Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 3 Others vs Gulab Chand Ram And Another on 1 July, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:105881-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9119 of 2024
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Respondent :- Gulab Chand Ram And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manu Vardhana,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Dileep Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 3.1.2024 passed in O.A. No.1050 of 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent no. 1 has been allowed and the impugned order dated 18.6.2015 has been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to consider the case of the respondent no. 1 in the light of the judgements cited and re-fix his pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and pay the arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
2. The Original Application was filed by the respondent no. 1 aggrieved of the rejection of his representation by order dated 18.6.2015 wherein he had sought revision of his pension and sought arrears thereof.
3. The case of the respondent no. 1 was that though he had retired on 31.5.1991 from the post of Senior Section Officer in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 as per IV Pay Commission, pursuant to the V Pay Commission his pension was wrongly revised whereby instead of fixing it at Rs.3725/- the same was fixed at Rs.3290/-, whereafter the said mistake continued qua the VI Pay Commission recommendation also wherein instead of Rs.9330/- the same was fixed at Rs.8145/- and therefore, the same was sought to be revised.
4. The respondents by their impugned order, came to the conclusion that the Office Memorandum relied on by the respondent, was applicable to those who had retired between 1.1.1996 to 18.2.2003 and the same was not applicable to him as he had retired prior to the said date.
5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and referring to the judgements in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India : (1983) 1 SCC 305 and Union of India vs. S.P.S. Vains : (2008) 9 SCC 125 as well as judgments of Delhi High Court in Ram Phal vs. Union of India and others : 2016 Law Suit (Delhi) 4424 and its own order in O.A.1030 of 2018 (Ram Autar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India) came to the conclusion that the distinction made between those who had retired prior to 1.1.1996 and post 1.1.1996 was not permissible in view of the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other cited judgements and consequently passed the order impugned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that the action of the petitioners is justified in view of the Office Memorandum wherein it was specifically provided that the same would apply only to those who had retired between 1.1.1996 to 18.2.2003 and therefore, the rejection of the respondent's representation was justified and consequently the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
7. Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.
8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
9. The facts are not in dispute wherein the respondent no. 1 had retired on 31st May, 1991 and was seeking benefit of the Office Memorandum for the purpose of revision of his pension based on the recommendation of the Vth and VIth Pay Commission, however, the same was refused to him only on account of the fact that he had retired prior to 1.1.1996 and the Office Memorandum had provided that the same was applicable to those who had retired between 1.1.1996 to 18.2.2003.
10. The Tribunal, as noticed herein before after referring to judgements in the cases of D.S. Nakara (Supra) and S.P.S. Vains (Supra) of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the artificial distinction based on the date of retirement, was not approved rather struck down and the other judgements which have followed the said judgements pertaining to the distinction made in respect of pre 2006 retirees and post 2006 retirees after the VIth Pay Commission recommendation, has passed the order impugned.
11. No fault can be found in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, which is based on the settled law only on account of the fact that Office Memorandum had provided otherwise which is in teeth of the observations/decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the order impugned.
13. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
nd/piyush
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
