Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
sanjayme

Pay Fixation of Ex servicemen in Banks @Second Appeal decision

Recommended Posts

sanjayme

My final appeal was heard and decided by honorable CIC today.I had sought certain information from DoPT regarding the pay fixation of re-employed Ex Servicemen in PSU Banks.The CPIO had replied me sighting a 1986 Order which is no way related to my query as it dealt with the Pensioners re-employed in Central Govt whose expenditure is debitable to the Civil Estimates of the Union Govt.When I pointed out the error through my first appeal, the Appellant authority explained that the above stated Order is appropriate as far as fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners are concerned.Also he asked me to contact MoF, Dept of Expenditure for the definition of Pay, Basic Pay or the treatment of various elements of pay structure after 6th pay commission.He also suggested to find out from MoF about the applicability of DoPT OM dated 8 Nov 2010 w.r.t. the re employed ex servicemen in Banks.

I found the reply from CPIO and Appellant authority inappropriate and misleading as firstly their 1986 order does not deal with pay fixation in banks and as per their own submission and DoPT OM dated 8/11/2010 is just a clarification about the treatment of MSP as far as their OM dated 05/04/2010 was concerned.The OM dated 05/04/2010 was formulated just to amend their 1986 OM ans it was only related to the CCS rules for re-employed pensioners in central government.Also the definition of Pre-retirement pay which is the basis for issuing DoPT OM 8/11/2011 applicable for the officers only and the pay elements of PBORs is thus ignored.Also I pointed out the scope of misinterpretation of this OM as it happened with the MoF.They had to withdraw their previous circular which was issued on 23/03/2012 and a fresh circular was issued on 28/08/2012.Now if we follow the latest MoF guidelines our earlier fixation should be withdrawn and only MSP should be paid.Because the DoPT OM dated 8/11/2010 deals with only MSP and MoF asking bank to implement this OM and withdraw their 23/3/2012 circular further creates confusion.They did not Modify their 23/3.2012 circular and withdrew in haste.

CIC heard the issues and ordered DoPT to reply me again as the DoPT representative accepted that they do not ® do not have any policy regarding the Pay fixation of re- employed ex-servicemen in Banks.He also suggested me seek assistance from redressal agencies if the policy are not available or are not properly formulated to solve the issues relating to the pay fixation of ex servicemen in Banks.HE was surprised to know that Banks do not have defined policy after 6th pay commission.

Now, dear friends it is time to approach redressal agencies i.e. High Court to settle this issue and there is no hope from banks or MoF.Wish u all good luck and hope to remain united in this cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranjitchona1

can you please upload or mail me relevant document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sanjayme

I may not send all the docs to you as many papers are still as hard copy.I also have received the copy of the judgement from CIC.You may ask specific issues and I will try to answer it.For update I was informed by some one that even PNB has stopped protecting MSP for new recruits and planning to initiate recovery from ppl already paid.

So,be united in this fight n we will win.I have already send detailed report on this issue to my Gen secretary (AIBEA).Their legal team is undergoing my presentation.I will update you as n when some fact comes before me.

You may email me for effective and secured communication.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranjitchona1

dear sir, i am as well an ex airman and need your complete idea, even though i know it is imposable to upload all the date but i request you to kindly send me some thing brief so that i can understand the complete subject. hope you will understand my query and do the needful. thnx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prakashthakrar

Dear Sanjayme,

 

Great fight...but still on NO WAY....

I appreciate your keen efforts in this regard.

Please communicate the latest position of your case.

I hereby writing my email id but I am sure that it will be removed through privacy settings of this blog.

Please keep in touch.

Regards,

Prakash Thakrar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bantisrivastava

Dear Sir,

I must appreciate your efforts.People talk but do not come ahead thinking that some one will come like lord krishna to help and save their sanctity. Please contact to my e mail addres XXXXXXXXXXXX and xxx@yyy.zzz - Deleted mobile number and email id - posting against forum rules I am ex sgt venkatesh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My final appeal was heard and decided by honorable CIC today.I had sought certain information from DoPT regarding the pay fixation of re-employed Ex Servicemen in PSU Banks.The CPIO had replied me sighting a 1986 Order which is no way related to my query as it dealt with the Pensioners re-employed in Central Govt whose expenditure is debitable to the Civil Estimates of the Union Govt.When I pointed out the error through my first appeal, the Appellant authority explained that the above stated Order is appropriate as far as fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners are concerned.Also he asked me to contact MoF, Dept of Expenditure for the definition of Pay, Basic Pay or the treatment of various elements of pay structure after 6th pay commission.He also suggested to find out from MoF about the applicability of DoPT OM dated 8 Nov 2010 w.r.t. the re employed ex servicemen in Banks.

I found the reply from CPIO and Appellant authority inappropriate and misleading as firstly their 1986 order does not deal with pay fixation in banks and as per their own submission and DoPT OM dated 8/11/2010 is just a clarification about the treatment of MSP as far as their OM dated 05/04/2010 was concerned.The OM dated 05/04/2010 was formulated just to amend their 1986 OM ans it was only related to the CCS rules for re-employed pensioners in central government.Also the definition of Pre-retirement pay which is the basis for issuing DoPT OM 8/11/2011 applicable for the officers only and the pay elements of PBORs is thus ignored.Also I pointed out the scope of misinterpretation of this OM as it happened with the MoF.They had to withdraw their previous circular which was issued on 23/03/2012 and a fresh circular was issued on 28/08/2012.Now if we follow the latest MoF guidelines our earlier fixation should be withdrawn and only MSP should be paid.Because the DoPT OM dated 8/11/2010 deals with only MSP and MoF asking bank to implement this OM and withdraw their 23/3/2012 circular further creates confusion.They did not Modify their 23/3.2012 circular and withdrew in haste.

CIC heard the issues and ordered DoPT to reply me again as the DoPT representative accepted that they do not ® do not have any policy regarding the Pay fixation of re- employed ex-servicemen in Banks.He also suggested me seek assistance from redressal agencies if the policy are not available or are not properly formulated to solve the issues relating to the pay fixation of ex servicemen in Banks.HE was surprised to know that Banks do not have defined policy after 6th pay commission.

Now, dear friends it is time to approach redressal agencies i.e. High Court to settle this issue and there is no hope from banks or MoF.Wish u all good luck and hope to remain united in this cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sanjayme

After the final hearing of the subject appeal I have put up a ROG (redressal of grievances) to the MoF, Deptt of Financial services.Presently the application is pending with the SCT section and I am hopeful of certain positive result.

Now I request all my fellows re-employed in banking sector to avoid writing RTI with the same issue as it creates lots of confusion among the authorities and ourselves.It is established fact that the MoF is wholly responsible for this mess and they are to be made accountable now.We all have waited for more then six years and now the final action is to be taken very soon i.e. the legal recourse through writ petition is any High court.I have engaged Bank unions in this matter and they are atleast now responding.

If MoF is not taking remedial action within One month I will forward appeal to DPG in cabinet Secretariat.You may view the copy of he ROG submitted to the DFS.

Be sure we will win this because we are trained to protect our Rights.

ROGMOF.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sanjayme

Pay Fixation of Reemployed Ex-servicemen in Banks

Reply received from MoF DFS.As the reply does not reply and set policy paralysis on the pay fixation issue on tracks I have submitted my ROG further to DPG.Hope we get some desired result.Also find the copy of reply and fresh ROG to DPG.

ROGCOPY.doc

ROGDPG.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Section 19: Appeal
      (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub- section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
      Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
      (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
      (3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
      Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
      (4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
      (5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
      (6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
      (7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.
      (8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—
      (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
      (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
      (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
      (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
      (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
      (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
      (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
      (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
      © impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
      (d) reject the application.
      (9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.
      (10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      In a remarkable judgement, the CIC has directed SVNIRTAR to compensate the Appellant for having had to come to the Commission for the hearing by paying him the equivalent of AC-2 Tier fare from Cuttack to Delhi and back in addition to Rs.500/- for his local expenses in Delhi.
       
      Central Information Commission
      *****



      No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00441
      Dated, the 16th November 2006


      Name of the Appellant:
      Er. Ranjan Das,
      S/o Shri Baba Charan Das,
      Plot No. 927, Tala Sahi,
      Laxmi Sagar,
      Bhubaneshwar, Orissa.
      Name of the Public Authority : Swami Vivekanand National Institute of Rehabilitation Training & Research, Cuttack.
       
