High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2016-01-18Dismissed; two months’ time granted to implemen...

Union of India & Others v. N.R. Purushothaman Pillai

Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT) No.169 of 2015 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Sureendran Mohan
P. V. Asma
Judgment Date: 2016-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: This Original Petition is dismissed. The court notes that the computation of pension has to be 50% of the pay scale applicable to the post (not the pre-upgrade scale at retirement) and grants two months’ time from today to implement the CAT order.
Final Disposition: Dismissed; two months’ time granted to implement CAT directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

N.R. Purushothaman Pillai

Respondents

Pay & Accounts Officer (Revenue) RFA Barracks, Church Road, Hutments New Delhi
Chief Controller Central Pension Accounting Office, Trikoot II Complex Bhikaji Cama Place, RK Puram, New Delhi-110 066
Additional Director Directorate of Enforcement, Shastri Bhavan, No.26 Haddows Road, Chennai-6
Union of India represented by its Secretary Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, South Block, New Delhi-110 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair
• Chandini G. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• N. Nagareesh (Assistant Solicitor General)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Union of India and allied respondents challenge a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order in OA No.1135/2013 that directed refixation of pension for N.R. Purushothaman Pillai, an Enforcement Officer (retired) who served prior to the 6th Pay Commission upgradation. Pillai retired on 30.06.1990; after his retirement the post was upgraded in 2004, with the pay scale rising to 9300-34800 and a grade pay of 4200. He sought pension at 50% of the upgraded pay, a claim the CAT allowed. The petitioners contend that upgradation benefits accrue only to those in service on the date of upgradation, and that the CAT erred by applying the post’s current upgraded scale for pension calculation. Respondents’ counsel argues that pension computation must follow the 50% of the scale applicable to the post, not the pre-upgradation scale, and cites several judicial authorities supporting this approach. The petitioner relies on a line of decisions (Delhi High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Patna High Court, and Asger Ibrahim Amin v. LIC of India) that the 50% pension formula must be based on the scale of the post rather than on the scale at retirement. After examining authorities, the High Court holds the settled position by these judgments and dismisses the petition, granting two months for compliance with the CAT order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Central Civil Services Pension Rules5th Central Pay Commission6th Central Pay CommissionPension Revision RulesProforma for revision of pension

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant (Pillai) contends that pension should be calculated at 50% of the pay scale of the upgraded post, i.e., based on the scale applicable to the post after upgradation, to avoid junior being paid more than seniors after 6th CPC implementation. He argues that various tribunals and courts have already accepted 50% of the post scale as the proper basis for pension calculation and that benefits have been extended to similarly situated individuals.

