all the pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners in the manner indicated in the succeeding
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
4
paragraphs. Separate orders will be issued in respect of employees who retired/died on or after 1.1.2006.
2.1 These orders apply to all pensioners/family pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.2006 under the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972, CCS (Extraordinary Pension) rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway pensioners and pensioners of All India Services, including officers of the Indian Civil Service retired from service on or after 1.1.1973.
2.2 Separate orders will be issued by the Ministry of Defence in regard to Armed Forces pensioners/family pensioners.
2.3 These orders do not also apply to retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges and other Constitutional/Statutory Authorities whose pension etc. is governed by separate rules/orders.
3.1 In these orders:
a. Existing pensioner or Existing Family pensioner means a pensioner who was drawing/entitled to pension/family pension on 31.12.2005.
b. Existing pension means the basic pension inclusive of commuted portion, if any, due on 31.12.2005. It covers all classes of pension under the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 as also Disability Pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and Members of All India Services.
c. Existing family pension means the basic family pension drawn on 31.122.005 under the CCS (Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and the Members of All India Services.
4.1 The pension/family pension of existing pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:-
i. The existing pension/family pension.
ii. Dearness Pension, where applicable
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
5
iii. Dearness Relief upto AICPI (IW) average index 536 (Base year 1982=100) I.E. @ 24% OF Basic Pension/Basic family pension plus dearness pension as admissible vide this Department‟s O.M. No.42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated 5.4.2006.
iv. Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension.
Where the existing pension in (i) above includes the effect of merger of 50% of dearness relief w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged dearness relief of 50% from the pension.
The amount so arrived at will be regarded as consolidated pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006.
4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the play in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scale, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.
4.3 Since the consolidate pension will be inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any, the commuted portion will be deducted from the said amount while making monthly disbursements.
4.4 The upper ceiling on pension/family pension laid down in the Department of Pension and Pensioner‟s Welfare Office Memorandum No. 45/86/97-P&PW (A) (Part-I) dated 27.10.1997 has been increased from Rs.15000/- and Rs.9000 to 50% and 30% respectively of the highest pay in the Government (the highest pay in the Government is Rs.90,000 since 1.1.2006)
4.5 The quantum of pension/family pension available to the old pensioners/family pensioners shall be increased as follows:-
Age of pensioner/family pensioner
Additional quantum of pension
From 80 years to less than 85
20% of revised basic
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
6
years.
pension/family pension.
From 85 years to less than 90 years.
30% of revised basic pension/family pension.
From 90 years to less than 95 years.
40% of revised basic pension/family pension.
From 95 years to less than 100 years.
50% of revised basic pension/family pension.
100 years or more
100% of revised basic pension/family pension
The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his/her consolidated pension in terms para 4.1 and 4.2 above is Rs.10,000 pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pennon = Rs.10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = 2000 pm. The pension on his/her attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic Pension = Rs.10,000 and (ii) additional pension = Rs.3,000 pm.
4.6 Some of the existing pensioners who retired between 31.3.1985 and 31.12.1985 are in receipt of personal pension. The said personal pension will continue to be granted as a separate element and will not be merged into the pension as consolidated above.
4.7 Since the consolidated pension/family pension arrived at as per paragraph 4.1. includes dearness relief upto average index level 536 (Base year 1982=100) in accordance with the revised scheme of dearness relief for which orders are being issued separately. The four instalments of dearness relief sanctioned earlier from 1.7.2006, 1.7.2007 and 1.1.2008 in this Department‟s Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated the 15.9.2006, Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated 23.3.2007, Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated the 18.9.2007 and Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW dated the 19.3.2008 respectively shall be adjusted against revised Dearness Relief becoming due on the consolidated pension/family pension.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
7
5.1 Where the consolidated pension/family in terms of paragraph 4 above works out to an amount less than Rs.3500/- the same shall be stepped upto Rs.3500/-. This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006. In the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs.3500/- will apply to the total of all pensions taken together.
5.2 Where the disability pension under the CCS (EOP) Rules, is drawn in addition to invalid pension under the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972, the minimum limit of Rs.3500 will apply to total of two pensions as indicated in paragraph 5.1. Where the disability pensions drawn in isolation, the minimum limit of Rs.3500/-will apply for 100% disability. For lesser degree of disability the minimum limit will be proportionately less.
6. The employed/re-employed pensioners/family pensioners are not getting dearness relief on pension at present under the extant orders. In their case the notional dearness relief which would have been admissible to them but for their employment/re-employment will be taken into account for consolidation of their pension in terms of pargraph 4.1 above as if they were drawing the dearness relief. Their pay will be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 with reference to consolidated pension becoming admissible to them. Dearness relief beyond 1.1.2006 will, however, not be admissible to them during the period of employment/reemployment.
7. The cases of Central Government employees who have been permanently absorbed in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies will be regulated as follows:-
(a) PENSION
Where the Government servants on permanent absorption in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies continue to draw pension separately from the Government, the pension of such absorbees will be updated in terms of these orders. In cases where the Government servants have drawn one time lump sum terminal benefits equal to 100% of their pensions and have become entitled to the restoration of one-third commuted portion of pension as per Supreme Court
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
8
judgment dated 15.12.1995, their cases will not be covered by these orders.
(b) FAMILY PENSION
In cases where, on permanent absorption in public sector undertaking/autonomous bodies, the terms of absorption permit grant of family pension under the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 or the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees/members of All India Service, the family pension being drawn by family pensioners will be updated in accordance with these orders.
8. All Pension Disbursing Authorities including Public Sector Banks handling disbursement of pension to the Central Government pensioners are hereby authorised to pay pension/family pension to existing pensioners/family pensioners at the consolidated rates in terms of para 4.1 above without any further authorisation from the concerned Accounts Officers/Head of Office etc. A table indicating the existing basic pension/family pension without Dearness Pension, the basic pension/family pension with dearness pension and the revised consolidated pension/family pension is enclosed for ready reference. (Annexure I). This table may be used where the pensioners is in receipt of a single pension only. Where a pensioner is in receipt of more than one pension, consolidation may be done separately in terms of pargraph 4.1 and as indicated in pargraph 5 floor ceiling of Rs.3500/- may be applied to total pension from all sources taken together. Wherever the age of pensioner/family pensioner is available on the pension payment order, the additional pension/family pension in terms of para 4.5 above may also be paid by the pension disbursing authorities immediately without any further authorisation from the concerned Account Officer/Head of Office, etc. A suitable entry regarding the revised consolidated pension shall be recorded by the pension Disbursing Authorities in both halves of the Pension Payment Order. An intimation regarding disbursement of revised pension may be sent by the pension disbursing authorities to he office of CPAO and Accounts Officer which had issued the PPO in the form given at Annexure-II so that the latter can update the Pension
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
9
payment Order Register maintained by him. An acknowledgement shall be obtained by the Pension Disbursing Authorities from Office of CPAO and the respective Accounts Officers in this behalf.
9. The consolidated pension/family pension as worked out in accordance with provisions of para 4.1 above shall be treated as final „Basic Pension‟ with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall qualify for grant of Dearness Relief sanctioned thereafter.
