Sunday, April 4, 2010

SUBJECT - REVISION OF PENSION AND RELATED ISSUES W E F 1.1.1996 - REGARDING

FROM : 612027 EX-SGT GV NARAYANA, C/0 V NARSIMHULU (CONTRACTOR),
H.NO.170/C, BASAVESHWARANAGAR COLONY,YELLAMMAKUNTA, PO&TQ.MAKTHAL, DIST.MAHABUBNAGAR-509208 (A.P.)

TO : 1) SHRI AK ANTONY, THE HON. DEFENCE MINISTER, GOI,MOD, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011

2) THE SECY.(ESW), DEPT OF ESM WELFARE, 5-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110011

3) THE CHAIRMAN, COSC-AIR CHF MSHL PV NAIK, CAS, AIR HQ(VB) NEW DELHI- 110011

4) GEN VK SINGH, COAS, ARMY HQ, NEW DELHI 110011

5) GOI, MOD, DTE OF PAY PENSION AND REGS, NEW DELHI 110011

6) CGDA, ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM, DELHI CANTT-110010

SUB - REVISION OF PENSION AND RELATED ISSUES W E F 1.1.1996 - REGARDING

REF :- 1) GOI MO PERS OM F.NO.38/37/08-P&PW(A) Dt. 10.12.09

2) PCDA(P) ALLAHABAD CIRCULAR 430 DATED 10.3.10/MOD LTR dt.8.3.10

3) MY PETITIONS FOR REVISION OF PENSION NOs.NIL DATED 15.1.2010 & 15.3.2010

4) AIR HQ LTR NO. AIRHQ/24229/VI CPC/PP&R-3(i) DATED 18.2.2010

5) CGDA LTR NO.AT/CC/P-ORS/G-105/02/10 DATED 22.2.2010

6) GOVT OF PANJAB PENSION ORDER NO.3/39/09-3FPPC/201 Dt. 22.2.2010

7) Hindustan Times News item d/d 8.3.10 on OROP.

MOST RESPECTED SIR

1. At the outset, I am thankful and most obliged for forwarding my petition dt.15.1.10, for revision of pension wef 1.1.96, by AIR HQ DPP&R vide their letter cited at ref. Sl.No.4 above(copy enclosed). I respectfully solicit your kind personal attention to the facts/details contained in my this Petition and the ones cited at reference Sl.No.3 above, and grant me revised pension on par with post-06 pensioners, granted in terms of Orders cited at reference cited at Sl.No.1 and 6.

2. Further, I respectfully submit that the CGDA, New Delhi, vide their ltr cited at reference Sl.No.5 above, had informed me that they have preferred an appeal in Supreme Court against Panjab & Haryana High Court Order in WP No.6223/07 d/d 26.5.08, and obtained a STAY Order and as such my request for revision of pension w.e.f.1.1.96 (not covered under existing Govt orders) and cannot be acceded to at present (copy enclosed). How shocking? Sir, on going through the judgement, it is amply clear that the Hon.court had examined the facts and circumstances related to the issue in detail, i.e. the cause of action arose on 1.1.96, remedial/ rectification action be taken from that date. (The Union Law Minister/Chief Justice of India, frequently talk of a huge arrears of 2.6 crores of pending cases in Indian Courts and suggest, advise all stake holders to reduce them considerably-Govt being the biggest litigant).The MOD, Dept of ESM Welfare, should have sympathized with ORs pitiable and lowly financial conditions, and implemented court orders rather than appealing against the same before the SC. The officials concerned who decided to appeal against the court orders before the SC, seem to have not cared/ considered this aspect and as a result, a plethora of pending cases piled up (Contempt/ WP/OAs etc) before the courts, AFT. This can be stopped only when such of these officials, who decide to contest court orders and go in for appeals in SC, be ordered to refund /pay the entire legal/court fee etc, once the appealed case is lost. The entire expenses should be recovered from their salary. Of course, if the case is won, the Govt . bears the cost. I earnestly request your kindself to review this policy in the light of the above and pass appropriate orders.

