Central
Administrative Tribunal
Principal
Bench
1. OA
No.0655/2010
With
2. OA
No.3079/2009
3. OA
No.0306/2010
4. OA
No.0507/2010
New Delhi this
the 1st day of November, 2011.
Hon’ble Mr.
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. M.L.
Chauhan, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. (Mrs.)
Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
OA No.655/2010
1. Central
Government SAG (S-29) Pensionersı
Association
through its Secretary
Shri Sant
Bhushan Lal,
R/o C5/21,
Grant Vasant, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110
070.
2. Shri Satish
Verma,
Retd. Chief
Engineer,
Central Water
Commission,
Ministry of
Water Resources,
Govt. of
India,
R/o B-6/8,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110
057. - Applicants
-Versus-
1. Union of
India through the
Secretary to
the Govt. of India,
Department of
Pension and Pensionersı Welfare,
Ministry of
Personnel,
Public
Grievances and Pensions,
Lok Nayak
Bhawan,
Khan Market,
New Delhi-110 003.
2. Secretary
to the Government of India,
Department of
Expenditure,
Ministry of
Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi. - Respondents
OA
No.3079/2009
1. Central
Govt. Pensioners’ Association
of
Additional/Joint Secretary & Equivalent Officers,
D-603, Anandlok
CGHS Ltd.,
Mayur
Vihar-Phase I,
Delhi-110091.
2. Shri S.P.
Biswas,
S/o late Shri
Panchanan Biswas,
R/o C-607,
Anandlok CGHS Ltd,
Mayur
Vihar-Phase-I,
Delhi-110091.
3. Shri G.S.
Lobana,
S/o late Shri
Inder Singh,
R/o C-207,
Anandlok CGHS Ltd,
Mayur
Vihar-Phase-I,
Delhi-110091. - Applicants
-Versus-
1. Union of
India through the
Secretary to
the Govt. of India,
Department of
Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare,
Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Lok Nayak
Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110
003.
2. Secretary
to the Government of India,
Department of
Expenditure,
Ministry of
Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi. - Respondents
OA No.306/2010
1. D.L. Vhora,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.)
R/o 1020,
Pocket D-1, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
2. Om Prakash
Chopra,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.)
R/o B-111,
Chander Nagar,
Janakpuri, New
Delhi-110057.
3. R.D. Mirza,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o 7178,
Pocket D-7,
Vasant Kunj,
New
Delhi-110070.
4. S.S.
Agarwal,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o 263,
Rajouri Apartments,
Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi-110064.
5. G.S. Mehta,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o B1A, 42 C,
DDA Flats,
Janakpuri, New
Delhi-110058.
6. H.R.
Rajani,
Chief
Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o 1005,
Sector-A, Pocket-B,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
7. L.C.
Chawla, Chief Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o 75, Kiran
Vihar, New Delhi-110092.
8. Pooran Mal,
Chief Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o 63,
Amaltas Lane, Green Park,
K-5, Scheme
Queens Road,
Jaipur-302021.
9. S.K.
Shangari,
Chief
Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o 318, SFS
DDA Flats,
Ashok Vihar,
Phase-IV,
New
Delhi-110052.
10. B.K.
Sharma,
Chief
Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o B-401,
Munirka Apartments,
Plot No.11,
Sector-9, Dwarka,
New
Delhi-110075.
11. Ramchander
Tripathi,
Chief
Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o X-03,
Suraksha Enclave,
S. No.161, New
DP Road, Aundh,
Pune-411007.
12. Banwari
Lal Singhal,
Chief
Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o X-05,
Suraksha Enclave,
S.No. 161, New
D.P. Road,
Aundh
Pune-411007.
13. M.D.
Khera,
Chief
Architect, MES (Retd.),
R/o A-2/123,
Janakpuri,
New
Delhi-110058.
14. K.K.
Mitra,
Chief
Architect MES (Retd.),
R/o 40/197,
C.R. Park,
New Delhi.
15. V.K.
Razdan,
Chief
Architect MES (Retd.),
R/o 2/262,
Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board,
Jodhpur-342005. - Applicants
--Versus-
Union of India
through:
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public
Grievances and Pensions,
Dept. of
Pension and Pensioners Welfare,
Lok Nayak
Bhawan,
New
Delhi-110003.
2. Secretary,
Dept of Expenditure,
Ministry of
Finance, North Block,
Central
Secretariat,
New
Delhi-110001.
3. Secretary,
Ministry of
Defence,
South Block,
Central
Secretariat,
New
Delhi-110011. - Respondents
OA No.507/2010
1. PPS Gumber,
Chief
Engineer, MES (Retd.),
R/o C-23-B,
Gangotri Enclave,
Alaknanda, New
Delhi-110019.
2. Namo
Narayan,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o 21,
Part-3, Suresh Sharma Nagar,
Bareilly UP.
3. Rajendra
Prasad,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o 29, Anupam
Apartments,
Vasundhara
Enclave,
Delhi-110096.
