[DoP&PW OM No. 42/11/2023-P&PW(D) dated 03.04.2024]

Sub:- Minutes of the 33rd SCOVA meeting held under the Chairmanship of Hon’ ble MOS(PP) on 22.02.2024, at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi-reg

(33.3) Grant of increment to the retiring employees on the date of their retirement, if the date of their increment follows their date of retirement – Amendment to the rules governing grant of increment & extension of the amended rule to pensioners as a one-time measure

Grant of increment to a pensioner is contrary to the personnel policy of the Government” may perhaps be because of the reason that the Rules governing grant of increment stipulate that the employee must be on duty on the date on which he earns an increment and if the employee is not on duty, the increment shall be granted from the date of resumption of duty. Therefore, if the date of increment of an employee falls on the next date of his retirement, the increment that would have been allowed to him but for his retirement is not granted for the reason that the employee, having retired from service, is not on duty on the date on which the increment would have been otherwise granted to him.

The provisions of the rules, as they stand now, have made such employees ineligible for increment even after rendering 365 days of service after earning the last increment. The Rules on grant of increment have undergone many changes and modifications have been made in the past on several occasions, which were to the advantage of the employees and the retiring employees as well. Hence, suitable amendment may be considered

Discussion/Decision taken in the meeting

Joint Secretary, DoPT informed that as per the existing rule provisions regulating annual increment, fulfillment of the following conditions is mandatory for a Government servant to earn the annual increment :-

• (i) the Government servant must be in service on the date on which the increment falls due and;
• (ii) he should have rendered satisfactory work and displayed good conduct during the one year period preceding the date on which the increment falls due.

He further added that the demand for amending the existing rule provisions governing annual increment is apparently based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 @ SLP (C) No. 6185/2020-KPTCL VS. CP Mundinamani & Ors.

DoPT representative also informed that the matter was examined in consultation with other nodal Ministries/Departments like Department of Expenditure, Department of Legal Affairs etc. Further, Ld. Attorney General of India has also been consulted in the matter and based on the advice received, efforts are being made to seek clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the relevant issues-including rule provisions-which need elucidation. Further action, as may be required in the wake of Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, can be taken on completion on the said exercise.

The Chairman, SCOVA directed DoPT to examine this issue in consultation with Ld. Attorney General expeditiously.

(Action : Department of Personnel & Training)

The post 33rd SCOVA meeting – Grant of increment to the retiring employees on the date of their retirement, if the date of their increment follows their date of retirement appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court concluded that the Armed Forces One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme is a policy decision with no constitutional defects.

According to a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath, the Centre’s OROP policy choice is not arbitrary, and it is not for the court to intervene in government policy decisions.

It was ruled that the outstanding OROP re-fixation procedure, which had not been completed due to the pendency of a case before the court after the five-year deadline had elapsed, be completed on July 1, 2019, and that the pensioners’ arrears be paid within three months.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Ex-Servicemen Association, which wanted to implement the Bhagat Singh Koshyari Committee’s suggestion of one rank, one pension, with an automatic annual review rather than the present five-year review.

The Supreme Court has stated that whatever decision it makes would be based on concepts rather than numbers.

It said that when revising after five years, the five-year arrears are not taken into consideration. Ex-troubles servicemen’s can be alleviated to some extent if the period is decreased from five to a shorter one.

According to the Centre, when the pay is revised after five years, the maximum last drawn pay, which takes into consideration all circumstances and is provided to the lowest in the bracket, is the golden mean.

On February 16, the Supreme Court ruled that the Centre’s exaggeration of the OROP programme painted a “far rosier picture” than what is actually delivered to Armed Forces retirees.

The top court took notice on a petition filed by IEMS through attorney Balaji Srinivasan on July 11, 2016, seeking adoption of OROP as proposed by the Koshyari Committee, with an automatic annual revision rather than the current policy of periodic review every five years.

The post Supreme Court upholds the government pending OROP re-fixation in the armed forces appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

According to the current MACP rules, benefits under the MACPS cannot be given in the promotional hierarchy and must instead be granted in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay/Pay Levels in the Pay Matrix.

Latest MACP orders from DoPT

F.No .22034/4/2020-Estt.(D)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

North Block, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 05th April, 2021

Subject: Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 05.03.2020 in SLP (C) No.21803/2014 Uol Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair & Ors. regarding benefits in the promotional hierarchy under MACP Scheme – other issues arising out of Order dated 05.03.2020 – regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. of even number dated 23.03.2020, which was issued as per Order dated 05.03.2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.21803/2014, UoI Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair & Others wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) cannot be granted in the promotional hierarchy and that it would be in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay/Pay Levels in the Pay Matrix as per the existing MACP guidelines.

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

2. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 53 of aforementioned Order dated 05.03.2020, further directed that some anomalies, which were brought before the Joint Committee, constituted in the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) to examine the MACPS, as indicated in paras 47 to SO of the Order dated 05.03.2020, be considered as deemed appropriate, and a decision was taken in accordance with the law.

3. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, as indicated in paras 47 to 50 of the Order dated 05.03.2020, the issues arising out of deliberations of the Joint Committee constituted to examine the MACP Scheme, and which were not finally disposed of, have been examined in consultation with Department of Expenditure. It is also to be noted that revised guidelines on MACPS, as per recommendations of the 7th CPC, have been issued vide DoP&T’s OM No.35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22.10.2019.

