Status of Pensioners cases in various Courts as on 5.03.2015.-Courtesy M.L.Kanujia

Status of Pensioners cases in various Courts as on 5.03.2015.-Courtesy M.L.Kanujia

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERSS IN VARIOUS COURTS : AS ON 25.03.2015.

COMPILED BY M. L. KANAUJIA, IRSSE / Chief Communication Engineer, N.E. Railway, (Rtd.)

Item HEARD
BY
PETITION NO.
& YEAR
LEADPETITIONER NEXTDATEFIXEDFORHEARING REMARKS IN BRIEF
1 CAT-PB Delhi OA1165/ 2011 Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP Orders Reserved on12.03.2015
SCPC Recommendations in respect of pensioners, who retired prior to 1.1.2006, was accepted and approved by the Union Cabinet, vide
MOP(DOP&PW) Resolution dated 29.08.2008 but while implementing, revised pension was wrongly reduced even where qqualifying service
was more than 20 years. This petition prays for refixation of pension at full rate where qualifying service happens to be more than 20
years, exactly as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008.UOI filed an affidavit on 15.04.14. A Counter to this would be filed soon.During
hearing on 23.05.14, Hon.ble Court stated that as per prayer of petitioners “parameters of revise pension should be same as for post
2006, although basically your plea is for full pension at 20 years of qualifying service.” Thereupon, Petitioners agreed to submit MA
withdrawing “same parameter” prayer by submitting an MA. The hon.ble Court stated that MA should be submitted and thereafter case can
be heard.
On 12.3.2015, on completion of arguments by both parties, orders reserved.

 

2 CAT-PB Delhi OA2165/ 2011 KR Srinivasan & Ors Vs. MOP/flOP Orders reserved on 12.03.2015 Same as for item 1 above.
3 CAT-PB Delhi OA 247 of 2012 17 Petitioners Orders reserved on 12.03.2015 Same as for item 1 above.
4 Lucknow HC Ser.Ben.203 2010 s29UP Officers 26.02.2015
The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay
corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pensioner had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective
1.1.2006.Heard on 16.4.14 but UOI Advocate sought time, which was granted. Heard on 15.05.14 and hon.ble Court issued order: “Sri
Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondent has filed written submissions after serving a copy upon learned counsel for
the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week’s time to file his
written submissions alongwith the convenience petition. Case was heard on 27.5.14 when hon.ble justice took on record the written
submission of Shri SN Shukla,Petitioner’s Advocate. As per latest Order dated 3.7.2014, HSC decision on pending SLPs 36148-50/2013
is awaited.
5 Delhi HC WP(C)3359/ 2010 Ex.Para Military <s29,s26) Association Vs UOI 13.08.2015
The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay
corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pension had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective
1.1.2006.

 

6 Supreme Court Contempt Petition (Civil)64/2009 SPS Vains, Major General &Ors. 01.07.2015
This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special
Instructions.
7 Supreme Court Civil Appeal 2966/2011 U0I Vs SPS Vains Mj. General & Ors 01.07.2015
This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special
Instructions.
8 Supreme Court Civil Appeal 8875-8876 of 2011.(Now clubbed with SLP (Civil)36148-36150 /2013.See item 15 below) U0I & Ors.Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors (Avtar Singh) DOJ 17.03.2015
C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012: Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following Order : O R D E R. Heard. Delay condoned.We see no reason to interfere with
the orders impugned. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
9 Supreme Court Civil Appeal 5367 -5368 / 2005 SLPC CC 5081-82/2004 Principal Secretary, Govt. Finance and Planning Deptt., Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P.Pensioners Samaj. DOJ:30.04.14
Heard on 30.04.2014 and dismissed with following remarks : “We do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion of the
High Court as well as of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.”
10 Delhi HC WPC No. 4572 of 2012 All India S30PensionersAssociationVs. UOI DOJ 19.8.13.
Full parity case wherein writ, order or direction sought are : (a) setting aside the impugned judgment dated 6th March, 2012
passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.937 of 2010; (b) calling for the records
of the case from the Respondent Authorities; (c) granting the
reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners in theirOriginal Application No.937 of 2010 filedbefore the Hon’ble Central AdministrativeTribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi; andJudgment thereof.. DHC has obsrved in

