Chapter 10.1 - Pension and Related Benefits of Civilian Employees.

Demands made with regard to Pension

10.1.23 The principal demands made before the Seventh Central CPC in respect of pensions for civil personnel and those common to both civil and defence personnel are:

i. Raising the existing rates of pension and family pension

ii. The quantum of minimum pension should equal the minimum wage

iii. Increase in the rate of additional pension and family pension to the older pensioners as also reducing the age the eligibility for its receipt from the existing 80 years

iv. Increasing the existing time period of seven years for enhanced family pension. v. Enhancement in the gratuity ceiling of Rs.10 lakh and its indexation

vi. Rationalisation of death gratuity

vii. Reduction in the time period for restoration of basic pension, reduced on account of commutation

viii. Ex-gratia lump sum compensation

ix. Enhancement of ceiling of Earned Leave for purposes of Leave Encashment x. Enhancement in the existing rates of Fixed Medical Allowance

xi. Enhancement in the rates of Constant Attendance Allowance xii. Parity in Pension between pre and post Seventh CPC retirees

Raising the Existing Rates of Pension and Family Pension

10.1.24 In representations to and in meetings with the Commission a number of entities have, while seeking a raise in pension from the existing level of 50 percent of last pay drawn, questioned the basis for determination of pension at 50 percent of last pay drawn. Similarly representations for increasing family pension from existing 30 percent to 50 percent of the last pay drawn have been received by the Commission.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.25 The Commission sought the views of the government in this regard. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stated that the VI CPC had recommended calculation of pension @ 50 percent of last pay or the average emoluments (for last 10 months) whichever is more beneficial. The Commission also recommended delinking of pension from qualifying service of 33 years. Effectively the dispensation on pension has already been liberalised by the VI CPC. Further the recommendations of this Commission in relation to pay of both the civilian and defence forces personnel will lead to a significant increase in the pay drawn and therefore in the ‘last pay drawn’/‘reckonable emoluments.’ Therefore the Commission does not recommend any further increase in the rate of pension and family pension from the existing levels.

Quantum of Minimum Pension should Equal the Minimum Wage

10.1.26 In representations/depositions before the Commission it has been stated that the existing minimum pension fixed at Rs.3,500 is low and it has been argued that minimum pension be fixed equal to minimum pay for sustenance.

Analysis and Recommendations 

10.1.27 The Commission sought the views of the government in this regard. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stated that as per the orders issued after V CPC, the minimum pension in the government was Rs.1,275. The normal revised consolidated pension of a pre-2006 pensioner is 2.26 of the pre-revised basic pension. The revised minimum pension of Rs.3,500 is much more than 2.26 time of the pre-revised pension of Rs.1,275. Further the recommendations of this Commission in relation to pay of personnel will lead to a significant increase in the minimum pay from the existing Rs.7,000 per month to Rs.18,000 per month. This, based on the computation of pension, will raise minimum pension from the existing Rs.3,500 to Rs.9,000. The minimum pension based on the recommendations of this Commission will increase by 2.57 times over the existing level.

Increase in the Rate of Additional Pension and Family Pension to the Older Pensioners

10.1.28 In representations/depositions before the Commission, a case has been made by a number of Pensioners Bodies/Associations for lowering the existing age slabs of old pensioners for payment of additional quantum of pension and family pension from the existing 80 years of age. Enhancing the rates for payment of additional quantum of pension and family pension with advancing age have also been made.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.29 The additional pension with advancing age came into force based on the recommendations of the VI CPC. The rates as applicable for the additional pension are as under:

• 80 years to <85 years: 20% of basic pension · 
• 85 years to <90 years: 30% of basic pension · 
• 90 years to <95 years: 40% of basic pension · 
• 95 years to <100 years: 50% of basic pension · 
• 100 years and more: 100% of basic pension 

10.1.30 The Commission sought the views of the government in this regard. Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stated that the additional pension for old pensioners of the age of 80 years and above has been allowed as per the recommendations of VI CPC. However, it is felt that the same should be allowed from 75 years onwards. The Ministry of Defence has not supported the proposal. The Commission is of the view that the existing rates of additional pension and additional family pension are appropriate.

Increasing the existing time period of seven years for enhanced family pension

10.1.31 The Commission has received representations seeking enhancement in the period of enhanced family pension from the existing seven years or 67 years, whichever is less, to ten years in case of death of retirees.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.32 The current rates of enhanced family pension are–

i. In the case of death in service: Payable to the family of a government servant for a period of ten years from the date of death of a government servant, without any upper age limit.

ii. In the case of death after retirement: Payable for a period of seven years or up to the date on which he would have attained 67 years had he survived, whichever is less.

