At, Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. ASHISH KALIA
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Applicant: Martin G. Thottan, Advocate. For the Respondents: C.P. Ravikumar, ACGSC.
1. The applicant claimed relief as under:
'i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A2 and to quash clause 11 in A2, to the extent it denies revision of pension to the applicant on the basis of first formulation recommended by the 7th Central Pay Commission.
ii) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A3 and quash the same.
iii) Declare that the applicant is entitled for revision of pension as provided in Annexure A2 Office Memorandum with all consequential benefits.
iv) Award costs of and incidental to this application. v) Grant such other relief, which this Honourable tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a pensioner who retired as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. He is challenging the action of the respondents in drawing a distinction among the pensioners who retired prior to 1.1.2016, who form a class of their own, for the modified procedure for computing pension which is not having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Annexure A2 OM draws a distinction and deprives the revision to those who were compulsorily retired prior to 1.1.2016.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. They have entered appearance through Shri C.P. Ravikumar, ACGSC and filed a reply statement. It is contended by the respondents that the applicant is not eligible for revision of pension since the benefit of O.M dated 1.9.2008 will not be applicable in the case of revision of pension/family pension in respect of pensioners who were in receipt of compulsory retirement pension and compassionate allowance under Rules 40 and 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. Heard Shri Martin G. Thottan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri C.P. Ravikumar, leaned ACGSC appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) No.2 of 2016 dated 7.1.2016. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus :
4. We heard Shri N. Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Shri M.R. Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the impugned order. A reading of Annexure A6 indicates that the Government of India have taken the stand that the benefit of minimum pension pursuant to and in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission will not be available to those pensioners who have been compulsorily retired from service. The Government of India did not by Annexure A6 amend Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which reads as follows :
"40. Compulsory retirement pension:
(1) A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted, by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full compensation pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement.
(2) Whenever in the case of a Government servant the President passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under these rules, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before such order is passed.
Explanation - In this sub-rule the expression "pension" includes gratuity.
(3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-rule (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-rule (2), shall not be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem."
It is evident from a reading of Rule 40 that except in cases where an order is passed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, a pensioner governed by the said rule is entitled to full compensation pension. In the case of the respondent, though he was compulsorily retired from service pursuant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, an order reducing his pension in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission was not passed when he was compulsorily retired from service. Subsequently also, an order reducing his pension has not been passed. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that Annexure A6 cannot be relied on to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pension to 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which he had retired. Though learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners contended, relying on paragraph 2.1 of Annexure A2 Office Memorandum dated 1.9.2008 that the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission applies only to pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.2006 under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, that the respondent was drawing only compulsory retirement pension and not pension, he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for before the Tribunal, we are afraid, the said contention is without any merit. The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 contemplates grant of various types of pensions and one such is compulsory retirement pension. The petitioners have no case that the service conditions of the respondent are not governed by the above rules. All that the Government of India meant when it is stated in paragraph 2.1 of Annexure A2 Office Memorandum that it applies to all pensioners/family pensioners under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, is that the pensioner must be a person governed by the provisions contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Government of India did not make a distinction between persons drawing different types of pensions under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. We therefore find no merit in the said contention as well.
We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant original petition. It fails and is dismissed.
He further relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 180/646/2017 dated 12.9.2018 wherein the aforesaid judgment
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
of the Hon'ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 2 of 2016 has been relied on and the Tribunal allowed the OA directing the respondents to revise the pension of the applicant with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom. 6. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to revise the pension of the applicant with effect from 1.1.2016 and grant him all consequential benefits arising therefrom within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 5 order. 7. The Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to costs.