Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunil Kr Sharma vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 25 April, 2024
1
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 1124/2017
This the 25th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
1. Shri Sunil Kr. Sharma
Age 58 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
S/o Late Shri K.L. Sharma
B-37, Satyawati Nagar
Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi-110052
2. Smt. Promela
Age 54 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
D/o Sh. Harswroop Sharma
B-37, Satyawati Nagar
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III
Delhi-110052
3. Shri Vinod Kumar
Age 54 years,
Designation - Telecom Technical Assistant
Group C
S/o Late Shri Om Prakash
B-21, Ist Floor
Lohiya Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033
4. Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
S/o Sh. Naubat Rai Gupta
C-3/48, Ashok Vihar
Phase-II, Delhi-110052
5. Shri Satender Pal
Age 55 years
2
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
S/o Shri Basti Ram
H.No. E-460, Gali No. 4
Hardev Puri, Shahdara
Delhi-110093
6. Shri Mahendra Singh
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Sawroop
C-225, Gali No. 6
Hardev Puri, Shahdara, Delhi-110093
7. Smt. Tajinder Kaur Jaggi
Age 61 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
D/o Late Shri Sunde
Singh Batra, B-318, Ist Floor, Hari Nagar, Delhi-110064
8. Shri Prem Kumar Gupta
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Pratap Gupta
A-1/108, New Kondli
Delhi-110096
9. Shri Dinesh Kumar
Age 67 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant (Retired)
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Govind Lal
WZ-D/10, St. No. 22
Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar
Delhi-110059
10. Shri Om Pal Singh
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant
Group C
S/o Shri Daya Chand
H.No. A-23, Gali No. 2
New Modern Shahdara
Phase-II, Delhi-110032
3
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
11. Smt. Krishna Preenja
Age 70 years
Supervisor (retd.), Group C
D/o Lt. Sh. Ram Chander Bhardwaj
316, New Modern Apartment
Plot No. 26/2, Sector-9
Rohini, Delhi-110085
12.Smt. Usha Rani Matta
Age 58 years
Sr. Telephone Operating Assistant, Group C
D/o Lt. Sh. Kasturi Lal
WZ-80-A/1, Sant Nagar
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018
13.Shri Anil Kumar Kapoor
Age 60 years
Sub Divisional Engineer (Retd), Group B
S/o Lt. Sh. Yash Pal Kapoor
29, Shankar Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110082
14.Shri Babu Ram
64 years, Sr. Telephone Operating Assistant, Group C
S/o Late Shri Hari Ram
C-601, Vimal CGHS
Plot No. 3, Sector-12
Dwarka, Delhi-110078
15.Shri Ram Shankar
Age 68 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
S/o Late shri Naire Lal
B-204, Gali No. 26
Mahabir Enclave
Part-II, Delhi-110059
16.Dharam Pal Singh
Age 55 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(Retired) Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Girwar Singh
R-86, Main 33 Foota Road, Phase II, Shiv Vihar
Delhi-110094
17.Smt. Vijay Laxmi
Age 64 years
Supervisor (Retired), Group C
D/o Shri Bachchu Ram
4
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Flat No. 212, Atul Apartment, Sector-18B
Dwarka, Delhi-110078
18.Smt. Shiv Lata, age 64 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(Retired) Group C
D/o Lt. Sh. Jagat Ram Bali
H.No. 10338, Gali No. 1, West Gorakh Park
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
19.Smt. Sita Bagga
Age 65 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(retired) Group C
D/o Lt. Sh. Khushi Ram
G-341, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092
20.Shri Surendra Kumar
Age 61 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(Retired) Group C
S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal
RZ-11, Street No. 14
K-Block, Mahipal Puar, Delhi-110037
21.Smt. Amita Sharma
Age 56 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
D/o Shri O.K. Rishi
F-21/668, Ganesh Nagar-2
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092
22.Sh. Om Shiv Sharma Bhardwaj
Age 54 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Prem Prakash Sharma
D-6/3A, LIF Flat, Sector-6
Rohini, Delhi-110085
23.Shri Nar Singh Lal Arora
Age 63 years
Sr. Draftman (Retired), Group C
S/o Late Shri Kaushi Ram
56A, Block-U&V
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088
24.Shri K.M. Alva
Age 61 years
5
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Sub Divisional Engineer (Retired), Group B
S/o late Shri K.Babu Alva
A-501, Preslita Park
Ganeshwadi, Panch Pakadi
Thane-West, Sector-4
Rohini, Delhi-110085
25.Shri Satya Narain Dahiya
Age 60 years,
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(Retired), Group C
S/o Shri Mukhtyar Singh
B-8/5, Sector-4, Rohini
Delhi-110085
26.Shri Krishan Pal Tyagi
Age 55 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Chhidda Singh
A-1/582, Sector-6
Rohini, Delhi-110085
27.Shri Surinder Kumar Gupta
Age 61 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Mangat Ram Gupta
F-26/60, Sector 7
Rohini, Delhi-110085
28.Shri Ram Nath
Age 61 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
S/o Late Shri Hemraj
194, IInd Floor
Bhai Parmanand Colony
Delhi-110009
29.Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma
Age 62 years
Telecom Technical Assistant, Group C
S/o Late. Sh. Amar Singh Sharma
H. No. I-82, Gali No. 10
Brahampuri Colony
Delhi-110053
30.Shri Kaushal Kumar Mishra
Age 44 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,Group C
6
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
S/o Late Shri Gyanendra Swaroop Mishra
SE-424, Shastri Nagar,
Ghaziabad(UP)-201002
31.Shri Dhyan Singh
Age 49 years
Designation - Junior Telecom Officer, Group B
S/o Shri Brahm Singh
B-665, MIG Flats
East of Loni Road
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
32.Shri Roop Chand
Age 56 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Late Sh. Deep Chand Singh
B-397, DDA MIG Flats
East of Loni Road, Delhi-110093
33.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Age 56 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Gurudutt Sharma
C-7/305B, Keshav Puram
Delhi-110035
34.Shri Ambrish Kumar
Age 54 years
Designation - Senior Telecom Technical Assistant,
Group C
S/o Shri Ram Niwas Tyagi
B-302, DDA MIG Flat
East of Loni Road
Delhi-110093
35.Shri Bhikhari Tyagi
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Attar SinghB-257/15, Gali No. 7A
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093
36.Shri Sant Kumar
Age 62 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
7
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
S/o Lt. Sh. Radha Krishan
H.No. 1189, Ranjit Gate
Shiv Puri, Setor 9
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201009
37.Shri Jitender Pal Rana
Age 56 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Sh. Satyapal Singh Rana
B-9/282, Sector 5
Rohini, Delhi 110085
38.Sh. Surinder Kumar Sachdeva
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Vasdev Sachdeva
R-44, Gurpreet Nagar
Uttam Nagar West
Delhi-110059
39.Sh. Harendra Pal Singh Rathi
Age 53 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Sh. Jaje Singh Rathi
D-72, Gali No. 4, Jyoti Nagar West Extn
Shahdara, Delhi-110094
40. Shri Suresh Kumar Dahiya
Age 54 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Shri Jeet Ram Dahiya
H.No. 15, Vill & Post Office Bindhroli
Tehsil & District Sonepat, Haryana-131001
41.Shri Ram Prakash
Age 52 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Shri Roshan Lal
C-413, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road
Delhi-110093
42.Smt. Paramjit Kaur
Age 54 years
8
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
D/o Shri Jaswant singh
C-112, Gali No. 8, Block-C
Madhu Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
43.Shri Prem Kumar
Age 57 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Shri Chaman Lal
C-112, Gali No. 8
Blcok-C Madhu Vihar
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
44.Shri Anupam
Age 54 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwant Rai
WZ-2410, Shri Nagar
Gali No. 4, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034
45.Shri Jag Pal Ojha
Age 54 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Prasad Ojha
H.No. 106, Depali, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
46.Shri Rajinder Prashad
Age 56 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
H.No. 1197A/29, Vikas Nagar
Sonepat, Haryana-131001
47.Tajinder Kaur Jaggi-II
Age 67 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(Retired) Group C
D/o Lt. Sh. Harsha Singh
8B, Pocket-B, LIG DDA
Flats, Hari Nagar, Jail Road
Delhi-110064
48.Shri Rajender Singh
Age 56 years
9
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
S/o Lt. Sh. Sohan Singh
I-5/16, IInd Floor
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110089
49.Shri Rajender Singh
Age 53 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Chander
H.No. 136, Village Begumpur, Delhi-110086
50.Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma
Age 63 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Shri Narain Dass
C-602, Plot No. 8, Sector-3
(Gauri Ganesh Apartment)
Himachali CGHS Dwarka
New Delhi-110078
51.Shri Tej Pal Singh
Age 64 years
Supervisor Retired, Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Dhara Singh
H.No. 4088, Gali No. 17
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031
52.Shri Ganga Ram, age 61 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Lt. sh. Chandgi Ram
H.No. 424, vill & Post Office Rithala
Delhi-110085
53.Shri Jagpal Singh Dhaka
Age 62 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
(Retired) Group C
S/o Lt. Sh. Chhotan Singh
B-227/6, Ram Gali
Gali No. 7, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093
54.Sh. Harbans Singh Chauhan
Age 54 years
Telecom Technical Assistant, Group C
S/o Sh. Karam Singh Chauhan
10
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Flat No. 191, Pocket-26
Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085
55.Shri Prem Prakash, age 55 years
Designation - Senior Telephone Operating Assistant,
Group C
S/o Late Shri Matadin
H.No. 340, Block E-16
Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085
... Applicants
(By ADVOCATE: Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj with Ms. Priyanka
Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary of Personnel
Public Grievances and Pensions
Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan
New Delhi-110003
2. Secretary to the Government of India
Department of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi
3. Department of Telecommunications
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Communications and IT
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road
New Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. D.S. Mahendru)
11
Item No. 3
Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
2. By way of the present Original Application (OA), the applicants are aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents by which they have not extended the benefits of the Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29.08.2008.
3. The applicants have prayed for the following reliefs in the present OA:
"(a) please direct the Respondents to revise the pay of the applicants as of the existing employee and fitment formula is to be allowed since 01.01.2006, corresponding to the pre-revised pay and pay-scale from which the applicants are retired, as per para 12 of GoI dated 29.08.2008 i.e. "...This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in the case of the existing employee." and accordingly the pension of the applicants is to be revised on the basis of 50% of revised pay as arrived on 01.01.2006.
(b) any other further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be given in favour of the Applicants and against the respondents."
4. The undisputed facts are that the applicants were absorbed during the period from October, 1998 to September, 12 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 2000 in MTNL, a public sector undertaking of Government of India with protection of pensionary benefits. The Government issued notification through Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions vide their Resolution dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure A-1 Colly) in terms of reference of 6th Central Pay Commission(CPC) as contained in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution dated 05.10.2006, as amended from time to time, included "to examine the principle which should govern the structure of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension and other terminal or recurring benefits having financial implications to the present and former Central Government employees appointed before January 1, 2004."
5. The aforesaid Resolution was considered by the Government from time to time and Office Memorandums dated 03.10.2008, 14.10.2008 and 06.04.2016 etc. were also issued.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the grievance of the applicants in the present case is that the respondents have not fixed and revised the pension of the applicants keeping in view their pay fixed as on 01.01.2006 13 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 and as per the applicants, their pension in terms of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 should not be less than 50% of their respective pay as determined by the respondents as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the present OA.
7. Sh. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that this issue is no more res integra keeping in view various judgments on the issue and particularly a common order/judgment dated 29.04.2013 of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. Central Govt. SAG & Ors. in WP(C) No. 1535/2012 with a batch of WPs. Learned counsel has argued that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Central Govt. SAG & Ors. (supra), has considered all the relevant OMs and Resolutions including the one dated 29.08.2008 and has categorically held that it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not less than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre revised pay scale. He submits that in the said very judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has further held that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th CPC 14 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 and then it has to be ensured that the pension fixed is such that it is not less than 50% of the minimum in the pay band and the Grade Pay thereof.
8. Learned counsel has further invited our attention to pay fixation done in the case of Applicant No. 1 i.e. Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma which is placed by the applicants at Annexure AA-3 to the rejoinder and which is claimed to have been received by the applicant under RTI Act vide communication dated 01.12.2017. For clarity, the same is reproduced as under:
"Entry of Notional Pay fixation as per 7th Central Pay Commission In pursuance to the orders of CCA, Dot, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi letter no. 2-1/Pre-2016 / Revision of Pension/CDA/7th CPC/2017-18 dated 15.06.20147 and DOP & PW OM dated 12.05.2017, the Pay fixation of the beneficiary are as under.
1. Name - Sunil Kumar Sharma
2. Pensioner Code - 111998111315323
3. PPO No. -2-3/PC-8933/PRPPO-910/N- I/04/Pen
4. 4th Pay Commission -N/A th
5. 5 Pay Commission:
A) Pay Scale - 4500-125-7000 B) Last Pay Drawn on 31.10.1998 - 4750-00
6. 6th Pay Commission A) Pay Scale - 5200-20200 + Grade Pay 2800 B) Notional Pay Fixed as on 01.01.2006-11640-00
7. 7th Pay Commission A. Pay Scale 29200-92300 Level 05 B. Notional Pay Fixed as on 01.01.2016-30100 Table No. 19 Pension Fixed:-
A) As per 7th CPC as on 01.01.2016 - 15050-0 15 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
9. By referring to the averments in the counter reply, Sh. D.S. Mahendru, learned counsel for the respondents has very vehemently opposed the claim of the applicants. He submits that respondent no. 1 i.e. the Nodal Ministry in relation to all pension related matters has issued clarification vide OM dated 03.10.2008 and as per the said clarification, the pension will be reduced prorate where the pensioner has less than maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that pay of the retiree who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per the 6th CPC and then it has to be ensured that the pension so fixed is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay. The respondents have also referred to and placed their reliance on their Resolution dated 29.08.2016 and one dated 01.09.2008 which according to them rules that the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. 16 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
10. In the counter reply under paragraph G, it is asserted as under:
"G. That the contents of Para G in so far as it refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is not denied. While rest of the para is not admitted as correct. It is submitted that the pro- rata reduction of pension vide order dated 6.4.2016 has been done away with. The said order is issued in compliance to various courts decision including WPC No. 1535/2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thus the original provisions ignoring prorate reduction ordered vide OM dated 3.10.2008 has been done away with the contention of the applicant that the pension is to be fixed at 50% of pay instead of 50% of minimum of pay in the pay scale in only the contention of the applicants. As per resolution of the Govt. dated 29.8.2016 and of respondent no. 1 dated 1.9.2008 which rules that "the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired". This clearly signifies that it is 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band + grade pay and not 50% pay arrived at as per 6th CPC orders. Nowhere in the orders for pre-2006 pensioners pay fixation is mentioned. The pension revision under 6th CPC is only with reference to the existing pension as on 31.12.2005. It is further submitted that the clarificatory orders dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 are no more applicable orders delinking qualifying service of 33 years for drawl of pension was issued vide respondent No. 1 OM dated 6.4.2016 in all cases 50% of minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay is ensured as provided vide resolution dated 29.8.2008 and OM dated 1.9.2008."
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. It is not even the case of the 17 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 respondents that Resolution dated 29.08.2008 referred and relied on behalf of the applicants is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further not the case of the respondents that the subsequent OMs of 01.09.2008, 03.10.2008, 14.10.2008 and 06.04.2016 were not considered by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment of Central Govt. SAG & Ors. (supra). The fixation of the pay of the applicants as on 01.01.2006 which in the case of applicant no. 1 has been reproduced hereinabove is also not in dispute. Notional pay fixation as on 01.01.2006 of the applicant no. 1, is admittedly Rs. 11,640/- whereas the revised Pension Payment Order dated 11.07.2016 categorically reflects the revised pension of applicant no. 1 w.e.f 01.01.2006 to be "Rs. 5585/-."
12. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order/judgment of the Central Govt. SAG & Ors. (supra) read as under:
"7. We find that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding W.P.(C) No.19641/2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has referred to the decision impugned by the Tribunal, with reference to an identical question which arose in the State of Haryana because Government of Haryana had adopted the same policy decision of the Central Government. In the decision dated December 21, 2012, in paragraphs 21 to 26, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reasoned as under:-
"21. On the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the 18 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 Cabinet, it was argued before the Tribunal that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. It was argued that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
22. The Tribunal has accepted this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 were contrary to the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for determination of the pension had been completely changed that too when these two subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were issued by the lower authorities having no power to issue such clarification.
23 After considering the arguments of learned counsels for all the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not even necessary to go into the various nuances and nitty grittys, which are insisted by learned counsels for the petitioners based on D.S. Nakara line of cases and N. Subbarayudu and others and S.R. Dhingra and others (supra), wherein ratio of D.S. Nakara is explained. We proceed on the basis that fixation of cut off date by the government was in order and to this extent we agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal where similar arguments, as advanced by the petitioners before us, were rejected. The issue can be resolved on the interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself. It is not in dispute that vide resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the pension was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein. We have already reproduced the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, 19 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications.
