Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Latest news on submission of 7th CPC Allowance Committee Report

Meeting of Committee on Allowances held today remained inconclusive - AIRF

Meeting of Committee on Allowances held on 28th March, 2017 remained inconclusive

"Issue of House Rent Allowance didn’t come up during meeting

No.AIRF/24(C)

Dated: March 28, 2017

The General Secretaries,
All Affiliated Unions,
Dear Comrades!

Sub: Meeting of Committee on Allowances held today remained inconclusive

Meeting of Committee on Allowances took place on 28th March, 2017, discussion on Allowances remained inconclusive. Issue of House Rent Allowance didn’t come up during meeting.

I met Cabinet Secretary/GOI & urged him for early resolution of pending demands of Railwaymen that includes NPS, early disbursal of Allowances of 7th Pay Commission, Increase in Minimum wages and fitment formula. Issue of MACP was also discussed and removal of the provision of benchmark ‘Very Good’ for MACP, which has been recommended from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’ by the 7th Pay Commission, has also been demanded. Though Cabinet Secretary has given positive assurance on our demands yet we need our rank and file to be prepared for persistent struggle.

With Good Wishes!

Yours faithfully,

sd/-

(Shiva Gopal Mishra)

General Secretary

Source: AIRF

Latest news on submission of 7th CPC Allowance Committee Report

"Today in Parliament, Minister of State for Finance Shri Santhosh Kumar Gangwar said in a written reply to a question regarding the submission of Allowance Committee Report. He said that the Allowance Committee is now in the process of finalizing its Report. Decisions on implementing the Report will be taken after the Report is submitted by the Committee."

Detailed Questions and Answers:

QUESTIONS:

(a) Whether Government has formed a Committee for taking decision about the allowances to the Central Government employees and removal of anomalies in their pay scales announced by the Seventh Pay Commission;

(b) if so, whether the Committee has submitted its report;

(c) if so, the main features thereof and if not, the reasons for delay in submission of report;

and

(d) the time by which recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission regarding the allowances are proposed to be implemented?

ANSWERS:

(a) to (d): The Committee on allowances has been constituted vide order dated 22.07.2016 to examine and make recommendations as to whether any changes in the recommendations of the 7th CPC relating to allowances are warranted and if so, in what form. A separate anomaly committee at National Level has also been set up, vide O.M. dated 09.09.2016, to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations.

The National Anomaly Committee has made recommendations on the calculation methodology of the Disability Pension for Defence forces personnel. The Committee on allowances has received a large number of demands on allowances and even now receiving such demands. All the demands have been diligently examined. The Committee has already held 13 meeting so far and interacted with the representatives of Central Nodal Ministries, National Council (Staff Side), Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) and officers and representatives of employee associations of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Home Affairs, Railways, Defence and Department of Posts. The Committee is now in the process of finalizing its Report. Decisions on implementing the Report will be taken after the Report is submitted by the Committee.

Authority: Rajya Sabha

List of empanelled referral hospitals for railway Pensioners

Monday, March 27, 2017

PAY COMMISSION BENEFIT TO AIIMS EMPLOYEES


GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2617
TO BE ANSWERED ON 17TH MARCH, 2017
PAY COMMISSION BENEFIT TO AIIMS EMPLOYEES
2617. SHRI MULLAPPALLY RAMACHANDRAN:
Will the Minister of HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE be pleased to state:
(a) whether the benefit of 7th Pay Commission has not been extended to the employees of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS);
(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor;
(c) whether the Government has received any recommendations in this regard; and
(d) if so, the details of decision taken?
ANSWER
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE
(SHRI FAGGAN SINGH KULASTE)
(a) to (d): The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vide its OM No. 1/1/2016-E.III (A) dated 13/01/2017 has circulated guidelines relating to pay revision of employees of Quasi-Government Organizations, Autonomous organizations, Statutory Bodies etc. set up by and funded/controlled by the Central Government. The matter is under consideration of the Government.