3. Further, I most respectfully request you to kindly peruse the Govt. of Panjab (Dept of Fin.Pension Policy& Co-ord) Branch, ORDERS No.3/39/09-3FPPC/201 dated 22.2.2010,(cited at Sl.No.6 above) on the matter of Revision of Pension of Pre-06 Pensioners(copy enclosed). By taking a leaf out of this orders of Punjab Govt. on Revision of Pre-2006 Punjab State Pensioners, and since a similar situation of the times of D.S. Nakra case is around us consequent on implementation of VI CPC recommendations, the GOI, MOD may extend the benefit of revised pension to all pre-2006 cases, elucidated below:-

i) The evergreen D.S. Nakra case judgment confirmed that `Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and quality of treatment. It is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In other words, there ought to be causal connection between the basis of classification and the object of the statute. The doctrine of classification was evolved by the Court for the purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed to help weaker sections of the society. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court if the State satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory action is liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.

ii) In the instant (D.S. Nakra) case, looking to the goals for the attainment of which pension is paid and the welfare State proposed to be set up in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy and Preamble to the Constitution it is indisputable that pensioners for payment of pension form a class. When the State considered it necessary to liberalise pension scheme in order to augment social security in old age to government servants it could not grant the benefits of liberalisation only to those who retired subsequent to specified date and deny the same to those who had retired prior to that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes on the basis of the specified date was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary and unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the guarantee of equal treatment contained in Art. 14 was violated in as much as the pension rules which were statutory in character meted out differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of computation of pension from the dates specified’.

iii) Minimum Revised Pension:-The significant question involved is–What constitutes a Minimum Revised Pension in absence of a single revised scale corresponding to a single pre-revised scale? The question necessitated owing to introduction of pay band by grouping the 29 pre-revised scales into four independent pay bands. What serving employees and post-2006 pensioners get? - In the case of serving employees and Post 2006 pensioners the revised pay in pay band is determined using a fitment table that consists of revised pay for each stage in pre-revised pay scale. Here, it may be noted that pay in the pay band applicable, necessarily correspond with the pay drawn as on 1.1.2006 in pre-revised scale that was held by serving employee or post 2006 pensioners. In case of retirement after 1.1.2006, 50% of pay in pay band and 50% of grade pay drawn is assured. And What Pre-2006 Pensioners get? - Whereas, in the case of pensioners retired prior to 2006, in accordance with the modified version of para 4.2 of initial OM dated 1.9.2008 clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008, 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus 50% of grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired, only has been made entitled as minimum revised guaranteed pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006. To illustrate, seven Old pay scales starting from S9-5000-8000 to S15-8000-13500 have been bunched as New Pay band called PB-2 with pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with varied grade pays starting from Rs.4200 to Rs.5400. So, if a pre-2006 pensioner who served in the pay scale equivalent to the pre-revised pay scale of S15-8000-13500 that carries grade pay of Rs.5400 would end up with minimum pension of Rs.7,350/- (50% of minimum in the pay band and grade pay) at par with an pre-2006 pensioner served in the pay scale equivalent to pre-revised pay scale of S-9-5000-8000 that carries grade pay of Rs.4200, who will receive a minimum pension of Rs.6750/- (50% of minimum in the pay band and grade pay). While a person retiring with bottom of the revised pay after 1.1.2006 will be drawing 50% of the same as revised pension, a similar person retired prior to 1.1.2006 even at the top of the corresponding pre-revised scale, will get lesser pension than the said post-2006 retiree.

iv) The concept/importance of Initial Pay as per Pension Order of Punjab State Govt:- At present, there comes a welcome Order from the State Govt. of Punjab dt. 22.2.2010, which follows recommendations of the VI CPC. As per the said Order, the full pension in no case shall be less than 50% of the initial pay against corresponding to pre-revised scale in which the pensioner had last worked. Neither Pay Band/ Pay in the Pay Band nor Grade Pay element is so crucial as that of initial pay in the revised structure, and ultimately for determining the minimum revised guaranteed pension as per para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, just like the initial pay as notified vide the Punjab Govt., the revised pay should be the crucial point for the pre-2006 pensioners of Central Government. This is so because, modified parity aspects had been very clearly specified vide para 5.1.46 of the 6th CPC recommendation and a precedence was set already by the DOP&PW vide their OM dated 17.12.1998 to the extent that 50% of bottom of the revised scale to be minimum revised pension. The excuse that the 6th CPC revision do not have a single revised pay is totally incorrect, as long as there exists an INITIAL PAY in the revised structure for a serving employee. A loud speaking order has been issued by the Punjab State Govt. to dispel any sort of confusion or doubt that can arise in the minds of disbursing agency even. Ultimately, while 50% of initial pay can emerge as minimum revised pension for a pre-2006 pensioner retired from the state Govt.of Punjab, the same 50% of initial pay must very well emerge as minimum revised/assured/ guaranteed pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for a pre-2006 pensioner of the central govt. This enlightening order could simply be copied by GOI for their pre-2006 retirees and put an end to a bundle of controversies and violation of every norm/ rule/articles of Constitution.

(v) Concept of parity among the pensioners is based on the various Judgments of the Hon. S C.

(a) In the India Ex-Services League and Ors 1991(2) SCC 104 Justice Verma interpreted the scope of Judgment in the D.S. Nakara case as –“It was clearly stated that if pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. This is to us the decision in the Nakra case and no more.”

(b) In the case of V Kasturi vs. MD, SBI, Bombay & Anr 1998 (2) supp. SCR 269 Dt.09-10-1998, the  following Judgement was pronounced regarding past pensioners- “If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force. He would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”

(vi) In the cases of Babu Ram Dhiman Vs Union of India and Sohan Singh Vs Union of India:-The Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the Union government to grant one rank one pension or the same pension to personnel belonging to the same rank, irrespective of the date of retirement. Deciding on the cases of Babu Ram Dhiman vs Union of India and Sohan Singh vs Union of India, the tribunal on Monday said, “It is quite clear that the State cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pension for same rank of officers and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) on the basis of the cut-off date of retirement. All pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement are entitled to (the) same pension.” The judgment also said grant of unequal pay in the same rank was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution that grants equal rights to all citizens. The All India ESM Wel Assn, Chandigarh, under its legal aid scheme, filed these two cases seeking a direction to the Ministry of Defence to revise the pension of those who retired before January 2006 to put them on par with post-September 2008 pensioners. Bhim Sen Sehgal, chairman of the association and Rajesh Sehgal, petitioners’ counsel, submitted that a Havildar who retired before January 2006 gets a pension of Rs 4,060 per month while those retiring after September 2008 get Rs 7,846. Similar are the cases of equivalent ranks of the Army, Navy and Air Force, they said. Amar Preet Sandhu, the central government’s lawyer maintained that the matter was under the government’s consideration.

vii) I respectfully draw your kind attention that, vide reference cited at Sl.No. 1 above, on the basis of VI CPC recommendations, all CG employees who have completed 20 years of service, are granted full pension i.e.50% of their salary (the erstwhile 33yrs completion of service requirement was dispensed with, wef 1.1.2006). For this purpose, the extra weightage of age granted to lowest 3 ranks OF PRE-06 Pensioners as per GOI, MOD orders d/d 1.2.06 and continuing this provision in CoS report/pension orders circulars 350/430 may be dispensed with wef 1.1.2006. However, the earlier orders of providing 5 years weightage for pension purposes in r/o all ORs may be continued. This will surely help all disparities go away and there remain only ONE CLASS OF PENSIONERS.

4. Sir, your goodselves are fully aware that Military Service is UNIQUE, with a highly demanding 24 /7 work culture under hostile environments and secondly, it is the only Service wherein a Jawan is bundled out at the young age of 35, when he has a wife, two small children, unmarried sisters and parents to be taken care of; without an assured alternative employment. A young man who joins Govt. service in civil as a LDC or a Police constable; serves comfortably till the age of 60 years and retires in a much higher position with a good amount as pension. Not so in the case of a Jawan. 85% of the Sepoys retire as Sepoys only after 15 years service. Most civilians who retire at 60, would live to see only one Pay Commission after retirement, considering their longevity to be 70-75 years and may be a few, two pay commissions; but a Sepoy would live to see nothing less than four Pay Commissions after retirement. It is the older pensioners of the Army, Navy & Air Force who are the worst sufferers. It is not only the serving soldier that the STATE is duty bound to take care of; but also the Veterans who have sacrificed their youth in service of the Nation with no other thought but, DUTY, HONOUR and COUNTRY. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, comprising 44 eminent Members of Pardliament, had in their Report to Lok Sabha on 19 Aug 2003, strongly recommended the grant of ONE RANK ONE PENSION (OROP) to Ex-Servicemen. Para 99 of the said Report is reproduced below:-

“The Committee has been recommending grant of `ONE RANK ONE PENSION’ to the armed forces personnel time and again. The Committee observes that successive Governments and Pay Commissions have made improvements in the pension structure keeping in view the cost of living index. This has accentuated the disparity of pensionary benefits between pensioners of the same rank. The older pensioners who have become infirm in ability and capability and burdened with a larger social obligation receive pension calculated at the rate of pay at the time of their retirement in 1950s or 1960s or 1970s, which is quite paltry and the Dearness Relief quite inconsequential in today’s context of inflation and shrinking purchasing value of money. The nation must repay its debt to those Defendents of the motherland with gratitude and humility. We should, instead of, looking for precedents in this regard, create precedents for the others to emulate. Any amount paid in this regard would be small token of our gratitude to them. The Committee, therefore, once again reiterates their earlier recommendation for providing `ONE RANK ONE PENSION’ to the armed forces personnel”.

5. The poor ex-servicemen, mostly hailing from villages spread across even do not know or understand their pension details and take whatever is given by the Govt/PDAs. Sir, No questions asked whatsoever. Sir, It is relevant here to mention that the above situation aptly describes:-

i) In a case - Bihar Legal Support Society vs The Chief Justice of India & Ors (AIR 1987 SC 38), the Supreme Court observed - “the weaker sections of Indian society have been deprived of justice for long long years; they have had no access to justice on account of their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy..... The majority of the people of our country are subjected to this denial of ‘access to justice’ and overtaken by despair and helplessness, they continue to remain victims of an exploitative society where economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few and it is used for perpetuation of domination over large masses of human beings… The strategy of PIL has been evolved by this Court with a view to bringing justice within the easy reach of the poor and disadvantaged sections of the community.”

ii) And the famous dictum of Justice Brennan of the US Supreme Court may also be recalled: “Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with, but injustice makes us want to pull things down. When only the rich can enjoy the law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor who need it most, cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach, the threat to the existence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, because democracy’s very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizen shall believe in the benefit of impartiality and fairness”. "The right of access to justice is integral to the rule of law and administration of courts in accordance with the Constitution. It serves as the guiding principle in regard to any measure that affects the administration of justice whether civil or criminal. With this essential understanding of the basic issue of access to justice, we proceed to examine the central issues that we have posed for consideration."

iii) And lastly, I wish to draw your kind attention to this screaming news item dt. 2.4.10, “Stop treating army men like 'beggars', SC to govt” that - The Supreme Court has slammed the union government for treating army personnel like "beggars" in respect of emoluments and pension and asked the authorities to adopt a more "humane approach" towards those bravely defending the country's borders. "If a person goes to any part of Delhi and sits for begging, he will earn Rs 1000 every day and you are offering a pittance of Rs 1000 per month for a man who fought for the country in the high altitudes and whose arm was amputated? "Is this the way you treat those brave army officers? It is unfortunate that you are treating them like beggars," a bench of Justices M Katju and A K Patnaik said in verbal comments while passing the order. The apex court passed order dismissing the Centre's appeal challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court direction to pay higher pension to C S Siddu, a SSC Officer whose right arm had to be amputated due to an accident while on duty at the high altitudes on 21-11- 1970. "The army personnel are bravely defending the country even at cost of their lives and we feel they should be treated in a better and more humane manner by government authorities, particularly, in respect of their emoluments, pension and other benefits," the bench said in an order. There was an element of drama in the court when Additional Solicitor General Parag Tripathi pleaded with the court not to use "strong words" in the order like "beggars," "niggardly" "miserly", following which the bench dropped them from the written order. "We regret to say that the army officers and army men in our country are being treated in a shabby manner by the government. In this case, the respondent,(Sidhu) who was posted at a high altitude field area and met with an accident during discharge of his duties was granted a meagre pension. This is a pittance (about Rs 1000) per month plus D.A. "If this is the manner in which the army personnel are treated, it can only be said that it is extremely unfortunate," the bench however, noted in its written order.

