Tuesday, January 2, 2018
Implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission : Discontinuation of Central Secretariat (Deputation on Tenure) Allowance to officers of Organized Group 'A' Services on their appointment as Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Director in the Central Secretariat under the Central Staffing Scheme
Consumer Price Index For Industrial Workers (CPI-IW—November, 2017)
Ministry of Labour & Employment
Consumer Price Index For Industrial Workers (CPI-IW—November, 2017)
Posted On: 01 JAN 2018 10:26AM by PIB Delhi
The All-India CPI-IW for November, 2017 increased by 1 point and pegged at 288 (two hundred and eighty eight). On 1-month percentage change, it increased by (+) 0.35 per cent between October, 2017 and November, 2017 when compared with the decrease of (-) 0.36 per cent for the corresponding months of last year.
The maximum upward pressure to the change in current index came from Food group contributing (+) 1.10 percentage points to the total change. At item level, Wheat Atta, Eggs (Hen), Goat Meat, Milk (Cow), Onion, Tamarind, Bitter Gourd, Cabbage, Carrot, Coconut, Potato, Tomato, Cooking Gas, Electricity Charges, Firewood, Kerosene Oil, Private Tuition Fee, Petrol, Barber Charges, etc. are responsible for the increase in index. However, this increase was checked by Arhar Dal, Gram Dal, Masur Dal, Urd Dal, Groundnut Oil, Fish Fresh, Poultry (Chicken), Chillies Green, Garlic, Ginger, Brinjal, Cauliflower, French Bean, Green Coriander Leaves, Methi, Palak, Radish, Apple, Banana, etc., putting downward pressure on the index.
The year-on-year inflation measured by monthly CPI-IW stood at 3.97 per cent for November, 2017 as compared to 3.24 per cent for the previous month and 2.59 per cent during the corresponding month of the previous year. Similarly, the Food inflation stood at 3.91 per cent against 2.26 per cent of the previous month and 1.66 per cent during the corresponding month of the previous year.
At centre level, Giridih reported the maximum increase of (7 points) followed by Salem and Puducherry (6 points each) and Rourkela, Sholapur, Mercara and Ghaziabad (5 points each). Among others, 4 points increase was observed in 5 centres, 3 points in 16 centres, 2 points in 13 centres and 1 point in 12 centres. On the contrary, Kolkata recorded a maximum decrease of 3 points followed by Munger-Jamalpur, Amritsar, Chandigarh and Doom Dooma Tinsukia (2 points each). Among others, 1 point decrease was observed in 7 centres. Rest of the 13 centres' indices remained stationary.
The indices of 34 centres are above All-India Index and 42 centres' indices are below national average. The indices of Vishakhapathnam and Ghaziabad centres remained at par with All-India Index.
The next issue of CPI-IW for the month of December, 2017 will be released on Wednesday, 31st January, 2018. The same will also be available on the office website www.labourbureaunew.gov.in.
Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill, 2017
Ministry of Finance
Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill, 2017 seeks to protect and enhance the depositors’ existing rights and bring in a comprehensive and efficient resolution regime for financial firms.
Posted On: 02 JAN 2018 4:07PM by PIB Delhi
Rationale for the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017
There is no comprehensive and integrated legal framework for resolution, including liquidation, of financial firms in India presently.
- The powers and responsibilities for resolution of financial services providers are given under multiple laws to regulators, Government and the Courts, which does not facilitate development of specialised resolution capabilities. Also, because of this dispersed role definition, resolution of financial conglomerates becomes difficult.
- The resolution instruments presently available under the respective legislations are limited, and so is guidance on the process leading up to the resolution. For example, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is empowered to take certain resolution actions with respect to banks, branches of foreign banks in India, and cooperative banks. However, these resolution powers are quite limited. RBI can effect change in bank management, or impose moratorium and recommend mandatory mergers. In the case of a bank, typically either of the two methods of resolution has been used, that is, amalgamation or merger of a weak bank with another bank; or winding up of the bank. Other resolution instruments are not available.
