Posted In: Pensioners
Respected Shri GK,
It is important that you should await Shri VNji’s OK of your decision in this legal matter.
It is also important that you should see the full Judgment of both the Courts. If you wish to have them, I can only give scanned copies from my Book. I have already given some important excerpts of both the judgments in –
1. Thread “Benefit of one increment to retirees in June afternoon …” Sl.No.19 of 07/07/2012 with Attachment containing some excerpts from the said A.P.High Court Judgment. (This was marked to you also but perhaps you didn’t see)
2. Thread “Relaxation of FR.56 entitling one to benefit ….” Sl.No.6 0f 01/03/2012 with some excerpts from the said HSC Judgment.
Let this be a conscious decision taken after due diligence.
WISH YOU ALL THE BEST, SIR.
I would like to state that the AP HC judgment is over entitlement of the increment earned during last year after retirement. Grant of CPC benefits have different norms for which you may have to refer the HSC judgment. This is my view liable for correction.
Respected Shri Sitaraman Ji,
Thanks a lot for the interest you are taking in the cases of those retirees born on the new year day of 1946/1938 and 1928. I could go through the full Supreme Court Judgement referred to by you. Of course that is in respect of an officer of the Supreme Court who retired after seeking viluntary retirement on the 31st December, 1985, wheras the recommendation of the 4th CPC were made applicable from the Ist January, 1986. His plea that he should be deemed to have retired on the Ist January, 1986 was accepted by the Supreme Court. Similary in our cases same plear could be taken, if necessary. In fact as repeatedly observed that general orders should be issued by the Government that the similar benefits should extended to the similary placed, the Government should have done by now.
Other judgement I could not get on the net. If you could kindly help and oblige.
In any case I am awaiting the clearance from Shri Natrajan sahib.
P.S. I could go through some other judgements of CAT, Hyderabad, High Court Andhra Pradesh and find, as usual, there are contradictory views/decision. Even, there are differences in the interpretation of the HSC judgement . As observed by your earlier we may have to take a conscious view first before drafting a representation to the Secretary of my Department.
Dear Shri KSS Sir ,
AS AN ELDER AND AN EXCELLENT DRAFTER- NARRATER, VERY CONVERSANT WITH MANY OLD PENSIONER JUDGMENTS , YOU ARE THE CORRECT/LEAD PERSON TO GUIDE AFFCETED/ AGGRIEVED PENSIONERS LIKE SHRI GK JI.
WE ALL FEEL PROUD THAT YOU , AT YOUR ADVANCE AGE, HAS COME OUT WITH SUCH A LOT OF INPUTS TO STRENGTHEN HIS CASE.
Dear Shri GK ji,
YOU ARE ALSO A VERY ENLIGHTENED / EXPERIENCED SECRETARIAT MAN WHO KNOWS THE INS AND OUTS OF THE OFFICIAL-DOM AND ITS WAY OF FUNCTIONING!
YOU ARE ALSO AN EXCELLENT DRAFTER.
NONE OF YOU SHALL WAIT FOR MY ENDORSEMENTS -A S I AM ONLY ACTING AS CATALYST.
AT THIS STAGE, I WOULD SUGGEST ON SOME VITAL INPUTS (FROM MY POINT OF VIEW), FOR YOUR NEW APPEAL DRAFT.
1. INCLUDE ALL SUCH VITAL POINTS SUGGESTED BY MANY HERE SO AS TO BRING OUT THE DISTINCTION OF NEW YEAR BORNS OF CPC significance /FAME VIS A VIS OTHER NEW YER BORNS.HOW THE INJUSTICE MANIFESTS. HOW THE FORCED INFLICTION OF INJUSTICE THRU UNPRINCIPLED/ RIGID PRE-POSITIONED DOB ETC.
2. INSTEAD OF PREPOSITIONING, IF THE TREATMENT WAS SAME AS 2ND JAN BORNS, INJUSTICE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SO HARSH.
