No. 1396752/2019-Estt (Pay-I)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 11 November, 2019
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Representations regarding grant of annual increment to the employees retires on 30th June of the year -regarding
The undersigned is directed to refer to letter No. PC VI /2018/R-] /1 of Ministry of Railways dated 14/ 10/2019 on the subject cited above wherein comments of this Department has been sought on the directions of Hon’ble CATs issued in several Court cases filed by Railways employees Seeking the benefits of notional increment for the Pensionary benefits as per the judgment in P.Ayyamperumal case.
2. In this matter, With reference to Central Government employees, the following is hereby Stated:
2.1. In so far as P. Ayyamperumal case is concerned, referred in the instant cases also, it is Stated that the judgment Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Pp. Ayyamperumal case is in Personam.
2.2 Further, the case of Sh. M Balasubramaniam referred by Hon’ble High Court in it’s Judgment in P,. Ayyamperumal case is related to Fundamental Rules of Tamilnadu Government whereas P. Ayyamperumal case relates to Central Government Rules.
2.3 It is relevant to mention here that in a similar Matter, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in year 2005, inc. Subbarao case, has inter-alia observed as under:
“In Support of the above observations, the Division Bench also placed reliance on Banerjee case (Supra), we are afraid, the Division Bench was not correct in coming to the conclusion that being a reward for unblemished Past service, Government servant retiring on the last day of the month would also be entitled for increment even after such increment is due after retirement, We have already made reference to all Rules governing the situation: There is no warrant to come to such conclusion, Increment is given (See Article 43 of CS Regulations) as a Periodical rise to a Government employee for the good behavior in the Service. Such increment is Possible only when the appointment is “Progressive Appointment” and it is not universal ryle. Further, as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay from out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government Service. A Person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter (See Article ] Sl of CS Regulations) because he would not answer the tests in these Rules. Reliance placed on Banerjee case (supra) is also in our considered opinion not correct because as observed by us, Banerjee case (supra) does not woe deal with increment, but deals with enhancement of DA by the Central Government to pensioners. Therefore, we are not able to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. We accordingly, overrule the judgment in Malakondalah case (Supra).”
2.4 In addition, Sudsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in P, Ayyamperumal case, Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench vide its Orders dated 19.03.2019 in O.A.No.310/00309/2019 and O.A, No.310/00312/2019 and Order dated 27.03.2010 in O.A, No.310/00026 /2019 has also dismissed the similar requests related with notional increment for pensionary benefits.
2.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 29.03.2019 while dismissing the SLPp (C) Dy. No.6468/2019 filed by D/o Telecommunications against the judgment dated 03.05.2017 of Homble High Court, Lucknow Bench in WP No.484/2010 in the matter of UOI & Ors. Vs. Sakha Ram Tripathy & Ors., has inter-alia observed the following:
“There is delay of 566 days in filing the special leave petition. We do not see any reason to condone the delay. The Special leave petition is dismissed.on “. delay, keeping all the questions of law open.”
3. Further, it is also stated that this Department’s OM No. 20036 /23/1988-Estt.(D) dated 06.01.1989 provides that since each case is to be contested on the basis of the specific facts and circumstances relevant to it, the administrative Ministry/Department (D/o- Ministry of Railways in the instant case} will be in a better position to defend the case if required. If, however, any Clarification is required on the interpretation application of the rules or instructions relevant to the case, the concerned department in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions may be approached for that Purpose. It further provides that the primary responsibility, however, for contesting such cases on behalf of the Government will be that of the administrative Ministry /Department concerned. Further, the Cabinet Secretariat D.O. letter No. 6 /1/1/94-Cab dated 25.02.1994 as also the Cabinet Secretary’s D.O. letter no. 1/50/3/2016-Cab dated 16.06.2016 and the Department of Expenditure’s OM No. 7(8)/2012-E-III(A) dated 16.05.2012 inter-alia provide that (i) a common counter reply should be filed before a Court of Law on behalf of the Union of India by the concerned administrative Department / Ministry where the petitioner is serving or has last served and (ii) a unified stand should be adopted instead of bringing out each Department’s /Ministry’s point of view in the said reply. It further provides that it is primarily the responsibility of the Administrative Ministry to ensure that timely action is taken at each stage a Court case goes through and that a unified stand is adopted on behalf of Government of India at every such stage. In no case should the litigation be allowed to prolong to the extent that it results in contempt proceedings.
4. Ministry of Railways is requested to take appropriate action in the light of above observations.
(Rajeev Bahree)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
File No.PC-VI/2018/R-I/1 -Part(1)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
NO. PC V1 /2018/R-I/1 Pt.
New Delhi, dated 21.05.2020
The General Manager
All Indian Railways and Production Units
(As per standard mailing list)
Sub : Grant of annual increment due on 1st July to the employees retiring on 30th June of the year
A number of representations are being received in this office seeking grant of one notional increment as due on 1st July in favour of employee retiring on 30th June before drawing the same, exclusively for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
2. As the Railways are aware, the annual increment is granted to railway employees on completion of laid down qualifying service for the purpose. Based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, as accepted by the Government of India, Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were notified on the lines of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As per Rule 10 of above Rules, it was stipulated that there will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1st July of every year and the employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. There has been no change in the above rule / extant policy so as to enable grant of increment (notional or actual) on 30th June, where it was due on the following 1st July.
3. In the various representations being received in this office, certain Judgements in the case of Shri Ayyamperumal, an employee of Department of Revenue are being cited. As the details of above court matter and policy decision of concerned nodal departments were not available in this office, the matter was referred to concerned departments of Government of India seeking their advice/guidelines.
4. DOP&T vide their O.M dated 11.11.2019 have stated that the Judgement passed in the case of Shri P. Ayyamperumal is in personam. Further, the judgement pronounced by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in P. Ayyamperumal case, as endorsed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is based on the decision in the case of M. Balasubramaniam, which was related to Fundamental Rules of State Govt. However, Central Government employees are governed by Central Government Rules. Further, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C. Subbarao case has inter-alia observed that “A person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter, because he would not answer the tests in these Rules.” A copy of DOP&T O.M dated 11.11.2019 is enclosed herewith.
5. The Railways are therefore advised to take further necessary action to dispose of the pending representations on the issue based on above position and advice of DOP&T. The pending court cases may also be defended accordingly. Further, in case any clarification/inputs are required relating to railway Fundamental Rules and Railway Pension Rules, Finance (Estt.) dte. may also please be consulted being the nodal directorate on these aspects. This issues with the approval of DG/HR, Railway Board.
ALL INDIA DEFENCE EMPLOYEES FEDERATION INDIAN NATIONAL DEFENCE WORKERS FEDERATION BHARTIYA PRATIRAKSHA MAZDOOR SANGH (RECOGNIZED FEDERATIONS OF DEFENCE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES)
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
FOR FAVOUR OF PUBLICATION
To
The Editor,
82,000 Defence Civilian Employees of 41 Ordnance Factories Will Go For an Indefinite Strike against the Decision of the Government to Convert 219 years old Indian Ordnance Factories into a Corporation / PSU
The Federations oppose the decision of the government to convert Army base workshops in to GOCO model and abolition of vacancies in MES and Army Units !
Strike Ballot to be taken all over the country between 08.06.2020 to 17.06.2020
The 3 Recognised Federations (AIDEF, INDWF & BPMS) of the Trade Unions of the 82,000 Defence Civilian Employees working in the 41 Indian Ordnance Factories have taken a decision to go ahead with the preparations for an indefinite strike against the arbitrary, illegal and unjustified decision taken by the Government to corporatise the most strategic Ordnance Factories. This decision of the Government announced by the Finance Minister during the 4th Tranche of the Rs.20 lakh crore financial relief to meet the COVID-19 economic crisis under “Atmanirbhar Bharat Abiyan” is against the agreement between the recognised Federations and the Ministry of Defence in the past. Former Defence Minister late. George Fernandez, Shri. Pranab Mukherjee, Shri. A.K.Antony and late Manohar Parrikar have given written commitments that the Ordnance Factories would not be corporatised. The present decision of the Government is against all these assurances and agreements.
