Modified Parity
Modified Parity
It was the V CPC which gave a
concrete shape to the concept of parity in pensions of those retiring from
service at different periods of time.
Though they opined that it would be ideal to recommend full parity straightaway,
they however, refrained from doing so considering the financial constraints of
the government to implement such a measure.
They enunciated a parity principle in para 137.21 of their report. Under the above principle, they recommended
full parity upto 1.1.86 and modified parity as on 1.1.96. This recommendation was accepted by the
government and implemented w.e.f., 1.1.96.
Full parity was granted to all those who retired prior to 1.1.86 and
modified parity on 1.1.96 to all those who retired before this date. The Commission desired that if the principle
of parity enunciated by them was accepted and implemented, full parity should
be taken upto 1.1.96 and modified parity as on 1.1.2006 at the time of
implementation of VI CPC’s recommendations w.e.f., 1.1.2006. The Commission had also observed that parity
was an ongoing process and it should ultimately lead to full parity at the time
of every revision. They also observed
that the process was initiated by the IV CPC and that they were carrying it
forward.
The V CPC had rejected the demand
made before it for fixation of pension
on the maximum of the scale of pay in which the person retired irrespective of
the length of service and pay as unreasonable and unjustified. However, they conceded that there was force
in the demand that the pension of a person on revision as per a pay commission’s
recommendations should not be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding
revised pay scale of the post in which he/she retired and 30% in case of family pension. The intention of the commission in accepting
the demand is that a person who retired in a given post prior to revision
should not get less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of the post as
pension on revision. When the posts
carrying the IV CPC pay scale of Rs. 1400 – 2300 were allotted the revised
scale of Rs.5000 – 8000 w,e,f,, 1.1.96 (V CPC scale), the corresponding scale
of pay of the posts in question should have been deemed as Rs.5000 – 8000 and
not 4500 – 7000 since these posts were not allotted the grade of Rs.4500 – 7000
w.e.f., 1.1.1996. To treat those who
retired in these posts as having retired in the grade of 4500 – 7000 for the
purpose of modified parity amounted to downgrading these posts. The Commission might have recommended the
scale of Rs. 4500 – 7000 as
corresponding scale of 1400 – 2300 (pre revised), but the scale of pay actually
implemented to the relevant posts w.e.f., 1.1.96 was the scale of Rs.5000-8000
and the same has to be taken as the corresponding scale for the purpose of modified
parity. Otherwise, it would not only
strike at the very root of the principle of modified parity enunciated by the V
CPC but also completely negates the same.
The government is not justified in treating differently those who
retired prior to revision from those who retired after revision in the same
post. Thus parity principle as enunciated by V CPC had
been violated in implementation. If what
the government has done is accepted, there can never be parity in pensions of
those retiring in the same or equivalent posts at different periods of
time. This fact has been singularly missed
by the government while justifying what they had done.
It may be seen from the table
annexed to DOP & PW’s OM dated 28.1.2013,
grade pay of Rs.4200 was taken for those who retired in the pre revised scale
of Rs. 6500 – 10500 for the purpose of modified parity while those in service as on 1.1.2006 coming from this grade
to PB 2 have been given grade pay of Rs.4600.
This indeed is gross discrimination striking at the very root of
principle of modified parity as explained earlier. Grade pay of Rs.4200 was
recommended by the VI CPC to the pre revised grades of Rs.5000 – 8000, 5500 –
9000 and 6500 – 10500 putting them together and working it out on the maximum
of the last grade i.e.,Rs.10500 X 40% = Rs. 4200. While implementing, the post of Rs. 6500 –
10500 was merged with that of Rs. 7450 – 11500 and grade pay of Rs.4600 was
allotted. On what analogy has the
government treated the grade of Rs.6500 – 10500 for grade pay of Rs.4200 prior
to 1.1.2006 and for grade pay of Rs.4600 after 1.1.2006? Considered from any angle, taking grade pay
of Rs.4200 for modified parity in respect of those who retired in grade Rs. 6500-10500 prior to 1.1.2006 is irrational and devoid of
any logic and reasoning.
While the objective of parity,
full or modified, is to elevate the past pensioners to the level of present and
future pensioners progressively bridging the gap between their pensions, the
manner in which modified parity has been implemented at the time of V CPC as
well as VI CPC in respect of some posts has gone completely contrary to the
above objective in as much as in some cases as narrated above, posts have been
treated as in lower grades thus widening the gap rather than bringing it down which
is not the aim of modified parity. What
is the objective sought to be achieved through modified parity if the actual
grades and grade pays implemented to the employees in service are not extended
for past retirees of the same posts for this purpose?
