Status of Pensioners cases in various Courts as on 25.03.2015.-Courtesy M.L.Kanujia

COMPILED BY M. L. KANAUJIA, IRSSE / Chief Communication Engineer, N.E. Railway, (Rtd.)
Ite m
CAT-PB Delhi
OA1165/ 2011
Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP
  Orders Reserved on 12.03.2015
SCPC Recommendations in respect of pensioners, who retired prior to 1.1.2006, was accepted and approved by the Union Cabinet, vide MOP(DOP&PW) Resolution dated 29.08.2008 but while implementing, revised pension was wrongly reduced even where qqualifying service was more than 20 years. This petition prays for refixation of pension at full rate where qualifying service happens to be more than 20 years, exactly as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008.UOI filed an affidavit on 15.04.14. A Counter to this would be filed soon.During hearing on 23.05.14, Hon.ble Court stated that as per prayer of petitioners "parameters of revise pension should be same as for post 2006, although basically your plea is for full pension at 20 years of qualifying service." Thereupon, Petitioners agreed to submit MA withdrawing "same parameter" prayer by submitting an MA. The hon.ble Court stated that MA should be submitted and thereafter case can be heard.
On 12.3.2015, on completion of arguments by both parties, orders reserved.  

CAT-PB Delhi
OA2165/ 2011
KR Srinivasan & Ors Vs. MOP/flOP
 Orders reserved on 12.03.2015
Same as for item 1 above.
CAT-PB Delhi
OA 247 of 2012
17 Petitioners
 Orders reserved on 12.03.2015
Same as for item 1 above.
Lucknow HC
Ser.Ben.203 / 2010
s29UP Officers
The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006.Heard on 16.4.14 but UOI Advocate sought time, which was granted. Heard on 15.05.14 and hon.ble Court issued order: "Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondent has filed written submissions after serving a copy upon learned counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file his written submissions alongwith the convenience petition. Case was heard on 27.5.14 when hon.ble justice took  on record the written submission of Shri SN Shukla,Petitioner's  Advocate. As per latest Order dated 3.7.2014, HSC decision on pending SLPs 36148-50/2013 is awaited.
Delhi HC
WP(C)3359/ 2010
Ex.Para Military <s29,s26) Association Vs UOI
The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pension had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006.  

Supreme Court
Contempt Petition (Civil)
SPS Vains, Major General &Ors.
This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms     of     MOP,DOP      Resolution     dated 29.8.2008,    after    including    the    same    in Special Instructions.
Supreme Court
Civil Appeal 2966/2011
U0I Vs SPS Vains Mj. General & Ors
This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms     of     MOP,DOP      Resolution     dated 29.8.2008,    after    including    the    same    in Special Instructions.
Supreme Court
Civil Appeal 8875-8876 of 2011.
(Now clubbed with SLP (Civil)
36148-36150 /
2013.See item 15 below)
U0I & Ors.Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors (Avtar Singh)
DOJ 17.03.2015

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012: Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following Order : O R D E R. Heard. Delay condoned.We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Supreme Court
Civil Appeal 5367 -5368 / 2005 SLPC CC 5081-82/2004
Principal Secretary, Govt. Finance and Planning Deptt., Andhra Pradesh   Vs. A.P.
Pensioners Samaj.
Heard on 30.04.2014 and dismissed with following remarks : "We do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion of the High Court as well as of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed."
Delhi HC
WPC No. 4572 of 2012
All India S30
DOJ 19.8.13.
Full   parity   case   wherein     writ,   order   or direction sought are   : (a) setting aside the impugned judgment dated 6th March, 2012 passed        by        the        Hon'ble        Central Administrative   Tribunal,    Principal    Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.937 of 2010; (b) calling for   the    records   of   the    case   from   the Respondent  Authorities; (c)  granting  the

reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners in their
Original Application No.937 of 2010 filed
before the Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi; and
Judgment thereof.. DHC has obsrved in
operating paras : we set aside the impugned
decision(s) dated March 06, 2012 and
simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010
and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication
on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the
petitioners for full parity. The decision shall
be rendered after giving full opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and the decision
dated November 01, 2011 passed by the
Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees
shall not be treated as binding upon it by the
Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of
full parity the said decision was
pronounced notwithstanding said retirees
giving up the claim for full parity. The matter
would be decided in remand as early as
possible and preferably within three
months from today. Parties shall appear
through their counsel before the Registrar of
the Tribunal in the two original applications
on September 09, 2013 on which date OA
No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 shall be
listed before the Registrar.
OA No. 937 of 2010 and OA No. 2101 of 2010 (DHC order for Fresh Adjudication)

Review Petition 10/2015
All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI

UOI vs AIS30


Hon.ble Delhi High Court, in WP(C) 4572 of 2012 in case of All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI has, by order dated 19.8.2013, has restored these two OAs for fresh adjudication on merits on the claim of full parity, giving full opportunity of hearing the petitioners, without binding decision given on 1.11.2011 in case of OA No. 655 of 2010. Delhi HC has further ordered that the matter would be decided in remand preferably within three months from
19.8.2013 and case be listed for hearing by
on 9.9.2013, when both parties would
appear before Registrar of CAT-PB.  Judgment dated 20.11.2011 allowed O.A.

Govt. filed Review Petition against the Judgment and the same will come up for hearing on 06.05.2015.
Contempt Petition
No.158 of
CG SAG (S29) Pensioners
Shri Satish
Verma, Rtd.CE
Vs. Shri RC
Mishra, Sec.
MOP,GOI. and
Shri Sumit
This Petition is against non-compliance of orders passed by CAT-PB while giving Judgment in case of OA 0655/2010 with other OAs.  Consequent on dismissal of Writ Petition, SLP (C), Review Petition and Curative Petition,  the case attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land.  During the hearing of Contempt Petition on 15.5.2014, the counsel for Respondents informed that the CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011 will be implemented qua the petitioners of OA 655/2010.
Para 3 of the Judgment dated 15.5.2014  is reproduced below :
3.In view of the above, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months  Accordingly, OM dated 26.8.2014 was issued.  The compliance report is yet to be submitted by the Respondent.

CAT PR Bench Delhi
MA 3857/2014 M.A./194/2015 & Others
S/Shri A.Rajagopalan Dr. S.M.Govil
Ashok Kumar
Earlier,  the Govt. issued OM 28.1.2013 effective from 24.9.2012 for stepping up of pension to the level of Correct Minimum Revised Pension based on Cabinet Approval,  even when the Writ Petition filed by DOP&PW was pending before Hon. HC Delhi, the above OM dated 28.1.2013 was issued and arrears from 24.9.2012 onwards only were paid.  On dismissal of Writ Petition, SLP, Review Petition, Curative Petition, etc., the CAT verdict 1.11.2011 attained legal finality  by the Highest Court of Land.  During the contempt petition hearing on 15.5.2014 the CAT PR Bench disposed of the matter on hearing the      Respondent’s decision to implement the CAT Order dated 1.11.2011 qua petitioners of OA 655/2010.  Five Misc. Applications have been filed by non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners seeking arrears from 1.1.2006 onwards.
Supreme Court
SLP (Civil)
19784 of 2013
2373,13325 &
Haryana Viduat Prasaran Nigam  Ltd & Ors Vs R K Agarwal and Ors
DOJ 28.10.13
This SLP is againsst Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in case of CWP No. 19641 of 2009 R K Agarwal &0rs. Vs. HVPN Ltd & Ors. dated 21.12.2012. Hearing took place wheein Haryana Advocate pleaded about Haryana Regulations for Pensioners and about financial implications which Respondents Advocate opposed. Court was not impressed but allowed them to put up their arguments in writing for orders before next hearing which was fixed for 28.10.2013 when following orders were passed : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions with   liberty   to approach the High Court. Permission is granted. Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
Supreme Court
No.18339 -341
of 2013 converted to SLPC 36148-50/2013
(Now clubbed with CA No.
8875-76 / 2011 and other CAs.
See item 8 above)

Vhora & Ors.
The SLPs alongwith 4 SLPs relating to civilian pensioners and about 44 Civil Appeals relating to military pensioners will be heard on only Tuesday (which is a Non-Misc. Day for HSC cases). The case came up for hearing on 17.2.2015 first and then adjourned to 20.2.2015. HSC appears to have raised issue of  clubbing of so many cases and sought clarification about it. As sought by the Govt. Advocate, time is granted and next date of hearing is 17.3.2015.On 17.03.2015 Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following order : Order . SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013 , SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 & SLP(C) Nos....... of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904) :We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I. may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite. We accordingly grant four months' time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.All  impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.

