From PK Ranganathan
BRIEF FOR SECRETARY DOPT.
Past pensioners are entitled to a certain minimum pension, every time the
pay scale/pension is revised through the recommendations of the central
pay commissions. On the principle of modified parity, this minimum
pension is linked to the minimum of the corresponding new pay scales,(
being 50% of the minimum pay ) under the new CPC regime.
With the introduction of the concept of Pay Band, in the 6th CPC, several
5th CPC pay scales were grouped into 4 pay bands. Though the distinct
differentiation of the erstwhile pay scales were retained by creation of
corresponding concordance for the hierarchy of scales within each of the
pay bands, a misinterpretation that the minimum of the pay band and the
minimum of the corresponding pay within the pay band are same, resulted
in completely nullifying the protection of minimum pension envisaged in
the resolution accepting the 6th CPC recommendations and guaranteed
under the pension rules.
A majority of pensioners, , had represented against this injustice to
authorities in the government, in some cases right up to the PM/President
of India. Several pensioner groups were pushed to approach the courts of
law. Resulting in:
CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH observations/ DIRECTIONS:
29. From the above extracted portion it is clear that the principle of
modified parity, as recommended by the V CPC and accepted by the VI
CPC and accepted by the Central Government provides that revised
pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of
the pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to revised pay scale
from which the pensioner had retried. According to us, as already stated
above, in the garb of clarification, respondents interpreted minimum of pay
in the pay band as minimum of the pay band. This interpretation is
apparently erroneous, for the reasons:
Quote “In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the
clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which
is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated
11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common
order, are required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do.
Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees with
effect from 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the
light of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the
pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid
terms, with no order as to interest and costs.” Unquote.
The above directions of the CAT principal bench, has reached its absolute
legal finality, after judicial scrutiny through a writ in the high court, SLP in
the HSC, review on its dismissal and curative petition on the rejection of
review, all from the government side and dismissed.
It will be obvious that the above verdict is the enunciation of the principles
for fixing the pension in terms of Government resolution and covers ALL
Pre 2006 pensioners with effect from 01-01-2006., the observations of the
CAT leading to the above directions clarify that the minimum pension shall
be the min at 50% of the corresponding table of concordance for each
scale within the different pay bands.
Your attention is invited to DOP&PW OM F.No 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated
20-01-2013, authorizing stepping up of pension of pre 2006 pensioners
with effect from 24/09/2013, as per the concordance table. In terms of the
legal directions above, this revision of pension is due from 01-01-2006,
with accrued arrears thereon
Facts Admitted by GOI ( DOP&PW )
Lok sabha question and reply.
A group of employees had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT) on the issue
(d): Based on some petitions filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal by
pre-2006 retirees, Hon’ble Tribunal held that the clarification issued vide
OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in
conformity with the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
and the O.M. dated 1.9.2008. Central Administrative Tribunal directed to
re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the
resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of the observations made in
the judgement dated 1.11.2011 of the Hon’ble CAT.
(e): The Government has filed a Writ Petition in Delhi High Court
challenging the judgement dated 1.11.2011 of the Hon’ble CAT. The matter
is sub-judice.
Para ‘S” of Curative petition :
After the OM of 28.01.2013 which is prospective
l.e. appl icable w.e. f. 24.09.10 12, all pre-2006 pensioners are
entitled to draw the stepped up pensionary benefits. The present
Petition therefore is limited to the question of giving them the
stepped-up pensionary benefits retrospectively i.e. from 1.1.2006
till 23 September 2012 which as stated above is likely to cost the
public exchequer over Rs. 1400 crores.
Para12,13,23,15 and26 of MA/
12 That with regard to the clarification issued on the question of the
minimum of pay which is to be reckoned for the purpose of computing
revised pension in terms of oara 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, this Hon'ble
Tribunal observed that the contention of the Covemment fur treating the
starting point of the pay band as the minimum pay in the pay band cannot
be accepted. This Hon'ble Tribunal observed that the minimum pay for
the purpose of para 4.2 is the minimum pay adrr issible to a serving
employee as on 1.1.2000 in accordance with the fitment table for fixation
of pay of the serving employee. The Hon'ble Tribunal directeu the
fixation of pension in te rns of para 4.2 accordingly.
13.. It is also submitted that the only issue which was dealt with in the
order dated 01.11.2011 of this Hon'ble Tribunal, related to t'ie minimum
pay
in the pay band which was to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating
pension in terms of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008. The order dated
01.11.2011 of this Hon'ble Tribunal did not deal with any other clarification
issued in the OM dated 3.10.2008 and the subsequent OMs issued by the
Department of Pension and PW
23. That in the meantime an OM dated 2S.01.2013 was issued by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of
Pension and Pensioners' Welfare containing a decision to further f ~l:;pup
to
pension of pre-2006 pensioners as revised w.e.f In terms of para 4.1 or
para
4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.200S with reference to the fitment tables annexed
to
the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM aateo so" August,
2008. The said OM dated 28.01.2013 was issued in pursuance of a Cabinet
decision taken on the recommendations of a Committee of Secretaries and
the benefit approved for Armed Forces personnel has also been extended
to
the Central Civil pensioners. Although this decision of the Cabinet was an
An independent and fresh decision to be implemented from a prospective
date in
reference to the fitment tables annexed to the OM dated 30.0B.200B,
however, it takes care of the demand of pre-2006 retirees (including
petitioners herein) w.e.f. 24.09.2012. A copy of OM order dated
28.01.2013
is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-B.
25. As already submitted in the above paras, the only issue which was
dealt with in the order dated 01.11.2011 related to the minimum pay in the
pay band which is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of revised
pension of pre-2006 retirees and that this Hon'ble Tribunal had no
intention
to ouash all other clarifications issued in the OM dated J.t 0.200B.
26. It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal
maykindly pass a suitable clarificatory order cIarifying that tile order dated
01.11.2011 of this Hon'ble Tribunal is confined to the issue related to the
minimum pay in the pay band which is to be reckoned for the purpose of
calculation of revised pension of pre-2006 retirees in terms of para 4.2 of
OM dated 1.9.200B and that the said order dated 01.1'1.2011 will have no
effect on any other clarification issued vide OM dated 3.10.200B, including
the the clarification that the pension calculated in terms of para 4 2 dated
1 9.2008 will
be reduced pro-rata where the pensioners had less than the maximum
required service for full pension.
Facts legally established.
Dismissal of the writ petition
8. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not
burden ourselves any further. We conclude by noting that as regards the
substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government
accepts its correctness, but insists to make the same applicable
prospectively.
9. The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal is upheld but without any order as to costs.
Dismissal of SLP by the HSC
“We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the
petitioners are at liberty to raise all points before the Tribunal as and when
the appea
CAT PB Final Disposal Of CP and MA
C.P. No.158/2012 This is an application for initiating contempt proceedings
against the respondents for not carrying out the judgment/order of the
Tribunal dated 01.11.2011 in O.A. No.655/2010 and connected
cases. 2. At the outset, Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from Ms. Tripti Ghosh,
Director and Shri Harjit Singh, Dy. Secretary, submits that the Curative
Petition preferred by them has already been rejected by the Hon ble Apex
Court by order dated 30.04.2014, and that the Ministry of Law has advised
the Department to implement the aforesaid order of the Tribunal AS (qua
) the petitioners. He submits that some reasonable time may be given to
them to implement the aforesaid order. 3. In view of the above, we are of
the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending
and it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the
respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal
expeditiously, preferably within three months. 4. With the above
order, this Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notices issued to the
alleged respondents/contemnors are discharged. M.A. No. 1228/2014 In
view of the fact that Curative Petition has been rejected by the Hon
ble Apex Court and also in view of the submission made by Shri Rajesh
Katyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on
instructions made by the departmental representatives, that they have
been advised by the Ministry of Law to implement the order of this
Tribunal, in our view the Miscellaneous Application No.1228/2014
has become infructuous, and the same is, therefore, rejected."
