Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P K Pappan vs The Secretary Ministry Of Defence New ... on 27 January, 2025
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Original Application No. 180/00955/2016 Original Application No. 180/01069/2016 Original Application No. 180/00485/2017 Original Application No. 180/00284/2019 Original Application No. 180/00292/2019 Original Application No. 180/00293/2019 Original Application No. 180/00165/2021 Original Application No. 180/00169/2021 Monday, this the 27th day of January, 2025 CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J) Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1. Original Application No. 180/00955/2016 -
1. N. Vasavan, S/o Late K. Velu, aged 70 years, Retired Administrative Officer II, O/o the CE (NW) Kochi, Naval Base, Kataribag, Kochi-4, residing at 'Santhi Nivas', Akhil Road, Konthuruthy, PO Thevara, Kochi-13.
2. P. Raveendran Pillai, S/o Late Pappukunju Pillai, aged 71 years, Retired Administrative Officer II, O/o the CE (NW) Kochi, Naval Base, Kataribag, Kochi-4, residing at 'Pranavam', Thottathuvila, Kottappuram, PO Paravur, Kollam-691 301.
3. KCS Nair, S/o Late MG Krishna Pillai, aged 72 years, Retired Administrative Officer II, O/o the CWE, Mudfort, Secunderabad-500 003, residing at 'No. XI/88 (27/2139), 'Thankam Cottage', SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 2 Fort Kochi, Kochi-1.
4. AK Rajan, S/o Late KP Koran, aged 71 years, Retired Administrative Officer II, O/o the CWE(AF), Trivandrum-695 031, residing at 'Ushus', Paduvilayi, PO Pathiriyad, Kannur-670 741.
5. M. Bhaskaran Nair, S/o Late VP Sankaran Nair, aged 71 years, Office Superintendent, O/o the Garrison Engineer, Coimbatore, residing at 'Bhasura', Bhavans Road, Kovoor, PO Chevayur, Kozhikode-673 017.
6. M. Gopalakrishnan, S/o Late KK Unny Nair, aged 72 years, Office Superintendent, O/o the Chief Engineer (NW), Naval Base, Kochi-682 004, residing at 12/655, Chenganamkode, Kosathara, PO Chittoor, Palakkad-678 101.
7. KM Sebastian, S/o Late Mathai Mathew, aged 71 years, Assistant, O/o the Chief Engineer (NW), Naval Base, Kochi-682 004, residing at 'Kunnappallil' House, S4, Sakthi Nagar, Thripunithura-682 301, Ernakulam.
8. PG Sivasankara Pillai, S/o VN Govindapillai, aged 70 years, Retired Office Superintendent, O/o the Garrison Engineer (E/M) (NW), Naval Base, Kochi-682 004, residing at 'Kamalassery' House, Thundathumkadavu, Varapuzha, Ernakulam-683 517.
9. N. Gopalakrishnan Nair, aged 73 years, S/o. Damodharan Nair, Retired Administrative Officer II, Naval Base, Kochi-4, residing at Kocheril House, Kondadu, Ramapuram PO, Via Pala, Kottayam-686 576.
10. N. Purushothaman, aged 69 years, S/o. Nanu, Retired Administrative Officer II, Naval Base, Kochi, residing at Rohini, Maroor Post, Elamannoor Via, Pathanamthitta-691 524.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 3
11. Varughese G Daniel, aged 70 years, S/o. Geevarughese Daniel, Retired Administrative Officer II, residing at Nedumkandathil Peniyel Villa, Mathoor PO, Pathanamthitta-689 657.
12. Balakrishnan Chammoth, aged 71 years, S/o. Narayana Tharakan, Retired Administrative Officer II, Naval Base, Kochi, residing at Chammoth House, Thiruvazhiyode, Palakkad-679 514. -Applicants [By Advocate: Mr. R. Sreeraj] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Services, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defense (Army), Kashmir House, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uthar Pradesh - 211 014. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. S. Ramesh, ACGSC]
2. Original Application No. 180/01069/2016 -
1. S. Somarajan, aged 74 years, S/o Late N. Sivaraman, Retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), O/o the CE (NW) Kochi, Naval Base, Kochi-4, residing at 28/2976, Indiras, Elenjeri Road, PO Kadavanthra, Kochi-20.
2. K. J. Varghese, aged 76 years, S/o Late K.V. John, Retired Executive Engineer (QS&C), O/o the CE (NW) Kochi, Naval Base, Kochi-4, residing at Kallarimalil House, Block Road, SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 4 PO Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam-682 314.
3. T.K. Sugathan, aged 73 years, S/o Late K. Kochu Pillai, Retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), O/o the GE, DSSC Wellington, Nilgiris, residing at Thaileath House, PO Thattamala, Kollam-691 020.
4. P.L. Michael, aged 71 years, S/o Late P.M. Lonakutty, Retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), O/o the GE (Navy), Fort St. George. Chennai, residing at Pattery House, PO Kombathukadave, Thrissur, PIN-680 682.
5. A. Shanmughan Pillai, aged 74 years, S/o Late Ayya Pillai, Assistant Engineer (E&M), O/o the CE (NW), Naval Base, Kochi-4, residing at Poornasree, SNRA-28, Suvarna Nagar, Eroor (West), Ernakulam-682 306.
6. K. Aravindakshan, aged 75 years, S/o Late T Raman Menon, Retired Assistant Engineer (Civil), O/o the GE (North), Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai-400029, residing at Soubhagya, Siva Temple South Lane, Poonkunnom PO, Thrissur-680 002. -Applicants [By Advocate : Mr. R. Sreeraj] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Services, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence(Army). Kashmir House, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uthar Pradesh-211 014. -Respondents SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 5 [By Advocate: Mr. V.A Shaji, ACGSC]
3. Original Application No. 180/00485/2017 - George Chacko, aged 74 years, AO II (Retired), CE (NW), Kochi, residing at Adichumoola House, Thumpamon North PO, (Via) Elavumthitta, Dist. Pathanamthitta, Kerala, PIN-689 625. -Applicant [By Advocate: Mr. R. Sreeraj] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioner's Welfare, New Delhi-110 003.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Services, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence(Army), Kashmir House, New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uthar Pradesh-211 014.
5. The Central Record Office (Officers), DG (Pers)/E1B/E-in-C's Branch, Pin-900 106, C/o 56 APO.
6. The Chief Engineer (NW) Kochi, Military Engineer Services, Naval Base, Kochi-682 004. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. N. Anil Kumar, SPC] SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 6
4. Original Application No. 180/00284/2019 -
1. K. Bharathan, S/o Late Kanakot Aramughan, aged 75 years, EE (Civil) Retired, CE (NAVAC), Ezhimala, residing at Kanakot House, PO Eramangalam, Malappuram, PIN-679 587.
