CAT Order Archives - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS

Grand of Increment who retired on 30th June and 31st December Court Order

admin — Sat, 07 Aug 2021 10:38:00 +0000

Grand of Increment who retired on 30th June and 31st December.

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No. 776/2019
M.A. No. 1151/2021
With
O.A. No. 82/2021
O.A. No. 173/2021 & M.A. No. 202/2021
O.A. No. 183/2021
O.A. No. 184/2021
O.A. No. 673/2021
O.A. No. 692/2021
O.A. No. 704/2021 & M.A. No. 907/2021
O.A. No. 761/2021
M.A. No. 871/2021 & O.A. No. 1360/2020
M.A. No. 1152/2021 & O.A. No. 3624/2019
O.A. No. 1141/2020
O.A. No. 1402/2020
O.A. No. 1500/2020
O.A. No. 1501/2020
O.A. No. 1511/2020
O.A. No. 1512/2020
O.A. No. 1514/2020
O.A. No. 2197/2020
O.A. No. 2200/2020
O.A. No. 778/2019 & M.A. No. 1153/2021
O.A. No. 1592/2019
O.A. No. 1616/2019 & M.A. No. 343/2021
O.A. No. 2244/2019 & M.A. No. 2422/2019

This the 15th Day of July, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)

Hon’ble Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)

Item No. 31

O R D E R (Oral)

Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

In this batch of OAs, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether an employee, who retired on 30th June of a year or 31st December of a preceding year, is entitled to be extended the benefit of increment that falls due on 1st July or 1st January of the next year, as the case may be. While the applicants in some of the cases have retired on 30th June, others retired on 31st December. They were denied the benefit of increment, which was otherwise due to them, only on the ground that by the time the increment became due, they were not in service.

The applicants contend there was absolutely no basis for the respondents in denying the benefit to them. Reliance is placed upon many orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the different Hon’ble High Courts. It is also stated that the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts were affirmed in some of the SLPs. Particulars thereof are also furnished.
The respondents filed the counter affidavits in respective OAs. Their stand is that with the retirement, the relationship of the employee with the Government ceases and once he is out of service, the Fundamental Rules do not permit extension of any benefit.
We heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, Mr. Mohid Tygagi, Mr. Setu Niket, Dr. Swati Jinidal Garg, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Versha Agarwal, Mr. Anmol Pandita, Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Mr. MS Reen, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Mr. MK Bhardwaj, Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. VSR Krishna, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Mr. Kapil Agnihotri, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Sanjeev Yadava, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. C. Bheemanama, Mr. R.K. Jain, Mr. Ritu Singh, Mr. RS Rana, Mr. RK jain, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. GS Virk, Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Mr. UN Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. KK Sharma, Mr. Rajeev Kr., learned counsel for the respondents.
The issue as mentioned above, fell for consideration in a large number of cases. The Benches of this Tribunal as well as the different Hon’ble High Courts have taken the view that the increment becomes payable on account of the satisfactory service rendered by the employee for the preceding six months, and the mere fact that he retired one day earlier, should not be factored to deny him the benefit. It is also a matter of record that some SLPs filed against the detailed orders passed by the Hon’ble High Courts were dismissed.
It is true that in Union of India Vs. M. Siddaraj (SLP No. 4722/2021), the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order recently on 05.04.2021, directing that the pension shall be granted to the respondents therein on the basis of the last pay drawn as on 30th June, 2014. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that they verified the record and found that the respondents in the said SLP were already extended the benefit of increment, at the last day of their service.
Be that as it may, once the various benches of the Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the increment, which became due on 1st July or 1st January as the case may be, needs to be released for the employees, who retired one day earlier thereto, the applicants herein cannot be denied such benefit.
To protect the interests of the respondents, we direct that in case any different view is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 4722/2021, the applicants shall be under obligation to refund the benefit that is extended to them. In the corresponding orders, a clause can be incorporated to that effect.
We make it clear that extension of benefit of increment shall be subject to their fulfilling other conditions under the relevant service rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the OAs are allowed, directing that:

(a) for such of the employees, who retired on 30th June of any particular year, increment payable on 1st July shall be extended. Their pensions shall also be revised, subject to their fulfilling other conditions which are applicable. The arrears that become due shall be paid without interest;
(b) Similarly for employees, who retired on 31st December of a particular year, the increment payable on the 1st January of the next year shall be extended and pension revised, subject to same conditions in the same manner.
(c) While extending such benefits, a clause shall be incorporated to the effect that in case the Hon’ble Supreme takes a different view in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No. 4722/2021, they shall be under obligation to refund the entire benefit without any demur.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending MAs shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(A K Bishnoi )
Member (A)
(Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Chairman

The post Grand of Increment who retired on 30th June and 31st December Court Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Contempt of Court – Date of birth on completion of the age of retirement on superannuation

admin — Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:41:40 +0000

BHARAT PENSIONERS’ SAMAJ
(All India Federation of Pensioners’ Associations)
(Registered No. 2023of1962-63), Recognised by GOI-OOP&PW Associate NGO International Federation on Ageing.