Contentions of Respondents

The petitioners argue that upgradation happened in 2004 after retirement, hence greater pension benefits should not be extended to those not in service on the date of upgrade, and the 50% formula should be applied to the post as it stands on the date of calculation, not retroactively from retirement; they rely on established law that upgradation benefits accrue only to in-service employees on the date of upgrade.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India	2015(5) KHC SN 35(SC)	Positive	The Apex Court decision is cited to support the principle that pension computation under the 6th CPC framework should be based on 50% of the scale of the post rather than the pre-upgraded scale; it is treated as binding guidance reinforcing the 50% rule.
Patna High Court Division Bench decision, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2010	—	Positive	Cited to show reliance on judgments from other High Courts recognizing the 50% of the post-scale approach for pension computation to avoid seniority disparities.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench decision	—	Positive	Used to illustrate the same principle before the Supreme Court’s dismissal of related SLPs, supporting the position that pension computation should follow post-scale.
K.S. Krishnaswamy's case	—	Mentioned Only	Annexed as R1(F); referenced as part of supporting materials but not explained within the judgment as to its direct effect on the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Union of India & Others v. N.R. Purushothaman Pillai 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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937** **OP (CAT).No. 169 of 2015 (Z) -----------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1135/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 12-06-2015** **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA :** **-------------------------------------------** **1. PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER (REVENUE) RFA BARRACKS, CHURCH ROAD, HUTMENTS NEW DELHI.** **2. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, TRIKOOT II COMPLEX BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 066.** **3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NO.26 HADDOWS ROAD, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK CHENNAI-6.** **4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS WELFARE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL** **RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT IN OA : ----------------------------------------** **N.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (RETIRED), MADHAVAM KUZHIVILA LANE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR R1 BY ADV. SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **kkj** **OP (CAT).No. 169 of 2015 (Z) -----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **P1 : COPY OF THE OA NO.1135/2013 DTD.19.11.2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE PPO ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.04.2012 ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.03.2013 ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DAIRY NO.WO795130700099 DATED 24.07.2013 ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2013 ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2013 IN WP(C) NO.1535/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2013 IN OA NO.715/2012** **P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.** **ANNEXURE R1(A): A TRUE COPY OF 5TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REVISION OF PENSION ORDER 17.12.1998 ANNEXURE R1(B): A TRUE COPY OF 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REVISION OF PENSION ORDER DATED 28.01.2013 ANNEXURE R1(C)l: A TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA FOR REVISION OF PENSION IN RESPECT OF PRE-2006 RETIRES ANNEXURE R1(D): A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.W019795130700099 DATED 24.07.2013** **P3 : COPY OF THE REJOINDER DTD.5.12.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF OM NO.F.NO.1.1.2008 -I.C.DATED 13.11.2009 ANNEXIRE 9: TRUE COPY OF THE FITMENT TABLE** **P4 : COPY OF THE ADDL.REPLY STATEMENT DATED 16.02.2015** **ANNEXURE R1(E): TRE COPY OF OM DATED 11.02.2009 ANNEXURE R1(F):- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN K.S.KRISHNASWAMY'S CASE ANNEXURE R1(G):- TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 30.08.2008** **P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL REJOINDER DATED 05.03.2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT** **P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.1135/2013 DTD.12.6.2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------------** **NIL** **// TRUE COPY //** **PA TO JUDGE** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ. --------------------------------------------O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Surendra Mohan, J. The petitioners, Union of India and others, are before us challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1135 of 2013 evidenced herein by exhibit P6. As per the impugned order, an application filed by the respondent has been allowed and a direction has been issued to re-fix the pension of the respondent @ ₹9,375 per month and his family pension @ 30% of ₹18,750/-. The arrears of pension on the basis of the above computation has also been directed to be paid. 2. The respondent had retired as an Enforcement Officer under the third petitioner on 30.06.1990. As per the recommendations of the 5[th] Pay Commission, the pay of Enforcement Officer had been upgraded to the scale of Rs.6500-10500. As per the recommendations of the 6[th] Pay Commission, the pay has been enhanced to Rs.9300-34800 ## -:2:- ## O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 with a grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to pension at the rate of 50% of the pay of the upgraded post. The claim has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT for short). 3. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, who appears for the petitioners, the upgradation of the post had taken place in the year 2004 long after the respondent had retired from service. The benefits of upgradation can inure only to persons who were in service on the date of such upgradation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the upgradation. The above crucial aspect of the matter, according to the learned ASGI, has been overlooked by the Central Administrative Tribunal while passing the impugned order. For the above reason, according to the learned Counsel, the order requires to be interfered with. 4. Advocate C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair appears for the respondent. A detailed statement has been filed by the ## -:3:- ## O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 counsel producing Exhibits R1 to R13 documents. According to the learned Counsel, the question as to whether the calculation of pension at the rate of 50% should be made on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay of an Enforcement Officer or the corresponding scale of pay applicable to the post has been considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as different High Courts. It has been found that pension has to be calculated on the basis of 50 percent of the scale of pay applicable to the post. The said judgments have become final having been confirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners have implemented the said decisions and payments have already been made to persons who who are similarly situated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is too late in the day to contend that computation of pension has to be made on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay at which the respondent had retired from service. 5. We have heard the respective counsel at length. ## -:4:- ## O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 We have also been taken through the various documents produced. We have considered the rival contentions, anxiously. 6. Admittedly, the respondent had retired from service on 30.06.1990 as an Enforcement Officer under the third petitioner. Thereafter, the post has been upgraded in the year 2004 and the pay has also been enhanced. The issue as to whether calculation of pension should be made on the basis of the corresponding scale of pay that the incumbent was drawing at the time of his retirement has been considered by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.655 of 2010 and connected cases. The same has also been confirmed by the High Court, Delhi in W.P.(C) No.1535 of 2012 and connected cases following a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. A Special Leave Petition filed against the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has admittedly been dismissed by the Supreme Court -:5:- ## O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 as per the order dated 29.07.2013 in SLA(C) No. 13280 of 2013 and SLP(C) No.23055 of 2013. Annexure A4 is the order passed by the Supreme Court in a similar case where a Review Petition was filed against the dismissal of the SLP (C) No.6567 of 2015. Thereafter, as per a number of orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal produced as Annexure R5 and R6, reliefs have been granted to similarly situated persons. Exhibit R5(a) is the order by which the direction in exhibit R5 has been implemented. Our attention has been drawn to annexures R8 and R13 proceedings by which, pension has been computed in the case of similarly situated persons as ordered by the Central Administrative Tribunal in annexure R6 order. 7. We have gone through the documents produced. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in **Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India** [2015(5) KHC SN 35(SC)] as well as the decision of a Division Bench of the ## -:6:- ## O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 High Court of Patna dated 18.05.2015 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2010 to point out that, a situation where a Junior Officer would draw more pension than his senior is also to be avoided. The resultant position that emerges from the pronouncement of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the different High Courts and the Apex Court is that, computation of pension in the matter of implementation of the 6[th] Pay Commission Report has to be at 50% of the pay scale with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and not to the corresponding scale of pay to the one at which the incumbent has retired. On the basis of the above dicta, consequential orders have been passed and payments have also been made in implementation thereof. It is therefore held that, the issue remains settled by the various decisions referred to above which are binding on the petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to entertain this petition or to interfere with the impugned order exhibit ## -:7:- ## O.P.(CAT) No.169 of 2015 P6. This Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. As a last submission, the learned ASGI seeks the grant of two months time for implementing the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Having considered the rival contentions of the respective counsel, the petitioners are granted two months time from today to comply with the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal in exhibit P6 order. Sd/- **K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE** Sd/- **JUDGE** **P.V.ASHA** kkj