central administrative tribunal principal bench oa … · for full pension as per rule 49 of the...
TRANSCRIPT
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 1165/2011
with
OA 2165/2011
And
OA 246/2012
New Delhi this the 21st day of April, 2015
Hon�ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
Hon�ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
OA 1165/2011
1. Pratap Narayan
Executive Director (Retired)
FICC, Min. of Fertilizers
R/o C-47, Friends Colony East
New Delhi-110065
2. Ambrish Agarwal
General Manager (Retd). DOT
R/o 184 New Gandhi Nagar
Ghaziabad-201001
3. A. Rajagopalan
Dy. DG (Retd.), GSI
R/o A 17, Indiradevi Apts.,
18, Gopala Krishna Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai-600017
4. R.S. Bindra
General Manager (Retd.),
Ordnance Factory
R/o House No.2595, Sector-61,
S.A.S. Nagar,
Chandigarh-160062
5. C.A. Krishnamurthi
Controller of Stores (Retd.),
Rail Wheel Factory
R/o B-1/23, 4-B Cross Road,
New Town, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560106
6. M.P. Singhal
Chief Engineer Bridges (Retd.),
Northern Railway
R/o D-7411, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
7. K.K. Taneja
Dy. Director General (TD)
R/o G-238, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi-110076
8. P.S. Gopalakrishnan
Scientist G, NAL
R/o 964, 3rd Cross, I Main
HAL, 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560075
9. B.R. Kulkarni
Chief Engineer (Retd.),
Central Railway
R/o F6/2, Sector-3,
CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai-400614
10. B.M. Misra
Scientific Officer (Retd.), DAE
R/o 501, Emerald Heights,
32 Union Park, Chembur
11. S.C. Pandian
Chief Engineer (Retd.),
Central Railway
R/o 403 Indraprastha Tower,
Plots 11-12, Sector-29
Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703
12. L.D. Prabhakar
Chairman, RRB (Retd.),
R/o 183, West Park Road,
Malleswaram West,
Bangalore-560055
13. M.R. Narsimchar
R/o 92, 9th Cross Road,
RMV Extension,
Bangalore-560080
14. D. Nagarajan
Chief Rolling Stock Engineer,
Southern Railway
R/o 10-2-365, Royal Villa-301,
West Marco Pally,
Secunderabad-500026
15. S. Kasy Aiyer
Chief Rolling Stock Engineer, Southern Railway
R/o No.5, Fourth Cross Street,
Jayaramnagar Teachers Colony,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-600041
16. N. Sundararajan
Stenographer (Retd), DAE
R/o D-7/6, KAPS Township,
P.O. Anumala-394651,
Tapi Distt., Gujarat
17. D.N. Seshagiri
Director (Retd), GSI
R/o 4/47, 3rd Main Road,
Swaminatha Nagar,
Kottivakam,
Chennai-600041
18. S.K. Gupta
Addl. CSTE (Retd), Central Railway
R/o 2, Shanti Apts.,
810 Wright Town,
Jabalpur-482002
19. V. Rengamannar
Director (Retd), GSI
R/o 5/61, Illathar Street
Viswanathperi, Sivagiri
Tirunelveli-627763
20. P.G. Narayanan
Senior Professor (Retd) IRISET
R/o 23 Heritage Homes, Thaltej
Ahmedabad-380059
21. Siddheswar Banerjee
Director, SG, (Retd), GSI
R/o Preyasi Apartments,
331, Garia Station Road,
Kolkata-700084
22. J.S. Chhabra
General Managar (Retd), DAE
R/o 216, Jai Apartments,
Plot No.35, Sector 9
Rohini, Delhi-110085
23. Abhijit Purkayastha
Dy. DG (Retd), Ordnance Factory Board
R/o B17/262, Kendriya Vihar,
VIP Road,
Kolkata-700052
24. A.A. Sahay
Chief Electrical Project Engineer (Retd),
Central Railway,
R/o B-1/1291, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
25. G.S. Ahluwalia
Dy. Director General (Retd),
Ordnance Factory Board,
R/o H.No. 344, Sector-44-A,
Chandigarh
26. G. Balasubrahmanyam
Director (Retd), Central Ground Water Board
R/o Flat B-2, Balaji Towers
74, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai
27. R. Asoka,
Chief Project Manager (Retd.), Rail Wheel Factory
R/o 143, 12th Main, 23rd Cross
3rd Block East, Jaynagar,
Bangalore-560011
28. M.S. Bhat,
Controller of Stores (Retd), N.F. Railway
R/o �SHRILA�, MARIL,
PUTTUR-574202
29. S.V. Ramana Rao
Scientist (Retd.), Department of Space,
R/o Plot No.6, Sitaram Nagar,
Sikh Village,
Secunderabad-500009 � Applicants
(Through Shri S.K. Malik, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions,
Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110003
2. Secretary
Deptt. of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance,
Central Secretariat
North Block, New Delhi-110001 � Respondents
(Through Sh.Rajesh Katyal and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocates)
