The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on correcting pay mistakes after retirement as per the GO dated 16.01.2017 and the importance of justifying pension determination based on the last drawn salary.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

CM No. 36996/2017 (exemption) in LPA No. 663/2017

CM No. 37006/2017 (exemption) in LPA No. 665/2017

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CM Nos. 36994-36995/2017 (condonation of delay) in LPA No. 663/2017

CM Nos. 37004-37005/2017 (condonation of delay) in LPA No. 665/2017

Allowed.

LPA Nos. 663/2017 and 665/2017

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government accepts notice; with the consent of counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally.

3. The common question in these appeals is with respect to that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which relegated the question of “pay and pension fixation” to the respondents. The Single Judge, however, had clarified that arrears of alleged excess of pension and allowances paid to the appellants up to the date of judgment ought not be recovered.

4. The controversy pertains to the pension re-determination orders made by the second respondent i.e. the National Institute for the Mentally Retarded (the Institute). The undisputed facts are that the appellants were appointed on different dates as Social Workers, who were subsequently upgraded; they were promoted as Senior Social Workers. The replacement scale in respect of that post was Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. The appellants claimed and sought second financial upgradation in their pay scale w.e.f. 31.01.2000 by an order dated 28.03.2003. The financial upgradation – available to employees working in the post without regular promotions was the second financial upgradation in terms of the ACP scheme. Both appellants were granted that benefit in the grade of Rs. 7,450-11,500/-. The appellants represented to the Institute, stating that the pay scale to which they were upgraded (Rs. 7,450-11,500/-) was lower than the equivalent pay scales in the other Central Government departments, therefore establishing that the correct pay scale – in which they ought to have been placed was Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. This representation made on 25.04.2003 was granted on 14.08.2003. As a result, these appellants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. Both of them continued to work in that pay scale; they enjoyed the benefit of replacement/equivalent scale granted by the Institute, pursuant to the acceptance of the 6th Pay Commission Recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Central Government apparently wrote to the Institute some time in 2013-14 relying upon the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of 2010-11. In its report, the CAG had stated that the grant of pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- was inaccurate and unwarranted. According to the report, the pay scales to which the appellants ought to have been placed was the pay scales to which the appellants were entitled upon second financial upgradation was Rs. 7,450-11,500/-. The CAG report also relied upon existence of an intervening pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- to say that the appellants could not have been given the scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-.

5. The Institute sought to act upon the CAG report, communicated by the Central Government. The appellants were aggrieved and approached this Court contending that a downward revision in their pay scale should not be resorted to without show-cause notice. The writ proceedings ended with an order dated 10.08.2015. The Institute thereafter issued a show-cause notice and then proceeded to re-determine the pay scales at the lower grade of Rs. 7450-11,500/-. The appellants were aggrieved and approached this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, AIR 2015 SC 696 and Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department, (2014) 16 SCC 444, both of which were relied upon by the writ petitioners/appellants. In Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra), the Supreme Court had noticed and relied upon a GO dated 16.01.2017 which stipulated as follows:

“(1) Pension Fixation Authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10 months prior