No. 3(6)/2021- P&PW(H)- 7083
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievance
Department of Pension and pensioners’ Welfare

8th Floor, Janpath Bhavan,
Janpath, New Delhi,
Dated: 9th March, 2021

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Timely payment of retirement benefits to the retiring employees

The undersigned is directed to say that timelines have been prescribed under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for each activity involved in the processing of a pension case and for payment of pension and gratuity to a retiring Government servant. As per this timeline, the process of verification of service and other preparatory work should be
undertaken one year before a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, the Government servant should submit the forms six months before retirement, the Head of Office should send the pension case to the PAO four months before retirement and the PAO should issue PPO and send it to CPAO one month before retirement. The CPAO is required to issue the Special Seal Authority within 21 days, thereafter.

2. Instructions have been issued vide this Department’s OM No 1/27/2011- P &PW (E) dated 01.08.2017 for handing over the copy of pensioner PPO to him/her at the time of retirement along with other retirement dues. The Rules also provide for sanction of provisional pension in cases where a Government servant is likely to retire before finalization of his pension and gratuity.

3. “BHAVISHYA’, the online Pension Sanction & Payment Tracking System, facilitates online tracking of pension sanction and payment process by the individual as well as the administrative authorities and keeps the retiring employees informed of the progress of pension sanction process through SMS/E-Mail. The system is, therefore, very useful for ensuring timely payment of pensionary benefits to the retiring Government servant.

4. In spite of the timelines prescribed in the rules/ instructions and simplification/ streamlining of the procedures through BHAVISHYA, issue of the PPO and payment of retirement benefits continue to be delayed in a large number of cases. A significant percentage of the grievances registered on the CPENGRAMS relate to non-payment of retirement dues for several months after retirement. Delay in settlement of retirement dues also leads to avoidable litigation. In a number of cases, the courts have directed payment of interest for the delayed period to the affected pensioners, besides making adverse comments on the functioning of the administration.

5. In order to ensure timely payment of retirement dues in all cases, it has been decided that the progress of the pension cases should be regularly monitored by the Heads of the organizations and the Heads of Departments. An effective monitoring mechanism is required to be established in every office/ Department to review the progress of processing of the pension cases. The information available from the BHAVISHYA software may be utilized for this purpose.

6. Farewell programs are often organized in the offices on the occasion of retirement of employees. This is one of the most appropriate occasions that can be utilized to review the progress of the pension cases and to sensitize the concerned staff about the importance of timely payment of retirement dues. Accordingly, in every farewell function, Heads of organizations/ Departments/ offices may review the progress of pension cases of all the employees of that organization/ Department/ office, who are due for retirement in the next six months. Wherever the processing of any pension case is found to be behind schedule, proactive action must be taken to ensure that all retirement dues are paid on time to the retiring Government servant.

7. A half-yearly statement may be submitted by each Department/ organization/ office to the Secretary of the administrative Ministry/ Department indicating the particulars of the Government servants in whose case issue of PPO was delayed by more than two months after retirement on superannuation. The statement may also contain the reasons for the delay in issuing the PPO and remedial action taken to avoid such delays in future.

2. Instructions have been issued vide this Department’s OM No 1/27/2011- P &PW (E) dated 01.08.2017 for handing over the copy of pensioner PPO to him/her at the time of retirement along with other retirement dues. The Rules also provide for sanction of provisional pension in cases where a Government servant is likely to retire before finalization of his pension and gratuity.

3. “BHAVISHYA’, the online Pension Sanction & Payment Tracking System, facilitates online tracking of pension sanction and payment process by the individual as well as the administrative authorities and keeps the retiring employees informed of the progress of pension sanction process through SMS/E-Mail. The system is, therefore, very useful for ensuring timely payment of pensionary benefits to the retiring Government servant.

4. In spite of the timelines prescribed in the rules/instructions and simplification/streamlining of the procedures through BHAVISHYA, issue of the PPO and payment of retirement benefits continue to be delayed in a large number of cases. A significant percentage of the grievances registered on the CPENGRAMS relate to non-payment of retirement dues for several months after retirement. Delay in settlement of retirement dues also leads to avoidable litigation. In a number of cases, the courts have directed payment of interest for the delayed period to the affected pensioners, besides making adverse comments on the functioning of the administration.

