Tuesday 29 September 2015

Be Careful of Wrong Advice



Be Careful of Wrong Advice

Here is the clarification by MoD/DESW on the Circular No. 547 obtained by Petty Officer (retd) S K Singh. You may contact him for authenticity.
*         *          *         *        *

No. 1 (4)/2015 – D (Pen/Pol)
Ministry of Defence
Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare
D (Pension/Policy)
Dated: 24th September 2015

To
          Petty Officer (retd) S K Singh
          santhosh2002@gmail.com

Subject: Revision of pension: MoD letter dated 3.9.2015

Sir,

          I am directed to refer to email dated 4th September 2015 addressed to Hon’ble RRM regarding MoD letter dated 3/9/2015 issued in implementation of DoP&PW OM dated 30.7.2015 regarding benefit of fitment table in revision of pension with effect from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012 in placed opposite for kind perusal please. 

2.      It has been decided that with effect from 01.01.2006 pension/family pension for Pre-2006 JCOs/ORs Pensioners/Family Pensioners shall be determined as fifty and thirty percent respectively of the minimum of the fitment table for the Rank in the revised Pay Band as indicated under fitment tables annexed with 1/S/2008 and equivalent instructions for Navy and Air Force, plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired/discharged/invalided out/died including Military Service Pay and X group pay.

3.       However, in case, the consolidated pension/family pension calculated as per Para 4.1. of this Ministry’s letter No. 17 (4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Pol) dated 11.11.2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension/family pension) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension. Further, where revised pension in terms of GoI, MoD letter No. PC-10(1)/2009-D (Pen/Pol) dated 08.03.2010 and No. 1 (13)/2013/D (Pen/Policy) dated 17.01.2013 is higher than the rate indicated in annexure attached with letter dated 3.9.2015 then the same will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension from 1.07.2009 and 24.09.2012 respectively.

4.      Accordingly, revised tables indicating minimum guaranteed pension/Ordinary Family Pension has been annexed as Annexure –A (Army pensioners), Annexure-B (Air Force pensioners) and Annexure –C (Navy pensioners) to MoD letter dated 3.9.2015.

5.       In view of the above, pre-2006 JCO/ORs pensioner/family pension as indicated in the table w.e.f 1.1.2006 or as per MoD letter dated 11.11.2008 or from 1.7.2009 (only pensioner and not family pensioners) as per MoD letter dated 8.3.2010 or w.e.f 24.9.2012 as per MoD letters dated 17.1.2013 in respect of pensioners/family pensioner of JCO/ORs whichever is more beneficial (emphasis supplied).
Sd/-------------------------
(Manoj Sinha)
Under Secretary (Pen/Policy)

*        *        *        *        *
Dear Cdr Chandrashekhar and Gp Capt CRR Sastry Garu,

     I chanced upon Circular 01 of PCDA (Pensions) Allahabad. Pl read the letter of Min of Def enclosed there. The pension of pre-1996 Maj Gens has to be fixed same as post - 1996 Maj Gens.

     The principle of pension fixation of Maj Gen equally applies to all ranks. We must advice our Advocate in AFT to produce this document to AFT and simply pray that the method of pension fixation carried our for Maj Gens be carried out for Lt Cols to Brig. Min of Def letter is very crystal clear.

From Brig S Vidyasagar

Dear Brig Vidyasagar,

I quote an extract of an opinion from another legal expert who has always been very out spoken person to an extent that most of the times he gets on the wrong side of people. I admire him primarily for this quality of being forthright in expression of his views.
"The reason and start point for this case and this circular was that the minimum of pay of a Brig incl rank pay (19100) was more than that of a Maj Gen (18400). The entire judgement in the case of Maj Gen Vains, of HC and then upheld by SC, revolves around that aspect. I don't know how people are claiming its applicability on other ranks without reading through the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court and then the SC."
*        *        *        *        *

38 comments:

  1. Sir, the only issue of interest in the case of Maj Gen SPS Vains could be the wording of the HSC order which specifically wanted modalities for OROP to be finalised.