2. K. Thulaseedharan, S/o Late A. Narayanan, aged 78 years, Superintedent (E/M) Grade I (Retired), CE (NW) Kochi, residing at Thulasee Sadanam, Murunthal, PO Perinad, Kollam, PIN-691 601.
3. KN Vijaya Mohan, S/o Late KA Nanoo, aged 79 years, Superintendent (E/M) Grade I (Retired), GE (AF) Sulur, Coimbatore-641 041, residing at Kochayyath Nandanam, PO Elavumthitta, Pathanamthitta, PIN-689 625.
4. Mrs. Basheera Mohammed, aged 68 years, W/o Late M. Mohammed, (JE (E/M) Retired, GE(NS) Kochi), residing at 23/528 A, Kalappurakkal House, Madura Company Road, Palluruthy PO, Kochi-6. -Applicants [By Advocates: Mr. R. Sreeraj & Mr. T.I. Mathewkutty] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Services, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence(Army), Kashmir House, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uthar Pradesh-211 014. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC] SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 7
5. Original Application No. 180/00292/2019 -
1. PK Pappan, S/o Late Kunjukuttan, aged 84 years, Retired Civilian Gazetted Officer, Naval Stores Depot, Kochi-4, residing at Jai Vihar, Kusumagiri, PO Kakkanad, Kochi-30.
2. CK Rajappan, S/o Late Krishnan, aged 86 years, Retired Office Superintendent Grade II, Naval Stores Depot, Naval Base, Kochi-4, residing at Chakkalaparambil House, Thevara PO, Kochi-13.
3. N. Joseph Jayachandra, S/o Late Dr. J. Nehniah, Retired Office Superintendent, Naval HQs, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011, residing at Jaya Cottage, 57/1616, Puthiya Road, Kochi-20. -Applicants [By Advocates: Mr. R. Sreeraj & Mr. T.I. Mathewkutty] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, HQ Southern Naval Command, Kochi-4
3. The Controller of Materials, Naval Store Depot, Kochi-4
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uthar Pradesh-211 014.
5. The Director, Directorate of Civilian Personnel Services (P&P), Integrated HQ of MoD (Navy), 'A' Block Hutments, New Delhi-110 011. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. V.N. Mohanadasan, ACGSC] SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 8
6. Original Application No. 180/00293/2019 -
1. TC Joseph, S/o TJ Chacko, aged 76 years, Retired Admin Superintendent, NPOL, Kakkanad, Thrikkakara PO, Kochi-21, residing at Rose Villa, Thuruthimattam (H), First Cross Road, South Panampilly Nagar, Kadavanthra PO, Kochi-20.
2. VN Rajam, W/o Late Shri. TS Sankara Narayana Iyer, aged 78 years, Retired Office Superintendent Grade II, NPOL, Kakkanad, Thrikkakara PO, Kochi-21, residing at Thekkemadam, Ettumanoor, Pala Road, Kottayam-31.
3. Saramma Cherian, W/o PT Cherian, aged 79 years, Retired Office Superintendent Grade II, NPOL, Kakkanad, Thrikkakara PO, Kochi-21, residing at Madukkani Puthenpurackal, Muttambalam, Kottayam.
4. NP Viswanathan, S/o Late C Gopala Menon, aged 76 years, Retired Admin Superintendent, NPOL, Kakkanad, Thrikkakara PO, Kochi-21, residing at Reshmi, Mamangalam, Palarivattom PO, Kochi-25.
5. KK Baby, W/o PT Kunju, aged 76 years, Retired Data Entry Operator 'D', NPOL, Kakkanad, Thrikkakara PO, Kochi-21, residing at Ponnarassery House, PS Road, Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi-17. -Applicants [By Advocates: Mr. R. Sreeraj & Mr. T.I. Mathewkutty] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Chairman, DRDO, Directorate of Human Resources & Development, DRDO Head Quarters, Rajaji Marg, SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 9 New Delhi-110 011.
3. The Director, Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory, Thrikkakara PO, Kochi-682 021.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uthar Pradesh-211 014.
5. The Controller of Defence Accounts, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Zonal Office (Defence Pension Disbursement), 618-Annasalai, Teyanampet, Chennai-18. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. N. Anilkumar, SPC]
7. Original Application No. 180/00165/2021 - P.K. Kanakamma, aged 76 years, W/o Late B. Jayaram, Retired Junior Engineer (E/M), O/o the Garrison Engineer (NS) Kochi, residing at "Sravanam", Green Garden Road, PO CSEZ, Kakkanad, Kochi-682 037. -Applicant [By Advocate: Mr. R. Sreeraj] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 003.
3. The Chief Engineer (NW) Kochi, Military Engineer Services, Kochi Zone, Kataribagh, Naval Base, Kochi-682 004.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadhi Ghat P.O., Allahabad-211 014.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 10
5. The Controller of Defence Accounts Chennai, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
6. The Defence Pension Disbursing Officer Ernakulam, Defence Accounts Department Complex, Varghese Thittle Cross Road, Perumanoor P.O., Kochi-682 015. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC]
8. Original Application No. 180/00169/2021 - N. Vasavan, aged 75 years, S/o Late K Velu, Retired Administrative Officer Grade II, O/o the Chief Engineer (NW) Kochi, Kataribagh, Naval Base, Kochi-682004, residing at "Santhi Nivas", Akhil Road, Konthuruthy, Thevara P.O., Kochi-682013. -Applicant [By Advocate: Mr. R. Sreeraj] Versus
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 003.
3. The Chief Engineer (NW) Kochi, Military Engineer Services, Kochi Zone, Kataribagh, Naval Base, Kochi-682 004.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadhi Ghat P.O., Allahabad-211 014.
5. The Controller of Defence Accounts Chennai, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 11
6. The Defence Pension Disbursing Officer Ernakulam, Defence Accounts Department Complex, Varghese Thittle Cross Road, Perumanoor P.O., Kochi-682015. -Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. C. Rajendran, SPC] These Original Applications having been heard on 07.10.2024, the Tribunal on 27.01.2025 delivered the following:
Common O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
OAs Nos. 955/2016, 1069/2016, 485/2017, 284/2019, 292/2019 & 293/2019 -
All the applicants herein are pre-2016 Central Government pensioners. Applicants in OAs Nos. 955 of 2016, 1069 of 2016, 284- 2019, 484-2019 and 169-2021 retired from Military Engineer Services (MES). Applicants in OA No. 292 of 2019 retired from Naval Stores.
