PIL Filed for Central Government Employees Freezing DA in Supreme Court

Latest Central Government Employees News

PIL Filed for Central Government Employees Freezing DA in Supreme Court

IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI.

PIL DATED 24th APRIL 2020 via Email regarding payment of DA or PIL DATED 24th APRIL 2020 via email regarding payment of DA or Dearness allowance with effect from 1st January 2020 atleast to veterans and to all employees if possible

Major Onkar Singh Guleria Retired, a Senior Citizen and CANCER PATIENT, aged 69 years, son of Late Shri Kikar Singh Guleria resident of village Jachh PO Jassur Tehsil Nurpur Distt Kangra Himachal Pradesh 176201.

VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary Finance Govt of India New Delhi 110011.
2. Union of India through Secretary Home Govt of India New Delhi 110011.

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALL HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TO DIRECT UNION OF INDIA TO PRACTICE WHAT PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA PREACHES TO 130 CRORES DESHWASI AND DEFREEZE DA or dearness allownce by paying with effect from 01st January 2020 to Veterans atleast if not to employees.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH,

1. That the applicant a CANCER PATIENT, disabled of right foot and also suffering from hypertension and a Senior Citizen with no home but living in a rented building in my last span of life and also to take care of wife a senior citizen suffering from various ailments and my only source of income is my monthly military pension of the rank of Major that too on reduced scale. I and lakhs of Veterans are aggrieved by arbitrary act of Union of India through Secretary Finance Govt of India New Delhi who were committed to pay arrears of DA or dearness allowance in first week of April 2020 but purposely not payed and on 20th April 2020 has FREEZED "DA or dearness allowance" retrospectively with effect from 01st January 2020 to cause us Veterans an irreparable loss that too at a time when Pandemic of COVID 19 VIRUS (China Originated Virus in December 19) has been commiting genocide in entire world and we to survive honourably need every paisa due to us from Govt of India. I attache arbitrary orders of freezing of DA or dearness Allowances dated 20th April 2020 of Secretary Finance Govt of India as ready referance for the Hon'ble Court.

2. That DA or dearness allowance can be basically understood as a component of salary, aimed at hedging the impact of inflation. The DA or dearness allowance is calculated as a specific percentage of the basic salary which is then added to the basic salary. PENSION received by a retired individual is considered as salary and taxed as, income from salary. Generally whatever is received from the employer in cash including DA or dearness allowance is treated as salary.

3. That the Union of India itself after studying the impact of inflation had announced increased instalment of DA or dearness allowance with effect from 01st January 2020 and promised to pay its employees and Veterans receiving pension in first week of April 2020 which was illegally and arbitrarily withheld and as a afterthought issued malafied orders dated 20th April 2020 ordering of freez of DA or dearness allowance retrospectively from 01st January 2020. It has come as a big blow especially to pensioners at a time when all veterans are more vunerable to catching COVID 19 VIRUS (China Originated Virus in December 19 ) as being daily advocated by Prime Minister of India and all functionaries of Union of India and Doctors through media and advisory letters in black and white. When Union of India is doling out financial package after package from announced budget of 2020-21 in Parliament and later various stimulous financual packages gìven and planning to give to business houses for whom at drop of hat the Political and Administrative Governments of whom many are directly or indirectly associated with industry then huge financial stimulous is being passed even during this national rather international calamity of COVID 19 ( CHINA ORIGINATED VIRUS IN DECEMBER 19), Whereas, petty amount for Union of India but it is a large amount for its employees and Retired personnels who in last span of life are undergoing various hardships is being denied by freezing "DA or dearness allowance" that too retrospectively wef 01st January 2020. This arbitrary and illegal mechanical step of Union of India without applying mind must be struck down immediately and all beneficairies paid their legitmate authorised "DA or dearness allowance" wef 01st January 2020 and continued to be paid. Even Union of India has taken care of other classes of India but subjected the "MIDDLE CLASS" to this horible torture by freezing its "DA or dearness Allowances"at a time when we need every paisa in our last span of life. We by cutting our legitimate expenses have even made small contribution to "PM CARES FUND" which so far is not transparent.

Also check: Second National Judicial Pay Commission has filed the subject of Pay, Pension and Allowances, in Supreme Court on 29.01.2020

4. Then why does Prime Minister of India preaches to look after Senior citizens, not to cut salary when his own Govt is doing it. Atleast the Union of India must practice what its Prime Minster preaches.

5. Copy if this P.I.L., is being sent to all concerned by mail and all Chief Ministers are also requested to pay "DA or dearness Allowances" wef 01st January 2020 to their employees and Retired personnels."HAVES"Political and Administrative class and affluent families are nit in touch with reality. A prominent singer is heard on TV asking 130 Crore Deshwasi to donate atleast Rs.100 Per person to make it Rs13000Crores donations. Madam there are many who have not seen or handled Rs.100 note in their entire life. Then if five of family members donate then amount comes to Rs.500/- which is equivalent to one month amount given to BPL Families by Govt of India. Madam have a heart and producers allowing her to speak this in print media has never applied mind to these ground realities. Sad, how insensitive are our "HAVES"Class!

RELIEFS SOUGHT WITH SPEAKING ORDERS.

6. In the given premises it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Union of India through Secretary Finance Govt of India New Delhi and Secretary Home Govt of India to:

(A) Pay immediately "DA or dearness Allowances" to all employees and Retired personnels and same be done by respective States and Union Territories of India.

(B) Union of India be directed to immediately stop various financial stimulous package being given or are being planned to be given in near future to business houses as after freezing "DA or dearness Allowances" Union of India admits that financial health of the Nation is not sound and healthy. More over these business houses are directly or indirectly related to all Political class who like to enjoy all benefits even in national calamities. Some are seen distributing Govt or public donations of food etc to poor to ensure their own stamp on it. India with Lockdown has gone back to "SATJUG" in many ways and air and water is purified and need of the hour is purification of "HAVES", i.e., the Political cum business class. Union of India must practice what Prime Minister of India preaches to look after senior citizens and not to cut salary.

Also read: MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY - MACP Supreme Court Order - Heard & Reserved - Order dated 23 Jan 2020

7. Kindly direct registry to confirm receipt and action taken via revert Email.

NAMASTE INDIA! JAI HIND!

(MAJOR ONKAR SINGH GULERIA RETD)
(A CANCER PATIENT)
Mob: 7018748978, 9418009991.
Email: maj.onkarsinghguleria@gmail.com

Court Order - Pension payments to employees who retired from the DOT from 1 October 2000 to 31 July 2001 - BSNL

Court Order - Pension payments to employees who retired from the DOT from 1 October 2000 to 31 July 2001 - BSNL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 8th January, 2020
Decided on: 24th January, 2020

W.P.(C) 10019/2017 and CM APPL. 40921/2017 (stay)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ……… Petitioners
Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen with Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates.

versus

ALL INDIA BSNL PENSIONERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION AND ORS ……… Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranvir Singh, Advocate for R1.
Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Vibhuti Tyagi and Mr.Tapasvi Raj, Advocates for R4, R9, R10 and R12.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J

1. The Department of Telecommunications (DOT), Government of India, (Petitioner No.1), the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Petitioner No.2) and the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare ("DPPW"), Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions (Petitioner No.3) have jointly filed this petition challenging an order dated 16th December, 2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ("CAT") disposing of OA No. 2173/2014 filed by the Respondent No.1 and Respondents No. 4 to 14 thereby quashing an order dated 15th January, 2003 issued by the DOT in regard to payment of pension to employees who retired from the DOT between 1st October, 2000 and 31st July, 2001 and were subsequently absorbed in the BSNL. OA No. 2173/2014 was filed before the CAT by the All India BSNL Pensioners Welfare Association (hereafter Association) (Respondent No.1 herein) on behalf of 4230 affected pensioners in a representative capacity.

2. By the impugned order, the CAT has held that there was no justification for the DOT to deny the benefit to the Respondents 2 to 14 the benefit of formula adopted in Office Memorandum (OM) dated 18th October, 1999. The CAT has issued a direction to the Petitioners to re-fix the pension of the said Respondents; give them notional benefit of the IDA pay scale and thereafter grant all consequential benefits from the date of their respective dates of retirement in accordance with law.

3. It must be noted at the outset that on 23rd January, 2018 an interim order was passed that no coercive steps will be taken against the Petitioners for implementing the impugned order of the CAT.

4. The facts in brief are that on creation of the BSNL with effect from 1st October, 2000 all serving Group "A" officers were transferred to it on deputation basis. An OM dated 27th October, 1997 was issued by the DPPW on the issue of implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission ("CPC") regarding revision of the provisions regulating pension/commutation of pension. This provided that pension shall continue to be calculated at 50% of average emoluments in all cases subject to a minimum of Rs.1275/- and maximum upto 50% of the highest pay in the Government.