10.1.33 The Commission notes that the revision with regard to period of eligibility for the enhanced family pension of ten years was made based on recommendations of the VI CPC Report. No further change is being recommended by this Commission.

Enhancement in the Gratuity Ceiling and its Indexation

10.1.34 A number of representations have been received by the Commission stating that there is a need to revise the existing ceiling of Rs.10.00 lakh with regard to payment of service gratuity.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.35 Rule 49 and 50 of the CCS (Pension) Rules provides that a government servant is entitled to get retirement gratuity equal to one-fourth of his emoluments for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 16.5 times of the last emoluments subject to a maximum of Rs.10 lakh.

10.1.36 The Commission sought the views of the government in this regard. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stated that the VICPC has increased the amount of gratuity from Rs.3.5 lakh to Rs.10 lakh w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This amount, in the view of the department, is not commensurate with emoluments that are available to senior officers at the time of retirement. The department has suggested to the Commission that a view could be taken to index gratuity with amount of DA admissible at the time of retirement.

10.1.37 The Commission notes that there is merit in the argument advanced to index the ceiling on gratuity so that the benefits of the enhanced ceiling are available to personnel in a manner which is more even over a time frame. The Commission recommends enhancement in the ceiling of gratuity from the existing Rs.10 lakh to Rs.20 lakh from 01.01.2016. The Commission further recommends, as has been done in the case of allowances that are partially indexed to Dearness Allowance, the ceiling on gratuity may increase by 25 percent whenever DA rises by 50 percent.

Rationalisation of Death Gratuity

10.1.38 The Commission has received representations pointing to a need for rationalization of current slabs for death gratuity, especially for the slab of 5 to 20 years of qualifying service in which family pensioners are stated to be placed at a disadvantageous position.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.39 As per Rule 50 of Pension Rules, the death gratuity admissible will be as follows, subject to the maximum limit prescribed for the gratuity:

Length of Service	Rate of Death Gratuity
Less than one year	2 times of monthly emoluments
One year or more but less than 5 years	6 times of monthly emoluments
5 years or more but less than 20 years	12 times of monthly emoluments
20 years or more	Half month of emoluments for every complete six monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 33 times of monthly emoluments

10.1.40 The Commission sought the views of the government in this regard. Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stated that it had received similar demands from pensioners’ association and it feels a need for a review of the existing slabs for death gratuity.

10.1.41 The Commission, after examination of the matter, recommends the following revised rates for payment of death gratuity: 

Length of Service	Rate of Death Gratuity
Less than one year	2 times of monthly emoluments
One year or more but less than 5 years	6 times of monthly emoluments
5 years or more but less than 11 years	12 times of monthly emoluments
11 years or more but less than 20 years	20 times of monthly emoluments
20 years or more	Half month of emoluments for every complete six monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 33 times of emoluments

Reduction in the time period for Restoration of Basic Pension

10.1.42 The Commission has received a number of representations requesting reduction of restoration period of commuted portion of pension from the existing 15 years.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.43 The Commission notes that prior to V CPC the commutation allowed was one-third. However, there was no restoration. The Supreme Court, vide their judgement dated 09.12.1986, allowed restoration of pension after 15 years. The Supreme Court in its judgement specifically stated that though the amount is recovered in 12 years, yet since there is a risk factor and some of the states are restoring pension after 15 years, the period of restoration is fixed at 15 years. The V CPC in its recommendation increased the percentage of commutation to 40 percent and recommended restoration period at 12 years. But the reduction of restoration period was not accepted by the government. The VI CPC did not recommend any change in the maximum percentage of commutation allowed or in the period of restoration. This Commission also does not recommend any change either in the maximum percentage of commutation or in the period of restoration.

Enhancement of ceiling of Earned Leave for purposes of Leave Encashment

10.1.44 The Commission has received representations seeking raising the ceiling limit of 300 days to 450 days for purposes of Leave encashment.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.45 The Commission notes that based on the recommendations of the VI CPC, serving employees are entitled for encashment of Earned Leave up to 60 days while in service. This is not to be deducted from the maximum number of Earned Leave of 300 days encashable at the time of retirement. The VI CPC, therefore, has further liberalised the regime of leave encashment.