Applicants in OA No. 293 of 2019 retired from Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL). The 1st applicant in OA No. 955 of 2016 is the sole applicant in OA No. 169 of 2021. Since OA No. 165 of 2021 is slightly distinct on facts and reliefs, it will be separately dealt with.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 12
2. After the notification of VIth Central Pay Commission Report, the Government of India vide resolution dated 29.8.2008 revised the pension of the pensioner in which paragraph 21 of the said resolution relates to pre-2006 pensioners. Since it is relevant for the consideration of the present OAs, it is extracted, with the corresponding acceptance by the Government as follows:
S. No. Recommendation Decision of Government 12 All past pensioners should be Accepted with the modification allowed fitment benefit equal to that fixation of pension shall be 40% of the pension excluding based on a multiplication factor of the effect of merger of 50% 1.86, i.e. basic pension + dearness allowance / dearness Dearness Pension (wherever relief as pension (in respect of applicable) + dearness relief of pensioners retiring on or after 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.4.2004) and dearness 1.74.
pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief / dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay.
Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1.1.2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. 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 sum of the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 13 minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (5.1.47).
3. Pursuant thereto, Government of India by OM dated 1.9.2008 issued directives for implementation of the Government decision on the recommendation of the VIth Central Pay Commission regarding the revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners. Annexure A1 in OA 955/2016 is the said Office Memorandum. (Documents are hereinafter referred to in the order marked in OA 955/2016). Clause 4.2 of the said Office Memorandum is relevant for the purpose of this Original Applications. It is extracted as follows:
"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 retried. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale."
4. It seems that after the issuance of Annexure A1, several representations were received from pre-2006 pensioners by the Government of India, pointing out anomalies. Consequently, the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare issued clarifications dated SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 14 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, copies of which are produced and marked as Annexures A2 and A3 in the said Original Application.
5. According to the applicants, the clarifications as per Annexures A2 and A3 and concordance table attached thereto took a restrictive interpretation of the term "minimum of the pay in the pay band" as seen in paragraph 4.2 of Annexure A2. According to the applicants both Annexures A2 and A3 interpreted the term "minimum of the pay in the pay band" as minimum of the pay band itself. Annexures A2 and A3 did not permit any notional fixation of pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired and consequential revision of pension but a mechanical application of the revised pension indicated in the concordance table which corresponded to 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus Grade Pay. According to the applicants, that was not what the Cabinet envisaged in its resolution dated 29.8.2008 or the Ministry as contemplated in paragraph 4.2 of Annexure A1. According to the applicants, the Cabinet resolution and the consequential paragraph 4.2 in Annexure A1 clearly envisaged a notional fixation of pay in the revised pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale of pay from which the petitioner had retired, so as to arrive at the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 15 minimum of pay in the pay band and thus to ensure that pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the same of maximum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade Pay thereon.
6. Aggrieved by Annexures A2 and A3 to the extent they restricted the scope of the term minimum of the pay in the pay band, some of the pre- 2006 pensioners approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 655 of 2010. A Full Bench of the Tribunal by Annexure A4 order held that the principle of modified parity as recommended by the Vth CPC and accepted by the VIth CPC and endorsed by the Central Government provided that the revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired. Holding that the clarification was in deviation from what was originally intended, Annexures A2 and A3 were quashed. Respondents were directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 pensioners with effect from 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated 29.8.2008 and in the light of the final order.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 16
7. Annexure A4 order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the Union of India in WP(C) No. 1535 of 2012 and connected cases. The Hon'ble High Court, by Annexure A5 judgment declined to interfere in Annexure A4 final order and dismissed the Writ Petitions, relying on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in WP(C) No. 19641 of 2009. This was challenged before the Supreme Court in CA No. 8875 and 8876 of 2011 and connected cases, which dismissed the appeals by Annexure A6 judgment.
8. In the meanwhile, the Government had issued Annexure A7 Office Memorandum dated 28.1.2013 with revised concordance table of the pre- 1996, pre-2006 and post-2006 pay scales/pay bands indicating the pension/family pension rates. However, in Annexure A7 it was directed that pension/family pension of all pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners may be revised in accordance with the OM with effect from 24.9.2012. However, by Annexure A8 OM dated 30.7.2015 it was clarified that the pension/family pension of all pre-2006 pensioners will be revised from 1.1.2006, instead of 24.9.2012.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 17
9. The grievance of the applicants is that instead of extending the benefit of Annexure A8 OM to the applicants who are pre-2006 pensioners and hence, fell within the purview of Annexures A4, A5, A6 and A8, respondents did not extend the benefit. They submitted representations which were rejected. Aggrieved by the above, applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking a relief to quash the said orders and direct the respondents to revise the pension of the applicants with effect from 1.1.2006 and with consequential further revision with effect from 1.1.2016 as claimed in the OAs' by extending them the benefit of Annexure A4 final order and Annexure A8 OM as well as Annexure A4(B) OM and grant them all consequential benefits.
10. The respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply statement in each of the above case traversing the allegations raised in the Original Applications and denying the contentions. The contentions set up by the respondents will be dealt with in the course of discussion of facts and analysis of legal issues.
11. Heard both sides and examined the records. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 18
12. Paragraph 4.2 of Annexure A1 was the disputed clause, which was sought to be clarified by Annexure A2 dated 3.10.2008 in the following manner:
Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08- Clarification/modification P&W(A) dated 1.9.2008 4.2 The fixation of pension will be The pension calculated at 50% of the subject to the provision that the minimum of pay in the pay band plus revised pension, in no cases, shall be grade pay would be calculated (I) at lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised band and the grade pay thereon scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired. retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.
37400-67000 and the corresponding grade pay being Rs. 10,000/- p.m. his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of Rs. 37,400+Rs. 10,000 (i.e. Rs. 23,700). A statement indicating the minimum pension corresponding to each of the pre-2006 scales of pay is enclosed at Annexure.
.................
.................
13. Annexure A3 is dated 14.10.2008. In paragraph 4 it was stated that a revised concordance table of the pre-1996, pre-2006 and post-2006 pay scales/pay bands was enclosed to facilitate payment of revised pension/family pension in terms of paragraph 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified vide OM dated 3.10.2008), in all cases where SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 19 fixation of pension under that provision was more beneficial.