OA 2165/2011
1. K.R. Srinivasan (Dr.)
Flat No.II, Floor III
Swathi Court
43, Vijaya Raghwan Road
T. Nagar, Chennai-600017
2. Josyalu Venkat Sastry
Flat No. 510,
Gharuna Seshasayee Appts.,
Vijaypuri Colony, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad (A.P.)-500017
3. N. Venkateshwarlu
A-203, Sharda Nivas
6th Main, 15th Cross
Indira Nagar-II
Bangalore-560038
4. KVR Chaitanya Swamy
13606, Sand Mountain Lane
Houston, TX, 7704 (USA)
5. MV Ramarao
11-1-16, Prakasham Street
Ramaraopeth, Kakinada-533004
6. V.Veerendra Kumar
Vadavathi House
Near old Road
P.O.Kuthuparamba
Distt. Kannaur, Kerala-670643
7. Madhumeet Cheema (Mrs.)
J-10/28
DLF, City-II
Gurgaon (Haryana) � 122002 �.Applicants
(Through Shri S.K. Malik, Advocate)
VERSUS
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions,
Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110003
2. Secretary
Deptt. of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance,
Central Secretariat
North Block, New Delhi-110001 � Respondents
(Through Sh.Rajesh Katyal and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocates)
OA 247/2012
1. S.B. Roy
Retd. Group General Manager, CONCOR
(on deputation from Indian Railways)
R/o 1 CRIS Officers Flats
Delhi Flying Club Road
New Delhi-110003
2. M. Radhakrishna
Retd. Chief Electrical Engineer, Indian Railways
R/o Flat SF 1, `Alpine Court�
17/1, 7th B Main Road
Jakkasandra Block, Koramangala
Bangalore-560034
3. Rahul Jha
Retd. Group General Manager, RITES
(on deputation from Indian Railways)
R/o 599 Padam Bahadur Mal Block
Asiad Village, New Delhi-110049
4. Sanjay Misra
Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board
R/o Tower 6, Flat 601
Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018
5. Dr. Seshadri Kannan
Retd. Scientific Officer, BARC
R/o 38/1-B Devi Apts.
South Mada Street
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-600041
6. M.R. Laljani
Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board
R/o D-164, Anand Vihar
Delhi-110092
7. P.N. Kalra
Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board
R/o B-9, Anand Vihar
Delhi-110092
8. V.K. Sharma
Retd. Conservator of Forests
R/o A-251, Meera Bagh,
Delhi-110087
9. M.H. Manwani
Retd. Chief Engineer, Indian Railways
R/o 6 Virgo Ville, Sherly Rajan Road,
Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400050
10. R.K. Bansal
Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board
R/o A1/F-28, DDA Flats
Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017
11. Atul Sud
Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board
R/o Flat No.42-B, Pocket C
Siddharth Extension
New Delhi-110014
12. Y.B. Sharma
Retd. Group General Manager, RITES
(on deputation from Indian Railways)
R/o 38, Rohit Apartments,
Sector-10, Plot 30
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
13. Uday Shankar Jha
Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board
R/o 902, Chhadva Residency, Motibagh
Behind Maitri Park, ST Stand
Chembur, Mumbai-400071
14. Dinesh Kumar Shukla,
Retd. Executive Director, IFFCO
(on deputation from Indian Railways)
R/o A-201, IRWO Classic Apartments
Sector 57, Gurgaon-122003
15. Subhash Chandra Saxena
Retd. General Manager, RITES
(on deputation from Indian Railways)
R/o 3/1 Aravali View Rail Vihar,
Sector 56, Gurgaon-122003
16. Sumit Sinha
Retd. ADRM, Eastern Railway,
R/o 646, Asian Games Village,
New Delhi-110049
17. Bhushan Kumar Makhija
Retd. Chief Engineer, Central Railway,
R/o E-220, Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon-122017 �.Applicants
(Through Shri S.K. Malik, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions,
Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110003
2. Secretary
Deptt. of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance,
Central Secretariat
North Block, New Delhi-110001 � Respondents
(Through Sh.Rajesh Katyal and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocates)
ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
OA 1165/2011, OA 2165/2011 and OA 247/2012, all deal with the same issue and, therefore, are
being disposed off through this common order.
2. The prayer of the applicants arises from a clarification issued by the Department of Pension and
Pensioners� Welfare dated 3.10.2008, in specific challenging the following provision:
�The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service
for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no
case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m.�
3. The background of the case is that after the VI Pay Commission submitted its report, the
government issued OM dated 1.09.2008 relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/ family
pensioners etc. Para 4.2 of the OM provides 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.�
4. Thereafter, the respondents issued the above mentioned OM dated 3.10.2008 in which the
clarification was issued that pension will be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner had less than the
maximum required service for full pension of 33 years. The Department of Pension and Pensioners�
Welfare vide resolution dated 29.08.2008 introduced the revised pension structure with effect from
1.01.2006. In this, the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the decision of the government
were elaborated. The paragraphs relevant to this case are quoted below:
S.No.
Recommendation
Decision of Government
2.
Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee
renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average
emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to
the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for
purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant
(5.1.33)
Accepted
3.
The recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service
will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBORs in Defence Forces
from the date it is accepted by the Government (6.5.3.)
Accepted
12.
All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect
of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or
after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed
by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness
pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect
of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is
consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. 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 sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding
to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (5.1.47).
Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86,
i.e. basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006,
instead of 1.74.
The respondents further issued an OM dated 19.03.2010, which is reproduced below:
�The undersigned is directed to say that orders for revision of pension/family pension of pre-2006
pensioners were issued vide this Department�s OM of even number dated 01.09.2008. Para 4.1 of that
OM lays down the manner in which the pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners is to be
consolidated w.e.f.1.1.2006. In accordance with these instructions, a fitment weightage @ 40% of the
pre-2006 basic pension/family pension (excluding the merged dearness relief of 50%) is to be given for
revision of the pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners.
2. Para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM further provides that 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 . It was clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of
the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in
the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-
revised pay scale. The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the
maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable
before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m. The fixation of family pension will be
subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of
the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the
pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. A Table indicating the revised pension
based on revised pay bands and grade pay was also annexed with this Department�s OM dated
14.10.2008.
3. A large number of representations/references were received in the Department in regard to the
provisions of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and it was clarified in this Department�s OM of even
number dated 11.2.2009 that the instructions/clarifications issued in this regard were in consonance
with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and
no change was required to be made in this respect.
4. In spite of the above clarifications, representations are still being received from pre-2006
pensioners (including those who retired from the pre-revised S-29 pay scale i.e. Rs.18400-22400) for
higher revised pension in terms of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008. Representations have also been
received demanding a higher fitment weightage to the pre-2006 pensioners in revision of pension in
terms of Para 4.1 of the said OM.
5. These representations have been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance. It is
reiterated that orders relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners have
been correctly issued as per the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change
is required to be made in this respect.
6. All references/representations received in this Department on the above issues stand disposed
off accordingly.�
5. The above OM basically reiterated the OM dated 3.10.2008 namely that there will be pro-rata
reduction. In all the three OAs, the applicants have challenged the OM dated 3.10.2008 claiming that it
is violative of the law laid down by the Hon�ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, 1983
SCC (L&S) 145. The prayer made is that their pension should be fixed in accordance with para 4.2
quoted above ensuring parity between pensioners who have retired pre-1.01.2006 and post-1.01.2006.