4. Jasbir
Singh Khanna,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o E-5/H, DDA
Flats,
Munirka, New
Delhi-110067.
5. Devendra
Gupta,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o B1/1,
River Bank Colony,
Lucknow.
6. Surya Mohan
Bajpai,
Chief Surveyor
of Works MES (Retd.),
R/o F-110,
Indralok,
Krishna Nagar,
Lucknow-226023
Uttar Pradesh.
- Applicants
-Versus-
Union of India
through:
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public
Grievances and Pensions,
Dept. of
Pension and Pensioners Welfare,
Lok Nayak
Bhawan,
New
Delhi-110003.
2. Secretary,
Dept of Expenditure,
Ministry of
Finance, North Block,
Central
Secretariat,
New
Delhi-110001.
3. Secretary,
Ministry of
Defence,
South Block,
Central
Secretariat,
New
Delhi-110011. - Respondents
Memo of
Appearances:
For the
Applicants:
Mr. Nidhesh
Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Gupta, Counsel for applicants in
OA
Nos.655/2010.
Shri L.R.
Khatana, Counsel for applicants in OA No.3079/2009.
Shri S.K.
Malik, Counsel for applicants in OA No.306/2010 and 507/2010.
For the
Respondents:
Shri Ritesh
Kumar, Shri Piyush Sanghi, Shri Simranjeet Singh, Shri Sumit Goel, Shri
Krishan Kumar,
Shri Rajesh Katyal, counsel for the officials respondents.
Shri R.K.
Sharma, counsel for respondents in OA No.306/2010 and 507/2010.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. M.L.
Chauhan, Member (J):
By this common
order we propose to dispose of four connected Original Applications, as
the issues involved in all are same, as is also suggested by the
learned counsel representing the parties. Pleadings to the extent the same may
be required to be mentioned are, however, extracted from OA No.655/2010 in the
matter of Central
Government SAG
(S-29) Pensioners’ Association and another v. Union of India &
Others.
2. Applicants, who are pre-2006 retirees, are claiming pension at
par with post-2006 retirees based on the recommendations of the VI Central Pay
Commission, which became effective from 1.1.2006. Considering that the issues
involved have great ramifications and in the meanwhile Bombay Bench and Patna
Bench of the Tribunal rendered judgment(s) against their cause., the matter was
referred to the Full Bench vide order dated 29.04.2011. The grievance projected
by the applicants in these OAs are that the employees, who retired prior to
1.1.2006 (specified date) and those who retried thereafter form one class of
pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the
purpose of pensionary benefits was not found on intelligible differentia, which
has a rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved. To substantiate
this argument reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 and Union of
India v. S.P.S. Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125. The further grievance raised by the
applicants is that their notional pay fixation and consequent pension should
not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and
the grade pay thereon corresponding to scale of pay from which they had
retired, as accepted by the Government vide resolution dated 29.08.2008 and the
clarification issued by the respondents vide impugned OM dated 3.10.2008 and
14.10.2008 contrary to the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and OM dated 1.9.2008 in
regard para 4.2, are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and
unjust, as according to the applicants in the clarification/modification order
dated 3.10.2008 respondents had added and deleted certain words, which
completely changed its meaning as per the recommendations of the Commission as
accepted by the Government. In other words, the grievances raised by the
applicants are that the respondents have not revised pension of the pre-2006
retirees even as per the modified parity/formula recommended by the Pay
Commission and adopted by the Government vide resolution dated 29.08.2008. It
may be stated that challenge has been made only to the aforesaid issues though
the additional points raised by the applicants in OA-2087/2009 and 2101/2011
have not been pressed by the learned counsel for the applicants.
3. In order to decide the aforesaid issue, few relevant facts may
be noticed. The Government of India constituted VI Central Pay Commission (VI
CPC) on 05.10.2006, inter alia, to examine the principles which should govern
the structure of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension and
other terminal or recurring benefits having financial implications to the
present and former Central Government employees appointed before 1.1.2004. The
report was submitted by the Commission on 24.03.2008.
The Pay Commission made separate recommendations for revision of
pension of the past pensioners and for determination of pension of those
retiring after implementation of its recommendations. In regard to
determination of pension of those retiring after implementation of its
recommendations, the Commission recommended 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. However,
regarding revision of pension of past pensioners the Commission made
recommendations as per para 5.1.47 of the report which recommendation of the
Commissioner was accepted by the Government with certain modifications to which
we will advert at a later stage. Thus, this modified formula formed basis for
revision of the pension of the pre-2006 retirees, as adopted by resolution
dated 29.08.2008, which according to applicants has not even been followed by
the respondents in its true letter and spirit. Since the VI CPC has made
separate recommendations for pre-2006 retirees and post-2006 retirees as such
the Government issued two different OMs based upon the recommendations of the
Central Pay Commission, i.e., one regarding revision of pension of past
pensioners and second regarding post-2006 retirees. It is in the light of the
aforesaid factual aspects the matter is required to be examined.
4. We may
first examine the challenge of the applicants made on the basis of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra). It is not disputed that
the
Central Government employees on retirement from service are
entitled to receive pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972. In D.S. Nakara’s case (supra) there was no dispute regarding implementation of
the liberalized scheme from a cut off date. Rather the Apex Court in the said
case in para-47 has categorically held that undoubtedly when an upward revision
is introduced a date from which it becomes effective has to be provided. The
challenge was made only to that part of the scheme by which the benefit of
Liberalized Pension Formula was made applicable to government servants
who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after that
date. What was the Liberalized Pension Formula has been
mentioned in para-37 of the judgment. As can be seen from this para, under the
earlier pension scheme the pension was related to ‘average
emoluments’ during 36 months just preceding retirement. On May, 25, 1979 the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued OM No.F.19(3)EB-79 whereby the
formula for commutation of pension was liberalized but it was made applicable
to government servants who were in service on 31.03.1979 and retired from
service on or after the specified date. The liberalized scheme introduced a slab
system for commutation of pension, raised pension ceiling and provided for
average emoluments with reference to the last 10 months’ service.
Consequently, the pensioners who retired prior to the specified date had to
earn pension on the average 36 months’ salary just preceding the date of
retirement. Thus, they suffered triple jeopardy viz. lower average emoluments,
absence of slab system and lower ceiling. It was in this context that the Apex
Court held that pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified
by arbitrary, manipulated, and unreasonable eligibility criteria for the
purpose of grant of revised pension. The Apex Court held that the words ‘who were in
service on or after’ are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are
vulnerable as denying equality and this part of the sentence was declared as
unconstitutional and struck down. It was held that liberalized pension scheme will
become operative to all pensioners governed by 1979 rules, irrespective of date
of retirement. At this stage it will be useful to quota relevant portions of
paras 47 to 49 of the judgment in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra),
which thus read:
“Undoubtedly when an upward revision is introduced, a date from
which it becomes effective has to be provided. It is the event of retirement
subsequent to the specified date which introduces discrimination in one
otherwise homogeneous class of pensioners. This arbitrary selection of the
happening of event subsequent to specified date denies equality of treatment of
persons belonging to the same class, some preferred and some omitted. Is this
eligibility qualification severable?
48. It was very seriously contended, remove the event correlated
to date, and examine whether the scheme is workable. We find no difficulty in
implementing the scheme omitting the event happening after the specified date
retaining the more humane formula for computation by applying the rule of average
emoluments as set out in Rule 34 and introducing the slab system and the amount
worked out within the floor and the ceiling.
49. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required
to be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners
wherever they retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme,
because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed
by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme
would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under
its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that
date. In case of pensioners, who retired prior to the specified date, their
pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from
the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of
the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal
difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not
revised.” (Emphasis added)
5. Thus the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) has not
held that the cut off date when an upward revision is introduced cannot be
prescribed and is arbitrary. At this stage it may also be useful to notice the
decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indian
Ex-Servicemen League and others v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 104, whereby
the Apex Court explained the ratio laid down in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra)
and has also relied upon its earlier constitution Bench decision in the case of
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 and held that the Court’s decision in
D.S. Nakara (supra) has to be read as one of limited application and its ambit cannot
be enlarged to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an
identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of
the date of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments for the purpose
of computation of their pension be different.
6. Further the Apex Court in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
and others v. N. Subbarayudu and others, (2008) 14 SCC 702 has held that even
if no reason is forthcoming for fixation of particular date it should not be
interfered with by the Court unless the cut off date leads to some blatantly
capricious or outrageous result. At this stage, it will be useful to quota
paras 5-9 of the judgment, which read thus:
“5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that
the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the
economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and
other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut
off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should
not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority
unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.
(See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754).
6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1)
SCC 305 this Court
had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of
pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered
down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case (supra), as observed in para 29 of
the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal.
7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the
executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed.
These considerations can be financial, administrative, or other considerations.
The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the
executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with
some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.
8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent
of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even
if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by
the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide
State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr.
vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs.
All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2)
SCC 76 vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary &
Ors 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been
given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as
to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not
declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said
cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
9. As has been held by this Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali
Golf Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. 2008(3) 3 JT 221 and in
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi 2008(2) 8 JT 639
the Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the
legislative or executive domain.”
7. Yet in another decision in the case of Union of India v. S.R.
Dhingra and others, (2008) 2 SCC 229 the Apex Court relying upon its earlier
decision in para-25 has made the following observations:
“25. It is well settled that when two sets of employees of the same
rank retire at different points of time, one set cannot claim the benefit
extended to the other set on the ground that they are similarly situated.
