CGPA/KL/GL/2018/10             13-08-2018

To

The Secretary to Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare

Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi -110 003

Sub: Revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners on the recommendations of the 7^th CPC – Defects in Concordance Tables regarding

Ref: Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare OM F. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW (A) dated 6^th July 2017

        Kind reference is invited to the above. The Concordance Tables circulated along with the OM referred to above are being used by all Pension Sanctioning Authorities as a final word in revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners / family pensioners. But this Association finds certain defects in the Concordance Table. Two glaring defects are brought to your notice.

i.            As per Rule 49(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, rate of pension is 50% of the pay last drawn or average emoluments for the last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to the pensioner. But in the Concordance Tables, revised pension is calculated based on the last increment stage only in the scale of pay drawn at the time of retirement. In some cases, the average emoluments for the last 10 months of service happen to be more than Last Pay Drawn (LPD) due to various reasons, which is not taken care of in the Concordance Tables. When the legitimate entitlement of pension based on average emoluments of last 10 months, if it is greater than LPD, is brought to the notice of Pension Sanctioning Authorities, their stand is that the Concordance Tables are the final authority and a sacred document and they cannot deviate from it. In effect rule 49(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is being superseded without amending the Rule. It is requested to address this serious issue urgently and give clarificatory orders.

ii.            The Concordance Tables are not fool proof. There are many instances where a person coming under the same or more pay range of a higher level getting less pension than those pertaining to the same pay range in lower level.

Two illustrative examples are given below:

Example	Table No.	Level	Pay in the pay range (Column 4 of Table)	Revised Pension	Difference in Pension
I	28	8 (G.P 4800)	27710	36050	Rs. 400/-
	29	9 (G.P 5400)	27710	35650
II	30	9 (G.P 5400 Gr.B)	24500	32050	Rs. 400/- This kind of difference is there in almost all pay ranges between levels 9 and 10
	31	10 (G.P 5400 Gr.A)	24500	31650

      The above cases are clear cut anomalies disturbing the concept of parity in pension. Unless it is rectified early, it will pave way for a plethora of Court cases.

Awaiting early orders, 

yours faithfully

 T.I. Sudhakaran,  General Secretary

Copy to:The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure – For necessary action as the Concordance Tables have been issued with their approved vide their Diary No. 1(13)/EV/2017 dated 05-07-2017