5. The OM dated 27th October, 1997 further provided that those Government servants who opted for revised scales of pay and retired within ten months from coming into force of the revised scales of pay, basic pay for ten months preceding retirement shall be calculated as under:

• For the period during which pay is drawn in the pre-revised scale
  Basic pay plus DA and Interim Relief I and II appropriate to the basic pay at the rates in force on 01.01.1996 drawn during the relevant period and
• For the period during which pay is drawn in revised scale-Basic pay in the revised scale.

6. The above OM was further revised by an OM dated 17th December, 1998 specifying that pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised pay scale.

7. Another OM dated 18th October, 1999 was issued by the DPPW modifying the earlier OM dated 27th October, 1997. This stated that the average emoluments for those retiring within ten months of coming over to the revised pay scales would be calculated thus:

“The average emoluments based on the basic pay of the preceding ten months of those Government Servants who had opted to come over to the revised scales of pay and had retired within a period of 10 months reckoned from January 1, 1996 shall be calculated as follows for the purpose of determining their pension entitlement.

(A) For the period during which pay was drawn in the pre- revised pay scales.

The total emoluments for the number of months for which pay was drawn in the pre-revised pay scales shall be calculated after taking into account the following:

i. Basic Pay (including increments if any drawn during the intervening period).
ii. Dearness allowance upto CPI 1510 i.e. @ 148%, III% and 96% of the basic pay as the case may be.
iii. The first and second installments of Interim Relief appropriate to the Basic pay drawn during the relevant period.
iv. Notional increase of the Basic Pay by applying the Fitment Benefit of 40 percent on the Basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale.

(B) For the period during which pay was drawn in the revised pay scales :
The aggregate of the Basic pay for the number of months for which pay was drawn in the revised pay scales.

The average emoluments of the preceding ten months will thereafter be calculated by adding (A) and (B) and dividing the result by 10. Pension admissible will consequently be 50% of the average emoluments so calculated.”

8. According to the Petitioners, the object behind this modification was to eliminate the anomaly in pension drawn by those retiring within ten months of coming over to the revised pay scale during the period from 1st January to 31st October, 1996 and those who retired after completion of ten months period with effect from 1st January,1996.

9. Prior to en masse transfer of DOT employees to the BSNL on deemed deputation basis with effect from 1st October 2000, several rounds of discussions were held with the unions. It was agreed to extend the retirement benefits in the BSNL in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This led to insertion of Rule 37A in the CCS (Pension) Rules which came to be published on 30th September, 2000. It provided for the conditions for payment of pension and absorption upon conversion of a Government Department into a Central Autonomous Body („CAB‟) or a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU).

10. The relevant portion of the newly inserted Rule 37A of the CCS (Pension) Rules read as under:

“(4) The permanent absorption of the Government servants as employees of the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body shall take effect from the date on which their options are accepted by the Government and on and from the date of such acceptance, such employees shall cease to be Government servants and they shall be deemed to have retired from Government service.
(7) The employees including quasi-permanent and temporary employees but excluding causal labourers, who opt for permanent absorption in the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body, shall on and from date of Absorption, be governed by the rules and regulations or bye-laws of the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body, as the case may be.
(8) A permanent Government servant who has been absorbed as an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body shall be eligible for pensionary benefits on the basis of combined service rendered by him in the Government and in the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body in accordance with the formula for calculation of pension/family pension under these rules as may be in force at the time of his retirement from the Public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body, as the case may be.
(9) The pension of an employee under sub-rule (8) shall be calculated on the basis of his last ten months average pay.
(10) In addition to pension or family pension, as the case may be the employees shall also be eligible to Dearness relief as per Industrial Dearness Allowance pattern.
(21) Nothing contained in sub-rule (12) to (20) shall apply in the case of conversion of the Departments of Telecom Services and Telecom Operations into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in which case the pensioner benefits including family pension shall be paid by the government.
(22) For the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits including family pension referred to in sub-rule (21), the Government shall specify the arrangements and manner including the rate of pensionary contributions to be made by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to the government and the manner in which financial liabilities on this account shall be met.”

11. In other words, Rule 37A provided that those Government servants permanently absorbed in PSU or the CAB would be entitled to pension in the same manner as Central Government employees.

Also check: MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY – MACP Supreme Court Order – Heard & Reserved – Order dated 23 Jan 2020

12. A further round of discussions was held with the unions by the management of BSNL on 2ndJanuary, 2001. It was agreed that options for absorption in the BSNL would be called in January, 2001. It was further mutually agreed that pending fitment in the IDA pay scales Group (C) & (D) optees will continue in the Central Government (CDA) pay scales. They were also to be paid an adhoc amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from1st October, 2000 which was to be adjusted from IDA emoluments, perks and benefits upon fitment in the IDA scale.