6. Sir, you are aware that the recent court orders of Maj AK Dhanapalan, Maj Gen SPS Vains Cases were implemented thereby rendering justice/benefits to the affected large number of officers. But the rare Panjab &Haryana HC judgement benefiting a large number of ORs was not implemented by filing an avoidable appeal before the SC. Considering small benefits likely to accrue to the ORs as a result of implemention of this judgement, it is requested that the GOI, MOD may kindly take steps to withdraw the SLP from the Supreme Court and issue revised pension orders w.e.f. 1.1.1996/10.10.1997, with attendant benefits of arrears etc, at an early date, and put an end to woes of ex-servicemen and oblige.

7. The fixed medical allowance @Rs.100/-pm is to be revised by the GOI as recommended by the VI CPC, which has not been revised as on date. Since the cost of medical expenses has increase steeply, I request you to kindly enhance the same to Rs.1000/- plus DA on it or a fixed amount of Rs.2000/-pm for the non-CGHS retirees of the armed forces pensioners, which will go a longway to help me my medical care needs. Furthermore, I request your benign indulgence to sanction/grant TA @ Rs.100/-pd to self and also to one attendant to visit the district hospital, at least thrice a month, which is about 45 km from my village residence.

8. Further, I respectfully submit that since the Highest Classification Allowance at 50% rate was allowed to army pensioners w.e.f.10.10.97, this may also be extended to me as I had passed all the promotion examinations including the JWO promotion examination in 1985(Rs.25/-), which has been revised to a maximum of Rs.120/-p.m. and allowed in full to be included in pension w.e.f.1.1.2006. Similarly the GCB pay (I/II/III rates, Rs.80+80+80 = Rs.240/-) were allowed in full to post 1.1.2006 retirees, this facility ay also be extended in my case too, since I was drawing three rates of GCB Pay prior to retirement.

9. In view of the foregoings, I once again request your kindself to bestow your personal attention and order to revise my pension(for 18.5 years completed service- 19.5.1971 to 28.11.1989)correctly as- i)Rs.563/- w.e.f. 29.11.1989(IV CPC), ii) To be revised to Rs.1875/- w.e.f.1.1.96(discharged prior to pre-96,Group III-worked out on maximum scale of pay Rs.3775-5050) as per pension orders of 7.6.99. iii)This may be revised to Rs.2077/- w.e.f.10.10.97(as per maximum scale of pay calculation, in restructured pay scale of 4320-5595, of group Y). iv)In terms of GOI Orders of 1.2.06, my pension Rs.2077/- shall be increased by 1.5 times to Rs.3116/-(Rs.2077+ 1039)(min.1275/-raised by 1.5 times to Rs.1913/-pm as per MOD Order dt.1.2.06) w.e.f. 10.10.97 (and not wef 1.1.96 as mentioned in 1.2.06 order). V) Accordingly, the 50% DA Merger with BP wef 1.4.04, would be(Rs.3116/+1558 = Rs.4674/- plus DA + fixed medical allowance of Rs.100/-p.m. (vi) As per VI CPC pension fitment formula of multiplying existing pension by 2.26 times, my pension gets fixed at Rs. 7050/- (Rs.3116 x2.26=7043 r/off to 7050) w.e.f.1.1.2006. vii) And as per CoS report/and order of 10.12.09(Ref at sl.no.1 above), my pension may be revised at Rs.7605/-(Rs.10210+2800+2000 = Rs.15210/2) w.e.f.1.7.09. viii) I request you to order the arrears arising out of the above revisions of pensions from 29.11.89, 1.1.96, 10.10.97, 1.4.2004, 1.1.2006 and 1.7.09 be paid to me at the earliest.

10. For this act of kindness, I shall ever remain grateful to you, Sir.

Yours faithully,
                                        Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx
Date : 04th April, 2010. (GV Narayana)Ex-SGT

ENCL : AS STATED

Copy to:-

1) AFRO (OIC PP&W, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-110011_For kind information&necessary action pl.

2) Jt. CDA(AF),C/O AFCAO,SUBROTO PARK, New Delhi-10 --do--

3) PCDA (PENSION), DRAUPADIGHAT, ALLAHABAD (UP) --do--

4) ADALAT OFFICER, PCDA, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI (TN) --do--

5) Pension Cell, Army Mela, Arty Centre, Golconda, Hyd.(AP) (4.4.10) -do—
-----------------------------------------------------------
I -                  // COPY //
-----------------------------------------------------------

Tele : 23010231/7826                 REGISTERED

                                                    AIR HQ (DTE OF PP&R) WEST BLOCK IV
                                                    RK PURAM NEW DELHI-110066

AIRHQ/24229/VI CPC/PP&R-3(I)      Dt. 18 FEB 10

DDPA-III, AIR HQ (VB) NEW DELHI-110011

AFRO, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-110010

REVISION OF SERVICE PENSION ROM 1.1.1996 – EX-SGT GV NARAYANA 612027

1.A copy of representation dated 15 Jan 10, on the above subject, is forwarded herewith for your necessary action.


                                                    Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx
                                                    (Mahabir Singh) SO
Encl – As stated above.              PP&R-3(i)

Copy to : Ex-Sgt GV Narayana (612027) C/o V Narsimhulu (contractor) For info /n.a. please.
H.No.170/c, Basaveeshwara colony, Makthal (TQ) Mahabubnagar(Dt)(AP)
===============================
II       // COPY //
-------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE CGDA, ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM, DELHI CANTT-110010

AT/CC/P-ORG/G-105/02/10 DATED 22.02.2010

TO : No.612027, Ex-SGT GV Narayana, C/0 V Narsimhulu (Contractor),
H.No.170/c, Basaveshwara colony, Makthal (TQ), Mahabubnagar (Dt)(AP)

SUB – REVISION OF SERVICE PENSION WEF 1.1.1996

REF- Your Representation dated 15.1.20110 addressed to Min of Def and a copy to this office.

1.   The contents off your representation dated 15.1.20110 have been examined and the following is intimated.

2.    As regards to para 2 of your representation dated 15.1.2010, quoted under reference wherein you have requested for thee implementation of the Judgement and order dated 26.5.2008 of Hon High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. In this context, it is informed that SLP has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Writ Petition No.6223/2007 (UOI and other Vs Gurmail Singh Dhadli and others). The Writ Petition No.6223/2007 was called for hearing on 2.2.2009 and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleaded to grant stay of operation of the impunged judgement. Since ll cases have been disposed off by the Hon’ble court by relying on the said judgement in CWP No.6223/2007 filed by Gurmail Singh Dhadli Vs UOI, against which a stay has been granted.

3. In view of above, your request to issue a Corr.PPO regarding revision of pension wef 1.1.96 based on the above said judgement dated 26.5.2008 and presumptions made therein is not covered under existing Govt Orders, and hence cannot be acceded to at present.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(ACHUTANAND)AO(AT-PEN)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
III - PANJAB GOVT. PENSION ORDERS  DT.22.2.10 (PRE-96 PENSIONERS) - PLEASE CLICK HERE
-===========================================

1 comment:

  1. RESPECTED SIR ,
    MYSELF EX NAIK TRILOK SINGH(ARMY NO- 2673385P),'GRENADIERS REGIMENT' GOT RETIREMENT IN THE ON 31st NOVEMBER 1996 AFTER 16 YEARS OF SERVICE.MY BASIC PENSION WAS RS.1388 AT THAT TIME.AFTER COMPLETION OF 15 YEARS, MY COMPUTE PENSION HAS COMPLETED NOW WHICH WAS RS 696.

    SO,I WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MY CURRENT REVISED PENSION.
    & IF THE SUPREME COURT HAS PASSED THE SCHEME OF 20% ARREARS FOR EX-SERVICEMAN AND OTHER REGARDING INFORMATION.
    IF SO ,I ALSO NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF ARREARS ON MY REVISED PENSION.
    WITH REGARDS,
    THANKS.

    ReplyDelete