14. The legality of Annexures A2 and A3, was the subject matter of Annexure A4 order of the Full Bench of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. One of the grievances raised by the applicant therein was that the employees who had retired prior to 1.1.2006 and those who had retired thereafter, form one class of persons and attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not based on an intelligible differentia which had a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved and hence violative of the principles laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305] and Union of India v. S.P.S. Vains [(2008) 9 SCC 125]. The further grievance of the applicants therein was that the recommendation that notional pay fixation and consequent pension should not be lower than the 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the scale of pay from which they had retired was accepted by the Government vide resolution dated 29.8.2008, but the clarifications issued by the respondents by OMs dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were contrary to the resolution dated 29.8.2008 and the OM dated 1.9.2008, to the extent of paragraph 4.2 was illegal, arbitrary, SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 20 discriminatory, unreasonable and unjust. However, on an evaluation of the factual and legal issues involved, the Full Bench rejected the contention of the applicants based on D.S. Nakara's case (supra) that the pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits as that of the post-2006 retirees, could not be accepted.
15. Regarding the second issue, after referring to the various OMs the Full Bench of the Tribunal concluded as follows:
"26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words "sum of the"
"and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale"
and adding "irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus" implying that the revised pension is to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the applicants. According to us, such a course was not available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification thereby altering the recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government. According to us, deletion of the words "sum of the" "and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale" "and addition of the words "irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus", as introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the recommendations of the VI CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, which has been SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 21 accepted by the Cabinet. Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring the matter to the Cabinet.
27. We also wish to add that the Pay Commissions are concerned with the revision of the pre-revised "pay scales" and also that in terms of Rule 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the pension of retirees has to be fixed on the basis of the average emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement. Thus, the pre-revised scale from which a person has retired and the emoluments which he was drawing at the time immediately preceding his retirement are a relevant consideration for the purpose of computing revised pension and cannot be ignored. As such, it was not permissible for the respondents to ignore the pre-revised scale of pay for the purpose of computing revised pension as per the modified parity in the garb of issuing the clarifications, thereby altering the modified parity/formula, which was accepted by the Central Government vide its resolution dated 29.08.2008."
16. On the above reasoning, the Tribunal proceeded to hold as follows:
"29. From the above extracted portion it is clear that the principle of modified parity, as recommended by the V CPC and accepted by the VI CPC and accepted by the Central Government provides that revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retried. According to us, as already stated above, in the garb of clarification, respondents interpreted minimum of pay in the pay band as minimum of the pay band. This interpretation is apparently erroneous............"
17. After Annexure A4 order, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare issued Annexure A7 OM dated 28.1.2013 relating to the revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners. It was stated in paragraph 2 as follows:
"2. It has been decided that the pension of pre-2006 pensioners as revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time, would be further SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 22 stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008. In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above referred OM dated 30.8.2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
3. ...........
4. A revised concordance table (Annexure) of the pre-1996, pre- 2006 and post 2005 pay scales/pay bands indicating the pension/family pension (at ordinary rates) payable under the above provisions is enclosed to facilitate payment of revised pension/family pension.
.........
7. In case the pension consolidated pension/family pension/enhanced family pension calculated as per para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same (higher consolidated pension/family pension) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension.
.........
9. These orders will take effect from the date of approval by the Government i.e. 24.9.2012. There will be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012, and therefore, no arrears will be payable on account of these orders for that period."
18. Annexure A4 order was challenged before the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 1535 of 2012 and connected cases. When the matter came up for final hearing Annexure A7 order was placed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. After referring to the above OM in detail as well as SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 23 the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, it was held that the Division Bench was in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.K. Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [WP(C) No. 19641/2009] wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows:
"26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that "the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired", this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost."
Referring to the above judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi endorsed the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and concluded that regarding the substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government had accepted its correctness, but insisted on to make the same applicable prospectively. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 24
19. This was followed by Annexure A8 OM dated 30.7.2015 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare. It was stated therein as follows:
"4. Accordingly, in compliance with the above judicial pronouncements, it has been decided that the pension/family pension of all pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners may be revised in accordance with this Department's OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013 with effect from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012. Further, this benefit has already been granted to the Applicants in OA No. 655/2010 vide OM of even No. dated 26/08/2014 read with OM dated 19/09/2014 following dismissal of SLP (C) No.23055/2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. In case the consolidated pension/family pension calculated as per para 4.1 of O.M. No.38/37108-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated in the O.M. dated 28.1.2013, the same (higher consolidated pension/family pension) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension.
6. All other conditions as given in OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time shall remain unchanged."
20. The common grievance of the applicants in the above OAs' is that the pension that is being received by each of the applicants was not in accordance with their respective actual entitlements. The respondents were illegally withholding the pension which the applicants were entitled to. It was contended that the question whether a proper revision was done by the respondents or not was the crucial question that arose. Evidently, what was contemplated by paragraph 4.2 of the OM was settled by the final order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 655 of 2010 and SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 25 connected cases. It was contended that pension in no case shall be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. According to the applicants, minimum of the pay in the pay band and minimum of the pay band are two entirely different concepts and it is the former which was applicable to the pre-2006 pensioners. However, according to the applicants, the respondents still create confusion by too much reliance on the concordance/fitment table in the matter of determining what should be the revised pension and the concordance table illustrates only an example with respect to each pre- revised scale. It was not exhaustive of all cases. Secondly, it was contended that the benefit of upgradation of pay and revised pension corresponding to the upgraded scale of pay was denied by the respondents.
21. The scope of the modified parity as recommended by the Pay Commission and as accepted by the Government was dealt with in detail by the Full Bench. After considering paragraph 5.1.47 of the VIth CPC recommendations as accepted by the resolution dated 29.8.2008 and paragraph 4 of OM dated 1.9.2008, the Full Bench held that from the said SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 26 paragraph of the VIth CPC, it was clear that the revised pension in the pre- 2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, the Full Bench proceeded to hold that the two clarifications subsequent by the OMs' which were under challenge before the Full Bench had substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the 6th CPC causing great prejudice to the applicants therein. It proceeded to hold that the Pay Commission's are concerned with the revision of pre- revised pay scales and also that in terms of Rule 34 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the pension of the retirees had to be fixed on the basis of average emoluments drawn by them at the time of retirement. Thus, the pre-revised scale from which the person had retired and the emoluments which he was drawing at the time immediately preceding his retirement are relevant considerations for the purpose of computing revised pension and could not be ignored.
