The main legal point established is that the entitlement to pension revision is determined based on the categories of officers and corresponding revised pay scales mentioned in the Government communications.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal by the appellant is directed against judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in SWP No. 1749/2013 titled Om Parkash vs. University of Jammu and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking quashment of order No. Estab/13/3240 dated 24.05.2013 issued by the respondent-University has been dismissed.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to set out few facts germane to the disposal of controversy raised in this appeal.

3. The appellant claimably joined the services of the respondent-University as Junior Engineer on 26.09.1965 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1972 and thereafter, as Executive Engineer on 01.04.1986. After rendering more than 15 years service as Executive Engineer in the Engineering Department of respondent-University, the appellant retired on superannuation on 30.11.2001. At the time of his retirement, the appellant was holding the pay scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 (pre-revised). The case set up by the appellant before the Writ Court was that on 15.06.2012, he filed an application for rationalization and re-fixation of his pension contending therein that he was entitled to get minimum pension of 50% of the basic pay scale in the revised pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs.87000 on a par with the other pre-2006 University retirees i.e. Readers/Lecturers (selection grade)/Deputy Librarian/Assistant Librarian(selection grade) and Deputy Registrar etc. The respondent-University did not consider the application of the appellant.

4. The appellant filed SWP No. 2265/2011 which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2013 by directing the respondent-University to accord consideration to the case of the appellant in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) orders dated 04.06.2009 and 15.12.2009 read with condition No.V of office Memo dated 31.07.2009 within a period of two months provided the appellant was eligible.

5. In compliance to the aforesaid directions passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent-University considered the grievance of the appellant and passed a consideration order dated 24.05.2013. The claim put forth by the appellant for re-fixation of his salary on a par with other University retirees i.e Readers/Lecturers and Deputy Registrars etc. was rejected. This rejection of his claim brought the appellant once again to this Court by way of SWP No. 1749/2013.

6. In the aforesaid writ petition which was disposed of by the Writ Court vide judgment impugned, the appellant, apart from challenging the consideration order dated 24.05.2013, also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-University to revise and fix the pension of the appellant in the pay band 4 of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP 8700 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of University Council decision dated 06.10.1989 read with decision dated 25.08..1987 and Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development order/decision dated 04.04.2009 and 15.12.2009 read with condition No. V of office Memorandum dated 31.07.20909.

7. The claim for revision of pension was predicated by the appellant on the ground that he was placed in the UGC grades from time to time and was always treated on a par with the Deputy Registrar and equivalent of the respondent-University and, therefore, in the matter of giving the benefit of 6th Pay Commission recommendations to the employees of the University including the University retirees of the period prior to 01.01.2006, the appellant could not have been discriminated vis-à-vis his counterparts in the teaching and administrative wings of the University. The writ petition was