Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Shri R Pandi on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.17521 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND TRAINING
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
3. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF
REPRESENTD BY DIRECTORATE
OF PERSONNEL CIVILIANS
AIR HQ, DHQ P.O.
NEW DELHI-110 001
4. AOC-IN-C TRAINING COMMAND
J.C. NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 006
5. THE COMMANDANT
ASTE AIR FORCE
YEMALUR POST
-
2
BENGALURU-560 037
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. R. PANDI
S/O LATE V.R. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: LOWER DIVISION CLERK
R/AT. G.B.J. 455, 11TH CROSS
HAL QUARTERS, MARATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 037
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R. PANDI, RESPONDENT/PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE, WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2022 PASSED
IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00455/2019 BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
08.09.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
-
Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the CAT' for
short) in Original Application No.170/00455/2019. The
petitioners contend that the respondent, who is a re-
employed pensioner, had been appointed as Lower Division
Clerk (LDC) under the OBC category in Pay Band 1,
Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1,900/- in the office of
Aircraft and System Testing Establishment. He had
submitted a representation requesting re-fixation of pay
under Para 4(d)(ii) of Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay
of Re-employed Pensioners) Order, 1986 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Order, 1986' for short). It is submitted that
at the time of his discharge from Army, the designation of
the respondent was Subedar. However, thereafter, he was
conferred with the title of Honorary Captain after retirement
w.e.f. 01.09.2012. When the representation filed by the
respondent was rejected by the petitioners, the respondent
filed the OA before the CAT seeking re-fixation of pay in pay
band of Rs.12600/- with grade pay of Rs.1,900/- w.e.f.
16.04.2014. It is stated that the respondent was not
entitled to the said relief as he was not a commissioned
-
officer at the time of his re-employment and his pension had
been ignored for fixation of pay. However, the Tribunal had
held that the pension and pensionary benefits ought to have
been ignored in terms of para 4(d)(ii) of the amended
provision only upto the first Rs.4,000/- of the pension and
pension equivalent retirement benefits and the pay is to be
re-fixed as per Para 4(b)(ii).
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the said order is contrary to the provisions of
the Order, 1986, as amended from time to time and as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed
in Civil Appeal No.9873/2013. It is submitted that an
honorary commission does not change the pay of the officer
concerned and he would only be entitled to the status and
uniform, but would not be entitled to claim re-fixation of pay
on the grant of honorary commission. It is submitted that
para 4(b)(ii) of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 provides for fixing
of pay of commissioned service officers who held Group 'A'
Post at the time of retirement and is not applicable to the
respondent. It is further submitted that in terms of Para
-
178 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, an honorary
commissioned officer is not entitled to equivalence to
substantive commissioned service and their previous rank of
JCO is the substantive rank. Therefore, re-fixation of pay as
available to commissioned service officers is not admissible
based on para 4(d)(ii).
3. The respondent who appeared in person, on the
other hand, contended that though he retired from service
as Subedar with conferment of 'Honorary Lieutenant', which
did not entitle him to any monetary benefits, the conferment
of title of 'honorary Captain' was, however, specifically with
all benefits. It is submitted that he had retired as Honorary
Lieutenant on 31.08.2012. At the time of retirement, he was
drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- in the pay band 3 (Scale
15600 - 39100) with pay of Rs.15,600/- with grade pay of
Rs.5,400/- and MSP of 6,000/-. He was appointed as
Civilian Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and reported to duty on
16.04.2014 vide Annexure 'A7'. However, his pay was fixed
at Rs.5,830/- with grade pay of Rs.1,900/- in Pay Band 1. It
is contended that he had submitted representations pointing
-
out that he is entitled for proper fixation of pay in terms of
the Order, 1986.
4. The respondent had entered appearance and
opposed the application. However, relying on the provisions
of the Order, 1986, the CAT had found that the fixation of
pay without considering the honorary commission granted to
the respondent was incorrect. It was further found that
consequent to grant of honorary commission, revised
corrigendum was issued on 04.01.2013 amending the
original PPO and placing the respondent in the pay band 3 of
Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. It is stated
that therefore the Willingness Certificate given by the
respondent for appointment against Group 'C' post cannot
be seen as willingness for re-fixation of pay without
considering the honorary commission with pay benefits
which was granted to him. It is submitted that since the
officer should be placed in the pay band applicable to
honorary commissioned officer with effect from the date of
his retirement, he would be entitled for the benefits as
sought by him.
-
5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that in the year 2014, the respondent had been
appointed as LDC in the Aircraft and System Testing
Establishment (ASTE), taking note of his application.
However, the contention is that the respondent had retired
from service as a Subedar and would not be entitled to any
other benefits cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he
was granted an honorary commission with pay benefits as
would be evident from the revised corrigendum to his
pension payment order. The respondent, who was placed in
the pay band applicable to a commissioned officer, would
therefore be entitled to fixation of pay taking note of his pay
in the pay band applicable to a commissioned officer as well.
6. The Tribunal had considered the contentions
advanced on either side and had specifically directed re-
fixation of pay of the applicant in terms of Para 4(b)(ii) of
Order, 1986 treating the applicant as having retired from the
Army as an honorary officer. Therefore, the pay was to be
re-fixed in terms of para 4(b)(ii) of Order, 1986, ignoring
only the first Rs.4,000/- of the pension and the pension
-
equivalent retirement benefits. He was thus found entitled
to re-fixation of pay under para 4(d)(ii) of Order, 1986.
Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely
on judgments of the Apex Court, we notice that none of the
judgments which are available on record do not consider a
similar fact situation as available in the instant case.
7. From a reading of the objections, which were
placed on record before the Tribunal by the petitioner, we
notice that the contention was that the applicability of para
4(d)(ii) of Order, 1986 would arise only in a case where the
entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for
pay fixation and that in the case of the applicant, the entire
pension and pensionary benefits had been ignored. The
Tribunal has specifically directed that the pay of the officer
on re-employment would have to be re-fixed after ignoring
only the first of Rs.4,000/- of the pension and pensionary
benefits and taking into account the balance amounts.
-
8. The petitioner's counsel was unable to point out
any illegality in the said direction of the Tribunal. The writ
petition therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
cp*
