Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Members Of The Retired Allopathic ... vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 24 September, 2019
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
Original Application No.21/286/2019
Date of Order: 24.09.2019
Between:
1. Members of the Retired Allopathic Central Health Service
Group A, Doctors Association rep. by its President, Dr. C.L.N.Prasad
S/o C. Subbarayudu, aged 64 years, Retd. Additional Director
Central Government Health Scheme, R/o G-1, Avatar Orchid
2-2-24/A/BL/47, Adj. SBI, DD Colony branch, Hyderabad-500 013.
2. Dr. S.V.Kulkarni, S/o Vasantrau, aged 65 years
Retd. Senior Chief Medical Officer (SAG)
Central Health Service, CGHS, Hyderabad,
R/o H.No.3-7-62/110, South End Park
Mansoorabad, Hyderabad - 500 068. .... Applicant
AND
1. Union of India rep. by
The Secretary (Health)
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Government of India
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension
Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Ministry of Finance & Expenditure
Government of India, 3rd Floor
Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Controller of Pension (Accounts)
Central Pension Accounts Office
Department of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance
Government of India, Trikoot-II
Bhikaji Camaplace,
New Delhi - 110 066.
4. The Additional Director
Central Government Health Services
Hyderabad Kendriya Swastha Bhavan
Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.
OA 286/2019
2
5. The Senior Accounts Officer
Pay & Accounts Office
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
C-2-C, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar
Chennai - 600 090. ... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ... Mr. K.R.K.V.Prasad
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. CGSC
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)
ORAL ORDER
2. The OA is filed for not granting pension by including NPA ( Non Practicing Allowance) for the period 1.1.2016 to 30.6.2017 and for revising pension with lower rate of NPA from 1.7.2017 onwards.
3. Brief facts of the case are that some members of the applicants' Association and the second applicant, appointed under Central Health Service (CHS) have retired from the respondents organisation as Medical Officers/Doctors before 31.12.2015. As per Rule 13 of Central Health Services Rules, 2014, Doctors are not allowed private practice of any kind. To compensate for the same, Govt. has granted Non Practicing allowance as a certain percentage of basic pay in the form of a financial incentive, for the reasons that Doctors of the Central Health Service have no defined working hours, compensation paid to Doctors working in private sector is high and to retain talent. Accordingly, applicants who were pre 2016 retirees were paid NPA @ 25 % of basic pay, as part of the salary. On retirement pension was paid reckoning the element of NPA. With the advent of 7th CPC, for fixing pension two options were given, namely, fixing pension by multiplying old pension with a factor of 2.57 or work out the notional pay as on 1.1.2016 which the employee would have got had OA 286/2019 3 he been in service and based on the same calculate the pension using the matrix table provided for the purpose. The beneficial among the two will be the pension fixed. While accepting 7th CPC recommendations, G.O.I has deferred the decision in respect of allowances which includes NPA. Consequently, pension of the CHS Doctors was fixed using the multiplication factor of 2.57 and in accordance with Rule 7 (1) (B) of Central Civil Services ( Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, till a decision is taken in regard to revised rates of NPA. Later G.O.I, has revised various allowances w.e.f 1.7.2017 and retained NPA as 20 % of basic pay as recommended by the 7th CPC. Based on the finalised rate of NPA, Dept. of Pension and Pension Welfare ( DOP & PW) issued OMs dated 12.5.2017 and 11.9.2017 directing revision of pension of pre 2016 retirees with NPA @ 20 % of notional pay, arrived as on 1.1.2016 w.e.f 1.7.2017 instead of revising pension from 1.1.2016 with NPA of 25% as was prevalent on 1.1.2016. Further OM of DOP&PW dated 8.11.2017 allowed revision of allowance of Medical officers who retired after 1.7.2017 with 20% NPA from the date of retirement without extending similar benefit to the pre-2016 retirees from 1.1.2016. Moreover, Dept. of Expenditure based on OM dated 8.11.2017 of DOP & PW has advised to revise pension of pre 2016 retirees by using e- revision mode upto the period 30.6.2017 and manual mode from 1.7.2017, violating Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The revision of pension was universally done as per recommendations of the 7th CPC w.e.f 1.1.2016 whereas it was given effect to the CHS Doctors w.e.f 1.7.2017 in view of the delay in revision of allowances, which the applicant members of the Association term it as discriminatory. Specific averment has been made that the pension of the pre-2016 retirees has been fixed taking NPA as 25 % and therefore reducing pension by applying lower rate of NPA OA 286/2019 4 would mean modifying the service condition, which perse is against law. The revised rate could be applied to serving employees prospectively and not to those who retired retrospectively. Even with lower rate of NPA of 20%, pension has to be revised from 1.1.2016 and not from 1.7.2017. Despite representing to resolve the grievance on 4.12.2018, there being no response, OA has been filed.
4. The contentions of the applicants are that non revision of pension with NPA of 25 % from 1.1.2016 is arbitrary and illegal. Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, has been violated. Pension has been paid to the applicants at the time of retirement with 25% NPA. Pension Rules are statutory in nature and hence pension fixed based on Rules existing at the time of retirement, cannot be altered by applying Rules amended on a later date, with retrospective effect. By applying lower rate of 20% NPA, there is monetary loss. Pension is not a bounty and is paid for the service already rendered. Rule 7 ( B) (ii) of CCS ( revised ) pay Rules, 2016 is applicable prospectively. Action of the respondents in granting NPA at 20% and accordingly revising pension from 1.7.2017, without restoring pension with 25 % NPA from 1.1.2016 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
5. Reply statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st and the 4th respondents. Replies have not been filed by other respondents despite being given ample opportunities. As the case relates to pensioners some of whom were reported to be octogenarians, notices were issued time and again stating that the case may have to be heard without their replies, yet they choose not to file any reply. Hence in the interest of justice the case OA 286/2019 5 was heard with the reply filed by the respondents Ministry from which the applicants have retired.
