AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Om Prakash Mishra, the applicant in person and Shri K P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
i.That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to Directed to respondents to pay the additional quantum on completion of 79 year age or from the very 1st day of 80th year of age i.e., 01.07.2024 instead of 01.07.2025 rectifying the PPO with permissible 9% interest as per rules.
ii.That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any other order of direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant who has retired from the service of the respondents’ department is aggrieved by the fact that respondents have paid the additional pension and issued revised PPO w.e.f. 01.07.2025 i.e., the day when he has completed 80 years of age, however, the applicant has contended that the said additional pension is liable to be given to him on completion of 79 years of age or from the very first day of 80th year of age i.e., 01.07.2024 as the applicant has claimed that the extant rules and provisions permit the same. Thus, by way of this original application, the applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to issue revised PPO by rectifying the aforesaid mistake and to also pay consequential dues with permissible interest rate in a time bound manner.
Counter has been filed by the respondents stating that as per extant rules and provisions, the applicant was entitled to be given additional pension after completion of 80 years and his claim to get the same after completion of 79 years of age is uncalled for. Date of birth of the applicant is 01.07.1945 and as such, as per guidelines and rules of Railway Department, he is entitled to get additional pension after completion of 80 years of age i.e., from 01.07.2025 and the same was conferred upon the applicant by way of the revised PPO issued in this regard and therefore, no illegality or perversity has been committed on behalf of the department.
Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the facts and circumstances as narrated in the original application. Applicant has also claimed that his case is squarely covered by several case laws and judicial pronouncements and has annexed the same with the rejoinder.
I have heard the applicant who is present in person and also heard learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the records.
Applicant submitted that he was working in the respondents’ department and retired on 30.06.2025 and his date of birth is 01.07.1945. PPO was issued which was revised from time to time after the pay commissions. Referring to the original PPO as well as revised PPO annexed with the OA, the applicant argued that now he is aged about 81 years. In the PPO, it is mentioned that the pensioner shall be eligible for 20% extra pension from the age 20 years to less than 85 years. The respondents ought to have revised the PPO as and when the applicant just completed 79 years and from the first day itself when he entered into the 80th year. Although PPO has been revised but after completion of 80th year which is illegal. In support of his submissions, applicant has referred to the documents annexed with the OA and rejoinder affidavit and argued that the OA be allowed and respondents be directed to revise the PPO adding 20% extra pension just when the applicant completed the age of 79 years and entered into the 80th year.
Applicant has also argued that in identical situation some of the pensioners had approached before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court raising the same concern which was accepted and direction was issued to revise the PPO just after the candidate completed 79 years of age and from the first date of the 80th year. The judgment and order passed by the Guwahati High Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed. The aforesaid judgment dated 15.03.2018 was passed by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Case No. WP(C) 4224/2016 titled Virendra Dutt Gyani Vs The Union of India and 5 others, and the applicant has placed reliance upon the same.
Applicant has also placed reliance upon the following case laws:
Judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 446 of 2023 titled Geeta Akshar Kumar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And Others.
Judgment dated 03.09.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) in Writ Pettiion No 105189/2014 (S-RES) titled Siddangounda Shivabasanagouda Ayyangoudra Vs The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Indian Audit & Accounts Department, Karnataka And others.
Judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru) in Writ Petition No 3698 of 2024 (S-RES) titled Sri Lokanath Shetty Vs The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Indian Audit & Accounts Department, Karnataka.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the extant rules as well as circulars do not permit to extend the benefit of 20% additional pension from the first date of 80th year. Benefit of 20% pension will be available to the pensioners when they completed 80th year from the first date of the 81st year. Rules prevalent on this issue have not been changed. It was also argued that judgment of the Guwahati High Court came in respect of Judges of the High Courts in “Service Conditions and Rules” and in context of the particular Act / Rule, provision has been interpreted. Applicant belongs to Railway Department and thus decision of the Guwahati High Court passed in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) will not be applicable in the present case. It is also argued that pension to an employee is fixed according to the rule applicable to them. Applicant has filed the present OA in the year 2025. If submissions raised on his behalf are taken into consideration, then also, he would have completed 79 years in 2023 itself. By that time, although, Railway services Pension Rules 2026 were not in existence and rather Railway Services Pension Rules 1993 was applicable yet similar issue came up for consideration before Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in Original Applications No. 115, 118, 179 and 222 of 2022 and the Tribunal after considering the relevant circular as well as judgment passed by the Guwahati High Court in VirendraDuttGyani(supra) case, observed that 20% extra pension can be added after completion of 80 years from the first date of 81st year.
