↧
IFCI Judgement on Appeal
↧
DA TABLE : Dearness Allowance & Dearness Relief Table
DA RATES TABLE
Dearness Allowance & Dearness Relief – DA and DR Rates Table
5th, 6th and 7th CPC DA RATES TABLE : Dearness Allowance & Dearness Relief Table for Central Government Employees and Pensioners
DA and DR both are same. Dearness allowance and Dearness relief is being granted to existing employees and retired employees respectively. Dearness allowance is calculated on the basis of current basic pay and the dearness relief is calculated on the basis of basic pension.
Central Government is releasing orders for additional Dearness relief to pensioners retired in 5th CPC, 6th CPC and 7th CPC separately. The calculation of Dearness relief for 5th CPC, 6th CPC and 7th CPC Pensioners are slightly difference on each CPC.
DA Rate Table: Dearness Allowance Rates from 2016 to till date as per 7th pay commission for Central Govt employees.
DA and DR Rates from 1996 to 2005 and 2006 to 2015 and 2016 to till date table
| How to calculate DA? The formula for DA Calculation is common for 5th CPC, 6th CPC and 7th CPC, except the fitment factor. Dearness Allowance = (Average of AICPIN for the past 12 months – Fitment Factor) x 100 / Fitment Factor |
| 5th CPC Fitment Factor = 306.33 |
| 6th CPC Fitment Factor = 115.76 |
| 7th CPC Fitment Factor = 261.4 |
Orders issued separate for 5th, 6th and 7th CPC Pensioners from DoPPW. The table shows the percentage of DA and DR From 1996 for 5th CPC Pensioners, From 2006 for 6th CPC Pensioners and From 2016 for 7th CPC Pensioners in separate columns.
Current Rate of Dearness Allowance is 17% (Updated on 14.10.2019)
Current Rate of Dearness Relief is 17% (Updated on 21.10.2019)
| 5th CPC | 6th CPC | 7th CPC | |||
| M/Y | DA % | M/Y | DA% | M/Y | DA% |
| Jan-96 | 0 | Jan-06 | 0 | Jan-16 | 0 |
| Jul-96 | 4% | Jul-06 | 2% | Jul-16 | 2% |
| Jan-97 | 8% | Jan-07 | 6% | Jan-17 | 4% |
| Jul-97 | 13% | Jul-07 | 9% | Jul-17 | 5% |
| Jan-98 | 16% | Jan-08 | 12% | Jan-18 | 7% |
| Jul-98 | 22% | Jul-08 | 16% | Jul-18 | 9% |
| Jan-99 | 32% | Jan-09 | 22% | Jan-19 | 12% |
| Jul-99 | 37% | Jul-09 | 27% | Jul-19 | 17% |
| Jan-00 | 38% | Jan-10 | 35% | ||
| Jul-00 | 41% | Jul-10 | 45% | ||
| Jan-01 | 43% | Jan-11 | 51% | ||
| Jul-01 | 45% | Jul-11 | 58% | ||
| Jan-02 | 49% | Jan-12 | 65% | ||
| Jul-02 | 52% | Jul-12 | 72% | ||
| Jan-03 | 55% | Jan-13 | 80% | ||
| Jul-03 | 59% | Jul-13 | 90% | ||
| Jan-04 | 61% | Jan-14 | 100% | ||
| Apr-04 | 11% | Jul-14 | 107% | ||
| Jul-04 | 14% | Jan-15 | 113% | ||
| Jan-05 | 17% | Jul-15 | 119% | ||
| Jul-05 | 21% | Jan-16 | 125% | ||
| Jan-06 | 24% | Jul-16 | 132% | ||
| Jul-06 | 29% | Jan-17 | 136% | ||
| Jan-07 | 35% | Jul-17 | 139% | ||
| Jul-07 | 41% | Jan-18 | 142% | ||
| Jan-08 | 47% | Jul-18 | 148% | ||
| Jul-08 | 57% | Jan-19 | 154% | ||
| Jan-09 | 64% | Jul-19 | 164% | ||
| Jul -09 | 73% | ||||
| Jan-10 | 87% | ||||
| Jul-10 | 103% | ||||
| Jan-11 | 115% | ||||
| Jul-11 | 127% | ||||
| Jan-12 | 139% | ||||
| Jul-12 | 151% | ||||
| Jan-13 | 166% | ||||
| Jul-13 | 183% | ||||
| Jan-14 | 195% | ||||
| Jul-14 | 212% | ||||
| Jan-15 | 223% | ||||
| Jul-15 | 234% | ||||
| Jan-16 | 245% | ||||
| Jul-16 | 255% | ||||
| Jan-17 | 264% | ||||
| Jul-17 | 268% | ||||
| Jan-18 | 274% | ||||
| Jul-18 | 284% | ||||
| Jan-19 | 295% | ||||
| Jul-19 | 312% | ||||
Note: Central Government had taken the decision on merger of dearness allowance with effect from 1.4.2004 in 5th CPC period. But, the calculation of DA continued with reference to the CPI (IW) average as on 1.1.1996 of 306.33. After merged DA with Basic pay, from July 2004 to July 2007 the above said calculation was adopted.
What is current rate of Dearness allowance?
The current rate of Dearness allowance is 17% with effect from 1st July 2019 for Central Government employees, Pensioners and Family Pensioners in India.
5th CPC Latest DA Rate and Finmin Order
The Dearness Allowance is increased from 295% to 312% effective from July 2017 for Central Govt Employees and Central Autonomous Bodies to draw their pay in the pre-revised pay scale as per 5th pay commission. Click to download pdf order.
7th Pay Commission DA Rates Latest News
6th CPC Latest DA Rate and Finmin Order
The DA rate enhanced from 154% to 164% from 1.7.2019 to Central Govt Employees and Central Autonomous Bodies continuing to draw their pay in the pre-revised pay scale and Grade pay as per 6th pay commission. Click to download and view the order as pdf.
7th CPC Latest DA Rate and Finmin Order
An additional 5% DA granted to all groups of Central Govt employees with effect from 1st July 2019. The DA is increased from the existing rate of 12% to 17%. To view order in pdf click here.
