Last Updated on October 30, 2021 by Satish Mishra
The post covers Pension Refixation Case CAT Chandigarh wherein court dismissed on ground of limitation & merit as amended rules were for in service officials not retired.
The pay commission doesn’t only affect the salary, it also affects the pension. In this case study, the applicant sought for change of his pension based on various notification by the respondents. The applicant plead by submitting various letters and notification of the respondent, which however did not help as all of them came into effect after the date of his retirement. The Respondent argued that applicant is barred from time. Tribunal accepts this as it violates Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which states that which provides that a tribunal will not admit an application if that application is regarding the final order made by government or other authority rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance unless it is admitted within one year of date on which such final order has been made and if no final order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person has been made, a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. Here the applicant who got retired on 31.5.1993 and the applicant is claiming re-fixation of pension subsequent to 6th Pay Commission right from 1.1.2006 onwards leading to delay of 13 years.
Also Read- THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Surinder Kumar Sharma vs Union of India
Applicant
- Surinder Kumar Sharma
Respondent
- Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways
- Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Northern Railways
- Senior Finance Manager, Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Also Read-Supreme Court recalls 2019 order on employee pension
Brief summary in the application
The applicant who is now of the age 78 years was a Group `C’ employee in the Northern Railways who got promoted to Group `B’ Gazetted for the post of Accounts Officer. Thereafter, the applicant was posted as Assistant Divisional Accounts Officer. The applicant joined on 27.5.1992 with the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 and retired on 31.5.1993 on attaining the age of superannuation which is 58 years. On 6.11.1995 the pay scale of Group `B’ officers was revised to Rs.2375-3750 and on 5.2.1998, Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, were amended and according to the amendment, the revised scale S-14 will be operated to the extent of 20% of the total Group `B’ cadre strength of Accounts Department and the revised scale S-15 will be operated to the extent of 80% of the total Group `B’ cadre strength of the Accounts Department. it was also stated that these Amendment Rules have been given retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 and will not adversely affect any employee to whom these rules apply. The applicant has argued that the in notification dated 9.2.1998 cadre strength has been replaced in the Amendment Rules by the words “Officers on rolls”. The grievance began when revised PPO was issued on 1.10.2013 after implementation of 6th CPC with effect from 1.1.2006. the applicant was entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 but revised pension of the applicant was fixed with Rs.7450-11500 with grade pay of Rs.4600/-. The applicant in this regard submitted the notification submitted by Railway Board in which present pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 has been mentioned against the post of Assistant Account Officer Group `B’ Gazetted and the grade pay has been shown as Rs.5400/-. Due to his old age, it is very difficult for the applicant to collect all the documents, the applicant however has submitted the first letter that was send to the respondents and the letter to the railway minister. The applicant further have received a Pension Payment Order in which the details of pay fixation right from 4th Pay Commission to 7th Pay Commission was given. The applicant was placed in Level 7 after implementation of 7th Pay Commission. However, Group `B’ (Gazetted Officers) are placed in Level-9. The applicant has been going through many governmental departments including Railway Ministry and Financial Adviser & Chief Account Officer. The Applicant sought
- re-fixation of his revised pension as on 1.1.2006 in the scale of S-14 instead of S-13
- fixation of pension with effect from 1.1.2016 as well as payment of arrears along with interest @ 12%.
- compensation of Rs.30000/ for litigation expenses
- compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ for mental harassment.
Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal directs Centre to refix pension …
Plea by The Respondent
The applicant was retired on 31.5.1993 in the pay-scale of Rs.2375-3500 and was drawing pay of Rs.2975/. The applicant sought re-fixation of his revised pension as on 1.1.2006 on the basis of his pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 as per his original Pension Payment Order in the scale of S-14 instead of S-13. The pay scale mentioned in the 5th pay commission was Rs.7450-11500 and it was fixed with that pay scale for the applicant as Rs.7500-12000 mentioned in Pension Payment Order was a typographical error. The applicant can take benefits from the mistake mentioned in the Pension Payment Order. It is a settled law that respondents are entitled to amend the mistake at any time and as held in Jagdish Prajapat vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1998(2) A.T.J. Page 286) that any action in departure to the statutory rule confers no right much less any vested right to claim the benefit of the same nor the said illegal erroneous action can be allowed to perpetuated. In Anand Prakash vs State of Punjab (2005(4) R.S.J. Page 749) and Raj Kumar Batra vs State of Haryana (1992(1) S.C.T. Page 129), it was laid down that when a mistake is detected, the authority is within his right to rectify a mistake and in Chandigarh Administration vs Narang Singh (J.T. 1997(3) S.C. Page 536), Honourable Supreme Court held that a mistake can be corrected at any time.
Also Read- Revision of Pension – पेंशन और पेंशनरों के कल्याण विभाग
The applicant was barred from limitation as the applicant was drawing his pension since 1.6.1993 and the first grievance that was made by him was in 2016 which is barred from the period of limitation.
The applicant is misleading the Tribunal as the documents presented by him which includes
- Railway Board letter dated 6.11.1995, in this no benefit of instructions can be drawn as it came into effect on 30.7.1993 whereas applicant retired on 31.5.1993
- notification of Revised Pay Amendment Rules dated 5.2.1998, it came into effect from 1.1.1996 was applicable for in-service officers.
The Original Application should be dismissed on the on the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence the applicant has been drawing pension pursuant to PPO dated 1.10.2013 and no dispute or grievance was ever raised by him.
Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal vs Union Of India
Observation by The Tribunal
The applicant is relying upon Railway Board letter dated 6.11.1995, however it is mentioned there that it came into effect from 30.7.1993 whereas the applicant retired on 31.5.1993. in addition to that, it is applicable for in-service officers. The next document applicant relied upon was Revised Pay Amendment Rules dated 5.2.1998 which came into effect on 1.1.1996 is only applicable for in service officers. These instructions even talk of 80% of the total Group `B’ cadre strength to be in higher scale of S-15 and 20% in the lower scale of S-14. Such differentiation is not possible for retired officers. In the notification dated 9.2.1998, “Cadre Strength” appearing in the Amendment Rules has been replaced by the words “Officer on rolls”. Hence it becomes crystal clear that the Amended Rules were meant for officers in service and not for retired officers.
As mentioned by the respondent, the pay scale was Rs.7500-12000 and there was a typographical error and respondents are within their rights to correct.
The filing of the application is also late by 13 years as he is claiming re-fixation of pension subsequent to 6th Pay Commission right from 1.1.2006 onwards. And hence barred from time as not permissible under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The Original Application deserved to be dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit and the applicant does not deserve any relief.
Also Read- Thomas Pothan vs D/O Post on 23 October, 2018
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
This post is written by Digant Das.
More on 99888-17966.