operating paras : we set aside the impugned

decision(s) dated March 06, 2012 and

simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010

and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication

on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the

petitioners for full parity. The decision shall

be rendered after giving full opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners and the decision

dated November 01, 2011 passed by the

Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees

shall not be treated as binding upon it by the

Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of

full parity the said decision was

pronounced notwithstanding said retirees

giving up the claim for full parity. The matter

would be decided in remand as early as

possible and preferably within three

months from today. Parties shall appear

through their counsel before the Registrar of

the Tribunal in the two original applications

on September 09, 2013 on which date OA

No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 shall be

listed before the Registrar.

11 CAT-PB OA No. 937 of 2010 and OA No. 2101 of 2010 (DHC order forFreshAdjudication)Review Petition 10/2015 All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOIUOI vs AIS30 DOJ:20.11.2014NDH:06.05.2015
Hon.ble Delhi High Court, in WP(C) 4572 of 2012 in case of All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI has, by order dated 19.8.2013,
has restored these two OAs for fresh adjudication on merits on the claim of full parity, giving full opportunity of hearing the
petitioners, without binding decision given on 1.11.2011 in case of OA No. 655 of 2010. Delhi HC has further ordered that the matter
would be decided in remand preferably within three months from
19.8.2013 and case be listed for hearing byon 9.9.2013, when both parties wouldappear before Registrar of CAT-PB. Judgment dated 20.11.2011 allowed O.A.Govt. filed Review Petition against the Judgment and the same will come up for hearing on 06.05.2015.
12 CAT-PB/Delhi Contempt PetitionNo.158 of2012 CG SAG (S29) PensionersAssociation,Shri SatishVerma, Rtd.CEVs. Shri RC

Mishra, Sec.

DOP,

MOP,GOI. and

Shri Sumit

Bose,

Sec.DOE,MOF,

GOI.

09.04.2015
This Petition is against non-compliance of orders passed by CAT-PB while giving Judgment in case of OA 0655/2010 with other OAs.
Consequent on dismissal of Writ Petition, SLP (C), Review Petition and Curative Petition, the case attained legal finality by the
Highest Court of Land. During the hearing of Contempt Petition on 15.5.2014, the counsel for Respondents informed that the CAT verdict
dated 1.11.2011 will be implemented qua the petitioners of OA 655/2010.
Para 3 of the Judgment dated 15.5.2014 is reproduced below :
3.In view of the above, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending and it would be appropriate
to dispose of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunalexpeditiously, preferably within
three months Accordingly, OM dated 26.8.2014 was issued. The compliance report is yet to be submitted by the Respondent.
13 CAT PR BenchDelhi MA 3857/2014 M.A./194/2015 & Others S/Shri A.Rajagopalan Dr. S.M.GovilAshok KumarVsUOI 09.04.2015
Earlier, the Govt. issued OM 28.1.2013 effective from 24.9.2012 for stepping up of pension to the level of Correct Minimum Revised
Pension based on Cabinet Approval, even when the Writ Petition filed by DOP&PW was pending before Hon. HC Delhi, the above OM dated
28.1.2013 was issued and arrears from 24.9.2012 onwards only were paid. On dismissal of Writ Petition, SLP, Review Petition, Curative
Petition, etc., the CAT verdict 1.11.2011 attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land. During the contempt petition hearing on
15.5.2014 the CAT PR Bench disposed of the matter on hearing the Respondent’s decision to implement the CAT Order dated 1.11.2011 qua
petitioners of OA 655/2010. Five Misc. Applications have been filed by non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners seeking arrears from 1.1.2006
onwards.
14 Supreme Court SLP (Civil)19784 of 2013withSLP(C)CC12122,12366,1

2373,13325 &

14816.