Applicant has also filed rejoinder affidavit rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit. Through rejoinder, applicant has also placed reliance upon the following case laws:
Judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur in Writ Petition No 22739 of 2021 titled Dr K K Kaul Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Judgment dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No 1102 of 2022 titled Sqn Ldr Yogesh Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India and Others.
Judgment dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi in OA No 1438 of 2023 titled JWO KT Verghese (Retd) Vs Union of India and Ors.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents on record and carefully perused the case laws relied upon.
Admitted fact between the parties is that the applicant was aged about 81 years at the time of filing of the present OA in the year 2025. Pension of the applicant was revised time to time on the basis of pay commissions. Applicant’s claim is that he is entitled for 20% extra pension just after completing 79 years when he entered into 80th year from the very first date. The respondents have denied this claim with the pleading that rule does not permit so. Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the case laws relied upon by the contesting parties.
In the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion:
“32.Therefore, on a thorough consideration of the matter, we hold that the benefit of additional quantum of pension as per Section 17B of the Act in the first slab would be available to be a retired judge from the first day of his 80th year. In so far petitioner is concerned, he would be entitled to the said benefit from 30-07-2015 which was the first day of his 80th year. Ordered accordingly.”
When the aforesaid judgment was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No 18133/2019, the same was dismissed by the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 08.07.2019.
In the case of Dr K K Kaul (supra) passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion:
“14.Petitioner is in twilight zone of his life span and the date for reckoning 80 years for benefit of additional pension is to be counted from the date when person enters 80th year of age and not when he completes 80 years. In the present case, the date of birth of petitioner is 13th of October, 1931 and therefore, he entered into 80th years of age on 13th of October, 2011, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit from 13th of October, 2011 whereby respondents have to give additional pension of 20% as per their circular with this date. It is the duty of respondents that considering his age and past services, they shall promptly decide the case and disburse the benefits at an expeditious note preferably within one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, so that it may be a case of vindication of his services rendered to society.
15.In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed. Petitioner is entitled to get additional pension when he entered into 80 years of age on 13-10- 2011. On similar analogy, other benefits of 85th year and 90th year would also be extended to the petitioner as per law if he is otherwise entitled for the same.”
In the case of Sq LDR Yogesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) passed by the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal, the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion:
“6.Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the respondetns who made a bland statement before this Tribunal and their interpretation of the whole issue appears to be irrational and mechanical. The contention that this would be available to the High Court Judges from the first day of their 80th year is on the interpretation given by the Guwahati High Court vide its judgment dated 15th March, 2018 in Writ Petition No 4224/2016 and could not be extended to the pensioners of the Armed Forces until and unless the DoP&PW being a nodal department on pensionary matters, suffers from non appreciation of basic principles of interpretation of statutes and also the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Guwahati High Court accepts this judgment is wholly misconceived.”
Similarly, in the case of JWO KT Verghese (Rtd) passed by the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal, the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion:
“6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival submissions and in view of the fact that matters identical in nature have already been decided by this Tribunal in the cases of Virender Dutt Gyani (supra) and Lt. Gen Gorakh Nath (supra). We allow this OA and set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to pay the applicant the additional / enhanced pension with additional quantum at the rate of 20% with all consequential benefits from the first day of 80th year of the applicant i.e., 20th May 2021 with arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the applicant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the amount due.”
