Full pension for pre-2006 pensioners having more than 20 years of service

In view of the fact that review Petition filed by UOI RP (C) NO. 2565/2015 in SLP (C) No. 6567/2015 UOI Vs M.O. Inasu dismissed by HSC on  28.8.2015,  and Following file notings of DOPW (obtained under RTI)let us hope DOP&PW will now issue necessary instructions extending benefit of full min. pension to all pre 2006 pensioners irrespective of Q.S. rendered.

The extract from the File Noting obtained from DOP&PW under RTI ACT, on pro rata pension matter.

Extract from File Noting of DOP&PW OM 30.7.2015 obtained under RTIA:

12. It may be mentioned that in its order dated 22.1.2013 and 16.8.2013 in OA No. 715/2012 and OA No. 1015/2012 respectively, Hon’ CAT Ernakulam Bench directed that the revised pension fixed in terms of para 4.2 of OM dt. 1.9.2008 would not be reduced pro rata in cases where the qualifying service of a pre 2006 pensioner was less than 33 yrs. This order of Hon CAT was challenged by D/o Revenue  in the H.C. of Kerala in OP(CAT) No. 4/2012 and No. 8/2012. Hon’ H.C. of Kerala  dismissed the Op(CAT) No. 4/2012 and No. 8/2012 vide order dt. 7.1.2014. The SLP filed by the Dept. of Revenue against the order dt. 7.1.2014 has also been dismissed by Hon’ S/C. in its order dated 20.2.2015. Learned ASG, Sjri P.S.Narsimha has advised to file a Review Petition. The concerned file is presently with MOL(CA Section) and Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. is drafting the RP.

13. As already mentioned above, in the order dt. 29.4.2013 of Hon HC of Delhi in WP No. 1535/2012, it was observed that the only issue which survived was, with ref. to para 9 of OM dt. 28.1.2013 which makes it applicable from 24.9.2012 instead of 1.1.2006. In view of this observation of the Hon H.C. of Delhi, we may issue orders for giving effect to the OM dated 28.1.2013 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012. The question whether or not the revised pension in terms of OM 28.1.2013  would be  reduced proportionally would be examined once the order of the Hon S.C. in the RP to be filed against dismissal of SLP 21044/2014 is available  ( para 12 above)

( emphasis added)

                                                                         Sd. S.K. Makkar  US

                                                                                17.4.2015

  Noting of Secy(P)

6. Thus the court ruling has become law of the land

7. Given the fact the review/curative petition in the same matter has once been dismissed by Hon. Apex Court, as also the fact that Civil Appeal of Ministry of Defence with which the SLPs in question got tagged, has also failed, there is no chance  that a review petition may yield a different result. On the other hand this will not only engage the govt. machinery in uncessary litigation but will also result in attendant avoidable expenditure. ( emphasis added)

                                                               Sd. Alok Rawat Secy/ Pension

                                                                          22.4.2015

Hon MOS(PP)         Sd. 7.5.2015  

-Periodical review under FR 56(J) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

No.25013/01/2013-Estt.A-IV

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Personnel and Training

Establishment A-IV Desk

North Block, New Delhi

Dated 11th September, 2015

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Strengthening of administration-Periodical review under FR 56(J) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972


The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules.

2. Various instructions issued on the subject deal with compulsory retirement under the above mentioned provisions. The Supreme Court has observed in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel. 2001 (3) SCC 3l4 as follows:

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 31 l of the Constitution.

(iii) “For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.”

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) if the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

3. , In every review, the entire service records should be considered. The expression ‘service record’ will take in all relevant records and hence the review should not be confined to the consideration of the ACR / APAR dossier. The personal file of the officer may contain valuable material. Similarly, the work and performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. it would be useful if the Ministry/Department puts together all the data available about the officers and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARS may be taken into consideration.

4. in the case of those officers who have been promoted during the last five years, the previous entries in the ACRs may be taken into account if the officer was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit.

5, As far as integrity is considered, the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may, while upholding compulsory retirement in a case, may be kept in view:

The officer would live by reputation built around him. in an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and'injurious to public interest.

S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa

[(l 994) 3 SCC 424]

Thus while considering integrity of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may be taken into account. Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shri K. Kandaswamy, I.P.S. (TN:1966) in K. Kandaswamy vs Union Of India & Anr, l996 AIR 277, I995 SCC (6) l62 is relevant here. There were persistent reports of Shri Kandaswamy acquiring large assets and of his getting money from his subordinates. He also indulged in property transactions which gave rise to suspicion about his bonafides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld his compulsory retirement under provisions of the relevant Rules.

6. Similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP. And Others vs Vijay Kumar ‘Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002:

If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest.

7. Many changes in the nomenclature and in the areas of responsibility of various departments/Ministries have taken place. In order to simplify and speed up the procedure of review, a need is felt to reconstitute the Review Committees. in partial modification of the OM 25013/15/86-Estt (A) dated 27/06/1986, it has been decided that the Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling Authorities will constitute Review Committees consisting of two Members at appropriate level. The Review Committees in the case of various levels of employees will be as under:

(A) in case of officers holding Group A posts:

(a) In r/o ACC appointees:

Review Committee may be headed by the Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department as Cadre Controlling Authority.

(b) In r/o Non-ACC appointees:

(i) Where there are Boards viz CBDT, CBBC, Railway Board, Postal Board, Telecom Commission, etc. the Review Committee may be headed by the Chairman of such Board.

(ii) Where no such Boards/Commissions exist, the Review Committee may be headed ’by Secretary of the. Ministry/Department.

(B) in case of Group B (Gazetted) officers:

Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level officer will head the Review Committee.

(C) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees:

(i) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head.

(ii) in the case of Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee.

8. CVO in the case of gazetted officers, or his representative in the case of non-gazetted officers, will be associated in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee.

9. in addition to the above, the Secretary of the Ministry/Department is also empowered to constitute internal committees to assist the Review Committees in reviewing the cases. These Committees will ensure that the service record of the employees being reviewed, alongwith a summary bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the Cadre Authorities at least three months before the due date of review.

10. The procedure as prescribed from time to time has been consolidated and enclosed as Appendix to the OM issued by this Department on 21/03/2014. As per these instructions the cases of Government servant covered by FR 56(j), FR 56(l), or Rule 48(1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should be reviewed six months before he/she attains the age of 50/55 years, in cases covered by FR 56(j) and on completion of 30 years of qualifying service under FR 56(l)/Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the following calendar:

Sl No Quarter in which review is to be made Cases of employees who will be attaining the age of 50/55 years or will be completing 30 years of service or 30 years of service qualifying for pension, as the case may be, in the quarter.

1. January to  March July to September of the same year
2. April to June October to December of the same year
3. July to September January to March of the next year
4. October to December April to June of the next year

l1 All Ministries/Departments are requested to follow the above instructions and periodically review the cases of Government servants as required under FR 56(j)/FR56(l)/Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

12. instructions on composition of the Representation Committees will be communicated separately.

sd/- 

(Mukesh Chaturvedi)

Director (Establishment)

Source: www.persmin.nic.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/25013_01_

Higher HRA expected in 7th CPC report

"The Seventh Pay Commission is likely to propose to increase House Rent Allowance (HRA) of central government employees, besides their basic salaries.

By giving House Rent Allowance hikes, the Pay Commission is likely to seek to encourage property owners to rent out their properties, reduce the shortage of dwellings and to provide ‘housing for all central government employees’.

Besides the basic salary, a large portion of central government employees’ salary is the House Rent Allowance; some changes will be made in that category this time.

Instead of the existing three areas for house rent, four are likely to be created. ‘X’ class cities Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune, where employees will get 40 percent of their basic salary as House Rent Allowance (HRA), increasing from the existing 30 percent.

Employees posted at ‘Y’ class cities covers near about 90 stations, will receive 30 percent of basic salary, instead of the existing 20 percent.

A new area will be opened for the district towns; the central government employees will get 20 percent of their basic salary as House Rent Allowance (HRA) there.

In other areas, the house rent allowance will be 10 percent of basic, which is the existing rate of House Rent Allowance (HRA) of ‘Z’ class cities.

The existing qualifying threshold of population for HRA classification is 50 lakh and above for X, 5-50 lakh for Y and below 5 lakh for Z class cities.

However, the central government’s salary bill will rise by 9.56% to Rs 1,00,619 crore with the implementation of therecommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, according to a statement tabled in Parliament by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on August 12."

Resolving the OROP stir: My dear veterans, don't go a bridge too far

One of the more relevant elements in the tactics of fighting a war is to ensure you don’t go a bridge too far. You could lose the ground you have gained.

The Armed Forces, being dear to me, and integral to my upbringing will always get my vote. Because of that right I just feel that the much delayed agreement to implement 'One Rank, One Pension' is deserved but without codicils added on. Even now it has dragged on in a most shabby manner.

Yes, the government has dilly-dallied over this issue for years. We know that. Yes, the ex-servicemen currently into their 84th day protest at Jantar Mantar have shown extraordinary courage and commitment and filled many of us service family brats on civvy street with tangible pride.

But in the past week, the favourable tide has begun to move away from the beach and leave a little debris in its soggy ebb. Much of that comes from the media’s contention that the ex-servicemen are stretching their luck and moving onto to more demands, the most startling being an annual review of the pension.

The current impasse centers round whether the five year review should be two years or every year with the government ostensibly giving the nod to the bi-annual while the protestors want it annually.

File photo of the veterans. Naresh Sharma

If this be true and there is no reason to doubt it then they are giving Modi no wiggle room and putting him to the sword as well as offering Arun Jaitley a chance to say, 'I told you so, bloody ungrateful lot, give them an inch and...'.

One can take Jaitley messing with Modi’s mind but if this image of being unreasonable coalesces into greed then public sympathy will dry faster than instant paint. There is already a certain fatigue setting in and that is dangerous.

The call for OROP should be singular and come with no riders. Any military strategist would tell you to focus on your objective. While I completely fail to understand the connection between the so-called planned announcement being made to coincide with the Bihar elections Modi might have his advisers convince him that OROP with the annual revision will open up a can of worms and they will spill across the board and balloon into monstrous goblins on his back. Every cadre will demand parity.

I have stood with these fine old men and felt their hurt. Even today they are confounded by the doublespeak of Indian politicians and the decades old contempt in the bureaucracy and its well known disaffection for the forces. The goalposts keep shifting and they are far more adept at gamesmanship in the corridors of power than the men in uniform.

Which is why it is so essential not to come off as grasping. And that colour is being splashed on this fight, like it or not. Government PR is scoring points by emphasising the ‘unfair’ demands of the ex-servicemen and it is getting heard across the country. There has to be retaliation and clarity.

What the spearhead of the movement Major General Satbir Singh has to do immediately is engage in a reiteration of the points he made last month and what most thought was the core of the situation vis-a-vis the government.

- Mandate the OROP.
- Give a deadline and stick to it.
- Give a backdate from when it is effective.
- That’s it.
- Stop dicking about.

Nothing more. Nothing. Keep it clean and neat and polished... like you would your rifle.

By Bikram Vohra

The author is a senior Dubai-based journalist.

OROP: Would implementing the populist scheme eventually turn India into another Greece?

One Rank One Pension (OROP) is a demand raised by retired army personnel, urging the government to grant them a pension which is based upon the system of Defined Benefits (DB). If the call of veterans is adhered to, Centre would have to pay the ex-servicemen based upon the number of years they worked and the last salary they drew.

Under DB scheme, the government would also need to redefine the pension allotted to them in a yearly manner scaling it with all future enhancements in the salary drawn by a personnel in the same rank. The rationale behind the veterans’ demand is justified from an patriotic point of view, where one could argue that the state should bear the brunt for ensuring a comfortable post-retirement life for those who risk their lives for the nation.