Based on this resolution, OM dated 01.09.2008 was issued. We have also reproduced para 4.2 thereof. This states in unequivocal terms that "revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------". The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-
revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired. However, notwithstanding the same and without any provocation, the junior functionaries in the Department of Pension nurtured a doubt "though there was none" and note was prepared on that basis, which led to issuance of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The effect of these two OMs was to make revision in the pension of pre- 2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band. To demonstrate this, Mr. H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing in some of these cases drew our attention to the following chart:-
Min of Pay in the Grade Revised Pension Pre- Pay Band Pay Basic Pay 50% of revised (2+3) (₹) (2+3) scale (₹) 1 2 3 4 5 S-24 37400 8700 46100 23050 (14300) S-25 39690 8700 48390 24195 (15100) S-26 39690 8900 48590 24295 (16400) S-27 39690 8900 48590 24295 (16400) S-28 37400 10000 47400 23700 (14300) S-29 44700 10000 54700 27350 (18400) 20 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 The first 4 columns of the above table have been extracted from the pay fixation annexed with MOF OM of 30th August, 2008 (referred to in para 4.5 (iii) above). Revised pension of S 29 works out to `27,350 which has been reduced to `23,700 as per DOP OM of 03.10.2008 (para 4.8 (B) below).
24. As per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14,300/- is shown as 37,400/-. In addition, Grade Pay of ₹8700/- was given totaling ₹46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all the other pay scales were accepted by the aforementioned OM dated 14th October, 2008. The illegality which has been perpetrated in the present matter is apparent from the fact that whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of ₹14,300/- would now receive ₹37,400/- plus grade pay of ₹8700/- and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at ₹23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay ₹8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of ₹18,400/- or even ₹22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the prerevised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of ₹37,400/- plus grade pay of ₹10,000/-).
25. This has arisen because of resolution dated 29.08.2008 and has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008. This aspect is beautifully demonstrated by the Tribunal in its Full Bench judgement in the following manner with which we are entirely agree:
"25. In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage, it will be useful to extract the relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of the VI CPC recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution dated 29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification dated 3.10.2008, which thus read:21 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
Resolution Para 4.2 of OM OM DOP &
NO.38/37/8- DOP&PW OM PW OM
P&PW (A) No.38/37/8- No.38/37/8-
dated P&PW (A) dated P&PW (A)
29.08.2008 - 1.09.2008 (page 38 dated
Para 5.1.47 of OA) 3.10.2008
(page 154-
155)
The fixation as per above The fixation as per above will The Pension Calculated
will be subject to the be subject to the provision at 50% of the [sum of
provision 'that the 'that the revised pension, in the] minimum of the
revised pension, in no no case, shall be lower than pay in the pay band
case, shall be lower than 50% of the(sum of the) [and the grade pay
50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the thereon corresponding
minimum of the pay in pay band plus (and) the grade to the pre-revised pay
the pay band and the pay (thereon) corresponding scale] plus grade pay
grade pay thereon to the prerevised pay scale would be calculated (i)
corresponding to the from which the pensioner at the minimum of the
prerevised pay scale form had retired. pay in the pay band
which the pensioner had (irrespective of the pre-
retired. revised scale of pay
plus) the grade pay
corresponding to the
prerevised pay scale.
For example, if a
pensioner had retired
in the pre-revised scale
of pay of ₹18400-
22400, the
corresponding pay
band being ₹37400-
67000 and the
corresponding grade
pay being ₹10000 p.m.,
his minimum
guaranteed pension
would be 50% of
₹37400+ ₹10000 (i.e.
₹23700)
Strike out are deletions and Strike out are deletions
bold letter addition and bold letters
addition.
26. As can be seen from the relevant
portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from 22 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 which the pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' and adding 'irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus' implying that the revised pension is to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the applicants. According to us, such a course was not available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification thereby altering the recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government. According to us, deletion of the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre- revised scale' 'and addition of the words 'irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay plus', as introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the recommendations of the VI CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet. Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring the matter to the Cabinet."
26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that "the fixation of pension will be 23 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017 subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired", this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost."
8. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not burden ourselves any further. We conclude by noting that as regards the substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government accepts its correctness, but insists to make the same applicable prospectively."
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is apparent that the pension of the applicants has not been fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of the relevant Resolution i.e. the one dated 29.08.2008 under reference and in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Central Govt. SAG & Ors. (supra) inasmuch as the pension so fixed is not 50% of the applicants' pay as on 01.01.2006. 24 Item No. 3 Court-2 OA No. 1124/2017
14. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is allowed with the following order(s):-
(i) The respondents are directed to consider revision of applicants' pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the light of Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in terms of directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the order/judgment in the case of Central Govt. SAG & Ors. (supra) and pass necessary orders in this regard,
(ii) The applicants shall be entitled for arrears of pension and interest @6% on the arrears from the date the same became due till realization thereof.
(iii) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/