Pension is the part of right to life: Bombay HC

Pensioners now have a reason to smile. In a landmark judgment, the Bombay high court has held that pension is a vital aspect of social security and that the right to receive it constitutes a right to life under the constitution. Moreover, it held that pension must be paid regularly in the first week of the month.
The judgment was passed in a case where the Solapur civic body had challenged a direction of an industrial court which had labelled its action of delaying pension payments inordinately each month as an unfair labour practice and directed it to credit the monthly pension by the first day of each following month.
The civic body explained that it was in financial difficulties and said it could pay by the 15th and not the first. The civic body argued that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not mandate payment by the first of each following month. Justice D Y Chandrachud said, “Deprive a pensioner of the payment and you deprive him or her of the right to life. Delayed pensionary payments place a pensioner in a position of uncertainty and dependence which impinges on the quality of life under Article 21, and the right to dignified existence of the aged,’’

Pension is a family right as well, contends Rathore

HANDIGARH: Disgraced former Haryana DGP, S P S Rathore wants pension for his family. According to Rathore, "Pension is a right, which devolves on the officer's family also and during his lifetime, it is necessary for his sustenance; thereafter it is to be enjoyed by his dependents, specifically his unmarried daughter and wife." These submissions were made by Rathore before the Punjab and Haryana high court in response to a petition filed by ministry of home affairs (MHA) against the restoration of his pension.
In his petition filed on May 2 before the high court, MHA had pleaded that Rathore has been convicted and sentenced by the trial court for molestation and his sentence has also been upheld by the high court, thus he deserved to be punished by withholding the pension benefits. Thereafter, HC had asked Rathore to file his response in the matter.

Pension for the Elderly: It’s no Charity, but a Human Right

Rajindar Sachar

It is a truism, though painful, that the Central Government’s priorities in fiscal matters are determined by the perceived sensitivities of the foreign and Indian corporate sector and the richer class rather than the urgent and humanitarian considerations for the poor and old citizens of India. How I wish that instead the government was to show urgent attention to the plight of about 10 crore elderly people (eight per cent of the Indian population, with one-sixth of them living without any family support)! No doubt, under the Central Government’s pension scheme, persons above the age of 60 get a pension of Rs 200 and those above 80 years Rs 500 per month, but this is applicable to those below the poverty line. The uncertainly is increased by the ever-fluctuating determination by the government of what should be the poverty level: pensions vary in different States—Delhi paying a maximum of Rs 1000 per month while others like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, etc. only Rs 200 per month.
Of the total elderly population, only 1.97 crore are beneficiaries of IGNOAPS, which means that only about one in every five persons over 60 years receives old-age pension.
Employment-linked pensions are restricted to the elderly in the organised sector or to those who are among the rich and upper middle class categories. But the groups that are most in need of old age pension are largely in the unorganised sector. Between the years 2000 and 2010, the organised sector added less than 0.3 per cent workers annually to the workforce while the GDP of the country more than doubled with  an annual rate of  more than 7.55  per cent.  It is clear that much of the contribution to this growth came from the workers in the unorganised sector. But unlike the organised sector, workers in the unorganised sector do arduous manual labour often in the most difficult physical circumstances and without adequate nutrition and rest. Forcing them then to work beyond the age of 55, in order to survive, amounts to a form of punishment. The demand for old-age pension is thus not a demand for charity but a demand for recognition of their contribution to the economy, and the need-based constitutional principles which are to be applied. As Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia has expounded in the Human Rights Year Book 2011,
What is the need-based approach? Supposing there is no statute but the right to life is involved, is it open to the defence to say tight resource, financial crunch? The answer is ‘no’ because the right to life is there in Article 21 of the Constitution and the defence cannot toll the bell of tight resource. Take the case of food security. Two out of five people are below the poverty line, and if pension is to be paid to them, the government cannot say I have no money. Now this is what I mean by revisiting welfare rights. And that is where if enforceability is there the rule of law will prevail.
The insensitive and negative approach of various State governments and the Central Government to the plight of five crore people in the unorganised sector in the construction industry would show the government’s anti-poor face, especially in the way they have dealt with the report of the Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer Committee given decades back.
One of the key recommendations (which on paper has even been accepted by the Government of India though it has persistently refused to enforce it) is the manner in which the scheme of contribution by the employer along with a contribution by the employee is to operate.
Now as the construction industry worker is a migrant and has necessarily to be on the move for finding employment, it was accepted by the government that the contribution  of  the  employer and employee will be deposited in a computerised bank account with a specific identity number for each individual workman. This was so decided because construction labour being migratory, if a new account was to be opened every time with separate employers, his past accumulation was in danger of becoming unrecoverable. So, the way suggested was that each employer will deposit his contribution in a fixed numbered identity account given to the employee, and this will be honoured by all banks anywhere in the country. But this not having been done, the result is that a sum of at least Rs 5000 crores of the Employees Provident Fund is lying in banks but has not been disbursed to the workers because the government has not yet allotted them their identity account numbers. The result is that lakhs of workers are continuing to be near the starvation line.
♦
Another callous indifference of the government is shown by the fact that though all government contracts provide for the contractor to make temporary but proper accommodation for the construction labour at the site, it is common knowledge that contractors mixed up with dishonest inspectors do nothing of the kind—forcing female workers to use open toilets and leaving children to the vagaries of weather with no shelters built. A simple solution is for the government itself to provide these facilities and adjust funds at present being given to the contractors. In spite of protests by workers, nothing has moved—probably, the contractor-inspector nexus is all too powerful.
The Central Government has unapologetically announced many concessions for the corporate sector and the rich with the shameful claim that prosperity so generated will move down and improve the condition of the poor. This is a false claim as given in a warning by the Noble Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, “The theory of trickle-down economics is a lie.”
According to the ILO’s 2010-11 World Social Security Report, the ILO’s new recommendations on social protection set nationally defined guarantees aimed at universal access to minimum income security, especially during old age, and that such guarantees are a human right and an ethical imperative of governments. How can the Central Government remain silent?
Governments cannot negate the claim for pensions for the old by pleading that development has to take precedence over poverty reduction. This is a specious argument that shows that poverty is a long-term problem and that current deficits represent a short-term emergency, that poverty can wait but deficits cannot. This is muddle-headed thinking. To reduce and eliminate massive absolute poverty lies at the very core of development itself. It is critical to the survival of any democratic and decent society.
The author is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

