Why Am I Confused by the FM’s Reply
Grabbing attention of a majority of pensioners in these fraught times is the discussion on Amendment No. 26 to the Finance Bill 2026. There is more speculation on how it will play out in 2026 when the recommendations of the 8th CPC are vetted, modified and approved than whether Donald Trump will rename Mar-a-Lago as Donald’s Lagoon.
Finance Minister’s reply
The Hindu newspaper has quoted the Finance Minister in her reply to questions regarding amendment No. 26 - Validation to the Finance Bill 2025 to have said as follows: -
“….Stressing that the Modi government has always been sympathetic towards the employee and pensioner issues, Sitharaman said the government has implemented the full parity between pensioners of pre and post-seventh Central Pay Commission.
With regard to amendment, she said the government has restored the March 2008 position of the manner of fixing pensions, which was recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
"By this amendment, the government is actually restoring that which was accepted in March 2008...the sixth pay commission recommendation," the Minister said.
Asked about the 16-year delay in restoring the position, she said, "Several court cases were going on. We had to wait for the verdict to come. Verdicts have been received. We are going back to honouring the decision, which was taken in 2008".
Text of the Validation
Source: https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/detail_rss_feed.asp?ID=38650
The Amendment reads as follows: -
Ser Number. 26 New Clauses 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145 Amendment No. 50
Amendment: Page 72, after line 26, insert-
New Part and Part IV.
‘PART III
AMENDMENT TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2016
Amendment of Act 28 of 2016.
141. In the Finance Act, 2016, with effect from the 1st day of April, 2025 –
(a) in section 163, in sub-section (3), in clause (a), after the words “this Chapter”, the words, figures and letters “but before the 1st day of April, 2025” shall be inserted;
(b) in section 165, after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely :-
“(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any consideration for any specified service received or receivable by a person on or after the 1st day of April, 2025.”
PART IV
VALIDATION OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES
(PENSION) RULES AND PRINCIPLES FOR
EXPENDITURE ON PENSION LIABILITIES FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED FUND OF INDIA
WHEREAS article 309 of the Constitution provides that, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union;
AND WHEREAS the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union are governed by rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution;
AND WHEREAS the pension of the Central Government employees was
governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which was
subsequently replaced by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 and
the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter in
this Part referred to as the pension rules) and instructions issued from time
to time for matters connected therewith; which allows the revision of pension
by the Central Government in accordance with any general order issued for
implementation of the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission;
AND WHEREAS the Central Pay Commissions are expert bodies set up by the Central Government for periodic review and revision of the entire gamut of emoluments structure including retirement benefits of the Central Government employees which recommend different pay scales and different allowances for different categories of the Government employees and in particular, pension claims and liabilities;
AND WHEREAS till the Third Central Pay Commission, it was a general view that past and future pensioners cannot be treated at par and the practice was that benefit of improvement in the pension would be available to newly retiring pensioners from a prospective date; and subsequently, the Fourth Central Pay Commission considered the suggestion of equalisation of pension with reference to that admissible in the revised scales of pay and did not accept it, and in its report also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Government Pensioners Association and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [SLP (Civil) Nos. 14179-80, 1985] wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, has observed as under :-
“Improvements in pay scales by the very nature of things can be made prospectively so as to apply to only those who are in the employment on the date of the upward revision. Those who were in employment say in 1950, 1960 or 1970, lived, spent and saved, on the basis of the then prevailing cost of living structure and pay-scale structure, cannot invoke Article 14 in order to claim the higher pay scale brought into force say, in 1980. If upward pay revision cannot be made prospectively on account of Article 14, perhaps no such revision would ever be made.”;
AND WHEREAS the Fifth and Sixth Central Pay Commission also maintained the distinction between pension payable to employees retired before and after the 1st January, 1996 and before and after the 1st January, 2006, respectively, consequently, as on 1st January, 2006, a distinction in pension existed between past employees who had retired before that date and employees retired after that date on the basis of the revision in pay scales recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission, as accepted by the Central Government, implemented from the 1st January, 2006, a pension revision formula which did not amount to complete parity between pension of Government employees retired before or after the 1st January, 2006;
AND WHEREAS the treatment of existing and past pensioners was again considered by the Seventh Central Pay Commission and it was pointed out in its report that the issue of pension has been a matter of debate in a large number of cases before the Supreme Court of India and there have been differing views;
AND WHEREAS the pension payable to a Government employee can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered and usually, the compensation earned by an employee varies over the service period, as they are periodically revised on account of implementation of the Central Pay Commissions recommendations or otherwise and as such, pension as a derivative of compensation, may also vary;
AND WHEREAS the right to impose such distinctions rests with the Central Government and are an inevitable outcome of the implementation of the recommendations of a Central Pay Commission;
AND WHEREAS the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 29124 of 2024 in the case of the Union of India and Ors. Vs All India S-30 Pensioners Association and Ors. has obliterated such distinction and proceeded on the premise that the Government lacks authority for providing for such distinction of the Central Government pensioners based on their date of retirement;
AND WHEREAS it has become necessary to deal with the interpretation of the Courts and to address the issue relating to pensioners of the Central Government, and expedient to retain the relevance of having such distinction by a validation legislation, dealing with the pension rules and instructions issued from time to time in this regard.
