[MISUSE OF RULES OF GOVERNANCE FRAMED BY THE NAV RATNA PSU,s & YHE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,LIFE OF 25000 SENIOR CITIZENS ONGC ,ARE MADE SCAPE GOAT OF TWO GROUPS ie RICH AND POOR CLASS SINCE 1/1/2007;ALREADY 359 RETIREES DIED IN WAITING *Here is a classical example, how the misuse of rules of governance is taking IN PSU AND NAV RATNE thus damaging the basic structure, the Government of India and the Ministry framed; *The rule framed is to allow multinational PSU,s to deduct profit before deduction of Income Tax for the employees of the company to the welfare of the employees, which was tactically misused by the Most powerful smart and cunning managers for there personnel benefits ; * The NAV RATNA companies for example ONGC india started deducting large sums never in the history unheard and that too hand in glove with the employees to loot the whole system of fair play.justice and make mockery of the the law ; * on 1/1/2007 the e EX CMD ALONG WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS OF ONGC INDIA deducted Rs 995 crores deduct profit before deduction of Income Tax for manipulating large funds for pay revision to the employee not for welfare of all the employees both currently serving and ex retired sr citizens ;] DTD 07 AUG 2014 TO EX PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA RESPECTED MANMOHAN SINGH JI VEERAPPA MOILY EX MINISTER OF PETROLEUM SONIA GANDHI/RAHUL GANDHI INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS RPT COPY FOR INFORMATION; TO *CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPEAT *REGULATORU AUTHORITY BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE REPEAT *HEAD OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RESPECTED NARENDRA MODI PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA Narayan Singh Rathore 22 December 2013. Friends, ONGC PRBS was going smoothly till 1995. Some disgruntled GM (Fin) took upon himself to destroy PRBS. He misguided 185 young ONGCians to file a Petition 1718/1996 in Bombay HC, contending that PRBS was not Viable Scheme. Said GM (F) managed an Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996 (without examining Financial status of the Trust). As per game plan, ONGC denied Unviability but later on produced the Actaurial Report containing some reference to unviability of PRBS. Honble HC issued Order dated 11.5.1996 calling for ASTO and ONGC to negotiate and raise / generate additional funds to make the scheme viable. Trusties manipulated under able guidance of then Dir. (HR) to revise the Scheme in totality in full violation of Para 31.2 and para 32 of the GOI appd ONGC PRBS Rules-1991 via MOU of 3.2.1998 which was neither to (a) Raise/generate Additional Funds nor (b) in the intrests of members of the Scheme. Director (F) had opined that this MOU required consideration by the Board but Dir. (HR) confirmed that There was no financial implication and hence it was not required to be submitted to the Board. 40 to 60 percent Reduction in Contribution as well as Benefit was not considered as Financial Implication. This Note was never shown to Dir (F). Numerous Representations made to CMD ONGC were just replied by some junior officer in PRBS Trust, with insistent injustice. CMD ONGC was requested to grant personal interview for Hearing our grievances but that never happened. When members started filing litigation in Courts, ONGC took offence and spending billions of rupees to defeat financially defeated members. ONGC deploys Attorney General / Solicitor Generals who prevail in not allowing Hearing of Court cases. ONGC Management is fully aware of colossal sufferings caused by poor financial standing of the Oilmen who brought ONGC to the status of Navratna and Maharatna. CMD ONGC can mitigate these severe grievances with one stroke of his Pen, for withdrawal of illegal, derogatory and un-Constitutional MOU of 3.2.1998 and Cir. 40 of 18.6.1998. You, Nirmal Kumar Srivastava, Premdass Sharma, Mathre Rangarajan and 4 others like this... Nirmal Kumar Srivastava The new defined contribution scheme wef 1st Jan 2007 is noww fully implemented with every one retired on or after 1st Jan 2007 has stared getting additional annuity as per scheme....someone retired about two years back as E-5 with total 28years service getting abot 12000 pm after 1/3rd commutation wrote me that he got one more annuity to giv.e him Rs8700pm extra it means a bonanza of some 21 lakhs more.One ED retired recently got more than 70 lakhs in total including 1/3rd commutation.It means that the limit of 50% is not there.... 23 December 2013 at 05:24 · Like · 2 .. Narayan Singh Rathore Nirmal ji, you are in know of disparity, injustice and partisan approach of ONGC Management in depriving Ex ONGCians their due legitimate entitlement of PRBS during 1996 to March 2007 Why REWA Mumbai is not taking up this issue through Dialogue or legal Process ? There was shaving of Rs.500 crores in 2005 itself and thereafter ONGC pumped more than thousands of crores to mitigate deficiencies. ONGC Management knows very well that grave irregularities have been committed by ONGC PRBS Trust and CMD has authority to rectify them but he has opened treasures to fight illegal battles. Can you discuss this issue for amicable solution, including negotiated settlement with Litigants. We are really getting embarrassed while going to Courts. 23 December 2013 at 17:24 · Like · 1 .. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava Narayan singh I am aware about the disparaties,about the money pumped earlier as well as the amount of Rs1624 one time grant paid by ONGC now to cover up the defecit for paying upto 50% or more to the retirees of 2007 onwards.As u know that we are already involved in a case of Agrani Samman in Bombay High Court and the management once agreed to settle the issue amicably has backed out from their own commitments ...we r left with no alternative except to persue our case with Bombay High Court only.It clearly shows that how much concern they have for our issues.In view of above how do u expect that they will listen to us in PRBS case which does,nt cover 100% retirees pre 2007.While Agrani Samman can cover 21000 retirees,PRBS will cover only 10,700 retirees minus retirees of Jan to March 2007 who are now covered by ONGC in the new scheme.It will be better if some other Association come forward to discuss PRBS issue with management.I personally feel that Nandram will be able to do it after change of guard wef 1st March with Shri DK Sarraf....who is tipped to be next CMD and is a man of Finance known to Nandram. 