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 Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained.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.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Pay arrears of pension to all Pre-2006 retiree Central Govt pensioners from 01 January 2006 rather than 24 September 2012 : Supreme Court

As most readers would know, there were anomalies in the fixation of pension of pre-2006 central govt retirees with effect from 01 Jan 2006 and the question was whether pension was to be calculated based on the minimum of each grade/rank within the newly introduced pay-bands or on the minimum of the pay-band itself. The said anomaly was resolved by way of judgements of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as well as Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) which inter alia ruled that pension would be calculated on the basis of minima of each rank/grade within the pay-band. The judgement of the CAT was challenged by the Govt before the Delhi High Court. In the meantime however, the Govt itself removed the anomaly but granted the benefits from 24 Sept 2012 rather than 01 Jan 2006 which was the date of the inception of the anomaly.

Hence the exact controversy now stood narrowed down to whether the benefits of the correct pension were to flow from 01 Jan 2006 which was the date from which the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented or from 24 Sept 2012 which was when the Govt had decided to remove the anomalies in the pension structure after the said Pay Commission.

The controversy was finally resolved by the Delhi High Court which directed that after removal of the anomaly, the pension arrears were to flow from 01 Jan 2006 and not from the future artificial date of 24 Sep 2012. Never to respect well-rounded judicial verdicts, the Govt challenged the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court, however the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP filed by the Govt in July 2013. The Govt then filed a review petition followed by a curative petition alleging ‘gross miscarriage of justice’ but a 5 Judge Bench dismissed the curative petition too.

The Govt however did not implement the decision across the board and kept filing SLPs and Civil Appeals across the board against decisions of judicial fora in favour of pensioners.

Ultimately, all these cases were clubbed together and were finally heard today by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has today dismissed all appeals filed by the Union of India and upheld the decision of grant of arrears with effect from 01 January 2006 rather than 24 September 2012.

Another closure to another agony. 


The amount of basic pension which was made admissible from 24 September 2012 for each rank can be discerned from this Circular issued by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). The said amount plus applicable DA/DR would now be admissible from 01 January 2006. 

63 comments:

ravindra said...

My father retired in year 1968 as Lt Col (Select), and expired in year 2010.
Mother got family pension till Sep. 2014 when she too expired. During their life time they were aware of these goings on in matters of arrears of pension. Will the Govt. Pay the arrears suitably, as I have not closed any of the pension account in the bank?. I hope orders issued would be clear and not leave any room for ambiguity .

sunlit said...

This is a most welcome update.

As to how far the judgment will address pension parity issues, besides the applicable date matter, remains to be seen.

One hurdle having been overcome, it may be time to look at the other related problems as mentioned by me previously http://bit.ly/1xaRBhk.

Suresh Bangara said...

The information and analyses that you put out in your mail/site are of immense value to the veterans.I am sure you have all their blessings for the good work that you continue to do ....

Milind Ranade said...

Well done RDOA!

Alok Asthana said...

My salute to those who fought the government. This is the way to go - legal. Challenge the government in courts. Stop making rounds of the President's house (who has no time for us) and the RMs office. Don't appeal to the executioner. Fight smart. Once again - my gratitude to the legal team.

Maj Lalit Kant Baghel said...

Great Navdeep Sir,

Its indeed a Landmark Judgement by the Honorable Supreme Court. Atleast some stubborn leafs of MOD might get shaken up now.
Regards,

Maj Lalit Kant Baghel

Col J B Singh said...

Very encouraging indeed. Dont you think we need to identify the person(s)responsible for creating this confusion by name and take appropriate action against those persons.

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

Hearty congrats to all .But for your efforts, we would not have achieved this.Thanks a lot to Maj,Navjit.
v.sundaresan

Sham Narain said...

Military Service Pensions and Civil Service Pewnsions have different rules. We are told Military Service Pension was 2/3rd(66%) of last pay drawn while Civil Service Pension was 50%of last pay drawn. How far is it correct? When and why did both categories now have same rule of 50% of pay last drawn.

Provisional Pension receipients will they also get the benifit of Pre 1 Jan 2006 award or is it only for regular pension drawees.

Death Cum Retirement Gratuity(DCRG) is another benifit which Military and Civil Govt. Agencies withhold.We are told Supreme Court order says it can not be with held.What are the orders on this subject.

S N Malhotra
Gurgaon

Venkatesh VT said...

There was some orders regarding payment of interest at @9 % from May 2013,if the arrears were not paid with in three months
There was also a related case about payment full pension instead of pro rata rates for 20 or more years of service
Were the above two issues also upheld by the final orders?

A Sunder Rajan said...

Thanks Navdeep,

For the information and the clarifications.

God Bless You

Regards,
Col AS Rajan

Anonymous said...

Dear Major sir,

We thank you for the latest , valuable information for all.

Sgt.S.kanthiah,
Exwel Trust,
Tirunelveli-dist, TN

Abhijit Chandra said...

I wanted to know whether JCOs & ORs are also benefited by this judgement? Secondly does pre 2006 pre 1986 also? Or has this class pre 2006?

Natarajan V said...

DEAR MAJ NS JI/ FRIENDS, AS ONE OF THE FIRST CRUSADERS AGAINST THE MOD PARITY INJUSTICE INFLICTED ON THE PRE 2006 CIVIL AND MILITARY PENSIONERS BY CUREAUCRATIC TAMPERING THE 6 CPC RELATED CAB DECISION NOTIIFED ON 29 08 2008 I VENTURE TO CLARIFY : YOU ARE ALL AWARE THAT LT CDR AS JI AND MAJ NS JI WERE FIGHTING THE ISSUE FROM MILITRAY PRE 2006 PENSIONERS' SIDE (FORMER INSPIRED BY ME and MAJ NS JI IS ONE OF EARLIEST C0-CRUSADER along with me ) AND I/ MY FRIENDS WERE FIGHTING THRU THE CGSAGPA FROM THE CIVILIAN SIDE. SEVERAL OTHER SMALLER GROUPS WERE ALSO FIGHTING ALONG WITH US. SO FAR CGSAGPA'S 661 MEMEBRS HAVE GOT THE ARREARS BENEFIT for the remaining period of dispute ie. 1 1 2006 to 23 9 2012 (pl note all have got mod parity wef 24 Sept 2012 thru OROP HPC Route already). WITH YESTERDAY'S(17 03 2015) 3 SISTER GR SLP/LINKED CAs (54 IN ALL) DISPOSAL, NOW DECKS ARE CLEAR FOR ALL THOSE AFFECTED SEGMENTS OF PRE 2006 CIVIL AND MILITARY PENSIONERS TO GET ARREARs. However it is important to see the exact text of the SLP JUDGMENT AND THEN PLAN FURTHER COURSE OF :AGGRESSIVE UNIFORM ACTION"- IF NEEDED.VNATARAJAN

Narinder Sharma said...

Landmark judgement indeed, but Does it mean the Government Servant who drew out the ingenious Grounds for filing a SLP and Curative Petition will loose his own Pension? No that will not happen and probably the Seventh Pay Commission will have a larger issue Built into the Recommendations for a slew of case post 2019!!

Unknown said...

Thank you Major Navdeep Singh. You may not know the tears of joy it has brought, especially the PBORs. God Bless you.

Col Mahesh Kanagotagi (Retd) said...

We are grateful Maj Navdeep. Keep up with the fine job you are doing, despite the umpteen hurdles. :)

corona8 said...

It would be of interest for everyone to learn if interest at 9% on arrears would still be applicable from 01 Mar 2013 as ruled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this earlier judgment.

Frankly, it can still be argued interest should be applicable from the date of entitlement denial viz., 01 Jan 2006, but I suppose there are legal precedents for these matters. Only Maj Navdeep could clarify for readers.

Ajit Singh said...

Thanks to all who fought cases, thanks to HSC for giving justice. HSC indicated that CPC recommendations were misinterpreted in this case. Similar to Rank pay case (IV). Sure a signal to concerned officials.

Anonymous said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

Thank you very much for the information. One query - I took PMR in 2005 after 20.5 years of service. Post implementation of AVS committee report all of us were Lt Cols drawing rank pay of a Lt Col unlike a Lt Col(TS) who draw rank pay of a Major. In this list of pension what will we be classified as - Lt Col or Lt Col(TS)?? We have never written Lt Col(TS) in any official correspondence when in service.

COL GOPAL KRISHAN Sood said...

COL BK Sharma and his associates and All the ESMs engaged diecrtly or otherwise deserve big THANKS. One thing is for sure that the Service Personnel serving or retired are now aware that each tCOime some benifits have to come, Babus both big and small F**k up the issue and then we are required to run post to pillar, as if we are to the beggers. Its time they are told that enough is enough. This time 7CPC again right from the day one the Govt should be chased , for which IESM or such like ESM org should create cell to understand the nity- grity of the language.

mange panghal said...

