|Posted by munagarao999 on October 31, 2012 at 6:15 PM|
ALL INDIA EX-SERVICEMEN CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE
Central & Andhra Pradesh State Office & Central Chairman's Office
H.NO.3-6-711(New 669), Flat No.203, Pooja Towers, St.No.11 (New 12) Himayatnagar, HYDERABAD-500 029.A.P. Mob.99894 21354: Tel No.040-2765 3699
Ref. NO. AIExCC/CCM/GS/045/2012 Date: 27-07-2012
The Chief Record Officer, O/C Records,,Corps of Signals,,P.B. NO-5,JABALPUR-482 001
A COMMON PETITION/REPRESENTATION ON 'DOUBLE FAMILY PENSION'
MOST IMPORTANT, MOST URGENT ON MOST PRIORITY BASIS PLEASE
(Annexure: Addressed to Several Important 62 Govt
Concerned Authorities separately)
Sub: ENDORSEMENT OF FAMILY PENSION IN FAVOR OF
(1). MY WIFE …………………………………
(2). MENTALLY RETARDED HANDICAPPED DAUGHTER ……………………
: Request to Reissue of Corrigendum PPO in favor of the above persons as Family Pensioners
Ref: PPO NO. …………………………………………………………..
: My Lr. Dt. 15-10-2011 ;
Your Lr. NO. P/6278843/NER/JN Dt. 09th Dec, 2011
Further, ( i). My Lr Ref No: NExCC/AP/GS/VC/050/09 Dtd. 10-01-2009(9 Pages) on XVII issues submitted personally on the capacity of National Vice-Chairman, A.P. State General Secretary to Her Excellency Smt Pratibha Patel, The President of India & Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces at Camp Office Rastrapathi Nilayam, Secunderabad, A.P, lead with 22 Ex-Servicemen Delegates drawn from the different parts of the State, Reg—several Problems facing by the Ex-Servicemen, Widows, Dependents including the current issue i.e. the alleged Double Family Pension, and
(i).(a). Reply Received vide Serial Number: P1-B/4840 Dtd. 17th Feb 2009 to my above representation from Her Excellency the PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT (PUBLIC SECTION) K.C.Jayarajan, Addl. Comptroller New Delhi , Addressed to The Secretary to the Government of India, MoD, Dept of Defence, South Block, New Delhi, under copy to me, forwarding my representation to them asking action taken in the matter may please be communicated to the petitioner under intimation to their Secretariat.
(ii). My Lr Ref No: NExCC/AP/GS/VC/098/2011 Dtd. 11-05-2011 (16 Pages) Reg- Court-Martials vis-à-vis to the widespread Suicides taking place in serving Armed Forces Personnel, submitted to Her Excellency The President of India & Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces, Rastrpathi Bhavan, New Delhi
(iii). Besides the above representations, tens of hundreds representations/petitions submitted to various Govt Authorities in the past 3 (three) decades on several issues which are common in nature representing the ORs/NCOs/JCOs/Officers categories of Indian Ex-Soldiers-Widows-dependents.
(a). regularization of medical facilities at ECHS/MHs—continuous supply and availability of medicines—appointment of adequate and experienced doctors at ECHS—Army doctors behavior towards ORs/NCOs/JCOs and their families—simplifying of Referral procedure to the corporate hospital by scraping the present tedious/cumbersome system of double/joint opinion—make functioning of already sanctioned clinics and opening of new clinics.
(b). regularization of CSD canteens provisions—opening of extension counters,
(c). Common and uniform privileges-benefits to all EsM and their families through out the country, etc., etc.
(d). Any number of Cabinet Committees however they may be powerful is inadequate--meaningless without representation from our Category.
(iv). The present issue i.e. the allegedly nomenclatured Double Family/2nd Family/Dual Family Pension which is affecting adversely only to the WIDOWS of ORs/NCOs—reg,
“A Nation that does not remember the services rendered by the Yester years soldiers who did not only pledge and risk their prime youth and precious life foregoing-forgetting-ignoring-sacrificing their career path-not concerning welfare of their family members-parents-children for the nation and its people, a Nation that indulge harassing the Veer Naris (Widows of Ex-Servicemen) cannot always remain a Nation worth dying for”.
“Indian Ex-Soldiers are most Valuable Human Resources. It is the responsibility of the Governments at Central and States echelon to utilize these precious Assets in proper approach”.
With referencbe to the above, I would like to submit the following facts for your kind perusal in the referred subject matter that in response to my above cited representation dtd. 15-10-2011 requesting for endorsement of family pension in favor of my wife and thereafter in favor of my daughter who is ‘Mentally Retarded-Unmarried- Uneducated-Unemployed and wholly dependent on me/my wife’, you have sent me a bunch of papers for retransmission in triplicate through my PDA duly completed in all respects for endorsement of family pension.
2. I have gone through all the enclosed documents and found in the enclosed i.e. Appendix-1, Column-9 (c), it is mentioned that “In case the family is sanctioned pension or is eligible for family pension for any other source, an option to receive family pension for the spell of the service for which the pension has been sanctioned vide PPO/PC NO quoted above foregoing family pension admissible from any other source should be enclosed”.
3. It shocked me and to my family members to note the above unethical directions. It is most unfortunate to note such unfairness directions or orders have been enacted for the helpless ORs/NCOs/JCOs who are thrown out of not only middle of service but also in the middle age when their socio-economic-domestic-family responsibilities are at peak. Thereafter, it necessitate them to search for re-employment whatever be available after facing stiff competition with their civilian counterparts who are not only fresh in all respects but also abreast with competitive require knowledge to outdo such examinations, except some kind of remorse in age relaxation in case of Ex-Servicemen. They secure re-employment with their own efforts, abilities and capabilities.
