Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Jain vs The Secretary Ministry Of ... on 27 February, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.02.2012
+ W.P.(C) 1122/2012
VINOD KUMAR JAIN ... Petitioner
versus
THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND FORESTS AND EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Ms Sandhya Goswami
For the Respondent : Mr Sanjay Katyal
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 2449/2012(exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM 2448/2012(delay in re-filing)
This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the writ
petition. The delay is condoned.
This application stands disposed of.
WP(C) 1122/2012
1. The petitioner had filed a representation dated 24.11.2009 for grant
of two additional increments for fixation of his revised pension consequent
upon the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission
recommendations with effect from 01.01.2006. The said representation
was rejected by the respondent No. 2, Indian Council of Forestry Research
and Education (ICFRE) by a letter dated 08.02.2010. As mentioned in the
said letter, the petitioner was informed that his revised pension had been
fixed corresponding to his previous pension and subject to the provision
laid down in the Government of India, Department of Pension and
Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 01.09.2008. As noted in the letter dated
08.02.2010, the two additional increments had already been taken into
account while fixation of pension at the time of the petitioner's retirement
on 30.09.2005. It was also indicated in the said letter that since the
petitioner had retired on 30.09.2005, which was prior to 01.01.2006 and
consequently, he was not in service on 01.01.2006, the question of benefit
of two additional increments for the purposes of calculation of his revised
pension did not arise.
2. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation by ICFRE, the
petitioner filed OA No. 1552/2010 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was dismissed by virtue of
the impugned order dated 09.11.2011.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the
circular dated 08.09.1995 to indicate that the petitioner was entitled to two
additional increments. The relevant portion of the said circular is extracted
below:-
"The increments should be granted at the rate of increment in
the scale of pay held by the employee on the date of absorption
in the ICFRE. In case where the employee is at the maximum of
the pay scale, the increment to be granted should be at the rate
equal to the last increment drawn by the employee.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
On promotion of such an absorbed employee and on revision of
pay scale by the Pay Commission, these additional increments
should be allowed at the rate of increment at appropriate stage
of the higher/revised pay scale."
4. The learned counsel also referred to a letter dated 07.06.2004 issued
by the ICFRE on the subject of "grant of two additional increments with
DA benefits to the absorbed employees of ICFRE-regulating on conversion
of 50% DA into dearness pay with effect from 01.04.2004- clarification
regarding." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the effect
of this letter has not been given to the petitioner after the implementation of
the 6th Pay Commission recommendations.
5. However, we find that the Tribunal has considered these arguments
of the petitioner in detail and has also examined the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of
Personnel and Training's OM dated 01.09.2008 which provided the method
of computation of pension / family pension in respect of pre-2006
pensioners. Paragraph 4.1 of the said OM has been extracted in the
impugned order and the same reads as under:-
"4.1 The pension/family pension of existing pre-2006
pensioners/family pensioners will be consolidated with effect
from 1.1.2006 by adding together:-
i) The existing pension/ family pension.
ii) Dearness Pension, where applicable
iii) Dearness Relief upto AICPI (IW) average Index 536
(Base year 1982-100) i.e. @ 24% of Basic Pension/Basic
family pension plus dearness pension as admissible vide this
Department's O.M. No.42/2/2006-P&,PW(G) dated 5.4.2006.
iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family
pension."
6. After going through all the relevant provisions, the Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the two additional increments, to which the petitioner
was entitled to, as per his service conditions, had already been taken into
account at the time of fixation of his pension originally. As a consequence
thereof, he was getting a pension which was higher than those who had not
received the benefit of two additional increments, but were in the same pay
scale. The Tribunal noted that when the OM dated 01.09.2008 was
implemented, every pre-2006 pensioner got equal pension, that is, 50% of
the minimum pay band plus grade pay at the post from which he retired. It
is on account of this that the petitioner had felt that he had lost something
inasmuch as those, who were receiving lesser pension than him, were now
equated with him. However, insofar as the petitioner's grievance is
concerned, the Tribunal held that because the petitioner had already been
given the benefit of the two additional increments, he had not been
wronged. It is only because of the subsequent events that the others, who
had been receiving a lower pension, have been equated with him, as a result
of which he felt aggrieved. However, we feel that the Tribunal has rightly
concluded that the additional increments to which the petitioner was
entitled, had been duly taken into account at the time of fixation of his
pension originally and also at the time of consolidated revision of pension.
7. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
SR