5. In order to ensure timely payment of retirement dues in all cases, it has been decided that the progress of the pension cases should be regularly monitored by the Heads of the organizations and the Heads of Departments. An effective monitoring mechanism is required to be established in every office/ Department to review the progress of processing of the pension cases. The information available from the BHAVISHYA software may be utilized for this purpose.

6. Farewell programs are often organized in the offices on the occasion of retirement of employees. This is one of the most appropriate occasions that can be utilized to review the progress of the pension cases and to sensitize the concerned staff about the importance of timely payment of retirement dues. Accordingly, in every farewell function, Heads of organizations/ Departments/ offices may review the progress of pension cases of all the employees of that organization/ Department/ office, who are due for retirement in the next six months. Wherever the processing of any pension case is found to be behind schedule, proactive action must be taken to ensure that all retirement dues are paid on time to the retiring Government servant.

7. A half-yearly statement may be submitted by each Department/ organization/ office to the Secretary of the administrative Ministry/ Department indicating the particulars of the Government servants in whose case issue of PPO was delayed by more than two months after retirement on superannuation. The statement may also contain the reasons for the delay in issuing the PPO and remedial action taken to avoid such delays in future.

8. All the Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of the offices/ field organizations under their administrative control for strict compliance.

(Rajesh Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

To,

1. Admin Division of all Ministries/ Departments of Govt. of India:- for strict compliance.
2. NIC: to upload in the website of this Department

The post Payment of retirement benefits to the retired employers on time DoPPW appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

File No. M-51011/1/2020- CDN-CGA/ 1066
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure,
Controller General of Accounts

Mahalekha Niyantrak Bhawan
E-Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi
Dated 13th January,2021

Office Memorandum

Subject: Standard Operating Procedure for Redressal of Public Grievances – reg.

In order to enhance the effective grievance redressal mechanism in the CGA office, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for redressal of public/ pensioner’s grievances/ representations has been framed as under:

• (a) Coordination Section is the Nodal agency in CGA office to monitor the Public Grievances.
• (b) Jt. CGA (CDN) is designated as the Public Grievance Officer for the CGA office.
• (c) All grievance representations received in the CGA office, either by letter, email, fax, to be invariably routed through Public Grievance Officer (PGO) before they are sent to concerned sections/ divisions.
• (d) Grievances received other than through PG portal or emails, should be necessarily acknowledged, with an interim reply within 3 days of receipt.
• (e) All out efforts should be made to redress public grievances received through various means including PG portal within 30 days time frame.
• (f) In case it is anticipated that redressal of a grievance is likely to breach the timeline of 30 days, the reason/justification for the anticipated delay as well as the expected time by which the grievance would be redressed, should be intimated to the petitioner/ complainant. This may be done with the approval of the Jt.CGA concerned.
• (g) No grievance is to be rejected without the same having been independently examined at the level of Dy. CGA/ Jt.CGA concerned.
• (h) Grievance representations received in CGA Office pertaining to field offices/ CPAO shall immediately be forwarded to the Pr.CCAS/ CCAs/ CA(IC). The Grievance Monitoring Cell/ CDN Section shall monitor and follow up the matter at the appropriate level. A DO reminder shall be issued at the level of Jt. CGA after 15 days and the matter brought to the notice of Addl.CGA subsequently.
• (i) Grievances cases related to NTRP refunds shall be handled by GIFMIS-NTRP to take up the matter with the concerned office to ascertain refund status and ensure timely redressal as per timelines and escalation matrix.
• (j) PG portal has been launched by the Government for redressal of grievances faced by the general public. However, CGA office has been receiving a large number of grievances/ representations from Officers/ Officials of CGA organisation through PG Portal for redressal of administrative/ Service matters. Such submissions of representations directly to other authorities by-passing the prescribed channel of communication, may be forwarded by Coordination section to the concerned field offices indicating that appropriate action should be taken against those officers/ officials who have violated extant instructions in this regard. This may be taken as final disposal of the grievance by the Coordination section of CGA office.

2. To ensure prompt and effective redressal of grievance, the following time lines shall be adhered to:

Category A – Grievance relating to O/o CGA

Category B – Grievance relating to INGAF & CPAO

Category C- Grievances relating to Accounting formation of different Ministries.

3. In all categories A, B & C, if the reply/interim reply is not received from the section/ Ministry within the stipulated timeline reminder(s) are to be issued. The escalation matrix is as under:

Level to be escalated for subsequent follow up, if required

4. All Sections/ verticals and field units of Civil Accounts Oraganisation are requested to strictly adhere to the timelines set as per SOP.

5. This issues with the approval of Controller General of Accounts

(Dr. Richa Pandey)
Asstt. Controller General of Accounts

The post CGA – Standard Operating Procedure for Redressal of Public Grievances appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

BHARAT PENSIONERS’ SAMAJ
All India Federation of Pensioners’ Associations
2/13-A- LGF Backside, Jangpura – A,
New Delhi – 110014

NoBPS/SG/ Notional increment/2020/ 10

Date: 01.12.2020

The Secretary,
GOI ; Ministry of finance – Department of Revenue

The Secretary,
GOI, M/O Personnel, PG & Pensions -DOPT

Subject: Court Cases on the issue of grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order in WP No .15732/2017 in the case of Sh. P. Ayyamperumal – regarding.

Reference : F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs North Block, New Delhi, Dated the 20th November 2020.

Sir,

With reference to Prara one of F. No. A-23011/36/2013-Ad.IIA GOL, M/O finance -Department of Revenue CB of Indirect Taxes & Customs dtd 20.11.2020 ‘I am directed to refer to CBIC’s letter of even number dated 18.10.2019 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above whereby you have been informed that the competent authority in consultation with Department of personnel and training and Department of Legal Affairs has decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India, in personam and not in  rem and, therefore, it is not required to be quoted as precedent in future.

Bharat Pensioners Samaj, is of the opinion that while drafting the said Para concerned officers/ official inadvertently overlooked the following facts:

1. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment in W.P.(C) 10509/2019 GOPAL SINGH ….. Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS OR DE R 23.01.2020 Paras 8. “” More recently, this Court in its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India) has discussed the judgment in P. Ayyamperumal at some length in the context of the prayer of an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who had retired on 30th June, 2007 for notional increment. The Court rejected the contention of the Respondents therein that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in persona and not in rem.” and the fact that the SLP filed in the Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court judgment regarding notional increment vide SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 13959/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-01-2020 in WP(C) No. 10509/2019 passed by the High Court Of Delhi ) UOI&ORS VS GOPAL SINGH is dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court.

Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order

2,In C.L.Pasupathy v. Engineer in Chief (WRO)reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 491, Hon’ble High court of Madras has considered the expressions, “judgment ‘in rem’ & a judgment ‘in personam’ In Para 29 of the said judgment honorable court observed as follows :

“29. Courts have held that, “Judgment in rem”, operates on a thing or status rather than against the person and binds all persons to the extent of their interest in the thing, whether or not they were parties to the proceedings. The judgment “in rem”, as distinguished from judgment “in Personam” is an adjudication of some particular thing or subject matter, which is the subject of controversy, by a competent Tribunal, and having the binding effect of all persons having interests, whether or not joined as parties to the proceedings, in so far as their interests in the “res” are concerned.

In determining whether a judgment is “in rem”, the effect of the judgment is to be considered and it is tested by matters of substance, rather than by measure of any particular draft or form”

In short judgment in rem & in Personam can be defined as follows:

Judgment in rem: Judgment in rem is adjudication pronounced upon the status ofa subject matter, person or a thing by a competent court to the world generally.

Judgment in Personam: Judgments in Personam are all the ordinary judgments not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or anything.

It is humbly submitted that the judgment dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India squarely Fits in this definition which has been confirmed by the Honourable High Court Of Delhi through its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 5539/2019 (Arun Chhibber v. Union of India where in the Honourable court rejected the respondent’s (UOJ) contention that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in persona and not in rem.”

Sir, The Democracy of our Country gives highest regards to the judicial pronouncements on their attaining legal finality and no one including DLA /DOPT has any authority to go contrary to it or misinerpret.

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

In the end BPS beg to remind the bureaucracy of oath to Preamble to constitution of India on and request them to ensure Justice and equality in the matter of pensioners/ Sr Citizens. Not that only those who win through courts get the advantage and the other similarly placed who cannot afford to approach the court are deprived of the same benefit inspite of honorable Supreme court pronouncement not to do so.

