NATIONAL CO-ORDINATION
COMMITTEE OF PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS
13.c
Feroze Shah Road,
New Delhi. 110 001
President: Com.
Shiv Gopal Misra.
Secretary
General: Com.
K.KN. Kutty.
Dear Comrades,
As you aware the Government had set up a
Committee to go into the feasibility of implementation of 7th CPC
recommendations concerning pension determination of pre-2016 pensioners/ family
pensioners. The committee itself came into being due to the persistent
postulations of the Pension department over the probable difficulties, the
Department might encounter in fixing pension entitlement under option No.1 , recommended
by 7th CPC. The first formal meeting was held on 6.10.2016 with the
JCM Staff Side. Prior to that, we have
been informed that the pension department had invited some pensioners
Associations for a discussion on the same subject. We are not aware of what ultimately transpired
in that meeting.
In the 6th October meeting the
official side virtually reiterated what
they said in the informal meeting about
the difficulties in acting upon the Option No.1. suggested by the 7th
CPC, the anomalies it might create etc. To overcome and obviate the difficulties they
proposed an alternative. i.e. to extend
the pension fixation formula propounded by 5th CPC to all pre 2016
pensioners and family pensioners. Viz.
arriving at notional pay in 7th CPC by applying the formula for pay
revision for serving employees in each Pay Commission and consequent pension
fixation)
We have annexed the full text of minutes of
the meeting of 6th October 2016. The minutes as you know well, can
not reflect the entire gamut of discussions at the meeting. The Staff Side had
made out the following points during the discussions.
(a)
Even
assuming that in about 18% of the cases service Books might not be available,
it cannot be the reason to conclude that
implementation of option No. 1 is
infeasible. In fact it construes that in 82% of the cases, the service books
are available and for that reason alone, the option suggested by the 7th
CPC is to be acted upon. Moreover, the Staff Side also said that hardily 40% of
pensioners are likely to opt for option
No. 1 . In that case, only in 7% of the cases the non availability of Service
Books will arise.
(b)
As the
Government has accepted the recommendation (as indicated in the Notification
issued), what is required by the
Committee is only to examine the feasibility thereof.
(c)
There
are various other documents on which the Government can rely upon
like the Gradation list,(Seniority list), Pay Bill, Establishment file etc. The
Gradation list, the staff side added contains all information. Including the date
of promotion of the concerned individual to that grade.
(d)
Staff
Side also agreed that acting upon option No.1 will bring about certain
anomalies and the same must be addressed.
(e)
The
depressed pension entitlement of those who retired without promotion, or who
suffered stagnation in service, for no fault of theirs, especially the Group C
and Group D employees must be appreciated.
(f)
The
Staff Side said that they wholeheartedly welcome the alternative proposal i.e. extension of
the 5th CPC pension fitment formula to all pre-2016 pensioners as that had been their demand in the
memorandum submitted to the 7th CPC itself.
(g)
The
staff side however, reminded the members
of the Committee that the extension of
the 5th CPC pension fitment formula had been the demand of the
pensioners and the staff side before the 6th CPC. It was rejected on the specious plea of
higher financial outflow.
(h)
nIn
the light of the anomalies that might arise in accepting the 7th CPC
recommendation of Option No. 1, it is better, that the Government offers the
same as third option, to be chosen by the pensioners on the basis of whichever
is beneficial to them.
(i)
At the end of the discussion, the staff side said that they would cause
consultation with all state holders and will express their firm view at the next meeting which was stated for 17th October, 2016.
In the brief period that was available, the
Staff Side did cause consultation with various Pensioners Association and Federations and Associations of Serving
employees. That apart, the undersigned had a detailed
discussion with Com. B.C. Maheswari, General Secretary Bharath Pensioners
Samaj, one of the biggest pensioners organization in the country.
