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".
Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/finance-minister-nirmala-sitharaman-replies-to-the-debate-on-finance-bill-2025/article69373170.ece
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 ..... Respondent
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 8080/2016
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.P.Singh, Central Govt. Senior Panel Counsel.
versus
ALL INDIA S-30 PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K.Behera, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON'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-Ã -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
* * * * * * *