Pasted from <http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/pre-2006pensioners-to-get-arrears-from-1-1-2006.html>
25. As already submitted in the above paras, the only issue which was
dealt with in the order dated 01.11.2011 related to the minimum pay in the
pay band which is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of revised
pension of pre-2006 retirees and that this Hon'ble Tribunal had no
intention to quash all other clarifications issued in the OM dated 0.200B.
Parliament reply
A group of employees had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT) on the issue
(d): Based on some petitions filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal by
pre-2006 retirees, Hon’ble Tribunal held that the clarification issued vide
OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in
conformity with the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
and the O.M. dated 1.9.2008. Central Administrative Tribunal directed to
re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees with effect from 1.1.2006, based
on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of the observations
made in the judgment dated 1.11.2011 of the Hon’ble CAT.
(e): The Government has filed a Writ Petition in Delhi High Court
challenging the judgment dated 1.11.2011 of the Hon’ble CAT. The matter
is sub-judice.
From S.C. Maheshwari
Pasted from <http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/pre-2006pensioners-cat-case.html>
BPS
Sub: Implementation of the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT,
Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 655/2010.
1 Kindly connect DOP &PW letter No. 38/7 7-A/09-P8.PW (A) dated 29th
May 2014 addressed to the Secretary (Shri sant Bhushan Lal) Central
Government SAG (S-29) on the above subject.
2. At the outset. we will like to point out that the above letter is in the
nature of continuation of willful defiance of the CAT’s order by DOP &PW
and is intended to GO AGAINST THE judicial directives. What is displayed
in this letter under reference is a deliberate misinterpretation and distortion
of the Hon’ble CAT’s order dated 15. 5.2014. Para 2 of the above
letter states that ‘As directed by the Hon’ble CAT, the order dated
01.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi is required to be
implemented in respect of petitioners in OA No. 655/2010″ which is
factually incorrect and misleading. Hon’ble CAT-PB vide its order dated
01.11.2011 quashed clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed to
refix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the
Resolution dated 29.08.2008. While dismissing WP (C) No 153512012 of
UOI on 29-4-2013, Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the verdict of the CAT
PB. Dismissing SLP (C) No.23055/2013 filed by UOI against the judgment
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 29-7-2013 and then Review Petition (C) No
2492/2013 on 12-11-2013 and finally Curative Petition (C) No 12612014 on
30.4.2011, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court with this, CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011 has attained legal
finality.
3. On 15.05.2014, the Hon’ble CAT-PB disposed of Contempt Petition No
158/2012 directing the UoI to implement the directions of the Tribunal
Honble Delhi High Court upholding the verdict of CAT PB, took note of
DOP letter F.No. 38137/08-P&PW (A) dated 28th January, 2013 whereby
the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners was stepped up from an arbitrary
date of 24-9-2012 as per the Resolution dated 29-8-2008. Further in Para 2
& 3 of the Judgment it is noted that the Government of India has tacitly
admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct and the
only issue that survives are the denying arrears to be paid to
the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006
4. The operative part of the Hon’ble CAT’s order dated 15-5-2014 is
contained in Para 3 and reads as “It would be appropriate to dispose of the
matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the
Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months.” (Emphasis added).
The direction of the Tribunal is with reference to its order dated 1-11-2011.
The Hon’ble CAT never diluted its order dated 1.11.2011 nor could it
have done so in its contempt jurisdiction especially when its order dated
1.11.2011 had got merged with the judgment dated 29.4.2013 of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 1535/2012.
4.1 Consequently, contention of implementing this directive only in respect
of the members of the SAG S-29 Association up to the date of filing of OA
No. 06550010 is not valid. All retired Central Government
employees covered under the category of pre-2006 pensioners are entitled
for re-fixation of pension from 1-1-2006 as per the directive of the CAT-PB
dated 1-11 -2011, which has been upheld right up to the Apex Court while
dismissing SLP/Review petition/curative Petition in this case.
5. We, therefore, earnestly request you to please implement judicial verdict
in its true spirit and content by issuing necessary instructions to the
concerned authorities to disburse the arrears of pension tor the period 1-12006 to 23-9 2012 and stop further harassment and hardship to the
aged pensioners in 70s and 80s (and a number of them being above 80-85
years at age) in their sunset years. For this, all that is required is to issue a
corrigendum to your OM No 38140/12-P&PW(A) dated 28-1-2013 making it
effective w.e.f. 1-1-2006.
Pasted from <http://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/pension/revision-ofpre-2006-pension-with-effect-from-01-01-2006.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Prime Minister, on occasions more than one, has made his pain felt at
the litigation initiated by the Ministry of Defence against disabled soldiers in
the Supreme Court. The issue also forms a part of the manifesto of the
ruling party.
The ruthlessness of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) of
the Ministry of Defence is bewildering, and it is also a cause of concern
that the Three Services Headquarters have not protested this sadism
strongly enough in the recent past.
It is thus very clear that the Prime Minister, and also the current
Defence Minister, who in all probability are very busy in the
upcoming budget, are unaware that it is business as usual
for junior functionaries of the DESW and that the said department
and Govt lawyers in the Supreme Court are continuing with their
tirade against disabled soldiers and other pensioners.
It is however heartening to note that people have taken a lead in informing
the political executive of this malaise and one such letter written to the
Prime Minister can be accessed by clicking here.
It is also heartening to see that the apex body of pensioners’
organisations- the Bharat Pensioners’ Samaj has also brought the
applicability of the revised pensions from 01January 2006 rather
than 24 September 2012 again to the knowledge of thePersonnel
Secretary. It may be recalled that the Curative Petition filed by
the last Govt against the relief granted to pensioners has already
been dismissedby the Supreme Court but the Union of India still
continues to contest similar cases right till the Apex Court.
It is the duty of all of us to ensure that the sentiments of old and
infirm pensioners, both civilian as well as military, and of disabled
soldiers and military widows, are brought to the knowledge of the
Prime Minister and the concerned Ministers, so that the dubious
intentions of junior functionaries of the Govt are not allowed to
override law, equity and justice or even to contravene the opinion
expressed by the Prime Minister.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LETTER CITED FOR CLICKING REPRODUCED:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From:
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Chairman IESM
Mob: +919312404269, 0124-4110570
Email ID: satbirsm@gmail.com
To:
Sh Narendra Modi
Hon’ble PM of India
PMO, North Block
New Delhi-110001
Sh Arun Jaitley
Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi- 110011
Sh Ravi Shankar Prasad,
Hon’ble Law Minister
Ministry of Law & Justice
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001
Sh Mukul Rohatgi
Attorney General of India
N-234 A, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi-110048
04 July 2014
CONTINUANCE AND FRESH INITIATION OF LITIGATION AND
APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT BY OFFICIALS OF MINISTRY
OF DEFENCE AGAINST DISABLED AND WAR DISABLED SOLDIERS
SUPPORTED BY GOVT LAWYERS, JUST AS WAS THE CASE IN THE
UPA GOVT ERA, WHICH IS AGAINST THE INTENTIONS
EXPRESSED BY THE HON’BLE PRIME MINISTER
Sirs
1. The Hon’ble Prime Minister has made it known publically
that he is against the massive amount of litigation initiated by
the Ministry of Defence against its own disabled and war
disabled soldiers in the Supreme Court. It may be pointed out
here that maximum number of appeals filed by the Ministry of
Defence under the UPA Govt and pending in the Supreme Court
are against disabled and war disabled soldiers against their
disability pension benefits amounting to (at times) as little as
under Rs 1000/- per month. It is not only financially impossible
for our soldiers to fight the mighty Govt at the Supreme Court
level but also a morale wrecker to see the establishment fight
tooth and nail against its own soldiers.