However, from a financial standpoint, implementation of the scheme may spell disaster. The government would have to initially spend Rs 18000-20000 crores to roll-out the OROP scheme. Annual allotment of Rs 75,000 crore will be required to upscale the pensions of the retired defense personnel. The amount will escalate year after year. (ALSO READ: OROP: Finance Minister Arun Jaitley rules out annual pension revision)

The defense sector currently pays a massive amount of Rs 93,216 crore as salary to the current serving army. The price to be bared by the government for sustaining OROP would be around Rs 75000 crores. That would be around 80 per cent of what the government currently pays to its serving army staff. The financial burden on the government would be same as maintaining an additional army simultaneously to the existing one.

Another factor which needs to be considered in the OROP debate is the retirement age of servicemen. Private sector employees, bureaucrats and civilian forces who retire at 60 years of age. However, 80 percent of the army personnel retire between the age of 35-37. Thus, the government is forced to allot them their pension for a longer period of time, often exceeding the total duration of their service.

Also to be noted is the fact, that a pension could not replace salary, as the defense personnel have been demanding. The centrifugal point of contention in this entire row has been the assumption that the pension should serve as a salary to spend a relaxed life according to current market inflation. On the contrary, pension should be considered only as a measure of financial assistance. If a jawan retires at 35 of age, the state can’t continue to provide him a sort of salary for the rest of his life.

Once the OROP is rolled out, the concerns faced by the government is bound to multiply,since there is a strong possibility of similar demands be raised by paramilitary forces, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Indo-Tibetan Border Police, who also serve under life threatening risks dealing with Naxals, several insurgent movements and guarding north-eastern border. In surprising move, demand for OROP is now being made even by Railway union. “The government should also discuss OROP for Railway employees. 7th Pay Commission has failed to consider our demand. We will pitch up our agitation against government along with the defense veterans,” said Shiv Gopal Mishra, General Secretary of All-India Railwaymen’s Fedration.

The immediate step to be taken by the government should be to pacify the aggrieved veterans and find a middle-of-the-road solution to the contentious issue after carefully weighing the economic backlash. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not consider the ambiguity involved while using the emotive issue as a poll plank, he needs to take action in a cautious manner. The OROP as demanded by the veterans would push the nation under severe financial woes which could ultimately turn India into Greece, who repeatedly denied austerity measures by offering its citizens ‘Defined Benefits’.

CSD Canteen: Frequently Asked Question

Canteen Stores Department
Canteen Facilities to Defence Personnel, Ex-servicemen

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q1 Do I have to pay any penalty for making new Smart Card after I have lost the old Card?

A1 (a) Penalties on Loss of Smart Cards Yes, In case of loss of Canteen Smart Card (Grocery/Liquor) by an individual following penalties will be levied in addition to costs of Smart Card and penalty amount will be merged with the URC profit :-

Loss/Card	Liquor	Grocery
First Time	Rs.500/-	Rs.500/-
Second and subsequent Time	Rs.1000/-	Rs.1000/-

Note. Chairman of the URC may wave off the Penalty depending upon the genuineness of the loss, in exceptional cases.

(b) There have been few cases of misuse of lost Smart cards. Therefore, loss of Canteen Smart Card is being dealt with strictly. In addition to person applying afresh for the card and giving wrong details, responsible scrutinizing staff/ countersigning authority will also be held accountable for wrong details in application for fresh Individual Smart Card.

Q2. Why restrictions are laid by some URCs on entry as well as issue of items to authorized persons?

A2. Misuse of canteen facilities is detrimental to the welfare of the genuine buyers. This needs to be curbed. Sometimes temporary restrictions are also put on place due to short supply of certain items or excess purchase of certain items by customers during particular season. The responsibility to manage the available inventory as also to curb misuse of facility, lies with the Chairman of URCs. In order to streamline and further refine the procedures, following is being implemented:-

(a) No Bulk Purchases by Individuals. No bulk purchases by an individual are permitted. URCs can lay down restrictions at local level to ensure the same. However, all bulk purchases, if valid reasons necessitate, will be supported by one time use written permission of the Chairman of URC.

(b) Strict check on entry and allowing only authorized persons to avail canteen facilities. Entry into any URC will be purely Smart Card based by personal appearance.

