Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Union Of India vs Bl Sharma on 6 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7818/2019

B.L. Sharma S/o Shri Phusa Ramji Sharma, Aged About 85
Years, B/c- Brahman, R/o- H.No. 5-D-1, Duplex Colony, Bikaner-
334 003 (Raj.).
                                                                       ----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 Grivances
         And Pensions, Dept., Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare
         Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110003.
3.       The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-7.
4.       The Post Master General, Western Region Rajasthan,
         Jodhpur.
5.       Director Of Accounts, (Postal), Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents
                                 Connected With
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7895/2019
1.       Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Government Of
         India, Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Post,
         Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.       The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-
         302007.
3.       The Post Master General, Western Region, Rajasthan,
         Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       BL Sharma S/o Shri Phusa Ramji Sharma, Aged About 84
         Years, By Caste- Brahman, R/o H.No. 5-D-1, Duplex
         Colony, Bikaner- 334 003 (Raj.).
2.       The Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances
         And Pensions, Dept. Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare,
         Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110003.
3.       The Director Of Accounts (Postal), Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents

                        (Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:21:35 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB]                    (2 of 12)                        [CW-7818/2019]




For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Shyam Prasad Singh
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. B.P. Bohra Sr. CGPC with
                                    Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Judgment

Reserved on : 02/04/2025

Pronounced on : 6/05/2025

(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)

In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7818/2019:-

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the

order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Director of Accounts

(Postal), Ministry of Communications and Information

Technology, Department of Posts, Jaipur; the order dated

26.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jodhpur, while deciding Original Application No.

290/00071/2017; and the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, while deciding

Review Application No.290/0004/2019, whereby the review

petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts which led to the filing of the Original Application

No.290/00071/2017 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner got

superannuated on 28.02.1991 while holding the post of

Superintendent. At the time of his superannuation, he was in

the Pay Scale of PSS Group-'B' (Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200-

100-3500) due to post facto promotion. At the time of his

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (3 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

retirement, his pension was fixed at Rs.1338/-. Upon

implementation of the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the CPC') w.e.f. 01.01.1996

and 01.01.2006 respectively, his pension was revised and

fixed at Rs.4039/- and Rs.9230/-, respectively. The 6th Pay

Commission was implemented and accordingly, the revised

pension order was issued on 04.07.2013, fixing the pension

of the petitioner at Rs.9230/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the fixation of pension after

implementation of 6th CPC i.e. order dated 04.07.2013, the

petitioner challenged the same before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur by way of filing an Original

Application being O.A. No.290/00068/2014, vide which, he

questioned the fixation of his pension and sought its revision

strictly in terms of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008. As per the

prayer made in the original application filed in 2014, the

prayer sought revision of his pension at Rs.9375/-. The said

O.A. came to be decided by the Central Administrative

Tribunal vide its order dated 12.08.2016, whereby the order

of pension fixation at Rs.9230/- of the petitioner dated

04.07.2013 was quashed with the direction to the respondent

to re-examine the matter in the light of the law laid down in

various judgments as well as the M/O Personnel PG and

Pensions, the Departmental of Pension and Pensioners'

Welfare O.M. No.38137-POPW(A) dated 06.04.2016. The

Tribunal further directed that the pension be re-fixed

accordingly within a period of two months and that arrears of

pension be paid within two months thereafter.

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (4 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

4. In compliance of the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondent authorities

passed a fresh order for re-fixation of pension of the

petitioner on 19.10.2016, wherein it is stated that the

pension of the petitioner had already been fixed at Rs.9130/-

with effect from 01.01.2006, which is higher than the

minimum prescribed pension amount i.e. Rs.8145/-, as per

Row 13 (corresponding to the pay scale of 2000-60-1400-75-

3200-100-3500 in which the petitioner retired). It further

appears from the record that the respondent earlier decided

to fix the pension of the petitioner after implementing 6 th Pay

Commission at Rs.9230/- vide order dated 04.07.2013.

Surprisingly, in compliance of the direction given by CAT in its

order dated 12.08.2016, a fresh order was passed, fixing

revised pension of the petitioner at Rs.9130/-.

5. Being aggrieved by this order/letter dated 19.10.2016, the

petitioner preferred a fresh Original Application bearing

No.290/00071/2017 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur. The aforesaid O.A. came to be disposed of

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its order

dated 26.10.2018 while declaring the order dated 19.10.2016

as erroneous as well as illegal and accordingly, the same was

quashed. The respondents were directed to revise the

pension of the petitioner in light of the observations made in

the para 13 of the said order, and four months' time was

granted to undertake the said exercise. The petitioner was

also declared to be entitled for all consequential benefits.