Petition (Civil)
No. 328 of
N.K. Nair &
Anr. Vs
Sharma & Ors.

While implementing 4th CPC Report pay of
Army , Navy and AF Officers upto Brigadier
level and equivalent, was fixed without
adding Rank Pay. Hon.le Supreme Court
vide Judgment dated 4.9.12 had directed for
refixation of their pay after adding the Rank
Pay and arrears paid accordingly. MOD
issued orders on 27.12.12 for
implementation of the said Judgment. CP(C)
328 of 2013 has been preferred in Supreme
Court with plea that (1) Judgment should be
implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not as on
1.1.1986,(2) Minimum of Pay in Integrated
Pay Scale for each Rank of officers given in
SAI 1/S/87 for Amy and equivaalent officers
in Navy and AF should also be raised,(3)
Maximum of Integratred Pay scale i.e. 5,100
should also be raised and (4) Refixation of
revised pay on 1.1.1996 (5th CPC) and
1.1.2006 (6th CPC) should be done again on
the basis of law set by the above mentioned
Judgment of the Apex Court, now, meaning
thereby, that, the revised pay should be refixed by adding into existing pay the
admissible component of Rank Pay or MSP,
as the case may be and,payment of arrears
be made,accordingly. Further, it is learnt
that the Attorney General for India, when
Govt. sought his advice, has advised, after
due consideration of the pleas in the light of
Apex Court Judgment to agree to plea (1)
and (4) and not to agree for (2) and
(3). Heard on 15.11.13 and notices issued to
alleged contemptners to appear in person on
next date of hearing.On 17.2.14 Court heard
the case, none of the Respondents appeared
but their Advocate, SG, sought time for
submitting Counter Court allowed two
weeks time.On 10.03.14 Advocate on record
for petitioners sought time for submitting
Rejoinder Affidavit and Court allowed two
weeks time. On 31.03.14 HSC heard and
passed following orders : In light of the
rival submission as above, let an
application be made by the petitioners
for impleadment of the present Defence
Secretary and Controller General of Defence
Accounts. The application may be listed for
consideration as and when made. Rejoinder
Affidavit has not been submitted by the
Petitioners till 07.03.14 as mentioned in
Office Report submitted by Asst. Registrar
on 07.03.14. Heard on 3103.14 when Court
passed following order : 5. In light of the rival submission as above, let an
application be made by the petitioners
for impleadment of the present Defence
Secretary and Controller General of Defence
Accounts. 6. The application may be listed
for consideration as and when made.
Supreme Court
Petition No.
126 of 2014
This Curative Petition was against dismissal of Review Petition No. 2492 of 2013. The five Judgme Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court presided over by the hon.ble CJI himself, dismissed this petition on 30.04.2014 stating that no case was made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in case of Rupa Ashok Hurra and Ashok Hurra reported in 2002(4)SCC 388
Supreme Court
SLP(C) 19784
12122, 12366, 12373, 13325,
14816, all of
Vs. R K
Agarwal and Other 5
These SLPs (along with applications for
condoning the delay) are against P&H High
Court Judgments granting Modified Parity to Haryana State Govt. Pensioners.Heard on
18.10.13. Hon.ble Court asked UOI Advocate
to submit written statement before next
hearing. Case was heard on 28.10.13 and
following order were passed : Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners
seeks permission to withdraw the special
leave petitions with liberty to approach
the High Court. Permission is granted.
Consequently, the special leave petitions
are dismissed as withdrawn with the
liberty as aforesaid.
Supreme Court
SLP (C) CC 2001-2002/2015
UOI (Secretary, DOP&PW)
Shri K.Venugopalan
  The Pensioner Shri K.Venugopalan Nair (S-26) sought modified parity based Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the CAT Ernakulam Bench allowed the OA.

The Hon. HC, Kerala vide common Judgment dated 23.1.2014 (S.shri P.K.Barghavan Pillai’s full MRP for Pro-rata pensioner case and Shri K.Venugopalan Nair’s case) upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam.

UOI represented by Secretary, DOP&PW filed SLPs only in the case of Shri K.Venugopalan Nair against the aforesaid common judgment of Hon. HC Kerala, in HSC.  The HSC on 12.2.2015 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions on merits.
SLP(C) 33864
of 2013
Heard on 28.10.13. Hon.ble Supreme Court
passed following order : We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
High Court.Consequently,the special
leave petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioners are at liberty to raise all points
before the Tribunal as and when the appeal,
including the contempt petition is preferred.
No.84 / 2013
Atma Singh Vs
and Secret.
CP discharged.
Modified parity case. CAT/Chandigarh in OA
No. 44/HR/2012 gave judgment directing UOI
to fix revised pension in terms Resolution
dated 29.8.2008   but UOI preferred CWP
22510/2012 in P&H HC and  the same was
disallowed.UOI then preferred SLP(C) CC 13280 / 2013, which HSC  dismissed on 29.7.2013, alongwith SLP(C) 23055, which was against CGSAGs29 Pensioners Association. Contempt Petition No. 84/2013 has been filed  against UOI, Sec. /DOP and Sec. / Coomunicastion. for their failure in implementing CAT/Ch. directions, even
when Review Petition has also been dismissed. Now, the Contempt Petition is discharged  with the issue of Provisional implementation order to Shri Atma Singh.
P & H High
EA 35 /2013 in
O P Kapur
&Ors Vs State
of Haryana &
DOJ 14.03.14
In CWP 3452 P&H HC on 21.12.2012 had
directed Haryana Govt. to refix pension
giving modifed parity and pay arrears
thereto within two months or pay arrears
with 9 % interest after 1.3.2013. Haryana
Govt. preferred SLPC 19784/2013 which was
dismissed as withdrawn by the hon.ble
Supreme Court on 28.10.2013.Haryana Govt.
then filed a Reviw Application in P&H HC to review the Order dated 21.12.2012 despite
the affirming order by the hon.ble Supreme
Court, which was dismissed on 31.01.2013.
During the hearing of EA 35/2013 on
26.02.2014 the P&H HC has passed
following orders : "It is made clear that in
case necessary steps are not initiated and
amount is not disbursed to the
applicants/petitioners before the next date
of hearing, this Court may be constrained to
call the official respondents in Court or
order may be passed to attach salaries of
the Officers concerned." During hearing on
14.03.2014 Govt. Advocate informed the
Court that the PPOs of Petitioners have
been revised and orders for payment of
arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006,
along with 9 % interest thereon, have been
CAT PR Bench Delhi
OA 3262/2010
Dr. D.K.Jain, INCMR
. The Judgment pronounced on 19.4.2012 observed that invoking (quashed) OM dated 3.10.2008 to reduce the applicant's (prorata pensioner) pension is not legally sustainable. (Also Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, is only for fixing basic pension at the time of retirement, but not for revision based on CPC recommendation).  However, the CAT PR Bench directed to revise the pension based on outcome of the Hon. HC decision in Writ Petitions filed in OA 655/2010 batch cases.  With the dismissal of Writ Petitions, the CAT Order has been implemented.  Certain clarifications in the implementation orders are pending.  
Delhi High
Railway Medical
Association &
ors vs Union
of India & ors.
DOJ 22.1.2015 
This case is for payment of N.P.A. to Pre
2006 retirees. Heard on 11.12.13. Petitioners did not press for stay. Court accordingly did
not grant stay but allowed Petition to be
heard. While disposing off the case, the Hon. HC Delhi ordered on 22.1.2015 as follows:
“Dr. Rakesh Gosain, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the HSC     vide its decision dated 27.11.2013 in Civil Appeals No.10640-46/2013 in Dr. K.C. Bajaj and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., has given directions to the respondents to recalculate the pensions payable to the appellants therein by adding the element of NPA after setting aside and quashing the O.M. dated 17.12.1998 and orders passed to the contrary by the learned Tribunal as also by this Court.The counsel further submits that now the issue is no more res integra and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of NPA which will add to their pension amount.
Mr.Deepak Jain, the counsel who appears on behalf of the Railway Board, submits that vide a recent decision taken by the Railway Board dated 21.1.2015, a decision has been taken in favour of one Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta post his retirement to extend the said benefit of NPA. Taking into consideration the said decision taken by the Ministry of Railways dated 21.1.2015 and the judgment of the Apex Court, we are of   the view that these railway Doctors who are pre or post retiree employees of 1996 are entitled to the benefit of said NPA for calculation of their pension and therefore, we direct the respondents to recalculate the pension payable to members of the petitioner association adding the benefit of NPA and release the same in their favour within six months from the date of this order”.
CAT PR Bench Delhi
O.A/971/2012 O.A../4130/2013
The case is for placing S-21 to S-23 of Pay Band 3, to Pay Band-4. The case stands dismissed as per the CAT PR Bench Judgment pronounced on 19.1.2015.
Mumbai Bench  
OA 135/2012
Shri M.P.Sankaran&
Next Date of Hearing expected  in May 2015
The case is for placing pre revised pay scales
 S-21 to S-23  from  Pay Band 3, to Pay Band-4.

PR Bench Delhi
Shri Shaji Abraham and others (Pro-rata Pensioners absorbed in TRAI)
The case is for challenging para 5 of OM 28.1.2013 relating to proportionate reduction in Minimum Revised Pension.  After one year from the date of filing of OA, the case came up for hearing for a very short time on 17.2.2015 and now adjourned to 24.3.2015.
CAT Bangalore Bench

Hon. HC Karnataka
OA 167/2010

Shri N.B.Bhat

Shri N.B.Bhat
The Tribunal Judgment dated 25.1.2012 decided as follows: 1. The learned counsels on both sides are present and the learned counsel for the applicant submits that this matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Principal Bench in OA.655/2010. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for the OA to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.

The Dept of pension and AG Karnataka filed Writ Petition at HC Karnataka and the same is dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.2013 with reserved right to petitioners to file Review Petition before CAT Bangalore Bench. Further details are awaited.
CAT Ernakulam Bench

Hon. HC Kerala

Hon. HC Kerala

OA 747/2011

OP(CAT) 1767/2012

RP 741/2014
Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai vs UOI

UOI vs Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai

UOI vs Shri P.K.Bharghavan Pillai

In OA 747/2011 Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai (a pro-rata pensioner) vs UOI, the Hon. CAT Ernakulam Bench dated 23.1.2012 It is declared that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay in the scale of pay of . 15,600/- and 50% of the grade pay attached to it as pension.The UOI filed Appeal in HC, Kerala.

The HC Kerala dismissed the Appeal of UOI and upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam Bench. By virtue of this, a pro-rata pensioner irrespective of his qualifying service at the time of retirement, is entitled for full Minimum Revised Pension without any proportionate reduction in Pension. The Govt. filed Review Petition and it was listed for hearing on 10.2.2015. THE REVIEW PETITION IS DISMISSED ON 24.2.2015
CAT Bangalore Bench

Hon. HC Karnataka
OA 231/2012

Shri G.R. Parthasarathy vs UOI

Shri G.R.
Implementation Orders Awaited
The CAT Bangalore Bench allowed OA 231/2012 on the basis of CAT PB Order 1.11.2011 which quashed OM 11.2.2009 and thereby upgraded GP applicable for pre-revised scale is admissible for pre-2006 pensioners concerned. The  Writ Petitions disposed of with a direction to comply with CAT Order dated 8.3.2013 granting upgraded grade pay of pre-revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 if the pending SLPs at HSC are dismissed. AS PER ACTION TAKEN REPORT DT. 3.2.2015 OF PREVIOUS SCOVA MEETING THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO DEPT. OF EXPENDITURE ON 17.1.2015
CAT PR Bench Delhi
    OA 2461/2012


CP 171/2014
Shri R.C.Garg vs

Shri R.C.Garg

Shri R.C.Garg vs
Extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pension purpose) w.e.f.1.1.2006. Contempt Petition for implementation of Tribunal's Order dated 30.7.2013 has been filed by Shri R.C.Garg and the same is listed for hearing on 2.2.2015.

(1) The Judgment pronounced on 30.7.2013 directed Respondents to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006. (2) Review Appeal by DOP dismissed on 7.1.2015 mainly based on CAT Judgment 20.11.2014 in S-30 Pensioners case for full parity. The Contempt Petition filed by Shri R.C.Garg is listed for hearing on 2.2.2015. Now the same stands adjourned to 3.3.2015 and now the next date of hearing is 19.07.2015




Hon. HC Kerala

OA 579/2013

OP (CAT) No.120/2014

Shri T.K.Radha-krishna Pillai

Shri T.K.R.Pillai

SLP under proposal
The applicant took voluntary retirement as Inspector of Central Excise on 31.12.2000. He had a total service of 25 years, 03 months and 05 days including the weightage of 05 years. At the time of his retirement his pay scale was Rs. 6500-10500. According to him, the corresponding pay band as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 was Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 in respect of those who were in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 is Rs. 12090/-

The Judgment dated 31.1.2014 ordered that a pensioner is entitled to 50% of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus grade pay of the post from which he retired. Hence the O.A is allowed The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order to the applicant specifying the pension on the basis of Annexure A4 and A6 and para 4.2 of Annexure A3 OM dated 01.09.2008 i.e., 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of Inspector of Central Excise, which is Rs. 12090 Rs. 4600 GP with effect from 01.01.2006 The OP(CAT) No.120/2014 was dismissed by Hon. HC Kerala on 23.6.2014. The implementation orders were issued to the pensioner. SLP under proposal.
CAT Ernakulam Bench

Hon. HC Kerala
OA 715/2012

OP (CAT) No.8/2014
Shri M.O.Inasu

Shri M.O.Inasu
Provisional Pension orders issued
THE COURT ORDERS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY ISSUING ORDER DATED 13.3.2014 GRANTING FULL MINIMUM REVISED PENSION RS.7215 APPLICABLE FOR PRE-REVISED SCALE RS.5500-9000 FROM WHICH SHRI INASU RETIRED. Subsequently, a letter was issued in May 2014 stating that the above Order is subject to future WP/SLP being filed against the Judgment. It is learnt that SLP is awaiting admission.

Hon. HC Madras
W.P.No.11739 of 2007 (T)
Shri N.Subramanian
Govt. of Tamilnadu
The petitioner   rendered more than 30 years of service when he retired voluntarily from service. After his retirement in 1983 the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1108 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.12.1987 giving weightage of service for five years for the persons who were going on voluntary retirement. Thus, the Government has liberalised the pension scheme by giving certain benefits. The Government could have thought that by giving such weightage more persons could leave the service. The claim of the petitioner is that the weightage of 5 years in the case of voluntary retirement shall be given to him also and the monetary benefits could be given from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1108 P

EXTRACTS OF JUDGMENT 22.12.2014 "4.Whenever the pension scheme is liberalized by giving certain benefits it has been well-settled by a catena of decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in D.S.Nakara V. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 that the Government cannot arbitrarily fix the cut off date for the liberalised scheme of pension. 10. The facts are not in dispute. It is true that the petitioner retired on 10.07.1983 and the weightage of 5 years service along with the service rendered at the time of voluntary retirement was introducedonly by way of G.O.Ms.No.1108, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.12.1987 11.But it is well-settled law that whenever the Government introduces any scheme liberalising pension the same cannot be denied to the employees, who retired prior to the date of issuance of the G.O. But the Government could only say that the persons like the petitioner could get monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of G.O. 12.It has been held so categorically in D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1983 SC 130). . ž5. ..... With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: 'being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date' in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P-I and P-2, violates Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. ......... Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. ..... 13.The same principle is also reiterated in the judgment of the Apex Court in V.Kasturi V. Managing Director State Bank of India, Bombay and Another AIIR 1999 SC 81. š1.If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara's case (supra) would cover this category of cases". Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Ernakulam Bench

Pre-2006 Pro-rata Pensioner’s case.
Details awaited.  Implementation Orders issued.


Popular posts from this blog

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS- Implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission -Calculation of Revised of pension of pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners, etc :

PCDA Circular 608 : 7th CPC Concordance Tables – Revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners