Friday, September 11, 2009

Letter to Secy , ESW


(Registered under the Societies Registration Act,1886 – Registration No.17991)
B- 77/2 East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,
Tel Nos;,26859981; 28844483, Mobile 9811144278; FAX 46018422
E Mail; wacgeapsu @
Dated 8th September 2009


Mrs Neelam Nath , IAS
Secretary, to Government of India,
Department of Ex Servicemen Welfare
Ministry of Defence
South Block
New Delhi-110001

Subject : Contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Gross Injustice to veteran Armed Forces Officers absorbed in PSUs several years ago

This representation pertains to the rarest of the rare case of injustice meted to a small section of Armed Forces Veterans absorbed in PSUs manufacturing strategic and tactical equipment for the use of the Indian Armed Forces and were the Pioneers of the Defence Industry in the Country They have been singled out for hostile discrimination perhaps without a parallel in the history of the Central Government. Several years ago (Mostly between 1970 to 1990) These veterans were specially selected for absorption to PSUs based their specialized knowledge, high educational & technical qualifications and practical experience including during combat in the field of Radar, Troposcater Communications, Electronic Warfare, Gunnery , Gun Control Systems, Air Defence Radars both mobile and Static,.Armaments ,Rockets, Missiles ,Ship Building, Test Flying of Fighter/transport/Helicopters, Aeronautics and Space applications and in the Public Sector Aviation Industry at a time when experienced trained pilots were not available in this country. All these officers had outstanding service records and had several years of residual service left in the Armed Forces and but for their absorption in the PSUs would have been promoted to High Military ranks. One of our aggrieved members is Wing Commander Rakesh Sharma, Ashok Chakra, (Retd) who was permanently absorbed in HAL as a Test Pilot and is the only Indian who has taken part in a manned Test Flight into Space. All cases of such absorption was done after obtaining individual approval of the ACC (irrespective of the Rank) and after individual letters certifying that their premature retirement from the Armed Forces and consequent absorption to PSUs was in public interest . . Subsequent discriminatory actions on the part of the government to treat them as persona non grata in respect of the past services rendered with the Armed Forces was never anticipated by the absorbees...
2. It is because of this reason that we request you to personally examine this representation instead of relying on the biased and negative views expressed by the middle level officers of your Department as well as that of the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare who all along have misguided senior officers to get their approval for patently Illegal actions to deprive PSU absorbees their legitimate pensionary benefits, in respect of their Government service prior to absorption in the PSUs

3. The undersigned in his capacity of the President of the Association is sending this representation with a full sense of responsibility and am willing to testify on any affidavit in support of the facts mentioned in this representation. I have personally appeared in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court several times on the issue of Pension to PSU absorbees and am fully aware of the facts of the issue under reference.

4. The applicant “Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises “ is a Society registered under the Societies Act 1860 and was formed for the common welfare of all Central Government Servants from various departments, including Armed Forces Personnel who were absorbed in Public Enterprises) This representation is on behalf of Armed Forces Officers who were absorbed in PSUs in public interest several years back .They are residing in different parts of the country. Most of the surviving civilian members are above the age of 80.. Majority of Armed Forces Absorbees are between the ages of 70 and 80. The number of members has been gradually eroding as many of them have passed away in virtual penury during the past 25 years for which we have been agitating due to the injustice of the Government. After another 10 years there will be hardly any surviving members. Reference to this association have been made in all the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject of restoration of pension of absorbed central government employees in Public Enterprises as we were the original petitioners who took up this issue. as early as in 1984 ( Writ No.11757-58 of 1984) and in 1985 ( Civil Writ Petition 11855 of 1985)

Immediate Cause of Grievance
5.. Your kind attention is drawn to, Ministry of Defence Department’ of Ex Servicemen Welfare LetteNo1(4)/07/D(Pension/Policy dated 21 August,2009 in respect of Armed Forces Personnel absorbed in PSUs. Earlier We had requested the Ministry of Defence vide our representation dated 19th December 2008 not to be a party to the illegality and contempt of Court by mutais mutandis applying the provisions of Department of Pensioners Welfare O.M 4/38/2008 dated 15/9/2008 to Armed Forces Officers absorbed in PSUs. Regretfully as in the past, the same provisions have been applied to us brushing aside serious and valid and legal objections raised by us.

6. Although, this representation is the against the Ministry of Defence letter dated 21 August 2009, our serious objections are equally valid(except for rules applicable only for Uniformed Officers.) in respect of Civilian members of the Association who are also effected by the malafide provisions of P&W letter dated 15 September 2008..