PREMATURE RETIREMENT

BY Speed Post.

No SG/BPS/notional/ 2020/5

Date: 16.10.2020

To
Dr. C. Chandramouli,
IAS

Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block,
New Delhi – 110001

Subject: Contempt of Court.

Sir,

Since the year 1922 onwards FR 56 read with Article 14 of Civil Service Regulations provided that the date of retirement had to be the relevant date of birth on completion of the age of retirement on superannuation. In other words the date of (i) attaining the age of superannuation, (ii) retirement and (iii) commencement of pension used to be the same. This was the Rule governing retirement on superannuation prior to 3rd CPC.

Check: Premature retirement of central government employees before the date of superannuation

2 a) Subsequently 3rd CPC recommendation was accepted by the Government of India Based on the accepted recommendation, the then Department ofAdministrative Reforms (now DOPT),issued orders on the 24th November, 1973 laying down that the Government servants shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which their date of retirement fell.

2 b) Clarificatory OM dated 29th June, 1974 was issued without the approval of the concerned State Minister, that all those born on the 1st would retire in the afternoon of the last day of the previous month.Accordingly FR56(a) created.

3. Consequently, those born on the 1st Jan, 1928/1938/1946/1956, were deprived of the benefits of the 4th/ 5th/6th/7th CPC respectively. However, those who could knock the door of the court got favorable judgements.Annexure2 gives the details of court cases with positive outcome.

Latest in the series is the case of Union Of India vs M L. Punshi & Am; IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI in WP (C) No. 288512000 on the 191hJuly, 2010. In this case the court did not agree with the contention of the Union of India and observed ” In short, we are of the view that in the present cases the effective date of retirement would be 01.04.1995 and not 31.03.1995.” SLP filed by the Government against order of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Also check: MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY – MACP Supreme Court Order – Heard & Reserved – Order dated 23 Jan 2020

4. In the case of lnder Pal Yadav Vs Union of lndia [ l985(2) SCC 648), in SLP-IA No. 77457/2017 dated 01.09.2017, in the Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2016 UOI Vs Balbir Singh Tur & Anr dated 08.12.2017 and UOI VS Prithvi singh dated 24.4.2018 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ” We find that there are several matters in which the aggrieved employees have been going to the Tribunal, then to the High Court and thereafter those matters are brought before this Court. Once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a circular so that people need not unnecessarily travel either to the Tribunal or the High Court or this Court and it will save the time of the Court and the Administrative Departments apart from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure”.

Also check: Retirement guide for a central government employees

5. The DOPT, has not so far honoured the supreme court pronouncement referred to above , consequently it has rendered itself liable to be taken-up for contempt of the court, as well as for putting lot of retirees(Sr Citizens) to financial loss. DOPT, contrary to the observation of the Supreme Court is forcing Pensioners who are in the evening of their lives to knock the doors of CAT, High court/Supreme court. Presently quite a number of cases filed by pensioners born on the 1st January,/ 30th of June are pending in the courts.

6. Kindly look into and ensure that the pronouncement of the Supreme court as brought out in foregoing line is implemented in letter & spirit so that that thousands of aggrieved who do not have means to approach the courts are not deprived of their legitimate dues.

Also check: Important Supreme court Judgement – MACP should be given effect from 01.01.2016

7. A detailed background note is annexed.

With regards
Yours truly,

DA/2.Annexures

S. C Maheshwari
Secy Genl. Bharat Pensioners Samaj
Mobile No 9868488199
Email id: bharatpensioner @gmail.com

The post Contempt of Court – Date of birth on completion of the age of retirement on superannuation appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No recovery of excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year

admin — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:34:26 +0000

DEPARTMENT CAN NOT MAKE RECOVERY AFTER RETIREMENT – JABALPUR CAT ORDER

“Hon’ble Supreme Court in that order, no recovery of excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Since recovery of excess salary has been done after retirement of applicant, such recovery is not in accordance with law.”

