Minutes of the 1st meeting of the 7th Pay Commission Committee (PCC) held on 26.02.2014

Minutes of the 1st meeting of the Pay Commission Committee (PCC) held in the Conference Room with the representatives of the Federations and Associations at 11.00 hours on 26.02.2014.

List of those present in the meeting is annexed.

1. At the outset, Smt. Arti C.Srivastava Member – Secretary extended a warm welcome to all the invites. Member-Secretary further informed that a Pay Commission Cell (PCC) had been constituted under the chairmanship of Shri.Aidtya Mishra Sr.DDG/CP at OFB Hqrs to initiate deliberations and invite suggestions from all the stakeholders. Three preliminary meetings of the PCC have already been held. The meeting with the representatives of the Federations and Associations has been convened, as a part of the series of the meetings proposed to be held with all stakeholders to formulate views on various issues. A portal has also been launched on the OFB COMMENT to seek views of the officers, staff and employees on matters concerning 7th Pay commission and the General Mangers/Head of the Units have also been required vide Letter dated 14.02.2014 from the Chairman, PCC to have wide-ranging consultations in this regard and communicate their views and recommendations in the matter.

2. The Chairman of PCC, Terms of Reference ToR of the 7th Pay Commission are yet to be framed. However, at this stage, it is desirable if we pro-actively initiate all preparatory actions and crystallize our views and recommendations so that the same could be collated and compiled in the form of a comprehensive presentation before the pay commission at the appropriate time. Particularly, views are being sought on the methodology to the followed by the PCC, issues to be projected before the 7th Pay Commission and the areas/material/data to justify special considerations to the OF organisation vis-a-vis other organisations/cadres. In this connection, Chairman, PCC highlighted that issue relating to anomalies arising for the organisation, uniqueness about OFB, best practices in manufacturing sector, structural and policy limitations of the current system and the emerging ethos in line with other organisation could be deliberated. Therefore, Chairman, PCC invited representatives of the Federations and Associations to share their views in the matter.

3. From the views offered by the representatives of the Federations/Associations, it emerged that detailed proposals can be prepared only after the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the 7th CPC are finalised. The representatives of each Federation/Association however briefly raised the issues which would merit detailed consideration/deliberations at a later stage. Also based on the experience of the previous pay commission, it was proposed that :

1. it should be impressed upon the 7th CPC that the Ordnance Factories Organisation as an Industry has a different role to play and that its working is different from other Central Government Deptts. with employees working under hazardous conditions and hard stations.

2. All Cadre review proposals to be finalised immediately.

3. Anomalies arising out of the 6th Pay commission be settled.

4. Categories found to be not adequately taken care of in the 6th Pay commission be given thrust.

5. Recast skills, functions, roles of employees and pay structure to bring parity among various categories. 

6. Outstanding of activities to be discouraged.

7. OFB to take lead in interacting with 7th CPC as done on earlier occasions.

4. After detailed discussions, it emerged that pending finalisation of the Terms of Reference of the 7th pay commission by the Government, certain issues summarised below, were required to be addressed and the views concretised to establish a platform for formulating clear and effective recommendations on various issues :

i. Early finalisation of all cadre review proposals – Action by DDG of the respective Cadre Controlling Authority Division

ii. Settlement of anomalies arising out 6th Pay commission – DDG/Admin, DDG/G&DDG/IR (for ii, iii and iv and v)

iii. Examine issues which have resulted in litigations

iv. Policy issues which require immediate consideration

v. Strengthening of the PPC Cell at OFB Hqrs.

5. The meeting ended with thanks to the Chair.

Sd/- 

(Smt. Arti C.Srivastava) 

Member Secretary

Source:http://indwf.blogspot.in/

Armed Forces Tribunal grants ex-serviceman 50% disability pension

Armed Forces Tribunal grants ex-serviceman 50% disability pension

CHENNAI: The opinion of medical board should be given primary credence and the authority of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) (Pensions) for awarding disability pension is very limited, said the Chennai bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, granting an ex-serviceman 50% disability pension around three decades after he was discharged from service on medical grounds. 

