Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Shri R Pandi on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.17521 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
3. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF
REPRESENTD BY DIRECTORATE
OF PERSONNEL CIVILIANS
AIR HQ, DHQ P.O.
NEW DELHI-110 001
4. AOC-IN-C TRAINING COMMAND
J.C. NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 006
5. THE COMMANDANT
ASTE AIR FORCE
YEMALUR POST
-
2
BENGALURU-560 037
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. R. PANDI
S/O LATE V.R. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: LOWER DIVISION CLERK
R/AT. G.B.J. 455, 11TH CROSS
HAL QUARTERS, MARATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 037
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. PANDI, RESPONDENT/PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE, WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2022 PASSED
IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00455/2019 BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.09.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
-
3 Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the CAT' for short) in Original Application No.170/00455/2019. The petitioners contend that the respondent, who is a re- employed pensioner, had been appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the OBC category in Pay Band 1, Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1,900/- in the office of Aircraft and System Testing Establishment. He had submitted a representation requesting re-fixation of pay under Para 4(d)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Order, 1986' for short). It is submitted that at the time of his discharge from Army, the designation of the respondent was Subedar. However, thereafter, he was conferred with the title of Honorary Captain after retirement w.e.f. 01.09.2012. When the representation filed by the respondent was rejected by the petitioners, the respondent filed the OA before the CAT seeking re-fixation of pay in pay band of Rs.12600/- with grade pay of Rs.1,900/- w.e.f. 16.04.2014. It is stated that the respondent was not entitled to the said relief as he was not a commissioned
-
4 officer at the time of his re-employment and his pension had been ignored for fixation of pay. However, the Tribunal had held that the pension and pensionary benefits ought to have been ignored in terms of para 4(d)(ii) of the amended provision only upto the first Rs.4,000/- of the pension and pension equivalent retirement benefits and the pay is to be re-fixed as per Para 4(b)(ii).
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said order is contrary to the provisions of the Order, 1986, as amended from time to time and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No.9873/2013. It is submitted that an honorary commission does not change the pay of the officer concerned and he would only be entitled to the status and uniform, but would not be entitled to claim re-fixation of pay on the grant of honorary commission. It is submitted that para 4(b)(ii) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 provides for fixing of pay of commissioned service officers who held Group 'A' Post at the time of retirement and is not applicable to the respondent. It is further submitted that in terms of Para
-
5 178 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, an honorary commissioned officer is not entitled to equivalence to substantive commissioned service and their previous rank of JCO is the substantive rank. Therefore, re-fixation of pay as available to commissioned service officers is not admissible based on para 4(d)(ii).
3. The respondent who appeared in person, on the other hand, contended that though he retired from service as Subedar with conferment of 'Honorary Lieutenant', which did not entitle him to any monetary benefits, the conferment of title of 'honorary Captain' was, however, specifically with all benefits. It is submitted that he had retired as Honorary Lieutenant on 31.08.2012. At the time of retirement, he was drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- in the pay band 3 (Scale 15600 - 39100) with pay of Rs.15,600/- with grade pay of Rs.5,400/- and MSP of 6,000/-. He was appointed as Civilian Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and reported to duty on 16.04.2014 vide Annexure 'A7'. However, his pay was fixed at Rs.5,830/- with grade pay of Rs.1,900/- in Pay Band 1. It is contended that he had submitted representations pointing
-
6 out that he is entitled for proper fixation of pay in terms of the Order, 1986.
4. The respondent had entered appearance and opposed the application. However, relying on the provisions of the Order, 1986, the CAT had found that the fixation of pay without considering the honorary commission granted to the respondent was incorrect. It was further found that consequent to grant of honorary commission, revised corrigendum was issued on 04.01.2013 amending the original PPO and placing the respondent in the pay band 3 of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. It is stated that therefore the Willingness Certificate given by the respondent for appointment against Group 'C' post cannot be seen as willingness for re-fixation of pay without considering the honorary commission with pay benefits which was granted to him. It is submitted that since the officer should be placed in the pay band applicable to honorary commissioned officer with effect from the date of his retirement, he would be entitled for the benefits as sought by him.
-
7
5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that in the year 2014, the respondent had been appointed as LDC in the Aircraft and System Testing Establishment (ASTE), taking note of his application. However, the contention is that the respondent had retired from service as a Subedar and would not be entitled to any other benefits cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he was granted an honorary commission with pay benefits as would be evident from the revised corrigendum to his pension payment order. The respondent, who was placed in the pay band applicable to a commissioned officer, would therefore be entitled to fixation of pay taking note of his pay in the pay band applicable to a commissioned officer as well.
6. The Tribunal had considered the contentions advanced on either side and had specifically directed re- fixation of pay of the applicant in terms of Para 4(b)(ii) of Order, 1986 treating the applicant as having retired from the Army as an honorary officer. Therefore, the pay was to be re-fixed in terms of para 4(b)(ii) of Order, 1986, ignoring only the first Rs.4,000/- of the pension and the pension
-
8 equivalent retirement benefits. He was thus found entitled to re-fixation of pay under para 4(d)(ii) of Order, 1986. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely on judgments of the Apex Court, we notice that none of the judgments which are available on record do not consider a similar fact situation as available in the instant case.
7. From a reading of the objections, which were placed on record before the Tribunal by the petitioner, we notice that the contention was that the applicability of para 4(d)(ii) of Order, 1986 would arise only in a case where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation and that in the case of the applicant, the entire pension and pensionary benefits had been ignored. The Tribunal has specifically directed that the pay of the officer on re-employment would have to be re-fixed after ignoring only the first of Rs.4,000/- of the pension and pensionary benefits and taking into account the balance amounts.
-
9
8. The petitioner's counsel was unable to point out any illegality in the said direction of the Tribunal. The writ petition therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE cp*