High-Court-Order-Pension-DoT-BSNLDownload

OROP - One Rank One Pension - Supreme Court of India petition dated 01-05-2019

OROP - One Rank One Pension - Supreme Court of India petition dated 01-05-2019

ITEM NO.1
COURT NO.9

SECTION X

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 419/2016

INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS.
Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Respondent(s)

(WITH IA 33253/2017 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION)

Date : 01-05-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv.
Ms. Garima Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Govil, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Subranmanyam, Adv.
Mr. Rohitash Kr. Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Mr. Charanya L. Kumaran, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sheena Taqui, Adv.
Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

During the course of the hearing, the principal submission of the petitioners is that the recommendation of the Koshyari Committee for thegrant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) was endorsed by the Budgetary Speech of the Finance Minister on 17 February 2014 and by the Minister of Defence on 26 February 2014, following which the Controller General of Defence Accounts was directed to work out modalities. This was further re-affirmed on 10 July 2014 by the Finance Minister and on 2 December 2014 by the Minister of State for Defence. However, the Union government, on 7 November 2015, while implementing OROP adopted a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners would be bridged at“periodic intervals”.

The petitioners have highlighted specifically three aspects of the anomalies which have arisen. They are summarised in a written note of submissions tendered before the Court, which is extracted below:
“(i) Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014.

(ii) Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation.

For example, if 8(i) and (ii) are implemented, two soldiers who have served for same length of years, holding the same rank will draw different pension. A Sepoy (Group Y) who retired prior to 31 Dec 2013 will get Rs.6665 p.m. and another Sepoy (Group Y) who retired on and after 1 Jan 2014 would get Rs 7605 p.m. Further, on account of such implementation, a higher rank Naik soldier who retired before 31 Dec 2013 would draw a lesser pension of Rs.7170p.m., than a junior rank Sepoy who retired after 1 Jan 2014 as his pension would be Rs.7605. This fact is illustrated by a tabular chart which is enclosed. (See Pg.1, CC).

Therefore, implementation of this new definition of OROP defeats the very principle of OROP by creating a class within a class of the same officers, which in practice tantamounts to one rank different pensions. This is also contrary to the judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125.

Another fallacy in the new definition of OROP which detracts from the principle of OROP is:

(iii) Pension Equalization every five years:

It is submitted that Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees.”

Certain concrete examples have been indicated in charts which are annexed to the note submitted before this Court by Mr Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

At this stage, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the Union government scrutinizes the grievances which are placed before the Court in the above note. It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement, are duly considered by the Union government at an appropriate level.

We would expect the government to seriously consider the grievances and to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, justice canbe provided for the satisfaction of all concerned.

List the Writ Petition on 6 August 2019.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I)
AR-CUM-PS

(SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER

Source: SCI

Full Pension to Pre 2006 Pensioners with less than 33 years but more than 20 years service: Supreme Court dismisses UOI Review Petition

Supreme Court Dismisses (both on grounds of delay and on merit) the Review Petition of UOI for Full Pension (in stead of Pro Rata Pension) to Pre 2006 Pensioners with less than 33 years but more than 20 years service. Copies of SC orders dated 28-8-2015 & 26-8-2015 in R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015 IN SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015 UOI vs M. O. INASU - attached

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015
IN
SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
M. O. INASU ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Upon perusing the paper book, it has come to our notice that there is a delay of 136 days in filing this review petition and we do not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay.

Even on merits, we have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this review petition.

The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

.................................J.

[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2015.08.28
14:54:57 IST
Reason: .................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

Source: Bharat Pensioner Samaj
[http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2015/08/supreme-court-dismisses-review-petition.html]

ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS

ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No.1998 of 2012,
C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012,
C.A.No.4581 of 2012,
C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012,
C.A.No.4599 of 2013,
C.A.No.1 of 2015
AND
SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)No……… of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)

O R D E R

Heard.
Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:
We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.
The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.

C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :

No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal.

The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)Nos………..of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I. may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.

We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.

All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.

…………………..J
(T.S. THAKUR)

…………………..J
(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI
DATED 17th March, 2015

Data Entry Operators in Ordnance & Ordnance equipment Factories

Honarable Supreme Court of India common Judgement dated 09/12/14 in respect of Data Entry Operators in Ordnance & Ordnance equipment Factories.