    The case may not have initially been about OROP at all, but when HSC had asked for OROP modalities to be finalised, was it just in the context of the Maj Gen pension issue or of wider significance?

    Answers to that doubt may be clear by the MOD order referred to in the news report and from the hearing in November 2015.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ......................31. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and modify the order of the High Court by directing that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996, and, thereafter, to compute their pensionary benefits on such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition and to pay them the difference within three months from date with interest at 10% per annum. The respondents will not be entitled to payment on account of increased pension from prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."

      Delete
    2. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, prays
      for and is granted three months' time finally to work out the
      modalities for implementation of the one rank-one pension
      principle on which the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment.
      The principle is also, it appears, covered by the decision of this
      Court in Union of India & Anr. v. SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors. -
      (2008) 9 SCC 125.
      Post after three months finally.
      We make it clear that no further time will be granted for the
      purpose of implementation of the impugned judgment.

      Delete
    3. Sir, the order dated 28th September isn't as detailed as the one dated 16 Feb 2015. As you have mentioned, nothing is known of the MOD letter referred to in the affidavit filed by learned ASG. Whether or not it confirmed having worked out modalities of OROP, whether the respondents in the case had filed a counter-affidavit and with any relationship to OROP, would perhaps be known only when the case is finally disposed off.

      Till such time, some of the doubts and ambiguities about a possible correlation of the case with OROP would persist, to some extent.

      Delete
    4. The PHC and Apex Court order mentiones Maj Gens, AVM and equivalent. Therefore, it appears that orders would be applicable to only this rank and its equivalents.

      Delete
  2. Simply, reactions and comments on affidavit by ASG - case is known .
    Why repeat verbose , learned....etc.Not relevant.
    The issue & the method of secrecy on orders issued in Aug ,when burning issues are evaded ?? .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent. So we will now have concise and precise comments flowing that that prolific keyboard.

      Thanks for being considerate.

      Delete
  3. Let replies to comment relate to the known issue & consequencies of affidavit of ASG .

    ReplyDelete
  4. U r. Not willing to rec comment. Roger!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comments relevant to the post are NOT (R) Not deleted. They are published intact, unedited, uncensored. However, digressive and tangential comments are not published lest they detract from the topic under discussion.

      Thank you

      Delete
  5. sir......
    is the pro-rate reduction judicially correct?????.... w.r.t. cir 547..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, pro-rata reduction of minimum guaranteed pension is not legally correct. There have already been several judgments from AFTs and CAT. In one case of civilian pensioners SC judgment has also come in favor of pensioners and Review Petition of GOI already dismissed. GOI appeals in other cases (incl the judgments of AFTs) are pending in SC. It is also learnt that DOP&PW has since processed the file to MoF. It is a matter of time and all have to get minimum guaranteed pension without pro-rata reduction from 01 Jan 06.

      Delete
    2. Please provide the case numbers so full information can be made available.

      Delete
    3. Sir, (1) AFT Delhi judgment dt 07 Dec 11 in OA 106 of 2009. There are subsequent judgments of AFT Delhi based on this judgment. (2) Delhi HC judgment dt 07 May 15 in WP (C) 8012 of 2013. (3) CAT Delhi judgment dt 21 Apr 15 in OA 1165 of 2011. (4) SLP (Civil) 6567 of 2015 and its Review Petition 2565 of 2015 dismissed by SC on 26 Aug 15.

      Delete
    4. In WP (C) 8012 of 2013, this is what the High Court of Delhi has to say of decision of the AFT in OA 106 of 2009
      "23. As regards the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated
      December 07, 2011 in OA No.106/2009 Wing Commander
      (Retd.)V.S.Tomar vs UOI & Ors. the reasoning of the Tribunal, as urged
      by learned counsel for the respondents is mechanical. The Tribunal held
      that from the decisions of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara’s case
      (supra), S.P.S.Vains‟s case (supra), Amar Nath Goyal’s case (supra) and
      All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association‟s case (supra) it
      appeared to the Tribunal that in the year 1983 (D.S.Nakara‟s case) the
      view taken by the Supreme Court was that in matters of pension a cut-off
      date as the basis of classification was not valid, but as of the years 1992
      (All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association‟s case) and the year
      2005 (Amar Nath Goyal‟s case) cut-off dates were valid but the latest
      view in the year 2008 (S.P.S.Vains case) showed that the view was that a
      cut-off date was invalid. But that should not trouble us for the reason we
      have independently analyze the ratio of law flowing in the various
      decisions of the Supreme Court and suffice it to state that wherever the
      Supreme Court found a rational nexus between the criteria with the object
      of the policy sought to be achieved the classification with reference to a
      date was upheld and wherever such rational nexus was not shown the
      same was held to be arbitrary."

      Now what is the WP (C) or CA filed by any ESM challenging the pro-rata deduction and for application of the judgment based on SLP (C) 6567 of 2015?

      Delete
    5. And the decision is applicable to petitioners only!

      Delete
    6. Sir, 6cpc recommendations for pre-2006 retiree pensioners were accepted by GOI vide Resolution dated 29 Aug 08 (Item 12) which is common to military and civilian pensioners. In case of civilians there was no clause of pro-rata reduction in original letter issued to implement 6cpc. The clause of pro-rata reduction was inserted subsequently in the form of a clarificatory letter. In OA 655 of 2010 (which was finalized along with the case of Lt Cdr Avtar Singh by SC) Full Bench of CAT Delhi has set aside this clarificatory letter and directed GOI to re-fix pension of all pre-2006 retirees in terms of GOI resolution dated 29 Aug 08. There is no clause of pro-rata reduction in Item 12 of GOI Resolution. Accordingly, contempt petition has also been filed by civilian pensioners in OA 655 of 2010.
      In case of military pensioners, clause of pro-rata reduction has been inserted in MoD letter dt 11 Nov 08 itself vide Para 5 of the letter. This Para 5 has also been set aside by AFT Delhi in OA 106 of 2009.
      There are so many cases filed on this subject. SC judgement in SLP 6567 of 2015 (and its Review Petition) related to the case of Kerala HC. Delhi HC judgment relates to some other case.
      Since there are so many cases including contempt in OA 655 of 2010, I think that this will have to be implemented for all. However, it may take some time.

      Delete
  6. Please read the MoD letters mentioned in the 03 Sep 2015 circular also.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thank you sk jain sir for highlighting the injustice.....
    it is a gross injustice done to defense veterans since inception of 6 cpc....
    even a post from BRIG S VIDYASAGAR sir highlights how a service pension of sepoy to havildar for 23 yrs of service and above is wrongly fixed as per cir 430......
    (link) http://ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in/2015/09/wrong-fixation-of-pension-of.html.

    "the 5 cpc scale of gp y sepoy is 3250-70-4300 so 4300x1.86+4000=11998 rounded of to 12000/2 = 6000. cir 430 has fixed rs 5523 how.
    the y gp sepoy with 23 yrs of service suppose to get 10 yrs weightage so 23+10=33 so full pension is eligible for 6000.so he is looser by rs 477 since 01/01/2006...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Justin, I would take Brig Vidyasagar's comment with a pinch of iodised salt. He advises officers to file cases for OROP through his friends quoting the Maj Gen Vains case without reading it being applicable only to Maj Gens!

      Also both he and you appear not to have read the reply from DESW to Petty Officer (retd) S K Singh in reply to his email to RM. Please read and co-relate.

      Delete
    2. @Justin Christian: "..how.."

      How do you know 5523/- corresponds to top of scale? Table 2 to that circular clarifies that revised pension from 01 Jul 2009 is 5523/- from 20 years of service to 25 years of service, corresponding to consolidated pension of 4097/- under VI CPC from 01 Jan 2006. The highest revised pension is 6075/- corresponding to 28 years.

