Dear
Sir,
All
India DRDO Technical Officers’ Association (AIDTOA) and Confederation of
Central Government Gazetted Officers’ Organisations (CCGGOO) have submitted detailed
memorandum to the 7th CPC on various demands, problems and
grievances of the Central Government Pensioners. However, it must be
sadly admitted that most of the issues, which we had projected before the
Commission did not have a proper consideration, may be perhaps, due to the
Commission’s perceived anxiety over the financial constraints of the Government
of India. We have every reason to believe that their anxiety was not well
placed, for the Government’s finances are far better presently than what it was
two decades back. The memorandum submitted by us had elaborately dealt
with the issue concerning the relative capacity of the Government to pay its
employees and pensioners in the background of accelerated growth of the
economy, reduced tax burden on both business houses and the common people the
reduced percentage of expenditure on wages, salary and pension with
reference to the Government’s revenue resources, revenue expenditure and the
GDP itself. The denial of the need based minimum wage, (in accordance with
Dy. Aykhroyd formula) in other words, the bare existence wage in the
circumstance by the 7thCPC is incomprehensible. We are
pointing out this aspect of the recommendations, for the successive
earlier Commissions had denied the need based minimum wage on the specious plea
of the inability of the Government to pay. We hope you will
appreciate that the present pensioners, who were in active service in 1960s,
1970s, 1980s, 1990s, did suffer immensely as they were denied even the bare
existence wages. They suffered on many counts, as they could not provide
a decent standard of living to their families, could not construct a
residential dwelling, and could not educate their children properly for sheer
want of requisite finances, so on and so forth. The Pensioners’ community
is presently concerned again with the minimum wage as the re-fixation of pension
on account of the wage revision effected by the 7th CPC is
linked to the minimum wage. We, therefore, appeal that the grievances
presented by AIDTOA, CCGGOO and the Staff Side, National Council JCM on the
determination of the quantum of minimum wage by the 7th CPC
must be considered seriously and necessary corrections made.
Another important issue we would like to present before you, concerns the
New Pension Scheme introduced by the Government of India, with effect from.
1.1.2014. Both the Serving employees and Pensioners organisations placed
before the Commission, rather passionately, to consider their submissions made
for the replacement of the newly introduced defined contributory system of
pension for those who entered the Government of India Service from.1.1.2004
with the time tested defined benefit scheme of pension. As of date the
Government employees, by virtue of the new contributory pension scheme are
divided into two classes viz. a good number of them receive emoluments
after deduction of 10% towards pension contribution whereas the other for
the same job is provided with a higher rate of emoluments. It is nothing
but a blatant denial of equal pay for equal work. We had pointed out to
the Commission in no uncertain terms that the new scheme was conceived as an
idea to allow the flow of the hard earned income of the employees to the Stock
market and permit the access of those funds for the corporate houses with
no guaranteed return to the contributor. We had pleaded before the
Commission to recommend for the exclusion of the Government employees from the
purview of the NPS, if the scrapping of the scheme is infeasible in the
light of the enactment of PFRDA. The Commission, as you could see from
the report, has enumerated innumerable flaws, defects, deficiencies and what
not in the administrative apparatus of the NPS, which has now amassed huge
funds and its coffers are swelling enormously day by day. They have still
not evolved a mechanism to monitor the remittances by the concerned employers.
The Commission has suggested in the light of their findings, cosmetic remedial
measures which in all fairness one should admit, will not address the
issue. In short, the Commission has not been emboldened to make
a positive recommendation for the exclusion of the Central Government employees
from its ambit, even though they have been convinced of the force of our
submissions and arguments. We may also state that the Commission which
was anxious of the increased financial outflow on account of the revision
of wages and pension did not, rather failed to recognise the enormous outflow
of tax payers money to the pension fund in the form of Governmental
Contributions. Without stating the various other demerits of the New
Contributory Pension Scheme, as it has been oft-repeated, we plead that the
Government employees be excluded from the Contributory Pension scheme and all
of them irrespective of their date of recruitment be brought within the purview
of the time tested defined benefit pension system.
