2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Anand S. Khati, A, Mr. Manish Garg, J
Surender Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 2197/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Applicant in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijender Singh
The court ruled that upgraded pay scales do not apply to pre-1996 pensioners, upholding the principle of modified parity and justifying financial distinctions based on retirement dates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Pension - Pre-1996 pensioner claims revision of pension based on incorrect grade pay used in calculation - Claim denied as it violates established rules regarding pension fixation for pre-2006 retirees - Upgrading of pay scales post-retirement not applicable to the applicant - Agency instructions firmly stipulate pension cannot exceed 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay from the scale at retirement. (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.4)
(B) Pension entitlement - Clarification on benefits extended to pre-96 retirees - Precedents indicate financial implications can justify differences in pension calculations among retirees. (Paras 5.1, 7.1)
(C) Judicial interpretation - Ongoing debates in various legal instances regarding the legitimacy and framework of pension benefits across service retirements and subsequent legislative adjustments. (Paras 10.1.62, 10.1.63)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenges the total pension entitlement authorized at retirement. The applicant argues entitlement to a higher pension under new scales based on criteria established by the 6th Pay Commission, claiming insufficient consideration has led to losses in entitled pension.
Findings of Court:
The claim was dismissed based on the determination that the applicant cannot receive benefits from the upgraded pay scales established after his retirement.
Issues: The decisive question examined was whether the applicant could be granted benefits based on an upgraded pay scale if he retired prior to its establishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld rules delineating distinction between pre- and post-2006 pensioners; granting full parity with upgraded scales to pre-96 retirees was found not justified per government policy and prior judicial rulings.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
By Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
The present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant, who is a pre-1996 pensioner, seeking the following reliefs:
“8.1 declare the impugned order dated 31/5/2016 (ANNEXURE-A1) as wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair, unjust, unreasonable, violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and of Govt. Resolutions, notifications, orders etc., issued for implementation of 6th pay commission report whereunder revised pension/ family pension w.e.f. 1/1/2006 was authorized in favour of the Applicant by taking into account wrong grade pay of Rs. 4200/- p.m. (instead of Rs. 4800/-p.m. admissible) in PB-2, Rs. 9300-34800 and quash/set aside the said impugned order dated 31/5/2016 (ΑΝNEXURE-A1), and
8.2 order/direct the respondents to issue fresh/revised pension revision authority in favour of the Applicant authorizing pension and family pension w.e.f. 1/1/2006 after taking into account correct/ admissible amount of Grade pay of Rs. 4800/- p.m. in PB-2 i.e. Rs. 9300-34800 in terms of OM dated 6/4/16 (ANNEXURE-A/23) which revision of pension was also earlier due in terms of DP &PW OM dated 30/7/15 (ANNEXURE-A/15) but was not authorized correctly by respondents due to said arbitrary reduction of admissible grade pay of Rs. 4800/- p.m. to Rs. 4200/-, and
8.3 order/direct the respondents to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the entire amount of arrears of pension for harassing the Applicant and for illegally and arbitrarily withholding and delaying the authorization of correct amount of revised pension/family pension to the Applicant w.e.f. 1/1/2006 despite clear orders of the govt. and decisions of the Courts, from the date of filing of the present Application to the date of actual payment of the correct and admissible amount of arrears of pension to the Applicant, and
8.4 order payment of cost of the present Application, in favour of the applicant and against the respondents, as the respondents have deliberately and avoidably forced the Applicant to file the present Application despite requests/representations by the Applicant and also despite clear orders of the Govt. and of the Courts as mentioned above, and
8.5 pass any other order/direction for grant any other relief(s) in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Briefly stated, the applicant was working as Assistant Account Officer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted), which is an Organized Accounts Service/cadre of Govt. of India, in the office of respondent no.1. He took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.08.1993. The main grievance of the applicant is that the impugned order dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure- A1) has been passed taking into account wrong grade pay of Rs.4200/- p.m. instead of Rs. 4800/- p.m. in Pay Band 2, i.e., Rs.9300-34800/-.
2.1 The applicant, who appeared in person, drew attention to Revised Pay Scales as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and revised pay structure. In terms of the impugned order, the pay structure has been shown as Pay Band-2, Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs.4200/-. He further referred to a Resolution of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure A7) and drew attention to clause ‘c’ of para 1(x) regarding Group ‘B’ cadres, which is reproduced herein below:
“(x) Regarding Group 'B' cadres, the Commission's recommendations will be modified in the following manner: -
a)*****
b) *****
c) In the IA&AD and all organized accounts cadres, posts of Section Officers and Assistant Audit/Accounts Officers will be merged and placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 as recommended by the Commission. In modification of Sixth CPC's recommendations, Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) will be placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5400 and Senior AOs will be placed in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400;”
2.2 The applicant also drew attention to the fact that Part-A Section I pertains
