Kerala High Court
Pay & Accounts Officer (Revenue) vs N.R.Purushothaman Pillai on 12 June, 2015
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937
OP (CAT).No. 169 of 2015 (Z)
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1135/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 12-06-2015
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA :
-------------------------------------------
1. PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER (REVENUE)
RFA BARRACKS, CHURCH ROAD, HUTMENTS
NEW DELHI.
2. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, TRIKOOT II COMPLEX
BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 066.
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NO.26
HADDOWS ROAD, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK
CHENNAI-6.
4. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS WELFARE SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT IN OA :
----------------------------------------
N.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (RETIRED), MADHAVAM
KUZHIVILA LANE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
OP (CAT).No. 169 of 2015 (Z)
-----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1 : COPY OF THE OA NO.1135/2013 DTD.19.11.2013 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE PPO
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.04.2012
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.03.2013
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DAIRY NO.WO795130700099 DATED
24.07.2013
ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2013
ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2013 IN WP(C)
NO.1535/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2013 IN OA
NO.715/2012
P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(A): A TRUE COPY OF 5TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REVISION OF
PENSION ORDER 17.12.1998
ANNEXURE R1(B): A TRUE COPY OF 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REVISION OF
PENSION ORDER DATED 28.01.2013
ANNEXURE R1(C)l: A TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA FOR REVISION OF PENSION IN
RESPECT OF PRE-2006 RETIRES
ANNEXURE R1(D): A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.W019795130700099 DATED
24.07.2013
P3 : COPY OF THE REJOINDER DTD.5.12.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF OM NO.F.NO.1.1.2008 -I.C.DATED 13.11.2009
ANNEXIRE 9: TRUE COPY OF THE FITMENT TABLE
P4 : COPY OF THE ADDL.REPLY STATEMENT DATED 16.02.2015
ANNEXURE R1(E): TRE COPY OF OM DATED 11.02.2009
ANNEXURE R1(F):- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN K.S.KRISHNASWAMY'S CASE
ANNEXURE R1(G):- TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 30.08.2008
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL REJOINDER DATED 05.03.2015 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT
P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.1135/2013 DTD.12.6.2015 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Surendra Mohan, J.
The petitioners, Union of India and others, are before us challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1135 of 2013 evidenced herein by exhibit P6. As per the impugned order, an application filed by the respondent has been allowed and a direction has been issued to re-fix the pension of the respondent @ 9,375 per month and his family pension @ 30% of 18,750/-. The arrears of pension on the basis of the above computation has also been directed to be paid.
2. The respondent had retired as an Enforcement Officer under the third petitioner on 30.06.1990. As per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, the pay of Enforcement Officer had been upgraded to the scale of Rs.6500-10500. As per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the pay has been enhanced to Rs.9300-34800 -:2:- O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 with a grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to pension at the rate of 50% of the pay of the upgraded post. The claim has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT for short).
3. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, who appears for the petitioners, the up- gradation of the post had taken place in the year 2004 long after the respondent had retired from service. The benefits of upgradation can inure only to persons who were in service on the date of such upgradation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the upgradation. The above crucial aspect of the matter, according to the learned ASGI, has been overlooked by the Central Administrative Tribunal while passing the impugned order. For the above reason, according to the learned Counsel, the order requires to be interfered with.
4. Advocate C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair appears for the respondent. A detailed statement has been filed by the -:3:- O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 counsel producing Exhibits R1 to R13 documents. According to the learned Counsel, the question as to whether the calculation of pension at the rate of 50% should be made on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay of an Enforcement Officer or the corresponding scale of pay applicable to the post has been considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as different High Courts. It has been found that pension has to be calculated on the basis of 50 percent of the scale of pay applicable to the post. The said judgments have become final having been confirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners have implemented the said decisions and payments have already been made to persons who who are similarly situated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is too late in the day to contend that computation of pension has to be made on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay at which the respondent had retired from service.
5. We have heard the respective counsel at length. -:4:- O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 We have also been taken through the various documents produced. We have considered the rival contentions, anxiously.
6. Admittedly, the respondent had retired from service on 30.06.1990 as an Enforcement Officer under the third petitioner. Thereafter, the post has been upgraded in the year 2004 and the pay has also been enhanced. The issue as to whether calculation of pension should be made on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay that the incumbent was drawing at the time of his retirement has been considered by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.655 of 2010 and connected cases. The same has also been confirmed by the High Court, Delhi in W.P.(C) No.1535 of 2012 and connected cases following a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. A Special Leave Petition filed against the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has admittedly been dismissed by the Supreme Court -:5:- O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 as per the order dated 29.07.2013 in SLA(C) No. 13280 of 2013 and SLP(C) No.23055 of 2013. Annexure A4 is the order passed by the Supreme Court in a similar case where a Review Petition was filed against the dismissal of the SLP (C) No.6567 of 2015. Thereafter, as per a number of orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal produced as Annexure R5 and R6, reliefs have been granted to similarly situated persons. Exhibit R5(a) is the order by which the direction in exhibit R5 has been implemented. Our attention has been drawn to annexures R8 and R13 proceedings by which, pension has been computed in the case of similarly situated persons as ordered by the Central Administrative Tribunal in annexure R6 order.
7. We have gone through the documents produced. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2015(5) KHC SN 35(SC)] as well as the decision of a Division Bench of the -:6:- O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 High Court of Patna dated 18.05.2015 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2010 to point out that, a situation where a Junior Officer would draw more pension than his senior is also to be avoided. The resultant position that emerges from the pronouncement of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the different High Courts and the Apex Court is that, computation of pension in the matter of implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Report has to be at 50% of the pay scale with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and not to the corresponding scale of pay to the one at which the incumbent has retired. On the basis of the above dicta, consequential orders have been passed and payments have also been made in implementation thereof. It is therefore held that, the issue remains settled by the various decisions referred to above which are binding on the petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to entertain this petition or to interfere with the impugned order exhibit -:7:- O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 P6. This Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. As a last submission, the learned ASGI seeks the grant of two months time for implementing the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Having considered the rival contentions of the respective counsel, the petitioners are granted two months time from today to comply with the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal in exhibit P6 order.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE kkj