SCHEME FOR GRANT OF EX-GRATIA TO EX-EMPLOYEES OF IOC
By Badrinath Vasandi
SCHEME FOR GRANT OF EX-GRATIA TO EX-EMPLOYEES
Ex-Gratia Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 01.12.2003 on one time basis for
the benefit of ex-employees of IOC who superannuated from the services
of the Corporation before introduction of SBF Scheme in IOC.
The salient features of the scheme are as under:
1. Eligibility:
Ex-employees who superannuated from the services of the Corporation
before introduction of SBF Scheme after rendering a minimum of 5 years'
continuous service without any break on or before their superannuation
will be eligible for the ex-gratia benefit. The service means regular service
in IOC and would not include service on contractual/daily or
temporary/adhoc basis.
[Top]
2. Amount of Ex-Gratia:
Salary Grade
Ref./PL/R&D Mktg./IBP
Existing Ex-gratia
(w.e.f.01.12.03)
amount (p.m.) (Rs.)
Revised Ex-gratia
(w.e.f.01.08.08)
amount (p.m.) (Rs.)
I-III I-II 1000 1400
IV-V III-IV 1100 1550
VI-VIII V-VI 1200 1700
O2 1700 2400
A 2000 2800
B 2200 3100
C 2400 3400
D 3000 4200
E 3200 4500
F 3400 4800
G 3800 5300
H 4000 5600
I 4200 5900
Director 4200 6500
In case of death of the ex-employee, his/her spouse will be paid the
applicable ex-gratia amount till his/her survival.
[Top]
3. It has also been decided to pay the differential amount to those exemployees,
who have superannuated after introduction of SBF Scheme
but are drawing lesser pension than the above-proposed ex-gratia
amount. The pension amount under SBF will be the amount, which the exemployee
would have received, had he/she not commuted 1/3rd of the
pension as provided in the scheme.
[Top]
4. Eligibility Conditions for grant of Ex-gratia:
• Ex-employees of IOC, who superannuated/voluntarily retired from the
services of the Corporation prior to introduction of SBF Scheme in
IOCL or died after rendering a minimum of 5 years service before such
separation.
• Such ex-employee/spouse will not be eligible for benefit under this
scheme whose spouse or any dependent son/daughter has been
provided employment in IOC on compassionate grounds.
• The eligible ex-employee will continue to get "Ex-gratia" so long he/she
is alive after introduction of the Scheme. Thereafter, his/her surviving
spouse shall be eligible for ex-gratia under this scheme. Similarly, exemployee
and his/her spouse will continue to get the differential
amount of ex-gratia, who are drawing lesser pension under SBF
Scheme, till his/her survival.
• In case of break-in service, net service rendered in IOC will be taken
into account for the purpose of eligibility, provided the break-in-service
was not more than the net service rendered in IOC.
• For the purpose of eligibility with regard to service in IOC, only regular
service in IOC will be considered and the period of engagement on
contractual/daily/ad-hoc basis, etc. shall not be taken into
consideration.
• For the purpose of eligibility, the ex-employee must not have been
dismissed/removed/terminated or abandoned the services of the
Corporation or resigned/deemed to have resigned from the services of
IOC.
• All those ex-employees who separated from the services of IOC on
account of pre-mature retirement shall not be eligible for ex-gratia
under the scheme.
• For the purpose of reckoning service in IOC, qualifying service in
respect of deputationists, will be taken from the date of absorption in
IOC.
• Full time Directors of IOC shall also be eligible subject to fulfillment of
above conditions.
• The ex-employees/surviving spouses, who are, eligible for "Ex-gratia
Scheme", shall have to execute an undertaking in the prescribed
Proforma to the effect that this benefit is being given not because of
any right or entitlement, but entirely as an ex-gratia. Further, he/she
will not enter into any litigation in this regard and/or other related
matters before any Court of Law/Forum/Authority. If any case
pertaining to ex-gratia and/or in relation to SBF is pending before any
Court of Law/Forum/Authority, he/she shall withdraw the same
forthwith. The eligibility of the applicant shall be considered and
application processed only after withdrawal of such case/petition
before any Court/Forum/Authority where the applicant is a petitioner
either singly or jointly.
[Top]
5. General Conditions
• "Ex-gratia" will be taken into account as income for the purpose of
determining "dependency".
• The spouse of deceased eligible ex-employee, who is getting the
benefit of Family Pension under FPF scheme, 1971, shall be eligible to
receive ex-gratia benefit without any adjustment on this account.
• For calculating the length of service, fraction of a year equal to six
months and above shall be treated as full year and period less than 6
months shall be ignored.
• For receiving ex-gratia / differential payment, the eligible ex-employee/
spouse of deceased employee shall submit an application form
complete in all respects in the prescribed proforma enclosed with this
scheme (Annexure-I to be filled by ex-employee and Annexure-II to be
filled by the spouse of the deceased ex-employee) along with all
relevant documents as indicated in the application form, to the Head of
HR Department of the concerned HO/Unit/Region of IOC from where
the ex-employee has superannuated. Applications for grant of ex-gratia
payment should be submitted before 31st March 2004. Any application
received thereafter will be considered on exceptional grounds.
• It will be the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the HR Head of the
HO/Unit/Region that he/she is eligible to receive the ex-gratia payment
under the scheme and establish his/her identity by producing relevant
documents, which may be available in his/her possession.
• In case, the ex-employee/spouse of deceased ex-employee does not
have relevant document(s) as proof of having rendered requisite
service in IOC or documents mentioned in the application form, the
claimant shall produce an affidavit sworn before a First Class
Magistrate in the prescribed proforma stating all relevant details and
also that he/she/ex-employee had completed 5 years continuous
service and had not been removed or dismissed or terminated or had
not resigned from the services of IOC, etc. (Proforma given as
Annexure - III & IV respectively).
• The beneficiary has to indicate his/her bank account number alongwith
the name of the Nationalised Bank near his/her place of residence
where he/she wants to get ex-gratia payment remitted.
• For payment of ex-gratia to the spouse in case of death of exemployee,
the spouse shall be required to submit his/her application in
Annexure-II, to the concerned HR establishment for grant of ex-gratia,
along with all relevant documents including death certificate of the exemployee.
• The Life Certificate prescribed for drawal of ex-gratia shall be required
to be produced by the recipient of the ex-gratia to the concerned
disbursing authority every year in the month of November. (proforma
given as Annexure-V).
[Top]
• Life certificate on self certification basis
Retired employees may submit the ‘Life Certificate’ on self-certification
basis every year in the month of November in the prescribed proforma
[Annexure-V(A)]. In case of death of the retired employee, the spouse
shall be required to submit the ‘Life Certificate’ as per the original
provision for the first time as per Annexure-V and subsequently, the
spouse may also submit the certificate as per Annexure-V(A) on selfcertification
basis every year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some important provisions as per their forms and undertakings :
I joined IOC on __________ and had rendered minimum of 5 years of continuous
service till my normal date of superannuation. I am not eligible for benefit under
IOC Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme or I am drawing the benefit under
SBF Scheme, which is less than the ex-gratia amount announced now.
Therefore, I hereby apply for grant of ex-gratia/differential amount.
..................................................................................................................................................
The ex-gratia payment being given to me is not because of any right or
entitlement, but entirely as an ex-gratia. I further, confirm that I shall not enter
into any litigation in this regard and/or other related matters before any Court of
Law/Forum/Authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. I am not covered under the Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme of IOC.
5. I was not dismissed/removed/terminated or had not resigned from /
abandoned the services of IOC.
Monday, January 30, 2012
PRBS - ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION - BY NARAYAN SINGH RATHORE
PRBS - ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION - BY NARAYAN SINGH RATHORE
1. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 17.4.1990: (Basis for Original PRBS-1990): -
1.1. “Pension payable to employees------at 58 or 60----@ 1/75th of final salary per every completed year of reckonable service with maximum of 44% of salary last drawn (44% of salary for 33 years of reckonable service).”
1.2. “In case of death or permanent disablement while in service pension payable shall be based on 33 years of reckonable service . (44% Pension).------.”
1.3. “Rate of contribution from employees:
01
Age upto 35 yrs
1% of salary
Note: These rates of contribution as decided at the time of admission to the fund will not change with change of age.
02
Age 36 to 40 yrs
2% of salary
03
Age 41 to 45 yrs
3% of salary
04
Age 46 to 50 yrs
4% of salary
05
Age above 51 yrs
5% of salary
1.4. “If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetized value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefit will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.”
NOTE: - It is an apology of Actuarial recommendations that ONGC violated all these recommendations, which were duly incorporated in original Scheme of 29.4.1990. Officers had accepted the Scheme with due consideration to such terms & conditions.
2. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996: (Basis for WP 1718/1996): -
2.1. “12. Conclusion: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
2.2. “13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the ling term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. -----.”
NOTES: - (a) “Review” Clause in the Scheme & Rules was based on Actuarial Recommendation at Para 1.4. above. ONGC / PRBS Trust failed to comply. Rate of escalation in Addl. Contr. was retained at 7.25% till 31.3.1997, ignoring 2.1. above.
(b) ONGC Finance was required to transfer the monetized value of surrendered benefits right from May 1990 but Cir. No. PRBS – 14 of Oct. 1992 reflected gloomiest picture as ONGC did not remit additional contribution to the Fund. Since Additional Contribution was main source of funding the Scheme, its withholding by ONGC was bound to expose the Scheme to starvation & ultimate Liquidation. That gave rise to Writ Petition No. 1718/1996 in Bombay High Court, wherein Viability of Scheme was challenged. Of-course, this Writ was manipulated by Managing Trustee.
(c) Actuarial recommendation dated 2.8.1996 (KA Pandit) had made it explicitly obvious that ONGC should pay Additional Contribution at 78% on 1.1.1992 with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1992. If this Actuarial Recommendation was implemented with honest intentions, the Scheme did not require any external “direct contribution” from ONGC.
1. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 17.4.1990: (Basis for Original PRBS-1990): -
1.1. “Pension payable to employees------at 58 or 60----@ 1/75th of final salary per every completed year of reckonable service with maximum of 44% of salary last drawn (44% of salary for 33 years of reckonable service).”
1.2. “In case of death or permanent disablement while in service pension payable shall be based on 33 years of reckonable service . (44% Pension).------.”
1.3. “Rate of contribution from employees:
01
Age upto 35 yrs
1% of salary
Note: These rates of contribution as decided at the time of admission to the fund will not change with change of age.
02
Age 36 to 40 yrs
2% of salary
03
Age 41 to 45 yrs
3% of salary
04
Age 46 to 50 yrs
4% of salary
05
Age above 51 yrs
5% of salary
1.4. “If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetized value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefit will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.”
NOTE: - It is an apology of Actuarial recommendations that ONGC violated all these recommendations, which were duly incorporated in original Scheme of 29.4.1990. Officers had accepted the Scheme with due consideration to such terms & conditions.
2. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996: (Basis for WP 1718/1996): -
2.1. “12. Conclusion: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
2.2. “13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the ling term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. -----.”
NOTES: - (a) “Review” Clause in the Scheme & Rules was based on Actuarial Recommendation at Para 1.4. above. ONGC / PRBS Trust failed to comply. Rate of escalation in Addl. Contr. was retained at 7.25% till 31.3.1997, ignoring 2.1. above.
(b) ONGC Finance was required to transfer the monetized value of surrendered benefits right from May 1990 but Cir. No. PRBS – 14 of Oct. 1992 reflected gloomiest picture as ONGC did not remit additional contribution to the Fund. Since Additional Contribution was main source of funding the Scheme, its withholding by ONGC was bound to expose the Scheme to starvation & ultimate Liquidation. That gave rise to Writ Petition No. 1718/1996 in Bombay High Court, wherein Viability of Scheme was challenged. Of-course, this Writ was manipulated by Managing Trustee.
(c) Actuarial recommendation dated 2.8.1996 (KA Pandit) had made it explicitly obvious that ONGC should pay Additional Contribution at 78% on 1.1.1992 with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1992. If this Actuarial Recommendation was implemented with honest intentions, the Scheme did not require any external “direct contribution” from ONGC.
ONGC PRBS - EXTENSION OF RELIEF TO ELDERS - BY BADRINATH VASANDI
ONGC PRBS - Extenson of relief to elders
By Badrinath Vasandi
It is obligatory on the part of an Organization to look after the welfare of its regular as well as retired employees. Due to the globalization and liberalization policy of Govt. the interest rates on the Savings Scheme started sliding down fast from 1997 onwards from almost 14% to around 4.1% . This was totally unforeseen and unimaginable and came as a brute shock bringing down the interest income being the only source to almost less than 40% and also eroding the principal deposit amount driving them to penury coupled with steep rise in cost of living consisting of grocery, cooking gas, electricity,, petrol, diesel, transportation, house rentals etc. etc.
In view of the above, situation has become more grave for the ex-employees of ONGC, Maharatna. as just with the sliding of interest rates and sleep rise in the cost of living and high inflation year after year, ONGC effected substantial reduction to the extent of 50% to 60% PRBS w.e.f 1996 by converting the originally "Pension Based Scheme" to "Corpus Based Scheme. On the contrary, in the changed scenario other departments have brought very positive and healthy changes in their such welfare schemes....even in case of FPF/FPS. Perhaps, this horrified situation could not be visualized while effecting the change in rules under administrative and viability constraints whatsoever.It is the high time that ONGC must bring changes in the scheme expressly to extend some relief to the elders at the fall of their life.
By Badrinath Vasandi
It is obligatory on the part of an Organization to look after the welfare of its regular as well as retired employees. Due to the globalization and liberalization policy of Govt. the interest rates on the Savings Scheme started sliding down fast from 1997 onwards from almost 14% to around 4.1% . This was totally unforeseen and unimaginable and came as a brute shock bringing down the interest income being the only source to almost less than 40% and also eroding the principal deposit amount driving them to penury coupled with steep rise in cost of living consisting of grocery, cooking gas, electricity,, petrol, diesel, transportation, house rentals etc. etc.
In view of the above, situation has become more grave for the ex-employees of ONGC, Maharatna. as just with the sliding of interest rates and sleep rise in the cost of living and high inflation year after year, ONGC effected substantial reduction to the extent of 50% to 60% PRBS w.e.f 1996 by converting the originally "Pension Based Scheme" to "Corpus Based Scheme. On the contrary, in the changed scenario other departments have brought very positive and healthy changes in their such welfare schemes....even in case of FPF/FPS. Perhaps, this horrified situation could not be visualized while effecting the change in rules under administrative and viability constraints whatsoever.It is the high time that ONGC must bring changes in the scheme expressly to extend some relief to the elders at the fall of their life.
ONGC PRBS - IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR SEMINAR ON 1.10.2011 - BY NARAYAN SINGH RATHRE
Questions for seminar on 1.10.11
By Narayan Singh Rathore in EX-ONGCIANS
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR SEMINAR ON 1.10.2011
(ONGC PRBS)
1. Sir, when PRBS was introduced on 29.4.1990, it was stipulated that: -
“The rate of contribution as may be applicable as per age bracket above at the time of admission to the scheme shall remain unaltered through out the service period of the member.”
Q.1. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
1.1. Factual Position: ONGC reduced contribution for age below 30 years and increased by 0.5% for newly carved age group ‘above 48 & upto 50 years, in 1990 itself.
2. Benefit: Formula professed: -
“44/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
Q.2. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
2.1. Factual Position: ONGC changed this Formula several times: -
(a). 275th meeting of Commission on 5.11.1990: -
“40/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
(b). MOU of 3.2.1998/Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998: -
(i). Past service pension on salary drawn on 31.12.1991.
(ii). Future service pension Pre-revised Pay notionally escalated w.e.f. 1.1.1996. (iii) Future service pension on Revised Pay of 16.11.1995 notionally escalated.
(iv). Defined Corpus (Balyan Device): Pension was not worked out by PRBS Trust but decided by LIC during January 1996 to 31.3.2007. This secret device was not made public. It became known through inadvertent exposure by E.O. PRBS in 2008.
(v). Dubious regularization of “Defined Corpus” under MOU of 9.4.2007 in indirect method:
“1. PRBS benefit will be extended in term of MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and 19.07.1998 as “Defined Pension Scheme”.
“ONGC and the employees are committed to provide necessary support to the “Trust” to ensure pensionery benefits to all the beneficiaries as per “Defined Pension Scheme” as modified vide this MOU”.
“12. The revised scheme shall be applicable to all employees based on this MOU. This MOU shall be rendered null & void if any of the clauses are modified at a later date without taking ASTO into confidence.”
(vi). Secret re-conversion of Defined Corpus into Defined Pension Scheme was also achieved under Para 2.1. (b) (v) above.
Friends, is it not a Criminal Conspiracy of cheating employees who placed their faith in the Managing Trustee(s) ?
3. Managing Trustee of PRBS Trust has furnished Affidavits, on oath, that PRBS Trust is a Private Trust and that this Trust was neither a State nor an Instrumentality of State. Such affidavits are filed on behalf of CMD, ONGC.
Q.3. Did the CMD of ONGC ever approve of such contention ?
3.1. Factual Position: Hon’ble Courts have held that ONGC is controlled by the Govt. and all Trustees are employees of ONGC. Hence ONGC PRBS Trust is a State. Court did not take cognigence of Misleading Information to punish the concerned executive.
4. Para 32 of Rules-1991 provides “Power to Amend the Rules” but there is no Provision to amend the Scheme. Para 31.2. of Rules provides that if there is contradiction between Rules and the Scheme, Provisions of the Scheme will prevail. Trust ignored this.
By Narayan Singh Rathore in EX-ONGCIANS
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR SEMINAR ON 1.10.2011
(ONGC PRBS)
1. Sir, when PRBS was introduced on 29.4.1990, it was stipulated that: -
“The rate of contribution as may be applicable as per age bracket above at the time of admission to the scheme shall remain unaltered through out the service period of the member.”
Q.1. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
1.1. Factual Position: ONGC reduced contribution for age below 30 years and increased by 0.5% for newly carved age group ‘above 48 & upto 50 years, in 1990 itself.
2. Benefit: Formula professed: -
“44/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
Q.2. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
2.1. Factual Position: ONGC changed this Formula several times: -
(a). 275th meeting of Commission on 5.11.1990: -
“40/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
(b). MOU of 3.2.1998/Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998: -
(i). Past service pension on salary drawn on 31.12.1991.
(ii). Future service pension Pre-revised Pay notionally escalated w.e.f. 1.1.1996. (iii) Future service pension on Revised Pay of 16.11.1995 notionally escalated.
(iv). Defined Corpus (Balyan Device): Pension was not worked out by PRBS Trust but decided by LIC during January 1996 to 31.3.2007. This secret device was not made public. It became known through inadvertent exposure by E.O. PRBS in 2008.
(v). Dubious regularization of “Defined Corpus” under MOU of 9.4.2007 in indirect method:
“1. PRBS benefit will be extended in term of MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and 19.07.1998 as “Defined Pension Scheme”.
“ONGC and the employees are committed to provide necessary support to the “Trust” to ensure pensionery benefits to all the beneficiaries as per “Defined Pension Scheme” as modified vide this MOU”.
“12. The revised scheme shall be applicable to all employees based on this MOU. This MOU shall be rendered null & void if any of the clauses are modified at a later date without taking ASTO into confidence.”
(vi). Secret re-conversion of Defined Corpus into Defined Pension Scheme was also achieved under Para 2.1. (b) (v) above.
Friends, is it not a Criminal Conspiracy of cheating employees who placed their faith in the Managing Trustee(s) ?
3. Managing Trustee of PRBS Trust has furnished Affidavits, on oath, that PRBS Trust is a Private Trust and that this Trust was neither a State nor an Instrumentality of State. Such affidavits are filed on behalf of CMD, ONGC.
Q.3. Did the CMD of ONGC ever approve of such contention ?
3.1. Factual Position: Hon’ble Courts have held that ONGC is controlled by the Govt. and all Trustees are employees of ONGC. Hence ONGC PRBS Trust is a State. Court did not take cognigence of Misleading Information to punish the concerned executive.
4. Para 32 of Rules-1991 provides “Power to Amend the Rules” but there is no Provision to amend the Scheme. Para 31.2. of Rules provides that if there is contradiction between Rules and the Scheme, Provisions of the Scheme will prevail. Trust ignored this.
Ex-INGCians' Network
By Badrinath Vasandi - Admin
Ex-ONGCians' electronic media platform has been established with basic purpose of attempting to create a productive and satisfying life for its' fellow colleagues:-
(1). That the
Ex-ONGCians' network aims to develop "Fit for Purpose"solution to individual / collective problems.
(2). Aims to offer a life alterting rational perspective on the attainment of superannuation with enthusiasm about fulfilling fellow relationship.
(3). To consciously build the Indian society, with a sense of well being, good health and enthusiasm for good citizen"s life.
(4)Volunteer Participation in organizing disaster management with the ONGC administration & the fellow citizens in case of natural calamities.
Aims & objectives
(1). To protect & secure legitimate rights of retired employees & the Sr citizens.
(2). To inculcate feeling of equality, brotherhood and unity.
(3). To educate members of their rights and duties, to redress and plead for their grievances before an appropriate authority.
(4). To manage an ideal association and to arrange social and cultural gatherings from time to time.
(5). To promote technical & occupational facilities to uplift the retired employees/Sr citizens and their family members.
(6). To promote educational facilities through adult education.
(7). To provide Sewing centers and other small projects for widows/poor ladies of retired employees.
(8). To develop a common platform for providing social service to the society.
Vision
Demographical aging has hit the Indian shares as well. People are living longer & life expectancy is steadily rising, already elderly have 13% share in Indian Electoral. Average voting percentage in Indian elections is 55.5%, but voting percentage of 60+ persons in every election is staggering 90%. Thus actual vote share of Sr citizens is 20%. Still they are a neglected lot!
every election is staggering 90%. Thus actual vote share of Sr citizens is 20%. Still they are a neglected lot! Pensioners are a major chunk of Indian intelligent voter who are armed, with vast knowledge & experience. They can not be a helpless lot. They are still capable of turning the tides.
Why not then Pensioners take a lead in uniting Sr citizens?
So, Come on, let us commit ourselves to this mission.
How do we propose to implement our vision
1. Start communicating with each other Communication is the basic step for forging unity, understanding each other & for solving problems, so start communicating with each other.
(I) At local level:-
(a) Communicate with your own members
(b) With Pensioners Associations of other departments, with Sr.Citizen Forums, With NGOs/social organizations, with Associations/trade unions of working employees, with VIPS and the Media.
(II) At National level:- Communicate regularly with inter department Pensioners Associations, with pensioners’ confederations / Samaj & With Sr Citizens Associations /confederations /Federations.
2. Start helping each other at local as well as at National level If one Association is facing some problem let us show solidarity by extending our support to it in what ever way possible. At least write a few lines to the concerned authorities supporting the affected Association.
3. In case of a National emergency or a natural calamity stand shoulder to shoulder with the Administration & the fellow citizen."
By Badrinath Vasandi - Admin
Ex-ONGCians' electronic media platform has been established with basic purpose of attempting to create a productive and satisfying life for its' fellow colleagues:-
(1). That the
Ex-ONGCians' network aims to develop "Fit for Purpose"solution to individual / collective problems.
(2). Aims to offer a life alterting rational perspective on the attainment of superannuation with enthusiasm about fulfilling fellow relationship.
(3). To consciously build the Indian society, with a sense of well being, good health and enthusiasm for good citizen"s life.
(4)Volunteer Participation in organizing disaster management with the ONGC administration & the fellow citizens in case of natural calamities.
Aims & objectives
(1). To protect & secure legitimate rights of retired employees & the Sr citizens.
(2). To inculcate feeling of equality, brotherhood and unity.
(3). To educate members of their rights and duties, to redress and plead for their grievances before an appropriate authority.
(4). To manage an ideal association and to arrange social and cultural gatherings from time to time.
(5). To promote technical & occupational facilities to uplift the retired employees/Sr citizens and their family members.
(6). To promote educational facilities through adult education.
(7). To provide Sewing centers and other small projects for widows/poor ladies of retired employees.
(8). To develop a common platform for providing social service to the society.
Vision
Demographical aging has hit the Indian shares as well. People are living longer & life expectancy is steadily rising, already elderly have 13% share in Indian Electoral. Average voting percentage in Indian elections is 55.5%, but voting percentage of 60+ persons in every election is staggering 90%. Thus actual vote share of Sr citizens is 20%. Still they are a neglected lot!
every election is staggering 90%. Thus actual vote share of Sr citizens is 20%. Still they are a neglected lot! Pensioners are a major chunk of Indian intelligent voter who are armed, with vast knowledge & experience. They can not be a helpless lot. They are still capable of turning the tides.
Why not then Pensioners take a lead in uniting Sr citizens?
So, Come on, let us commit ourselves to this mission.
How do we propose to implement our vision
1. Start communicating with each other Communication is the basic step for forging unity, understanding each other & for solving problems, so start communicating with each other.
(I) At local level:-
(a) Communicate with your own members
(b) With Pensioners Associations of other departments, with Sr.Citizen Forums, With NGOs/social organizations, with Associations/trade unions of working employees, with VIPS and the Media.
(II) At National level:- Communicate regularly with inter department Pensioners Associations, with pensioners’ confederations / Samaj & With Sr Citizens Associations /confederations /Federations.
2. Start helping each other at local as well as at National level If one Association is facing some problem let us show solidarity by extending our support to it in what ever way possible. At least write a few lines to the concerned authorities supporting the affected Association.
3. In case of a National emergency or a natural calamity stand shoulder to shoulder with the Administration & the fellow citizen."
ONGC PRBS - Formula for GOI Approved PRBS - 91 - By Narayan Singh Rathore
Formula for GOI Approved PRBS-91 - By NS Rathore
Friends! very sorry. To avoid confusion, I have deleted the Pension Calculation Formula under PRBS 1990 of 29.4.1990. I am giving the Formula applicable to GOI Approved PRBS-1991: - (A) Reckonable Service: (i) Past Service (PS) i.e. Yrs + days/365 (Service upto 31.03.1990) = 00.000 years. Discounted P.S. (1 - PS x 1.21/100) x PS = 00.000 years Reck. P.S. (ii) Future Serv. (after 1.4.1990) & to be appreciated (1 + FS x 0.6/100) x FS = 00.000 yrs. (iii) Total Reckonable service (i) + (ii) = 00.000 yrs. (B) Entitlement of Pension Benefit: (i) 40/33 x (iii) afore = % of Revised Last Sal. as pension (ii) Monthly pension: Last Sal. x % as (B) (i) afore = pension/month.
Friends! very sorry. To avoid confusion, I have deleted the Pension Calculation Formula under PRBS 1990 of 29.4.1990. I am giving the Formula applicable to GOI Approved PRBS-1991: - (A) Reckonable Service: (i) Past Service (PS) i.e. Yrs + days/365 (Service upto 31.03.1990) = 00.000 years. Discounted P.S. (1 - PS x 1.21/100) x PS = 00.000 years Reck. P.S. (ii) Future Serv. (after 1.4.1990) & to be appreciated (1 + FS x 0.6/100) x FS = 00.000 yrs. (iii) Total Reckonable service (i) + (ii) = 00.000 yrs. (B) Entitlement of Pension Benefit: (i) 40/33 x (iii) afore = % of Revised Last Sal. as pension (ii) Monthly pension: Last Sal. x % as (B) (i) afore = pension/month.
ONGC PRBS - REASON IT OUT - BY NARAYAN SINGH RQATHORE
REASON IT OUT - BY NARAIN SINGH RATHORE
1. ONGC stopped issue of Uniforms, Stitching charges, Washing allowance and Canteen Coupons w.e.f. 01.04.1990. ONGC did not transfer monetised value of these surrendered facilities, namely Additional Contribution to the Fund of Trust for crediting individual PRBS Account of members. Circular No.PRBS-14 of 18.9.1992 duly pointed out this serious irregularity by ONGC Finance. This made the Scheme artificially sick and look Un-viable. In some cases, addl. Contr. has yet to be remitted to the Trust
2. ONGC PRBS Trust stopped settlement of Pension cases from January 1996, without assigning any reason. Member retiring on 31.01.1996 was entitled to receive Pension from 01.02.1996 but made to wait for years ? This cheating ploy was adopted to evade Pension benefit on Revised Salary w.e.f. 01.01.1992.
3. ONGC Finance did not implement Circular No.PRBS-38 dated 17.01.1996 for deduction of enhanced fixed % contribution w.e.f. 01.01.1992 on Revised Salary on account of Pay Revision-1992.
4. Some GM (Fin), ONGC, Dehradun obtained an Actuarial Valuation Report dated 02.08.1996 from M/s. KA Pandit, which brought under-mentioned vital points: -
4.1. “8. Growth in salary these days is mainly on account of hike in “costs of living Index.” Higher the inflation higher is salary, higher is long term rate of interest and lower is cost of annuity. LIC cost of annuity has gone down by 10% in four years. Long term rate of interest has gone up by 2% to 3%. Current long term rate of approved superannuation fund is 13.575%. Pension fund”
4.2. “12. CONCLUSION: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 1000 (should be 10000) in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. an yearly increase of 34%. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
Comments: There seems some intentional “Ghotala” in Figures.
4.3. “13. RECMMENDATION: To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund, additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e.1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the Fund.”
5. Actuarial Recommendation of M/s. K.A. Pandit in their first Actuarial Report dated 17.4.1990 : -
5.1. “6. It is suggested that if the monetised value of some of the benefits (which also escalate in cost even more than the salary increase) is used to finance the pension scheme, it will be possible to operate this scheme without any initial contribution from Commission or any additional liability on them.”
5.2. “7. If it is selected to start Pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetised value of benefits, we recommend (since cost of benefits will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the Fund.”
6. It is amply clear that both the Actuarial Recommendations ( at 4.3 & 5.2 ) point in single direction of “Escalation in Cost of Surrendered Benefits” and transfer of escalated monetised value of surrendered facilities at same rate of increase as applied to Salary increase under Pay Revisions. ONGC followed Actuarial recommendation at 5.2 upto 1996 but totally ignored most important recommendation at 4.3. above. 78% escalation in Addl. Contribution on 1.1.1992 + 11% annual escalation would have provided surplus funds to the Trust.
No other amendment was needed, including Para 28 of Rules-1991.
1. ONGC stopped issue of Uniforms, Stitching charges, Washing allowance and Canteen Coupons w.e.f. 01.04.1990. ONGC did not transfer monetised value of these surrendered facilities, namely Additional Contribution to the Fund of Trust for crediting individual PRBS Account of members. Circular No.PRBS-14 of 18.9.1992 duly pointed out this serious irregularity by ONGC Finance. This made the Scheme artificially sick and look Un-viable. In some cases, addl. Contr. has yet to be remitted to the Trust
2. ONGC PRBS Trust stopped settlement of Pension cases from January 1996, without assigning any reason. Member retiring on 31.01.1996 was entitled to receive Pension from 01.02.1996 but made to wait for years ? This cheating ploy was adopted to evade Pension benefit on Revised Salary w.e.f. 01.01.1992.
3. ONGC Finance did not implement Circular No.PRBS-38 dated 17.01.1996 for deduction of enhanced fixed % contribution w.e.f. 01.01.1992 on Revised Salary on account of Pay Revision-1992.
4. Some GM (Fin), ONGC, Dehradun obtained an Actuarial Valuation Report dated 02.08.1996 from M/s. KA Pandit, which brought under-mentioned vital points: -
4.1. “8. Growth in salary these days is mainly on account of hike in “costs of living Index.” Higher the inflation higher is salary, higher is long term rate of interest and lower is cost of annuity. LIC cost of annuity has gone down by 10% in four years. Long term rate of interest has gone up by 2% to 3%. Current long term rate of approved superannuation fund is 13.575%. Pension fund”
4.2. “12. CONCLUSION: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 1000 (should be 10000) in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. an yearly increase of 34%. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
Comments: There seems some intentional “Ghotala” in Figures.
4.3. “13. RECMMENDATION: To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund, additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e.1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the Fund.”
5. Actuarial Recommendation of M/s. K.A. Pandit in their first Actuarial Report dated 17.4.1990 : -
5.1. “6. It is suggested that if the monetised value of some of the benefits (which also escalate in cost even more than the salary increase) is used to finance the pension scheme, it will be possible to operate this scheme without any initial contribution from Commission or any additional liability on them.”
5.2. “7. If it is selected to start Pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetised value of benefits, we recommend (since cost of benefits will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the Fund.”
6. It is amply clear that both the Actuarial Recommendations ( at 4.3 & 5.2 ) point in single direction of “Escalation in Cost of Surrendered Benefits” and transfer of escalated monetised value of surrendered facilities at same rate of increase as applied to Salary increase under Pay Revisions. ONGC followed Actuarial recommendation at 5.2 upto 1996 but totally ignored most important recommendation at 4.3. above. 78% escalation in Addl. Contribution on 1.1.1992 + 11% annual escalation would have provided surplus funds to the Trust.
No other amendment was needed, including Para 28 of Rules-1991.
INDIV. PRAYER TO CMD FOR RESTORSTION OF PRBS 1990-1991 by Narayan Singh Rathore
INDIV. PRAYER TO CMD FOR RESTORSTION OF PRBS 1990-1991
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 9:09pm
SUB ; CONSPIRACY TO EVADE PENSION ON REVISED SALARY - IN CONNECTION OF :
Sir,
With due regards and humility I seek your kind permission to take liberty of making following submissions and pray for your personal indulgence for mitigation of undeserved grievous injustice in matter of benevolent welfare Scheme – the ONGC PRBS :-
2. Sir, I had the proud privilege to have served our Esteemed Organization, ONGC, a Navaratna-turned–Maharatna co. for a period of........years (from the year---- to -----) in various capacities, away from my family in arduous and hazardous condition, during my hey days.
3. I superannuated on - .......... after rendering an active service in ONGC for --.—years, at the rank of____________, As per professed Preamble to the ONGC PRBS-1990, I was to be bestowed with 00.00 % of my Last Salary (Revised) drawn as Pension benefit (Rs.00000.00/month). If I go by the Scheme/rules-1991, as approved by the Central Govt. under letter dated 18.09.1991, my Pension worked to 00.00% of Last Salary drawn (Rs.00000.00/month). Notwithstanding the foregoing, I was provided a pension@ Rs..............per month which totally insufficient to afford reasonable standard of living after retirement. My total terminal emoluments were too meager to sustain the retired life.
4. Sir, during my service period, ONGC demanded most of my time and I had no way to understand the complex calculations formulae to work out my entitlement of pension. I fully relied on the veracity of executives (HR& Finance) by whom my pension entitlement was to be worked out in a judicious & fair manner. It was most unfortunate that I have been cheated in matters of Pension. This was utter betrayal of my faith & confidence in the ONGC Management.
5. Most shocking aspect was to know that my esteemed organization, a Navaratna-turned-Maharatna Co, invented derogatory, unfair, unreasonable and prejudicial Methods/Procedures to deprive me of my legitimate pension entitlement under ONGC PRBS. To my mind, the Trustees, in the name of ONGC management, conspired to evolve a Memo. Of Misunderstandings dated 03.02.1998 which reduced the pension by 40-60% and then to secretly convert the "Pension Defined Scheme" into " Defined Corpus" during January 1996 and March 2007 without any notice to the members. Rather, this misdeed was kept secret by ONGC. This fact was inadvertently revealed by the E.O. - PRBS only in June 2008 in one of the communications in reply to a representation submitted to CMD , ONGC. Para 32 of the approved Rules-1991 provides that any Resolution of Trustees for alteration, modification, amendment, addition, variation and revocation of the Provisions of the Rules-1991 was ultra-virus if it was contrary to main objects of the Trust or prejudicial to the rights and interests of a member or his beneficiary. Govt. had categorically directed vide letter dated 18.9.91 that "in future ONGC will not implement any scheme on its own which require prior approval of Government". Since ONGC PRBS & Rules-1991 were approved by the Govt., they acquired status of Statutes and could be varied / altered / amended or revoked only with prior approval of the Govt. It is understood that secret conversion of the Scheme into “Defined Corpus” was never referred to even the Board of ONGC.
6. Your good-self may kindly appreciate that the said actions, on the part of ONGC, are in violation of all rules, regulations, precedence, statutory orders, the Constitution, courts' verdicts , professional ethics and a company culture. Some Hon’ble High Courts have commented that CMD of ONGC was empowered to issue directives to the Trustees to strictly comply with the provisions of the Scheme/Rules.
