AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
The applicant is a retired Section Officer of the Postal and Telecommunication Audit Department under respondent No.1. It is submitted that later on he got permanently absorbed in a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and started getting his pension from 01.08.1976 after his superannuation. He is aggrieved by re-fixation of his pay and also the pension and has challenged the impugned orders. It is submitted that he had joined Postal and Telecommunication Audit Department Kapurthala under respondent No.1 on 19.05.1952 and was absorbed in a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India on 10.12.1967 as Section Officer and was granted pension on retirement. Subsequently, various upgradations of pay took place as per recommendations of the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions. He also submitted various representations aggrieved by the fact that his pension was re-fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at Rs.1527/- p.m. instead of Rs.3250/-p.m. He submits that no action has been taken by the respondents for redressal of his grievances.
The present Original Application has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
“…….Tribunal may kindly please issue any direction/directions or order/orders to the respondents to quash the impugned letters dated 24.8.2020, 7.3.2019, 28.10.2016 and 8.9.2016 mentioned in 1(A) above and grant relief on the following points
(a) Re-working of 6th CPC Pension from 1.1.2006 on the basis of the upgraded scale of Rs 6500.10500 as applicable to the Section Officers of the ORGANISED ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENTS w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as introduced in all the Audit offices (including the Postal and Telecommunication AUDIT to which the petitioner belongs) under the overall control and jurisdiction of the Respondent 1.
(b)Re-fixation of 7th CPC Pension from 1.1.2016 on the basis of revised fixation of 6th cpc pension as at (a) above.
(c)Re-fixation of 5th CPC Pension from 1.1.1996 @50% of the minimum of the UPGRADED SCALE of Rs 6500.10500 i.e. @Rs 3250 pm as against @ Rs 1527 pm.
(d)To pay arrears on account of (a, (b) and (c) above with interest thereon within a month.
(e)Adequate compensation for causing financial, physical and mental agony to the petitioner who had to submit numerous petitions to the respondents, to the secretary, Government of India, Deptt of Pensions and also to the Hon’ble Prime Minister and also had to make several trips for attending the court proceedings in person by hiring taxi on each occasion.
(f)ANY OTHER RELIEF OR COMPENSATION WHICH THE Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances more particularly the extreme old age of the petitioner and waiting for justice during the last several years.”
The relief(s) being sought indicate that the applicant is praying for quashing of the impugned orders dated 24.08.2020, 07.03.2019, 28.10.2016 and 08.09.2016. He is also seeking directions to re-fix 6th CPC pension from 01.01.2006, 7th CPC pension from 01.01.2016, 5th CPC pension from 01.01.1996 and also to pay him arrears as due.
Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents opposing the O.A. It is submitted that the present O.A. is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section-21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is further submitted that applicant has not challenged the Department of Pension and Pensioner Welfare O.M. dated 08.02.2005 of which he is aggrieved of. Therefore, without challenging that O.M., this O.A. is not tenable. It is also submitted that the applicant had joined the services in 1952 and subsequently joined Central Public Sector Undertaking (CPSU), viz. National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) in 1967 after resigning from his previous job. He has filed a number of representations airing his grievances, which included the same as mentioned in the relief(s) sought in the present O.A. The respondents have indeed passed several orders on his representations giving detailed explanation regarding the fixation of pay and pension in terms of the prescribed Government Rules and Gazette Notification.
Heard the applicant in person and Dr. S.S. Hooda with Sh. Aaayushman Aeron, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant had joined Postal and Telecommunication Audit Department Kapurthala under respondent No.1 on 19.05.1952 and served till 10.12.1967. Subsequently, through an Open Interview he was selected in NMDC (CPSU) and was relieved from government service on 11.12.1967. His claim for pro rata retirement benefit on his absorption in the NMDC was found not covered under the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms O.M. No. 28016/4/76-Estts(C) dated 25.03.1997. The applicant had filed OA No. 527/1987 in Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal for non grant of pro rata retirement benefits. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.04.1988 allowed the applicant to receive pro rata retirement benefits w.e.f. 01.08.1976 for his services rendered in Indian Audit and Accounts Department. He was granted retiring pension on permanent absorption in the CPSU vide order dated 15.02.1989, which was revised from time to time based on the Notifications and the recommendations of successive CPCs. In a later development vide Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Department of Expenditure O.M. No. 6/82/E.III(B)/91 dated 28.02.2003, the pay scale of Section Officers and some other cadres were upgraded w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally and with actual benefits from 19.02.2003 from Rs. 5500-9000 to Rs. 6500-10500. Initially, it was submitted vide O.M. dated 26.04.2004 that these upgraded scales would be admissible to pre 1996 retirees. However, later on vide O.M. dated 08.02.2005, it was amended to the extent that benefit of upgraded pay scale would not be admissible to pre 1996 retirees, though their pension/family pension would not be less than 50% and 30% respectively of the upgraded scales of pay. It is seen that the pension of the applicant was Rs. 1293/- in the earlier pay scale of Section Officers i.e. Rs. 5500-9000 under 5th CPC and it was less than the minimum of 50% of the upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The pension of the applicant was accordingly computed at Rs. 1527/- p.m. in the revised upgraded pay scale of Section Officers i.e. Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally and with actual benefit from 19.02.2003. This position has also been clarified to the applicant vide the impugned order dated 24.08.2020, which is as under:-
“Sub: Unfair and unjustified adoption of lower pay scale (5500-9000) for revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (6th CPC) – reg.
Sir,
I am directed to invite a reference to your representation received through e-mail addressed to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India on the subject cited above. Your representation has been re-examined in light of extant rules/provisions.
It is stated that the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DOPPW) upgraded pay scale of Section Officers on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 from Rs.5500-175-9000 to Rs.6500-200-10500 (para 2) vide O.M. dated 26.04.2004. Further, the DOPPW vide OM dated 08.02.2005 (para 7) amended O.M. dated 26.04.2004 and instructed that benefit of upgraded pay scale extended was not admissible to pre-1996 retired Section Officers, however, pension/family pension of pre-1996 pensioners/family pensioners would not be less than 50%/30% of the upgraded pay scale. In order to ensure the minimum pension, your pension was revised in pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally.
Thereafter, the DOPPW vide OM dated 05.09.2007 clarified that the benefit extended vide OM dated 08.02.2005 (para 7) for fixation of pension/family pension with reference to upgraded pay scale (Rs.6500-200-10500) was not admissible to pre-1996 retirees i.e. benefit extended earlier vide OM dated 08.02.2005 (para 7) was withdrawn.
Further, the Government of India vide O.M. dated 11.02.2009 regarding revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners clarified that 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 pensioner had retired. Therefore, benefit of the upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners. The pay scale corresponding to your pre-revised pay scale from which you had retired is Rs.1640-60-2600, Rs.5500-175-9000 & 9300-34800 + G.P. 4200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 & 01.01.2006 respectively.
Keeping in view the relevant provisions, your pension has been revised corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which you had retired. The Benefit of fixation of pension with reference to upgraded pay scale is not admissible to you. The above position has been informed to you vide letter dated 07.03.2019. There is no scope of further examination in this matter.”
It has been clarified that vide O.M. dated 05.09.2007 benefit extended vide O.M. dated 08.02.2005 for fixation of pension/family pension with reference to upgraded pay scale was not admissible to pre 1996 retirees i.e. benefit extended earlier vide OM dated 08.02.2005 was withdrawn. It is further stated that Government of India vide O.M. dated 11.02.2009 regarding revision of pension of pre 2006 pensioners clarified that revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay and this benefit of upgradation would not be admissible to pre 2006 pensioners. Prior to this also in response to another representation made by the applicant the respondents had clarified the position vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019, which is as under:-
“Subject : Unfair and unjustified adoption of lower pay scale (5500-9000) for fixing 6th CPC pension from 01.01.2006-regarding.
Sir,
I am directed to invite a reference to your representations addressed to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and copy endorsed to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India on the subject cited above. Your representation has been considered and examined in the light of extant provisions.
It is stated that vide Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare O.M. dated 26.04.2004, pay scale of Section Officer was upgraded on notional basis w.e.f. 1.1.1996 from Rs.5500-175-9000 to Rs.6500-200-10500 (para 2). As per para 7(ii) of OM dated 08.02.2005 of Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, no benefit of fixation of pension with reference to upgraded pay scale was extended to pre-1996 retirees. This was reiterated vide OM dated 05.09.2007 and 11.02.2009 of the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare.
In view of the above provisions, it is intimated that benefit of fixation of pension with reference to upgraded pay scale subsequent to their retirement is not admissible. The above position has been informed to you earlier vide letters dt. 28.10.2016, 26.09.2017 and 14.06.2018. No further correspondence on this matter will be entertained.”
It is further observed that this position had been clarified to the applicant vide respondents letters dated 08.09.2016 and 28.10.2016. The moot point is that the benefit of upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 was not admissible to pre retirees as per O.M. dated 26.04.2004 and various clarifications dated 08.02.2005, 05.09.2007 and 05.11.2008. The respondents have also clarified that in view of the qualifying service of the pensioner, which is 15 years 6 months and 22 days, his pension was fixed to minimum of 50% of the upgraded pay of Rs.6500-10500 on pro rata basis by using the said formula w.e.f. 19.02.2003 and his pension @ Rs.1527/- was admissible to him and was not less than the minimum of the upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as envisaged in O.M. dated 08.02.2005. Subsequently, the clarification was issued and the benefit of pension/family pension with reference to the upgraded pay scale was not made admissible to pre 1996 retirees. It is also observed that in terms of the O.M. dated 05.09.2007 no recovery was to be made for any excess amount paid through the pension. This further highlights that the applicant has not challenged the O.M. dated 08.02.2005 and instead seeking revision of his pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at a higher rate. It is observed that the applicant has been making repeated representations with longer time gaps. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Sahni Vs. State of U.P. and Others [SLP(C) No. 3008/2022] decided on 28.02.2022 have once again held that mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. Be that as it may, the representations made by the applicant have been considered and replied vide respondents order dated 08.09.2016, 28.10.2016, 07.03.2019 and 24.08.2020.
In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. At the same time, the claim of the applicant to now re-fix his pension is also not tenable as the fixation of his pension has already been done in terms of the OMs and subsequent clarifications by the respondents and the same are in order. The O.A. is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.