Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Krishnan vs M/O Railways on 3 August, 2022
SS 1 0A 500/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH QA/310/00500/2013 Dated the Wecdns day of Brag AugusAlwo Thousand Twenty Two CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, Member (A) HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J) S.Krishnan, Reid, Chargeman 'B', No. AP892, J. Block, I Street, 13" Main Road, Chennai 600040. ... Apnlicant By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis Vs 1.Unior of India rep by, The Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi 110001. a 2.The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai 38. 3.The Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer/Fur, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai 38. ...- Respondents ' By Advocate Mr. A. Abdul Ajees BK) | MT 2 OA 500/2013 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records related to the impugned orders PPO No.1001206910 dated 23.03.2010 issued by the 3" respondent and to quash the same to the extent of fixation of basic pension with reference to PB 1 plus Grade Pay Rs.2800 and further to direct the respondents to recompute the basic pension of the applicant with reference to PB 2 (Rs.9300-34800) plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/- w.e.f 01.01.2006, with all the consequential benefits."
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:-
The applicant retired from the Railway service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.1993 as a Chargeman B carrying the scale of Rs.1200- 2300. The said post has been redesignated as Junior Engineer-II as per RBE No.61/1996 dated 26.07.1996. On implementation of the recommendations of the V CPC, minimum pension was fixed at not less than 50% of the scale of pay of RS. 5000-8000 recommended and accepted for the JE-II cadre. While implementing the recommendations of the VI CPC, although the corresponding scale of pay, i.e., PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200 was recommended and accepted for the JE-IJ, the basic pension of retired JE-II like the applicant was fixed with reference to PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 + GP 2800. The applicant contended that as per the OM No.45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17.12.1998, the pension of the applicant was revised as Rs.2680/- with reference to the scale of 3 OA 500/2013 pay of Rs.5000-8000 applicable to the post of JE-IL as indicated in Railway Board RBE 61/1996. dated 26.07.1996. On implementation of the recommendations of the VI CPC, the applicant's basic pension was revised as Rs.6057 with reference to PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 + GP 2800 in stead of PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200. In which event, the applicant's pension should have been revised to 50% of the quantum of the corresponding minimum pay in PB- 2, i¢., Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200. However, the respondents have declined to fix his pension according to the recommendation issued by the 5" as well as 6"
Pay Commission and issued the PPO dated 23.03.2010 which is impugned in the present OA thereby the applicant is seeking direction against the respondents to recompute the basic pension of the applicant with reference to PB 2 (Rs,9300-34800) plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/- w.e.f 01.01.2006, with all the consequential benefits by setting aside the PPO dated 23.03.2010.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply and opposed the claim of the applicant by relying upon several Railway Board's letters as well as various OMs raising various grounds stating therein that according to the recommendations of the CPC, the applicant's pension has been revised and paid. It is also submitted that the revised pay scale will take effect only w.e.f 01.01.1996 and as the applicant had retired prior to 1996 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 (4" CPC) the corresponding pay scale is Rs.4500-7000 (5" CPC) and not in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (5 CPC). Therefore, the applicant cannot claim the pension at 4 OA 500/2013 par with the post-1996 retirees as well as post-2006 retirees since he is a pre- 1996 retiree. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA as it is not maintainable.
4. Heard both sides and perused the OA along with relevant records.
5. By the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.22650 of 2017 dated 03.12.2018, the matter has been remitted back from the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant has placed reliance upon various orders passed by this Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal which are quoted in the forthcoming paragraphs.
6. On the contrary, the respondents have also placed reliance upon the following orders of this Tribunal in
(i)Orders of this Tribunal! in OA 475/201] & Batch dated 26.08.2014
(ii)Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP 19697/2017 & Batch dated 03.12.2018
(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of K.S.Krishnaswamy in C.A.No.3174/2006 & Batch dated 23.11.2006 {iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of R.Sethumadhavan in C.A.No.3173/2018 dated 22.03.2018
7. The issue involved in this matter is that the refixation of pension of pre- 1996 retirees who are claiming their pension at par with the post-1996 retirees and according to the applicant his pension has to be refixed as per the recommendation of the 5" CPC and subsequently to be followed with the . 5 OA 500/2013 recommendation of the 6" CPC. The applicant has placed reliance upon the RBE No.61/1996 dated 26.07.1996. The applicant has taken the plea in his OA that the post which was held by the applicant prior to 1996 has been redesignated/indicated in RBE 61/1996 dated 26.07.1996 as JE-Il. The applicant has also placed reliance upon the OM dated 17.12.1998 the substance of which reads as under:-
"The President is now pleased to decide that w.e.f 1.1.1996, pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner.