7th Pay Commission Dearness Allowance Calculation Sheet
DA for Bank Employees and Officers
Bank DA Table for Workmen and Officer from 2006 (DA Chart for Bank Employees)
Dearness allowance for bank employees and officers: The bank DA calculation is slightly different from Central Govt employees and Pensioners. CG Employees and Pensioners are getting additional DA once in six months. But, the Bank employees are getting revised DA once in three months. [Click to read full story]
Dearness Relief Table for Bank Pensioners
↧
↧
PENSIONERS OWN MEDIA : BHARAT PENSIONER MONTHLY NOVEMBER ISSUE-2019
↧
Salary - Back Wages cannot be Claimed for Unauthorised Absence
Service Law – Salary – Back wages – Uuauthorised Absence or Absence without Justification – Employee is restrained from engaging in service – Whether back wages can be claimed.
AIR 2019 SC 3388 : JT 2019 (7) SC 184 : 2019 (9) Scale 273 : (2019) 7 SCC 564
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(ASHOK BHUSHAN) AND (NAVIN SINHA) JJ.
July 11, 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5390 OF 2019
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 174 of 2019)
CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED …APPELLANT
VERSUS
SIRAJ UDDIN KHAN …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 03.07.2018 of Allahabad High Court, partly allowing the writ petition of the respondent, wherein direction has been issued by the High Court for payment of arrears of salary and other benefits.
3. By our order dated 02.01.2019, limited notice was issued to the question as to whether the respondent was entitled for payment of salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit and appeared in person when the matter was heard on 01.07.2019.
4. We have heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the respondent appearing in-person.
5. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the limited issue as entertained by this Court in this appeal are: –
5.1 The respondent was appointed by the appellant company on the post of assistant/typist. The respondent was transferred by order dated 18.08.2006 from Allahabad branch of the company to Jaunpur branch in pursuance of which he was relieved on 01.02.2007 from Allahabad to join at Branch Office, Jaunpur. The respondent did not join and was unauthorizedly absent from 02.02.2007. A charge sheet dated 07.06.2007 was issued with regard to his unauthorised absence from 02.02.2007 to 07.06.2007, for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated, Writ petition No.11840 of 2008 was filed by the respondent praying for expeditious disposal of the departmental inquiry and furtherdirection to the appellant for payment of salary w.e.f. 23.07.2007.
5.2 Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide its order dated 05.03.2008 disposed of the writ petition directing for expeditious disposal of the proceedings and with regard to claim of the salary of the respondent, direction was issued to consider and decide the representation of the respondent dated 11.11.2007. The disciplinary proceedings with regard to unauthorised absence resulted in order dated 14.05.2009 of the disciplinary authority holding the respondent guilty of charge of unauthorised absence and awarding punishment of “reduction of basic pay by two steps” under Rule 23(a) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. The respondent filed an appeal, which too was rejected.
5.3 A second charge sheet was issued alleging unauthorised absence of 663 days. Chargesheet was sent to the respondent but he did not receive the same. The inquiry was conducted ex-parte. The respondent, in the meantime, attained the age of superannuation on 20.06.2012. An order dated 26.06.2012 was passed by the disciplinary authority terminating his services. A departmental appeal against the order dated 26.06.2012 was also dismissed on 18.07.2014. A Writ petition No. 59041 of 2014 was filed by the respondent praying for quashing the orders dated 14.05.2009, 26.06.2012 and 18.07.2014. The learned Single Judge decided the writ petition filed by the respondent vide its judgment dated 29.05.2015. The order dated 26.06.2012 terminating his services was set aside on two grounds, firstly, the inquiry proceedings are vitiated since the charge sheet was never served upon the respondent and secondly, the respondent having already retired on 20.06.2012, he could not have been terminated on 26.06.2012. Insofar as the challenge to order dated 14.05.2009 wasconcerned, awarding punishment of reduction of basic pay by two steps, writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by laches and the relief to that extent was denied.
5.4 The appellant aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015 had filed a Special Leave Petition (C) No.26395 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court on 18.09.2015. The respondent, aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge insofar as it has dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.05.2009, filed a special appeal before Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench proceeded to consider the challenge to the order dated 14.05.2009 and allowed the special appeal setting aside the order rejecting the challenge to the order dated 14.05.2009. The order dated 14.05.2009 was quashed and it was held that appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench inthe special appeal was not challenged and has become final.
5.5 A contempt application was filed by the respondent being Contempt Application No. 2680 of 2016 alleging disobedience of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015 as well as contempt of the Division Bench order dated 15.02.2016.
5.6 The respondent filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 61102 of 2017 praying for salary for the period from January, 2007 to June, 2012 with interest and all consequential benefits, such as, promotion arrears, medical bills, lump sum medical reimbursement and re-fixation of pension. The said writ petition has been partly allowed by impugned judgment dated 03.07.2018.
5.7 The learned Single Judge held that the order dated 14.05.2009 awarding punishment having been set aside by Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 15.02.2016, the appellant is entitled for salary w.e.f.02.02.2007 upto 14.05.2009. The contention regarding non-payment of salary by the appellant from 02.02.2007 to 20.06.2012 was noticed in paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment, to the effect that respondent having been relieved from Branch Office, Allahabad by relieving order dated 01.02.2007 and he having not joined the Branch Office, Jaunpur, he was not entitled for any salary. Insofar as entitlement of salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 is concerned following directions were issued by learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 17 and 19, which is to the following effect: –
“17. However, this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 87 of 2016 by its order dated 15.02.2016 had set aside the punishment order dated 14.05.2009 and directed that the appellant shall be entitled to consequential reliefs. This Court having directed the petitioner to be given all consequential benefits and the order dated 14th of May, 2009 being quashed, the petitioner was entitled to salary w.e.f. 02.02.2007 up to 14.05.2009, the date, the punishment order was passed of reduction in basic pay by two stages. This payment of salaryhas apparently not been made by the respondent on the ground of “No Work No Pay”.
19. The petitioner is entitled to salary w.e.f. 02.02.2007 up to 14.05.2009 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.”
5.8 With regard to claim of salary of the appellant after 14.05.2009, learned Single Judge took the view that the order dated 26.06.2012 having been set aside by learned Single Judge on 29.05.2015, which judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in this Court and has attained finality, hence salary w.e.f. 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 cannot be denied and direction was issued to pay salary with 18% interest. With regard to other claims, the High Court noticed the payments made to the respondent towards provident fund, gratuity fund, GSLI Claim, Leave Encashment and other payments totalling Rs.25,73,830/-. 5.9 There is no other issue in the present appeal except direction for payment of salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that High Court committed error in directing for payment of salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, whereas the respondent absented from work during the period and was clearly not entitled for payment of salary on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. It is submitted that present is not a case where by virtue of any order terminating the services of the respondent, he could not work. With regard to salary after 14.05.2009 till 20.06.2012, learned Single Judge has not adjudicated the claim except observing that in view of the judgment of High Court dated 29.05.2015 against which special leave petition was dismissed, respondent was entitled for arrears of salary. He further submits that the fact that by virtue of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015, respondent has to be treated in service does not automatically result in any direction to pay the salary, since no such direction was issued in the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015. The payment of salary for the aforesaid period does not automatically flow from the judgment of learnedSingle Judge. He submits that the fund of the appellant company being public fund, the payment of salary cannot be made when the respondent kept himself away from the work.
7. The respondent appearing in person refuted the submissions of the appellant and submits that he was entitled for salary since his dismissal order dated 26.06.2012 was set aside on 29.05.2015, against which special leave petition filed by the company had been dismissed by this Court on 18.09.2015. He submits that he went to join the Branch Office at Allahabad on 23.07.2007 but he was not permitted to take charge by Branch Manager of Branch Office-1, Allahabad. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shobha Ram Raturi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others, (2016) 16 SCC 663. He submits that the principle of “No Work No Pay” does not apply in the facts of the present case and learned Single Judge has rightly directed for payment of salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
9. In Writ Petition No. 59041 of 2014, two set of orders were challenged namely the order dated 14.05.2009, by which for unauthorised absence for the period 02.02.2007 to 07.06.2007, he was awarded punishment of reduction of basic pay by two steps and secondly, the order dated 26.06.2012 terminating his services and order dated 18.07.2014 dismissing his departmental appeal. Learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 26.06.2012 vide its judgment dated 29.05.2015 as noted above. The learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 26.06.2012 on following two grounds – one, second charge sheet alleging unauthorised absence for 663 days was never served on the respondent and second, the respondent having retired from service on 20.06.2012, no order terminating his services could have been passed on 26.06.2012. The relevant discussion and order of the learned Single Judge with regard to order dated 26.06.2012 is as follows:-
“There is nothing on record to show that the chargesheet was ever sought to beserved upon the petitioner through registered post and it is not known as to from where this endorsement has come and to who wrote the remark “GHAR BAND RAHTA HAI” or “not met”. Even, if it is assumed that the petitioner was not at his house and therefore the house was closed, it was expected of the respondents to have taken steps to notify the petitioner about the chargesheet through newspaper publication. Nothing has been mentioned in the counter affidavit as to whether this procedure was adopted. Therefore, it is quite clear that the chargesheet was never served upon the petitioner till 20.06.2012 and thereafter the order of removal from service was passed on 26.06.2012. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to have had notice of the enquiry proceedings and therefore if the respondents proceeded to hold enquiry ex parte, such proceedings are clearly vitiated and it must be held that the petitioner has been denied reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner’s case is that he retired from service on 20.06.2012 and the order of termination was passed on 26.06.2012. The averments in paragraph 39 of the counter affidavit are also to the effect that the petitioner retired from service and even on the date of retirement he had refused to accept the chargesheet and absconded from office. This being so once the petitioner retired from service on 20.06.2012 no order terminating his services could have been passed on 26.06.2012 as he ceased to be in service of the respondents w.e.f. 20.06.2012. A person cannot be removed fromservice after he has already retired from service. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 26.06.2012 and 18.07.2014 cannot survive and are accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.”
10. As noted above, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition insofar as order dated 14.05.2009 is concerned, challenge to which order stood accepted by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 87 of 2016, where Division Bench has set aside the order dated 14.05.2009 and directed for payment with consequential benefits. In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench dated 15.02.2016, the respondent is entitled to receive salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 with regard to which we have not entertained the appeal.
11. Now, the issue, which has to be answered by us is as to whether by setting aside of the order dated 26.06.2012, the respondent was automatically entitled for back wages. A perusal of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015 indicates that although learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated26.06.2012, but there was no order for payment of back wages or consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 26.06.2012 and has left the matter there.
12. It is further relevant to notice that when contempt application was filed by the respondent being Contempt Application No. 2680 of 2016, the High Court observed that there has been no adjudication by the Writ Court on the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to payment of salary for the period 2007 to 2012. The observations of the Contempt Court in last two paragraph is as follows:-
“From the materials brought on record, it transpires that there is no adjudication by the writ court on the question as to whether the applicant is entitled to payment of salary for the period 2007 to 2012, particularly as he had not worked during that period. There is also no adjudication of his right to claim promotion or to receive medical bills. The issues therefore as are being raised by the applicant in this petition need not be entertained by this Court, at this stage. It transpires that on account of setting aside of the dismissal order the petitioner has been paid all his retiral dues.Leaving it open for the applicant to seek appropriate adjudication in respect of his entitlement to receive salary for the period 2007 to 2012 as well as other benefits including promotional pay scale, medical bills and re-fixation of his pension, in appropriate proceedings, this contempt petition is consigned to records.”
13. It was after 15.11.2017 that Writ Petition No.61102 of 2017 was filed by the respondent. Thus, in the Writ Petition No.61102 of 2017, the learned Single Judge was required to adjudicate on the entitlement of respondent for payment of salary. Learned Single Judge has adjudicated with regard to entitlement of salary from 02.02.2007 to 14.05.2009 and issued directions thereunder. We may notice that the Division Bench while setting aside the order dated 14.05.2009 has directed for payment of consequential benefits. It is useful to extract the operative portion of the said Appellate Court judgment dated 15.02.2016, which is to the following effect:-
“We accordingly allow the special appeal. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 May, 2015 and 2 December, 2015 insofar as it rejects the challenge laid by the appellant to the order dated 14 May, 2009 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 14May, 2009 is also quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.”
14. There is clear difference between the direction of the High Court insofar as setting aside the order dated 14.05.2009 is concerned and insofar as setting aside the order dated 26.06.2012 is concerned, whereas there is a clear direction for payment of consequential reliefs while setting aside the order dated 14.05.2009 there is no direction with regard to payment of salary while setting aside the order dated 26.06.2012, hence the question was required to be gone into by learned Single Judge while deciding the Writ Petition No.61102 of 2017. We may also notice the consideration of learned Single Judge while noticing the claim of the respondent for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.06.2012. In paragraph Nos. 20 and 21, entire discussion regarding setting aside the order dated 26.06.2012 is contained, which is to the following effect:-
“20. With regard to the absence of the petitioner thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding and a charge sheet was issued to him alleging theabsence of 663 days. The inquiry proceeded ex-parte against him and ultimately the dismissal order was passed on the ground of unauthorised absence on 26.06.2012. The petitioner had in the meantime been retired on 20.06.2012 and this Court in its judgment and order dated 29.05.2015 in Writ – A No. 59041 of 2014 set aside the dismissal order and the appellate order. This judgment of this Court was challenged by the respondent in Special Leave Petition which was dismissed on 18.09.2015 and the judgment and order dated 29.05.2015 attained finality.
21. The respondent cannot therefore say that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for the said period now at this late stage. The petitioner is entitled to the arrears of salary w.e.f. 14.05.2009 up to 20.06.2012, the date of his retirement, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date when it became due till the date of its actual payment.”
15. There is no adjudication regarding claim of salary or back wages to the respondent in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge for the period 15.05.2009 to 20.06.2012. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in view of the setting aside of the order dated 26.06.2012, payment of salary is automatic, which view of the Single Judge is not correct. The present is not a case where the respondent was dismissed from the service and consequent to dismissal, he could not work and whendismissal was set aside, he will be automatically entitled for back wages.
16. We may notice some of the judgments of this Court where issue of back wages has been considered by this Court. This Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mhavidyalaya (D.Ed.) And Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 was considering a case where the question was considered as to whether the appellant was entitled to wages for the period she was kept out of service forcibly by the management of school. In paragraph No. 22, following was laid down:-
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintanceto avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasijudicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.”
17. We may hasten to add that present is not a case where respondent was kept away from the work on account of dismissal. Admittedly, the respondent attained the age of retirement on 20.06.2012 and order terminating his services was passed only on 26.06.2012, which was rightly held to be ineffective.
18. We may notice another judgment of this Court in Airports Authority of India and Others Vs. Shambhu Nath Das alias S.N. Das, (2008) 11 SCC 498. In theabove case, the respondent did not join after expiry of the leave. The respondent was issued a warning that unless he joins on or before 30.10.1985, failing which it would be presumed that he had voluntarily abandoned his service with the consequence that his name would be struck off the rolls with effect from 01.11.1985. The said order was challenged by the respondent and learned Sigle Judge on 10.11.1995 directed the Airports Authority of India to allow the respondent to join duty but it was held that he shall not be entitled for the arrears of pay for the period he was absent. The order of learned Single Judge was again challenged by the respondent without joining. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent and further directed that insofar as the salary of the writ petitioner is concerned, during the period he stayed away from the work, Airports Authority of India, is directed to consider the matter sympathetically and, if it is permissible under its rules, allow to him half of the salary and other benefits during theperiod from 17.10.1985 till 10.11.1995. The Airports Authority of India accepted the judgment and allowed him to join w.e.f. 01.11.1999 and passed an order on 14.05.2002 holding that the period of unauthorised absence was to be treated as dies-non and the claim for back wages was accordingly disallowed on the principle of “no work no pay”. The order dated 14.05.2002 was once again challenged by the respondent claiming back wages, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. On further denial of claim, matter was taken by respondent to learned Single Judge to issue certain directions. Against the learned Single Judge’s Order, matter was taken in appeal before Division Bench, where direction to pay 50% of back wages was issued. Allowing the appeal, this Court stated following in paragraph Nos. 8 to 11:-
“8. This order of the learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench vide the impugned order dated 21-3-2007 with the observations that the order of the High Court in CR (W) No. 5715 of 1986 which had directed that the respondent be paid 50% of the back wages for the period from 17-10-1985 to 10-11-1995 should be complied with.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that as the respondent had not attended to his duties for almost 15 years despite having been called upon to do so repeatedly, the direction of the Division Bench to grant him back wages from 17-10-1985 to 10-11-1995 was clearly not justified on the principle of “no work no pay”. She has pointed out that the appellant Authority would have been fully justified even if it had dismissed the respondent from service, but on the contrary, a huge benefit had already been given to him as he had been taken back in service despite having remained absent for almost fifteen years.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, supported the judgment of the Division Bench. We are of the opinion that in the light of the fact that the respondent did not report for duty for 15 years, there was no justification whatsoever to grant him any back wages on the general principle that nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification. We also find that the judgment dated 13-8-1999 which had attained finality had directed as under:
“(a) Insofar as the salary of the writ petitioner is concerned during the period he stayed away from the work, the respondent Airports Authority of India, is directed to consider the matter sympathetically and, if it is permissible under its rules, allow to him half of the salary and other benefits.”
11. This claim was considered by the competent authority and rejected for valid reasons. We are, thus, unable to endorse the High Court’s order for payment of 50%back wages for the period from 17-10-1985 to 10-11-1995 which are far in excess of the directions in the order dated 13-8- 1999. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Division Bench and restore the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-4-2004.”
19. This Court held that there was no justification whatsoever to grant any back wages to the respondent on the general principle that nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification.
20. We may further notice the judgment of this Court, which has also been relied on by the respondent in his counter affidavit, i.e., judgment of this Court in Shobha Ram Raturi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others (supra). In the above case, the appellant was retired from service on 31.12.2002, even though he would have, in the ordinary course, attained his date of retirement on superannuation, only on 31.12.2005. The appellant assailed the order of retirement, which was allowed by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has denied the backwages to the appellant on the principle of “no work no pay”. The order of learned Single Judge was assailed by the appellant by filing a Letters Patent Appeal, which too was dismissed. This Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and made following observations in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4:-
“3. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31-12-2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services with effect from 1- 1-2003 to 31-12-2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self-serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”.
4. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited extent of denying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2005 deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside.”
21. This Court held in the above case that; having restrained the appellant from rendering his serviceswith effect from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the plea of the principle of “no work no pay” for denying the wages. In the above case, the appellant was restrained from working due to order of retirement dated 31.12.2002, due to which he could not work till his normal retirement. When the order dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, automatically, he became entitled for back wages and the principle of “no work no pay” was not attracted.
22. In the present case, as noted above, the respondent was not kept away from work by any order of the appellant. The order of termination of his services/dismissal was passed on 26.06.2012, after his retirement on 20.06.2012, which in no manner prohibited the respondent from working. The respondent during submission has submitted that he was illegally transferred to Branch Office, Jaunpur from Allahabad. He was suffering from a disability of more than 40% and he could not have been transferred to another place. There is nothing on record to indicate that transfer of respondent fromBranch Office, Allahabad to Branch Office, Jaunpur was at any time set aside or withdrawn. The salary upto 14.05.2009 was allowed to the respondent on account of setting aside of the order dated 14.05.2009, which was with all consequential benefits but with regard to entitlement of salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, there has been no adjudication by the High Court, which is apparent from judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2018, as extracted above.
23. Learned Single Judge having itself not determined the entitlement of respondent to receive salary after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012, it ought to have directed the appellant to consider the entitlement and take a decision thereon. We are of the view that ends of justice be served in setting aside the direction of the High Court directing the appellant to make payment of salary after 14.05.2009 till 20.06.2012, with a direction to the appellant to consider the claim of respondent for back wages after 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 and pass appropriate orders giving reasons within three months from today. It shallalso be open for the respondent to submit an appropriate representation alongwith relevant materials regarding his entitlement for salary for the period 15.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 to the appellant within a period of one month from today.
24. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs.
↧
bsnl-vrs-scheme-2019-instructions-08-11-2019.
↧
↧
VRSDo's&Don'tsEnglish
↧
JUDGEMENTS
↧
Secretary General’s draft report for the approval of 64th BPS AGM to be held on 22.11.2019 atNew Jalpaiguri (WB)
Distinguished guests, BPS office bearers & Managing Committee members, Delegates, Brothers &Sisters.
It is my absolute pleasure to welcome you all to this 64th AGM of Bharat Pensioners Samaj Federation here at New Jalpaiguri. I seek your kind permission to submit my brief yearly report for the approval of this august house.
Our very successful 63rd AGM was held at Vizag on 29.11.2018. I, on behalf of BPS and the host NFRPA New Jalpaiguri, express my sincere thanks to all of you for coming all the way from different parts of the country to New Jalpaiguri.
Comrades,
As you all know, Bharat Pensioners Samaj All India Federation of pensioners, popularly known as ‘BPS’ was established in 1955 by Justice late Shri Shankar Saran (Retd) of Allahabad High Court as a non-political, non-profitable, Secular organization based in New Delhi. It isregistered with registrar of Societies Delhi as well as with NITI AYOG. BPS is one of the identified Federation/Association of GOI M/O Personnel, PG and Pensions-DOP&PW and is also an associate NGO of IFA(International Federation on Ageing)Toronto-Canada.
BPS is the apex body of all Central Government (including Railways & Defence), State Govt(s), Autonomous Bodies, PSUs, BSNL , EPS 95 and NPS Pensioners having a reach to about 20 lac pensioners/Sr citizens through its Affiliated/Associated Associations, Federations, Individuals and MOU partners (AIFPA Chennai, NFRP Palakkad -Kerala) from across the country. Pursuing just Demands & grievances of pensioners community in areas relating to pension, health-care, security and dignity, seeking redressal through negotiations, discussions and Advocacy to implement Government Policies for the welfare of Pensioners and application of court judgements relating to Pension, health & dignity issues to all similarly placed on reaching legal finality.
BPS has been actively engaged in publication of Monthly Journal called ‘Bharat Pensioner’, Special Compendiums of value to pensioners and publishing of e books.
Liaison and advocacy in pension and health related areas are of paramount interest to BPS. Disseminating information widely via web resources, blogs, face-book, Twitter,WhatsApp, Monthly Journal etc are few of its specialities.
‘Bharat Pensioner’ continues to provide wide range of information in print as well as in Digital form. BPS has become the first Pensioners Organization to publish ase. Book its monthly magazine and Pensioners Handbooks. Handbook 2018 revised 2nd edition & e-magazinesare available on Amazon.in-kindle store which can be downloaded for a price to your android Smart Phone and read in free software amazon-kindle. Alongside, we have developed mechanism to constantly review our failures and to make improvements.
BPS continues toprovide solid platform to various Pensioners Organisations to present the demands and grievances of the pensioners/family pensioners.Pay commission to pay commissionBPS has been instrumental in getting several benefits to Pensioners. Organization has been continuously striving for the betterment of Pensioners & family pensioners.
Ladies & Gentelman, here I share with you updates on few of the many issues taken upduring the period under report and current status of these issue:
1. Merger of 33 postal dispensaries with CGHS: After years of struggle issue is finally resolved merger is in progress.
2). GP 4200/- to 4600/ to those retired from 5thCPC scale of Rs 6500-10500. It took us more than 8 years, but we could resolve it . This has come through negotiations outside the court & not through courts. Final revised concordance Tables 24 & 25 have been circulated by DOPPW on 09.07.2019.
3).7th CPC benefit to autonomous bodies i.e. Coffee board,Tea board etc: The issue is fully resolved.Revised pension as well as arrears have been paid to beneficiaries.
4). Streamlining Pension rules i.e. conversion of all Notification/Circulars/OMs into Rules: BPS request has been accepted by DOPW.One Director level consultant has been engaged for this specific work. Work has started. May take some time to complete.
5)Amendment to definition of family to include widowed daughter in law: BPS has represented that under Hindu adoption and maintenance Act1956 Section 19,21(vii) &Section 22(1) subsection(2) provides that after the death of her husband Daughter-in-law becomes dependent of father-in-law who is responsible for her maintenance& wellbeing as a family member. After the death of father in Law her liability as dependent family member passes on to mother-in-law as such she should be included in the definition of family. Issue is currently under examinationof DOPPW.
6).Scraping of FR56 (a) : BPS has represented that In the year 1973-74 FR 56 (a) was introduced for accounts and administrative convenience, but it has been proved to be a tool of financial punishment to a large number of loyal retiring employees for the mere fact that due to no fault of theirs, they happen to born on 1st January /1st July. It is legally established fact that the person who is made to retire on the last day of the preceding month in which he attains 58/60 yrs remain on Govt books as an employee till midnight of last day of preceding month and becomes pensioner only on the first day of the next month. But for FR 56 (a) all these persons would have availed all benefits falling due on 1st of Jan & 1st of July. Thus, through FR 56(a) employer i.e. GOI is causing pecuniary loss to its employees. In other words, GOI as an employer is punishing a group of employees without giving them chance to explain. Thereby GOI is violating constitutional provisions .FR 56(a) is a punitive tool and should be scraped/amended. Presently DOPT giving reference DLA has wrongly closed the case. However, we have submitted an appeal against closure of the issue without resolving it.
7). One Notional increment to those retired on 30thJune/31st December completing 365days working: Presently issue is sub judicial as several cases are pending in different courts. But unless FR 56 (a) is scraped or amended it may not be possible to get favourable decision applicable to all similarly placed.
8) Revision of pension of pre 2016 retired running staff :
On13.7.2019 A delegation of BPS led by Secy Genl BPS met Member staff Railway Board and discussed Revision of Pension of pre- 2016 Rly Running staff Pensioners:
MS was apprised that it is over 18 months this simple issue is under examination of Rly Board shuttling the file between DOP &PW, DOE & the Board. Notional pay PC to PC for pensioners is worked out assuming that the person has not retired, as such in their case too basic rule for fixation of pay PC to PC as is done for the Running Staff in service need to be followed as has been done in the case of all others pre 2016 pensioners.
There appeared to be some confusion at top level about adding 55% of last basic pay to arrive at retirement emoluments, which has been satisfactorily explained.
BPS has been pleading that their pension should be revised on notional pay basis in the same way as it is being revised in case of all other pensioners i.e. their notional pay be worked out PC to PC as the pay of running staff in serviceis fixed PC to PC up-to 6th CPC and to this notional pay as on 31.12.2015 pay element of 55% should also be added to arrive at retirement emoluments 50% of which should be revised Pension.
9).Benefit of MACP w.e.f. 1.1.2006- Delhi High Court on 1.5.2019 in WP (C) No. 3549/2018 (Sunil Kumar Tyagi, BSF Vs UOI) held that entitlement to MACP benefit accrues from the date of completion of 10/20/30 years and NOT from 1.9.2008.Earlier the Supreme Court on 8.12.2017 in Union of India Vs Balbir Singh Tun (Civil Appeal Diary No. 3744/2016 had held that MACP is effective from 1.1.2006 as per 6th Pay Commission recommendation, as it forms part of Pay and NOT allowances. Ministry of Defence issued orders on 25.07.2018 to implement the SC judgment but the DoPT / MoF did not issue similar orders for the civilian employees. Now in view of DHC judgement dated 01.05.019 DOPT & DOE have been requested to review the case. And tio issue necessary implementation
10) Health Insurance Scheme for pensioners including those residing in Non CGHS area to supplement CGHS: For the last 10years we are insisting on MOHFW to implement 6th CPC recommendations in this regard.On 12/7/2016 in Lok Sabha MOS HFW Sh Ashwani Kumar has stated that Ministry of health &Family Welfare has framed the draft health Insurance Scheme. OPD facilities are not covered under the proposed scheme. The draft scheme has been sent to the Department of Expenditure, Government of India, for appraisal and approval of the financial feasibility of the scheme.
11). Smart card for Rly RELHS beneficiaries for cashless treatment in emergencies: Right from 2007 BPS has been demanding PAN India Smart card for cash less treatment of RELHS beneficiaries. In Feb 2008 Rly Board launched smartcard in DELHI NCR as a Pilot project under N.Rly which was extended year to year till August 2011.After much persuasion, In July 2012 a similar Scheme was launched for all Metros, State capitals and Zonal Headquarters which could be implemented only in Eastern Railways. Again, after repeated representations in July 2016 the then Rly Minister with much fanfare launched as pilot project CTSE Smart card for cashless treatment in emergencies as an add on to RELHS card on payment of ward based additional contribution. The scheme was full of glitches even for registration.After much nagging major glitches were removed. In 2018 Scheme started taking off but at very slow pace because of confusions and some glitches. On BPS persuasion scheme has been made PAN India w.e.f. Jan 2019 but some glitches & confusion still exist. Still it takes up-to over six months to get a CTSE card .BPS is constantly chasing the issue at Board level to make the scheme user friendly.
12). Replacement of RELHS card of Rly pensioners with Smart Card-Launching of UMID – KAIZALA : In 2019 April UMID Scheme has been launched by CRB . However, several glitches at registration level need to be rectified. Chat Aap KAIZALA associated with UMID is proving to be of no use as no Rly Doctor is responding on KAIZALA.Several divisions have not yet been opened for registration. There is difficulty in uploading Photo and other documents of wife/ dependents. Also there is no provision for resubmission of application if rejected.