The staff Side met yesterday evening and
the matter was further discussed at length with the feedback, it had received
from various organizations as also from the Government. It came to the inescapable conclusion that
replacement of Option No.1. by the alternate suggestion put forth by the
Committee would harm the interest of quite a large number of pensioners/family
pensioners, especially those who had retired prior to 1996. The meeting also appreciated the fact that
the implementation of Option No.1. will bring about a situation of anomalies in
pension entitlement especially for those pensioners, who got their promotion at
the fag end of their career. They are likely
to get lesser pension when compared to a pensioner who retired from a lower
grade. Taking all these into consideration, the Staff Side decided that the
alternative suggested by the Committee must be a third alternative which might
reduce the gravity of anomaly and would bring about a better pension
entitlement for certain section of the pensioners. Accordingly, the decision has been conveyed
to the Committee (both orally and in writing).
The copy of the letter the Staff Side has written is appended hereto.
During the discussions on 17th it has become almost clear that the Committee
would go ahead with the proposal of the Pension Department denying Option No.1.
which would affect adversely the pension entitlement of a significant number of
pensioners/family pensioners. Perhaps it
would be the first occasion that the Government chooses to reject a
recommendation made by the Pay
Commission. With this rejection, the
scenario would be complete in as much as this would be the first Government
which has rejected every suggestion of the employees and Pensioners in
implementation of the Pay Commission recommendation. It has gone a step further in as much as it
has tried to influence the 7th CPC at the fag end of its tenure to
ensure that the minimum wage quantum is reduced. It may please be noted that the only one
recommendation of the 7th CPC which came in for some appreciation
amongst the various stake holders was the Pension fitment formula i.e. Option
No.1. By its rejection, it can be
concluded without difficulty that there is nothing in the 7th CPC by
virtue of which the employees and pensioners could state that some improvement
has been effected in their service/career conditions.
It must be our immediate endeavour to bring about a joint platform of
all pensioners organizations to chalk out a future course of actions in
pursuance of the demand of implementation of
option No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy
of letter in No. NC-NJCM-2016/7th CPC(Pension) from The Secretary , Staff Side to
The Secretary (pension)
Department
of Pension& Pensioners Welfare,
Govt.
of India,
Sardar
Patel Bhawan,
New
Delhi.
Dear Sir,
Sub: 7th
CPC recommendation. Pay determination in the case of
Pre-2016
pensioners. Option No. 1. Examination of feasibility. Ref: Minutes
of the meeting of the Committee in F.No. 38/37/2016
P&PW(A)Dated 10th
October, 2016
We refer to the discussions
held on 6.10.2016 in the matter of feasibility of acting upon the 7thy CPC
recommendations (Option No. 1) in the matter of pension computation and the minutes circulated under cover of the
letter cited. At the outset, we would like to state that the
members of the Staff Side, who were associated with the discussions, gained an
impression that the Pension Department would not like to implement the
recommendation of the 7th CPC concerning Option No. 1 provided to
the Pensioners in determination of the revised pension. As has been pointed out
by us during the discussions on 6th October, the Government has
accepted the said recommendation with a rider of its feasibility of
implementation. The attempt, therefore,
must be to explore the ways and means of implementing the said recommendation,
which benefits a large number of retired personnel, especially those retired
prior to 1996. It is, therefore, highly doubtful how any alternate proposal in
replacement of the accepted recommendation would be tenable.