The applicant has also placed reliance upon OM dated 11.05.2001 which specifically refers to the corresponding scale and not the replacement scale. It is also observed that as per the Annexure to the OM dated 01.09.2008 and OM dated 14.10.2008 for the revised scale of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 & Rs.6500-10500, a common minimum pension protection at Rs.6750 was prescribed. It is also to be noted that the common minimum pension protection was revised with reference to the pre-revised pay scale of the post held by the retirees, vide OM dated 28.01.2013. Vide OM dated 05.03.2015 Government has decided to comply with the decision in OA 655/201] and other batch of OAs wherein it has been directed that pre-2006 retirees may be granted w.e.f 01.01.2006 a minimum pension with reference to the fitment table applicable for revision of pay of the serving employees. Vide OM dated 12.05.2017 at 6 OA 500/2013 Para 4 notional fixation of pay with reference to the recommendation made by the CPC has been given.
8. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue related to applicability of the said pension schemes in the matter of D.S.Nakara Vs. UOI and observed that liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. It is to be noted that in respect of the pre-2006 retirees, a number of orders have been passed by the courts wherein it is observed that there could be no discrimination between the pre and post 2006 retirees, In this regard, the Govt of India, DoP&PW issued instructions under OM dated 06.04.2016 for revising the pension of pre-2006 pensioners and subsequently the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions issued OM dated 04.01.2019 & 09.07.2019 and while making the submissions the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the said OMs.
9. It is to be noted that the learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the orders passed by this Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in WP 3035/2016 dated 03.08.2016. While passing the order dated 03.08.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi has duly considered various aspects in respect of the question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved with the support of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of D.S. Nakara v.
7 OA 500/2013Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 270 & Union of India & Anr. vs Central Govt. SAG & Ors in W.P.(C) No.1535/2012 and also relied upon the order passed by the High court of Punjab & Haryana in WP (C) No. 19641/2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. Considering the recommendations made by the VI CPC in detail along with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of S.A.Khan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble High court in its order in WP 3035/2016 dated 03.08.2016 observed that the pre-2006 pensioners are also entitled for refixation of pension at par with the Post-2006 retirees,
10. It is also to be noted that the applicant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore in OA 73/2017 vide order dated 18.06.2018 wherein the Tribunal had considered similar case and allowed the OA with an observation that the benefit of revision of pension as per the VI CPC is not only applicable to the employees who were working as on 01.01.2006 but also to those who retired before 01.01.2006.
11. It is also to be noted that this Tribunal while allowing OA 421/2013 by order dated 03.01.2017 considered the reliance placed by the respondents in the matter of K.S.Krishnaswamy supra and noted that the.submission made by the respondents in respect of the issue should be decided on the basis of the V CPC pay scale corresponding to the pay scale of the relevant pay commission from which the pensioner retired not on the basis of the pay scale granted to the person holding the same designation at present.
8 OA 500/201312. The Tribunal has also considered the various orders passed by the Tribunal wherein it has been held that a pre-2006 retiree is entitled to get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay band plus grade pay of the post from which he retired. It is to be noted that in the matter of Agia Ram & Ors Vs. UOI, Ministry of Railways & Ors in OA 990/A1R/2009, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.10.2010 has dismissed the OA filed by the applicant claiming similar relief like the applicant. The said order was challenged before the High court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.9581/2011. Therein Agia Ram and some petitioners who have retired during the period from 01.01.986 to 30.12.1995 whereas some other petitioners have retired between the period 30.04.1996 and 30.09.2003. While dealing with similar issue, the court has observed as under:
"4, From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the post of Mistry-cum- Supervisor has acquired new name of Junior Engineer-II, which was also in the same scale of * 1400- 2300, in the pre-revised pay scale. However, the case of the respondent was that on the restructuring the pay scale granted to the post of Junior Engineer-II because it would be available only to the Mistty-cum-Supervisor who are working as such and has enjoyed the designation of Junior EngineerlI.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the post of Mistri-cum-Supervisor has acquired a new nomenclature and it has also been given higher scale of pay then the cosmetic cover which has been put forward by the respondent cannot be permitted to hide the real face of the erstwhile . Mistri/ supervisor. For all instants and purposes, they would all be treated as Junior Engineer-Il. Once the pay scale of the post of Mistri/ supervisor is deemed to be revised then their pension is also be required to be re-fixed w.e.f .1.11.2003,"9 ; OA 500/2013
The Hon'ble High court vide order dated 24.08.2011 has allowed the Writ petition filed by Agia Ram by setting aside the order passed by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench, directing the respondents to refix the pay of the applicants therein in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 by treating them under the new nomenclature given to the post of Mistry/Supervisor, i.e., JE-I and accordingly their pension be revised. The said order dated 24.08.2011 has been challenged before the Ministry of Railways before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.29160/2012. It is to be noted that when the matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned ASG, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners therein were willing to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 24.08.2011 in CWP No.9581/2011. Therefore the matter attained finality.
13. Itis also to be noted that in one of the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 8563/2014 & connected matters in the case of UOI Vs. Darshan Lal Bali & Ors while disposing of the said writ petition the Hon'ble High Court has considered the question whether the respondents who stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation before 01.01.1996 from the posts of Mistry-cum-Supervisor are entitled to revised pension w.e.f 01.11.2003 on resultant upgradation of their posts as JE-II in the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 in terms of the Railway Board circular dated 09.10.2003. The court also noted the fact that in the matter of Agia Ram the matter has attained finality wherein the Government of India, 10 OA 500/2013 Ministry of Railways has taken a well considered decision not to pursue the appeals filed against the order passed by the High court and to implement the same on the premise that the proposition laid down therein was correct. Therefore while dismissing the said appeals filed by the Ministry of Railways, the Hon'ble High court held that such an approach by the Union of India is ex- facie arbitrary, unjust and has resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also held that the petitioner(s) are a welfare State. They cannot and ought not to expect the respondent-retirees to roam in the corridors of Courts. The conscious decision taken by the petitioner(s) to extend benefit of their 2003 Circular to a batch of pre-1996 retirees amounts to shift in their policy, therefore, also the respondents being similarly placed retirees, are entitled to the benefit of revised Policy decision, even if such decision has emanated out of the command issued by this Court in Agia Ram and others' case, The denial of benefit of revised higher pension etc. to the respondents when it stands granted to other similarly piaced retirees, certainly does violence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. While dismissing the CWP vide order dated 29.01.2015, the High court granted three months time to give effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme court while rejecting similar case filed by the State of Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma in CA No.1£23/2015 & batch dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and upheld the order passed by the High court of Rajasthan and extended the same benefit with interest at the rate of 9% per 11 OA 500/2013 annum. It is also be noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of UOI Ministry of Railways Vs. Azeezullah Baig in WP No.27122/2016 dated 17.01.2018 has considered the order passed by this Tribunal and also dealt with the order passed in the matter of K.S.Krishnaswamy's case by distinguishing the said judgment stating that in that case for the same post, there were two correspondingly revised scales of pay whereas in the case of the post held by the respondent therein the entire strength was carrying the scale of pay of Rs.425-640 as Rs.1400-2300 and as Rs.5000-8000 and dismissed the petition filed by the UOI and confirmed the order passed by this Tribunal and extended similar relief which is granted to the pre-1996 retirees by this Tribunal as well as the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal.
14. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore in its order in OA 223-225/2018 dated 22.01.2019 in the matter of D.Selvaraj & Ors Vs. UOE Ministry of Railways & Ors has considered and allowed the OA and extended the similar relief. It is also to be noted that while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent department in WP No.7909/2017 against the order of this Tribunal in OA. 95/2015 dated 21.04.2016, the Hon'ble High court of Madras at para 39 of its order dated 04.02.2019 has held thus:
"39. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the Pre-2006 Retiree is entitled to receive 50% of the minimum of pay in the revised pay Band + Grade Pay of the post from which he retired and in short, there can be no discrimination between Pre-Retiree Persons and Post Retiree Persons on 01.01.2006 in fixation between Preretired 12 . OA 3500/2013 persons and post Retiree persons on 01.01.2006, especially in the matter of pension, in the considered opinion of this Court. Viewed in that perspective, the claim of the 2nd Respondent for refixation of his pension resting on the scale of HAG 75,500/- -- 80,000/- is perfectly just and legally valid with effect from 23.05.2013, therefore, the view taken by the ist Respondent in OA/310/00095/2015 by directing the Respondents therein [Writ Petitioners] to pay the grade pay and pay the arrears etc., is free from any legal flaw. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails."
It is also to be noted that the Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association Vs. The State of Manipur & Ors in C.A.No.10857/2016 considered the issue related to the pre-1996 retirees by taking into consideration a catena of decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S.Nakara and observed thus:
8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension, In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioner form a ' one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must _ have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
13 OA 500/2013The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cutoff date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated _ for grant of any benefit.
8.1 As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that
- as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre1996 or post1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cutoff date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit 'is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cutoff date taking into ' consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision.
9, In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present 14 0A 500/2013 appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra). The decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not following the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby restored and it is held that ali the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who retired postl996. The arrears be paid to the _ respective pensioners within a period of three months from today.
Vide judgment dated 11.07.2019, the Hon'ble Apex court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and held that all the pre-1996 pensioners irrespective of their dates of retirement shall be entitled to revision of pension at par with those who retired post-1996.
15. It is also to be noted that by RBE No.138/1997 dated 16.10.1997 the Railway Board has issued Railway Servants Revised Pay Rules, 1997- Schedules for Revised Scales of pay and also issued RBE No.269/1998 dated 24.11.1998 wherein fitment table for replacement scales have been given. Chapter 4 shows scale of pay applicable to principal categories of non-gazetted staff.
16. The respondents counsel has vehemently argued the matter and opposed the relief placing their reliance on the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 15 OA 500/2013 475/2011 and other connected baich of OAs wherein this Tribunal has declined the relief in similar cases and rejected the OA. As well as the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.22650 of 2017 wherein the matter has been remanded back to this Tribunal to consider the issue in the light of R.Sethumadhavan's case. The respondents also contended that according to K.S.Krishnaswamy's case & R.Sethumadhavan's case the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
17. It is to be noted that as mentioned above in a number of cases, while passing the order the case of K.S.Krishnaswamy has been considered. However, while coming to the conclusion the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court has distinguished that case of K.S.Krishnaswamy and observed that the issue related to redesignation and the same has attained finality as the respondents Railways, though they have challenged the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, they themselves have decided not to pursue the appeal and to implement the order on the premise that the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble High court while granting relief to the pre-1996 retirees at par with post-1996 retirees was correct. Therefore the order passed in the matter of K.S.Krishnaswamy is distinguishable and not applicable to the case of ihe applicant. As well as in the order passed in the matter of R.Sethumadhavan , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of K.S.Krishnaswamy and while coming to the conclusion stated that there was nothing on record to suggest the redesignation which was the sole basis on which the writ petition
t) 16 OA 500/2013 was allowed by the High court and to support the contention that the post of Train Examiner was redesignated as JE-I, no document was made available and hence the Apex court has passed the said order. The fact to be noted here is that admittedly by RBE 61/1996 dated 26.07.1996 the respondents have redesignated almost 49 posts and revised the designation of Train Examiner (C&W) as JE-It & Chargeman as JE-Il which fact was not brought before the Hon'ble Apex court in R.Sethumadhavan's case. After going through all the judgments, orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High courts of New Delhi, Punjab & Haryana & Madras & CAT, Bangalore Bench, Madras Bench, Ernakulam Bench & Chandigarh Bench, it is seen that some of the judgments have been tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the respondent department, Ministry of Railways have implemented the orders passed by the Hon. High Court without raising any issue and accordingly by observing the said stand of the respondent department subsequent orders have been passed by the Hon. High courts.