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (5 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 26.10.2018

preferred a review petition; however, the same came to be

rejected by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its

order dated 08.04.2019. The petitioner while assailing these

orders in the present writ petition has asserted that the

Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the respondent

authorities have committed a serious error in not revising his

pension in terms of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008. The

grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition is

that, though order dated 19.10.2016 was quashed but CAT

has concluded that the pension of the petitioner should be

fixed at Rs.9375/- and not at Rs.10075/- as claimed by

petitioner.

7. The submissions made by Shri Shyam Prasad Singh, learned

counsel for the petitioner are that as per the implementation

of the 6th CPC and as per the terms of O.M. dated

01.09.2008, the pension of the petitioner is required to be

revised and re-fixed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- of Pay

Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Basic of Rs.15,350/- which

comes to Rs.20,150/- (Notionally) by applying the formula as

laid down in OM dated 01.09.2008, the revised pension of the

petitioner should be taken to be Rs.10,075/- in the Grade Pay

of Rs.4800/- of Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34,800) + GP 4800, as

per 6th CPC recommendations.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while elaborating his

arguments submits that the petitioner's pay should be fixed

notionally in the revised pay scale (for revising of pension). It

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (6 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

is further argued that the petitioner be extended the benefit

of upgradation of the post subsequent to his retirement. The

Tribunal as well as the respondents have committed serious

error in not giving correct interpretation to OM dated

01.08.2009. That apart, it is further argued by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for the

arrears with effect from 01.01.2006. It is further submitted

that pay of the petitioner is to be brought corresponding to

the revised payscale as per the 6th CPC and then it has to be

ensured that the pension fixed is such that it is not lower

than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and grade

pay.

9. Per contra, Shri B.P. Bohra, learned counsel for the

respondents vehemently opposed the submission made by

the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner is not entitled to the revision of pension while

considering his Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, as there is a

distinction regarding the applicability of the O.M. dated

01.09.2008 for pensioners who retired before 01.01.2006 and

those who retired after 01.01.2006. Learned counsel for the

respondents states that Clause 4.2 of the O.M. dated

01.09.2008 cannot be interpreted to mean that there should

be any equivalence in the pensions of persons who retired

before 01.01.2006 and those who retired after 01.01.2006. It

is further contended that there is no provision for notional

fixation of revised pay for pensioners in the corresponding

revised pay scale, and then revising their pension.

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (7 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

11. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the

respondents are only required to ensure that revised pension

of the petitioner should not be lower than 50% of minimum

of revised pay scale/Pay Band+Grade Pay corresponding to

the pre-revised pay scale attached to the post. That being so,

the petitioner is not entitled to the revision of his pension to

Rs.10,075/- under the 6th CPC.

12. Learned Counsel Shri Bohra further submitted that OM dated

28.01.2013 came to be deleted vide OM dated 06.04.2016

and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the

conditions mentioned in the OM dated 28.01.2013.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in its rejoinder, submitted

that the deletion of the O.M. dated 28.01.2013 would not

frustrate the claim for seeking the revision of his pension to

Rs.10,075/- under the 6th CPC, as the petitioner is claiming

the revision of his pension based on Clause 4.2 of the O.M.

dated 01.09.2008.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

15. From the record, it appears that neither the petitioner nor

respondents were certain about the formula to be applied for

calculating revised pension after implementation of 6 th CPC.

The petitioner in his original application filed in 2014 made a

prayer that his pension be revised at Rs.9375/- but later he

claimed that his revised pension should be at Rs.10075/-.

Similarly, the respondents passed an order on 04.07.2013

after implementing 6th CPC and fixed the pension of the

petitioner of Rs.9230/. However, while implementing the

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (8 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

order passed by the CAT dated 12.08.2016, the respondent

subsequently passed an order whereby the revised pension of

the petitioner was ordered to be fixed at Rs.9130/-.

16. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Clause 4.2 of the O.M.

dated 01.09.2008, as the controversy in the present writ

petition revolves around the interpretation of Clause 4.2 of

the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, which reads as follows:

"4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale."

17. A bare perusal of Clause 4.2, if read with the other clauses

more particularly clause 4.1 of OM dated 01.09.2008, would

reveal that the said OM was introduced specifically dealing

with the implementation of Government's decision on the

recommendation of the 6th CPC, the revision of pension for

pre-pensioners of 2006/family pensioners. Meaning thereby,

the OM dated 01.09.2008 specifically deals with the cases

like the present one, wherein the petitioner retired before

01.01.2006. In clause 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, it is

explicitly stated that upon the implementation of the 6 th CPC,

the revision of pay should be done in such a manner that the

same should not be lower than 50% of the minimum pay in

the Pay Band, plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-

revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired.

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (9 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

18. The above provision clearly indicates that the formula as

suggested is meant for those persons who retired prior to

01.01.2006. The Tribunal, while scrutinizing as to how the

existing pay band of the petitioner is to be revised under the

relevant CCS (RPS) Rules 1997 and CCS (RPS) Rules 2008,

noted that the petitioner retired on 28.02.1991. Therefore,

upgradation of pay scale cannot be made applicable on the

retirees for the purpose of fixation of pension. Similarly, the

same cannot be considered for retirees in the context of

giving effect to provisions regarding the revision of pension

under the CCA (RPS) Rules 1996 and CCA (RPS) Rules 2008.

That being so, the petitioner could not equate himself with

the persons who retired after 01.01.2006. The petitioner

cannot seek notional pay fixation for the purpose of pension

by treating himself as in service and then arriving at revised

pension, which is 50% of the pay. The O.M. dated

01.09.2008 does not require re-fixing of the pay of an

employee while treating him as in service.

19. It is to be noted that the OMs placed on record deals with

the revision of pension. The revised pension should not be

lower than 50% of the minimum revised Pay Scale/Pay Band

plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.

That being so, very basis of the claim of the petitioner that

his pay should have been fixed notionally in the revised pay

scale (for revising the pension) does not exist in the OMs

place on record, as relied by the petitioner. Furthermore, the

benefit of upgradation of the post subsequent to the

retirement would not be admissible to pre-pensioners of

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (10 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

2006, therefore, the petitioner who retired on 28.02.1991

would not be entitled to claim benefit of upgradation of post

after his retirement and consequentially, he would not be

entitled to claim his pension to be revised after extending

benefit of upgradation of post. The issue as to the claim of

benefit of upgradation of post subsequent to their retirement

was clarified in the OM dated 11.02.2009 wherein it was

stated that such upgradation is not permissible.

20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that Tribunal was justified in denying notional benefit

to the petitioner. As far as fixation of pension of the

petitioner after implementation of 6th CPC is concerned, we

have taken note of the fact that Tribunal has calculated the

revised pension based on Annexure A/3 i.e. the document at

page 29, the revised scales for certain posts in Ministries,

Departments and Union Territories, the pay scale of 2000-

60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 was revised to Rs.7500-250-

12000 in the 5th CPC and further revised in Pay Band - 2

Rs.9300-34,800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in the 6 th CPC.

"Minimum of the pay scale of the post Rs.7500 x

1.86 (fitment of the 6th CPC) + Rs.4800/- Grade

Pay attached to the post of Rs.7500-12000 x

50%."

21. As per the above formula, the petitioner was held to be

entitled to Rs.9375/- per month as per the revised pension

under the 6th CPC, instead of Rs.9130/- and therefore, the

same was slightly modified by Central Administrative

Tribunal. The entitlement of the petitioner to claim Rs,9375/-

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (11 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

per month as revised pension is based on the fact that

petitioner's pay is to be brought corresponding to the revised

pay scale as per 6 th CPC and then it is to be ensured that

pension fixed is not lower than 50% of the minimum pay in

the band and grade pay. The respondents, while calculating

revised pension, have ignored the revised pay scale of

certain posts in Ministries, Departments and Union Territories

and the post of the petitioner that is Postal Superintendent

was included in group-B and therefore, the fixation of

revision was to be calculated accordingly.

22. The claim of the petitioner that his pension should be revised

to Rs.10,075/- under the 6th CPC relying on various

judgments of the Hon'ble Courts and Clause 4.2 of the OM

dated 01.09.2008, is basically based on the assumption that

his pension should be notionally fixed by treating him as in

service and then arriving at revised pension, which is 50% of

the pay. As discussed earlier, since the petitioner is not

entitled to claim notional fixation of his pension, and

therefore, his claim for fixing his pension at Rs.10,075/-

cannot be accepted.

23. In view of the discussion above, we find no infirmity or

illegality in the order passed by Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur.

24. Though the petitioner challenged the order dated 08.04.2019

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the review

petition preferred by him against the order dated

26.10.2018, we do not find any error apparent in the order

[2025:RJ-JD:17398-DB] (12 of 12) [CW-7818/2019]

dated 26.10.2018 and therefore, Central Administrative

Tribunal was right in dismissing the review petition.

25. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

26. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7895/2019:-

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the

petitioners-Union of India and Ors. challenging the order

passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26.10.2018,

whereby the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Director

of Accounts (Postal), Ministry of Communications and

Information Technology, Department of Posts, Jaipur was

quashed and it was further held that the petitioner is entitled

to revision of the pension to Rs.9375/- per month in revising

pension in 6th CPC instead of Rs.9130/-.

2. In view of the detailed discussion made in the writ petition

bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7818/2019, we do not

find any grounds to interfere in the order dated 26.10.2018

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur.