Representation to The National Anomaly Committee

GR/AC/2009 dated 27th June,2009 By Speed PostFrom:G.RamdasRetired Additional Director General, DGS&D,Member Pensioners Forum, Chennai (affiliated to AIFPA(Regd.),Chennai)F-2, Blossom Apts., S-4 M G Road, Shastri Nagar, Chennai 600020(+91-44-42018227, * g_ramdas@hotmail.com

To:The Secretary (Staff Side)National Council, JCM,13-C, Ferozshah Road,New Delhi 110001

Sub: Anomalies arising out of Implementation of Recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission (6CPC) in Respect of pre-1.1.2006 Pensioners

Ref: 1.Deptt of Personnel & Trg (DOPT)JCA Section’s Lr No 11/2/2008-JCA dated 4th Feb 2009 (2)DP&PW’s OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) of 23rd Mar 2009

Dear Sir, As you might be aware, a very large number of pre-2006 pensioners have been denied the benefit of proper revision of pension as per the Principles enunciated by the 6CPC , due to anomalies arising in interpretation and implementation.The Commission had recorded that, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees.

However, this has not been properly implemented resulting in a serious Anomaly. The same is explained and discussed in this paper.

I would request the Committee to get this issue examined and recommend remedial measures for early redressing of the grievances of these pensioners. If required I am willing to give a presentation to the Committee, in this regard.

Thanking you,

Yours truly

G.Ramdas

1

6CPC - Fitment Benefit for Employees and Pensioners

1.Anomaly relating to Fitment benefit:

a) What is an anomaly? “where the official and staff side are of the opinion that any recommendation is in contravention of the principle or policy enunciated by the Sixth central Pay commission itself, without the Commission assigning any reason -could be treated as an anomaly”

Various types of anomalies have been pointed out by the pensioners in the implementation of the 6CPC recommendations concerning the Pensioners.

1. Disparity in Fitment benefit between serving employees and Pensioners of pre-2006.

2. Discrepancy in `clarifications/modifications’ issued vide O.M. dt. 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 in respect of Para 4.2of OM dated 1.9.2008

3. Disparity in respect of the `emoluments’ for determining Basic pension between pre-2006 pensioners and post-2006 pensioners.

4. Disparity in respect of the `qualifying service’ for retirees of Pre-2006 and post 2.9.2008 for determining full pension.

Out of the aforesaid illustrations, the anomaly relating to the Fitment Benefit is the most serious of all Anomalies as this is the root cause for widening the disparity between different sections of employees and pensioners.

2.. Sixth CPC Recommendations

As far as pensioners are concerned the recommendation of the commission at Para 5.1.47 of the Report is under:

“However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/ dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively.”

The fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.

The Commission also reported:Para 11.33: Fitment formula recommended for serving employees to be extended in case of existing pensioners/family pensioners.

2

Para 11.35 : Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking it to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension.

3. Implementation of Fitment Benefita).The above Recommendations of the Commission have been accepted by the Government and notified in the Gazette on 29.8.08, with modifications, that in the case of all pre-2006 pensioners, the fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86 plus a fitment benefit of 40% of the basic pension. Orders for implementation were issued vide OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dt.1.9.08

b).This formula is said to be consistent with fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. However this is not the case. The concordance Table converts the old pension by multiplying it by a factor of 2.26(1.86 being the total pension as on 1.1.06+0.4 as fitment benefit) to arrive at the new pension. In other words, 40 per cent of the basic pension is added as fitment benefit

c) For serving employees, basic pay is to be multiplied by a factor of 1.86 and the amount arrived at is rounded off to the next 10 rupee and appropriate Grade Pay added as fitment benefit, which is expected to be 40% of the max. of the pre-revised scale

d) Even these implementation orders deny the benefit of equality in fitment to the pensioners as the 40% benefit given to the pensioner is 40% of the basic pension drawn on 1.1.06, and not of the maximum pension for any given scale, as in the case of employees

4. Method of implementation a) Let us see what exactly is the “fitment Benefit”. It is the additional financial

compensation on the basis of the 6CPC Report, granted to the employees/pensioners, over the total emoluments/pension received on 1.1.2006 on the basis of the pre-revised scales

b) For serving employees the pay fixation has been done as per Table attached to the Dept. of Expenditure O.M. No.F1/1/2008-1C dt. 30.08.08. This table gives the pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to each stage of each of the pre-revised scales.

c) Pensioners who had retired during the period 1.1.06 to 30.08.08 were initially denied the benefit of pension as 50% of the last emoluments, but subsequently this was amended in Dec 08 extending this benefit to them also.

d) As far as pre-2006 pensioners are concerned, the provisions of para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC report as accepted by the Govt. and notified through Resolution dated 29.08.08, were re-worded in the O.M of 1.9.08 and substantially altered, detrimental to the interests of the pensioners, thro’ O.M dt.3.10.08 and 14.10.08 which totally changed the meaning of para 5.1.47 of 6CPC Report and resulted in reduction of pension for most of the pre-2006 pensioners. As per the modified instructions for determination of pension/family pension, the minimum of the Pay Band and Grade Pay is taken into account, instead of Minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay.

e) However for pensioners in Pay scales above S-31 and above adequate protection has been give by the 50% formula of the replacement scale, there

3

being no pay band and only replacement scales.

f) There was no ambiguity in the wordings of para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC Report, but the changes subsequently made in para 4.2 of O.M dt 1.9.08 and 3.9.08 created two definitions for the term ‘minimum of Pay in the pay band’ - for pre-2006 pensioners this being ”minimum of the pay band” . Though in subsequent clarifications through RTI route, DPP&PW have clarified that there was no change from the O.M dt 1.9.08, no clarificatory instructions were issued to the banks, who had earlier been advised by the CPAO of Min. of Finance, even before issue of the amendment on 3.10.08, to restrict the pension calculation on the basis of the minimum of the pay band.

g) The following pictorial example (fig.1) will clarify how different pre-revised scales have been merged in a Pay Band (PB-2) and how the minimum of the pay in the pay band corresponding to each of the scales merging in this pay band is different and not the same as ‘the minimum of the pay band’ as contended by DP&PW on 3.10.08. The sequence of steps taken by the authorities leading to the final amendment to the provisions, of Para 4.2 ,is discussed in Para 7 below.

Figure-1

5. How these changes affect the pre-2006 pensioners. i) Whatever be the fitment benefit, the same should have been

uniformly applied to all employees and pensioners in line with the Para5.1.47 of the 6th CPC Recommendations. However in reality this is not thecase.

This is all the more important, as after 1.1.06 the pension is calculated as 50% of the emoluments and extending higher benefit to employees alone, will result in corresponding wide disparity between pre and post 1.1.06 pensioners.

ii). While the past pensioners’ fitment benefit’ is pegged by the 2.26

4

formula, which includes 0.4 as fitment benefit,(1.86 being the total pension as on 1.1.06) the employees get much more than 2.26 times pre-revised basic pay on account of the following :

a. The initial fitment in the Fixation table annexed to Dept. of expenditure OM of 30.08.08 itself gives a pay in the PB higher than the 1.86 times basic pay envisaged in 6CPC recommendation. This increase is applicable in some scales below S-7 and in all scales from S24 to S-30 (2.62,

2.63, 2.42, 2.42,2.61,2.42 and 2.31 respectively).b. In monetary terms the loss to a pre-2006 pensioner at the min. of the

scale S-25 is 2.63-2.26=0.37 of the basic pension and amounts to Rs.2793.50 on this account only

c) In other words even without the Grade pay these employees and new pensioners will enjoy better fitment benefit than past pensioners. The actual fitment factors for all the scales, is shown in the Table 1. given In page-6d) The grade pay as fitment benefit being 40% of the maximum the pre-revised scale, is itself higher than the corresponding benefit to the past pensioners, which is only 40% of the basic pension and not of maximum pension for the scale.

e) The Grade Pay recommended by the Commission is said to have been ‘improved’ by the Govt. in 11 pay scales(Scales S-19 to 22 and 24 to 30) which further widens the disparity in fitment benefit. f) For employees the fitment benefit as Grade pay, which is always higher than 40% of their basic pay but in no case less than 40% of the maximum of the pre-revised scale is applicable uniformly for everybody in the post or pay scale, whereas for past pensioners 40% of the max. of the pay scale benefit will accrue only to those who reached the max. of the pay scale

e.g an officer at the lowest stage of S-29 will get a fitment benefit of Rs.10,000 (G.P) ,and consequently Rs.5000 as GP component in his pension, whereas a pre-2006 pensioner who retired from this level will get only 0.4 x basic pension = Rs.3680 as fitment benefit .

iii. The cumulative effect of the above leads to a situation where the total fitment benefit for employees and new pensioners far exceeds the 2.26 factor applied for past pensioners.(Table 1). The Table 1 below indicates the initial fitment factor in the revised scale (col.B), the grade pay as a factor of basic pay and the total fitment benefit as a multiplication factor (MF) of the pre-revised pay. This is the same for employees and post 1.1.06 retirees. While the revised pension for pre-2006 pensioners is restricted to 2.26 times the basic pension on 1.1.06, this factor for post 2006 retirees goes up to 3.37.

The interesting aspect is that the groups BC&D did not get much benefit on this account, as the real benefit starts from S-24 only where the Final fitment figure has jumped to 3.22 as against 2.26 for pre-06 pensioners.iv) There is no logic or justification for such an increase for S- 24 which in

5

turn has increased the Fitment benefit for higher scales, at the same time denying these benefits for the pre-2006 pensioners and widening the disparity between these two classes.v). If we compare the fitment benefit for pre-2006 and post 2006 pensioners, it will be obvious that while the former class got only 40% benefit the post 2006 pensioners have been awarded fitment benefit even up to 151% compared to their counterpart in the former group. For the HAG+ scales, there is no distinction between pre and post 2006 pensioners, at the minimum of the scales, as they are adequately protected by special orders.Table-1

6

Fitment Benefit for Employees & post 1.1.06 pensionersPre-re-

Pre-revised

pay scale

A

Initial Fitment in Fixation

table for Min. of scale

(x times basic pay on 1.1.06)

B

Grade pay as fraction

of basic pay on 1.1.06

C

Totalfitment benefit

D=B+C

Fitment benefit as a % of total pre-revised

emoluments on 1.1.06

ES-6 1.89 .63 2.52 66S-7 1.86 .60 2.46 60S-8 1.86 .62 2.48 62S-9 1.86 .84 2.70 84

S-10 1.86 .76 2.62 76S-11 1.86 .65 2.51 65S-12 1.86 .65 2.51 65S-13 1.86 .62 2.48 62S-14 1.86 .64 2.50 64S-15 1.86 .68 2.54 68S-16 1.86 .60 2.46 60S-17 1.86 .60 2.46 60S-18 1.86 .64 2.50 64S-19 1.86 .66 2.52 66S-20 1.86 .62 2.48 62S-21 1.86 .63 2.49 63S-22 1.86 .60 2.46 60S-23 1.94 .55 2.49 63S-24 2.62 .60 3.22 136S-25 2.63 .57 3.20 134S-26 2.42 .57 2.96 110S-27 2.42 .54 2.96 110S-28 2.61 .70 3.31 145S-29 2.42 .55 2.97 111S-30 2.31 .54 2.85 99S-31 3.37 151

vii). The bar chart given below illustrates the wide gap in fitment benefits of employees(and post 1.106 pensioners) and pre 2006 much against the principle enunciated by the 6CPC

Fig.2

7

viii. As can be seen from the Chart above, the past pensioners of all the pre-revised scales are adversely affected. In fact the fitment benefit for some employees/post 2006 pensioners work out to be over 151% as against 40% uniformly granted to past pensioners, thus increasing the disparity in pension between 2 types of pensioners retiring from the same post ,but on different dates. The sudden jump from S-24 will be obvious from the above chart. The loss to non-Group A pre-06 pensioners is also substantial, though less than for Group A pensioners

6.Rider in Para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC as safeguard for past pensionersThe 6CPC Report-Para 5.1.47 provided a rider that”

“the fixation as per this table will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. To this extent, a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table.”

It could , therefore , be argued that, the whole logic of comparing fitmentbenefit for employees and pensioners without taking into consideration theabove provisions , would be fallacious. Unfortunately, the series of amendments/alterations to the above proviso have effectively nullified these safeguards, as discussed in the next Para.

