PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
December, 2022 / Agrahayana, 1944 (Saka)
ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH REPORT
ON
ACTION TAKEN ON ONE HUNDRED TENTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
“PENSIONER’S GRIEVANCES – IMPACT OF PENSION ADALATS AND CENTRALIZED
PENSION GRIEVANCES REDRESS AND MONITORING SYSTEM (CPENGRAMS)”
PERTAINING TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS’ WELFARE
(MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS)
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 8th December, 2022)
(Laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha on 8th December, 2022)
Implement MACP w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 and grant increment on 1st July who retired on 30th June
RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS WHICH THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT DESIRE TO PURSUE IN VIEW OF THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE MINISTRY
GRIEVANCES PERTAINING TO PENSION POLICY, PENSION STRUCTURE AND OTHER RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Recommendation/Observation
2.35 The Committee feels that DoPPW should pursue the matter of implementation of MACP w.e.f 1st January, 2006 with DoPT as it will give relief to pensioners retiring in the intervening period i.e. from January, 2006 to August, 2008 as all other benefits were given to them from January 2006 as per 6th CPC recommendations. The Committee also recommends DOPPW to consider the case of Pensioners’ who retired on 30th June and were denied the increment on the plea that next date of retirement is 1st July. (3.35)
Action Taken
2.36 As advised by DRPSC, the DoPPW pursued the matter with DOPT vide OM dated 19.01.2022 who, in turn, have informed that the issue of effective date of implementation of MACPS has been addressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 28.04.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 1579/2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 15572/2019] of Union of India V/s R. K. Sharma & Others wherein the Apex Court has upheld that date of implementation of the MACP Scheme is from 01.09.2008. In its order, the Hon’ble Court has also overturned the earlier decision in Balbir Singh Turn case and held that benefits under the MACPS cannot be claimed from 1.1.2006. Instructions have been issued to Ministries/Departments vide DoP&T OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt. (D) dated 13.07.2021 to defend all matters and dispose of representations based on Order dated 28.04.2021 of Apex Court.
2.37 It is mentioned that the subject-matter of increment and retirement age/date are administered by DOPT. Therefore, the reference in this regard was made to DOPT who have examined the matter and declined the request with the following grounds:
(i) In terms of the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the Government servants who are on Earned Leave/Commuted Leave/Half Pay Leave/Leave Not Due etc. on the due date of their increment, are not granted the benefit of annual increment till they join duty on expiry of such leave. Accordingly, in the present case since the employees have retired from Government service on 30th June and therefore not on duty as on 1st July, the annual increment cannot be released on 1st July to these employees.
(ii) Further, as per the provisions of FR 9 (21), 9 (6), 17 (1), 22, 26 (a), 56 (a) and Rule 14 of Pension Rules, as person is entitled for pay, increment and other allowances only when he is entitled to receive pay out of Consolidated Fund of India and continues to be in Government Service. Accordingly, a person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and also payable on the next day thereafter as he shall cease to be in Government Service. Granting him the increment earlier than the date on which it falls due and becomes payable, shall imply that he has been granted increment in the same month in which he has retired, i.e. one month earlier. Thus, the official will not complete the necessary qualifying service required for earning an increment, which shall be in contravention of the extant provisions.
(iii) Further, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in its judgement in the case of C. Subbarao in the year 2005 (WP No. 22042 of 2003) had also observed that “as per Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, a person who retires on the last working day would not be entitled for any increment falling due on the next day and payable next day thereafter, because he would not answer the tests in these Rules.”
Further observation
2.38 The Committee takes note of the reply.
***
