Appeal to unfreeze the DA/DR is dismissed by Delhi High Court Order

Delhi high court order on dearness allowance

Appeal to unfreeze the DA/DR is dismissed by Delhi High Court Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 3308/2020
HITESH BHARDWAJ ….. Petitioner

Through: Dr. Pradeep Sharma with Mr. Harsh,
Advs.
versus
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, ASC, GNCTD.

CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

01.06.2020

CM APPL. 11606/2020

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Court fees be paid within a week.
The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3308/2020

The present writ petition has been preferred in public interest seeking following reliefs:

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to withdraw the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to withdraw the endorsement against the notification, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of NCT of Delhi.

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to defreeze and release the enhanced Dearness Allowance to the Central Government Servants and pensioners as per norms.

d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to defreeze and release the enhanced Dearness Allowance to the Government Servants and pensioners of GNCTD as per norms.”
 
The respondent no. 1/Union of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2020 which is the cause for the petitioner’s grievance in the present writ petition. The said Office Memorandum reads as follows:

Freezing of Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Central Government pensioners at current rates till July 2021.

The petitioner is also aggrieved by the consequent order issued by respondent no. 2/GNCTD dated 24.04.2020, whereby the GNCTD has followed suit in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2020 issued by respondent no. 1. The Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2020, in effect, conveys the decision of the Central Government that Dearness Allowance due to the Central Government Employees and Dearness Relief due to the Central Government Pensioners from 01.01.2020 shall not be paid. It also states that additional installment of the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief due from 01.07.2020 and 01.01.2021 shall also not be paid. Pertinently, Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief at the current rates would continue to be paid. The said Office Memorandum further states that as and when the decision to release future installment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief due from 01.07.2021 is taken by the Government, rates of the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief as effective from 01.01.2020, 01.07.2020 and 01.07.2021 will be restored prospectively, and will be subsumed in the cumulative revised rate effective from 01.07.2020. No arrears from the period 01.01.2020 till 30.06.2021 shall be paid.

The first submission of the petitioner is that Central Government Employees and Central Government Pensioners have a vested right to receive the enhanced Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief which has already been declared effective from 01.01.2020. The said increase was declared at 4%. The petitioner also claims that such employees and pensioners also have vested right to continue to receive enhancement in Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief on and from 01.07.2020 and 01.01.2021.

To examine the merit of this submission, we may refer to the All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1972. These statutory rules have been framed by the Central Government after consultation with the Government of the States concerned in exercise of powers conferred by SubSection (1) of Section 3 of All India Services Act,1952. Rule 3 of the said Rule is relevant and which reads as follows:

“3. Regulation of dearness allowance:
Every member of the Service and every officer, whose initial pay is fixed in accordance with sub-rule (5) or sub-rule (6A) of rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 or sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 or sub-rule (6) of rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 1968, shall be entitled to draw dearness allowance at such rates, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified by the Central Government, from time to time, in respect of the officers of Central Civil Services, Class I.”
(emphasis supplied)

From the above Rule, it would be seen that Central Government servants shall be entitled to draw Dearness Allowance “at such rates, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified by the Central Government, from time to time, in respect of officers of the Central Civil Service, ClassI”. We may notice that there is no other statutory rule brought to our notice relating to payment of Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief and it appears that the said Rule governs the payment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief to Government servants and Government Pensioners of the Union in respect of all the classes of employees.

The above rule shows that the entitlement to draw Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief is determined by the Central Government. The same may be specified by the Central Government from time to time, subject to whatever conditions the Government may deem fit to impose.

From the above Rule, it is clear to us that, firstly, there is no statutory rule which obliges the Central Government to continue to enhance the Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief at regular intervals i.e. to revise the same upwards from time to time. Consequently, there is no vested right in the Central Government Employees, or Central Government Pensioners to receive higher Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief on regular intervals.

Pertinently, by the impugned Office Memorandum, the Central Government has frozen – and not withdrawn, the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief being paid to Central Government Employees and Central Government Pensioners at the time of issuance of the said Office Memorandum.

