B.L. Sharma vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8648 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:38587-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16575/2023

B.L. Sharma S/o Shri Phusa Ramji Sharma, Aged About 91 Years, By Caste Brahman, R/o H.no. 5-D-1, Duplex Colony, Bikaner - 334003 (Raj.) (Office Address - Retired From Service On 28-02.1991 As Superintendent Of Post Offices).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Government Of India, Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Post, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions, Dept. Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110003

3. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur -

302001.

4. General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts Officer, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur - 302014

5. The Superintendent Of Post Offices, Bikaner Division, Bikaner - 334001

6. The Postmaster, Bikaner Ho, Bikaner - 334001

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. P. Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.SG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

18/10/2023 The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 24.08.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in Original

Application No.290/00049/2022), whereby, the Original

[2023:RJ-JD:38587-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-16575/2023]

Application preferred by the applicant-petitioner has been

dismissed.

Briefly, the facts required to be noted in the present case are

that the petitioner was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the

respondent-Department on 01.04.1956 and was thereafter

promoted on the post of Inspector on 12.05.1966. Petitioner was

promoted to the post of Superintendent of Post Offices as Grade B

Officer. The petitioner ultimately superannuated from the services

on 28.02.1991. The date of the birth of the petitioner is

01.03.1933.

The respondents introduced a provision in Central Civil

Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rule') for grant of

additional pension to the old pensioners from 01.01.2006. The

Rule prescribed that quantum of pension to the old pensioners

shall be enhanced 20% of basic pension after a person has

attained the age of 80 years and further 30% from 85 years, 40%

from 90 years and 50% from 95 years and 100% from 100 years

and more.

Since the petitioner entered into 80th year of his life,

considering himself eligible for enhancement of 20% of pension,

approached the respondents and when the same was denied, an

Original Application was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the Original

Application vide order impugned dated 24.08.2023. Hence, the

present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

since the petitioner has entered into 80 th year of his life, he is

[2023:RJ-JD:38587-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-16575/2023]

entitled for grant of enhancement of 20% of the basic pension

granted to him by the respondents. The learned counsel has tried

to implore the Court that in the Table appended under Rule 49 of

CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, it is very categorically written that

from 80 years, a person is entitled for 20% enhancement of

additional pension, therefore, once the petitioner has entered into

80th year of his life, he is entitled to get enhancement of 20% of

basic pension.

The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has

committed an error while rejecting the Original Application. He

submitted that in a similar situation, the Gauhati High Court in the

case of Virendra Dutt Gyani vs. Union of India (D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.4224/2016) decided on 15.03.2018 granted

relief to the petitioner in that case and therefore, on the same

ground, the petitioner is also entitled to get the enhancement of

his pension by 20% from the age when he has entered into 80 th

Year of his life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon an

Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on

03.10.2008, whereby in Table No. 4.5, it has been mentioned that

a person will be entitled to enhancement of 20% of the revised

basic pension from 80 years to less than 85 years and therefore,

the petitioner is entitled to get enhancement of his pension from

the date he has entered into 80th year of his life.

We have considered the submissions made at the bar and

have gone through relevant record of the case including the

judgment dated 24.08.2023.

[2023:RJ-JD:38587-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-16575/2023]

The provisions holding the field for grant of enhancement of

pension clearly show that a person is entitled for enhancement of

20% of his basic pension, after he has completed 80 years of age.

Rule 49 (2-A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended on

08.06.2011 reads as under :-

(2-A). In addition to pension admissible in accordance with sub-rule(2), after completion of eighty years of age or above, additional pension shall be payable to the retired Government servant in the following manner :-

Age of Pensioner Additional pension From 80 years to less 20% of basic pension than 85 years From 85 years to less 30% of basic pension than 90 years From 90 years to less 40% of basic pension than 95 years From 95 years to less 50% of basic pension than 100 years 100 years or more 100% of basic pension

Rule 49 (2-A) of the Rule is very clear and unambiguous. As

per Rule 49 (2-A) of the Rule, a person is entitled to get

enhancement of 20% of basic pension after he has completed 80

years of age. This will have to be read harmoniously alongwith the

Table provided under Rule 49 (2-A) of the Rule and on harmonious

construction of the provisions, we are clearly of the view that the

enhancement of pension to a person will be after he has

completed 80 years of age.

The Tribunal has rightly construed the provision and has

correctly come to the conclusion that the intention of the

legislature was to give enhancement of 20% of pension to those

persons who have completed 80 years of age and therefore, the

[2023:RJ-JD:38587-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-16575/2023]

word "from" shown in the Table will have to be harmoniously

construed alongwith the word "after" mentioned in Rule 49 (2-A)

of the Rules of 1972.

As far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner in the case of Virendra Dutt Gyani's (supra) is

concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable as it was based on

the provisions of High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries

& Condition of Service) Act, 1954 and therefore, it is having no

application in the present set of facts.

In view of the discussions made above, we are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal.

The writ petition lacks merit and the same is, therefore,

dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

49-Anil Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)