Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Shri M.R. Ranganath, Son Of Late Shri ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 4 April, 2007
ORDER
G. Sivarajan, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The applicant who had retired from the service of the Railways as a General Manager has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Quashing of the Railway Board's letter dated 20-8-2001 at Annexure A-5
(b) Issue of a direction to the respondents to fix the applicant's pension @ Rs. 12025/- p.m. with effect from 1-1-96 and pay the arrears and revise the Family pension to Rs. 7215/- p.m. (30% of Rs. 24050)
2. The applicant had retired on superannuation from the post of General Manager (Construction) N.F. Railway on 31.03.1990. At the time of his retirement he was drawing a pay of Rs. 8000/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 7300-8000. His pension was fixed at Rs. 4000/- p.m. This was being paid to him till 31.12.1995. Based on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission accepted by the Central Government his pension was revised with effect from 01.01.1996. As per the Government order dated 17.12.1998 the pensioners who had retired prior to that date are entitled not less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of his retirement. Further orders dated 30.06.1999, Railway Board's instructions dated 09.09.1999 and a Government of India clarificatory O.M dated 11.05.2001 were also issued. The Railway Board has also issued another order RBE 160/2001 clarifying the position. According to the applicant, by virtue of the revision of pension based on the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendation accepted by the Government, he is entitled to get the revised pension of Rs. 12025/- but he was given only a reduced pension. It is in these circumstances the applicant has filed this OA. Challenging the Rialway Boards letter dated 20.08.2001 (Annexure-A5)
3. The respondents have filed their reply. Today when the matter came up for argument Mr. Anantha Raman, learned Counsel for the applicant has filed a Memo of even date, wherein it is stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and pensioners welfare has issued O.M. No. 38/109/2006 P & PW (A) dated 27.12.2006 regarding the implementation of Supreme Court judgment dated 23.11.1006 in the case of K.S. Krishnaswamy v. U.O.I. Mr. Anantha Raman, submits that the afore said decision of the Supreme Court covers only one point and that the applicant has got a case that similarly situated persons were granted revision of pension of Rs. 12025/- whereas it has not been extended to the applicant which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In short the Counsel submits that notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court the benefit of higher pension of Rs. 12025/- has to be extended to the applicant also.
4. We also heard Mr. N.S. Prasad, learned Standing counsel for the Railways appearing for the respondents. Counsel on either side submits that the matter on merits is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Krishnaswamy v. U.O.I. and Anr. 2007 AIR SCW-77 against the applicant. We have perused the said judgment and we find from paragraph-8 of the said judgment regarding Civil Appeal No. 3188 of 2006 that the judgment was rendered in an identical situation. In view of the judgment in Krishnaswamy's case supra the challenge to the Boards order dated 20.08.2001 cannot be sustained and the applicant is not entitled to the relief of higher pension sought for in the OA. The alternate contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that other similarly situated persons have been given higher pension of Rs. 12025/- and the same must be extended to the applicant also. We find that the Government order dated 27.12.2006 placed before us by the counsel for the applicant clearly provides in paragraph-3 there of that all Ministries/Departments are also requested to revise the earlier cases for revision of pension in the light of Supreme Court judgments dated 23.11.2006 in consultation of Ministry of Law and Ministry of Finance. In view of this there is no doubt that the respondents will take action to review the earlier cases for revision of pension. Even otherwise, an illegal grant to a similarly situated persons cannot be a ground for extending it to other persons on the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This position is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjith Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745 (para 8 at page 750)
5. In the light of the above there is no merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed.