----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE IS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE JOINTLY ISSUED BY THE TWO MINISTRIES. THE PENSION DISBURSING AUTHORITIES/BANKS ARE DIRECTED TO PREPARE AND FURNISH ANNEXURE IV (AS PER MOD PENSION ORDERS DATED 11.11.08, WHICH CONTAINS ALL DETAILS OF PENSION/ARREARS ETC) TO ALL PRE-1.1.2006 ARMED FORCES PENSIONERS.
THIS WILL ENABLE THE CONCERNED PENSIONERS TO KNOW/ASCERTAIN/VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PENSION FIXATION BY THE BANKS. (THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE BANKS).
IT IS KNOWN TO ALL VETERAN BROTHERS THAT THE PDAs/BANKS HAVE FIXED THE PENSIONS WEF 1.1.06 AS PER PARA 4.1 OF THE MOD ORDER (AS PER RATES MENTIONED IN THE TALES TABLES)
THERE IS AN OPTION AS PER PARA 5 OF THE SAID ORDER, TO REVISE THE PENSION.
"PARA 5. THE CONSOLIDATION OF PENSION WILL FURTHER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION THAT THE CONSOLIDATED PENSION, IN NO CASE SHALL BE LOWER THAN 50% OF THE MINIMUM PAY IN THE PB + THE GP CORRESPONDING TO THE PRE-REVISED SCALE FROM WHICH THE PENSIONER HAD RETIRED/DISCHARGED, INCLUDING MSP AND X PAY WHERE APPLICABLE."
THIS OPTION WAS NOT EXCERCISED BY MANY PENSIONERS DUE TO LACK OF INFO. NEITHER THE RECORD OFFICES/PCDA/PDA/BANKS INFORMED THE PENSIONERS THE PENSION TABLES AS PER THIS PARA. THE PDAs.BANKS TOO PERHAPS HAD NO CLUE ON THIS.
NOW WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO FURNISH INFORMATION TO PENSIONERS IN THE PRESCRIBED ANNEXURE IV, THE PENSIONERS CAN STAKE CLAIM TO EXERCISE THE OPTION. PLEASE CLICK ANNEXURE IV FOR CLEAR VIEW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO, VETERAN BROTHERS, APPROACH YOUR PDA/BANKER, COOPERATE BY FURNISHING SERVICE DETAILS ETC AND ENSURE CORRECT FIXATION OF YOUR PENSION.
GOOD LUCK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CGEs ANAMOLY COMMITTEE MEETING - MINUTES
PARA 15.parity in pension of all pre 1996 retirees with those who retired on or after 1.1.2006
The Government have already accepted in principle that there shall be parity in pension amongst pensioners irrespective of the date from which they had retired.
Accordingly pension of all pre 1986 retirees was revised with effect from 1.1.96 by first determining the notional pay which would have been fixed as on 1.1.86 (treating as if the employees were in service on that date) and then the Notional Pension was updated by applying the same fitment formula which was applied to serving employees.
We, therefore demanded that the notional pay of all pre 1996 retirees may be fixed as on 1.1.96 in terms of Revised Pay Rules, 1996 and the notional pension as on 1.1.96 may be revised w.e.f. 1.1.06 by applying the same fitment formula which is applied in the case of serving employees i.e. by multiplying the notional pension as on 1.1.96 by 1.86 + the Grade Pay of the Pay Scale (V CPC) from which they would have retired.
The revision of pension has been done by applying the formula of Basic Pension as on 1.1.96 + Dearness Pension (50% of Basic Pension) + Dearness Relief on Basic Pension + Dearness Pension+40% of Basic Pension. This is not the same that has been granted to serving employees. In whose case the Grade Pay which is the fitment benefit is 40% of the maximum of the Pre-revised Pay Scale. As such the Pensioners should also be granted 50% the of Grade Pay of the Pay Scale from which they had retired by way of fitment benefit and not 40% of Basic Pension.
Decision.
The Staff Side pointed out that the 6th CPC in order to maintain the existing modified parity between the present and future retirees had indicated that it would be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being recommended for the existing Government employees vide para 5.1.47 in page 338. However, the Commission recommended that all past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the basic pension. The statement and the recommendation made to give effect to the statement was at variance giving rise to anomaly and disparity in pension entitlement between the past pensioners and the future pensioners. After detailed discussion, the official side agreed to consider the issue once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment