(Source-Sanjhamorcha)

(Source-Indian Military benefits blog)

OROP Status Report by Lt Gen Raj Kadyan

General 1.      Politicians speaking in the Parliament add a lot of dressing to the substance of what they say. The Finance Minister did the same on 14.02.2014 while speaking on OROP. He first floridly announced that the gap between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees for all ranks needs to be closed. Later, coming to the gist he had stated that the government has now decided to walk the last mile and implement the scheme of One Rank One Pension for all Armed Forces personnel and their dependents. 2.    In the follow-up meeting held on 26.02.2014 the Defence Minister, who was in chair, had reiterated the following definition of OROP:        "OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners." 3.   This definition accords with what the IESM has been projecting (except we had not used the term 'uniform pension'). This was also the definition given by the Rajya Sabha Committee  on Petitions that submitted its report on 19.12.2011. 4.    The Services prepared a draft government letter in April giving out detailed modalities of OROP. The draft still remains under discussion. Meetings of Stake Holders 5.      In a subsequent meeting held on 22.04.2014, the Defence Minister constituted a committee to work out the modalities and submit its report within three weeks. (It is learnt that the Minister wanted the report much faster but the PCDA expressed inability to do it in lesser time frame). 6.    The Committee has had five sittings starting with the first meeting on 02.05.2014. Some of these were chaired by the RRM.  The PCDA has been consistently displaying an obstructionist approach and has been the main stumbling block. He has been giving his own interpretation to various aspects of OROP. Some of these, including the counter by the Services are given in following paras. 7.    Definition of OROP.   According to PCDA, definition of OROP should be drawn from the Finance Minister's budget 2014-15 speech vide which the gap between pre-2006 retirees and post-2006 retirees for all ranks needs to be closed. Here he is quoting the first part of the FMs speech while conveniently ignoring the second part as given in Para 1 above. The Service representatives attending the meetings have pointed this out in the meeting and have also drawn attention to the definition given by the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions. 8.      Interpretation of the Term 'Uniform Pension'.  The PCDA has opined that 'Uniform' pension means pension under a uniform pay/pension structure i.e. under the same pay scales with same qualifying service & pension calculation formula. According to him it need not necessarily lead to same pension for all the retirees (past & present) in the same rank and same qualifying service because of the annual increments being given to the serving personnel. The Services have of course countered saying uniform pension means one/same/equal/identical pension. 9.      Length of Service.  The PCDA has further held that the 'length of service' in the OROP definition is to be treated as the number of years of service put in by the pensioner in the rank last held. Alternatively, according to the PCDA, if total qualifying service is to be treated for the purpose of OROP then qualitative aspects relating to length of service in terms of number of years rendered in each rank the service person has served before the retirement in the last rank held, needs to be taken cognizance of. This they concede will be difficult to implement in practice. The counter by the Services is that length of service and qualifying service are synonymous as given in Rule 19 of Pension Regulations 2008 as also in the MoD letter dated 17.01.2013. 10.   Bridging the Gap.    The PCDA has further held that while bridging the gap between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners the benefits of improved service conditions (viz. method of faster promotion applicable to the current personnel) should not be extended to past pensioners. This in fact runs against the concept of automatically passing on future enhancement to past pensioners, which is intrinsic to the definition of OROP. The Services have pointed this out, also underscoring the fact that the benefit of MSP and Grade Pay for calculation of pension has already been extended to past pensioners. The Services have further suggested that there should be a periodic review of OROP say on yearly basis, wherein any anomaly can be addressed. Conclusion 11.    For reasons best known to them the outgoing government announced OROP too late and could not get it implemented during their tenure. With their term nearing the end, the bureaucratic hierarchy reportedly stopped being responsive to political orders. The dunderheaded obduracy of some financial bureaucrats can delay it for some time but cannot stop OROP. It is reiterated that OROP has come about after a long effort of over three decades. While some delay in its implementation is understandable, any hint of dilution will be resisted and will result in renewal of the struggle by The IESM (Source-V Raju blog)

 

 

HOW TO BUY A CAR BY DEFENCE PERSONNEL FROM CSD - DETAILED PROCEDURE

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

Initiative for Govt. pensioners to find employment in Govt. Depts.