23 December 2013 at 19:39 · Like · 2 .. Videh Kumar I would like to have names and CPF nos. of two officers cited by Nirmalji so that I do some more study on it because I retired on 31st July 2012 but I have not received any thing so far and my querries are answered that it would take another one month and figure are not as high as indicated here by Nirmalji. Kindly oblige me Nirmakji. 29 December 2013 at 21:08 · Like .. Prem Sagar Gupta Mathre Rangarajan Dear Sri Sri Kureel Saheb, I am very glad to note that you are an LLB from Bangalore University - I dont know in which department you worked in ONGC and when you retired - If it is after 01-01-2007 this discussion becomes only academic to you. I dont understand when you say it is too late by now. I will try to put the case as I understand in a nutshell: We have the Supreme Court judgement of 1982 in Nakras case - As it was given by a full bench under Article 14 of Constitution, I hope it is applicable to ONGC also - ONGC grossly violated this judgement in Agrni Samman case - It is in Bombay High Court. Then there is DPE pay revision order wef 01-01-2007 - It introduces two new factors under Superannuation benefits - ONE: Pension is fourth benefit in addition to CPF, Gratuity and Medical (which was not there earlier) - Two: a fund of 30% of Pay + DA to be created for each individual to cover all these benefits (again which was not there earlier) SC judgement of 1982 stipulates that as retirees are one class, any new benefit given at a later date should also be extended to all previous retirees from that date (to maintain sanctity that all retirees are one class, otherwise it divides retirees into two distinct class). Is this judgement applicable to DPE & ONGC? If so, what is our remedy - Writ petition in SC / Contempt petition in SC / PIL / or any other legal recourse. A sound legal opinion from SC advocate specializing in service matters will be highly useful to all of us. If it is worthwhile then we can persue - If it is otherwise then we can all forget and live peacefully (blaming our fate) and stop all this fruitless discussion. You being a legal person can you get one? - I dont know how much it costs - If it is reasonable I am willing to share the costs - I am sure our other friends may like to pitch in warm regards / rangarajan 18 hours ago · Like.. Srl Kureel many many thanks and regards. I am dec 2003 retiree i was CM(vig). before joining ongc I was administrative officer I I M BANGLORE till 16 feb 83 i personally feel there is good reason to persue the matter i n supreme court by way of special leave petition under ARTICLE 136 of constitution as the is not appeal from high court.pl visit www supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.html 16 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan Dear Sirs, 15 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan canwe follow up it appropriately, consultations may be needed? 15 hours ago · Unlike · 1.. Mathre Rangarajan Thank you Sri SrI Kureel Saheb for some good info - Thanks for reassuring me that there is some substance in my way of thinking and there is some good reason to pursue SLP under article 136 of constitution - I tried to look up what you suggested - but for a non-law person like me it is quite confusing - it says SLP can be against any judgement by High Court etc - But in our case it is a Govt order - it also says it need to be signed by an advocate on roll. I dont know where you are located - I am in Bangalore and SC is too far away for me - please send your personal e-mail ID & mobile No to my ID rangajan@gmail so that I can mail you in detail. Generally speaking, I am very disappointed with our Delhi Unit with proximity to ONGC top & SC and our Dehradun unit with proximity to ONGC Hqrs - They all seem to be busy in their own personal agenda - Only Mumbai unit is fighting one High Court case on behalf of all of us - Ahemedabad unit started some thing but seem to have got cold feet - All other cases in HCs are personal of individuals (they are spending their own money) - It has proved time and again, representations to all and sundry, starting from Smt Sonia Gandhi down to CMD ONGC are futile and completely ignored. I do hope there are some like minded ExONGCians out there who may like to join me in planing and executing some concrete action - Just a wishful thinking warm regards / rangarajan 7 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 3 February at 12:25 · Like · 2 .. Anand Chawla Why , ONGC has not given due consideration to that GROUP ? 30 May at 18:20 · Like .. Narayan Singh Rathore Retired after 01.01.2007 ? Pension Scheme has already been out vide OO dated 26.11.2013. 16 June at 16:13 · Unlike · 1 .. Mathre Rangarajan What is happening tomore tha 100 PRBS cases in various HCs and SE, & Consumer courts? Are they likely to see light of the day before I die - I am 75 17 June at 15:45 · Unlike · 1 Narayan Singh Rathore We are mistaken to expect justice against the wishes of an Oil Giant, capable of tilting judgment on the strength of M power. Unethical processes win over legitimate claims. 21 June at 16:11 · Unlike · 1 Mathre Rangarajan I had only suspected that delay may be on account of what you have said - Now you are confirming my suspicion - It is a great tragedy for us who retired before 2007 - After sacrificing our entire working life, what do we get in the end - Nothing 21 June at 17:41 · Unlike · 1 .. Narayan Singh Rathore One more Feather in Cap of CMD ONGC. His Team has proved that full justice has been done in PRBS matter, prior to Dec. 2006. False Affidavits have prevailed over True facts of grievous Manipulation by PRBS Trust. Courts find it convenient to ignore Data.details of multiple Wrongs by ONGC. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS RULED INDIA FOR 60 YEARS AND 90 % OF THE CONGRESS MEN ARE MILLIONARIES,BILLIONERIES AND BIG INDUSTRIALISTS,ALL THESE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THEM SITTING ON BLACK MONEY WHICH CAN SUPPORT THERE NEXT TEN GENERATIONS,STILL THEY NEVER LEFT ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE MONEY,WHICH PROMPTED THERE ALLIES ALSO TO MINT MONEY,SINCE THEY KNEW NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO CHAALENGE THEM ; THEY MADE ALL THE RULES WHERE THE SAME WILL NOT BE JUSTIBIABLE,EX P.M. WAS A SPINELESS PERSON WHO DID NOT BOTHER TO LISTEN VOICE OF RESENTMENT OF THOSE WHO APPROACHED THEM EVEN 95 TIMES STATING FB REQUESTS ARE NOT AN EYE OPENER,THEY SIMPLY PUT ALL THIS IN WASTE PAPER BASKET,FORGETTING ONE DAY THEY WILL HAVE THERE FACE PAINTED BLACK AND TODAY INC IS BEGGING BOWL EVEN FOR A LEADER OF OPPOSITION STATUS,EXACTLY HOW THEY TREATED BJP FOR LAST FEW DECADES.SHAME,SHAME AND SHAME TO ALL INC LEADERS AND THERE MINISTERS,THEY FORGOT THERE WILL BE MAJOR UPRISING AGAINST THEM,LET THEM WAIT TO SEE ALL CORRUPT CASES OF THEM START COMING IN OPEN NOW,I WISH IF ANY OF THEM REPLY TO THIS IF THEY HAVE ANY LEFT HONESTY ? PREM SAGAR GUPTA RETD GENERAL MANAGER[ ONGC INDIA] I.D. NO 20254 COPY RPT TO EX PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA RESPECTED MANMOHAN SINGH JI VEERAPPA MOILY EX MINISTER OF PETROLEUM SONIA GANDHI/RAHUL GANDHI INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS RPT RESPECTED NARENDRA MODI PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA COPY FOR INFORMATION; TO REPEAT *CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPEAT *REGULATORU AUTHORITY BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE REPEAT *HEAD OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA +[DETAILED NOTES] Narayan Singh Rathore 22 December 2013. Friends, ONGC PRBS was going smoothly till 1995. Some disgruntled GM (Fin) took upon himself to destroy PRBS. He misguided 185 young ONGCians to file a Petition 1718/1996 in Bombay HC, contending that PRBS was not Viable Scheme. Said GM (F) managed an Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996 (without examining Financial status of the Trust). As per game plan, ONGC denied Unviability but later on produced the Actaurial Report containing some reference to unviability of PRBS. Honble HC issued Order dated 11.5.1996 calling for ASTO and ONGC to negotiate and raise / generate additional funds to make the scheme viable. Trusties manipulated under able guidance of then Dir. (HR) to revise the Scheme in totality in full violation of Para 31.2 and para 32 of the GOI appd ONGC PRBS Rules-1991 via MOU of 3.2.1998 which was neither to (a) Raise/generate Additional Funds nor (b) in the intrests of members of the Scheme. Director (F) had opined that this MOU required consideration by the Board but Dir. (HR) confirmed that There was no financial implication and hence it was not required to be submitted to the Board. 40 to 60 percent Reduction in Contribution as well as Benefit was not considered as Financial Implication. This Note was never shown to Dir (F). Numerous Representations made to CMD ONGC were just replied by some junior officer in PRBS Trust, with insistent injustice. CMD ONGC was requested to grant personal interview for Hearing our grievances but that never happened. When members started filing litigation in Courts, ONGC took offence and spending billions of rupees to defeat financially defeated members. ONGC deploys Attorney General / Solicitor Generals who prevail in not allowing Hearing of Court cases. ONGC Management is fully aware of colossal sufferings caused by poor financial standing of the Oilmen who brought ONGC to the status of Navratna and Maharatna. CMD ONGC can mitigate these severe grievances with one stroke of his Pen, for withdrawal of illegal, derogatory and un-Constitutional MOU of 3.2.1998 and Cir. 40 of 18.6.1998. You, Nirmal Kumar Srivastava, Premdass Sharma, Mathre Rangarajan and 4 others like this... Nirmal Kumar Srivastava The new defined contribution scheme wef 1st Jan 2007 is noww fully implemented with every one retired on or after 1st Jan 2007 has stared getting additional annuity as per scheme....someone retired about two years back as E-5 with total 28years service...See More 23 December 2013 at 05:24 · Like Narayan Singh Rathore Nirmal ji, you are in know of disparity, injustice and partisan approach of ONGC Management in depriving Ex ONGCians their due legitimate entitlement of PRBS during 1996 to March 2007 Why REWA Mumbai is not taking up this issue through Dialogue or lega...See More 23 December 2013 at 17:24 · Like · 1 . Nirmal Kumar Srivastava Narayan singh I am aware about the disparaties,about the money pumped earlier as well as the amount of Rs1624 one time grant paid by ONGC now to cover up the defecit for paying upto 50% or more to the retirees of 2007 onwards.As u know that we are alre...See More 23 December 2013 at 19:39 · Like · 2 . Videh Kumar I would like to have names and CPF nos. of two officers cited by Nirmalji so that I do some more study on it because I retired on 31st July 2012 but I have not received any thing so far and my querries are answered that it would take another one month and figure are not as high as indicated here by Nirmalji. Kindly oblige me Nirmakji. 29 December 2013 at 21:08 · Like .. Mathre Rangarajan Dear Sri Sri Kureel Saheb, I am very glad to note that you are an LLB from Bangalore University - I dont know in which department you worked in ONGC and when you retired - If it is after 01-01-2007 this discussion becomes only academic to you. I dont understand when you say it is too late by now. I will try to put the case as I understand in a nutshell: We have the Supreme Court judgement of 1982 in Nakras case - As it was given by a full bench under Article 14 of Constitution, I hope it is applicable to ONGC also - ONGC grossly violated this judgement in Agrni Samman case - It is in Bombay High Court. Then there is DPE pay revision order wef 01-01-2007 - It introduces two new factors under Superannuation benefits - ONE: Pension is fourth benefit in addition to CPF, Gratuity and Medical (which was not there earlier) - Two: a fund of 30% of Pay + DA to be created for each individual to cover all these benefits (again which was not there earlier) SC judgement of 1982 stipulates that as retirees are one class, any new benefit given at a later date should also be extended to all previous retirees from that date (to maintain sanctity that all retirees are one class, otherwise it divides retirees into two distinct class). Is this judgement applicable to DPE & ONGC? If so, what is our remedy - Writ petition in SC / Contempt petition in SC / PIL / or any other legal recourse. A sound legal opinion from SC advocate specializing in service matters will be highly useful to all of us. If it is worthwhile then we can persue - If it is otherwise then we can all forget and live peacefully (blaming our fate) and stop all this fruitless discussion. You being a legal person can you get one? - I dont know how much it costs - If it is reasonable I am willing to share the costs - I am sure our other friends may like to pitch in warm regards / rangarajan 18 hours ago · Like.. Srl Kureel many many thanks and regards. I am dec 2003 retiree i was CM(vig). before joining ongc I was administrative officer I I M BANGLORE till 16 feb 83 i personally feel there is good reason to persue the matter i n supreme court by way of special leave petition under ARTICLE 136 of constitution as the is not appeal from high court.pl visit www supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.html 16 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan Dear Sirs, 15 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan canwe follow up it appropriately, consultations may be needed? 15 hours ago · Unlike · 1.. Mathre Rangarajan Thank you Sri SrI Kureel Saheb for some good info - Thanks for reassuring me that there is some substance in my way of thinking and there is some good reason to pursue SLP under article 136 of constitution - I tried to look up what you suggested - but for a non-law person like me it is quite confusing - it says SLP can be against any judgement by High Court etc - But in our case it is a Govt order - it also says it need to be signed by an advocate on roll. I dont know where you are located - I am in Bangalore and SC is too far away for me - please send your personal e-mail ID & mobile No to my ID rangajan@gmail so that I can mail you in detail. Generally speaking, I am very disappointed with our Delhi Unit with proximity to ONGC top & SC and our Dehradun unit with proximity to ONGC Hqrs - They all seem to be busy in their own personal agenda - Only Mumbai unit is fighting one High Court case on behalf of all of us - Ahemedabad unit started some thing but seem to have got cold feet - All other cases in HCs are personal of individuals (they are spending their own money) - It has proved time and again, representations to all and sundry, starting from Smt Sonia Gandhi down to CMD ONGC are futile and completely ignored. I do hope there are some like minded ExONGCians out there who may like to join me in planing and executing some concrete action - Just a wishful thinking warm regards / rangarajan 7 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 3 February at 12:25 · Like · 2 Anand Chawla Why , ONGC has not given due consideration to that GROUP ? 30 May at 18:20 · Like Narayan Singh Rathore Retired after 01.01.2007 ? Pension Scheme has already been out vide OO dated 26.11.2013. 16 June at 16:13 · Unlike Mathre Rangarajan What is happening tomore tha 100 PRBS cases in various HCs and SE, & Consumer courts? Are they likely to see light of the day before I die - I am 75 17 June at 15:45 · Unlike · 1 Narayan Singh Rathore We are mistaken to expect justice against the wishes of an Oil Giant, capable of tilting judgment on the strength of M power. Unethical processes win over legitimate claims. 21 June at 16:11 · Unlike · 1 Mathre Rangarajan I had only suspected that delay may be on account of what you have said - Now you are confirming my suspicion - It is a great tragedy for us who retired before 2007 - After sacrificing our entire working life, what do we get in the end - Nothing 21 June at 17:41 · Unlike · 1 .. Narayan Singh Rathore One more Feather in Cap of CMD ONGC. His Team has proved that full justice has been done in PRBS matter, prior to Dec. 2006. False Affidavits have prevailed over True facts of grievous Manipulation by PRBS Trust. Courts find it convenient to ignore Data.details of multiple Wrongs by ONGC. 3 July at 18:24 · Unlike · 1 .. Narayan Singh Rathore Friends, MOU of 03.02.1998 was part of a well considered conspiracy, in which highly qualified Director (Pers.) played the Lead Role. No doubt even Director (Finance) did not object to the dubious concept of “Good Faith” for Financial Viability of ONGC...See More 8 July at 05:47 · Unlike · 1 .. Mathre Rangarajan How true Sri Narayan Singh Rathore Saheb - You are holding back by not naming Director(Personal) at that time for general information of all aggrieved 25000+ Ex-ONGCians. 8 July at 08:26 · Unlike · 1 Rashmi Gupta I worked with ONGC for 27 yrs and then took bars in 2008 as cc .Without commuting any money I was getting rd. 5800 now I am getting around rs.9800.So why this discrepancy.I was not able to understand their calculations 1 August at 21:19 · Unlike · 1 .. Narayan Singh Rathore Rashmi ji, this difference is due to implementation of ONGCs new Pension Scheme effective from January 2007. If u want to know calculation, then post yr biodata on my email, I will work out the pension. 