Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Minutes of the meeting held on 16.04.2015 at 11:00 AM to review the progress of implementation of the guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace

Minutes of the meeting held on 16.04.2015 at 11:00 AM to review the progress of implementation of the guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace

F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt.A-III
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
Establishment A-III Desk

*****
North Block, New Delhi
Dated 5 May, 2015
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Meeting held on 16.04.2015 to review the progress of implementation of the guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace- forwarding of minutes – regarding.
The undersigned is directed to forward herewith a copy of the Minutes of the above meeting held on 16.4.2015 for information and action as appropriate.
(Mukesh Chaturvedi)
Director (E)
Telefax: 2309 3176
Encl: as above

Minutes of the meeting held on 16.04.2015 at 11:00 AM to review the progress of implementation of the guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace

A meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, to review the progress of implementation of the guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace. The Chairpersons of the Complaint Committees set up in the Ministries / Departments had been invited. The list of participants is annexed.

2. Joint Secretary (Establishment) [JS(E)] in DOPT welcomed the participants from various Ministries / Departments located in Delhi and outside. She explained that the purpose of the meeting was that ever since setting up the Complaints Committees in the wake of the historic Vishakha judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a matter relating to sexual harassment of women at the workplace, the issue had not been adequately discussed. The meeting sought to review the progress of implementation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. JS(E) referred to the various guidelines issued from time to time. The Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [SHWW(PPR) Act] had been promulgated on 22.4.2013 and the rules framed thereunder were notified in December, 2013. The amendments since made in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 to align them with the provisions of the Act were also flagged.

3. A presentation on all the applicable guidelines and rules on the issue was made by Director (Establishment) in the Department. The presentation covered the guidelines of Apex Court in the Vishakha case, the earlier provisions of the Conduct Rules and the amendments made in November, 2014. During the presentation, the attention of the participants was also drawn to the DOPT’s guidelines issued vide Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2014 and 02.02.2015, which summarized the extant provisions relating to setting up and functioning of Internal Complaint Committees.

4. Upon conclusion of the presentation, JS(E) invited the participants to share their experiences as the Chairpersons of the Committees and also to seek clarifications, if any, on the issue. The participants were very appreciative of the initiative of Secretary(Personnel) in calling this meeting. They found the discussion of the salient features of the Act, such as the requirement to refer the complaints to the Disciplinary Authorities so as to avoid instances of non-compliance of the procedure for inquiry laid down in the rules, and the provision calling for action if a compliant is found false, as very helpful. The participants desired to know if the mandate of the Committees could be increased so as to address the general concerns of the women employees as well.

5. At this point the Chairman shared his experience of his involvement in a Conference called by Public Sector Undertaking on Women’s Participation in Public Sector. He mentioned that the available data indicates that efforts need to be intensified so that the various welfare measures introduced from time to time actually reach women employees. He mentioned that the women employees were not represented in adequate numbers in various training programmes. He said that while results of most examinations at various academic levels show exceptional achievement of girl students, the percentage of representation of women in work force remains dismally low. He stressed the need for making the working environment more conducive to the women as their percentage of representation, though low at this stage, is likely to rise in the coming years. On the general observation made by the participants regarding increasing the ambit of the Internal Complaint Committees, Secretary (P) mentioned that the Committees which are supposed to meet on regular basis should also invite the women workers for general consultations. He suggested that the Committees could play an active role in making the working environment more conducive by looking into some general issues such as grant of child care leave, increasing the representation in training for women, looking at the status of availability of basic facilities such as toilets, crèche, women staff room, etc. He said that it is time that the Chairpersons of the Committees realized that he Compliant Committees headed by them are fairly empowered and much can be done by them.

6. During the discussion, Director(DoPT), Chairperson of the Committee in DOPT, shared her experience as the Head of the Committee during the last few years. She mentioned that the Committee in DOPT is called as the Women Welfare Committee as it embraces and addresses concerns and complaints of all kinds from the women employees, including welfare. She mentioned that for the last three years the Committee has been holding half-day workshops on International Women’s Day, which have been well received by the women employees, as it had provided a platform where all issues that may cross the minds of women employees are attempted to be addressed.