Besides the submissions made in the preceding paragraphs, we enumerate
here under some specific issues concerning pensioners and request the
Implementation Committee to consider the same and place it before the
empowering committee for acceptance.
1. Parity between the past and present pensioners be
brought about on the basis of the 7th CPC recommendations with
the modification that the basis of computation be the pay level of the
post/grade/scale of pay from which the employee retired, whichever is
beneficial to him.
The 7th CPC has recommended the modus
operandi for bringing about parity between the past and present
pensioners. While issuing orders in acceptance of this recommendation, we
urge upon that care may be taken to provide the benefit to the pensioners as
envisaged by the Commission in its letter and spirit. Often we find when
the orders are issued, the same is interpreted by the pension disbursing
authority in such a manner that the envisaged benefit is denied to the
deserving personnel on flimsy technical grounds. We want you to
appreciate that it is not a perceived grievance but a real and genuine
one. To cite a recent example, When the orders on the question of
modified parity was issued after the 6th CPC recommendations,
the benefit was denied to a large number of pensioners by such an
interpretation made by the Offices of the Controller General of Accounts.
The issue had to be agitated in the Central Administrative Tribunal, where the
CGA’s interpretation was set aside. The Government dragged the poor
pensioners upto the highest court of justice in the country, the Supreme Court,
before the concerned order was amended. Even in the amended order, care
was not taken to convey the benefit to certain pensioners fully on the specious
plea that the words employed in the original orders speaks only of the scale of
pay and not of the revised scale of pay. It is highly unethical to drag
the pensioners to the Courts. They are compelled to bear the huge expenditure
involved in the litigation at the level of the Supreme Court. To avoid the
recurrence of such a scenario, we plead that the orders must specify in
unambiguous terms, that the parity must be with reference to the level of pay
of an individual employee of the post/grade/scale of pay from which he/she
retired, whichever is beneficial to that individual. This is to take
care of the situation where the concerned Government servant had been
granted MACP, or the pay scale/pay band/grade pay/ had been revised by
the Government either suo motu or on the basis of the recommendation of
the Pay Commission.
2. Pension to be 60% of the last pay drawn and
family pension to be 50% of the last pay drawn. Minimum pension to
be 60% of the minimum wage and minimum family pension to be 50% of the Minimum
wage.
In our memorandum, we had demanded that pension to be
66.6% of the last pay drawn and the minimum pension to be 66.66% of the minimum
wage. The CPC has not conceded this demand. Our present request in the matter
is that the pension must be fixed at 60% of the last pay drawn and the minimum
pension at the rate of 60% of the minimum wage. This is on the ground
that minimum wage is computed taking into account the family consisting of
three units of two adults and two children ( i.e. 1+0.8+0.6+0.6=3) Since the
requirement of the children can be excluded in the case of pensioners,
the rational approach will be to provide 60% of the minimum wage as the minimum
pension. Both the pension and the minimum pension has to be at the rate
of 60% of the last pay drawn (or average emoluments) and the minimum wage
respectively. The present stipulation of computing the pension at the
rate of 50% and the minimum pension at 50% of the minimum wage has no basis at
all. Family pension is granted mostly in the case of the surviving spouse or
unmarried or widowed daughter. To reduce the pension beyond 10% is to
heap misery and agony on the survivors. Our suggestion in the matter is
that the surviving member of the family be provided with at least
50% of the pension.
3. Enhance the pension and family pension on the basis of
the increased age of the pensioner. Grant 5% rise in pension for every addition
of 5 years of age, 10% after attaining the age of 80 and 20% for those beyond
90.
The decaying process of physique gets accelerated
normally after 60 years of age. To keep one fit, after the age of 60,
increased expenses on various counts are needed. It was in recognition of
this fact that the earlier Pay Commission suggested to calibrate the pension
entitlement linking to the age of the pensioner. The demand was
formulated to rein in a logical methodology for such increases. Our
specific suggestion is to raise the quantum by 5% (i.e. 65% at the age of 65)
and by 5% for every five year increase in the age of pensioner. However,
the increase will have to be 10% at the age of 85 and 20% at the age of 90.
4. Restoration of Commuted value after 10 years and
gratuity as per the provisions of the Gratuity
Act.
It is now an admitted fact that the Government recovers
the full value of the commuted portion of the pension in 10 years including the
interest. However, it has refused to accede to the demand for a revision of the
period of restoration when it was taken up in the National
Council. There had been no reason adduced as to why this
demand cannot be accepted, when the issue was subjected to discussions before
the 7th CPC. Fifteen years is too long a period and the
last five years in which the pensioner is denied the full pension is without
justification. We request you to kindly place this fact before the Empowering
Committee for a favourable decision. In the matter of gratuity our demand
is that the Government must adhere to the provisions of the Gratuity Act and no
distinction between the Government employees and the workers in the Public or
private enterprises be made in the matter.
5. Fixed Medical Allowance.
In the case of pensioners who reside at locations not
covered by the CGHS scheme has no health care benefit at all. The serving
employees are entitled for CGHS benefit if they stay in any of the 26
cities where the CGHS facilities are available, and they enjoy the benefit of CCS
(MA) Rules in other places. The Pensioners staying outside the CGHS areas are
to bear the health care expenses from their meagre pension amount.
It is in consideration of this fact; a fixed medical allowance was
introduced. However, the quantum of such allowance is a paltry sum of Rs.
500/- p.m. In the neo-liberalised economic system, the administered price
mechanism barring in the case of a few medicines, has been dispensed with, consequent
upon which is the exorbitant prices of medicines in the
market. The pensioner is not able to afford the
prices of medicines. Either the Government must come forward to
bring in the application of CCS (MA) Rules to the pensioners who are not within
the ambit of CGHS or the FMA will have to be increased. We request that
the FMA may atleast be raised to Rs. 2000 per month.
6. Grant of HRA for pensioners.
Gone are the days when the pensioner can expect to be
looked after by their children. In most of the cases, they are unable to
live with their children even if the children are willing to accommodate
them. This is because of the frequent transfer of workplace and many
other relevant factors. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this letter,
the pensioners of date were the serving employees of 1970s, 80s and 90s.
They did not have a decent wage structure nor could they obtain loan
facility from the banks on nominal interest, with the result they could not
venture to own a house for occupation atleast after retirement.
Throughout their service career they had been in the occupation of the
Government accommodation, which they had to vacate after retirement. The
real estate business in the country witnessed a boom in 1990s and 2000s. The
pensioners cannot compete in the real estate market either with the consumers or
business people. All these factors put together makes the pensioners to shell
out a major portion of their pension income only for hiring a dwelling
place. We, therefore, request the Committee may consider the demand
for HRA from a humanitarian point of view.
7. Grant of an increment prior to the date of retirement.
Grant of one increment in the case of those pensioners
who retired on completion of one year in service as on the date of
superannuation had been the demand of AIDTOA, CCGGOO and the staff side placed
before the Government for their consideration in the National Council.
The demand was rejected on the technical ground that even though they had
worked for a full year, the grant of increment would be possible only if they
are in service on the day when it become due. The 6th CPC while
recommending uniform date of increment for all Government Servants also
suggested that in the case of all employees who had completed more than six
months, increment might be granted. The issue was taken up before the 7th CPC
too through our memorandum. The Commission also did not recommend the acceptance
of our demand. We therefore, appeal once again to the Government that
this simple issue may be settled as it has very little coverage and the
consequent financial implication is very meagre.
These are some of the issues, which pensioners have brought before us to
take it up with you. We therefore, once again request you to kindly
consider these issues in the light of the justification we have appended under
each of them and recommend to the Government for a positive consideration
thereof.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
General Secretary
All India
DRDO Technical Officers’ Association (AIDTOA)
To
The
Joint Secretary,
Implementation
Cell,
Department
of Expenditure,
Ministry
of Finance,
North
Block
New
Delhi. 110 001.