Pension scheme approved by the ministry of food for cwc employees retiring on or after 1-1-2007 -
T.H. Sree Rama
(Querist) 14 December 2012
This query is : Resolved
a) CWC, coming under the Ministry of Food has introduced Pension Scheme applicable to employees retiring on or after 1-1-2007;
b) Myself having opted for Voluntary Retirement scheme with effect from 31-3-1994 along with 455 employers as a result of myself taking up the issue with the Parliamentary Committee on Public Sector Undertakings;
c) My appeal for making applicable the pension scheme in my case on the anology that there remained no justification for any cut off date in respect of the extension of such benefits, in as much as pension is a reward for the past service duly supported by a number of land mark judgements by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
d) Very recently, Cabinet Secretariat at the interference of Hon'ble supreme Court of India has cleared a pending file of extension of the benefits of pension hike to DEFENCE Retired Employees despite the fact that they retired prior to 1-1-2006. In the said case, Government had insisted and imcorporated a cut off date of 1-1-2006 ie., employees retiring on or after 1-1-12006. The issue was taken up by the employees who retired prior to 1-1-2006 and judgement went in favour of these people despite the fact that such decision involved the incurrence of an additional expenditure to the tune of Rs.4000 crores per annum. This is the greatness of Indian Constitution and Memorable judgement by hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
e) CWC on one of 67 CPSUs adotpting in totality central FRS-SRS - CSRs - GFRs etc., for all establishment matters. Moreover these CPSUS carry 51% of Central Government Shares.
f) Under such circumstances, I strongly feel that the denial of my claim by CWC is totally illogical, unreasonable and unconstitutional. I had taken up the matter the Ministry of Food, Department of Pensioners and pensions welfare, President of India, & the papers have been got marked to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India for his valuable comments, advice and necessary directives in this behalf. The outcoming decision shall be a land mark achievement for and on behalf of all Central Public Sector Undertaking employees facing the denial of the implementaton of pension scheme in general and CWC in particular.
With the above background, I shall be highly obliged, if these issues are got examined in depth and at length and commenets / conclusions / advice passed on to me so that I can take up the issue further with the support of Supremen Court Grievance Redressal Supporting Services recently established by Hon'ble Supremen Court of India.
Thanking your good selves
Yours Sincerely
T.H. Sree Rama
919866497168
914027202793
sthumakunta@yahoo.com
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 14 December 2012
You shall have to put entire facts leading to refusal of the demanded relief so that definite reply may be given to you.
Guest
(Expert) 15 December 2012
One sided story may not help experts to analyse your case in true sense. You have to state about the nature of response received by you for your representations to various authorities also.
T.H. Sree Rama
(Querist) 15 December 2012
My Dear Dhingrasab,
Very sorry to note your comment stating that one sided story may not help experts to analyse my case in true sense. I were expected to state about the nature of response received by me for my representations to various authorities also.
Perhaps, your good self might not have gone through my presentations in details. It has been reiterated that they were sticking on to the point : orders became applicable only from the date of applicability of the benefits decided by them ie., ie., with effect from 1-1-2007.
What more background stood required could not be understood. The action of the Management was totally arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was also discriminatory in the sense that the benefit stood extended to Defence employees in the matter of hiking of pension to those who retired prior to 1-1-2006 despite the fact that the government of india orders fixed a cut off date of 1-1-2006 and there after.
For your kind information, I am a Service Matters Consultant, whose candidature stood enrolled on the Lawyers Club India.com. I am the product of the office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, the ultimate authority with regard to the interpretation of rules and regulations with application of mind.
Yours Sincerely
T.H. Sree Rama
919866497168
Guest
(Expert) 15 December 2012
Dear Mr. Sree Rama,
Besides your reaction, it is nice to get your introduction also that you are a "product of the office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, the ultimate authority with regard to the interpretation of rules and regulations with application of mind."
