Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13494

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S Khati, A
Hans Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar Gupta, Mohan Lal, Ashok Kumar Kanojia, Vishwa Nath Ram, Ms. Savita Khera, Ms. Kaushal Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, Budh Ram Aseri, Himat Singh, Jarnail Ram, Kamal Kumar Bhasker, Ravi Kumar, Gyandendra Dutt Mishra, Surjit Srivastava, Raj Kumar Rastogi, Kartar Chand, Kuldeep Kumar Verma, Aditya Kumar, Pushkar Saxena, Vishwa Nath Ram, Shanti Prasad, Raja Ra Singh Kushwaha, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar Sinha, Ms. Mala Srivastava, Rajmal Bharmoria, Rattan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Sanjay Jaju, Sh. Lok Man Sergh, Sh. Gaurav Dwivedi – Respondent
C.P. No.750/2024 | O.A. No.1873/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. S M Arif, Ms. Shabnam Perween, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh

The ruling clarifies pension adjustments for retired employees, emphasizing timely compliance with directives in prior judgments.

Headnote:The tribunal examined the compliance by the government regarding the payment of enhanced pension due to the petitioners following a previous order. The governing clauses of the Office Memorandum were discussed, with emphasis that retirees could be owed increments from their date of retirement or from a specified past date. The court emphasized adherence to procedural law in pension adjustments, referencing circumstances from past judgments specific to the case at hand. Following deliberation, the tribunal ruled compliance with prior directives is mandatory, obliging the applicable respondents to ensure timely adjustments to retroactive benefits.

Table of Content
1. court's observation on the compliance of prior directives. (Para 1)
2. arguments detailing the petitioners' claim regarding pension enhancements. (Para 2)
3. court's evaluations of the om clauses related to pension applicability. (Para 3 , 4)
4. final decision and stipulations for compliance moving forward. (Para 5)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not fully complied with the order of this Tribunal dated 29.05.2024 in O.A. No.1873/2024, as the revised PPO has only taken effect from May 2023. The learned counsel further argued that, in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Tribunal’s order dated 29.05.2024, the respondents were directed to re-fix the retiral dues, including the pension of the petitioners, by granting them the benefit of one notional increment effective from the date of their retirement. The learned counsel further pointed out that neither the Review Application nor the order itself has been challenged by the respondents. He also submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners retired in 2022, which was prior to the issuance of the order. Additionally, the learned counsel drew our attention to Clause 3(d) of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 20.05.2025 issued by GoI, M/o PPG & P, DoP&T, which reads as under:

“3 (d). In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/ original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/Supreme Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application was filed.”

2. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the compliance affidavit and specifically drew our attention to Clause 3(a) and Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 20.05.2025, which read as under:

“3(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 30.04.2023 (erroneously mentioned as 31.04.2023 in the Order) will not be paid

****************

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that the direction referred at Para 3(d) above will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/Supreme Court after the judgment in ‘Union of India & Anr. Vs. M.Siddaraj’, as in such cases directions referred in Para 3(a) will apply.”

2.1 The learned counsel for the respondents further drew our attention to the fact that the present O.A. was filed on 10.09.2024, i.e., after 11.04.2024. Therefore, Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 20.05.2025 shall be applicable in the present case.

3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

4. Vide Dy. No. 2400 of 2024, M.A. No. 0347 of 2024 was filed on 16.01.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said M.A., vide record of proceedings dated 22.07.2024, was pleased to observe as under:

“In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the Union of India shall examine as to whether the Union of India needs to file an application in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled ‘The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.’, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.04.2023.

Respondents are permitted to file additional documents.”

4.1. Vide record of proceedings dated 06.09.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed as under:

“It is stated that the review petition in Diary No. 36418/2024 filed by the Union of India is pending.

The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicabilit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document