15 May, 2014 10:41p.m.
The Ministry of Personnel and Pensions has launched an initiative to route the skill and experience of retired government employees back into socially useful and constructive work.

“There are 50 lakh government employees today. But there are also 53 lakh retired employees, most of whom can still contribute to nation building exercise. We want to tap their skills and experience through the initiative Sankalp,” Sanjay Kothari, Secretary to the Ministry of Personnel and Pensions, said.

The Ministry has set up a portal (http://www.pensionersportal.gov.in/sankalp/) where retired Government employees willing to work in different departments or social organisations can register. “We will ask interested employees which city they would like to work, how many days in a week or how many hours a day they would like to work. It is beneficial to them as after retirement, they can still share their skills and experience and get some economic benefits in the process,” he said at a meeting at the Administrative Staff College of India here.

The Ministry is launching this initiative as a pilot project, as its pan-India launch has been delayed due to polls. The pilot will initially cover 500 Central government pensioners on a first-come-first-served basis.

“To sensitise government employees on this initiatives, a workshop is being conducted for those employees due to retire in four months and the scope of the scheme is being explained,” Kothari said.

The UK had shown interest in implementing a similar scheme for its retired employees.

• Implementation of the Govt. decision - Pre-2006 commissioned Officers – Clarification

Source - The Hindu

Status of the Cases of Pre 2006 Pensioners in various Courts: As on 01.05.2014

 

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN VARIOUS COURTS : AS ON 01..05.2014.(COMPILED BY M. L. KANAUJIA, IRSSE / Chief Communication Engineer, N.E. Railway, (Rtd.)