Probably, alike your query, you think as if I would be able to guess of which office you are the product and what practice you are undertaking. Your profile page is blank and except showing your identity as "Managing Trustee" does not indicate anything about you that can indicate any link of yours with the CAG office or the present profession. The profile does not show even of which entity you are a Managing Trustee. The "About me" slot merely contains the words, "I will be updating it soon." That does not even show that you are a consultant in the service matters.
Even in your present post you have not introduced yourself as which product of the CAG office you are, e.g., the CAG, Principal AG, AG, Dy AG, Addl Dy AG or the like. However, it may not be out of context to point out that, as per the site of CAG, not the people but only the followings are shown as its products:
- Audit Reports
- Accounts
- Other Reports
- Publications
Now coming to the context of your query and subsequent post --
At first, in your query you stated that "Myself having opted for Voluntary Retirement scheme with effect from 31-3-1994" from CWC coming under the Ministry of Food, and now in your latest post you have stated that you are a product of the CAG office, which is not a part of the Ministry of Food. Any reason for this contradiction and any relation of your pension from CWC, while the so called products of the CAG are paid due pensions from the consolidated fund of India on retirement on superannuation or voluntary retirement without raising any controversy from Government offices?
Secondly, if I have been unable to understand your story, what could have been the reason for S/Shri Sudhir Kumar and Raj Kumar Makkad to pose their questions about your own query, rather than avoiding to give any answer?
Thirdly, with reference to your last sentence of your latest post in which you have stated the CAG office to be the "the ultimate authority with regard to the interpretation of rules and regulations with application of mind," just intimate which office order of the CAG provides that any order should automatically be made effective from decades back (1994 in your case) and whether the CAG office would not object to the putting of burden of several hundreds of crores on the exchequer without proper justification of such expenditure?
Even a person of common sense can understand that any financial order becomes applicable from the date of issue. A question arises, when you claim to be the interpretor of rules and regulations with application of mind, you only needed to get the nod of the CAG in confirmation of your own interpretation of the pension order, when you had a very powerful office in support of your contention, rather than coming to this forum with the problem, as I suppose none of the members of this community enjoys the decisive power more than the CAG. You have already stated that the matter stands "marked to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India for his valuable comments, advice and necessary directives in this behalf. The outcoming decision shall be a land mark achievement for and on behalf of all Central Public Sector Undertaking employees facing the denial of the implementaton of pension scheme in general and CWC in particular." I wish the CAG honours your interpretation. At least you would be able to get credit of opening of the door for all others also, so that none would feel the need to take shelter of the court of law. BUT PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO POST SUCH LAND MARK DECISION OF THE CAG AT THIS SITE FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LCI.
Fourthly, by the application of your mind, just point out any existing ruling that any court judgment, if issued in favour of certain category of employees of some organisation, would automatically apply to all other organisations of the Government of India?
Fifthly, just refer any such existing rule if the authorities of any organisation are vested with the powers to apply any new scheme or system to all its past employees, particularly in your case, who has left the organisation 18 years back (1994)?
I hope to learn much from you, if you reply my queries. I hope others would also get the opportunity to enhance their knowledge by your clarifications on the issues raised by me.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 December 2012
Respected Sree! I really feel sorry not going in depth of your query and the implications of such casual touch. Anyway! Law do not permit discrimination between the similarly situated persons which seem in your case wherein on the one hand the defence personnel retired prior to the period of 01.01.1996 have been provided with the benefit of the pension ignoring the cut off date wherein such benefit has been denied to the persons retired during prior to 1996.
It seems the policies of India are made under pressure weighing the political benefits. No govt. can ignore the political power of retired defence personnel resulting which CWC has imposed an aditional burden of Rs. 4,000 crore on Indian economy. If such benefit can be got enlarged to those personnel why not to you?
So far as discussion over recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme court of India is concerned, it confirms to earlier decisions passed by various High court that the pension is not a bounty rather a deferred part of service benefits rendered by a retired employees so keeping in view such aspect, I do agree with you that a pressure should be build up on CWC to do justice with all of you.
I again feel apology.