4. The decisions taken on these issues, item-wise, are as follows:

Item No. 1: To provide Grade Pay of the next promotional post under the MACPS (Item No.1 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Item No. 2: Anomaly on the introduction of the MACPS – Option may be given to the employees to continue in the old ACP Scheme even after 01.09.2008 (Item No. 8 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Item No. 3: Continuation of the ACP Scheme beyond 31.08.2008 by giving an option to choose either benefit under the ACPS or the MACPS, whichever is more beneficial (Item No.3 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Decision: The issue of grant of benefits in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pays/Pay Levels as per the MACPS guidelines has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its Order dated 05.03.2020. Moreover, the matter of replacement of the ACPS with MACPS has also been settled by the Apex Court. As such, as clarified to the staff side vide letter dated 4.11.2013, the solution lies in cadre review to address issues relating to stagnation. Therefore, the demands of the Staff Side for grant of benefits in the promotional hierarchy or continuation of the ACPS beyond 31.08.2008 by giving the option to either choose between ACPS or MACPS, whichever is more beneficial; cannot be agreed to. Hence, action on these items is treated as closed.

Item No. 4: Revision of date of introduction of the MACPS (Date of Effect) – Date of effect of the MACPS to be made as 01.01.2006, instead of 01.09.2008 as provided in the scheme (Item No.2 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 27.07.2012).

Decision: The issue is presently sub-judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Nos. 10811- 10813/2018 in the matter of Uol Vs. Ranjit Samuel. Hence, no decision can be taken at this stage. As and when the main and tagged cases are disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the decision would be communicated to all Ministries/ Departments.

Item No. 5: Applicability of the MACPS to Group ‘D’ employees who have been placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- in PB-I (Item No.4 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Decision: It has been clarified in DoP&T’s O.M. No.35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 16.11.2009 that promotions earned or upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme of August 1999, in the past to four pay scales (S-1, S-2, S-2A, and S-3), which now carry the grade pay of Rs.1800/-, shall be ignored for the purpose of the MACPS. Therefore, no further action is required. Hence, the item is treated as closed.

Item No. 6: Counting of 50% of service rendered by casual labor who attained a temporary status for reckoning the 10, 20, and 30 years of service under the MACPS (Item No.5 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Decision: As per para 5(v) of the Appendix pertaining to the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 50% of the service rendered under temporary status is to be counted only for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularization. The temporary service rendered does not count for any other purposes. Moreover, under the ACPS also, no provision was made for counting of temporary service as 1st and 2nd financial upgradation was being granted to an employee on completion of 12/24 years of regular service. Therefore, the proposal cannot be agreed to. Thus, action on this item is treated as closed.

Item No. 7: Supervised staff placed in higher Grade Pay than that of the Supervisor – The stepping up of pay of seniors with that of juniors getting higher pay in different cadres and introduction of Grade Pay of Rs.5400 on completion of 4 years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 (Item No.6 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Decision: As per the fundamental principles of the Scheme, financial upgradation granted under the MACPS is purely personal to the employees, and has no relevance to his seniority position. It has already been provided in the Scheme itself that there shall be no additional financial upgradation to the senior employee solely on the ground that his/her junior in the grade has been granted higher pay or grade pay under the Scheme. This has been reiterated in the instructions issued by this Department from time to time, including OM No. 35034/1/97-Estt. (D) dated 04.10.2012 and No. 35034/3/2015-Estt.(D) dated 22.10.2019. Therefore, the proposal cannot be agreed to. Thus, action on the item is treated as closed.

Item No. 8: Option for pay fixation on grant of financial upgradation under the MACPS between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 (Item No.7 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 15.09.2010).

Decision: In terms of para 9 of the MACPS guidelines (DoP&T’s OM dated 19.05.2009), the benefits of the ACP Scheme of August 1999 would be continued I applicable till 31.08.2008. If the Government employees, who have opted for fixation of their pay in the revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, then no arrears of pay would be granted. However, if he has opted for pay fixation from the date of financial upgradation under the ACP with reference to the pre-revised pay scale, then arrears of pay would be granted from the date of his option, i.e., the date of financial upgradation under the ACPS. Para 6 of Annexure-I to DoP&T’s OM dated 19.05.2009 already provides for this benefit. Hence, there is no requirement for the issue of any further instructions on the said issue. Thus, the item is treated as closed.

Item No. 9: Employees who got one promotion or l51 ACP prior to 01.09.2008 and have completed over two decades of service without the benefit of promotion may be granted the third up-gradation under the MACPS on 1.9.2008 (Para 12 of Minutes of the meeting of Joint Committee held on 27.07.2012).

Decision: As per the MACPS guidelines, there shall be three financial upgradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of I 0, 20, and 30 years of service respectively, or after 10 years of continuous service in the same Grade Pay or Pay Level in Pay Matrix, whichever is earlier. Thus, those employees who got either one promotion or 1st ACP before 1.1.2006 and who did not earn any promotion or 2nd ACP during 1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008, are eligible for 2nd MACP on or after 1.9.2008 (i.e. due on completion of 20 Years) and 3rd MACP after 30 years of service or 10 years in the same Grade Pay/Pay Level, as the case may be if found otherwise eligible. Hence, there is no ground for the grant of the 3rd MACP straight away on 1.9.2008, without the employee earning the 2nd MACP, as per the provisions of the MACPS. Therefore, the request of the Staff Side cannot be acceded to and the item is treated as closed.

7. All Ministries/Departments are advised to dispose of all pending representations /references from Staff Associations etc. seeking revision in the instructions/guidelines on the MACPS relating to the above items and also defend the various pending Court Cases or to take immediate suitable action for appealing against such judgments which are contrary to the existing policy, as upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the instant case.

(R. K.Sinha)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

To
All Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.

The post Supreme Court Order in SLP regarding benefits in promotional hierarchy under MACP Scheme – DoPT Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Most Urgent / Contempt Petition Matter

No.C-18013/25/2009-Ad.IIIB
Government of India
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs
***

New Delhi, Dated February 24th 2021

To
Cadre Controlling Authorities under CBIC.
(Kind Attention: In Charge PCC/CC of the CCAs)

Subject: Madras High Court’s Order dated 19.07.2011 in respect of Rita Mary and others-Reg.

Undersigned has been directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and state as follows:

1. It may be recalled that as part of the Government policy to govern and then impose a ban on the engagement of casual workers on daily wages, DoPT vide it’s OMs issued in 1993 and 2006 issued guidelines for regularisation of existing Casual Labourers. The exercise of regularisation in terms of these OMs was effected by formations CBIC from time to time, while also emphasizing strict adherence by field formations to Government’s policy in this regard. A copy of Board’s letter No.A-12034/1/2005-Ad.IIIB 02.05.2005, is herein enclosed for ready reference.

2. However, Madras High court, vide common order dated 19.07.2011, directed CBIC to frame a similar scheme like that of DoPT OM dated 10.09.93, to provide an opportunity to regularise certain Part Time Casual Labourers (PT CLs) subject to eligibility. Having implemented the orders, yet in view of the dismissal of further appeals in Supreme Court, a scheme titled “Part-Time Casual Labourers (Regularisation) Scheme of CBIC 2020” dated 01.01.2020 with partial modifications dated 06.02.2020 (copy enclosed) was framed and extended to respondents / petitioners covered under 5 WPs (WP No. 16733/2009, 16889 / 2009, 11492/2006, 18969 / 2006 and 20664/2011). This was framed as a one-time scheme limited only to the respondents / petitioners covered under above mentioned 5 WPs.

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

3. Now in view of court directions in another set of 18 WPs filed in Madras High court and contempt petitions filed on the issue, information is urgently required (in the enclosed proforma) regarding Part Time CLs, who have claimed regularization and who fulfil conditions as prescribed. The data in the proforma enclosed should be furnished after duly verifying the eligibility of the claimants, along with certificate regarding correctness of details /documents relied upon and copies of supporting documents.

4. For any eligible Part Time CLs left out, after this exercise, the concerned CCA, will be held responsible for consequential action.

5. Information / data in enclosed proforma is required to be sent to Board within 15 days from the issuance of this letter, including a nil report in case there are no such part time CLs under the CCA.

6. This issues with the approval of Member (Admin)

Encl: As above

Yours faithfully,

(RK Jha)
Deputy Secretary to Government

The post Madras High Court’s Order dated 19.07.2011 in respect of Rita Mary and others appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No. 25012/I/2015-Estt.A-IV
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
Establishment A-IV Desk

North Block, New Delhi-110 001
Dated: September 7, 2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Request received for Voluntary retirement from service (VRS) from Persons With Disabilities – Supreme Court Order in Bhagwan Dass & Anr Vs Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579 – clarification reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. of even no. dated 19.05.2015 on the subject noted above regarding the treatment of VRS notice given by a Government servant on medical grounds or on account of disability.

2. In this regard, it is stated that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) has been repealed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act, 2016), which came into force on 19th April, 2017. Hence, section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 as stated in DoPT’s O.M. of even no. 19.05.2015 is replaced by the provisions of section 20 of the RPWD Act, 2016.
3. Section 20 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides as under:

Also check: MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY – MACP Supreme Court Order – Heard & Reserved

• “20. (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
  (2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.
  (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
  (4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service:
  Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumeraty post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
  (5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.

4. In view of the above provision of RPWD Act, 2016 and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in case of Bhagwan Dass & anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 Scc 579, it is stated that whenever a Government servant seeks voluntary retirement citing medical grounds, or when the said VRS notice has been submitted due to a disability, the Administrative authorities shall examine as to whether the case is covered under Section 20 .
   (4) of RPWD Act, 2016. In case the provisions are applicable, the Government servant shall be advised that he/she has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits. In case a disabled Government servant reconsiders his decision and withdraws the notice for voluntary retirement, his case shall be dealt with the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of RPWD Act, 2016. If however, in spite of being so advised, such Government servant still wishes to take voluntary retirement, the request may be processed as per the applicable rules.

5. All the Ministries and Departments are requested to keep the above in view while processing cases of requests for voluntary retirement from disabled Government servants.