7. Your kind-self, a person at the level and stature of CMD of our Maharatna Co. could easily visualise and observe, that in this era of high inflation year after year and unprecedented price escalations, how difficult it is for a person to survive with this unduly reduced pension amount at the fag end of ones life, (when meager sources are only at his disposal). Sir, you will agree that a retired ONGCian is incapable of resorting to the legal process for relief & remedy and face the battery of senior advocates including addl. Solicitor general (s) deployed by ONGC at exorbitant costs.
8. Sir, I recall the kind words of our Ex-Chairman, Col. S. P. Wahi, that ONGCians should look like Sheikhs and live with matching high standard of which our organization is worth.
9. Sir, I may assure you that all litigations would get settled if you could prevail in affording Pension benefits in accordance with Scheme/Rules-1991. In the above circumstances I appeal to your good offices to extend the good gesture of granting Pension in compliance of pledged benefits- in 1990-1991. This would preserve the sanctity of Provisos of the Scheme/ rules and enable the Oilmen to live a decent retired life.
With the warmest regards & best wishes.
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 9:09pm
SUB ; CONSPIRACY TO EVADE PENSION ON REVISED SALARY - IN CONNECTION OF :
Sir,
With due regards and humility I seek your kind permission to take liberty of making following submissions and pray for your personal indulgence for mitigation of undeserved grievous injustice in matter of benevolent welfare Scheme – the ONGC PRBS :-
2. Sir, I had the proud privilege to have served our Esteemed Organization, ONGC, a Navaratna-turned–Maharatna co. for a period of........years (from the year---- to -----) in various capacities, away from my family in arduous and hazardous condition, during my hey days.
3. I superannuated on - .......... after rendering an active service in ONGC for --.—years, at the rank of____________, As per professed Preamble to the ONGC PRBS-1990, I was to be bestowed with 00.00 % of my Last Salary (Revised) drawn as Pension benefit (Rs.00000.00/month). If I go by the Scheme/rules-1991, as approved by the Central Govt. under letter dated 18.09.1991, my Pension worked to 00.00% of Last Salary drawn (Rs.00000.00/month). Notwithstanding the foregoing, I was provided a pension@ Rs..............per month which totally insufficient to afford reasonable standard of living after retirement. My total terminal emoluments were too meager to sustain the retired life.
4. Sir, during my service period, ONGC demanded most of my time and I had no way to understand the complex calculations formulae to work out my entitlement of pension. I fully relied on the veracity of executives (HR& Finance) by whom my pension entitlement was to be worked out in a judicious & fair manner. It was most unfortunate that I have been cheated in matters of Pension. This was utter betrayal of my faith & confidence in the ONGC Management.
5. Most shocking aspect was to know that my esteemed organization, a Navaratna-turned-Maharatna Co, invented derogatory, unfair, unreasonable and prejudicial Methods/Procedures to deprive me of my legitimate pension entitlement under ONGC PRBS. To my mind, the Trustees, in the name of ONGC management, conspired to evolve a Memo. Of Misunderstandings dated 03.02.1998 which reduced the pension by 40-60% and then to secretly convert the "Pension Defined Scheme" into " Defined Corpus" during January 1996 and March 2007 without any notice to the members. Rather, this misdeed was kept secret by ONGC. This fact was inadvertently revealed by the E.O. - PRBS only in June 2008 in one of the communications in reply to a representation submitted to CMD , ONGC. Para 32 of the approved Rules-1991 provides that any Resolution of Trustees for alteration, modification, amendment, addition, variation and revocation of the Provisions of the Rules-1991 was ultra-virus if it was contrary to main objects of the Trust or prejudicial to the rights and interests of a member or his beneficiary. Govt. had categorically directed vide letter dated 18.9.91 that "in future ONGC will not implement any scheme on its own which require prior approval of Government". Since ONGC PRBS & Rules-1991 were approved by the Govt., they acquired status of Statutes and could be varied / altered / amended or revoked only with prior approval of the Govt. It is understood that secret conversion of the Scheme into “Defined Corpus” was never referred to even the Board of ONGC.
6. Your good-self may kindly appreciate that the said actions, on the part of ONGC, are in violation of all rules, regulations, precedence, statutory orders, the Constitution, courts' verdicts , professional ethics and a company culture. Some Hon’ble High Courts have commented that CMD of ONGC was empowered to issue directives to the Trustees to strictly comply with the provisions of the Scheme/Rules.
7. Your kind-self, a person at the level and stature of CMD of our Maharatna Co. could easily visualise and observe, that in this era of high inflation year after year and unprecedented price escalations, how difficult it is for a person to survive with this unduly reduced pension amount at the fag end of ones life, (when meager sources are only at his disposal). Sir, you will agree that a retired ONGCian is incapable of resorting to the legal process for relief & remedy and face the battery of senior advocates including addl. Solicitor general (s) deployed by ONGC at exorbitant costs.
8. Sir, I recall the kind words of our Ex-Chairman, Col. S. P. Wahi, that ONGCians should look like Sheikhs and live with matching high standard of which our organization is worth.
9. Sir, I may assure you that all litigations would get settled if you could prevail in affording Pension benefits in accordance with Scheme/Rules-1991. In the above circumstances I appeal to your good offices to extend the good gesture of granting Pension in compliance of pledged benefits- in 1990-1991. This would preserve the sanctity of Provisos of the Scheme/ rules and enable the Oilmen to live a decent retired life.
With the warmest regards & best wishes.
ONGC - PRBS - Adverse affects of MOU/Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.06.98 By Capt. Narayan Singh Rathore
adverse affects of MOU/cir. PRBS-40 of 18.06.98
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:08am
Bby H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dt 5.11.1996 with direction that ONGC n ASTO negotiate to raise "additional funds" to save the Scheme (WP 1718/1996). MOU signed on 3.2.1998. It is stated in MOU that it was in copliance of Order dt. 5.11.1996 of Bby H.C. Pl note that negotiation was restricted to "Raise Additional Funds" only to make the Scheme Viable. ONGC MIS-UTILISED this opportunity to push the Scheme towards assured n ascertained "Un-viability" under MOU which was signed in "Good Faith" n under unspecified "Mutual Understanding". A unique design to ascertain financial viability on the basis of Good faith. I am sure nobody in would cite a single case where decision are taken in good faith when financial matters are involved. Obvious enough, there were no negotiations. Reasons: -
(a). Introduction of Notional Salary for purpose of (i) deduction of fixed % contr from monthly salary of members n (ii) grant of Pension benefit. Lets analyse these two factors. we take case of Mr. KD Pillai. His actual salary was Rs.21913 whereas Notional salary was Rs.8806. You can imagine difference in 5% fixed contr. (1095.65 - 440.30 = 655.45). This reduced existing source of income of Trust. Then we take my case. Actual salary Rs.32649 n Notional salary Rs.14445/-. Difference in 5% fxd contr.Rs.909.70/month (1632.45 - 722.75). Another case of an executive in service on 1.4.2007. His actual/ notional salary Rs.47380/14414. 10% fxd contr. Rs.4738 on actual n Rs.1441.40 on notional. lets see what wd have been 5% on actual salary. Rs.2369/-. See the difference. 5% contr. on Actual is greater than 10% on notional. Do we not hang in shame that ASTO (CWC) is said to have negotiated for17-18 months to achieve this ? Can such feat make the Scheme viable ? Certainly Not. Notional Salary exposed the Scheme to never ending Unviability.PRBS Trust submits Affidavits on behalf of CMD that unviable scheme was made viable under such dubious MOU of 3.2.1998.Then take Pension benefit. In case of KD Pillai, his entitlement as per Scheme-1991 on 30.4.98 was Rs.738x/ (as he retired prior to Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998) but he got Rs.2467.50 only under Defined Corpus. Kerala H.C. granted him relief but ONGC challenged Court verdict under SLP/2009 in Supreme Court. Hon'ble Apex Court upheld verdict n ONGC duly lost the case. It was unworthy of a Global Giant n Maharatna Co. to adopt such unhealthy course. In case of capt. Narayan Singh Rathore, Pension benefit worked out Rs.9080.66 on actual salary under Scheme-1991 n Rs.5093.64 under revised scheme of 18.6.1998 but LIC fixed Pension at Rs.39xx/month under un-notified Defined Corpus (can call it Balyan Device). Now we take third case of an executive who retires in 2011. Ratio of actual salary to notional is 100 : 33. This is going to ensure his pension at 33% of his entitlement on actual salary.
Another vital damage done by Notional salary was non-implemetation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996 which required deduction of fxd contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 n all future Pay revisions. Was it an healthy approach to deprive enhanced fxd % contr, to Fund of Trust ? NO. It was colossal recurring loss. This was again to ensure Un-viability of PRBS.
When viability of PRBS was challenged in August 1996, ONGC kept the raise in Additional Contr. as "Notional" upto 1.4.1997. This was done inspite of clear expression by Actuary in Report dt. 2.8.1996 that there was 78% rise in prices of commodities (surrendered facilities). This information shd have been used to "Review" the funds in accordance with Para 7 of Scheme-1991. Can we pray the Managing Trustee/ CMD ONGC to very kindly justify ignoring such vital recommendation of Actuary ? During whole process of so called purported Negotiations of 17-18 months ? Most difficult.
Friends, solution lies in revocation of Cir. PRBS-40 which amended the Scheme in utter violation of Para 32 n Para 31.2 of Rules-1991, without appropriate approval of Comp. Authy who had approved the Scheme/Rules-1991. Thanks.
May the God bless all with Ordinary Prude
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:08am
Bby H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dt 5.11.1996 with direction that ONGC n ASTO negotiate to raise "additional funds" to save the Scheme (WP 1718/1996). MOU signed on 3.2.1998. It is stated in MOU that it was in copliance of Order dt. 5.11.1996 of Bby H.C. Pl note that negotiation was restricted to "Raise Additional Funds" only to make the Scheme Viable. ONGC MIS-UTILISED this opportunity to push the Scheme towards assured n ascertained "Un-viability" under MOU which was signed in "Good Faith" n under unspecified "Mutual Understanding". A unique design to ascertain financial viability on the basis of Good faith. I am sure nobody in would cite a single case where decision are taken in good faith when financial matters are involved. Obvious enough, there were no negotiations. Reasons: -
(a). Introduction of Notional Salary for purpose of (i) deduction of fixed % contr from monthly salary of members n (ii) grant of Pension benefit. Lets analyse these two factors. we take case of Mr. KD Pillai. His actual salary was Rs.21913 whereas Notional salary was Rs.8806. You can imagine difference in 5% fixed contr. (1095.65 - 440.30 = 655.45). This reduced existing source of income of Trust. Then we take my case. Actual salary Rs.32649 n Notional salary Rs.14445/-. Difference in 5% fxd contr.Rs.909.70/month (1632.45 - 722.75). Another case of an executive in service on 1.4.2007. His actual/ notional salary Rs.47380/14414. 10% fxd contr. Rs.4738 on actual n Rs.1441.40 on notional. lets see what wd have been 5% on actual salary. Rs.2369/-. See the difference. 5% contr. on Actual is greater than 10% on notional. Do we not hang in shame that ASTO (CWC) is said to have negotiated for17-18 months to achieve this ? Can such feat make the Scheme viable ? Certainly Not. Notional Salary exposed the Scheme to never ending Unviability.PRBS Trust submits Affidavits on behalf of CMD that unviable scheme was made viable under such dubious MOU of 3.2.1998.Then take Pension benefit. In case of KD Pillai, his entitlement as per Scheme-1991 on 30.4.98 was Rs.738x/ (as he retired prior to Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998) but he got Rs.2467.50 only under Defined Corpus. Kerala H.C. granted him relief but ONGC challenged Court verdict under SLP/2009 in Supreme Court. Hon'ble Apex Court upheld verdict n ONGC duly lost the case. It was unworthy of a Global Giant n Maharatna Co. to adopt such unhealthy course. In case of capt. Narayan Singh Rathore, Pension benefit worked out Rs.9080.66 on actual salary under Scheme-1991 n Rs.5093.64 under revised scheme of 18.6.1998 but LIC fixed Pension at Rs.39xx/month under un-notified Defined Corpus (can call it Balyan Device). Now we take third case of an executive who retires in 2011. Ratio of actual salary to notional is 100 : 33. This is going to ensure his pension at 33% of his entitlement on actual salary.
Another vital damage done by Notional salary was non-implemetation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996 which required deduction of fxd contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 n all future Pay revisions. Was it an healthy approach to deprive enhanced fxd % contr, to Fund of Trust ? NO. It was colossal recurring loss. This was again to ensure Un-viability of PRBS.
When viability of PRBS was challenged in August 1996, ONGC kept the raise in Additional Contr. as "Notional" upto 1.4.1997. This was done inspite of clear expression by Actuary in Report dt. 2.8.1996 that there was 78% rise in prices of commodities (surrendered facilities). This information shd have been used to "Review" the funds in accordance with Para 7 of Scheme-1991. Can we pray the Managing Trustee/ CMD ONGC to very kindly justify ignoring such vital recommendation of Actuary ? During whole process of so called purported Negotiations of 17-18 months ? Most difficult.
Friends, solution lies in revocation of Cir. PRBS-40 which amended the Scheme in utter violation of Para 32 n Para 31.2 of Rules-1991, without appropriate approval of Comp. Authy who had approved the Scheme/Rules-1991. Thanks.
May the God bless all with Ordinary Prude
Monday, January 16, 2012
Letter of Mr. Mathre Rangarajan to NHRC regarding retirees of ONGC
Letter of Mr. Mathre Rangarajan to NHRC
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
M. Rangarajan,
(retired Group General Manager ONGC)
B 2 – 301, SRIRAM SPANDHANA,
Chellaghatta village,
Bangalore – 560037.
Phone: 25227955, mobile 9945091581
e-mail: rangajan@yahoo.com / rangajan@gmail.com
No: HRC-1/2011 dated 12th December 2011
To,
Hon Justice Sri K G Balakrishnan,
Chairperson,
National Human Rights Commission,
Faridkot House,
Copernicus Marg,
New Nelhi - 110001
SUB: Human Rights Violation of 21000+ Retired Employees (Elders – Senior citizens) by M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (a Maharatna company) - Request for Intervention and Justice
About 21000 employees retired anytime between 1985 to Dec 2006 who are the real backbones of ONGC (age group 65 to 85+ years) are struggling for their survival due to general apathy and negative mindset of ONGC Management who repeatedly utters that “once an employee retires, all his connections with the Corporation are severed immediately”. As all our appeals to ONGC failed, retirees were forced to approach Bombay High Court by a writ petition filed by “All India ONGC Ex Employees Welfare Association, Mumbai” on their behalf in 2003. Out of these 21000 retired employees about 1500-2000 have already expired during last 8 years, pending disposal of a discrimination case in Bombay High Court.
These retirees are the Pioneers who built ONGC from scratch and nurtured it with their blood and sweat when it was an infant. We also have all those responsible for bringing India on the Oil Map of the world. Our members also comprises of those responsible for the discovery of Oil & Natural Gas as well as its Production from various Onshore as well as Offshore fields including Mumbai High. We also have retirees from ONGC Videsh Ltd. who converted it from loss making to highest profit making arm of ONGC. Our retirees are highly qualified and experienced in various activities of E&P Industry. We are ex-ONGCians who contributed in creating India’s most valuable Maha --ratna Oil Company.
The majority of these retirees are not in receipt of any old age benefit from their ex-employer ONGC and are fully dependent on their kiths and kins for survival and some of them are virtually starving. Most of these retirees are without any financial support for 5 to 25 years after retirement. Only a handful of them, approximately 3000 persons are covered by Agrani Samman, an Ex-Gratia Scheme, but their condition is also pitiable due to a meager amount received by them which is not even sufficient to live a dignified life without external support in today’s high cost of living.
Brief of Agrani Samman Ex Gratia Case
ONGC realized that its retired employees are in very difficult financial condition and introduced an Ex-Gratia monthly payment scheme called “Agrani Samman”, by Late CMD Shri Subir Raha wef 1st Jan 2003 based on Shri T.N. Seshan’s Report. The objective was to provide some financial support to the Pioneers so that they can lead a dignified retired life. While framing his recommendations Shri T N Seshan got influenced by an ex-director ONGC and submitted a scheme which is not only discriminatory but also violated the provisions of Indian Constitution viz. Art 14 - right to equality and Art 16 - right to justice, by introducing arbitrary cut off dates, unwanted and illegal riders and deductions of retirees own money, from the meager amount of relief provided to about 3000 retirees. These arbitrary cut off dates and illegal deductions from retirees own money has already been rejected by Supreme Court in several famous cases. The total amount spent towards “Agrani Samman” the Ex-Gratia scheme for these 3000 retirees annually is less than Rs 10 Crores (as per RTI reply). As per the “Agrani Samman” Ex-Gratia Scheme implemented by ONGC wef 1st Jan 2003, the retirees were subdivided into four slabs based on their respective ranks just before retirement as follows and were entitled to the modest Ex Gratia amount christened as “Agrani Samman”:
Slab I : Retired Class IV and Class III levels : Rs 1500+DA
Slab II : Retired executives from E0 to E-3 levels : Rs 3000+DA
Slab III : Retired executives from E-4 to E-6 levels : Rs 4500+DA
Slab IV : Retired executives from E-7 to CMD level : Rs 6000+DA
Illegal and Arbitrary Riders:
1. The 100% beneficiaries of above amounts as per the slabs were granted only to those retirees who joined ONGC prior to 15th Oct 1959 irrespective of their date of retirement and have completed 20 years of service. All those between 10 to 20 years of service were considered for pro-rata benefits
2. Out of the above beneficiaries who were in receipt of pension from their earlier employer or PRBS interest on their own money from LIC were entitled for only the balance amount of above mentioned “Agrani Samman” after deduction of his own money (illegal deductions).
3. The spouse of the deceased eligible employee was given 50% “Agrani Samman”.
4. All those employees who joined ONGC after 14th Oct 1959 and retired upto 31st March 1991 were entitled for 50% of the entitlement as in point 1 (case of illegal arbitrary discrimination).
5. All those who joined ONGC on or after 15th Oct 1959 and retired any time after 31st March 1959 are totally deprived of any benefit (case of illegal discrimination) irrespective of their length of service.
The illegal and arbitrary riders (discriminatory as per law) provided by ONGC management deprived a majority of retires numbering about 18000 and also resulted in a meager benefit to about 2000 eligible retirees.
The plea for justice by these retired employees to ONGC Management fell on deaf ears due to negative attitude of the Concerned Director HR which lead the retired employees/officers associations throughout ONGC to join together and file WP 6593/2003 at Bombay High Court. While the case was in court, instead of solving the vexed issue of “Agrani Samman” by involving the petitioner association, ONGC again violated the law and introduced an illegal and discriminatory PRBS based defined pension scheme for its retirees of 2007 onwards probably to cover themselves with much superior benefits than “Agrani Samman”. It clearly shows as to how much regards they have for the law and for their elders who handed them the most profitable Maharatna Company built out of their blood and sweat on a platter with golden spoons in their hands. After receiving the wealth in their hands the management started showing its true colours and instead of treating these elders as members of the family completely disowned them like an unworthy son.
In March 2008 our case on “Agrani Samman” WP 6593/2003 came up for final hearing in Bombay High Court and was disposed off in the form of an agreement as ONGC agreed to consider the same as per law within 3 months in front of the Divisional Bench. After end of 3 months ONGC backed out from its own commitment given in front of Divisional Bench.
This illegal action of ONGC forced us to file a fresh case WP/531/2009 in Bombay High Court. No one knows how much time this fresh case will take to get justice but one thing is sure that it will take some more casualities and deprive them justice for ever. Taking advantage of inordinate delay in Bombay High Court, ONGC continued its illegal practices of depriving the elders of all their legitimate dues by discriminating them with the unlawful arbitrary cut off dates in all subsequent schemes.
It is really sad that the #1 profit making Maharatna Company has all its elders among the BPL (Below Poverty Line) families as per GOI guidelines.
REQUEST FOR PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTINAL RIGHTS OF THESE SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR LEGITIMATE DUES DUE TO VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THEIR EX-EMPLOYER M/s OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
• ONGC be directed through the administrative ministry for out of Court settlement in long pending “Agrani Samman” case amicably with the Petitioner Association, who have the absolute mandate from all other retired employees/officers associations for dealing in “Agrani Samman” on behalf of all retirees, at the earliest before some more retirees die waiting for justice. They should also be directed to remove total discrimination among the homogenous group of retirees by deleting all illegal clauses like arbitrary cut of dates and unlawful deductions from the date of implementation of the scheme.
• ONGC may also be directed to abide by the law and put on hold any revision in the 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme pending settlement of “Agrani Samman” Scheme, since their 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme is now part of the documents submitted in Bombay High Court WP/531/2009 and the matter is subjudice. Any change in 2007 scheme will have to wait disposal of WP 531/2009 by the Bombay High Court or a negotiated settlement with Petitioner Association.
• ONGC should also be advised to formulate a single D.A. Linked Transparent Pension Scheme for all retirees past as well as future w.e.f. 1st January 2007 to maintain uniformity instead of having multiple schemes to avoid corruption in future.
Humbly submitted for your kind and urgent consideration.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(m. rangarajan)
On behalf of 21000+ silently suffering retirees of ONGC
Copy to:
1. Smt Sonia Gandhi, MP, Chairperson, United Front Government, 10, Janpath, New Delhi – 110011.
2. Sri Manmohan Singh, Hon Prime Minister, 7, Race Course Road, New Delhi – 110011.
3. Sri Lal Krishna Advani, MP, 30, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi – 110011.
4. Sri Jaipal Reddy, Hon Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 8, Tees January Marg, New Delhi – 110011.
5. Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievences, 5th floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.
6. Sri Sudhir Vasudeva, CMD, ONGC, Jeevan Bharti Tower II, 124, Indira Cho
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
M. Rangarajan,
(retired Group General Manager ONGC)
B 2 – 301, SRIRAM SPANDHANA,
Chellaghatta village,
Bangalore – 560037.
Phone: 25227955, mobile 9945091581
e-mail: rangajan@yahoo.com / rangajan@gmail.com
No: HRC-1/2011 dated 12th December 2011
To,
Hon Justice Sri K G Balakrishnan,
Chairperson,
National Human Rights Commission,
Faridkot House,
Copernicus Marg,
New Nelhi - 110001
SUB: Human Rights Violation of 21000+ Retired Employees (Elders – Senior citizens) by M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (a Maharatna company) - Request for Intervention and Justice
About 21000 employees retired anytime between 1985 to Dec 2006 who are the real backbones of ONGC (age group 65 to 85+ years) are struggling for their survival due to general apathy and negative mindset of ONGC Management who repeatedly utters that “once an employee retires, all his connections with the Corporation are severed immediately”. As all our appeals to ONGC failed, retirees were forced to approach Bombay High Court by a writ petition filed by “All India ONGC Ex Employees Welfare Association, Mumbai” on their behalf in 2003. Out of these 21000 retired employees about 1500-2000 have already expired during last 8 years, pending disposal of a discrimination case in Bombay High Court.
These retirees are the Pioneers who built ONGC from scratch and nurtured it with their blood and sweat when it was an infant. We also have all those responsible for bringing India on the Oil Map of the world. Our members also comprises of those responsible for the discovery of Oil & Natural Gas as well as its Production from various Onshore as well as Offshore fields including Mumbai High. We also have retirees from ONGC Videsh Ltd. who converted it from loss making to highest profit making arm of ONGC. Our retirees are highly qualified and experienced in various activities of E&P Industry. We are ex-ONGCians who contributed in creating India’s most valuable Maha --ratna Oil Company.
The majority of these retirees are not in receipt of any old age benefit from their ex-employer ONGC and are fully dependent on their kiths and kins for survival and some of them are virtually starving. Most of these retirees are without any financial support for 5 to 25 years after retirement. Only a handful of them, approximately 3000 persons are covered by Agrani Samman, an Ex-Gratia Scheme, but their condition is also pitiable due to a meager amount received by them which is not even sufficient to live a dignified life without external support in today’s high cost of living.
Brief of Agrani Samman Ex Gratia Case
ONGC realized that its retired employees are in very difficult financial condition and introduced an Ex-Gratia monthly payment scheme called “Agrani Samman”, by Late CMD Shri Subir Raha wef 1st Jan 2003 based on Shri T.N. Seshan’s Report. The objective was to provide some financial support to the Pioneers so that they can lead a dignified retired life. While framing his recommendations Shri T N Seshan got influenced by an ex-director ONGC and submitted a scheme which is not only discriminatory but also violated the provisions of Indian Constitution viz. Art 14 - right to equality and Art 16 - right to justice, by introducing arbitrary cut off dates, unwanted and illegal riders and deductions of retirees own money, from the meager amount of relief provided to about 3000 retirees. These arbitrary cut off dates and illegal deductions from retirees own money has already been rejected by Supreme Court in several famous cases. The total amount spent towards “Agrani Samman” the Ex-Gratia scheme for these 3000 retirees annually is less than Rs 10 Crores (as per RTI reply). As per the “Agrani Samman” Ex-Gratia Scheme implemented by ONGC wef 1st Jan 2003, the retirees were subdivided into four slabs based on their respective ranks just before retirement as follows and were entitled to the modest Ex Gratia amount christened as “Agrani Samman”:
Slab I : Retired Class IV and Class III levels : Rs 1500+DA
Slab II : Retired executives from E0 to E-3 levels : Rs 3000+DA
Slab III : Retired executives from E-4 to E-6 levels : Rs 4500+DA
Slab IV : Retired executives from E-7 to CMD level : Rs 6000+DA
Illegal and Arbitrary Riders:
1. The 100% beneficiaries of above amounts as per the slabs were granted only to those retirees who joined ONGC prior to 15th Oct 1959 irrespective of their date of retirement and have completed 20 years of service. All those between 10 to 20 years of service were considered for pro-rata benefits
2. Out of the above beneficiaries who were in receipt of pension from their earlier employer or PRBS interest on their own money from LIC were entitled for only the balance amount of above mentioned “Agrani Samman” after deduction of his own money (illegal deductions).
3. The spouse of the deceased eligible employee was given 50% “Agrani Samman”.
4. All those employees who joined ONGC after 14th Oct 1959 and retired upto 31st March 1991 were entitled for 50% of the entitlement as in point 1 (case of illegal arbitrary discrimination).
5. All those who joined ONGC on or after 15th Oct 1959 and retired any time after 31st March 1959 are totally deprived of any benefit (case of illegal discrimination) irrespective of their length of service.
The illegal and arbitrary riders (discriminatory as per law) provided by ONGC management deprived a majority of retires numbering about 18000 and also resulted in a meager benefit to about 2000 eligible retirees.
The plea for justice by these retired employees to ONGC Management fell on deaf ears due to negative attitude of the Concerned Director HR which lead the retired employees/officers associations throughout ONGC to join together and file WP 6593/2003 at Bombay High Court. While the case was in court, instead of solving the vexed issue of “Agrani Samman” by involving the petitioner association, ONGC again violated the law and introduced an illegal and discriminatory PRBS based defined pension scheme for its retirees of 2007 onwards probably to cover themselves with much superior benefits than “Agrani Samman”. It clearly shows as to how much regards they have for the law and for their elders who handed them the most profitable Maharatna Company built out of their blood and sweat on a platter with golden spoons in their hands. After receiving the wealth in their hands the management started showing its true colours and instead of treating these elders as members of the family completely disowned them like an unworthy son.
In March 2008 our case on “Agrani Samman” WP 6593/2003 came up for final hearing in Bombay High Court and was disposed off in the form of an agreement as ONGC agreed to consider the same as per law within 3 months in front of the Divisional Bench. After end of 3 months ONGC backed out from its own commitment given in front of Divisional Bench.
This illegal action of ONGC forced us to file a fresh case WP/531/2009 in Bombay High Court. No one knows how much time this fresh case will take to get justice but one thing is sure that it will take some more casualities and deprive them justice for ever. Taking advantage of inordinate delay in Bombay High Court, ONGC continued its illegal practices of depriving the elders of all their legitimate dues by discriminating them with the unlawful arbitrary cut off dates in all subsequent schemes.
It is really sad that the #1 profit making Maharatna Company has all its elders among the BPL (Below Poverty Line) families as per GOI guidelines.
REQUEST FOR PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTINAL RIGHTS OF THESE SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR LEGITIMATE DUES DUE TO VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THEIR EX-EMPLOYER M/s OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
• ONGC be directed through the administrative ministry for out of Court settlement in long pending “Agrani Samman” case amicably with the Petitioner Association, who have the absolute mandate from all other retired employees/officers associations for dealing in “Agrani Samman” on behalf of all retirees, at the earliest before some more retirees die waiting for justice. They should also be directed to remove total discrimination among the homogenous group of retirees by deleting all illegal clauses like arbitrary cut of dates and unlawful deductions from the date of implementation of the scheme.
• ONGC may also be directed to abide by the law and put on hold any revision in the 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme pending settlement of “Agrani Samman” Scheme, since their 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme is now part of the documents submitted in Bombay High Court WP/531/2009 and the matter is subjudice. Any change in 2007 scheme will have to wait disposal of WP 531/2009 by the Bombay High Court or a negotiated settlement with Petitioner Association.
• ONGC should also be advised to formulate a single D.A. Linked Transparent Pension Scheme for all retirees past as well as future w.e.f. 1st January 2007 to maintain uniformity instead of having multiple schemes to avoid corruption in future.
Humbly submitted for your kind and urgent consideration.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(m. rangarajan)
On behalf of 21000+ silently suffering retirees of ONGC
Copy to:
1. Smt Sonia Gandhi, MP, Chairperson, United Front Government, 10, Janpath, New Delhi – 110011.
2. Sri Manmohan Singh, Hon Prime Minister, 7, Race Course Road, New Delhi – 110011.
3. Sri Lal Krishna Advani, MP, 30, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi – 110011.
4. Sri Jaipal Reddy, Hon Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 8, Tees January Marg, New Delhi – 110011.
5. Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievences, 5th floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.
6. Sri Sudhir Vasudeva, CMD, ONGC, Jeevan Bharti Tower II, 124, Indira Cho
FAQ ON AGRANI SAMMAN - BY NIRMAL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
FAQ ON AGRANI SAMMAN - BY NIRMAL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
FAQ ON AGRANI SAMMAN
(Prepared and sent to ONGC management and to all our members and associations in March 2008)
Q. What is Agrani Samman?
A. Agrani Samman is nothing but Pension Scheme in Disguise.It is a very noble scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2003.It was meant to mitigate economic hardship and to recognise the valuable contributions made by the Pioneers for the cause of ONGC
Q. Who are eligible for grant of Agrani Samman?
A. All those who joined ONGC( i )upto 14.10.1959 irrespective of their date of retirement 100% benefit (ii) on or after 15.10.1959 provided they retired on or before 31.03.1991/ 16.11.1995 in case of executives/ staff 50% benefit Discriminatory and no benefit to those who retired on or after 01.04.1991/ 17.11.1995 executives/staff.
Remarks: Highly Discriminatory
Q. What is the amount of monthly benefits available under Agrani Samman scheme ?
A. All the ex employees covered under the scheme were sub divided into following four groups:
Group I : class IV and Class III employees (Non Executives) Rs.1500+ Applicable DA
Group II : E0 to E-2 ( Executives ) Rs.3000+ Applicable DA
Group III: E-3 to E-6( Executives ) Rs.4500 + Applicable DA
Group IV: E-7 and above Rs.6000 + Applicable DA
Q. If the Agrani Samman is a Noble scheme then What went wrong ?
A. The scheme is full of contradictions and discriminatory :
( i ) Based on 5th Pay Commission recommendations and as directed by central govt.it
was mandatory for all PSU's to adopt pension scheme for all serving employees wef
01.01.1986. The basic criteria laid down was 20 years of service.However ONGC
did'nt adopt any Pension scheme.
( ii ) While granting Agrani Samman the basic criteria laid down ie.minimum 20 years of service was also diluted to give prorata benefits to employees even with 10 years of
service resulting in benefit to be passed on to employees who joined upto 31st
March 1981 and retired on or before 31st March 1991 after completing 10 years of
service.While other employees who joined on 15th Oct 1959 or later but retired on
or after 01.04.1991after completing 30 to 40 years of service were totally denied
the benefit which was given to their juniors merely because they retired earlier due to
their higher age.
Remarks : Discriminatory
( iii ) The scheme was meant to reward the Pioneers but no Pioneers identified.Can
someone who joined in 1980 or 1981 be termed as Pioneer while denying the
benefit to all those who joined on or after 15.10.1959 and ignored due to various
arbitrary barriers ( cut off dates ).Benefit of Agrani Samman was denied to
several real Pioneers.
Remarks :Discriminatory
( iv ) Deductions on account of earlier Govt.Pension/PRBS is being made in case of
certain ex employees which is also not justified.While Govt. Pension is based
on their past service in Govt.the amount of PRBS received by an ex employee
is exclusively based on the interest on Annuity purchased from LIC from his own
contribution, with nil contribution from ONGC.
Remarks : Discriminatory
Q. What is to be done by the Management now to solve this vexed issue ?
A. A multipronged action is required from ONGC Management to solve this long
pending issue, which is not only discriminatory but also violative of Article 14 &
16 as enshrined in our Constitution ie. right to equality and justice.Action required :
( i ) Parity among all those who joined ONGC after 14.10.1959 and prior to 15.10.59
( ii ) Removal of all arbitrary barriers ie.retired on or before 31.03.1991/16.11.1995 for executives/staff
( iii ) No deduction of any kind from the Agrani Samman benefit.
It may be mentioned here that there are various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and other High Courts on the issue of discrimination as above. Sample
Apex Court in one of the similiar cases held that " where the criteria is minimum or
particular period of service,the other considerations have no meaning and merely for
the sake of these considerations the benefit of pension/financial gains can not be
denied"
In another case " an arbitrary date can not be fixed to deny equal treatment to
pensioners who formed a single class and that such a distinction would be violative
of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution"
In another judgement Apex Court decided against Union of India"restricting the benefit
from a particular date was arbitrary"
In another case against Union of India the Apex court ruled that "If consequent receipt of these benefits,there is a proportionate reduction in Pension,there is no real benefit to the employee because the Management takes away by the left hand what it seems to confer by the right"
Another ruling "Pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on sweetwill and
pleasure of the Govt. and right to superannuation Pension including its amount is
valuable right vested in Govt. servant"
There are several such rulings which favours the claim of all ex ONGCians to receive
Agrani Samman benefits at par that too without any deductions.
Q. What else is expected from ONGC Management besides above ?
A. The four groups also seem to have been made in a hurry without giving proper thought to various employees position while in service.The proper grouping taking into
consideration of various aspects. As a progressive organisation ONGC can recast these four groups properly and revise all benefits to all these groups alongwith every pay revision as is being done by GOI.The above amounts are only peanuts compared to the pension given in organisations like Coal India.
Suggestation : ONGC can implement above Pension Scheme for all and can do
away with PRBS which not a rational scheme and will always depend on large infusion of funds( to the extent of funds to the tune of thousands of crores) from time to time at regular intervals to keep it viable.
Nirmal Kumar
Gen. Secretary
All India ONGC Ex Employees Welfare Association
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
FAQ ON AGRANI SAMMAN
(Prepared and sent to ONGC management and to all our members and associations in March 2008)
Q. What is Agrani Samman?
A. Agrani Samman is nothing but Pension Scheme in Disguise.It is a very noble scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2003.It was meant to mitigate economic hardship and to recognise the valuable contributions made by the Pioneers for the cause of ONGC
Q. Who are eligible for grant of Agrani Samman?
A. All those who joined ONGC( i )upto 14.10.1959 irrespective of their date of retirement 100% benefit (ii) on or after 15.10.1959 provided they retired on or before 31.03.1991/ 16.11.1995 in case of executives/ staff 50% benefit Discriminatory and no benefit to those who retired on or after 01.04.1991/ 17.11.1995 executives/staff.
Remarks: Highly Discriminatory
Q. What is the amount of monthly benefits available under Agrani Samman scheme ?
A. All the ex employees covered under the scheme were sub divided into following four groups:
Group I : class IV and Class III employees (Non Executives) Rs.1500+ Applicable DA
Group II : E0 to E-2 ( Executives ) Rs.3000+ Applicable DA
Group III: E-3 to E-6( Executives ) Rs.4500 + Applicable DA
Group IV: E-7 and above Rs.6000 + Applicable DA
Q. If the Agrani Samman is a Noble scheme then What went wrong ?
A. The scheme is full of contradictions and discriminatory :
( i ) Based on 5th Pay Commission recommendations and as directed by central govt.it
was mandatory for all PSU's to adopt pension scheme for all serving employees wef
01.01.1986. The basic criteria laid down was 20 years of service.However ONGC
did'nt adopt any Pension scheme.
( ii ) While granting Agrani Samman the basic criteria laid down ie.minimum 20 years of service was also diluted to give prorata benefits to employees even with 10 years of
service resulting in benefit to be passed on to employees who joined upto 31st
March 1981 and retired on or before 31st March 1991 after completing 10 years of
service.While other employees who joined on 15th Oct 1959 or later but retired on
or after 01.04.1991after completing 30 to 40 years of service were totally denied
the benefit which was given to their juniors merely because they retired earlier due to
their higher age.
Remarks : Discriminatory
( iii ) The scheme was meant to reward the Pioneers but no Pioneers identified.Can
someone who joined in 1980 or 1981 be termed as Pioneer while denying the
benefit to all those who joined on or after 15.10.1959 and ignored due to various
arbitrary barriers ( cut off dates ).Benefit of Agrani Samman was denied to
several real Pioneers.
Remarks :Discriminatory
( iv ) Deductions on account of earlier Govt.Pension/PRBS is being made in case of
certain ex employees which is also not justified.While Govt. Pension is based
on their past service in Govt.the amount of PRBS received by an ex employee
is exclusively based on the interest on Annuity purchased from LIC from his own
contribution, with nil contribution from ONGC.
Remarks : Discriminatory
Q. What is to be done by the Management now to solve this vexed issue ?
A. A multipronged action is required from ONGC Management to solve this long
pending issue, which is not only discriminatory but also violative of Article 14 &
16 as enshrined in our Constitution ie. right to equality and justice.Action required :
( i ) Parity among all those who joined ONGC after 14.10.1959 and prior to 15.10.59
( ii ) Removal of all arbitrary barriers ie.retired on or before 31.03.1991/16.11.1995 for executives/staff
( iii ) No deduction of any kind from the Agrani Samman benefit.
It may be mentioned here that there are various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and other High Courts on the issue of discrimination as above. Sample
Apex Court in one of the similiar cases held that " where the criteria is minimum or
particular period of service,the other considerations have no meaning and merely for
the sake of these considerations the benefit of pension/financial gains can not be
denied"
In another case " an arbitrary date can not be fixed to deny equal treatment to
pensioners who formed a single class and that such a distinction would be violative
of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution"
In another judgement Apex Court decided against Union of India"restricting the benefit
from a particular date was arbitrary"
In another case against Union of India the Apex court ruled that "If consequent receipt of these benefits,there is a proportionate reduction in Pension,there is no real benefit to the employee because the Management takes away by the left hand what it seems to confer by the right"
Another ruling "Pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on sweetwill and
pleasure of the Govt. and right to superannuation Pension including its amount is
valuable right vested in Govt. servant"
There are several such rulings which favours the claim of all ex ONGCians to receive
Agrani Samman benefits at par that too without any deductions.
Q. What else is expected from ONGC Management besides above ?
A. The four groups also seem to have been made in a hurry without giving proper thought to various employees position while in service.The proper grouping taking into
consideration of various aspects. As a progressive organisation ONGC can recast these four groups properly and revise all benefits to all these groups alongwith every pay revision as is being done by GOI.The above amounts are only peanuts compared to the pension given in organisations like Coal India.
Suggestation : ONGC can implement above Pension Scheme for all and can do
away with PRBS which not a rational scheme and will always depend on large infusion of funds( to the extent of funds to the tune of thousands of crores) from time to time at regular intervals to keep it viable.
Nirmal Kumar
Gen. Secretary
All India ONGC Ex Employees Welfare Association
DRAT LETTER PROPOSED TO BE SENT TO CMD REG 1.5% PBT
DRAT LETTER PROPOSED TO BE SENT TO CMD REG 1.5% PBT
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
d r a f t (some one be authorized to send it under his signature from the group side)
.
Tol
(CMD by name)
Respected Sir,
Sub: Formation of a Central CORPUS FUND for CPSE’s Non – Pensioned Retirees / Senior
Citizens - Request for.
Ref: 1. Recommendations of 2nd Pay Revision Committee for CPSE’s Executives {Page – 130,
Para. No. 6.2.5 (C)}
2. Office – Memorandum No. 2(81) /08 – DPE (WC) – GL – XVI / 2009 dated 08.07.2009
3. National Workshop held at New Delhi on 16.11.2010, on “Medical & Emergency Needs of Retired Employees of CPSEs – Creation of CORPUS FUND”.
******
We, the members of EX-ONGCIANS, heartily congratulate you for taking-over as Chairman-Cum-Managing Director or ONGC and assure you our best co-operation for the well being and growth of our esteemed organization.
EX-ONGCIANS is an international Network for sharing among the retired employees of ONGC spread over all over the work.
We feel it pertinent to mention here that the employees of Govt. of India / Govts. of All States, Members of Legislative Assembly / Councils (MLAs and MLCs), Members of Parliment (MPs), Officials of Financial Banks etc., including the workers of Anganawadi Schools are getting the Pensions after their retirements. But we the retired employees of ONGC who brought the organization upto Mahanavratna status by rendering our services away from our families in arduous and hazardous hostile environ. At the fall of our life it has become too difficult for us to survive with meager amount by way of Agrani Samman and PRBS. You would kindly appreciate that providing Social Security to the aged and retired employees is not obligatory on the part of PSE/Corporation but it is their responsibility. On the contrary it is really shocking that our own department has been litigating our issues in the court by field Attorney General and a battery of senior advocates of Supreme Court at the fag end of our life.
We would like to draw your kind attention to Office – Memorandum No. 2(81)/08-DPE(WC) – GL – XVI / 2009 dated 08.07.2009 (a copy enclosed), issued by the Director, Dept. of Public Enterprises, Govt. of India, New Delhi, with regard to creating a Corpus by contributing 1.5% of PBT by CPSEs to take care of medical and any other emergency needs of those retired employees, who are not adequately covered under pension and medical scheme. And, for the purpose ONGC has already kept aside a total amount of Rs.1400 crores for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009,10, 201o-11 as per figures reflected in the Annual Report of ONGC. But, it is highly unfortunate that till date no payment in this regard has been made to us though a period of more than 3 years have passed after the DPE's guidelines.
We would also like to bring to your kind attention that a Workshop was organized by National Institute of Personal Management (NIPM) and Management Leadership Development Centre had organized a National Workshop on “Medical and Emergency needs of Retired Employees of CPSEs Creation of CORPUS”, on 16.11.2010 at SCOPE Complex, New Delhi The said Workshop was attended by all the Top officials of the Industries., including ONGC. . A copy of the Proceedings is enclosed for your immediate reference. The Conclusions and Recommendations made by the workshop and forwarded to the Department of Public Enterprises / Other Ministries are reproduced below:
"Conclusions and Recommendations
In the light of discussion, interaction and deliberations the following conclusion arid recommendations were drawn.
It was understood that these recommendations could, for the time being, be only within the confines of the DPE guidelines promulgated so far and the review of the guidelines within a larger frame of greater fairness and equity would have to be taken up separately.
1. The CPSUs could be divided into 3 categories for the above purpose :-
a) Maharatna, Navaratna and Miniratna companies which have annual
PBT from which 1-1.5% could be earmarked towards the corpus.
b) Other profit making PSUs
c) Loss making PSUs
THE RATNA GROUP
Provide medical assistance on par with serving employees of equivalent designations
Make an ex-gratia payment as near the 30% of the minimum of the current pay attached to the designation at which the employee had retired or its present equivalent to meet the other emergency needs of the employee. This payment calculated monthly may be paid every quarter. The surviving spouse to be eligible for half of this amount. Additionally DA to be paid at prevailing rates.
3) This payment will be made from the corpus created out of the 1-1.5% of the PBT. This may be decided based on the fund available in the corpus. The Scheme so formulated by the Company will be reviewed periodically to ensure its viability.
4) The Corpus to be managed by a Trust consisting of Director (Finance) as Chairman, Director (HR), another serving Director, two senior retired employees not lower than the level of General Manager. The Trust will ensure that sufficient contingent reserves are held at any given time.
THE NON RATNA GROUP
The Board to determine the percentage of PBT to be transferred to the Corpus
Provide, on priority, medical assistance on par with serving employees
Make ex-gratia payment to meet the minimum needs of the employee to live a life of dignity which will also bring a fair name to the PSU for its care and concern for the pioneers and foundation makers
The Corpus to be administered in the same manner as above.
THE LOSS MAKING GROUP
Same action as for the Non Ratna Group as above.
Sources for fund may be as follows:
DPE CORPUS
It is suggested that from out of the total dividends received by the Govt. from the PSUs, 1% should be set aside as a Special Reserve to fund the needs of the retired employees of the Loss Making Group and also the needs of the other groups in the unlikely event of extraordinary circumstances.
Similarly 1% of the amount realized by the Govt. by way of disinvestment of PSUs may be transferred to this Trust."
Sir, we have already stated that we are at the fag end of our life. Our need is to urgent for the sustenance. Any delay in making payment to us tantamount to denial . Day by day retirees are dying in hapless conditions. We also happen to be the senior citizens entitled for certain benefits and privileges under the National Policy of Older People. Under the said policy our concerns are to be taken as national concerns. We, therefore, request you kind self to please personally go into the matter to ensure expeditious action. We also request that a Trust may please be formed expressly for the Corpus out of 1.5% PBT wherein two retired employees recommended by this group may also be included. Needless to say that the aforesaid guidelines have already been implemented by IOC with effect from 1.1.07 .
Thanking you,
Your’s faithfully
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
d r a f t (some one be authorized to send it under his signature from the group side)
.
Tol
(CMD by name)
Respected Sir,
Sub: Formation of a Central CORPUS FUND for CPSE’s Non – Pensioned Retirees / Senior
Citizens - Request for.
Ref: 1. Recommendations of 2nd Pay Revision Committee for CPSE’s Executives {Page – 130,
Para. No. 6.2.5 (C)}
2. Office – Memorandum No. 2(81) /08 – DPE (WC) – GL – XVI / 2009 dated 08.07.2009
3. National Workshop held at New Delhi on 16.11.2010, on “Medical & Emergency Needs of Retired Employees of CPSEs – Creation of CORPUS FUND”.
******
We, the members of EX-ONGCIANS, heartily congratulate you for taking-over as Chairman-Cum-Managing Director or ONGC and assure you our best co-operation for the well being and growth of our esteemed organization.
EX-ONGCIANS is an international Network for sharing among the retired employees of ONGC spread over all over the work.
We feel it pertinent to mention here that the employees of Govt. of India / Govts. of All States, Members of Legislative Assembly / Councils (MLAs and MLCs), Members of Parliment (MPs), Officials of Financial Banks etc., including the workers of Anganawadi Schools are getting the Pensions after their retirements. But we the retired employees of ONGC who brought the organization upto Mahanavratna status by rendering our services away from our families in arduous and hazardous hostile environ. At the fall of our life it has become too difficult for us to survive with meager amount by way of Agrani Samman and PRBS. You would kindly appreciate that providing Social Security to the aged and retired employees is not obligatory on the part of PSE/Corporation but it is their responsibility. On the contrary it is really shocking that our own department has been litigating our issues in the court by field Attorney General and a battery of senior advocates of Supreme Court at the fag end of our life.
We would like to draw your kind attention to Office – Memorandum No. 2(81)/08-DPE(WC) – GL – XVI / 2009 dated 08.07.2009 (a copy enclosed), issued by the Director, Dept. of Public Enterprises, Govt. of India, New Delhi, with regard to creating a Corpus by contributing 1.5% of PBT by CPSEs to take care of medical and any other emergency needs of those retired employees, who are not adequately covered under pension and medical scheme. And, for the purpose ONGC has already kept aside a total amount of Rs.1400 crores for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009,10, 201o-11 as per figures reflected in the Annual Report of ONGC. But, it is highly unfortunate that till date no payment in this regard has been made to us though a period of more than 3 years have passed after the DPE's guidelines.
We would also like to bring to your kind attention that a Workshop was organized by National Institute of Personal Management (NIPM) and Management Leadership Development Centre had organized a National Workshop on “Medical and Emergency needs of Retired Employees of CPSEs Creation of CORPUS”, on 16.11.2010 at SCOPE Complex, New Delhi The said Workshop was attended by all the Top officials of the Industries., including ONGC. . A copy of the Proceedings is enclosed for your immediate reference. The Conclusions and Recommendations made by the workshop and forwarded to the Department of Public Enterprises / Other Ministries are reproduced below:
"Conclusions and Recommendations
In the light of discussion, interaction and deliberations the following conclusion arid recommendations were drawn.
It was understood that these recommendations could, for the time being, be only within the confines of the DPE guidelines promulgated so far and the review of the guidelines within a larger frame of greater fairness and equity would have to be taken up separately.
1. The CPSUs could be divided into 3 categories for the above purpose :-
a) Maharatna, Navaratna and Miniratna companies which have annual
PBT from which 1-1.5% could be earmarked towards the corpus.
b) Other profit making PSUs
c) Loss making PSUs
THE RATNA GROUP
Provide medical assistance on par with serving employees of equivalent designations
Make an ex-gratia payment as near the 30% of the minimum of the current pay attached to the designation at which the employee had retired or its present equivalent to meet the other emergency needs of the employee. This payment calculated monthly may be paid every quarter. The surviving spouse to be eligible for half of this amount. Additionally DA to be paid at prevailing rates.
3) This payment will be made from the corpus created out of the 1-1.5% of the PBT. This may be decided based on the fund available in the corpus. The Scheme so formulated by the Company will be reviewed periodically to ensure its viability.
4) The Corpus to be managed by a Trust consisting of Director (Finance) as Chairman, Director (HR), another serving Director, two senior retired employees not lower than the level of General Manager. The Trust will ensure that sufficient contingent reserves are held at any given time.
THE NON RATNA GROUP
The Board to determine the percentage of PBT to be transferred to the Corpus
Provide, on priority, medical assistance on par with serving employees
Make ex-gratia payment to meet the minimum needs of the employee to live a life of dignity which will also bring a fair name to the PSU for its care and concern for the pioneers and foundation makers
The Corpus to be administered in the same manner as above.
THE LOSS MAKING GROUP
Same action as for the Non Ratna Group as above.
Sources for fund may be as follows:
DPE CORPUS
It is suggested that from out of the total dividends received by the Govt. from the PSUs, 1% should be set aside as a Special Reserve to fund the needs of the retired employees of the Loss Making Group and also the needs of the other groups in the unlikely event of extraordinary circumstances.
Similarly 1% of the amount realized by the Govt. by way of disinvestment of PSUs may be transferred to this Trust."
Sir, we have already stated that we are at the fag end of our life. Our need is to urgent for the sustenance. Any delay in making payment to us tantamount to denial . Day by day retirees are dying in hapless conditions. We also happen to be the senior citizens entitled for certain benefits and privileges under the National Policy of Older People. Under the said policy our concerns are to be taken as national concerns. We, therefore, request you kind self to please personally go into the matter to ensure expeditious action. We also request that a Trust may please be formed expressly for the Corpus out of 1.5% PBT wherein two retired employees recommended by this group may also be included. Needless to say that the aforesaid guidelines have already been implemented by IOC with effect from 1.1.07 .
Thanking you,
Your’s faithfully
PRBS -Brief By Capt. Narayan Singh Rathore
PRBS -Brief By Capt. Narayan Singh Rathore
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS
Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, PRBS appeared going smooth but it was ailing inside. Funds were not received by PRBS Trust on regular basis. We all know that "Additional Cash Contribution" against Monetised value of surrendered facilities (Uniform related items and Canteen subsidy) was Main Source for funding the Scheme but funds remained with ONGC or they were not accounted for by Managing Trustee. Therefore, financial collapse occurred. Trustees did not review Addl. Cash Contr. in accordance with prevailing Price Index of Commodities. Actuarial recommendations were ignored in totality. Pay Revision-1992 witnessed 78% rise in Salary but Addl. Cash Contr. was being paid at escalation of 7.25% only. This was position in early 1996.
2. Background behind MOU of 3.2.1998:
(a). Govt. Notification of 16.11.1995 for Compulsory implementation of EPS-1995;
(b). Govt. Notification of 10.1.1996 for Pay Revision-1992, which Entailed Pension on Revised Salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and
(c). Circular No.PRBS-38 dated 17.1.1996 for enhanced deduction of Fixed % Contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992.
3. (a). ONGC requested Exemption from Implementation of compulsory EPS-1995, with consideration that its Own Pension Scheme-PRBS- was more advantaompulsory for all Executives. Similar exercise was carried out through another MOU with Unions to make PRBS compulsory "In-lieu" of EPS-1995.
3. (b). ONGC did not want to grant Pension on Revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992. Finalisation of Pension cases was kept pending from January 1996, awaiting some Legal Wrangle to crop up. An Actuarial Valuation Report dated 2.8.1996 was arranged for use in Writ Petition No.1718/1996 in Bombay H.C. in August 1996. Hon'ble Court issued Ad-interim Order of 5.11.1996 for negotiation between ONGC & ASTO in association with Petitioners & local ASTO (MRBC), to "Raise additional funds" to save the Scheme;
3. (c). ONGC intended to avoid implementation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996, as it could cause large amount of recoveries from Arrears of Pay and also enhanced fixed % contr. in times to come.
4. To achieve above objectives, Writ Petition was used convinient Platform: Finalisation of Recommendations to "raise" Additional funds was inordinately delayed so that Focus cd. be shifted from Main Object of Raising/generating additional funds to freestyle re-structuring of PRBS. To achieve such derogatory, unfair, disadvantageous, discriminatory & prejudicial feats, MOU was signed in "Good Faith" as if negotiations for 17-18 months were not sufficient to examine Data/Statistics pertaning to Assets & Liabilities of PRBS Trust, arising from 1.4.1990. It was unique method of ascertaining "Financial Viability" of the Fund.
5. Recommendations made in MOU of 3.2.1998 were not only contrary to Court Order of 5.11.1996 but ensured "Un-viability" of Fund. Introduction of Notional Salary reduced existing Fixed % Contr. by 40 to 60 Percent and it also nullified Cir. No.PRBS-38 for enhanced recovery on Revised Salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 & all future Pay Revisions.
6. Notional salary being nearly 40 to 60% of Actual salary, Pension benefit was also reduced to that extent.
7. Managing Trustee mis-used this opportunity to introduce some clauses which provided enormous scope for manipulations, mis-interpretations and discriminations. Para 5.1, 31.2 & 32 of Rules-1991 were totally rendered ineffective. PRBS was mutilated & demolished. MOU of 3.2.1998 was implemented under Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998 without approval of Comp. Authy.
