Source: https://gconnect.in/forums/forums/topic/injustice-to-pre-2006-pensioners-in-old-s-29-30-scales18400-22400-22400-24500/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 10:34:54
Document Index: 604811328

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14', 'Art.14']

Injustice to pre-2006 pensioners in old s-29 & 30 scales(18400-22400 & 22400-24500) – GConnect Forums
vnatarajan OnOctober 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm #20438
Today 02:32 PMvnatarajan
INJUSTICE TO PRE-2006 PENSIONERS IN OLD S-29 & 30/ALSO OTHER SCALES (18400-22400 & 22400-24500 etc) THRU Corrigendum OM Dtd 03.10.2008 of Deptt of Pension etc.
This has reference to Deptt of Pension’s most recent office memorandum, F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03 Oct 2008, containing certain clarifications on their earlier OM of even number dated 01 sep 2008 with crucial modifications to the provisions, particularly on the fixations of minimum pension and family pension, of pre 2006 retirees.
Under para 4.2 of the earlier OM dated 01 Sep 08,, the applicable minimum revised pension for pre 2006 pensioners,(ie 50% of the minimum of the pay in the corresponding revised pay band plus the grade pay) had been spelt out. The OM was silent on the minimum applicable Family Pension, as related to the pay last drawn .While seeking to correct this omission, the second OM of 03 Oct 2008, has in effect, negated the established position wrt the minimum pay of a grade and consequently the minimum pension /family pension, as already accepted by the government, at different levels and notified through various rules and notifications . It is to be noted that in respect of the 5th CPC also, minimum pension/ family pension wrt to the revised pay scales introduced wef 1-1-96 was not accepted initially.However,after detailed examination, Government accepted the logic and corrected the position, vide OM No , F.No 45/10/98-P&PW(A), dated, 17 Dec 98,and all pensioners/family pensioners ,were authorized pension of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay at the time of retirement and family pension subject to the minimum of 30% of the revised pay, irrespective of the date of retirement.
Against this background, the undue restriction of the minimum pension through the notification of 03 Oct 08, is neither tenable nor justified as explained hereunder.
i) The pay bands in the 6th CPC cannot, by any logic, be taken to be the equivalent replacement to the pay scales of the different grades that existed under the 5th CPC. Each pay- band under the 6th CPC, in fact, is a bunch of a group of pay scales under the 5th CPC, with appropriate/ corresponding starting points for each one of them. This fact is settled beyond doubt, through the provisions in the ministry of finance RPR rules notification, vide. G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29 Aug 08 and further confirmed in their OM: F. No. 1/7/2008-IC dated 30 Aug 08, regarding pay fixation ; and also through the DOP’s resolution No 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug accepting recommendations of the 6th CPC and DOP’s OM even number, dated 01 Sep 08. It may be seen for example, that the revised basic pay under the 6th CPC, for the pre revised basic pay of Rs 18400 in the scale of 18400-22400, (S-29) has been prescribed as 54700/-( ie pay in the pay band Rs. 44700 + grade pay Rs. 10000) and similarly revised basic pay of Rs. 63850 for pre revised basic pay of Rs. 22400 in the pre revised HAG scale (S-30) and others.
ii) On the same plank, different entry level basic pays have been fixed in the same Pay band, for direct recruits appointed after, 1-1-06, in the posts carrying different grade pays. E.g. ( Rs. 53000 for SAG and Rs. 59100 for HAG)
iii) The modifications notified in DOP’s of 03 Oct 08, will result in two different minimum basic pays in the relevant pay band, for the same grade under the 5th CPC,; one for the serving employee and one for retired employee.
iv) The dual concept of minimum basic pay as provided for in the modified orders, could in many cases result in an employee retiring in higher grades before 2006, getting less pension than one retiring after 2006, from even two or more grades below, leaving alone, in the same grade, thus upsetting even the limited parity accepted by the government among pre and post 2006 pensioners.
v) Excepting the existing family pensioners, the family pension of all retirees, whether pre or post 2006, are to be prospective, and therefore cannot be on different footings for the same grade of pensioners and anomalous between inequal grades. Lack of parity among them will perpetuate injustice in future!.
vi) The recent DOP’s OM of 3rd Oct 2008, in effect relegates the pre-2006 S-29 & 30 level pensioners with starting points at 18400 and even 22400 of their original pay scales to the lowest starting level of 14300 (S-24) for pension purposes- a decision most unjustifiable/ untenable/ unacceptable. For eg How can a person who throughout the period from 1996 onwards had been drawing pension based on say 50% of basic of 18400 be now relegated to start at 50% of basic of 14300 – as the effect of 40% fitment or even part of Grade Pay provided gets eroded due to the huge difference at the starting point itself!
