Importance of Option 1 of 7th CPC For Revised Pension – Big Loss In Pension If It Is Denied
By N. P. MOHAN, President, RSCWS
Most of the Pre 2016 pensioners will suffer heavy loss in Revised Pension, if the Option 1 recommended by the Seventh CPC is denied to them.
It was after 20 years that 7th CPC recommended parity between past pensioners and those retiring after 1-1-2016 under Option 1 which means consideration of increments earned while in service as detailed in Para 10.1.67 of the Report. This objective of PARITY (Recommended by Commission after examining all factors in depth in Chapter 10) is fulfilled only with the implementation of option 1 without any dilution/deviation. Non implementation of option 1 on the plea of non availability of record in a few cases will have the following adverse effects:
i) Pre 2006 pensioners, in particular, who are victim of modified parity will suffer a much bigger loss compared to the post 2006 retirees because in their case the basic pension which is multiplied by 2.57 in the interim phase takes into accounts their increments before retirement. This aspect has been examined in the case of Pre & Post S 19 pensioner as an example. From the Table 1 given below, it will be clear that the reduction in pension for post 2006 pensioner is of a uniform small magnitude as compared to the loss increasing exponentially with each increment lost in case of pre 2006 pensioner. Similar is the case in other scales also
ii) 7th CPC has considered pre 2016 pensioners as one homogeneous group (Para 10.1.53 refers). It means that all pre 2016 pensioners have to be treated alike. But with denial of option 1, pre 2016 pensioners will get divided into two groups i.e. Pre 2006 and Post 2006 Pensioners – which violates the settled law of equality between the equals.
iii) In many cases, Option 3 gives much lower pension compared to option 1 recommended by 7th CPC. This will be clear from Table 2 below. Where a comparison has been made between two options.
Source:http://rscws.com/pdfdocs/Importance-of-Option-1-of-7th-CPC-for-Revised-Pension.pdf
Dr Dssganguly says
Please mention your contact mobile no. Mr. Np Mohan president.
R K BHATIA says
Denial of pension benefits on the ground of non availability of old records of pre 1996 retirees is a flimsy excuse. The govt is certainly in possession of full records and most of them have been documented digitally. Even otherwise, govt should invite records from the concerned retirees by making a general announcement for processing the cases. And for those whose records are available with the govt, their cases should be finalized without any further delay. I believe, govt is denying the benefits to pre 1996 retirees intentionally with the hope that many would be proceeding to their heavenly abode for good riddance of its ex-employees. My plea is: MERCY PLEASE.
Asim Kumar Das says
Representation made by Sri N. P. Mohan, President, is very much exact for fixing the pension according to the option 1 of the recommendation of the 7th CPC,( 10.1. 67). In my case, I retired on September, 2005 in the scale of pay 10000-15200 from CBDT, M. F GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Joined on February 1997 in the retireing scale of pay and retired on 30.09.2005, earning 8 increments. With 2.57 multiplier my pension is 36,268 but as per option I. my pension will be fixed at Rs. 42,900 (approximately). So, my loss stands Rs. 6500 (approximately) per month. Under the circumstances, my request is to fight upto the last for implementation of the Option I. for fixation of pension, which is most feasible for the 82% and above pensioners.