In this post we will discuss about an Application for Revision of Pension in Armed Forces Tribunal for revision in his Pension as per the last rank (JWO) held by him and not as per a sergeant.
Revision in Pension according to Last Rank
In this post we will discuss about an Original Petition filed by an Applicant for revision in his Pension as per the last rank (JWO) held by him and not as per a sergeant.
Facts of the case
Applicant
Ex JWO Kuldip Rai
Respondent
Union of India &Ors.
Bench
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE AIR MARSHAL B.B.P. SINHA, MEMBER (A)
Court
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18thJanuary, 2021.
OA 91/2021 WITH MA 103/2021
Timeline of events
Last Rank held by Applicant:01.01.1996
Date of Decision: 18.01.2021
ALSO READ- ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ENHANCED PENSION CASE
Issues and controversies involved
The present OA has been filed by the applicant praying for revision of his pension in accordance with the last rank held by him before retirement, i.e. Junior Warrant Officer (WO) on the basis of Govt. of India circular dated 09.02.2001, wherein it has been clarified that ten months continuous service in the last rank held is not required for grant of pension in such rank. In this regard, reference is made to orders of this Tribunal(Principal Bench) in /WO Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (O.A. No. 1166 of 2017) and JWO Ashok Kumar Tanwar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 882 of2016). The applicant has also referred to the order of the Tribunal (Regional Bench) Chennai in the matter of Thiagrajan Vs. Union of India & others (O.A. No. 93 of 2014), which waived-off the ten months as stipulated in Para 123 of Pension Regulations for Air Force 1961 and opined that “pension cannot be deprived to an individual to a rank for which he has already rendered his service and that the applicant had earned his pension in the rank of JWO already, and therefore, Is entitled to be paid pension in the rank of WO. Even if, for some reason, such a pension is found to be less, the applicant is entitled to receive the highest pension he earned already. The said statutory right for pension already earned by the applicant cannot be reduced even if an undertaking is executed by him for the receipt of any lower pension in the rank of }WO.”
Judgements and settled laws
Union of India and others v, Tarsem Singh(2008) 8 SCC 648
Pramod Kumar Singh &Ors. Vs.Union of India (O.A. No. 1166 of 2017)
JWO Ashok Kumar Tanwar & Ors. Vs. Union of India &Ors. (O.A. No. 882 of2016)
Thiagrajan Vs. Union of India & others (O.A. No. 93 of 2014)
D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India [1983 (1) SCC 125]
Gopalakrishnan Vs. Union of India & Others (O.A. No. 62 of2014 decided on 13.02.2015)
ALSO READ- APPLICATION FOR REVISED PENSION OF RETIRED AIR FORCE OFFICER
Findings of court
In consideration of all these issues as well as circulars, the Tribunal, in that case, came to the conclusion that the basis of calculation being pursued in the instant case was detrimental for the pension of petitioner. To this end, we would like to quote Para 14 of the order in the case of /WO P. Gopalakrishnan (supra), which reads as under:
“For appreciating the rival contentions, we have gone through the Tables annexed with Circular 430 issued in pursuance of the policy letters dated 11.11.2008 by the Government of India. As per the Circular 430 in Table 116, we find the revised pension of Sergeant rank who has completed 20 years of service and retired after 01.04.2004 was fixed at Rs.3,694/-. The submission of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel as to the pension of Sergeants who retired on 01.05.2005 shall be Rs.3,694/- is found correct to that extent. However, when we go through the service pension payable to a JWO in Table 116 of Circular 430 having 20 years of service and retired after 01.04.2004 would be Rs.4,711/- and not Rs.3,358/- as put forth by the respondents. Therefore, the pension payable to the applicant as on 13 01.2005 in accordance with the policy letters of the Government of India dated 07.06.1999 and 09.02.2001 would be Rs.4,711/- and not Rs.3,694/-. Similarly, the benefits conferred upon the JWO as per the VI Central Pay Commission recommendations as tabulated in Table 116 of Circular 430 for 20 years of service, we see that the pension payable to the applicant with effect from 01.01.2006 would be Rs.7,100/~- and the revised pension with effect from 01.07.2009 would be Rs.8,720/-. When the benefits conferred upon the Armed Forces personnel on the changed policies have been clearly laid down in the Circular 430 containing several Tables, it ought to have been issued by the respondents without any request from the applicant. However, we find that the applicant had sought for payment of pension in the last held rank on several occasions and it was not heeded. The claim for pension Is a statutory right and the respondents ought to have granted the entitled pension, admittedly, even without issuing any corrigendum in the PPO. This has been reiterated in various communications of the Government. Therefore, the respondents are under the obligation to revise the pension when it is brought to their notice of any defect in granting the pension. However, in this case, the respondents have not acceded to the plea of the applicant even when it was raised immediately after his retirement”.
We find that the respondents need to implement the calculation of revised pension for the applicant as mentioned above, as he is similarly placed to the applicant in JWO P.
ALSO READ- DISABILITY PENSION ROUNDING OFF AFT TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH
Conclusion
Accordingly, the instant OA is allowed. Subject to verification, the respondents are directed as under :
- Calculate the pension of the applicant based on the last held rank by him before retirement i.e. JWO, and in consonance with the principles of calculation that have been upheld in /WO Gopalakrishnan (supra) in this regard; and
- (ii) The applicant will be accordingly issued a fresh Corrigendum PPO in the last rank held by him within four months and arrears paid accordingly, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 6% till actual payment.
This post IS written by Adnan Motiwala.
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert AFT Chandigarh Bench Lawyer Advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali (Punjab & Haryana).
More on 99888-17966.
