Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Om Kumar vs Forest And Environment on 7 April, 2025
Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1813/ 2023
Reserved on: 24.03.2025
Pronounced on: 07.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Om Kumar, IFS (Retd.), Aged About 90 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal, R/o 53, Godawari
Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor
Bagh, Ali Ganj, New Delhi
2. The Accountant General (A&E) Bihar,
Patna, AG Office Patna, Bihar
3. The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pensions, Department of Pension &
Pensioners Welfare, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak
Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Piyush Gaur and Mr. S S Hooda)
----
Page 1 of 17
Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
(J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i) To direct the respondents to fix the pension of applicant at Rs.
1,02,700/ w.e.f. 01.01.2016 with reference to Level 1,02,700/- Level-16 of Pay Matrix (Pay Scale of Rs. 2,05,400-2,24,400 2,05,400 2,24,400 as stipulated in table no. 55 with all arrears from due date.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in not revising the pension of applicant to Rs. 1,02,700/-w.e.f.
1,02,700/ w.e.f. 01.01.2016 with reference to Level Level-16 of Pay Matrix (Pay Scale of Rs. 2,05,400-2,24,400 2,05,400 2,24,400 as illegal and unjustified and pass appropriate consequential directions to revise the pension of applicant to Rs. 1,02,700 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as granted to similarly placed persons namely V.P. Mohan (Himachal Pradesh), P.M. Sangal (Mizoram), B.K. Bardhan Roy, (West Bengal) and O.P. Lal (Bihar) and release the arrears of pension alongwith 9% interest.
(iii) To allow allo the OA with cost.
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant ant submitted that present O.A. has been filed by the applicant regarding alleged inaction of the respondents in respect of his representation dated 26.09.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant retired as Chief Conservator of For Forest from Bihar. His counterpart Chief Conservators who retired around same time from other states, were given the benefit of 7th Central Pay Commission regarding revised pension applicable to Chief Page 2 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 Conservator of Forest. Despite his repeated representation representations, action in respect of his representation has not been communicated to the applicant as yet. He has cited a letter dated 09.07.2018 wherein the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change have directed the Accounts General (A&E) to redress the griev grievance of the present applicant. So far, he has not received any communication in respect of his grievances. Being aggrieved he has filed the present Original Application.
2.1 He further submitted that the the applicant who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.1993 from Indian Forest Service in the pay scale of Rs.7300-100-7600/-, Rs.7300 , is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not revising his pension as per DoP&T OM dated 12.05.2017 and in the same manner in which the pension of identically placed persons namely Sh. V.P. Mohan (Himachal Pradesh), Sh. P.M. Sangal (Mizoram), Sh. B.K. Bardhan Roy (West Bengal) and Sh. O.P. Lal (Bihar) has been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Learned counsel for the he applicant submits that at the time of retirement, the pension of the applicant was fixed at Rs.3665/-
Rs.3665/ and thereafter, on implementation of the recommendation of the 5th CPC, his pension was fixed by revising the pay scale notionally to Rs.24050-650 Rs.24050 650-26000 and the total pension amount as on 01.01.1996 was fixed as Rs.12025/ Rs.12025/-. Subsequently, similar action was taken under the 6th CPC, the notional pay scale was determined corresponding to scale of Rs. 75500 75500-3%-80000 and on the basis of the said pay scale, his his pension was fixed at Rs.38,883/ Rs.38,883/- w.e.f.
Page 3 of 17Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 01.01.2006. Thereafter, on implementation of the 7th CPC, his pension was required to be revised by the respondents by applying the same criteria. However, as per the DoPT OMs dated 04.08.2016 & 12.05.2017, the pension pension of the applicant was also required to be revised by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 like all other similarly placed persons as fixed by their respective Accountant Generals of their states. Accordingly, the pension of the applicant as well as the other identically ntically placed persons who retired as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of different states was revised and their pension was correctly fixed as Rs.1,02,700/-
Rs.1,02,700/ with reference to the notional pay arrived at Rs.2,05,400/-.
Rs.2,05,400/ . Whereas, in case of the applicant, the respondent no.2 wrongly fixed the pension as Rs.91110/ Rs.91110/- w.e.f.
01.01.2016, which establishes that by fixing notional pay of the applicant as Rs.1,82,200/-
Rs.1,82,200/ and his pension as Rs.91,110/ Rs.91,110/- by wrongly referring concordance table no.53. In fact, the notional pay scale with reference to pre-revised pre revised pay scale of Rs. 75500 75500-3%-80,000 (6th CPC) was to be Rs.2,05,400/ - as reflected in concordance table no.55. Being aggrieved, the applicant made representation dated 03.05.2018 before the respondents and and on receipt of the same, the respondent no.3 sent it to the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 11.05.2018 for further action.
Consequently, the respondent no.1 sent a letter dated 09.07.2018 to the respondent no.2 for redressal of grievances of the applica applicant, which vide its letter dated 04.09.2018 sent to the respondent no.1 stated that the case of the applicant has been referred to the respondent no.3 for Page 4 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 their guidance. Getting no appropriate relief, the applicant sent a detailed representation dated 15.10.2019 15.10.2019 to the respondents but even after his repeated representations, his grievance has not been redressed by the respondents till date.
2.2 During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to Letter dated 09.
09.07.2018 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, which is incorporated verbatim as under:-
under:
"Subject:- Public Grievances received from Shri Om Kumar, IFS(Retd) and "Subject:
Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, IFS(Retd) for revision of pension.
Sir, I am directed to forward copies of Public Grievances both dated 3.5.2018 received from Shri Om Kumar, IFS(Retd) and Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee; IFS(Retd) for revision of pension and to say that the instructions of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' W Welfare in this regard are quite unambiguous.
2. In this context, para 4 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare ом No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) No.38/37/2016 P&PW(A) dated 6.7.2017 provides that in case of any inconsistency in the concordance table vs vs-a-vis the relevant rules/instructions, the notional. pay and pension/family pension of pre pre- 2016, pensioners/family pensioners may be fixed in accordance with the rules/instructions applicable for fixation of pay in the intervening Pay Commission periods.
3. Attention is also lso invited to para 5 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare principal OM No.38/37/2016 No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.5.2017, which provides that higher of the two Formulations shall be provided to pre-2016 pre 2016 central civil pensioners.
4. In the light of the above, it is requested that the grievances of both the petitioners may please be redressed as per prevalent instructions and the petitioners be informed of the action taken in this regard under intimation to this Ministry."
2.3. Learned counsel further drew our attention DoP&T OM dated Learned 12.05.2017 highlighting Para & 5 which are incorporated as under:
under:-Page 5 of 17
Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 "4. The aforesaid Committee has submitted its Report and the recommendations made by the Committee have been considered by the Government. Accordingly, it has been decided that the revised Government.
pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in respect of all Central. civil pensioners/family pensioners, including CAPF's, who retired/died prior to 01.01.2016, may be revised by notionally fixing their pay in the pay matrix recommended by the 7th CPC in the level corresponding to the pay in the pay scale/pay band and grade pay at which they retired/died. This will be done by notional pay fixation under each intervening Pay Commission based on the Formula for revision of pay. While fixing pay on notional basis, the pay fixation formulae approved by the Government and other relevant instructions on the subject in force at the relevant time shall be strictly followed. 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2016 shall be the revised pension and 30% of this notional pay shall be revised family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016 as per the first Formulation. In the case of family pensioners who were entitled to family pension at enhanced rate, the revised family pension shall be 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2016 and shall be payable till the period up to which family pension at enhanced rate is admissible per rules. The amount of revised pension/family pension so arrived at shall rounded off to next higher rupee. as be
5. It has also been decided that higher of the two Formulations i.e. the pension/family pension already revised in accordance with this Department's OM No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) 38/37/2016 P&PW(A) (ii) dated 04.08.2016 or the revised pension/family pensionn as worked out in accordance with para 4 above, shall be granted to pre-2016 pre 2016 central civil pensloners as revised pension/family penslon w.e.f: 01.01.2016. In cases where pension/family pension being paid w.e.f. 1.1.2016 in accordance with this Department's OM No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) 38/37/2016 P&PW(A) (ii) dated 04.08.2016 happens to be more than pension/family pension as worked out in accordance with para 4 above, the pension/family pension already being paid shall be treated as revised pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016."
2.4. Learned counsel counsel for the applicant also draws attention to DoP&T OM dated 06.07.2017 highlighting Para 4 which is incorporated herein below:-
below:
4. These concordance tables have been prepared to facilitate revision of pension of pre-2016 pre 2016 pensioners/family pensioners bby the concerned pension sanctioning authorities. Due care has been taken to prepare these concordance tables based on the fitment tables for fixation of pay from 4th to 5th 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th Pay Commission. In case of any inconsistency in the concordance concordance tables vis vis-à-vis the relevant rules/instructions, the notional pay pension/family pension of prepre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners may be fixed in accordance with the rules/instructions applicable for fixation of pay in the intervening Pay Commissio periods."
