AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
MA Nos.3279/2017 & 2826/2018.
The applicant died on 10.01.2017. His legal representatives, namely, Shri Rahul Kashup (son of the deceased) and Ms. Urmila Kumari (wife of the deceased) filed MA No.3279/2017, with a prayer to bring them on record. MA No.2826/2018 is also made for condonation of delay in filing MA No.3279/2017.
We heard Shri Samir Sagar and Shri Abhishek Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri N. K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicant is no more, and is represented by his legal representatives. We are satisfied with the reasons stated for the delay. Since there is no dispute as to the status of the applicants herein, they are brought on record as legal representatives.
OA No.1457/2013.
The applicant retired as Additional District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi. Thereafter, he was appointed as the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) on 24.09.2004, and posted at Chandigarh. From that post, he retired on 10.11.2007.
While the applicant was serving as the Chairman, CGIT, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission came to be implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Stating to be the method of refixation of pay, the respondents issued proceedings dated 04.06.2012, wherein it was indicated that the revised pay scale of the applicant would be Rs.55,240/- and the revised pension to be deducted is Rs.25,775/-, and the salary to be drawn (Total pay less pension) is Rs.29,465/-. It was further mentioned in the proceedings that arrears would be calculated on this basis. Not satisfied with this, the applicant made a representation dated 10.10.2012. In reply thereto, the respondents issued a letter dated 06.12.2012 stating that the pay of the applicant has been correctly fixed in accordance with general Policy and Rules of the Government. The same is challenged in this OA.
It is pleaded that though the respondents have furnished the correct figures of the revised salary and revised pension in the proceedings dated 04.06.2012, they did not take into account the fact that unrevised pension of Rs.8,583/- was being deducted, and instead of deducting the differential pension of Rs.17,192/-, after revision of pay scales, they deducted the entire pension of Rs.25,775/-.
According to the applicant, the difference comes to Rs.1,88,826/-.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit. They virtually reproduced the facts and figures contained in the proceedings dated 04.06.2012, and state that the calculation has been made correctly.
It is evident that the revised pay scale in the subsequent appointment as Chairman, CGIT, and revised pension payable for the service rendered as Additional District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, were correctly mentioned. Even before the revised pay scales were implemented, the respondents were deducting a sum of Rs.8,583/- as pension, from the salary payable to the applicant, as Chairman, CGIT. In the proceedings dated 04.06.2012, the figures of revised pay and revised pension furnished, but in the context of deduction, the entire pension was shown. No weightage was given to the amount of Rs.8,583/- which has already been deducted from time to time. This aspect needs to be dealt with by the respondents.
We, therefore dispose of the OA, directing the respondents to pass fresh orders dealing with the question as to whether the deduction of Rs.8,583/- from the salary of the applicant before revised pay scales were taken into account while determining the amount payable to the applicant towards arrears of salary. There shall be no order as to costs.