4. When I was released/discharged form the Army in January, 1976 after serving 15 ½ years (1960-76 )(in 1962 Chinese-Aggression, I was with 19 Arty Brigade-13th Field Regt(Sikhs) 19 Inf Div); 1965 Indo-Pak war with the same Brigade; 1971 Bangladesh War in Mukthi Fauj-Jessore “C” Sector, 17 Mtn Div), -- applied for Probationary Officers in one of the Nationalized Banks (PNB) and passed written test but unfortunately my candidature has been rejected by the interview board because of ‘I was not a ‘Commissioned Officer’. In spite of I was possessing post-graduate qualifications. Subsequently, I applied for Deputy Superintendent of Police under Sch-B reserved for Ex-Servicemen by A.P. Govt through A.P.P.S.C, I was barred once again because ‘I was not a commissioned officer’. Again, where I passed three competitive written tests at national level conducted by the Ministry of Labor and Employment for the post of Asst. Commissioner-Finance/Administration/Enforcement in 1978. My candidature has been rejected by the U.P.S.C board because ‘I was not a Commissioned officer’. In the same way, I have been eliminated-barred from each and every opportunity on several occasions (during 1976—78). Then I started representing the Govt authorities against the discrimination clause imposed on our OR/NCO category which was in vogue. The Govt’s definition of Ex-Servicemen from Sepoy to General is one and the same. When some kind of relief has come out in mid 80’s I was already an Officer in one of the Nationalized Banks, of course, on promotion from clerical cadre on my own merits only. Thus, I lost several opportunities in my bright career due to lacunae-class discrimination in the system and differential treatment prevailed between two categories. Most probably, it may because I served in the Indian Armed Forces pledging my Prime youth as a Sepoy. This is the situation-rather serious situation with regard to the ORs/NCOs. These ORs/NCOs category from Indian Armed Forces were only to force/necessitate to seek subsequent support of fresh livelihood in re-employment for self survival as well as their depending families.
5. Non prevalence of sense of parity rather call it prevalence of sense of disparity in opportunities being created amongst the fraternity of retirees of various government departments/institutions must be the first item to be addressed to before dealing with other issues viz., ‘OROP’(One Rank One Pension); Allotment of Free House sites to all ESM; assignment of Govt Agrl Land to all ESM, the minimum Family Pension should be raised to Rs.10,000/- per month with periodical revision whenever a salary revision take place for the serving personnel; free travel on train and Govt RTC buses; absolute Medical facilities, ‘Resettlement & Rehabilitation” with hundred percent surety and assurance, a separate Pay Commission exclusively for Armed Forces Personnel, etc., etc., that get automatically alleviated once the sense of assurance of equal treatment sets in.
6. I had been retired under VRS-2000 Scheme as a Manager Scale-II after working 23 years in the said Nationalized Bank with pension benefits along with my counter part civilians, whose widows shall definitely get their due family pension without any hitch, BECAUSE OF THE ONLY REASON THAT ‘THEY HAVE NOT SERVED THE NATION IN THE ARMED FORCES’ that is the only eligibility criteria. Of course, not least that the STRONG and MILITANT Unions Comradism, no Govt can dare to touch their enjoying privileges/benefits. Serving the nation in defence become a SIN, pledging prime youth, risking lives in each fraction of second become chastisement . Was it blunder to choose to serve in the Army overlooking-forgetting the families‘ safety and their concern & the children career??? And also surrendering Fundamental Rights -conceding all privileges which arte enjoying by all civilians who never bothered or concerned.
6.a The office boy who became Chief Justice of India
“I come from a poor family. I started my career as a class IV employee and the only asset I possess is integrity”, says CJI Sarosh Homi Kapadia, India's 38th Chief Justice S H Kapadia began his life as an office assistant who ran errands at a law firm. But deep down, he wanted to study law and be a judge. Homi Kapadia hailed from a lower middle class Parsi family: his father was a clerk and his mother a homemaker. Quality education was a luxury. Which is why, in 1960, he took up a humble job at the law offices of Behramjee Jeejeebhoy. His colleagues hadn't imagined even in their wildest dreams that he would one day go on to become the Chief Justice of India. The young Sarosh first sought to help his father and finance his younger brother's education before embarking on his journey to become a lawyer. On 12th May 2010, Kapadia was sworn in as the Chief Justice of India by President of India Smt Pratibha Patil.
How, at all this has been happened?-- purely, solely, only because of he was not in the services of Armed Forces, he is in civil life, where plenty of opportunities, like freedom of speech, expression, liberty to choose and pursue better future career path, which upholds the fundamental rights since valued, unlike in Defence services, as we were treated as frogs in the well, within four walls, every thing of above are out of bounds.
Please Note that Sir, :
7. Applicability of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 to persons re-employed in Government Services after retirement and whose pay is debitable to Civil Estimates. Accordingly, the pension thereafter from Civil estimates only, particularly from staff own savings, out of the profits earned by the banks strictly derived from our services are being paid, but not by any means from the defence funds allocation. Then how the pension earned purely based on the service
rendered in another department and as per the provisions prevailing in that department, duly granted pension along with other staff, treated as Double/Dual/Second family Pension and will be treated as Double benefit??
A. PENSION IS A SOCIAL SECURITY extended by the Employer
8. a. Accordingly, Pension was granted for the services rendered in a particular establishment on the strength of proportionate length of service rendered and the same has been sanctioned to other counterpart civilian employees too. PENSION CAN BETTER BE CALLED AS A SOCIAL SECURITY. IT IS DURING OLD AGE, THE PENSIONERS GET SICK AND HAVE TO SPEND LOT IN TRANSIT, ON TRANSPORT, ON ATTENDANT, ON MEDICINES AND TREATMENT AND ON SEVERAL INCIDENTAL AND MISCELLANEOUS UNAVOIDABLE EXPENSES. These unavoidable expenses will be more born by the widow on the demise of her husband-Pensioner, because, while the pensioner was alive he was to take care all of them. After death of the pensioner, the widow has to hire all services from outside agencies by paying more money, put up with more pain, more burden, more uncertain, with reduced family pension. Therefore;
b. Pension cannot be attached by any court of law, recovered or reduced unless there is some overpayment. The recovery is also to be done with the consent of the pensioner and in reasonable installments, not in lump sum.
