AIPRPA PLEA TO HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER FOR INCLUSION OF BENEFIT OF DELINKING OF 33 YEARS SERVICE FOR FULL PENSION TO COMPULSORY RETIRED PENSIONERS STANDS REJECTED!
Is the Department of Expenditure above the Prime Minister of India?
AIPRPA CHQ had taken up with the Honourable Prime Minister of India against exclusion of compulsorily retired pensioners from getting the benefit of de-linking of 33 years of service for full pension. However, the following reply was received from the Government stating that the decision to exclude the compulsorily retired pensioners was taken in consultation with the Department of Expenditure! It appears that the Department of Expenditure is outside the powers of the Honourable Prime Minister!!
The status reply received from the PMO office is reproduced below; All compulsorily retired pensioners may consider knocking the doors of Judiciary on the grounds that the stand of the Department of Expenditure is an after thought and that the original orders dated 6.4.2016 did not contemplate the exclusion:
KR GS AIPRPA
|Name Of Complainant||:||K Ragavendran|
|Date of Receipt||:||17 Jul 2016|
|Received by||:||Prime Ministers Office|
|Forwarded to||:||Desk A|
|Contact Address||:||Loknayak Bhawan|
|Grievance Description||:||No. AIPRPA / Pre-2006 / 1 Dated 17-07-2016 To The Honourable Prime Minister Government of India, New Delhi – 110001 Sir, Sub: Request for intervention against arbitrary exclusion of compulsorily retired pensioners from the purview of 6th April, 2016 orders of DoPPW – regarding. Ref: (1) DoPPW OM Number 38/37/08-PPW(A) Dated 6.4.2016. (2) MOF Dept.of Expenditure OM No.CPAO/ITTech/Revision(Pre-2006/2016-17/8 Vol-VI/58 Dated 13.06.2016. This All India Postal RMS Pensioners Association wishes to bring to your kind attention that the stand of the Department of Expenditure to exclude the pensioners compulsorily retired from service from getting the benefit of delinking of 33 years qualifying service for drawing the minimum guaranteed full pension acts harshly on them who are already undergoing a lifelong punishment of early retirement from service for whatever misconduct they had committed. The stand of the Department of Expenditure is running against the wishes of the Government of India to concede a benefit to all pensioners besides imposing a double punishment by denying even the minimum pension of the scale in which there were compulsorily retired. The orders of the DoPPW dated 6th April, 2016 under reference is extending the benefit of delinking of revised pension from qualifying service of 33 years to all Pre-2006 pensioners including to those with 10 years of service. Nowhere in that order was any classification made about compulsorily retired or voluntarily retired or superannuated. Instead the orders of 6th April, 2016 in its Para 4 categorically states “…. that the pension/family pension of all pre-2006 pensioners / family pensioners may be revised …..”. But the 13th June, 2016 orders under reference (2) issued by the Department of Expenditure in its last sentence excludes the pensioners who are retired compulsorily by saying they are not covered by the OM dated 6.4.2016 In fact the orders of 6th April does not speak anything about compulsorily retired persons at all and the stand of the Department of Expenditure revealed after more than two months is just an afterthought to prevent the compulsorily retired pensioners from getting the minimum benefit guaranteed by the Pension Ministry orders. This Association would like to seek your personal intervention in this matter to cause to order to reopen the issue by the Department of Expenditure and reconsider to ensure that all Pensioners including the compulsorily retired persons are ensured of the minimum pension guaranteed by the 6th April orders of DoPPW. Your kind intervention to cause to include a small section of pensioners for the minimum benefit will save the agony to those sections. Thanking you Sir, Yours faithfully, (K.Ragavendran) General Secretary|
|Current Status||:||CASE CLOSED|
|Date of Action||:||04 Aug 2016|
|Details||:||The decision not to give benefit of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 was taken in consultation with Department of Expenditure.|