Item	HEARD BY	PETITION NO. & YEAR	LEAD PETITIONER	NEXT DATE FIXED FOR HEARING	REMARKS IN BRIEF
1	CAT-PB Delhi	OA 1165 / 2011	Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP	23.05.14	SCPC Recommendations in respect of pensioners, who retired prior to 1.1.2006, was accepted and approved by the Union Cabinet, vide MOP(DOP&PW) Resolution dated 29.08.2008 but while implementing, revised pension was wrongly reduced even where qqualifying service was more than 20 years. This petition prays for refixation of pension at full rate where qualifying service happens to be more than 20 years, exactly as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008.UOI filed an affidavit on 15.04.14. A Counter to this would be filed soon.
2	CAT-PB Delhi	OA 2165 / 2011	KR Srinivasan & Ors Vs. MOP/flOP	23.05.14	Same as for item 1 above.
3	CAT-PB Delhi	OA 247 of 2012	17 Petitioners	23.05.14	Same as for item 1 above.
4	Lucknow HC	Ser.Ben.203 / 2010	s29 UP Officers	Second week of May'14	The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006. Heard on 16.4.14 but UOI Advocate sought time, which was granted.
5	Delhi HC	WP(C)3359/ 2010	Ex.Para Military (s29,s26) Association Vs UOI	14.08.14	The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pension had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006. Bench did not assemble on 6.3.14.
6	Supreme Court	Contempt Petition (Civil) 64/2009	SPS Vains, Major General & Ors.	30.06.14	This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special Instructions.
7	Supreme Court	Civil Appeal 2966 / 2011	U0I Vs SPS Vains Mj. General & Ors	30.06.14	This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special Instructions.
8	Supreme Court	Civil Appeal 8875-8876 of 2011.	U0I & Ors.Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors (Avtar Singh)	24.07.14	CA No. 8875-76 and SLP(C)CC No.18339 -341 of 2013 are now Converted to SLP (Civil) 36148-36150 / 2013.
9	Supreme Court	Civil Appeal 5367 -5368 / 2005 SLPC CC 5081-82/2004	Principal Secretary, Govt. Finance and Planning Deptt., Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. Pensioners Samaj.	30.04.14	Heard on 30.04.2014 and dismissed with following remarks : "We do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion of the High Court as well as of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed."
10	Delhi HC	WPC No. 4572 of 2012	All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI	DOJ 19.8.13.
11	CAT-PB/Delhi	Contempt Petition No.158 of 2012	CG SAG (S29) Pensioners Association, Shri Satish Verma, Rtd.CE Vs. Shri RC Mishra, Sec. DOP, MOP,GOI. and Shri Sumit Bose, Sec.DOE,MOF, GOI.	15.05.14	This Petition is against non-compliance of orders passed by CAT-PB while giving Judgment in case of OA 0655/2010 with other OAs. In view of IR granted by Delhi HC on 21.5.12, hon.ble Court on 30.5.12 closed the case with liberty to move application for revival of CP as per the Orders of hon.ble Delhi HC. Accordingly, after the dismisal of UOI Petition in Delhi HC, the revival application was put up which was heard on 24.5.13 and 28.5.13 and orders for isuue of notices to respondents were passed. Hearing on 7.8.13 couldnot take place. Case was heard on 25.9.13. Hon.ble Court ordered for revival of Contempt Petition and fixed 10.10.13 to take up contempt proceedings. On 10.10.13, during hearing ASG himself appeared for UOI and argued citing pending SLPs in Supreme Court, for stay on contempt proceedings which was opposed by the Advocate of Association. Court did not agree for granting stay but fixed next date of hearing as 27.11.13. Adjouraned due to non-availability of one of the Judges to 18.12.13, 15.01.14 and 12.02.14. Heard but adjourned for 19.02.14. UOI submitted MA for certain clarification from Court and Court adjourned the hearing till 15.05.2014. In the meanwhile, the Curative Petition submitted to HSC by UOI has also been dismissed on 30.04.14, attaining full and comlete finality to the case, leaving no scope for any clarification or change in Judgment of CAT-PB, already merged with the judgment of the HSC, except for implementation of the "direction" or facing contempt proceedings.
12	Supreme Court	SLP (Civil) 19784 of 2013 with SLP(C)CC 12122,12366,1 2373,13325 & 14816.	Haryana Viduat Prasaran Nigam Ltd & Ors Vs R K Agarwal and Ors	DOJ 28.10.13	This SLP is againsst Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in case of CWP No. 19641 of 2009 R K Agarwal &Ors. Vs. HVPN Ltd & Ors. dated 21.12.2012. Hearing took place wheein Haryana Advocate pleaded about Haryana Regulations for Pensioners and about financial implications which Respondents Advocate opposed. Court was not impressed but allowed them to put up their arguments in writing for orders before next hearing which was fixed for 28.10.2013 when following orders were passed : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. Permission is granted. Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
13	Supreme Court	SLP (C) 23055 of 2013	UOI & Ors Vs CGSAGs29 Pensioners Assoc.& Ors.	DOJ 29.07.13	UOI has filed this SLP against the Delhi High Court Judgment dated 29.4.13 in case of WP(C) 1535 of 2012. This case was heard by Hon.ble Supreme Court on 29.07.2013 with SLP(C) CC No.13280 of 2013, UOI Vs Atma Singh (arising out of P&H HC Judgment) and issued following Orders of Dismissal : "We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all points before the Tribunal as and when the appeal, including the contempt petition is preferred."
14	CAT-PB	OA No. 937 of 2010 and OA No. 2101 of 2010 (DHC order for Fresh Adjudication)	All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI		Hon.ble Delhi High Court, in WP(C) 4572 of 2012 in case of All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI has, by order dated 19.8.2013, has restored these two OAs for fresh adjudication on merits on the claim of full parity, giving full opportunity of hearing the petitioners, without binding decision given on 1.11.2011 in case of OA No. 655 of 2010. Delhi HC has furtehr ordered that the matter would be decided in remand preferably within three months from 19.8.2013 and case be listed for hearing by on 9.9.2013, when both parties would appear before Registrar of CAT-PB.Not heard on 25.9.13.
15	Supreme Court	Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2013	N.K. Nair & Anr. Vs Shashikant Sharma & Ors.	No further listing.	While implementing 4th CPC Report pay of Army , Navy and AF Officers upto Brigadier level and equivalent, was fixed without adding Rank Pay. Hon.le Supreme Couart vide Judgment dated 4.9.12 had directed for refixation of their pay after adding the Rank Pay and arrears paid accordingly. MOD issued orders on 27.12.12 for implementation of the said Judgment. CP(C) 328 of 2013 has been preferred in Supreme Court with plea that (1) Judgment should be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not as on 1.1.1986,(2) Minimum of Pay in Integrated Pay Scale for each Rank of officers given in SAI 1/S/87 for Amy and equivaalent officers in Navy and AF should also be raised,(3) Maximum of Integratred Pay scale i.e. 5,100 should also be raised and (4) Refixation of revised pay on 1.1.1996 (5th CPC) and 1.1.2006 (6th CPC) should be done again on the basis of law set by the above mentioned Judgment of the Apex Court, now, meaning thereby, that, the revised pay should be refixed by adding into existing pay the admissible component of Rank Pay or MSP, as the case may be and,payment of arrears be made,accordingly. Further, it is learnt that the Attorney General for India, when Govt. sought his advice, has advised, after due consideration of the pleas in the light of Apex Court Judgment to agree to plea (1) and (4) and not to agree for (2) and (3). Heard on 15.11.13 and notices issued to alleged contemptners to appear in person on next date of hearing.On 17.2.14 Court heard the case, none of the Respondents appeared but their Advocate, SG, sought time for submitting Counter Court allowed two weeks time.On 10.03.14 Advocate on record for petitioners sought time for submitting Rejoinder Affidavit and Court allowed two weeks time. On 31.03.14 HSC heard and passed following orders : In light of the rival submission as above, let an application be made by the petitioners for impleadment of the present Defence Secretary and Controller General of Defence Accounts. The application may be listed for consideration as and when made.
16	Supreme Court	SLP(C)CC No.18339 -341 of 2013. The Case is Converted to SLP (Civil) 36148-36150 / 2013 connected to CA No. 8875/2011	UOI Vs DL Vhora & Ors.	24.07.14	These SLPs (along with applications for condoning delay) have been filed by UOI against Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.04.13 in WPC No. 2348-50/2012. (Full parity case).The case came up for hearing before HSC Bench comparising CJI and Justice Ranjan Gogai on 04.10.13 whereupon hon.ble Court ordered : List on 07.10.13 before an approprite Bench. On 07.10.13 the case came up for hearing before HSC Bench comparising of Justice Nijjar and Justice Kalifulla. The Court ordered "On the request of Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned ASG, list these matters along with Civil Appeal Nos.8875-8876 of 2011." Case adjourned for hearing on 01.11.13. Heard on 1.11.13 and delinked from CA No. 8875-76.Heaard on 19.11.13 and again linked to CA No. 8875-76, delaly condoned, ordered for issuing notices and staying bringing up contempt petition in HC or CAT.Not herd on 4.2.14.
17	Supreme Court	SLP(C) 19784 SLP (C) CC 12122, 12366, 12373, 13325, 14816, all of 2013.	H V P N L Vs. R K Agarwal and Other 5 Respondents	DOJ 28.10.13	These SLPs (along with applications for condoning the delay) are against P&H High Court Judgments granting Modified Parity to Haryana State Govt. Pensioners.Heard on 18.10.13. Hon.ble Court asked UOI Advocate to submit written statement before next hearing. Case was heard on 28.10.13 and following order were passed : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. Permission is granted. Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