- The Central Government has the power to restructure public sector banks, and regional rural banks. Non-banking financial companies can be liquidated or wound up under law by High Courts only, either voluntarily or on the application of RBI. Resolution regimes for insurance companies, financial market infrastructure, and other financial services providers are also quite inadequate. The current resolution regime is especially inappropriate for private sector financial firms in the light of significant expansion of private financial firms and many of these acquiring systemically important status in India. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has introduced in the country a comprehensive resolution regime for mainly non-financial firms, but such a regime is not available in the country for financial firms.The Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017 (FRDI Bill) will replace the existing resolution regime by providing a comprehensive resolution regime that will help ensure that, in the rare event of failure of a financial service provider, there is a system of quick, orderly and efficient resolution in favour of depositors.
- The impact of failures of financial services providers is much wider and can have a systemic effect on the economy and financial stability of a country, unlike traditional insolvency, where the affected parties are mostly limited to the creditors of the insolvent entity. Since financial service providers handle consumer funds, some of them are critical for financial stability, and therefore, it is important to resolve failing financial service providers expeditiously through a specialised resolution process, as lengthy resolution proceedings can lead to losses for consumers, or instability in the financial system.
- The FRDI Bill proposes to establish a Resolution Corporation and a comprehensive resolution regime to enable timely and orderly resolution of a failing financial firm. Such institutional framework for expeditious resolution of financial firms exists in most other comparable countries. Further, it is favourable for depositors if in case of bank failures, a bank is resolved rather than liquidated, because the depositors are expected to get a much higher value in resolution of the bank as a going concern than in liquidation.
- It provides for detecting incipient insolvencies in financial firms by introducing a five-stage health classification of financial firms and stepping in to appropriately nurse a financial firm at the stage when its health becomes weak and it is classified in the category of material risk to viability, much before it is it is classified in the category of critical risk to viability when there might be no option but to resolve or liquidate the financial firm.
- FRDI Bill also introduces a menu of resolution tools, including transfer of whole or parts of the assets and liabilities of a financial firm to another person, acquisition, merger or amalgamation, bridge service provider, and bail-in, and mandates recovery and resolution planning obligations to enable careful monitoring of risk to viability of a financial firm.
- The FRDI Bill also transfers the deposit insurance functions from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to the Resolution Corporation, targeting at an integrated approach to the depositor protection and resolution.Protection and enhancement of depositors’ rights under the FRDI BillThe FRDI Bill does not modify present protections to the depositors adversely at all. The FRDI Bill provides only additional protections to the depositors in a more transparent manner, the details of which are as follows.
- At present, deposits with banks are insured upto Rs. 1 lakh. The similar protection would continue under the FRDI Bill and the Resolution Corporation is empowered to increase the deposit insurance amount.
- The uninsured depositors, that is, beyond Rs. 1 lakh, of a banking company are treated on par with unsecured creditors under the present law and paid after preferential dues, including Government dues, in the event of its liquidation. As per the provisions of the FRDI Bill, the claims of uninsured depositors in the case of liquidation of a bank will be higher than those of the unsecured creditors and Government dues. Therefore, the rights of uninsured depositors will be better protected and such depositors will have an elevated status in the FRDI Bill compared to the existing legal arrangements.
- Thus, the interests of depositors (both insured and uninsured) would be better protected under the FRDI Bill.Bail-in provisionIndian Banks have adequate capital and are also under prudent regulation and supervision to ensure safety and soundness, as well as systemic stability. The existing laws ensure the integrity, security and safety of the banking system. In India, all possible steps and policy measures are taken to prevent the failure of banks and protection of interests of depositors (e.g. issue of directions / prompt corrective action measures, capital adequacy and prudential norms).Bail in has been proposed as one of the resolution tools in the event a financial firm is sought to be sustained by resolution. Certain misgivings have been expressed in the media, especially social media, regarding the depositor protection in the context of “bail-in” provisions of the FRDI Bill. These misgivings are entirely misplaced. The Government always stands ready to take care of the capital needs of the public sector banks. Bail-in amounts to liabilities’ holders bearing a part of the cost of resolution by reduction in their claims. Bail-in is only one of many resolution tools in the FRDI Bill; others are acquisition, merger and bridge service provider, and is to be used either singly or in combination with other tools. Bail in provision may not be required to be used in case of any specific resolution. Most certainly, it will not be used in case of a public sector bank as such a contingency is not likely to arise.Following formal safeguards have been built in the FRDI Bill pertaining to the appropriate use of bail-in, whereas the rights or interests of depositors can be, inter-alia, reduced in case of forced merger of a banking company with another bank under the present law without these explicit safeguards.
