Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ram Sarup Sharma S/O Roda Ram vs Union Of India Through on 12 January, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO. 060/00393/2016 ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON: 12.1.2017
(Orders reserved on: 10.1.2017)
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
Ram Sarup Sharma S/o Roda Ram, aged 85 years, R/o Vill. Kathera, 365 PO Partap Nagar, Tehsil Nangal, Distt. Ropar, DAO G-II Retd. (Group-B).
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through
the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension,3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Controller of Auditor General of India 9-Deen Dayal Upadhaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
3. Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh through Sr. Accounts Officer (W. Admin.).
4. The Accounts Officer SA-I-7, Section O/o (A&E), Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.
5. The Sr. Accounts Officer Work Admn. Section Office of A.G (A&E), Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
6. The Sr. Administrative Officer (Staff Entt.-II), Controller & Auditor General of India, 9-Deen Dayal Upadhaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
Respondents
Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal, Advocate, for Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate, for respondents No.2to6.
O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK , MEMBER (J)
1. The applicant has filed this O.A. challenging the order dated 14.10.2014 (A-5) vide which his pension has been reduced and for issuance of a direction to the respondents to re-fix his pension as per VIth Pay Commission Report and immediately release arrears of pension after such re-fixation and not to make any recovery etc.
2. The facts, which led to filing of the case, are that the applicant, was working as Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-II and retired from service on 31.5.1990. At that time he was drawing pay at the stage of Rs.2675 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, which was revised to Rs.5500-9000 and then upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 vide Circular dated 28.4.2004 and further revised to Rs.7450-11500 and then in pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600. His pension was to be calculated by taking grade pay of Rs.4600 as applicable to DAO-II on the basis of which his pension came to be fixed at Rs.9835/- but it was fixed as Rs.8899. This was done by ignoring the provisions of Notification dated 29.8.2008. In short, the case set up by the applicant is that he was promoted s DAO II w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 and was at the stage of Rs.2675 at that time. The pay scale was revised to Rs.6500-10500. His notional pay works out to Rs.8072 = Rs.8100 on the next stage of grade in this pay scale. The notional pay in revised scale of Rs.9300-34800 is to be fixed as per instructions dated 28.1.2013 and 30.8.2008 with reference to pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 in accordance with S-13, as appended with letter dated 30.8.2008 but his fixation was done in pay scale of Rs.4200 and not in upgraded pay scale of Rs.4600/-.
3. The applicant submitted representations of grant of pension on the basis of proper pay scale / grade pay and fixation of pension on that basis which was rejected by a non speaking order dated 4.2.2015 (A-11). The applicant again raised the issue which was declined vide reply dated 16.4.2015 (A-14) and 14.8.2015 (A-16). It was explained that as per fitment table issued by department on 28.1.2013, the notional pay scale as on 1.1.1996 is Rs.5500-9000 and on 1.1.1996 is Rs.9300-34800 and GP Rs.4200 i.e. against old pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and as and when instruction for revision of pay scale of pre-96 retirees is received, the same will be implemented. Again his claim was rejected on 7.11.2015 (Annexure A-19). Hence the O.A.
4. The O.A. is resisted by the respondents No.2 to 6 by filing a written statement on the ground that on the date of retirement, the pension of the applicant was fixed at Rs.1304/- P.M. w.e.f. 1.6.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 (Basic Pay fixed at Rs.2675/- w.e.f. 1.5.1990) held by him on his retirement on 30.5.1990. Subsequently, pay scale was revised to Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and pension was revised from Rs.1304 to Rs.3937/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. After that his pension was wrongly revised in pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 as revised to PB Rs.9400-34800 + grade pay of Rs.4600 due to wrong interpretation, from Rs.3937 toRs.9230/- w.e.f. 24.9.1992 vide letter dated 12.9.2013. But after issuance of O.M. it came to notice that scale of Rs.7450-11500 revised to Rs.9300-34800 + Rs.4600 was not the pay scale of DAO-II in the case of pre-2006 retirees. Thus, the pension was reduced from Rs.9230 to Rs.8899 vide letter dated 14.10.2014 (A-5) w.e.f. 24.9.2012 keeping in view the pre-revised pay scales and his pension was fixed with reference to pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as revised to Rs.9300-324800 with grade pay of Rs.4200.
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
7. A perusal of pleadings would indicate that though the applicant has challenged order, Annexure A-5, but he has not challenged other orders Annexures A-14, A-16 and A-19 vide which his claim was declined. One he accepts the legality of the rejection orders, he cannot be allowed to turn around and claim that he would be entitled to some benefit which stands declined by those three orders.
8. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the pay scale of DAO-II was revised from Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and then Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The cadre was bifurcated into three categories. The first 35% were to be designated as Divisional Accountant (Ordinary Grade) in pay scale of Rs.5500-9000; the next 25% were to be designated as Divisional Accounts Officer (Grade-II) in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and next 25% as Divisional Accounts Officer (Grade-I) in pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. The applicant retired as DAO Grade II in 1990 itself. He was never made DAO Grade I in higher pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. Thus, he cannot ask for grant of a higher pay scale. A perusal of Annexure R-2 dated 28.1.2013 indicates that as per para 2 thereof, the pension would be stepped up to the 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which one has retired. The applicant retired on 30.5.1990 in pay scale of Rs.1630-2900, which was revised to Rs.5500-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.19967 and then Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (up gradation), so his pension was worked out to be Rs.8145/- but it was fixed at the minimum of Rs.8899/-. The pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 has been upgraded notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 28.4.2004 and this was replaced in pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + grade pay of Rs.4200 for the purpose of pension fixation in case of pre-2006 retirees. Thus, the revised / upgraded ay scale of Rs.7450-11500 and grade pay of Rs.4600 are not available to the category of the applicant. The fitment table issued vide letter dated 28.1.2013 shows the normal replacement of pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP Rs.4200 for pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and as such pension of applicant was revised accordingly. Even the Ministry of Finance has advised that the normal replacement scale for the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 is pay band 2 + GP Rs.4200, as notified in respect of the pre revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 and pension of pensioner is to be fixed with reference to grade pay of Rs.4200. This advice is dated 4.12.2015 (Annexure R-3) which indicates that there is no legal binding order to revise the pension of pre-1.1.2006 retirees, who retired from the then applicable pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, with reference to grade pay of Rs.4600/-. I do not find any fault in re-fixation of pension of the applicant by correction of an error, which is well within the power and authority of the department. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Naurang Singh and others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 177. In paragraph-6 of the judgment, it was held that a mistake committed by the Administration cannot furnish a valid or legitimate ground for the Court or the Tribunal to direct the Administration to go on repeating that mistake. The Administration, no doubt could rectify that mistake. A similar view has also been expressed by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sunder Lal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana 241. Therefore, the administration had the authority to rectify any mistake committed by it. Even recovery can be made in such like cases as has been explained by the Honble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others Vs. Jagdev Singh, JT 2016 (7) SC 409.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, this O.A. turns out to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 12.01.2017 HC* 1 (O.A.No.060/00393/2016- Ram Sarup Sharma Vs. UOI etc. )