Who should get full pension after completion of 10 to 20 years of service?

CSIR/NAL has revised and paid full pension to those who have retired  post- 2006, on superannuation with 10years and more of QS.  However, the  other category of retirees viz. those who have retired under FR56(K), who have been retired under FR 56(J) and those who have been declared surplus and opted for VR with  less than 20 years but more than 15 years of QS have been denied this benefit. I do not find any logic behind  such denial without any explicit order in this regard.

In fact, on careful  reading of  the recommendations of VI CPC, one would easily conclude that this benefit should apply only for those who opted to retire earlier than attaining the age of superannuation as they give up the remaining years of service which could have earned them higher amount of pension. Early retirement of officials also keep the cadre young which provides better scope for promotion and other service benefits to those who remain while those who retire early can pursue alternate employment. However as per the current interpretation of the said OM the officials who retire on superannuation give up nothing but they are given this benefit which defies the very spirit of this recommendation. On the other hand people who have opted for early retirement are penalised by reducing their pensions in comparison with an official who retired on superannuation with the same or  even fewer years of QS.

To quote an example , Mr. ABC who retired on superannuation with 10 years of QS on 31.01.2006 has been paid  full pension, while Mr.XYZ who opted to retire under 56(K) with 18 years of service on the same date has not been paid full pension. Had both of them retired on 31.12.2005, they  would have got 10/33 and 23/33 times of full pension respectively. Alas  the position is reversed post 2006.  How can the pension be reduced so drastically over night, to those who were getting more pension the previous day? I do not believe that this is what the spirit behind the recommendation of VI CPC and the intention of GOI in issuing those two OMs dated 02.09.2008 & 10.12.2009!!

On careful analysis of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the instructions issued thereunder, one will find that there are 2 category of pensioners as follows:

Category I: Those who were never eligible for addition to Qualifying service on their retirement for the purpose of computing pension and gratuity. Those who retire on superannuation pension and on retirement pension under Pension Rule 48, on compulsory retirement pension [FR 56(J)& Pension Rule 48 B]  and invalid pension fall under this category. Their pension and gratuity are sanctioned  on the basis of  the actual service rendered by them in Government.

Category II: Those who were eligible for addition to qualifying service of not exceeding 5 years  subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government servant does not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. Those who have retired with retirement pension[FR 56(K) & Pension Rule 48A and  Pension Rule 29] fall under this category. This benefit of addition to QS was rightly made available only to those who retired earlier than superannuation. The intention to differentiate was clear based on sound principles of  “give and take”. Their pension and gratuity are sanctioned by adding QS as above. However GOI has  withdrawn this provision retrospectively  effective from 01.01.2006.

In terms of DOPT OM dated 02.09.2008 modified subsequently by DOPT OM dated 10.12.2009 those who retire  after 01.01.2006 on completion of 10/20 years are eligible for full pension equivalent to 50% last pay drawn or average emoluments.  The above OM have also withdrawn the benefit of addition to QS hitherto available to pensioners under Category II , above. After the issue of the above OM , different departments have interpreted the provision differently. Even within the same department there were different opinions. Most of them felt that those who retire on superannuation alone are eligible for full pension on completion of 10 years and all others only on completion of 20 years of service although such an interpretation is not supported by any orders.

What should be the objective and scientific interpretation of the above term 10/20 years of QS ?

To my mind the most scientific and objective interpretation of the above term is that pensioners under Category I will get full pension only if they complete  20 years of service. Those who have completed more than 10 years but less than 20 years of QS should get pro rata pension on the basis of their actual service. If an employee superannuated after 10 years he should get 10/20 times of full pension which will amount to 25% of last pay drawn or average emoluments whichever is beneficial.

Those pensioners who fall under Category II should be paid FULL PENSION after completion of 10 years of service. Let me explain the logic behind such assumption. Under FR 56(K) and Pension Rules 29 one will have  to complete at least 15 years of service to become eligible for retirement. FR 56(k)  stipulates that one should have joined service before attaining 35 years of age and can retire only after attaining 50 years of age, which obviously means that he would have completed a minimum of 15 years of QS. Similarly Pension Rule 29 specifically  stipulates that one should have completed at least 15 years of service to opt for retirement. With the addition to QS of 5 years, both of them will have a QS of 20 and more  years of QS,  had this provision not withdrawn retrospectively. Such an assumption will also ensure that those who retired on grounds of inefficiency, medical invalidation and without any element of “give and take”,  like superannuation are not treated at par with others who opt to retire earlier than the age of superannuation.

I hope that the GOI issue necessary clarifications immediately in this regard.

About these ads