O.P. Saroha vs Commissioner And Others

In this O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 and order dated 13.11.2015 in respect of present applicant and directing the respondent to fix the pension of the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2006, giving the pay scale ofRs.9300-34800 plus GP 5400/- in the interest of justice and equity.

(b) To direct the respondents to different of arrears of pension from 01.01.2006 till actual payment is made along with 10% interest in the interest of justice and equity.

(c) To allow the original application with all consequential benefits.

(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicants."

Opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply.

The applicant has also filed a rejoinder reply thereto.

I have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and have heard Ms.Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr.R.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents .

The brief facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that the applicant retired from the Municipal Services on 31.01.2003, while he was holding the post of Assistant Chief Accountant in the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/-. Taking into account the last pay drawn by the applicant in the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- at the time of retirement, his pension was fixed. The 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- was revised to 6th CPC PB-2(Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, his pension was revised on the basis of PB-2(Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- with effect from 1.1.2006 as per the Fitment Table appended to the O.M.No.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 28.1.2013, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, which stipulated that the pension of pre-2006 pensioners as revised with effect from 01.01.2006 in terms of paragraph 4.1 or paragraph 4.2 of the O.M. dated 1.9.2008 would be further stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the Pay Band and Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the Fitment Table annexed to OM 30.8.2008. On the basis of the recommendation of the 6th CPC, the pay scale of Assistant Chief Accountant (Accounts Officer) was upgraded to PB-2(Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 1.1.2006. While so, the applicant made representations in September and November 2015 requesting the respondents to revise his pension with effect from 1.1.2006 by taking into account PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, i.e., the upgraded pay scale/PB & Grade Pay for the post of Assistant Chief Accountant (Accounts Officer) effective from 1.1.2006. The applicant's request was turned down by the respondents, vide impugned orders dated 13.11.2015 and 15.12.2015 (Annexure A/1 collectively), on the ground that since he had retired from the Municipal Services on 31.1.2003 in the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/-, which was revised to 6th CPC pay scale/Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, he was eligible for revision of pension with effect from 1.1.2006 at the rate prescribed in the Fitment Table appended to O.M. dated 28.1.2013(ibid) with reference to PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- corresponding to the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- from which he had retired. Hence, the present O.A. was filed by the applicant on 19.2.2016 claiming the reliefs as aforesaid.

In the above context, it has been contended by Ms.Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that when the applicant had retired from Municipal Services while holding the post of Assistant Chief Accountant, and when the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- for the post of Assistant Chief Accountant was upgraded/revised to 6th CPC PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 1.1.2006, the applicant was entitled to revision of his pension on the basis of 6th CPC PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. Therefore, the impugned orders refusing to revise the applicant's pension with effect from 1.1.2006 by taking into account the 6th CPC PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-are bad and illegal and liable to be quashed, and the respondents should be directed to revise the applicant's pension with effect from 1.1.2006 by taking into account the 6th CPC PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- which was granted to Assistant Chief Accountant (Accounts Officer) with effect from 1.1.2006. It has also been contended by Ms. Harvinder Oberoi that 6th CPC PB-2(Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- was granted to the Assistant Accounts Officer which is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer/Assistant Chief Accountant, and, therefore, revision of the applicant's pension by taking into 6th CPC PB-2(Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 1.1.2006 amounts to denial of revision of pension by taking into account the 6th CPC PB-2(Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- which was granted to the Assistant Chief Accountant/Accounts Officer with effect from 1.1.2006.

Per contra, it has been contended by Mr.R.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the upgraded pay scale/PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- was granted to the Assistant Chief Accountant/Accounts with effect from 1.1.2006 on the basis of the recommendation of the 6th CPC. The applicant had retired from service on 31.1.2003 while holding the post of Assistant Chief Accountant in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/-. The Assistant Chief Accountant (Accounts Officer) was placed in the upgraded pay scale/PB-2(Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 1.1.2006. Therefore, the applicant was only eligible for revision of pension with effect from 1.1.2006 on the basis of the 6th CPC Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- corresponding to 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/-. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decisions impugned by the applicant in the present O.A.

After having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, I have found no substance in the contentions of the applicant.

At the time of his retirement, the applicant was in the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- which was revised to 6th CPC PB-2 (Rs.9300-12000/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 1.1.2006. As per Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare O.M. dated 1.9.2008 and O.M. 3.10.2008, the fixation of pension would be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, should 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 pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The upgraded 6th CPC pay scale/Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- corresponding to the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- was granted to Assistant Chief Accountant (Accounts Officer) with effect from 1.1.2006. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare, vide its O.M. O.M.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 11.2.2009(ibid), did not accede to the suggestion/reference made by some pre-2006 pensioners that in cases where certain posts were upgraded and allowed higher pay band/grade pay or pay scale, the application of the provision in paragraph 4.2 of the O.M. dated 1.9.2008(as clarified from time to time) should be with reference to the upgraded pay band/grade pay or pay scale. By the said O.M. dated 11.2.2009(ibid), it was reiterated by the Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare that the instructions/clarifications issued in that regard were in consonance with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the 6th CPC and no change was required to be made. It was also stipulated that in accordance with the instructions contained in paragraph 4.2 of the O.M. dated 1.9.2008, the fixation of pension would be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, should 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. Therefore, the benefit of upgradation of posts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to the pre-2006 pensioners in this regard. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. In the above view of the matter, the applicant's claim for revision of his pension with effect from 1.1.2006 by taking into account the upgraded 6th CPC PB 2: Rs.9300-34800/- plus GP Rs.5400/-is found to be without any substance.

In the light of what has been discussed above, I have found no merit in the O.A. which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.