Are Govt Orders Issued for Full Pension at 20 years of Service?

Online RTI Request Form Details

RTI Request Details:-

RTI Request Registration number DP&PW/R/2015/60783

Public Authority Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-

Deleted by author

Request Details :-

Citizenship Indian

Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? No

(Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters)

Description of Information Sought

Please refer to judgments of the CAT, Ernakulam Branch in OA No. 715 of 2012, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 6567 of 2015 delivered on 20.2.2015 and dismissal of the UoI Review Petition No. 2565 of 2015 on 25.8.2015 on merit and delay in the subject matter of applicability of full pension for those served more than 20 years but less than 33 years.

Please provide a photocopy of the DP & PW order issued subsequent to the dismissal of the Review Petition in compliance with the orders of the Courts

to implement the judgment.

Concerned CPIO Nodal Officer

Supporting document (only pdf upto 1 MB) Supporting document not provided

Online RTI Request Form Details

RTI Request Details:-

RTI Request Registration number DEXSW/R/2015/60477

Public Authority Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-

Deleted by author

Request Details:-

Citizenship Indian

Is the Requester Below Poverty Line? No

(Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters)

Description of Information Sought

Please refer to judgments of the CAT, Ernakulam Branch in OA No. 715 of 2012, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 6567 of 2015 delivered on 20.2.2015 and dismissal of the UoI Review Petition No. 2565 of 2015 on 25.8.2015 on merit and delay in the subject matter of applicability of full pension for those served more than 20 years but less than 33 years.

Shri M.O.Inasu & Another, petitioners/respondents were Ex-Servicemen.

Please provide a photocopy of the MoD order issued subsequent to the dismissal of the Review Petition in compliance with the orders of the Courts to implement the judgment.

Concerned CPIO Nodal Officer

Supporting document (only pdf upto 1 MB) Supporting document not provided

*                      *                      *                      *                      *                     

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam

O.A No. 715/12 & O.A No. 1051/12

M.O. Inasu & Anr vs Union of India on 16 August, 2013

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ERNAKULAM BENCH

Original Application No. 715 of 2012

w i t h

Original Application No. 1051 of 2012

Friday, this the 16th day of August, 2013

CORAM:

      HON'BLE Dr. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      HON'BLE Mr. K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1.    O.A No.715/12

M.O Inasu

Deputy Office Superintendent (Retd.), Central Excise

Manjaly House, Kangarapady, Vadakode P.O

Cochin - 682 021                                                                              - Applicant

(By Advocate Mr. C.S.G Nair)

             Versus

1.    Union of India

      Represented by the Secretary

      Ministry of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare

      North Block, New Delhi - 110 001

2.    Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

      Central Revenue Buildings

      I.S Press Road, Cochin - 682 018

3.    Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

      Central Revenue Buildings

      I.S Press Road, Cochin - 682 018

4.    Pay and Accounts Officer

      Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings

      I.S Press Road, Cochin - 682 018

5.    Pay and Accounts Officer

      Central Pension Accounting Office

      Trikoot II Complex, Bhikajicama Place

      R.K Puram, New Delhi - 110 066                                    - Respondents

(By Advocate Mr.George Joseph, ACGSC)

2.     O.A No.1051/12

K.Ramachandran Unnithan

Deputy Office Superintendent (Retd.), Central Excise

Medayil House (Jyothis), Parakode P.O

Pathanamthitta District - 691 554                                                   -    Applicant

(By Advocate Mr.C.S.G Nair)

              Versus

1.     Union of India

       Represented by the Secretary

       Ministry of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare

       North Block, New Delhi - 110 001

2.     Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

       Central Revenue Buildings

       I.S Press Road, Cochin - 682 018

3.     Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

       Central Excise Division

       Kottayam

4.     Pay and Accounts Officer

       Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings

       I.S Press Road, Cochin - 682 018

5.     Pay and Accounts Officer

       Central Pension Accounting Office

       Trikoot II Complex, Bhikajicama Place

       R.K Puram, New Delhi - 110 066                                      -   Respondents

(By Advocate Mr. George Joseph, ACGSC)

       These applications having been heard on 08.08.2013, the Tribunal on

16.08.2013 delivered the following:

                                    O R D E R

HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

 These O.As were filed by Ex-servicemen who are pre-2006 pensioners.

As they did not have 33 years of qualifying service even after counting their military service, they were granted only pro-rata pension. They had approached this Tribunal claiming revised rates of pension on the basis of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission to the extent accepted by the Central Government. This Tribunal considered whether pre-2006 retirees can claim 50% of the minimum of the pay in the relevant Pay Band plus grade Pay even if they do not have 33 years of qualifying service and dismissed the O.As vide order dated 22.01.2013. The order of this Tribunal was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) Nos.