Haryana Viduat Prasaran Nigam Ltd & Ors Vs R K Agarwal and Ors DOJ 28.10.13
This SLP is againsst Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in case of CWP No. 19641 of 2009 R K Agarwal &0rs. Vs. HVPN Ltd &
Ors. dated 21.12.2012. Hearing took place wheein Haryana Advocate pleaded about Haryana Regulations for Pensioners and about financial
implications which Respondents Advocate opposed. Court was not impressed but allowed them to put up their arguments in writing for
orders before next hearing which was fixed for 28.10.2013 when following orders were passed : Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. Permission is granted.
Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
15 Supreme Court SLP(C)CCNo.18339 -341of 2013 converted toSLPC 36148-50/2013(Now clubbed with CA No.8875-76 / 2011 and other CAs.

See item 8 above)

UOI Vs DLVhora & Ors. DOJ17.03.2015
The SLPs alongwith 4 SLPs relating to civilian pensioners and about 44 Civil Appeals relating to military pensioners will be heard on
only Tuesday (which is a Non-Misc. Day for HSC cases). The case came up for hearing on 17.2.2015 first and then adjourned to 20.2.2015.
HSC appears to have raised issue of clubbing of so many cases and sought clarification about it. As sought by the Govt. Advocate, time
is granted and next date of hearing is 17.3.2015.On 17.03.2015 Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following order : Order
.SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013 , SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 & SLP(C) Nos……. of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904) :We see no reason to
interfere with the orders impugned. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor
General, however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the
implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I. may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not
opposed by counsel opposite. We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders
failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical
conclusion.All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.
16 SupremeCourt ContemptPetition (Civil)No. 328 of2013 N.K. Nair &Anr. VsShashikantSharma & Ors. 30.03.15 While implementing 4th CPC Report pay ofArmy , Navy and AF Officers upto Brigadierlevel and equivalent, was fixed withoutadding Rank Pay. Hon.le Supreme Courtvide Judgment dated 4.9.12 had directed for

refixation of their pay after adding the Rank

Pay and arrears paid accordingly. MOD

issued orders on 27.12.12 for

implementation of the said Judgment. CP(C)

328 of 2013 has been preferred in Supreme

Court with plea that (1) Judgment should be

implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not as on

1.1.1986,(2) Minimum of Pay in Integrated

Pay Scale for each Rank of officers given in

SAI 1/S/87 for Amy and equivaalent officers

in Navy and AF should also be raised,(3)

Maximum of Integratred Pay scale i.e. 5,100

should also be raised and (4) Refixation of

revised pay on 1.1.1996 (5th CPC) and

1.1.2006 (6th CPC) should be done again on

the basis of law set by the above mentioned

Judgment of the Apex Court, now, meaning

thereby, that, the revised pay should be refixed by adding into existing pay the

admissible component of Rank Pay or MSP,

as the case may be and,payment of arrears

be made,accordingly. Further, it is learnt

that the Attorney General for India, when

Govt. sought his advice, has advised, after

due consideration of the pleas in the light of

Apex Court Judgment to agree to plea (1)

and (4) and not to agree for (2) and

(3). Heard on 15.11.13 and notices issued to

alleged contemptners to appear in person on

next date of hearing.On 17.2.14 Court heard

the case, none of the Respondents appeared

but their Advocate, SG, sought time for

submitting Counter Court allowed two

weeks time.On 10.03.14 Advocate on record

for petitioners sought time for submitting

Rejoinder Affidavit and Court allowed two

weeks time. On 31.03.14 HSC heard and

passed following orders : In light of the

rival submission as above, let an

application be made by the petitioners

for impleadment of the present Defence

Secretary and Controller General of Defence

Accounts. The application may be listed for

consideration as and when made. Rejoinder

Affidavit has not been submitted by the

Petitioners till 07.03.14 as mentioned in

Office Report submitted by Asst. Registrar

on 07.03.14. Heard on 3103.14 when Court

passed following order : 5. In light of the rival submission as above, let an

application be made by the petitioners

for impleadment of the present Defence

Secretary and Controller General of Defence

Accounts. 6. The application may be listed

for consideration as and when made.

17 Supreme Court CurativePetition No.126 of 2014 UOI VsCGSAGs29PensionersAssociation DOJ30.04.2014
This Curative Petition was against dismissal of Review Petition No. 2492 of 2013. The five Judgme Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court
presided over by the hon.ble CJI himself, dismissed this petition on 30.04.2014 stating that no case was made out within the parameters
indicated in the decision of this Court in case of Rupa Ashok Hurra and Ashok Hurra reported in 2002(4)SCC 388
18 Supreme Court SLP(C) 19784SLP (C) CC12122, 12366, 12373, 13325,14816, all of2013. H V P N LVs. R KAgarwal and Other 5Respondents DOJ28.10.13 These SLPs (along with applications forcondoning the delay) are against P&H HighCourt Judgments granting Modified Parity toHaryana State Govt. Pensioners.Heard on18.10.13. Hon.ble Court asked UOI Advocateto submit written statement before next

hearing. Case was heard on 28.10.13 and

following order were passed : Learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners

seeks permission to withdraw the special

leave petitions with liberty to approach

the High Court. Permission is granted.

Consequently, the special leave petitions

are dismissed as withdrawn with the

liberty as aforesaid.

19 Supreme Court SLP (C) CC 2001-2002/2015 UOI (Secretary, DOP&PW)vsShri K.VenugopalanNair DOJ12.02.2015
The Pensioner Shri K.Venugopalan Nair (S-26) sought modified parity based Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the CAT Ernakulam
Bench allowed the OA.

The Hon. HC, Kerala vide common Judgment dated 23.1.2014 (S.shri P.K.Barghavan Pillai’s full MRP for Pro-rata pensioner case and Shri
K.Venugopalan Nair’s case) upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam.

UOI represented by Secretary, DOP&PW filed SLPs only in the case of Shri K.Venugopalan Nair against the aforesaid common judgment
of Hon. HC Kerala, in HSC. The HSC on 12.2.2015 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions on merits.
20 SupremeCourt SLP(C) 33864of 2013 U.O.I,SECRETARY,MIN OF COMMUNICATION&ORS VsRAM KISHANPANIPAT DOJ28.10.13 Heard on 28.10.13. Hon.ble Supreme Courtpassed following order : We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by theHigh Court.Consequently,the specialleave petition is dismissed. However, thepetitioners are at liberty to raise all points

before the Tribunal as and when the appeal,

including the contempt petition is preferred.

21 CAT /Chandigarh Con.Pet.No.84 / 2013 Atma Singh VsU.O.I.,Secret.,DOPand Secret.Comunication CP discharged. Modified parity case. CAT/Chandigarh in OANo. 44/HR/2012 gave judgment directing UOIto fix revised pension in terms Resolutiondated 29.8.2008 but UOI preferred CWP22510/2012 in P&H HC and the same was


disallowed.UOI then preferred SLP(C) CC 13280 / 2013, which HSC dismissed on 29.7.2013, alongwith SLP(C) 23055, which was against
CGSAGs29 Pensioners Association. Contempt Petition No. 84/2013 has been filed against UOI, Sec. /DOP and Sec. / Coomunicastion. for
their failure in implementing CAT/Ch. directions, even


when Review Petition has also been dismissed.Now, the Contempt Petition is discharged with the issue of Provisional implementation
order to Shri Atma Singh.

22 P & H HighCourt EA 35 /2013 inCWP3452/2010 O P Kapur&Ors Vs Stateof Haryana &Ors DOJ 14.03.14 In CWP 3452 P&H HC on 21.12.2012 haddirected Haryana Govt. to refix pensiongiving modifed parity and pay arrearsthereto within two months or pay arrearswith 9 % interest after 1.3.2013. Haryana

Govt. preferred SLPC 19784/2013 which was

dismissed as withdrawn by the hon.ble

Supreme Court on 28.10.2013.Haryana Govt.

then filed a Reviw Application in P&H HC to review the Order dated 21.12.2012 despite

the affirming order by the hon.ble Supreme

Court, which was dismissed on 31.01.2013.

