DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EX-SERVICEMEN
RE-EMPLOYED IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT POSTS AFTER RETIREMENT
According
to the existing rules, all government servants retire on reaching the age of
superannuation, which is 60 years. This is laid down by Para 56 of the Financial
Regulations. The rules clearly state that that no extensions will be granted,
except for certain exceptions that include the Cabinet Secretary, Defence
Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Director of RAW, IB and CBI,
who are granted extensions to enable them to get a tenure of two years. Similar
rules exist for re-employment of officers after retirement. However, these
orders apparently do not apply to the IAS fraternity, who get around these
rules and manage extensions or re-employment after reaching the age of 60. In
addition, they are sometimes employed on contract basis.
IAS Officers
In response to an RTI application filed on
1/2/2011, asking for the rules governing extension and re-employment of
government servants in after retirement and the list of officers of the rank of
joint secretary and above granted extension or re-employed with the Central
Government in 2002, 2003 and 2004, the DOPT initially did not give the
information. The CPIO, Shri B Bandhyopadhyay informed that extension beyond the age of 60 was not permitted vide FR 56 (d), an
extract of which was forwarded. After a first appeal, the Director, Shri P
Prabhakaran provided some more information. He intimated that re-employment of
government servants after superannuation was prohibited by instruction given in
DOPT Office memorandum No. 26012/5/2002-Estt.A dated 9/12/2002, a copy of which
was forwarded.
I then filed a 2nd appeal
before the CIC, Shri Satyendra Misra, who ordered that the relevant rules and list
of re-employed officers should be given. In compliance of this decision, the
DOPT sent a copy of DOP&T OM No. 3/1/85-Estt (P-11) dated 31/7/1986 and the
list of re-employed IAS officers at the level of joint secretary and above for
the period 2002, 2003 and 2004.
The
list for the period 2002 to 2004 contains names of 44 officers, some of whom
were re-employed for as much as five years. However, the scale of pay was
deliberately not provided, for which I have filed another appeal as well as a
separate RTI application addressed to the US (Estt.B)
(Pay) & CPIO, DOPT who deals with the subject.
Subsequently,
I filed similar RTI applications with different authorities on 15/9/2012,
asking for information regarding officers from the IAS, IPS, IFS and IRS
granted extensions, re-employed or employed on contract during the period 2005
to 2011. After dragging its feet and the application being passed around from
one section to the other for several months, one of the four CPIOs who dealt
with the case finally complied, after an appeal. Shri Navneet Misra, Under
Secretary and CPIO in the DOPT, has provided a list of 16 officers who were granted
extensions ranging from 3 to 6 months. Significantly, the letter does not bear
a date, though the envelope indicates that it was posted on 2/1/2013. The list
is as under:-
Name, cadre Appointment Period of Extn Ground for Extn
RM Prem Kumar Chief
Secy, 1/10/2005-
To rehabilitate
people
IAS (MH:68) Maharashtra 28/2/2006 who
are affected by floods
Vijay Bakaya Chief
Secy, 1/4/2006- Smooth running of budget
IAS (JK:70) Jammu
& Kashmir 31/5/2006 session & bi-elections.
TK Dewan Chief
Secy, 1/5/2006- In view of certain adm-
IAS (AP:69) Andhra
Pradesh 31/7/2006 inistrative exigencies.