      Something is missing in the argument.

      Delete
  8. @ Taza khabar sir....just tried to co relate the things as suggested w.r.t. cir 547 clarification and came up with following possibilities as interpretation....

    1. THE RATE OF PENSION FROM 01/07/2009 WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM 01/01/2006...
    2. THE RATE OF PENSION EFFECTIVE FROM 24/09/2012 WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM 01/01/2006.....
    3. THE MGP WORKED OUT WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM 01/01/2006 WITHOUT PRO RATE REDUCTION WITH LESS THEN 33 YRS OF SERVICE.....

    I had a talk with the officer in charge of my pension disbursing bank and he confirmed that bank is not considering the pension which is more beneficial to pensioner for calculating arrears and that arrear will be calculated as per circular 547 table only whether beneficial or harmful to pensioner till July 09.......

    so the ground reality is "IS THE PROPER BENEFIT CONVEYED THROUGH CLARIFICATION LETTER FROM DESW WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN TRUE AND RIGHT SPIRIT BY DISBURSING BANKS?????????????"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Justin Christian, please write a RPAD letter to PCDA (P), CPCC of your bank, PDA (your bank) and DAV stating the contents of your discussion and mention that anomaly in understanding and interpretation. Wait 30 days and file a RTI with DAV, PCDA (P) and CPCC requesting information on the date that such a clarification was issued.

      You know the changes are incorporated by the CPCC of your bank not the branch.

      Delete
    2. @ aerial view sir.....
      yes now all the pension disbursing banks are controlled by CPCC and CPCC will interpret and work out the benefit and will pass on to branch for payment for which they r provided with a software.

      the point is what is correct interpretation of 547 circular.....
      reports r coming in from various xsm that bank is paying only diff.of amt between pension as on 01/01/2006 and as per enclosed tables amt only..but more beneficial amt is not considered from 01/01/2006.. and that is what the clarification letter says???? and the same lot of xsm r expecting and once not satisfied they r preparing to go to court.
      now if i do a rti as suggested by u then firstly i should be convinced that i m short paid and in fact cir 547 is all about min. guaranteed pension(MGP) and it has nothing to do with increase in weight-ages so in fact the correct interpretation should be as per my view " CIR 547 WILL VOUCH FOR MGP ASPECT OF PENSION ONLY AND AS SUCH ONLY THE DIFF. BETWEEN PENSION AS ON 01/01/2006 AND ANNEXED TABLES PENSION DIFF IS PAYABLE.
      SIR...THE CORRECT GUIDANCE FROM YOU WILL HELP SO MANY XSM TO UNDER STAND THE SUBJECT..

      Delete
  9. @ dhoop sir.... done little searching work on cir 430 and tried to straighten up the argument w.r.t. pension of y gp sepoy with 23 yrs of service and surprisingly find it in favor of cir 430...
    1. the pension similar from 20 to 25 is 5523 w.r.t. 6075.( top of the scale)..
    2.20 yrs is given max weightage( 10yrs) so 6075X30/33=5523.21 yrs(9),22yrs(8),23(7),24(6),25(5)...26(5), 27(5)...28(5)....
    3. SO THE MISSING LINK TO STRAIGHTEN UP THE ARGUMENT IS APPLICATION OF WEIGHTAGE WHICH REDUCES WITH REMAINING YEARS OF SERVICE AND MIN 5 AND MAX 10....
    4. I FEEL IN THE END CIR 430 HAS RIGHTLY CALCULATED PENSION OF RS 5523 TO Y GP SEPOY WITH 23 YRS OF SERVICE....

    of course the basic argument was correctness of pro rate reduction with less then 33 yrs of service.....




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Justin Christian: "...basic argument was correctness of pro rate reduction..."

      Now that is one thing and questioning correctness of a correct existing awards another. That dilutes the point being made, in this case, pro rata reduction.

      My basic understanding is if post VI CPC there is full weightage for service above 20 years for fixing pensions of those retiring after 01 Jan 2006, then why should there be pro rata reduction for pensions of pre VI CPC retirees fixed by VI CPC?

      I suppose that would be the basis of ongoing litigation.

      Delete
  10. Sir...
    SLP(C) 36148-36150/2013(Full parity & 50%) were heard together & dismissed on 17/03/2015 & ordered to pay the arrears w.e.f.01/01/2006 with in 4 months .The deadline for compliance of this judgement has expired on 17/07/2015.The petitioners of SLP 36148-50 have to approach the SC for contempt of court for non-implementation of court order......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, SLP (C) 36148-150/2013 is tagged with CA 8875 of 2011and tagged CA's (UoI Vs V K Jain & others). The order is for modified parity and date of implementation. It is not, as stated by you for full parity. Further it is 50% as the minimum guaranteed pension. The orders have been issued on 31 Jul 2015 and by MoD on 03 Sep 2015 and published as PCDA Circulars 547 and 548.

      Further the SC had allowed filing Contempt in the AFT if the order of 17 Mar 2015 was not complied with.

      Would you please check and let me know if my understanding is wrong.

      Delete
  11. SIR.....AS PER MY VIEW AND UNDERSTANDING....
    1. originally slp (c) no.36148-50/2013 was filed in the Honorable Supreme Court of India against the order dated 29.4.2013 of Honorable High Court of Delhi in respect of Writ Petition No.2348/2012, 2349/2012, 2350/2012". (minimum guaranteed pension case which was heard on 29/04/2013 and the judgement order included the om letter dtd 28/01/2013 para 5 about pro-rata reduction for less then 33 yrs of service...w.r.t. OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)dated1.9.2008,

    2. . these slps were listed with civil appeal nos.8875-8876 of 2011. on the request of learned asg mr as chandhiok Civil Appeal Nos.8875-8876 of 2011.it was de-linked and again linked on 19/11/2013.

    3.the recent circular 547 &548 issued by desw is only extending the applicability of judgement in oa 655/2010 to applicants other than petitioners in the above case.hence this circular have given pro-rata effect for the pre2006 pensioners who are having less than 33 years of service. so pro-rata reduction in cir 547 for pbors....

    4. so in view of above the petitioners of SLP 36148-50 have to approach the SC for contempt of court for non-implementation of court order.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please check the Supreme Court website. There is no judgment for SLP (C) 36148 of 2013. Under the CA 8875 of 2011 the wordings are
      "................We accordingly grant four months' time from today to the
      petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which
      the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be
      revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their
      logical conclusion.All impleading and intervention applications are also
      dismissed."

      So you might have to go back to the AFT.

      Delete
  12. Sir,I have an idea,if OROP issue and other genuine issues of Armed Forces could be brought out in the form of a book.It will make an interesting reading and will be very useful.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ aerial view sir.....
    i want to put across certain points for ur thoughts and guidance regarding fixation of pensions of jco/ors w.r.t. CoS report 2012 i request the readers not to take in other way as the purpose is for knowledge sharing only...

    I WANT TO KNOW WHY THERE IS A BASIC DIFF. IN IMPLEMENTATION OF CIR 500 AND CIR 501 BASED ON CoS REPORT 2012..

    CIR 500 HAS GIVEN BENEFIT OF MGP TO COMM.OFFRS. WHERE AS CIR 501 HAS GIVEN BENEFIT OF INCREASE IN WEIGHTAGE UP TO HAVILDAR ONLY AND JCOS R LEFT OUT.(THERE BY CREATING SERIOUS ANOMALIES)

    WHY CoS HAS RECOMMENDED SUCH DIVIDING BENEFIT..
    WHY JCO/ORS R NOT GIVEN BENEFIT OF CIR 500

    SIR I HAVE GONE THRU THE CoS 2012 NOTES AVAILABLE ON UR BLOG ARCHIVES BUT COULD NOT FIND THE RATIONALE (SOLUTION).. MORE OVER THE ARGUMENT W.R.T. THE FIXATION OF JCO/ORS PENSION ON TOP OF NOTIONAL SCALE CAN BE OVERRULED AS WHICH EVER IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO PENSIONER AND NOT GOVT...

    SIR YOUR CLARIFICATION ON THE POINT WILL HELP TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT AS MANY JCO/ORS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT GOVT IS DOING INJUSTICE WITH THEM AS FAR AS THIS DIFF. IS CONCERNED.AND THE DISSATISFACTION CREATED AMONG JCO/ORS AFTER ISSUANCE OF CIR 548 AND CIR 547...

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Justin Christian : Firstly, I am sure you mean well. But we are all on the blogosphere here and some of the norms can always be considered, though it is gracious of the blog owner to show considerable latitude.

    For your issue to be understood clearly by all readers, why don't you stick to one thing at a time? What is the mean guaranteed pension specified in circular 500? It is based on minimum of pay in pay band for commissioned Officers, is it not? Now clarify how circular 501 specifies pensions for JCOs and then describe what injustice has been done, and how, so others can understand clearly.

    Simultaneously, you have again brought up circulars 547/548 and the dissatisfaction over the matter. It has been clarified in detail on other blogs. If "dissatisfaction" still persists, legal remedy is still available, as it is to any citizen of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ dhoop sir.......
    Thank u for the attempt made to understand the raised doubts?? in form of a query..
    Ur advise of norms is well understood and purpose is to highlight the doubts only and nothing else..
    Still I understand the value of sticking to norms and thanking the blog owner for the latitude granted...

    u r asking the " how"...between cir 500 and cir 501.....

    Up to 31/12/2005 the ors pension was fixed at notional maximum which was reduced to notional minimum from 6 cpc later on corrected through cir 430 and 501 by notional maximum.
    6cpc pension fixation of jco/or has created an anomaly by taking notional minimum which was corrected vide cir 430 and cir 501 but effective dates were 01/07/2009 & 24/09/2012 where as it should be 01/01/2006..
    later on cir 548 is extension of benefit of cir 500 w.e.f.01/01/2006 for comm. offrs. but not in the case of cir 501 for jco/ors..
    While one examine the recommendation of the past pay commissions one can see that how the status and salary level of jco/or is lowered.

    The 3 rd. cpc in 1973 has lowered the pension of defense veterans from 73% to 50% and still further the pension of jawans was reduced to 23%. The status of a technically qualified gp x havildar and its equiv. was that of a technical assistant in govt departments. With same pay and perks. but now they r placed in pb1 where as the similar placed tech assistant is in pb2 with higher grade pay....
    but in the end i take ur advise " If "dissatisfaction" still persists, legal remedy is still available, as it is to any citizen of the country".

    thanks with rgds...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please read the Circulars %01 & 547 as well as 500 & 548) texts instead of just the tables.

      There is no change in the fixation formula for officers because there is no ruling by the Supreme Court.

      In the case of the fixation formula for ORs & JCOs, the "notional maximum of the rank across all the services" has been replaced to a formulation similar to that of Officers i.e "minimum of the pay band for the rank." This is to comply with a Supreme Court judgment.

      Most important is, if the pension paid under Cir 501 than under Cir 547 the higher pension is protected and taken as Basic pension/Basic family pension.

      There is a law of limitation and the 1973 issue cannot be challenged in the Courts 42 years later. So there is no legal remedy for that unless one wants to waste money and time before the case is dismissed.

      Delete
  16. Respected sir I am discharged wef 29.02.1988 . What the pension quoted under the circular 547 ( rs 4186)was more than what I drew as per pay commission (rs3633) for the period from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009 as from 01.07.2009 my pension was fixed as rs 4840 which is above rs 4186. Since the banker is my second mother for her under reemployment Iserved for another 25 years can I confidently cliam for the period referred above when the minimum pension was more for the said period only I.e from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009 difference of rs 553 per month. My initiating claim should not go wrong. PLEASE GUIDE.

    ReplyDelete