22. To further elucidate the scope of the modified parity as recommended, the Full Bench referred to paragraph 137.21 of Vth CPC SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 27 recommendations which indicated that to enunciate a principle for the future revision of pensions to the effect that complete parity should normally be conceded up to the date of last pay revision and modified parity with pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay scale be accepted at the time of each of the fresh pay revision. It was recommended that by the next pay revision in the year 2006 complete parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post- 1996 and modified parity be given between pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners. Relying on it the Full Bench held that the principle of modified parity as recommended by Vth CPC and accepted by the VIth CPC and Central Government provided that revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade Pay corresponding to revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
23. The anomaly in the two clarifications issued by the Government were noted by the Full Bench which set aside both the OMs'. It was thereafter, the Government had issued fresh OMs and a general guideline to be followed in accordance with the Full Bench decision. It is seen from the records that after Annexure A8 OM dated 30.7.2015 was issued, it SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 28 was placed before the Principal Bench in Contempt Petition No. 229 of 2015 in OA No. 655 of 2010. The submission that it was issued in compliance with the order of the Full Bench was accepted. It foreclose any further challenge to it. Evidently, the OMs issued pursuant to the Tribunal's order is strictly in terms of the Full Bench decision.
24. In the context of the twin contentions set up by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is essential to refer to the decision of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 330/658/2016 dated 28th May, 2018. Referring to the OM dated 28.1.2013 and the fitment table it was held that what was meant by the provisions in the resolution dated 29.8.2008 has been calculated and the same was annexed to the OM dated 28.1.2013 to facilitate payment of the revised pension/family pension. The contentions of the applicants herein that the respondents mechanically follow the fitment table and that it only projects specific instances does not merit consideration.
25. Yet another contention advanced therein was that the revised pension was required to be fixed on the basis of the pay drawn by them at the time of retirement in the pay scale applicable to them before 1.1.2006 SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 29 in the pay band applicable to the pay scale from which the applicant had retired. It was held that it was clearly not what was meant by the expression used in OM dated 28.1.2013 that 50% of the sum of minimum pay in the pay band and Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the applicant therein has retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed by the Ministry of Finance. The contention of the learned counsel that their due reliance on concordance table is not sustainable which is intended to facilitate the calculation. What is to be seen is whether the revision of pension was within the broad parameters of both OMs' and whether it is more beneficial to the concerned pensioner. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the grounds advanced by the learned counsel in the present OAs still survives notwithstanding the order by the Full Bench, we feel that entire disputes now raised by the applicants stand covered by the OMs issued pursuant to the Full Bench decision.
26. Having considered the entire facts, we find no reason to accept the contentions set up by the applicants. The challenge made by the applicants is without any merit and is liable to be rejected. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 30 OA No. 165/2021 -
27. OA No.165/2021, lies on a slightly different factual matrix and hence is separately dealt with. The applicant commenced her service in the M.E.S on 1.7.1988. In 1999, posts of Superintendent E /M Grade II and E/M Grade I were merged and re-designated as JE E/M. The applicant retired on 31.5.2005. Pursuant to litigation, she got her scale of pay increased to Rs.6,500-10,500, resulting in enhancement of Basic Pay as on retirement as Rs.7,500/- from 1.6.2005 to 31.12.2005. Pension was accordingly revised to Rs.2,898/-. It was further revised to Rs.8,145/- from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2015 reckoning Grade Pay as Rs.4,200/-. On 6th Pay Commission recommendations implementation, the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.6,500-10,500 was replaced by Pay Band 2 of Rs.9,300- 34,800 with GP of 4,200/-. Posts in pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.6500- 10500 with GP of Rs.4600/- corresponding to pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.7450/- 11500/- by Annexure A1 O.M dated 13.11.2009. However, the benefits was extended only in 2019 by Annexure A2 dated 4.1.2019. The corrigendum PPO of the 4th respondent dated 6.2.2019, failed to reckon the GP admissible to the applicant as Rs.4,600/- and there was a shortage of Rs.1,130/- in the Basic Pension itself. The revised pension from SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 31 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2015 ought to have been Rs.9,275/- and not Rs.8,145/-. In these circumstances, seeking revision of her pay of pension with effect from 1.1.2006, considering the GP as Rs.4,600/- and with effect from 1.1.2016 considering the Basic Pay as Rs.49,000/-, the applicant submitted Annexure A3 representation. Since there was no reply, she submitted another representation as Annexure A4. In the meanwhile, one Shri. Vasavan, a similarly situated pre-2006 pensioner, got pay and arrears by reckoning the GP as Rs.4,600/-. Referring to it, Annexure A5 representation was submitted.
28. Thereafter, on 30.10.2020, a sum of Rs.1,13,964/- was credited to the Bank Account of the applicant. Interestingly, the breakup of the amount thus credited was not furnished to the applicant. According to the applicant, out of the above amounts, Rs.26,267/- ought to have been the monthly pension for October 2020. Pointing out the anomaly, Annexure A7 representation was submitted. When she was paid the pension for November 2020, there was a reduction of Rs.2,934/-. This was pointed out by submitting Annexure A-7 and claiming the benefit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in State of Punjab v. Rafiq and Masih (AIR 2015 SC 696). Annexure A8 letter was issued by the 6th respondent SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 32 clarifying that the revision of pension from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2015 were based on PCDA Circular was only notional meant for fixation purpose only. It was stated that due to upward revision of monthly pension, on getting ACP an amount of Rs. 1,84,516/- was due to her as arrears, and Rs. 93,885/- was deducted towards downward revision of pension from Rs. 22,450/- to Rs. 20,933/- for the period from 1.1.2016 to 30.9.2020. Claiming that the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- was not reckoned while revising the pension, she submitted further representations. Thereafter, she was served with Annexure A9 notice.
29. It is evident from the facts disclosed that the recovery from the applicant was based on OM dated 22.5.2019 and the concordance table dated 9.7.2019 which was the subject matter of other OAs. Apprehending further recovery, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the same reliefs as sought in the other OAs.
30. The respondents filed the reply statement wherein it was contended that as per Annexure A2 OM dated 4.1.2019, the entries at serial no.13 in the Annexure of OM dated 28.1.2013 has been substituted by the entries shown in the statement annexed therein, according to which the revised SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 33 pension for the pre-2006 pensioners who retired from the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- would be Rs.8,345/-, i.e., 50% of Rs.12,090 + GP of 4,600/-. As far as the revision of pension with effect from 1.1.2006 of pre-2006 pensioners who retired from the 5th CPC scale of Rs.6,500- 10,500/- was concerned, instructions have been given to revise the pension as per the 6th CPC in accordance with Annexure A2 OM. Accordingly; revised PPO was issued to her as Annexure R1(A). Since the applicant's grievance was addressed, no further relief is liable to be granted. It was contended that by virtue of Annexure A2 OM, the case of the applicant was re-examined, in the light of orders issued by the Ministry of Finance by OM dated 13.11.2009 and decisions taken by the Courts. It was held that the GP of Rs.4,600/- can be considered as the GP corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-. Accordingly, it was decided that for the purpose of revision of pension/family pension under para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008, Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- may be considered as corresponding GP in the cases of pre-2006 pensioners who retired/died in the 5th CPC scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- or equivalent pay. Therefore, the benefit of the OM was extended to the pre-2006 pensioners in the year 2019 only, is not correct and the benefit has been SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 34 extended retrospectively with effect from 1.1.2006 to all the pensioners who had retired in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-.
31. It was contended that in the case of Mr. Vasavan relied on by the applicant, the 6th respondent DPDO Ernakulam had misinterpreted the contents of a circular and released the arrears amounting to Rs.1,32,120/- in September 2020. It was later clarified to the 6th respondent and was advised to recover the excess pay by Annexure R1(B). The case of applicant was thoroughly re-examined and instructions were issued to the 6th respondent to revise the pension and arrears by Annexure R1(C) communication. Sixth respondent confirmed the revision of pension as directed in Annexure R1(C) and arrears amounting to Rs.1,42,658/- was paid to the applicant on 3.5.2021 by Annexure R1(D). According to the instructions given by the 6th respondent, the applicant is entitled to revise the pension of Rs.8,345/- with effect from 1.1.2006 and Rs.22,450/- with effect from 1.1.2016. The matter was also taken up with the 4th respondent for further revision of pension, if any since the applicant was granted the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- consequent to the grant of ACP. It was further contented that the 6th respondent had erred on account of not revising the pension of the applicant to Rs.8,345/- with SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 35 effect from 1.1.2006 and for bringing down the pension from Rs.22,450/- to Rs.20,933/- with effect from 1.1.2016 besides effecting recovery of Rs.93,885/-. The contention was that recovery seemed to be based on OM dated 22.5.2019 and concordance table dated 9.7.2019, which was the subject matter of the above OAs.
32. In the course of hearing of the present OA along with other OAs, respondents were directed to file a statements/clarifications regarding the pension being paid to the applicant. In the statement so filed, it was stated that pursuant to the clarification, 5th respondent had intimated the 3rd respondent regarding the issuance of corrigendum revising the pension as Rs.24,500/- with effect from 1.1.2016. The payment of arrears of Rs.1,46,042/- was also confirmed. It was further stated that revised pay band of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6,500/-10,500/- was Rs.9,300- 34,800/-, corresponding GP was Rs.4,200/- as per the fitment tables and the minimum pay of pay in the band is Rs.12,092/-. As per Annexure A2 OM dated 4.1.2019, the GP alone of the pre-revised scale of Rs.6,500- 10,500/- was revised to Rs.4,600/-. Therefore, the revised pension with respect to the OM dated 1.9.2008 has to be arrived at by adding together the minimum of the pay in the pay band which was Rs.8,345/- which SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 36 would be the revised pension with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, it was contended that the applicant was not entitled for any benefits.
33. Patently the Grade Pay corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- was as Rs. 4,200/-. Later by OM dated 4.1.2019, the Grade Pay alone was revised to Rs. 4,600/-. Hence, the revised pension has been arrived at in accordance with paragraph 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008 and in the manner prescribed therein. Hence, the revised pension is Rs. 8,345/- with effect from 1.9.2008. Pursuant to Annexure R1(E), with respect to revision of pension consequent to grant of pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- under ACP, corrigendum PPO was issued revising pension of applicant as Rs. 24,500/- with effect from 1.1.2016. Hence, the grievance of applicant for grant of revision of pension with effect from 1.1.2016 stands satisfied. The further prayer for quashing of paragraph 7 of Annexure A2 is not sustainable. Consequently, there is no illegal recovery. In the above circumstances, applicant is not entitled for any relief.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 37 OA No. 169 of 2021 -
34. The applicant herein is the first applicant in OA No. 955 of 2016. He retired from a post carrying a pre-revised scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- with basic pay of Rs. 8,100/-. The pension sanctioned was Rs. 9,835/- with effect from 1.1.2006 consequent to enhancement of Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. He was paid Rs. 1,32,120/- as arrears for the period from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2015. However, by communication dated 26.11.2020, it was intimated that the payment of arrears as above was not in order. Though a representation was submitted, a sum of Rs. 9,925/- was recovered from the salary during December, 2020. Accordingly, the OA was filed and an interim stay of recovery was granted.
35. The relief sought in the OA was to quash paragraph 7 of OM dated 4.1.2019 and paragraph 5 of communication of PCDA on a premise that they restrict the revised pension as Rs. 8,345/- and to direct the respondents to restore all the benefits to applicant and to refund the amount recovered.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 38
36. Evidently, the present OA lies on exact same ground as in OA No. 165 of 2021 and the common grounds in other OAs'. In the light of the conclusions arrived at in the above OAs, we find no merits in the present OA also. It is accordingly, dismissed.
37. In the result, all OAs' fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V. RAMA MATHEW) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30'
39
Original Application No. 180/00955/2016
APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1: True copy of the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioner's Welfare OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008. Annexure A-2: True copy of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare clarifications F.No.38/ 37 / 08-P & PW(A)pt.1 dated 3.10.2008.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare clarification No.38/37/08-P & PW(A)pt.1 dated 14.10.2008.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the final order dated 1.11.2011 in OA 0655/2010 and connected cases on the file of the Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A-4(A): True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.2.2009 of the Department of Pensions & Pensioner's Welfare. Annexure A-4(B): True copy of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) Letter F No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the judgment dated 29.4.2013 in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 & connected cases on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Annexure A-6: True copy of the order dated 17.3.2015 in CA No 8875-8876 of 2011 and connected cases.
Annexure A-7: True copy of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare OM 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 40 Annexure A-8: True copy of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.7.2015.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the Letter No. AT/DPDO/Ernakulam/2016 dated 22.4.2016 issued by the O/o the PCDA (P), Allahabad.
