Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs K.Gopalakrishna Pillai on 25 March, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:33213
OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN OA NO.968 OF 2016
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DELHI-
110001.
2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE,TRIVANDRUM-695033.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
KOLLAM POSTAL DIVISION,KOLLAM-691001.
4 DIRECTOR OF POSTAL ACCOUNTS
O/O. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL ACCOUNTS, KERALA
CIRCLE,4TH FLOOR,GPO BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADV DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
2025:KER:33213
OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020
2
RESPONDENT/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:
K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
S/O.LATE KUNJAN PILLAI,RETIRED POSTMAN(BCR),
RESIDING AT JANAKY MANDIRAM,VADAKKUMTHALA
EAST.P.O,KOLLAM-690536.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.VIVEK A.V.
SRI T C KRISHNA DSGI IN CHARGE
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:33213
OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020
3
JUDGMENT
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.968 of 2016 dated 12.03.2019 Union of India and its officers preferred this OP(CAT) whereby the following claim of the applicant has been allowed.
"(i) Quash Annexure A1.
(ii) To direct the Respondents to revise the pension of the Applicant with effect from 01/01/2006 based on Annexure A6, by releasing not less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay, in the Pay Band and Grade Pay thereon (50% of 11,360/-)as the minimum basic pension to the Applicant and release the arrears of pension with interest @ 9% per annum.
(iii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and
(iv) Grant the cost of this Original Application."
2. The respondent/applicant, Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Pillai, a retired Post Man, knocked the doors of the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming 50% of pay as pension from the grade from which he retired from service.
2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 4 Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Pillai commenced his service as Postman on 25.03.1965 and retired as Postman in the BCR grade from Kollam Cutcherry P.O on 31.08.1995. At the time of retirement, the pension of the applicant was fixed at Rs.587/- and thereafter during 5th Pay Commission it was revised to Rs.1,800/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and after 6 th Pay Commission, again revised to Rs.4,068/- with effect from 01.01.2006.
3. The respondent/applicant contended that the 6th Pay Commission had recommended revision of pension for pre- 2006 pensioners by recommending that the revised pension in no case shall be lower than the 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. However, this was later diluted by ordering that there will be pro-rata reduction from the assured 50% of those who are having less than 33 years of qualifying service as per Annexure A3. The respondent contended that the pensioners cannot be discriminated on the basis of pre-2006 and post- 2006 considerations. The respondents placed reliance in the 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 5 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 305] and Union of India v. S.P.S.Vains [2008 (9) SCC 125] .
4. The stand of the petitioners, Union of India and its officers was that the pension of the respondent was correctly fixed as Rs.4068/- in accordance with the prevailing rules. The applicant retired on superannuation from the pay scale of Rs.975 - 1660/-. The corresponding scale as per the 5 th Pay Commission was Rs.3200-85-4900 (BCR Scale) which was revised to Rs.5200-20200+GP Rs.2,000/- in 6 th Pay Commission. The pay scale Postman (BCR) was upgraded to Rs.4000-100-6000 with effect from 10.10.1997 only. As per Annexure R-2 OM dated 11.02.2009, pension fixation should be corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the petitioner had retired and the benefit of upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners and is applicable only to the serving employees as on 01.01.2006.
5. Noticing the rival contentions of the counsels for the parties the tribunal allowed the original application.
2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 6
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant Sri.V.Sajith Kumar supported the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, Sri.T.C.Krishna, DSGI (incharge) submitted that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is patently Illegal, unsustainable and unjustifiable.
8. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
9. The short question involved in this case is:
Whether a pensioner can claim revision of pension based on subsequent re-designation and upgradation of the scale of pay of the post that he/she held at the time of retirement?
10. Issue involved in this matter is no longer res integra. The aforesaid issue has already been rendered by this Court in OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023. The relevant paragraphs of OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023 are extracted here under:
"8. Admittedly, the last drawn salary of the petitioner was in pay scale of Rs.1660-2660. It is after three years of his retirement that the post of "Chief Clerk" was redesignated as "Office Superintendent Grade II". It is a settled position that pension has to be refixed corresponding to the 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 7 scale of pay and not corresponding to the post. The tribunal relied on the decision of the apex court in K.S.Krishnaswamy & others v. Union of India & another [(2006) 13 SCC 215] while deciding the issue, wherein it has been held that for calculating the minimum revised pension, it is the pre-revised scale of pay, in which the pensioner concerned was drawing pay at the time of retirement, that is relevant and not the post from which the pensioner concerned retired so as to identify the minimum pay in the corresponding pay band and Grade Pay attached to the post from which he retired.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of the case in K.S.Krishnaswamy (supra) are not applicable in this case since in the case in hand, the post of "Superintendent Grade II" was not an upgraded post, but only a redesignated post, whereas in K.S.Krishnaswamy (supra), the pensioners claimed revision based on the scale of the posts upgraded after their retirement.
10. The question as to whether a pensioner can claim revision of pension based on the subsequent re-designation and upgradation of the scale of pay of the post that he/she held at the time of retirement has been considered by this Court in OP(CAT) No.198 of 2017 and connected cases; and this Court, relying on K.S.Krishnaswamy (supra), held as follows;
22. ..... what is relevant is whether an increase in pay scale is recommended by the pay commission as regards the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay in which the retiree concerned was drawing 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 8 pay at the time of his retirement to decide the entitlement of revision of pension pursuant to the Government decision on the implementation of the recommendations of any Pay Commission Report. In the light of the exposition of law by the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case, an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of pay commission can cause increase in the scale of pay and in that matter it is not the post that is to be looked into, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had gone wrong in holding otherwise. The fact that the Apex Court held while dealing with Government's decision on the recommendations of the Vth CPC will not make the same inapplicable in regard to government decision on the recommendations of the Vith CPC.....
xxxxxxxx
26. ............The words 'corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' invite no further interpretation especially in the light of the decision in Krishnaswamy's case 2019:KER:55156 O.P.(CAT) 198/2017 & conn. 60 (supra). As already noticed, the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case held that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a Pay Commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale and not of the post.
11. Therefore, it can be held that the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.01.1991, cannot claim revision of pension based on subsequent re-designation and upgradation of the scale of pay of the post that he held at the time of 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 9 retirement. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal.
Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed."
In view of the judgment in OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023, the present OP(CAT) is to be allowed. The OP(CAT) No.53 of 2020 is allowed and the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, the OA No.968/2016 is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE GBG 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 10 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 53/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION 968 OF 2016 WITH ANNEXURES (PAGES 13-55) EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PEN-4/C.NO./PP0 NO.6587/LPS/TVM DATED 20/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.38/37/08- P&PW(A) DATED 01/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.38/37/08- P&PW(A) DATED 14/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/04/2013 IN WP(C)NO.1535/2012 BEFORE THE JUDGMENT DELHI HIGH COURT NEW DELHI EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO F O.38/37/08- P&PW(A) DATED 28/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO F NO.38/37/08- P&PW(A) DATED 06/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/08/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 11 IN OA 968/2016 EXHIBIT P2(R1) TRUE COPY OF THE M.F.NO.38/37/08- P&PW(A) DATED 06/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER'S WELFARE EXHIBIT P2(R2) TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.NO.38/37/08-& PW(A)DATED 11/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER'S WELFARE EXHIBIT P2(R3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/09/2014 IN OA.NO.157/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA NO.968/2016 EXHIBIT P4(R4) TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER'S WELFARE O.M.NO.38/37/08-& PW(A)DATED 11/02/2009 EXHIBIT P4(R5) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2017 IN O.A.NO.434/2017 AND OA 436/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BYT THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.38/37/08-& PW(A)DATED 04/08/2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE EXHIBIT P5(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.38/37/08 & FW(A)DATED 04/08/2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION 2025:KER:33213 OP (CAT) NO. 53 OF 2020 12 AND PENSIONERS WELFARE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO THE MA EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.NO.180/00968/2016 DATED 12.03.2019.