PRE-96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

SANJOG MAHESHWARI
C1-A-42B M.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI- 110 058

PRE -96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

The old pension rules are revised whenever there is a revision in pay scales of working employees. While undertaking the exercise ofrevision of pension rules, it must be ensured that they are temperedwith “socio-economic justice”, do not contain anydiscriminatory provision and maintain parity among the various sections of pensioners in the matter of grant of pension and otherretrial benefits. Failing which they cause avoidable heart-burning.The existing revised pension rules which came into force from01-01-1996 leave much to be desired.

The discriminatory provisions in these rules operate so much againstthe pre-96 pensioners vis-à-vis their post-96 counterpart thatdepending on the crucial date of his retirement, a pre-96 pensionergets substantially less pension and other retrial benefits ascompared with a similarly placed pensioner belonging to the post-96category even when both retire from the same post, with the samelength of total service as also the length of service rendered in thepost held at the time of retirement.
The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, in their wisdom,issued two OMs on the same day i.e. 27^th October 1997bearing the same number F.45/86/97- P &PW (A) albeit in two partsi.e. Part 1 and Part II. The former laying down formulae for calculation of pension etc. for the post-96 employees and the latercontaining altogether different provisions for those retiring before01-01-1996 which operate grossly against the legitimate interest andrights of the pre-96 pensioners leaving them grossly aggrieved and distraught.

The crucial questions that beg an answer are : Why the most legitimate and genuine rights of pre-96 pensioners such as parity with their post-96 counterpart are not being honoured in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s, most unmistakable directions to the effect that there should be no difference between one pensioner and the other? Why natural justice to pre-96 pensioners is denied? (And that too in total defiance of the Apex court’s clear directions that in the matter of framing and application of rules and executive actions the rinciplesof“reasonablenessandnon-arbitrariness” which are the soul and substance of Article 14 of the Constitution must beadhered to). Does a pre-96 pensioner holding a post for a certain length of time on the date of his superannuation/retirement in any way renders lesser service than his post-96 counterpart in the samepost for the same length of time? Is not denying the proper pensionand pensionary benefits which are sacrosanct and greatly valued possession of a Government servant, to the Pre-96 pensioners a travesty of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution? Has he not already suffered the cruel irony of fate by getting superannuated at58? How far is he responsible for the sin of taking birth at an earlier date without reckoning with the government’s arbitrary scheme of retirement?
Almost all these super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- areover 70, suffering from hosts of terminal debilitating diseases and struggling to survive the ravages of“ills,bills,pills”and“empty nest” syndromes. They have been crying foul ever since they were wronged under the provisions of the dubious PartII of the O.M. but all in vain. Complete parity with post-96retirees in the matter of revised pension and related pensionarybenefits based on the fixation of the notional basic pay at the appropriate stage in the revised pay scales from 01-01-96 and the

arrears due and admissible with interest thereon as per the rules islegitimately due to them and should, therefore, be paid immediately.Death and terminal diseases are no respecters of age and thegovernment must act fast before it is too late. It is hightime the pension rules framing system is remodeled on the lines prevalent inthe U.K. from where it, though originated, materially differs. Whilein the U.K. the system is governed by and flows from the “Statute”,here in our country instead of the “Statute” it isgoverned by the rules made in a government department manned byunduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness”does not seem to exist.

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

C1-A-42 BM.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI-110058