PRE-96 PENSIONERS- JUSTICE DENIED
-SANJOG MAHESHWARI
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 varioussections 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 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 forcalculation 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 anddistraught.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 counterpartare not being honoured in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s most unmistakable directions to the effect that there should be nodifference between one pensioner and the other? Why natural justiceto pre-96 pensioners is denied? (And that too in total defiance of the Apex court’sclear directions that in the matter of framing and application of
rules and executive actions the principles of “reasonablenessand non-arbitrariness” which are the soul and substanceof Article 14 of the Constitution must beadhered to). Does a pre-96 pensioner holding a post for a certainlength of time on the date of his superannuation/retirement in anyway 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 valuedpossession of a Government servant, to the Pre-96 pensioners atravesty of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 read withArticle 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution? Has he notalready 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 arbitraryscheme of retirement?
Almost all these super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- are over 70, suffering from hosts of terminal debilitating diseases andstruggling to survive the ravages of “ills, bills, pills”and “empty nest” syndromes. They have been crying foulever 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 theappropriate stage in the revised pay scales from 01-01-96 and thearrears 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 thepension rules framing system is remodeled on the lines prevalent in the 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 by unduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness”does not seem to exist.
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 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 forcalculation 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 anddistraught.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 counterpartare not being honoured in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s most unmistakable directions to the effect that there should be nodifference between one pensioner and the other? Why natural justiceto pre-96 pensioners is denied? (And that too in total defiance of the Apex court’sclear directions that in the matter of framing and application of
rules and executive actions the principles of “reasonablenessand non-arbitrariness” which are the soul and substanceof Article 14 of the Constitution must beadhered to). Does a pre-96 pensioner holding a post for a certainlength of time on the date of his superannuation/retirement in anyway 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 valuedpossession of a Government servant, to the Pre-96 pensioners atravesty of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16 read withArticle 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution? Has he notalready 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 arbitraryscheme of retirement?
Almost all these super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- are over 70, suffering from hosts of terminal debilitating diseases andstruggling to survive the ravages of “ills, bills, pills”and “empty nest” syndromes. They have been crying foulever 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 theappropriate stage in the revised pay scales from 01-01-96 and thearrears 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 thepension rules framing system is remodeled on the lines prevalent in the 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 by unduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness”does not seem to exist.
C1-A-42 B
M.I.G.FLATS,
JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI-110058
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment