IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 (04 cases) CWP-15577-2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision :28.08.2025 Union of India & others ..Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ...Respondents CWP-16322-2016 (O&M)

Union of India & others ..Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ...Respondents CWP-16327-2016 (O&M)

Union of India & others ..Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ...Respondents CWP-16328-2016 (O&M)

Union of India & others ..Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI in all petitions.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondents No.17,18 and 83 in CWP-16322-2016.

Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-15577-2016.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present bunch of four petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, the challenge is to the same order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby, a direction has been given to the petitioners herein that the respondents-employees herein, who had retired before 01.01.1996 from service in the pay scale of Rs.1400- 2300/- are entitled for fixation of their pensionary benefits in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- instead of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as was being granted to the respondents herein on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI submits that after the issuance of Instructions dated 16.10.1997 by which, the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 ( for short, ‘1997 Rules’) were issued to be applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- was revised to the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and hence, by wrongly considering the schedule mentioned in the 1997 Rules, the pension of the respondents was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and after the said mistake was detected, their pension was sought to be fixed in the correct pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-, which action was challenged by the respondents-employees before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) has held that the admissible revised pay scale to the post held by the respondents at the time of their retirement is Rs.5000-8000/- and hence, the benefit of pension should be granted to the employees concerned, who were getting the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the schedule though was misleading but, the action of the petitioners in refixing the pension of respondents in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- was perfectly valid and should not have been disturbed by the Tribunal and hence, the impugned order 01.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. On being asked to confirm whether the officials, who were in service on a particular post having the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1400- 2300/-, were given the benefit of revision of pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- or Rs.5000-8000/-, learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the employees who were working in a particular cadre with the unrevised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, were given the benefit of pay scale of Rs.5000-

8000/- starting from 01.01.1996.

6. That being so, once the post on which the respondents were working in an unrevised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- and the pay scale of the said post was revised to Rs.5000-8000/- then how can the pension be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there was some ambiguity as the pay scale was mentioned in the schedule in S-8