R. C. Garg v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in C.P. No. 171/2014 in O.A. No. 2461/2012, titled R.C. Garg v. K. Radhakrishanan, disposing of the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner herein by recording the submissions of the counsel for the respondent therein that the directions issued by the learned Tribunal in its Order dated 30.07.2013 passed in the above OA have been complied with.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in the above O.A., the following directions were passed:

3. He submits that in compliance with the said order, which has been upheld by this Court, the respondents issued a revised Pension Payment Order dated 17.08.2020, wherein the petitioner’s basic pension under the VIth CPC was fixed at Rs.30,925/- + Rs.2000/- = Rs.32,925/-. He submits that thereafter, without any notice to the petitioner or providing any reasons for the same, a revised Pension Payment Order was issued by the respondent on 01.04.2021, fixing his pension under the VIth CPC at Rs.27,350/- + Rs.2000/-= Rs.29,350/-. He submits that the same was carried out on the basis of the OM No. A.22013/2/2017-I dated 19.02.2021. He submits that as the case of the petitioner is governed by the Order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, the subsequent OM issued will not affect the determination of the relief to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was claiming parity with one Mr.Guruswamy, who belongs to a different cadre and had put in more years of service than the petitioner. She submits that therefore, there was a disparity between the pension fixed for Mr. Guruswamy as against the petitioner.

5. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. Guruswamy belongs to the same department and cadre as the petitioner. He further submits that the length of service can have no effect on the amount of pension, once the petitioner has already completed the qualifying service of 20 years.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. From the revised Pension Payment Order dated 01.04.2021, it is not appear that the pension of the petitioner was revised only because of him not having served a particular number of years in service. In fact, once the petitioner has completed the qualifying service for the grant of pension, his pension has to be fixed accordingly.

8. In the case of the petitioner, it is the Order dated 30.07.2013 of the learned Tribunal which has to be fully implemented. Subsequent OMs or instructions issued by the department cannot affect such implementation.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to re-determine the pension payable to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the Order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in the above mentioned OA and without being influenced by the subsequent OMs/clarifications issued on the subject.

10. We however, clarify that the revised Pension Payment Order, that may be issued by the respondents in compliance with the Order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, shall not act as a precedent in other cases.

11. The respondents shall issue the revised Pension Payment Order, if any, to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. The arrears found due, if any, would also be released to the petitioner within the same period.

12. With the above directions and clarifications, the present petition is disposed of.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MAY 26, 2025/SV/MY/SJ Click here to check corrigendum, if any