7. Systematic alterations to the provisions of Para 5.1.47 of 6CPC

a. The most anomalous expressions/implementations that have been made to perpetrate the loss in pension to the pre-2006 pensioners are ;

Fitment Benefit for Pensioners and Employees

020406080

100120140160

S

-6

S

-8

S

-10

S

-12

S

-14

S

-16

S

-18

S

-20

S

-22

S

-24

S

-26

S

-28

S

-30

pay scales

% in

crea

se o

ver b

asic

pen

sion

/pay

Fitment benefit-pensioner Fitment benefit-employee/post 2006 pensioner

8

“Minimum of the Pay in the Pay Band” and “Minimum of the Pay Band”. Para 5.1.47 was quite clear but confusion was deliberately created with the question whether: both meant the same OR they had different interpretations! Anyone with average English understanding would certainly point out both can not be the same! Otherwise why use the extra part “Pay in the” in the bigger expression? Even those who are not familiar with the bureaucratic terminologies, will appreciate the difference between these two expressions on seeing the bar chart in page 4.

b. The 6CPC’s recommendation regarding pension, as in their Report’s Para 5.1.47 was accepted by the Govt ,approved by the Cabinet, notified in Gazette of India vide DPP&PW’s Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 08 08 and obviously it is linked to the Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Exp. (Implementation Cell) vide their OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30 08 08 (annexing fitment tables). It was clearly accepted, as clear at sl no 12 of the Resolution, that “fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the” sum of “the “MINIMUM OF THE PAY IN THE PAY BAND” and the “GRADE PAY THEREON” CORRESPONDING to the PRE-REVISED PAY SCALE from which the pensioner had retired”.

c. Expression in quotations above clearly conveyed that the main subject of the sentence was “MINIMUM OF THE PAY” and it had to be fixed in the “Pay Band” as corresponding to the Pre-Revised Pay Scale. The “GRADE PAY THEREON” was the secondary subject of the sentence.

d. Now in the succeeding OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01 09 08, which conveyed the Presidential regulatory sanction vide para 4.2, again stated that “fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent 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”.

e. The subtle “modification” introduced in the whole RECOMMENDATION sentence of Para 2 above went unnoticed! “Sum of” was removed. “Plus” was introduced. Thus the expression “minimum of the pay band” now became more independent and only the “grade pay” appears to have been qualified by the expression “corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale! POOR Pre-2006 PENSIONERS COULD NOT FATHOM THESE MINOR/ SUBTLE but DESTRUCTIVE and DISTINCT changes in the construction of the sentence, till….

f. Suddenly, the DOP&PW vide OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. I dated 03 10 08, issued clarifications/modifications in regard to their OM dated 1.9.08. With respect to Para 4.2 of the OM of 1 .9 .08, the clarification/ modification conveyed that: “the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade would be calculated at (i)at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale”. This OM of 3 .10. 08 was further explained through illustrations in Tables/Annexure I and II attached to their OM of 14.10.08.

g. The intriguing aspect of the whole case was that, even before DP&PW issued the clarifications on 3.10.08, the CPAO of Dept. of

9

Expenditure had written a D.O to the Nodal officers of the Nationalized banks on 26.09.08 asking them to restrict the pension calculation to the minimum of the pay band instead of minimum of the pay in the pay band. Perhaps, he had a vision that a circular, in this direction would be issued by the concerned administrative department viz., DOP&PW on a future date!

8. Pensioners getting marginal relief in spite of mutilation of Para 4.2 The imbalances in implementation of the fitment formulae are supposed to be taken care of taken care of by the provisions of Para 4.2 of the O.M of 1.1.08. But with the series of modifications /alterations made to this Para, only marginal benefit has trickled down to the pre-2006 pensioners. The revised Pay structure covering Pay bands PB1 to PB4, has 27 pay scales( excluding new pay scale for Gr.A) having a total of 462 stages. Out of this, pensioners in 165 stages are denied rightful pension due as per para 5.1.47 of 6CPC (para 4.2 of OM dt 1.9.08), due to alterations of the O.M-affecting 35.7% pensioners. The break up pay band wise is : PB1- 27/118=23%, PB2- 33/161= 20.5%, PB3- 23/98= 23.5% PB4- 82/85= 96.5%.

The only pensioners, in group B & C who still get some benefit,in spite of the modification to para 4.2 are those in the first few stages of S-9 and S-10.Of course, as already elaborated in Para-5 above, the substantial increase in pay on reaching PB-4, had the resultant benefits extended to even pre-‘06 pensioners from S-24, the minimum pension for pre-06, S-24 being Rs. 23150 as against Rs11600 for S-23- a jump of Rs.11450. This increase is visible up to S-29 where pre-2006 pensioners find even this diluted Para 4.2 more beneficial than the concordance table, though ruing over the injustice done to them, in denial of what was published in the gazette. What is not understood by many pensioners is that, had the fitment benefits been the same for employees and pensioners, their pension benefits would have been even substantially higher than the present fixations.