Office of the Principal Controller of Accounts (Fys)
10-A, S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 001
No. Pay/Tech-I/O1(6Th CPC)/2015/01
Date: 03/03/2015

To
(i) All Group Controllers
(ii) AO OF(P) Nalanda
(iii) AO OF(P) Korwa


Subject: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India common Judgement dated 09/12/14 in respect of Data Entry Operators in Ordnance & Ordnance equipment Factories.

In the matter of higher pay scale in respect of Data Entry Operators of Ordnance Factories Organisation, a copy of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India common Judgement dated 09/12/14, circulated vide OFB No-340/OA-01/09/VA/115/HAPP/A/NI, dated 14/01/15 is hereby Uploaded in the PC of A web site for information and guidance to all concerned.

Branch AOs under your control may please be intimated accordingly.

-sd/-
Addl. Controller of Accounts (Fys)

Click here for Supreme Court Judgement

Source: http://www.pcafys.gov.in/files/deo_04032015.pdf

Pension by employees who were temporary at the time of resignation [Prior to 1988]

Court case related to CPWD regarding pension by employees who were temporary at the time of resignation [Prior to 1988, temporary employees were not eligible for pension]:-

No. C-18013/4/2013 -EC VI/643-58
Government of India
Directorate General
Central Public Works Department

Nirrnan Bhavan, New Delhi,
Dated June, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Court cases regarding pension by employees who were temporary at the time of resignation.
In a court case for grant of pension for employee who was at the time of resignation from service of Central Government, the court ordered for grant of pension-where as per rules, prior to 1988, temporary employees were not eligible for pension. Brief of the case is enclosed for perusal. To process this case, Ministry has desired following information:-.

(i) How many such are pending in courts under your region?
(ii) Is there any precedent case in under region where pension has been allowed to a temporary employee before 26.2.1988?
(iii) What would be the financial implication on allowing pension and to all other persons similarly placed?

You are therefore, requested to collect information from zones under your jurisdiction and furnish the same as to the directorate within one month.

(B.B. Makkar)
Chief Engineer (HQ)

Brief history of this case is as under:-

Shri P.P. Bhaskaran joined in this department on 20.11.1964 as Section Officer (later designated as Junior Engineer). He went to IAAI on deputation on 08.07.1975 and later on he got absorption in the regular service of IAAI. He was absorbed in IAAI in 01.09.1977. His service was not confirmed in CPWD (Central Government) as his turn for confirmation had not yet come. He superannuated from IAAI in December 2000. As per service record of the petitioner he was entitled for gratuity only and not pension.

Prior to 1988, temporary employees were not eligible for pension. Shri P.P.Bhaskaran filed O.A. No. 1008 of 2012 before the CAT, Madras Bench, to declare that he is entitled to receive pension for the period of service rendered in CPWD from 20.11.1964 to 30.08.1977. Along with the said application he also filed M.A. No.408 of 2011 to waive the waiting period of 6 month from the date of representation for filing OA. The CAT dismissed the OA as well as the MA by its order dated 22.8.2012 holding that the cause of action arose in the year 1977 and therefore it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The Petitioner filed WP. No. 32214 of 2012 challenging the aforesaid order of the CAT before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. The Hon’ble High Court by an order dated 18.11.2013 allowed the WP and directed CPWD to calculate the pension payab1e to him on pro-rata basis and disburse the arrears a period preceding three years from the date of the O.A. till date of payment.

Source: CPWD
[http://cpwd.gov.in/WriteReadData/other_cir/10702.pdf]

Court cases regarding pension by employees who were temporary at the time of resignation.

Court case related to CPWD regarding pension by employees who were temporary at the time of resignation [Prior to 1988, temporary employees were not eligible for pension]:-

No. C-18013/4/2013 -EC VI/643-58
Government of India
Directorate General
Central Public Works Department

Nirrnan Bhavan, New Delhi,
Dated June, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Court cases regarding pension by employees who were temporary at the time of resignation.

In a court case for grant of pension for employee who was at the time of resignation from service of Central Government, the court ordered for grant of pension-where as per rules, prior to 1988, temporary employees were not eligible for pension. Brief of the case is enclosed for perusal. To process this case, Ministry has desired following information:-
.
(i) How many such are pending in courts under your region?

(ii) Is there any precedent case in under region where pension has been allowed to a temporary employee before 26.2.1988?

(iii) What would be the financial implication on allowing pension and to all other persons similarly placed?
You are therefore, requested to collect information from zones under your jurisdiction and furnish the same as to the directorate within one month.