7. On the issue of crèches, some participants requested Secretary (P) to direct DoPT officials to play an active role in setting up of crèches in more buildings. Secretary(P) assured that the needful could be done, but proactive role has to be played by concerned departments. He advised them to explore the possibility of ear-marking spaces in their buildings, so that crèches could come up at more places.

8. The participants also stressed the need to increase awareness amongst the male employees on how the rules had been amended to prevent instances of harassment of women employees. The participants favoured inclusion of this subject in training programmes run by ISTM and other training institutes and that more and more male employees need to be put through gender sensitization programmes. JS(E) mentioned that gender sensitization was already a part of the training programmes and modules being conducted by ISTM and other training academies. She mentioned that the Committees should do their best to increase awareness by having regular interactions with the women employees, particularly new entrants in service, so that a feeling of confidence could be developed in them. She mentioned that only through regular interaction could it be ascertained as to what the problems being faced by them were. She mentioned that the Compliant Committees could issue guidelines and even instructions at their end to the administration of the Ministry / Department, if they are found wanting in their duties towards the women employees. Some other general issues which were raised by many participants related to admissibility of travelling allowance, dearness allowance to the Members of the Committees and also to the Members from NGOs / other authorities, which were also clarified.

9. Secretary (P) suggested to the participants that they could write to DOPT officials on any other matter of their concern and seek their response and guidance. He suggested that such meetings could be held on regular basis, so that the participants could benefit from each other’s experience as functionaries of the Compliant Committees. He mentioned that he Government is committed to asserting its role as an ideal employer and providing a safer and conducive workplace to the women employees was part of the resolve. He summed up by stating that the Committees need to expand their role, so that we could reach the ideal situation where there is no instance of harassment of women employees.

10. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

Source - http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/11013_2_2014-Estt.A-III-05052015.pdf

Full Pension on 20 Years Service for Pre 2006 Pensioners – CAT Judgement

Full Pension on 20 Years Service for Pre 2006 Pensioners – CAT Judgement

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA 1165/2011 with
OA 2165/2011
And
OA 246/2012
New Delhi this the 21st day of April, 2015

Honble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J) OA 1165/2011

1. Pratap Narayan, Executive Director (Retired). FICC, Min. of Fertilizers, R/o C-47, Friends Colony East New Delhi-110065
AND Others
Versus

Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003
2. Secretary,
Deptt. of Expenditure Ministry of Finance,
Central Secretariat North Block, New Delhi-110001 Respondents
(Through Sh.Rajesh Katyal and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocates)
Judgement of CAT PB New Delhi dated 21st day of April, 2015
OA 1165/2011 with OA 1165/2011 & OA 246/2012
Pratap Narayan & Others – Vs- Union of India
ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)

1. OA 1165/2011, OA 2165/2011 and OA 247/2012, all deal with the same issue and, therefore, are being disposed off through this common order.

2. The prayer of the applicants arises from a clarification issued by the Department of Pension and PensionersWelfare dated 3.10.2008, in specific challenging the following provision:

“The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m.”

3. The background of the case is that after the VI Pay Commission submitted its report, the government issued OM dated 1.09.2008 relating to revision of pension of pre- 2006 pensioners/ family pensioners etc. Para 4.2 of the OM provides as follows:

4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG + and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.

4. Thereafter, the respondents issued the above mentioned OM dated 3.10.2008 in which the clarification was issued that pension will be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension of 33 years. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide resolution dated 29.08.2008 introduced the revised pension structure with effect from 1.01.2006. In this, the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the decision of the government were elaborated. The paragraphs relevant to this case are quoted below:

S. NoRecommendationDecision of
Government
2.Linkage  of  full  pension  with  33  years  of  qualifying  service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable  service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the  retiring  employee.  Simultaneously,  the  extant  benefit  of adding years of qualifying  service for purposes  of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant (5.1.33)Accepted

3.The recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBORs in   Defence   Forces   from   the   date   it   is   accepted   by   the Government (6.5.3.)Accepted
12.All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40%  of  the  pension  excluding  the  effect  of  merger  of  50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment  benefit  being allowed  in case of the existing employees.  The  fixation  of  pension  will  be  subject  to  the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent 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. (5.1.47).Accepted      with the  modification that   fixation   of pension shall be based      on      a multiplication factor    of   1.86, i.e.               basic pension             + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable)        + dearness     relief of     24%  as  on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74.

The respondents further issued an OM dated 19.03.2010, which is reproduced below:

The undersigned is directed to say that orders for revision of pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners were issued vide this Departments OM of even number dated 01.09.2008. Para 4.1 of that OM lays down the manner in which the pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners is to be consolidated w.e.f.1.1.2006. In accordance with these instructions, a fitment weightage @ 40% of the pre-2006 basic pension/family pension (excluding the merged dearness relief of 50%) is to be given for revision of the pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners.

2. Para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM further provides that fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale . It was clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m. The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent 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. A Table indicating the revised pension based on revised pay bands and grade pay was also annexed with this Departments OM dated 14.10.2008.

3. A large number of representations/references were received in the Department in regard to the provisions of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and it was clarified in this Departments OM of even number dated 11.2.2009 that the instructions/clarifications issued in this regard were in consonance with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change was required to be made in this respect.

4. In spite of the above clarifications, representations are still being received from pre-2006 pensioners (including those who retired from the pre-revised S-29 pay scale i.e. Rs.18400-22400) for higher revised pension in terms of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008. Representations have also been received demanding a higher fitment weightage to the pre-2006 pensioners in revision of pension in terms of Para 4.1 of the said OM.

5. These representations have been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance. It is reiterated that orders relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners have been correctly issued as per the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change is required to be made in this respect.

6. All references/representations received in this Department on the above issues stand disposed off accordingly.

5. The above OM basically reiterated the OM dated 3.10.2008 namely that there will be pro-rata reduction. In all the three OAs, the applicants have challenged the OM dated 3.10.2008 claiming that it is violative of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, 1983 SCC (L&S) 145. The prayer made is that their pension should be fixed in accordance with para 4.2 quoted above ensuring parity between pensioners who have retired pre-1.01.2006 and post-1.01.2006. The question before us is, therefore, whether the date of retirement is a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date. This was precisely the point which was before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra). The question that was raised by their Lordships of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court in para 2 of the judgment reads as follows:

“2. Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’ for short) form a class as a whole’? Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date? Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14? These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one’s own feet.”

And the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court answered the questions as follows:

“(1) Pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison detre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 and 148 (5) of the Constitution.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx

In the present case Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, the amended rules, since the specified date, accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. This division which classified pensioners into two classes is artificial and arbitrary, is not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalizing the pension rules, but is counter-productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of the pension scheme. Further, there is not a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Article 14.

Date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that be the criterion those who retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification to be upheld for any valid purpose.

The basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants also cited V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another, (1998) 8 SCC 30 in which the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:
“If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme,he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension. He would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation, the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.”

Similarly, the learned counsel for the applicants also relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi and others, (1993) 2 SCC 174 in which it was held as follows:

“The object of bringing into existence the revised terms and conditions in the memorandum dated June 16, 1967 was to protect the pensionary benefits which the Central Government servants had earned before their absorption into the public undertakings. Restricting the applicability of the revised memorandum only to those who are absorbed after the coming into force of the said memorandum, would be defeating the very object and purpose of the revised memorandum and contrary to fair play and justice.”

There is no substance in the contention that the revised benefits being new it could only be prospective in operation and cannot be extended to employees who were absorbed earlier. The memorandum dated June 16, 1967 is prospective which only means that the benefits therein can be claimed only after June 16, 1967. The memorandum, however, takes into consideration the past event that is the period of service under the Central Government for the purposes of giving pro rata pension. Whoever has rendered pensionable service prior to coming into force of the memorandum would be entitled to claim the benefits under the said memorandum. Restricting the benefits only to those who were absorbed in public undertakings after June 16, 1967 is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 & 16. The appellant was permitted to be absorbed in the Central Government public undertaking in public interest. The appellant, as such, shall be deemed to have retired from Government service from the date of his absorption and is eligible to receive the retirement benefits. Though the retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37 are to be determined in accordance with the Government orders but the plain language of the rule does not permit any discrimination while granting the retirement benefits. Appeal allowed.

7. This Tribunal (full Bench) had also examined a similar issue in OA 937/2010 decided along with OA 2101/2010. In those cases, the prayer made was to remove discrimination between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees as regards their pension, who were in the pay scale S-30 i.e. Rs.22400-525-24500. The matter was examined in depth considering the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra), Union of India Vs. S.P.S. Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125, Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon, JT 1994 (3) SC 26, State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others, 2005 SCC (L&S) 910, Union of India Vs. S.R. Dhingra and others, (2008) 2 SCC 229, Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. N. Subbarayudu and others, 2008 (4) SLR 136 and Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others, 2009 (5) SCC 313. The OAs were allowed vide order dated 20.11.2014 and the Tribunal gave the following directions:

“We direct the respondents to consider the revised pay of the applicants corresponding to the pay at which the concerned pensioner had in fact retired, instead of considering the minimum of the said pay scale, thereby determining pension/ family pension to pre-2006 retirees.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed detailed reply primarily explaining how pension of pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees has to be fixed. It is reiterated that the government had accepted the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of twenty years service, prospectively. Therefore, this cannot be given retrospective effect now. It is further stated that in the order dated 6.03.2012 (Annexure A-7), disposing of the OAs No. 937/2010 and 2101/2010, this Tribunal (Full Bench) made the following observations/directions in regard to the prayer of the applicants seeking complete parity with post-2006 retirees:-

One of the reliefs sought for by the applicants in those OAs is that pre-2006 pensioners may be allowed a total parity with post 1.1.2006 pensioners by notionally revising their pay as on 1.1.2006 and then fixing pension at 50% of that notional pay.

At the outset, it may be stated here that the issue regarding admissibility of pension/family pension to the pre 1.1.2006 retiree officers belonging to S-29 scale and also whether the 2006 pensioners are entitled to the pension/family pension at par with post 2006 retiree officers has been considered and decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association and another Vs Union of India and another (OA 655/2010 with connected matters) decided on 1.11.2011 after taking into consideration the decisions of Apex Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. S.P.S. Vains (2008)9 SCC 125) and the said relief has been rejected. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment has held that pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are governed by the separate set of scheme and also that the judgment in the case of S.P.S.Vains (supra) was rendered in the different facts and circumstances of the case and relates to the Army personnel and based on the premise of one rank one pension. However, regarding admissibility of pension based on modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by resolution dated 29.8.2008, direction was given to the respondents to re-fix the pension and pay the arrears to all pre-2006 retirees belonging to S-29 scale of pay, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thus, the aforesaid issue stands decided of in the light of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of this Tribunal for parity of reasoning given therein.

9. The respondents further argue that in its order dated 1.11.2011 in the OA No. 655/2010 referred to in the aforesaid order dated 6.3.2012 in the OAs No.937/2010 and 2101/2010, this Tribunal (full bench) decided that the challenge made by the applicants based upon the judgment in D.S. Nakara that pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits as that of post-2006 retirees cannot be accepted. It is stated that in para 9 of the judgment, this Tribunal also rejected the prayer for grant of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service at par with post-2006 retirees and observed that the pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are governed by the separate set of scheme.

10. It is further added on behalf of the respondents that the applicants in the above mentioned OAs No.937/2010 and 2101/2010 filed writ petitions being WP No. 4572/2012
and WP 7342/2012 in the High Court of Delhi. Honble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure A-9) passed the following order:

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, none of which are disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, with consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside the impugned decision(s) dated March 06,2012 and simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be rendered after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated November 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees shall not be treated as binding upon it by the Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of full parity the said decision was pronounced notwithstanding said retirees giving up the claim for full parity.

Thus Honble High Court remanded back the OA No.937/2010 and OA No.No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication on merits by this Honble Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. As stated earlier, these OAs were accordingly heard by this Tribunal (Full Bench) and order dated 20.11.2014 passed.

