Injustice to Pre 2006 but Post 1996 Pensioners
In the past, the pensioners of pre ‘86 vintage had a wide disparity with the pensioners of pre ’96 period. The 5th C.P.C in 1997 kindly noted this disparity and enunciated principles of parity between pensioners of pre and post implementation of revised pay scales. The 5th C.P.C also introduced a scheme of near parity of the pre 1996 pensioners with post ’96 pensioners belonging to same scale of pay by granting them a pension of fifty per cent of the minimum amount of the revised scale of pay. The difference between implementing full parity and the ‘near’ parity as implemented after the 5th CPC was that for pre 1996 pensioners their stage in the span of scale of pay was not taken into account. Since administratively it would have been cumbersome to calculate stage wise in the new pay scale for new pensioners, this scheme of parity was received not only with wide acceptance and relief but also gratefully by the pensioners..
2.The 6th C.P.C too, in their recommendations stated in para 5.1.46 have endorsed the spirit contained in 5th CPC by observing that they wish to continue the near parity. They accordingly recommended the fitment formula on the same lines as for existing employees. As against grade pay given to current employees, they recommended addition of 40 per cent of basic pension as fitment benefit. They provided another rider to ensure near parity and stated in para 5.1.47 that the pension so fixed i.e. of adding 40 per cent fitment benefit, should NOT be less than 50 per cent of the pay and grade pay of the existing employees belonging to the same scale of pay at least at the minimum stage. By ignoring the effect of stage in the span of pay scale, the near parity between post 2006 retirees and pre ’06 retirees would be maintained.
3 The government has already published the fitment table for pensioners (after adding 40 per cent fitment benefit). They have also published a table for existing employees. This indicates the pay plus grade pay of employees of all pay scales at various stages. It would therefore be logical and simple operation to read off the fitment of pensioners. It can be compared with fitment of existing employees of same scale of pay at minimum level. If pension fitment happens to be more than 50 per cent of existing employees fitment at minimum level of same scale of pay, the pensioners retains his figure; if this happens to be lower than 50 per cent employee figure, the pension is to be hiked up.
4 However, ironically it is reported that attempts are being made to adopt one methodology for determining pay of employees for making payment to him, while a different methodology for determining his pay for determining the protection of pension. It is obvious that if two methodologies are different, the parity will be destroyed defeating the very purpose of the recommendations.
5 To make the point more clear it may be stated that for fixing the pay of the employee the procedure provided is to multiply basic pay by 1.86 and then add grade pay. Where the pay X 1.86 is less than starting point of pay band, it is to be upgraded to start of P.B. otherwise the Pay X 1.86 is the operative figure with no relevance to starting of P.B.
6 In case of pensioners a view is being taken that if pay X 1.86 is less than starting of P.B. it will be upgraded but if it is more than starting of P.B. the pay will be fixed at minimum of pay band instead of pay X 1.86. This would mean that protection of pension will be only up to 50 per cent of the start of P.B. instead of 50 per cent of pay X 1.86 which is illogical and destructive of parity. This would largely affect pensioners in lower pay scales.
7 To illustrate the point, following examples are worked out.
Illustration- 1 S24 Old Pay scale 14,300-18,800 Pay of employee of 14,300
Calculation of New Pay
Pay Band 4 ; 37,400-67,000 : Grade Pay . 8,700. Revised Pay would be 46,100 i.e. 37,400+G.P. 8,700.
While 1.86 x 14,300 plus grade pay, i.e., 35,298.
Calculation of Pension of pre 2006
The pension on the basis of 40 per cent uplift (Para 4.1) would be 7150x2.26 = 16,159
However, according to para 4.2, it will be upgraded to half of (Minimum Pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay i.e., ½ of 46,100 i.e. 23,050
Illustration-2 S 19Pay scale 10,000-15,200 (s-19): Pay Of Employee 10,000.
Calculation of new Pay
P.B.3 (15,600-39,100): G.P.6,600. Revised Pay of employee in the Pay Band would be 10,000 x 1.86 18,600
Total Pay will be 18600 + GP 6,600 =25200 (A)
Calculation Of Pension pre 2006.