Also check: Appeal to unfreeze the DA by the petitioner at Delhi High Court

So far as the submission with regard to increase of 4% Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief with effect from 01.01.2020 is concerned, the impugned Office Memorandum does not seek to take it away. All that it does is to postpone its payment till after 01.07.2021. That power, in our view, resides with the Central Government, by virtue of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rule, 1972, since the Central Government is empowered to take the decision to make payment of Dearness Allowance / Dearness Relief, subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Government in the impugned Office Memorandum has referred to COVID19 pandemic as the reason for its decision contained in the said Office Memorandum. However, the impugned Office Memorandum has not been issued by the competent authority under the Disaster Management Act. We do not find merit in this submission. The provisions of the Disaster Management Act are not the only repository of the power of the Government to take action in the light of the pandemic. As noticed above, the power to determine as to how much Dearness Allowance is to be paid, i.e. at what rates, and subject to what condition, resides with the Central Government by virtue of Rule 3 of All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1972. Merely because the said impugned Office Memorandum makes reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, it does not follow that the only provision which the respondents could have invoked are those contained in the Disaster Management Act. The Central Government, by referring to COVID-19 pandemic in the impugned communication, has merely provided its reasons and justification for its decision contained in the said Office Memorandum.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Office Memorandum is also in violation of Article 360(4) (a)(i) of the Constitution of India. Article 360 of the Constitution of India contains the provision as to financial emergency, and it provides that if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability of credit in India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened, he may, by a proclamation make declaration to that effect. The submission is that President of India has not declared financial emergency. The further submission is that it is only during financial emergency declared by the President, that by virtue of Sub-Article 4(a)(i) – a provision could be made requiring reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State. Since no financial emergency has been declared, the Office Memorandum in question could not have been issued which is referable to Article 360(4)(a)(i) of the Constitution of India.

We find this submission to be completely misplaced. This is for the reason that Article 360(4)(a)(i) deals with a situation where the Government seeks to reduce the salary or allowance of all, or any class of persons, serving in connection with the affairs of the State. In the present case, the Office Memorandum does not seek to reduce either the salaries or allowances, which includes Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief in respect of serving Government servants, or its pensioners. All that it does is to freeze the payment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief at the pre-existing level, and to put in abeyance any increase in Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief till July, 2021. The said freeze does not tantamount to reduction of either salary, or allowances, of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State.

The further submission submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Office Memorandum could not have been issued by mere issuance of an office order, and the same should have been either framed as a statutory rule, or by issuing a gazette notification. We do not find any basis for this submission. We have noticed Rule 3 of the All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1972. The said Rule does not state that the Central Government can form, or communicate, its decision with regard to entitlement to draw Dearness Allowance, subject to conditions, only by framing another rule, or by a gazette notification. There is no such requirement in law. Therefore, we do not find any merits in this submission as well.

Also check: Expected DA 2020

So far as the right to receive the increase of Dearness Allowance / Dearness Relief already declared by the Government with effect from 01.01.2020 is concerned, it falls well within the domain of the Central Government to decide as to when to disburse the said increase. There is no obligation in law upon the Central Government to disburse the increase in Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief within a time bound manner. Rule 3 of All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules referred to above, itself empowers the Central Government to lay down the conditions subject to which Dearness Allowance may be drawn by officers of Central Government.

For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

JUNE 01, 2020

Download: Freezing of DA/DR Delhi high court order 01-06-2020

Stepping up of pay of senior Assistants of CSS drawing less pay on promotion in the Section Officers Grade than their juniors

Stepping up of pay of senior Assistants of CSS drawing less pay on promotion in the Section Officers Grade than their juniors

Latest central government employees news today

Stepping up of salaries of senior Assistants of CSS earning less salary on promotion in the Section Officers Grade than their juniors

सं.-18/2/2014-CS-I (S)
भारत सरकार Government of India
कार्मिक,लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालय /
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
कार्मिक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग /
(Department of Personnel & Training)

2nd Floor, A Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi -110003, the 01st June, 2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Latest DoPT Orders 2020

Subject: Stepping up of pay of senior Assistants of CSS drawing less pay on promotion in the Section Officers Grade than their juniors – OM No. 18/2/2007- CS-I dated 20.05.2014 – Writ Petitions filed in the matter -regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of even number dated 01.07.2019 wherein instructions, for dealing with stepping up of pay cases consequent to directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide their interim orders in various Writ Petitions filed in the matter, were issued.

Also check: Relaxation in CCS Leave rules 1972 for central government employees – COVID19 – Latest DoPT Orders 2020

2. In this connection it is reiterated that the pay of the petitioners and similarly placed non-petitioners is to be restored only if they submit the ‘Affidavit of Undertaking’ as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the format attached with this Department’s OM under reference.