- Insured deposits of banks can not be used in case of bail-in.
- The Resolution Corporation will have the option to design an appropriate bail-in instrument, which will be subject to Government scrutiny and oversight of the Parliament.
- Cancellation of the liability of the depositor beyond insured amount will be possible only with the prior consent of the depositor. On the other hand, in case of the forced mergers of banks under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the right of depositors of a merging bank (transferor bank) can be reduced and has been reduced, without the consent of depositors.
- Bail-in power can be used in a judicious and reasonable manner only by the Resolution Corporation and it will have to ensure that all creditors, including uninsured depositors, get at least such value, which they would have received in the event of liquidation of a bank. In case of injudicious and unreasonable exercise of bail-in power by the Resolution Corporation, for example, where the depositors of a bank get less value than in liquidation, such affected depositors will have the right to get compensation from the Resolution Corporation on an order of the National Company Law Tribunal.The FRDI Bill does not prohibit the Government from extending support to banksThe FRDI Bill does not propose in any way to limit the scope of powers for the Government to extend financing and resolution support to banks, including public sector banks. Government’s implicit guarantee for solvency of public sector banks remains unaffected as the Government remains committed to adequately capitalise the public sector banks and improve their financial health. The Government is committed to protecting the existing protection to depositors and providing additional protection to them.Examination of the FRDI Bill by the Joint Committee of Parliament on FRDI BillThe FRDI Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 10, 2017, is presently under the consideration of the Joint Committee of the Parliament, which is consulting all the stakeholders on the provisions of the FRDI Bill. The Joint Committee of Parliament has been asked to submit their Report to the Parliament by the last day of the Budget Session, 2018. The Government is awaiting the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Parliament in regard to the FRDI Bill and would favourably consider the recommendations.
*****
DSM/SBS/KA
Introduction of Complaint Tracker in Postinfo Mobile App of India Post & issue of revised Citizens’ Charter
Ministry of Communications
Introduction of Complaint Tracker in Postinfo Mobile App of India Post & issue of revised Citizens’ Charter
Posted On: 02 JAN 2018 4:10PM by PIB Delhi
With 1.5 lakh Post Offices, the Department of Posts has the most widely distributed postal network in the world. India Post had launched a Postinfo Mobile App on 11.05.2015, which is updated from time to time. Postinfo – the Citizens’ centric android Mobile application of Department of Posts was developed by the Centre for Excellence in Postal Technology. This app has a number of features like tracking consignments, Post Office search, postage calculator, insurance premium calculator and interest calculator. This App of India Post can be downloaded in Android and Windows mobile phones. Five lakh customers have already downloaded the Postinfo App.
The feature of tracking of complaints registered by the customers online on Computerised Customer Care Centres has been introduced in the Postinfo App of India Post last month. This aims at facilitating the complainants to track their complaints on their mobile phones.
In addition to the above, the Department of Posts has reviewed and revised its Citizens’ Charter in December 2017, which is a tool for facilitating the delivery of services to citizens with specified standards, quality and time frame etc. with commitment from the organisation to its customers. The short version of the Citizens’ Charter is displayed in the post offices and the detailed version is available on the website of the Department of Posts i.e. www.indiapost.gov.in.
<><><><><>
SNC
(Release ID: 1514983) Visitor Counter : 290
CONFEDERATION CHAMPIONING THE CAUSE OF RE-EMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN – WE TOOK UP THE CASE FIRST WITH MINISTER AND THEN IN JCM STANDING COMMITTEE. NOW CONFEDERATION SUBMITS COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL TO GOVT.
No. Conf/Re-emp.Ex-Sercice/2016-19 Dated - 01.01.2018
Shri Ajay Narayan Jha,
Secretary
Department of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance, Government of India
Room No.129-A, North Block
New Delhi – 110001
Sub: Applicability of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 to persons re-employed Government Service and whose pay is debitable to civil estimates -reg.
