SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3012

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member [A]
Suresh Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 050/00549/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Om Prakash Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Bindhyachal Rai

Pension is a right earned by government servants, and discrimination between pre- and post-2006 retirees in pension fixation is prohibited.

Headnote:In this judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal considered the validity of pension fixation following the applicant's retirement. The applicant sought a re-evaluation of his pension based on specific memorandum provisions. The court found merit in the applicant's claims and directed the adjustment of his pension, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment of pre- and post-2006 retirees. The Tribunal emphasized disparity in pension arrangements is legally impermissible and ruled in favor of the applicant's entitlement to a minimum pension of Rs. 9230 from January 1, 2006.

Table of Content
1. pension fixation rights of retirees. (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

PER: - MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 praying for the following relief:

“8(1) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to quash the communication made by O/o DA(P) Patna under No. Pension- 1/ T-IX/RMS/871 dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure-A/8). 8(2) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pension of applicant Rs. 9230/- on 01.01.2006 and pay the arrear of pension after this revision from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015.

8(3) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pension of applicant on 01.01.2006 taking his pension as Rs. 9230/- on 01.01.2006 and pay the arrear of pension.

8(4) Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to pay statutory interest against the arrear of pension.

8(5) Cost of the case may please be awarded to the applicant for unnecessary expenditure in litigation and financial harassment.

8(6) Any other relief/ reliefs as your Lordships may deem fit and proper .”

2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in his OA, are delineated and discussed herein under :-

The applicant retired from service on 30.11.2002 from the post of Higher Selection Grade–I (HSG-I) Head Sorting Assistant from the office of HRO RMS, PT Division, Patna. At the time of his retirement, during the period of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of the said post was Rs.6500–200–10500/-. The last pay drawn by the applicant was Rs.7700/- and accordingly his pension was fixed at Rs.3648/- in terms of the Pension Payment Order issued by the Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Patna bearing PPO No. Patna/12536.

Subsequently, upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, the pension of the applicant was revised to Rs.8411/-. Thereafter, with the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016, the pension of the applicant was further revised and fixed at Rs.24,500/- in terms of PPO No. Postal/B1/12976/146/361 dated 11.08.2017 issued by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Patna.

It is the case of the applicant that under the 6th Central Pay Commission the earlier pay scale of HSG-I of Rs.6500–10500/- was revised to Rs.7450–11500/-, which subsequently corresponded to Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300–34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-.

The applicant relies upon the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare vide F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013, wherein it was provided that the minimum pension corresponding to the revised pay scale of Rs.7450–11500/- would be Rs.9230/-. The said benefit was made effective from 01.01.2006 in terms of another Office Memorandum dated 30.07.2015. On the basis of the said clarification, the applicant submitted a representation dated 03.04.2018 before the Director of Postal Accounts, Patna seeking fixation of his pension at Rs.9230/- with effect from 01.01.2006. The applicant also submitted a reminder on 07.06.2018 requesting consideration of his claim.

However, the respondents, vide letter dated 11.07.2018 issued from the office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Patna bearing No. Pension-1/T- IX/RMS/871, informed the applicant that he was not entitled to the said benefit.

Being aggrieved by the said communication, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. In support of his claim, the applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 03.08.2018 passed in O.A. No. 3943 of 2017 in the case of J.D. Gupta (Retd.) vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, reported in 2018 (3) SLJ (CAT) 255, wherein it has been observed that discrimination cannot be made between pre-2006 retirees and post-2006 r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top