Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Treatment of NPA for pre-06 retired medical officers

Retired officers who were drawing Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) have been complaining that the NPA element is not being included for calculation of minimum pension for pre-2006 pensioners. Apparently, many representations are also being preferred to the govt on the same subject. It is true that the govt has not added the NPA element into pension but the same is in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Col BJ Akkara Vs UOI case.

The Govt has already clarified the said issue and the Ministry of Defence has also issued a separate letter on the subject dated 16-03-2010.

The said letter alongwith a clarification of the Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, both of which also form a part of a PCDA(P) circular, can be accessed by clicking here.

9 comments:

Lt Col Dr G Kameswara rao (retd) said...

Comment- Part 1.( As the Comments are a bit lengthy, being given in two parts, please)
Akkara judgement by the Apex court disallowing the NPA being considered for stepping up the consolidated revised pension is inappropriate. The issue is that by denying the NPA at the IV CPC Rates for computing Total Parity in the pension amount of the pre-1-1-1986 retired doctors with the pension amount of the post-1-1-1986 retired doctors , and , at the V CPC Rates for computing Modified Parity in the pension amount of all pre-1-1-1996 retired doctors with the pension amount of post-1-1-1996 retired doctors, the Total and Modified parity as envisaged by the V CPC is not achieved for the doctor community wef 1-1-1996. This is equally true for both the Armed Forces and the Civilian Doctors under the Central Government.
Modified Parity envisaged by the V CPC was that no one should get less than the pension applicable at the minimum of the V CPC scale of pay of the rank/post last held at the time of retirement . All categories / cadres of employees , except the Medical, Dental and Veterinary Doctor Officers (Doctors,in short), have been given, at the least, the same amount of pension applicable at the minimum of the revised scale of pay of the V CPC , in the computation of the Modified Parity: for example – a Non-Medical Lt Col retiring after 1-1-1996 at the minimum of the V CPC scale of pay is given an amount of Rs. 7550/= as pension and a Non-Medical Lt Col retired before 1-1-1996 is also given at least the same amount of Rs. 7550/= as pension ,which is Modified Parity of the pre-1-1-1996 retiree with the post-1-1-1996 retiree. In the case of the Doctor Officers, a post-1-1-1996 retired Lt Col doctor, retiring at the minimum of the VCPC scale of pay is given an amount of Rs 9438/= as pension whereas the pre-1-1-1996 retired Lt Col doctor is being given only an amount of Rs 7550/=as pension in his Modified Parity with the post-1-1-1996 retired doctor , by not considering the NPA at the IV CPC and V CPC rates for computation of the TOTAL and MODIFIED PARITY pension from 1-1-1996, (as a result of the impugned letter of 11 Sep 2001 of MOD which has been upheld by the Apex court in Akkara case.)
Lt Col Dr G Kameswara Rao (retd) 30 Nov 2010 { continued in comment part 2} .

Lt ColDr G Kameswara Rao (retd) said...

Continuation from Comment Part 1:
This injustice to the Doctor community has been further compounded now in fixing the minimum guaranteed pension of the VI CPC in respect of pre- 1-1-2006 retired doctors where again the NPA at the VI CPC rates is not considered for its computation, quoting the AKKARA Judgement. Can the Government Babus explain this disparity in awarding Modified Parity to the Doctor community vis-a vis all the other central Government Non- Doctor pensioners ? The Apex Court’s observations that when the purpose is to give parity, the petitioners were asking for continuing the disparity between Doctors and Non- Doctors is a misunderstanding of the contention of the Doctor Petitioners. The V CPC envisaged Parity between the same category/ cadre and not between a higher and a lower category / cadre - A Station Superintendent is equated with a Station Superintendent, a helper is equated with a helper and a Cabinet Secretary is equated with a Cabinet Secretary ,such that the pension of the pre-1-1-1996 retired person of a cadre/ category drawing higher pension is equated with the pension accruing to the post-1-1-1996 person of the same cadre/ category retiring at the minimum of the V CPC scale. In the case of the Doctors , that has not happened , they having been equated with a person who was drawing a lower pension pre-1-1-1996. Further, the Modified Parity recommended by the V CPC in para 165.8 for the Armed Forces was to equate with Minimum Pension of the Rank and NOT 50% of the minimum pay of the revised scale of pay as done for the civilians in para 134. This injustice to the Doctor community is being perpetuated in the VI CPC and will continue to be so as a cascading effect if not rectified / remedied by the powers that be. But will the IAS Babus who have put these spokes allow it to occur ! All of us know that they won’t.
Lt Col Dr G Kameswara rao (retd)
30 Nov 2010

Brig M Jaya Rao (retd) said...

Could Major Navdeep Singh please give his views as an Advocate on the contention of Lt Col G Kameswara rao (retd),that Modified Parity has been denied to Doctors by not considering the NPA at IV CPC rates for Total Parity and NPA at V CPC Rates for Modified Parity wef 1-1-1996 while computing the same , and that the injustice to the Doctors has been further perpetuated in the minimum guaranteed pension of the VI CPC for them wef 1-1-2006 by not considering the NPA at VI CPC Rates for the same ? Thus, is it not justified to say that the Akkara judgement and the MOD impugned letter of 11-Sep 2001 are inappropriate ?
Brig M Jaya Rao (retd)

Lt Col (retd) Dr G Kameswara Rao said...

Dear Maj Navdeep Singh
yes-- could you kindly give your considered opinion on this aspect?
Also in COAS letter B/3907/29(5)/COAS/AG/PS-5,30 Nov 10,to Maj Gen (Retd) Satbir Singh, SM
Vice Chairman Indian ESM Movement, it is stated "A case has also been taken up with the Ministry of Defence for a review of pension of pre 2006 retired Commissioned Officers also and grant them modified parity at par with 31 Jan 2006 retirees." Does this bode a good augury that pre-2006 Offrs including doctors may get a minimum guaranteed pension amount equivalent to that accruing to post 1-1-2006 retired offrs and doctors retiring after 1-1-2006, drawing at the time of their retirement the minimum pay of the rank as fixed in SAI 2/S/08 post-1-1-2006 ? In which case the NPA at VI CPC rates considered for computing the retiring pension of the post-1-1-2006 doctors should automatically be considered for the minimum guaranteed pension of the pre-1-1-2006 Doctors!
Kindly think over and give your opinion please.
Lt Col (retd) G Kameswara Rao.

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep, Your valued opinion and comments on the very valid points raised regarding NPA are eagerly awaited.

Wg Cdr(Dr) S S Likhari said...

Now that Supreme Court has given judgement on Civil Appeal No 10640-46/2013 and given a ruling that NPA of pre 1996 pensioners is to be included for revision of pension of retired medical officers w.e.f 1.1.96 and Office Memorandum No38/31/11-P&PW (A)(Vol.IV) dated 14 Oct 2014 has been issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions this problem and injustice appears to be sorted out. But, Maj Navdeep can you please give your valued opinion if this will applicable to only the Applicants who went to the Court or to all the pre 2006 retired Medical officers.

Col A P Singh(Retd) said...

Col(Dr) A P Singh.
Request Maj Navdeep to give his legal opinion on the point raised by Wg Cdr Dr S S Likhari and Lt Col Dr G Kameswara Rao.

Wg Cdr K Premchandran, Retd. said...

request Maj Navdeep for his valuable comments please.
Wg Cdr K Premchandran, Retd.

Wg Cdr K Premchandran, Retd. said...

I am posting a copy of a govt letter issued on 18 Feb 2015.

No.38/31/11 – P&PW(A)(Vol.IV)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Pension and P.W


3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi.
Dated the 18th February, 2015


OFFICE MEMORANDUM


Subject :- Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners – inclusion of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) in revision of pension of retired medical officers




The undersigned is directed to say that in accordance with para 4.2 of this Department’s OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008), the revised pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall, in no case, be lower than fifty per cent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be fifty per cent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.

2. In its judgment dated 27.11.2013 in Civil Appeal No.10640-46/2013 and other connected matters, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in accordance with Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s OM No.45012/11/97-CHS.V dated 7.4.1998, NPA counts as pay for all service benefits including retirement benefits. In implementation of the aforesaid judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, orders have been issued vide this Department’s OM No.38/31/11-P&PW(A)(Vol.IV) dated 14.10.2014 read with OM dated 21.10.2014
3. In this Department’s OM of even number dated 14.7.2009, it was clarified that in the case of pre-2006 pensioners, Non-Practicing Allowance is not to be added to the minimum of the revised pay band+Grade Pay/revised pay scale in cases where consolidated pension/family pension as on 1.1.2006 is to be stepped up to 50% / 30% respectively in terms of para 4.2 of Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008).


4. In the OM No. A.45012/2/2008-CHS.V dated 29.9.2008 of Ministry of Health & FW, it is provided that NPA will be treated as pay for the purpose of computing Dearness Allowance, entitlement of Travelling Allowance and other allowances as well as for calculation of retirement benefits. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgement dated 27.11.2013 in CA No.10640-46/2013 would be applicable for revision of pension/family pension of pre-2006 retired civilian medical officers w.e.f. 1.1.2006 also. Accordingly, the OM dated 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 14.7.2009 is hereby withdrawn. In the case of pre-2006 retired medical officers, NPA @ 25% would be required to be added to the minimum of the pay in the revised pay band plus grade pay (or minimum of pay in the revised pay scale in the case of HAG and above) as on 1.1.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which they retired, in cases where pension family pension is to be stepped up to 50%130% of the minimum pay respectively.


5. Similarly, for revision of pension family pension w.e.f. 24.9.2012 in terms of OM dated 28.1.2013, NPA @ 25% would be required to be added to the minimum of the pay in the revised pay band plus grade pay (or minimum of pay in the revised pay scale in the case of HAG and above) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which they retired as arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the Department of Expenditure’s OM dated 30.8.2008 subject to the condition that the basic pay plus NPA does not exceed Rs.85,000/- .


6. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide their I.D. No. 7211E-V/2014 dated 2.1.2015 and Ministry of Law F.No.213/Advice’A’/2015 dated 29.1.2015.



(Tripti P. Ghosh)
Director



Read more: http://karnmk.blogspot.com/2015/02/inclusion-of-non-practicing-allowance.html#ixzz3SIY09baM
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike
Follow us: @karnmk on Twitter | cgenews on Facebook