Delhi High Court - Orders
R. C. Garg vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri, Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6652/2022
R. C. GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Amit George, Mr Akshat Gupta,
Mr Amol Acharya and Mr P. Harold,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI
with Mr Kamal R. Digpaul,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 27.04.2022 CM APPL. 20181/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
W.P.(C) 6652/2022
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2461/2012, the respondents were to comply as under:
"...23. Having once accepted the position in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), there is no reason that this Liberalization Pension Scheme should not be extended to the present applicants who are eminent Scientists of the country. Hence, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directives:-
Revision Pension Pay Orders in respect of the applicants impugned in this OA are quashed and set aside; Respondents are directed to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.05.2022 14:48:55 Rs. 4000/- (50% for pensionary purpose) to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006.
The exercise ordained above be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order..."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents have impugned the aforesaid order by way of writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8705/2014, which was dismissed by this court on 05.12.2019. Since the respondents did not comply with the said order, the petitioners preferred a contempt petition being CP No.171/2014 before the learned CAT. The order passed by the learned CAT on 16.02.2022, is impugned in this writ petition on the ground that it is cryptic, non-speaking and has not addressed the grievance of the petitioner and payments have not been made in terms of the previous directions. The said order dated 16.02.2022 reads as under:
"...Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
2. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-implementation of the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed in OA No. 2461/2012.
3. Respondents have filed compliance affidavit dated 19.08.2021 enclosing therewith OM No. A.22o13/2/2017-I dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure R-1) regarding reckoning of Special Pay of Rs.2ooo/Rs.4ooo granted in lieu of higher scale of pay to Scientist/Engineer „H‟ for the purpose of pensionary benefits, revised PPO dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure R-2) and order dated 01.04.2021 (Annexure R-5) revising the pension of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.05.2022 14:48:55 the petitioner.
4. Today, Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor submitted that the directions of this Tribunal have been duly complied with by passing the aforesaid orders and, hence, the CP may be closed.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the alleged contemnor that substantial compliance has been made, the CP is closed..."
5. Dr George, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were required to bring the petitioner at par with post 2006 retirees with prospective effect from 01.01.2006. This has not been done. Indeed the grievance of the petitioner in the contempt petition subsists even today. In the contempt petition filed before the learned CAT the petitioner stated, inter alia, as under:-
"...3. That the respondent has till date not brought the pension of the applicant, who is senior scientist retired from ISRO, Department of Space and who retired pre-2006 from the „H‟ grade, at par with the post 2006 retirees. In this connection the attention of this Hon‟ble Tribunal is brought to the attached reply of respondent given in response to RTI filed by the applicant where it is clear that one Sh. G.M. Gurusamy who is retired post 2006 from „H‟ grade and is similarly placed compared to the applicant or junior, is drawing monthly basic pension of Rs. 32,925/- (Basic monthly pay of Rs. 65,850/- including special pay of Rs. 4,000/-) whereas monthly basic pension of applicant as per so-called compliant PPO of the respondent dated 0l.04.202l is only Rs.29,350/- (including special pay). Therefore, there is no compliance by the respondent and respondent is trying to mislead..."
6. The compliance affidavit of the respondents, referred to in the aforesaid impugned order simply accepts the contention of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.05.2022 14:48:55 respondents that there has been compliance whereas the petitioner's contention is that there is complete breach of the order dated 30.07.2013.
7. The petitioner's grievance is that he should get monthly basic pension of Rs. 32,925/- whereas he is being given Rs.29,350/- per month. In support of his claim, the petitioner refers to revised computation of pension/family pension of pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners, in terms of the document annexed to the petition [Annexure-8 (Colly)] (page-78 of the petition). Under the said document, pensions fixed under VI CPC is (a) Basic Pension: Rs.30925+2000=Rs.32,925; (b) Commuted Pension: Rs.4806/-. This was subsequently reduced by the respondents by an internal exercise without it being disclosed to the petitioner as to why the reduction was done. In any case, it is contrary to the directions issued by the learned CAT passed on 30.07.2013, which requires the respondents to pay the petitioner, pension at par with post 2006 retirees with prospective effect from 01.01.2006.
8. The basic issue to be considered before the learned CAT was whether the due amounts have been paid to the petitioner. It was not so considered. The statement of the respondents was accepted which is far from truth and was disputed by the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, albeit the matter could well be remanded back to the learned CAT to look into the matter afresh, nevertheless for the moment, let the respondents look into the matter afresh and remedial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.05.2022 14:48:55 measures shall be taken.
10.Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned CGSC for the UOI/respondents. Compliance affidavit/response be filed by the respondents within three weeks.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is 80 years old and is suffering from several ailments. He submits that nevertheless in order to facilitate corrective measures to be taken by the respondents, the petitioner will depute his representative and/or his counsel to assist the respondents in this regard. The learned counsel for the parties too will coordinate with each other in this regard on the date when the petitioner's representative and/or his counsel may be required to assist the respondents regarding computation of the pension as sought for.
12.The learned CGSC for UOI states, upon instructions, that the matter will be looked into by the respondents on 05.05.2022.
13.Renotify on 11.05.2022.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J APRIL 27, 2022/rd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:04.05.2022 14:48:55