Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C S Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Pensions And Pensioners Welfare on 11 October, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
R.A. No.180/19/2023 in O.A.No.180/00115/2022
Wednesday, this the 11th day of October, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, S/o Late C.S.Sivaraman Nair
Aged 82 years, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
&Customs (Retd.), Residing at "Nenmelil Gokulam'
Jawan Cross Road, AIMS Ponekara P.O., Cochin-682041
(Mob:9388607120), (email:[email protected])
- Applicant
[By Party in Person]
Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi-110003
2. Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Pension Accounting
Office, Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
3. Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise
Central Revenue Buildings, I.S.Press Road, Cochin-682018
4. Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs, Central
Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin -682018
5. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Centralized Pension
Processing Centre, 7th Floor, Central Office UBI 239
Vidhan Bhavan Marg N Point, Mumbai-400021
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs. Sheela Devi I, SPC]
The applications having been heard on 08.08.2023, the Tribunal
on 11.10.2023 passed the following:
R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 2
ORDER
Review applicant is the applicant in the Original Application. By a common order dated 09.05.2023 his application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he has moved this Tribunal with this Review Application. According to the applicant, the Original Application was dismissed stating that, judgment in Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India and others [WP(C) No.4224/2016 dated 15.03.2018] of the Guwahati High Court rendered in the context under Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954, for short, the Act, is not applicable and the applicant was governed by the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. But the applicant never placed reliance on Virendra Dutt, quoted supra. He only wanted to say that he had attained the age of 80 years, the wordings in Section 17B of the Act are same that of Annexure-A2 OM in the O.A. Clarifications issued in Annexures-R4(b), R4(c) and R4(d) were given by certain officials based on queries from various departments. Such clarifications given by subordinate officials cannot change the wordings in the Official Memoranda. Guwahati High Court had interpreted the wordings R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 3 correctly and rendered the judgment.
2. Moreover, the Original Application was dismissed based on Rule 44(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021, which came into force on 20.12.2021. That means, till 19.12.2021 CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 was in force and he is governed by the same. So, according to the applicant, the order is vitiated by errors of law and facts apparent on the face of the records resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore the order is sought to be reviewed and the respondents have to be directed to pay him 20% additional pension from July 2018 with all consequential benefits.
3. Respondents filed their objection. Referring to Annexure- R1 it is submitted that amendment has been brought in to the Act incorporating an explanation that entitlement for additional quantum of pension shall be from the first day of the month in which the pensioner or family pensioner completes the age specified in the first column of the scale. Referring to the contention touching Rule 44(6) it is submitted that prior to 20.12.2021 Rule 49(2-A) of CCS(Pension Rules 1972 was in vogue which expressly states that in addition to R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 4 pension admissible in accordance with sub rule (2), after completion of 80 years of age or above, additional pension shall be payable to the retired Government servant in the given manner. So, according to the respondents, Rule 49(2-A) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 has been reiterated in Rule 44(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021.
4. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. According to the applicant who appeared in person, since Rule 44(6) is not applicable to him, which had come into force only on 20.12.2021, it was wrong on the part of this Tribunal in relying on the Rule in rendering the order. Referring to Annexures-R4(a) to R4(c) relied on by the respondents, it is submitted that those O.M.s were issued by subordinate officers without referring the question to the Cabinet. According to the petitioner, he had never claimed benefits of the Act, but only stated that the wordings in Section 17B of the Act and the Rules governing him were identical. He also pointed out that SLP moved against the judgment of the Guwahati High Court stands dismissed.
5. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 5 Counsel, Rule 49(2-A) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 stands replaced by Rule 44(6) in 2021. According to her, the very review application is not maintainable.
6. The applicant claimed that he is entitled to get quantum pension on his entering the age of 80 years from July 2018 onwards, whereas he was granted the same only from July 2019. So he wanted 20% additional pension to be granted on his entering the age of 80 and not on completing the age of 80. This application along with three other O.A.s were considered and dismissed by order dated 09.05.2023.
7. Foundation of the claim of the applicant is the decision in Virendra Dutt, quoted supra, of the Guwahati High Court, in which an Acting Chief Justice of the High Court was granted quantum pension under Section 17B of the Act on his entering the age of 80 years. The Supreme Court confirmed that verdict. Apparently the applicant, who was an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs is governed by CCS(Pension) Rules and therefore provisions under the Act are not applicable to him.
R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 6
8. Irrespective of the subsequent explanation added to the Act, this Tribunal dismissed his plea taking into account the clarifications given under Annexure-R4(b) OM dated 03.10.2008 and R4(c) OM dated 11.08.2009. From these Official Memoranda it is very obvious that such additional pension could be granted only on completing the age of 80 years or attaining the age of 80, 85, 90 years etc., as the case may be.
9. Among other things, the Court also referred to Rule 44(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules 2021, which also makes clear that such additional pension could be granted only on completion of 80 years in the case of the applicant. Rule 44(6) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021 had come into effect only on 20.12.2021; as rightly pointed out, it was wrong to invoke the provision in the case of the applicant. At the same time, we cannot forget the fact that till 19.12.2021, an analogous provision, Rule 49(2-A) of Rules 1972 was in vogue which governed the field which reads thus:
"49(2-A) In addition to pension admissible in accordance with sub- rule(2), after completion of eighty years of age or above, additional pension shall be payable to the retired Government servant in the following manner:- (emphasis supplied) R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 7 Age of pensioner Additional pension From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of basic pension From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of basic pension From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of basic pension From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of basic pension 100 years or more 100% of basic pension That means, the Rule which governed prior to 20.12.2021 also insisted that he should have completed 80 years of age in getting the additional pension of 20%.
10. In order to review an order, there must be discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within one's knowledge or could not be produced in the time when the order was passed, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. Here, it is true that it was wrong to invoke Rule 44(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021. All the same, that Rule is the true replica of Rule 49(2-A) of the 1972 Rules. For merely quoting Rule 44(6) of Rules of 2021 instead of Rule 49(2-A) of the Rules of 1972, the order cannot get vitiated. That has not caused any prejudice or advantage to any party. Rule 49(2-A) of Rules 1972 which was applicable to the applicant makes it clear that additional pension can be granted only on R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 8 completion of 80 years.
11. The contention that Annexures-R4(b) and R4(c) were issued without placing the matter before the Cabinet etc. does not appeal to reason. Those are clarificatory in nature and the provision of law is very clear and unambiguous.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant also took to me a copy of the order of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, in O.A. 2269/2023 dated 16.08.2023. That has been rendered in the background of Virendra Dutt's case. Even the applicant does not have a case that, that decision can be applied in his case.
I do not find any reason to review the order. Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 11th October, 2023) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds R.A.19/2023 in O.A 115/2022 9 List of Annexures Annexure RAI: True copy of the Order in OA.No.115/2022/ dt:9.5.2023 Annexure R-1 - True copy of Section 17-B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, with Explanation Annexure R-2:- True copy of the Rule 49(2-A) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
************