Kerala High Court
Union Of India Aged 53 Years vs S.Radhakrishna Pillai on 16 January, 2015
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: P.N.Ravindran, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937
OP (CAT).No. 2 of 2016 (Z)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 207/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 16.1.2015
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA AGED 53 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRTY OF PERSONNEL
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS' WELFARE
LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110003
2. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD 211014
3. FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF
SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI, 682004
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT:
------------------------------------------------
S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.LATE K. SIVARAMA PILLAI, RETD. SENIOR CHARGEMAN
NAVAL SHIP REPAIR YARD, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI 682004
RESIDING AT SP 2002, KOOIPPALLIL
SATELLITE TOWNSHIP PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682030
BY ADV. SHRI M.R. HARIRAJ
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 2 of 2016 (Z)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1:TRUE COPY OF THE OA.NO.207/2012 DATED 14.10.2013 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BRANCH
P2:TRUE COPY OF THE COUNSEL STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITONERS
P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMNET FILED BY THE PETITOINERS
P4:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.NO.207/2012 DATED 16.01.2015
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.S.TO JUDGE
P.N. Ravindran &
K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(CAT) No.2 of 2016
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th January, 2016
JUDGMENT
P.N. Ravindran, J.
Ext.P4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, on 16.1.2015 in O.A.No.207 of 2012 is under challenge in this original petition filed by the respondents therein. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2. The respondent herein was compulsorily retired from service on 6.2.2002 while he was working as Senior Chargeman in the Naval Ship Repair Yard at Kochi. At that point of time he had 24 years of qualifying service to his credit and was drawing pay at the stage of Rs.6,650/- in the scale of pay of Rs.5000 - 150 - 8000. Pursuant to the order compulsorily retiring him from service, he was granted basic pension of Rs.2,370/-. While matters stood thus, pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission the Government of India issued orders revising the pension payable to the pensioners who retired prior to 1.1.2006, stepping up their pension to 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay as per the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The benefit of the said decision was not extended to the respondent in O.P.(CAT) No.2/2016 2 view of Annexure A6 Office Memorandum dated 22.7.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India. He thereupon moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.207 of 2012 wherein he prayed for quashing Annexure A6 and the following reliefs:
"i. To declare that the Central Civil Service (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2011 is discriminatory, arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extend it refuses to apply the liberalized principles of computing pension to pensioners who retired before 1.1.2006 and that it is void to that extent;
ii. To quash Annexure A6 and to direct the respondents to compute the revised pension of the applicant at 50% of his emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, and to draw and disburse such revised pension to the applicant with all consequential benefits including arrears of pension and pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum;
iii. Alternatively, to direct the respondents to pay the applicant minimum basic pension equal to 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the applicant retired;
iv. grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant."
3. The petitioners herein opposed the said application contending O.P.(CAT) No.2/2016 3 inter-alia that as the respondent was compulsorily retired from service on 6.2.2002, in view of Annexure A6 Office Memorandum, he is not entitled to stepping up of pension in tune with the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. The Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 recognises the right of persons like the respondent who have been compulsorily retired from service, to pension and that except in cases where pension has been reduced after following the procedure prescribed therein, the pensioner will be entitled to pension as in the case of any other pensioner who has retired from service. It was held that reduction of pension is not necessarily a concomitant event in all cases of compulsory retirement, that a reduction of pension can be made only if a specific order in that regard has been issued in the order imposing penalty, that in the instant case such an order reducing the pension has not been passed and therefore, Annexure A6 cannot operate. The said order is under challenge in this original petition.
4. We heard Shri N. Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Shri M.R. Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the impugned order. A reading of Annexure A6 indicates that the Government of India have taken the stand that the benefit of O.P.(CAT) No.2/2016 4 minimum pension pursuant to and in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission will not be available to those pensioners who have been compulsorily retired from service. The Government of India did not by Annexure A6 amend Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, which reads as follows:
"40. Compulsory retirement pension:
(1) A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted, by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full compensation pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement.
(2) Whenever in the case of a Government servant the President passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under these rules, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before such order is passed.
Explanation - In this sub-rule the expression "pension" includes gratuity.
(3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-rule (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-rule (2), shall not be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem."
It is evident from a reading of Rule 40 that except in cases where an order is passed in consultation with the Union Public Service O.P.(CAT) No.2/2016 5 Commission, a pensioner governed by the said rule is entitled to full compensation pension. In the case of the respondent, though he was compulsorily retired from service pursuant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, an order reducing his pension in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission was not passed when he was compulsorily retired from service. Subsequently also, an order reducing his pension has not been passed. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that Annexure A6 cannot be relied on to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pension to 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which he had retired. Though learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners contended, relying on paragraph 2.1 of Annexure A2 Office Memorandum dated 1.9.2008 that the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission applies only to pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.2006 under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, that the respondent was drawing only compulsory retirement pension and not pension, he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for before the Tribunal, we are afraid, the said contention is without any merit. The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 contemplates grant of various O.P.(CAT) No.2/2016 6 types of pensions and one such is compulsory retirement pension. The petitioners have no case that the service conditions of the respondent are not governed by the above rules. All that the Government of India meant when it is stated in paragraph 2.1 of Annexure A2 Office Memorandum that it applies to all pensioners/family pensioners under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, is that the pensioner must be a person governed by the provisions contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Government of India did not make a distinction between persons drawing different types of pensions under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. We therefore find no merit in the said contention as well.
We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant original petition. It fails and is dismissed.
( P.N. Ravindran, Judge) (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge) kav/