[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Laxmi Chand vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3942/2021
LAXMI CHAND .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. L. B. Rai, Mr. Kartik Rai,
Mr. Satvik Rai, Ms. Avani Rai, Mr. Vineesh
Tyagi and Mr. Ayush Pandita, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC
with Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC, Ms. Vidhi
Gupta and Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocates.
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Arunav
Padhi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 09.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Rai for the petitioner and Mr. Himanshu
Pathak and Mr. Chetanya Puri for the respondents.
2. The petitioner joined the Military Engineering Services on 4
October 1963 as Superintendent Buildings and Roads Grade II. He
superannuated on 16 August 1985. His pension was revised in
accordance with the recommendations of the 4th, 5th and 6th Central
Pay Commissions as approved by the Government.
3. Aggrieved by the fact that his pension had not been revised in
terms of the recommendations contained in Clause 10.1.67(i) of the
report of the 7th Central Pay Commission, the petitioner approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 4483/2018.
4. It is not in dispute that the pension of the petitioner was in fact,
revised in terms of Resolution No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 4
August 2016 and Office Memorandum dated 12 May 2017, issued by
the Department of Personnel and Training pursuant to the
recommendations of the 7th CPC. The case of the petitioner before us,
as advanced before the Tribunal, was, therefore, that the petitioner
could not have any legitimate grievance once his pension had been
revised in accordance with the executive instructions issued after the
7th CPC had returned its recommendations.
5. The petitioner, as the applicant before the Tribunal, did not
merely seek revision of his pension in accordance with Clause
10.1.67(i) of the recommendations of the 7th CPC but also challenged
the Resolution dated 4 August 2016 and OM dated 12 May 2017
issued by the DoPT.
6. The Tribunal has by the impugned judgment rejected the
petitioner's OA in toto. It has held that the recommendations of the
CPC are not enforceable as such, unless they are accepted by the
Government. It has also held that the petitioner had no enforceable
right to challenge the Resolution dated 4 August 2016 and OM dated
12 May 2017 issued by the respondents.
7. We are in agreement with the decision of the Tribunal in so far
as the first finding is concerned but not with the second.
8. Regarding the position that recommendations of the Pay
Commission are not enforceable as such, unless approved by the
Government, the law stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in several decisions including Mahatama Gandhi Mission v.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena1 and State of A.P. v. A.P. Pensioners' Assn.2
from which the relevant paras may be extracted as under:
From Mahatma Gandhi Mission:
"60. The Sixth Pay Commission appointed by the Government
of India is only a body entrusted with the job of making an
assessment of the need to revise the pay structure of the employees
of the Government of India and to suggest appropriate measures
for revision of the pay structure. The recommendations of the Pay
Commission are not binding on the Government of India, much
less any other body. They are only meant for administrative
guidance of the Government of India. The Government of India
may accept or reject the recommendations either fully or partly,
though it has never happened that the recommendations of the Pay
Commission are completely rejected by the Government so far.
61. Once the Government of India accepted the
recommendations of the Pay Commission and issued orders
signifying its acceptance, it became the decision of the
Government of India. That decision of the Government of India
created a right in favour of its employees to receive pay in terms of
the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the
Government of India is obliged to pay."
From A.P. Pensioners' Assosiation:
"36. In State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal3 upon
consideration of a large number of decisions, this Court opined that
the decision of a State to limit the benefits only to employees who
1 (2017) 4 SCC 449
2 (2005) 13 SCC 161
3 (2005) 6 SCC 754
retired or died on or after a particular date upon calculating the
financial implications thereof was neither irrational nor arbitrary. It
was observed:
"28. ... It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay
Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Government, as
the Government had to accept and implement the
recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its
financial position. This is precisely what the Government did. Such
an action on the part of the Government can neither be
characterised as irrational, nor as arbitrary so as to infringe Article
14 of the Constitution."
9. However, that would not inhibit the petitioner from challenging
the correctness of the Resolutions dated 4 August 2016 and 12 May
2017 issued by the respondents. Mr. Rai is correct in his submission
that, while a certain degree of latitude vests with the respondents in
deciding whether to accept or not to accept the recommendations of
the CPC, that latitude cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
10. As such, we are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in
failing to adjudicate on the petitioner's challenge to the Resolution
dated 4 August 2016 and OM dated 12 May 2017 issued by the
respondents.
11. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment
dated 26 September 2019 passed by the Tribunal to the extent it has
not chosen to adjudicate on prayer (a) in the OA by which the
petitioner challenged the Resolution dated 4 August 2016 and OM
dated 12 May 2017 issued by the respondents. The OA is therefore,
remanded for a decision de novo on prayer (a).
12. Needless to state, the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit
of the recommendations contained in Clause 10.1.67(i) of the
recommendations of the 7th CPC would also have to abide by the fate
of the challenge contained in prayer (a) in the OA.
13. For this purpose, in order to expedite matters, we direct learned
Counsel for the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 27 April 2026.
14. Learned Counsel for the parties would also file before the
Tribunal a brief of their respective submissions not exceeding four
pages each in order to facilitate the exercise of de novo adjudication.
15. We also make it clear that neither side would be entitled to seek
any adjournment from the Tribunal on the date fixed by us.
16. We request the learned Tribunal to deal with the matter with all
due expedition.
17. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of prayer (a) in the OA. All issues of fact and law regarding the
said prayer would be open to adjudication before the Tribunal.
18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 9, 2026/pa
