Monday 15 May 2017


The below part of the recommendation of the 7th CPC in respect of Pension was objected by me in my earlier blog (
"(i) All the Civilian personnel including CAPF who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix.  This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he / she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent.  Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension."
Now in the implementation dated 12/5/2017, the Government (Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare) has substituted the same as follows:
“4. The aforesaid Committee has submitted its Report and the recommendations made by the Committee have been considered by the Government. Accordingly, it has been decided that the revised pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in respect of all Central civil pensioners/family pensioners, including CAPF's, who retired/died prior to 01.01.2016, may be revised by notionally fixing their pay in the pay matrix recommended by the 7th CPC in the level corresponding to the pay in the pay scale/pay band and grade pay at which they retired/died. This will be done by notional pay fixation under each intervening Pay Commission based on the Formula for revision of pay. While fixing pay on notional basis, the pay fixation formulae approved by the Government and other relevant instructions on the subject in force at the relevant time shall be strictly followed. 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2016 shall be the revised pension and 30% of this notional pay shall be the revised family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016 as per the first Formulation. In the case of family pensioners who were entitled to family pension at enhanced rate, the revised family pension shall be 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2016 and shall be payable till the period up to which family pension at enhanced rate is admissible as per rules. The amount of revised pension/family pension so arrived at shall be rounded off to next higher rupee.”
Hence my objections are solved by adopting same matrix for serving as well as the retired employees.
If the same prudence was shown by the Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare (DOP&PW) in respect of my objection with regard to the implementation of MACPS under the 6th CPC, a protracted litigation ( could have been avoided and many persons would have been benefited.

My home page:

Sunday 5 March 2017


In a fraud certificate case, Supreme Court of India vide its order of MARCH 1, 2017, reversed the reinstatement order of the High Court.

In an employee dismissal case, the trial court approved the action of the employer – State Bank of India. However, the High Court ordered reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages. Aggrieved by the High Court order, the SBI had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The facts of the case was like this. The employee, while working with the SBI, submitted a certificate purportedly issued by the Indian Institute of Bankers claiming that she had passed the CAIIB Part-II Examination, and on that basis, started drawing additional monetary benefits. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the finding in a domestic inquiry that the certificate was a forged one, dismissed her from service on 01.08.2003. The punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.06.2006. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the employee.

[My other blogs, books etc:-
Home page:]

The only ground on which the High Court interfered with the award was that the Management had not established, by leading evidence, that the employee was aware of the fact that the certificate produced before the Management was forged. The counsel for the employee had made a persuasive attempt for modification of punishment on the ground of dis-proportionality. However, in view of the conduct of the employee referred to above, Supreme Court did not take a different view from that taken by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Therefore, the High Court order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. However, the Court directed not to make any recovery of the wages and benefits already paid to the respondent employee.

( Reference: Supreme Court CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3423 OF 2017 order dated MARCH 1, 2017)