      DECISION
       
      Background:
      The Appellant, Er. Ranjan Das of the Swami Vivekanand National Institute of Rehabilitation and Research (SVNIRTAR), Cuttack, had applied for study leave for doing the M.Tech Course in BIO-Medical Engineering at IIT Mumbai in 1997. He was refused the study leave on the ground that this course
      was “neither beneficial to the Institute nor related to the sphere of duties of Shri Das being Mechanical Engineer.” Shri Das then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa vide OJC no. 15834/1997 against the orders of refusal of leave by the Institute. After hearing the case, the Hon’ble High Court directed the Institute to relieve the Petitioner forthwith to enable him to join the course. The judgment added that during the period of training at IIT, Mumbai, the petitioner would be granted study leave and would draw the leave salary as admissible to an employee proceeding on study leave.
      On receiving the judgment, Shri Das asked to be relieved forthwith as
      per the directions of the Court to enable him to join the IIT course.
      Accordingly, he was relieved of his duties from the Institute vide order No. DR 1A 57 dated 14.7.1998 but without a proper sanction of study leave.
      As the Institute did not consider this course to be of any relevance/
      benefit to the Institute, it moved the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Orissa High Court vide SLP (Civil) No. 12274/98. After hearing the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted an interim stay order on the judgment of the High Court after which the Appellant returned to the Institute and joined back his duties w.e.f. 29.9.1998. However, at the time of the final disposal of the aforesaid SLP, the Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 13.12.2001 upheld the direction of the High Court of Orissa allowing the appellant to join the M.Tech programme at IIT (Mumbai) on study leave and ordered the Institute to relieve the appellant at the end of the then current academic year, i.e., 2001.
      Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered that the Appellant be
      relived at the end of the academic year in 2001 to join the IIT (Mumbai), the Appellant in the meantime decided to join the M. Tech course in Biomedical Engineering at IT, BHU, Varanasi instead and submitted a request to his Institute accordingly. He was then granted study leave from 30.7.2002 to 31.1.2004 vide office memorandum no. AD6B01-969 dated 29th July, 2002. His Institute while granting him study leave for joining the course at IT seems to have been very careful to deduct the 76 days which the Appellant had spent at the IIT (Mumbai). As the M. Tech course at BHU was for a full 2 years and the study leave accordingly fell short, the Appellant requested the Institute for an extension of his study leave up to 31.7.04, i. e., 2 years 2 days.
      This leave was refused and he was asked to avail all other kinds of leave
      as per his entitlement for the period 15.5.04 to 31.78.04 to complete the
      course. The Appellant, however, completed the course well before the scheduled date and joined back his duties at the Institute at Cuttack on
      17.5.04.
      It was at this stage that the Shri Das made an application dated 17.5.06
      to his Institute under the RTI Act, 2005 requesting for photocopies of all orders relating to his periods of study leave including its extension and the bond executed between him and the Director, SVNIRTAR before proceeding to IIT, Mumbai, and then to IT BHU, Varanasi.
      The letter from the PIO, SVNIRTAR, dated 23.5.06 denied him the information under Clause 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Shri Das then filed an
      appeal against this order before the Director, SVNIRTAR on 13.6.06. The Appellate Authority did not deem it fit to pass any order on the same said
      appeal. At this, Shri Das approached the Central Information through his
      second appeal on 29 August, 2006, after which the Commission scheduled the hearing of both the parties u/s 19 of the said Act on 8th November, 2006.
      The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter. At the hearing, the respondents were represented by Shri B.M. Pradhan, Director and Appellate Authority and Shri K.N. Kittur, the PIO, SVNIRTAR. The Appellant, Er. Ranjan Das was present in person.
       
      Decision:
       
      The Commission has thought it appropriate to give a detailed account of
      this case as this seems to be symptomatic of the ailment which afflicts many of our educational institutions, and especially those of higher learning where, only because of professional jealousy and narrow mindedness, bright and enthusiastic students as well as the employees of the Institutions are prevented from acquiring higher degrees and qualifications which would only go to the benefit of the Institution concerned and the nation at large. Has this not indeed been one of the main reasons for ‘brain drain’ from this country? The Commission was astounded to learn of the fact that just to prevent a person of their own fraternity from acquiring a higher degree, the SVNIRTAR thought it appropriate to move to the Supreme Court only in an effort to prevent Shri Das from availing study leave to acquire a higher degree. Actually Shri Das getting admission into IIT should have been a moment of glory for the SVNIRTAR: instead they seem to have hounded the bright scholar and made all efforts to prevent him from going to IIT. Even if we grant that the grounds given by the Institute that Shri Das’s acquiring the M. Tech degree from IIT, Mumbai was not beneficial to the SVNIRTAR – which does not seem to be the case – was it a crime if Shri Das returned to his Institute with greater qualifications and wider experience after completing a course at IIT – certainly an Institute enjoying a much higher reputation than the SVNIRTAR ? On the other hand, Shri Das, at the hearing, produced a copy of the advertisement for the post of Director of
      the National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research (SVNIRTAR) issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment which carried as an essential qualification a Masters degree in Biomedical Engineering. Yet another advertisement produced by the Appellant at the hearing was that of his own Institute where the qualification required for one of the posts was a degree in Biomedical Engineering from a Recognized Univer sity/ reputed Training Institute adding that “post-graduation in the above field will be added advantage”. At the hearing, the Respondents were asked how, at all, Clause 8(1)(j) of the Act was attracted in this case because the information asked for by the Appellant was for himself. To this the Respondents had no reply.
      After listening to both the Parties the Commission hereby directs the
      Respondents to make accessible all records/documents/files/bonds pertaining to the study leave of Shri Das to him within 15 days of the issue of this order. The Commission further directs the Director of Institute, SVNIRTAR, to compensate the Appellant for having had to come to the Commission for the hearing by paying him the equivalent of AC-2 Tier fare from Cuttack to Delhi and back in addition to Rs.500/- for his local expenses in Delhi, within 21 days from the date of issue of this order.
      The Appellant is also free to approach the Commission in case all the documents he has asked for are not made available to him within the time
      prescribed by this order.
      The Commission ordered accordingly.

      Sd/-
      (O.P. Kejariwal)
      Information Commissioner
      Authenticated true copy:
      Sd/-
      (Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
      Assistant Registrar


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy