Kanwal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioners states at the outset that the issue raised in the present petitions is no longer res Integra and stands covered by earlier decisions of coordinate Benches of this Court and of a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana Court that has been upheld right upto the Supreme Court. W.P. (C) No.8306/2017 & connectedmatters Page[3] of[8]

2. With the consent of the parties, W.P.C. No.8306/2017 is being treated as the lead matter and the facts of the said case are noticed hereinafter.

3. The petitioner in the captioned petition, who is an Ex-Head Constable (GD) in the CRPF, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the PPO dated 04.01.2016, on the ground that his pension has been incorrectly revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and he was deprived the benefit ofthe revised payscale of a Head Constable as prescribed in the in the fitment table appended to the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013, issued by the Department of Pensioners Welfare. i;

4. Learned counsel for the, petitioner^ states that the CCS Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, as made effective from 01.01.2006, has set out a table indicating the revised pay sc^ie;bf a Head Constable in the CAPF's at ^4,000-6,000 in^Pa^ ^aiiM with Grade Pay of ^2,400. Despite the aforesaid clarification^r^isio^ respondents are paying pension to the petitioner at the-did of ?3,200-4,900, by fixing his Grade Pay as ?2,000/- in terms ofthe impugned PPO dated 04.01.2016.: V /vr ^

5. Learned counsel refers to OM dated 11.02.2009, issued by the Department ofPension &Pensioner's Welfare, Ministry ofPersonnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India wherein it was directed as follows: "5. In accordance with the instructions contained in para 4.[2] ofthis Department's OM ofeven number dated 01.09.2008, thefixation ofthe pension will be subject to the provision the revisedpension, in no case, shall be lower than W.P. (C) No.8306/2017 &connected matters -L fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in thepay bankplus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner hadretired. Therefore, the benefit ofupgradation ofposts subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to thepre-2006pensioners in this regard.

6. It is submitted that the aforesaid OM had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in a batch of petitions, lead matter being O.A. No.655/2010, entitled Central Government SAG (8-29) Pensioners' Association & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., which was decided on.01.11.2011. The grievance raised by the petitioners therein was that the respondents had not revised the pension of the pre-2006 retirees as per the formula; recommended by the Pay Commission and adopted bytheGovernment of India, vide Resolution dated 29.08.2008. The said O.As were' disposed of by the Tribunal in the following words:.

and in the light ofourobservations made above. Let the respondents re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs. "

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Union of India had W.P.(C) No.8306/2017 &connectedmatters Page 5of[8] -C approached this Court by filing a batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C) 1535/2012, entitled Union of India & Anr. vs. Central Government SAG & Ors.. which were dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 29.04.2013, observing inter alia that an identical question had been examined by a Division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P.(C) 19641/2009, entitled R.K.Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State of Harvana & Ors.. that was decided on 21.12.2012. The reasoning given in the said judgment was extensively referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in para 7 and concurring with the said line, ofthought, the writ petitions filed by the Union ofIndia were dismissed. ^;

8. Not satisfied by the judgment•dated 29.04.2013, passed by the Division Bench in the captioned connected petitions, following the decision of the Punjab & Haryana [High Court in the case R.K.Aggarwal (supra), the Union. c)f lhdik^ filed a SLP before the Supreme Court, which was:al^o^disrnissed.'; r

9. This was followed by a:^seeohd pronounced by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.08.2016, in W.P.(C) No.3035/2016 entitled Ram Phal vs. UnioniofIndia & Ors., where the petitioner therein, who was last promoted to the rank of a Subedar Major in the ITBP, had challenged the applicability of para 5 of the OM dated 11.02.2009, referred to herein above, limited to the direction that benefit of upgradation of post subsequent to their retirement would not be admissible to thepre-2006pensioners in this regard'. Vide judgment dated 03.08.2016, the Division Bench had allowed the captioned petition and quashed OM dated 11.02.2009, to W.P.(C) No.8306/2017 &connected matters Page 6of[8] L- )'y^ the extent quoted hereinabove. Further, a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents therein, directing them to fix the pension of the petitioner as given in the fitment table appended to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, Department of Pensioner's Welfare Memorandum dated 28.01.2013, w.e.f from 01.01.2006. The petitioner therein was also granted arrears of pension after re-fixation of his revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact situations in the present cases are no different as the very same OM dated 11.02.2009 has been relied on by the respondents to disallow the claim of all the petitioners for upgradati'on of the post subsequent to their retirement and for enhancement of their pension after fitment in, • j ' the appropriate table w.e.f 01,01.2006.' /The above legal position is not disputed by the other side.: (5

11. In view of the factthat thetissue raised; in the presentpetitions is no longer res integra, theyniustBe allGW^ the same lines.

12. Ordered accordingly.

13. The PPOs impugned in each petition ai'e accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh PPO in each case by fixing the pension of the petitioners in terms of the fitment table for the posts which theywere holding at the time of their superannuation, payable w.e.f, 01.01.2006, along with the arrears of pensionafter refixation of their pension.