2. The PM has made it known that he was not in favour of such
litigation and this was emphatically highlighted even during his
rally for ex-servicemen in Rewari, Haryana. The ruling party had
also made this a part of the manifesto wherein it was
emphasized that such appeals would be minimized.
3. However, much against the wishes of the PM and the
manifesto, Government lawyers, including those now appointed
by the NDA Government, are continuing to fight pending cases
against disabled soldiers and are also filing fresh cases on the
instructions of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW)
of the Ministry of Defence.
It is learnt that thousands of more such cases are in line
to be filed in the Supreme Court against relief granted to
disabled soldiers by the High Courts and Armed Forces
Tribunals.
Approval of such appeals and massive litigation against disabled
soldiers was given by the last Raksha Mantri, Sh AK Antony, on
the demand of DESW.
4. Many of such cases/appeals are against the concept of
“broad-banding” of disability percentage of disabled soldiers
who were released from service on completion of tenure or
superannuation. Though the issue is now squarely covered by a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 5591/2006
Capt KJS Buttar Vs UOI, allowed on 31st March 2011, the
Government is still filing fresh appeals and not withdrawing
pending appeals based on the said dicta. In fact, the DESW of
MoD had obtained an opinion of the (then) Solicitor General Mr
Gopal Subramanium on continuance of filing of such appeals and
the Solicitor General had also advised the MoD to file a Review
Petition in the ibid Capt KJS Buttar’s case. A Review Petition was
then filed by the UPA Govt (RP 2688/2013) but the same has also
been dismissed on 21st January 2014 effectively closing the issue
once and for all. But still, by creating an artificial distinction and
by looking for excuses, the MoD is continuing with the earlier
UPA policy of forcing disabled military veterans to Court on the
same very subject.
5. Since it seems that the PM’s intentions and the contents of
the Manifesto are not known to the Law Officers representing
the current Government in the Supreme Court, universal
directions may kindly be issued to stop the harassment of such
soldiers and for withdrawal of all litigation initiated against the
soldiers specially disabled and war disabled soldiers in the
Supreme Court. Suitable directions may also be issued by the
Raksha Mantri to the Secretary of DESW and the Defence Services
HQs.
6. We have high hopes from the current Government to look
after the welfare and morale of our soldiers and veterans, and it
would not only be ethically and morally, but also legally correct
to initiate withdrawal of all such unprincipled litigation so as to
boost the spirit of our soldiers and their families, rather than
weaken it.
7. May we also request for an audience with the PM and the
RM to apprise them for issues concerning the defence fraternity
on date and time convenient to them. A meeting for half an
hour each with PM and RM are requested.
Thanking You
Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RAJENDRA KUMAR C L
‘PENSIONERS WELFARE’ OR ‘PENSIONERS HARASSMENT’?
The so called Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare of the
Ministry of Personnel continues to harass old and aged pre 2006
pensioners, mostly in their 70s/80s and even older, by continuing to defy
and circumvent the repeated judicial verdicts right up to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court over the last more than four and a half years. The Pay
Commission had recommended 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 the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from
which the pensioner had retired”. This was in conformity with the
consistent rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court that a homogenous group
of pensioners can not be divided into two based on an arbitrary
cut off date and that if a person was entitled to pension at the
time of retirement, the benefit of subsequent liberalization of the
scheme can not be denied to him.
This recommendation was accepted by the Government as incorporated in
its Resolution dated 29-8-2009. This was unauthorisedly modified, under
the garb of clarification, on 3-10-2008 stipulating that “The pension
calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade
pay would be calculated
(i)at the minimum of the pay in the pay band irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised
pay scale”.
On receipt of several representations, even the then MOS (F) took up this
matter under his DO letter dated 10-11-2008 to the then Prime Minister
and, in response, the then MOS (P) in his letter dated 9-1-2009 agreed
with it and a proposal to rectify was submitted by DOP to DOE.
Unfortunately, the latter rejected this proposal at the level of Director and
Secretary, without putting up to MOS(F), on the erroneous ground of
involving heavy financial implications. It may be emphasized that
correction of this unauthorized alteration did not entail any
additional financial burden because such a fixation of pension was
envisaged by Commission in its recommendations and duly
accepted by Government and consequently the financial
implications had already been taken into account while
announcing decision on CPC’s recommendations. If anything, the
Government has saved this money and earned interest thereon
over the last 6 years at the cost of old and aged pensioners.
Being aggrieved with reduction in pension and summary rejection of
various representations made by them, some of the S 29 (Senior
Administrative Grade) pensioners groups sought justice from Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Principal Bench New Delhi. After more than 1
½ years proceedings, CAT ruled in favour of the aggrieved pensioners. The
operative part of the CAT order contained in para 30 of its order dated 111-2011, is reproduced below:
“In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the
clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which
is also based upon clarificatiory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated
11.02.2009, whereby representation was rejected by common order, are
required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly do.
Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees
w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light
of our observations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension
and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order”.
Instead of complying with this judicial verdict, which was common to 4
OAs, Department preferred Writ petitions in Delhi High Court. In the
meantime, GOI issued orders dated 28-1-2013 allowing the modified
parity, as originally envisaged by Pay Commission and GOI decision
thereon as contained in Resolution dated 29-8-2008 but made it effective
w.e.f. 24-9-2012, thus once again denying the legitimate dues to the aged
pensioners for the period 1-1-2006 to 23-9-2012. These writ petitions were
dismissed by a common order dated 29-4-2013 and upheld the decision of
CAT.
Undeterred and contrary to its own Litigation Policy not to be a compulsive
litigant, the Department selectively filed SLP only in one case in Supreme
Court, which was dismissed on 29-7-2013 and the Review Petition was also
dismissed on 12-11-2013. It went on to file a Curative Petition in the
Supreme Court which has also been dismissed on 30-4-2014 with which
the CAT verdict has attained legal finality.
In the meantime, contrary to the principle of Res-Judicata, 3 SLPs were
separately filed in 3 other cases, also covered by the same common order
of CAT and Delhi High Court and on this ground denial of legitimate dues
to the aged pensioners continued. Finally, on the basis of a Contempt
Petition filed by Central Government SAG (S 29) Pensioners Association in
CAT, the Tribunal has once again directed the Government on 15-5-2014
to comply with their directions expeditiously, preferably within 3 months.
Not inclined still to comply fully with repeated judicial verdicts, the so called
Pensioners Welfare Department has now found a novel way of continuing
harassment of old pensioners by writing to the Association that only the
members up to filing of OA in early 2010 will be covered, thus depriving
other members of the Association, not to talk of other similarly placed
pensioners, of their legitimate dues even after 6 years and despite clear
judicial verdicts right up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Association has
disputed this distorted interpretation of judicial verdicts. Thus the game
of harassing old pensioners continues. Of about 660 members of
the Association, about 25 have already expired after institution of
legal proceedings in early 2010 and perhaps DOP&PW are waiting
for the rest of the pensioners also to expire so that the problem is
automatically solved.
*************************************************************
No. 38/77-A/09-P&PW(A)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Pension and Pensioners' welfare
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2014
To
The Secretary
(Shri sant Bhushan Lal)
Central Government SAG (S-29)
Pensioners' Association
C5/21, Grand Vasant
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi 110070
Subject:- Implementation of the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon'ble
CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No 655/2010
Sir,
I'm directed to forward herewith a copy of order dated 15.5.2014 of
the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
the above matter.
2. As directed by the Hon'ble CAT, the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon'ble
CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi is required to be implemented in respect
of petitioners in OA No 655/2010. The petitioner/applicant in the aforesaid
OA is an Association, namely Central Government SAG (S -- 29)
Pensioners Association. No details regarding the membership of the
Association are available in the OA.
3. In order to implement the above order of Hon'ble CAT in respect of
petitioners in OA No 655/2010, this Department requires the following
details in respect of members of the Association:-
(i) Names and addresses of the Office Bearers of the Association;
(ii) Is the Association registered with the Registrar of Societies or with
any other authority? If so, a copy of Registration Certificate may be
provided.
(iii) Following particulars/documents in respect of the members of the
Association at the time of filing of the OA No 665/2010:-
(a) Names of the members on the date of filing of OA No 655/2010
with evidence corroborating such membership on the date of filing of OA
No 655/2010.
(b) Addresses of Members mentioned at (a) above.
(c) Designation of the members.
(d) Details of Head of department/Head of Office/Pension Sanctioning
authority
(e) Details of the Pay and Account Office concerned.
(iv) An Undertaking regarding the truthfulness and correction of the
details given by the Association;
(v) A confirmation that all the members of the Association in respect of
whom the above details are given are retired Central Government Civil
employees.
4. It is requested that the above details/documents may be sent to the
Department by 4 our.06.2014.
5. It may please be noted that the Pension sanctioning authority is
concerned will be asked to implement the orders of the Hon'ble CAT only in
respect of those members whose details (with the proof) are furnished by
your Association. This Department will not be responsible for
delay/non-revision of pension in respect of any member of the Association
whose particulars are not furnished by the Association.
This issue with the approval of competent authority.
Enclosure:- a.a.
sd/-29/5/2014.
(SK Makkar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MOST URGENT SENIOR CITIZENS PENSIONERS CASE (AGED 7080 YEARS AND ABOVE)
To
28-6-2014
Dated
Shri S.K.Makkar
Under Secretary,
Department of Pensioners & Pensioners Welfare,
Lok Nayak Bhavan, 3rd Floor,
Khan Market,
New Delhi 110003
Dear Sir,
Sub: - Implementation of the order dated 1.11.2011 of Hon’ble CAT,
Principal Bench,
New Delhi in OA No.655/2010
Please refer to your letter No. 38/77-A/09-P&PW (A) dated 29th May, 2014
on the above subject.
2. At the outset, we will like to point out that your above letter is in the
nature of continuation of will full defiance of the CAT’s order and is
intended to GO AGAINST THE judicial directives. What is displayed in your
letter under reference is a deliberate misinterpretation and distortion of the
Hon’ble CAT’s order dated 15.5.2014. Para 2 of your above letter states
that “As directed by the Hon’ble CAT, the order dated 1.11.2011 of
Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi is required to be implemented in
respect of petitioners in OA No. 655/2010” which is factually incorrect and
misleading. Hon’ble CAT-PB vide its order dated 01.11.2011 quashed
clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed you to re-fix the pension
of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the Resolution dated
29.08.2008. While dismissing WP (C) No. 1535/2012 of UOI on 29-4-2013,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the verdict of the CAT-PB. Dismissing SLP
(C) No.23055/2013 filed by UOI against the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court by Apex Court on 29-7-2013 and then Review Petition (C)
No.2492/2013 on 12-11-2013 and finally Curative Petition (C) No.
126/2014 on 30-4-2014, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. With this, CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011,
referred to by you, has attained legal finality.
3. On 15.05.2014, the Hon’ble CAT-PB disposed of Contempt Petition
No.158/2012 directing the UOI to implement the directions of the Tribunal.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, upholding the verdict of CAT-PB, took note of
DOP letter F.No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 28TH January, 2013 whereby the
pension of all pre-2006 pensioners was stepped up from an arbitrary date
of 24-9-2012 as per the Resolution dated 29-8-2008. Further in Para 2 & 3
of the judgement it is noted that the Government of India has tacitly
admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct and the
only issue that survives are the denying arrears to be paid to the
pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006.
4. The operative part of the Hon’ble CAT’s order dated 15-5-2014 is
contained in Para 3 and reads as “It would be appropriate to dispose
of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the
directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three
months.” (Emphasis added). The direction of the Tribunal is with
reference to its order dated 1-11-2011. The Hon’ble CAT never diluted its
order dated 1.11.2011 nor could it have done so in its contempt jurisdiction
especially when its order dated 1.11.2011 had got merged with the
judgment dated 29.4.2013 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.
1535/2012.
4.1 Consequently, your contention of implementing this directive only in
respect of the members of the Association up to the date of filing of OA
No. 0655/2010 (as implied in Para 3(iii) (a) of your letter) is not valid. The
Association was formed with common interests and registered under the
Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 (Registration No. 68702/2010).
Consequently, all the members of the Association are fully covered under
the directive dated 1-11-2011 of CAT-PB.
5. Notwithstanding, the above background and legal position, the
information called for by you under Para 3 of your letter, to the extent
relevant to establishing our legal standing, however, is being furnished in
the following paragraphs:
(i) Names and address of the Office Bearers of the Association: The names
of the Office Bearers of the Association are given in the margin of this
letter head. The registered Office of the Association is C5/21, Grand
Vasant, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -110070.
(ii) As mentioned earlier, the Association is registered with Registrar
Societies, Delhi, under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 (Registration
No. 68702/2010). A copy of the Registration Certificate is enclosed.
(iii) 2 copies of the list of Members of the Association were handed over to
GOI Advocate on 15-5-2014 at the time of hearing of the Contempt
Petition in CAT.
(iv) It is confirmed that the particulars given in the list of members of the
Association given to your Advocate on 15-5-2014 are correct as per our
records.
(v) It is also confirmed that the names given in the list handed over to your
Advocate on 15-5-2014 are all members of the Association as per the
eligibility criteria of the Association. They are all retired Central
Government employees and covered under the category of pre-2006
pensioners entitled for re-fixation of pension at Rs 27350 from 1-1-2006 as
per the directive of the CAT-PB dated 1-11-2011, which has been upheld
right up to the Apex Court while dismissing SLP/Review petition/Curative
Petition in this case.
6. We, therefore, earnestly request you to please implement judicial verdict
in its true spirit and content by issuing necessary instructions to the
concerned authorities to disburse the arrears of pension for the period 1-12006 to 23-9 2012 and stop further harassment and hardship to the aged
pensioners in 70s and 80s (and a number of them being above 80-85 years
of age) in their sunset years. For this, all that is required is to issue a
corrigendum to your OM No.38/40/12-P&PW(A) dated 28-1-2013 making it
effective w.e.f. 1-1-2006, under advice to the undersigned.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(PRATAP NARAYAN)
PRESIDENT
From V Natarajan
IMPORTANT DOCUUMENT
I am attaching the scanned copy of the RTI reply DT 3 jULY 2014
received by me FROM DOP ON THE SUBJECT OF CURATIVE
PETITION DISMISSAL ON 30 APRIL 2014 AND FOLLOW UP
ACTIONS OF DOP THEREOF..
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE VITAL AS A CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORT
IF NEEDED.
Intentions OF DOP are clear.
THEY HAVE INTERPRETED THE CAT JUDGMENT TO BE IN
AGREEMENT WITH THEIR SUBMISSION ON MOLAW'S ADVICE TO
IMPLEMENT THE CAT VERDICT OF 1 II 20111 IN OA655/2010
QUA PETITIONERS.
REPLY IS AUDACIOUS/ ARROGANT/.EVEN CAT IS TAKEN IN and
in short it reveals their stubbornness niot to accommodate even a
single inch beyond their stand already made know in letters to
CGSAGPA to STICK TO TYHEIR DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THE
CAT VERDICT TO OA 655/ 2010 PETITIONERS ONLY REPEAT
ONLY; and to supply file note copies only when a final decision is
atken in SLP SITER GRPO CASES by the HSC.
I can make more noise as a member---even be irresponsible- prvent the
"aproper course of action".... and the go for another freah roiund of
LITIGASTION"
That is the stategy DOP has adopted... nior dividing our memebrs which is
a very samll thing, AS WE ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT OURSELVES....
But heir main agenda is to saomehow make us go for a FRESH ROUND OF
LITIGATION-..TO MAKE US TO CHALLENGE THEIR INTERPRETATION OF
CAT JUDGMENT IS WROMG....TO GO TO CAT FOR "CLARIFICATORY
PETITION"- THEN CHALLENGE THE SAME AT DHC- THEN HSCSLP/RP/CUR PETN....
This has happened in alll the important cases...even recently in RANK PAY
cae when they interpred the HSC VERDICT/ ORDER ITSELF---- changking
the expressioin ..." from 1 1 1986",,,, to "as on 1 1 1986"....and the
goofing military pensioners went for a fresh round of chal;lenge withgout
gettiing an ordewr ....and iot went in circles for more than 3 years till
now....(rest shro mbr can explain as he appears to have read the case
crfitically.....)
BABUDONM IS DESTRUCTIVE..... THEY NECER SEE ANY REASON....WHAT
THEY HAVE DECIDED STANDS.... IT ISD ONLY CGSAGPA WHO HAVE WON
A CASE IN 4 YEARS AND ODD.... NOW WESALL SURRENDER MEEKLY TO
THEIR STRATEGIC PLAN........
. I WAS WONDERING HOW PR BENCH CAT CAN MAKE ANY
OMISSION IN ITS ORDER OF 15 MAY 2014 WRT "QUA
PETITIONERS" EXPRESSION.
That PETITIONERs in the said judgment can be clearly established
in the top part of the order itself , wh is reproduced :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
C.P. No.158/2012
O.A. No. 655/2010
M.A. No. 1228/2014
New Delhi, this the 15th day of May, 2014
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SYED RAFAT ALAM, CHAIRMAN
HON BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
HON BLE DR. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER (A)
1. Central Government SAG (S-29)
Pensioners Association
Through its Secretary Shri Sant Bhushan Lal,
C-5/21, Grand Vasant,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110 070.
2. Shri Satish Varma,
Retd. Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission,
Ministry of Water Resources,
Govt. of India,
Resident of B-6/8, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110 057. .. Petitioners
(By Advocate : Shri Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sushil
Malik, Shri M.K. Ghosh and Shri Tarun Gupta)
Versus
1. Mr. R.C. Misra,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110 003.
2. Mr. Sumit Bose,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi.
.. Proposed Contemnors/
Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Rajesh Katyal and with Shri D.S. Mahendru
with departmental representatives Ms. Tripti Ghosh,
Director and Shri Harjit Singh, Dy. Secretary)
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam
C.P. No.158/2012
This is an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the
respondents for not carrying out the judgment/order of the Tribunal dated
01.11.2011 in O.A. No.655/2010 and connected cases
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Therefore we are on firm ground and we should not fall into
the trap of DOP for further litigations in any (Exec Petn in CATDHC) mode....even in case of Clarificatory Application if it has to be in a
legal mode involving DOP again .....we may have to examine the same
thoroughly ,
3.Consequently, we may now send a full correct list, reiterate in our
forwarding letter (to be drafted powerfully covering all points, disputing the
unilateral interprentation/ segmental implementation aspect etc....) and
also point out at the very start that as per the PR BENCH CAT
JUDGMENT ORDER of 15 May 2014 , the CGSAGPA are the
'PETITIONERS' in letter & spirit on the day of cp judgment ie 15
MAY 2014 and we can not accept anything short of
implementation of the judgment for all the Member-Petitioners of
CGSAGPA in even time, without discrimination, omission,
manipulation, misinterpretation of Cat verdict etc.
4. MY FURTHER RESEARCH SHOWS THAT MANY DEPARTMENTS
ARE ALLOWED UP TO SIX MONTHS TO IMPLEMENT THE
TRIBUNAL / COURT ORDERS (an internal arrangement they have
evolved ...may be DOPT has given such a scope...) and so
Babus my dilly dally for six months - to test our patience- or even
make us go for litigation.
RTI-Online APPLICATION (on qua petitioners)DP&PW/R/2014/60344 dt 20 7 2014
My latest RTI query sent today on the issue of DOP's vested interpretation
of PR BENCH CAT's disposal order dt 15 May 2014 in the CP 158/2012 ,
claiming the CAT has "agreed' for their submission to CAT based on the
MOLAW advise to implement CAT Verdict of 1 11 2011 qua petitioners- viz
applicants of OA 655/ 2010. .
VN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Online RTI Request Form Details
Public Authority Details :-
* Public Authority
Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:* Name
V NATARAJAN
Gender
Male
* Address
7 JAYARAM AVENUE, , SASTRI NAGAR, ADAYAR PO,,
CHENNAI
Pincode
600020
Country
India
State
Tamilnadu
Status
Urban
Educational
Status
Literate
Above Graduate
Phone Number
+91-4424924296
Mobile Number
+91-9884253887
Email-ID
v_nattu[at]hotmail[dot]com
Request Details :Citizenship
Indian
* Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ?
No
(Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters)
* Description of Information Sought
Dear CPIO Sir,
Kind attention is invited to your letter No 38/7/2014-P&pw(A) dt
3 July 2014 in reply to my RTI application dated 5.6.2014.
Query:
Drawing your attention to para 2 of the letter wherein it is
categorically stated :THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL HAS AGREED TO
THE SUBMISSION MADE BY GOVERNMENT THAT ORDER DATED
1.11.2011 IS DECIDED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN RESPECT OF
PETITIONERS OF OA NO. 655/2010 ONLY :
a. KINDLY FURNISH COPIES OF ALL MATERIAL INFORMATION TO
SUBSTANTIATE CATEGORICALLY THE ABOVE STATEMENT
b.. IS THE INFORMATION THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE
STATEMENT- AN INTERPRETED PART OF THE JUDGMENT / ORDER
DT 15 5 2014 OF THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL DISPOSING THE
CONTEMPT PETITION NO 158/2012 OR AN ACTUAL EXTRACT . IF
SO
PROVIDE COPIES OF RELATED MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE
SAME.
c. Kindly furnish RELATED FILE NOTE copies on the above.
Additional charges if any will be remitted as per your directions.
Truly yours,
V NATARAJAN
* Concerned CPIO
Nodal Officer
RTI ONLINE REGISTRATION:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Your RTI Request has been filed successfully on RTI Online Portal. The
following are the details:Registration Number: DP&PW/R/2014/60344
Name: V NATARAJAN
Date of Filing: 20/07/2014
Request filed with: Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Contact Details:Telephone Number: 01127492567
Email Id: mkumar.mol@nic.in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Tribunals Act [SBC 2004] CHAPTER 45
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Amendment to final decision
53 (1) If a party applies or on the tribunal's own initiative, the
tribunal may amend a final decision to correct any of the
following:
(a) a clerical or typographical error;
(b) an accidental or inadvertent error, omission or other similar
mistake;
(c) an arithmetical error made in a computation.
(2) Unless the tribunal determines otherwise, an amendment
under subsection (1) must not be made more than 30 days after
all parties have been served with the final decision.
(3) Within 30 days of being served with the final decision, a party
may apply to the tribunal for clarification of the final decision and
the tribunal may amend the final decision only if the tribunal
considers that the amendment will clarify the final decision.
(4) The tribunal may not amend a final decision other than in
those circumstances described in subsections (1) to (3).
(5) This section must not be construed as limiting the tribunal's
ability, on request of a party, to reopen an application in order to
cure a jurisdictional defect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From G Natarajan
Sorry for the delay in responding. In fact I was busy searching case law
that the benefit of an order/judgment should be extended to the similarly
placed persons. Later, I realised that it is unnecessary for the present since
the original order of CAT is categorical in ordering the benefit of its order
to all the pre-2006 pensions without any qualification/disqualification.
Anyway, if need be, at a later stage, I will invest my time in searching the
case law in case need arises.
So, for the present, I will only dilate on the grounds on which a clarification
application could be filed. Precisely, the grounds may be:
1. UOI is acquiesced in its stand that the financial constraint stressed upon
by it relates to all the pre-2006 pensioners. It could not have submitted
limited application; nor could the CAT agree to it. Thus doctrine of
Acquiescence applies.
2. Having argued against payment of arrears to the pre-2006 pensioners in
Toto and having failed before the CAT, HC and the SC (in SLP, Review and
even in Curative Petition), UOI is estoped from raising the plea of qua the
petitioners only. Hence doctrine of Estopal is applicable.
3. CAT having ordered payment of arrears to all pre-2006 pensioners and it
having been upheld up to SC, even CAT itself cannot restrict it to
petitioners qua. The contempt petition prayed for implementation of
CAT order. And when it has ordered implementation of its earlier order, it
is absolutely unqualified or unrestricted.
4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is also applicable since all the pre2006 petitioners got the arrears from September, 2012 and have a logical,
legitimate expectation that they will get arrears from Jan. 2006 as well.
This legitimacy and its expectation cannot be brushed aside either by the
UOI or CAT.
5. Strictly speaking, there is no specific order on the shaky ground on the
basis of advice from Ministry of Law that the benefits would be restricted to
petitioners qua.
6. Neither the Ministry of Law nor the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of
Personnel cannot give an interpretation to the CAT order on contempt.
Such an interpretation shows the high handedness on the part of UOI and
should be construed to be interference in the judicial process, and
sidetracking the core issue.
7. UOI is expected to be a model employer and not a meddling employer,
playing with the lives of lakhs of pensioners. CAT should have taken note
of it and passed an order on the empty/hallow claim of the UOI.
8. CAT is thus required to clarify its order or reiterate its order and should
specifically spell out that the petitioners qua claim put forward by the UOI
is categorically and emphatically negatived.
The above according to me, are valid grounds for approaching CAT with a
clarification application.
You may consider the above and add any other ground that might occur to
you because of your involvement over the last few years.
From PK Ranganathan
* Public
Authority
Department of Pensions & Pensioners
Welfare
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:* Name
P.K.RANGANATHAN
Gender
Male
* Address
Flat No 204,Signet Castle,
30/2,Valmikistreet,
Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai.
Pincode
600041
Country
India
State
Tamilnadu
Status
Urban
Educational
Status
Literate
Graduate
Phone Number +91-4424425558
Mobile
Number
+91-9445380116
Email-ID
Ranganathan.perumbadi@gmail.com
Request Details :Citizenship
Indian
* Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ?
No
(Description of Information sought (upto 500
characters)
* Description of Information Sought
Dear Sir,
Kindly refer to CAT Principal Bench,Delhi, judgement order dated 01-112011,in OA No 655/2010, Quote . "Respondents are directed to re-fix the
pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution
dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the
respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are
allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs."
The above order has been upheld in the WP No 15359/2012 in the Delhi
High Court and SLP (C)No 23055/2013,Review Petition (C) No 2492/2013
and ultimately in the Curative Petition (C) No1261/2014 in the Supreme
Court,thus attaining legal finality.
Hearing the Contempt Petition (C) No 158/2012, for non implimentaton of
their above order on OA 655/2011, CAT Principal Bench, on 15/05/2014,
taking note of the "submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on instructions made by the departmental
representatives, that they have been advised by the Ministry of Law to
implement the order of this Tribunal" disposed of the contempt and
connected MA No 1228/2014.with direction to the respondents to
implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably
within three months.
Kindly furnish the factual material information on the actions taken till date
wrt re-fixation of pension of all pre-2006 pensioners. Kindly furnish
RELATED FILE NOTE copies and orders if any issued ,on the above.
Additional charge if any will be remitted as per your directions.
Yours Sincerely,
P.K.Ranganathan.
From V Natarajan
NOTE ON PRE 2006 PENSIONERS’ PLIGHT- COMPULSIVE LITIGATIONS-GRIEVANCE:
Submission on 25 7 2014.
While implementing the Sixth CPC recommendations for revision of pension of pre 2006
pensioners in accordance with the Cabinet Decision notified vide DOP’s Resolution dt 29 8 2008 /
Executive Instruction vide OM dt 1 9 2008 , the said orders were improperly modified through
OMs dtd 3 /14 Oct 2008 which resulted in reduced pensions (Rs 198 to Rs3650 pm basic ) wef 1 1
2006 for segments of pre 2006 pensioners in pre-revised pay scales S29 (all), 21-23 and few more .
As all appeals made to the authorities for remedy were rejected en masse (vide OM dt 11 2 2009) ,
aggrieved Pensioners/ Pensioner Associations/ Groups went for legal redressal thru PR BENCH
CAT, which gave the verdict on 1 11 2011 in favour of the pensioners , ordering that revised
pension must be in terms of the Cabinet Decision/ Gaz Resolution dt 29 8 2008, wef 1 1 2006 , and
arrears to be paid within 90 days (para 30 of PB CAT Judgment dt 1 11 2011 common to
CGSAGPA’s OA No 655/ 2010 and 3 more groups).
Authorities went in appeal to Delhi High Court (DHC) thru 4 writ petitions, against the 4 groups ,
against the common PBCAT judgment referred above. On 29 4 2013 , the DHC dismissed all the
four writ petitions and also made an observation on the OM dt 28 Jan 2013 issued unilaterally by
the authorities (for Enhanced Revised Pension wef 24 9 2012 instead of wef 1 1 2006 for the pre
2006 pensioners ) that by this OM the authorities have tacitly agreed to their omission and what
all remains to be settled is the arrears for the period 1 1 2006 to 23 9 2012. DHC in their order
upheld the PB CAT judgment in toto.
Not respecting the DHC / CAT judgments, authorities singled out one Group –CGSAPA and filed
an SLP in Hon Supreme Court (HSC) against them on the verdicts of PB CAT and DHC which was
dismissed on 29 7 2013. Authorities continued with Review Petition and Curative Petition in
HSC against the CGSAPA contesting the verdicts pertaining to their cases alone, which were
dismissed on 12 11 2013 and 30 4 2013.
THIS LENGTHY LEGAL BATTLE BROUGHT LEGAL FINALITY TO THE CASE OF CGSAGPA IN OA
655/2010 on 30 APRIL 2014. Thus PB CAT judgment dated 1 11 2011 is merged with the HSC
judgment finally and none can change its content or meaning in any way. Authorities are to kindly
appreciate and help old pensioners get justice.
“PETITIONERS” CGSAGPA THRU ITS SECRETARY SANT BHUSHAN LAL AND MEMBER SATISH
VARMA ,in early May 2014, REVIVED THE PENDING CONTEMPT PETITON CP 158/2012 (PENDING
AT THE PB CAT SINCE FEB 2012 TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUEST OF AUTHORITIES TO
MAKE THEIR APPEAL AT DHC ) AND ON 15 MAY 2014, THE PB CAT ALLOWED THE SAME NOT
ONLY FOR THE PETITIONERS BUT ALSO REITERATED THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT
THEIR ORIGINAL JUDGMENT DT 1 11 2011 FOR ALL PRE 2006 PENSIONERS. No divisive order
was made by them in any way. There was no ambiguity in their order.
Again, instead of implementing the above orders of the PBCAT that too after the Curative Petiton
dismissal, authorities have resorted to discriminative/divisive approach, misinterpreting the
PBCAT verdict by issuing letters to CGSAGPA seeking lengthy details on membership and
resorting to restrict the payment of arrears only to its MEMBERS as at the time of filing of OA
655/2010 in CAT. The authorities in an RTI Reply dated 3 July 2014 have even claimed that PB CAT
HAS AGREED on this , a stand never found OR SUBSTANTIATED in any of the PB CAT judgments
and in records available to the “Qua Petitioners”.May I on behalf of the aggrieved/ harassed lot of
pre 2006 pensioners appeal to you to intervene and bring justice to all concerned. (Relevant
Documents enclosed for reference)
Submitted by V NATARAJAN Pre 2006 Pensioner/ Sr Citizen to Hon. Secretary to GOI, Dept of
Pensions Dt 25 july 2014 at Anna Institute of Management ,Chennai.
