Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Chandra Sharma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 3 January, 2022
1
Item No. 14 O.A. No. 3068/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 3068/2021
This the 03rd day of January, 2022
Through Video Conferencing
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Sh. Satish Chandra Sharma (Retd. PGT),
Age 87 Yrs. (Approx.),
S/o. Late Sh. Shiv Charan Lal,
R/o. C-94, Mayur Vihar Ext.,
East End Apartments,
Delhi-110096.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Sharma)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi,
Through its
Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110002.
2. The Director of Education,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi - 110054.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H.A. Khan for R1 & 2 and Mr. Piyush
Gaur for DOP&T)
2
Item No. 14 O.A. No. 3068/2021
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman Present Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Re-fix the pension of the applicant as per VI CPC recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006 correctly while considering the relevant PB 3 + Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in up-graded, pre-
revised pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 applicable to the applicants. After VI CPC re-fixation, re-fix the pension of the applicant as per VII CPC recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in the correct pay Matrix.
(ii) Issue fresh PPO (Pension Payment Order) accordingly;
(iii) Pay the admissible arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to update along with an interest of 18% PA.
(iv) Any other or further order the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice along with the cost of litigation."
2. Applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.1994 in the regime of IV CPC from the post of PGT. The Govt. of India notified the CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008 implementing the recommendations of VI CPC. The pay scale of the post of TGT/PGT were upgraded with corresponding grade pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The grievance of the applicant, who is a pre-2006 retiree PGT is that his 3 Item No. 14 O.A. No. 3068/2021 pension is required to be re-fixed with reference to the corresponding pay scale granted to the counterparts, i.e. Post-2006 retirees, in the correct corresponding Pay Band and Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
3. Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide OM dated 11.02.2009 clarified that the said benefit would not be available to Pre-2006 pensioners. In support of his claim, the applicant relied on Full Bench decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.655/2021 titled Dev Raj Goel vs. GNCT of Delhi wherein the aforesaid OM dated 11.02.2009 was quashed and parity was granted to both pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners by directing that the pension/family pension of all pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners be re-fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Thereafter, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal allowed OA No.2943/2017 filed by one of the pre-2006 retiree Principal, namely, Sh. J.D.Gupta, who sought re-fixation of his pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in accordance with the recommendation of 6th CPC, i.e., in the pre-revised upgraded pay scale of Rs.12000-375-16500 in PB-3 + Grade Pay of Rs.7600. The said order of the Tribunal was upheld 4 Item No. 14 O.A. No. 3068/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court in a Writ Petition (C) No.2255/2019 filed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide its judgment dated 23.04.2009 holding that despite various judicial pronouncement to the effect that pre- 2006 pensioners cannot be deprived of the revision in their pension in accordance with the recommendation of 6th CPC. The SLP (C) No.001020/2020 preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Hence, the decision of this Tribunal, as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, has attained finality. The applicant, therefore, submits that the benefit of the same ought to be extended to all similarly situated pre-2006 retirees.
4. In this regard, applicant has made various representations dated 07.06.2019, the latest one being dated 22.07.2020, to the respondents to extend the benefit of the aforesaid decision to him, but of no avail. Hence the OA.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant would be satisfied if a time bound direction is given to the respondents to redress his grievance raised in the various representations 5 Item No. 14 O.A. No. 3068/2021 filed by him on 07.06.2019 (Annexure A-6), latest being dated 22.07.2020 (Annexure A-8).
6. Sh. H.A.Khan, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 has no objection to the aforesaid submission. However, Sh. Piyush Gaur, learned counsel appearing for DOP&T submits that DOP&T is not a necessary party and hence it may be deleted from the array of parties, which is not opposed by the learned counsel for applicant. Hence the prayer to delete the DOP&T from the array of parties is allowed. Learned counsel for applicant is directed to amend the cause title accordingly by deleting DOP&T.
7. In view of the above, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representations dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure A-6) and 22.07.2020 (Annexure A-8), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicant. While doing so, the respondents shall also take into the account decisions of this Tribunal in OA 6 Item No. 14 O.A. No. 3068/2021 No.655/2021 (Full Bench) and in OA No.2943/2017 (Division Bench).
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
/sd/maya/vb/dd/