• Pension DA stopped on re-employment

Respected Sir,
I am a ex-serviceman holding pension account in PNB and also re-employed in PNB after retirement and my payment has been fixed as per law.

Now PNB CPPC Kolkata had stopped my pension DA shouting two DA theory. This incident has impacted severely in my financial condition as the pension has been earned after serving the nation for a long years, taking risks and facing difficult situations.


Please Help me.
Asked 7 years ago in Labour

Ask a question and receive multiple answers in one hour.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

5 Answers

1) The Nagpur bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) held that a re-employed pensioner was entitled for receiving "dearness allowance (DA)" on his pension as well as on his salary.

"There is no rule that prohibits claiming dearness allowance on pension amount as well as on basic salary that is received after re-employment. The intention of legislation was to give benefit to the government employee who prefers retirement before the age of 55 years and is obviously subjected to payment of reduced amount as pension as compared to those who superannuate at 58 years," Justice (retired) MN Gilani stated.

2) the definition of "pension" as per Article 366 of the Constitution of India was inclusive of DA.

3) DA was included in pay and pension, and thus could not be separated or deducted independently.

4) file petition before CAT against PNB for having stopped your pension DA

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
95168 Answers
7604 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1. In general circumstances in the case of reemployment the employee gets both the benefit of pension and salary of new job with DA.

2. So in your case the conduct of PNB is surprising and seems to be without any basis of law.

3. However the service Rules of PNB needs to be seen.If nothing is there then you are entitled to both DA.

Since you appear to be from kolkata you may feel free to contact me to get necessary relief.

Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
22917 Answers
497 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

www.staffnews.in/.../re-employed-person-can-receiv...

imesofindia.indiatimes.com › City

?? ?????? ??????? ???

? ??????, ???? - Nagpur:

the judgment was cited in times of india article mentioned herein above . judgment copy is not available

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
95168 Answers
7604 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

As per para l(a) of MOD letter No. 7(1)/95/D(Pen/Services) dated 28.8.2000, entire pension admissible to ex-servicemen who held post below commissioned officers (PBOR) at the time of retirement, is ignored and their pay on re-employment is to be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which they are re-employed. Such pensioners will consequently be entitled to dearness relief on their pension.

The dearness relief on re-employment should be regulated by the Pension Disbursing Agencies on the basis of certificate issued by re-employer, clearly stating whether benefit of last pay protection has been given or not.

Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, vide their UO No.41/42/2007/P&PW(G) dt. 03.04.2008, reproduced under this office circular No. 386 dt. 19.06.2008, further clarified that if the pay is fixed at a higher stage because of advance increments and no protection of last pay drawn is given, the pay should be treated as fixed at a minimum only for the purpose of ignoring the entire pension and allowing dearness relief on pension.

Principal Controller of Defence Accounts in charge of Pensions has issued a Clarification Circular regarding Elements to be taken for determining last pay drawn for last pay protection vide the above circular.

You may verify that on what basis your salary has been fixed by the bank on re-employment and can represent your case accordingly for necessary relief.

The legal options for regulating it may be kept as last resort.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
85369 Answers
2231 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

If PNB CPPC considered the PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad, Circular No. 570 dated 31 Oct 2016 Para 13, then:-

(b) As my pay on re-employment has been fixed above the minimum of scale of pay of the re-employed post during the period of employment/ re-employment I am not eligible for two DA. - Yes / No

The answer for this is given as below:

Vide the circular of PCDA, it has been found that pay scale in banks are still on old pattern, whereas ex-servicemen have been retired with Pay in Pay Band, Grade Pay, MSP, Group Pay etc. In such cases it is clarified that for the purpose of assessing the last pay drawn for last pay protection, the elements to be taken into account should be last pay in pay band i.e. Band Pay plus Grade Pay, last drawn before retirement as envisaged vide MOP, PG & P, DOPT OM NO. 3/19/2009 Estt. Pay II dt. 8th Nov 2010 and no other elements should be taken for this purpose.

In view of the above, it is advised that all the cases of dearness relief where pay of ex-servicemen has been fixed at a higher stage because of advance increments may be reviewed and regulated accordingly.

This rule has been clarified under the para 13 of the referred rules as stated by you.

You can fight it out on this ground after confirming your status.

(c) If I opt for minimum of scale of pay of the re-employed post during the period of employment / re-employment will I be eligible for DA on pension - Yes / No

It is not your option, but it is the rules that being followed by the bank while fixing the pay scale, hence confirm if your last pay dawn has been protected on the lines stated above and then see if your case can be regulated.

(d) If I opt for only basic of my pension then I will be eligible for the DA on minimum of scale of pay of the re-employed post during the period of employment / re-employment.

- Yes / No

Yes

(e) The exercise of changeover of DAs are optional to the pensioner more than once - Yes / No

Clarify from the pension disbursing authority.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
85369 Answers
2231 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer