Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri Bobbadi Appa Rao vs The Assistant Treasury Officer, on 20 January, 2022

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.JAYASURYA

              WRIT PETITON NO.26092 of 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the letter in

Rc.No.1327/A4/ATO/VSP/2021 dated 26.10.2021 of the 1st

respondent wherein the request of the petitioner for grant

10% additional quantum of pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6

Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 12.1.2019, was

rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not

crossed the age of 70 years and therefore, not entitled for

grant of 10% additional quantum of pension.

2. Heard Mr.Harinath Reddy Somakunta for the petitioner

and Mr. Aswath Narayana, learned Government Pleader for

Services-I representing respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The petitioner, who worked as a Tahsildar, retired from

service on attaining the age of superannuation on 21.8.2010

as his date of birth is 20.8.1952. His services are governed

by A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, was drawing basic

pension. As he entered into 70th year on 20.08.2021, he

claimed 10% additional quantum of pension, in terms

G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019 referred to above.

4. Mr. Harinath Reddy submits that the petitioner made a

representation on 13.9.2021 to the respondents seeking the

benefit of the said G.O., and as there was no response, he got

issued legal notice dated 11.10.2021. In response to the said

legal notice, he submits that rejection of the petitioner's

request through the impugned letter that the petitioner had

not crossed the aged of 70 years and therefore he is not

entitled for 10% additional quantum of pension is not tenable.

While drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.6,

dated 12.1.2019, learned counsel submits that as seen from

the relevant Table of the said G.O., it is clear that 10%

additional quantum of pension is allowed to the service

pensioners / family pensioners in the age group "From 70

years to less than 75 years". He submits that the expression

"From 70 years" would have to be construed as "From the

beginning of 70th year" and the stand taken by the 1st

respondent that the petitioner has not crossed the age of 70

years, hence he is not entitled for grant of 10% additional

quantum of pension and that on completion of age of 70

years, automatically he would be entitled to the same is

unsustainable. He submits that such an interpretation on

the part of the 1st respondent would defeat the very purpose

of granting additional quantum of pension to the aged

pensioners, as the same would provide some succor to meet

their financial needs. Learned counsel, in support of his

contentions, places reliance on the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v.

Union of India1 as also the orders passed by learned Single

W.P. (C) No.4224 of 2016, dated 15.3.2018

Judges of High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.18753

of 2011 (S-R), dated 10/11th April, 2012 and Writ Petition

No.105189 of 2014 (S-RES), dated 03.9.2014. He also

submits that the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench

of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union

of India was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP

(Civil) Diary No.18133 of 2019, dated 08.7.2019. By making

the said submissions, learned counsel prays that the writ

petition be allowed.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, advanced

arguments basing on the detailed para-wise remarks setting

out the defence of the Department. While drawing the

attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019, he

submits that 10th Pay Revision Commission (10th PRC) has

recommended 15% of additional quantum of pension to the

pensioners, who have crossed 70 years of age, to reduce the

difference of pension between the old and new pensioners

worked in the same post, as the new retiree is getting more

pension than the old retiree. In the light of the said specific

position that only on crossing 70 years of age, the entitlement

to additional quantum of pension would arise, he submits

that the request of the petitioner is therefore, rightly rejected.

Learned Government Pleader further submits that the said

recommendation of crossing 70 years, which is a condition for

grant of additional quantum of pension, is not challenged by

the petitioner and in such circumstances, no relief as prayed

for, can be granted. Referring to G.O.Ms.No.100, Finance

(Pension-I) Department, dated 06.4.2010, learned

Government Pleader further tried to justify the letter

impugned in the writ petition. He submits that the

Government Orders are clear and that entitlement of

additional quantum of pension would arise after completion of

70 years or 75 years of age, as the case may be, but not on

entering into the age of 70 or 75 years. Accordingly, he

submits that the petitioner has no vested right unless he

completes the age of 70 years for grant of 10% additional

quantum of pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated

12.1.2019, and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The contentions advanced by learned counsel on both

sides are considered with reference to the material placed on

record. The only issue that falls for consideration is as to

whether the petitioner is entitled to the additional quantum of

pension on entering into the age of 70 years or on completion

of 70 years of age?

7. A perusal of G.O.Ms.6, dated 12.1.2019 at Para No.2

would go to show that as if the 10th PRC has recommended

15% of additional quantum of pension to the pensioners

those who crossed 70 years of age. However, this Court has

gone through recommendations made by the 10th PRC, and

found no such stipulation. The relevant portion of the Report

of the 10th PRC in Chapter XVII at Sl.No.17.11 reads as

follows:

17.11. A major demand of the Association is that there are wide disparities in the pension drawn by those who retired at different points of time though they occupied the same position and enjoyed the same status when they were in service and these should be equalized. This demand has been rejected by successive Pay Revision Commissions on the ground that it would amount to introduction of the concept of 'One rank one pension' and the cost of such revision was beyond the means of the Government.

Sl.No.17.14 states as follows:

Keeping in view the problems of pensioners who retired a long time ago, this Commission recommends the following enhanced rates of Additional quantum of pension.

             Age of the pensioners                    Additional quantum
                                                          of pension
      From   70 years to less   than   75 years      15%   of   basic   pension
      From   75 years to less   than   80 years      25%   of   basic   pension
      From   80 years to less   than   85 years      35%   of   basic   pension
      From   85 years to less   than   90 years      45%   of   basic   pension
      From   90 years to less   than   95 years      55%   of   basic   pension
      From   95 years to less   than   100 years     65%   of   basic   pension
      From   100 or more                             75%   of   basic   pension

8. Basing on the said report, it would appear that the

Government had taken a decision to sanction 10% additional

quantum of pension to the service pensioners/family

pensioners in the age group of 70 to 75 years as mentioned in

G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 12.1.2019. Therefore, the contention of

learned Government Pleader that only those pensioners, who

crossed 70 years of age, as per the recommendation of 10th

PRC, would be entitled to additional quantum of pension,

cannot be accepted.

9. Further, the question as to whether a pensioner would

be entitled to additional quantum of pension vis-à-vis the

expression "from 80 years" as appearing in Section 17B of the

High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act,

1954, as amended, fell for consideration before a Division

Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Virendra Dutt Gyani v.

Union of India on which reliance is placed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, the petitioner

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on

29.7.1998. His date of birth is 30.7.1936 and therefore, on

29.7.2015 he completed 79 years of age. He entered into 80th

year of age on 30.7.2015 and completed 80 years of age on

29.7.2016. According to the petitioner therein, he would be

entitled to the first scale of benefit as per Section 17B with

effect from 30.7.2015 when he stepped into his 80th year. His

stand was resisted by the respondent-Authorities stating that

the same would be available to the petitioner on completion of

80th year i.e., from 30.7.2016. The Division Bench of the

Gauhati High Court referred to the Dictionary meaning of the

word "from" and opined that expression "from 80 years" would

indicate the starting point of 80 years, with a caveat that

inclusiveness or exclusiveness associated with the expression

would have to be interpreted having regard to the intention

for use of such word or expression. At para-29 of the said

Judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench further opined as

follows:

29. This question can also be looked at from another angle. When we say "from 2016 onwards" what do we mean? Whether it would be from 1.1.2016 i.e., from the first day of the year 2016 or on completion of the year 2016 on 31.12.2016? The answer is quite apparent; it has to be from the first day of the year itself.

10. The reasoning of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the

considered opinion of this Court applies to the present

situation and accordingly the contentions advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner are upheld. As pointed out

by him, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench was

affirmed in Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. The enhancement of pension is to provide some succor

to the pensioners in their old age to meet their domestic,

financial and medical needs and interpretation in respect of

any such measures, in the opinion of this Court, should lean

in their favour, rather than depriving them the same.

12. In view of the above factual and legal position, the writ