Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel PG and Pension, Department of Pension & Pensioner’s Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal – Respondent
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 2nd to 15th 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 5th and 14th respondents died and their legal representatives have been impleaded as 16th to 24th respondents.
4.The 2nd to 15th 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 6th Central Pay Commission, the pro
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, o....
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.
Pension is not a bounty but a recompense for long years of service, and the date from which the pensioner shall be entitled to the benefit of revision cannot be arbitrarily determined by the employer....
The court ruled that all pensioners, regardless of retirement date, are entitled to pension revisions, upholding equal treatment principles.
Public servants cannot claim retrospective benefits from pension schemes introduced after their retirement, as entitlement is governed by the rules in force at the time of retirement.
The distinction between retired employees and employees in service in the context of notional pay fixation and pension revision.
The court established that pension fixation must comply with the relevant Office Memorandums and rules, affirming that pension is a right and must be calculated based on the correct interpretation of....
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The court established that pension revision orders are strictly applicable based on retirement dates, limiting benefits to those retired before a specified date.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