In the reply statement, respondents oppose the contentions of the applicants by stating that pay and allowances are periodically revised by constituting Pay Commissions. Claiming that NPA, @ 25% as recommended by the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions cannot be changed by the 7th Pay Commission, is a fallacious argument since it defeats the very purpose of constituting Pay Commissions. In fact, NPA has undergone changes by the recommendations of the Pay Commissions commencing from the 2nd Pay Commission. Indeed 7th CPC has made a change in regard to the percentage of NPA from 25% to 20% and not in regard to the basic nature of the NPA. The 7th Pay Commission in view of its recommendations for increase in pay has rationalised the quantum of allowance by ushering in a factor of 0.8 to calibrate allowances and dealt with the issue exclusively in chapter 8 of the report. With the application of the said factor in calculating NPA, the amount of NPA has more than doubled. Respondents point out that though NPA is treated as pay, it is not basic pay as defined under FR 9 ( 21) (a) (i). It is a separate element and is not drawn as part of the pay scale. As per Dept. of Expenditure OM dated 18.5.1962 it was defined as special pay in terms of FR 9 (25). In continuation, OM dated 20.4.1998 has changed the nomenclature from special pay to special allowance. However, Dept. of Expenditure OM dated 18.9.1987 treats NPA as pay for service matters. Further, the demand of the applicants to evolve a separate pay matrix table exclusively for them since the existing pay matrix does not incorporate DA on NPA for fixation of pay, does not arise because of the fact that the recommendations of the Pay Commissions are in regard to pay scales. Taking objection to referring OA 286/2019 6 revision of NPA to the Allowances Committee on the ground that NPA is a part of pay and not an allowance, is incorrect, since NPA is not part of basic pay. The Allowances Committee has recommended revision of allowances from 1.7.2017 and, therefore, no special treatment can be given to the applicants to grant NPA from 1.1.2016, as it will lead to similar demands from others.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused pleadings on record.
7. The dispute has two aspects, namely,
(i) disbursing revised pension with 20% NPA from 1.7.2017 instead of 1.1.2016.
(ii) revision of pension with NPA @ 25% of basic pay from 1.1.2016 Let us take the first aspect of revising pension with NPA @ 20 % of basic pay with effect from 1.1.2016. In this regard the following issues arise which when analyzed provide the resolution to the dispute. A) As the entire dispute revolves around NPA, the foremost question that requires a response is what is NPA and its nature?
NPA is Non Practicing allowance granted to Government Doctors engaged in providing health services to different segments of the populace with certain terms and conditions. Rational in providing NPA is that Govt. Doctors are prohibited from undertaking private practice, enter late in service because of the very nature of medical education, attend duty during odd hours when called upon, fewer promotional avenues vis a vis organised services and finally to retain talent by discouraging migration to the private sector where compensation is attractive. Earlier, NPA was not paid and Govt. Doctors were allowed to have private practice in certain departments of G.O.I. From the 3rd CPC on wards NPA drew specific attention and thereon, Pay Commissions have dealt the issue with all the OA 286/2019 7 importance it deserves. 5th CPC granted NPA @ 25% of basic pay. Thereupon, 6th CPC retained NPA as 25%, while tracing its history along with the need to grant. 6th CPC recommendation of NPA pay was accepted and implemented by the Govt. The 7th CPC while agreeing with the reasoning and the necessity to grant NPA as recommended by 6th CPC, has rationalised the grant of allowances by introducing a factor of 0.8 and allowed NPA at the reduced rate of 20% of the basic pay. The running theme, which is of relevance to the instant case, is that 6 th and 7th CPCs have recognized the fact that NPA is a part of the pay.
(B) The natural corollary to the above question is as to what is the underlying rationality in recommending NPA by the 6th and 7th CPCs? 6th CPC recommendations in respect of NPA, captured in a nutshell are:
"4.2.45 Presently, Doctors are given Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) at the rate of 25% of the basic pay subject to the condition that NPA + basic pay + dearness pay does not exceed Rs.44,250. NPA is counted as pay for all service and pensionary benefits.
4.2.52 Doctors have been given NPA on some specific grounds which can briefly be enumerated as under :
(i) Earlier, Doctors in Government service were allowed the privilege of private practice or non-practicing allowance in lieu thereof. At such time, the emoluments of Doctors were deliberately kept low with the presumption that they will make good the loss by private practice.
(ii) The basic medical course is of a longer duration (4 ½ + 1 year internship).
Due to this, the Doctors are able to enter Government service at a late stage. Whereas in other services the average age of entry of a graduate direct recruit is about 23 years, in the medical branch it is about 27 years. Due to this they have shorter effective service.
iii) The entry level posts in the cadre of Doctors have to be filled by direct recruitment. Accordingly, promotion prospects for them are lesser vis-à- vis officers in other organized services.
iv) The nature of duties and condition of work of Doctors involve certain uncommon deprivations. They have to often work at odd hours. Beyond the prescribed working hours, often they have to attend to urgent cases. The Commission is of the view that a case exists for treating the Doctors as a distinct category in so far as payment of NPA is concerned. Accordingly, the Commissions recommends that Doctors should continue to be paid NPA at the existing rate of 25% of the aggregate of the band pay and grade pay subject to the condition that the Basic Pay + NPA does OA 286/2019 8 not exceed Rs.85,000. While recommending this, the Commission would like to emphasize the fact that NPA to Doctors is paid not only for the loss of private practice but also to compensate for longer duration of studies, longer working hours/nature of duties and to compensate for the relatively lesser promotional prospects that exist on account of entry level posts of Doctors necessarily having to be filled by direct recruitment without any posts in the entry level being filled by promotion."
