Delhi High Court
Iqbal Singh Vedi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 March, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 5593/2015
Reserved on: 8th February, 2017
% Pronounced on: 6th March, 2017
IQBAL SINGH VEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Malaya Kumar Chand, Advocate
with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate with petitioner
in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for
Respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. D.S. Rawat, Deputy Director Administration,
DGCA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J.
1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in
O.A. No. 1075/2014, by which the Tribunal quashed the letter dated
11.11.2013 issued by PAO, DGCA and the letter dated 05.12.2013 by
PAO, CPAO and directed the respondents to re-determine the
petitioner's basic pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in accordance with the
P&PW's O.M. dated 01.09. 2008 and communicate the same to PAO,
CPAO for issuance of pension revision letter revising the basic pension
of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the enhanced basic pension w.e.f.
the date when the petitioner completed 80 years of age. The Tribunal
also directed PAO, DGCA and PAO, CPAO to re-determine the
entitlement of the petitioner to get basic pension of Rs.6,597/- without
reduction towards commutation of pension with effect from the date of
completion of 15 years from the date of his retirement from 01.12.1990.
The Tribunal further directed that on such revision, the pension
disbursing bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi,
shall re-determine the liability of the petitioner as regard excess pension
etc. paid on account of aforesaid wrong revision of the basic pension
and communicate the same to the petitioner and if any excess pension or
arrears of pension is found to have been made by the bank, the
petitioner shall refund the same within the time stipulated by the bank
failing which the bank shall be at liberty to recover the same from the
petitioner's pension. The Tribunal also mentioned that the petitioner's
revised basic pension at Rs.6,597/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the revised
basic pension now directed to be determine by the respondent by
considering the said basic pension on Rs.6,597/- shall be subject to the
outcome of W.P. (C) 5687/2007 pending before this court impugning
the Tribunal's order dated 04.06.2007 passed in O.A. No. 1640/2006.
2. After filing of the W.P. (C) No. 5687/2007 by the respondent herein
against the Tribunal's order dated 04.06.2007 in OA No. 1640/2006 and
due to implementation of the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay
Commission, the petitioner moved an application to the Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi to revise his pension
and the bank fixed the pension of the petitioner at the rate of
Rs.23,050/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However on 18.11.2013, the petitioner
received a copy of revised PPO amendment letter dated 11.11.2013
reducing his pension drastically to a lower scale and the pension was
reduced to Rs.11,100/- per month for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to
23.09.2012 and at the rate of Rs.12,600/- w.e.f. 24.09.2012. This letter
was issued by PAO, DGCA & Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi
addressed to Pay & Account Officer, Central Pension Accounting
Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and copy
to the petitioner. Subsequently, CPAO, Central Pension Accounting
Office, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 05.12.2013 to this effect. As a
result, Punjab National Bank issued a letter to the petitioner asking him
to refund Rs.15,00,000/-, which was paid to him in excess w.e.f.
01.01.2006. This led the petitioner to file O.A. No. 1075/2014.
3. In its counter reply, the respondents, inter-alia, pleaded that the
petitioner was drawing basic pension @ Rs.6,597/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till
31.12.1995 but inadvertently, his pension was revised to Rs.11,100/-
w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and @ Rs.12,600/- w.e.f. 24.09.2012. As per O.M.
dated 01.09.2008 issued by Department of Pension and Pensioners
Welfare, all Pension Disbursing Authorities including Public Sector
Bank, handling disbursement of pension are to revise the pension of
Central Government Pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per table enclosed
with O.M. It is pleaded that on the advice of the petitioner, the Punjab
National Bank revised the pension to Rs.23,500/- wrongly by taking
into account the scale of PB-IV Rs.37,400-Rs.67,000/- with Grade Pay
Rs.8,700/- and they are not responsible for wrong fixation and Punjab
National Bank is responsible for over payment.
4. Despite the pendency of the W.P. (C) No. 5687/2007 against the
impugned order of the Tribunal dated 04.06.2007 in OA No. 1640/2006,
which has a bearing in O.A. No. 1075/2014 has been decided by the
Tribunal by impugned order. The matter with regard to the payment of
pension for the period from the date of the retirement of the petitioner
till 31.12.2015 was already subjudice in this court in W.P. (C) No.
5687/2007 and it was not in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give
finding thereon.
5. By a judgment of even date, we have disposed of the W.P. (C) No.
5687/2007 and the operative part of the judgment reads as under: -
"21. It is clear as crystal that the respondents no.1, 2 & 3 have
opted for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the
directions of the Tribunal in OA No. 480/1998 titled as "Jagdish
Tuli & Ors. Vs. Union of India", dated 13.11.2000 were upheld
by the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.05.2006 in WP (C)
No. 1597/2001 except on the point of interest, which was reduced
to 9%, which has attained the finality and has been implemented
by the petitioners with regard to similarly placed retired employees
of the department/autonomous body, we are not inclined to
interfere with the directions given by the Tribunal by the impugned
order. Since the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 are in the age group of
85-87 years, as they had retired in the year 1990, we expect from
the petitioners to implement the directions given by the Tribunal
by way of impugned order within a period of four weeks.
22. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs."
6. As a consequence, the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2014 is set-
aside with the directions that the respondents shall revise the pension of
the petitioner on implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f.
01.01.2006 keeping in view the directions of this court in W.P. (C)
No.5687/2007 decided today. The pension so revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996
shall be subject to adjustment and if the excess amount is found to have
been paid to the petitioner shall be adjustable from the pension payable
hereinafter and if on such revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 the
amount is found payable to the petitioner, the same shall be paid by the
respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
order.
7. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs.
VINOD GOEL, J.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
MARCH 06, 2017
"sk"