c. Defence Pension is paid out of the ‘CONSOLIDATED FUND OF INDIA’, for the service rendered in the Armed Forces. The PSU/PSB have no business to converse about Defence Pension since they are not connected to it in any way and vice-versa.
d. PSU/PSB Pension is paid in lieu of employer's contribution of PF(CPF). Most of the schemes have part contribution by the employees. Currently, these organizations are partly disinvested and the Public have shares in it. Therefore, this entity is not similar to a fully owned Government organization to justify such options. The source of funds for pension is partly that of the employee and employer. How then someone ask the widows of the Ex-Servicemen shall have to forego the Family Pension? What is the rationale?? Because we are lower-rung disciplined Ex-Soldiers!!
e. The Pension scheme in PSB"s are governed by the Bi-partite Settlement signed under the Industrial Dispute Act, and cannot be altered by either parties without proper amendment to it. The act of the PSB's to the retired Ex-Servicemen-their widows ask such a letter is violative of this law.
f. ABOVE ALL THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED IN ONE OF THE CASES THAT "EVEN BY CONSENT YOU CANNOT DENY OR TAKE AWAY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS" OF A CITIZEN. PENSION IS A RIGHT TO LIFE AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
g. No authority has got any right to seize or infringe or deprive of or limit-restrict-prohibit widows’ right to property especially in these cases the ‘RIGHT’ of a widow’s fundamental right. as the Defence Pensioners (ORs/NCOs/JCOs) had been mandating-compelling necessary endorsements in their pension records by the authorities which is illegal, against the natural justice and equity, besides the above provisions.
h. Nobody knows what will be the position of pension in the next day itself-- which pension may be enhanced by the authorities due to several reasons. Opting tomorrow’s happening without knowing the situation and depriving of widows’ enhanced future entitled benefits is also not only illegal and against the natural justice but also crime perprated by the authorities.
i. Drawing the entitled/legally sanctioned pension under the proviso for services rendered in that organization on par with the counter part civilian employees and directing the husbands of future widows (since death is certain in case of all human beings including the other living beings) amounts to blackmailing the innocent, less educated category belonging to Indian Armed Forces retired-pensioners ORs/NCOs/JCOs, and also nothing to do with the defence pension where the amount is being paid from defence fund allocations whereas in other cases i.e. from the banks which is out of contributory funds as envisaged in Pension Scheme 1995, introduced in Banks in lieu of CPF but not as a charity.
B. BANK’S PENSION IS A CONTRIBUTORY PENSION
9. a. It is a well known fact that the Nationalized Banks including State Bank of India are having Contributory Pension Scheme (CPF) to its employees. This pension scheme was started in 1995, therefore the name given by each individual bank as “Indian Bank Employees Pension Scheme 1995”; “Canara Bank Employees Pension Scheme 1995”; “Bank of India Employees Pension Scheme 1995”; etc., etc. The State Bank of India is also having similar scheme.
b. Incidentally, the Employees Provident Fund Organization improved its existing scheme in 1995 and scrapped its old FPS 1971 scheme subsequently and named the new improved scheme as EPF 1995 Scheme.
c. Since the EPF 1995 is limited to a monthly salary of Rs. 6,500 and covering unorganized laborers, the Bank employees sought a separate scheme with higher salary and management of its funds by its own Trustees.
“ In both the schemes, the Employer contributes a sum to the employee for the pension fund. In principle both the EPF 1995 and the Banks Pension Schemes 1995 are one and the same. While the EPF 1995 pensioners are allowed to draw two family pensions, why similarly placed bank family pensioners are not allowed two family pensions” ?
d. This point has been emphasized in a number of judgments that a Banks’ pension is given from a separate fund and the government should not have any objection for payment. But still the government, specially the MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND THE RESPECTIVE RECORD OFFICES AND CDA (P) ALLAHABAD continues to reject many family pension requests from the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen from banks is NOT ONLY UNLAWFUL BUT ALSO AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY. The counterpart civilian employees’ widows are NOT prohibited/restricted OR deprived of drawing of family pension and allowed to enjoy the entitlement.
e. Denial of 2nd Family Pension to the poor and helpless widows of the re-employed Ex-Servicemen ORs/NCOs/JCOs is illegal. The controversial clause was never brought to the notice of nor mentioned anywhere – in any of the documents whatsoever, either while issuing the appointment orders, or in Banks’ Pension Scheme, Regulations 1995, or while issuing Defence pension PPO, but it was concealed the material information from the knowledge of the re-employed Ex-Servicemen, --invoking the provisions all of a sudden and surprisingly hitherto not aware by any Ex-Servicemen fraternity, is unethical, misrepresentation of facts and fraud committed on the poor/helpless Widows of the Ex-Servicemen just to deny the 2nd Family Pension, with an ill-intention to gift away the amount thus saved by invoking illegal methods snatched away from the mouths of the widows, to the vote-bank beneficiaries, is unconstitutional. No authority whatsoever has got the power to abrogate the fundamental right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by denying an arbitrary decision for affecting the entitled widows.
f. It is an action of blunder committed against the poor/helpless Widows of the Ex-Servicemen in denial of 2nd Family Pension, who are all most all senior,-super senior citizens above 65 years or so by overriding the instructions on which were signed or accepted.
g. The Banks are paying a larger dividends out of their Net Profits as a consequence earned from the sweat and blood of the employees to the Govt of India through appropriations to Profit and Loss Account was never made known to the cadre that the re-employed Ex-Servicemen Widows only are not entitled the family pension unlike their counterpart civilian employees’’ widows.
h. Pension Scheme 1995, introduced in Banks was in lieu of CPF but not as a charity.
Government Banks shall provide for pension fund requirements before transfer of balance of Net profit as dividend to the Government as per the Act 5 of 1970/80 following the procedures laid down under Regulation 7 and 11 of the Pension Scheme.
i. Pension Fund consist of Contributory Provident Fund + Interest accrued only in respect of employees and retirees. All other statutory contributions are by the Bank only as pension is being extended in lieu of CPF. Those who opted CPF and benefited with hard cash drawl of laks of rupees invested in high-quality/ first-class/superior and attractive periodical returns Govt-PSUs- Commercial ventures and the original capital (CPF) investment were untouched not depleted. It is only who opted pension foregoing the CPF were wedged and punished. Why?
j. Unless the incomplete and half-way amendment of Rule-54, Sub R-13(B) which is presently in force, made applicable only to certain small part of other segments of the said Regulations, brought out directly that all the widows of the re-employed Ex-Servicemen shall be entitled on par with their counter parts civilian widows. All the Regulations of the Pension Scheme, 1995 as on the notified date 29 09 1995 shall invariably be made applicable for whoever is got admitted into the Pension Scheme through getting them joined as members of the Pension Fund without any rider.
k. Thus in so far as the pension scheme being implemented it is ultra vires wherever it had
violated, abrogated the fundamental rights conferred under the Statute, and the Banks are bound to implement the Scheme in toto as per the statutory provisions laid down on 29 09 1995.
l. Denial of 2nd Family Pension to the widows of the re-employed Ex-Servicemen is the blatant violation of the principle of equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution of India.
m. The general purpose of the pension scheme, 1995 in the Banks read as a whole, is to grant pensionery benefits to its employees, who had rendered service in the Banks and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the Banks. Provisions of the said Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot be so construed as to deprive of the entitlement of Family pension to the widows of the retired deceased employees of the Bank.
n. Pension option is fundamentally in lieu of CPF. Ex-Servicemen re-employed optees for pension in lieu of CPF who had already opted for pension prior to retirement had their employers’ contribution of PF together with interest got transferred to Pension Fund at the time of availing the option.
‘the Banks were fully aware of the consequential cost considerations on an annual basis as per provisions under Regulation 11 and 7 ( c) and before transferring of such net profits to the Government only after making due provisions to the Pension Fund under Sub-Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act 5 of 1970.
o. That means the costs to be considered were already met through the net profits transferred to and all the while lying with the Government right from which runs the Banks on the social welfare policy of no profit no loss basis.
p. A date fixed without any rational or nexus with the objective is in itself irrational and illogical in so far as the eligible retired employees’ widows are concerned, for, they are not mandated either to:-
(i) sacrifice the constituted right to avail the pension benefit from the date immediately following the date of death of husband-/father Ex-Servicemen pensioner or
(ii) forfeit the provision of drawing the Family pension and claim CPF from on that date.
q. Pension Trust Fund Account is belongs to employees. According to the pension regulation, pension was introduced in the banking industry w .e .f 1-11-1993 in lieu of provident fund. The employees opting for pension have to contribute 10% of pay towards pension fund in lieu of
provident fund. However, During 7th bipartite settlement IBA (Indian Banks’ Association) requested the unions to bear additional cost on pension on account of increase in basic pay in 50:50 proportion over and above 10% of pay. The additional cost on pension on account of increase in the basic pay was estimated at 26.50% of the pay, excluding 10% of share of employees remaining 16.50% cost was shared in the ratio of 8.25/8.25 each by the union and management. Similarly during 8th bipartite settlement incremental cost on pension on account of change in basic pay was estimated at 30.50% of pay excluding 10% share of employees remaining cost was shared in the ratio of 11.25% and 9.25% by management and unions respectively. In the 9th (current)bipartite settlement incremental cost on account of salary revision is estimated at 36% of the pay and excess of 10% contribution by the employees, will be shared in 50/50 ratio at 13% each by the union and management.
r. Further as stated above the wage revision settlement also provided for making compulsory deductions from the wages of the pension optees as well the non pension optees and recovered huge amount of money in the span of 13 years i.e .from 1-11-1997 to 27-10 2010 even then the IBA illegally issued notifications to all PDAs refusing to pay to the Widows of the Re-employed Ex-Servicemen retired after putting pension entitlement service and fulfilling all the requirements thereon.
s. PF contribution (CPF) was deducted compulsorily from employees’ wages. Denial of the legitimate benefit of Family pension to the widows of Ex-Servicemen Bank retirees who are in fact legally and rightfully entitled to draw the (wrongly nomenclature as 2nd ) Family pension.
t. The widows of Ex-Servicemen are mostly Senior/Super Senior citizens in the age group of 65 and above and struggling to maintain their family budget which was created discrimination among two classes of RETIREES which is illegal and arbitrary.
u. In this context, I would like to through some light on the Section 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
v. First of all nomenclaturing the subject matter as ‘Double Family pension/ 2nd Family pension / Dual Family pension’ instead of ‘Full Family Pension’ which was earned purely and entirely through legal process on the event of two spells of services rendered in two different departments, denying the same was irrational /overriding the fundamental rights of the poor widows of yester year Indian soldiers.
w. The said CCS Rule-54,13(B) or any thing like of resolution is devoid of statutory strength under Section 23 of Indian Contract Act and offending the fundamental rights of the widows of Ex-Servicemen-employees/retirees under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
x. Thus when the Government favorably responded to the demand, it thereby ipso facto conceded that there was a larger available national resources by way of net profits being transferred to the Government on an annual basis by the Government Banks as per provisions under Sub-Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act 5 of 1970 and that the Banks would statutorily be able to provide for such requirements under the provisions of Regulation 7 and 11 of the Pension Regulations in meeting the requisite cost of funds .
y. With this underlying intendment of extending a hassle free Pension Scheme by bringing out the aforesaid beneficial amendment to Regulation 22, no valid /sustainable ground could be asserted by the Government through IBA that only due to cost considerations the Government was not in a position to extend 2nd Family Pension rather ‘Full Family Pension’ for services rendered thereon consequent to R-54, 13-B in order to enable the employees/eligible retired employees to come over to pension from CPF.
z. Further, nobody knows at whose request the Govt has increased whose amounts in higher brackets unlike these poor widows of Ex-Servicemen, the pension amount of whole time Directors of Public Sector Banks from 1-4-2012 payable on salary drawn as CMD /ED instead of the salary drawn as GM as per Govt notification F.NO 13/5/2009/BO.1 dtd. 3-4-2012.
za.. Whereas the top bureaucrats of Finance and Defence ministries are very quick and super fast in finding such insalubrious decisions to harm to the maximum extent to the poor and helpless widows of Ex-Servicemen in spite of several representations ‘ibid’ made to the topmost head of the democratic country and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces besides several Ministries, top bureaucrats.
zb. The Govt did not consult any body or negotiated with any body while according measures on one/ many a time basis in regard with,
i) Writing off of Agricultural debts,
ii) One time settlements of intentional and willful defaulted Debtors of the Banks etc….runs into multi crores putting the exchequer in heavy debt trap.
zc. The said purely discriminative action is liable to be struck down as the Government fails to show that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
zd. What is there that looks like a reason? Coming forward of R-54 which is not at all a statutory necessity since the Pension Scheme as legislated and in existence and effect is not a Contributory Pension Scheme. Or for that matter curtailment of eligible pension only w.e.f an arbitrarily fixed date i.e. after death of the pensioner has no apparent statutory reason or basis rather than considering it as an extension of charity?
ze. The division which classified the pensioners into two classes on the basis of the specified as civilians who never bothered the safety, security, and integrity of the nation and its people, its resources, its properties, etc., and other class of Ex-Servicemen and their families who had scarified everything on all fronts was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary and unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of the pension scheme consequent to the beneficial amendment 1998 , and the guarantee of equal treatment contained in Article 14 was violated inasmuch as the pension rules which were statutory in character meted out differential and discriminatory treatment two equals in the matter.
C. ARMED FORCES TRIBUNALS and COURTS
(I). AFT JUDGMENT ON DUAL FAMILY PENSION : AFT REGIONAL BENCH : CHENNAI
10. a. A petition of a widow in the AFT Chennai Regional Bench, (OA No.21 of 2010) seeking Defence family pension in addition to the Bank of India’s family pension was cleared by the AFT by the following certificate issued by the Bank.
b. The certificate issued by the Bank of India dt. 24.5.2011 reads as follows:-
“This is to certify that Mrs.G.Mangammal, W/O A.G.Govindasamy (Ex.Staff of Bank of India) is drawing family pension through SB A/C No.800010110005367. The pension is Paid out of our own funds as per Bank of India Employees Pension Scheme 1995 in lieu Contributory Pension Fund. (CPF)”
c. The above certificate issued by the Bank gave way for clearing all disputes and the widow was granted second family pension by the AFT Chennai on 01.07.2011.
d. The Government should consider giving second family pension to the Bank’s family pensioners, without dragging them to the court which is unnecessary from the very beginning without any cause of action, time consuming, personal agony-frustration-tension, moreover unaffordable legal expenses, etc., etc..
(II). WIDOW OF A RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN ENTITLED FOR DUAL FAMILY PENSION
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, KOCHI.
Express News Service:: First Published : 23 Jul 2010
11. a. The Regional Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in Kochi on Wednesday ordered that the widow of a re-employed soldier is entitled to dual family pension.
b. Disposing of a petition filed by Sobhanakumari of Malappuram, wife of the late Sergeant Sivasankaran Nair, the AFT comprising Justice K Padmanabhan Nair and Lt General Thomas Mathew pronounced the Ministry of Defence's stand against the petitioner's entitlement to get two family pensions simultaneously as "illegal and unsustainable".
c. The petitioner's husband, after being discharged from Indian Air Force, got reemployment in Canara Bank and died in harness while serving in the bank. Till the date of his death, he was getting the Air Force pension. But, after her husband's death, when the petitioner claimed family pension, the Air Force rejected it on the grounds that she was getting pension from the bank.
d. In her petition before the Tribunal, Santhakumari pointed out that there is no provision which disentitles her from getting two family pensions at a time and that the pension from the Canara Bank is not paid out of the consolidated fund of India.
e. The MoD took the stand that she was not entitled to get two pensions based on Regulation 1995 (a) of Pension Regulations of Air Force 1961 according to a legal heir shall be eligible for family pension from Air Force only if he or she is not in receipt of another pension from the government.
f. Pointing out that Canara Bank is a statutory body incorporated under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and that its funds are not part of the government funds, the AFT made it clear that the pension from Canara Bank cannot be treated as pension from the government. Hence there is no justification in denying family pension to the petitioner on the grounds that she has been already receiving pension from the bank
g. The tribunal directed the MoD to disburse the pension within three months, failing which with interest at the rate of 9 percent a year.
(III). Double Family Pension for widows of Ex-Servicemen sought : CHANDIGARH: HARYANA STATE CHIEF MINISTER
12. a. Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda on Wednesday suggested that widows of ex-Servicemen, who had also served the State Government’s Civil Service after retirement, should be allowed to receive the military pension as well as the State Government’s civil pension.
b. Speaking at a meeting of the Kendriya Sainik Board in New Delhi chaired by Union Defence Minister A. K. Antony, Mr. Hooda said it was necessary to give them this incentive keeping in view the cost of living.
c. According to an official release here, Mr. Hooda said that in case of death occurring during action in war or such engagements which are specifically notified by the Defence Ministry as during the Kargil war, an ex-gratia grant of Rs.10 lakh was given but otherwise ex-gratia was given at the rate of Rs.5 lakh.
d. He, therefore, suggested that no distinction be made in the quantum of ex-gratia payment given to Servicemen killed in an officially declared war or in action against militants.
e. He also called for a fresh look at the pension benefits of ex-Servicemen who retired prior to January 1, 1986.
f. The Chief Minister said the State Government had decided to enhance financial assistance being given at the time of marriage of orphan daughter of ex-Servicemen from Rs.21,000 to 51,000 and it was already providing many other incentives and facilities to the serving personnel, ex-Servicemen, war widows and their dependents.
g. Mr. Hooda said the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) would develop Defence Colonies in Rohtak, Jhajjar, Rewari, Hisar, Jind, Narnaul, Bahadurgarh, Karnal and Dadri exclusively for ex-Servicemen, widows of ex-Servicemen and serving defence personnel.
h. The Indian armed forces are bravely defending the borders of the country, often standing on guard at a height of 20,000 feet and in minus 30 degree C temperature, day and night so that the people of India can live, work and sleep in peace.
i. However, there is widespread discontent among the serving and former members of the Armed Forces and their widows and family members regarding their service conditions e.g. pay scales, allowances, anomalies regarding pensions, inadequate pension (particularly to those disabled while in service), widows benefits, promotion matters (including promotion policy and process) etc.. They have a feeling that the bureaucrats do not care for them and do not properly address their grievances. As a result, thousands of ex-armed forces personnel have returned their medals, and some have even burnt their artificial limbs.
j. These grievances include the grievances relating to pay, allowances, one rank one pension, other pension matters-like the alleged wrongly nomenclature ‘Double Family/Second Family/Dual Family Pension’ in stead of “Full Family Pension” which counts two spells of service pensions, suitable benefits to be granted to war veterans, war widows, promotion matters, rehabilitation of soldiers who are discharged at a young age, etc. The armed forces personnel should have a feeling that their grievances are heard by an independent body. Even if some of their demands are not accepted, they will have a feeling that they were given a proper hearing.
k. In a recent panel discussion `We The People' on NDTV channel some of these grievances were high lighted.
13. a. Our courts of law are flooded with cases relating to members, both serving and retired, of the armed forces e.g. cases relating to pension, promotion, etc and the obvious reason is that the armed forces personnel have a feeling that their grievances are not being properly addressed. This case is the perfect example of harassing the widows of ORs.
b. The great Prime Minister of Magadha, Chanakya, told rather ‘cautioned’ Emperor Chandragupta Maurya that:
"Pataliputra rests each night in peaceful comfort, O King, secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks only to the Mauryan Army standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action, day and night, in weather fair and foul, all eight praharas (i.e. round the clock), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, all through the year, year after year. To this man, O! Rajadhiraja, you owe a debt: please, therefore, see to it, suo motu, that the soldier continuously gets his dues in every form and respect, be they his needs or his wants, for he is not likely to ask for them himself. The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha; for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be king!"
c. Today our ex-soldiers have not only been demanding but are agitating to get their legitimate dues. They were compelled to resort to public protests and even return their War- medals and burnt their artificial limbs, as was done by Capt. C.S. Sidhu whose right arm was amputated while serving at the front but was getting a pittance as pension (see judgment of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. C.S. Sidhu in Civil Appeal No.4474 of 2005 dated 31st March, 2010). This, in my opinion, is NOT GOOD FOR THE NATION.
d. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to set up within two months from today a Commission which shall be called the Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission.
e. This Commission will look into any grievances by serving or former members of the armed forces or their widows or family members and make suitable recommendations expeditiously to the Central Government in this connection.
f. The Commission will also frame and recommend to the Central Government a scheme for proper rehabilitation of discharged soldiers. At present the position is that a soldier is ordinarily recruited at the age of about 18 years, and if he does not rise above the rank of Jawan he is discharged after 15 years of service with a meager pension of Rs. 104/-p.m. (of course, the minimum pension after 30 years long struggle increased to just Rs. 3500/-). If he is promoted, his tenure is extended on each promotion. Thus, if he reaches the rank of Havildar but not further, he will retire after 15-22 years of service, i.e. at the age of 35-40 again with meager pension of 3500 presently after 6th CPC recommendations. Thus a soldier is retired when he is in the prime life and his domestic-family-socio-economic responsibilities were at PEAK. During his service he spends only about 2 months in a year with his family(mostly on rare situations). In these two months scanty period, he was predominated by several important domestic/family matters to be attended, he has to leave for duty in mid of them, many of them incomplete, unattended and in haphazard way. In the PRIME YOUTH only, one can do wonders which was the preciousness connected to the rest of his bright life.
g. There is no doubt that a Resettlement Directorate exists in the Army Headquarters, but we are informed that it is not a very effective body. If a soldier is discharged between the age of
35-45, thrown out all of a sudden to the streets with meager pension, in many cases without pension, how will he support his family ? At that age he is likely to have a wife and children, aged and sick parents. Hence he should be given alternative-continuous-permanent employment carrying the past defence service weitage for considering of pay fixation, promotion, transfer etc., so that he can support his family on par with civilian counterpart. The Commission will go into this matter also in detail and suggest appropriate schemes for rehabilitation of ex-armed forces personnel who are retired at a relatively young age. Lakhs of UNEMPLOYED Ex-Soldiers on the roads.
h. The petitioner before us in the present case is a widow Pushpa Vanti, whose husband was an Army Major who had fought in three wars (in 1948, 1962 and 1965) and was decorated with fourteen medals. However, the petitioner is getting only Rs.80/- per month as pension, in these days when a kilogram of arhar dal costs that amount. She has prayed for fixation of her correct pension and arrears.
Further, I also would like to highlight the provisions referred in the following historical notable cases by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
1. Devokinandan Prasad V. State of Bihar & Ors. 04 05 1971.
Payment of pension under the rules does not depend upon the discretion of the State Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant, coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. The grant of pension does not depend upon any order. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to the service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules.
By virtue of the existence of Regulation 52 on the date of retirement of the retired (Ex-Servicemen) employee having regard to the service the pension amount has got to be quantified. But the right of the pensioner to receive pension flows to because of any such order but by virtue of the enforceable Regulations. The right of the Family pensioner to receive Full Pension with effect from the following the date of death of the original pensioner withheld by the PDA Banks arbitrarily in defiance of provisions under Regulation 52. The State / Bank had no power to withhold it. It therefore follows, that any order denying the widows of Ex-Servicemen retiree the right to receive pension from the effective date had affected her/his fundamental right .
Having regard to the decisions in Bhagwant Singh V. Union of India, before the Hon’ble Punjab High Court, K.R. Erry v. The State of Punjab before the Hon’ble Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde before this Court,
“ we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is PROPERTY under Art. 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also PROPERTY under article 19(1) (f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Art. 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Art-.32 is maintainable”.
Further, in this Devokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & others it was authoritatively ruled that ”pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules .” This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh.
The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal Laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same.
2. In D.S.Nakara and others. Supreme Court of India 17 12 1982.
HELD: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State Action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal Laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject –matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In other words, there ought to be casual connection between the basis of classification and the object of the statute.
As far as Government Banks are concerned there is an existing provision for meeting the cost of pension/additional burden under Section 10 of Act. 5 of 1970 and also under Regulations 7 and 11 of Pension Scheme, 1995.
• (similarly circumstanced/situated are the widows of civilian Bank employees & the widows of re-employed Ex-Servicemen bank employees).
Thus, there can be no rule of law, if there is no equality before law.
(V). DUAL FAMILY PENSION
14. a. A number of claims for dual family pension by the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen has been rejected by various re-employers and Ministry of Defence by quoting age old pension regulations. However, all these claims had been allowed through various High courts and Armed Forces Tribunals.
b. It has been proved by a number of judgments that the refusal to grant second family pension is not justified. Yet the Government is not reviewing the age old pension regulations and continue to reject the dual family pension claims.
c. It is not good on the part of the Government, specially Ministry of Defence which is recruiting thousands and thousands of youngsters into the Armed Forces and throwing them out at their middle age without assuring a second career. If someone by chance get a second career, their re-employed benefits are curtailed without having any regard to his past military service. This is a gross injustice.
d. It is high time that the Government should review the policy of re-employment of Ex-Servicemen and remove all anomalies and get them justice without any legal proceedings.
(VI). 2nd FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS OF THE RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN.
15. a. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare through its Office Memorandum No. 1/19/96-P&PW(E) dt.19/7/2002 allowed family pension under the EPF Scheme 1995 and the FPS 1971 in addition to the Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
b. This benefit is available from 27.7.2001. It means that all the widows of the re-employed Ex-Servicemen, whose husbands were drawing two separate pensions and died before 27.7.2001 and after 27.7.2001 are now eligible for two family pensions. But practically this benefit has not been availed by any widow till date. The reasons are:-
1. The O.M. No.1/19/96-PPW(E) dt.19.7.2002 by the Dept. of Pension and Pensioner’s welfare has not been widely circulated. The MOD, Dept. of Ex-servicemen Welfare had not circulated this order.
2. The Record Offices and the respective departments had joined together and ensured that only one family pension is released to the widows.
3. Since most of the ex-servicemen re-employed prior to 1986 had not done the endorsement of family pension, their widows suffered a lot to get one pension even though their husbands were drawing two pensions.
4. The Record offices refused to endorsement of family pension without getting an no-objection certificate from the re-employer that they will not sanction any family pension.
5. In some cases, the re-employers such as the Nationalized Banks, PSUs like the Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, etc., who are having EPF scheme 1995 released the family pension to the widow immediately. After accepting this EPF scheme 1995 pension, when the widow applied for the defence family pension, the record offices simply turn down the application stating that they are eligible for only one family pension. Thus the widow continued to lose her legitimate defence family pension even after issue of the order from 27.7.2001.
c. Thus the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen whose husbands were drawing two pensions before 27.7.2001 or after 27.7.2001 and died subsequently are though eligible for two family pensions, but are being paid only one pension.
d. The MOD, Dept. of Ex-servicemen Welfare should issue a circular on the subject immediately and enable the widows to get both the family pensions in the last days of their life. Otherwise the name given to the Department of “Ex-servicemen Welfare” will become meaningless.
e. As of now all the widows of ex-servicemen, whose husbands were drawing two pensions are eligible for two family pensions w.e.f. 27.7.2001 depending upon the date of death. Those who have died prior to 27.7.2001, the family pension will be paid from 27.7.2001. Those who have died after 27.7.2001, the family pension will be paid from the next of day of death.
(VII). GRANT OF 2nd FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS OF RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN
GRANT OF FAMILY PENSION UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME, 1995 AND THE FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971 IN ADDITION TO FAMILY PENSION UNDER RULE 54 OF THE CCS (PENSION) RULES 1972.
16. a. The Rule-54 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1972 permits only one family pension to the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen. This is done by taking an option either to accept Military family pension or her husband’s Civil service family pension.
b. Following a large number of representations on the subject, the Government had finally issued a notification No.1/19/96-P&PW(E) dated the 27th July 2001, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated the 27th July 2001, by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following proviso after the first proviso:-
“Provided further that family pension, admissible under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules”.
c. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said notification i.e. 27th July, 2001.
d. This Office Memorandum clearly states that the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen
pensioners can draw two family pensions w.e.f. 27.7.2001. (One pension from the Defence and the other family pension from the re-employed department)
e. This amendment to the family pension rules has come into force w.e.f. 27.7.2001. Still so many applications from the re-employed Ex-servicemen pensioners for endorsement of family pension are returned for obtaining a ‘non-sanction of family pension certificate from the re-employer’, as the case of the present petitioner herein.
f. Indian Army, Navy and the Air Force are the first employers of these young men and shunted them out at the prime age without caring for the rehabilitation. The denial of 2nd family pension to the widows of the re-employed ex-servicemen is an injustice. After a large number of representations, the government finally agreed to grant this 2nd family pension as above.
g. It is the Record Offices of the Army, Navy and the Air Force should safe guard the interest of the ex-servicemen by writing a letter to all the Department/Banks /PSUs /Autonomous bodies stating the Government order that the widows are eligible for both the family pension.
h. A copy of the O.M. dated 19.7.2002 ibid in this letter for your ready reference. Kindly go through the OM and relevant rules and kindly arrange to issue a letter to all concerned stating that there is no restriction on the family of the deceased ex-servicemen employee from receiving family pension from Defence even if the family is in receipt of family pension from other sources. I am inserting a reply letter ibid received from Canara Bank on the subject for your perusal.
i. Read the Dept. of Pen. & P.W. O.M.No.4/10/2006-P&PW(D) dated 14.5.2007 order in this regard:
1. Grant of Family Pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995and family Pension Scheme, 1971 in addition to Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1971.