Enclosures included PB CAT CP Verdict 158/2012 dt 15 May 2014; Cur Petn Dismissal 126/2014 Order dt 30 4 2014; RTI
reply to VN dtd 3 Juky 2014.
No.BPS/SG/2014/3
Dated : 30-05-2014
Shri Narendra ModiJee
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
Prime Minister’s Office
New Delhi.
Esteemed Sir,
I, on behalf of ‘Bharat Pensioner’s Samaj’, extend hearty
greetings to you on your taking over as Prime Minister of
India following a land-slide victory in 2014 LokSabha
Elections of the largest democracy in the world which had
been facing a fractured mandate during the past decades.
It is hoped that with your vision in cooperation with your
learned and able cabinet colleagues, you will succeed in
uplifting the stature of India in various fields especially
removal of corruption and uncontrolled inflation, sexual
abuse of women& eradication of poverty etc. Poverty
anywhere is a source of danger to prosperity resulting the
masses going astray and the youth resorting to anti-social
activities. May God grant you a long, healthy & prosperous
life to serve the Nation and the Humanity at-large.
I am sorry to encroach upon your valuable time in
the busy-schedules. However, your personal indulgence is
sought in few problems of the pensioners. ‘Bharat
Pensioner’s Samaj’ is pensioners Federation with over 550
Central Govt. Pensioners Associations including those of
Railways, Defence Civilians, Telecommunications affiliated
to it and 4000 individual members of Central Govt. , State
Govts., PSUs etc., is the oldest Pensioners Federation in
the country looking after the welfare of Pensioners since
1955. BPS has the distinction to have found a mention in
UNFPA publication. By virtue of this, it is a stake holder in
all activities of Pensioners.
Two problems of the Pensioners need your personal
focus pending release of the recommendations of VII
Central Pay Commission setup recently.( 1)to compensate
the erosion of the financial position of the pensioners with
rising cost of living, Dearness Relief requires merger with
pension wherever it goes beyond 50%. Employees get
automatic relief; by way of 25% increase in their
allowances but pensioners do not get this advantage. To
strike a balance, it is requested that Dearness relief be
merged with Pension automatically whenever it crosses
50% mark. (2) Government often indirectly pressurizes
Courts by appealing again & again to get judgments
reversed in its favor. Vth CPC had recommended in Para
126.5 of their report that any Court Judgment involving a
common policy matter of pay / pension to a group of
employees / pensioners, should be extended automatically
to similarly placed employees / pensioners without driving
every affected individual to the Courts of Law. To help
pensioners in the evening of their lives it is requested that
Vth CPC afore quoted recommendation may kindly be
implemented in letter & spirit.
Sir, acceptance of these two requests would go a
long way in giving Central Govt. pensioners & family
pensioners a cheer and comparatively peaceful life. BPS
sure you will endeavour to add life to the years of
pensioners who in their hay days had ceaselessly toiled for
the development of the country.
May I assure you, Sir, pensioners would not lagbehind in extending their whole hearted cooperation,
whenever and wherever needed?
With warm regards,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/
(S.C. Maheshwari)
Secretary General
Shri Arun JaitleyJee
Hon’ble Minister of Finance,
Govt. of India
New Delhi.
Respected Sir,
I, on behalf of ‘Bharat Pensioner’s
Samaj’(BPS)greet you on assuming the charge of
Ministry of Finance at a time when the nation is facing
problems of inflation, corruption and various other
social-economic problems. I am sure that with your
wisdom, out-standing ability and experience in various
fields, you will tackle these effectively & efficiently.
‘Bharat Pensioner’s Samaj’is confident that you will also
be considerate enough in giving relief to Pensioners in
the matter of income-tax etc. and in simplifying various
tax returns much to the advantage of a common citizen
with an eye to plug the loop holes and increase in
Government revenues.
‘Bharat Pensioner’s Samaj’(BPS) is a Federation of
over 550 affiliated Central Govt. Pensioners Associations
including those of Defence , Railways &PSUs.BPS is in
existence since 1955 and finds mention in the UNFPA
publication. BPS seeks your intervention in meeting the
just demands of the pensioners pending release and
implementation of the recommendations of VII Central
Pay Commission setup recently.
i)
Dearness Relief – 100% neutralization with
automatic merger with Pension whenever it
goes to 50% : Pension undergoes revision only
once in 10 years during which period the pension
structure gets seriously misaligned as 50%
increase in prices takes place in less than 5 years
resulting in considerable erosion of the financial
position of Pensioners. Working employees get
automatic relief by way of 25% increase in their
allowances. No such relief is available to
pensioners. To strike a balance, it is requested
that DR may automatically be merged with
pension whenever it goes to 50%.
ii)
Govt. should not indirectly pressurize Courts
by appealing again and again to get
judgments in its favors. Instead of
implementing Court Judgments in case of all
similarly placed persons as recommended by V
CPC in Para 126.5 of their report. Govt. in spite of
losing in the highest Court is going in appeals
again and again not only to harass helpless
pensioners but also to waste public money &
court’s valuable time. It is therefore requested
that instead of forcing the Pensioners to approach
legal forums again & again for the same relief in
the evening of their lives. Court Judgment
involving a common policy matter of pay / pension
to a group of employees / pensioners should be
extended automatically to similarly placed
employees / pensioners.
I am sorry to have encroached upon your valuable time
but I am sure your personal attention & directives will
go a long way in giving solace to pensioners. May God
grant you a long healthy, happy and prosperous life in
the years to come.
With kindest regards,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/
(S.C. Maheshwari)
Secretary General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad
Hon’ble Minister of Law & Justice,
Govt. of India
New Delhi.
Dear Sir,
I, on behalf of ‘Bharat Pensioner’s Samaj’ (BPS),
convey to you the heartiest congratulations on taking
over charge of the Ministry of Law &Justice. I wish you
a long and successful tenure.
Fully realizing that you are busy in getting
acquainted with various aspects of your ministry vis-avis working of the departments under your charge, I
cannot restrain myself from bringing to your kind notice
a burning problem of the Central Govt. Pensioners
which, at present, is agitating their minds. To recall, a
group of pre 1.1.2006 pensioners in the matter of
incorrect implementation of modified parity
recommended by VI th Central Pay Commission, had
approached the honourable CAT New Delhi vide OA
No.655/2010 a favorable order was issued on
01.11.2011and after great struggle up-to highest court
got the final compliance orderon15/5/2014 in CP
No.158/2012, OA No.655/2010 & MA No.1228/2014
refers (copy enclosed) from PCAT New Delhi. This final
compliance order of 15-05-2014 has been delivered
after dismissal of all Govt. Appeals, SLPs and Curative
petition to the Honourable Apex Court.
BPS earnestly appeals to your good- self to issue
directive for implementation of orders dated 15-05-2014
to all similarly placed pre-2006 pensioners/family
pensioners in tune with the recommendations of V CPC
contained in Para 126.5 of their report without, driving
every affected individual Pensioner/family pensioner to the
Court of Law.
With warm regards,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/
(S.C. Maheshwari)
Secretary General
Similar treatment for similarly situated - Extension
of benefit of Judgment to all aggrieved
“the entire class of employees who are similarly
situated are required to be given the benefit of the
decision whether or not they were parties to the original
writ, in cases where a principle or common issue of
general nature applicable to a group or category of
Government employees is concerned”
"Only because one person has approached the
court that would not mean that persons similarly
situated should be treated differently".
For kind information pl. Best Regards Jai Shri
Krishna.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
A.S.Peethambaran, S/O Late ... vs Union Of India,
Represented By The ... on 19 September, 2012
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No.1013 /2011
Wednesday, this the 19th day of September,
2012.
"(b) In Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2
SCC 648, the Apex Court has held as under:&quot;... those who could not come to the court
need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those
who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly
situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by
anyone else at the hands of this Court.
(c) The V Central Pay Commission in its
recommendation, in regard to extension of benefit of
court judgment to similarly situated, held as under:&quot;126.5 - Extending judicial decisions in
matters of a general nature to all similarly placed
employees. - We have observed that frequently, in
cases of service litigation involving many similarly
placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only
extended to those employees who had agitated the
matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot
of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the
judgment given by the Full Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S.
Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI &amp; others (O.A. Nos.
451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the
entire class of employees who are similarly situated are
required to be given the benefit of the decision whether
or not they were parties to the original writ.
Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the
Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other
judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94
(SC) ], dated 20-7- 1998; K.I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT
1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1)
SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions
taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the
Government should be applied to all other identical
cases without forcing the other employees to approach
the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We
clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a
principle or common issue of general nature applicable
to a group or category of Government employees is
concerned and not to matters relating to a specific
grievance or anomaly of an individual employee.&quot;
(d) In a latter case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers'
Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.,(2006) 10 SCC
346, , the Apex Court has referred to the decision in the
case of State of Karnataka vs C Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC
747 as under:
&quot;29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this
Court from time to time postulates that all persons
similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only
because one person has approached the court that
would not mean that persons similarly situated should
be treated differently.&quot;"
Respected Sir, Namaskar Jai Shri Krishna.
My GC post of date is reproduced hereunder, for
advising me to edit if so required to the extent of
your kind advice. It is already appearing in the
Gconnect forum as posted by me now.
Any corrections, that may be required in the
common interest, can be made immediately on receipt
of your kind reply.
"The submission of the Respondents in the
Contempt Case as per CAT decision dated 15.5.2014 as
reproduced hereunder, appears to be an indication of
their preparedness to implement now their OM dated
28.1.2013 that allowed implementation of CAT Verdict
dated 1.11.2011 only w.e.f. 24.9.2012, retrospectively
from 1.1.2006.
"the Ministry of Law has advised the Department
to implement the aforesaid order of the Tribunal qua
the petitioners. He submits that some reasonable time
may be given to them to implement the aforesaid
order".
If the effective date indicated, viz. 24.9.2012 only
is required to be preponed to 1.1.2006,
the
implementation of CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011 as such,
involves only a corrigendum to OM dated 28.1.2013 to
the extent of its revised effective date.
At the same time, a significant question will arise With the implementation of Hon. CAT verdict dated
1.11.2011 as it is, whether the OM dated 3.10.2008 will
stand quashed and if so, whether it is for alll pre-2006
pensioners as a whole or OTHERWISE?
If at all the OM stands quashed on
implementation of CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011 as it is,
whether the proportionate reduction of minimum
revised pension based on length of qualifying service,
viz. <33 years will also get nullified?
Similarly, whether the Resolution No.12 of
29.8.2008 as per which the revised pension of alll pre2006 pensioners is required to be fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006
in accordance with the Hon. CAT verdict dated
1.11.2011, is applicable for alll pre-2006 pensioners as a
whole or OTHERWISE?
Till now, the pre-2006 pensioners community as a
whole firmly believe that the Resolution No.12 of
29.8.2008 as well as the OM dated 1.9.2008 willl be
made applicable for alll pre-2006 pensioners in
accordance with the spirit of 1.11.2011 by Hon. CAT PR
Bench, Delhi.
Incidentally, I wish to submit the following
extracts of Hon. CAT Ernakulam Bench
Judgmentn in the case of K.K.Vijayan, S/O
Krishnankutty ... vs The Principal Registrar on 13 July,
2012 for kind information of all.
"In fact, the Apex Court in a number of cases and
the V CPC in para 126.5 have emphasized such a
practice. It is appropriate to cite the same as
hereunder:- (a)
The Apex Court as early as in 1975 in the case of
Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 , held as
under:We may, however, observe that when a citizen
aggrieved by the action of a government department
has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of
law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should
be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the
department concerned and to expect that they will be
given
the benefit of this declaration without the need to
take their grievances to court.
(b) In Inder Pal Yadav v.Union of India, (1985) 2
SCC 648, the Apex Court has held as under:"... those who could not come to the court need
not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who
rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated,
they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone
else at the hands of this Court.
(c) The V Central Pay Commission in its
recommendation, in regard to extension of benefit of
court judgment to similarly situated, held as under:"126.5 - Extending judicial decisions in matters of
a general nature to all similarly placed employees. - We
have observed that frequently, in cases of service
litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the
benefit of judgment is only extended to those
employees who had agitated the matter before the
Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless
litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by
the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v.
UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein
it was held that the entire class of employees who are
similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of
the decision whether or not they were parties to the
original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been
upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in
numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [
(1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ], dated 20-7-1998; K.I.
Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain
v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we
recommend that decisions taken in one specific case
either by the judiciary or the Government should be
applied to all other identical cases without forcing
the other employees to approach the court of law for an
identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision
will apply only in cases where a principle or common
issue of general nature applicable to a group or
category of Government employees is concerned and
not to matters relating to a specific grievance or
anomaly of an individual employee."
(d) In a latter case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers'
Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.,(2006) 10 SCC
346, , the Apex Court has referred to the decision in the
case of State of Karnataka vs C Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC
747 as under:
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all persons similarly
situated should be treated similarly. Only because one
person has approached the court that would not mean
that persons similarly situated should be treated
differently".
In continuation of my previous mail, I submit
hereunder, the extracts of the Hon. CAT PR Bench Delhi
Judgment dated 22.1.2013 in the case of Original
Application No.1750/2012 filed by Dr. O.P. Nijhawan
and others.
"19. The next case relied upon by the applicant is
that of Girdhari Lal vs. Union of India (supra). In the
instant case the applicant claimed the benefit of a
judgment of the Tribunal in TA No.19/1995 decided on
24.9.1997
in Balwant Singh and others vs. Union of India, as
if he too were a party therein. The Honble Supreme
Court
held therein: [B][COLOR="red"]In view of the
decision of the Honble Tribunal in TA No.319/1985 it is
appropriate that the Union of India treat all much
persons alike and to grant them the same benefits
instead of driving each one of them to litigation in the
course of which the Union of India itself is required to
spend considerable public money. This aspect appears
to have been overlooked also by the Honble
Tribunal.[/COLOR][/B]
20. This position of the Honble Supreme Court is
very relevant to the facts of the instant case.
21. In conclusion we would like to take a case leaf
out of the case of Girdhari Lal vs. Union of India
(supra).
[B][COLOR="red"]The Government itself has
extended the benefit of the decisions cited vide the
order dated 13.5.2009 to the Scientists falling within the
eligible categories without making a distinction of the
date of retirement or between those who came to this
Tribunal and those who did not. We have also seen that
admittedly the concession of including the special pay
as a part of the emoluments to be reckoned for pension
and post retrial benefits has been given as a measure of
exception and there has been no change in rules which
continue to hold good. Further, the Government
reserves the right of taking recourse to legal remedies
as the matter of law has been left open. We, therefore,
respect this position emerging and only hold that the
respondent authorities should provide the benefits of
the OM dated 13.5.2009 irrespective of the fact that
whether the eligible persons have come to this Court or
not. It has to be appreciated that where all the eligible
persons come to this Court turn by turn, it would
impose a serious efficiency burden upon functioning of
this Tribunal and also cause harassment and expenses
to the applicants. This, in short is also likely to be a
wasteful exercise thereby exposing this Central
Administrative Tribunal to directly unproductive and
futile exercise"[/COLOR][/B]