Old age pension: Is a major pension hike coming for senior citizens? Here's what we know
Empower your mind, elevate your skills
The government confirmed that senior citizens aged 60-79 years receive a monthly pension of Rs 200, while those aged 80 and above receive Rs 500 per month under the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). States/Union Territories (UTs) add Rs 50 to Rs 3,800 to the central government pension, bringing the total monthly pension to around Rs 1,000 in most cases.Many pensioners, however, have enquired whether there is a proposal to increase the pension amount for senior citizens.During a recent Lok Sabha session held on August 5, 2025, Member of Parliament Rajkumar Roat asked the following questions on old age pension ET Wealth Online breaks down the government's response to three key questions:The government responded in Parliament and said, "The central pension under the Old Age Pension Scheme of the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) is Rs 200 per month per beneficiary from 60 to 79 years of age and Rs 500 per month per beneficiary from 80 years onwards. As per the guidelines of NSAP, the states/UTs are encouraged to provide a top-up amount of at least an equivalent amount to the assistance provided by the central government so that the beneficiaries could get a decent level of assistance. At present, states/UTs are adding top-up amounts ranging from Rs 50 to Rs 3,800 per month per beneficiary under the old-age pension scheme of NSAP, resulting in an average monthly pension of around Rs 1,000 in most of the states/UTs."The government responded in Parliament and said, "Under NSAP, funds are released to the states/UTs, which have the responsibility of implementation of the scheme, including further disbursal of pension to beneficiaries in districts/blocks/villages/towns. State-wise, total funds released under the old-age pension scheme during the last five years are given at Annexure-I. There was no separate allocation of funds for SC and ST beneficiaries under NSAP before 2021-22. From 2021-22, SC and ST beneficiaries are identified among the existing beneficiaries of NSAP, and funds are being allocated/released under SC and ST heads. Category-wise funds released under the old-age pension scheme during the last five years to the state of Rajasthan are given at Annexure-II."The government replied in Parliament that it is not currently considering any such proposal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Don't use 'not found suitable' tag to deny SC, ST teachers appointments, promotions: Parl panel
AI-generated image NEW DELHI: Touching a raw nerve among the deprived communities and champions of social justice, a key parliamentary panel said the "Not Found Suitable (NFS)" tag should not be used to deny SC and ST teachers opportunities in appointments and promotions, acknowledging the prevalence of the controversial practice while urging "better judgment" in recruitment of faculty members in universities. The Parliamentary Committee on SC/ST Welfare, while making the observation in context of a review of appointments in Delhi University, weighed in on a subject that has become a matter of wider concern. "While interacting with SC/ST teachers welfare association of DU, a glaring issue that came to fore was declaration of SC/ST teachers as 'NFS' for posts earmarked for them," it noted in a report tabled in the Parliament in its ongoing monsoon session. "The committee vehemently condemns the usage of the term 'NFS' to deny eligible SC/ST teachers opportunities in appointments and promotions. The committee opines that declaring SC/ST candidates 'NFS' is not only inappropriate and hurts the sentiments of deserving, eligible and well qualified SC/ST candidates," the panel, headed by BJP MP Faggan Singh Kulaste, noted. The NFS debate revolves around allegations that authorities in educational institutions are manipulating fair employment opportunities for Dalits and tribals by dismissing candidatures as lacking suitability for faculty positions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo Claiming large-scale vacancies against SC/ST quota in central universities, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi recently blamed the governing BJP dispensation for 'NFS', which, he said, was being used to deny the marginalised communities leadership roles in education. "NFS is the new Manuvaad now. Eligible candidates from SC/ST/OBC communities are being deliberately declared 'unsuitable' so that they are kept away from education and leadership," he had posted on social media, triggering strong backlash from BJP that accused Congress for marginalising the backward classes. Now, the parliamentary panel has said "in the present era there is no dearth of eligible SC/ST candidates holding impressive credentials in teaching fields. The committee recommend that SC/ST candidates applying for teaching posts should be judged solely on their academic prowess and that strict norms should not cloud the better judgement of selection panel." The panel urged that SC/ST candidates should be given ample opportunities and should be helped in achieving their professional goals.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Send Punjab plea on bills to 5-judge bench: Govt urges SC
NEW DELHI: The Centre has requested the Supreme Court to refer a petition filed by the Punjab govt seeking the court's intervention in two bills - one amending the Sikh Gurdwaras Act and the other Punjab Police Act - to the five-judge bench which is scheduled to hear Presidential Reference on SC's jurisdiction to fix timelines for the President and governors in granting, refusing or withholding assent to bills. For the Centre, advocate Kanu Agrawal requested a bench led by CJI B R Gavai to either tag the Punjab petition with the Presidential Reference or keep it pending for adjudication after the five-judge bench gives its opinion on the 14 questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu in her reference under Article 143 following SC's Apr 8 judgment. The bench posted the Centre's application for hearing on Monday. The Punjab govt had complained that the bills passed by the assembly two years back - The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and The Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023 - have been kept in limbo by the President after the governor arbitrarily referred these to her. The state challenged "the governor's referral of the two bills to the President of India for her consideration in contravention to the aid and advice of the council of ministers in the absence of any constitutional trigger or any extraordinary breakdown of democratic governance." It also challenged "the President's inaction on both the bills" and said as per the Apr 8 judgment, she has to provide reasons for refusing assent or withholding assent. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, mandates the board constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, to propagate teachings of the Gurus by making uninterrupted live feed of the holy Gurbani from Sri Harmandir Sahib available to all media houses, platforms, channels etc. free of cost, and restrains anyone broadcasting the Holy Gurbani from telecasting any advertisement 30 minutes prior to and after the broadcast. The Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, seeks to amend the Punjab Police Act, 2007, to create an independent mechanism for selection and appointment of suitable persons to the post of Director General of Police (DGP). The state said the amendment would free the selection from political or executive interference, while keeping in view the peculiar conditions in Punjab.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
President, not SC, decides when to seek court's opinion: Centre
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Objecting to the judgment mandating the President to seek Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality of bills, Union govt has said the judiciary cannot dictate to the President how and when to exercise her unfettered discretion to seek the apex court's opinion and on which issues. Faulting the April 8 judgment of a bench of justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, said a plain reading of the President's powers under Article 143 "shows that an absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the act of asking for advice and indicates that the President is not bound to do so". The judgment had advised the President that whenever a governor reserves a bill for her consideration on the ground that it is patently unconstitutional, the President ought to make a reference to SC under Article 143 "as a measure of prudence", given that it is for the apex court to determine the constitutionality and legality of orders and laws. Ahead of Tuesday's hearing on the Presidential Reference before a five-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai, the Centre said, "Any constitutional proposition of law that there exists a constitutional expectation for the President to refer every reserved bill to the Supreme Court is contrary to the constitutional scheme". It gave three reasons to repudiate the SC bench's proposition to this effect: Articles 200 and 201 envisage that the President will apply his/her own mind to decide whether to assent or withhold assent, and these provisions do not mention any role of Supreme Court under Article 143. Such a proposition presupposes that only the judiciary can decide questions related to the Constitution, whereas the Constitution contemplates that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary each is competent and authorised to interpret the Constitution within their own domain. The legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill during debate, the President or governor applies their mind while deciding whether to withhold, assent or refer a bill and the judiciary decides the legality of an Act in appropriate proceedings. Such a proposition converts a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate in the nature of a continuing mandamus, which is impermissible. Union govt said the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to examine the contents of a bill that is yet to become a legislation, sans assent granted by a governor or the President. "The constitutional courts cannot undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a pending bill. It is not possible for the constitutional courts to look behind the contents of the bill at a stage wherein it is a pending decision before the governor and adjudicate whether it requires a reference to the President or not," it said. It further said a state is barred from filing petitions under Article 32, which is a preserve of citizens to seek redress of violations of their fundamental rights by directly approaching the SC. For any dispute between the state and the Centre, the parties concerned need to approach the SC through a suit under Article 131. The Centre held, "A state govt cannot file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against essentially the governor of the state..."