What to do Navodayans after 60 ?

For a universal old-age pension plan

With the elderly likely to constitute a quarter of India's population by 2050, there is need for a publicly-funded, universal scheme that will overcome destitution among the aged

India's social security system is woefully inadequate, when compared even to those in third world economies with no higher per capita incomes. Some States in India have fairly comprehensive social security schemes — notably Kerala, also West Bengal and Tamil Nadu — but the scale of the benefits is modest. However, the Union government has been quite lackadaisical in providing social security despite its enormous fiscal powers. Even the Unorganised Sector Workers' Social Security Act, which came into force in 2009, is merely an enabling legislation; it does not seek to put on the statute books any specific comprehensive scheme of social security.

This stinginess is particularly evident in old-age pension schemes. Some State governments have responded to the need to provide old-age pensions, but are hamstrung by their meagre resources. The Union government's Indira Gandhi Old Age National Pension Scheme (IGOANPS) covers only the Below Poverty Line (BPL) population and persons above 65 years of age; the pension amount it provides is an abysmal Rs.200 per month. Even so, an estimated 1.65 crore people access this scheme, an indication of the desperate need for succour.

Four negatives in schemes

Even if we add up all the existing pension schemes, they touch only the fringe of the problem. First, they are an assortment of specific schemes rather than an expression of a right to pension. Second, they do not provide universal coverage. Leaving aside the pension schemes of the organised sector, the others, as they are, target specific groups of unorganised sector workers; even when not tied to specific occupational categories, such as the IGOANPS, they cover only the BPL population, whose size is arbitrarily fixed by the Planning Commission at a ludicrously low level. Third, a large number of them insist on some contribution from the beneficiaries. And fourth, the amount of pension they provide, as we have already seen, is pathetically small.