7. The OM dated 15th September 2008 and Your Department’s letter dated 21 August, 2009 is a gross violation of a series of orders of the Honb’le Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. (C ) 11855 of 1985 as reconfirmed by the Supreme Court Judgment dated 29th November 2006 while Dismissing the Governments SLP and Review Petition against Andhra Pradesh, High Court Judgment dated 23rd December,2003 in Writ Petition No.8532 of 2003. Ministry of Defence Letter No. 1/4/2007-D(Pen/Policy dated 4 December 2007 was issued on the basis of the Supreme Court Judgment and with one stroke of pen even a partial relief given to PSU Absorbees has been reduced by the OM dated 15th September 2008 and therefore we had requested the Minisitry of Defence vide our representation dated 19th December 2008 not to be a party to this illegality and contempt of Court by applying the provisions of that OM to Armed Forces Officers absorbed in PSUs

Brief Back ground.
8. Upto 1984 Armed Forces officers were initially were sent on deputation and after a period of two to three years were seconded to PSUs. From 1985 onwards , officers were selected for PSUs on an Immediate Absorption basis. Most of these officers(Lt Cols/Wing Commanders/Captains, I N )had around 20 years of service had many years of residual service left before superannuation in their parent departments and would have reached senior ranks in the armed Forces had they reverted back to the Armed Forces after the deputation period. In fact most of them wanted to revert back to the Army Navy or Air Force after the period of deputation but the PSUs wanted to retain them as they wanted to continue to use their expertise by getting them permanently absorbed in the PSUs, There was a reluctance on the part of the Armed Forces officers to seek premature retirement because PSU service is not pension able nor the tenure permanent as the services of Executive cadre officers could be terminated after giving three months notice., As an incentive to get them absorbed the Government offered to pay them pro rata pension /gratuity for the period of armed Forces service, Further there was an allurement offered to them to commute their pro rata pension in full. Up to 1986 no officer of the Armed Forces up to the rank of Brigadier got a pension more than Rs 750 pm and the resultant full commuted pension was a very modest sum. As the officers belonged to the service middle class without any savings ,they chose to so commute their paltry pension only to fulfill an urgent or pressing family requirement for which a lump sum was required. It is only for these purposes of necessity that persons choose to commute their pension .

Liberalisation of pension , An Evolutionary process
9. . At the point of time when majority of Absorbees were inducted into the Public enterprises. there was no provision for restoration of pension for any category of pensioners nor there was any provision for increase in the basic pension which was given for life. The Liberalised provisions was an evolutionary process starting with the Nakra Judgment ( DS Nakra and others vs Union of India [AIR1983 ,Supreme Court 130}] and later by the Common Cause Judgement [1987 (1)SCC 142] . As a result of the recommendations of three successive Pay Commissions 4th, 5th and 6th CPCs, the Government of India kept on liberalizing the Pensionary benefits of old pensioners to bring them as close to current pensioners

10. In the Common Cause case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [1987(1) SCC 142] ,the Government had themselves offered to restore the commuted pension after 15 years of retirement. As recorded in that judgment the Government had offered that “ the recovery from the pension will stop on the completion of 15 years from the date of retirement” The Court had observed that “in dealing with a matter of this nature, it is not appropriate to be guided. by the example of life insurance; equally unjust it would be to adopt the interest basis. On the other hand, the conclusion should be evolved by relating it to the (years of purchase)’ basis. An addition of two years to the period necessary for the recovery on the basis of years of purchase justifies the adoption of the 15-year rule. This is more or less the basis which appears to be equitable” The principles enunciated in that judgment are firstly, Once the pensioner outlives the purchase period of the commuted pension, then the pension shall be restored and secondly, the Government should not recover more than what it paid to the pensioners upon commutation.
Past Pensioners can not be discriminated on the basis of date of retirement
11. The above principle has been clarified and fortified in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 09.10.98 in the case of V. Kasturi Vs MD, SBI in Civil Appeal No.5048 of 98. (!998(5) SCALE page 562) The operative paragraphs of the judgment are as follows: -
“ 20 .It is now time for us to take stock of the situation. From the aforesaid resume of relevant decisions of this Court spread over years to which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the respective parties, the following legal position clearly gets projected.
Category –1
21 .If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases.”
PSU Aborbees left out from the benefits of the Common Cause Judgment
12. The discriminatory attitude towards the PSU absorbed employees who had commuted their pensions in full was evident when they were excluded from the benefits given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to all the pensioners while issuing administrative notifications implementing the judgments first in the Nakra Case and then the Common Cause judgment on the fallacious ground that they had ceased to be central government pensioners The Fourth Pay Commission further liberalised the pensions w.e.f 1/1/86 but once again the government excluded PSU absorbees from the benefits given to other pensioners while implementing the Fourth Pay Commission’s recommendations

