Vidya Sagar Arora Anomalies in Pension for Pre 2006 Pensioners: Recommendations 7th CPC for pensioners:
Reward for Inefficiency
I am of 1966 batch of IDSE and joined MES through UPSC Exam of 1966 and had served for 35 yrs 11 months and 9 days and out of which 15 yrs service is in JAG and above grade. I was promoted as SE(JAG Scale) on 29 Jun 1989, ACE on 27 Feb 1997. I had retired as ACE (DIG Scale ) on 31 Mar 2004.Later on through courts order, I got promotion to CE(SAG) in Jul 2014 retrospectively wef 19 Dec 2000. When I retired on 31 Mar 2004, I was drawing Rs20000/ which was top of DIG Scale. Now, following would be my pension payable as per 7 CPC recommendations.
A) Had I Retired as ACE (level 13 A); I would have got 7 increments and based on 7cpc recommendation my pension would be 50% of Rs1, 61,300/ = 80,650/ as per table 5 on page 93 of report.
B) Now, I having got the promotion to CE and having accepted it, I would get 3 increments in CE’s( Level 14 ) scale, my pension would be 50% of Rs1,57,600/= 78800/ which is less than A above.
C) Had I retired as SE without further promotion, I would have got 14 increments in level 13 and my pension would have been 50% of Rs1, 79,300= 89,650. This is much more than A & B above.
This anomaly has come because promotions in most of the departments do not take place immediately after min.
residual service due to skewed cadre structure with proportionately very low strength at higher level as compared to elite services like IAS/IPS. Individuals who have been promoted at fag end of their career are bound to get lower pension than those who were junior but were not promoted if present recommendations of 7th CPC are accepted. In Maj Gen SPS vains case it has been held by Supreme Court that pension of Maj Gen cannot be lower than that of brigadier. Thus a principle has been laid down by the highest court that a person retired in higher grade shall be given higher pension than those retired in lower grade. This principle has been reiterated by Patna High court on 15.05.15 in civil writ petition10757 of 2010 in S30 case. Earlier this was also reiterated by principal bench of CAT on 20.11.14 in OA937/2010 again in S30 case.
The Commission recommends a revised pension formulation for civil employees including CAPF personnel as well as for Defence personnel, who have retired before 01.01.2016. This formulation will bring about parity between past pensioners and current retirees for the same length of service in the pay scale at the time of retirement.
Problem due to lack of vacancies at higher level was partly solved by 6th CPC that recommended non-functional up gradation in all Group A services with two years gap at par with all India services. Thus had I not retired as CE before 2006,I would have got scale of HAG, ,which my juniors got. Under the modified parity my pension after 6th CPC should have been fixed at 33500 which would have been revised to Rs 91,100 after acceptance of recommendation of 7th CPC.
I suggest that to mitigate above anomalies, the recommendation of the commission need to be modified by government while accepting the report;-
a)Pensioners retired in pay band 4 I e 37400-67000 should be allowed number of increments earned by them after having entered this pay band while fixing their nominal pay for fixing their revised pension.
b) If any pensioner (say X) junior to one (say Y who retired before 2006) has retired post 2006 after getting NF up gradation, then Y should also be allowed benefit of up gradation while fixing his nominal pay for revising pension.
Pension in that case would be 50% of Rs 182200 (from level 15)= Rs 91100.