Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. According to the applicants, the clarifications as per Annexures A2 and A3 and concordance table attached thereto took a restrictive interpretation of the term "minimum of the pay in the pay band" as seen in paragraph 4.2 of Annexure A2. According to the applicants both Annexures A2 and A3 interpreted the term "minimum of the pay in the pay band" as minimum of the pay band itself. Annexures A2 and A3 did not permit any notional fixation of pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired and consequential revision of pension but a mechanical application of the revised pension indicated in the concordance table which corresponded to 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus Grade Pay. According to the applicants, that was not what the Cabinet envisaged in its resolution dated 29.8.2008 or the Ministry as contemplated in paragraph 4.2 of Annexure A1. According to the applicants, the Cabinet resolution and the consequential paragraph 4.2 in Annexure A1 clearly envisaged a notional fixation of pay in the revised pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale of pay from which the petitioner had retired, so as to arrive at the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' minimum of pay in the pay band and thus to ensure that pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the same of maximum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade Pay thereon.

Provision in the OM No. 38/37/08- Clarification/modification P&W(A) dated 1.9.2008 4.2 The fixation of pension will be The pension calculated at 50% of the subject to the provision that the minimum of pay in the pay band plus revised pension, in no cases, shall be grade pay would be calculated (I) at lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised band and the grade pay thereon scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired. retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.

15. Regarding the second issue, after referring to the various OMs the Full Bench of the Tribunal concluded as follows:

"26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words "sum of the"

32. In the course of hearing of the present OA along with other OAs, respondents were directed to file a statements/clarifications regarding the pension being paid to the applicant. In the statement so filed, it was stated that pursuant to the clarification, 5th respondent had intimated the 3rd respondent regarding the issuance of corrigendum revising the pension as Rs.24,500/- with effect from 1.1.2016. The payment of arrears of Rs.1,46,042/- was also confirmed. It was further stated that revised pay band of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6,500/-10,500/- was Rs.9,300- 34,800/-, corresponding GP was Rs.4,200/- as per the fitment tables and the minimum pay of pay in the band is Rs.12,092/-. As per Annexure A2 OM dated 4.1.2019, the GP alone of the pre-revised scale of Rs.6,500- 10,500/- was revised to Rs.4,600/-. Therefore, the revised pension with respect to the OM dated 1.9.2008 has to be arrived at by adding together the minimum of the pay in the pay band which was Rs.8,345/- which SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.01.28 09:28:35+05'30' would be the revised pension with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, it was contended that the applicant was not entitled for any benefits.