Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Bobbadi Appa Rao vs The Assistant Treasury Officer, on 20 January, 2022
Author: N.Jayasurya
Bench: N.Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITON NO.26092 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the letter in Rc.No.1327/A4/ATO/VSP/2021 dated 26.10.2021 of the 1st respondent wherein the request of the petitioner for grant 10% additional quantum of pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 12.1.2019, was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not crossed the age of 70 years and therefore, not entitled for grant of 10% additional quantum of pension.
2. Heard Mr.Harinath Reddy Somakunta for the petitioner and Mr. Aswath Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I representing respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The petitioner, who worked as a Tahsildar, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 21.8.2010 as his date of birth is 20.8.1952. His services are governed by A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, was drawing basic pension. As he entered into 70th year on 20.08.2021, he claimed 10% additional quantum of pension, in terms G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019 referred to above.
4. Mr. Harinath Reddy submits that the petitioner made a representation on 13.9.2021 to the respondents seeking the benefit of the said G.O., and as there was no response, he got issued legal notice dated 11.10.2021. In response to the said 2 legal notice, he submits that rejection of the petitioner's request through the impugned letter that the petitioner had not crossed the aged of 70 years and therefore he is not entitled for 10% additional quantum of pension is not tenable. While drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019, learned counsel submits that as seen from the relevant Table of the said G.O., it is clear that 10% additional quantum of pension is allowed to the service pensioners / family pensioners in the age group "From 70 years to less than 75 years". He submits that the expression "From 70 years" would have to be construed as "From the beginning of 70th year" and the stand taken by the 1st respondent that the petitioner has not crossed the age of 70 years, hence he is not entitled for grant of 10% additional quantum of pension and that on completion of age of 70 years, automatically he would be entitled to the same is unsustainable. He submits that such an interpretation on the part of the 1st respondent would defeat the very purpose of granting additional quantum of pension to the aged pensioners, as the same would provide some succor to meet their financial needs. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India1 as also the orders passed by learned Single 1 W.P. (C) No.4224 of 2016, dated 15.3.2018 3 Judges of High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.18753 of 2011 (S-R), dated 10/11th April, 2012 and Writ Petition No.105189 of 2014 (S-RES), dated 03.9.2014. He also submits that the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.18133 of 2019, dated 08.7.2019. By making the said submissions, learned counsel prays that the writ petition be allowed.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, advanced arguments basing on the detailed para-wise remarks setting out the defence of the Department. While drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019, he submits that 10th Pay Revision Commission (10th PRC) has recommended 15% of additional quantum of pension to the pensioners, who have crossed 70 years of age, to reduce the difference of pension between the old and new pensioners worked in the same post, as the new retiree is getting more pension than the old retiree. In the light of the said specific position that only on crossing 70 years of age, the entitlement to additional quantum of pension would arise, he submits that the request of the petitioner is therefore, rightly rejected. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the said recommendation of crossing 70 years, which is a condition for grant of additional quantum of pension, is not challenged by the petitioner and in such circumstances, no relief as prayed 4 for, can be granted. Referring to G.O.Ms.No.100, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 06.4.2010, learned Government Pleader further tried to justify the letter impugned in the writ petition. He submits that the Government Orders are clear and that entitlement of additional quantum of pension would arise after completion of 70 years or 75 years of age, as the case may be, but not on entering into the age of 70 or 75 years. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner has no vested right unless he completes the age of 70 years for grant of 10% additional quantum of pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019, and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The contentions advanced by learned counsel on both sides are considered with reference to the material placed on record. The only issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the additional quantum of pension on entering into the age of 70 years or on completion of 70 years of age?
7. A perusal of G.O.Ms.6, dated 12.1.2019 at Para No.2 would go to show that as if the 10th PRC has recommended 15% of additional quantum of pension to the pensioners those who crossed 70 years of age. However, this Court has gone through recommendations made by the 10th PRC, and found no such stipulation. The relevant portion of the Report 5 of the 10th PRC in Chapter XVII at Sl.No.17.11 reads as follows:
17.11. A major demand of the Association is that there are wide disparities in the pension drawn by those who retired at different points of time though they occupied the same position and enjoyed the same status when they were in service and these should be equalized. This demand has been rejected by successive Pay Revision Commissions on the ground that it would amount to introduction of the concept of 'One rank one pension' and the cost of such revision was beyond the means of the Government.
Sl.No.17.14 states as follows:
Keeping in view the problems of pensioners who retired a long time ago, this Commission recommends the following enhanced rates of Additional quantum of pension.
Age of the pensioners Additional quantum
of pension
From 70 years to less than 75 years 15% of basic pension
From 75 years to less than 80 years 25% of basic pension
From 80 years to less than 85 years 35% of basic pension
From 85 years to less than 90 years 45% of basic pension
From 90 years to less than 95 years 55% of basic pension
From 95 years to less than 100 years 65% of basic pension
From 100 or more 75% of basic pension
8. Basing on the said report, it would appear that the Government had taken a decision to sanction 10% additional quantum of pension to the service pensioners/family pensioners in the age group of 70 to 75 years as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019. Therefore, the contention of learned Government Pleader that only those pensioners, who crossed 70 years of age, as per the recommendation of 10th PRC, would be entitled to additional quantum of pension, cannot be accepted.
9. Further, the question as to whether a pensioner would be entitled to additional quantum of pension vis-à-vis the expression "from 80 years" as appearing in Section 17B of the 6 High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954, as amended, fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v.
Union of India on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.7.1998. His date of birth is 30.7.1936 and therefore, on 29.7.2015 he completed 79 years of age. He entered into 80th year of age on 30.7.2015 and completed 80 years of age on 29.7.2016. According to the petitioner therein, he would be entitled to the first scale of benefit as per Section 17B with effect from 30.7.2015 when he stepped into his 80th year. His stand was resisted by the respondent-Authorities stating that the same would be available to the petitioner on completion of 80th year i.e., from 30.7.2016. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court referred to the Dictionary meaning of the word "from" and opined that expression "from 80 years" would indicate the starting point of 80 years, with a caveat that inclusiveness or exclusiveness associated with the expression would have to be interpreted having regard to the intention for use of such word or expression. At para-29 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench further opined as follows:
29. This question can also be looked at from another angle.
When we say "from 2016 onwards" what do we mean? Whether it would be from 1.1.2016 i.e., from the first day of the year 2016 or on completion of the year 2016 on 31.12.2016? The answer is quite apparent; it has to be from the first day of the year itself.
7
10. The reasoning of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the considered opinion of this Court applies to the present situation and accordingly the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are upheld. As pointed out by him, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench was affirmed in Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The enhancement of pension is to provide some succor to the pensioners in their old age to meet their domestic, financial and medical needs and interpretation in respect of any such measures, in the opinion of this Court, should lean in their favour, rather than depriving them the same.
12. In view of the above factual and legal position, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 26.10.2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to release 10% additional quantum of pension to the petitioner with effect from 20.8.2021 i.e., on entering the age of 70 years and continue to pay the same as provided in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE N.JAYASURYA January 20th, 2022 vasu