19/1/2023 Pers Policy [Pay (Promotion)]

1/3026765/2023
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training

North Block, New Delhi
Dated June, 2023

To
Shri Ramsahay Vijay
Email: rsvijayvargia [at] gmail.com

Subject: Grant of notional increment to Govt servants superannuated on 30th June or 31st December -reg

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your email dated 06.06.2023 in the matter involving grant of notional increment to the Central Government employees who superannuated on 30th June or 31st December in light of the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 in the case of KPTCL v/s C.P. Mundinmanian and dismissal of SLP No.4722/2021 filed by UOI in order dated 19.05.2023.

2. In this regard it is informed that action in light of the Order dated 11.04.2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No. 2471 of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 6185/2020) – Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. and dismissal of SLP No. 4722/2021 filed by Union of India vide order dated 19.05.2023 in the matter relating to grant of notional increment to the Government Servants who superannuated on 30th June or 31st December is presently under examination in consultation with D/o Expenditure. Further action, as may be required in this regard, will be taken on completion of the consultation process.

3. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.

Yours faithfully

(Shukdeo Sah)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

The post Grant of notional increment to the Central Government employees who superannuated on 30th June or 31st December DoPT appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No.11013/D/10/2015-Pol./436
(Comp. No. 3130799)
Government of India
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
Directorate of Estates
(Policy Division)

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Dated, the 20th October, 2021

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Withdrawal of the Scheme dated 28.03.2017 for providing alternate accommodation in Delhi to retired Central Govt. employees belonging to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

The undersigned is directed to say that in compliance of the directions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s Order dated 01.06.2012 in the case of UO! & Ors Vs. Vijay Mam in LPA No.332/2011, this Directorate had formulated a Policy for Kashmiri Migrant Scheme vide its OM. No.11013/D/10/2015-Pol.! dated 28.03.2017 for providing alternate residence to retired Government employees, belonging to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who were possessing General Poo! Residential Accommodation in Delhi.

2. Recently, while deciding the Civil Appeal No.6619/2014 in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Omkar Nath Dhar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, vide its Judgement dated 07.10.2021 held that “the Office Memorandum issued on 28.03.2017 was in terms of the directions of the High Court of Delhi. Such order of High Court has not been approved by this Court vide its Order dated 05.08.2021. Therefore, the entire basis of issuance of Office Memorandum falls flat as the very foundation of such Scheme stands knocked down.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the said OM as being totally arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. In compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 07.10.2021, the Kashmiri Migrant Scheme issued vide OM dated 28.03.2017, 19.05.2017 and 10.11.2017. stands withdrawn with immediate effect. The allottees (Kashmiri Migrants) who are in occupation of GPRA after retirement are granted time to vacate the premises (GPRA) by 30th November, 2021.

Sd/-
(M C Sonowal)
Deputy Director of Estates(Policy)

The post Withdrawal of the Kashmiri Migrant Scheme for providing alternate accommodation in Delhi to retired Central Govt employees belonging to the State of Jammu & Kashmir appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

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.

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. We make it clear that extension of benefit of increment shall be subject to their fulfilling other conditions under the relevant service rules.
10. 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.

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.

PIL Filed for Central Government Employees Freezing DA in Supreme Court

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI.

PIL DATED 24th APRIL 2020 via Email regarding payment of DA or PIL DATED 24th APRIL 2020 via email regarding payment of DA or Dearness allowance with effect from 1st January 2020 atleast to veterans and to all employees if possible

Major Onkar Singh Guleria Retired, a Senior Citizen and CANCER PATIENT, aged 69 years, son of Late Shri Kikar Singh Guleria resident of village Jachh PO Jassur Tehsil Nurpur Distt Kangra Himachal Pradesh 176201.

VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary Finance Govt of India New Delhi 110011.
2. Union of India through Secretary Home Govt of India New Delhi 110011.

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALL HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TO DIRECT UNION OF INDIA TO PRACTICE WHAT PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA PREACHES TO 130 CRORES DESHWASI AND DEFREEZE DA or dearness allownce by paying with effect from 01st January 2020 to Veterans atleast if not to employees.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH,

1. That the applicant a CANCER PATIENT, disabled of right foot and also suffering from hypertension and a Senior Citizen with no home but living in a rented building in my last span of life and also to take care of wife a senior citizen suffering from various ailments and my only source of income is my monthly military pension of the rank of Major that too on reduced scale. I and lakhs of Veterans are aggrieved by arbitrary act of Union of India through Secretary Finance Govt of India New Delhi who were committed to pay arrears of DA or dearness allowance in first week of April 2020 but purposely not payed and on 20th April 2020 has FREEZED “DA or dearness allowance” retrospectively with effect from 01st January 2020 to cause us Veterans an irreparable loss that too at a time when Pandemic of COVID 19 VIRUS (China Originated Virus in December 19) has been commiting genocide in entire world and we to survive honourably need every paisa due to us from Govt of India. I attache arbitrary orders of freezing of DA or dearness Allowances dated 20th April 2020 of Secretary Finance Govt of India as ready referance for the Hon’ble Court.

2. That DA or dearness allowance can be basically understood as a component of salary, aimed at hedging the impact of inflation. The DA or dearness allowance is calculated as a specific percentage of the basic salary which is then added to the basic salary. PENSION received by a retired individual is considered as salary and taxed as, income from salary. Generally whatever is received from the employer in cash including DA or dearness allowance is treated as salary.

3. That the Union of India itself after studying the impact of inflation had announced increased instalment of DA or dearness allowance with effect from 01st January 2020 and promised to pay its employees and Veterans receiving pension in first week of April 2020 which was illegally and arbitrarily withheld and as a afterthought issued malafied orders dated 20th April 2020 ordering of freez of DA or dearness allowance retrospectively from 01st January 2020. It has come as a big blow especially to pensioners at a time when all veterans are more vunerable to catching COVID 19 VIRUS (China Originated Virus in December 19 ) as being daily advocated by Prime Minister of India and all functionaries of Union of India and Doctors through media and advisory letters in black and white. When Union of India is doling out financial package after package from announced budget of 2020-21 in Parliament and later various stimulous financual packages gìven and planning to give to business houses for whom at drop of hat the Political and Administrative Governments of whom many are directly or indirectly associated with industry then huge financial stimulous is being passed even during this national rather international calamity of COVID 19 ( CHINA ORIGINATED VIRUS IN DECEMBER 19), Whereas, petty amount for Union of India but it is a large amount for its employees and Retired personnels who in last span of life are undergoing various hardships is being denied by freezing “DA or dearness allowance” that too retrospectively wef 01st January 2020. This arbitrary and illegal mechanical step of Union of India without applying mind must be struck down immediately and all beneficairies paid their legitmate authorised “DA or dearness allowance” wef 01st January 2020 and continued to be paid. Even Union of India has taken care of other classes of India but subjected the “MIDDLE CLASS” to this horible torture by freezing its “DA or dearness Allowances”at a time when we need every paisa in our last span of life. We by cutting our legitimate expenses have even made small contribution to “PM CARES FUND” which so far is not transparent.

Also check: Second National Judicial Pay Commission has filed the subject of Pay, Pension and Allowances, in Supreme Court on 29.01.2020

4. Then why does Prime Minister of India preaches to look after Senior citizens, not to cut salary when his own Govt is doing it. Atleast the Union of India must practice what its Prime Minster preaches.

5. Copy if this P.I.L., is being sent to all concerned by mail and all Chief Ministers are also requested to pay “DA or dearness Allowances” wef 01st January 2020 to their employees and Retired personnels.”HAVES”Political and Administrative class and affluent families are nit in touch with reality. A prominent singer is heard on TV asking 130 Crore Deshwasi to donate atleast Rs.100 Per person to make it Rs13000Crores donations. Madam there are many who have not seen or handled Rs.100 note in their entire life. Then if five of family members donate then amount comes to Rs.500/- which is equivalent to one month amount given to BPL Families by Govt of India. Madam have a heart and producers allowing her to speak this in print media has never applied mind to these ground realities. Sad, how insensitive are our “HAVES”Class!

RELIEFS SOUGHT WITH SPEAKING ORDERS.

5. In the given premises it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Union of India through Secretary Finance Govt of India New Delhi and Secretary Home Govt of India to:

(A) Pay immediately “DA or dearness Allowances” to all employees and Retired personnels and same be done by respective States and Union Territories of India.

(B) Union of India be directed to immediately stop various financial stimulous package being given or are being planned to be given in near future to business houses as after freezing “DA or dearness Allowances” Union of India admits that financial health of the Nation is not sound and healthy. More over these business houses are directly or indirectly related to all Political class who like to enjoy all benefits even in national calamities. Some are seen distributing Govt or public donations of food etc to poor to ensure their own stamp on it. India with Lockdown has gone back to “SATJUG” in many ways and air and water is purified and need of the hour is purification of “HAVES”, i.e., the Political cum business class. Union of India must practice what Prime Minister of India preaches to look after senior citizens and not to cut salary.

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

6. Kindly direct registry to confirm receipt and action taken via revert Email.

NAMASTE INDIA! JAI HIND!

(MAJOR ONKAR SINGH GULERIA RETD)
(A CANCER PATIENT)
Mob: 7018748978, 9418009991.
Email: maj.onkarsinghguleria@gmail.com

The post PIL Filed for Central Government Employees Freezing DA in Supreme Court appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

ITEM NO.1
COURT NO.9

SECTION X

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 419/2016

INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS.
Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Respondent(s)

(WITH IA 33253/2017 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION)
Date : 01-05-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv.
Ms. Garima Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Govil, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Subranmanyam, Adv.
Mr. Rohitash Kr. Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Mr. Charanya L. Kumaran, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sheena Taqui, Adv.
Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

During the course of the hearing, the principal submission of the petitioners is that the recommendation of the Koshyari Committee for thegrant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) was endorsed by the Budgetary Speech of the Finance Minister on 17 February 2014 and by the Minister of Defence on 26 February 2014, following which the Controller General of Defence Accounts was directed to work out modalities. This was further re-affirmed on 10 July 2014 by the Finance Minister and on 2 December 2014 by the Minister of State for Defence. However, the Union government, on 7 November 2015, while implementing OROP adopted a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners would be bridged at“periodic intervals”.

The petitioners have highlighted specifically three aspects of the anomalies which have arisen. They are summarised in a written note of submissions tendered before the Court, which is extracted below:

“(i) Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014.

(ii) Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation.

For example, if 8(i) and (ii) are implemented, two soldiers who have served for same length of years, holding the same rank will draw different pension. A Sepoy (Group Y) who retired prior to 31 Dec 2013 will get Rs.6665 p.m. and another Sepoy (Group Y) who retired on and after 1 Jan 2014 would get Rs 7605 p.m. Further, on account of such implementation, a higher rank Naik soldier who retired before 31 Dec 2013 would draw a lesser pension of Rs.7170p.m., than a junior rank Sepoy who retired after 1 Jan 2014 as his pension would be Rs.7605. This fact is illustrated by a tabular chart which is enclosed. (See Pg.1, CC).

Therefore, implementation of this new definition of OROP defeats the very principle of OROP by creating a class within a class of the same officers, which in practice tantamounts to one rank different pensions. This is also contrary to the judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125.

Another fallacy in the new definition of OROP which detracts from the principle of OROP is:

(iii) Pension Equalization every five years:

It is submitted that Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees.”

Certain concrete examples have been indicated in charts which are annexed to the note submitted before this Court by Mr Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

At this stage, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the Union government scrutinizes the grievances which are placed before the Court in the above note. It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement, are duly considered by the Union government at an appropriate level.

We would expect the government to seriously consider the grievances and to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, justice canbe provided for the satisfaction of all concerned.

List the Writ Petition on 6 August 2019.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I)
AR-CUM-PS

(SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER

Source: SCI

The post OROP – One Rank One Pension – Supreme Court of India petition dated 01-05-2019 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015
IN
SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. … PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

M. O. INASU … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Upon perusing the paper book, it has come to our notice that there is a delay of 136 days in filing this review petition and we do not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay.

Even on merits, we have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this review petition.

The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

……………………………J.

[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2015.08.28
14:54:57 IST
Reason: ……………………………J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

Source: Bharat Pensioner Samaj
[http://scm-bps.blogspot.in/2015/08/supreme-court-dismisses-review-petition.html]

The post Full Pension to Pre 2006 Pensioners with less than 33 years but more than 20 years service: Supreme Court dismisses UOI Review Petition appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No.1998 of 2012,
C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012,
C.A.No.4581 of 2012,
C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012,
C.A.No.4599 of 2013,
C.A.No.1 of 2015

AND

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)No……… of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)
O R D E R
Heard.

Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :

No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal.

The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)Nos………..of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,

however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.

may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.

We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.

All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.

…………………..J
(T.S. THAKUR)

…………………..J
(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI
DATED 17th March, 2015.

The post ARREARS WEF 01.01.06 MATTER- JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF THE HSC IN THE SLP- CA CASES IS AS FOLLOWS: appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Aadhar cannot be made mandatory says Supreme Court, asks Government to abide by the interim order passed: Live Law

Erasing the sense of doubt about the legitimacy of Aadhaar card for availing benefits given by government, the Supreme Court on Monday affirmed that the Aadhar card is not mandatory, and further, authorities who demand them will be taken to task.

A seething Supreme Court issued a stern warning to the government on discovering that numerous government agencies still demand Aadhaar for giving subsidies and essential services to common citizens.

A Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde and C. Nagappan elucidated that requests made by authorities for Aadhaar card is in clear violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier order of September 23, 2013.
In the 2013 order, the Apex Court had said, “no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar card, inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory”.

While hearing the matter today, Justice Chelameswar observed, “Aadhaar is being insisted upon by various authorities. We do not want to go into specific instances. We expect the Union of India and all the States to adhere to the order dated September 23, 2013. We will take the officers concerned to task if any order comes on record making it (Aadhaar) mandatory.”

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted to the Court“It is a matter of great public importance. The issue has serious implication in terms of Constitution. Notwithstanding the court’s order, there is insistence for Aadhaar. There is complete apathy on the part of officials.” He also gave an example, Delhi government’s notification on March 9, 2015 after which it is compulsory for couples to produce Aadhaar cards to get their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act.

Senior advocate Anil Divan also submitted that Registrar of the Bombay High Court had received an official communication regarding Aadhar. The Registrar was asked to make Aadhar mandatory for disbursal of salary to staff and even judges.

After this, the Apex Court observed, “You better advise the States, if the officials insist, it would have consequences. We will take them to task. This is absolutely not right.”

Mr. Gopal Subramanium also questioned the mechanism of Aadhar, he said, “On the surface it (Aadhaar) is a simple document of identity, but it has linkages by means of iris scans and biometric details. God forbid if identities are exchanged or mistaken. the Executive’s scheme involves private partners. Who are these private partners?” He also said, “Sovereign State also has the duty to protect its citizens, to protect his identity, his personal information against possible misuse.”

Meanwhile over 750 million Aadhar numbers have already been issued as the battle over validity of the card carries out in Supreme Court.

Read at: Live Law

The post Aadhar cannot be made mandatory says Supreme Court, asks Government to abide by the interim order passed appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Office of the Principal Controller of Accounts (Fys)
10-A, S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 001
No. Pay/Tech-I/O1(6Th CPC)/2015/01
Date: 03/03/2015

To
(i) All Group Controllers
(ii) AO OF(P) Nalanda
(iii) AO OF(P) Korwa

Subject: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India common Judgement dated 09/12/14 in respect of Data Entry Operators in Ordnance & Ordnance equipment Factories.

In the matter of higher pay scale in respect of Data Entry Operators of Ordnance Factories Organisation, a copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India common Judgement dated 09/12/14, circulated vide OFB No-340/OA-01/09/VA/115/HAPP/A/NI, dated 14/01/15 is hereby Uploaded in the PC of A web site for information and guidance to all concerned.

Branch AOs under your control may please be intimated accordingly.

-sd/-
Addl. Controller of Accounts (Fys)

Click here for Supreme Court Judgement

Source: http://www.pcafys.gov.in/files/deo_04032015.pdf

The post Data Entry Operators in Ordnance & Ordnance equipment Factories appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.