Thursday, June 4, 2015

Central Secretariat employees demand timely promotions

Central Secretariat employees demand timely promotions

Central Secretariat employees have demanded removal of stagnation in Services and facilitation of timely promotions.
Central Secretariat employees demand timely promotions
Central Secretariat employees have demanded removal of stagnation in Services and facilitation of timely promotions. A deputation of “Central Secretariat Services Forum” led by its Convenor, Shri D.N.Sahoo called on Dr Jitendra Singh, Minister of State Personnel, here today and thanked him for his positive and cooperative response to all their grievances in the past one year and expressed the hope that he would also find a way out to overcome the anomaly in Services which has been adversely affecting them for the last several years. They also handed over a memorandum to him.

Dr Jitendra Singh assured that the problems and grievances faced by the employees will certainly be resolved and observed that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) had, on his instructions, sent a favourable proposal in support of their demands but there were certain technical queries from the Finance Ministry which are also in the process of being replied.

Dr Jitendra Singh said the Modi Government took over with a pledge for ‘maximum Governance, minimum Government’ and adopted several radical measures to simplify governance and provide a comfortable and work-friendly environment for its officials. It is in the same spirit that the officials of different Secretariat Services are also intended to be made comfortable and achieve a sense of esteem through timely promotion and befitting status in their service career, he added.

The members of the deputation submitted to Dr Jitendra Singh that as per the Central Secretariat Service Rules, promotion from Under Secretary to Deputy Secretary, for example, requires only five years of approved service in a total of about 30 years of service period but the irony is that several of the employees who have already put in 20-22 years of service are still awaiting promotion and many of them attain superannuation as Under Secretaries or even Section Officers. They said that since there is no financial implication involved and Dr Jitendra Singh has the reputation of being sympathetic to the cause of employees, it is hoped that their grievances will be addressed in the justify earnest.

Among the members of the deputation were S/Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, R.P.Gupta, V.Sreekumar, Mrityunjay Jha, Ashok Kumar, Manoj Kumar Singh, Brajesh Sikka, Kumar Manoj Kashyap, R.P.Sati, Ujjwal Kumar and P.K.Sharma.

Source: PIB News

OROP continues to make headlines

OROP continues to make headlines
“Prime Minister declared once again that OROP is a finalized issue.”
News continues to surface regarding the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme, which is eagerly being awaited by lakhs of ex-servicemen and their families all over the country.

For more than thirty years now, the Central Government continues to struggle to implement the OROP scheme. There were rumours that Prime Minister Narendra Modi might make announcements regarding this at the first year celebrations rally that was held in Mathura. But, nothing happened.

Recently, in his radio address, he declared once again that OROP is a finalized issue. More time was needed to deal with the hurdles that could crop up during the implementation of the scheme. He reassured the ex-servicemen that it was only a matter of time before the scheme was announced. He accused the opposition parties of making this a political issue. “This is an issue with a lot of confusions and there are a number of practical difficulties in implementing them. Please wait for some more time and I shall present it to you,” he said.

Whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade ? – Hon’ble High Court of Patna decides that pension of person retiring from higher grade has to be stepped up

Whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade ? – Hon’ble High Court of Patna decides that pension of person retiring from higher grade has to be stepped up

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2010

M.M.P. Sinha, S/o Late Justice B.P. Sinha A Retired Railway Servant, R/o ‘Vishnupada’, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-800001
…. …. Petitioner/s
1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Raisina Hills, New Delhi
2. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Through The Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi
3. Ministry of Railways Through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
4. Railway Board, Through Secretary, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
…. …. Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.M.P. Sinha (In Person)
For the Railways : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Singh.
For the Union of India : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.S.G.
Date: 18-05-2015

A very simple but ticklish issue arises in this writ petition. The issue is whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade. Is it not arbitrary and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others since reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125, the pension of the person in the higher grade would have to be stepped up accordingly.

The contesting respondents are the Union of India through the Secretary, (Department of Expenditure), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension as also Ministry of Railways through the Chairman and the Secretary. There are supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit after several adjournments.

We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who appears in person, and learned counsel for the Union of India as well as Railways.

The facts are not, at all, in dispute. The petitioner retired in 1992 from the services of Indian Railways as Additional General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. At the time of his retirement, he was an officer in Higher Administrative Grade (HAG). Let it be noted that Government of India classified its staff in 33 scales and one exclusive scale for Cabinet Secretary. In so far as relevant S-28, S-29, S-30 and S-31 are scales corresponding to Selection Grade, Senior Administrative Grade, High Administrative Grade and High Administrative Grade+. As per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, Central Government declared scale for PB-4 which was for Selection Grade [SG] (S-28), Senior Administrative Grade [SAG] (S-29), High Administrative Grade [HAG] (S-30) as 37,400- 67,000 but provided for Grade Pay for each scale separately at 8,700; 10,000 and 12,000 respectively. But later S-30 was taken out of PB-4 and a separate pay band was provided for it being HAG Scale 67,000-79,000 but while doing so vide circular of Ministry of Railways dated 26.05.2009 Grade Pay of 12,000 for HAG was removed.

As the petitioner had retired in 1992, as per Railway Board’s notification, petitioner’s notional pay was fixed at the minimum of HAG (S-30) being 67,000 without Grade Pay. The result was his pension was then fixed at 50% thereof being 33,500. On the other side, a person in (SAG) Grade S-29, which is an inferior and feeder grade for S-30, the Pay Band is 37,400-67,000 but there is a Grade Pay entitlement of Rs. 10000/-. Accordingly, petitioner points out that the maximum pension that can be paid in Grade S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- and half of it (50%) would be Rs. 38,500/-. Thus, seen on the face of it, a person retiring in Grade S-29 at the maximum scale would get not only higher remuneration but consequently, higher pension than Grade S-30, for which it was feeder post both in terms of remuneration and pension. This is hostile discrimination, arbitrary and improper. Briefly submitted a junior cannot get higher remuneration or pension than a senior. In order to contradict the objection of the Central Government and the Indian Railways that this is mere a theoretical submission, petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit giving facts and figures. He has given names and designations of at least three officers of the Railways, who have retired on different dates in the Senior Administrative Grade with Grade Pay in the scale of S-29 as against the petitioner, who was in the Higher Administrative Grade. They are receiving pension between Rs. 35690/- and Rs. 36640/-. Even though he is of Higher Administrative Grade, his pension is fixed at maximum of Rs. 33500/-. He has then in the said supplementary affidavit given names of at least eight other persons, who again would be retiring from Senior Administrative Grade in near future and their pension would ordinarily be at Rs. 38500/- as against the petitioner of Rs.33500/-. Petitioner, thus, in theory and practical, has shown the discrepancy i.e. capable of happening and also happening. In fact, he submits that this is a clear case of impermissible discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India in the Department of Public Grievances and Pension. There is counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit by the Railways but it seems Railways have been entrusted to defend the case by the Government of India. Their only defence is that petitioner had retired prior to 2006 whereas; the cases illustrated by him, are cases of persons, who retired after 01.01.2006 or are yet to retire. This, accordingly, is reasonable classification for lower pension in the higher Grade.

In other words, the only explanation given is retirement at different times but there is no explanation as to why a person of a higher grade will get pension less than of a junior grade. The factual assertion of this dichotomy, as pointed out by the petitioner, has not been challenged. It is submitted that earlier for Grade S-30, there was a Grade Pay of Rs. 12000/- So long as the Grade pay was there, there was no problem as the maximum pay entitlement of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/whereas; the minimum of S-30 would be Rs. 67000 + 12000 = 79000/-. Therefore, there would always be a difference in between two. But when the Central Government in 2009 decided to remove the Grade Pay for S-30 and onwards there would be a clear dichotomy when pension calculations are made, as shown above.

The petitioner has further brought to our notice to a very unhappy situation that would also arise. The maximum pay, as noticed above, of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- A person, who is in S-29 reaching the maximum level is then promoted to Higher Administrative Grade from Senior Administrative Grade. In S-30, there being no Grade Pay, he would come to the basic pay of that grade i.e. 67000/-. Effectively, his remuneration upon promotion would stand reduced by Rs. 10000/- and in such an event, he would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof, the result would be quite ridiculous. It is direct consequence of this that there is anomaly in pension.Respondents’ only defence is that this anomaly is inherent in the system and inherent in the pay and pay structure as fixed with effect from 01.01.2006. The question is whether inherent, apparent or latent discrimination is permissible. In our view, the short answer is that it cannot ever be permissible. A person in the Higher Administrative Grade cannot draw less remuneration or less pension than a person of the Senior Administrative Grade which grade is the Feeder Grade for the Higher Administrative Grade.This is exactly what is happening in the present case. This is exactly what has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others (Supra). There it was noticed that the Brigadier in the Army was receiving higher pension than the Major General. Brigadier, is the Feeder post for Major General. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the only way out for the Central Government was to step up the pension of Major General so that this discrimination of junior getting higher pension than a Senior is removed.
Neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor the counsel for the Indian Railways is able to distinguish the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Apart from saying that the said decision was based on pay basic scale, service conditions of defence services which are different from other civil services, there was no other distinction. It is the principle of law decided that is to be considered. The principle of law, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is plain and simple; that a senior officer cannot get pension less than his junior. If that be, the effect of pay fixation than the pension would have to be stepped up to avoid such hostile discrimination. There was no consideration of defence service or any special feature of defence service as distinguishing civil services. The distinction pointed out is illusionary.

Hence, having considered the matter, the facts not being in dispute, as noted above, and the law not being in disputed, as noted above, the result is that the writ petition must succeed and the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bpench, Patna has to be set aside. It has to be held that the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 has to be stepped up to Rs. 38,500/- to avoid discrimination. Respondent no.3, Ministry of Railways through the Chairman Railway Board and Respondent no.4, Railway Board through Secretary are given three months time to calculate the arrears of pension accordingly and pay the same within the said period.
This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)
Download Judgement dated 18.05.2015

General Observations on Medical Bills in respect of Defence Civilians – PCDA writes to all field formations

Principal  Controller  of Defence  Accounts has pointed out common defects in the Medical Bills submitted in respect of Defence Civilians (Non DAO)
Office  of the  Principal  Controller  of Defence  Accounts (CC) Cariappa Road,
Lucknow Cantt.-226002
No. Pay/lV/MED/7007/CIR
0/o  the PCDA (CC)
Dated   15/05/2015
(All Units under jurisdiction  of central command)

SUB: General observations: regarding Medical Bills in respect of Defence Civilians (NON DAO).

During scrutiny/ audit of medical  reimbursement  claim the following  observations are communally observed:-

1.  Scrutiny certificate not found enclosed

2.  Check list, MEO 2004/97/MRCs not  attached/  not  completed  along with  date and signed/ not countersigned

3.  The specimen signature of competent  authority  not available or does not tally with the sample specimen signature.

4.  The attested  photocopy of CGHS  card along with  family photograph/  family detail with  D.O.B. not enclosed/not verified by unit authority.

5.   Original  Discharge/Emergency Certificate  of  the hospital in admission cases not enclosed.

6.  The referral letter from CGHS dispensary not enclosed.

7.  Original bills  not  attached  or  duplicate  bills  attached  without   certificate  of  lost vouchers as specified In FR-II RULE 43 and affidavit,  for duplicate claim, on stamp paper.

8.  The CGHS Package  deal/  CGHS Package  no. For Pathological test not mentioned.

9.  Original  Discharge/Emergency certificate  of  the  hospital  In   admission cases not enclosed.

10. Time barred sanction by Competent Authority  (HOD) in case delay by more than one month/three month from date of discharge/treatment  (in case of med advance).

11.  Legal heir affidavit on stamp paper for claiming medical reimbursement claim along• with  no objection  certificate  on stamp paper in  case of death of card holder  not enclosed.

12. 10%  discount  may  be  obtained  from   the  hospital  on  the  final  bill  on  cash payment/advance taken from Govt as per MOA signed by the each hospital with.

13. In  IOL  implantation     the  sticker  ID  not  attached  / verified by operating surgeon along with  name & type of IOL lens and the cash receipt.

14. All test copy may be enclosed.

15. The  claim  may  please   be  forwarded  to  Addl  Director,  CGHS (as  per  letter  s-11012/91-CGHS(P) (Vol-I) dt 18/03/1992 para 3(xiii)).

16. Certified copy of Emergency Certificate is not found enclosed.

17. The pay slip of the employee showing pay in  pay band and grade pay is  not found enclosed for assessment of entitlement.

18. As per this Office Circular  No.Pay/lv/Med/7007/0rd dt 23/05/2014  medical bill/final bill of hospital concerned (raised on or after 01/07/2014) received without  printed PAN, TAN, TIN  would not be entertained.

19. After discharge the CGHS  reference is not enclosed for follow up treatment.

20. Intimation  within  24 hours to concerned unit and CGHS wellness centre regarding emergency admission in hospital has not been found attached.

21. Heavy medicines  have been tendered  to  the  patient;   therefore   the  amount  of medical  claim paid to the  individual/hospital  may please be assessed by Addl  Dire CGHS (concerned city).

22. The CGHS doctor has not verified  the (ATP) Cash Memos (ADD. DIR. CGHS LUCKNOW Letter N0.3-151/2013-CGHS/LKO  Dot 30/09/2013).

Therefore it is requested that the above points  should be kept in mind before forwarding the claim to this office for reimbursement of claim to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of medical claims raised by your office.
In  this context the compendium regarding orders under CGHS and Medical Attendance Rules may also be consulted for-guidance.
ADCA (Pay/Med)
Download Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PDCA) Circular No.Pay/lV/MED/7007/CIR dated 15.05.2015

Invitation of Applications for Creation of National Pool of Trainers on Leadership Skills and Ethics

Invitation of Applications for Creation of National Pool of Trainers on Leadership Skills and Ethics

Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi, 3rd June 2015

Sub: Invitation of Applications for Creation of National Pool of Trainers on Leadership Skills and Ethics

The undersigned is directed to invite applications from serving and retired officers of Central and State Governments, faculty members of Central Training lnstitutions and State ATIs, academicians and subject specialists based in the Delhi, National Capita| Region (NCR) to join the National Pool of Trainers on the two thematic areas (a) Leadership skills and (b) Ethics. The selected persons will undergo Capacity Building workshops which will equip them to deriver Leadership skiils and Ethics training at different institutes located in Delhi NCR

2.The Eligibility Criteria with all the details is enclosed.The application duly filled in prescribed performa with all details may be sent immediately in any case latest by 24June 2015.

(Sanjay Mehta)
Under Secretary to Government of lndia
All concerned

Click to read more

Combined Defence Services Examination (I)-2015 Declaration of Written Result

Combined Defence Services Examination (I)-2015 Declaration of Written Result

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
03-June, 2015

On the basis of the results of the Combined Defence Services Examination (I)-2015 held by the Union Public Service Commission on February15, 2015, 8488 candidates with the following Roll Numbers have qualified for being interviewed by the Service Selection Board of the Ministry of Defence, for admission to (i) Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, 140th Course commencing in January, 2016 (ii) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Course commencing in January, 2016 (iii) Air Force Academy, Hyderabad (Pre-Flying) Training Course commencing in January, 2016 i.e. No. 199/16F/PC (iv) Officers’ Training Academy, Chennai, 103rd SSC Course (for Men) commencing in April, 2016 and (v) Officers’ Training Academy, Chennai, 17th SSC Women (Non-Technical) Course commencing in April, 2016.
The ratio of candidates shortlisted for the examination per vacancy is 1:18.29
The candidature of all the candidates, whose Roll Numbers are shown in the lists below, is provisional. In accordance with the conditions of the admission to the examination, they are required to submit the original certificates in support of age (date of birth), educational qualifications, NCC (C) (Army Wing/Senior Division Air Wing/Naval Wing) etc. claimed by them, alongwith attested copies of thereof, to Army Headquarters, A.G.’s Branch/Rtg./CDSE Entry, West Block 3, Ground Floor, Wing No.I, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. In case of IMA/SSC first choice candidates and IHQ of MoD NAV ( OI & R Section), Room No. 204, C-Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 in case of Naval first choice candidates and PO3 (A) Air Headquarters, ‘J’ Block, Room No. 17, Opp. Vayu Bhawan, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110011 in case of Air Force as their first choice. The original Certificates are to be submitted within two weeks of completion of the SSB Interview and not later than November 13, 2015 (February 01, 2016 in case of SSC only). The candidates must not send the original certificates to the Union Public Service Commission.

In case, there is any change of address, the candidates are advised to promptly intimate directly to the Army Headquarters/Naval Headquarters/Air Headquarters as the case may be.

The Union Public Service Commission have a Facilitation Counter near Examination Hall Building in its Campus. Candidates may obtain any information/clarification regarding this examination on working days between 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM, in person or over telephone Nos. 011-23385271, 011-23381125 and 011-23098543 from this Facilitation Counter. Candidates can also obtain information regarding their result by accessing UPSC website http.//

The marks-sheet of candidates who have not qualified, will be put on the Commission’s website within 15 days from the date of publication of the final result of OTA (after conducting SSB interview) and will remain available on the website for a period of 60 days.
Click here for full list


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...


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