A pensioner must fulfill specific criteria, including actual position and qualifications, to be eligible for pension revision under updated pay scales established by statutory resolutions and pay commissions.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal is directed against the oral judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.7368 of 2018 dismissing the petition of the appellant seeking revision of pension upon a revision of salary in the post of Registrar.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted with Mr.Gogia for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in observing that the recommendation of pay commission stands on a completely different footing than a special revision of pay-scale without corresponding revision of pension, since the revision in the pay scale of Registrar is Rs 37400-67000, is treated as part of 6th Pay Commission by the State government in its GRs. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated and held that the appellant was entitled to revision in pension in pay scale of Rs 37400-67000 both under the GR dated 16.05.2015 as well as under 6th Pay Commission and therefore Respondent No.2 had not committed any error in sanctioning his revised pension in pay scale of Rs 37400- 67000. He has submitted that the instant case of the appellant is not case of claim of revision in pension of individual nature but it relates to entire category of Registrars of the Universities throughout the state. He has further submitted that the learned Single judge has failed to consider the matter in its correct perspective and has upheld the arbitrary and illegal decision of the Respondent authorities. He has further submitted that the decisions under challenge, taken by the respondents, are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the appellant is discriminated and treated differently from other similarly situated retired employees in the similar type of issue. In the decision of the respondents denied the revised pension to the appellant is not in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that Government of Gujarat, at later point of time, has treated the pay scale of Rs 37400-67000 of Registrar under 6th Pay Commission; which is clearly mentioned in GR dated 23.08.2017 and simultaneously the appellant also is entitled to revision in pension on bass of GR dated 2015 which was as an result of conscious decision of government, not for one post of Saurashtra University but an general decision is taken for the category of "Registrars" of all the Government Universities in the State and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to revision in pension in the pay scale of Rs 37400-67,000 as claimed by the appellant.

2.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious and grave legal error in differentiating the case of Mr.S.K. Patel and did not appreciate that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of Mr.S.K Patel and that there is no legal reason to differentiate the case of the appellant from the case of Mr. S.K Patel, as in both the cases they were retired employees of the University and were not holding master degree. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the educational qualification, came to be changed due to the guidelines of the UGC. He has further submitted that the pay scale was revised in terms of the State level policy and due to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission accepted by the State Government and this is further clear from the GR dated 23.08.2017. He has pointed out the Schedule-A where at Sr. No. 1, the post of Registrar is mentioned in column no. 8 the pay scale of the post of Registrar is shown