This is a serious problem, and likely to become even more so in the years to come, because the increase in longevity and the fall in the birth rate will raise the percentage of the “old.” By 2050, nearly a fifth of the world's population will be above 60. In India and China, the proportion is likely to be around 24 per cent. All over the world, progressive forces are demanding the institutionalisation of a publicly-funded, universal, non-means-related, non-contributory pension scheme for the aged, to be accessed by them as a matter of right. This demand has also begun to be raised in India, as a dharna at Jantar Mantar (May 7-11) demonstrated.

So pervasive, however, is the impact of the bourgeois media in India that even many otherwise well meaning persons may not appreciate the rationale of this demand. Why, they may ask, should a pension scheme be publicly-funded when those who draw the pension were earlier employed by private employers? Why should it be universal instead of being means-related? And why should it be non-contributory? Why should people who did not pay towards a pension scheme nonetheless enjoy a right to draw a pension?

The starting point of the answer to such questions is the basic social philosophical position that underlies the argument both for the welfare state and for socialism, namely, material deprivation is the result not of individual failing on the part of the deprived but of the social arrangement within which they live. This position is not a matter of faith; it is analytically sustainable.

To overcome destitution, including that which afflicts the old, we have to change the social arrangement which produces it. The first step in this direction is the use of the State's fiscal powers. Since the essence of democracy is that everyone must have adequate means of sustenance, access to it must be a right which is guaranteed by the State, on whom falls the responsibility of adjusting the social arrangements for this purpose.

Contribution by beneficiaries towards a State-maintained pension scheme is just one way that the State can raise resources for such a scheme. But to make that a condition for pension payment, apart from being iniquitous, undermines the right to pension that must be a part of democracy. Therefore, the demand for a non-contributory scheme is derivable from the rights-based approach, as indeed is the demand for universality. Of course the “old” are not the only deprived section in our population; poverty, deprivation and hunger are rampant in our country, but that is an argument for extending the right to adequate means of livelihood to all, not for denying it to the “old.”

Adequate means

But what, it may be asked, constitutes adequate means of livelihood? Here one can follow two different approaches. The first, used in much international discussion, is to define “adequate” in the sense of avoidance of poverty, which in India is defined officially as access to 2,100 calories per person per day in urban areas and 2,400 calories (later reduced to 2,200 calories) per person per day in rural areas. The daily per capita expenditure level at which this was achieved in 2009-10 was Rs.36 in rural (for 2,200 calories) and Rs.65 in urban areas, whose weighted average (if we are to avoid different amounts of pension payments), is Rs.46. At current prices this would be equivalent to around Rs.60; in which case the monthly pension amount on this criterion should come to Rs.1,800.

The other approach, the one adopted by the Pension Parishad, which organised the Jantar Mantar dharna, sees pensioners as “workers” and hence entitled to a proportion of the wage income as pension. Based on this, the Parishad has demanded half the monthly minimum wage rate, or (in view of the differing minimum wage rates across States) a flat amount of Rs.2,000 at the current price, whichever is higher. This approach has merit. But no matter what precise figure is adopted (and the two are pretty close to one another), the point to note is that both approaches conclude that the monthly pension payment should be far higher than the current measly sum of Rs.200.

The Pension Parishad puts the pensionable age at 55 for men, 50 for women and 45 for specially deprived communities, while international discussions fix it at a blanket 60 for third world countries. The Parishad estimates that about 10 crore people belong to these age groups. With some exclusions, e.g. those who pay income tax, or those belonging to the organised sector whose pensions already exceed the stipulated amount, or if the age is increased to say 60, that would still be around eight crore people to provide for. At the rate of Rs.2,000 per person per month, the total would come to Rs.192,000 crore which, in round figures, is two per cent of the GDP.

Questions will be immediately raised on how such resources can be found. But the required resources can be put in perspective as follows: the growth rate of the economy, as the Union government never tires of repeating, has been around eight per cent, or, in per capita terms just over six per cent. The resources required will be only one third of the increase in per capita income, i.e. a third of one year's increase in the per capita income collected from the “average” Indian will be adequate to finance a universal pension scheme. The average Indian of course does not see his or her income rising at six per cent per annum in real terms, but this should make it even easier to garner the required resources from the well-to-do who corner the increases in income. In subsequent years, since the “real” pension per head will remain unchanged and the total amount will increase only at a rate slightly higher than the rate of population growth (owing to the increase in longevity), the percentage of GDP required for the scheme will keep going down, i.e. lesser and lesser proportions of the additions to annual income will have to be taken from the “average” Indian to finance the pension scheme. This surely is affordable, especially when the Centre has given away Rs.500,000 crore per annum, i.e. more than double the amount needed for a pension scheme, in the form of corporate and other tax reliefs in recent budgets.

For raising these resources, however, fresh taxes will have to be levied. The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) had suggested a set of cesses to finance a far more modest social security scheme, costing only 0.5 per cent of the GDP. In international discussions the emphasis has been on a combination of Tobin Tax (at one per cent) and profit tax (two per cent of profits) for financing such a global scheme (which is supposed to cost $250 billion, at $1 a day for all those above 65 years in advanced countries and above 60 years in third world countries). Similar tax proposals can be worked out for India as well. The crucial need is to put democratic pressure on the State for launching such a scheme.

(Prabhat Patnaik is a UGC Emeritus Fellow at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Email: prabhatptnk@yahoo.co.in)

PENSION – A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

Pension is an important ingredient of a retired person. Besides providing financial security, it forms a vital link with the past and connotes continuity with the organization one had served in his youth. Gone are the days, when on retirement, a person went into an inactive state, confined to the four walls of the house, dependant on the mercy of the prodigy or other younger elements to sustain the life, awaiting for the final call from the Almighty. The Pension, which one receives on his superannuation, stands by his side, and he can move around with his head held high. Pension is a boon for the retirees for a self sustaining active life after retirement. Khushwant Singh, the versatile writer, in an article, published in a newspaper, indicated that Dalai Lama had conveyed him the blessing for a ‘peaceful death’. This is possible only when one continues to live a contented life till his last breath- free from health ailments, financial problems and actively leading a blissful life.

In the present age of nuclear families and the break-up of joint family system, the elderly people have to seek social security amongst themselves, by forming associations, club activity etc. For sustaining social set-up, one must have financial security as also good health, especially when the life expectancy has increased almost two times over the past half century, from 37-38 years in 1951 to 68-70 in the beginning of 21st century.

Pensioners Struggle for recognition.The concept of ‘Pension’, in the modern context, had been introduced in India by the British, who enacted the ‘Pension Act’ in 1871, whereby pension was paid to employees on superannuation at the pleasure of the Viceroy / Governor General, who had the power to reduce or even discontinue the pension. The pension was considered a bounty, grace, a mercy and was subject to good conduct of the retired employee.

After independence, till seventies, the pensioners were looked upon as unwanted persons – a non productive burden. The govt paid scant attention to pensioners’ woes, grievances and difficulties. An awareness was, generated, when in 1972, the Gajendra Gadkar Law Commission pointed out numerous discrepancies in the Pension Act of 1871, highlighting some aspects of the Act violative of the Constitution of India. Subsequent efforts to enact a New Pension Act were unsuccessful and the old British Pension Act of 1871 remains in India’s Statute Book till date. All pensionary matters these days are based on Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which were notified under the powers vested under the proviso of Article 309 of the constitution and not under the Pension Act. A new Pension

Scheme for civil central govt. services has been introduced for those who join the govt on or after 01 January, 2004 – known as Contributory Pension Scheme 2004. The Defence Services have been kept out of this scheme.

The simmering discontent among the pensioners gave rise to some pensioners seeking justice from the courts of law. Shri D S Nakra, a Class1 Defence Accounts Officers, who had retired in 1971, sought justice in a Writ Petition No 5939-41/1980 from Supreme Court, challenging many provision of the Pension Act 1871.The major achievement in the struggle for recognition of pensioners, was the land mark judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mr. D.S. Nakra. The judgement announced on 17 December, 1982, struck down many adverse provisions of Pension Act, 1871, and among other various considerations, held ‘as per India’s Constitution, govt is obliged to provide social economic security to pensioners… govt retirees (pensioners) had the fundamental right to pension…’ This judgement also affirmed the state’s obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from undeserved want. A senior citizen needs to be treated with dignity and courtesy befitting his age. It reiterated, ‘A pension scheme consistent with available resources should provide pension so that the pensioner should be able to live (i) free from want, with decency, independence and self-respect and (ii) at a standard of living, equivalent to pre-retirement level.