UMID for registration fetches Pensioners data from ARPAN, several Zones/ Divisions have not yet uploaded Pensioners data on ARPAN as such there is difficulty in their registration. Software accepts only 14 digit revised 7th CPC PPO No but still over one lac Rly Pensioners PPOs are not generated.
13). Expansion of the facility of digital life certificate to the department of POST and Treasuries and expansion of the period of submission to Month of October &Nov instead of only Nov.Also roping in more Associations to provide this service to pensioners against payment of Rs 40/ per certificate & providing necessary instruments for this purpose.
Orders have been issued to the effect that 80 years and above pensioners can submit Digital life certificate from 1.10.019 to 30/11/19
All others will submit DLC from 1.11.to 30 /11/19 facility is extended to Post offices. DPPW has purched new instruments and has supplied to few more Association (Federation)
14). Benefit of Charge allowance in 7thCPC: BPS has represented that
Charge allowance should be reckoned as Pay for the purpose of pension, gratuity, DA/HR as defined in Rule 1303 (FR 9)(21)(a)(i)R-II(6th edition) as such its advantage in 7thCPC should be given without further delay to all those who were in receipt charge allowance before their retirement orders have been issued to treat Charge allowance as officiating pay wef1.1.2017. orders for others are awaited.
15). Taxation of pension: For the past several years BPS has been representing for exemption of Pension from income tax. : Inthis year’s budget some relief has come for those whose taxable income is 5lac or less. We are continuing to pursue this issue.
16) Issue of post retirement passes online to Railway beneficiaries. Right from 2009 BPS has been representing that Post retirement passes to Rly Pensioners be issued on line with facility of reservation online, file has been shuttling between Rly Board & IRCTC . We raised this issue before MS on 13.9.019 who assured of positive action.
17) Extension of benefit of court judgments to all similarly placed. For over one decade quoting S C judgments we have been insisting with no success that once an issue attains legal finality it should be implemented in case of all similarly placed. Now indications are coming that Judgements in REM may be considered for implementation to all similarly placed.We need to build up more pressure on this issue.
Comrades, today, BPS and its alleys are faced with several challenges concerning financial security, health care & social security of Sr Citizens, pensioners and family pensioners. The economic slowdown which has very badly struck the pensioners as well as their Associations and Federations is the new challenge. Pensioners today appear to be more satisfied and have started avoiding pensioners Associations forgetting that what they could get so far is because of the struggle by Pensioners Federations and Associations. In future too their interest regarding health care, continuously falling purchase power of their pension and security of their deposits in banks/post offices etc will be protected by Federations & Associations only. To meet these and other challenges, our mission is to educate the pensioners about continued relevance of Pensioners Federations and Associations & to bring together 65lac of CG pensioners, 80 lac state pensioners, 60 lac EPS pensioners and over 8lac of PSUs Pensioners on a single platform for ensuring their welfare with respect to Financial security, Health care & Social security which will always remain relevant for all retirees whether belonging to NPS,EPS or to the old pre 2004 pension Scheme.
As a step towards this goal, BPS & its MOU Partners, AIFPA & NFRP have come together to strive jointly & severally for common issues. BPS believes in resolving pensioners issues through negotiations, discussions and advocacy which needs consensus, mobilization of opinion to speak in one voice (Which can be achieved by first sharing the draft representation on each issue with MoU partners,affiliates and members through WhatsApp, Facebook , Twitter, Blogs, Websites etc and taking into account the mass opinion the final draft should be circulated among ourselves so that everyone represents similarly ene-mass on each issue limiting representation to one page only). Remember, backing of vote power of retired persons can act as a powerful pressure tool.
There has been a vast change in the scenario over the last decade. Internet savvy number of Pensioners & family Pensioners has gone up considerably. Now Social media, digitalization and mobile connectivity has provided a very strong platform through which Sr citizens and pensioners can mobilize themselves & can make their presence felt in country’s electoral. In the coming days with our dedicated team of office-bearers & staff, our endeavour will be to use these modern methods more effectively for consolidating our electoral strength to make our voice heard.
Thanking you,
Jai hind
Er S C Maheshwari, Secy Genl BPS
{Former Divisional Engineer, C.Rly (BSL Division)
↧
Revamping of Central Govt. Health Scheme.
↧
↧
Norms of Aadhaar KYC are eased, not of the Change of Address in Aadhaar
Ministry of Finance
Norms of Aadhaar KYC are eased, not of the Change of Address in Aadhaar
Norms of Aadhaar KYC are eased for opening of bank account and not for the change of address in Aadhaar, said the Department of Revenue (DoR), Ministry of Finance today while clarifying on Aadhaar KYC use with reference to its notification dated 13.11.2019 on amendment to the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005. The DoR said in a categorical statement that its notification is with regard to easing of Aadhaar KYC use for opening of the bank account for the convenience of people who often migrate from place to place for jobs or any other reason and it is not regarding the change of address in Aadhaar card, as has been misreported in various media.
Revenue Secretary, Dr. Ajay Bhushan Pandey said, “The amended PMLR applies only to Aadhaar KYC purposes for opening of bank account and not for the change of Address in Aadhaar card. If a person has moved residence for purposes of work and needs to use Aadhaar KYC for opening a new bank account or change his bank branch, etc., he can give a self declaration of new address while retaining the original address on his Aadhaar card”.
Dr Pandey said that the PML Rules amendment makes opening bank account easier for individuals who are living in an address different from their address in Aadhaar. People who submitted Aadhaar card with a different address as KYC at banks can now submit local address by providing a self-declaration.
He said that with this amendment, giving a self-declaration about a local address or any address other than the one on Aadhaar card will be sufficient as address proof to open bank account with Aadhaar KYC. This amendment brings in convenience especially for the migrant people. For example, if a migrant worker comes from Jharkhand to Mumbai and his/her Aadhaar has Jharkhand’s address, then to open a bank account a self-declaration about his/her local address in Mumbai will be sufficient for Aadhaar KYC.”
DoR sources said that the change has been made through an amendment in the PML Rules and not by way of amending Aadhaar Act/Regulations. So, it does not apply to change of address in Aadhaar card. This amendment has been issued to allow people who have used Aadhaar KYC to open bank account and want to give an address different from the address in Aadhaar as current address on self declaration basis.( source PIB)
↧
Emoluments/Average Emoluments for Pensionary Benefits: Railway Board Master Circular
↧
Rising value of US Dolar
https://www.facebook.com/100017462652568/posts/509942039597880/?sfnsn=scwspmo
↧
Health cover fr middle class
Niti Aayog looking at providing middle class with health cover https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/niti-aayog-proposes-strategic-purchasing-of-services-to-reduce-health-expenditure/articleshow/72099566.cms?utm_campaign=andapp&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=native_share_tray Download the TOI app now: https://timesofindia.onelink.me/efRt/installtoi
↧
↧
Madras High court judgement
↧
Regarding submission of pension claims in 3 months advance before discharge from Records office to PCDA(P), Allahabad.
OFFICE OF THE PR. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014
Circular No. 627
Dated: 13.11.2019
To,
The O/C
ROs/ PAOs
The O/C
ROs/ PAOs
Subject:- Regarding submission of pension claims in 3 months advance before discharge from Records office to PCDA(P), Allahabad.
Reference:- This office Circular No. 614 dated 31.12.2018.
Last sentence of para 2 of this office Circular No. 614 dated 31.12.2018
“The cases received more than 3 months before the date of discharge will not be entertained after March 2019 and returned to Record Office concerned’ – may please be treated as cancelled.
2. This Circular has been uploaded on this office website www.pcdapension.nic.in for dissemination of all concerned.
No. Gts/Tech/0148/LX
Dated: 13.11.2019
Dated: 13.11.2019
(Sushil Kumar Singh)
Addl.CDA (Pensions)
Addl.CDA (Pensions)
Copy to:
- The Dy. Secretary,Govt. of India, Ministry of PPG & P(Deptt. of P&PVW),Lok Nayak Bhawan,Khan Market, New Delhi.
- Director (Pensions), Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence D (Pen/Sers), Sena Bhawan, Wing ‘A’ New Delhi.
- Naval HQrs, PP & A, DHQ PO New Delhi.
- DPA, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi- 11.
- Air HQrs Ad PP & P- 3, West Block-V], R. K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066.
- Sr. Dy. CGDA(AT-II), O/O the CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt- 110010.
- PCDA (Navy) No.-1, Cooperage Road, Mumbai- 400039.
- PCDA (WC), Chandimandir, Chandigarh
- CDA (AF), West Block-V, R. K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066.
- CDA Teynampet, Chennai
- CDA (PD) Ayudhpath, Meerut ,
- JCDA (AF) Subroto Park, New Delhi- 110010.
- Director of Audit, Defence Service, New Delhi |
- All Regiment/Corps.
- Naval Pension Office C/o INS, Tanaji, Sion- Trombay Road Mankhurd Mumbai -400088
- Air Force Record Office, Dhaula Kunwa, Delhi Cantt.
- Director MP8(I of R)Integrated HQ of MOD(Army)AG’s Branch, Addl Dte Gen of MP/MP8(I of R) West Block-lll, RK Puram ,N-Delhi 110066
- All Addl CsDA/ Jt. CSDA in Main Office.
- All GOs in Main Office.
- The OIC, G-1M(Tech), AT-ORs(Tech) & G-1/Civil (Tech.)
- All SAOs/AOs/AAOs in Gts/ORs Complex.
- The O/C, EDP Manual.
- The O/C, EDP Centre..
- The Ol/C, PHP Cell EDP Centre –
- All Sections in Main Office.
- The OIC, G -2 Section
- The OIC, G-3 Section
- The OWVC, G – 4 Section
- The OVC O&M Cell
- The Ol/C Complaint Cell
- The OI/C, EDP Centre (Website) for uploading the circular on the website.
- Defence Pension Liaison Cell.
- The Ol/C Reception Centre, PCDA(P) Allahabad-14.
- The Director, Defence Pension Training Institute, Allahabad.
- Spare ‘
(A.K. Malviya)
Sr. Accounts Officer (Pensions)
Sr. Accounts Officer (Pensions)
Share
Share
↧
Submission of pension claims in 3 months advance…
OFFICE OF THE PR.CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD -211014
Circular No. 627
Dated:13.11.2019
To,
The O I/C
ROs/PAOs
The O I/C
ROs/PAOs
Regarding submission of pension claims in 3 months advance before discharge from Records office to PCDA(P), Allahabad.
Reference:- This office Circular No.614 dated 31.12.2018.
Last sentence of para of this Circular No.614 dated 31.12.2018
” The cases received more than 3 months before the date of discharge will not be entertained after March 2019 and returned to Record Office Concerned” – may please be treated as cancelled.
2. This Circular has been uploaded on this office website www.pcdapension.nic.in for dissemination of all concerned.
No.Gts/Tech/0148/LX
Dated: 13.11.2019
Dated: 13.11.2019
(Sushil Kumar Singh)
Addl. CDA (Pensions)
Addl. CDA (Pensions)
Circular 627 – download pdf
↧
Official News - Proposal of Retirement Age of CGE 33 years of service or 60 years age whichever is less | Central Govt Employees - 7th Pay Commission - Staff News
Official News - Proposal of Retirement Age of CGE 33 years of service or 60 years age whichever is less | Central Govt Employees - 7th Pay Commission - Staff News: whether it is true that the Ministry is planning to bring a new proposal of 33 years of service or 60 years whichever is less for Central Government employees instead of implementing the above recommendation
↧
↧
Official News - Proposal of Retirement Age of CGE 33 years of service or 60 years age whichever is less | Central Govt Employees - 7th Pay Commission - Staff News
Official News - Proposal of Retirement Age of CGE 33 years of service or 60 years age whichever is less | Central Govt Employees - 7th Pay Commission - Staff News: whether it is true that the Ministry is planning to bring a new proposal of 33 years of service or 60 years whichever is less for Central Government employees instead of implementing the above recommendation
↧
Railway Board
↧
Regarding marking of PPO number in the bank passbook of Pensioner/Family Pensioners.
↧