Though they retired with the same rank, they are not of the same class or
homogeneous group. Hence Article 14 has no application. The employer can
validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or
for discontinuance of any existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction
of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut-off date
arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two
groups and subjecting them to different treatment (vide Col B.J. Akkara (Retd)
vs. Govt of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1983) 1
SCC 305, Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207, Indian Ex-Services
League vs. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 104, V. Kasturi vs. Managing Director,
State Bank of India (1998) 8 SCC 30 and Union of India vs. Dr. Vijayapurapu
Subbayamma (2000) 7 SCC 662).”
8. If the matter is seen in the light of the law laid down by the
Apex Court, as noticed above, it cannot be said that fixation of cut off date
of 1.1.2006 for the purpose of extending retiral benefits is arbitrary and it
is permissible for the Government to fix a cut off date for introducing any new
pension/retirement scheme or for discontinuing of any existing scheme. Thus,
the challenge made by the applicants based upon the judgment in
D.S. Nakara
(supra) that pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits
as that of post-2006 retirees cannot be accepted.
9. Yet for another reason, pre-1.1.2006 and post-2006 retirees
cannot be extended the same pensionary benefits inasmuch as the respondents on
the basis of the recommendations of the VI CPC have issued two different
Schemes for pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees. As regards, post-2006 retirees
respondents have issued OM dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure R-1) as to how the pension
has to be computed. As can be seen from this scheme, emoluments have to be
computed on the basis of the revised pay structure and further as can be seen
from paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the said OM “qualifying service” for the
purpose of pension has been reckoned as 20 years as against 33 years, which was
prevalent in respect of the employees who retired before 1.1.2006 and also that
emoluments for the purpose of pensionary benefits have to be determined on the
basis of 10 months’ average emoluments or emoluments last drawn by the employee before
his retirement, whichever is more beneficial. Applicants have not challenged
the validity of the OM dated 2.9.2008. As such, on these grounds pre-2006
retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are governed
by the separate set of scheme.
10. We may now consider the claim made by the applicants based
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.P.S. Vains (supra). As
already stated above, the Government of India has issued OM dated 01.09.2008
(Annexure A-1) in respect of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners pursuant to
acceptance of recommendations made by the VI CPC. Para 2.1 of this OM
stipulates that these orders shall apply to all pensioners/family pensioners
who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.2006 under the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. CCS (Extraordinary Pension)
Rules and the
corresponding rules applicable to Railway pensioners and pensioners of All
India
Services, including officers of the Indian Civil Service retired from service
on or after 1.1.1973. Para 2.2 stipulates that separate orders will be issued
by the Ministry of Defence in regard to Armed Forces pensioners/family
pensioners. Thus, reading of this
OM clearly
stipulates that the OM dated 1.9.2008 has been made applicable to the employees
of the Central Government who are granted pension under CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972. Admittedly, the Armed Forces pensioners are not governed by the family pension
Rules, 1972 but they are governed by different set of Rules. It may be stated here
that in terms of the Pension Rules, 1972 the pension in the case of existing pensioners
and future pensioners have to be computed by applying the rule of “average
Emoluments” as set out in
Rule 34, whereas in the case of the defence pensioners, they are regulated in
terms of the Special Army instructions issued in that regard based on the concept
of ‘one rank one
pension’, which is not
applicable in respect of the employees serving in the Central Government. That
apart the Government of India has also issued instructions dated 18.11.2009
based upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
S.P.S. Vains
(supra) thereby clarifying that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
S.P.S. Vains (supra) will not apply in the case of petitioners who
retired from the civil departments and who, before their retirement, were
governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. That apart, in the case of S.P.S.
Vains (supra) the Court was dealing with entirely a different issue. The issue
involved in the said case was whether there could be a disparity in payment of
pension to officer of the same rank, who had retired prior to the introduction
of the revised pay scale, with those who retired thereafter. It was further noticed
that an anomaly has arisen with the acceptance of the recommendations of the V
CPC, which has created a situation whereby Brigadiers began
drawing more pay than Major Generals and were, therefore, receiving higher
pension and family pension than Major Generals. It was in this context that the
judgment was rendered. In order to remove that anomaly Government stepped up
pension of Major Generals who had retired prior to 1.1.1996, giving them
pension as was given to the Brigadiers. Before the High Court it was urged on
behalf of the writ petitioners that while the writ petitioners and the other
similarly placed officers who had retired while holding the rank of Major
Generals prior to 1.1.1996 were given the same pension as that of Brigadier.
However, in the case of Major Generals who retired after 1.1.1996 their pay was
initially fixed according to clause 12 (c) of Special Army instructions
2/S/1998 which enabled them to draw higher pension than those retired before
1.1.1996 despite holding the same rank. It was in this context that the Writ
Petition was allowed by the High Court, directing the Government to fix minimum
pay scale of the Major General above that of the Brigadier and grant pay above
that of a Brigadier as has been done in the case of post 1.1.1996 retirees and consequently
fix pension and family pension accordingly. Thus, according to us applicants
cannot take any assistance from this judgment, which 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’.
11. Thus, we
agree with the reasoning given by the Bombay and Patna Benches of the
Tribunal as regards fixation of pension of pre-2006 retirees at
par with post-2006 retirees based on the decisions of the Apex Court in D.S.
