WHO SAID WHAT by S C Maheshwari
WHO SAID WHAT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR EXAMININGTHE FEASIBILITY OF FIRST OPTIONRECOMMENDED BY 7TH CPC
An extract of committee’s report submitted on 1th December 2016
[14tn December 2016]
CHAPTER - 5
VIEWS OF STAFF SIDE OF JOINT CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY / PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
5.1 Representations on the revision of pension recommended by the Seventh CPC
5.1.1 After the submission of the report of the Seventh CPC and again after the constitution of this Committee, several representations have been received from the pensioners and pensioners’ associations - some doubting the feasibility of implementation of Formulation 1 for revision of pension recommended by the Seventh CPC and the others favouring this formulation. Those against this formulation question its feasibility on the following grounds
• It would not be possible to get the service records having information regarding the number of increments earned on the last post in respect of all the pensioners;
• Scrutiny of the individual service records to get the information regarding increments earned in respect of more than 50 lakh pensioners would be a herculean task.
• Revision of pension by this method would result in large scale anomalies which may in turn lead to litigation
5.1.2 On the other hand, those in favour of revision of pension by this method see no difficulty in regard to the availability of records. They also cite the precedent of revision during Fifth CPC, when the pension of all pre-1986 retirees was updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1986 and by treating 50% of this pay as notional pension as on
1.1.1986.
5.1.3 Here, however, it may be noted that the under the method for notional fixation of pay adopted under Fifth CPC, the pension of all pre- 1986 retirees was updated by notional fixation of their pay as on
1.1.1986 (i.e. the date of implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission) and by treating 50% of this pay as notional pension as on 1.1.1986 Thereafter, the past pensioners who were
brought on to the Fourth CPC pay scales by notional fixation of their pay and those who retired on or after 1.1.1986 were treated alike regarding consolidation for their pension as on 1.1.1996 by adding basic pension, dearness relief, interim relief and by allowing the same fitment benefit of 40% of the pre-1996 basic pension. The consolidated pension was stepped up, where necessary, to ensure that the revised pension was not less than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale corresponding to the pay scale from which the pensioner retired before 1.1.1996. This method, however, did not require counting increments in the post held by the pensioners at the time of retirement.
5 1.4 The problem of non-availability of service records arises only when the notional pay fixation is being done based on counting the number of increments in the last post/scale. Since there was no
requirement of counting of increments in the last post, the administrative authorities did not face any difficulty of locating the service records for the purpose of revision of pension in implementation of the
recommendations of the Fifth CPC. In fact, the method for fixation of notional pay adopted on the recommendations of the Fifth CPC is exactly the same method as the Pay Fixation method analyzed by the SCommittee in para 4.11 (4).
5.2 Meetings with pensioners associations in the Standing Committee on Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA) and Staff side of Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM)
5.2.1 The pensioners associations in the SCOVA and the members of the JCM, Staff side were invited for a meeting with the Committee. A meeting with pensioners associations who are members of SCOVA was held on 5.10.2016 and two meetings with the staff side of JCM were held on 6.10.2016 and 17.10.2016 respectively to present their views on the Formulation 1 for revision of pension recommended by the Seventh CPC The views expressed by the members of SCOVA are as follows:
• Karnataka Posts and Telecommunications Pensioners Association, Bengaluru : Determining the number of increments earned in the retiring pay scale would be a very difficult proposition. Fie, therefore, suggested that instead of actual number of increments earned in the retiring pay scale, the total number of stages reached in that pay scale may be taken into consideration for revision of pension under Formulation 1. This suggestion goes beyond the recommendation of the Seventh CPC.
N F Railway Pensioners Association, Guwahati, Assam: The representative of the Association initially indicated that the pension should be revised by increment method as recommended by the Seventh CPC On explaining the difficulties and the anomalies in implementation of the increment method, he agreed that the method of notional pay fixation in each Pay Commission period would be the appropriate method for revision of pension..
• Central Government Pensioners Association, Ambarnath: Different Departments follows different procedures and formats for PPOs and it would be difficult to determine the number of increments for revision of pension under Formulation 1. The representative of the Association suggested that the format of PPOs should be standardized
• Association of Retired Officers of IA &ID, Chandigarh: It would be difficult to revise the pension by increment method and agreed that the pension of pre-2016 pensioners may be revised by notional pay
fixation in each intervening Pay Commission period.
