High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petition dismissed.
R GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR v Union of India & Others (OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023)
Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Muhammed Mustaque
- Shoba Annamma Eapen
- Judgment Date
- 2024-04-11
- Court Decision / Holding
- Original petition dismissed; tribunal’s order upheld.
- Final Disposition
- Original petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- R GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Respondents
- Union of India
- General Manager, Southern Railway
- Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Southern Railway
- Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K.G. Pramod Kumar (Adv)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. T.V. VinU (Central Government Counsel)
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioner, R GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, a retired Chief Clerk of Southern Railway, challenges Ext.P7 (02.02.2023) of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s OA No.180/00516/2019. He retired on 31.01.1991 in the pay scale 1600-50-60-2660. The post was redesignated as Office Superintendent Grade II in 1994. After the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the post scale was revised to 5500-9000, with pension revised proportionately until 30.09.2008, after which pension was revised per the VIth CPC. Annex A6 notes a pension of Rs.2,750 (50% of Rs.5,500). The petitioner contends that pension ought to have been calculated on the revised pay scale applicable to the redesigned post (Office Superintendent Grade II), arguing the redesignation, along with subsequent pay revisions, should yield a higher pension (reflecting the pre-revised-to-revised scale transition). The respondents contend that pension is fixed on the corresponding scale of pay from which the pensioner retired; redesignation after retirement cannot trigger a further revision. The High Court relies on the apex court’s decision in K.S. Krishnaswamy (2006) 13 SCC 215 that the relevant base is the pre-revised scale at retirement, not the post from which the retirement was drawn, to determine minimum revised pension. It also references related CAT rulings (e.g., Krishnaswamy’s 2019 matter) for consistency. The court ultimately upholds the tribunal’s reasoning and dismisses the petition, declining relief to the petitioner.
Provisions of Law Cited
Vth Central Pay Commission recommendationsVIth Central Pay Commission recommendationsPay scale fixation principles for pension under central government pay revisionsOffice of Superintendent Grade II pay scale and its redesignation policies in RailwaysK.S. Krishnaswamy & Others v. Union of India & Another, (2006) 13 SCC 215
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Pension has to be refixed corresponding to the scale of pay in which the pensioner was drawing at retirement, not the post after redesignation.
- Increase in pay scale under Pay Commission recommendations translates to an increase in the corresponding pay scale, not the post to which the pensioner belonged at retirement.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the redesignation of Chief Clerk to Office Superintendent Grade II in 1994, and the subsequent broad-based revisions under the Fifth and VIth Central Pay Commissions, warranted pension revision premised on the revised pay scale applicable to Office Superintendent Grade II. He argues that the pre-revised scale at retirement should anchor pension computation, and the higher post-redesignation scale should not be used to depress or enhance pension arbitrarily. Annexures show the revised pension details and communications that allegedly support a higher entitlement, which were not duly considered. The petitioner seeks revision of pension beyond what was paid up to 2008 and beyond, arguing misapplication of pay revision rules and failure to consider complete pay history, including the VIth CPC step-up.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents maintain pension is fixed on the corresponding scale of pay from which pensioner retired, not on the post-designation scale. Since the petitioner retired in 1991, the redesignation occurred later (1994) and the VIth CPC revision is calculated on the pre-revised pay scale relevant to retirement, the petitioner is not entitled to any further pension revision due to redesignation. Tribunal’s reasoning is that pension fixation must align with the pre-revised scale at retirement, and post-retirement designation/upgradation does not entitle fresh revision.
Cited Precedents (7)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| K.S. Krishnaswamy & Others v. Union of India & Another | (2006) 13 SCC 215 | Positive | The court relies on Krishnaswamy to hold that pension fixation depends on the pre-revised scale at retirement, not the upgraded post, to determine the minimum revised pension. |
| K.S. Krishnaswamy & Others v. Union of India & Another (2019 Kerala CAT decision) | 2019:KER:55156 O.P.(CAT) 198/2017 & conn. | Positive | Cited to support the principle that an increase in pay scale triggers a corresponding increase in the pay scale, not the post; aligns with the Krishnaswamy principle and corroborates the reasoning used. |
| Judgment of Supreme Court dated 27-08-2007 in Civil Appeal No. 2468, 2469 of 2005 | Supreme Court | Mentioned Only | Exhibited in Appendix; referenced but not discussed in the core reasoning. |
| Judgment of Supreme Court dated 09-09-2008 in Civil Appeal No. 5566 of 2008 | Supreme Court | Mentioned Only | Exhibited; cited but not analyzed in the judgment's main reasoning. |
| Judgment of Supreme Court dated 11-07-2019 in Civil Appeal No.10857 of 2016 | Supreme Court | Mentioned Only | Exhibited; referenced but not central to the decision. |
| Judgment of Karnataka High Court dated 13-09-2019 in W.P. No. 13442 of 2018 (S-CAT) and Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Benches OA 170/00634/2016 | Karnataka HC 2019 | Mentioned Only | Exhibited; cited but not analyzed in the main judgment. |
| Exhibit - P19 (Order of Supreme Court dated 26-03-2012 in SLP (C) No. 11262 of 2012) and related Punjab & Haryana High Court decision | Supreme Court SLP 2012; CWP 9581-CAT 2011 | Mentioned Only | Exhibited as part of record; not central to the core reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against R GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR v Union of India & Others (OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 OP (CAT) NO. 66 OF 2023**
**ORDER DATED 02.02.2023 IN OA 180/00516/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL**
## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:**
**R GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 90 YEARS S/O LATE K. R. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAARADAKKETHIL, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689623**
**BY ADV K.G.PRAMOD KUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
**1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ,MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI., PIN - 600003 3 SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014 4 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS' WELFARE,**
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
**==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
**3RD FLOOR,LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110003**
**BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.VINU, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL (B/O)**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON**
**19.01.2024, THE COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..3..
## JUDGMENT
## SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
This original petition has been filed by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging Ext.P7 order of the tribunal dated 02.02.2023 in OA No.180/00516/2019.
2. The petitioner/applicant retired from the services of the Southern Railway as “Chief Clerk” in the scale of pay of Rs.1600-50-60-2660 on superannuation on 31.01.1991. The post of “Chief Clerk” was a specified category post, to which he was promoted through a selection process. The petitioner is aggrieved by the reckoning of a lower scale for his revision of pension with effect from 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016. The post of “Chief Clerk” was redesignated as “Office Superintendent Grade II” with effect from 05.08.1994 as recommended by the IVth Central Pay Commission. However, there was no change in the duties and responsibilities; and the pay scale continued as Rs.1600-2660 even after the redesignation. Thereafter, pursuant to the Vth Central Pay
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
**==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
Commission recommendations, the scale of pay for the post was revised to Rs.5500-9000; and the pension of the petitioner was revised proportionate to the pay revision brought into force and he continued to receive it at that rate till 30.09.2008, the date on which, pension was revised proportionate to the next revision of pension as per VIth Central Pay Commission recommendation. As per Annex.A6 communication dated 28.07.2000, the third respondent revised the pension of the petitioner as Rs.2,750/-, i.e., 50% of Rs.5,500/-. According to the petitioner, the revised pension on implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission recommendations is to be calculated as 50% of the sum of minimum pay of the pre-revised pay scale multiplied by the multiplicand of 1.86 added to the grade pay of Rs.4,200/-. Thus, the petitioner ought to have received more than what was paid to him. Though the petitioner filed several representations, the same were not considered by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the original application was filed before the tribunal; and the tribunal, after elaborate consideration of the issue, dismissed the original application, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get any further amount than what was paid to him since the revision of
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
**==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
pension is on the basis of the last pay scale. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner/applicant is before this Court with the original petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post of “Chief Clerk” was redesignated as “Office Superintendent Grade II” with effect from 05.08.1994 and the Vth Central Pay Commission enhanced the scale of pay of “Chief Clerk” and “Office Superintendent Grade II” to 16402900, which was revised to 5500-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996. The scale of pay was common to “Chief Clerk” and “Office Superintendent Grade II”. It is further submitted that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner ought to have been revised on the basis of the revised pay scale granted to the “Office Superintendent Grade II”.
4. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the revised pension is calculated on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay, from which the pensioner had retired. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who retired on 30.01.1991 from the post of “Chief Clerk” in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 corresponding to Rs.5000-8000 in the Vth pay Commission, is not entitled to get further revision of pension and cannot claim revision of
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
**==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
pension based on subsequent redesignation of the post of Chief Clerk as Officer Superintendent Grade II.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner retired as “Chief Clerk” on 30.01.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 and the said post of “Chief Clerk” was redesignated as “Office Superintendent Grade II” with effect from 05.08.1994. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the Vth Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented, the scale of pay of “Chief Clerk” and “Office Superintendent Grade II” was enhanced to 1640-2900 and hence, the basic pension of the petitioner was also enhanced to Rs.2,750/- with effect from 01.01.1996.
7. Learned Central Government Counsel, on this point, submitted that the basic pension of Rs.2,750/-, which was paid to the petitioner up to 30.09.2008 as per the Vth Central Pay Revision recommendations, was the amount rounded off from Rs.2,743/- and not the 50% of pay scale of Rs.5500–9000. It was further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the revised pay granted in respect of the post of “Office Superintendent Grade II” since
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
**==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
the petitioner retired from service from the post of “Chief Clerk” on 30.01.1991 and the redesignation occurred only in the year 1994. It is pointed out that in the VIth Central Pay Revision, the petitioner was granted a basic pension of Rs.6,750/- in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. According to the learned Central Government Counsel, the petitioner cannot be granted a revision of pension corresponding to the pay scale of “Office Superintendent Grade II” after each pay revision on redesignation of the post of “Chief Clerk”.
