Item — 6 – GRANT OF INCREMENT TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED ONE YEAR SERVICE ON THE DAY OF SUPERANNUATION.

The demand for grant of one increment to those officials who have completed one year in service on the day of Superannuation (on 30th June/31St December) was not accepted on the technical plea that completion of one year on the stipulated dates of 30th June and 31st December will come into effect only when the day is over and on the next day the official will not be on duty due to retirement. For drawal of increment one has to be on duty. The fact that the official has completed one year is undisputed. As such an anomalous situation arises in the case of those Government servants who retires after completion of one year service on 30th June and 31st December, as the case may be, in spite of the fact that they have completed one year of service which are countable for increment, had the official be in service on 1st July and 1st January.

In order to set right this genuine anomaly, the Government of Tamilnadu has issued an order vide GOM No. 311 dated 31.12.2014. As per that order, a Government servant whose increment falls due on the day following superannuation, on completion of one full year of service which are countable for increment under Fundamental Rules may be sanctioned with one notional increment at the prescribed eligible rate, purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose.

It is submitted that the anomaly existing in Central Government Services may be rectified by issuing a similar order as above.

QUOTING THE SAME TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT ORDER, AIBDPA HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS WELFARE IN 2016. IT IS ONE OF THE MAIN DEMANDS IN OUR CHARTER OF DEMANDS.

VIEW THE ORDER>>IDA FROM 01-07-2017

No.14028/1/2017-Estt(L)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067
Dated: 27.06.2017

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Clarification in respect of encashment of Earned Leave to reemployed pensioners- Reg.

This Department has been receiving several references requesting for clarification relating to CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 regarding eligibility for leave encashment to Government servants who are re-employed after retirement.

2. In this regard, it is clarified that persons re-employed after retirement may be governed by rule 39(6)(a)(iii) of the said Rules and they may be granted leave encashment up to a maximum of 300 days including the period for which encashment was allowed at the time of retirement. The cases already decided otherwise in consultation with this Department need not be reopened.

3. This issues with the approval of JS(E).

sd/-
(Navneet Misra)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

It was extremely unfortunate that the Staff Side Secretary through his press statement issued yesterday has chosen to praise the Modi Government over the decisions it had taken on various demands of the Central Govt. employees. The said statement was issued apparently without causing any consultation either formally or informally with the other members of the Staff Side, in any case not at all in consultation with the signatories of this statement.  We, being the members of the Standing Committee, emphatically disagree and distance ourselves from the position taken by him in the Press Statement.

There had been no justification for the 7^th CPC to reduce the rate of HRA by an imagined factor of 0.8. Neither during the discussions, the staff side had with the committee headed by the Expenditure Secretary, nor in the press release issued after the Cabinet meeting, the Govt. had advanced  any logic for their decision to restore the rate of HRA only for those who draw pay at the level of Rs.18000. There had been no appreciation of any of the concerns or issues raised by the staff side and whatever decisions so far taken by the Govt. was inconsonance with the views and recommendations of the top echelons of the bureaucracy,  be in the matter of allowances, minimum wage, fitment factor, rejection  of option no.1 for the pensioners or withdrawal of  NPS. There is no justification, whatsoever, for denial of arrears of HRA with effect from 01.01.2016.

The highly defective computation of minimum wage by the 7^th CPC and the consequent denial of a reasonable wage structure, withdrawal of existing allowances and benefits, virtual abrogation of the time bound promotion to the lower category of employees; rejection of option No. 1 to pensioners, refusal to grant atleast a  minimum guaranteed pension under NPS, denial of arrears of HRA from 01.01.2016  require the  strongest condemnation. 

The fact that decisions taken by the Govt. on 7^th CPC issues are clear reflections of Modi Government’s. anti- labour attitude ought to have been, what the staff side secretary conveyed through his press release. His statement has, as stated earlier sadly reflects the total disconnect between the common Central Govt. employees and JCM staff side leadership.
Had it been the statement on behalf of the AIRF, we would not have issued this denouncement  at all, as we consider that it is the prerogative of each organisation to view things in their perspective and formulate their opinions.

KKN Kutty                                         M. Krishnan                                      M. S. Raja

Member,                                             Member,                                             Member,        

Standing committee,                       Standing committee,                       Standing committee,

National Council JCM                    National Council JCM                    National Council JCM

Restoration of full pension of absorbee pensioners in PSU and Autonomous Bodies

.No.4/34/2002-P&PW(D).Vol.II
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare

3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi
Dated : 23rd June, 2017

Office Memorandum

Subject: Restoration of full pension of absorbee pensioners in view of the order dated 01.09.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010 and Civil Appeal No. 6371/2010.