• Government Pensioners Association Dehradun: The date of promotion is not available in the PPO and the pension file and it would not be feasible to revise the pension in accordance with Formulation 1 recommended by the Pay Commission.
• All India Central Govt. Pensioners Association, Jalandhar: The Association favored the notional pay fixation method in comparison to the increments method for revision of pension
• Uttarapara Central Government Pensioners Associations, West Bengal: The Association favored the notional pay fixation method in comparison to the increments method for revision of pension.
• The Disabled War Veterans (India) Gurgaon opined that the increment method of fixation of notional pay for revision of pension can not be implemented.
5.2.2 There was a general agreement among the Associations that in the absence of the service records and keeping in view the human effort required, it would be extremely difficult to determine the
number of increments earned on the last post for calculating the revised pension of pre-2016 pensioners. Most of these Associations preferred the Pay Fixation method over the Increment Method.
5.2.3 The representatives of the JCM (Staff side) mentioned that in their representation to the Seventh Pay Commission, they had suggested revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners by notional Pay
Fixation in each successive Pay Commission period. However, Pay Commission recommended the revision of pension by fixing the notional pay on the basis of increments earned in the last post.
5.2.4 The representatives of the JCM (Staff side) agreed that the increments method recommended by the Pay Commission for fixation of notional pension for revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners may
result in anomalies and that the method of notional pay fixation in each intervening Pay Commission is a much more rational and scientific method and would ensure smooth and faster revision of pension. The
pay fixation method would benefit almost all pre-2016 pensioners.
5.2.5 The JCM (Staff side) mentioned that the Cabinet has approved revision of pension by Formulation 1 (Increment Method), if its implementation is found feasible after examination by the Committee.
They mentioned that in addition to the Service Book/ Personal File, the details of increments earned can be ascertained from the Gradation/ Seniority List issued by the Departments from time to time. Therefore, one cannot say that Formulation 1 recommended by the Pay Commission is not feasible on the grounds of non-availability of records.5 2.6 It may be mentioned here that as per the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure, the Civil List Gradation/Seniority list is required to be retained by the Department for a period of three years. It is, therefore, unlikely that the Gradation list or the Seniority List in respect of the employees who retired long ago would be available in the Departments. Moreover, while the Gradation/Seniority list may contain the date of promotion to the last post before retirement, the pay fixed on the date of such promotion is not available in that list. Therefore, it may
not be possible to accurately determine the number of increments actually earned on the last post before retirement from the Gradation/Seniority List 5.2.7 In regard to the perceived anomalies, the Staff side stated that anomalies arose in implementation of the recommendations of all previous Pay Commissions. Such anomalies can always be rectified through the mechanism of Anomaly Committee.
[14tn December 2016]
CHAPTER - 5
VIEWS OF STAFF SIDE OF JOINT CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY / PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
5.1 Representations on the revision of pension recommended by the Seventh CPC
5.1.1 After the submission of the report of the Seventh CPC and again after the constitution of this Committee, several representations have been received from the pensioners and pensioners’ associations - some doubting the feasibility of implementation of Formulation 1 for revision of pension recommended by the Seventh CPC and the others favouring this formulation. Those against this formulation question its feasibility on the following grounds
• It would not be possible to get the service records having information regarding the number of increments earned on the last post in respect of all the pensioners;
• Scrutiny of the individual service records to get the information regarding increments earned in respect of more than 50 lakh pensioners would be a herculean task.
• Revision of pension by this method would result in large scale anomalies which may in turn lead to litigation
5.1.2 On the other hand, those in favour of revision of pension by this method see no difficulty in regard to the availability of records. They also cite the precedent of revision during Fifth CPC, when the pension of all pre-1986 retirees was updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1986 and by treating 50% of this pay as notional pension as on
1.1.1986.
5.1.3 Here, however, it may be noted that the under the method for notional fixation of pay adopted under Fifth CPC, the pension of all pre- 1986 retirees was updated by notional fixation of their pay as on
1.1.1986 (i.e. the date of implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission) and by treating 50% of this pay as notional pension as on 1.1.1986 Thereafter, the past pensioners who were
brought on to the Fourth CPC pay scales by notional fixation of their pay and those who retired on or after 1.1.1986 were treated alike regarding consolidation for their pension as on 1.1.1996 by adding basic pension, dearness relief, interim relief and by allowing the same fitment benefit of 40% of the pre-1996 basic pension. The consolidated pension was stepped up, where necessary, to ensure that the revised pension was not less than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale corresponding to the pay scale from which the pensioner retired before 1.1.1996. This method, however, did not require counting increments in the post held by the pensioners at the time of retirement.
5 1.4 The problem of non-availability of service records arises only when the notional pay fixation is being done based on counting the number of increments in the last post/scale. Since there was no
requirement of counting of increments in the last post, the administrative authorities did not face any difficulty of locating the service records for the purpose of revision of pension in implementation of the
recommendations of the Fifth CPC. In fact, the method for fixation of notional pay adopted on the recommendations of the Fifth CPC is exactly the same method as the Pay Fixation method analyzed by the SCommittee in para 4.11 (4).
5.2 Meetings with pensioners associations in the Standing Committee on Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA) and Staff side of Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM)
5.2.1 The pensioners associations in the SCOVA and the members of the JCM, Staff side were invited for a meeting with the Committee. A meeting with pensioners associations who are members of SCOVA was held on 5.10.2016 and two meetings with the staff side of JCM were held on 6.10.2016 and 17.10.2016 respectively to present their views on the Formulation 1 for revision of pension recommended by the Seventh CPC The views expressed by the members of SCOVA are as follows:
• Karnataka Posts and Telecommunications Pensioners Association, Bengaluru : Determining the number of increments earned in the retiring pay scale would be a very difficult proposition. Fie, therefore, suggested that instead of actual number of increments earned in the retiring pay scale, the total number of stages reached in that pay scale may be taken into consideration for revision of pension under Formulation 1. This suggestion goes beyond the recommendation of the Seventh CPC.
N F Railway Pensioners Association, Guwahati, Assam: The representative of the Association initially indicated that the pension should be revised by increment method as recommended by the Seventh CPC On explaining the difficulties and the anomalies in implementation of the increment method, he agreed that the method of notional pay fixation in each Pay Commission period would be the appropriate method for revision of pension..
• Central Government Pensioners Association, Ambarnath: Different Departments follows different procedures and formats for PPOs and it would be difficult to determine the number of increments for revision of pension under Formulation 1. The representative of the Association suggested that the format of PPOs should be standardized
• Association of Retired Officers of IA &ID, Chandigarh: It would be difficult to revise the pension by increment method and agreed that the pension of pre-2016 pensioners may be revised by notional pay
fixation in each intervening Pay Commission period.
• Government Pensioners Association Dehradun: The date of promotion is not available in the PPO and the pension file and it would not be feasible to revise the pension in accordance with Formulation 1 recommended by the Pay Commission.
• All India Central Govt. Pensioners Association, Jalandhar: The Association favored the notional pay fixation method in comparison to the increments method for revision of pension
• Uttarapara Central Government Pensioners Associations, West Bengal: The Association favored the notional pay fixation method in comparison to the increments method for revision of pension.
• The Disabled War Veterans (India) Gurgaon opined that the increment method of fixation of notional pay for revision of pension can not be implemented.
5.2.2 There was a general agreement among the Associations that in the absence of the service records and keeping in view the human effort required, it would be extremely difficult to determine the
number of increments earned on the last post for calculating the revised pension of pre-2016 pensioners. Most of these Associations preferred the Pay Fixation method over the Increment Method.
5.2.3 The representatives of the JCM (Staff side) mentioned that in their representation to the Seventh Pay Commission, they had suggested revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners by notional Pay
Fixation in each successive Pay Commission period. However, Pay Commission recommended the revision of pension by fixing the notional pay on the basis of increments earned in the last post.
5.2.4 The representatives of the JCM (Staff side) agreed that the increments method recommended by the Pay Commission for fixation of notional pension for revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners may
result in anomalies and that the method of notional pay fixation in each intervening Pay Commission is a much more rational and scientific method and would ensure smooth and faster revision of pension. The
pay fixation method would benefit almost all pre-2016 pensioners.
5.2.5 The JCM (Staff side) mentioned that the Cabinet has approved revision of pension by Formulation 1 (Increment Method), if its implementation is found feasible after examination by the Committee.
They mentioned that in addition to the Service Book/ Personal File, the details of increments earned can be ascertained from the Gradation/ Seniority List issued by the Departments from time to time. Therefore, one cannot say that Formulation 1 recommended by the Pay Commission is not feasible on the grounds of non-availability of records.5 2.6 It may be mentioned here that as per the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure, the Civil List Gradation/Seniority list is required to be retained by the Department for a period of three years. It is, therefore, unlikely that the Gradation list or the Seniority List in respect of the employees who retired long ago would be available in the Departments. Moreover, while the Gradation/Seniority list may contain the date of promotion to the last post before retirement, the pay fixed on the date of such promotion is not available in that list. Therefore, it may
not be possible to accurately determine the number of increments actually earned on the last post before retirement from the Gradation/Seniority List 5.2.7 In regard to the perceived anomalies, the Staff side stated that anomalies arose in implementation of the recommendations of all previous Pay Commissions. Such anomalies can always be rectified through the mechanism of Anomaly Committee.
5.2.8 JCM (Staff side) mentioned that since the increment method recommended by the Seventh CPC has been accepted by the Cabinet subject to its implementation being found feasible by the Committee, a small number of pensioners who are likely to get higher benefit by increments method (mostly retired before 1.1.1996) may feel aggrieved if their pension is not revised by that method. This may lead to litigation
5.2.9 Staff side suggested that both the formulations i.e. Increments Method as well as Pay Fixation Method may be offered to the pre-2016 pensioners along with the 2.57 Fitment Method (already
implemented) and they may be asked to choose one of these formulations for revision of their pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016. This may also reduce the chances of anomalies on account of implementation of the
Increments Method.5.2.10 Minutes of the meetings with the pensioners associations in
the SCOVA and the staff side of the JCM are at Annexure-15 to Annexure -17.
5.3. Meeting with Defence pensioners’ associations and the serving officers of the Services
5.3.1 The members of the Defence pensioners’ associations and the serving officers of the Services were also invited for a meeting with the Committee on 2.12.2016. The views expressed by them are as follows:
Group Capt (Retd) Ashok Seth, Secretary, Airforce Association, N. Delhi agreed that increment method may not be a good formulation and preferred pay fixation method.
Lt Gen (Retd ) Balbir Singh, Lt Gen. (Retd ) V. Chaturvedi and Brig. (Retd.) Kartar Singh of Indian Ex-Service League, New Delhi stated that the increment method is not implementable and would lead to anomalies therefore, the pensioner may be given the choice to get his pension revised under fitment method or actual pay fixation method whichever is more beneficial to him.
• Col. (Retd ) H N Handa, President, Disabled War Veterans ( India), New Delhi stated that increment method is not feasible.
• Brig. J.K. Rao, Dy. Chairman, & APCC, speaking on behalf of the three Services, mentioned that records would be available for working out the number of increments earned in the last post. He however, indicated that there may be difficulties in implementation of increment method and that there would be anomalies. Therefore, the pay fixation method would be preferable. Summing up the position for the defence pensioners he said that revised pension as on 31 December 2015 multiplied by 2.57 or pay fixation method whichever is beneficial should be given to pre2016 defence pensioners He added that in case the increment method is implemented in respect of the Civil pensioners then the benefit of that method may also be extended in the case of Defence pensioners.
5.3.2 There was a general consensus in the meeting held on 2.12.2016 that the increment method recommended by the Seventh CPC for notional pay fixation for revision of pension is not a feasible
option and that the Pay Fixation method is a viable option in this respect. Minutes of the meeting held with the Defence pensioners’ associations and the serving officers of the Services are at Annexure-13.
associations as well as the JCM- Staff side. The Commission stated that there is a distinct transition in the views taken by the successive pay commissions and the Government towards bringing parity between past and present pensioners. The transition started with the Third CPC and was further strengthened by the Fifth CPC recommendation for notional fixation of pay before calculation of pension. The Fifth CPC further introduced the concept of modified parity i.e. the revised pension will not be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scales. This concept of modified parity was also recommended by the Sixth CPC.
( Note: Then Additional Secretary DOP&PW had very cleverly avoided All India level Pensioners Federations & Associations like Bharat Pensioners Samaj, AIFPA Chennai & NFRP Palghat who had pleaded for 100% parity before the 7th CPC and called smaller associations to represent pensioners case before the Committee)
Comments