Pre-2006 retirees are entitled to pension revision at par with post-2006 retirees as all pensioners constitute a single, homogeneous class; denying this parity is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

ORAL ORDER

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

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in U/P353/OA1218/2012, dated 04.02.2013 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to fix the pension of the applicant by fixing his pay in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 (Which was revised as Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200 in the 6th Pay Commission) and refix his pension as per the orders passed by the full bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No.655 of 2010 (Batch) dated 01.11.2011 and grant him all consequential benefits and render justice”.

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

The Applicant submits that pensioners affected by the fixation of pension in accordance with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 03.10.2008 had filed Original Applications before the Patna Bench and the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal. The matter was thereafter referred to the Full Bench. The Hon’ble Full Bench, by a common order in O.A. No. 655/2010 and connected cases, set aside the OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed the respondents to revise the pension of all pre-2006 retirees with effect from 01.01.2006, in terms of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 (OM dated 01.09.2008). The Full Bench further directed that arrears be paid within a period of three months. The applicant’s pension, however, was fixed with reference to the OM dated 03.10.2008, which had been set aside by the Full Bench of this Tribunal on 24.01.2012. Consequently, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondents seeking revision of his pension. As no orders were passed on his representation, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1218/2012 seeking appropriate directions. This Tribunal, by order dated 18.10.2012, directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass a speaking order. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, by order, dated 04.02.2013, rejected the applicant’s claim. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A. No. 340/2013, which was allowed by this Tribunal by order, dated 20.03.2017. The respondents then preferred W.P. No. 16971 of 2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, which remitted the matter back to this Tribunal for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the O.A. was heard afresh.

3. During the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court had remitted the case to this Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter in line with the judgment in W.P. No. 19697/2017 (Union of India v. N. Ramasamy), arising out of O.A. No. 412/2016. He further submitted that this Tribunal, by a detailed order dated 11.01.2024 in O.A. No. 412/2016, had allowed the application of Shri N. Ramasamy. The respondents had challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 6768/2025; however, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed their appeal. Accordingly, the applicant prayed for similar relief in the present O.A.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions and relied upon the reply statement filed on their behalf. However, when the orders of this Tribunal and those confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court were brought to his notice, he was unable to controvert the same.

5. We have heard both parties at length and carefully examined the pleadings, records, and judgments cited. We find that the issue is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 500 of 2013, wherein the matter was dealt with in detail and a comprehensive order was passed on 03.08.2022. Following that order,