10. 40% of the arrears of pension will be paid in the year 2008-09 and the remaining 60% in the year 2009-10.
11. It shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Department of the Ministry, Department, Office, etc. from which the government servant had retired or where he was working prior to his demise to revise the pension/family pension of all pensioners/family pensioners with effect from 1st January 2006 in accordance with the provisions mentioned in para 4.1 and 4.2 above and to issue revised Pension Payment Order (PPOs). Action to revise pension/family pension in terms of these provisions shall be initiated suo moto by the concerned Heads of Departments. In the case of the Defence Civilian Employees, however, the procedure prescribed in this regard by the Ministry of Defence shall be followed. It is emphasised that the Pension Sanctioning Authority, in no case, will ask the pensioner/family pensioners to surrender his/her original Pension Payment Order (PPO) for issuing revised authority. In case, however, the age of pensioner/family pensioner is not available on the PPO/office records, the same shall be obtained from the pensioner/family pensioner and indicated in the revised PPO. The authenticity of the age declared by the pensioner/family pensioner shall be verified by the pension sanctioning authority. It may also be ensured that a copy of the revised PPO should be invariably endorsed to the pensioner/family pensioner.
12. It is considered desirable that the benefit of these orders should reach the pensioners as expeditiously as possible. To achieve this objective it is desired that all Pension Disbursing Authorities should ensure that the revised
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
10
pension and the first instalment of arrears due to the pensioners in terms of para 4.1 and para 4.5 above is paid to the pensioners or credit to their account by 30th September, 2008 or before positively. Instructions regarding release of second instalment of arrears will be issued later. Concerted efforts should be made by all the authorities concerned to ensure that the revised PPO‟s are issued, wherever necessary, with the utmost expedition in terms of para 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 above and arrears are paid in terms of para 10 above within two months from the date of issue of this O.M.
13. In their application to the persons belonging to Indian Audit and Accounts Department these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
14. Ministry of Agriculture etc. are requested to bring the contents of these orders to the notice of Controller of Accounts/Pay and Accounts Officers and Attached and subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis. All pension disbursing offices are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners.
15. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
(Rajni Razdan)
Secretary to the Government of India
To
All Ministries/Department of Government of India
Copy to : as per mailing list.”
4. The highlight of this order is that a separate order will be issued by the Ministry of Defence with regard to Armed Forces pensioners and family pensioners. The guideline was given in para 4.1 that the pension and family pension of existing pre-2006
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
11
pensioners and family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 01.01.2006 by adding together existing pension, family pension, dearness pension where applicable, dearness relief, fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension and family pension. Para 4.2 further says that the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale. Thereafter, on 03rd October, 2008 certain clarifications have been issued. It says that in pursuance to the Government decision on recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, sanction of the President was accorded to the regulation with effect from 01.01.2006, of pension and family pension of all the pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners in the manner indicated in the order dated 01.09.2008. A number of references has been received seeking clarifications, therefore, a consolidated clarification was given to all the queries which have arisen. Order of 03rd October, 2008 reads as under :-
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
12
“F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A). Pt. 1
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated the 3rd October, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Implementation of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission – Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners etc.
The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the regulation, with effect from 1.1.2006, of pension/family pension of all the pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners in the manner indicated in this Department‟s O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008. A number of references are being received in this Department seeking clarification in regard to various provisions of the aforesaid O.M. the matter has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and the following clarifications/modifications are made in regard to the aforesaid O.M. dated 1.9.2008:
Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008
Clarification/modification
3.1 In these orders:
a. Existing pensioner or Existing Family pensioner means a pensioners who was drawing/entitled to pension/family pension on 31.12.2005.
b. Existing pension means the basic pension inclusive of commuted portion, if any, due on
The „existing pensioner or existing family pensioner‟ would include a pensioner/family pensioner who became entitled to pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 consequent on retirement/death of Government servant on 31.12.2005.
Similarly, „existing pension or
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
13
31.12.2005. It covers all classes of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as also Disability Pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and Members of All India Services.
c. Existing family pension means the basic family pension drawn on 31.12.2005 under the CCS (Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and Members of All India Services.
existing family pension‟ would include a pension/family pension which became due w.e.f. 1.1.2006 consequent on retirement/death of Government servant on 31.12.2005.
4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in teh pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.37,400-67000 and the corresponding grade pay being Rs.10,000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs.37,400+ Rs.10,000 (i.e. Rs.23,700). A statement indicating the minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure.
The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
14
had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m.
In case the pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension.
The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty per cent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner/deceased Government servant had last worked. In case the family pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as Basic family Pension.
4.5 The quantum of family pension
of family pension
available to the
(i) The additional quantum of pension/family pension, on
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
15
old pensioners/ shall be increased
Age of pensioner/Family pensioner
From 80 years to less than 85 years
From 85 years to less than 90 years
From 90 years to less than 95 years
From 95 years to less than 100 years
100 years or more
family pensioners
as follows
Additional quantum of pension
20% of revised basic pension/ family pension
30% of revised basic pension/ family pension
40% of revised basic pension/ family pension
50% of revised basic pension/ family pension
100% of the revised basic pension/family pension
attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which date of birth falls. For example, if a pensioner/family pensioner completes age of 80 years on any date in the month of August, 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.8.2008. those pensioners/family pensioners whose date of birth is 1st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.8.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above.
5. Thereafter on 11.011.2008, Ministry of Defence has issued the order for implementation of the Government decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission - Revision of pension of Pre 2006 Armed Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-.
“2. Applicability
2.1 These orders shall apply to all the Armed Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners who were drawing
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
16
pension/family Pension as on 1.1.2006 under the Pension Regulations of the three Services/State Forces and various Government orders issued from time to time.
2.2. The provisions of this letter do not apply to the following categories :
(i) Gallantry awardees drawing monetary allowance attached to the award, such as Param Vir Chakra, Ashok Chakra, etc.
(ii) UK/HKSRA Pensioners.
(iii) Persons in receipt of Compassionate Allowance, Guzara, Reservist allowance or any other allowance on which dearness relief is not admissible.
(iv) Reservists in receipt of Exgratia payment at Rs.600/- per month covered by Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. B/39042/AG/PS-4 (a&c)/1331/C/D (Pen/Sers) dated 29th Dec 2000.
(v) Families of the deceased reservists in receipt of Ex-gratia family pension at Rs.605/- per month covered by Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. B/40029/AG/PS-4 (d)/1/B/D (Pension/Services) dated 7.1.1999.
(Separate orders will be issued in respect of (iv) and (v) above)
3. Definitions
(a) „Existing Pensioner‟ or „Existing Family Pensioner‟ means a pensioner who was entitled to/drawing pension/family pension on 31.12.2005. This will also include a pensioner/family pensioner who became entitled to pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006 consequent upon retirement/discharge/death of Armed Force personnel on 31.12.2005. For the purpose of family pension, it also covers members of family tothose who retired/discharged prior to 1.1.2006 and in whose case
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
17
family pension had not commenced as the pensioner was alive on 31.12.2005.
(b) „Existing Pension‟ means the basic pension exclusive of Dearness Pension but inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any due on 31.12.2005 and covers all kinds of pension viz. Retiring/service/special/reservist/invalid/disability/liberalised disability and war injury pension. This will also include pension/family pension, which became due with effect from 1.1.2006 consequent on retirement/discharge/death of a Armed force personnel on 31.12.2005.
In the case of PBOR under the three services, the „Existing Pension‟ would mean the revised pension fixed as on 1.1.2006 in terms of the provisions contained in this Ministry‟s letter No. 14 (3)/2004-D (Pen/Sers)/Vol-III dated 1.2.2006 and No. 14 (3)/2004-D (Pen/Sers) Col-V dated 2.5.2006. This also includes additional pension sanctioned to Havildar granted Honorary Rank of Naib Subedar. It will, however, not include Adhoc Ex-gratia payment, if any.
(c) „Existing Family Pension‟ means the basic family pension drawn on 31.12.2005 exclusive of Dearness pension under the Pension Regulations of the three Services/State forces and other orders issued on the subject from time to time. It also covers Liberalied and Special Family Pension and Dependent Pension sanctioned in battle and non-battle casualty cases.
(d) „Existing Dearness Relief‟ means the dearness relief due to pensioners/family pensioners upto average AICPI (IW) 536 (Base year 1982=100) as on 1.1.2006 at the rate of 24% of Basic Pension/Basic Family pension plus Dearness penson as admissible vide Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioners‟ Welfare Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated 5.4.2006.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
18
(e) „Dearness Pension‟ means Dearness Pension as admissible vide Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of expenditure OM No. 105/1/2004/IC dated 01.03.2004.
(f) „Pension Disbursing Agency‟ (PDA) means Treasury, Post Office, Pay and Accounts Office, Defence Pension Disbursing Office (DPDO), Indian Embassy Nepal and authorised Public/Private Sector Banks.
(g) „Pension Sanctioning Authority‟ (PSA) means PCDA (Pension) Allahabad, PCDA (Navy) Mumbai and CDA (AF) Delhi as the case may be.
4. Consolidation of Pension
4.1 The Pension/Family Pension of existing Pre-1.1.2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidate with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:
(i) The Existing Pension (including commuted portion of pension, if any)/Existing Family Pension
(ii) Dearness Pension, if any, as applicable from 1.4.2004 to those retired/died prior to 1.4.2004.
(iii) Dearness Relief upto AI CPI (IW) 536 i.e. 24% of basic pension/family pension plus dearness pension.
(iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the Existing Pension/Existing Family Pension. Where the amount of fitment weightage works out in fraction of a rupee, it will be rounded off to the next higher rupee.
NOTE : Where the Existing Pension/Existing Family Pension includes the effect of merger of 50% of Dearness Pay in respect of those retired/died on or after 1.4.2004, the existing pension/family pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged Dearness Pay of 50% from emoluments for computation of existing pension/existing family pension. This will be in line with the definition of “Existing Pension” and “Existing Family Pension” given in Para 3 of these orders.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
19
4.2 The amount so arrived at in terms of Para 4.1 above will be regarded as consolidated pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006. Since the consolidated pension will be inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any, the amount of pension commuted will be deducted from the said amount while making monthly disbursements.
5. The consolidation of pension will further be subject to the provision that the consolidated pension, in no case shall be lower than fifty per cent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised scale from which the pensioner had retired/discharged including Military Service Pay and „X‟ Group pay where applicable. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay 6600 – 170 – 9320, the corresponding pay band being 9300 – 34800 and the corresponding grade pay the Military Service Pay being Rs.4,600/- and Rs. 2,000 respectively, his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs. 9300 + Rs.4600 + 2000 i.e. Rs.7,950 for 33 years of qualifying service. The pension so calculated will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service of 33 years for full pension and in no case it will be less than Rs.3,500/-. In case the pension consolidated as per Para 4.1 above in higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension with effect from 1.1.2006.
The consolidation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the consolidated family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the petitioner/deceased Armed Force personnel had retired/died including Military Service Pay and „X‟ Group pay where applicable. In case the family pension consolidated as per Para 4.1 above is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as Basic family pension with effect from 1.1.2006.”
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
20
6. Ministry of Defence also issued another order dated 30th August, 2008 reiterating same recommendations and implementation in consequent thereof and there is Anneuxre-I Part B, para 5.1.46 and 5.1.47 which are relevant for our purpose reads as under :-
“Past pensioners - analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations - 5.1.46 The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past and present pensioners in Forces. The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre and post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Firth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
Fitment benefit to the past pensioners - 5.1.47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralisation of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
21
pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. A table (Annexure 5.1.1.) showing fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendations of this Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners. The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.”
Para 5.1.46 says that the main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past and present pensioners in Forces. The Firth Central Pay Commission extended full parity between pre and post 01.01.1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre and post 01.01.1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could,
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
22
in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Para 5.1.47 says that the Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 01.01.1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralisation of price rise on or after 01.01.1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. That shows that the norms which was accepted in the Fifth Pay Commission has also been adopted under the Sixth Pay Commission, therefore, there is no distinction between pre and post 01.01.1996 retirees. It further says that in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. The Commission, accordingly, recommended that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance and dearness etc. It further clarifies which is relevant and crucial in the matter that the fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
23
the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would be need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. The expression “the minimum” of pay in the pay band is crucial in this case.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphasised that the minimum of the pay in the pay band for the equivalent rank should be taken into consideration for determination of the pension of the retirees. This is not contested by learned counsel for the respondents. In this connection, our attention was also invited to the Special Navy Instructions which was issued on 18th October, 2008 and the extract of these Navy Instructions reads as under :-
“SPECIAL NAVY INSTRUCTIONS
No. 2/S/08 New Delhi 18th day of October, 2008
2/S/08 REVISION OF PAY SCALES, FIXATON OF INITIAL PAY IN THE REVISED PAY BANDS, GRADE PAY AND MILITARY SERVICE PAY, REGULATIONS OF PAY ON PROMOTION – FOR OFFICERS OF ALL BRANCHES AND MIDSHIPMEN/CADETS OF THE NAVY (EXCLUDING MEDICAL AND DENTIAL BRANCHES) CONSEQUENT UPON THE IMPLEMENTATON OF THE DECISON OF THE GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT OT
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
24
THE RECOMMEDNATISON OF THE SIXT CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION.
SECTION I – GENERAL
1. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and the Government decision thereon, the existing scales of pay admissible to naval Officers will be revised with effect from 01 January, 2006 and pay fixed in the revised pay bands, grade pay and Military Service Pay in accordance with the provisions of this Instruction. The provisions of this Navy Instruction will apply to all officers including Special Duties List and Midshipmen/Cadets who were on the effective strength of the Navy as on 01 Jan 2006 and those who join the Navy thereafter and to under trainee offices who were undergoing pre-commission training on 01 January 2006 and t trainee officers who join after that date.”
In these Navy Instructions, Rule 3 is definition clause and in Definition Clause pay in the pay band has been described as under :-
“3.(e) “Pay in the pay band” means the pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in Column 6 of Table given at para 4 (a) below.
(f) “Grade Pay” is the fixed amount corresponding to a pre-revised pay scale/rank as specified in col 7 of table at para 4 (a) below.
This definition Clause says that the pay in the pay band means pay drawn in running pay and grade pay is the fixed amount corresponding to a pre-revised pay scale/rank as specified in column 7 of table at para 4 (a) below. This table reads as under :-
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
25
Revised Pay Structure
Corresponding
S.N.
Rank
Existing
Pay Band/Scale
Pay Bands/Scales
GP
MSP
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.
Sub Lt.
8250-300-10050
0
PB-3
15600-39100
5400
6000
2.
Lieutenant
9600-300-11400
400
PB-3
15600-39100
6100
6000
3.
Lieutenant Commander
11600-325-14850
1200
PB-3
15600-39100
6600
6000
4.
Commander
13500-400-17100
1600
PB-3
15600-39100
7600
6000
5.
Captain (with less than three years service in the rank)
15100-450-17350
2000
PB-4
37400-67000
8700
6000
6.
Captain (with 3 yrs or more service in the rank)/Comm.
16700-450-18050
2400
PB-4
37400-67000
8900
6000
7.
Rear Admiral
18400-500-22400
-
PB-4
37400-67000
10000
NIL
8.
Vice Admiral
22400-525-24500
-
PB-4
37400-67000
12000
NIL
9.
VCNS/FOC-in-Cs of Naval Commands
26000
-
Apex Scale
80,000 (fixed)
NIL
NIL
10.
Chief of the Naval Staff
30,000
-
Chief of Naval Staff
90000 (fixed)
NIL
NIL
8. In this revised pay structure according to the applicant the basic pay of in pre revised scale for the rank of Lt. Commander and equivalent rank was Rs.11,600/- and rank pay was 1200 x 1.86 and Rs. 23,810/- has been worked out as minimum pay in the pay band for the rank of Lt. Commander in the Sixth Pay Commission. Therefore, contention of learned
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
26
counsel for the applicant is that this is the pay in the pay band of this revised pay scale for Lt. Commander and learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the expression used in the implementation order and in the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission is that incumbent shall get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rs.23810/- is the minimum pay in the pay band for Lt. Commander and it should be taken up for consideration of the pension of the pre retirees. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since distinction of pre and post has been done away in the Fifth Pay Commission which has also been accepted under the Sixth Pay Commission that means a person who retires on 01.01.2006 as a Lt. Commander and the persons who have already retired prior to 01.01.2006, there will be no distinction for them for pension. In the present case, as per the definition of the pay in the pay band by the Naval Special Order which has to be read as wherever the expression appears would mean that Rs.23810/- will be minimum pay in the pay band for the Lt. Commanders and equivalent rank.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
27
9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously urged before us that the expression „minimum pay in the pay band‟ should only mean that the minimum of the scale in the pay band should be taken as determinative factor for the determination of the pension and not the minimum of the pay in the pay band. We would have readily accepted the contention of learned counsel for the respondents but for the fact that the Naval Special Order which defines the expression pay band and had already given a table below that what shall be the minimum pay for the Lt. Commander in the Sixth Pay Commission of the existing Lt. Commanders. Therefore, we cannot add or subtract anything beyond what have already been defined by the respondents. Had this distinction not been there perhaps the example which the respondents have shown from the various documents and the Circulars issued by the Comptroller General of Defence Accounts could have been readily accepted. But the fact that the Government by the Special Order dated 18th October, 2008 themselves have defined the pay in the pay band, therefore, we have to accept the definition given by them and then reading this expression „the minimum of the pay in the pay band‟ along with the recommendations of the Pay Commission and the
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
28
implementation order should be taken for determination of the pension has to be accepted. Had this expression not been defined anywhere perhaps argument of learned counsel for the respondents would have been accepted. In this connection, we may further point out that the earlier communication dated 17th December, 1998 in the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government has clearly mentioned that pension of all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement shall not be less than 50%, the minimum pay was revised from 01.01.2006 for the last post held by the pensioners. Had this expression been repeated, perhaps it would carry the same interpretation. In the present case, pay structure has been revised and now all the pay scales have been categorised in the various pay bands and in the case of Lt. Commander or equivalent fall in the Pay Band-III and minimum of Pay Band-III is 15,600/- at the entry level i.e. minimum of the pay band for this rank. Had this expression used in this pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission, we would not have come to interpretation as was clarified by the Fifth Pay Commission by the Government Order dated 17th December, 1998. But in the present case, the expression pay in the pay band has been defined by the Government in the communication dated 18th October, 2008 that
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
29
puts the matter beyond any controversy. The expression which has been defined in the scheme of things has to be accepted while interpreting all the provisions of the Pay Commission and the Implementation Order. Here the expression „minimum of the pay in the pay band‟ is to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners. Therefore, one has to interpret the provisions as exists and we have to take it minimum pay in the pay band for equivalent rank then that comes to Rs.23,810/- determined by the Government in Column 7 of table at para 4 (a) as such we have to accept the figure of 23810/- being the minimum of the pay in the pay band for Lt. Commanders and equivalent ranks. If that is taken then naturally 50% of this will have to be treated as a basic pension and rest of it will be added to it as grade pay and other benefits which are given to the persons of that rank. There is no controversy with regard to grade pay and Military Service pay and other benefits to which we are not concerned. We are concerned with what is minimum has to be taken for pre 2006 retirees and minimum pay scale for the purposes of determining the pension. In our opinion as per the Government order for all pre retirees of Lt. Commander and other ranks their minimum of the pay has to be accepted as determined
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
30
by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006 i.e. Rs.23810/-. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of the pay in the pay band i.e. Rs.23,810/- with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months. Both the petitions are allowed in view of aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
A.K. MATHUR
(Chairperson)
M.L. NAIDU
(Member)
New Delhi
September 14, 2010.
1
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 270/2010
With
O.A. No. 24/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others .........Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Others .......Respondents
[With Lt. Cdr. Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.]
For applicant: Cmde (Retd.) Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate.
For respondents: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MATHUR, CHAIRPERSON.
HON’BLE LT. GEN. M.L. NAIDU, MEMBER.
O R D E R
14.09.2010
1. Both the cases involve identical question of law one from the Navy and other from the Air Force, therefore, they are disposed by the common order.
2. In the case of Sqn. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain, this petition has been filed by Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain along with other applicants having equivalent ranks i.e. Major from the Army and
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
2
some of the Lt. Commanders from the Navy who have since retired. In the case of Lt. Cdr. Avtar Singh, a joint petition has been filed by all the retired Lt. Commanders of the Navy. Both these petitions are espousing the case of officers of equivalent ranks from all three Forces i.e. Army, Air Force and Navy i.e. Majors in the Indian Army, Sqn. Leaders from Air Force and Lt. Commanders from Navy. The grievance in both the petitions is with regard of pension. The Sixth Pay Commission came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and in implementation of that Ministry of Defence has passed various orders from time to time. The issue before us is limited one that how the persons of these rank and other equivalent rank in the other forces should be fixed in the Sixth Pay Commission. Joint grievance of all the petitioners is that their fixation has not been done in accordance with the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission and the implementation order issued by the Ministry of Defence from time to time. It has been prayed that the letter issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 03rd October, 2008 and Government of India‟s letter dated 11th November, 2008 may be quashed to the extent of methodology on fixation of pension of pre 2006 retirees and has further sought a relief that respondents may be directed to amend
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
3
para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 as per its wording reproduced in OM dated 03rd October, 2008 and direct the respondents for fixation of pension in terms of the judgment given in the case of Union of India SPS Vains – 2008 (12) SCALE 360.