3. ADMINISTRATION HAD DEALT YOUR / SIMILAR CASES ( AS YOU WANT THEM TO BE COVERED) WITH ONLY A BIASSED VIEW – so far.
4.THE ISSUE HAS NO QUOTABLE CAB DECISION/ SCPC RECO AS SUCH (PL CHK) , RULE MADE OUT in Note 7 UNDER FR 56- LOOKS MORE AN EXEC INSTRUCTION- NO SPL CLAUSE FOR CPC CASES,
5.TABLED DATA OF AMOUNTS INVOLVED – SAY NORMAL CASES- VIS A VIS CPC REVISION CASE- DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNTS. HARSH FINANCIAL LOSS INFLICTED FOR NO FAULT OF A PENSIONER IN THE EVENING OF HIS LIFE.
6. REPRODUCE PARAGRAPHS OF COURT CASES – WITHOUT QUOTING THE CASE NOS ETC – AS IT SHALL NOT CRETAE AN IMORESSION THAT YOU MAY GO TO COURT FOR JUSTICE.
Now you may put/ insert a generalised draft – in these GConnect Posts – (there are two or hree threads) after obtaining the Kind/ resourceful help of Shri KKS ji – for enlisting support of other similarly affected pensioners- pl chk the names who have posted – make requests to other activists like Victor/ Bhaskar/ Sundarar/ several others etc also to help you in getting in touch with such pensioners etc so that you may try to form a GROUP for future actions.
PL GO AHEAD WITH YOUR DRAFT-AND ITS FINALISATION AT THE EARLIEST.
SHRI KSS HAD ALSO POINTED OUT SOME FALLACIES;
Grey area still persists. A person born on 31st December will retire on the preceding day 30th and hence there will be no possibility of two incumbents born on two different dates retiring on the same date.
Likewise a person born on 2nd Jan. retires on the 1st and since this happens in the same month his retirement is taken to 31st Jan as per the new rule.,So if 1st Jan born employee is retired on 1st itself, then two incumbents born on two different dates viz., 2nd & 1st January will find themselves retiring on the same day, leading to a tricky situation. Both the Govt and the Courts are unable to solve this riddle.
SHRI NSR ALSO HAS RAISED SOME PECULIAR SITUATIONS:
Say person born on 1 1 1946 may be made to retire on 31 12 2005 – say just less than 60 yrs and lose all CPC benefits !
Person born on 2nd Jan 1946- can retire on 31 01 2006 – allowed to serve over 60 years and get full CPC benefits .
ALL THSE ARE AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE-
AGAINST ARTICLE 14 OF EQUALITY.
THERE MUST BE SOME JUST REVIEW ON CASE TO CASE BASIS AND RELIEF MUST BE GIVEN.
Respected Shri VNji,
Ref: Shri VNji’s additional remarks in his Posting at Sl.No 23 y/day.
In December, all the employees born from 2nd to 31st during this month are retired on the A/N of the last day of the month plus the employees born next day on 1st January, in acc. with the Letter dated 8/2/1975 issued by the Fin. Min., the contents of which were later issued as a Proviso to FR 56(a). The same thing as stated above for December happened in every other month.(So it is case of not two incumbents but several incumbents retired on the last day of every month).
Earlier as per DOP&PW communication issued in November, on acceptance of the III CPC recommendation on this subject, all employees belonging to Groups B, C & D and subsequently Group A, without exception, born from 1st onwards upto 30th/31st in every month were retired uniformly on the A/N of the last day in every month in which each employee attained the age of 58/60 years and which undoubtedly afforded equal treatment to every employee.. (to be checked by Shri GKji if this communication was effective till the issue of Fin. Min. letter in Feb. 1975).
The reason for the issue of the letter from Fin. Ministry and the Proviso is not known. (to be kindly checked by Shri GKji from the letter if any reason has been given). As a result of the issue of the Proviso, while all employees born from 2nd onwards till the last day of a month enjoyed extra retirement benefits that arose from the extended period of service, the employees born on 1st of the month, absolutely for no fault of theirs, found their service truncated by a day (as Shri NSR had pointed out) thereby being deprived of the extra retirement benefits from the extended service, despite the recommendation by the III CPC and accepted by the Government .In the case of 1st January 1946-born employees the losses were huge and therefore still worse for they have also been deprived of the benefits arising out of the VI CPC’s Recommendation. Any statutory Rule is supposed to be common to all employees but in this case the employees born on 1st of a month have been severely discriminated against, clearly attracting without any shadow of doubt the provisions of the Art. 14 of the Constitution.
I shall make out an appeal draft as advised by you and pass it on to Shri GKji, who will kindly get it vetted by Experts who have been contributing immensely in this Forum and by you. It is important that Shri GKji checks not only the letter in question but also the Court verdicts, which, he stated, are in his possession. It has to be ensured that nothing in thes write ups in this Thread and the proposed draft will come into any conflict with these.
Age is catching up with me and after seeing this case through I shall make a break.
Dear Shri KSS Sir,
Nothing can equal your great gesture of preparing a draft on the case of Shri GK ji for his petition and may be for helping many other similarly distressed old pensioners.
THE INPUT WILL BE “INVALUABLE” – AND CAN NOT BE COMPENSATED BY MERELY THANKING YOU IN ORDINARY WORDS!
At the time, I draw attention to the ever-active Shri Sundarar and Shri GK ji to goi deep onto the vital clue you have provided wrt proviso of FR 56.
I AM CERTAIN NO “CABINET” MAKES SUCH A DETAILED DECISION/ INSTRUCTION LIKE A “LADDU” FOR THE BAUS TO WIELD AND WAGE UNWARRANTED WAR AGAINST OLD PENSIONERS!. The making of such a “NON EXISTANT POLICY” is by lower end executive instructions followed by clarifications and they shall be STRUCK DOWN by any court of law under Art 14.
Let us try to trace the roots of the MOF letter cited by you – and I am sure the FILES/ RECORDS will not be available.
AN RTI EXERCISE CAN BE DONE TO SEEK COPY OF THE LETTER CITED – RLATED FILE NOTES- RELATED GAZ NOTIFICATIONS- RELATED CAB DECISION NOTE ETC
FILE MUST HAVE BEEN LOST OR BURNT! iF NOT IT WILL DISAPPEAR. IT WILL GO TO OUR CREDIT TO POINT OUT THE FACTS TO THE COURTS.
We shall await your considered input in the form of a draft to Shri GK directly (I feel there may be no need to place the entire draft here for obvious reasons. Those who need a copy may contact your kind self/ or Shri GK)
Respected Sitaraman Sahib,
All those born on the new year day of 1928/1938/1946 (as retirement age earlier was 58 years) would feel obliged throughout their life to you, Shri VN sahib and Sundararajan sahib for the interest being shown by all of you in this matter.
Sir, with reference to your post of the 12th September, 2012,. I would like to invite your attention to my post of the 7th September vide which I had given details about my first representation to the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals in May/June 2009 requesting them to relax the provision of FR 56 under FR 5A so that I am treated as Post-2005 retiree. In para 3 and 4 of the representation you would see details about the orders issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in Novermber, 1973 and May, 1974 about retirement of the Government servants in the month in which they attain the age of superannuation. This was notified by the Ministry of Finance later in February, 1975 as mentioned in your preceding post. Because I had a doubt about all this at that time also, I had checked up the postion from the officer of the Department of Personnel and the Ministry of Finace. Of course, as usual there was confusion about the matter in their minds. But what I could make out after discussing the matter with them was that the Fundamental Rule, 56 dealing with the retirement was being administered by the Ministry of Finance at that time so the same had to be modified by the by way of issuing a notification, repeat, notification and not order or administrative instructions and FR 56 could have been modified by way of notification to be published in the Gazette of Inida. Department of Personnel and Training are at present concerned with FR 56 and extesion is service et. At one stage the Department of Expenditure on my representation sought for the comments of the Department of Personnel also as the same, according to them involved, extension in service also. I had in fact in my representation mentioned the the Ministry of Finance that extension in service is in built in the FR 56 as the same provide so retirement on the last day of a month to those born on the 2nd to the last day of any month.
Coming to the reason of issue of the proviso, I would like to mention that those born on the Ist attain the age or retirement on the last date of the preceding montdh. As such, they must have felt that thre was no point in giving extension. This is my presumption. If you still feel I would ask for a copy of the notes leading to the issue of the proviso from the Ministry of Finance. But I am not sure, as pointed out by Shri VN sahib whether I would be able to get the same as that is about 27 years old record.
I have also attempted a drat representation to the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. As indicated separately I am not sure whether he would like to take up the matter for all of us including those who suffered 5th and 4th Pay commissions benefits. Still I would like to take a chance as earlier on my representation, which was on my behalf only, he was good enough for taking up the matter on behalf on those born on the Ist January, 1946.
I would send the same to you on your email address as advised by Shri VN sahib.
HOW DRACONIAN AND RUTHLESS THE ARCHITECTS OF THE FATE OF OLD PENSIONERS COULD BE , because of the issue of some UNANYASED, RIDICULOUS, UNETHICAL LETTERS/ COMMUNICATIONS AS “NOTIFICATIONS” – WITH OR WITHOUT CABINET ENDORSEMENTS AND THEN MAKE EVEN THE “GENUINE ISSUES RELATED TO SUCH TEMPORARY RULES AS INFLEXIBLY – SACRO-SANCT- ever lasting”?
MANY OLD PENSIONERS, BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AGE, BECOME HELPLESS AND ARE NOT ABLE TO FIGHT OUT THEIR CASES AND ARE FORCED TO LOOSE LAKHS OF RUPEES IN ONE GO!
THEIR CASES DIE A SLOW DEATH – EITHER BECAUSE OF PROTRACTED BUREAUCRATIC WRANGLES OR WHEN THEY APPROACH FOR / APPEAL FOR A JUDICIAL REVEIEW, FOR LACK OF PRIORITISED ATTENTION OF SUCH COURTS.
IN THE CURRENT CASE OF DOB VS CPC DATE OF EFFECTIVE LIBERALISED BENEFICIAL PENSION PROVISION, ONE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE “INFLEXIBLE JUSTIFICATION THAT IS BEING IMPOSED AS IF IT IS AN ORDINARY INCRMENT OR SO”?
I THINK DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION IS REQUIRED. FOR EXAMPLE:
1. A PERSON WITH DOB 1 XX YYYY MUST BE ALLOWED TO RETIRE LIKE OTHERS WITH DOB 2 XX YYYY AS OTHERWISE, BY PREPONING THE DOB IN THE FIRST CASE, HE LOSES ALL BENEFITS WHICH IS GIVEN TO THE SECOND CATEGORY.
2.IN CASE OF “ONE TIME BENEFITS LIKE GRATUITY/ LEAVE SALARY ENCASHMENT/ REVISED LIBERALIZED PENSION ETC” HIS LOSS WILL BE MANIFOLD.
3.PREPOSITIONING DOB- WOULD MEAN HE IS “CENSORED TO SERVE ONLY 59 YRS PLUS ODD AND NOT EXACTLY THE ‘SUPER ANNUATION FIGURE OF 60 YEARS” (WE HAVE TO REPRODUCE THE RULES)
4.WE HAND OVER AND MAKE OVER CHARGES ONLY IN THE AN AND FN. BY PREPONING THE 1ST “FN/ AN” REPORTED/JOINED INCUMBENT TO RETIRE ON PREVIOUS DAY, EFFECTIVELY HE MIGHT NOT/ COULD NOT HAVE COMPLETED THE FULL QS- WILL FALL SHORT BY HALF A DAY OR EVEN ONE DAY!!
5.SIMILARLY, CENSORING/ PREPOSITIONING THE DOB WITH TIME WHICH HAS “CULTURAL/ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS/ PERSONAL” ‘SIGNIFICANCE TO AN INDIVIDUAL (LIKE A PERSONAL LAW)NOT ONLY MAKES HIM TO RETIRE BEFORE HE COMPLETES 60 YEARS IN REAL TIME , BUT ALSO “ILLEGALLY FORCES HIM TO ACCEPT A “VIRTUAL DOB AND TIME” ” WHICH MUST BE TREATED AS IF IT ENCROACHES ON ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. ( AM I CORRECT?)
6.THERE IS NO VALID RATIONALE/ REASON TO DIVIDE THE INCUMBENTS BORN IN A MONTH -AS THOSE BORN ON 1ST- AND AS THOSE BORN ON 2ND OR ANY LATER DAY UP TO SAY LAST DAY OF THE MONTH,- BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES BOTH IN AGE AND CURTAILED OR EXTENDED SERVICE.; AND CONSEQUENTLY THE INFLICATED LOSS IN ONE TIMERETIREMENT BENEFITS LIKE LOSING ON THE UNIQUE “LIBERALISED PENSION FORMULAE”, ETC FOR THOSE BORN ON 1ST JAN… AS HAPPENING IN THE CURRENT CASE.
7.NOT REVIEWING THE “ABNORMAL ANOMALY” IN TIME TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO THE “MINISCULE SEGMENT OF VANISHING GROUP OF VERY OLD/ OLD PENSIONERS OF DOBS 1 1 1928/38/46 IS A GREAT INJUSTICE AND A GROSS VIOLATION ARTICLE 14
SO ON AND ON…. (WE MUST PRICK AS MANY HOLES AS POSSIBLE)
WE MUST ALSO EXAMINE THE CONTRADICTORY/ SEE-SAW VIEW-POINTS EMERGING FROM JUDGMENTS DELIVERED FROM TIME TO TIME ON SUCH ISSUES AND PUBLICISE THE SAME SO THAT THE OLD PENSIONERS ARE BETTER INFORMED!
THIS ISSUE MUST FIGURE IN ALL AGENDA OF OLD PENSIONERS RELATED MEETINGS WITH AUTHORITIES.WILL THE ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERATIONS CARE PL.?
DEAR SHRI GK JI/ OTHERS INVOLVED,
There is another possible DISTICTION OF GREAT DISCRIMINATION as explained hereunder.
PL EXAMINE THE SAME WRT UR OWN CASE.
BY MAKING AN EMPLOYEE (SAY -A) WITH DOB 1 1 1946 TO RETIRE ON 31 12 2005 JUST BEFORE HE COMPLETES THE STIPULATED 60 YEARS WITH NO CHANCE OF EXTENDED SERVICE AND AT THE SAME TIME GIVING ANOTHER EMPLOYEE ( SAY – WITH DOB 2.1.1946 EXTENDED SERVICE PROVISION UP TO LAST DAY OF THE MONTH SO AS TO RETIRE A 31 01 2006, THERE COULD BE ANOTHER DISTICTION WITH GREATER DISCRIMINATION/ DISPARITY.
EMPLOYEE ‘A’ MIGHT HAVE COMPLETED MORE THAN EVEN 37 YEARS (LIKE MANY OF US) IN GOVT SERVICE , THUS CROSSING THE MINM OF 33 YRS QS REQD FOR FULL PENSION LONG BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE ‘B’ , WHO MIGHT BE COMPLETING JUST 33 YEARS OF QS ONLY ON 31 12 2005 OR EVEN DURING EXTENDED PERIOD (IF ALLOWED) SAY ON 02 01 2006 OR EVEN LATER.
IF IT INVOLVES A COMPARABLE CASE OF RETD DY SECS TO GOI, THE RESULTANT DISCRIMINATION/ DISPARITY IS VIOALTION OF ART 39 AND ART 14 PUT TOGETHER.
A SENIOR BY SENIORITY DY SEC IS MADE TO ENJOY “CURTAILED/ REDUCE LIBERALISED PENSIONARY BENEFITS EVEN THOUGH HE HAD COMPLETED 37 YEARS OF SERVICE BY 31 12 2005 – HAVING COMPLETED THE REQUIRED 33 YRS QS LONG BACK – THAN A JUNIOR DY SEC WHO JUST COMPLETED 33 YEARS QS ONLY AT THE END OF HE DAY OF 01 01 2006 BUT HAVING A DOB OF 02 01 2006!!!
This situation is much much against principles of NATURAL JUSTICE because of the incredibly enforced DOB based retirements of prepostioning/ postponing the said DOBs.
AS THE ARRANGMENT RESULTS IN INCOMPARABLE SITUATIONs OF MAGNIFIED ERRORS, A HASTY REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO DO JUSTICE.
THE DISPARITIES MAY BE UNIMAGINABLE!