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH

JABALPUR
Original Application No. 694 of 2013
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2015

SHRI G. P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

O R D E R

The applicant has preferred this Original Application for the following reliefs:

“8(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal;

8(ii) Upon holding that reducing the basic pay of the applicant as Rs.19960/- is bad in law, command the respondents to calculate all retiral dues and pension of the applicant on the basis of the last basic of Rs. 20,410/-

8(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pension, DCRG, leave encashment, commuted value of pension and pay arrears of the aforesaid amount with 18% interest p.a.;

8(iv) Direct the respondent to repay the amount of DCRG of Rs.43,790/- to the applicant with 18% interest;

8(v) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.

8(vi) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant.

8(vii) Set aside the order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure A/1), order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A/2) and order dated 4.4.2012 (Annexure R/7) with all consequential benefits.”

2. The learned counsel for applicant submitted that at the time of retirement, applicant was holding the post of Deputy Post Master, Khandwa Head Office in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and his basic pay was Rs.20,410/-. However, while paying him retiral dues, the basic pay has been reduced from 20,410/- to 19,960/-. Further, Rs.43,790/- has been deducted from his DCRG, without assigning any reason. The applicant was inducted in the cadre of HSG (II) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and posted as Deputy Post Master at Itarsi Head Office. Thereafter, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, the applicant was sent on deputation to work as Sub Post Master, Harda in the cadre of HSG (I) and he was given the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. Appointment of applicant in the cadre of HSG (I) was approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and orders were issued on 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Thus, there is no justification for reduction of pay of the applicant for retiral benefits and deduction of Rs.43,790/- from DCRG.

3. The respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005, Before that, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, he was posted on HSG (I) grade post of Sub Post Master, Harda Head Post Office by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad. Since the applicant was working at that time with the office of Sr. Superintendent Post Offices, Hoshangabad, there was no ground for posting him on deputation basis in one of its offices. Thus, applicant was not entitled to the pay of HSG (I) grade on this posting at Harda as he was still in HSG (II) grade. In any case, applicant was promoted to HSG (II) grade on 29.10.2004 and had qualifying service of only two months as on 1.1.2005 in that grade, he could not have been promoted to HSG (I) grade so early as the qualifying service of three years was required for such promotion. Therefore, when his pension case was prepared, there was objection in regard to his pay fixation on 17.1.2005 in HSG (I) grade when he joined at Harda in compliance of order dated 12.1.2005 of SSPO Hoshangabad. Therefore, applicant’s pay was accordingly refixed and he was grated HSG(I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005 when he was actually promoted to that grade. Thus, due to correction of his pay fixation w.e.f 17.1.2005, his basic pay at the time of retirement was changed and applicant has been paid retiral benefits accordingly. Further, excess salary paid to him during this period has been recovered from the DCRG. Thus, the OA, being without any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and documents annexed therewith. I have also gone throught the writtern arguments filled by learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is undisputed that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Before that, he claims to be posted on deputation basis on a post of HSG (I) grade. However, the order dated 12.1.2005 (Annexure R-1) by which he was posted as Sub Post Master, Harda was issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad and since the applicant was already working in his jurisdiction, this posting could not be considered as on deputation. In-fact, this is simply a posting order on vacant post of Sub Post Master, Harda on which the applicant was posted on his own cost for which he may have requested at that time. Thus, applicant was not entitled to get the pay scale of HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 17.1.2005 on the basis of order dated 12.01.2005 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, respondents are not at fault in re-fixing his pay, by treating him promoted to HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005. In view of this correction, basic pay of applicant has been revised and applicant has been paid all the retiral benefits based on this pay. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted in granting retiral benefits to the applicant based on his revised basic pay of Rs.19,960/- in place of Rs.20,410/-, and no interference with the orders of respondents in this matter, is justified, Therefore, the prayer of the applicant in this regard is rejected.

6. So far as deduction of Rs.43,790/- from the DCRG of the applicant is concerned, this amount has been deducted without issuance of any show-cause notice to the applicant. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab and others etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that order, no recovery of excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Since recovery of excess salary has been done after retirement of applicant, such recovery is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents are directed to refund Rs.43,790/- deducted from DCRG of the applicant, within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. However, no interest shall be payable on that amount.

7. Thus, the O.A is partly allowed. No order on costs.

Sd/-

(G. P. Singhal)

Administrative Member

Source: http://nfpe.blogspot.in/2015/10/department-can-not-make-recovery-after.html

The post No recovery of excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

MACP on Promotional Hierarchy: Latest judgement by Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh

admin — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:09:01 +0000

MACP on Promotional Hierarchy: Latest judgement by Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh

Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh while disposing the OA No. 1405/CH/2013 & OA No. 1676/HR/2013 has ordered that whatever decision is taken in the pending Writ Petition/SLP in Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Supre Court, Both Parties would be abide by the same, whatever decision comes first, out of both cases.

COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IS PLACED BELOW

Message by Convener, Steering Committee:-

We invite all the parties, filed cases in various courts and all the Unions/Association, who are suffering from the anomalous MACP to join us in the legal fight on grant of MACP on Promotional Hierarchy. The next date of hearing of SLP at Supreme Court is 16/12/2014. Please hurry! Join the extended meeting of the Steering Committee at New Delhi on 15/11/2014.

-TKR Pillai, Convener
Steering Committee
Mob No. 9425372172
e-mail: aiams08@gmail.com

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH

Date of decision -29.10.2014

CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)

O.A No. 1405/CH/2013

1. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh aged 56 years, Executive Engineer, Chandigarh Central Division No. 2, Central Public Works Department, Chandigarh.
2. Satya Pal Singh Saharan S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical) Issar Project Electrical Division, Central Public Works Department, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. V.K. Sharma

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi through its Director General.

RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal.

O.A No. 1676/HR/2013

1. Sh. Paramjit Saini, S/o Sh. Dev Raj Saini, Resident of 15/2-C, Rail Vihar, Sector 4, M.D.C. Panchkula.
2. Sh. Joginder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Rulia Ram, working as EE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.
3. Sh. Darshan Singh Shaheed, S/o Sh. Bishan Singh, working as AE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.
4. Sh. Santokh Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Singh, working as AE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.
5. Sh. Jagjit Singh, S/o Sh. Saudagar Singh, working as AE in the office of Jalandhar Central Circle CPWD, Jalandhar.
6. Sh.Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Madan Lal working as AE in the office of Amritsar Central Division CPWD, Amritsar.
7. Sh. Pritam Singh, S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, Resident of 649, Rishi Nagar, Near Shankar Garden Jalandhar.
8. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Wadhwa, S/o Sh. Arjun Dev Wadhwa, Resident of 341, Sector 25, Panchkula.
9. Sh. Pancham Chander, S/o Sh. Dhani Ram, age 60 years, R/o House No. 1771, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.
10. Sh. Satish Chander, S/o Sh. Churangi Lal, working as AE in the office of CEN2I, CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Chandigarh.
11. Sh. Jai Dev, S/o Sh. Vidya Ram Lal, working as AE in the office of Chandigarh Central Division, CPWD, Sector -7/B, Chandigarh.
12. Sh. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Verinder Nath R/o Flat No. 410 Arwveli, GHS-36, Sector 20, Panchkula.
13. Sh. Madhav Surup, S/o Sh. Sujraj Parkash, R/o House No. 241, Vivaka Nand Park, Maqsadan, Jallandhar, Pin 144008.
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.B.Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the applicants.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal.

ORDER (ORAL)

HON’BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-

Both the cases involve identical facts and points of law and as such these have been taken up for final disposal by a common order. For the facility of convenience, facts have been taken from O.A. No. 1405/CH/2013 titled Jaswant Singh & Anr. Vs. U.O.I etc. This O.A has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(a) Declare the provision of para 1 of the letter dated 19.05.2009 and para 2 of the Scheme to the effect that MACP is to be granted in next higher grade pay instead of pay band as redundant in view of the law laid by this Hon’ble Tribunal and as upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Pal Vs. Union of India and which has since been implemented by the concerned Department.

(b) Quash the action of respondents in not fixing pay of the applicants, while granting 3rd Financial upgradation under MACP, in the promotional pay band + grade of Superintending Engineer i.e. Rs. 37400-67000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- and instead fixing their pay only in next grade pay of Rs. 7600/- in the Pay Band of Executive Engineer is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory harsh, void at initio and violative of provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in eyes of law more so in view of decision taken in Raj Pal’s (supra).

(c) Issue direction to the respondents to fix the pay of applicants on grant of 3rd Financial upgradation in PB of Rs. 37400-67000 + Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- i.e. of higher post of Superintending Engineer from due date with all the consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances with interest thereon @ 12 % from the date of actual payment and cost of the present petition.

(d) Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicants are held entitled to may also kindly be issued in their favour.

2.            On the commencement of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a similar controversy with regard to the grant to MACP, as raised in the instant O.A. has already been put to rest by this Tribunal in the case of Raj Pal Vs. Union of India and Ors. as upheld by the jurisdictional High Court. Subsequently, in case of Babu Ram and Others Vs. U.O.I & Ors and in case of Tilak Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. decided on 19.12.2013., this Tribunal had allowed the O.As on the basis of the decision rendered in case of Raj Pal (supra) but both these cases are pending for final adjudication before the higher courts. The former case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10435/2014 wherein impugned judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 24279/2013, has been stayed and the latter case is pending before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. He submitted the present O.A may be disposed of in the terms that whatever, decision is taken in the pending Writ Petition and SLP in above cases, both the parties would abide by the same.
3.            Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents did not object to the disposal of the present O.A in the requested manner.
4.            Considering the consensual agreement arrived between the parties and the aforementioned position that similar issue is pending before the highest Court, at this stage, we dispose of the present O.A with an understanding as reached between the parties that whatever decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/ Hon’ble High Court in pending petitions, the parties would be abide by the same, whatever decision comes first, out of both cases.
5.            With the observations and directions as above, these O.As stand disposed of with no orders as to costs.

(SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (J)

(RAJWANT SANDHU)

MEMBER (A)
Dated: 29.10.2014

Source: http://aiamshq.blogspot.in/2014/11/macp-on-promotional-hierarchy-cat.html

The post MACP on Promotional Hierarchy: Latest judgement by Hon’ble CAT Chandigarh appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

CAT suspends promotion of 148 Income Tax inspectors

admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:50:44 +0000

Central Administrative Tribunal suspends promotion of 148 Income Tax inspectors
TNN | Jun 13, 2014

HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) comprising B Venkateshwar Rao, (member judicial) and Minnie Mathew (member administration) on Thursday suspended the promotions given to 148 income tax inspectors by the IT chief commissioner of AP, Hyderabad.

The bench was dealing with a petition by office superintendents and senior tax assistants of the department challenging the action of the chief commissioner in superseding an earlier order of the Centre.

Dr K Lakshmi Narasimha, counsel for the petitioners, said as per the order of the Centre all the posts of office superintendents, senior tax assistants, and stenographers were merged in a single cadre called executive assistants and promotions had to be effected by taking staff from this new category. He alleged that the chief income tax commissioner ignored the rule and effected the promotions.

The bench noted that the petition was filed on June 2 and the IT authorities sought several adjournments and, during the pendency of the petition, the commissioner convened the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting and gave promotions.
Source: The Times of India

The post CAT suspends promotion of 148 Income Tax inspectors appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

MACP on Hierarchy: Supreme Court dismissed the Govt. petitions against HC Decision

admin — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:28:45 +0000

MACP on Hierarchy: Supreme Court dismissed the Govt. petitions against HC Decision

Dear Comrade,
The Principal CAT [OA 904/2012 dt. 26-11-2012], Delhi and the Punjab & Haryana High Court [CWP No. 19387 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.10.2011] have held that MACP is to be granted on promotional hierarchy and not on next higher Grade Pay as per the 6th Pay Commission Recommendation. The SLP filed by Union of India against the P&H decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court [CC 7467/2013].

Yours Comradely,
Manoj Kumar Sharma
Secretary General
Ministerial Staff Association
C/o-Northern Printing Group
Survey of India
Dehradun:- 248001

For more details, click here…

The post MACP on Hierarchy: Supreme Court dismissed the Govt. petitions against HC Decision appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Temporary Employees joined before Jan, 2004 and regularised in NPS will eligible for Pension & GPF: CAT

admin — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:38:53 +0000

Temporary Employees joined before Jan, 2004 and regularised in NPS will eligible for Pension & GPF: CAT

Central Administrative Tribunal relief on pension for 16 Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research employees

Chennai: The Madras bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam, to provide GPF and other benefits under Central civil service (pension) rules 1972 to 16 employees absorbed as temporary workers in 1999.

In a petition, K. Punniyakoti of Kalpakkam and 15 others prayed for a direction to the Central government and IGCAR to extend to them the benefit of pension under the old government pension scheme.

The petitioners contended that they were granted temporary status in 1999. On September 9, 2008, they were appointed as casual labourers in the grade of ‘helper A’.

As per the order, 50 per cent of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for retirement benefits.

After rendering three years of continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on a par with group D employees for the purpose of contribution to general provident fund.

They were appointed in temporary category and subsequently regularised between May 2005 and November 2005.

Meanwhile, the government introduced the new pension scheme in April 2004 and the employees who joined service after January 1, 2004 were to be be covered under the new scheme.

In its reply, IGCAR argued that the employees who joined service after January 1, 2004 would be governed by the new pension scheme.

Employees who joined service prior to January 1, 2004 were governed by the general provident fund/contributory provident fund as per the Central civil service (pension) rules 1972.

The judicial member of the bench, B. Venkateswara Rao directed IGCAR to apply provisions of the Central civil service (pension) rules 1972 in respect of the employees and extend benefit under GPF rules. The bench also directed IGCAR to deduct monthly subscription regularly without interruption. The order is to be complied with within two months.

Source: http://www.deccanchronicle.com

The post Temporary Employees joined before Jan, 2004 and regularised in NPS will eligible for Pension & GPF: CAT appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Pension Arrears from 01 Jan 2006 as per Court Order: Govt reply in Parliament

admin — Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:43:19 +0000

Pension Arrears from 01 Jan 2006 as per Court Order: Govt reply in Parliament

The orders for implementation of the decision taken by the Government on the recommendations of 6th CPC for revision for pension of past pensioners were issued vide this Department’s OM No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008. The provisions of Para 4.2 of this OM were clarified vide this Department’s letter dated 3.10.2008.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its order dated 1.11.2011 observed that by the OM dated 3.10.2008 the original orders of 1.9.2008 have been modified. Hon’ble CAT directed that the past pensioners may be granted, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, a minimum pension @ 50% of the minimum pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of serving employees.

A Writ Petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi challenging the above mentioned order. In its order dated 29.4.2013, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld the order dated 1.11.2011. After considering the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and various representations received in this regard, Special Leave Petition was filed by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

This SLP came up for hearing recently on 29.7.2013 before the Hon. Supreme Court and has been dismissed.

The above information submitted by Min of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions in reply of undermentioned Lok Sabha Question:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 670

ANSWERED ON 07.08.2013

DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ARREARS TO PENSIONERS

670 . Shri VILAS BABURAO MUTTEMWAR

Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-

(a) the reasons for inordinate delay in implementation of Hon`ble High Court`s order to give effect to the payment of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to pensioners retired before 2006;

(b) whether the Government have received representations from employees organizations and other bodies in this regard; and

ANSWER

Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office. (SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY)

(a) to (c): *** see above ***

Source: Lok Sabha Q&A

The post Pension Arrears from 01 Jan 2006 as per Court Order: Govt reply in Parliament appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Grant Pension to Ex-employee (Retired Army Personnel): CAT to Delhi Government.

admin — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:15:34 +0000

Grant Pension to Ex-employee (Retired Army Personnel): CAT to Delhi Government.

New Delhi: Observing that the aim of pension is to provide social security to government servants, the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Delhi government to grant pension to one of its former employees who was denied the benefit on the ground that he had resigned before completing 20 years in service.

“The object of pension rules itself is to provide social security to government servants, by way of pension, but not to deny the same even to a dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired government servant,” CAT member Ajay Kumar said.

The tribunal made the observations while deciding in favour of petitioner Amar Singh, a retired army personnel who had challenged the Delhi government’s order rejecting his requests for pension.

After serving in the Army Medical Corps as Naik, Singh retired on March 24, 1986. On March 22, 1988 he joined as a laboratory technician in Aruna Asif Ali hospital against a vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman. After serving there for 18 years 4 months and 9 days, he resigned on July 1, 2006, stating he intends to dedicate himself fully in the spiritual service of the society.

He had submitted that his repeated requests for pension and gratuity were denied by the hospital which said he had not completed the required service of 20 years to qualify for the benefits.

Later, the authorities concerned told him that his case was referred to the Finance (Accounts) Department of Delhi government which had clarified that he is not entitled to any post-retirement benefit as he had resigned from his post unconditionally and not to take up employment in another government entity.

The government also relied upon a pension rule to say that its object was to provide benefit of past service to those who take up another employment under the government after resigning to the earlier service or post even before completing the qualifying service.

Source: Zee News

The post Grant Pension to Ex-employee (Retired Army Personnel): CAT to Delhi Government. appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.