Similar view has also been taken by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Geeta Akshar Kumar (supra) which was recorded referring to the case of Siddangounda Shivabasanagouda Ayyangoudra (supra) of the Dharwad Bench of High Court of Karanataka. The relied upon portion is as under:
“10.The sole question for consideration in the present OA is whether a pensioner becomes entitled to 20% enhancement in pension from the date he enters the age of 80 or when he completes 80 years of age. This very question had fallen for consideration before Gauhati High Court in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra). Gauhati High Court held that the words “from 80 years” indicates that the pension will be enhanced as soon as the pensioner enters the age of 80. In para 27, 28 and 29 of its decision, Gauhati High Court made the following observations:
“27.If we look at the first two slabs, we find that the first slab is from 80 years to less than 85 years and the second slab is from 85 years to less than 90 years. The second expression in both the slabs is quite clear: it is either less than 85 years or less than 90 years. Now, If we apply the interpretation given by the respondents to the first expressions l.e., from 80 years and from 85 years, consequence would be that on completion of 80 years to less than 85 years a retired judge would be entitled to the first scale of additional pension and again on completion of 85 years to less than 90 years, the retired judge would be entitled to the second scale of additional pension. In this process, not only the 80th year would stand excluded, even the 85th and 90th years would be excluded. Likewise, the 95th year as well as the 100th year would also be excluded. This could not be and certainly was not the intention of the law makers. Therefore, by applying purposive interpretation, we have no hesitation in our mind that the interpretation put forward by the respondents is not only unreasonable and Irrational leading to an anomalous situation, it would also defeat the very object behind insertion of Section 17B in the Act.
28.This question can also be looked at from another angle. When we say "from 2016 onwards" what do we mean? Whether it would be from 01.01.2016 i.e., from the first day of the year. 2016 or on completion of the year 2016 on 31.12.2016? The answer is quite apparent; it has to be from the first day of the year itself.
29.In the course of hearing, Mr. Goswami had also brought to our notice a Single Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench in the case of Siddangouda Shivabasanagouda Ayyangoudra v. Principal Accountant General (A& E), decided on 03.09.2014. In that case also an identical issue had cropped up; petitioner had retired from service on 30.04.1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner claimed entitlement to receive 20% additional quantum of pension from 80 to 85 years on the strength of Government Order dated 13.10.2010. Petitioner had completed 79th year on 13.4.2013. His 80th year started from 13.4.2013. Therefore, he claimed entitlement to the above benefit from 13.04.2013. Respondents rejected such claim of the petitioner and declared that petitioner would complete his 80th year on 13.04.2014 and thereafter his request would be considered. Following an earlier decision of the Court, the writ petition was allowed. Karnataka High Court quashed the impugned decision and directed the respondents to pay 20% additional pension from the 1st day of 80th year i.e. from 13.04.2013 with 6% interest per annum.”
11.This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that the law noticed in the case of VirendraDuttGyani (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the benefit of 20% additional quantum of pension has to be extended to the applicant from the first day of 80th year, i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.2020 and not from the first day of 81st year, i.e. 01.10.2021, as has been extended by the respondents.
12.Accordingly, this Original Application is allowed. Impugned orders 16.01.2023 (Annexure A-1) and 28.02.2023 (A-2) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay 20% additional quantum of pension to the applicant from the first day of 80th year within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with arrears and interest payable on GPF rates. No order so as to costs.”
This issue has also come for consideration before the Ernakulum Bench of this Tribunal in the case of C S Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare decided on 09.05.2023 in Original Application Nos. 115, 11, 179 and 222 of 2022 and the judgment passed is quoted below:
“CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH OriginalApplicationNos.180/00115/2022,180/0118/2022,180/00179/202 2 and 180/00222/2022 Tuesday, this the 9th day of May, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
O.A.No.115 of 2022 C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair S/o. Late C.S. Sivaraman Nair Aged 82 years, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Retd.) Residingat "Nenmelil Gokulam' Jawan Cross Road, AIMS Ponekara P.O. Cochin-682041 (Mob:9388607120) (email:[email protected]) -Applicant [By Party in Person] Versus
1.Union of India, Represented by its Secretary Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi-110003
2.Chief Controller of Accounts Central Pension Accounting Office Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
3.Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Excise Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road Cochin - 682018
4.Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Cochin-682018
5.The Manager, Union Bank of India Centralized Pension Processing Centre 7thFloor, Central Office UBI239,Vidhan Bhavan Marg N Point, Mumbai - 400021
-Respondents [By Advocate : Ms. Sheela Devi I for R1 to R4]
O.A.No.118 of 2022
K.V. Vijaya Raghavan, aged 86 Years S/o K.P.V. Rama Marar, (Retired Chief Yard Master Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat) Residing at: No.2-1-F(4), Keshava Chowta Nagar Hosabettu P.O., Kulai, Mangalore 575019, Karnataka. Mob: 98456 91153 -
Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T Gopi]
Versus
1.Union of India represented by The General Manager Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town. P.O. Chennai-600 003.