Nakara and S.P.S. Vains (supra).
12. Now let us advert to last grievance raised by the applicants
viz. that even if the modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and
accepted by the resolution dated 29.08.2008 is to be taken as criteria for
determining pension of pre-2006 retirees, still on account of subsequent
clarification issued to para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 by the officers of
the respondents vide OM dated 3.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 criteria and principles
for determining the pension has been given a complete go-bye. Thus, these clarificatory
OMs are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust and are required
to be quashed and set aside. At this stage, we wish to mention that this issue was
not raised and considered by the Patna and Bombay Benches of the Tribunal, as
such no finding on this aspect was given. However, in paras 66 and 67 of the
judgment Patna Bench has given a direction that the Government should examine
this aspect of S-29 pay scales retirees being able to retire at the maximum of
the pay band 4 pay scale with the grade pay of Rs.10,000/- which would bring
their pension to Rs.38,500/-. Suffice it to say that the observation made by
the Patna Bench was given without taking into consideration the modified parity
as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by the Central Government
vide its resolution dated 29.08.2008, which formed the basis to grant pension
to pre-2006 retirees.
13. In order to determine the issue, at this stage, it will be
useful to quote item No.12 of the Resolution No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated
29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the VI CPC, as contained in para 5.1.47,
was accepted with certain modifications and thus reads:
S. No. Recommendation Decision of Government
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.
Based on this
resolution, respondents issued OM of even number dated 1.9.2008. Para-
4.2 whereof,
which is relevant for the purpose, reads as follows:
“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.”
14. On the basis of the recommendations made by VI CPC, which
stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it has been argued that principle for
determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of
clarification. According to the learned counsel for the applicants on the basis
of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006
pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade
pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
15. Applicants in para-11 of the Additional-Affidavit have
explained how the Note prepared by a junior functionary (at the level of an
Under Secretary) in the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare in
regard to para-4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 has been given a go-by to the
resolution dated 29.08.2008. The Note so prepared has been extracted in this
para, which thus reads:
“Whether the pension calculated at 50% of the minimum pay in the
pay band would be calculated (i) 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, or (ii) at the minimum of pay pay in the pay band
which an employee in the pre-revised scale of pay will be getting as per the
fitment tables at Annex I of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 plus the grade
pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales.”
16. It is pleaded that first the need for such a doubt being
raised is not clear as both the formulation of the CPC in para 5.1.47 as well
as in Government Resolution dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure A-7 of the OA) is clear
that 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.(emphasis added). The use of words ‘sum of, and thereon’ leaves no
doubt that both the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay have
to correspond to the pre-revised pay scale. Second, without bringing out merits
or demerits of either formulation, the lower functionary in DOP & PW
incorporates in the clarification against item 4.2 in the OM dated 1.9.2008,
the first option about ‘minimum’ of pay in the pay band (irrespective
of the pre-revised scale of pay)ı. What is worse is that there is no application
of mind even at the level of Director and Secretary who merely sign the note and
the clarification is issued after obtaining finance concurrence and approval of
MOS (PP), without going back to the Cabinet for such a modification.
17. The
learned counsel has further argued that the resultant injustice done to the
pre-
1-1-2006 pensioners had even been recognized by MOS (F) and MOS
(PP) in their letters to the PM and MOS (F) respectively, copies of which are at
Annexures A-11 (page 169) and A-12 (page 170) of the OA. A formal proposal was
also sent by DOP & PW to
Department of
Expenditure seeking rectification but was not accepted by the latter. It was
also incorrectly mentioned that the earlier provision in para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008
has been issued in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet granted to the Report
of the Sixth CPC and any change would entail substantial financial implications
and this was done only with the approval of the Secretary (Expenditure) without
putting up the note to MOS (F) who had himself supported the change. A copy of
this Note dated 2.1.2009 is enclosed as Annexure 5.
18. As regards the grievance to OM dated 14.10.2008 based on the
OM dated 1.9.2008 (as clarified by OM dated 3.10.2008) whereby a revised table
(Annexure A-1) of the pre-2006 pensioners pay scale/pay was finalized to
facilitate payment of the revised pension/family pension, applicants have
prepared a chart in respect of minimum of the pre-revised scales (modified
parity) of S 29 along with 5 scales included in PB-4 works out as under and
thus reads:
Min of. Pay in
the Pay Band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay (2+3)
(Rs. Pension 50% of Pre revised scale (2+3)
(Rs.)