3 August at 20:22 · Edited · Like . Narayan Singh Rathore Friends, Its indeed very sad that in our Ahmedabad case, judge seems to be ex-legal counsel of ONGC. The decision is based on total bias and based on false and misleading Affidavits of ONGC. 3 August at 20:32 · Like . Narayan Singh Rathore 08.08.2014: FB: Friends, I am happy to inform you all that ONGC is celebrating its Raising Day on 12th August, 2014 at New Delhi, with a total indifference to the severe grievances of employees who retired during January 1992 to December 2006. Even some of the High Courts have ignored the falsity of ONGC’s Affidavits and supported the wrong contentions made by the Trustees on behalf of the CMD, ONGC. I have note with cruciating pain that even the M/s KA Pandit, Actuary joined hands with Trustees of ONGC PRBS Trust to support the Conspiracy to sabotage the smooth going ONGC Pension Scheme of 1990. In their Actuarial Report dated 2.8.1996 the Actuary pointed out 78% rise in Salary as on 1.1.1992 but kept the calculation of Additional Cash Contribution at 7.25% annual escalation and not 78% as realized by them. This was with clear objective to reduce the Corpus of the Fund and resultant reduction in the Pension benefit. Actuary ignored their own recommendation made in Actuary Report dated 17.04.1990 which formed Base for formation of the ONGC PRBS 1990. I am quoting here under their Recommendation: - QUOTE (.) “6. It is suggested that if the monetised value of some of the benefits (which also escalate in cost even more than the salary increase) is used to finance the pension scheme, it will be possible to operate this scheme without any initial contribution from Commission or any additional liability on them.” And “7. If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetised value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefits will escalate in future) the value of benefit accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.” UNQUOTE (.) Same Actuary again forgot aforesaid recommendation while making another Actuarial Reports dated 13.4.1998 wherein “Additional contribution Rs.468 per member p.m. esc @ 11% p.a.” was retained fully exhibiting their ignorance that 78% rise in Salary was observed on 1.1.1990 and another rise of more than 100% was based for Pay Revision 1997, all on the Basis of “Cost of Living Price Index”. Was it not dishonesty in Professional ethics for Govt. approved Actuary ? ONGC PRBS Trust has been fooling around every where that Actuary was consulted while signing the dubious MOU on 3.2.1998 and another similar MOU on 9.4.2007. ASTO (CWC) is said to have Negotiated for 40 to 60 percent reduction in Pension benefit as well as Fixed Percent Contribution whereas Court Order required to “Raise/Generate Additional funds”. All above action miss ordinary Prudence. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava We are not in India...we r at California with our son Pankaj and his family for abt 3 months....shall be back by 13th Aug only.After we return back to Mumbai and meet Mr DK Saraf I shall answer your querry.In my personal opinion the new team would prove to be better. 14 June at 00:06 · Unlike · 1 .Since quite some time past I have been thinking about the TAX DEDUDUCTION on Medical reimbursement beyond, Rs.15000=of What is the status of a retired or so to say separated employee in ONGC (those who retired prior to 2006?) Does ONGC have any responsibility to provide for Medical attendance? If so, under which service rule? At least it cannot be the CENTRAL GOVT RULES for retirement. What is the sanctity of LUMPSUM amount that one deposits with ONGC at the time of retiremen... Inder Chatta My dear Gurdarshan BhaiJi,Nice of you having liked it but I earnestly request your good self to kindly get it clarifide, as in ONGC we have been seeing, that for such matters, the officers ,who matter for this, follow the rule of LAKEER KE FAQEER 24 April at 20:27 · Like · 1 .. Premdass Sharma LAST YEAR I GOT A CERTIFICATE FROM OFFICE CALLED DEDUCTION AT SOURCE CERTIFICATE where entire amount paid to me including medical reimbursement (BEYOND RS.15000) was shown as my income and I had to deposit good amount as income tax at the time of e fi...See More 13 May at 11:24 · Like · 1 Inder Chatta Nirmal Ji ,It is very nice of you having enlightening us with multiferrious advices for keeping good health . But sir do you know that all the old age problems cropp up due to shortage of VITAMIN ( M ).Do please keep us hopefull from time to time,by feeding something good news about expected INCOME from ONGC. Kum se Kum Dil to Bahal hee Jayega for the time being. 17 April at 20:40 · Like .. Narayan Singh Rathore We Ex-ONGCians have developed reliance on Charity and not our due Entitlement. Those who struggle for Constitutional Right, are singled out for deprivation. Why elites do not adopt Legal Process for legitimate right to receive Pension as Scheme offered by ONGC and accepted by Officers ? 30 April at 05:06 · Like DPE GUIDELINES FOR OWN PENSION SCHEME OF CPSE (ONGC) 1. DPE OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC) dated 26th November 2008: - “Para 12: Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the customer (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.” 1.1. Para V of Annex.-IV:... Continue Reading Premdass Sharma ONLY ONE RANK ONE PENSION type SCHEME should come to our rescue 19 February at 20:27 · Unlike · 1 28 March at 06:00 · Like · 1 Inder Chatta Nirmal ji ,it is nice of u posting such rich infomation here. But the fact remains such information is only usefull for those,who can efford,at least i am sure people like me it is just notpossible with ₹2824=00 as PRBS. Kindly show us some way to survive till u get us some respectfull amount just to sustain,. 30 March at 20:42 · Edited · Like Nirmal Kumar Srivastava Narayan singh I am aware about the disparaties,about the money pumped earlier as well as the amount of Rs1624 one time grant paid by ONGC now to cover up the defecit for paying upto 50% or more to the retirees of 2007 onwards.As u know that we are already involved in a case of Agrani Samman in Bombay High Court and the management once agreed to settle the issue amicably has backed out from their own commitments ...we r left with no alternative except to persue our case with Bombay High Court only.It clearly shows that how much concern they have for our issues.In view of above how do u expect that they will listen to us in PRBS case which does,nt cover 100% retirees pre 2007.While Agrani Samman can cover 21000 retirees,PRBS will cover only 10,700 retirees minus retirees of Jan to March 2007 who are now covered by ONGC in the new scheme.It will be better if some other Association come forward to discuss PRBS issue with management.I personally feel that Nandram will be able to do it after change of guard wef 1st March with Shri DK Sarraf....who is tipped to be next CMD and is a man of Finance known to Nandram. 23 December 2013 at 19:39 · Like · 2 .. Videh Kumar I would like to have names and CPF nos. of two officers cited by Nirmalji so that I do some more study on it because I retired on 31st July 2012 but I have not received any thing so far and my querries are answered that it would take another one month and figure are not as high as indicated here by Nirmalji. Kindly oblige me Nirmakji. 29 December 2013 at 21:08 · Like .. Prem Sagar Gupta Mathre Rangarajan Dear Sri Sri Kureel Saheb, I am very glad to note that you are an LLB from Bangalore University - I dont know in which department you worked in ONGC and when you retired - If it is after 01-01-2007 this discussion becomes only academic to you. I dont understand when you say it is too late by now. I will try to put the case as I understand in a nutshell: We have the Supreme Court judgement of 1982 in Nakras case - As it was given by a full bench under Article 14 of Constitution, I hope it is applicable to ONGC also - ONGC grossly violated this judgement in Agrni Samman case - It is in Bombay High Court. Then there is DPE pay revision order wef 01-01-2007 - It introduces two new factors under Superannuation benefits - ONE: Pension is fourth benefit in addition to CPF, Gratuity and Medical (which was not there earlier) - Two: a fund of 30% of Pay + DA to be created for each individual to cover all these benefits (again which was not there earlier) SC judgement of 1982 stipulates that as retirees are one class, any new benefit given at a later date should also be extended to all previous retirees from that date (to maintain sanctity that all retirees are one class, otherwise it divides retirees into two distinct class). Is this judgement applicable to DPE & ONGC? If so, what is our remedy - Writ petition in SC / Contempt petition in SC / PIL / or any other legal recourse. A sound legal opinion from SC advocate specializing in service matters will be highly useful to all of us. If it is worthwhile then we can persue - If it is otherwise then we can all forget and live peacefully (blaming our fate) and stop all this fruitless discussion. You being a legal person can you get one? - I dont know how much it costs - If it is reasonable I am willing to share the costs - I am sure our other friends may like to pitch in warm regards / rangarajan 18 hours ago · Like.. Srl Kureel many many thanks and regards. I am dec 2003 retiree i was CM(vig). before joining ongc I was administrative officer I I M BANGLORE till 16 feb 83 i personally feel there is good reason to persue the matter i n supreme court by way of special leave petition under ARTICLE 136 of constitution as the is not appeal from high court.pl visit www supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.html 16 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan Dear Sirs, 15 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan canwe follow up it appropriately, consultations may be needed? 15 hours ago · Unlike · 1.. Mathre Rangarajan Thank you Sri SrI Kureel Saheb for some good info - Thanks for reassuring me that there is some substance in my way of thinking and there is some good reason to pursue SLP under article 136 of constitution - I tried to look up what you suggested - but for a non-law person like me it is quite confusing - it says SLP can be against any judgement by High Court etc - But in our case it is a Govt order - it also says it need to be signed by an advocate on roll. I dont know where you are located - I am in Bangalore and SC is too far away for me - please send your personal e-mail ID & mobile No to my ID rangajan@gmail so that I can mail you in detail. Generally speaking, I am very disappointed with our Delhi Unit with proximity to ONGC top & SC and our Dehradun unit with proximity to ONGC Hqrs - They all seem to be busy in their own personal agenda - Only Mumbai unit is fighting one High Court case on behalf of all of us - Ahemedabad unit started some thing but seem to have got cold feet - All other cases in HCs are personal of individuals (they are spending their own money) - It has proved time and again, representations to all and sundry, starting from Smt Sonia Gandhi down to CMD ONGC are futile and completely ignored. I do hope there are some like minded ExONGCians out there who may like to join me in planing and executing some concrete action - Just a wishful thinking *The rules of the game is to properly implement the Law which does not jeopardies interests of the any of the stake holders which include ; [1] welfare of all the employees both currently serving and ex retired sr citizens ; [2] The interests of the public sector in the best interests, with out creating any discrimination, keeping harmony and welfare of those 28000, EX SR RETIREES who worked tirelessly for last 25 years wef /1/1/90 until 31/12/2006 to ensure this to become A NAV RTANA INTERNATIONAL CO AND PUT ONGC INDIA ON THE WORLD MAP; [3] THE INTERSTS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS,TO CONFIRM THE FAIR AND RIGHT FUNDS ONLY ARE ACTUALLY USED FOR WELFARE WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION OR ANY FAVOURTO NONE; [4] THE INTERESTS OF THE INCOME TAX