An Appeal To BSNL Unions and
Association of Pensioners
Settling clash of Interests
-
R
. Pattabiraman
My
intention of writing more and more on Pension Revision is not to create any
bitterness amongst the Pensioners or amongst the associations. In order to share
my concern only, I am bringing the points that are troubling my mind.
When
lakhs of pensioners are welcoming the CAT judgment as it specifies parity with
CPC - regarding pension revision, why should I hesitate to join the
celebrations- is it because of any narrowness or dark side of my heart?.
Certainly not. I have learnt the art of respecting all the leaders labouring
the cause of our pensioners’ folk. But when I differ, I point out the areas
where we need understanding and light. I think that is healthy in any
democratic environment.
There
are two major streams in dealing the case of revision of pension. One agreeing
to go with the stream of 3rd PRC and another with 7 th CPC.
The
intention of CPC seekers is fine , and by that they want to bring a permanent
solution to the revision of pension binding themselves with the CG pensioners
getting pension revision at least in every ten years thro CPC recommendations.
Their efforts in every time helped them to advance step by step and culminated
in the PB CAT judgment of Sep 20, 2023. Naturally the leaders worked for it may
feel proud of their actions and the lakhs of pensioners followed them in
jubilant mood. Definitely the members would stand with the leadership and
support them in all ways as per the calls coming.
The
intention of 3 rd PRC seekers is also a good one, and they acted with an
understanding to stand on 3rd PRC, in
order to take post 2017 also with them by some methods in the absence of pay
revision. Pay revision if comes as per 3
rd PRC, or not at all coming- then that methodology for post 2017 should not create any clash of interests amongst the
pre and post 2017 sections till the next PRC. They know that as long as
employee are there - that is post pensioners on a particular cutoff date is
there, there should be a binding as per 37 A.
This
binding is well established after Nagara judgment in Central Govt section. The
CPCs are recommending both the pay revision of employees on the particular date
and revision of pension to the existing pensioners on that same date. So there
is no clash of interest in determining pension fixation of the employees
retiring after that particular date, and revision of pension on that date to
the existing pensioners of that date.
CPCS
are announced for both pay and pension revision on CDA and simultaneous
implementation is also assured there. This situation is not analogous in the
case of BSNL employees and pensioners. Here employees are getting pay on IDA
from BSNL their employer, but after retirement they are getting pension from
GOI thro DOT, fixed on the basis of LPD on IDA. Pay revision is done thro PRC
recommendations for Executives and for NE as per agreement reached with unions
as that of any PSUs. But a peculiar special provision was arranged thro 37 A
rules for getting pension from Govt after retirement as per Govt formula on that
equivalent date. Thanks to the wisdom of com OP Gupta and thanks to the Govt on
that date of that year 2000. So our position is not analogous to CG position
where simultaneously both pay and pension revision is done from a single source
namely CPC.
Settling clash
of Interests
How
to settle clash of interests amicably in
parity is the biggest question that needs solution. We all 4 lakhs as employees
came together 0n 1-10-2000 to BSNL, the PSU. After employees started retiring,
a new minor section viz. BSNL absorbed pensioners started appearing. Their
pension was safeguarded as that of Govt formula, though they are getting more
than their CG counterparts due to IDA settlement. This section started growing
and becoming a major section today and employees existing becoming minor due to
retirements and VRS.
When
we get revision of pay on 1-10-2000, taking us to the road of PRC- no clash of
interest was felt with the CG CDA pensioners on that date. No Nagara was
invited to settle, as no one - neither CG pensioners nor BSNL employees felt
any anomaly between them.
But
when BSNL Executives got their pay revision on 2009 and NE got on 2010 w.e.f
the same 1-1-2007 date thro 2nd pRC, a clash of interest was felt
not only by both the sections, but also by DOT the pension provider. One section of pensioners were still in first
PRC mode, whereas the pensioners coming after 1-1-2007- the post 2007 started
getting pension in their 2nd PRC mode scales and pay. This was the
clash and Nagara entered to solve that. After pensioners’ associations demanded
and struggled, the clash was amicably settled and the pre 2007 pensioners were
also allowed to travel in the 2nd PRC mode. After that the bonding
was re-established amongst the BSNL absorbees.
During
3rd PRC, BSNL was not in a position to give pay revision to its
employees due to affordability issue. On formation of 7th CPC, some
associations want ‘delinking’ from the BSNL employees and establish their ‘binding
with CG pensioners’ as both are getting pension from CG. Their demand started creating
clash of interests between the existing employees of BSNL and Pensioners
retired as on 1-1-2017.
Now
the PB CAT judgment is in their hand. According to me, that judgment delivered
on Sep 20th 2023 escalated the clash of interests between these pre and
post 2017 sections to a new height. Now the clash of interests has to face not
only the authorities of BSNL/ DOT but also the new legal stamp. The judgment
directs revision of pension as per CG rules and parity with CG pensioners,
wherever applicable.
Pension revision is not applicable to BSNL
existing employees on 1-1-2017 (if that direction meant so) or as on existing
employees on 1-1-2016 (if that direction is taken as per CG rules and parity ).
Employees as on 1-1-2017 are only eligible (if at all any change in pay and pay
scales) for 3rd PRC, and no question comes here for employees on
1-1-2016, they were part of 2nd PRC culminating period only. In
order to avoid this confusion, date may be taken as 1-1-2017. Any way
employees, whether they are applicants to this case or others, they are not
eligible to any pension revision on that 1-1-2017. They are not pensioners on
that date.
I
am not a legal person, but a man applying common sense in this case. So the
clash of interests is evident, if this judgment is implemented as per CPC to
pre 2017 pensioners. They will go in that CPC method of revision , where as the
existing employees as on 1-1-2017 may continue to go on 2nd PRC stream
to get their pension fixed. This clash needs to be resolved. According to my
limited knowledge, settling the clash with CPC is difficult comparing settling
the clash with PRC.
If
CPC is implemented, the question arises is how to fix the same benefit to the
employees in PRC scales. Benefit of pay change is possible if pay revision is
settled or notional PPO as suggested by DOT is made acceptable by the concerned
authorities as per 3rd PRC. It is difficult to apply 7th
CPC and its scales to the employees on 1-1-2017 in BSNL. Unless this mechanism
is solved, the clash of interests created by the judgment stands. It is
comparatively easy to settle the clash by applying 3rd PRC scales
and pay. But the judgment stands a bar
to this. Unless this judgment is set right and made not an issue amongst the
pre and post 2017, the solution is difficult.
Otherwise
DOT should accept the arguments of these associations, that is ‘CPC is the permanent solution - legal stamp is also there, so do accordingly’ .
In that case the DOT should find a way
to solve the issue of PRC employees by keeping
parity with CG employees on that date.
Are
we aiming the possibility of 7th CPC fitment and scales to employees
also as on 1-1-2017 ( 1-1-2016), as celebrating the parity of revision of
pension as per CG rules from 1-1-2017( 1-1-2016) ? My common sense is not
supporting that. Unions need to think this aspect.
I
will be happy, if I am proved wrong and made to enjoy the CPC benefits that you
all bring by your hard labour. Best
Wishes.
11.30
hrs 4-10-2023
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear com Pattabi,
ReplyDeleteI have gone through the case documents reg
pension revision and have updated myself with
latest developments.
Your concerns are genuine but your apprehensions
are unfounded. In this case there were four distinct
appeals and all those four OAs were admitted.
No discrimination was shown in the judgement
among the distinct appellants. Thus a parity
between pre 2017 and post 2017
retirees is ensured in the judgement.
So I feel that there is nothing to worry about.
comradely yours,
P ILANGO SUBRAMANIAN.