“Vision” And “Mission” Statements Department Of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare

Meeting On 14th May, 2010

.

1. IESL welcomes evolving ‘Vision” and “Mission statements issued by Department of Pensions & Pensioner’ Welfare and hopes similar statements would also be made by Department of ESW under Ministry of Defence. We are sure performance in these key areas will be evaluated through suitably devised quantitative criteria.

.

2. We would like to bring out following points for consideration.

.

Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR)

.

3. Based on Report of the Committee on “One Rank One Pension and Related Issues” submitted on 30 June, although OROP has not been approved, pensions of all pre 2006 retired PBOR based on their rank and service has been brought on par. In case of officers of Defence Forces and civil service pensioners, it was already so. Also, method of calculating pension has been revised based on maximum of the erstwhile pay scale and its fitment in the new scales. This has only removed the anomaly as this was the way it was calculated for them before 2006 and should have been done in any case. Thus, both these are based on VI PC recommendations. Para 8 (iii) of the Report, however, mentions it as a new concession and has permitted the benefit only prospectively. On the other hand a new pay scale for Lt Generals/Additional Secretaries and their equivalent has been created which did not exist as per VI PC recommendations. This, however, has been, stated to emanate from VI PC recommendations and has been recommended to be implemented wef 01.01.2006 (Para 8 (v) of the Report refers). We feel that pension of PBOR should also have been revised wef 01.01.2006. This issue may kindly be re-examined.

.

Officers

.

4. Para 6.8 0f the Report makes conflicting statements. It states, “There is very little difference between the pension of pre 01.01.2006 based on modified parity granted by Pay Commission and that with reference to minimum of fitment Tables” All Government letters issued so far fixing pension of pre-2006 pensioners are treating minimum of fitment Tables as modified parity. If modified parity is same as minimum of the fitment Table for each rank, this difference should have been zero for all ranks. Difference has arisen because interpretation of Finance Ministry is not as per interpretation of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary, which is obvious from their Report. The Report further states, “ The difference is around 2% in case of Lt Colonel, 6% at the level of Colonel, 11% at the level of Brigadier, 13% at the level of Major General. Only at the level of Lieutenant General is there a substantial difference of 26%.” The Report adds, “As a result of modified parity granted by sixth CPC, the minimum pension assured to retired Lt Generals is Rs.27700 (37400+12000+6000/2)”. Thus, at one place in this Para, distinction has been made between modified parity granted by PC and the minimum of fitment Table, at another place, they are termed as same. Also, it has been stated that minimum pension assured to Lt Generals is 27700. Actually, it is not the minimum but the same pension was applicable to all pre-2006 Lt Generals. Now let us examine how the difference mentioned above has been calculated. Example is only for two ranks but it applies to all the ranks.

.

Major General.

Pension as per fitment Table. 44700+10000+6000/2=30350

Pension as per minimum of Grade Pay. 37400+10000+6000/2=26700

Difference in percentage. 30350-26700/26700 x100=13.67%

Lt General.

.

Pension as per fitment Table.51850+12000+6000/2=34925

Pension as per minimum of Grade Pay.37400+12000+6000/2=27700

Difference in percentage. 34925-27700/27700 x100=26.08%

.

If the modified parity is based on minimum of the Grade Pay, this difference in both cases should have been zero. Again, pension of Lt Generals has now been revised to 36500 which is more than 34925 the pension recommended by PC based on minimum in band pay as per fitment Table corresponding to the rank of Lt General. In other cases, no change has been recommended although the difference is substantial. It may kindly be examined why different yard-sticks have been followed.

.

5. The Committee of Secretaries is silent about the rank of Major though the difference as calculated above is quite substantial. Why the difference has not been narrowed down as has been done in case of Lt General has not been mentioned in the Report. Following Table will make it clear. The case may please be re-examined so that justice is given to all ranks as has been given to Lt Generals, Additional Secretaries and equivalent.

.

Rank Pension as per modified parity granted by Pay Commission Pension as per Annexure I/II Difference

Lt :           13500 - 13500 0

Capt        :    15350 - 13850 (-) 10.8%

Major     :     18205 - 14464 (-) 25.9%

Lt Col     :     26265 - 25700 (-) 2.2%

Col          :     27795 - 26050 (-) 6.7%

Brig         :     29145 - 26150 (-) 11.5%

Maj Gen  :    30350 - 26700 (-) 13.7%

Lt Gen (before revision) 34925 27700 (-) 26.1%

Lt Gen (after revision)    34925 36500 (+) 4.3%

Court Cases

.

6. A few of the Press clippings are reproduced below

.

"The Supreme court has expressed concern over the increase of frivolous and unjust litigation by the Central and State Govts thereby clogging the wheels of justice. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in Public Interest. They should be responsible litigants. they cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections nor act in a callous and high handed manner. They cannot behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment" said a Bench of Justices R.V.Raveendran and G.S.Singhvi.

.

Writing the Order, Justice Raveendran said" Unwarranted Litigation by Government and Statutory authorities basically stems from two baseless assumptions by their officers- all claims should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court, if taking a decision on an issue could be avoided; then it is prudent not to decide and let the aggrieved party approach the court and secure a decision."

.

The Bench said” The reluctance to take decisions or the tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the Governments or statutory bodies but is attributable to some officers responsible for taking decisions and/or Officer in charge of Litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making or worse of improper motives for any decision making.

.

The Bench said" Unless the insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to courts and tribunals. The Centre is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation."

.

The Court said ".Vexatious and unnecessary litigation has been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts and tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants".

.

The Bench said "They are expected to show remorse or regret when their Officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by the Officers are brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/ restoration to the extent possible, with appropriate compensation". Their harsh attitudes to genuine grievances of the Public and their indulging in unwarranted litigation required to be corrected."

.

As per a press report, a few days after Supreme Court observations, Law Minister re-emphasized that Govt would soon be a ‘responsible’ and ‘reluctant’ litigant.

.

7. It is unfortunate that after all this, Government has gone for recall of RANK PAY case to Supreme Court and is yet to issue Government letter base on Chandigarh Tribunal to fix pension of pre-2006 Major Generals and equivalent based on Supreme Court Judgement on re-fixing of pension of pre-1996 Major Generals from October 2001 on the same basis as was done for post-1996 Major Generals. It is requested that frivolous cases whish have already been decided by Supreme Court may not be re-opened to avoid injustice to pensioners.

.

ISSUE OF CORRIGENDUM TO PPO

.

8. As Corrigendum to PPOs has not been issued to implement VI PC recommendations, banks are taking long time to calculate arrears and in many cases, the figure is either more or less than actual figure. This is very troublesome particularly for family pensioners. Even Annexure IV has not been supplied to most of the pensioners. It may be confirmed from CDAs what percentage of Annexure has been received by them. It is requested that, in future, Corrigendum to PPO may be issued whenever there is a change in pension. As all the information is already available with CDAs, this should be done without asking pensioners to fill up forms.

.

Disability Pension

.

9. Committee of Secretaries, mentioned above, had referred payment of disability pension to ESM on percentage basis in stead of slab basis to Dte of ESW so as to assess financial and other implications (Para 7.2(4) refers). Although the Report was submitted on 30 June 2009, no decision on the same has been taken although more than ten months have elapsed. The same may be expedited.

“Vision” & “Mission” Statements Department Of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare 14 May 2010

.

9. IESL welcomes evolving ‘Vision” and “Mission statements issued by Department of Pensions & Pensioner’ Welfare and hopes similar statements would also be made by Department of ESW under Ministry of Defence. We are sure performance in these key areas will be evaluated through suitably devised quantitative criteria.

.

10. We would like to bring out following points for consideration.

.

Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR)

.

11. Based on Report of the Committee on “One Rank One Pension and Related Issues” submitted on 30 June 2010, although OROP has not been approved, pensions of all pre 2006 retired PBOR based on their rank and service has been brought on par. In case of officers of Defence Forces and civil service pensioners, it was already so. Also, method of calculating pension has been revised based on maximum of the erstwhile pay scale and its fitment in the new scales. This has only removed the anomaly as this was the way it was calculated for them before 2006 and should have been done in any case. Thus, both these are based on VI PC recommendations. Para 8 (iii) of the Report, however, mentions it as a new concession and has permitted the benefit only prospectively. On the other hand a new pay scale for Lt Generals/Additional Secretaries and their equivalent has been created which did not exist as per VI PC recommendations. This, however, has been, stated to emanate from VI PC recommendations and has been recommended to be implemented wef 01.01.2006 (Para 8 (v) of the Report refers). We feel that pension of PBOR should also have been revised wef 01.01.2006. This issue may kindly be re-examined.

.

Officers

.

12. Para 6.8 0f the Report makes conflicting statements. It states, “There is very little difference between the pension of pre 01.01.2006 based on modified parity granted by Pay Commission and that with reference to minimum of fitment Tables” All Government letters issued so far fixing pension of pre-2006 pensioners are treating minimum of fitment Tables as modified parity. If modified parity is same as minimum of the fitment Table for each rank, this difference should have been zero for all ranks. Difference has arisen because interpretation of Finance Ministry is not as per interpretation of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary, which is obvious from their Report. The Report further states, “ The difference is around 2% in case of Lt Colonel, 6% at the level of Colonel, 11% at the level of Brigadier, 13% at the level of Major General. Only at the level of Lieutenant General is there a substantial difference of 26%.” The Report adds, “As a result of modified parity granted by sixth CPC, the minimum pension assured to retired Lt Generals is Rs.27700 (37400+12000+6000/2)”. Thus, at one place in this Para, distinction has been made between modified parity granted by PC and the minimum of fitment Table, at another place, they are termed as same. Also, it has been stated that minimum pension assured to Lt Generals is 27700. Actually, it is not the minimum but the same pension was applicable to all pre-2006 Lt Generals. Now let us examine how the difference mentioned above has been calculated. Example is only for two ranks but it applies to all the ranks.

Major General.

Pension as per fitment Table. 44700+10000+6000/2=30350

Pension as per minimum of Grade Pay. 37400+10000+6000/2=26700

Difference in percentage.30350-26700/26700 x100=13.67%

Lt General.

Pension as per fitment Table. 51850+12000+6000/2=34925

Pension as per minimum of Grade Pay.37400+12000+6000/2=27700

Difference in percentage. 34925-27700/27700 x100=26.08%

.

If the modified parity is based on minimum of the Grade Pay, this difference in both cases should have been zero. Again, pension of Lt Generals has now been revised to 36500 which is more than 34925 the pension recommended by PC based on minimum in band pay as per fitment Table corresponding to the rank of Lt General. In other cases, no change has been recommended although the difference is substantial. It may kindly be examined why different yard-sticks have been followed.

.

13. The Committee of Secretaries is silent about the rank of Major though the difference as calculated above is quite substantial. Why the difference has not been narrowed down as has been done in case of Lt General has not been mentioned in the Report. Following Table will make it clear. The case may please be re-examined so that justice is given to all ranks as has been given to Lt Generals, Additional Secretaries and equivalent.

.

Rank Pension as per modified parity granted by Pay Commission Pension as per Annexure I/II Difference

Lt           :    13500 - 13500 0

.

Capt       :    15350 - 13850 (-) 10.8%
.
Major     :    18205 - 14464 (-) 25.9%
.
Lt Col     :    26265 - 25700 (-) 2.2%
.
Col          :    27795 - 26050 (-) 6.7%
.
Brig         :    29145 - 26150 (-) 11.5%
.
Maj Gen :    30350 - 26700 (-) 13.7%
.
Lt Gen (before revision) 34925 27700 (-) 26.1%
.
Lt Gen (after revision)    34925 36500 (+) 4.3%
.

Court Cases

.

Same as given above