Apart from the above when the present Government included the subject of Corporatization of Ordnance Factories in its 100 days agenda, the Federations opposed the move of the Government and called for a one month strike which commenced on 20-8-2019. During the 5th day of the strike based on the direction given by the Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC) a settlement was reached with the then Secretary (DP) and present Defence Secretary Dr. Ajay Kumar wherein he has assured that no final decision has been taken by the Government with regard to Corporatization of OFB. Based on his assurance that a High Level Official Committee (HLOC) will be constituted to study the possibility of the OFB achieving Rs. 30,000 crores production target in the present setup, the Strike was deferred. Since, there was a dispute between the Federations and the Government with regard to the terms of reference the Federations represented to the Honourable Defence Minister during October 2019 to intervene and change the terms of reference of the HLOC. However without considering the pending representation of the Federations, taking advantage of the COVID-19 lock down the Government have arbitrarily made the announcement that OFB will be Corporatised and will be listed in the Share Market
The above decision of the Government has hurt the 82,000 employees, since all these employees were engaged in manufacturing of all types of PPE’s required for the Doctors, Nurses and Para medical staff for fighting against the COVID-19 spread. They have taken risk of their life and were working throughout the COVID-19 lockdown. The Government instead of recognising their service to the Country have taken a major decision to convert this War industry as a PSU and thereafter to privatise the same. This decision of the Government is against the Defence preparedness and National security of our country. Moreover it will overnight change the service conditions of the 82,000 employees and their status as Central Government employees which will be snatched away. In spite of our repeated representation to the Defence Minister and the Defence Production Secretary there is no positive response and hence the Federations are left with no other option than to go for an Indefinite Strike demanding the Government to withdraw its decision to Corporatize the Ordnance Factories. The date of the Commencement of the Indefinite Strike will be decided after the completion of the Strike Ballot which is scheduled between 8-6-2020 to 17-6-2020 throughout the country.
The Federations also are opposing the decision taken by the Government against other Defence Industries like MES, and EME. While 9304 vacancies in MES the Army Base Workshops under EME are being handed over to Private Sector in the name of GOCO Model. The Federations have already opposed the move and we will be separately deciding for serious Trade Union Action programme in these Defence Units also. The Federations also oppose the decision of the Government for allowing 74% FD] in Defence production.
2. A onetime sanction for purchase of medicines and claim reimbursement was issued till 31 May 2020. In view of increasing cases of COVID-19 and further extension of lockdown beyond 31 May 2020 in containment zones, to promote social distancing and avoiding unnecessary exposure to ECHS beneficiaries as well as minimizing footfall at ECHS Polyclinics, the ECHS beneficiaries having life style/ chronic ailments/ diseases on long treatment may purchase medicines lasting till 31 Jul 2020 based on the prescription held (prescribed by doctor of Polyclinic/ Service hospital/ Empanelled hospital) irrespective of NA or otherwise. It is also clarified that the ECHS Polyclinics are functional and ECHS beneficiaries also have the option to collect medicines through ECHS Polyclinics as per normal practice, instead of purchasing from market, after taking prior appointment from respective OIC Polyclinic.
In this situation, a petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the government’s decision to freeze the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief.
The petition has been filed by N Pradeep Sharma pointing out that right to receive salary is a property coming within the purview of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the same can be deprived only by authority of law.
Now the Delhi high court dismissed a plea challenging the Centre’s decision to freeze the Dearness Allowance (DA) of Central Government Employees and Central Government Pensioners in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the government has the power to take such a decision.
A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar said that under the All India Services (DA) Rules, 1972, entitlement to draw DA is determined by the Central government and it can impose whatever conditions it deems fit from time to time.
The court also said , as per the rule it is clear to us that, firstly, there is no statutory rule which obliges the Central Government to continue to enhance the Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief at regular intervals i.e. to revise the same upwards from time to time. Consequently, there is no vested right in the Central Government Employees, or Central Government Pensioners to receive higher Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief on regular intervals., the court said.
Check the high court order below
High Court Order Copy
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3308/2020
HITESH BHARDWAJ ….. Petitioner
Through: Dr. Pradeep Sharma with Mr. Harsh, Advs.
versus
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, ASC, GNCTD.
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
O R D E R 01.06.2020
CM APPL. 11606/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Court fees be paid within a week.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3308/2020
The present writ petition has been preferred in public interest seeking following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to withdraw the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to withdraw the endorsement against the notification, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of NCT of Delhi.
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to defreeze and release the enhanced Dearness Allowance to the Central Government Servants and pensioners as per norms.
d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondents to defreeze and release the enhanced Dearness Allowance to the Government Servants and pensioners of GNCTD as per norms.”
The respondent no. 1/Union of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2020 which is the cause for the petitioner’s grievance in the present writ petition. The said Office Memorandum reads as follows:
“
No.1/1/2020-E-II(B)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
***
North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 23rd April, 2020.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Freezing of Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Central Government pensioners at current rates till July 2021.
The undersigned is directed to say that in view of the crisis arising out of COVID-19, it has been decided that the additional instalment of Dearness Allowance payable to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief to Central Government pensioners, due from 1st January 2020 shall not be paid. The additional instalments of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief due from 1st July 2020 and 1st January 2021 shall also not be paid. However, Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief at current rates will continue to be paid.
2. As and when the decision to release the future instalment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief due from 1st July 2021 is taken by the Government, the rates of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief as effective from 1st January 2020, 1st July 2020 and 1st January 2021 will be restored prospectively and will be subsumed in the cumulative revised rate effective from 1st July 2021. No arrears for the period from 1st January 2020 till 30th June 2021 shall be paid.
3. These orders shall be applicable to all Central Government employees and Central Government pensioners.
Sd/-
(Annie George Mathew)
Additional Secretary to
the Government of India.”
The petitioner is also aggrieved by the consequent order issued by respondent no. 2/GNCTD dated 24.04.2020, whereby the GNCTD has followed suit in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2020 issued by respondent no. 1. The Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2020, in effect, conveys the decision of the Central Government that Dearness Allowance due to the Central Government Employees and Dearness Relief due to the Central Government Pensioners from 01.01.2020 shall not be paid. It also states that additional installment of the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief due from 01.07.2020 and 01.01.2021 shall also not be paid. Pertinently, Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief at the current rates would continue to be paid. The said Office Memorandum further states that as and when the decision to release future installment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief due from 01.07.2021 is taken by the Government, rates of the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief as effective from 01.01.2020, 01.07.2020 and 01.07.2021 will be restored prospectively, and will be subsumed in the cumulative revised rate effective from 01.07.2020. No arrears from the period 01.01.2020 till 30.06.2021 shall be paid.
The first submission of the petitioner is that Central Government Employees and Central Government Pensioners have a vested right to receive the enhanced Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief which has already been declared effective from 01.01.2020. The said increase was declared at 4%. The petitioner also claims that such employees and pensioners also have vested right to continue to receive enhancement in Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief on and from 01.07.2020 and 01.01.2021. To examine the merit of this submission, we may refer to the All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1972. These statutory rules have been framed by the Central Government after consultation with the Government of the States concerned in exercise of powers conferred by SubSection (1) of Section 3 of All India Services Act,1952. Rule 3 of the said Rule is relevant and which reads as follows:
“3. Regulation of dearness allowance:
Every member of the Service and every officer, whose initial pay is fixed in accordance with sub-rule (5) or sub-rule (6A) of rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 or sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 or sub-rule (6) of rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 1968, shall be entitled to draw dearness allowance at such rates, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified by the Central Government, from time to time, in respect of the officers of Central Civil Services, Class I.”
(emphasis supplied)
From the above Rule, it would be seen that Central Government servants shall be entitled to draw Dearness Allowance “at such rates, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified by the Central Government, from time to time, in respect of officers of the Central Civil Service, Class-I”. We may notice that there is no other statutory rule brought to our notice relating to payment of Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief and it appears that the said Rule governs the payment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief to Government servants and Government Pensioners of the Union in respect of all the classes of employees.
The above rule shows that the entitlement to draw Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief is determined by the Central Government. The same may be specified by the Central Government from time to time, subject to whatever conditions the Government may deem fit to impose.
From the above Rule, it is clear to us that, firstly, there is no statutory rule which obliges the Central Government to continue to enhance the Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief at regular intervals i.e. to revise the same upwards from time to time. Consequently, there is no vested right in the Central Government Employees, or Central Government Pensioners to receive higher Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief on regular intervals.
Pertinently, by the impugned Office Memorandum, the Central Government has frozen – and not withdrawn, the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief being paid to Central Government Employees and Central Government Pensioners at the time of issuance of the said Office Memorandum.
So far as the submission with regard to increase of 4% Dearness Allowance or Dearness Relief with effect from 01.01.2020 is concerned, the impugned Office Memorandum does not seek to take it away. All that it does is to postpone its payment till after 01.07.2021. That power, in our view, resides with the Central Government, by virtue of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rule, 1972, since the Central Government is empowered to take the decision to make payment of Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief, subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Central Government in the impugned Office Memorandum has referred to COVID19 pandemic as the reason for its decision contained in the said Office Memorandum. However, the impugned Office Memorandum has not been issued by the competent authority under the Disaster Management Act. We do not find merit in this submission. The provisions of the Disaster Management Act are not the only repository of the power of the Government to take action in the light of the pandemic. As noticed above, the power to determine as to how much Dearness Allowance is to be paid, i.e. at what rates, and subject to what condition, resides with the Central Government by virtue of Rule 3 of All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1972. Merely because the said impugned Office Memorandum makes reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, it does not follow that the only provision which the respondents could have invoked are those contained in
the Disaster Management Act. The Central Government, by referring to COVID-19 pandemic in the impugned communication, has merely provided its reasons and justification for its decision contained in the said Office Memorandum.
The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Office Memorandum is also in violation of Article 360(4)(a)(i) of the Constitution of India. Article 360 of the Constitution of India contains the provision as to financial emergency, and it provides that if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability of credit in India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened, he may, by a proclamation make declaration to that effect. The submission is that President of India has not declared financial emergency. The further submission is that it is only during financial emergency declared by the President, that by virtue of Sub-Article 4(a)(i) – a provision could be made requiring reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State. Since no financial emergency has been declared, the Office Memorandum in question could not have been issued which is referable to Article 360(4)(a)(i) of the Constitution of India.
We find this submission to be completely misplaced. This is for the reason that Article 360(4)(a)(i) deals with a situation where the Government seeks to reduce the salary or allowance of all, or any class of persons, serving in connection with the affairs of the State. In the present case, the Office Memorandum does not seek to reduce either the salaries or allowances, which includes Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief in respect of serving Government servants, or its pensioners. All that it does is to freeze the payment of Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief at the pre-existing level, and to put in abeyance any increase in Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief till July, 2021. The said freeze does not tantamount to reduction of either salary, or allowances, of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State.
The further submission submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Office Memorandum could not have been issued by mere issuance of an office order, and the same should have been either framed as a statutory rule, or by issuing a gazette notification. We do not find any basis for this submission. We have noticed Rule 3 of the All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1972. The said Rule does not state that the Central Government can form, or communicate, its decision with regard to entitlement to draw Dearness Allowance, subject to conditions, only by framing another rule, or by a gazette notification. There is no such requirement in law. Therefore, we do not find any merits in this submission as well.
So far as the right to receive the increase of Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief already declared by the Government with effect from 01.01.2020 is concerned, it falls well within the domain of the Central Government to decide as to when to disburse the said increase. There is no obligation in law upon the Central Government to disburse the increase in Dearness Allowance/ Dearness Relief within a time bound manner. Rule 3 of All India Services (Dearness Allowance) Rules referred to above, itself empowers the Central Government to lay down the conditions subject to which Dearness Allowance may be drawn by officers of Central Government.
For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
JUNE 01, 2020
Headquarters :
1, RED CROSS ROAD
NEW DELHI – 110 001
File No. No.A-12711001/1/2020/P&A
May 2020
Shri S.N. Mathur
Joint Secretary
Deptt. Pension and Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Room No.310
Khan Market
New Delhi
Sub: Indian Red Cross offering Engagement opportunities to retired Officers of the Government of India- Reg.
Sir,
Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS) was established under the Parliament Act XV of 1920. It is the largest statutory humanitarian organization that works as Auxiliary to the Government and Armed Forces Medical services. It contributes to saving lives and protecting livelihoods, provides relief in times of disasters and other emergencies. The Hon’ble President of India is the President of the Society and the Hon’ble Union Minister for Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India is the Chairman of the Society.
It is proposed to use the expertise of a few retired officials, who are based in Delhi, NCR, and are willing to work on honorary basis. Though, IRCS on its part, would like to pay a token consolidated honorarium per month to cover expenditure towards transport/ conveyance and to meet out of pocket expenses.
Accordingly, applications are invited from retired officers (not below the rank of Section Officers in GoI) of the Ministries/Departments under Government of India, or its equivalent officer in PSUs in the enclosed format for contractual engagement in the Indian Red Cross Society, National Headquarters.
You are requested to kindly populate and disseminate this information amongst all retired Government Servants Associations as well as in their Whatsapp Groups.
You are also requested to kindly get this posted on your website (s) for better response and reach.
PENSION FUND REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Qutub Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi-110016
CIRCULAR
CIR No.: PFRDA/2020/19/SUP-CRA/8
Date: May 29, 2020
To
All stakeholders under NPS
Subject: NPS Functionalities released by CRAs in FY 2019-20
Central Record Keeping Agencies (CRAs) appointed by PFRDA develop system level functionalities as per the evolving needs of NPS stakeholders in accordance with Sec 21 of PFRDA ACT 2013.
CRAs have the responsibility to develop various new functionalities or utilities and establish new processes, provide multiple models of interface for the uploading offices to provide maximum flexibility in terms of operation and for the benefits of the subscriber as an ongoing exercise to fulfill the obligations.
OFFICE OF CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR MARG, PALAM, DELHI CANTT. -110010
No.AN/II/2604/F R-56(j)/Q.E 03/2020
Date:01.06.2020
To
All PCsDA/PCA (Fy)/CsDA/AN-4 Section (local)
(Through CGDA website)
Subject : Retention in Govt. Service beyond the age of 50 years or on completion of 30 years of service- Sr.AOQs/AOs/AD(OL)/Sr.PS under FR-56(j)
In terms of Para 4, Appendix of DOP&T O.M. No. 25013/1/2013-Estt. (A) dated 21.03.2014 (copy enclosed), in order to ensure that the powers vested in the appropriate authority are exercised fairly and impartially and not arbitrarily, following procedure and guidelines have been prescribed for reviewing the cases of government employees covered under the aforesaid rules:
(1) The cases of Govt. Servants covered by FR 56(j) or FR 56 (I) or Rule 48 (1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules should be reviewed six months before they attained the age of 50/55 years or complete 30 years’ service/30 years of qualifying service, whichever occurs earlier.
(ii) Committee shall be constituted in each Ministry/Department/Office to which all such cases shall be referred for recommendation as to whether the officer concerned should be retained in service or retired from service in the public interest.
2. In this connection, please refer to HQrs Office letter No. AN/II/02604/99 dated 13.09.1999 vide which all controllers were requested to review all cases covered under FR 56(j) at least 6 months in advance.
3. However, it has been observed that some of the controllers are not adhering the time line as stipulated in the aforesaid orders. It is found that review under FR 56(j) in respect of some SAOs/AOs who attaining the age of 50 years between January, 2020 to June, 2020 has not been carried out by the controller’s office.
4. It is therefore, requested to adhere strictly the time line mentioned in the aforesaid DOP&T orders and review all such cases at the earliest. Reviewed cases may be forwarded to HQrs office. If already forwarded, the same may be ignored.
File No.17-35/2018-GDS
Department of Posts
Establishment Division
(GDS Section)
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New delhi-110001
Dated 29.05.2020
To
The Chief Postmaster General/Postmaster General
The General Manager, CEPT Mysuru/Unit at Hyderabad
Subject : Revised draft notification for the Posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks cycle-II/2019-2020 and subsequent cycle.
Sir,
Kindly find enclosed herewith copy of revised draft notification for Posts of Gramin Dak Sevakscycle-II/2019-2020 and subsequent cycle for notifying vacancies of GDS Posts in cycle-II/2019-2020 and subsequent cycle of GDS online engagement process. While notifying vacancies for 2nd cycle and subsequent cycle of GDS online engagement process, it should be ensured to follow this revised draft notification for uniformity among circles.
2. CEPT Unit at Hyderabad shall make necessary provisions in the software according to revised draft notification of the vacancies for 2nd cycle and subsequent cycle immediately.
Yours faithfully
sd/-
(Smriti Sharan)
Dy. Director General (Establishment)
No.18/2/2014-CS-I (S)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
2nd Floor, A Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi 110003, the 01st June, 2020
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Stepping up of pay of senior Assistants of CSS drawing less pay on promotion in the Section Officers’ Grade than their juniors – OM No. 18/2/2007-CS-I dated 20.05.2014 – Writ Petitions filed in the matter – regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of even number dated 01.07.2019 wherein instructions, for dealing with stepping up of pay cases consequent to directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide their interim orders in various Writ Petitions filed in the matter, were issued.
2. In this connection it is reiterated that the pay of the petitioners and similarly placed non-petitioners is to be restored only if they submit the ‘Affidavit of Undertaking’ as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the format attached with this Department’s OM under reference.
3. As regards the manner in which the pay is to be restored, it is clarified that the pay of the petitioners and non-petitioners, who submit the affidavit of undertaking in the prescribed format, may be restored notionally from the date with effect from which the stepping up of pay was granted earlier and regularly from the date of submission of the affidavit of undertaking as directed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi subject to the outcome of the Writ Petitions or orders of any competent court in related matters.
4. If an officer, whose pay has been restored in accordance with the above instructions, superannuates or retires voluntarily, his/ her case may be dealt as per the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 relating to provisional pension, payment of gratuity etc.
5. This issues in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide their ID No. 1(5)E-III(A)/96 dated 27.05.2020 (eFTS 1377323).
sd/-
(P Bairagi Sahu)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
