Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 143
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.CHELAMESWAR, M.E.N.PATRUDU
Union of India, Ministry of Food and agriculture - Appellant
Versus
P.S.R.Kumar Sinha - Respondent
W.P.No.17900/05
Decided On : 02-08-06
Advocates Appeared :
Smt. C. Vani Reddy, Mr.Siva
Headnote:SERVICE - Fixation of pensionary benefits - Govt., of India Office Memorandum No.45/10/98-P & P.W. (A) dt.17-12-1998 - Respondents, senior Scientists retired w.e.f. 31-12-1995 on attaining age of superannation, submitted proposal for fixation of pension requesting that their pension may be fixed taking revised pay scales of Rs.14,940/- as basic.
Central Administrative Tribunal passing order directing petitioners/Union Govt., to compute pension on basis of basic pay as Rs.14,940/- and release difference amount out of such calculation with interest, holding that orders issued by Govt., of India make it clear that irrespective of date of retirement, all pensioners are entitled to pension of not less than 50% of minimum pay in revised scales of pay introduced w.e.f 1-1-1996 of post last held by them - Since word “irrespective of date of retirement” is mentioned in order all pensioners are entitled to benefit of minimum pay in revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and as respondents retired from service w.e.f. 31-12-1995, their pensionary benefits are to be fixed on basic pay of Rs.14,940/- revised basic pay.
Office Memorandum dt.12-7-1998 clarifies that President of India was pleased to issue orders after accepting recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission regarding revision of pension/family pension and Govt., orders are issued with irrespective of date of retirement, pension of all pensioners shall not be less than 50% pay as introduced w.e.f. 1-1-1996 - When employee has retired on last date of month, his date of retirement has to be treated as 1st date of succeeding month - Contention of writ-petitioners that Govt., orders are applicable in respect of pensioners retired prior to 1-1-1996 - Unsustainable - Orders of Tribunal - Justified - Writ petition, dismissed.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS union of India and its officials are the petitioners.
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS the two respondents in the writ are the retired senior Scientists. They worked in the Central government before retirement.
( 3 ) FACTS the service and the retirement of the respondents with the petitioners is an admitted fact. (1) They retired with effect from 31-12-1995 (AN) on attaining the age of superannation. (2) Thereafter, the respondents have submitted the proposals for fixation of pension requesting that their pension may be fixed by calculating their basic pay as Rs. 14,940/ -. It is on the revised scale. (3) Since the pensionary benefits are not released they approached the Central administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad through o. A. No. 384 of 2001 for a direction to the petitioner to release the benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
( 4 ) IMPUGNED ORDER the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the respondents and directed the petitioners to compute the pension on the basis of basic pay as Rs. 14,940/- and release the difference amount out of such calculation, and also pay interest at 12% per annum till the date of payment. (1) Aggrieved by the same the present writ is preferred by the Government of India.
( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for both sides.
( 6 ) POINT the short point for our decision is whether the basic pay as Rs. 14,940/- is to be taken into consideration or the last drawn pay as on the date of retirement is to be taken for fixing the pensionary benefits? (1) Smt. Vani Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners highlighted various previsions underthe law and attacked. the impugned order. (2) Sri Siva, the learned counsel for the respondents resisted the said arguments. (3) The core contention of the petitioners is that the fixation of pension by taking the revised pay scales of Rs. 14,940/- as basic is erroneous. It is stated that the revised pay scales have come into effect from 01-01-1996 and admittedly the respondents having been retired from service with effect from 31-12-1995, as such they are not eligible to claim the pension on the revised pay scales. The grievance of petitioners is that the Tribunal misinterpreted and allowed the prayer of the respondents. The petitioners also made serious attempt to succeed on their contention by relying on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 22042/2005 and batch. The strong argument of Smt. Vani Reddy is that fixation of pension on the basis of the revised pay scales is bad in law. (4) Sri Siva, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have retired with effect from 31-12-1995 and there was a revision of pay with effect from 1-1-1996 and as perthe revision the minimum scale for the senior Scientist was fixed at rs. 14,940/- and as both the respondents have put in more than five years of service in the said capacity they are entitled to claim the same and the petitioners have not considered this aspect and fixed the pension on the old pay. It is also contended that they have submitted a detailed representation to all the concerned but the same is not taken into consideration. (5) While considering this fact, the tribunal specifically held that the orders issued by the Government of India make it clear that irrespective of the date of retirement, all the pensioners are entitled to the pension of not less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scales of pay introduced with effect from 1-1-1996 of the post last held by them and since the word irrespective of the date of retirement is mentioned in the order all the pensioners are entitled to the benefit of minimum pay in the revised scale of pay with effect from 1-1-1996, and as the respondents retired from service with effect from 31 -12-1995, their pensionary benefits are to be fixed on the basic pay of Rs. 14,940/- the revised basic pay. The Tribunal also relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India reported a