Q3 . What are orders on the issue of liquor?

A3 Liquor Quota. There is no change in liquor authorization. However, it is limited as per brand/type for better planning and control over quality & quantity. As such, following restrictions are presently enforced:-

(i) Officers. Scotch whisky permitted up to 50% of total entitlement.

(ii) JCOs & Eqvl. Not more than three Whisky bottles including one Scotch Whisky of the entitlement.

(iii) Others. Not more than two Whisky bottles including one Scotch Whisky of the entitlement.

Note. This restriction will be revised by the DDGCS from time to time as per requirement, availability of funds and stock position.

Q4 What is the entitlement for purchase of car?

A4 Four Wheelers(Car). An entitled person based on his purchasing power will be entitled to purchase first or subsequent car only after years and up to capacity as mentioned below:-

(a) Officers (Incl Retd) – Four years and upto 2500 cc capacity.
(b) JCOs/Eqvl granted Hony Commission (lncl Retd) – Seven years and upto 1500 cc capacity
(c) JCOs/OR & Eqvl (Incl Retd) – Once while in service and once after retirement up to 1400cc capacity.

Q5. Is there a minimum service limit for purchase of car by JCOs/ OR?
A5. Yes, A JCO/ OR should have rendered min 15 years of color service to apply for a car.

Q6. What are restrictions on purchase of a 2-Wheeler?

A6 All categories (Incl Retd) can buy a 2- wheeler after every three years. .

Q7. Is there any restriction on AFD items?

A7. AFD Items like Refrigerator, TV, Washing Machine etc can be purchased after every three years by all categories.

Note: Control Over AFD Items will be reviewed from time to time as per requirement, availability of stores and budgetary situation of CSD.

Q8. What are the orders for entry into a URC?

A8. Entry into any URC will be purely Smart Card based by personal appearance. In case a particular Offr/JCO/OR/Equivalent is unable to present himself personally due to valid reasons like old age or acute medical problem, a permission, signed by the Chairman/ CO/OC of the unit/ establishment running the URC must accompany the Smart Card with photo of the authorized person carrying it. Validity period and genuineness of requirement of such permission will be decided by the Chairman of the URC on case to case basis.

Continue read CSD Canteen Facilities to retired defence civilians

Source: http://indianarmy.gov.in/

Cannot have annual pension revision - Arun Jaitley on OROP

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today virtually ruled out annual revision of pension as demanded by agitating ex-servicemen under 'One rank, One pension' but said government will safeguard interests of soldiers retiring at an early age through higher pensions. 

Annul revision in pensions do not happen anywhere in the world, he said. 

Jaitley said the government was committed to OROP but the "only difficulty" is the "arithmetical translation". 

"I have my own formula on what OROP means. Somebody else may have their own formula on OROP but it has to be within reasonable and rational criteria. You can't have an OROP where pensions are revised every month or every year," he said. 

He said that recommendations of 7th Pay Commission for government employees was coming shortly. 

"I have been very vigilant about fiscal prudence and therefore my job is really that of a housewife in the sense that you must measure every rupee  that the house spends so that you don't overspend and then borrow and if you start borrowing beyond a point and indulge in fiscal indiscipline," Jaitley told ET NOW. 

Ex-servicemen have been agitating for 78 days at Jantar Mantar here demanding implementation of One Rank, One Pension, including annual revision of pension. 

"We accept the principle (of OROP). We will implement the principle but then let us not create incidence which are going to set (precedent for) other segments of the society to also start demanding (the same)," Jaitley said. 

He, however, said, "we would like to safeguard the interest of those soldiers who retire at age of 35 or 38 years and the society must protect them... and therefore some higher pension on a special formulation is understandable but then it can't be revised every year." 

Stating that the Indian .. political thought process that thinks rationally will not make "unreasonable concessions" merely on emotions, he said such a move can set precedent for others to seek similar benefits. 

"Can the BSF do it? Can the CRPF do it? Obviously the thinking India will say it's not the right step to take. You can't create a liability that the future generations will have to pay. Therefore on a rational criteria OROP, we should certainly be able to implement," he said.