Family Pension....Can the spouse get 2 FPs?...Armed Forces Tribunal says YES!

[perumal maruthu]

13 yrs after ex-army man’s death, wife gets Military Family pension

TOI dt 21/03/2012

Chennai: Thirteen years after her husband’s death, 64-year-old A Mariammal from Coimbatore can finally get the full pension due to her, thanks to an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
    Mariammal’s husband R Arunagiri served in the Army from 1974 to 1994. After he retired as squadron leader, Arunagiri joined Canara Bank and was posted at its Tirunagar branch in Madurai. He passed away on January 19, 1999 while he was still in service. After his death, Mariammal was drawing a family pension of 3,850 from the bank as per its rules and regulations.,  
    In July 2001, the Union ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions issued a notification saying the widow or the next of kin of an Army officer was entitled to receive both civil as well as Army family pensions. But the notification was circulated to all sainik welfare department offices only in April 2006. Mariammal came to know of it two years later and immediately applied for Army family pension in 2008. She was entitled to a pension of 3,950 from the Army.

 But authorities rejected her request, contending that the rules permitted an individual to receive two pensions only if the civil family pension was received under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
    She moved the Armed Forces Tribunal challenging the denial of pension. When the matter came up for hearing, Mariammal produced a certificate from Canara Bank dated January 11, 2012 which stated that she was drawing pension from the bank under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
    Passing orders, a bench of Justice A C Arumugaperumal Adityan, judicial member, and Lt Gen (retd) R K Chhabra, administrative member, observed that the record officer of the Madras Engineer Group ought to have asked for such a certificate before rejecting Mariammal’s claim. Pointing out that rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules reiterated the same principle as the central notification, the bench directed that Mariammal be given the Army family pension with effect from July 27, 2001. Authorities were given three months to comply with the order.

 M.Perumal

Chennai

[velayudhan nair]

Dear friends,

Our Perumalji deserves full appreciation for bringing such great
things to our notice! Let us congratulate him.

Warm reg


CPVNAIR

On Mar 21, 10:45 am, perumal maruthu <perumalmaru...@yahoo.co.in>
wrote:

> 13 yrs after ex-army man’s death, wife gets Military Family pension
> TOI dt 21/03/2012
>
> Chennai: Thirteen years after her husband’s death, 64-year-old A Mariammal from Coimbatore can finally get the full pension due to her, thanks to an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
>     Mariammal’s husband R Arunagiri served in the Army from 1974 to 1994. After he retired as squadron leader, Arunagiri joined Canara Bank and was posted at its Tirunagar branch in Madurai. He passed away on January 19, 1999 while he was still in service. After his death, Mariammal was drawing a family pension of 3,850 from the bank as per its rules and regulations.,
>     In July 2001, the Union ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions issued a notification saying the widow or the next of kin of an Army officer was entitled to receive both civil as well as Army family pensions. But the notification was circulated to all sainik welfare department offices only in April 2006. Mariammal came to know of it two years later and immediately applied for Army family pension in 2008. She was entitled to a pension of 3,950 from the Army.
>  But authorities rejected her request, contending that the rules permitted an individual to receive two pensions only if the civil family pension was received under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
>     She moved the Armed Forces Tribunal challenging the denial of pension. When the matter came up for hearing, Mariammal produced a certificate from Canara Bank dated January 11, 2012 which stated that she was drawing pension from the bank under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.

>     Passing orders, a bench of Justice A C Arumugaperumal Adityan, judicial member, and Lt Gen (retd) R K Chhabra, administrative member, observed thatthe record officer of the Madras Engineer Group ought to have asked for such a certificate before rejecting Mariammal’s claim. Pointing out that rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules reiterated the same principle as the central notification, the bench directed that Mariammal be given the Army family pension with effect from July 27, 2001. Authorities were given three months to comply with the order.
>  M.Perumal
> Chennai

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Friends,

 

If Arunagiri was alive he was, after retirement on superannuation, he would have drawn Canara Bank Pension along with Army Pension.

 

This as per the following Pension Regulation:

24. Military Service:-An employee who has rendered military service before appointment in the Bank shall continue to draw the military pension, if any, and military service rendered by the employee shall not count as qualifying service for pension.

Therefore, upon the death of the husband, his wife Mariyammal is entitled for two family pensions together.

 

Hence the order of the Tribunal of Armed Forces has upheld the justice.

 

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SHIMOGA.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[purnachandra rao poluru]

very good judgement by army tribunal. In allcourt cases central civil
pension rules1995 were given statutary importance. any agreement or
joint note should confine itself within the provisions of central
civil pension rules1995 since it was statutary in character.
executive orders or board resolutions can not override the spirit of
the above
Hence i got a
ray of hope that56% and28% will be refunded as recovery from employees
was nowhere mentioned in central civil regulations1995. the joint note
or executive orders are at best incohate instuments

regards
p.p.rao

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

I concur with your observations.

Stopping or Non-sanctioning of applicable FP by the Defence Dptt under one pre-text or other or on filmsy ground is the typical bureacratic and most in- human approach in our country.

The FP from Banks will be considerably less after 7 Years from the dt of its sanction.

