Notification for amendment of Part V of the Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

No. 11012/3/2009-Estt. (A)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

(Department of Pension & Pensioners'Welfare)

North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 27th July, 2009

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Notification for amendment of Part V of the Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The undersigned is directed to enclose a copy of Notification No.S.O.1762(E)dated 16.07.2009 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 17.07.2009 on the abovementioned subject and to request that the contents thereof may please be brought to the notice of all offices under their control for information and compliance.

CAT asks govt to release pension of Delhi police Inspector

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the Centre to release the provisional pension of a retired Delhi police inspector sentenced to 8 years' prison term in a custodial death case.

Rishi Prakash Tyagi, who was awarded death penalty by the trial court in 2006, was denied provisional pension in 2007 by the department after it forwarded a report to the President to decide on his pension and gratuity.

Though his sentence was reduced by the High Court in 2008 to 8 years' jail term, his provisional pension was not released by the department since January 2007, forcing him to approach the tribunal for relief.

"The Centre is directed to continue payment of provisional pension to Tyagi beyond January 31, 2007 and make good non-payment, if any, by way of arrears, until final orders are passed in the departmental or judicial proceedings," said N D Dayal, Member of the tribunal.

The tribunal also noted that the department had not received any presidential order for withholding the pension and gratuity of the retired inspector.

"Under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the entitlement of the applicant for provisional pension has not ceased," the CAT said.

Tyagi, who retired from service in 2002, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence.
Source:PTI

Raising retirement to 62

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is keen on extending the retirement age of civil servants to 62, one of his aides told this columnist in Delhi recently. He had apparently been keen to do so earlier this year, but such a change was thought politically risky at a time when the Congress party was using Rahul Gandhi’s youth as its electoral strategy (how do you convince voters that the party is going to harness the energy of the youth if you propose to keep all the old babus for another two years?). It may seem unreal now, but back then many in government feared that the Congress might lose power (even national security advisor M K Narayanan apparently threw a farewell party!), so the PM’s plan was shelved. It is being revived again, with the PM himself taking great interest.

This proposal has two justifications. First and foremost is fiscal. As had happened when the retirement age was raised from 58 to 60 in 1998, the expenditure on pensions would be curbed. In this year’s budget, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee earmarked non-Plan expenditure for pensions at Rs 25,085.49 crore. That is a growth of almost 40 per cent (39.4 per cent). It is a major contributor to the total spending that was announced by Pranab, a little over Rs 10 trillion, a hike of around 36 per cent from last year.Of course, coming at the time of a global economic slowdown this massive expenditure is possibly a good risk to take; but the prime minister is obviously looking for ways to keep costs from running away.

Of course, worse than the central finances are those of many of the States; their governments are far more reckless than the Centre’s. In the decade after New Delhi raised the age of superannuation to 60, the States slowly but surely followed suit. The States would likely follow the Centre’s lead again and that would help them manage their fiscal problems.

The other reason the PM wants to push retirement back another two years is that he wants to make tap the valuable human resource that bureaucrats represent. For one thing, life expectancy in India has gone up. According to UNICEF, in 2007 it was 64 years, and this is a figure that the average bureaucrat would have pulled upwards. Thus, when a civil servant retires at 60, she or he is still at their mental peak, and each acts as an institutional storehouse of government policy and programme implementation. Retaining them for another two years would possibly enrich functioning of the government. At the very least, it would keep some of the hypocrites off the boob tube — it’s very bizarre that the same bureaucrats who set government policy for 30 years or so, start abusing the government at the nearest TV station studio the moment they find themselves jobless. (Maybe it’s their pique at not getting a post-retirement sinecure).

The PM is not the first person to have such a brainwave. Almost a year ago, the University Grants Commission appointed a committee under G K Chadha to study pay revision, and he made a suggestion that teachers’ retirement age be raised to 65. This is timely advice considering that India is currently set to expand education in a major way under the stewardship of the dynamic Kapil Sibal. It is not just a matter of filling the ranks of teachers, but imparting quality teaching to India’s children.

If the PM wants to extend the retirement age then he would only be following a global trend. The retirement age in the US is 65; in Japan it is 60 and the government is gradually raising it to 65 by 2013, but people anyway continue working till 65 on reduced wages. By 2033, Austria’s retirement age will be 65. In Denmark it will be 67 years by 2027. Hungary plans to make it 69 years by 2050. Israel is already raising it to 67 years for men. All these countries and many others are increasing the retirement age because of an increasingly alarming problem — their ageing populations. By 2020, a quarter of Japan’s population will be 65 and over. Life expectancy in the US is about 77, and by 2050 is expected to go up to 83. Japan’s is already 82.4 years. Indeed, the life expectancy in some of the advanced countries, according to 2009 OECD data, are: France 80.9 years, Canada 80.4 years, Sweden 80.8 years, Italy 80.9 years and Spain 81.1 years. You would have to think that as India gets wealthier — which it undoubtedly is — our population’s life expectancy will similarly increase.

Imagine a person retiring at 60, but living till at least 80 (if not more), perhaps physically weakened as she or he passes 75, but still mentally at the top of his or her game. What do they do with such a long retirement? And besides the fact that the increase in life expectancy leaves retirees with too much time on their hands and their skills unutilised, it also places a great burden on the working population, which has to finance the social security and health benefits that the elderly need. In the West it costs much more to maintain an elderly person than it does to raise a child; and health care costs in the rich world are projected to be those countries’ biggest finance headache (much more than the costs of the stimulus to end the current economic crisis). Thus it is not surprising that there are an increasing number of voices in the West and Japan who are talking of increasing the retirement age to 75. Doing so would engage the older citizens, contribute to the state exchequer in terms of taxes from older workers, and reduce the social security burden on the young. It is a surprisingly obvious solution.

With the PM politically on the defensive after the all-round criticism of his joint statement with his Pakistani counterpart at Sharm-el-Sheikh, it is unclear when he may undertake the change in retirement age, though he is said to be very enthusiastic about it. Sharm-el-Sheikh will pass however; party boss Sonia Gandhi can manage the naysayers in the Congress, and the BJP is still shell-shocked from its electoral defeat to do serious damage to the government. And even within the BJP it is thought that currently the coming assembly elections in Maharashtra favour the Congress. Manmohan Singh will soon enough have the political wind at his back to make this proposal. Good thing, for it is an eminently sensible one.
Source: Express buzz
also read Business Standard

Inclusion of new model of Air Conditioned Car on the Rate Contract of DGS&D.

F.No.3(1)/E.II(A)/2009

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Expenditure

E-II (A) Branch

North Block, NewDelhi,Dated 30th June,2009.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Inclusion of new model of Air Conditioned Car on the Rate Contract of DGS&D.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M.No.3(4)/E.II(A)/99dated 09.01.2008 regarding list of approval models for use as staff car by Ministries/Departments and to state that Maruti SX4(VXi)has been included in the list of approval models of staff car (in AC Category) to be purchased through DGS&D rate contract.

CAT rejects MCD employee's plea against selection process

Twenty-year ordeal of a junior engineer who challenged the direct selection process of MCD for the post of assistant engineer in 1989 came to an end on a disappointing note with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) finally dismissing it for being devoid of merit.

"The present case seems to be just a desperate attempt on the part of the applicant to press for a claim which had been found untenable. The averment of discrimination is found to be baseless," the CAT headed by Shanker Raju said.

The tribunal passed the order on a petition of R A Goel, assailing the direct selection process for the post of assistant engineer in 1989 by MCD, and observed that he was not awarded correct marks for experience.

"The claim pertains to the selection process for the year 1989 which by now otherwise also be a closed affair," the CAT said while dismissing Goel's claim. The tribunal said that Goel has not produced any evidence to show that he was being targeted and discriminated by the authorities.

"The claim of Goel has not been found to be tenable on merit and for want of any supporting evidence, we are not inclined to accept this contention of alleged discrimination," the CAT said.

Citing apex court judgements, the tribunal said that whenever pleas of malafide are taken, the burden of proof is on the party alleging it.
Source: The Hindu

Only expert can certify medical case as emergency: CAT

The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that only a medical expert, not a departmental authority, is "competent" to certify if treatment administered on a government employee is an emergency case deserving medical reimbursement.

"Medical reimbursement cannot be claimed as a right in the context of financial burden on the government but when a laid down policy is there... then the authority, which is competent to certify an emergency, cannot be a departmental authority," the tribunal comprising members Shanker Raju and Veena Chhotray said.

"It is only an expert in the field, which is competent and has jurisdiction to certify whether the treatment incurred was in a state of emergency or not," the CAT said.
Source: PTI

Pension allowable only on completion of 20 years in service: CAT

Government employees are eligible to claim pension only after completion of 20 years of service, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held.

The tribunal passed the order on a Delhi Transport Corporation's employee's plea on Tuesday. The employee, Mukesh, had claimed that he had not been given pensionary benefits after he opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and sought directions for relief.

The tribunal, while disposing the plea, said that Mukesh was not eligible for pension as he had not completed the tenure essential for a government servant to claim pension. The tribunal headed by vice chairman M Ramachandran noted that no relaxation in the tenure was permissible for claiming pension.

The CAT noted that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules allow a government employee to claim pension as a matter of right only after completion of 20 years of service.

The tribunal observed that Mukesh had put in only 10 years of service and it was therefore not possible for the DTC to extend pension benefits to him. The tribunal said that Mukesh had been extended the benefits authorised by the scheme and legally due to him.

Mukesh had joined the DTC as a bus conductor in 1982 and continued in service till 1993 when he opted for retirement under the corporation's Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). He approached the tribunal claiming he had been denied pensionary benefits due to him.

Source:PTI