(B.B. Makkar)
Chief Engineer (HQ)

Brief history of this case is as under:-

Shri P.P. Bhaskaran joined in this department on 20.11.1964 as Section Officer (later designated as Junior Engineer). He went to IAAI on deputation on 08.07.1975 and later on he got absorption in the regular service of IAAI. He was absorbed in IAAI in 01.09.1977. His service was not confirmed in CPWD (Central Government) as his turn for confirmation had not yet come. He superannuated from IAAI in December 2000. As per service record of the petitioner he was entitled for gratuity only and not pension. Prior to 1988, temporary employees were not eligible for pension. Shri P.P.Bhaskaran filed O.A. No. 1008 of 2012 before the CAT, Madras Bench, to declare that he is entitled to receive pension for the period of service rendered in CPWD from 20.11.1964 to 30.08.1977. Along with the said application he also filed M.A. No.408 of 2011 to waive the waiting period of 6 month from the date of representation for filing OA. The CAT dismissed the OA as well as the MA by its order dated 22.8.2012 holding that the cause of action arose in the year 1977 and therefore it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The Petitioner filed WP. No. 32214 of 2012 challenging the aforesaid order of the CAT before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. The Hon’ble High Court by an order dated 18.11.2013 allowed the WP and directed CPWD to calculate the pension payab1e to him on pro-rata basis and disburse the arrears a period preceding three years from the date of the O.A. till date of payment.

Source: CPWD
[http://cpwd.gov.in/WriteReadData/other_cir/10702.pdf]

Pension from 01 January 2006 rather than 24 September 2012 : Supreme Court dismisses the Review Petition filed by Govt of India

Pension from 01 January 2006 rather than 24 September 2012 : Supreme Court dismisses the Review Petition filed by Govt of India
Pension from 01 January 2006 rather than 24 September 2012 : Supreme Court dismisses the Review Petition filed by Govt of India: News as published by Maj Navdeep Singh on his Blog:-

As most would know, the Govt had challenged before the Supreme Court the decision of the Delhi High Court wherein the judgement by the Central Administrative Tribunal granting benefit of rectification of pensionary anomalies from 01 January 2006 rather than 24 September 2012 was questioned. The order in effect and essence affected all central govt pensioners, including defence pensioners.

The controversy had emanated from the fact whether the benefits of the correct pension were to flow from 01 Jan 2006 which is the date from which the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented or from 24 Sept 2012 when the Govt had decided to remove the anomalies in the pension structure after the said Pay Commission. Of course, it was held by Courts that the removal of the anomalies shall date back to the date of the inception of the said anomalies and not any later artificial date.

Incorrigible as it is, the Govt had gone ahead and filed a Review Petition in the matter urging the Supreme Court to review its order of dismissal of the SLP filed by the Central Govt.

The Supreme Court has yesterday dismissed the Review Petition filed by the Govt in the matter.

Source: http://www.indianmilitary.info/2013/11/pension-from-01-january-2006-rather.html

Employee can't escape recovery of excess payments: SC

Employee can't escape recovery of excess payments: SC

New Delhi, Nov 2 (IANS): The Supreme Court has said that even after retirement from service, an employee can't escape the recovery of the excess amount that is credited due to an error in salary calculations.

Rejecting the submission that no amount should be recovered from the excess salary paid to employees, the apex court bench of Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Dipak Misra said, "...if any amount had been paid due to mistake, the mistake must be rectified and the amount so paid in pursuance of the mistake must be recovered".

"It might also happen that the employer might have to pay some amount to the respondent as a result of some mistake and in such an event, even the appellant (employer) might have to pay to the respondent (employee)," said Justice Dave in the judgment pronounced Friday.

"Be that as it may, upon settlement of the account, whatever amount has to be paid to the respondent employee or to the appellant employer shall be paid and the account shall be adjusted accordingly", the court said setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order.

The apex court said this while allowing an appeal by Chandigarh administration challenging the March 20, 2008 decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it had allowed the plea of Gurcharan Singh against the recovery of excess of money that was paid to him due to erroneous fixation of his salary by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking where he had worked as a clerk.

Gurcharan Singh had moved the High Court after his plea against the recovery of excess money was junked by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jan 4,2002.

Singh, who had served as Combatant Clerk, was discharged from the army Jan 31,1990. He got employed with Chandigarh Transport Undertaking April 15, 1990 against ex-servicemen quota.

Two years later, he got his pay that was fixed by an order of Sep 2,1992. Upon his retirement, it emerged during an audit that his pay was wrongly fixed by the communication of Sep 2.

On retrospective re-fixation of his salary, it emerged that he was paid excess payment and same were sought to be recovered.

