Uttam Chand Chawla vs Uoi
2010 Latest Caselaw 3593 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Judgment Reserved On:2nd August, 2010
                            Judgment Delivered On: 3rd August, 2010

+                            W.P.(C) NO.10573/2006

         UTTAM CHAND CHAWLA                 ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Petitioner in person

                                  versus

         UOI                                      .....Respondent
                       Through:   Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC for UOI

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.637/2005 as also the order dated 24.3.2006 dismissing RA No.52/2006 by which application, the petitioner sought review of the order dated 16.2.2006.

2. We had heard the petitioner yesterday and since he could not make out what he was wanting to say, we had reserved the matter for order to be pronounced today.

3. We went through the file and would note that the petitioner retired from service under Central Government on 31.1.1988 after rendering 39 years' service beginning from 1.6.1949.

4. At the time when he superannuated from service, as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, petitioner was drawing salary in the scale of pay Rs.2,000-3,500/- and after earning increments, his basic pay was Rs.3,200/- per month.

5. Needless to state the pension of the petitioner required to be determined as per the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which rules have obviously been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

6. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that vide OM dated 8.5.1998 his pension has not been correctly fixed.

7. In an earlier petition filed before the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.10.2004 the Tribunal directed that a detailed and speaking order be passed and in compliance therewith a detailed and a speaking order dated 4.2.2005 has been passed.

8. The petitioner challenged the said order by and under OA No.637/2005 which has been dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2006.

9. We may note that while dismissing the OA filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has expressed the same helplessness as we faced yesterday when we heard the petitioner, who is most inarticulate i.e. being unable to understand what the petitioner wanted to convey.

10. From the file we note that pensions are revised from time to time and in particular after the implementations of the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

11. From whatever we could understand to the submissions made by the petitioner, his grievance was that

matters pertaining to pension and family pension cannot be determined with reference to office memorandums issued by the Government from time to time and that the same have to be through legislation by the Parliament exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

12. We may additionally note that it appears to be a grievance of the petitioner that with the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 1.1.1996, the corresponding pay scale to the scale of Rs.2,000- 3,500/- was Rs.6,500-10,500/- and thus his basic pension which was revised to Rs.4,774/- with family pension being Rs.2,198/- was unjustified. He sought his pension to be fixed with reference to the basic pay which he was drawing i.e. Rs.3,200/- and as per him, in the corresponding scale, with increments, his salary would be Rs.9,700/- per month and thus his pension should be accordingly fixed.

13. Suffice would it be to state that with the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commissions, pensions are determined with reference to the basic pay in the scale applicable and not as if the Government servant had earned increments in the revised pay scale.

14. Needless to state while revising the pay scales the Pay Commissions merge the dearness and other allowances which have been increased from time to time with reference to the previous scale of pay.

15. Noting that the revised pension and the notified family pension fixed is in conformity with OM dated 8.5.1998 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, we find no merit in the writ petition.

16. Needless to state in the decision reported as (2000) 3 SCC 733 State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Boota Singh & Anr. in para 7, the Supreme Court has noted as under:-

"On merits we find that the retirement benefits which are claimed by the respondent are benefits which are conferred by subsequent orders/notifications. Therefore, persons who retired after the coming into force of these notifications and order are governed by different rules of retirement than those who retired under the old rules and were governed by the old rules. The two categories of persons, who retired were governed by two different sets of rules. They cannot, therefore, be equated. Further, granting of additional benefits has financial implications also. Hence, specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary."

17. The writ petition is dismissed.

18. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MOOL CHAND GARG) JUDGE

AUGUST 03, 2010 mm