Implementation of 7th CPC Recommendation on Revision of Pension of Pre 01.01.2016 Pensioners/Family Pensioners: CPAO OM dated 07.07.2017 – CPAO’s instructions that Head of Office (HOO) is responsible for the notional pay fixation and issue revised authority.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
CPAO/IT&Tech/Revision(7th CPC)/19 Vol-III/2016-17/61
Subject: Implementation of 7th CPC Recommendation on Revision of Pension of Pre 01.01.2016 Pensioners/Family Pensioners
Attention is invited to this office OM No. CPAO/ lT&Tech/Revision (7th CPC)/19 (Vol-III)/ 2016-17/ 37 dated 25th May, 2017 on the subject mentioned above and DP&PW OM 38/37/2016-P&PW (A) dated 12th May, 2017 and Department of Expenditure OM No. 1(13)/EV/2017 dated 23rd May, 2017.
2. As per para 18 of the DP&PW OM dated 12th May, 2017, pensions under 7th CPC are to be revised after fixing the notional pay of the pensioners under 7‘h CPC pay matrix. The Head of Office (HOO) is responsible for the notional pay fixation and issue revised authority. The revised authority will be issued under the existing PPO number and would travel to the Pension Disbursing Authority through the same channel through which the original PPO travelled.
3. As mandated under Department of Expenditure OM dated 23rd May, 2017, CPAO has provided the list/data of all the live pension cases available in CPAO alongwith details of last pay (wherever available) which are due for pension revision under 7th CPC to the Pay and Accounts Officers (FAQs) in their logins on 31.05.2017 under CPAO website my.cpao.nic.in for onward distribution to HOOs/DDOs within 3 days. It is observed that the list has still not been made available by some of the PAOs to the concerned HOOs/DDOs within 3 days as required and reiterated in the CPAO OM dated 25th May, 2017. This issue was also an agenda item in the meeting held under the chairmanship of Controller General of Accounts on 28th June, 2017 to review the progress of revision of pension under the 7th CPC. The slow progress in the revision of pension and non-adherence to timelines may lead to unnecessary delay and it is requested that the exercise of sharing the list with HOOs, wherever not done, may be completed immediately.
4. This list has also been provided under dashboards of respective Joint Secretaries (Admin.)/ Admin incharge of the Ministries/ Departments on CPAO website who may also distribute the list of pension cases to the HOOs falling in their administrative control. JS (Admin.)/ Admin incharge of the Ministries/ Departments may monitor the progress of pension revision at HOOs level. Similarly Pr. CCAs/CCAs/CAs/Administrators of UTs may also keep a watch on the progress of the revision of cases received from HOOs to FAQs.
5. To facilitate effective monitoring of progress of revision at each level i.e. JS (Admin)/Pr (ICAs/ CCAs/ CAS etc., relevant progress reports have been made available on CPAO website under dashboards of respective authorities. On the basis of these reports, periodical review meetings may be held at the Ministry/Deptt./Organization level.
6. In view of the above Pr. CCAs/CCAs/CAs/AGs/JS (Administration/Admin In-charge of the Ministries/ Departments/ Administrators of UPS are once again requested to take up the work of notional pay fixation followed by revision of pension cases on top priority and issue necessary instructions to the PAOs/HOOs/DDOS for timely submission/processing of revised pension cases and monitor the progress in this regard.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
(Md. Shahid Kamal Ansari)
(Asstt. Controller of Accounts)
All most all department are rigid about this work. The belief that it is extra work an pensioners may wait after waiting for pretty long in Government. Staff are very much eager about their benefits and not fof pensioners. Good may bless them..
According to Rule 83(1) of the Pension Rules, Pension becomes payable from the date on which Government servant ceases to be borne on the establishment (emphasis given). A Government servant continues to be borne on the establishment till midnight of the date of superannuation. The decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in T. Krishna Murthy 's case (supra) cannot be brushed aside out by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Retirement may be by voluntary or on superannuation. The principles for payment of pension will not vary on the basis of these distinctions. According to us, "afternoon of 31st March or forenoon of 1st of April means one and the same thing and on this balance also we see no reason to hold that the said case is not applicable to the present cases. In short, we are of the view that in the present cases the effective date of retirement would be 01.04.1995 and not 31.03.1995.
The decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v. P.N. Menon and Ors. CA No. 417 of 1987 and several other cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents in support of his contention need no attention, because they are not exactly or remotedly on the point under consideration. The OM dated 14.7.1995 is not challenged in these cases and, therefore, the argument tried to be made with reference to cut off date or financial, implications in these cases, is misplaced. A Government servant completing the age of superannuation on 31.03.1995 and relinquishing charge of his office in the afternoon of that day is deemed to have effectively a retired from service with effect from 01.04.1995."
As per law laid down by the Full Bench supra we hold that the applicant has effectively retired from service with effect from 1.4.95. In view of the fact that the applicant is deemed to have retired on 1.4.95, the benefit of OM dated 14.7.95 (supra) would be made applicable to him for all purposes. We hold so accordingly.
In the result we allow this OA and direct the respondents to treat the applicant to have retired with effect from 1.4.95 and pay him the benefits as enumerated in the OM dated 14.7.95. This exercise must be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
1. Central Administrative Tribunal – Delhi OA No.1151/2000Mrs. Kamla Gupta vs Commissioner, Kendriya … on 2 January, 2001 &
2. WP(C)No.5376/2001 filed by the KVS, The said WP has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide Honble. High Court Order dated 01/08/2012 and
3. SLP was not filed in the Supreme Court of India.
4. Vide Lr No.18(1701)1602/94-KVS(HQ)/P&I/3175-78 dated 10/03/2017, the said letter received thru RTI stating that revised Gratuity was implemented.
Similarly in the case of Govt Servants who were having DOB 01/01/1956 and forced to retire on 31st Dec. 2015, since Gratuity amount was enhanced from Rs.10 lacks to Rs.20 lacks, and orders effective from 01/01/2016, the same shall be made applicable in our case also like one Mrs. Kamal Gupta of KVS.