Following the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations coupled with a Bharatiya Janata Party-led government's decision, the State Government raised the age of retirement for its employees to 60 on May 29, 1998. However, it reversed its decision on February 2, this year. Accordingly, 16,344 State Government employees were retired from the services on February 28, 1999.

The Maharashtra Civil Services Rules provide for a three months' notice to a retiring government personnel. The three months' time before actual retirement is used to complete the necessary paper work for the payment of pension and other consequential benefits such as gratuity and leave salary.

However, with an abrupt decision on reducing the retirement age,neither three months notices were served on employees nor the formalities for pension and other retirement benefits were completed for all those February 28 retirees. However, aware of the situation arising out of its decision, the Government issued orders to the divisional and regional heads of various departments to grant provisional pensions and payment of gratuity and leave salaries to the retired lot, immediately within a month.

The directions seems to have been set at naught, and still a large number of retired employees have been waiting for provisional pension, and other dues, a formerly senior government man who did not want to be quoted for obvious reasons, told The Indian Express.

Indeed what could be described as irony of fate, the Government employees have to taste the bitter experience of `red-tapism and bureaucracy.'

Explaining apathy, one of the retired employee of the irrigation department narrated that according to the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules and the Government ordersissued on March 24, last all those retired in February 1999 should have got the provisional pension, at least, besides gratuity and leave salary, pending orders for final pension, without making any application for the purpose. However, out of anxiety to have provisional pension early, on loss of regular income for sustenance of his family, he made an application to the divisional head, in March 1999.

According to rules, his provisional pension should have been assessed and calculated on the basis of old pay scale. However, the divisional office, calculated it on the basis of revised pay scales following the application of Fifth Pay Commission to government servants. As a result, the orders with provisional pension bill were rejected by the Treasury Officer here.

Again, the provisional pension was revised according to old pay scales, as provided in the rules; to his astonishment, the pension bill was sent unsigned by the divisional head concerned and again the pension bill was returned unrealised by theTreasury Officer.

However, on rejection of the pension bill for the second time, the divisional office was much more conspicuous in negligence, by sending the rejected bills with signature. As a result, for the third time, the provisional pension bill with orders was rejected, and still he could get neither the provisional pension nor the gratuity according to rules.

Another retired employee in the Irrigation Department here on the condition of anonymity said that he had not received the provisional pension so far; the matter was tossed up; but he could secure the leave salary, only when he threatened to immolate himself in the office of the Superintending Engineer.