J Tharakeswara vs The Union Of India on 15 April, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

J Tharakeswara vs The Union Of India on 15 April, 2009

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15"" DAY 0? APRIL 2009  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.;A,BDUL_.fVAZ;EER"'V:  _  O' 

WRIT PETITION N0.159i»8/2é?'0¢..é'S;R)V     A'

BETWEEN :

Sri. J. Tharakeswara

S/0. late 1. Seetharamaiah

Aged 71 years ' _ .

Retired Superinte11denIVﬁngiaéer"f _ . 

GREF and now r/a.':<:pe.'e1:-44 g    
4"'C1'0ss,8mMai1i~va  'V ' ,   .

II Biock, Jz1ya1i321gaV1'a'_». » é   
Banga}ore¢e.560"{)_O'i     "   Petitioner

(By Sri. Raﬁganatha    V

         

   '*Eb¢"'1.;niv;$r.uegfIndia

. ' -Rep". 'buyv~'-i_tS'Secreta1'y
A M'ini:;.rry pf Road Transport
And' Highways
. B()r§1e1' Road Development Board
., '' f'B'' Wing, 4"' Hour
*  Sena Bhavan
New Delhi M 11001}



E"-J

Director Genera} of Border
Roads, Seema Sadak Bhavan
Delhi Cantonment

New Delhi - 1.10 010 
3. The Chief Engineer

HQ Project Swastik

C/o.99, APO

New Delhi W H0 010

4. The Principal Controiienof 
Defence Accounts (Pension)   }
Draupadi Ghat '  '
A'llahabad-- E_¢£'O_O.}4;' é _  . 
State o'fU._P.'       

5. Manager  _ »' 
St2ttei_B.a_nk.tof ln';i__ia_ -. '

So'u_th E;ndVCi'rc%e,l'i3»B}ock--__ * P

}ayanaga1* V '_  V   
Banga'io_re«§ 560 011 .-- V   Respondents.

(By sm. Pad1nan:i"olian,C:(3Cf'or R1 to R4

P  Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

 ~VConstitutio--n of India, praying to quash vide Annexure-Q by R-1
  dated E6Q7,V_2.E)04  arbitrary, illegal discriminatory and etc.



This Writ Petition coming on for "Hearing this day, the Court
made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner is at retired Superintending Engine.ei*'*oi'--..the-___ x.

General Reserve Engineer Force (for shortmy'GREF')"iinvling"'retti--red with effect from 25.06.1978. He wit d:rawing*,eension"l:f;:oni:i;_nl Government of India through tiieiihrincipall'Con.trol1ievrlof»I)VeVfe.ncel Accounts (4% respondent). The -itespondent is the fipension sanctioning authority and the"*3'?'l} respor;<jdenlt"'i.si head of the office from where the petitioner re.:i'1'eti.rifThe._Miiiistryz"ol'Road Transport and Hightvays;eB.ti1'der':?fRoad~Deveiopnient B0'c11'd, New Delhi (2'"' respondent'). an head of GREF and the 5"' respondent is the pension d'ivsbtI1'sing authority. A ':T:he_lpe_titioner initially entered service in the Ministry of i"'a.ter5'_<_.~efint ti'1e_posti"of' Superintendent Buildings and Roads Grademi ll _ in the"'Mili»:ai'yEngineering Service (for short MES) as a civilian and .havi'ng heid the higher posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and it i' Executive Engineer in MES, he was directly recruited to theVG.RE.F in the year E975 through Union Public Service Coini;i*i'ssig:;;i..__§1i§,;__"

subsequently retired as a Superintending Engineer in:VGiREF'.f2\_t' the time of his retirement. He was drawing the salary of R:;..ti,"t3¢:s'_0/wi'per 0 month in the pay scale of 1500-2000. H':w1i~.'_,gi retirement scheme, he was given weigiﬁtage of" 5' years of"s.e'r'vice"for the purpose of pension and thus at of. his ret:ii*e.ment3, he had the. qualifying service of 22 y'eairsA 10 iri()i1ths--iiin_d9 days and adding the five years weightage, he'VVhVa'cii.VV2'fvi_ye:ai"s'"1Q'trion--t'hs and 9 days, which can be 1'OL§:.t1d£ij§iis.i~§'\\i'f'. to 2*;/.""The' petii_i'on--er's group--A service was itseifi 7 Smonthsi'anE1~--l_5~days.

1 Th'e4_petitio'nei'A the first instance granted pension basedxin average e'i'noiu:nen=.:s drawn at the time of retirement, with a basic, pension $35.57 i/-- per month and the same was revised from time"tortiinei_'undei"various schemes and orders of Goveifninent of

-V India. ".A.s"or1 1' E996 which. is the reievant date, he drew a pension of 'Rs.«.1.,505/~ per month plus other emoiunients. The Government of it India based on the 5"' Central pay cornmission recommendations issued a scheme for updating pension of all pi'e--l986 pensioners under their office memorandum dated l0.02.. 1998, a copy of has been produced at Annexure~A. According to the the pay of all pre~1986 retirees were updated by noti:o~:»i.alffiRationpol'; it their pay as on 1.l.l986 by adopting S£t:!11I.".p.::'.'():;i1ftL.iilit.1.VE1S'fC7l',_th'E2;g' serving employees at various [ilZfI€!§:['Ii.§)li' paayywias rex-.is'ed&' l}IV1'dCI'_§IhC' schemes. Thereafter, all the past pensioners were 'brought on to 4"' central pay commission pay"scales'._by;noti'o--npa.l,Aifixation of their pay and pay scales and all those-wl1ofretired_ o'i1."or'atft'e'r l.l. i986 were treated alike regardingt..consolidati_oi: of their pension as on l.l.1996, by allowing the same"fit'rna--rt."we'ightage etc., as may be allowed to the sensing'employees. V i r this the Government did not accept the S" Central ~V Pay Co.tni'nissi'on recommendations, that such consolidated pension V-.aJil'i'r-ot be less than 50 :53 of the rninimi_11 , Eeviserl pay of the post

-- held by the pensioner at the time of his retirement. The petitioner lie { "Mil submitted an application for consolidated pension hased on notional pay scale. as on l.1.l986 i..e., Rs.370()~5()()0 El1].f.i..114'jt'~:t:i'(">:'-let.'F'V pay of Rs.3,950/-- per month to the pension szt11ction_ing..V.antho1:ity."

Before the action was taken by the 4"? I'6Sp{')tlC1'€'*1V]E '1 't>':1__.:ti1.et_Sai'tl application, the Government of Imilia accepted the :*eco1i1mer1tlati'()n§§vt of the 5"' pay cormnission that the comgoiidatedlipeneien ataworked out on the basis of 0.1V}. of' l_Q";£}2.'l.998_w'il.1_no't~--he less than 50% of the post last held by the pen'sioiief *i.l'l(."v,.'Vi~lIi"i..E,'»~V" of retirement.

Similarly with shall not be less .

than 30% of the n';i_11i'muih ithettlireidsed scale introduced with effect froth "I "last held by the pensioner with pro» rata adjustaneittsliin, case pensioner having less qualifying service ~ V. than tli-Sit required fort se_1'vice for maximum pension. The petitioner l"--__ha.V§l'prodtv1Vced'the __C_lovern1nent of India, F.t\lo.-45/.I.0/98 P--PW(A) Ai1l1€XUi'€~C. The sa_id O.M. was an '.Vaniendument.V to the earlier O.M. ozl" l0.02..l998. The petitioner Celairlne--tl pension 'eased on I'1":.l":lI"iL'1Hi el' revised scale of ..s.E430()-- '' ISSOO which was f0I'Wd1'Cl("3d by the 3'" iespondent to the 4"' it :-

respondent on l7.l. 1999. The 4"' respondenr sanctioned pensiovn of Rs.5,000/ per month and family pension of Rs.3,600/-- _ revised scale of post of Superintendent Engineer as pertheAS""§:p21y""i------ ~ Com.m.issi()n scales at Rs.l2,000»16,50(_), pension payment order at Annexure~D.

5. The petitioner took. up t:he__qtics_tio.n of 'i'i;<in,g pension on minimum of scale of Superin'EendenI;p i,et..;_ Rs. 1430008300 with the 1" respondent, In the"r1i-eanWhile_actt_ng.."o.nithe preamble to the Central Ciyit*v(l§e_yiraed my (l1<tit'<l:;<;i) (ccsrsp) 1997), Part--B OfiivSCh'e'3Cii'E.li€i-iii'~£ii'3,§i'VCIltl"§{:li11.COiUI11l1 NOS against item VIII, the Ministry' 11199 r'3\>i\?e_rnn'ie'nti"'.;«)'I' India accepted the recruitment conditions regard's..Superintendent Engineers and issued O.M. on Ai't__V6;6.2000 fi'A'xn.nei;A:<t:~re_»}~l). Accordingly, petitioner submitted his plea on'239:6;2000i."_ror"granting pension scale of Rs.l4300~l8300 which 'was 2" respondent. On 8. l 1.2000, the petitioner sent is - . [h .

representation to the 5% responrlent contending that he had more

-- .if:tha'n years of Group-A service and therefore, he is eligible to get pension based on pay scale of Rs. 14301} 18300. The 4"' respondent concurred with the petitioner that he having more than 13 yen_r_.s_ of Group--A service at the time of retirement, ought to be pension on the scale of 14300--i830() and sought 1' service particulars of Group--A service fi°or--n"'t11e.3'V" --9_'espoinde'nt iinhis letter dated 19.2.2001 as per Annexut~e3M.7.i_i_ii*he furnished the service particulars as perry'/h1i1exu.i'e:N" dated Thereafter, the 4"' :'es;3ondent revi:s=e"LE~Aii'pe:1si<)ni'bnsed' on the rn.in.irnu:n of revised pay sca1et_i'o1"' 0-Siiper-inite,nfe'eiit. Engineers i.e., 14300- 18300 names}; 1y:Re1~;.59::;;1i9/-- m~(j)vt'1'i~h_:WVitit erect 1'rorn 1. 1.1996 as per the orderVdnt;e:1A"t17fT1.2U'0l' {Annexure--P). The petitioner started drawing' the pension nccordirtgly with effect from LL1996. Ibnythe n1eanit.i'nie,~«the 4"' respondent reduced the petitioner's per month retrospectiveiy from 1.1.1996 dated i6.7.2uL)4 is rnzirkeci at Annexure--Q. Feeline egg withouit ass_ig;ntiingii'a1iy reasons. The revised pension payment order {XI 1-...

'ieved. the "p_eti.tion_er filed a representation to the Defence Pension Adalath and it 1 also an application to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ban valore, who registered the a ' lieation ol' the etition.er"':;1ncl E Q.» PP P .. . .

granted stay on reduction of pension. On 15.09.2004, Pension Adaiath informed the petitioner thatuttlie 4"' tiespt;nide,1iit"iinhis letter of 20.08.2004 has given the reasons For i'etineti<iii.jt)"i* :;_t due to a etarificatrory inemoranduan0in'*~Q.M. or .1 i..5.2'0_(}Ali~;.'They said letter of Defence Pension Adalath at Annetanvifeslﬁizind the OM. datedl 1.5.200: is The Central Administrative Ti'iuhun'a1__ disrttisscdithe.Zapplicatioti No.566/2004 on the ground Therefore, the petitioneri'has=fiied this'w4rittbp'ettiti'on'seeking the following reliefs:

LA 'a~.7'wri't 'til' certiorari or any other "ii/,:i'l:}_3[;E>l'flpl'i.,ElAI€ viri9it'o--r--«order or direction be issued by this ., _y1;l0I1V4'l3le2Covti_1ft to eat} for entire records relating to the "'0..._P1P'O:02"_~v_.NotCr'CORR/GREF/ ma:/86/5022/2003 of vide AnnexuremQ issued by the -4"' re";~:poindent peruse and quash the same as arbitrary, "illegal, discrirninato;'y and vioiative of articles l4, '.6 \i £1 10 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the hi principles of natural justice.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other « order or direction he issued to resto1*e the..petitii(>iier"'5;.u._ pension and famiiy pension of Rs.5959/i--._and Rs.'41.29~O/-- «.

respectively as per 86/5018/2000, dated 17.7.2001 i4(£t«s;pCtfvAnneX1}t'C'--P). fg

iii) issue a wit of 'prob-i.hiti.;>i*i,or'other writ or order or direction to there-.spon'd.eri.:s iiot. to*--i9ecover any money from 't'h{eL.";)ension iofthe'*peititfi'onei:.fon any plea of to the object of the_CCS.y(i>eiésit)V:a) 3 9.7:,2_M

iv) aiiiyvoi~h_er«.ordei:--~ or direction or relief as dee1ned>--.fit V. and n'ec'e:s.s~ary in View of facts and _c_:i.;irct1emstancVeAtoifthe ease, including the costs of the V' _ Vi'case'.'i" ~ Respoiadeiits have filed their detailed statement of ~ objections_j_ijstifying the reduction of pension per the order at V' i'Ar_iz:e2;Li'it'e--Q. They have admitted that the petitioner has put in a total \.

s 11 service of 22 years it') months and [.0 days and by ridding 5 years of weightage, the total quafifying service worlts out to 27 yea:'s.._»l() months and 10 days and that it should be rounded oil' to . He was holding the ztppoii1tine.n1 of SE (Civ) and was di'i22wi1:_gepity i<>i'.,:

Rs.1,680/~ per month in the scale of Rs".JEll5i(l()4:l 8(.}() at :lii'e3.;m_1e7'<>t*i"2 retirement on 24.6. I978. On ret.i1'ement, he 'was'.d1'21wing"_~;t oeiision of V Rsf/61/-- per month. The pension to per month per the PPO Nt).Gi'}(?.{Pi-e/«P61/'E édatetl l7. 12. [987 in the eorrespoiitiing revised scale of RPR--86. As such, his gross p¢.~iis'i'c;.yi1'oi* R_s.5;(]U{)/--"<})ef -i_'m._>Vr_1_th:lw.e.l". 1. H996 for 27 years :q_uaiii'y'ingiieryiee 4W.;ts"'-gieiated in the corresponding pay scale of RsV'.tl_2!(l()0wxl6_5u(l{} " Fifth Ceiltml Pay Commission.

.--'s.«ACeofdl'ingl;y', the .'C"(§i"lTiv§;§'l'1'("].I_1111 PPO N().GREF/P1'€--8()/5l92/99 has i"__qbcL>ij:;9ect.lVy grantiilg pension of Rs.5,000/~ w.e.l'. l.l.. I996. In 'answer to eiphfieation (fated 25.9.l999, he has been informed fyide leiteifhdztted 15.lO.I999 that the then scale for SE (Civ) of A »Rs.V3Vi7G--Q--5UG0 has been replaced by the revised pay seaie of '"2___"'i:"Rsigi2{lt)0--Il6500 and the revised scafe of Rs.l.4300--l.8300 (pre- \')4.

~...3 12 {revised scale of Rs.6£5()()--5700) has not been made applicable the post of SE (Cm in GREF. The scale of Rs.l43()e«1.z%_3e'()_t- applicable to the post of SE (SG). He has been fui"ther..in_i'orf1neti letter dated 26.9.2000 that the grant of i'uiictionttl :sci2:le':<i__)Al"

18300 to the post of SE3 would be [made eppliic21l3l.e t>.:1'ilA_vV.it:(:) incumbents who had completed the lg?)/C£ll'S on or before .l._l.il.996 and to alsvtipnroved by DOPT vide their oM,'No.22/,1_12fQ00 £12000 based on reeomnxendationﬁﬂﬁli:§'Inei_:5iF1::"C€i*}Li'iil 'ii_3ii2l,\:lVvit}(3i;"i*11i'iSsiO11 on scales of pay of post or: G:-onp--A Engineering Services It was also intimated that regular incumbents "of"'SEs "who had completed the prescribed _ qualifying S$6l'ViCCV"0fV_VVl3i yetin; on or before l.l..l996 are placed on '7.i1iw.p}iy _.€;¢};.sei: Rs.'l-430018300 from l.l.l_996 wllercz-ts the pe:itienei',V"'xifh.o retired from serviete on 24.l.l-978 i.e. prior to V . l.l.l§96 iiot eligible for the pay scale of Rs.1.4300-.l83()0. The iiiV"ii"V.p,etitionerin/as not in service on l.l.l996 when the DOPT OM

-0.ci¢'_--Nit;-.V;22/010/2000 Order dated 6.1.2.000 was issued and therefore, he was ls 'V-v-i 'A m r .. ' .

rr»here2e--.€ter, all the past pensrehefs; two were brought on to «+ 13 not eligible for the scale of Rs.l4300-£8300 since no retrospective effect was given in the said Government letter.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would eontend":tl1';tt4'L:'tlievv.y petitioner was granted pension based on average e1nt)lL:'..inenfu.;rdrztwn ' at the time of retirerrrent with a basic penjsi."oii*otf Rsi_4.57_.l,/{T 'pi-3;" month and the same was revised trom time to tinhe tinder' variziitrs .Sehe:,i"t'e--.s and orders of the Government. On*.._l}"l.,l996, the 'r:3e3't_itit5nei?"drew pension of Rs.l,5()5/-- per :~'1I}O11l'l'1'.Ap'l'1.l't:l_:'()Il}'C§'_ emoltt1'nerrts as on l.l0.l996. The Government oi' glntlia»h2tSed.y:oei_'tl1e5"' Central Pay Coininissioti i.'_ecoini"i'1;cndittion»it;$ti.ed a Scheme for updating pension of all 1;)re--l.986 *pet1.$'i{_)iter;'striielei' the ol'l'iee metnorariduin dated lU.2.l.9_'9.8.v(At1l1CXtlii'€r._,%h5). /iiteeording to this,Seheme, the pay of all '~._p1ie4i«986 !'_ClZi.IfCC:§ vaeife updated by notional fixation of their pay as on l.l;.l986' 'a'd'(>.pt.i_h§: the same. fornmla as for the serving employees at var4i'et1s"'*_tir.r'res their pay was revised under the Schemes. Ath

--..TCerit1'al Pay Commission, pay scales by notional fixation of their pay lx 14 and pay scales, all those who retired on or after l..l.E986 were treated alike regarding consolidation of their pension as on l.l.l996 by allowing the same fit mart weightztge, etc., may be allowedto the serving employees. The Government did not ttccyepty" the 1- 7.3m"

Central Pay Commission recommendations,that such"eonsolidatfzdC pension will not be less than 50% of the 1:n.inin'iuin 19e_vised._pt1y'ofthe post held by the pensioner at the tiinc of his ':etii~'e:nenty.b.Bet'ore actions V was taken by the fourth respondent oii=»tdh'is. the (30Vei'ii.riient_o1' India accepted recoinmendatiozis'of sf" Pity; Cominissioii "with the consolidated pension as worked out1'oit:~«..vtl1ef%~.basis of official 1nemoi'and.um_ datedr.'l1t};2;E_998T"wiil "not be less than 50% of the minimum payiin"tliexrey.ised" of pay introduced w.e.f. .l.l..l996 of the§:post'~last hekiyby tlfte pensioner at the time of retirement. 1996, family pension shall not be less than 30% of 't.lie"--n1iniinti'm in the revised scale introduced w.e.f. l.l.l996 'of the uposthlastxheld by the pensioner with p:*o--rata adjustments in ;».m-;,*;.r u\er1si;n}\or i\.'...:m.. iC£"£' r-....-.];f.,;,m 1-!«n.--. I4}-'ant ..,m..'..mi ,1...-.1-11. \J1'1..}J 1 an; 11.1 11uv1115 .1.) uluu. 1 jun;-'.._, .SL./1v';L.,L., uiciu L mu £.bLIU11L«Ll 'Ci:'o15'§serVice for niaxzimum pension. As per the official memorandum l.

15 dated l7.l2.l998, which is an amendment to earlier' official memorandum, the pension shall be higher of the two, namely, pension (consolidated) worked out as per OM ol' of minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced l..jV'l;.l09906- under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, E997 tiriiiitliileillptxstlast;'h.e:l'(.i.i>§/vvtlrre pensioner at the time of his retirement; redriced projerata '~w1i.<.m:, V pensioner has less service that 1*equir'eTd_fo:' full per1s'i't>11V-iasllper Rule 49 of Central Civil Sei*vie¢g~..ﬁ(Pe:ision)'- .Rs1pl"cs, Accordingly, the petitioner claimed the pension based on rninifrntri:1j'V_*oEf0_i=evrsed scale of Rs. 14300-- 18300. r<¢s';.t;tgmr Nop.4"s21n'ctioned.pension of Rs.5,000/-- per rnontlrgand l'arn.i.l}ipertsrorr_at~--Rs.30,600/» taking the revised scale of post of SE'a,_s per 5'".i5a_v Scales Rs. E02000-l6500. The pt"«t§i\tio1te.1* filed' arepresentation dated 25.9.1999 seeking E"r_xation pe--n_sron of --nrrn.irjruitt scale of SEs i.e. E4300-.l830(). However, respo.n--dentVNuo's%. land 2 at the first instance rejected the application 'of the "peti"ti.on'er. in the rneairtrrne, the i\/Iinistry in Government of jrndra ccepted the zcecrtriirnent canrlitirms as regarcls S.F,s. and issued 6.6.2000. The petitioner again strbrriitted his plea for tr 4 V is considering the granting pension on scale of 14300-18300; respondent No.4 revised upwards the pension based ()z_1~inizii'i"nup'mpl . revised pay scale ol"S.Eis. i.e. l4300--l83(1()mviz., Rs;59'59i1{':per=rno.ntia_ w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per Pension Payiiient C)'1derldatedil7:7:f'.3.t).(l1.t_:

(Annexure 'B') and that petitioner 1.1.1996. It is contended_ that figted ..itrie.:v._;A)enifion, the respondents could not ilt"r£.§(;vv:j'A:'petitioner's pension retrospectively fronjvl 11.1996' explanation as per Annexure was not legally justified pension to his disadvantage..R's.o",0()0/-- w.e.f; 1.1.1996 as also the family peiisioii. Vfroin to Rs.3,600/-- in violation ofRn1e 7a(i),,._%§15' the Cei1tra1_§IAi,'vil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

A.1te1*nat1v_e1y..M it_i1s.ai'gued that the petitioner is not liable to refund tlie'eXe.ess ainr7)unt'p:paid to him as the said amount has not paid to him

-- on accountof' his misrepresentation.

ii 17

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appeiiring l'o1"'----the respondents has sought to jtistify An11exure--Q order ~ 3 It is argued that the Apex Court in KS. KI?ISHNZilS::VVA:Ml" l OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANO§*H13:z. 44.212.05.411; stfw 77 has held that the office memo dated .l{..2.ll--998 policy decision by executive inst1'uc'ttiolis. Tl1ell}l'lfllCCltdat€d 11.5.2001 has furtlaer c'larit'i;:ed..&_tl1e. 1«;5'§l1V1¢l§§ljg_1e§1s.ipn. 13§t11 the office memos are compleinentary memo dated 1 1.5.2001 does 111; 1 1"ide:;_the§ 17. 12. I998. The re--reVised Pen9_i<)rai:ll(l.f the »pé1iE1one1--..1*as'*,pér Pension' Order date Annexure: 'Q'__ has' 'ere-e.1_1"'p21s;~;ved'1.i.n -View of the office memo dated 1_1_.5.200_1, 1;1111tc11 hg-115211 .11:;5--1-:.;l§'1'cil by the Apex Court. Therefore, V petitionjerllcannot ciaish the pension as per the Pension Payment O,AI'ClC.!'_' da.teAdA..l.7..7'--.'2O0.! (Annexure 'P'). Placing reliance on the deei_sion« of Court in the case of COL. B.J. AKKARA V .(RETb.) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. & OTHERS M (2007) 1 l V' v1_',_&S,}ll529, learned Counsel argued that in regard to pen.<;io11er.<; .fjfof1ning a class, computation of pension cannot be by dil't'erent K1 u 19

10. Having regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, the question for consideration is whether;i?espon_dient._A' No.4 was justified in reducing downwards the petition-eraspension to h_is disadvantage from Rs.5,959/~« to Rs:.=,5,()(lO/sin?wu.'e,t'ii_l also the family pension from Rs.4,2»90!; to RisA..3,'6O0/--'?e."ll i ll. Rule 70(1) of the'*«.(ieiitrzi_l (Pension) Rules, which is as under: .

"70t__ l§ev'i~sion (lil Subj_ectl»jt,o liules 8 and 9, pension orlee. au.thoi'iz:ed'i assessment shall not be revised 'tothe pdis_2:d";{2i1'ita.5ge of the Government servant, such' f€,\l:lt§l0H:b€CO1]16S necessary on account of :l.etectioin~.of clerical error subsequently. 'i?'t'r_).'&ided that no revision of pension to the liidisadvaiitage of the pensioner shall be ordered by the Head of Office without the concurrence of the Departiiient of Personnel and Administrative Reforms \t 20 if the clerical error is detected after a period of two years from the date of authorization of pension."

12. This Rule confers an absolute immunity f'ror1'1"redu.eitiilo;;;i in pension even if such reduction is caused by an _e.a..r1_i_er.uerroneous'"

interpretation of rules or for any reasons except duel .to'~-.a"eieericai, .i error. Even in case of clericai eifroigu required, who may decide the fitnessiviioiiiptrieporder'iuiteaeh The respondents in paragraphs objections have admitted that the reduction is not on the basis of a_clerical'er;-or.V"Ity is«th'e_i_r {:'p6_CifiC case that the pension was revised on th_edbasis-Git GM of Government of India dated 1;i*.s.2.001'f 'rti.ci'A'i5ex"'Coi1i~t in K.S.KRISHNASWAMY's case (s'up;a)\ ; 2{):I?6:"A[I€ sci»? 77 has held that GM dated 17.12.1998 c1'arif§/_ingig the».poiie'y"i'esolution by the executive instruction and the _clarificationin-tiie form of OM" dated 1 1.5.2001 clarifying the policy '4"«.decisioon are-~eornpIementar)<\ to each other. it s 21

13. The submission of the learned Counsel 3' respondents is that OM dated l1.5.20_0?li»» ii protection of Article 33 of the Constituit«i.Aon1/soif"India ?'.'1.l'1(:1'V[hel'".iC_.'i,:'i.'Oi-'es.', the PPO dated 1.6.7.2004 (Annexii;g;"~-s.Q') is"in__ ordVe1';.:Alrti'c'le' 313 of " i the Constitution provides for the powe.i"'of°the Pa1'liareent--to modify the rights conferred in Part InOf{ht}_Cl{)i'1S[lil'tiliOIl lira, their application to members of theéarined 'tlt1e_iI'ie;mber's 'ofthe forces charged with the 1i1ainten'a.i1ce..«o_f'lp«u_l1l:_iic».'oredergpersons employed in any bureau or.otlieriorgani§;at.ion.establishtzel by the State for purposes of intelligence or couriter,.inte11tigei1{:e, persons employed in, or in connection xyitth, -the -telercoimiiiunication systems set up for the ypt1rpo'ses Qfany l'o1'ce;vbi.1reau or organisation referred to in clauses i"--..(a}t.to"(c) of ithe"A:rtit:1e. Article 33 is under:

"33.iigPower of Parliament to modify the rights " ' t---(;onf'erre{! by this Part in their application etc.- rig) .

