Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Bhim Sain Aggarwal vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 5 August, 2024
1- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on: 05.08.2024
Reserved on: 30.07.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Original Application No.060/296/2022
1. Yaduvesh Chand Mathur, aged 79 years S/ o Kailash Chand Mathur
R/O F-100 Suncity Gurgaon-122011
2. Kulwant Kaur, W/O Sh. Kuldeep Singh, aged 80 years, R/o #2139
Sector 15 Chandigarh 160015
3. Saroj Saini, Wife of Sh. Roshan Lal Saini, Aged 74 years, Resident of
# 405 Sector 37 Chandigarh 160037
4. Kewal Raj S/O of Sh. Des Raj, aged 74 years, #5054 MHC Manimajra
-160101.
5. Smt Adarsh Puri, W/O Sh Shiv Rai Puri, aged 74 years, R/O # 1107
Sector 43 Chandigarh- 160022
6. Gurdeep Kaur Dheer W/O Sh Surjit Singh, aged 74 years, R/O #
3281 Sector 21 Chandigarh -160022
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. B.S. Aggarwal)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through Secretary Department of Pensions and
Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003
2. Chandigarh Administration through Education Secretary (Colleges) UT
Secretariat Sector 9 Chandigarh-160009.
..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for R-1
Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, for R-2)
2. Original Application No.060/297/2022
1. Suksham Aggarwal, aged 74 years, D/O Sh. Sadhu Ram, R/O # 272
Sector 8 Panchkula - 134109
2. Gurmeet Kaur Salariya, aged 79 years, W/O Kirpal Singh R/O # 1546
Sector 40 D Chandigarh-160037
... .Applicants
Versus
2- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022
1. Union of India, Through Secretary Department of Pensions and
Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003
2. Chandigarh Administration through Education Secretary (Colleges) UT
Secretariat Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009.
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for R-1
Mr. K.K. Thakur for R-2)
3. Original Application No.060/510/2022
Bhim Sain Aggarwal son of Sh. Uggar Sain, aged 79 years, Retired
Associate Professor, Government College Sector 11, Chandigarh,
resident of # 272, Sector 8, Panchkula - 134109.
... .Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India, Through Secretary Department of Pensions and
Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003
2. Chandigarh Administration through Education Secretary (Colleges) UT
Secretariat Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009.
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for R-1
Mr. K.K. Thakur for R-2)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. In the above captioned three Original Applications, the facts, relief claimed and the legal issue involved are similar, therefore, these are being disposed of by a common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The sole controversy herein is with regard to eligibility of applicants for additional pension on attaining the age of 80 years of age.
2. The claim of the applicants herein is that they are eligible to additional pension @ 15% and @ 25% of basic pension after completion of age of 74 years and 79 years respectively i.e. at the commencement of 75th and 80th year of age respectively, pursuant to revision of pension 3- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022 by the Punjab Government vide letter dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure A-
2), on the basis of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Guawhati High Court in the case of Virender Dutt Gyani Vs. Union of India and Others (WP(C) No. 4224/2016 decided on 15.03.2018. The applicants admitted the clarity of the Rules on the issue while submitting in para 4(d) of the O.A. that "Clearly from 65 years to less than 70 years‟ is interpreted to mean that benefit will be given when pensioner is more than 65 years of age and it applies on other slabs also". However, the relief has been claimed based on the judgment rendered in the case of Virender Dutt (supra). There is no need to go into the detailed facts of the cases as the matter is no longer res integra.
3. This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Kartar Singh Tomar Vs. Union of India & Others (O.A. No. 407/2023) decided on 18.03.2024 wherein also the applicants(therein) claimed additional increase of pension by 20% and 30% on entering the age of 80th year and 85th year respectively based on the age slabs prescribed under the relevant CCS (Pension) Rules, which is in para materia with the Pension Rules applicable to the applicants herein, and relying upon the judgment in the case of Virender Dutt Gyani (supra). This Tribunal after discussing the matter in detail and considering the case law relied upon by the parties, delivered verdict against the applicants.
The relevant portion of the decision rendered in Kartar Singh Tomar‟s case is reproduced hereunder:-
"7. I have considered the case law on the issue placed before me by learned counsel for the parties. I find that the Hon'ble Courts have given different verdicts on the issue in view of the facts and circumstances of the relevant case.
4- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022
8. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Virender Dutt Gyani (supra) interpreted the provision with regard to grant of additional increase in family pension made under Section 17 B of the High Court Judges (Salaries Conditions of Service) Act 1954 while allowing the petition in favour of the retired High Court Judge. The Guwahati High Court adopted the decision of Single Bench of Karnatka High Court rendered in the case of Siddangouda Shivabasangouda Ayyangoudra Vs. Principal Accountant General (A&E) (decided on 03.09.2014). The operative portion of that judgment is quoted herein below:-
"Therefore, on a thorough consideration of the matter, we hold that the benefit of additional quantum of pension as per Section 17 B of the Act in the first slab would be available to a retired judge from the first day of his 80th year. In so far petitioner is concerned, he would be entitled to the said benefit from 30.07.2015 which was the first day of his 80 th years. Ordered accordingly"
The petitioner in the aforementioned case was governed by the High Court Judges (Salaries Conditions of Service) Act 1954, whereas the applicant herein is governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules.
9. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Karnatka High Court, in the case of The Commissioner, Hubbali-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Hubbali and Another (Writ Appeal No. 100481 of 2015 decided on 16.12.2015 while interpreting the Government Order dated 13.10.2010 issued by the State Government of Karnatka giving the benefit of increase in pension to Government servant categorically held that a pensioner shall be eligible to claim increased pension only upon attaining the age of 80 years, which means from the 1st day of 81st year.
10. Later, an identical issue came up for consideration before the Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of S.S.Bola (supra) wherein the petitioner, who was governed by the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2016, sought the benefit of increased pension on the commencement of 80th year of age on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Virender Dutt Gyani (supra). The Jurisdictional High Court after discussing the aforesaid judgment in detail held that the pensioner would be entitled to increased pension after completing the age of 80 years. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here under:-
"A bare perusal of the Rule, as applicable to the petitioner, shows that the enhanced component of the pension is prescribed to be paid only on 'attaining' the prescribed age, which is prescribed in the table given in the Rule itself. The Rule prescribed the age for the enhanced pension 5- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022 as "from 80 years to less than 85 years". Hence, it is clear that the enhancement of pension under Rule 33 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 is to start only when a pensioner attained the age of 80 years. Therefore, from the age of 80 5 of 7 years till the day immediately preceding the day when the pensioner attains the age of 85 years, the pensioner is entitled to the enhancement to the extent of 20% of the basic pension. This Rule leaves no scope extending the applicability of enhanced pension from the start of the first day of the 80th year of the age. This interpretation is excluded by the express words used in the Rule 33; which prescribes that the enhancement shall be available only on the attaining the prescribed age. "Attaining the age of 80 years", by any means cannot be interpreted as "starting the 80th year of the age". A person does not attain the age of one year on the day he is born. He has to undergo the duration of one year to attain the age of one year. The word "age" itself signifies the time period as having already passed. So attaining age of one year would mean passing of one full year. It is obvious that a calendar year starts from first day of the calendar month of January and ends on the last day of the calendar month of December. If a person is born on 1st January, he would be completing age of one year only at 2400 hours of 31st December of the said year and not on start of the 00 hours of 1st January of the said year. It is only in this sense that the word attaining the age from 80 years to less than 85 years have been used in the Rule. It is obvious that the day has the meaning of start of the duration of the period from 00 hours to 2400 hours", immediately before the succeeding day. Hence, on complete reading of the Rule, it is clear that a pensioner would be entitled to enhanced pension from 00 hours of the day next to the date when he completes his 80 years and this will continue till the moment preceding the moment when he completes 2400 hours on the date when he completes his 85th year of age. Hence, this Court does not find anything wrong in the interpretation given to the Rule by the respondents.
Although counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment referred by the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani's case (supra), however, on this aspect as well, this Court finds substance in the argument of counsel for the respondents/State that the Rule involved in that judgment is not exactly pari-materia to the Rule involved in case of the petitioner. The most relevant phrase "on attaining the prescribed age", which is used specifically in Rule 33 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, was missing in the Rule involved in the judgment delivered by the Gauhati High 6- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022 Court. Because of this ambiguity, there would have been some scope of interpreting the Rule, in the way it has been interpreted, however, even that ambiguity is clarified in the Rules framed by the State of Haryana, wherein, it is more than clarified that it is only 'on attaining the prescribed age', which is given in the table as "from 80 years till less then 85 years" that the pensioner shall be entitled to enhanced pension. Hence, this Court does not find the reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of Gauhati High Court to be well placed. The said judgment is clearly distinguished because of its own language.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed."
11. The applicant herein is governed by CCS (Pension) Rules and there is no ambiguity in the language of the relevant rule 44(6) that after completion of eighty years of age or above by a retired Government servant, in addition to a pension or a compassionate allowance, additional pension or additional compassionate allowance is admissible under this rule. Also, the Government Order dated 01.09.2008, issued by the DOP&T, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension (Annexure A-1) annexed with replication, it has been clearly mentioned in para 4.5 that "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 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/her 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 judgment of Virender Gyani Dutt (supra) is distinguishable for the reasoning that it was rendered while interpreting the Section 17 B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and cannot be made applicable in the present applicant who is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. Moreover, by notification dated 18.12.2021, an explanation has been added to Section 17(B) of the aforesaid Act, 1954 which reads as under:-
"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 specified in the first column of the scale."
7- O.A. No. 296,297 & 510/2022
12. Recently on 09.02.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting stay in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Bishnu Deo Ojha (Retd) and Another (Civil Diary 1612/2024), made it clear that "the stay is granted subject to the condition that the respondents will be entitled to receive additional pension from the date on which they reach the age of 80 years."
13. The Ernakulam Bench of the C.A.T. in a bunch of four OAs on similar issue with lead case of C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs. Union of India & Others decided on 09.05.2023 has also held that the applicants have to complete the age of 80, 85 or 90, as the case may be, for getting additional quantum of pension as provided in the Rules and the office memoranda. Though a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal followed the judgment rendered in the case of Virender Gyani Dutt (supra) of Hon'ble Guahati High Court and allowed the benefit of increased pension from the date the pensioner entered the 80th year of age. The view taken by the Coordinate Bench was based on the material placed before it by the learned counsel for the parties in that case. However, in view of the unambiguous language of the relevant Rule 44(6) of CCS (Pension) and subsequent O.M. dated 01.09.2008 on the issue and considering the recent conditional stay order dated 09.02.2024 (supra) granted by the Hon'ble Supreme and following the law settled on the issue by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.S.Bola (supra), I hold that the applicant will be entitled to additional pension @ 20% and 30% after he completed the age of 80 years and 85 years respectively as per CCS (Pension) Rules. The Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs."
4. After going through the facts of the cases in hand and in view of the legal discussion hereinabove, I am of the view that the instant cases are squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Kartar Singh Tomar (supra). Accordingly, the claim of the applicants stand rejected. The Original Applications are dismissed. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) „mw‟