9.Financial loss to Pre-2006 Pensioners:a) It is contended in some quarters that because of the proviso in para 4.2 of the O.M dt 1.9.08, pre-2006 pensioners will be assured of the existing modified parity not withstanding the extra fitment benefit extended to certain sections of the employees. But this is not the case as the wordings of this proviso, as appeared in para 5.1.47 of 6CPC have been substantially altered and the pre-2006 pensioners have been denied their dues. While the loss is total for all pensioners in higher scales, it is substantial, even in scales up to S-15. Pensioners at the initial stages of these pay scales have lost handsome amounts of pension due to the amendment to para 4.2

10

b) The actual loss in pension for each scale at the minimum and maximum of the scale due to amendment to para 4.2 of the O.M dt 1.9.08 is tabulated and shown in col. D of the Table 2. given below. The figures speak for themselves. (Scales below S-6 are not tabulated due to up gradation and fixation of min. pension as Rs.3500.) The loss at the min. of the scale is highest for S-30 being Rs.6613/-(Rs.7505/-at max. of the scale) for Group A services and Rs.1100/- for Group B&C- Scale S-15.

Table 2.

Pre-rev.Scale(Without stagnation stages)

50% of pre-revised scale X 2.26 (Para 4.1 of OMDt. 1.9.2008) Rs.

50% of Min. of PB+GP(OM dt.3.10.2008)Rs.

50% of last emoluments (notional) in new pay bands Rs,

Actual pension loss=C-A orC-B whichever is less Rs.

A B C (C minus B)

D

S-6 Min. 1600x2.26= 3616 3600 4030 (430) 414S-6 Max 2450x2.26=5537 3600 5560(1960) 23S-7 Min. 2000x2.26= 4520 3800 4920 (1120) 400S-7 Max 3000x2.26=6780 3800 6780(2980) nilS-8 Min. 2250x2.26= 5085 4000 5580 (1580) 495S-8 Max 3500x2.26=7910 4000 7910(3910) nilS-9 Min 2500x2.26= 5650 6750 6750 (nil) nilS-9 Max. 4000x2.26=9040 6750 9540 (500) 500S-10 Min. 2750x2.26= 6215 6750 7215(465) 465S-10 Max 4500x2.26=10170 6750 10470(3720) 300S-11 Min. 3250x2.26= 7345 6750 8145(1395) 800S-11 Max 3450x2.26=7797 6750 8520(1770) 723S-12 Min. 3250x2.26= 7345 6750 8145(1395) 800S-12 Max 5250x2.26=11865 6750 11865(5165) nilS-13 Min. 3725x2.26= 8418 6950 9230 (2280) 812S-13 Max 5750x2.26=12995 6950 12995(6045) nilS-14 Min. 3750x2.26= 8475 7050 9375 (2325) 900S-14 Max 6000x2.26=13560 7050 13560(6510) nilS-15 Min. 4000x2.26= 9040 7350 10140

(2790)1100

S-15 Max 6750x2.26=15255 7350 15255(7905) nilS-16 Min. 4500x2.26= 10170 10500 11070 (570) 570S-16 Max 4500x2.26=10170 10500 11070(570) 570S-17 Min. 4500x2.26= 10170 10500 11070 (570) 570S-17 Max 4775x2.26=10791 10500 11585(515) 794S-18 Min. 5163x2.26= 11668 11100 12905

(1805)1237

S-18 Max 5488x2.26=12402 11100 13510(2410) 748S-19 Min. 5000x2.26= 11300 11100 12600

(1500)1300

S-19 Max 7600x2.26=17176 11100 17440(6340) 264S-20 Min. 5325x2.26= 12034 11100 13205

(2105)1171

S-20 Max 7925x2.26=17911 11100 18045(6945) 134

11

S-21 Min. 6000x2.26= 13560 11600 14960 (3360)

1400

S-21 Max 8250x2.26=18645 11600 19145(7545) 500S-22 Min. 6375x2.26= 14407 11600 15660

(4060)1253

S-22 Max 8250x2.26=18645 11600 19145(7545) 500S-23 Min. 6000x2.26= 13560 11600 14960

(3360)1400

S-23 Max 9000x2.26=20340 11600 20540(8940) 200S-24 Min 7150x2.26= 16159 23050 23050 (nil) nilS-24 Max. 9150x2.26=20679 23050 26045(2995) 2995S-25 Min. 7550x2.26= 17063 23050 24195

(1145)1145

S-25 Max 9150x2.26=20679 23050 26700(3650) 3650S-26 Min. 8200x2.26= 18532 23150 24295

(1145)1145

S-26 Max 10000x2.26=22600 23150 26800(3650) 3650S-27 Min. 8200x2.26= 18532 23150 24295

(1145)1145

S-27 Max 10450x2.26=23617 23150 27475(4325) 3858S-28 Min. 7150x2.26= 16159 23700 23700 (nil) nilS-28 Max. 11200x2.26=25312 23700 29435(5735) 4123S-29 Min. 9200x2.26= 20792 23700 27350

(3650)3650

S-29 Max 11200x2.26=25312 23700 30925(7225) 5613S-30 Min. 11200x2.26=25312 24700 31925

(7225)6613

S-30 Max 12250x2.26=27685 24700 35190(10490)

7505

S-31 11200x2.26=25312 37750 37750 nil

12

c) The pension denied to pre-2006 pensioners, in view of the amendment to para 4.2 of O.M dt 1.9.08 is pictorially depicted below, for major losers (Fig.3)

Figure-3

13

10. Creation of class within class for pensioners- post and pre-2006

a) As explained in the earlier paragraphs, failure to adhere to the principle of providing same fitment benefit to employees and past pensioners has caused serious financial loss to the pre-2006 pensioners. Modification of the para 4.2 and denying the benefits already announced through the gazette notification of 29.08.08, amount to adding insult to the injury.

b) By applying different yardsticks – namely “minimum pay in the Pay Band” in one case and “minimum of the Pay Band” in the other - for the pension of two identical cases separated by a line of pre & post 2006 pensioners, it gives rise to a class within the class.This question was taken up by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of D.S.Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgement it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification. Such classification based on a cut off date has been held arbitrary and unprincipled which does not stand the test of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

b) The systematic alterations and modifications to the Proviso of para 5.1.47 of the 6CPC Report guaranteeing pension as 50% of the emoluments in the new pay structure, corresponding to the minimum of the pre-revised scale ,has not only widened the gap in pension between pre and post 1.1.06 pensioners but also ensured that the pre-2006 pensioners will get lower pension than Post-2006 pensioners retiring at the minimum of the identical pre-revised scale. Also a situation has arisen where even the juniors retiring after 1.1.06 from posts lower, will get higher pensions than a pre-2006 pensioner retiring from a higher grade.c) The damage and humiliation is to such an extent that for some grades, post 2006 pensioners even up to 7-8 scales

14

below, will draw higher pension than pre-06 retirees from higher grades. The Table 3. below shows the gross injustice done to Group A pre-2006 pensioners vis-à-vis post 2006 pensioners. The case is similar in respect of Groups B&C also.

Table-3

d) The Table above highlights the pitiable plight of senior officers who retired before 2006. They will draw less

15

Comparison of Min. Pension Payable for Post and pre-1.1.2006 pensionersPre-revised pay scale

Min.Pension for post 1.1.06 retiree-50% of last emolumentsRs.

Min. pension for pre-06 pensioner( para 4.1 or 4.2 of OM of 1.1.08 whichever is beneficial) Rs.

Post 1.1.06 pensioners from lower scales drawing higher pension than pre-06 retirees of higher posts

S-16 11070 10500 S15-from 3rd stage,S14 from 6th, S-13 from 8th, S-12 last 11stages, S-10 last 3 stages

S-17 11070 10500 -do-S-18 12905 11665 S-17-last 3,S-15 from 7th,S-14 last 12,S-

13 last 11,S-12 last 5S-19 12600 11300 S-18 all stages,S-17 from 2nd,S-15 from

6th, S-14 last 11stages, S-13 last12,S-12 last 12stages

S-20 13205 12034 S-19 &S-18 all, S-17last 2 stages,S-15 from 9th, S-14 last 10, S-13 last8 ,S-12 last 3 stages

S-21 14960 13560 S-20 from 3rd, S-19 from 5th, S-18 from 4th, S-15 from 15th, S-14 last 3,S-13 last stage

S-22 15660 14407 S-21 all,S-20 from 5th stage, S-19 from 7th, S-18 last 1,S-15 last 7

S-23 14960 13560 S-22 all,S-21 all, S-20 from 3rd, S-19 from 5th, S-18 4th, S-15 from15th,S-14 last 3,S-13 last stage

S-24 23050 23050 -S-25 23050 23050 S-24 all stagesS-26 23150 23150 S-25 all,S-24 from 3rd

S-27 23150 23150 S-26 all, S-25 all,S-24 from 3rd

S-28 23700 23700 S-27,26,25 all stages,S-24 from 5th stageS-29 27350 23700 S-28,27,26,25 all stages,S-24 from 5th

stage S-30 31925 25312 S-29 all,S-28 from 7th stage, S-27 from

4th, S-26 from 4th, S-25- 5th, S-24 from 9th stage

pension than their juniors (who retired after 1.1.06). As can be seen from the last column, this is applicable for almost all scales.

e) an example, the case of pre-2006 pensioners of S-29 is graphically presented below (fig 4. ) to show how they will find their status downgraded in the company of post 2006 pensioners. .

What a pity! Is this the way of maintaining modified parity?

Fig -4

e) The gap between pensions of these 2 classes that is pre-2006 and post1.1.2006 (much against the promise of the 6CPC to give the same fitment benefit for all classes) in respect of each pay scale is depicted in the following graphs- the one covering Pay scales up to S-15 (fig 5.) and the other from S-16(fig.6).

16

Fig 5.Graph for pay scales S-6 to S-15

Fig. 6.Graph for pay scales from s-16 to S-31

17

f) S-30 pensioners of pre-2006 category have the unique distinction of getting the worst discrimination. While on one side, on comparison with post 1.1.06 retirees, they find themselves in a very awkward position as these(post 2006) pensioners of S-29,S-28, S-27, S-26, S-25 and even from S-24 get more pension than them, as elaborated in the Table 3. above

On the other side, comparison with S-31 gives a very gloomy picture. Both S-30 and S-31 start with same pay of Rs 22400/- An S-31 pre-2006 pensioner gets a pension of Rs.37,750 as against his counterpart in S-30 who will get a pension ofOnly Rs. 25312/-, though both of them enjoyed the same pension till 31.12.2005.What a way to establish equality among pensioners!

The figure below illustrates this fact.(Fig7.)

Fig. 7

18

11. Does the injustice extend to all pre-2006 pensioners?

No. Officers of the erstwhile S-31 and higher pay scales are specially protected as in their case, even pre-2006 pensioners get 50% of the revised pay scale. The gain for S-31 is graphically depicted below in Fig. 7. Many of the pre-2006 pensioners who feel quite contended with the 2.26 MF should see this graph to understand how much more pension is given to these pensioners(S-31 and above) over and above the 2.26 MF.

Fig. 8.

19

12. Need for Reference to Anomalies Committee

The terms of reference of the Anomalies Committee constituted by the Govt. vide notification dt12.01.09 says that “where the official and staff side are of the opinion that any recommendation is in contravention of the principle or policy enunciated by the Sixth central Pay commission itself, without the Commission assigning any reason” that could be treated as an anomaly.

In this case, as mentioned in para 2. above the Commission had recorded that, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees.

To maintain the existing modified parity, and to achieve the above objective the formula for fitment benefit implementation has to be the same for both categories. Unfortunately this is not the case as explained in para 5.above

Since this principle enunciated by the Commission, as mentioned above, has not been adhered to in the revision of pension for past pensioners and for employees, this becomes an Anomaly, fit to be referred to the Anomalies Committee.

20

13. Suggested Solution

The only way to comply with the 6CPC recommendation is to extend the same fitment benefit to the pre-2006 pensioners as given to the employees vide table attached to Dept. of Expenditure OM of 30.08.08. However in view of the fact that 6CPC themselves have also recommended maintenance of existing modified parity, the para 4.2 of O.M. of 1.9.08 may be clarified as under :

“The Revised Pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the revised pay in the running pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to the minimum basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale, from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at in accordance with the Fitment Tables given in the Annexure I of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.”

This will be in line with suggestion of the DP&PW in their UO note dated 2.1.2009 sent to the Dept of Expenditure. (copy obtained by RTI response- displayed on the website of RREWA) and will redress the grievances of the pensioners and also ensure adherence to the principles enshrined in the Commission’s Report.

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

21