Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepak Kumar Sinha vs Lighthouses And Lightships on 18 November, 2025
1
Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 220/2024
Reserved on: 07.11.2025.
Pronounced on: 18.11.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Deepak Kumar Sinha
S/o Late Jhulan Prasad Verma
Resident of Flat no. - 10023,
Tower-2, Block-D, Plot no. - GH7,
Crossing Republic Dhundaheda,
Ghaziabad, U.P.-201016 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through
The Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Port, Shipping and waterways (MoPSW)
Transport Bhavan,
1, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001
2. The Director General
Directorate General of Lighthouses and lightships
Deep Bhawan, A-13, Sector-24, Noida
Gautam Budha Nagar-201301
3. The Secretary
Department of Personnel and training
Ministry of personnel, PG and pensions
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001
4. The Secretary of Government of India
Ministry of Defence Department of
Ex Service men welfare (Pension and Policy)
99A South Block, New Delhi-110011 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S. N. Verma)
2
Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"a) Direct the respondents to de counting previous service of Indian Air force from Civil Service of DGLL and quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 of Government of India Ministry of Personnel P. G. and pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare so that he can get pro rata pension from Indian Air Force for the services rendered by him for 10 years 262 days to India Air Force.
b) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, he initially joined the Indian Air Force as an Airman on 24.05.1977. He was discharged from service on 09.02.1988, after completing 10 years and 262 days of service, in order to join another Government service through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for better career prospects.
2.1 Subsequently, he joined as Station Engineer in the Department of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL) under the Ministry of Surface Transport (Shipping Wing), Government of India, which is now known as the Directorate General of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL) under the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (MoPSW).
2.2 In terms of Rule 19 (1) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the applicant exercised an option to count his previous Air Force service towards qualifying service in the DGLL for the purpose of pension vide his representation dated 3 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 08.09.1994 (Annexure A/4), since at that time, the minimum qualifying service for full pension was 33 years. The applicant refunded the gratuity amount received from Indian Air Force along with interest, amounting to Rs. 66,446/- on 14.02.2007. In response to the ID Note dated 29.06.2007, the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, informed the DGLL vide order dated 02.08.2007 (Annexure A/5) that they have no objection in counting the applicant's previous service rendered in Indian Air Force i.e., from 24.05.1977 to 09.02.1988. Thereafter, the DGLL had issued Office Order dated 9.8.2007 vide which the period of service rendered by the applicant in Indian Air Force with effect from 24.05.1977 to 09.02.1988 decided to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of retirement and pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the Rules ibid and the period from 10.02.1988 to 11.02.1988 was treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service under Rule 19 (5) of the Rules ibid.
2.3 Later, upon amendment of the CCS (Pension) Rules reducing the qualifying service for full pension from 33 years to 20 years, the applicant submitted a representation dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure-A/7) to the DGLL, MoPSW requesting:-
1. Refund of Rs. 66,446/- (gratuity of Rs. 22,992/- plus interest) earlier paid for counting his previous Air Force service; and
2. Counting of his civil service in DGLL independently for the purpose of pension.
2.4 In reference to the applicant's long pending request and repeated reminder to de-count his military service counted for pensioner benefits after joining in DGLL, the ministry has refused to consider the request of the applicant.4
Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
2.5 The applicant submitted a representation dated 17.10.2022
(Annexure-A/10) and the DGLL recommended and forwarded the representation to the Ministry of Posts, Shipping and Waterways to reconsider his request. The Directorate of Air Veterans was requested to grant pro rata pension vide letter dated 11.10.2019 stating that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 10026/2016 (Govind Kumar Srivastava (Retd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.), vide judgment dated 19.01.2019, had allowed pro-rata pension to a similarly situated air veteran. The applicant claimed similar relief, submitting that the reduction of qualifying service from 33 to 20 years rendered his earlier option disadvantageous, as he derived no actual benefit from the counting of former service, having rendered over 30 years in the civil post.
The said appeal was, however, rejected by the DAV.
2.6 Consequently, the applicant filed O.A. No. 112/2020 with M.A. No. 113/2020 (Annexure-A/13) before the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, titled Sgt. D.K. Sinha Vs. Union of India & Ors., and the Tribunal allowed the said OA vide its judgment dated 13.01.2023 directing the respondents to grant pro rata pension with arrears with 10% interest.
2.7 In compliance with the said judgment, the Indian Air Force, vide its letter dated 31.01.2023(Annexure-A/14), sought the following documents/clarifications from the applicant:
(a) A copy of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the IAF to join civil employment; and
(b) A clarification from new employer whether the service rendered by the applicant in the Indian Air Force has been counted or not for the purpose of earning civil pension.5
Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
2.8 Aggrieved, the applicant again approached DGLL and
MoPSW, sought clarification through email/representation dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure A-15) reiterating that the option was exercised under the earlier pension rules when the qualifying service was 33 years, and since the rule had been amended now the qualifying service is 20 years, he should have been given an opportunity to revise or withdraw his earlier option.
2.9 However, the said request was rejected vide letter dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-A/16) by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, citing Office Memorandum dated 09.01.2019 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare (DoP&PW), which conveyed the opinion of the Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare (DESW) as follows:-
a) Option exercised shall be final. There is no provision for revision of option.
b) Allowing de-counting of service may open a Pandora's box with huge financial implications arising from others seeking similar revision.
2.10 Subsequently, the applicant again submitted a comprehensive representation dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure-A/17) through DGLL to the Secretary, Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, seeking de-counting of his previous Air Force service. He relied upon the judgment of the CAT, Kolkata Bench dated 12.05.2016 in O.A. No. 1490/2014, wherein similar relief had been granted to an employee seeking to revise the option exercised earlier. The DGLL recommended and forwarded the applicant's representation to the Ministry for reconsideration. However, no response was received. Thereafter, the applicant sent legal notice dated 22.12.2023 to respondents through his counsel. But the same were not responded to.
6Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 2.11 The applicant also contends that the option to count previous military service was exercised based on the existing Pension Rule. Request for De-counting of previous military service was made due to change in Pension Rule. Once the Pension Rule was changed, an opportunity to revisit the option, in light of new Pension Rules, which is a legitimate right, was not given to the applicant. The opinion of Department of ESW, expressed in its letter dated 23.05.1994 could be valid for the then existing Pension Rule. However, its application with the modified Pension Rule is unjustified. The applicant also contends that counting of previous military service was approved and implemented by MoPSW/DGLL, hence, de-counting should also fall within the ambit of civil authority viz. MoPSW, the administrative ministry. Denial of request of de-count service of the applicant earlier counted for pensionary benefits, due to the apprehension that the decision may lead to opening of Pandora box is unjustified. Such assumption shall cause the applicant loss of more than 10 years of active military service and financial loss. Hence, the present OA.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is both factually perverse and legally unsustainable on the following grounds:--
(i) Under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the minimum qualifying service prescribed for full pension was 33 years. Accordingly, the applicant exercised his option to count his previous Air Force service towards qualifying service for 7 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 pensionary benefits in the civil department. Consequent upon exercise of such option, the applicant was required to refund the gratuity amount received from the Indian Air Force along with interest, totalling Rs. 66,446/- (sixty six thousand four hundred forty-six only), which he duly deposited.
(ii) Subsequently, the Government of India, vide Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, implementing the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, amended the CCS (Pension) Rules.
a) Paragraph 5.2 of the said O.M. dispensed with the linkage of full pension to 33 years of qualifying service and reduced it to 20 years.
b) Paragraph 5.4 clarified that the revised provisions would apply to all Government servants retiring after the date of issue of the said O.M.
(iii) Despite this change in the statutory framework, the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to revisit or revise his earlier option in light of the amended rule, to either continue with or withdraw his previous decision.
(iv) The repeated representations submitted by the applicant seeking de-counting of his previous Air Force service on account of the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules were rejected by the respondents on the ground that permitting such de-counting might open a ―Pandora's box‖ leading to extensive financial implications in similar cases.
(v) The acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents have caused serious financial loss and hardship to the applicant. The respondents are therefore duty-bound to 8 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 reconsider their decision, as counting of the previous Air Force service has become redundant in view of the amendment reducing the qualifying service to 20 years.
(vi) The respondents have failed to consider the applicant's legitimate request for de-counting his previous Air Force service, citing apprehensions of similar claims by others. Such arbitrary refusal has caused undue hardship, mental agony, and distress to the applicant, reflecting a callous and biased administrative approach.
(vii) The respondents have also failed to appreciate that the applicant is entitled to de-counting of his previous Air Force service and to pro-rata pension from the Defence Department, particularly as the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal has already granted similar relief in the applicant's favour.
(viii) The action of the respondents in denying de-counting of the applicant's previous service and thereby obstructing his entitlement to pro-rata pension constitutes a violation of Article 39(d)of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal pay for equal work.
(ix) The respondents have acted malafide, arbitrarily and illegally, by refusing to de-count the applicant's previous service in the Indian Air Force and by creating hindrances in the grant of pro-
rata pension and its consequential arrears with interest.
(x) The applicant has thus been deprived of his legal and legitimate rights and the benefits due to him upon retirement. The conduct of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust, mala fide, and contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence.
9Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
(xi) The respondents have failed to consider or properly appreciate the representations and letters repeatedly submitted by the applicant. Their refusal to reconsider the matter on the pretext of avoiding a ―Pandora's box‖ is wholly untenable in law and on facts.
(xii) The conduct of the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and bad in law. In view of the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules reducing the qualifying service for full pension from 33 years to 20 years, the applicant is entitled to an opportunity to revise his earlier option and seek de- counting of his previous Air Force service.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit filed on 25.07.2024, submitted that the applicant was appointed as Station Engineer (now re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer (E)) in the Directorate General of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL) w.e.f. 12.02.1988 and superannuated on 28.02.2019 after rendering 31 years and 18 days of qualifying service. Before joining DGLL, he had served in the Indian Air Force from 24.05.1977 to 09.02.1988, completing 10 years and 8 months of regular military service. On joining civil employment, the applicant exercised his option under Rule 19 (1)
(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to count his previous military service towards civil pension, as it was more beneficial to him, and submitted a representation dated 08.09.1994 (Annexure R-1). At that time, 33 years of qualifying service were required for full pension under the applicable rules.
5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that pursuant to his option, a ―No Objection‖ was issued vide letter dated 02.08.2007 10 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 (Annexure R-2) permitting the counting of military service towards civil pension. The applicant refunded Rs.66,446/- (comprising Rs. 22,995/- towards DCRG and service gratuity and Rs. 43,451/- towards interest) through Challan No. 153 dated 14.02.2007, whereupon DGLL issued Office Order dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure-R/3) approving such counting of military service for pensionary purposes under Rule 19 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, full pension became admissible on completion of 20 years of qualifying service as per DoP&PW O.M. dated 02.09.2008. Relying upon this, the applicant sought refund of Rs. 66,446/- (sixty six thousand four hundred forty-six only) and requested that only his civil service be counted for pension vide representation dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure R-5). However, DoP&PW, after consultation with the Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare (DESW), rejected the request vide O.M. dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure-R/6), observing that the option once exercised was final and no provision existed for its revision. The O.M. specifically stated that allowing de-counting of military service ―may open a Pandora's box with huge financial implications from others seeking similar revision.‖ 5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that despite the rejection, the applicant again represented on 17.10.2022 (Annexure-R/7), citing the judgment dated 12.05.2016 of the CAT, Kolkata Bench in O.A. No. 1490/2014. However, he failed to furnish any proof of its implementation. Subsequently, he referred to the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A. No. 112/2020, whereupon the Indian Air Force, vide letter dated 31.01.2023, sought from the applicant (i) a copy of NOC issued by 11 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 the Air Force at the time of joining civil employment, and (ii) a clarification from DGLL regarding whether his Air Force service had been counted for civil pension.
5.4 Further, it is contended that in response, the applicant sought a certificate from DGLL vide representation dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure-R/8) confirming whether his Air Force service was counted for civil pension. The matter was referred to the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) vide O.M. dated 31.08.2023 for comments. DESW, vide ID Note dated 06.12.2023, reiterated its earlier opinion communicated to DoP&PW on 09.01.2019 that the option once exercised is final and cannot be revised. This was conveyed to the applicant through DGLL's letter dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-R/9).
5.5 Learned counsel also contended that DoP&PW has consistently held that an option exercised under the CCS (Pension) Rules is final and cannot be modified at a later stage. Allowing retrospective alteration of options would undermine the pension framework and entail substantial financial implications for the Government, besides creating administrative uncertainty.
5.6 Learned counsel argued that the applicant has not produced any final implementation order of the judgments relied upon. In absence of such order, no inference can be drawn that the cited judgments have been implemented. It is clarified that the Indian Air Force, following the Hon'ble AFT order dated 13.01.2023, sought clarification from DGLL on whether the applicant's military service was counted for civil pension. The matter was referred to the nodal Ministry (DESW), which reiterated its earlier stand dated 09.01.2019, subsequently communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 12.12.2023.
12Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
5.7 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant rendered
31 years and 16 days of civil service in DGLL and had already availed the full benefit of 33 years of qualifying service by including a portion of his military service for computation of gratuity and pension. The applicant himself had opted on 28.09.1994 under Rule 19 (1) (b) to count his military service from 24.05.1977 to 10.02.1988 towards civil pension and refunded Rs. 66,446/- (sixty six thousand four hundred forty-six only) received as military gratuity and related benefits. While the 6th CPC dispensed with the 33-year linkage for full pension, the maximum limit of 33 years for gratuity and other terminal benefits remained unchanged. Having already availed such benefits, the applicant's request for de-counting his military service and refund of the said amount is untenable and contrary to the pension rules. The plea of ―undue hardship‖ is misconceived, as relaxation of statutory rules lies within the exclusive discretion of the Government, and no case for such relaxation is made out.
REJOINDER TO THE REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
6. In rebuttal to the reply filed by the respondents, the applicant has filed rejoinder on 18.09.2024 reiterating the contentions as stated in the OA. The applicant's counsel submitted that the applicant got the services of Air Force counted in civil service because before the recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission, Service of 33 years was required for getting full pension. But, implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission changed the scenario and period of service for getting full pension was reduced from 33 years to 20 years. The applicant's option for counting of previous Air Force service was also linked with the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for full pension. After implementation of new provisions of pension and reduction of service period for getting full pension 13 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 counting of previous service of Air Force was not required, therefore, the applicant requested for de-counting of his previous service of Air Force.
6.1 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the order/judgment of Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1490/2014 in the matter of P. K. Ghosh Vs. Union of India, wherein the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal has observed that:-
"It is settled law that difficulty in implementation of an order by court however grave its effect may be is no answer for its non implementation. Therefore, the ground for noncompliance that, the prayer for change if granted would open a floodgate/Pandora Box is of no excuse. Despite opportunity, no strong reason why the change of option should not be allowed have been furnished. The enumerated rule position too pose no legal bar. Therefore, admittedly and inarguably there was no strong reason available with the respondents in rejecting the claim. The rejection was palpably bad."
6.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in P. K. Ghosh Vs. Union of India has been implemented and the same has been confirmed vide the judgment dated 08.01.2021 in C.P.C/350/242/2016 in OA No. 350/1490/2014 by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal. 6.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1490/2014 has opined that despite opportunity no strong reason why the change of option should not be allowed have been furnished. The basis to exercise the option to count previous Air Force Service was then existing CCS (Pension) Rule wherein 33 years of qualifying service was a requirement to get full pension. However, subsequently CCS (Pension) Rules were changed wherein the requirement of 33 years qualifying service was dispensed with and reduced to 20 years of qualifying service. The prayer of the applicant is to seek opportunity to re-visit the option, exercised earlier, due to change of the ground on which the option was exercised.
14Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance on the following judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of, (i) Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1985 SCR (3) 837; (ii) U P Raghavendra Acharya Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630; (iii) Union of India Vs. S P S Vains (Retd.), reported in AIR 2008 SC (Suppl) 598; (iv) Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1971 SC; and (iv) Order/judgment dated 04.03.2025 of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 288/2023 in the matter of Thomas M. Saramma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
ANALYSIS
8. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant carefully.
9. The undisputed facts are that the applicant, ex-Air Force personnel, served as an Airman from 24.05.1977 to 09.02.1988 and thereafter, joined the Directorate General of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL) on selection through UPSC. He exercised an option under Rule 19 (1) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to count his past Air Force service for pension purposes and refunded the gratuity received from the Air Force. The DGLL, with approval from the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (MoPSW), counted his Air Force service towards qualifying service for pension vide order dated 09.08.2007. Subsequently, following the amendment of pension rules reducing qualifying service for full pension from 33 years to 20 years, the applicant represented in 2015 seeking (i) refund of the 15 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 gratuity amount repaid and (ii) de-counting of his previous military service, since he had already completed more than 30 years of civil service and derived no benefit from the earlier option. His request was repeatedly recommended by DGLL but rejected by MoPSW citing DoP&PW O.M. dated 09.01.2019, which held that the option once exercised was final and could not be revised. The applicant relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Govind Kumar Srivastava (Retd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) and CAT Kolkata Bench decision in O.A. No. 1490/2014, claiming similar relief. He also approached the Armed Forces Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 112/2020, which led to correspondence from the Air Force seeking clarifications regarding counting of service. Despite multiple representations and a legal notice, the Ministry declined to reconsider, citing potential large-scale implications. The applicant's learned counsel argued that the refusal to allow de-counting of military service, despite the change in pension rules, is arbitrary and has caused financial loss, leading him to file the present O.A.
10. The issue that falls for consideration before this Tribunal is whether, in light of the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules, reducing the qualifying service for full pension from 33 years to 20 years, the applicant should be permitted to revise or withdraw his earlier option exercised under Rule 19 (1) (b) to count his previous military service for civil pension.
11. It is not disputed that the applicant's option was exercised in 1994, when 33 years' qualifying service was a statutory requirement for grant of full pension. The applicant's choice was, therefore, rational and beneficial at that time. However, after the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented vide O.M. dated 02.09.2008, the rule position underwent a substantial change, reducing the qualifying service 16 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 for grant of full pension to 20 years. In consequence, the applicant's earlier option ceased to have any practical benefit and, in fact, deprived him of the legitimate entitlement to pro- rata pension for his 10 years and 262 days of military service.
12. We observe that the Applicant validly exercised the option under Rule 19 (1) (b) when the qualifying service for full pension was 33 years. The DGLL accepted his option and he refunded the amount of gratuity with interest. This establishes that his decision was knowingly made on the basis of the law as it then stood. The later amendment (via O.M. dated 02.09.2008) reducing qualifying service for full pension to 20 years significantly altered the pensions cape. The applicant's learned counsel argued that the basis on which the applicant had exercised his option no longer existed, thereby placing him at a disadvantage. The respondents have admitted the amendment but hold that the original option is binding. In service jurisprudence, when a statutory change occurs improving position of employees, equity demands that cases caught by transitional or past regimes may be considered for benefit, particularly, if the earlier decision leads to manifest disadvantage and there is no specific bar. The applicant's case is that despite serving over 30 years in civil service, he was still required to refund the amount for his previous military service. This shows that the option he exercised was in compliance with the Pension Rules then in force, but the intended benefit may not have materialized under the subsequently revised Pension Rules.
13. The key question is whether the applicant should now be permitted to undo his earlier option and claim his IAF service separately for pro-rata pension from IAF. The AFT's order already directed pro-rata pension from date of discharge. That 17 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 order is binding on parties inter se, though the implementing mechanism remains open.
14. The respondents' justification for denying revision of option on the ground of possible financial implications or multiplicity of similar claims cannot override an individual's legal right. Administrative convenience cannot be permitted to defeat the principles of fairness, equity, and justice. This Tribunal, in P. K. Ghosh Vs. Union of India (supra), has categorically held that the plea of ―opening a Pandora's box‖ is no excuse for denying legitimate claims under the law.
15. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad (supra), pension is not a bounty but a statutory right flowing from the rules. Once the legal landscape has changed, and the very foundation of the earlier decision is altered, a reasonable opportunity to revise such decision must necessarily follow, failing which the action of the respondents becomes arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
16. The respondents have also failed to appreciate that the applicant's request is not for relaxation of rules, but merely for applying the amended rule position equitably. The Government itself had accepted similar directions in other cases, including Govind Kumar Srivastava (Retd.) Vs. Union of India, W. P.(C) No.10026/2016, decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 19.01.2019, where pro-rata pension was allowed to a similarly situated Air Veteran. The relevant paras of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi read as under:-
"20. A weak attempt was made by learned counsel for the Respondents to suggest that the Petitioner was not permanently absorbed in Air India and therefore his case may stand on a different footing. Apart from the fact that this is factually incorrect, 18 Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 the question really is whether there is any rational basis for holding a NCO/ PBOR like the Petitioner disentitled to pro rata pension in terms of the letter/circular dated 19th February 1987, once such PBOR has fulfilled all other conditions for grant of pro rata pension viz., completion of ten years of regular service in the Defence Services followed by absorption in a PSU. The Court is unable to find any such justification or rational basis being put forth by the Respondents to justify the discriminatory treatment. The explanation put forth that grant of the benefit to Ex-Sergeant Kalan was because his was "a special case" and should not be treated as a precedent, and on that basis to deny the Petitioner who is identically placed the same relief, does not stand legal scrutiny.
21. With the Respondents failing to answer the principal challenge by the Petitioner to discriminatory part of the circular/letter dated 19th February 1987, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the denial in terms of the said letter/circular of the benefit of pro rata pension to PBORs/NCOs like the Petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
22. The Court accordingly sets aside the letter dated 6th June 2016 issued by the Respondents as well as the letter dated 26th July 2016 issued by the MoD rejecting the Petitioner's request for grant of pro rata pension. A direction is issued to the Respondents to grant the Petitioner pro rata pension from the date of his discharge from the IAF in terms of the circular/letter dated 19th February 1987. The consequential orders be issued within a period of eight weeks. The arrears of pro rata pension to be paid to the Petitioner within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. A failure to comply with the above direction would entail the Respondents having to pay simple interest at 6% p.a. on the arrears till the date of payment.
23. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order be issued dasti."
17. We observe that the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal, in the Order/judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No. 288/2023 in the matter of Thomas M. Saramma Vs. Union of India & Ors., granted pro-rata pension and de-counting of previous service in similar circumstances, as rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. In that case, the Tribunal accepted that when service had been counted under an earlier regime and the qualifying service for full pension was subsequently reduced, the option exercised earlier could be revisited, and pro-rata pension could be granted accordingly. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
19Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024 "31. In the case at hand, the judgment of Delhi High Court clearly shows that the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant in terms of the judgment of Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra). From the judgment of Govind Kumar (supra), it does not appear that counting of past service was an obstacle in granting of pro-rate pension. This judgment of Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) does not lay down the law that the employees whose past services are counted, are not entitled to pro-rata pension. As indicated earlier, the circular dated 19th February, 1987 does not say that pro-rata pension shall not be admissible to those who had exercised the option of counting of past service. The applicant's case is based on the same circular. Since this circular dated 19th February, 1987 does not say anything about counting of past service as the barrier for grant of pro-rata pension, the respondents cannot contend that the applicant is disentitled to grant of pro-rata pension simply because he had exercised the option of counting of past service. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the applicant had no option at the time of his retirement than to exercise the option of counting of past service because the pro-rata pension was not made applicable to NCOs. This clearly shows that the respondents are giving discriminatory treatment to Commissioned Officers and Non- Commissioned Officers. For Commissioned Officers the counting of past service is not a criteria for grant of pro-rata pension. But the same parameter has not been applied to NCOs and his application has been rejected on the above ground. I, therefore, do not find any justification in not allowing the applicant to claim pro-rata pension.
32. In these circumstances, OA will have to be allowed. However, from the order of rejection dated 21st December, 2021, it is seen that the applicant had received service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity at the time of discharge. The pro-rata pension will be granted to the applicant only on depositing service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity on payment of interest @7% per annum from the date of grant of service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity and till the amount is deposited, if not deposited.
33. OA is, accordingly, allowed. In this view of the matter, following order is passed:-
(1) Respondents shall grant pro-rata pension to the applicant from the date of his discharge, i.e. 2nd April, 1989 till the date of the order and continue thereafter subject to depositing of service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity by the applicant with interest @7% per annum from the date of payment till the date of deposit, if not already deposited.
(2) This exercise shall be done within a period of four months from today. No order as to costs."20
Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
18. Since both facts and law in the instant case align with those in Thomas M Saramma (supra), the applicant's claim merits favourable consideration.
19. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that denial of the applicant's request for de-
counting of his previous military service and consequent grant of pro-rata pension is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2019, as reiterated by letter dated 12.12.2023, cannot be sustained in law.
20. In the result, for the foregoing discussion, the present Original Application deserves to be allowed in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.01.2019 of the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare and the subsequent communication dated 12.12.2023 of the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to restore and process the applicant's claim for pro-rata pension from the Defence (Air Force) authorities for his service period from 24.05.1977 to 09.02.1988, in accordance with the applicable rules and judicial precedents on the subject.
They shall also refund the amount of Rs. 66,446/- (sixty six thousand four hundred forty-six only), which was deposited by the applicant towards gratuity and interest at the time of exercising his earlier option, along with interest at the GPF rate from the date of deposit until the date of actual payment.
21Item No. 31/C-II OA No. 220/2024
(iii) The respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
23. There shall be no order as to costs.
24. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RajinderKashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/