Shambu Nath Chief Secy, 1/4/2007- General
elections (approval
IAS (UP:70) Uttar
Pradesh 30/6/2007 by Election Commission)
AK Chaudhary Chief
Secy, 1/9/2007- No
reason given
IAS (BH:72) Bihar 30/11/2007
Shri Rakesh Chief
Secy, 1/1/2009- Tocoordinate implementation
IAS (MT:72) Manipur
30/6/2009 of 6th Pay
Commission
Johny Joseph Chief Secy, 1/6/2009- No
reason given
IAS (MH:72) Maharashtra 30/11/2009
D Rajagopalan Chief Secy, 1/8/2009- To
implement Golden
IAS (GJ:74) Gujarat 31/12/2009 Jubilee
Programme
Ramakanth Reddy Chief
Secy, 1/10/2009- Exigencies in administrative
IAS (AP:69) Andhra
Pradesh 31/12/2009 work
KS Sripathy Chief
Secy, 1/5/2010- To implement development
IAS (TN:75) Tamil
Nadu 31/10/2010 & welfare schemes
NS Napalchyal Chief
Secy, 1/4/2010- Short tenure; selection of
IAS (UK:76) Uttarakhand 30/9/2010 successor not finalised
TT Dorji Chief
Secy, 1/12//2010- Finalise State Annual Plan;
IAS (SK:75) Sikkim 31/3/2011 lead delegation to Delhi
Subodh Kumar Chief
Secy, 1/2/2012- Presentation of budget by new IAS (MH:77) Maharashtra 30/4/2012 members of Mumbai municipality
Van Hela Pachau Chief
Secy, 1/3/2012- To lead the State for Committee
IAS (AGMU:76) Mizoram 31/8/2012
Samar Ghosh Chief Secy, 1/4/2012- No
reason given
IAS (WB:77) West
Bengal 30/9/2012
Karma Gyatso Chief Secy, 1/9/2012- Exigency
and earthquake
IAS (SK:77) Sikkim 28/2/2013 in Sikkim
Some
interesting facts emerge from the letters of sanction of the above extensions.
Almost all were Chief Secretaries in various States. Most of the extensions
were approved by the Prime Minister, based on letters from the respective Chief
Ministers. While an extension given during elections, with the approval of the
Election Commission, may be warranted, the others appear to be on frivolous
grounds viz. to rehabilitate people who are affected by floods; administrative
exigencies; Golden Jubilee Programme; to implement development & welfare
schemes; selection successor not finalised; lead delegation to Delhi; presentation
of budget by newly elected members of Mumbai municipality and so on. There are
others for which no reason is given, the approvals having been granted by the
Cabinet Secretariat or the PMO without reference to DOPT.
Incidentally, way back in 2008, I
had filed an RTI application with the DOPT asking for year wise lists of
officers of the rank of Jt. Secy, Addl. Secy, Spl. Secy and Secy from 2001 to
2008. Initially, they informed me that the list of officers on each date is not
maintained in the Department and advised that I should obtain it from the
official website of the Department i.e. http://persmin.nic.in.
However, after an appeal, the DOPT provided the list, which does not tally with
the list on the web site. The case was subsequently decided by the CIC but the
DOPT appealed in the High Court on whether the names of officers posted in RAW
should be provided, some of which were on the website as well as their reply.
Though
the list provided by DOPT did not tally with list on the web site, it brought
out some interesting features. There
were a large number of officers who should have retired still occupying
important posts in the Central Government. For example, the list of Secretaries
to the Government of India during as on 1/1/2008 showed the following names of retired officers occupying
government posts:-
Name
Appointment Date of Retirement
Malti S Sinha Secy,
M/O Health & Family Welfare 31/10/2003
Sanjiov Misra Secy, M/O Finance 31/12/2007
A Dasgupta Secy,
M/O Agri & Rural Industries 31/12/2006
GS Sahni Secy,
(PG & Coord), Cabinet Sectt 30/11/2006
BS Minhas Secy,
M/O Agri & Rural Industries 31/10/2004
AN Varma NA,
PMO 31/10/1993
Arun Bhatnagar Secy,
PMO NI Advisory Council ` 30/06/2004
Anil Chowdhury Not
indicated 31/8/2004
Somi Tandon Secy,
M/O Defence (Defence Finance) 31/0/2005
Shyam Saran Secy, M/O External Affairs 30/09/2006
Shashank Secy,
M/O External Affairs 31/07/2004
RM Abhyankar Secy,
M/O External Affairs 31/08/2005
JC Sharma Secy,
M/O External Affairs 31.07/2004
BN Som Secy,
M/O Communications & IT 31/01/2002
PS Go el Secy,
M/O Earth Sciences 30/04/2007
R Mashelkar Secy,
M/O Science & Technology 31/12/2002
HK Gupta Secy,
M/O Ocean Development 30/06/2002
CD Sahay Secy,
Cabinet Sectt (R&AW) 30/04/2005
As
will be obvious from the above list, several officers were still occupying
important government positions many years after their retirement. Some, like AN
Varma, who should have retired in 1993, was still serving in 2008, at the age
of 75! The lists for the previous years from
2001 to 2007 contain similar anomalies. If one goes through names of Jt. Secys,
and Addl Secys, the number of retired officers is even larger.
IFS
Officers
On 15/9/2012, I
had submitted an application to the PIO, Ministry of External Affairs asking for information regarding
IFS of the level of Joint Secretary and above re-employed, granted extension
and employed on contract in Central Government posts after retirement for the
period 2005 to 2011. AS expected, the MEA refused to provide the information on
the ground that it is not available in the
form in which it has been sought and it would disproportionately divert the
resources of the public authority to compile the same. I was asked to visit
their office to inspect the available record of the year 2011, which I refused.
I appealed to the First Appellate Authority, mentioning that the DOPT has
provided similar information along with letters sanctioning the extension
granted to each IAS officer. Surely, the number of IFS officers is much smaller
that the number of IAS officers. This plea was accepted and the MEA finally
provided the information as given below:-
S. No Name Designation Pay
Band & Grade Pay Tenure
1. HK Bhasin Ambassador Pre-revised Basic pay
Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1968) (Denmark) (Rs.
26000/- fixed) retirement from 01/09/04 to 16/06/05
2. Tara Singh Ambassador Pre-revised Basic pay
Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1972) (Belarus) (22400-525-24500)
retirement from 01/07/04 to 30/06/05
3. Ronendra Sen Ambassador 26000 Fixed) as
per Re-emp as non-career from 06/08/04 (IFS:1966) (USA)
pre-revised Basic pay further
extended to 31/03/09
80000
(Fixed) revised
4. Kamalesh Sharma High Comm 26000 (Fixed) as per Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1965) (UK)
pre-revised Basic pay retirement from 01/07/04 to 30/06/05
80000 (Fixed) revised
5. Kanwal Sibal Ambassador 26000
(Fixed) as per Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1966) (Russia) pre-revised Basic pay retirement from 17/09/04 to 16/09/07
80000 (Fixed) revised
6. PS Haer High
Comm
80000 (Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1970) (Mauritius) retirement from 10/09/06 to 31/12/06
7. Nirupam Sen Ambassador/ 80000 (Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1969) PMI (New York) retirement from 01/03/07 to 31/03/09
8. Partha Sarathi Ray Ambassador
80000 (Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1971) (Denmark) retirement from 01/02/08 to 29/02/08
9. Rinzing Wandi Ambassador 80000
(Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1971) (Mexico) retirement from 01/01/08 to 31/12/08
10 Amitava Tripathi Ambassador
80000 (Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1971) (Switzerland) retirement from 01/01/08 to 29/02/08
11 Asit Kumar Nag Ambassador 37400-67000
Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1984) (Seychelles) Grade
Pay 10000 retirement from 01/02/11 to 31/07/11
12 Azad Singh Toor Ambassador 37400-67000
Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1987) (Madagascar)
Grade Pay 10000 retirement from 01/11/11 to 30/04/12
13 Meera Shankar Ambassador
80000 (Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1973) (USA) retirement from 01/11/10 to 31/12/10
14 HK Singh Ambassador 80000
(Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1974) (Japan) retirement from 01/11/10 to
31/12/10
15 Nirupama Rao Ambassador
80000 (Fixed) Re-emp as non-career after (IFS:1973) (USA) retirement from 06/09/11 to 05/09/13
In
addition to the above list of re-employed officers, the MEA has intimated that
two officers were employed on contact basis as under:-
Name
of Officer Retired as Duration
of Contract Consultancy fees per month
PP Sircar Jt
Secy 8/9/2011 to 31/1/2013 Rs. 51,000
Ms Reena Pandey Jt
Secy 1/1/2011 to 31/12/2012 Rs. 50,000
In
response to my RTI dated 15/9/2012, Shri B Bandhopadhyay, Under Secretary &
CPIO in the DOPT, intimated that as per DOPT Office memorandum No.
26012/5/2002-Estt.A dated 9/12/2002 re-employment beyond the age of
superannuation is not allowed. Para 9 of the OM is reproduced below:-
9. Re-employment. No proposal for
employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years
shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be
appointed/re-appointed to Central Government service after the age of
superannuation of 60 years through contract.
In view of these
orders passed by the DOPT itself, how are IAS and IFS officers being reemployed
beyond the age of 60, after superannuation?
IRS
Officers
Similar information was asked for from the Dept of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance. No officer of Customs and Central Excise was
granted extension, re-employed or employed on contract basis during the period
2005-2011. However, three officers of the Income Tax Dept were granted
extensions, as under:-
Name Designation Date of retirement Duration
of Extension
Ms Shobha Majumdar Charman, CBDT 28/2/2005 one month
R Prasad Chairman, CBDT 29/2/2006 one month
Sudhir Chandra Member, CBDT 31/3/2011 two months
IPS
Officers
Information in respect of IPS
officers has still not been provided by
DOPT.
Officers
from the Defence Services
Service officers of the rank of
Colonel and Lt Col are usually re-employed within the service, for a period of
max 4 years, in appointments tenable by majors or captains. Officers of senior
rank i.e. Brig and above are given re-employment outside the service, in
central police forces, intelligence agencies etc. In case they retire within
the service and then go out, they are re-employed in a post that is one rank
lower. However, if they were already on deputation and retire from the Defence
Forces, at an age less than 60, they are re-employed in the same civil appointment
until they reach age of 60. For example, a Brig serving in a civil post on
deputation will retire at the age of 56. Thereafter, he can be re-employed
until he reaches the age of 60.
In
all cases, the entire pension of the service officer is deducted while fixing
his salary in the re-employed post. The decision to ignore the salary either
fully or in part rests with the Govt, which means the bureaucrats in the DOPT.
The
rules regarding fixation of pay on re-employment are given in Central Civil
Services (Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, issued vide
DOPT Office Memorandum No. 3/1/85-Estt (Pay II) dated 31/7/1986 Relevant extracts of Para 4 of the Rules is
reproduced below:
4. FIXATION OF PAY OF REEMPLOYED PENSIONERS
(a) Reemployed
pensioners shall be allowed to drawn (sic) pay only in prescribed
scales of pay for the posts in which
they are reemployed. No protection of the scales
of pay f the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given.
(b)
(i) In all cases where the pension is
fully ignored, the initial pay on reemployment
shall be fixed at minimum of the scale of
pay of the reemployed post.
(ii) In cases where the entire pension and
pensionary benefits are not ignored for
pay fixation, the initial pay on reemployment shall be fixed at the same stage as the last pay drawn
before retirement. If there is no such
stage in the
reemployed post, the pay shall be fixed
at the stage below that pay. If the
maximum of the pay scale in which the pensioner is reemployed is less than the last pay
drawn before retirement, his initial pay shall be fixed at the maximum
of the scale of the reemployed post. Similarly, if the minimum
of the scale of pay, in which the pensioner is reemployed is more than the last pay
drawn by him before retirement his
initial pay shall be fixed at
the minimum of the scale of pay of the reemployed post. However,
in all these cases, non-ignorable part of the pension and pension
equivalent of retirement benefits shall be reduced from the pay so fixed.
(c) The reemployed pensioner shall in
addition to pay as fixed under para (b) above shall
be permitted to draw separately any pension sanctioned to him and to retain
any other form of retirement benefits.
(d) In the case of persons retiring before
attaining the age of 55 years and who
are reemployed, pension including
pension equivalent of gratuity and
other forms of retirement benefits) shall be ignored for initial pay fixation to the
following extent:
(i)
In
the case of ex-servicemen who held posts below commissioned officer rank in the
Defence Forces and in case of Civilians who held post below Group ‘A’ posts at
the time of their retirement, the entire pension and pension equivalent of
retirement benefits shall be ignored.
(ii)
In
the case of service officers belonging to the Defence Forces and Civilian
Pensioners who held Group ‘A’ posts at the time of their retirement, the first
Rs. 500/- of the pension and pension equivalent of the retirement benefits
shall be ignored.
The loss of pension on reemployment
of service officers is due to the fact that they are ALWAYS reemployed under
the provisions of Para 4 (b) (ii), where the entire pension is not
ignored. On the other hand, bureaucrats are reemployed under Para 4 (b)
(i), where the pension is fully ignored.
Consider the example of a Maj Gen
who retired in 2002, when his salary was 22400. His pension works out to Rs
11200. In case his pension was fully ignored, under Para 4 (b) (i), his
emoluments would be as under:-
Salary (minimum of scale) - 18400
Pension - 11200
Total 29,600
Actually, since his pension is not
ignored, his emoluments under Para 4 (b) (ii), his emoluments would be as
under:-
Salary (maximum of scale) less
pension - 11200
Pension - 11200
Total 22,400
As can be seen, the difference
works out to Rs. 7200. In fact, the loss is sometimes more. In my own case, I
was drawing a salary of Rs 22900 (Basic 22400 plus stagnation pay 500) when I
retired in June 2002. My pension was fixed at Rs 11325. My salary on
reemployment was fixed at 22400 less pension which worked out to Rs 11075.
Though Para 4 (d) (ii) states that
in case of service officers and officers holding Group A posts the first Rs 500
of the pension will be ignored, I have never seen this happening.
Dearness
relief on Disability Pension during Reemployment
During the period of reemployment, dearness relief is
not paid on the pension. However, DR is given on the full salary scale in which
the officer is re-employed. In case an officer gets disability pension, this is
also clubbed with service pensions and no DR is paid. This is blatantly unfair,
since the disability pension is not taken into account while fixing the salary.
This point has been taken up me with the PCDA as well as the Government but
there was no result. Unfortunately, it is mostly Armed Forces officers who get
disability pension, so bureaucrats are not really affected.
Discriminations
between Officers and Lower Ranks
Para 4 (d) (i) of DOPT Office Memorandum No.
3/1/85-Estt (Pay II) dated 31/7/1986 given above reads:-
In the case of ex-servicemen who held posts
below commissioned officer rank in the Defence
Forces and in case of Civilians who held post below Group ‘A’ posts at the time
of their retirement, the entire
pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored.
This
means that only commissioned officers lose out when they are reemployed in
civil posts after retirement. JCOs and OR get the salary of the new post as
well as their pension. Consider the case
when a Captain or Major is re-employed along with a Subedar Major in the same
organisation. After deducting his pension, the emoluments of the re-employed
officer will be less than those of the JCO. There appears to be no logic in
this anomaly, which also appears to discriminatory and can be challenged in the
court.
The
above provisions are also given in the recent Instructions
issued by Principal Controller of Defence Accounts to prevent Delay in payment
of Defence pension by Banks, vide
Circular No. 165, Audit/Tech./070-XXI,
dated: 22 .02.2013. which is reproduced below:-
(a) In case of re-employed pensioners who hold
Group ‘A’ post or posts of the ranks of commissioned officers at the time of
their re-employment will not be entitled to any dearness relief on pension on
the fact that:-
(i) a certain portion of pension is taken into
account and is not entirely ignored.
(ii) the pay in the post of re-employment is
not required to be fixed at the minimum of the scale in all cases, and
(iii) dearness allowance at the rates
applicable from time to time is also admissible on the pay fixed on
re-employment.
(b) (i) The entire pension admissible is to be
ignored in the case of civilian pensioner who held posts below Group ‘A’ and
those ex-servicemen who held posts below the ranks of commissioned officers, at
the time of their retirement. Their pay on re-employment is to be fixed at the
minimum of the pay scale of the post in which they are re-employed. Such
civilian pensioners will consequently be entitled to dearness relief on their
pension at the rates applicable from time to time.
(b) (ii) The ex-servicemen (PBOR) who retired
before attaining the age of 55 years and re-employed thereafter and their pay
fixed at a higher stage because of advance increments and no protection of the
last pay drawn is being given, the pay should be treated as fixed at a minimum
only for the purpose of ignoring the entire pension and allowing dearness
relief on pension.
(c) The disability element is part of
disability pension, therefore position explained at a & b above will also
apply for regulating dearness relief on disability element during re-employment
of pensioner drawing disability pension.
(d) The family pension received by the
eligible central Govt. employees/Armed Forces pensioners is, in any case, not
taken into account in determining their pay on employment therefore, dearness
relief at the rates applicable from time to time shall be admissible on their
family pension.
The
discrimination meted out to Armed Forces officers in the matter of
re-employment beyond the age of 60, fixation of salary on re-employment and
non-payment of dearness relief ob disability pension should be taken up through
a PIL in the Supreme Court or High Court.
The
ESM has agreed to take it up. I have them given them a detailed brief along with
copies of the replies received from DOPT etc. I hope this is done soon. Others
who are similarly affected may give their inputs if they wish.
Maj Gen VK Singh
Veteran
3/4/2013
