Children Education Allowance Scheme – Clarification (December 2010)

No. 12011/08/2010-Estt.(AL)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 30 th December, 2010

Office Memorandum

Sub: Children Education Allowance Scheme – Clarification

Subsequent to issue of this Department OM No. 12011/32008-Estt (Allowance) dated 02/09/2008 and clarificatory OMs dated 11/11/2008, 23/11/2009 and OM No. 12011/16/2009-(.Allowance) dated dated 13/11/2009 on the Children Education Allowance (CEA) Scheme, this Department has been receiving references from various Departments, seeking further clarifications.

The doubts raised are clarified as under:-

(i). Whether CEA is admissible to a Government Servant who ceases to be in service due to  retirement, discharge, dismissal or removal from service in the course of an academic year ?	CEA/hostel subsidy shall be admissible till the end of the academic year in which the  Government servant ceased to be in service due to retirement, discharge, dismissal or  removal from service in the course  of an academic year. The payment shall be made by the office in which the Govt. servant worked prior to these  events and will be regulated by the other conditions laid down under CEA scheme.
(ii). Whether Children  of  a Government servant  who dies while in  service are still   eligible for reimbursement under the new CEA scheme?	If  a Government servant dies while in service, the  Children Education  Allowance  or hostel subsidy shall be admissible in respect of his/her children subject to observance of  other conditions for its grant provided the wife/husband of the deceased is not employed in service of the Central Govt., State Government, Autonomous Body, PSU, Semi-Government Organization such as Municipality, Post Trust Authority or any  other organization  partly  or  fully funded by the Central Govt/State Governments.  In  such  cases  the CEA/Hostel  Subsidy shall be  payable to  the  children  till  such  time the employee would  have  actually received the  same, subject to  the condition that other terms and conditions are  fulfilled. The  payment  shall  be  made  by  the office  in which the Govt. servant  was working  prior  to  his  death and  will  be regulated  by the other  condition laid down under CEA Scheme
iii) Whether any upper age limit of the children has been prescribed for ciaming  CEA?  Whether CEA can be allowed in case of children studying through  “Correspondence or  Distance  Learning”?  If  so  the age limit prescribed  for the same.	The upper age limit for disabled children has been set at the age of 22 years. In the case  of other children the  age limit will now be 20 years or till  the  time  of  passing  12th class which ever is earlier.  Cases where reimbursement have been already made,  in  respect  of children above this age  may  not  be  reopened.  It  has  also been decided  that CEA  may  henceforth  be  allowed  in case of children  studying through  “Correspondence  or  Distance  Learning”  5ubject  to other  condition prescribed
iv)  What  is  the  definition  of  the terms ‘two sets 0f uniform’ which occur in para1(e) of  our  O.M. dated 2.9.08. What  is  the definition of ‘one  set of shoes’?	It  is  clarified  that  ‘one set of  shoes’  would mean  one  pair  of  shoes  and  ‘two  sets of uniform’  would  mean  two sets  of  uniform  prescribed by the school in which the child is studying. A set of uniform will include all items of clothing prescribed  for a day,  as uniform  by  the  school. Reimbursement  may  be  allowed for two  sets  of  such  uniform  irrespective  of the  colours /winter/ summer/ PT uniform
(v) What is the definition of ‘station’ for the purpose of hostel  subsidy ?	It is clarified that for the purpose of hosted subsidy,  station  would  be demarcated  by  the  first three  digits  of  the  PIN  Code  of  the  area  where  the Government   Servant  is  posed  and/or  residing’.  ‘The  first  three  digits  of  the  PIN Code  indicate a Revenue District
(vi) Whether  fee  paid  10 organizations/institutions  other  than  the  school  or fee  paid  to private  tutors  for purposes  mentioned  in  para 1(e) of  the  OM dated 2.9.2008  is reimbursable?	No. It is clarified that the term ‘fee’ contained in the para 1(e) of the OM dated 2.9.2008 would mean the fee charted by the school directly from the student.

(Simmi R. Nakra)
Director (P&A)

www.persmin.nic.in

Children education allowance- clarification

Retirement age fixation is Govt’s sole discretion: SC

Age of superannuation can be reduced or increased unilaterally at the discretion of the Government and courts cannot interfere with such decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A three judge bench of Justices - J M Panchal, Deepak Verma and B Chauhan in a judgement quashed the interim orders of the Allahabad High Court which had directed the Mayawati Government to restore 62 years as the age of superannuation for Government pleaders (advocates).

The apex court agreed with the Government's view that fixing the age falls within the exclusive competence of the State authorities,and thus,the court should not interfere in such policy decisions,unless it was patently unconstitutional.

Citing the Constitutional Bench judgements in the Bishun Narain Misra vs the State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) case, the apex court said reducing the age of retirement could neither be invalid nor could be held to be retrospective as the said rule was a method adopted to tide over the difficult situation which could arise in public services.

"It is evident that even in government services where the terms and conditions of service are governed by the statutory provisions, the Legislature is competent to enhance or reduce the age of superannuation".

"In view of the above, it is beyond our imaginations as why such a course is not permissible for the appellant - State while fixing the age of working of the District Government Advocates," the bench observed.

In the instant case the High Court had stayed the operation of amended provisions of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual (L R Manual) which sought to reduce the retirement age from 62 to 60 years.

It had further directed the State Government to consider the applications for renewal of the all District Government Counsel whose term had already expired, resorting to the unamended provisions of the L.R. Manual and they be allowed to serve till they attain the age upto 62 years.

The High Court under no circumstance could direct the State authorities to consider the cases for renewal/extension under the provisions of the unamended L.R. i.e. non-existing provisions.

Such interim order tantamounts to legislation by judicial orders,"Justice Chauhan writing the judgement observed. The apex court also recalled its earlier ruling in the Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India & Ors(1967)that emoluments of Government servants and terms of service".

"could be altered by the employer unilaterally for the reason that conditions of service are governed by statutory rules which can be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee."

source-http://stockmarkettoday.in/2011/01/01/retirement-age-fixation-is-govts-sole-discretion-sc/