Enter Keyword and Search





Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Know more about - Defence Civilian Medical Aid Fund

with 0 Comment

Defence Civilian Medical Aid Fund The membership of the fund will be open on a voluntary basis to:

All defence civilian employees whether Gazetted or Non gazetted, Permenent or Temporary, Industrial or Non-Industrial employees and from various departments.

Rates of full service membership (one time payment) Basic pay : Less than Rs. 3050 - Rs.200

Rs.3050 and above but less than Rs.6500 - Rs.300

Rs. 6500 and above - - Rs.400

A list of effective members of the fund as on the 31st December shall be furnished each year, not later thanthe middle of February next year, to Honorary Secretary of the fund by the Authorised Officer collecting subscription for the fund.

Every member, including those who rejoin the Fund after once ceasing to be its members, shall becomeentitled to the fund subject to the condition that annual members shall have to complete the membershipof the fund for one year commencing from the date on which the first subscription is paid. Payment of subsciptionwith retrospective effect shall not entitle any member to the benefits of the fund from a retrospective date. The benefits granted by the fund are:

NUTRITIOUS DIET ALLOWANCE: 1. Members and their dependents suffering from Tuberculosis and LeprosyShall be given Nutritious Diet Allowance at the rates of Rs.800 Per Month upto 2 years,in case of suffering from Cancer up to 5 years.

2. In case of female members and spouses of male members suffering severe anaemia during pregnancy period,shall be given Nutritious Diet Allowance at the rates of Rs.800 Per Month.

3. Lactating female members and spouses of the male members of the fund,Shall be given Nutritious Diet Allowance at the rates of Rs.800 Per Month upto 4 months.

4. Members and their dependents suffering from burn injuries,Shall be given Nutritious Diet Allowance at the rates of Rs.150 Per Week upto 12 weeks.

ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: 1. Reimbursement of the cost of procuring blood as and when required for transfusion in various ailments including Leukemia and bone marrow transplantation @ Rs. 600 per transfusion. 2.Cataract Operation with Implantation of Intra-Occular Lens - upto Rs.5,000 3. Hearing Aid upto - Rs. 1,500 4. Purcahse of Curtches upto - Rs.5,000 5. Purcahse of Whell Chairs upto - Rs.5,000 6. Purcahse of Support Shoes (Calipers) - upto Rs.2,000 7. Purcahse of Neck Band for Cervical Spondilitis - upto Rs.1,000 8.Purcahse of Tricycles for Physically Handicapped - upto Rs.5000

IN CASE OF MAJOR OPERATIONS: Reimbursement upto Rs. 15,000 *Coronary By Pass Surgery

*Valve Replacement

*Implantation of Pace Makers

*Renal Transplantation

*Joint Replacement Surgery

EX-GRATIA GRANT FOR LOSS OF LIMBS / EYES: Incase of loss of two limbs / eyes or more of the member patient due to an accident Rs. 15,000 (lumpsum)

Incase of loss of one limb / eye of the member patient due to an accident Rs. 10,000 (lumpsum)

DIALYSIS ALLOWANCE: In case the members and their dependents are suffering from Chronic Renal disease and are on Dialysis,Rs. 800 Per month upto 5 years.

SUPERANNUATION AGE OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS

with 0 Comment

SURVEY OF THE PAST :
1. In the past, the age of retirement of judges in the judicial service in every state was linked to that of the State Government Employees / Central Government Employees.
2. Till 31-3-1938, the normal age of retirement of Central Government Employees was 55 years. Employees could, however, be retained in service upto 60 years depending on their being physically fit and mentally alert.
3. The First Central Pay Commission set up by the Central Government in 1946 recommended 58 years for superannuation of Central Government employees. But this recommendation was not accepted by the Government on the ground, inter-alia, that the majority of persons retiring at the age of 55 were not capable of rendering efficient service; that their replacement at the age of 55 by younger men would serve the interest of efficiency better and that a retirement age should be fixed which would release men at the age when they would still be fit to render service to the country in other spheres of their choice.
4. In 1953, the question was reconsidered, but the earlier decision to retain the age of retirement at 55 was reaffirmed. The Government, however, decided that in view of shortages of trained personnel, the extension of service beyond 55 years might be given liberally on the ground of public interest particularly in the case of scientific and technical personnel.
5. In 1958, the question of retirement age was again considered in view of the continuing shortage of trained manpower. The Government did not extend the age of superannuation, but laid down the criteria for grant of extension and re-employment of technical and scientific personnel. It was decided that re-employment or extension might be granted upto two years at a time.
6. The Second Central Pay Commission examined the question of retirement age in some greater detail. It compared the data on life expectancy at birth and the retirement age, and also the data on general mortality and survival rate of pensioners, in comparison with the age of superannuation of Government servants in some foreign countries. The Commission also took note of the opinions expressed by eminent persons, economists, retired public servants, heads of departments, etc. After considering the various aspects, the Commission recommended an upward revision to 58 years. It mainly relied upon the fact that the life expectancy in India has improved, and there was greater need of scientific and technical personnel in Government service to meet the requirements of the Third Plan, then on the anvil.
7. Initially, the said recommendation was not accepted by the Government, since it was felt that raising the age of superannuation would reduce employment opportunity.
8. In 1962, the matter was again brought to the attention of the Government. The Government then took into consideration several factors like shortage of experienced and trained manpower; insignificant impact on employment opportunity (viz., of less than one per cent of the total volume of additional employment needed for the educated unemployed during the Third Plan period); the higher expectation of life and the continued physical fitness of Government employees after retirement. The Government decided to raise age of retirement from 55 to 58 years with effect from 1st December 1962. The age of retirement for Group D category of employees and workshop employees in the Central Government was maintained at 60 years.
9. The Third and Fourth Central Pay Commissions received many representations for upward revision of age of retirement to 60 years. But it did not favour the revision on the ground, inter-alia, that it would reduce the employment opportunities for fresh graduates and technical persons in Government service. They emphasised the need for injecting fresh blood and fresh knowledge for the efficient working in government.
10. All the State Governments save State of Kerala have followed similar age of retirement to their respective employees and also extending the same to Judicial officers in their states.
11. When the matter thus stood, the All India Judges' Association filed a writ petition1 before the Supreme Court seeking several reliefs including the upward revision of retirement age. It was contended before the Court therein that there is a marked distinction between the Civil Service and the Judicial Service, both in the qualification and nature of work. The age of superannuation of the Judicial Officers should be more than that of civil servants in as much as the basic qualification for recruitment to the judicial service requires every Officer to have in the minimum a bachelor's degree in law which is acquirable after becoming a graduate. But for normal civil service an ordinary graduate could apply and secure a job and that is not possible in judicial service which requires further period of three years to acquire the basic qualification. This inevitably would take minimum age for entry into Judicial Service higher than the minimum age for entry into Civil Service. It was urged that a distinction has to be maintained in the age of retirement for the Judicial Officers from that of the Civil Service and it is wrong to apply the same rule for both the categories.
12. Considering these and other factors, the Supreme Court observed that the age of retirement of Judicial Officers in subordinate courts should be raised from 58 to 60 years.



Disclaimer:As and when orders amending the rules are published by the Government, the amendment orders will be published in our blog immediately. Readers are requested to refer to the source link is given at the end of the post. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy of the content on this blog, the same should not be construed as a statement of law or used for any legal purposes. 90paisa accepts no responsibility in relation to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness or otherwise, of the contents. Users are advised to verify/check any information with the relevant department(s) and/or other source(s), and to obtain any appropriate professional advice before acting on the information provided in the blog. Links to other websites that have been included on this blog are provided for public convenience only. 90paisa is not responsible for the contents or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the view expressed within them. We cannot guarantee the availability of such linked pages at all times.

Recent Posts