2. The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation, etc., to this Department’s Notification No.1/19/96-P&PE(E), dated the 27th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), dated the 27th July, 2001 by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following proviso after the first proviso:-
“Provided further that family pension admissible under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules”.
3. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said Notification, i.e. the 27th July, 2001. Prior to coming into force of the amended provision on 27.7.2001, the family pension was admissible from only one source. On seeking clarifications by some Ministries/Departments regarding the effective dates of applicability of amended provision in respect of pensioners who retired/expired before or after 27.7.2001, a clarificatory O.M. of even number, dated 19.7.2002 (should be 10.7.2002) was issued to all Ministries/Departments indicating the date from which the various categories of re-employed pensioners would have benefit of two family pensions.
4. Some Ministries have sought clarification whether the instructions contained in OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable in the case of Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies.
5. The matter has been examined in this Department in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and CAG. It is clarified that the instructions contained in this Departments OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable to the Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in the PSU/Autonomous Body and were compulsorily governed by FPS, 1971/EPS, 1995.
6. The other conditions with regard to dates of applicability mentioned in O.M. No.1/19/96-P&PW(E), dated 19.7.2002 will remain unchanged.
Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan Khan Market,
New Delhi – 110003 Dated 19th July, 2002
Subject: Grant of Family Pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 in addition to Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s Notification No. 1/19/96-P&PW (E), dated the 27th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated the 27th July, 2001, by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following proviso after the first proviso;
“Provided further that family pension, admissible under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules.”
2. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said notification i.e., the 27th July, 2001. Clarification has, however, been sought by some
Ministries/ Departments as to (i) whether the said Notification is applicable only in respect of those persons who retired on or after 27.7.2001; (ii) whether the Notification would also apply in cases of family pensions which arose prior to 27.7.2001, i.e. where retirement/ death of a re-employed pensioner occurred before 27.7.2001; and (iii) in the event of the benefit being admissible in cases where retirement/ death of a re-employed pensioner occurred before 27.7.2001, whether the benefit is to be given w.e.f. 27.7.2001 only, i.e., the date from which the said Notification came into force.
3. It is clarified that the benefit of family pension under Family Pension Scheme, 1971 Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, in addition to the Family Pension under Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, will be admissible in those cases also where retirement/ death of a re-employed Pensioner, who was covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, took place prior to 27.7.2001, besides covering those cases where retirement/ death of such a re-employed pensioner took place on or after 27.7.2001. The benefit of second family pension in cases of retirement/ death prior to 27.7.2001 of the re-employed pensioner covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, will, however, be admissible only w.e.f. 27.7.2001, i.e., the date from which the said Notification came into force.
Dept. of Pen. & P.W.
O. M.No. 4/10/2006-P&PW(D) dated 14.5.2007
Grant of Family Pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and family Pension Scheme, 1971 in addition to Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1971.
The undersigned is directed to invite the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation, etc., to this Department’s Notification No.1/19/96-P&PE(E), dated the 27th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), dated the 27th July, 2001 by which sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was amended by insertion of the following provisio after the first proviso:-
“Provided further that family pension admissible under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rules”.
2. The said amendment has come into force from the date of publication of the said Notification, i.e. the 27th July, 2001. Prior to coming into force of the amended provision on 27.7.2001, the family pension was admissible from only one source. On seeking clarifications by some Ministries/Departments regarding the effective dates of applicability of amended provision in respect of pensioners who retired/expired before or after 27.7.2001, a clarificatory O.M. of even number, dated 19.7.2002 (should be 10.7.2002) was issued to all Ministries/Departments indicating the date from which the various categories of re-employed pensioners would have benefit of two family pensions.
3. Some Ministries have sought clarification whether the instructions contained in OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable in the case of Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies.
4. The matter has been examined in this Department in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and CAG. It is clarified that the instructions contained in this Departments OM of even number, dated 19.7.2002 are also applicable to the Central Government pensioners who got permanently absorbed in the PSU/Autonomous Body and were compulsorily governed by FPS, 1971/EPS, 1995.
5. The other conditions with regard to dates of applicability mentioned in O.M. No.1/19/96-P&PW(E), dated 19.7.2002 will remain unchanged.
D. ENDORSEMENT OF FAMILY PENSION FOR THE PRE-86 ARMED FORCES PENSIONERS.
17. a. Present day pensioners are fortunate to have the notification about family pension done in their PPO. It is only the Pre-86 defence pensioners, who are now reaching the last stage of their life are finding very difficult to get the endorsement of family pension done during their life time.
b. The parent record offices are putting lot of restrictions on the re-employed ex-servicemen’s cases. There are cases of widows having PPOs for Two family pensions in their hand, but unable to get sanctioned even one pension because of some inhumane restrictions on sanctioning Second family pension.
c. A large number of applications for endorsement of family pension are kept pending with the CDA(P) due to these restrictions. Even the parent record offices are unable to help the pensioners. There is no forum to present this problem. There is no mechanism for redressal of problems encountering by the ORs/NCOs/JCOs.
d. In case of re-employed ex-servicemen, the situation is worse. The parent record offices are demanding an undertaking from the re-employer that they will not sanction family pension.
[One well educated Master Warrant Officer of the Indian Air Force is struggling for the past 5 years to get endorsement of family pension. Now he is seriously ill]. His only worry is that who
will help his wife to get the pension after his death. Unfortunately, his wife is also bedridden. The pre-86 pensioners are the most sufferers in this respect.
e. All the Record offices are managed by Officers only. It is a pity that an MWO is struggling to get the endorsement of family pension.
f. The re-employed ex-servicemen are allowed to draw two pensions separately. After their death, when the widows approach the Bank/ or PDAs for family pension, they are given only one pension, that too after lot of delay. The Bank pays