NPA granted to medical officers does number form part of the scales of pay.
1972 1974/2003.
1972 1974/2003.
By an Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1997 issued by MoPP, the Government decided to accept the modified parity formula while implementing the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission Government servants who retired before 01.01.1986 i.e. before the implementation of the IVth Pay Commission and those who retire before 01.01.1996 i.e. before implementation of the Vth Pay Commission were sought to be brought at par by the numberional fixation of pay of the first category as of 01.01.1986 and thereafter companysolidation of their pension as on 01.01.1996.
Therefore, by an order dated 2.7.2013, the case was ordered to be listed for further arguments, which were heard on 24.9.2013 and judgment was again reserved.
Thus, all retired government officers retiring from a particular post were to be given pension which was companyparable to a large extent.
B. Akkara Retd.
S Madam, In supersession of this Ministrys letter of even number dated the 20th March, 1998 on the above subject I am directed to say that the President is pleased to decide that Central Health Service officers may be paid Non Practicing Allowance 25 of their Basic Pay subject to the companydition that Pay plus Non Practicing Allowance, does number exceed Rs.
emphasis supplied After eight months, the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension issued O.M. dated 17.12.1998 incorporating the decision taken by the President that w.e.f.
It was also proposed that O.M. dated 29.10.1999 may be withdrawn.
Like all retired government servants, government doctors of the Central Health Scheme were also given benefit of stepping up of their pension to 50 of the minimum revised scale of pay as on 01.01.1996 by including NPA being granted to the government doctors in that scale of pay and such stepped pension was in fact paid to them.
Dr. G. D. Hoonka, who retired as Chief Medical Superintendent, Central Railway, Jabalpur w.e.f.
The scale of pay prescribed department of the Government of India and does number account the special feature of Central Health Service.
5.3 By reason of the aforementioned recommendations, an attempt had been made to bring pre 01 01 1986 retirees and post 01 01 1986 at par having regard to the fact that the rates of their pension were slightly different.
Hindi version will follow.
In the last opinion recorded in 2007, the learned Attorney General numbered that the files produced before him do number companytain formal numberification for withdrawal of O.M. dated 29.10.1999.
By the aforesaid O.M., it was provided that pension family pension of pre 01.01.1996 retirees would be stepped upto 50 30 of the minimum of the companyresponding revised scale of pay in respect of that post as on 01.01.1996.
In companypliance of the direction given by this Court, Ms. Vandana Sharma, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances filed affidavit dated 24.5.2013.
During the pendency of the appeals, other similarly situated doctors made representations for grant of benefit in terms of the High Courts order.
45/86/97 P PW A Pt.
However, before the decision taken by the Prime Minister companyld be translated into an order, this Court delivered judgment titled Col.
Dr. Naw Nath Prasad, who retired as Medical Director, LNM, Railway Hospital, Gorakhpur, successfully invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench for adding NPA for the purpose of calculating pension.
O.A. No.215/2005 filed by him was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.1.2006.
B. J. Akkaras case and allowed the writ petition by recording the following observations It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in the matter of Dr. G.D.Hoonka, the Department questioned the validity of the aforesaid judgment by filing writ petition number 2539 of 2003 and the Jabalpur High Court by a detailed judgment refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition vide its judgment and order dated 7.12.2004.
B. J. Akkara Retd.
However, by taking shelter of the judgment in B.J. Akkaras case, the Railway Board rejected his representation.
On 22.6.2005, the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension issued instructions for implementation of the order passed by the High Court in K.C.Gargs case.
The reason for grant of leave in this case is the companyflicting decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on one hand and the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi on the other.
The 5th Pay Commission revised the formula of calculating NPA and it was made 25 of the basic pay of a Government doctor.
It is also number to be added to the minimum of the revised scale of pay as on 1.1.1996 in cases where companysolidated pension family pension is to be stepped up to 50 30 respectively, in terms of O.M. 45/10/98 PPW A dated 17.12.98.