3. As regards the manner in which the pay is to be restored, it is clarified that the pay of the petitioners and non-petitioners, who submit the affidavit of undertaking in the prescribed format, may be restored notionally from the date with effect from which the stepping up of pay was granted earlier and regularly from the date of submission of the affidavit of undertaking as directed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi subject to the outcome of the Writ Petitions or orders of any competent court in related matters.

4. If an officer, whose pay has been restored in accordance with the above instructions, superannuates or retires voluntarily, his/ her case may be dealt as per the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 relating to provisional pension, payment of gratuity etc.
Also check: MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY – MACP Supreme Court Order – Heard & Reserved – Order dated 23 Jan 2020

5. This issues in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide their ID No. 1(5)E-H1(A)/ 96 dated 27.05.2020 (eFTS 1377323).

(P Bairagi Sahu)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

To
All the Ministries/ Departments of Government of India
Ministry/ Department of …………………….
(Director/ Deputy Secretary (Admn./Estt.)
New Delhi

Source: DoPT

Benefit of pensioners who retired on 30th June

Supreme Court Order

Benefit of pensioners who retired on 30th June

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING)

RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2027 (TO BE ANSWERED ON 05.12.2019)

IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPREME COURT ORDER BENEFITTING PENSIONERS

SHRI C.M. RAMESH:
Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:

(a) whether Government had filed a Review Petition in the Supreme Court of India against Court’s order dated the 23rd July, 2018 [RP (c) No. 1731/2019 in SLP (c) No. 22008/2018] and the Court had dismissed the SLP on 8th August, 2019, if so, the details thereof; and

(b) whether in the light of the said order of the Supreme Court. Government has issued any order to implement it for the benefit of pensioners who retired on 30th June, if not, whether any timeline has been fixed and if not, the reasons therefor?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

(DR. JITENDRA SINGH)

(a): Yes, Sir. Union of India filed SLP (C) No. 22008/2018 in the Supreme Court of India against Order dated 15-09-2017 in WP No. 15732/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India by its Order dated 23-07- 2018. Against the said Order, Union of India filed Review Petition (C) No. 1731/2019 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated 08-08-2019.

(b): As the judgment is in personnel and is contrary to the personnel policy of Government of India, no general order has been issued.

Grant of increment on notional basis on 1st January & 1st of July to those employees retiring on 30th June / 31st of December - Apex Court order

Grant of increment on notional basis on 1st January & 1st of July to those employees retiring on 30th June / 31st of December - Apex Court order

NFIR

No. I/II/Part II

Dated: 16/09/2019

The Cabinet Secretary,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 004

Dear Sir.

Sub: Grant of increment on notional basis on 1st January & 1st of July to those employees retiring on 30th June / 31st of December - Apex Court order - reg.

Ref: NFIR's letter No. I/II Part I dated 11/12/2018 addressed to Secretary (Pers), MoF (DoE).

Check this : Revision of Pension of Pre 2006 Pensioners

Kind attention is invited to Federation's letter No. I/II/Part I dated 11/12/2018 sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure relating to grant of increment on notional basis on 1st January & 1st of July to those employees retiring on 30th June/31st of December and urging to implement Apex Court order. Federation feels sad to mention that though a period of about nine months has passed, action has not been taken to implement Honorable Supreme Court order. A copy of our letter dated 11/12/2018, mentioned ibid is enclosed for ready reference.

Federation requests the Cabinet Secretary to kindly intervene and see that benefit of increment on notional basis on 1st January & 1ss July is granted to those employees retiring / retired on 30th June / 31st December of the year and accordingly O.M. issued soon.

With regards,

Yours faithfully,
(Dr.M.Raghavaiah)
General Secretary

Check this Pre-2006 pensioners who retired from the 5th CPC scale

Pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of 6th CPC the Staff Side of National Council (JCM) had raised the demand, urging that the Central Government Employees including Railway employees who complete one year service as on 30th June and 31st December every year should be granted one increment notionally on 1st January or 1st July for calculating settlement benefit of those employees who retire on 30th June or 31st December each year. The Government however did not agree to the demand on the plea that allowing increment is not covered under the rules.