Mange Panghal said....

Dear Major Navdeep,

Thanks a lot. We have waited for about 4 years after you won the case in AFT Chandigarh.Hope that we get the payment within 4 months as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Once again our gratitude and wishing you all the best.

Warm regards,

Major M R Panghal

Anonymous said...

Good news. Hopes the Govt will pay the arrears within the stipulated period of four months.

JAIPAL SHERGILL said...

Could you please quote the PCDA,Pensions Circular no. You have mentioned .

Col K L Chhetri said...

Thank yopu very much for the efforts taken by you all to get the vetarans their long out standing dues that too with effect from the dates announced earlier. May God bless you all .

Ujwal Dabir said...

Maj Navdeep Singh,

I must thank you for this result that you tirelessly worked for.

I have however a doubt as an email about the judgement, probably incorrectly, mentioned that the Govt. may accept it only in respect of the petitioners. It also stated that if this happens there could be an appeal on behalf of all veterans, which may delay payment of arrears.

As judgements on the subjects have squashed the memo that incorrectly specified minimum of the pay band for modified parity that memo ceases to exist legally. As such any pension fixation done as per that memo is also invalid for all veterans and the memo which correctly specified remains valid. Under these circumstances why should there be any need to file another appeal on behalf of all veterans?

sunlit said...

@Jaipal Shergill : The PCDA circular is numbered 500 of 2013. If the mediafire link provided in this blog post does not work on your device, consider accessing the blog post linked to in my previous comment. That blog post has a direct link to the circular as well.

Yashpal Kumar said...

Dear sir,
Sir iska fayda pbor ko milega ki nahi plz reply sir.

MANGTA SINGH SIDHU said...

Thanks Navdeep Singh ji, Sh Jaipal Sher GIll ji this circular No is 500 Of CDAP Allahabad you may clik on the link it opens instantly on this page also, waiting for years together retied as a Ranker from SIGNALS on 31 Dec 2982 later retired from SBI as an Officer. It seems to be a welcome step of the apex court pending for years together, many associations tried their best since then...Many seniors have passed away waiting it for and even it is not known now which way the camel will sit ....so congratulations to all,let us hope for the best thanks please

subramany peri said...

Dear Navdeep,
There was a news item today in the Deccan Chonicle that the Hon SC has given a ruling that 50% of last pay drawn should be given as pension without any cutoff dates or proportional service(33years) basis for past pensioners as per the 6thCPC.
how does it impact? can you clarify.
thanking you
Ramani

devinder kohli said...

Cheers navdeep sir.

Veteran said...

Tribune of today starts off with heading “ Bonanza for Armed forces personnel” & “SC : pension cannot be less than 50 % of pay”.

The legal correspondent of the paper (tribune) do not have any clue of what is the actual matter . A matter in which civilians were paid their 6CPC dues wef 1/1/2006 and faujis were cunningly denied the same by the babus of MOD and SC has to intervene to resolve the issue. There is no Bonanza or 50 % of pay etc involved in it . It is just the 6CPC implementation to be simple and straight forward.

One expected a more responsible reporting from a Chandigarh based print media like Tribune , who are well versed with fauj. The editorial committee should take note of this wrong reporting and issue a press statement, immediately.
The Army PRO should be active and give a press release on the subject . Veteran Maj Navdeep may be contacted to make a press statement on similar lines at chandigarh.

Veteran said...

@ Ravindra .
Yes -the nominee or in the abscence of a nominee , the legal heirs are the bonafide receipients of this arrear through the pension bank account of your father as well as mother .

, It pertainis to (LTA) of your father and mother seperately in this particular case
.1. Your Father's LTA (life time arrears ) would be around Rs 36500/- which will come to his bank a/c and Rs 25000/- or more on account of your mother.
.2. Once the implementation letter is issued , you have to contact your bank who will give this money to the nominee or in their abscence to the legal heirs
The above figures can improve also . In the abscence of other data one is not exactly able to tell you the exact figure . Therefore ,in case of any qry , call me on 7603246 or email me :latif.ccct@gmail.com

Col Amar Nihalani said...

Dear Major Navdeep Singh,
Kudos to you. Your superb and sterling effort has yielded the desired results. When will the PCDA start paying us !!!
warm regards
Col amar nihalani (Retd)

dattatreyahg said...