(Surya Narayan Jha)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

To
The Secretaries
All Ministries /Departments of Government of India
(As per the standard list)

Source: DoPT

The post VRS from Persons With Disabilities – Supreme Court – Latest DoPT Order appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

1. Nodal Departments/Ministries for the Development of SCs and STs

1.1 Reservation in Services and Posts: Department of Personnel & Training is responsible for implementation of policies of reservation in services and posts under the Central Government for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).

1.2 Social, Educational and Economic Empowerment: Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment is the nodal Department for the overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes including special schemes aimed at social, educational and economic empowerment of SCs e.g. scholarships, hostels, residential schools, skill training, concessional loans and subsidy for self-employment, etc.

1.3 Ministry of Tribal Affairs: Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal Department for the overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes including special schemes aimed at social, educational and economic empowerment of STs e.g. scholarships, hostels, skill training, concessional loans and subsidy for self-employment, etc.

1.4 Department of Disability Affairs: Department of Disability Affairs is the nodal Department for the overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes including special schemes aimed at social & economic empowerment and welfare of Persons with Disabilities.

2. Constitutional and Legal Provisions on Reservation in Services and Posts

Objective of providing reservations to the Scheduled Castes(SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in services is not only to give jobs to few persons belonging to these communities, but also aims at empowering them and ensuring their participation in the decision making process of the State. The Constitution has, therefore, made provisions for providing equality of opportunity to them in the matter of public employment. Clauses (4) and (4A) of Article 16 of the Constitution provide for reservation in appointments to posts and services in favour of backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

3. Implementation of Post based Roster in reference of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R. K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab

Reservation till 01.07.1997 was computed on the basis of number of vacancies to be filled. The Supreme Court in the case, titled R. K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, held that the reservation should be determined on the basis of number of posts in the cadre and not on the basis of vacancies. Accordingly, post based reservation was introduced w.e.f. 02.07.1997. The basic principle of post based reservation is that the number of posts filled by reservation for any category in a cadre should be equal to the quota prescribed for that category. Prior to introduction of post based reservation, there was a provision of exchange of reserved posts between SCs and STs. After implementation of the post based reservation such exchange is no more permissible.

Also check: Facility for Central Government Civil pensioners to store Electronic PPO in Digi Locker

4. Adequate reservation, not proportional representation- Extent of reservation as on date

A Nine judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 16.11.1992 in the matter of ‘Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India [WP(C) No. 930/1990]’, inter-alia, observed that clause (4) of Article 16 speaks of adequate representation and not of proportionate representation. The Apex Court has held that it is not possible to accept the theory of proportionate representation though the proportion of population of Backward Classes to the total population would certainly be relevant and held that the power conferred by clause (4) of article 16 should be exercised in a fair manner and within reasonable limits so that reservation does not exceed 50%. At present, reservation in case of direct recruitment on all India basis by open competition is 49.5% (i.e. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs) and reservation in case of direct recruitment on all India basis otherwise than by open competition is 50% (i.e. 16.66% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 25.84% for OBCs).

5. Reservation in promotion struck down in Indira Sawhney case – 77th (Seventy Seventh) Amendment

5.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of ‘Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Ors.’, inter-alia, held that reservation in promotion is ultra-virus, as much as, there is no provision in the Constitution to provide for reservation in promotions. However, it continued the provision of reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for five years from the pronouncement of the judgment i.e. upto 15.11.1997. Thus the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes after 15.11.1997 would have ceased to exist. In order to continue reservation in promotion beyond 15.11.1997, the 77th Amendment was made to incorporate clause (4A) in Article 16 of the Constitution. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill leading to the enactment of Constitution (Seventy Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 stated that the object of the incorporation of Article 16 (4A) was to continue the then existing dispensation relating to reservation in promotion.

5.2. The 77th amendment inserted Article 16(4A) in the Constitution provides as under:

“(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.”

6. DoPT OM dated 13.08.1997

Accordingly, with Cabinet approval, the OM, dated 13.08.1997, was issued to convey the decision of the Government to continue the reservation in promotion for the SCs/STs in services/ posts under the Central Government beyond 15.11.1997, till such time the representation of each of the above two categories, in each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages whereafter the representation in promotion shall be continued to be maintained to the extent of the prescribed percentages for the respective categories.

7. Applicability at ‘Reservation in Promotions’

Reservation to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is provided in the matter of promotion when promotions are made:

(a) Through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination in Group B, Group C and Group D posts;

(b) By seniority cum fitness from Group B post to the lowest a Group A post or within Group B, Group C and Group D posts

However, reservation in promotion is not given in the grades in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, exceeds 75 per cent [36012/17/88- Estt.(SCT) dated 25/4/1989].

8. Backlog Vacancies to be treated as a separate class of vacancies – 81st (Eighty First) Amendment

8.1. Any vacancy/vacancies which was/were earmarked reserved in an earlier recruitment year but could not be filled in the previous attempt and remained vacant is/are treated as backlog reserved vacancy/vacancies in the subsequent recruitment year(s).

8.2. The Supreme Court, in the case of ‘Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India’, interalia held that the number of reserved vacancies in a year in any cadre, including backlog reserved vacancies, should not exceed 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies of the year.

8.3. In order to overcome the limitation imposed by the Judgement of the Supreme Court, the 81st (Eighty First ) Amendment was made to the Constitution, whereby Clause (4B) was incorporated in Article 16 of the Constitution.

Clause 16 (4B) reads as follows:-

“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under Clause (4) or Clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.”

8.3. After the above mentioned amendment to the Constitution, Department of Personnel & Training issued O.M. No. 36012/5/97-Estt (Res) Vol.II, dated 20.7.2000, laying down that the backlog reserved vacancies would be treated as a separate and distinct group and would not be considered together with the reserved vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of 50% reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. In other words, the ceiling of 50% on filling up of reserved vacancies would apply only on the reserved vacancies pertaining to that year in which the said vacancies arise and the backlog reserved vacancies of earlier years would be treated as a separate and distinct group and would not be subject to any ceiling.

9. Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India and 82nd (Eighty Second) Amendment

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes had been enjoying the benefit of relaxation in qualifying marks and standards of evaluation in the matters of reservation in promotion. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, dated 1-10-1996, in the case of ‘S. Vinod Kumar Vs. Union India’ held that such relaxations in matters of reservation in promotion were not permissible under article 16(4) of the Constitution in view of the command contained in article 335 of the Constitution. The Apex Court also held that the law on the subject of relaxations of qualifying marks and standards of evaluation, in matters of reservation in promotion, is the one laid down by the nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Indira Sawhney and others Vs. Union of India’ and others. Para 831 of Indira Sawhney judgment also held that such relaxations, is not permissible under article 16(4) in view of the command contained in article 335 of the Constitution. In order to implement the judgments of the Supreme Court, such relaxations had to be withdrawn with effect from 22.07.1997. In view of the adverse impact of the order, dated 22.07.1997, on the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the 82nd (Eighty Second) Amendment was made to the Constitution whereby in Article 335 of the Constitution, the following proviso was inserted:

“Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.

10. Virpal Singh Chauhan Vs. UOI and Ajit Singh Janjua Vs. State of Punjab – 85th (Eighty-Fifth) Amendment – Consequential Seniority.

10.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217, has held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution does not permit reservations in the matter of promotion. Thereafter, the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh) Act, 1995 came into force on 17.6.1995 (as explained in para 8 above). Later on, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 684, Ajit Singh Janjua & Ors, Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (Ajit Singh-I), reported in (1996) 2 SCC 715 and & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (Ajit Singh-II), reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209, introduced the catch-up rule and did away with the principle of consequential seniority and held that when the senior general candidate is promoted, he will regain his seniority vis-a vis his junior reserved candidate, promoted to the higher post earlier than the general candidate as a result of reservation policy. It was also held that consequential seniority on promotion post is not covered by Article 16(4A).

10.2. The Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes had been enjoying the benefit of consequential seniority on their promotion on the basis of rule of reservation. The above judgments of the Supreme Court would have adversely affected the interest of the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category in the matter of seniority on promotion to the next higher grade. In order to remove this inconsistency and to dilute & repeal the catch up principle, the Parliament of India, again amended the Constitution of India [85th (Eighty-Fifth) Amendment] whereby the term consequential seniority was added in Article 16(4A).

10.3. The amended Article 16 (4A) provides as under:-

Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

10.4. Apex Court judgment, dated 19.10.2006, on the legality off the above constitutional Amendment in the case of M.Nagaraj & Others Vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Apex Court ruled as follows:

“The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling-limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBC on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney, the concept of post-based Roster with in-built concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal.

We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.

However, in this case, as stated, the main issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.

Subject to above, we uphold the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty-First  Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

We have not examined the validity of individual enactments of appropriate States and that question will be gone into in individual writ petition by the appropriate bench in accordance with law laid down by us in the present case.

Reference is answered accordingly”.

11. Own Merit in reservation in promotion

11.1. The concept of ‘own merit’ was introduced, vide Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res), dated 11.07.2002. The O.M dated 11.07.2002, inter- alia, provided that the SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will not be adjusted against the reserved points of the reservation roster. They will be adjusted against unreserved points. However, the said O.M did not clarify the following two points:

(i) The date of effect of the O.M No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res), dated 11.07.2002.

(ii) Whether the orders will apply in case of promotion made by non-selection method.

11.2. To clarify these above two points, an O.M No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res), dated 31.01.2005, was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which clarified that OM dated 11.07.2002 be applicable w.e.f. 11.07.2002. It also clarified that in case of promotions by non-selection, promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and the concept of own merit is not involved in such promotions.

11.3. The O.M. dated 31.01.2005 was challenged in the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A No. 900/2005 [S.Kalugasalamoorthy vs Union of India & Ors]. The Hon’ble CAT quashed the O.M dated 31.01.2005, and held that when a person is selected on the basis of his own seniority, the scope of considering and counting him against quota reserved for SCs does not arise. The Judgment of CAT, dated 14.9.2006, was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which upheld the decision of the CAT Madras, vide judgment, dated 20.08.2009.

11.4. After consultation with D/o of Legal Affairs, the O.M No. 36012/45/2005-Estt (Res), dated 10.08.2010, was issued to withdraw the Office Memorandum No. 36028/17/2001-Estt(Res), dated 31.01.2005, and to, inter-alia, clarify that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and seniority, and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications, will be adjusted against unreserved points of reservation roster, irrespective of the fact whether the promotion is made by selection method or non-selection method. It was also clarified that the OM dated 10.08.2010 will take effect from2.7.1997, the date on which post based reservation was introduced.

12. Punjab & High Court’s Decision on Own Merit in Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs. Lachmi Chand Gupra & Ors.

12.1. The said O.M, dated 10.08.2010, was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in CWP No. 13218/2009 [Shri Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors Vs Jarnail Singh & Ors]. The Hon’ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, vide judgment, dated 15.07.2011, quashed the O.M dated 10.8.2010 stating as under:

“In the absence of any survey with regard to inadequacy as also concerning the overall requirement of efficiency of the administration where reservation is to be made alongwith backwardness of the class for whom the reservation is required, it is not possible to sustain these notifications. Accordingly, it has to be held that these notifications suffers from violation of the provisions of Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) read with Article 335 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj’s as well as in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case.”

12.2. Union of India through Department of Revenue has filed an SLP (C) No. 6915/2014 which has been clubbed with SLP(C) No. 30621/2011, filed by Shri Jarnail Singh in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order, dated 03.02.2015, stated as under:

“…. Status quo existing as on today in respect of the promotional matters that are covered by the impugned judgment shall be maintained till thenext date of hearing”.

12.3. Subsequently, a Contempt petition was filed by the Samta Andolan Samiti alleging that DoPT and Ministry of Railways have reportedly implemented the provisions of OM, dated 10.08.2010, inspite of the abovesaid Interim Order dated 03.02.2015.

12.4. In order to preclude any interim order in the contempt case, the Ld. Solicitor General, in the hearing held in Supreme Court on 29.09.2016, has undertaken that till such time the main matter along with the Contempt Petition is decided, no further promotions of reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be made based on the DOPT O.M. dated 10.08.2010. Accordingly, instructions were issued by the Establishment (Reservation) Division to all departments, vide O.M.36012/11/2016-Estt.(Res.), dated 30.09.2016.

13. Delhi High Court Judgement dated 23.08.2017 on ‘Reservation in Promotion’

13.1. In WP(C) 3490/2010 & CM No. 6956/2010, filed by All India Equality Forum Vs Union of India, the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi vide para 15 of its judgment dated 23.08.2017, has held as under:-

“…The impugned OM No. 36012/18/95-Estt.(Res.) Pt. II dated 13.08.1997, issued by DOPT, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from granting any reservation, in promotion, to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India, without, in the first instance, carrying out the necessary preliminary exercise of acquiring quantifiable data indicating inadequacy of representation, of the said categories, in service, and evaluating the situation by taking into consideration the said data, along with the competing considerations of backwardness and overall efficiency in administration, and arriving at an empirical decision on the basis thereof.”

13.2 An SLP vide No. 31288/2017 has been filed by this Department against the judgment, dated 23.08.2017, of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. This SLP has been tagged with the SLP No. 30621/2011 of Jarnail Singh.

13.3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order, dated 14.11.2017, in CA No. 4562- 4564/2017, in the matter of the State of Tripura & Ors. Vs Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors and vide order, dated 15.11.2017 in SLP(C) No. 28306/2017 in the matter of the State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs Vijay Ghogre & Ors stated that the case of M. Nagaraj may be referred to larger Constitutional Bench to examine if the M. Nagaraj judgement needs reexamination.

14.1 In the mean time, promotion orders by many States were struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being non compliant with Nagaraj Judgement. Promotions were further withheld because of orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

14.2 Hence, there was a big hue and cry. Promotions were withheld and People were retiring without getting benefit of promotion. As a result, an interim application was filed, requesting Supreme Court to allow holding of DPC and effect promotions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter related to I.A. No. 25195/2018 in SLP (C) No. 30621/2011 (Jarnail Singh & Ors Vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors), on 17.05.2018 has passed the following Order:

“It is directed that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from ‘reserved to reserved’ and ‘unreserved to unreserved’ and also in the matter of promotion on merits. Post for further orders after summer vacation.”

15. In another interim Order, dated 05.06.2018, in SLP No. 31288/2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated as follows:

“It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. Tag to SLP (C) No. 30621/2011.”

16. Consequently, DoPT vide Office Memorandum No. 36012/11/2016- Estt.(ResI) {Pt-II}, dated 15.06.2018, issued instructions to all Ministries/Department to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.05.2018, in the matter related to SLP (C) No. 30621/2011 and interim order dated 05.06.2018 in the matter related to SLP(C) No. 31288/2017.

17. Decision in Jarnail Singh Case – Whether it should be referred to Larger Bench

The Constitutional Bench on 26.09.2018, held that it is not required to be referred to Larger Bench and that the State is not required to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of SCs/STs. However, it is required to collect data on the inadequacy of representation and to see that the efficiency is not affected. The major observations in the judgement are summarised below:-

(i) “……….. we have confined arguments on two points which requires serious consideration. The two points are (a) whether State has to collect quantifiable data as observed in Nagaraj judgment, which is contrary to nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India and (b) whether creamy layer concept will be applicable in the case of SCs/STs.” (Para 3 of the judgment

(ii) “ …. When Nagaraj applied the creamy layer test to SCs and STs in exercise of application of the basic structure test to uphold the constitutional amendments leading to Articles 16 (4-A) and 16(4-B), it did not in any manner interfere with Parliament’s power under Article 341 or 342. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that this part of the judgment does not need to be revised…..”. (Para 17 of the judgment).

(iii) “….. Thus, we may make it clear that quantifiable data shall be collected by the State, on the parameters as stipulated in Nagaraj on the inadequacy of representation, which can be tested by the Courts. We may further add that the data would be relatable to the concerned cadre. “ (Para 17 of the judgment)

(iv) “… According to us, Nagaraj has wisely left the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts to the States for the simple reason that as the post gets higher, it may be necessary, even if a proportionality test to the population as a while is taken into account, to reduce the number of SCs and STs in promotional posts, as one goes upwards. This is for the simple reason that efficiency of administration has to be looked at evey time promotions are made. …. For this reason, we make it clear that Article 16 (4-A) has been couched in language which would leave it to the States to determine adequate representation depending upon the promotional post that is in question.” (Para 20 of the judgment)

(v) “…. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the SCs and STs being contrary to the nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney is held to be invalid to this extent “(Para 21 of judgment).

It was also held that the State is required to see the efficiency of administration while making provision for reservation.

18. Supreme Court judgment dated 27.8.2015 and 9.2.2017 in the case of S.Paneerselvam and B.K.Pavitra – Consequential Seniority issue

18.1. Subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case, the enactments/policy of various State Governments on the issue of consequential seniority to SC/ST candidates after fast track promotion through reservation/roster points were decided by the Supreme Court in the following two cases:

1) S.Paneerselvam and others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu vide Supreme Court Judgement dated 27.8.2015.

2) B.K. Pavitra and others Vs. UOI and others vide Supreme Court
Judgment dated 9.2.2017

18.2. Both the judgements of the Supreme court, in the cases of S. Paneerselvam as well as B.K. Pavitra are based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj i.e., the State has to collect quantifiable data indicating ‘backwardness of the class’, ‘inadequacy of representation’ and ‘overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. In other words, in the absence of such data, the State cannot provide ‘consequential seniority’ to those who are promoted against reservation/roster points.

19. Hon’ble Supreme in the case of B.K. Pavitra had held as under:

“It is clear from the above discussion that exercise for determining inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. It is for the State to place material on record that there was compelling necessity for exercise of such power and decision of the State was based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised……………………….In absence of exercise under Article 16(4A), it is the catch up’rule which is fully applies. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the concerned Corporation had adopted the rule of consequential seniority.”

20. B.K. Pavitra and Ors vs. The Union of India and Ors (Pavitra -2)

In B.K. Pavitra and Ors. Versus The Union of India and Ors.( to be referred to as B.K. Pavitra 2), the validity of ‘the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Governnment Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018’ was challenged on the grounds that the state legislature has virtually re-enacted the earlier legislation without curing its defects. Further, it is not open to legislative body governed by the parameters of a written constitution to override a judicial decision without taking away its basis. The State Government defended its legislation on the grounds that it has fulfilled the constitutional requirements of collecting quantifiable data before it enacted the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded its judgement in the following manner:

“……we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B K Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B K Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.” ( Para 144)

21. Interim Order dated 15.04.2019

21.1. In a hearing on 15.04.2019 in respect of SLP No. 31288/2017 related to Reservation in promotion and SLP No. 31621/2011 relating to own merit, alongwith other tagged cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following Order:

“Issue notice in the fresh matters. Until further orders, status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained. List all the matters on 15.10.2019.”

21.2. In view of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an application has been filed before the Hon’ble Court seeking clarification whether in the light of the Interim order dated 15.4.2019 the Government can go ahead with promotion

The post RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES – IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS AND COURT CASES – Central Government Employees appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No. 38/18/2018-P&PW (A)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare

3 Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan
Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003

Dated: 14.08.2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub :- Waiver of recovery of wrongful/ excess payments made to retired Government servants – regarding

The undersigned is directed to say that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), etc. in C.A. No. 11527 of 2014 summarised a few situations wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law. One of these situations relates to recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

Also read: Retirement benefits as per Rule 64 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 during Covid Pandemic time

2. Based on the above judgment, Department of Personnel & Training has issued instructions vide their OM No. 18/03/2015-Esst. (Pay-l) dated 02.03.2016 that the issue of wrongful/excess payment made to Government servants may be dealt with in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case. The instructions further provide that wherever the waiver of recovery in the situations mentioned in that OM is considered, the same may be allowed with the express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of DoPT’s OM No. 18/26/2014-Estt (Pay-l) dated 06.02.2014.
3. In order to examine the matter in its entirety, all Ministries/Departments and Pension Disbursing Banks are requested to provide the following information regarding excess payment of pension and other retirement benefits to the retired Government employees:

• No. of retired employees from whom recovery of excess payment of pension and other retirement benefits has been made or is sought to be made by the Ministry/ Department as well as its attached offices and subordinate offices.
• No. of pensioners from whom recovery of excess payment of pension and other retirement benefits has been made or is sought to be made by the Pension Disbursing Bank.
• Period of excess payment in each case and the date on which excess payment was noticed.
• Amount of excess payment in each case.
• Whether any court/ CAT order has been received for waiver of recovery of excess payment in the light of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case. If so, the details of such cases received in last three years (year-wise) and action taken on the order of court/ CAT may be indicated
• Whether any representation has been received for waiver of excess payment. If so the details of such representations received in last three years (year-wise) and action taken on the representations may be indicated.