We have the matter considered by various Pensioners Associations as
also the Federations of the Serving employees. We enumerate hereunder the feed- back we have received:
Even according to the exercise carried out by the Pension
department, only in 18% of the cases, the service Books are reported to have
been not available. Conversely it means that in 82% of the cases the records
are available to operationalize option No.1. Besides, we find that on the basis
of a random scrutiny that only 40% (Percentage varies
from Department to Department depending upon the then prevailing career
prospects) generally will opt to have pension fixation under the provisions of option No.1. It will work out to hardly 7% of
the cases, where Service Books might not be available. As has been pointed out
in the last meeting, Gradation/Seniority
list is maintained for each Cadre by the Concerned Department, where the
date of promotion to the cadre inter alia is indicated. The said gradation list will
reveal many other details viz. the date of birth, date of entry into government
service, date of promotion to the present cadre, whether eligible for next
promotion, date of superannuation etc. This apart there are several other documents
maintained by the Department, which will come in handy for verification of the clam, viz, the pay
bills, Establishment files containing promotion orders etc. In
other words it is possible to verify the
claim of any individual pensioner or family pensioner and take
appropriate decision. In other
words, there is no infeasibility question at all. It was
also pointed out by many organisations that the retention period of Service
Books in all major Departments of the Government of India is 5 years after the
death of the Pensioner/ Family Pensioner and not 3 years after retirement as
indicated by the Official side at the meeting. This apart, it may also be noted that the option has to be exercised
by the concerned individual pensioner and he
has to make a formal application to the concerned authorities. He is bound to substantiate his claim with
documentary proof, whatever that is available with him.
As was pointed out by some of us in the last meeting, the non-
implementation of an accepted recommendation on the specious plea of
infeasibility will pave way for plethora of litigation. Apart from the administrative difficulties,
the Pension Department would be saddled with if such litigations arise, it
would be sad and cruel on the part of the Government to compel the pensioners
to bear huge financial burden to pursue their case before the courts of
law.
In view of this the Staff side is of the firm view that the Government issue orders for
implementation of Option No. 1 as there is no room for stating that the
recommendation is impossible to be
implemented for those who are benefited by the said option.
We are aware that certain anomalies are bound to arise on
implementation of option No.1 Anomalies have arisen in the past too. What is
needed is to examine those anomalies and ensure that those are genuinely
addressed.
It may be noted that even
under the present dispensation, no
two Government servants are entitled for
the same pension despite they being retired on superannuation from the same
grade on the same day. The promotion in lower cadres especially Group B, C and
D had been few and far between a decade back in many departments and continues to be the same situation in certain organisations of the
Government of India. The vacancy based
promotion system, one must admit , operates in a fortuitous manner. For no fault of the individual employee,
he/she may retire without getting a
promotion whereas his colleague due to sheer luck might get the promotion at
the fag end of the career. The case of
those employees who retired prior to the advent of ACP or MACP is really
pathetic. They had to remain in certain
departments in the same cadres for years together. They are in receipt of
a paltry amount of pension though there
is nothing distinguishable in their service careers for such deprivation. To deny them the benefit provided by the 7th
CPC on the specious plea that the relevant records are not available with the
Government may not only be unreasonable
but also will not stand the test of
judicial scrutiny .
As we have stated in the meeting, the alternative suggestion put
forth by the official side is a welcome feature , for it might be a step in
the right direction to remove the anomaly pointed out by the Official side
when Option No.1 is implemented and will
benefit those pensioners who got their promotion at the fag end of their
career.. It is also likely to bring about certain extent of parity, if not
full, between the old and the present pensioners. However it cannot be in replacement of the
recommendation in respect of Option No.1. made by the 7th CPC. The alternate suggestion of the
Pension Department may be offered as another option to the pensioners who are
not benefited either by Option No. 1 or 2 recommended by the 7th
CPC. Such an option will eliminate to a great extent the anomalies that might
arise from the implementation of option No. 1.
In
fine, we request that:
The Pensioners/family pensioners may be allowed to choose any one of the following
three options;
(a)
2.57 time of the present
pension if that is beneficial.
(b)
Option No. 1. Recommended by
the 7th CPC, if that is beneficial for them.
( c).
to determine the Pension on the basis of the suggestion placed by the
Pension Department on 6.10.2016 i.e. extension of the benefit of pension determination
recommended by the 5th CPC (viz. arriving at notional pay in the 7th
CPC by applying formula for pay revision for serving employees in each Pay
Commission and consequent pension fixation)
to all pre-2016 Pensioners/family pensioners, if that becomes beneficial
to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee set up to examine feasibility of
implementation of recommendation of Seventh CPC for revision of pension of Pre-2016 pensioners held on 6.10.2016 at Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi.