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Original Application No. 180/00214/2016


Thursday, this the 23rd day of March, 2017
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
N.R. Sajan, MTS, INS Venduruthy, Naval Base, Kochi - 682 004, S/o. Rajappan, aged 47 years,
residing at Nikarthilthara House, Narakal PO, Ernakulam District. ... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. N. Radhakrishnan) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Kochi - 682 004.
3. The Chief Staff Officer, (Personnel and Administration), Southern Naval Command, Kochi - 682 004.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. N. Anilkumar, Sr. PCGC (R)]
This application having been heard on 06.03.2017, the Tribunal on 23.03.2017 delivered the following: ORDER- Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member -
Applicant has approached this Tribunal being aggrieved by not including him under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] and by including under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which was brought into force with effect from 1.1.2004.
2. He was first engaged by the respondents in 1972 as a casual daily rated labour on full time basis having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Later he was granted temporary status under the Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India in 1993 vide Annexure A1 order. The casual labourers under the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 who were included in the gradation list filed OAs Nos. 635/2001, 101/2005 and 446/2006 before this Tribunal praying for regularising them in Group-D vacancies. The applicants in those cases were regularised in Group-D posts. As the applicant and three others were not included he filed OA No. 687 of 2007 for granting the same relief to him also for regularisation. OA No. 687 of 2007 was allowed on 6.6.2008 vide Annexure A2 order. In terms of Annexure A2 order of this Tribunal respondents issued Annexure A3 order regularising him in Group-D post with effect from 15.9.2008. He was, therefore, included only under the NPS ignoring the fact that he had worked in the temporary capacity prior to 1.1.2004. He, therefore, seeks the relief as under:
'i) To declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted pension as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972;
ii) To direct the respondents to reckon the applicant as those covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for all purposes and to compute, draw and disburse his pension and pensionary benefits applying the said Rules.
iii) To declare that the applicant is entitled to have half the period of his service as full time casual labourers, and half the period of service as temporary status casual labourers to be reckoned as qualifying for determining their qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of pension and other pensionary benefits.
iv) To direct the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the applicant towards their contribution to the contributory fund under the New Pension Scheme.
v) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant.'
3. Respondents filed reply statement contending that as the applicant was regularised only on 15.9.2008, he cannot claim anti-dating of his regularisation with effect from the date prior to 1.1.2004. Respondents pray for rejecting the OA.
4. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant refuting the contentions in the reply statement and relying on the judgment dated 27.1.2016 of High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 16944/2008 and also a judgment dated 27.1.2010 of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 12690/2009.
5. Heard Mr. N. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. Anilkumar, learned Sr. PCGC B. for the respondents. Perused the record.
6. There is no dispute for the respondents that the applicant after having been engaged initially as casual labour was granted temporary status under the DoP&T scheme vide OM No. 51016/2/90/Estt.(C), dated 10 th September, 1993. In that scheme it was envisaged that a casual labour with temporary status if regularised subsequently, 50% of the service rendered by him under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits. It is also not in dispute that the applicant is such a person who has been granted temporary status as per the above said 1993 scheme of DoP&T. But he was not regularised as a Group-D employee unlike his colleagues who secured order for regularisation as Group-D filed OAs Nos.635/2001, 101/2005 and 446/2006 . There is no controversy he filed OA No. 687/2007 and obtained Annexure A2 order dated 6.6.2008 and thereafter he was regularised as Group-D employee with effect from 15.9.2008. This Tribunal notes that he was granted temporary status and was working as such continuously without any interruption till he was regularised on 15.9.2005 vide Annexure A3 order. As per the 1993 scheme of DoP&T causal labourers granted temporary status were entitled to the following benefits:
'(i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group `Db
(ii) Benefits of increments at the same rate as applicable to a Group `Db employee would be taken into account for calculating pro-rata wages for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days, 206 days in administrative offices observing 5 days week) in the year from the date of conferment of temporary status.
(iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro-rata basis at the rate of one day for every 10 days of work, casual or any other kind of leave, except maternity leave, will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave at their credit on their regularisation. They will not be entitled to the benefits of encashment of leave on termination of service for any reason or on their quitting service.
(iv) Maternity leave to lady casual labourers as admissible to regular Group `Db employees will be allowed.
(v) 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisation.
(vi) After rendering three yearsb temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group `Db Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group `Db employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department.
(vii) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus/ Ad-hoc bonus only at the rates as applicable to casual labourers. ' The above benefits strongly indicate that those employees have at least been given the status almost akin to that of a regular Group-D employee especially in the matter of getting DA, HRA, CCA, increments, leave encashment and the facility for carrying forward the leave at their credit on regularisation, maternity leave, etc.
7. In this context it is worth examining Rule 13 CCS (Pension) Rules,1972. It reads:
'13. Commencement of qualifying service Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity : Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post : Provided further that -
(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group `D' service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th April, 1950, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose, and
(b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.
*(c) the provisions of clause (b) shall not be applicable in the cases of counting of military service for civil pension under Rule 19 *Inserted vide Notification No. 28/19/2001-P&PW(B) dated 11-11-2003 published as so no. 3205 in Gazette of India dated 22-11-2003.' (emphasis supplied) It can be seen that the qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is reckoned from the date the government servant takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed in temporary capacity provided that such temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. There is no quarrel for the respondents that the applicant was given regularisation vide Annexure A3 order while he was uninterruptedly working as casual labour with temporary status.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A4 order of this Tribunal and also Annexures A6 & A7 judgments of the Kerala and Delhi High Courts respectively. In Annexure A7 judgment the Delhi High Court the High Court observed: '.............If Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972 obligates commencing of qualifying service from the date an employee takes charges of the post, on 29 th June, 2004 on appointment after continuous service on the temporary post, it will relate back to 1997 when the temporary status was granted to the respondent. Though new pension scheme was introduced from 1 st January, 2004, however, Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has not been abrogated by the new pension scheme..........' In Annexure A6 judgment the Kerala High Court noted:
'12. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has given a direction to the Department to have the temporary status conferred upon the applicant with effect from 1.1.1993 and to give regularization, based on seniority. It will definitely give a vested right to the applicant to get governed under the old CCS (Pension) Rules which in fact has undergone a substantial change with effect from 1.1.2004. This Court finds that the applicant having, substantiated his rights and liberties to get the temporary status and regularization will stand to be loser, if the date of granting temporary status and subsequent regularization as now ordered by the department (from 11.11.2005 and 15.9.2009 respectively) is let to stand, which requires to be corrected and rectified in the manner as directed by the Tribunal.'
9. It is worth noticing that the DoP&T in its recently issued OM No.49014/2/2014-Estt(C), dated 26th February, 2016 states:
'6. The position has been reviewed in the light of the Court judgements in consultation with the Department of Expenditure. It has now been decided that the casual labourers who had been granted temporary status under the scheme, and have completed 3 years of continuous service after that, are entitled to contribute to the General Provident Fund.
7. 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits in respect of those casual labourers who have been regularised in terms of para 8 of the OM dated 10.09. 1993.
8. It is emphasised that the benefit of temporary status is available only to those casual labourers who were in employment on the date of the issue of the OM dated 10th September, 1993 and were otherwise eligible for it. No grant of temporary status is permissible after that date. The employees erroneously granted temporary status between 10.09.1993 and the date of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in Union Of India And Anr vs Mohan Pal, 2002 (3) SCR 613, delivered on 29 April, 2002, will however be deemed to have been covered under the scheme of 10.09.93.'Even though the aforequoted OM issued by the DoP&T on 26.2.2016 does not speak in so many words as to whether the casual labourers who were granted temporary status as per the 1993 OM on regularisation gets the right to be included in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, it definitely acknowledges that such persons are entitled to contribute to the General Provident Fund which was a concomitant of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
10. Nevertheless, the position emerges from the aforecited judicial decisions is that the temporary status enjoyed by the casual labourers as per the 1993 scheme anterior to their regularisation in Group-D makes them eligible for the benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 if such temporary status continued on the day when the NPS came into vogue. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that the applicant having been appointed as Group-D employee only after 1.1.2004 is not entitled to the benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is unsustainable.
11. In the result, the Original Application is allowed to the extent directing the Respondents to include the applicant in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, to permit him to subscribe to the General Provident Fund and also to stop recovering contributions under the NPS. If any amount has been deducted from his salary towards the NPS the same shall be refunded to him. The above exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(U. SARATHCHANDRAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
For original judgment kindly refer to the web of Hon court-NFRP

Non-Payment of Arrears to Pensioners पेंशनधारकों को बकायों की गैर-अदायगी



GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO: 1641
ANSWERED ON: 10.03.2017

Non-Payment of Arrears to Pensioners

ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUBEY
Will the Minister of
FINANCE be pleased to state:-

(a) whether instances of non-payment of arrears of family pensioners of Government employees have come to the notice of the Government;

(b) if so, the details thereof during the last three years and the current year along with the action taken by the Government thereon, so far, year/case-wise; and

(c) the time by which these cases are likely to be disposed off?

ANSWER

(a), (b) & (c) Family Pension is sanctioned by the concerned Department in which the concerned employee was working. The Central Pension Accounting Office processes the Pension Payment Order received from the concerned Department within the prescribed time limit of 21 days and Pension Payment Authority is issued to the Pension Disbursing Bank. The Pension Disbursing Bank commences the Family Pension on submission of required documents. There have been instances of delays in commencement of family pension in favour of spouse by Banks in the event of death of Central Civil Pensioner. As per delay analysis of conversion to family Pension by banks for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2016 by Central Pension Accounting Office, Family Pension commenced in 56.3% cases within one month, 13.4% cases within 1 to 2 months, 7.5% cases within two to three months, 8.5% cases within 3 to 6 months and 14.3% cases were between 6-12 months. In case of Department of Posts, out of the five cases of non-payment of arrears of family pension received in the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, four cases have been settled. Central Pension Accounting Office has taken up the matter with the Banks to commence the Family Pension immediately on receipt of appropriate documents.

भारत सरकार

वित्त मंत्रालय
व्यय विभाग
लोक सभा
लिखित प्रश्न संख्या- 1641

शुक्रवार, 10 मार्च, 2017/19 फाल्गुन, 1938 (शक)


पेंशनधारकों को बकायों की गैर-अदायगी

1641. श्री अश्विनी कुमार चौबे:
क्या वित्त मंत्री यह बताने की कृपा करेंगे कि:

(क) क्या सरकारी कर्मचारियों के पारिवारिक पेंशनधारकों को बकाया का भुगतान न किए जाने की घटनाएं सरकार के संज्ञान में आई हैं;
(ख) यदि हां, तो गत तीन वर्षों और चालू वर्ष के दौरान तत्संबंधी ब्यौरा क्या है और इस पर अब तक सरकार द्वारा वर्ष/मामले-वार क्या कार्रवाई की गई; और
(ग) इन मामलों के कब तक निपटाए जाने की संभावना है?
उत्तर
वित्त मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल)

(क), (ख) और (ग): परिवार पेंशन उस संबंधित विभाग जिसमें कर्मचारी कार्यरत था, द्वारा संस्वीकृत की जाती है। केन्द्रीय पेंशन लेखा कार्यालय संबंधित विभाग से प्राप्त पेंशन भुगतान आदेश पर 21 दिन की नियत समय-सीमा में कार्रवाई करता है और पेंशन संवितरण बैंक को पेंशन भुगतान प्राधिकार जारी कर दिया जाता है। पेंशन संवितरण बैंक, अपेक्षित दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत कर दिए जाने के पश्चात परिवार पेंशन शुरू करता है। केन्द्रीय सिविल पेंशनभोगी की मृत्यु हो जाने की स्थिति में, बैंकों द्वारा पति/पत्नी के नाम परिवार पेंशन शुरु किए जाने में विलम्ब की कुछ घटनाएं हुई हैं। बैंकों द्वारा पेंशन को परिवार पेंशन में बदले जाने के मामले में विलंब का विश्लेषण केन्द्रीय पेंशन लेखा कार्यालय ने 01.04.2016 से 31.12.2016 की अवधि के संबंध में किया। इस विश्लेषण के अनुसार 56.3% मामलों में एक माह के अंदर, 13.4% मामलों में 1 से 2 माह के अंदर, 7.5% मामलों में 2 से 3 माह के अंदर, 8.5% मामलों में 3 से 6 माह के अंदर और 14.3% मामलों में 6 से 12 माह के अंदर परिवार पेंशन शरू कर दी गई।  डाक विभाग के संबंध में, परिवार पेंशन की बकाया राशि का भुगतान न किए जाने के बारे में वर्ष 2015-16 और 2016-17 में प्राप्त पांच मामलों में से चार मामलों का निपटान किया जा चकाा है। केन्द्रीय पेंशन लेखा कार्यालय ने उपयुक्त दस्तावेज प्राप्त होने पर तत्काल परिवार पेंशन शुरू किए जाने का मामला बैंकों के साथ उठाया है।
*****

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 465 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6048 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr. … Petitioners Versus K. Ganesan (Dead) by LRs … Respondents WITH REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 472 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6371 OF 2010



O R D E R
Prayer for oral hearing in open Court is rejected.
The instant petitions, which have been filed by the petitioners for review
of order dated 1.9.2016 passed by this Court in the aforementioned civil
appeals, are barred by limitation. The Review Petition (Civil) No.465 of 2017
is barred by 70 days, whereas Review Petition (C) No.472 of 2017 is barred
by 138 days. We do not find any justification to condone the said delay.
That apart, we have carefully perused the petitions for review, the order
impugned and the papers annexed in support thereof. We do not find any
ground therein warranting review of the aforementioned order.
The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay
as well on merits.
.………………..……………….…....…CJI.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
.………………...…………………….……J.
(Arun Mishra)
New Delhi;
March 22, 2017.
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2017.03.23
15:46:12 TLT
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
CHAMBER MATTER SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
R.P.(C) No.465/2017 In C.A. No.6048/2010
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
K. GANESAN (DEAD) BY LRS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and oral
hearing and office report)
WITH
R.P.(C) No.472/2017 In C.A. No.6371/2010
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and oral
hearing and Office Report)
Date : 22/03/2017 These petitions were circulated today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
By Circulation
UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
O R D E R
Prayer for oral hearing in open Court is rejected.
The review petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay
as well on merits in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6048 OF 2010
(with applications for impleadments)
Union of India and another ..Appellants
versus
K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr. ..Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6371 OF 2010
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and
having perused the record of the case, we find no justification
whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, directing
restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent herein,
after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 2/2008, 3/2009, 4/2010 & IA 5/2013 in CA No.6048/2010
We find no justification in entertaining the instant
interlocutory applications on behalf of persons who had not availed
of their remedy before the competent Court. It would be
inappropriate for us to examine the veracity of their claims, in
the first instance.
We accordingly decline the prayer for impleadment, and
while doing so, grant liberty to the applicants to seek an
appropriate alternate remedy, as may be available to them, in
accordance with law.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6048 OF 2010
(with applications for impleadments)
Union of India and another ..Appellants
versus
K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr. ..Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6371 OF 2010
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and
having perused the record of the case, we find no justification
whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, directing
restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent herein,
after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 2/2008, 3/2009, 4/2010 & IA 5/2013 in CA No.6048/2010
We find no justification in entertaining the instant
interlocutory applications on behalf of persons who had not availed
of their remedy before the competent Court. It would be
inappropriate for us to examine the veracity of their claims, in
the first instance.
We accordingly decline the prayer for impleadment, and
while doing so, grant liberty to the applicants to seek an
appropriate alternate remedy, as may be available to them, in
accordance with law.
2
The applications for impleadment are accordingly disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
Civil Appeal No. 6371 of 2010
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
In view of dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6048 of 2010 by
us today (Union of India and another vs. K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr.),
this appeal has to be accepted.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order of the High Court is set aside. It is directed that the
appellants shall be entitled for restoration of their 2/3rd
pension, after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
…...................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; …...................J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016. [ARUN MISHRA]
3
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6048/2010
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K.GANESAN (DEAD) BY LRS. Respondent(s)
(with appln(s) for amendment of the impleadment application and
impleadment and office report)
WITH
C.A. No. 6371/2010(with Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 1028/2013
(With (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents
and appln.(s) for interim relief and Office Report)
Date : 01/09/2016 These appeals/petition were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG
in CA No. 6048/2010 Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
& for respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv.
In connected cases Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,AOR
For Appellant(s) Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, Adv.
In CA No.6371/2010 Ms. Shriya Raj Chauhan, Adv.
& for respondent for Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR
in CA 6048/2010
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Saransh Jain, Adv.
In WP 1028/2013 Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.
for Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv.
(applicant(s) in Mr. K. V. Mohan,Adv.
IA 2 & 4 in CA No. Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, adv.
6048/2010)
Mr. Sumit Attri,AOR
Ms. Shipra Ghose,Adv.
4
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010 stands dismissed in terms of
the signed order.
The applications for impleadment stand disposed of in
terms of the signed order.
Civil Appeal No. 6371 of 2010 stands allowed in terms of
the signed order.
At the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, and in the interest of justice, list Writ Petition No.
1028/2013 for hearing on 07.09.2016.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar)
Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
[signed order in Civil Appeals is placed on the file]

Sunday, March 26, 2017

PDCA Circular on Non transfer of Pension files from banks to other PDAs.


PDCA Circular regarding Banks are not transferring their pension account to the new PDAs.
Office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension),
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad-211014
Circular No.190
No. AT/Tech/70-XXV
Dated:16.03.2017
To,
1.     The Chief Accountant, RBI Deptt. of Govt. Bank Accounts, Central office C-7, Second Floor, Bandre- Kurla Complex, P B No. 8143, Bandre East Mumbai-400051.
2.     The Manger CPPC of Public Sector Banks including IDBI
3.     The Nodal Officers (ICICI/ AXIS/HDFC Bank)….
Sub: Non transfer of Pension files from banks to other PDAs.
This office is receiving representations from pensioners/family pensioners stating that they have submitted applications to their banks for transfer of their pension account to other PDA, however, banks are not transferring their pension account to the new PDAs.
In this regards, attention is drawn to para 3 of   “Scheme for Payment of Pension of Defence Pension’ by Public Sector Banks” which clearly provides that pensioner will have the choice to draw their pension from any PDA. Further in para 7 of above scheme, procedure for transfer of pension account from one PDA to another PDA has been laid down.   Similar provisions for transfer of pension account alongwith necessary supporting documents from one PDA to another PDAs  are available in  para 93.1,  93.3  and  94  of Defence Pension Payment Instruction 2013.
Non-transfer  of  pension  account  of  pensioner/family  pensioners,  if opting, is not only a violation of provisions laid down but also reason of cause of dissent in pensioner/family pensioner. It is, therefore, requested to transfer pension account of pensioners/family pensioners to the new PDA on priority as and when pensioner/family pensioner opts for the same.
(Abhishek Singh)
ACDA (P)

Minutes

Saturday, March 25, 2017

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Original Application No. 180/00526/2016- Thursday, this the

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,    ERNAKULAM BENCH
                 Original Application No. 180/00526/2016-    Thursday, this the 16th day of March, 2017
CORAM:      Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
V. Prabhakaran, S/o. Late T. Kuttappan Nair,Aged 78 years, Deputy Postmaster (HSG I) (Retd.),
Varikattu House, Suprabha, Palissery, Annamada PO,Thrissur - 680 741.                               ...     Applicant
(By Advocate :     Mr. C.S.G. Nair)             Versus
1.   Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 001.
2.   Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle,  Trivandrum - 695 033.
3.   Union of India, represented by its Secretary,     Department of Pension & Pensioners'Welfare,
     Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market,  New Delhi - 110 001.                             ...    Respondents
(By Advocate :     Mr. K. Kesavankutty, ACGSC)
     This application having been heard on 27.02.2017, the Tribunal on 16.03.2017 delivered the following:
                               ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member -
     Applicant is a retired Deputy Postmaster (HSG-I). He had a total service of 36 years, 9 months and 8 days in the Postal Department. When he retired on 30.9.1996 he was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. He was granted monthly pension of Rs. 3,912/- vide Annexure A1 Pension Payment Order with effect from 1.10.1996. Pursuant to an order of this Tribunal, the applicant was granted promotion as LSG with effect from 1.3.1983, as HSG-II with effect from 19.6.1990 and as HSG-I with effect from 19.4.1996. These promotions were given with retrospective effect vide Annexure A2 memo issued from the office of respondent No. 2. Applicant states that on implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission (CPC) the pay scale of HSG-I was upgraded to Rs. 7,450/- and was revised to PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- as per Section II of the 1 st schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, a copy of which is marked as Annexure A3. As per the fitment table annexed to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- is Rs.11,460/- and 50% of which is to be paid as pension i.e. Rs. 9,230/- with effect from 1.1.2006. A copy of the fitment table annexed to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 is produced as Annexure A4. Applicant contends that as per the different orders of this Tribunal, it has been held that the pensioners mentioned in those orders are entitled to pension not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which they retired. According to the applicant as per the decision of the High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 169/2015 the computation of pension in the matter of VIth CPC has to be 50% of the pay scale with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and not the corresponding scale of pay to the one at which the incumbent has retired and therefore the applicant is entitled to get revised pension taking into account the upgraded pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7,450-11,500/- with Grade Pay of Rs 4,600/-. The relief sought by the applicant is as under:   
(i)    To declare that the applicant is entitled for revision of pension based on     the' pay band plus grade pay applicable to HSG I w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
     (ii) To direct the respondents to issue revised PPO to the applicant specifying   the pension on the basis of 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus   grade pay of Rs. 18,460/- i.e. Rs. 9,230/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and also the     corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including   arrears of pension within a stipulated period.
     (iii) To grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found   to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
     (iv)   To grant cost of this OA.'
2.   The OA was opposed by respondents 1 to 3 contending that the applicant retired from service when he was having a pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- and the VIth CPC revised pay scale corresponding to the post from which he retired was Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- and the pension payable to the applicant with effect from 1.1.2006 is only Rs. 6,750/- i.e. 50% of the sum of the minimum in the pay band plus Grade Pay Rs. 9,300/- + Rs. 4,200/- / 2. Respondents contend that paragraph 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 was invoked in the case of the applicant. They further state that on the implementation of the VIth CPC the three pre-revised pay scales of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/-, Rs. 7,450-225-11,500/- and Rs. 7,500-250-12,000/- were merged together and were replaced by the revised pay structure with Grade Pay of Rs 4,600/- in the pay band PB-2 Rs. 9,300-34,800/-. The merger of pay scales and the resultant pay structure of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- is applicable only to the employees from 1.11.2006 and not to the applicant. Therefore, the corresponding revised pay for the purpose of calculating pension is the one corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. According to the respondents as per OM dated 28.1.2013 pension is equivalent to the 50% of the sum of the minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay/minimum pay in the pay scale as per fitment table for the corresponding pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- is Rs. 8,145/-. Respondents pray for rejecting the OA.
3.   A rejoinder was filed by the applicant stating that the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- was revised originally to Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-. Subsequently as per OM F. No. 1/1/2008-IC,dated 13.11.2009 the Grade Pay was increased to Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006. The pre-revised scales of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, Rs. 5,500-9,000/- and Rs. 6,500-10,500/- were merged together with effect from 1.1.2006 and revised to Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-and the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- was revised to Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- with effect from 1.1.2006.

4.   MA No. 180/127/2017 filed for receiving the additional reply statement is allowed. In the additional reply statement respondents contend that the post which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- as on 1.1.2006 was granted a normal replacement pay structure Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- in the pay band-2 will be granted grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- in the pay band PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revied scale of Rs. 7,450- 11,500/- with effect from 1.1.2006. As the applicant was not in service as on 1.1.2006 the aforesaid replacement pay structure is not applicable to him. As per paragraph 5 of OM F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 11.2.2009, the benefit of upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement could not be admissible to pre-2006 pensioners and therefore, the claim of the applicant for pension at the rate of Rs. 9,230/- with effect from 1.1.2006 is not admissible.
5.   Heard Mr. C.S.G. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. K. Kesavankutty, learned ACGSC appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
6.   The applicant is claiming revised pension based on the pay band and Grade Pay applicable to HSG-1 with effect from 1.1.2006. Annexure A2 clearly shows that the applicant was granted LSG with effect from 1.3.1983, HSG-II w.e.f. 19.6.1990 and HSG with effect from 19.4.1996. All these grades were given to the applicant as per the directions of this Tribunal in the order dated 4.1.2001 in OA No. 851/1998, the benefit of which was received by the applicant only after his superannuation on 30.9.1996.Therefore, undoubtedly, the revised pension of the applicant has to be based on the pay scale of HSG-I that was applicable as on the date of his superannuation on 30.9.1996.
7.   Applicant states that on implementation of the VIth CPC the pay scale of HSG-1 was upgraded to Rs. 7,450-10,500/- in PB-2 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- (vide Annexure A3 RP Rules, 2008). It has to be noted that as per the Government of India resolution dated 29.8.2008 on the recommendations of the VIth CPC the pension of the pensioners was fixed as 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay scale from which the pensioner has retired. Based on the Government of India resolution dated 29.8.2008 respondent No. 3 issued OM dated 1.9.2008. Paragraph 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 reads:
      '4.2. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised       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 pay sale     from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this       will be per cent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.'
8.   As the aforequoted instructions in OM dated 1.9.2008 remains in tact without any executive or judicial interference, the pension sanctioning authorities are bound to follow the aforesaid paragraph 4.2 of the aforesaid OM while revising the pension of the pre-1-1-2006 pensioners. Since para 4.2 being the policy decision of the Government of India, the same has to be the guiding principle for determining the VIth CPC revised pension of pre- 1.1.2006 pensioners. In the case of the applicant, as observed earlier the pay scales from which he had retired has to be reckoned on the basis of the pay

scale of HSG-I prevailing at the time of his retirement. Referring toAnnexure A4 fitment table annexed to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 applicant points out that the VIth CPC revised pay scale of Postmaster HSG-I is Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006.Therefor, even though the applicant retired from service in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-, as he was given the HSG-I grade after his retirement by virtue of a court decision, the pay scale applicable to HSG-I at the time of his retirement should be his pay pre- revised pay in terms of paragraph 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008. Since the corresponding revised pay of Deputy Postmaster HSG-I after the VIth CPC was Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006, his pension has to be fixed as 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- or as per the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- as per the fitment table, which everis more beneficial to the pensioner.
9.   Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that applicant is entitled to a revised pension in terms of paragraph 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 or 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- or as per Annexure A4 fitment table, whichever is beneficial to the applicant. The respondents shall issue revised Pension Payment Order in terms of what is stated above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
10. OA is disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs.
                        (U. SARATHCHANDRAN)
                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

Fro original orders kindly refer to Web of Hon court

Thursday, March 23, 2017

7th CPC Allowance Committee Report – Minister once again replied 

7th CPC Allowance Committee Report – Minister once again replied in Parliament on 22.3.2017 DoPT Minister replied in Lok Sabha on 22nd March 2017 regarding the status of the Committee on Allowances. Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Shri DR. JITENDRA SINGH said in a written reply to various questions regarding the report of allowance committee in Parliament on 22.3.2017 as follows… “Several representations have been received from various employees’ associations on allowances by the Committee on Allowances. Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) has also requested to resolve the pending issues including allowances as soon as possibl  To examine the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission on Allowances (other than Dearness Allowance), a Committee of Secretaries under the Chairmanship of Finance Secretary and Secretary, Expenditure has been set up by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure on 22.07.2016. In the 13 meetings held so far, the Committee has interacted with National Council (Staff Side), Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) and the representatives of All India Railwaymen Federation (AIRF), National Federation of Indian Railwaymen (NFIR), All India Train Controllers Association (AITCA), All India Guards Council (AIGC), Federation of National Postal Organization, National Federation of Postal Employees, Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation, Bhartiya Postal Employees Association (Group-C), Joint Action Council of Service Doctors Organization (JACSDO), All India GDMO Association (AIGDMOA), Delhi Administration Doctors Welfare Association (DADWA), Faculty Association (Maulana Azad Medical College and associated hospitals), Faculty Welfare Association (Lady Hardinge Medical College), Safdarjung Hospital Medical Officers Association, All India Government Nurses Federation (AIGNF), Railway Nurses of India, All India ESIC Nurses Federation, PGI Nurses Welfare Association, Trained Nurses Association of India (TNAI), National Federation of Atomic Energy (NFAEE). The Committee has not yet submitted its report to the Government. Decisions on implementing the Report will be taken after the Report is submitted by the Committee.”
 Authoirty: Lok Sabha