PENSIONERS' VOICE AND SOUND TRACK APPEALS YOU "USE MASK""KEEP SOCIAL DISTANCE" "GHAR BATHO ZINDA RAHO" "STAY HOME SAVE LIVES"
DEAR FRIENDS, CONGRATS, YOUR BLOG CROSSED 3268000 HITS ON 01.02.2023 THE BLOG WAS LAUNCHED ON 23.11.2014,HAVE A GREAT DAY
VISIT 'PENSIONERS VOICE & SOUND TRACK' WAY TO CATCH UP ON PENSIONER RELATED NEWS!

Saturday, 31 March 2018

Anomaly arising out of DHC judgment in Minimum Family Pension

When I was examining the impact of the partial relief ordered by DHC in its judgment dated 27/4/2017, I happened to notice that in  borderline cases of some family pensioners who are spouses of AAOs/AOs, the minimum pension upgradation secured by the family pensioners in some cases results in an  anomaly whereby a family pensioner who was fixed at a basic family pension just above the minimum basic family pension as per our Pension Rules,gets a total gross pension as at 1/2/2018 less than the revised gross pension based on upgradation of the minimum basic family pension enjoyed by the other family pensioner in terms of the DHC judgment.
This type of anomaly may be arising in respect of a larger number of family pensioners who are spouses of retirees in the lower cadres of HGAs,Assistants,Record Clerks,Drivers,Peons  and Sweepers.
The very purpose of the DHC order in providing upgradation in minimum pension will be defeated if there is an anomaly created making the family pensioners who were drawing higher gross  family pension before the DHC judgment than the family pensioners who presently becomes a beneficiary of the  judgment get less gross pension  than that of the latter.
I attach the table of calculations made by me for the cadre of   AAO  bringing out the difference between a family pensioner A who benefits  from the judgment and another family pensioner B who will trail behind not merely by not getting arrears of  family pension, but also getting a lower monthly gross family pension  in future.
The only solution to this anomaly will be upgradation of pension for all pensioners without discrimination.
All the petitioners need to make use of this fact in the Supreme Court to strengthen our arguments.
Greetings.
C H Mahadevan 


No comments: