Pension calculations for retiring employees must conform to issued Office Memorandums, and claims for parity with post-2006 retirees must be substantiated through challenge of existing regulations, or otherwise denied.

ORDER :

C.V. Karthikeyan J.

The respondents in O.A.No.576 of 2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2022 are the writ petitioners herein.

2.O.A.No.576 of 2017 had been filed by the 2^nd to 15^th respondents, seeking a direction to refix their pension from 01.01.2006 by applying the principle of full parity with those employees who had retired from service after 01.01.2006.

3.During the pendency of the writ petition, the 5^th and 14^th respondents died and their legal representatives have been impleaded as 16^th to 24^th respondents.

4.The 2^nd to 15^th respondents in the writ petition were initially appointed in the Post and Telegraph Department and later, on incorporation of BSNL in the year 2000, they had given their willingness to join BSNL and had also been absorbed in BSNL as fresh candidates. They were, however, granted permission to opt for pension against the services rendered by them in the Postal Department. They had all attained the age of superannuation prior to 01.01.2006 after rendering less than 33 years of service. It had been contended by them that upon recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission, the pro-rata reduction of pension for less than 33 years of service on Voluntary Retirement after 20 years of service had been dispensed with and there was also dispensation of the provision of five years of weightage. This scheme was implemented only with respect to those who retired after 01.01.2006.

5.Claiming disparity, the Original Application had been filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 and held that it was not in dispute that the said Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016, extended benefits to those who had rendered service even less than 33 years and therefore, directed that revised pension payment orders must be issued and allowed the Original Application.

6.Aggrieved by the said directions, the respondents herein had filed the present writ petition.

7.It had been contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that the respondents were initially employed in the Post and Telegraph Department and on incorporation of BSNL in the year 2000 had exercised their option to join BSNL. They had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on or before 01.01.2006. They had put in less than 33 years of service, which was the qualifying service for grant of full pension. However, on introduction of the 6^th Central Pay Commission, pro-rata reduction of pension had been dispensed with. Orders had been issued by the Government, after examining the representations received to fix the pension of those employees who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and it was determined that the revised pension shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay band and grade pay, corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale, as per fitment table, without pro-rata reduction of pension. In this connection, an Office Memorandum had been issued on 06.04.2016.

8.It was therefore contended by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the writ petitioners that the anomalies complained by the respondents had been set right by issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 and that therefore, they were not eligible for any revised pension. It was therefore contended that the writ petition should be allowed and the directions of the Tribunal should be set aside.

9.The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the claim of the respondents that they should be treated equally with those who had retired after 01.01.2006 was justified and there was no reason to place them on a different scale. It was contended that they have only sought the implementation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission, which had dispensed with pro-rata reduction pension. The learned counsel stated that the Tribunal had considered all factors and had correctly allowed their Original Application and urged that no ground had been made to warrant interference by this Court on t