Ref : DoPT O.M. No. F.No. 3/3/2016-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 18.10.2017.
Sir,
1. Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers has received numerous complaints from re-employed ex-servicemen on the matter of their initial pay fixation in the re-employed posts. We have taken up this case in the Standing Committee meeting of JCM National Council as an agenda item. Minutes of the Standing Committee meeting circulated in DOP & T OM No.3/3/2016-JCA dated 08-08-2017 is reproduced below:
“S.No.36 - Removal of ambiguity in fixation of pay of re-employed ex-servicemen and grant of the same benefit extended to commissioned officers to Personal Below Officers Rank (PBOR) also.
Reply: Establishment Division in their comments dated 28-03-2017 had stated that -
(i) The first issue relates to pay fixation on re-employment in Civil Services and Public Sector Banks etc. Department of Financial Services (DoFS) is stated to have clarified that pay fixation of ex-servicemen would be through protection of pay plus DA drawn by them at the time of release from the Armed Forces. DoFS orders provide that in addition to the pay fixed on re-employment, pension and other retirement benefits would also be allowed.
(ii) Establishment Division of DOP&T has clarified to Department of Posts that initial pay on re-employment in case of ex-servicemen who had held posts below Commissioned Officers and Civilians below Group-A, shall be fixed as per the entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re-employed posts applicable to the case of direct recruits appointed on or after 01-01-2006.
(iii) Staff side says there is contradictions in the two clarifications and, as a result of the ambiguity, one section has benefited (Personnel who are covered under the instructions of DoFS) while others are not (Personnel who are covered under the instructions of DoPT). JS(E) stated that they had received a number of grievances and the Department of Welfare of Ex-Servicemen had also raised this issue. Presently there are two formulations for pay fixation of ex-servicemen - one for Group-A Posts and another for others - which is not an ideal situation. It was stated that the same is under active consideration and a decision is likely shortly.”
We understand that it is in this background DOPT has circulated a revised draft proposal seeking opinion from other nodal Ministers. In that context, I would like to draw your kind attention to the succeeding facts and circumstances of the case.
History of Rules/ OMs Governing Pay-fixation on Re-Employment
2. Before delving into the above captioned subject, it would be prudent to retrace the evolution of statutory rules governing the initial fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners. The first comprehensive policy on the subject was issued by Department of Expenditure, MoF vide their O.M. No. 8(34)/Est. III/57 dated 25.11.1958 (Annexure-I) which when read in conjunction with Article 510-526 of Central Services Regulation (Annexure-II), inter-alia states that:-
(a) Re-employed pensioners should be allowed only the prescribed scales of pay, that is, no protected time scales such as those available to pre-1931 entrants should be extended to them.
(b) The initial pay, on re-employment should be fixed at the minimum stage of the scale of pay prescribed for the post in which an individual is re-employed. In cases where it is felt that the fixation of initial pay of the re-employed officer at the minimum of the prescribed pay scale will cause undue hardship, the pay may be fixed at a higher stage by allowing one increment for each year of service which the officer has rendered before retirement in a post not lower than that in which he is re-employed.
(c) In addition to (b) above the Government servant may be permitted to draw separately any pension sanctioned to him and to retain any other form of retirement benefit for which he is eligible e.g. Government’s contribution to a Contributory Provident Fund, gratuity, commuted value of pension, etc.
3. The said policy was in vogue till 30.07.1986, with suitable amendments from time to time in so far as the amount of pension to be ignored while fixing the pay in the re-employed post is as given below :-
OM No. Amount of Pension to be
ignored in the case of
ex-servicemen
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure
No. 7(17)-Est. III/62 dated 24.05.1962
(Annexure-III) Rs.15/-
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of
Expenditure No. 7(34)-E. III/62 dated 16.01.1964
(Annexure-IV) Rs.50/-
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure
No. 5 (14)-E. III (B)/77 dated 19.07.1978
(Annexure-V) Rs.125/-
Ministry of Defence O.M. No. 2 (1)/83/D (Civ.I)
dated 08.02.1983 and Ministry of Finance, Dept. of
Expenditure No. F. 4 (3)-E. III (B)/82 dated For Officers - Rs.250/-
13.12.1983 (Annexure-VI) For PBOR – Entire pension.
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, DOPT O.M. No. 3/1/85-Estt (P-II) For Officers – Rs 500/-For
dated 04.04.1986(A-VII) PBOR – Entire Pension
DOPT O.M. No 3/1/86-Estt-(P-II) dated
31.07.1986(A-VIII) For PBOR - Entire Pension
DOPT O.M. No. 3/13/2008-Estt (Pay-II)
dated 11.11.2008(Annexure-IX) For Offiicers – Rs. 4,000/-
DOPT O.M. No 3/3/2016-Estt (Pay-II) For PBOR – Entire Pension
dated 01.05.2017(Annexure-X) For Officers – Rs 15,000/-
4. However, the subject was transferred to DoPT in 1986, therefore, all subsequent instructions were issued under the aegis of DoPT. One such impugned instruction is the CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 issued vide DOPT OM No. 3/1/85-Estt. (Pay-II) dated 31.07.1986 (Annexure-VIII). The subject order has been subsequently amended by DOPT vide their O.M. No. 3/19/2009-Estt (Pay-II) dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure-XI), 08.11.2010 (Annexure-XII)and O.M. No. 3/3/2016-Estt (Pay II) dated 01.05.2017(Annexure-X). However, these orders have failed to incorporate ‘Hardship Clause’ for pay fixation in respect of PBORs which has resulted in lot of heartburn and anomalous situation of pay-fixation post 1986 order viz-a-viz pre-1986 retirees. The situation has worsened post implementation of the 6th CPC and the recent 7th CPC, causing large-scale upheaval among PBOR ex-servicemen and further resulting in unending litigation in various courts of law across the country. Confederation has submitted a representation in September 2015 addressed to Shri. Jithendra Singh, Minister for State, Department of Personnel explaining the above position and requested to review the DOP&T orders. The matter was taken up in JCM also as stated above. Under such circumstances, DoPT has now decided to formulate a new policy, for which they have sought comments of Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, MoD, Department of Expenditure, MoF and Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. I would like to reiterate that unless there is a cogent reason, the policies affecting lives of millions of ex-servicemen should not be arbitrarily amended. This is especially evident from intentional/ unintentional omission of “hardship clause” from pay-fixation orders issued by DoPT which are at variance from the instructions issued by DoE till 1986.
5. It is also brought to the notice of Department of Expenditure that in view of large scale representation/litigation and discontent among re-employed ex-servicemen after issue of DoPT O.M.3/3/2016-Estt (Pay-II) dated 01.05.2017, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, MoD vide their O.M. No 28(11)2017/D (Res-I) dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure-XIII)had suggested DoPT to completely revive the provisions contained in DoE, MoF O.M. No. 8(34)/Est. III/57 dated 25.11.1958. But, the proposal of DESW stated in Para 6 of their above cited O. M. would only be beneficial only if status quo existed till 30.06.1986 is fully revived. In other words, any proposal to revive the 1958 Orders would be beneficial to re-employed ex-servicemen (PBOR) only if the entire pension is ignored for fixation of pay in the re-employed post, i.e. the pension is not to be taken into account while fixing the pay as perMinistry of Defence O.M. No. 2 (1)/83/D (Civ.I) dated 08.02.1983 and Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure No. F. 4 (3)-E. III (B)/82 dated 13.12.1983.
OPINION/ RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONFEDERATION
Computation of Pre-Retirement Pay for the purpose of Pay-Fixation
6. Similarly, the concept of pre-retirement pay (PRP) has undergone changes to the detriment of re-employed pensioners/ex-servicemen. It may be appreciated that Article 510 of Central Service Regulations, DoE O.M. 5(21)-Est. III(B)/64 dated 15.06.1964(Annexure XIV), DoPT O.M. No. 3/1/86-Estt (P.II) dated 31.07.1986 include all components of pay such as rank pay, increments of pay for length of service, Good Service Pay, Classification Pay and X-Group Pay as a part of PRP. However, the proposal sent by DoPT for comments only takes basic pay as PRP like Armed Forces Officers, while ignoring other components which are part of pension. It would be prudent to mention that PRP of Armed Forces Officer and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) has never been same and treating PRP of Armed Forces Officer as that of PBOR will not only create anomalous situation but also bring financial losses to PBOR.
