Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Vk Nandakumar vs Union Of India on 23 August, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00276/2023
Friday, this the 23rd day of August, 2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
V.K. Nandakumaran, aged 79 years,
S/o. Late N. Krishnan Embranthiri,
Vallayil House, Cochin Palace PO,
Ernakulam District - 682301,
Working as Inspector of Central Excise
& Customs, Customs Preventive
Unit, Central Excise Bhavan, Kathrikadavu,
Ernakulam - 17 (Rtd.). ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Shri Abhilash K.N., Shri Babu Thomas,
Shri Rishi Varma T.R., Shri Rithik S. Anand,
Ms. Anu Paul and Ms. Sreelakshmi Menon P.)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances & Pension,
166-B, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Controller of Pension/Pay and Accounts Officer,
Central Pension Accounting Office, Thrikoot-2,
Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
2
3. The Zonal Accounts Officer,
Central Board of Direct Taxes, 3rd Floor,
San Juan Towers, Old Railway Station Road,
Kochi - 682 018.
4. The Manager, Union Bank of India,
Karingachira, Ernakulam-682 301. ..... Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. Sreejith N., ACGSC (R1-3)]
This Original Application having been heard on 26.07.2024, the
Tribunal on 23.08.2024 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant herein who was an IRS Officer retired on 30.09.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. He has been receiving his pension thereafter, as admissible under the Rules. Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare, Government of India issued Annexure A1 OM dated 02.09.2008 implementing one recommendation of the VIth CPC regarding revision of pension at specified periods. Clause 5.7 of the said OM provided an additional quantum of pension at the rates prescribed on attainment of the age groups prescribed in the corresponding slabs. It inter alia, provided for payment of an additional quantum of pension at the rate of 20% of basic pension on attainment of the age prescribed in 3 the first slab, "from 80 years to less than 85 years". According to the applicant, he completed the age of 79 years on 14.10.2022 and thus became entitled for 20% enhancement on basic pension. Claiming the said enhanced basic pension at 20%, he submitted Annexures A2 and A3 representations. Both were not responded. According to the applicant by OM dated 31.10.2022 the first respondent Ministry of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare had clarified that the pension/compassionate allowance and family pension prescribed in Rule 52 of CCS Pension Rules, 2021 included additional pension and additional family pension.
2. Claiming that in spite of submission of Annexures A2 & A3 representations, the applicant has not been paid, the additional quantum of pension on completion of 79 years and that he was entitled to the enhanced pension as prescribed in Annexure A1, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to disburse pension with 20% enhancement on basic pension with effect from 01.10.2022.
3. Respondents filed a detailed reply statement denying the said claim, contending that by virtue of Clause 5.7 of Annexure A1, 20% of additional pension will be payable to the applicant only when he attains 4 the age of 80 years, that is from the month of October, 2023 onwards. According to the respondents, the additional quantum of pension was admissible to the central civil pensioners/family pensioners only after completion of the prescribed ages of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years, 95 years & 100 years and above at the respective rates prescribed, and not on completion of 79 years of age nor on entering/beginning of the 80th year and above.
4. Heard both sides and examined the records.
5. The short point that arises in the case at hand is whether the prescribed enhanced rates become payable when the pensioner/family pensioner completes the age of 79 years, 84 years, 89 years, 94 years and 99 years etc. Clause 5.7 specifically provides that the quantum of pension available to the old pensioner's shall be increased at the rate prescribed therein against corresponding slab of age. In the case of the applicant herein, the corresponding slab is "from 80 years to less than 85 years" at the rate of 20% on the basic pension. Essentially, the qualifying age to be attained for claiming 20% basic pension has to be interpreted in terms of the phraseology used therein as "from 80 years".
5
6. The note prescribed in clause 5.7 of Annexure A1 after the column specified therein states that "the pension sanctioning authorities should ensure that the date of birth and the age of a pensioner is invariably indicated in the pension payment order to facilitate payment of additional pension by the Pension Disbursing Authority as soon as it becomes due. The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the pension payment order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his pension is Rs. 10,000/- pm, the pension will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs. 2,000 pm. The pension on his attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic Pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) additional pension = Rs. 3,000 pm". The learned ACGSC tried to explain the scope of words "from 80 years" and the similar terms used in different slabs corresponding to age of pensioner with reference to the note mentioned thereafter. However, it seems that though the slabs uses the term from "from 80 years", "from 85 years etc., correspondingly relating to the rates, the example given in the note uses a different phraseology of "more than 80 years of age". Hence, the note mentioned therein may not be of much help to decide the exact 6 meaning of the term "from 80 years" and similar word used in each slab relating to age.
7. To substantiate the claim, the applicant heavily relied on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani vs Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 4224/2016, dated 15.3.2018]. In Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra) the applicant therein retired as the Acting Chief Justice of the State. He completed 79 years of age on 29.07.2015 and entered the 80th year on 30.07.2015. The applicant therein claimed that he became entitled to additional quantum of pension at 20% of basic pension with effect from 30.07.2015. The claim was based on the provisions in Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2009, which was enacted to amend the Act and also the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958. As per Section 4 of that Act, after Section 17A in the Act, Section 17B was introduced, which was intended to provide every retired Judge or after his death, the family, an additional quantum of pension or family pension, in accordance with the scale mentioned therein. Different slabs for different age groups were provided as "from 80 years to less than 85 years", "85 years to less than 90 years", etc., with corresponding additional quantum 7 of pension at almost the same rate as prescribed in Annexure A1 herein was also prescribed.
8. The question that came up before the Gauhati High Court was whether the petitioner therein would be entitled to the first scale of benefit as per Section 17B on 30.07.2015, when he completed 79 years of age. The respondents therein contended that the benefit of first scale under Section 17B will be available to the petitioner on his completion of 80th year on 30.07.2016.
9. Based on the rival contentions, the question for consideration which the Bench posed to itself was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner therein would be entitled to an additional quantum of pension @20% of basic wages from 30.07.2015, on completion of his 79th year or from 30.07.2016 on completion of his 80th year as per the first slab provided under Section 17B for the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended.
10. Holding that since different interpretations were possible to the said term it was necessary to examine the meaning of the expression "from 80 years" and similar term used in different slabs as appearing in Section 8 17B, it was necessary to decide what precisely would be the meaning of the expression "from 80 years".
11. The Bench noted that in Black's Law Dictionary in 6th Edition, the word "from" has been defined to mean "a starting point, whether it be of time, place of condition, and having starting point of motion, noting the point of departure, origin, withdrawal, etc." However, it was explained that the word "from" does not have an absolute and invariable meaning, but should receive an inclusion or exclusion construction according to the intention in which the word was used. Hence, it was noticed that as per the dictionary meaning, the expression "from 80 years" would indicate the starting point of 80 years. Therefore, employing the principle of 'purposive interpretation' it was held that the benefit of additional quantum of pension as per Section 17B of the Act in the first slab would be available to retired Judge from the first day of his 80th year and in so far as the petitioner was concerned, he would be entitled to the said benefit from 30.07.2015, which was the first day of his 80th year.
12. It emerges that this judgment was subjected to a challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.18133/2019, which 9 was dismissed holding that on the basis of the relevant material, the Court was not inclined to interfere.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant, to supplement the above contention relying on Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra) further relied on the decision of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Sqn. Ldr. Yogesh Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors. (OA No. 1102/2022), wherein the applicant therein claimed additional/enhanced pension from the commencement of 80 years of age in accordance with entitlement of all government pensions by way of amendment of the respective government statues using identical phraseology. Relying on the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra) the Bench held that the applicant was entitled to enhanced pension on completion of his 79th age.
14. On the other hand, the learned ACGSC placed heavy reliance on the decision of a Single Bench of this Tribunal in C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Union of India and Others (OA No. 115/2022 and connected cases), in which an exactly identical issue came up before the learned Single Member Bench. That is a case, wherein, a retired Assistant 10 Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and similarly situated persons came up with an exactly identical contention based on Annexure A1 relying on the decision rendered by the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra). Rejecting the said contention, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra) was dealt with under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act and on an interpretation of Section 17B of the said Act. The Bench noted that by a subsequent notification dated 18.12.2021, an explanation was added to Section 17B which reads as follows:-
"Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any entitlement for additional quantum of pension or family pension shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, from the first day of the month in which the pensioner or family pensioner completes the age of specified in the first column of the scale."
15. The learned Single Bench took note of the fact that in the light of the explanation offered to Section 17B by notification dated 18.12.2021 which came into force after the SLP challenging the Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra) was rejected on 08.07.2019, explanation holds the field now. Consequently, the judgment in Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra) stands clarified by the notification dated 18.12.2021 and cannot 11 be taken advantage of by the learned Counsel for the applicant, it was held.
