top of page

No.38/37/08-P&PW(A)

Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions

Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare

3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi

Dated the 30th July, 2015

Office Memorandum

 

Sub:- Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners - reg.

 

The undersigned is directed to say that as per Para 4.2 of this Department's OM of even number dated 1.9.2008 relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f.1.1.2006, the revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. A clarification was issued vide DoP&PW OM of even number dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the

pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.

 

2. Several petitions were filed in Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi inter alia claiming that the revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners should not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.l/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008. Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide its common order dated 1.11.201lin OA No.655/2010 and three other connected OAs directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006 based on the Resolution dated 29.8.2008 of the

Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare and in the light of the observations of Hon'ble CAT in that order.

 

3. The above order was challenged by the Government by filing Writ Petition No.153512012 in respect ofOA No. 655/2010 and WP No.2348-50/12 in respect of the three other connected OAs in the High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court in Its common Order dated 29.4.2013 noted that the DoP&PW had, in the meanwhile, issued an OM No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 28.1.2013 which provided for stepping up of pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 24.9.2012 to 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Hon'ble

High Court observed that the only issue which survived was, with reference to Paragraph 9 of OM dated 28.1.2013 which makes it applicable w.e.f. 24.9.2012 instead of 1.1.2006. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the Writ Petition No.1535/20 12 along with three other Writ Petitions vide its order dated 29.4.2013. Special Leave Petitions (No.23055/2013 and No.36148-50/2013) filed against the said order dated 29/412013 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

 

4. Accordingly, in compliance with the above judicial pronouncements, it has been decided that the pension/family pension of all pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners may be revised in accordance with this Department's OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013 with effect from 1.1.2006 instead of24.9.2012. Further, this benefit has already been granted to the Applicants in OA No. 655/2010 vide OM of even No. dated 26/08/2014 read with OM dated 19/09/2015 following dismissal of SLP (C) No.23055/2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

 

5 In case the consolidated pension/family pension calculated as per para 4.1 of O.M. No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated in the O.M. dated 28.1.2013, the same (higher consolidated pension/family pension) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension.

 

6. All other conditions-as given in OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time shall remain unchanged.

 

7. Ministry of Agriculture, etc. are requested to bring the contents of these orders to the notice of controller of Accounts/Pay and Accounts Officers and Attached and subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis. All pension disbursing offices are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners.

 

8. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance ID Note No. 1(9)/EV/2011-Vol.1I dated 24.7.2015.

 

9. Hindi version will follow.

tv~~~ (Harjit Singh)

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

 

To

1. All Ministries/Departments (as per standard mailing list)

2. All SCOV A Members

3. All identified Pensioners Associations

 

Copy to NIC for uploading on the website of the Department.

News Feeds

Taxpayer may verify his return through Internet Banking or through Aadhar based authentication process

Commencement of Electronic Verification of Income Tax Returns for AY 2015-16

To facilitate the taxpayers and to provide end-to-end e-enabled services, the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 can now be verified electronically.

A taxpayer may verify his return through Internet Banking or through Aadhar based authentication process. Persons using this facility will not be required to submit a signed paper copy of ITR-Verification form (ITR-V) to CPC Bengaluru.

For the convenience of small taxpayers having total income of Rs. 5 lakhs or below without any claim of refund, facility for generating Electronic Verification Code (EVC) has also been provided on the E-filing website of the Department. In such cases EVC will be sent to the Registered Email ID and Mobile Number of person to enable him to thereafter use this code to verify the return.

In case a taxpayer is unable to electronically verify the ITR using the EVC for any reason, then, the signed copy of ITR-V may be sent within the specified time of 120 days to CPC Bengaluru by Ordinary post or Speed post.

Details regarding e-verification are available in Notification 2/2015 in issued on 13th July 2015 at http://incometaxindia.gov.in/news/evc_notification-13-07-2015.pdf.

Taxpayers are requested to use Electronic Verification facility in view of the convenience and flexibility offered. Taxpayers are also requested to e-file their returns early to avoid the rush closer to the last date.

 

PIB News

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The date for filing ITR-V for returns e-Filed for A.Y 2013-14 (filed on or after 1st April 2014 till 31st March 2015) and for A.Y 2014-15 (filed on or after 1st April 2014 till 30th June 2015) extended till 31st October 2015. 

 

F No 2/3/CIT(OSD)(S)/2014-15/CPC-ITRV issues

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Central Board of Direct Taxes

Directorate of income Tax (Systems)

 

Notification No. 1/2015 under the CPC Scheme 2011

 

New Deihi

Dated the 10th of July 2015

 

Extension of time limit for submitting ITR-V for electronically filed returns for AY- 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15

 

In exercise of the powers under clause (ii) of Para 14 read with clause (7) of Para 4  of the ‘Centralized Processing of Returns Scheme 2011 issued as per C B D T Notification Notification No. SO16(E) dated 04.1.2012 [2/2012], the Director General of Income Tax (System hereby extends the time limit for submitting ITR-V forms relating to Income Tax Returns filed electronically (without digital Signature certificate) for AY 2013-14 (filed on or after 1st April 2014 till 31st March 2015) and for A.Y. March 2015) and for AY. 2014-15 (filed on or after 1st April, 2014 till 30th June 2015).  These ITR-V forms can now be submitted upto 31st October, 2015 or within a period of 120 days from the date of uploading of the electronic return data whichever is later.

 

2 This notification is issued to mitigate the hardship and grievance of the taxpayers who have been prevented by reasonable causes to file the ITR-V in time.

 

3 Taxpayers can also verify their status of receipt of ITR V at e-filing website https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in. They can also download the ITR-V from the same website from sub-menu ‘e-filed Returns/firms‘ under main menu of ‘My account' after login to above mentioned website and clicking on the relevant Ack No hyperlink.

 

4. The ITR-V forms shouid be sent by ordinary post or speed post addressed to CPC, Post Bag No.1. Electronic City Post Office, Bengaluru- 560100.

 

(Nishi Singh)

Pr. DGIT (Systems) CBDT


Read more: http://www.staffnews.in/2015/07/extension-of-time-limit-for-submitting.html#ixzz3fy1w17cA
 

 MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

Automatic Refund of Confirmed/ RAC E-Tickets on Cancellation of Trains 

Ministry of Railways has decided to grant automatic refund of Confirmed/RAC e-tickets on cancellation of trains similar to waitlisted e-tickets. There shall not be any requirement for cancellation/filing of TDR for refund of e-tickets in case of cancellation of trains. This will become effective very shortly.

In case of cancellation of trains, PRS counter ticket shall continue to be refunded across the reservation counter as per the existing provisions.

 

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. I’m a great place for you to tell a story and let your users know a little more about you.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: April 09, 2015;Judgment Delivered on : May 07, 2015
W.P.(C) 8012/2013
S.A.KHAN & ANR. .....Petitioners represented by: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents represented by: Mr. Vikram Jetly, Advocate with Mr.
Piyush Bhardwaj, Advocate for UOI, Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Advocate with Ms. Anjali Bhandari, Advocate for R-
5 and R-6
W.P.(C) 8056/2013
RAJENDRA BABU PATHAK - Petitioner represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS - Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocate with Mr. Ajay
Kalra, Advocate for UOI, Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Advocate with Ms.Anjali Bhandari, Advocate for R-5
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE
PRATIBHA RANI
1. We are disposing of the above-captioned writ petitions by a common decision for the reason the
petitioners challenge the letter dated October 03, 2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, P.G. & Pension, to the extent it stipulates (and as per the petitioners under the garb of a
clarification) and links grant of full pension to completion of 33 years of qualifying service and draws a
distinction between those who retired before and after January 01, 2006. The result is that those who
superannuate after January 01, 2006 and have rendered a minimum of 20 years service would be entitled
to full pension and those who superannuated before said date would be liable to have the pension prorata
decreased for each year less service rendered, taking 33 years as full pensionable service period.
The petitioners also pray for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondents directing them to
maintain parity between those pensioners who retired pre and post-January 01, 2006 and also with
regard to family pension, meaning thereby that every pensioner who has rendered 20 years service and
beyond would be entitled to full pension.
2. In W.P.(C) No.8056/2013, prayer has also been made to quash the letter dated October 01, 2012
under which the pension of the petitioner was re-fixed to his disadvantage with a direction that his pension
be refixed as per para 4.2 of the Office Memorandum dated September 01, 2008. Similarly, in W.P.(C)
No.8012/2013, the petitioners have prayed that letters whereby their pension was reduced be quashed
and their pension be re-fixed as per para 4.2 of the Office Memorandum dated September 01, 2008. The
petitioners have also prayed that the amounts recovered from their pension be directed to be refunded
with interest.
3. Thus, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the decision to classify the pensioners in
two classes : pre January 01, 2006 pensioners and post said date pensioners is a reasonable
classification, while according full pension to post January 01, 2006 pensioners who have rendered 20
years‟ service but pro-rata reducing the same for the pre January 01, 2006 pensioners, which stands the
scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; since the Article while permitting classification warrants a
rational nexus to be established keeping in view the object and thereby resulting in two classes forming. It
is trite that equality has to be amongst the members of the same class and not amongst members of
different classes. Thus, it is the reasonableness of the classification which is in issue.
4. Briefly stated, the facts germane for adjudication of the present petitions are that petitioner,
Rajendra Babu Pathak of W.P.(C) No.8056/2013 was recruited in the Central Reserved Police Force
(CRPF) to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1967 and after serving in the force for a
period of 21 years, 6 months and 6 days, sought voluntary retirement and was granted the same on
August 01, 1988. He had earlier worked as a lecturer in the Education Department for a period of 8 years.
At the time of retirement, he was drawing a basic pay of `4800 + 150 + D.A. For the purpose of pension,
the total qualifying service of the petitioner was taken to be 29 years and 8 days. Pursuant to subsequent
revisions, on account of the VIth Central Pay Commission recommendations, the pension was fixed at
`20,256/-. He made a representation that his pension be enhanced which was denied on the reasoning
that he had not completed 33 years qualifying service for full pension.
5. The writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.8012/2013, were recruited in CRPF in the year 1967 and
superannuated in the year 1996 and 1995 respectively. Their pensions were fixed with reference to
qualifying service of petitioner No.1 taken to be 29 years, 5 months and 22 days and that of petitioner
No.2 as 28 years, 5 months and 23 days. The pensions were revised when the recommendations of the
6th Central Pay Commissions were implemented, but were decreased pro-rata for such period of service
which fell short of 33 years. As regards these petitioners post January 01, 2006 their pensions were fixed
at `23,050/-being full pension but was reduced to `20,605/- without notice to them and the reason given
by the respondents was that while fixing their pension the same had to be pro-rata decreased for the
period they served less than 33 years.
6. As per learned counsel for the petitioners the issue at hand was squarely covered by the decision
of the Supreme Court reported as 1990 (4) SCC 270 D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, wherein it was held
that denial of liberalized pension to those persons who had retired before the cut-off date prescribed was
against the constitutional guarantee. Reliance was also placed on the decision reported as 2008 (9) SCC
125 Union of India v SPS Vains, wherein it was held as under:
“28. The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the
doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration
at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken
up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the
judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid
criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a
class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held
that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, In as much as, the Pension Rules being
statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and
discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it
would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified
pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle
and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by
amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the
pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
29. The Constitution Bench has discussed in detail the objects of granting pension and we need not,
therefore, dilate any further on the said subject, but the decision in the aforesaid case has been
consistently referred to in various subsequent judgments of this Court, to which we need not refer. In fact,
all the relevant judgments delivered on the subject prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench have
been considered and dealt with in detail in the aforesaid case. The directions ultimately given by the
Constitution Bench in the said case in order to resolve the dispute which had arisen, is of relevance to
resolve the dispute in this case also.
30. However, before we give such directions we must also observe that the submissions advanced on
behalf of the Union of India cannot be accepted in view of the decision in D.S.Nakara's case (supra). The
object sought to be achieved was not to create a class within a class, but to ensure that the benefits of
pension were made available to all persons of the same class equally. To hold otherwise would cause
violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not also have been the intention of the
authorities to equate the pension payable to officers of two different ranks by resorting to the step up
principle envisaged in the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers belonging to the same
cadre would be receiving a higher pension.”
7. To put rest his argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision
dated April 29, 2013 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1535/2012 Union of India & Anr. Vs
Central Govt. SAG & Ors., authored by one of us i.e. Pradeep Nandrajog, J., wherein the issue for
consideration was the applicability of paragraph 9 of the Office Memorandum dated January 28, 2013
from September 24, 2012 onwards, thereby denying the arrears of pension to be paid to pensioners with
effect from January 01, 2006.
8. While disposing of the said writ petition the Division Bench expressed its complete agreement with
a decision dated December 21, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
WP (C) No. 19641/ 2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. Learned counsel relied upon
paragraphs 21 to 26 of the said judgment, wherein the Division Bench had reasoned as under:
“21. On the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it was
argued before the Tribunal that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under
the garb of clarification. It was argued that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised
pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade
pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
22. The Tribunal has accepted this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent
OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008
were contrary to the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for
determination of the pension had been completely changed that too when these two subsequent OMs
dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were issued by the lower authorities having no power to issue such
clarification.
23. After considering the arguments of learned counsels for all the parties, we are of the opinion that
it is not even necessary to go into the various nuances and nitty grittys, which are insisted by learned
counsels for the petitioners based on D.S. Nakara line of cases and N. Subbarayudu and others and
S.R. Dhingra and others (supra), wherein ratio of D.S. Nakara is explained. We proceed on the basis
that fixation of cut off date by the government was in order and to this extent we agree with the reasoning
given by the Tribunal where similar arguments, as advanced by the petitioners before us, were rejected.
The issue can be resolved on the interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself. It is not in dispute that vide
resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the
government and the pension was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein. We have
already reproduced the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para
5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with
certain modifications. Based on this resolution, OM dated 01.09.2008 was issued. We have also
reproduced para 4.2 thereof. This states in unequivocal terms that “revised pension in no case shall be
lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised
pay scale------”.
The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006
as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay
Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to
the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired. However, notwithstanding the same and
without any provocation, the junior functionaries in the Department of Pension nurtured a doubt “though
there was none” and note was prepared on that basis, which led to issuance of OM 5 dated 03.10.2008
and 14.10.2008. The effect of these two Oms was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by
giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band. To demonstrate this, Mr.
H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing in some of these cases drew our attention to the following
chart:-
Min of pre
revised scale
Pay in the
pay band Grade pay Revised basic
pay (2+3)
Pension 50% of
2 + 3
1 2 3 4 5
S-24 (14300) 37400 8700 46100 23050
S-25 (15100) 39690 8700 48390 24195
S-26 (16400) 39690 8900 48590 24295
S-27(16400) 39690 8900 48590 24295
S-28(14300) 37400 10000 47400 23700
S-29(18400) 44700 10000 54700 27350
The first 4 columns of the above table have been extracted from the pay fixation annexed with MOF
OM of 30th August, 2008 (referred to in para 4.5 (iii) above). Revised pension of S 29works out to `27,350
which has been reduced to `23,700 as per DOP OM of 03.10.2008 (para 4.8 (B) below).
24. As per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay in
the Pay Band against `14,300/- is shown as `37,400/-. In addition, Grade Pay of `8700/- was given
totaling `46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all the other pay scales were accepted by the
aforementioned OM dated 14th October, 2008. The illegality which has been perpetrated in the present
matter is apparent from the fact that whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and
receiving a pay of `14,300/- would now receive `37,400/- plus grade pay of `8700/- and his full pension
would accordingly be fixed at `23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay `8700/-) pursuant to the
implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before
01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of `18,400/- or even `22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised
S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of `37,400/- plus grade pay of
`10,000/-).
25. This has arisen because of resolution dated 29.08.2008 and has resulted because of deletion of
certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008. This aspect is beautifully
demonstrated by the Tribunal in its Full Bench judgement in the following manner with which we are
entirely agree: “In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage, it will be useful to extract the
relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of the VI CPC recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution dated
29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the OM dated1.9.2008 and subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification
dated 3.10.2008, which thus read:-
Resolution NO.38/37/8-
P&PW (A)
Dated 29.08.2008 –
Para 5.1.47 (page 154-
155)
Para 4.2 of OM DOP&PW
OM No. 38/37/8- P&PW
(A) dated 1.09.2008
(page 38 of OA)
OM DOP & PW OM No.38/37/8-
P&PW (A) dated 3.10.2008
The fixation as per
above will be subject
to the provision 'that
the revised pension,
in no case, shall be
lower than 50% of the
sum of the minimum
of the pay in the pay
band and the grade
pay thereon
corresponding to the
pre revised pay scale
from which the
pensioner had
retired.
The fixation as per
above will be subject to
the provision 'that the
revised pension, in no
case, shall be lower
than 50% of the (sum
of the) minimum of the
pay in the pay band
plus (and) the grade
pay (thereon)
corresponding to the
prerevised pay scale
from which the
pensioner had retired.
The Pension Calculated at 50% of the [sum of
the] minimum of the pay in the pay band [and
the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised
pay scale] plus grade pay would be
calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the
pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale
of pay plus) the grade pay corresponding to the
prerevised pay scale. For example, if a
pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of
pay of `18400-22400, the corresponding pay
band being `37400- 67000 and the
corresponding grade pay being `10000 p.m., his
minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of
`37400+`10000 (i.e.`23700)
Strike out are deletions
and bold letter addition
Strike out are deletions and bold letter addition
As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the
recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-
2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the
grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of
retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum
of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the
pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon
corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' and adding 'irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus'
implying that the revised pension is to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially
changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the
recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the applicants. According
to us, such a course was not available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification
thereby altering the recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government.
According to us, deletion of the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the
prerevised scale' 'and addition of the words 'irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus', as
introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying
out amendment to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the recommendations of
the VI CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the aforesaid
resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet. Thus, such a course was not permissible for the
functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring the
matter to the Cabinet.”
26. “It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances.
Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th
Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in
consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will
be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the
minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale
from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired
before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay
Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the
minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and
mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period
of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a
period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order
as to cost.”
9. In the above judgment while noting the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in paragraph 22 of the said judgment it has been clearly held that „The Tribunal has accepted
this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent OM dated October 03, 2008,
October 14, 2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated September 01, 2008 were contrary to
the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for determination of the pension
had been completely changed that to when these two subsequent OMs were issued by lower authorities
having no power to issue such clarification’. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
above judgment has already held that the Oms dated October 03, 2008 and October 14, 2008 are
contrary to OM dated September 01, 2008 and were issued by a lower authority who could not have
altered the original OM being September 01, 2008. Thus the normal corollary would be that the procedure
laid down under para 4.2 of the OM dated September 01, 2008 shall remain in respect of pre-2006
retirees and the clarifications issued by OMs dated October 03, 2008, October 14, 2008 and January 28,
2013 whereby the words „the pension of the pensioners who retired prior to 2006 will be reduced pro-rata
wherein the pensioner who has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of
CCS (Pension) Rules 1972’ needs to be quashed.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to a judgment dated December 07,
2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No.106/2009 Wing Commander (Retd.) V.S.Tomar vs
Union of India & Ors, whereby the Armed Forces Tribunal had quashed the similar words introduced by
the respondents vide letter dated November 11, 2008 in respect of the Armed Forces which had been
issued by the Ministry of Defence. In the said judgments the Armed Forces Tribunal relying upon the
judgment of D.S.Nakara and S.P.S.Vains have declared Para 5 of the Notification dated November 11,
2008 to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has struck down the same.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice a judgment dated November 20,
2014 passed by a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench All India S-30
Pensioners Association Versus Union of India & Ors, wherein it has been held that “there can be no
disparity in the payment of pension to officers of the same rank who had retired prior to introduction of the
revised pay scales with those who retired thereafter.”
12. The sum and substance of all the above judgments and the arguments raised by the petitioners is
that the respondents cannot have different yardsticks for similarly situated persons and cannot apply
different formulas for fixation of their pensions by dividing into a homogeneous class of persons. The
same has already been held to be arbitrary and discriminatory by the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara‟s
case (supra) and S.P.S.Vains‟s case (supra). Moreover, the judgment dated December 21, 2012 passed
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in WP(C) No. 19641/ 2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Versus Haryana
State & Ors, has already held that OMs dated October 03, 2008, October 14, 2008 were issued by a
lower authority who could not have altered the original OM being dated September 01, 2008. Thus the
normal corollary would be that the procedure laid down under para 4.2 of the OM dated September 01,
2008 shall remain in respect to pre-2006 retirees and the clarifications issued by OMs dated October 03,
2008, October 14, 2008 and January 28, 2013 whereby the words “the pension of the pensioners who
retired prior to 2006 will be reduced pro-rata wherein the pensioner who has less than the maximum
required service for full pension as per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972” needs to be quashed.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision reported as (2005) 6 SCC 754
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. wherein the cut-off date April 01, 1995 for pensioners
was upheld as also the decision reported as (1992) 1 SCC 644 All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’
Association vs. UOI & Ors, where the cut-off dated January 01, 1986 for pensioners in the banking sector
was upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents criticized the decision of the Bench of the Armed
Forces Tribunal rendered on December 07, 2011 in OA No.106/ 2009 Wing Commander (Retd.)
V.S.Tomar vs. UOI & Ors. relied upon by the petitioners on the ground that the said decision showed a
mechanical exercise to come to the conclusion that the date January 01, 2006 for pensioners was
arbitrary in the context of post said date, pensioners not being subjected to pro-rata cut in pension and
pre said date pensioners being subjected to a pro-rata cut in pension.
14. On the factual aspect, to the reader of our opinion in which up till now we have noted the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners it would emerge that the office memorandum
dated September 01, 2008 on the subject of implementation of the Government‟s decision on the
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission concerning revision of pension of pre-January 01,
2006 pensioners drew no distinction between pre and post January 01, 2006 pensioners and simply
require full pension to be paid to all pensioners irrespective of the concept of pro-rata reduction in the
pension stipulating 33 years‟ service as the minimum service to earn full pension and as a result any
service less than 33 years requiring pro-rata reduction in the pension. The said office memorandum was
issued on behalf of the Government of India and as per the business allocation rules was signed by the
Director (PP) in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension. Under the garb of a
clarification, on October 03, 2008 the distinction was drawn between pre and post January 01, 2006
pensioners. As regards post January 01, 2006 their pension was not to be lowered and could not be less
than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay if they had served for
20 years, but as regards pre-January 01, 2006 their pension was to be lowered by a pro-rata reduction if
service was rendered less than 33 years.
15. On said aspect of the matter, the decision dated April 29, 2013 of the Division Bench of this Court
in W.P. (C) No.1535/2012 Union of India & Anr. Vs Central Govt. SAG & Ors, has already taken a view
favourable to the petitioners, and indeed as noted in paragraph 7 above the learned counsel for the
petitioners had heavily relied upon the decision.
16. Our task is simple. To cull out the correct ratio of law declared by the Supreme Court as also a
Division Bench of this Court and that of the Armed Forces Tribunal from the decisions cited by learned
counsel for both parties.
17. The first decision on the point is the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (1983) 1 SCC 305
D.S.Nakara Vs UOI. A liberalized pension formula was notified by the Government of India but made
applicable to only those pensioners who had retired on or after March 31, 1979. Whereas the
Government argued that all pensioners do not form a homogeneous class and thus the Government was
justified, keeping in view its finances, to grant the benefit to those who had retired on or after March 31,
1979, the petitioners argued to the contrary urging that unless a causal connection between the basis of
the classification and the object thereof was demonstrably shown, discrimination would be writ large.
18. The Government having failed to show a causal connection between the basis of the classification
and the object, the Supreme Court held that the cut-off date was arbitrary and extended the benefit of the
liberalized scheme to all pensioners.
19. In the decision reported as (1992) 1 SCC 644 All India Reserved Bank Retired Association Vs.
UOI, the relevant facts were that the Government of India took a uniform decision that all those who
joined Government service post January 01, 1986 would have to become a member of the pension
scheme without any option to be a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The reason
being the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission to said effect. Whereas option was given
to the existing employees to opt for the pension scheme and opt out of the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme, pre and post January 01, 1986 retirees became two classes. Those who had retired after
January 01, 1986 and members of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme could return the amount
received by them and receive pension instead but those who had retired pre-January 01, 1986 could not
exercise said option. By the time the Ministry of Finance gave concurrence to the bank employees the
year 1990 had come into being and as a result when the recommendations of the pay commission were
notified for the employees of bank, the relevant office memorandums gave the benefit to those who had
retired on or after January 01, 1986 and denied the same to the ones who had retired on or before
December 31, 1985.
20. Finding a rational nexus, being the decision of the 4th Central Pay Commission and the date of its
applicability i.e. January 01, 1986, keeping in view the finances of the Government, the Supreme Court
upheld the date as the basis of a rational classification.
21. In the decision reported as (2005) 6 SCC 754 State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal &
Ors., the cut-off date was April 01, 1995 and the Supreme Court upheld the cut-off date keeping in view
that the financial year commences on April 01 each year and the benefit conferred was an increment in
the quantum of retirement gratuity and/or death gratuity consequent upon the merger of a portion of
Dearness Allowance into the basic pay. It is apparent that the existence of a rational nexus between the
criteria and the object of the policy being determinable resulted in the cut-off date being upheld.
22. In the decision reported as (2008) 9 SCC 125 UOI & Anr. Vs S.P.S. Vains & Ors, the disparity was
the result of the cut-off date being prescribed as January 01, 1996 for retirees in the Army resulting in
officers holding the rank of Brigadier receiving higher pension being drawn in comparison with officers
holding the higher rank of Major General. Those holding rank of Major General but having retired on or
before December 31, 1995 started receiving lesser pension than Brigadiers who retired on or after
January 01, 1996. No nexus being shown between the criteria i.e. the cut-off date with the object of the
policy sought to be achieved, relying upon the law declared in D.S.Nakara‟s case (supra) the cut-off date
was held to be arbitrary and as a consequence the classification of the pensioners in the two categories
was held to be discriminatory.
23. As regards the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated December 07, 2011 in OA
No.106/2009 Wing Commander (Retd.)V.S.Tomar vs UOI & Ors, the reasoning of the Tribunal, as urged
by learned counsel for the respondents is mechanical. The Tribunal held that from the decisions of the
Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara’s case (supra), S.P.S.Vains‟s case (supra), Amar Nath Goyal’s case
(supra) and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association’s case (supra) it appeared to the Tribunal
that in the year 1983 (D.S.Nakara’s case) the view taken by the Supreme Court was that in matters of
pension a cut-off date as the basis of classification was not valid, but as of the years 1992 (All India
Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association’s case) and the year 2005 (Amar Nath Goyal’s case) cut-off
dates were valid but the latest view in the year 2008 (S.P.S.Vains case) showed that the view was that a
cut-off date was invalid. But that should not trouble us for the reason we have independently analyze the
ratio of law flowing in the various decisions of the Supreme Court and suffice it to state that wherever the
Supreme Court found a rational nexus between the criteria with the object of the policy sought to be
achieved the classification with reference to a date was upheld and wherever such rational nexus was not
shown the same was held to be arbitrary.
24. Reverting to the facts of the instant case we find that the respondents have failed to show any
nexus between the criteria with the object of the policy. To give benefit of full pension to those who have
rendered 20 years service but have retired on or after January 01, 2006 but subject the pensioners who
have retired on or before December 31, 2005 to a pro-rata cut in pension unless backed by a
reasonableness of the criteria with the object sought to be achieved would render the cut-off date as an
arbitrary criteria and thus liable to be quashed.
25. To summarize, the petitioners must succeed on two points. Firstly that the policy decision of the
Government in the Office Memorandum dated September 01, 2008 to fix pension for all category of
pensioners did not classify post and pre January 01, 2006 retirees and all were entitled to pension as per
a common formula. Under the garb of clarification the Office Memorandum of October 03, 2008 followed
by the Office Memorandum dated October 14, 2008 and repeated in the Office Memorandum dated
January 28, 2013 the cut-off date was inserted by an officer of the Government having no authority to cut
down the beneficial policy decision notified on September 01, 2008. Secondly for the reason the cut-off
date is arbitrary and fouls Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
26. The writ petitions are allowed. The Office Memorandums introducing the cut-off date and
mandating that pre January 01, 2006 pensioners would have their pension fix by pro-rata reducing the
same by such numbers of years they have rendered less service than 33 years are quashed. It is
declared that the writ petitioners would be entitled to full pension post January 01, 2006 without any prorata
cut therein. Pension deducted from the petitioners (after it was correctly fixed and paid but later on
reduced and hence deductions made) shall be refunded as also the arrears paid within six weeks from
today failing which the amount payable would bear simple interest @ 9% per annum reckoned six weeks
hereinafter.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE

Tax Rates

1. In case of an Individual (resident or non-resident) or HUF or Association of Person or Body of Individual or any other artificial juridical person

Assessment Year 2015-16

Taxable income

Tax Rate

Up to Rs. 2,50,000

Nil

Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 5,00,000

10%

Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000

20%

Above Rs. 10,00,000

30%

Less: Rebate under Section 87A [see Note]

Add: Surcharge and Education Cess [see Note]

Assessment Year 2016-17

Taxable income

Tax Rate

Up to Rs. 2,50,000

Nil

Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 5,00,000

10%

Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000

20%

Above Rs. 10,00,000

30%

Less: Rebate under Section 87A [see Note]

Add: Surcharge and Education Cess [see Note]

2. In case of a resident senior citizen (who is 60 years or more at any time during the previous year but less than 80 years on the last day of the previous year)

Assessment Year 2015-16

Taxable income

Tax Rate

Up to Rs. 3,00,000

Nil

Rs. 3,00,000 - Rs. 5,00,000

10%

Rs. 5,00,000 - Rs. 10,00,000

20%

Above Rs. 10,00,000

30%

Less: Rebate under Section 87A [see Note]

Add: Surcharge and Education Cess [see Note]

Assessment Year 2016-17

Taxable income

Tax Rate

Up to Rs. 3,00,000

Nil

Rs. 3,00,000 - Rs. 5,00,000

10%

Rs. 5,00,000 - Rs. 10,00,000

20%

Above Rs. 10,00,000

30%

Less: Rebate under Section 87A [see Note]

Add: Surcharge and Education Cess [see Note]

3. In case of a resident super senior citizen (who is 80 years or more at any time during the previous year)

Assessment Year 2015-16

Taxable income

Tax Rate

Up to Rs. 5,00,000

Nil

Rs. 5,00,000 - Rs. 10,00,000

20%

Above Rs. 10,00,000

30%

Add: Surcharge and Education Cess [see Note]

Assessment Year 2016-17

Taxable income

Tax Rate

Up to Rs. 5,00,000

Nil

Rs. 5,00,000 - Rs. 10,00,000

20%

Above Rs. 10,00,000

30%

Add: Surcharge and Education Cess [see Note]

 

Electronic Filing of Income Tax Returns for 2015-16 Commences; ITR 1-Sahaj, 2 and 2A can be Used by Individuals or HUF Whose Income Does not Include Income from Business;

ITR 4S - SUGAM can be Used by an Individual or an HUF Whose Income Includes Business Income Assessable on Presumptive Basis; Taxpayers Requested to E-File Their Returns Early to Avoid the Rush Closer to the Last Date of Filing.

The Income Tax Department has released the software for preparing the Income Tax Return forms 1- SAHAJ, 2, 2A and 4S- SUGAM for AY 2015-16. The e-filing of these return forms has been enabled on the e-filing website-https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in.

ITR 1-SAHAJ, 2 and 2A can be used by individual or HUF whose income does not include income from business. ITR 4S - SUGAM can be used by an individual or HUF whose income includes business income assessable on presumptive basis. The elaborate details of the persons who can use these forms are available in the instructions for filling the forms.

The facility for pre-filling of information for these return forms is available in the software for preparing the return forms. When the taxpayer exercises this option and just fills in his PAN, then personal information and information on taxes paid and TDS will be auto-filled in the form. Taxpayers are requested to use the return preparation software available free of cost under the ‘Downloads’ section on the home page of the Income Tax Department’s e-filing website-https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in. The use of Departmental software will ensure preparation of error-free returns thereby avoiding any need for future rectification due to data validation mistakes.

Taxpayers are requested to e-file their returns early to avoid the rush closer to the last date of filing.
Source:http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=0

 

                                RAILWAY PENSIONERS SAMAJ, CHENNAI

                                         (Affiliated to NFRP/PGT)

No. RPS/MAS/746                                                                                   22.06.2015

 

Secretary  General                                     Copy to: BPS/NDLS                                                                              

NFRP/PGT

                   Sub: Quarterly Meeting of Railway Pensioners Samaj/Chennai

                                                              --

Quarterly Meeting of our Pensioners Samaj  was conducted on 20.06.2015  at Unity House ( SRES) PER, presided over by Sri J.Sridharan. President/RPS. Sri R.N.Tripathi, Sr.Vice President/Bharat Pensioners Samaj was the Chief Guest. 265 members attended. 9 Railway Pensioners joined as Life members. Welcome address delivered by Sri B.V.Rajan, Vice-President.  Two minutes silence observed to condole the death of life members expired recently.

 

Sri S.Suryanarayanan, Addl Member, Railway Board ( Retd.) was inducted as Adviser to RPS  and Sri  P.Jayaraman was inducted as Working President in a vacancy.

 

Genl. Secy. K.Srinivasan explained in detail  regarding decision pending on payment of arrears of pension from 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012, after the  dismissal of 3 SLPS by Hon’ S.C. on 17.3.2015, Donations to Nepal Relief Fund , Mid-Term Pension adalat to be held on 10.7.2015, cases pending reg. pro-rata pension, RPS/NFRP associating with BPS in the common interest of all CG Pensioners etc. etc. Sri K.Srinivasan requested Sri R.N.Tripathi to use his good offices for the early redress of grievances of certain pre 1996 Rly. Pensioners, retired especially from Southern Railway.

 

Chief Guest Sri R.N.Tripathi dwelt with a number of important matters concerning  pensioners i.e. VII PC, FMA, Post Retirement pass, Health scheme for Railway employees/pensioners, He mentioned denial of  min. pension Rs. 6750  to certain pre 1996 Rly.  pensioners  is not there  in other Zonal Rlys.  and that BPS is pursuing  this issue with RB and DOP&PW. When members sought clarification on certain matters concerning Railway pensioners, Chief Guest readily explained in detail.     

 

RPS Diary 2015, containing details of Life Members and other important instructions to Railway pensioners/family pensioners was distributed to the members. This Diary is sponsored by Sri P.Jayaraman, Working President. Statement of Accounts for FY 2014-2015 was read out by Treasurer Sri M.Padmanabhan andwas unanimously approved. Xerox copy of a Booklet containing 30 pages and priced at Rs. 20/was issued to the pensioners. This booklet contain useful information on FAQ on Pension matters and issued by DOP&PW. ( FAQ -Frequently Asked Questions)

 

Wall Clocks sponsored by Sri P.Jayaraman waspresented to 6 Life members aged above 75 years by the Chief Guest. Vote of thanks proposed by Sri J.R. Pattabiraman, Joint Secy. Meeting ended at 17 hrs. with National Anthem.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

 

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)   VERSUS VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

 

C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012,C.A.No.3907 of 2012,C.A.No.4581 of 2012,

C.A.No.4952 of 2012,C.A.No.4980 of 2012,C.A.No.4599 of 2013,C.A.No.1 of 2015

AND

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &SLP(C)No......... of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)

O R D E R

Heard.

Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.

C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 : No substantial question of law of general/public

importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal. The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013 SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 & SLP(C)Nos...........of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer

is not opposed by counsel opposite. We accordingly grant four months' time from today to the

petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to theirlogical conclusion.

All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.

.......................J

(T.S. THAKUR)

.......................J

(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI

DATED 17th March, 2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2010

 

M.M.P. Sinha, S/o Late Justice B.P. Sinha A Retired Railway Servant, R/o 'Vishnupada', Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-800001 .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Raisina Hills, New Delhi
2. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Through The Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi
3. Ministry of Railways Through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
4. Railway Board, Through Secretary, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi   .... .... Respondent/s

 

Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.M.P. Sinha (In Person)
For the Railways : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Singh.
For the Union of India : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.S.G.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 18-05-2015

            A very simple but ticklish issue arises in this writ petition. The issue is whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade. Is it not arbitrary and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others since reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125, the pension of the person in the higher grade would have to be stepped up accordingly.

            The contesting respondents are the Union of India through the Secretary, (Department of Expenditure), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension as also Ministry of Railways through the Chairman and the Secretary. There are supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit after several adjournments.

            We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who appears in person, and learned counsel for the Union of India as well as Railways.

            The facts are not, at all, in dispute. The petitioner retired in 1992 from the services of Indian Railways as Additional General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. At the time of his retirement, he was an officer in Higher Administrative Grade (HAG). Let it be noted that Government of India classified its staff in 33 scales and one exclusive scale for Cabinet Secretary. In so far as relevant S-28, S-29, S-30 and S-31 are scales corresponding to Selection Grade, Senior Administrative Grade, High Administrative Grade and High Administrative Grade+. As per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, Central Government declared scale for PB-4 which was for Selection Grade [SG] (S-28), Senior Administrative Grade [SAG] (S-29), High Administrative Grade [HAG] (S-30) as 37,400- 67,000 but provided for Grade Pay for each scale separately at 8,700; 10,000 and 12,000 respectively. But later S-30 was taken out of PB-4 and a separate pay band was provided for it being HAG Scale 67,000-79,000 but while doing so vide circular of Ministry of Railways dated 26.05.2009 Grade Pay of 12,000 for HAG was removed.

            As the petitioner had retired in 1992, as per Railway Board’s notification, petitioner’s notional pay was fixed at the minimum of HAG (S-30) being 67,000 without Grade Pay. The result was his pension was then fixed at 50% thereof being 33,500. On the other side, a person in (SAG) Grade S-29, which is an inferior and feeder grade for S-30, the Pay Band is 37,400-67,000 but there is a Grade Pay entitlement of Rs. 10000/-. Accordingly, petitioner points out that the maximum pension that can be paid in Grade S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- and half of it (50%) would be Rs. 38,500/-. Thus, seen on the face of it, a person retiring in Grade S-29 at the maximum scale would get not only higher remuneration but consequently, higher pension than Grade S-30, for which it was feeder post both in terms of remuneration and pension. This is hostile discrimination, arbitrary and improper. Briefly submitted a junior cannot get higher remuneration or pension than a senior. In order to contradict the objection of the Central Government and the Indian Railways that this is mere a theoretical submission, petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit giving facts and figures. He has given names and designations of at least three officers of the Railways, who have retired on different dates in the Senior Administrative Grade with Grade Pay in the scale of S-29 as against the petitioner, who was in the Higher Administrative Grade. They are receiving pension between Rs. 35690/- and Rs. 36640/-. Even though he is of Higher Administrative Grade, his pension is fixed at maximum of Rs. 33500/-. He has then in the said supplementary affidavit given names of at least eight other persons, who again would be retiring from Senior Administrative Grade in near future and their pension would ordinarily be at Rs. 38500/- as against the petitioner of Rs.33500/-. Petitioner, thus, in theory and practical, has shown the discrepancy i.e. capable of happening and also happening. In fact, he submits that this is a clear case of impermissible discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

            There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India in the Department of Public Grievances and Pension. There is counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit by the Railways but it seems Railways have been entrusted to defend the case by the Government of India. Their only defence is that petitioner had retired prior to 2006 whereas; the cases illustrated by him, are cases of persons, who retired after 01.01.2006 or are yet to retire. This, accordingly, is reasonable classification for lower pension in the higher Grade.

            In other words, the only explanation given is retirement at different times but there is no explanation as to why a person of a higher grade will get pension less than of a junior grade. The factual assertion of this dichotomy, as pointed out by the petitioner, has not been challenged. It is submitted that earlier for Grade S-30, there was a Grade Pay of Rs. 12000/- So long as the Grade pay was there, there was no problem as the maximum pay entitlement of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/whereas; the minimum of S-30 would be Rs. 67000 + 12000 = 79000/-. Therefore, there would always be a difference in between two. But when the Central Government in 2009 decided to remove the Grade Pay for S-30 and onwards there would be a clear dichotomy when pension calculations are made, as shown above.

            The petitioner has further brought to our notice to a very unhappy situation that would also arise. The maximum pay, as noticed above, of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- A person, who is in S-29 reaching the maximum level is then promoted to Higher Administrative Grade from Senior Administrative Grade. In S-30, there being no Grade Pay, he would come to the basic pay of that grade i.e. 67000/-. Effectively, his remuneration upon promotion would stand reduced by Rs. 10000/- and in such an event, he would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof, the result would be quite ridiculous. It is direct consequence of this that there is anomaly in pension.Respondents’ only defence is that this anomaly is inherent in the system and inherent in the pay and pay structure as fixed with effect from 01.01.2006. The question is whether inherent, apparent or latent discrimination is permissible. In our view, the short answer is that it cannot ever be permissible. A person in the Higher Administrative Grade cannot draw less remuneration or less pension than a person of the Senior Administrative Grade which grade is the Feeder Grade for the Higher Administrative Grade.This is exactly what is happening in the present case. This is exactly what has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and others (Supra). There it was noticed that the Brigadier in the Army was receiving higher pension than the Major General. Brigadier is the Feeder post for Major General. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the only way out for the Central Government was to step up the pension of Major General so that this discrimination of junior getting higher pension than a senior is removed.

            Neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor the counsel for the Indian Railways is able to distinguish the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Apart from saying that the said decision was based on pay basic scale, service conditions of defence services which are different from other civil services, there was no other distinction. It is the principle of law decided that is to be considered. The principle of law, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is plain and simple; that a senior officer cannot get pension less than his junior. If that be, the effect of pay fixation than the pension would have to be stepped up to avoid such hostile discrimination. There was no consideration of defence service or any special feature of defence service as distinguishing civil services. The distinction pointed out is illusionary. 