The analysis and recommendations of the 7th CPC in regard to NPA at Para 8.17.79 is as follows:
"The VI CPC had included a detailed rationale for the grant of NPA in its recommendations. Most of the reasons are still valid and there is no need to reiterate them here. However, in line with our general approach of rationalizing the percentage based allowances by a factor of 0.8, we recommend that NPA should be paid at the rate of 20 percent of Basic Pay, subject to the condition that Basic Pay + NPA should not exceed the average of Apex Level and the level of Cabinet Secretary."
The 6th CPC has acknowledged the fact that NPA is counted as pay for all service and pensionary benefits. Later 7th CPC has agreed with the rationale given by the 6th CPC in granting NPA but rationalized the percentage based allowances by a factor of 0.8 and recommended 20% NPA. Therefore, both the CPCs have in effect considered NPA as part of pay. The recommendations made by the 6th and 7th CPC, in regard to pay have been accepted by the Govt. However, in respect of allowances recommended by 7th CPC, a Committee examined NPA and did not suggest any change in regard to 20% recommended. Hence, as per the Pay Commission reports which have been accepted by the Govt., the sine qua non about NPA is that it stands to be considered as part of pay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has observed to desist from interfering with the recommendations of the Pay Commissions, as they are made by expert bodies after going through the complex issues involved in revising pay, pension and associated allowances. C) Even after the axiomatic observations of the Pay Commissions, respondents have raised a question as to whether NPA forms part of the Pay?
OA 286/20199
Respondents hotly contest that NPA is not part of the basic pay by relying on FR 9 (21) (a) (i) which is extracted below:
FR(21) (a) "Pay" means the amount drawn monthly by the Government servant as
i) The pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; and
ii) overseas pay, technical pay, special pay and personal pay; and
iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the President.
The contention of the respondents is that pay as per clause (i) pay would mean the pay drawn in the pay scale applicable to the post held by a Govt. employee. Hence NPA, a separate element and not drawn as part of applicable pay scale, is essentially distinct from the basic pay. However, respondents have glossed over clause (iii) which clarifies that pay would also mean any other emoluments specially classed as pay by the President. Emoluments as per Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which is statutory in nature, is defined as under:
"Emoluments:1
[The expression `emoluments' means basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a)
(i) of the Fundamental Rules which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death ; and will also include non-practising allowance granted to medical officer in lieu of private practice.] Footnote : 1. Substituted by G.I., Dept. of P. & P.W., Notification No. 2/18/87-
P. & P.W., (PIC), dated the 20th July, 1988. Published as S.O. No. 2388 in the Gazette of India, dated the 6th August, 1988. Takes effect from 1st January, 1986."
Thus, a conjoint reading of FR 9 (21) (a) (iii) and Rule (33) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, make it crystal clear that NPA is a part of the basic pay. Hence, the contention of the respondents that NPA is not a part of the basic pay is not supported by Fundamental Rules. It needs no OA 286/2019 10 reiteration that Fundamental Rules and Pension Rules are statutory in nature with the backing of Article 309 of the Constitution. Any executive instructions or interpretations contrary to the Fundamental Rules/Pension Rules do not hold the field.
In fact, when a similar case fell for consideration before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.7322/2001 - Dr. K.C. Garg and others v. Union of India and others and connected matters, it was held that NPA is part of Pay.
Brief outline of Dr K.C. Garg case which was adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is that, Dr. K.C. Garg and others, who had retired from Railways prior to 1.1.1996, challenged O.M. dated 29.10.1999 by filing applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and prayed that the same may be quashed and the respondents be directed to include the element of NPA for the purpose of computing the pension payable to them. Their applications were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.10.2001. That order was set aside by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CWP No.7322/2001
- Dr. K.C. Garg and others v. Union of India and others and connected matters. The High Court relied upon OM dated 7.4.1998 in which it was categorically mentioned that NPA shall be treated as part of service benefits including retirement benefits and concluded that there was no justification to exclude the element of NPA for the purpose of calculating the pension.
In order to challenge the cited judgment in the Hon'ble Apex Court, Government, sought the opinion of the Attorney General of India, who has opined that NPA is a part of pay and that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi Court has to be implemented. While tendering the opinion he has opined OA 286/2019 11 that the distinction between Pay and Pay Scale as was tried to be made out in OM 29.10.1999 of DOP & PW, is purely technical and a mechanical distinction. NPA is a matter of right and its special position in regard to Government Doctors has to be recognized. In Central Health Service, NPA de jure and de facto is a part of the scale of pay as it is inevitably linked to the basic pay. NPA is a separate element only because scales of pay of government servants are of general application and not meant for individual services. Not treating NPA as part of the pay is infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. His observations being pertinent and relevant to the case have been extracted here under, to the extent required:
"OPINION Sub: Regarding the inclusion of Non Practising Allowance (NPA) to Pensioners Doctors in the calculation of pension.
1. Doctors in the Central Government who retired prior to 01.01.1996 are aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 29.10.1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare [hereinafter referred to as MoPP] which inter-alia provides that Non-Practising Allowance [NPA] is not to be taken into consideration after refixation of their pay and as a result NPA is not to be added to the minimum of the revised scale of pay as on 01.01.1996 in cases where pension is to be stepped up to 50% in terms of the earlier O.M. dated 17.12.1998.
xxxxx
8. The distinction between 'pay' and 'scale of pay' made out in the Office Memorandum dated 29.10.1999 to deny benefit of NPA for the purpose of stepping up of the pension to 50%, is purely technical and mechanical distinction and does not take into account the special position of NPA qua a Government doctor.
9. NPA is a matter of right of government doctor and is meant as a compensation for denial of private practice. The scale of pay prescribed...... department of the Government of India and does not account the special feature of Central Health Service. In Central Health Service, NPA de jure and de facto is a part of the scale of pay as it is inevitably linked to the basic pay. Simply because NPA is not formally included in the scale of pay of the government doctors and taken as a separate element, it cannot be said that NPA has to be ignored altogether for stepping up of pension. NPA is a separate element only because scales of pay of government servants are of general application and not meant for individual services. However, if an element is inevitably a OA 286/2019 12 part of the pay, as NPA is, in effect it has to be construed as a scale of pay.
10. Since, NPA for government doctors is a part of their pay, it would be discriminatory if retired government doctors are denied benefit of stepping up of their pension without reference to the NPA presently given to serving doctors and those who retire after 01.01.1996. In fact, denial of NPA to pre 01.01.1996 retired government doctors would fall foul of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution."
Therefore, the question of treating NPA has been comprehensively answered by the Attorney General by concluding that it is a part of the pay scale. It needs no further elaboration since on 22.6.2005, the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Ministry of Personnel (Public Grievances and Pension) issued instructions for implementation of the order passed by the High Court in K.C.Garg's case.
De-facto, an identical case fell for consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Bajaj And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors, dated 27th November, 2013, Civil Appeal Nos.10640-46 of 2013, when relief sought to treat NPA as part of pay was turned by the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying on the ratio of Col. B. J. Akkara's case. Hon'ble Apex Court after scrutinising the differing judgments delivered by the Tribunals and Hon'ble High Courts on the subject, has observed as under. Relevant paras are extracted to drive home the point that NPA is part of Pay.
"2. xxx The other question which calls for determination is whether Non Practising Allowance (NPA) payable to the doctors employed in Central Health Services, the Railways and other Departments of the Government, who retired from service prior to 1.1.1996 is to be added to their basic pay for calculation of pension payable to them.
6. Vide O.M. dated 7.4.1998, the Ministry of Personnel (Public Grievances and Pension), Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare fixed the NPA ratio at 25% of the basic pay subject to the condition that pay plus NPA shall not exceed Rs.29,500/- for the doctors belonging to Central Health Services. xxxxx OA 286/2019 13
8. However, in the garb of answering the clarification sought by some of the Departments/Ministries, whether NPA admissible as on 1.1.1986 is to be taken into consideration after fixation of pay on notional basis and whether the same is to be added to the minimum of the revised scale while stepping up consolidated pension, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions issued O.M. dated 29.10.1999, which reads as under:
xxxx The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No. 45/10/98-P &PW(A) dated December 17, 1998 wherein decision of the Government that pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.96 of the post last held by the pensioner was communicated clarifications have been sought by Departments/Ministries as to whether Non-Practising Allowance (NPA) admissible as on 1/1/86 is to be taken into consideration after refixation of pay on notional basis as on 1/1/86 and whether NPA is to be added to the minimum of the revised scale while considering stepping up consolidated pension on 1/1/96. NPA granted to medical officers does not form part of the scales of pay. It is a separate element although it is taken into account for the purpose of computation of pension. This has been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and it is clarified that N.P.A. is not to be taken into consideration after re-fixation of pay on notional basis on 1/1/86. It is also not to be added to the minimum of the revised scale of pay as on 1.1.1996 in cases where consolidated pension/family pension is to be stepped up to 50% / 30% respectively, in terms of O.M. 45/10/98 -P&PW(A) dated 17.12.98.
xxxx
32. This Court treated circular dated 11.9.2001 as clarificatory in nature and held that it neither amends nor modifies circular dated 7.6.1999. The most striking difference between O.M. dated 7.4.1998 issued by Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Ministry of Personnel (Public Grievances and Pension) and circular dated 7.6.1999 issued by the Defence Ministry is that the decision of the President conveyed vide O.M. dated 7.4.1998 was that NPA shall count as pay for all service benefits including retirement benefits but no such decision was contained in circular dated 7.6.1999. Therefore, the clarification issued by the Ministry of Defence vide circular dated 11.9.2001 cannot be equated with O.M. dated 29.10.1999 which had the effect of modifying the decision of the President but was issued without his approval. Unfortunately, the Tribunal and the Division Bench of the High Court overlooked this vital distinction between O.M. dated 7.4.1998 issued by the Ministry of Personnel (Public Grievances and Pension), Department of Pension and Pensions' Welfare and Circular dated 7.6.1999 issued by the Ministry of Defence and mechanically applied the ratio of Col. B. J.
Akkara's case for deciding the cases of the doctors, who served in Central Health Services, the Railways and other departments of the Government. Therefore, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
33. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order of the High Court as also the one passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the applications filed by the appellants before the Tribunal are allowed in terms of the prayer made. The respondents shall re-calculate the pension payable to the appellants by adding the element of NPA. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the concerned authorities within a period of three months from today." Thus based on Rules and the legal Principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra, NPA is and should be a part of pay. The OM dated 7.4.1998 issued by DOP&PW is held to be valid and OA 286/2019 14 that the later memo dated 29.10.1999 as invalid because of the absence of President's approval for the later OM. Thus the OM which governs the field is 7.4.1998 which treats NPA as part of pay. In fact, the roots of this OM can be traced to OM issued by Dept. of Expenditure on 18.9.1987 wherein it was decided that NPA will be treated as pay for working out retirement benefits. Recently, in OM dated 8.11.2017, DOP&PW has observed as under:
"In accordance with Rule 33 of Central Civil Services ( Pension) Rules, 1972 the emoluments reckoned for calculation of pension include Non - Practicing Allowance ( NPA) granted to medical officers in lieu of private practice."
Respondents referring to the notification of the Dept. of Expenditure issued on 18.5.1962 and OM dated 20.4.1998 of DOPT to assert that NPA is special pay/special allowance, pales into insignificance in view of the later OMs issued by the DOP&PW and the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above. Even the respondents admit that as per OM dated 18.9.1997 NPA has to be treated as pay for service matters. Pension is a service matter and therefore NPA is an inseparable part of pay.
One another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which reaffirms that NPA is a part of the pay scale, is in State of M.P. v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 251 at page 542. Relevant para is extracted hereunder:
"12. The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution clearly provided that the employees concerned (medical officers) were entitled to NPA @ 25% of pay, in addition to the pay in the pay scale. In fact, it formed part of the pay scale. Consequently, whatever was the basic pay, 25% thereof had to be paid as NPA. Whenever the benefit of increments in the pay scale, or revision in pay scale were extended, NPA also got correspondingly increased so that NPA always remained as one-fourth of the basic pay. This is the interpretation that has been put forth by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court and we find no reason to interfere with the same."
In the case on hand relevant OMs have been issued invoking 309 of the constitution and pay commission recommendations over the period of time have held that NPA is counted as pay for all service and pensionary OA 286/2019 15 benefits. Hence objection taken by the respondents that NPA is not part of basic pay is not maintainable. It is also not out of place to observe that respondents have revised pension of the applicants from 1.7.2017 by taking NPA as part of pay. Concomitantly, objection taken by the respondents that NPA does not qualify to be part of the pay, is superfluous and flies in the face of their own action of revising pension from 1.7.2017 by taking NPA as part of Pay.
D) Having arrived at the conclusion that NPA is part of pay, the next issue that arises is from what date the recommendations of 7th CPC in respect of revision of pension with NPA are to be implemented?
DOP&PW vide OM dated 4th August, 2016 has stated that in pursuance of Government's decision on the recommendations of Seventh Central Pay Commission, sanction of the President was accorded to regulate pension/family pension with effect from 01.01.2016, of pre-2016 pensioners/ family pensioners.
Accordingly, pay of all the pre-2016 pensioners of the Central Government were revised from 1.1.2016. However, when it came to the applicants who were working as Doctors under Central Health Services, their pension with NPA of 20% was revised from 1.7.2017. Grievance of the applicants is that since NPA being part of pay, their pension ought to have been revised from 1.1.2016, on par with others. In regard to allowances recommended by 7th CPC, Govt. referred the matter to a Committee headed by Secretary Finance, vide Govt. of India, OM dated 23.7.2017 which did not suggest any change in regard to NPA of 20%, in their report dated 27.4.2017, as under:
OA 286/201916
"Change in the rates of any allowance will lead to demands for change in all other percentage based allowances. The Committee, therefore, is of the view that recommendations of the 7th CPC on NPA may be accepted without any change."
The Committee's report was submitted on 27.4.2017 and accepted by the Govt. for implementation from 1.7.2017 by adding some and modifying certain other allowances. In the process, pension revision of the applicants was effected from 1.7.2017. The decision of the Govt. of India to implement revision of allowances from 1.7.2017 in respect of other allowances is understandable but when it comes to NPA it stands on a different footing as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Manu Dev Arya, (2004) 5 SCC 232 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 769 at page 235 "11. It is further trite that although discrimination can be inferred in relation to certain types of allowances but non-practising allowance would stand on a somewhat different footing. [See O.Z. Hussain (Dr) v. Union of India [1990 Supp SCC 688 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 649 : (1991) 16 ATC 521] .]"
Moreover, as succinctly stated by the Attorney General of India and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras supra, NPA is a part of pay. Pay and pension revision were given effect to from 1.1.2016 and while working out pension, notional pay as on 1.1.2016 for pre-2016 retirees has to be worked out and thereafter pension revised. Notional pay has to necessarily include element of NPA of 20% of basic pay. Therefore, revision of pension of the applicants has to be considered from 1.1.2016 with 20% NPA and not from 1.7.2017. Even at the cost of repetition, it has to be emphasised that the recommendations of 7th CPC for pay/pension revision were accepted by the Govt. for implementation from 1.1.2016 and since NPA is part of pay, obvious conclusion would be that revision of pension has to be naturally given effect from 1.1.2016 only. There can be no two opinions in this regard, more so in the context of Hon'ble Supreme Court OA 286/2019 17 observations in Purshottam Lal v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 651), reproduced hereunder:
"15...... Either the Government has made reference in respect of all government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned.
xxxxx
17. In the result the petition is allowed and it is directed that the revised pay-scales of the petitioners will have effect from July 1, 1959, in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission. We further direct that the petitioners should be paid the amount payable to them as a consequence of the revision of the pay- scales with effect from July 1959. The petitioners will have the costs of this petition."
Hence, revision of pension from 1.1.2016 with NPA of 20% is a fair request, which has to be acceded to, in view of the judgments cited supra.
Going a step further, it has also to be emphasised that in regard to MACP where financial benefit was extended to the employees under the scheme having ramifications in respect of pension, a dispute arose as to the date of giving effect to the MACP scheme. Govt. proposed to implement the scheme from 1.9.2008 which when contested, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it has to be implemented from 1.1.2006 in Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn, (2018) 11 SCC 99 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1434 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 866 at page 101 as under:
"6. The answer to this question will lie in the interpretation given to the Government Resolution, relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove. A bare perusal of Clause (i) of the Resolution clearly indicates that the Central Government decided to implement the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade pay, as well as pension with effect from 1-1-2006. The second part of the clause lays down that OA 286/2019 18 all allowances except the dearness allowance/relief will be effective from 1-9-2008. The AFT held [Balbir Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC On Line AFT 1128] , and in our opinion rightly so, that the benefit of MACP is part of the pay structure and will affect the grade pay of the employees and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a part of allowances. The benefit of MACP if given to the respondents would affect their pension also."
The above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court applies to the instant case mutatis mutandis, as NPA like MACP is part of pay playing a deciding role in fixing pension of Govt. employees. Therefore, viewed from any angle, revision of pension of the applicants has to be undertaken from 1.1.2016 with 20% NPA.
Respondents, further submission that the revision of pension with effect from 1.1.2016 may stimulate demands from other segment of employees is untenable, since if any demand is made within the purview of Rules and Law it has to addressed aptly. True to speak, it took some time for the committee on allowances to deliberate and submit its report. As a result there was delay in taking a decision on allowances. Even if there was delay, which is natural in view of the fact that the drill associated in examining a large number of allowances has to be gone through, at least respondents need to have allowed pension revision with revised NPA from 1.1.2016. Moreover, it is well settled in law that Pension is not a bounty and that it has to be paid for the service rendered as per rules governing the subject. Not revising the pension of the applicants from 1.1.2016 would ipso facto mean going against the decision of the cabinet to implement 7 th CPC recommendations from 1.1.2016. Respondents have missed the aspect that NPA is a part of the pay and that the Committee has not made any change to the same. But for the Committee, which took more than a year to submit its report, the pension of the applicants would have been revised from 1.1.20116 along with all others. Hence the action of the OA 286/2019 19 respondents in not revising pension with revised NPA from 1.1.2016 is not only against rules but arbitrary and against the legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicants have mounted a valid defence that the delay in submission of the report by the allowances committee has led to the unnecessary paradox of revising pension from 1.1.2017 instead of 1.1.2016.
E) Being on the question of delay, the moot point which requires to be examined is to whether the applicants can be made to suffer because of delay in taking a decision by the respondents?
The Committee which went into the examination of allowances recommended by the 7th CPC has not changed the rate of NPA of 20% as recommended by the CPC. Had there been increase in the NPA from what has been recommended by the 7th CPC there could had been a reasonable ground to implement the decision of revision of pension from 1.7.2017. Presuming for a moment if the Committee was not formed, then the applicants pension would have been revised from 1.1.2016 itself with NPA included as part of Pay. The formation of the Committee has only delayed the process of revision of pension of the applicants for which they are not responsible. The mistake is evidently on part of the respondents. Hence for the respondents mistake, applicants cannot be made the sacrificial lambs. Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the mistake/delay on part of the respondents should not recoil on to the applicants in the following judgments.
(i) The Apex Court in a recent case decided on 14.12.2007 (Union of India vs. Sadhana Khanna, C.A. No. 8208/01) held that the mistake of the department cannot recoil on employees.
(ii) In yet another recent case of M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC, C.A. No. 5883-5991 of 2007 decided on OA 286/2019 20 13.12.2007, it has been observed that if there is a failure on the part of the officers to discharge their duties the incumbent should not be allowed to suffer.
(iii) It has been held in the case of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363wherein the Apex Court has held "The mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants."
Therefore in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court observations, delay on part of the respondents in not revising pension with effect from 1.1.2016 with 20 % NPA as part of pay is unacceptable. Revision of pension with NPA recommended by 7th CPC has to be invariably from 1.1.2016. The delay of nearly one and half years in revising the pension with NPA of 20% recommended by 7th CPC from 1.7.2017 is unfair to say the least. Further, while being on the issue of delay, it should not be lost sight of the fact that some of the applicants are octogenarians and the more the delay in providing relief, the greater the apprehension as to whether they would last to avail the legitimate benefit due to be extended to them.
F) Respondents have issued orders to revise pension of those pensioners who retired after 1.7.2017 with NPA of 20%, from the date of retirement as recommended by 7th CPC vide memo dated 8.11.2017 but a similar benefit is not extended to revise pension of pre - 2016 retirees w.e.f 1.1.2016 as per 7th CPC accepted recommendations . The question that would then arise is whether it does not tantamount to discrimination of pre -2016 pensioners?
Yes, it does. Pensioners form a homogeneous group. They cannot be segregated into heterogeneous groups by creation of an artificial cut off date. The relief provided to post 2016 pensioners has to be necessarily extended to the pre-2016 pensioners as well. Giving something more to post 2016 retirees and less to pre -2016 retirees is without hesitation discriminatory and infringes OA 286/2019 21 article 14 of the constitution. Pension rules are statutory in nature and apply to pensioners uniformly. Any discrimination between the two has been rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982 in 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165 as under :
"If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle ? The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortuitous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension ? One retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to ceiling of Rs. 8,100 p a. and average emolument to be worked out on 36 months' salary while the other will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000 p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months average. The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Art. 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specified date, the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Art.
14. Further the classification is wholly arbitrary because we do not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. This arbitrary action violated the guarantee of Art.
14."
OA 286/201922 In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, action of the respondents in revising pension of those who retired after 1.7.2017 with NPA of 20 % but not to those who retired prior to 1.1.2016 with effect from 1.1.2016 as per 7th CPC accepted recommendations is arbitrary and illegal and therefore requires to be corrected in accordance with law.