As pointed out by you, there is no valid reason to stop FP by Defence Deptt  when the Ex-Serviceman ,if he were to contiue to live,  would draw his Military as well as Bank Pension.

Earlier, our Ex-servicemen Brothers were subjected to the cruelty of denial of DA on re-employment .

M.Perumal

Chennai

From: Mohandas Rao <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Family Pension....Can the spouse get 2 FPs?...Armed Forces Tribunal says YES!

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

The striking observation of the CJ  of KHC in Vijaya Bank Vs Suvansi &others is sought to be taken out of context and tried to be mis-applied for a different matter/Issue.

Pl read the Judgment once again that BPS/Jt Note would attain legal force in due course subject to compliance of other necessary requirements. 

Pl also impart the intended meaning of the court to its usage of the word INCHOATE...ie an agreement waiting for completion of its sanctity to fetch legal force.

Inchoate agreement does not mean useless agreement, as contrived by you.

M.Perumal

Chennai

From: purnachandra rao poluru <ppr...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Family Pension....Can the spouse get 2 FPs?...Armed Forces Tribunal says YES!

> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[J SOMASEKARA]

Dear Perumal Ji

We agree with you that BPS and other agreements cannot be called inchoate agreements.  BPS does not have statutory force. Pension Regulations have statutory strength. As far as original optees are concerned any  joint notes, Executive orders, amendments passed snatching away benefits retrospectively becomes inchoate agreements. Such amendments if any can made prospectively will  apply only to future retirees. 

In Kerala High Court Judgement in M.C.Rathnakaran 

verdict says:

Therefore, such amendment can have only prospective

effect affecting those who retired later than such

amendment. But going by the works contained in that

provision it cannot affect even such persons. So, that

amendment will not adversely affect any of the statutory

benefit entitled to the petitioners in O.P.No.3502 of 2000".

Here, also the bank is relying on an understanding between

the officers associations and the bank which has absolutely no statutory force especially against statutory rules in force at the relevant time. In fact, the Supreme Court has in the decision in Rangadhamaiah's case (supra) went to the extent of holding that even a retrospective amendment cannot take away the rights of an employee for retirement

benefits in accordance with the rules in force as on the date of his retirement."

Regarding Second pension optees are concerned they were not members of Pension fund and became members of Pension fund only after pension regulations amended(if I am tight). So second Pension optees do not have much hopes on  getting reversed contributions 56% and 28% fixed, through legal course

Dear permal Ji, these are only my personal observations. If I am not correct please feel free to correct me.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Unfortunately, on account of recent Govt directions, Spouse of Ex-Servicemen can draw either of the family pensions, not both.  I require some time to study, discuss with Union/Association leaders, Advocate, etc.  

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Mohandas Rao <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 12:47 PM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner Family Pension....Can the spouse get 2 FPs?...Armed Forces Tribunal says YES!

[purnachandra rao poluru]

dear sir,

pension regulations were not amended for recovery of56% and 28% from
pensioners and existing employees but to give lesser pension to
svrs/vrs optees by banks. Hence 2nd pension optees will not be
effected in any way by amendments

regards
p.p.rao.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

I concur with your view that private circulars can not over ride or take away Statuatory Rights. This is the SUMMUM BONUM of  SC's Verdict in Mohandas Vs BOI and in the verdict of KHC on 5 Years Benefit and 50% of Pay as Basic Pension. This was also reiterated in Ratnakaran's case by the Kerala High Court.

But the agreement for one more option signed on 27/4/10 can not be termed as inchoate one as has been opined by a neo-Optee. IBA has signed the agreement after taking prior approval from GOI. The OPTION being purely an OPTIONAL one, no one can claim that he has been adversely affected by that agreement dt 27/4/10. If one feels so, he can reject it as already done by him in 1995. There is no compulsion on the part of the BENEFICIARY.

Now, if the Neo-Optees think that the agreement dt 27/4/10 can not bind them, then they will be committing the error of helping IBA resile from extending its Offer of one more option which will adversely affect the prospects of the option-denied 6000 VRS Optees.

Pl see the paradox of one group of about 2000 questioning the agreed terms of contribution for short-fall and the other group of 6000 (option-denied-VRS/Resigned) willing to pay and to have the option.

Approaching courts must be for winning further rights, retaining existing rights, for romoval of Injustice and Inequality among EQUALS. Questioning the terms of Important settlements fetching Statuatory Benefit like the one more option will neither do good for the Litigants nor will it help others(like the present  option denied VRS-optees). However, I do not want to say anything as the matter is sub-judice.

M.Perumal

Chennai

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Friends,

 

If we read the Bank Employees Pension Regulation 24 further it goes like this:

 

24. Military Service:-

An employee who has rendered military service before appointment

in the Bank shall continue to draw the military pension, if any, and

military service rendered by the employee shall not count as

qualifying service for pension.

 

REQUEST BY FAMILY PENSIONERS TO DRAW MILITARY

FAMILY PENSION FOREGOING FAMILY PENSION: We had taken

up the matter with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,

(Banking Division) who have after examining the matter in

consultation with Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare

advised that family members of re-employed ex-servicemen entitled

for family pension under the Bank (employees’) Pension Regulations,

1995 are not eligible to draw family pension from Government. It has

been further clarified that for drawing family pension from

Government, the family members of such persons will have to forgo

their claims for payment of family pension from the Bank in

accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the

CCS (Pension) Rules. Sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules reads as under:-

 

“Family pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a

person who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible

therefore under any other rules of the Central Government or a State

Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking/ Autonomous

Body/Local Fund under the Central or a State Government. Provided

that a person who is otherwise eligible for family pension under this

rule may opt to receive family pension under this rule if he forgoes

family pension admissible from any other service”.

In view of the above, a beneficiary of family pension who wishes to

forgo his family pension under the Bank (Employees’) Pension

Regulations, 1995 in favour of military family pension, may apply

accordingly in writing to the Bank/Pension Fund. The Bank/Pension

Fund may take the application on record and act accordingly.

Drawing a reference to his application a certificate to the effect that

family pension in terms of Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations,

1995 is being stopped to the beneficiary in view of his forgoing the

same to enable him to draw military family pension as required by

sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules

may be issued to him. In this regard, we are also to advise as under:-

(i) Family pensioners, if any, who are drawing family pension from

the Bank as well as from the Government may be advised of the

extant provisions in the CCS (Pension) Rules and asked to submit

their option for pension as suggested above. If the family pensioner

desires to draw family pension from the Bank, then the concerned

PPO issuing authorities may be informed accordingly. However, if

the family pensioner desires to draw family pension from the

Government, then the Bank may take steps to stop payment of family

pension following the aforesaid procedure and inform the concerned

pension authorities.

 

(ii) On the death of the employee/pensioner the Bank may obtain

from the eligible family pensioner in writing his/her option to draw

family pension and act accordingly.

 

(iii) The spouse of the deceased employee would be forgoing only

his/her right to family pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995

and would not be relinquishing the right of others in the family.

Upon his becoming ineligible for pension either due to re-marriage or

death, the other eligible beneficiaries in the family may still exercise

their right to draw family pension under the Regulations.

 

(IBA Circular No. PD/CIR/76/G2/1218 Dt. 30-10-1999)

 

In the same Pension Regulations, “Family” has been defined as under:

(o) “Family” in relation to an employee means:-

 

(a) wife in the case of a male employee or husband in the case of a

female employee;

 

(b) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being

granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not

held guilty of committing adultery;

 

(c) son who not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried

daughter who has not attained the age of twenty five years, including

such son or daughter adopted legally;

 

Therefore, as per the present regulation, even though the spouse is not eligible for two family pensions (military as well as of bank) simultaneously, other member of the family can draw the other pension. The Tribunal, however,  now gave a ruling that the spouse herself can simultaneously draw both the family pensions.

 

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SHIMOGA

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

This mail is to clarify, with whatever knowledge at my command, issues relating to another option for Pension, 156% and Pension Regulations.

Pension Agreement is a Contract and as extracted from Swarnakar's Case (quoted in Para 23 Page 161 of Judgement in WA) and has force of law.  But, issue is whether this agreement is a inchoate agreement.  It is not.  Otherwise, it hurts the optees, not the Banks.  It is because, Pension Regulation does not permit neither another option nor payment of 56% of PF amount over and above amount received by the PF optee.  If it is treated as a inchoate Agreement, till the Pension Regulations are amended, duly incorporating provisions of Pension Agreement, no Pension option can be exercised.  In the normal circumstances, Non-Associate Public Sector Banks take anywhere between 2 years to 4 years to amend and Associate Banks do not amend Pension Regulations.  Thereafter, one can opt for Pension.  Is it a good idea to proceed in this direction ?

I had attended Resignees and Voluntarily Retired PF optees meeting in Bangalore, where some of those who had attended were saying that Pension Regulations do not provide for accepting contribution from the Retirees, load over and above 10% should be borne by the Management, agreeing for 156% remittance is illegal, etc.   Unfortunately, these statements look attractive and correct.  But, they are not correct.  If they are correct, then there is no Second Option.  It is not the Management which wanted to extend Pension option.  It is the Unions/Associations and Retirees who were craving for another option.  Jolly well Managements would have continued with PF options only, if 156% is not agreed. 

Unfortunately, there are comparisons between old and neo-pensioners.  Old pensioners were not any way responsible.  Perhaps, they have also lost on account of PF optees.  If all these neo-pension optees were to opt for Pension then, perhaps, 'Updation' issue would have also been clinched, by this time.  Atleast, focus of two BPS and cost connected with another option, would have flown to old Pension optees also.  

   

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: J SOMASEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 6:29 PM

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

Thanks for pointing out the latest provisions on drawing FP from Banks and Defence Deptt.

What is given by one hand is snatched away by the other! Poor Widows!!

EX-Servicemen Pensioners must take up with Gov't for removal of this injustice.

However your view that the other dependents of the deceased can draw the other pension is a solace for the affected lot.

M.Perumal

Chennai

 

From: Mohandas Rao <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Family Pension....Can the spouse get 2 FPs?...Armed Forces Tribunal says YES!

Dear Friends,