CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Review Application No.180/16/2025 in Original Application No.180/363/2023 Tuesday, this the 11th day of November, 2025 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER T.K. Vijayamma, Aged 82 years, (Family Pensioner), W/o. Late M.R. Sreeramakrishna Pillai (Pensioner), Senior Technical Assistant (D) Drilling Division, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Hyderabad, Krishna Sadanam, Venpala P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala-689 102.

- Review Applicant/Applicant [By Advocate : Mr. Pramod Kumar K.G.]

Versus

1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Room No. 320-'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telengana-500068.

3. Pay and Accounts Officer, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Engineering Division, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telengana-500068.

4. Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Engineering Division, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telengana-500068.

5. Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003. 6. Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.

-Respondents/ Respondents [By Advocate: Mr. Alfred Lionel Winston M., ACGSC]

The applications having been heard on 17.10.2025, the Tribunal on

11.11.2025 passed the following:

O R D E R

Applicant in the Original Application has moved this Review Application under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act seeking to reconsider and review Annxure-RA1 order dated 11.07.2024 whereunder the application was dismissed. The review applicant has repeatedly stated that this Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the O.A., the finding was erroneous and that error is apparent on the face of the records. He has also produced numerous other documents, communications, orders of the Principal Bench etc. besides documents gathered under the Right to Information Act and said that the Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the application, which is sought to be reviewed.

2. Before proceeding to the contentions raised by the review applicant in brief, it is important to state the contentions raised by the applicant in the O.A. She is the family pensioner of her husband, who had retired as Senior Technical Assistant from the Geological Survey of India on 31.05.1992 while drawing pay at Rs.2,675/-in the scale of Rs.1640-2900. During 6^th CPC he was granted pension in the corresponding scale of Rs.5500-175-9000. According to the petitioner, the family pensioner, that was illegal, he should have been granted revision at the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500. Thus he was not given pension in the appropriate scale, which caused him considerable monetary loss.

3. According to the petitioner, her husband had passed away on

10.08.2013 and the mistake was repeated during the revision of the family pension during the 7^th CPC also causing her huge loss. So, according to the review appliant, her husband should have been granted pension taking corresponding scale at Rs.6500-10500 instead of Rs.5500- 9000. In fixing the family pension also she suffered loss. Similarly, during the 7^th revision, the mistake was repeated by the respondents, which was sought to be rectified through the O.A.

4. The respondents opposed the claim. Evidently, the husband of the review applicant had retired during the currency of the 4^th CPC while drawing the scale at Rs.1640-2900. The revised scale during the 6^th CPC was Rs.5500-9000. Referring to the recommendations made in the 6^th CPC this Tribunal found that the Pay Commission did not intend to grant the scale of Rs.6500-10500 to a Senior Technical Assistant, from which post her husband had retired, which belongs to Engineering stream, the Pay Commission did not intend special revision or upgradation for Senior Technical Assistant who were