8. Admittedly, the last drawn salary of the petitioner was in pay scale of Rs.1660-2660. It is after three years of his retirement that the post of “Chief Clerk” was redesignated as “Office Superintendent Grade II”. It is a settled position that pension has to be refixed corresponding to the scale of pay and not corresponding to the post. The tribunal relied on the decision of the apex court in K.S.Krishnaswamy & others v. Union of India & another [(2006) 13 SCC 215] while deciding the issue, wherein it has been held that for calculating the minimum revised pension, it is the pre-revised scale of pay, in which the pensioner concerned was drawing pay at the time of retirement, that is relevant and not the post from which the pensioner concerned retired so as to identify the minimum
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
**==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
pay in the corresponding pay band and Grade Pay attached to the post from which he retired.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of the case in K.S.Krishnaswamy (supra) are not applicable in this case since in the case in hand, the post of “Superintendent Grade II” was not an upgraded post, but only a redesignated post, whereas in K.S.Krishnaswamy (supra), the pensioners claimed revision based on the scale of the posts upgraded after their retirement.
10. The question as to whether a pensioner can claim revision of pension based on the subsequent re-designation and upgradation of the scale of pay of the post that he/she held at the time of retirement has been considered by this Court in OP(CAT) No.198 of 2017 and connected cases; and this Court, relying on K.S.Krishnaswamy (supra), held as follows;
22. ……… what is relevant is whether an increase in pay scale is recommended by the pay commission as regards the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay in which the retiree concerned was drawing pay at the time of his retirement to decide the entitlement of revision of pension pursuant to the Government decision on the implementation of the recommendations of any Pay Commission Report. In the light of the exposition of law by the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case, an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of pay commission can cause increase in the scale of pay and in that matter it is not the post that is to be looked into, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had gone wrong in holding otherwise. The fact that the Apex Court held while
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..9..
dealing with Government's decision on the recommendations of the Vth CPC will not make the same inapplicable in regard to government decision on the recommendations of the VIth CPC……
## xxxxxxxx
26. …………… The words 'corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' invite no further interpretation especially in the light of the decision in Krishnaswamy's case 2019:KER:55156 O.P.(CAT) 198/2017 & conn. 60 (supra). As already noticed, the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case held that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a Pay Commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale and not of the post.
11. Therefore, it can be held that the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.01.1991, cannot claim revision of pension based on subsequent re-designation and upgradation of the scale of pay of the post that he held at the time of retirement. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal.
Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.
## SD/-
## A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
## JUDGE
SD/-
## SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
## JUDGE
bka/-
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..10..
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 66/2023**
## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES**
|**Annexure - A8**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISED PENSION**|
|---|---|
||**PAYMENT ADVICE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT**|
||**ON 18.9.2012.**|
|**Annexure - A18**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED**|
||**08.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**Annexure - A1**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PENSION PAYMENT**|
||**ORDER DATED 1.2.1991.**|
|**Annexure - A2**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION**|
||**DATED 12.2.2013. MADE BY PRAMOD KUMAR**|
||**K.G. UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT**|
|**Annexure - A3**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 2.3.2013**|
||**TO ANNEXURE-A2 UNDER RIGHT TO**|
||**INFORMATION ACT.**|
|**Annexure - A4**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PB CIRCULAR NO.65/94**|
||**ISSUED ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-A3 REPLY.**|
|**Annexure - A5**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESOLUTION NO.**|
||**50(1)/IC/97 DATED 30-09-1997**|
|**Annexure - A6**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION**|
||**NO.P500/TVC/P/0604202278**<br>**DATED**|
||**28.07.2000.**|
|**Annexure - A7**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT**|
||**ISSUED FROM ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF**|
||**TRAVANCORE, THE PENSION DISBURSING**|
||**BANK, FOR THE PERIOD TILL FEBRUARY**|
||**2016.**|
|**Annexure - A9**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**06.02.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THIRD**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**Annexure - A10**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REJECTION ORDER**|
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..11..