3. The first order in sequence of is dated 01.09.2008 by which the Ministry of Defence has implemented the Government decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the revision of the pension of the pre 2006 pensioners and family pensioners etc. which reads as under :-
“F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated the 01st September, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Implementation of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission – Revision of penson of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners etc.
1. The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the regulation, with effect from 1.1.2006, of pension/family pension of all the pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners in the manner indicated in the succeeding
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
4
paragraphs. Separate orders will be issued in respect of employees who retired/died on or after 1.1.2006.
2.1 These orders apply to all pensioners/family pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.2006 under the Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972, CCS (Extraordinary Pension) rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway pensioners and pensioners of All India Services, including officers of the Indian Civil Service retired from service on or after 1.1.1973.
2.2 Separate orders will be issued by the Ministry of Defence in regard to Armed Forces pensioners/family pensioners.
2.3 These orders do not also apply to retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges and other Constitutional/Statutory Authorities whose pension etc. is governed by separate rules/orders.
3.1 In these orders:
a. Existing pensioner or Existing Family pensioner means a pensioner who was drawing/entitled to pension/family pension on 31.12.2005.
b. Existing pension means the basic pension inclusive of commuted portion, if any, due on 31.12.2005. It covers all classes of pension under the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 as also Disability Pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and Members of All India Services.
c. Existing family pension means the basic family pension drawn on 31.122.005 under the CCS (Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and the Members of All India Services.
4.1 The pension/family pension of existing pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:-
i. The existing pension/family pension.
ii. Dearness Pension, where applicable
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
5
iii. Dearness Relief upto AICPI (IW) average index 536 (Base year 1982=100) I.E. @ 24% OF Basic Pension/Basic family pension plus dearness pension as admissible vide this Department‟s O.M. No.42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated 5.4.2006.
iv. Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension.
Where the existing pension in (i) above includes the effect of merger of 50% of dearness relief w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged dearness relief of 50% from the pension.
The amount so arrived at will be regarded as consolidated pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006.
4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the play in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scale, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.
4.3 Since the consolidate pension will be inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any, the commuted portion will be deducted from the said amount while making monthly disbursements.
4.4 The upper ceiling on pension/family pension laid down in the Department of Pension and Pensioner‟s Welfare Office Memorandum No. 45/86/97-P&PW (A) (Part-I) dated 27.10.1997 has been increased from Rs.15000/- and Rs.9000 to 50% and 30% respectively of the highest pay in the Government (the highest pay in the Government is Rs.90,000 since 1.1.2006)
4.5 The quantum of pension/family pension available to the old pensioners/family pensioners shall be increased as follows:-
Age of pensioner/family pensioner
Additional quantum of pension
From 80 years to less than 85
20% of revised basic
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
6
years.
pension/family pension.
From 85 years to less than 90 years.
30% of revised basic pension/family pension.
From 90 years to less than 95 years.
40% of revised basic pension/family pension.
From 95 years to less than 100 years.
50% of revised basic pension/family pension.
100 years or more
100% of revised basic pension/family pension
The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his/her consolidated pension in terms para 4.1 and 4.2 above is Rs.10,000 pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pennon = Rs.10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = 2000 pm. The pension on his/her attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic Pension = Rs.10,000 and (ii) additional pension = Rs.3,000 pm.
4.6 Some of the existing pensioners who retired between 31.3.1985 and 31.12.1985 are in receipt of personal pension. The said personal pension will continue to be granted as a separate element and will not be merged into the pension as consolidated above.
4.7 Since the consolidated pension/family pension arrived at as per paragraph 4.1. includes dearness relief upto average index level 536 (Base year 1982=100) in accordance with the revised scheme of dearness relief for which orders are being issued separately. The four instalments of dearness relief sanctioned earlier from 1.7.2006, 1.7.2007 and 1.1.2008 in this Department‟s Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated the 15.9.2006, Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated 23.3.2007, Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated the 18.9.2007 and Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW dated the 19.3.2008 respectively shall be adjusted against revised Dearness Relief becoming due on the consolidated pension/family pension.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
7
5.1 Where the consolidated pension/family in terms of paragraph 4 above works out to an amount less than Rs.3500/- the same shall be stepped upto Rs.3500/-. This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006. In the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs.3500/- will apply to the total of all pensions taken together.
5.2 Where the disability pension under the CCS (EOP) Rules, is drawn in addition to invalid pension under the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972, the minimum limit of Rs.3500 will apply to total of two pensions as indicated in paragraph 5.1. Where the disability pensions drawn in isolation, the minimum limit of Rs.3500/-will apply for 100% disability. For lesser degree of disability the minimum limit will be proportionately less.
6. The employed/re-employed pensioners/family pensioners are not getting dearness relief on pension at present under the extant orders. In their case the notional dearness relief which would have been admissible to them but for their employment/re-employment will be taken into account for consolidation of their pension in terms of pargraph 4.1 above as if they were drawing the dearness relief. Their pay will be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 with reference to consolidated pension becoming admissible to them. Dearness relief beyond 1.1.2006 will, however, not be admissible to them during the period of employment/reemployment.
7. The cases of Central Government employees who have been permanently absorbed in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies will be regulated as follows:-
(a) PENSION
Where the Government servants on permanent absorption in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies continue to draw pension separately from the Government, the pension of such absorbees will be updated in terms of these orders. In cases where the Government servants have drawn one time lump sum terminal benefits equal to 100% of their pensions and have become entitled to the restoration of one-third commuted portion of pension as per Supreme Court
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
8
judgment dated 15.12.1995, their cases will not be covered by these orders.
(b) FAMILY PENSION
In cases where, on permanent absorption in public sector undertaking/autonomous bodies, the terms of absorption permit grant of family pension under the CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 or the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees/members of All India Service, the family pension being drawn by family pensioners will be updated in accordance with these orders.
8. All Pension Disbursing Authorities including Public Sector Banks handling disbursement of pension to the Central Government pensioners are hereby authorised to pay pension/family pension to existing pensioners/family pensioners at the consolidated rates in terms of para 4.1 above without any further authorisation from the concerned Accounts Officers/Head of Office etc. A table indicating the existing basic pension/family pension without Dearness Pension, the basic pension/family pension with dearness pension and the revised consolidated pension/family pension is enclosed for ready reference. (Annexure I). This table may be used where the pensioners is in receipt of a single pension only. Where a pensioner is in receipt of more than one pension, consolidation may be done separately in terms of pargraph 4.1 and as indicated in pargraph 5 floor ceiling of Rs.3500/- may be applied to total pension from all sources taken together. Wherever the age of pensioner/family pensioner is available on the pension payment order, the additional pension/family pension in terms of para 4.5 above may also be paid by the pension disbursing authorities immediately without any further authorisation from the concerned Account Officer/Head of Office, etc. A suitable entry regarding the revised consolidated pension shall be recorded by the pension Disbursing Authorities in both halves of the Pension Payment Order. An intimation regarding disbursement of revised pension may be sent by the pension disbursing authorities to he office of CPAO and Accounts Officer which had issued the PPO in the form given at Annexure-II so that the latter can update the Pension
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
9
payment Order Register maintained by him. An acknowledgement shall be obtained by the Pension Disbursing Authorities from Office of CPAO and the respective Accounts Officers in this behalf.