Treatment of Military Service Pay.
7. It is submitted that as per Part I, Section-3 of Gazette Notification dated 30 August, 2008(Annexure XV),Cabinet Resolution accepted Military Service Pay (Serial 2 of Annexure I-Part A) as part of pay in respect of all defence forces and is to be counted for pay fixation and pension in accordance with Para 2.3.12 of 6th CPC Recommendations(Annexure XVI). However, Defence Ministry arbitrarily overridden the above aspect through their O.M. dated 24.07.2009. Accordingly, DOPT has denied the benefit of MSP to all defence pensioners whereas the said O.M. of MoD was meant only for military officers on their re-employment within Armed Forces. In this context, I humbly refer to enclosed judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Civil Appeal No 3744 of 2016 dated 08.12.2017(Annexure XVII) on admissibility of MACP on similar lines. In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that cabinet decisions cannot be overridden/ modified through the means of any executive order. Hence, Department of Expenditure may like to take cognizance of this ruling while forwarding its views to DoPT. It is imperative that the issue of MSP while fixing PRP is handled now in the spirit of above judgment which would go a long way in avoiding future litigation.
Methods of Pay Fixation
8. Since, DoPT has proposed to consolidate, rationalise and simplify existing orders on pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen (including reservists and ex-combatant clerks) in a single policy framework, we as representatives of employees including re-employed ex-servicemen, being a major stake holder in the matter would like to suggest that pay fixation policy envisaged from 25.11.1958 to 30.06.1986 may be revived. Accordingly, all re-employed ex-servicemen may be given two options to exercise, whichever may be beneficial to them and the subject option shall have a retrospective effect since 31.07.1986 at the discretion of affected ex-servicemen, as under :-
(a) Option I - The initial pay, on re-employment shall be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay prescribed for the post in which the individual is re-employed. After fixing the pay as above, in case the initial pay is lesser than the last pay drawn (pre-retirement pay), such cases are to be treated as causing undue hardship, the pay is to be fixed at a higher stage by granting one increment for each year of service rendered by him, so as to bring the initial pay at par with the pre-retirement pay. The pay so fixed is to be treated as “minimum of the pay scale”. In addition to the above, the government servant is permitted to draw pension and all other forms of retirement benefits including Dearness Relief on pension which he is eligible.
(b) Option-II. The initial pay of a re-employed pensioner shall be fixed in the time scale of the re-employed post at a stage equivalent to the stage that would have been reached by putting in the Civil Posts, the number of completed years of service rendered in the posts in the Armed Forces. The pay so fixed will not be restricted to the ‘pre-retirement pay’. The pension (including pension equivalent retirement benefit) may be reduced from the pay so fixed after ignoring an amount of Rs.15000/- as proposed by DOPT. In addition to the above, the government servant is permitted to draw pension and all other forms of retirement benefits including Dearness Relief on pension which he is eligible. (The amount of ignorable part of pension and PEG for pensioners re-employed prior to 01.01.2016 will remain at Rs.4000/-).
9. It is requested that the proposals of this Confederation may kindly be considered on merit while formulating DoE views for onward submission to DoPT. I am hopeful that appropriate policy would be formulated in consonance with the spirit of government orders in vogue till 1986.
Thanking You
Encl: As stated.
Yours faithfully,
(M. Krishnan,)
Member, Standing Committee,
National Council JCM &
Secretary General,
Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers.
Mob: 09447068125, Email: mkrishnan6854@gmail.com
Copy to :
1. Sri. Ajay Mittal,
Secretary
Department of Personnel and Training
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Government of India
North Block, Room No.112, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Mr. Sanjay Mitra, IAS,
Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Room No.101-A, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011.
3. Smt. Sanjeevanee Kutty, IAS
Secretary,
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Room No.5-A, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011.
4. Sri. K.V.Eapen,
Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare,
Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)