Post-redesignation to higher pay scale entitles retired employees to pension refixation despite cut-off dates.

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, re-fixing the 1^st respondent’s basic pension together with all consequential benefits and arrears.

2.The brief facts of the case is that the 1^st respondent herein was appointed as Khalasi in the year 1963 and thereafter, he was promoted to various posts and subsequently retired on 30.09.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement, he was holding the post of Mistry in the pay scale of Rs.1400- 2300 (IV Pay Commission), which is equivalent to the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 as per V Pay Commission. The 1^st respondent has sought for upgradation of his pay scale from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000 based on the DOP&PW OM dated 28.01.2013. However, since the petitioners have not considered his request, the 1^st respondent filed an Original Application in O.A.No.1865 of 2016, which came to be allowed on 24.03.2023 with a direction to the petitioners to re-fix the basic pension and also to grant all consequential benefits.

3.The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the

1^st respondent has retired on 30.09.1996 prior to the implementation of upgradation of pay scales, i.e., with effect from 01.11.2003 vide Railway Board Letter No.PC-

III/2003/CRC/6, dated 09.10.2003, he cannot seek for re-fixation of his pay scale in the upgraded scale of pay. He further submitted that the cut-off date mentioned is for the benefit of restructuring, which is restricted to the employees who were in service as on 01.11.2003 and since the 1^st respondent has already retired from service, the said benefit is not applicable to the 1^st respondent.

4.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent placed reliance on the Circulars dated 24.11.1998, 09.10.2003 and 28.01.2013 and submitted that the post of Mistry held by the 1^st respondent has been redesignated as Supervisor and thereafter as Junior Engineer Grade-II. Since the post of Mistry has been redesignated, the pay scale of the said post also has to be revised and re-fixed as the per the recommendations of the V and VI Pay Commissions. For this purpose, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Agia Ram and Others Vs. Union of India and Others passed in CWP.No.9581 of 2011, dated 24.08.2011.

5.Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

6.The point that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the 1^st respondent, who retired from service on 30.09.1996 as Mistry in the pay scale of Rs.1400–2300 (IV Pay Commission), is entitled to seek re-fixation of his pension on the basis of the upgraded pay scale subsequently granted to the re-designated post of Supervisor/Junior Engineer Grade-II pursuant to the cadre restructuring implemented by the Railway Board with effect from 01.11.2003. Admittedly, the said restructuring and upgradation of the pay scale came into force long after the 1^st respondent had retired from service. The contention of the petitioners is that the benefit of such restructuring is applicable only to those employees who were in service as on the date of its implementation and therefore cannot be extended to a person who had already retired from service. On the other hand, the 1^st respondent contends that the post of Mistry held by him has subsequently been re-designated as Supervisor and thereafter as Junior Engineer Grade-II and therefore, his pension requires to be revised by taking into account the corresponding revised pay scale.

7.The Tribunal, while considering the claim of th