During the hearing of EA 35/2013 on

26.02.2014 the P&H HC has passed

following orders : “It is made clear that in

case necessary steps are not initiated and

amount is not disbursed to the

applicants/petitioners before the next date

of hearing, this Court may be constrained to

call the official respondents in Court or

order may be passed to attach salaries of

the Officers concerned.” During hearing on

14.03.2014 Govt. Advocate informed the

Court that the PPOs of Petitioners have

been revised and orders for payment of

arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006,

along with 9 % interest thereon, have been

issued.

23 CAT PR Bench Delhi OA 3262/2010 Dr. D.K.Jain, INCMRVsUOI DOJ:19.04.2012
. The Judgment pronounced on 19.4.2012 observed that invoking (quashed) OM dated 3.10.2008 to reduce the applicant’s (prorata
pensioner) pension is not legally sustainable. (Also Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, is only for fixing basic pension at the time of
retirement, but not for revision based on CPC recommendation). However, the CAT PR Bench directed to revise the pension based on
outcome of the Hon. HC decision in Writ Petitions filed in OA 655/2010 batch cases. With the dismissal of Writ Petitions, the CAT Order
has been implemented. Certain clarifications in the implementation orders are pending.
24 Delhi HighCourt WP(C)7828/2013 RetiredRailway MedicalOfficersAssociation &ors vs Union

of India & ors.

DOJ 22.1.2015 This case is for payment of N.P.A. to Pre2006 retirees. Heard on 11.12.13. Petitioners did not press for stay. Court accordingly didnot grant stay but allowed Petition to beheard. While disposing off the case, the Hon. HC Delhi ordered on 22.1.2015 as follows:
“Dr. Rakesh Gosain, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the HSC vide its decision dated 27.11.2013 in Civil Appeals
No.10640-46/2013 in Dr. K.C. Bajaj and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., has given directions to the respondents to recalculate the
pensions payable to the appellants therein by adding the element of NPA after setting aside and quashing the O.M. dated 17.12.1998 and
orders passed to the contrary by the learned Tribunal as also by this Court.The counsel further submits that now the issue is no more
res integra and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of NPA which will add to their pension amount.

Mr.Deepak Jain, the counsel who appears on behalf of the Railway Board, submits that vide a recent decision taken by the Railway Board
dated 21.1.2015, a decision has been taken in favour of one Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta post his retirement to extend the said benefit of
NPA. Taking into consideration the said decision taken by the Ministry of Railways dated 21.1.2015 and the judgment of the Apex Court,
we are of the view that these railway Doctors who are pre or post retiree employees of 1996 are entitled to the benefit of said NPA for
calculation of their pension and therefore, we direct the respondents to recalculate the pension payable to members of the petitioner
association adding the benefit of NPA and release the same in their favour within six months from the date of this order”.

25 CAT PR BenchDelhi O.A/971/2012 O.A../4130/2013 SHRI S.N.DIXIT(RETIRED FROM MIN. OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS) VS UOI DOJ:19.01.2015
The case is for placing S-21 to S-23 of Pay Band 3, to Pay Band-4. The case stands dismissed as per the CAT PR Bench Judgment
pronounced on 19.1.2015.
26 CATMumbai Bench OA 135/2012 Shri M.P.Sankaran&17others(AREWA)VsUOI Next Date of Hearing expected in May 2015 The case is for placing pre revised pay scales S-21 to S-23 from Pay Band 3, to Pay Band-4.
27 CATPR Bench Delhi O.A./1545/2014 Shri Shaji Abraham and others (Pro-rata Pensioners absorbed in TRAI) 24.03.2015
The case is for challenging para 5 of OM 28.1.2013 relating to proportionate reduction in Minimum Revised Pension. After one year from
the date of filing of OA, the case came up for hearing for a very short time on 17.2.2015 and now adjourned to 24.3.2015.
28 CAT Bangalore BenchHon. HC Karnataka OA 167/2010WP/26917/2012 Shri N.B.BhatvsUOIUOIvs

Shri N.B.Bhat

Awaited
The Tribunal Judgment dated 25.1.2012 decided as follows: 1. The learned counsels on both sides are present and the learned counsel for
the applicant submits that this matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Principal Bench in OA.655/2010. The learned counsel
for the respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for the OA to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.

The Dept of pension and AG Karnataka filed Writ Petition at HC Karnataka and the same is dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.2013 with
reserved right to petitioners to file Review Petition before CAT Bangalore Bench. Further details are awaited.
29 CAT Ernakulam BenchHon. HC KeralaHon. HC Kerala OA 747/2011OP(CAT) 1767/2012RP 741/2014 Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai vs UOIUOI vs Shri P.K.Bhargavan PillaiUOI
vs Shri P.K.Bharghavan Pillai
24.02.2015
In OA 747/2011 Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai (a pro-rata pensioner) vs UOI, the Hon. CAT Ernakulam Bench dated 23.1.2012 It is declared
that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay in the scale of pay of . 15,600/- and 50% of the grade pay attached to it as
pension.The UOI filed Appeal in HC, Kerala.

The HC Kerala dismissed the Appeal of UOI and upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam Bench. By virtue of this, a pro-rata pensioner
irrespective of his qualifying service at the time of retirement, is entitled for full Minimum Revised Pension without any
proportionate reduction in Pension. The Govt. filed Review Petition and it was listed for hearing on 10.2.2015. THE REVIEW PETITION IS
DISMISSED ON 24.2.2015
30 CAT Bangalore BenchHon. HC Karnataka OA 231/2012WP-49080-82/2013 Shri G.R. Parthasarathy vs UOIUOIvsShri G.R.Parthasarathy Implementation Orders Awaited
The CAT Bangalore Bench allowed OA 231/2012 on the basis of CAT PB Order 1.11.2011 which quashed OM 11.2.2009 and thereby upgraded GP
applicable for pre-revised scale is admissible for pre-2006 pensioners concerned. The Writ Petitions disposed of with a direction to
comply with CAT Order dated 8.3.2013 granting upgraded grade pay of pre-revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 if the pending SLPs at HSC are
dismissed. AS PER ACTION TAKEN REPORT DT. 3.2.2015 OF PREVIOUS SCOVA MEETING THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO DEPT. OF EXPENDITURE ON
17.1.2015

.
31 CAT PR BenchDelhi OA 2461/2012REVIEW APPEALCP 171/2014 Shri R.C.Garg vsUOIUOIvsShri R.C.Garg

Shri R.C.Garg vs

UOI

19.07.2015
Extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pension purpose) w.e.f.1.1.2006. Contempt Petition for
implementation of Tribunal’s Order dated 30.7.2013 has been filed by Shri R.C.Garg and the same is listed for hearing on 2.2.2015.

(1) The Judgment pronounced on 30.7.2013 directed Respondents to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- to the
applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking
full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006
retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006. (2) Review Appeal by DOP dismissed on 7.1.2015 mainly based on CAT Judgment 20.11.2014
in S-30 Pensioners case for full parity. The Contempt Petition filed by Shri R.C.Garg is listed for hearing on 2.2.2015. Now the same
stands adjourned to 3.3.2015 and now the next date of hearing is 19.07.2015
32 CAT Ernakulam BenchHon. HC Kerala OA 579/2013OP (CAT) No.120/2014 Shri T.K.Radha-krishna PillaiVsUOI UOIVs

Shri T.K.R.Pillai

SLP under proposal
The applicant took voluntary retirement as Inspector of Central Excise on 31.12.2000. He had a total service of 25 years, 03 months and
05 days including the weightage of 05 years. At the time of his retirement his pay scale was Rs. 6500-10500. According to him, the
corresponding pay band as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 was Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and the minimum pay in the
pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 in respect of those who were in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 is Rs. 12090/-

The Judgment dated 31.1.2014 ordered that a pensioner is entitled to 50% of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus grade pay of the
post from which he retired. Hence the O.A is allowed The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order to the
applicant specifying the pension on the basis of Annexure A4 and A6 and para 4.2 of Annexure A3 OM dated 01.09.2008 i.e., 50% of the
minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of Inspector of Central Excise, which is Rs. 12090 Rs. 4600 GP with effect from
01.01.2006 The OP(CAT) No.120/2014 was dismissed by Hon. HC Kerala on 23.6.2014. The implementation orders were issued to the
pensioner. SLP under proposal.
33 CAT Ernakulam BenchHon. HC Kerala OA 715/2012OP (CAT) No.8/2014 Shri M.O.InasuVsUOIUOIVs

Shri M.O.Inasu

Provisional Pension orders issued
SHRI INASU RETIRED ON 31.10.2002 WITH 26 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS QUALIFYING SERVICE FROM CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN. THE OA FILED BY HIM WAS
ALLOWED ON 16.8.2013. THE GOVT. APPEALED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT. THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF GOVT. ON 7.1.2014.

THE COURT ORDERS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY ISSUING ORDER DATED 13.3.2014 GRANTING FULL MINIMUM REVISED PENSION RS.7215 APPLICABLE FOR
PRE-REVISED SCALE RS.5500-9000 FROM WHICH SHRI INASU RETIRED. Subsequently, a letter was issued in May 2014 stating that the above
Order is subject to future WP/SLP being filed against the Judgment. It is learnt that SLP is awaiting admission.
34 Hon. HC Madras W.P.No.11739 of 2007 (T) Shri N.SubramanianVsGovt. of Tamilnadu 22.12.2014 The petitioner rendered more than 30 years of service when he retired voluntarily from service. After his retirement in 1983 the Government
issued G.O.Ms.No.1108 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.12.1987 giving weightage of service for five years for the
persons who were going on voluntary retirement. Thus, the Government has liberalised the pension scheme by giving certain benefits. The
Government could have thought that by giving such weightage more persons could leave the service. The claim of the petitioner is that the
weightage of 5 years in the case of voluntary retirement shall be given to him also and the monetary benefits could be given from the date
of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1108 PEXTRACTS OF JUDGMENT 22.12.2014 “4.Whenever the pension scheme is liberalized by giving certain benefits it has been well-settled by a
catena of decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in D.S.Nakara V. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 that the
Government cannot arbitrarily fix the cut off date for the liberalised scheme of pension. 10. The facts are not in dispute. It is true that
the petitioner retired on 10.07.1983 and the weightage of 5 years service along with the service rendered at the time of voluntary
retirement was introducedonly by way of G.O.Ms.No.1108, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.12.1987 11.But it is
well-settled law that whenever the Government introduces any scheme liberalising pension the same cannot be denied to the employees, who
retired prior to the date of issuance of the G.O. But the Government could only say that the persons like the petitioner could get monetary
benefits only from the date of issuance of G.O. 12.It has been held so categorically in D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1983 SC 130). .
ž5. ….. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up
and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of
continuously rising prices the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs we are satisfied that by introducing an
arbitrary eligibility criteria: ‘being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalised
pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having
been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being
thoroughly arbitrary we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and
retiring subsequent to that date’ in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P-I and P-2, violates Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down.
……… Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations
shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of
retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. ….. 13.The same principle is also
reiterated in the judgment of the Apex Court in V.Kasturi V. Managing Director State Bank of India, Bombay and Another AIIR 1999 SC 81.
š1.If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment
of the relevant pension scheme he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new
formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision
from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on
all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground
that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of
pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions
tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases”. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
35 CATErnakulam Bench OA K.V.KurianVsUOI Pre-2006 Pro-rata Pensioner’s case.Details awaited. Implementation Orders issued.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Govtempdiary

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading