2% RESERVATION IN TNHB

GO FOR 2% RESERVATION FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD ALLOTMENTS OF PLOTS, FLATS AND HOUSES:
 VIEW IN:










 http://www.tn.gov.in/gosdb/gorders/house        /hud_e_2_2013.pdf
Click on image and 
               view image as you like!
 

CLARIFICATION REGARDING HRA, CCA ETC.,

CLARIFICATION REGARDING HRA, CCA ETC.,

Letter from IT Dept & A.G. Office regarding sumptuary allowance

Double click on image:
Save and print



Thanks to:Ashok Menon

ஓய்வுகால பயன்கள் - தமிழக அரசாணை TAMIL NADU GOVT GO FOR PENSION

DOUBLE CLICK ON IMAGES:
SAVE & TAKE PRINT:

வீட்டு வாடகைப்படி குறித்து அரசாணையில் திருத்தம்

DOUBLE CLICK ON IMAGE:
SAVE & TAKE PRINT:

வீட்டு வாடகைப்படி குறித்து அரசாணையில் திருத்தம்

நீதிபதிகள் படிகள் உயர்வுக்கான தமிழக அரசு உத்தரவு - TAMIL NADU GOVT. GO FOR ALLOWANCES

PLEASE DOUBLE CLICK ON IMAGES:

2.8.2010 SC ORDER

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION X


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/1989

[IN RE. : PENSION]

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSON. & ORS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)

Date: 02/08/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

In our order dated 26th July, 2010, in second Paragraph, it needs to be clarified that we approve the recommendations made by Justice Padmanabhan Commmittee to continue with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, as mentioned in Paragraphs 31(a), (d) and 36 of the Report, with regard to Judicial Officers, who retired prior to 1st January, 2006.

We accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee in the matter of Encashment of Leave [Section 5], Family Pension [Section 6], Domestic Help Allowance [Section 7] [except Paragraphs 40(c) and 40(d)] as also with regard to Medical Allowance in Section 8.

Having accepted the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, as indicated in the orders passed by this Court from time to time, we peremptorily give 31st March, 2011, as the cut-off date by which payment shall be made, including arrears, in terms of the said Report.

As regards recommendations contained in Paragraphs 73 to 75 of Justice Padmanabhan Committee, they are kept in abeyance for the time being.

Except I.A. No.5, all other interlocutory applications are disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court from time to time.

[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

View in: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/102219893282010p.txt

பணி ஓய்வு பெற்ற நீதிபதிகள் ஓய்வு ஊதிய உயர்வுக்கான தமிழக அரசு உத்தரவு

DOUBLE CLICKS ON IMAGES:

DOUBLE CLICK ON IMAGES:

26.7.2010 SC ORDER REGARDING PENSION

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/1989

[IN RE. : PENSION]

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSON. & ORS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the parties.

We approve the recommendations made by Justice Padmanabhan Commmittee to continue with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, as mentioned in Paragraphs 31(a), (d) and 36 of the Report.

We approve of the recommendation made by Justice Padmanabhan Committee in Paragraph 31(b) with respect to Recommendation No.4 in Part-V, which reads as under:

“[31(b)] With respect to recommendation No.4 regarding cash payment of Rs.1250/- p.m. as domestic help allowance to retired judicial officers, this deserves to be increased from Rs.1250/- to Rs.2500/- per month to retired judicial officers. It is for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to consider and give Domestic Help Allowance to Family Pensioners and it is reasonable to pay Rs.1000/- to family pensioners.”

This Order is required to be passed keeping in mind the rate of inflation as of today. Consequently, we increase the cash payment to be paid to retired Judicial Officers from Rs.1250/- per month to Rs.2500/- per month. It is made clear that the above increase in the Domestic Help Allowance will apply to all retired Judicial Officers.

We also accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee in regard to grant of Domestic Help Allowance to Family Pensioners and, accordingly, grant them Domestic Help Allowance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month.

Similarly, with regard to payment of fixed monthly Medical Allowance, we accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee which has increased such Allowance from Rs.100/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month for retired Judicial Officers. In respect of Family Pensioners, we approve the recommendation of Justice Padmanabhan Committee giving Medical Allowance to Family Pensioners at the rate of Rs.750/- per month.

Coming to the retirement benefits for Judicial officers, who have retired on or after 1st January, 2006, we accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee vide Paragraph 33(a). Consequently, the qualifying years of service for earning full pension for Judicial Officers will be twenty years instead of thirty three years with effect from the date as per VIth Central Pay Commission.

We further accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee in which, vide Paragraph 34(b), it has been stated that with respect of quantum of pension and it's calculation, the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission will continue subject to a modification with respect to qualifying years of service for earning full pension, which shall be twenty years, as directed above, instead of thirty years. It is further clarified that as far as computation of pension is concerned, it shall be computed at fifty per cent of the last pay drawn.

As far as additional quantum of pension is concerned, direction has been sought vide Paragraph 35(b) of Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report. Accordingly, we direct that additional quantum of pension will be paid to the Judicial Officers, who have since retired, including Family Pensioners, in terms of VIth Central Pay Commission Report. In other words, they will be paid according to the Chart annexed at Page 31 [First Part], which is re-produced hereinbelow:

Age of Pensioner/Family Pensioner Additional quantum of pension

From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of revised basic pension/family pension

From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of revised basic pension/family pension

From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of revised basic pension/family pension

From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of revised basic pension/family pension

100 years or more 100% of revised basic pension/family pension

We also accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee which has directed that ceiling limit of gratuity be raised from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs. However, this will be with effect from 1st January, 2006.