8. Most dangerous consequence of MOU of 3.2.1998 was Managing Trustee assuming Absolute Power to Revise the PRBS in any manner, with no restrictions whatsoever. Conversion of existig "Pension Defined Scheme" into "Defined Corpus" is burning example. ONGC PRBS Trust did not purchase Annuity of Entitlement but remitted some Corpus to LIC. Pension of retired ONGCians was Fixed by LIC during January 1996 to March 2007. Another MOU of 9.4.2007 was manipulated to secretly Re.convert "Defined Corpus" into "Pension Defined Scheme" w.e.f. 1.4.2007. PRBS Trust of our beloved Maharatna considered such acts of violations as Legal & Legitimate, Just & Fair.
9. hope this clears the Clouds ?? Any specific question is most welcome.
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS
Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, PRBS appeared going smooth but it was ailing inside. Funds were not received by PRBS Trust on regular basis. We all know that "Additional Cash Contribution" against Monetised value of surrendered facilities (Uniform related items and Canteen subsidy) was Main Source for funding the Scheme but funds remained with ONGC or they were not accounted for by Managing Trustee. Therefore, financial collapse occurred. Trustees did not review Addl. Cash Contr. in accordance with prevailing Price Index of Commodities. Actuarial recommendations were ignored in totality. Pay Revision-1992 witnessed 78% rise in Salary but Addl. Cash Contr. was being paid at escalation of 7.25% only. This was position in early 1996.
2. Background behind MOU of 3.2.1998:
(a). Govt. Notification of 16.11.1995 for Compulsory implementation of EPS-1995;
(b). Govt. Notification of 10.1.1996 for Pay Revision-1992, which Entailed Pension on Revised Salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and
(c). Circular No.PRBS-38 dated 17.1.1996 for enhanced deduction of Fixed % Contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992.
3. (a). ONGC requested Exemption from Implementation of compulsory EPS-1995, with consideration that its Own Pension Scheme-PRBS- was more advantaompulsory for all Executives. Similar exercise was carried out through another MOU with Unions to make PRBS compulsory "In-lieu" of EPS-1995.
3. (b). ONGC did not want to grant Pension on Revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992. Finalisation of Pension cases was kept pending from January 1996, awaiting some Legal Wrangle to crop up. An Actuarial Valuation Report dated 2.8.1996 was arranged for use in Writ Petition No.1718/1996 in Bombay H.C. in August 1996. Hon'ble Court issued Ad-interim Order of 5.11.1996 for negotiation between ONGC & ASTO in association with Petitioners & local ASTO (MRBC), to "Raise additional funds" to save the Scheme;
3. (c). ONGC intended to avoid implementation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996, as it could cause large amount of recoveries from Arrears of Pay and also enhanced fixed % contr. in times to come.
4. To achieve above objectives, Writ Petition was used convinient Platform: Finalisation of Recommendations to "raise" Additional funds was inordinately delayed so that Focus cd. be shifted from Main Object of Raising/generating additional funds to freestyle re-structuring of PRBS. To achieve such derogatory, unfair, disadvantageous, discriminatory & prejudicial feats, MOU was signed in "Good Faith" as if negotiations for 17-18 months were not sufficient to examine Data/Statistics pertaning to Assets & Liabilities of PRBS Trust, arising from 1.4.1990. It was unique method of ascertaining "Financial Viability" of the Fund.
5. Recommendations made in MOU of 3.2.1998 were not only contrary to Court Order of 5.11.1996 but ensured "Un-viability" of Fund. Introduction of Notional Salary reduced existing Fixed % Contr. by 40 to 60 Percent and it also nullified Cir. No.PRBS-38 for enhanced recovery on Revised Salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 & all future Pay Revisions.
6. Notional salary being nearly 40 to 60% of Actual salary, Pension benefit was also reduced to that extent.
7. Managing Trustee mis-used this opportunity to introduce some clauses which provided enormous scope for manipulations, mis-interpretations and discriminations. Para 5.1, 31.2 & 32 of Rules-1991 were totally rendered ineffective. PRBS was mutilated & demolished. MOU of 3.2.1998 was implemented under Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998 without approval of Comp. Authy.
8. Most dangerous consequence of MOU of 3.2.1998 was Managing Trustee assuming Absolute Power to Revise the PRBS in any manner, with no restrictions whatsoever. Conversion of existig "Pension Defined Scheme" into "Defined Corpus" is burning example. ONGC PRBS Trust did not purchase Annuity of Entitlement but remitted some Corpus to LIC. Pension of retired ONGCians was Fixed by LIC during January 1996 to March 2007. Another MOU of 9.4.2007 was manipulated to secretly Re.convert "Defined Corpus" into "Pension Defined Scheme" w.e.f. 1.4.2007. PRBS Trust of our beloved Maharatna considered such acts of violations as Legal & Legitimate, Just & Fair.
9. hope this clears the Clouds ?? Any specific question is most welcome.
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES _ BY CAPT> NARAYAN SINGH RAYHORE By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS ·
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES _ BY CAPT> NARAYAN SINGH RAYHORE
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:00pm
DPE GUIDELINES FOR OWN PENSION SCHEME OF CPSE (ONGC)
1. DPE OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC) dated 26th November 2008: -
“Para 12: Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the customer (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.”
1.1. Para V of Annex.-IV:
“Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30 of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manage these funds or operate through Insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The amount of Pension, Gratuity and Post-Retirement Benefit will be decided based on the returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and Medical benefits can be extended to those executives, who superannuate from the CPSE and have put in minimum of 15 years of service in the CPSE, prior to superannuation.”
2. DPE OM No. No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-VII/09 dated 2nd April, 2009:
“Para 2. The Government, after due consideration of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers have decided further as follows:
(ii). Superannuation Benefit: The ceiling of 30% towards superannuation benefits would be calculated on Basic Pay plus DA instead of Basic Pay alone. Any superannuation benefit will be under a “defined contribution scheme” and not under a “defined pension scheme”. CPSE that do not have Superannuation scheme, may develop such scheme and obtain the approval of their Administrative Ministry. However, no other superannuation benefit can be granted out side this 30% ceiling. (para 12, Annex.-IV (v) of OM dated 26.11.2008 refers).”
3. DPE OM No.2 (81)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-IXI/2011 dated 20 July,2011:
“Para 2:
(i). Administrative Ministry/Department may consider creating a common corpus for the retired employees of the CPSEs, under their Administrative control. The purpose of the corpus would be to take care of medical and any other emergency needs of retired employees.
(ii). Each CPSE under their Administrative Ministry/Department, to contribute not more than 1.5% of its PBT for the above said corpus.
(iii). A Committee, headed by an independent Director, to be decided by Ministry/ Department may be formed by the respective Administrative Ministry/Department for implementation of said corpus.
(iv). Scheme based on individual CPSE as conveyed in OM dated 8.7.2009 to continue but basic conditions like not more than 1.5% PBT (whether Ministry/Department based and or individual “CPSE” based) and no budgetary support by Government would apply to the Ministry/Department based scheme proposed now. Therefore, there may be a situation, where a CPSE under a Ministry/Department may have a separate scheme for its employees, but at the same time contribute to common corpus for retired employees of other CPSEs under Administrative Ministry/Department. In such cases also the total contribution will not exceed 1.55 of PBT of a particular financial year. For individual CPSE based scheme, constitution of Committee will be that as already indicated in para 5(iii) of OM dated 8.2.2009.
(v). Purpose of the scheme (individual of common corpus under a Ministry/Department for its CPSEs) to be as per from 2(i) above. The scheme may be implemented preferably through approved Insurance companies. It is clarified that scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionery scheme.
(vi). Benefits under the Scheme may vary from year to year depending upon the contribution by CPSE(s) in a particular year as the contribution is in turn dependent on the profits, affordability and sustainability of the CPSE s) concerned.
(vii). Such Corpus will cover only those employees of CPSEs, who retired prior to 1.1.2007
Para 3. Administrative Ministries/Departments may suitably issue instructions to CPSEs under their administrative control for their information and necessary action.
This issues with the approval of Minister (HL & PE).”
3. Extract from Presentation made by Director, DPE in Workshop on 16.11.2011:
“Committee recommended upto 30 % of basic pay towards superannuation benefit after providing for PF and gratuity a buffer available for pension and/ or post retirement benefits. This was available only for those who superannuate after 15 years service in a CPSE.
Corpus from 1.5% PBT be created by CPSE for medical and any other emergency needs for retired executives and also those who were not adequately covered by a pension scheme.
Creation of Corpus was provided for benefit of those who had no support system like pension or medical benefit scheme. However, for those retiring after 1.1.2007, superannuation benefits upto 30% of basic pay + DA was provided which include CPF, Gratuity, Pension and Post Superannuation medical benefits.”
COMMENTS:
a) Since ONGC did not have its own contributory Pension Scheme, it could formulate an independent Pension Scheme. Corpus to be created from 1.5% PBT of Previous year (s). Superannuation benefits at 30% of Basic + DA included CPF, Gratuity and Medical benefit. Amount remaining as buffer from the Corpus could be used for Pension with approval of Ministry of P& NG. Incidentally, ONGC being a Maharatna Company, it is expected to make contribution to the Common Corpus under Ministry of P& NG, out of 1.5% PBT.
(a-i). This Pension Scheme being fully supported by ONGC’s own Contribution, other Schemes like PRBS & EPS-95 are not to be linked.
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:00pm
DPE GUIDELINES FOR OWN PENSION SCHEME OF CPSE (ONGC)
1. DPE OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC) dated 26th November 2008: -
“Para 12: Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the customer (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.”
1.1. Para V of Annex.-IV:
“Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30 of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manage these funds or operate through Insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The amount of Pension, Gratuity and Post-Retirement Benefit will be decided based on the returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and Medical benefits can be extended to those executives, who superannuate from the CPSE and have put in minimum of 15 years of service in the CPSE, prior to superannuation.”
2. DPE OM No. No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-VII/09 dated 2nd April, 2009:
“Para 2. The Government, after due consideration of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers have decided further as follows:
(ii). Superannuation Benefit: The ceiling of 30% towards superannuation benefits would be calculated on Basic Pay plus DA instead of Basic Pay alone. Any superannuation benefit will be under a “defined contribution scheme” and not under a “defined pension scheme”. CPSE that do not have Superannuation scheme, may develop such scheme and obtain the approval of their Administrative Ministry. However, no other superannuation benefit can be granted out side this 30% ceiling. (para 12, Annex.-IV (v) of OM dated 26.11.2008 refers).”
3. DPE OM No.2 (81)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-IXI/2011 dated 20 July,2011:
“Para 2:
(i). Administrative Ministry/Department may consider creating a common corpus for the retired employees of the CPSEs, under their Administrative control. The purpose of the corpus would be to take care of medical and any other emergency needs of retired employees.
(ii). Each CPSE under their Administrative Ministry/Department, to contribute not more than 1.5% of its PBT for the above said corpus.
(iii). A Committee, headed by an independent Director, to be decided by Ministry/ Department may be formed by the respective Administrative Ministry/Department for implementation of said corpus.
(iv). Scheme based on individual CPSE as conveyed in OM dated 8.7.2009 to continue but basic conditions like not more than 1.5% PBT (whether Ministry/Department based and or individual “CPSE” based) and no budgetary support by Government would apply to the Ministry/Department based scheme proposed now. Therefore, there may be a situation, where a CPSE under a Ministry/Department may have a separate scheme for its employees, but at the same time contribute to common corpus for retired employees of other CPSEs under Administrative Ministry/Department. In such cases also the total contribution will not exceed 1.55 of PBT of a particular financial year. For individual CPSE based scheme, constitution of Committee will be that as already indicated in para 5(iii) of OM dated 8.2.2009.
(v). Purpose of the scheme (individual of common corpus under a Ministry/Department for its CPSEs) to be as per from 2(i) above. The scheme may be implemented preferably through approved Insurance companies. It is clarified that scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionery scheme.
(vi). Benefits under the Scheme may vary from year to year depending upon the contribution by CPSE(s) in a particular year as the contribution is in turn dependent on the profits, affordability and sustainability of the CPSE s) concerned.
(vii). Such Corpus will cover only those employees of CPSEs, who retired prior to 1.1.2007
Para 3. Administrative Ministries/Departments may suitably issue instructions to CPSEs under their administrative control for their information and necessary action.
This issues with the approval of Minister (HL & PE).”
3. Extract from Presentation made by Director, DPE in Workshop on 16.11.2011:
“Committee recommended upto 30 % of basic pay towards superannuation benefit after providing for PF and gratuity a buffer available for pension and/ or post retirement benefits. This was available only for those who superannuate after 15 years service in a CPSE.
Corpus from 1.5% PBT be created by CPSE for medical and any other emergency needs for retired executives and also those who were not adequately covered by a pension scheme.
Creation of Corpus was provided for benefit of those who had no support system like pension or medical benefit scheme. However, for those retiring after 1.1.2007, superannuation benefits upto 30% of basic pay + DA was provided which include CPF, Gratuity, Pension and Post Superannuation medical benefits.”
COMMENTS:
a) Since ONGC did not have its own contributory Pension Scheme, it could formulate an independent Pension Scheme. Corpus to be created from 1.5% PBT of Previous year (s). Superannuation benefits at 30% of Basic + DA included CPF, Gratuity and Medical benefit. Amount remaining as buffer from the Corpus could be used for Pension with approval of Ministry of P& NG. Incidentally, ONGC being a Maharatna Company, it is expected to make contribution to the Common Corpus under Ministry of P& NG, out of 1.5% PBT.
(a-i). This Pension Scheme being fully supported by ONGC’s own Contribution, other Schemes like PRBS & EPS-95 are not to be linked.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Superannuary Benefits of ONGC...Letter from Mr.Ashwini Kumar Dixist to Sri Jaipal Reddy
From: ashwini dixit
To: "vijaysood36@yahoo.com"
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Fw: Superannuary Benefits of ONGC.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: ashwini dixit
To: "sjaipal@sansad.nic.in"; "sec.png@nic.in"
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 9:45 PM
Subject: Superannuary Benefits of ONGC.
Respected Sri Jaipal Reddy ji,
The management of ONGC,due to its short sighted approach,has completely messed up the equation of distribution of superannuary benefits to its employees.This has resulted in plothera of court cases and the those responsible for HR function just try to while away their tenure somehow.
Please see the brief down below:-
A) Upto 1990-91 all employees were equal and there can be NO dissatisfection.
B) In 1990-91,some wise people concocted a POST RETIREMENT BENEFIT SCHEME for their own good.as they were retiring in near future,obtained approval and hastily implemented.
ii)Right from day one it was known and duly EXPLAINED to the management that the scheme is NOT VIABLE. It was ignored.
iii) The scheme contained a clause that once opted nobody can go out.
iv)THE SCHEME WAS RIGHTLY STRUCK DOWN by High Court of BOMBAY as UNVIABLE and ONGC was directed to AUGUMENT the resources to make the scheme workable.Rather then following court instructions the scheme was converted to corpus based from Pension based in 1998 without approval from either the board of ONGC or from Mnistry of PNG as was mandatory as per original approval from the govtt .
v)There are number of court cases pending against the tardy scheme in various courts right upto supreme Coart of India.
vi)Since then,Sri R.S.Sharma,CMD,Sri A.K.Balyan,DIrector(HR),SriM.K.Vats,GGM(Personnel) and host of other important Senior funtionaries who were retiring soon,the scheme was RESTORED to ORIGINAL concept of PENSION BASED 1991 scheme in 2007! without approval from ministry .SO MUCH SO THAT the appoval of board was obtained prior to discussion/agreement with Unions/ASTO.
Truly speaking Mr.R.S.Sharma deserves to be reprimanded,Mr.A.K.Balyan and M.K.Vats deserve to be chargesheeted for acting with MALAFIDE intentions!
Here it needs to be noted that as per their own averment through affedevit ONGC has stated in High Court that it has NO role /contribution to PRBS.Then how come in ,2007 Director(HR) all of a sudden proposes a RS.2700 crore addition to PRBS,obtains approval of Board and CONSENT ETC. of Unions/ASTO are all as an afterthought as is clear from various notings available on record.
C) In the meantime ONGC floated another scheme under the banner of AGRANI SAMMAN in 2002 to amoriliate the hardship of pre-1959 joinees .But while implementing the scheme it was extended to all of those who had atleast 10 years of service and were not covered by PRBS.
ii) This resulted in undue advantage to employees with lesser service and disadvantage to employees with longer periods of service(with date of joining prior to and date of superannuation later than beneficiaries).THIS AMOUNTED TO CHANGE IN SERVICE CONDITIONS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT.
ALSO,it needs to be kept in mind that in the PRBS case,ONGC in its affidevithas very cleared averred that ONGC has NOTHING to do with the scheme which is of employees alone.
D) Now,we understand,that another IDIOTIC proposal has been cleared/likely to be cleared which stipulates payments of various amounts to employees with 15 years of service BUT earning from all sources to be LESS THAN RS. 10000/-.I will only say it is downright atrocious and a insult to all those who did spent a lifetime in ardous and hazardous working conditions to convert a paltry Rs.143 crore investment into a MAHARATNA worth millions of crore through beg,borrow or steal technology wise with obsolete world war II equipments.
Sir,by the grace of god I personally dont need anything from you or ONGC but many of my colleagues have passed away awaiting FAIR PLAY from their own colleagues who graced board of ONGC/Min.of PNG and even courts,who continue to deny JUSTICE TIMELY.
Sir,I appeal to you,to put a stop to all this and direct somebody responsible enough to asess what is being paid by other Petroleum Sector Undertakings as Pensionary Benefits to their own retired employees/and since when and accordingly compensate ONGC superannuated employees regarding whom I will once again vouch that they delivered in conditions which were worse than,defence at a time.
Yours Sincerely,
A.K.Dixit,Ex.Dy.Gen.Manager(Mech),
ONGC ID-17772.
To: "vijaysood36@yahoo.com"
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Fw: Superannuary Benefits of ONGC.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: ashwini dixit
To: "sjaipal@sansad.nic.in"
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 9:45 PM
Subject: Superannuary Benefits of ONGC.
Respected Sri Jaipal Reddy ji,
The management of ONGC,due to its short sighted approach,has completely messed up the equation of distribution of superannuary benefits to its employees.This has resulted in plothera of court cases and the those responsible for HR function just try to while away their tenure somehow.
Please see the brief down below:-
A) Upto 1990-91 all employees were equal and there can be NO dissatisfection.
B) In 1990-91,some wise people concocted a POST RETIREMENT BENEFIT SCHEME for their own good.as they were retiring in near future,obtained approval and hastily implemented.
ii)Right from day one it was known and duly EXPLAINED to the management that the scheme is NOT VIABLE. It was ignored.
iii) The scheme contained a clause that once opted nobody can go out.
iv)THE SCHEME WAS RIGHTLY STRUCK DOWN by High Court of BOMBAY as UNVIABLE and ONGC was directed to AUGUMENT the resources to make the scheme workable.Rather then following court instructions the scheme was converted to corpus based from Pension based in 1998 without approval from either the board of ONGC or from Mnistry of PNG as was mandatory as per original approval from the govtt .
v)There are number of court cases pending against the tardy scheme in various courts right upto supreme Coart of India.
vi)Since then,Sri R.S.Sharma,CMD,Sri A.K.Balyan,DIrector(HR),SriM.K.Vats,GGM(Personnel) and host of other important Senior funtionaries who were retiring soon,the scheme was RESTORED to ORIGINAL concept of PENSION BASED 1991 scheme in 2007! without approval from ministry .SO MUCH SO THAT the appoval of board was obtained prior to discussion/agreement with Unions/ASTO.
Truly speaking Mr.R.S.Sharma deserves to be reprimanded,Mr.A.K.Balyan and M.K.Vats deserve to be chargesheeted for acting with MALAFIDE intentions!
Here it needs to be noted that as per their own averment through affedevit ONGC has stated in High Court that it has NO role /contribution to PRBS.Then how come in ,2007 Director(HR) all of a sudden proposes a RS.2700 crore addition to PRBS,obtains approval of Board and CONSENT ETC. of Unions/ASTO are all as an afterthought as is clear from various notings available on record.
C) In the meantime ONGC floated another scheme under the banner of AGRANI SAMMAN in 2002 to amoriliate the hardship of pre-1959 joinees .But while implementing the scheme it was extended to all of those who had atleast 10 years of service and were not covered by PRBS.
ii) This resulted in undue advantage to employees with lesser service and disadvantage to employees with longer periods of service(with date of joining prior to and date of superannuation later than beneficiaries).THIS AMOUNTED TO CHANGE IN SERVICE CONDITIONS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT.
ALSO,it needs to be kept in mind that in the PRBS case,ONGC in its affidevithas very cleared averred that ONGC has NOTHING to do with the scheme which is of employees alone.
D) Now,we understand,that another IDIOTIC proposal has been cleared/likely to be cleared which stipulates payments of various amounts to employees with 15 years of service BUT earning from all sources to be LESS THAN RS. 10000/-.I will only say it is downright atrocious and a insult to all those who did spent a lifetime in ardous and hazardous working conditions to convert a paltry Rs.143 crore investment into a MAHARATNA worth millions of crore through beg,borrow or steal technology wise with obsolete world war II equipments.
Sir,by the grace of god I personally dont need anything from you or ONGC but many of my colleagues have passed away awaiting FAIR PLAY from their own colleagues who graced board of ONGC/Min.of PNG and even courts,who continue to deny JUSTICE TIMELY.
Sir,I appeal to you,to put a stop to all this and direct somebody responsible enough to asess what is being paid by other Petroleum Sector Undertakings as Pensionary Benefits to their own retired employees/and since when and accordingly compensate ONGC superannuated employees regarding whom I will once again vouch that they delivered in conditions which were worse than,defence at a time.
Yours Sincerely,
A.K.Dixit,Ex.Dy.Gen.Manager(Mech),
ONGC ID-17772.
Why This Kolaveri De Hum Sab Umeed Se Hai ..... EX ONGCIANS Version .. by Badrinath Vasandi
Why This Kolaveri De Hum Sab Umeed Se Hai ..... EX ONGCIANS Version .. by Badrinath Vasandi
by Badrinath Vasandi on Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 3:47pm
No lios I am sing song
Soup song
Flop song
Ex ONGCIANS song
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di ..3
Corruption perfect
Injustice u
Discrimination full u
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di ..2
Distance la sakoon sakoon
Bill amount tight u
Ha ha ha ha
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di,
ONGC profit colour colour white
Crude colour u black u
Why this ONGC ?
Your palace, light u light u
My home is black
Rise rise u cheat u cheat u
Our future dark u
Why this ONGC, ONGC,ONGC di
Why this kolaveri kolaveri kolaveri di
Ha ha ha ha..ha..ha..haa
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di
Thaath baat dekho in kai
Mazza mazza mazza mazza
Muuuah Muuua Muuuach Muuuah
Is it justice ?
Ha Ha Ha
Super drama ready
Change... one.. two.... three
Whaa wat a change of drama
OK drama now, you change u
dpe dpe dpe dpe
Satyanas
only english
Janglo Law u, PRBS Agrim Apad seva
Eyes u full aa tears u
Empty jaib
Miss ail come
Life u reserve gear u,
Money, money u, you love u
You showed me bouv u
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di
Why this Kolaveri Kolaveri Kolaveri di
Cow u cow u holy cou u
I want you hear now u
God u I am dying now u
Are you happy now u
This u song u for u poor exongcians u
Why this ,Why this,Why this
ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di
Badrinath Vassandi
by Badrinath Vasandi on Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 3:47pm
No lios I am sing song
Soup song
Flop song
Ex ONGCIANS song
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di ..3
Corruption perfect
Injustice u
Discrimination full u
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di ..2
Distance la sakoon sakoon
Bill amount tight u
Ha ha ha ha
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di,
ONGC profit colour colour white
Crude colour u black u
Why this ONGC ?
Your palace, light u light u
My home is black
Rise rise u cheat u cheat u
Our future dark u
Why this ONGC, ONGC,ONGC di
Why this kolaveri kolaveri kolaveri di
Ha ha ha ha..ha..ha..haa
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di
Thaath baat dekho in kai
Mazza mazza mazza mazza
Muuuah Muuua Muuuach Muuuah
Is it justice ?
Ha Ha Ha
Super drama ready
Change... one.. two.... three
Whaa wat a change of drama
OK drama now, you change u
dpe dpe dpe dpe
Satyanas
only english
Janglo Law u, PRBS Agrim Apad seva
Eyes u full aa tears u
Empty jaib
Miss ail come
Life u reserve gear u,
Money, money u, you love u
You showed me bouv u
Why this ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di
Why this Kolaveri Kolaveri Kolaveri di
Cow u cow u holy cou u
I want you hear now u
God u I am dying now u
Are you happy now u
This u song u for u poor exongcians u
Why this ,Why this,Why this
ONGC, ONGC, ONGC di
Badrinath Vassandi
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Court casers of senior citizens
Dear Friends, I understand that various cases are filed and pursued in different courts in the above two matters. It may be noted that the above things are pending for more than 10 years and the care should be taken to invoke the benefits available for senior citizens while pursuing the court cases. The courts should be impressed that the beneficiaries are above 60 years,and many would have already expired and hence the decisions should be made at the earliest so that at least the living pensioners could enjoy the benefits.This would lead for the speedy disposal of the cases. Yours faithfully
......................................................................................
As we are aware different ministries at Central govt. are extending
certain concessions and facilities to Senior citizens of the
country.Income tax rebate by Finance ministry,Concession on travel by
Railway Ministry and Ministry of Civil Aviation etc are few of
them.State Govts also extending certain facilities beneficial to
senior citizens.
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is the nodal Ministry
responsible for welfare of the Senior Citizens.
It is stated that Courts in the country accord priority to cases
involving older persons and ensures their expeditious disposal!!
What is the reality is a matter for debate.
In general as well as in specific cases filed before Hon.Courts in
India, it can be found that there is inordinate delay in delivering
judgement which often takes more than ten years.In respect of cases
filed by Senior Citizens are also not having any exemption.Thus the
very purpose of filing cases are defeated.
Of course,our judiciary system has its on inherent constraints and
limitations to proceed fast as all are aware.More than that
unfortunately our political leadership is also not much interested to
streamline the process for early disposal of cases, for their own
vested interests.
Unless the Govt and people at helm of affairs initiate earnest steps
to give top priority to cases filed by Senior Citizens in the country
justice will be denied.
Only collective organizational pressure and efforts will succeed for
any speedy measures in this direction.Let us hope for the best.
.......................................................................................
Thank you for your detailed clarification. Still I am of the opinion that
there is a special provision or guideline that the litigation involving
senior citizens should be given priority and this was also impressed by the
Chief Justice of Madras High Court sometime back. Kindly check up with some
senior advocates. My only request is that if there is such provision, it
should be put into use for our benefit.
Reg the other point on organizational point of action, I fully agree with
you.
......................................................................................
.
As you have mentioned, during last July
2010, Madras High Court has initiated steps to Fast Track all cases
filed by senior Citizens.A press release was also made in this
direction, by Hon.Justice,M.Y Eqbal as follows:
"All senior citizens whose cases are pending in the High Court in
respect of all categories may directly approach the Registrar
(Judicial) and furnish the details regarding pendency of the cases.
This would enable the court to take up the cases on a priority basis "
Similar action was initiated by Mumbai High Court also earlier.
As mentioned earlier,Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, the
nodal Ministry
responsible for welfare of the Senior Citizens is also states that
Courts in the country accord priority to cases involving older persons
and ensures their expeditious disposal.
However the outcome in such cases are not known.
......................................................................................
it is true that the Presiding Officers in any court are very much kind with a
human heart and in one personal case @ High Court of AP., Hyderabad, the Judge
is kind enough to fix-up a date in July, 2011 for final hearing. Actually, the
case is pending since past 15 years. All the appellants can approach the The
Registrar and thence the Presiding Judge.
When the litigants/appellants approach the High Courts, they can as well move
levers of power to approach the Judicial Officer concerned and represent for
early and final hearing.
The Higher-ups/decision makers in the Banks should realize that they occupied
the seat[s] of power on our blood & sweat. They should not forget it. They never
come from heavens.
.....................................................................................
________________________________
In karnataka High Court also, I was told, that there was a move to accord
priority in cases filed by Senior Citizens and Subsequently I could not
gather information as to how they are doing it. Probably, the concerned
petitioners have to approach the Courts through their lawyers and try
to find early justice. Let the senior litigants take steps to get advantage
of this.
....................................................................................
.
As all are aware, Government of India has earmarked special benefits
and concessions for Senior Citizens of India.Different ministries,have
notified the details from time to time.
In the matter of cases involving senior citizen, The Chief Justice
of India had advised Chief Justices of all High Courts to accord
priority to cases involving older persons and ensure their
expeditious disposal. [vide letter of Government of India, Ministry of
Social Justice & Empowerment (SD Section), New Delhi, F. No. 20-76/99-
SD dated 03.11.1999]
Accordingly in 1999 itself Mumbai High Court had issued a circular to
this effect in the matter of cases involving Senior Citizen for speedy
disposal.At that time the age limit was 65 yrs.Last year the same has
been modified by reducing the age to 60 yrs and above.
However, as we know, the huge backlog of cases in various courts in
the country, as well as shortage of manpower in Judiciary and cases
coming up on priority basis etc. caused delay in the process of
hearing of cases and delivery of judgement.
Once, during his stint with the Bombay HC, Justice R M Lodha
commented that 70% to 80% cases involved senior citizens as parties.
In the midst of all these realities if Senior Citizens cases are
considered for speedy disposal it is a welcome move and great thing
indeed.
Is it really happening in all courts in the country?
.......................................................................................
..
.
As years roll on and pending cases mount in our Courts, it is but natural
that many of the cases are "upgraded" / "updated" as those of Senior
Citizens! And, to which of those cases can they give priority? The ones
becoming Senior Citizen's by natural delay or the ones file by those
"as" Senior Citizens at the entrant level? The Courts will find it
difficult!
How about Fast Track Courts? There are such Courts also.
.
........................................................................................
.
As per information, a total of 1,743 fast track courts were set up for
a period of five years, in 2000-01 following a recommendation by the
Eleventh Finance Commission, which had mooted the idea for expeditious
disposal of long-pending criminal cases.In the year 2006 about
1,80,00,000 cases were pending in Indian courts ,out of which
1,60,00,000cases were criminal ones.At present the figures might have
gone up.
When we look into latest figures pertaining to of pending cases in
the apex court, alone ,we will have clear picture on the gravity of
the situation
As per published data for the month of April 2011,released by SC,
total number of cases pending .before Hon. Supreme Court of
India,comes to the tune of 54547in numbers. Out of which once
connected matters are excluded 31917 Nos. of cases will be
pending .In other terms,65% of cases are pending more than one year.
While 7123 cases were newly registered during the above month,only
7098 cases were disposed of in same period.
Despite all these realities, Bank Pensioners -Senior Citizen- in the
country have no other alternative than to approach court to seek
justice on genuine demands,when all avenues are closed.
.........................................................................................
Mounting cases in supreme court and High Courts are due to...
1 Careless attitudes of Managements in giving solutions to similar cases
decided by high courts and taking it further knowing fully well the results.
2 Careless attitudes of its Legal departments who give improper feed back to
managements just to survive and justify their existence.
3 Careless attitude of IBA in not able to controll Managements who will not
like to apply judgements given in one High court to the problems of their
bank and instead approaching the courts again and again.
The Supreme Court , the IBA and the Central Government should fix
responsibility on concerned officials and start recovering court/ litigation
expenses from such individuals so that the Legal Department and the
managements will think twice before going to court.
This not only saves court time saves money also to bank as they have to
shell down money after the Judgement some times with interest. Unfortunately
the concerned individuals serving forgets that someday he will also come
out and face such trauma.
Eleventh Finance Commission, which had mooted the idea for expeditious
disposal of long-pending criminal cases.In the year 2006 about
1,80,00,000 cases were pending in Indian courts ,out of which
1,60,00,000cases were criminal ones.At present the figures might have
gone up.
When we look into latest figures pertaining to of pending cases in
the apex court, alone ,we will have clear picture on the gravity of
the situation
As per published data for the month of April 2011,released by SC,
total number of cases pending .before Hon. Supreme Court of
India,comes to the tune of 54547in numbers. Out of which once
connected matters are excluded 31917 Nos. of cases will be
pending .In other terms,65% of cases are pending more than one year.
While 7123 cases were newly registered during the above month,only
7098 cases were disposed of in same period.
Despite all these realities, Bank Pensioners -Senior Citizen- in the
country have no other alternative than to approach court to seek
justice on genuine demands,when all avenues are closed.
...
IBA is the main culprit in respect of every problem bank pensioners are facing. There was no business for IBA to advise banks making those who retired voluntarily (I observe the letters VRS being used. Here 'S' stands for 'Scheme'. Those who retire giving three months notice have retired/resigned voluntarily) ineligible for another option for pension. It is IBA which initiated amendments to Pension Regulations unilaterally, trying to take away the benefits which were already available. For Ex : Amendments to Regulation 28 and to Regulation 18 (Broken period regulations). Unfortunately, Unions/Associations/UFBU have remind silent or turning a blind eye. Does it mean that they are also party to such amendments ? All these questions have remind unanswered.
On account of wrong and illegal advise by IBA, Banks and retirees are fighting cases making advocates on both the sides richer. Therefore, UFBU should be vigilant, otherwise, even they may have to pay price at a later day.
.....................................................................................
General Public crying for action against officialdom where there is no justification and no one is answerable. The Honourable Supreme Court must wake up to fix responsibilities of the officials who always act in whimsical manner.
We have noted with appreciation the attitude of Hon'ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab & Haryana Hingh Court who single handedly taking on the officials of Government of Punjab & Haryana who just file petitions to delay decision till a time beyond their own retirement to excape accountability and linger on the matter for years, even in those matter similar to those wherein High Court has already decided.
Hon'ble Supreme Court must dismiss such official/s from service without any recourse for these officials. ( Not Suspend as suspension from service is no meanful action against the erring staff)
Crying for action against the Dead Woods in Govt. Department. They have to take right decision in right earnst for which they draw heavy salary month after months from Govt. Exchequer.
I complaint to PMO/ DPG (goI) against the fraud played on me by Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce and one would amused to see the official response from Secretary (Financial Services) Govt. of India, headed by IAS of 1976 batch which uploaded in Govt of India Site as explanation from ICICII Bank and Secretary took no action for wilful wrong reporting and updation with reference to complaint No-DEABD/E/2010/00406.
We may pray fthat good sense may prevail upon these arrogant officials of Govt of India. I was shameful to the see the manner PMO works. Their subordinate deptt feed wrong information and it has no way to check the coorectness of the action.
.
......................................................................................
. beaurocracy is of permanence in nature. Corruption,nepotism,delaying tactics,procrastination,not-to-see the poor and downtrodden, selfih-development are some of the hall-marks of Indian beuracracy. See the case of pre-2002 bank retirees who are denied 100% DA neutralization forthe last 11 years eventhough all those who retired after get 100% DA. To add insult to injury, IBA has become an extended arm of the FINMEN. IBA wantonly delays decision making process in minor matters such as extending the yearly medical payment to the retirees including those retired prematurely.
Only courts can save democracy and principles of natural justice. Courts alone can punish the beuracrats who derelict their duty/shirk their responsibility/pass the bug thus rendering untold sufferings to the common people,especially the senior citizens.
.
.....................................................................................
General Public crying for action against officialdom where there is no justification and no one is answerable. The Honorable Supreme Court must wake up to fix responsibilities of the officials who always act in whimsical manner.
We have noted with appreciation the attitude of Hon'ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab & Haryana Hingh Court who single handedly taking on the officials of Government of Punjab & Haryana who just file petitions to delay decision till a time beyond their own retirement to excape accountability and linger on the matter for years, even in those matter similar to those wherein High Court has already decided.
Hon'ble Supreme Court must dismiss such official/s from service without any recourse for these officials. ( Not Suspend as suspension from service is no meanful action against the erring staff)
Crying for action against the Dead Woods in Govt. Department. They have to take right decision in right earnst for which they draw heavy salary month after months from Govt. Exchequer.
I complaint to PMO/ DPG (goI) against the fraud played on me by Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce and one would amused to see the official response from Secretary (Financial Services) Govt. of India, headed by IAS of 1976 batch which uploaded in Govt of India Site as explanation from ICICII Bank and Secretary took no action for wilful wrong reporting and updation with reference to complaint No-DEABD/E/2010/00406.
We may pray fthat good sense may prevail upon these arrogant officials of Govt of India. I was shameful to the see the manner PMO works. Their subordinate deptt feed wrong information and it has no way to check the coorectness of the action.
......................................................................................
..............................................................
Just see & evaluate the attitude of the Administrator of Inidan Democracy, the way they works. Inspite of having utilised the amount of TDS for the whimsical planning, they have left with no money to refund & they need to borrow to finance refunds of Income Tax and holding the General Public waiting endlessly for their hard earned money refunded . It is like Rob Peter to pay Paul. Govt. collect 15 Years Tax on Vehicles Registration in advance to balance current budget, but they never bother to think a little as to what will happen in next 14 years.
He approved the Pension sent by IBA which is full of discrupencies.
1) Arbitarary date of implementation i.e. 27-11-2009.
2) some of Pensioners get @ 100% DA neutralisation and other retired before 2002 at different slabs.
3) They themselves get Pension Updation with every revision and they can not think a bit for others working in Banks.
Its is like Charity begins at home.
.........................................................................................
-
DEA has asked the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to go slow on tax refunds in the coming months so that the government does not face any resource crunch.
CBDT has rejected Revenue Secretary Sunil Mitra’s contention by saying that taxpayer money can’t be withheld.
This has alarmed DEA, which is expected to be hard-pressed for funds given the possibility of slower economic growth and an increase in the subsidy bill.
The finance minister is believed to have asked the two to resolve the issue between themselves.
A senior CBDT official said once a refund was determined, especially in e-filing, no one could withhold it. “Can the government say that refunds will be delayed because it is under financial stress? Will the government allow an assessee to withhold tax because he is facing a financial problem?” asked the official.
DEA’s argument that a higher refund outgo will put pressure on the government to borrow more is rejected by experts and expenditure department officials. They say it’s a short-term trend and will not impact government finances over the year.
The government has said it will borrow Rs 2,50,000 crore between April and September, 60 per cent of the budgeted market borrowing of Rs 4,17,000 crore for 2011-12. So far, it has borrowed Rs 72,000 crore. While the finance ministry pays 6 per cent a year on late refunds, it has been borrowing from the market at 7.03-8.30 per cent.
The tax department refunded over Rs 23,000 crore in April. The figure is expected to cross Rs 1 lakh crore for the year. The department had refunded Rs 57,000 crore in 2009-10 and Rs 74,000 crore in 2010-11.
CBDT official say with a significant amount paid in the first month of the financial year, the burden for the coming months will be substantially lower. They say timely payments help save on interest.
The government’s net direct tax collection in April fell 70 per cent to Rs 4,000 crore, compared with Rs 14,000 crore in the same month last year. This was mainly on account of refunds totaling Rs 25,000 crore.
Gross direct tax collections were Rs 29,000 crore, 15 per cent more than in April last year.
....................................................................................
IAS officers are the real govrnment. Politicians may come and go; but the beaurocracy is of permanence in nature. Corruption,nepotism,delaying tactics,procrastination,not-to-see the poor and downtrodden, selfih-development are some of the hall-marks of Indian beuracracy. See the case of pre-2002 bank retirees who are denied 100% DA neutralization forthe last 11 years eventhough all those who retired after get 100% DA. To add insult to injury, IBA has become an extended arm of the FINMEN. IBA wantonly delays decision making process in minor matters such as extending the yearly medical payment to the retirees including those retired prematurely.
Only courts can save democracy and principles of natural justice. Courts alone can punish the beuracrats who derelict their duty/shirk their responsibility/pass the bug thus rendering untold sufferings to the common people,especially the senior
.....................................................................................
......................................................................................
As we are aware different ministries at Central govt. are extending
certain concessions and facilities to Senior citizens of the
country.Income tax rebate by Finance ministry,Concession on travel by
Railway Ministry and Ministry of Civil Aviation etc are few of
them.State Govts also extending certain facilities beneficial to
senior citizens.
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is the nodal Ministry
responsible for welfare of the Senior Citizens.
It is stated that Courts in the country accord priority to cases
involving older persons and ensures their expeditious disposal!!
What is the reality is a matter for debate.
In general as well as in specific cases filed before Hon.Courts in
India, it can be found that there is inordinate delay in delivering
judgement which often takes more than ten years.In respect of cases
filed by Senior Citizens are also not having any exemption.Thus the
very purpose of filing cases are defeated.
Of course,our judiciary system has its on inherent constraints and
limitations to proceed fast as all are aware.More than that
unfortunately our political leadership is also not much interested to
streamline the process for early disposal of cases, for their own
vested interests.
Unless the Govt and people at helm of affairs initiate earnest steps
to give top priority to cases filed by Senior Citizens in the country
justice will be denied.
Only collective organizational pressure and efforts will succeed for
any speedy measures in this direction.Let us hope for the best.
.......................................................................................
Thank you for your detailed clarification. Still I am of the opinion that
there is a special provision or guideline that the litigation involving
senior citizens should be given priority and this was also impressed by the
Chief Justice of Madras High Court sometime back. Kindly check up with some
senior advocates. My only request is that if there is such provision, it
should be put into use for our benefit.
Reg the other point on organizational point of action, I fully agree with
you.
......................................................................................
.
As you have mentioned, during last July
2010, Madras High Court has initiated steps to Fast Track all cases
filed by senior Citizens.A press release was also made in this
direction, by Hon.Justice,M.Y Eqbal as follows:
"All senior citizens whose cases are pending in the High Court in
respect of all categories may directly approach the Registrar
(Judicial) and furnish the details regarding pendency of the cases.
This would enable the court to take up the cases on a priority basis "
Similar action was initiated by Mumbai High Court also earlier.
As mentioned earlier,Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, the
nodal Ministry
responsible for welfare of the Senior Citizens is also states that
Courts in the country accord priority to cases involving older persons
and ensures their expeditious disposal.
However the outcome in such cases are not known.
......................................................................................
it is true that the Presiding Officers in any court are very much kind with a
human heart and in one personal case @ High Court of AP., Hyderabad, the Judge
is kind enough to fix-up a date in July, 2011 for final hearing. Actually, the
case is pending since past 15 years. All the appellants can approach the The
Registrar and thence the Presiding Judge.
When the litigants/appellants approach the High Courts, they can as well move
levers of power to approach the Judicial Officer concerned and represent for
early and final hearing.
The Higher-ups/decision makers in the Banks should realize that they occupied
the seat[s] of power on our blood & sweat. They should not forget it. They never
come from heavens.
.....................................................................................
________________________________
In karnataka High Court also, I was told, that there was a move to accord
priority in cases filed by Senior Citizens and Subsequently I could not
gather information as to how they are doing it. Probably, the concerned
petitioners have to approach the Courts through their lawyers and try
to find early justice. Let the senior litigants take steps to get advantage
of this.
....................................................................................
.
As all are aware, Government of India has earmarked special benefits
and concessions for Senior Citizens of India.Different ministries,have
notified the details from time to time.
In the matter of cases involving senior citizen, The Chief Justice
of India had advised Chief Justices of all High Courts to accord
priority to cases involving older persons and ensure their
expeditious disposal. [vide letter of Government of India, Ministry of
Social Justice & Empowerment (SD Section), New Delhi, F. No. 20-76/99-
SD dated 03.11.1999]
Accordingly in 1999 itself Mumbai High Court had issued a circular to
this effect in the matter of cases involving Senior Citizen for speedy
disposal.At that time the age limit was 65 yrs.Last year the same has
been modified by reducing the age to 60 yrs and above.
However, as we know, the huge backlog of cases in various courts in
the country, as well as shortage of manpower in Judiciary and cases
coming up on priority basis etc. caused delay in the process of
hearing of cases and delivery of judgement.
Once, during his stint with the Bombay HC, Justice R M Lodha
commented that 70% to 80% cases involved senior citizens as parties.
In the midst of all these realities if Senior Citizens cases are
considered for speedy disposal it is a welcome move and great thing
indeed.
Is it really happening in all courts in the country?
.......................................................................................
..
.
As years roll on and pending cases mount in our Courts, it is but natural
that many of the cases are "upgraded" / "updated" as those of Senior
Citizens! And, to which of those cases can they give priority? The ones
becoming Senior Citizen's by natural delay or the ones file by those
"as" Senior Citizens at the entrant level? The Courts will find it
difficult!
How about Fast Track Courts? There are such Courts also.
.
........................................................................................
.
As per information, a total of 1,743 fast track courts were set up for
a period of five years, in 2000-01 following a recommendation by the
Eleventh Finance Commission, which had mooted the idea for expeditious
disposal of long-pending criminal cases.In the year 2006 about
1,80,00,000 cases were pending in Indian courts ,out of which
1,60,00,000cases were criminal ones.At present the figures might have
gone up.
When we look into latest figures pertaining to of pending cases in
the apex court, alone ,we will have clear picture on the gravity of
the situation
As per published data for the month of April 2011,released by SC,
total number of cases pending .before Hon. Supreme Court of
India,comes to the tune of 54547in numbers. Out of which once
connected matters are excluded 31917 Nos. of cases will be
pending .In other terms,65% of cases are pending more than one year.
While 7123 cases were newly registered during the above month,only
7098 cases were disposed of in same period.
Despite all these realities, Bank Pensioners -Senior Citizen- in the
country have no other alternative than to approach court to seek
justice on genuine demands,when all avenues are closed.
.........................................................................................
Mounting cases in supreme court and High Courts are due to...
1 Careless attitudes of Managements in giving solutions to similar cases
decided by high courts and taking it further knowing fully well the results.
2 Careless attitudes of its Legal departments who give improper feed back to
managements just to survive and justify their existence.
3 Careless attitude of IBA in not able to controll Managements who will not
like to apply judgements given in one High court to the problems of their
bank and instead approaching the courts again and again.
The Supreme Court , the IBA and the Central Government should fix
responsibility on concerned officials and start recovering court/ litigation
expenses from such individuals so that the Legal Department and the
managements will think twice before going to court.
This not only saves court time saves money also to bank as they have to
shell down money after the Judgement some times with interest. Unfortunately
the concerned individuals serving forgets that someday he will also come
out and face such trauma.
Eleventh Finance Commission, which had mooted the idea for expeditious
disposal of long-pending criminal cases.In the year 2006 about
1,80,00,000 cases were pending in Indian courts ,out of which
1,60,00,000cases were criminal ones.At present the figures might have
gone up.
When we look into latest figures pertaining to of pending cases in
the apex court, alone ,we will have clear picture on the gravity of
the situation
As per published data for the month of April 2011,released by SC,
total number of cases pending .before Hon. Supreme Court of
India,comes to the tune of 54547in numbers. Out of which once
connected matters are excluded 31917 Nos. of cases will be
pending .In other terms,65% of cases are pending more than one year.
While 7123 cases were newly registered during the above month,only
7098 cases were disposed of in same period.
Despite all these realities, Bank Pensioners -Senior Citizen- in the
country have no other alternative than to approach court to seek
justice on genuine demands,when all avenues are closed.
...
IBA is the main culprit in respect of every problem bank pensioners are facing. There was no business for IBA to advise banks making those who retired voluntarily (I observe the letters VRS being used. Here 'S' stands for 'Scheme'. Those who retire giving three months notice have retired/resigned voluntarily) ineligible for another option for pension. It is IBA which initiated amendments to Pension Regulations unilaterally, trying to take away the benefits which were already available. For Ex : Amendments to Regulation 28 and to Regulation 18 (Broken period regulations). Unfortunately, Unions/Associations/UFBU have remind silent or turning a blind eye. Does it mean that they are also party to such amendments ? All these questions have remind unanswered.
On account of wrong and illegal advise by IBA, Banks and retirees are fighting cases making advocates on both the sides richer. Therefore, UFBU should be vigilant, otherwise, even they may have to pay price at a later day.
.....................................................................................
General Public crying for action against officialdom where there is no justification and no one is answerable. The Honourable Supreme Court must wake up to fix responsibilities of the officials who always act in whimsical manner.
We have noted with appreciation the attitude of Hon'ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab & Haryana Hingh Court who single handedly taking on the officials of Government of Punjab & Haryana who just file petitions to delay decision till a time beyond their own retirement to excape accountability and linger on the matter for years, even in those matter similar to those wherein High Court has already decided.
Hon'ble Supreme Court must dismiss such official/s from service without any recourse for these officials. ( Not Suspend as suspension from service is no meanful action against the erring staff)
Crying for action against the Dead Woods in Govt. Department. They have to take right decision in right earnst for which they draw heavy salary month after months from Govt. Exchequer.
I complaint to PMO/ DPG (goI) against the fraud played on me by Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce and one would amused to see the official response from Secretary (Financial Services) Govt. of India, headed by IAS of 1976 batch which uploaded in Govt of India Site as explanation from ICICII Bank and Secretary took no action for wilful wrong reporting and updation with reference to complaint No-DEABD/E/2010/00406.
We may pray fthat good sense may prevail upon these arrogant officials of Govt of India. I was shameful to the see the manner PMO works. Their subordinate deptt feed wrong information and it has no way to check the coorectness of the action.
.
......................................................................................
. beaurocracy is of permanence in nature. Corruption,nepotism,delaying tactics,procrastination,not-to-see the poor and downtrodden, selfih-development are some of the hall-marks of Indian beuracracy. See the case of pre-2002 bank retirees who are denied 100% DA neutralization forthe last 11 years eventhough all those who retired after get 100% DA. To add insult to injury, IBA has become an extended arm of the FINMEN. IBA wantonly delays decision making process in minor matters such as extending the yearly medical payment to the retirees including those retired prematurely.
Only courts can save democracy and principles of natural justice. Courts alone can punish the beuracrats who derelict their duty/shirk their responsibility/pass the bug thus rendering untold sufferings to the common people,especially the senior citizens.
.
.....................................................................................
General Public crying for action against officialdom where there is no justification and no one is answerable. The Honorable Supreme Court must wake up to fix responsibilities of the officials who always act in whimsical manner.
We have noted with appreciation the attitude of Hon'ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab & Haryana Hingh Court who single handedly taking on the officials of Government of Punjab & Haryana who just file petitions to delay decision till a time beyond their own retirement to excape accountability and linger on the matter for years, even in those matter similar to those wherein High Court has already decided.
Hon'ble Supreme Court must dismiss such official/s from service without any recourse for these officials. ( Not Suspend as suspension from service is no meanful action against the erring staff)
Crying for action against the Dead Woods in Govt. Department. They have to take right decision in right earnst for which they draw heavy salary month after months from Govt. Exchequer.
I complaint to PMO/ DPG (goI) against the fraud played on me by Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce and one would amused to see the official response from Secretary (Financial Services) Govt. of India, headed by IAS of 1976 batch which uploaded in Govt of India Site as explanation from ICICII Bank and Secretary took no action for wilful wrong reporting and updation with reference to complaint No-DEABD/E/2010/00406.
We may pray fthat good sense may prevail upon these arrogant officials of Govt of India. I was shameful to the see the manner PMO works. Their subordinate deptt feed wrong information and it has no way to check the coorectness of the action.
......................................................................................
..............................................................
Just see & evaluate the attitude of the Administrator of Inidan Democracy, the way they works. Inspite of having utilised the amount of TDS for the whimsical planning, they have left with no money to refund & they need to borrow to finance refunds of Income Tax and holding the General Public waiting endlessly for their hard earned money refunded . It is like Rob Peter to pay Paul. Govt. collect 15 Years Tax on Vehicles Registration in advance to balance current budget, but they never bother to think a little as to what will happen in next 14 years.
He approved the Pension sent by IBA which is full of discrupencies.
1) Arbitarary date of implementation i.e. 27-11-2009.
2) some of Pensioners get @ 100% DA neutralisation and other retired before 2002 at different slabs.
3) They themselves get Pension Updation with every revision and they can not think a bit for others working in Banks.
Its is like Charity begins at home.
.........................................................................................
-
DEA has asked the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to go slow on tax refunds in the coming months so that the government does not face any resource crunch.
CBDT has rejected Revenue Secretary Sunil Mitra’s contention by saying that taxpayer money can’t be withheld.
This has alarmed DEA, which is expected to be hard-pressed for funds given the possibility of slower economic growth and an increase in the subsidy bill.
The finance minister is believed to have asked the two to resolve the issue between themselves.
A senior CBDT official said once a refund was determined, especially in e-filing, no one could withhold it. “Can the government say that refunds will be delayed because it is under financial stress? Will the government allow an assessee to withhold tax because he is facing a financial problem?” asked the official.
DEA’s argument that a higher refund outgo will put pressure on the government to borrow more is rejected by experts and expenditure department officials. They say it’s a short-term trend and will not impact government finances over the year.
The government has said it will borrow Rs 2,50,000 crore between April and September, 60 per cent of the budgeted market borrowing of Rs 4,17,000 crore for 2011-12. So far, it has borrowed Rs 72,000 crore. While the finance ministry pays 6 per cent a year on late refunds, it has been borrowing from the market at 7.03-8.30 per cent.
The tax department refunded over Rs 23,000 crore in April. The figure is expected to cross Rs 1 lakh crore for the year. The department had refunded Rs 57,000 crore in 2009-10 and Rs 74,000 crore in 2010-11.
CBDT official say with a significant amount paid in the first month of the financial year, the burden for the coming months will be substantially lower. They say timely payments help save on interest.
The government’s net direct tax collection in April fell 70 per cent to Rs 4,000 crore, compared with Rs 14,000 crore in the same month last year. This was mainly on account of refunds totaling Rs 25,000 crore.
Gross direct tax collections were Rs 29,000 crore, 15 per cent more than in April last year.
....................................................................................
IAS officers are the real govrnment. Politicians may come and go; but the beaurocracy is of permanence in nature. Corruption,nepotism,delaying tactics,procrastination,not-to-see the poor and downtrodden, selfih-development are some of the hall-marks of Indian beuracracy. See the case of pre-2002 bank retirees who are denied 100% DA neutralization forthe last 11 years eventhough all those who retired after get 100% DA. To add insult to injury, IBA has become an extended arm of the FINMEN. IBA wantonly delays decision making process in minor matters such as extending the yearly medical payment to the retirees including those retired prematurely.
Only courts can save democracy and principles of natural justice. Courts alone can punish the beuracrats who derelict their duty/shirk their responsibility/pass the bug thus rendering untold sufferings to the common people,especially the senior
.....................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
