Pre-2006 retirees entitled to pension refixation at 50% of minimum pay in revised VI CPC pay band + grade pay of post held; lower slab fixation discriminatory and violative of Article 14 equality.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J))

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

“... to call for all the records relating to refusal to properly re-fix the Basic Pension of the Applicant consequent to im- plementation of the recommendations of the VI – CPC, the impugned order No. M/P.353/CC/OA 233/2017 dated 25.04.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same, consequently :-

i. To direct the respondents to re-fix the basic pension of the applicant at Rs. 6750 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e., on imple- mentation of the recommendations of VI –CPC;

ii. to direct the respondents to sanction other consequential benefits; and

iii. to pass such other order/orders”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant:

The Applicant retired from service on 30.06.1994 as Station Master Gr.III (SM Gr.III) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.1400-2300 and his pension was fixed accordingly. On implementation of V-CPC the pay for the post of SM Gr.III was revised to the Scale of Pay of Rs.5000-8000 and accordingly the applicant's pension was also revised correctly. Further on implementation of the recommendations of VI-CPC the post of SM Gr.III was provided with PB-2 (9300-34800) with GP 4200. As such, the applicant's Basic Pension should have been fixed at Rs.6750/- after revision (i.e. 50% of the minimum of the applicable PB/GP). Whereas, while revising the pension of the applicant instead of fixing his pension as applicable to the post of SM Gr.III (i.e. PB-2 with GP 4200), his Pension was fixed in the lower slab of PB-1 with GP 2800 and his Basic Pension was fixed at Rs.6167/- erroneously. His repeated representations to the 2^nd respondent have evoked no response from the respondents, hence he approached this Tribunal in OA 233/2017 and this Tribunal directed the Respondents to dispose of the representation. Consequently, the 2^nd Respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant. Hence this Original Application is filed by the applicant seeking the above mentioned relief.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention that the issue is no more res integra and the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal dated 03.08.2022 in OA 33/2016. He also pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has also confirmed the said order in WP No. 1337/2024 by order dated 23.01.2024.

4. When the same was put forth before the learned counsel for the respondents, he vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on an identical issue in WP No. 7672/2018 dated 05.12.2023 wherein the matter was remitted back to the file of this Tribunal for early disposal.

5. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the materials placed before us.

6. We find that the issue which is raised before us is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA 33/2016 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted below:

12. The Tribunal has also considered the various orders passed by the Tribunal wherein it has been held that a pre-2006 retiree is entitled to get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay band plus grade pay of the post from which he retired.

13. It is to be noted that in the matter of Agia Ram & Ors Vs. UOI, Ministry of Railways & Ors in OA 990/HR/2009, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.10.2010 has dismissed the OA filed by the applicant claiming similar relief like the applicant. The said order was challenged before the High court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.9581/2011. Therein Agia Ram and some petitioners who have retired during the period