The court held that, ‘Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. It is not an ex-gratia payment, but payment for past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure, rendering socio-economic justice to those who had, in the hey days of their life, ceaselessly toiled for their employers on an assurance that in their old age, they would not be left in the lurch’

The judgment came as a magna carta for the pensioners. It gave the pensioners a new lease of life and a good respectable status to the pensioners in India. The judgment of 17December, 1982, brought awareness in government circles that pensioners cannot be ignored. 17 December, the day of judgement is observed as ‘Pensioners Day’ throughout India.

Pay CommissionsThe pensioners struggle for better status continued with the passage of time for proper revision of pension structure. The pensioners, who were being treated as non-entity or as un-necessary burden by the government was jolted as a result of Supreme Court judgment. The first three Pay Commissions did not consider any revision of Pension structure. In the case of 4th Pay Commission, the point concerning ‘Pensions’ was added to its Terms of Reference’ at a later stage and for

the first time a revision in pension was considered in the report of 4th Pay Commission in 1986. The 5th Pay Commission (1996) brought about more changes and also recommended that pension should be fixed, revised, modified and changed in ways not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees.

The recommendations of 6th Pay Commission were unique in a sense that it changed the concept of ‘Pay Scales’ for the employees and introduced the new form of ‘Pay Bands’ (PB1 to PB4) and ‘Grade Pay’ The Govt. of India accepted the recommendations of the 6th CPC as a package with some modifications. Gazette Notification No. 1/1/2008 IC dated 29 Aug 08 was issued by Finance Ministry in respect of civilian employees of Central Government, and Gazette Notification No. 38/37/D8-P&PW (A) dated 29 Aug 08 was issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions in respect of Pensioners. However, thereafter the Central Government resorted to issuing some modifications etc vide their O M dated 03 October, 2008 and 14 October, 2008, which vitiated the whole ambit of Pay Commission recommendations adversely affecting the pre-2006 pensioners. This has led to many pensioners seeking justice from the courts / CAT. The constitution of National Anomalies Committee is also considering these anomalies. The affected pensioners belong to those who fall in the pay scales S-4 to S-29,( Pre-revised) who are suffering a loss in their Basic Pension ranging from Rs 165/- to Rs 3650/- ( from constable to the rank of Inspector General)

Conclusion
In old age the basic needs of a person are (i) financial independence (ii) good health, and (iii) social security. The pension provides financial independence, health coverage is provided by various health schemes of the government, and social security, which is diminishing with breaking of joint family system, is provided by pensioners associations etc. In all these pension plays an important link.

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

Procedure for obtaining Information The application can be made to the Central Public Information Officer in writing in plain paper or through electronic means in Hindi or English specifying the particulars of the information sought for along with a fee of Rs 10/-(Rs ten only) by way of cash against proper receipt or demand draft or bankers cheque or IPO payable to PCDA(P) at Allahabad. An applicant making request for information is not required to give any reason for requesting the information or other personal details except those may be necessary for contacting him. No fee is payable for people living below poverty line. For pension related matter, the applicant should submit the application along with the following particulars: - 1) Name and address of the applicant, 2)Pensioners PPO no (if any) 3) Name of the Bank/PDA, 4) Head of office/unit where served last. 5) Rank held last. 6) Personal no. etc.

Fee for obtaining information An application fee of Rs 10 for obtaining information under sub section (1) of section 6. Fee shall be charged for providing information under sub section (1) of section (7) as under:- Rs two for each page in A4 or A3 size paper created or copied. Actual charge of cost price of a copy in larger size paper. Actual cost or price for samples or models; and For inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour or fraction thereof) Fee shall be charged for providing information under sub-section (5) of Section 7 as under: Rupees fifty per diskette or floppy for information provided in diskette floppy OR Price fixed for publication or Rupees two per page of photocopy for information provided in printed form. No fee will be charged from people living below the poverty line Applicant would be provided information free of cost if the CPIO fails to comply with the prescribed time limit.

Time Limit for providing information 30 days from the date of receipt of application. 48 hours for information concerning the life and liberty of a person. Failure to provide information within the specified period is a deemed refusal. 5 days for transferring the application to concerned CPIO. 40 days where information relates to IIIrd party.