[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ms. Kanta Bhatia vs Union Of India Through Secretary, ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13137/2023
MS. KANTA BHATIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC & Mr.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, GP for R1 and R3.
Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSPC with Mr. Aryan
Aggarwal and Mr. Gokul Sharma, Advs. for
R2.
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. This writ petition assails order dated 1 September 2023 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 3231/2019, which dealt
with the pension to which the petitioner, who was the applicant before
the Tribunal, was entitled.
2. According to the petitioner, he was entitled, with effect from 1
January 2016, to pension of ₹ 44,720/-, applying the multiplier of 2.57
to the pension of ₹ 17,399/- to which he was, according to him again,
1 "the Tribunal" hereinafter
entitled as on 1 January 2016.
3. The manner in which the petitioner had worked out his pension
is reflected in Para 4 of the impugned order and may be reproduced as
under:
"The applicant in his grounds of appeal as well as through the
arguments made by his learned counsel has emphasized that as per
the calculation sheet furnished by him, his monthly pension should
have been Rs. 44,720/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2016. The calculation
as furnished by the applicant his OA in Paragraph 4.6 is as
follows:-
Pension as on 01.01.2006
Basic Pension Rs.8285/-
Add 50% DP Rs.4143/-
Add 24 % DP Rs.4971/-
Pension as on 30.4.2006 Rs. 17,399 or say Rs.17,400/-
Pension as on 1.1.2016
On 31.12.2015 Rs. 17,400 X 2.57= Rs. 44,718 or Rs.44720/-"
4. As against this, the respondents did not factor in the 50% and
24% DP which had been taken into account by the petitioner. It is Mr.
Joshi's contentions that the petitioner is not entitled to these
allowances.
5. Besides, the respondents worked out the basic pension as ₹
7,399/- instead of ₹ 8,285/-. To this amount of ₹7,399/-, the
respondents applied the multiplier of 2.57, working out the pension on
and after 1 January 2016 as ₹ 21,800/-.
6. The Tribunal appears to have essentially proceeded on the
ground that petitioner did not seriously dispute the manner in which
the respondent had worked out the petitioner's pension. Also, the
Tribunal has not independently examined the aspect of whether the
petitioner was entitled while calculating his pension as on 1 January
2016, to 50% and 24% DP.
7. To our mind, the matter requires to be re-examined by the
Tribunal.
8. According the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.
9. OA 3231/2019 stands remanded to the Tribunal for de novo
examination.
10. Let both parties present themselves before the Tribunal on 24
April 2026.
11. All questions of law and fact are kept opened. The Tribunal
would proceed uninfluenced by the impugned order before us.
12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 9, 2026/At