The 6" Meeting of the Committee
for examination of
feasibility of implementation
of recommendations of Seventh Central Pay Commission for revision
of pension of pre-2016 pensioners was
held under the Chairmanship of Shri C. Viswanath, Secretary (Pension) on 6.10.2016 at Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi. This meeting was called for seeking the views of the Staff side of JCM on the feasibility of implementation of the first option for revision of pension of pre 2016 pensioners recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission.The following
were present from official side:
Sh. Ashok Kumar Dash,
Member (Personnel),
Department of Posts.
Ms. Santosh, Joint Secretary, Department
of Ex-Servicemen Welfare,
Sh. Rozy Agarwal, Joint CGDA, Ministry of Defence,
Sh. R.K. Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary, Implementation Cell, Department of Expenditure,
Sh. Sanjay Singh, Chief
Controller (Pension), CPAO (representing
Controller General of Accounts).
Sh. Tanveer Ahmed, Executive
Director, Railway Board (representing
Member (Staff)).
The following were present
from JCM ( staff side):
Shr i Shiv Gopal Mishra, Secretary,
JCM.
Shri Guman Singh, Member
Shri J.R. Bhosale
Shri K.KN. Kutty
Shri C, Shrikumar
Shri R.D. Gupta.
Welcoming
the members of the Committee and the representatives of the JCM (Staff Side)
Secretary ( Pension ) requested Additional Secretary(Pension) to make a
presentation.
In
her presentation Addl. Secretary Pension brought out the position regarding the
requirement of records and the factors which may affect the feasibility of
arriving at the notional pay, in Seventh CPC by counting increments in the last
scale of pay as recommended by the Pay Commission. She also mentioned about the anomalies that
are likely to arise in the process. The
presentation brought out the methodology adopted by the Committee to examine
the feasibility of the first option and the finding of the committee in this
regard. She mentioned that the service
records for increment method may not be available in around 18.3 percentage of
the cases. The difficulties in
extracting the information from the records and determining the exact number of
the increment for revision of pension under first Option were explained. She
indicated that the Committee has found that the alternative method of arriving
at notional pay in 7th CPC by applying formula for pay revision for
serving employees in each pay commission and giving 50% of this as pension to
be beneficial for all pensioners in comparison to the fitment method.
Thereafter,
Secretary Pension requested the members of the JCM staff side for their
views on the feasibility of the first
option.
The
representatives of the JCM Staff Side mentioned that in their representation to
the 7th CPC, they had suggested revision of pension of pre 2006
pensioners by notional pay fixation in each successive pay commission
period. However, the Pay Commission
recommended the revision of pension by fixing the notional pay on the basis of
the increments earned in the last post.
The
JCM Staff Side mentioned that the Cabinet has approved revision of pension by
the first option(increment method), if its implementation is found feasible
after examination by the committee.
They mentioned that in additional to the Service book, or personal file, the details of increments earned can be
ascertained from the gradation/seniority list issued by the departments from
time to time. Therefore, one cannot say that the first option
recommended by the Pay Commission is not feasible on the ground of the non
availability of records. In regard to
the perceived anomalies, the Staff Side stated that anomalies arose in
implementation of the recommendations of all previous pay commissions. Such anomalies can always be rectified
through the mechanism of Anomaly Committee.
On the alternative method of
revision of pension by notional pay fixation
in each Pay Commission the staff Side felt that the pensioners who are
likely to get higher benefits by increments method may not accept revision of
pension by pay fixation method. This may, therefore, lead to litigation.
After detailed discussion, the staff side sought time to consider the
alternative method of fixation of notional pay in each intervening pay
commission for revision of pension as on 1.1.2016 before submitting their final
views in this regard. It was accordingly
decided to have another meeting with the JCM staff side on 17.10.2016 at
10.00AM. The meeting ended with a vote
of thanks to the Chair.
O0o
