SCPC: Battle of Pension Parity

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:09 PM
Dear Veterans,
Now that the cat is out of the bag and we know the principle, thanks to Admiral B Ghose, behind the pension revision by the very clever CS, we get a clear idea that fighting against the Bureaucrats is much trickier than an enemy at war. It is a different game altogether.

When Vth CPC recommended the so-called modified parity creating more than one class of pensioners - contrary to the opinions of the SC Judges - they did so, taking into account that each rank had a separate pay scale and thereby a separate minimum. The minimum is obviously higher than that of the junior rank. This recommendation was conveniently not accepted by the Government then. Not even immediately after the 6th CPC!

Now, after lot of representations of various forms, with magnanimity they have accepted the recommendation and apply it to the minimum of the pay band on the plea that Lt Col to Maj Gen is covered under one pay band, PB4. Cunningly they have brought out a new scale for Lt Gen, all of sudden increasing minimum of the pay from 37400 of PB 4 to 67000 of the new scale and eliminated the Rank Pay.

I am sure that they expect us to throw tantrums and make representations that the minimum of the pay of the rank in the pay band according to the fitment table of SAI 2/S/2008, as for the ranks of Lt Col to Maj Gen. Once again the Government shall show magnanimity and accept our representation - with a smirk of course - and we shall get what we demanded way back by way of individual representations to the Secy ESW. The fact that we pointed out the incorrect interpretation of the Pension Policy of 11 Sep 2008 is likely to be conveniently forgotten. And our demand of absolute parity is not logical, they seem to say. Let us put our heads and strength together, pitch a battle of wits and win what we want.
Regards,
RN Radhakrishnan

Date: Thursday, 30 July, 2009, 7:17 PM
Dear Veterans,
When the finance minister mentioned the figure 2144 crores, it become obvious that the Government intends to improve the pension not accede to our demand of full parity among pensioners of same rank and same length of total service.

The principle hitherto unknown to us has been made known. There shall be two classes of pensioners at any time. One class comprises of the pensioners of the vintage prior to the date of implementation of the latest pay commission and the other those who retire after the date. This is against the principle of the Constitution Bench of SC enunciated during the delivery of the Judgment in the well known case of Nakra Vs UoI, based on which recently a decision was given in favor of major generals. Does the Government expects us to go to the court to seek similar judgment now?

Quite cleverly the issue of two classes within those retiring after 10-01-2006 has been evaded, the ones retiring between 01-01-2006 and 01-08-2006 draw different pensions those of the same rank retiring with the same length of service subsequently. Let us mull over this and plan our future course of action.
Regards,
RN Radhakrishnan