AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
M.A.No.2224/2026
MA filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for placing short reply on record.
MA is allowed for reasons stated therein. Short reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is taken on record. MA stands disposed of accordingly.
M.A.No.2598/2026
MA filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 for placing written statement on record.
MA is allowed for reasons stated therein. Written statement on behalf of Respondent No. 4 is taken on record. MA stands disposed of accordingly.
O.A.No.967/2025
With the consent of parties on both sides, the matter has been heard finally at this stage.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that that applicant had earlier filed OA No. 452/2021 seeking grant of notional increment in view of the decision in the case of P. Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunals and Ors., and the said OA was decided on 09.07.2024 (Annexure A-7), whereby the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of one increment to the applicant due on 1st July, 2020 with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the applicant had filed OA No. 452/2021 before this Tribunal prior to the judgment rendered in the case of Director (Admn & HR) KPTCL Vs. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 (14) SCC 411, therefore, para 3(d) of OM dated 20.05.2025 is applicable to the present case, and the applicant has rightly been granted the revised benefits on the basis of grant of one notional increment.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the respondents have wrongly applied para 3(a) of the OM dated 20.05.2025, which is not applicable to the present case. It is further stated by learned counsel for reply filed by them, and prays that the OA be disposed of with direction to the respondents to rectify the admitted error.
I have perused the reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:
“5.That the said error did not emanate from any considered decision of Respondent No. 3 to deny, withdraw, or reduce the applicant's entitlement, nor from any mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power. On the contrary, Respondent No. 3, upon noticing the error, has consistently maintained, both before and after the institution of the present OA, that the applicant is entitled to pension with effect from 01.07.2020, and has, vide its letters dated 21.08.2025 and 10.12.2025, and further vide letter dated 23.06.2026, categorically directed the PAO to restore/revise the applicant's pension with effect from 01.07.2020 and to stop and reverse the recovery proceedings initiated against him. The said directions have been issued in terms of Para 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2025 itself, which specifically provides that excess payment already made, including arrears, shall not be recovered, and are, therefore, entirely in consonance with the relief sought by the applicant in the present OA. The copy of order dated 21.08.2025, 10.12.2025 and 23.06.2026 are attached as Annexure SR-1 Colly.
6.That, in view of the aforesaid, the present OA has, for all practical purposes, been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as the substantive relief sought by the applicant already stands directed to be implemented by Respondent No. 3 through the correspondence referred to hereinabove. It is submitted that no case of illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of the principles of natural justice is made out against Respondent No. 3. As the relief sought by the applicant is only pending ministerial act of implementation by pension disbursing agency.”
Communication dated 23.06.2026 from O/o Respondent No. 3 to PAO, CBIC, Chandigarh (Annexure SR-1, pg. 41 of the paperbook), reads as under:
“ Please refer to the subject and references cited above. In this regard, It is submitted that Sh. Raminder Singh, Superintendent, retired from CGST Division, Panchkula upon superannuation on 30.06.2020. As No. 452/2021. the officer is entitled to the benefit of one increment due on 01.07.2020.
In accordance with the O.M. dated 20.05.2025 para 3(d), which states that:-
"3.(d)- In case any retired employee filed an application for Intervention/Impleadment in civil appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for Intervention/impleadment was filed."
However, it has been brought to our attention that your office generated the pension authorities with effect from 01.05.2023 instead of the correct date of 01.07.2020.
In light of the above OM and CAT order, the officer is entitled for the pension w.e.f. 01.07.2020 instead of 01.05.2023. Accordingly, the pension of Sh. Raminder Singh (PPO No. 513232000222) may be revised immediately on priority basis as it is a court matter.”
I have also perused the reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:
“10.The contents of this para of the present OA are matter of Record. Further, the answering respondent is 'Agent' i.e. Pension Disbursing Agency, who has to disburse the pension as per Pension Payment Order issued by the 'principal', i.e. respondent No. 1 to 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No. 1 to 3 issued the Authority dated 16.06.2025 (attached as Annexure A-6 of the OA) vide which the applicant was granted Difference of Commutation amount of Rs.53,098/-and Additional Death/Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs.1,13,306/-, mentioned at point No. 4 and 5 of the Authority respectively. Subsequently, the answering respondent received corrigendum dated 08.07.2025 (attached as Annexure A-1 of the O.A), wherein it is mentioned in the clause 10 that the date of basic pension of the applicant has been changed from 01.07.2020 to 01.05.2023. Further, the respondent No. 1 to 3 issued Corrigendum Authority dated 18.07.2025 (attached as Annexure A-2 of the O.A), wherein it is mentioned in the clause 10 that the earlier authorities dated 16.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 be treated as cancelled, the date of revised basic pension be read as 01.05.2023 and the amount of Difference of Commutation amount and Additional Death/Retirement Gratuity paid earlier was rescinded and shown to be as NIL, it led to a fresh calculation and came to notice that the applicant has been paid excess amount of Rs. 2,25,138/-, which is to be recovered from the applicant. The recovery to be effected from the applicant is solely in compliance with the authority dated 18.07.2025 issued by respondent nos. 1 to 3. Hence, the recovery is due to the action of respondent no. 1 to 3 only and the answering respondent has no role in it.”
From the above submissions, it is clear that the impugned recovery has been ordered due to an error in the application of OMs dated 14.10.2024 and 20.05.2025 while re-examination of the case of the applicant. Evidently, case of the applicant is covered under para 3(d) of OM dated 20.05.2025, as the applicant filed OA No. 452/2021 before this Tribunal prior to the judgment rendered in the case of Director (Admn & HR) KPTCL Vs. C.P. Mundinamani (supra). Furthermore, the respondents have recognized such error and issued communication for revision of the same.
In view of the foregoing, the impugned orders dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure A-1), 18.07.2025 (A-2) and 22.08.2025 (A-3) are quashed and set aside. Revised pension letter dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure A-6) shall stand restored. Respondents are directed to make the necessary revision in pension of the applicant forthwith, and refund the recovered amount, if any, to the applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this
Order.
The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.