PRE-96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

PENSION RULES- JUSTICE DENIED

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI.

Granting of pension and other related retiral benefits such as gratuity, family pension, leave encashment etc. on retirement is a socio-economic obligation which the governments are mandated to carry out for the security and welfare of the one who has spent all his active life in their service. The old pension rules have to be changed or modified from time to time in keeping with the changed socio-economic conditions of the society particularly when they warrant a revision in the pay scales of working employees. However, “social justice” which the rules are supposed to espouse becomes the first casualty when they are devised to discriminate against a section of the pensioners vis a vis a similarly placed another in the matter of grant of pension and other retiral benefits. Glaring example is the existing dispensation in which pensioners have been deliberately bracketed into two categories: pre-96 and post-96 pensioners with the former being placed at the receiving end of the discriminatory provisions in a Office Memorandum so much so that sometimes depending on the crucial date of his retirement, a pre-96 pensioner gets substantially less monthly pension and other related retiral benefits as compared to a similarly placed pensioner belonging to the post-96 category i.e. retiring on or after 01-01-96; even if both retire from the same post, with the same length of total service as also the service rendered in the post held at the time of retirement.

The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, in their infinite wisdom, issued two OMs on the same day i.e. 27^th October 1997 bearing the same number F.45/86/97- P &PW (A) albeit in two parts i.e. Part 1 and Part II. The former laying down formulae for calculation of pension etc. for the post-96 retirees and the later containing altogether different provisions for those retiring before 01-01-1996 which operates grossly against the legitimate interests and rights of the pre-96 pensioners leaving them grossly aggrieved and distraught. In the instant case, the babus of the Department issued Part 1 of the O.M. containing provisions for fixing pension and grant of other retrial benefits to Post-96 pensioners based on formulae quite different from those they incorporated in the Part II of it meant for Pre-96 pensioners putting the latter to the great disadvantage vis-à-vis their Post-96 counterparts and issued them on the same date i.e.27^th October 1997 itself. Much confusion, however, was created because in the part 1, it was mentioned that “Separate orders will be issued in respect of employees who retired/died before 1...1.1996” (Presumably at some later date). Naturally, the inference was drawn that their case is still being examined separately and for separate orders they should wait for some time more. Whether the gambit was intentional and deliberate or inadvertent can be anybody’s guess but most of those effected could not read in between the lines and kept on waiting “for separate orders” without registering their protests till their number was severely diminished through the natural process of disease and death and those left behind found themselves inadequate to the task of moving the officialdom.

Thus Pre-96 pensioners have been deprived of the benefits of revision in the pay scales by not notionally fixing their basic pay on retirement in the new scales for the purpose of revising their pension and other related pensionary benefits.

As the pre-96 pensioners have been crying foul ever since then, here are a few posers for the Governmenovernmetn ners and foot-dragging officialdom in the nent posers.nst the legitimate interest and rights of the pre-96 pensionerst to answer: Why the most legitimate and genuine rights of pre-96 pensioners i.e. parity with their post-96 counterparts are not 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- exhorting the executive not to differentiate between similarly placed two sections of the pensioners? Why this deeply flawed system remains unchanged and natural justice is denied to the pre-96 pensioners in spite of the Apex court’s further clear directions that in the matter of framing and application of rules and the working of the system the principles of “reasonableness and non-arbitrariness” –which are the soul and substance of Article 14 of the Constitution-must necessarily be adhered to and honoured? (In Maneka Gandhi’s case, a seven-judge Bench had held that “reasonableness and non-arbitrariness” are part of Article 14) 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 same post for the same length of time in similar conditions? If not, why he is being deprived of the benefits of proper pension and other retrial benefits effective from 1-1-96 consequent upon revision of pay scales from that date? Has he not already suffered the cruel irony of fate by getting superannuated at 58? And all this for the sin of taking birth at an earlier date without reckoning with the government’s arbitrary scheme of retirement on which he has no control.

Proper monthly pension and other related pensionary benefits are sacrosanct, protected and greatly valued possession of a Government servant. Denying them to the Pre-96 pensioners tantamount to travesty of justice and violation of Article 14 read with Article 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution.

Though Article 14 that mandates “Equality before the law” as a fundamental right of all the citizens completely outlaws “unreasonableness and arbitrariness” in executive action, these unfortunate elements seem to be deeply imbedded in the very psyche of the bureaucracy and invariably factor-in in their decision making processes. While Babus frequently bend the rules to help themselves, they throw the book at those in powerless minority with no platform to ventilate their grievances and concerns.

Almost all these worthy super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- are over 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 Part II of the O.M. but all in vain. Complete parity with post-96 retirees in the matter of revised pension and related pensionary benefits 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 is legitimately due to them and should, therefore, be paid immediately. Death and terminal diseases are no respecters of age and the government must act fast before it is too late. It is hightime the pension rules framing system is reoriented on the lines prevalent in the U.K. from where it, though originated, materially differs. While in the U.K. the system is governed by and flows from the “Statute”, here in our country instead of the “Statute” it is governed by the rules made in a government department manned by unduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness” does not seem to exist.

It is hoped that the government will accord this matter due importance and ensure justice to this microscopic minority of Pre-96 pensioners so that they may get what is due to them retrospectively from the date(s) it became due and admissible with interest accrued on the arrears to meet the ends of natural justice and fair-play.