**DATED 06.02.2013 BY THIRD RESPONDENT.**
**Annexure - A11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION RBE NO.138/1997 DATED 16.10.1997 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS.**
- **Annexure - A12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.03.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THIRD RESPONDENT.**
- **Annexure - A13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.**
**Annexure - A14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 09.01.2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN OA 947/2017.**
- **Annexure - A15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 04.02.2019 REGARDING REVISION OF PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS.**
- **Annexure - A16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.**
- **Annexure - A17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.**
- **Annexure - A19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED PENSION PAYMENT ADVICE DATED 26.02.2019.**
- **Annexure - A20 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2016 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGHCOURT OF KERALA IN PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER (REVENUE) RFA BARRACKS V. N.R. PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI IN O.P.(CAT) NO. 169/2015.**
- **Annexure - A21 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF R.T.I. APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2018 MADE BY PRAMOD KUMAR K.G. BEFORE THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER - RTI ACT,**
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..12..
||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI.**|
|---|---|
|**Annexure - A22**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANNEXURE-**|
||**A21.**|
|**Annexure - R1**|**TRUE COPY OF RBE CIRCULAR NO. 160/2001**|
||**DATED 20-08-2001**|
|**Annexure - R2**|**TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR**|
||**NO.RBE 138/1997 DATED 16-10-1997**|
|**Annexure - R3**|**TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.RBE**|
||**38/37/08 P&PW (A) DATED 14-10-2008**|
|**Annexure - A23**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM**|
||**NO.38/37/08-P&PW(A) DATED 30.7.2015.**|
|**Annexure - A24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**|
||**RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MINISTERIAL**|
||**STAFF IN RAILWAYS IN THE FIFTH CENTRAL**|
||**PAY COMMISSION REPORT.**|
|**Annexure - A25**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF**|
||**THE LNDIAN RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT**|
||**MANUAL.**|
|**Annexure - A26**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES**|
||**OF THE FIFTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION**|
||**REPORT INCORPORATING 'CONCEPT OF**|
||**PARITY IN PENSION'.**|
|**Annexure - A27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE**|
||**SIXTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REPORT**|
||**INCORPORATING THE REVISED PAY SCALE AS**|
||**ON 01-01-2006.**|
|**Annexure - I**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO F.NO.45/86/97-**|
||**P&PW(A)- PART LL DT.27-10-1997**|
|**Annexure - II**|**JUDGEMENT IN K S KRISHNASWAMY & OTHERS**|
||**VS UNION OF LNDIA AND ANOTHER, 2006**|
||**KHC 1772**|
|**Exhibit - P1**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL**|
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..13..
**APPLICATION DATED 01-07-2019 IN O.A. NO. 180/00516/2019.**
|**Exhibit - P2**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT**|
|---|---|
||**DATED**<br>**20-01-2021**<br>**IN**<br>**O.A.**<br>**NO.**|
||**180/00516/2019.**|
|**Exhibit - P3**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED**|
||**23-07-2021 IN O.A. NO. 180/00516/2019**|
|**Exhibit - P4**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'ARGUMENT NOTES'**|
||**DATED 07-04-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE**|
||**COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT IN O.A. NO.**|
||**180/00516/2019.**|
|**Exhibit - P5**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'DETAILED**|
||**ARGUMENTS' DATED 07-04-2022 SUBMITTED**|
||**BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT IN**|
||**O.A. NO. 180/ 00516/2019.**|
|**Exhibit - P6**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 'ARGUMENT NOTES'**|
||**DATED 22-06-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE**|
||**COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A.**|
||**NO. 180/00516/2019**|
|**Exhibit - P7**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 02-**|
||**02-2023 OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL**|
||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.**|
||**180/00516/2019.**|
|**Exhibit - P8**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF**|
||**SERVICE REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER.**|
|**Exhibit - P9**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF**|
||**INDIAN RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE**|
||**(VOL-I).**|
|**Exhibit - P10**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION**|
||**DATED 09-07-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE**|
||**PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION**|
||**ACT AND THE REPLY DATED 08-08-2022**|
||**PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PENSION**|
||**AND PENSIONERS' WELFARE.**|
|**Exhibit - P11**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF FIFTH**|
OP(CAT) No.66 of 2023
..14..
## **CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REPORT.**
**Exhibit - P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD ORDER NO. 98E(GC)12-14(85) DATED 3006-1999.**
**Exhibit - P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 27-082007 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2468, 2469 OF 2005.**
**Exhibit - P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SIXTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REPORT.**
**Exhibit - P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SEVENTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REPORT. Exhibit - P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 09-092008 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5566 OF 2008.**
**Exhibit - P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 11-072019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10857 OF 2016.**
**Exhibit - P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DATED 13-09-2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13442 OF 2018 (S-CAT) AND THE ORDERS DATED 28-04-2017 OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN O.A. NO. 170/00634/2016.**
**Exhibit - P19 EXT. P19 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 26-03-2012 IN SLP (C ) NO. 11262 OF 2012 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 24-08-2011 IN CWP NO. 9581-CAT OF 2011.**