Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Rajinder Kapila And Others on 21 February, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No. 20240 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 20240 of 2012
Date of Decision : 21.02.2013
Union of India and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Rajinder Kapila and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
None for respondents No. 2 to 4.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
Union of India and the Controller of Communication Accounts, Punjab, impugn the order dated 23.05.2012, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), whereby Original Application moved by respondent No. 1 for re-fixation of his pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been allowed and he has been held entitled to fixture of pension as 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.
2. Before we advert to the reasons as to why the matter requires reconsideration on the point in issue by the Tribunal, a brief reference to the facts may be made.
CWP No. 20240 of 2012 -2-
3. The Ist respondent served the petitioner-Department as a Junior Telecom Officer (JTO). At the time of his retirement on 01.04.1988, he was granted pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of the pay scale of ` 1640-2900, which was granted to JTOs w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The pay scale of JTOs was revised to ` 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, which was again upgraded to ` 6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
4. It appears that the pay scale of JTOs revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is ` 9300-34800, though, there is some controversy between the parties regarding the corresponding grade pay as according to the petitioners it is ` 4200/- as per circular dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure R-1), whereas respondent No. 1 asserts that the grade pay of JTOs is ` 4600/-.
5. While implementing the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission regarding revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners, the Government of India has issued the above mentioned circular dated 01.09.2008, Clause 4.2, whereof reads as under:-
"4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG + and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale."
6. There can indeed be no quarrel that the pension of respondent No. 1 is also required to be revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006, in terms of the CWP No. 20240 of 2012 -3- above stated circular. Hence, as contemplated by Clause 4.2, it is imperative to determine as to what was the revised pay scale actually granted to the JTOs w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale, which respondent No. 1 as a pensioner was drawing as on 31.03.1988 ?
7. Suffice, it would be to mention here that if the plea taken by respondent No. 1 that the revised pay scale has been granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at a uniform rate to all the JTOs irrespective of the qualifications possessed by them, there would be some substance in his contention that he is entitled to the re-fixation of his pension in the pay band of ` 9300-34800 plus G.P. 4600. However, if the plea taken by the petitioners that instead of uniform pay scale for all the JTOs, distinction was drawn on the basis of qualification possessed by them, the claim of respondent No. 1 in that event shall have to be redetermined. In this backdrop, the qualification possessed by respondent No. 1 on the date of his retirement also becomes relevant .
8. The applicability of the decision of the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 655 of 2010, Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association & another v. Union of India and Anr., would also require a fresh look by the Tribunal after determining the question of facts briefly noticed above.
9. For the reasons afore-stated, we are of the considered view that the matter requires redetermination by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, CWP No. 20240 of 2012 -4- Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh to decide the same afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove.
10. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 25.03.2013. They shall be at liberty to submit additional pleadings, if any, to provide full assistance to the learned Tribunal.
11. Disposed of.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE ( R.P. NAGRATH ) JUDGE February 21, 2013 jk