Annexure A-10: True copy of the Letter No. G1/C/XIII/CPGRAM/05/2016 dated 30.5.2016 issued by the SAO (P), O/o the Principal CDA (P), Allahabad.
Annexure A-11: True copy of the Letter No. AT/DPDO/EKLM/2016 dated 30.4.2016 issued by the Sr.AO(AT), O/o the 3rd respondent.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure-R1: Copy of the resolution dt.29.08.2008 issued by Govt. Of India.
Annexure-R2: Copy of OM dt. 01.09.2008.
Annexure-R3: Relevant page (page 9) of ready reckoner provided by
GOI, Min. of P, PG OM F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01.09.2008.
Annexure-R4: Copy of OM dt.28.01.2013.
Annexure-R5: Copy of OM dt.30.07.2015.
Annexure-R6: Copy of order dt.28.05.2018 in OA No.658/2016 CAT
Allahabad.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30'
41
Original Application No. 180/01069/2016
APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1: True copy of OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated
1.9.2008
Annexure A-2: True copy of the clarifications F.No.38/ 37 / 08-P &
PW(A)pt.1 dated 3.10.2008
Annexure A-3: True copy of the clarification No.38/ 37 / 08-P &
PW(A)pt.1 dated 14.10.2008
Annexure A-4: True copy of the final order dated 1.11.2011 in OA
0655/2010 and connected cases on the file of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the judgment dated 29.4.2013 in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 & connected cases on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Annexure A-6: True copy of the order dated 17.3.2015 in CA No 8875-8876 of 2011 and connected cases.
Annexure A-7: True copy of the OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013.
Annexure A-8: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.7.2015.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the representation dated 12.7.2016 st submitted by the 1 applicant.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R-1: True copy of the calculation sheet. Annexure R-2: True copy of the resolution dated 29.08.2008. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 42 Annexure R-3: True copy of OM F.No.38/37/08- P&PW(A) dated 01.09.2008 by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Annexure R-4: True copy of relevant portion of ready reckoner provided by GOI, Min. of P, PG & P OM dated 01.09.2008. Annexure R-5: True copy of OM dated 28.01.2013 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Annexure R-6: True copy of the OM dated 30.07.2015 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Annexure R-7: True copy of the Order dated 28.05.2018 in O.A.No.658/2016 by the CAT, Allahabad Bench.
Original Application No. 180/00485/2017 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1: True copy of the representation dated 1.12.2016 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-2: True copy of the representation dated 1.12.2016 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the Memo No. AT/PSB/X/CPPC/SBT dated 6.2.2017.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the Letter No. CRO/34/GC/04/2003(9/25) dated 2.2.2017.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.7.2015. Annexure A-6: True copy of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) Letter F No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 43 Annexure A-7: True copy of the final order dated 1.11.2011 in OA 0655/2010 of the Full Bench of this Tribunal.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES Annexure-R1(a): True copy of the O.M dated 28.01.2013 issued by the Government of India.
Annexure-R1(b): True copy of the O.M dated 30.07.2015 issued by the Government of India.
Annexure-R1(c): True copy of the judgment dated 01.11.2011 of the CAT (PB), Delhi Annexure-R1(d): True copy of the order dated 28.05.2018 in O.A No. 658 of 2016 of the CAT, Allahabad.
Original Application No. 180/00284/2019 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1: True copy of the OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008.
Annexure A-2: True copy of the order dated 1.11.2011 in OA 0655/2010 and connected cases on the file of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.2.2009.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the Letter F No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the judgment dated 29.4.2013 in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 & connected cases on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 44 Annexure A-6: True copy of the order the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.3.2015 in CA No 8875-8876 of 2011 and connected cases. Annexure A-7: True copy of the OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013.
Annexure A-8: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.7.2015.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the representation submitted by the 1st applicant dated 26.11.2018.
Annexure A-10: True copy of the representation dated 5.11.2018 submitted by the 2nd applicant.
Annexure A-11: True copy of the Letter No. G1/C/ENG/LC/XII dated 3.12.2018.
Annexure A-12: True copy of the representation dated 3.1.2009 submitted by the 2nd applicant.
Annexure A-13: True copy of the representation dated 8.11.2018 submitted by the 3rd applicant.
Annexure A-14: True copy of the representation dated 22.2.2019 submitted by the 4th applicant.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES Annexure R1: True copy of the DOP&PW OM dated 06.04.2016. Annexure R2: True copy of the OM No.1/1/2008- IC dated 30.08.2008.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 45 Original Application No. 180/00292/2019 APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES Annexure A-1: True copy of the OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008.
Annexure A-2: True copy of the final order dated 1.11.2011 in OA 0655/2010 and connected cases on the file of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.2.2009.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the Letter F No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the judgment dated 29.4.2013 in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 & connected cases on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Annexure A-6: True copy of the order dated 17.3.2015 in CA No 8875-8876 of 2011 and connected cases.
Annexure A-7: True copy of the OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013..
Annexure A-8: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.7.2015.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the representation dated 12.2.2019 st submitted by the 1 applicant (without annexures) Annexure A-10: True copy of the Letter No. G1/C/Navy/VI/2019 dated 12.3.2019.
Annexure A-11: True copy of the representation dated 27.4.2018 submitted by the 2nd applicant, (without annexures). SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 46 Annexure A-11(a): True copy of the representation submitted by the 2nd applicant, (without annexures).
Annexure A-12: True copy of the representation dated 21.4.2018 submitted by the 3rd applicant (without annexures) RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES Annexure R-1: Copy of HQ SNC Memorandum CS 2730/Pension/Policy dated 28 Feb 2019.
Annexure R-2: Copy of CAT (Ekm) order dated 31 Jan 2019 in OA 688/2017.
Original Application No. 180/00293/2019 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1: True copy of the OM F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008.
Annexure A-2: True copy of the final order dated 1.11.2011 in OA 0655/2010 and connected cases on the file of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 11.2.2009.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the Letter F No.1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the judgment dated 29.4.2013 in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 & connected cases on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Annexure A-6: True copy of the order dated 17.3.2015 in CA No 8875-8876 of 2011 and connected cases.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 47 Annexure A-7: True copy of OM F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013.
Annexure A-8: True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.7.2015.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the representation submitted by the 1st applicant (without annexures).
