One Rank One Pension Writ Petition for Fixation of pension
ITEM NO.1
COURT NO.9
SECTION X
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 419/2016
INDIAN EX SERVICEMEN MOVEMENT & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Respondent(s)
(WITH IA 33253/2017 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION)
Date : 01-05-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv.
Ms. Garima Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Govil, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Subranmanyam, Adv.
Mr. Rohitash Kr. Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Mr. Charanya L. Kumaran, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sheena Taqui, Adv.
Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
During the course of the hearing, the principal submission of the petitioners is that the recommendation of the Koshyari Committee for the grant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) was endorsed by the Budgetary Speech of the Finance Minister on 17 February 2014 and by the Minister of Defence on 26 February 2014, following which the Controller General of Defence Accounts was directed to work out modalities. This was further re-affirmed on 10 July 2014 by the Finance Minister and on 2 December 2014 by the Minister of State for Defence. However, the Union government, on 7 November 2015, while implementing OROP adopted a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners would be bridged at“periodic intervals”.
The petitioners have highlighted specifically three aspects of the anomalies which have arisen. They are summarised in a written note of submissions tendered before the Court, which is extracted below:
“(i) Fixation of Pension on calendar year of 2013 instead of FY of 2014: Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014.
(ii) Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation.
For example, if 8(i) and (ii) are implemented, two soldiers who have served for same length of years, holding the same rank will draw different pension. A Sepoy (Group Y) who retired prior to 31 Dec2013 will get Rs.6665 p.m. and another Sepoy (Group Y) who retired on and after 1 Jan 2014 would get Rs 7605 p.m. Further, on account of such implementation, a higher rank Naik soldier who retired before 31 Dec 2013 would draw a lesser pension of rs.7170p.m., than a junior rank Sepoy who retired after 1 Jan 2014 as his pension would be Rs.7605. This fact is illustrated by a tabular chart which is enclosed. (See Pg.1, CC).
Therefore, implementation of this new definition of OROP defeats the very principle of OROP by creating a class within a class of the same officers, which in practice tantamounts to one rank different pensions. This is also contrary to the judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125.
Another fallacy in the new definition of OROP which detracts from the principle of OROP is:
(iii) Pension Equalization every five years:
It is submitted that Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees.”
Certain concrete examples have been indicated in charts which are annexed to the note submitted before this Court by Mr Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
At this stage, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the Union government scrutinizes the grievances which are placed before the Court in the above note. It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement, are duly considered by the Union government at an appropriate level.
We would expect the government to seriously consider the grievances and to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, justice can be provided for the satisfaction of all concerned.
7th CPC Pensionary Benefit from Jan 2016 for person retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2015 : CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi Order
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No.571/2017
Order Reserved on: 13.02.2018
Pronounced on:17.04.2018
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
G.C. Yadav,
S/o late Kamal Singh Yadav,
(aged about 61 years)
(retired as Deputy Secretary)
R/o H.No.1627/3, Lane No.6,
Rajiv Nagar, Mata Road,
Gurugram-122001.
– Applicant
(By Advocate Shri L.R. Khatana)
-Versus-
1. Union of India
Through Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.D. Kaushik)
ORDER
The applicant retired from the post of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India with effect from the afternoon of 31.12.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. His date of birth is 01.01.1956. He has been deprived of the benefits of 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, which came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2016 on the ground that he retired prior to that date i.e. 31.12.2015.
2. The applicant submitted his representation dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure A-4 colly.) to the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) (respondent no.3) stating therein that he would cease to be a Government servant in the midnight of 31.12.2016 and thus acquired the status of a pensioner in the forenoon of 1st January, 2016. Hence, he is entitled to all the pensionary benefits viz. gratuity, fixation of pay/pension as per 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations. The representation dated 14.12.2015 of the applicant was forwarded by the Additional Secretary (S&V), DoPT to the Joint Secretary, Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare (DoP&PW) vide letter dated 29.02.2016. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted below:
“2. In his representation, Shri Yadav has contended that the pensionary benefits accrue to a person when he acquires the status of Pensioner. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee, the persons born on 1st January, 2015 were in Government service upto midnight of 31st December, 2015 and acquired the status of pensioner only in the forenoon of 1st January, 2016. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Banerjee, the persons born on 1st January, 1956 acquired the status of pensioner only in the forenoon of 1st January, 2016. The recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission are likely to be implemented with effect from 1st January, 2016.”
3. Pursuant to the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, DoP&PW (respondent No.2) issued Annexure A-2 Om dated 04.08.2016 revising the pension of pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners. The grievance of the applicant is that his retiral benefits have been fixed in terms of Annexure A-2 OM, treating him as a pre-2016 retiree whereas he should be treated as a retiree w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and thus the 7th Central Pay Commission’s benefits should accrue to him.
4. Respondent No.2 considered the representation dated 14.12.2015 of the applicant, which was duly forwarded by the DoPT vide aforementioned letter dated 29.02.2016 and vide impugned Annexure A-1 OM dated 03.01.2018 has declined the request of the applicant. The relevant portions of this OM are reproduced below:
“4. In the case of Shri Yadav, he actually retired on 31.12.2015 and was not in service on 1.1.16. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri S. Benerjee has no relevance in his case. In fact Rule 5 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, has already been amended and as per the amended rule date of voluntary retirement is treated as the last working day. Therefore, those who retired voluntarily on 1.1.2016 would be eligible for pay and pension benefits of 7th CPC as a post 1.1.2016 retiree.
5. Since Shri Yadav retired on superannuation on 31.12.2015, he is to be treated as a pre-2016 pensioner and is accordingly entitled to the benefit in revision of pension under the OM No.38/37/46-P&PW(A)(ii), dated 4.8.16.”
5. Aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 OM dated 03.01.2017, the applicant has filed the instant OA praying for the following relief:
“B) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned orders/action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same and be pleased to further hold that since the Applicant superannuated with effect from the afternoon of 31.12.2015 and relinquished the charge of the post of Deputy Secretary in the afternoon of that date, he, as per law, is deemed to have effectively retired on or with effect from 1.1.2016 and therefore, cannot be treated as pre-2016 pensioner and direct the respondents to grant the retiral benefits such as fixation of pension, DCRG, commutation of pension, leave encashment etc. accordingly and pay the arrears thereof with 12% interest within a specified time-frame.”
6. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply in which they have broadly made the following important averments:
6.1 The applicant retired from Government service on 31.12.2015 and accordingly he has been treated as a pre-2016 pensioner and his pensionary benefits have been fixed in terms of the OM dated 4.8.2016 (Annexure A-2) of the DoP&PW.
6.2 As per the provisions of FR 56(a), a Government servant whose date of birth is first of a month shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years. Hence, the applicant, whose date of birth is 1.1.1956 is deemed to have been retired in the afternoon of 31.12.2015.
6.3 The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v. Union of India, [AIR 1990 SC 295], relied upon by the applicant in para 4 (d) of the OA, is not relevant in the instant case. It is stated that Shri S. Banerjee had retired voluntarily and his date of retirement was 1.1.1986 whereas in the instant case the applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the afternoon of 31.12.2015 and as such was not in service on 1.1.2016.
7. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply, in which no substantial issue has been raised except saying that it is settled position of law by a catena of judgments of Hon’ble Tribunal, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person whose date of birth is 1st of a month is deemed to have retired from service from that date only.
8. On completion of the pleadings the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of the parties on 13.02.2018. Arguments of Shri L.R. Khatana, learned counsel for the applicant and that of Shri N.D. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Shri Khatana, besides reiterating the averments made in the OA relied on the following judgments to buttress his argument that the applicant is deemed to have retired from service on 1.1.2016 since his date of birth is 1.1.1956:
i) Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Union of India v. George, [2004 (1) ATJ 150]; held:
“16. We are unable to accept this contention. The two officials had actually continued in service till the midnight of December 31, 1995. It is only from January 1, 1996 that they had ceased to be in service and acquired the status of pensioners. Resultantly their claim to pension had to be determined at the rate prevalent on the date. This is precisely what the Tribunal has given them. The case is in no way different from that of Banerjee. In both cases, the pay had been paid till December 31”
ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Union of India & others v. Col. Bhupinder Singh (Retd.) Major, [Writ Appeal No.3897 of 2005, dated 11.09.2009], held:
“The decision reported in 1989 Supp. 2 SCC 486 (S. Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors.) has been followed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. In that case the appellant had filed an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted from the forenoon of 1st January, 1986 and in that view of the matter, he was found to be entitled to the benefit of para 17.3 of the recommendation of the Pay Commission. This decision is not applicable to the case of the respondent in the instant case as per Army Rules, which is applicable to the respondent who retired on 31.12.1995. None of the decision cited by the respondent are applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the decision cited by the respondent are applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are applicable on all the fours to the case on hand and the impugned order calls for interference.”
iii) Judgment of Hon’ble Andhra High Court in Union of India and Ors. V. P.S.R. Kumar Sinha and Anr.¸[2006 (2) ALT 354:2006 (3) ALD 57]; held
“6:17. Supreme Court Ruling In S. Benerjee v. Union of India , a definite finding is on record by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of mdia that when the employee has retired on the last date of the month, his date of retirement has to be treated as 1st date of succeeding month.
6:18. It is a direct decision on the issue before us.
6:19. Full Bench Decision of A.P. High Court Principal Accountant General A.P. v. C. Subba Rao While answering Point No. 2 the Full Bench of this Court categorically held as follows:
A Government servant who would be retiring on the last day of the month would cease to be Government servant by mid-night of that day and he would acquire status of pensioner and therefore he would be entitled for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month.”
iv) Order of this Tribunal in Satish Kumar v. Union of Inida & Ors., [OA No.792.2004, dated 25.11.2004], held:
“It is trite law that for want of any decision to the contrary of the High Court, under whose jurisdiction the Bench of the Tribunal is situated, a decision of the High Court of another State would be binding as a precedent on the Tribunal and having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in S. Banerjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 295, relied upon by Kerala High Court, the case of the applicant, in all fours, is covered by the ratio decidendi of the decision of the High Court. Having regard to the fact that he is deemed to have retired on 1.4.2004 special dispensation as mentioned in para 3 of the OM ibid would apply to him.”
8.1 Shri Khatana concluded his arguments by submitting that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the above judgments and hence the relief claimed may be granted.
9. Leaned counsel for the respondents by and large reiterated the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents.
10. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents annexed thereto. All the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts as well as of the Tribunal relied upon by the applicant are primarily based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-
“The question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner has retired on January 1, 1986. We have already extracted the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985 whereby the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that the petitioner retired on December 31, 1985? The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr. Anti Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, frankly conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired on December 31, 1985. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had retired from the service of this Court on December 31, 1985. Then it must be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from January 1, 1986 and that is also the order of this Court dated December 6, 1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of January 1, 1986 as per the said order of this Court, that is to say, as soon as January 1, 1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But, nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on January 1, 1986 and not on December 31, 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of paragraph 17.3 of the recommendations of the Pay Commission.”
11. This judgment has attained finality and thus holds the field today. It is clearly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee (supra) that in case of all those Government servants whose date of birth is 1st of a month, they are supposed to have retired from that date only.
12. In the instant case, the applicant’s date of birth is admittedly 1.1.1956 and thus relying on the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Banerjee (supra), he is deemed to have retired from service on 1.1.2016. Hence, he is entitled for getting all his pensionary benefits in accordance with the 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations. Accordingly, this OA is allowed. The impugned Annexure A-1 order is declared illegal and accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to fix the retiral benefits of the applicant in accordance with the 7th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations which have been implemented vide O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A)(i), (ii) & resolution dated 04.08.2016 in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1.1.2016. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
E-filing of Income Tax Returns registers an increase of 19%
There have been some incorrect reports in media pertaining to reduction in numbers of Income Tax Returns(ITR) e-filed during Financial Year(F.Y.) 2018-19 as compared to F.Y. 2017-18. This is factually untrue, because the figures for F.Y. 2017-18 and F.Y. 2018-19 are not directly comparable.
It is stated that during F.Y. 2017-18, out of a total of 6.74 crore ITRs which were e-filed, 5.47 crore ITRs were filed for Assessment Year(A.Y.) 2017-18 (the current year). In comparison, during F.Y. 2018-19, a total of 6.68 crore ITRs were e-filed which included 6.49 crore ITRs of current A.Y. 2018-19 marking an increase of almost 19%. This would imply that substantially larger number of taxpayers filed their ITRs electronically in the F.Y. 2018-19 as compared to F.Y. 2017-18.