PSU Absorbees start their Fight against Injustice
13.. The discriminatory action on the part of the government was pointed out through a number of representations requesting them to the correct the injustice. Having failed to get justice from the administrative authorities. we approached the Hon’ble Supreme court through IA/1/ of 90 to Amended Writ Petition Civil, 11855/85. The Hon’ble court was pleased to pass the following order on 3/2/1993:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the question of restoration of commuted pension has already been decided in Common Cause vs Union of India judgment reported at 1987(1)SCC 142.We direct the Union of India to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the law laid down by the court in the Common Cause Judgment”
14... The government took no action to implement the above mentioned order and as such we filed IA 2 of 1994 to CWP 11855/85 inter-alia with the prayer that the matter might be referred to a three judge bench .This prayer was necessary as in the intervening period two writ petitions, viz 11757-58/84 and 1088/87 on similar issues had been dismissed by two judge benches.. The matter was subsequently heard by a three judge bench and the court pronounced judgment on 15/12/95..The Government first delayed the implementation of the order and even after a series of contempt petitions and orders of this Court issued notifications from time to time negatively interpreting the orders of this court which had ordered that the directions of the court should be implemented in letter and spirit resulting in numerous avoidable petitions in Administrative Tribunals , writs in various High Courts and SLPs by the Government in the Supreme Court.
15. It will be relevant to mention that while our case was pending in the Supreme court, (Three Judge Bench) in its judgment reported in 1996 2 SCC 187 in the case filed by our Welfare association observed that the Government presumably, realizing the fallacy of the scheme and themselves withdrew the scheme for full commutation of pension vide OM No..4/42/91-P&PW(D) dated 31.3.95.,and also noting that the issue raised would not arise in future, quashed para 4 in OM dated 05.03.1987.After the quashing of Para 4 which specifically excluded PSE absorbees who had commuted their pension.,a plain reading of the OM dated 05.03.1987 after quashing of Para 4 makes it clear that pensioners who had commuted their pension in full were entitled to the same benefits of restoration of pension after 15 years of suspended animation as given to other pensioners in “Common Cause ” Case.
16.. It is submitted that your officers have been giving affidavits in various Courts that the decision of the Court (2 judge bench) [(1991) 2 SCC 265] that those who commute full pension constitute a separate class Your Officers have while writing internal notes on files have been deliberately ignoring the fact that the 1991 judgment has been superseded by the 3 judge bench vide its orders dated 15/12/95 which held “That the contention that the petitioners on commuting their pension in full cease to be Central Government pensioners was too broad to be accepted in the absence of any Statute or the Rule” It is also in conflict with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (three judge bench) dated 1/5/98 which held:- It will be noticed that the central Government pensioners are given revision in the pension, which was not given to the petitioners on the ground that this Court had ordered only restoration of pension. After hearing counsel on both sides, we make it clear that the respondents are liable to restore not only pension as ordered by this Court in the said judgment, but all the attendant benefits as given to the Central Government pensioners,”
17. The Applicant Association has along been submitting that the only logical interpretation that can be given to commutation is that it is an advance amount paid against what was due in future. As soon as this amount is recovered by the Government,(with Interest) the commuted pension must be restored in full In fact, for Millions of other pensioners this is the principle which the Government follows. However for the petitioners a totally different yardstick is being followed by the Government
19. Since the issue involved is the commutation of pension The Applicant Association submits that pension can never be fully and finally commuted for the reasons that( i ) a pension is not capable of being determined since a pension is related to the life-span of a person and the life-span of a person cannot be pre-determined in advance and ( ii ) value of pension cannot be pre-determined because it depends on the value of quality of life and index of prices which cannot be forecast .As such, an equivalent lump sum value of pension can never be calculated. Therefore. the concept of a Lump Sum in Lieu of Pension had no Basis and has already been decided by the Common Cause Judgment As such, after the end of the Purchase Period of 15 years all pensioners have to be treated at Par. .The decision of the Government to treat us differently had no legal or Moral Basis and since 1987 we had been agitating against this arbitrary provision
Past record of the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
18. The past record of the Department of Pensioner’s Welfare has always been against PSU absorbees due to the negative , biased and un- professional attitude of some of their middle level officials towards Central Government employees absorbed in PSUs .This statement has been proved beyond doubt by a series of Judgments by Administrative Tribunals , Several High Courts and the Honb’le Supreme Court since 1993. Every time we obtained a favourable judgment from the Supreme Court, they deliberately misinterpreted the Orders of the Court to perpetuate the injustice forcing us to file Contempt petitions through which we got relief and these were again misinterpreted every time. To quote a example we obtained partial relief from the Supreme Court Judgment dated 26/4/ Civil Writ Petition 11855 of 1985 filed by this Association . To give effect to that Judgment , P&W issued an OM No 4/29/99- P&PW (D) dated 12 th July, 2000. This OM , instead of increasing our pension which was ordered by the Supreme Court effectively reduced the Take Home pension of PSU absorbees wef 1/1/1986(4th CPC) and 1/1/1996 (5th CPC) compared to what they were already drawing on those dates. .This Association through a number of representations pointed out this injustice to the P&W and when confronted by actual calculations the department admitted through the issue of another OM No. 4/31/2000-P&PW (D) dated 16 th January 2001 that the total pension had in fact been reduced and all they did to remedy the injustice was to protect the existing pension till such time the DR plus old pension reached the 1/1/86 and 1/1/96 levels. In other words except for the grant of DR from time to time no substantial increase was given to PSU absorbees. The Ministry Of Defence once again applied the provisions of the above mentioned OMs mutais mutandis to Armed Forces Officers This Association sent many more representations on this injustice both to Civilians as well as Armed Forces Personnel but no reply was ever given

19. .Aggrieved by this Injustice one of the PSU Absorbees , Sh R Ramamurthy filed an OA No.1345of 2001 in CAT Hyderabad against the OM dated 14th July 2001. CAT Hyderabad vide its order dated 28/11/2002 allowed this OA . The Government thereafter, preferred an appeal in A.P High Court in WP 8532 0f 2003. A Hyderabad based PSU absorbee’s Welfare Association became an Impleaded party in the petition. The AP High Court slightly modified the CAT order resulting in a substantial relief to all PSU absorbees .(The relief was naturally confined to within the pleadings made by Sh Ramamurthy who did not seek full restoration of Pension after 15 years,)The Central Government once again appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the appeal of the Government., True to its style to engage in litigation with old and infirm PSU absorbees , the Department filed a SLP Nos 21645-648 of 2005 in the Supreme Court which was dismissed vide Supreme Court Judgment dated 29/11/2006. Instead of implementing the orders of the Apex court, the Department of Pensioners Welfare was finding ways and means to delay the issue of Administrative orders. This Association once again sent representations requesting the P&W department to implement the Supreme Court order.

20. There after, some where in early 2007 , the undersigned along with Mr NS Vohra ,the General Secretary of our Association met Mr Geeta Ram (then Director, (Pension) P&W to press for early implementation of the Supreme Court Judgment dated 29/11/2006 in Civil arising out of Civil Appeal No 5269 of 2006 and SLP Nos 21647-643 of 2006 . During that meeting Mr Geeta Ram expressed his extreme dissatisfaction at the Supreme Court judgment and informed us that the Department is planning to file a review petition The next day we met the Secretary, P&W Mrs Rajni Razdan to plead with her to gracefully accept the verdict of the Apex Court instead of filing a Review Petition. Subsequently we came to know that Mr Geeta Ram went out of its way to file a Review Petition in spite of the written advice of a Senior Law Officer dealing with the matter. File notings leading to the filing of Review Petition obtained by one of our members under the RTI will confirm that Mr Geeta Ram went out of the way to persuade the CAGs office to file a Review Petition against the Supreme Court Judgment The review petition was also dismissed by Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 24/7/07 in Review Petition No. 643 of 2007. Administrative orders to give effect to that judgment dated were issued by the P &W on 5th Sep 2007 and mutais mutandis applied by the Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare vide their letter 1/4/2007-D(Pen Policy dated 4th December 2007 The actual arrears to the affected officers were not paid for several months and in some cases not even after more than a year as PCDA (pensions)referred each case to CDA (Officers) to trace past records of Pay Fixation which were not readily available.

Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare Strikes again

21. As brought out in the previous paragraph , the ego of some officers of the P&PW department were very hurt that their efforts to get the Supreme Court Judgment dated 29/11/2006 reviewed by the Honb’le Court was also dismissed on 24/7/07 . We have no hesitation to state that they were waiting to strike again. They got that opportunity in September 2008 when the Government announced the implementation of the 6th CPC. Whereas, in 1998 they took more than 2 years to consider PSU absorbee benefits under the 5th CPC, in 2008 ,the so called benefits to PSU absorbees under the 6th CPC were decided within 13 days and the OM issued on 15 September 2008 under the guise of giving so called benefits to PSU absorbees ,due to 6th CPC; but in actual fact it resulted in reducing the pensions of Civilian absorbees.

Summary of Objections to the issue of the 21 August 2009 Letter

22. Through the Department’ of Ex Servicemen’s letteNo1(4)/07/D(Pension/Policy dated 21 August,2009 ibid , provisions of Department of Pensioners Welfare O.M 4/38/2008 dated 15/9/2008 and 27th May 2009 have been mutas mutandis applied by the Ministry of Defence to Armed Forces Officers who were absorbed in PSU. As brought out in Para 1 above we had raised serious and valid legal objections vide our letter dated 19th December 2008 addressed to the Ministry of Defence on subject. Since many of the points given in that letter are being repeated here we are not enclosing a copy of that letter.

23. We have no hesitation to state that the 21 st August letter has been issued without due diligence ,application of mind and totally ignoring all the issues raised by us. We had met Sh Harbans Singh Director Pension/ policy of your department in the first week if November 2008 and he told us that our representation had been forwarded to the Department of Pensioners Welfare (P&PW) who are in fact the perpetuators of injustice to us for the last 22 years , instead of a para wise de novo examination of the points raised by us to your Ministry to which the representation was sent, In other words the Department of Ex Servicemen Welfare has abdicated its authority to the Department of P&W , which with one stroke of pen became the Prosecutor and Judge of their own cause and Your Department chose to arbitrarily apply the provisions of letter to Armed Forces personnel who are covered not by the provisions of Civil service Pension Rules but by the Pension Regulations which are statutory in nature .

24.. Under the provisions of the RTI one of our members has obtained a copy of notings on File No.4/38/2008-P&PW(D) notings dealing with our objections raised with the Department of Personnel (P&W) after the issue of the 15 Sep 2008 letter ibid The file notings have been initiated by Sh. Amitambh Dwiwedi Under Secretary. He has totally ignored to comment on some of the relevant and legal issues that had been raised by us and has given negative comments on every issue ignoring various Supreme Court orders quoted in our representation. The next note has been written by Mr Geeta Ram(Who by then had been promoted as a JS ) on 28/11/2008. His note is equally vague but he has admitted that the pension being drawn by Civilian Absorbees was reduced w.e.f 01 Jan 2006 as a result of the 15/9/2008 OM He had recommended that the Pensioners should continue to draw the existing pension till such time revised DR is sanctioned in future. It is interesting to note that on the same day (28/11/2008) he obtained the concurrence of the Secretary P&W and forwarded the proposal to the Department of Expenditure who concurred with the recommendations resulting in no increase to Civilian officers but merely protecting the Pension already being drawn on 1/1/2006.

25. . The majority of Officers who were lured into permanent absorption in PSUs took Premature Retirement in the 70s or early 80s when there was no provision of restoration of commuted pension during the life time of the pensioner and the offer of full commutation was in the nature of an Incentive or allurement given to us to get absorbed in the PSEs Most of them had several years of residue service left in the parent departments .What was given as an incentive has turned out to be a night mare due to repeated act of discrimination against them.

26. As brought out in para 13, above ,Had the Government obeyed the orders of the Supreme Court dated 3/2/1993, there would have been no need for us to agitate. However, the Department of Personnel took no action to implement the above mentioned order which resulted in a series of cases in various Administrative Tribunals, Writs in the High Courts and having lost all the cases in the High Courts your Department filed SLPs in the Supreme Court followed by Review Petitions. Even the orders of the Apex Court were negatively interpreted to deprive pensioners their legitimate due and the O.M dated 15/9/2008 is the latest example of this .Had it been an isolated case we would have considered it an error of Judgment but since it is being repeated every time a fresh order is issued, a negative view is taken by the Department of Pensioners Welfare and without application of mind the Defence Minisitry applies the same to Armed Forces Officers absorbed in PSUs.

27..In all other cases of commutation .the actual pension commuted (As an Amount) was deducted from the revised pension consequent to the 4th , 5th or 6th Pay Commission. In our case we were paid Zero Pension and DR during the 15 year period after commutation and even after restoration (As a Result of Supreme Court Awards) the deduction was made on Percentage of revised pension. It would be very pertinent to mention that most of our members retired long years back where the pensions were very low and even the Full commutation of pension was far much below the 43 % commutation which the post 1986 and post 1996 retirees availed. Since during the 15 year lock in period we were at Zero pension and DR, the re-payment was several times more than the small amounts we commuted ..The recovery has increased by geometrical progression with every increase of pension as compared to other pensioners in whose case only the amount actually received by them as commutation is recovered .

Additional grounds for Armed Forces Officers Absorned in PSU s
28. It has been held by Supreme Court that” Undoubtedly, the Defence Personnel are a class by themselves” {Common Cause Case ,1987 (1) SCC 142] The Armed Forces absorbees, at the time of their absorption in the public sector ware transferred to the Regular Reserve of Officers class X and were liable for recall to active service till their deemed date of superannuation, had they continued in Military service. Their connection with the Armed Forces was never severed as long as they were liable for Recall to Active service, an eventuality, for which all of them kept themselves in readiness all the time .by firstly, maintaining physical fitness for active service and secondly keeping abreast with professional competence so as to be useful to the nation in case of recall to active military service in the case of War or any other emergency.

29. The Armed Forces absorbees are covered by the Pension Regulations for the Defence Services and not by Rule 37 of the Civil Services Pension Rules 1972, which are not applicable to the Armed Forces personnel but arbitrarily suo moto applied to the Armed Forces absorbees by your department. A substantial part of all judgements in the case of PSE absorbees is based on Rule 37 A of the Civil Services Pension Rules which were never applicable to Armed Forces The pension Regulations for the Defence Services which are statutory in nature have, to best of our knowledge have never been amended to bifurcate pension into components of Pension and terminal benefits. It is an established law that Statutory provisions can not be amended by Administrative orders. Armed Forces personnel, all through had an option to commute 43%, 45% or 100% of their pension depending on the circumstances and the rules applicable .and have to be treated at par at the time of restoration of pension after the 15 year suspended animation.
30. It is therefore, submitted that Armed Forces Personnel cannot be equated with civilian officers who are covered by different rules and conditions of service. However, the Government without application of mind clubbed them with Civil servants and denied them benefits given to other Armed Forces pensioners on the fallacious ground that they had ceased to be Armed Forces Pensioners, a ground which also stands nullified by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court on 15/12/95.[1996(1)SCC187]
31. The action of the Department is also violative of Pensions Act 1871 which interalia covers pensions has been updated after the promulgation of the constitution of India. Section 10 of the Pension Act 1871 is an enabling provision for commutation of pension which is always subject to the provision of section 12 which prohibits all assignments, agreements, made by the person entitled to any pension, for giving or assigning any future interest therein are null and void. The allurement given to absorbees to commute full pension and to expect them to surrender the right of drawing pension even after they have repaid the commuted value after 15 years is bad in law.

Some other Illegal Actions of Your Department concerning Armed Forces Pensioners
32.The following actions of the government although made applicable to Non PSU Armed Forces Personnel also are patently arbitiary , illegal and against the law of the land as per judgments of the Supreme Court:-
( A) Wrong notional fixation of pay of all Armed Forces pensioners w.e.f 1/1/86 as
up held by Honb’le Supreme Court while dismissing Union of India
SLP 14165 of 2005.against the order of the Kerala High Court.
(B) Not giving the benefit of full pension after a qualifying service of 20 years to
Pre 2006 Pensioners

1 comment:

  1. Excellent re-cap of civil service (incl defence personnel) pension history of India. Despite the Supreme Court judgement on restoration of full pension after 15 years into retirement, it is sad to see how this is being played out differently in some of the branches of larger civil service area(e.g PSUs, basically due to individual egos,prejudicial mindsets, or just incompetency. The statement that "pension (part or whole) can never be fully commuted; it is just advance amount paid against future benefits (based on actuarial assumptions). Once this advance + interest get recovered by reduced pension, full pension must be restored. SC common cause judgement in this respect was truly historical in asserting certain human rights and values: (1) if pension is a benefit to cover life-span, no actuarial or other sicence can pre-determine it in advance; (2)value of pension cannot be pre-determined because it is subject to CPI, quality of life, etc. Hence, any equivalent lump sum in lieu of pension has no basis. At best it is notional, while it is intended to benefit the pensioners to meet immediate obligations in recognition of past loyal services to the government.
    Even in the case of Life Insurance premiums, one of the Canadian courts declared that it is unlawful to collect periodic premiums, toalling more than the sum assured.