Thanking you
Yours truly,

S C Maheswari
Secy Genl. Bharat Pensioners Samaj

The post Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order – BHARAT PENSIONERS SAMAJ appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

F. No. A-23011/36/ 2013-Ad.IIA
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

North Block, New Delhi,
Dated the 20th November , 2020.

To

All Pr. Chief Commissioners/ Chief
Commissioners/Director General under CBIC.

Subject: Miscellaneous Representations and Court Cases on the issue of grant of notional increment /re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order in WP No .15732/2017 in the case of Sh. P. Ayyamperumal – regarding.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to refer to CBIC’s letter of even number dated 18.10.2019 (copy enclosed) on the subject mentioned above whereby you have been informed that the competent authority in consultation with Department of personnel and training and Department of Legal Affairs has decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of WP No. 15732/2017, P. Ayyamperumal Vs. Union of India, in personam and not in rem and, therefore, it is not required to be quoted as precedent in future.

Notional Increment on retirement 30th June DoPT – Madras High Court Order

2. It is noted that a number of representations from similarly placed retired officers are being received in the Board. Several court cases in this regard have also been filed at various fora by the retired officers. Therefore, all the cadre controlling authorities were requested, vide letter dated 18.10.2019 referred above, that all the pending/future court cases on the similar issue should be defended/dealt with adequately on the lines as suggested by DoP&T. However, despite this, most of the cadre controlling authorities are forwarding the court cases/representations filed by the similarly placed officers to the Board for providing para-wise comments/necessary action, contrary to the instructions issued vide letter of even numb er 18.10.2019.

3. In view of above, all the Cadre Controlling Authorities are again requested to defend all the court cases and dispose all the representations on the issue of notional increment at their end and also defend all the court cases adequately on the following grounds:

I. As per Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, the date of annual increment is fixed uniformly as 1st July of every year. Employees completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July are eligible for the next increment. The increment could not be granted to the officer retiring on 30th June, as he was not in service on 1st July.

II. DoP&T have made the following observation vide their O.M. dated 16.08.2019 and 11.11.2019:-

i. On the issue of date of retirement of government servant, FR 56(a) which inter- alia provides as under may be referred:

Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.

ii. Further, so far as P. Ayyamperumal case is concerned, which has been referred in the Writ Petitions, it is stated that

a. The Hon’ble High Court judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case is in personam and is contrary to the personnel policy of Government of India.

b. Further, case of M. Balasubramaniam referred by the Hon’ble High Court in its judgment in P. Ayyamperumal case is related to the Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Gernment whereas P Ayaamperumal case relates to Central Government Rules. As per provisions under Tamil Nadu Fundamental rules 26(a), the annual increments of the Govt. Servants are regulated in four quarters viz. 1st January, 1st April, 1st July and 1st October. And for the Central Govt, it is done
annually on 1st July only.

c. While adjudicating the issue whether a government servant who retires on the last day of the preceding month and whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month is entitled for sanction of annual increment for the purpose of pension and gratuity, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the year 2005 in C. Subba Rao case had inter alia observed the following:

In support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (supra). We are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement. We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation. There is no warrant to come to such conclusion. Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the service. Such increment is possible only when the appointment is “Progressive Appointment” and it is not a universal rule. Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government service. A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article 151 of CS Regulations), because he would not answer the tests in these Rules. Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because, as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly, overrule the judgment in Malakondalah case (supra).’

Hence, there is another High Court judgment which lays contrary principles on this issue.

iii. In addition, the following observation of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while giving its judgment dated 23.10.2018 in the case of UOI and others vs. G.C. Yadav are also noteworthy :

‘So far as the rejection of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India is concerned, the same was by a summary order, and while dismissing the SLP preferred by the Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras on the facts of that case. The Supreme Court did not consider, and did not put its seal of approval on the legal principle involved in P. Ayyamperumal (supra). ‘

iv. That the Hyderabad Bench of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the OA Nos. 331/2019 and 332/2019 praying for the same relief by the applicant., vide its order dated 04.06.2019.

v. That Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench, subsequent to the judgement of Hon’ble High court of madras in P. Ayyamperumal case, vide its Orders dated 19.03.2019 in O.A. 310/00309/2019 and O.A. No. 310/00312/2019 and Order dated 27.03.2019 in O.A. No. 310/00026/2019 has dismissed the similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.

vi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 29.03 .2019, while dismissing the SLP (C) Dy. No . 6468/2019 filed by D/o Telecommunications against the judgment dated 03.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in WP No. 484/2010 in the matter of UoI & Ors. vs Sakha Ram Tripathy & Ors., has inter-alia observed the following:

“There is delay of 566 days in filing the special leave petition . We do not see any reason to condone the delay. The Special leave petition is dismissed on delay, keeping all the questions of law open. “

III. As far as the case of P. Ayyamperumal is concerned, it is informed that after rejection of SLP filed by Union of India in Hon’ble Apex Court, a review petition against the order dated 23.07 .2018 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Ayyamperumal was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 dismissed the instant review petition. Since the apex court dismissed the review petition of the department, the competent authority decided to implement the Order dated 15.09.2017 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 15732/2017, directing to grant one notional increment to petitioner retiring on 30th June for the purpose of pensionary benefits in personam for petitioner only to avoid the contempt proceedings as indicated in the said letter as referred to in para I above.

IV. Department of Legal Affairs, which was also consulted, while tendering advice in the matter of P. Ayyamperumal, has cited the case of Kunhayammed and others vs State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded the following propositions :-

“An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refitsing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. “

V. Keeping in view the above, DOLA opined that “It is very clear that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed in the matter of Sh. P. Ayyamperumal is in personam and not in m, therefore, the Administrative Department may implement the order in personam.”

Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

VI. Referring to the above principles laid down in Kunhayamrned (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 701, held as under:-

“Thus, according to the law laid down by the Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, it is clear that dismissal of a matter by this Court at the threshold, with non­ speaking order, would not fall in the category of binding precedent. Meaning thereby that the impugned order of the Division Bench can still be challenged on merits by the appellant Board. Thus, the earlier orders of the High Court and this Court passed in Raninder Singh Patpatias case, creates no bar from re-examining the matter on merits.”

VII. From the above, it is clear that doctrine of merger is not applicable to in limine dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and would not attract the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India to the said order.

4. In view of above, it is again requested that all the pending/ future court cases/representation on the similar issue should be defended/ dealt with adequately on the above lines on behalf of all the respondents in terms of Board’s instruction issued vide letter F.No. C-18012/6/ 2013-Ad.IIB dated 09.05.2016. Reference to the Board should be made only if any additional policy issue is involved.

Encl: As above.

Yours faithfully,
(Rajendra Kumar)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

The post Grant of notional increment/ re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

CHECKLIST FOR ISSUE OF PERMISSION FOR HEARING AID DEVICE

(The following format is for CGHS serving employees and pensioners based on OM No. S.14025/10/2002/MS, MOHFW dated 26/5/2015. Similar format for checklist may be used by Departments/ Ministries/ Autonomous bodies for their employees)

CGHS card is valid till ————— (dd/mm/yy) as per CGHS database.

The beneficiary has retired from Department ———— and whether Autonomous body or no (Yes/No).

Contact number of beneficiary is ———— email ID is ———— Forwarded to Additional Director CGHS ————- (city/zone) for necessary action.

Name of CMO l/C / officiating CMO l/C ——————-

Wellness Centre ————————-

Signature and stamp of CMO l/C ——————————-

*Please note-All information as required in the above checklists needs to be filled mandatorily.

The post CGHS serving employees and pensioners CHECKLIST FOR ISSUE OF PERMISSION FOR HEARING AID DEVICE appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

NATIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE
OF PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS.
13-C Feroze Shah Road,
New Delhi.110 001

Dated: 24/10/2020

To
Ms. Nirmala Seetharaman
Hon’ble Finance Minister,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi. 110 001.

Dear Madam,

Sub: Request for festival grant or advance.

As you are aware the Pandemic Covid 19 is spreading unabated, contrary to our expectation. Since both the preventive and curative remedies are yet to be in operation, the situation is likely to get worsened in the days to come. The number of people already affected and the number of persons died in our country due to the disease are alarming. Most of the deaths are reported to be of persons beyond the age of 60.

FinMin Order – Grant of Festival Advance to Central Government Employees

Life is made more difficult for the Pensioners and Family Pensioners as their physical movement is restricted and that financially they are suffering more than many others. In this situation, we have seen a welcome move that the Government of India has relaxed the condition as a one-time measure and granted Festival Advance to the Government Employees. Even though it is a recoverable advance, the liquid cash at the hands of employees is no doubt will be of enormous assistance to them.

The Pensioners and Family Pensioners, are placed in a very difficult situation due to the denial of the dearness relief which is to continue up-to 1st July, 2021. The financial burden has increased due to the inflation and phenomenal price rise on essential food items. Considering the dire situation in which the pensioner community is placed, we request that the Central Government may consider a one-time grant of Rs.20,000/- to all Pensioners and Family Pensioners. If the Government finds it difficult to bear this additional financial burden, we request the Government might consider taking into account the fact that the coming months are festival months in our country and grant of one-time recoverable advance of Rs.20,000/- to Pensioners and Rs.10,000/- to Family Pensioners through the Banks or POSB, where they receive the Pension and Family Pension. The Banks and POSBs may be asked to recover the amount in 10 monthly instalments. This Advance should be in addition to any loans the Pensioners and Family Pensioners received from Banks in the past. The Pensioners and Family Pensioners will feel much relieved at this time of financial and mental stress.

Retirement guide for a central government employees

The Government may consider our proposals quickly and render invaluable relief to the community of Pensioners and Family Pensioners.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(K.K.N.Kutty)
Secretary General

Source: nccpahq.blogspot.com

The post Request for Festival grant or Advance to all the Central government Pensioners and Family Pensioners 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.

To,
The Secretary General,
All India Civil Accounts Employees Association,
17/2-C, P&T Quarters, Kali Bari Marg,
New Delhi -110001.

Subject: Decentralization of Central Pension Accounting Office.

Sir.

CPAO/Tech/Decentralization of CPAO/2015-16/1653

To,
Sh. D.D.K.T. Dasan
Asstt. Controller of Accounts
Office of the Controller General of Accounts
7th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi-110003

Subject:- Decentralization of Central Pension Accounting Office.

Sir,

i) With the movement towards e-PPO and e-Revision. the communication is increasingly being made with banks electronically minimising the effect of distance in transactions.

ii) After the operationalization of receipt of revision authorities from PAOs through digital signatures and on electronic mode. the pension processing shall become more efficient.

iii) E-PPO project for revision is Operational with four banks i.e. SBI, Chandni Chowk, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda and Canara Bank. Moreover, PFMS Division is developing a pension module under PFMS which is likely to be implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2016. After that it is expected that processing of pension payment will be more smooth and fast for stakeholders.

iv) It is desirable to reduce the human interface to minimise malpractices or malafied intentions.

v) The communication modes like telephone. e-mail, SMS etc. are becoming quickest. Hence any pensioner can lodge his grievance to Grievance Cell of CPPC of the concerned bank or grievance cell of CPAO.

vi) With the introduction of Defined Pension System w.e.f. 01 04.2004, out flow of new retirees is expected to reduce.

vii) Every information/ latest relevant orders and instructions are available at CPAO’S website and
accessible to all the stakeholders including pensioners.

viii) Pensioners have been provided the download facility of true copy of the Special Seal Authority by using login and passwords provided by CPAO.

ix) Banks/CPPCs are important agencies for outreach purposes-for pensioners.

The post Decentralization of Central Pension Accounting Office appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Subject: Streamlining Action on Pension grievances-uploading of replies given by the Ministries/Departments to the petitioner on CPENGRAMS.

Source: Pensioners Portal
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D3/D03ppw/ppwc_290915.pdf]

The post Streamlining Action on Pension grievances-uploading of replies given by the Ministries/Departments to the petitioner on CPENGRAMS appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No. 2015/AC-II/21/10

General Secretary,
NFIR,
3, Chelmsford Road,
New Delhi-110055

Dear Sir,

Sub:- Commencement of Pension in favour of retired Railway employees.

Ref:- Your letter no. II/35/Pt.11 dated 29.7.2015.

The post Commencement of Pension in favour of retired Railway employees: Railway Bord appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.