On the basis of Para 4.1 Pension would be 5000x2.26 = 11300.
This results in denial of protection up to 12600 under para 4.2. By restricting it to the benefit to the minimum of pay band minimum pension comes to only 11100.
8 To sum up, it is a travesty of fair play that instead of taking direct recourse to fitment table for employees by determining the minimum of replacement scales and treating 50% there of as protection figure for pensioners, a purely arbitrary figure of the pay band minimum is taken as notified by OM dated 3/10/2008 losing links with the post from which the employee retired. This figure of pay used for the purpose of fixing pension is unreal, imaginary, and prejudicial to interest of pensioners, especially in lower range of pay scales and it violates the basic idea of parity.
Although in the OM under reference or in any other related government document there is no specific reference to pre 1996 pensioners, it appears that the Pension Disbursing authorities are working on the premise that 50 percent protection of the pay on the revised scale of the post from which the pensioner retired is not applicable in the case of pre 1996 retirees.
It may be recalled that the VIth CPC recommended the pension fitment scheme by addition of 40 % of basic pension on 1.1.2006 to the Pension Plus Dearness Pension Plus Dearness Relief that the pensioner was getting on that date. In other words, the working formula consisted of multiplying the basic pension by 2.26 and treat this as consolidated pension as on 1.1.2006. This matched with the scheme for serving personnel, which required adding of grade pay to his pay in the relevant Pay Band pertaining to his scale of pay. To maintain near parity of pensioners retired before 1.1.2006 with person belonging to the same scale of pay and going to retire after 1.1.2006, a further recommendation was made that the pension fixed for earlier pensioners will not be less than at least minimum pension of subsequent retiree. The government issued formal orders accepting the scheme vide O.M. quoted under reference laying down normal fitment under Para 4.1 and protection of pension under Para 4.2 of the said O.M.
In this context it would be appropriate to recall that the Vth CPC in order to remove grave disparity between pre’86 and pre’96 retirees first brought them on par on one pay scale. In the second step these were brought on the near parity with post 96 retirees by giving them 50 % of minimum of pay scale so that they get nearly the same pension. The point to be stressed is that all pre’96 retirees were brought on same pay scale at minimum level irrespective of what pay scale they FACTUALLY held.
This has assumed importance because Govt. O.M. No. 38/37/08-PNPW (A) dt. 01.09.2008 states in Para 4.2 that the pension fixed in Para 4.1 would not be less than 50% of pay and grade pay of the employee in the same scale of pay from which the pensioner retired. However, if the term “ in the same scale of pay from which the pensioner retired’ is sought to be interpreted narrowly and in a restricted manner that such benefit would accrue only to those who FACTUALLY held the posts in Scales S -1 to S34 it would mean that the government has withdrawn the scheme of near parity conferred on pensioners so far.
Explaining further, if the notification is restricted to 50 % of the scale of pay the retiree FACTUALLY held earlier the purpose of the previous act of the government to bring pre ’86 and pre’ 96 retirees on same pay scale will be defeated. The fact of the matter is that the pre 96 and pre 86 pensioners got their Basic Pension Fixed as on 1.1.1996 based on the minimum of the replacement scale for the post from which they retired. That means that the government had conferred on them the post Vth Pay Commission revised pay scales as implemented with effect from 1.1.96 although they may not have FACTUALLY held the posts in the post 1996 pay scales. . This was the basic pension until 1.1.2006 under normal circumstances and therefore It will lead to an absurd situation since corresponding pay scales of pre’86 and pre’96 retirees had no FACTUAL relation at all; nor had they any FACTUAL relation with post’96 corresponding scale. Therefore the attempt to restrict the protection to 50 % of the pay scale FACTUALY held will be meaningless and an exercise in futility. The obvious step is to treat pre’86 and pre’96 pensioners on par with post 96 retirees on corresponding scale of pay. The above case makes the whole scheme of past meaningful as bringing the parity among retirees of previous years.
It is therefore considered that denial of protection to pre’86 and pre’96 retirees merely on the ground of not FACTUALLY holding the scale of pay will be discriminatory on the basis of date of retirement and grossly unethical.
