DENIAL OF SECOND FAMILY PENSION TO THE WIDOWS OF RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN IS AN INJUSTICE
In order to keep the armed forces young and fighting fit, every year around 60,000 men are sent out at middle age. The majority of these men are at the age group of 35 to 40 years. The pension paid is also meagre. Therefore they are forced to seek re-employment in government departments with some relaxation in age and educational qualifications through various selection process.
Most of the re-employed ex-servicemen are in Group IV posts. Except for the age relaxation, they are not given any weightage in pay fixation, seniority or promotion in the re-employed post. These disciplined men join these departments between the age 35 to 40, 45 and retire at the age of 58 or 60 with a truncated service in the re-employed post with minimum pension.
In the defence service also he is shunted out after 20 to 22 years service with minimum pro-rata pension, similarly in the re-employed post also he is not in a position to serve more than 20 to 22 years. Even though, his total service in both the departments exceeds 40 years, but is given minimum pro-rata pension in both the departments. Whereas his counter parts in the civil allowed to serve 33 years continuously and enjoy all the benefits like seniority, promotion etc., and retire comparatively at a higher rank/scale and pension than these poor ex-servicemen.
When the retirement papers are prepared for pension in the re-employed post, a condition is imposed that the family pension will not be granted in the re-employed post if the ex-servicemen’s wife was entitled for a defence family pension. If at all you insist family pension in the re-employed post, you have get a confirmation from the defence pension sanctioning authorities that they will not sanction defence family pension whenever contingencies arise. This is a draconian law imposed only on poor re-employed ex-servicemen. Lot of representations were sent to government for the past 25 years to remove this rule. But till to day no response from the government. Even the 4th, 5th and the 6th CPCs did not listen to our request. The injustice continues. Even the Banks, which are having contributory pension scheme is also denying the family pension to the widows of the retired ex-servicemen bank employees.
The position of the re-employed pensioners was worst during 4th CPC. It is the 5th CPC which brought some relief to the re-employed by allowing them to draw their both the pensions separately without any floor ceiling. Even though a number of ex-servicemen organizations put up the proposal for allowing both the family pensions to the eligible widows, but the 6th CPC did not mention any word about it at all in their report.
One of the main reason for ignoring our demands in the past by the government is the lack of unity among our men and not coming on the streets for justice. I think now the situation is different after formation of IESM. A new stream of blood in injected into our men by our beloved organization IESM. I hope we will achieve. I hope our organization will take up this issue with government and get both pension paid to the poor widows at an early date.
1 comment:
Suporting case law for the cause.
This has also legal support of Division Bench judgment dated 04-05-2000 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appellate Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2000 in case of Rajabala W/o. Mai Chand Vs Union of India & Ors. 2000 II CLR 967 Bom. Gist of the case is under:
“Pension – Family Pension payable to window of ex-Army Man – Petitioner’s husband retired from Army Service and was receiving pension – On his retirement he was employed by Public Limited Company viz., Telco, wherein he put in service of 15 years – He however died in accident – On his death, petitioner started receiving family pension under a scheme under Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Army however refused to release family pension on the ground that she was receiving civil family pension – Hence this petition – Allowing the petition, it is held that the decision of the respondents in not granting family pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal because the monthly pension under Family Pension Scheme under the 1952 Act or dependant’s allowance paid is payable to the petitioner by virtue of the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner in TELCO while the Army Pension is payable to the petitioner by virtue of 15 years service rendered by the husband of the petitioner in Army.”
Para 4 of the judgment: It is clearly seen from the certificate issued by TELCO which is annexed at Exhibit IX that the petitioner is receiving family pension under the provisions of the Act of 1952 because of the monthly contributions made by the deceased husband of the petitioner from this monthly wages to the Employees Provident Fund and also by the equal monthly contribution made by the company to the same fund during the period of his employment with the company. As far as the dependant’s allowance is concerned, which is equal to 50% of the basic wages and the dearness allowance, which the deceased husband was drawing at the time of his death is paid to the petitioner under the settlement reached between the company and the employees union. It is not the case of the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a civil servant or employee in civil service before the age of superannuation after leaving army. It is therefore difficult to appreciate as to how the pension received by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1952 can be regarded as pension on the civil side.
Paras 5 & 6 of the judgment: In Union of India v. Visalakshy, 1998 II CLR 1166, the division bench of Kerala High Court, which confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge, has held that the widow of the ex-Army employee (re-employed in FCI) is entitled to family pension from the army side notwithstanding the benefit of the family pension received by her under the family pension scheme under the provisions of the Act of 1952. The President of India has conveyed his sanction to the implementation of the Kerala High Court order dated 26-05-1998 regarding the grant of family pension to the widow of army employees for the services rendered by him in the Indian Army notwithstanding any other benefits that may be received by her under the family pension scheme constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1952. Surprisingly the respondent no. 2 (Controller General of Defence Accounts) has tried to over-reach the authority of the High Court by holding that the decision of the Kerala High Court cannot be made applicable to the other similar cases. The actions of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 denying army pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal and liable to be struck down.
K R K RAO
MA,MBA(HR),LLM(LL)PGDPM,(Ph.D.)
ex-sgt (rdo/fit)
Manager (Personnel)
NMDC Limited
(A navaratna Govt. Enterprise)
kadalirao@gmail.com
Post a Comment