The first question raised is thus resolved with an affirmative finding, by reckoning the answers that emerged based on relevant OMs of the respondents and the directions of the superior judicial forums on the subject. Applicants are undoubtedly eligible for revision of pension from 1.1.2016 with NPA of 20 %.
Having answered the first question, let us now delve into the second one wherein we find the applicants pitching for 25% NPA from 1.1.2016 on the ground that their pension has already been fixed and paid with the said percentage. Any change in pension discarding the rate of NPA of 25% would alter the service conditions and hence impermissible. Amended provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. They are incurring monitory loss due to the reduction in the rate of NPA. An examination of the issues raised is attempted here under:
G) Whether the recommendations of the 7th CPC can be called into question in regard to recommending NPA @ 20 % of basic pay?
The Pay Commission is an administrative system/mechanism that the government of India has set up in 1956 to determine the salaries of government employees. Pay commissions have been set up on a regular OA 286/2019 23 basis to review and make recommendations on the work and pay structure including pension of all civil and armed forces of the Government of India.
Applicants argue that 5th and 6th CPC have allowed 25% NPA and based on the same their pension has been fixed. 7th CPC clubbing the NPA with all other allowance ignoring its special nature, despite being on board in regard to the reasoning and justification given by the 6th CPC, is surprising to the applicants. The general claim of the applicants is to restore NPA to 25% of basic pay and that any change of pension fixed on retirement, would mean altering service conditions. Altering service conditions is neither supported by rule or by law. The applicants averments lack substance since Pay Commission is the competent body which is set up every 10 years to make recommendations in regard to pay and pension including allowances of Govt. employees. Over the years various Central Pay Commissions have recommended differing NPAs with certain addenda. Neither party have produced any document demonstrating that the rate of NPA recommended by the Pay Commissions and accepted by the Government has been modified later. Prescription of scale of pay/pension and allowances are dealt in depth by Pay Commissions which are expert bodies/committees. These Committees have the wherewithal to deal with complex issues pertaining to pay, principles of pay, pension, allowances, nature of work, finances of the State etc and therefore it is not prudent to tinker with their recommendations. More so, when Pay Commissions deal with the entire spectrum of pay scales/pensions and allowances, encompassing different Ministries of the Govt. of India. Implicitly pay scales, pension and allowance are dynamic in nature and not static. Just because NPA was 25% of basic for some OA 286/2019 24 decades in the past as claimed by the applicants, it does not mean that it has to be construed as a constant with reference to time. It may vary based on the Principles of pay adopted, nature of work, overall job environment, State finances etc. Hence, reduction of NPA from 25 to 20% should not be viewed in a narrow perspective and that too from the kaleidoscope of the applicants point of view. Any intervention in regard to the recommendations of the pay commission will lead to a cascading effect of inviting demands from others as well. There could be gainers and loosers, which indeed has to be appreciated given the complexity in pay/pension revision. De-facto, any changes if made, would disturb the equilibrium and set into motion a tsunami of avoidable litigation. Therefore to state that the 7th Pay Commission is disempowered to alter the NPA is not in the realm of reason. Tribunal relies on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as under, in nexus with pay commission recommendation, for stating what has been stated above.
"i) State of Bihar v. Bihar Veterinary Assn., (2008) 11 SCC 60, at page 64:
13. If the courts start disturbing the recommendations of the pay scale in a particular class of service then it is likely to have cascading effect on all related services which may result into multifarious litigation. The Fitment Committee has undertaken the exercise and recommended the wholesale revision of the pay scale in the State of Bihar and if one class of service is to be picked up and granted higher pay scale as is available in the Central Government then the whole balance will be disturbed and other services are likely to be affected and it will result in complex situation in the State and may lead to ruination of the finances of the State.
ii). Union of India v. Dineshan K.K.,(2008) 1 SCC 586, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission, etc." Therefore, the plea of the applicants for NPA @ 25 %, as was already granted in 5th & 6th CPC and fixed on retirement, does not stand to logic.OA 286/2019 25
Such selective plea to retain NPA of 25% would invite a counter argument of why not retain pay of the yester years as well. Such arguments when advanced would defeat the very purpose of setting up Pay Commissions. If one were to go to the history of NPA, in 1959, as per chapter XVII of 2 nd CPC report the rate of NPA for Doctors under Contributory Health Service Scheme in Delhi was 50 percent of basic pay subject to maximum of Rs
400. Be that as it may, can the applicants claim that it should be 50% now.
They cannot, since the CPCs take into consideration the changing dynamics in the job environment and recommend what is best in balancing the interests of the employees and ability of the State to implement the same. Hence, it has to be perceptibly understood that Hon'ble Supreme Court, having delved deep into the issue of recommendations of the CPCs has observed to abide by Pay Commissions accepted recommendations, rather than contemplate a change. On going into finer details, which will be adduced as we proceed, it would be seen that applicants stand to gain financially even by the recommendations of the 7th CPC.
In addition, decision in regard to rate of NPA is a matter of policy and when issues concerning policy crop up, Tribunals need to dissuade themselves to intervene in such matters unless proven malafide is demonstrated to be contained in the policy, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgements on the aspect of adjudication in regard to policy matters. It is also to be noted that the rate of NPA cannot be sought as a matter of right. Doctors of the CHS approached the 7th CPC for 40% NPA and after due considerations it was decided to revise it to 20% of basic pay which was accepted by the Govt. as a matter of policy. To peg NPA at 20% is thus a policy matter which cannot be questioned by the applicants as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in dealing with NPA OA 286/2019 26 in Union of India v. Manu Dev Arya, (2004) 5 SCC 232 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 769 at page 235 , as under:
"9. A policy decision of the State unless affects somebody's legal right cannot be questioned. The question is as to whether certain allowances would be paid to a section of employees or not and that too at what rate is basically a question of policy. The employees concerned cannot claim non-practising allowance as a matter of right."
Further, Government has the right and responsibility to refer issues of National importance to Committees to assist the Government in taking decisions in Public interest. Applicants opposing the reference of the NPA issue to the committee is thus on a slippery wicket. Incidentally, Committee did not suggest any change to the rate of NPA recommended by the 7th CPC. Therefore, for reasons adumbrated supra, Tribunal is not convinced to concede to the request of the applicants for providing relief of NPA at a higher rate of 25% of basic pay. Hence the order of respondents to grant 20% NPA is neither capricious nor whimsical as has been attempted to be projected by the applicants. All other averments made by the applicant in this regard, have been gone into in detail and found to be irrelevant, in view of the well settled question of law on the subject, as expounded and scribed above.
H) Can the reduced NPA @ 20% be applied retrospectively to the pensioners who have already retired and paid pension with 25% NPA?
As has been elaborately explained, the recommendations of Pay Commissions accepted by the Govt. are not to be interfered with for reasons stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a cornucopia of judgments referred to above. In addition pension and pay rules are constitutional rules unlike rules propounded under a statute as they are issued invoking Article 309 of the Constitution. Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution OA 286/2019 27 are legislative in character though enunciated by the Executive. Legislature can legislate retrospectively. Hence pay and pension can be modulated with retrospective effect. Tribunal takes support of the Hon'ble Apex Court observation in BSNL v. Mishri Lal, (2011) 14 SCC 739 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 387 at page 742/743, to confirm that action of the respondents to apply 20% NPA retrospectively to pre-2016 retirees is in order, as under:
"11. Rules under Article 309 can be changed even during the subsistence of the old rules. As held in Raj Kumar v. Union of India [(1975) 4 SCC 13 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 198 : AIR 1975 SC 1116] (vide SCC para 2), "rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character, and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively". Thus, the rules under the proviso to Article 309 are constitutional rules, not like rules under a statute. Hence they have the same force as a statute, though made by the executive.
12. It is well settled that the legislature can legislate retrospectively vide M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of A.P. [AIR 1958 SC 468] , J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [AIR 1961 SC 1534] , Jadao Bahuji v. Municipal Committee, Khandwa[AIR 1961 SC 1486] , Govt. of A.P. v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. [(1975) 2 SCC 274 : AIR 1975 SC 2037] , Nandu Mal Girdhari Lal v. State of U.P. [1993 Supp (1) SCC 338] , etc. Hence, the approach of the High Court, in our opinion, was totally incorrect."
I) With the reduction of rate of NPA from 25% to 20 %, did the applicants incur monitory loss as proclaimed by them?
It is not true. On the contrary applicants in absolute terms got a substantial increase in the amount of NPA when compared with what they got from the 6th CPC. The endeavour of the 7th CPC was to streamline grant of allowances across the board involving around 196 allowances. Subsequently a Committee on allowances formed by the Govt. has gone into the aspect of revision of allowances and suggested no change in regard to NPA. The important aspect which needs to be borne in mind is that increased pay has resulted in higher amount of NPA though the rate of NPA has been reduced to 20%, as demonstrated here under:
Amount in Rs 6th CPC 7th CPC Increase OA 286/2019 28 Basic NPA Corresponding NPA % pay @ basic pay @ increase 25% 20% in NPA 21,000 5250 56,100 11,220 114 25,350 6338 67,700 13,540 114 Albeit, the above Table is in respect of serving employees, even in respect of pensioners too, there has to be a benefit in view of the hike in pay. In absolute terms there is increase in the NPA and hence the contention of the applicants that they have been put to monitory loss is far from the truth.
At best it can be said that there was an opportunity loss. In over all terms applicants need to be contended that they are the gainers and not by any stretch of imagination assume to be looser.
One another aspect raised by the applicants is that by adding NPA, pay so arrived, should not exceed the Apex scale. Therefore, benefit extended even by increase of NPA gets restricted due to the cap of not surpassing the Apex Scale. Hence, benefit given by one hand is withdrawn by the other hand. Eventually, the gain is miniscule, in respect of senior medical officers. Applicants may like to appreciate that they are a part of the humungous family of Central Government employees and therefore what applies to the whole shall apply to the part of the whole as well. As the Apex Scale surges forward they too would gain. They should swim with the tide and not against. Being in step with the legitimate, is always better than being out of it , since it would one day hurt as one marches forward.
Patience is genius, as propounded by the great scientist Newton. Aspire for the best to happen in the future with patience.
Thus, based on the above narration, second question solicits a negative response, in that NPA as 25% of basic cannot be allowed to OA 286/2019 29 revise pension of pre-2016 pensioners from 1.1.2016 onwards. Revised pension shall necessarily have to be with 20% NPA from 1.1.2016.
Therefore, to conclude based on the aforesaid circumstances, applicants have made out a case which succeeds to the extent of revision of pension from 1.1.2016 with 20% NPA. Consequently, respondents are directed to consider as under:
i) To revise the pension of the pre -2016 CHS retirees by reckoning NPA @ 20% of the basic/notional pay arrived at in terms of 7th CPC recommendations and by using the 7th CPC matrices with effect from 1.1.2016.
ii) Arrears of pension which is due as per (i) above, be drawn and paid along with any consequential benefits thereof.
iii) Time allowed to implement the order is 5 months from the date of receipt of this order.
iv) No order as to costs.
With the above directions the OA is allowed.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR)
MEMBER (ADMN.)
Dated, the 24th day of September, 2019
nsn