A MUCH MUCH JUNIOR SCALE RETIREE OF MUCH MUCH LESS THAN 33 YRS QS ie NOT HAVING SERVED THE GOVT FOR EVEN THE MINIMUM QS FOR FULL PENSION BUT BY SIMPLY BELONGING TO THE POST 01 01 2006 PERIOD, MAY DRAW MUCH MUCH MORE “LIBERALISE ONE TIME PENSIONARY BENEFITS” THAN THE FORMER/ HIS SENIOR BOTH IN SCALE OF APY AND LENGTH OF SERVICE! THIS DIFFERENCE MAY RUN INTO SEVRAL LAKHS OF RS IF WE TAKE CASE OF RETD DY SECRETARIES!
Respected Shri Vnatarajan sahib,
As suggested by you earlier now time has come to form a group of those born on the Ist January, 1946/1938/1928 so the we in a group could fight the injustice suffered by all of us. All concerned could come forward and facilitate formation of a group for taking up the matter in the court of law.
Wit h regards,
Dear Shri GK,
One Mr Kalyanaraman Vaidyanathan, ex Rlys, also appear to be of similar category- with DOB 1 1 46 and retired after full service and is also facing the same hardship due to denial of the SCPC benefits. He is related to my co pensioner in our Forum- Shri K Lakshminarayanan who is the contact peron for the former. Shri Lakshminarayanan’s email id is [email protected] . Pl forward a copy of your rep/ common rep draft to him immediately. Pl also endorse copy to me. Now you must go ahead without waiting long as very few appear to be in terested in pursuing the matter.I am also trying to locate others.
Pl act at your fastest.
Dear Shri Natarajan Sahib,
This is with reference to your post No, 31. My post No. 7 dated the 4th September, 2012 would give the background of the last stage of the case of ALL THOSE BORN ON THE Ist January, 1946. Briefely, the Secretary of the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals, i.e., my administrative Department had taken up the matter with his counterpart in the Department of Expenditure specifically mentioning that he did not agree with the Department of Expenditure that there was no hardship in these cases of pensioners born on the Ist January, 1946. He, however. agreed with the Dpartment of Expenditure that there was no case of relaxation of FR 56 in just one case of Gopal Krishan. In othere words the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals had suggested a way out for removing the hardship faced by all those born on the Ist January, 1946. His suggestion was simply a modification in the resolution of the Government of India vide which recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government. I have obtained a copy of the note vide whihc the recommendtion of the Secretary was examined in the Department of Expenditure. I would separately post a copy of the note received from the Department of Expenditure. From the note it would be seen that recommendation made by the DCPC has not at all been examined by the Department of Expenditure at all. With reference to the recommendations made by the SCPC it would be seen that the same has been brushed aside by simply stating that if the same is accepted the Department of Expenditure may have to approach to the cabinet. In other words they may have work for preparing a Note for the Cabinet. In fact the file was not placed before the Secretary, Department of Expenditure to whom the recommendation was made by the Secretary, DCPC. The matter was disposed of at the level of the Joint Secretary concerned.
In view of the above facts I met the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals after he expressed his unwillingness to take up the matter again with the Secretary, Department of Expenditure based on my representation submitted to him. He was still reluctant to take up the matter again. However, he suggested that we would take up the matter with the Secretary, Expdnditure direct based on his earlier recommendation. When I mentioned about the illogical grounds on which his recommendation was rejected, he also observed tht the grounds were absurd. Now I think we may have to take up the matter with the Minister of Finance and the Secretary, Department of Expenditure by sending as many representations as possible, based on all these developments. I seek your guidance.
Let us solve your observation with an example. One was employed in the pay scale of Rs 5000-8000 with basic pay Rs 5000. He will get the pension @ Rs 2500. If, however, he gets the benefit of VICPC his basic shall be Rs 9300+4200=13500 and 50% of this shall be Rs 6750. But in case of pensioner retiring before VICPC his basic pension be Rs 5650. To solve this problem, Govt has already notified that the minimum pension shall not be less than 50% of the pay + grade pay for the post person was holding at the time of retirement. If you give this benefit the person retiring with VCPC and pension revised as per VICPC shall also get the basic pension of Rs 6750
Respected S/Shri Natarajan sahib, Nagarajan ji and Sitaraman ji
In continuation of my post No. 34, I have emailed copy of the note vide which the recommendation of the Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals was examined by the Department of Expenditure at the level of the Joint Secretary although the Secretary, DCPC had made recommendation to the Secretary, Department of Expenditure. He had not suggested any relaxation of FR 56 in may case but had recommended relief to all those pensioners with the Ist January, 1946 as their date of birlth. Unfortunately, the Department of Expenditure wrongly thinking that the proposal was about the relaxation of the FR 56 the matter was examined. All this was superfluous. About the recommendation made by the Secretary, DCPC the Department of Expenditure felt that as the matter may have to be taken up with the cabinet for modification of the resolution accepting the recommendation of the 6th CPC the same deserved rejection. This is an absurd ground to reject a recommendation made by a Secretary to the Government of India in another Department.