9. The consolidated pension/family pension as worked out in accordance with provisions of para 4.1 above shall be treated as final „Basic Pension‟ with effect from 1.1.2006 and shall qualify for grant of Dearness Relief sanctioned thereafter.
10. 40% of the arrears of pension will be paid in the year 2008-09 and the remaining 60% in the year 2009-10.
11. It shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Department of the Ministry, Department, Office, etc. from which the government servant had retired or where he was working prior to his demise to revise the pension/family pension of all pensioners/family pensioners with effect from 1st January 2006 in accordance with the provisions mentioned in para 4.1 and 4.2 above and to issue revised Pension Payment Order (PPOs). Action to revise pension/family pension in terms of these provisions shall be initiated suo moto by the concerned Heads of Departments. In the case of the Defence Civilian Employees, however, the procedure prescribed in this regard by the Ministry of Defence shall be followed. It is emphasised that the Pension Sanctioning Authority, in no case, will ask the pensioner/family pensioners to surrender his/her original Pension Payment Order (PPO) for issuing revised authority. In case, however, the age of pensioner/family pensioner is not available on the PPO/office records, the same shall be obtained from the pensioner/family pensioner and indicated in the revised PPO. The authenticity of the age declared by the pensioner/family pensioner shall be verified by the pension sanctioning authority. It may also be ensured that a copy of the revised PPO should be invariably endorsed to the pensioner/family pensioner.
12. It is considered desirable that the benefit of these orders should reach the pensioners as expeditiously as possible. To achieve this objective it is desired that all Pension Disbursing Authorities should ensure that the revised
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
10
pension and the first instalment of arrears due to the pensioners in terms of para 4.1 and para 4.5 above is paid to the pensioners or credit to their account by 30th September, 2008 or before positively. Instructions regarding release of second instalment of arrears will be issued later. Concerted efforts should be made by all the authorities concerned to ensure that the revised PPO‟s are issued, wherever necessary, with the utmost expedition in terms of para 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 above and arrears are paid in terms of para 10 above within two months from the date of issue of this O.M.
13. In their application to the persons belonging to Indian Audit and Accounts Department these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
14. Ministry of Agriculture etc. are requested to bring the contents of these orders to the notice of Controller of Accounts/Pay and Accounts Officers and Attached and subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis. All pension disbursing offices are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners.
15. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
(Rajni Razdan)
Secretary to the Government of India
To
All Ministries/Department of Government of India
Copy to : as per mailing list.”
4. The highlight of this order is that a separate order will be issued by the Ministry of Defence with regard to Armed Forces pensioners and family pensioners. The guideline was given in para 4.1 that the pension and family pension of existing pre-2006
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
11
pensioners and family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 01.01.2006 by adding together existing pension, family pension, dearness pension where applicable, dearness relief, fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension and family pension. Para 4.2 further says that the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale. Thereafter, on 03rd October, 2008 certain clarifications have been issued. It says that in pursuance to the Government decision on recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, sanction of the President was accorded to the regulation with effect from 01.01.2006, of pension and family pension of all the pre-2006 pensioners and family pensioners in the manner indicated in the order dated 01.09.2008. A number of references has been received seeking clarifications, therefore, a consolidated clarification was given to all the queries which have arisen. Order of 03rd October, 2008 reads as under :-
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
12
“F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A). Pt. 1
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated the 3rd October, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Implementation of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission – Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners etc.
The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government‟s decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, sanction of the President is hereby accorded to the regulation, with effect from 1.1.2006, of pension/family pension of all the pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners in the manner indicated in this Department‟s O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008. A number of references are being received in this Department seeking clarification in regard to various provisions of the aforesaid O.M. the matter has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and the following clarifications/modifications are made in regard to the aforesaid O.M. dated 1.9.2008:
Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008
Clarification/modification
3.1 In these orders:
a. Existing pensioner or Existing Family pensioner means a pensioners who was drawing/entitled to pension/family pension on 31.12.2005.
b. Existing pension means the basic pension inclusive of commuted portion, if any, due on
The „existing pensioner or existing family pensioner‟ would include a pensioner/family pensioner who became entitled to pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 consequent on retirement/death of Government servant on 31.12.2005.
Similarly, „existing pension or
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
13
31.12.2005. It covers all classes of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as also Disability Pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and Members of All India Services.
c. Existing family pension means the basic family pension drawn on 31.12.2005 under the CCS (Pension) Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway employees and Members of All India Services.
existing family pension‟ would include a pension/family pension which became due w.e.f. 1.1.2006 consequent on retirement/death of Government servant on 31.12.2005.
4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
The pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in teh pay band plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.37,400-67000 and the corresponding grade pay being Rs.10,000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs.37,400+ Rs.10,000 (i.e. Rs.23,700). A statement indicating the minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure.
The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
14
had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m.
In case the pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension.
The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty per cent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the pensioner/deceased Government servant had last worked. In case the family pension consolidated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as Basic family Pension.
4.5 The quantum of family pension
of family pension
available to the
(i) The additional quantum of pension/family pension, on
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
15
old pensioners/ shall be increased
Age of pensioner/Family pensioner
From 80 years to less than 85 years
From 85 years to less than 90 years
From 90 years to less than 95 years
From 95 years to less than 100 years
100 years or more
family pensioners
as follows
Additional quantum of pension
20% of revised basic pension/ family pension
30% of revised basic pension/ family pension
40% of revised basic pension/ family pension
50% of revised basic pension/ family pension
100% of the revised basic pension/family pension
attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which date of birth falls. For example, if a pensioner/family pensioner completes age of 80 years on any date in the month of August, 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.8.2008. those pensioners/family pensioners whose date of birth is 1st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.8.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above.
5. Thereafter on 11.011.2008, Ministry of Defence has issued the order for implementation of the Government decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission - Revision of pension of Pre 2006 Armed Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-.
“2. Applicability
2.1 These orders shall apply to all the Armed Forces Pensioners/Family Pensioners who were drawing
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
16
pension/family Pension as on 1.1.2006 under the Pension Regulations of the three Services/State Forces and various Government orders issued from time to time.
2.2. The provisions of this letter do not apply to the following categories :
(i) Gallantry awardees drawing monetary allowance attached to the award, such as Param Vir Chakra, Ashok Chakra, etc.
(ii) UK/HKSRA Pensioners.
(iii) Persons in receipt of Compassionate Allowance, Guzara, Reservist allowance or any other allowance on which dearness relief is not admissible.
(iv) Reservists in receipt of Exgratia payment at Rs.600/- per month covered by Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. B/39042/AG/PS-4 (a&c)/1331/C/D (Pen/Sers) dated 29th Dec 2000.
(v) Families of the deceased reservists in receipt of Ex-gratia family pension at Rs.605/- per month covered by Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. B/40029/AG/PS-4 (d)/1/B/D (Pension/Services) dated 7.1.1999.
(Separate orders will be issued in respect of (iv) and (v) above)
3. Definitions
(a) „Existing Pensioner‟ or „Existing Family Pensioner‟ means a pensioner who was entitled to/drawing pension/family pension on 31.12.2005. This will also include a pensioner/family pensioner who became entitled to pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006 consequent upon retirement/discharge/death of Armed Force personnel on 31.12.2005. For the purpose of family pension, it also covers members of family tothose who retired/discharged prior to 1.1.2006 and in whose case
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
17
family pension had not commenced as the pensioner was alive on 31.12.2005.
(b) „Existing Pension‟ means the basic pension exclusive of Dearness Pension but inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any due on 31.12.2005 and covers all kinds of pension viz. Retiring/service/special/reservist/invalid/disability/liberalised disability and war injury pension. This will also include pension/family pension, which became due with effect from 1.1.2006 consequent on retirement/discharge/death of a Armed force personnel on 31.12.2005.
In the case of PBOR under the three services, the „Existing Pension‟ would mean the revised pension fixed as on 1.1.2006 in terms of the provisions contained in this Ministry‟s letter No. 14 (3)/2004-D (Pen/Sers)/Vol-III dated 1.2.2006 and No. 14 (3)/2004-D (Pen/Sers) Col-V dated 2.5.2006. This also includes additional pension sanctioned to Havildar granted Honorary Rank of Naib Subedar. It will, however, not include Adhoc Ex-gratia payment, if any.
(c) „Existing Family Pension‟ means the basic family pension drawn on 31.12.2005 exclusive of Dearness pension under the Pension Regulations of the three Services/State forces and other orders issued on the subject from time to time. It also covers Liberalied and Special Family Pension and Dependent Pension sanctioned in battle and non-battle casualty cases.
(d) „Existing Dearness Relief‟ means the dearness relief due to pensioners/family pensioners upto average AICPI (IW) 536 (Base year 1982=100) as on 1.1.2006 at the rate of 24% of Basic Pension/Basic Family pension plus Dearness penson as admissible vide Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioners‟ Welfare Office Memorandum No. 42/2/2006-P&PW (G) dated 5.4.2006.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
18
(e) „Dearness Pension‟ means Dearness Pension as admissible vide Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of expenditure OM No. 105/1/2004/IC dated 01.03.2004.
(f) „Pension Disbursing Agency‟ (PDA) means Treasury, Post Office, Pay and Accounts Office, Defence Pension Disbursing Office (DPDO), Indian Embassy Nepal and authorised Public/Private Sector Banks.
(g) „Pension Sanctioning Authority‟ (PSA) means PCDA (Pension) Allahabad, PCDA (Navy) Mumbai and CDA (AF) Delhi as the case may be.
4. Consolidation of Pension
4.1 The Pension/Family Pension of existing Pre-1.1.2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidate with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:
(i) The Existing Pension (including commuted portion of pension, if any)/Existing Family Pension
(ii) Dearness Pension, if any, as applicable from 1.4.2004 to those retired/died prior to 1.4.2004.
(iii) Dearness Relief upto AI CPI (IW) 536 i.e. 24% of basic pension/family pension plus dearness pension.
(iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the Existing Pension/Existing Family Pension. Where the amount of fitment weightage works out in fraction of a rupee, it will be rounded off to the next higher rupee.
NOTE : Where the Existing Pension/Existing Family Pension includes the effect of merger of 50% of Dearness Pay in respect of those retired/died on or after 1.4.2004, the existing pension/family pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged Dearness Pay of 50% from emoluments for computation of existing pension/existing family pension. This will be in line with the definition of “Existing Pension” and “Existing Family Pension” given in Para 3 of these orders.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
19
4.2 The amount so arrived at in terms of Para 4.1 above will be regarded as consolidated pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.2006. Since the consolidated pension will be inclusive of commuted portion of pension, if any, the amount of pension commuted will be deducted from the said amount while making monthly disbursements.
5. The consolidation of pension will further be subject to the provision that the consolidated pension, in no case shall be lower than fifty per cent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised scale from which the pensioner had retired/discharged including Military Service Pay and „X‟ Group pay where applicable. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay 6600 – 170 – 9320, the corresponding pay band being 9300 – 34800 and the corresponding grade pay the Military Service Pay being Rs.4,600/- and Rs. 2,000 respectively, his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs. 9300 + Rs.4600 + 2000 i.e. Rs.7,950 for 33 years of qualifying service. The pension so calculated will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service of 33 years for full pension and in no case it will be less than Rs.3,500/-. In case the pension consolidated as per Para 4.1 above in higher than the pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension) will be treated as Basic Pension with effect from 1.1.2006.
The consolidation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the consolidated family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the petitioner/deceased Armed Force personnel had retired/died including Military Service Pay and „X‟ Group pay where applicable. In case the family pension consolidated as per Para 4.1 above is higher than the family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated family pension) will be treated as Basic family pension with effect from 1.1.2006.”
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
20
6. Ministry of Defence also issued another order dated 30th August, 2008 reiterating same recommendations and implementation in consequent thereof and there is Anneuxre-I Part B, para 5.1.46 and 5.1.47 which are relevant for our purpose reads as under :-
“Past pensioners - analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations - 5.1.46 The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past and present pensioners in Forces. The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre and post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Firth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
Fitment benefit to the past pensioners - 5.1.47 The Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralisation of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
21
pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. A table (Annexure 5.1.1.) showing fixation of the pension of the existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent to implementation of the recommendations of this Commission has been prepared and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners. The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.”
Para 5.1.46 says that the main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past and present pensioners in Forces. The Firth Central Pay Commission extended full parity between pre and post 01.01.1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre and post 01.01.1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could,
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
22
in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Para 5.1.47 says that the Commission notes that modified parity has already been conceded between pre and post 01.01.1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralisation of price rise on or after 01.01.1996 has also been extended to all the pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary. That shows that the norms which was accepted in the Fifth Pay Commission has also been adopted under the Sixth Pay Commission, therefore, there is no distinction between pre and post 01.01.1996 retirees. It further says that in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. The Commission, accordingly, recommended that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance and dearness etc. It further clarifies which is relevant and crucial in the matter that the fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
23
the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would be need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table. The expression “the minimum” of pay in the pay band is crucial in this case.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphasised that the minimum of the pay in the pay band for the equivalent rank should be taken into consideration for determination of the pension of the retirees. This is not contested by learned counsel for the respondents. In this connection, our attention was also invited to the Special Navy Instructions which was issued on 18th October, 2008 and the extract of these Navy Instructions reads as under :-
“SPECIAL NAVY INSTRUCTIONS
No. 2/S/08 New Delhi 18th day of October, 2008
2/S/08 REVISION OF PAY SCALES, FIXATON OF INITIAL PAY IN THE REVISED PAY BANDS, GRADE PAY AND MILITARY SERVICE PAY, REGULATIONS OF PAY ON PROMOTION – FOR OFFICERS OF ALL BRANCHES AND MIDSHIPMEN/CADETS OF THE NAVY (EXCLUDING MEDICAL AND DENTIAL BRANCHES) CONSEQUENT UPON THE IMPLEMENTATON OF THE DECISON OF THE GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT OT
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
24
THE RECOMMEDNATISON OF THE SIXT CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION.