Source: http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=199032

MACP on Hierarchy: Supreme Court dismissed the Govt. petitions against HC Decision

MACP on Hierarchy: Supreme Court dismissed the Govt. petitions against HC Decision

Dear Comrade,
The Principal CAT [OA 904/2012 dt. 26-11-2012], Delhi and the Punjab & Haryana High Court [CWP No. 19387 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.10.2011] have held that MACP is to be granted on promotional hierarchy and not on next higher Grade Pay as per the 6th Pay Commission Recommendation.  The SLP filed by Union of India against the P&H decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court [CC 7467/2013].

Yours Comradely,
Manoj Kumar Sharma
Secretary General
Ministerial Staff Association
C/o-Northern Printing Group
Survey of India
Dehradun:- 248001

For more details, click here...

Pension Arrears from 01 Jan 2006 as per Court Order: Govt reply in Parliament

Pension Arrears from 01 Jan 2006 as per Court Order: Govt reply in Parliament

The orders for implementation of the decision taken by the Government on the recommendations of 6th CPC for revision for pension of past pensioners were issued vide this Department’s OM No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008. The provisions of Para 4.2 of this OM were clarified vide this Department’s letter dated 3.10.2008.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its order dated 1.11.2011 observed that by the OM dated 3.10.2008 the original orders of 1.9.2008 have been modified. Hon’ble CAT directed that the past pensioners may be granted, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, a minimum pension @ 50% of the minimum pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of serving employees.

A Writ Petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi challenging the above mentioned order. In its order dated 29.4.2013, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld the order dated 1.11.2011. After considering the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and various representations received in this regard, Special Leave Petition was filed by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

This SLP came up for hearing recently on 29.7.2013 before the Hon. Supreme Court and has been dismissed. [click here to see]

The above information submitted by Min of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions in reply of undermentioned Lok Sabha Question:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 670

ANSWERED ON   07.08.2013

DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ARREARS TO PENSIONERS

670 . Shri VILAS BABURAO MUTTEMWAR
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-


(a) the reasons for inordinate delay in implementation of Hon`ble High Court`s order to give effect to the payment of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to pensioners retired before 2006;

(b) whether the Government have received representations from employees organizations and other bodies in this regard; and

(c) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government on the representations?

ANSWER

Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office. (SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY)

(a) to (c): *** see above ***

Source: Lok Sabha Q&A

Death of government employee does not entitle family for job: Supreme Court

Death of government employee does not entitle family for job: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court has held that death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment and the person seeking appointment must possess the eligibility for the post.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and S A Bobde also said that the competent authority should examine the financial condition of family of the deceased and job should be offered to the eligible family member only if it is satisfied that they would not be able to cope up with the crisis.

"Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment.

"The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post," it said.

The bench allowed an appeal filed by MGB Gramin Bank which had challenged a 2010 judgement of the Rajasthan High Court by which one Chakrawarti Singh, son of a deceased Bank employee, was directed to be appointed under a scheme of compassionate employment.


Singh's father, who was working as a Class III employee with the Bank, had died on April 19, 2006 while in harness. Singh had applied for compassionate appointment on May 12, 2006.

The bench set aside the judgements of the High Court, saying, "The reasoning given by the single judge as well as by the division bench is not sustainable in the eyes of law."

It also said that "an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment".
The bench said compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a "matter of right, as it is not a vested right".

It also said that every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

"An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread earner," the bench said.

The Bank had said during pendency of Singh's application, a new scheme dated June 12, 2006 came into force with effect from October 6, 2006 which provided that all applications pending on the date of commencement of the scheme shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to the family instead of compassionate appointment.

This contention was rejected by the High Court which said the cause of action, i.e death of the employee, had arisen prior to the commencement of the new scheme and, therefore, the case was to be considered as per the then existing scheme which provided for compassionate appointment and not for grant of ex-gratia payment.

Source: ET

Payment of Arrears w.e.f. 01-01-1996 to 18-02-2003 to Railway Accounts Officer: Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition

Payment of Arrears w.e.f. 01-01-1996 to 18-02-2003 to Railway Accounts Officer: Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition

SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE REVIEW PETITION ON PAYMENT OF ARREARS W.E.F. 01-01-1996 TO 18-02-2003 to RAILWAY ACCOUNTS OFFICER

Text reproduced of Court Order:-
CHAMBER MATTER

SECTION XIA

SUPREME  COURT  OF  INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO(s). 1494 OF 2013 IN SLP(C) 9832/2013
U.O.I. & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JOSE SEBASTIAN & ORS.

Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay,c/delay in filing review petition)
Date: 01/08/2013  This Petition was circulated today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
By Circulation
UPON perusing papers the Court made the following ORDER
Application for hearing in open Court is rejected.
Delay condoned.
The review petition is dismissed in  terms  of  the  signed order.

[Madhu Bala]         [Savita Sainani]
Sr.PA                         Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

2.     REVIEW PETITION (Civil) No. 1494 OF 2013
IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 9832  OF 2013
Union of India & Ors

.... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Jose Sebastian & Ors

....  Respondent(s)

ORDER

Application for hearing in open Court is rejected.
Delay condoned.
We have carefully gone through the review petition  and  the connected papers.  We find no merit in the  review  petition  and  the same  is accordingly dismissed.

....................................CJI.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

.......................................J.

(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 01, 2013
Source: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/rc%20149413p.txt

*******

Special Leave Petition (Civil) 9832 OF 2013 Order & Judgement:

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIA

SUPREME   COURT   OF   INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013
CC 1997/2013
(From the judgement and order  dated 27/03/2012 in WPC No.22276/2007 of  The
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JOSE SEBASTIAN & ORS

Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date: 25/02/2013  This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
For Petitioner(s)       Ms. Manita Verma,Adv.
Ms. Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa,Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)       Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.
Mr. Ezekial Jarain,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER
Heard learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the relevant material.
Delay condoned.
We do not find any legal and valid ground for  interference.
The special leave petition is dismissed.

[Madhu Bala]         [Savita Sainani]
Sr.PA                         Court Master

Source: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/pc%20199713p.txt

*******

Judgement and order dated 27/03/2012 in WPC No.22276/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL  B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/7TH CHAITHRA 1934

WP(C).No. 22276 of 2007 (Z)
OA.671/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED
30.06.2006
PETITIONER(S):

1.  UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD), RAIL BHAVAN
NEW DELHI.
2.  THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003.
3.  THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI.

BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS

RESPONDENT(S):

1.  JOSE SEBASTIAN, S/O. P.A.SEBASTIAN,
JUNIOR ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT (RETD.)
DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY
TRIVANDRUM-14, RESIDING AT KRISHNA LODGE
KANNERTHUMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM-14.
2.  SOUDAMINI HARIDAS, W/O. MR. HARIDAS,
JUNIOR ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS
OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM-14
RESIDING AT KMRA-125, KUNNATHUMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM-14.
3.  R.SHAILAJA NAIR, D/O. MR. K.N.PILLAI,
JUNIOR ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS
OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM-14
RESIDING AT ROSE COTTAGE, TC 15/882, COTTON HILL
TRIVANDRUM-10.
4.  AJITHA T.NAIR, W/O. MR. S.THULASEEDHARAN
NAIR, JUNIOR ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT
DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY
TRIVANDRUM-14, RESIDING AT UDIYANNOOR PUTHEN, VEEDU
KUTHIRAKALAM P.O., VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM.
LSN                                                       

--2--

WP(C).No. 22276 of 2007 (Z)

5.  SINDHU HARIKUMAR, W/O. MR. HARIKUMAR,
JUNIOR ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS
OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM-14
RESIDING AT TC 16/2429, SINDHU NIVAS, VALIYASALA
TRIVANDRUM.
6.  CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ABDUL SAMAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
27-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
WP(C).No. 22276 of 2007 (Z)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1:  COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 671/2003 WITH ANNEXURES DATED NIL.
P2:  COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT WITH ANNEXURE DATED 14/01/2004.
P3:  COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 20/02/2004.
P4:  COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 23/04/2007.
P5:  COPY OF THE ORDER O.A. NO. 671/2003 DATED 30/06/2006.
P6:  COPY OF THE ORDER IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 57/03 DATED 03.06.2003.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
LSN
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.22276 of 2007
----------------------------------------

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2012

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

The short issue is whether the respondents ,who are Railway employees, are entitled to arrear of pay on revision of scales with effect from 1.1.1996. They were refused such benefit till 18.2.2003 as per Annexure-A3.
That has been interfered with by the Tribunal. We find no rationale to refuse relief to the Railway employees particularly when such relief has been granted to the employees of the other sector covered by the Pay Commission Order.
We find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity to say that there is any injustice against the establishment on the basis of the impugned order. No ground made out for interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge

Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge

TKS/27.3.2012
Source: http://judis.nic.in/judis_kerala/qrydisp.aspx?filename=248588