Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Maj Narinder Singh vs Principal Controller Of Defence ... on 28 July, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA 60/728/2022
Dated: 28.07.2025
HON'BLE SH. SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J)
Maj Narinder Singh (Retd) since deceased through Legal Heirs:-
1. Smt Satwant Kaur aged about 89 years wife of Late Maj
Narinder Singh r/o House No 96, Sector 71, S A S Nagar
Mohali, (Punjab)-160071
2. Kanwar Bahadur Singh aged about 63 years son of Late Maj
Narinder Singh r/o House No 96, Sector - 71, S A S Nagar
Mohali (Punjab)-160071
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: SH. S.S.PATHANIA THROUGH VC)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi
110 011 through its Secretary.
2. Director General, National Cadet Corps, West Block-VI, R K
Puram, New Delhi-110066.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension),
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad (UP) - 211014.
4. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (CPPC), Site No 15,
Ferozepur Road (Near West Mall), Ludhiana (Punjab) -
141012...... Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: SH. K.K.THAKUR)
2
O R D E R(Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J)
1. The applicant herein (since deceased) was commissioned in the Indian Army as Emergency Commission Officer in the rank of Second Lieutenant on 30.06.1993. The applicant has completed 79 years of age on 27.01.2013 and entered into 80 th year on 28.01.2013 and similarly completed 84 years on 27.01.2018 and entered in 85th year on 28.01.2018 but commencement of disbursal of additional pension of 20% and 30% pension respectively, of basic pension is not done accordingly rather it is disbursed a year later . The applicant herein has submitted that he is eligible to disbursement of additional 20% of basic pension w.e.f. 28.01.2013 and 30% of basic pension w.e.f. 28.01.2018.
2. Reliance, primarily, has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauwhati High Court in the case titled Virendera Dutt Gyani Vs. Union of India and Others (WP(C) 4224/2016 decided on 15.03.2018 and a decision given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. S.M. Bose and Others Vs. Union of India and Another (O.A. No. 303/2022 decided on 03.02.2023).
3. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of applicant regarding payment of additional quantum of pension by relying upon para 5 (A) of the office circular No. 3 165 dated 22.02.2013 which states that "If the document submitted by the pensioner/family pensioner contains information regarding exact date of the birth, the additional quantum of pension/family pension will be payable from the 1st day of the month in which his/her date of birth falls. However, in case, the exact date of birth is not available on the documents submitted by the pensioner/family pensioner but an indication regarding age of pensioner/family pensioner is available therein, the additional quantum of pension/family pension shall be paid from the "1st January of the year following the year in which the pensioner/family pensioner has completed the age of 80 years, based on the documents submitted by the pensioner." Further, it is submitted that Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam Delhi Cantt has Clarified vide letter No. 5637/AT-V/Audit & Payment/Vol-VII dated 22.10.2021 that "as per Para 7 of Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare OM No. 38/48/09- P&PW(A) dated 27th August 2009 wherein, it is clearly mentioned that a person attains the age of 80 years only when he completes the age of 80 years and not when he completes the age of 79 years. Further, 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 the date of birth falls. It would be worthwhile that taking into consideration 4 the date of birth as 28.01.1934, his 80 year's age has been completed on 28.01.2014 (however, additional quantum of pension admissible w.e.f. 01.01.2014) whereas pensioner has demanded additional quantum of pension as on 28.01.2013 i.e. on completion of 79 year's age. In this regard extant Government provisions allows additional quantum of pension on attaining the age of 80 years and above, thus, the applicants demand for additional pension w.e.f. 28.01.2013 is not in consonance to the extant of aforesaid provisions. Hence, additional pension is not admissible w.e.f. 28.01.2013 as demanded by the applicant. As per extant Government provisions, same is admissible w.e.f. 01.01.2014.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. At the commencement of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue has already been decided by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kartar Singh Tomar Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 407/2023 decided on 18.03.2024), followed in the case of Yaduvesh Chand Mathur & Others Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 296/2022 decided on 05.08.2024 along with connected matters. The detailed decision rendered by this Tribunal in Kartar Singh Tomar's case (supra), for the sake of convenience, is extracted 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.5
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 80th 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 6 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 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 7 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 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 8 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."
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 9 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."
7. In view of aforesaid, this OA stands dismissed in the same terms. No costs.
SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J) db