A last-minute realisation may have saved the Central government from blowing away the legal cover available to authorities right from the President and Supreme Court judges to ministers and members of Parliament against any orders of attachment of their pensions from the courts.
The government had almost decided to axe the 145-year-old Pension Act in
its zealousness to heed the Prime Minister’s call to scrap obsolete
laws. But at a meeting held on April 28, minutes of which have been
accessed by ET, several ministries pointed out that no other law
protects government authorities from seizure or attachment of pension by
process of any court at the instance of a creditor who raises a demand
against the pensioner.
This led the government to consider doing away with some of the
“irrelevant or redundant” provisions of the Pensions Act, 1871 instead
of repealing it. The final decision will now be made by Prime Minister
Modi, who heads the pensions department of the personnel ministry. The
government has so far repealed 125 archaic laws.
It has proposed to scrap over 1,000 more such laws. The representative
of the Department of Financial Services (DoFS) said at the meeting that
the Pensions Act is applicable to pensions under a large number of rules
and Acts of Parliament.
“He specifically mentioned that pensions of the President, vicepresident, ministers and MPs are regulated by Acts of Parliament.
Similarly, pensions of Supreme Court/high court judges, central
vigilance commissioners, central information commissioners and members
of UPSC are also granted under Acts regulating their service conditions.
These Acts of Parliament do not contain provisions securing the pension
against attachment,” the minutes recorded.
Only Section 11 of the Pensions Act provides this protection to the
constitutional authorities. When the pensions department proposed that
the rules regulating various types of pension be amended to secure the
pension and hence facilitate repealing of the Pensions Act, all
ministries raised objections.
The home ministry “expressed apprehension” that the protection against
attachment by courts, if provided in rules, “may not be as effective” as
that provided in an Act of Parliament.
The rural development department concurred, saying all social security
pensions administered by it are through executive orders and any
provisions for security against attachment by court “may not be
effective” as the provisions will not have any statutory backing.
The ministries of environment, culture and external affairs, and the
departments of telecom, expenditure and posts said they do not even
administer any separate pension rules.
The financial services department said the government will have to amend
all other Acts and rules regulating various kinds of pension to
incorporate the safety net, if the Pensions Act is to be repealed.
It proposed that instead of amending a large number of Acts and rules,
the Pensions Act may be amended to repeal only those provisions which
have since become irrelevant or redundant.
“Ministries of home, labour, rural development, defence, railways and
DoPT endorsed the views of the Department of Financial Services… the
aforesaid views of the ministries/departments will be placed before
competent authority for taking a decision in the matter,” the minutes
noted.
Source: ET
