BPS supplementary memorandum to 7th CPC-With 100% rise in DA/DR the ratio between minimum maximum pension has reached 1: 25.7
No. SG/BPS/Supli. memo/7CPC/2
Dated : 30. 07.2014
Supplementary Memorandum to 7th CPC
Discrimination & Disparities caused by 6th CPC
(With 100% rise in DA/DR the ratio between minimum maximum pension has reached 1: 25.7)
1. Widening of disparity in income & wealth due to Minimum Maximum
Salary Ratio raised to 1:12: The minimum maximum salary ratio which had
come down to 1:8 in 1996(Para 2.2.16 sixth CPC report) which in
conformity with preamble to Constitution should have further gone
down, but was increased to 1:12 by the sixth CPC, overlooking the spirit
of Indian constitutions. As pension is directly proportionate to Salary
widening of minimum maximum salary ratio created vast disparity in
income & wealth of highest & lowest paid . Minimum guaranteed
Pension is 50% of the revised basic salary. As is clear from Para 2.1.12
to 2.1.15 of 6th CPC recommendations, while drawing comparison of Group
A civil service officers’ pay packages with that of Public &
private Sectors, VI th CPC did not accounted for service security ,
powers enjoyed & the latent benefits. This resulted in
recommendation of disproportionate package at highest level, raising
minimum maximum salary ratio to 1:12. Consequestly with 100% rise in
DA/DR the ratio between minimum maximum pension has reached 1:
25.7causing Vast disparity in income & wealth of lowest &
highest paid in civil services (Minimum salary Rs 7000 & Max. Rs
90000 of cab. Secy . Lowest Pension with DR =Rs 7000 & highest
Pension with DR Rs 180000/)
and causing Vast disparity in income & wealth of lowest &
highest paid in civil services (Minimum salary Rs 7000 & Max. Rs
90000 of cab. Secy) . Pensioners at lower levels especially those
corresponding to S4 to S23 pre-revised 5th CPC Scales have been
discriminated against & are the worst hit. We appeal to the
commission to bring back minimum maximum Salary ratio to 1996 level i.e.
1: 8
2. Discrimination in Parity between past and present Pensioners & within pre 2006 group of Pensioners:
In India there already exist complete parity in pension for judges of
Supreme Court, High Courts, Comptroller and audit General of India(Para
137.11 of 5th CPC report) , Cab Secy & Appex Scale of 80000/.
Complete parity has also been conceded for defence forces through OROP
and to great extent to Scales 24 to 32 (pre-revised Vth CPC Scales)
i.e. PB 4, HAG & HAG + who are now nearer full parity through
varied multiplication factor adopted by 6th CPC & minimum
guaranteed pension formula. As their revised Basic pay in pay Band 4,HAG
& HAG+ revised Scales of 6th CPC is much higher (2.44 to 3.37
times) than the pre revised maximum Basic Salary. Varied multiplication
factor has also created inequality within pre2006 Pensioners group.
Definitely remaining Pensioners too belong to the same category of
citizens & cannot be discriminated against.
The V CPC had observed in para 137.13 of their report that “while it
is desirable to grant complete parity to all past pensioners
irrespective of date of retirement, this may not be feasible
straightaway as the financial implications would be considerable. The
process of bridging the gap in pensions of past and present pensioners
has already been set in motion by the IV CPC. This process of attainment
of reasonable parity needs to be continued so as to achieve complete
parity over a period of time”. The recommendation made in para 137.14
of their report had been accepted and implemented by the government.
While the process had to be continued further, this was not continued on
the plea that VI CPC did not recommend the same (though 6th CPC did not
recommend separate Scales for S,31 & 32 &33 but were given)
VIth CPC going against the spirit of constitution & accepted norms
of 5th CPC instead of bridging the widening gap, increased it by
adopting a varying multiplication factor from 1.86 at lower levels i.e
S7to S23(pre-revised 5th CPC scale) to 3.37 (S 31/HAG+Scale) at the
higher level as brought out in the attached table . This resulted in
denial of equal treatment within the homogenous group of pre-1.1.2006
pensioners which needs to be rectified retrospectively, ensuring equal
rise in pension to all, through common multiplication factor.We appeal
to the commission to recommend full parity to all past pensioners. The
country is on the path of registering phenomenal progress, with economy
is looking up & fiscal deficit set to reduce to 3.6 by the time
commissions report is expected to be out. Govt. is considering
pegging-up pension of former MPs by 75%. OROP for defence, improvement
in EPS 95 beneficiaries has been conceded, Parity in pension for Supreme
Court, High Court Judges , CAG, Cab Secy. & apex Scale(S
33pre-revised scale) exist. Pensioners corresponding to PB4 (S24 to
S29), HAG (S 30) & HAG+ (S31-32) Scales are very close to parity.
Thus Pensioners corresponding to other pre revised scales & Pay
Bands should not be discriminated against.
3. Anomaly in assigning Grade pay:
6th CPC vide their Para 11.4 recommended: All the employees
belonging to Groups ‘A’, ‘B’ , ‘C’ & ‘D’to be placed in distinct
running pay bands {means one pay band each for Group C, B & 2 BP for
group ‘A’ (Para 2.2.8 of 6th CPC report). Group D stands merged with
Group C } Every post, barring that of Secretary/equivalent and Cabinet
Secretary/equivalent to have a distinct grade pay attached to it. Grade
pay (being a fixed amount attached to each post in the hierarchy) to
determine the status of a post with (apart from the two apex scales of
Secretary/equivalent and Cabinet Secretary/equivalent that do not carry
any grade pay) a senior post being given higher grade pay. Its very
clear from the above that Grade Pay is indicative of the status of the
post as such it needs to be assigned according to the post from which
the pensioner retired & not according to the scale from which he/she
retired. But In implementation of modified parity injustice has been
done to several sections of pre 2006 pensioners who retired from the
posts held during IV CPC and V CPC period. This happened mainly due to
denial of modified parity as per corresponding Grade Pay of the post.
This has resulted in those who retired from the same posts & same
length of service prior to revision falling behind their counterparts
who retired from service after revision. Some categories of staff
suffered downgrading. To illustrate the point, it is submitted that a
Group ‘B’ Gazetted officer who retired in IV CPC scale on or before
31.12.95 has been equated to a non-gazetted senior supervisor . With
grade pay of Rs.4200 w.e.f., 1.1.2006 indicating his status as Group C
non- Gazetted . This puts a question mark on the very concept of GP
& need rectification retrospectively. We suggest that modified
parity may be implemented as per the post from which the pensioner
retired.
Same fitment formula for absorbed BSNL pensioners
BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) was carved out of DoT and the
employees working in Department of Telecom were enmasse transferred to
BSNL on optional basis. Before formation of BSNL, there were several
rounds of discussion with unions. It was agreed to extend the
retirement benefits on combined service in accordance with CCS Pension
Rules 1972. The Government of India agreed to pay pension/family
pension from ‘Consolidated fund’. Accordingly Rule 37-A was
incorporated in CCS Pension Rules 1972 which was published in Government
Gazette on 30/9/2000.
The employees of DoT were absorbed in BSNL in the year 2002 but with
retrospective effect from 1/10/2000. Their pay scales were also revised
from CDA pattern to IDA pattern retrospectively from 1/10/2000 with
industrial dearness allowance. The employees who retired from BSNL
after 1/10/2000 have rendered their maximum service in Department of
Telecom. Most of them have served in DoT for more than 30 years. Most
of the 6th CPC recommendations like Gratuity, Enhanced Pension,
Age-related additional pension, Minimum/Maximum pension etc. were made
applicable for those BSNL retirees. The Government of India is
honouring its commitment of paying pension from the Consolidated fund.
Infact those who retired from BSNL after 1/10/2000 are actually BSNL
retirees but Government Pensioners.
Their pension was calculated on the basis of last 10 months average
emoluments for those who retired prior to 1/1/2006 and 50% of last pay
drawn or last 10 months average whichever is beneficial for those who
retired after 1/1/2006 as per 6th CPC recommendations and they are
getting industrial dearness allowance every three months. Their pension
was revised w.e.f. 1/1/2007 on the basis of pay revision effected from
1/1/2007 for serving employees in BSNL. The pay revision from 1/1/2007
for BSNL employees was implemented on the basis of recommendations of
Second Pay Revision Committee for Public Sector Employees headed by
Justice Jagannath Rao. But for those who retired from BSNL after
1/1/2006, the recommendations of 6th CPC, like 50% of last pay drawn as
pension, Minimum pension of Rs.3500/- Enhanced family pension for 10
years for those who died in harness etc. were implemented from 1/1/2006
onwards. This duality should be put an end to.
The absorbed employees in BSNL from DoT are covered under CCS Pension
Rules 1972. Explanation under sub-rule 8 of Rule 37-A of CCS Pension
Rules 1972 states “The amount of pension/family pension of the absorbed
employee on retirement or on death from Public Sector undertaking shall
be calculated in the same way as calculated in the case of a Central
Government servant, retiring or dying on the same day”.
The Department of telecom vide its O.M.No.40-13/2002-PEN.(T) dated 15/1/2003 clarified the following doubts:-
Doubt 3 – What will be the emoluments for determining the retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity on IDA pay scales?
Clarification – As per Rule 50 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, the
emoluments for the purpose of Gratuity admissible shall be reckoned in
accordance with Rule 33, provided that if the emoluments of the
Government servant have been reduced during the last 10 months of his
service, otherwise than as a penalty, average emoluments as referred to
in Rule 34 shall be treated as emoluments.
Doubt 4 – Whether the minimum pension of Rs.1275
p.m. as well as maximum pension of Rs.15000 p.m. (i.e., 50% of average
emoluments in all cases) as applicable in the CDA pay scale is also to
be applicable in IDA pay scales?
Clarification – The ceiling minimum and maximum
pension as existing in CCS (Pension) Rules shall continue unless
specifically approved otherwise by the Government.
Doubt 5 – Whether commutation of pension as applicable at 40% (maximum) on CDA pay scale is also to be applicable in IDA pay scales?
Clarification – Yes.
Hence they should be considered as Government Pensioners. 6th Pay
Commission’s recommendations were made applicable to them except the
fitment formula. We request that the fitment formula recommended by 7th
CPC, be made applicable to them also. The only difference may be, it
would be in IDA Pay and IDR instead of CDA Pay and CDR. Sub-rule 10 of
Rule 37-A of CCS Pension Rules 1972 states “In addition to pension or
family pension, as the case may be, the employees who opted for combined
service shall also be eligible to Dearness Relief as per industrial
dearness Allowance pattern”. Further, as per the Apex Court judgement,
Pay and DA/DR should be on IDA pattern only after 1980.
The commission is requested to consider this demand, applying the
same fitment formula to absorbed BSNL pensioners on par with Central
Government Pensioners, without changing the IDA pattern, positively and
recommend to the Government accordingly.
Additional new benefits sought :
1. Children’s educational allowance and hostel subsidy:
These benefits need to be extended mutatis mutandis to children of
retired and deceased employees. The death or retirement of an employee
should not make any difference in the above regard. Many retired
employees have school and college going children because of late
marriages.
2. Festival advance or grant:
Festival advance equivalent to one month’s basic pension/family
pension to be recovered in 12 equal monthly installments will not only
help the pensioner to celebrate at least one festival in a year with
children and grand children giving them gifts etc., on the occasion but
also serve as an interest free advance. Alternatively, they should be
granted a substantial amount every year as festival grant.
3. Secondary Family Pension to dependent unmarried son up to 28 years of age:
This may kindly be considered as recruitment age for certain posts
under central government is presently 28 years. Marriage of a dependent
son should not be a bar for this benefit as marriage does not make any
difference to the financial position unlike in the case of a married
daughter.
4. Secondary family pension to dependent widowed/divorced daughter:
It is now being restricted only to those daughters who become
divorced or widowed during the life time of deceased
employee/pensioner/family pensioner. This restriction is contrary to
the very purpose for and the spirit with which this benefit was
conceived. The idea is that an unmarried/widowed daughter should not be
left in the lurch and exposed to undue financial hardship after the
death of the parents with no other support. The commission are
therefore requested to remove the above restriction.
5. Secondary family pension to dependent widowed daughter-in-law:
The responsibility of widowed daughter-in -law and her minor children
devolves on the pensioner/family pensioner after son’s death. It is a
cause of great anxiety and worry for the pensioner/family pensioner
having dependent widowed daughter-in-law. Though dependent widowed
daughters of pensioners/family pensioners are extended the above
benefit, in many cases they don’t have parents drawing pension/family
pension. Even otherwise, the primary reasonability of looking after
them is that of the father-in-law as he cannot leave them to their fate
after the death of the son. As such the above benefit will go a long
way in helping such hapless widows and their minor children. Such cases
will be very few and do not entail much financial burden to the
exchequer. This issue has earlier been raised in the SCOVA. Matter
needs to be considered from a humanitarian angle in the context of
Indian family system.
6. Physically handicapped allowance:
This is granted to PH employees while in service. This needs to be continued even after their retirement also.
7. Financial assistance to pensioners:
Pensioners irrespective of age have to be provided with bank loans at
concessional rates of interest to meet expenditure on children’s higher
education, marriages of daughters and construction/purchase of dwelling
units.
8. Running of old age homes: All Central
government departments should run old age homes for their retired
employees with attached medical facilities. Railways should run such
homes for their retired employees.
9. Transport Allowance:
The phenomenal increase in the cost of transport needs no proof.
Pensioners perforce have to spend considerable amounts towards
transport. They have to attend to their day to day needs either
themselves or by engaging someone for the purpose in view of the nuclear
family system. The traffic not only in big cities and towns but also
in smaller places has been growing by leaps and bounds. It is difficult
for pensioners to venture out alone and they need a companion to go to
hospitals and dispensaries or to attend social functions. As such,
transport allowance in one form or another has to be granted to
pensioners. The Commission are requested to consider the demand
sympathetically’.
Source: http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2014/07/bps-supplementary-memorandum-to-7th-cpc.html