1 2 3 4
5
S-24
(14300) 37400 8700
46100 23050
S-25
(15100) 39690 8700
48390 24195
S-26
(16400) 39690 8900
48590 24295
S-27
(16400) 39690 8900
48590 24295
S-28
(Rs.14300) 37400 10000
47400 23700
S-29
(18400) 44700 10000
54700 27350
The first 4 columns of the above table have been extracted from
the pay fixation annexed with MOF OM of 30th August 2008 (referred to in para
4.5 (iii) above). Revised pension of S 29 works out to Rs.27350 which has been
reduced to Rs.23700 as per DOP OM of 3-10-2008 (para 4.8 (B) below). It was
explained during arguments that pay in the Pay Band indicated in column No.2 above
table relates to the pay in the revised pay scale corresponding to the minimum
pay in the pre-revised pay scale.
19. On the basis of this chart it has been pleaded that as per the
impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay
in the Pay Band against 14300/- is shown as 37400. In addition, Grade Pay of
Rs.8700/- was given totalling Rs.46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all
the other pay scales were accepted by the aforementioned OM dated 14th October,
2008. The illegality which has been perpetrated in the present matter is
apparent from the fact that whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale
S-24 and receiving a pay of Rs.14,300/- would now receive Rs.37,400/- plus
grade pay of Rs.8700 and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at
Rs.23050 (i.e. 50% of 37400 pay plus grade pay Rs.8700) pursuant to the
implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 1.1.2006, whereas a person
belonging to the Applicant Association, who was drawing a pay of Rs.18,400/- or
even Rs.22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be
getting pension as only 23700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of Rs.37,400/- plus grade pay
of Rs.10000). However, the misinterpreted revised basic pay of Rs.37400 has
caused a grave miscarriage of justice since those officers who belong to a much
higher grade have now been equated with those who were working under them in a
lower rank/grade. It is further relevant to note that those officers belonging
to S-29 who would retired after 1.1.2006 would, however, be placed in the revised
pay scale differently. For instance, a person who was in the pre-revised pay
scale of 18000-22400 (S29) at Rs.18,400/- would now get Rs.44,700/- in addition
to Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- i.e. the revised basic pay of Rs.61,850/-. However,
a person who retired only one day prior i.e. on 31st December 2005, even if he
had received pre-revised pay of
Rs.22400/-
would now be placed in the revised pay of Rs.37400/- only in addition to the
Grade Pay of Rs.10,000. Thus the illegality which has been
committed in the present matter also relates to equating the pre-revised pay
scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- with the pre-revised pay scale of
Rs.14,300-18,300/-.
20. In order to buttress the aforesaid submission applicants have
given specific instance of an officer in para-6 of the Additional Affidavit who
retired at a higher pay on 31.12.2005 getting a much higher pension at that
time than another officer who retired only 5 days later, i.e., on 5.1.2006 at a
lower pay. After implementing the VI CPC recommendations, as illegally modified
by the Department of Personnel, the result is that the concerned person who
retired on 31.12.2005 is getting far lower pension than the person who retired
5 days later. A copy of the said chart amplifying the above position has also
been reproduced, which is to the following effect:
Name Ashok K.
Ghosh R.K. Goel
Department
Railways Heavy Water Board
Scale of Pay
18400-500-22400 18400-500-22400
Date of
Retirement 31.12.2005 05.01.2006 i.e. only 5 days
Last Pay Drawn
Rs.22900 (incl. one Stagnation increment) Rs.21400
Average 10
months Emoluments incl. Dearness Pay Rs.34350 Rs.31737.50 or 31738
Original
Pension fixed Rs.17175 Rs.15869
Revised
Pension Fixed after 6th CPC implementation Rs.25872 (i.e. Rs.22900x2.26)
2 Rs.29435
21. Applicants have also explained as to how the disparity has
resulted on account of implementation/acceptance of VI CPC recommendations by
the Government vide resolution dated 29.08.2008. As can be seen from the
clarificatory order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure A-6 at pages 139-147) regarding
pay scale of S-24 to S-29, the pay scales of the V CPC of Rs.14300-18300 in respect
of S-24 employees, the VI CPC has placed them in Pay Band-3 and recommended the
Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39100/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.7600 per month. However,
the Government has upgraded the said
S-24 category to Pay Band 4 and placed them in the pay Band of
Rs.37,400-67,000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- per month. It is, therefore,
absolutely clear that the Government authorities have increased the pay of S-24
employees by far more than double. Further, it is very relevant to note that
the said impact would be not only on the retired S-24 officers but also on the
large base of serving employees. Similarly, the same is the position with regard
to S-25, S-26 and S-27 all of whom were recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission
to be in the pay band of Rs.15,600-39,100/- but were placed by the Government
in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000/-. Similarly in the case of employees who
were placed in S-29 pay scale they were recommended Pay Band of Rs.39,200- 67000/-
plus Grade Pay of Rs.9,000/- per month by the VI CPC, whereas the Government has
revised pay structure to Rs.37,400-67000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- per
month. This has resulted in the anomaly which is essentially to be rectified.
22. It is submitted that the applicants are in the category of
retired employees and are a diminishing category. In contrast, the serving
employees of S-29 category are being given the benefits of the recommendations
of the VI CPC. Further, as explained earlier, the benefits available in S-24 to
S-27 grade are available not only to retired employees but also to the large
base of serving employees. The financial effect of the same is many times that
of the small additional expenditure which will be incurred on account of the
benefits sought by the Applicants. Therefore, the argument sought to be raised
by the Union of India during the course of hearing regarding the so-called
financial impact has no factual basis at all.
23. Thus, according to the applicants the aforesaid disparity,
which has been caused on account of granting enhanced scales in S-24 to S-27
grade contrary to the recommendations of the VI CPC and further reducing the
scales recommended by the Pay Commission in respect of S-29 grade to be at par
with the employees who were placed in S-24 to S-27 grade is required to be set
right. According to the learned counsel of applicants even if the cut off date
of 1.1.2006 for revision of the pay scale and grant of pensionary benefits on
the basis of VI CPC is to be upheld, even then the applicants are entitled to
relief based upon the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby the recommendations
of the Pay Commission was accepted and on account of disparity, which has
resulted in granting different pay scales, as recommended by the VI CPC, which
has caused prejudice to the applicants and thus has to be set right.
24. The stand taken by the respondents is that the recommendations
of the VI CPC, as accepted by the Government vide Resolution dated 29.08.2008
and further clarification issued by the respondents is in consonance with the
recommendations so accepted. It is stated that there may be a slight change in
the word used in the clarification issued by the
Government subsequently but has the same meaning as in the latter
part of para 5.1.47 of the report of the VI CPC as accepted by Government. The
phrase ‘minimum of the
pay in the Pay Band’ has been used and this phrase carries the same meaning i.e., the
pay from which a pay band starts. It is stated that the clarification on OM
dated 3.10.2008 was issued after due exercise in Department of Pension and
Pensioners Welfare and Ministry of Finance and with the approval of the Hon’ble Minister
of State. It is further stated that VI CPC has not made any recommendation for
complete parity between the pre-1996 and post-1-1-1996 pensioners. Therefore,
question of allowing complete parity between pre-1996 and post 1.1.1996
pensioners would not arise. It is stated that the OM dated 1.9.2008 has been
further clarified on 3.10.2008 that pension calculated at 50% of the minimum of
the 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 sale of pay) plus the grade
pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.
25. In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage,
it will be useful to extract the relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of the VI CPC
recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution dated 29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the
OM dated 1.9.2008 and subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification
dated 3.10.2008, which thus read:
Resolution
No.38/37/8-P&PW(A) dated 29.08.2008-Para 5.1.47 (page 154-155) Para
4.2 of OM
DOP&PW OM No. No.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 1.09.2008 (page 38 of OA)
OM DOP&PW
OM No. No.38/37/8-P&PW(A) dated 3.10.2008
“The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision that
the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% 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 form which the pensioner had retired. The fixation as
per above will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no
case, shall be lower than 50% of the(sum of the) minimum of the pay in the pay
band plus (and) the grade pay (thereon) corresponding to the pre-revised pay
scale from which the pensioner had retired. The Pension Calculated at 50% 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] plus grade pay would be calculated
(i) 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.
For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale
of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being Rs.37400-67000 and
the corresponding grade pay being Rs.10000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension
would be 50% of Rs.37400+Rs.10000 (i.e. Rs.23700)
26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution
dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph
5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should
not be less than 50% 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 held by the
pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008
revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and
the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner
had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words “sum of the and
grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale” and adding “irrespective of
the pre-revised scale of pay plus” implying that the revised pension is to be
fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially changed the
modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the
recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the
applicants. According to us, such a course was not available to the functionary
of the Government in the garb of clarification thereby altering the
recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government.
According to us, deletion of the words “sum of the and grade pay thereon
corresponding to the pre-revised scale” and addition of the words “irrespective of
the pre-revised scale of pay plus”, as introduced by the respondents in the
garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment
to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the
recommendations of the VI
CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government
pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet.
Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of the Government
in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring
the matter to the Cabinet.
27. We also wish to add that the Pay Commissions are concerned
with the revision of the pre-revised “pay scales” and also that
in terms of Rule 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the pension of retirees
has to be fixed on the basis of the average emoluments drawn by them at the
time of retirement. Thus, the pre-revised scale from which a person has retired
and the emoluments which he was drawing at the time immediately preceding his
retirement are a relevant consideration for the purpose of computing revised
pension and cannot be ignored. As such, it was not permissible for the respondents
to ignore the pre-revised scale of pay for the purpose of computing revised pension
as per the modified parity in the garb of issuing the clarifications, thereby altering
the modified parity/formula, which was accepted by the Central Government vide
its resolution dated 29.08.2008.
28. The above view is also fortified by paras 137.15, 137.20 and
137.21 of the V CPC recommendations, as reproduced below, leading to modified
parity, which were also accepted by the VI CPC and accepted by the Central
Government and thus read:
“Immediate relief
to pensioners
137.15 While the work relating to revision of pension of pre
1.1.1986 retires by notional fixation of their pay shall have to be undertaken
by the pension sanctioning authorities to be completed in a time-bound manner,
we suggest that the pensioners should be provided some relief immediately on
implementation of our recommendations. The pension disbursing authorities may
be authorized to consolidate the pension by adding (a) basic pension; (b)
personal pension, wherever admissible; (c) dearness relief as on 1.1.1996 on basic
pension only; (d) Interim Relief (I and II) and (e) 20% of basic pension. The consolidated
pension shall be not less than 50% of the minimum pay, as revised by the Fifth
CPC, of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. This may be stepped
up by the pension disbursing authorities, wherever feasible, to the level of
50% of the minimum pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of
retirement.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx
Modified
parity conceded
137.20 We have given our careful consideration to the suggestions.
While we do not find any merit in the suggestion to revise the pension of past
retirees with reference to maximum pay of the post held at the time of
retirement, as revised by the Fifth CPC, there is force in the argument that
the revised pension should be not less than that admissible on the minimum pay
of the post held by the retiree at the time of retirement, as revised by the
Fifth CPC. We have no hesitation in conceding the argument advanced by pensioners
that they should receive a pension at least based on the minimum pay of the
post as revised by Fifth Pay Commission in the same way as an employee normally
gets the minimum revised pay of the post he holds. We recommend acceptance of
this principle, which is based on reasonable considerations.
Principle
enunciated
137.21 The Commission has decided to enunciate a principle for the
future revision of pensions to the effect that complete parity should normally
be conceded up to the date of last pay revision and modified parity (with
pension equated at least to the minimum of the revised pay scale) be accepted
at the time of each fresh pay revision. This guiding principle which we have
accepted would assure that past pensioners will obtain complete parity between
the pre-86 and post-86 pensioners but there will be only a modified parity
between the pre-96 and post-96 pensioners. The enunciation of the principle would
imply that at the time of the next pay revision say, in the year 2006, complete
parity should be given to past pensioners as between pre-1996 and post-1996 and
modified parity be given between the pre-2006 and post-2006 pensioners.
29. From the
above extracted portion it is clear that the principle of modified parity, as
recommended by the V CPC and accepted by the VI CPC and accepted by the Central
Government provides that revised pension in no case shall be lower
than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay
corresponding to revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retried.
According to us, as already stated above, in the garb of clarification,
respondents interpreted minimum of pay in the pay band as minimum of the pay
band. This interpretation is apparently erroneous, for the reasons:
a) If the interpretation
of the Government is accepted it would mean that pre-2006 retirees in S-29
grade retired in December, 2005 will get his pension fixed at Rs.23700/- and another
officer who retired in January 2006 at the minimum of the pay will get his pension
fixed at Rs.27350/-. This hits the very principle of the modified parity, which
was never intended by the Pay Commission or by the Central Government;
b) The Central Government improved upon many pay scales
recommended by the VI CPC. The pay scale in S-29 category was improved from
Rs.39200-67000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.9,000/- with minimum pay of Rs.43280/- to
Rs.37,400-67000/- with grade pay of Rs.10,000/- with minimum pay of Rs.44,700/-
(page 142 of the paper-book). If the interpretation of the Department of
Pension is accepted, this will result in reduction of pension by Rs.4,00/- per
month. The Central Government did not intend to reduce the pension of pre-2006
retirees while improving the pay scale of S-29 grade;
c) If the erroneous interpretation of the Department of Pension is
accepted, it would mean that a Director level officer retiring after putting in
merely 2 years of service in their pay band (S-24) would draw more pension than
a S-29 grade officer retiring before 1.1.2006 and that no S-29 grade officer,
whether existing or holding post in future will be fixed at minimum of the pay
band, i.e., Rs.37,400/-. Therefore, fixation of pay at Rs.37,400/- by terming
it as minimum of the pay in the pay band is erroneous and ill conceived; and
d) That even the Minister of State for Finance and Minister of
State (PP), taking note of the resultant injustice done to the pre-11.2006
pensioners (pages 169-170), had sent formal proposal to the Department of
Expenditure seeking rectification but the said proposal was turned down by the
officer of the Department of Expenditure on the ground of financial
implications. Once the Central Government has accepted the principle of modified
parity, the benefit cannot be denied on the ground of financial constraints and
cannot be said to be a valid reason.
30. In view of
what has been stated above, we are of the view that the clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008 and further OM dated 14.10.2008 (which is also
based upon clarificatory OM dated 3.10.2008) and OM dated 11.02.2009, whereby
representation was rejected by common order, are required to be quashed and set
aside, which we accordingly do. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pension
of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006, based on the resolution dated
29.08.2008 and in the light of our observations made above. Let the respondents
re-fix the pension and pay the arrears thereof within a period of 3 months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OAs’are allowed in
the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs.
(Dr. Veena
Chhotray) (M.L.
Chauhan) (V.K.
Bali)
Member (A) Member (J)
Chairman
No comments:
Post a Comment