Madras High Court
Union Of India vs /6 on 15 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.P.No.25687 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.25687 of 2024 and
W.M.P.No.28069 of 2024
1. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Commerce (Supply Division)
Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Joint Secretary,
Supply Division,
Department of Commerce,
Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Secretary,
Department of Finance,
Government of India,
Room No.39-A, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Director (PP),
Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 003. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:03 am )
W.P.No.25687 of 2024
1. Shri G.Loganathan
2. The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd
respondent and quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.1391
of 2018 dated 23.09.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan
For R1 : Mr.Karthik
*****
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order dated
23.09.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.1391 of 2018, by which
the Original Application was disposed with a direction to refix the pension
of the 1st respondent herein and grant the consequential benefits within three
months.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for
the 1st respondent has produced a copy of the order dated 10.06.2025 passed
in an identical issue in W.P.No.17175 of 2023, by which the Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:03 am )
filed by the Government was dismissed. The said submission has not been
refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. We feel it appropriate to extract the judgment passed in the
connected matter in W.P.No.17175 of 2023 for the sake of convenience,
which reads as follows:
“Through an order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the 3rd
petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent's claim, for grant of pension
with reference to the replacement pay scale, i.e. Pay Band ? 2
(Rs.9300 ? Rs.34800) with Grade Pay Rs.4600/-, with effect from
01.01.2006, was rejected and the order was communicated by the
2nd petitioner herein to the 2nd respondent. When the rejection
order was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A.No.1736 of 2018,
the same was allowed on 23.09.2022, by placing reliance on several
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court and
the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, with a consequential
direction to the petitioners to re-fix the pension of the 2nd
respondent herein with effect from 01.01.2006 with reference to the
replacement pay scale, i.e. PB ? 2 (Rs.9300 ? Rs.34800) with GP
Rs.4600/- as applicable to all HSG-I officials in service after
01.01.2006. This order of the Tribunal is assailed in the present Writ
Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the 2nd respondent herein had retired from service on 31.01.1995,
which is prior to the cut off date i.e., 01.01.2006 and the revision of
pension as per the 6th Central Pay Commission is only applicable to
the pensioners, who have retired after 01.01.2006.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent would submit that in identical matters, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as well as this Court, have entertained and passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:03 am )
favourable orders in the case of pensioners, who are similarly placed
as that of the 2nd respondent herein and therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.09.2022
would reveal that the Tribunal had only relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Association
Vs. The State of Manipur and Others, dated 11.07.2019, apart from
an order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.655 of 2010 dated
01.01.2011, which order was upheld by this Court, as well as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similar reliance was also placed on the
judgment of Delhi High Court passed in W.P.No.3035 of 2016,
dated 03.08.2016. In the case of All Manipur Association (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, all the pensioners,
irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. Pre 1996 retirees shall be
entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who
retired post 1996.
5. Likewise in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, Union of India and
Another Vs. Central Govt. SAG and Others, as well as an order
passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of
R.K.Aggarwal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reliance
was placed on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
S.A.Khan and Another Vs. Union of India and Others passed in
W.P.No.3035 of 2016, wherein it was held that pre 2006 pensioners
are also eligible for fixation on par with the post 2006 pensioners.
6. All that the Tribunal had done in this case is of having
placed reliance to the already decided cases and had allowed the
Original Application. We are in agreement with the stand taken by
the Tribunal, since any deviation to the respondent's case from to the
cases of similarly placed persons, would amount to discrimination.
When one set of pensioners who are identically placed as that of the
2nd respondent herein, have been extended with certain benefits of
revision of pension, the 2nd respondent herein would also be equally
entitled to for such a relief. This legal proposition has been well
settled in a catena of decisions, including the case in State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:03 am )
7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.”
4. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on this issue vide order dated
10.06.2025 in W.P.No.17175 of 2023 (supra) and following the same, we
have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be
upheld and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(J.N.B.J.,) (S.S,J.,)
15.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:03 am )
To:
The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai.
15.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:03 am )