898/2013 and 1409/2013 vide judgement dated 04.06.2013. The Hon'ble High Court directed that this Tribunal should rehear the applicants and consider entries at Sl. Nos. 2 and 12 of the Resolution No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 of the Ministry of Finance. The prayers in O.A. No. 715/2012 which is taken as the representative O.A, are as under:

(i)      Issue of Annexure A-7 is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to set aside on the ground that the applicants are entitled for revised pension as per para 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008;

(ii)    One is entitled for full pension on completion of 20 years service instead of 33 years. Applicant has more than 26 years of service and as such he is entitled for full pension;

(iii)   In para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008, there is no stipulation of any minimum period of service for eligibility of pension @ 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the post from which the pensioner had retired. According to para 4.2, it is made clear that the pension should in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, denial of 50% f the pay as basic pension is illegal and arbitrary.

(iv)    The Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had quashed the OM dated 03.10.1998 and 14.10.1998 and as such those Oms are no more in force.

Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is applicable to the applicant also as it is a judgement in rem.

2. The parties were heard and the documents perused.

3. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had observed that the entire discussion and conclusion of this Tribunal in order dated 22.01.2013 in O.A. Nos. 715/2012 and 1051/2012 revolve on the claim of 50% of the minimum of the pay in the relevant Pay Band plus Grade Pay even if they do not have 33 years of qualifying service. The Tribunal failed to consider the entries 2 and 12 of the Government's Resolution dated 29.08.2008, which are reproduced as under:

   S. No.                Recommendation                                            Decision of Govt

     2        Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying             Accepted

service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant (5.1.33).

12 All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit Accepted with the equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of modification that merger of 50% Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief as fixation of pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after shall be based on 01.04.2004) and Dearness Pension (for other a multiplication pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed factor of 1.86, i.e. by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of basic pension plus Dearness Relief /Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pension Pension/Dearness Pay. Consequently, dearness relief (wherever applicable at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of cable) plus Dearness merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing Dearness Relief of 24% revised pension as on 01.01.2006. This is consistent as on 1.1.2006, with the fitment benefit of 1.86 being allowed in case of the instead of 1.74 for existing employees. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty per cent 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 supplied)

4. The applicants contended that it was clearly stated that in no case, the revised pension should be lower than fifty per cent 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. Hence, irrespective of years of service they should get their pension enhanced to 50% of the revised pay of the post from which they retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. In the order of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 655/2010 and connected cases dated 01.11.2011, it was held that no amendment can be made to the Resolution of the Cabinet by a functionary of the Government in the guise of clarification. This order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1535/2012 and connected cases, vide judgement dated 29.04.2013. Therefore, the respondents are eligible to get the minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay applicable to the Deputy Office Superintendent, the post from which the applicants retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. It was submitted by the applicants that as they did not have 33 years of service, they are entitled pro-rata pension only; but as per para 12 of the O.M. dated 29.08.2008, they are eligible to get their pension raised to 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the post from which they retired, with effect from 01.01.2006.

5. The respondents' contention is that even though para 4.2 of O.M. dated 01.09.2008 [which reiterates para 12 (supra)] states that an employee who retired from service on or before 01.01.2006 is eligible to get pension equivalent to 50% of the last pay drawn, it does not refer to or permit waiver of the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for becoming eligible for full pension. Although the Principal Bench of this Tribunal had quashed O.M. No. F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 03.10.2008 and O.M. No. F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) Pt. Dated 14.10.2008 which clarified the order dated 1.09.2008, vide order dated 01.11.2011 in O.A. No.655/2010; it is not known at present as to whether the Government has accepted the said order of this Tribunal or filed any appeal against the order. As it is admitted by both the parties that the applicants do not have 33 years of qualifying service for becoming eligible for full pension, what remains to be considered is whether they are eligible to get 50 % of minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the post from which they had retired. As admitted by the respondents, the issue has already been settled by the order of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 655/2010, the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:

"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 anther 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.39, 200-67, 000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.9, 000/- with minimum pay of Rs.43, 280/- to Rs.37, 400-67, 000/- 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. O. As are allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to interest and costs."

(emphasis supplied)

6. In the judgement dated 29.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 1535/2012 and connected cases, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:

"7. We find that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding W.P.(C) No.19641/2009 R. K. Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has referred to the decision  impugned by the Tribunal, with reference to an identical question which arose in the State of Haryana because Government of Haryana had adopted the same policy decision of the Central Government. In the decision dated December 21, 2012, in paragraphs 21 to 26, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reasoned as under:-

"21. On the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it was argued before the Tribunal that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. It was argued that 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.