SECTION I – GENERAL
1. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and the Government decision thereon, the existing scales of pay admissible to naval Officers will be revised with effect from 01 January, 2006 and pay fixed in the revised pay bands, grade pay and Military Service Pay in accordance with the provisions of this Instruction. The provisions of this Navy Instruction will apply to all officers including Special Duties List and Midshipmen/Cadets who were on the effective strength of the Navy as on 01 Jan 2006 and those who join the Navy thereafter and to under trainee offices who were undergoing pre-commission training on 01 January 2006 and t trainee officers who join after that date.”
In these Navy Instructions, Rule 3 is definition clause and in Definition Clause pay in the pay band has been described as under :-
“3.(e) “Pay in the pay band” means the pay drawn in the running pay bands specified in Column 6 of Table given at para 4 (a) below.
(f) “Grade Pay” is the fixed amount corresponding to a pre-revised pay scale/rank as specified in col 7 of table at para 4 (a) below.
This definition Clause says that the pay in the pay band means pay drawn in running pay and grade pay is the fixed amount corresponding to a pre-revised pay scale/rank as specified in column 7 of table at para 4 (a) below. This table reads as under :-
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
25
Revised Pay Structure
Corresponding
S.N.
Rank
Existing
Pay Band/Scale
Pay Bands/Scales
GP
MSP
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.
Sub Lt.
8250-300-10050
0
PB-3
15600-39100
5400
6000
2.
Lieutenant
9600-300-11400
400
PB-3
15600-39100
6100
6000
3.
Lieutenant Commander
11600-325-14850
1200
PB-3
15600-39100
6600
6000
4.
Commander
13500-400-17100
1600
PB-3
15600-39100
7600
6000
5.
Captain (with less than three years service in the rank)
15100-450-17350
2000
PB-4
37400-67000
8700
6000
6.
Captain (with 3 yrs or more service in the rank)/Comm.
16700-450-18050
2400
PB-4
37400-67000
8900
6000
7.
Rear Admiral
18400-500-22400
-
PB-4
37400-67000
10000
NIL
8.
Vice Admiral
22400-525-24500
-
PB-4
37400-67000
12000
NIL
9.
VCNS/FOC-in-Cs of Naval Commands
26000
-
Apex Scale
80,000 (fixed)
NIL
NIL
10.
Chief of the Naval Staff
30,000
-
Chief of Naval Staff
90000 (fixed)
NIL
NIL
8. In this revised pay structure according to the applicant the basic pay of in pre revised scale for the rank of Lt. Commander and equivalent rank was Rs.11,600/- and rank pay was 1200 x 1.86 and Rs. 23,810/- has been worked out as minimum pay in the pay band for the rank of Lt. Commander in the Sixth Pay Commission. Therefore, contention of learned
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
26
counsel for the applicant is that this is the pay in the pay band of this revised pay scale for Lt. Commander and learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the expression used in the implementation order and in the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission is that incumbent shall get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rs.23810/- is the minimum pay in the pay band for Lt. Commander and it should be taken up for consideration of the pension of the pre retirees. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since distinction of pre and post has been done away in the Fifth Pay Commission which has also been accepted under the Sixth Pay Commission that means a person who retires on 01.01.2006 as a Lt. Commander and the persons who have already retired prior to 01.01.2006, there will be no distinction for them for pension. In the present case, as per the definition of the pay in the pay band by the Naval Special Order which has to be read as wherever the expression appears would mean that Rs.23810/- will be minimum pay in the pay band for the Lt. Commanders and equivalent rank.
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
27
9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously urged before us that the expression „minimum pay in the pay band‟ should only mean that the minimum of the scale in the pay band should be taken as determinative factor for the determination of the pension and not the minimum of the pay in the pay band. We would have readily accepted the contention of learned counsel for the respondents but for the fact that the Naval Special Order which defines the expression pay band and had already given a table below that what shall be the minimum pay for the Lt. Commander in the Sixth Pay Commission of the existing Lt. Commanders. Therefore, we cannot add or subtract anything beyond what have already been defined by the respondents. Had this distinction not been there perhaps the example which the respondents have shown from the various documents and the Circulars issued by the Comptroller General of Defence Accounts could have been readily accepted. But the fact that the Government by the Special Order dated 18th October, 2008 themselves have defined the pay in the pay band, therefore, we have to accept the definition given by them and then reading this expression „the minimum of the pay in the pay band‟ along with the recommendations of the Pay Commission and the
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
28
implementation order should be taken for determination of the pension has to be accepted. Had this expression not been defined anywhere perhaps argument of learned counsel for the respondents would have been accepted. In this connection, we may further point out that the earlier communication dated 17th December, 1998 in the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government has clearly mentioned that pension of all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement shall not be less than 50%, the minimum pay was revised from 01.01.2006 for the last post held by the pensioners. Had this expression been repeated, perhaps it would carry the same interpretation. In the present case, pay structure has been revised and now all the pay scales have been categorised in the various pay bands and in the case of Lt. Commander or equivalent fall in the Pay Band-III and minimum of Pay Band-III is 15,600/- at the entry level i.e. minimum of the pay band for this rank. Had this expression used in this pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission, we would not have come to interpretation as was clarified by the Fifth Pay Commission by the Government Order dated 17th December, 1998. But in the present case, the expression pay in the pay band has been defined by the Government in the communication dated 18th October, 2008 that
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
29
puts the matter beyond any controversy. The expression which has been defined in the scheme of things has to be accepted while interpreting all the provisions of the Pay Commission and the Implementation Order. Here the expression „minimum of the pay in the pay band‟ is to be taken for the purposes of deciding the pension of pre 2006 pensioners. Therefore, one has to interpret the provisions as exists and we have to take it minimum pay in the pay band for equivalent rank then that comes to Rs.23,810/- determined by the Government in Column 7 of table at para 4 (a) as such we have to accept the figure of 23810/- being the minimum of the pay in the pay band for Lt. Commanders and equivalent ranks. If that is taken then naturally 50% of this will have to be treated as a basic pension and rest of it will be added to it as grade pay and other benefits which are given to the persons of that rank. There is no controversy with regard to grade pay and Military Service pay and other benefits to which we are not concerned. We are concerned with what is minimum has to be taken for pre 2006 retirees and minimum pay scale for the purposes of determining the pension. In our opinion as per the Government order for all pre retirees of Lt. Commander and other ranks their minimum of the pay has to be accepted as determined
O.A. No. 270/2010
Sq. Ldr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
30
by the Government for the purpose of fixation of the officers in 2006 i.e. Rs.23810/-. Accordingly, we direct let the pension of pre retirees should be decided on the basis of minimum of the pay in the pay band i.e. Rs.23,810/- with all other benefits and shall be given to them. All exercise may be completed as far as possible within three months. Both the petitions are allowed in view of aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
A.K. MATHUR
(Chairperson)
M.L. NAIDU
(Member)
New Delhi
September 14, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)