Furthermore, during F.Y. 2017-18, apart from the returns for the A.Y. 2017-18, nearly 1.21 crore ITRs were filed for A.Y. 2016-17. The balance number of ITRs filed for A.Y. 2015-16 and prior A.Ys is 0.06 crore. In comparison, during F.Y. 2018-19 only 0.14 crore ITRs for A.Y. 2017-18 were filed. Thus, the apparent decrease in the number of ITRs filed during F.Y. 2018-19 pertaining to earlier years was due to an amendment in Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 brought in vide Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018, which mandated that a revised return could be furnished only upto the end of the relevant Assessment Year. As a result, only 0.14 crore ITRs pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 were filed during F.Y. 2018-19 as these were the revised ITRs for the relevant A.Y. which could only be filed due to change in law and no other ITR of any earlier A.Y. could be filed in view of the amended provisions of law.
These figures are also available in the Tab-> ‘Filing growth (A.Y.)’ on the e-filing website.
It is also stated that the number of paper ITRs for A.Y. 2017-18 was only 9.2 lakh (1.5% of total ITRs filed) and the number of paper ITRs for A.Y. 2018-19 is 4.8 lakh (0.6% of total ITRs filed). As per the above details, it is evident that most of the taxpayers have steadily switched to e-filing which is clear from the dwindling numbers of paper returns filed for A.Y. 2018-19 compared to earlier years.
Subject: Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Government Civilian Employees.
This is in reference to DoPT OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009 and OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dated 28.09.2016 (copies enclosed) regarding Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) for the Central Government Civilian Employees.
2. It has been decided to implement the aforesaid orders in the case of Group “C” and “D” employees who have opted for Government Service and working in Department of Telecommunications or on deemed deputation basis in BSNL/MTNL and to withdraw One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) Scheme and the Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme w.e.f 01.09.2008.
(Patanjali Prakash)
Assistant Director General (PAT)
Grant of Air Travel permission to RPF / RPSF personnel on Jammu — Srinagar sector
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. F(E)I/2019/AL-28/21
New Delhi, dated:29.03.2019
The General Manager,
All Indian Railways / PUs,
(As per standard mailing list).
Sub: Grant of Air Travel permission to RPF / RPSF personnel on Jammu — Srinagar sector.
The proposal regarding grant of Air Travel permission to RPF / RPSF personnel on Jammu — Srinagar sector has been considered by Board (FC & CRB) and it has been decided that the non-entitled personnel of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) are allowed to travel by air from Jammu to Srinagar and back on official duty (on termination commencement at Jammu) for the period of one year i.e. up to 31.03.2020.
Extension of this period is subject to review from time to time.
This will also be subject to the other Terms & Conditions / instructions issued from time to time by Ministry of Finance / Board’s office on ‘Air travel’.
MACP from the DNI in the lower in respect of JCos/ORs and equivalent
No.1(20)/2017/D(Pay/ Services)
Ministry of Defense
D(Pay / Services)
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated 30th April, 2019
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Availability of option for fixation of pay on Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) from the date of next increment (DNI) in the lower post and method of pay fixation from DNI, if opted for, in context of Army Pay Rules 2017, Air Force Pay Rules 2017 and navy pay Regulations 2017 in respect of JCos/ORs and equivalent.
The undersigned is directed ti refer to MoD OMs of even number dated 22.03.2081 ana 26.02.2019 on the issue of availability of option for fixation of pay on promotion from the date of next increment (DNI) in the lower post and method of pay fixation from DNI, if opted for, in context of Army Pay Rules 2017, Air Force Pay rules 2017 and Navy Pay Regulations 2017 and to say that the aforesaid OMs dated 22.03.2018 and 26.02.2019 will be applicable in the cases of pay fixation on grant of MACP also in respect of JCOs/ORs and equivalent.
2. this issues with the concurrence of Defence (Finance) vide their I.D.No.1(8)/2017-AG(PA)/103-PA dated 29.04.2019.
Yours faithfully
(Arun Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Review of mode of promotion from Selection to Non-Selection for Shunting Master Post
RBE No.63/2019
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No.E(NG)I/2015/PM 1/11
New Delhi, dated April 23, 2019
The General Managers,
All Zonal Railways &
Production Units.
(as per standard mailing list)
Sub: Review of mode of promotion from “Selection” to “Non-Selection” for the post of Shunting Master, Grade-I in GP Rs.4200, Level-6 and Shunting Master, Grade-II in GP Rs.2400.
As the Railway Administrations are aware, in terms of instructions contained in Railway Boards letter No.E(NG)I/2000/PM 2/4 dated 30.10.2001, the classification of posts in the category of Shunting Masters is as under:-
S.No
Category
Classification
1
Shunting Master, Grade II in GP Rs. 2400, Level – 4
Selection
2
Shunting Master, Grade I in GP Rs. 4200, Level – 6
Non Selection
References have been received from Zonal Railways, expressing difficulty in filling up the post of Shunting Master, Grade-II by “selection” process due to educational qualification level and constraints in writing skills of the staff in the feeder categories. Both recognized Staff Federations (AIRF & NFIR) have raised this issue with the matter figuring in AIRF’s PNM agenda also in item nos.20/2015 and 57/2015.
The matter has been examined, in consultation with the Traffic Directorate. To tide over this acute problem in most of the Railways, it has been decided that the vacancies in the posts of Shunting Master, Grade-II in GP Rs.2400, Level-4 may be filled up by “Non-Selection” process as a onetime dispensation only. In the case of any ongoing selection to the post, Railways may decide at their level on continuing with the same or on adopting the “Non-Selection” process as a onetime dispensation.
Please acknowledge receipt.
(S. Balachandra Iyer)
Executive Director/Estt.(N)
Railway Board
DA for Bank Employees from May to July 2019 – IBA Circular
Indian Banks’ Association
HR & Industrial Relations
No.CIR/HR&IR/76/D/2019-20/7217
May 2, 2019
All Members of the Association
(Designated Officers)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Dearness Allowance for Workmen and Officer Employees in banks for the months of May, June & July 2019 under X BPS! Joint Note dated 25.5.2015
The confirmed All India Average Consumer Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers (Base 1960=140} for the quarter ended March 2019 are as follows:-
January 2019 – 7007.55
February 2019 – 7007.55
March 2019 – 7053.20
The average CPI of the above is 7023 and accordingly the number of DA slabs are 645 (7023-4440= 2583/4= 645 Slabs) The last quarterly Payment of DA was at 611 Slabs. Hence there is an increase in DA slabs of 34, i.e 645 Slabs for payment of DA for the quarter May. June & July, 2019
In terms of clause 7 of the 10th Bipartite Settlement dated 25.05.2015 and clause 3 of the Joint Note dated 25.05.2015, the rate of Dearness Allowance payable to workmen and officer employees for the months of May, June & July, 2019 shall be 64.50 % of ‘pay’. While arriving at dearness allowance payable, decimals from third place may please be ignored.
The Deputy Commissioner/Director
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
All Regional Offices / ZIETs
Subject :- Guidelines to implement O.M dated 13.03.2019 for extension of CGHS facilities to the retired employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan – regarding.
Sir/Madam,
In continuation of KVS Office Memorandum of even no. dated 13.03.2019 vide which the approval of the Competent Authority of KVS for extension of CGHS facility to the retired employees of KVS who were having CGHS card while in service and residing in CGHS covered cities was conveyed. In this connection, the following guidelines may be kept in mind while processing the requests made for making of new CGHS card by the retired employees:-
A. A retired employee of KVS who was having CGHS card while in service and is residing in CGHS covered areas can opt for CGHS facility by submitting his / her application along with relevant documents and CGHS contribution to the concerned Pension Sanctioning Authority (PSA) which has released his / her pensionary benefits. As per 7th CPC, the revised monthly subscriptions, as decided by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide their O.M .No. S.11011/11/2016-CGHS(P)/EHS dated 09.01.2017, to be made by employees/ pensioners for availing CGHS facilities are as under:-
S. No.
Corresponding levels in the Pay Matrix as per 7th CPC
Contribution (Rs. Per month)
1
Level: 1 to 5
250
2
Level: 6
450
3
Level: 7 to 11
650
4
Level: 12 & above
1000
B. On receipt of application from the retired official, the concerned Pension Sanctioning Authority i.e. Regional Office (R.O)/ZIETs/ Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ) will verify the particulars filled in the application form and enclosed documents as required by CGHS Authority i.e. self-attested photocopy of the LPC, PPO, Aadhar Card, CGHS card while in service, employee contribution as per 7th CPC as applicable to the concerned employee in accordance to his / her pay level at the time of retirement. Thereafter, PSA will write a letter for discontinuation of payment of fixed medical allowance (FMA) to the Pension Disbursing Authority (PDA) i.e. State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The PSA will forward the application form along with Cheque / draft for the amount as per the CGHS rate applicable with reference to residential address of the official concerned to the Deputy Commissioner concerned of the Regional Office having jurisdiction over the CGHS city wherein the official is residing.