The undersigned is directed to say that in accordance with the instructions which existed before 31.03.1995, a Government servant, on absorption in a Public Sector Undertaking or an Autonomous Body, had the option to draw pro-rata gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension. The option regarding payment of lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pension on absorption in a PSU or autonomous body was available in terms of the instructions issued vide Department of Expenditure’s O.M. No.26(18)-E.V(B)/75 dated 08.04.1976, Department of Personnel & Training’s O.M. No.28016/5/85-Estt.(C) dated 31.01.1986 and Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare’ O.M. No.4(12)/85-P&PW dated 31.03.1987. This option was also available to Government employees on absorption in PSUs/autonomous bodies of the State Governments and Joint Sector undertakings in terms of this Department’s O.M. No.4/43/88-P&PW(D) dated 16.10.1989. The terms and conditions for absorption of Government employees consequent on conversion of a Government Department into a PSU or autonomous body issued vide this Department’s O.M. No.4/18/87-P&PW(D) dated 5.7.1989 also provided for a similar option of lump sum payment in lieu of monthly pension.

2. In accordance with Rule 37-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, incorporated vide Department of Expenditure’s Notification No.44(1)-E.V./71 dated 09.04.1973, on exercise of the above option, an employee was entitled to a lump sum amount not exceeding the commuted value of one-third of the pension and terminal benefit equal to twice the aforesaid lump-sum amount, subject to the condition that the Government servant surrendered his right of drawing two-thirds of his pension.

3. The option to draw a lump sum amount in lieu of pension was withdrawn vide this Department’s O.M. No. 4/42/91-P&PW(D) dated 31st March, 1995. Accordingly, the erstwhile Rule 37-A was omitted from the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 vide Notification No. 4/42/91-P&PW(D) dated 25.06.1997.

4. In implementation of the Order dated 15.12.1995 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 11855/85, instructions were issued vide this Department’s O.M. No. 4/3/86-P&PW(D) dated 30.09.1996 for restoration of one-third commuted portion of pension of Government servants who had drawn lump sum payment on absorption in a PSU/autonomous body. Further instructions were issued, from time to time, for computation and revision of the one-third restored pension of such absorbee pensioners and for payment of the attendant benefits like dearness relief, etc. to such absorbee pensioners. Orders for revision of the one-third restored pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 of such absorbee pensioners were issued vide this Department’s O.M. No4/38/2008- P&PW(D) dated 15/09/2008, O.M. No.4/30/2010-P&PW(D) dated 11/07/2013. and O.M. No.4/38/2008-P&PW(D) dated 04/08/2016. These absorbee pensioners were, however, entitled to dearness relief and age-related additional pension based on the notional full pension.

5. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras, in its judgement dated 02-08­2007 in Writ Petition No.22207/2002 filed by one Sh. K. Ganesan, an officer in the office of Controller General of Accounts, held that surrendering of the right for drawal of 2/3rd of Pension after its commutation, as provided under Rule 37-A (b), was repugnant to Section 12 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and that the petitioner was lawfully entitled for the restoration of his pension after the expiry of the period of commutation of 2/3rd Hon’ble High Court, accordingly, directed restoration of 2/3rd pension and payment of arrears accordingly.

6. An SLP(Civil) No.4054/2008 (converted into Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010) was filed by the Union of India challenging the aforesaid order dated 02-08-2007 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras. In its order dated 1.9.2016, Hon’ble Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the order dated 02.08.2007 of Hon’ble High Court directing restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent (Shri K. Ganesan), after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation. The Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010 was accordingly dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said judgement dated 1.9.2016, similar direction was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 6371/2010 for restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the petitioners, Shri K.L. Dhall, an absorbed employee of Ministry of Civil Aviation and member pensioners of Welfare Association of Central Government Officers, CAD Absorbed in PSU.

7. Review Petitions No. 465/2017 and No. 472/2017 were filed by Union of India in the Supreme Court against the aforesaid order dated 1.9.2016. Instructions were separately issued to the office of Controller General of Accounts and the Ministry of Civil Aviation vide OM No.4/34/2002-P&PW(D).Vol.II dated 21-12­2016 and OM No. 4/34/2002-P&PW(D).Vol.II dated 21-12-2016 respectively, for implementation of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the petitioner/respondent pensioners in the aforesaid Civil Appeals, subject to the final outcome of the Review Petitions. The aforesaid Review Petitions No. 465/2017 and 472/2017 have been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.03.2017.

8. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It has been decided to extend the benefit of order dated 02-08-2007 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Order dated 01-09-2016 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to all similarly placed absorbee pensioners. Accordingly, all such absorbee petitioners who had taken 100% lump-sum amount in lieu of pension on absorption in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies in accordance with the then existing Rule 37-A and in whose case 1/3 pension had been restored after 15 years, may be allowed restoration of full pension after expiry of commutation period of 15 years from the date of payment of 100% lump-sum amount.

9. The absorbee pensioners whose full pension is restored in terms of the above instructions would also be entitled to revision of their pension in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time in implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commissions, including the 7th Central Pay Commission.

10. In their application to the persons belonging to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

11. Ministry of Agriculture etc. are requested to bring the contents of these Orders to the notice of Controller of Accounts/Pay & Accounts Officers and Attached & subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis and for taking necessary action for implementation of the above instructions. All pension disbursing offices are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners.

12. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide their ID Note No.1(11)/EV/2017 dated 26-05-2017 and dated 13-6­-2017.

13. Hindi version will follow.

sd/-
(Harjit Singh)
Director