In the above context, NFIR desires to bring to the notice of MoF that the High Court at Madras was approached by some employees through With Petition No. 15732/2017 praying relief in the matter. On 15/09/2017,the High Court at Madras decided on the Writ Petition and passed order as follows:-

"Para-7 The Petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30/06/2013, that the increment fell due on 01/07/2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above Judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year-of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said one notional increment for the period from 01/07/2012 to 30/06/2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01/07/2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose"

Against the above order of the High Court an SLP was filed by the Government of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was however dismissed by the Apex Court.

The legal position as established above clearly indicates that the employee who has completed one full year service as on 30th June or 31st December, as the case may be, should be granted one notional increment despite the fact that the increment falls on 1st July or 1st January of the year. The Federation cites following illustration to prove our contention:-

"An employee who has completed one full year of service as on 30th June (date of birth being 30th June or 1st July) and 31st of December (date of birth being 31st December or 1st January) is eligible to get one notional /increment for the period from 01/07/2018. Similarly an employee is eligible to get one notional increment for the period from '01/01/2018 to 31/12/2018 even though the increment falls on 01/01/2019 whose date of retirement is 31/12/2018".

NFIR, therefore, requests the Secretary, MoF to kindly consider the above points and see that instructions are issued to all Ministries/Departments to grant increment on notation basis to the staff in the situations mentioned above to calculate the terminal/retirement benefits and also revise these benefits in favour of those who have already retired. A copy of instructions issued may kindly be enclosed to the Federation.

Source: NFIR

Deletion of MACP grant notice from 01.01.2006 rather than 01.09.2008 - High Court Order

MACP

Deletion of MACP grant notice from 01.01.2006 rather than 01.09.2008 - High Court Order

No.C-17/21/2019/ Confd-NG/ BSF/ 28858- 29158
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Directorate General Border Security Force
(Confd/Vig Dte – NG Section)

Block 10th, 5th Floor. CGO Complex.
Lodhi Road. New Delhi-03

Dated,the 13th Aug 2019

Disposal of notice for grant of macp from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008

In this connection. it is to inform that various Writ Petitions have been filed by Ex-BSF personnel before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for grant of MACP benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008. in accordance with the judgment passed on 08.12.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U01 V/S Balbir Singh Turn (Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2016). The Writ Petitions, were listed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and during the hearing, the Hon’ble High Court has directed to withdraw these petitions with liberty to first approach the respondents with proper notice setting out the full particulars of each of the petitioners separately as stated by the Learned Counsel for the respondents
.
Also check: Important Supreme court Judgement - MACP should be given effect from 01.01.2016

In this regard, various representations dated 15.03.2019 were served by Shri 0 P Agarwal. Advocate, Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi, on behalf of the Ex-BSF personnel for considering their cases for grant of MACP from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008.

In this regard, it is intimated that, earlier in a similar case, in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 21.08.2018 in WP(C) No.3549 of 2018 filed by Sum! Kumar Tyagi V/s U01 & Ors before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, case was taken up with DoP&T through MHA to consider grant of MACP w.e.f, 01.01.2006 instead of 01 09.2008 in accordance with the decision dated 08.12.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balbir Singh Turn & Anr However. after detailed consideration of the case, DoP&T did not accede to the proposal for grant of MACP w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

Also check: Delhi High Court Order – MACP is effective from 1.1.2006 as per 6th Pay Commission recommendation, as it forms part of Pay and NOT allowances

The details of representations alongwith reply sent to concerned individual with info to Shri O P Agarwal. Advocate. Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi, have been shared with concerned unit/HQ of personnel details attached as Appendix - “A” with this letter.

It is requested to down load the same for record and take necessary action in further, if required.

Source - Confederation

High Court Order transferring NPS Subscription into GPF account

High Court Order transferring NPS Subscription into GPF account

Regarding transfer of NPS to GPF

Government of India
Office of the director (Accounts)
Ministry of Home Affairs
Pay and accounts office, C.R.P.F
Plot No.14, PSF-2 Sector-23, Rohini,
New Delhi - 110085

No.PAO/CRPF/MHA/NPS/DA-I(1)/2018-19/797

Dated, the 15 March,2019,

To
The IG (Admin),
Directorate General, CRPF,
CGO Complex
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003

Subject: Reg.transfer of NPS to GPF.

I am to say that various cases for transferring NPS subscriptions into GPF account have been received to this office after order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in respect of WP(C) No.3834/2013 and WP(C) No.2810/2016 vide which benefits of Old pension Scheme are extended to personnel joined in the year 2004. As there is a large number of subscribers under this kind of transfer and many requests are received along with information of office orders issued by various authorities (i.e., The Commandants, The DIGs, The IGs, etc.,). In this regard, it is requested to issue appropriate orders to concerned formation to send these cases with the following documents(02 copies of each):

• Necessary administrative approval from the administrative Head of the Department;
• Application(in the format enclosed) duly filled by the subscriber;
• Month-wise details of NPS subscriptions duly certified by the DDO;
• Copy of office documents such as court order etc, related to counting of previous Government service rendered before 01.01.2004;
• Copy of order vide which previous service of the subscriber is counted(if applicable);
• Copy of technical resignation of the subscriber(if applicable);
• and cases should be sent only after NPS subscription is stopped and GPF subscription is started from salary.

Further, the cases should be sent through the Administrative Head of Department to this office. There are some instances where offices are asking subscribers to apply for re-issue of PRAN card for submission with the case for NPS to GPF transfer. In this regard it is to inform that only if PRAN card is available it may be sent and there is no need for re-issue the PRAN card for this purpose. The details of PRANs are available in pay and service related records. The cases can be forwarded to Principal Accounts Office, MHA for further processing only after the aforementioned documents are received.

Yours faithfully,
Sr. Accounts Officer (NPS)

Parity between Assistant, SO of Ordnance Factory and CSS/CSSS Pay Scale: Judgement by HC citing "Equal pay for Equal Work"

Parity between Assistant, SO of Ordnance Factory and CSS/CSSS Pay Scale: Judgement by HC citing "Equal pay for Equal Work"

Parity between Assistant, SO of Ordnance Factory and CSS/CSSS Pay Scale: Landmark Judgement by HC citing "Equal pay for Equal Work".  Text of Hindustan Times News reproduced below:-

     New pay scale benefits for ordnance staff too: HC

UNIFORMITY Citing ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle, Delhi High Court tells Centre to grant pay parity to ordnance factory employees

Employees at Ordnance Factories (OF) – who have been contesting their omission from the benefits of the sixth pay commission for over seven years have finally more than one reason to rejoice.

Reining in the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ at public offices, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to grant pay parity to employees in the OF with that of identically ranked official in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographer’s Service (CSSS).

The direction will be applied retrospectively from 2006 — when the sixth CPC was implemented. Not only this, the HC order will come in handy for the employees of the OF when the seventh central pay commission is implemented.

The HC order came in response to a petition filed by Ordnance Factory Employees Association challenging the decision of the finance ministry declining their request for the assistants working in the OF Board to be given same pay scale as was given to similarly placed officials in CSS, CSSS, Ar my Headquarters, UPSC and other services.

The starting point of discrimination against the employees of the OF Board came soon before the acceptance of recommendation of the sixth CPC when a pay upgradation of employees of CSS and CSSS was made in September 2006.

While the OFs and Armed Forces Head Quarters (AFHQs) — both non-secretariat organization — were excluded from the pay upgradation, the latter took the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and got an order in its favour.

In the case of OF Board, the central government took the view that since it was a nonattached office working outside the Secretariat, there cannot be parity of pay scales. The OF Board was denied benefit of upgradation and the replacement scales given by the sixth CPC. The CAT, too, took a similar stand and denied any relief to the OF Board.

The matter finally reached the Delhi HC last year and after over a year of deliberation a bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vipin Sanghi termed the discrimination meted out to the OF Board as “over-classification.”

The HC said the discrimination was illogical and artificial. It also took note that the cadre structure of CSS and CSSS is identical to that of the OF. In all the above organisations, the cadre of upper divisional clerks (UDCs) is filled by the feeder of the cadre of the lower divisional clerks (LDCs).

The cadre of assistants on the OF Board is filled by promotion from the feeder cadre of UDCs with at least five years of experience on regular basis.

“The OF Board was treated historically as equals to CSS/CSSS employees and enjoyed equal pay and all benefits flowing from equal pay,” the high court noted adding, “This was based on the previous four instances of determinations by successive pay commissions that they performed equal work.”

Source Image provided by http://aiamshq.blogspot.in/2014/11/blog-post.html

Source: http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/14-10-2014/SRB14102014CW46062013.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]

Delhi HC refuses to stay functioning of Seventh Pay Commission

Delhi HC refuses to stay functioning of Seventh Pay Commission: IndiaTV News

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to stay the functioning of the Seventh Pay Commission while hearing a plea that challenged a notification on inclusion of a former IAS officer as a member of the panel.

Justice Sudershan Kumar Misra also issued notice to the central government on the plea filed by retired members of the all India Services, central civil services and armed forces against the government's Feb 28 notification constituting the commission.

The petitioners argued that inclusion of a former Indian Administrative Service officer, Vivek Rae, in the four-member commission give rise to a "real likelihood of bias" on his part to give a favourable recommendation to the IAS.

The petition said: "The impugned resolution, by retaining the practice of including a member of the IAS as a member of the commission has given rise to a real likelihood of bias on the part of such member in favour of maintaining the status quo, under which the IAS enjoys a position of special privilege in respect of pay fixation."


Rae has a directed pecuniary interest in the recommendations of the commission, as it would also determine his pension and retirement benefits, alleged the plea.

The petitioners further questioned the practice of previous pay commissions providing an "edge" in pay scales to members of the IAS over other members of the AIS and other central civil services including India Forest Services (IFS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Revenue Service (IRS), and all other group A central services.

Source: http://www.indiatvnews.com

Substitute employee can’t claim family pension against norms: High Court

Substitute employee can’t claim family pension against norms: High Court

Allowing Central Railway’s plea, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has ruled that temporary employee is not eligible for family pension without following procedure. “Though service of more than six months as a ‘substitute’ employee was rendered, that would not be sufficient to hold the respondent entitled for the family pension. The procedure prescribed has not been shown to be followed and, hence, mere acquisition of the status of a temporary employee would not make his family eligible for the pension,” a division bench comprising justices Vasanti Naik and Atul Chandurkar held.

Hari Borkar was employed as a ‘substitute’ ladderman with the Indian Railways on January 16, 1967, and after working for about three-and-a-half years, he expired on August 12, 1970. His wife Kamlabai sought settlement of dues, including family pension. However, the railways informed her in 1996 that there was no provision for it since her husband worked as ‘substitute’. She then knocked Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) door which granted her pension from November 12, 1994.

The railway challenged this order contending that there was no automatic absorption/appointment to its service of a ‘substitute’ employee unless the prescribed procedure was followed and therefore, Kamlabai was not entitled for the pension.

Kamlabai, in reply, argued that if a ‘substitute’ completed six months continuous service, the status of a temporary employee was attained, and on that basis, their family members were entitled for the pension.
The petitioners, however, pointed out that the Indian Railway Establishment Manual defines ‘substitute’ as persons engaged in the railway establishments on a regular scale of pay and allowances applicable to posts against which they are employed. It also clarifies that the conferment of temporary status on a ‘substitute’ on completion of six months continuous service would not entitle him to automatic absorption/appointment to the service unless the person is selected in the approved manner for appointment to the regular post.

“It is clear that mere completion of six months continuous service by a ‘substitute’ would not automatically have the effect of absorption/appointment to railway service unless the procedure prescribed for absorption/appointment has been followed,” the court held.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

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

Government staff can't avoid transfers, says court

Government staff can't avoid transfers, says court

CHENNAI: An Army engineer, who succeeded in nixing his first transfer in 2011 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), failed to earn similar relief a second time with the CAT as well as the Madras high court saying there was no scope for interference in routine transfers.

"A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place," a division bench of the court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice TS Sivagnanam said last week.

The judges were passing orders on a petition filed by PR Anand Kumar, who entered the Military Engineering Services as surveyor assistant in 1985. Later, the post was re-designated as junior engineer. On November 8, 2011, Anand was transferred from Chennai to Visakhapatnam. When his request to be retained in Chennai was rejected, he approached the CAT. Citing paragraph 36(b)(c) of the transfer guidelines, the CAT said he ought not to have been transferred in the middle of an academic year. It asked the authorities to pass fresh orders if necessary.

After withdrawing the earlier order, the authorities then transferred Anand to Hyderabad by an order dated February 10, 2012. He again rushed to CAT, which dismissed his application this time. He then moved the high court.



Rejecting his petition, the judges said: "The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is well settled. The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was for public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

"Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine," they said.

Though the guidelines deal with time of transfer and state that care will be taken to avoid transfers during the middle of the academic year, exceptions are available to meet requirements, the judges said. Transfers on administrative grounds may be ordered giving the employee less time, they said.

"There is no challenge to the order of transfer on the ground of any malafide exercise of power or that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority or it violated any statutory rule," they said of Kumar's case.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com