Delhi High Court
Shri M.L. Ohri vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 August, 2008
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1623/2003
Reserved on: 17th July, 2008
% Date of Decision: 4th August, 2008
Shri M.L. Ohri
S/o late Sh. B.D. Ohri
Flat No.B-39, Pocket-B
Sarita Vihar
New Delhi ...Petitioner
Through: J.C. Madan, Advocate.
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Personnel
Public Grievances & Pension
Department of Pensions and
Pensioners Welfare
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
North Block
New Delhi
3. The Pay & Accounts Officer,
Central Pension Accounting Office
Ministry of Finance
Trikot-II Complex
(Behind Hotel Hyatt Regency)
Bhikajicama Place
New Delhi.
4. The Central Administrative Tribunal
Through the Registrar
Principal Bench
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi ...Respondents
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate.
W.P.(C) No.1623/2003 Page 1 of 5
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
J.R. MIDHA, J.
The Petitioner retired from Central Government service from the
post of Assistant Director of Income Tax (equivalent to Under Secretary)
on 30th April, 1990 in the pay scale of Rs.3,000-100-3,500-125-4,500/-.
His last drawn average pay was Rs.3,888/- and, accordingly, his pension
was fixed at Rs.1,944/-.
On 27th October, 1997, the Department of Pension and Pensioners'
Welfare, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum whereby
the Government revised the pension of Central Government pensioners
on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1 st
January, 1996. On 17th December, 1998, Department of Pension and
Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India, issued another Office
Memorandum to the effect that w.e.f. 1.1.1996, pension of all pensioners
irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the
minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of
the post held by the pensioner.
At the time of retirement, the petitioner's pension was fixed at
Rs.1,944/-, being 50% of the last drawn average pay of Rs.3,888/-. In
terms of OM dated 27th October, 1997, the petitioner's pension was
revised to Rs.5,557/-, being 50% of the revised pay scale for the post of
Assistant Director of Income Tax. However, the Petitioner's pension
continued to be Rs.5,557/- after the OM dated 17th December, 1998.
The Petitioner filed the OA before the learned Tribunal challenging
the OM dated 17th December, 1998 on the ground that the pension of the
Deputy Secretary, on the basis of the said OM, has increased from
Rs.5,557/- to Rs.6,000/- whereas there has been no corresponding
increase in the pension of the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted a
comparative chart in the OA which is reproduced in para 4 of the
impugned order to demonstrate that the Deputy Secretary with one year
service and the pay of Rs.3,825/- would draw a pension of Rs.6,000/-.
According to the Petitioner, his last drawn pay was Rs.3,888/- and,
therefore, he should draw higher pension than the Deputy Secretary and,
therefore, the OM dated 17th December, 1998 is discriminatory and
should be quashed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. During
the course of arguments, the counsel for the Petitioner fairly admitted
that so far as the petitioner is concerned, his pension has been correctly
fixed at Rs.5,557/-, being 50% of the revised pay scale of the post of
Assistant Director of Income Tax and to that extent, he has no grievance.
The Petitioner's sole grievance is that the Deputy Secretary should not
draw pension higher to him. We have examined the comparative chart
given by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has made anomalous comparison
in his chart. If the pension of Under Secretary with one year service is
compared to the pension of Deputy Secretary with one year service, there
would not be any anomaly. To illustrate, the Under Secretary with one
year service in 1990 would draw the last pay of Rs.3,100/- and the basic
pension would be Rs.1,550/-, being 50% of the last drawn pay. In terms
of OM dated 27th October, 1997, his pension would be revised to
Rs.4,669/- and on the basis of the OM dated 17th December, 1998, it
would be further revised to Rs.5,000/-. Correspondingly, the Deputy
Secretary with one year service would draw the pay of Rs.3,825/- in
1990 and his pension would be Rs.1,913/-, being 50% of the last drawn
pay. The pension would be revised to Rs.5,511 in terms of OM dated 27th
October, 1997 and to Rs.6,000/- on the basis of the OM dated 17th
December, 1998. As a result, the revised pension of Under Secretary
with one year service would be Rs.5,000 and that of Deputy Secretary
with one year service would be Rs.6,000/-. We do not find any
discrimination in this calculation.
It was next contended by the Petitioner that the pension cannot be
linked to the post as has been done by the OM dated 17th December,
1998. We do not find any force in this argument. This argument was
rejected by the Government by its letter dated 2nd July, 2001 which has
been reproduced in para 5 of the impugned order. We agree with the
reasons given by the Government that the posts held at the time of
retirement and the revised scales of pay prescribed for the posts have to
be necessarily taken into account. The posts held are important and the
Petitioner's comparison has to be made with the persons holding the
same rank and not with the persons holding higher ranks. We agree
with the learned Tribunal that the classification based in terms of the
posts held at the time of retirement is neither unreasonable nor
arbitrary.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the OM dated 17th
December, 1998 does not suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
The Petitioner admittedly has no grievance so far as his own pension is
concerned. His grievance to the higher pension of the Deputy Secretary
holding the next higher post is unjustified inasmuch as there is no
unreasonableness in the higher pension to persons holding higher post.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
(J.R. MIDHA)
JUDGE
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
JUDGE
4th August, 2008
s.pal
