Vinod Kumar Jain vs The Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ex-Officio Chairman

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

CM 2449/2012 (exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM 2448/2012 (delay in re-filing)

This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the writ petition. The delay is condoned.

This application stands disposed of.

WP (C) 1122/2012

The petitioner had filed a representation dated 24.11.2009 for grant of two additional increments for fixation of his revised pension consequent upon the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 01.01.2006. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No. 2, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) by a letter dated 08.02.2010. As mentioned in the said letter, the petitioner was informed that his revised pension had been fixed corresponding to his previous pension and subject to the provision laid down in the Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners'' Welfare OM dated 01.09.2008. As noted in the letter dated 08.02.2010, the two additional increments had already been taken into account while fixation of pension at the time of the petitioner''s retirement on 30.09.2005. It was also indicated in the said letter that since the petitioner had retired on 30.09.2005, which was prior to 01.01.2006 and consequently, he was not in service on 01.01.2006, the question of benefit of two additional increments for the purposes of calculation of his revised pension did not arise.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation by ICFRE, the petitioner filed OA No. 1552/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order dated 09.11.2011.

The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the circular dated 08.09.1995 to indicate that the petitioner was entitled to two additional increments. The relevant portion of the said circular is extracted below:

The increments should be granted at the rate of increment in the scale of pay held by the employee on the date of absorption in the ICFRE. In case where the employee is at the maximum of the pay scale, the increment to be granted should be at the rate equal to the last increment drawn by the employee.

xxx

On promotion of such an absorbed employee and on revision of pay scale by the Pay Commission, these additional increments should be allowed at the rate of increment at appropriate stage of the higher/revised pay scale.

The learned counsel also referred to a letter dated 07.06.2004 issued by the ICFRE on the subject of "grant of two additional increments with DA benefits to the absorbed employees of ICFRE-regulating on conversion of 50% DA into dearness pay with effect from 01.04.2004-clarification regarding." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the effect of this letter has not been given to the petitioner after the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations

However, we find that the Tribunal has considered these arguments of the petitioner in detail and has also examined the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training''s OM dated 01.09.2008 which provided the method of computation of pension/family pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners. Paragraph 4.1 of the said OM has been extracted in the impugned order and the same reads as under:

4.1 The pension/family pension of existing pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect from 1.1.2006 by adding together:

i) The existing pension/family pension.

ii) Dearness Pension, where applicable

iii) Dearness Relief upto AICPI (IW) average Index 536 (Base year 1982-100) i.e. @ 24% of Basic Pension/Basic family pension plus dearness pension as admissible vide this Department''s O.M. No. 42/2/2006-P&,PW(G) dated 5.4.2006.

iv). Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension.

After going through all the relevant provisions, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the two additional increments, to which the petitioner was entitled to, as per his service conditions, had already been taken into account at the time of fixation of his pension originally. As a consequence thereof, he was getting a pension which was higher than those who had not received the benefit of two additional increments, but were in the same pay scale. The Tribunal noted that when the OM dated 01.09.2008 was implemented, every pre-2006 pensioner got equal pension, that is, 50% of the minimum pay band plus grade pay at the post from which he retired. It is on account of this that the petitioner had felt that he had lost something inasmuch as those, who were receiving lesser pension than him, were now equated with him. However, insofar as the petitioner''s grievance is concerned, the Tribunal held that because the petitioner had already been given the benefit of the two additional increments, he had not been wronged. It is only because of the subsequent events that the others, who had been receiving a lower pension, have been equated with him, as a result of which he felt aggrieved. However, we feel that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the additional increments to which the petitioner was entitled, had been duly taken into account at the time of fixation of his pension originally and also at the time of consolidated revision of pension.

Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.