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

Strengthening of administration — Periodical review under FR 56 / Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules

No.25013/1/2013-Estt (A) 

Government of India 

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions 

Department of Personnel and Training 

North Block, New Delhi-110 001 

Dated :21st March, 2014 

Office Memorandum 

Subject : Strengthening of administration — Periodical review under FR 56 / Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules 

Instructions exist on the need for periodical review of performance of Government  servants with a view to ascertain whether the Government servant should be retained in service or retired from service in the public interest. Provisions in this regard are contained in FR 56 (i), FR 56 (I) and Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.

2. As per these instructions the cases of Government servant covered by FR 56(i), 56(1) or Rule 48(1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should be reviewed six months before he / she attains the age of 50/55 years, in cases covered by FR 56(j) and on completion of 30 years of qualifying service under FR 56(1) / Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the following time table:- 

S.NO	Quarter in which review is to be made	Cases of employees who will be attaining the age of 50/55 years or will be completing 30 years of service or 30 years of service qualifying for pension, as the case may be, in the quarter
1	January  to March	July to September of the same year
2	April  to June	October to December of the same year
3	July to September	January to March of the next year
4	October to December	April to June of the next year

 3. The procedure as prescribed from time to time has been consolidated and enclosed as Appendix to this O.M. 

4. All Ministries / Departments are requested to follow these instructions and periodically review the cases of Govt. servants as required under FR 56(i)/FR56(I)/Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules,1972. 

Sd/-

(B.Bandyopadhyay) 

Under Secretary to the Government of India

Source:http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/25013_1_2013-Estt.A-21032014.pdf