The question before us is, therefore, whether the date of retirement is a relevant consideration for
eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a
specified date. This was precisely the point which was before the Hon�ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara
(supra). The question that was raised by their Lordships of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in para 2 of the
judgment reads as follows:
�2. Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 ('1972 Rules' for short) form a class as a whole'? Is the date of retirement a
relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in
and made effective from a specified date? Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the
date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the
Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative
of Article 14? These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the
backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure
providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own
feet.�
and the Hon�ble Supreme Court answered the questions as follows:
�(1) Pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the
employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare
measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled
for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a
retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most
practical raison d�etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a
vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules
which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 and 148 (5) of the Constitution.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
In the present case Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in
character, the amended rules, since the specified date, accord differential and discriminatory treatment
to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It would have a traumatic effect on those who
retired just before that date. This division which classified pensioners into two classes is artificial and
arbitrary, is not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has not only no
nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalizing the pension rules, but is counter-productive
and runs counter to the whole gamut of the pension scheme. Further, there is not a single acceptable or
persuasive reason for this division. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Article 14.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that be the criterion those who
retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification
to be upheld for any valid purpose.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
The basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against
discrimination. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily
involve negation of equality. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for
the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded
on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those
that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question.�
6. Learned counsel for the applicants also cited V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of
India, Bombay and another, (1998) 8 SCC 30 in which the Hon�ble Supreme Court held as follows:
�If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time
of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced
pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of
pension. He would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of
such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is
being conferred on all of them. In such a situation, the additional benefit available to the same class of
pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the
aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.�
Similarly, the learned counsel for the applicants also relied on the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme
Court in T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure, New Delhi and others, (1993) 2 SCC 174 in which it was held as follows:
�The object of bringing into existence the revised terms and conditions in the memorandum dated June
16, 1967 was to protect the pensionary benefits which the Central Government servants had earned
before their absorption into the public undertakings. Restricting the applicability of the revised
memorandum only to those who are absorbed after the coming into force of the said memorandum,
would be defeating the very object and purpose of the revised memorandum and contrary to fair play
and justice.
There is no substance in the contention that the revised benefits being new it could only be prospective
in operation and cannot be extended to employees who were absorbed earlier. The memorandum
dated June 16, 1967 is prospective which only means that the benefits therein can be claimed only after
June 16, 1967. The memorandum, however, takes into consideration the past event that is the period of
service under the Central Government for the purposes of giving pro rata pension. Whoever has
rendered pensionable service prior to coming into force of the memorandum would be entitled to claim
the benefits under the said memorandum. Restricting the benefits only to those who were absorbed in
public undertakings after June 16, 1967 is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 & 16.
The appellant was permitted to be absorbed in the
Central Government public undertaking in public interest. The appellant, as such, shall be deemed to
have retired from Government service from the date of his absorption and is eligible to receive the
retirement benefits. Though the retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37 are to be determined in
accordance with the Government orders but the plain language of the rule does not permit any
discrimination while granting the retirement benefits.
Appeal allowed.�
7. This Tribunal (full Bench) had also examined a similar issue in OA 937/2010 decided along with
OA 2101/2010. In those cases, the prayer made was to remove discrimination between pre-2006 and
post-2006 retirees as regards their pension, who were in the pay scale S-30 i.e. Rs.22400-525-24500.
The matter was examined in depth considering the judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in D.S.
Nakara (supra), Union of India Vs. S.P.S. Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125, Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon, JT 1994
(3) SC 26, State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others, 2005 SCC (L&S) 910, Union of
India Vs. S.R. Dhingra and others, (2008) 2 SCC 229, Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. N.
Subbarayudu and others, 2008 (4) SLR 136 and Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others,
2009 (5) SCC 313. The OAs were allowed vide order dated 20.11.2014 and the Tribunal gave the
following directions:
�We direct the respondents to consider the revised pay of the applicants corresponding to the pay at
which the concerned pensioner had in fact retired, instead of considering the minimum of the said pay
scale, thereby determining pension/ family pension to pre-2006 retirees.�
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed detailed reply primarily explaining how
pension of pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees has to be fixed. It is reiterated that the government had
accepted the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of twenty years�
service, prospectively. Therefore, this cannot be given retrospective effect now. It is further stated that
in the order dated 6.03.2012 (Annexure A-7), disposing of the OAs No. 937/2010 and 2101/2010, this
Tribunal (Full Bench) made the following observations/directions in regard to the prayer of the
applicants seeking complete parity with post-2006 retirees:-
�2�..One of the reliefs sought for by the applicants in those OAs is that pre-2006 pensioners may be
allowed a total parity with post 1.1.2006 pensioners by notionally revising their pay as on 1.1.2006 and
then fixing pension at 50% of that notional pay.
3. At the outset, it may be stated here that the issue regarding admissibility of pension/family
pension to the pre 1.1.2006 retiree officers belonging to S-29 scale and also whether the 2006
pensioners are entitled to the pension/family pension at par with post 2006 retiree officers has been
considered and decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners�
Association and another Vs Union of India and another (OA 655/2010 with connected matters) decided
on 1.11.2011 after taking into consideration the decisions of Apex Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. S.P.S. Vains
(2008)9 SCC 125) and the said relief has been rejected. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid
judgment has held that pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are
governed by the separate set of scheme and also that the judgment in the case of S.P.S.Vains (supra)
was rendered in the different facts and circumstances of the case and relates to the Army personnel and
based on the premise of �one rank one pension�. However, regarding admissibility of pension based on
modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by resolution dated 29.8.2008,
direction was given to the respondents to re-fix the pension and pay the arrears to all pre-2006 retirees
belonging to S-29 scale of pay, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order. Thus, the aforesaid issue stands decided of in the light of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of
this Tribunal for parity of reasoning given therein.�
9. The respondents further argue that in its order dated 1.11.2011 in the OA No. 655/2010
referred to in the aforesaid order dated 6.3.2012 in the OAs No.937/2010 and 2101/2010, this Tribunal
(full bench) decided that the challenge made by the applicants based upon the judgment in D.S. Nakara
that pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits as that of post-2006 retirees
cannot be accepted. It is stated that in para 9 of the judgment, this Tribunal also rejected the prayer for
grant of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service at par with post-2006 retirees and
observed that the pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are
governed by the separate set of scheme.
10. It is further added on behalf of the respondents that the applicants in the above mentioned OAs
No.937/2010 and 2101/2010 filed writ petitions being WP No. 4572/2012 and WP 7342/2012 in the
High Court of Delhi. Hon�ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure A-9) passed the
following order:
�8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, none of which are disputed by learned counsel for the
respondents, with consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside the impugned decision(s)
dated March 06,2012 and simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh
adjudication on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be
rendered after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated November 01,
2011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees shall not be treated as binding upon it by
the Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of full parity the said decision was pronounced
notwithstanding said retirees giving up the claim for full parity.�
Thus Hon�ble High Court remanded back the OA No.937/2010 and OA No.No.2101/2010 for fresh
adjudication on merits by this Hon�ble Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for �full parity�. As
stated earlier, these OAs were accordingly heard by this Tribunal (Full Bench) and order dated
20.11.2014 passed.
11. We have gone through various judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in various cases and
also this Tribunal�s order dated 20.11.2014 in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010. The law has by now
been well settled by the Hon�ble Supreme Court that the date of retirement cannot form a valid
criterion for classification. It is held by their Lordships that any clarification has to be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that
are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question.
13. In view of the judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court
in D.S. Nakara (supra), V. Kasturi (supra), T.S. Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010 dated 20.11.2014, we are of the opinion that the prayer in
the OAs is fully justified. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.10.2008 and
19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Hon�ble Supreme Court and direct the respondents
that the qualifying service for earning full pension will be treated as twenty years also for those who
retired from the Central Government service on or before 31.12.2005 and were alive on that day. The
respondents are also directed to modify/amend all relevant government orders/ letters/ notifications in
accordance with the above decision. It is made clear that this parity of pension between pre and post-
1.01.2006 pensioners (on the question of eligibility of minimum pensionable service of twenty years)
would apply both as regards pension and family pension. The respondents are granted three months�
time from the date of receipt of this order for implementation of directions contained in this order.
(Raj Vir Sharma) ( P.K. Basu)
Member (J) Member (A)