As such I propose to write to the Secretary, Department of Expenditure about the same. I also feel we could send similar representations from the Associations side to the Finance Minister and the Secretary, Department of Expenditure inviting their attention to the recommendation made by the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals in respect of all those pensioners born on the Ist January, 1946 and lost benefits of the 6th CPC. We could also highlight the absurd examiniation done in the Department of Expenditure at the lowers levels and then rejecting the recommendation made by a Secretary to the Government of India, who in fact worked in the Finance Ministry earlier. I would also be attempting one such representation for the Secretary, Department of Expenditure for his consideration. In the meantiome we could get in touch with those born on the Ist January, 1946 so that a group is formed for going to CAT if efforts with the Ministry of Finance did not bring any positive results.
It is by chance that one has been retired on 31 December 2005 and lost all benefits under CPC. At last there is always some cut off date and one has to suffer. Suppose Govt grants benefit to the retiree of 31 December 2005, the retiree of 30 November 2005 shall raise voice and there be no end. Had Pt Jawaharlal Nehru accepted the suggestion of Krishna Menon to set up permanent wage board for Govt employees the situation would have been differnt
I feel there is some gap in understanding the situation.
CPC REVISIONS ARE NOT FREQUENT. THEY HAPPEN ONCE IN TEN YEARS – IF AT ALL THEY HAPPEN IN TIME. CASES OF DISPARITY LIKE SHRI GK ARE RATHER EXCEPTIONS.
EVEN THOUGH HE IS BORN ON 1 1 46, AFTER 60 YEARS OF AGE/ FULL QUAL SERVICE – BY COINCIDENCE OR PROVIDENCE, HIS DOB IS BEING MADE TO PREPOSITION AS IF IT IS 31 12 1945 AND HE IS BEING DENIED THE BENEFITS WHICH OTHER JAN BORN EMPLOYEES CAN GET AND ENJOY! IN WHAT WAY HE IS BEING TREATED AS UNEQUALS TO THEM?
WAS HE A PENSIONER ON 31 12 2005? NO HE WAS NOT – HE WAS IN SERVICE.
THEN WHEN DOES HE BECOME A PENSIONER- ON THE SAME DAY?
THEN WHY PAY HIS WAGES FOR THAT DAY?
SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PAID HIS WAGES FOR 1 JAN 2006, HE IS BEING DENIED THE REVISED PENSION BENEFITS AT THE REVISED RATES.
RULES ARE MADE FOR GENERAL CASES- THEY CAN NOT FORESEE EXCEPTIONS/ RARE CASES – LIKE SHRI GK’S.
WE ARE AWARE BABUDOM WILL TRY TO ESCAPE THRU FLIMSY EXCUSES AS MADE OUT IN THEIR FILES- IT IS THEIR WAY OF APPLYING RULES.HIGHER ECHELONS CAN CERTAINLY RESOLVE THE CASE IN NO TIME.
WHEN RULES ARE NOT FLEXIBLE/ OR RATHER MADE TO LOOK INFLEXIBLE BY LOWER LEVELS OF BABUDOM- AS IS HAPPENING IN EVERY MAJOR PENSIONERS’ CASE SO FAR (MOD PARITY- SPL PAY FOR PENSION- RANK PAY FOR PENSION ETC) , RECOURSE IS ONLY THRU JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS.
WE HAVE TO SEEK JUSTICE – WHICH ONLY CATS/ COURTS CAN GIVE US.
IF CPC REVSIONS WERE MONTHLY, THEN WHAT POINT IS BEING MADE OUT IS LOGICAL.
IT IS NOT SO HERE!
Hope this clarifies.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.