22

Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any 7 of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in application to,»

(a) the members of the Arrned force_s;..or__ 'V

(b) the members of the Forces :=.5:l1ar-geti_?

inaintenance of public O1'(vlt3l'_','O1' i ii pi ii ((3) persons employed in any'*--_bL1re21u. . or organisation established bAy..--tliev.State for purpposes of intelligence or vcotiiriter 'inte;jlpiivtgei1ee:.pii(>r ((21) persons employed _i_r1_,V:'or tipontieeitiion svitii, the telectitnmunipe ;--1tion__ sy§;t.et'ns Hip yptioriipjtlie purposes of any 'htti*eat;.r___o1*..orgianisation referred to in be':restri_etieo;.:ot:_ so as t.o ensure the proper diseh=ai'ge of ,.-and the maintenance. of d.iseip1ine among__ thern; 7', ' _:14$..V_A.plairt.ifeading of the above Article makes it clear that it doesinot ibyﬂtspelfi abrogate any rights and its applicability is '.pdepentlehtTonii'parliamentary legislation. The Article would reveal 4* ~.'iL'}TtEt'LV'Lr=" extent of restrictions necessary to be imposed on any of the i fun<:1arn.ental rights in their application to the armed forces and forces ll 23 charged with maintenance of public order for the ptirpesejoﬁ' ensuring proper discharge of their duties and inztir.~te-.nai1ciefof discipline amongst them would necessarily tiepetitiﬁ upon" inef_f prevailing situation at a given point of li-i11E."ThUS'i,' it is 'clear th-af; if any provision of the Act or Rules i"esti5i:cts ~abi'ogatesi'any.i'ii"ighitf guaranteed under Part III of the Cc-'ns't~i.tution,'-it caiiiiot_bie{ch.aIIen3ged on the ground that it is violative of tlieiiiiipiidaiiientai rjights guaraiiteeti under Part III. The FL3b'[1'i'_C'.[.'i'Of1 or Ztibregatioiip is dependent on parliamentary legislation. It isuahlso itirtliei' "c'ieai'~~.i;ii«a*t the restrictions or abrogation un_de:"«,.th'_is Article .fc=an».be t_r..acl_e so as to ensure the proper discharge of .Adiuties--t.an'd niaintenai.ice of discipline among the persons rnentioiieci in st.ib--t:iia'uses (a) to (d) of Article 33. In other wordsﬁrestrictions inusthev such as are necessary for ensuring the V':2proper_disch2irgeV of duties.

case (supra), a Constitution Bench of the i'ri"t'.ir'i"o,i*e' .-Supreme Court has held that rights which are ihpherinitted "toibe restrictetkkby a notification issued by the Central 24 Government under Section 21 of the Army Act are pztrtyiefiithe pariianientary rights under clauses (21), (b) and (e) of_..«5trtic'iefi.. . and under the Constitution Scheme, they CEll1n()!"'i§t3" -.re;stri'c.ted.V by executive action unsupported by law. .ii: anyttsiestritetionsztreito be' imposed, that can be done only by'la:v_and sacli law :;:ttisjfy the requirements of clause (2.), (3) or (_-C4}-,vo'i'--.VArtici'e It been further held as under:

"The perniissi:t§ie_.e:tVtentcf' res4trictions'"vvhich may be imposed on.jth_e Ftinda£ﬁei:t.ai"*Rights under sub~ciause:s (bi i;itnrii.i'{c)wo:ii* 1) having been laid down in elaus«esi(a)i bf Section 21., the Central Goverhnleiit. eit1vpio*tve1'ed to impose restrictions _7;.fytthtn such pei'rnissib1e limit, "to such extent and in in as be necessary". The guideline for has to which l'CS[I'iC[iOHEs' should be i'consiitieii%jc;§_.rl..5'necessary by the Central Government .i'with=in "the permissible extent determined by A Pariiainetit is provided in Article 33 itseif, namely, that restrictions should be such as are necessary for ensuring the proper dischargze of their duties by the it 25 members of the Armed Forces and the maintenance of discipline anions: them. The Central Government to keep this guideline. before it in exercising the p.o'wer 3 of imposing restrictions under Section 21.

may be pointed out tht once the G;O'iV'§:Il'li|.lTiE:_[.:}i'.V V has imposed restrictions in exercise ct__' power_,.Ath»e 2 Court will not ordinarily ii1ter'i7e:i*e..withihtlzea the Central Government thatmriucli -.Vrestriction's. necessary because th'at_is. a 1.:riatt.eri"ie_jr'tLijy.Parliarnent exclusively to the Central is best in a position to H. 4' supplie_d 1riep)Wi

16. Coming to Vtiie"sfacts_.oi.'..th.e present case, the petitioner is a retired Superinte:idi'ng Vﬁngineeir.-oti GREF. In R. VIS WAN 's ease, the 'V "Apex vCr3u1';t..rha:;.s_held that-G«Rl3F is a force of army pattern with units 'ancir'i:;ub:units'and._19anl< structure. Thus, GREF is a force raised and maintained _1riide_r}:tlie authority of the Central Government. The m_embers'*of the GREF can legitimately be said to be the. members of rarrrreci forces within the meaning of Article As has been it x 26 noticed above, the power to restrict under this Article can be exercised by only a law made by the Parliament. in R. VIS WAN's case, the Apex Court has further' held that the language en1p.ioy.e_d._i'ri_ Article 33 does not require that parliament itself must by" " ' or abrogate any of the fundaitiental righ;ts~ii.atyord'er to"att:'act._ithe applicability of that Article. The Pai'liatne1nt the permissible extent to which 2inyio--f_the_ l'und'am__ent_alV ri_ght';s'"i*rtay':be restricted or abrogated in this application. it'e.._ the riteiribetrs of the Armed Forces and the Forces teih.att~g(}.d&:vwith: the' niaintenanee of Public 0l'd€l'- H0W€\'¢t'.v.QM:_dated':ll,5;*2CQl iriashiot been issue by the CentralGoverniheiit-,ir1 .ac"c--o_i'danee with the legislation made by the parlianientuzidsﬁvr Article is in the nature of a clariﬁcation ._of the .»p§oiicy' decisions iEy_en. otherwise, the said notification has not i'xbeen'i*::suedV for itestricting or abrogating the fundamental rights so as to ensure the~.V."t;srot:-.et* discharge of the duties and maintenance of 'disciplinepaiinorigst the persons employed under clauses (a) to (d) of A1'-tici'e"«.33. T'r1erel'ore, i,i1t3l'8%S no merit in the contention oi' the { 27 learned Counsel for the respondents that the impugned OM.d-eted 1.1.5.2001 has the protection of Article 33.

17. l have carefully perused the deci'rsion'o.fp_th.e £3-ourtfin RAM SARUP's case -- AIR 1965 so 247A:r'e_t'erre.d to itiiyithe leairttedviiv * Counsel for the respondents. In theissaid,case; the Apex has held that every provision the lavvivinade by the parliament and if any such provision the fundamental right under Part does not, on that account, beco.sfne_,void,as"--eii.tvs,rnt;«st:be=_tai<en that Parliament has thereby, in the e>terci::Aeil t)F'l*.;pt§--.,,p"o'wer under Article 33 of the Constitution, iin:,;tde.,tiie requisite.."1nod.ificatio1i to affect the respective ftriidaniental' right. T'ne_s_aipdcv decision has no application to the facts th.i';s..g;pa¢;ep.iThedecision in COL. B.J. AKKARA's case -- (2007) 1 SCC."(L&l9i) the questions for consideration have been iwenumeratednlinparagraph ten (10) of the judgment, which is not the '~.positio'n here. In the present case, the qnestiori for consideration .___"'.'iwhether the revision of pension per the OM dated il.5.200l is it o 28 contrary to Rule 70(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules'? TheifefoVije,ei.. said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.

18. in View of the conclusion arrived at revision of pension of the petitioner is C()ll'-:,.l;Ei.AllVyi:l'('}' p (Pension) Rules, 1972, it is ' questions raised by the petitioner in petition; V H V

19. In the result, it is accordingly allowed. The -1':Pl5O'.:N'o.C[CORR1'GREF/PRE.86. 5018/200lf~..Adate'd .ii6';7';'2t§o4_'(n§rt--exiei~ie 'Q') is hereby quashed and P130.Ne.C/CORR/Gni5.F}'i~.n;~s§z5192/1999 tinted 17.7.2001 ."v.(Ann¢»Xii'<lf6 ii") is hereby restored and the pension of the petitioner 'V_shaVll"oeV pn.id't1Ccoi'tiingly. No costs. . BM' S&/« . JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court