16. The learned Single Judge also took note of various other factors to decline the claim of applicants therein. It was noticed that the applicant herein along with the applicants in C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair's case (supra) were governed by the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, and a clarificatory Office Memorandum was issued to it thereafter. It was taken note that by an Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008, directions were issued with regard to the implementation of the Government decision on the recommendation of the VIth Central Pay Commission. Paragraph 4.5 dealt with the quantum of pension/family pension available to old pensioner's and family pensioners enhancement. It was stated as follows:-
"The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the Pension Payment Order.
For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his/her consolidated pension in terms of para 4.1 and 4.2 above were is Rs. 10,000/- per month, the pension will be shown as, (i) Basic pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) Additional pension = Rs. 2,000/- per month. The pension on his/her attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as (i) Basic pension = Rs. 10,000 and (ii) additional pension = Rs. 3,000/- per month."12
17. The learned Single Bench took further note of the fact that even prior to the interpretation made by the Gauhati High Court on 01.09.2008, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions had clarified that such enhancement shall given only if the person is 80 years or more and he attains the respective ages as the case may be. Another clarificatory order was issued on 03.10.2008 where regarding the quantum of pension, clarification has been given in second column as follows:-
"(i) the additional quantum of pension/family pension, on attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which his date of birth falls. For example, if a person/family pensioner completes age of 80 years on any date in the month of August, 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension with effect from 01.08.2008. Those pensioners/family pensioners, whose date of birth is 1st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension with effect from 01.08.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above".
It was further clear from para 4 of O.M dated 11.08.2009 which reads as follows:
"4. Some doubts have been expressed regarding the date from which the additional pension is to be made effective. In this connection, attention is invited to the clarifications issued vide this department's O.M of even No. dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure R4(b)). It is reiterated that the additional quantum of pension/family pension would be admissible from the 1st day of the month in which the date of birth falls, only on completion of the age of 80 years, 85th year etc. (and not in the beginning of the 80th year, 85th year, etc.). All references/representations received in this respect stand\s disposed of accordingly."
(emphasis supplied) 13 It was noticed by the learned Single Bench that all the clarifications under the Memorandum were issued long before the judgment in Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra).
18. Above all, Rule 44(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, reads as follows:
"(6) After completion of eighty years of age or above by a retired Government servant, in addition to a pension or a compassionate allowance admissible under this rule, additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable to the retired Government servant in the following manner, namely:-
Sl. No. Age of Pensioner Additional
Pension/Additional
Compassionate allowance
1 2 3
(i) From 80 years to less 20% of basic pension/
than 85 years compassionate
allowance
(ii) From 85 years to less 30% of basic pension/
than 90 years compassionate
allowance
(iii) From 90 years to less 40% of basic pension/
than 95 years compassionate
allowance
(iv) From 95 years to less 50% of basic pension/
than 100 years compassionate
allowance
(v) 100 years or more 100% of basic pension/
compassionate
allowance
(b) The additional pension or additional compassionate allowance
shall be payable from the first day of the calendar moth in which it falls due.14
Illustration: A pensioner born on 20th August, 1942 shall be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from 1st August, 2022. A pensioner born on 1st August, 1942 shall also be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from 1st August, 2022."
(emphasis supplied)
19. I find that the entire issue has been correctly answered by the learned Single Bench in C.S. Gopalakishnan Nair's case (supra). I am in full agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Bench on the basis of Rules applicable to the parties. I find no reason to take a different view.
20. Accordingly, the O.A fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"
15
Original Application No. 180/00276/2023 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the office memorandum; F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) of Government of India 02.09.2008.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the representation dated 28.10.2022 submitted by the applicant before the respondents. Annexure A3 - True copy of the representation dated 30.1.2023 submitted by the applicant before the respondents. Annexure A4 - True copy of office memorandum No. 42/15/2022- P&PW(D)/8 dated 31.10.2022 issued by 1st respondent.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1- True copy of the pension payment order of the applicant.
Annexure R2- True copy of the relevant pages of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
Annexure R3- True copy of the OM No. 38/37/08/P&PW(A)Pt.1, dated 03.10.2008.
Annexure R4- True copy of the common order dated 09.05.2023 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA 115 of 2022, OA 118 of 2022, OA 179 of 2022 and OA 222 of 2022.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-