Commencement of Part
142. This Part shall come into force and shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of June, 1972.
Definitions
143. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “pensioner” means a retired Government servant under the pension rules; and
(b) “pension rules” means the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as it existed prior to its cesser of operation; or the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 or the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 2023 made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution and instructions issued thereunder.
Powers and authority of Central Government.
144. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the pension rules, the Central Government shall have the authority to establish distinctions among pensioners as a general principle.
(2) Having regard to the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission, and subject to such norms, principles and method as may be determined by the Central Government, a distinction may be made or maintained amongst the pensioners, which may emanate from the accepted recommendations of the Central Pay Commissions, and in particular a distinction may be made on the basis of the date of retirement of a pensioner or the date of operationalisation of an accepted recommendation of a Central Pay commission.
(3) The Central Government may from time to time lay down such norms, principles and method in regard to acceptance of the recommendations of the Central Pay Commissions including, among other things, distinction among pensioners that may arise out of the acceptance of such recommendation and in particular pension claims and liabilities.
(4) The norms, principles and method of pension revision, as per accepted recommendations of a particular Central Pay Commission, shall be effective from such date as may be determined by the Central Government and the benefit of such accepted recommendation shall not be given effect to from an earlier date.
Validation.
145. Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court, tribunal or authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the pension rules,-
(a) it is hereby clarified that the Central Government has the authority and shall always deemed to have had the authority, to classify its pensioners, and may create or maintain distinction amongst pensioners as deemed expedient for implementing the recommendations of the Central Pay Commissions under this Part;
(b) it is also clarified that the date of retirement of pensioners shall be the basis of distinctions and for classification in regard to pension entitlement.’
These are from the Reports and not in the Amendment
The distinction between pension payable to employees retired before and after 5th and 6th CPCs
Extract from Report of the 5th CPC
PARITY BETWEEN PAST AND PRESENT PENSIONERS
127.16. The One Time Increase. The most controversial subject in the field pf pensions has been the glaring disparity between persons of equivalent rank and status drawing vastly unequal pensions if they retired at different points of time. Government had tried to solve the problem partially for the armed forces by adopting the One Time Increase formula, but this had not met the demand for One Rank One Pension. The iniquity among the civilian pensioners has continued over the decades with scant relief to the older of the senior citizens.
127.17. Modified Parity Formula. We have attempted a major policy thrust, by suggesting a complete parity between past and present pensioners at the time of the Fourth CPC, while recommending a modified parity between pre-1996 and post-1996 pensioners. The formula will ensure total equity as between persons who retired before 1986 and those who retired later. It also gives pensioners at least the minimum pension appurtenant to the post-1996 revised scale of pay of the post they held at retirement.”
137.14. The pension of all the pre-1986 retirees may be updated by notional fixation of their pay as on 1.1.1986 by adopting the same formula as for the serving employees. Thereafter, all the past pensioners who have been brought on the Fourth CPC pay scales by notional fixation of their pay and those who have retired on or after 1.1.1986 can be treated alike regarding consolidation of their pension as on 1.1.1996 by allowing the same fitment weightage as may be allowed to the serving employees. However, the consolidated revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement.
Accepted to the extent that pension of all pre 1.1.96 retires including pre-86 retires shall be consolidated as on 1.1.1996 as recommended, but the consolidated pension shall be brought on to the level of 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement vide No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) dated 10.02.98 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17.12.98
(https://pensionersportal.gov.in/Vth%20CPC%20Recommendations.aspx#a2)
RETIREMENT GRATUITY
133.82. Prior to introduction of Liberalised Pension Rules, there was no provision for death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG). ……
133.89. Past Cases. For the grant of any benefit prescription of a cut off date is essential. In view of Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the right of the Government to prescribe a cut-off date and a policy decision of this Commission that all our recommendations shall have prospective effect…..
Extract from Report of the 6th CPC
Paragraphs
5.1.46 and 5.1.47 of the 6th CPC Report (http://www.cgspublicationindia.com/Pdf/Pay%20Commissions/Sixth%20Pay%20Commission/6%20CPC%20Report.pdf)
and tables in its Annex 5.1.1 titled Fixation of the pension of the existing
pensioners (https://doe.gov.in/files/cenetral-pay_document/6cpcannex_0.pdf),
states, inter alia,
“5.1.46. Past pensioners - analysis of changes made in the past and recommendations. The main demands of past pensioners related to grant of one rank one pension both for civilian as well as Defence Forces retirees and better medical facilities. In case of Defence Forces, the issue of one rank one pension was conceded partially when one time increase was granted to Defence Forces pensioners in 1992 that reduced the gap between past & present pensioners in Forces. The Fifth CPC extended full parity between pre & post 1/1/1986 pensioners and a modified parity between pre & post 1/1/1996 pensioners. In modified parity, it was provided that pension could, in no case, be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding Fifth CPC revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired (emphasis supplied).
