CAT grants relief to thousands of pre-2006 pensioners slams babus for apathy and errors

“Coming down heavily on government officials over their apathetic attitude in interpreting rules and directives, the full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has granted relief to central government pensioners who retired before 2006. It has allowed their petition seeking parity of their pension with that of similarly placed employees who retired in 2006 and after.
Anomalies in pay and pension fixation consequent to implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission had resulted in pre-2006 retirees drawing pension lower than post-2006 retirees. The CAT decision affects thousands of central government employees.
The CAT has held that the term “minimum of pay in the pay band” would mean minimum of pay corresponding to the scale held at the time of retirement and not minimum of the entire pay band itself as interpreted and implemented by the government through a clarification.
The Sixth Pay Commission had created four broad pay bands. Each band had, within it, several different scales corresponding to the rank and grade of an individual.
The trouble had arisen when the pension of the individuals concerned was fixed at the minimum of the entire pay band instead of the minimum of the scale corresponding to his rank.

Thanks to Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service, Chandigarh.


11 thoughts on “CAT grants relief to thousands of pre-2006 pensioners slams babus for apathy and errors

  1. Pensioners are the most neglected persons. There are very few people/organisation to think and take steps to watch that the elderly senior citizens are not denied their dues.Frankly speaking the ESCitizen pensioners has to take it as whatever they get has to be accepted without any hitch as they may not get even that if they raise their voice. Thanks to you all for keeping eye towards the welfare of pensioners.

    • You people should go to court and take a stay order asap.
      Based on my personal experience the Ministry would not implement this judgement and would surely go to Apex Court. They just want to delay the unavoidable.

  2. One month and twenty days are over after delivery of the CAT judgment. So far the government has not made any comment about this. If the government goes to supreme court then another two to three years delay will set in. Sad thing. There are thousands of 80 and 90 year old pensioners struggling to meet the ever increasing expenses. Even though we have 500 odd Members of Parliament who earn more than one lakh rupees per month, none of them made any move in the parliament to support the suffering pensioners and the CAT judgment.

  3. Why Anna? Even he is being delayed. Why not directly hand over to the President as no one in the Ministry seems to come to our rescue.

  4. central will implement cat’s order and dcrg limit from 350000 to 1000000 is also implement on pre 2006 family pensioners.

  5. This came in The Hindu:
    The Supreme Court on Friday warned the Union government and its departments that bureaucratic delays could not be cited as an excuse or a ground for filing appeals beyond the period of limitation of 90 days.

    A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and J. Chelamesar said: “the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the government. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available.”

    Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable, and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

    The Bench said: “It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail of their legal remedies promptly.”

    In the instant case, Living Media India Ltd., which publishes Reader’s Digest and India Today magazines, was denied permission by the Postal Department to avail of the concession to post the magazines along with booklets containing certain advertisements. The Delhi High Court, allowed the writ petition filed by the company and a Division Bench also upheld the single judge’s order.

    Former Attorney General and senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, arguing for the respondent, pointed out that since in this case the Postal Department had filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court after a delay of 427 days, it should not be entertained. However, Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval cited earlier decisions to justify the ground for condonation of delay.

    The Bench said: “Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

    “It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.”

    The Bench noted that even the certified order copy was obtained only after four months.

    The Bench said: “In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically, merely because the government or a wing of the government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.”

    The Bench, while dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay, did not go into the issue on merits.
    Is the Government aware of the points made by the Hon,Judges of The SC? Or they are worried about their seats after this summer session?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s