We may place on record that, as far as the above directions are concerned, no State has raised any objection.

With regard to other issues, place the matter on 2nd August, 2010.


[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

நீதிபதிகள் சம்பள உயர்வுக்கான தமிழக அரசு உத்தரவு - TAMIL NADU GOVT. GO FOR PAY HIKE

நீதிபதிகள் சம்பள உயர்வுக்கான தமிழக அரசு உத்தரவு

DOUBLE CLICKS ON IMAGES:

19.07 2010 & 12-07-2010 SC RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGARDING ALLOWANCES- 60% PAY ARREARS WITHIN 3 MONTHS: SC

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/1989

[IN RE. : REGARDING ALLOWANCES]

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSON. & ORS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)


Date: 19/07/2010 These Matters were called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

In continuation of our earlier Orders, we have examined the charts submitted by learned Amicus Curiae on Allowances [like, Sumptuary allowance, Medical Allowance, Hill Area/Remote AreaAllowance, Robe Allowance and Domestic Help Allowance]. The chart indicates the burden on each of the States on account of the Allowances being sanctioned from 1st January, 2006. As far as pay scales are concerned, the States have agreed to implement the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The Allowances thereon constitute a miniscule amount, as indicated in the chart placed by learned Amicus Curiae.

In the circumstances, we hereby accept the Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee in toto as far as Allowances are concerned. The arrears will be paid from 1st January, 2006. Many of the Statesappearing before us have also accepted the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee as far as Allowances are concerned. Accordingly, we direct the States to implement Justice PadmanabhanCommittee Report on the above Allowances with immediate effect. The arrears will be paid according to the formula suggested by justicePadmanabhan Committee. Accordingly, sixty per cent of the arrears will be paid within three months and remaining forty per cent will be paid within nine months thereafter.

[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
View in: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/1022198931972010p.txt



S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION [C] NO.1022 OF 1989

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSON. & ORS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)

Date: 12/07/2010


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R


I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989:
[In Re.: regarding allowances]

As record in the Order of this Court dated 4th May, 2010, most of the States have accepted the recommendations made by Justice Padmanabhan Committee regarding pay-scales. However, on the question of allowances incidental to the revised pay scales, some States have still not intimated their approval. We are required to examine this aspect. For this purpose, place the matter on 19 th July, 2010 at 2.00 p.m. separately.

In the meantime, each of the States, if so advised, will submit a short statement to Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, who is assisting learned amicus curiae, as to the reasons why they are opposing payment of allowances, particularly when the States have agreed to the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee on pay scales.

I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989:
[In Re.: regarding pension]

Place the matter on 26th July, 2010,
separately.


[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

View in: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/1022198931272010p.txt

COMMENTS PLEASE!

RECORD OF PROCEEDING OF SC ON 4.5.2010
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/102219893452010p.txt

In continuation of Order passed by this Court on 7.4.2010, we pass the following order.
Many of the States, for example, State of A.P. Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The State of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1.1.2006.

Some of the States, especially the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented 6th Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between 6th Pay Commission and pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the Judicial Officers would be much higher then what is being paid to other Executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.

The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC p.247, which is as follows:
“22. The learned Solicitor-General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but as the State Governments had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. The learned Solicitor-General submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the courts in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the Union of India allocates more funds to the States.

It has not been disputed that at present the entire expense on the administration of justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is their responsibility and they discharge the same. Logically, if there is to be any increase in the expenditure on the judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet the expenditure on the judiciary for discharging their constitutional obligations. Merely because there is an increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty Commission Report being accepted, can be no ground for fastening liability on the Union of India when none exists at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that the entire expenditure on account of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, as accepted, be borne by the respective States. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. If such a need arises and the States approach the Financial Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered.”

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions as advanced by some of the States cannot be accepted.
The States of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh informed that they have implemented the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. There is some difference of opinion as regards certain allowances payable to the judicial officers, otherwise, they have fully implemented Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The High Courts of these States should endeavor to iron out the creases and have discussions with State Governments and should sort out the differences at the earliest. If there is any difficulty, it could be brought to the notice of this Court.
Most of the States have contended that they have implemented 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 but in some States they have implemented from 1st April, 2010, therefore, they would not be in a position to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee with effect from 1.1.2006. We are unable to accept this contention. All the States are hereby directed to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations with effect from 1.1.2006. There should be uniformity and all the States should implement recommendations and shall raise the pay scale allowances from 1.1.2006 and shall pay arrears of salary, if any.
However, with an intention to give maximum benefits to the Judicial Officers, following modalities are worked out, with regard to payment of arrears of pay scales.

60% of the arrears be paid in cash spread over in two financial years and 40% be deposited in the Provident Fund account forthwith in the respective account of the Judicial Officers. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the Judicial Officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent. The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a Notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee report. We make the A.P. Government's Order dated 01.05.2010, as a part of this order (marked as Annexure-A) so that the same could be followed by other States also.
The Secretaries/Law Secretaries/Registrars/Registrar Generals of all the States/High Courts are present in this Court and their presence is dispensed with. Consequently, the I.A.s in respect of their presence are disposed of. We highly appreciate the cooperation rendered by these officers during the course of hearing.
Justice Padmanabhan Committee has made some recommendations regarding allowances. The respective States/High Courts are directed to submit their objections, if any, positively within eight weeks. This is, of course, in case they are not able to sort out the differences themselves
List after eight weeks for directions regarding allowances and pensions.


(R.K. Dhawan) (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma)
AR-cum-PS Court Master Asstt.Registrar