Annexure A-10: True copy of the representation dated 2.4.2018 submitted by the 1st applicant (without annexures). Annexure A-11: True copy of the Judgment dated 14.10.2014 in WP(C) 4606/2013 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Annexure A-12: True copy of the representation dated 6.4.2018 submitted by the 2nd applicant (without annexures) Annexure A-13: True copy of the representation dated 6.3.2018 submitted by the 2nd applicant (without annexures). Annexure A-14: True copy of the representation dated 11.4.2018 submitted by the 3rd applicant (with annexures). Annexure A-15: True copy of the representation dated 11.4.2018 submitted by the 3rd applicant (without annexures). Annexure A-16: True copy of the representation dated 12.7.2018 submitted by the 4th applicant (without annexures). Annexure A-17: True copy of the representation dated 12.7.2018 submitted by the 4th applicant (without annexures) Annexure A-18: True copy of the representation dated 9.4.2018 submitted by the 5th applicant (without annexures) Annexure A-19: True copy of the representation dated 9.4.2018 submitted by the 5th applicant, (without annexures) SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 48 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES Annexure R-1: True copy of the First Schedule, Part-C, Section II of the Civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Annexure- R-2: Details of correct pension which the applicants are entitled to and granted in the 5th, 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission pay regimes.
Annexure- R-3: True copy of the Order dated 30.11.2018 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 599/2017.
Original Application No. 180/00165/2021 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1: True copy of the Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell OM F. No. I/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
Annexure A-2: True copy of the Letter No. 38 / 33 / 12-P & PW (A) dated 4.1.2019.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the representation dated 13.6.2019 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the reminder dated 21.5.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-5: True copy of the representation dated 1.10.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-6: True copy of the representation dated 12.11.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-7: True copy of the representation dated 9.12.2020 submitted by the applicant.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 49 Annexure A-8: True copy of the Letter No. DPDO/EKM/PO4354 dated 14.12.2020.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the representation dated 24.12.2020 submitted by the applicant to the 6th respondent. Annexure A-10: True copy of the Letter No. 30-1/ 33(O)2016-IC / E- IIIA dated 22.5.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
Annexure A-11: True copy of the OM No. 38/33/12 P&PW (A) dated 9.7.2019.
Annexure A-12: True copy of the representation dated 9.1.2021 submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent. Annexure A-13: True copy of the representation dated 11.1.2021 submitted by the applicant to the 5th respondent. Annexure A-14: True copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari CA 399/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) 12553/2020). Annexure A-15: True copy of the final order dated 31.5.2018 in OA 108/2017 on the file of this Tribunal.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 (A): True copy of the New e-PPO
No.403200503527(0101).
Annexure R1 (B): True copy of letter issued by the 5th Respondent, dated 20.11.2020.
Annexure R1 (C): True copy of letter issued by the 5th Respondent to the 6th Respondent to revise the pension entitlements of the Applicant dated 26.04.2021.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 50 Annexure R1 (D): True copy of letter issued by the 6th Respondent along with calculation sheet of arrears dated 03.05.2021. Annexure R1 (E): True copy of letter written by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent dated 26.4.2021.
Original Application No. 180/00169/2021 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1: True copy of the Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell OM F. No. I/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009.
Annexure A-2: True copy of the representation dated 13.2.2014 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-3: True copy of the representation dated 9.3.2019 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-4: True copy of the Letter No. 38/33/12-P & PW (A) dated 4.1.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A-5: True copy of the Letter No. 30-1 / 33(0)2016 - IC / E- IIIA dated 22.5.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
Annexure A-6: True copy of the OM No. 38/33/12 P&PW (A) dated 9.7.2019 along with revised Concordance Table 24. Annexure A-7: True copy of the Circular No. C-195 dated 4.2.2019 th issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure A-8: True copy of the Letter No. AT / DPDO / EKM / 2020 dated 16.6.2020 issued by the office of the 4th respondent. Annexure A-9: True copy of the Letter No. AT / DPDO/ EKM / 2020 dated 15.7.2020.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 51 Annexure A-10: True copy of the response dated 29.7.2020, in Hindi, received from the Pension Complaint Cell CGDA, Office of the CGDA, Delhi Cantt-110 010.
Annexure A-11: True copy of the Letter No. DPDO/EKM/PO4380 dated 9.9.2020, along with the due drawn sheet for arrears of pension, issued by the 6th respondent.
Annexure A-12: True copy of the Letter No. DPDO / EKM / PO4380 dated 26.11.2020 issued by the 6th respondent. Annexure A-13: True copy of the representation dated 1.12.2020 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-14: True copy of the representation dated 4.1.2021 submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent. Annexure A-15: True copy of the representation dated 5.1.2021 submitted by the applicant to the 5th respondent. Annexure A-16: True copy of the representation dated 8.1.2021 submitted by the applicant to the Controller General of Defense Accounts, New Delhi.
Annexure A-17: True copy of the Judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Nainigopal's case.
Annexure A-18: True copy of the final order dated 17.1.2017 in OA 651/2015 (T. Natarajan's case) on the file of this Tribunal. Annexure A-19: True copy of the Letter No. PA / MDU / 0388 dated 2.2.2021 issued by the Deputy CDA, Chennai. Annexure A-20: True copy of the representation dated 8.2.2021 submitted by the applicant to the 5th respondent. Annexure A-21: True copy of the supplementary representation dated 9.2.2021 submitted by the applicant to the 5th respondent. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 52 Annexure A-22: True copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari CA 399/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) 12553/2020). Annexure A-23: True copy of the final order dated 31.5.2018 in OA 108/2017 on the file of this Tribunal.
Annexure A-24: True copy of the final order dated 1.11.2011 in OA 655/2010 & connected cases on the file of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES Annexure R1: True copy of the Circular No.102 dated 11.02.2013. Annexure R2: True copy of the Circular No. 144 dated 14.08.2015. Annexure R3: True copy of the Circular No.57 dated 17.09.2008 Annexure R4: True copy of the Pension Payment order No.C/Corr/ENG/05220/2012.
Annexure R5: True copy of the Office Memorandum F No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) (ii) dated 04.08.2016 Annexure R6: True copy of the Pension paid details for the year 2016-2017.
Annexure R7: True copy of the Office Memorandum No.38/37/2016- P&PW(A)dated 12.05.2017.
Annexure R8: True copy of the Pension Payment Order No.403200502505.
Annexure R9: True copy of the Pension Slip for 2019-2020. Annexure R10: True copy of the Office Memorandum FF.No.38/37/08P&PW(A) dated 01.09.2008. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' 53 Annexure R11: True copy of the letter No.PA/Corr/2020 dated 20.11.2020.
Annexure R12: True copy of the letter No.A7/DPDO/ ELM/2019 dated 27.06.2019.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30'