To have a proper appreciation of
the parity principle enunciated by V CPC and the background therefor, it is
necessary to go through paras 137.13, 137.14, 137.15, 137.20 and 137.21 of the
V CPC report which are reproduced here below.
137.13. While it is desirable to
grant complete parity in pension to all past pensioners irrespective of the
date of their retirement, this may not be feasible straightaway as the
financial implications would be considerable.
The process of bridging the gap in pension of past pensioners has
already been set in motion by the IV CPC when past pensioners were granted
additional relief in addition to consolidation of their pension. This process of attainment of reasonable
parity needs to be continued so as to achieve
complete parity over a period of time.
137.14. As a follow up of our
basic objective of parity, we would recommend that the pension of all the
pre-1986 retirees may be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on
1.1.1986 by adopting the same formula as for the serving employees. This step would bring all the past pensioners
to a common platform or on to the IV CPC pay scales as on 1.1.1986. Thereafter all the pensioners who have been
brought on to the IV CPC pay scales by notional fixation of their pay and those
who have retired on or after 1.1.1996 by allowing the same fitment weight-age
as may be allowed to the serving employees.
However, the consolidated pension shall be not less than 50% of the
minimum pay of the post as revised by V CPC, held by the pensioner at the time
of retirement. This consolidated amount
of pension should be the basis for grant of dearness relief in future. The additions to pension as a result of our
recommendations in this chapter shall not, however qualify for any additional
commutation for existing pensioners.
137.15. While the work relating
to revision of pension of pre 1.1.1986 retirees by notional fixation of their
pay shall have to be undertaken by the pension sanctioning authorities to be
completed in a time-bound manner, we suggest that the pensioners should be
provided some relief immediately on implementation of our recommendations. The pension disbursing authorities may be
authorized to consolidate the pension by adding (a)basic pension; (b)personal
pension, wherever admissible; (c)dearness relief as on 1.1.1996 on basic
pension only; (d)interim relief (I and II)
and (e) 20% of basic pension. The
consolidated pension shall be not less than 50% of the minimum pay, as revised
by the V CPC, of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. This may be stepped up by the pension
disbursing authorities, wherever feasible, to the level of 50% of the minimum
pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement.
137.20. We have given our careful
consideration to the suggestions. While
we do not find any merit in the suggestion to revise the pension of past
retirees with reference to maximum pay of the post held at the time of
retirement, as revised by the V CPC, there is force in the argument that the
revised pension should be not less than that admissible on the minimum pay of
the post held by the retiree at the time of retirement, as revised by the V
CPC. We have no hesitation in conceding
the argument advanced by pensioners that they should receive a pension at least
based on the minimum pay of the post as revised by the V CPC in the same way as
an employee normally gets the minimum revised pay of the post he holds. We recommend acceptance of this principle
which is based on reasonable considerations.
137.21. The Commission has decided to enunciate a
principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that complete
parity should normally be conceded up to the date of last pay revision and
modified parity (with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised
pay scale) be accepted at the time of each fresh pay revision. The guiding principle which we have accepted
would assure that past pensioners will obtain complete parity between the
pre-’86 and post-’86 pensioners but there will be only a modified parity
between the pre-’96 and post-’96 pensioners.
The enunciation of the principle would imply that at the time of the
next pay revision, say, in the year 2006, complete parity would be given to
past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and modified parity b e given
between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners.
The Hon’ble Principal Bench of
CAT, New Delhi ,
in their Order dated 1.11.2011 in OA No.0655/2010 and others have observed in
para 29(a) & (b) thereof as follows
‘Para 29 (a) – if the
interpretation of the Government is accepted it would mean that pre-2006
retirees in S-29 grade retired in December, 2005 will get his pension fixed at
Rs. 23700/- and another officer who retired in January 2006 at the maximum of
the pay will get his pension fixed at Rs.27350/-. This hits the very principle of the modified
parity, which was never intended by the Pay Commission or by the Central
Government;
A pre-2006 retiree in S-13 grade
retired in December 2005 will get his pension fixed at Rs.8145 and another
person who retired in January 2006 at the minimum of the revised pay will get
his pension fixed at Rs.8345. This hits
the very principle of modified parity as recommended by VI CPC as well as
accepted by the government of India as observed by the Hon’ble Principal Bench
in para 29 (a) of their order in respect
of S-29 grade. What applied to S-29 grade applies mutatis mutandis
to S-13 and other grades as well.
Similarly the observation made by Principal Bench in para 29(b) also
equally applies to S-13 and other grades as the principle involved is one and
the same.
The government’s policy in
respect of modified parity should be to maintain parity in pensions of persons
retiring in the same and identical posts before and after revision of pay
scales. The manner in which modified parity is being implemented right
from 1.1.96 onwards is resulting in denial of the same in respect of those
retired in certain posts as explained
earlier. Government’s action has
resulted in down-grading those who retired earlier to revision by not taking
the actual grades and grade pays implemented for corresponding posts for the
purpose of modified parity. The above
mentioned order of the Hon’ble Principal Bench disapproved the above approach
of the government and struck down their order as not in consonance with the
concept of modified parity as enunciated by V CPC and carried forward in their
recommendations by the VI CPC and accepted by the government.
In conclusion, it is submitted
that the principle of modified parity will have been correctly implemented only
if the improved/higher grades and grade pays implemented w.e.f., 1.1.96 and 1.1.2006
are taken into consideration for modified parity
and not otherwise. All those who retired
prior to 1.1.96 in posts carrying the IV CPC scale of Rs.1400 – 2300 which have
been allotted the V CPC scale of Rs.5000 – 8000 have to be done justice w.e.f.,
1.1.96 and 1.1.2006 by taking the minimum pay for them for modified parity as
Rs.5000 and Rs.13500 respectively. To
illustrate the injustice done to these retirees, it is stated that a Head clerk
in Rs.1400 – 2300 grade prior to 1.1.96 was allotted the grade of Rs.5000 –
8000 w.e.f., 1.1.2006 whereas while implementing modified parity at the time of
V CPC, the minimum pay has been taken as Rs.4500 for modified parity on the
untenable plea that the V CPC recommended corresponding grade of Rs.1400 – 2300
was Rs.4500 – 7000. It was conveniently
ignored in this connection that the revised grade for the post of Head clerk
w.e.f., 1.1.96 was Rs.5000 – 8000. How
are the Head clerks who retired prior to 1.1.96 to catch up with those who retired
in the same posts on and after 1.1.96 unless the actual revised grade is not
taken into consideration for modified parity?
There is no doubt that the government had robbed the recommendation of
its very spirit and essence. Similarly
those in grade of Rs. 1600 – 2660 in railways were allotted the V CPC scale of
Rs.5500 – 9000 w.e.f., 1.1.96 and the same was taken for the purpose of
modified parity to those who retired in corresponding posts before 1.1.96. Now in the OM
dated 28.1.2013 the corresponding grade is being shown as Rs.5000 - 8000. In the case of Accounts staff, one grade
higher was implemented w.e.f. 1.1.96 and the same was denied for modified
parity as on 1.1.96 and the imbalance continues. The same is the case in respect of several
other posts, especially on Indian Railways. If higher grades and grade pays
allotted from time to time for various posts are not taken into account, how
are the past retirees going to get justice in respect of modified parity. Will they not forever continue to lag behind
with low pensions? This is not the aim
of V and VI CPCs in recommending modified parity. Further in the case of
running staff on railways, the emoluments for computation of pension include
basic pay plus pay element of running allowance. The same has to be taken for modified parity
to do them justice.
Bharat
Pensioners Samaj has to take up the above issue in right earnest and protect
the interests of those denied modified parity in the correct spirit. This issue should be dealt with independent
of the issue of extension of the same fitment benefit to pre 1.1.2006
pensioners or application of one and the same factor for revision of pension of
the homogeneous group of pre 2006 pensioners.
Date: 4.4.2013.
M. Somasekhar Rao,
Vice-President/BPS/SZ
For comments please.
%5B1%5D.jpg)
Comments
Further, if some basic social and societal factors and parameters are to be given due consideration, as they must in a civilized society, the rate and amount of family pension should not be diminished and the family pension, equal in rate and amount of pension, should continued to be given to the spouse of the deceased pensioner till his/ her death. Perhaps, the Hon’ble Supreme Court could, suo-motu, ask the Government to do the needful in the matter.
SANJOG MAHESHWARI