Centre amends key pension rules; PSU employees to lose retirement benefits on dismissal
The
Personnel Ministry
has effected key changes in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 in this regard.
According to the recently-notified Central Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2025, "the dismissal or removal from service of the public sector undertaking of any employee after his absorption in such undertaking for any subsequent misconduct shall lead to forfeiture of the retirement benefits" for the service rendered under the government also.
"...and in the event of his dismissal or removal or retrenchment the decision of the undertaking shall be subject to review by the ministry administratively concerned with the undertaking," read the new rules notified on May 22.
Earlier, the rules did not allow forfeiture of the retirement benefits in case of dismissal or removal from service of the public sector undertaking employee, after his absorption in such undertaking, for any subsequent misconduct.
Live Events
The new rules further said that the provisions related to continuation or grant of "pension and family pension subject to future good conduct" and "compassionate allowance" would also be applicable on such dismissed or retrenched employees.
The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 apply to the government servants appointed on or before December 31, 2003, except "railway servants", "persons in casual and daily rated employment" and officers of Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (
IPS
) and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC wants Chandrachud to vacate CJI bungalow
The Supreme Court administration has taken the unprecedented step of writing to the Union government seeking the official Chief Justice residence be urgently vacated and returned to the court's housing pool, noting that its current occupant —former CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud — has stayed beyond the permissible period. Former CJI DY Chandrachud A July 1 communication from the Supreme Court, seen by HT, to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) has demanded that Bungalow No. 5 on Krishna Menon Marg in Lutyens' Delhi -- the designated residence for India's sitting CJI, be vacated immediately. 'I am to request you to take the possession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg, from Hon'ble Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud without any further delay as not only the permission that was granted for retention... has expired on 31st May, 2025, but also the period of six months provided in Rule 3B of the 2022 Rules has expired on 10th May, 2025,' read the letter from a Supreme Court official to the MoHUA secretary. HT has seen this letter. Justice Chandrachud, who served as the 50th CJI between November 2022 and November 2024, currently occupies the Type VIII bungalow nearly eight months after demitting office. Two successive CJIs — Justices Sanjiv Khanna and the incumbent Bhushan R Gavai — chose not to move into the premises, opting instead to continue living in their previously allotted bungalows. When contacted, Justice Chandrachud attributed the delay to compelling personal circumstances of which the Supreme Court administration was fully informed. He clarified that he had already been allotted alternative accommodation by the government on rent for a limited period, and was only waiting for it to be made livable after years of disuse. As per the July 1 communication, on December 18, 2024 -- just over a month after he retired, Justice Chandrachud wrote to then CJI Khanna, seeking permission to continue residing at 5 Krishna Menon Marg until April 30, 2025. In his letter, Justice Chandrachud said that although he had been allotted Bungalow No. 14 on Tughlak Road in accordance with Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022, renovation work at the new residence had been stalled due to pollution-related construction restrictions under GRAP-IV. 'It would be more convenient if I am permitted to retain the existing accommodation at 5 Krishna Menon Marg till 30 April 2025,' wrote Justice Chandrachud, while offering to forgo the Tughlak Road bungalow so it could be allotted to another judge. Rule 3B of the 2022 Rules permits a retired Chief Justice to retain Type VII accommodation, which is a notch below the Krishna Menon Marg bungalow (Type VIII), for a maximum of six months post-retirement. In the wake of the then CJI's nod, MoHUA approved the retention of the Type VIII bungalow at Krishna Menon Marg by Justice Chandrachud from December 11, 2024, to April 30, 2025 on payment of licence fees of ₹5,430 per month. This was conveyed by MoHUA to the Supreme Court via a letter dated February 13, 2025. The July 1 letter added that Justice Chandrachud subsequently made an oral request to the CJI to continue residing at the same premises until May 31, 2025, which was granted with a caveat -- no further extension would be allowed as other judges, elevated in the interim, were living in guest houses or waiting for a bungalow allotment. The July 1 letter further underscores the breach of both the permission timeline and the statutory framework. It notes that Rule 3B entitles a retired Chief Justice to only a Type VII residence for six months, a period that ended for Justice Chandrachud on May 10, 2025. The communication also clarified that while the Krishna Menon Marg residence was permitted due to 'special circumstances,' the understanding was that it would be vacated after the agreed-upon extension till May-end. With that deadline having lapsed, the administration has now pressed the ministry to 'take possession without any further delay' and confirm to the Supreme Court. The letter marks a rare instance of formal intervention by the apex court to reclaim its highest official residence from a former occupant, and that too a former CJI. While informal extensions and grace periods post-retirement are not uncommon in the judiciary or bureaucracy, a letter seeking urgent action is unheard of at this level. Justice Chandrachud said: 'I have already been allotted an accommodation by the government on rent and that house is currently under renovation because it was shut for the last at least two years. I informed the Supreme Court about this allotment, making it clear I will shift the very next day that the house is ready,' he added. Justice Chandrachud also shared that the delay was, in part, due to the needs of his family, particularly his two daughters, both of whom require special care. 'I have two daughters with special needs, which is why it has taken me some time to look for a house appropriate for their needs,' he said. 'My daughters have severe comorbidities and genetic problems – particularly nemaline myopathy, for which they are being treated by specialists at AIIMS. I totally understand it is my personal issue. But I should also make it clear why it has taken me so long to look for a house, and this is something I have already discussed with the judges and the officers in the Supreme Court.' The former CJI maintained that the issue would soon be resolved and that he remained fully aware of the obligations that came with his past office. 'It is a matter of just a few days and I will shift… I have occupied the highest judicial office and I am completely cognisant of my responsibilities. To be sure, former CJIs in the past have been allowed extended time to retain government accommodation post-retirement, often to facilitate transition or address personal exigencies,' Justice Chandrachud emphasised. The former CJI further cited an April 28 letter that he wrote to the then CJI, Justice Khanna, informing him that he was in the process of shortlisting accommodation, given the special needs that his daughters had, seeking extension till June 30.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Santosh Lad denies ministers' rift with CM
Ballari: Labour minister Santosh Lad dismissed speculations on Saturday regarding cabinet ministers' alleged dissatisfaction with chief minister 's leadership. During a press interaction on Saturday, Lad questioned the basis of these claims and urged the media to address substantial state issues. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Who has claimed that ministers are dissatisfied with the CM? Who informed the media about this discontent? Please refrain from raising such unfounded questions. Instead, let's focus on the challenges facing the state," he stated. Discussing development funds, Lad noted that the state administration should seek clarification from the Centre regarding the lack of financial support. "It is true that grants for MLA HR Gaviyappa were not received. But, you have to ask him directly for details. We recently presented a budget and allocated more funds than the previous BJP administration. We have invested more across various departments when compared to them," he remarked. Lad noted that small variations within a democratic system are normal and asked the media not to interpret it as a form of governmental instability. Regarding Aland MLA BR Patil's recent statements, he said, "CM and Deputy CM communicated with him. If people are questioning whether Siddaramaiah will serve his full term, they should also inquire if Prime Minister Modi will complete his term. Our govt is enjoying full majority, while Modi's is a coalition. " Concerning BJP leader CN Ravikumar's contentious statements, Lad said the choice to apologise rests with him. However, "Such comparisons are disrespectful. He previously insulted a Muslim officer by labelling her a Pakistani, and now he has disrespected a Hindu woman. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Is Shalini Rajanish not a Hindu? Why demean her? We inhabit a society where people should feel ashamed of such statements. Such comments do not contribute to development. Everyone should learn how to communicate appropriately in public," Lad said. When asked about Ballari district minister BZ Zameer Ahmed Khan's absence and insufficient attention to the district, Santosh Lad said, "I will discuss this with him."
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
What are the pros and cons of the Employment-Linked Incentive scheme?
The story so far:The Union Cabinet approved an Employment-Linked Incentive (ELI) scheme with an outlay of ₹99,446 crore. The scheme, a promise made in the 2024-25 budget, is aimed at creating employment, particularly in the manufacturing sector. It is a part of the Prime Minister's package of five schemes to facilitate employment such as internships with big companies and measures to improve skills of the youth. What are the key provisions? The ELI scheme, according to the Labour Ministry, incentivises creation of more than 3.5 crore jobs over a period of two years. The Centre expects 1.92 crore newly employed people to get the benefit of the scheme, which comes into operation from August 1, 2025 and ends on July 31, 2027. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) will implement the scheme. Newly recruited employees, with salaries up to ₹1 lakh, will get a one-month EPF wage up to ₹15,000 in two installments. The EPFO will pay the first instalment after six months of service and the second instalment after 12 months of service — both as direct bank transfer. A portion of the incentive will be kept in 'a savings instrument of deposit account for a fixed period and can be withdrawn by the employee at a later date'. The establishments, registered with EPFO, will get up to ₹3,000 per month, for two years, 'for each additional employee with sustained employment for at least six months'. The Centre adds that for the manufacturing sector, incentives will be extended to third and fourth years as well. How have employers responded? Employers have welcomed the scheme, with caveats. Former Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry president Subhrakant Panda said that ELI is a 'laudable initiative'. It will drive employment, especially in the manufacturing sector, through an innovative approach which combines support for those joining the workforce for the first time with incentives for creating sustained employment, he added. CII's office-bearer Sachit Jain said the ELI scheme has the potential to reshape India's employment landscape and boost labour-intensive sectors. The Sangh Parivar-backed Laghu Udyog Bharati pointed out that the focus of the scheme must be directed towards micro, small manufacturing units and allied service sectors. 'We also urge that units with less than 20 employees, which form the majority, are not left behind. These units must be included under the scheme benefits,' it demanded in a statement. The founder of the Association of Indian Entrepreneurs, K.E. Raghunathan, told The Hindu that the scheme must be repositioned under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, with a structured reimbursement model based on actual payroll data addition. 'For every new employee a specific percentage of the salary must be paid to the employee and employer as a subsidy directly on a monthly basis, as long as the employee remains in service. Make it simple and ensure a wider coverage,' he suggested. What about trade unions? Barring the RSS-backed Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), all 10 central trade unions have questioned the scheme. The BMS has welcomed the ELI scheme with a rider that the government must expand the social security base and improve the quality of employment. Other unions fear that workers' money will be used to incentivise employers. Citing the fate of the Production-Linked Incentive of 2020, wherein certain sectors were given sops by the Centre to create jobs, but the money had gone into the pockets of big companies. They argued that the EPFO had to conduct a probe and ban certain companies after finding the scheme was misused for employers' benefits. What are some of the concerns? There are concerns on the role of the EPFO in the scheme. As EPFO is only a custodian of savings of employees, unions are asking how it can act as an agency to implement the scheme. As the EPFO has no government funds in its books, there are doubts over the reimbursement of the money which could go to the employer or a newly recruited employee. As EPFO is not an agency with the responsibility of creating jobs, there are demands to create a separate agency to implement the scheme. Industry experts are also questioning why the government is not addressing the slowdown in the economy, and not taking steps to improve the purchasing power of workers.
