Monday, 9 April 2018

7th CPC Payment of arrears arising out of leave salary - NFIR


7th CPC Payment of arrears arising out of leave salary - NFIR

NFIR

No. I/3/Part I
Dated: 04/04/2018
The Secretary (E),
Railway Board,
New Delhi

Dear Sir,
Sub: Payment of arrears arising out of leave salary consequent to the implementation of the report of 7th CPC for the period from 01/01/2016 and onwards - denial of payment on Zonal Railways.

Federation invites kind attention of the Railway Board to the provisions contained in Para 924 read with Sub-Para (iv) of IREM Vol. I wherein it has been stipulated that when Running Staff are on leave (including Casual Leave), they shall be paid leave salary based on the Basic Pay plus 30% thereof and other Allowances including DA/ADA due on the Basic Pay plus 30% thereof. Reports continued to be received from many zones that the arrears arising out of leave salary as a result of implementation of 7th CPC with effect from 01/01/2016 are not being paid to the Running Staff more particularly the West Central Railway.

In this connection, Federation also invites kind attention of the Railway Board letter No. E(P&A)II-2016/FE.2/5 dated 16/10/2017 (RBE No. 148/2017) wherein instructions were issued for reckoning of 30% pay element for calculation of leave salary on 6th CPC pay, to the Running Staff during the period 0l/01/2016 to 31/08/2008 on raising the issue by NFIR through PNM agenda item No. 57/2016 at the level of Railway Board. Unfortunately, similar instructions have not been issued for payment of leave salary taking into account 30oh of pay element to the Running Staff consequent to implementation of the recommendations of 7th CPC w.e.f. 01/01/2016 with the result running staff are not being paid leave salary on Zonal Railways reckoning 30% pay element on 7th CPC Pay in the absence of Board's instructions.

NFIR, therefore, requests the Railway Board to consider the above facts and issue suitable instructions to the Zonal Railways for reckoning 30% pay element for payment of leave salary (7th CPC Pay) to the Running Staff w.e.f. 01/01/2016 and onwards. A copy of the instructions may be endorsed to the Federation.

Download Order
Source: NFIR

Child Care Leave (CCL) Permitted leave headquarters , LTC , Foreign travel


Child Care Leave (CCL) Permitted leave headquarters , LTC , Foreign travel
Child-Care-Leave-CCL-Central-Government-Employees


No. 13018/6/2013-Estt(L)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067
Dated: 3rd April, 2018
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Child Care Leave (CCL) - Clarification Reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP'Ts O.M. No. 21011/08/2013- Estt.(AL), dated 25.03.2013 and to say that references have been received with regard to leaving Head Quarters/Station while on CCL and availing LTC during CCL.

2. In this regard, it is has now been decided that:
(i) An employee on CCL may be permitted to leave headquarters with the prior approval of appropriate competent authority.
(ii) LTC may be availed while an employee is on CCL.
(iii) An employee on CCL may proceed on foreign travel provided clearances from appropriate competent authorities are taken in advance.
3 Hindi version will follow.
(Sandeep Saxena)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

NFIR WRITES TO MINISTER OF RAILWAYS

NFIR WRITES TO MINISTER OF RAILWAYS

NFIR

No.II/95/2018
Dated: 05/04/2018
Shri Piyush Goyal,
Hon'ble Minister of Railways & Coal,
Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi

Respected Sir,
Sub: Meeting with the Federations on 4th April, 2018 at Rail Bahvan, New Delhi-reg.
Ref: Railway Board’s letter No. 2018/E(LR)III/Ref/NFIR & AIRF/03 dated 02/04/2018.

While thanking you for sparing your valuable time and joining the Federations during discussions with Member Staff on 4th April, 2018 at Rail Bhavan, New Delhi, I desire to bring your kind notice that though agreements were reached on the following issues years back, between the full Board and the Federations, the orders are however yet to be issued:-

(i) Stepping up of pay of Loco Inspectors inducted prior to 01/01/2006.
(ii) Replacement of 6th CPC GP 4600 with GP 4800.
(iii) Upgradation of Apex Level Group 'C' posts of 6th CPC GP 4600 to GP 4800 (3335 posts).

You may kindly appreciate that abnormal delay on the part of Railway Ministry has been causing disappointment among Railway employees in general and those working in critical safety categories in particular. I seek your kind intervention to see that Railway Board issues orders for implementation of commitment on the above.

Yesterday i.e. on 04th April, 2018, during discussions I made a special appeal to you to reach the Finance Minister and Hon'ble Prime Minister for exempting Railways from the National Pension System (NPS), considering the uniqueness of Railways and its complex working and un-comparable nature of duties being performed by Railway employees under open sky facing all odds for ensuring uninterrupted movement of trains and maintenance of infrastructure. I am thankful to you for positive response on the subject. I however, once again appeal to you to kindly take special initiative so that Railways is exempted from NPS. I also enclose copy of my letter No. IV/NPS/PFRDA BILL/Part I dated 19/03/2018 for kind perusal and necessary action.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr. M. Raghavaiah)
General Secretary
Download letter
Source: NFIR

Anomaly in computation of Pension - IBA Circular


Anomaly in computation of Pension - IBA Circular
Anomaly in computation of Pension Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2012, Filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Bank of Baroda & Ors with other Civil Appeals.

HR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
No.HR&IR/2018-19/G2/4829
April 6, 2018
Chief Executives of Member Banks which
Are parties to the 7th Bipartite Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,
CORRIGENDUM

Anomaly in computation of Pension Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2012, Filed in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India by Bank of Baroda & Ors with other Civil Appeals.

Please refer to our circular No. HR&IR/2018-19/G2/4786 dated 3rd April 2018 on the captioned subject.

2. There is a typographical error in the date mentioned in para (I) of the above circular. Kindly read as under-

" On 29-10-1993, a Bi-partite Settlement was signed at Industry level between India Banks' Association (representing member Banks) and Workmen Unions (representing Workmen) under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for introduction of Pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu of "Banks contribution to Provident fund". On similar lines a Joint Note dated 29-10-1993 between Indian Banks' Association (representing member Banks) and Officers Association (representing Officers) was signed".

Inconvenience caused is regretted.
Yours faithfully,
B Raj Kumar
Deputy Chief Executive

View Circular
Source: http://www.iba.org.in/

Anomaly in Computation of Pension - SC Judgement


Anomaly in Computation of Pension - SC Judgement
Anomaly in computation of Pension Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2012, Filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Bank of Baroda & Ors with other Civil Appeals

HR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
No.HR&IR/2018-19/G2/4786
April 3, 2018
Chief Executives of Member Banks which
are parties to the 7th Bipartite Settlement

Dear Sir,

Anomaly in computation of Pension Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2012, Filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Bank of Baroda & Ors with other Civil Appeals.

On 9-10-1993, a Bi-partite Settlement was signed at Industry level between Indian Banks' Association (representing member Banks) and Workmen Unions (representing Workmen) under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for introduction of Pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu of "Banks contribution to Provident fund." On similar lines a Joint Note dated 29-10-1993 between Indian Banks' Association (representing member Banks) and Officers Associations (representing Officers) was signed.

2. The respective member Banks in exercise of their power under Section 19 of Banking Companies (Acquisition & transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 pursuant to above referred Bi-partite Settlement/Joint Note, framed and notified in the Gazette of India "Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995."

3. Another Joint Note/Bi-partite Settlement was signed between respective parties as mentioned herein above on 14-12-1999 and 27-3-2000 respectively relating to Wage revision. As per the provisions of said Joint Note / Bi-partite Settlement, 1684 points of Consumer Price Index (CPI) were merged with existing basic pay of Officers/employees and revised basic pay was worked out accordingly. However, as per agreed terms & conditions, pay for the purpose of pension was worked out after merging 1616 points of CPI as against 1684 points. These provisions were made effective w.e.f. 1-4-1998. As such, pay for the purpose of pension was less than the actual Pay the Employee/Officer concerned was getting on or after 1-4-1998. This anomaly was removed vide Joint Note/Bi-partite Settlement signed on 2-6-2005. However, monetary benefits were given w.e.f. 1-5-2005.

4. Due to this anomaly, the employees/Officers who retired after 1-4-1998, including those who retired under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 filed various Writ Petitions before different Hon'ble High Courts, praying that they be held entitled to Payment of Pension on the basis of actual average pay drawn by them during last 10 months as per the provisions of Bank Employees Pensions Regulations, 1995.

5. When the matter came up before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Madras, the Hon'ble Courts decided the matter against Banks and ultimately concerned Banks approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeals viz., CA No 5525/2012, 6254/2012, 5611/2012, 3026-3253/2013, 3257-3262/2013, 11205-11340/2014, 11342-11435/2014, 9533-9646/2014, 8557/2014, 4711-4800/2014 and 1880/2018, 1881-1888/2018, 1890/2018, 1892-1912/2018, 1918/2018, 1919-2087 and 2088-2092/2018.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 13/2/2018 (copy enclosed) have dismissed these appeals filed by the Banks and inter-alia has held that:-

"17…the provisions contained in Regulation 35 also make an incumbent entitled for opting the pension on the basis of average emoluments. The average emoluments have to be calculated on the basis of the preceding ten months. Adding Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s), as done, could have created no fictional basis in view of clear and unambiguous provisions in other provisions of the Regulations. Besides, the definition of the average emoluments in Regulation 2(d) itself makes it clear that it is average pay drawn "during the last ten months" of his service by an employee. It cannot mean pay drawn by the employee even before several years. Mentionably there is no amendment made in the aforesaid provision of Regulation 2(d) and the expression during the preceding last ten months before date of retirement is clearly culled out in Regulation 38(1) and 38(2). Thus, in our considered opinion, the view taken by the then Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen as he then was, at Karnataka High Court and by the High Court of Madras are appropriate and the view taken by the Delhi High Court cannot be said to be sustainable for the various other reasons too mentioned hereinafter.

29. Thus, in our opinion, the Regulations which were in force till 2003, would apply with full force and as a matter of fact, the amendments made in it by addition of Explanation (c) in Regulation 2(s) did not have the effect of amending the Regulations relating to pension, as contained in Regulation 38 read with Regulations 2(d) and 35 of the Regulations of 1995. Even otherwise, if it had the effect of amending the pay and perks ‘average emoluments', as specified in Regulation 2(d), it could not have operated retrospectively and taken away accrued rights. Otherwise also, it would have been arbitrary exercise of power. Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers' Association, as admittedly, to Officers' Association even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable and Joint note had no statutory support, and it was not open to forgo the benefits available under the Regulations to those officers who have retired from 1.4.1998 till December 1999 and thereafter, and to deprive them of the benefits of the Regulations. Thus, by the Joint Note that has been relied upon, no estoppel said to have been created. There is no estoppel as against the enforcement of statutory provisions. The Joint Note had no force of law and could not have been against the spirit of the statutory Regulations and the basic service conditions, as envisaged under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1970. They could not have been tinkered with in an arbitrary manner, as has been laid down by this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 156 & Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Supp.1 SCC 600.

33. The only purpose of the addition of Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s), was to take away the actual computation of the pension on the basis of the salary, which was drawn in the preceding ten months. Thus, we have to hesitation to strike it down being arbitrary and repugnant to other provisions/Regulations namely 2(d), 38(1)(2) and 35. The Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s) is hereby struck down, as it could not have been enacted retrospectively to take away accrued rights. Even otherwise also it is held to be arbitrary and irrational. More so, in view of the fact that only by way of a temporary measure, that discrimination was created and the Explanation was deleted with effect from 1.5.2005."

34. Thus, we set aside the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi and affirm that of High Courts of Karnataka at Bangalore and the High Court of Madras. The appeals filed by the Banks are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Association is allowed. Resultantly, let the amount which was due and payable be paid with 9% interest, be calculated and paid within four months from today.
35. All pending applications stand disposed of."

7. The matter was put up to the Managing Committee of IBA in its meeting held on 28.3.2018. The committee resolved that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be forwarded to all member banks which are party to above mentioned Joint Note / Bipartite Settlement for their necessary action. As such, a copy of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court is enclosed.

8. As directed by Managing Committee we have taken a Legal Opinion to know the impact of the judgement on various Banks which is given below:

(a) All Nationalized Banks who have Pension Regulations, 1995 will have to give effect to the judgement and pay the differential arrears in the amount of Pension which was due and payable with 9% interest within 4 months from the date of judgement i.e. 13.02.2018.

(b) Banks incorporated under special statutes will also have to give effect to the judgement if they have implemented provisions of the above mentioned Joint Note / 7th Bipartite Settlement.

(c) Private Banks which are not amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Courts/Supreme Court, though can take the plea that captioned judgement is not applicable to them, should also give effect and comply with the captioned judgement if they have implemented provisions of the above mentioned Joint Note/7th Bipartite Settlement. The view expressed in this point Is based on the possibility that if the employees of the Private Banks approach the Civil Court on the basis of said Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement, they would procure a favourable verdict.

Yours faithfully,
B Raj Kumar
Deputy Chief Executive
Source: http://www.iba.org.in/
SC JUDGEMNT

Flash News

2% Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees & Pensioners

2% Dearness Allowance 2% Dearness Allowance to Central Government employees & Pensioners Cabinet approves two percent Dearness...