Pensioners retiring before 01.01.2006 are not entitled to benefits applicable to later retirees; pension must not be lower than 50% of minimum pay in the pay band.

JUDGMENT :

Sunil Beniwal, J.

In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7818/2019 :-

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Jaipur; the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, while deciding Original Application No. 290/00071/2017; and the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, while deciding Review Application No.290/0004/2019, whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts which led to the filing of the Original Application No.290/00071/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner got superannuated on 28.02.1991 while holding the post of Superintendent. At the time of his superannuation, he was in the Pay Scale of PSS Group-‘B’ (Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500) due to post facto promotion. At the time of his retirement, his pension was fixed at Rs.1338/-. Upon implementation of the 5^th and 6^th Central Pay Commissions (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the CPC’) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively, his pension was revised and fixed at Rs.4039/- and Rs.9230/-, respectively. The 6^th Pay Commission was implemented and accordingly, the revised pension order was issued on 04.07.2013, fixing the pension of the petitioner at Rs.9230/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the fixation of pension after implementation of 6^th CPC i.e. order dated 04.07.2013, the petitioner challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur by way of filing an Original Application being O.A. No.290/00068/2014, vide which, he questioned the fixation of his pension and sought its revision strictly in terms of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008. As per the prayer made in the original application filed in 2014, the prayer sought revision of his pension at Rs.9375/-. The said O.A. came to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 12.08.2016, whereby the order of pension fixation at Rs.9230/- of the petitioner dated 04.07.2013 was quashed with the direction to the respondent to re-examine the matter in the light of the law laid down in various judgments as well as the M/O Personnel PG and Pensions, the Departmental of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare O.M. No.38137-POPW(A) dated 06.04.2016. The Tribunal further directed that the pension be re-fixed accordingly within a period of two months and that arrears of pension be paid within two months thereafter.

4. In compliance of the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondent authorities passed a fresh order for re-fixation of pension of the petitioner on 19.10.2016, wherein it is stated that the pension of the petitioner had already been fixed at Rs.9130/- with effect from 01.01.2006, which is higher than the minimum prescribed pension amount i.e. Rs.8145/-, as per Row 13 (corresponding to the pay scale of 2000-60-1400-75-3200-100-3500 in which the petitioner retired). It further appears from the record that the respondent earlier decided to fix the pension of the petitioner after implementing 6^th Pay Commission at Rs.9230/- vide order dated 04.07.2013. Surprisingly, in compliance of the direction given by CAT in its order dated 12.08.2016, a fresh order was passed, fixing revised pension of the petitioner at Rs.9130/-.

5. Being aggrieved by this order/letter dated 19.10.2016, the petitioner preferred a fresh Original Application bearing No.290/00071/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. The aforesaid O.A. came to be disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its order dated 26.10.2018 while declaring the order dated 19.10.2016 as erroneous as well as illegal and accordingly, the same was quashed. The respondents were directed to revise the pension of the petitioner in light of the observ