AND EXCHEQUER THAT NO ONE MISUSING THE CLAUSE FOR CHEATING,ROBBING AND MANIPULATING FOR SELFISH MEANSAND ITS USEAGE; [5] THIS MANUPULATION OF FUNDS ARE CONTINUING TO THE EXTENT OF Rs 1695 CRORES IN THE YEAR 2013 DEDUCING BEFORE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FUNDS OF THE YEAR,THUS MAKING MOCKERY OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM FAILURE OF FAIR PLAY TO INTERESTS OF ALL; ++{HOW THIS SYASTEM CREATED PROBLEMS} [A] IT DISCRIMINATED THE EX SR RETIREES TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE MONEY WAS TRASFERRED FROM THE FUNDS WAS USED IN PRB LINKED PENSION ONLY FOR THE EXISTING EMPLOYEES AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE PRB LINKED PENSION INCREAESD MANIFOLD COMPARED TO THE EX SR RETIREES,THERE BY ANY ONE RETIRING AFYTER 1/1/2007 WILL GET PRB LINKED PENSION OF FROM Rs 25,000 TO Rs 75,000 AS COMARED TO Rs 1500 TO Rs 3000 ONLY,THUS MAKING THERE LIFE HORRIBLE OF 28000 EMPLOYEES, ONLY BY TTRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM PROFITS. [B] MR SHARMA EX CMD OF ONGC WAS TACTICAL ENOUGH TO MANIPULATE THE CLAUSE OF USING FUNDS,SINCE HE WANTED TO FIX HIS PRB LIKED PENSION OF Rs 15,000/- BEFORE HE LEAVES ONGC INDIA SERVING AFTER SERVING 20 YEARS OF SERVICE BY FIXING HIS PENSION IN A BIG HURRY. [C] 95 COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OF INC LEAD BY UPA MINISTARY OF PETROLEUM,THE PRIME MINSTER OF INDIA,THE INC PRESIDENT,THE OPPOSITION LEADERS,THE CHAIRMAN OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BUT OF NO AVAIL, TO SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH BUT EFFECT. [D]INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DID NOT ACT TO SERVE A NOTICE ON ONGC INDIA FOR CHEATING OF HUNDRED OF CRORES DUE TO ITS KITTY SINCE THESE FUNDS WERE ONLY TO BE USED FOR WELFARE AND NOT FOR PAY REVISION; [E]THE MINSTARY OF FINANCE IS ALSO NOT BOTHERED TO LOOK IN TO THIS SERIOUS VIOLATIONS TAKING PLACE TO DEDUCT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY NOT FOR WELFARE BUT USED FOR PAY REVISION, [F]SURELY HUMAN RIGHTS WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED ANY DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS. [G]THE SHARE HOLDERS WERE ROBBED OF THE DIVIDENDS,SINCE THEY NEVER UNDERSTOOD,WHY THE ONGC INDIA NOT GIVING THEM THE DUE RETURNS FOR THE MONEY INVESTED BY THEM. [H] I ALSO WANT TO MAKE A SINCERE APPEAL TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE RESERVE BANK,THE CHIARMAN OF SEBI ,THE CHIEF REGULATOR OF THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANG TO LOOK IN TO THE WHOLE MISUSE OF RULES OF GOVERNANCE FRAMED BY THE NAV RATNA PSU,s & THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA; [I] I ALSO WANT A CBI ENQUIRY TO BE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IMMEDIATELY; I ALSO WANT A CBI ENQUIRY,A CRIMINAL ENQUIRY AGAINST MR SHARMA EX CMD OF ONGC INDIA AND MINISTARY OF PETROLEUM TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE ,SINCE HUNDREDS OF CASES ARE PENDING IN DIFFERENT COURTS OF INDIA SINCE 2007, TO BE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IMMEDIATELY; You and JP Sharma like this. ++ Prem Sagar Gupta EX-ONGCIANS Friends, Namaskar. This is to inform you all that ONGCs actions in reducing amount of Pension have been commented upon adversely by Honble Courts. Any MOU for bad intentions can not be justified. Sufferings imposed by ONGC on stalwarts ( retired prior to April 2007) who brought ONGC to the Stature of Navratna & Maharatna, will be addressed soon for relief. In the mean time, lets prepare to approach Honble Supreme Court for implementation of verdicts by Honble High Court. +It is well established fact that CMD of ONGC is unlikely to implement any verdict which would be in favour of Ex-ONGCians superannuated/retired upto 31.03.2007. We all know that existing Directors & CMD are reasonably well protected for living a reasonably standard retired life. Our Contributions for this purpose may please be remitted to our Ahmedabad Assn. Regards. Please Share it for info of other friends [ Prem Sagar Gupta to Capt Rathoresays;] +VIOLATIONS & DISCRIMINATIONS IN ONGC PRBS-1990/1991 Friends, there may be some repeatitions but necessary as a compact NOTE. 1. In matters of “Fixed Percent Contribution”: - 1.1. Clause incorporated in the Scheme “The rate of contribution as may be applicable as per age bracket above at the time of admission to the scheme shall remain unaltered through out the service period of the member.” PRBS Trust altered this Rate several times; 2. Grievous Discriminations in grant of Pension: - 2.1. Pension granted on actual Last Salary as per Scheme: 1.4.1990 to 31.12.1991; 2.2. Pension granted on Pre-revised last salary: 1.1.1992 to 31.10.1995; 2.2. Past Service Pension & Future Service Pension on different Scales: - (a). Past Service Pension on Salary of 31.12.1991, (b). Future Service Pension on salary of 31.12.1991 upto 10.1.1996 when salary stood revised from 1.1.1992, (for retirees upto 10.1.1996); (c) Future Service Pension on Notional Salary: Pre-revised salary on 15.11.1995 escalated to arrive at Last Notional Salary: 1.11.1995 to 30.6.2000, for retirees after 10.1.1996; (d). None of above (under Defined Corpus): 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2007; (e). Future Service Pension on Notional Salary: Revised salary on 15.11.1995 escalated to arrive at Last Notional Salary: For retirees after 1.4.2007; 2.3. Pension under secret (un-notified) device of Defined Corpus: PRBS Trust did not purchase Annuity by paying matching Corpus. Trust simply remitted some Corpus to LIC. LIC Fixed Pension without any Consideration to Entitlement: 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2007; 2.4. Notional Salary arrived at on basis of Revised Salary on 15.11.1995: 1.4.2007 onwards. 3. Discriminations in levy of Fixed % contribution: - 3.1. Rate of Fixed contribution reduced by 50% for Age Gp “Below 25 yrs; 3.2. Rate of contribution reduced by 25% for Age Gp. 25 to 30 yrs; 3.3. Rate of contribution raised by 0.50 % for age 48 to 50 yrs, by carving out from existing Age Gp “Above 45 & upto 50 yrs”. No reasons were ever given for this disfavour. Objection was raised by Petitioner in 1991 itself but ignored by Trustees. 4. In matter of Appreciation of Future (Contributory) Service: - 4.1. No appreciation to start from 1.4.1990; 4.2. Appreciation Formula (1 + FS x .6/100) x FS (FS is Future Serv. after 1.4.1990) upto 10.1.1996; 4.3. Appreciation Formula (1 + FS x .6/100) x FS + .0002 x (FS x FS x FS) after 10.1.1996. 5. MOU of 3.2.1998 said to be in compliance of Ad-interim Order dated 5.11.1996 of Bombay H. C. in matter of WP 1718/1996: 5.1. Court Order was for Negotiation “To raise/generate Additional Funds”. Actuarial recommendation of KA Pandit to make the Scheme viable was duly cited by Hon’ble H.C. i.e. “M/s K. A. Pandit have recommended that to make the scheme viable it is necessary to raise funds from the sources available. +The fund position should be reviewed especially when there is a change on account of wage negotiation or long term recruitment policy. It is recommended that in order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. + It is also recommended that any difference of annuity cost because of above salary rise and interest payable to LIC for 1992 to date of payment of annuity should be raised in such a way that it does not pose undue problems to the existing members.” 5.1. While it was well within powers of ONGC/PRBS Trust to raise the Additional Cash Contribution by same level as that of rise in salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992, 78% on the basis of said Actuarial recommendation, even a mention was not made of this positive recommendation. All Modifications to Provisions of the Scheme were neither to raise/ generate additional funds nor in best (rather least) interests of members. Adverse affects of MOU: - (a). It reduced existing source of fixed % contribution by 40 to 60%, contrary to Court Order; (b). Prevented implementation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996 to recover Fixed % contribution on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992, causing recurring loss under all Pay Revisions; (c). Caused 40 to 60% reduction in Pension benefits, during 16.11.1995 to June 2000; (d). Provided opportunity to Trustees for mis-interpretation of existing Provision under Para 7 of the Scheme and Para 32 of Rules-1991 which led to unscrupulous adoption of secret device called “Defined Corpus” which further reduced pension by 10 to 25%. Conversion of Pension Defined Scheme into Defined Corpus was never referred to Comp. Authority for prior approval as required under the governing PRBS Rules-1991. (e). If viewed in totality, none of the Provisions of MOU of 3.2.1998 were in compliance of Ad-interim Order dated 5.11.1996: - (a). Scheme was exposed to assured un-viability; (b). Members were exposed to undeserved financial hardships; (c). It violated Provisions of PRBS, PRBS Rules, Statutory EFPS-19971, EPS-1995 and above all the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under our Constitution. 6. Defined Corpus has been secretly re-converted into “Defined Pension” under another MOU of 9.4.2007 w.e.f 1.4.2007. 7. It is obvious that there were no negotiations/discussions by ASTO & Petitioners to dislodge the smooth going Pension Scheme. Even an imbecile would not negotiate to reduce his existing benefits. Hon’ble Madras H.C. had clearly expressed that “It is presumed that ASTO has acted in the best interests of its Members”. Above facts are proof itself that neither ASTO nor ONGC acted to protect the interests & rights of members of the Scheme. 8. Since Scheme & Rules were approved by Central Govt., they assumed status of Statutes and all modification were subject to re-approval of Govt. Para (v) of GOI letter dated 18.9.1991 specifically directed ONGC that “In future ONGC will not implement any scheme on its own which requires prior approval of Government.” ONGC revised the Scheme/Rules-1991 several times but they were not even referred the Board of ONGC. Hence all revisions are Null & Void, legally untenable. 9. PRBS Trust made deductions from Gross Corpus which were neither due nor authorised. Hence need to be refunded with Penal interest of 18% p.a. [B] MR SHARMA EX CMD OF ONGC WAS TACTICAL ENOUGH TO MANIPULATE THE CLAUSE OF USING FUNDS,SINCE HE WANTED TO FIX HIS PRB LIKED PENSION OF Rs 15,000/- BEFORE HE LEAVES ONGC INDIA SERVING AFTER SERVING 20 YEARS OF SERVICE BY FIXING HIS PENSION IN A BIG HURRY.,COMPARED TO PETTY PENSION OF RS 2500/- PER MONTH TO 28000, SR RETIRED SENIOR CITIZENS WHO WORKED FOR 35 TO 40 YEARS,WAS IT RIGHT OR WRONG, + ALL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS IN ONGC AND MINISTARY OF CHEMICALS MUST BE SEALED AND ENQUIRY ORDERED IMMEDIATELY,OTHERWISE THERE IS GOING TO BE NATION WISE CRITISIM FOR MAKING THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE ONGC SCIENTIST AND ENGINEERS +FROM 1/1/90 TO 31/12/2006 WORST,POOR AND DESPARATE,GIVING EVEN THE BSF FULL PENSION AS PER THE MILITARY,WHY ONE PENSION ONE POST NOT IMPLEMENTED FOR THEM TOO.,WHO BY THERE HARD WORK MADE THE ONGC AS MAHA RATNA. ++ A JOKE WAS PLAYED BY THE MINISTARY AND ONGC FOR GIVING ASSISTANCE OF Rs 1650/- PER MONTH OR Rs 2,40,000 PER YEAR WITH CONDITION OF THESE PEOPLE TO GIVE CERTIFICATE THAT THEY ARE EARNING NOT MORE THAN Rs 40,000/- PER MONTH,IS IT NOT SHAME,SHAME . + I ALSO WANT A CBI ENQUIRY TO BE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IMMEDIATELY; I ALSO WANT A CBI ENQUIRY,A CRIMINAL ENQUIRY AGAINST MR SHARMA EX CMD OF ONGC INDIA AND MINISTARY OF PETROLEUM TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE ,SINCE HUNDREDS OF CASES ARE PENDING IN DIFFERENT COURTS OF INDIA SINCE 2007, TO BE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IMMEDIATELY; PREM SAGAR GUPTA Retd GENRAL MANAGER [TECH ]ONGC INDIA CPF NO 20254
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 23:03:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015