Revision of Pension of Pre 2006 Pensioners from 1st January 2006

Revision of Pension of Pre 2006 Pensioners from 1st January 2006 – Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement – Four Months granted for Revision of Pension on the basis of Revised Concordance Table with effect from 01.01.2006

Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently dismissed the SLP in Civil Appeals filed by the Govt against the orders favouring Pre 2006 Pensioners for revision of pension of pre 2006 pensioners with effect from 1st January 2006 on the basis of revised concordance table. Apex Court has also granted four months time for implementation of CAT’s order for granting revised pension from January 2006 instead of 2012.

Check the following links for more details of revision of pension of Pre 2006 pensioners

[catlist tags=”pre-2006-pensioners” numberposts=25 orderby=date order=desc]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No.1998 of 2012,

C.A.No.3564 of 2012,

C.A.No.3907 of 2012,

C.A.No.4581 of 2012,

C.A.No.4952 of 2012,

C.A.No.4980 of 2012,

C.A.No.4599 of 2013,

C.A.No.1 of 2015

AND

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,

SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &

SLP(C)No……… of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)

O R D E R

Heard.

Delay condoned.

C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012, C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012, C.A.No.4980 of 2012:
We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :

No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal.

The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013

SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014& SLP(C)Nos………..of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):

We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,
however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.
may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.

We accordingly grant four months’ time from today to the petitioners to comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners and taken to their logical conclusion.
All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.
…………………..J

(T.S. THAKUR)

…………………..J

(R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI

DATED 17th March, 2015.
Source:
BPS