18. It is to be noted that on the one hand the respondent department, Ministry of Railways have accepted the orders and implemented the same in similar cases and on the other hand raising objection on the basis of the few orders sought by them either by not placing the correct facts before the court or by not placing the relevant RBE OMs/circulars and orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts in similar matters wherein they themselves have implemented the judgment. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that as 17 OA 500/2013 rightly observed by the Punjab & Haryana High court in its judgment dated 29.01.2005 in CWP No.8563/2014 as under:
[19]. In this regard, we are fortified by the view taken in K.C. Bajaj and Ors. vs, Union of India and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 777, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled as follows:-
"28. However, the fact of the matter is that the Union of India did challenge the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Dr. K.C. Garg's case and other connected matters by filing special leave petitions, which were converted into Civil Appeal Nos.1972- 1974/2003 and during the pendency of the appeals, a conscious decision was taken by the Government of India not to pursue the appeals and implement the order of the High Court. It is neither the pleaded case of the Respondents nor it has been argued before us that the Government of India had taken decision to withdraw the appeals filed in the cases of Dr. K.C. Garg and others because the financial implications were negligible or that the concerned officers were misled in doing so on account of wrong legal advice. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to observe that during the pendency of the appeals, the matter was referred to the Attorney General for his opinion whether the judgment of the High Court is correct and the same should be implemented. The Attorney General examined the matter keeping in view the relevant rules and the policy decisions taken by the Government of India and opined that the judgment of the High Court was correct and should be accepted in preference to the view taken by the Tribunal. The issue was then considered at the highest level of the Government and the Prime Minister ordered implementation of the High Court's order, Thereafter, the appeals were withdrawn. It is a different thing that the proposal for withdrawal of O.M. dated 29.10.1999 was shelved in view of the judgment in Col. B.J. Akkara's case. In other words, the Government of India had taken a well considered decision
-not to pursue the appeals filed against the order of the Delhi High Court and implement the same on the premise that the proposition laid down therein was correct.
29, In view of the above discussion, we hold that the ratio of the Digambar's case cannot be invoked to justify the pick and choose methodology adopted by the Union of India in resisting the claim of similarly situated doctors that NPA payable to them shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension. Such an approach by the Union of India is ex-facie arbitrary, unjust and has resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution."18 OA 500/2013
(emphasis applied) [20]. The _petitioner(s) are a welfare State. They cannot and ought not to expect the respondent-retirees to roam in the corridors of Courts. The conscious decision taken by the petitioner(s) to extend benefit of their 2003 Circular to a batch of pre-1996 retirees amounts to shift in their policy, therefore, also the respondents being similarly placed retirees, are entitled to the benefit of revised Policy decision, even if such decision has emanated out of the command issued by this Court in Agia Ram and others' case. The denial of benefit of revised higher pension etc. to the respondents when it stands granted to other similarly placed retirees, certainly does violence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Emphasis applied) the respondent Railways cannot change their stand according to their whims and fancies and they are bound to extend the relief to all similarly situated employees as per the order of the Hon'ble High court.
19. In view of the above, the action of the respondents in refixing the applicant's basic pension at Rs. 6057/- w.e.f, 01.01.2006 with reference to PB 1 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- instead of PB 2 (Rs. 9300-34800) plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- is discriminatory in nature and violative under Article 14 and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order PPO No.1001206910 dated 23.03.2010 issued by the 3" respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refix the applicant's basic pension with reference to PB 2 (Rs. 9300-34800) plus GP Rs. 4200 wef. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits including the arrears accrued for payment to the applicant by issuing a fresh PPO within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the amount is 19 OA 500/2013 not paid within a period of three months, then without prejudice to any other remedy that the applicant may have, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
20. OAis accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
{h -
ig te