4. All the Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to furnish the information sought in para 3 above to this Department by 15.09.2020 positively.

Also check: Order issued – Government employees retiring during COVID pandemic will be receiving provisional pension till their regular Pension Payments

(RC Sethi)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Email.: sethi.rc@nic.in

The post Exemption from reimbursement of wrongful / excess payments made to retired Government Employees appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Benefit of pensioners who retired on 30th June

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING)

RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2027 (TO BE ANSWERED ON 05.12.2019)

IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPREME COURT ORDER BENEFITTING PENSIONERS

SHRI C.M. RAMESH:
Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:

(a) whether Government had filed a Review Petition in the Supreme Court of India against Court’s order dated the 23rd July, 2018 [RP (c) No. 1731/2019 in SLP (c) No. 22008/2018] and the Court had dismissed the SLP on 8th August, 2019, if so, the details thereof; and

Also check: Madras High Court Order – Notional increment of pensionary benefits

(b) whether in the light of the said order of the Supreme Court. Government has issued any order to implement it for the benefit of pensioners who retired on 30th June, if not, whether any timeline has been fixed and if not, the reasons therefor?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE

(DR. JITENDRA SINGH)

(a): Yes, Sir. Union of India filed SLP (C) No. 22008/2018 in the Supreme Court of India against Order dated 15-09-2017 in WP No. 15732/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India by its Order dated 23-07- 2018. Against the said Order, Union of India filed Review Petition (C) No. 1731/2019 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated 08-08-2019.

(b): As the judgment is in personnel and is contrary to the personnel policy of Government of India, no general order has been issued.

The post Supreme Court Order – Benefit of pensioners who retired on 30th June appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Text of the Supreme court judgement follows:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION

R.P.(C) No. 1731/2019 in S.L.P. (C) No.22008/2018

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
P. AYYAMPERUMAL
Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

This review petition has been filed against Order dated 23rd July, 2018 whereby the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

We have considered the review petition on merits. In our opinion, no case for review of Order dated 23rd July, 2018 is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on merits.

Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.

………………..J
(N.V. RAMANA)
…………………J
(DEEPAK GUPTA)

NEW DELHI;
8TH AUGUST, 2019.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.08.09
16:55:01 IST
ITEM NO.1004
SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

R.P.(C) No. 1731/2019 in SLP(C) No. 22008/2018

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS

P. AYYAMPERUMAL
Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.98411/2019-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.98414/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION )

Date : 08082019 This petition was circulated today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

By Circulation
UPON perusing papers the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

The review petition is dismissed on merits in terms of the signed order.
Pending application filed in the matter also stands disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND)
COURT MASTER (SH)
(RAJ RANI NEGI)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed Order is placed on the file)

Message by JVSR Krishna – 9441903448 (jvsrkrishna@gmail.com)
Flash….Flash….Flash…..Flash,

Increment Issue: for those retired on 30th June, due increment is 1st July. Supreme Court of India dismissed Review petition No.1731/2019 judgement dt.8th Aug. 2019 filed by the Government, indicated based on the merit, review petition submitted by Government was dismissed. Now, the national forums responsibility is to insist the government to implement the same to all the central government servants who are similarly placed, instead of everybody approaching the court of law for justice and it is shear waste of money and time.

Source: SUPREME COURT ORDER

The post Increment Issue: for those retired on 30th June, due increment is 1st July. Supreme Court of India dismissed Review petition No.1731/2019 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Implementation of Honourable Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 in respect of grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Dated 22.10.2018.

No.4(10)/2017-D(Pen/Legal)
Government of India
Ministry of India
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
D(Pension/Legal)

Sena Bhawan, New Dehi
Dated 22.10.2018

To
The Chief the Naval Staff

Subject: Implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 in Contempt No.1860/2017 and 924/2018 and MA No. 1067/2018 in Civil Appeal No.2147/2011 with Contempt Petition (C) No.04/2018 in SLP(C) No.19790/2010 for grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964.

Sir,
I am directed to refer the cited Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 and convey sanction of the Competent Authority for grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 to the ex-sailors appointed prior to 03.07.1976 and discharged on or after 03.07.1976 on expiry of 10 years of service.

2. The amount of pension payable is Rs.9000 (Rupees Nine thousand) per month to each of the ex-sailors under Regulation 95 Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, payable September 2018 as per the Court Order under reference.

3. The amount of gratuity and DCRG paid, be adjusted the amount payable. Necessary PPO may be issued immediately.

4. The expenditure incurred on this account will be paid under Charged Expenditure and be debited to the relevant Head of Account.

5. This issues with concurrence of Ministry Defence vide their U.O. No. 1023/Fin/Pen Dated 17.10.2018.

6. Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 4(10)/2017-D (Pen/Legal) dated 26th September, 2017 may be treated as cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Agrawal)
Under Secretary to the Govt of India

View order

Source: http://www.desw.gov.in

The post Implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 in Contempt No.1860/2017 and 924/2018 and MA No. 1067/2018 in Civil Appeal No.2147/2011 with Contempt Petition (C) No.04/2018 in SLP(C) No.19790/2010 for grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.