In 1983, M Natarajan joined the Madras Engineer Group as a sepoy. While undergoing basic training at the regimental centre, he met with an accident and his right little finger was crushed. 

In 1985, he was invalided from service. The medical board said the injury was permanent. It granted him 20% disability pension for two years. 

In 1987, the review medical board said his condition was "static and likely to be permanent" and recommended to continue the pension. However, the Army did not pay him pension. After an appeal, he was reassessed by a medical board in 1994 which said there was no change in Natrajan's condition since the last review. 

However, while assessing his disability, the board fixed his disability as below 20% for 10 years. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) (P), Allahabad rejected his plea. He then moved AFT in 2010. 

In its counter, the Army said during hospitalization, he was "tenaciously adamant for not doing physiotherapy exercises" which aggravated his injury leading to his discharge. Further, the PCDA (P), being the competent medical authority, said his disability was less than 20%. As such, he was not provided pension. 

His subsequent appeals too were dismissed. It said his case was "barred by limitation" as he had approached the tribunal with an "insurmountable delay" (of 5,679 days). 

Natarajan said the delay was "neither wilful nor wanton" and he could not file the application because of "want of money." If the delay was not condoned, he would continue to suffer, he said. 

The bench comprising judicial member V Periya Karuppiah and administrative member K Surendra Nath said the injury might have been exacerbated because Natarajan was unable to understand the physiotherapy instruction as he was not conversant with either Hindi or English. It also noted despite the recommendation of the medical board, the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) reduced the disability as below 20% in 1987. "No reasons were adduced for lowering the disability," it said. Finding contradictions in the second medical board's opinion, the bench said, "We are inclined to question the opinion of the medical board and feel it erred on both counts." 

It then allowed Natarajan disability pension for life which, according to the provisions of the central government, was rounded from 20%to 50%. However, the arrears had to be paid only for three years before he approached the tribunal. 

Source: www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com 

Pre 2004 Contingent/Casual/Temporary Group D Staff who absorbed permanently in 2005 - Applicability of Old Pension Rules - Madras High Court Upholds CAT Order

Pre. 2004 Contingent/Casual/Temporary Group D Staff who absorbed permanently in 2005 - Applicability of Old Pension Rules -  Madras High Court Upholds CAT Order

Upholding a Central Administrative Tribunal rpt Tribunal order, the Madras High Court today said right of government servants to receive pension is not a bounty and it is a statutory right conferred under the pension rules applicable from the date when the government servant was appointed, either on daily wage, temporary or permanent basis.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice M.Sathyanarayanan was dismissing a writ petition filed by Ministry of Atomic Energy, and Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal.

In its order, the bench said it was an undisputed fact that the 16 petitioner employees had been appointed as casual labourers and subsequently conferred temporary status from December 31, 1999.

".. merely because they have been absorbed permanently in the year 2005 in Group ?D? service, they cannot be denied of their statutory right," the court said.

Earlier CAT had allowed the original application filed by the 16 employees to extend the benefit of pension under old Pension Scheme, Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as they were granted temporary status with effect from December 31, 1999 on conditions, among others, that 50% of their service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their superannuation.

This was challenged by IGCAR, stating that persons who joined in service on or after January 1, 2004 were governed by the new pension scheme. The CAT rejected it following which IGCAR filed the present petition.

IGCAR had engaged 50 Casual labourers for cleaning and assisting Technicians and Scientists Carrying out the task in various laboratories of IGCAR. Out of 50, 34 casual labourers were regularized prior to January 1,2004.

The court said a person already in service either as contingent staff or temporary staff continuously and absorbed in permanent establishment on or after Jan 1,2004 cannot be termed 'new entrant' into service.The new pension scheme can be applied only to persons appointed for the first time as casual or temporary or permanent employee on or after January 1,2004.

The bench clarified that the 50 casual employees appointed by the IGCAR being a class, there cannot be any classification within them, subsequently made as temporary employees and absorbed as Group 'D' employees.

While quoting Supreme Court Judgements the bench said these 16 employees cannot be treated as 'Fresh appointees' for the purpose of applying new pension scheme and upheld the order of CAT while dismissing the petition from IGCAR.

Source: www.newindianexpress.com