10.1.46 The recommendations in relation to pay of both the civilian and defence forces personnel will also lead to a significant increase in the pay drawn and therefore in the total amount of leave encashment available for an employee. Therefore raising the present ceiling of 300 days is not recommended by the Commission.

Ex-gratia lump sum compensation

10.1.47 The Commission has received representations seeking enhancement in ex-gratia lump sum compensation for Next-of-Kin (NoK) of CAPF, Assam Rifles and defence forces personnel who die in harness in performance of their bona fide official duties.

10.1.48 The issue has been dealt with in Chapter 10.2.

Fixed Medical Allowance

10.1.49 The Commission has received representations seeking enhancement in Fixed Medical Allowance, currently payable at the rate of Rs.500 per month for pensioners not covered under Central Government Health Service (CGHS).

10.1.50 The Commission has examined the matter in Chapter 8.17.

Constant Attendance Allowance

10.1.51 The Commission has received representations seeking enhancement in Constant Attendance Allowance from the present rate of Rs.4,500 per month.

10.1.52 The Commission has examined the matter in Chapter 8.17.

Parity in Pension between Pre and Post Seventh CPC Retirees

10.1.53 This Commission has received a number of representations on the issue of disparities in pensions between past pensioners and existing pensioners. The JCM-Staff Side, has in its memorandum, stated that the pay of every pre-Seventh CPC retiree should be notionally re-determined (corresponding to the post from which he or she retired and not corresponding to the scale from which he or she retired) as if he or she is not retired and then the pension be computed under the revised liberalised rules which are to be applicable to the post Seventh CPC retirees. A similar view has been expressed by a number of other Associations/Bodies representing Central Government pensioners. Further, certain groups of pensioners have contended that based on the recommendations of the VI CPC, the new pay structure consisting of Pay Bands and Grade Pays has led to bunching of a number of pre revised pay scales into a particular Pay Band. This, in their view, has placed pre-01.01.2006 pensioners in certain pay scales/Pay Bands at a disadvantage not only compared to the post 01.01.2006 pensioners in the corresponding pay scales but also in comparison to post 01.01.2006 retirees of lower pay scales.

Analysis and Recommendations

10.1.54 The Commission is of the view that the issue of parity in pensions is extremely important from the viewpoint of inter-temporal equity and merits a careful examination.

10.1.55 Treatment of Existing and Past Pensioners over time: The concerns of pensioners’ associations and of individual pensioners on the issue of disparities in pensions amongst broadly comparable retirees, has been dealt with in reports of successive CPCs and also by the government. This is detailed in the succeeding paragraphs.

10.1.56 Till the III CPC, it was a general view that past and future pensioners cannot be treated at par and the practice was that benefit of improvement in the pension would be available to newly retiring pensioners from a prospective date. In fact the III CPC took the view that serving government employees and pensioners could not be treated at par as regards grant of DA at the same rate. A significant change in the paradigm for treatment of pensioners, past and future, emerged from the judicial pronouncement in D.S. Nakara vs Union of India in 1982 (AIR 1983 SC 130), based on which, for the first time, improvements in pensionery benefits were extended to pensioners who had retired prior to the date from which improvements became effective.

10.1.57 The IV CPC recommended, for both civil and defence pensioners, additional relief in terms of a percentage increase in amount of pension subject to a certain minimum increase. Separate rates were applicable to pensioners drawing pension upto Rs.500 per mensem and those above Rs.500 per mensem.

10.1.58 The V CPC made a definitive shift in the treatment of past pensioners. The Commission took the view that the process of bridging the gap in pension of past pensioners, set into motion by the IV CPC by grant of additional relief in addition to consolidation of pension, needed to be continued so as to achieve complete parity over a period of time. It, accordingly, recommended that pension of all the pre-1986 retirees maybe updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1 January, 1986 by adopting the same formula as for the serving employees. The consolidated pension so arrived at was to be not less than 50 percent of the minimum pay, as revised by V CPC, of the scale of the pensioner at the time of retirement. This principle by which past pensioners are brought up to the minimum of the scale which replaced the scale in which the pensioner retired has been termed as modified parity. This consolidated amount of pension was to be the basis for grant of dearness relief in future.

10.1.59 The VI CPC noted that modified parity had already been conceded between pre and post 1 January, 1996 pensioners. It also observed that full neutralisation of price rise on or after 1 January, 1996 had also been extended to all the pensioners. Therefore, the Commission felt that no further changes in the extant rules were necessary. To maintain the existing modified parity between present and future retirees, it recommended that those who retired before 01.01.2006 be given the same fitment benefit as was recommended for the existing government employees.

