Issues of Pensioners on One notional Increment to those retired on 30th June after completion of 365 days
No.SGIBPS/01/20/16
Dated:16.01.2020
To
The Union Minister of Finance
The Union Minister of Law & Justice
The MOS (PP) PMO
Secy , DOPT
JS, DOP & PW
Subject : One notional Increment to those retired on 30th June after completion of 365 days
Madam I Sir,
Constitution of India is sacrosanct, Government Policies & Rules have to be in Synchronization with the constitution. In case of variations Policies & Rules need to be amended to suit the provisions of the constitution of India.
“Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality among equals : its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. (State of U, E. 1(1969) 1 SCC 817D) Pensioners form a homogenous group (D.& Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982) Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165 wherein It was HELD: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and another,
Madam / Sir: Answers to Lola Sabha unstarred Q No 427 & 2027 (copies attached ) seek to introduce discrimination among Similarly placed.
The judgments under reference may be in Persona, REM or Supra. The fact remains that the honorable courts decided an issue relating to pensionary benefit and that UOI was one of the party to the case as such to ensure equality under Article 14 of constitution it need to be applied to all similarly placed and not only to appellant.
Honourable PM ( in his speech in Golden Jubilee celebration of Delhi High court) as well as Honourable Supreme Court through pronouncements in several of its judgements has said that the issue once decided should apply to all similarly placed. MOD through its circulars CGDA, Ulan Batar ‘Road, Palarn:Delhi Cart No AN/III.13012/CirculartVol.VII Dated 30.10.18 and GOI Ministry of Defense D(CMU), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi, Dated 07.09.2018 has provided application of Court judgments to all similarly placed.
Govt. of Tamil Nadu. too has applied court judgment on the same issue for all similarly placed pensioners vide FINANCE (PAY CELL) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.140, Dated: 25th April, 2018. Irony is that PM & Apex court desires application to all similarly placed the Service] Pension issues once legally decided. MOD too provides application of Court judgments to all similarly placed (which includes Defence civilians also). But DOPT and DOPPVV do not agree to it.
Bharat Pensioners Sarnaj once again request you not to push pensioners who are in the evening of their lives to courts to seek redress on issues already decided. Please have MERCY on them.
Thanking You
Yours truly,
S C Maheshwari
Secy General Bharat Pensioners Samaj
Ashok Gupta says
Still not confirmation received from govt.
Shri Nath Yadav says
After how many months Government would be obliged to reply on the issue of notional increment to retired. Please reply.
R.S.Rathore says
when govt. policies are not fair or discriminatory or in violation of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India the people who are deprived of the legitimate claims have no other option but to go to the court of law in order to seek justice.’ And once justice given by the hon,ble courts/apex court of the country,the same should be extended to all the similarly placed persons.so that further litigations could be avoided in the same matter.
Dr Rajinder Parshad says
Several requests have been made individually as well as by Pensioners Associations to the DoPT for issue of orders of notional increment to those retiring on 30 June and have 1 july as date of birth, as per orders of the Madras High Court and rejection of SLP filed by Govt. of India , by the Supreme Court. It is really surprising to read the Answer to a Question in the Parliament by the Union Minister that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not in consonance with the Govt. of India instructions. Is it that the Central Govt. is above the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court? Along with the request to the DoPT to issue a common order , iI propose that an Association files a case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court for issuing directions to issue a General Order rather than taking a plea as’persona” to the person who had gone to the Court.
K. V.R. Krishnarao says
I retired on 30 th June. 1994 after serving more than 33 years . At the time of retirement my Pay Rs. 3050 in the scale of 2375- 75-3500. I my increament due date is 1st. July . Am I entitled one increament at the time of my retirement. I drawn my last increament 1st. July, 1993.Please rely.
D.P. Singh says
I retired in Nov. 1989, I request that my case for grant of MACP increment may be considered. My pension was restored after 15 years of my retirement in the year 2005 May. Since the implimentation of 6th CPC it almost about 14 yrs has passed. I may add that when I retired from CBRI, in 1989 I was darwing my pay with 8 increments in the scale of 4th CPC 3000-4500. To meet the loss suffered by a retiree it will be a great help to such retiree and will cover the loss suffered by such a pensioner.e
M.K.KUMAR says
ACP/MAPS was implemented from 9/1999 & 8/2008 that to those who are not got promotions with the condition of very good bench marks. You will be getting additional pension with D.R.for that also on the percentages of increased from the attaining age of 80 onwards as per the slab.
Subhash says
Case no.1875 2013 is pending with Delhi high court pertaining to SBI retirees most affected pensioners retired before 2002.The case was transferred by Supreme court to decide in 6 months. All the pensioners are now 85-year-old.
T N Nair says
This discrimination is the result of accepting a uniform date of increment, i.e 30th June. The Hon. High Court of
Tamilnadu and the Hon. Supreme Court of India dismissed a case on MERIT against a case filed by an affected employee. This is therefore fair and justiciable to issue a corrective order than taking a stand only in respect of the litigant. . Perhaps, Government will have to spend more money in fighting a legal battle against its own pensioners when the stand of the Hon. Supreme Court is very clear,