The entire issue needs a thorough review and fresh revised orders, fixing the correct minimum basic pension/family pension should be issued by the Govt., covering all existing pensioners.
Principles enshrined in the constitutional Bench Judgement of the Supreme court, in the “NAKRA CASE” dated 17 Dec 82,which is hailed as the “MAGNA CARTA” for pensioners and on the foundation of which the current welfare based pension scheme, has been shaped by the Govt., should be kept in view always to do justice to all the PENSIONERS. (posted by vnatarajan)
ranganathan OnOctober 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm #27825
The injustice set afoot by the DOPT OM dt 3 Oct, is there for all to see.The design behind reducing the minimum of PB4 by Rs 2000 and increasing the grade pay of SAG by half that amount to Rs. 10000/- should now be clear.The creation of the new ‘HAG+’ scale is an ingenious ploy, to keep that and the higher levels ( from which almost all the IAS cadre officers normally retire ) beyond the purview of arbitrary/ multiple stipulations, for the basic pay, under the pay band concept.interestingly both these departmental dispensations go beyond the recommendations of the 6th CPC
But will these differing decisions stand legal scrutiny?
It is strange that the DOPT should evolve a wrong interpretation against their own earlier correct interpretation.This action is completely opposed to the spirit behind the stipulations of minimum pension/family pension and the basic parity of all pensioners accepted by Govt apart from its intra department contradictions in substance .
ranganathan OnOctober 8, 2008 at 4:58 pm #27859
OM dt 3 Oct, is there for all to see.the design behind reducing the minimumof PB4 by Rs 2000 and increasing the grade pay of SAG by half that amount to Rs. 10000/- should now be clear.the creation of the new ‘HAG+’ scale is an ingenious ploy, to keep that and the higher levels ( from which almost all the Ii cannot agree more. the injustice set afoot through the modifications in DOPT AS cadre officers normally retire ) beyond the purview of arbitrary multiple stipulations for the basic pay under the pay band concept.
It is strange that the DOPT should evolve a wrong interpretation against their own earlier correct interpretation.This action is completely opposed to the spirit and substance behind the stipulations of minimum pension/family pension and the basic parity of all pensioners accepted by Govt apart from its intra department contradictions
vnatarajan OnOctober 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm #27894
Continuing to argue and amplify the need for upholding the protection enunciated thru para4.2 of the OM of 1st Sept of DoP etc, I reproduce below a noting that has appeared in the blog of Indian Military service officers:
“In a landmark decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs SPS Vains (Retd) (SLP No 12357 of 2006 decided on 09 September 2008) has upheld the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was directed that Major Generals retiring prior to 1-1-96 (implementation date of 5th Pay Commission) should be granted a pension at par with post 1-1-1996 retirees. The Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was filed by Major Generals who retired prior to 1-1-1996 and whose pension was fixed lower than post 1-1-1996 retirees. This had happened since the start of the pay scale of Major Generals (18400) was less than the starting pay of Brigadiers (16700+2400 Rank Pay = Rs 19100) leading thereby to a situation that the pension of a pre 1996 retiree Maj Gen was fixed at Rs 9200 but Rs 9550 for a Brigadier. To cater to this anomaly, the govt had stepped up the pension of pre 1996 Major Generals to Brigadier level thereby leaving them at a loss as compared to post 1996 retirees. The High Court had allowed the Writ Petition and had directed equal treatment for pre and post 1996 retirees. The orders were challenged by the Govt of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Apex Court through a detailed order has upheld the High Court directions and has also laid down a landmark law which would come as a relief to all defence retirees and the value of which shall be known in times to come”
(several paragraphs of judgements quoting paragraphs on the basis of Nakara case judgement also follow above notings)
WHAT APPEARS TO BE APPALLING IS EVEN AFTER THIS JUDGEMENT OF 9th Sept 2008, the DoP has issued an OM on 3rd Oct which NULLIFIES the minimum essence of equality among pensioners who have held the same posts/ scale of pay prior to and after the CPC reco’ dates!
INJUSTICE INSPITE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENTS? IS IT POSSIBLE?
(if I am wrong, I MAY BE CORRECTED by anybody!)
ranganathan OnOctober 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm #27895
The basic parity ( equal minimum pension) among same grades of pensioners irrespective of date of retirement, is a settled matter both in legal pronouncements and executive orders.The dopt order of 03 Oct 08 ,in the wake of yet another Apex court order can only be attributed to administrative arbitrariness and lack of sensitivity.
vnatarajan OnOctober 10, 2008 at 3:14 am #27897
My thanks to GCONNECT for providing the forum to convey the feelings and sentiments of old and aged pensioners who, for no fault of theirs, are put to lot of duress because of the repeated violations of pension parity and protection which is happening after every CPC reco’s at least post -1996 and again now post- 2006 orders/ Oms etc.
At sl no.3 of postings above I had reproduced the extracts from the Indian military Services- Benefits blogspot, concerning the most recent judgement on pension parity, dated 09.sept 2008.
YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE MISERY and ANGUISH of the concerned pensioner who had to fight for over a decade as the case pertains to pre- and post-1996 pension parity/fixation!
I reproduce some more “Pearls of JUDGEMENT” uttered by the learned JUDGES in this case appearing in the same blogspot:
Here are some pearls from the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :
“….The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution….”
“….The object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher pension….”
WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE IS:
1.ARTICLE 14 of the CONSTITUTION is being allowed to be repeatedly violated by the various MINISTRIES which are dealing with the SENSITIVE SUBJECT of PENSION/ FAMILY PENSION of SR. Citizens .
2.UNNECESSARILY they are being made to go to COURTS in their old age to fight their cases, inspite of clear and unquestionable judgements! Many may not live to see the outcome as it takes years to undo the damages!
3.WILL THE Ministry of Personnel etc/ Deptt. of Pension/PW be kind enough to take up the issues and settle the matter quickly?.
4.WILL THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE be more meaningful in implementing in letter and spirit the pension parity assured by themselves under para 4.2 of the OMs concerned and uphold the learned judgements delivered time and again?.
Remarks for WATCH DOGS:
PLEASE NOTE THAT THOSE WHO ARE STAGNATING FOR YEARS AT THE TOP OF THEIR SCALES and whose old scales has been taken on to a new bunched up PAY BAND in the 6CPC orders, even at lower scales other than S-29/ S-30, MAY BE AFFECTED (and their cases will be similar to what I have pointed out for S 29/ S-30 cases).
Rajagopalan A OnOctober 10, 2008 at 9:36 am #27900
Taking into account the arbitariness and lack of sensitivity by the existing Administration towards Pensioners, it is essential that a representative from Pensioners should invariably be included in all the decision making processes.
vnatarajan OnOctober 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm #27902
hi All viewers of this thread,
Since my posting this thread, I am satisfied to find that more than a century of views have been made within 3 days, and I am sure half of the viewers could be in the same syndrome of pension disparity caused by the DOP/PW’s OM dtd 3rd Oct 2008.
Though I had put across the examples of S-29/ S-30 for arguments sake, I am aware the same type of problem can exist for many others in different scales, down the line.
JAG/ Sr & Jr Class I levels also may have similar pay disparity cases, particularly when they stagnate at the top of their respective scales- or due to gross-bunching of several scales into one Pay Band.
SEVERAL AFFECTED PENSIONERS HAVE STARTED REPRESENTING (using the facts presented in the text available in the first postings of the thread with suitable amendments) THEIR CASES THRU APPEALS TO THE DEPTT OF PENSION/PENSIONERS’ WELFARE AND ALSO BY EMAILS.
Others who have not yet taken action, may also follow them. Unless this genuine grievance of the AGED SR CITIZENS is represented with a mass momentum, it may not have the desired impact and response.
WE HOPE DoP/PW WILL COME OUT WITH A SUITABLE SOLUTION SOON.
ranganathan OnOctober 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm #27985
i have gone thro the Nakra case and place below extracts therefrom that i consider very relevant
HELD: Article 14 strikes	at arbitrariness in State
action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is
attracted where	equals are treated differently without any
reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee is
that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated
alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws would have	to be applied to all in the	same
situation and there should be no discrimination between one
person and another if	as regards the subject-matter of the
legislation their position is substantially the same.
Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
classification	for the purpose of	legislation.	The
classification	must be founded on an	intelligible
grouped together from those that are left out of the group
and that differentia must have a rational nexus to	the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In
other words, there ought to be causal connection between the
basis of classification and the object of the statute. The
doctrine of classification was evolved by the Court for the
purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed
to help	weaker sections of the society. Legislative	and
executive action may accordingly be sustained by the court
if the	State	satisfies the	twin tests of reasonable
classification and the rational principle correlated to the
object sought to be achieved. A discriminatory action is
liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by	the
Government that	the departure	was not	arbitrary but	was
based on some valid principle	which	in itself was	not
irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
If removal of arbitrariness can be brought about by
severing the mischievous portion, the discriminatory	part
ought to be removed	retaining the	beneficial portion.
[198 F]
Their grievance	is of	the denial to them of the same by
arbitrary introduction	of words of limitation. There is
nothing immutable about	the choosing of an event as an eligibility
criteria subsequent to a specified date. If the event is
certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered
wholly	irrelevant and arbitrarily	selected having an
undesirable effect of dividing	a homogeneous	class and of
introducing discrimination the same can be easily severed
and set	aside. It is therefore just and proper that	the
words introducing the	arbitrary fortuitous	circumstance
which are vulnerable as denying equality be	severed	and
all pensioners governed by the	1972
Rules and Army Pension	Regulations shall be	entitled to
pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme
from the specified date, irrespective of the date of
retirement. Arrears of pension	prior to the specified
revised scales	is not	limited to those who enter service
subsequent to the date fixed for introducing revised scales
but is	extended to all those in service prior to that date.
Even in	the case of the new retiral	benefit of gratuity
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, past service was
taken into consideration. The	scheme of liberalisation is
not a new retiral benefit; it is
an upward revision of	an existing benefit.	Pension	has
correlation to	average emoluments	and the length of
qualifying service and any liberalisation would pro tanto
ber etroactive in the narrow sense of the term.
Pension is a	right; not a bounty or gratuitous
payment. The payment of pension does	not depend upon the
discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules
and a government servant coming within those rules is
entitled to claim pension. [186 A-B]
entitled to claim pension.
the petitioners in the fall of
life yearn for equality of treatment	which is being meted
out to	those who are soon going to join and swell their own
Would differential treatment to pensioners related to
the date of	retirement qua the revised	formula	for
computation of	pension attract Article 14 of	the
Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be
declared unconstitutional as being violative of Art. 14 ?
The principle	underlying the guarantee of Article
14 is	not that the same rules of law should be
applicable to all	persons	within	the Indian
territory or that the same remedies should be made
available to	them irrespective of differences of
circumstances. It only means that	all persons
similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike
both	in privileges	conferred and	liabilities
imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to
all in the same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another if
as regards the subject matter of the legislation
their position is substantially the same.The law can
make and set apart	the classesaccording to the
needs and	exigencies of	the society and as
suggested by experience. It	can recognise even
degree of evil,bu the classification should never
be arbitrary,artificial or evasive.
7.	The classification must not be arbitrary but must
be rational,	that is	to say, it must not only be
based on some qualities or characteristics which
are to be found in all the persons grouped
together and	not in	others who are left out but
those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation	to the object of	the
legislation.	In order to pass the test,	two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that	are
grouped together from others and (2)	that
differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the Act.”
.	The classification must not be arbitrary but must
The other	facet of Art. 14 which must be remembered is
that it	eschews arbitrariness	in any form.
One such proposition held
well established is that Art. 14 is	certainly attracted
where equals are treated differently without any reasonable
Thus the fundamental principle is that Art. 14 forbids
class legislation but permits reasonable classification for
the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy
the twin tests of classification being founded on an
intelligible differntia which distinguishes	persons or
things that are grouped together from	those that are left
out of	the group and that differentia must have a rational
nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
a discriminatory action
of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can
be shown by the Government that the	departure was	not
arbitrary, but	was based on some valid principle which in
itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
The basic	contention as hereinbefore noticed is that
the pensioners	for the	purpose of receiving pension form a
class and there is no criterion on which classification of
pensioners retiring prior to specified date and retiring
subsequent to that date can provide a rational principle
correlated to object, viz., object underlying	payment of
one can confidently say that if pensioners form a
class, their computation cannot be bydifferent formula
affording unequal treatment s on the ground that some
retired earlier and some retired later.
The equal treatment guaranteed in Art. 14 is
wholly	violated inasmuch as	the pension	rules being
statutory in character, since the specified date, the rules
accord differential and discriminatory	treatment to equals
in the	matter	of commutation of pension.	A 48 hours
difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic
effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled.
Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Art.14
ranganathan OnOctober 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm #27915
vnatarajan OnOctober 12, 2008 at 3:34 am #27989
After further deeper study, and also the legal aspects highlighted in the judgements on minimum parity for pension among all retirees who were in same/ equivalebnt revised pay scales (see my and Mr Ranaganathan’s postings), I am of the view:
1.MANY ARE AFFECTED AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.
2.SOME MAY NOT BE AWARE THEY ARE AFFECTED!
3.PEOPLE AFFECTED MAY BE MUSING ON WHAT TO DO?
1.All Pensioners’ Associations must act fast and send/highlight the grievances to Deptt of Pension/Pensioners Welfare (and also Ministry of Finance later) without delay.They must help other Co-pensioners who may not know the situation.Loss per month is considerable and is of increasingly recurring nature in future.
2.All affected individuals may appeal for REDRESSAL to the Secy, DoP/PW at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi 13, using the basic details and text available in the postings, with modifications.
3.Well meaning Associations/ Unions and their members ie Colleagues (future Pensioners) in Govt. Service at Delhi must help to bring the matter to the notice of the Deptt of Pensions/ PW (and also the Ministry of Finance). OTHERWISE SUCH (deliberate)GLARING UNLAWFUL REVISIONS THRU CORRIGENDUMS MAY BECOME PRECEDENCES and many benefits may get neutralised without any employee/ associations realising the same!
4.Media can take note and highlight the problem.
I AND MANY SEPTEGENARIANS and above (+80 and 90 years are feeling HARASSED and FRUSTRATED by the indiscrimination perpetuated!)
NOT HUMANLY RIGHT?
Natarajan, V
vnatarajan OnOctober 12, 2008 at 3:34 am #27917
vijai kapoor OnOctober 15, 2008 at 6:15 am #28028
The explanation given in OM of 3.10.08 is obviously erroneous. It reduces the basic pension to 23700 from the earlier estimated 27350 for the S-29 scale. Affected persons should register their grievance with deptt of P&PW quickly.
It can be done very easily online on Pensioners Portal. More people lodging their grievance will certainly lend weight. If there are active Pensioner’s associations then they should also represent.
Let us give P&PW one more chance to correct their error.
vijai kapoor OnOctober 15, 2008 at 6:15 am #27937
sudacgwb OnOctober 16, 2008 at 4:55 am #28051
sudacgwb OnOctober 16, 2008 at 4:55 am #27951
vnatarajan OnOctober 16, 2008 at 5:13 am #28052
Attn Sudacgwb:Thank u very much. I have gone thru the OM concerning Pre-2006 Pensions and I shall be posting my observations soon.
At the outset, I may remark, the OM is not addressing the basic issue of aggrieved pensioners whose earlier scales/ pay bands have been bunched together to a common pay/pension band which often starts at a much lower level/scale than what it should be for being at par with the earlier non-bunched levels and hence the problem.
Clarifications are being given just to emphasise that the DoP/PW (=KING) is always right and others ( =KNAVES=old, aged, helpless PENSIONERS) are idiots, who have to suffer the injustice/ indiscretion!
What has been pointed out earlier as the core issue stands!. Mr Ranganathan and Mr Vijai Kapoor have also explained the issue very well.
vnatarajan OnOctober 16, 2008 at 5:13 am #27952
vnatarajan OnOctober 16, 2008 at 10:42 am #28058
Thanks to Vijai Kapoor for his valuable obervations.
NOW MY COMMENTS ON THE NEW ON of DoP/PW dtd 14th OCT 2008:
Hi All concerned Pensioners – attn: Pre-1986/1996/2006 retirees:
(THIS IS HAPPENING IN MANY CASES_ ALL PENSIONERS/ FAMILY PENSIONERS MAY CHECK FOR MISSING DETAILS IN THE RESPECTIVE PPOs AND DECIDE ON THE COURSE OF ACTION TO FOLLOW. BANKS/ POs MAY PLEAD HELPLESSNESS. FRIENDS/ EX. COLLEAGUES/ PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATIONS must come forward to ASSIST aged pensioners/ helpless family pensioners etc.)
I WAS HOPING THE ISSUE OF PENSION INJUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN PERPETUATED WILL BE RESOLVED THRU THIS OM – ONLY TO BE DISAPPOINTED! ALL AFFECTED MAY HAVE TO FIGHT & WAIT.
CORE ISSUE OF DISPARITY ARISING OUT OF BUNCHING PRE-2006 SCALES/BANDS FOR PENSION PURPOSES and RELEGATING THE PARITY TO A LOWER STARTING LEVEL PAY IN THE NEW BUNCHED PAY BAND REMAINS OUTSTANDING.
vnatarajan OnOctober 16, 2008 at 10:42 am #27958
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 2,300 total)
1 2 3 … 113 114 115 →