Commission 2.5. He finally draws attention to Annexure A3 wherein pay fixation of one of the colleagues of the applicant is mentioned as Pay Fixed on Page 6 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 notional basis on 2006 as 77765 (Pay Band 75500 75500-80000), in order to show that how the respondents discriminated discriminated against the applicant by not fixing the pension of the applicant as has been fixed in case of the counterparts of the applicant. He further draws attention to Annexure A4 to show that how the pay was to be fixed by the respondents. For the sake of clarity, the same is incorporated as under:
under:-
Table No.53 Scalle of pay/Pay in the Pay Band & Gradde Pay at the time of retirement.
From 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995 7300-100-7600 From 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 22400-525-24500 From 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015 67000-3%-79000 Corresponding Level w.e.f. 01.01.2016 Level-15 (182200-224100) Basic Basic Pay Basic Pay Pay Range for National Revised Revised Pay From From pensioners retiredd pay as on Pension/Enhance Family From 01.01.199 01.01.200 during 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2016 d Family pension 01.01.1 6 to 6 to 31.12.2015 Pension (if w.e.f. 986 to 31.12.200 31.12.201 Minimu Maximum applicable) 01.01.201 31.12.1 5 5 m w.e.f. 6 995 01.01.2016 7300 22400 67000 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 7400 22400 67000 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 7500 22400 67000 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 7600 22925 69010 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 23450 71080 70900 73030 187700 93850 56310 23975 73220 73040 75210 193300 96650 57990 24500 75420 75220 77470 199100 99550 59730 77690 77480 79000 205100 102550 61530 79000 77480 79000 205100 102550 61530 Table No.55 Scaale of Pay/Pay in the Pay Band & Gra rade Pay at the time of retirement From 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995 7600 From 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 24050 24050-650-26000 From 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015 75500 75500-3%-80000 Corresponding Level w.e.f. 01.01.2016 Level Level-16 (205400-224400) Basic Pay Basic Pay Basic Pay Pay Range for Nati Revised Revised From From From pensioners retired onal Pension/Enhan Family 01.01.1986 01.01.1996 01.01.2006 during 01.01.2006 to pay ced Family pension to to to 31.12.2015 as Pension (if w.e.f.
31.12.1995 31.12.2005 31.12.2015 Minimum Maximum on applicable) 01.01.2016 01.0 w.e.f.
1.20 01.01.2016
16
7600 24050 77765 - 79920 205 102700 61620
Page 7 of 17
Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023
400
24700 80000 79930 80000 211 105800 63480
600
25350 80000 79930 80000 211 105800 63480
600
26000 80000 79930 80000 211 105800 63480
600
2.6. The bone of contention lies between the action of Accountant General of Bihar and the States of Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh.
AG, Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh rely upon the Table No.55 annexed at Annexure A-4, A 4, whereas the Accountant Genera General of Bihar relies upon the Table No.53 annexed thereto. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the pay of the applicant should have been fixed as per the Table No.55 as 75500 75500-3%-80000 in level 16 w.e.f.01.01.2006 as has been done by the State of Jharkhand and the State of Himachal Pradesh but the Accountant General of Bihar has fixed the same as 67000-3%-79000 67000 79000 in level 15.
2.7. Learned counsel or the applicant further drew out attention to an order passed by this Tribunal on 27.08.2024, which rea reads as under:
"3. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to Writ Petition No. 1190/2024, CМ Appl. 4985/2024, and CM Appl. 4986/2024 in the matter of The Commissioner of KVS v. Dr. Neehrika.
4. He further states states that as per Writ Petition No. 2255/2019, decided on 23.04.2019, the Tribunal's order in J.D. Gupta v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein the ОM issued by the DoPT was quashed, has attained finality. Learned counsel for the resp respondents takes note of this.
5. However, in the interest of justice, time is granted to the respondents. 6. The matter is release from Part Heard and is directed to be listed before an appropriate Division Bench on 10.09.2024."
2.8. Learned counsel for the applicant draws similarity to one Mr. V.P. Mohan who retired from the state of Himachal Pradesh as a Page 8 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. Whereas, the applicant retired from the state Bihar.
3. Mr. S S Hooda, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the pension has been fixed on the basis of last pay draws and not on the basis of the last post held.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. He relied upon an Office Memorandum dated 28/30th.11.2018 (Annexure B, Pg. No.10), which reads as under:
"Sub: Revision of pension of Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, IFS (Retd.).
The undersigned is directed to refer to Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), (A&E), Jharkhand letter dated 06.08.18 seeking clarification with regard to fixation of Pension of Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, IFS (Retd.).
2. In this regard, it is stated that as per the existing orders issued in 5 , 6 and 7th CPC, pension is to be revi th th revised based on the corresponding scale. The extent policy instructions do not provide for fixation of pension with respect to the upgraded pay scale, if the post from which the pensioners had retired was upgraded subsequent to the retirement. The issued in this regard after 5th CPC are contained in the orders issued Department's OM 45/86/97-P&PW(A) 45/86/97 P&PW(A) Part.V dated 11.05.2001. Similarly th in the 6 CPC also the benefit of upgraded scale is not available.
3. 7300-7600 (of 4th CPC) in which The corresponding pay scale of 7300 22400 24500 in 5th CPC and 67000-79000/- in Shri Chatterjee retired, is 22400-24500 th 6 CPC and which corresponds to level 15, table 53 of the DoPPW OM dated 06.07.2017 issued subsequent to implementation of 7th CPC.
4. From the letter under reference, it is seen that the pension revision of Shri Chatterjee during 5th and 6th CPC was not corrected as the benefit of upgraded pay scale was allowed to Shri Chatterjee. The correct pension during 5th and 6th CPC should be Rs.11,200/ Rs.11,200/- and Rs. 33,500/- respectively.
5. In view of above, Office of the Principal Account General (A&E), Jharkhand may examine the case and fix Shri Chatterjee's pension accordingly."
Page 9 of 17Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 3.2. He also relied upon a comparative chart qua the applicant herein as Admissible/Actual, which reads as under:
Pension Admissible Actual
Revision
5th Notional Pay-Rs.22400/- Notional Pay-Rs.24050/-
Notional Scale- Rs.22400-24500/- Notional Scale- Rs.24050-26000
Pension Authorized-Rs.11200/- Pension -Rs.12025/-
6th Notional Pay-Rs.67000/- Notional Pay-Rs.77765/-
Notional Scale- Rs.67000-79000/- Notional Scale- Rs.7500-80000/-
Pension -Rs.33500/- Pension Authorized-Rs.33883/-
7th Notional Pay-Rs.182200/- Notional Pay-Rs.182200
Notional Scale- Rs.182200-205100/- Notional Scale- Rs.182200-
(Level-15) 205100/-
Pension -Rs.91100/- (Level-15)
Pension Authorized-Rs.99930/-
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dated 17.10.2000 in O.A. No.144.CH/2000 in the matter of Mr. Swarn Singh Chahal vs. Union of India and Ors. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"17. What has been stated in principle in the above quoted memo memorandum dated 17 12 1998 is that with effect from 1.1.1996, the pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the the pensioner. In the present case the post last held by the petitioners at the time of their retirement though was the Chief Conservator of Forests but by legal fiction contained in notification dated 17.12.1998, the petitioners will be deemed to have retiretired as a Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The petitioners' pension was to be calculated by holding that they had retired as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the pay scale of Rs. 24,500-26,000 24,500 26,000 with effect from 1.1 1996.
18. The petitioners at at the time of their retirement were the head of the department designated as Chief Conservator of Forests and subsequently the nomenclature of this post has been redesignated as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. In fact, the learned Tribunal has also held that there was only re-designation re designation of the nomenclature of the post of Chief Conservator of Forests to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, out in the ultimate analysis the learned Tribunal had not granted the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners petitioners The explanation given in communication dated 9.8.1999 by the Central Government while rejecting the case of the petitioners and similarly situate persons that the post of Chief Conservator Page 10 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 of Forests cannot be upgraded to the level of Principal Chief Co Conservator of Forests from back date is erroneous. There was no question of upgradation of the post as discussed hereinabove. What in fact was to be seen was that once the post of Chief Conservator of Forests has been redesignated as Principal Chief Conservator Conservator of Forests. the necessary consequences were to flow from the same. It is reiterated that there was no upgradation of the post of the Chief Conservator of Forests to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, but it was only the change in the nomenclature of the post i.e redesignation"
5. Heard counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS 6.1 In the present case, the applicant had been getting appropriate pay fixed till the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, which was comparable to that of one Ved Prakash Mohan (State of Himachal Pradesh), i.e., as on 1.1.2016 before revision (irrespective of the fact that the applicant was drawing a lesser pay of 7400/ 7400/- than that of Ved Prakash Mohan on the the date of retirement). The applicant was also drawing a similar pension as on 1.1.2016 before revision, to a tune of Rs. 38883/-.
38883/ . The anomaly has arisen after implementation of the 7th CPC w.e.f. 1.1.2016. It is not in dispute that pay has to be fixed notionally, notionally, arriving by a formula of pay revision from the 6th CPC to the 7th CPC at par with other serving officers.
6.2 There cannot be any distinction between the officer(s) between two state(s).
state(s) The applicant case has been en considered applying Table 53, reproduced roduced herein below:-
below:
Table No.53 Scale of pay/Pay in the Pay Band & Grade Pay at the time of retirement Page 11 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 From 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995 7300-100-7600 From 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 22400-525-24500 From 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015 67000-3%-79000 Corresponding Level w.e.f. 01.01.2016 Level-15 (182200-224100) Basic Basic Pay Basic Pay Pay Range for National Revised Revised Pay From From pensioners retired pay as on Pension/Enhance Family From 01.01.199 01.01.200 during 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2016 d Family pension 01.01.1 6 to 6 to 31.12.2015 Pension (if w.e.f. 986 to 31.12.200 31.12.201 Minimu Maximum applicable) 01.01.201 31.12.1 5 5 m w.e.f. 6 995 01.01.2016 7300 22400 67000 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 7400 22400 67000 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 7500 22400 67000 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 7600 22925 69010 - 70890 182200 91100 54660 23450 71080 70900 73030 187700 93850 56310 23975 73220 73040 75210 193300 96650 57990 24500 75420 75220 77470 199100 99550 59730 77690 77480 79000 205100 102550 61530 79000 77480 79000 205100 102550 61530 6 6.3 It is to be seen that one Ved Prakash Mohan (State of Himachal Pradesh) who had been similarly placed has been accorded the benefit in terms of Table No.55 , reproduced hereinabove in para 2.5.
6.4 A reference refer is drawn to the an Office Communication dated 09.07.2018,
7.2018, which reads as under:-
Subject: Public Grievances received from Shri Om Kumar, IFS(Retd) and Subject:-
Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, IFS(Retd) for revision of pension.
Sir, I am directed to forward copies of Public Grievances both dated 3.5.2018 received from Shri Om Kumar, IFS(Retd) and Shri Alok KarIIar Chatterjee; IFS(Retd) for revision -of of pension and to say that the instructions ,of the Department 'of Pension aand Pensioners' Welfare in this regard are quite ,unambiguous.
2. In this context, para 4 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare OM No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) No.38/37/2016 P&PW(A) .dated 6.7.2017 provides that in case of any inconsistency in the concordance table vs vs-a-vis the relevant rules/instructions, the notional. pay and pension/family pension of pre:2016. pensioners/family pensioners may be fixed in accordance with the rules/instructions applicable for fixation of pay in the intervehing Pay Commission periods.
3. Attention is also invited to para 5 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare principal OM No.38/37/2016 No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated Page 12 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 12.5.2017, which provides that higher of the two Formulations shall be provided to pre-2016 pre 2016 central civil pensioners.
4. In the light of the above, it is requested that the grievances of both the petitioners may please be redressed as per prevalent instructions and the petitioners be informed of the action taken in this regard under intimation ta this Ministry."
Ministry.
6.5 Furthe Furthermore, a reference is also drawn to the O Office Communication dated 07.06.2024, which reads as under:-
"2. Vide order dated 30.04.2024, the CAT, Principal Bench at Delhi has directed as under:
"Since the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change is the nodal ministry which deals uniformly with the Indian Forest Service cadre, should give their opinion with regard to fixation of the pay of the applicant and issue appropriate instructions to the State of Bihar regarding placement of the applicant in the appropriate pay scale vis vis-a-vis his counter parts in Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand, so that if anomaly exists, the same can be rectified. This exercise shall be done within a period of three weeks"
3. Accordingly, in compliance of CAT order dated 30.30.04.2024, it is stated to the State Government of Bihar that the applicant Shri Om Kumar is an IFS officer of Bihar Cadre, superannuated on 30.04.1993. Being officer of All India Service belonging to Bihar Cadre, the service details and relevant records required required for fixation of pay and pensions revision are with the State Government. Further, the appropriate authority for pay fixation/pension fixation is the State Government.
4. It is further stated that para 4 of the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare We OM No.38/37/2016--P&PW(A) dated 06.07.2017 (copy enclosed) regarding revision of pension of pre pre-2016 pensioners/ family pensioners in implementation of Government's decision on the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission Commission-Concordance tables iss reproduced as under:
"These concordance tables have been prepared to facilitate revision of pension of pre-2016 pre 2016 pensioners/family pensioners by the concerned pension sanctioning authorities. Due care has been taken to prepare these concordance tables based based on the fitment tables for fixation of pay of pay from 4th to 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th Pay Commission. In case of any inconsistency in the concordance tables vis vis-à-vis the relevant rules/instruction, the notional pay and pension/family pension of pre pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners may be fixed in accordance with the rules/instructions applicable for fixation of pay in the intervening Pay Commission periods."
5. Further, enclosures to above mentioned para 4 regarding concordance tables based on the fitment fitment tables for fixation of pay from 4th to 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th Pay Commission is attached for ready reference.
Page 13 of 17Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023
6. With respect to placement of the applicant in the appropriate pay scale vis-à à-vis vis his counter parts in Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand Jharkhand, it is stated that under All India Services, the promotion of the officers are cadre specific, which depends upon the respective vacancy/ies and number of posts under the cadre structure in the state cadre at various levels. Therefore, the promotion conditions conditions in two different states/cadres may be different which may have effect on pension fixation at the time of retirement. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that the promotion of officers may be affected on other facts also such as status of discipl disciplinary proceedings, if any, etc. at the time of consideration of promotion which has bearing on pensionary benefits post retirement.
7. As per the documents referred and annexed in OA, it is seen that date of retirement of the applicant Shri Om Kumar is 30.
30.04.1993, whereas date of retirement of Shri Ved Prakash Mohan (retired officer of Himachal Pradesh cadre) is 30.06.1995. It is also seen that Last Pay withdrawn by the applicant Shri Om Kumar was Rs. 7,400/ 7,400/-, whereas, Last Pay withdrawn by Shri Ved Prakash Mohan was Rs. 7,500/ 7,500/-.
8. Further, it is stated that the Ministry is cadre cadre-controlling authority in respect of Indian Forest Service Officers. However, for matters pertaining to pension fixation and its disbursement after the officers being retired from the he service, Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Ministry is nodal Ministry.
9. As stated above, for all these service details, the State Government is custodian of documents. However, if any anomaly has arisen due to incorrect calculation of pay/pension needs to be corrected invariably by the concerned State Government. Therefore, the State Government of Bihar and AG Bihar are requested to take immediate appropriate action as per relevant rules in consultation, if required, with the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Ministry, which is the nodal ministry in respect of pension matters.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority."
6.6 In terms of para 6 above, it is not in dispute that the applicant falls under All India Service. The anomaly has not occurred due to the promotion of the officers under cadre cadre-specific, difference in promotional conditions in two state cadres, or the case of disciplinary proceedings. Nor can it be the case that an anomaly has occurred due to a pay difference, as the applicant was also drawing a similar pension as on 1.1.2016 before the revision, to a tune of Rs. 38883/ 38883/- as compared to others in different States. The anomaly has arisen after implementation of the 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 by inc incorrectly Page 14 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 applying Table 53 in the case of the applicant, whereas Table 55 ought to have been applied as highlighted above. Para '9' of Communication dated 07.06.2024 is quite clear and explicit. The onus is upon the Government of Bihar and AG Bihar to take immediate action in consultation with the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Ministry.
6.7 A reference is also drawn to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of The All Manipur Pensioners Associations vs. The State of Manipur in Civil Appeal No. 10857/2016 decided on 11.07.2019.
07.2019. The relevant paras of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"8.
8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retretired pre1996 and another who retired post1996, post1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension, In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept cept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, distinguishing the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cut cutoff date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pens pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of gra grant of revised pension is Page 15 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutcutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on especially some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit. 8.1 As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that as such a decision has been been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre1996 pre1996 or post post1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cutoff date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore classification/cutoff such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, disc discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut might cutoff date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra). The decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not following the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and and order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned SSingle Judge is hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre1996 pre1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who retired post post1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within a period of three months from today.
10. The instant appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
costs."
7. CONCLUSION In view of the above discussions, we therefore dispose of the present Original O Application by directing the respondents respondents, i.e., AG Bihar to decide the claim of the applicant in terms of the observations made hereinabove hereinabove within a period of three months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The consequential revision pension Page 16 of 17 Item No.47 (Court - 5) O.A. No.1813/2023 fixation be ordered. However, the arrears thereto shall be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the present O.A. All pending applications, if any, any shall also stand disposed of. Costs made easy.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 17 of 17