Laxmi Chand vs Union Of India And Ors

The applicant joined the Military Engineering Services on 04.10.1963 as Superintendent Buildings & Roads Grade-II and superannuated on 16.08.1985 from the above mentioned post. Pension of the applicant was also revised regularly in terms of 4th, 5th and 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations as approved by the Government. The recommendations of 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC), as accepted by the Government, came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2016. It is stated by the applicant that Chapter 10 of the Report of the 7th CPC is related to pension and related benefits wherein various recommendations were given along with illustrations. It is submitted that the pension of the applicant was also required to be revised on the basis of the provisions contained in Clause 10.1.67(i) of the report of the 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016. However, the Principal Controller Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad did not revise the pension of the applicant according to these provisions. The applicant made several representations in this regard. Despite these, the respondents i.e. Principal Controller Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad did not fix the pension of the applicant on the basis of Clause 10.1.67(i) of the recommendations of 7th CPC and advised the applicant vide letter dated 24.01.2017 that his pension will be fixed only on the basis of Government Circulars and OMs issued after the 7th CPC including Resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure A-1 Colly.) and O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.05.2017. The applicant has submitted that the respondents have taken an arbitrary stand, which is not as per the recommendations of the 7th CPC. The applicant's representations were also considered and replied by the respondents informing him that his case will be examined by Sr. Accounts Officer, Controller General Defence Accounts, Delhi. The applicant was further asked to submit the original PPO No., which was duly submitted by the applicant vide his letter dated 12.03.2018. Despite having furnished the required information, no further action has been taken by the respondents for re-fixation of his pension on the basis of 7th CPC recommendations. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) pass an order for issuance of an appropriate order or direction for setting aside the resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016 and Office Memorandum dated 12.05.2017, both issued by respondent no.1; and

(b) pass an appropriate order or direction thereby directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner on the basis of Clause 10.1.67(i) of the recommendations of Seventh

Central pay Commission."

In the short counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the averments made in the O.A. have been opposed primarily on the ground that the applicant is seeking quashing of Policy Circulars i.e. Resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016 and O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.05.2017, which is not tenable.

In the rejoinder submitted by the applicant, the points mentioned in the O.A. have been reiterated.

Heard Sh. Syed Kamran, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant retired from the services of respondent No.4 w.e.f. 16.08.1985. During this period of his service, the applicant earned regular increments. The pension of the applicant has also been revised from time to time in terms of 4 th, 5th & 6th CPCs recommendations. The applicant has based his entire grievance on non-implementation of the recommendation No. 10.1.67(i) of 7th CPC, which reads as under:-

"All the civilian personnel including CAPF who retired prior to 01.01.2016 (expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations) shall first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he/she had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Fifty percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension."

5.1 The respondents, on the other hand, have chosen to implement recommendation of the 7th CPC for revising his pension. The applicant's pension has already been fixed under 7th CPC in terms of extant guidelines. However, the applicant feels that had his pension been revised in terms of recommendation No. 10.1.67(i) of 7th CPC, it would be higher than the revised pension fixed by the respondents. The respondents have confirmed vide their letter dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A-5) that the applicant's pension had been fixed by multiplication formula by the factor of 2.57, which is in terms of Circular No.-C153 dated 12.08.2016. The respondents have further clarified this position vide Resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016 and O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.05.2017. This has also been clearly stated in Para-4.1 of the O.M. dated 04.08.2016, which reads as under:-

"For existing pensioners, who have retired before 01.01.2016, the revised pension/family pension with effect from 01.01.2016 shall be determined by multiplying the pension/family pension, as had been fixed at the time of implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, by 2.57. The amount of revised pension/family pension so arrived at shall be rounded off to next higher rupee."

5.2 This O.M. issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Government of India was implemented by the respondents vide their Circular dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure A-3). The applicant has challenged Resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016 and O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.05.2017 issued by Government of India, which is based on the decision taken by the Government on 7th CPC recommendations as stated in the Resolution dated 04.08.2016 published in the Gazette of India. Applicant's plea challenging these orders is simply not tenable. The judicial intervention of Tribunals in the Policies made by the Governments and the Departments is limited and the same has also been adjudicated by the Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568.

5.3 The applicant has also sought relief in terms of directions to be issued to respondents to revise his pension on the basis of Clause 10.1.67(i) of the recommendations of 7th CPC. Such a relief seems to be totally misplaced as recommendations of the 7th CPC are to be examined and accepted by the Government for implementation across departments. Only those recommendations, which are accepted are thereafter circulated through the Government orders and are notified in the Gazette. The applicant in this O.A. is primarily seeking quashing of the Resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016 and O.M. No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.05.2017, which is not tenable. He is also seeking directions to be issued to respondents to revise and fix his pension entirely on the basis of recommendations, which have not been accepted and implemented by the respondents. This is also a misplaced plea and without any merit.

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and ruling of the Apex Court, I do not find any merit in the present O.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.