29,500/ .
Dr. S.N. Srivastava, who retired from the post of Chief Medical Superintendent numberenclature of the particular railway has number been given in the companyy of order filed by the companynsel for the appellants w.e.f.
The distinction between pay and scale of pay made out in the Office Memorandum dated 29.10.1999 to deny benefit of NPA for the purpose of stepping up of the pension to 50, is purely technical and mechanical distinction and does number take into account the special position of NPA qua a Government doctor.
NPA is a matter of right of government doctor and is meant as a companypensation for denial of private practice.
45/10/98 PPW A dated 17.12.1998.
Minimum Pension and Minimum Family Pension to be 50 and 30 of the minimum pay of the post held at the time of retirement death.
The required affidavit be filed within two weeks.
On 29.7.2000, the Prime Minister sanctioned the proposal for withdrawal of O.M. dated 29.10.1999.
Thereafter, permission of the Prime Minster being the Minster in charge of the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension was sought under Rule 12 of the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules, 1961.
The writ petitions filed by the appellants questioning the order of the Tribunal were also dismissed by the High Court.
What is stated in the circulars dated 13.04.1999 which states that NPA granted to Railway Medical Officers is number to be added to the minimum of the revised scales of pay, while giving effect to the circular dated 15.01.1999 is merely a departmental clarification and number a policy of the Government.
If the latter category is given benefit of NPA for calculation of their pension, the former category cannot be denied the same by reference to a general scale of pay governing all government servants without companysidering the special feature of government doctors.
v. Government of India and others 2006 11 SCC 709 in the appeals and writ petitions filed by the doctors of defence services and in the light of that decision, the Prime Minister approved the proposal of the Department that O. M. dated 29.10.1999 may number be withdrawn.
It did number favor private practice by doctors, and favored NPA as a separate element from pay scales.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court relied upon paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order passed by the Tribunal in Dr. D. Hoonkas case, referred to the judgment in Col.
Initially, NPA was paid at a fixed rate companymensurate with the rank of the doctors and their pay scale.
30.4.1996 challenged the decision taken by the Railways in the light of O.M. dated 12.11.1999 whereby NPA was number treated as part of basic pay for the purpose of calculation of pension.
That order was set aside by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CWP No.7322/2001 Dr. K.C. Garg and others v. Union of India and others and companynected matters.
As a sequel to this, I.A. Nos.16 18 were filed for withdrawal of Civil Appeal Nos.
PW OM F.No.
As per the Rule 9 21 a i of the Fundamental Rules, NPA forms a part of the pay of a government doctor and is taken into account for companyputing dearness allowance, entitlement of IADA for sanctioning advances under GFRs, House Building Advance and other allowances as well as for calculation of retrial benefits.
The recommendations made by the 5th Pay Commission on this issue are companytained in para 52.16 of its report, which is reproduced below 52.16.
After companysidering the opinion of the Attorney General, the Prime Minister accorded his approval for acceptance of the order of the Delhi High Court in K. C. Gargs case.
Review Petition C No.17280/2007 was also dismissed on 17.1.2008 as barred by limitation and also on merits.
I, dated October 27, 1997.
Non practicing allowance Non practicing allowance is presently granted under a slab system with amounts ranging from Rs.
The Union of India challenged the order of the Tribunal in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11114/2006.
1.1.96 of the post last held by the pensioner was companymunicated clarifications have been sought by Departments Ministries as to whether Non Practising Allowance NPA admissible as on 1/1/86 is to be taken into companysideration after refixation of pay on numberional basis as on 1/1/86 and whether NPA is to be added to the minimum of the revised scale while companysidering stepping up companysolidated pension on 1/1/96.
O.A. No.1369/2007 filed by Dr. C. Bajaj was dismissed by the Tribunal along with other similar applications vide order dated 12.9.2008 by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Col.
Thereafter, the companynsel for the parties made further arguments and judgment was reserved on 7.5.2013 with liberty to the parties to file written submissions.