Illustration
A Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner or Administrative Officer is retired from Mumbai Region having CGHS card while in service & residing in Lucknow i.e. CGHS covered area. He / she will submit his / her application (along with his employee-contribution as per 7th CPC in favour of, KVS, HQ and documents stated in para B) to the PSA (KVS, HQ). The PSA will verify the application form and forwarded the same to KVS, RO Lucknow along with the Cheque/DD (amount as applicable for CGHS Centre at Lucknow). Since the Deputy Commissioner, KVS RO Lucknow is having jurisdiction over CGHS Centre at Lucknow the application form will be countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner, RO Lucknow and submitted to CGHS Centre at Lucknow along with Cheque/DD and other necessary documents for preparation of CGHS card. The Deputy Commissioner RO Lucknow will also maintain a register depicting the name of the employee and family members, CGHS card no., validity of the card and the details of the pension sanction authority along with particular of Kendriya Vidyalaya or Regional office from where the official is retired. Further, Deputy Commissioner, KVS RO Lucknow, will also keep a copy of CGHS card (Index Card) issued by CGHS. All medical claims in respect of the Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner/ Administrative Officer retired from Mumbai, will be reimbursed by Regional Office Lucknow.
C. The concerned Deputy Commissioner will forward the application to the CGHS center, along with all necessary documents including Cheque or Demand Draft after countersigning the application form, for issue of CGHS card. If the retired official is residing in the city having CGHS Centre which falls under the jurisdiction of Pension Sanctioning Authority, then the Pension Sanctioning Authority will forward the application to the concerned CGHS Centre. The Deputy Commissioner concerned will countersign the form and send it to the CGHS authority for preparation of CGHS card under intimation to the retired official as well as the Pension Sanctioning Authority.
D. The Deputy Commissioner of the RO, who has forwarded the application form to the CGHS Centre for issue of card, will maintainthe proper records and make necessary entries in CGHS card issuing register which will carry the details of Name of the employee and family members, CGHS card, validity of the card and the details of the Pension Sanctioning Authority along with particulars of Kendriya Vidyalaya/Regional Office/ZIETs from where the official retired.
E. Existing Rates of CGHS yearly contributions payable by KVS, as circulated by Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Nirman Bhawan, New delhi vide their Circular No. Z.22025/4/2007-CGHS (Stats. Cell) dated 02.03.2010 are given below. The concerned PSA will calculate KVS share by deducting the employee contribution as mentioned in para ‘A’ from yearly contribution as indicated below. The PSA will then forward the total amount (KVS share & employee contribution) to the respective Deputy Commissioner where the retired official is residing.
(Figures in Rs.)
S. No.
City
Total cost per card 2009-10*
1
Ahmedabad
8667
2
Allahabad
6292
3
Bengaluru
5736
4
Bhopal
3060
5
Bhubaneswar
8943
6
Chandigarh
11449
7
Chennai
5236
8
Dehradun
8947
9
Guwahati
4296
10
Hyderabad
6097
11
Jabalpur
2925
12
Jaipur
18464
13
Kanpur
8447
14
Kolkata
5397
15
Lucknow
6033
16
Meerut
14535
17
Mumbai
7372
18
Nagpur
8046
19
Patna
7765
20
Pune
3593
21
Ranchi
7068
22
Shillong
5553
23
Thiruvanthapuram
6762
24
Delhi
15368
*(These rates have not been revised after 2009-10 by DGHS,Nirman Bhawan,New Delhi)
F. Medical claims, if any, will be reimbursed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya/Regional Office/ZIETs where the official is residing. The copy of CGHS card (Index Card) issued by CGHS has to be kept for record.