            Hence, having considered the matter, the facts not being in dispute, as noted above, and the law not being in disputed, as noted above, the result is that the writ petition must succeed and the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has to be set aside. It has to be held that the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 has to be stepped up to Rs. 38,500/- to avoid discrimination. Respondent no.3, Ministry of Railways through the Chairman Railway Board and Respondent no.4, Railway Board through Secretary are given three months time to calculate the arrears of pension accordingly and pay the same within the said period.      This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

 

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/A.F.R

 

CENTRAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  TRIBUNAL  -  PRINCIPAL  BENCH

OA 1165/2011 with OA 2165/2011 and OA 246/2012.  New Delhi the 21st day of April, 2015

 

Honble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)

OA 1165/2011

Pratap Narayan, Executive Director (Retired). FICC, Min. of Fertilizers, R/o C-47, Friends Colony East New Delhi-110065 AND Others Versus Union of India through

1. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003

2. Secretary, Deptt. of Expenditure Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat North Block, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (Through Sh.Rajesh Katyal and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocates)

Judgement of CAT PB New Delhi dated 21st day of April, 2015 OA 1165/2011 with OA 1165/2011 & OA 246/2012 Pratap Narayan & Others – Vs- Union of India

ORDER

Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)

1. OA 1165/2011, OA 2165/2011 and OA 247/2012, all deal with the same issue and therefore, are being disposed off through this common order.

2. The prayer of the applicants arises from a clarification issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare dated 3.10.2008, in specific challenging the following provision: “The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m.”

3. The background of the case is that after the VI Pay Commission submitted its report, the government issued OM dated 1.09.2008 relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/ family pensioners etc. Para 4.2 of the OM provides as follows:

4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG + and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.

4. Thereafter, the respondents issued the above mentioned OM dated 3.10.2008 in which the clarification was issued that pension will be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension of 33 years. The Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide resolution dated 29.08.2008 introduced the revised pension structure with effect from 1.01.2006. In this, the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the decision of the government were elaborated. The paragraphs relevant to this case are quoted below:

Sl. No

Recommendation

Decision of Government

2.

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant (5.1.33)

Accepted

 

3.

The recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 YEARS OF Qualifying service will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBORs in Defence Forces from the date it is accepted by the Government (6.5.3.)

Accepted

12.

All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (5.1.47).

Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86, i.e. basic pension  + Dearness pension (wherever Applicable) +

dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74.

The respondents further issued an OM dated 19.03.2010, which is reproduced below:

The undersigned is directed to say that orders for revision of pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners were issued vide this Departments OM of even number dated 01.09.2008. Para 4.1 of that OM lays down the manner in which the pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners is to be consolidated w.e.f.1.1.2006. In accordance with these instructions, a fitment weightage @ 40% of the pre-2006 basic pension/family pension (excluding the merged dearness relief of 50%) is to be given for revision of the pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners.

2. Para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM further provides that fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale. It was clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of pay  in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m. The fixation of family pension will be subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. A Table indicating the revised pension based on revised pay bands and grade pay was also annexed with this Departments OM dated 14.10.2008.

3. A large number of representations/references were received in the Department in regard to the provisions of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and it was clarified in this Departments OM of even number dated 11.2.2009 that the instructions/clarifications issued in this regard were in consonance with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change was required to be made in this respect.

4. In spite of the above clarifications, representations are still being received from pre-2006 pensioners (including those who retired from the pre-revised S-29 pay scale i.e. Rs.18400-22400) for higher revised pension in terms of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008. Representations have also been received demanding a higher fitment weightage to the pre-2006 pensioners in revision of pension in terms of Para 4.1 of the said OM. 5. These representations have been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance. It is reiterated that orders relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/ family pensioners have been correctly issued as per the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change is required to be made in this respect.

6. All references/representations received in this Department on the above issues stand disposed off accordingly.

5. The above OM basically reiterated the OM dated 3.10.2008 namely that there will be pro-rata reduction. In all the three OAs, the applicants have challenged the OM dated 3.10.2008 claiming that it is violative of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, 1983 SCC (L&S) 145. The prayer made is that their pension should be fixed in accordance with para 4.2. quoted above, ensuring parity between pensioners who have retired pre-1.01.2006 and post-1.01.2006. The question before us is, therefore, whether the date of retirement is a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date. This was precisely the point which was before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra). The question that was raised by their Lordships of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court in para 2 of the judgment reads as follows:

“2. Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ('1972 Rules' for short) form a class as a whole'? Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date? Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14? These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own feet.” And the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court answered the questions as follows:-

 “(1) Pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison de tre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 and 148 (5) of the Constitution.”

In the present case Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, the amended rules, since the specified date, accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. This division which classified pensioners into two classes is artificial and arbitrary, is not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalizing the pension rules, but is counter-productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of the pension scheme. Further, there is not a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Article 14.

Date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that be the criterion those who retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification to be upheld for any valid purpose.

The basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants also cited V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another, (1998) 8 SCC 30 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension. He would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation, the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.”

Similarly, the learned counsel for the applicants also relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi and others, (1993) 2 SCC 174 in which it was held as follows:

“The object of bringing into existence the revised terms and conditions in the memorandum dated June 16, 1967 was to protect the pensionary benefits which the Central Government servants had earned before their absorption into the public undertakings. Restricting the applicability of the revised memorandum only to those who are absorbed after the coming into force of the said memorandum, would be defeating the very object and purpose of the revised memorandum and contrary to fair play and justice.

There is no substance in the contention that the revised benefits being new it could only be prospective in operation and cannot be extended to employees who were absorbed earlier. The memorandum dated June 16, 1967 is prospective which only means that the benefits therein can be claimed only after June 16, 1967. The memorandum, however, takes into consideration the past event that is the period of service under the Central Government for the purposes of giving pro rata pension. Whoever has rendered pensionable service prior to coming into force of the memorandum would be entitled to claim the benefits under the said memorandum. Restricting the benefits only to those who were absorbed in public undertakings after June 16, 1967, is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 & 16. The appellant was permitted to be absorbed in the Central Government public undertaking in public interest. The appellant, as such, shall be deemed to have retired from Government service from the date of his absorption and is eligible to receive the retirement benefits. Though the retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37 are to be determined in accordance with the Government orders but the plain language of the rule does not permit any discrimination while granting the retirement benefits. Appeal allowed.”

7. This Tribunal (full Bench) had also examined a similar issue in OA 937/2010 decided along with OA 2101/2010. In those cases, the prayer made was to remove discrimination between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees as regards their pension, who were in the pay scale S-30 i.e. Rs.22400-525-24500. The matter was examined in depth considering the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra), Union of India Vs. S.P.S. Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125, Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon, JT 1994 (3) SC 26, State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others, 2005 SCC (L&S) 910, Union of India Vs. S.R. Dhingra and others, (2008) 2 SCC 229, Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. N. Subbarayudu and others, 2008 (4) SLR 136 and Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others, 2009 (5) SCC 313. The OAs were allowed vide order dated 20.11.2014 and the Tribunal gave the following directions:-

 “We direct the respondents to consider the revised pay of the applicants corresponding to the pay at which the concerned pensioner had in fact retired, instead of considering the minimum of the said pay scale, thereby determining pension/ family pension to pre-2006 retirees.”

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed detailed reply primarily explaining how pension of pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees has to be fixed. It is reiterated that the government had accepted the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of twenty years service, prospectively. Therefore, this cannot be given retrospective effect now. It is further stated that in the order dated 6.03.2012 (Annexure A-7), disposing of the OAs No. 937/2010 and 2101/2010, this Tribunal (Full Bench) made the following observations/directions in regard to the prayer of the applicants seeking complete parity with post-2006 retirees:- One of the reliefs sought for by the applicants in those OAs is that pre-2006 pensioners may be allowed a total parity with post 1.1.2006 pensioners by notionally revising their pay as on 1.1.2006 and then fixing pension at 50% of that notional pay. At the outset, it may be stated here that the issue regarding admissibility of pension/family pension to the pre 1.1.2006 retiree officers belonging to S-29 scale and also whether the 2006 pensioners are entitled to the pension/family pension at par with post 2006 retiree officers has been considered and decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association and another Vs Union of India and another (OA 655/2010 with connected matters) decided on 1.11.2011 after taking into consideration the decisions of Apex Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. S.P.S. Vains (2008)9 SCC 125) and the said relief has been rejected. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment has held that pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are governed by the separate set of scheme and also that the judgment in the case of S.P.S.Vains (supra) was rendered in the different facts and circumstances of the case and relates to the Army personnel and based on the premise of one rank one pension. However, regarding admissibility of pension based on modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by resolution dated 29.8.2008, direction was given to the respondents to re-fix the pension and pay the arrears to all pre-2006 retirees belonging to S-29 scale of pay, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thus, the aforesaid issue stands decided of in the light of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of this Tribunal for parity of reasoning given therein.

9. The respondents further argue that in its order dated 1.11.2011 in the OA No.655/2010 referred to in the aforesaid order dated 6.3.2012 in the OAs No.937/2010 and 2101/2010, this Tribunal (full bench) decided that the challenge made by the applicants based upon the judgment in D.S. Nakara that pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits as that of post-2006 retirees cannot be accepted. It is stated that in para 9 of the judgment, this Tribunal also rejected the prayer for grant of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service at par with post-2006 retirees and observed that the pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are governed by the separate set of scheme.

10. It is further added on behalf of the respondents that the applicants in the above mentioned OAs No.937/2010 and 2101/2010 filed writ petitions being WP No. 4572/2012 and WP 7342/2012 in the High Court of Delhi. Hon”ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure A-9) passed the following order:-

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, none of which are disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, with consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside the impugned decision(s) dated March 06, 2012 and simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be rendered after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated November 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees shall not be treated as binding upon it by the Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of full parity the said decision was pronounced notwithstanding said retirees giving up the claim for full parity. Thus Hon’’ble High Court remanded back the OA No.937/ 2010 and OA No.No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication on merits by this Hon’’ble Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. As stated earlier, these OAs were accordingly heard by this Tribunal (Full Bench) and order dated 20.11.2014 passed.

11. We have gone through various judgments of the Hon’’ble Supreme Court in various cases and also this Tribunals order dated 20.11.2014 in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010. The law has by now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification. It is held by their Lordships that any clarification has to be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

13. In view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara (supra), V. Kasturi (supra), T.S. Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010 dated 20.11.2014, we are of the opinion that the prayer in the OAs is fully justified. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.10.2008 and 19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and direct the respondents that the qualifying service for earning full pension will be treated as twenty years also for those who retired from the Central Government service on or before 31.12.2005 and were alive on that day. The respondents are also directed to modify/amend all relevant government orders/ letters/ notifications in accordance with the above decision. It is made clear that this parity of pension between pre and post-1.01.2006 pensioners (on the question of eligibility of minimum pensionable service of twenty years) would apply both as regards pension and family pension. The respondents are granted three monthstime from the date of receipt of this order for implementation of directions contained in this order.                                          

 (P.K. Basu) Member(A)            (Raj Vir Sharma) Member (J)             

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
(Central Civil Pensioners)
Last updated/Reviewed: 04.11.2013
PENSION POLICY :
A.1
Which rules govern Civil Pension?

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1972.
 

A.2
What is the formula for pension revision for pre-2006 pensioner/family pensioner?

In terms of para 4.1 of OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, the pension/family pension will be consolidated w.e.f. 1.1.2006 by adding together (i) The existing pension/family pension,(ii) Dearness Pension, where applicable, (iii)Dearness Relief @24% of basic Pension/Basic Family Pension plus dearness pension as admissible vide OM No.42/2/2006-P&PW(G) dated 5.4.2006 and (iv) Fitment weightage @40% of the existing pension/family pension. Where the existing pension at (i) includes the effect of merger of 50% of DR w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged DR of 50% from the pension. The amount so arrived at will be regarded as consolidated pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the Govt. servant retired.

 

A.3
Whether all pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners would get benefit under Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare O.M. NO.38/37/08- P&PW (A) dated 28.1.2013?

In the O.M. dated 28.1.2013, the minimum pension of pre-2006 retirees in
the respective pre-1996/pre-2006 pay scale has been revised with effect from 24.9.2012. This minimum pension shall be applicable in case retirement was after qualifying service of thirty-three years. In case qualifying service was less than thirty-three years, the amount of this minimum pension shall be reduced proportionately. There will be no change in the pension of those pre-2006 pensioners whose pension (as revised with effect from 1.1.2006) is already equal to or more than this minimum limit.
In the case of family pensioner also the minimum family pension as mentioned in Col.10 of the Annexure to the OM dated 28.1.2013 shall be payable if the amount of family pension (w.e.f. 01.01.2006) is equal to or more than this minimum family pension, the same family pension shall continue to be paid

 

A.4
What happens in case there is no change in pension under OM dated 28.1.2013?

Even where there is no change in pension/family pension as a result of the issue of OM dated 28.1.2013, a revised authority for no change will be issued by the PAOs.

 

A.5
Who is to be approached for revision of pension/family pension in terms of O.M. dated 28.1.2013.

For revision of pension in terms of orders dated 28.1.2013, in cases where revision has already been done by PAOs consequent to 6th CPC, the revision may be affected at the level of PAOs. A copy of the revised authority may be sent to Head of Department (HOD)/Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) for record. In cases where no revision has been effected, Head of Offices may follow normal procedure for revision of pension/family pension.

 

A.6
What is the amount of minimum and maximum pension after Sixth CPC?

The pension shall not be less than Rs.3500/- and shall not be more than 50% of the highest pay in Government.
 

A.7
Is Personal Pension discontinued with effect from 1.1.1996 ?

Yes.

 

A.8
When can pension be withheld or withdrawn?

Under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rule, Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The pension or a part thereof can be withheld or withdrawn in such cases where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of a serious or a grave act of misconduct/negligence after retirement, or during the period of service, including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Under Rule 9, the President reserves the right of withdrawing pension/gratuity in full or in part or for ordering recovery from pension or gratuity or any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt., if, in any departmental/judicial proceedings, if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct/negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.

 

A.9
From where can we download the pension /nomination Forms ?

All forms are available at the website of Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare.

 

A.10
When can a Government servant apply for voluntary retirement?

Under Rule 48, a Government servant can apply for voluntary retirement after completion of 30 years of qualifying service. Under Rule 48-A, he can apply for VR after completion of qualifying service of 20 years. Under FR 56 (k) he can apply for VR an attaining the age of 50 years (for Gr. A & B) and 55 years (in other cases).

 

A.11
Whether older pensioners will get higher rate of pension?

Yes, from 1.1.2006, the quantum of pension/family pension available to old pensioners/family pensioners has been increased as follows:- O.M.No. 38/37/08- P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 .
Age of pensioner/family pensioner
Additional quantum of pension
From 80 years to less than 85
20% of revised basic pension/family
years
pension
From 85 years to less than 90 years
30% of revised basic pension/family pension
From 90 years to less than 95 years
40% of revised basic pension/family pension
From 95 years to less than 100 years
50% of revised basic pension/family pension
100 years or more
100% of revised basic pension/family pension

 

A.12
Is additional pension admissible to old family pensioners?

Yes, the rates related to additional pension as applicable in the case of old pensioners hold good for family pensioners, as well.

 

A.13
Whether the provision of adding years in qualifying service for computation of pension is still in force?

The benefit of adding years of qualifying service for computation of pension/related benefits has been withdrawn w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

 

A.14
Whether the provision of adding years in qualifying service has been withdrawn for calculating gratuity also?

Yes, w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

 

A.15
Whether in the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs.3500/- will apply to the total of all pensions taken together?

It was clarified in Deptt. of Pension & PW’s OM No.38/38/02-P&PW(A) dated 23.4.2003 that in respect of civil and military pension, the floor ceiling taking the two pensions together will not apply and the individual pensions will be governed by respective pension rules. These instructions would continue to
apply in the context of revised floor ceiling of Rs.3500/-p.m. Accordingly, the floor ceiling will apply individually in the civil and military pension. In case, a person is in receipt of pension as well as family pension, the floor ceiling of Rs.3500 will apply individually to such pension and family pension.

 

A.16
Whether the additional pension/family pension available to old pensioners would be payable from the date of attaining age of 80 years or above or from the first day of the month in which the date of birth falls?

The additional quantum of pension/family pension, on attaining the age of 80 years and above, would be admissible from the 1st day of month in which his date of birth falls. For example, if a pensioner/family pensioner completes age of 80 years in the month of August, 2008, he will be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.8.2008. Those pensioners/family pensioners whose date of birth is 1st August, will also be entitled to additional pension/family pension w.e.f. 1.8.2008 on attaining the age of 80 years and above.

 

A.17
Whether orders dated 28.1.2013 are applicable in the case of those absorbee pensioners who had received 100% lump sum and are in receipt of one-third restored pension?

It has been clarified in the OM dated 3.4.2013 that the notional full pension of the absorbee pensioners would also be stepped up w.e.f 24.9.2012 in accordance with the instructions contained in the aforesaid OM dated 28.1.2013. No arrear of DR and additional pension on notional full pension would be payable for the period prior to 24.9.2012.
QUALIFYING SERVICE

 

B.1
Does all leave period qualify for pension and gratuity?

All leave for which leave salary is payable qualifies for pension and gratuity. Extraordinary leave (EOL) on medical certificate (MC) also qualifies for pension and gratuity. EOL without MC qualifies only on account of inability to join duty on civil commotion or when granted for a higher scientific & technical study qualifies.

 

B.2
Is the benefit of counting of past service under Rule 19 available to ex-serviceman re-employed to civil service / post?

An ex-serviceman re-employed to the Civil Post / service on or before 31/12/2003 is covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore the benefit of Rule 19 also becomes automatically available to him. An ex-serviceman re-employed in civil service on or after 1/1/2004 is covered by the New Pension Scheme and is not covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore the benefit of Rule 19 is not available to the ex-serviceman on re-employment on or after 1/1/2004.

 

B.3
What happens to the past service of a Govt. servant (appointed before 1.1.2004) who resigns to take up, with proper permission, another appointment under the Govt.?

Under Rule 26 (2) “A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies”. This also applies to a Govt. servant who joined Govt. service before 1/1/2004 and takes up another appointment in the Govt., on or after 1.1.2004.
P.S.U. ABSORBEES

 

D.1
What are the terms and conditions of Central Govt. employees who are absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertaking /Central Autonomous Bodies ?

The terms and conditions of Central Govt. employees who are absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertaking /Central Autonomous Bodies, are regulated as per the DOPT OM No.28016/5/85-Estt.(C) dated 31.1.86 and DOP&PW OM No.4(12)/85-P&PW dated 13.3.87. The Administrative Ministries/Departments have already been delegated powers to deal with such cases of absorption without obtaining prior concurrences of this Department.
Those absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertaking are eligible for pension and retirement gratuity as admissible under relevant rules.
Those absorbed in the Central Autonomous Bodies having pension scheme are required to exercise an option either
(i) to receive pro-rata retirement benefits or to
(ii) to continue to have the benefits of combined service under the Government and in the autonomous body subject to the condition laid down in the D/o Personnel & AR’s OM No.28/10/84-PU dated 29.8.84 and 12.9.85.
Such option should be exercised within 6 months from the date of absorption. In case no option is exercised within stipulated period, he will be eligible for pension based on combined service.

 

D.2
How is the restored 1/3rd commuted portion of pension in respect of Government servants who had drawn lump sum payment on absorption in Central Public Sector Undertakings/Central Autonomous Bodies required to be revised w.e.f.1.1.2006?

The pension of Central Government pensioners has been revised w.e.f.1.1.2006 vide this Department’s OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008. Orders for revision of 1/3rd pension of those who had drawn lump-sum payment on absorption were issued vide DOP&PW’s OM
No.4/30/2008-P&PW(A) dated 15.9.2008 read with OM dated 27.5.2009. Keeping in view the direction of Hon’ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench orders have been issued vide OM dated 11.7.2013 that 1/3rd restored pension of those Government servants who had drawn lump-sum payment on absorption in PSU/AB and whose 1/3rd pension was restored from a date before 1.1.2006, the pre-revised 1/3rd restored pension will be revised w.e.f.1.1.2006 by multiplying the same by a factor of 2.26, if it is more beneficial than the amount of revised restored 1/3rd pension arrived at in terms of this Department’s OM dated 15.9.2008. In the case of those absorbee pensioners in whose case the restoration of 1/3rd pension became due on or after 1.1.2006, the above formulation would apply with reference to notional 1/3rd restorable pension as on 31.12.2005.
Payment of DR and additional pension to old pensioners (of the age of 80 years and above) shall continue to be on full pension as per the instructions issued from time to time. The benefit of revision of restored amount of 1/3rd commuted portion of pension shall be admissible w.e.f.1.1.2006 or from the date the commuted portion of pension is restored, whichever is later
 

D.3
Is DOP&PW OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013 for stepping up of the pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 24.9.2012 applicable to Government servants who had drawn lumpsum payment on absorption in Central Public Sector Undertakings/ Central Autonomous Bodies and whose 1/3rd pension has been restored?

It has been clarified in the OM dated 3.4.2013 that the notional full pension of the absorbed pensioners would also be stepped up w.e.f 24.9.2012 in accordance with the instructions contained in the aforesaid OM dated 28.1.2013. No arrear of DR and additional pension on notional full pension would be payable for the period prior to 24.9.2012.

 

D.4
What is the medical allowance for pensioners?

Fixed medical allowance @ Rs.300/- is granted to each of the pensioners not covered by CGHS, pensioners living in cosmopolitan cities not covered by CGHS dispensary are also eligible on production of a certificate to that effect.
GENERAL

 

D.5
Whether any Identity Card is issued to Pensioners?

Identity Card to Pensioners is issued by the respective Ministry/Department/Office. The format of Identity Card has been revised vide OM No 41/21/2000-P&PW(D) dated 25.7.2013.

 

D.6
Is a Pensioners’ Identity Card (PIC) required to be issued to those who have been permanently absorbed in PSU/Autonomous Bodies?

No. Instructions issued by this Department cover only the retired/retiring Central Government employees. On permanent absorption in a PSU , the employee severe their connections with the Government and are treated as employees of the PSU in which they are absorbed.

 

D.7
Who will issue Pensioners’ Identity Card to Retired All India Service Officers?

The pensioners’ Identity Card is issued by the Department in which the employee last worked. Therefore, in the case of IAS officer retiring while on Central deputation, the Identity Card may be issued by concerned Ministry / Department. In case of officer retiring from State Government, the Identity Card may be issued by the concerned State Government.

 

D.8
Whether Pensioners’ Identity Card can be issued to retired employees covered under NPS.

The concerned Ministries / Departments may issue Pensioners’ Identity Card (PIC) to retired NPS employees in the format prescribed under OM No 41/21/2000-P&PW(D) dated 25.7.2013
PENSION PROCEDURE

 

E.1
What is the meaning of the following terms?

(a) Pension Disbursing Authority (b) Pension Sanctioning Authority (c) PPO Issuing Authority
(a) Pension Disbursing Authority :
Bank Branch/Treasury/Post/PAO Office paying your pension
(b) Pension Sanctioning Authority:
The authority who sanctioned your pension before forwarding the case to Accounts.
(c) PPO Issuing Authority:
Generally, the Pay & Account Officer is the PPO issuing authority.

 

E.2
What should a Government servant do to claim his pension?

During service each Govt. servant should satisfy himself that service is being verified and recorded so in the service book and that there are no gaps in this. He should also ensure that nomination for all payments due to him are current and valid.
Eight months prior to the retirement date, a Government servant is required to furnish certain information (e.g. joint photo with spouse, family details, name of the branch of the authorized bank through which he desires to draw his pension etc.) to his Head of Office in the prescribed Form No. 5. The Head of Office is required to undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form No. 7 of two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation. After complying with the requirements of CCS Pension Rules 59 & 60, the Head of Office has to forward to the Pay & Accounts Officer Form 5 and Form 7 duly completed with a covering letter in Form 8 along with service book of the Government servant duly completed up-to-date and any other documents relied upon for
the verification of service, not later than six months before the date of retirement of the Government servant.

 

E.3
Who is to authorize the pension?

On receipt of pension papers from Head of Office, the Pay & Accounts Officer concerned will, after applying requisite checks, assess the amount of pension and issue the Pension Payment Order (both halves of Pension Payment Order, i.e. disburser’s portion and pensioner’s portion) not later than one month in advance of the date of retirement of the Government servant with forwarding authority letter, duly ink-signed and embossed, to Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO) who in turn will generate on computer a Special Seal Authority on the basis of details given in the Pension Payment Order and authority letter of the Pay & Accounts Officer and forward both halves of PPO with Special Seal Authority to the Central Pension Processing Centre (CPPC) of the concerned authorized Bank. All records will be maintained in the CPPC and the disbursing branch, will make the payments to the pensioner on authorization of payment of pension by the CPPC. The CPPC however is only the back office for processing pensions, all pension related problems/grievances of the pensioners will continue to be handled by the concerned paying branch as before.

 

E.4
What is to be done in case the pension has not been fixed correctly?

The Pay & Accounts Officer while issuing the pension authorization will forward one copy of the pension calculation sheet (out of three received by him from the Head of Office) as certified by the Head of Office and countersigned by him (Pay & Accounts Officer) to the pensioner along with the intimation of his having sent the pension payment authority/PPO to the CPAO. In case it is found from the pension calculation sheet that pension has been fixed incorrectly, the matter may be taken-up with the Head of Office. PAO concerned, if necessary, will issue an amendment authority letter to Central Pension Accounting Office for onward transmission to the CPPC to carry out necessary amendments in both halves of PPO.
PENSION DISBURSEMENT

 

E.5
Can a pension account be opened in any branch of any bank?

No, a pension account cannot be opened in any branch of any bank. There is a list of public sector and private sector banks in each State in which a pension account may be opened. For latest information about the list please visit the website of Central Pension Accounting Office, www.cpao.nic.in.

 

E.6
Is the payment of pension in cash or through a joint account with or without "EITHER or SURVIVOR" facility permitted in the Scheme for Payment of Pension to Central Government Civil Pensioners by Public Sector Banks?

Payment of pension in cash is not permitted in the scheme. However, the pension payment is now permitted to be credited to a joint account operated by the pensioner with his/her spouse (either by ‘Former or Survivor’ or ‘Either or Survivor’ basis) in whose favour an authorization exists in the Pension Payment Order, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Paying branch may also credit the amount of pension in his or her joint account operated by pensioner with his/her spouse in whose favour an authorization for family pension exists in the Pension Payment Order (PPO). The joint account of the pensioners with the spouse could be operated either by 'Former or Survivor' or 'Either or Survivor' basis subject to the following conditions :-
(a) Once pension has been credited to a pensioner's bank account, the liability of the Government/Bank ceases. No further liability arises, even if the spouse wrongly draws from the account.
(b) As pension is payable only during the life of a pensioner, his/her death shall be intimated to the bank at the earliest and in any case within one month of the demise, so that the bank does not continue crediting monthly pension to the joint account with the spouse, after the death of the pensioner. If however, any amount has been wrongly credited to the joint account, it shall be recoverable from the joint account and/or any other account held by
the pensioners/spouse either individually or jointly. The legal heirs, successors, executors etc. shall also be liable to refund any amount, which has been wrongly credited to the joint account.
(c) Payment of Arrears of Pension (Nomination) Rules 1983 would continue to be applicable to a joint account with Pensioner's spouse. This implies that if there is an 'accepted nomination' in accordance with Rules 5 and 6 of these Rules, arrears mentioned in the Rules shall be payable to the nominee.
Existing pensioners desiring to get their pension credited to a joint account as indicated above are required to submit an application to the branch bank, from where they are presently drawing pension in the enclosed form that is i.e. Annexure XXIX. This would also be signed by the pensioner's spouse.

 

E.7
Can a pension account be operated by a holder of Power of Attorney ?

The pension account cannot be allowed to be operated by a holder of Power of Attorney except in case of the account of former President of India/Vice President of India or the spouse of the deceased President/Vice President.

 

E.8
Can the deduction of Income Tax at source be made from pension payments ?

Yes, the paying branch will be responsible for deduction of Income Tax at source from pension payments in accordance with the rates prescribed from time to time. While deducting such tax from pension payments the paying branch will also allow deduction on account of relief available under Income Tax Act from time to time on production of proper and acceptable evidence of eligible savings by pensioners. The paying branch will also issue the pensioner in April each year a certificate of tax deducted in the form prescribed in the Income Tax Rules

 

E.9
Can the excess payment, if any, credited to the pensioner’s account be recovered by the bank?

Before commencing payment of pension, the paying branch is required to obtain an undertaking in the prescribed form Annexure-XI of the Scheme
from the pensioner. On the strength of this undertaking the excess payment, if any, credited to his/her account can be recovered by the paying branch.

 

E.10
What is to be done if a pensioner/family pensioner desires to get his pension payment account transferred?

E.10.1 Application for transfer of pensions may fall under the following two categories;
(i) transfer from one paying branch to another of the same Authorised Bank (AB) within the same station or at a different station;
(ii) transfer from one AB to another AB
E.10.2 The pensioner/family pensioner may make request falling under both the categories above to either of the Branches. The paying branch will forward the request along with the disburser’s part of PPO, where applicable, to its CPPC for necessary action. Before forwarding the disburser’s portion of PPO to the new paying branch/CPPC, it will be ensured that the month upto which the payment has been made is invariably indicated in the disburser’s portion of PPO. The receiving CPPC on receipt of the pension documents will ensure forwarding the PPO to the paying branch if it is for the same AB or to the concerned CPPC if for a different AB within three days and intimate the facts to the pensioner simultaneously. Necessary intimation of effecting such transfer will be sent to CPAO by the new as well as old CPPCs in the form as at Annexure XXI (page-49 Scheme Booklet) as well as the escroll for keeping a note of change in their records.
(b) The new paying branch will commence the pension payment immediately on receipt of letter of the last payment certificate as above. Simultaneously, it will send an intimation to CPPC with full details of the commencement of the pension.
(c) Pension will be paid for three months on the basis of the photocopy of the pensioner’s PPO at transferee (New) branch, from the date of last date of payment made at the transferor (Old) branch. During this time, it will be the joint responsibility of both transferor (old) and transferee (New) bank branches to ensure that all the documents under the procedure, are
received by the CPPC within the period of three months.
E.10.4 To avoid the risk of overpayment at the time of transfer, the following certificate is required to be recorded on the Disburser’s portion of PPO by the paying branch of the AB:
Certified that payment of pension has been made up to the month ----------------- and that this PPO consists of ---------------------continuation sheets for recording disbursement."
E.10.5 Except as provided above, the transfer of a pension account from one payment point to another will not ordinarily be permitted.

 

E.11
What is the procedure for switchover of pension payment from Pay & Accounts Office or treasury to Public Sector Bank ?

E.11.1 The applications for switch-over to authorised banks by the existing pensioners will be made in the Form as given in Annexure IX of Scheme Booklet in duplicate to the Pension Disbursing Authority.
E.11.2 The pensioners should first draw pension which has already fallen due, before applying for transfer of their pension papers to the Authorised Banks.
E.11.3 Transfer applications in duplicate shall be forwarded immediately by the Pension Disbursing Authority along with the disburser's copy of the PPO halves, duly authenticated and written up-to-date to the CPAO for transmission to CPPC of the AB for arranging payment after keeping necessary note in their records. Action will also be taken by Pension Disbursing Authority to update the entries of payment made in the pensioner’s portion of the PPOs, if not already done, before the transfer application is sent to the CPAO.
E.11.4 If a PPO (disburser's portion) has got torn or mutilated, it will be renewed by the CPAO with the help of PAO, if necessary, before sending it to the CPPC.
FAMILY PENSION

 

E.12
Who is to authorize payment of family pension and death gratuity when a Govt. servant dies while on deputation ?

In the case of a Govt. servant who dies while on deputation to another Central Govt. Deptt., action to authorize family pension and death gratuity in accordance with the provisions of chapter IX of the pension Rules shall be taken by his Head of Office of the borrowing department.
In the case of a Govt. servant who dies while on deputation to a State Govt. or while on Foreign Service, action to authorize the payments of family pension and death gratuity in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IX of the pension Rules shall be taken by the Head of Office or the cadre authority which sanctioned the deputation of the Govt. servant to the State Govt. or to his Foreign Service.
 

E.13
When should a family member become eligible for the grant of family pension to get the family pension?

Normally, the amount of family pension is sanctioned and authorized at the same time as pension and indicated in the Pension Payment Order and is to be drawn after the death of the pensioner. In case of Govt. servant dying while in service, the widow or widower has to make a claim in Form 14 to the Head of Office who will sanction and authorize the family pension through its Pay & Accounts Officer. Where the deceased Govt. servant is survived only by a child or children, the guardian (in case of minor and/or mentally disabled child/children) or such child or children may submit a claim in Form 14, along with all relevant information/certificates, to the Head of Office for sanction and authorization of family pension.
In the case of death of a pensioner, the deceased pensioner's wife or a disabled child or dependent parents or a disabled sibling should apply in Form No. 14 along with a copy of the death certificate of the deceased pensioner to the Pension Disbursing Authority. Where the pensioner and spouse held a joint account, Form 14 is not required and the spouse may
inform the Bank of death of the pensioner by way of a simple letter enclosing a copy of death certificate. The paying bank will identify the spouse based on the information given in the PPO and its own “Know Your Customer” procedures. In other cases, i.e., where the pension is not being credited to the joint bank account of the pensioner and his/her spouse, Family is still required however the condition of attestation of Form 14 has been done away with and giving witness of two persons has been considered as sufficient.
The other children will apply to the Head of Office for sanction of family pension.

 

E.14
Up to which period family pension is payable?

Family pension is payable to one member of the family at a time in the order and for the period as under:
a) In the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier. Family Pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow after her re-marriage if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension and the dearness relief thereon.
b) When widow or widower becomes ineligible, children below 25 years of age in the order of their age, up to 25 years of age or till they get married or till they start earning more than the amount of minimum family pension along with dearness allowance thereon.
c) After (a) & (b) above; for the lifetime to any son/daughter who is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally retarded) or physically crippled or disabled and who is unable to earn a living.
d) If no spouse/children below 25 years of age/disabled children above 25 years of age are eligible for family pension, it may be granted to unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters above the age of 25 years in the order of seniority of their age.
e) Thereafter, family pension may be paid to the parents who were wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive.
f) Disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the
Government servant immediately before the death of the Government Servant, for life.

 

E.15
Is family pension payable to more than one person at a time?
Normally, the family pension is payable to one eligible member at a time. However, in certain specific cases, the family pension is divided among eligible members of the family. The family pension will be paid in equal shares where the deceased Govt. servant or pensioner is survived by –
a) More than one widow (except in the case of Hindu widow or where polygamy/polyandry is not allowed).
b) A widow and an eligible child through another widow which she would have received had she been alive.
c) A widow and an eligible child from a divorced/illegally wedded wife; the child will be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received had she not been divorced/ had she been legally wedded.
d) Twin, triplet or quadruplet children
In all the above cases, on the death of one recipient, his/her share of the family pension shall become payable to other member(s) of family who was/were sharing family pension with him/her.

 

E.16
How is the family pension payable to twin children?

As in reply to Q. No. E.16

 

E.17
Is family pension payable to a spouse judicially separated?

Family pension is payable to a spouse judicially separated provided there is no child who is eligible for family pension. But it is not payable to a spouse judicially separated on the ground of adultery and who had been held guilty of committing adultery.

 

E.18
Whether family pension may be sanctioned to a disabled child/dependent parent/disabled sibling during lifetime of a pensioner who has no wife or any other children.

Yes, family pension in certain cases may be sanctioned to a disabled child/dependent parents/disabled siblings. For further details, please refer to this department OM No. 1/27/2011-P&PW(E), dated 1st July, 2013, available at the website under the Circulars on Family Pension.

 

 

E.19
Is the family pension admissible to parents; widowed/divorced/unmarried daughters?
As in reply to Q.E.14

 

E.20
What is enhanced family pension and for what period it is payable?

Ordinarily, family pension is paid @ 30% of the pay last drawn by the Government at the time of his retirement/death. However, in the following three cases, family pension is payable at the enhanced rate of 50% of the last pay drawn:
a) From 1.1.2006, where a person not governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act dies while in service after rendering not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension shall be equal to 50% of last pay drawn from the date of death of deceased Government Servant, payable for a period of ten years provided that the deceased employee had completed seven years of continuous service.
b) In case a Government servant had died while in service after 1.1.1999 and before 1.1.2006 and his/her family was being granted family pension at enhanced rates, i.e., period of 7 years of enhanced rate had not been completed on 1.1.2006, the family pension will be allowed to be paid till the completion of the period of 10 years from the date of date of the Government servant.
c) In the event of death of Government Servant after retirement, the enhanced family pension shall be payable for a period of seven years or for a period up to the date the deceased would have attained the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. In no case the amount of family pension exceed the pension authorised on retirement from Government.
After the lapse of the period of 10 or 7 years, as the case may be, the family pension is payable at the ordinary rate.

 

E.21
Is family pension available to a spouse after remarriage ?

Family pension has now been made available even after remarriage to childless widow of the deceased employee subject to her earnings not exceeding the prescribed minimum family pension with DR. Family pension is not available to a childless widower after his remarriage.

 

E.22
Whether the period of 10 years for payment of enhanced family pension would also apply in the case of a Government servant who died before 1.1.2006 and in respect of whom the family was receiving enhanced family pension as on 1.1.2006 ?.

Yes. The period of 10 years for payment of enhanced family pension will count from the date of death of the Government servant. These orders will, however, not apply in a case where the period of 7 years for payment of enhanced family pension has already completed as on 1.1.2006.

 

EXTRAORDINARY PENSION

 

F.1
How the percentage of disability computed? To whom it is applicable?

The computing of percentage of disability is applicable only for the Government servants retiring under CCS (EOP) Rules. The extent of disability or functional incapacity is determined in the following manner for purposes of computing the disability element forming part of benefits:-
Percentage of disability assessed by Medical Board.
Percentage to be reckoned for computation of disability pension
upto 50%
50%
More than 50 and upto 75%
75%
More than 75 and upto 100%
100%
Provided that the above broad banding shall not be applicable to Government servants who are retained in service.

 

F.2
Whether the element of disability pension and invalid pension will be combined or treated as separate identity?

The invalid pension is granted under Rule 38 of CCS(Pension) Rules, whereas disability pension is granted under CCS(EOP) Rules. The CCS (COP) Rules provides that if a Government servant is boarded out of service on account of injury attributable to Government service he shall be granted disability pension which includes service element as well as disability element. Invalid pension and disability pension cannot be combined.

 

F.3
What is the revised quantum of ex-gratia lumpsum compensation to Civilian employees who die in performance of their bonafide official duties?

In modification of Deptt. Of Pension & PW’s OM No.45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11.9.1998 the ex-gratia lumpsum compensation to Civilian employees who die in performance of their bonafide official duties has been revised as under :
(a)
Death occurring due to accidents in course of Performance of duties
Rs.10.00 lakhs
(b)
Death occurring due to accidents in course of Performance of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc.
Rs.10.00 lakhs
(c)
Death occurring (a) enemy action in international war or border skirmishes and (b) action against militants, terrorists, extremists etc.
Rs.15.00 lakhs
(d)
Death occurring while on duty in specified high altitude, inaccessible border posts, etc. on account of natural disasters, extreme weather conditions.
Rs.15.00 lakhs

 

F.4
From which date the Constant Attendant Allowance is payable ?

Constant Attendant Allowance is payable from 1.1.2006 and applicable oly for officials retiring under EOP(Rules)

 

F.5
Whether the pensioners who retired on disability pension before 1.1.2006 would also be entitled to Constant Attendant Allowance ?.

Yes, the pensioners who retired on disability pension before 1.1.2006 and fulfilling the conditions mentioned in para 10.1 of O.M. No. 38/37/08- P&PW(A) dated 2.9.2008 would also be entitled to Constant Attendant Allowance.

 

F.6
Whether Dearness Relief will be admissible on Constant Attendant Allowance?

No.
GRATUITY

 

F.7
When will the gratuity withheld at the time of retirement be released?

The withheld amount of gratuity under sub-rule (5) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, the retiring Government employees, shall be paid immediately on production of "No Demand Certificate" from the Directorate of Estates after actual vacation of the Government accommodation.
The Directorate of Estates shall ensure that "No Demand Certificate" shall be given to the Government employee within a period of fourteen days from the actual date of vacation of the Government accommodation and the allottee shall be entitled to payment of interest (at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund deposit determined from time to time by the Government of India) on the excess withheld amount of gratuity which is required to be refunded., after adjusting the arrears of licence fee and damages, if any, payable by the allottee and the interest shall be payable by the Directorate of Estates through the concerned Accounts Officer of the Government employee from the actual date of vacation of the Government accommodation up to the date of refund of excess withheld amount of gratuity.

 

F.8
Whether retirement gratuity/death gratuity, commuted value of the pension is taxable?

No. Death gratuity/retirement gratuity and commuted value of the pension are fully exempted from Income tax.

 

F.9
Is there any ceiling on gratuities and if so what is the maximum amount admissible?

Yes. Ceiling on all gratuities has been raised to Rs. ten lakhs w.e.f 01.01.2006 (earlier the limit was Rs.3.5 lakhs). DA admissible on the date of retirement is also to be added with pay for calculation of gratuity.

 

F.10
Whether retirement gratuity, death gratuity can be paid by PAO/CPAO?

No. The amount of retirement/death gratuity as determined by the PAO shall
be intimated to the Head of Office who will draw and disburse the amount to the retired Government servant or to the nominee/family as the case may be.

 

F.11
Whether 10% gratuity or whole of the Gratuity is to be withheld at the time of retirement of all Government Servants?

No. The Administrative Deptt/Accounts Officer shall not withhold any gratuity unless the Head of Office
a) Enclose instructions received from Directorate of Estate for withholding of 10% gratuity for outstanding license fee.
Or
b) Informs of ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
COMMUTATION OF PENSION

 

G.1
How much of the pension can be commuted?

A pensioner can opt to commute up to 40% of the pension admissible at the time of retirement.

 

G.2
Is there any limit on commutation of pension?

A Government servant shall be entitled to commute for a lump sum payment up to 40 per cent of his pension.

 

G.3
Is there any restriction on commutation of pension?

Yes. No Government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings as referred to in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, have been instituted before the date of his retirement or the pensioner against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of retirement, shall be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension authorised under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules or the pension, as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings.

 

G.4
Whether the family can be given the benefit of 40 per cent commutation if a pensioner dies before exercising option?

In view of Governments clarificatory orders, no such benefit can be given to the family.

 

G.5
What will be the effective date of reduced pension if,

a) The applicant is drawing pension from PAO? b) The applicant is drawing pension from a branch of Public Sector Bank? c) A Government servant who retired on superannuation and commutation applied in Form 1-A of CCS(Commutation of Pension) Rules before the date of retirement and commutation paid through Head of Office within the first month of retirement ?
a) The reduction in the amount of pension on account of the commutation shall be operative from the date of receipt of the commuted value of pension or at the end of three months after issue of authority by the PAO for the payment of commuted value of pension, whichever is earlier. (b) The reduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall be operative from the date on which the commuted value of pension is credited by the bank to the applicant's account to which pension is being credited. (c) The reduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall be operative from its inception. The commuted value is paid in two stages as such the reduction in the amount of pension shall be made from the respective dates of the payment as per (a) or (b) above, as the case may be.

 

G.6
How does the period of 15 years for restoration of commuted portion of pension reckon?

The 15-year period for restoration may be reckoned from the date of retirement itself only in case where the payment of commuted value of pension was/is made during the first month of retirement leading to appropriate reduction on account of commutation in the first pension itself. In all other cases, where the commutation of pension led/leads to a reduction in the second or subsequent month, the 15-year period will be reckoned from the date on which reduction in pension became/becomes effective.

 

G.7
Is any authorization for restoration of commuted portion of pension after 15 years required from PAO/CPAO?
No. Restoration of commuted portion of pension after 15 years (from the date of crediting of commuted value) or as fixed by the Government from time to time is to be made automatically by bank on receipt of application in prescribed proforma from the eligible pensioner. In cases where the date of commutation is not readily available in the PPO, the bank will obtain the information from the concerned PAO who issued the PPO through CPAO before restoring the commuted portion of pension.

 

G.8
What has the pensioner to do for restoration of commuted portion of pension? From what date is it restored?

Commuted portion of pension is to be restored after 15 years from the date of commutation. This restoration was introduced w.e.f. 1.4.85 i.e. those who completed 15 years on or after 1.4.85, their pension was to be restored. This period of 15 years is to be counted from date of discharge provided commutation was sanctioned simultaneously with service pension in the same PPO.
However, where commutation was sanctioned subsequent to the date of discharge the restoration of commuted portion of pension will be done on completion of 15 years from the date from which the amount of capitalized value is paid or credited to the pensioner's account. Every pensioner has to apply to his PDA (Pension Disbursing authority) through an application after completion of 15 years for restoration of commuted portion of pension.

 

G.9
Whether restoration of commuted portion of pension is admissible to those who were absorbed permanently in autonomous bodies/PSUs and have drawn 100% lump-sum payment in lieu of pension?

Yes. Only 1/3rd portion of pension may be restored after 15 years from the date of commutation in terms of O.M. dated 6.9.2007, O.M. dated 15.9.2008 and 11.07.2013. Additional pension applicable to old pensioners (80 years and above) and dearness relief on full pension is also payable

 

G.10
What is restoration of pension and when is it due?
Restoration of the fraction of the pension commuted by the pensioners becomes due for restoration after completion of 15 years period from the date of payment of lumpsum value of commutation.

 

G.11
What is reduce/residual/residuary pension?
Reduce/residual/residuary pension is the part of pension which is payable after deducting commuted portion of the pension.

 

G.12
What would be the age to be used for commutation of additional commutable pension and which factor would be used for such additional commuted value of
pension ?
The age reckoned for calculation of commuted value of pension at the time of original application for commutation of pension will apply for calculation of commutation value of additional commutable pension. However, as mentioned in the OM dated 2.9.2008, the commutation factor in the revised Table of Commutation Value for Pension will be used for the commutation of the additional amount of pension that has become commutable on account of retrospective revision of pay/pension.

 

G.13
From which date the reduction in pension on account of additional commutation of pension will take effect?
Reduction in pension on account of additional commutation of pension will be in two stages as per the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the CCS(Commutation of Pension) Rules,1981.

 

G.14
What will be the date of restoration of additional commutation of pension?

The commuted portion of pension shall be restored after 15 years from the respective dates of commutation as provided in Government of India decision No.1 under the Rule 10 of CCS(Commutation of Pension) Rules,1981. Necessary endorsement should be made on PPO.

 

G.15
A person with D.O.B. on first of month retires in the previous month. What will be the value to be taken for calculation from commutation table ?

The commutation of pension become absolute on the date following the ate of his retirement. The commutation value taken will be Age on 61st Birthday i.e. 8.194 in the present commutation table

 

G.16
If the commuted amount is paid in stages then what will be the date of restoration?

If the payment of commuted value is made in stages, the restoration will also be made in stages from the respective dates of payment.
DEARNESS RELIEF

 

G.17
What is the extent of neutralization of relief granted to pensioners?

100% neutralization of relief is granted to all pensioners at the same rate like serving employees.

 

G.18
Is the Dearness Relief payable on original basic pension or on reduced pension after commutation?

The Dearness Relief is payable on original basic pension before commutation.

 

G.19
Is any authorization from PAO/CPAO required for payment of dearness relief on increased rates to pensioners/family pensioners?
No. Whenever any dearness relief on pension/family pension is sanctioned by Government, an intimation to this effect is sent by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Deptt. of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare) to the authorised representative of each nominated Public Sector Bank. Each Central Pension Processing Centre will be responsible for ensuring that instructions of the Government have been carried out by the paying branches and payment of additional relief at the revised rates to the pensioners has been commenced by them without any undue delay.

 

G.20
Are the employed family pensioners and the re-employed pensioners entitled to Dearness Relief (DR) on their family pension/pension ?
Yes, w.e.f. 18/07/97 onwards subject to conditions contained in DoP&W O.M. No. 45/73/97-P&PW(G) dated 2nd July,1999.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. January 29, 2015

 

CWP No.8563 of 2014 & other connected cases, Date of Decision: 29.01.2015.
1. CWP No.8563 of 2014 -
Union of India ......Petitioner Vs. Darshan Lal Bali & others ......Respondents
2. CWP No.2105 of 2014
Union of India ......Petitioner Vs. Tilak Raj & others ......Respondents
3. CWP No.25072 of 2014
Union of India & others ......Petitioners Vs. Banarsi Dass & another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sakshi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondents.
Mr. S.S. Slar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 in CWP Nos.2105 & for respondent No.1 in CWP
No.25072 of 2014.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.8563, 2105 & 25072 of 2014 as common question of law and
facts are involved in these CWP No.8563 of 2014 & other connected cases.
[2]. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents who stood retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation before 01.01.1996 from the posts of Mistry-cum-
Supervisor are entitled to revised pension w.e.f. 01.11.2003 on resultant upgradation of their posts as
Junior Engineer-II in the higher pay scale of `5000-8000 in terms of the Railway Board circular dated
09.10.2003?
[3]. For the sake of brevity the facts are being briefly extracted from CWP No.8563 of 2014.
[4]. It is an admitted fact that 43 retirees, namely, Agia Ram and others, some of whom had retired
before 01.01.1996 (while the others thereafter), approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking benefit of the Railway Board circular
dated 09.10.2003 where under the post of Mistry-cum-Supervisor which they held before retirement, was
upgraded to the post of Junior Engineer-II. They sought consequential refixation of their pension but the
Tribunal rejected their claim.
[5].The aggrieved retirees approached this Court in CWP No.9581 of 2011 (Agia Ram and others
vs. Union of India & others). The respondent-Railway Authorities took a specific stand before this Court
that the restructured pay scale on upgradation of the post as Junior Engineer-II “would be available only
to the Mistry cum-Supervisor who are working as such and has enjoyed the designation of Junior
Engineer-II.”
[6]. This Court, however, rejected the above stated plea as is discernible from paras 4 and 5 of the
judgment and allowed the writ petition vide order dated 24.08.2011 directing the respondents to treat the
writ-petitioners in the pay scale of `5000-8000 under the new nomenclature of Junior Engineer-II and
consequently refix and revise their pension but only w.e.f. 01.11.2003, namely, the date when the Railway
Board circular dated 09.10.2003 became effective.
[7]. It would be useful at this stage to reproduce the following relevant extracts of Railway Board
circular dated 09.10.2003
(Annexure R-1):- “Sub:- Restructuring of certain Group 'C' & 'D' cadres.
The Ministry of Railways have had under review, cadres of certain Group 'C' & 'D' staff in consultation
with the staff side with a view to strengthening and rationalizing the staffing pattern on Railways. As a
result of the review undertaken on the basis of functional, operational and administrative requirements, it
has been decided with the approval of the President that the Group 'C' & 'D' categories of staff as
indicated in the Annexures to this letter should be restructured in accordance with the revised
percentages indicated therein. While implementing these orders the following detailed instructions should
be strictly and carefully adhered to:
Date of effect
(herein after
referred
sanctioned cutoff
date)
1.
This restructuring of cadres will be with reference to the cadre strength as on the date
following the date on which the cadres in the headquarter offices of new Zonal
Railways / new Divisions are closed. The benefit of restructuring will be restricted to the
persons who are working in a particular cadre on the cut-off date.
Applicability to
various cadres 2.
These orders will be applicable on the regular cadres (excluding surplus &
supernumerary posts) of the Open Line establishments including Workshops and
Production Units. These orders will, however, not be applicable to staff of RDSO for
which separate orders will be issued.
2.1 These orders will not be applicable to ex-cadre & work charged posts which will
continue to be based on worth of charge.
2.2
These instructions will also not be applicable to construction Units and Projects, where
posts are generally created on worth of charge basis, though those should broadly be
conforming to these percentage distributions.
Upgradation of
the posts
of Supervisor
(erstwhile
Mistries)
13.a
Subject to provisions of Para13.2 below, all the posts of Supervisors (erstwhile
Mistries) in grade Rs.4500-7000 + Rs.100 Special Allowance (excluding Supervisors
P.Way) should enbloc be upgraded to the posts of Junior Engineer Gr.II in the pay
scale of Rs.5000-8000 and merged with the respective cadre of Technical Supervisors
with its spread effect in higher grades Rs.5500-9000, 6500-10500 &7450-11500 as per
the revised percentage distribution of posts prescribed for Technical Supervisors in
these orders.
[8]. This Court in Agia Ram's case (supra) after noticing the contents of its forwarding letter,
interpreted the relevant clauses of the above stated circular to conclude as follows:-
“4. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the post of Mistry-cum-Supervisor has acquired new name
of Junior Engineer-II, which was also in the same scale of `1400-2300, in the pre-revised pay scale.
However, the case of the respondent was that on the restructuring the pay scale granted to the post of
Junior Engineer-II because it would be available only to the Mistry-cum-Supervisor who are working as
such and has enjoyed the designation of Junior Engineer-II.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the post of
Mistry cum-Supervisor has acquired a new nomenclature and it has also been given higher scale of pay
then the cosmetic cover which has been put forward by the respondent cannot be permitted to hide the
real face of the erstwhile Mistri / Supervisor. For all intents and purposes, they would all be treated as
Junior Engineer-II. Once the pay scale of the post of Mistri / Supervisor is deemed to be revised then their
pension is also be required to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.11.2003.” (Emphasis by us)
[9]. The petitioner-authorities also sought review of the above stated order but this Court declined the
same.[10]. The review order dated 19.09.2012 was assailed by the petitioner(s) in Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No.29160 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed with the
following order:-
“Taken on board. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG, states, on instructions, that the petitioners are
willing to comply with the directions contained in judgment dated 24th August 2011 in CWP No.9581 of 2011.
He, however, prays that since the amount to be deposited in terms of the said judgment is substantial, six
weeks' time may be granted to the petitioners to make the requisite deposit. In view of the prayer, while
dismissing the special leave petition, we request the High Court to defer further proceedings in Contempt
Petition No. COCP 35/2012 by a period of six weeks, by which time the petitioners propose to comply the
aforesaid judgment.” (Emphasis applied)
[11]. It may be seen from the above reproduced order that the Railway Authorities (petitioner(s)
herein) at their own took a conscious decision to implement the decision of this Court in ‘Agia Ram and
others' case and made an unqualified statement to that effect before the Apex Court.
[12]. The respondent-retirees herein are also most of those Mistry-cum-Supervisors who retired from
service before 01.01.1996.They approached the Tribunal for the grant of revised pension as per the prerevised
pay scale of Junior Engineer-II on the strength of the decision of this Court in Agia Ram's case.
Their claims have been accepted by the Tribunal, giving rise to this batch of writ petitions.
[13]. It is urged by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) that the Railway Board
circular dated 09.10.2003 is inapplicable in the case of those who retired before 01.11.2003. He contends
that the classification based upon the cut-off date of retirement does not per se suffer from any vice of
arbitrariness and it does not offend Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. According to him, Railway Board
circular in so many words clarifies that the nomenclature of the post of Mistry-cum-Supervisor was
changed and it was upgraded as Junior Engineer-II prospectively for the benefit of the existing
incumbents and the benefit of such upgradation cannot be extended to the retirees by way of a deeming
fiction when none of the clauses of Railway Board Circular operates retrospectively either through an
express provision or by implication.
[14]. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent retirees reiterate their claim adopting the
reasoning given by the Tribunal.
[15]. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record. The
Competent Authority can undoubtedly classify the retirees for the purpose of admissibility of retiral or
other incidental benefits by fixing the cut-off date under a new Pension Scheme save that such
classification is reasonable and can sustain the rigours of other Constitutional provisions. But such
recourse to divide the retirees in two groups may not be permissible while granting the benefits under a
liberalised Pension Scheme (Re: V. Kasturi vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay &
Anr. (1998) 8 SCC 30). These principles need not be elaborated further as the point in issue appears to
be slightly different.
[16]. Suffice to say that the above summerised principle(s) will not be applicable in the instant case for
more than one reason. Firstly, in Agia Ram's case (supra) this Court was conscious of the fact that some
of the writ-petitioners had retired before the Circular came into force, yet, after taking notice of that fact,
they were held entitled to upgradation of their post(s) for upward revision of retiral benefits. The benefit of
refixation or consequential revision of pension was, therefore, restricted only from the date the Circular
came into force on 01.11.2003. Secondly, this Court did not give any retro-active effect to the Circular to
relate it back to the date when the writ-petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation. Thirdly and most importantly, the petitioner(s) themselves took a categorical stand before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.09.2012 (Annexure A-3) and 'instructed' their Ld. counsel to make a
statement that the Authorities were willing to implement the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by this Court
in Agia Ram's case.
[17]. Having taken a conscious decision to implement the decision of this Court in Agia Ram's case
(supra) and after granting the resultant benefits to some of the writ-petitioners who were admittedly pre-
1996 retirees, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner-Authorities can deny the
same benefit to other similarly placed persons only on the ground that the left out pre-1996 retirees had
not earlier approached the Tribunal or this Court?
[18]. The petitioner(s) cannot, in our considered view, restrict the benefit of their decision qua those
pre-1996 retirees only who were parties before this Court in Agia Ram and others' case (supra).Once
the petitioner(s) acknowledged that the decision in Agia Ram and others' case has laid down correct
statement of law, they are obligated to extend the benefit of their such voluntary decision uniformly qua all
the pre-1996 retirees.
[19]. In this regard, we are fortified by the view taken in K.C.Bajaj and Ors. vs. Union of India and
Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 777, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled as follows:-
[28]. “However, the fact of the matter is that the Union of India did challenge the order passed by the
Delhi High Court in Dr. K.C. Garg's case and other connected matters by filing special leave petitions,
which were converted into Civil Appeal Nos.1972-1974/2003 and during the pendency of the appeals, a
conscious decision was taken by the Government of India not to pursue the appeals and implement the
order of the High Court. It is neither the pleaded case of the Respondents nor it has been argued before
us that the Government of India had taken decision to withdraw the appeals filed in the cases of Dr. K.C.
Garg and others because the financial implications were negligible or that the concerned officers were
misled in doing so on account of wrong legal advice. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to
observe that during the pendency of the appeals, the matter was referred to the Attorney General for his
opinion whether the judgment of the High Court is correct and the same should be implemented. The
Attorney General examined the matter keeping in view the relevant rules and the policy decisions taken
by the Government of India and opined that the judgment of the High Court was correct and should be
accepted in preference to the view taken by the Tribunal. The issue was then considered at the highest
level of the Government and the Prime Minister ordered implementation of the High Court's order.
Thereafter, the appeals were withdrawn. It is a different thing that the proposal for withdrawal of O.M.
dated 29.10.1999 was shelved in view of the judgment in Col. B.J. Akkara's case. In other words, the
Government of India had taken a well-considered decision not to pursue the appeals filed against the
order of the Delhi High Court and implement the same on the premise that the proposition laid down
therein was correct.
[29]. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the ratio of the Digambar's case cannot be invoked
to justify the pick and choose methodology adopted by the Union of India in resisting the claim of similarly
situated doctors that NPA payable to them shall be taken into consideration for calculating the pension.
Such an approach by the Union of India is ex-facie arbitrary, unjust and has resulted in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis applied)
[20]. The petitioner(s) are a welfare State. They cannot and ought not to expect the respondentretirees
to roam in the corridors of Courts. The conscious decision taken by the petitioner(s) to extend
benefit of their 2003 Circular to a batch of pre-1996 retirees amounts to shift in their policy, therefore, also
the respondents being similarly placed retirees, are entitled to the benefit of revised Policy decision, even
if such decision has emanated out of the command issued by this Court in Agia Ram and others' case.
The denial of benefit of revised higher pension etc. to the respondents when it stands granted to other
similarly placed retirees, certainly does violence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
[21]. Since the Tribunal vide its orders dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P-3), 10.10.2013 (Annexure P-1)
11.02.2014 & 08.07.2014 (Annexures P-3 & P-4) respectively, has directed what the petitioner(s) ought to
have themselves volunteered, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned orders. However,
keeping in view the facts and circumstances, petitioner(s) are granted three months’ time to give effect to
the orders passed by the Tribunal.
[22]. Ordered accordingly. (SURYA KANT) / JUDGE (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) / JUDGE.

NEWS FROM AFFILIATED UNITS

 

Railway Pensioners’ Welfare Association, Saridha, KGP Division conducted their Annual General Body Meeting on 12.4.2015. A large number of members participated in the meeting. The Annual report of activities and the statement of accounts for the previous year were presented by Secretary and Treasurer respectively and unanimously passed.The following are the office bearers:

  • Sri.Sarbeswar Mahata - President; 2. Sri.S.K.Mahata- General Secretary; 3. Sri.Kalipada Mahata – Addl.General Secretary; 4. Sri. Sudhir Chandra Mahata- Asst.Secretary;

 

 

 

Railway Pensioner’s Welfare Association, Dindigul, conducted their monthly meeting, with Sri.Thirunavukkarasu, President, in the chair.After welcome address by the present, Sri.Krishnamoorthy, General Secretary, read out the activity report. He also explained the recent orders from railway Board and judgements from various courts. Vote of thanks was proposed by Sri.Siluvaimuthu, Treasurer.

 

 

 

Railway Pensioner’s Association, Rajampet, Kadappah conducted their General Body Meeting on 6.5.2015 at Railway Waiting Hall, Rajampet under the chairmanship of Sri.Subbaramaiah, General Secretary, NFRP.The Annual report of activities and the statement of accounts for the previous year were presented by Secretary and Treasurer respectively and unanimously passed.Sri.Subbaramaiah explained the details of interaction of pensioners’ organisations with the 7th CPC. The following are elected as office bearers:

1.Sri.M.Vedadri- President; 2. Sri.P.Venkateswarlu- Vice-President; 3.Sri.Shaik Imran Saheb- Vice President; 4. Sri. S.Tirupaliah- Secretary;5. Sri. S.Allabaksh- Asst.secretary; 6.Smt. Saradamma- Asst.Secretary; 7. Sri.s.A.Khader- treasurer; 8.Sri. g.Venkataiah – Chief advisor;

 

 

 

Southern Railway Pensioners Association, Mangalore conducted their Central Executive Committee Meeting at Railway Institute, Mangalore on 13.6.2015. The meeting was presided over by Sri. P.C. Aravidakshan, who also delivered the welcome address. Sri. Anagur Bhasker, Secretary, read out the minutes of the previous meeting and the activities thereafter. He also requested NFRP to press for recognition of private hospitals at Mangalore and Kasargode for treatment of railway pensioners.

 

 

 

 

RAILWAY PENSIONERS SAMAJ, CHENNAI, conducted their quarterly meeting on 20.6.2015 at   Unity House (SRES) PER, presided over by Sri J.Sridharan. President /RPS. Sri R.N.Tripathi, Sr.Vice President/Bharat Pensioners Samaj was the Chief Guest. 265 members attended. 9 Railway Pensioners joined as Life members. Welcome address delivered by Sri B.V.Rajan, Vice-President.  Two minutes silence was observed to condole the death of life members who expired recently. Sri S.Suryanarayanan, Addl Member, Railway Board ( Retd.) was inducted as Adviser to RPS  and Sri  P.Jayaraman was inducted as Working President in a vacancy.

Genl. Secy. K.Srinivasan explained in detail regarding decision pending on payment of arrears of pension from 1.1.2006 to 23.9.2012, after the dismissal of 3 SLPS by Hon’ S.C. on 17.3.2015, Donations to Nepal Relief Fund, Mid-Term Pension adalat to be held on 10.7.2015, cases pending reg. pro-rata pension, RPS/NFRP associating with BPS in the common interest of all CG Pensioners etc. etc. Sri K.Srinivasan requested Sri R.N.Tripathi to use his good offices for the early redress of grievances of certain pre 1996 Rly. Pensioners, retired especially from Southern Railway.

Chief Guest Sri R.N.Tripathi dealt with a number of important matters concerning  pensioners i.e. VII PC, FMA, Post Retirement pass, Health scheme for Railway employees/pensioners, He mentioned that denial of  minimum pension Rs. 6750  to certain pre 1996 Rly.pensioners is not there  in other Zonal Rlys.and that BPS is pursuing  this issue with RB and DOP&PW. When members sought clarification on certain matters concerning Railway pensioners, Chief Guest readily explained in detail.    

 

RPS Diary 2015, containing details of Life Members and other important instructions to Railway pensioners/family pensioners was distributed to the members. This Diary is sponsored by Sri P.Jayaraman, Working President. Statement of Accounts for FY 2014-2015 was read out by Treasurer Sri M.Padmanabhan and was unanimously approved. Xerox copy of a Booklet containing 30 pages and priced at Rs. 20/was issued to the pensioners. This booklet contains useful information on FAQ on Pension matters and issued by DOP&PW.

 

Wall Clocks sponsored by Sri P.Jayaraman were presented to 6 Life members aged above 75 years by the Chief Guest. Vote of thanks was proposed by Sri J.R. Pattabiraman, Joint Secy. Meeting ended with singing of National Anthem.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066
PHONES: 26174596, 26174456, 26174438

CPAO/Tech/Jeevan Pramaan/2015-2016/305                                                                 Dated: 02.06.2015

Office Memorandum

 

Subject:- Incorporation of Aadhaar number in PPO Booklet.

 

As a part of Digital India Mission of the Government, Aadhaar number is playing an important role in identification and submission of biometric authentication of pensioners. Facility of Digital Life Certificate (Jeevan Pramaan) has also been provided to pensioners with effect from November, 2014. Further, provision has also been made in CAM-52 (PPO Booklet) through Correction Slip No.5 dated-30.12.2014 by adding the following columns after the existing column No.5:-

 

6. Permanent Account Number for Income Tax (PAN)
7. Aadhaar No. (if Available)
8. Mobile No. (if Available)
9. E-Mail ID (if Available)

 

In order to have smooth implementation of Digital India Mission and Jeevan Pramaan initiatives, it is imperative to mention the Aadhaar numbers in PPO Booklet.It has been observed that the Aadhaar number is not being mentioned in most of the PPOs received from different Pay & Accounts Offices.

In view of the above, all Pr. CCAs/CCAs/CAs having independent charge are requested to instruct their PAOs to ensure that Aadhaar number and other details added through Correction Slip No.5 in CAM-52 are invariably mentioned in the PPOs issued by them.

Sd/(Sanjai Singh) Controller of Accounts

 

 

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE
TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,NEW DELHI-110066

PHONES: 26174596, 26174456, 26174438

CPAO/Tech/Amdt.-Sch. Book/2015-2016/308                                                                 Dated: 04.06.2015

Amendment to the Scheme for Payment of Pensions to Central Government Civil Pensioners by Authorized Banks (Fourth Edition, 3rd December, 2004)

Correction Slip-23

Annexure-XXVI (See Para 25.1 & 25.2 of Page-22) gets replaced/substituted as under:-

SELF-CERTIFICATION BY THE FAMILY PENSIONER

            I hereby declare that I have not got re-married and I undertake to report such any event promptly to the Pension Disbursing Authority / Bank.

(Applicable only for widow recipient of family pension and to be furnished only once)

Or

            I hereby declare that I am not married / I have not got married during the last six months. (To be submitted by widowers every six months in May and November)

Or

            I hereby declare that I am not married / I have not got married during last one year. (To be submitted by unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter once in a year in November)

                                                                                                                                    Signature
                                                                                                                        Name of the pensioner
                                                                                                                        P.P.O. No.

                                                                                                                        Place:
                                                                                                                        Date:

Sd/-(Vijay Singh) Sr. Accounts Officer (Tech)

 

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD

 

NO.E(W)2014/PS5-1/5                                                                                                 Date 26.05.2015

 

Dr.   M. Raghavaiah, General Secretary,   NFIR,
3,  Chelmsford     Road,   New Delhi-110055.

 

Sub:- Entitlement   of Post  Retirement  Complimentary   Passes  (PRCP) to Group  ‘C’  railway  employees   retired  in  GP  Rs.1800/-   and above  but below G.P. Rs. 2800/-.

Ref:–   Your  letter  No.l/15/Part III   dated  10.04.2015.

 

The matter has been  examined.   It has been observed that Group ‘C’ staff working in GP Rs.1800/-  and above but below G.P.   Rs. 2800/- are being provided   with one Second   Class   ‘A’ pass once   in a year   as a   goodwill gesture.   Their entitlement   is however of Sleeper Class.  Hence,   it is clarified that Group   ‘C’ railway   employees   retired in   GP Rs.1800/- and above but below G.P.    Rs.  2800 are entitled for Sleeper Class PRCP.

For Secretary, Railway Board

 

 

No.S.14025/19/2015-MS

Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Department of Health & Family Welfare
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi - Dated : 27th May, 2015

 

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Revision of time limit for submission of final claims reimbursement of medical expenses under CS(MA) rules, 1944 – regarding.

           

            The undersigned is directed to refer to OM No. F. 29-40/68-MA dated 15.10.1968 in which it was laid down that submission of final claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of Central Government servants in respect of a particular spell of illness should ordinarily be preferred within 3 months from the date of completion of treatment.

            2. A representation was received from National Council (Staff Side) to extend the time limit for submission of such medical bills from 3 months to 6 months. The matter was examined in the Ministry and it has been decided that the period of 3 month s for submission of medical claims be revised to 6 months. Henceforth, only the cases in which the bills are submitted after 6 months from the date of completion of medical treatment/discharge of the patient from the hospital are required to be taken up for condonation. The power of condonation of such delays and other terms and conditions woukld be same as enumerated in the OM No.S.14025/8/99/-MS dated 25.05.1999.

            3. The issue with the approval of the competent authority.

(Sunil Kumar Gupta)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Source : mohfw.nic.in

 

I

© 2023 by Tomorrow. Proudly created with Wix.com     >>>     Call us: 123-456-7890      >>>     Follow us:

  • Facebook Basic
bottom of page