IMPORTANT POINT
The Central Government cannot unilaterally alter pension options exercised by employees under the Food Corporations Act, affirming entitlement to benefits under CCS Pension Rules.

JUDGMENT :

(AMIT RAWAL, J.)

The present intra-court appeal at the instance of the Union of ndia, respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Additional respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the writ court, is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2019 rendered in Writ Petition No.22171 of 2012, whereby the following reliefs have been sought:

“(I) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order for direction to Exhibit P9 order passed by the respondents revising the pension of the petitioner.

ii) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and continue to pay the same in accordance with the directions contained in Exhibit P5 judgment.”

2. Vide the judgment impugned, Ext.P9 order dated 28.08.2012 revising the pension of the respondent – petitioner at Rs.4,274/- (Rupees Four thousand two hundred and seventy four only) from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006 and Rs.9901/- from 01.01.2007 has been set aside as the respondent – petitioner, prior to Ext.P9 was allegedly drawing Rs.6100/- (Rupees Six thousand one hundred only) from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006 instead of Rs.4,274/- (Rupees Four thousand two hundred and seventy four only), by relying upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court vide Ext.P5 dated 29.01.2003, upheld by the Division Bench along with other connected matters vide judgment dated 01.10.2002 Ext.P6 and affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.238-244-2004 vide judgment dated10.02.2010 Ext.P7.

3. The facts in narrow compass are enumerated hereinbelow:

All the Central Government employees, on setting up of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) were given option to opt for the absorption in the service of FCI and benefits as per the provisions of Section 12A(4) of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 and other terminal benefits as applicable to the employees of the Central Government. It is pertinent to mention here that there were two kinds of pay scales i.e., the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern pay scale drawn in the FCI and the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) Pay scale of the Central Government. Most of the employees including the respondent - petitioner opted for the IDA pay scale on absorption and retirement benefits as CDA; accordingly not only the pay but pension were also to be revised. Thus, the question of pay revision as wells as the pension revision was taken up by the department and dispute arose as to whether the employees would be getting the pay revision and pension revision on the basis of CDA or on IDA and matter was taken up before this Court in O.P.No.12609 of 2000.

4. The learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2003 Ext.P5, allowed the writ petition filed by the Ex-employees of the FCI, being a covered matter in O.P.No.1642 of 1996 (Ext.P3) rendered by another Single Bench of this Court on 14.03.2000. The matter was taken up before the Division Bench in various writ appeals including the one against the decision of the Single Bench in O.P.No.12609 of 2000. The writ appeal filed by the Union of India, was dismissed by holding that once the employees of the Central Government had given option under clause 12A(4)(a),(b),(c) and opted the pattern of Central Government, they would be entitled to receive all benefits of Central Government employees and entitled to the pay revision and pension revision strictly as per the aforementioned Act.

5. The matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.238-224 of 2004 and vide judgment dated 10.02.2010 upheld the judgment of the Single Bench and the Division Bench by holding in paragraph No.13 that the Central Government did not have the jurisdiction to unilaterally alter or change the option exercised by the writ petitioners therein under Section 12A(4) (b) read with Section 12A(4C) of the FCI Act. Though in the judgment aforementioned, the provisions of Section 12A(4C) was also extracted but by upholding the reasoning