DEPARTMENT ISSUED ORDERS
HINDI VERSION OF ORDERS ON GDS RELATING KAMLESH CHANDRA
(Click the link below to view)
(Click the link below to view)
********************
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT, REDUCTION OF
RETIREMENT AGE BELOW 60, RE-EMPLOYMENT AND DELAY IN PROMOTION: DOPT’S
CLARIFICATION
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
05-December-2019 14:49 IST
Compulsory Retirement of Government Employees
As per the information/data uploaded by the
different Ministries/Departments/Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) on
Probity Portal followed by the rectification requests made by some Ministries/
Departments/CCAs, during the period from July, 2014 to October, 2019 (as on
25.11.2019), provisions of FR 56(j) have been invoked against a total number of
96 Group ‘A’ officers and 126 Group ‘B’ officers of different
Ministries/Departments.
Presently, there is no proposal in the
Government to reduce age of retirement of Government employees below 60 years.
Re-employment of the Government servant has no
bearing on the pension fixed at the time of his retirement on attaining the age
of superannuation.
Department of Personnel & Training has
been impressing upon all the Ministries/Departments to convene the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings at prescribed interval (by laying down a
time schedule for the purpose) to draw panels which could be utilized for
making promotion against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year.
The Ministries/Departments have been further advised to initiate action to fill
up the existing as well as anticipated vacancies well in advance of the expiry
of the previous panel by collecting relevant documents like seniority list,
Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) etc. for placing before the DPCs so
as to obviate the problem of delays in promotion.
The provisions under FR 56(j) also ensure to
improve efficiency in Government.
This
information was provided by the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge)
Development of North-Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, DrJitendra Singh in written
reply to a question in RajyaSabha
today.
NO PENSION
AFTER RESIGNATION WHEN VRS IS DENIED : SC
Dec 8, 20190 comments
As per the Central Civil
Service rules, an employee cannot claim pension after resigning from the job.
The number of years served by such an employee will become irrelevant for
consideration of pension if the employee resigns. CCS Rules says that an
employee forfeits his past service by resigning from a service or a post. On
Thursday, the Supreme Court also upheld this rule in its judgement in BSES
Yamuna Power Ltd Vs Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma
(respondent) was appointed as a daily rated mazdoor on 9 July 1968. His
services were regularised on the post of a peon on 22 December 1971. Sharma
tendered his resignation on 7 July 1990, which was accepted by the appellant
(BSES Yamuna Power Ltd) with effect from 10 July 1990. Subsequently, Sharma was
denied pensionary benefits on two grounds: First, he had not completed twenty
years of service, making him ineligible for the grant of pension. Second,
Sharma had forfeited his past services by resigning and therefore could not
claim pensionary benefits. Sharma had challenged the order before Single Judge
Bench of Delhi High Court, which granted him pensionary benefit. The Single
Judge’s decision was also upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The apex court first
addressed the issue of whether Sharma had forfeited his past service by
resigning. The Supreme Court said that by resigning, Sharma had “submitted
himself to the legal consequences that flow from a resignation under the
provisions applicable to his service.”
The top court took note
of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972, which says that
an employee forfeits his past service upon resignation. “Resignation from a
service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest
by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service…” says Rule 10
of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
The apex court set aside
the previous verdict of the High Court, saying: “Irrespective of whether the
first respondent had completed the requisite years of service to apply for voluntary
retirement, his was a decision to resign and not a decision to seek voluntary
retirement. If this court were to re-classify his resignation as a case of
voluntary retirement, this would obfuscate the distinction between the concepts
of resignation and voluntary retirement and render the operation of Rule 26
nugatory. Such an approach cannot be adopted.”
The top court’s
judgement also clarified the distinction between resignation and voluntary
retirement. When the employee has resigned, there stands no question of whether
he has in fact ‘voluntarily retired’ or ‘resigned’, it observed.
“The decision to resign
is materially distinct from a decision to seek voluntary retirement. The
decision to resign results in the legal consequences that flow from a
resignation under the applicable provisions. These consequences are distinct
from the consequences flowing from voluntary retirement and the two may not be
substituted for each other based on the length of an employee’s tenure,” the
apex court said.
Second question
Sharma had applied for
voluntary retirement on 14 February 1990. This was denied by BSES Yamuna by a
letter dated 25 May 1990 on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of
service. Sharma challenged this decision arguing he had completed 20 years of
service. However, the apex court said, “This argument cannot be accepted. Even
if he was denied voluntary retirement on 25 May 1990, the first respondent did
not challenge this decision but resigned, on 7 July 1990. The denial of
voluntary retirement does not mitigate the legal consequences that flow from
resignation.”
The top court ruled that
in this case, the denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked to claim
pensionary benefits.
Click the blow link to read judgement
*************************
No comments:
Post a Comment