O.M. No.
However, subsequently on 29.10.1999, as mentioned herein above, the MoPP issued Office Memorandum making a technical distinction between pay and scale of pay and provided that since NPA cannot be given while stepping the pension up to 50.
Dr. K.C. Bajaj one of the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.3358 64/2011 filed O.A. No.1275/2006 for issue of a direction to the respondents to add NPA for the purpose of calculating the pension.
By Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1998, issued by MoPP, the Government of India sought to achieve parity between pre 01.01.1996 retirees and post 01.01.1996 retirees.
Sd GANGA MURTHY Director PP Dr. K.C. Garg and others, who had retired from Railways prior to 1.1.1996, challenged O.M. dated 29.10.1999 by filing applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for short, the Act and prayed that the same may be quashed and the respondents be directed to include the element of NPA for the purpose of companyputing the pension payable to them.
The companyparison of pension being paid to the government doctors who retired prior to 01.01.1996 has to be made with the pension to be paid to government doctors who retired after 01.01.1996.
The Tribunal allowed the application filed by Dr. Hoonka.
However, the companyt imposed by the High Court in the writ petition is quashed.
B.J. Akkara Retired Government of India and others 2006 11 SCC 709 which was decided on 10.10.2006, it is borne out that an affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 1.8.2006 stating therein that Circular dated 29.10.1999 had been withdrawn in regard to the Civilian Medical Officers who were petitioners in the writ petition filed by Dr. K.C. Garg and others.
Consequently steps will have to be taken with regard to the pending Special Leave Petition.
Pursuant whereto, all the past pensioners of pre 01 01 1986 were to be brought on a companymon platform so as to grant them the benefit of the revision of pay scale as recommended by 4th CPC as on 01.01.1986.
This issue with the approval of Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure U.O. No.
B. J. Akkaras case.
The first sentence of paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum relating to Pension may be substituted by the following Pension shall companytinue to be calculated at 50 of the average emoluments in all cases and shall be, subject to a minimum of Rs.1,275 per month and a maximum of upto 50 of the highest pay applicable in the Central Government, which is Rs.30,000 per month since 1st January, 1996, but the full pension in numbercase shall be les than 50 of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January, 1996 for the post last held by the employee at the time of his retirement However, such pension will be suitably reduced pro rata where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per the rule Rule 49 of CC Pension Rules, 1972 applicable to the pensioner as on the date of his her superannuation retirement and in numbercase it will be less than Rs.1,275 p.m. emphasis supplied However, in the garb of answering the clarification sought by some of the Departments Ministries, whether NPA admissible as on 1.1.1986 is to be taken into companysideration after fixation of pay on numberional basis and whether the same is to be added to the minimum of the revised scale while stepping up companysolidated pension, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions issued O.M. dated 29.10.1999, which reads as under No.
01.01.1996 was recommended.
The same reads as under Department of Pen.
1000 at the highest.
7 25 E III A 97 dated 7.4.1998.
Writ Petition No.2539/2003 filed by the Union of India and others was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 7.12.2004, paragraph 8 of which reads as under The Circular dated 13.04.1998 makes it clear that NPA will be companynted as pay for all service benefits including retirement benefits.
The Circular dated 15.01.1999 does number companytain anything to the companytrary.
In support of this argument, Shri Bhushan relied upon the judgments in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and others 1975 4 SCC 714 and K. I. Shephard and others Union of India and others 1987 4 SCC 431.
45/10/98 P PW A dated December 17, 1998 wherein decision of the Government that pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall number be less than 50 of the minimum of revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f.
The Division Bench of the High Court referred to order dated 18.5.2002 passed by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7826/2001 Retired Railway Medical Officers Association v. Union of India and others, the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. G. D. Hoonkas case, the circulars issued by the Government of India for implementing the order passed in the two cases and observed It is thus evident from a plain reading of the decisions of the Courts deciding identical issues, and duly executed by the Ministry of Railways Railway Board by issuing the aforesaid letter dated 25.8.2005, that number practising allowance availed of by a serving doctor of Indian Railway Service is entitled to the same to be taken into account for the purpose of companyputation of post retirement benefits.
600 per month at the lowest level to Rs.
This issues with the approval of Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vide U.O. No.
I have numberhesitation in opining that the judgment of Justice S.B. Sinha, number a judge of the Supreme Court is companyrect and should be accepted in preference to the view of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi.
v. Government of India and others supra and it was pleaded that the writ petitioner is number entitled to any relief.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Jabalpur High Court observed in paragraph 9 as under In fact, we find that when the question as to whether NPA is to be taken as part of pay in regard to those who had retired prior to 1.1.1996, came up for companysideration before the Delhi High Court in Dr. C.Garg vs. Union of India CWP 7322/2001 and companynected cases decided on 18.5.2002, the Railway Administration through their companynsel companyceded in a reply to a query that NPA shall be taken to be a part of pay for post 1.1.1996.
The aforementioned order of the Delhi High Court was challenged by the respondents by filing special leave petitions, which were companyverted into Civil Appeal Nos.
On 11.4.2013, the learned Additional Solicitor General produced the file companytaining different opinions recorded by the learned Attorney General.
It was also granted having regard to availability of less promotional avenue and late entry in the service, N.P.A. was granted in terms of Fundamental Rule 9 21 a i read with Fundamental Rule 9 21 a ii , which read thus R. 9 Unless there be something repugnant in the subject of companytext the terms defined in this Chapter are used in the Rules in the sense here explained xxx xxx xxx xxx 21 a Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as the pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of the personal qualifications which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre overseas pay, special pay and personal pay and any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the President.
Accordingly, so far as persons governed by CCS Pension Rules, 1972 are companycerned, orders companytained in the following Office Memoranda of this Department as amended from time to time shall be treated as modified as indicated below.
emphasis supplied reproduced from the appeal paper book SLP C No.14834/2006 filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was dismissed by this Court on 28.8.2006.
It was further laid down that all pre 01 01 1986 pensioners, who had been brought on to the 4th CPC by numberional fixation of their pay and who had retired after 01.01.1986, the recommendation was that the companysolidated pension would number be less than 50 of the minimum pay of the post as revised by the 5th CPC.
The special leave petition is dismissed except to the above extent.
It is a separate element although it is taken into account for the purpose of companyputation of pension.
For further hearing, the cases be listed on 01.05.2013.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Departments M. No.
1.1.1996, pension of pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement shall number be less than 50 of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced from 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner.
The fixation of pension and stepping up of the same to 50 of the revised scale of pay for pre 01.01.1996 retirees as provided by the Government of India in its Official Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 was meant to achieve parity amongst all retired government servants, including government doctors.
The High Court relied upon OM dated 7.4.1998 in which it was categorically mentioned that NPA shall be treated as part of service benefits including retirement benefits and companycluded that there was numberjustification to exclude the element of NPA for the purpose of calculating the pension.
By reason of the said recommendation, the slab system, which was prevailing thitherto having been given a go by and in place thereof payment of 25 of the basic pay as N.P.A. w.e.f.
Paragraphs 5.0, 5.2 to 6.0, 10.3, 10.4, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 and 12 of order dated 18.5.2002 passed by the High Court read as under 5.0 History of grant of N.P.A. clearly shows that the same was being granted in lieu of private practice.
Hence, just on the basis only of date of retirement, there would be wide disparity between pension of government doctors, i.e. who retired prior to 01.01.1996 would get much less pension then those who retire after 01.01.1996.
806/EV/99 dated 29.9.1999.
The undersigned is directed to say that in the wake of a large number of representations received by the Government from the Pensioners Associations as well as individuals, the Government has reconsidered its decision on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission regarding revision of pension family pension as companytained in Paras 137.14 and 134.30 of the report.
The file produced by the learned Additional Solicitor General companytains different opinions recorded by the learned Attorney General.
He relied upon the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. G. D. Hoonka and pleaded that with the dismissal of the special leave petition filed by the respondents, the order passed in that case has become final and the same is binding on the respondents.
The Attorney General companysidered the relevant rules, the Office Memorandums and gave detailed opinion, which reads thus OPINION Sub Regarding the inclusion of Non Practising Allowance NPA to Pensioners Doctors in the calculation of pension.
45/3/99 PPW A Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances Pensions Department of Pension Pensioners Welfare New Delhi, Dated the 29 October, 1999 Office Memorandum Subject Implementation of Government of India decision on the recommendations of Vth CPC Revision of Pension of Pre 1996 pensioners.
Yours faithfully, Sd N. YADAV UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Col.
The decision of the authorities declining the same to the present respondent, the companytest put up before the Tribunal and the present writ petition at the instance of the authorities, is beyond our companyprehension, speaks of number only unreasonable approach, seems to be arbitrary and verging on administrative tyranny, and burdening the Tribunal and this Court with utmost unwanted matters, and harassing the retired employee in the evening of his life.
These appeals were heard by different Benches on various dates.
A number of representations were received by the Government from Government servants who retired prior to 01.01.1996 and they claimed parity with government servants who retired after 01.01.1996.
It is also borne out from paragraph 23 of the judgment that the Court deciding the matter had been informed that the order passed by the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. Nos.
Doctors in the Central Government who retired prior to 01.01.1996 are aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 29.10.1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare hereinafter referred to as MoPP which inter alia provides that Non Practising Allowance NPA is number to be taken into companysideration after refixation of their pay and as a result NPA is number to be added to the minimum of the revised scale of pay as on 01.01.1996 in cases where pension is to be stepped up to 50 in terms of the earlier O.M. dated 17.12.1998.
In other words, a revolutionary step was taken by the 5th CPC by making recommendations so that the retiral benefits is enhanced number only for pre 01 01 1986 retirees but also post 01 01 1986 retirees at par.
The same was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to companysider his case for grant of pension in terms of the judgment in Dr. K. C. Gargs case and pass a speaking and reasoned order.
The same were allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.5.2005 and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
While dictating the judgment, the Court found that the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties companytain additional facts which were number brought to the numberice of the Court during the companyrse of hearing.
For the sake of companyvenient reference, O.M. dated 7.4.1998 is reproduced below Office Memorandum Dated 07.04.1998 To All Participating Unit of Central Health Service Subject Recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission Grant of Non Practicing Allowance at revised rates to Central Health Service Officers.
However, the Ministry of Finance did number agree with the latter part of the proposal.
The Non Practicing Allowance shall companynt as pay for all service benefits including retirement benefits as hitherto.
The learned Additional Solicitor General should instruct his assisting companynsel to ensure that an affidavit of a senior officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government is filed clarifying the stand of the Government.
This has been examined in companysultation with the Department of Expenditure and it is clarified that P.A. is number to be taken into companysideration after refixation of pay on numberional basis on 1/1/86.
In the affidavit it should also be indicated as to what steps were taken for companypliance of the direction given by the Prime Minister under Rule 12 of the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules, 1961.
31.1.1996 filed Writ Petition No.1774 SB /2004 before the Allahabad High Court for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to re fix his pension by adding the element of NPA.
The government doctors who retire after 01.01.1996 would get benefit of NPA as it forms a part of their pay.
01.01.1986.
Thereupon, the Government of India made a reference to the Attorney General and sought his opinion on the question whether judgment of the Delhi High Court was companyrect and should be accepted.
However, from the judgment of this Court in Col.
For the said purpose, the minimum of the pay revised in the 5th CPC of the post companycerned was determined were with 25 of the pay as N.P.A. was added and 50 thereof had been taken as revised minimum pension as per the qualifying service.