5.1.47. Fitment
benefit to the past pensioners. The Commission notes that modified parity has already been
conceded between pre and post 1/1/1996 pensioners. Further, full neutralization
of price rise on or after 1/1/1996 has also been extended to all the
pensioners. Accordingly, no further changes in the extant rules are necessary.
However, in order to maintain the existing modified parity between present and
future retirees, it will be necessary to allow the same fitment benefit as is being
recommended for the existing Government employees. The Commission,
accordingly, recommends that 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. A table (Annex 5.1.1) showing fixation of
the pension of the existing pensioners in the revised dispensation consequent
to implementation of the recommendations of this Commission has been prepared
and should be used for fixing the revised pension of the existing pensioners. The
fixation as per this table 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. To this extent,
a change would need to be allowed from the fitment shown in the fitment table” (emphasis in the original).
Approval of the then Government
DoP & PW, Min of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Resolution reference No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29th August 2008 (published in the Gazette of India of the same date), at Para 12 states
“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 the merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment 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 retired (5.1.47).
Decision: “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.”
Complete Texts of the Judgments cited
State Government Pensioners Association and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [SLP (Civil) Nos. 14179-80, 1985] was decided on 25 Jul 1986 is re-produced below from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/757700/.
PETITIONER: STATE GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION & OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/1986 BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J)BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) CITATION: 1986 AIR 1907 1986 SCR (3) 383 1986 SCC (3) 501 JT 1986 31 1986 SCALE (2)138 CITATOR INFO : F 1988 SC 501 (3) F 1991 SC1182 (21) ACT: Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980-Part II and G.O. No. 88 dated 26.3.80 - Applicability of Payment of gratuity at revised rates to pensioners retired prior to 1.4.78 -Whether admissible. HEADNOTE:The Government Order No. 88 dated 26th March, 1980 provided that retirement gratuity may be 1/3rd of pay drawn at the time of retirement for every 6 monthly service subject to maximum of 20 months pay limited to Rs.30,000.
This order in so far as gratuity is concerned is made effective from 1st April, 1978. The petitioners, erstwhile Government employees who had retired "before" April 1, 1978, filed petition under Article 226 in the High Court, contending that gratuity is a part and parcel of the pensionary benefits and the same cannot be looked separately from the other pensionary reliefs and therefore, they are also entitled to the benefit of gratuity retrospectively at the enhanced rate though they had retired before April 1, 1978 and had been paid gratuity at the then prevailing rate. On behalf of the State the petition was contested and it was contended that gratuity is something different from the other pensionary benefits like pension and family pension, which are continuing ones. The gratuity that accrued to the petitioners prior to 1.4.1978 was calculated on the then existing Rules and paid, and the pensioners who retired prior to 1.4.1978 form themselves into a distinct class for purposes of the payment of benefit of gratuity from the others who retired after 1.4.1978, the date from which, the revised pension rules are made applicable by the Government. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the upward revision of gratuity takes effect from the specified date (April 1, 1978) with prospective effect. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the Pensioners' Association this Court, HELD: 1. The upward revision of gratuity takes effect from the specified date (April 1, 1978) with 'prospective' effect. The High Court has rightly understood and correctly applied the principle propounded by this Court in Nakara's case, wherein it was held that no arrears are required to be paid because to that extent the scheme is prospective. [388B-C]. V.P. Gautama, IAS Retd. v. Union of India (S.L.J. 1984(1) 120), and M.P. Tandon v. State of U.P., [1984] Lab. I.C.677, referred to. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (A.I.R. 1983 SC 130), relied upon. 2. There is no illegality or unconstitutionality involved in providing for prospective operation from the specified date. Even if that part of the Notification which provides for enforcement with effect from the specified date is struck down the provision can but have prospective operation-not retrospective operation. In that event it will operate only prospectively with effect from the date of issuance of the notification since it does not retrospectively apply to all those who had already retired before the said date. [388C-E] 3. In order to make the notification retrospective so that it applies to all those who had retired after the commencement of the Constitution on 26 January, 1950 and before the date of issuance of the notification on 26 March 1980, the Court will have to re-write the Notification and introduce a provision to this effect saying in express terms that it shall operate retrospectively. Merely striking down or effacing the alleged offending portion whereby it is made effective from the specified date will not do. And this, the Court cannot do. Besides, giving prospective operation to such payments cannot by any stretch of imagination be condemned as offending Article 14. [388D-F] 4. Those who were in employment say in 1950, 1960 or 1970, lived, spent, and saved, on the basis of the then prevailing cost of living structure and pay-scale structure, cannot invoke Article 14 in order to claim the higher pay-scale brought into force say, in 1980. If upward pay revision cannot be made prospectively on account of Article 14, perhaps no such revision would ever be made. Similar is the case with regard to gratuity which has already been paid to the petitioners on the then prevailing basis as it obtained at the time of their respective dates of retirement. And it was already paid to them on that footing. The transaction is completed and closed. [388F-H; 389A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14179-80 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1443 and 1467 of 1984.
T.U. Mehta and A. Subba Rao for the Petitioners. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, T.V.S.N. Chari and Miss Vrinda Grover for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J.
Does that part of the provision which provides for payment of a larger amount of gratuity with prospective effect from the specified date offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Whether gratuity must be paid on the stepped up basis, to all those who have retired before the date of the upward revision, with retrospective effect, even if the provision provides for prospective operation, in order not to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh says 'no'.
In our opinion it rightly says so. The petitioners, erstwhile Government employees who had retired "before" April 1, 1978, inter alia claimed and contended before the High Court that they were entitled to the benefit to the Government order No. 88 dated 26 March, 1980 providing that:
"(b) Retirement gratuity may be 1/3rd of pay drawn at the time of retirement for every 6 monthly service subject to maximum of 20 months pay limited to Rs.30,000."
The said order in so far as gratuity is concerned is made effective from 1st April, 1978. Says the High Court:
"Therefore, we are now only concerned whether this G.O. Ms. No. 88, dated 26-3-1980, should be made applicable to the pensioners that retired prior to 1-4-1978 by revising their gratuity payable to them.
The learned Advocate General, contends, that gratuity is something different from the other pensionary benefits like the pension and the family pension, which are continuing ones. The Gratuity that accrued to the petitioners prior to 1-4-1978 was calculated on the then existing Rules and paid. In that way, the pensioners retired prior to 1-4-1978 will form themselves into a distinct class for purposes of the payment of benefit of gratuity from the others that retired after 1-4-1978, from which date, the revised pension rules are made to be applied by the Government.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the writ petitioners that gratuity is a part and parcel of the pensionary benefits and the same cannot be looked separately from the other pensionary reliefs.
The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, no doubt, cited two decisions (1) V.P. Gautama, IAS Retd. v. Union of India (SLJ 1984 (1) 120) (2) M.P. Tandon v. State of U.P. (1984 LAB. I.C. 677), where their Lordships that decided the above two cases, held, that no distinction can be made in the pensionary benefits including death-cum-retirement gratuity benefit between the pensioners that retired prior to the stipulated date and after the stipulated date.
In the decision D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 130), their Lordships of the Supreme Court enunciated the principle as follows:
"With the expanding horizons of socioeconomic justice, the Socialist Republic and Welfare State which the country endeavours to set up and the fact that the old man who retired when emoluments were comparatively low are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria, 'being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and being wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of "being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date" in the memoranda Exs. P-1 and P-2, violated Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down."
After thus enunciating the principle, their Lordships have taken care to observe as follows:
"But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective."
In our opinion, the arrears relating to gratuity benefit computed according to the Revised Pension Rules of 1980 may not be paid to the pensioners that retired prior to 1-4-1978 because at the time of retirement, they are governed by the then existing Rules and their gratuity was calculated on that basis. The same was paid. Since the revised scheme is operative from the date mentioned in the scheme, i.e. 1-4-1978, the continuing rights of the pensioners to receive pension and family pension must also be revised according to that scheme.
But the same cannot be said with regard to gratuity, which was accrued and drawn. The reason why their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nakara's case refused to grant arrears to the pensioners that retired prior to the stipulated date would ipso facto apply for refusing to grant the revised gratuity, since that would amount to asking the State Government to pay arrears relating to gratuity after revising them according to the new scheme for those that retired prior to 1-4-1978 and that would amount to giving retrospective effect to the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which came into effect from 29-10- 1979 and in the case of Part-II of those Rules from 1-4-1978. The scheme is prospective and not retrospective.
Moreover, we must remember that when the State Government appointed the Pay Revision Commissioner to review the then existing scales of pay under G.O. Ms. No. 745, General Administration (Spl. A) Department, dated 3-11-1978, the Pay Revision Commissioner was asked to take into account, while making his recommendation, the economic conditions in the State, the financial implications of his recommendations, and the impact thereof on the resources available for the plan and other essential non-plan expenditure. Surely, the Pay Revision Commissioner, when he made his recommendations to revise the pensionary benefits, is not contemplating to make his recommendations retrospective. Otherwise, he would have taken financial implications of those recommendations and the impact thereof on the resources available for plan and other essential non-plan expenditure of the State. For this reason also, we cannot direct the State Government to revise the gratuity benefit, which was already paid to these petitioners who retired prior to 1-4- 1978. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in Nakara's case that arrears are not required to be paid because to that extent the scheme is prospective. Similar is the case with regard to the case of gratuity that was accrued and paid prior to the stipulated day mentioned in the G.O. promulgating the Revised Pension Rules of 1980." We fully concur with the view of the High Court. The upward revision of gratuity takes effect from the specified date (April 1, 1978) with prospective effect. The High Court has rightly understood and correctly applied the principle propounded by this Court in Nakara's case, AIR 1983 S.C.
130. There is no illegality or unconstitutionality (from the platform of Article 14 of the Constitution of India) involved in providing for prospective operation from the specified date. Even if that part of the Notification which provides for enforcement with effect from the specified date is struck down the provision can but have prospective operation-not retrospective operation. In that event (if the specified date line is effaced), it will operate only prospectively with effect from the date of issuance of the notification since it does not retrospectively apply to all those who have already retired before the said date. In order to make it retrospective so that it applies to all those who retired after the commencement of the Constitution on 26 January, 1950 and before the date of issuance of the notification on 26 March, 1980, the Court will have to re- write the notification and introduce a provision to this effect saying in express terms that it shall operate retrospectively. Merely striking down (or effacing) the alleged offending portion whereby it is made effective from the specified date will not do. And this, the Court cannot do. Besides, giving prospective operation to such payments cannot by any stretch of imagination be condemned as offending Art 14. An illustration will make it clear. Improvements in pay scales by the very nature of things can be made prospectively so as to apply to only those who are in the employment on the date of the upward revision. Those who were in employment say in 1950, 1960 or 1970, lived, spent, and saved, on the basis of the then prevailing cost of living structure and pay-scale structure, cannot invoke Art. 14 in order to claim the higher pay-scale brought into force say, in 1980. If upward pay revision cannot be made prospectively on account of Article 14, perhaps no such revision would ever be made. Similar is the case with regard to gratuity which has already been paid to the petitioners on the then prevailing basis as it obtained at the time of their respective dates of retirement. The amount got crystallized on the date of retirement on the basis of the salary drawn by him on the date of retirement. And it was already paid to them on that footing. The transaction is completed and closed. There is no scope for upward or downward revision in the context of upward of downward revision of the formula evolved later on in future unless the provision in this behalf expressly so provides retrospectively (downward revision may not be legally permissible even). It would be futile to contend that no upward revision of gratuity amount can be made in harmony with Article 14 unless it also provides for payment on the revised basis to all those who have already retired between the date of commencement of the Constitution in 1950, and the date of upward revision. There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that the High Court was perfectly right in repelling the petitioners' plea in this behalf. For the sake of record we may mention that our attention was called to an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat LPA 280 of 1983 dated 8.9.83 per P.D. Desai Acting C.J., which does not discuss the issues involved but is based on a concession said to have been made by the Advocate General who appeared for the State. And also to a decision of the Allahabad High Court, (M.P. Tandon v. State of U.P., [1984] Lab. I.C. 677) and (Punjab & Haryana High Court (V.P. Gautama v. Union of India, A.I.R. SLJ [1984] (1) 120.) In none of these decisions the relevant passage from D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983] SC 130, was considered. Nor was the aspect regarding prospective operation considered on principle. The High Court considered it shocking and was carried away by the fact that an employee who retired even one day before the enforcement of the upward revision would not get the benefit if the specified date of enforcement was not effaced by striking down the relevant provision. But in all cases of prospective operation it would be so. Just as one who files a suit even one day after the expiry of limitation would lose his right to sue, one who retires even a day prior to enforcement of the upward revision would not get the benefit. This cannot be helped, there is nothing shocking in it unless one can say legislation can never be made prospective, and nothing turns on it. These are the reasons which impelled us to dismiss the Special Leave Petition on 18 July, 1986.”
Union of India and Ors. Vs All India S-30 Pensioners Association and Ors - disposed on 04 Oct 2024, which was in SLP against a judgment of the honourable Delhi High Court, both of which are reproduced below (Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54483614/)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.03.2024 + W.P.(C) 6002/2016 ALL INDIA S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K.Behera, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... RespondentThrough: + W.P.(C) 8080/2016 UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... PetitionerThrough: Mr. T.P.Singh, Central Govt. Senior Panel Counsel. versus ALL INDIA S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ORS ..... RespondentThrough: Mr. A.K.Behera, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Adv. CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
“1. These two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek to assail the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 937/2010 as also the review order dated 24.09.2015 in R.A. No. 10/2015. The petitioners in WP(C) 6002/2016, the All India S-30 Pensioners Association and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the Association) assail the impugned orders insofar as the reliefs granted by the learned Tribunal to them have been restricted from the date of filing of the O.A., which they claim must be granted from the due date i.e. 01.01.2006. On the other hand, the petitioners in W.P.(C) 8080/2016, the Union of India, seek setting aside of both the impugned orders in their entirety. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereafter be referred to as per their position in W.P.(C) 8080/2016.
2. At the outset, the brief factual matrix emerging from the record may be noted.
3. The respondent is an Association of pensioners, who had superannuated from service prior to 01.01.2006 and were at that stage placed in the S-30 pay-scale. For the sake of convenience they will hereinafter be referred to Pre-2006 pensioners. After the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were received and accepted, the respondents issued an O.M dated 30.08.2008 revising the pay of those employees who were in the S-30 pay-scale. This was followed by an O.M. dated 01.09.2008 revising the pension of the Pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 based on the formula mentioned in the said O.M. On 02.09.2008, the petitioners came up with yet another O.M., this time fixing the pension of those employees, who had superannuated on or after 01.01.2006, hereinafter referred to as Post-2006 retirees.
4. Since as a result of these three O.Ms, a disparity had arisen qua the pension payable to the Pre-2006 retirees and the Post-2006 retirees, representations were made to the petitioners by the Association, and various other affected persons, seeking parity in the matter of pension. It was pointed out in these representations that on account of this disparity, some of the Pre-2006 pensioners, who were in the S-30 pay- scale at the time of their superannuation were drawing lesser pension then those Post -2006 pensioners, who were in the lower pay-scale of S-29 or even S-28. Upon their representations being rejected vide a communication dated 18.11.2009, the Association approached the learned Tribunal.
5. Vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, the Full Bench of the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the Association with directions to the petitioner to revise the pension of the members of respondent/association who had superannuated before 01.01.2006 in the pay scale of S-30 by revising their pay corresponding to the revised pay at which they had retired instead of considering the minimum of the said pay scale. As a consequence of these directions, the Pre-2006 retirees in the pay scale of S-30 would be entitled to the same pension as being drawn by the Post-2006 retirees in the same pay scale w.e.f the date of filing of the O.A.
6. Vide the second impugned order dated 24.09.2015, which has been passed in the review application filed by the respondent, the learned Tribunal has clarified that the revised pension directed to be paid to the Pre-2006 retirees would not be less than the pension being drawn by the Post-2006 retirees. It is in these circumstances that both sides have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions.
7. In support of its challenge to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse and is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has over-stepped its jurisdiction in issuing directions regarding the manner in which the pension has to be computed. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in D.S.Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305] and Union of India vs. SPS Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125 and has failed to appreciate the ratio of the decision in B.J.Akkara & Ors. v. Govt. of India & Ors[(2006) 11 SCC 709], wherein the Apex Court had held that it was permissible to make a distinction in respect of pension qua two categories of pensioners. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. A.K.Behra, learned senior counsel for the Association/respondent supports the impugned order to the extent it directs revision of the pension of the Pre-2006 retirees. He submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision in D.S.Nakara & Ors(supra) and SPS Vains(supra), wherein the Apex Court was dealing with exactly the same issue as arising in the present petitions. In fact, the 7th CPC has itself ensured that there is no discrimination between the pension of Pre-2016 and Post-2016 retirees. Furthermore, the Apex Court, in its recent decision in All Manipur Pensioners Association By Its Secretary vs. State of Manipur And Others (2020) 14 SCC 625, has also opined that such a classification between two classes of pensioners had no reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. He, therefore, prays that the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order be rejected.
9. He further submits that in the facts of the present case, when the respondents were throughout agitating their rights and a decision regarding their claim was taken by the petitioner only on 18.11.2009, there was no reason to restrict the grant of revised pension to them only w.e.f. the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. from 19.03.2010. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the O.M. fixing the revised pension was issued only in September 2008, whereafter the members of the respondent/association had made representations, which came to be rejected only on 18.11.2009. He, therefore, contends that this was a fit case where the benefit of revised pension in terms of the impugned order ought to have been granted to all the Pre-2006 pensioners from the date of their entitlement i.e., 01.01.2006.
10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties, we may begin by noting the following extracts of the impugned order as contained in paras 43 to 47.
"43. The question, therefore, revolves around the issue whether SPS Vains judgment and D.S. Nakara's judgment (supra) will apply in the present case. In Nakara's judgment, the question that was raised is contained in para 2 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
"2. Do entitled to receive superannuation an 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 o 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 case Article 14 is wholly violated as the pension rules being statutory in nature, the rules, since the specified date, accord and treatment to equals in the matter of pension. It would have a effect on those who retired just before that date. This which into two classes is artificial and arbitrary, is not based on any rational 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."
44. In the Vains judgment also, the ratio of the judgment can be seen from the issue raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 4 of its judgment and the ratio it lays down in para 27. Para 4 and para 27 of the judgment are quoted below:
"4. The larger issue involved is whether there could be a disparity in of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the of the revised pay scales, with those who retired thereafter.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
27. In our view, it would be to allow such a situation to since the same also offends the of Article 14 of the Constitution."
It would be clear from the above that the stand of the respondents that the judgment in SPS Vains case (supra) will not apply in the case of civil pensioners, cannot be a valid argument because the ratio laid down is that there cannot be a disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those, who retired thereafter. The case of Brigadier and Major General in the Army is only an example. Thus, even if the facts of the case are different, the ratio would apply.
45. Therefore, in our view, the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SPS Vains (supra) that there can be no disparity in payment of pension to officers of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales, with those, who retired thereafter will hold good in the present case. In fact, SPS Vains judgment (supra) relies on D.S. Nakara's case (supra) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fixation of cut off date which runs counter to the whole gamut of Pension Scheme and equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly arbitrary. In fact, even if for the sake of argument, we accept the proposition of the respondents that SPS Vains case (supra) is not applicable here, the present OAs are fully covered by the judgment in Nakara's case (supra)The Nakara case was regarding revision of pensionary benefits and of pensioners into two groups by drawing cut-off line and granting revised pensionary benefits to employees retired on or after the cut-off date. The criteria made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to specified date". The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that application of such a criteria is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The Court held that those who retired before and after the said cut-off date, formed one class of pensioner and the classification into two groups was not founded on any intelligible differentia. The Nakara case arose under similar circumstances when in 1979, the formula for computation of pension was liberalized but made applicable to government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after that specified period. Consequently, the pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, earned lesser pension though they might have been holding the same post. The situation is identical in the present case. Therefore, this case is covered on all fours by the Nakara judgment. We also agree with the learned counsel for the applicants that the judgments cited by the respondents relate to different facts and the issue of disparity in pension of the officers of the same rank was not an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court/ Tribunal in those cases.
Further, none of the judgments cited by the respondents have negated the ratio laid in SPS Vains (supra) or D.S. Nakara (supra) and, therefore, are not relevant here.
46. Though neither side has raised this issue during the course of arguments, it may be felt that a Pension Scheme falls in the realm of policy making by the government and thus the Tribunal should refrain from interference unless the decision is palpably unreasonable or not in accordance with the law. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the classification of the pensioners into two classes, whereby one class would draw pension not only less than those who retired from the same post after the cut-off date but also lesser pension than those who retired post cut-off date from the posts which are 2-3 grades below that of the applicants is absolutely unreasonable. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the Nakara judgment was passed in exactly a similar background of facts and the Court held that this kind of classification is illegal.
47. We are of the considered view that the OM dated 18.11.2009 is illegal, being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SPS Vains (supra) and D.S. Nakara (supra) and is, therefore quashed and set aside. 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. This will automatically take care of the apprehensions of the applicants that their pension could be fixed below the pension fixed of post-2006 retirees who had worked in the lower pay scales viz. S-24-to-29 pay scales. We, however, reject the claim of the applicants to confer the minimum notional pay scale starting at Rs.75500/- to the applicants as this is a matter which should be best left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions and the Tribunal would not like to enter into this arena. In any case, seeking parity based on just the 'minimum' of the scales being same is not a convincing argument and would lead to opening up a Pandora's Box. The respondents are directed to refix pension/ family pension of the applicants with effect from 1.01.2006 according to the above direction. The arrears, however, would be payable only from the date of filing of the respective OAs. The respondents shall complete the above exercise and pay the arrears, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest on arrears at G.P.F. rates w.e.f. the date of this order. With these directions, the OAs are disposed of."
11. From a perusal of the aforesaid extract of the impugned judgment, it clearly emerges that the respondent had besides relying on the decisions in D.S. Nakara (supra) and SPS Vains (supra) urged that parity was always maintained between the Pre-1986 and Post-1986 pensioners as also the Pre-1996 and Post-1996 pensioners qua their pension. We find that the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. by relying on these decisions, wherein the Apex Court was dealing with an identical situation like the present case, which pertained to similar anomalies qua recommendations made by the earlier pay commissions. We have also perused the decision in All Manipur Pensioners Association by Its Secretary (Supra) relied upon by the respondents and find that the same also deals with exactly the same issue as arising in the present petitions. In this decision, the Apex Court, by relying on the decision in D.S. Nakara (supra) has categorically held that the State cannot arbitrarily fix different cut off dates for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits qua similarly placed persons. The Apex Court also opined that it is only when a new benefit is granted or a new Scheme is sought to be introduced that it may be possible for the State to provide a cut off date taking into consideration its financial resources, but such a classification is not permissible in matters of pensionary benefits and that too, when both classes of pensioners were already getting the benefits of pension. Consequently, the Court set aside the decision of the Government prescribing different revised pensions for Pre 1996 retirees and Post 1996 retirees. It may, therefore, be apposite to refer to para 8 and 9 of the said decision, which read as under:-
"8. Primary contention is that the pensioners of the Central Government form a class for purpose of pensionary benefits and there could not be mini-classification within the class designated as pensioners. The expression "pensioner" is generally understood in contradistinction to the one in service. Government servants in service, in other words, those who have not retired, are entitled to salary and other allowances. Those who retire and are designated as "pensioners" are entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules. Therefore, this would clearly indicate that those who render service and retire on superannuation or any other mode of retirement and are in receipt of pension are comprehended in the expression "pensioners".
9. Is this class of pensioners further divisible for the purpose of "entitlement" and "payment" of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired after that date? If date of retirement can be accepted as a valid criterion for classification, on retirement each individual government servant would form a class by himself because the date of retirement of each is correlated to his birth date and on attaining a certain age he had to retire. It is only after the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India that the retirement dates have been specified to be 12 in number being last day of each month in which the birth date of the individual government servant happens to fall. In other words, all government servants who retire correlated to birth date on attaining the age of superannuation in a given month shall not retire on that date but shall retire on the last day of the month. Now, if date of retirement is a valid criterion for classification, 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. Is it permissible or is it violative of Article 14?"
12. In the light of the aforesaid recent authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association By Its Secretary (Supra), we find absolutely no infirmity in the directions issued by the Tribunal to revise the pensions of the Pre-2006 pensioners in the S-30 pay scale. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concurring with the learned Tribunal that no discrimination in the matter of revised pension vis-à-vis Pre-2006 retirees and Post-2006 retirees was permissible.
13. Once the Apex Court has held that such a classification in the matter of pensionary benefits was not permissible, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order insofar as the challenge of the Union of India is concerned. We have also considered the decision in B.J. Akkara (supra) relied upon by the petitioner and find that in the said case, the Apex Court was dealing with the question of payment of non-practicing allowance, which cannot be treated as being akin to pension. Furthermore, from a perusal of para 18 (c) thereof, we are of the considered view that in the present case when there is no distinction between the Pre-2006 retires and Post-2006 retirees except for their date of superannuation, both categories of retirees were entitled to receive the same revised pension. The said decision, therefore, does not forward the case of the petitioner in any manner.
We, therefore, find no merit in the challenge by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8080/2016, which is dismissed.
14. Now coming to the grievance of the respondent Association, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6002/2016. As noted hereinabove, Mr. Behera, learned senior counsel for the respondent, has urged that when the revised pension, though payable w.e.f 01.01.2006, was fixed by the Union of India in September, 2008 itself, whereafter a representation was promptly made by the Association but came to be rejected on 18.11.2009. We are of the view that this was not a case where the Tribunal ought to have restricted the grant of benefit of the revised pension to the Pre-2006 pensioners from the date of filing of the O.A. No doubt in appropriate cases, where the Tribunal finds that the appellant had approached the Tribunal belatedly in matters of revised pay or pension, it can restrict the arrears from the date of filing of the O.A. In the present case, when the O.Ms laying down the revised pension in itself were issued in September, 2008 and the grievance of the respondent Association was rejected only on 18.11.2009, the O.As filed in January, 2010 by no stretch of imagination be said to be belated. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that W.P (C) 6002/2016 deserves to be allowed by modifying the impugned order insofar it restricts the grant of benefit of revised pension to the members of the respondent from the date of filing of the O.A.. The impugned orders are, accordingly, modified by directing that the relief granted under the orders dated 20.11.2014 and 24.09.2015 would be granted to the members of the respondent w.e.f. the date of revision of pension i.e. 01.01.2006.
15. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petitions are disposed of by allowing W.P.(C) 6002/2016 and dismissing W.P.(C) 8080/2016. Arrears in terms of this order will be paid within eight weeks.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE (GIRISH KATHPALIA ) JUDGE MARCH 20, 2024 al”
Daily Order pf the Honourable Supreme Court SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29124/2024 (Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/29124/29124_2024_3_41_56299_Order_04-Oct-2024.pdf
1
ITEM NO.41+67 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 29124/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-03-2024 in WP(C) No. 8080/2016 20-03-2024 in WP(C) No. 6002/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ALL INDIA S 30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.186904/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.186906/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS )
WITH
Diary No(s). 41592/2024
(IA No.223326/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.223327/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 04-10-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Mr. Nring Chawimbo Zeliang, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv., Mrs. Priyanka Terdal, Adv., Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mr. R. Bala, Adv., Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv., Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Adv., Mr. B. Venkat, Adv., Mr. Jintendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varun Singh, Adv., Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv., Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv., Ms. Somesa Gupta, Adv., Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv., Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv.,Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Rajan Kumar Choursia, Adv., Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.,Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv., Mr. Anuj Srinivasan Udupa, Adv.
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. We are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
In Conclusion
Charles Seife wrote in his book Proofiness: The Dark Art of Mathematical Deception (Viking Publishers), “If you want people to get to believe something really, really stupid, just stick a number on it.” However, I attempt to make myself believe something really, really simple by sticking numbers on the conclusions I draw from the two judgments.
Firstly, DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) is calculated as a fraction of emoluments for each completed year of qualifying service subject to a maximum number of times the emoluments.
To my understanding, from the above judgment, amount of Death-cum-Retirement gratuity differs from CPC to CPC. DCRG is NOT increased for earlier retirees in subsequent CPCs as the enhanced DCRG starts from the date prescribed by the Government.
|
Pensioner retires in |
Earlier DCRG (INR) |
New DCRG (INR) |
|
2nd to 3rd CPC (Chapter 60, Para 41 to 45) |
24000 |
30000 |
|
3rd to 4th CPC (Chapter 5, Para 5.27) |
30000 |
50000 increased to 1, 00, 000 (from 1.1.1986 as per Para 133.82, Vol III of 5th CPC Report) |
|
4th to 5th CPC (No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) Part-I dated 27.10.97 45/10/97-P&PW(A) date 17.12.98) |
1, 00, 000 |
3, 50,000 |
|
5th to 6th CPC (DoP & PW 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 29 Aug 2008 & Para 5.1.37 |
3, 50, 000 |
10, 00, 000 |
|
6th to 7th CPC (No.38/37/2016-P&PW (A) -4th August, 2016) |
10, 00, 000 |
20, 00, 000 (The Commission further recommends the ceiling on gratuity may increase by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. |
Also to my understanding, from the second judgment, I conclude that pension increases from CPC to CPC and is increased for earlier retirees (during previous CPC regimes). Increase in pension is based on the effective date recommended by the CPC.
|
Pensioner retires in |
Earlier Pension (Amount) |
Revised Pension |
|
3rd CPC (Para 6, 14, Chapter 53) |
975 |
1100 |
|
4th CPC (Chapter 5, Para 5.19) |
1100 |
4000 |
|
5th CPC 45/86/97-P&PW(A) dated 10.02.98 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17.12.98 |
4000 |
13000 |
|
6th CPC |
19500 incl 50% DP |
40000 |
|
7th CPC |
40000 |
112500 |
For brevity, Apex Scale pension has been taken.
E & O E
* * * * * * *