22. The Tribunal has accepted this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 were contrary to the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for determination of the pension had been completely changed that too when these two subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were issued by the lower authorities having no power to issue such clarification.

23. After considering the arguments of learned counsels for all the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not even necessary to go into the various nuances and nitty grittys, which are insisted by learned counsels for the petitioners based on D.S. Nakara line of cases and N. Subbarayudu and others and S.R. Dhingra and others (supra), wherein ratio of D.S. Nakara is explained. We proceed on the basis that fixation of cut off date by the government was in order and to this extent we agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal where similar arguments, as advanced by the petitioners before us, were rejected. The issue can be resolved on the interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself. It is not in dispute that vide resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government, and the pension was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein. We have already reproduced the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications. Based on this resolution, OM dated 01.09.2008 was issued. We have also reproduced para 4.2 thereof. This states in unequivocal terms that "revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------.” The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired. However, notwithstanding the same and without any provocation, the junior functionaries in the Department of Pension nurtured a doubt "though there was none" and note was prepared on that basis, which led to issuance of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The effect of these two OMs was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band. To demonstrate this, Mr. H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing in some of these cases drew our attention to the following chart:-

Min of  Pre- revised scale	Pay in the Pay Band	Grade Pay	Revised      Basic Pay	Pension 50%
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 (17300)	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. 27,350 which has been reduced to Rs. 23,700 as per DOP OM of 03.10.2008 (para 4.8 (B) below).

24. As per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14,300/- is shown as 37,400/-. 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. 23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay Rs. 8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, 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 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of Rs. 37,400/- plus grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-).

25. This has arisen because of resolution dated 29.08.2008 and has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008. This aspect is beautifully demonstrated by the Tribunal in its Full Bench judgement in the following manner with which we are entirely agree:

"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. Para 4.2 of OM OM DOP&PW OM No. 38/37/8-P&PW DOP&PW OM No. 38/37/8-P&PW(A) dated (A) dated 38/37/8-P&PW(A) 03.10.2008 29.08.2008 - dated 01.09.2008 Para 5.1.47 (page (page 38 of OA) 154-155) The fixation as The fixation as per The Pension Calculated at 50% per above will be above will be subject of the [sum of the] minimum of subject to the to the provision 'that the pay in the pay band [and provision 'that the revised pension, the grade pay thereon revised pension, in no case, shall be corresponding to the pre- in no case, shall lower than 50% of revised pay scale] plus grade be lower than the (sum of the) pay would be calculated (i) at 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay the minimum of the pay in the minimum of in the pay band plus pay band (irrespective of the pay in the pay (and) the grade pay pre-revised scale of pay plus) band and the (thereon) corresponding the grade pay corresponding to grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. For corresponding to pre-revised pay scale example, if a pensioner had the pre- revised from which the retired in the pre-revised scale pay scale form pensioner had of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the which the retired corresponding pay band being pensioner had Rs.37400-67000 and the retired corresponding grade pay being Rs. 10000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension

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."

26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that "the fixation of pension 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 from which the pensioner had retired", this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per  6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost."

8. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not burden ourselves any further. We conclude by noting that as regards the substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government accepts its correctness, but insists to make the same applicable prospectively.

9. The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is upheld but without any order as to costs."

(emphasis supplied)

7. In the light of the above, the settled law is that in no case the pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. It means that pension of a pre-2006 retiree has to be first calculated taking into account the revised pay in the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pay scale from which he retired proportionate to the length of his service and then find what is 50% of the minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay and fix higher of the two as his pension. Hence the applicants are eligible to get the minimum pension in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent, the post from which they had retired, with effect from 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the O.As are allowed as under.

 8. The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the applicants specifying the pension on the basis of Para 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, i.e. 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of the Deputy Office Superintendent and also corresponding family pension and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pension within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

                  (Dated, the 16th August, 2013)

  (K. GEORGE JOSEPH)                                       (Dr. K B S RAJAN)

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

cvr.

ITEM NO.5                                    COURT NO.8                      SECTION XIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2014

CC No(s). 21044/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07/01/2014

in OPCAT No. 8/2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at

Ernakulam)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                          Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M O INASU                                                                          Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)

Date : 20/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv.

Mr. R.K. Verma,Adv.

Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition, which is dismissed.

(NARENDRA PRASAD)                                         (SHARDA KAPOOR)

COURT MASTER                                                     COURT MASTER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

R.P.(C) NO. 2565/2015
IN
SLP(C) NO. 6567/2015

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. … PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

M. O. INASU … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Upon perusing the paper book, it has come to our notice that there is a delay of 136 days in filing this review petition and we do not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay.

Even on merits, we have perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this review petition.

The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

……………………………J.
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

……………………………J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2015.08.28
14:54:57 IST