The determination of pension eligibility for retired personnel must adhere strictly to prescribed calculations without erroneous modifications or assumptions.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Petitioner, who was compulsorily retired from service while working as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, seeks to quash Ext.P11 and to direct respondents 3 and 4 to issue revised PPO with effect from 01.01.1996, 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016 within a time frame.

2. The petitioner states that he joined service on 23.11.1968 and was compulsorily retired on 27.09.1991. He had a total service of 22 years 1 month and 9 days. The petitioner is drawing his pension. The Pay and Account Officer, CRPF issued Ext.P4 OM dated 14.06.2022 under which the difference between superannuation pension and compulsory retirement pension was removed, thereby entitling all pensioners to get 50% of the last pay drawn. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.10.2022 for revising his pension. The representation was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent.

3. The 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P6 pension revision fixation order. However, the petitioner did not receive revised pension. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P7 representation. Thereafter, Ext.P8 reminder was sent. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.29476/2023. This Court directed the competent among the respondents to issue revised PPO in terms of Ext.P6.

4. When the respondents failed to implement Ext.P10, Contempt Case No.1535/2024 was filed. Thereafter, Ext.P11 office order dated 31.05.2024 was issued. Ext.P11 stated that the petitioner's pension has already been revised correctly as ₹3,665/- under the 6^th CPC and ₹10,450/- under the 7^th CPC.

5. The petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent had correctly made Ext.P6 revision proposal which ought to have been implemented. The petitioner is entitled to a monthly pension of ₹4,945/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and ₹12,800/- with effect from 01.01.2016. If the version of the 6^th respondent is accepted, Ext.P6 cannot be implemented.

6. Respondents 1 to 7 filed counter affidavit.

The respondents stated that Ext.P6 proposal was rejected as the basic pay of the petitioner was calculated erroneously by adding the Grade Pay of ₹1,800/-. As per the concordant table applicable to the petitioner, the last pay drawn by the petitioner was ₹1,100/-. According to the concordant table, the basic pay of the petitioner as per the 7^th CPC was to be fixed at ₹20,900/-. But, in Ext.P6 proposal, it was fixed at ₹25,600/-, which was erroneous. The writ petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel representing the respondents.

8. The petitioner joined service in the CRPF on 23.11.1968 and retired from service on 27.09.1991 after completion of 22 years 1 month and 9 days service. In view of Ext.P4 OM, the petitioner is eligible for pension at the rate of 50% of the last pay drawn. By Ext.P6, the notional pay of the petitioner was arrived at ₹9,890/- pursuant to 6thCPC recommendation and at ₹25,600/- pursuant to 7thCPC recommendation. The petitioner seeks pension based on Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to revised pension of ₹12,800/-.

9. The contention of the respondents is that the notional pay arrived at in Ext.P6 was erroneous. Therefore, Ext.P6 proposal was rejected by the 6^th respondent. The error occurred due to the erroneous adding of Grade Pay of ₹1,800/-. As per the concordant table No.9 annexed to OM relating to pre-2016 pensioners under the recommendations of the 7^th Pay Commission and as per the concordant table applicable in the case of the petitioner, the last pay drawn was ₹1,100/- in the pay scale of ₹825-15-900-20-1200. This is evident from Ext.R2(i).

10. The respondents therefore correctly revised the pen