11. We have gone through various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in various cases and also this Tribunals order dated 20.11.2014 in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010. The law has by now been well settled by the Honble Supreme Court that the date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification. It is held by their Lordships that any clarification has to be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

13. In view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra), V. Kasturi (supra), T.S. Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010 dated 20.11.2014, we are of the opinion that the prayer in the OAs is fully justified. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.10.2008 and 19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and direct the respondents that the qualifying service for earning full pension will be treated as twenty years also for those who retired from the Central Government service on or before 31.12.2005 and were alive on that day. The respondents are also directed to modify/amend all relevant government orders/ letters/ notifications in accordance with the above decision. It is made clear that this parity of pension between pre and post-1.01.2006 pensioners (on the question of eligibility of minimum pensionable service of twenty years) would apply both as regards pension and family pension. The respondents are granted three months time from the date of receipt of this order for implementation of directions contained in this order.

(Raj Vir Sharma) Member (J)
( P.K. Basu) Member (A)

Retired officials have no right for promotion

Retired officials have no right for promotion

Post Retirement Benefits

Department of Personnel & Training has not made any change in instructions contained in OM No. 22011/4/1998-Estt.(D) dated 12.10.1998 and reiterated vide OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt.(D) dated 14.11.2014. These instructions provide for consideration of retired employees, who are within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) while preparing year-wise panel(s) for promotion. Such retired officials, however, have no right for promotion as they are not available to assume charge of the higher post.

This was stated by the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply to a question by Dr. Udit Raj in the Lok Sabha today.

SEE THE DOPT ORDER : DOPT OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt.(D) dated 14.11.2014

PIB

Relief of Five Years Age Limit

Relief of Five Years Age Limit

There is no proposal to give relief of five years in age limit to the candidates of all categories to apply for Government and semi-Government services. Instructions allowing relaxation in upper age limit for recruitment of the candidates of different categories to various posts under the Central Government already exist.

Further, instructions issued by the Central Government are not suo-moto applicable to autonomous bodies, statutory organizations, public sector enterprises, trusts, banks, semi-Government services, etc. which are governed by their respective regulations/instructions issued under Statute/Act of the Parliament by which they are created or came into existence.

This was stated by the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply to a question by Shri Gopal Shetty in the Lok Sabha today.

PIB

Income Tax Exemption / Deduction on Interest paid on Education Loan under Section 80E of Income Tax Act 1961

Income Tax Exemption / Deduction on Interest paid on Education Loan under Section 80E of Income Tax Act 1961.

Finance Minister Mr.Arun Jaitley recently informed in the Parliament that Section 80E of Income Tax 1961, allows deduction of interest paid in respect of Education Loan availed for completing higher education of self, spouse, children or a student for which the income tax assessee is a guardian, from the income of assessee. This provision therefore provides income tax exemption on the Education Loan Interest for 7 years.

Text of press release issued by Finance Ministry in this regard and extract of Section 80E of Income Tax 1961 are given below

Tax Concession on Interest Paid on Education Loan

Press Information Bureau
Government Of India
Ministry of Finance
05-May, 2015

Section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that in computing the total income of an individual, their shall be allowed a deduction of the amount paid by way of interest on loan taken by him from any financial institution or approved charitable institution for the purpose of pursuing his own higher education or higher education of his spouse, or children, or the student for whom he is the legal guardian. The deduction is available for eight assessment years beginning with the assessment year in which the payment of interest on such loan is first made or until the interest is paid in full, whichever is earlier. This deduction is available to every individual who is liable to income-tax. No specific funds are earmarked for the purposes of extending tax concession against interest paid on education loan.

    This was stated by Shri Arun Jaitley, Union Finance Minister in written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha today.


Extract of Section 80E of Income Tax Act 1961

    Under Section 80E of the Act a deduction will be allowed in respect of repayment of interest on loan taken for higher education, subject to the following conditions:

    (i)In computing the total income of an assessee, being an individual, there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, any amount paid by him in the previous year, out of his income chargeable to tax, by way of interest on loan, taken by him from any financial institution or any approved charitable institution for the purpose of pursuing his higher education or for the purpose of higher education of his spouse or children.

    (ii) The deduction specified above shall be allowed in computing the total income in respect of the initial assessment year and seven assessment years immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or until the interest referred to above is paid in full by the assessee , whichever is earlier. For this purpose –

    (a) “approved charitable institution” means an institution established for charitable purposes and approved by the prescribed authority under clause (2C) of section 10, or, an institution referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 80G. Section 80E 35

    (b) “financial institution” means a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act); or any other financial institution which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

    (c) “higher education” means any course of study pursued after passing the Senior Secondary Examination or its equivalent from any school, board or university recognised by the Central Government or State Government or local authority or by any other authority authorised by the Central Government or State Government or local authority to do so;

    (d) “initial assessment year” means the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which the assessee starts paying the interest on the loan.

    (e) relative”, in relation to an individual, means the spouse and children of that individual or the student for whom the individual is the legal guardian


Source: PIB

Reservation in Promotion in Public Sector Banks

Reservation in Promotion in Public Sector Banks

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
RAJYA SABHA
 
UNSTARRED ADMITTED QUESTION NO. 2161
TO BE ANSWERED ON THE 17TH MARCH, 2015
(TUESDAY) PHALGUNA 26, 1936 (SAKA)

RESERVATION IN PROMOTION IN PSBs.
 
QUESTION 2161. SHRI BALWINDER SINGH BHUNDER:

Will the Minister of FINANCE be pleased to state:-
(a):   whether it is a fact that Public Sector Banks (PSBs) give reservation in promotion up to DGM level and there is hardly any SC/ST officer above DGM level;
(b):  if so, the details, thereof, bank-wise and the details of SC/ST Officers above DGM level, bank-wise;
(c):    whether any training is provided to SC/ST  Officers at DGM  level so that they can share higher responsibility and be promoted to next level; and
(d):   the overall plan for growth of persons from SC/ST category in PSBs bank-wise?
ANSWER
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (SHRI JAYANT SINHA)
(a)&(b): No, Sir. At present Public Sector Banks (PSBs) give reservation in promotion up to Scale-I only. There is no reservation in promotion within the officers cadre. A statement of SC/ST officers above DGM level in at annexed.

(c)&(d): Banks are periodically providing in-house /external training to all officers including SC/ST officers above DGM level to shoulder higher responsibilities. Department of Financial Services has been advising all PSBs to provide effective pre-promotion and in-service training to SC/ST employees. Instructions have also been issued to nominate a suitable number of SC/ST officers for foreign training programmes.
Annexure

Bank wise deatails of SC/ST Officers above DGM level as on 31.12.2014
 
S.NO.Name of the PSBs.SCST
1Allahabad BankNilNil
2Andhra BankNilNil
3Bank of Baroda3Nil
4Bank of India12
5Bank of Maharashtra2Nil
6Canara Bank21
7Central Bank of India1Nil
8Corporation BankNilNil
9Dena BankNil1
10Indian Bank1Nil
11Indian Overseas BankNil3
12Oriental Bank of CommerceNilNil
13Punjab National Bank21
14Punjab & Sind BankNilNil
15Syndicate Bank3Nil
16Union Bank of India1Nil
17United Bank of IndiaNilNil
18UCO Bank1Nil
19Vijaya BankNilNil
20State  Bank of India4Nil
21State Bank of Bikaner & JaipurNilNil
22State Bank of Patiala11
23State Bank of Hyderabad3Nil
24State Bank of Mysore1Nil
25State Bank of TravancoreNilNil
26IDBI Bank1Nil
27BharatiyaMahila BankNilNil
 Grand Total279

Source: ENGLISH VERSION HINDI_VERSION

GST rate will be much more diluted than 27%: Jaitley

GST rate will be much more diluted than 27%: Jaitley

New Delhi: The GST rate will be “much more diluted” than the speculated 27 per cent and the final rate will be worked out by the GST Council, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said today.


“I straightaway concede that 27 per cent would be very high…after this 27 per cent (Revenue Neutral Rate) was born, the states and the Centre have decided to keep alcohol out,” he said in a reply to GST Bill debate in the Lok Sabha.

“We have decided to keep petroleum out and every state finance minister is not interested in imposing higher taxes on its own people, and neither the central government. Therefore, this figure (RNR) is going to much more diluted compared to the figure (27 per cent) which has been mentioned,” he said.

Revenue Neutral Rate (RNR) is the rate at which there will be no revenue loss to the states after GST implementation.

“These are the figures which would be decided by GST Council,” he added.

The GST Council will have Jaitley as its Chairman and comprise two-third of members from states and one-third from the Centre.

GST is termed as the biggest indirect tax reform since 1947. A single rate GST will replace central excise, state VAT, entertainment tax, octroi, entry tax, luxury tax and purchase tax on goods and services to ensure seamless transfer of goods and services.

Allaying concerns raised by some of Lok Sabha members regarding the 27 per cent RNR speculation, Jaitley said “it is going to be too high and therefore the cost and prices itself will go up”.

He clarified to the House that the number was not given by the government or the GST Council but by a particular organisation in its own internal assessment.

“It got leaked out and somebody said it is 26.8. so that is how this figure of 27 per cent was born,” he said.

However, without hazarding a guess as to what the final GST rate would be, Jaitley said, the 13th Finance Commission had suggested 18 per cent as a possible figure.

PTI

More than 50000 Central Government employees assembled at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 28th November 2015 – All India Audit Association

More than 50000 Central Government employees assembled at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 28th November 2015 – All India Audit Association
CIRCULAR – 12/2015
ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD (U.P), PIN-201012
Ph: 0120-2881727/0 – 98681 45667
E-mail: auditflag@gmail.com
Website: www.auditflag.blogspot.com

Reference: AIA/Circular- 12/2015
Dated: 3rd May 2015
To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women’s Committee

Dear Comrades,
MASSIVE RALLY ON 28TH APRIL 2015 BY CG EMPLOYEES IN FRONT OF PARLIAMENT; INDEFINITE STRIKE TO COMMENCE FROM 23RD NOVEMBER 2015

More than 50000 Central Government employees assembled at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 28th November 2015 declared in one voice that if the 10 point charter of demands that includes statutory pension for all and revival of all forums under JCM are not negotiated and settled in a time bound manner, the 30-lakh strong central government employees – including Railway and Defence workers – would be compelled to commence indefinite strike from 23rd November 2015.

The rally adopted a resolution moved by Com KKN Kutty, President of Confederation on behalf of the National Joint Council of Action listing the grievances of the employees and also pointing out the disastrous policies accelerated by the present day government.

Every speaker from each of the constituent organisation spoke about perilous impact of the policies of the government in their sector and committed their resolve to ensure the success of the indefinite strike from 23rd November 2015. (Railway and Defence Federations have to conduct strike ballot before embarking upon any industrial action, as per the Industrial dispute act under which they are recognised.)
The resolution adopted by the rally is enclosed with this Circular.
SUBMISSION OF MASS SIGNATURE TO CAG ON 29TH APRIL 2015
Delhi police refused permission to us to hold demonstration before CAG office citing the ongoing Parliament session and proposed that we hold the programme at Jantar Mantar. Instead we chose to hold the demonstration at the DGACR premises on 29th April 2015.

More than 200 comrades from stations participated in the demonstration on 29th April and more than 10000 (ten thousand) signatures were collected from the personnel of IA&AD across the country. The demonstration at DGACR was addressed by Com M Duraipandian, President, V Nageswara Rao and KL Gautam, both Addl Secretary General, Com Subhash Pandey, Vice President in addition to the Secretary General. Com Anilkumar, Asstt Secretary General and Gen. Secretary, Civil Audit Association, Delhi welcomed all the comrades while Com Veer Singh, President, CAA, Delhi offered vote of thanks.

A delegation comprising of Coms M Duraipandian, MS Raja, Subhash Pandey, KL Gautam, Nageswara Rao, V Sreekumar and Anilkumar met DG/Personnel and submitted the petition addressed to the CAG. There was a detailed discussion following the submission of the petition and we insisted that the grievances listed therein be addressed. The issue of vicitmisations at various units was also taken up. DG/P assured to attend to the pressing issues and do her best to resolve them.
MANIFEST SOLIDARITY WITH POSTAL STRIKE FROM 6TH MAY 2015
More than 5 lakhs postal workers would be going on indefinite strike from 6th May 2015 under the banner of Postal JCA, comprising of NFPE and FNPO, demanding roll back of the move to corporatise and privatise postal services, bringing GDS under the ambit of 7CPC, implementation of cadre restructuring agreement etc. Confederation Sectt that met on 28th April 2015 decided to manifest solidarity with the strike of postal comrades.

Our units are requested to hold lunch hour demonstration and take out rally to the post offices in support of the strike. All the units may also implement the decisions of the local COC in this regard.
With greetings,
Yours fraternally
(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General
Source: auditflag.blogspot.in

Depending on the weightage fitment formula may range from 2.72 times to 3.72 in 7th Pay Commission

Depending on the weightage fitment formula may range from 2.72 times to 3.72 in 7th Pay Commission
Depending on the weightage fitment formula may range from 2.72 times to 3.72
“The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended a minimum wage of Rs 6600/- per month against the demand of Rs 10,000/- per month as worked out by Staff side of JCM, Today the minimum need based wage works out to Rs 26,000/ per month.”
Minimum Wage of Rs 26,000/- Justified and Fitment formula

Comrade,

The DIRECTORATE OF ECONONMICS & STATISTICS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION MINISTRY OF AGRILCULTURE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI has published the RETAIL PRICES OF FOOD AND NON FOOD ITEMS VIDE http://rpms.dacnet.nic.in/ PLEASE GO THROUGH THIS IMPORTANT LINK . which contains district wise price report.

http://rpms.dacnet.nic.in/Bulletin.aspx

You can get any price of any article using the Query option.
http://rpms.dacnet.nic.in/QueryReport.aspx

The prices of many items provided by the Staff side JCM are lower than the retail prices provided by the Government agency . Hence the Minimum wage of Rs 20,000/- is justified for the erstwhile Group “D” with effect from 1/1/15 using Dr Aykroyd formula . After weightage of 25% for Group “C” it works out to Rs 26,000/- .

Please click here for Prices of Food items as on 1/1/15
Please click here for Prices of Non Food items as on 1/1/15

Please click here for Minimum Wage Caluation Sheet

The fitment formula may range from 2.72 times to 3.72 depending upon the weightage.
The Sixth Central Pay Commission has recommended a minimum wage of Rs 6600/- per month against the demand of Rs 10,000/- per month as worked out by Staff side of JCM, Today the minimum need based wage works out to Rs 26,000/ per month.
Comradely yours
(P.S. Prasad)
General Secretary
Source: www.karnatakacoc.blogspot.in

25% retirement till 2020: Recruitment process in Public Sector Banks

25% retirement till 2020: Recruitment process in Public Sector Banks

 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
RAJYA SABHA
QUESTION NO 896
ANSWERED ON 03.03.2015
Recruitment process in PSBs
896 Shri Balwinder Singh Bhunder
Will the Minister of FINANCE be pleased to satate :-

(a) whether it is a fact that by 2020 around 35 percent of Officers/employees of Public Sector Banks (PSBs) would retire from service;


(b) if so, what preparations have been done by Bank; bank-wise to timely notify the vacancies and by IBPS to speed up recruitment process with a view to timely fill the vacancies;

(c) whether the Department of Financial Services (DFS) has issued any direction in this regards; and

(d) if so, the details thereof?

    ANSWER

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance (Shri Jayant Sinha)

(a) The percentage of officers/employees that would retire by the year 2020 differ in Public Sector Banks (PSBs). On an average, about 25% of officers and employees would retire by the year 2020 in PSBs.

(b) PSBs assess/anticipate vacancies including retirements annually and take necessary action to fill the same including intimating their requirement to Institute of Banking Personnel Selection(IBPS) for making allotment well in advance.

(c) & (d): Yes, Sir. Government has granted managerial autonomy to the PSBs in the matters related to Human Resource (HR) including recruitment. Government has also advised all PSBs to prepare a succession plan.

Now Trending

Holidays to be observed in Central Government Offices during the year 2020

Holidays to be observed in Central Government Offices during the year 2020 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HOLIDAY LISTS 2020 F.No.12/1/20...

Disclaimer:

All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. Our blog "Central Government Staff news" accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog.

Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only.

The blog "Central Government Staff news" is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Any suggestions write to us
centralgovernmentnews@gmail.com