The central legal point established in the judgment is that the revision of pension must be in accordance with the relevant Office Memorandums, and the court will uphold such revisions if found to be in line with the legal framework.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal made in R.A.9/2019 in O.A.No. 181 of 2013 dated 17th July, 2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to re-fix the pension of the petitioner at Rs.12,411/- w.e.f 01.01.2006 taking into account her basic pension as Rs.5,491/-, not inclusive of “Dearness Pension” and pay all the due arrears of pension etc., and other monetary reliefs.)

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 17.07.2019 rejecting the Review Application No.9 of 2019 in O.A.No.181 of 2013. The said application was for review of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 24.10.2013 recorded on O.A.No.181 of 2013. This petition is by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal – the employee. The dispute pertains to the revision of pension.

2. We have heard the petitioner – in – person. At the outset we note that, the petitioner is a very senior citizen, who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in September, 2004. She is heard for few hours with all the procedural concessions including with regard to pleadings and an attempt was made to find out, what relief can be granted to her. We have considered her say / submissions with due sympathy.

3. We have also heard learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (Central Government Authorities) who has defended the order(s) of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. The petitioner has made serious grievance with regard to her revision of pension. It is vehemently submitted that, while revising her pension w.e.f 1.1.2006, the element of Dearness Allowance is not properly considered. It is submitted that the basic pension of the petitioner was Rs.5,491/- and therefore the benefit of 40% fitment should have been calculated on that basis and not on Rs.3,661/- which the authorities have done. It is submitted that if the calculation given by the application is accepted her pension would be revised at Rs.12,411/- per month and not Rs.8,274/-. To make this point good, the petitioner has taken this Court extensively through various Office Memorandums, more particularly dated 01.03.2004 with specific reference to para : 3 thereof. She has also relied on some information from the portal etc., She had also relied on some other material / statement, which is not form in part of record which also we have permitted to find out if any relief can flow therefrom. It is her case that, the calculation given by her be accepted for the purpose of revision of her pension. We note that, the petitioner was in service of the Income Tax Department from January 1964 till September 2004. She has retired from the post of Superintendent, Income-Tax Department and she understands the effect of the Government Order, correctly and she has also put her case before this Court with absolute clear submissions. It is noted again that it is the case of the petitioner that her pension should have been revised at the stage of Rs.12,411/- by giving 40% fitment for Rs.5,491/- and not Rs.3,661/-. This is the specific case pleaded before the Central Administrative Tribunal and this is the specific case pleaded before this Court as well. It is submitted by her that the calculation given by her be accepted as the proper revision of pension on the lines of the orders of the Government as contained in various Government Orders. It is submitted that the order of Tribunal be set aside and her application before the Tribunal be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel has addressed the Court at length. It is submitted that not only the Central Administrative Tribunal has not committed any error. Independent of the satisfa