2.The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town. P.O. Chennai-600 003.
3.The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway Palghat Division, Palghat - 678 002.
4.Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Southern Railway Palghat Division, Palghat - 678 002. -
Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. S.Ramesh, ACGSC]
O.A.No.179 of 2022
P. Vittal Nayak, aged 84 Years, S/o, Aithappa Naik (Retired Assistant Commercial Manager Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat) Residing at: C/o P Lakshmi, Lakshmi Nilaya Pandyadka, PP VII No.16, Post Kayaru Uppala - 671322, Kasaragod Kerala. Mob: 94480 10073 -
Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T Gopi]
Versus
1.Union of India represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway Headquarters Office, Park Town.P.O. Chennai-600 003.
2.The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railway Headquarters Office Park Town.P.O. Chennai-600 003. -
Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC]
O.A.No.222 of 2022
V. Ramachandran Nair, aged 80 Years S/o, A.K.V. Nair, Retired Foreman (earlier designation - Divisional Electrical Foreman), Bilaspur Division South East Central Railway, Chattisgarh PIN- 495 004) Residing at: No.13/B AMITY PARK, Skyline Apartments Near Changampuzha Park, Edappally Kochi - 682 024. Mob: 94476 54399 Email: [email protected] -
Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr.T.C. Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi]
Versus
1.Union of India represented by The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office Bilaspur-495 004, Chattisgarh.
2.The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur- 495004, Chattisgarh.
3.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office Bilaspur-495 004, Chattisgarh.
4.The Senior Divisional Finance Manager South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur-495 004, Chattisgarh.
5.The Manager, State Bank of India Centralised Pension Processing Centre Ganapathy Kovil Road, Vazhuthakadu, Trivandrum - 695 014.
6.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Metro Station Branch, M.G. Road Ernakulam, Cochin - 682011. -
Respondents
[ByAdvocate: Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC for R1 to R4 Ms. V.K. Hema, Ms. Arunima N.R., Ms. Jennifer C.M. for R5 & R6]
The applications having been heard on 20.02.2023, the Tribunal on 09.05.2023 passed the following:
COMMON ORDER
Since common questions arise for consideration, all these four Original Applications were tagged, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2.O.A.115/2022 is filed by Sri. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, a senior member of this Bar,who has appeared in person; he is a retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, retired from service on 31.07.1997 at the age of 58 years. It was a voluntary retirement. His date of birth is 21.07.1939.The applicant submits that on account of Annexures-A2 and A3 O.M.s dated 04.08.2016 and 12.05.2017, pensioners are entitled to get enhanced rate of pension at the age of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years, 95 years and 100 years in the fixed slab, as provided in the Original Application. Accordingly, a pensioner is entitled to get 20% additional quantum of pension from 80 years to less than 85 years. Similarly, from 85 years to less than 90 years he is entitled to get additional pension of 30%, from 90 years to less than 95 years 40% additional pension, from 95 years to less than 100 years 50% extra pension and from 100 years or more 100% of additional pension. According to him, he is entitled to get additional pension from the beginning of the month he entered to the age of 80 years, that is from July 2018 onwards. However, the respondents granted him 20% additional quantum of pension only from July 2019, which is illegal and against the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India and others (WP(C) No.4224/2016 dated 15.03.2018), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said decision of the Gauhati High Court was rendered based on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Siddangouda Shivabasanagouda Ayyangouda v. Principal Accountant General (A&E) decided on 03.09.2014. Even though the applicant made a representation, that has not been considered at all. Therefore, he seeks a declaration that he is eligible for additional pension of 20% with effect from July 2018, the month in which he entered 80th year of age and to direct the respondents to grant him benefits including arrears within a time frame.
3.In O.A.118/2022 applicant Sri. K.V. Vijaya Raghavan is now 86 years old. He retired from Southern Railway as Chief Yard Master on 31.01.1990 voluntarily. His date of birth is 15.03.1936.According to him, he is entitled to get additional pension of 20% on entering 80th year from 16.08.2015, but was granted the same only from 01.08.2016, which is illegal. Therefore, he apprehends that the second enhancement, that is on entering 85th year will be granted only from 16.08.2020, that means on entering 85th year, he should be paid the second enhancement from 16.08.2020, but given the earlier experience he may get it only from 01.08.2021, which is illegal. So, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to get 20% enhancement from 16.08.2015 and the 2nd additional pension with effect from 16.08.2020.
4.The applicant in O.A.179/2022 Sri. Vittal Nayak is now 84 years old who retired from Southern Railway as Assistant Commercial Manager on 06.10.1989 voluntarily. His date of birth is 15.05.1938.He entered 80th year on 16.05.2017 and 85th year on 16.05.2022, but he was granted the first enhancement only from 01.05.2018. Given this experience his second enhancement will be granted only from 01.05.2023, which is bad. Therefore, he also wants a declaration that he is entitled to get additional quantum pension from 16.05.2017 and 16.05.2022 respectively.
5.The applicant in O.A. 222/2022 Sri. V. Ramachandran Nair is a retired Foreman from South East Central Railway. He retired voluntarily on 15.01.1984. His date of birth is 01.08.1942 and according to him, he is entitled to get the first enhancement of 20% on entering 80th year from 01.08.2021 but was not granted the same and given the known stand of the respondents is not apprehending that it would be given only from 01.08.2022, which is illegal. He contends that it should be granted from 01.08.2021.Therefore, he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to have his quantum pension of 20% with effect from 01.08.2021 and to grant him all the consequential benefits with arrears.
6.The respondents, though represented through different Standing Counsel, have taken almost uniform stand. The respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.115/2022 are represented by Smt. Sheela Devi, Senior Panel Counsel. According to the respondents, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. From Annexure-R4 (a) O.M. dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, it is revealed that such an enhancement can be granted only on attaining the age of 80 years, and therefore, the reliefs claimed for are not allowable. This stand has been reiterated and clarified in Annexures-R4(b) and R4(c) office memoranda dated 03.10.2008 and 11.08.2009. Moreover, from Rule 44(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules also it is very clear that such retired pensioners are entitled to get enhancement only on attaining the ages of 80, 85 90 etc. as the case may be.
7.Smt. O.M. Shalina, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has filed reply statements in all the other three cases. According to the respondents, the Gauhati High Court judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. That was rendered in the context of Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 which is not applicable to the applicants. They are governed either by CCS(Pension) Rules or the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, as the case may be. Moreover, the office memoranda issued by the Nodal Ministry have been adopted by the Railways, so that even before the passing of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, it was clarified that such enhancement can be granted only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years etc., as the case may be, that merely entering the age of 80, 85 etc. is not sufficient. Such clarificatory directions are valid and the relevant office memoranda are binding on the respondents and therefore they are not entitled to get any relief. In O.A.179/2022 they have taken a plea that in the absence of the nodal Ministry in the array of parties, the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties also.
8.I heard the applicant in O.A.115/2022 who appeared as party-in-person, learned counsel for the applicants in the other O.A.s and the learned Standing Counsel very elaborately. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am convinced that the applicants are not entitled to get any relief.
9.Before going into the merits, it is appropriate to state that even though the respondents have given very elaborate and detailed replies to the Original Applications, the applicants did not file any rejoinder. Even though it is not mandatory, they made it clear that they are not intending to file any rejoinder. That means, their versions in writing, after filing the replies are not available. However, from the arguments of the party-in-person and the learned counsel, it is clear that they are sticking on to the stand taken in the Original Applications.
10.It is true that the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani, quoted supra, stands confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP. All the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel Smt. Shalina, such a decision was rendered in the background of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, on interpretation of the provisions in Section 17(B) of the Act. But after the said decision, it has become clear that the Ministry of Law and Justice has issued an explanation to Section 17(B) of the Act has been incorporated by way of amendment. It is true that in the original Section, after Section 17(B), it was stated that a retired Judge or a family pensioner is entitled to get 20% of enhancement of basic pension of family pension from 80 years to less than 85 years. On interpretation of the provision a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that, that has to be interpreted as the date from which he enters 80th year and that he need not complete 80th year. In other words, if he completes 79 years and enters 80th year of age, from that day onwards he is entitled to get 20% enhancement in pension. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, such a decision has been rendered in the context of Section 17(B) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.Now by notification dated 18.12.2021, an explanation has been added to Section 17(B), which reads thus:
“Explanation: —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any entitlement for additional quantum of pension or family pension shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, from the first day of the month in which the pensioner or family pensioner completes the age specified in the first column of the scale.” That means, such an enhancement of 20%, 30% etc. will be available only if the retired Judge attains 80 years or 85 years etc., as the case may be. In other words, the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani case stands nullified or set at naught by the amendment brought to Section 17B by way of explanation.
11.As rightly argued, the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani has been rendered in the context of Section 17B of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service)Act, 1954, whereas the applicants are governed by either CCS(Pension) Rules or the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, as the case may be, and the provisions of the High Court Judges Act are not applicable to them. Secondly and more importantly, by the amendment dated 18.12.2021 by the incorporation of the explanation it has become very clear that a retired High Court judge is entitled to get enhancement only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years, 90 years etc. as the case may be. Therefore, the said ground is not supporting the contentions of the applicant.
12.Even otherwise, documents produced by the respondents clearly indicate that the provisions in CCS(Pension) Rules and the clarificatory office memoranda clearly indicate that the applicants are entitled to get enhancement of 20%, 30% etc. only on completing the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. In this connection, it is very important to note that the decision in Virendra Dutt Gyani was rendered by the Gauhati High Court on 15.03.2018 and the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP on 08.07.2019.I have already observed that those decisions or the context in which the said decisions were rendered are not applicable to the applicants who are governed either by the CCS (Pension) Rules or by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. In this connection, it is important to note that Annexure -R4(a) Office memorandum dated 01.09.2008 in O.A.115/2022, where directions have been issued with regard to the implementation of the Government’s decision on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. Paragraph 4.5 deals with the quantum of pension / family pension available to the old pensioners / family pensioners enhancement. The table is given. Then it is stated thus:
“The amount of additional pension will be shown distinctly in the Pension Payment Order. For example, in case where a pensioner is more than 80 years of age and his/her consolidated pension in terms of paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 above is Rs.10,000/-pm, the pension will be shown as, (i) basic pension= Rs.10,000/- and (ii) additional pension= Rs.2,000/- pm. The pension on his/her attaining the age of 85 years will be shown as, (i) basic pension= Rs.10,000/- and (ii) additional pension= Rs.3,000/- pm.”
That means, it is very clear that even prior to the interpretation made by the Gauhati High Court, on 01.09.2008, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department had clarified that such enhancement shall be given only if a person is more than 80 years or he attains the respective age, as the case may be. Annexure-R4(b) O.M. dated 03.10.2008, which is also clarificatory in nature, where regarding the quantum pension, clarification has been given in second column thus:
“(i)the additional quantum of pension/family pension, on attaining the age of 80 yeas and above, would be admissible from the 1s tday of the month in which his date of birth falls. For example, if a personer / family pensioner completes age of 80 years on any date in the month of August 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension with effect from 01.08.2008. Those pensioners/family pensioners, whose date of birth is 1st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension with effect from 01.08.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above.”
13.Further in Annexure-R4 (c) the point is made further clear. Paragraph 4 of Annexure-R4(c) O.M. dated 11.08.2009 reads thus:
“ 4. Some doubts have been expressed regarding the date from which the additional pension is to be made effective. In this connection, attention is invited to the clarifications issued vide this department’s O.M. of even No. dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure-R4(b)). It is reiterated that the additional quantum of pension/family pension would be admissible from the 1stday of the month in which the date of birth falls, only oncompletion of the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. (and not in the beginning of the 80th year, 85th year etc.). All references/representations received in this respect stand\s disposed of accordingly.”
14.In other words, all these clarifications under office memoranda were issued long before the rendering of judgment by the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani, quoted supra. That means, dehors Virendra Dutt Gyani, even prior to that, the Nodal Department and the Ministries had considered this aspect in great detail and clarified that it is not the commencement of the year, that is important, but attaining the age of 80 years, 85 years etc. Therefore, much more clarifications are not warranted.
Adding to the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Rule 44(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules also is very important, which reads thus:
“(6)After completion of eighty years of age or above by a retired Government servant, in addition to a pension or a compassionate allowance admissible under this rule, additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable to the retired Government servant in the following manner, namely: -
Sl.No. Age of pensioner Additional pension / additional
Compassionate allowance
(1) (2) (3) (i) From 80 years to less Than 85 years 20% of basic pension / compassionate
allowance
(ii) From 85 years to less Than 90 years 30% of basic pension / compassionate
allowance
(iii) From 90 years to less Than 95 years 40% of basic pension / compassionate
allowance
(iv) From 95 years to less Than 100 years 50% of basic pension / compassionate
allowance
(v) 100 years or more 100% of basic pension/ compassionate
allowance
(b)The additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable from first day of the calendar month in which it falls due. Illustration: A pensioner born on 20th August, 1942 shall be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from 1st August, 2022. A pensioner born on 1st August, 1942 shall also be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from 1st August, 2022.”
These office memoranda, which are clarificatory in nature, and the provisions are very clear, so that there is little doubt that the applicants are not entitled to get such reliefs:
I have also come across the fact that the Railways has adopted all the relevant office memoranda much before the rendering of the judgment by the Gauhati High Court. In other words, even if we accept that the judgment in Gauhati High Court is in force and subsequent amendment is ignored, still in the light of Rule 44(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules and also various office memoranda issued much before the judgment in Virendra Dutt Gyani, the applicants are not entitled to get the benefit from the date entering the 80th year or 85th year, as the case may be. They have to complete the age of 80, 85 or 90, as the case may be, for getting quantum pension as provided in the Rules and the office memoranda.
I also notice that there is absolutely nothing opposed to the Rules in the office memorandum. It is clarificatory in nature. The intention of the Ministry is very clear. Such an enhancement is intended for octogenarians and above. They cannot be granted relief from the date as claimed by them.
18.The contentions raised by the respondents are formidable. The applicants are not entitled to get any relief. They have approached this Tribunal on experimental basis.
All the Original Applications are dismissed. No cost.
Now to decide the question as to whether the applicant will be entitled for 20% extra pension from the first date of 80th year, it will also be useful to quote Rule 44 of Railway Pension Rules 2026 :
“44.Amount of Pension.- (1) A railway servant, who retires under rule 33, rule 34, rule 35, rule 36, rule 37, rule 38 or rule 39, after completing a qualifying service of not less than ten years, shall become eligible for grant of a pension calculated at fifty per cent. of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of nine thousand rupees per month and maximum of one lakh twenty-five thousand rupees per month:
Provided that a railway servant who retires under rule 39 before completing a qualifying service of ten years but fulfils the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (9) of rule 39, shall also be eligible for an invalid pension calculated at fifty per cent. of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him and the condition of completion of minimum qualifying service of ten years shall not be applicable for grant of pension in his case.
(2)A railway servant, who retires under any of the rules referred to in sub-rule (1) but has not become eligible for grant of pension in accordance with that sub-rule, shall be eligible for grant of a service gratuity and the amount of service gratuity in such cases shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service.
(3)In case the emoluments of a railway servant have been reduced during the last ten months of his service, average emoluments as referred to in rule 32 shall be treated as emoluments for the purpose of sub-rule (2):
Provided that the dearness allowance admissible on the date of retirement shall also be treated as part of emoluments for the purpose of this sub-rule and sub-rule (2).
(4)(a) Where a railway servant is compulsorily retired from service after completing a qualifying service of not less than ten years and has become eligible for grant of compulsory retirement pension under rule 40, the amount of compulsory retirement pension shall be such portion or percentage of the retiring pension calculated under sub-rule (1), as the competent authority may sanction under rule 40.
(b)A railway servant, who is compulsorily retired from service before completing a qualifying service of ten years, shall be eligible for grant of a compulsory retirement service gratuity under rule 40 and the amount of service gratuity in such cases shall be such portion or percentage of the superannuation service gratuity calculated under sub-rule (2), as the competent authority may sanction under rule 40. Provided that a railway servant who is compulsorily retired shall also be entitled to gratuity sanctioned under rule 40 in addition to compulsory retirement pension or service gratuity determined in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b.)
(5)(a) Where a railway servant is dismissed or removed from service after having completed a qualifying service of not less than ten years and is sanctioned a compassionate allowance under rule 41, the amount of compassionate allowance shall be such portion or percentage of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on retiring pension, as the competent authority may sanction under rule 41.
(b)A railway servant, who is dismissed or removed from service before completing a qualifying service of ten years and is sanctioned a compassionate allowance under rule 41, the amount of compassionate allowance in such cases shall be such portion or percentage of the service gratuity which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on retiring service gratuity, as the competent authority may sanction under rule 41.
(6)After completion of eighty years of age or above by a retired railway servant, in addition to a pension or a compassionate allowance admissible under this rule, additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable to the retired railway servant in the following manner, namely:-
TABLE
Sl No. Age of Pensioner Additional Pension / additional compassionate allowance (1) (2) (3) 1. From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of basic pension/ compassionate allowance 2. From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of basic pension/ compassionate allowance 3. From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of basic pension/ compassionate allowance 4. From 95 years to less than 100 years 50% of basic pension/ compassionate allowance 5. 100 years or more 100% of basic pension/ compassionate allowance (b)The additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable from first day of the calendar month in which it falls due. Illustration: A pensioner born on the 20th day of August, 1942 shall be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty percent of the basic pension with effect from the 1st day of August, 2022. A pensioner born on the 1st day of August, 1942 shall also be eligible for additional pension at the rate of twenty per cent. of the basic pension with effect from the 1 st day of August, 2022.
(7)In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed six monthly period and reckoned as qualifying service.
(8)In the case of a railway servant who has rendered a qualifying service of nine years and nine months or more but less than ten years, his qualifying service for the purpose ofof this rule shall be treated as ten years and he shall be eligible for pension inin accordance with sub-rule (1).
(9)The amount of pension or service gratuity or compassionate allowance or additional pension or additional compassionate allowance finally determined under this rule, shall be expressed in whole rupees and where it contains a fraction of a rupee, each such amount shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee separately for arriving at the final amount payable to the retired railway servant.
(10)In cases where pension is discontinued in the middle of a calendar month, the amount of pension payable for the fraction of that month shall also be rounded off to the next higher rupee.”
Analogous provision is also contained in the CCS Pension Rules 2021 in Rule 44. PPO issued in respect of the applicant on 04.6.2018 after implementation of the 7th CPC is also quoted below:
Applicant has also relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.2008 issued by Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India (Annexure No RA-2) which deals with the subject “Implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/ family pensioners etc.”
Since in the analogous provision in CCS Pension Rules 2021 in Rule 44, before the chart appended along with sub rule 6 in this Rule, it has clearly been mentioned that “after completion of 80 years of age or above, retired government servant in addition to pension or compensate allowance admissible in this Rule, additional pension or additional compassionate allowance shall be payable to the retired government servant in the following manner.”
Railway servants Services Rules 2026 also contained similarly clause in Sub Rule 6 of the Rule 44. Instances relied upon by the applicant are not related to the Railway Services and rather Virendra Dutt Gyani (supra) case is related to the High Court judges (Salary and Conditions of Services) Act 1954. Ratio laid down in the case of Siddangounda Shivabasanagouda Ayyangoudra (supra) as well as Shri Loknath Shetty (supra) case although related to CCS Pension Rules, but these two cases are related to the matters prior to the implementation of the CCS Pension Rules 2021 as this Rule was notified in the extraordinary gazette on 20.12.2021 and promulgation of the new Rule as has been quoted hereinabove, position has been very much clarified in Sub Rule 6 of Rule 44.
In Geeta Akshar Kumar (supra) case, Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal had considered the issue pertaining to the year 2020when that applicant entered his 80th year. In those aforesaid circumstances, the ratio laid down in this case cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Since CCS Pension Rules 2021 has been promulgated w.e.f. 20.12.2021 and later the Railway Services Pension Rules 2026 has also been promulgated describing the same provisions, the applicant’s date of birth is 01.07.1945. If 80 years age added as per provision provided in the aforesaid newly promulgated rule, then he will be entitled for 20% extra pension after completion of 80 years of age. In that situation, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that prayer made in the OA to issue direction to revise the PPO for adding 20% extra pension just after completion of 79 years of age from the first day of 80th year cannot be issued. He will be entitled for 20% extra pension from 01.07.2025 and thus the instant OA lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed accordingly. Accordingly, the instant original application is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.