Why no one is talking about one more important thing that seems to have been cleared by SC? (Mr Chiranjiv Singh has written about it elsewhere ). That is,Full Pension to all Pre-2006 Pensioners with Qualifying Service of 20 Yrs or above [instead of 33 yrs]. Any comment on that, Navdeepji?

Anonymous said...

With the Supreme Court ruling now that Pension will be paid at 50%, would this result in a refixation of the Pensions from Jan 2006? To quote an example, say of Lt Cols or Cols, the Pension as per MOD Letter Dated 21 May 09 and later amended vide Letter Dated 17 Jan 13 was based on the fitment factor where pension has been reduced based on No. of years of Service.

For Eg. In the case of a Lt Col (TS) with 25 yrs was paid Rs. 23,878 based on the working of 50% basic pay 26,265 multiplied by 0.909 (25+5=30/33) and in the case of a Col with 22 yrs service, the pension paid was 24,426 based on same working - Rs. 27,795 multiplied by 0.879 (22+7=29/33).

Are we now entitled to the arrears that would accrue from Jan 2006 due to huge difference in the two amounts per month. Would greatly appreciate if you can spare some valuable time of yours and reply on this query please. Thank you.

WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) said...

Latest news from PMO.this office has asked for the revival plan for Air India. Looks like Rs.30,000-40,000CR. required for the treatment for AI maharaja.
v.sundaresan

KS Dhingra said...

Maj Navdeep,

judgment/order of 17th March is not available on Supreme Court website. Is it possible for you to upload the judgment/order or provide a link?

Anonymous said...

Sir is there any effect for post 2006 retairees.

Anonymous said...

Grateful for info
when can we expect a new circular.such decision had come rliear also ,but not followed . Can it happen again
Rehrds

Kd Pachori said...

This was though imminent, but was pursued in a befitting manner to justify the proverb.'better late than never.' We all are grateful.Thanks.

corona8 said...

@WG.CDR.V.SUNDARESAN(RETD) : "..revival plan for Air India.."
Please enlighten all of us how that comment by you relates to arrears of pension, the subject of this blog post.

It is kind of Maj Navdeep to let everyone have their say, of course.

Pradip Mondal said...

Jai Hind Maj Navdeep Sir You have brought smile to all most all veterans may god bless you with utmost happiness thanks again

Ex Sgt Pradip Mondal
Durgapur
9851226879

JUSTIN said...

THE SAID CIRCULAR 500 WAS DRAFTED ON THE BASIS OF MOD LETTER NO 1(11)/2012-D(PEN/POLICY) GOI DTD 17/01/2013. THE WRITE UP READS "X GP PAY WHERE APPLICABLE" IT MEANS THIS BENEFIT WAS DESIGNED AND WAS EXTENDED TO PBOR ALSO BUT NOT GRANTED. WHY?????
"JAGO PBOR JAGO".......

KOTAGIRI PRABHAKAR said...

Thanks
Major
Navdeep Sings
Salute
To Your efforts

Anonymous said...

Sir is there any pension provision for those who took retirment on composionate ground after complition of seven years nine month services .

Mahananda Biswas said...

Respected Major Navdeep

Now that the 17.03.2015 order is in open, there are some doubts among large section of Armed Forces veterans about the applicabilities of the said order. We look at you for a few clarifications/advice as you were the man closely connected with the matter. It will be great if you publish your considered view on the fallowing ambiguities in your blog.

1. Whether the benefit of the order is applicable to only litigants or to all pre-2006 pensioners.
2. The pensionable service for JCOs and Other Ranks in Armed Forces is 15 years. Their pension is also fixed on pro-rata basis taking in account a notional figure and weightage for each rank. Unlike Officer ranks in the Armed Forces their pension was not revised on the basis of 50% of pay in the pay band and GP MSP X-Pay thereon from 24.09.2012. Now after the Court order will the so-called PBORs will be entitled for any benefit even with 15 years service?
3. If GOI hold back the benefit to PBORs, will it be a fit case for them to take legal course individually or collectively?
Your interpretation/ advice would be a great help to clear the air.

Thank you.

Bhag said...

I think this order does not cover full pension to 20+ yrs service. Although it is also likely to come soon. Let us hope for the best

spanner50 said...

This information is so useful to all ex servicemen. But there is a lot of confusion being created by emails trying to paint a different picture.

It would be a great help if Maj Navdeep could kindly think of clarifying and providing the background to such e_mails, a copy having been posted in this web group http://goo.gl/StxygD

Natarajan V said...

DEAR INTERESTED,

THE OFFICAIL E-COPY CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM THE HSC WEBSITE .
GO TO HSC WEBSITE- SELECT INFORMATION- STATUS- TITLE - TYPE VINOD KUMAR JAIN TO GET THE JUDGMENT ON SCREEN.

Link:
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac%208875-887611p.txt

VN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1

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 :

Signature Not Verified
No substantial question of law of general/public
Digitally signed by
Mahabir Singh
Date: 2015.03.24
importance arises for our consideration in these applications
14:38:03 IST
Reason:




for leave to appeal.
2

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.
(Some more pages will follow reg remaining CAs. Pl download and find them)

Anonymous said...

Hello Sir,

My father is an ex-army he retired from artillery from JCO rank (Nab/Sub his service he retired on 1 April 1991 with 22 years 7 months service. He wanted to know what will be the approximate pension

Umrao Chalasani said...

To all those friends who are in doubt about 50%, or otherwise called full pension, for 20 yrs+ service,I would like to sunmit the following:
1. It is true and certain that we should get arrears from 1-1-06 to 23-9-12.
2. The latest judgment does not mention full penaion or 20 yrs for full pension in detail.
But, The whole issue, fought by penaioners on one aide and UOi on the other, is about inplementatation of pay commission recommendation, govt resolution dated 29-8-08, and DOP decision decisions accepting thise recommendations. When legal proceeedings were commenced, CAT judgment 0655/2010 formed the basis for adjudication by different courts. This 0655/2010, clearly mentions, the penssion in no case shall be less than 50% min of pay + grade pay in the payband corrsponding to the pre2006 scale.
Hence in my opinion, there is no doubt the latest judgment includes that benefit also.
Whether the Govt honours or not I can not say.
One pointer is: the additional solicitor general, Pinky Anand, told the court that 50% etc. will involve 1500 cr. she must be talking about full pension case only, which was brushed aside by SC. If it is only arrears from 1-1-06 to 23-9-12, the amount will be much more than 60000cr.

S K PADAM said...

INDEED, IT'S A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT. PRE-1996/2006 PENSIONERS HAVE SEEN SOME LIGHT .THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR THE JUSTICE. THERE ARE MANY PENSIONERS AT 80 + WILL THEY GET THEIR MODIFIED PARITY EARLY?

IS IT THAT PENSION FIXED ON 1.1.2006 AS PER THE DOP ORDER ISSUED DETRIMENTAL TO PRE 1996/2006 PENSIONERS, WOULD BE ENHANCED FURTHER AS PER CAT JUDGEMENT UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT? THERE ARE SO MANY RAILWAY PENSIONERS WHO WERE NOT REFIXED AS PER DOP ORDER DT.28.1.2013. ARE THEY GOING TO GET REFIXED FROM 1.1.2006 AS PER SC JUDGEMENT.

PLEASE CLARIFY. .

C K Chatterjee said...

Did your late father submit a "Lifetime Arrears" certificate nominating someone for the same, most probably your mother? Similarly, did your mother leave any such form of nomination? If not I am afraid, it is going to be difficult for you to get it. Pls check with the pension sanctioning authority/the bank.

Faqir Chand said...

Respected Navdeep Saheb, I find that lot of confuSion is prevailing regarding how the pension of pre 2006 pensioners will be reffixed. I request you to give some examples. Say the basic pay in the pre 2006 scale is 15375 and in the corresponding revised scale grade pay is 7600. Will it be correct that pay in the pay band will be 15375×1.86=28597.50,which will become 28600 on account of rounding off to nearest higher multiple of 10.Thus pension will be reffixed at 50% of sum of 28600 and 7600 i.e.18100. Is it correct ? Pre-revised scale is 1200-375-16500

s.ksaxena said...

AS PER H C DECISION AND CLARIFY THE PENSION FORMULA WILL BE

BASIC PAY AS ON 31.12.2005 X 1.86 + PAY GRADE
_______________________________________________ = PENSION ON 01.01.2006
2

Shatrujeeth said...

Sir
Upto this time there is no any order from CDA for the Arrears .... what will happen if govt dont take any action against SC orders please answer

Anonymous said...

Sir it should not be as complicated as it is put. All you have to check with the pension office is if the names of the children are made available in the records of your father, then you have to submit a family certificate issued by MRO along with NOC of other sibilings and submit your claim in the prescribed forms. Your not closing the bank account is not of any help, that is inoperative acct. U will need death certifates in oroginal

sunlit said...

The absence of any updates on the web, on a matter affecting hundreds of thousands pensioners, civilian and military, is indeed puzzling. I tried, unsuccessfully, to check if anyone else had some information, through this tweet.

Alok Asthana said...

I have made a post on this on my linkedIn, under title - 'Effect of selfish employer behaviour on OD (organisational development)'. If interested, do look up and comment at http://preview.tinyurl.com/pd36r34

Gursharan Singh said...

HARNEK SINGH SAINI,
I RETIRED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER ON 31-12-2005 AFTER 37 YEARS SERVICE AND MY BASIC PAY WAS RS. 10000 IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE RS. 7500-12000. I JOINED ON PROMOTION AS ITO ON 2-7-2001. I SERVED 4 YEARS 6 MONTHS AS INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (HRD), CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI, VIDE HIS ORDER NO. HRD/CM/175/15/2008-09/Pt-2/1249 DATED 31-12-2009 REVISED PAY SCALE OF INCOME TAX OFFICERS GROUP "B" AS FOLLOWS. REVISED PAY SCALE RS. 7500-12000 TO CORRESPONDING PAY BAND AND GRADE PAY RS. 9300-34800 + GRADE PAY RS. 4800, PB-2 TO RS. 8000-13500 (AFTER FOUR YEARS SERVICE ) TO CORRESPONDING PAY BAND AND GRADE PAY RS. 9300-34800 + GRADE PAY RS. 5400, PB-2. PLACEMENT IN HIGHER GRADE PAY AFTER FOUR YEARS IS ADMISSIBLE TO ELIGIBLE OFFICERS COMPLETING FOUR YEARS SERVICE ON OR BEFORE 01-01-2006 EFFECTIVE FROM 01-01-2006 AND IN OTHER CASES FROM THE DATE THEY COMPLETE FOUR YEARS SERVICE AFTER 01-01-2006. FURTHER INCOME TAX OFFICER GROUP "B" ARE TOBE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF ONE INCREMENT AS LAID DOWN IN RULE 13 (1) OF CCS (RP)RULES, 2008 FOR FIXATION OF PAY AT THE TIME OF ALLOWING NON FUNCTIONAL PAY SCALE OF RS. 9300-34800 + GRADE PAY OF RS. 5400, PB-2. ON COMPLETION OF FOUR YEARS OF REGULAR SERVICE.
QUESTION 1. AM I ELIGIBLE FOR GRADE PAY OF RS. 8000-13500 (AFTER FOUR YEARS SERVICE) TO CORRESPONDING PAY BAND AND GRADE PAY RS. 9300-34800 + GRADE PAY RS. 5400, PB-2?
QUESTION 2. AM I ELIGIBLE FOR ONE INCREMENT AS I HAVE COMPLETED FOUR YEARS OF REGULAR SERVICE.?

HONY CAPT AVTARSINGH said...

Sir, I Avtar Singh retired from Army Corps of Signals on 01/09/2006 as Hony Lt in active service and my pension was fixed Rs 13500/- pm from my date of retirement. The same was revised to Rs 15465/- pm wef 24/09/2012 due to some anomaly noticed in 6th pay commission. However, Supreme Court in its verdict ruled that the anomaly notices at later date in 6th pay commission to be paid from 01/01/2006 on case filed by pre 01/01/2006 retirees. The same has been implemented for the pre 01/01/2006 and post 01/01/2006 retirees have been left in lurk. On approaching PCDA pension Allahabad they replied that they have received the instructions to pay the arrears to pre 01/01/2006 retirees and no instruction have been received for post 01/01/2006 which is an injustice to post 01/01/2006 retirees and now created an anomaly for post 01/01/2006 retirees. Post 01/01/2006 retirees are also entitled for revision of their pension from their date of retirement to 23/09/2016 as the Supreme Court ruled in its verdict that arrears to be paid to all. Govt should pay attention to resolve this problem to avoid rushing the post 01/01/2006 retirees to The Court to get justice done to them.

Devendra Kumar said...

dear sir
1 Bank of Baroda Kanpur is not paying INTEREST on ARREAR inspite of three additional letters
to pay the same by PCDA pension. Now I want to move to COURT in KANPUR as I am staying at Kanpur and my Bank is also at Kanpur Can any one advice me to which court should I move against Bank of Baroda