18	Supreme Court	Review Petition(Civil) No. 2492 of 2013. 31861 of 2013	UOI Ors. Vs s29 SAG Pensioners Association	DOJ 12.11.13	This Review Petition(Civil) has been filed on 4.10.13 and is under scrutiny. This is against Judgment of dismissal given by hon.ble Supreme Court in case of UOI Vs. s29 Pen. Assoc. SLP(C) No. 23055 on 23.07.13.The RP was taken up in Chamber by the hon.ble Supreme Court and following order were passed on 12.11.13 : "Delay condoned. Prayer for oral hearing is rejected. We have perused the Review Petition as well as the grounds in support of the Review Petition. In our opinion, no case for review of order, dated 29th July, 2013, is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed."
19	Supreme Court	SLP(C) 33864 of 2013	U.O.I,SECRET ARY,MIN OF COMMUNICAT ION&ORS Vs RAM KISHAN PANIPAT	DOJ 28.10.13	Heard on 28.10.13. Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following order : We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.Consequently,the special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all points before the Tribunal as and when the appeal, including the contempt petition is preferred.
20	CAT / Chandigarh	Con.Pet. No.84 / 2013	Atma Singh Vs U.O.I., Secret.,DOP and Secret. Comunication	Next date of hearing is not yet known.	Modified parity case. CAT/Chandigarh in OA No. 44/HR/2012 gave judgment directing UOI to fix revised pension in terms Resolution dated 29.8.2008in but UOI preferred CWP 22510/2012 in P&H HC but the same was disallowed. UOI then preferred SLP(C) CC 13280 / 2013, which hon.ble Supreme Court dismissed on 29.7.2013, alongwith SLPC 23055, which was against CGSAGs29p Association. Contempt Petition No. 84/2013 has been filed now against UOI, Sec. /DOP and Sec. / Coomunicastion. for their failure in implementing CAT/Ch. directions, even when Review Petition has also been dismissed.
21	P & H High Court	EA 35 /2013 in CWP 3452/2010	O P Kapur &Ors Vs State of Haryana & Ors	14.03.14	In CWP 3452 P&H HC on 21.12.2012 had directed Haryana Govt. to refix pension giving modifed parity and pay arrears thereto within two months or pay arrears with 9 % interest after 1.3.2013. Haryana Govt. preferred SLPC 19784/2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn by the hon.ble Supreme Court on 28.10.2013.Haryana Govt. then filed a Reviw Application in P&H HC to review the Order dated 21.12.2012 despite the affirming order by the hon.ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 31.01.2013. During the hearing of EA 35/2013 on 26.02.2014 the P&H HC has passed following orders : "It is made clear that in case necessary steps are not initiated and amount is not disbursed to the applicants/petitioners before the next date of hearing, this Court may be constrained to call the official respondents in Court or order may be passed to attach salaries of the Officers concerned." During hearing on 14.03.2014 Govt. Advocate informed the Court that the PPOs of Petitioners have been revised and orders for payment of arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, along with 9 % interest thereon, have been issued.
22	Supreme Court	Curative Petition No. 126 of 2014	UOI Vs CGSAGs29 Pensioners Association	30.04.14	This Curative Petition was against dismissal of Review Petition No. 2492 of 2013. The five Judgme Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court presided over by the hon.ble CJI himself, dismissed this petition on 30.04.2014 stating that no case was made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in case of Rupa Ashok Hurra and Ashok Hurra reported in 2002(4)SCC 388.

Source: http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2014/05/status-of-pension-related-court-cases.html

Antony holds another meeting on OROP

A first-day cover being released during 9 Guards golden jubilee celebrations.

Even as retired armed forces personnel are on the lookout for any signs of the implementation of the much-awaited "one rank-one pension" scheme, announced in February, the wheels are quietly turning in South Block. Defence Minister AK Antony reportedly called a meeting in this regard last week and ordered the authorities concerned that the issue be finalised in three weeks. Directions have been issued to set up a committee comprising representatives of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), three Services and the Controller General of Defence Accounts. The committee has been tasked to hold regular meeting for firming up modalities of the scheme that would ensure same pension for same rank and same length of service. At present, there are disparities in pension of similarly placed personnel retiring at different times. On the other hand, sources in the armed forces claim they are yet to receive any communication on the convening of the said committee meeting. It remains to be seen whether Antony's deadline will be adhered to or not.

(Source-Sanjha Morcha)