10.1.60 The above points to a distinct transition in the view taken by successive CPCs and the government, beginning with the III CPC. The V CPC, by recommending that pension of all the pre-1986 retirees should be updated by notional fixation of their pay, made a landmark advancement in the regime for past pensioners. In principle, the VI CPC proposed provision of the same modified parity as was envisaged in by the VCPC. However, the new pay structure introduced by the VI CPC, based on running Pay Bands and Grade Pays, led to the bunching of a number of pre revised pay scales into a particular Pay Band, thereby diminishing the benefit of the intended modified parity. This naturally led to several representations following which certain corrective orders were issued by the government, some of which were based on the orders of various Courts.

10.1.61 Judicial Pronouncements on the Issue: The issue of pension has been a matter of debate in a large number of cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. One of the early leading judgments on the subject is the case of D.S. Nakara V/S Union of India & Ors. [1983] 1 SSC 305. In this case, it was held that pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criteria for grant of revised pension. This ratio further came up for consideration before another constitutional bench in the case of Krishan Kumar V/S Union of India & Ors. [(1990 4 SCC 207)]. This constitutional bench distinguished the D.S. Nakara (supra) and held that it has limited application. The D.S. Nakara case again came up for discussion in the case of Indian Ex-Services League V/S Union of India & Ors [(1991) 2 SCC 104)]. This constitutional bench further considered the case of D.S. Nakara and held that this case has limited application and its ambit cannot be enlarged to cover all claims made by pensioners retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments for computation of their pension be different. The decision of D.S. Nakara came up for consideration in two successive constitutional benches and they did not approve the ratio enunciated in the case D.S. Nakara (Supra). Subsequently, the case of D.S. Nakara (Supra) has been followed by some benches and some have distinguished it. A large number of cases have been summed up recently in the decision given in the case of State of Punjab V/S Amar Nath Goyal [(2005) 6 SCC 754)]. In this case, all cases on the subject were reviewed and it was laid down that the government can make distinction in the matter of payment of pension between two classes of pensioners. Various decisions, including the aforesaid two constitutional benches i.e., Krishan Kumar (Supra) and Indian Ex-Services League (Supra) and the judgement given in D.S. Nakara (Supra) were considered. Decisions given in the case of Action Committee South Eastern Railway Pensioners V/S Union of India [(1991 Supp. (2) SCC 544)] was also referred to. In this case also, it was accepted that distinction can be made between two pensioners. Similarly in the case of State of Rajasthan V/S Amrat Lal Gandhi [(1997) 2 SCC 342)], it was held that financial implication can be a consideration for making two classes of the pensioners though similarly placed. Similarly in the case of State of Punjab V/S Buta Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 733)], the Supreme Court held that the position that emoluments of persons holding the same status who retired after a notified date must be treated to be the same cannot be accepted. In the case of State of Punjab V/S G.L. Gupta [(2003) 3 SCC 736)] it was held that for grant of additional benefits that had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefits could not be considered arbitrary. However, the Apex Court has also taken a contrary view in some cases relying on D.S. Nakara’s case.

10.1.62 In the case of Dhanraj & Ors. V/S State of J&K and others [(1994) 4 SCC 30)], it was held with reference to government order of J&K, that the distinction between pre and post retires of June 1981 in payment of pension cannot be justified and it is violative of Article 14 of Constitution. Similarly, in a recent judgement of Hon’ble Court given in the case of Union of India & Anr. V/S SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC (LS 838)], the case of D.S. Nakara (Supra) was followed and it was held that the disparity created within the same class i.e., two officers both retired as Major Generals one prior to 1.1.1996 and other after that date but getting different amounts of pension was arbitrary and that the same also offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10.1.63 The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is that classification should be founded on a rational basis while distinguishing one class from other. It should not be discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Apex Court has examined each case on its merit and wherever they have found that distinction between similarly placed classes is discriminatory then the same has been struck down.

10.1.64 Pension Payout to Personnel in the Central Government: The preceding paragraphs bring out the evolution of the pension regime over time and the role of the Judiciary in settling the law on the subject. There is clear evidence that governments have progressively moved towards a liberalised regime for past pensioners. The VI CPC has further provided for additional pension with advancing age. What this has effectively translated into is testified by examples 36 of pension fixation of personnel across groups who have retired in the past decades. For example a Secretary to the Government of India retiring on 31 August, 1992 was in receipt of a basic pension of Rs.4,000 per month. The basic pension after implementation of the V and VI CPC got revised to Rs.13,000 and Rs.40,000 respectively. With the benefit of dearness relief 37 this pensioner is on date entitled to a total payout in terms of pension and dearness relief of Rs.87,600. Further, as a pensioner who is over 80 years of age he is entitled to an additional pension equivalent to 20 percent of basic pension. In effect the pensioner is in receipt of a total payout of Rs.105,120 per month as on date. Similarly, a Director (in GP 8700 as per VI CPC) retiring on 30 September, 1994 with a basic pension of Rs.2,556 per month got revised basic pension of Rs.7,042 and Rs.22,701 per month after implementation of the V and VI CPC respectively. With the benefit of dearness relief38 the pensioner is on date entitled to a total payout in terms of pension and dearness relief of Rs.49,715 per month. The basic pension for a Group `C’ official retiring on 30 September, 1991 from the scale of Rs.950- 1500 was fixed at Rs.717 per month. His basic pension, after implementation of the V and VI CPC, got revised to Rs.2,188 and Rs.4,946 respectively. With dearness and pensionery increase due beyond 80 years the pensioner is in receipt of a total payout of Rs.12,998 per month.

10.1.65 The three illustrations point to a substantial increases in pension, across groups, during a span of between 20 and 25 years.

10.1.66 Recommendations of the Commission: For employees joining on or after 01.01.2004, the concept of pension, so far as Civilian employees including CAPFs are concerned, has undergone a complete change. After the enactment of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Act, 2013, it is not the exclusive liability of the government to pay the pension. As per the new dispensation the employee and the government are to make equal matching contribution towards their pension. This dispensation is not applicable to the defence forces personnel. They continue to get the defined benefit pension as before. In this section the Commission is dealing with Civilian pensioners under the old pension scheme, i,e, those who joined before 01.01.2004.

10.1.67 The Commission recommends the following pension formulation for civil employees including CAPF personnel, who have retired before 01.01.2016:

i) All the civilian personnel including CAPF who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he/she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the re vised pension.

----------------------
36 Actual cases as obtained from Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO) etc.
37 Dearness Relief of 119 percent, as effective from 1 July, 2015.

38 Dearness Relief of 119 percent, as effective from 1 July, 2015.

ii) The second calculation to be carried out is as follows. The pension, as had been fixed at the time of implementation of the VI CPC recommendations, shall be multiplied by 2.57 to arrive at an alternate value for the revised pension.

iii) Pensioners may be given the option of choosing whichever formulation is beneficial to them.

10.1.68 It is recognised that the fixation of pension as per formulation in (i) above may take a little time since the records of each pensioner will have to be checked to ascertain the number of increments earned in the retiring level. It is therefore recommended that in the first instance the revised pension may be calculated as at (ii) above and the same may be paid as an interim measure. In the event calculation as per (i) above yields a higher amount the difference may be paid subsequently.

10.1.69 Illustration on fixation of pension based on recommendations of the Seventh CPC.

Case I

10.1.70 Pensioner ‘A’ retired at last pay drawn of Rs.79,000 on 30 May, 2015 under the VI CPC regime, having drawn three increments in the scale Rs.67,000 to 79,000:

		Amount in Rs.
1.	Basic Pension fixed in VI CPC	39,500
2.	Initial Pension fixed under Seventh CPC (using a multiple of 2.57)	1,01,515-Option 1
3.	Minimum of the corresponding pay level in 7 CPC	1,82,200
4.	Notional Pay fixation based on 3 increments	1,99,100
5.	50 percent of the notional pay so arrived	99,550-Option 2
6.	Pension amount admissible (higher of Option 1 and 2)	1,01,515

Case II

10.1.71 Pensioner ‘B’ retired at last pay drawn of Rs.4,000 on 31 January, 1989 under the IV CPC regime, having drawn 9 increments in the pay scale of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4500:

		Amount in Rs.
1.	Basic Pension fixed in IV CPC	1,940
2.	Basic Pension as revised in VI CPC	12,543
3.	Initial Pension fixed under Seventh CPC (using a multiple of 2.57)	32,236 Option 1
4.	Minimum of the corresponding pay level in 7 CPC	67,700
5.	Notional Pay fixation based on 9 increments	88,400
6.	50 percent of the notional pay so arrived	44,200 Option 2
7.	Pension amount admissible (higher of Option 1 and 2)	44,200

S.Maheshwari