AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. KK Dey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,
2 and 3. Ms. P Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.4 whereas Mr. A Chetri, the learned counsel appears for the
respondent No.5.
The petitioners are sons and daughter of late Uttam Chandra Goswami and Smti Renu Goswami. Sri Uttam Chandra Goswami retired from the
post of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 01.06.1986. After his retirement, he was enjoying his pension along with other retirement
dues. However, he expired on 15.06.1993 and thereafter, his wife Smti Renu Goswami was drawing the family pension of the late employee. Smti
Renu Goswami also thereafter unfortunately expired on 15.08.2013. Although she was enjoying the family pension during her lifetime, she was not
given the new revised pension which was introduced by the State respondent vide Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2010 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. That is
how the petitioners are before this Court claiming the benefit of the new revised pension. The petitioners have also annexed a certificate of next of kin
dated 01.03.2014 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) showing them as the sons and daughters of late Renu Goswami.
The nature of the controversy lies in a narrow compass. With the introduction of the new revised pension vide Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2010 (the OM) pursuant to the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008 revised pension/ family pension was accorded in respect
of pre 01.01.2006 pensioner/family pensioners as provided in the OM. It was also provided that the order shall apply to all the pensioners/family
pensioners who were drawing /entitled to pension/family pension as on 31.12.2005 under the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 as amended.
Clause-3(a) of the OM provides for consolidation/ revision of pension/ family pension which is to be calculated in the manner provided therein. It is
further provided under Clause-3 (b) that the computation under Clause 3 (a) will be subject to the condition that the revised basic pension in no case
should be lower than 50 % of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the Grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay
scale from which the pensioner had retired. Clause-5 of the same OM also provides that the revision of pension/ family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to
31.03.2009 is to be made notionally and no arrear shall accrue during this period. However, arrear w.e.f. 01.04.2009 may be calculated and paid by
the pension disbursing authorities including selected nationalized /public sector bank in a single installment.
In so far as payment of arrear is concerned, the State Government in the Finance Department subsequently issued a notification under Memo No.
FPC/109/2010/211 dated 29.02.2016 granting arrear w.e.f. 01.10.2008.
With the introduction of the new revised pension by the OM dated 01.06.2010, the disbursing authority i.e. the State Bank of India made a revision
of the pension in terms of the Clause-5 of the OM dated 01.06.2010. Accordingly, the SBI (respondent No.3) vide communication dated 14.06.2013
(Annexure-10), communicated the revision of the family pension to the mother of the petitioners. As per the calculation, the basic pension was
calculated at Rs.2590/-, medical allowances at Rs.600/-, Dearness allowance of 72 % at Rs.2124/- and thus, the net monthly pension was arrived at
Rs.5674/-.
Against the said communication, the family pensioner Ms. Renu Goswami made a representation before the respondent SBI on 08.04.2013 stating
that as per Clause-3 (b)(1) of the OM dated 01.06.2010, the revised basic pension in no case could be lower than 50% of the sum of minimum of the
pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. By applying the said
clause, she represented that the basic pension ought to have been fixed at Rs.8700/-per month as on 01.01.2006 and the payment at the given rate
alongwith the dearness relief was due w.e.f. 01.102008 in view of the Finance Department’s instruction dated 29.02.2016. However, as the claim
of the petitioner was not entertained, the petitioner is before this Court.
Mr. SK Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that OM dated 01.06.2010 at clause No.3 (b) (1) provides in clear terms
about the entitlement of the petitioner in case the calculation as per Clause-3 (a) is lower than 50 % of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay
band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. He submits that admittedly since the
amount calculated under the Clause-3 (a) was lesser than 50 % of the last pay from which the pensioner had retired, Clause-3 (b) (1) will be
applicable.
The learned counsel for the SBI draws the attention of the Court to the communication made by the office of the Principal Accountant General,
Assam on 26.08.2013 by which the SBI was instructed that the revision of family pension in respect of employees of the State Government, family
pension is to be made on the basis of Clause-3 (a) of OM No.26 dated 01.06.2010 and on the basis of the ready reckoner. Revision of family pension
as per Clause-3 (b) was not applicable to family pensioners as the OM has not allowed the same. He therefore submits that it was on this basis that
calculation as per the new revised pension was made.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. SK Ghosh submits that a similar and identical matter wherein the disbursing authority
concerned was the United Bank of India, this Court held that Clause-3 (b) (1) of the OM dated 01.06.2010 will be applicable to family pensioner.
Reference made by Mr. SK Ghosh is to the case of Bulu Baruah â€"vs- State of Assam, reported in 2017 (2) GLT 856. A perusal of the said decision
goes to show that against the refusal of the disbursing authority to calculate the family pension as per the revised structure, Court held that clause 3(b)
(1) will be applicable and the same having not taken into consideration by the concerned bank authorities, a direction accordingly was made.
For better appreciation the relevant paragraphs of the decision may be reproduced herein below:-
“4. Another issue projected by the writ petitioner is denial of the benefits as contained in Clause 3(b)(i) of the Office Memorandum dated
01.06.2010, issue d by the Government of Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department. By the a foresaid Memorandum dated 01.06.2010,
pursuant to the decision of the Government on the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, it was stated that the Governor of Assam
had accorded sanction for regulation/revision of pension/family pension with effect from 01.01.2006 in respect of pre 01.01.2006 pensioners/family
pensioners in the manner as indicated therein.
A salient feature of the said Office Memorandum is that the Memorandum i s to apply to all pensioners/family pensioners who were
drawing/entitled to pens ion/family pension on 31.12.2005 under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 as amended. An existing pensioner/family
pensioner is defined as a pensioner/family pensioner who was drawing or entitled to pension/family pension on 31.12.2005. The petitioner is both an
existing pensioner and family pensioner as she was drawing pension and family pension on 31.12.2005.
Clause 3 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum provides for consolidation/ revision of pension /family pension. It will be appropriate to extract
Clause 3 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum for a better understanding: 3. Consolidation/revision of pension/Family pension. a. The pension/Family
pension of existing pensioner/Family pensioner i.e. p re 01.01.2006 pensioner shall be consolidated/revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 notionally by adding
together - i. Existing Basic pension/family pension as on 31.12.2005. ii. Fitment benefit equal to 40% of basic pension/family pension and iii. Dearness
Relief at the rate of 86% of Basic pension/Family pension. iv. The amount so computed on the basis of the above principles shall be rou nded off to
the next multiple of Rs. 10 and will be Basic Pension for all purpos es with effect from 01.01.2006. b. The above computation is subject to the
following conditions: i. The revised Basic pension in no case shall be lower than fifty percent o f the sum of minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and
Grade Pay thereon correspond ing to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. ii. Pension for the purpose of this calculation will
include commuted portion of pension if so commuted. iii. Payment of revised pension shall be subject to exclusion of commuted por tion till the
restoration is due. iv. No fresh commutation will be admissible on the revised pension.
As on 31.12.2005, the petitioner was drawing family pension of Rs. 1,586 .00. After coming into force of the aforesaid Office Memorandum on
01.06.2010, f amily pension was revised by the respondent No. 3 to Rs. 3,590.00 as on 01.01.20 06 in terms of Clause 3(a) of the Office
Memorandum.
Annexure-3, which is an extract of the revised pay structure, as published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 04.02.2010, indicates that the
pos t of General Manager of District Industries Centre is in Pay Band 4, which is from Rs. 12,000.00 up to Rs. 40,000.00. The Grade Pay for the post
of General Manager is fixed at Rs. 6,400.00. Submission of Mr. Ghosh is that t he total of minimum of Pay Band amounting to Rs. 12,000.00 and the
Grade Pay of Rs. 6,400.00 comes to a total of Rs. 18,400.00 and, as such, 50% of the same being Rs. 9,200.00, in terms of Clause 3(b)(i), revised
pension cannot be less than Rs. 9,200.00.
It appears that there was confusion with regard to the fixation of revised pension in respect of pre 01.01.2006 pensioner/family pensioner and to
dispel the misgivings and to clarify the intent of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2 010, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension and
Public Grievances Department, issued a letter dated 07.08.2012 to respondent No. 4 as well as, amongst others, to the Regional Manager, United
Bank of India, Central Assam Regional Office, Guwahati. In the said letter it was noted as follows:
It has come to the notice of the Govt. that, dispute has arisen in the minds of some implementing authority as to the applicability of Section 3(b) I of
the said O.M. in connection with the fixation of revised pension of Pre 01.01.2 006 pensioner/family pensioner causing confusion in disposing of
pension cases o f concerned pensioners, whose cases are governed as per the Assam Services (Pens ion) Rules 1969. The Finance PRU Department
was consulted and the Department vide their U /O No. FPC 147/2010 dated 30.09.2010 and No. FPC 89/2010 dated 26.07.2012 has further clarified
the matter that the provision contained in para 3(b) (I) of Office Memorandum No. PPG(P) 88/2010/26 dated 01.06.2010 appears to be clear and is in
order. In view of the above, you are requested to take in to account the Ready Reckoner and the provision of Section 3(b)(I) of the O.M. No. PPG(P)
88/2010/26 dated 01.06.2010 while fixing of pension/family pension of Pre 01.01.2006 pensio ner subject to the maximum limit of Rs. 27,500/- (twenty
seven thousand and five hundred) per month. It is further clarified that this order shall be applicable to those pensioners who have drawing pension on
01.01.2006 in the Pre Revised Scale.
A perusal of the above extract demonstrates that Clause 3(b)(i) is to be taken into account while fixing pension and family pension in respect of
pre 01 .01.2006 pensioners. It is apparent that the United Bank of India (respondent No . 3) had not taken into account Clause 3(b)(i) while
undertaking exercise of revision of family pension of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the respondent bank is directed to take into account
Clause 3(b)(i) for the purpose of fixation of family pension as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from today.â€
From the abstract made above, it may be seen that the issue in the present writ petition has already been dealt with by this Court by holding that
Clause No.3-(b) (1) will apply in respect of the family pensioners. The case of the writ petitioner is therefore only covered by the said Judgment.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to make a fresh calculation of the pension
entitled to the family pensioner in terms of Clause-3 (b) (1) of the OM dated 01.06.2010. As provided in the same OM, the revised pension will be
notionally fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the arrear dues will be calculated w.e.f. 01.10.2008 in view of the notification of the Finance Department dated
29.02.2016. Naturally, the amount already paid will be deductable after fresh calculation is made as directed. The aforesaid exercise shall be done by
the respondents more particularly, the respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible whereafter, the amount shall be released to the petitioners.
Consequently, the impugned communication dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure-19) stands interfered with.