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 1 September 2018

DHC ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 - PARAS 78,.79 ,80,.81, 82 & 83


78. We are aware that in paragraphs 1 and 2, equalization criteria has been fixed in a descending scale. There is higher equalization on the initial amounts till Rs.2130 in paragraph 1 and Rs.3850 in paragraph 2. This would not make any difference, for we are concerned with reference to paragraphs 1 and 2 with cases of equalisation above the said figures, which must correspond and meet the equalisation given to pensioners under paragraph 3(A), who had retired subsequently after the 1st day of August, 1997 and are in receipt of a higher basic pension.

79. For the identical reasons, the pensioners in paragraph 1 should not be given dearness relief at a rate lower than the pensioners in paragraph 2. The rate of dearness relief on amounts above Rs.2130/- till Rs.3850/- WP(C)184/2007 & Connected matters Page 65 of 90
fixed in paragraph 1 at 0.17% of basic pension shall be enhanced to the rate of 0.29% as specified in clause (ii) of paragraph 2. However, for pension in excess of Rs.2130/-, rate of 0.23% of basic pension as stated in paragraph 3(A) would apply, with effect from the applicable date.

80. We are aware and conscious of the fact that paragraphs 1 and 2 form part of the Pension Rules as originally enacted. We have, in our reasons, indicated and referred to the option exercised by the retirees covered by paragraphs 1 and 2. Nevertheless, we would not for this reason refuse to grant relief to the pensioners in paragraph 1 in case we find that the original rule itself is discriminatory and draws an artificial distinction to the detriment of those drawing lower pension. Reference to option exercised by the retirees is pertinent and relevant in the context of the prayer for revalorization of pension on account of increase in emoluments of in-service employees or uniform rate of basic pension, albeit would not be a ground to deny relief for apparent violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 

 81. During the course of hearing, we had asked the Corporation to submit a table explaining what would be the affect in case benefit of 0.23% is given to the employees covered by paragraphs 1 and 2. Along with written submissions, the Corporation has filed annexures. As per Annexure A, an employee, who was entitled to basic pension of Rs.5000 on retirement would be entitled to pension after giving benefit of indexation in paragraph 1 of Rs.24,681.88 and in case percentage of 0.23% is computed on pension above Rs.2130, the pension would be enhanced to Rs.27,634.95. Similarly, in case of an employee covered 

WP(C)184/2007 & Connected matters Page 66 of 90

under paragraph 2, who was given an initial basic pension of Rs.5,000, his pension on indexation under paragraph 2 would be Rs.17,286.17, whereas in case he is given benefit of indexation of 0.23% on the pension amount of Rs.3851 and upwards, he would be entitled to pension of Rs.19,489.50/- Thus, on indexation of 0.23% on the higher amounts, the retirees covered under paragraphs 1 and 2 would get greater/higher benefit. They would be entitled to the said benefit. 

82. The aforesaid direction would largely benefit the retirees on the upper end i.e. whose basic pension in case of paragraph 1 exceeds Rs.2130 or in paragraph 2 when basic pension exceeds Rs.3850. This direction would not help the retirees at the lower end where the basic pension was/is less than Rs.2131 or Rs.3851. We would accept the said position, but this would not deter us from passing the order on the ground that the upper end pensioners covered by paragraphs 1 and 2 are entitled to and would get the said benefit. 

83. There is another aspect on which we feel the retired employees/associations should succeed. The retired employees/associations on being asked could not point the lowest pension being paid. Perhaps the retired employees at the lower end are not adequately represented in the associations and do not have the same "access". The Corporation was asked to specify the correct position and state the lowest/minimum amount of pension being paid under paragraphs 1 and 2. For the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce the chart filed by the Corporation, with reference to the minimum pension prescribed under Rule 36 quoted above

No comments: