AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas
In the present OA, the applicant is seeking a direction against the respondents to implement the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 (Annex. A/2) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in its true letter and spirit with further prayer that pension dues be paid w.e.f 01.01.2006 along with interest @ 18% p.a.
The applicant is a retired employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS). On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the post of TGT (Hindi) from KV No. 1 Bikaner on 30.04.2004. As he did not complete qualifying service of 33 years, he was granted pension on a pro-rata basis to the tune of Rs 3,788/- as shown in the PPO dated 23.04.2004 (Annex. A/1)
It is the case of the applicant that OM dated 06.04.2016 (Annex. A/2) provides that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in Pay Band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale as per fitment table without pro-rata reduction in pension even if they had qualifying service of less than 33 years at the time of retirement. The applicant, feeling aggrieved by non-application of the above OM, served a legal notice of demand of justice on 02.01.2019 (Annex. A/3) wherein he requested the respondents to release the revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 alongwith interest. After receiving the aforesaid notice, the respondent No. 2 forwarded the notice to respondent No. 3 with intimation to the applicant vide letter dated 11/15.01.2019 (Annex. A/5). It is alleged by the applicant that his case has not been examined by the competent authority and that he is being deprived of revision of pension in terms of OM dated 06.04.2016.
In contradiction to the allegation of the applicant, the respondents categorically replied that the applicant’ case of revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under 6th Central Pay Commission was re-examined/reviewed by their office in terms of applicable position /guidelines. The applicant’s revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is Rs 8,562/-. The aforesaid averment of the respondents has been supported by the pension details (Annex. R/4 and the due and drawn statement of the arrears of the pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 after revision of the applicant’s pension. The respondents also replied vide letter dated 11.02.2019 (Annex. R/5) to the legal notice dated 02.01.2019 (Annex. A/3) given by counsel for the applicant. The reply reads as under:
“With reference to your Legal Notice dated 02/01/2019 on behalf of your client Shri Rameshwar Lal Bhartiya, Retired TGT (Hindi), KV No. 1 Bikaner in the matter of releasing of revised pension w.e.f. 01/01/2006, it is stated that the matter in regard to revision of pension w.e.f. 01/01/2006 under 6th Central Pay Commission of your client has been re-examined/reviewed by this office in terms of rule position/guidelines available for the purpose and found that as per rule the revised minimum pension in the pay scale Rs 5500-175-9000/-w.e.f. 01/01/2006 was due for Rs 7215/- whereas Shri Bhartiya is already drawing more revised pension for Rs 8562/- w.e.f. 01/01/2006. Hence, there is no need to re-fix his pension as per rules and the same has already been informed to him vide this office letter dated 01/03/2017.”
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted written submissions wherein he contended that the respondents have not given effect to the OM dated 6th April 2016. KVS (HQ) letter dated 21.10.2016 read with the Ministry of Human Resource Development letter dated 18.10.16 speaks only of fixation with reference to columns 9 and 10 of the annexure to the OM dated 28.01.2013. The respondents have not mentioned the delinking of the revised pension from qualifying service. Para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 and Col. 9 of the Annexure to the OM dated 28.01.2013 guarantee that a minimum pension cannot be read as denying whatever higher amount is otherwise lawfully due. It is argued that the respondents should first determine the basic pension as on 31 12 2005 in accordance with the rules, without any pro rata reduction, then consolidate it with effect from 01.01.2006 under para 4.1 of OM dated 01.09.2008, whereas, the respondents have only compared the result with the para 4.2 floor and granted the higher of two. The respondents have not determined the basic pension of the applicant as on 31.12.2005 without any pro rata cut as suggested by the applicant in para 7 of the written submission. Citing various judgments, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to challenge the method of revision of pension pursuant to OM dated 06.04.2016. He suggested a different methodology to revise the pension.
After considering the contentions raised in the written submissions, we are of the view that the same are not sustainable. The applicant cannot be allowed to set up a totally new case which has not been pleaded by him. The applicant has not disclosed revision of his pension after issuance of the OM dated 01.09.08.
Admittedly, the applicant had attained the age of superannuation before 1st January 2006. At that time, he was in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000. It is also not in dispute that initially his pension was determined based on qualifying service of 22 years, 08 months and 22 days. OM dated 1st September 2008 relating to revision of pension of pre 2006 pensioners came into force with effect from 1st January 2006, which provides that in no case the revised pension with effect from 1st January 2006 shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay thereon corresponding to the revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It means pre-2006 pensioners have been guaranteed to get 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which they had retired irrespective of the fact that the pensioner was getting pension on a pro rata basis before coming into force the recommendations of the 6th CPC.
A perusal of OM dated 06.04.2016 reveals that after revision of pension as per para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008, various litigations arose regarding implementation of OM dated 01.09.2008, resulting in issuance of OM dated 06.04.2016. The OM dated 06.04.2016 provides that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay (wherever applicable) corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale as per the fitment table without pro-rata reduction of pension, even if they had qualifying service of less than 33 years at the time of retirement.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that the corresponding pay band to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000 is Rs 9300-34800+ Grade Pay Rs 4200 [PB-2]. The minimum pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000 (S-10) comes to Rs 14430/- and 50% thereof is Rs 7,215/-.Upon perusal of the due-drawn statement filed by the respondents with reply, it emerges that after revision of the pension, he was getting more than 50 % of the pension without applying the formula of pro rata reduction. Pension of Rs 8,562/-, is more than 50% of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band Rs 93000-34800 + Rs 4200 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000 from which the applicant had retired. It is not the case of the applicant that his revised pension was lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which he had retired. The applicant failed to indicate that as per the pension slip issued by State Bank of India (Annex. R/4), his pension was reduced on a pro-rata basis on account of qualifying service while revising his pension on implementation of 6th CPC.
We are of the opinion that the applicant's arguments in written submissions are misconceived. The applicant has wrongly suggested that the respondent first revise his pension under the rules of 5th CPC. The concept of delinking of revised pension from qualifying service of 33 years and ensuring a minimum 50% of pay was introduced on the recommendation of the 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The pre-2006 retiree has been guaranteed that w.e.f 01.01.2006, in no case their revised consolidated pension shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which they had retired. The applicant’s pension has been rightly revised. The applicant has neither disclosed revision of his pension nor made the challenge to the fixation as shown in the due and drawn statement. Therefore, the instant OA is misconceived and hence liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the instant OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.